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

, who flourished in the sixteenth century, was a Florentine, of the order of Jerusalem, and a voluminous writer on Music. He first appeared as an author in 1516. when a small Latin tract in three books. “De institutione Harmonica,” which he wrote originally in Italian, was translated into Latin, and published at Bologna, by his friend Job. Ant. Flaminius, of Imola, 4to.

, eldest brother to the archbishop, was born also in the town of Guildford in 1560; educated by the same schoolmaster; and afterwards sent to Balliol college, Oxford, in 1575. In 1582 he took his degree of M. A. and soon became a celebrated preacher; to which talent he chiefly owed his preferment. Upon his first sermon at Worcester, he was chosen lecturer in that city, and soon after rector of All Saints in the same place. John Stanhope, esq. happening to hear him preach at Paul’s cross, was so pleased with him, that he immediately presented him to the rich living of Bingham in Nottinghamshire. In 1594 he became no less eminent for his writings than he had been for his excellence in preaching. In 1597 he took his degree of D. D. In the beginning of king James’s reign he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; who had such an opinion of him as a writer, that he ordered the doctor’s book “De Antichristo” to be reprinted with his own commentary upon part of the Apocalypse. He had also acquired much reputation for his writings against Dr. William Bishop, then a secular priest, but afterwards titular bishop of Chalcedon. In 1609 he was elected master of Balliol college; which trust he discharged with the utmost care and assiduity, by his frequent lectures to the scholars, by his continual presence at public exercises, and by promoting discipline in the society. In May 1610 the king nominated Dr. Abbot one of the fellows in the college of Chelsea, which had been, lately founded for the encouragement and promotion of polemical divinity. In November 1610 he was made prebendary of Normanton in the church of Southwell; and in 1612 his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford; in which station he acquired the character of a profound divine, though a more moderate Calvinist than either of his two predecessors in the divinity-chair, Holland and Humphrey: for he countenanced the sublapsarian tenets concerning predestination. He was not, however, less an enemy to Dr. Laud than his brother; and in one of his sermons pointed at him so directly, that Laud intended to have taken some public notice of it.

, a German writer of high character, was born Nov. 25, 1738, at Ulm, where he received his education, and in 1751 produced his first dissertation, under the title of “Historia vitae magistra,” in which he maintained two theses, the one on burning mirrors, the other on the miracle of the dial of Ahaz. In 1756, he went to the university of Halle, where he was invited by professor Baumgarten to live in his house. Here he published a thesis “De Extasi,” and studied chiefly philosophy and the mathematics; and from 1758, when he received the degree of M. A. he confined himself to these, giving up divinity, to which he had been originally destined. In 1760, he was appointed professor-extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Francfort-on-the-Oder, and in the midst of the war which then raged, inspirited his fellow-­citizens by a work on “Dying for our Country.” In the following year, he passed six months at Berlin, and left that city to fill the mathematical chair in the university of Rinteln, in Westphalia; but, becoming tired of an academical life, began to study law, as an introduction to some civil employment. In 1763, he travelled through the south of Germany, Switzerland, and part of France; and, on his return to Rinteln, at the end of that year, published his work “On Merit,” which was re-printed thrice in that place, and obtained him much reputation. In 1765, the reigning prince of Schaumburg Lippe bestowed on him the office of counsellor of the court, regency, and consistory of Buckeburgh; but he did not long enjoy the friendship of this nobleman, or his promotion, as he died Nov. 27, 1766, when only in his twenty-eighth year. The prince caused him to be interred, with great pomp, in his private chapel, and honoured his tomb by an affecting epitaph from his own pen. Abbt was highly esteemed by his contemporaries, who seem agreed that, if his life had been spared, he would have ranked among the first German writers. He contributed much to restore the purity of the language, which had become debased before his time, as the Germans, discouraged by the disastrous thirty years war, had written very little, unless in French or Latin.

, a name admitted into various biographical collections, without much propriety. It has usually been said that Abdias was an impostor, who pretended that he had seen our Saviour, that he was one of the seventy-two disciples, had been an eye-witness of the lives and martyrdom of several of the apostles, and had followed St. Simon and St. Jude into Persia, where he was made the first bishop of Babylon. From what he saw, he compiled a work entitled “Historia certaminis Apostolici.” This work Wolfgang Lazius, a physician of Vienna, and historiographer to the emperor Ferdinand I. (hereafter noticed) found in manuscript in a cave of Carinthia, and believing it to be genuine, originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek by one Europius, a disciple of Abdias, and into Latin by Afrieanus, published it at Basil in 1551, after which it was several times reprinted, but, on examination both by Papist and Protestant writers, was soon discovered to be a gross imposture, from the many anachronisms which occur. Melancthon, who saw it in manuscript, was one of the first to detect it; and the greater part of the learned men in Europe, at the time of publication, were of opinion that Abdias was a fictitious personage, and that it was neither written in Hebrew, nor translated into Greek or Latin: Fabricius has proved from internal evidence that it was first written in Latin, but that the author borrowed from various ancient memoirs, which were originally in Greek. As to the age of the writer, some have placed him in the fifth and some in the sixth century, or later. The object of the work is to recommend chastity and celibacy .

, brother of the preceding, was also born at Riez, and became a surgeon and medical writer of considerable eminence. His publications are: 1. “Htstoire des Os,” Paris, 1685, 12mo. 2. “Traité des plaies d'Arquebusades,” Paris, 1696, 12mo. 3. “Le parfait Chirurgien d'armée,” 1696, 12mo, reckoned his most useful work. He wrote also some poetry. He died Nov. 9, 1697, leaving a son who wrote two unsuccessful dramas .

An incident now occurred in his life, which has given him more popular renown than his abilities as a philosopher, a theologian, or a writer, could have conferred, but which has thrown a melancholy shade on his moral character. About this time, there was resident in Paris, Heloise, the niece of Fulbert, one of the canons of the cathedral church, a lady about eighteen years of age, of great personal beauty, and highly celebrated for her literary attainments. Abelard, who was now at the sober age of 40, conceived an illicit passion for this young lady, flattering himself that his personal attractions were yet irresistible. Fulbert, who thought himself honoured by the visits of so eminent a scholar and philosopher, while he had any reason to place them to his own account, welcomed him to his house, as a learned friend whose conversation might be instructive to his niece, and was therefore easily prevailed upon, by a handsome payment which Abelard offered for his board, to admit him into his family as an inmate. When this was -concluded upon, as he apprehended no danger from one of Abelard’s age and gravity, he requested him to devote some portion of his leisure to the instruction of Heloise, at the same time granting him full permission to treat her in all respects as his pupil. Abelard accepted the trust, and, we gather from his own evidence, with no other intention than to betray it. “I was no less surprized,” he says, “than if the canon had delivered up a tender lamb to a famished wolf,” &c. In this infamous design he succeeded but too well, and appears to have corrupted her mind, as, amidst the rage of her uncle, and the reflections which would naturally be made on such a transaction, every other sentiment in her breast was absorbed in a romantic and indecent passion for her seducer. Upon her pregnancy being discovered, it was thought necessary for her to quit her uncle’s house, and Abelard conveyed her to Bretagne, where she was delivered of a son, to whom they gave the name of Astrolabus, or Astrolabius. Abelard now proposed to Fulbert to marry his niece, provided the marriage might be kept secret, and Fulbert consented; but Heloise, partly out of regard to the interest of Abelard, whose profession bound him to celibacy, and partly from a less honourable notion, that love like hers ought not to submit to ordinary restraints, at first gave a peremptory refusal. Abelard, however, at last prevailed, and they were privately married at Paris; but in this state they did not experience the happy effects of mutual reconciliation. The uncle wished to disclose the marriage, but Heloise denied it; and from tbis time he treated her with such unkindness as furnished Abelard with a sufficient plea for removing her from his house, and placing her in the abbey of Benedictine nuns, in which she had been originally educated. Fulbert, while he gave the provocation, pretended that Abelard had taken this step in order to rid himself of an incumbrance which obstructed his future prospects. Deep resentment took possession of his soul, and he meditated revenge; in the pursuit of which he employed some ruffians to enter Abelard’s chamber by night, and inflict upon his person a disgraceful and cruel mutilation, which was accordingly perpetrated. The ruffians, however, were apprehended, and punished according to the law of retaliation; and Fulbert was deprived of his benefice, and his goods confiscated.

“When we consider him as a writer, not much more can be added to his praise. He is obscure, laboured, and inelegant: nor do I discover any traces of that genius and vivid energy of soul, which he certainly possessed, and which rendered him so formidable in the schools of philosophy. Even when he describes his own misfortunes, and is the hero of his own tale, the story is languid, and it labours on through a tedious and digressive narration of incidents. In his theological tracts he is more jejune, and in his letters he has not the elegance, nor the harmony, nor the soul of Heloise. Therefore, did we not know how much his abilities were extolled by his contemporaries, what encomiums they gave to his pen, and how much the proudest disputants of the age feared the fire of his tongue, we certainly should be inclined to say, perusing his works, that Abelard was not an uncommon man.

, a horticultural writer of considerable note, and to whose taste and writings the English garden is considerably indebted, was the son of a respectable gardener near Edinburgh, and descended of a good family. The father, having early discovered a predilection in the son for that profession in which he was himself allowed to excel, afforded him every encouragement; and, as his mind was solely bent on this delightful pursuit, his proficiency in horticulture, &c. soon outstripped his years. To increase his knowledge in the different branches of gardening, he came to London at the age of eighteen, and worked in Hampton court, St. James’s, Kensington, Leicester, &c. gardens. His taste in laying out grounds, and his progress in botany, were so highly appreciated, that he was advised to publish something on those subjects; but his extreme diffidence for a long time counteracted the wishes of his friends. At length he was induced to commence author: having submitted his manuscript to Mr. Griffin, bookseller, of Catherine-street, in the Strand, Mr. Griffin candidly told him he was not a judge of the subject, but, with permission, he would consult a friend of his who was allowed to be so, Mr. Mawe, gardener to the duke of Leeds. Mr. Abercrombie consented. Mr. Mawe bore testimony to the merit of the production, and prefixed his name to the publication, in order to give it that celebrity to which it was so justly entitled, for which he received a gratuity of 20 guineas. The work was published under the title of “Mawe’s Gardener’s Calendar;” the flattering reception which it experienced induced the real writer to publish another work under his own name; “The Universal Dictionary of Gardening and Botany,” in 4to. This was followed by “The Gardener’s Dictionary,” “The Gardener’s Daily Assistant,” “The Gardener’s Vade Mecum,” “The Kitchen Gardener and Hot-Bed Forcer,” “The HotHouse Gardener,” &c. &c. Some of these are hasty compilations, without much display of botanical knowledge; but they were in general popular, and most of them were translated into French, German, &c. Mr. Abercrombie’s industry enabled him to bring up a large family, and to give them a good education; but he survived them all, except one son, who has more than once distinguished himself at sea in the service of his country. He died at his apartments, Chalton-street, Somers Town, in the 80th year of his age, 1806.

, a native of Biroun, in the province of Khovarezme, who flourished about the beginning of the eleventh century, attained the title of Ai-Mohakapad, or the subtle philosopher, on account of his knowledge of the sciences, and particularly his skill in astrology. He was contemporary and rival to Avicenna, a more celebrated Arabian writer. Abou-rihan wrote some treatises oa Geography, the fixed stars, and the sphere.

His works are 1. “Commentaries on Virgil’s Æneid,” printed at Pont-a-Mousson, 1632, 8vo; and again at Toulouse, 1644; at Rouen, 1637 and 1648. 2. “Commentary on the third volume of Cicero’s Orations,” Paris, 1631, 2 vols. fol. His Analyses of the Orations were published separately at Pont-a-Mousson, 1633, 4to. 3. “Pharus Veteris Testament!, sive sacrarum questionum libri XV.” Paris, 1648, fol. This is the most esteemed of his works. 4. “Nonni Neopolitani paraphrasis sancti secundum Joannem Evangelii. Accesserunt notse P. N. A. soc. Jes.” Paris, 1623, 8vo. These notes were from the pen of our author. He published also a Hebrew grammar in Latin verse, and translated into French Bartoli’s Italian pieces, “The Life of Vinant Caraffa;” “The Man of Letters,” and “Contented Poverty.” As an original writer he is uncommonly prolix, but displays much learning and acuteness. Bayle gives most praise to his commentary on Cicero, by which Osorius and Olivet profited much; but others prefer his Pharus. It may be necessary to add what is meant by his taking the fourth vow. In addition to the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the fourth is, that the person taking it shall labour to promote the salvation of others, by instructing youth, preaching, administering the sacraments, and by becoming missionaries among heretics and idolaters.

, an Italian writer, was born at Macerata, in La Marca de Ancona, and devoted himself early to the study of polite literature, in which he made great progress. He taught the belles lettres at Urbino, where he was librarian to duke Guido Ubaldo; to whom he dedicated a small piece entitled “Annotationes varioe,” explaining some dark passages in the ancient authors. 14e published it under the pontificate of Alexander VI. and another treatise also, entitled “Hecatomythium,” Venice, 1499, 4to, from its containing a hundred fables, which he inscribed to Octavian Ubaldini, count de Mercatelli. His fables have been often printed with those of Æsop, Phaedrus, Gabrias, Avienus, &c. He has these ancient mythologists generally in view, but does not always strictly follow their manner; sometimes intermixing his fable with ludicrous stories, and satires on the clergy, which, as usual in such cases, abound in indecent allusions to the Holy Scriptures. Some of his conjectures on particular passages in the ancients are inserted in the first volume of Gruterus’s Thesaurus criticus, under the title of Annotationes variae; but they are few in number. He wrote also a preface to the editio princeps of Aurelius Victor published at Venice, 1505, and a work entitled “Libri duo de quibusdam locis obscuris in libro Ovidii in Ibin, hactenus male interpretatis,” Venice, 4to, without date. The date of his birth and death are not known, but his works appeared at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century.

The Eastern nations are generally extravagant in their applause of men of learning; and have bestowed the highest encomiums and titles upon Abulfafagius, as, the prince of the learned, the most excellent of those who most excel, the example of his times, the phoenix of his age, the glory of wise men, &c. Our historian, Gibbon, esteems him “eminent both in his life and death. In his life he was an elegant writer of the Syriac and Arabic tongues, a poet, physician, and a moderate divine. la his death, his funeral was attended by his rival the Nestorian patriarch, with a train of Greeks and Armenians, Who forgot their disputes, and mingled their tears over the grave of an enemy.” His death took place in 1286.

, a name assumed by a French poetical writer of the 16th century, who likewise sometimes called himself Maistre Tyburce. He resided at the town of Papetourte, whence he published or dated most of his productions, and called himself clerk or royal notary of Pont-St.-Esprit. He died, according to some biographers, in 1540 or 1544; and, according to others, in 1550. He wrote: 1. “Moralite, mystere, et figure de la Passion de N. S. Jesus Christ,” Lyons, printed by Benoit Rigaut, 8vo, without date, and now so rare that only one copy is known to exist, which is in the imperial library of Paris, and formerly belonged to that of La Valliere. 2. “La Joyeulx Mystere des trois Roys,” ms. in the same library. 3. “Farce nouvelle tres bonne et tres joyeuse de la Cornette,” ms. 4. “Le Gouvert d'Humanite, moralité a personnaiges,” printed at Lyons. 5. “Le Monde qui tourne le dos a chascun, et Plusieurs qui n'a point de conscience,” printed also at Lyons. According to the practice of the writers of his age, he assumed a device, which was Jin sans Jin. The titles and dates of his other works are given in the Bibliotheque of De Verdier, and consist of short poems, ballads, rondeaus, songs, &c.

, or Abydinus. This word, which signifies a native, or inhabitant of Abydos, is given by Eusebius, Cyril, and Syncellus, as the proper name of a Greek historian to whom some authors ascribe two works, “Assyriaca,” and “Chaldaica,” or the history of the Assyrians and Chaldeans; but it is probable that these are the titles of parts of the same work. The fragments quoted by Eusebius, in his “Praeparatio Evangelica,” St. Cyril, in his writings against Julian, and Syncellus, in his Chronography, have been collected and commented on by Scaliger, in his Thesaurus, and in his “Emendatio Temporum.” But Scipio Tettius, a Neapolitan writer of the sixteenth century, in his Catalogue of scarce Manuscripts, quoted by Labbe, in his “Biblioth. Nov. libror. Manuscr.” p. 167, informs us, that the entire work of Abydenus exists in manuscript in a library in Italy. The recovery of this would be of importance, as Abydenus appears to have taken, as the basis of his work, the Babylonish history of Berosus, of which only fragments remain, unless we admit, what is universally denied, the authenticity of the edition published by Annius of Viterbo.

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

This writer has left an example of an author’s jealousy, and fear of being thought a plagiarist, which is too curious to be omitted. Having been accused of owing his notes on Ausonius to Fabricio Varano, bishop of Camarino, he endeavoured to clear himself by the following very solemn oath: “In the name of God and man, of truth and sincerity, I solemnly swear, and if any declaration be more binding than an oath, I in that form declare, and I desire that my declaration may be received as strictly true, that I have never read or seen any author, from which my own lucubrations have received the smallest assistance or improvement: nay, that I have even laboured, as far as possible, whenever any writer has published any observations which I myself had before made, immediately to blot them out of my own works. If in this declaration I am. foresworn, may the Pope punish my perjury; and may an evil genius attend my writings, so that whatever in them is good, or at least tolerable, may appear to the unskilful multitude exceedingly bad, and even to the learned trivial and contemptible; and may the small reputation I now possess be given to the winds, and regarded as the worthless boon of vulgar levity.” This singular protestation, which is inserted in the Testudo, has. been often quoted. In 1533, he published at Augsburgh a new edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus,” fol. more complete than the preceding edition (which is the princeps), and augmented by five books, not before known, and, as stated in the title, with the correction of above five thousand errors. In the same year and place, he published the “Letters of Cassiodorus,” and his “Treatise on the Soul.” This is the first complete collection of these letters, and, with the Treatise, is improved by many corrections. He also had made preparations for an edition of Claudian, and had corrected above seven hundred errors in that author; but this has not been published. At his leisure hours, he studied music, optics, and poetry. We have a specimen of his poetry in his “Protrepticon ad Corycium,” of eighty-seven verses, which is printed in a very rare work, entitled “Coryciana,” Rome, 1524, 4to. This Corycius, according to La Monnoie, was a German of the name of Goritz. The volume contains the poems of various Neapolitan authors, as Arisio, Tilesio, &c.

, a physician and medical writer of considerable note in Germany, and professor of medicine at Altdorf, in Franconia, was born in 1756, at Zeulenrode, in Upper Saxony. His father was a physician, and initiated his son in that science at a very early age. When scarcely fifteen, he prescribed with success to many of his friends daring a dangerous epidemic which prevailed at Otterndorf. He afterwards finished his studies at Jena and Gottingen, under Baldinger, and became a very excellent classical scholar under the celebrated Heyne. After having practised medicine in his own country for some years, and distinguished himself by various translations of Italian, French, and English works, as well as by his original compositions, he was appointed to the professorship at Altdorf. He was also a member of various medical societies; and his practice is said to have been as successful, as his theory of disease was sound. He died at Altdorf in 1801. His principal works are: 1. “Institutiones Historiae Medicinse,” Nuremberg, 17.'J2, 8vo. 2. “A Manual of Military Medicine,” 2 vols. 8vo, Leipsic, 1794—95, in German. 3. “The Life of J. Conr. Dippel,” Leipsic, 1781, 8vo; also in German. For Hades’ edition of Fabricius’ Bibl. Græca, he furnished the lives of Hippocrates, Galen, Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Aretams.; which are said to be well executed.

, LL.D. an eminent schoolmaster and useful writer in Scotland, was born June 1741, at Coats of Burgle, in the parish of Rafford, in the county of Moray, His parents were poor, but gave him such education as a parish school afforded; and after having unsuccessfully endeavoured to procure an exhibition at King’s college, Aberdeen, he was encouraged, in 1753, to go to the university of Edinburgh, where he surmounted pecuniary difficulties with a virtuous and honourable perseverance, such as are rarely to be found; and improved his opportunities of knowledge with great assiduity and success. In 1761 he was elected schoolmaster to Watson’s hospital, an establishment for the education of the poor, and continued to improve himself in classical knowledge by a careful perusal of some of the best and most difficult authors. In 1767, he was appointed assistant to the rector of the high school of Edinburgh, and in 1771 successor to the same gentleman, and filled this honourable statiou during the remainder of his life, raising the reputation of the school much higher than it had been known for many years. He would have perhaps raised it yet higher, had he not involved himself, not only with his ushers, but witk the patrons and trustees of the school, in a dispute respecting the proper grammar to be taught; Dr. Adam preferring one of his own compiling to that of Ruddiman, which had long been used in all the schools in Scotland, and was esteemed as near perfection as any work of the kind that had ever been published. The ushers, or undermasters, were unanimous in retaining Ruddtmaw’s grammar, for which they assigned their reasons; and Dr. Adam was as resolute in teaching from his own. The consequence was, that Dr. Adam taught his class by one grammar, and the four uncler-masters theirs by another. The inconvenience of this mode was soon felt; and the patrons of the school, who were the Magistrates of Edinburgh, after referring the question at issue to the principal of the university, the celebrated Dr. Robertson, together with the professors of the Greek and Latin languages, issued an order in 1786, directing the rector and other masters of the High School, to instruct their scholars by Ruddi man’s Rudiments and Grammar, and prohibiting any other grammar of the Latin language from being made use of. Dr. Adam, however, disregarded this and a subsequent 'order to the same purpose, and continued to use his own rules, in his daily practice with the pupils of his own class, and without being any further interrupted . The work which gave rise to this dispute was published in 1772, under the title of “The Principles of Latin and English Grammar,” and is undoubtedly a work of very considerable merit, and highly useful to those who are of opinion that Latin and English grammar should be taught at the same time.

, a famous Sorbonnic doctor, flourished in the 12th century. This author, who is well known as a monkish writer, and a voluminous author of biography, was born in Scotland, and educated in the monastery of Lindisferne, now called Holy Island, a few miles south of Berwick on Tweed, at that time one of the most famous seminaries of learning in the north of England. He went afterwards to Paris, where he settled several years, and taught school divinity, in the Sorbonne. In his latter years he returned to his native country, and became a monk in the abbey of Melrose, and afterwards in that of Durham, where he wrote the life of St. Columbanus, and the lives of 'some other monks of the 6th century. He likewise wrote the life of David I. king of Scotland, who died 1153. He died in 1195. His works were printed at Antwerp in fol. 1659.

, late president of the United States of America, and a political writer of considerable reputation, was descended from one of the families who founded the colony of Massachusets, and was born at Braintree, in that colony, Oct. 19,1735. Before the revolution which separated America from Great Britain, he had acquired much reputation in the profession of the law; and on the eve of that event, he published “An essay on canon and feudal Law.” He afterwards employed his pen in the American papers, and contributed essentially to widen the breach between the mother country and her colonies. He was still, however, a friend to loyal measures; and when captain Preston was tried for his life, for ordering the soldiers to fire upon a mob, pleaded his cause with spirit and eloquence, and Preston was acquitted. This in some measure injured Mr. Adams’s character with the more violent party, but had so little effect on the more judicious, that he was elected a member of Congress in 1774, and re-elected in 1775. He was one of the first to perceive that a cordial reconciliation, with Great Britain was impossible; and was therefore one of the chief promoters of the resolution, passed July 4, 1776, declaring the American States free, sovereign, and independent. When, in the course of the war, the States entertained hopes of assistance from the courts of Europe, Mr. Adams was sent, with Dr. Franklin, to that of Versailles, to negociate a treaty of alliance and commerce. On their return, he assisted in forming a constitution for the state of Massachusets. He was then employed by America as her plenipotentiary to the States General of Holland; and contributed not a little to bring on the war between those States and Great Britain. He afterwards went to Paris, and assisted in concluding the general peace. His temperate advice, On this occasion, respecting the loyalists, again alarmed the republican party, who began to consider him as a partizan of England. He was the first ambassador America sent to this country, where, with true republican simplicity, and in a manner suitable to the embarrassed finances of his country, he resided in the first floor of a bookseller in Piccadilly, and afterwards as a lodger in the same street.

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

On the 2d of August 1716, he married the countess dowager of Warwick, whom he had solicited by a very long and anxious courtship. 'He is said to have first known her by becoming tutor to her son. The marriage, if uncontradieted report can be credited, made no addition to his happiness; it neither found them nor made them equal. She always remembered her own rank, and thought herself intitled to treat with very little ceremony the tutor of her son. It is certain that Addison has left behind him no encouragement for ambitious love. The year after, 1717, he rose to his highest elevation being made secretary of state but it is universally confessed that he was unequal to the duties of his place. In the House of Commons he could not speak, and therefore was useless to the defence of the government. In the office he could not issue an orjler without losing his time in quest of fine expressions. What he gained in rank he lost in credit; and finding, by experience, his own inability, was forced to solicit his dismission, with a pension of 1500l. a year. His friends palliated this relinquishment, of which both friends and enemies knew the true reason, with an account of declining health, and the necessity of recess and quiet. He now returned to his vocation, and began to plan literary occupations for his future life. He proposed a tragedy on the death of Socrates; a story of which, as Tickell remarks, the basis is narrow, and to which love perhaps could not easily have been appended. He engaged in a noble work, a defence of the Christian religion, of which part was published after his death; and he designed to have made a new poetical version of the Psalms. It is related that he had once a design to make an English dictionary, and that he considered Dr. Tillotson as the writer of highest authority. Addison, however, did not conclude his life in peaceful studies; but relapsed, when he was near his end, to a political question. It happened that, in 1719, a controversy was agitated, with great vehemence, between, those friends of long continuance, Addison and Steele. The subject of their dispute was the earl of Sunderland’s memorable act, called “The Peerage bill,” by which the number of peers should be fixed, and the king restrained from any new creation of nobility, unless when an old family should be extinct. Steele endeavoured to alarm the ration by a pamphlet called “The Plebeian:” to this an Answer was published by Addison under the title of “The Old Whig.” Steele was respectful to his old friend, though he was Mow his political adversary; but Addison could not avoid discovering a contempt of his opponent, to whom he gave the appellation of “Little Dicky.” The bill was laid aside during that session, and Addison died before the next, in which its commitment was rejected. Every reader surely must regret that these two illustrious friends, after so many years passed in confidence and endearment, in unity of interest, conformity of opinion, and fellowship of study, should finally part in acrimonious opposition. The end of this useful life was now approaching. Addison had for some time been oppressed by shortness of breath, which was now aggravated by a dropsy; and finding his danger pressing, he prepared to die conformably to his own precepts and professions. During this lingering decay, he sent, as Pope relates, a message by the earl of Warwick to Mr. Gay, desiring to see him. Gay, who had not visited him for some time before, obeyed the summons, and found himself received with great kindness. The purpose for which the interview had been solicited was theti discovered: Addison told him, that he had injured him; but that, if he recovered, he would recompense him. What the injury was he did not explain, nor did Gay ever know; but supposed that some preferment designed for him had by Addison' s intervention been withheld. Lord Warwick was a young man of very irregular life, and perhaps of loose opinions. Addison, for whom he did not want respect, had very diligently endeavoured to reclaim him; but his arguments and expostulations had no effect; one experiment, however, remained to be tried. When he found his life near its end, he directed the young lord to be called; and, when he desired, with great tenderness, to hear his last injunctions, told him, “I have sent for you that you may see how a Christian can die.” What effect this awful scene had on the earl’s behaviour is not known: he died himself in a short time. Having given directions to Mr. Tickell for the publication of his works, and dedicated them on his death-bed to his friend Mr. Craggs, he died June 17, 1719, at Holland-house, leaving no child but a daughter, who died in 1797, at Bilton, near Rugby, in Warwickshire.

