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

In 1529, he was forcibly taken out of his sister’s house at Abensperg, and hurried to a gaol the true cause of which violence was never known but it would probably have been carried to a much greater length, had not the duke of Bavaria interposed, and taken this learned man into his protection. In his 64th year he made an imprudent marriage, which disturbed his latter days. He died in 1534, aged 68, leaving one daughter, who was then but two months old. Jt was supposed, from the inquiries made by the Jesuits, that he was a Lutheran in sentiment and the adherents to the church of Rome make use of this argument to weaken the force of his testimony against the conduct of the popes, and the vicious lives of the priests for the Annals of Aventin have been often quoted by Protestants, to prove the disorders of the Romish church.

, an eminent Arabian physician, flourished about the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century. He was of noble descent, and born at Seville, the capital of Andalusia, where he exercised his profession with great reputation. His grandfather and father were both physicians. The large estate he inherited from his ancestors rendered it unnecessary for him to practise for gain, and he therefore took no fees from the poor, or from artificers, though he refused not the presents of princes and great men. His liberality extended even to his enemies; for which reason he used to say, that they hated him not for any fault of his, but rather out of envy. Dr. Freind thinks that he lived to the age of 135, that he began to practise at 40 or, as others say, at 20, and had the advantage of a. longer experience than almost any one ever had, as he enjoyed perfect health to his last hour. He left a son, known also by the name of Ebn Zohr, who followed his father’s profession, was in great favour with Al-Mansor emperor of Morocco, and wrote several treatises of physic. Avenzoar was contemporary with Averroes, who, according to Leo Africanus, heard the lectures of the former, and learned physic of him. Avenzoar, however, is reckoned by the generality of writers an empiric, although Dr. Freind observes that this character suits him less than any of the Arabians. He wrote a book on the “Method of preparing Medicines,” which is much esteemed. It was translated into Hebrew in the year 1280, and thence into Latin by Paravicius, and printed at Venice in 1490, fol. and again in 1553.

, in Latin Augentius, a native of Villeneuve, in the diocese of Sens in Champagne, lived in the sixteenth century, and was esteemed on account of his learning and writings. The office of the king’s professor in the Greek tongue in the university of Paris was designed for him in 1574, and he took possession of it in 1578. He was also preceptor to the son of that Francis Olivier who was chancellor of France, as appears from the preliminary epistle of a book, which he dedicated to Anthony Olivier bishop of Lombes, and uncle to his pupil, dated from Paris the 1st of March 1555. The time of his death is not certainly known but Francis Parent, his successor in the professorship of the Greek tongue, entered upon it in 1595, and Moreri gives that as the date of Auge’s death. He wrote, 1. “A consolatory oration upon the death of Messire Francis Olivier, chancellor of France,” Paris, 1560. 2. “Two dialogues concerning Poetical Invention, the true knowledge of the Art of Oratory, and of the Fiction of Fable,” Paris, 1560. 3. “A discourse upon the Decree made by the parliament of Dole in Burgundy with relation to a man accused and convicted of being a Werewolf.” 4. “The institution of a Christian Prince, translated from the Greek of Synesius, bishop of Syrene, with an oration concerning the True Nobility, translated from the Greek of Phiio Judseus,” Paris, 1555. 5. “Four homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian,” Paris, and Lyons 1559. 6. “A letter to the noble and virtuous youth Anthony Thelin, son of the noble Thelin, author of the book entitled `Divine Tracts,' in which is represented the true Patrimony and Inheritance which fathers ought to leave to their children.” This letter is printed in the beginning of the above-mentioned “Divine Tracts,” Paris, 1565. He revised and corrected them, Paris, 1556. 6. “A French translation of the most beautiful Sentences and Forms of Speaking in the familiar Epistles of Cicero.” The “Discourse upon the Decree,” &c. relates to a man convicted of having murdered and eat one or two persons, for which he was burnt alive.

, descended from a family originally of Nanci in Lorraine, but long established at Paris, was born in the latter city in 1653. From his earliest years, he discovered a taste for architecture, and studying the art with eagerness, soon made very considerable progress. At the age of twenty he was sent to an academy at Rome, founded by the king of France for the education of young men of promising talents in painting, architecture, &c. He was accompanied in the voyage by the celebrated Antony Desgodets, whose measurements of the ancient Roman edifices are so well known. They embarked at Marseilles about the end of 1674, with all the impatience of youthful curiosity, but had the misfortune to be taken by an Algerine corsair, and carried into slavery. Louis XIV. no sooner heard of their disaster, than he made interest for the liberation of Desgodets and A viler, and likewise for John Foi Vaillant, the celebrated antiquary, who had been a passenger with them. Sixteen months, however, elapsed before the Algerines admitted them to be exchanged for some Turkish prisoners in the power of France. Aviler and his friends obtained their liberty, Feb. 22, 1676. During their slavery, Aviler could not conceal his art, although the admiration with which it struck the Algerines, might have afforded them a pretext for detaining one who could be so useful to them. On the contrary, he solicited employment, and had it at least there was extant some time ago, an original plan and elevation of a mosque which he made, and which was built accordingly at Tunis. On being released, however, he went to Rome, where he studied for five years with uninterrupted assiduity, and on his return to France was appointed by M. Mansart, first royal architect, to a considerable place in the board of architecture. While in this situation, iie began to collect materials for a complete course of architectural studies. His first design was to reprint an edition of Vignola, with corrections but perceiving that the explanations of the plates in that work were too short, he began to add to them remarks and illustrations in the form of commentary and, what has long rendered his work valuable, he added a complete series, in alphabetical order, of architectural definitions, which embrace every branch, direct or collateral, of the art, and which have been copied into all the subsequent French dictionaries. He prefixed also a translation of Scamozzi’s sixth book, which treats of the orders.

, an ingenious English musician, was born probably at Newcastle, where he exercised his profession during the whole of his life. In 1736, July 12, he was appointed organist of St. John’s church in that town, which he resigned for the church of St. Nicholas in October following. In 1748, when the organ of St. John’s required repair, which would amount to 160l. Mr. Avison offered to give 100l. if the parish would raise the other 60l. upon condition that they appointed him organist, with a salary of 20l. and allow him to supply the place by a sufficient deputy. This appears to have been agreed upon, and the place was supplied by his son Charles. In 1752 he published “An essay on Musical Expression,” London, 12mo. In this essay, written with neatness and even elegance of style, he treats of the power and force of music, and the analogies between it and painting of musical composition, as consisting of harmony, air, and expression and of musical expression so far as it relates to the performer. To the second edition, which appeared in 1753^ was added, an ingenious and learned letter to the author, concerning the music of the ancients, now known to be written by Dr. Jortin. Mr. Avison’s treatise was very favourably received, but some were dissatisfied with his sentiments on the excellencies and defects of certain eminent musicians, and particularly his preference of Marcello and Geminiani, or at least, the latter, to Handel. In the same year, therefore, was published, “Remarks on Mr. Avison’s essay, &c. wherein the characters of several great masters, both ancient and modern, are rescued from the misrepresentations of the above author and their real merit ascertained and vindicated. In a letter, from a gentleman to his friend in the country.” In this tract, which was written by Dr. Hayes, professor of music at Oxford, Mr. Avison is treated with very little ceremony, and accused of being ignorant, or neglectful of our ancient English musicians, and of having spoke too coldly of the merits of Handel. It is also insinuated that he was obliged to abler pens for the style and matter of his essay. This last was probably true, as both Dr. Brown and Mr. Mason are supposed to have assisted him, but in what proportions cannot now be ascertained. Mr. Avison wrote a reply to Dr. Hayes, nearly in the same uncourtly style, which was republished in the third edition of his essay in 1775. Avison had been a disciple of Geminiani, who, as well as Giardini, had a great esteem for him, and visited him at Newcastle, where the latter played for his benefit. Whenever Geminiani affected to hold Handel’s compositions cheap, it was usual with him to say, “Charley Avison shall make a better piece of music in a month’s time.” Avison died at Newcastle, May 10, 1770, and was succeeded in the church of St. Nicholas, by his son Edward, who himself died in 1776, and in the church of St. John, by his son Charles, who resigned in 1777. Avison assisted in the. publication of Marcello’s music to the psalms adapted to English words. Of his own composition there are extant five collections of concertos for violins, forty-four in number; and two sets of sonatas for the harpsichord, and two violins, a species of composition little known in England till his time. The music of Avison is light and elegant, but wants originality, a consequence of his too close attachment to the style of Geminiani.

, commonly known by the name of Richard de Bury, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, in 1281. His father, sir Richard Aungervyle, knt. dying when he was young, his uncle John de Willowby, a priest, took particular care of his education and when he was fit sent him to Oxford, where he studied philosophy and divinity, and distinguished himself by his learning, and regular and exemplary life. When he had finished his studies there, he became a Benedictine monk at Durham. Soon after he was made tutor to prince Edward, afterwards king Edward III. Being treasurer of Guienne in 1325, he supplied queen Isobel, when she was plotting against her husband king Edward II. with a large sum of money out of that exchequer, for which being questioned by the king’s party, be narrowly escaped to Paris, where he was forced to hide himself seven days in the tower of a church. When king Edward III. came to the crown, he loaded his tutor Aungervyle with honours and preferments, making him, first, his cofferer, then treasurer of the wardrobe, archdeacon of Northampton, prebendary of Lincoln, Sarum, and Lichfield, and afterwards keeper of the privy seal. This last place he enjoyed five years, and was in that time sent twice ambassador to the pope. In 1333 he was promoted to the deanery of Wells, and before the end of the same year, being chosen bishop of Durham, he was consecrated about the end of December, in the abbey of the black canons of Chertsey in Surrey. He was soon afterwards enthroned at Durham, on which occasion he made a grand festival, and entertained in the hall of his palace at Durham, the king and queen of England, the queen-dowager of England, the king of Scotland, the two archbishops, and five bishops, seven earls with their ladies, all the nobility north of Trent, with a Tast concourse of knights, esquires, and other persons of distinction. The next year he was appointed high-chancellor, and in 1336, treasurer of England. In 1338 he was twice sent with other commissioners to treat -of a peace with the king of France, though to no purpose.

, a French and Latin poet, voluminous enough to require some notice, although his works are now perhaps but little known or valued even in his own couutry, was born at Charolles about the year 1529, the son of Syacre or Fiacre des Autels, a gentleman of the same couutry. He inherited little from this father, except, as he informs us, a chateau, rather noble than rich. For some time he studied law at Valencia, but it does not appear with what view poetry was his favourite pursuit, although he succeeded very seldom but what was wanting in genuine poetry was made up by an obtrusive display of Greek and Latin, in the manner of Ronsard, whom he called his friend. Like other poets, he affected to have a mistress for whom he cherished a Platonic affection, but it appears that he was married at the age of twenty-four. His death is said to have happened about 1580. MorerL enumerates many volumes of his poems, sonnets, elegies, pieces in imitation of Rabelais, Ronsard, &c. The following are of a different description, and respect a controversy on the orthography of the French language. 1. “Traite touchant Pancienne ecriture de la Langue Francoise, et de sa Poesie,” Lyons, 16 mo, published under the anagranmiatical name of Glaumalis de Vezelet. Louis Meigret, las opponent in the controversy, immediately published his “Defenses touchant son Ortographc Francoise centre les censures et calomnies de Glaumalis,” Paris, 1550, 4to. Autels followed this by “Repliqucs aux furicuses defenses de Louis Meigret,” 16mo, Lyons, 1551, which Meigret answered the same year. Griiter thought some of his Latin poetry of sufficient merit to obtain a place in the “Deliciae poetarum Gallorum,” 1609.

, a painter from necessity and a poet by taste, died in indigence, in constant attachment to his two professions, at Paris, his birth-place, in the hospital of Incurables, in 1745. D'Autreau, although of a gloomy and melancholy character, wrote comedies that excited laughter, and continue to amuse upon the stage. He was almost sixty when he first turned his thoughts to the drama, an employment that demands all the vivacity and imagination of youth but his plots are too simple, the catastrophe is immediately perceived, and the pleasure of surprise is lost. His dialogue, however, is natural, his style easy, and some of his scenes are in the true comic taste. The Italian theatre has preserved his “Port a PAnglois,” in prose “Democrite pretendu fou,” in three acts, and in verse. The theatres of France have represented “Clorinda,” a tragedy in five acts the “Chevalier Bayard,” in five acts and the “Magie de l'Amour,” a pastoral in one act, in verse. He gave at the opera, “Platee, ou la Naissance de la Comedie,” the music by the celebrated Rameau. “Le Port a l'Anglois” is the first piece in which the Italian players spoke French. The works of d‘Autreau were collected in 1749, in 4 vols. 12mo, with a good preface by Pesselier. The most known of the pictures of this painter, is that of Diogenes, with the lanthern in his hand, in search of an honest man, and finding him in the cardinal de Fleury. D’Autreau lived very retired, de*. spising all that the generality of mankind esteem, and agreeing with the public in no one thing except in the little concern he took about himself.

, born in the Hainaut, lived some time with the abbé des Fontaines, who formed his taste. He entered afterwards into the light -horse-guards, and was killed in the buttle of Dettingen, in 1743, at the age of 3 I He was a man of genius and imagination. His writings are 1. “Memoirs of madame de Barneveldt,” a romance, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “An abridgment of the history of France and of the Roman history,” by question and answer, 2 vols. 12mo. which was recommended as useful to young persons. It used to be, and sometimes yet is, attributed to the abbe des Fontaines, who only revised it, but overlooked several inaccuracies in the dates and negligences in the style. 3. The three first volumes, and half of the fourth, of the “History of Paris,” in 5 vols. 12mo. 4. The eight first volumes of the “Lives of the illustrious men of France,” in 12mo. The ninth and the tenth were published in 1744, by his brother, canon of Prempntre. The work was continued by the abbe Pereau and M. Turpin. D'Auvigny’s part is written with spirit, and contains curious anecdotes and facts but little known. But the author prefers the ornaments of style to historical precision, and sometimes adopts the romantic tone. His cjiction is in general either laboriously inflated, or too negligent.

was a French astronomer, and a picmber of the old academy of France, into which he was received in 1666. He is principally known for having brought to perfection the micrometer, an instrument usually fitted to a telescope, in the focus of the objectglass, for measuring small angles or distances. This he published in 1666, but Mr. Townley, in the Philosophical Transactions, claims it for one of our countrymen, Mr. Gascoigne. He relates that from some scattered letters and papers of this gentlemen, who was killed in the grand rebellion, he had learned that before its breaking out, he had invented a micrometer, of as much effect as that made by M. Auzout, and had made use of it for some years not only in taking the diameters of the planets, and distances upon land, but in determining other matters of nice importance in the heavens, as the moon’s distance, &c. Mr. Gascoigne’s instrument also fell into the hands of Mr. Townley, who says farther, that by the help of it he could make above 40,000 divisions in a foot. The French writers endeavour to deny all this, and conclude with an assertion, as illiberal as it is false, that every nation has a zeal for its literary glory, but that in England alone this zeal is pushed to ardour and to injustice. Auzout, however, was an astronomer of acknowledged abilities. He died in 1691.

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

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, marquis of St. Philippe, was born in Sardinia, of an ancient family, originally Spanish, and rendered his name known, not only by his learning, but by his important employments under Charles II. and Philip V. After the death of Charles II. he served under the dukeof Anjou his successor, and during the revolt in Sardinia conducted himself with wisdom and loyalty. Philip V. rewarded his services by creating him a marquis. He died at Madrid in 1726, much esteemed. His learned “History of the Monarchy of the Hebrews” was translated into French, and published in 2 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo. He wrote also “Memoirs of the history of Philip V. from 1699 to 1725,” which abound rather too much in military relations, but the whole is said to be scrupulously exact in point of fact.

In 1627, Bachovius published his treatise “De Pignoribus et Hypothecis” and about the same time, Otto Tabor, a young Lutheran, and a student at Strasburgh, sent him a treatise on law which he had written, and requested his advice concerning it. Bachovius, on reading the manuscript, conceived a very high opinion of the author, and imparted to him his wish to come to Strasburgh, provided he could gain a subsistence by private teaching, and at the same time assj^red him that although he was of the reformed religion, he should give no person any reason to complain on that head, as his opinions were rather of the Lutheran than the Calvinistic system. The academy having heard of his intentions, desired Tabor to assure him that he should meet with a kind reception, but they afterwards so entirely changed their sentiments, that when he arrived, the law professors forbid his private teaching, much to the disappointment of many of the students. He then returned to Spires, and afterwards to Heidelberg, where he professed his return to the Catholic religion, and the university being restored, was again appointed to a professor’s chair. What became of him afterwards is not known. Besides the works already mentioned, he published “DisputationUm Miscellanearum de variis Juris Givilis materiis, Jiber unus,” Heid. 1604, 8vo “Notae in Paratitla Wesembecii super Pandectas,” Cologne, 1611, 4to “Examen rationalium Antonii Fabri,” 1612, 8vo; “Notre et animadversioncs ad disputationes Hieronymi Trentleni,” Francfort, 1617, 4to the fourth edition of this work, printed at Cologne in 1688, was enlarged to 3 vols. 4to “Observationes ad Joannis Papon is arresta” Francf. 1628, fol. “In Institutionum Justiniani jus Libros IV. Commentarii Theorici et Practici,” Francf. 1628, 4to. Four of his letters to Cuneus are in Barman’s edition of Cuneus’s Letters, published at Leyden in 1725, 8vo.

, a painter, born at Antwerp in 1530, learned the principles of painting from his father, who was a much inferior artist. After his father’s death, he lived in the house of Jacomo Palermo, a dealer in pictures, who avariciously took care to keep him incessantly employed, and sent his paintings to Paris to be disposed of, where they were much admired. He had a clean light manner of pencilling, and a tint of colour that was extremely agreeable. The judicious were very eager to purchase them at high prices, of which, however, the poor artist was not suffered to avail himself; and although his merit was universally allowed, Palermo took care that his name and his circumstances should not be known. He died in this obscure and depressed condition in 1560, only 30 years old.

Such early judgment determined his father to send him to France, that he might improve himself under that able and honest statesman, sir Amias Powlet, then the queen’s ambassador at Paris, and his behaviour while tinder the roof of that minister, was so prudent as to induce sir Amias to intrust him with a commission of importance to the queen, which required both secrecy and dispatch and this he executed so as to gain much credit both to the ambassador and to himself. He afterwards returned to Paris, but made occasional excursions into the provinces, where his attention appears to have been principally directed towards men and manners. He applied also with great assiduity to such studies as he conceived came within his father’s intention, and when he was but nineteen, wrote a very ingenious work, entitled, “A succinct view of the state of Europe,” which, it is plain, he had surveyed not only with the eye of a politician, but also of a philosopher. This work, it is probable, he improved on his return, when he was settled in Gray’s Inn. While thus employed abroad, the death of his father obliged him to return, and apply to some profession for his maintenance, as the money he inherited formed a very narrow provision. Accordingly, on his return, he resolved on the study of the common law, and for that purpose entered himself of the honourable society of Gray’s Inn, where his superior talents rendered him the ornament of the house, and the gentleness and affability of his deportment procured him the affection of all its members. The place itself was so agreeable to him, that he erected there a very elegant structure, which many years after was known by the name of “Lord Bacon’s Lodgings,” which he inhabited occasionally through the greatest part of his life. During the first years of his residence here, he did not confine his studies entirely to law, but indulged his excursive genius in a survey of the whole circle of science. It was here, and at that early age, where he formed, at least, if he did not mature, the plan of that great philosophical work, which has distinguished his name with such superior honour. Whether this first plan, or outlines, have descended to us, is a point upon which his biographers are not agreed. It was probably, however, the “Temporis Partus Masculus,” some part of which is preserved by Gruter in the Latin works of Bacon, which he published. The curious reader may receive much satisfaction on this subject from note D. of the Life of Bacon in the “Biographia Britannica.”

Enemies he certainly had, whether from this cause, or from a jealousy of his high talents; and among other accusations, they represented him as a man, who, by applying too much of his time to other branches of knowledge, could not but neglect that of his profession but this appears to have been a foolish calumny. Most of his works on law were written, although not published, in this reign. About the year 1596, he finished his “Maxims of the Law.” As these are now published, they make only the first part of what are styled “The Elements of the Common Law of England.” The second treatise was entitled “The Use of the Law for preservation of our persons, goods, and good name, according to the laws and customs of this land,” a work of great value to students. His “Maxims of Law” he dedicated to queen Elizabeth, but, for whatever reason, the work was not published in his lifetime. The next year he published a work of another kind, entitled “Essays, or Counsels Civil and Moral.” This work is well known, and has been often reprinted. The author appears to have had a high opinion of its utility and of the excellent morality and wisdom it inculcates there probably never has been but one opinion. Some of these essays had been handed about in manuscript, which he assigns as the reason why he collected and published them in a correct form. About the close of the succeeding year, 1598, he composed his “History of the Aliena tion Office,” which was not published till many years after his decease, indeed not until the publication of his works in 1740, when it was copied from a ms. in the Inner Temple library. It is needless to mention some smaller instances of his abilities in the law, which, nevertheless, were received by the learned society of which he was a member, with all possible marks of veneration and esteem, and which they have preserved with the reverence due to so eminent an ornament of their house. As a farther proof of their respect, they chose him double reader in the year 1600, which office he discharged with his usual ability. He distinguished himself likewise, during the latter part of the queen’s reign, in the house of commons, where he spoke often, and with so much impartiality as to give occasional umbrage to the ministers. To the queen, however, he preserved a steady loyalty, and after her decease, composed a memorial of the happiness of her reign, which did equal honour to her administration, and to the capacity of its author. He transmitted a copy of this to Thuanus, who made use of it in his history, but Mr. Bacon contented himself with enjoining that it should be printed after his’ decease. It is a work of much elegance and ability.

About the year 1763, he first attempted working in marble, and having never seen that operation performed, he was led to invent an instrument for transferring the form of the model to the marble (technically called, getting out the points), which instrument, from its superior effect, has since been adopted by many other sculptors in England and France. His first regular instructions, however, in his favourite pursuit, were received at the lloyal Academy in 1768, the year of its institution, and such were their effect on a mind already so well prepared by nature, that the first gold medal for sculpture given by the academy, was decreed to him and two years after, he was elected an associate. His fame was at this time well known by his statue of Mars, which induced the late archbishop of York, Dr. Markham, to employ him to execute a bust of his Majesty for the hall of Christ Church college, Oxford. His majesty not only condescended to sit to him upon this occasion, but honoured him with his patronage, and ordered another bust, intended as a present to the university of Got tin gen. He was -soon after employed by the dean and scholars of Christ Church to form several busts for them, particularly those of general Guise, the bishop of Durham, and the primate of Ireland.

, lord keeper of the great seal in the reign of queen Elizabeth, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Suffolk. His rather was Robert Bacon of Drinkstxm in that county, esq. and his mother was Isabel, the daughter of John Gage of Pakenhain in the said county, esq. Nicholas, their second son, was born in 1510, at Chislehurst in Kent. After having received the first rudiments of learning, probably at home, or in the neighbourhood, he was sent when very young to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, where having improved in all branches of useful knowledge, he went to France, in order to give the last polish to his education. On his return he settled in Gray VInn, and applied himself with such assiduity to the study of the law, that on the dissolution of the monastery of St. Edmund’s-Bury in Suffolk, he had a grant from king Henry VIII. in the thirty-­sixth year of his reign, of the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Worthanf, as also the tithes of Redgrave to hold in capite by knight’s service, a proof of the estimation in which he was held by his majesty. In the thirtyeighth of the same king, he was promoted to the office of attorney in the court of wards, a place both of honour and profit, and his patent was renewed in the first year of Edward VI. and in 1552, which was the last year of his reign, Mr. Bacon was elected treasurer of Gray’s-Inn. His great moderation and consummate prudence, preserved him through the dangerous reign of queen Mary. In the very dawn of that of Elizabeth he was knighted, and the great seal of England being taken from Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, was delivered to sir Nicholas Bacon, on the 22d of December 1558, with the title of lord keeper. He was also of the privy council to her majesty, who had much regard to his advice. The parliament met Jan. 23, but was prorogued on account of the queen’s indisposition to the 25th, when the lord keeper opened the session with a most eloquent and solid speech. Some of the queen’s counsellors thought it necessary that the attainder of the queen’s mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper thought the crown purged all defects, and in compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen’s title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother. The principal business of this session was the settlement of religion, in which no man had a greater share than the keeper, and he acted with such prudence as never to incur the hatred of any party. On this account he was, together with the archbishop of York, appointed moderator in a dispute between eight Protestant divines, and eight Popish bishops and the latter behaving very unfairly in the opinion of both the moderators, and desiring, to avoid a fair disputation, to go away, the lord keeper put that question to each of them, and when all except one insisted on going, his lordship dismissed them with this memorandum, “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us” and accordingly for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the tower, and the rest were bound to appear before the council, and not to quit the cities of London and Westminster without leave. The whole business of the session, than which there was none of greater importance during that reign, was chiefly managed by his lordship, according to his wise maxim, “Let us stay a little, that we may have done the sooner.” From this time he stood as high in the favour of the queen as any of her ministers, and maintained a cordial interest with other great men, particularly with those eminent persons, who had married into the same family with himself, viz. Cecil, Hobby, Rowlet, and Killigrew. By their assistance he preserved his credit at court, though he sometimes differed in opinion from the mighty favourite Leicester, who yet once bad fair his ruin, when certain intrigues were carried on respecting the succession. Some statesmen, and particularly the earl of Leicester, pretended to favour the title of the queen of Scots, but others were more inclined to the house of Suffolk. The queen sometimes affected a neutrality, and sometimes shewed a tenderness for the title of the Scottish queen. In 1564, when these disputes were at the height, Mr. John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, published a treatise which seems to have been written a considerable time before, in favour of the Suffolk line, and against the title of the queen of Scots. This book was complained of by the bishop of Ross, ambassador from the queen of Scots, and Ross being warmly supported by the earl of Leicester, Hales was committed to prison, and so strict an inquiry made after all who had expressed any favour for this piece, that at last the lord-keeper came to be suspected, which drew upon him the queen’s displeasure, and he was forbidden the court, removed from his seat at council, and prohibited from meddling with any affairs but those of the chancery nay, Camden says he was confined . At last, however, Cecil, who is suspected to have had some share in the above treatise, with much difficulty restored him to the queen’s good opinion, as appears by her setting him at the head of that commission, granted in the year 1568, for hearing the difference between the queen of Scots, and her rebellious subjects; and in 1571, we find him again acting in the like capacity, though very little was done before the commissioners at either time, which was what queen Elizabeth chiefly desired, and the covering her inclination with a decent appearance of justice, was perhaps not a little owing to the address of the lord-keeper. Afterwards he continued at the head of her majesty’s councils, and had a great hand in preventing, by his moderation, some violent measures afterwards proposed. The share, however, that he had in the business of the duke of Norfolk, and his great care for promoting the Protestant religion, created him many bitter enemies among the Papists both at home and abroad, who though they were able to do him no great hurt, yet published some libels, particularly “A Detection of certain practices, &c.” printed in Scotland, about 1570, and “A treatise of Treason,” both which gave him considerable uneasiness, although the queen expressed her opinion, by a proclamation, ordering them to be burnt. As a statesman, he was remarkable for a clear head, and acute understanding; and while it was thought of some other great men that they seemed wiser than they were, yet the common voice of the nation pronounced, that sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed. His great skill lay in balancing factions, and it is thought he taught the queen that secret, the more necessary to her because the last of her family, and consequently without many of the usual supports of princes. In the chancery he distinguished himself by a very moderate use of power, and the respect he shewed to the common law. At his own request, an act of parliament was made, to settle and establish the power of a lord -keeper, though he might probably have taken away all need of this, by procuring the title of lord chancellor: but according to his motto, which was Mediocra firma, he he was content to be safe, and did not desire to be great*. In that court, and in the star-chamber, he made use, on proper occasions, of set speeches, in which he was peculiarly happy, and gained the reputation of a witty and a weighty speaker. His great parts and great preferment were far from raising him in his own opinion, as appears from the modest answer he gave* queen Elizabeth, when she told him his house at Redgrave was too little for him, “Not so, madam,” returned he, “but your majesty has made me too great for my house.” Yet to shew his respect for her majesty’s judgment, he afterwards added wings to this house. His modesty in this respect was so much the greater, since he had a great passion for building, and a very fine taste, as appeared by his house and gardens at Gorhambury near St. Alban’s, now the seat of lord viscount Grimston. Towards the latter end of his life, he became very corpulent, which made queen Elizabeth say merrily, that “sir Nicholas’s soul lodged well. To himself, however, his bulk was very inconvenient after walking from Westminster-hall to the star-chamber, which was but a very little way, he was usually so much out of breath, that the lawyers forbore speaking at the bar till he recocovered himself, and gave them notice by knocking” with his staff. After having held the great seal more than twenty years, this able statesman and faithful counsellor was suddenly removed from this life, as Mallett informs us, by the following accident “He was under the hands of his barber, and the weather being sultry, had ordered a window before him to be thrown open. As he was become very corpulent, he presently fell asleep, in the cur­* After he had been some monthsact of parliament, which declares, in office, as keeper of the great seal,” That the common law always was, he began to doubt to what degree his that the keeper of the great seal always authority extended, which seems to had, as of right belonging to his office, have been owing to the general terms the same authority, jurisdiction, excused upon the delivery of the great cution of laws, and all other customs, Heal, of which we have various in- as the lord chancellor of England lawstances in Rymer’s Foedera. Upon fully used.“What the true reason this, he first applied himself to the was that made his lordship so uneasy, queen, from whom he procured a pa- is not perhaps known to posterity. tent, bearing date at Westminster, the But sir Henry Spelman has observed, 14th of April, in the first year of her that for the benefit of that wise counreign, whereby she declares him te seller sir Nicholas Bacon, the authobare as full powers as if he were rity of the keeper of the great seal hancellor of England, and ratifies all was by this law declared to be in all that he had already done. This, how- respects the same with that of th ever, did not fully satisfy him but chancellor, four years afterwards he procured an rent of fresh air that was blowing in upon him, and awaked after some time distempered all over. c Why,‘ said he to the servant, < did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed’ The fellow replied, ‘ That he durst not presume to disturb him.’ * Then,‘ said the lord keeper, * by your civility I lose my life,’ and so removed into his bed-chamber, where he died a few days after.” But this story seems doubtful, for all writers agree, that sir Nicholas Bacon died Feb. 20, 1579, when the weather could not be very sultry. On the 9th of March following he was buried with great solemnity, under a sumptuous monument erected by himself in St. Paul’s church, with an inscription written by the celebrated Buchanan. Camden’s character of him is just and plain “Vir praepinguis, ingenio acerrimo, singulari prudentia, summa eloquentia, tenaci memoria, et sacris conciliis alterum columen” i. e. A man of a gross body, but most quick wit, singular prudence, supreme eloquence, happy memory, and for judgment the other pillar of the state. His son’s pharacter of him is more striking. He was “a plain man, direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness and one that was of a mind that a man, in his private proceedings and estate, and in the proceedings of state, should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others, according to the sentence of Solomon, * Vir prudens advertit ad gressus suos stultus autem divertit ad dolos’ insomuch that the bishop of Ross, a subtle and observing man, said of him, that he could fasten no words upon him, and that it was impossible to come within him, because he offered no play; and the queen mother of France, a very politic princess, said of him, that he should have been of the council of Spain, because he despised the occurrents, and rested upon the first plot.” Nor is Puttenham’s short account to be overlooked “I have come to the lord keeper, and found him sitting in his gallery alone, with the works of Quintilian before him. Indeed he was a most eloquent man, of rare wisdom and learning, as ever I knew England to breed, and one that joyed as much in learned men and 0'.;d wits, from whose lippes Ihave seen to proceed more i;rave and natural eloquence than from all the orators of Oxford and Cambridge.”

, an eminent English divine of the thirteenth century, was born, according to the most probable conjectures, about 1168, but where is not known. He studied, however, at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by the quickness of his parts and his assiduous application. Thence according to the custom of that age, tie removed to Paris, and acquired such learning as the age afforded. After his return, of which we have no date, he settled at Oxford, and read divinity lectures. His colleague in this office was Dr. Edmund Rich, in our histories commonly styled Edmund Abingdon a man famous for literature, and yet, in the opinion of Leland, inferior to our Bacon. This Dr. Rich had been chosen by the canons of Salisbury, treasurer of their church, and in 1233, becoming archbishop of Canterbury, his friend Robert Bacon succeeded him as treasurer of the cathedral church of Salisbury. The same year he gained great reputation by a sermon preached before his royal master, king Henry III. at Oxford, whither his majesty came, in order to hold a general council of his lords. In this discourse, Bacon plainly told the king the mischiefs to which himself and his subjects were exposed, by his reposing too great a confidence in Peter de Rupibus, bishop of Winchester, and other foreigners and this honest sermon had a great effect on the mind of his master, and inclined him to give satisfaction to his nobility, who were then, generally speaking, disaffected. This seasonable service rendered to the nation, did more to secure his memory from oblivion, than his many years laborious reading, or even his learned writings.

He was certainly the most extraordinary man of his time. He was a perfect master of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and has left posterity such indubitable marks of his critical skill in them, as might have secured him a very high character, if he had never distinguished himself in any other branch of literature. In all branches of the mathematics he was well versed, and there is scarcely any part of them, on which he has not written with a solidity and clearness, which have been deservedly admired by the greatest masters in that science. In mechanics particularly, the learned Dr. Freind says, that a greater genius had not arisen since the days of Archimedes. He understood likewise the whole science of optics, with accuracy and is very justly allowed to have understood, both the theory and practice of those discoveries, which have bestowed such high reputation on those of our own and of other nations, who have brought them into common use. In geography also he was admirably well skilled, as appears from a variety of passages in his works, which was the reason that induced the judicious Hackluyt to transcribe a large discourse out of his writings, into his Collection of Voyages and Travels. But his skill in astronomy was still more remarkable, since it appears, that he not only pointed out that error which occasioned the reformation in the calendar, and the distinction between the old stile and the new, but also offered a much more effectual and perfect reformation, than that which was made in the time of pope Gregory XIII. There are also remaining some works of his relating to chronology, which would have been thought worthy of very particular notice, if his skill in other sciences had not made his proficiency in this branch of knowledge the less remarkable. The history of the four great empires of the world, he has treated very accurately ind succinctly, in his great work addressed to pope Clelent IV. He was so thoroughly acquainted with Cheistry at a time that it was scarcely known in Europe, id principally cultivated among the Arabians, that Dr. Freind ascribes the honour of introducing it to him, who speaks in some part or other of his works, of almost every operation now used in chemistry. Three capital discoveries lade by him deserve to be particularly considered. The first is, the invention of gun-powder, which, however confidently ascribed to others, was unquestionably known to him, both as to its ingredients and effects. The second is that which commonly goes under the name of alchemy, or the art of transmuting metals, of which he has left many treatises, some published, and some still remaining in ms. which, whatever they may be thought of now, contain a multitude of curious and useful passages, independently of their principal subject. The third discovery in chemistry, not so deserving of the reader’s attention, was the tincture of gold for the prolongation of life, of which Dr. Freind says, he has given hints in his writings, and has said enough to shew that he was no pretender to this art, but understood as much of it as any of his successors. That he was far from being unskilled in the art of physic, we might rationally conclude, from his extensive knowledge in those sciences, which are connected with it: but we have a manifest proof of his perfect acquaintance with the most material and useful branches of physic, in his Treatise of Old Age, which, as Dr. Freind, whose authority on that subject cannot well be disputed, observes, is very far from being ill written; and Dr. Brown, who published it in English, esteemed it one of the best performances that ever was written. In this work he has collected whatever he had met with upon the subject, either in Greek or Arabian writers, and has added a great many remarks of his own. In logic and metaphysics he was excellently well versed, as appears by those parts of his works, in which he has treated of these subjects; neither was he unskilled in philology and the politer parts of learning. In ethics, or moral philosophy, he has laid down some excellent principles for the conduct of human life. But, as his profession required a particular application to theology, it appears, that he made all his other studies subservient thereto. He had the highest deference for the Holy Scriptures, and thought that in them were contained the principles of true science, and of all useful knowledge. He therefore pressed the study of them in their original languages, and an assiduous application to the several branches of learning, which he thought necessary for the thorough understanding of them,

, a senator of Venice, who died an 1580, has left various treatises on the civil law, which were printed at Venice in 1593, and reprinted at Boulogne in 1744. His son Peter Badoaro, was also celebrated for his knowledge of law, and died in 1591. His “Orationi Civili,” were published in 1593, if this be not, as we suspect, a production of the father. Frederick Badoaro, of the same family, was distinguished for his learning, and talents as a negociator. He was Venetian ambassador at the court of Charles V. and Philip II. and was the founder, of the academy known by the name of Delia Fama, at Venice. He died in 1593. From the three concurring events under this year, it is probable, there are some mistakes in this account, which we have taken from the Diet. Hist.

, an eminent Italian painter, born at Parma, according to Basan, in 1581, was a disciple of Annibai Caracci, by whose admirable precepts he made an extraordinary progress in a short time, and proved the best designer of any of those who were educated with him in that illustrious school. He possessed a lively imagination, and a singular readiness of hand' and it was concluded by all who saw his performances, that he would have arrived at a high degree of merit, if he had not died in the very bloom of life, and if he had applied himself with more assiduity to his profession. Basan’s account, however, makes him reach his sixty-sixth year, but it does not appear on what authority. Badofocchi is to be ranked among engravers also, and there are many etchings by him, in a slight, free, masterly style. They are generally more finished than those of Guido but the extremities are by no means so finely drawn. Amongst the best, is Raphael’s Bible, from the pictures of Raphael in the Vatican, small plates, lengthways, engraved canjointly with Lanfranchi. This is a well-known work.

, an Italian poet, a man of opulence as well as fame by his writings, and esteemed among the good poets of his age. His failing is said to have been that of being difficult to please in his own compositions, which he filed and polished till he wore off the strength of the metal. He knew how to draw an exact outline, and to give a strong colouring, but he held his pencil too long, and was over-anxious in the finishing part. These were not, however, the failings of his time. He is best known at present to those who study Italian poetry by “The Arragonians,” a tragedy, and “The Judgment of Paris.” We have no dates of his birth or death, except that he was famed as a poet, about 1590, and Erythraeus (Le Koux) says that he died an old man.

, a French Latin poet, was born at Chatillon in the Lower Maine, and became a priest of the Oratory at Paris, in 1659. He had considerable genius, and was much addicted to study, so that he soon became one of the best scholars and best poets of his order. When M. Fouquet, superintendant of finances, was arrested, he published a Latin poem, entitled “Fuquetius in vinculis,” which was much applauded. He published another poem at Troyes in 1668, the title of which was, “In tabellas excellentissiim pictoris du Wernier, ad nobilem et eximium virum Eustachium Quinot, apud quern illae visuntur Trecis, carmen.” Father Bahier translated this production afterwards into French verse, under the title of “Peinture poctique des tableaux de mignature de M. Quinot, faits par Joseph de Werner.” At the time he taught rhetoric at Marseilles, in 1670, he delivered and published an oration on Henrietta of England, duchess of Orleans, and the same year printed a Latin poem of six hundred verses in praise of Toussaint Fourbin de Janson, bishop of Marseilles. He wrote some other pieces, which were less known; such was Uis reputation, however, that he was chosen secretary of the Oratory, an office which he filled with great credit for thirty years his latter days were distinguished by many acts of ciiarity, and it was during his attendance on a dying friend that he caught a disorder, which proved fatal in the month of April 1707.

, the author of a well-known dictionary of the English language, resided principally at Stepney, and there probably died, June 27, 1742, leaving no memorials of his personal history or character. In religion he is said to have been a Sabbatarian. His life, however, appears to have been spent in useful pursuits. His English dictionary, printed first in the early part of the last century, in 8vo (edit. 4th, 1728), was long the only one in use, and still continues a favourite with a certain class of readers. It was afterwards enlarged into 2 vols. 8vo, and some years after printed in folio, with additions in the mathematical part by G. Gordon, in the botanical by Phil. Miller, and in the etymological by T. Lidiard, the whole revised by Dr. Josepii Nicol Scott, a physician. Of this there was an improved edition in 1759, about which time the fifteenth edition of the 8vo was published. The 8vo, about twenty-five years ago, was revised by Dr. Harwood. Bailey also published a “Dictionarium domesticum, or a household dictionary,” 1736; “The Antiquities of London and Westminster,” 24mo, 1726, an useful abridgment; “An introduction to the English Tongue, two parts;” and school editions of Ovid’s Metamorphosis, Ovid’s Epistles, Justin, Erasmus’s Dialogues, Phædrus’s Fables, and a book of Exercises, which are all still in use.

, known also by the name of La Riviere, who flourished in the latter part of the sixteenth century, was a native of Falaise in Normandy, and physician in ordinary to Henry IV. He acquired considerable reputation for learning, but, as he practised on the principles of Paracelsus, he was involved in disputes with his brethren, and frequently obliged to vindicate his method. Besides medicine, he was well versed in philosophy and the belles lettres, and was an excellent naturalist. He died at Paris, Nov. 5, 1605. When feeling the approaches of death, he sent for all his servants, and distributed his money and property among them, on condition that they immediately left the house, which was so punctually complied with, that when the physicians came on their next visit, they found the doors open, and their patient by himself, with no property left hut the bed he lay upon. When the physicians remarked this circumstance to him, he answered that he must now go likewise, “as his baggage was sent off before him, 17 and immediately expired. Pierre de l'Etoile, however,^ in his journal of Henry IV. represents him as a true penitent, and compares him to the thief on the cross. His works are” Demosterion, sive CCC Aphorismi, continentes summam doctrinae Paruecelsse,“Paris, 1573, 8vo.” Resp*onsio ad questiones propositas a medici* Parisiensibus,“Paris, 1579, 8vo.” Traite-de la Peste,“1580.” Traite* de Tantiquite et singularite de la grande Bretagne Armorique," Rennes, 1587, 4to.

On April the 26th, 1789, the electors of Paris as*. sembled for the nomination of deputies for the statesgeneral, appointed Bailly for their secretary. There were assembled, on this important occasion, many academicians, but none, except Bailly, was a member of all the academies. His talent for writing was well known the interesting reports that he had made on the subject of the hospitals and animal magnetism, had powerfully excited the attention of the public his character stood equally high for calmness of temper and strictness of morals, so that no one possessed so many claims as himself to that important office. The choice of the public was too flattering to be resisted and from that time he was lost for ever to astronomy. The motives that occasioned his first appointment soon advanced him to the dignity of deputy and president of the tiers etat, which assembled on the 5th of May at Versailles. The several deputies from the communes having constituted themselves on the 17th of June, a national assembly, Bailly was still continued president, and distinguished himself considerably. He it was, who on the 20th, of the same month, conducted the asse-nbly to the tennis-court, and he still continued to preside, when, on the 27th, the two other orders united themselves to the tiers-etat. He resigned his office on July 22d, and the duke of Orleans was appointed his Sik> cessor.

, an English Benedictine monk, and ecclesiastical historian and antiquary, the son of William Baker, gent, and nephew to Dr. David Lewes, judge of the admiralty, was born at Abergavenny, Dec. 9, 1575, and first educated at Christ’s hospital, London, whence he went to Oxford, in 1590, and became a commoner of Broadgate’s hall (now Pembroke college), which he left without a degree, and joined his brother Richard, a barrister of the middle temple, where he studied law, and in addition to the loose courses he followed, when at Oxford, now became a professed infidel. After the death of his brother, his father sent for him, and he was made recorder of Abergavenny, and practised with considerable success. While here, a miraculous escape from drowning recalled him to his senses as to religion, but probably having no proper advice at hand, he fell upon a course of Roman catholic writings, and was so captivated with them that he joined a small congregation of Benedictines then in London, and went with one of them to Italy, where, in 1605, he took the habit, and changed his name to Augustin Baker. A fit of sickness rendering it necessary to try his native air he returned to England, and finding his father oa his death-bed, reconciled him to the Catholic faith. From this time he appears to have resided in London and different places in the country, professing his religion as openly as could be done with safety. Some years before his death he spent at Canjbray, as spiritual director ‘of the English Benedictine nuns there, and employed his time in making collections for an English ecclesiastical historj’, in which, when at home, we are told, he was assisted by Camden, Cotton, Spelman, Selden, and bishop Godwin, to all of whom, Wood says, “he was most familiarly known,” but not, we presume, so sufficiently as this biographer supposes. Wood, indeed, tells us, that when at the house of gentlemen, he passed for a lawyer, a character which he supported in conversation by the knowledge he had acquired in the Temple. He died in Gray’s Inn lane Aug. 9, 1641, and was buried in St. Andrew’s church. He wrote a great many religious treatises, but none were published. They amounted to nine large folios in manuscript, and were long preserved in the English nunnery at Cambray. His six volumes of ecclesiastical history were lost, but out of them were taken father Reyner’s “Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia,” and a good deal of Cressy’s “Church History.” Wood has given a prolix account of this man, which was probably one of those articles in his Athenee that brought upon him the suspicion of being himself attached to popery. It is certainly written with all the abject submission of credulity.

In April 1729, he married Sophia, youngest daughter of the famous Daniel Defoe, who brought him two sons, both of whom he survived. On the 29th of January 1740, Mr. Baker was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries; and, on the 12th of March following, the same honour was conferred upon him by the royal society. In 1744, sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal was bestowed upon him, for having, by his microscopical experiments on the crystallizations and configurations of saline particles, produced the most extraordinary discovery during that year. This medal was presented to him by sir Hans Sloane, thjen president of the royal society, and only surviving trustee of sir Godfrey Copley’s donation, at the recommendation of sir Hans’s worthy successor, Martin Folkes, esq. and of the council of the said society. Having led a very useful and honourable life, he died, at his apartments in the Strand, on the 25th of Nov. 1774, aged seventy-seven. His wife died in 1762; and he left only one grandson, William Baker, who was born Feb. 17, 1763, and to whom, on his living to the age of twenty-one, he bequeathed the bulk of his fortune, which he had acquired by his profession of teaching deaf and dumb persons to speak. This gentleman is now rector of Lyndon and South Luffenham, in the county of Rutland. He gave also by his will a hundred pounds to the royal society, the interest of which was to be applied in paying for an annual oration on natural history or experimental philosophy, now known by the name of the Bakerian oration. He gave to each of his two executors one hundred pounds and his wife’s gold watch and trinkets in trust to his daughter-in-law Mary Baker for her life, and to be afterwards given to the future wife of his grandson. To Mrs. Baker he gave also an annuity of fifty pounds. His furniture, printed books, curiosities, and collections of every sort, he directed should be sold, which was accordingly done. His manuscripts are in the possession of his grandson. His fine collection of native and foreign fossils, petrifactions, shells, corals, vegetables, ores, &c. with some antiquities and other curiosities, were sold by auction, March 13, 1775, and the nine following days, He was buried, as he desired, in an inexpensive mannef, in the church-yard of St. Mary le-Strand within which church, on the south wall, he ordered a small tablet to be erected to his memory, but owing to some particular regulations annexed to the new churches under the act of queen Anne, leave for this could not be obtained. “An inscription for it,” he said, “would probably be found among his papers if not, he hoped some learned friend would write one agreeably to truth.”

His principal work was, his “Chronicle of the kings of England, from the time of the Romans’ government unto the death of king James,” Lond. 1641, fol. again in 1653, and 1658, to which last was added, the reign of Charles I. with a continuation to 1658, by Edward Phillips, nephew to the illustrious Milton. The fourth edition of 1665 has a continuation to the coronation of Charles II. The account of the restoration was principally written by sir Thomas Clarges, although adopted by Phillips. It was most severely criticised by Thomas Blount, in his “Animadversions upon sir Richard Baker’s Chronicle and its continuation,” and many errors are unquestionably pointed out, but it became a popular book, and a common piece of furniture in every ’squire’s hall in the country, for which it was not ill calculated by its easy style and variety of matter, and continued to be reprinted until 1733, when another edition appeared with a continuation to the end of the reign of George I. but still with many errors, although perhaps not of much importance to the “plain folks” who delight in the book. This is called by the booksellers the best edition, and has lately been advancing in price, but they are not aware that many curious papers, printed in the former editions, are omitted in this. The late worthy and learned Daines Barrington gives the most favourable opinion of the Chronicle. “Baker is by no means so contemptible a writer as he is generally supposed to be it is believed that the ridicule on this Chronicle arises from its being part of the furniture of sir Roger de Coverley’s hall” in one of the Spectators. Sir Richard’s own opinion probably recommended it to many readers he says that “it is collected with so great care and diligence, that if all other of our chronicles were lost, this only would be sufficient to inform posterity of all passages memorable, or worthy to be known.” He wrote also several other works 1. “Cato Variegatus, or Cato’s Moral Distichs varied; in verse,” Loud. 1636. 2. “Meditations and Disquisitions on the Lord’s Prayer,” Lond. 1637, 4to. The fourth edition of it was published in 1640, 4to. It was highly praised by sir Henry Wotton, who had studied with him in Hart-hall. 3. “Meditations and disquisitions on the three last Psalms of David,” Lond. 1639. 4. “Meditations and disquisitions on the fiftieth Psalm,” Lond. 1639. 5. “Meditations and disquisitions on the seven penitential Psalms, which are, 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143,” Lond. 1639, 4to. 6. “Meditations and disquisitions on the first Psalm,” Lond. 1640, 4to. 7. “Meditations and disquisitions on the 'seven consolatory Psalms of David, namely, 23, 27, 30, 34, 84, 103, and 116,” Lond. 1640, 4to. 8. “Meditations and prayers upon the seven clays of the week,” Lond. 1640, 16 mo, which is supposed to be the same with his Motive of Prayer on the seven days of the week. 9. “Apology for Laymen’s writing in Divinity,” Lond. 1641, 12mo. 10. “Short meditations on the fall of Lucifer,” printed with the Apology. 11. “A soliloquy of the Soul, or a pillar of thoughts, &c.” Lond. 1641, 12mo. 12. “Theatrum lledivivun), or the Theatre vindicated, in answer to Mr. Pryone’s Histrio-mastrix, &c.” Lond. 1662, 8vo. 13. “Theatrum triumphans, or a discourse of Plays,” Lond. 1760, 8vo. 14. He translated from Italian into English, the marquis Virgilio Malvezzi’s Discourses on Tacitus, being 53 in number, Lond. 1642, fol. And from French into English, the three first parts of the “Letters of Monsieur Balzac,” printed at London, 1638, 8vo, and again in 1654, 4to, with additions, and also in 8vo. The fourth and last part seem to have been done by another hand the preface to it being subscribed F. B. Sir Richard wrote also his own life, and left it in manuscript but it was destroyed by one Smith, who married one of his daughters.

, an eminent mathematician in the seventeenth century, the son of James Baker of Ikon in Somersetshire, steward to the family of the Strangways of Dorsetshire, was born at Ikon about the year 1625, and entered in Magdalen-hall, Oxon, in the beginning of the year 1640. In April 1645, he was elected scholar of Wadham college and did some little servicb to king Charles I. within the garrison of Oxford. He was admitted bachelor of arts, April 10, 1647, but left the university without completing that degree by determination. Afterwards he became vicar of Bishop’s-Nymmet in Devonshire, where he lived many years in studious retirement, applying chiefly to the study of the mathematics, in which he made very great progress. But in his obscure neighbourhood, he was neither known, nor sufficiently valued for his skill in that useful branch of knowledge, till he published his famous book. A little before his death, the members of the royal society sent him some mathematical queries to which he returned so satisfactory an answer, that they gave him a medal with an inscription full of honour and respect. He died at Bishop’s-Nymmet aforementioned, on the 5th of June 1690, and was buried in his own church. His book was entitled “The Geometrical Key, or the Gate of Equations unlocked, or a new Discovery of the construction of all Equations, howsoever affected, not exceeding the fourth degree, viz. of Linears, Quadratics, Cubics, Biquadratics, and the rinding of all their roots, as well false as true, without the use of Mesolahe, Trisection of Angles, without Reduction, Depression, or any other previous Preparations of Equations, by a Circle, and any (and that one only) Farabole, &c.” London, 1684, 4to, in Latin and English. In the Philosophical Transactions, it is observed, that the author, in order to free us of the trouble of preparing the equation by taking away the second term, shews us how to construct all affected equations, not exceeding the fourth power, by the intersection of a circle and parabola, without omission or change of any terms. And a circle and a parabola being the most simple, it follows, that the way which our author has chosen is the best. In the book (to render it intelligible even to those who have read no conies), the author shews, how a parabola arises from the section of a cone, then bow to describe it in piano, and from that construction demonstrates, that the squares of the ordinates are one to another, as the correspondent sagitta or intercepted diameters then he shews, that if a line be inscribed in a parabola perpendicular to any diameter, a rectangle made of the segments of the inscript, will be equal to a rectangle rr.ade of the intercepted diameter and parameter of the axis. From this last propriety our author deduces the universality of his central rule for the solution of ai! 2 biquadratic and cubic equations, however affected or varied in terms or signs. After the synthesis the author shews the analysis or method, by which he found this rule which, in the opinion of Dr. R. Plot (who was then secretary to the royal society) is so good, that nothing can be expected more easy, simple, or universal.

, a learned printer, son of Mr. William Baker, a man of amiable character and manners, of great classical and mathematical learning, and more than forty years master of an academy at Reading, was born in 1742. Being from his infancy of a studious turn, he passed so much of his time in his father’s library as to injure his health. His father, however, intended to have sent him to the university, but a disappointment in a patron who had promised to support him, induced him to place him as an apprentice with Mr. Kippax, a printer, in Cullum- street, London, where, while he diligently applied to business, he employed his leisure hours in study, and applied what money he could earn to the purchase of the best editions of the classics, which collection, at his death, was purchased by Dr. Lettsom. This constant application, however, to business and study, again 'endangered his health, but by the aid of country air and medicine he recovered and on the death of Mr. Kippax he succeeded to his business, and removed afterwards to Ingram court, where he had for his partner Mr. John William Galabin, now principal bridgemaster of the city of London. Among his acquaintance were some of great eminence in letters Dr. Goldsmith, Dr. Edmund Barker, the Rev. James Merrick, Hugh Farmer, Caesar de Missy, and others. An elegant correspondence between him and Mr. Robinson, author of the “Indices Tres,” printed at Oxford, 1772, and some letters of inquiry into difficulties in the Greek language, which still exist, are proofs of his great erudition, and the opinion entertained of him by some of the first scholars. Such was his modesty, that many among his oldest and most familiar acquaintance were ignorant of his learning, and where learning was discussed, his opinion could never be known without an absolute appeal to his judgment. There are but two little works known to be his; 1. “Peregrinations of the Mind through the most general and interesting subjects which are usually agitated in life, by the Rationalist,” 12mo, 1770, a collection of unconnected essays, not, as hie biographer says, in the manner of the Rambler, but somewhat in the manner of a periodical paper. 2. “Theses GrifcciE et Latince selectse,” 8vo, 1780, a selection from Greek and Latin authors. He left behind him some manuscript remarks on the abuse of grammatical propriety in the English language in common conversation. He wrote also a few minor poems, which appeared in the magazines, and is said to have assisted some of his clerical friends with sermons of his composition. la the Greek, Latin, French, and Italian languages, he was critically skilled, and some knowledge of the Hebrew. He died after a lingering illness, Sept. 29, 1785, and was interred in the vault of St. Dionis Backchurch, Fenchurch-street, and an elegant Latin epitaph to his memory was placed on the tomb of his family in the church-yard of St. Mary, Reading, by his brother John.

, the most successful and celebrated experimental farmer ever known in England, was born at Dishley in Leicestershire, about 1725 or 1726. His grandfather and father had resided on the same estate since the beginning of the last century; and his father, who died about the year 1760, had the reputation of being a very ingenious farmer. Mr. Bakewell having conducted the Dishley farm several years before the decease of his father, began about fifty -five years ago, that course of experiments which has procured him such extensive fame. He originally adopted a principle, a priori, which was confirmed by the whole experience of his future life. Having remarked that domestic animals, in general, produced others possessing qualities nearly similar to their own, he conceived he had only to select from the most valuable breeds such as promised to return the greatest possible emolument to the breeder; and that he should then be able, by careful attention to progressive improvements, to produce a race of sheep, or other animals, possessing a maximum of advantage. Under the influence of this excellent notion, Mr. Bakewell made excursions into different parts of England, to inspect the various breeds, and to ascertain those which were best adapted to his purposes, and the most valuable 0f their kinds.

Every branch of the agricultural art is more or less indebted to the fortunate genius and original mind of Mr. Bakewell. He directed his attention however the most successfully to the improvement of the sheep known by the name of the Dishley or New Leicestershire to long-horned cattle, and to strong horses of the black breed, suitable to the harness for the army. The improvement of pigs, and the cultivation of the best winter food for cattle, had latterly engaged his attention; and he had proved himself useful to the public by introducing into practice the flooding of meadows. The race of Dishley sheep are known by the fineness of their bones and flesh, the lightness of the offal, the disposition to quietness, and consequently to mature and fatten with less food than other sheep of equal weight and value. Mr. Bakewell improved his black horses by an. attention to the form which is best adapted to their use. His stallions have been let for the season for one hundred guineas and upwards. About ten years since he exhibited his famous black horse to the king and many of the nobility in the court-yard of St. James’s. His long-horned cattle have been characterised by properties similar to those of his sheep, viz. for the fineness of the bone and flesh, the lightness of the offal, and the disposition to fatten. In a word, no competitor ever had the temerity to vie with him in his horses and cattle and his sheep continue universally unrivalled, notwithstanding the competition excited at various times by motives of interest or envy.

, a Spanish poet, was bishop of St. John in Porto Rico, in North America, to which he was appointed in 1620. He was a native of Valdepeguas, a village in the diocese of Toledo, took his doctor’s degree at Salamanca, from whence he was sent to America, and had the charge of judicature in Jamaica, and then was made bishop of Porto Rico. He was there when in 1625 it was plundered by the Dutch, who carried away his library. He died in 1627. He is reputed to be one of the first poets Spain has produced, although one of the least known. His productions are, a heroic poem, printed at Madrid, 4to, in 1624, entitled “El Bernardo, 6 Victoria de Roncesvalles;” ten eclogues, entitled “Siecle d‘or dans les bois d’Eriphile,” Madrid, 8vo, 1608; and a work in prose and verse, on “the grandeur of Mexico,” printed at the same place, 1604, 8vo. Antonio censures the age very severely for having neglected the writings of Bernard, in which he discovers great majesty and elevation of verse, a prolific invention, a pleasing variety, and a style not inferior in purity to that of any writer of the present age. His comparisons are just, and his descriptions rich and elegant, and lively beyond all the Spanish poets.

, according to Wood, was born in the west of England, and spent several years at Oxford in the study of logic and philosophy there he supposes him to have been the same William Baldwin, who supplicated the congregation of regents for a master’s degree in 1532, but it does not appear by the register that it was granted. He afterwards became a schoolmaster and a minister, and was one of those scholars who followed printing, in order to promote the reformation. In this character, we find him employed by Edward Whitchurch, probably as the corrector of the press, though he modestly styles himself “seruaunt with Edwarde Whitchurche.” This, however, seems to have been his employment at first, and chiefly: yet he afterwards appears to have qualified himself for a compositor. As an author, Bale and Pits ascribe some comedies to him, which were probably mysteries or moralities now unknown, but he compiled “A treatise of moral Philosophy,” which was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in 1547, and in 1550, and without date. This was afterwards enlarged by Thomas Paifryman, and went through several editions. His next performance was “The Canticles or Balades of Solomon, phraselyke declared in English metres,” printed by himself, 1549, 4to. He wrote also “The Funeralles of king Edward VI.” in verse, printed in 1560, 4to. But he is perhaps best known now by the share he had in the publication of “The Mirror of Magistrates,” originally projected by Thomas Sackville, first lord Buckhurst, and afterwards earl, of Dorset, who wrote the poetical preface, and the legend of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and recommended the completion of the whole to our William Baldwin and George Ferrers. The time of his death is not specified, but he appears to have lived some years after the accession of queen Elizabeth.

Bishop Bale’s fame now principally rests on his valuable collection of British biography, which was first published, under the title of “lllustrium Majoris Britanniae scriptorum, hoc est, Anglic, Cambriae et Scotia?, Summarium,” Ipswich, 1549, 4to, containing only five centuries of writers. To these he added afterwards four more centuries, with many additions and improvements on the first edition, the whole printed in a large folio, at Basil, by Oporinus, 1559. The title is greatly enlarged, and informs us, that the writers, whose lives are there treated of, are those of the Greater Britain, namely, England and Scotland that the work commences from Japhet, one of the sons of Noah, and is carried down through a series of 3618 years, to the year of our Lord 1557, at which time the author was an exile for religion in Germany that it is collected from a great variety of authors, as Berosus, Gennadius, Bede, Honorius, Boston of Bury, Fruaientarius, Capgrave, Bostius, BureU lus, Trithemius, Gesner, and our great antiquary John Leland that it consists of nine centuries, comprises the antiquity, origin, annals, places, successes, the more remarkable actions, sayings, and writings of each author; in all which a due regard is had to chronology the whole with this particular view, that the actions of the reprobate as well as the elect ministers of the church may historically and aptly correspond with the mysteries described in the Revelation, the stars, angels, horses, trumpets, thunder ­ings, heads, horns, mountains, vials, and plagues, through every age of the same church. There are appendixes to many of the articles, and an account of such actions of the contemporary popes as are omitted by their flatterers, Cargulanus, Platina, &c. together with the actions of the monks, particularly those of the mendicant order, who (he says) are meant by the locusts in the Revelation, ch. ix. ver. 3 and 7. To these Appendixes is added a perpetual succession both of the holy fathers and the antichrists of the church, with curious instances from the histories of various nations and countries in order to expose their adulteries, debaucheries, strifes, seditions, sects, deceits, poisonings, murders, treasons, and innumerable impostures. The book is dedicated to Otho Henry, prince palatine of the Rhine, duke of both the Bavarias, and elector of the Roman empire and the epistle dedicatory is dated from Basil in September, 1557. Afterwards^ in 1559, appeared a continuation of the workj with the addition of five more centuries (which the editors of the Biog. Brit, call a new edition). His other works are divided by Fuller into two parts, those he wrote when a papist, and those when a protestant: but Fuller’s list containing only the subjects of his works, and not the titles or dates, we shall prefer the following list from Ames and Herbert; premising, that, according to Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, Bale wrote some books under the name of John “Harrison. He was the sou of Henry Bale, and on that account, perhaps, took the name of Harrison l.” The Actes of Englysh Votaries, comprehending their unchast practyses and examples by all ages > from the world’s beginning to this present year, collected out of their own legendes and chronicles, 8vo, 1546> 1548, 1551, and 1560. 2. “Yet a course at the Homy she Fox,” by John Harrison, i. e. Bale, Zurich, 1543. From this was published the “Declaration of William Tolwyn,” London, date uncertain, Ames says 1542, which must be a mistake. 3. “The Apology of JohanBale agaynste a ranke Papyst, answering both hym and hys doctours, that neyther their vowes nor yet their pricsthotic are of the gospel, but of Antichrist;” with this, “A brefe exposycion upon, the xxx chapter of Numeri,” London, 15,50, 8vo. 4. “An Expostulation or Coinplaynt, agaynste the blasphemy es of a frantic Papyst of Hamshyrc,” with metrical versions ef the 23d and 130th Psalms,“London, 1552, and 1584, 8vo. 5.” The Image of both Churches, after the most wonderiul and heavenly Revelation of Sainct John the Evangelist, contayning a very fruitefull exposicion or paraphrase upon the same,“first, second, and third parts, London, 1550, and 1584, 8vo. 6. A brefe Chronicle concerning the examination and death of the blessed Martir of Christ, Sir Johan Oldecastle, Lord Cobham,” 1544 and 1576, 8vo, reprinted also in 1729. 7. “The vocacyon of Johan Bale to the Bishoprick of Ossorie in Ireland, his persecucions in the same, and final deliveraunce,” London, 1553, 8vo. Herbert mentions two editions in the same year. 8. “A Declaration of Edmonde Bonner’s Articles, concerning the Cleargye of London Dyocese, whereby that execrable amychriste is in his righte colours reueled in the year of our Lord 1554. Newlye set fourth and allowed,” London, 1561, 8vo. 9, “The Pageant of Popes, containing the lyves of all the bishops of Rome from the beginninge of them to the yeare of grace 1555, London, 4to, 1574. This is a translation from Bale’s Latin edition, by J. S. i. e. John Stu'dley. 10.” A new Comedy or Interlude, concerning the Laws of Nature, Moises, and Christ,“London, 1562, 4to. This was written in 1532, and first printed in the time of Edward VI. 11.” A Tragedie or Enterlucle, manifesting the chief promises of God unto man, by all ages in the olde lawe, from the fall of Adam to the incarnation,“London, 1577, 4to. 12.” A Mystereye of Inyquyte contayned within the heretycall genealogye of Ponce Pantolabus, is here both dysclosed and confuted,“Geneva, 1545, 16mo. 13.” The First Examination of the worthy servaunt of God Mastres Anne Askew,“Marpurg, 1546, 16mo, and the” Lattre Examinacion“of the same, ibid. 1547. 14.” A brife and fay th full declaration of the true Faith in Christ,“1547, IGmo. Mr. Herbert conjectures this to be Bale’s. The initials only of the author are given. 15.” The laboryouse journey and serche of Johan Leylande, for En glandes Antiquitees, &c.“London, 1549, 16mo, reprinted in the Life of Leland (with those of Wood and Hearne) 1772, and followed there by a memoir of Bale. 16.” The confession -of the synner after the sacred scriptures, 1549, 8vo. 17. “A Dialogue or Communycacyon to be had at a table between two chyldren gathered out of the Holy Scriptures, by John Bale for his two yonge sonnes, Johan acid Paule,” London, 1549. He also translated, l.“Bapt. Mantuanus’s treatise on Death,” London, 1584, 8vo. 2. “The true hystorie of the Christen departynge of the reverend man D. Martyne Luther, &c.” 1546, 8vo. 3. “A godly Medytacyon of the Christen Soule, from the French of Margaret queen of Navarre,” London, probably, 1548, 5vo. Tanner has given a list of his Mss. and where preserved. These printed works are now rarely to be met with, and many of them, particularly his dramatic pieces, may be consigned to oblivion without much regret. The “Acts of. the English Votaries,” and other pieces written against the Papists, are best known, although censured for their intemperance and partiality. The character, indeed, of few writers has been more variously represented., Gesner, in his Bibliotheca, calls him a writer of the greatest diligence, and bishop Godwin gives him the character of a laborious inquirer into British antiquities. Similar praise is bestowed on him by Humphrey in his “Vaticinium de Koma,” and by Vogler in his “Introduct. Universal, in notit. Scriptor.” who also excuses his asperity against the Papists, from what England had suffered from them, and adds, that even the popish writers cannot help praising his great biographical work. On the other hand, bishop Montague, Andreas Valerius, and Vossius, while they allow his merit as a writer, object to his warmth and partiality. Pitts, his successor in British biography, and a bigotted Papist, rails against him without mercy, or decency, but may be forgiven on account of the pains he took to give us a more correct book, or at least, what could be alleged on the other side of the question. Even Fuller imputes intemperance of mind to him, and calls him “Biliosus Balseus,” imputing his not being made a bishop, on his return, by queen Elizabeth, to this cause but it is equally probable, that he had conceived some prejudices against the hierarchy, while residing with the Geneva reformers abroad. We know this was the case with Coverdale, a man of less equivocal character. Wharton, in his “Anglia Sacra,” and Nicolson, in his “Historical Library,” censure those errors which in Bale were either unavoidable, or wilful, in dates, titles of books,- and needlessly multiplying the latter. After all these objections, it will not appear surprising that Bale’s work was speedily inserted among the prohibited books, in the Index Expurgatorius. Such a writer was naturally to be forbidden, as an enemy to the see of Rome. From one accusation, the late Dr. Pegge has amply defended him in his “Anonymiana” It was said that after he had transcribed the titles of the volumes of English writers which fell into his hands, he either burnt them or tore them to pieces. This calumny was first pub^ lished by Struvius in his “Acta Literaria,” upon the authority of Barthius. Upon the whole, with every deduction that can be made from his great work, it must ever be considered as the foundation of English biography, and as such, men of all parties have been glad to consult it, although with the caution necessary in all works written in times of great animosity of sentiment, and political and religious controversy.

Strutt says of this engraver, that although the clearness of his strokes, and the depth of colour which he produced, are far beyond any production prior to his own, yet he did not draw well, and on this account his prints want that freedom, correctness and harmony, which a perfect knowledge of drawing generally produces. With all their beauty, they appear heavy and the flesh is not sufficiently distinguished, by the style of engraving, from the other parts of the figure but has a cold silvery effect. This observation must be supposed to refer only to his figures. The two large plates (above mentioned) which he did from Vernet, one representing a storm, the other a calm, must ever be considered as very astonishing exertions of the artist. These are too well known, and too much admired, to need any farther culogium and were never equalled, until they were surpassed by a countryman of ours (YVoollett). Let any one look at the Niobe, the Ceyx and Alcyone, &c. from Wilson, and a very moderate share of judgment will be necessary to turn the balance in favour of the latter.

, citizen of Geneva, who was born in 1726, and died in 1774, is known by a judicious performance, entitled “Ueducation physique des enfans,” 1762, 8vo, of which M. David, physician at Paris, gave a second edition in 1780, with annotations. This dissertation, crowned by the society of sciences at Haerlem in 1762, abounds with excellent observations. The author begins from the moment of birth, and conducts his pupils tp the age of puberty. We have likewise of him a dissertation of no less importance than the foregoing, on this question What are the principal causes of the death of so great a number of children 1775.

, born at Paris, in 1615, was the son of a goldsmith, and became a goldsmith himself. He began to be known in the time of cardinal Richelieu, who bought of him four large silver basons, on which Ballin, hardly 19 years old, had curiously represented the four ages of the world. The cardinal, who was never weary of admiring these masterpieces of workmanship, employed him to make four vases, from the antique, to match with the basons. Ballin brought ins art to the summit of perfection. He executed for Louis XIV. silver tables, girandoles, sophas, lustres, vases, &c. But that monarch was obliged to convert them all into money, to supply the expences of the tedious war that was terminated by the peace of Ryswic. Several works by this great artist are still, or were formerly, at Paris, at St. Denys, and at Pontoise, of singular beauty and delicacy. On the death of Varin, being appointed to the direction of the dies for striking medals and counters, he shewed in these littte works the same taste he had displayed in the larger. To the beauties of the antique he added the graces of the moderns. He died the 22d of Jan. 1678, at the age of 63. He had scarcely ever been out of Paris and gave a proof that foreign travel is not always necessary in order to excel in the fine arts. Launoi, a kinsman of Ballin by marriage, an excellent goldsmith, and an expert designer, made drawings of almost all the works of his relation, previous to the sale of them, by Louis XIV.

The earnest requests of his family and friends induced him to leave Italy in 1639, after which he resided for some time at Amsterdam and Harlem, where his pieces were as much admired as in Italy, which makes us doubt Houbraken’s assertion that he became jealous of the popularity of Wouvermans. Bamboccio, however, was a bad manager, and often in distress, and in the latter part of his life he was afflicted with an asthmatic complaint, which became insupportable, and brought on fits of melancholy, during one of which he threw himself into a canal, and was drowned. This happened in 1675. His disciples are not known, except Andrew Both, who imitated his manner. His elder brother Roeland Van Laer, who died in 1640, aged only thirty, painted in the same style and manner as his brother; being not much-inferior-to him, either in colouring, pencil, or design. He travelled to Italy along with Peter, and they resided together at Rome for several years Roeland painting the same subjects, and following his profession with very great success. He left Rome to visit Genoa, perhaps with a view to avoid all competition with his brother; and it is highly probable that he would have made a considerable figure, if he had not been cut off in the prime of his years in that city.

, an eminent physician of the sixteenth century, studied philosophy for some time at Oxford, and afterwards having entered upon the department of physic, applied himself entirely to that faculty and surgery. In July 1573, he took the decree of bachelor in physic, and was admitted to practice. He removed from Oxford to Nottingham, where he lived many years, and was in high esteem for his skill in physic and surgery. The time of his death is not known. His works are: 1 “A needfull, new, and necessary treatise of Chirurgery, briefly comprehending the general and particular curation of ulcers,” 1575, 8vo. 2. “Certain experiments of his own invention,” &c. 3. “History of man, sucked from the sap of the most approved anatomists, &c. in nine books,” 1578. 4. “Compendious Chirurgery, gathered and translated especially out of Wecker,” &c. 1589, 8vo. 5. “Antidotary chirurgical, containing variety of all sorts of medicines,” &c. 1589, 8vo. Several years after his death, in 1663, his works were published at London in 4to, in six books. The first three books, Of tumours, wounds, and ulcers in general and particular. 4. Of fractures and luxations. 5. Of the curation of ulcers and 6. The antidotary above-mentioned.

, an eminent English sculptor, born in 1735, was the son of Mr. William Banks, land-steward to the then duke of Beaufort, a situation which he occupied with honour and credit to himself, and from which he derived very handsome emolument. His eldest son Thomas, evincing a strong partiality for the arts, was placed with Mr. Kent, whose name is well known in the architectural annals of that period but, shewing afterwards a preference for sculpture, he studied that art with greater success in the royal academy, then lately instituted, and obtained the geld medal and other prizes for his productions he was also elected to be sent for three years to pursue his studies on the continent, at the expence of that establishment which was one of its regulations previous to the French revolution, when the disturbances in Italy rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for Englishmen to travel in that country. The residence of Mr. Banks was prolonged beyond the limits allowed by the academy for his enthusiastic admiration of the antique, which could then be seen only in perfection in that now despoiled country, and his eager endeavours to imitate the simplicity and elegance of its best specimens, made him unwilling to quit a spot where he could contemplate its beauties with unremitting delight. He met with some patronage from his countrymen who visited Rome and among others of his productions which were sent to this country, was a basso-relievo in marble, representing Caractacus with his family broughtprisoners before Claudius which now ornaments the entrance-hall at Stowe, the seat of the marquis of Buckingham a beautiful little figure of Pysche stealing the golden fleece, in marble also, which was intended as a portrait of the princess Sophia of Gloucester, and is still in her family and an exquisite figure of Cupid catching a butterfly, an emblem of loye tormenting the soul, the size of life, which perhaps for grace, symmetry of form, and accuracy of contour, has scarcely been equalled by a modern hand, and might almost vie with those productions of the ancients, to which his admiration, as well as emulation, had been so constantly directed.

, who was also surnamed Monnoyer, a painter of some note, who resided many years in England, was born at Lisle, in Flanders, in 1635. He was brought up at Antwerp, where his business was 'history painting but finding that his genius more strongly inclined him to the painting of flowers, he applied his talents, and in that branch became one of the greatest masters. When Le Brim had undertaken to paint the palace of Versailles, he employed Baptist to do the flower part, in which he displayed great excellence. The duke of Montague being then ambassador in France, and observing the merit of Baptist’s performances, invited him over into England, and employed him, in conjunction with La Fosse and Rousseau, to embellish Montague house, which is now the British museum and contains many of the finest productions of Baptist. “His pictures (says Mr. Pilkington in his Dictionary of Painters) are not so exquisitely finished as those of Van Huysum, but his composition and colouring are in a bolder style. His flowers have generally a remarkable freedom and looseness, as well in the disposition, as in pencilling together with a tone of colouring, that is lively, admirable, and nature itself. The disposition of his objects is surp'risingly elegant and beautiful and in that respect his compositions are easily known, and as easily distinguished from the performances of others.” A celebrated performance of this artist is a looking-glass preserved in Kensington palace, which he decorated with a garland of flowers, for queen Mary and it is mentioned as a remarkable circumstance, that her majesty sat by him during the greatest part of the time that he was employed ia painting it. He painted, for the duke of Ormond, six pictures of East India birds, after nature, which were in that nobleman’s collection at Kilkenny in Ireland, and afterwards came into the possession “of Mr. Pilkington. He died in Pall Mall, in the year 1699. There is a print of Baptist, from a painting of sir Godfrey Kneller, in Mr. Walpole’s” Anecdotes." He had a son, named Anthony Baptist, who also painted flowers and, in the style and manner of his father, had great merit. There was also another painter known by the name of John Baptist, whose surname was Caspars, and who was commonly called Lely’s Baptist. He was born at Antwerp, and was a disciple of Thomas Willebores Boschaert. During the civil war he came to England, and entered into the service of general Lambert; but after the restoration he was employed by sir Peter Lely, to paint the attitudes and draperies of his portraits. He was engaged in the same business under Riley and sir Godfrey Kneller. The portrait of Charles II. in Painters’ Hall, and another of the same prince, with mathematical instruments, in the hall of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, were painted by this Baptist, who died in 1691, and was buried at St. James’s.

, a French antiquary, was born at St. Fargeau in Puisay, in the diocese of Auxerre, in 1696, and died at Paris in 1770, after having passed the greater part of his life in the study of the ancient French writers, from the twelfth to the fifteenth century. This pursuit recommended him to many of the literati, who invited him to Paris, and there the abbe La Porte and Graville engaged him to assist them, in a prolix, but curious work, entitled “Recueil alphabetique depuis la lettre C jusqu‘a la fin de l’alphabet,” which was begun by the abbe Perau, and printed in 24 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1745, &c. He published afterwards, 1. “Fabliaux et contes des poetes Franc,ais des 12, 13, 14,et 15 siecles,” Paris, 1756, 3 vols. 12mo. 2. “L'Ordene de chivalerie,” ib. 1759, 12mo. This is preceded by a dissertation on the origin of the French language, an essay on its etymologies, and a glossary. 3. “Le Castoiement, ou instructions d' une pere a son fils,” a moral work of the thirteenth century, ib. 1760, 12mo, to which are added several pieces, historical and moral, of the same period in verse, a dissertation on the Celtic, and some remarks on its etymologies. These three works were reprinted at Paris in 1808, 4 vols. 8vo. Barbazan had read the ancient authors with great attention, and wa$ zealous to rescue them from the oblivion to which they had been unjustly consigned. Before his death he had prepared several other works for the press, the manuscripts of which are not known, except one entitled “Glossaire du nouveau tresor de Borel,” the manuscript of which is in the library of the French arsenal, with the exception of the first part, which has been lost.

, born at Paris in 1710, was the son of a woodmonger, and originally intended for his father’s trade but nature had given him a taste for literature, and in order to be able to cultivate it, he at first embraced the ecclesiastical profession, which he quitted some time afterwards, and retired to Holland, where he passed ten or fifteen years. He carried with him from that country charts but little known in France, which he communicated to M. Bauche, who kept him with him above twenty-three years, and in whose workshe had the greatest share. In 1759, however, a production appeared under his name. This was “Mappe-monde Historique” an ingenious and novel chart, in which the author has had the skill to combine geography, chronology, and history into one system. He had intended to particularize this general chart in distinct maps but he was forced to abandon this idea by the necessity he laboured under of gaining his bread by rapid publications. The world is indebted to him for the “Tablettes Chronologiques” ofthe abbe Lenglet, 1763 and 1778 for the “Geographic IVJoderne” of the abbe la Croix, the substance of which is properly his the two last volumes of the “Bibliotheque de France,” of father le Long; and he furnished great assistance to M. de Fontette in the publication of the three first. We have likewise by him a Description of the empire of Russia, published in German by baron de Strahlemberg, 1757, and translated into French, but this is a very inaccurate work and “Vie de M. Francois Paris, diacre,” 1751, 12mo. Barbeau died of a stroke of the apoplexy, at Paris, the 20th of November 1781. He married about two years before, for the sake of having a companion to mitigate the sorrows and infirmities of age. He was one of the few modest scholars, who, without having either literary titles or pensions, are often more useful than others decorated and endowed with both. No one was ever more obliging no one less avaricious of his knowledge, or had more to communicate on the subjects of geography and history. His memory was a kind of living library, and he was always consulted with advantage, either for the exact tlates of events, or for t.he best editions of good or scarce books,

, an ancient Scotch poet, was born about 1316, but of his personal history few memorials have been recovered. He was brought up to the church, and in 1357, is styled archdeacon of Aberdeen. Quring the same year, the bishop of his diocese appointed him one of the commissioners to deliberate concerning the ransom of the captive king o f Scotland, David II. In 1365, he appears to have visited St. Denis, near Paris, in company with six knights, the object of which visit was probably of a religious kind, as the king of England granted them permission to pass through his dominions on their way to St. Denis and other sacred places. About ten years afterwards he was engaged in composing the work upon which his lame now principally rests, “The Bruce.” As a reward of his poetical merit, he is said to have received a pension, but this is doubtful. From some passages in Winton’s Chronicle, it would appear, that Barbour also composed a genealogical history of the kings of Scotland, but no part of this is known to be extant. He died in 1396, of an advanced age, if the date of his birth which we have given be correct, but that is not agreed upon. His celebrated poem, “The Bruce, or the history of Robert I. king of Scotland,” was first published in 1616, 12mo, again in 1648, both at Edinburgh, at Glasgow in 1665, 8vo, and at Edinburgh in 1670, 12mo, and often afterwards in meaner forms but a valuable, and the only genuine edition, as to purity of text, was edited by Mr. Pinkerton, in 1790, 3 vols. 12 mo, from a ms. in the advocate’s library, dated 1489. The learned editor says that “taking the total merits of this work together, he prefers it to the early exertions of even the Italian muse, to the melancholy sublimity of Dante, and the amorous quaintness of Petrarca.” Barbour is not only the first poet, but the earliest historian of Scotland, who has entered into any detail, and from whom any view of the real state and manners of the country can be learned. The obscure and capricious spelling may perhaps, deter some readers from a perusal of “The Bruce,” but it is very remarkable that Barbour, who was contemporary with Gower and Chaucer, is more intelligible to a modern reader than either of these English. Some assert that he was educated at Oxford, but there is no proof of this, and if there were, it would not account for this circumstance.

Of his works, we have not a complete catalogue, but the following are best known. 1. “The Castell of Labour, wherein is Rychesse, Vertue, and Honour,” an allegorical poem, in seven- line stanzas, translated from the trench, printed by Wynken de Worde, 1506. 2. “The Shyp of Folys,” or the Ship of Fools, printed by Pynson, in 1509, and Cawood in 1570. 3. “A right frutefu 11 treatyse, intituled, the myrrour of good maneYs, conteyning the four vertues, called cardinal!,” printed by Pynson. 4. “Egloges,” or the miseries of courts and courtiers, five in number, printed by Pynson. 5. His “Answer to John Skelton the poet,” probably in poetry, but not printed, or known to exist in manuscript. Bale and Pits also mention what are as little known, the lives of St. George, of St. Catherine, and other saints, all translations, and a translation of Sallust, which was printed in 1557. His Ship of Fools, an excellent satire on the follies of all ranks, is partly a translation, or imitation of a work of the same title, published in 1494, by Sebastian Brandt, afterwards translated into French, and then into Latin. From this original and the two translations Barclay formed his poem, in the octave stanza, with considerable additions gleaned from the follies of his countrymen. Mr. Warton has given an elaborate account of the whole of Barclay’s writings.

In 1604, his father carried him to France, and was himself chosen professor of civil law at Angers. It is said that John attended his father’s lectures, and indeed it appears from many passages in his works, that he was conversant in that science which his father taught. In 1605, allured by some proffers of countenance and advancement, the sou returned to England, and remained there about a year. On his father’s death in 1606, he went to Paris, married Louisa Debonnaire, and soon after settled with his family in London. There he published the second part of his “Euphormion,” dedicated to that able and unpopular minister, the earl of Salisbury, in a style of gross flattery. The same writer, adds lord Haiies, who could discover no faults in Salisbury, aimed the shafts of his ridicule at Sully. Perhaps it was to conciliate favour with king James, that in this second part of “Euphormion,” he satirized tobacco and the puritans. In this year he also published a brief narrative of the gunpowder-plot, which he had composed a few weeks after the dfscovery of that treason, entitled “Series patefacti divinitus parricidii contra Maximum Regem regnumque Britanniae cogitati et instructi.” It is hard to say what could have induced him to withhold this narrative from the public, while the events which it relates were peculiarly interesting from their strange nature: and then, after so long an interval, to send it abroad without the addition of a single circumstance that was not already known throughout Europe.

He died at Rome Aug. 12, 1621, of the stone, a disease^ for which, in his Euphormion, he had vainly pronounced the plant golden rod to be a specific. At that time, his friend M. de Peiresc was engaged in superintending the publication of Argenis, at Paris. His widow erected a monument for him, with his bust in marble, at the church of St. Laurence, on the road to Tivoli but she caused the bust to be removed as soon as she learnt that cardinal Francis Barberini had, in the same place, erected a monument altogether similar, in honour of his preceptor Bernardus Guilielmus a monte Sancti Sabini. “My husband,” said that high-spirited lady, “was a man of birth, and one famous in the literary world and I will not suffer him to remain on a level with a base and obscure pedagogue.” The inscription on the monument of Barclay was erased but by whom, or on what account, is not certainly known. Frehef, the biographer, ascribes this to the malevolence of the Jesuits, who, indeed, had no great cause to be studious of preserving the memory of Barclay. But Tomasini says, that he heard, from undoubted authority, that the only cause for effacing the inscription was, that the widow of Barclay proposed to erect a more sumptuous monument for him in another place. This, however, has much the air of an affected pretence; for why disfigure one monument, because another, more sumptuous, might be erected hereafter

, a native of Edessa, a city in Syria, in the country of Mesopotamia, flourished in the second century. He is held up to us as a man of very acute genius, and acquired a shining reputation by his numerous writings. He first followed the doctrine of Valentine, and afterwards retracted from it. He gave rise to a considerable sect known in ecclesiastical history by the name of the Barclesanists. His sentiments were, that there is one supreme God, perfectly good and benevolent, who made the world and all its inhabitants in a state of perfection, all souls being clothed with bodies celestial and pure but the prince of darkness, having seduced men into sin, God permitted them to fall into gross bodies, formed of malignant and corrupt matter by the evil principle, and hence permitted the inward disorder of their breasts, as the punishment of their sin. At last, Jesus Christ, the son of God, descended to this world, clothed with an aerial body, and taught men how to subdue their bodies, and by abstinence, fasting, and contemplation, disentangle themselves from the dominion of malignant matter, that at death they may ascend to immortal happiness. His followers continued in these opinions for a considerable time He was a man of acute genius, and acquired great reputation by his writings, which were numerous and learned.

, was an English artist of the last century, but known rather as a copyist than an original painter. He painted a picture of the celebrated Dr. Ward relieving his sick and lame patients, from which there is a print dated 1748-9, which appears to be the work of Baron. There is also a mezzotinto of admiral Vernon, from a picture by Bard well in 1744. At what time he died is not known, but it is probable that he was living in 1773, as a second edition of his treatise was published in that year. Whatever his merits as a painter, he certainly thought himself qualified to give instructions in the practical part of the art, and published a quarto pamphlet of sixty-four pages, entitled the “Practice of Painting and Perspective made easy,” 1756, which was elaborately but severely criticised in the Monthly Review. Mr. Edwards’s opinion is, that the instructions, so far as they relate to the process of painting, are the best that have yet been published, and many young artists at that time found them useful but the perspective of the work does not deserve equal praise, as no part is properly explained, and some of the figures are false. The principal part of Bard well’s pamphlet was re-published in 1795, 8vo. as an original publication.

Mr. Baretti, it is said, received his first encouragement to come to England from lord Charlemont, to whom he became known in Italy, and to whom he afterwards dedicated his Account of the manners and customs of his native country. “Upon your arrival in Italy several years ago,” he says, addressing himself to this nobleman, “a lucky chance brought me within the sphere of your notice and from that fortunate moment a friendship began on your lordship’s side, that has never suffered any abatement; and an attachment on mine, which will never cease as long as I have. life.” During his stay in London, he met with much kindness from its inhabitants. To most of the first persons both for rauk and literature he procured himself to be introduced, with many he lived on terms of friendship, and with some he was permitted to make a part of their family during their seasons of retirement. At length he resolved on his return to Italy, and accordingly left London on the 13th of August 1760. In his first letter to his brothers, he thus speaks of the kingdom he was about to leave. “Now therefore, England, farewell I quit thee with less regret, because I am returning to my native country, after a very long absence, considering the shortness of life. Yet I cannot leave thee without tears. May heaven guard and prosper thee, thou illustrious mother of polite men and virtuous women Thou great mart of literature I thou nursery of invincible soldiers, of bold navigators and ingenious artists, farewell, farewell I have now forgotten all the crosses and anxieties I have undergone in thy regions for the space of ten years but never will I forget those many amongst thy sons who have assisted me in my wants, encouraged me in my difficulties, comforted me in my adversities, and imparted to me the light of their knowledge in the dark and intricate mazes of life Farewell, imperial England, farewell, farewell”

His journey home was taken through Portugal and Spain. Previous to his setting out, he was recommended by Dr. Johnson to write a daily account of the events that might happen, and with all possible minuteness, and by him were pointed out the topics which would most interest and most delight in a future publication. To those who have read the narrative which he afterwards gave the world, it will be unnecessary to applaud Dr. Johnson’s suggestion. It must be admitted to be one of the most entertaining journals which the public had then received, containing a description of places then little known, and placing the character of the writer (as far as any dependence can be had on an author’s character, as drawn from his writings) in a very amiable point of view. During the progress of his tour, good sense and good humour, a playfulness not inconsistent with youth, nor yet unworthy of age, seem always to have attended him. He arrived at Genoa on the 18th of November.

He had been settledbut a short time in Italy, before he projected a periodical paper which was published in Venice under the title of “Frusta Literaria,” written in the name and character of an old, ill-natured, and ferocious soldier, who was supposed to have quitted his native try when scarcely fifteen years old, and to have returned home no less than fifty years after his departure. In this the satire was very pointed and severe, and the publication had great success. One who appears to have known him asserts, that it brought him in a considerable profit, but raised such a flame in Venice, as to make his stay in that country at least disagreeable, if not dangerous. After six yeans absence he returned to England, and almost immediately dipped his pen in a controversy with Mr. Sharp, who had just then published “Letters from Italy, describing the customs and manners of that country in the years 1765 and 1766.” Mr. Sharp’s representation was certainly extravagant, and perhaps taken on too slight grounds. It excited Mr. Baretti’s resentment, and it is well known that he seldom expressed himself in gentle terms when he felt himself entitled to shew his anger.

With the indolence which sometimes accompanies old age, he became negligent, inattentive to the state of his finances, spent the principal of his 500l. and, at the conclusion of his life, felt himself scarce out of the gripe of poverty. His pension, from circumstances of public embarrassment well known, was in arrear, and he had received from the booksellers, by whom he was employed to revise his dictionary, as much money as they conceived he was entitled to expect, considering the state the work was then in. An application to them for an immediate supply had not met with a ready acquiescence, and the vexation occasioned by his disappointment is supposed to have had an ill effect on his health. A fit of the gout ensued, which he at first neglected, and apprehended himself to be in no danger until the middle of the day preceding his death, when he consented that the vultures, as he called the medical people, might be called in. He acknowledged his obligations to Dr. Blane who attended him, and by whose means he would probably have been restored to health, if he had continued to follow his prescriptions, as he had before much recovered under his management, until he relapsed in consequence of drinking cold water. Ice and cold water had alone been used by him as medicine for a giddiness in his head.

“The person of Baretti,” says one who appears to have known him, “was athletic, his countenance by no means attractive, his manners apparently rough, but not unsocial his eye, when he was inclined to please or be pleased, when he was conversing with young people, and especially young women, cheerful and engaging he was fond of conversing with them, and his conversation almost constantly turned upon subjects of instruction: he had the art of drawing them into correspondence, and wished by these means to give them the power of expression and facility of language, while he himself conveyed to them lessons on the conduct of life and the best answer that can be given to all those accounts which have represented him as a man of a brutal and ferocious temper, is the attachment which many of his young friends felt while he was living, and preserve to his memory now he is no more. He was not impatient of contradiction, unless where contempt was implied but alive in every feeling where he thought himself traduced, or his conduct impeached. In his general intercourse with the world he was social, easy, and conversible his talents were neither great nor splendid but hvs knowledge of mankind was extensive, and his acquaintance with books in all modern languages which are valuable, except the German, was universal his conduct in every family, where he became an inmate, was correct and irreproachable; neither prying, nor inquisitive, nor intermeddling, but affable to the inferiors, and conciliatory between the principals in others which he visited only, he was neither intrusive nor unwelcome; ever ready to accept an invitation when it was cordial, and never seeking it where it was cold and affected. In point of morals he was irreproachable with regard to faith, he was rather without religion than irreligious the fact was, possibly, that he had been disgusted with the religion of Italy before he left it, and was too old when he came to England to take an attachment to the purer doctrines of the protestant church but his scepticism was never offensive to those who had settled principles, never held out or defended in company, never proposed to mislead or corrupt the minds of young people. He ridiculed the libertine publications of Voltaire, and the reveries of Rousseau he detested the philosophy of the French pour lesfemmes de cJiambre^ and though too much a philosopher (in his own opinion) to subscribe to any church, he was a friend to church establishments. If this was the least favourable part of his character, the best was his integrity, which was, in every period of his distresses, constant and unimpeached. His regularity in every claim was conspicuous his wants he never made known but in the last extremity and his last illness, if it was caused by vexation, would doubtless have been prevented by the intervention of many friends who were ready to supply him, if his own scruples, strengthened by the hopes of receiving his due from day to day, had not induced him to conceal his immediate distress till it was too late to assist him.”