, a learned German grammarian, and miscellaneous writer, was born Aug. 30, 1734, at Spantekow, in Pomerania; and after studying some time at Anclam and Closterbergen, finished his education at the university of Halle. In 1759 he was appointed professor of the academy of Erfurt, which he relinquished about two years after, and settled at Leipsic, where, in, 1787, he was made librarian to the elector of Dresden; and here he died of a hemorrhoidal complaint, Sept. 10, 1806, aged 72, aocording to our authority; but the Diet. Hist, fixes his birth in 1732, which makes him two years older. Adelung performed for the German language what the French academy, and that of De la Crusca, have done for the French and Italian. His “Grammatical and Critical Dictionary,” Leipsic, 1774 1786, 5 vols. 4to, a work of acknowledged merit and vast labour, has been alternately praised and censured by men of learning in Germany; some say that it excels Dr. Johnson’s dictionary of the English language in its definitions and etymologies, but falls short of it in the value of his authorities. This latter defect has been attributed either to the want of good authors in the language at the time he was preparing his work, or to his predilection for the writers of Upper Saxony. He considered the dialect of the margraviate of Misnia as the standard of good German, and rejected every thing that was contrury to the language of the better classes of society, and the authors of that district. It was also his opinion that languages are the work of nations, and not of individuals, however distinguished; forgetting that the language of books must be that of men of learning. Voss and Campe in particular reproached him for the omissions in his work, and his partiality in the choice of authorities. In 1793—1801, a new edition appeared in 4 vols. 4to, Leipsic, with additions, but which bore no proportion to the improvements that had been made in the language during the interval that elapsed from the publication of the first.

, a writer of romance in the 13th, century, and probably so called from often wearing the laurel crown, was minstrel to Henry III. duke of Brabant and Flanders. In La Valliere’s collection of Mss. are several metrical romances by this author: 1. “The romance of William of Orange,” surnamed Short-nose, constable of France. There are some extracts from this in Catel’s history of Languedoc. 2. “The romance of the Infancy of Ogier the Dane,” written in rhyme by order of Guy earl of Flanders. Of this are several translations published in the 16th century. 3. “The romance of Cleomades,” written by order of Maria of Brabant, daughter of his patron. This, translated into prose by Philip Camus, has been several times printed; at first, without date, at Paris and Troyes; and at Lyons, 1488, 4to. 4. “The romance of Aymeri of Narbonne.” 5. “The romance of Pepin and Bertha his wife;” the facts taken from the chronicles in the abbey of St. Denis. A sequel to this was written by Girardin of Amiens, as the “Romance of Charlemagne, son of Bertha.” 6. “The romance of Buenon of Commarchis,” the least esteemed of all his productions, perhaps from the insignificance of his hero. The time of the death of Adenez is not known.

, a heretical writer, who probably flourished about the latter end of the third century, was a zealous promoter of the Manichsean doctrine. He wrote a book against the authority of the Old Testament, which was much valued by the Manichees, and was answered by Augustine. The work is lost, but the atfswer remains. He appears to have been sometimes called Addas, although most writers suppose Addas to have been a different person. Additional information respecting him may be found in Lardner’s Works, vol. Ill, pp. 3s?3, 395, 430.

, one of the most eminent tragic poets of ancient times, was born at Athens. Authors differ in regard to the time of his birth, some placing it in the 65th, others in the 70th olympiad; but according to Stanley, who relies on the Arundelian marbles, he was born in the 63d olympiad, or about 400 years B. C. He was the son of Euphorion, and brother to Cynegirus and Aminias, who distinguished themselves in the battle of Marathon, and the sea-fight of Salamis; at which engagement Æschylus was likewise present. In this last action, according to Diodorus Siculus, Aminias, the younger of the three brothers, commanded a squadron of ships, and behaved with so much conduct and bravery, that he sunk the admiral of the Persian fleet, and signalized himself above all the Athenians. To this brother our poet was, upon a particular occasion, obliged for saving his life. Ælian relates, that Æschylus, being charged by the Athenians with certain blasphemous expressions in some of his pieces, was accused of impiety, and condemned to be stoned to death. They were just going to put the sentence in execution, when Aminias, with a happy presence of mind, throwing aside his cloak, shewed his arm without a hand, which he had lost at the battle of Salamis, in defence of his country. This sight made such an impression on the judges, that, touched with the remembrance of his valour, and the friendship he shewed for his brother, they pardoned Æschylus. Our poet however resented the indignity of this prosecution, and resolved to leave a place where his life had been in danger. He became more determined in this resolution, when he found his pieces less pleasing to the Athenians than those of Sophocie’s, though a much younger writer. Simonides had likewise won the prize from him, in an elegy upon the battle of Marathon. Suidas having said that uÆschylus retired into Sicily, because the seats broke down during the representation of one of x his tragedies, some have taken this literally, without considering that in this sense such an accident did great honour to ^schylus; but, according to Joseph Scaliger, it was a phrase amongst the comedians; and he was said to break down the seats, whose piece could not stand, but fell to the ground. Some affirm, that Æschylus never sat down to compose but when he had drunk liberally. This perhaps was in allusion to his excessive imagination, which was apparent in an abrupt, impetuous, and energetic style. They who co.uld not relish the sublimer beauties of language, might perhaps have ascribed his rapid and desultory manner, rather to the fumes of wine than to the result of reason. He wrote a great number of tragedies, of which there are but seven remaining; viz. Prometheus, the Seven Champions before Thebes, the Persae, the Agamemnon, the Choephorae, the Eumenides, and the Suppliant Virgins; and in these it is evident, that if he was not the father, he was the great improver of the Grecian stage. In the time of Thespis there was no public theatre to act upon; the strollers drove about from place to place in a cart. Æschylus furnished his actors with masks, and dressed them suitably to their characters. He likewise introduced the buskin, to make them appear more like heroes; and the ancients give Æschyius the praise of having been the first who removed murders and shocking sights from the eyes of the spectators. He is said likewise to have lessened the number of the chorus; but perhaps this reformation was owing to an accident; in his Eumenides, the chorus, which consisted of fifty persons, appearing on the stage with frightful habits, had such an effect on the spectators, that the women with child miscarried, and the children fell into fits; which occasioned a law to be made to reduce the chorus to fifteen. Mr. Le Fevre has observed, that Æschylus never represented women in love, in his tragedies, which, he says, was not suited to his genius; but in representing a woman transported with fury, he was incomparable. Longinus says, that Æschylus has a noble boldness of expression; and that his imagination is lofty and heroic. It must be owned, however, that he affected pompous words, and that his sense is too often obscured by figures. But, notwithstanding these imperfections, this poet was held in great veneration by the Athenians, who made a public decree that his tragedies should be played after his death. When Æschylus retired to the court of Hiero king of Sicily, this prince was then building the city of Ætna, and our poet celebrated the new city by a tragedy of the same name. After having lived some years at Gela, we are told that he died of a fracture of his skull, caused by an eagle letting fall a tortoise on his head; and that this death is said to have been predicted by an oracle, which had foretold that he should die by somewhat from the heavens. He died, however, by whatever means, according to Mr. Stanley, in the 69th year of his age. He had the honour of a pompous funeral from the Sicilians, who buried him near the river Gela; and the tragedians of the country performedplays and theatrical exercises at his tomb; upon which was inscribed an epitaph, celebrating him only for his valour at the battle of Marathon.

, a physician of Armicla, a town of Mesopotamia, lived about the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 6th century. The work for which he is now known is his­“Tetrabiblos,” a compilation from all the physicians who preceded him, particularly Galen, Archigenes, Dioscorides, &c. He describes also some new disorders, and throws out some opinions, not known before his time, respecting the diseases of the eye, and the use of outward applications. Partaking of the credulity of his time, he describes all the pretended specifics, charms, and amulets in vogue among the Egyptians, which forms a curious part of his writings. What he says on surgical topics is thought most valuable. The work, by the various transcribers, has been divided into four Tetrabiblons, and each into four discourses; and originally appears to have consisted of sixteen books. The first eight only were printed in Greek, at Venice, by the heirs of Aldus Manutius, 1534, fol. The others remain in manuscript in the libraries of Vienna and Paris. There have been many editions in Latin, of the translation of Janus Cornarius, under the title of “Contractse ex veteribus Medicinae Tetrabiblos,” Venice, 1543, 8vo; Basle, 1542, 1549, fol.; another at Basle, 1535, fol. translated by J. B. Montanus; two at Lyons, 1549, fol. and 1560, 4 vols. 12mo, with the notes of Hugo de Soleriis; and one at Paris, 1567, fol. among the “Medicae artis principes.” Dr. Freind has adverted to Mtius, in his history, more than to almost any ancient writer, but has not the same opinion of his surgical labours as is expressed above. Some writers have confounded this JEtius with the subject of the preceding article.

, a native of Bussetto, a small town in the duchy of Piacenza, was appointed in 1768 by the Infant don Ferdinand to be professor of philosophy at Guastalla, where he wrote his “Historia di Guastalla,” 4 vols. 4to. It commences with the reign of Charlemagne; comprizes the three dynasties who governed that state: viz. the Torelli’s, the Gonzago’s, and the Bourbons, dukes of Parma; and finishes in 1776. On account of this work, he was appointed superintendant of the valuable library of Parma. He is a diffuse writer, as he allows in his preface, but his researches are valuable and correct. Writing under a prince so particular as the last Infant, he was obliged to suppress some things of a delicate kind. He wrote also “Historia di Parma,” printed there 2 vols. 4to, and other works respecting the antiquities and the lives of the sovereigns of these states. He left a manuscript history of Peter Louis Farnese, which the Infant would not suffer to be published. He died at the age of sixty, about the beginning of the present century.

, a Spanish Jesuit, and voluminous writer, was born 1566, at Torrejon, a village near Madrid, and entered the society of Jesuits at Alcale, in 1588, being then M.A. He was governor of several houses of the order in Spain, twice presided over the province of Toledo, and was twice sent as deputy to the congregations at Rome. The king, Philip IV. chose him for his preacher, and the count Olivarez, Philip’s prime minister, appointed him his confessor. He died at Madrid, Jan. 15, 1654. His works consist of six folios, in Spanish, printed at Madrid in 1629, 1638, 1640, 1641, 1643, 1646, 1653, on various religious topics; and a life of father Goudin, the Jesuit, 8vo, 1643. He left also many treatises which have not been published.

, an eminent lawyer and law writer, the son of Anthony Agylæus, originally of an Italian family, was born at Bois-le-duc, about 1533, where he was educated, and became a distinguished Greek scholar. lu his youth he carried arms against the king of Spain, was appointed a deputy to the States Genera], a member of the supreme council, and advocate fiscal. But he is less known by his share in the defence of his country, than by his learning and writings. He published: 1. “Novellae Justiniani Imp. Constitutiones,” with Holoander’s translation corrected, Paris, 1560, 4to. 2. “Justiniani edicta: Justini, Tiberii, Leonis philosophi constitutiones, et Zenonis nna,” Paris, 1560, 8vo. 3. A Latin translation of the Nomo-Canon of Photius, with Balsamon’s commentary, a better translation, and from a more complete copy than that of Gentian Hervet, Basil, 1561, fol. It bas been reprinted by Christopher Justel, with the Greek, in 1615, and in 1661 by Henry Justel in his Collection of the ancient canon law, 4. “Inauguratio Philippi II. Hisp. regis, qua se juraraento ducatui Brabantige, &c. obligavit,” Utrecht, 1620, 8vo. He died April 1595.

Akenside gave early indications of genius. Several of his poems were the produce of his youth. His capital performance, The Pleasures of Imagination, was first published in 1744; and, like most extraordinary productions, it was not properly appreciated till time had matured the public judgment. I have, savs our late eminent biographer, heard Dodsley, by whom it was published, say, that when the copy was offered him, the price demanded for it being such as he was not inclined to give precipitately, he carried the work to Pope, who having looked over it, advised him not to make a niggardly offer, for this was no every-day writer.

, a Spanish writer, born at Medina del Campo, in Castile, about the end of the sixteenth century. After having studied the law at Salamanca, he entered into the service of Anthony Perez, secretary of state under Philip II. He was in high esteem and confidence with his master, upon which account he was imprisoned after the disgrace of this minister, and kept in confinement eleven years, when Philip III. coming to the throne, set him at liberty, according to the orders given by his father in his will. Alamos continued in a private capacity, till the duke of Olivarez, the favourite of Philip IV. called him to public employments. He was appointed advocate-general in the court of criminal causes, and in the council of war. He was afterwards chosen member of the council of the Indies, and then of the council of the king’s patrimony, and a knight of the order of St. James. He was a man of wit as well as judgment, but his writings were superior to his conversation. He died in the 88th year of his age. His Spanish translation of Tacitus, and the aphorisms which he added in the margin, gained him great reputation: the aphorisms, however, have been censured by some authors, particularly by Mr. Amelot, who says, “that instead of being more concise and sententious than the text, the words of the text are always more so than the aphorism.” This work was published at Madrid in 1614, and was to have been followed, as mentioned in the king’s privilege, with a commentary, which, however, has never yet appeared. The author composed the whole during his imprisonment. He left several other works which have never yet been printed.

, of Tewkesbury, another English writer, who flourished about the year 1177, and died in 1201. He wrote “De vita et exilio Thomas Cantuarensis,” of the life and banishment of Thomas a Becket, archbishop of Canterbury.

No part of the failure of this vast enterprize, however, was attributed to Alan, to whom the king of Spain now gave the archbishopric of Mecklin, and would have had reside there, as a place where he might more effectually promote the popish and Spanish interests in England; but the pope had too high an opinion of his merit to suffer him to leave Rome, where, therefore, he continued to labour in the service of his countrymen, and in promoting the Catholic faith. Some have asserted, that he and sir Francis Inglefield assisted Parsons, the Jesuit, in composing-his treasonable work concerning the succession, which he published under the name of Doleman, in 1593, and which was reckoned of such dangerous consequence, that it was made capital by law for any person to have it in his custody. Others, however, maintain that he had no hand in it, and that he even objected to it, because of its tendency to promote those dissentions which had for so many years distracted his native country; and this last opinion is probable, if what we have been told be true, that towards the close of his life he had changed his sentiments, as to government, and professed his sorrow for the pains he had taken in promoting the invasion of England. It is even asserted, by a very eminent popish writer (Watson), that when he perceived that the Jesuits intended nothing but desolating and destroying his native land, he wept bitterly, not knowing how to remedy it, much less how to curb their insolence. Such conduct, it is added, drew upon him the ill-will of that powerful society, who chose now to represent him as a man of slender abilities, and of little political consequence. On his death-bed, he was very desirous of speaking to the English students then at Rome, which the Jesuits prevented, lest he should have persuaded them to a loyal respect for their prince, and a tender regard for their country. He is generally said to have died of a retention of urine; but, as the Jesuits had shown so much dislike, they have been accused of poisoning him. Of this, however, there is no proof. He died Oct. 6, 1594, in the sixty-third year of his age; and was buried with great pomp in the chapel of the English college at Rome, where a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription setting forth his titles and merits. What these merits were, the reader has been told. We have seen cardinal Alan in three characters: that of a zealous propagandist; of apolitical traitor to his country; and lastly, repenting the violence of his endeavours to ruin his country on pretence of bringing her back to popery. In the first of these characters he seems to have acted from the impulse of a mind firmly persuaded that every deviation from popery was dangerous heresy; and the only weapons he employed were those of controversy. As a writer, the popish party justly considered him as the first champion of his age; and both his learning and eloquence were certainly of a superior stamp. But in his worst character, as a traitor, there is every reason to think him influenced by the Jesuits, who at that time, and ever while a society, had little scruple as to the means by which they effected their purposes. Yet even their persuasions were not sufficient to inspire him with permanent hostility towards the political existence of his country. Some writers, not sufficiently attending to his history, have called him a Jesuit; but in all controversies between the Jesuits and the secular priests, the latter always gloried in cardinal Alan, as a man to whom no Jesuit could be compared, in any respect.

As a writer, Alberti was not less esteemed. He was well acquainted with philosophy, mathematics, antiquities, and poetry, and enjoyed the intimacy of Lorenzo de Medici. On one occasion this Meecenas of his age, with a view to pass the sultry season more agreeably, assembled some of the most eminent literary men in the grove of Camaldoli, amongst whom were Marsilio Ficino, Donato Acciajuoli, Alamanno Rinuccini, Christoforo Landino, and our Alberti. The subjects of their conversations, in which Alberti took a distinguished part, were published by Landino, in his “Disputationes Camaldulenses,” and a short sketch has been given by Mr. Roscoe in his life of Lorenzo.

, Alçazar, or Alcasar, (Louis D'), a Spanish Jesuit, was born at Seville in 1554, and entered among the Jesuits in 1569, against the will of his family, who were in possession of a large estate. After he had been a teacher of philosophy, he taught divinity at Cordova and at Seville, for abov e twenty years. M uch of his life was spent in endeavouring to explain the book of the Revelations, and his first volume on the subject, “Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi,” is said to have been the result of twenty years’ study and investigation. This work was printed at Antwerp, fol. 1604 and 1619, and at Lyons, 1616, fol.; and is accounted one of the best commentaries which had been produced by any writer of the Romish church. It is said that Grotius was considerably indebted to it; but neither Grotius, nor any other writer has followed him in supposing that the prophecies of the Apocalypse have been accomplished to the twentieth chapter. Pursuing this investigation, however, his next work was a commentary on such parts of the Old Testament as have any connexion with the Apocalypse; this was published in 1631, Lyons, fol. under the title, “In eas veteris Testament! partes, quas respicit Apocalypsis, nempe Cantica Canticorum, Psahnos complures, multa Danielis aliorumque librorum capita, libri V.” There is a supplement to the first, on weights and measures, and to the second, on bad physicians. He died at Seville, June 16, 1613.

He was a prelate of singular learning and piety, and not only a considerable writer, but an excellent architect, which occasioned his being made comptroller of the royal works and buildings, under Henry VII. He founded a school at Kingston upon Hull (Fuller says, at Beverley); and a chapel on the south side of the church in which his parents were buried. He built the beautiful and spacious hall belonging to the episcopal palace at Ely, and made great improvements in all his other palaces. Lastly, he founded Jesus college, Cambridge, for a master, six fellows, and as many scholars; which, under the patronage of his successors, the bishops of Ely, has greatly increased in buildings and revenues; and now consists of a master, sixteen fellows, and thirty scholars. He wrote several pieces, particularly “Mons perfections ad Carthusianos,” Lond. 1501, 4to; “Galli Cantus ad Confratres suos curatos in Synodo apud Barnwell, 25 Sept. 1498,” Lond. per Pynson, 1498, 4to. At the beginning is a print of the bishop preaching to the clergy, with a cock (his crest) at each side, and there is another in the first page. “Abbatia Spiritns sancti in pura conscientia, fundata,” Lond. 1531, 4to. “In Psalmos penitentiales,” in English verse. “Homilise vulgares.” “Meditationes piae.” “Spousage pf a virgin to Christ,” 1486, 4to. Bishop Alcock died Oct. 1, 1500, at his castle at Wisbech, and was buried in the middle of a sumptuous chapel, which he had built for himself at the east end of the north aile of the presbytery pf Ely cathedral, and which is a noble specimen of his skill in architecture.

, an English divine, was bishop of Shireburn in the time of the Saxon heptarchy, and in the eighth century. William of Malmesbury says that he was the son of Kenred, or Kenter, brother of Ina king of the West-Saxons. He was born at Caer Bladon, now Malmesbury, in Wiltshire. He had part of his education abroad in France and Italy, and part at home under Maildulphus, an Irish Scot, who had built a little monastery where Malmesbury now stands. Upon the death of Maildulphus, Aldhelm, by the help of Eleutherius bishop of Winchester, built a stately monastery there, and was himself the first abbot. When Hedda, bishop of the WestSaxons, died, the kingdom was divided into two dioceses; viz. Winchester and Shireburn, and king Ina promoted Aldhelm to the latter, comprehending Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall: he was consecrated at Rome by pope Sergius I. and Godwin tells us that he had the courage to reprove his holiness for having a bastard. Aldhelm, by the directions of a diocesan synod, wrote a book against the mistake of the Britons concerning the celebration of Easter, which brought over many of them to the catholic usage in that point. He likewise wrote a piece, partly in prose and partly in nexameter verse, in praise of virginity, dedicated to Ethelburga abbess of Barking, and published amongst Bede’s Opuscula, besides several other treatises, which are mentioned by Bale and William of Malmesbury, the latter of whom gives him the following character as a writer: “The language of the Greeks,” says he, “is close and concise, that of the Romans splendid, and that of the English pompous and swelling as for Aldhelm, he is moderate in his style; seldom makes use of foreign terms, and never without necessity; his catholic meaning is clothed with eloquence, and his most vehement assertions adorned with the colours of rhetoric: if you read him with attention, you would take him for a Grecian by his acuteness, a Roman by his elegance, and an Englishman by the pomp of his language.” He is said to have been the first Englishman who ever wrote in Latin; and, as he himself tells us in one of his treatises on metre, the first who introduced poetry into England “These things,” says he, “have I written concerning the kinds and measures of verse, collected with much labour, but whether useful I know not; though I am conscious to myself I have a right to boast as Virgil did:

, a miscellaneous French writer of considerable note, was born at Grenoble in 1643, of Protestant parents, whose religion he abjured, and after tudying medicine, was admitted doctor at Aix. Having, however, failed in this profession, he came to Paris. Pelisson and father Bouhours were his friends here, but he offended the latter by obtaining from the abbe de la Chambre, a manuscript of Vaugelas, which he published under the title of “Nouvelles remarques de M. de Vuugelas sur la langue Franchise, ouvrage posthume, avec des observations de M. H.” Paris, 1690, 12mo. Bouhours attacked the authenticity of this work, and Alemand promised to answer him, which we do not find that he performed. His other publications were, 1. “Nouvelles Observations, ou Guerre civile des Frangais sur la langue,” 1688, 12mo, a kind of attempt towards a verbal and critical dictionary, which was to have been comprised in two vols. fol. but the French academy prevented its being published, for the same reason, says Moreri, that they prevented that of Furetiere, namely, that the academicians intended to pubHsh a work of the kind themselves. 2. “Histoire monastique d'lrelande,” 1690, 12mo; which was afterwards enlarged by captain Stevens into the “Monasticon Hibernicum.” 3. “Journal historique de l‘Europe pour l’annee 1694,” Strasburgh (i. e. Paris), 1695, 12mo, concerning which the reader may consult the Memoirs of the abbe d'Artigny, vol. I. p. 282. He also published a translation of Sanctorius’s Statical medicine. He died at Grenoble in 1728.

At his leaving the college, he found himself alone and unconnected in the world; and sought an asylum in the house of his nurse. He comforted himself with the hope, that his fortune, though not ample, would better the condition and subsistence of that family, which was the only one that he could consider as his own: here, therefore, he took up his residence, resolving to apply himself entirely to the study of geometry. And here he lived, during the space of forty years, with the greatest simplicity, discovering the augmentation of his means only by increasing displays of his beneficence, concealing his growing reputation and celebrity from these honest people, and making their plain and uncouth manners the subject of good-natured pleasantry and philosophical observation. His good nurse perceived his ardent activity; heard him mentioned as the writer of many books; but never took it into her head that he was a great man, and rather beheld him with a kind of compassion. “You will never,” said she to him one day, “be any thing but a philosopher—and what is a philosopher?—a fool, who toils and plagues himself during his life, that people may talk of him when he is no more.”

, a young writer of very promising talents, was born in Ireland in 1736, whither his father, a dissenting teacher at Stratford upon Avon, had removed; and from whence, on his death, the widow and family returned to England. After having gone through a grammatical education, John was sent to the dissenting academy at Daventry, where he prosecuted his studies with commendable diligence, and was afterwards put under the tuition of Dr. Benson, who had sometimes young students under his care, after they had finished their university or academical education, for the purpose of instructing them in a more critical acquaintance with the sacred writings. He afterwards entered into the ministry, which he exercised in and near Birmingham, but principally at a small village called Longdon, about twelve miles from that place. On Saturday, Dec. 28, 1765, he returned to rest, in perfect health, between eleven and twelve o'clock, intending to officiate at Longdon next day but at six in the morning he was found dead in his bed; an event which was sincerely deplored by his friends, both as a private and a public loss.