To this character, his biographer adds, that he was chaVitable in the extreme and, like Goldsmith, would divide the last shilling he possessed with a friend in distress. He also kept small money of various kinds in a pocket by itself to relieve distress. He was improvident enough to be always anticipating his income, and spent a good deal of it in post-chaise hire, in travelling through the country. He was no dealer in compliment. Avoiding the practice of it himself, he would not knowingly permit it to be used towards him. He would not receive money from any one, and actually refused 6l. from his brother at a time when he was in want, though he accepted from him some wine and macaroni. Immediately after his death, his legal representatives (for no other persons could be authorised to interfere in so extraordinary a manner) either as executors or administrators burnt every letter in his possession without inspection an instance of gothic precipitation which ignorance itself would blush to avow, and which, with the papers of a man of letters, may be attended with very mischievous consequences. We hope the practice is not frequent. Among these letters were several from Dr. Johnson, which Mr. Baretti a few weeks only before his death had promised to make known to the public and from the value of those that have already been published, the world may form some judgment of their loss. The following is a correct list of Mr, Baretti’s works 1. “A Dissertation upon the Italian poetry in which are inter^ spersed some remarks on Mr. Voltaire’s essay on the epic poets,” 1753, 8vo. 2. “An Introduction to the Italian language,; containing specimens both of prose and verse. Selected from Francisco Redi, Galileo Galilei, &c. &c. &c. With a literal translation and grammatical notes, for the use of those who being already acquainted with grammar, attempt to learn it without a master,” 1755, 8vo,

, an artist of great ingenuity, deserves notice as having contributed to “the harmless stock of public pleasure,” although the particulars of his early life may not be interesting. He was the inventor and patentee of the now well-known species of exhibition called a Panorama, by which bird’s-eye views of large cities anti other interesting subjects, taken from a tower, or some other elevated situation, and painted in distemper round the wall of a circular building, produce a very striking effect, and a greater resemblance to reality than was ever before invented, a strong light being thrown on the painting, whilst the place from whence it proceeds is concealed. The deception is also aided by the picture having no frame or apparent boundary. The first picture of this kind was a view of Edinburgh, exhibited to the public in that city by Mr. Barker, in 1788, and in the following year in London, where it did not attract much attention nor was the invention popular, until Mr. Barker named his exhibition a Panorama, a compound word which was not ill contrived to excite curiosity. The first view, under this new title, was one of London from the top of the Albion Mills, which Mr. Barker exhibited at a house in Castle-street, Leicester Fields and although this was confined, Tor want of room, to a half circle, he was soon patronised and encouraged by the liberal praises of sir Joshua Reynolds and other eminent artists. Soon after, partly by means of a subscription, Mr. Barker was enabled to build a large and commodious house in Leicester Fields, calculated to give his exhibition every advantage. Since that time, "views of Dublin, Paris, Constantinople, Cairo, and other cities, with some of the most remarkable sea-fights of the present eventful war, have been exhibited with the greatest success. A more rational, or in many respects a more useful, public exhibition, it would be difficult to conceive. Mr. Barker died in April 1806, at his house in West-square, Southwark, leaving two sons, one of whom continues the exhibition in Leicester-square, with all his father’s skill.

, a biographical and miscellaneous writer of the seventeenth century, was born at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire, Nov. 23, 1609, and educated first at Abingdon school, whence he entered as a servitor in Merton college, Oxford, in 1625, and in a short time removed to Gloucester hall (novy Worcester college) under the tuition and patronage of Dr. Gregory Whear, the principal. Here he studied with great assiduity for several years, took his degrees in arts, and entered into holy orders. In 1637 he supplied the place of chaplain of Lincoln college at the church of All-Saints, for a short time, and was the same year appointed master of the freeschool at Hereford, vicar-choral there, and not long after was promoted to the vicarage of All-hallows in that city. When the garrison of Hereford was surprised by the parliamentary forces in 1646, he was rescued out of the danger, and placed at Sudeley castle, doubtless by the Bridges family, where he exercised his ministry. After that he taught a private school at Hawling in Cotswold, and on the restoration his majesty gave him the living of Naunton near Hawling in Gloucestershire, which he retained until his death, Jan. 6, 1687-8. He was buried in the chancel of Naunton church, leaving behind him the character of a frequent and edifying preacher, and a good neighbour. Wood further adds, that he was a good disputant, a great admirer of Grotius, and a great pretender to poetry but poetry is one of those subjects with which Wood is seldom to be trusted. Barksdale was certainly more than a pretender to poetry. His works are very numerous, both original and translated; but the greater part of the former are small pious tracts on various subjects, little known now, although no doubt very useful in the time they were published. His biographical works, mostly compilations from very scarce tracts and funeral sermons, were published under the title of “Memorials of Worthy Persons.” Of these, two decades were published, London, 1661, 12mo; a third at Oxford, 1662 a fourth there, 1663 and a fifth under the title of “A remembrancer of Excellent Men,” London, 1670. These are now scarce. But a more rare work is his “Nympha Libaethris or the Cotswold Muse, presenting some extempore verses to the imitation of young scholars; in four parts,” London, 1651, 12mo. Of this curious volume the reader may see an ample account, by Mr. Park, in the “Ccnsura Literaria,” vol. VI. Of Barksdale’s other writings it may be sufficient to mention,

, an English divine, was the son of Mr. John Barnard, of Castor, a market town in Lincolnshire. He had his education in the grammar-school of that place; from whence he was sent to Cambridge, where he became a pensioner of Queen’s college. After that he went to Oxford, to obtain preferment from the visitors appointed by act of parliament, and there took the degree of B.A.April 15, 1648; and on Sept. 29 following, was, by order of the said visitors, made fellow of Lincoln college. Feb. 20, 1650, he took the degree of M. A. At length, having married the daughter of Dr. Peter Heylyn, then living at Abingdon, he became rector of Wadding-ton, near Lincoln, the perpetual advowson of which he purchased, and held it for some time, together with the sinecure of Gedney, in the same county. After the restoration he conformed, and was made prebendary of Asgarby in the church of Lincoln. July 6, 1669, he took the degree of B. D. and the same year was created D. D. being then in good repute for his learning and orthodoxy. He died at Newark, on a journey to Spa, Aug. 17, 1683, and was buried in his own church of Waddington. His works are: 1. “Censura Cleri, against scandalous ministers, not fit to be restored to the church’s livings, in point of prudence, piety, and fame,” Lond. 1660, in three sheets, 4to his name is not prefixed to this piece. 2. “TheoJogo-historicus, or the true life of the most reverend divine and excellent historian Peter Heylyn, D. D. subdean of Westminster,” Lond. 1683, 8vo. This was published, as the author says, to correct the errors, supply the defects, and confute the calumnies of George Vernon, A- M. rector of Bourton on the Water, in Gloucestershire, who had published a life of Dr. Heylyn; and Heylyn’s life will certainly be best understood by a comparison of the two. To it is added, 3. “An Answer to Mr. Baxter’s false accusation of Mr. Heylyn.” 4. “A catechism for the use of his parish.” The purpose of the “Censura Cleri” was to prevent some clergymen from being restored to their livings who had been ejected during the interregnum, but, according to Wood, when affairs took a different turn, he did not wish to be known as the author.

Mr. Barnard, till the thirty-sixth year of his age, was only known by the excellencies of his private character, and the esteem in which he was held as a man of reading and strong parts. But about this time, the following incident laid the foundation of his public fame. A bill seriously affecting the wine trade, had passed through the house of commons, and was depending in the upper house. The principal merchants, who would have been injured by the operation of the bill, united in presenting a petition to the lords, praying to be heard against it, by themselves, -or counsel. Their request being granted, Mr. Barnard, without his knowledge, was made choice of, as the fittest person to prove the grievance alleged, and to answer every objection to the petition. Through some unaccountable negligence, he was not acquainted with the business assigned him, till the afternoon before he was to be heard by the peers. This singular disadvantage, when it came to be known, made his speech appear the more extraordinary. By the extent of his acquaintance with, commerce, and the perspicuity and force of his reasoning, accompanied with a becoming modesty, he contributed in so high a degree to carry the point aimed at, that all his friends considered themselves as principally indebted to his talents for their success. So signal an instance of Mr. Barnard’s abilities drew the attention of the public towards him, andprepared the way for his appearing in a more honourable and important station. The admiration he had acquired, made it wished, that he might be employed in the service of his fellow- citizens and countrymen at large. Accordingly, at an anniversary meeting in 1721, his friends proposed, without his knowledge, that he should be put up as a candidate to represent the city of London in Parliament at the next election, which was expected to happen in that year, though it did not take place till the year following. When Mr. Barnard was informed of the honour intended him, he urged hisinvincible dislike to the soliciting and canvassing for votes. But this objection was over-ruled by the proposers, who pledged themselves to undertake that trouble and so effectually did they perform their promise, that he was chosen member, though the contest between the competitors was one of the warmest ever known in London. The candidates were Child, Lockwood, Godfrey, Barnard, Parsons, and Heyshaw the four former of whom were elected. Seven thousand six hundred and seventy-three liverymen polled a number, it is said, which had never before been equalled. All who knew Mr. Barnard, conceived great expectations that he would acquit himself to the honour of his constituents nor were their expectations disappointed. From his first -taking his seat in the house of commons, he entered with penetration into the merits of each point under debate defended with intrepidity what he apprehended to be our constitutional rights; withstood every attempt to burden his country with needless subsidies; argued with remarkable perspicuity and strength and crowned all with such a close attendance upon parliament, that he was never absent by choice, from the time the members met, till they were adjourned. It is difficult to say, whether out of the house he was more popular, or within it more respectable, during the space of nearly forty years.

As Mr. Barnard was so assiduous in discharging his duty to his constituents, and took so constant a part in every important affair that occurred during a very interesting period, of the British annals, were we to take particular notice of all the business wherein he was engaged, and of all the debates in which he spoke, we should run too far into the general history of the time, but the more distinguished instances of his parliamentary conduct will unavoidably be mentioned in the course of our narrative. Violent disputes having arisen in the city of London, about the choice of sheriffs and aldermen, it was thought necessary to ascertain more clearly than they were then understood, the rights and modes of election for the future. Accordingly, in 1725, a bill was brought into parliament to effect that important purpose. But the citizens apprehending that it invaded their just privileges, formed a strong opposition to it, in which they were supported by three of their representatives, Child, Lock wood, and Barnard. Mr. Barnard objected to it, that, by its making an alteration in the city charter, it established a bad precedent for the crown to violate corporation charters at their pleasure; that.it took away from a number of honest citizens the right they had enjoyed, from time immemorial, of voting at wardmote elections that it abridged the privileges of the common -council and that, by transferring too great a weight of authority and influence to the court of mayor and aldermen, it subverted, in a considerable degree, the ancient constitution of the metropolis. The formal thanks of the citizens were presented, by a deputation of four aldermen and eight commoners, to Mr. Barnard and his two colleagues, for their cgnduct in this affair. The bill, notwithstanding all opposition, passed into a layv and it is the statute by which all elections in the city are now regulated. However, the most obnoxious part of the act, which granted a negative power to the lord mayor and aldermen, was repealed in 1746 and to this sir John Barnard greatly contributed. On the 4th of January 1728, Mr. Barnard was chosen alderman of Dowgate Ward, upon the death of John Crawley, esq. On the 14th of April, 1729, he presented a bill to the house of commons, for the better regulation and gove'rnment of seamen in the merchants service which, having passed in that house on the 6th of May, was sent up to the lords, and received the royal assent on the 14th of the same month. About this time, likewise, he took an active part in the inquiry, which, in consequence of the iniquitous and cruel conduct of Thomas Bambridge, warden of trie Fleet, was made into the state of the gaols in this kingdom. When Bambridge and his agents were committed to Newgate, and the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute them, alderman Barnard was very assiduous as a magistrate, in procuring information concerning the several abuses which had been practised in the Fleet to the oppression of the debtors and he so pathetically represented the grievances under which they laboured, as to be greatly instrumental in obtaining the act of insolvency, and the act for the relief of debtors, with respect to the imprisonment of their persons, which were assented to by the king, at the close of the session, on the 14th of May, 1729. Another occasion which he had of displaying his parliamentary abilities, was, when on the 24th of February 1729-30, the bill was read a second time, “To prevent any persons, his majesty’s subjects, or residing within this kingdom, to advance any sum of money to any foreign prince, state, or potentate, without having obtained licence from his majesty under his privy seal, or some greater authority.” The bill had taken its rise from a negotiation which had been set on foot by the emperor of Germany, to obtain a loan in England, of 400,000/1 Mr. Barnard, who opposed the passing of the act, alleged in the course of the debate, several important reasons against it; which, however, were answered in a masterly manner by sir Philip Yorke. The opposition so far prevailed, that the bill was modified in a certain degree and an expla^ natiort was given by the ministry, that it was not his majesty’s intention to prevent his subjects from lending money to the king of Portugal, or any other prince in alliance with England and that the only reason for not naming the emperor in the bill was, that by making it general, there could be no foundation for an open rupture between the courts of London and Vienna. On the 28th of September, 1732, Mr. Barnard having attended Francis Child, esq. then lord mayor, to Kensington, with an address of congratulation to king George the Second, received from his majesty the honour of knighthood. Towards the beginning of the following year, the famous excise scheme, which met with so vigorous an opposition, was proposed by sir Robert Walpole. As a particular account of this arTair will more properly come under the article of that celebrated statesman, we shall take no other notice of it here than what may be necessary to complete the history of sir John Barnard. No one could exceed him in the ability and zeal with which he oppose^ the design. He spoke several times against it, and condemned it both in a commercial and political light. He considered it as introductory to such general and arbitrary laws of excise as would be absolutely inconsistent with the freedom of the constitution and thought that the question upon the scheme would be, “Whether we shall endeavour to prevent frauds in the collecting of the public revenues, at the expence of the liberties of the people” “For my own part,” said sir John, “I never was guilty of any fraud: I put it to any man, be he who he will, to accuse me of so much as the appearance of a fraud in any trade I was ever concerned in I am resolved never to be guilty of any fraud. It is very true, that these frauds are a very great prejudice to all fair traders and, therefore, I speak against my own interest, when I speak against any methods that may tend towards preventing of frauds. But I shall never put my private interest in balance with the interest or happiness of the nation. I had rather beg my bread from door to door, and see my country flourish, than be the greatest subject of the nation, and see the trade of my country decaying, and the people enslaved and oppressed.” On the 14th of March, 1732-3, in the grand committee of the house of commons “To consider of the most proper methods for the better security and improvement of the duties and revenues, already charged upon, and payable from tobacco and wines,” the excise scheme was proposed. In the course of the long and violent debate which took place on this occasion, sir John Barnard, among other arguments, alledged that the scheme was such as could not, even by malice itself, be represented to be worse than it really was; that it was a pill, which, if the people of England were obliged to swallow, they would find as bitter a pill v as ever was swallowed by them since they were a people that the intended remedy for preventing frauds in the collection of the revenue, was far more desperate than the disease that the constitution of our government, and the liberty of the subject, were never more nearly or more immediately concerned in any question and that it was a dangerous encroachment upon the ancient birthright of Englishmen, the right of trial by jury. A great number of the citizens having come down to the lobby of the house of commons, and some of the crowd who had mixed with them having behaved tumultuously, sir Robert Walpole took notice of the extraordinary concourse of people who were collected together at the door, and declared his disapprobation of the methods which had been used to bring them thither. In doing this, he so far lost the usual moderation of his temper, as to drop an expression which gave the highest offence to the city of London, and was long remembered to his disadvantage. “Gentlemen,” he observed,” might say what they pleased of the multitudes at the door, and in all the avenues leading to the house; they might call them a modest multitude if they would they might give them what names they thought fit; it might be said that they came as humble supplicants but,“added sir Robert,” I know whom the law calls Sturdy Beggars and those who brought them hither could not be certain but that they might have behaved in the same manner.“Sir John Barnard rising up to answer this reflection, the committee, for a while, were in some confusion, in consequence of the question’s being loudly called for. At length, however, order being restored, sir John made the following reply” Sir, I know of no irregular or unfair methods that were used to call people from the city to your door. It is certain, that any set of gentlemen or merchants may lawfully desire their friends, they may even write letters, and they may send those letters to whom they please, to desire the merchants of figure and character to come down to the court of requests, and to our lobby, in order to solicit their friends and acquairitance ngainst any scheme or project, which they think may be prejudicial to them. This is the undoubted right: of the subject, and what has been always practised upon all occasions. The honourable gentleman talks of Sturdy Beggars I do not know what sort of people may be now at our door, because I have not lately been out of the house. But I believe they are the same sort of people that were there when I came last into the house and then, I can assure you, that I saw none but such as deserve the name of Sturdy Beggars as little as the honourable gentleman himself, or any gentleman whatever. It is well known that the city of London was sufficiently apprized of what we were this day to be about. Where they got their information, I do not know but I am very certain that they had a right notion of the scheme which has been now opened to us and they were so generally and zealously bent against it, that whatever methods may have been used to call them together, I am sure it would have been impossible to have found any legal method to have prevented their coming hither." When four resolutions had been formed by the committee, in pursuance of sir Robert WalpoleV motion, relating to the excise-scheme, and were reported to the house on the 16th of March, sir John Barnard took the lead with his usual spirit, in the fresh debate which arose upon the question of agreeing to the first resolution. And the same vigorous opposition was continued by him through the whole progress of the bill, till, as is well known, sir Robert Walpole himself found it necessary to move, on the 11th of April, 1733, that the second reading of it should be deferred for two months.

When, during lord Granville’s being secretary of state, any applications were made by the merchants to administration, his lordship was accustomed to ask, “What does sir John Barnard say what is his opinion” That celebrated nobleman and Mr. Pulteney used frequently to visit him at Clapham, to request his advice with regard to any important affairs in which they were engaged. Lord Chatham, when Mr. Pitt, hath been known to style him the great Commoner and lord Palmerston requested his youngest daughter for his eldest son, as an honour done to his family.

Sir John Barnard left one son, and two daughters. His son John Barnard, esq. of Berkeley square, well known for his taste in the polite arts, and for his admirable collection of pictures, died about 1784. Of sir John Barnard’s daughters, the eldest was married to Thomas Hankey, esq. afterwards sir Thomas Hankey, knt. and the youngest to the honourable Henry Temple, esq. the second lord viscount Palmerston.

, one of the active agents in the French revolution, was born in 1761, the son of an opulent attorney of Grenoble. He was educated to the profession of the law, and being appointed deputy to the States-General in 1789, became one of the most implacable enemies of the court, and in other respects betrayed that sanguinary spirit which at that time raised many more obscure men into popular reputation. He joined in most of the extravagant measures of the assembly, and argued in particular for confiscating the property of the clergy, and abolishing religious orders. In order to catch popularity from whatever quarter, he declared himself the advocate of protestants, actors, Jews, and executioners, and solicited their admission to the rights of citizenship. He was likewise for the suppression of all feudal rights and titles, and in general for all the measures of the Jacobin party but amidst all this violence, he ventured to think for himself on some points, which proved his ruin. On one occasion, he insisted that no law shouJd be passed concerning people of colour, until the motion had been made by the colonies and pointed out the certain resistance of the planters to innovations of this nature. Such an appearance of justice could not be acceptable at that time. It was even attributed to corruption, of which a more direct proof appeared soon after. On the news of the king’s being arrested in his flight, Barnave, with Petion, and another, were appointed to escort the royal family to Paris. He returned in the carriage of their majesties, and conducted himself with all proper respect and attention. What had happened to produce this change is not known it might be compunction, or he might have discovered that the unfortunate monarch was not the monster he had represented him but from this hour Barnave became a suspected character; and he increased this suspicion, by giving in the assembly a simple recital of his mission, without adding any reflection. He did worse he even spoke for the inviolability of the king’s person, and repelled, with looks of contempt, the hootings of the populace. He still continued, however, to enjoy some influence in the assembly, to which his talents justly entitled him, and even was powerful enough to procure a repeal of the decree respecting the colonies, which he had before opposed against the voice of the majority. At the end of the session he was appointed mayor of Grenoble, where he married the only daughter of a lawyer, who brought him a fortune of 700,000 livres but all this he did not enjoy long. When the jacobin party obtained possession of the court, in consequence of the events of August 1792, they found, or created, proofs of his connection with the cabinet of the Thuileries. After a long imprisonment at Grenoble, he was brought before the revolutionary tribunal of Paris, where he made an able defence, and probably impressed even his enemies with a favourable opinion of his conduct. He was, however, condemned to be guillotined, which was executed Nov. 29, 1793. Barnave was unquestionably a man of abilities, whatever may be thought of their direction. Mirabeau, to whom he was a rival, and whom he often opposed, was astonished that a young man should speak so rapidly, so long, and so eloquently and said of him, “It is a young tree, which will mount high if it be let to grow.”

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

The next dispute he was engaged in, was of much longer continuance. Dr. Whitacre and Dr. Timlal were deputed by the heads of the university to archbishop Whitgift to complain that Pelagianism was gaining ground in the university; and, in order to stop the progress of it, they desired confirmation of some propositions they had brought along with them. These accordingly were established and approved by the archbishop, the bishop of London, the bishop elect of Bangor, and some other divines; and were afterwards known by the title of the Lambeth articles. They were immediately communicated to Dr. Baro; who, disregarding them, preached a sermon before the university, in which however he did not so much deny, as moderate those propositions: nevertheless his adversaries judging of it otherwise, the vice-chancellor consulted the same day with Dr. Clayton and Mr. Chadderton, what should be done. The next day he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury; who returned for answer, that they should call Baro before them, and require a copy of his sermon, or at least cause him to set down the principal heads thereof. Baro, finding what offence was taken at his sermon, wrote to the archbishop; yet, according to his grace’s directions, was cited before Dr. Goad, the vicechancellor in the consistory; when several articles were exhibited against him. At his last appearance the conclusion against him was, “That whereas Baro had promised the vice-chancellor, upon his demand, a copy of his sermon, but his lawyers did advise him not to deliver the same the vice-chancellor did now, by virtue of his authority, peremptorily command him to deliver him the whole and entire sermon, as to the substance of it, in writing: which Baro promised he would do the next day, and did it accordingly. And lastly, he did peremptorily and by virtue of his authority command Buro, that he should wholly abstain from those controversies and articles, and leave them altogether untouched, as well in his lectures, sermons, and determinations, as in his disputations and other his exercises. The vice-chancellor, who had proceeded thus far without the knowledge of the lord Burleigh their chancellor, thought fit to acquaint him with their proceedings, and to desire his advice. The discountenance lord Burleigh gave to this affair, stopped all farther proceedings against Baro; who continued in the university, but with much opposition and trouble: and though he had many friends and adherents in the university, he met with such uneasiness, that, for the sake of peace, he chose to retire to London, and fixed his abode in Crutched Friars; where he died about 1600, and was buried in the church of St. Olave, Hart-street. He left the following works: 1.” In Jonam Prophetam Prcelectiones xxxix.“2.” Conciones tres ad Clerum Cantabrigiendem habitae in templo B. Mariae.“3.” Theses publics in Scholis peroratse et disputatac.“[These Theses, being only two, were translated into English by John Ludham, under these titles; First,” God’s purpose and dtecree taketh not away the liberty of man’s corrupt will.*' The second, “Our conjunction with Christ is altogether spiritual,” London 1590, 8vo.] 4. “Precationes quibus usus est author in suis pnclectionibus inchoandis & finiendis.” All these were published at London 1579, fol. by the care of Osmund Lake, B. D. fellow of King’s college, Cambr. who corrected them before they went to the press. 5. “De Fide ejusque ortu et natura plana et dilucida explicatio,” &c. Lond. 1580, 8vo. 6. “De prsestantia &. dignitate divinse Legis, lib. 2,” 1586, 8vo. 7. “Tractatus in quo docet expetitionem oblati a mente boni et fiduciam ad fidei justificantis naturam pertinere.” 8. “Sumina trium sententiarum de Praedestinatione,” &c. Hardr. 1613, 8vo. printed with the notes of Joh. Piscator, disquisition of Franc. Junius, and prelection of Will. Whitacre. 9. “Special treatise of God’s providence, and of comforts against all kind of crosses and calamities to be fetched from the same; with an exposition, on Psalm cvii.” 10. Four Sermons; the first on Psalm cxxxiii. 1, 2, 3 the second, on Psalm xv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. 1560, 8vo.

, an engraver of considerable fame in this country, was a native of France, and there first learned his art. He was brought into England by Duhosc, with whom he went to law respecting the plates for the storyof Ulysses, engraven from die designs of Rubens in the collection of Dr. Meacle. Being afterwards reconciled, Baron accompanied Dubosc to Paris in 1729, and engraved a plate from Watteau, and engaged to do another from Titian in the king’s collection, for Mons. Crozat, for which he was to receive 60l. sterling. While at Paris, they both sat to Vanloo. How soon afterwards he returned to England, is not known, but he died in Panton-square, Piccadilly, Jan. 24, 1762. His manner of engraving seems to have been founded on that of Nicholas Dorigny. It is slight and coarse, 2 without any great effect; and his drawing is frequently very defective. He executed, however, a great number of works, a few portraits, and some considerable pictures after the best masters; as the family of Cornaro, at Northumberland house; Vandyke’s family of the earl of Pembroke, at Wilton; Henry VIII. giving the charter to the barber surgeons, from Holbein; the equestrian figure of Charles I. by Vandyke, at Kensington; its companion, the king, queen, and two children; and king William on horseback with emblematic figures, at Hampton-court. His last considerable work was the family of Nassau, by Vandyke. This, and his St. Cecilia from Carlo Dolce, he advertised in 1759, by subscription, at a guinea the pair.

he was seen within a minute to turn pale and red, in conformity to the verse. He was styled with one consent, the Roseius of his times. He said himself, in one of his enthusiastical fits of vanity, that once in a century we might see a Cæsar, but that two thousand years were requisite to produce a Baron. One day his coachman and his lacquey were soundly chastised by those of the marquis de Biran, with whom Baron lived on those familiar terms which young noblemen frequently allow to players. “Monsieur le marquis,” said he to him, “your people have ill treated mine; I must have satisfaction of you.” This he repeated several times, using always the same expressions, your people and mine. M. de Biran, affronted at the parallel, replied: “My poor Baron, what wouldst thou have me say to thee? why dost thou keep any people?” He was on the point of refusing the pension bestowed on him by Louis XIV. because the order for it ran: “Pay to the within-named Michael Boyrun, called Baron, &c.” This actor, born with the choicest gifts of nature, had perfected them by thq utmost exertions of art: a noble figure, a sonorous voice, a natural gesticulation, a sound and exquisite taste. Racine, versed as he was in the art of declamation, wanting to represent his Andromache to the actors, in the distribution of the parts, had reserved that of Pyrrhus for Baron. After having shewn the characters of several of the personages to the actors who were to represent it, he turned towards Baron:“As to you, sir, I have no-instruction to give you; your heart will tell you more of it than any lessons of mine could explain.” Baron would affirm that the force and play of declamation were such, that tender and plaintive sounds transferred on gay and even comic words, would no less produce tears. He has been seen repeatedly to make the trial of this surprising effect on the well-known sonnet,

Baronins’s design in these Annals was, as he tells us himself in his preface, to refute the Centuriators of Magdeburg, or rather to oppose to their work, which was written against the church of Rome, another work of the same kind in defence of that church. “It were to be wished,” says Monsieur Dupin, “that he had contented himself with a mere narration of facts of ecclesiastical history, without entering into controversies and particular interests. However, it must be owned that his work is of a vast extent, well digested, full of deep researches, written with care, and as much exactness as can be expected from a man who first undertakes a work of such extent and difficulty as that. It is true that a great number of mistakes in chronology and history have been remarked in it; that many facts have been discovered not at all known to him; that he made use of several supposititious or doubtful monuments; that he has reported a considerable number of false facts as true, and has been mistaken in a variety of points. But though, without endeavouring to exaggerate the number of his errors with Lucas Holstenius, who declared that he was readyto shew eight thousand falsities in Baronins’s Annals, it cannot be denied that the number of them is very great; yet it must be acknowledged that his work is a very good and very useful one, and that he is justly styled the father of church history. It must be remarked, that he is much more exact in the history of the Latins than in that of the Greeks, because he was but very indifferently skilled in the Greek, and was obliged to make use of the assistance of Peter Morin, Metius, and father Sinnond, with regard to the monuments which had not been translated imo Latin. His style has neither the purity nor elegance xvhich were to be wished for in a work of that nature-, and it may be saidj that he writes rather like a clissertator than an historian; however, he is clear, intelligible, and methodical.'”

, was born at Paris in 1606 and after having gone through a course of study, and taken the degree of licentiate in medicine, he entered into the order of Dominicans in 1635. His talents and his prudence were so conspicuous, that in 1646 he was elected assistant to the general, with whom he made the tour of France, Spain, and Italy. Amidst the avocations of this post, and without neglecting his duties, he found the means of applying himself to the study of botany, to which he seemed to have a natural propensity. He collected a great number of plants and shells, and made drawings of several that had not been known, or but very imperfectly described. He had undertaken a general history of plants, which he intended to entitle “Hortus Mundi,” or “Orbis Botanicus,” and was employed on it with the utmost diligence, when an asthma put an end to his labours in 1673, at the age of sixty-seven. All that could be collected of this “work was published by Ant. de Jussieu, with a life of the author, under the title” Plantæ per Galliam, Hispaimim, et Italiani observatæ, et iconibus reneis exhibitce," Paris, 1714, folio, a valuable contribution to a botanical library, but by no means correct.

, an English landscape painter, was born about 1728, in the city of Dublin. It is not known that he received any regular instructions in painting. He began his attempts in the very humble line of colouring prints, in which he was employed by one Silcock, in Nicholas street, Dublin. From this feeble commencement he rose to considerable powers as a landscape painter, by studying from the scenes of nature in the Dargies, and in the park at Powerscourt, places near Dublin, and is said to have received patronage and encouragement from the noble owner of Powerscourt. About this time a premium was offered by the Dublin society for the best landscape in oil, which Mr. Barret won. In 1762 he visited London, where he soon distinguished himself; and, the second year after his arrival, gained the premium given by the society for the encouragement of arts, &c. for the best landscape in oil. The establishment of the royal academy was in a great measure indebted to the efforts of Mr. Barret, who formed the plan, and became one of its members.

, a scholar of Cambridge of the sixteenth century, who had travelled various countries for languages and learning, is known now principally as the author of a triple dictionary in English, Latin, and French, which he entitled an “Alvearie,” as the materials were collected by his pupils in their daily exercise, like so many diligent bees gathering honey to their hive. When ready for the press, he was enabled to have it printed by the liberality of sir Thomas Smith, and Dr. Nowell, dean of St. Paul’s, whose assistance he gratefully acknowledges. It was first printed by Denham in 1573, with a Latin dedication to the universal Maecenas, lord Burghlev, and various recommendatory verses, among which the Latin of Cook and Grant, the celebrated masters of St. Paul’s and Westminster schools, and the English of Arthur Golding, the translator of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, have chief merit. This book was more commodious in size than in form, for as there is only one alphabet, the Latin and French words are to be traced back by means of tables at the end of the volume. In the then scarcity of dictionaries, however, this must have been an useful help, and we find that y, second and improved edition, with the title of a “Quadruple Dictionarie,” (the Greek, thinly scattered in the first impression, being now added) came out after the decease of the author in 1580, and is the only edition of which Ames and Herbert take any notice, nor does Ainsworth, who speaks of it in the preface to his dictionary, seem to be aware of a prior edition. Of Baret’s life we have not been able to discover any particulars. In the Ashmole Museum is his patent by queen Elizabeth, for printing this dictionary for fourteen years.

, brother to the preceding, and fifth son of the first lord viscount Harrington, was born in 1729, and entered very young into the service of the British navy, passing through the inferior stations of midshipman and lieutenant with great reputation. He first went to sea in the Lark, under the command of lord George Graham, and in 1744, he was appointed a lieutenant by sir William Rowley, then commanding a squadron in the Mediterranean. In 1746, he had the rank of master and commander in the Weazcl sloop, in which he took a French privateer off Flushing. During the same year, or in 1747, he became post-captain, by being appointed totheBellona frigate (formerly a French privateer) in which he took the Duke de Chartres outward bound East India ship, of 800 tons, and of superior force, after a severe engagement, in which the French lost many killed and wounded. After the peace of 1748, he had the command of the Sea-horse, a twenty-gun ship in the Mediterranean, and while there, was dispatched from Gibraltar to Tetuan, to 'negociate the redemption of some British captives, in which he succeeded. He had afterwards the command of the Crown man of war, on the Jamaica station, and was in commission during the greater part of the peace. When the war broke out again between Great Britain and France, in 1756, he was appointed to the command of the Achilles of 60 guns. In 1759, he signalized his courage in an engagement with the Count de St. Florentin, French man of war, of equal force with the Achilles she fought for two hours, and had 116 men killed or wounded, all her masts shot away, and it was with difficulty she was got into port. The Achilles had twenty-five men killed or wounded. In the Achilles, captain Barrington was after this dispatched to America, from whence she returned about the close of the year 1760. In the Spring of the ensuing year, captain Barrington served under admiral Keppel, at the siege of Belleisle. To secure a landing for the troops, it became necessary to attack a fort and other works, in a sandy bay, intended to be the place of debarkation; three ships, one of which was the Achilles, were destined to this service. Captain Barrington got first to his station, and soon silenced the fire from the fort and from the shore, and cleared the coast for the landing the troops, and although, soon obliged to re-embark, they were well covered by the Achilles, and other ships. Ten days after the troops made good their landing, at a place where the mounting the rock was, as the commanders expressed it, barely possible, and captain Barrington was sent home with this agreeable news. After the peace of 1763, captain Barrington in 1768 commanded the Venus frigate, in which ship the late duke of Cumberland was entered as a midshipman. In her he sailed to the Mediterranean, and as these voyages are always intended both for pleasure and improvement, he visited the most celebrated posts in that sea. Soon after his return, the dispute between Great Britain and Spain, respecting Falkland’s Island, took place, and on the fitting out of the fleet, captain Barrington was appointed to the command of the Albion, of 74 guns, and soon after made colonel of marines. He found some little difficulty, from a scarcity of seamen, in manning his ship, and had recourse to a humourous experiment. He offered a bounty. for all lamp-­lighters, and men of other trades which require alertness, who would enter; and soon procured a crew, but of such a description that they were, for some time, distinguished by the title of Barrington‘ s blackguards. He soon, however, changed their complexion. He had long borne the character of being a thoroughrbred seaman, and a rigid disciplinarian. His officers under him were the same, and they succeeded in making the Albion one of the best disciplined ships in the royal navy. The convention between the two courts putting an end to all prospect of hostilities, the Albion was ordered, as a guardship, to Plymouth; and in this situation captain Barrington commanded her for three years, made himself universally esteemed, and shewed that he possessed those accomplishments which adorn the officer and the man. In the former capacity he had so completely established his character, as to be looked up to as one who, in case of any future war, would be intrusted with some important command. In the latter, the traits of benevolence which are known, exclusive of those which he was careful to keep secret, shew, that with the roughness of a seaman, he possessed the benevolence of a Christian. An economical style of living enabled him to indulge his inclination that way, with a moderate income. On the breaking out of the war with France, captain Barrington, having then been thirty-one years a post-captain in the navy, was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral, and dispatched with a squadron to the West Indies. He found himself, on his arrival, so much inferior to the enemy, that he could riot preserve Dominica from falling into their hands. However, before the French fleet under D’Estaing could reach the West Indies, he was joined at Barbadoes by the troops under general Grant from America. He then immediately steered for St. Lucia, and the British troops had gained possession of a part of the island, when the French fleet, under the command of count D‘Estaing, appeared in sight. ’ Barrington lay in the Grand Cul de Sac, with only three ships-of the line, three of fifty guns, and some-frigates, and with this force, had not only to defend himself against ten sail of the line, many frigates, and American armed ships, but also to protect a large fleet of transports, having on board provisions and stores for the army, and which there had not yet been time to land; so that the fate of the army depended on that of the fleet. During the night the admiral caused the transports to be warped into the bay, and moored the men of war in a line without them. D'Estaing, elated with the hopes of crushing this small naval force under Barrington, attacked him next morning, first with ten sail of the line, but failing, he made a second attack with his whole force, and was equally unsuccessful, being only able to carry off one single transport, which the English had not time to warp within the line. This defence is among the first naval atchievements of the war. In an attack by land, on general Meadows’s intrenchments, the count was equally repulsed, and the island soon after capitulated. Admiral Byron shortly after arriving in the West Indies, Barrington, of course, became second in command only. In the action which took place between the British fleet and the French on the 6th of July, 1775, admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, commanded the van division. The enemy were much superior to the English, but this discovery was not made till it was too late to remedy it. Admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, with the Boyne and Sultan, pressed forward, soon closed with the enemy’s fleet, and bravely sustained their attack until joined by other ships. It was not, however, the intention of the French admiral to risk a general engagement, having the conquest of Grenada in view, and his ships being cleaner than those of the English, enabled him to choose his distance. The consequence was, that several of the British ships were very severely handled, whilst others had no share in the action. Barrington was wounded, and had twenty-six men killed, and forty-six wounded, in his own ship. Soon after this engagement, admiral Barrington, on account of ill-health, returned to England. These two actions established our admiral’s reputation, and he was looked on as one of the first officers in the English navy. The ferment of parties during the close of that war occasioned many unexpected refusals of promotion; and as admiral Barrington was intimately connected with lord Shelburne, col. Barre, and several other leading men in opposition, it was probably owing to this circumstance that he refused the command of the channel fleet, which was offered to him after the resignation of admiral Geary in 1780, and on his declining to accept it, conferred on admiral Darby. In 1782, he served, as second in command, under lord Howe, and distinguished himself at the memorable relief of Gibraltar. The termination of the war put a period to his active services. In February 1786, he was made lieutenant-general of marines; and on Sept. 24, 1787, admiral of the blue. During the last ten years of his life, his ill state of health obliged him to decline all naval command. He died at his lodgings in the Abbey Green, Bath, August 16, 1800.

, bishop of St.Asaph in the reign of Charles II. was the son of Isaac Barrow of Spiney Abbey irt Cambridgeshire, and uncle of the celebrated mathematician, who will form the subject of the next article. He was born in 1613, admitted July 1639 of Peterhouse, Cambridge, next year chosen scholar, and in 1631, librarian. In Dec. 1641, he was presented to the vicarage of Hin ton, by his college, of which he was a fellow, and resided there until ejected by the presbyterians in 1643. He then removed to Oxford, where his learning and abilities were well known, and where he was appointed one of the chaplains of New College, by the interest of his friend, Dr. Pink, then warden. Here he continued until the surrender of Oxford to the parliamentary army, when he was obliged to shift from place to place, and suffer with his brethren, who refused to submit to the usurping powers. At the restoration, however, he was not only replaced in his fellowship at Peterhouse, but chosen a fellow of Eton college, which he held in commendam with the bishopric of Mann. In 1660, being then D. D. he was presented by Dr. Wren, bishop of Ely, to the rectory of Downham, in the Isle of Ely; and, in 1662, resigned his fellowship of Peterhouse. In July 1663, he was consecrated bishop of Mann, in king Henry Vllth’s chapel, Westminster, on which occasion his nephew, the mathematician, preached the consecration sermon. In April 1664, he was appointed governor likewise of the Isle of Mann, by his patron, Charles earl of Derby; and executed his office with the greatest prudence and honour during all the time in which he held the diocese, and for some months after his translation to the see of St. Asaph. He was ever of a liberal, active mind; and rendered himself peculiarly conspicuous as a man of public spirit, by forming and executing good designs for the encouragement of piety and literature. The state of the diocese of Mann at this time was deplorable, as to religion. The clergy were poor, illiterate, and careless, the people grossly ignorant and dissolute. Bishop Barrow, however, introduced a very happy change in all respects, by the establishment of schools, and improving the livings of the clergy. He collected with great care and pains from pious persons about eleven hundred pounds, with which he purchased of the earl of Derby all the impropriations in the island, and settled them upon the clergy in due proportion, He obliged them all likewise to teach schools in their respective parishes, and allowed thirty pounds per annum for a free-school, and fifty pounds per annum for academical learning. He procured also from king Charles II. one hundred pounds a year (which, Mr. Wood says, had like to have been lost) to be settled upon his clergy, and gave one hundred and thirty-five pounds of his own money for a lease upon lands of twenty pounds a year, towards the maintenance of three poor scholars in the college of Dublin, that in time there might be a more learned body of clergy in the island. He gave likewise ten pounds towards the building a bridge, over a dangerous water; and did several other acts of charity and beneficence. Afterwards returning to England for the sake of his health, and lodging in a house belonging to the countess of Derby in Lancashire, called Cross-hall, he received news of his majesty having conferred on him the bishopric of St. Asaph, to which he was translated March 21, 1669, but he was permitted to hold the see of Sodor and Mann in commendam, until Oct. 167 1, in order to indemnify him for the expences of his translation. His removal, however, from Mann, was felt as a very great loss, both by the clergy at large, and the inhabitants. His venerable, although not immediate, successor, Dr. Wilson, says of him, that “his name and his good deeds will be remembered as long as any sense of piety remains among them.” His removal to St. Asaph gave him a fresh opportunity to become useful and popular. After being established here, he repaired several parts of the cathedral church, especially the north and south ailes, and new covered them with lead, and wainscotted the east part of the choir. He laid out a considerable sum of money in repairing the episcopal palace, and a mill belonging to it. In ] 678 he built an alms-house for eight poor widows, and endowed it with twelve pounds per annum for ever. The same year, he procured an act of parliament for appropriating the rectories of Llanrhaiader and Mochnant in Denbighshire and "Montgomeryshire, and of Skeiviog in the county of Flint, for repairs of the cathedral church of St. Asaph, and the better maintenance of the choir therein, and also for the uniting several rectories that were sinecures, and the vicarages of the same parishes, within the said diocese. He designed likewise to build a free-school, and endow it, but was prevented by death; but in 1687, Bishop Lloyd, who succeeded him in the see of St. Asaph, recovered of his executors two hundred pounds, towards a free-school at St. Asaph.

After an absence of five years, mostly spent at Rome, he arrived in England in 1771, and claimed the admiration of the public, not unsuccessfully, by his “Venus” and his “Jupiter and Juno,” the former one of his best pictures. In his “Death of Wolfe,” he failed, principally from his introducing naked figures, and he was obliged to yield, somewhat reluctantly, to the more popular picture of Mr. West. This “Death of Wolfe,” which he painted in I "76, was the last he exhibited at the royal academy. About 1774, he conceived an aversion to portrait-painting, from a dread of being confined to the modern costume of dress, which certainly at that time was far less graceful, and less correspondent with the human figure, than at present. It is well known, however, that he violated his own principles in some of the figures introduced in his great work in the society’s rooms in the Adelphi, when he was under no kind of constraint; but this difference between theory and practice was in many instances remarkable in Barry.

After the scheme of decorating St. Paul’s had been given up, it was proposed to employ the same artists in decorating the great room in the Adelphi, belonging to the society of arts, but this was refused by the artists themselves, probably because they were to be remunerated in equal shares, by an exhibition of the pictures. We cannot much wonder at their declining a scheme, which promised to reduce them to this kind of level, and would indeed imply an equality in every other respect. Three years afterwards, however, in 1777, Mr. Barry undertook the whole, and his offer was accepted. It would have been singular, indeed, if such an offer had been rejected, as his labour was to be gratuitous. He has been heard to say, that at the time of his undertaking this work, he had only sixteen shillings in his pocket; and that in the prosecution of his labour, he was often after painting all day obliged to sketch or engrave at night some design for the print-sellers, which was to supply him with the means of his frugal subsistence. He has recorded some of his prints as done at this time, such as his Job, dedicated to Mr. Burke; birth of Venus; Polemon; head of lord Chatham; king Lear, &c. Of his terms with the society, we know only that the choice of subjects was allowed him, and the society was to defray the expence of canvas, colours, and models. In the course of his labours, however, he found that he had been somewhat too disinterested, and wrote a letter to sir George Saville, soliciting such a subscription among the friends of the society as might amount to 100l. a year. He computed that he should finish the whole in two years, and pay back the 200l. to the subscribers by means of an exhibition; but he very candidly added, that if the exhibition should produce nothing, the subscribers would Jose their money. This subscription did not take effect, and the work employed him seven years; at the end of which, the society granted him two exhibitions, and at different periods voted him fifty guineas, their gold medal, and again 200 guineas, and a seat among them. Of this great undertaking, a series of six pictures, representing the progress of society, and civilization among mankind, it has been said “that it surpasses any work which has been executed within these two centuries, and considering the difficulties with which the artist had to struggle, any that is now extant.” As the production of one man, it is undoubtedly entitled to high praise, but it has all Barry’s defects in drawing and colouring, defects the more remarkable, because in his printed correspondence and lectures, his theory on these subjects is accurate and unexceptionable. These pictures were afterwards engraved, but what they produced is not known. In 1792, however, he deposited 700/, in the funds, and to this wealth he never afterwards made any great addition, for he never possessed more than 60l. a year from the funds, a sum barely sufficient to pay the rent and other charges of his house, but as his domestic oeconomy was of the meanest kind, this sum was probably not insufficient.

, the son of a treasurer of France, was born in the year 1544-, at Monfort in Armagnac, and not on the estate de Bartas, which is in the vicinity of that little town. Henry IV. whom he served with his sword, and whom he celebrated in his verses, sent him on various commissions to England, Denmark, and Scotland. He had the command of a company of cavalry in Gascony, under the marechal de Matignon. He was in religious profession a Calvinist, and died in 1590 at the age of 46. The work that has most contributed to render his name famous, is the poem entitled “Commentary of the Week of the creation of the world,” in seven hooks. Pierre de l'Ostal, in a miserable copy of verses addressed to du Bartas, and prefixed to his poem, says that this hook is “greater than the whole universe.” This style of praise on the dullest of all versifiers, was adopted at the time, but has not descended to ours. The style of du Bartas is incorrect, quaint, and vulgar; his descriptions are given under the most disgusting images. In his figures, the head is the lodging of the understanding; the eyes are two shining casements, or twin stars; the nose, the gutter or the chimney; the teeth, a double pallisade, serving as a mill to the open gullet; the hands, the chambermaids of nature, the bailiffs of the mind, and the caterers of the body; the bones, the posts, the beams, and the columns of this tabernacle of flesh. We have several other works by the seigneur du Bartas. The most extraordinary is a little poem, composed to greet the queen of Navarre on making her entry into Nerac. Three nymphs contend for the honour of saluting her majesty. The first delivers her compliments in Latin, the second in French, and the third in Gascon verses. Du Bartas, however, though a bad poet, was a good man. Whenever the military service and his other occupations left any leisure time, he retired to the chateau de Bartas, far from the tumult of arms and business. He wished for nothing more than to be forgotten, in order that he might apply more closely to study, which he testifies at the conclusion of the third day of his week. Modesty and sincerity formed the character of du Bartas, according to the account of him by the president de Thou. “I know (says that famous historian) that some critics find his style extremely figurative, bombastic, and full of gasconades. For my part,” adds he, “who have long known the candour of his manners, and who have frequently discoursed with him, when, during the civil wars, I travelled in Guienne with him, I can affirm that I never remarked any thing of the kind in the tenor of his behaviour; and, notwithstanding his great reputation, he always spoke with singular modesty of himself and his works.” His book of the “Week,” whatever may now be thought of it, was attended with a success not inferior to that of the best performances. Within the space of five or six years, upwards of thirty editions were printed of it. It found in all places, commentators, abbreviators, translators, imitators, and adversaries. His works were collected and printed in 1611, folio, at Paris, by Rigaud. His “Week,” and other poems, were translated into English by Joshua Sylvester, 1605, 4to, and have been frequently reprinted, although not of late years.

Barthelemi was now in possession of a considerable income, not less than 35,000 livres per annum, and this he employed in a manner highly commendable. Ten thousand he distributed to men of letters in distress, and the remainder he enjoyed with great liberality. He took under his protection three of his nephews, and settled and established them in the world. He promoted the welfare also of the rest of his family which remained in Provence, and he collected a numerous and valuable library, which he disposed of some time before his death. In 1788, he published his celebrated work, “The Travels of Anacharsis the Younger in Greece,” the excellence of which it is unnecessary to point out, as the repeated editions of the English translation have made it familiar in this country. In 1789 he was prevailed upon to accept the vacant seat in the French academy, which he had before declined. In 1790, on the resignation of M. Le Noir, librarian to the king, that post was offered to our author by M. de St. Priest. He declined it, however, as interfering with his literary pursuits, being then preparing for the press a work he had long meditated, a Catalogue Kaisonnee of the rich cabinet he had long had under his care. In the execution of this project he was defeated by the unhappy circumstances of the times, which pressed very severely upon him in other respects. His places and appointments, by the madness of the moment, were suppressed, and he was at the close of his life reduced to great difficulties. Still, however, he was never known to complain, and might be seen daily traversing the streets of Paris on foot, bent double with age and infirmity, making his accustomed visits to madame De Choiseul.

, a learned and laborious Jesuit, was born at Ferrara in 1608. After having professed the art of rhetoric, and for a long time devoted himself to preaching, his superiors fixed him at Home in 1650. From that period till his death he published a great number of works, as well historical as others, all in the Italian language. The most known and the most considerable is a history of his society, printed at Rome, from 1650 to 1673, in 6 vols, folio; translated into Latin by father Giannini, and printed at Lyons in 1666 et seq. All his other works, the historical excepted, were collected and published at Venice in 1717, 3 vols. in 4to. Both the one and the other are much esteemed, no less for their matter, than for the purity, the precision, and the elevation of their diction; and this Jesuit is regarded by his countrymen as one of the purest writers of the Italian language. Haller praises his philosophical works, and Dr. Burney that on Harmony, published at Bologna, 1680, under the title “Del Suono de Tremori Armonici e dell' Udito,” a truly scientific and ingenious work, in which are several discoveries in harmonics, that have been pursued by posterior writers on the subject. He died at Rome, Jan. 13, 1685, at the age of seventy-seven, after having signalized himself as much by his virtues as by his literary attainments.

, an eminent English divine, was born at Wetherslack, in Westmoreland, April 20, 1612. His parents were not considerable either for rank or riches; but were otherwise persons of great merit, and happy in their family. John, the third son, was intended for the church, but being sent to school in the neighbourhood, he lost much time under masters deficient in diligence and learning. At length he was sent to Sedberg school, in Yorkshire, where, under the care of a tolerable master, he gave early marks both of genius and piety. In the year 1631, and the eighteenth of his age, he was admitted of St. John’s college, at Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Fothergill, who proved at once a guardian and a preceptor, supplying his necessities, as well as instructing him in learning. By this help Mr. Barwick quickly so distinguished himself, that when a dispute arose about the election of a master, which at last came to be heard before the privy-council, the college chose Mr. Barwick, then little above twenty, to manage for them, by which he not only became conspicuous in the university, but was also taken notice of at court, and by the ministry. In 1635 he became B. A. while these affairs were still depending. April the 5th, 1636, he was created Fellow, without opposition, and in 1638 he took the degree of M. A. When the civil war broke out, and the king wrote a letter to the university, acquainting them that he was in extreme want, Mr. Barwick concurred with those loyal persons, who first sent him a small supply in money, and afterwards their college-plate, and upon information that Cromwell, afterwards the protector, lay with a party of foot at a place called Lower Hedges, between Cambridge and Huntington, in order to make himself master of this small treasure, Mr. Barwick made one of the party of horse which conveyed it through by-roads safely to Nottingham, where his majesty had set up his standard. By this act of loyalty the parliament was so provoked, that they sent Cromwell with a body of troops to quarter in the university, where they committed the most brutal outrages. Mr. Barwick also published a piece against the covenant, entitled “Certain Disquisitions and Considerations, representing to the conscience the unlawfuluess of the oath entitled A Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation, &c. as also the insufficiency of the urgiiments used in the exhortation for taking the said covenant. Published by command,” Oxford, 1644. In this, he was assisted by Messrs. Isaac Barrow, Seth Ward, Peter Gunning, and others. The above is the date of the second edition, the first having been seized and burnt. Having by this time provoked the men in power, he retired to London, and soon after was intrusted with the management of the king’s most private concerns, and carried on with great secrecy a constant correspondence between London and Oxford, where the king’s head-quarters then were, an employment for which there never was a man perhaps better fitted. For with great modesty, and a temper naturally meek, he had a prudence, sagacity, and presence of mind. He lived upon his first coming to town with Dr. Morton, then bishop of Durham, at Durham-house, which being an old spacious building, afforded him great conveniences for hiding his papers, and at the same time his residence with that prelate as his chaplain, countenanced his remaining in London. One great branch of his employment, was the bringing back to their duty some eminent persons who had been misled by the fair pretences of the great speakers in the long parliament. Amongst those who were thus reclaimed by the care of this religious and loyal gentleman, were sir Thomas Middleton and colonel Roger Pope, both persons of great credit with the party, and both very sincere converts. By his application, likewise, Mr. Cresset was convinced of his errors, and became an useful associate in the dangerous employment of managing the king’s intelligence. Even after the king’s affairs became desperate, Mr. Barwick still maintained his correspondence; and when his majesty was in the hands of the army, had frequent access to him, and received his verbal orders. To perform his duty the more effectually, he had the king’s express command to lay aside his clerical habit; and in the dress of a private gentleman, with his sword by his side, he remained without suspicion in the army, and gave the king much useful intelligence; and even when his majesty came to be confined inCarisbrook castle, in the closest manner, Mr. Cresset, who was placed about him through the dexterous management of Mr. Barwick, preserved his majesty a free intercourse with his friends; for this purpose he first deposited with Mr. Barwick a cypher, and then hid a copy of it in a crack of the wall in the king’s chamber. By the help of this cypher, the king both wrote and read many letters every week, all of which passed through the hands of Mr. Barwick. He likewise was concerned in a well-laid design for procuring the king’s escape, which, however, was unluckily disappointed. These labours, though they were very fatiguing, did not hinder him from undertaking still greater; for when Mr. Holder, who had managed many correspondences for the king, was discovered and imprisoned, he had so much spirit and address as to procure admittance to, and a conference with him, whereby his cyphers and papers were preserved, and Mr. Barwick charged himself with the intelligence which that gentleman had carried on. After this he had a large share in bringing about the treaty at the Isle of Wight, and was now so well known to all the loyal party, that even those who had never seen him, readily trusted themselves to his care, in the most dangerous conjunctures. When the king was murdered, and the royal cause seemed to be desperate, Mr. Barwick, though harassed with a continual cough, followed by a spitting of blood, and afterwards by a consumption of his lungs, yet would not interrupt the daily correspondence he maintained with the ministers of king Charles II. At last, when he was become very weak, he was content that his brother, Dr. Peter Barwick, should share in his labours, by attending the post-office, which he did for about six months; and then this office was devolved on Mr. Edward Barwick, another of his brothers. This gentleman had not been engaged two months in this perilous business, before one Bostock, who belonged to the post-office, betrayed both him and Mr. John Barwick, together with some letters which came from the king’s ministers abroad, into the hands of those who were then possessed of the government. These letters were superscribed to Mr. James Vandelft, Dutch merchant in London, which was a fictitious name made use of to cover their correspondence. Upon his examination, Mr. Barwick did all he could to take the blame upon himself, in order to free his brother Edward. Yet so careful he was of offending against truth, that he would not deny his knowledge of the letters, but insisted that he was not bound to accuse himself. Those who examined him were not ashamed to threaten him, though half dead with his distemper, with putting him to the torture if he did not immediately discover all who were concerned with him. To this Mr. Barwick answered with great spirit, that neither himself, nor any of his friends, had done any thing which they knew to be repugnant to the laws; and if by the force of tortures, which it was not likely a dry and bloodless carcase like his would be able to bear, any thing should be extorted which might be prejudicial to others, such a confession ought to go for nothing. Mr. Edward Barwick behaved with the like firmness, so that not so much as one person fell into trouble through their misfortune; and as for Mr. John Barwick, he had the presence of mind to burn his cyphers and other papers before those who apprehended him could break open his door. This extraordinary fortitude and circumspection so irritated president Bradshaw, sir Henry Mildmay, and others of the council who examined them, that, by a warrant dated the 9th of April 1650, they committed both the brothers to the Gate-house, where they were most cruelly treated, and three days afterwards committed Mr. John Barwick to the Tower. The reason they assigned for this change of his prison was, that he might be nearer to the rack, assuring him that in a few days they would name commissioners to examine him, who should have that engine for their secretary. Mr. Francis West, who was then lieutenant of the Tower, put him in a dungeon where he was kept from pen, ink, and paper, and books, with restraint from seeing any person except his keepers and, as an additional punishment, had boards nailed before his window to exclude the fresh air. In this melancholy situation he remained many months, during which time the diet he used was herbs or fruit, or thin water-gruel, made of oatmeal or barley, with currants boiled in it, and sweetened with a little sugar, by which he recovered beyond all expectation, and grew plump and fat. A cure so perfect, and so strange, that Dr. Cheyne, and other physicians have taken notice of it in their writings as a striking instance of the power of temperance, even in the most inveterate diseases. While he was thus shut up, his friends laboured incessantly for his service and relief, and his majesty king Charles II. for whom he thus suffered, gave the highest testimonies of his royal concern for so faithful a subject. After fifteen months passed in confinement, Mr. Otway, and some other friends, procured a warrant from president Bradshaw to visit him, who were not a little surprised to find him in so good health, whom they had seen brought so low, as to engage this very Mr. Otway to take care of his burial. His prudence and patience under this persecution was so great, that they had a happy effect on all who came about him. Robert Brown, who was deputy lieutenant of the Tower, became first exceeding civil to him, and afterwards his convert, so as to have his child baptized by him; and, which was a still stronger proof of his sincerity, he quitted the very profitable post he held, and returned to his business, that of a cabinet-maker. Nay, Mr. West, the lieutenant of the Tower, who treated him so harshly at his entrance, abated by degrees of this rigour, and became at last so much softened, that he was as ready to do him all offices of humanity, removing him out of a noisome dungeon into a handsome chamber, where he might enjoy freer air, and sometimes even the company of his friends. He likewise made assiduous application to the council of state, that while Mr. Barwick remained in the Tower, he might have an allowance granted him for his subsistence; and when he could not prevail, he supplied him from his own table. Indeed, after two years confinement, the commonwealth did think fit to allow him five shillings a week, which he received for about four months. Then, through the same friendly intercession of Mr. West, he was discharged on the 7th of August, 1652, but upon giving security to appear at any time within a twelve-month before the council of state. He then visited his old patron, the bishop of Durham, his aged parents, and the incomparable lady Savile; but the place he chose for his residence was the house of sir Thomas Eversfield, of Sussex, a man of great integrity as well as learning, with whom he lived for many months. After the expiration of the year, to which the recognizance entered into hy himself and his friends, Mr. Thomas Royston, student of Gray’s-inn, and Mr. Richard Royston, of London, bookseller, extended, he began to think of getting up his bond, and entering again into the king’s service. With this view he found it expedient to pay a visit to president Bradshaw, who, as he had now quarrelled with Cromwell, received him civilly, and told him he probably would hear no more of his recognizance. On this assurance, he began to enter again into business, and drew over several considerable persons, such as colonel John Clobery, colonel Daniel Redman, and colonel Robert Venables, to the king’s service, with whom he conferred on several schemes for restoring monarchy, in all which they were long disappointed by Cromwell. His friend, sir Thomas Eversfield, dying, and his widow retiring to the house of her brother, sir Thomas Middleton, at Chirk castle, in Denbighshire, Dr. Barwick accompanied her thither, and remained for some time with sir Thomas, who was his old friend. His own and the king’s affairs calling him back to London, he lived with his brother, Dr. Peter Barwick, in St. Paul’s Church-yard, and there managed the greatest part of the king’s correspondence, with as much care, secrecy, and success as ever. While he was thus engaged, he received some interruption by the revival of that old calumny on the church of England, the Nag’s head ordination, to which he furnished bishop Bramhall with the materials for a conclusive answer. His modesty and private way of living preserved him from much notice, even in those prying times; and yet, when proper occasions called for more open testimonies of his principles, Mr. Barwick did not decline professing them, as appeared by his assisting Dr. John Hewet, while in prison for a plot against Cromwell, and even on the scaffold, when he lost his head. By the death of this gentleman, his branch of intelligence, and the care of conveying some hundred pounds which he had collected for the king’s use, devolved upon Mr. Barwick; who, though he had already so much upon his hands, readily undertook, and happily performed it. The concern Mr. Barwick had for the king and for the state, did not hinder him from attending, when he was called thereto, the business of the church, in which, however, he had a very worthy associate, Mr. Richard Allestrey, who took the most troublesome part on himself. by performing several dangerous journies into Flanders, in order to receive the king’s commands by word of mouth. In the rising of sir George Booth, ue had a principal concern in the managing of the design, and in providing for the safety of such as escaped after it miscarried. Not long after he narrowly missed a new imprisonment, through the treachery of some who were intrusted by the king’s ministers: for by their intelligence, Mr. Allestrey was seized as soon as he landed at Dover, and one of Mr. Barwick’s letters intercepted, but it is supposed to have been imperfectly decyphered. In the midst of these difficulties died the good oid bishop of Durham, whom Mr. Barwick piously assisted in his last moments, preached his funeral sermon, and afterwards wrote his life, whicu he dedicated to the king. All the hopes that now remained of a restoration rested upon general Monk, and though Mr. Barwick had no direct correspondence with him, yet he furnished him with very important assistance in that arduous affair. After there seemed to be no longer any doubt of the king’s return, Mr. Barwick was sent over by the bishops to represent the state of ecclesiastical affairs, and was received by his majesty with cordial affection, preached before him the Sunday after his arrival, and was immediately appointed one of his chaplains. Yet these extraordinary marks of the king’s favour never induced him to make any request for himself, though he did not let slip so fair an opportunity of recommending effectually several of his friends, and procuring for them an acknowledgment suitable to each of their services. On his return he visited the university of Cambridge, where he very generously relinquished his right to his fellowship, in favour of an intruder, because he had the reputation of being a young man of learning and probity. Before he left the university, he took the degree of D. D. upon which occasion he performed his exercise, merely to support the discipline of the university. The thesis on this occasion was very singular, viz. That the method of imposing penance, and restoring penitents in the primitive church was a godly discipline, and that it is much to be wished it was restored. The Latin disputation upon this question has been preserved, and it was chiefly for the sake of inserting it, that Dr. Peter Barwick composed his brother’s life in Latin. When the church of England was restored by king Charles II. the deans and chapters revived, Dr. Barvvick, according to his usual modesty, contented himself with recommending his tutor, old Mr. Fothergill, to a prehend in the cathedral church of York; but as to himself, he would have rested content with the provision made for him by his late patron, the bishop of Durham, who had given him the fourth stall in his cathedral, and the rectories of Wolsingham, and Houghton in le Spring; and used to say that he had too much. Among other extraordinary offices to which he was called at this busy time, one was to visit Hugh Peters, in order to draw from him some account of the person -who actually cut off the head of king Charles I.; but in this neither he nor Dr. Doiben, his associate, had any success. Before the restoration there had been a design of consecrating Dr. Barvvick, bishop of Man; but the countess of Derby desiring to prefer her chaplain, the king, of his own motive, would have promoted him to the see of Carlisle, which the doctor steadily refused, that the world might not imagine the extraordinary zeal he had shewn for episcopacy flowed from any secret hope of his one day being a bishop. Upon this he was promoted to the deanery of Durham, with which he kept the rectory of Houghton. He took possession of his deanery on the feast of All Saints, 1660, and as he enjoyed a large revenue, he employed it in repairing public buildings, relieving the poor, and keeping up great hospitality, both at the house of his deanery and at Houghton. But before the year was out, he was called from these cares, in which he would willingly have spent his whole life, by his being made dean of St. Paul’s, a preferment less in value, and attended with much more trouble than that he already possessed. As soon as he had done this, he put an end to all granting of leases, even where he had agreed for the fine with the tenants, and did many other things for the benefit of his successor, which shewed his contempt of secular advantages, and his sincere concern for the rights of the church. He took possession of the deanery of St. Paul’s, about the middle of October, 1661, and found, as he expected, all in very great disorder with respect to the church itself, and every thing that concerned it. He set about reforming these abuses with a truly primitive spirit, and prosecuted with great vigour the recovery of such revenue’s as in the late times of distraction had been alienated from the church; though with respect to his own particular concerns he was never rigid to any body, but frequently gave up things to which he had a clear title. By his interest with his majesty he obtained two royal grants under the great seal of England, one for the repair of the cathedral, the other for enumerating and securing its privileges. In this respect he was so tender, that he would not^Joermit the lord mayor of London to erect there a seat for himself at the expence of the city, but insisted that it should be done at the charge of the church. Towards the repairing the cathedral, he, together with the residentiaries, gave the rents of the houses in St. Paul’s Church-yard as a settled fund, besides which they advanced each of them 500l. a piece, and, in many other respects, he demonstrated that neither the love of preferment, nor the desire of wealth, had any share in his acceptance of this dignity. He was next appointed one of the nine assistants to the twelve bishops commissioned to hold a conference with the like number of presbyterian ministers upon the review of the liturgy, usually called the Savoy conference, because held at the bishop of London’s lodgings in the Savoy. He was also, by the unanimous suffrage of all the clergy of the province of Canterbury assembled in convocation, chosen prolocutor on the 18th of February, 1661; in which office he added to the reputation he had before acquired. His application, however, to the discharge of so many and so great duties brought upon him his old “distemper, so that in November, 1662, he was confined to his chamber: he heightened his disease by officiating at the sacrament the Christmas-day following, after which he was seized with a violent vomiting of blood. Upon this he was advised to a change of air, and retired to Therfield in Hertfordshire, of which he was rector, but finding himself there too far from London, he returned to Chiswick, where he in some measure recovered his health. As soon as he found he had a little strength, he applied himself there to the putting in order the archives of St. Paul’s church, but this return of active employment was followed by an extraordinary flux of blood, which rendered him very weak, and defeated his favourite design of retiring to Therfield. When he first found his health declining, he made choice of and procured this living, intending to have resigned his deanery and office of prolocutor, to those who had vigour enough to discharge them, and to spend the remainder of his days in the discharge of his pastoral office, to which he thought himself bound by his taking orders. But coming upon some extraordinary occasion to London, he was seized with a pleurisy, which carried him off in three days. He was attended in his last moments by Dr. Peter Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, and as he lived, so he died, with all the marks of an exemplary piety, on the 22d of October, 1664, after he had struggled almost twelve years with this grievous distemper. By hrs will he bequeathed the greatest part of his estate to charitable uses, and this with a judgment equal to his piety. His body was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, with an epitaph composed by Mr. Samuel Howlet. The character of Mr. Barwick may be easily collected from the preceding sketch, but is more fully illustrated in his life published by Dr. Peter Barwick, a work of great interest and amusement. His printed works are very few. Besides the tract on the covenant, before mentioned, we have only his” Life of Thomas Morton, bishop of Durham, and a funeral sermon,“1660, 4to; and” Deceivers deceived,“a sermon at St. Paul’s, Oct. 20, 1661,” 1661, 4to. Many of his letters to chancellor Hyde are among Thurloe’s State Papers.

, physician in ordinary to king Charles II. was brother to the preceding, and born in 1619, at Wetherslack in Westmoreland. From the same grammar-school as his elder brother, he removed to St. John’s college in Cambridge in 1637, and continued there about six years. In 1642, being then in the twenty-fourth year of his age, he took his degree of bachelor of arts. In 1644, he was nominated by the bishop of Ely, to a fellowship of St. John’s, in his gift, but the usurper being then in power, he never availed himself of it. Probably, indeed, he had left the college before he obtained this presentation, and perhaps about the same time his brother did, which was in the foregoing year. It is uncertain, whether, at that time, he had made any choice of a profession; so that being invited into Leicestershire, in order to become tutor to Ferdinando Sacheverell, esq. of Old Hayes in that county, a young gentleman of great hopes, he readily accepted the proposal, and continued with him for some time. In 1647, he returned to Cambridge, and took his degree of master of arts, applying himself then assiduously to the study of physic, and ahout the same time, Mr. Sacheverell died, and bequeathed our author an annuity of twenty pounds. How he disposed of himself for some years, does not very clearly appear, because he who so elegantly recorded the loyal services of his brother, has studiously concealed his own. It is, however, more than probable, that he was engaged in the service of his sovereign, since it is certain that he was at Worcester in 1651, where he had access to his royal master king Charles II. who testified to him a very kind sense of the fidelity of his family. In 1655, he was created doctor of physic, and two years afterwards, he took a house in St. Paul’s church-yard, and much about the same time, married the widow of Mr. Sayon, an eminent merchant. Being thus settled, he soon gained a very great repute in the city, for his skill in his profession, and among the learned, by his judicious defence of Dr. Harvey’s discovery of the Circulation of the Blood, which was then, and is still, admired as one of the best pieces written upon that subject. At this house he entertained his brother Dr. John Barwick, who repaired at his own expence an oratory he found there, and daily read the service of the established church, and with a few steadyroyalists, prayed for his exiled master. After the restoration in 1660, he was made one of the king’s physicians in ordinary, and in the year following, received a still stronger proof of his majesty’s kind sense of his own and his brother’s services by a grant of arms expressive of their loyalty. In 1666, being compelled by the dreadful fire to remove from St. Paul’s church yard, where, much to his honour, he was one of the few physicians who remained all the time of the plague, and was very active and serviceable in his profession, he took another house near Westminster-abbey, for the sake of being near that cathedral, to which he constantly resorted every morning at six o'clock prayers. He was a very diligent physicum, and remarkably successful in the small-pox, and in most kinds of fevers. Yet he was far from making money the main object of his care; for during the many years that he practised, he not only gave advice and medicines gratis to the poor, but likewise charitably administered to their wants in other respects. In. 1671, he drew up in Latin, which he wrote with unusual elegance and purity, the life of the dean his brother, and took care to deposit it, and the original papers serving to support the facts mentioned, in the library in St. John’s college at Cambridge. Another ms. he gave to Dr. Woodward, and one he left to his family. Twenty years after this, when our author was in the seventy-fourth year of his age, and his eye-sight so much decayed, that he was forced to make use of the hand of a friend, he added an appendix in defence of the Ewwv BacrimKti, against Dr. Walker, who was very well known to him, and of whom in that treatise he has given a very copious account. This piece of his is written with a good deal of asperity, occasioned chiefly by the frequency of scurrilous libels against the memory of Charles I. In 1694, being quite blind, and frequently afflicted with fits of the stone, he gave over practice, and dedicated the remainder of his life to the service of God, and the conversation of a few intimate friends, amongst whom was Dr. Busby, the celebrated master of Westminster-school. He died Sept. 4, the same year, in the eighty-sixth year of his age, and by his own. direction, was interred without any monument, as well as with great privacy, near the body of his dear wife, in the parish church of St. Faith’s, under St. Paul’s. He was a man of a very comely person, equally remarkable for the solidity of his learning, and for a wonderful readiness as well as elegance in expressing it. His piety was sincere, his reputation unspotted, his loyalty and his modesty most exemplary. In all stations of life he was admired and beloved, and of a chearful and serene mind in all situations. He was happy in the universal approbation of all parties, as he was himself charitable to all, and never vehement but in the cause of truth. He left behind him an only daughter, Mary, who married sir Ralph Dutton of Sherbounie in Dorsetshire, bart. The life of his brother was published, in Latin, 1721, 8vo, and in English, with an account of the writer, 1724. Mr. Hilkiah Bedford was editor of both.

After many unsuccessful efforts to establish a school which he called his “Philanthropinum,” he finally reliuqnished it, owing to quarrels among the teachers, which afforded no very striking proof of the superior excellence of his system. He then endeavoured to find relief in the bottle, and this hurried him into a train of conduct which completed the destruction of his reputation. He died at Magdeburgh in 1790. His works on religions subjects are very numerous, but little known out of Germany.

, more commonly known by the name of Basingstochius, or de Basingstoke, was born at Basingstoke, a town in the north part of Hampshire, and thence took his surname. He was a person highly eminent for virtue and learning; a perfect master of the Latin and Greek languages; and also an eloquent orator, an able mathematician and philosopher, and a sound divine. The foundation of his great learning he laid in the university of Oxford, and, for his farther improvement, went to Paris, where he resided some years. He afterwards travelled to Athens, where he made many curious observations, and perfected himself in his studies, particularly in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. At his return to England, he brought over with him several curious Greek manuscripts, and introduced the use of the Greek numeral figures in to this kingdom. He became also a very great promoter and encourager of the study of that language, which was much neglected in these western parts of the world: and to facilitate it, he translated from Greek into Latin a grammar, which he entitled “The Donatus of the Greeks.” Our author’s merit and learning recommended him to the esteem of all lovers of literature: particularly to the favour of Robert Grosteste, bishop of Lincoln, by whom he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Leicester, as he had been some time before to that of London. He died in 1252. The rest of his works are, 1. A Latin translation of a Harmony of the Gospels. 2. A volume of sermons. 3. “Particulue sententiarum per distinctiones,” or a Commentary upon part of Lombard’s Sentences, &c. It was he also that informed Robert, bishop of Lincoln, that he had seen at Athens a book called “The Testament of the XII Patriarchs.” Upon which the bishop sent for it, and translated it into Latin, and it was printed among the “Orthodoxographa,” Basilero, 1555, fol. and afterwards translated into English, and often reprinted, 12mo.

, the wife of Dr. Joseph Verati, a very ingenious lady, was born in 1712, and died at Bologna, of which she was a native, in 1778. Such were her acknowledged talents and learning, that, in 1732, she was honoured with a Doctor’s degree, after, having disputed publicly in Latin, and her reputation became afterwards completely established by a course of lectures on experimental philosophy, which she delivered from 1745 to the time of her death. Madame tie Bocage, in her “Letters on Italy,” informs us that she attended one of those lectures, in which Madame Bassi developed the phenomena of irritability, with precision and depth. The greater part of the literati of Europe, to whom she was well known, bore testimony to her learning, particularly in the Greek, Latin, French, and Italian; nor was she less distinguished for her numerous exertions of charity to the poor and the orphan. We do not find that she published anything, but was the theme of much poetical praise.­A collection of these tributes of applause appeared in 1732, with her portrait, and an inscription, “L. M. C. Bassi, Phil. Doct. Coll. Academ. Institut. Scientiar. Societ. Ætat. Ann. xx.” and with the following allusion to Petrarch’s Laura:

, an eminent mathematician, is supposed by Pits to have flourished about 1420. He studied at Oxford, where he applied himself to natural philosophy in general, but chiefly to the mathematics, in which he made a very great proficiency, as is evident by his writings in that science, which introduced him to the acquaintance and intimacy of the greatest men of his time. It is not known when he died. He wrote, 1. “De Sphcerae concavae fabrica et usu;” which Bale saw in the library of Dr. Robert Recorde, a learned physician. 2. tf De Sphsera solida.“3.” De operatione Astrolabii.“4.” Conclusiones Sophise."

, sieur d'Aviron, advocate of the presidial court of Evreux, was celebrated in the sixteenth century for his knowledge of law. Henry III. king of France, having, in 1586, appointed commissioners to investigate and adjust some disputes respecting certain parts of the Norman law, the report they gave in, and the proceedings which followed, suggested to le Bathelier that able work on the Norman law, by which principally he is now known. Groulard, first president of the parliament of Normandy, to whom the manuscript was submitted, was so delighted with it, that he caused the whole to be printed, but without the name of the author, and when some insinuated that this might be interpreted to his disadvantage, as an attempt to pass for the author, Groulard answered, that the book was so excellent, it must always appear the? work of James le Bathelier, and nerer could be mistaken under any other name. These “Commentaries on the Norman law” were reprinted with those of Berault and Godefroi, at Rouen, 1684, 2 vols. fol. We have no account of the time of Bathelier’s death.

, a distinguished wit, and Latin poet, was descended of an ancient family, and was born at Howthorpe, a small hamlet in Northamptonshire, in the parish of Thedingworth, near Market-Harborough in Leicestershire, in 1620. He received the first part of his education at the free-school in Coventry, where his father seems to have resided in the latter part of his life. His mother was Elizabeth Villiers, daughter and coheir of Edward Villiers, esq. of the same place. They had issue thirteen sons, and four daughters. Six of the sons lost their lives in the service of king Charles I. during the grand rebellion: the rest, besides one who died young, were Ralph (of whom we now treat), Villiers, Edward, Moses, Henry, and Benjamin, father of the late earl Bathurst, the subject of the preceding article. At Coventry school our author made so quick a progress in the classics, that at the age of fourteen he was sent to Oxford, and entered October 10, 1634, in Gloucester hall, now Worcester college; but was removed in a few days to Trinity college, and probably placed under the immediate tuition of his grandfather Dr. Kettel, then president, in whose lodging he resided (still known by the name of Kettel-hall), and at whose table he had his diet, for two years. He was elected scholar of the house, June 5., 1637, and having taken the degree of A. B. January 27th following, he was appointed fellow June 4, 1640. He commenced A. M.April 17, 1641, and on March 2, 1644, conformably to the statutes of his college, he was ordained priest by Robert Skinner, bishop of Oxford, and read some theological lectures in the college hall in 1649. These, which he called “Diatribae theologicEc, philosophies, et philological,” are said to discover a spirit of theological research, and an extensive knowledge of the writings of the most learned divines. He likewise kept his exercise for the degree of B. D. but did not take it. The confusion of the times promising little support or encouragement to the ministerial function, like his friend, the famous Dr. Willis, he applied himself to the study of physic, and accumulated the degrees in that faculty, June 21, 1654. Before this time he had sufficiently recommended himself in his new profession, and had not been long engaged in it, when he was employed as physician to the sick and wounded of the navy, which office he executed with equal diligence and dexterity, to the full satisfaction of the sea-commanders, and the commissioners of the admiralty. We find him soon after settled at Oxford, and practising physic in concert with his friend Dr. Willis, with whom he regularly attended Abingdon market every Monday. He likewise cultivated every branch of philosophical knowledge: he attended the lectures of Peter Sthael, a chymist and rosicrucian, who had been invited to Oxford by Mr. R. Boyle, and was afterwards operator to the royal society about 1662. About the same time he had also a share in the foundation of that society; and when it was established, he was elected fellow, and admitted August 19, 1663. While this society was at Gresham college in London, a branch of it was continued at Oxford, and the original society books of this Oxford department are still preserved there in the Ashmolean Museum, where their assemblies were held. Their latter Oxford meetings were subject to regulations made among themselves; according to which Dr. Bathurst was elected president April 23, 1688, having been before nominated one of the members for drawing up articles, February 29, 1683-4. Nor was he less admired as a classical scholar; at the university a.cts, in the collections of Oxford verses, and on every public occasion, when the ingenious were invited to a rival display of their abilities, he appears to have been one of the principal and most popular performers. Upon the publication of Hobbes’s treatise of “Human Nature,” &c. 1650, Bathurst prefixed a recommendatory copy of Latin iambics, written with so much strength of thought, and elegance of expression, that they fully established his character as a Latin poet; and recommended him to the notice of the duke of Devonshire, by whose interest he afterwards obtained the deanery of Wells. He had thought fit, by a temporary compliance, to retain his fellowship at Oxford, under the conditions of the parliamentary visitation in 1648, and after the death of Cromwell, procured a majority of the fellows of his college, in 1659, to elect Dr. Seth Ward president, who was absolutely disqualified for it by the college-statutes. After the Restoration, he re-assumed the character of a clergyman, and returned to his theological studies, but with little hope or ambition of succeeding in a study, which he had so long neglected: however, he was made king’s chaplain in 1663. He was chosen president of his college September 10, 1664, and ^.he same' year he was married, December 31, to Mary, the widow of Dr. John Palmer, warden of All Souls college, a woman of admirable accomplishments. June 28, 1670, he was installed dean of Wells, procured, as before mentioned, by the interest of the duke of Devonshire. In April 1691, he was nominated by king William and queen Mary, through the interest of lord Somers, to the bishopric of Bristol, with licence to keep his deanery and headship in commendam; but he declined the acceptance of it, lest it should too much detach him from his college, and interrupt the completion of those improvements in its buildings, which he had already begun, and an account of which may be seen in the History of Oxford. Had Dr. Bathurst exerted his activity and interest alone for the service of his society, he might have fairly claimed the title of an ample benefactor; but his private liberality concurred with his public collections. He expended near 3000l. of his own money upon it, and purchased for the use of the fellows, the perpetual advowson of the rectory of Addington upon Otmere, near Oxford, with the sum of 400l. in 1700. Nor was he less serviceable by his judicious discipline and example, his vigilance as a governor, and his eminence as a scholar, which contributed to raise the reputation of the college to an extraordinary height, and filled it with students of the first rank and family. He is said to have constantly frequented early prayers in the chapel, then at five in the morning, till his eighty-second year, and he punctually attended the public exercises of the college, inspected the private studies, relieved the wants, and rewarded the merit of his scholars. In the mean time he was a man of the world, and his lodgings were perpetually crowded with visitants of the first distinction. October 3, 1673, he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university, and continued for the two following years, the duke of Ormond being chancellor. During the execution of this office, he reformed many pernicious abuses, introduced several necessary regulations, defended the privileges of the university with becoming spirit, and to the care of the magistrate added the generosity of the benefactor. He established the present practice of obliging the bachelors of arts to stipulate for their determination: he endeavoured, at the command of the king, to introduce a more graceful manner of delivering the public sermons at St. Mary’s, to which church he was also a benefactor, and introduced several other improvements in the academical ceconomy. As Dr. Bathurst was intimately acquainted with the most eminent literary characters of his age, few remarkable productions in literature were undertaken or published without his encouragement and advice. Among many others, Dr. Sprat, Dr. South, Dr. Busby, Dr. Allestree, Creech the translator, sir George Ent, a celebrated physician and defender of the Harveyan system, were of his common acquaintance. Such were his friends; but he had likewise his enemies, who have hinted that he was unsettled in his religious principles. This insinuation most probably arose from his iambics prefixed to Hobbes’s book, which are a mere sport of genius, written without the least connection with Hobbes, and contain no defence or illustration of his pernicious doctrine, which, however, did not appear at that time to be so pernicious. And the sincere and lasting intimacies he maintained with Skinner, Fell, South, Allestree, Aldrich, and several others, are alone an unanswerable refutation of this unfavourable imputation. He died in his eighty-fourth year, June 14, 1704. He had been blind for some time; and his death was occasioned by n fracture of his thigh, while he was walking in the garden, which, on the failure of his eyes, became his favourite and only amusement. Under this malady he languished for several days in acute agonies. It is said that at first, and for some time, he refused to submit to the operations of the surgeon, declaring in his tortures, that there was no marrow in the bones of an old man. He had lost his memory a year or two before his death, of which Mr. Warton has given an instance which we could have wished he had suppressed. He was interred on the south side of the antichapel of Trinity college without the least appearance of pomp and extravagance, according to his own appointment. He left legacies in his will to his friends, servants, and the college, to the amount of near 1000^. As to his character, it is observed that his temperance in eating and drinking, particularly the latter, was singular and exemplary. Amidst his love of the polite arts, he had a strong aversion to music, and discountenanced and despised the study of all external accomplishments, as incompatible with the academical character. His behaviour in general was inoffensive and obliging. The cast of his conversation was rather satirical, but mixed with mirth and pleasantry. He was remarkably fond of young company, and indefatigable in his encouragement of a rising genius. John Philips was one of his chief favourites, whose “Splendid Shilling” was a piece of solemn ridicule suited to his taste. Among his harmless whims, he delighted to surprize the scholars, when walking in the grove at unseasonable hours; on which occasions he frequently carried a whip in his hand, an instrument of academical correction, then not entirely laid aside. But this he practised, on account of the pleasure he took in giving so odd an alarm, rather than from any principle of reproving, or intention of applying an illiberal punishment. In Latin poetry, Ovid was his favourite classic. One of his pupils having asked him what book among all others he chose to recommend he answered, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” The pupil, in consequence of this advice, having carefully perused the Metamorphoses, desired to be informed what other proper book it wouldbe necessary to read after Ovid, and Dr. Bathurst advised him to read “Ovid’s Metamorphoses” a second time. He had so mean an opinion of his performances in divinity, that in his will he enjoins his executors entirely to suppress all his papers relating to that subject, and not to permit them to be perused by any, excepting a very few such friends as were likely to read them with candour. We are told, however, that on Sunday, March 20, 1680, he preached before the house of commons at St. Mary’s, the university church, and gave much satisfaction. His manner was nearly that of Dr. South, but with more elegance and felicity of allusion. His Life, written by Mr. Thomas Warton, is perhaps one of the most correct of that author’s performances, and contains Dr. Bathurst’s miscellaneous works, which, though they have great merit in their particular way, and may be read with much pleasure, are not written in such a taste as entitles them to imitation. This is acknowledged by Mr. Warton. “His Latin orations,” says that ingenious Biographer, “are wonderful specimens of wit and antithesis, which were the delight of his age. They want upon the whole the purity and simplicity of Tully’s eloquence, but even exceed the sententious smartness of Seneca, and the surprising turns of Pliny. They are perpetually spirited, and discover an uncommon quickness of thought. His manner is concise and abrupt, but yet perspicuous and easy. His allusions are delicate, and his observations sensible and animated. His sentiments of congratulation or indignation are equally forcible: his compliments are most elegantly turned, and his satire is most ingeniously severe. These compositions are extremely agreeable to read, but in the present improwriiient of classical taste, not so proper to be imitated. They are moreover entertaining, as a picture of the times, and a history of the state of academical literature. This smartness does not desert our author even on philosophical subjects.” Among Dr. Bathurst’s Oratiuncuhe, his address to the convocation, about forming the barbers of Oxford into a company, is a most admirable specimen of his humour, and of that facetious invention, with which few vice-chancellors would have ventured to enforce and eiiliven such a subject. We doubt, indeed, whether a parallel to this exquisite piece of humour can be found. With regard to the doctor’s Latin poetry, though his hexameters have an admirable facility, an harmonious versification, much terseness and happiness of expression, and a certain original air, they will be thought, nevertheless, too pointed and ingenious by the lovers of Virgil’s simple beauties. The two poems which he hath left in iambics make it to be wished tiiat he had written more in that measure. “That pregnant brevity,” says Mr. Warton, “/which constitutes the dignity and energy of the iambic, seems to have been his talent.” Dr. Bathurst’s English poetry has that roughness of versification which was, in a great degree, the fault of the times.

This high character of Ratoni, which we have considerably abridged from the last edition of this dictionary, was taken from Boni’s Eloge in a German Journal, and although we have endeavoured to keep down the enthusiasm of our predecessor, yet perhaps even now the article is disproportioned to the merit of the object, and to our scale of lives. It is therefore necessary to subjoin Mr. Fuseli’s opinion, which seems moderated by taste and judgment. Mr. Fuseli says, that Batoni “was not a very learned artist, nor did he supply his want of knowledge by deep reflection. His works do not bear the appearance of an attentive study of the antique, or of the works of Raphael and the other great masters of Italy: but nature seemed to have destined him for a painter, and he followed her impulse. He was not wanting either in his delineation of character, in accuracy, or in pleasing representation; and if he had not a grand conception, he at least knew how to describe well what he had conceived. He would have been, in any age, reckoned a very estimable painter; at the time in which he lived, he certainly shone conspicuously. His name is known throughout Europe, and his works are every where in estimation. Men^s, who was a more learned man, was his rival; but, less favoured by nature, if he enjoyed a higher reputation, he owed it less perhaps to any real superiority, than to the commendations of Winkelman.”

Of these advantages, however, he does not appear to have availed himself in the fullest extent. After leaving Mr. Savage, we find him composing songs for Sadler’s Wells, and afterwards performing on the harpsichord at Covent-garden theatre, where he married Miss Davies, a singer, hut did not permit her any more to appear in puhlic. Soon after this marriage, he obtained the place of organist to the churches of St. Clement, East-cheap, and of Christ-church, Newgate-street, and about this time published a series of songs, highly creditable to his talents, and his reputation was yet more promoted by composing part of the opera of Alcmena, in conjunction with Mr. Michael Arne. But these and similar compositions did not divert his mind from cathedral music, in which style he composed some excellent anthems, since republished in Mr. Page’s Harmonia Sacra. He also, at the express desire of the Rev. Charles Wesley, father of the present Messrs. Charles and Samuel Wesley, set to music a collection of hymns, written by that gentleman, the melodies of which are peculiarly elegant, yet chaste and appropriate. In the catch and glee style, he also gave convincing proofs of the diversity of his taste and genius, and in 1770 obtained the gold medal given by the noblemen’s catch-club, for his well-known glee “Underneath this myrtle shade.” With such talents, and the approbation which followed the exertion of them, he appears to have relaxed into indifference, and in his latter years seldom came forward as a composer. Except two excellent collections of three and four part songs, and a few airs composed for a collection published by Harrison of Paternoster-row, nothing appeared from his pen for the last thirty years of his life. His time was spent in his library, where he had accumulated a very large collection of valuable books, or in attending his pupils, or in what was, perhaps, as frequent and less wise, in convivial parties. He was blest with an uncommonly strong constitution: but the excesses in which he too frequently indulged, together with his insuperable grief for the loss of his friend colonel Morris, lately killed in Flanders, visibly preyed upon his health; and he became so ill during his last autumn, as to be confined to his chamber. He was advised to try sea-bathing, and the air of Margate, but these rendered him no service. He returned from that place rather worse than when he left town; and, agreeably to the advice of his physicians, took apartments at Islington, where his general debility still continued to increase, and where he expired on Thursday, the 10th of December, 1801, aged sixty-three years, and was interred, according to his dying wish, in the vaults of St. Paul’s cathedral. Some of the manuscript compositions he left have since been published by Mr. Page.

, a French physician, born at Parey in the Charolais, practised at Macon for several years, where he died in 1623, aged eighty-one. He is best known by a Pharmacopoeia, published under the title of “Paraphrase sur la Pharmacopee,” which was long a very popular work. It was first printed at Lyons in 1588, and reprinted in 1596, 1603, and 1628, 8vo, and translated into Latin, under the title of “Pharmacopoeia e Gallico in Latinum versa a Philemone Hollando,” with additions, Lond. 1639, fol. and Hague, 1640, 4to, and often reprinted in this form. He published also “Praxis Medica in duos tractatus distincta,” Paris, 1620, 4to. Haller calls this “Praxis de febribus.”

Baudius was a strenuous advocate for a truce betwixt the States and Spain: two orations he published on this subject, though without his name, had almost brought him into serious trouble, as prince Maurice was made to believe he was affronted in them, and the author was said to have been bribed by the French ambassador to write upon the truce. In consequence of these suspicions he wrote to the prince and his secretary, in order to vindicate himself, and laments his unhappy fate in being exposed to the malice of so many slanderers, who put wrong interpretations on his words: “It is evident (says he) that through the malignity of mankind, nothing can be expressed so cautiously by men of any character and reputation, but it may be distorted into some obnoxious sense. For what can be more absurd than the conduct of those men, who have reported that I have been bribed by the ambassador Jeannin, to give him empty words in return for his generosity to me? as if I, an obscure doctor, was an assistant to a man of the greatest experience in business.” Some verses, which he wrote in praise of the marquis of Spinola, occasioned him also a good deal of trouble: the marquis came to Holland before any thing was concluded either of the peace or truce; and though Baudius had printed the poem, yet he kept the copies of it, till it might be seen more evidently upon what account this minister came, and gave them only to his most intimate friends. It being known however that the poem was printed, he was very near being banished for it.

, a celebrated lithotomist, was born in 1651, in a village of the bailiwick of Lons-le-Saunier in Tranche Cornte, of very poor parents. He quitted them early in life, in order to enter into a regiment of horse, in which he served some years, and made an acquaintance with one Pauloni, an empirical surgeon, who had acquired a name for lithotomy. After having taken lessons under this person for five or six years, he repaired to Provence. There he put on a kind of monastic habit, but unlike any worn by the several orders of monks, and was ever afterwards known only by the name of friar James. In this garb he went to Languedoc, then to Roussiilon, and from thence through the different provinces of France. He at length appeared at Paris, but soon quitted it for his more extensive perambulations. He was seen at Geneva, at Aix-la-Chapelle, at Amsterdam, and practised everywhere. His success was various, but his method was not uniform, and anatomy was utterly unknown to this bold operator. He refused to take any care of his patients after the operation, saying, “I have extracted the stone; God will heal the wound.” Being afterwards taught by experience that dressings and regimen were necessary, his treatments were constantly more successful. He was indisputably the inventor of the lateral operation. His method was to introduce a sound through the urethra into the bladder with a straight history, cut upon the staff, and then he carried his incision along the staff into the bladder. He then introduced the forefinger of the left hand into the bladder, searched for the stone, which, having withdrawn the sound, he extracted by means of forceps. Professor Rau of Holland improved upon this method, which afterwards suggested to our countryman, Cheselden, the lateral operation, as now, with a few alterations, very generally practised. In gratitude for the numerous cures this operator had performed in Amsterdam, the magistracy of that city caused his portrait to be engraved, and a medal to be struck, bearing for impress his bust. After having appeared at the court of Vienna and at that of Rome, he made choice of a retreat near Besan^on, where he died in 1720, at the age of sixty -nine. The history of this hermit was written by M. Vacher, surgeon-major of the king’s armies, and printed at Besan^on, in 1757, 12mo.