, a learned ecclesiastical writer of the 17th century, born at Roan in Normandy, Jan. 19, 1639. After finishing his studies at Roan, he entered into the order of Dominican friars, and was professed there in 1655. Soon after he went to Paris, to go through a course of philosophy and divinity in the great convent, where he so distinguished himself, that he was appointed to teach philosophy there, which he did for twelve years. This however did not so much engage his attention as to make him neglect preaching, which is the chief business of the order he professed. His sermons were elegant and solid: but as he had not that ease and fluency of speech requisite in a preacher, he soon forsook the pulpit; and his superiors being of opinion that he should apply himself wholly to the study of the scriptures and ecclesiastical history, he followed their advice, and was created a doctor of the Sorbonne in 1675. Mr. Colbert shewed him many marks of his esteem; and being determined to omit nothing to complete the education of his son, afterwards archbishop of Roan, he formed an assembly of the most learned persons, whose conferences upon, ecclesiastical history might be of advantage to him. Father Alexander was invited to this assembly, where he exerted himself with so much genius and ability, that he gained the particular friendship of young Colbert, who shewed him the utmost regard as long as he lived. These conferences gave rise to Alexander’s design of writing an ecclesiastical history; for, being desired to reduce what was material in these conferences to writing, he did it with so much accuracy, that the learned men who composed this assembly advised him to undertake a complete body of church-history. This he executed with great assiduity, collecting and digesting the materials himself, and writing even the tables with his own hand. His first work is that wherein he endeavours to prove, against Ai. de Launoi, that St. Thomas Aquinas is the real author of the Sum, ascribed to him: it was printed in Paris 1675, in 8vo. The year following he published the first volume of a large work in Latin, upon the principal points of ecclesiastical history: this contains 26 volumes in 8vo. The first volume treats of the history of the first ages of the church, and relates the persecutions which it suffered, the succession of popes, the heresies which arose, the councils which condemned them, the writers in favour of Christianity, and the kings and emperors who reigned during the first century: to this are subjoined dissertations upon such points as have been the occasion of dispute in history, chronology, criticism, or doctrine. The history of the second century, with some dissertations, was published in two volumes in the year 1677. The third century came out in 1678; in this he treats largely of public penance, and examines into the origin and progress of the famous dispute between pope Stephen and St. Cyprian, concerning the rebaptizing of those who had been baptized by heretics; and he has added three dissertations, wherein he has collected what relates to the life, manners, errors, and Defenders of St. Cyprian. The history of the fourth century is so very extensive, that Alexander has found matter for three volumes and forty-five dissertations; they were printed at Paris in 1679. In the three following years he published his history of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries; and that of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in 1683; in these volumes are several Dissertations against Mr. Daille; and in some of them he treats of the disputes between the princes and popes in. such a manner, that a decree from Rome was issued out Against his writings in 1684. However, he published the same year the history of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in which he continued to defend the rights of kings against the pretensions of that court. He at last completed his work in 1686, by publishing four volumes, which contained the history of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Jn 1689 he published a work, in the same method, upon the Old Testament, in six volumes 8vo. In 1678 he published three dissertations: the first concerning the superiority of bishops over presbyters, against Blondel; the second concerning the celibacy of the clergy, and reconciling the history of Paphnutius with the canon of the council of Nice; and the third concerning the Vulgate. The same year he printed a dissertation concerning sacramental confession, against Mr. Daille“, in 8vo. In 1682 he wrote an apology for his dissertation upon the Vulgate, against Claudius Frassen. He published likewise about this time, or some time before, three dissertations in defence of St. Thomas Aquinas; the first against Henschenius and Papebroch, to shew that the office of the holy sacrament was written by him; the second was in form of a dialogue between a Dominican and a Franciscan, to con fute the common opinion that Alexander of Hales was St. Thomas Aquinas’s master: and that the latter borrowed his” Secunda Secundse“from the former: the third is a panegyric upon Aquinas. In 1693 he published his” Theologia dogmatica,“in five books, or” Positive and Moral Divinity, according to the order of the catechism of the council of Trent.“This Latin work, consisting of ten octavo volumes, was printed at Paris and at Venice in 1698; in 1701 he added another volume; and they were all printed together at Paris, in two volumes folio, in 1703, with a collection of Latin letters, which had been printed separately. In 1703 he published tf A commentary upon the four Gospels,” in folio; and in 1710, he published another at Roan, upon St. Paul’s and the seven canonical epistles. He wrote also a commentary upon the prophets Jsaiah, Jeremiah, and Baruch, which was never printed. The following works are also enumerated by his biographers. 1. “Statuta facultatis artium Thomistiæe collegio Parisiensi fratrum prsedicatorum instituta,” Paris, 1683, 12mo. 2. “Institutio concionatorum tripartita, seu praecepta et regula ad praedicatores informandos, cum ideis seu rudimentis concionum per totum annum.” 3. “Abre‘ge’ de la foy et de la morale de l‘eglise, tiree de l’ecriture sainte,” Paris, 1676, 12rno. 4. “Eclaircissement des prétendues difficultés proposeés a mons. l'archevêque de Rouen, sur plusieurs points importans de la morale de Jesus Christ,” 1697, 12mo. 5. “A Letter to a Doctor of Sorbonne, upon the dispute concerning Probability, and the Errors of a Thesis in Divinity maintained by the Jesuits in their college at Lyons, the 26th of August,” printed at Mons, 1697, 12mo. 6. “A second letter upon the same subject,” 1697, 12mo. 7. “An apology for the Dominican Missionaries in China, or an Answer to a book of father Tellier the Jesuit, entitled a Defence of the new Christians; and to an Explanation published by father Gobien, of the same society, concerning the honours which the Chinese pay to Confucius and to the dead,” printed at Cologn, 1699, 12mo. 8. “Documenta controversiarum missionariorum apostolicorum imperii Sinici de cultu praejiertim Confueii philosophi et progenitoruin defunctorum spectantia, ac apologiam Dominica norum missiones Sinicae ministrorum adversus Hr. Pp. le Tellier et le Gobien societatis Jesu confirmantia.” 9. “A Treatise on the conformity between the Chinese ceremonies and the Greek and Roman idolatry, in order to confirm the apology of the Dominican Missionaries in China,” 1700, 12 mo. Translated into Italian, and printed at Cologn, 8vo. He wrote likewise seven letters to the Jesuits Le Comte and Dez, upon the same subject. In 1706 he was made a provincial for the province ofParis. Towards the latter part of his life, he was afflicted with the loss of his sight, a most inexpressible misfortune to one whose whole pleasure was in study; yet he bore it with great patience and resignation. He died at Paris, merely of a decay of nature, August 21, 1724, in the 86th year of his age. His piety, humility, and disinterestedness rendered him the object of general esteem; and he was honoured with thfe friendship of the most learned prelates of France. His opinion was always considered as of great weight upon the most important subjects which were debated in the Sorbonne. He was likewise highly valued at Rome: the learned cardinals N orris and Aguirre distinguished him upon several occasions.

, of Paris, a writer of romance in the twelfth century, was a native of Bernay in Normandy, and one of the authors of the romance of “Alexander,” written in verses of twelve feet, which have been since called Alexandrines, from the name of the hero, and not of the poet, who was not the inventor of them. This romance was begun by Lambert li Cors (the little) of Chateaudun; and various other poets, besides our Alexander, assisted in completing it. Manuscripts of all their performances are in the imperial library at Paris, under the three titles of: 1. “Le roman d'Alexandre,” by Lambert li Cors, and Alexander of Paris 2. “Le Testament d'Alexandre,” by Pierre de St. Cloud: 3. “Li Roumans de tote Chevalerie ou Ja Geste d'Alisandre,” by Thomas de Kent. This last is written in the French language introduced into England by William the Conqueror, a mixture of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon. 4. “La Vengeance d'Alexandre,” by Jehan le Venelais, or li Nivelois. 5. “Vœu de Paon,” partly by Jehan Brise-Barre. The other writers who contributed to this collection are, Guy de Cambray, Simon de Boulogne, surnamed le Cterc, or the learned, Jacques de Longuyon, and Jehan de Motelec. The first part of the romance of Alexander appeared about the year 1210, under the reign of Philip Augustus, and not that of Louis VII. as has been asserted. It contains many flattering allusions to the events of the reigns of both those princes, and is very well written for the time; many of the verses are harmonious, and the descriptive part animated, but this character belongs chiefly to the first part: the continuators were very unequal to the task. In the 16th century, an abridgement of the romance appeared at Paris, printed by Bonfons, but without date, under the title “Histoire du tres-noble et tres-vailiant roi Alexandre-le-Grant, jadis roi et seigneur de tout le monde, avec les grandes prouesses qu'il a faites en son temps.”

, an eminent Italian writer, was born at Venice, Dec. 11, 1712. His father, a rich merchant, had two other sons, and three daughters; one of the sons died an infant; the other, Bonomo Algarptti, who took the charge of the family on the father’s death, survived the subject of this article, and was his executor. Francis studied first at Rome, then at Venice, and lastly at Bologna, under the two celebrated professors Eustace Manfredi and Francis Zanotti, who loved him for his sweetness of temper, and by whose instructions he made a very rapid progress in mathematics, geometry, astronomy, philosophy, and physics. He was particularly fond of this last study, and of anatomy. Nor was he less assiduous in, acquiring a perfect knowledge of ancient and modern languages. Before his first visit to France he became known to the learned world, by the many excellent papers he had printed in the Memoirs of the institute of Bologna; and in one of his rural retreats, in 1733, he wrote his “Newtonianismo per le Dame,” in which he endeavoured to familiarize Newton’s system to the ladies, as Fontenelle had done that of Des Cartes. He was now only in his twenty-first year, and this work, which was published in 1734, acquired him much reputation. It was almost immediately translated into French by Duperron de CastCra; and, although very incorrect, this was the only edition from which the French critics formed their opinion of its merits, and from which a translation was also made into German, but not into English, as the French biographer asserts. Our celebrated countrywoman, Mrs. Carter, used the original, in her translation, published in 1739, and revised in the press by Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Johnson,. It was entitled “Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy explained, for the use of the ladies, in six dialognes on Light and Colours,” 2 vols, 12mo.

In his early years Algarotti had cultivated a poetical turn, and after some favourable attempts of the lyric kind, he wrote several poetical epistles on subjects of philosophy and science. These were collected, with others of Frugoni and Bettinelli, and published with some pretended letters of Virgil, in which a bold attack was made on the merits of Dante and Petrarch. This publication made a considerable noise in Italy, and gave great offence to the admirers of these illustrious poets; but'Algarotti declared himself ignorant of the writer, who is now known, to be Bettinelli.

, a French writer of considerable spirit, was born at Dole in 1600, appointed abbe of St. Paul at Besancon in 1632, and afterwards canon of the church of St. John in the same place. He defended the rights of his chapter, in the election of archbishops, with much firmness, against pope Alexander VII. and published several pieces on that subject about the year 1672. His “Dialogue entre Porte Noire et la Pillori,” a facetious composition, was censured by father Dominic Vernerey, inquisitor of Besancon; and this produced an answer from Alix, entitled “Eponge pour effacer la censure du P. Dom. Vernerey.” This, as well as Alix’s other works, is very scarce. Le Long, in his historical library of France, attributes to him the “History of the abb ay of St. Paul,” but it is doubted whether his talents lay in that direction. He had, however, studied mathematics, and left some manuscripts on that subject, which have been lost. He died July 6, 1676.

, a supposed writer, whose name leads to a dissertation, rather than a life, passes for the author of a poem in old German, and very popular in Germany, under the title of “Reineke de Voss,” or “Reynard the Fox.” It is a kind of satire on the manners of the times during the ‘feudal system. All that is known of Alkmar is, that he lived about the year 1470, and was governor, or preceptor, of one of the dukes of Lorraia. The first edition of Reynard was printed at Lubeck in 1498, and it was frequently reprinted at Rostock, Francfort, ancl Hamburgh; and as the name of H. d’ Alkmar occurs in the preface of the Lubeck edition, which was long considered to be the first, he has as uniformly passed for the author of the poem. There is, however, in the library of the city of Lubeck, a copy of a work with the same title and nearly the same contents, but more full, and in prose, which was printed at Delft in 1485; and one has been discovered still older, printed at Goudesor Tergow, by Gerard Leew, in 1479. These two Reynards are exactly the same, written in the Dutch or Flemish dialect, which differs little from thatof Friesland, Westphalia, or Lower Saxony. It would appear then, that Alkmar had done no more than to versify 'and enlarge the fictions of the old Reynard. He says himself, in the preface, that he translated the present work from the Welch, and the French. Whatever may be the case with the Welch, , as he mentions the French, his evidence accords with known facts, and with the opinion of Le Grand d'Aussay, in his “Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la bibliotheque de Paris” (vol. V. p. 249), namely, that the poem of Reynard is of French origin, and that Pierre de St. Cloud was the author, whose Reynard was written in prose in the thirteenth century; and that the poem of the same name, the production of Jaquemars Gélée or Giellée, at Lisle, is only an imitation of the former. There are, however, many resemblances to Reynard in the German poets of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from which it may perhaps be inferred that Reynard is of German origin, and older than the work of Pierre de St. Cloud. It has always been a very popular work in Germany, and the grammarian Gottsched published a fine edition, with an introduction, interpretation, and plates, while the celebrated Goethe has taken great pains to restore the text, and paraphrase it in hexameters. It has also been translated into Latin, Italian, Danish, Swedish, and English. Caxton’s edition, 1481, is described by Ames and Herbert, and more fully by Mr. Dibdin in his new edition of Ames’s Typographical Antiquities, vol. I. The Latin edition of Schopperus is very elegant, and has often been reprinted. Dreyer, syndic of Lubeck, published a curious work in 1768, 4to, on the use that may be made of Reynard the Fox in studying German antiquities and law. It yet remains to be noticed that Tiaden, a German writer, ascribes Reynard to one Nicholas Baumann, who died in 1503; but the opinions already given, and the dates of the ancient editions, seem to render this very improbable.

, an English writer of the 17th century, was the son of Andrew Allam, a person of mean rank, and born at Garsington, near Oxford, in April 1655. He had his education in grammar learning at a private school atDenton, in the parish ofCuddesdon, near his native place, under Mr. William Wildgoose, of Brazen-nose college, a noted schoolmaster of that time. He was entered a batteler of St. Edmund’s hall, in Easter term, 1671. After he had taken his degrees in arts, he became a tutor, moderator, lecturer in the chapel, and at length vice-principal of his house. In 1680, about Whitsuntide, he entered into holy orders; and in 1683, was made one of the masters of the schools. His works that are extant, are, “The learned Preface, or Epistle to the Reader, with a dedicatory Epistie, in the printer’s name, prefixed to the Epistle Congratulatory of Lysimachus Nicanor, &c. to the Covenanters of Scotland,” Oxon. 1684. “The Epistle containing an account of Dr. Cosin’s life, prefixed to the doctor’s book, entitled, Ecclesix Anglicanae Politeia in tabulas digesta,” Oxon. 1684, fol. “The Preliminary Epistle, with a review and correction of the book, entitled, Some plain Discourses on the Lord’s Supper, &c. written by Dr. George. Griffith, bishop of St. Asaph,” Oxon. 1684, 8vo. “Additions and Corrections to a book, entitled, Angliae Notitia, or The present state of England.” They appeared in the edition of that book, printed at London in 1684; but the author of the “Notitia” did not acknowledge the assistance contributed by Mr. Allam. “Additions to Helvicus’s Historical and Chronological Theatre,” printed with that author in 1687. Mr. Aliarn laid the foundation of a work entitled “Notitia Ecclesiae Anglicance, or a History of the Cathedral Churches, &c. of England;” but death prevented his completing this design. He likewise translated the “Life of Iphicrates,” printed in the English version of Plutarch by several gentlemen of Oxford, 1684, 8vo. And lastly, he assisted Wood in his Ath. Oxonienses, and is mentioned by that author as highly qualified for such a work, by an uncommon acquaintance with religious and Ik terary history. He died of the small-pox, June 17, 1685, and was buried in the church of St. Peter in the East, at Oxford.

, was a native of Dauphiny, and counsellor to the king, and a voluminous writer on the history of his native province. He died in 1716, while employed on a treatise on the police and finances of France, and other works left in manuscript. His printed works are, 1. “Zizime,” an historical novel, 1673, 1712, 1724, 12mo. 2. “Eloges de des Adrets, Depuy-Montbrun, Colignon,” 1675, 12mo. 3. “Les Aieules de madame de Bourgogne,” 1677, 12mo. 4. “Bibliotheque de Dauphiné,” 1680, 12mo, of which a new, but not improved edition, was published in 1797, by P. V. Chalvet. The original is very scarce. 5. “Inscriptions de Grenoble,” 1683, 4to. 6. “La Vie de Humbert II.” 1688. 7. “Les Presidents uniques, et les premiers Presidents au parlement de Dauphiné,” 1695. 8. “Recueil des Lettres,” 1695. 9. “Nobiliare du Dauphiné” 1671, 12mo, reprinted 1696. 10. “Genealogie de la famille Simiane,” 1697. 11. “Histoire genealogique de Dauphiné,” 4 vols. 4to. This work procured him the title of genealogist of Dauphiny. 12, 44 “Etat politique de Grenoble,” 1698, 12mo. 13. “Les Gouverneurs et Lieutenants au Gouvernement du Dauphiné,” 1704, 12mo.

, keeper of the Vatican library, and a celebrated popish writer of the 17th century, was born in the isle of Chios, of Greek parents, 1586. At nine years of age he was removed from his native country to Calabria; bat some time after sent to Rome, and admitted into the Greek college, where he applied himself to the study of polite learning, philosophy, and divinity, and embraced the Roman Catholic religion. From thence he went to Naples, and was chosen great vicar to Bernard Justiniani, bishop of Anglona. From Naples he returned to his own country, but went soon from thence to Rome, where he studied physic under Julius Caesar Lagalla, and took a degree in that profession. He afterwards made the belles lettres his object, and taught in the Greek college at Rome. Pope Gregory XV. sent him to Germany, in 1622, in order to get the elector Palatine’s library removed to Rome; but hy the death of Gregory, he lost the reward he might have expected for his trouble in that affair. He lived some time after with cardinal Bichi, and then with cardinal Francis Barberini; and was at last, by pope Alexander VII. appointed keeper of the Vatican library. Allatius was of great service to the gentlemen of Port Royal in the controversy they had with Mr. Claude, concerning the belief of the Greeks on the subject of die Eucharist: Mr. Claude often calls him Mr. Arnaud’s great author, and gives him a character, by no means favourable, although in general very just. “Allatius,” says he, “was a Greek, who had renounced his own religion to embrace that of Rome; a Greek whom the pope had chosen his librarian: a man the most devoted to the interests of the court of Rome; a man extremely outrageous in his disposition. He shews his attachment to the court of Rome in the very beginning of his book `De perpetua consensione,‘ where he writes in favour of the pope thus: `The Roman pontiff,’ says he, `is quite independent, judges the world without being liable to be judged; we are bound to obey his commands, even when he governs unjustly; he gives laws without receiving any; he changes them as he thinks fit; appoints magistrates; decides all questions as to matters of faith, and orders all affairs of importance in the church as seems to him good. He cannot err, being out of the power of all heresy and illusion; and as he is armed with the authority of Christ, not even an angel from heaven could make him alter his opinion'.” No Latin ever shewed himself more incensed against the Greek schismatics than Allatius, or more devoted to the see of Rome. One singularity in his character is, that he never engaged in matrimony, nor was he ever in orders; and pope Alexander having asked him one day, why he did not enter into orders? “Because,” answered he, “I would be free to marry.” “But if so,” replied the pope, “why don't you marry ?” “Because I would be at liberty,” answered Allatius, “to take orders.” If we may believe Joannes Patricius, Allatius had a very extraordinary pen, with which, and no other, he wrote Greek for 40 years; and we need not be surprised that when he lost it he was so grieved that he shed tears. He wrote so fast that he copied, in one night, the “Diarium Romanorum Pontiftcium,” which a Cistertian monk had lent to him. Niceron gives him the character of a man laborious and indefatigable, of a vast memory, and acquainted with every kind of learning; but adds, that in his writings there is a display of more reading than judgment, and, that biographer might have added, than of candour or urbanity of style, at least in his controversial pieces. He died Jan. 1669, aged eighty-three, after founding several colleges or schools in the island of Chios, his native place. His principal works were, 1. “De Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis perpetua consensione,” Cologn, 1648, 4to; which is regarded by the most impartial writers among the Protestants, as the production of a disingenuous and insidious mind. His object is, to prove that Latin and Greek churches always concurred in the same faith; and the Catholics look upon this as his ablest performance. 2. “De utriusque ecclesiæ, &c. in dogmate de purgatorio eonsensione,” Rome, 1655, 8vo. 3. “De libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. 4. “De Templis Grsecorumrecentioribus,” Cologn, 1645, 8vo. 5. “Græcioe orthodoxae scriptores,” Rome, 1652 and 1657, 2 vols. 4 to. 6. “Philo Byzantinus de septem orbis spectaculis, Gr. et Lat. cum notis,” Rome, 1640, 8vo. 7. “Eustathius Antiochenus in hexameron, et de Engastrimytho,” Lyons, 1629, 4to. 8. “Symmichta, et Symmiha, sive opusculorum Græcorum ac Latinorum vetustiorum ac recentiorum libri duo,” Cologn, 1653, fol. 9. “De Mensura temporum antiquorum et proecipue Græcorupi,” Cologn, 1645, 8vo. 10. “Apes Urbanæ,” Rome, 1633, 8vo, a title borrowed from the Bees in pope Urban VIII.'s arms; the book gives an account of all the learned men who flourished at Rome from 1630 to the end of 1632, with a catalogue of their works. Fabricius printed an edition of it at Hamburgh, 1711, 8vo. 11. “Dramaturgia,” in Italian, an alphabetical collection of all the Italian dramatic works published in his time. This was reprinted at Venice, 4to, with considerable additions, and brought down to 1755. 12. “Poeti antichi raccolti da Codici manuscriti della Bibliotheca Vaticana e Barberina,” Naples, 1661, 8 vo, a very scarce work, containing the productions of many ancient Italian poets, not before published, but, according to Ginguene, full of errors. Moreri and Niceron mentions other works by Aliutius, which show the variety of his studies, and the rapidity with which he could pass from one subject to another.­Of his tediousnessan'd digressive powers, M. de Sallo complains with some humour in the Journal des Savans. After noticing a lamentation of the virgin Mary, as a remarkable piece inserted in one of Allatius’s works, he adds: “This lamentation was composed by Metaphrast, and that, was sufficient for Allatius to insert a panegyric upon Metaphrast, written by Psellus. As Metaphrast’s name was Simeon, he thence took an opportunity of making a long dis+ sertation upon the lives and works of such celebrated men. as had borne the same name. From the Simeons he passes to the Simons, from them to the Simonideses, and lastly to the Simonactides.”

, or rather Allen (Thomas), a pious English divine, was born about 1682, and educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he probably took only his bachelor’s degree, as we do not find him in the list of upper graduates. In 1714 he was presented to the rectory of Kettering, in Northamptonshire, on which he resided the whole of his life, and was exemplary in all the duties of the pastoral office, nor less indefatigable as a writer, although his success in this last character bore little proportion to the magnitude of his labours. Of his printed works we know only, 1. “The Practice of an Holy Life; or the Christian’s Daily Exercise, in Meditations, Prayer, &c.” London, 1716, 8vo. 2. “The Christian’s sure Guide to Eternal Glory,” both popular works, and afterwards translated into the Russian language. 3. “A Sermon before the Criminals in Newgate,” 1744. 4. “The New Birth, or Christian Regeneration, in Miltonic or blank verse,” 1753, 8vo. Besides these, he wrote “Pandects of Christianity” “The harmony and agreement between Moses and Christ” “The Primitive and Apostolic Fathers, with their genuine Writings” “God the best interpreter of his law” “The Divine Worship and Service of the Church of England,” with some others, for which he issued proposals, but was obliged to desist from want of encouragement. Lists of these Mss. he sent to various clergymen, requesting they would bear the expence, &c.; and accompanied them with letters in an eccentric style, and with no small portion of conceit. Mr. Allen died May 31, 1755, suddenly, as he was reading prayers in his church.

, Alvredus, or Aluredus, an ancient English historian, was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, and received his education at Cambridge. He returned afterwards to the place of his nativity, where he became a secular priest, one of the canons, and treasurer to the church of St. John, at Beverley. Tanner, in a note, informs us, that he travelled for improvement through France and Italy, and that at Rome he became domestic chaplain to cardinal Othoboni. According to Bale and Pits, he flourished under king Stephen, and continued his annals to the year 1136. Vossius is supposed to come nearer the truth, who tells us that he flourished in the reign of Henry I. and died in 1126, in which same year ended his annals. His history, however, agrees with none of these authors, and it seems probable from thence that he died in 1128 or 1129. He intended at first no more than an abridgment of the history of the ancient Britons; but a desire of pursuing the thread of his story led him to add the Saxon, and then the Norman history, and at length he brought it down to his own times. This epitome of our history from Brutus to Henry I. is esteemed a valuable performance; it is written in Latin, in a concise and elegant style, with great perspicuity, and a strict attention to dates and authorities: the author has been not improperly styled our English Florus, his plan and execution very much resembling that of the Roman historian. It is somewhat surprising that Leland has not given him a place amongst the British writers: the reason seems to have been that Leland, through a mistake, considers him only as the author of an abridgment of Geoffrey of Mou mouth’s history but most of the ancient writers having placed Geoffrey’s history later in point of time than that of Alredus, we have reason to conclude that Alredus composed his compendium before he ever saw the history of Geoffrey, We have also the authority of John Withamsted, an ancient writer of the fifteenth century, who, speaking of our author, says, that he wrote a chronicle of what happened from the settlement of Brutus to the time of the Normans, in which he also treated of the cities anciently founded in this kingdom, and mentioned the names by which London, Canterbury, and York were called in old times, when the Britons inhabited them; and this testimony agrees with the book, as we now have it. Some other pieces have been ascribed to Alredus; but this history, and that of St. John of Beverley, seem to have been all that he wrote. This last performance was never printed, but it is to be found in the Cotton library; though not set down in the catalogues, as being contained in a volume of tracts: it is entitled “Libertates ecclesias S. Johannis de Beverlik, cum privilegiis apostolicis et episcopahbus, quas magister Alueredus sacrista ejusdein ecclesiao de Anglico in Latinum transtulit: in hoc tractatulo dantur carta3 Saxonicsc R. R. Adelstani, Eadwardi Confessoris, et Willelmi, quas fecerunt eidem ccclesiae, sed imperito exscriptore mendose scriptas. The liberties of the church of St. John of Beverley, with the privileges granted by the apostolic see, or by bishops, translated out of Saxon into Latin, by master Alured, sacrist of the said church. In this treatise are contained the Saxon charters of the kings Adelstan, Edward the Confessor, and William the Conqueror, granted by them to this church; but, through want of skill in the transcriber, full of mistakes.” Mr. Hearne published an edition of Alredus’s annals of the British History, at Oxford, in 1716, with a preface of his own. This was taken, from a manuscript belonging to Thomas Rawlinson, esq. which Hearne says is the only one he ever saw.