, a very ingenious metaphysician and natural philosopher, was born in 1686, or 1687, at Old Aberdeen, in Scotland, of which city his father was a merchant, and educated in king’s college there. His principal employment was that of a private tutor to young gentlemen; and among other of his pupils were lord Grey, lord Blantyre, and Mr. Hay of Drummeizier. About 1724, he married the daughter of Mr. Mebane, a clergyman in the shire of Berwick. A few years after he published in 4to, “An Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul, wherein its immateriality is evinced from the principles of reason and philosophy;” without date. In 1741, he went abroad with Mr. Hay, and resided some years at Utrecht; having there also lord Blantyre under his care. He made excursions from thence into Flanders, France, and Germany; his wife and 'family residing in the mean time chiefly at Berwick upon Tweed. He returned to Scotland in 1747, and resided till his death at Whittingham, in the shire of East Lothian. He drew up, for the use of his pupils, and his son, a piece entitled “Matho: sive, Cosmotheoria puerilis, Dialogus. In quo prima elementa de mundi ordine et ornatu proponuntur, &c.” This was afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in English, in two volumes, 8vo. In 1750 was published, “An Appendix to his Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul” wherein he endeavours to remove some difficulties, which had been started against his notions of the “vis inertias” of matter, by Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” To this piece Mr. Baxter prefixed a dedication to Mr. John Wilkes, afterwards so well known in the political world, with whom he had commenced an acquaintance abroad. He died this year, April the 23d, after suffering for some months under, a complication of disorders, of which the gout was the chief, and was buried in the family vault of Mr. Hay, at Whittingham.

The learning and abilities of Mr. Baxter are sufficiently displayed in his writings, which, however, were of much more note in the literary world during his own time, than now. He was very studious, and sometimes sat up whole nights reading and writing. His temper was cheerful, and in his manners, he appeared the gentleman as well as the scholar, but in conversation he was modest, and not apt to make much shew of the extensive knowledge of which he was possessed. In the discharge of the several social and relative duties of life, his conduct was exemplary. He had the most reverential sentiments of the Deity, of whose presence and immediate support he had always a strong impression upon his mind; and the general tenour of his life appears to have been conformable. Mr. Baxter paid a strict attention to ceconomy, but was not parsimonious in his expences. It is known, also, that there were several occasions, on which he acted with remarkable disinterestedness; and so far was he from courting preferment, that he has repeatedly declined considerable offers of that kind which were made him, if he would have taken orders in the Church of England. His friends and correspondents were numerous and respectable; and among them are particularly mentioned Mr. Pointz, preceptor to the late duke of Cumberland, and-,Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. His wife, by whom he had one son and three daughters, all of whom were lately living, survived him ten years, and was buried in the church of Linlithgow, in 1760.

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

was a German lawyer and astronomer of the latter part of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, but in what particular year or place he was born, is not certainly known; however, his name will be ever memorable in the annals of astronomy, on account of that great and excellent work which he first published in 1603, under the title of “Uranometria,” being a complete celestial atlas, or large folio charts of all the constellations, with a nomenclature collected from all the tables of astronomy, ancient and modern, with the useful invention of denoting the stars in every constellation by the letters of the Greek alphabet, in their order, and according to the order of magnitude of the stars in each constellation. By means of these marks, the stars of the heavens may, with as great facility, be distinguished and referred to, as the several places of the earth are by means of geographical tables; and as a proof of the usefulness of this method, our celestial globes and atlasses have ever since retained it; and hence it is become of general use through all the literary world; astronomers, in speaking of any star in the constellation, denoting it by saying it is marked by Bayer, a, or ft, or y, &c.

Some months after his arrival at Paris, there being a vacancy of a professorship of philosophy at Sedan, Mr. Basuage proposed Mr. Bayle to Mr. Jurieu, who promised to serve him to the utmost of his power, and desired Mr. Basnage to write to him to come immediately to Sedan. But Mr. Bayle excused himself, fearing lest if it should be known that he had changed his religion, which was a secret to every body in that country but Mr. Basnage, it might bring him into trouble, and the Roman catholics from thence take occasion to disturb the protestants at Sedan. Mr. Jurieu was extremely surprised at his refusal; and even when Mr. Basnage communicated the reason, he was of opinion it ought not to hinder Mr. Bayle’s coming, since he and Mr. Basnage being the only persons privy to the secret, Mr. Bayle could run no manner of danger. Mr. Basnage therefore wrote again to Mr. Bayle, and prevailed with him to come to Sedan. He had three competitors, all natives of Sedan, the friends of whom endeavoured to raise prejudices against him because he was a stranger. But the affair being left to be determined by dispute, and the candidates having agreed to make their theses without books or preparation, Mr. Bayle defended his theses with such perspicuity and strength of argument, that, in spite of all the interest of his adversaries, the senate of the university determined it in his favour; and notwithstanding the opposition he met with upon his first coming to Sedan, his merit soon procured him universal esteem.

, one of the physicians to the king of Prussia, and member of the colleges of physicians of London and Edinburgh, was author of “An essay on the BathWaters, 1757;” “A narrative of facts demonstrating the existence and cause of a Physical Confederacy, made known in the printed letters of Dr. Lucas and Dr. Oliver, 1757,” and “An historical account of the General Hospital or Infirmary in the city of Bath,” 1758, all which excited a contest between him and his medical brethren, who seemed to have the public on their side, and he was excluded from consultations at Bath, where as well as in London he formerly practised physic. It is related of him that when he was first introduced to the late king of Prussia, to whom much had been said of his medical skill, the king observed to him, “That to have acquired so much experience, he must necessarily have killed a great many people.” To which the doctor replied, “Pas tant que vatre majeste,” “Not so many as your majesty.” He died in 1787 at Berlin, and left his library and medals to the king of Prussia, in the service of which court he had lived for many years. It was at the German Spa where his talents were first noticed. Previously to his going abroad he is said to have lived in a very splendid manner at Evesham in Worcestershire, and was once a candidate for a seat in the British parliament, but without success.

Dr. Bayly’s name is likewise to a well-known “Life of bishop Fisher,” which is said to have been the production of Richard Hall, D.D. of Christ church, Cambridge, and afterwards canon and official of the cathedral church of St. Omer’s, where he died in 1604. The manuscript, after his death, came into the possession of the English monks of Dieulwart, in Lorrain; from whence a copy fell into the hands of one Mr. West, who presented it to Francis a St. Clara, alias Francis Davenport, a Franciscan friar. Davenport gave it to sir Wingfield Bodenham, who put it into the hands of Dr. Bayly. The doctor read it, took a copy of it, and sold it to a bookseller who published it with Dr. Bayly’s name. — Such is the account Wood gives, and in which he is followed by Dodd, on which we have only to remark that this life is preceded by a dedication signed with the doctor’s initials, and avowing himself to be the author.

In 1753, having gone through every preparatory course of study, he took the degree of M. A. and had now technically finished his education. Having hitherto been supported by the generous kindness of an elder brother, he wished to exonerate his family from any further burden. With this laudable view, there being a vacancy for the office of school-master and parish-clerk to the parish of Fordoun, adjoining to Laurencekirk, he accepted the appointment, August 1, 1753; but this was neither suited to his disposition, nor advantageous to his progress in life. He obtained in this place, however, a few friends, particularly lord Gardenstown and lord Monboddo, who honoured him with encouraging notice; and his imagination was delighted by the beautiful and sublime scenery of the place, which he appears to have contemplated with the eye of a poet. His leisure hours he employed on some poetical attempts, which, as they were published in the “Scots Magazine,” with his initials, and sometimes with his place of abode, must have contributed to make him yet better known and respected.

Although Mr. Beattie had now acquired a station in which his talents were displayed with great advantage, and commanded a very high degree of respect, the publication of the “Essay on Truth” was the great era of his life; for this work carried his fame far beyond all local bounds and local partialities. It is not, however, necessary to enter minutely into the history of a work so well known. Its professed intention was to trace the several kinds of evidence and reasoning up to their first principles, with a view to ascertain the Standard of Truth, and explain its Immutability. He endeavours to show that his sentiments, however inconsistent with the genius of scepticism, and with the practice and principles of sceptical writers, were yet perfectly consistent with the genius of true philosophy, and with the practice and principles of those whom all acknowledge to have been the most successful in the investigation of truth; and he concludes with some inferences or rules, by which the most important fallacies of the sceptical philosophy may be detected by every person of common sense, even though he should not possess acuteness of metaphysical Itnowledge sufficient to qualify him for a logical confutation of them.

, first professor of rhetoric in the college of the Grassins, and afterwards professor in the college-royal, secretary to the duke of Orleans, perpetual secretary and pensionary of the academy of inscriptions, was born at Paris, Oct. 19, 1701 (Saxius says 1709), and died in that city, March 13, 1778. He was married, and left only one daughter. This honest and laborious academician, the rival of Rollin in the art of teaching, idolized by his scholars, as that famous professor was, had perhaps a more extensive fund of learning, and particularly in Greek and Latin literature. His history of the Lower Empire, in 22 vols. 12mo, 1757, forming a continuation of Crevier’s History of the Emperors, is the more esteemed, as in the composition of it he had many difficulties to overcome, in reconciling contradictory writers, rilling up chasms, and forming a regular body out of a heap of mishapen ruins. It is strongly characterized by a judicious series of criticism, couched in a polished and elegant style. The logician sometimes appears too conspicuously; but in general it is read with pleasure and profit. The first volume of an English translation of this work was published in 1770, but, we believe, not continued. The memoirs of the academy of belles lettres are enriched with several learned dissertations by the same author, particularly on medals, on the Roman legion, on the Roman art of war, and thirty-four biographical eloges, distinguished for truth and impartiality. The religious sentiments, the sound principles, the sweetness of manners, and the inviolable integrity of M. le Beau, which inspired his friends and disciples with so much attachment to him when alive, occasioned them to feel a long and lasting regret at his departure. Several little anecdotes might here be related that do honour to his heart. A place in the academy of bt-iles lettres had been designed for him. Bougainville, the translator of the Anti-Lucretius, who applied for it, with fewer pretensions, and a less consummate knowledge, dreaded such a formidable competitor as M. le Beau, to whom, however, from his known character, he was not deterred from making his wishes known. The professor felt for his embarrassment, and hastened to the friends who had promised him their votes, desiring they might be transferred to the young student. “It is one of the smallest sacrifices,” said he, “1 should be ready to make in order to oblige a man of merit.' 1 M. le Beau was received at the election following; and M. Capperonier, surprised at his extensive erudition, and affected by his generosity, exclaimed,” He is our master in all things!“On another occasion, when highly praised for his acquisitions, he said,” I know enough to be ashamed that I knowno more." Thierrat published Le Beau’s Latin works, Paris, 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, consisting of orations, poetry, ancj fables; -the last inferior to his other productions.

, a French miscellaneous writer, was born at Paris in 1689, and died in that metropolis in 1761. He wrote, 1. “The Loves of Ismene & Isménias,” 1743, 8vo, a free translation of a Greek romance by Eustathius, or rather Eumathius, who must not be confounded with Eustathius the grammarian, and author of the commentary on Homer. It contains interesting adventures, in that species of epic poetry in prose which partakes at once of the tragic and comic vein. A beautiful edition of it was published at Paris in 1797, 4to, with illuminated prints. 2. “The loves of Rhodantes & Docicles,” another Greek romance by Theodorus Prodromus, translated into French, 1746, 12mo. 3. “Recherches sur les Theatres de France,” 1735, 4to, and 8vo, 3 vols. Beauchamps did not confine himself to the titles of the dramatical pieces: he has added particulars of the lives of some of the French comedians; but he has omitted a number of interesting anecdotes, with which he might have embellished his work. It were to be wished that he had developed the taste of the former ages of the French for dramatic representations, the art and the progress of tragedy and comedy from the time of Jodelle; the genius of the French poets, and their manner of imitating the ancients. But Beauchamps, in this work, is little more than a compiler, and that from well-known materials. 4. “Lettres d‘Heloise & d’Abailard,” in French verse, fluent enough, but prosaic, 1737, 8vo. 5. “Several theatrical performances.” 6. The romance of “FuDestine,” 1757.

Our poet studied for some time in the Inner Temple, and his “Mask of the Inner Temple and Gray’s-inn,” was acted and printed in 1612-13, when he was in his twenty-sixth year. His application to the law was probably not very intense, nor indeed is it possible to conceive that be could have been preparing for the practice of the bar, and producing his poems and plays within the limits of a life not exceeding thirty years. He appears to have devoted himself to the dramatic muse from a very early period; but at what time he commenced a partnership with Fletcher, who was ten years older, is not known. The date of their first play is 1607, when Beaumont was in his twenty-first year; and it was probably acted some time before. He brought, however, into this firm a genius uncommonly fertile and commanding. In all the editions of their plays, and in every notice of their 4 joint productions, notwithstanding Fletcher’s seniority, the name of Beaumont always stands first.

, an ingenious artist and antiquary, was the son of a respectable attorney in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He was early apprenticed as a housepainter to Mr. George Fleming of Wakefield, from whom he derived his skill in drawing and limning, as well as imbibed a love for the study of antiquities. To these he added heraldic and genealogical knowledge, to all which he applied himself, in his leisure hours, with such unwearied diligence, that his collection, together with the works of his own hands, became at length very considerable. Scarcely any object arrested his curiosity, particucularly if an antique, of which he did not make a drawing, and scarcely a church or a ruin in the vicinities of the places of his abode, that he did not preserve either in pencil or water-colours. Some years before his death he obtained a patent for a species of hardened crayons, which would bear the knife, and carry a point like a pencil; and about the same time he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. But what contributed most to make him known to those who were unacquainted with him in any other branch, was his extensive information respecting genealogical subjects, in consequence of which he frequently had the arrangement of the pedigrees of some of the first families, which he was enabled to execute from visitation books, and other authentic documents, which fell into his hands. Few men possessed more intelligence respecting the antiquity and descents of the principal families in the inland adjacent counties, and of various others more remote from him. It is much to his credit, likewise, that his industry in collecting could only be exceeded by his willingness to impart any information which he had received. Mr. Beck with died Feb. 17, 1786. Previous to his death, he had compiled “A Walk in and about the city of York,” an the plan of Mr. Gostling’s “Walk in and about the city of Canterbury,” but we have not heard that it has been published.

Nor were these lessons thrown away. Beda became so exemplary for his great diligence and application, and his extensive and various learning, that his fame reached the continent, and particularly Rome, where pope Sergius made earnest applications to the abbot Ceolfrid, that Beda might be sent to him; but Beda, enamoured of his studies, remained in his monastery, exerting his pious labours only in the Northumbrian kingdom, although tradition, and nothing but tradition, insinuates that he at one time resided at the university of Cambridge, a place which in his day probably had no existence, or certainly none that deserved the name of university. Remaining thus in his own country, and improving his knowledge by all the learning his age afforded, animated at the same time with a wish to contribute to the improvement of his brethren and countrymen, he concentrated his attentions to that point in which he could be most useful. The collections he made for his “Ecclesiastical History” were the labour of many years, a labour scarcely conceivable by modern writers in the amplitude and facilities they possess for acquiring information. This history was in some respects a new work, for although, as he owns, there were civil histories from which he could borrow some documents, yet ecclesiastical affairs entered so little into their plan, that he was obliged to seek for materials adapted to his object, in the lives of particular persons, which frequently included contemporary history: in the annals of their convents, and in such chronicles as were written before his time. He also availed himself of the high character in which he stood with many of the prelates, who procured for him such information as they possessed or could command. They foresaw, probably, what has happened, that this would form a lasting record of ecclesiastical affairs, and making allowance for the legendary matter it contains, without a mixture of which it is in vain to look back to the times of Beda, few works have supported their credit so long, or been so generally known, and consulted by the learned world. He published this history in the year 731, when as he informs us, he was fifty-nine years of age, but before this he had written many other books on various subjects, a catalogue of which he subjoined to this history. By these he obtained such reputation as to be consulted by the most eminent churchmen of his age, and particularly by Egbert bishop of York, who was himself a very learned man. To him Beda wrote an epistle, which illustrates the state of the church at that time. It was one of the last, and indeed probably the very last of Beda’s writings, and in it he expresses himself with much freedom, both in the advice he gave to Egbert, and with respect to the inconveniencies which he wisely foresaw would arise from the multiplication of religious houses, to the prejudice both of church and state.

, bishop of Kilmore in Ireland, and one of the most pious and exemplary prelates of the seventeenth century, was descended from a good family, and born in the year 1570, at Black Notley in Essex, and being designed for the church, was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he was matriculated pensioner, March 12, 1584. He was placed under the care of Dr. Cbadderton, who was for many years head of that house, made great progress in his studies, and went early into holy orders. In 1593 he was chosen fellow of his college, and in 1599 took his degree of bachelor in divinity. He then removed from the university to St. Ednmndsbury in Suffolk, where he had a church, aud by an assiduous application to the duties of his function, was much noticed by many gentlemen who lived near that place. He continued there for some years, till an opportunity offered of his going as chaplain with sir Henry Wotton, whom king James had appointed his ambassador to the state of Venice, about the year 1604. While he resided in that city, he became intimately acquainted with the famous father Paul Sarpi, who took him into his confidence, taught him the Italian language, of which he became a perfect master, and translated into that tongue the English Common Prayer Book, which was extremely well received by many of the clergy there, especially by the seven divines appointed by the republic to preach against the pope, during the time of the interdict, and which they intended for their model, in case they had broken absolutely with Rome, which was what they then sincerely desired. In return for the favours he received from father Paul, Mr. Bedell drew up an English grammar for his use, and in many other respects assisted him in his studies. He continued eight years in Venice, during which time he greatly improved himself in the Hebrew language, by the assistance of the famous rabbi Leo, who taught him the Jewish pronunciation, and other parts of rabbinical learning; and by his means it was that he purchased a very fair manuscript of the Old Testament, which he bequeathed, as a mark of respect, to Emanuel-college, and which, it is said, cost him its weight in silver. He became acquainted there likewise, with the celebrated Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalata, who was so well pleased with his conversation, that he communicated to him his secret, and shewed him his famous book “de Kepublica Ecclesiastica,” which he afterwards printed at London. The original ms. is, if we mistake not, among bishop Tanner’s collections in the Bodleian. Bedell took the freedom which he allowed him, and corrected many misapplications of texts of scripture, and quotations of fathers; for that prelate, being utterly ignorant of the Greek tongue, committed many mistakes, both in the one and the other; and some escaped Bedell’s diligence. De Dorninis took all this in good part from him, and entered into such familiarity with him, and found liis assistance so useful, and indeed so necessary to himself, that he used to say, he could do nothing without him. At Mr. Bedell’s departure from Venice, father Paul expressed great concern, and assured him, that himself and many others would most willingly have accompanied him, if it had been in their power. He, likewise, gave him his picture, a Hebrew Bible without points, and a small Hebrew Psalter, in which he wrote some sentences expressing the sincerity of his friendship. He gave him, also, the manuscript of his famous “History of the Council of Trent,” with the Histories of the Interdict and Inquisition, all written by himself, with a large collection of letters, which were written to him weekly from Rome, during the dispute between the Jesuits and Dominicans, concerning the efficacy of grace, which it is supposed are lost. On his return to England, he immediately retired to his charge at St. Edmundsbury, without aspiring to any preferment, and went on in his ministerial labours. It was here he employed himself in translating the Histories of the Interdict and Inquisition (which he dedicated to the king); as also the two last books of the History of the Council of Trent into Latin, sir Adam Newton having translated the two first. At this time, he mixed so seldom with the world, that he was almost totally forgotten. So little was he remembered, that, some years after, when the celebrated Diodati, of Geneva, came over to England, he could not, though acquainted with many of the clergy, hear of Mr. Bedell from any person with whom he happened to converse. Diodati was greatly amazed, that so extraordinary a man, who was so much admired at Venice by the best judges of merit, should not be known in his own country; and he had given up all hopes of finding him out, when, to their no small joy, they accidentally met each other in the streets of London. Upon this occasion, Diodati presented his friend to Morton, the learned and ancient bishop of Durham, and told him how highly he had been valued by father Paul, which engaged the bishop to treat Mr. Bedell with very particular respect. At length sir Thomas Jermyn taking notice of his abilities, presented him to the living of Horingsheath, A. D. 1615: but he found difficulties in obtaining institution and induction from Dr. Jegon, bishop of Norwich, who demanded large fees upon this account. Mr. Bedell was so nice in his sentiments of simony, that he looked upon every payment as such, beyond a competent gratification, for the writing, the wax, and the parchment; and, refusing to take out his title upon other terms, left the bishop and went home, but in a few days the bishop sent for him, and gave him his title without fees, and he removed to Horingsheath, where he continued unnoticed twelve years, although he gave a singular evidence of his great capacity, in a book of controversy with the church of Rome, which he published and dedicated to king Charles I. then prince of Wales, in 1624. It is now annexed to Burnet’s Life of our author". However neglected he lived in England, yet his fame had reached Ireland, and he was, in 1627, unanimously elected provost of Trinity-college in Dublin, but this he declined, until the king laid his positive commands on him, which he obeyed, and on August 16th of that year, he was sworn provost. At his first entrance upon this scene, he resolved to act nothing until he became perfectly acquainted with the statutes of the house, and the tempers of the people whom he was appointed to govern; and, therefore, carTied himself so abstractedly from all affairs, that he passed some time for a soft and weak man, and even primate Usher began to waver in his opinion of him. When he went to England some few months after, to bring over his family, he had thoughts of resigning his new preferment, and returning to his benefice in Suffolk: but an encouraging letter from primate Usher prevented him, and he applied himself to the government of the college, with a vigour of mind peculiar to him.

, better known on account of his actions than his writings, having been a principal and useful evidence in the discovery in the popish plot, in the reign of Charles II. See the Eng. Hist, for that period; and the “Life of capt. Bedloe,” which contains nothing extraordinary but the aforesaid discovery, written by an unknown hand, and published 1681, 8vo. He was an infamous adventurer of low birth, who had travelled over a great part of Europe, under different names, as well as disguises. Encouraged by the success of Gates, he turned evidence, and gave an account of Godfrey’s murder, to which he added many circumstances of villainy. A reward of 500l. was voted to him by the commons. He is said to have asserted the reality of the plot on his death-bed; but it abounds with absurdity, contradiction, and perjury and still remains one of the greatest problems in the British annals. He died Aug. 20, 1680. Jacob informs us, he wrote a play called the “Excommunicated Prince,” printed 1679, but Wood says it was written by one Thomas Walter, M. A. of Jesus college, Oxford.

, the rabbi Jedaia, son of Abraham, called also Happenini Aubonet-Abram, but better known by the name of Bedraschi, is supposed to have been a nalive of Languedoc, and flourished in Spain towards the close of the thirteenth century. He left several Hebrew works, the principal of which, written at Barcelona in 1298, is entitled “Bechinat-Olem,” or an examination or appreciation of the world, and was printed at Mantua, in 1476, at Soncino in 1484, at Cracow in 1591, at Prague in 1598, and at Furth in 1807, with a German translation. Uchtmann also published a Latin translation at Leyden in 1630, and a French translation was published at Paris in 162y, by Philip d' Aquino. M. Michel Berr, a Jew of Nanci, published at Metz in 1708 another translation, on which M. Sylvestre de Sacy wrote many valuable remarks in the “Magazin Encyclopedique.” Bedraschi’s work is a mixture of poetry, theology, philosophy, and morals. His style is somewhat obscure, but the numerous editions and translations of his work form no inconsiderable evidence of its merit.

Filled with this great idea, in 1459 he paid a visit to Isabella, daughter of John I. king of Portugal, at that time regent of the duchy of Burgundy and Flanders; and having informed her of his designs, he procured a vessel, in which, sailing westward, he was the first European who is known to have landed on the island of Fayal. He there established in 1460 a colony of Flemings, whose descendants yet exist in the Azores, which were for some time called the Flemish islands. This circumstance is proved, not only by the writings of contemporary authors, but also by the manuscripts preserved in the records of Nuremberg; and although this record is contrary to the generally received opinion, that the Azores were discovered by Gonsalva Velho, a Portuguese, yet its authenticity seems unquestionable. It is confirmed not only by several contemporary writers, and by Wagenseil, one of the most learned men of the last century, but likewise by a note written on parchment in the German language, and sent from Nuremberg, a few years ago, to M. Otto, who was then investigating the discovery of America. The note contained, with other things, the following facts: “Martin Beham, esq. son of Mr. Martin Beham, of Scoperin, lived in the reign of John II. king of Portugal, in an island which he discovered, and called the island of Fayal, one of the Azores, lying in the western ocean.”

After having obtained from the regent a grant of Fayal, and resided there about twenty years, Behem applied in 1484 (eight years before Columbus’s expedition), to John II. king of Portugal, to procure the means of undertaking a great expedition towards the south-west. This prince gave hitn some ships, with which he discovered that part of America which is now called Brazil; and he even sailed to the straits of Magellan, or to the country of some savage tribes whom he called Patagonians, from the extremities of their bodies being covered with a skin more like bear’s paws than human hands and feet. A fact so little known, and apparently so derogatory to the fame of Columbus, ought not to be admitted without sufficient proof; but the proofs which have been urged in support of its authenticity are such as cannot be controverted. They are not only the letters of Behem himself, written in 1486, and preserved in the archives of Nuremberg, but likewise the public records of that city; in which we read that “Martin Behem, traversing the Atlantic ocean fenseveral years, examined the American islands, and discovered the strait which bears the name of Magellan before either Christopher Columbus or Magellan sailed those seas; whence he mathematically delineated, on a geographical chart, for the king of Lusitania, the situation of the coast around every part of that famous and renowned strait, long before Magellan thought of his expedition.”

, better known under the name of Ebn Beithar, was likewise called Aschab, which signifies, botanist or herbalist. He was an African by birth, and died in the 646th year of the hegira. We have of him the “Giame al adviat al mofredat,” in 4 vols. which is a general history of simples or of plants ranged in alphabetical order. He has likewise written “Mogni si adviat al Mofredat,” in which he treats of the use of simples in the cure of every particular part of the body. Ebn Beithar also answered in a book which he called Taalik, to a work of Ebn Giazlah, who accused his works of many imperfections.

, an elegant Scottish writer of the sixteenth century, was descended from an ancient and very honourable family in that kingdom, where his father, Mr. Thomas Bellenden of Auchiiioul, was director to the chancery in 1540, and clerk of accounts in 1541. It does not appear when our author was born, or where educated but from his writings (frequently intermixed with words of Gallic derivation) it was probably in France. In his youth he served in the court, and was in great favour with king James V. as himself informs us, which he might very probahly owe to his fine vein in poetry, that prince being a great admirer, and a proficient in poetical studies. Having this interest with his prince, he attained extraordinary preferment in the church, being made canon of Ross, and archdeacon of Murray, to which last dignity perhaps he opened his passage, by taking the degree of doctor of divinity at the Sorbonne. He likewise obtained his father’s employment of clerk of accounts, which was very considerable, in the minority of the king before mentioned; but he was afterwards turned out by the struggle of factions, in the same reign. We have no direct authority to prove that he had any share in the education of king James V. but from some passages in his poems, and from his addressing many of them to that king, he appears to have been in some measure particularly attached to his person; and from one of them, we may infer that he had an interest beyond that of bare duty, in forming a right disposition, and giving wholesome instructions to that prince. But the work which has transmitted his name to posterity, is his translation of Hector Boethius, or, as his countrymen call him, Hector Boeis’s History, from the Latin into the Scottish tongue, which he performedat the command of his royal master admirably, but with a good deal of freedom, departing often from his author, although generally for the sake of truth, and sometimes also adding circumstances, which perhaps might not be known to Hector Boece. This version, as he called it, was very well received both in Scotland and England. It does not appear either from his own writings or otherwise, how he came to lose his office of clerk of accounts; but he certainly recovered it in the succeeding reign, was likewise made one of the lords of session; and had credit then at court, perhaps from his zeal in respect to his religion, for he was a very warm and inflexible Romanist, and laboured assiduously, in conjunction with Dr. Laing, to impede the progress of the reformation. It may with great probability be conjectured, that the disputes into which he plunged himself on this subject, made him so uneasy, that he chose to quit his native country, that he might reside in a place, where that disposition, instead of being an hindrance, would infallibly recommend him. This (as it is supposed) carried him to Rome, where, as Dempster tells us, he died in 1550. He was unquestionably a man of great parts, and one of the finest poets his country had to boast, and notwithstanding the obsolete language of his works, they are not slightly imbued with that enthusiasm which is the very soul of poesy. His great work appeared in folio at Edinburgh, in 1536, entitled “The History and Chronicles of Scotland, compilit and newly correctit and amendit be the reverend and noble clerk Mr. Hector Boeis, chanon of Aberdene, translated lately be Mr. John Bellenden, archdene of Murray, and chanon of Rosse, at command of James the Fyfte, king of Scottis, imprintet in Edinburgh be Thomas Davidson, dwelling fornens the Fryere-Wynde.” This translation, as has been observed, was very far from being close, our author taking to himself the liberty of augmenting and amending the history he published as he thought proper. He, likewise, distinguished it into chapters as well as books, which was the only distinction employed by Boethius; which plainly proves, that it was this translation, and not the original, that Richard Grafton made use of in penning his chronicle, which Buchanan could scarcely avoid knowing, though he never misses any opportunity of accusing Grafton, as if he had corrupted and falsified this author, in order to serve his own purposes and abuse the people of Scotland; 1 which, however, is a groundless charge. Our author’s work was afterwards taken into the largest of our British histories, of which the bishop of Carlisle has given us the following account: “R. Holinshed published it in English, but was not the translator of it himself: his friend began the work and had gone a good way in it, but did not, it seems, live to finish it. In this there are several large interpolations and additions out of Major, Lesley, and Buchanan, by Fr. Thinne, who is also the chief author of the whole story after the death of king James the First, and the only penman of it from 1571 to 1586. Towards the latter end, this learned antiquary occasionally intermixes catalogues of the chancellors, archbishops, and writers of that kingdom.”

, more generally known by his Latin name of Gulielmus Belendenus, a native of Scotland, was born in the sixteenth century. We find him mentioned by Dempster as humanity professor atParis, in 1602. He is reported by the Scots to have possessed an eminent degree of favour with James VI. to whom he was master of requests, and “Magister Supplicum Libellortim,” or reader of private petitions, which, it is conceived, must have been only a nominal office, as his more constant residence was in France. By the munificence of that monarch, Bellenden was enabled to enjoy at Paris all the conveniences of retirement. While he continued thus free from other cares, he suffered not his abilities to languish; but employed his time in the cultivation of useful literature. His first work, entitled “Ciceronis princeps,” was printed at Paris in 1608, a work in which he extracted from Cicero’s writings, detached passages, and comprised them into one regular body, containing the rules of monarchical government, and the duties of the prince. To this first edition was prefixed “Tractatus de processu et scriptoribus rei politicae.” “Ciceronis Consul” was the next publication of Bellenden. It appeared also at Paris in 1612, and both were inscribed to Henry prince of Wales. In 1616 was published a second edition, to which was added “Liber de statu prisci orbis,” with a dedication to prince Charles, the surviving brother of Henry. While Bellenden was occupied in the composition of these three treatises, he was so much attracted by the admiration of Cicero, that he projected a larger work, “De Tribus Luminibus Romanorum,” and what he had already written concerning Cicero he disposed in a new order. Death, however, interrupted his pursuit, before he could collect and arrange the materials which related to Seneca and Pliny, but of the time of his death we have no account. The treatises of Bellenden which remain, have been esteemed as highly valuable, and worthy the attention of the learned. They were extremely scarce, but had been much admired by all who could gain access to them. At length they were rescued from their obscure confinement in the cabinets of the curious, by a new edition which appeared at London in 1787, in a form of typography and an accuracy of printing which so excellent an author may jusily be said to merit. It was accompanied with an eloquent Latin preface in honour of three modern statesmen. Dr. Samuel Parr, the author of the preface, and to whom literature is indebted for the restoration of such a treasure, has charged Middleton with having meanly withheld his acknowledgments, after having embellished the life of Cicero by extracting many useful and valuable materials from the works of Bellenden. This, if we mistake not, had been before pointed out by Dr. Warton in the second volume of his “Essay on Pope.”

, a French surgeon, was born at Paris in 1654, and after studying medicine and surgery, became surgeon-major to the French army in Italy, and afterwards first surgeon to the duchess dowager of Savoy. His practice was extensive and successful, and he had also cultivated polite literature with considerable enthusiasm. He is now, however, principally known by a work, which was long very popular, under the title of“Le Chirurgien de l'hospital,” Paris, 1695, 1705, and translated into English and most of the continental languages. There were five editions at least of the Dutch translation. In 1725 the author published a second volume at Paris, in which he advances many facts and experiments relative to the effects of mercury, of which Bianchi, professor of anatomy at Turin, availed himself in his Latin dissertation on the use of that mineral, and is said to have claimed discoveries which were really made by Belloste. The latter, however, appears to have been somewhat of a quack, as we are told that he bequeathed to his son the secret of compounding those mercurial pills, of which he speaks so often in his “Hospital Surgeon.”

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

He was, according to bishop Burnet, a proud man; and his parts were solid, but not quick. He had the art of observing the king’s temper, and managing it beyond all the men of that time. He was believed a papist, for he had once professed it, and at his death again reconciletl himself to the church of Rome. Yet in the whole course of his ministry, he seemed to have made it a maxim, that the king ought to shew no favour to popery, since all his. affairs would be ruined, if ever he turned that way: which made the papists become his mortal enemies, and accuse him as an apostate, and the betrayer of their interests. His character is drawn by Mr. Macpherson, in his History of Great Britain, with conciseness, spirit, and justice. *' Arlington supplied the place of extensive talents by an artful management of such as he possessed. Accommodating in his principles, and easy in his address, he pleased when he was known to deceive; and his manner acquired to him a kind of influence where he commanded no respect. He was little calculated for bold measures, on account of his natural timidity; and that defect created an opinion of his moderation, that was ascribed to virtue. His facility to adopt new measures was forgotten in his readiness to acknowledge the errors of the old. The deficiency of his integrity was forgiven in the decency of his dishonesty. Too weak not to be superstitious, yet possessing too much sense to own his adherence to the church of Rome, he lived a Protestant, in his outward profession; but he died a Catholic. Timidity was the chief characteristie of his mind; and that being known, he was even commanded by cowards. He was the man of the least genius of the parry; but he had most experience in that slow and constant current of business, which perhaps, suits affairs of state better than the violent exertions of men of great parts."

Henry, his son, second earl, was created duke of Portland, 1716, and having incurred great loss of fortune by the South Sea bubble, went over as governor to Jamaica, 1722, and died there 1726, aged forty-five. William his son, second duke, who died in 1762, married lady Margaret Cavendish Harley, only child of the second earl of Oxford, and heiress to the vast estates of the Cavendishes, formerly dukes of Newcastle. This lady, after the duke’s death, lived with splendid hospitality at Bulstrode, which was the resort not only of persons of the highest rank, but of those most distinguished for talents and eminence in the literary world. To her, posterity will ever be indebted, for securing to the public the inestimable treasures of learning contained in the noble manuscript library of her father and grandfather, earls of Oxford, now deposited in the British museum, by the authority of parliament, under the guardianship of the most distinguished persons of the realm, easy of access, and consequently of real use to the philosopher, the statesman, the historian, and the scholar. She died July 17, 1785, and the following year her own museum, collected at vast expence to herself', and increased by some valuable presents from her friends, was disposed of by auction, by the late Mr. Alderman Skinner. The sale lasted thirty-seven days. Among the books was the fine Missal, known by the name of the Bedford Missal, of which Mr. Gough published an account, as will be noticed in his life. This splendid volume was purchased by, and is now in the very curious and valuable library of James Edwards, esq. of Harrow-on-the-hill.

On the 4th of July, 1.689, being already M.A. in the university of Cambridge, he was incorporated as such in the university of Oxford, in Wadham college, and is mentioned by Anthony Wood (though then but a young man, a good deal under thirty) as a genius that was promising, and to whom the world was likely to be obliged, for his future studies and productions. In 1691 he published a Latin epistle to John Mill, D.D. containing some critical observations relating to Johannes Malala, Greek historiographer, published at the end of that author, at Oxon, in 1691, in a large 8vo. This was the first piece that our author published. Nor was religion less indebted to him than learning, for in 1691-2, he had the honour to be selected as the first person to preach at Boyle’s lectures (founded by that honourable gentleman, to assert and vindicate the great fundamentals of natural and revealed religion), upon which occasion he successfully applied sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica,” to demonstrate the being of God, and altogether silenced the Atheists, who, in this country, have since that time, for the most part, sheltered themselves under Deism. The subject of his discourses was the folly of atheism, even with respect to the present life, and that matter and motion cannot think; or a confutation of atheism from the faculties of the soul, from the structure and origin of human bodies, and the origin and trame of the world itself; and though he was bnt young, and even only in deacon’s orders, he laid the basis and foundation upon which all the successors to that worthy office have since built. Though this was a task of great extent, and no small difficulty, yet Mr. Bentley acquitted himself with so much reputation, that the trustees not only publicly thanked him for them, but did moreover, by especial command and desire, prevail upon him to make the said discourses public, upon which he gave the world a volume, 1693, 4to, containing eight sermons, which have not only undergone a number of editions, but have been translated abroad into several languages. On the 2d of October, 1692, he was installed a prebendary of Worcester by bishop Stillingfleet. Upon the death of Mr. Justel, Mr. Bentley was immediately thought upon to succeed him, as keeper of the royal library at St. James’s; and accordingly, a few months after his decease, he had a warrant made out for that place, from the secretary’s office, December 23, 1693, and had his patent for the same in April following. Soon after he was nominated to that office, before his patent was signed, by his care and diligence he procured no less than a thousand volumes of one sort or other, which had been neglected to be brought to the library, according to the act of parliament then subsisting, which prescribed that one copy of every book printed in England, should be brought and lodged in this library, and one in each university library. It was about this time and upon this occasion of his being made library-keeper, that the famous dispute between him and the honourable Mr. Boyle, whether the epistles of Phalaris were genuine or riot, in some measure, at first took rise, which gave occasion to so maiw books and pamphlets, and has made so much noise in the world. This controversy upon a point of learning, in itself not very entertaining, was managed with a wit and humour which rendered it interesting to the public. The world was at that time a little biassed in favour of the production of the young nobleman, at least as to the genteel raillery of his pieces; for as to the dispute itself, viz. the genuineness of the Epistles of Phalaris, the best judge^s almost universally now give the preference to Dr. Bentley; nor does he much, if at all, fall short of Mr. Boyle, in throwing a deal of life and spirit into the controversy, particularly in his answer to Mr. Boyle, which is interspersed, as well as Mr. Boyle’s piece, with abundance of wit and humour, and is, upon the whole, reckoned much the best book. When, in 1696, he was admitted to his degree of D. D. he preached, on the day of the public commencement, from 1 Peter iii. 15. “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” About this time the university entered upon a design of publishing some editions, in 4to, of some classic authors, for the use of the duke of Gloucester. Dr. Bentley, who was consulted upon the occasion, advised Laughton, to whose care the edition of Virgil was committed, to follow Heinsius very close, but his advice was not complied with. Terence was published by Leng, Horace byTalbot, and Catullus, Tibnllus, and Propertius, by Mr. Annesley, afterwards earl of Anglesey. Dr. Bentley procurecUfrom Holland the types with which these books were printed. At the express desire of his friend Mr. Graevius, he published his “Animadversions and remarks on the poet Callimachus,” making, at the same time, a collection of some scattered pieces or fragments of that author. These he finished and sent over to Mr. Grarmus, towards the latter end of his dispute with Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Graevius published them abroad in 1697. in 1700, upon the death of Dr. Montague, he was by the crown presented to the mastership of Trinity-college, Cambridge, which is reckoned worth near 1000l. per annum, upon obtaining which preferment he resigned his prebend of Worcester; but June 12, 1701, on Dr. Say well’s death, he was collated archdeacon of Ely. What next employed his critical genius were the two first comedies of Aristophanes. Upon these he made some curious annotations, which were published at Amsterdam in 1710; as was much about the same time, at Rheims, his emendations, &c. on the fragments of Menancler and Philemon, in the feigned name of “Philcleutherus Lipsiensis.” Under this character he appeared again, in 1713, in remarks upon Collins’s discourse of free-thinking, a book which had made no small noise in the world at that time. This he handles and confutes in a critical, learned, and yet familiar manner. Before his Remarks on Freethinking, in 1711, came forth his so long-expected and celebrated edition of Horace. What he intended, was not properly to explain his author, but only to correct what he judged remained still corrupted in the text, as he himself tells us in his preface; and this by the help and assistance, either of ancient manuscripts, old editions, or by conjecture. This, it must be confessed, was a nice and dangerous undertaking, but he succeeded at least in correcting a much greater number of passages than any, or all his former interpreters, ever had done; furnishing us, in this his new edition of our elegant Roman poet, with a great number of very plausible, and probable, and unquestionably, some genuine emendations. Le Clerc abroad was Bentley’s chief opponent in this edition. At home, in the year following the doctor’s edition, viz. 1712, came out, by various hands, the odes and epodes of Horace, in sixpenny numbers, making in the whole two volumes in 8vo; the titles of which are “The odes and epodes of Horace in Latin and English, with a translation of Dr. Bentley’s notes. To which are added notes upon notes, done in the Bentleian style and manner.” In the preface they “humbly hope that the reader will encourage the following essays, upon several accounts. First, as they are designed to shew him the best author of Augustus’s age in his native purity. Secondly, to give him a further proof how far all attempts to render him into English, even after the best version now extant has succeeded no better, must fall short of the original. Thirdly, to convince him how ridiculous it is to presume to correct Horace without authority, upon the pretended strength of superior judgment in poetry. And lastly, how easily such a presumption may be turned upon the authors, and sufficiently expose them in their own way.” This last paragraph seems indeed to express the greatest part of the design of this work, which is executed with a great deal of spirit and humour. On the 5th of November, 1715, the doctor preached a sermon before the university against popery, on which somebody soon after published remarks, which occasioned Dr, Bentley’s answer, entitled “Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy, by the author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon on Popery, &c.” This was printed in 1717, in 8vo. In 1716, at which time he succeeded to the chair of Regius professor of divinity, the doctor had two printed letters inscribed to him, dated Jan. 1, to which also was added his answer, concerning his intended edition of the Greek Testament, giving some account of what was to be expected in that edition; and in them we are informed, that he intended to make no use of any manuscript in this edition that was not a thousand years old or above; of which sort he had got at that time twenty together in his study, which made up, one with another, 20,000 years. After having had this affair in agitation for about four years, he at last published proposals for it, which met with great encouragement. But soon after came out Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, on these proposals, by Dr. Conyers Middleton, as it afterwards appeared, who sets out by assuring his reader, that it was neither personal spleen, nor envy to the author of the Proposals, that drew the following remarks from him, but a serious conviction that Dr. Bentley had neither talents nor materials proper for the work, and that religion was much more likely to receive detriment than service from it. “The time, manner, and other circumstances of these proposals,” says he, “make it but too evident, that they were hastened out to serve quite different ends than those of common Christianity; and I think it my duty to obviate, as far as I am able, the influence they might have on some, whom big words, and bold attempts, are apt to lead implicitly into an high opinion and admiration of the merit and abilities of the undertaker.” Dr. Middleton then proceeds to criticise, paragraph by paragraph, Dr. Bentley’s proposals. Soon after these Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, the Proposals appeared, with a pamphlet entitled “A full answer to all the Remarks of a late pamphleteer, by a member of Trinity college, Cambridge,” 1721, signed J. E. This Dr. Middleton, and all, imagined could be none but the doctor himself, as well from the style, as the letters J. E. the two first vowels of Richard Bentley: and, upon this supposition, Dr. Middleton and others, in their future remarks, make that one great handle for abusing him. It is, however, somewhat uncertain, whether Dr. Middleton might not be as much mistaken as to the author of those Remarks, as the very author of those Remarks was with respect to the author of the Remarks paragraph by paragraph, who supposed them to be made by Dr. Colbatch. Soon after this came out a pamphlet, with some further “Remarks, &c. containing a full answer to the editor’s late defence -of his Proposals, as well as all his objections there made against my former remarks, by Conyers Middleton, D. D.” As also, an anonymous letter to the reverend master of Trinity college, Cambridge, editor of a new Greek Testament. We also find, under the Catalogue of the doctor’s works in the Bibliotheca Bodleiana,-much about this time, another publication, somewhat analogous, and relating to this affair, viz. “An enquiry into the authority of the primitive Complutensian edition of the New Testament, in a letter to archdeacon Bentley,” 1722, 8vo. As to these proposals, Dr. Middleton takes upon him to say, that they were only published with a view “that some noise should be made in the world in his favour, to support his declining character by something great and popular, to recover esteem and applause to himself, and throw an odium and contempt upon his prosecutors, &c.” In 1725, at a public commencement on the 6th of July, the doctor made an elegant Latin speech, on creating seven doctors of divinity, in which, at the several periods, by little notes below, is set forth the whole form of the creation of a doctor of divinity. This piece is usually joined to his edition of Terence and Phsedrus: at least it is added to the Amsterdam edition of them in 1727, a very neat edition, corrected for the press by the doctor. To these notes on Terence, he has also added those of the learned Gabriel Faernius, and taken great pains in amending and correcting the author, not only from those ancient manuscripts which Gabriel Faernius had procured, but also from whatever manuscripts the royal library, those of Cambridge, or any of his friends, could afford; some of which, he assures us, were of great antiquity, and at least next, and very little inferior, to those of Faernius, the orthography of which, as the most ancient manuscript, he altogether follows. He has likewise altered the text in abundance of places, and assigns in the notes the reason for such alteration. Then follows the Schediasma of the metre and accents of Terence, by which the doctor proves that Terence is written all in Verse. This, however', was a matter of some controversy betw-een the learned bishop Hare and our author; and during the warmth of the debate. Will. Whiston remarked how intolerable it was, that while Grotius, Newton, and Locke, all laymen, were employing their talents on sacred studies, such clergymen as Dr. Bentley and bishop Hare were fighting about a play-book. About 1732, the doctor published his Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” when he was, as he says in his preface, about seventy years old. This is a very elegant and beautiful edition of that poem, but cannot be said to have contributed much to the editor’s deputation. Dr. Bentley tells us, that he had prepared a new edition of the poet Manillas for the press, which he would have published, had not the clearness of paper, and the want of good types, and some other occasions, hindered him. He had also some design of publishing an edition of Hesychius, as we find by Mr. Graevius’s letter to him, and assured Dr. Mill, he could, if he pleased, correct five thousand faults in that author. His emendations on the Tusculan Questions of Cicero are adjoined to Mr. Davis’s edition of that author. From this produce of his studious, we must now pass to that of his more active, life, in the memorable complaints of rrial -administration urged against him by the college, which were the occasion of a long suit, whether the Crown‘ or the bishop of Ely was general visitor. A party in the college, displeased at some of his regulations, began to talk of the fortieth statute, de Magistri (si res exigat) Amotionc, and meditated a complaint to the bishop of Ely. The master hearing this, went to bishop Patrick, then at Ely, who told him, he had never heard before, that, as bishop of Ely, he had any thing to do in the royal college of Trinity; called his secretary to him, and bid him seek if there was any precedent for it in the bishop’s archives; but not one was found, nor so much as a copy of Trinity college statutes. Upon that, the doctor lent him one; and during that bishop’s time the matter was dropped. But in his successor Dr. Moore’s time, the party were encouraged to apply to the bishop, in 1709, and avast number of articles about dilapidations, but not one of immorality, bribery, or fraud, were exhibited against the master. These were, however, the subject of many pamphlets on both sides. His lordship received the charge, intending to proceed upon it, which he conceived himself sufficiently authorised to do, and required Dr. Bentley’ s answer, which he declined for some time to give, pleading want of form in the charge; because other members of the college, besides the seniors, had joined in the accusation, and the seniors themselves, as he alleged, had never yet admonished him; from whence he inferred, that all proceedings on such a charge, and whatsoever should follow on the same foot, would be ipso facto null and void. The bishop, however, did not, it seems, think this plea to be material; for he insisted upon Dr. Bentley’s answer to the charge; who, upon that, began to question what authority his lordship had over him; and, by a petition presented to queen Anne, prayed “that her majesty would take him and the college into her protection, against the bishop’s pretensions, and maintain her sole power and jurisdiction over her royal foundation, and the masters thereof.” This petition was referred to the then attorney and solicitor-general, and they were ordered fully to consider the matter, and report their opinions. Notice was given at the same time to the bishop, that her majesty having taken this affair into her cognizance, his lordship was to stay proceedings till the queen’s pleasure was farther known. Mr. attorney and solicitor-general took some time to consider; and were of opinion, the bishop had power over the master. But this report not proving satisfactory to some persons then in administration, a letter was brought to the bishop from Mr. secretary St. John, dated 18th June, 1711, acquainting him, “that the matter of the petition of Dr. Richard Bentley, master of Trinity-college in Cambridge, together with the report of Mr. attorney and Mr. solicitorgeneral, being then before the queen, and ordered to be taken into consideration by my lord keeper, assisted by her majesty’s counsel learned in the law, her majesty thought it to be a business of such weight and consequence, that she had commanded him (the secretary) to signify her pleasure to his lordship, that he should stop all further proceedings, according to her majesty’s direction.” But the master seeing that all discipline and studies would be lost in the college, if that controversy were not one way or other decided, requested of the ministry that he might be permitted to take his trial under any visitor the queen should appoint; or if none could be so appointed, that he might have leave, salvo jure regio, to be voluntarily tried under the bishop. Upon this the inhibition was taken off by Mr. secretary St. John, by order of the queen, signifying, “that his lordship was at liberty to proceed, so far as by the law he might.” But his lordship did not think fit to proceed, till he was served uith a rule of court from the king’s-bench, in Easter-term 1714, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue out against him. The bishop, being then at Ely, was applied to by joint messengers on both sides, to go to the college, where he might have ended the matter in two days. But this was not thought so proper, and Ely-house at London was pitched on, where, instead of two days, the trial lasted at least six weeks, and the college paid a thousand pounds for it; three learned lawyers, who could know but very little of the matter, being admitted on each side, to make eloquent harangues, answers, and replies, upon questions arisingfrom above fifty articles, in which there was scarcely any thing material that might not easily be determined upon a bare inspection of the college statutes, registers, and books of accounts. The trial being ended, and the cause ripe for sentence, the bishop’s death prevented his giving judgment. Thus the matter dropped for the present; but was afterwards revived in 1728, when new articles of complaint against Dr. Bentley, charging him with having in many instances made great waste of the college revenue, and violated the statutes, all founded on the 40th of Elizabeth, were again exhibited to the bishop of Ely, as specially authorised and appointed to receive the same, and to proceed thereupon; though the matter had been long before decided in favour of the crown, as having the general visitatorial power. Upon this, a petition was subscribed by the college, and presented to his majesty under the common-seal, the 10th of August 1728, and the cause carried before the king in council for the college itself now engaged as party in the cause against the bishop, and above fifteen hundred pounds out of the revenues of the college, were spent in carrying it on. This being referred to a committee of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council, Dr. Fleetwood, the lord bishop of Ely, on the 2nd of November, 1728, also presented a petition to his majesty, to be heard touching his right, which was likewise referred to the said committee. The lords committee, just before the clay appointed for a hearing, viz. March 13, 1728, had a printed pamphlet put into their hands, entitled, “The Case of Trinity-college; whether the Crown or the Bishop of Ely be General Visitor;” at the end of which, as well as in their petition, the college applied to the king, to take the visitatorial power (as by the opinion of council he might with their consent) into his own hands, that they might b0 only visited by the crown, but not with a view or intent of avoiding a visitation or inquiry into the state of the society, for which they were very pressing, both in their petition, and at the end of this pamphlet. On the fifteenth the cause came on before the lords of the committee of privy-council, but was from thence referred to the king’s bench, where the May following it was tried by way of prohibition, and after a long pleading, the judges unanimously determined it in favour of the bishop, as to his visitatorial power over the doctor; and the June following, the fellows exhibited their articles of complaint against him before the bishop of Ely, his lordship having two assistants, viz. sir Henry Penrice, and Dr. Bettesworth. But it being urged, that the bishop was going to exercise a general visitatorial power, another petition was preferred to his majesty and council, by the master and fellows, and a farther hearing appointed in the cause, in the court of king’s bench, in November, 1729, &c. and in November, 1731, we find the cause had gone against the bishop of Ely, by his taking out a writ of error, for carrying the' cause by appeal into the house of lords. The crown, however, at last, to put an end to the dispute and disturbance, (as fully impowered to do) took both college and master, according to their petition, into its own jurisdiction and visitation, and here the matter ended.

The proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley in 1717 also, which were represented as violent and unjustifiable, as the effects of a power falsely usurped, or scandalously abused, and as arising from the malice of a party disaffected to the government, were the cause of great ferment and uneasiness in the university, and raised the curiosity, and drew the eyes of the whole nation upon them; for which reason we shall be a little particular in our account, that we may give the reader a just idea of the affair. In October 1717, the day after his majesty’s visit to the university, when several doctors in divinity, named by mandate, were attending in the senate-house to receive their degrees, Dr. Bentley, on creation, made a demand of four guineas from each of them, as a fee due to him as professor, over and above a broad -piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion; and absolutely refused to create any doctor till this fee was paid him. This occasioned a long and warm dispute, till at last many of the doctors, and Dr. Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon this condition, that Dr. Bentley should restore the money if it wasjiot afterwards determined to be his right. In the next meeting, those who had paid the fee were created, but he refused, to create such as would not pay it; upon which Dr. Grigg, then vice-chancellor, gave orders that some other doctor should perform the ceremony instead of him; and accordingly Dr. Fisher, the master -of Sydney-college, created several for the usual gratuity of a broad-piece. Upon this, they sent a state of the case to the chancellor, the duke of Somerset. Dr. Bentley still insisted upon his claim; but at last, instead of money, was content with a note from the rest, promising the payment of it, if it should be determined for him by the king, or any authority delegated from him; and at last submitted to create one of the king’s doctors, who came last, and some others who commenced afterwards, without either fee or note. Matters went on thus for near a twelvemonth, the doctor being in quiet possession of the money and notes: but nothing being determined about his right or title to it, Dr. Middleton thought he had reason to expect his money again; and accordingly (as it is said) he made a demand of it, first by letter, which was taken no notice of, and afterwards in person, and then applied to the vice-chancellor for a decree, which, from the tender regard the vice-chancellor had for Dr. Bentley, he was some time before he could obtain. At length, however, the decree was granted, and a known enemy of Dr. Bentley’s employed to serve it, who went to Trinity-lodge on Tuesday the 23d of September; but whether through ignorance in his own business, or that he believed Dr. Bentley, who told him that it signified nothing, not having the consent of nine heads to it, or that he had some other design than that of arresting him, he left the arrest, decree, &c. with theloctor, and came away without executing the vice-chancellor’s orders at all. Dr. Bentley was afterwards arrested by another beadle, on the 1st of October, with a second decree, which doubtless argued the invalidity of the first. The professor supposing the authority of the arrest not sufficient, refused to submit to it; but on farther consideration obeyed the writ, and put in bail. Every one, but such as were let into the secret, expected this four guineas affair would end here. Friday, the 3d of October, being appointed for the trial, the doctor only appeared there by his proctor, which was looked upon as a contempt of the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. Dr. Middleton, therefore, by the leave of the court, appointed Mr. Cook his proctor, who accused Dr. Bentley of contempt for not appearing, and moved for some censure upon it, and called for the beadle to make a return of the first decree. But he being confined in his chamber by a lit of the gout, there made an affidavit, by improving some circumstantial talk he had with the doctor and some other gentlemen, the subject of which was, a complaint of the ill usage he had met with in his attending at Dr. Bentley’s lodgings. Among other things, the beadle deposed, That Dr. Bentley said to him, “I will not be concluded by what the vice-chancellor and two or three of his friends shall determine over a bottle;” (thereby reflecting on the clandestine way in which they had proceeded against him, without the formal consent of such a number of heads as he thought necessary to make a statutable arrest). For this expression, the vice-chancellor suspended the doctor from all his degrees, who had no citation, no hearing, not so much as any notice, from any hand, of what was then doing; and the vice-chancellor declared that he would vacate the doctor’s professorship in two or three days, if he did not make his humble submission. Three court days are allowed for this submission, viz. the 7th, 9th, and 15th of October. On the two former days his name was not mentioned, and on the last, the vice-chancellor would certainly have forgot to summon him, if he had not been reminded by his brother the clean of Chichcster. That same day the vice-chancellor required the professor to submit, and own himself rightly suspended, which he refused, but had recourse to the only remedy that was now left, viz. an appeal to the delegates of the university which was arbitrarily refused him. On this the vice-chancellor, thinking it prudent to have the sanction of the university to back him, called a congregation, and on the third court day after the suspension, informed the university of the steps he had taken, and the message he had sent the professor, which was, that he required him to come and acknowledge his crime, the legality of his suspension, and humbly beg to be restored to his degrees; to which the gentleman (he said) had returned no answer; and then he commanded it to be registered, that he would deliberate farther of what was to be done, towards the maintenance of the university privileges and his own authority. Eight heads were present in the consistory, viz. two visitors of Bene't-college, Dr. Cove! and Dr. Balderston three late chaplains to his majesty, Dr. Laney, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Sherlock; the rival professor, Dr. Fisher; the masters of Clhre-ha!l and St. John’s college, Dr. Grigg and Dr. Jenkin. These gentlemen, at a consultation the same afternoon, in the master of Peterhouse’s lodge, appointed a congregation the next morning to degrade the professor. But,“”when the time came, a friend of the professor’s being that day one of the caput, other business was proposed, but not concluded. On Friday morning, no mention was made, as ought to have been, of the proceedings at the last congregation; but, in the afternoon, Oct. 3, 1718, a vote of the body deprived Dr. Bentley of all the privileges, honours, and degrees, that he had received from it. Upon this, Dr. Bentley drew up a petition, which he presented to his majesty Oct. 30, 1718, complaining of the proceedings of the vice-chancellor and university, and begging his majesty’s relief and protection, as supreme visitor of the university. The king in council taking the said petition into consideration, was pleased to order the same to be sent to the reverend Dr. Gooch, vice-chancellor; who was thereby directed to attend his majesty in council on Thursday the 6th of November 1718, to give an account of the proceedings which occasioned this complaint. On this day the case was heard between the university and the doctor, before the king and council, and afterwards referred to a committee of council; but the ministry being unwilling to interpose their authority with regard to the proceedings, the matter was farther referred, in a judicial way, to the court of king’s bench, where it was kept some time in agitation. At length, however, the proceedings of the university were reversed by that court; and on February the 7th, 1723-4, the court of king’s bench sent down a mandamus to the university of Cambridge, to restore Mr. Bentley, master of Trinity college, to all his degrees, and whatever he had been deprived of, &c. This was agreeable to a prophetic passage at the end of one of the pamphlets, at that time printed in his defence: “When our present heats are over, I question not but our professor’s case will be looked upon with another eye, if it be not already seen, that the honour of the university was made a pretext only to cover the resentments of some particular persons amongst its members. As the determination of it lies at present before a judgment where merit and not malice is likely to be regarded, we shall in a little time, I make no doubt, with a more scholar-like pleasure than can be perceived in this usage of the learned Bentley, congratulate ourselves upon his restoration to his well -merited honours.”

* f He was communicative to all without distinction that sought information, or that resorted to him for assistance; fond of his college almost to enthusiasm, and ever zealous for the honour of the purple gown of Trinity. When he held examinations for fellowships, and the modest candidate exhibited marks of agitation and alarm, he never failed to interpret cancLdly of such symptoms: and on those occasions he was never known to press the hesitating and embarrassed examinant, but oftentimes, on the contrary, would take all the pains of expounding on himself, and credit the exonerated candidate for answers and interpretations of his own suggesting/'

We shall now attempt a catalogue of Dr. Bentley’s works, not hitherto noticed, and of the principal of those published respecting his controversies, as far as the latter can be ascertained. His first publication, as already noticed, was his epistle to Dr. Mill, under the title: 1. “Johannis Antiocheni Cognomento Malaise Historia Chronica e Mss. Cod. Bibliothecre Bodleianae, nunc primum edita, cum interp. et notis Edm. Chilmeadi et triplice indice rerum, autorum et vocum barbarum. Prsemittitur dissertatio de autore, per Humfredum Hodium, S. T. B. Coll. Wadhami Socium. Accedit Epistola Richardi Bentleii ad CI. V. Jo. Millium, S. T. P. cum indice scriptorum, qui ibi emendantur,” Oxonii, 1691, 8vo. 2. His “Sermons at Boyle’s Lectures,” 1693-4, 4to. His controversy with Mr. Boyle on the edition of Phalaris, which produced in 1697, 3. His “Dissertation upon the Epistles of Themistocles, Socrates, Euripides, Phalaris, and the Fables of Æsop,” at the end of the second edition of Wotton’s “Reflections on ancient and modern learning.” This occasioned Mr. Boyle’s work, “Dr. Bentley’s Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris and the Fables of Æsop examined, 1698; usually known by the title of” Boyle Against Bentley.“Dr. fientley then published, 4.” Dr. Bentley’s answer to the above,“commonly known by the name of” Bentley against Boyle,“a curious piece, interspersed with a great deal of true wit and humour. This was for some time a scarce book; but it was reprinted in 1777, by Bowyer and Nichols, with the advantage of several valuable notes and observations, either collected from, or communicated by, bishops Warburton and Lowth, Mr. Upton, Mr. W. Clarke, Mr. Markland, Dr. Salter, Dr. Owen, and Mr. Toup. These were the several pieces which appeared in this great dispute, excepting some few that were published against the doctor, hardly any of which are now known, except” A short review of the controversy between Mr. Boyle and Dr. Bentley,“1701, 8vo.; and previous to that,” A short account of Dr. Bentley’s humanity and justice to those authors who have written before him, with an honest vindication of Thomas Stanley, esq. and his notes on Callimachus. To which are added some other observations on that poet, in a letter to the honourable Charles Boyle, esq. with a Postscript, in relation to Dr. Bentley’s late book against him. To which is added an Appendix, by the bookseller, wherein the doctor’s misrepresentations of all the matters of fact, wherein he is concerned, in his late book about Phalaris’s Epistles, are modestly considered, with a letter from the honourable Charles Boyle on that subject,“Lond. 1699, 8vo. 5.” Annotationes, in Callimachum ultra, 1697. Collectio fragmentorum Callimachi et Annotationes ad eadem.“Of this an edition was published in 1741, 8vo. 6.” Remarks upon a late discourse on Free-thinking (by Collins) in two parts, by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,“Lond. 1713, 8vo 1719, 1725. 7.” Q. Horatius Flaccus ex recensione, et cum notis et emendationibus R. Bentleii,“Camb, 1711, 4to; Amst. 1713 and 1728, 8vo Leipsic, 1763, 2 vols. 8.” Proposals for printing a new edition of the Greek Testament,“Lond. 1721, 4to. Of the pamphlets pro and con respecting his disputes with his college and with the university, a very correct catalogue may be seen in Gough’s” British Topography."

, an adventurer of very dubious, but not uninteresting character, one of the Magnates of the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, was born in the year 1741, at Verbowa, the hereditary lordship of his family, situated in Nittria, in Hungary. After receiving the education which the court of Vienna affords to the youth of illustrious families, at the age of fourteen years, he fixed on the profession of arms. He was accordingly received into the regiment of Siebenschien, in quality of lieutenant; and joining the Imperial army, then in the field against the king of Prussia, was present at the battles of Lowositz, Prague, Schweidnitz, and Darmstadt. In 17,38, he quitted the Imperial service and hastened into Lithuania, at the instance of his uncle the starost of Benyowsky, and succeeded as his heir to the possession of his estates. The tranquillity, however, which he now enjoyed was interrupted by intelligence of the sudden death of his father, and that his brothers-in-law had taken possession of his inheritance. These circumstances demanding his immediate presence in Hungary, he quitted Lithuania with the sole view of obtaining possession of the property of his family; but his brothers-in-law by force opposed his entrance into his own castle. He then repaired to Krussava, a lordship dependant on the castle of Verbowa, where, after having caused himself to be acknowledged by his vassals, and being assured of their fidelity, he armed them, and by their assistance gained possession of all his effects; but his brothers, having represented him at the court of Vienna as a rebel and disturber of the public peace, the empress queen issued a decree in chancery against him, by which he was deprived of his property, and compelled to withdraw into Poland. He now determined to travel; but after taking several voyages to Hamburgh, Amsterdam, and Plymouth, with intention to apply himself to navigation, he received letters from the magnates and senators of Poland, which induced him to repair to Warsaw, where he joined the con?­federation then forming, and entered into an obligation, upon oath, not to acknowledge the king, until the confederation, as the only lawful tribunal of the republic, should have declared him lawfully elected to oppose the Russians by force of arms and not to forsake the colours of the confederation so long as the Russians should remain in Poland. Leaving Warsaw, in the month of December, he attempted to make his rights known at the court of Vienna; but disappointed in this endeavour, and deprived of all hope of justice, he resolved to quit for ever the dominions of the house of Austria. On his return to Poland, he was attacked, during his passage through the county of Zips, with a violent fever and being received into the house of Mr. Hensky, a gentleman of distinction, he paid his addresses and was married to one of his three daughters, but did not continue long in possession of happiness or repose. The confederate states of Poland, a party of whom had declared themselves at Cracow, observing that the count was one of the first who had signed their union at Warsaw, wrote to him to join them and, compelled by the strong tie of the oath he had taken, he departed without informing his wife, and arrived at Cracow on the very day count Panin made the assault. He was received with open arms by martial -Czarnesky, and immediately appointed colonel general, commander of cavalry, and quarter-master-general. On the 6th of July 1768, he was detached to Navitaig to conduct a Polish regiment to Cracow, and he not only brought the whole regiment, composed of six hundred men, through the camp of the enemy before the town, but soon afterwards defeated a body of Russians at Kremenka rechiced Landscroen, which prince Lubomirsky, who had joined the confederacy with two thousandregular troops, had attempted in vain and, by his great gallantry and address, contrived the means of introducing supplies into Cracow when besieged by the Russians but the count, having lost above sixteen hundred men in affording this assistance to the town, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat the moment he had effected his purpose; and being pursued by the Russian cavalry, composed of cossacks and hussars, he had the misfortune to have his horse killed under him, and fell at last, after receiving two wounds, into the hands of the enemy. Apraxin, the Russian general, being informed of the successful manoeuvre of the count, was impressed with a very high opinion of him, and proposed to him to enter into the Russian service but rejecting the overture with disdain, he was only saved from being sent to Kiovia with the other prisoners by the interposition of his friends, who paid 962 1. sterling for his ransom. Thus set at liberty, he considered himself as released from the parole which he had given t the Russians; and again entering the town of Cracow, he was received with the most perfect satisfaction by the whole confederacy. The town being no longer tenable, it became an object of the utmost consequence to secure another place of retreat and the count, upon his own proposal and request, was appointed to seize the castle of Lublau, situated on the frontier of Hungary; but after visiting the commanding officer of the castle, who was not apprehensive of the least danger, and engaging more than one half of the garrison by oath in the interests of the confederation, an inferior officer, who was dispatched to assist him, indiscreetly divulged the design, and the count was seized and carried into the fortress of Georgenburgh, and sent from thence to general Apraxin. On his way to that general, however, he was rescued by a party of confederates, and returned to Lublin, a town where the rest of the confederation of Cracow had appointed to meet, in order to join those of Bar, from which time he performed a variety of gallant actions, and underwent great vicissitudes of fortune. On the 19th of May, the Russian colonel judging that the count was marching towards Stry, to join the confederate parties at Sauok, likewise hastened his march, and arrived thither half a day before the count, whose forces were weakened by fatigue and hunger. In this state he was attacked about noon by colonel Brincken, at the head of four thousand men. The count was at first compelled^ to give way but, on the arrival of his cannon, he, in his turn, forced the colonel to retire, who at last quitted the field, and retreated towards Stry. The advantage of the victory served only to augment the misery of the count, who iivthis single action had threahundred wounded and two hundred and sixty-eight slain, and who had no other prospect before him than either to perish by hunger with his troops in the forest, or to expose himself to be cut to pieces by the enemy. On the morning of the 20th, however, by the advice of his officers and troops, he resumed his march, and arrived about ten o‘clock at the village of Szuka, where, being obliged to halt for refreshment, he was surprised by a party of cossacks, and had only time to quit the village and form his troops in order of battle on the plain, before he was attacked by the enemy’s cavalry, and soon, after by their infantry, supported by several pieces of cannon, which caused the greatest destruction among his forces. At length, after being dangerously wounded, the Russians took him prisoner. The count was sent to the commander in chief of the Russian armies, then encamped at Tam’pool, who not only forbade the surgeons to dress his wounds, but, after reducing him to bread and water, loaded him with chains, and transported him to Kiow. On his arrival at Polene, his neglected wound had so far endangered his life, that his conductor'was induced to apply to colonel Sirkow. the commanding officer at that place, and he was sent to the hospital, cured of his wounds, and afterwards lodged in the town, with an advance of fifty roubles for his subsistence. Upon the arrival, however, of brigadier Bannia, who relieved colonel Sirkow in his command, and who had a strong prejudice against the count, he was ac^ain loaded with chains, and conducted to the dungeon with the rest of the prisoners, who were allowed no other subsistence than bread and water. Upon his entrance he recognized several officers and soldiers who had served under him and their friendship was the only consolation he received in his distressed situation. Twentytwo days were thus consumed in a subterraneous prison, together with eighty of his companions, without light, and even without air, except what was admitted through an aperture which communicated with the casements. These unhappy wretches were not permitted to go out even on their natural occasions, which produced such an infection, that thirty-five of them died in eighteen or twenty days; and such were the inhumanity and barbarity of the commander, that he suffered the dead to remain and putrefy among the Ining. On the 16th of July the prison was opened, and one hundred and forty- eight prisoners, who had survived out of seven hundred and eighty-two, were driven, under every species of cruelty, from Polene to Kiow, where the strength of the count’s constitution, which had hitherto enabled him to resist such an accumulation of hardships and fatigue, at length gave way, and he was attacked with a malignant fever, and delirium. The governor, count Voicikow, being informed of his quality, ordered that i-.e should be separately lodged in a house, and that two roubles a day should he paid him for subsistence but when he was in a fair way of recovery, an order arrived from Petersburgh to send all the prisoners to Cazan, and this severity bringing on a relapse, the officer was obliged co leave the count at Nizym, a town dependant on the government of Kiow. At this place, a Mr. Lewner, a German merchant, procured him comfortable accommodation, superintended the restoration of his health, and on his departure made him a present of two hundred roubles, which he placed for safety in the hands of the officer until his arrival at Cazan, but who had afterwards the effrontery to deny that he had ever received the mont.y, accused the count of attempting to raise a revolt among the ^riauners, and caused him. to be loaded with chains and committed to the prison of Cazan, from which he was delivered at the pressing instances of marshal Czarnesky Potockzy, and the young Palanzky. He was then lodged at a private house, and being invited to dine with a man of quality in the place, he was solicited, and consented to join in a confederacy against the government. But on the 6th of November 1769, on a quarrel happening between two Russian lords, one of them informed the governor that the prisoners, in concert with the Tartars, meditated a design against his person and the garrison. This apostate lord accused the count, in order to save his friends and countrymen, and on the 7th, at eleven at night, the count not suspecting any such event, heard a knocking at his door. He came down, entirely undressed, with a candle in his hand, to inquire the cause; and, upon opening his door, was surprised to see an officer with twenty soldiers, who demanded if the prisoner was at home. On his replying in the affirmative, the officer snatched the candle out of his hand, and ordering his men to follow him, went hastily up to the count’s apartment. The count immediately took advantage of his mistake, quitted his house, and, after apprising some of the confederates that their plot was discovered, he made his escape, and arrived at Petersburgh on the 19th of November, where he engaged with a Dutch captain to take him to Holland. The captain, however, instead of taking him on-board tho ensuing morning, pursuant to his promise, appointed him to meet on the bridge over the Neva at midnight, and there betrayed him to twenty Russian soldiers collected for the purpose, who carried him to count Csecserin, lieutenantgeneral of the police. The count was conveyed to the fort of St. Peter and St. Paul, confined in a subterraneous dungeon, and after three days fast, presented with a morsel of bread and a pitcher of water; but, on the 22d of November 1769, he at length, in hopes of procuring his discharge, was induced to sign a paper promising for ever to quit the dominions of her imperial majesty, under pain of death.

The island of Madagascar, as is well known, is of vast extent, and is inhabited by a great variety of different nations. Among these is the nation of Sambarines, formerly governed by a chief of the name and titles of Rohandrian Ampansacab6 Ramini Larizon whose only child, a lovely daughter, had, it seems, been taken prisoner, and sold as a captive and from this circumstance, upon the death of Ramini, his family was supposed to be extinct. “On the 2d of February,” says the count, “M. Corbi, one of my most confidential officers, with the interpreter, informed me, that the old negress Susanna, whom I had brought from the isle of France, and who in her early youth had been sold to the French, and had lived upwards of fifty years at the isle of France, had reported, that her companion, the daughter of Ramini, having likewise been made a prisoner, was sold to foreigners, and that she had certain marks that I was her son. This officer likewise represented to me, that in consequence of her report the Sambarine nation had held several cabars to declare me the heir of Ramini, and consequently proprietor of the province of Manahar, and successor to the title of Ampansacabe, or supreme chief of the nation. This information appeared to me of the greatest consequence, and I determined to take the advantage of it, to conduct that brave and generous nation to a civilized state. But as I had no person to whom I could entruLo the secret of my mind, I lamented how blind the minister of Versailles was to the true interests of France. On the same day I interrogated Susanna on the report she had spread concerning my birth. The good old woman threw herself at my knees, and excused herself by confessing that she had acted entirely upon a conviction of the truth. For she said that she had known my mother, whose physiognomy resembled mine, and that she had herself been inspired in a dream by the Zahanhar to publish the secret. Her manner of speaking convinced me that she really believed what she said. J therefore embraced her, and told her that I had reasons for keeping the secret respecting my birth; but that nevertheless if she had any confidential friends she might acquaint them with it. At these words she arose, kissed my hands, and declared that the Sambarine nation was informed of the circumstances, and that the Rohandrian Raffangour waited only for a favourable moment to acknowledge the blood of Ramini.”

, pastor and professor of theology at Montauban, about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was chosen to enter into conference with cardinal du Perron at Mantes, in 1593; and in 1598, wrote against him “Brieve et claire defense de la vocation des ministres de l'Evangile,” 8vo. The lively interest he took in the affairs of the duke of Rohan, during the civil wars of France, induced him to publish several writings, particularly one, in which he maintained that the clergy were bound to take up arms and shed blood, for which he was censured by the synod. Another Berault (Claude) succeeded D'Herbelot, as professor of the Syriac in the royal college of Paris, but is best known by his edition of “Statius,” 1685, 2 vols. 4to, which, owing to most of the copies having been burnt by a fire in the printing-office, is the most scarce and dear of all the Delphin quartos. This author died in 1705. Berault (Josias), an advocate of the parliament of Rouen under Henry III. was born in 1563, and died about 1640. He published a “Commentaire sur la Coutume de Normandie,” 1650 and 1660, fol. The booksellers of Rouen, in 1626, republished this with the commentaries of Godefroi and Aviron, 2 vols. fol. which were again reprinted in 1684 and" 1776.

, a French poet of the sixteenth century, was born at Albenas or Aubenas in the Vivarais. From the preface to one of his works it appears that he studied law, and that his family had intended him for some post in the magistracy, but that he had found leisure to cultivate his poetical talents, in which he was not unsuccessful. His verses are easy and natural. The greater part were addressed to the poets of his time, many of whose names are not much known now, or to persons of distinction. We learn from one of his pieces that he lived under Francis I. from another, under Henry II. and it is supposed that he died about 1559. His published works are, 1. “Le Siecle d'or,” and other poems, Lyons, 1551, 8vo. 2. “Choreide,” or, “Louange du Bal aux Dames,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. 3. “L'Amie des Amies,” an imitation of Ariosto, in four books, ibid. 1558, 8vo. 4. “L'Amie rustique,” and other poems, ibid. 1558, 8vo. This last, a work of great rarity, is printed with a species of contractions and abbreviations which render the perusal of it very difficult.

, a man utterly unknown, who appeared in Holland in 1670, was thought to be a Jesuit, or a renegade from some other religious fraternity. He got his bread by sweeping chimnies and grinding knives, and died at length in a bog, suffocated in a fit of drunkenness. His talents, if the historians that mention him are to be credited, were extraordinary. He versified with so much ease, that he could recite extempore, and in tolerably good poetry, whatever was said to him in prose. He has been known to translate the Flemish gazettes from that language into Greek or Latin verse with the utmost facility. The dead languages, the living languages, Greek, Latin, French, and Italian, were us familiar to him as his mother tongue. He could repeat by heart Horace, Virgil, Homer, Aristophanes, and several pieces of Cicero and of the Plinies; and, after reciting long passages from them, point out the book and the chapter from whence they were taken. It is supposed that the “Georgarchontomachia sive expugnatae Messopolis” is by him.

, an Italian poetess, was born April 15, 1703, and appeared from her infancy capable of making a figure in the literary world. Her father, although of a genteel family of Piedmont, was ruined by various misfortunes, and at length setup a shoemaker’s shop in Venice, where he acquired some property. His daughter Louisa, one of a numerous family, discovered first a taste for embroidery, then for drawing and painting, in which she was instructed by the celebrated female artist Rosalba Camera; nor did she make less progress in literature, philosophy, and languages. She learned French of her father, and Latin under an excellent master, and in the course of this study she translated some of the comedies of Terence. Having conceived a particular taste for dramatic poetry, she received some instructions from Apostolo Zeno. As soon as her talents were known, places both lucrative and honourable were offei'ed to her at Rome, Poland, Spain, and Milan, but she would not quit Venice, her native country, and continued her studies until the age of thirty-five, when she married count Gaspard Gozzi, a noble Venetian, known in the literary world for his Italian dramas and other works. She lived with him very happily, and bore five children, whom she educated with great care. The time of her death is not mentioned. Her principal works are, 1. “Agide re di Sparta,” a musical drama, Venice, 1725, 12mo. 2. “LaTeba,” a tragedy, ibid. 1728, 8vo. 3. “L'Elenia,” musical drama, ibid. 1730, 12mo. 4. “Le Avventure del poeta,” comedy, ibid. 1730, 8vo. 5. “Elettra,” tragedy, ibid. 1743, 12mo. 6. “La Bradamante,” musical drama, ibid. 1747, 12mo. 7. “Le Commedie di Terenzio tradotto in versi sciolti,” ibid. 1733, 8vo. 8. Translations from Racine and other dramatic poets of France. 9. “Componimenti poetici dc-lle piu illustri rimatrici d'ogni secolo,” ibid. 1726, 12mo. Many of her sonnets and lesser pieces appeared from time to time in various collections.

, an eminent French antiquary, was born at Rheims, March 1, 1567, and not 1557, as asserted by Bayle, Moreri, and Niceron. After finishing his studies at the university of that city, he became preceptor to the children of count de St. Souplet, who always testified his respect for him on account of the pains he bestowed on their education. He then was admitted an advocate, and appointed law-professor and syndic of the city, a place which he filled during many of the elections. His talents and virtues were so highly estimated by his fellow-citizens, that as a mark of their confidence they employed him on their affairs at Paris. During his visits to that metropolis, he commenced a friendship with Dupuy and Peiresc, and formed an acquaintance with the president de Bellievre, who obtained for him the place of historiographer by brevet, with a pension of two hundred crowns. He was on a visit at the country-house of this celebrated magistrate, when he was attacked by a fever, which terminated fatally, August 18, 1623, in his fifty -seventh year. The president honoured him with an affectionate epitaph, which is printed in his two principal works. He is particularly known in the literary world by his “Histoire des grands chemins de l'empire Remain,” a work in which he was assisted by his friend Peiresc, who furnished him with many necessary documents. It was first printed in 4to, 1622, and in the course of a century became very scarce. In 1712 the first book of it was translated into English, and published at London, in 8vo, entitled “The general history of the Highways in all parts of the world, particularly in Great Britain.” In 1728, John Leonard, bookseller and printer at Brussels, published a new edition of the original, 2 vols. 4to, from a copy corrected by the author; and one yet more improved was printed at the same place, in 1736, 2 vols. 4to. They are both scarce, but the first is reckoned the best printed. It has also been translated into Latin by Henninius, professor in the university of Duisbourg, with learned notes, and the remarks of the abbé Du Bos, for Graevius’s antiquities, vol. X. but Bayle is mistaken in supposing that this work was translated into Latin and Italian by Benedict Baccliini, who, however, made some progress himself in a work “De viis antiquorum Romanorum in Italia,” and doubtless would have availed himself of Bergier’s labours. Besides this history of the Roman roads, Bergier had begun a history of Rheims, the manuscript of which the president de Bellievre wished Andre Duschesne to complete, but some obstruction arising on the part of the chapter of Rheims, who refused Duschesne access to their archives, he declined proceeding with the undertaking. The son of the author, however, John Bergier, unwilling that the whole should be lost, published the two books left complete by his father, with a sketch of the other fourteen of which it^as to consist. This wasentitled “Dessein de I'Histoire de Reims,” ibid. 1635, 4fo. Bergier was also author of 1. “Le point du Jour, ou Traite du Commencement des Jours et de l'endroit ou il est etabli sur la terre,” Rheims, 1629, 12 mo. The first, a Paris edition, 1617, wasentitled “Archemeron.” His object is to attain some general rule for avoiding the disputes respecting the celebration of the Catholic festivals. 2. “Le Bouquet royal,” Paris, 1610, 8vo; Rheims, 16:57, 4to, enlarged, an account of the devises and inscriptions which graced the entrance of Louis XIII. into Rheims. 3. “Police generale de la France,” 1617. 4. Various Latin and French poems inserted in the collections, but we cannot pronounce him very successful as a poet.

In 1710 appeared “The Principles of human knowledge;” and, in 1713, “Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous” but to them the same praise has not been given, and to this day their real tendency is a disputed point. The object of both pieces is to prove that the commonly received notion of the existence of matter is false that sensible material objects, as they are called, are not external to the mind, but exist in it, and are nothing more than impressions made upon it by the immediate act of God, according to certain rules termed laws of nature, from which, in the ordinary course of his government, he never deviates and that the steady adherence of the Supreme Spirit to these rules is what constitutes the reality of things to his creatures. These works are declared to. Lave been written in opposition to sceptics and atheists and the author’s inquiry is into the chief cause of error and difficulty in the sciences, with the grounds of scepticism, atheism, and irreligion which cause and grounds are found to be the doctrines of the existence of matter. He seems persuaded that men never could have been deluded into a false opinion of the existence of matter, if they had not fancied themselves invested with a power of abstracting substance from the qualities under which it is perceived and hence, as the general foundation of his argument, he is led to combat and explode a doctrine maintained by Locke and others, of there being a power in the mind of abstracting general ideas. Mr. Hume says, that these works “form the best lessons of scepticism, which are to be found either among the ancient or modern philosophers, Bayle not excepted.” Dr. Beattie also considers them as having a sceptical tendency. He adds, that if Berkeley’s argument be conclusive, it proves that to b false which every man must necessarily believe, every moment of his life, to be true, and that to be true which no man since the foundation of the world was ever capable of believing for a single moment. Berkeley’s doctrine attacks the most incontestable dictates of common sense, and pretends to demonstrate that the clearest principles of human conviction, and those which have determined the judgment of men in all ages, and by which the judgment of all reasonable men must be determined, are certainly fallacious. It may just be observed, that Berkeley had not reached his 27th year when he published this singular system. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, asserts that “the airy visions of romances, to the reading of which he was much addicted, disgust at the books of metaphysics then received in the university, and that inquisitive attention to the operations of the mind which about this time was excited by the writings of Locke and Malebranche, probably gave birth to his disbelief of the existence of matter.” Whatever influenre the oth^r causes here assigned might have had, we have the authority of his relict, Mrs. Berkeley, that he had a very great dislike to romances, and indeed it would be difficult to discover in any of these volumes of absurd fiction the grounds of such a work as Berkeley’s. In 1712 he published three sermons in favour of passive obedience and non-resistance, which underwent at least three editions, and afterwards had nearly done him sonic injury in. his fortune. They caused him to be represented as ajlacobite, and stood in his way with the house of Hanover, till Mr. Molineux, above-mentioned, took off the impression, and first made him known to queen Caroline, whose secretary, when princess, Mr. -Molineux had been. Acuteness of parts and beauty of imagination were so conspicuous in his writings, that his reputation was now established, and his company courted even where his opinions did not find admission. Men of opposite parties concurred in recommending him sir Richard Steele, for instance, and Dr. Swift. For the former he wrote several papers in the Guardian, and at his house became acquainted with Pope, with whom he afterwards lived in friendship. It is said he had a guinea and a dinner with Steele for every paper he wrote in the Guardian. Swift recommended him to the celebrated earl of Peterborough, who being appointed ambassador to the king of Sicily and the Italian states, took Berkeley with him as chaplain and secretary in November 1713. He returned to England with this nobleman in August 1714, and towards the close of the year had a fever, which gave occasion to Dr. Arbuthnot to indulge a little pleasantry on Berkeley’s system. “Poor philosopher Berkeley,” says he to his friend Swift, “has now the idea of health, which was very hard to produce in him; for he had an idea of a strange fever on him so strong, that it was very hard to destroy it by introducing a contrary one.”

We have already related by what means, and upon what occasion, Dr. Berkeley had first the honour of being known to queen Caroline. This princess delighted much in attending to philosophical conversations between learned and ingenious men for which purpose she had, when princess of Wales, appointed a particular day in the week, when the most eminent for literary abilities at that time in England were invited to attend her royal highness in the evening a practice which she continued after her accession to the throne. Of this company were doctors Clarke,­Hoadly, Berkeley, and Sherlock.- Clarke and Berkeley were generally considered as principals in the debates that arose upon those occasions; and Hoadly adhered to the former, as Sherlock did to the latter. Hoadly was no friend to our author: he affected to consider his philosophy and his Bermuda project as the reveries of a visionary. Sherlock (who was afterwards bishop of London) on the other hand warmly espoused his cause and particularly, when the “Minute Philosopher” came out, he carried a copy of it to the queen, and left it to her majesty to determine, whether such a work could be the production of a disordered understanding. After dean Berkeley’s return from Rhode Island, the queen often commanded his attendance to discourse with him on what he had observed worthy of notice in America. His agreeable and instructive conversation, engaged that discerning princess so much in his favour, that the rich deanery of Down in Ireland falling vacant, he was at her desire named to it, and the king’s letter actually came over fqr his appointment. But his friend lord Burlington having neglected to notify the royal intentions in proper time to the duke of Dorset, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, his excellency was so offended at this disposal of the richest deanery in Ireland, without his concurrence, that it was thought proper not to press the matter any farther. Her -majesty upon this declared, that since they would not suffer Dr. Berkeley to be a dean in Ireland, he should be a bishop and accordingly, in 1733,­the bishopric of Cioyne becoming vacant, he was by letters patent, dated March 17, promoted to that see, and was consecrated at St. Paul’s church in Dublin, on the 19th of May following, byTheophilus archbishop of Cashel, assisted by the bishops of Raphoe and Killaloe. His lordship repaired immediately to his manse-house at Cioyne, where he constantly resided (except one winter that he attended the business of parliament in Dublin) and applied himself with vigour to the faithful discharge of all episcopal duties. He revived in his diocese the useful office of rural dean, which had gone into disuse visited frequently parochially and confirmed in several parts of his see.

, an English miscellaneous writer, was born, about 1730, at Leeds in Yorkshire, and educated at the grammar-school in that town. His father, Xvho was a merchant, and a native of Holland, intended him for trade and with that view sent him at an early age to Germany, in order to learn foreign languages. After continuing a few years in that country, he made the tour of Europe in company with one or more English noblemen. On their return to Germany they visited Berlin, where Mr. Berkenhout met with a near relation of his father’s, the baron de Bielfeldt, a nobleman then in high estimation with the late king of Prussia; distinguished as one of the founders of the royal academy of sciences at Berlin, and universally known as a politician and a man of letters. With this relation our young traveller fixed his abode for some time; and, regardless of his original. destination, became a cadet in a Prussian regiment of foot. He soon obtained an ensign’s commission; and, in the space of a few years, was advanced to the rank of captain. He quitted the Prussian service on the declaration of war between England and France in 1756, and was honoured with the command of a company in the service of his native country. When peace was concluded in 1760, he went to Edinburgh, and commenced student of physic. During his residence at that university he compiled his “Clavis Anglica Lingux Botanicæ” a book of singular utility to all students of botany, and at that time the only botanical lexicon in our language, and particularly expletive of the Linnsean system. It was not, however, published until 1765.

Having continued some years at Edinburgh, Mr. Berkenhout went to the university of Leyden, where he took the degree of doctor of physic, in 1765, as we learn from his “Dissertatio medica inauguralis de Podagra,” dedicated to his relation baron de Bielfeldt. Returning to England, Dr. Berkenhout settled at Isleworth in Middlesex, and in 1766, published his “Pharmacopoeia Medici,” 12mo, the third edition of which was printed in 1782. In 1769, he published “Outlines of the Natural History of Great Britain and Ireland,” vol. I.; vol. II. appeared in 1770, and vol. III. in 1771. The encouragement this work met with afforded at least a proof that something of the kind was wanted. The three volumes were reprinted together in. 1773, and in 1788 were again published in 2 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Synopsis of the Natural History of Great Britain, &c.” In 1771, he published “Dr. Cadogan’s dissertation on the Gout, examined and refuted” and in 1777, “Biographia Literaria, or a Biographical History of Literature; containing the lives of English, Scotch, and Irish authors, from the dawn of letters in these kingdoms to the present time, chronologically and classically arranged,” 4to, vol.1, the only volume which appeared. The lives are very short, and the author frequently introduces sentiments hostile to religious establishments and doctrines, which could not be very acceptable to English readers. The dates and facts, however, are given with great accuracy, and in many of the lives he profited by the assistance of George Steevens, esq. the celebrated commentator on Shakspeare. This was followed by “A treatise on Hysterical Diseases, translated from the French.” In 1778, he was sent by government with certain commissioners to treat with America, but neither the commissioners nor their secretary were suffered by the congress to proceed further than New- York. Dr. Berkenhout, however, found means to penetrate as far as Philadelphia, where the congress was then assembled. He appears to have remained in that city for some time without molestation but at last on suspicion that he was sent by lord North for the pui'pose of tampering with some of their leading members, he was seized and committed to prison. How long he remained a state prisoner, or by what means he obtained his liberty, we are not informed but we find from the public prints, that he rejoined the commissioners at New York, and returned with them to England. For this temporary sacrifice of the emoluments of his profession, and in consideration of political services, he obtained a pension. In 1780, he published his “Lucubrations on Ways and Means, inscribed to lord North,” proposing certain taxes, some of which were adopted by that minister, and some afterwards by Mr. Pitt. Dr. Berkenhout’s friends at that time appear to have taken some pains to point him out as an inventor of taxes. His next work was “An essay en the Bite of a -Mad Dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the Hydrophobia is examined.” In the year following Dr. Berkenhout published his “Symptomatology” a book which is too universally known to require any recommendation. In 1788, appeared “First lines of the theory and practice of Philosophical Chemistry,” dedicated to Mr. Eden, afterwards lord Auckland, whom the doctor accompanied to America. Of this book it is sufficient to say, that it exhibits a satisfactory display of the present state of chemistry. His last publication was “Letters on Education, to his son at Oxford,” 1791, 2 vols. 12mo but in 1779, he published a continuation of Dr. Campbell’s “Lives of the Admirals,” 4 vols. 8vo and once printed “Proposals for a history of Middlesex, including London,” 4 vols. fol. which, as the design dropt, were never circulated. There is also reason to suppose him the author of certain humorous publications, in prose and verse, to which he did not think fit to prefix his name, and of a translation from the Swedish language, of the celebrated count Tessin’s letters to the late king of Sweden. It is dedicated to the prince of Wales, his present majesty of Great Britain and was, we believe, Mr. Berkenhout’s first publication. He died the 3d of April 1791, aged 60.

When we reflect on the variety of books that bear his name, we cannot but be surprised at the extent and variety of the knowledge they contain. He was originally intended for a merchant; thence his knowledge of the principles of commerce. He was some years in one of the best disciplined armies in Europe thence his knowledge of the art of war. His translation of count Tessin’s Letters shew him to be well acquainted with the Swedish language, and that he is a good poet. His Pharmacopoeia Medici, &c. demonstrate his skill in his profession. His Outlines of Natural History, and his Botanical Lexicon, prove his knowledge in every branch of natural history. His First lines of Philosophical Chemistry have convinced the world of his intimate acquaintance with that science. His essay on Ways and Means proves him well acquainted with the system of taxation. All his writings prove him to have been a classical scholar, and it is known that the Italian, French, German, and Dutch languages were familiar to him. He was moreover a painter and played well, it is said, on various musical instruments. To these acquirements may be added, a considerable degree of mathematical knowledge, which he attained in the course of his military studies. An individual so universally informed as Dr, Berkenhout, is an extraordinary appearance in the republic of letters. In this character, which, we believe, was published in his life-time, there is the evident hand of a friend. Dr. Berkenhout, however, may be allowed to have been an ingenious and well-informed man, but as an author he ranks among the useful, rather than the original and the comparisons of his friends between him and the “admirable Chrichton” are, to say the least, highly injudicious.