, a poetical and miscellaneous English writer, was educated at Westminster school, and thence elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he took the degree of M.A. March 23, 1696, and of B. D. Dec. 12, 1706. On his coming to the university, he was very soon distinguished by dean Aldrich, and published “Fabularum Æsopicarurn delectus,” Oxon. 1698, 8vo, with a poetical dedication to lord viscount Scudamore, and a preface in which he took part against Dr. Bentley in the famous dispute with Mr. Boyle. This book, Dr. Warton observes, is not sufficiently known. It was better known at one time, however, if we may credit bishop Warburton, who, in one of his letters to Dr. Hurd, says that “a powerful cabal gave it a surprising turn.” Alsop passed through the usual offices in his college to that of censor, with considerable reputation; and for some years had the principal noblemen and gentlemen belonging to the society committed to his care. In this useful employment he continued till his merit recommended him to sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, who appointed him his chaplain, and soon after gave him a prebend in his own cathedral, together with the rectory of Brightwell, in the county of Berks, which afforded him ample provision for a learned retirement, from which he could not be drawn by the repeated solicitations of those who thought him qualified for a more public character and a higher station. In 1717 an action was brought against him by Mrs. Elizabeth Astrey of Oxford, for a breach of a marriage contract; and a verdict obtained against him for 2,000l. which probably occasioned him to leave the kingdom for some time. How long this exile lasted is unknown; but his death happened, June 10, 1726, and was occasioned by his falling into a ditch that led to his garden-door, the path being narrow, and part of it giving way. A quarto volume of his was published in. 1752, by the late sir Francis Bernard, under the title of “Antonii Alsopi, sedis Christi olim alumni, Odarum libri duo.” Four English poems of his are in Dodsley’s collection, one in Pearch’s, several in the early volumes of the Gentleman’s Magazine, and some in the “Student.” He seems to have been a pleasant and facetious companion, not rigidly bound by the trammels of his profession, and does not appear to have published any sermons. Mr. Alsop is respectfully mentioned by the facetious Dr. King of the Commons (vol. I. p. 236.) as having enriched the commonwealth of learning, by “Translations of fables from Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic 5” and not less detractingly by Dr. Bentley, under the name of “Tony Alsop, a late editor of the Alisopean Fables.” Sir Francis Bernard, his editor, says, that among the various branches of philological learning for which he was eminent, his singularly delicate taste for the classic poets was the chief. This induced him to make use of the Sapphic numbers in his familiar correspondence with his most intimate friends, in which he shewed a facility so uncommon, and a style so natural and easy, that he has been, not unjustly, esteemed not inferior, to his nic;ter Horace.

, a German protestant divine, and a voluminous writer, was some time professor of philosophy and divinity at Herboni in the county of Nassau; afterwards professor at Alba Julia in Transylvania, where he continued till his death, which happened in 1638, in his 50th year. Of his public character, we only know that he assisted at the synod of Dort. He applied himself chiefly to reduce the several branches of arts and sciences into systems. His “Encyclopaedia” has been much esteemed even by Roman catholics: it was printed at Herborn, 1610, 4to, ibid. 1630, 2 vols. fol. and at Lyons, 1649, and sold very well throughout all France. Vossius mentions the Encyclopaedia in general, but speaks of his treatise of Arithmetic more particularly, and allows the author to have been a man of great reading and universal learning. Jiaillet has the following quotation from a German author: “Alstedius has indeed many good things, but he is not sufficiently accurate; yet his Encyclopedia was received with general applause, when it first appeared, and may be of use to those who, being destitute of other helps, and not having the original authors, are desirous of acquiring some knowledge of the terms of each profession and science. Nor can we praise too much his patience and labour, his judgment, and his choice of good authors: and the abstracts he has made are not mere scraps and unconnected rhapsodies, since he digests the principles of arts and sciences into a regular and uniform order. Some parts are indeed better than others, some being insignificant and of little value, as his history and chronology. Jt must be allowed too, that he is often confused by endeavouring to be clear; that he is too full of divisions and subdivisions; and that he affects too constrained a method.” Lorenzo Brasso says, “that though there is more labour than genius in Alstedius’s works, yet they are esteemed; and his industry being admired, has gained him admittance into the temple of fame.” Alstedius, in his “Triumphax Bibliorum Sacrorum, seu Encyclopaedia Biblica,” Francfort, 1620, 1625, 1642, 12mo, endeavours to prove, that the materials and principles of all the arts and sciences maybe found in the scriptures, an opinion which has been since adopted by others. John Himmelius wrote a piece against his “Theologia Polemica,” which was one of the best performances of Alstedius. He also published in 1627, a treatise entitled “De Mille Annis,” wherein he asserts that the faithful shall reign with Jesus Christ upon earth a thousand years, after which will be the general resurrection and the last judgment. In this opinion, he would not have been singular, as it has more or less prevailed in all ages of the church, had he not ventured to predict that it would take place in the year 1694. Niceron has given a more copious list of his works, which are now little known or consulted.

, an eminent Neapolitan philosopher, physician, and professor of medicine of the sixteenth century, was born at Naples, was one of the most learned medical writers of his time, and enjoyed very high reputation, it being only objected to him that he was too servile a copyist of Galen. We know little else of his history, unless that he had certain enemies who obliged him to take refuge in Rome, and that he did not venture to return to Naples until he had obtained the protection of pope Paul IV. to whom he had dedicated one of his works. Most of them were published separately, as appears by a catalogue in Man get and Haller; but the whole were collected and published in folio at Lyons, 1565 and 1597; at Naples in 1573; Venice, 1561, 1574, and 1600. So many editions of so large a volume are no inconsiderable testimony of the esteem in which this writer was held. He is said to have died in 1556.

a Prussian statesman, knight of the orders of the red and black eagle, lord of Hundisburgh, &c. was born Dec. 12, 1745, at Hanover, where his father was counsellor of war. During the seven years war he was brought up at Magdebourg with the prince, afterwards Frederic-William II. He then studied law at the university of Halle, and was appointed referendary in the court of accounts at Berlin, and in 1775, was sent as envoy extraordinary to the elector of Saxony, with the title of king’s chamberlain. This proved the commencement of a diplomatic career, for which he was thought qualified by his extensive knowledge and accomplishments, and the address with which he retained the good opinion of Frederic II. During the war for the succession of Bavaria, he acted as intermediate agent between the king of Prussia and the old electorate court, and between the army of Frederic and that of Prince Henry. After having been engaged in this office for twelve years, he was sent as ambassador, in 1787, to the court of France. In 1788 he was sent, in the same capacity, to Holland and in 1789 to England. In 1790 he was recalled from the latter, and appointed minister for foreign affairs, and his zeal and activity rendered him highly acceptable in the court of Berlin. During his administration he founded several benevolent establishments. He died at Berlin in 1802. As a writer he is known by a historical work entitled “Essai d‘un tableau chronologique des evenements cle la guerre, depuis la pair de Munster, jusqu’a celle de. Hubertsbourg,” Berlin, 1792, 8vo.

, from being a monk of Madeloc, rose to be archbishop of Treves, in the year 8 10, and the following year re-established the Christian religion in that part of Saxony which is beyond the Ebro, consecrated the first church in Hamburgh, and in the year 813 went as ambassador to Constantinople to ratify the peace which Charlemagne had concluded with Michael, the emperor of the east. He died the year following in his diocese. His only work is a “Treatise on Baptism,” which is printed among the works and under the name of Alcuinus. It is the answer to a circular letter in which Charlemagne had consulted the bishops of his empire respecting that sacrament. From a similarity of names this writer has sometimes, particularly by Trithemius, Possevin, and Bellarmine, been confounded with the subject of the next article.

, a Portuguese physician, and medical writer, of Jewish origin, was born in 1511 at Castel-bianco. He studied medicine at Salamanca, and afterwards travelled through France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy, and taught medicine with success in Ferrara and Ancona. His attachment to the Jewish persuasion having rendered him suspected by the catholics, he narrowly escaped the inquisition, by retiring to Pesaro in 1555, from which he removed to Itagusa, and afterwards to Thessalonica. From the year 1561 we hear no more of him, nor has the time or place of his death been ascertained, but it is said that when he went to Thessalonica, he avowed Judaism openly. His works, although few, give proofs of extensive learning in his profession. 1. “Exegemata in priores duos Dioscoridis de materia medica libros,” Antwerp, 1536, 4to. The second edition greatly enlarged, with learned notes by Constantin, was published under the title “Enarrationes in Dioscoridem,” Venice, 1553, 8vo, Strasburgh, 1554, and Lyons, 1557. There is much information in this work respecting exotics used in medicine, and some plants described for the first time, but it is not free from errors; and the author having imprudently attacked Mathiolus, the latter retorted on him in his “Apologia adversus Amatum,” Venice, 1557, fol. declaring him an apostate and a Christian only in appearance; but what connexion this had with the errors in his book, is not so easy to discover. Amatus, however, intended to have answered him in the notes prepared for a complete edition of Dioscorides, which he did not live to publish. 2. “Curationum medicinalium centuriae septem,” published separately, and reprinted, at Florence, Venice, Ancona, Rome, Ragusa, Thessalonica, &c. In this work, are many useful facts and observations, but not entirely unmixed with cases which are thought to have been fictitious. Few books, however, were at one time more popular, for besides the separate editions of the Centuries, they were collected and published at Lyons, 1580, 12 mo, Paris, 1613, 1620, 4to, and Francfort, 1646, fol. Amatus had also made some progress in a commentary on Avicenna, but lost his manuscripts in the hurry of his escape from Ancona, where pope Paul IV. had ordered him to be apprehended. Antonio in his Bibl. Hisp. attributes to him a Spanish translation of Eutropius, but it does not appear to have been ever published.

, a miscellaneous French writer, who, in his works, assumed the title of signior de Chevillon, was the natural son of Chaumont d'Amboise, admiral of France, and lieutenant-general in Lombarcly. He was born at Naples in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was educated with the legitimate son of hig father, but the latter died suddenly, in 1511, before he had made any provision for Michael. He then went to Paris, and was intended for the profession of the law, but was so attached to poetry, although his first performances were unsuccessful, that he could not be prevailed on to study law, and his friends abandoned him. He married also imprudently, and his accumulated disappointments and distresses are supposed to have shortened his life. He died in 1547. Niceron has given a large catalogue of his works, all nominally poetical, but without any characteristics of the art, and which probably procured him some small degree of reputation, chiefly from the rapidity with which he wrote and published.

It remains that we conclude this article with a short notice of his death. In the year 392, Valentinian the emperor being assassinated by the contrivance of Argobastus, and Eugenius usurping the empire, Ambrose was obliged to leave Milan, but returned the year following, when Eugenius was defeated. He died at Milan the 4th of April, 397; and was buried in the great church at Milan, He wrote several works, the most considerable of which is that “De officiis,” a discourse, divided into three books, upon the duties of the clergy. It appears to have been written several years after he had been bishop, and very probably about the year 390 or 391, when peace was restored to the church, after the death of the tyrant Maximus, He has imitated in these three books the design and disposition of Cicero’s piece De officiis. He confirms, says Mr. Du Pin, the good maxims which that orator has advanced, he corrects those which are imperfect, he refutes those which are false, and adds a great many others which are more excellent, pure, and elevated. He is concise and sententious in his manner of writing, and full of turns of wit; his terms are well chosen, and his expressions noble, and he diversifies his subjects by an admirable copiousness of thought and language. He is very ingenious in giving an easy and natural turn to every thing he treats, and is frequently not without strength and pathos. This is part of the character which Du Pin gives him as a writer; but Erasmus tells us that he has many quaint and affected sentences, and is frequently very obscure; and it is certain that his writings are intermixed with many strange and peculiar opinions; derived, as we have already remarked, from his early attachment to the manner of Origen. He maintained, that all men indifferently are to pass through a fiery trial at the last day; that even the just are to suffer it, and to be purged from their sins, but the unjust are to continue in for ever; that the faithful will be raised gradually at the last day, according to the degree of their particular merit; that the bow which God promised Noah to place in the firmament after the deluge, as a sign that he never intended to drown the world again, was not to be understood of the rainbow, which can never appear in the night, but some visible token of the Almighty. He carries the esteem of virginity and celibacy so far, that he seems to regard matrimony as an indecent thing. But it must be observed with regard to all those selections of opinions, that great injustice has been done to his memory by frauds and interpolations, and entire works have been attributed to him, which he never wrote. His works, indeed, are divided into, 1. Those that are genuine. 2. Those that are doubtful. 3. Those that are fictitious: and 4. Those that are not extant. Paulinus, who was his amanuensis, wrote his life, and dedicated it to St. Augustin; it is prefixed to St. Ambrose’s works; the best edition of which is reckoned to be that published by the benedictine monks, in two volumes in folio, at Paris, in 1686, and 1690. His life was also published in 1678, by Godfrey Herment.

, a celebrated French writer, was born at Saintonge in 1606. He maintained a close correspondence with the Fathers of the Oratory, a congregation of priests founded by Philip of Neri. He wrote the “Life of Charles de Gondren,” second superior of this congregation, and published it at Paris in 1643. In this piece he introduced a passage respecting the famous abbé de St. Cyran, which greatly displeased the gentlemen of Port Royal; who, out of revenge, published a pamphlet against him, entitled “Idee generate de l'esprit et du livre de pere Arnelot,” and he was so much provoked by this satire, that he did all in his power to injure them. They had finished a translation of the New Testament, known by the name of the Mons New Testament, and were desirous to have it published, for which purpose they endeavoured to procure an approbation from the doctors of the Sorbonne, and a privilege from the king. They had some friends m the Sorbonne, but at the same time very powerful enemies, and as to the privilege, it was impossible to prevail with, the chancellor Seguier to grant them one, as he hated them; so that father Amelotte, whose advice the chancellor generally followed in matters of religion, easily thwarted all their measures, not only out of zeal for what he thought the true doctrine, or out of aversion to the Port Royalists, but also from a view to his own interest; for he was about to publish a translation of his own of the New Testament, which, accordingly, with annotations, in four volumes 8vo, was printed in the years 1666, 1667, and 1668, but, according to F. Simon, it contains some very gross blunders. It was dedicated to M. de Perefixe, archbishop of Paris, whom he addresses in these words: “You will be confirmed in that zeal which obliged you to take up the holy arms to defend the true grace of God, and the decrees of the holy see, against the new heresy: you will daily strengthen yourself against these blind rebels, whose fury, impostures, and calumnies, add new splendour to your glory, which they endeavour to blemish. They place you in the same rank with the Athanasiuses and Hilaries, when they abuse you in the same manner as the Arians did those great and holy bishops.” In this translation he endeavoured to find expressions more proper and elegant than those of the former versions for which reason he committed his work into Mr. Conrart’s hands, to polish and correct whatever he should judge inelegant or improper. Amelotte wrote also an “Abridgment of Divinity,” a “Catechism for the Jubilee,” and a kind of “Christian Manual for every day, (Journee Chretienne.)” Though he had always been a very zealous Anti-Port-Royalist, yet he was but poorly rewarded for all his labour and trouble, since towards the end of his life he sued for a very small bishopric, that of Sarlat, and met with a refusal, though he had all the qualities requisite to a bishop. He could not forbear complaining of this usage to his friends; telling them that those, whom he had often served effectually, had been very cold to him on this occasion. He entered into the congregation of the Oratory in 1650, and continued amongst them till his death, which happened at Paris, Oct. 7, 1673. His dedication to M. Perefixe was suppressed after his death and the death of Perefixe, and one of a different cast substituted by M. de Harlay, in the edition of 1688, 2 vols. 4to, and the work has been often reprinted with and without notes. The chief objection made to him, on the score of veracity, is that he boasted of having consulted all the manuscripts of Europe, which he afterwards confessed he had not seen; but it is answered, that although he had not seen these manuscripts, he took great pains in procuring transcripts of their various readings.

, an Italian lawyer and miscellaneous writer, was born at Naples in 1659, and for the first fourteen years of his life, was obliged to be confined in a dark room, owing to a complaint in his eyes. On his recovery, he made very rapid progress in general science, went through a course of law, and had very considerable practice at Naples. His leisure hours he dedicated to polite literature, and particularly cultivated the Tuscan language, which he wrote with the greatest purity, and used in all his works. He died at Naples, July 21, 1719. His principal writings are, 1. Seven prose comedies, La Costanza, H Forca, la Fante, &c. which are, Baretti says, perhaps the wittiest we have in Italian; but the author makes some of his actors appear masked and speak the different dialects of Italy, especially the Neapolitan. 2. “Rapporti di Parnasso,” part I. the only one ever published, Naples, 1710, 4to. These are somewhat in the manner of Boccalini’s advertisements, but unlike them in their subjects, which are matters of literature and literary history. 3. “II Torto è il Diritto del non si puo, &c. esaminato da Ferrante Longobardi,” i. e. father Daniel Bartoli, whose work is here reprinted with. Amenta’s Observations, Naples, 1717, 8vo, 1728, 8vo; the latter edition has the remarks of the abbe Cito. 4. “Delia lingua Nobile d'Italia, &c.” another work on language divided into parts, Naples, 1723, 4to. 5. The lives of Scipio Pasquali, and Lionardo, a Neapolitan poet. 6. Twenty-four “Capitoli,” or satirical pieces, in the style of the capitoli of Berni, and other burlesque poets, Naples, 1721, 12mo. 7. “Rime,” or poetical pieces, published in various collections.

It might not, however, be long after, that he went to Holland, the common refuge of many of the divines of this period who were strong opponents to church discipline, for in 1613, his dispute with Grevinchovius, minister at Rotterdam, appeared in print. From thence, we are told, he was invited by the states of Friesland, to the divinity chair in the university of Franeker, which he filled with universal reputation for many years. He was at the synod of Dort, in 1618, and informed king James’s ambassador, from time to time, of the debates of that assembly. After he. had been at least twelve years in the doctor’s chair at Franeker, he resigned his professorship, and accepted of an invitation to the English congregation at Rotterdam, the air of Franeker being too sharp for him, who tvas troubled with such a difficulty of breathing, that he concluded every winter would be his last. Besides, he was desirous of preaching to his own countrymen, which he had disused for many years. He held many public discourses, published many learned books, and acquired a great degree of popularity among all classes. Upon his removal to Rotterdam, he wrote his “Fresh suit against Ceremonies” but did not live to publish it himself, for his constitution was so shattered, that the air of Holland was of no service, upon which, he determined to remove to New England; but his asthma returning at the beginning of winter, put an end to his life at Rotterdam, where he was buried, Nov. 14, (N. S.) 1633, aged fifty-seven. In the spring following, his wife and children embarked for New England, and carried with them his valuable library of books, which was a rich treasure to that country at tliat time Of his private character we know little, but it is generally agreed that he was a man of very great learning, a strict Calvinist in doctrine, and of the persuasion of the Independents, with regard to the subordination and power of classes and synods. As a teacher he was so much approved, that students came to him from many parts of Europe, particularly Hungary, Poland, Prussia, and Flanders. Mosheim, who, upon what authority we know not, calls him a Scotch divine, says, that he was one of the first among the reformed who attempted to treat morality as a separate science, to consider it abstractedly from its connection with any particular system of doctrine, and to introduce new light and a new degree of accuracy and precision into this master-science of life and manners. The attempt, he adds, was laudable, had it been well executed; but the system of this learned writer was dry, theoretical, and subtle, and was thus much more adapted to the instruction of the studious, than to the practical direction of the Christian.

, an English political and miscellaneous writer, was born at Marden in Kent, but in what year is uncertain, although by a passage in his Terras Filius, it would appear to be about 1706. Under the tuition of his grandfather, a clergyman, he received his grammatical education at Merchant-Taylor’s school in, London; and thence was removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he was expelled on a charge of libertinism, irregularity, and his insulting 1 behaviour towards the president of the college. From his own account of the matter, in the dedication of his poems to Dr. Delaune, president of St. John’s, and in his “Teme Filius,” we may collect that he wished to have it understood, that he was solely persecuted for the liberality of his sentiments, and his attachment to the cause of the Revolution and of the Hanover-succession. Whatever were the causes of his expulsion, ius resentment, on the account of it, although violent, was impotent. He made it his business to satirize the learning and discipline of the university of Oxford, and to libel the characters of its principal members. This he did in a poem published in 1724, called “Oculus Britanniae,” and in his “Terrae Filius,” a work in which is displayed a considerable portion of wit, intermixed with intemperate satire. The full title of the work is, “Terrae Filius; or the secret history of the university of Oxford; in several essays. To which are added, Remarks upon a late book, entitled, University Education, by R. Newton, D. D. principal of Hart Hall,” 2 vols. 12mo, printed for R. Francklin, 1726. Amidst all the malignity and exaggeration with which the Terrae Filius abounds, it contains some curious anecdotes relative to the principles, manners, and conduct of several members of the university, for a few years after the accession of king George I.; but they are to be read with caution. It had been an ancient custom in the university of Oxford, at public acts, for some person, who was called Terrae Filius, to mount the rostrum, and divert a large crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him from all parts, with a merry oration in the fescennine manner, interspersed with secret history, raillery, and sarcasm, as the occasions of the times supplied him with matter. Wood, in his Athenae, mentions several instances of this custom; and hence Mr. Amhurst took the title of his work. It was originally written in 1721, in a periodical paper, which came out twice a week, and consists of fifty numbers.

Soon after Mr. Amhurst quitted Oxford, he seems to have settled in London, as a writer by profession. He published a volume of “Miscellanies,” (principally written at the university), on a variety of subjects; partly originals, and partly paraphrases, imitations, and translations; and consisting of tales, epigrams, epistles, love-verses, elegies, and satires. They begin with a beautiful paraphrase on the Mosaic account of the creation, and end with a very humorous tale upon the discovery of that useful instrument a bottle-screw. Mr. Amhurst was -the author, likewise, of an “Epistle to sir John Blount,” bart. one of the directors of the South-Sea Company in 1720; of the “British General,” a poem sacred to the memory of his grace John duke of Marlborough; and of “Strephon’s revenge,” a satire on the Oxford toasts. Our poet, who had a great enmity to the clergy, and who had early, at Oxford, displayed his zeal against what he called priestly power, discovered this particularly in a poem entitled the “Convocation,” in five cantos; a kind of satire against all the writers who had opposed bishop Hoadly, in the famous Bangorian controversy. He translated also, Mr. Addison’s Resurrection, and some other of his Latin poems. But the principal literary undertaking of Mr. Amhurst was, his conducting “The Craftsman,” which was carried on for a number of years with great spirit and success; and was more read and attended to than any production of the kind which had hitherto been published in England. Ten or twelve thousand were sold in a day; and the effect which it had in raising the indignation of the people, and in controlling the power of the Walpole administration, was very considerable. This effect was not, however, entirely, or chiefly, owing to the abilities of Mr. Amhurst, He was assisted by lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Pulteney, and by other leaders of the opposition, whose fame and writings were the grand support of the “Craftsman.” Nevertheless, Mr. Amhurst’s own paper’s are allowed to have been composed with ability and spirit, and he conducted the “Craftsman” in the very zenith of-its prosperity, with no small reputation to himself. July 2, 1737, there appeared in that publication an ironical letter, in the name of Colley Gibber, the design of which was to ridicule the act that had just passed for licensing plays. In this letter, the laureat proposes himself to the lord chamberlain to be made superintendant of the old plays, as standing equally in need of correction with the new ones; and produces several passages from Shakspeare, and other poets, in relation to kings, queens, princes, and ministers of state, which, he says, are not now fit to be brought on the stage. The printer, &c. having been laid hold of by order of government, Mr. Amhurst hearing that a warrant from the duke of Newcastle was issued against him, surrendered himself to a messenger, and was carried before his grace to be examined. The crime imputed to hini was, that “he was suspected to be the author of a paper suspected to be a libel.” As no proofs were alleged against him, nor witnesses produced, an examination of this kind could not last long. As soon as it was over, he was told that the crime being bailable, he should be bailed upon finding sufficient securities to answer for his appearance and trial; but these terms being imposed upon him, be absolutely refused. Upon this refusal, he was remanded back into custody, and the next day brought his habeas corpus, and was then set at liberty, by consent, till the twelve Judges should determine the question, “Whether he was obliged to give bail for his good behaviour, as well as his appearance, before he was entitled to his liberty.” This determination was impatiently expected by the public, and several days were fixed for hearing counsel on both sides, but no proceedings of that kind took place, and the question remained undetermined until the days of Wilkes.

Such is lord Orford’s account of this painter. Mr. Pilkington’s character is rather more favourable, although perhaps modern connoisseurs will place less dependance on it. Amiconi possessed, says this writer, a very fertile invention; his taste of design was considerably elegant; and the air and turn of some of his figures, in his best compositions, were allowed to have somewhat engaging, natural, and even graceful. He confessedly had many of the accomplishments of a good painter; but, although his merit must in many respects be allowed, and his drawing, in particular, is generally correct, yet his colouring is abundantly too cold, too pale, and (as it is termed by the artists) too mealy.

, a native of Lucca, born in 1477, was educated in all the polite literature of Italy, and became apostolic notary, and collector for the pope Jn England. Here he spent the latter years of his life, in the society and intimacy of the most eminent scholars of that time, as Colet, Grocyn, Erasmus, &c. and studied with them at Oxford. He was also Latin secretary, and in much favour with Adrian de Castello, bishop of Bath and Wells, who is said to have made such interest as procured him the secretaryship to Henry VIII. He was also made prebendary of Compton-Dunden in the church of Wells, and, as some report, rector of Dychiat in the same diocese. By the recommendation of the king he was also made a prebendary of Salisbury, and in all probability, would have soon attained higher preferment, had he not been cut off by the sweating sickness, in the prime of life, 1517. Erasmus, with whom he corresponded, lamented his death in most affectionate terms. He is mentioned as a writer of poetry, but his poems do not exist either in print or manuscript, except one short piece in the “Bucolicorum auctores,” Basil, 1546, 8vo. There are some of his letters in Erasmus’s works. According to Wood he was buried in St. Stephen’s chapel, Westminster.

“As to the dean, we have four histories of him, lately published: to wit, by lord Orrery, the Observer on lord Orrery, Deane Swift, esq. and Mrs. Pilkington; but after all the man is not described. The ingenious female writer comes nearest to his character, so far as she relates; but her relation is an imperfect piece. My lord and the remarker on his lordship have given us mere critiques on his writings, and not so satisfactory as one could wish. They are not painters. And as to Mr. Swift, the dean’s cousin, his essay is an odd kind of history of the doctor’s family, and vindication of the dean’s high birth, pride, and proceedings. His true character is not attempted by this writer. He says it never can be drawn up with any degree of accuracy, so exceedingly strange, various, and perplexed it was; and yet the materials are to be gathered from his writings. All this I deny. I think I can draw his character; not from his writings, but from my own near observations on the man. I knew him well, though I never was within-side of his house; because I could not flatter, cringe, or meanly humour the extravagancies of any man. I am sure I knew him better than any of those friends he entertained twice a week at the deanery, Stella excepted. I had him often to myself in his rides and walks, and have studied his soul when he little thought what I was about. As I lodged for a year within a few doors of him, I knew his times of going out to a minute, and generally nicked the opportunity. He was fond of company upon these occasions; and glad to have any rational person to talk to: for, whatever was the meaning of it, he rarely had any of his friends attending him at his exercises. One servant only and no companion he had with him, as often as I have met him, or came up with him. What gave me the easier access to him, was my being tolerably well acquainted with our politics and history, and knowing many places, things, people and parties, civil and religious, of his beloved England. Upon this account he was glad I joined him. We talked generally of factions and religion, states and revolutions, leaders and parties. Sometimes we had other subjects. Who I was he never knew; nor did I seem to know he was the dean for a long time; not till one Sunday evening that his verger put me into his seat at St. Patrick’s prayers, without my knowing the doctor sat there. Then I was obliged to recognize the great man, and seemed in a very great surprise. This pretended ignorance of mine as to the person of the dean had giverr me an opportunity of discoursing more freely with, and of receiving more information from the doctor than otherwise I could have enjoyed. The dean was proud beyond all other mortals I have seen, and quite another man when he was known.

, a Danish political and miscellaneous writer, was born at Stoiberg in 1678, was educated at Rundsburgh by one of his uncles, and in. 1704, was appointed professor of law and political science at Kiel, where he acquired great reputation. Some verses which he wrote in praise of, the Danish ministers having given offence to the court of Holstein-Gottorp, he entered into the service of Denmark in 1713, and was appointed historiographer to the king, and counsellor of the chancery of the duchy of Holstein Schleswic. In this situation he wrote, at the king’s request, several pamphlets on the differences which existed between Denmark, Sweden, and the duchy of Holstein-Gottorp, which were published in German, 1715, 4to. These were so much approved of, that in 1715 he was invited to Copenhagen, appointed counsellor of justice, and had apartments in the royal castle of Rosembourg until his death, Feb. 21, 1721. He wrote also “Meditationes philosophies de justitia divina et materiis cum ea connexis;” and a volume of “poems and translations,” in German, Flensburgh, 1717.

It is generally allowed that Amyot contributed essentially, in his translation of Plutarch, towards the polish and refinement of the French language. Vaugelas, a very competent judge, gives him this praise; and adds, that no writer uses words and phrases so purely French, without any mixture of provincialisms. It has been said, however, that he was a plagiarist, and there are two opinions on this subject; the one, that he took his Plutarch from an Italian translation; the other, that the work was executed by a learned but poor man, whom he hired. But both these opinions were contradicted by an inspection of the copies of Plutarch in his possession, many of which are marked with notes and various readings, which shewed an intimate acquaintance with the Greek. It may, however, be allowed, that his translation is not alxvays faithful, and the learned Meziriac pretends to have discovered nearly two thousand errors in it. Yet it has not been eclipsed by any subsequent attempt, and notwithstanding many of his expressions are obsolete, Racine pronounced that there is a peculiar charm in his style which is not surpassed by the modern French.

, so called because he was librarian of the church of Rome, was a native of Greece, and one of the most learned men of his age. He flourished about the middle of the ninth century, and was abbot of St. Mary’s trans Tiberim. His chief work, the “Liber Pontincalis,” or the lives of the Popes from St. Peter to Nicholas I. is of a doubtful character: Blondel and Salmasius bestow great encomiums on it, while Hailing, a Roman catholic writer of note, depreciates it as much. To the last edition of this book is joined Ciampinius’s examination of the validity of the facts therein mentioned; and from this we learn that he wrote only the lives of Gregory IV. Sergius II. Leo IV. Benedict III. and Nicholas I. and that the lives of the other popes in that book were done by different authors. Anastasius is said to have assisted at the eighth general council held at Constantinople in the year 869, of which he translated the acts and canons from Greek into Latin. The time of his death is a disputed point, as indeed are many particulars relating to him. Bayle has a very elaborate article on his history, which Cave had previously examined, and Blondel, in his “Familier eclaircissement,” and Boeder in his “Bibl. critica,” have likewise entered deeply into the controversy. He wrote a great number of translations, more valued for their fidelity than elegance, yet they have all been admitted into the popish collections of ecclesiastical memoirs and antiquities. The first edition of the “Liber Pontincalis” was printed at Mentz, 1602, 4to, and two more editions appeared in the last century, one in four vols. fol. by Francis and Joseph Bianchini, 1718—1735, and the other in three vols. 4to, by the abbé Vignoli, 1724—1753, besides an edition by Muratori, in his collection of Italian writers, enlarged by learned dissertations, from which it would appear that Anastafcius was rather the translator, or compiler of those lives, and that he took them from the ancient catalogues of the popes, the acts of the martyrs, and other documents preserved among the archives of the Roman church. The Vatican library then consisted of little else, although it appears that there was before his time a person honoured with the title of librarian.

, an eminent French actor and dramatic writer, was born at Fontainbleau, Nov. 1, 1661. He studied in the Jesuits’ college at Paris, under father de la Rue; who, discovering in him a remarkable quickness and capacity for learning, was extremely desirous of engaging him in their order, but d'Ancourt’s aversion to a religious life rendered all his efforts ineffectual. After he had gone through a course of philosophy, he applied himself to the civil law, and was admitted advocate at seventeen years of age, but falling in love with an actress, he went upon the stage; and, in 1680, married this woman. As he had all the qualifications necessary for the theatre, he soon greatly distinguished himself, and began to write pieces for the stage, many of which had such success, that most of the players grew rich from the profits of them. His merit in this way procured him a very favourable reception at court, where Lewis XIV. shewed him many marks of his favour. Ais sprightly conversation and polite behaviour made his company agreeable to all the men of figure both at court and in the city, and the most considerable persons were extremely pleased to have him at their houses. Having taken a journey to Dunkirk, to see his eldest daughter who lived there, he took the opportunity of paying his compliments to the elector of Bavaria, who was then at Brussels. This prince received him with the utmost civility; and, having retained him a considerable time, dismissed him, with a present of a diamond valued at a thousand pistoles; he likewise rewarded him in a very generous manner, when, upon his coming to Paris, d'Ancourt composed an entertainment for his diversion. At length grown weary of the theatre, which he quitted in Lent, 1718, he retired to his estate of Courcelles le Roy, in Berry; where he applied himself wholly to devotion, and composed a translation of David’s psalms in verse, and a sacred tragedy, which were never printed. He died the 16th of December, 1726, 65 years of age. His plays consist of fifty-two, of which twentyfive are said to keep their reputation on the stage. They were published in 1710 and 1750, in 9 vols. 12mo, and the best of them in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of “Chefsd‘œuvre de d’Ancourt.”

, a Scotch antiquary, was the son of the rev. Pat. Anderson, of Edinburgh, where he was born Aug. 5, 1662. He had a liberal education at the university of that city, which was much improved by genius and application. When he had finished his studies, he was placed under the care of sir Hugh Paterson, of Bannockburn, an eminent writer to the signet, and made such progress, that in 1690 he was admitted a member of that society, and during his practice discovered so much knowledge joined with integrity, that he probably would have made a very distinguished figure had he remained longer in this branch of the law profession. The acquaintance with ancient writings, however, which he had been obliged to cultivate in the course of his practice, gratified a taste for general antiquities and antiquarian research, which he seems to have determined to pursue, and he happened to have an early opportunity to prove himself well qualified for the pursuit. In 1704, a book was published by Mr. William Atwood, a lawyer, entitled “The superiority and direct dominion of tl?e Imperial Crown and Kingdom of England over the Crown and Kingdom, of Scotland.” In this, Mr. Anderson, although altogether unknown to Mr. Atwood, was brought in by him as an evidence and eyewitness to vouch some of the most important original chai% ters and grants by the kings of Scotland, which AtwoocJ maintained were in proof of the point he laboured to establish. Mr. Anderson, in consequence of such an appeal, thought himself bound in duty to his country to publish what he knew of the matter, and to vindicate the memory of some of the best of the Scottish kings, who were accused by Atwood of a base and voluntary surrender of their sovereignty. Accordingly, in 1705, he published “An Essay, shewing that the Crown of Scotland is imperial and independent,” Edinburgh, 8vo, which was so acceptable to his country that the parliament ordered him a reward, ind thanks to be delivered by the lord chancellor in presence of her majesty’s high commissioner and the estates, which was done, and at the same time they ordered Atwood’s hook to he burnt at Edinburgh by the hands of the hangman.

, LL. D. an eminent agricultural writer, was born in 1739, at Hermiston, a village near Edinburgh. His ancestors were farmers, and had for many generations occupied the same land; a circumstance which may be supposed to have early introduced Mr Anderson to that branch of knowledge which formed the chief occupation of his life.

Of Dr. Anderson’s abilities, his works exhibit so many proofs, that they may be appealed to with perfect confidence. Although a voluminous writer, there is no subject connected with his favourite pursuit, on which he has not thrown new lioht. But his knowledge was not confined to one science. He exhibited, to give only one instance, a very strong proof of powers of research, when in 1773, he published, in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, an article under the head Monsoon. In this he clearly predicted the result of captain Cook’s first voyage; namely, that there did not exist, nor ever would be found, any continent or large island in the southern hemisphere near the tropics, excepting New Holland alone: and this was completely verified on captain Cook’s return, seven months Afterwards,

, a Spanish writer, was born at Toledo in 1590, and taught philosophy in that city before he entered the society of the Jesuits in 1622. He was likewise professor of moral philosophy, and died at Madrid, June 20, 1672. llis principal works were: 1. “An Historical Itinerary,” Madrid, 1657, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Meditations on every day of the year,” 1660, 4 vols. 16mo. 3. “The lives of ' illustrious Jesuits,” 1666 7, 2 vols. fol. &c.

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable learning and talents, was the younger son of Joseph Andrews, esq. of Shaw-house, near Newbury, Berks, and was born therein 1737. He was educated by a private tutor, the rev. Mr. Matthews, rector of Shaw, in Berks, and early distinguished himself by his application to literature and the fine arts. At the age of eighteen or nineteen, he went into the Berkshire militia, on the first calling out of that body of men, and held the rank of lieutenant until the regiment was disbanded.

is said to have been the first who wrote theatrical pieces, or what were called regular plays, for the Roman stage, about the year 240 B. C. It is also said that he was a slave, of Greek origin, and that he received his name from Livius Salinator, whose children he taught, and who at length gave him his liberty. His dramatic productions were probably rude both in plan and style. Livy, the historian, ascribes to him the barbarous invention of dividing the declamation and gestures, or speaking and acting, between two persons, which was never thought of by the Greeks. Andronicus, who was a player as well as a writer, it is supposed, adopted it to save himself the fatigue of singing in his own piece, to which he, like other authors of his time, had been accustomed. But being often encored, and hoarse with repeating his canticle or song, he obtained permission to transfer the vocal part to a young performer, retaining to himself only the acting: Duclos, however, and after him Dr. Burney, are inclined to think that the words of the historian mean no more than that the singing was separated from the dancing, a thing credible enough, but absurd in the highest degree, when applied to speaking and acting. Andronicus also composed hymns in honour of the gods. There are fragments of his verses, collected from the grammarians and critics, in the “Comici Latini,” the “Corpus poetarum,” and the “Collectio Pisaurensis.”

, surnamed Bois-Regard,a French physician and medical writer, was born at Lyons in 1658, and came to Paris without any provision, but defrayed the expences of his philosophical studies in the college of the Grassins by teaching a few pupils. He was at length a professor in that college; and, in 1687, became first known to the literary world by a translation of Pacatus’ panegyric on Theodosius the Great. Quitting theology, however, to which he had hitherto applied, he turned to the study of medicine, received his doctor’s degree at Rheims, and in 1697 was admitted of the faculty at Paris. Some share of merit, and a turn for intrigue, contributed greatly to his success, and he became professor of the Royal College, censor, and a contributor to the Journal des Savants; and, although there were strong prejudices against him on account of the manner in which he contrived to rise; and his satirical humour, which spared neither friend or foe, he was in 1724, chosen dean of the faculty. His first measures in this office were entitled to praise; convinced of the superiority of talent which the practice of physic requires, he reserved to the faculty that right of inspecting the practice of surgery, which they had always enjoyed, and made a law that no surgeon should perform the operation of lithotomy, unless in the presence of a physician. After this he wished to domineer over the faculty itself, and endeavoured to appoint his friend Helvetius to be first physician to the king, and protector of the faculty. But these and other ambitious attempts were defeated in 1726, when it was decided, that all the decrees of the faculty should be signed by a majority, and not be liable to any alteration by the dean. After this he was perpetually engaged in disputes with some of the members, particularly Hecquet, Lemery, and Petit, and many abusive pamphlets arose from these contests. Andry, however, was not re-elected dean, and had only to comfort himself Vy some libels against his successor Geoffroy, for which, and his general turbulent character, cardinal* Fleury would no longer listen to him, but took the part of the university and the faculty. Andry died May 13, 1742, aged eighty-four. His works were very numerous, and many of them valuable: 1. “Traite de la generation des Vers dans le corps de I'homme,” 1710, often reprinted, and translated into most languages. It was severely attacked by Lemery in the Journal de Trevoux, in revenge for Andry’s attack on his. “Traite des Aliments;” and by Valisnieri, who fixed on him the nickname of Homo venniculosus, as he pretended to find worms at the bottom of every disorder. Andry answered these attacks in a publication entitled “Eclaircissements sur le livre de generation, &c.” 2. “Remarques de medicine sur differents sujets, principalement sur ce qui regard e la Saignee et la Purgation,” Paris, 1710, 12mo. 3. “Le Regime du Careme,” Paris, 1710, 12mo, reprinted 1713, 2 vols. and afterwards in three, in answer to the opinions of Hecqnet. 4. “Thé de l'Europe, ou les proprietes de la veronique,” Paris, 1712, 12mo. 5. “Examen de difFerents points d' Anatomic, &c,” Paris, 1723, 8vo, a violent attack on Petit’s excellent treatise on the diseases of the bones. 6. “Remarques de chemie touchant la preparation de certains remedes,” Paris, 1735, 12mo, another professional and personal attack on Malouin’s “Chimie medicale.” 7. “Cleon a Eudoxe, touchant la pre-eminence de la Medicine sur la Chirurgie.” Paris, 1738, 12mo. 8. “Orthopedic; ou l'art de prevenir et de corriger, dans les enfants, les Difformites du corps,” Paris, 1741, 2 vols. He published also some theses, and his son-in-law, Dionis, published a treatise on the plague, which he drew up by order of the regent.

, a writer of the seventeenth century, was a monk of the order of the minorites of St. Francis, and a native of Marsalla in Sicily. He was also vicar-general of his order at Madrid, and became afterwards one of the fathers of the Observance. He was living in 1707, as in that year Mongitore speaks of him, among living authors, in his “Bibl. Sicula.” This monk published two volumes, the nature of which may be judged from the titles: the first was called “Lux magica, &c. ccelestiurn, terrestrium, et inferorum origo, ordo, et subordinatio cunctorum, quoad esse, fieri, etoperari, viginti quatuor voluminibus divisa,” Venice, 1685, 4to. This he published under the assumed name of Livio Betani, but prefixed his name to the second, entitled “Lux magica academica, pars secunda, primordia rerum naturulium, sanabilium, infirmarum et incurabilium continens,” Venice, 1687, 4to. These, as appears by the first, were to be followed by twenty-two more volumes on the same subjects.

, a Florentine writer of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was born at Scarperia, in the valley of Mugello, and studied under John de Ravenna, Vargerius, Scala, Poggio, and other learned men. After studying mathematics for some time, he went to Constantinople, where he resided nine years, and Whence he sent a great number of letters to Emmanuel Chrysoloras at Florence. Here likewise he had an opportunity of studying the Greek language, and acquired such an acpurate knowledge of it as to attempt various translations. On his return he went to Rome, and was a candidate for the place pf the pope’s secretary, which at that time Leonard d'Arezzo obtained, but Angelo appears to have held the office in 1410. From this time we have no account of him, except that he is said to have died in the prime of life. He translated from Greek into Latin, J. “Cosmographise Ptolomaei, lib. VIII.” 2. “Ptolojnaei quadripartitum.” 3. “Ciceronis vita,” from Plutarch. 4. The lives of Pompey, Brutus, Marius, and Julius Caesar, also from Plutarch, but not printed. There is likewise a work entitled “Jacob! Angeli historica na'rratio de vita, rebusque gestis M. Tullii Ciceronis,” Wirtemberg, 1564, Berlin, 1581 and 1587^ which Fabricius, in his Bibl. Lat. Med. Æv. says is a different work from the translation from Plutarch.

, or, as Bale, Pitts, and Tanner, call him, Gilbertus Legleus, was physician to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the time of king John, or towards the year 1210. Leland makes him flourish later; and from some passages in his works, he must have lived towards the end of the thirteenth century. The memoirs of this medical writer are very scanty: Dr. Freind has commented with much impartiality upon his Compendium of Physic, which is still extant, and appears to be the earliest remaining writing on the practice of medicine among our countrymen. That elegant writer allows him a share of the superstitious and empirical, although this will not make him inferior to the medical writers of the age in which he lived. His “Compendium” was published at Lyons, 1510, 4to, and at Geneva, 1608.

, a French historian, and political writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 21, 1723. Having in his seventeenth year entered the congregation of St. Genevieve, he distinguished himself by the ability with which he afterwards discharged the office of teacher in theology and literature. His residence at Rheims, as director of the academy, seems to have suggested to him the first idea of writing the history of that city. In 1759, he was appointed prior of the abbey de la Roe, in Anjou, and soon after, director of the college of Senlis, where he composed his work entitled “L'Esprit de la Ligue.” In 1766 he obtained the curacy or priory of Chateau-Renard, near Montargis, which, about the beginning of the revolution, he exchanged for the curacy of La Villette, near Paris. During the revolutionary phrenzy, he was imprisoned at St. Lazare, and wrote there part of his “Histoire universelle.” When the Institute was formed, he was chosen a member of the second class, and was soon after taken into the office of the minister for foreign affairs, whom he thought to oblige by. his “Motifs des traites de Paix.” Enjoying a strong constitution, the fruit of a placid and equal temper, and aversion to the luxuries of the table, he was enabled to study ten hours a day; and undertook, without fear or scruple, literary undertakings of the most laborious kind. Even in his eightieth year, he was projecting some new works of considerable size, and was apparently without a complaint, when he died, Sept. 6, 1808, in the eightyfourth year of his age. On this occasion he said to one of his friends, “come and see a man die who is full of life.”

, a French historian, and ecclesiastical writer, was born in the Artois, in 1723, and became a Benedictine, but being appointed procurator of one of the houses of that order, he disappeared with the funds intrusted to his care. How he escaped afterwards, his biographer does not inform us, but he attached himself to the order of Malta, became an advocate of parliament, and doctor of laws of the faculty of Paris. He was afterwards made prior of Villeconin, and a member of the academies of Arras and of the arcades of Rome. He died about 1790, after having published: 1. “Dialogues sur l'utilité des moines rentés,” 1768, 12mo. 2. “Exposition sur le Cantique des Cantiques de Salomon,” 1770, 12mo. 3. “Histoire de S. Maur, abbé de Glanfeuil,” 1772, 12mo. The first part contains the life of St. Maur; the second and third give an account of his relics; and the fourth is a history of the abbey of St. Maur-des-Fosses. 4. “Eloge de Charles V. empereur,” from the Latin of J. Masenius, 1777, 12mo. 5. “Esprit de St. Vincent de Paul,” proposed as a pattern to ecclesiastics, 1780, 12mo. 6. “Histoire de Sainte Reine d‘Alise, et de I’abbaye de Flavigny,” 1783, 12mo. 7. “Histoire de S. Fiacre,” 1784, 12mo. 8. “Bibliotheque litteraire du Maine,” Chalons sur Marne, 1784, 8vo, in which he has revived the memory of above three hundred authors. The work was intended to consist of eight volumes, but no more was printed than this. 9. “La Vie de Gregoire Cortez, Benedictine, eveque d'Urbin, et cardinal,” 1786. Ansart, according to his biographer, was both ignorant and idle, and took the substance of all the works he published with his name, from the archives of the Regime, formerly at Germain-des-Pres.

, a Dutch poet of considerable celebrity in his own country, was born at Amsterdam in 1622. In 1649 he travelled to Italy, where he acquired great reputation as a writer of Latin verse. Pope Innocent X. gave him a beautiful medal for a poem which he had composed on occasion of the jubilee celebrated in 1650, and queen Christina gave him a gold chain for a poem in Dutch which he addressed to her. Some have discovered in his poems an inclination for the Roman catholic religion. He died at Perouse in Italy, May 16, 1669. The collection of his works was printed at Rotterdam, 1715, 8vo; and contains the “Crown of St. Stephen the martyr,” published in 1646; and his tragedy of the “Parisian nuptials, or the massacre of St. Bartholomew,” which first appeared in 1649.

The history of lord Anson’s voyage, although published under the name of Mr. Walter, we have attributed to Mr. Robins. A general and uncontradicted report had for many years prevailed, that the work was drawn up by Mr. Robins, nor was this a vague report, but grounded on positive testimony. Dr. James Wilson had publicly asserted the fact, in the short account of Mr. Robins, which he prefixed to his edition of the mathematical tracts of that ingenious writer; and Mr. Martin in the life of Robins in his “Biographia Philosophica,” speaks positively to the same purpose, although probably on Dr. Wilson’s authority. Soon after the publication, however, of the first volume of the Biographia Britannica, in which the same assertion was repeated, the widow of Mr. Walter addressed a letter to the editor of that work, maintaining Mr. Walter’s claim as author of the work; but in our opinion her proofs are far from affording more than a probability. In our article of Robins this dispute will be adverted to more particularly.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, July 18, 1744, and at first was in practice as a lawyer, but afterwards was taken into the office of the comptroller general of finances, and became successively receiver-general for Dauphiny, a member of the central committee of receivers-general, a deputy of the constituent assembly, and farmer of the post, which last place he filled until his death, Nov. 20, 1810. During the reign of terror, he was long concealed in the house of one of the members of the Jacobin club, to whom he promised a pension for this service, which he afterwards paid most punctually. He was considered as an able financier, and a man of much taste in literature. He wrote, 1. “Anecdotes sur le famille de Le Fevre, de la branche d'Ormesson,” printed in the Journal Encyclopedique for 1770. 2. “Deux memoires historiques sur les villes de Milly et de Nemours,” printed in the “Nouvelles recherches sur la France,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Les deux seigneurs, ou l'Alchymiste,” a. comedy, 1783, partly written by M. L. Th. Herissant. 4. A translation of Anacreon, 1795, 3 vols. 12mo, of which the notes are thought preferable to the text. 5. A translation of Lady Montague’s letters. 6. Several Reports to the Constituent Assembly, short pieces in various collections, and songs, &c.