, a monk in the tenth century, who was born in the year 923, in the neighbourhood of Annecy, of one of the most illustrious houses of Savoy, rendered himself not more celebrated in the annals of religion than of benevolence, by two hospitable establishments which he formed, and where, for nine hundred years, travellers have found relief from the dangers of passing the Alps in the severe part of the season. Bernard, influenced by pious motives and a love of study, refused in his early years a proposal of marriage to which his parents attached great importance, and embraced the ecclesiastical life. He afterwards was promoted to be archdeacon of Aoste, which includes the places of official and grand-vicar, and consequently gave him considerable weight in the government of the diocese. This he employed in the laudable purposes of converting the wretched inhabitants of the neighbouring mountains, who were idolaters, and made very great progress in ameliorating their manners, as well as religious opinions. Affected at the same time with the dangers and hardships sustained by the French and German pilgrims in travelling to Rome, he resolved to build on the summit of the Alps two hospitia, or hotels, for their reception, one on mount Joux (mons Jcrffis, so called from a temple of Jupiter erected there), and the other, the colonnade of Jove, so called from a colonnade or series of upright stones placed on the snow to point out a safe track. These places of reception were afterwards called, and are still known by the names of the Great and Little St. Bernard. The care of them the founder entrusted to regular canons of the order of St. Augustin, who have continued without interruption to our days, each succession of monks during this long period, zealously performing the duties of hospitality according to the benevolent intentions of St. Bernard. The situation is the most inhospitable by nature that can be conceived even in spring, the cold is extreme; and the whole is covered with snow or ice, whose appearances are varied only by storms and clouds. Their principal monastery on Great St. Bernard, is probably the highest habitation in Europe, being two thousand five hundred toises above the sea. Morning and evening their dogs, trained for the purpose, trace out the weary and perishing traveller, and by their means, many lives are saved, the utmost care being taken to recover them, even when- recovery seems most improbable. After thus establishing these hospitia, Bernard returned to his itinerant labours among the neighbouring countries until his death in May 28, 1008. The Bollandists have published, with notes, two authentic lives of St. Bernard de Menthon, one written by Richard, his successor in the archdeaconry of Aoste y by which it appears that he was neither a Cistertian, nor of the regular canons, as some writers have asserted. The two hospitals possessed considerable property in Savoy, of which they were deprived afterwards, but the establishment still subsists, and the kind and charitable duties of it have lately been performed by secular priests.

The favourable sentiments which the province entertained for sir Francis before the controversy took place between Great Britain and the colonies, are shown by the expressions of acknowledgement and affection in their several addresses to him up to that period, and the constant approbation with which he was honoured by his majesty, appears from the dispatches of the different secretaries of state laid before the House of Commons, and printed by their order. His “Case before the Privy Council,” printed in 1770; and his “Select Letters,” in 1774; explain in a very satisfactory manner his conduct during the progress of the American revolution. After the war commenced, sir Francis returned to England, and resided mostly at Nether Wichendon, or Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. He died June 16, 1779, leaving a numerous family, of whom his third son, sir Thomas, the present baronet, chancellor of the diocese of Durham, is well known as a scholar and philanthropist. In 1752, sir Francis, who cultivated a highly classical taste, published “Antonii Alsopi Odarum libri duo,” 4to. (See Alsop), dedicated in an elegant copy of verses to Thomas duke of Newcastle.

, an industrious and learned bookseller of Amsterdam, distinguished himself about the beginning of the last century, both as author and editor of various works of considerable importance. He wrote rather learnedly than elegantly, yet with so much impartiality and candour, that he had many readers. The following list has been given of the principal works of which he was editor 1. “Recueil de voyages au Nord, contehant divers memoires tres-utiles an commerce et a la navigation,” Amst. 1715 38, 10 vols. 12mo. To these hft wrote the preliminary dissertation, the two dissertations on the means of useful travel, and the account of Great Tartary. 2. “Memoires du comte de Brienne, rninistre d'etat sous Louis XIV. avec des notes,” ibid. 1719, 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “Picart’s Religious Ceremonies,” ibid. 1723—43, 9 vols. fol. 4. “Superstitions anciennes et modernes,” 1733 36, 2 vols. fol. The second Amsterdam edition of these two works was printed in 1739 4-3, 11 vols. folio; and in 1741 the abbes Banier and le Mascrier published another edition at Paris, 7 vols. folio, with Picart’s designs, but the articles differently arranged; and M. Poucelin gave afterwards an abridgment, with the same cuts, Paris, 4 vols. fol. Lastly, M. Prudhomme undertook a new edition of the Dutch copy, with many additions respecting the history of' religion from the commencement of the eighteenth century, and additional plates to those of Picart, comprised in 13 folio volumes, besides an additional volume of new matter. 5. “Dialogues critiques et philosophiques, par D. Charte-Livry (J.F.Bernard),” ibid. 1730, 12mo. 6. “Reflections morales, satyriques et comiques,” Liege, 1733, 12mo. This work has been attributed to D. Durand, but he absolutely denied it, and Desfontaines assures us that it was written by Bernard. 7. “Histoire critique des Journaux, par Camusat,” Amst. 1734, 2 vols. 12mo. 8. “Dissertations melees sur divers sujets importans et curieux,” Amst. 1740, 2 vols. 12 mo. Of these two last Bernard is only the editor. 9. An edition of Rabelais, 1741, 3 vols. 4to, with Picart’s cuts, a well-known and most beautiful book. Bernard, who nourished as a bookseller of great eminence from the year 1711, died at Amsterdam in 1752.

, an opulent financier of France, was the son of Samuel Bernard, an engraver (mentioned by^trutt), whodied in 1687. He was born in 1651, but how educated, or by what means he raised his fortune, we are nor told Under the ministry of Chamillard he became a farmer general, and accumulated a capital of thirty-three mi i lions, of which he made a very liberal use, but seems to have been proudly aware of the superiority of lender 0ver borrower. When Louis XIV. wanted supplies, Bernard grained them, but always in consequence of his majesty’s applying to him in person. Louis XV. when in need of similar help, sent certain persons to Bernard, whose answer was, that “those who wanted his assistance might at least take the trouble to apply themselves.” He was accordingly presented to the king, who said many flattering things to him, and ordered the courtiers to pay him every mark of respect. Bernard was now called the saviour of the state all the courtiers entertained him in succession he dined with the marshal Noailles, and supped with the duchess of Tallard, and played and lost what they pleased. They sneered at his manners, which were citizen-like, and he lent the millions which they demanded. Bernard, however, was of a benevolent turn the poor of the military order were particularly the subjects of his bounty, and, frequently as they might apply, they never were refused, On his death it was found that he had lent ten millions, of which he never received a farthing in return. In his speculations he was both bold and successful. One day he had asked a person of distinction to dine with him, and had promised to treat him with some excellent mountain, not knowing at that time that his stock was exhausted. After dinner his servant announced this lamentable deficiency, and Bernard, not a little hurt at the unseasonable discovery, immediately dispatched one of his clerks to Holland, with instructions to purchase every drop of mountain in the port of Amsterdam, by which he afterwards gained an immense sum. Of his family, so little was known, that he was supposed to be of Jewish descent, but without any reason. He used to say, that if they would make him a chevalier, his name would no longer hurt their delicate feelings, and accordingly, he received letters of nobility. He then purchased several estates with titles, and among others, those of the counts of Coubert; and during the last years of his life, he was generally called the chevalier Bernard. One of his sons, president of one of the chambers of inquiry in parliament, bore the name of Rieux another was called the count de Coubert, and his grandson, Anne-Gabriel-Henry Bernard, assumed the title of marquis de Boulainvilliers. He married his daughter to Mole, first president, and thus became grandfather to the duchess de Cosse-Brissac and his family, by these revolutions, became allied to the great names of Biron, Duroure, and Boulainvilliers. Bernard was the friend of the keeper of the seals, Chauvelin, and remained faithful to him when disgraced. It is said that he was, or in his old age became superstitious, and fancied his life connected with that of a black fowl, of which he took great care, convinced that its death would be the prelude to his own. He lived, however, to the advanced age of eightyeight, dying in 1739. Another account informs us, that the greater part of his thirty-three millions was dissipated within ten years after his death, and that one of his sons, who was president of the parliament of Paris, died a bankrupt. Such vicissitudes are too common in all ages to excite much surprize.

In his confinement he had the courage to venture on a second marriage, which proved a very fortunate event to him, as he thus not only enjoyed the soothing converse of a true friend, but was even supported during his whole imprisonment by the care and industry of his wife. Ten children were the produce of this marriage, the inheritors of misery and confinement. In the mean time he is said to have borne his imprisonment with such resignation and evenness of temper, as to have excited much respect and love in the few who enjoyed his acquaintance. In the earlier part of life he had received several dangerous wounds, which now breaking out afresh, and giving him great torment, afforded a fresh trial of his equanimity and firmness. At length he died Sept. 20, 1736, leaving his wife and numerous family probably in a destitute state; but what became of them afterwards is not known. Bernard! was a little, brisk, and active man, of a very cheerful disposition;, and, as may appear even from this short narrative, of great courage and constancy of mind.

, a Milanese painter, flourished about the year 1536. His Christian name is not known. Orlandi speaks of him by the name only of Bernazzano of Milan. His friend Cscsar de Sesta, the scholar of Leonard da Vinci, being a good painter of figures, but deficient in landscape, a branch in which Bernazzano excelled, they agreed to a partnership in their works. Among their numerous paintings is a “baptism of our Saviour,” in which Bernazzano painted some fruit so naturally that birds came and pecked at it. Such anecdotes are not uncommon in the history of painting, but generally to be received with caution. Lomazzo in his Trattato dell' arte della pittura," Milan, 1584, 4to, does not give the date of Bernazzano’s death.

Bernier was born at Angers, but in what year is not known. He first studied medicine, and took a doctor’s degree at Montpellier, and then began to indulge his taste for travelling. In 1654, he went to Syria, and thence to Egypt. After remaining more than a year at Grand Cairo, he was attacked by the plague, but embarked some time after at Suez, for India, where he resided twelve years, eight of them as physician to the emperor Aureng Zeb. The favourite minister of that prince, the emir Danichmend, a friend of science and literature, patronized him, and took him to Cachemire. On his return Bernier published his voyages and philosophical works. In 1685 he visited England, and died at Paris, Sept. 22, 1688. His works are, 1. “Histoire de la derniere revolution des etats du Grand-Mogul, c.” 4 vols. 1670, 1671, 12mo. This work procured him the name of the Mogul. It has been often reprinted under the title of “Voyages de Francois Bernier, &c.” and translated into English, 1671, 1675, 8vo. 2. “Abrege de la philosophic de Gassendi,” Lyons, 1678, 8 vols. 12mo, and 1684, 7 vols. His own philosophy inclines to the Epicurean. 3. “Memoire sur le quietisrne des Indes” “Extraits de diverses pieces envoyees pour etrcnnes par M. Bernier a Madame de la Sabliere,” and “Eloge de M. Chapelle,” inserted in the Journal de Savans, 1688. 4. “Traite du libre etdu volontaire,” Amst. 1685, 12mo, and some other papers in the literary Journals.

In 1644, cardinal Mazarin, who had known Bernini at Rome, endeavoured, but in vain, to induce him to visit France, and offered him, on the part of Louis XIV. places to the value of 12,000 crowns. Yet he was not happy at home. When Urban VIII. his steady patron, died, and Innocent X. succeeded, envy at his superior talents and high favour with the pontiff, began to appear. The campanile which he had constructed for St. Peter’s, over the portico, which it appeared was not on a secure foundation, threatened to fall, and immediately it was industriously reported that the weight of the campanile would endanger the portico, and perhaps even the dome itself. Although all this was exaggerated, it became necessary to remove the campanile, and the enemies of Bernini triumphed, while the pope, prejudiced against him, deprived him of one part of his labours, and allowed the rest to be suspended. In the mean time he executed for the church of St. Mary the fine groupe of St. Theresa and the angel, one of his most admired works; and became at length a favourite with the pope by a stratagem of his holiness’s nephew. The pope, having an intention of building a new fountain in the piazza. Navona, consulted all the artists of Rome, with the exception of Bernini, whom he affected to forget but his nephew prince Ludovisi having procured a model from our artist, contrived to shew it to the pope, who was so much struck with it, as to receive Bernini into favour, and appoint him to the work, which he executed with his usual taste. About the same time he built the palace of Monte Citorio.

but the fact was, that Bernis always contended, in council, for an alliance with Prussia, and that in opposition to the well-known sentiments of Louis XV. and madame Pompadour. The misfortunes of his country, however, induced him to resign his resignation was accepted, and himself exiled a proof, perhaps, that his advice had been in opposition to the court. Be this as it may, he bore his disgrace with firmness, and when the period of his exile was over in 176-i, he (being already a cardinal) was promoted by the king to the archbishopric of Alby, and five years after sent to Rome as ambassador. A considerable time after this, he was appointed protector of the churches of France, and fixed his residence at Rome, where he remained almost the whole of his life. Two opportunities occurred in which he demonstrated his talents for negociation, the conclaves of 1769 and 1774. He had a hand, likewise, in the name of his court, but against his own opinion, in the dissolution of the Jesuits. During his residence at Rome, his house was the general rendezvous of strangers of distinction, and many English travellers bear testimony to the elegant manners and hospitality of the cardinal de Bernis. In 1791, the aunts of Louis XVI. driven by the revolution from their family and country, took up their abode with him during their stay at Rome, but that same revolution robbed him of his possessions and his promotions, as he refused to take the oaths then required. In this distress, the court of Spain, at the solicitation of the chevalier d'Azara, settled a pension on him, which he enjoyed but three years, dying at Rome Nov. 2, 1794, in the eightieth year of his age.

, a miscellaneous French writer, whose principal works are well-known in this country, was born at Bourdeaux, about 1749, and made his first appearance in the literary world in 1774, as the author of some Idyls, admired for their delicacy and sensibility. The same year he versified the “Pygmalion” of Rousseau and after publishing in 1775, 8vo, “Tableaux Anglais,” a translation of several English essays, he wrote some romances, of which his “Genevieve de Brabant” was reckoned the best. He afterwards applied himself to the composition of books for children, particularly his “Ami des Enfans,” which has been translated into English, his “Lectures pour les Enfans, &c.” and published translations of “Sandford and Merton,” and some other English books calculated for the same purpose. All these are included in the edition of his works published by M. Renouard, Paris, 1803, 20 vols. 18mo, except his “Tableaux Anglais.” The “Ami des Enfans,” the most celebrated and popular of all his works, was honoured with the prize given by the French academy for the most useful book that appeared in 1784. He was for some time editor of the Monitcur and, in conjunction with Messrs. Ginguene“and Grouvelle, conducted the” Feuille villageoise." In 1791, he was proposed as a candidate for tutor to the Dauphin, but died the same year at Paris, Dec. 21.

, an ingenious Scotch artist, was one of those who owe more to nature than to instruction of his parentage we have no account, but he appears to have been born about 1730, and at the usual time bound apprentice to Mr. Proctor, a seal engraver in Edinburgh. How long he remained with him is uncertain, but for some years after he began business for himself, he pursued the same branch with his teacher. At this time, however, his designs were so elegant, and his mode of cutting so clean and sharp, as soon to make' him be taken notice of as a superior artist. At length by constantly studying and admiring the style of the antique entaglios, he resolved to attempt something of that sort himself; and the subject he chose was a head of sir Isaac Newton, which he executed in a style of such superior excellence, as astonished all who had an opportunity of observing it. But as he was a man of the most unaffected modesty, and as this head was given to a friend in a retired situation in life, it was known only to a few in the private circle of his acquaintance; and for many years was scarcely ever seen by any one who could justly appreciate its merit. Owing to these circumstances, Mr. Berry was permitted to waste his time, during the best part of his life, in cutting heraldic seals, for which he found a much greater demand than for fine heads, at such a price as could indemnify him for the time that was necessarily spent in bringing works of such superior excellence to perfection. He often told the writer of this account, that though some gentlemen pressed him very much to make fine heads for them, yet he always found that, when he gave in his bill for an article of that kind, though he had charged perhaps not more than half the money that he could have earned in the same time at his ordinary work, they always seemed to think the price too high, which made him exceedingly averse to employment of that sort.

Mr. Berry possessed that very nice perceptive faculty, which constitutes the essence of genius in the fine arts, in such a high degree, as to prove even a bar to his attaining that superior excellence in this department, which nature had evidently qualified him for. Even in his best performance he thought he perceived defects, which no one else remarked, and which the circumstances above alluded to prevented him from correcting. While others admired with unbounded applause, he looked upon his own performances with a kind of vexation, at finding the execution not to have attained the high perfection he conceived to be attainable. And not being able to afford the time to perfect hirnself in that nice department of his art, he became extremely averse to attempt it. Yet, in spite of this aversion, the few pieces above named, and some others, were extorted from him by degrees, and they came gradually to be known: and wherever they were known, they were admired, as superior to every thing produced in modern times, unless it was by Piccler of Rome, who in the same art, but with much greater practice in it, had justly attained a high degree of celebrity. Between the excellence of these two artists, connoisseurs differed in opinion; some being inclined to give the palm to Berry, while others preferred Piccler. The works of these two artists were well known to each other and each declared, with that manly ingenuousness, which superior genius alone can confer on the human mind, that the other was greatly his superior.

, physician in ordinary to the king, and intendaut of the mineral waters of France, a correspondent of the academy of sciences, and member of that of Auxerre, who died in 1754, is chiefly known as the projector of the “Collection Academique,” containing extracts of the most important articles in the memoirs of various learned societies. He published the first two volumes at Dijon, 1754, 4to. The plan was good, but he gave the articles so much at length, that an abridgment would be necessary to render it useful. It was continued by Messrs. Guenau de Montbeillard, Buffon, Daubenton, Larcher, &c. and forms 33 vols. 4to, with the tables of the abbé“Rozier. Berryat also published” Observations physiques et medicinales sur les eaux mineraies d'Epoigny," in the neighbourhood of Auxerre, and printed at Auxerre, 1752, 12mo.

, a learned Italian, was born at Lucca, Dec. 23, 1686. He entered when sixteen into the congregation, called the Mother of God at Naples, and prosecuted his studies with success and perseverance. On his return to Lucca he acquired great reputation as a general scholar and preacher, and in 1717, taught rhetoric at Naples. The marquis cie Vasto having appointed him to be his librarian, he increased the collection with a number of curious books, of which he had an accurate knowledge, and also greatly enlarged the library of his convent. He introduced among his brethren a taste for polite literature, and t brined a colony of Arcadians. In 1739, he settled finally at Rome, where he was appointed successively vice-rector, assistant-general, and historian of his order. He was one of the most distinguished members of the society of the Arcadians at Home, and of many other societies. He died at Rome, of an apoplexy, March 23, 1752. Mazzuihelli has given a catalogue of twentyfour works published by him, and of twenty-one that remain in manuscript. Among these we^may notice, I. “La Caduta de' decemviri clella Roman a republica per la funzione della serenissima republica di Lucca,” Lucca, 1717. 2. “Canzone per le vittorie coritro il Turco del principe Eugenio,” ibid, without date, 4to. 3. The lives of several of the Arcadians, printed in the prose memoirs of that academy, under his academic name of Nicasio Poriniano. 4. Translations into the Italian of several French authors and poetical pieces in various collections. 5. We owe to him chiefly an important bibliographical work, “Catalogo della iibreria Capponi, con annotazioni in diversi luoghi,” Rome, 1747, 4to. It is the more necessary to notice this work, because the editor Giorgi, who has given very little of his own, does not once mention Berti' name. Among his unpublished works is one of the biographical kind, “Memorie degli scrittori Lucchesi,” a collection of the lives of the writers of Lucca. It being well known, as early as 1716, that this was ready for the press, Mazzuchelii, who had waited very patiently for what was likely to be of so much service to himself, at length, in 1739, took the liberty to inquire of Berti the cause of a delay so unusual. Berti answered that the difficulties he had met -with had obliged him to re- write his work, and dispose it in a new order that the names were ranged according to the families the most ancient families had been replaced by new ones in the various offices of dignity in that little republic, and the new heads and all, their relations were not very fond of being reminded that their ancestors were physicians, men of learning, and “people of that sort.”

, of the oratory, was born at Aix in Provence, in 1710, and died Nov. 15, 1783. He is known by two works which at the time made some noise among the naturalists one is entitled, “Physique des cometes,” 1760, 12mo; the other, “Physique des corps animus,” 1755, 12mo. The author had cultivated the sciences with success; and in person had a striking resemblance to pere Malebranche. His character appears to have been very excellent. Of all the men of learning in Paris, he was the most obliging, and strangers were always desirous of a recommendation to Bertier, as a sure means of being introduced to the most celebrated characters, and to every object of curiosity. In philosophy he was a Cartesian long after that system had been given up. Louis XV. called him, on this account, le pere aux tourbillons. He was the author of some other works besides those above mentioned, but they are not in much repute.

, an Italian physician, and a man of learning and skill, yet perhaps less known for these qualities, than for his literary disputes, was born at Castel Fiorentino Dec. 28, 1658. After studying at Sienna and Pisa a complete course, not only of medicine, but mathematics, astronomy, belles-lettres, &c. he was, in 1678, created doctor in philosophy and medicine, and then settled at Florence, where after very successful practice for many years, he died Dec. 10, 1726. His first publication was entitled “La Medicina difesa contra la calunnie degli nomini volgari e dalle opposizioni del dotti, divisa in due dialoghi,” Lucca, 1699, 4to. and ibid. 1709. In the second of these dialogues he pays high compliments to three physicians belonging to the court of Tuscany, but omits Moneglia, the fourth, which brought on a controversy between Bertini and him and some time afterwards he was involved in two other disputes with his brethren, by which neither party gained much credit. His son Joseph Maria Xavier, who died in 1756, was also a physician, and of far more celebrity as a practitioner but he published only a discourse pronounced in 1744, on the medical use of mercury in general, which at that time excited the attention of the learned in no small degree. It was entitled “Dell' uso esterno e interno del Mercurio, discorso, &c.” 4to.

, an ingenious Swiss writer, long known by his labours in various branches of philosophy and literature, and especially in natural history and political and rural economy, was born at Orbe in Swisserland, in 1712. In 1739 he was pastor of that village, and in 1744 preacher at Bern, whence he was called by the late king of Poland, to preside at a board of commerce, agriculture, and useful arts, the operations of which (and, if we are not mistaken, its very existence) were suppressed by the subsequent troubles of that unhappy country. He was also a member of the academies of Stockholm, Berlin, Florence, Lyons, &c. His principal works are, 1. “Sermons prononcés a Berne a l‘occasion de la decouverte d’une CoiTspiration centre Petat,” 1749, 8vo. Two of these are by Bertrand, the third by J. J. Altmann. 2. “Memoires sur la Structure interieure de la Terre,” 1752, 8vo. 3. “Essais sur les usages des montagnes, avec un lettre sur la Nil,” 1754, 4to a work which Denina styles excellent. His object is to prove that divine wisdom is strongly manifested in the creation of mountains and that they are not, as many authors have asserted, imperfections of the terrestrial globe, much less the effects of a ruined world. This he proves with considerable skill, but in some respects is rather fanciful. 4. “Memoires pour servir a s’instruire des tremblements de terre de la Suisse, principalement pour l'annee 1755, avec quatre Sermons prononcées a cette occasion,” 1756, 8vo. 5. The same “Memoires,” published separately, 1757, 8vo, and much enlarged, a work embracing all that was known before on the subject, and enriched with many candid and able illustrations by the author. 6. “Le Philanthrope,” 1758, 2 vols. 12mo, 7. “Recherches sur les langues anciennes et modernes de la Suisse, et principalement du pays de Vaud,” 1758, 8vo. 8. A translation of Derham’s Astro-theology and of Bullinger’s Confession of Faith, both in 1760. 9. “Museum,” 1763. 10. “Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles propres, etdes Fossils accidentels,” 1763, 2 vols. 8vo. 11.“Recueil de divers traités sur l'histoire naturelle de la Terre etdes Fossiles,” 1766, 4to. 12. “Morale de l'Evangile,” 1775, 7 vols. 8vo. 13. “Le Thevenon, ou les Journees de la Montagne, 1777, 12mo, 1780, 2 vols. 8vo. 14.” Essai philosophique et moral sur le Plaisir,“1778, 12mo, an excellent work, which, from the account given of it in the Monthly Review, seems highly deserving of a translation. 15.” Le solitaire du Mont-Jure, recreations d'un philosophe," 1782, 12mo. The time of this writer’s death is not ascertained, but he was considerably advanced in years at the period of this last publication.

, king’s advocate at Fontenaye-le-Comte, and an able French antiquary, was born at Coulonges-lesRoyaux in Poitou, in 1572, and died in 1644. In 1614, he distinguished himself in the assembly of the states by opposing the receiving of the council of Trent, but he was better known by his assiduous attention to the antiquities of France and his works published after his death by his son and Peter Dupuis his friend, justly entitle him to be considered as an accurate and judicious historian. These are, 1. “Histoire des comtes de Poitou et dues de Guienne,” Paris, 1647, fol. This was the result of forty years research, and the extraordinary light he has been able to throw upon circumstances before in comparative obscurity, may form a sufficient apology for some few mistakes. 2. “Des eveques de Poitiers, avec les preuves,” 1647, 4to. This is a collection of useful documents, but without any arrangement, and evidently left unfinished by the author. He wrote also some pieces of less note, such as a “Cornmen taire sur llonsard,” something of which kind was attempted by many of his contemporaries.

, a celebrated English actor, was born in Tothill-street, Westminster, 1635; and, after having left school, is said to have been put apprentice to a bookseller. The particulars, however, relating to the early part of his life, are not ascertained. It is generally thought that he made his first appearance on the stage in 1656, at the opera-house in Charter-house-yard, under the direction of sir William Davenant, and continued to perform here till the restoration, when king Charles grained patents to two companies, the one called the king’s cornpa ly, and the other the duke’s. The former acted at the theatre royal in Drury-lane, and the latter at the theatre in Lincoln’s-Inn-fields. Betterton went over to Paris, at the command of king Charles II. to take a view of the French scenery, and at his return made such improvements as added greatly to the lustre of the English stage. For several years both companies acted with the highest applause, and the taste for dramatic entertainments was never stronger than whilst these two companies played . The two companies were however at length united; though the time of this union is not precisely known, Gildon placing it in 1682, and Cibber in 1684. But however this may be, it was in this united company that Mr. 'Betterton first shone forth with the greatest degree of lustre for, having survived the famous actors upon whose model he had formed himself, he was now at liberty to display his genius in its full extent. His merit as an actor cannot now be very accurately displayed, and much of the following passage from Gibber’s Apology, seems to be mere stage-cant and declamation. Cibber says, “Betterton was an actor, as Shakspeare was an author, both without competitors, formed for the mutual assistance and illustration of each other’s genius! How Shakspeare wrote, all men who have a taste for nature may read and know; but with what higher rapture would he still be read, could they conceive how Betterton played him! Then might they know the one was born alone to speak what the other only knew to write! Pity it is that the momentary beauties, flowing from an harmonious elocution, cannot, like those of poetry, be their own record! that the animated graces of the player can live no longer than the instant breath and motion that present them, or at best can but faintly glimmer through the memory or imperfect attestation of a few surviving spectators! Could how Betterton spoke be as easily known as what he spoke, then might you see the muse of Shakspeare in her triumph, with all her beauties in her best array, rising into real life, and charming her beholders. But alas! since all this is so far out of the reach of description, how shall I shew you Betterton? Should I therefore tell you that all the Othellos, Hamlets, Hotspurs, Macbeths, and Brutuses, you have seen since his time, have fallen short of him, this still would give you no idea of his particular excellence. Let us see then what a particular comparison may do, whether that may yet draw him nearer to you? You have seen a Hamlet perhaps, who, on the first appearance of his father’s spirit, has thrown himself into all the straining vociferation requisite to express rage and fury; and the house has thundered with applause, though the misguided actor was all the while (as Shakspeare terms it) tearing a passion into rags. I am the more bold to offer you this particular instance, because the late Mr. Addison, while I sat by him to see this scene acted, made the same observation asking me, with some surprise, if I thought Hamlet should be in so violent a passion with the ghost, which, though it might have astonished, had not provoked him? For you may observe, that in this beautiful speech, the passion never rises beyond an almost breathless astonishment, or an impatience, limited by a filial reverence, to inquire into the suspected wrongs that may have raised nim from his peaceful tomb and a desire to know what a spirit so seemingly distrest might wish or enjoin a sorrowful son to execute towards his future quiet in the grave. This was the light into which Betterton threw this scene; which he opened with a pause of mute amazement! Then rising slowly to a solemn, trembling voice, he made the ghost equally terrible to the spectator as to himself. And in the descriptive part of the natural emotions which the ghastlyvision gave him, the boldness tit‘ his expostulation was still governed by decency manly, but not braving his voice never rising into that seeming outrage, or wild deli an ce, of what he naturally revered. But, alas to preserve this medium between mouthing, and meaning too little, to keep the attention more pleasingly awake by a ’tempered spirit, than by mere vehemence of voice, is, of all the master strokes of an actor, the most difficult to reach. In. this none have equalled Betterton. He that feels not himself the passion he would raise, will talk to a sleeping audience. But this was” never the fault of Be item n. A farther excellence in him was, that he could vary iiis spirit to the different characters he acted. Those wild impatient starts, that fierce and flashing fire which he threw into Hotspur, never came from the unruffled temper of his Brutus (for I have more than once seen a Brutus as warm as Hotspur): when the Betterton Brutus was provoked in his dispute with Cassius, his spirits flew out of his eyes his steady looks alone supplied that terror which he disdained an intemperance in his voice should rise to. Thus, with a settled dignity of contempt, like an unheeding rock, he repelled upon himself the foam of Cassius; not but in some part of this scene, where he reproaches Cassius, his temper is not under this suppression, but opens into that warmth which becomes a man of virtue; yet this is that hasty spark of anger, which Brutus himself endeavours to excuse. But with whatever strength of nature we see the poet shew at once the philosopher and the hero, yet the image of the actor’s excellence will be still imperfect to you, unless language could put colours in our words to paint the voice with. The most that a Vandyck can arrive at is, to make his portraits of great persons seem to think a Shakspeare goes farther yet, and tells you what his pictures thought; a BetU-rton steps beyond them both, and calls them from the grave to breathe, and be themselves again in feature, speech, and motion, at once united and gratifies at once-your eye, your ear, your understanding. From these various excel lenci s, Betterton had so full a possession of the esteem and regard of his auditors, that, upon his entrance into every scene, he seemed to seize upon the eyes and ears of the giddy and inadvertent. To have talked or looked another way, would have been thought insensibility or ignorance. In all his soliloquies of moment, the strongest intelligence of attitude and aspect drew you into such an impatient gaze and eager expectation, that you almost imbibed the sentiment with your eye,' before the er could reach it."

, an eminent physician in the seventeenth century, was son of Mr. Edward Betts by his wife Dorothy, daughter of Mr. John Venables, of Rapley in Hampshire. He was born at Winchester, educated there in grammar learning, afterwards elected a scholar of Corpus Christ! college in Oxford, in February 1642, and took the degree of bachelor of arts, February 9, 1646. Being ejected by the visitors appointed by the parliament in 1648, he aplied himself to the study of physic, and commenced doctor in that faculty, April 11, 1654, having accumulated the degrees. He practised with great success at London, but chiefly among the Roman catholics, being himself of that persuasion. He was afterwards appointed physician in ordinary to king Charles II. The time of his death is not certainly known. Dr. Belts wrote two physical treatises, the first, “De ortu et natura Sanguinis,” Lond. 1669, 8vo. Afterwards there was added to it, “Medicinse cum Philosophia natural i consensus,” Lond. 1662, 8vo. Dr. George Thomson, a physician, animadverted upon our author’s treatise “De ortu et natura Sanguinis,” in his tl True way of preserving the Blood in its integrity,“Dr. Bett’s second piece is entitled” Anatotnia Thomse Parri annum centesimum quinquagesimurn secundum et novem menses agentis, cum clarissimi viri Gulielmi Harvaei aliorumque adstantium medicorum regiorum observationibus." This Thomas Parr, of whose anatomy, Dr. Bctts, or rather, according to Anthony Wood, Dr. Harvey drew up an account, is well known to have been one of the most remarkable instances of longevity which this country has afforded. He was the son of John Parr of Winnington, in the parish of Alberbury, in Shropshire, and was born in 1483, in the reign of king Edward the Fourth. He seems to have been of very different stamina from the rest of mankind, and Dr. Fuller tells us that he was thus characterised by an eyewitness,

, in Latin Beverlacius, archbishop of York in the eighth century, was born of a noble family among the English Saxons, at Harpham, a small town in Northumberland. He was first a monk, and afterwards abbot of the monastery of St. Hilda. He was instructed in the learned languages by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, and was justly esteemed one of the best scholars of his time. Alfred of Beverly, who wrote his life, pretends that he studied at Oxford, and took there the degree of master of arts; but bishop Godwin assures us this cannot be true, because such distinction of degrees was not then known at Oxford, nor any where else. Our abbot’s merit recommended him to the favour of Alfred, king of Northumberland, who, in the year 685, advanced him to the see of Hagustald, or Hexham, and, upon the death of archbishop Bosa in 687, translated him to that of York. This prelate was tutor to the famous Bede, and lived in the strictest friendship with Acca, and other AngloSaxon doctors, several of whom he put upon writing comments on the scriptures. He likewise founded, in 704, a college at Beverly for secular priests. After he had governed the see of York thirty-four years, being tired with the tumults and confusions of the church, he divested himself of the episcopal character, and retired to Beverly; and four years after died May 7, 721. The day of his death was appointed a festival by a synod held at London in 1416. Bede, and other monkish writers, ascribe several miracles to him. Between three and four hundred years after his death, his body was taken up by Alfric, archbishop of York, and placed in a shrine richly adorned with silver, gold, and precious stones. Bromton relates, that William the conqueror, when he ravaged Northumberland with a numerous army, spared Beverly alone, out of a religious veneration for St. John of that place. This prelate wrote some pieces, 1. “Pro Luca exponendo;” an essay towards an exposition of St. Luke, addressed to Bede. 2. “Homiliee in Evangelia.” 3. Epistolae ad Hildara Abbatissam.“4.” Epistolse ad Herebaldum, Andenum, et Bertinum.“- -Pits mentions another John of Beverly, so called from the place of his nativity, who was a Carmelite monk in the fourteenth century, and a very learned man, and doctor and professor of divinity at Oxford. He flourished about 1390, in the reign of Richard II. and wrote, 1.” Questiones in magistrum sententiarum“in four books. 2.” Disputationes ordinariae" in one book.

, a musician eminently skilled in the knowledge of practical composition, flourished towards the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. He was of Welch extraction, and had been educated under Tallis, upon whose recommendation it was that in 1589 he was sworn in gentleman extraordinary of the chapel; from whence he was expelled in 1637, it being discovered that he adhered to the Romish communion. He was also organist of Bristol cathedral, but forfeited that employment at the same time with his place in the chapel. Child, afterwards doctor, was his scholar. He has composed sundry services, and a few anthems. Before Bevin’s time the precepts for the composition of canons was known to few. Tallis, Bird, Waterhouse, and Farmer, were eminently skilled in this most abstruse part of musical practice. Every canon, as given to the public, was a kind of enigma. Compositions of this kind were sometimes exhibited in the form of a cross, sometimes in that of a circle there is now extant one resembling a horizontal sun-dial, and the resolution, (as it was called) of a canon, which was the resolving it into its elements, and reducing it into score, was deemed a work of almost as great difficulty as the original compoition. But Bevin, with a view to the improvement of students, generously communicated the result of many years study and experience in a treatise which is highly commended by all who have taken occasion to speak of it. This book was published in 1631, 4to, and dedicated to Goodman bishop of Gloucester, with the following title: “A briefe and short instruction of the Art of Musicke, to teach how to make discant of all proportions that are in use; very necessary for all such as are desirous to attain to knowledge in the art; and may, by practice, if they sing, soone be able to compose three, four, and five parts, and also to compose all sorts of canons that are usuall, by these directions of two or three parts in one upon the plain song.” The rules contained in this book for composition in general are very brief; but for the composition of canons there are in it a great variety of examples of almost all the possible forms in which it is capable of being constructed, even to the extent of sixty parts.

, a German Protestant minister, was born May 21, 1707, and died in 1741. He is principally known by the following bibliographical publications 1. “Epistola de Bibliothecis Dresdensibus, turn, publicis turn privatis,” Dresden, 1731, 4to. 2. “Bernardi Monetae (La Monnoye) epistola hactenus ineditae ad Michaelem Maittarium,” Dresden and Leipsic, 1732, 8vo. This he discovered in the Schoemberg museum. 3. “Memoriae historico-criticae librorum rariorum,” ibid. 1734, 8vo. 4. “Arcana sacra bibliothecaram Dresdensium,” Dresden, 1738, 8vo, to which he published two appendices in 1738 and 1740, 8vo.

, an Italian naturalist, more generally known by the name of Janus Plancus, under which he published several works, was born Jan. 3, 1693, at Rimini, where he died Dec. 3, 1775. In 1717 he went to Bologna, and studied botany, natural history, mathematics, and natural philosophy. Having taken the degree of doctor in medicine in 17 19, he returned to his country, but afterwards resided for some time at Bologna and Padua before he settled and began practice at Rimini. Here also he improved his acquaintance with botany, and in his different tours accumulated a very fine collection of specimens of natural history. In 1741, he was appointed professor of anatomy in the university of Sienna, but his attachment to las favourite studies induced him to return to Rimini, where he endeavoured to revive the academy of the Lincei, the members of which assembled at his house. He had formerly, when only twenty-two years of age, acted as their secretary, and gave a history of them in his edition of the Phytobasanos. In honour of his merits and services, the society caused a medal to be struck, with his portrait on one side, and on the other a lynx, with the words ~“Lynceis restitutis.” Biarichi was frequently involved in controversies respecting both himself and his works, the principal of which are, 1. “Lettere intorno alia cataratta,” Rimini, 1720, 4to. 2. “Epistola anatomica adJosephum. Puteum Bononiensem,” Bologna, 1726, 4to. 3. “Osservazioni intorno una sezione anatomica,” Rimini, 1731, 4to.

, an Italian author of the end of the fifteenth century, was a native of Bologna, where he was much esteemed for his learning and moral character. His master Philip Beroaldo, in his commentary on Apuleius, speaks highly of him as a young man of many accomplishments, and distinguished for his taste in painting, and the knowledge of ancient medals. The time of his death is not known, but is supposed to have taken place before 1528. He published a life of Urceus Codrus, prefixed to that author’s works in various editions, and among others that of Basil, 1540, 4to; and a life of Philip Berualdo, printed with his commentary on Suetonius, Venice, 1510, fol. and in other editions of the same.

, an Italian scholar of the last century, was born at Prato in Tuscany, Nov. 18, 1685. He had but just finished his education at Florence, when he was admitted a member of the academy of the Apatisti, and two years after, of that of Florence, nor was he more than twenty when he became known to and associated with the principal literati of that city. He went afterwards to Pisa, and studied philosophy and mathematics under Alexander Marchetti, the translator of Lucretius, and there he received the degree of doctor of laws, and the order of priesthood. There also the bishop of Prato appointed him to give public lectures on the works of the fathers, in the course of which he became particularly attached to those of St. Bernard and the bishop of Pistoia gave him the living of St. Peter at Ajolo, where he made himself very popular. Such also was his literary fame, that besides the academies we have mentioned, he was admitted a member of the Inlecundi of Prato, the Innominati of Bra in Piedmont, of the Rinvigoriti of Foligno, the Arcadians of Rome, the Columbarian society, and the della Crusca. His life was exemplary, his character loyal and ingenuous, although somewhat reserved. He loved retirement, yet was of a placid humour, and enjoyed effusions of wit but in his latter years he fell into a state of melancholy, aggravated by bodily disorder, which terminated in his death Feb. 17, 1749. His two most considerable works, were, 1. “De‘ gran duchi di Toscana della real casa de’ Medici,” Venice, 1741, fol. an account of the ancient sovereigns of Florence, as patrons of literature and the arts, but containing little new matter. 2. “Della satira Italiana, trattato,” Massa, 1714, 4to. Florence, 1729, 4to a critical work highly esteemed in Italy. To the second edition the author has annexed an Kalian dissertation, on the hypocrisy of men of letters, in which he exposes what would be called in this country the arts of puffing, which his biographer remarks, have made very gieat progress since his time. 3. “La Cantica de Cantici di Salomone tradotta in versi Toscani con annotazioni,” Venice, 1735. Various other small pieces of criticism, bibliography, &c. from his pen are inserted in the academical collections, particularly “Prose Fiorentine,” Venice, 1754, 4to.

, an ingenious artist, was born at Liere, in Brabant, in 1594, and at first learned the rudiments of the art from Wouter Abts, afterwards became the disciple of Rodolph Schoof, a painter of considerable reputation at that time at Paris, and when he had practised under that master for a sufficient time to form his hand, he sought to obtain still greater improvement by travelling to Rome and there he spent six years in studying the works of the best masters, devoting his whole time to his profession. His industry was then rewarded with proportionable success; for he found encouragement among the most honourable persons at Rome, and in every part of Italy. His penciling was so exceedingly neat, and his touch and colouring so very delicate, that he was frequently employed to paint on jasper, agate, porphyry, and other precious materials, His master-piece is St. Eloi, in the principal church at Liere. The time of his death is Mot known his son, Cornelius de Bie, wrote the lives of the painters, &c. under the title “Guide Cabinet, &c.” in Flemish verse, with their portraits.

, a counsellor of the presklial of Rheims, was born there in 1709, and died at Paris in 1775. He was well versed in ancient and modern, literature We have by him, 1. “A collection of Latin and French poems,” 1767, 12mo; which are short, and in an easy and natural style. His epigrams are very much in the manner of the chevalier de Cailli and he has one singularity in all his poetieal productions, that he has not one piece, either in Latin or French, that exceeds twenty lines. Some of his countrymen have compared them to those of Catullus, and several writers in the journals have extolled them as productions of extraordinary merit. But M. Bignicourt is best known for his 2. “Pensees et reflections philosophiques,” 1755, 12mo. This work, which was afterwards published under the title of “L‘homme du. Monde & L’homme de Lettres,” has, however, its admirers and its censurers, with respect to the method of writing set phrases, and giving them as thoughts and maxims.

, an eminent German philosopher and statesman, was born at Camstadt in Wirtemberg, Jan. 23, 1693; his father was a Lutheran minister. By a singular hereditary constitution in this family, Biliinger was born with twelve fingers and eleven toes, which, in his case, is said to have been remedied by amputation when he was an infant. From his earliest years, he showed an uncommon capacity for study, joined to a retired and thinking turn of mind. Happening, when studying at Tubingen, to learn mathematics in the works of Wolf, he imbibed likewise a taste for the sceptical philosophy of that writer, and for the system of Leibnitz, which for a time took off his attention from his other studies. When entered on his theological course, he found himself disposed to connect it with his new ideas on philosophy, and with that view wrote a treatise, “De Deo, anima, et mundo,” which procured him considerable fame, and was the cause of his being chosen preacher at the castle of Tubingen, and repeater in the school of divinity. But fancying Tubingen a theatre too contracted, he obtained of one of his friends a supply of money, in 1719, which enabled him to go to Halle to study more particularly under Wolf himself. This, however, did not produce all the good consequences expected. When after two years he returned to Tubingen, the Wolfian philosophy was no longer in favour, his patrons were cold, his lessons deserted; himself unable to propagate his new doctrines, and his promotion in the church was likely to suffer. In this unpleasant state he remained about four years, when, by Wolf’s recommendation, he received an invitation from Peter I. to accept the professorship of logic and metaphysics in the new academy at St. Petersburgh. Thither accordingly he went in 1725, and was received with great respect, and the academical memoirs which he had occasion to publish increased his reputation in no small degree. The academy of sciences of Paris having about that time proposed for solution the famous problem, on the cause of gravity, Bilfinger carried off the prize, which was one thousand crowns. This made his name be known in every part of Europe, and the duke Charles of Wirtemberg having been reminded that he was one of his subjects, immediately recalled him home. The court of Russia, after in vain endeavouring to retain him, granted him a pension of four hundred florins, and two thousand as the reward of a discovery he had made in the art of fortification. He quitted Petersburgh accordingly in 1731, and being re-established at Tubingen, revived the reputation of that school not only by his lectures, but by many salutary changes introduced in the theological class, which he effected without introducing any new opinions. His greatest reputation, however, rests on his improvements in natural philosophy and mathematics, and his talents as an engineer seem to have recommended him to the promotion which the duke Charles Alexander conferred upon him. He had held many conversations with Bilfinger on the subject of fortifications, and wished to attach him to government by appointing him a privy-councillor in 1735, with unlimited credit. For some time he refused a situation which he thought himself not qualified to fill, but when he accepted it, his first care was to acquire the knowledge necessary for a member of administration, endeavouring to procure the most correct information respecting the political relations, constitution, and true interests of the country. By these means, he was enabled very essentially to promote the commerce and agriculture of his country, and in other respects to improve her natural resources, as well as her political connections, and he is still remembered as one of the ablest statesmen of Germany. The system of fortification which he invented is yet known by his name, and is now the chief means of preserving it, as he died unmarried, at Stuttgard, Feb. 18, 1750. He is said to have been warm in his friendships, but somewhat irascible; his whole time during his latter years was occupied in his official engagements, except an hour in the evening, when he received visits, and his only enjoyment, when he could find leisure, was in the cultivation of his garden. To his parents he was particularly affectionate, and gratefully rewarded all those who had assisted him in his dependent state. His principal works are 1. “Disputatio de harmonia praestabilita,” Tubinguen, 1721, 4to. 2. “De harmonia animi et corporis humani maxime prsestabilita commentatio hypothetica,” Francfort, 1723, 8vo. This was inserted among the prohibited books by the court of Rome in 1734. 3. “De origine et permissione Mali, &c.” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 4. “Specimen doctrinae veterum Sinarum moralis et politicae,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 5. “Dissertatio historico-catoptrica de speculo Archimedis,” Tubingen, 1725, 4to. 6. “Dilucidationes philosophies; de Deo, anima, &c.” before mentioned, ibid. 1725, 4to. 7. “Bilfingeri et Holmanni epistolae de barmonia praestabilita,” 1728, 4to. 8. “Disputatio de natura et legibus studii in theologica Thetici,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 9. “Disputatio de cuku Dei rationali,” ibid. 1731. 10. “Notae breves in Spinosae methodum. explicandi scripturas,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 11. “De mysteriis Christianae fidei generatim spectatis sermo,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 12. “La Citadelle coupee,” Leipsic, 1756, 4to. 13. “Elementa physices,” Leipsic, 1742, 8vo; besides many papers in the memoirs of the Petersburgh academy, of which, as well as of that of Berlin, he was a member.