, a learned heraldic writer, was of a Cornish family, seated at St. Neot’s, being son of John Anstis of that place, esq. by Mary, daughter and coheir of George Smith. He was born September 28th or 29th, 1669, admitted at Exeter College in Oxford in 1685, and three years afterwards entered of the Middle Temple. As a gentleman of good fortune, he became well known in his county, and the borough of St. Germain returned him one of their members in the first parliament called by queen Anne. Opposing what was called the Whig interest, he distinguished himself by his voting against the bill for occasional conformity: for which his name appeared amongst the “Tackers” in the prints of that time. He was appointed in 1703 deputy-general to the auditors of imprest, but he never executed this office; and in the second year of queen Anne’s reign, one of the principal commissioners of prizes. His love of, and great knowledge in the science of arms so strongly recommended him, that April 2, 1714, the queen gave him a reversionary patent for the place of Garter. Probably this passage in a ms letter to the lord treasurer, dated March 14, 1711-12, relates to his having the grant. He says, “I have a certain information it would be ended forthwith, if the lord treasurer would honour me by speaking to her majesty at this time, which, in behalf of the duke of Norfolk, I most earnestly desire, and humbly beg your lordship’s assistance therein. If it be delayed for some days, I shall then be back as far as the delivery of my petition. I am obliged to attend this morning at the exchequer, about the tin affair, and thereby prevented from waiting upon your lordship.” If it does relate to the reversionary patent, it is evident that he long wished, and with difficulty obtained it. In the last parliament of Anne he was returned a member for Dunheved, or Launceston, and he sat in the first parliament of George I. He fell under the suspicion of government, as favouring a design to restore the Stuarts, was imprisoned, and at this critical time Garter’s place became vacant, by the death of the venerable sir Henry St. George. He immediately claimed the office, but his grant was disregarded; and, October 26,1715, sir John Vanbrugh, Clarenceux, had the appointment. Unawed by power, fearless of danger, and confident in innocence, he first freed himself from all criminality in having conspired against the succession of the illustrious house of Brunswick, and then prosecuted his claim to the office of garter, pleading the right of the late queen to give him the place. It was argued, that in a contest about the right of nomination in the reign of Charles II. the sovereign gave it up, only retaining the confirmation of the earl marshal’s choice: Mr. Anstis urged, that Charles only waved his claim. The matter came to a hearing April 4, 1717, and the competitors claimed under their different grants; but the controversy did not end until April 20, 1718, when the right being acknowledged to be in Mr. Anstis, he was created Garter. He had, for some time previous to this decision in his favour, resided in the college, and by degrees gained the good opinion and favour of the government. He even obtained a patent under the great seal, giving the office of garter to him, and his son John Anstis junior, esq. and to the survivor of them: this passed June 8, 1727, only two days before the death of George I. He died at his seat, at Mortlake in Surrey, on Sunday, March 4, 1744-5, and was buried the 23d of that month, in a vault in the parish church of Dulo in Cornwall. In him, it is said, were joined the learning of Camden and the industry, without the inaccuracy, of sir William Dugdale. He was certainly a most indefatigable and able officer at arms; and though he lived to the age of seventy-six, yet there is room to wonder at the extent of his productions, especially as he was a person of great consequence, and busied with many avocations out of the college. In 1706, he published a “Letter concerning the honour of Earl Marshal,” 8vo. “The form of the Installation of the Garter” 1720, 8vo. “The Register of the most noble Order of the Garter, usually called the Black-Book, with a specimen of the Lives of the Knights Companions,” 1724, 2 vols. folio. “Observations introductory to an historical Essay on the Knighthood of the Bath,” 1725, 4to, intended as an introduction to the history of that order, for which it is there said the Society of Antiquaries had begun to collect materials. His “Aspilogia,” a discourse on seals in England, with beautiful draughts, nearly fit for publication, from which Mr. Drake read an abstract to the Society in 1735-6, and two folip volumes of Sepulchral Monuments, Stone Circles, Crosses, and Castles, in the three kingdoms, from which there are extracts in the Archa?ologia, vol. XIII. were purchased, with many other curious papers, at the sale of Mr. Anstis’s library of Mss. in 1768, by Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. S. Besides these he left five large folio volumes on the “Office, &c. of Garter King at Arms, of Heralds and Pursuivants, in this and other kingdoms, both royal, princely, and such as belonged to our nobility,” now in the pos session of George Nayler, esq. York herald, and genealogist of the Order of the Bath, &c. “Memoirs of the Families of Talbot, Carew, Granvile, and Courtney.” “The Antiquities of Cornwall.” “Collections, relative to the parish of Coliton, in Devonshire,” respecting the tithes, owing to a dispute which his son, the Rev. George Anstis, the vicar, then had with the parishioners, in the court of exchequer in 1742. The late Dr. Ducarel possessed it. “Collections relative, to All Souls’ college, in Oxford.” These were very considerable, and purchased by the colllege. Sixty-four pages of his Latin Answer to “the Case of Founders’ Kinsmen,” were printed in 4to, with many coats of arms. His “Curia Militaris, or treatise on the Court of Chivalry, in three books:” it is supposed that no more than the preface and contents were ever published. Mr. Reed had those parts; the whole, however, was printed in 1702, 8vo; probably only for private friends. Mr. Prior mentions this Garter in an epigram:

, an industrious grammarian, was born at llabasteins in the 16th century. His Greek grammar went through several editions, and he afterwards published an universal grammar, which proved less useful from the confused arrangement. We have likewise by him an edition of Terence, which proves him to have been a writer of a very laborious turn. He published the comedies of this poet in three different methods: first, with short notes, and the arguments of every scene, and he marked the accents upon every word which had more than two syllables, and likewise at the side of every verse the manner of scanning it. In the second place, he published them with the entire notes of almost all the authors who had written upon Terence: and lastly, he published them with new marginal notes, and a French translation and paraphrase of the three first comedies. He puts between crotchets whatever is in the translation, and not expressed in the original: and marks with letters all the references from the translation to the paraphrase. The various readings have likewise each their parentheses, and their notes of reference. This edition, which is not noticed by Dr. Harwood, appears to have been printed at Lyons, by Matthew Bon-homme, about the year 1556.

, a philosopher and historian, who flourished under the reign of the two Ptolemies, became famous for his writings. He wrote a history of philosophers, of which Diogenes Laertius made much use, and which is quoted by Eusebius. Athenaeus speaks, of another work of his, entitled “Historical Commentaries,” and Hesychius makes mention of two others, the first oil animals, the second on the voice, but we have no remains of any of his works, except a collection of remarkable and not very probable stories, “Historiarum mirabilium colJectio,” quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium. It was printed by Meursius in 1619, and an excellent edition by Beckmann, with learned notes by himself and others, Leipsic, 1791, 4to, Greek and Latin. But it is thought rather to belong to some grammarian of the lower empire, than to a writer of the age of the Ptolemies. There are two other Antigonus’s, who were writers of a description, of Macedonia, and of a history of Italy, but it is uncertain who they were, or what their share in these works.

, a famous grammarian, born at Oasis in Egypt, was a professor at Rome in Tiberius’ s reign. He was undeniably a man of learning, had made the most diligent inquiries into the abstrusest subjects of antiquity, and was master of all those points which give to erudition the character of accuracy and variety. But he appears to have often been an arrogant boaster, and most importantly busied in difficult and insignificant inquiries. Bayle quotes Julius Africanus, as calling him “the most minutely curious of all grammarians;” and he might have applied tohim, what Strabo has to a pedant, “who vainly trifles’ about the reading of a passage,” though the sense was exactly the same, as-far as they were concerned with it, whichever way it was read. An idea may be formed of this writer from his imagining that he had performed something extraordinary, when he discovered that the two first letters of the Iliad, taken numerically, made up 48; and that Homer chose to begin his Iliad with a word, the two first letters of which would shew, that his two poems would contain 48 books.

, a Greek writer, born in Alexandria, under the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes king of Egypt, was a scholar of Callimachus, whom he is accused of having treated with ingratitude; by which he drew upon himself the indignation of this poet, who gave him the name of Ibis, from a bird of Egypt, which used to purge itself with its bill. Apollonius wrote a poem upon the expedition of the Golden Fleece; the work is styled “Argonautica,” and consists of four books, Quintilian, in his “Institutiones Oratoriic,” says that this performance is written “aequali quadam mediocritate;” that the author observed an exact medium between the sublime and low style in writing. Longinns says also that Apollonius never sinks in his poem, but has kept it up in an uniform and equal manner: yet that be falls infinitely short of Homer, notwithstanding the faults of the latter; because the sublime, though subject to irregularities, is always preferable to every other kind of writing. Gyraldus, speaking of this poem, commends it as a work of great variety and labour: the passion of Medea is so finely described, that Virgil himself is supposed to have copied it almost entirely, and to have interwoven it with the story of Dido.

, an English writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Wales. He was educated at Oxford, but in what hall or college is uncertain: probablyin the ancient hotel, now Pembroke college, in which several of his name were educated about the same period. In 1534, he was admitted bachelor of civil law. Patronised by William earl of Pembroke, he pursued his studies with alacrity, and became eminently learned, particularly in the history and antiquities of his own country. Wood says, that in 1046-7 he was knighted, with many others, by Edward, lord protector of England, and that he died in the reign of queen Mary. Pitts gives him the character of a learned and elegant writer. He wrote, 1. “Fides historiae Britannia, contra Polyd. Virgilium,” a manuscript in the Cotton library. 2. “Defensio regis Arthuri.” 3. “Historic Brifanniae defensio,” 1,573. 4. “Cambria? descriptio,” corrected and augmented by Humph. Lhuyd, and translated into English by David Powel, Oxon. 1663, 4to. 5. De Variis antiquitatibus Tractatum de Eucharistia of the restitution of the Coin, written in 1553, all in manuscript in New College library.

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable fame, was born at Naples in 1654, and died at Rome in 1740. He was of the order of Jesuits, and a celebrated teacher of rhetoric. His works, which discover much learning and taste, ere written in Latin. The principal are, “Poemata,” Rome, 1702, 3 vols.; “Orationes,” 1704, 2 vols. 8vo;“” Lexicon Militare,“in 2 vols. folio, 1724. This contains, under some of the articles, very learned dissertations on the military art. Another lexicon, entitled” Nomenclator Agriculture,“1736, 4to, is not held in the same esteem. He published also,” Historical Miscellanies,“1725, and an interesting” History of the war in Hungary,“1726, 12mo, under the title of” Fragmenta historica de bello Hungarise."

, son of the preceding, and a bachelor of medicine, was a miscellaneous writer at Paris, where he died about the year 1797, without leaving a reputation equal to that of his father. Yet some of his publications were useful. In the list we find, J. “Contes mis en vers par un petit cousin de Rabelais,” 1775, 8vo. 2. “Lettres sur les homines cel bres dans les sciences,” 1752, 2 vols. re-published in 1753, under the title of “Siecle litteraire de Louis XV.” 3. “Semaine Litteraire,” 1759, 4 vols. 12mo. 4. “Almunach litteraire, ou Etrennes d Apollon,” 1777 93, 17 vols. a collection of miscellanies in prose and verse. He published some other works with less success, and it used to be said, in allusion to his father’s profession,

His gentle manners, polite learning, and excellent talents, entitled him to an intimate correspondence and friendship with the celebrated wits of his time, Pope, Swift, Gay, and Parnell, whom he met as a member of the Scriberus club. In 1714 he engaged with Pope and Swift in a design to write a satire on the abuse of human learning in. svery branch, which was to have been executed in the humorous manner of Cervantes, the original author of this species of satire, under the history of feigned adventures. But this project was put a stop to by the queen’s death, when they had only drawn out an imperfect essay towards it, under the title of the first book of the “Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus .” “These Memoirs,” says Dr. Johnson, “extend only to the first part of a work, projected in concert by Pope, Swift, and Arbuthnot. Their purpose was to censure the abuses of learning by a fictitious life of an infatuated scholar. They were dispersed; the design was never completed; and Warburton laments its miscarriage, as an event very disastrous to polite letters. If the whole may be estimated by this specimen, which seems to be the prooduction of Arbuthnot, with a few touches perhaps by Pope, the want of more will not be much lamented; for the follies which the writer ridicules are so little practised, that they are not known; nor can the satire be understood but by the learned; he raises phantoms of absurdity, and then drives them away. He cures diseases that were never felt For this reason, this joint production of three great writers has never attained any notice from, mankind.”

, a Swedish historian, was born at Helsingfors, Feb. 9, 1695, and died July 14, 1777. He published various political works, principally relating to the history of his own country, none of which have been very highly esteemed. He was, however, indefatigable in his researches for the materials of history and biography; and about the time of his death, a “History of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,” was published at Breslaw in 2 vols. 8vo. originally written by Mauvillon, a Frenchman; but now much improved from the Mss. of M. Arckenholz. He published in his life-time, “Memoirs concerning Christina, queen of Sweden,” 4 vols. 4to, Amst. 1751—1760, a work which may be consulted with advantage, although it has few of the charms of elegance or conciseness. A long account of this writer may be seen in Adelung’s continuation of Jocher’s Lexicon.

, a French poetical and miscellaneous writer, was born at Marseilles, where his father was a commissioner of the gallies, March 3, 1684, and studied first at Nancy, and afterwards at home under the eye of his parents. His first verses were engraven on the trees, and his long residence in the country inspired him to write in the pastoral style. His parents in vain solicited him to engage in some profession, but he shelved an invincible repugnance, and was afterwards enabled to pursue his inclinations. He married in 1711, and some time after came to Paris, where he connected himself with Du Bos, Danchet, and Fontenelle; and during his essence here, he wrote his fables. In 1724, he returned to Provence, and was a competitor for some academical prizes, and in 1727, published his performances. He died at Marseilles, March 27, 1748. His principal works are, 1. “Recueil de Fables nouvelles en vers,” 1747, 12mo. 2. “Œuvres posthumes,” Marseilles, 1764, 4 vols. 12mo, consisting of a volume of new fables, a comedy, the Novelist, in three acts, odes, epigrams, epistles in prose and verse, and an academical discourse. His preliminary Essay on Fable, in the first volume, is considered as an ingenious performance.

, an early medical writer of the English nation, whose works come within the notice of Dr. Freind. It appears that he was a surgeon of great experience, and the first who is recorded as having become eminent in that branch in this nation. He was many years settled in the town of Newark, from 1348 to 1370, when he removed to London; but the exact time of his death is not known. Although much empiricism and superstition appear in his practice, yet many useful observations are to be found in his writings, and he may be classed among those who have really improved their profession. A treatise of his on the “Fistula in Ano” was translated and published by John Read in 1588, and he left a manuscript which is in the Sloanean library, entitled “De re Herbaria, Physica, et Chirurgica.”

, a learned civilian and writer, was born in the thirteenth century, according to some at Parma, or, as others report, in Flanders, and he has been sometimes confounded with James of Ravenna, but there is less doubt respecting his productions. He wrote commentaries on the Code and the Digest, which are yet consulted with advantage, and few works of the kind are in higher esteem than what he wrote on the duties of executors, entitled “De Commissariis,” Venice, 1584, folio. His treatise also, “De excussione bonarum,” Cologne, 1591, 8vo, is much valued, and that “De Bannitis” has a distinguished place in the collection of writers on criminal law, published at Francforr, 1587, fol. We have no dates of his birth and death, but he is said to have been law professor both at Padua and Bologna.

, an English writer, was the third son of Thomas Argall by Margaret his wife, daughter of John Talkarne of the county of Cornwall. He was born in London, and entered a student in Christ-church in Oxford towards the latter end of queen Mary’s reign. He took the degree of master of arts in 1565, and was senior of the act celebrated the eighteenth of February the same year. Afterwards he applied himself to the study of divinity, and, having taken holy orders, obtained the living of Halesvvorth in Suffolk. Being at a feast at Cheston, a mile distant from that town, he died suddenly at the table, and was buried at Halesworth, Octobers, 1606. During his stay at the university, he was a noted disputant, and a great actor of plays at Christ-church, particularly when the queen was entertained there in 1566. He was esteemed a very good scholar, and was so much devoted to his studies that he lived and died like a philosopher, with a thorough contempt for the things of this world. He wrote “De veva Pctnitentia,” Lond. 1604, 8vo, and “Introductio ad artem Dialecticam,” ibid. 1605, 8vo. In this book, which Mr. Wood calls “very facete and pleasant,” the author says of himself, that “whereas God had raised many of his companions and contemporaries to high dignities in the church, as Dr. Thomas Bilson to the see of Winchester, Dr. Martin Heton to that of Ely, Dr. Henry Robinson to that of Carlisle, Dr. Tobias Mathews to that of Durham, &c. yet he, an unworthy and poor old man, was still detained in the chains of poverty for his great and innumerable sins, that he might repent with the prodigal son, and at length by God’s favour obtain salvation.”

These multiplied cares obliged him not only to give over his intended prosecution of the Greek language, but almost to abandon the Latin, which he had but lately recovered, had not Pandolfo Ariosto so far stimulated him, that he still continued, in some degree, his studies, till death deprived him of so pleasing a companion. Yet all these disappointments did not much damp the vigour of his poetical genius. In his twenty-ninth year, he acquired an uncommon reputation for his Latin verses, and numerous poems and sonnets full of spirit and imagination. His conversation was coveted by men of the greatest learning and abilities; and cardinal Hippolito of Este, whose court was a receptacle for the most admired personages of the, age, received him into his service, where he continued fifteen years; during which time he formed a design of writing a poem of the romance kind; in which no one had yet written with the dignity of which the subject was capable. The happy versatility of his genius was such, that he could equally adapt himself to every species of poetry; and an Italian writer of his life observes, that whatever he wrote, seemed, at the time, to be his particular study.

II Doni, an Italian writer, in a register of the manuscript works of several poets, has attributed two pieces to Ariosto, one called “Rinaldo Ardito;” and the other, “Il Termine del Desiderio;” neither of which appears to have been printed. Besides the forty-six books of his Orlando Furioso, he left behind him five books on the same story, which were first printed in addition to the original poem in 1545, twelve years after Ariosto’s death.

Several writers have affirmed, that he was solemnly crowned with laurel by the victorious Charles Y. in the city of Mantua, in 1532, for his Orlando Furioso; and this circumstance has been as positively denied by others. Mazzuchelii, in his life of Ariosto, has considered the arguments on both sides; and observes, that the silence of those authors on the subject, who certainly would not have passed over such an event, may justly render the whole suspected; that, among others, surely little attention can be paid to the authority of one writer, who relates that Ariosto had scarcely received the laurel crown, when, transported with joy, and inspired as it were with a poetical phrensy, he ran. through the city apparently as mad as his own Orlando. P'ornari speaks of the coronation; but Pigna and Garafolo make no mention of it. II siu;nore Dottore Barotti thus examines the supposed fact: “Many have doubted of the coronation by Charles, and writers, who speak of it, do not agree upon the time or place: some say that the ceremony was performed at Mantua, and others at Bologna; some, that it happened in 1530, and others, in 1532; but, surely it could not be in 1530, as the complete edition of the poem, with the praises of the emperor, was not published till 1532. In a manuscript book, delivered down for the hand-writing of his son Virginio, are these words: ‘E una baia che fosse coronato.’ But, in a public instrument between his son Virginio and his brother, in October 1542, we read as follows: ‘ Cum annis decursis animam egerit magnificus et Laureatus D. Ludovicus Areostus, &c.’ both which, the manuscript book and instrument, are in my possession. In a letter of Galasso Ariosto it is said, that Ariosto had scarce published the last edition of his work when he fell ill, and died after eight months. The publication was in October 1532, and it is difficult to suppose that he could be crowned in November, the time mentioned. Yet the epitaph, caused to be engraved by his nephew’s son Ludovico, sets forth the coronation. If Pigna and Garafolo affirm that he fell ill in December, it may be understood that he then took to his bed; and as to the medal of Ariosto crowned, nothing can be proved front that.” To this Mazzuchelli adds, that We may refer to the declaration of Franco, who asserts that he was not crowned; and concludes the argument, by opposing to all these, the authority of the exact Apostolo Zeno, who observes, that Franco petulantly denies that Ariosto was crowned poet, though, besides other testimonies, we have the exclusive privilege granted him by Charles V. The fact upon the whole appears doubtful.

Ariosto’s reputation rests now entirely on his Orlando, concerning which modern critics are nearly agreed, and can perceive its blemishes without a wish to detract from its genuine merit. The monstrous extravagance of his fictions, as far as respects the agency of demons and aerial beings, were not ill suited to the age in which he lived, and supported the reputation of his poem, until it attracted the admiration of more enlightened minds, by the display of an imagination infinitely exuberant, yet directed by the finest taste, by the extraordinary power the author possessed of interesting both the gentler and severer passions, and by his masterly skill in all graphical paintings and descriptions. “Orlando,” says Dr. Blair, who seems to have collected the opinions of all the modern critics on this poem, "unites all sorts of poetry sometimes comic and satiric; sometimes light and licentious; at other times, highly heroic, descriptive, and tender. Whatever strain the poet assumes, he excels in it. He is always master of his subject; seems to play himself with it; and leaves us sometimes at a loss to know whether he be serious or in jest. He is seldom dramatic; sometimes, but not often, sentimental; but in narration and description, perhaps no poet ever went beyond him. He makes every scene which he describes, and every event which he relates, pass before our eyes; and in his selection of circumstances, is eminently picturesque. His style is much varied, always suited to the subject, and adorned with a remarkable smooth and melodious versification. The most valued editions of the Orlando are, that printed at Venice, fol. 1584, with Ruscelli’s notes, and engravings by Porro; and the edition of Molini, published in 1772, in 4 vols. 8vo, which has very beautiful engravings, and was printed with Baskerville’s types. There is likewise a very correct edition published at Paris by Pankouke in 10 vols. 12mo, 1787; and another, likewise very correct, in 4 vols. 8vo, by Mr. Isola, at London, 1789. Ariosto’s other pieces have been frequently reprinted, but none of them are in much demand. The English reader has been made acquainted with the merits of the Orlando by Mr. Hoole, who, in 1783, completed his translation, in 5 vols. 8vo. His predecessors in that labour were sir John Harrington and Mr. Huggins, but they are now little known and little read. In 1759 the satires of Ariosto were translated into English, and published in a 12mo volume. Ariosto had a nephew, Horace, who was born in 1555, and died in 1593. He defended the Orlando Furioso against the criticisms of Pellegrino, and was himself a poet, and a writer of comedies.

was, according to, the common opinion, a Greek pagan writer, who lived in the fourth century, but his existence has been doubted. If indeed he be the person mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived in that century, there is some foundation to believe that there was such a person. Some think, however, that the name prefixed to the first “Love Epistle” was taken by the publisher for that of the writer. His work, which consists of “Love Epistles,” w:is never known, or certainly not generally known, till Sambucus published it in 1566; since which time there have been several editions of it printed at Paris, where the book seems to have been held in greater estimation than amongst us. As to the real date of its composition, we have nothing but conjecture to offer. By the twenty-sixth epistle it should appear that the author lived in the time of the later emperors, when Byzantium was called New Rome; and in that epistle mention is made of the pantomime actor Caramallus, who was contemporary with Sidonius Apollinaris. The Epistles are certainly terse, elegant, and very poetical, both in language and sentiment; yet they have scarcely any thing original in them, being a cento from the writings of Plato, Lucian, Philostratus, and almost all the ancient Greek authors, whose sentences are pleasingly woven together, and applied to every passion incident to love.

, the sophist, was a native of Adriani, a small town in Mysia, and was disciple of Polemon the rhetorician of Smyrna, son of Eudaimon, a philosopher and priest of Jupiter in his own country. He also heard Herod at Athens, and Aristocles at Pergamus. He is supposed to have flourished about the year 176 of the Christian era. He appears to have been a good writer and an able orator. He is credulous, indeed, and superstitious, but there are many excellent passages in his writings in favour of truth and virtue, and he seems to have considered private virtue as indispensable to public character. A man of such eminence was no doubt an ornament to the heathen religion; and his eloquent hymns to the gods, and his other orations, must have had powerful attractions. To the city of Smyrna he was a great benefactor, for when, it was almost destroyed by an earthquake, he so pathetically represented their calamities, in a letter to the emperor Marcus, that this prince could not forbear weeping at some parts of it, and presently promised to restore the city. Besides this letter, he published a monody, bewailing the unhappy circumstances of the people of Smyrna, and after that wrote an oration, or epistle, in the year 173, congratulating tjiem on their restoration. In this last he celebrates not only the favour and liberality of the emperor, but likewise the generous compassion of many others, among whom Tillemont thinks he glanced at the Christians. Lardner has produced several passages from him, among his “Testimonies of ancient Heathens.” Aristides’s constitution was infirm, yet it is supposed he reached his sixtieth or seventieth year. The best edition of his works was published by Dr. Jebb, 2vols. 4to, Oxford, 1722—30.

, a writer on music, is supposed to have lived about the beginning of the second century of the Christian sera, a little before Ptolemy. There are three books of his extant on Greek music, which he treats sometimes more like a moralist than a professional man, but affords many curious particulars and opinions on, the art as practised in his days. Dr. Burney frequently quotes his work, which was printed with notes, Gr. and Lat. by Meibomius, among the a Antiquae musicse auctores," Amst. 1652, 4to.

As a writer, there can be no doubt that Aristotle is entitled to the praise of deep erudition. At the same time it must be owned, that he is frequently deserving of censure, for giving a partial and unfair representation of the opinions of his predecessors in philosophy, that he might the more easily refute them; and that he seems to have made it the principal object of his extensive reading, to depreciate the wisdom of' all preceding ages. In short, whilst in point of genius we rank Aristotle in the first class of men, and whilst we ascribe to him every attainment which, at the period in which he lived, indefatigable industry, united with superior abilities, could reach, we must add, that his reputation in philosophy is in some measure tarnished by a too daring spirit of contradiction and innovation; and in morals, by an artful conformity to the manners of the age in which he lived.

To this general character by Brucker, it may be added, that no philosopher ever enjoyed so long a reign in the schools, or came nearer to our own times in the extent of his doctrine. The charm is, indeed, now broken: Christianity, the revival of letters and of sound learning since the reformation, and especially the introduction of experimental philosophy, have tended to lessen the value of the labours of this distinguished philosopher. Much praise, however, may be yet attributed to him, on permanent ground. His Dialectics show how the reasoning faculties may be employed with skill and effect; his ten celebrated Categories have not yet been convicted of great error, and his political and critical writings have very recently obtained the attention and approbation of some of our most eminent scholars and critics. “Whoever surveys,” says Dr. Warton, “the variety and perfection of his productions, all delivered in the chastest style, in the clearest order, and the most pregnant brevity, is amazed at the immensity of his genius. His Logic, however neglected for those redundant and verbose systems, which took rise from Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, is a mighty effort of the mind; in which are discovered the principal sources of art and reasoning, and the dependences of one thought on another; and where, by the different combinations he hath made of all the forms the understanding can assume in reasoning', which he hath traced for it, he hath so closely confined it, that it cannot depart from them, without arguing inconsequentially. His Physics contain many useful observations, particularly his History of Animals. His Morals are perhaps the purest system in antiquity. His Politics are a most valuable monument of the civil wisdom of the ancients, as they preserve to us the descriptions of several governments, and particularly of Crete and Carthage, that otherwise would have been unknown. But of all his compositions, his Rhetoric and Poetics are most complete: no writer has shewn a greater penetration into the recesses of the human heart than this philosopher, in the second book of his Rhetoric, where he treats of the different manners and passions that distinguish each different age and condition of man; and from whence Horace plainly took his famous description in the Art of Poetry. La Brnyere, Rochefoucalt, and Montaigne himself, are not to be compared to him in this respect. No succeeding writer on eloquence, not even Tully, has added any thing new or important on this subject. His Poetics seem to have been written for the use of that prince, with whose education Aristotle was honoured, to give him a just taste in reading Homer and the tragedians; to judge properly of which was then thought no unnecessary accomplishment in the character of a prince. To attempt to understand poetry without having diligently digested this treatise, would be as absurd and impossible, us to pretend to a skill in geometry without having studied Euclid. The fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters, wherein he has pointed out the properest methods of exciting terror and pity, convince us that he was intimately acquainted with these objects, which most forcibly affect the heart. The prime excellence of this precious treatise is the scholastic precision, and philosophical closeness, with which the subject is handled, without any address to the passions or imagination. It is to be lamented that the part of the Poetics, in which he had given precepts for comedy, did not likewise descend to posterity.”

, the most ancient musical writer of whose works any remains are come down to us, flourished in the fourth century B. C. He was born at Tarentum, a city in that part of Italy called Magna Graecia, now Calabria. He was the son of a musician, whom some call Mnesias, others Spintharus. He had his first education at Mantinrea, a city of Arcadia, under his father and Lampyrus of Erythrse; he next studied under Xenophilus, the Pythagorean, and lastly, under Aristotle. Suidas, from whom these particulars are taken, adds, that Aristoxenus took offence at Aristotle’s bequeathing his school to Theophrastus, and traduced him ever after, but this has been contradicted by other writers. His “Harmonics,” the defects of which have been very ably pointed out by Dr. Burney, are all that are come down to us, and together with Ptolemy’s Harmonics, were first published by Gogavinus, but not very correctly, at Venice, 1562, 4to, with a Latin version. John Meursius next translated the three books of Aristoxenus into Latin, from the manuscript of Jos. Scaliger, but, according to Meibomius, very negligently. With these he printed at Leyden, 1616, 4to, Nicomachus and Alypius, two other Greek writers on music. After this Meibomius collected these musical writers together, to which he added Euclid, Bacchius senior, Aristides Quintilianus; and published the whole with a Latin version and notes at the Elzivir press, Amst. 1652, dedicated to Christina queen of Sweden. Aristoxenus is said by Suidas to have written 452 different works, some of which are frequently quoted by ancient authors. The titles of several of them, quoted by Athenaeus and others, have been collected by Meursius in his notes upon this author, and by Tonsius and Menage, all which Fabricius has digested into alphabetical order.

, a political writer of considerable note during the administration of sir Robert Walpole, was originally bred an attorney, but began at the early age of twenty, to write political papers, and succeeded Concanen in the British Journal. His principal paper was the “Free Briton,” under the assumed name of Francis Walsingham, esq. in defence of the measures of sir Robert Walpole, into whose confidence he appears to have crept by every servile profession, and according to the report of the secret committtee, he received no less than 10,997l. 6s. Sd. from the treasury; but this seems improbable, unless, perhaps, he acted as paymaster-general to the writers on the same side. He is said to have enjoyed for himself a pension of 400l. per annum, which, we may suppose, ceased with the reign of his patron. Dr. Wa'rton thinks Arnall had great talents, but was vain and careless, and after having acquired sufficient for competence, if not for perfect ease, he destroyed himself, having squandered as fast as he received. He is said to have died about 1741, aged twentysix, but other accounts say July 1736. Of his talents, we can form no very high opinion from his writings, and, as Mr. Coxe has justly observed of sir Robert Walpole’s writers in general, they were by no means equal to the task of combating Pulteney, Bolingbroke, and Chesterfield, those Goliaths of opposition. Mr. Arnall wrote the “Letter to Dr. Codex (Dr. Gibson), on his modest instructions to the crown,” in the case of Dr. Rundle, appointed bishop of Londonderry: “Opposition no proof of Patriotism;” “Clodius and Cicero,” and many other tracts on political and temporary subjects.

, a French miscellaneous writer of considerable note, was born at Aubignan, near Carpentras, July 27, 1721, and afterwards became an ecclesiastic. In 1752 he came to Paris, and in 1762 was admitted into the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres. He was for some time attached to prince Louis of Wirtemberg, afterwards sovereign of that duchy, but then in the service of France. The advocate Gerbier, his friend, having in 1765, gained an important cause for the clergy of France against the Benedictines, he demanded, as his reward, that Arnaud should be placed at the head of the abbey of Grandchamp. In 1771 he was elected a member of the French academy, and became librarian to Monsieur, with the reversion of the place of historiographer of the order of St. Lazarus. He died at Paris Dec. 2, 1784. The abbé Arnaud was a man of learning, much information, and taste, but too much a man of the world, and too indolent, to give his talents fair play. His “Lettre sur la Musique, au Comte de Caylus,” 1754, 8 vo, which made him first known to the learned world, and has been generally praised, was little more than the prospectus of a far larger work on the music of the ancients, but he never could bring himself to execute his plan, and for the rest of his life employed his pen only on occasional papers and essays. Being a warm admirer of Giuck, when the disputes took place in 1777 respecting music, he wrote in the Journal de Paris a considerable number of articles in favour of German music, and against Marmontel, who patronized Piccini; and in, concert with his friend M. Suard, edited “L‘Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Europe par de Buat,” 1772, 12 vols. 12mo. He assisted also in the following works: 1. “Journal Etranger,” with M. Suard, from Jan. 1760 to March 1762. The complete work consists of 54 vols. 12mo, beginning 1754. Suard and he afterwards quitted it to translate the Gazette de France. 2. “Gazette litteraire de l'Europe,” also with M. Suard, 1764 1766, 8 vols. 8vo. 3. “Varietes litteraires, ou Ilecueil des pieces tant originales que traduites, concernant la philosophic, la litterature, et les arts,” 1768 1769, 4 vols. 12mo. This consists of the best pieces from the two first mentioned journals; and M. Suard' s “Melanges de litterature,” 1803 4, 5 vols. 8vo, may be considered as a new edition, but with many additions and omissions. It is in the “Varietes” only, that we find Bissy’s translation of Young’s Night Thoughts. 4. “Description des principales pierres gravees du cabinet du due d'Orleans,” 1730, 2 vols. fol. Arnaud compiled the articles in the first volume of this magnificent work: the second bears the names of the abbés de la Chau and le Blond. 5. Various dissertations in the “Memoires de l'Academie des inscriptions,” collected and published under the title of “Œuvres completes de l'abbé Arnaud,” 3 vols. 8vo, but incorrectly printed. The “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de la revolution opere dans la Musique par le chevalier Gluck,” 1781, 8vo, attributed to our author, was written by the abbé le Blond. Arnaud was well acquainted with ancient literature, and improved his style, which, however, is not quite pure, by the study of the best ancient writers. Although at first an enemy to the new philosophy introduced in France, he was afterwards ranked among its supporters, but did not live to witness its consequences.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, Sept. 15, 1716, of a noble family originally from the comtat Venaissin. He had his education among the Jesuits at Paris, and discovered early symptoms of genius, having written some tolerable verses at the age of nine. He composed also in his youth three tragedies, none of which were acted; but one, on the subject of admiral Coligni’s murder on St. Bartholomew’s day, was printed in 1740. These works recommended him to Voltaire, who gave him advice and pecuniary assistance in his studies. Some of his early productions were also favourably noticed by Frederick, king of Prussia, who invited him to Berlin, and in some verses, called him his Ovid. This compliment, however, excited only the ridicule of the wits; and after residing about a year at Berlin, he went to Dresden, where he was appointed counsellor of legation. A wish to revisit his country, and an invitation from the nephew of marshal Saxe, determined him to return to Paris, where he lived many years, enjoying a large circle of acquaintance, from whom he retired by degrees to have leisure for the composition of his numerous works. During the reign of terror he was sent to prison, and on his liberation was exposed to great distresses from want of oecouomy, although not illiberally supplied by government, and by the profits of his works. He died Nov. 8, 1805. His writings, which are very numerous, consist of novels, poems, and plays, of which there are two editions, one in 24 vols. 12 mo, and one in 1-2 vols. 8vo, 1803, neither very complete, nor do his countrymen seem to consider this writer as likely to enjoy a permanent reputation.

, a surgeon of some eminence in London, was originally a native of France, and a member of the Academy of surgery at Paris, which city he left about the year forty-six or seven, and came to reside in London. Here he published several works, particujarly on Ruptures; the first was entitled “Dissertations on Ruptures,” 1749,in 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1754 he published “Plain and familiar instructions to persons afflicted with Ruptures,” 12mo; “Observations on Aneurism,” 1760; “Familiar instructions on the diseases of the Urethra and Bladder,” 1763; “Dissertations on Hermaphrodites,” 1765; “A discourse on the importance of Anatomy,” delivered at Surgeons’ hall, Jan. 21, 1767, 4to. His principal work appeared in 1768, entitled “Memoires de Chirurgie, avec des remarques sur l'etat de la Medicine et de la Chirurgie en France et en Angleterre,” 2 vols. 4to. This is the only work he published in French, after his coming to England It consists of eleven memoirs, two of which are translated from the English of Dr. Hunter’s Medical Commentaries, on the Hernia Congenita, and a particular species of Aneurism. He appears, as a practitioner, to have possessed much skill, and as a writer to have been industrious in collecting information on the topics which employed his pen, but was somewhat deficient in judgment, and not a little credulous. So much was he attached to the ancient prejudices of his church, that he employs one of the memoirs in these volumes on the question, whether a rupture should incapacitate a man from performing the functions of the Romish priesthood, which he, however, is disposed to decide in the negative. Ie informs us in this work, that he had studied rupture cases for the space of fifty years, and that the same study had been cultivated in his family for the space of 200 years. The only notice we have of his reputation in his own country is to be found in the dis course on Anatomy which he delivered in Surgeons’ hall. In this he informs us that he had the honour to instruct Adelaide of Orleans, princess of the blood, and a very accomplished lady, in the operations of surgery.

, a German medical and political writer, was born in the environs of Halberstadt, in Lower Saxony. He studied medicine, and travelled into France and England in pursuit of information in that science. He afterwards taught it with much reputation at Francfort on the Oder, and at Helmstadt, in the duchy of Brunswick. At this last-mentioned university he built, at his own expence, a chemical laboratory, and laid out a botanical garden; and, as subjects for dissection were not easily found, he made many drawings of the muscles, &c. coloured after nature, for the use of his pupils. In 1630 he left Helmstadt, on being appointed first physician to the king of Denmark, Christiern IV. and died in his majesty’s service in 1636. His works, which are very numerous, are on subjects of medicine, politics, and jurisprudence. The principal are, 1. “Observationes anatomica?,” Francfort, 1610, 4to; Helmstadt, 1618, 4to. This last edition contains his “Disquisitiones de partus termims,” which was also printed separately, Francfort, 1642, 12mo. 2. “Disputatio de lue venerea,” Oppenheim, 1610, 4to. 3. “De observationibus quibusdam anatomicis epistola,” printed with Gregory Horstius’s Medical Observations, 1628, 4to. 4. “De Auctoritate Principum in Populum semper inviolabili,” Francfort, 1612, 4to. 5. “De jure Majestatis,” 1635, 4to. 6. “De subjectione et exemptione Clericorum,” 1612, 4to. 7. “Lectiones politicac,” Francfort, 1615, 4to. These political writings seem to have been published with a view to counteract the opinions of Althusius (See Althusius), who wrote in favour of the sovereignty of the people. Arnisoeus contended for their allegiance. Boeclerus and Grotius speak with respect of his political sentiments.

, of Gaul, was a writer for the semi-pelagian doctrines, about the year 460, and wrote a “Commentary on the Psalms,” which was printed at Basle, 1537 and 1560, 8vo, and at Paris in 1539; Erasmus was the editor of one edition, and prefixed a preface to it. It is not a work of extraordinary merit, but obtained reputation for some time, by being mistaken for the production of Arnobius the African, in the preceding article.

, a learned writer of Nuremberg, was born in that city in 1627, where he became professor of history, rhetoric, and poetry, and was connected with the most learned men of his time. His principal works are, 1. “Catonis grammatici diroe cum commentario perpetuo,” Leyden, 1652, a very scarce edition. 2. “O ratio de Jano et Januario.” 3. “Ornatus linguae Latins,” printed four times at Nuremberg. 4. “Testimonium Flavianum de Christo,” Nuremberg, 1661, 12mo. This is to be found in the second volume of Havercamp’s Josephus. 5. “De Parasitis,” Nuremberg, 1665, 12mo. 6. “Notae ad Jo. Eph. Wagenseilii commentarium in Sotam,” Nuremberg, 1670, 4to. 7. “Letters to Nich. Heinsius,” in Burmann’s collection, vol. V. He died in 1656.

, one of our ancient English chroniclers, is a writer concerning whom very little information can now be recovered. Stowe says, “Arnolde was a citizen of London, who, being inflamed with the fervente love of good learninge, travailed very studiously therein, and principally in observing matters worthy to be remembred of the posteritye: he noted the charters, liberties, lawes, eonstitucioris and customes of the citie of London. He lived in the year 1519.” Holinshed, in his enumeration of writers, at the end of the reign of Henry VIII. mentions him. as “Arnolde of London,” who “wrote certayne collections touchyng historical! matters.” From his own work, it appears that he was a merchant of London, trading to Flanders. He is sometimes called a haberdasher, probably from being a member of that ancient company. He resided in the parish of St. Magnus, Lon. don -bridge,, but at one time, from pecuniary embarrassments, was compelled to take shtlter in the sanctuary at Westminster. In the year 1488, he appears to have been confined in the castle of Sluys, in Flanders, on suspicion of being a spy, but was soon liberated; and among the forms and precedents in his work, there is a charter of pardon granted him for treasonable practices at home, but of what description, cannot now be ascertained. It is conjectured that he died about the year 1521, at least seventy years old.

, of a noble family of Mantua, flourished about the year 1546. Enjoying much intimacy with Possevin and Franco, he imbibed their taste for poetry, and composed “Maritime Eclogues,” which were printed with the “Maritime Dialogues” of Botazzo, at Mantua, in 1547. Arrivabene was no less distinguished as a prose writer, and there are many of his letters and essays in Ruffinelli’s collection, published at Mantua about the same time.

, an English divine and writer, was born at or near Newcastle- upon Tyne, March 29, 1602. He was admitted of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1616, and took his first two degrees from thence in 1619 and 1623. In this last year he was chosen fellow of Katherine hall, where he is supposed to have resided some years, probably engaged in the tuition of youth; but in 1631 he married, and removed to Lynn in Norfolk. He continued in this town, very much esteemed, for about ten or twelve years, being first assistant or curate, and afterwards minister in his own right, of St. Nicholas chapel there. He was afterwards called up to assist in the assembly of divines had a parish in London, and is named with Tuckney, Hill, and others, in the list of Triers, as they were called i. e. persons appointed to examine and report the integrity and abilities of candidates for the eldership in London, and ministry at large. When Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s college, was turned out by the earl of Manchester, Mr. Arrowsmith, who had taken the degree of B. D. from Katherine hall eleven years before, was put into his place; and also into the royal divinity chair, from which the old professor Collins was removed and after about nine years possession of these honours, to which he added that of a doctor’s degree in divinity, in 1649, he was farther promoted, on Dr. Hill’s death, to the mastership of Trinity college, with which he kept his professor’s place only two years his health being considerably impaired. He died in Feb. 1658-9.

, a learned writer on music and poetry, was a Spanish Jesuit, and very young when that order was suppressed in Spain. He then went to Italy, and lived a considerable time at Bologna, in the house of cardinal Albergati. He afterwards accompanied his friend the chevalier Azara, the Spanish ambassador, to Paris and died in his house Oct. 30, 1799. His first publication was a treatise on “Ideal Beauty,” in Spanish but that which has contributed most to his fame, was his “Revoluzioni del teatro musicale Italiano, dalla sua origine, fino al presente,” Venice, 1785, 3 vols. 8vo. This is the second edition, but the only complete one the first consisting of only one volume, printed at Bologna, 1783;, and now entirely changed and augmented. An excellent analysis and criticism on this work, from the pen of a veteran scholar in the musical art, appeared in the Monthly Review, vols. LXXVII. and LXXIX. He left also some learned dissertations on Greek and Latin poetry, and an elaborate work on rhythm, which he intended to have printed at Parma, at the Bodoni press; these manuscripts appear to have been confided to Grainville, who died soon after.

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

, an eminent Russian physician, counsellor of state, and member of many academies, was born at Petersburgh of German parents, in 1729, and died in that city in 1807. He studied in the university of Gottingen, under Haller, and his reputation is in a great measure owing to the respect he preserved for that celebrated school, and to the princely contributions he made to it. His fortune enabled him to make vast collections during his various travels, a part, of which he regularly sent every year to Gottingen. In particular he enriched the library with a complete collection of Russian writers, a beautiful Koran, Turkish manuscripts, and many other curious articles and he added to the museum a great number of valuable articles collected throughout the Russian empire, curious habits, armour, instruments, minerals, medals, &c. He was also a liberal contributor to Blumenbach’s collection. As a writer, he had a principal part in the Russian Pharmacopoeia, Petersburgh, 1778, 4to, and wrote many essays, in Latin and German, on different subjects of physiology and medicine, of which a list may be seen in the “Gelehrtes Deutschland” of M. Meusel, fourth edition, vol. I. p. 98. What he published on the plague has been highly valued by practitioners, and there are two curious papers by him In No. 171 and 176 of our Philosophical Transactions. His memory was honoured by Heyne with an elegant eulogium, “De Obitu Bar. de Asch, ad vivos amantissimos J. Fr. Blumenbach, et J. D. Reuss,” 4to.

, an ingenious English writer and lawyer, who lived about the end of the seventeenth, and beginning of the eighteenth century. He was entered of the society of Lincoln’s inn, and having been recommended to Mr. Eyre, a very great lawyer, and one of the judges of the king’s bench, in the reign of king William, this gentleman gave him assistance in his studies. Under so able a master, he quickly acquired a competent knowledge of the laws, and was soon noticed as a rising man in his profession. He had an uncommon vein of wit and humour, of which he afforded the world sufficient evidence in two pamphlets; one intituled, “Several assertions proved, in order to create another species of money than gold and silver” the second, “An essay on a registry for titles of lands.” This last is written in a very humorous style.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

, an English divine, the son of Dr, Ashton, usher of the grammar school at Lancaster (a place of only thirty-two pounds per annum, which he held for near fifty years), was born in 1716, educated at Eton, and elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, 1733. He was the person to whom Mr. Horace Walpole addressed his epistle from Florence, in 1740, under the title of “Thomas Ashton, esq. tutor to the earl of Plymouth.” About that time, or soon after, he was presented to the rectory of Aldingham in Lancashire, which he resigned in March 1749; and on the 3d of May following was presented by the provost and fellows of Eton to the rectory of Sturminster Marshall in Dorsetshire. He was then M. A. and had been chosen a fellow of Eton in December 1745. In 1752 he was collated to the rectory of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate; in 1759 took the degree of D. D. and in May 1762, was elected preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, which he resigned in 1764. In 1770 he published, in 8vo, a volume of sermons on several occasions to which was prefixed an excellent metzotinto by Spilgbury, from an original by sir Joshua Reynolds, and this motto, “Insto pnepositis, oblitus praeteritorum.” Dr. Ashton died March 1, 1775, at the age of fifty-nine, after having for some years survived a severe attack of the palsy. His discourses, in a style of greater elegance than purity, were rendered still more striking by the excellence of his delivery. Hence he was frequently prevailed on to preach on public and popular occasions. He printed a sermon on the rebellion in 1745, 4to, and a thanksgiving sermon on the close of it in 1746, 4to. la 1756, he preached before the governors of the Middlesex hospital, at St. Anne’s, Westminster a commencement sermon at Cambridge in 1759; a sermon at the annual meeting of the chanty schools in 1760; one before the House of Commons on the 30th of January 1762; and a spital sermon at St. Bride’s on the Easter Wednesday in that year. All these, with several others preached at Eton, Lincoln’s inn, Bishopsgate, &c. were collected by himself in the volume above mentioned, which is closed by a “Clerum habita Cantabrigige in templo beatae Mariae, 1759, pro gradu Doctoratus in sacra theologii.” His other publications were, 1. “A dissertation on 2 Peter i. 19,” 1750, 8vo. 2. In 1754, the Rev. Mr. Jones of St. Saviour’s, delivered a sermon at Bishopsgate-churcb, which being offensive to Dr. Ashton, he preached against it; and an altercation happening between the two divines, some pamphlets were published on the occasion, one of which, entitled “A letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Jones, intended as a rational and candid answer to his sermon preached at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate,” 4to, was probably by Dr. Ashton. 3. “An extract from the case of the obligation of the electors of Eton college to supply all vacancies in that society with those who are or have been fellows of King’s college, Cambridge, so long as persons properly qualified are to be had within that description,” London, 1771, 4to, proving that aliens have no right at all to Eton fellowships, either by the foundation, statutes, or archbishop Laud’s determination in 1636. This is further proved in, 4. “A letter to the Rev. Dr. M. (Morell) on the question of electing aliens into the vacant places in Eton college. By the author of the Extract,” 1771, 4to. 5. “A second letter to Dr. M.” The three last were soon after re-published under the title of “The election of aliens into the vacancies in Eton college an unwarrantable practice. To which are now added, two letters to the Rev. Dr. Morell, in which the cavils of a writer in the General Evening Post, and others, are considered and refuted. Part I. By a late fellow of King’s college, Cambridge.” London, 1771, 4to. Part II. was never published. He lived long in habits of intimacy with Horace Walpole, afterwards earl of Orford, who, Mr. Cole informs us, procured him the Eton fellowship but a rupture separated them. Mr. Cole adds, what we have some difficulty in believing, that the “Sermon on Painting,” in lord Orford’s works, was preached by Dr. Ashton at Houghton, before the earl of Orford (sir Robert Walpole) in 1742.

A few years before his death, he was invited to accept the headship of the college, then vacant, but modestly declined it. He died at Beckenham, Sept. 1711, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of that church. The writer of his life gives him the highest character for piety, probity, and inflexible adherence to the doctrines and interests of the church of England. His general sentiments and turn of mind may be discovered in the titles of his various works 1. “Toleration disapproved and condemned by the authority and convincing reasons of, I. That wise and learned king James, and his privycouncil, Anno Reg. II do II. The honourable Commons assembled in this present parliament, in their Votes, &c. Feb. 25, 1662. III. The Presbyterian ministers in the city of London, met at Sion College, December 18, 1645. IV. Twenty eminent divines, most (if not all) of them members of the late assembly; in their Sermons before the two houses of parliament on solemn occasions. Faithfully collected by a very moderate hand, and humbly presented to the serious consideration of all dissenting parties,” Oxford,! 670. He published a second edition of this book, the same year, with his name, and the pro-vice-chancellor of Oxford’s imprimatur, prefixed to it. 2. “The Cases of Scandal and Persecution being a seasonable inquiry into these two things I. Whether the Nonconformists, who otherwise think subscription lawful, are therefore obliged to forbear it, because the weak brethren do judge it unlawful II. Whether the execution of penal laws upon Dissenters, for non-communion with the Church of England, be persecution Wherein they are pathetically exhorted to return into the bosom of the church, the likeliest expedient to stop the growth of Popery,” London, 1674. 3. “The Royal Apology or, An Answer to the Rebel’s Plea wherein are the most noted anti-monarchical tenets, first published by Doleman the Jesuit, to promote a bill of exclusion against king James I. secondly, practised by Bradshaw, and the regicides, in the actual murder of king Charles I. thirdly, republished by Sidney, and the associates to depose and murder his present majesty,” London, 1685, the second edition. 4. “A seasonable Vindication of their present Majesties,” London. 5. “The Country Parson’s Admonition to his Parishioners against Popery with directions how to behave themselves, when any one designs to seduce them from the Church of England,” London, 1686. 6. “A full Defence of the former Discourse against the Missionaries Answer being a farther examination of the pretended Infallibility of the Chuvch of Rome” or, as it is intitled in the first impression, “A Defence of the Plain Man’s Reply to the Catholic Missionaries,” &c. 1688. 7. “A short Discourse against Blasphemy,” 1691. 8. “A Discourse against Drunkenness,” 1692. 9. “A Discourse against Swearing and Cursing,” 1692. 10. “Directions in order to the suppressing of Debauchery and Proprmneness,” 1693. 11. “A Conference with an Anabaptist; Part I. Concerning the subject of Baptism: being a Defence of Infant-Baptism,” 1694. It was occasioned by a separate congregation of Anabaptists being set up in Dr. Assheton’s parish but the meeting soon breaking up, the author never published a second part. 12. “A Discourse concerning a Death-bed Repentance.” 13. “A Theological Discourse of last Wills and Testaments,” London, 1696, 14. “A seasonable Vindication of the blessed Trinity being an answer to this question, Why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the works of the most reverend doctor John Tillotson, late lord archbishop of Canterbury, and the right reverend doctor Edward Stillingfleet, now lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1679. 15. “A brief state of the Socinian Controversy, concerning a Trinity in Unity” collected from the Works of Dr, Isaac Barrow, London, 1698. 16. “The Plain Man’s Devotion, Part I. In a method of daily Devotion and, a method of Devotion for the Lord’s Day. Both fitted to the meanest capacities,” 1698. 17. “A full Account of the rise, progress, and advantages of Dr. Assheton’s Proposal (as now improved and managed by the worshipful company of Mercers, London,) for che benefit of Widows of Clergymen, and others, by settled Jointures and Annuities, at the rate of thirty per cent. With directions for the widow how to receive her annuity, without any delay, charges, or deductions. ‘ Plead for the widow,’ Isa. i. 17. 1713. 18.” A Vindication of the Immortality of the Soul, and a Future State,“London, 1703. 19.” A brief exhortation to the Holy Communion, with the nature and measures of Preparation concerning it fitted to the meanest capacities,“1705. 20.” A Method of Devotion for sick and dying persons with particular directions from the beginning of Sickness to the hour of Death,“London, 1706. 21.” The Possibility of Apparitions being an answer to this question ‘ Whether can departed souls (souls separated from their bodies) so appear, as to be visibly seen, and converse here on earth’ This book was occasioned by the remarkable story of one dying at Dover, and appearing to her friend at Canterbury. 22. “Occasional Prayers from bishop Taylor, bishop Cosins, bishop Kenn,” &c. and “A devout collection of Divine Hymns and Poems, on several occasions,” London, 1708. 23. “A seasonable Vindication of the Clergy being an answer to some reflections in a late book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. Humbly submitted to the serious consideration of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain. By a Divine of the Church of London,” 1709. 24. “Directions for the Conversation of the Clergy collected from the Visitation Charges of the. right reverend father in God, Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. late lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1710. 25. "Two Sermons one preached before the Sons of the Clergy, at St. Paul’s, December 6, 1699 the other before the Honourable Society of the Natives of the County of KenVat St. Mary le Bow, Nov. 21, 1700. Mr. Wood mentions another Sermon on the Danger of Hypocrisy, preached at Guildhall chapel, Aug. 3, 1673.