, known under the name of Maitre Adam, a joiner at Nevers, about the close of the reign of Louis XIII. and the beginning of that of Louis XIV. was called by the poets of his time Le Virgile au rabot. He made verses amidst his tools and his bottles. Cardinal Richelieu and the duke of Orleans settled pensions on him, and Corneille was among his panegyrists. His “Chevilles,” 1644, 4to; his “Villebrequin,” 1663; his “Rabot,” in 12mo, &c. had a great run. Among a considerable number of dull frivolities we meet with some happy lines. He died in 1662 at Nevers, which he never could be brought to quit for a lodging at Versailles. He had a just notion of greatness, and was capable of feeling and inspiring the charms of friendship. An epicurean without libertinism, and a stoic without supersition, he so associated these two sects as to have it said, that if Epicurus and Zeno had lived in his time, he would have brought them to drink together. He stuck to his mediocrity in order to preserve his happiness. The poets his contemporaries were his friends, and not envious of his fame. Mainard says, that the muses ought never to be seated but on tabourets made by the hand of this poetical joiner. St. Amand proved that he understood the art of poetry as well as that of making boxes. The duke de St. Aignan tells him, in some very agreeable lines, that, by his verses and his name, he is the first of men. Such praises were probably offered in ridicule; but Billaut knew how to make the most of his friends, and is said to have tried the sincerity of their friendship with very little ceremony. A new edition of his works was published in 1806, 12mo, Paris, and the year before a comedy was acted on the Paris stage, with some success, called “Chevilles de Maitre Adam.” Two poetical tradesmen, in his time, endeavoured to rival him, but without success, Ragueneau, a pastry-cook, and Reault, a locksmith. Each addressed a sonnet to him that of the pastrycook concludes with a point quite in character:

, a Jesuit, who was born at Compiegne in 1602, and died at Dijon in 1679, aged seventyseven published a great number of mathematical works, of which the “Opus astronomicon,” Paris, 1661, in 4to, is the most known.

, a learned writer, and bishop, in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in 1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579; and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time. The first preferment he had was that of master of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there. To this college he did a very important service, about the year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of which, however, we have only an obscure account. In 1585, he published his book of “The true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,” and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their successors: as also the points in question at this day, touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie: the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house of God.” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the place and purpose of his descent to hel after death” &c. Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a learned puritan, who published them under his own name. The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned between him and his opponents, directly commanded him neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.” Upon this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our deliverance,” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom. xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to, the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having gone through many employments, departed this life on the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler” Fuller, “a deep and profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers” Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his learned writings” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise. Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.” He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived. It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience, seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop, who sympathized with the people more from pity than from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went through his sermon with great composure.

His two sons were now entered on the foundation at the college near Winchester, and had both of them made such rapid progress in their education, that they gave him every possible satisfaction. The eldest was the senior scholar at 16 years of age, and was certain of succeeding at the next election to that goal of Wiccamical hope, a fellowship of New college, in Oxford; when, a few days prior to that sera, as he was bathing in the navigable river Itchin, in a place well known to every Winchester boy by the name of The Pot, he was seized with a cramp within two yards of the shore, in the presence of more than 100 expert swimmers, and his unfortunate younger brother, who was close to him at the moment, and sunk beneath the water never to appear again. His lifeless body was not found till half an hour had expired. All arts to re-animate him were tried in vain; and he was buried a few days after in the cloisters of Winchester college, amidst the tears of his afflicted companions.

When the author of the Antiquities of the County of Dorset first offered his labours to the public, Mr. Bingham, who was not ignorant how much care and study had been bestowed in collecting those valuable materials, gave him every assistance in his power. By examining with indefatigable attention the numerous Roman tumuli and causeways that abound in that country, and by a knowledge of many circumstances that had escaped the observation of others, he enriched the collection with a treasure of many curious accounts, and made no small addition to the numerous list of subscribers, by soliciting his friends in behalf of Mr. Hutchins. The author expressed his acknowledgments in many private letters; but Mr. Bingham would never permit him to make known from what hand he received his communications, nor is the name of G. B. once mentioned in the work, except after the marvellous account of Sadler’s prophecy, attested by Cuthbert Bound at the end of the first volume it is added, “this narrative was communicated by the rev. G. Bingham, of Pimpern.” The original paper, signed by C. Bound, which has been long preserved in the family, is now in the possession of the rev. P. Bingham, as are also many observations, corrections, tt additamenta, never yet published.

, in Latin Binius, was born at Randelraidt, in the country of Juliers, and became canon and professor of divinity at Cologn, where he died in 1641. He is known, and not much to his credit, as the editor of a “Collection of the Councils,” Cologne, 1606, 4 vols. fol. 1618, 9 vols. and Paris, 1636, 10 vols. with notes from Baronius, Beilarmin, Suarez, &c. but he has taken so many liberties in capriciously altering these councils in, many parts, that it becomes necessary to caution the reader against the purchase of his work. Usher calls him “Contaminator Conciliorum.”

How much Mr. Birch was affected by this calamity appears from some verses written by him, August 3d, 1729, on his wife’s coffin, and inserted in Mrs. Rowe’s Miscellaneous Works. That Mrs. Birch was a woman of very amiable accomplishments, is not only evident from the verses now mentioned, but from two Latin epitaphs drawn up for her one by her husband, and the other by Dr. Dale, which last was translated into English by Mr. James Ralph. In both these epitaphs, she is celebrated as having- possessed an uncommon share of knowledge and taste, and many virtues. After this melancholy event, he was ordained deacon by the bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Hoadly, Jan. 17, 1730, and priest by the same prelate, Dec. 21, 1731, and at the same time was presented to the rectory of Siddington St. Mary, and the vicarage of Siddington St. Peter, in Gloucestershire. He had been recommended, by a common friend, to the friendship and favour of the late lord high chancellor Hardwicke, then attorney-general; to whom, and to the late earl of Hardwicke, he was indebted for all his preferments. The chancellor gave him the living of Ulting in the county of Essex, to which he was instituted by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, on the 20th of May, and he took possession of it on the day following. In 1734, he was appointed one of the domestic chaplains to William earl of Kilmarnock, the unfortunate nobleman who was afterwards beheaded, on the 18th of August, 1746, for having been engaged in the rebellion of 1745. The earl of Kilmarnock was, we believe, in more early life, understood to be a whig; and under no other character could Mr. Birch have been introduced to his lordship’s notice. On the 20th of February, 1734-5, Mr. Birch had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society, sir Hans Sloane taking a leading part in the election. The same honour was done him on the llth of December 1735, by the society of antiquaries of which he afterwards became director. A few weeks before he was chosen into the latter, the Marischal college of Aberdeen had conferred on him, by diploma, the degree of master of arts. In the Spring of 1743, by the favour of his noble patron before mentioned, he received a more substantial benefit; being presented by the crown to the rectory of Landewy Welfrey in the county of Pembroke. To this benefice, which was a sinecure, he was instituted on the 7th of May, by Dr. Edward Willes, bishop of St. David’s. On the 24th of February, 1743-4, he was presented to the rectories of St. Michael, Wood-street, and St. Mary, Staining, united. His next preferment was likewise in the city of London; being to the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, to which he was presented in the beginning of February, 1745-6. In January, 1752, he was elected one of the secretaries of the royal society, in the room of Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, deceased. In January 1753, the Marischal college of Aberdeen created him doctor of divinity and in that year, the same honour was conferred on him by that excellent prelate, Dr. Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. Our author was also a trustee of the British Museum. The last preferment given to Dr. Birch, was the rectory of Depden in Essex; for which he was indebted to the late earl of Hardwicke. Depden itself, indeed, was in the patronage of Mr. Chiswell, and in the possession of the rev. Dr. Cock. But the benefice in lord Hardwicke’s gift, being at too great a distance from town, to be legally held by Dr. Birch, he obtained an exchange with Dr. Cock. Dr. Birch was instituted to Depden by the late eminent bishop Sherlock, on the 25th of February 1761; and he continued possessed of this preferment, together with the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, till his decease. In 1765, he resigned his office of secretary to the royal society, and was succeeded by Dr. Maty. Dr. Birch’s health declining about this time, he was ordered to ride for the recovery of it but being a bad horseman, and going out, contrary to advice, on a frosty day, he was unfortunately thrown from his horse, on the road betwixt London and Hampstead, and killed on the spot. Dr. William Watson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as soon as he heard of the accident of the fall, hastened to the relief of his friend, but in vain. It is not known whether Dr. Birch’s fall might not have been occasioned by an apoplexy. This melancholy event happened on the 9th of January 1766, in the 61st year of his age, to the great regret of the doctor’s numerous literary friends. Some days after his death, he was buried in the chancel of his own church of St. Margaret Pattens. Dr. Birch had, in his life-time, been very generous to his relations; and none that were near to him being living at his decease, he bequeathed his library of books and manuscripts, many of which are valuable, to the British Museum. He, likewise, left the remainder of his fortune, which amounted to not much more than five hundred pounds, to be laid out in government securities, for the purpose of applying the interest to increase the stipend of the three assistant librarians. Thus manifesting at his death, as he had done during his whole life, his respect for literature, and his desire to promote useful knowledge.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

Mr. Ayscough has extracted, from a small pocket-book belonging to Dr. Birch, the following memoranda of some pieces written by him, of which he was not before known to be the author. 1726, “A Latin translation of Hughes’s Ode to the Creator.” 1727, “Verses on the General history of Printing” published in the General history of Printing. Collections for Smedley’s View. 1728, “Abelard to Philotas.” 1732, Began the General History. 1739, “Account of Alga,” published in the Works of the Learned for July. “Account of Milton,” published in the Works of the Learned. 1741, Wrote the letter of Cleander to Smerdis, in the Athenian Letters. 1742, Wrote an account of Orr’s sermon, in the Works of the Learned. 1743, Wrote the preface to Boyle’s works. 1760, By a letter from Dr. Stonhouse, it appears that Dr. Birch was the author of the Life of the rev. Mr. James Hervey, which is prefixed to that gentleman’s writings. He was employed, likewise, in correcting a great number of publications, and among the rest Murden’s State Papers. At the time, of the doctor’s death, he had prepared for the press a collection of letters, to which he had given the title of “Historical Letters, written in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. containing a detail of the public transactions and events in Great Britain during that period with a variety of particulars not mentioned by our historians. Now first published from the originals in the British Museum, Paper-office, and private collections.” These are all the separate publications, or intended works, of Dr. Birch that have come to our knowledge, excepting a Sermon on the proof of the wisdom and goodness of God, from the frame and constitution of man, preached before the college of Physicians, in 1749, in consequence of lady Sadlier’s will to which we may add, that he revised new editions of Bacon’s, Boyle’s, and Tillotson’s works. The lives of Boyle and Tillotson, though printed by themselves, were drawn up partly with a view to their being prefixed to these great men’s writings. It would swell this article too much, were we to enter into a detail of our author’s communications to the royal society, and of the papers transmitted by him to that illustrious body. Whoever looks into his history of the early proceedings of the society, will have no doubt of the assiduity and diligence with which he discharged his peculiar duty as secretary. But there is nothing which sets Dr. Birch’s industry in a more striking light than the vast number of transcripts which he made with his own hands. Among these, not to mention many other instances, there are no less than sixteen volumes in quarto, of Anthony Bacon’s papers, transcribed from the Lambeth library and other collections; and eight more volumes of the same size, relative to history and literature. Our author’s correspondence, by letters, was, likewise, very large and extensive; of which numerous proofs occur in the British Museum. What enabled Dr. Birch to go through such a variety of undertakings, was his being a very early riser. By this method, he had executed the business of the morning before numbers of people had begun it and, indeed, it is the peculiar advantage of rising betimes, that it is not in the power of any interruptions, avocations, or engagements whatever, to deprive a man of the hours which have already been well employed, or to rob him of the consolation of reflecting, that he hath not spent the day in vain. With all this closeness of application, Dr. Birch was not a solitary recluse. He was of a cheerful and social temper, and entered much into conversation with the world. He was personally connected with most of the literary men of his time, and with some of them he maintained an intimate friendship, such as sir Hans Sloane, Dr. Mead, Dr. Salter, Mr. Jortin, and Dr. Maty Daniel Wray, esq. Dr. Morton, Dr. Ducarel, Dr. William Watson, &c. &c. With regard to the great, though perhaps he stood well with many of them, his chief connection was with the earls of Hardwicke, and with the rest of the branches of that noble and respectable family. No one was more ready than Dr. Birch to assist his fellow- creatures, or entered more ardently into useful and laudable undertakings. He was particularly active in the Society for promoting literature by the printing of books, to which we are indebted for the publication of Tanner’s Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, and some few other valuable works. In short, Dr. Birch was entitled to that highest praise, of being a good man, as well as a man of knowledge and learning. His sentiments with respect to subjects of divinity resembled those of bishop Hoadly.

, an eminent musician and composer, was one of the children of the chapel in the reign of Edward VI. and, as asserted by Wood in the Ashmolean ms. was bred up under Tallis. It appears, that in 1575 Tallis and Bird were both gentlemen and also organists of the royal chapel but the time of their appointment to this latter office cannot now be ascertained with any exactness. The compositions of Bird are many and various those of his younger years were mostly for the service of the church. He composed a work entitled “Sacrarurn Cantionum, quinque vocum, printed in 1589 among which is that noble composition” Civitas sancti tui,“which for many years past has been sung in the church as an anthem, to the words” Bow thine ear, O Lord!“He was also the author of a work entitled” Gradualia, ac Cantiones sacrae, quinis, quaternis, trinisque vocibus conciunatae, lib. primus.“Of this there are two editions, the latter published in 1610. Although it appears by these works, that Bird was in the strictest sense a church musician, he occasionally gave to the world compositions of a secular kind and he seems to be the first among English musicians that ever made an essay in the composition of that elegant species of vocal harmony, the madrigal the” La Verginella“of Ariosto, which he set in that form for five voices, being the most ancient musical composition of the kind to be met with in the works of English authors. Of his compositions for private entertainment, there are extant,” Songs of sundry natures, some of gravitie, and others of myrth, fit for all companies and voyces, printed in 1589;' and two other collections of the same kind, the last of them printed in 1611. But the most permanent memorials of Bird’s excellences are his motets and anthems; to which may be added a fine service in the key of D with the minor third, the first composition in Dr. Boyce’s Cathedral Music, vol. III. and that well-known canon of his, “Non nobis, Dornine.” Besides his salaries and other emoluments of his profession, it is to be supposed that Bird derived some advantages frotn the patent granted by queen Elizabeth to Tallis and him, for the sole printing of music and music-paper Dr. Ward speaks of a book which he had seen with the letters T. E. for Thomas East, Est, or Este, who printed music under that patent. Tallis dying in 1585, the patent, by the terms of it, survived to bird, who, no doubt for a valuable consideration, permitted East to exercise the right of printing under the protection of it and he in the titlepage of most of his publications styles himself the “assignee of William Bird.” Bird died in 1623.

, a political author in the seventeenth century, was the son of Richard Birkenhead, of Northwych, in the county of Cheshire, an honest saddler, who, if some authors may deserve credit, kept also a little ale-house. Our author was born about 1615, and having received some tincture of learning in the common grammar-schools, came to Oxford, and was entered in 1632, a servitor of Oriel college, under the tuition of the learned Dr. Humphrey Lloyd, afterwards bishop of Bangor. Dr. Lloyd recommended him to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, as his amanuensis, and in that capacity he discovered such talents, that the archbishop, by his diploma, created him A. M. in 1639, and the year following, by letter commendatory from the same great prelate, he was chosen probationary fellow of All-souls college. This preferment brought him to reside constantly in Oxford, and on king Charles I. making that city his head-quarters during the civil war, our author was employed to write a kind of journal in support of the royal cause, by which he gained great reputation; and his majesty recommended him to be chosen reader in moral philosophy, which employment he enjoyed, though with very small profit, till 1648, when he was expelled by the parliament visitors. He retired afterwards to London, where adhering steadily to his principles, he acquired, among those of his own sentiments, the title of “The Loyal Poet,” and suffered, from such as had then the power in their hands, several imprisonments, which served only to sharpen his wit, without abating his courage. He published, while he thus lived in obscurity, and, as Wood says, by his wits, some very tart performances, which were then very highly relished, and are still admired by the curious. These were, like his former productions, levelled against the republican leaders, and were written with the same vindictive poignancy that was then fashionable. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. he was created April 6, 1661, on the king’s letters sent for that purpose, D. C. L. by the university of Oxford and in that quality was o'ne of the eminent civilians consulted by the convocation on the question “Whether bishops ought to be present in capital cases?” and with the rest, Keb. 2, 1661-2, gave it under his hand, they ought and might. He was, about the same time, elected a burgess, to serve in parliament for Wilton, in the county of Wilts, and continuing his services to his master, was by him promoted, on the first vacancy, to some office at court, which he quitted afterwards, and became master in the Faculty office. He was knighted November 14, 1662, and upon sir Richard Fanshaw’s going with a public character to the court of Madrid, sir John Birkenhead succeeded him as master of requests. He was also elected a member of the royal society, an honour at that time conferred on none who were not well known in the republic of letters, as men capable of promoting the truly noble designs of that learned body. He lived afterwards in credit and esteem with men of wit and learning, and received various favours from the court, in consideration of the past, and to instigate him to other services; which, however, drew upon him some very severe attacks from those who opposed the court. Anthony Wood has preserved some of their coarsest imputations, for what reason is not very obvious, as Wood is in general very partial to the loyalist writers. He died in Westminster, December 4, 1679, and was interred at St. Martin’s in the Fields, leaving to his executors, sir Richard Mason, and sir Muddiford Bamston, a large and curious collection of pamphlets on all subjects.

, an English divine, probably the son or grandson of the rev. John Biscoe of New Inn hall, Oxford, a nonconformist, was himself educated at a dissenting academy kept by Dr. Benion at Shrewsbury, and was ordained a dissenting minister, Dec. 19, 1716. In 1726, he conformed and received deacon’s and priest’s orders in the church of England, and in 1727 was presented to the living of St. Martin Outwich, in the city of London, which he retained until his death, July 1748. He held also a prebend of St. Paul’s, and was one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. He is now chiefly known for a learned and elaborate work, entitled “The History of the Acts of the Holy Apostles confirmed from other authors and considered as full evidence of the truth of Christianity, with a prefatory discourse upon the nature of that evidence” being the substance of his sermons preached at Boyle’s lecture, in 1736, 1737, 1738, and published in 2 vols. 1742, 8vo. Dr. Doddridge frequently refers to it, as a work of great utility, and as shewing “in the most convincing manner, how incontestably the Acts of the Apostles demonstrates the truth of Christianity.”

, one of the most eminent chemical philosophers of the last century, was born in France, on the banks of the Garonne, in 1728. His father, Mr. John Black, was a native of Belfast, in Ireland, but of a Scotch family, which had been some time settled there. Mr. Black resided most commonly at Bourdeaux, where he carried on the wine trade. He married a daughter of Mr. Robert Gordon of the family of Halhead, in Aberdeenshire, who was also engaged in the same trade at Bourdeaux. Mr. Black was a gentleman of the most amiable manners, candid and liberal in his sentiments, and of no common information. He enjoyed the particular intimacy and friendship of the celebrated president Montesquieu, who most likely acquired his knowledge of the constitution of Britain, for which he was known to have a strong partiality, from the information communicated by Mr. Black. Long before Mr. Black retired from business, his son Joseph was sent to Belfast, that he might have the education of a British subject. He was then twelve years of age, and six years after, in the year 1746, he was sent to continue his education in the university of Glasgow. Being required by his father to make choice of a profession, he preferred that of medicine, as most suited to the general bent of his studies.

As Dr. Black never published an account of his doctrine of latent heat, though he detailed it every year subsequent to 1762 in his lectures, which were frequented by men of science from all parts of Europe, it became known only through that channel, and this gave an opportunity to others to pilfer it from him piece-meal. Dr. Crawford’s ideas respecting the capacity of bodies for heat, were originally derived from Dr. Black, who first pointed out the method of investigating that subject/

The investigations of Lavoisier and Laplace concerning heat, published many years after, were obviously borrowed from Dr. Black, and indeed consisted in the repetition of the very experiments which he had suggested. Yet these philosophers never mention Dr. Black at all: every thing in their dissertation assumes the air of originality; and, indeed, they appear to have been at great pains to prevent the opinions and discoveries of Dr. Black from being known among their countrymen. But perhaps the most extraordinary procedure was that of Mr. Deluc this philosopher had expressed his admiration of Dr. Black’s theory of latent heat, and had offered to become his editor. Dr. Black, after much entreaty, at last consented, and the proper information was communicated to Mr. Deluc. At last the “Idées sur la Meteorologie” of that philosopher appeared in 1788. But what was the astonishment of Dr. Black and his friends, when they found the doctrine claimed by Deluc as his own, and an expression of satisfaction at the knowledge which he had acquired of Dr. Black’s coincidence with him in opinion!

, the celebrated author of the “Confessional,” was born at Richmond in Yorkshire, June 9, 1705. At the age of seventeen he was admitted pensioner of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, where his peculiar notions on civil and religious liberty rendered him obnoxious to his superiors, and occasioned the loss of a fellowship for which he was a candidate. In 1739, he was ordained by Dr. Gooch, bishop of Norwich, at Ely chapel, Holborn, and in a short time afterwards was inducted into the rectory of Richmond in Yorkshire, where he resided constantly for forty years, during which he composed all the pieces contained in the late edition of his works, besides a multitude of smaller ones. His first appearance as an author was on the following occasion. In 1749, the rev. John Jones, vicar of Alconbury, near Huntingdon, published his “Free and candid disquisitions relating to the Church of England,” containing many observations on the supposed defects and improprieties in the liturgical forms of faith and worship of the established church. As Mr. Blackburne corresponded with this gentleman, who had submitted the work to his perusal in manuscript, and as there were many of his opinions in which Mr. Blackburne coincided, it was not unnatural to suppose that he had a hand in the publication. This, however, Mr. Blackburne solemnly denied, and his biographer has assigned the probable reason. “The truth,” says he, “is, Mr. Blackburne, whatever desire he might have to forward the work of ecclesiastical reformation, could not possibly conform his style to the milky phraseology of the ‘ Disquisitions,’ nor could he be content to have his sentiments mollified by the gentle qualifications of Mr. Jones’s lenient pen. He was rather (perhaps too much) inclined to look upon those who had in their hands the means and the power of reforming the errors, defects, and abuses, in the government, forms of worship, faith and discipline, of the established church, as guilty of a criminal negligence, from which they should have been roused by sharp and spirited expostulations. He thought it became disquisitors, with a cause in hand of such high importance to the influence of vital Christianity, rather to have boldly forced the utmost resentment of the class of men to which they addressed their work, than, by meanly truckling to their arrogance, to derive upon themselves their ridicule and contempt, which all the world saw was the case of these gentle suggesters, and all the return they had for the civility of their application.” Animated by this spirit, which we are far from thinking candid or expedient, Mr. Blackburne published “An Apology,” for the “Free and candid disquisitions,” to which, whatever might be its superior boldness to the “milky phraseology” of Mr. Jones, he yet did not venture to put his name nor, although he was suspected to be the author, did he meet with any of that “arrogance,” which is attributed to those who declined adopting Mr. Jones’s scheme of church-reformation. On the contrary, in July, 1750, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Cleveland, and in August following to the prebend of Bilton, by Dr. Matthew Hutton, archbishop of York, to whom he had been for some years titular chaplain and when his friends intimated their suspicions that he would write no more “Apologies” for such books as “Free and candid Diquisitions,” he answered, “with a cool indifference,” that he had made no bargain with the archbishop for his liberty. His next publication, accordingly, was an attack on Dr. Butler bishop of Durham’s charge to his clergy in 1751, which, in Mr. Blackburne’s opinion, contained some doctrines diametrically opposite to the principles on which the protestant reformation was founded. This appeared in 1752, under the title of “A Serious Enquiry into the use and importance of external religion, &c.” but was not generally known to be his, until Mr. Baron, an enthusiast in controversies, republished it with Mr. Blackburne’s name, in his collection, entitled “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken.”

“In this situation of mind, he set himself to examine into the rise and progress of this requisition in protestant churches, and into the arguments brought in defence, or rather in excuse of it the result of which was the compilation since known by the name of the * Confessional, or a full and free enquiry into the right, utility, and success of establishing Confessions of Faith and Doctrine in Protestant churches.' This work lay by him in manuscript for some years. He had communicated his plan to Dr. Edmund Law, who encouraged him greatly in the progress of it, and appears by many letters in the course of their correspondence to have been extremely impatient to have it published. The fair copy, however, was never seen by any of the author’s acquaintance, one confidential friend excepted, who spoke of its existence and contents to the late patriotic Thomas Hollis, esq. to whom the author at this time was not personally known. Mr. Hollis mentioned this manuscript to Mr. Andrew Millar, the bookseller, who in 1763, intending a summer excursion to visit his friends in Scotland, was desired by Mr. Hollis to call upon Mr. Blackburne at Richmond, where, after some conversation, the manuscript was consigned to Mr. Millar’s care for publication, and accordingly came out in the spring of 1766. The only condition made with Mr. Millar was, that the author’s name should be concealed.”

He now obtained the acquaintance of Hume, the celebrated historian, who interested himself with great zeal in his behalf, and among other services, promoted the publication of the quarto edition of his poems in 1756; but previously to this a second edition of the octavo had been published at Edinburgh in 1754. In this last mentioned year he became known to the Rev. Joseph Spence, poetry professor of Oxford, who introduced him to the English public by “An Account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy in the university of Edinburgh.” In this pamphlet Mr. Spence detailed the extraordinary circumstances of his education and genius with equal taste and humanity, and a subscription was immediately opened at Dodsley’s shop for a quarto edition, to be published at a guinea the large, and half a guinea the small paper.

“His manner of life (says that gentleman) was so uniform, that the history of it during one day, or one week, is the history of it during the seven years that our personal intercourse lasted. Reading, music, walking, conversing, and disputing on various topics, in theology, ethics, &c. employed almost every hour of our time. It was pleasant to hear him engaged in a dispute, for no man could keep his temper better than he always did on such occasions. I have known him frequently very warmly engaged for hours together, but never could observe one angry word to fall from him. Whatever his antagonist might say, he always kept his temper. ‘ Semper paratus et refellere sine pertinacia, et refelli sine iracundia.’ He was, however, extremely sensible to what he thought ill usage, and equally so whether it regarded himself or his friends. But his resentment was always confined to a few satirical verses, which were generally burnt soon after.”

“I have frequently admired with what readiness and rapidity he could sometimes make verses. I have known him dictate from thirty to forty verses, and by no means bad ones, as fast as I could write them but the moment he was at a loss for a rhyme or a verse to his liking, he stopt altogether, and could very seldom be induced to finish what he had begun with so much ardour.”

The virtues of his private character, less conspicuous in their nature, and consequently less generally known, endeared him to those he was more intimately connected with, and who saw him in the more retired scenes of life. He was, notwithstanding his contracted brow (owing in a great measure to his being very near-sighted), a cheerful, agreeable, and facetious companion. He was a faithful friend, an affectionate husband and parent, and a charitable benefactor to the poor *, possessed of generosity, without affectation, bounded by prudence and ceconomy. The constant accurate knowledge he had of his income and expences (the consequence of uncommon regularity in his accounts) enabled him. to avoid the opposite extremes of meanness and profusion.

Soon after Dr. Blackwell became principal of his college he married Barbara Black, the daughter of a merchant of Aberdeen, by whom he had no children, and who survived him so late as 1793. Several years before his death, his health began to decline so that he was obliged to employ an assistant for teaching his Greek class. His disorder was of the consumptive kind, and it was thought to be increased by the excess of abstemiousness which he imposed on himself and, in which, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of his physicians, he obstinately persisted, from an opinion of his own knowledge of his constitution, and of what he found by experience to suit it best. His disease increasing, he was advised to travel; and accordingly, in February 1757, he set out from Aberdeen, but was able to go no farther than Edinburgh, in which city he died, on the 8th of March following, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Dr. Blackwell enjoyed an equable flow of temper, in which his intimate friends scarcely ever observed any variation. This he maintained during his whole illness. The day before he set out from Aberdeen, he desired to meet with all the professors of the college, and spent two hours with them with his usual vivacity. In Edinburgh he was visited, at his own desire, by Dr. Wallace, one of the ministers of that city, whose ingenuity and learning are well known. Dr. Blackwell, on the very day in which he died, wrote letters to several of his friends, and took leave of them with the greatest chee. fulness. In the April following our author’s decease, it being Dr. Gerard’s business, as (at that time) professor of moral philosophy and logic in the Marischal college, to preside at conferring the degree of master of arts on those whose standing entitled them to it, the doctor took that occasion to pronounce publicly, on the late principal, such an encomium as his literature deserved. It was a fault in Dr. Blackwell, that he too much assumed the appearance of universal knowledge; the consequence of which was that he sometimes laid himself open, by entering on subjects of philosophy and mathematics, without a sufficient acquaintance with them. With all the ancient, and with most of the modern languages, he was really acquainted and his reading, in the departments of history and the belles lettres, was very extensive. He had a ready and lively manner of introducing his knowledge of this kind, which made his conversation both instructive and entertaining and it was rendered still more so by being accompanied with great good humour, and an entire command of his passions, even when he was provoked. Though he had something of the stiffness of the recluse, he joined with it much of the confidence and good breeding that are found in men who converse much in the world. His life was private and studious: he did not wholly decline mixed companies, though it was but seldom that he came into them and at home he chose only the conversation of the learned, or that of persons of superior rank or fortune. At London he was known to several men of eminence. The late duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Henry Pelham, were his patrons, and procured for him the office of principal of the Marischal college. It is confidently said that they had intended him an establishment at Cambridge, and that the professorship of modern history was fixed upon for him, if he had not died a short time before it became vacant. A man of Dr. Blackwell’s abilities and reputation could not fail of having some valuable literary connexions and correspondents; among whom he had the honour of numbering the late celebrated Dr. Mead, and the no less celebrated Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. It is said that Mr. Blackwell, soon after the publication of his Enquiry, being at Cambridge, paid a visit to Dr. Bentley, and the discourse turning upon the book, the doctor, being asked his opinion of it, answered, “That when he had gone through half of it, he had forgotten the beginning; and that, when he had finished the reading of it, he had forgotten the whole.” Whatever truth is in this story, it is certain, at least, that a similar objection had been started by others, if not by Dr. Bentley.

In the first volume of the Archaeologia is a letter, written in 1748, by Dr. Blackwell, to Mr. Ames, containing an explanation of a Greek inscription, on a white marble, found in the isle of Tasso, near the coast of Romania, by captain Joseph Hales, in 1728. As Dr. Blackwell was singular in his style and sentiments, he likewise imbibed some religious opinions, little known at that time in the bosom of the Calvinistic church of Scotland. He was so much a Socinian, that he never read ttie first chapter of St. John in his class, but always began with the second. This on one occasion gave rise to a foolish report respecting his knowledge of Greek, which we shall have occasion to notice in the life of Dv. Gregory Sharpe. His widow, who, as alreadynoticed, died in 1793, bequeathed her estates partly to found a chemical professorship in the college over which her husband had so long presided, and partly for a premium for an English essay, and for the augmentation of the professors’ salaries.

, professor of civil law at Poictiers, was born at Dumfermling, in Scotland, in 1539, descended of an ancient family. He was left an orphan in the tenth year of his age, and was sent by his uncle, the bishop of Orkney, to the university of Paris. On his uncle’s death, by which he seems to have lost the means of being able to remain at Paris, he returned to Scotland, but finding no encouragement there, he went again to Paris, where, by the liberality of Mary, queen of Scotland, he was enabled to pursue his studies in philosophy, mathematics, and the oriental languages. He then went to the university of Tholouse, where he studied civil law for two years and having obtained the patronage of Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, he was chosen by the parliament of Poictiers one of their counsellors, and afterwards professor of civil law. He died in 1623, and was interred at Poictiers in St. Porcharius church, near his brother George. As a writer, he was chiefly known for his vindication of his royal mistress, when put to death by queen Elizabeth, written with all that bitterness of resentment which is natural for a man of spirit to feel, who, by an act of flagrant injustice, was deprived of his mistress and his sovereign, his friend and his benefactress. He addresses himself, in a vehement strain of passion, to all the princes of Europe, to avenge her death; declaring, that they are unworthy of royalty, if they are not roused on so interesting and pressing an occasion. He laboured hard to prove that Henry VIII.' s marriage with Anne Bolen was incestuous a calumny too gross to merit a formal refutation. This work was entitled “Martyre de Maria Stuart Reyne d'Escosse,” Antwerp, 1588, 8vo. His other works were, 1. “Adversus G. Buchanani Dialogum de Jure Ilegni apud Scotos, pro regibus apologia,” Pict. 1580, 8vo. 2. “De Vinculo Religionis et Imperii,” Paris, 1575, 8vo. 3. “Sanctarum precationum prsemia,” a manual of devotions, Pict. 1598, 8vo. 4. “Varii generis poemata,” ibid. 1609, 8vo. 5. “Jacobi I. Magnse Britanniae inauguratio,” Paris, 1606, 4to. These and some other pieces by him, were collected and published, with a life, by Gabriel Naudeus, 1644, 4to.

, of Albro'-hatch, in the county of Essex, was early in life an officer in the army, bearing the commission of lieutenant-colonel in queen Anne’s reign, under the great duke of Marlborough. In 1714, he was made comptroller of the. Mint, and in 1717, one of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations. In the same year he was appointed envoy extraordinary to the court of Spain, but declined it, and retained the office he held until his death, Feb. 14, 1746. He satin the fifth, sixth, and seventh parliaments of Great Britain for Stockbridge, in the eighth for Maiden, and in the ninth for Portsmouth. Coxeter hints that he was secretary of state for Ireland, but this is doubtful. He wrote two very indifferent dramatic pieces, “Orpheus and Euridice,” and “Solon” which were printed in 1705, 4to, without his consent. He is best known, however, by his translation of Caesar’s Commentaries, which he dedicated to the duke of Marlborough. This book was in some estimation formerly, and Mr. Bowyer appears to have assisted in correcting it. He was buried in Stepney church, with a very handsome inscription to his memory. Pope introduces him in the Uunciad as a gamester, for what reason cannot now be ascertained. He was uncle to Collins the celebrated poet, to whom he left an estate, which poor Collins did not get possession of till his faculties were deranged, and he could not enjoy it.

, an eminent mathematician, who flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, was the son of John Blagrave, of Bulmarsh, esq. and was born at Reading, but in what year is not known. He acquired the rudiments of his education at Reading, whence he removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, but soon quitted the university, and retired to Southcote Lodge at Reading, where he devoted his time to study and contemplation. His genius seemed to be turned most to mathematics; and that he might study this science without interruption, he devoted himself to a retired life. He employed himself chiefly in compiling such works as might render speculative mathematics accurate, and the practical parts easy. He accordingly finished some learned and useful works, in all which he proposed to render those sciences more universally understood. He endeavoured to shew the usefulness of such studies, that they were not mere amusements for scholars and speculative persons, but of general advantage, and absolutely indispensable in many of the necessaries and conveniences of life with this view he published the four following works: 1. “A Mathematical Jewel, shewing the making and most excellent use of an instrument so called: the use of which jewel is so abundant, that it leadeth the direct path-way through the whole art of astronomy, cosmography, geography,” &c. 1582, folio. 2. “Of the making and use of the Familiar Staff, so called for that it may be made useful and familiarly to walk with, as for that it performeth the geometrical mensuration of all altitudes,” 1590, 4to. 3. “Astrolabium uranicum generale a necessary and pleasant solace and recreation for navigators in their long journeying containing the use of an instrument, or astrolabe,” &c. 1596, 4to. 4. “The art of Dialling, in two parts.” 1609, 4to.

, D.D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born at Edinburgh, April 7, 1718. His father, John Blair, a respectable merchant in that city, was a descendant of the ancient family of Blair, in Ayrshire, and grandson of the famous Mr. Robert Blair, minister of St. Andrew’s, chaplain to Charles I. and one of the most zealous and distinguished clergymen of the peilod in which he lived. Of the two sons who survived him, David, the eldest, was a clergyman of eminence in Edinburgh, and father to Mr. Robert Blair, minister of Athelstanford, the author of the well-known poem entitled “The Grave.” From his youngest son, Hugh, who engaged in business as a merchant, and had the honour to fill a high station in the magistracy of Edinburgh, the object of the present memoir descended.

About this time he was employed in “rescuing from oblivion the poems of Ossian.” The controversy respecting the authenticity of these poems is well known. The biographer of Dr. Blair asserts that it was by the solicitation of Dr. Blair and Mr. John Home (the author of Douglas), that Mr. Macpherson was induced to publish his “Fragments of Ancient Poetry,” and that their patronage was of essential service in procuring the subscription which enabled him to undertake his tour through the Highlands for collecting the materials of Fingal, and of those other productions which bear the name of Ossian. To these, in 1763, Dr. Blair prefixed a “Dissertation” of the critical kind, which procured him much reputation, whatever may be thought of the subject. The great objects of his literary ambition being now attained, his talents were for many years consecrated solely to the important and peculiar employments of his station. But his chief fame was yet to rest upon the publication of his sermons, and the fate of them furnishes a singular instance of the vicissitudes of literary history. His biographer, however, relates this without any of the circumstances that are most interesting. He contents himself with saying that "It was not till the year 1777 that he could be induced to favour the world with a volume of the sermons which had so long furnished instruction and delight to his own congregation. But this volume being well received, the public approbation encouraged him to proceed three other volumes followed at different intervals; and all of them experienced a degree of success of which few publications can boast. They circulated rapidly and widely wherever the English tongue extends they were soon translated into almost all the languages of Europe and his present majesty, with that wise attention to the interests of religion and literature which distinguishes his reign, was graciously pleased to judge them worthy of a public reward. By a royal mandate to the exchequer in Scotland, dated July 25th, 1780, a pension of 200l. a year was conferred on their author, which continued unaltered till his death.

, an ingenious Scotch botanist, was a practitioner of physic and surgery at Dundee, where he made himself first known as an anatomist, by the dissection of an elephant, which died near that place, in 1706. He was a nonjuror, and for his attachment to the exiled family of Stuart, was imprisoned, in the rebellion in 1715, as a suspected person. He afterwards removed to London,

Dogger Bank, August 5, 1781, was whom their country, by its rapresentapromoted to the command of the An- tives, voted a monument, on, a new ship of 64 guns. By bravely where he recommended himself to the royal society by some discourses on the sexes of flowers. His stay in London was not long, and after leaving it, he settled at Boston, in Lincolnshire, where Dr. Pulteney conjectures that he practised physic during the remainder of his life. The time of his decease is not known, but it is supposed to have taken place soon after the publication of the seventh Decad of his “Pharmaco-Botanologia,” in 1728. Dr. Blair’s first publication was entitled “Miscellaneous observations in Physic, Anatomy, Surgery, and Botanies,” 1718, 8vo. In the botanical part of this work he insinuates some doubts relating to the method suggested by Petiver, and others, of deducing the qualities of vegetables from the agreement in natural characters, and instances the Cynoglossum, as tending to prove the fallacy of this rule. But the work by which he rendered the greatest service to botany, originated with his “Discourse on the Sexes of Plants,” read before the royal society, and afterwards greatly amplified, and published at the request of several members of that body, under the title of “Botanic Essays,” 1720, 8vo, in which he strengthened the arguments in proof of the sexes of plants, by sound reasoning, and some new experiments. He published also, “Pharmaco-botanologia, or an alphabetical and classical dissertation on all the British indigenous and garden plants of the new dispensatory,” Lond. 1723 28, 4to, but this work extends only to the letter H. Dr. Blair wrote some papers in the Philosophical Transactions, particularly his anatomy and osteology of the elephant, &c.

, a celebrated English admiral, was born August 1599, at Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, where he was educated at the grammar-school. He went from, thence to Oxford, and was entered at St. Alban’s hall, but removed to Wadham college, and in 1617 took the degree of B. A. In 1623 he wrote a copy of verses on the death of Camden, and soon after left the university. He was tinctured pretty early with republican principles and disliking that severity with which Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells, pressed uniformity in his diocese, he began to fall into the puritanical opinions. The natural bluntness and sincerity of his disposition led him to speak freely upon all occasions, insomuch that, his sentiments being generally known, the puritan party got him elected member for Bridgewater in 1640. When the civil war broke out, he declared for the parliament. In 1643 he was at Bristol, under the command of col. Fiennes, who intrusted him with a little fort on the line and, when prince Rupert attacked Bristol, and the governor had agreed to surrender it upon, articles, Blake nevertheless for some time held out his fort, and killed several of the king’s forces: which exasperated prince Rupert to such a degree, that he talked of hanging him, had not some friends interposed, and excused him on account of his want of experience in war. He served afterwards in Somersetshire, under the command of Popham, governor of Lyme; and, being much beloved in those parts, he had such good intelligence there, that in conjunction with sir Robert Pye, he surprised Taunton for the parliament. In 1644 he was appointed governor of this place, w; ich was of the utmost importance, being the only garrison the parliament had in the west. The works about it were not strong, nor was the garrison numerous; yet, by his strict discipline, and kind behaviour to the townsmen, he found means to keep the place, though not properly furnished with supplies, and sometimes besieged, and even blocked up by the king’s forces. At length Goring made a breach, and actually took part of the town; while Blake still held out the other part and the castle, till relief came. For this service the parliament ordered the garrison a bounty of 2000l. and the governor a present of 500l. When the parliament had voted that no farther addresses should be made to the king, Blake joined in an address from the borough of Taunton, expressing their gratefulness for this step taken by the house of commons. However, when the king came to be tried, Blake disapproved of that measure, as illegal; and was frequently heard to say, he would as freely venture his life to save the king’s, as ever he did to serve the parliament. But this is thought to have been chiefly owing to the humanity of his temper; since after the death of the king he entered into all the measures of the republican party, and, next to Cromwell, was the ablest officer the parliament had.

, son to the preceding, was an, eminent physician at Franeker, and one of the most voluminous compilers of his time. He published large works on every branch of medicine and surgery, taken from all preceding and even contemporary authors, without either judgment or honesty; for while he took every thing good and bad which he could find, he in general published all as his own. His “Anatomia practica rationalis,” 1688, would have been a useful work, had it not partaken too much of indiscriminate borrowing but, perhaps, that for which he is best known is his “Lexicon medicum GraecoLatinum,” which has gone through a great many editions, some of which have been improved by more able scholars. The best, we believe, is that printed at Louvain, 1754, 2 vols. 8vo. An English translation, under the title of the “Physical Dictionary,” printed first in 1693, 8vo, was for some time a popular book, until supplanted, if we mistake not, by Quiucey’s. Haller and Man get have given lists of Blancard’s numerous works, but neither gives much of his personal history. There was a collection of what probably were esteemed the best of his pieces, printed at Leyden, 4to, 1701, under the title of " Opera meclica, theoretica, practica et chirurgica.

, a French abbé of considerable talents and amiable character, was born at Angerville, near Chartres, Jan. 26, 1707, of poor parents, who were, however, enabled to give him an education, to complete which he came to Paris. In 1724 he entered among the Jesuits as a noviciate, but did not remain long among them: yet he was highly esteemed by his masters, and preserved the friendship of the eminent Jesuits Brumoy, Bougeant, and Castel. He then employed himself in education, and taught, with much reputation, rhetoric and the classics in two provincial colleges, until the weak state of his health obliged him to restrict his labours to the office of private tutor, an office which he rescued from the contempt into which it had fallen, by taking equal care of the morals and learning of his pupils, all of whom did him, credit in both respects. Being a lover of independence, he resigned his canonry in the cathedral of Boulogne, and when appointed one of the interpreters of the king’s library, the same scruples induced him to decline it, until M.Bignon assured him that the place was given him as the reward of his merit, and required no sacrifices. Soon after he was appointed censor, but upon condition that he should have nothing to censure, and he accordingly accepted the title, but refused the salary and his friends, having thus far overcome his repugnance to offices of this description, procured him the farther appointment of keeper of the books in the king’s cabinet at Versailles. Yet this courtly situation was not at all to his mind, and he resigned in order to go and live in obscurity at St. Germain-en- laye, where he died Jan. 29, 1781, at about eighty. His disposition was amiable in society, where, however, he seldom appeared; but he became gloomy and melancholy in the solitude to which he condemned himself. Premature infirmities had considerably altered his temper. He was oppressed with vapours, from which he suffered alone, and by which he was afraid of making others suffer. It was this that made him seek retirement. “Such as I am,” said he, “I must bear with myself; but are o.hers obliged to bear with me I really think, if I had not the support and consolations of religion, I should lose my senses.” By nature disinterested, he constantly refused favours and benefits, and it was with great difficulty he could be made to accept of any thing. The advancement of his friends, however, was not so indifferent to him as his own; and he was delighted when they were promoted to any lucrative or useful place. Living in this retired manner, he was scarcely known to the public till after his death. Of his writing are the “Varietes morales et amusantes,” 1784, 2 vols. 12mo, and “Apologues et contes orientaux,” 1785, 8vo in both which he shews himself a man of much reading, and who has the talent of writing with sentiment, philosophy, and taste. There are likewise by him several little pieces of poetry, of the light and agreeable kind, of which the greater part were attributed to the best poets of the time, who did not shew any vehement disdain at the imputation which made the abbé Blanchet say, “I am. delighted that the rich adopt my children.” These he would lend to his friends on the most solemn promises to return them without copying, or suffering them to be copied, and would often be extremely anxious if they were not retunted within the time specified, when he immediately consigned them to the flames. One of his poems, however, appears to have escaped this fate, an ode on the existence of God, which was published in 1784, with his “Vues sur Teducation d'un prince,” 12mo. Dusaulx, his relation, wrote an amusing life of the abbé, which is prefixed to the “Apologues.”

, a painter of great abilities, was born at Alkmaar in 1628, and received his earliest instruction from Arent Tierling but afterwards he was successively the disciple of Peter Scheyenburg and Caesar Van Everdingen. When he had spent some years with those masters, he went to Rome, where, during his continuance in that city, he carefully copied the works of the best masters, and was admitted into the society of Flemish painters called Bentvogels, who gave him the name of Jan Maat (which in Dutch signifies mate or companion), and by that name he is most generally known. His subjects were landscapes, with views of rivers or sea-shores, havens or ports, which he executed with a light free pencil; and in the representation of storms and calms (as nature was always his model) he described those subjects with great truth, exactness, and neatness of handling. The pictures of this master which are most commended are the Italian sea-ports, with vessels lying before them. He possessed a lively imagination; nor was his hand less expeditious than his thoughts; and the connoisseurs agreed in opinion, that if he had bestowed more labour on his pictures than he usually did, so as to finish them more highly, he would certainly have destroyed a great deal of their spirit, force, and effect. His most capital performance is a view of the sea-shore, with the waves retiring at ebb tide; which is described by Houbraken as being wonderfully beautiful and natural. He died in 1670.