, an Arian writer, in the fourth century, was a sophist of Cappadocia, who forsook Gentilism, and embraced Christianity. He afterwards published some works in favour of Arianism, which were extant in the time of Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, who also informs us that Asterius, although he was very much with the Arian bishops, was refused admission into their order, because he had once sacrificed to the heathen gods. This lapse of Asterius is supposed to have happened about the year 304, and probably in Maximian’s persecution. Jerom says he wrote commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, and upon the gospels, psalms, &c. which were much read by the men of his party. None of these remain, however, unless as quoted by Eusebius, and Athanasius, who calls him “a cunning sophist, and a patron of heresy.”

, a native of Cagli, in the duchy of Urbino, came to Rome in 1532, where he was distinguished for his taste and eloquence; but having a reluctance to any regular profession which might have afforded him an opportunity and means to cultivate literature, he soon fell into extreme poverty. In 1560, however, he became corrector of the press at Venice, and there had like to have been sacrificed to the rage of a student belonging to the university of Padua, who having committed a work to his correction, Atanagi adopted it and published it under his own name. This is theonly incident recorded of this eccentric genius, whom the Italians consider as a very pure writer, and one of their best critics. He published,

Photius greatly extols Athanasius as an elegant, clear, and excellent writer. It is controverted among learned men, whether Athanasius composed the creed commonly received under his name. Baronius is of opinion that it was composed by Athanasius when he was at Rome, and offered to pope Julius as a confession of his faith which circumstance is not at all likely, for Julius never questioned his faith. However, a great many learned men have ascribed it to Athanasius as cardinal Bona, Petavius, Bellarmine, and Rivet, with many others of both communions. Scultetus leaves the matter in doubt; but the best and latest critics- make no question but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution. Vossius and Quesnel have written particular dissertations in favour of this opinion. Their arguments are, 1. Because this creed is wanting in almost all the manuscripts of Athanasius’ s works. 2. Because the style and contexture of it do not bespeak a Greek but a Latin author. 3. Because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the council of E^phesus, nor pope Leo, nor the council of Chalcedon, have ever mentioned it in all that they say against the Nestorians or Eutychians. 4. Because this Vigilms Tapsensis is known to have published others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this creed is commonly joined. These reasons have persuaded Pearson, Usher, Cave, and Dupin, critics of the first rank, to come into the opinion, that this creed was not composed by Athanasius, but by a later and a Latin writer.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was the son of an able engineer of the same name, and born at Capua. He became a secular priest, and was distinguished not only for his knowledge of modern languages, to which he added the Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek, but for his poetry, and the active part he took in the famous dispute between the academy of La Crusca and Camille Pelegrino, on the subject of Tasso’s “Jerusalem delivered.” Attendolo espoused the cause of Tasso, although himself a member of the academy, and highly respected by his brethren. He was killed by the overturning of a carriage, the wheels of which went over his body, and injured him so much that he died in a few hours. This accident happened in 1592, or 1593. His works are, 1. “Orazione nell‘ essequie di Carlo d’ Austria principe di Spagna,” Naples, 1571, 4to. 2. “Orazione militare, all’ altezza del serenissimo D. Giovanni d' Austria, per la vittoria navale ottenuta dalla Santa Lega nell 7 Echinadi,” Naples, 1573, 4to. 3. “Rime, con un breve discorso dell' epica poesia,” Florence, 1584, 8vo, Naples, 1588, 4to, with additions. 4. “Bozzo di XII. Lezioni sopra la canzone di M. Francesco Petrarca Vergine Bella, &c.” Naples, 1604, 4to, a work left imperfect by the death of the author. 5. “Unita della materia poetica sotto dieci predicamenti e sentiment! ne' due principi della Toscana e Latina poesia, Petrarca eVirgilio,” Naples, 1724, 8vo, the second edition the first is uncommonly rare. He also, after the death of Tansillo, corrected and published his poem, “La Lacrime di S. Pietro,” which the author had left imperfect, but the friends of Tansillo were of opinion he had taken too great liberties, which in the subsequent editions they endeavoured to obviate by restoring the poem more nearly to the state in which Tansillo left it.

, bishop of Rochester in the reigns of queen Anne and king George I. was born March 6, 1662-3, at Milton or Middleton Keynes, near Newport- Pagnel, Bucks. He was admitted a king’s scholar in 1676 at Westminster-school; and thence, in 1680, was elected a student of Christ-Church college, Oxford, where he soon distinguished himself by his wit and learning and gave early proofs of his poetical talents, in a Latin version of Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel,” published in 1682; and in 1684 he edited the “Ανθολογια, seu selecta quædam poematum Italorum qui Latin escripserunt,” which was afterwards enlarged and published by Pope in 1740, with the omission, however, of Atterbury’s excellent preface. In 1687 he made his first essay in controversial writing, and shewed himself as an able and strenuous advocate for the Protestant religion, in “An Answer to some Considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation.” These Considerations were published under the name of Abraham Woodhead, who was a popish writer, but were really written by Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford. Mr. Atterbury’s answer was soon after animadverted upon by Mr. Thomas Deane, fellow of University college, at the end of “The Religion of Martin Luther, whether Catholic or Protestant, proved from his own works.” This spirited performance of Atterbury induced bishop Burnet to rank the author among the eminent divines who had distinguished themselves by their admirable defences of the Protestant religion. Atterbury also pleads this pamphlet in his speech at his trial, as a proof of his zeal in that cause, and the same was urged by his counsel.

His application to study was intense. In polite literature, and even in mathematical researches, he is known to have eminently excelled, and there are some proofs, in his correspondence, of his attachment to religious duties. Nor was he less distinguished for social qualities. Among his more immediate intimates may be reckoned Smalridge, Whitfield, Hickman, Charlett, Harrington, Newton, King, Travell, Gough, and the two brothers, Robert and John Freind. By his tutors at Westminster, Busby and Knipe, he had been particularly noticed, and at Christ Church he was honoured with the friendship of Dr. Aldrich. While thus successful in the severer paths of study, he occasionally indulged in poetical attempts but, although his attachment to the Muses continued unimpaired throughout life, not many of his poems have been preserved, and some of those have not till lately been ascertained to be his production. It is somewhat singular that his name, as far as we have searched, does not appear in any one of the public complimentary verses which have issued from the unirersky press on public occasions. We have translations of three odes and part of an epistle of Horace, one eclogue from Virgil, an idyllium from Theocritus, two short original songs, a Latin elegy, an impromptu, two Latin epigrams, and one in English, much admired, on the fan of Miss Osborne, the lady whom he afterwards married. These are all his juvenile pieces that have been recovered but there are some elegant epitaphs from his maturerpen, and some political squibs. He is said to have completed a version of Virgil’s Georgics not long before his death, but this has never been ascertained. In 1690, his zeal for the memory of a favourite writer induced him to write a preface to the “Second part of Mr. Waller’s poems.”

In 1700, a still larger field of activity opened, in which Atterbury was engaged four years with Dr. Wake (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) and others, concerning the rights, powers, and privileges of convocations in which he displayed so much learning and ingenuity, as well as zeal for the interests of his order, that the lower house of convocation returned him their thanks; and in consequence of this vote a letter was sent to the university of Oxford, expressing, that, “whereas Mr. Francis Atterbury, late of Christ Church, had so happily asserted the rights and privileges of an English convocation, as to merit the solemn thanks of the lower house for his learned pains upon that subject; it might be hoped, that the university would be no less forward in taking some public notice of so great a piece of service to the church and that the most proper and seasonable mark of respect to him, would be to confer on him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, without doing exercise, or paying fees.” The university approved the contents of this letter, and accordingly created Mr. AtterburyD.D. Out author’s work was entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake’s, entitled ‘ The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted,’ &c. and several other pieces,” 8vo. The fame of this work was very great; but it was censured by Burnet, and in November the judges had a serious consultation on it, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. Holt, then chief justice, was strongly of that opinion, and the same idea was encouraged by archbishop Tenison, Dr. Wake, and others. Endeavours were made to prejudice king William against him, but his majesty remained indifferent; and on the other hand, Atterbury gained the steady patronage of sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, of Lawrence earl of Rochester, and of bishop Sprat. In December 1700, he published a second edition of “The Rights,” considerably enlarged, and with his name, and a dedication to the two archbishops. This was immediately answered by Drs. Kennet, Hody, and Wake. Another controversy of some importance was at this time also ably agitated by Atterbury, the execution of the prtemunienles, a privilege enjoyed by the several bishops of issuing writs to summon the inferior clergy to convocation. Bishops Compton, Sprat, and Trelawny, were his strenuous supporters on this occasion, and by the latter he was presented to the archdeaconry of Totness, in which he was installed Jan. 29, 1700-1. His attendance in convocation was regular, and his exertions great. In placing Dr. Hooper in the prolocutor’s chair, as the successor of Dr. Jane in the examination of obnoxious books in the controversy between the lower and upper houses in considering the methods of promoting the propagation of religion in foreign parts and in preparing an address to the king, his zeal distinguished itself. About this time he was engaged, with some other learned divines, in revising an intended edition of the Greek Testament, with Greek Scholia, collected chiefly from the fathers, by Mr. archdeacon Gregory. On the 29th of May he preached before the House of Commons; and on Aug. 16, published “The power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,” which was a sort of analysis of the whole controversy. He also published “A letter to a clergyman in the country, concerning the Choice of Members, &c.” Nov. 17, 1701; a second, with a similar title, Dec. 10, 1701; and a third, in defence of the two former, Jan. 8, 1701-2. In October he published “The parliamentary origin and rights of the Lower House of Convocation, cleared, &c.” At this period he was popular as preacher at the Rolls Chapel, an office which had been conferred on him by sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, in 1698, when he resigned JBridewell, which he had obtained in 1693. Upon the accession of queen Anne, in 1702, Dr. Atterbury was appointed one of her majesty’s chaplains in ordinary and, in July 1704, was advanced to the deanery of Carlisle but, owing to the obstacles thrown in his way by bishop Nicolson, he was not instituted tintil Oct. 12, and the same year Sir Jonathan Trelawny bestowed on him a canonry of Exeter. About two years after this, he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Hoadly, concerning the advantages of virtue with regard to the present life, occasioned by his sermon, preached August 30, 1706, at the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, a bookseller. The doctrine of this sermon Mr. Hoadly examined, in “A letter to Dr. Francis Atterbury, concerning Virtue and Vice,” published in 1706.; in which he undertakes to shew, that Dr. Atterbury has extremely mistaken the sense of his text. Dr. Atterbury, in a volume of Sermons published by himself, prefixed a long preface to the sermon at Mr. Bennet’s funeral in which he replies to Mr. Hoadly’s arguments, and produces the concurrent testimonies of expositors, and the authorities of the best writers, especially our English divines, in confirmation of the doctrine he had advanced. In answer to this “Preface,” Mr. Hoadly published in 170&, “Asecond letter,” &c. and in the Preface to his “Tracts,” tells us, these two letters against Dr. Atterbury were designed to vindicate and establish the tendency of virtue and morality to the present happiness of such a creature as man is which he esteems a point of the utmost importance to the Gospel itself. In Jan. 1707-8 he published a volume of Sermons, 8vo, and in the same year “Reflections on a late scandalous report about the repeal of the Test Act.” In 1709, he was engaged in a fresh dispute with Mr, Hoadly, concerning Passive Obedience, occasioned by his Latin sermon, entitled “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem, habita in Ecclesia S. Elphegi.” Atterbury, in his pamphlet entitled “Some proceedings in Convocation, A. D. 1705, faithfully represented,” had charged Mr. Hoadly (whom he sneeringly calls “the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadly”) with treating the body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state.“This induced Mr. Hoadly to set about a particular examination of Dr. Atterbury' s Latin Sermon; which he did in a piece, entitled” A large Answer to Dr. Atterbury’s Charge of Rebellion, &c. London a 1710,“wherein he endeavours to lay open the doctor’s artful management of the controversy, and to let the reader into his true meaning and design which, in an” Appendix“to the” Answer,“he represents to be” The carrying on two different causes, upon two sets of contradictory principles“in order to” gain himself applause amongst the same persons at the same time, by standing up for and against liberty; by depressing the prerogative, and exalting it by lessening the executive power, and magnifying it by loading some with all infamy, for pleading for submission to it in one particular which he supposeth an mcroachment, and by loading others with the same infamy for pleading against submission to it, in cases that touch the happiness of the whole community.“” This,“he tells us,” is a method of controversy so peculiar to one person (Dr. Atterbury) as that he knows not that it hath ever been practised, or attempted by any other writer.“Mr. Hoadly has likewise transcribed, in this Appendix, some remarkable passages out of our author’s” Rights, Powers, and Privileges, &c." which he confronts with others, from his Latin Sermon.

In 1710 came on the celebrated trial of Dr. Sacheverell, whose remarkable speech on that occasion was generally supposed to have been drawn up by our author, to whom Sacheverell, in his last will, bequeathed 500l. in conjunction with Smalridge and Freind. The same year Dr. Atterbury was unanimously chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, and had the chief management of affairs in that house. This we learn from bishop Burnet.In his account of this convocation, having observed, that the queen, in appointing a committee of bishops to be present, and consenting to their resolutions, not only passed over all the bishops made in king William’s reign, but a great many of those named by herself, and set the bishops of Bristol and St. David’s, then newly consecrated, in a distinction above all their brethren, by adding them to the committee, upon the indisposition of the archbishop and others, he adds “All this was directed by Dr. Atterbury, who had the confidence of the chief minister and because the other bishops had maintained a good correspondence with the former ministry, it was thought fit to put the marks of the queen’s distrust upon them, that it might appear with whom her royal favour and trust wa^ lodged.” May 11, 1711, he was appointed, by the convocation, one of the committee for comparing Mr. Whiston’s doctrines with those of the church of England and, in June following, he had the chief hand in drawing up “A Representation of the present State of Religion.” In 1712, Dr. Atterbury was made dean of Christ Church, notwithstanding the strong interest and warm applications of several great men in behalf of his competitor Dr. Smalridge but, “no sooner was he settled there,” says Stackhouse, “than all ran into disorder and confusion. The canons had been long accustomed to the mild and gentle government of a dean, who had every thing in him that was endearing to mankind, and could not therefore brook the wide difference that they perceived in Dr. Atterbury. That imperious and despotic manner, in which he seemed resolved to carry every thing, made them more tenacious of their rights, and inclinable to make fewer concessions, the more he endeavoured to grasp at power, and tyrannize. This opposition raised the ferment, and, in a short time, there ensued such strife and contention, such bitter words and scandalous quarrels among them, that it was thought adviseable to remove him, on purpose to restore peace and tranquillity to that learned body, and that tether colleges might not take the infection a new method of obtaining preferment, by indulging such a temper, and pursuing such practices, as least of all deserve it In a word,” adds this writer, “wherever he came, under one pretence or other, but chiefly under the notion of asserting his rights and privileges, he had a rare talent of fomenting discord, and blowing the coals of contention which made a learned successor (Dr. Smalridge) in two of his preferments complain of his hard fate, in being forced to carry water after him, to extinguish the flames, which his litigiousness had every where occasioned.” The next year saw him at the top of his preferment, as well as of his reputation for, in the beginning of June 1713, the queen, at the recommendation of lord chancellor Harcourt, advanced him to the bishopric of Rochester, with the deanery of Westminster in commendam he was confirmed July 4, and consecrated at Lambeth next day.

As to bishop Atterbury’s character, however the moral and political part of it may have been differently represented by the opposite parties, it is universally agreed, that he was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, a fine writer, and a most excellent preacher. His learned friend Smalridge, in the speech he made, when he presented him to the upper house of convocation, as prolocutor, styles him “Vir in nullo literarum genere hospes, in plerisque artibus et studiis diu et feliciter exercitatus, in maxime perfectis literarum disciplinis perfectissimus.” In his controversial writings, he was sometimes too severe upon his adversary, and dealt rather too much in satire and invective but this his panegyrist imputes more to the natural fervour of his wit, than to any bitterness of temper, or prepense malice. In his sermons, however, he is not only every way unexceptionable, but highly to be commended. The truth is, his talent as a preacher was so excellent and remarkable, that it may not improperly he said, that he owed his preferment to the pulpit, nor any hard matter to trace him, through his writings, to his several promotions in the church. We shall conclude bishop Atterbury’s character, as a preacher, with the encomium bestowed on him by the author of “The Tatler” who, having observed that the English clergy too much neglect the art of speaking, makes a particular exception with regard to our prelate; who, says he, “has so particular a regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he has to say to them, and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must attract your attention. His person,” contnues this author, “it is to be confessed, is no small recommendation but he is to be highly commended for not losing that advantage, and adding to a propriety of speech (which might pass the criticism of Longinus) an action which would have been approved by Demosthenes. He has a peculiar force in his way, and has many of his audience, who could not be intelligent hearers of his discourse, were there no explanation as well as grace in his action. This art of his is used with the most exact and honest skill. He never attempts your passions till he has convinced your: reason. All the objections which you can form are laid open and dispersed, before he uses the least vehemence in his sermon; but when he thinks he has your head, he very soon wins your heart, and never pretends to shew the beauty of holiness, till he has convinced you of the truth of it.” In his letters to Pope, &c. bishop Atterbury appears in a pleasing light, both as a writer and as a man. In ease and elegance they are superior to those of Pope, which are more studied. There are in them several beautiful references to the classics. The bishop excelled in his allusions to sacred as well as profane authors.

, a lawyer of Paris, born in 1617, became an indefatigable student, it being his practice to rise at five o'clock every morning, and study without intermission till six in the evening. He scarcely made any visits, and received still fewer, and though he had taken his oath as avocat au conseil, he preferred the silent commerce of his books to the tumult of affairs. The “Remarques de Vaugelas” was his only book of recreation. He died of a fall in 1695, at upwards of 78. Several works of his are to be met with, very inferior in respect of style, but they are not deficient in historical anecdotes and useful remarks. The chief of them are, 1. “Histoire generale des Cardinaux,” 5 vels. 1642, 4to, composed from the memoirs of Naud6 and of du Puy. 2. “Memoire pour rhistoire du Cardinal de Richelieu,” 1660, 2 vols. folio, and 1667, 5 vols. in 12 mo. 3. “Histoire de me me ministre,” 1660, folio. The materials here are good, but the best use has not been made of them. The cardinal, whom the author praises without restriction, is not painted in his proper colours, and the author has obviously laid himself open to the charge of flattery. Nor has he discovered much judgment, for, in striving to make too honest a man of the cardinal, he has not made him a politician, which was his distinguishing characteristic. Guy Patin, in his cxxxvith letter to Charles Spon, speaks in a very contemptuous manner of this history: “The duchess of Aiguillon,” says he, “has just had the history of her uncle the cardinal de Richelieu printed, composed from the memoirs she has furnished herself, by M. Aubery; but it is already fallen into contempt, being too much suspected from the quarter from whence it originates, and on account of the bad style of the wretched writer, who, lucro addictus & addductus, will not fail to play the mercenary, and to prostitute his pen to the direction of that lady.” It is said that the queen-mother answered the bookseller Berthier, who expressed his fear that certain persons of the court, of whom the historian spoke by no means advantageously, would bring him into trouble: “Go, pursue your business in peace, and put vice so much to shame, that nothing but virtue shall dare to be seen in France.” 4ubery is one of those who doubt whether the Testament published under the name of the cardinal de Richelieu be really by him. 4. “Histoire du cardinal Mazarin,” 1751, 4 vols. 12mo, a work in still less credit than the foregoing; but, as it was composed from the registers of the parliament, many of which have since disappeared, it contains several particulars not to be found any where else. Cardinal Mazarin, whose portrait is much over-charged, and but a very faint likeness, is very often lost among the great number of facts heaped together, and in which he sometimes plays but a very interior part, 5. “Traite historique de la preeminence des Rois de France/' 1649, 4to. 6.” Traite des justes pretensions du Roi de France sur PEmpire," 1667, 4to, which caused him to be thrown into the Bastille, because the princes of Germany thought the ideas of Aubery to be the same with those of Louis XIV. He was, however, soon set at liberty, and even his confinement was made easy.

Many curious anecdotes are reported of his freedoms with the king. Before he returned to the court, he sent one of his pages to announce to the sovereign that he was upon the road. The king asked him from whence he came? The page said, “Yes, yes;” and to every question that was put to him, still returned “Yes, yes.” On the king’s asking him why he continued to answer his questions in that manner, he replied, “Sire, I said yes yes, because kings drive away from their presence all persons who will not make use of those words to every thing which their sovereigns require of them.” While equerry to the king, and lying one night with the Sieur de la Force in the guard chamber, he whispered in his companion’s ear, “Certainly our master is the most covetous, and most ungrateful mortal upon earth.” Receiving no answer, he repeated the accusation, but la Force, being scarcely awake, did not hear him distinctly, and asked, “What do you say, D'Aubigne?” “Cannot you hear him?” said the king, who was awake, “he tells you I am the most covetous and most ungrateful mortal on earth.” “Sleep on, sire,” replied D'Aubigne, “I have a good deal more to say yet.” The next day, Aubigne tells us in his memoirs, the king did not look unkindly on him, but still gave him nothing. After, however, sometimes pleasing and sometimes displeasing the king and court by these freedoms, he again found it necessary to retire, and passed the rest of his days at Geneva, where he died in 1630, in the 80th year of his age. It was here probably, where he was received with great respect and honour, that he employed his pen on those various works which entitle him to a distinguished place in the republic of letters. These were his universal history, entitled “Histoire Universelle depuis 1550 jusq'en 1601, avec un histoire abregée de la mort de Henry IV.” 3 vols. folio, printed at St. Jean d'Angeli, although the title page says Maille, 1616—18—20, and reprinted in 1626, with additions and corrections. The first edition is in most request by the curious, as having some strokes of satire in it which are omitted in the other. His style is not uniform, and he often departs from the dignity of history to indulge in a jocose garrulity, accompanied with impassioned coarse passages, which are, however, highly characteristic of the writer. The first volume was burnt by order of the parliament of Paris, on account of the freedoms he had taken with the royal personages, particularly Henry III. The first and second parts of this history, which contain the wars of the prince of Condé and of the admiral Coligny, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the first transactions of the League, are given rather in a succinct form, but the third, which continues the detail until the peace of Henry the Great, is the most full and most correct. He wrote also some “Tragedies,” 1616, 4to and 8vo; “A collection of Poetical pieces,” printed at Geneva, 1630, 8vo; a very satirical piece entitled “La Confession de Sancy;” and in 1731, was printed “Baron de Foeneste,” 12mo, said to be his, which is a more gross composition. In the same year his Memoirs, written by himself, were printed, and have been translated into English. His son, Constant D'Aubigne, a most profligate character, was the father of madame de Maintenon.

, a French nobleman, was born at Clermont in 1565. His life was a continued series of misfortunes and escapes. He was one of the king’s magistrates in 1590, when he was attacked and dangerously wounded by eleven of those men who were endeavouring to raise the country against Henry IV. and in favour of the league. He had scarcely recovered, when, in company with his father, he was again attacked and wounded by the same men. He determined now to quit Gascony, and pass into Hungary but his servant with whom he set out robbed him and left htm destitute with some difficulty, however, he reached Paris, where he found friends was introduced to court, plunged into all manner of pleasures, and forgot his former losses and his former resolutions. But here he fell sick, and had scarcely recovered, when he wounded a false friend in a duel, and was obliged to make his escape. He wandered for & considerable time from place to place, spent much money, contracted debts, became poor, and lost his friends. Again he surmounted his difficulties, when for some crime he was thrown into prison he vindicated his innocence, plunged again into a set of adventurous troubles, and at last was assassinated in 1630. He was a voluminous writer both in verse and prose, published Romances and books of Devotion translated Cervantes’ novels, and a work entitled “Usage des Duels,” 1617, 8vo. His works shew some marks of genius, but partook too much of the irregularities of their author to enjoy long reputation.

, a Spanish writer, and a native of Tordesillas, is principally known as the author of the “Continuation, or second part of the history of Don Quixote,” which was published under the title “La Segunda Parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo D. Quixote de la Mancha,” 1614, 8vo. This, without being absolutely contemptible, is still very inferior to Cervantes’ s admirable production. It was afterwards translated, or rather imitated and new-modelled by Le Sage, and from this edition, an English translation was published about fifty or sixty years ago, in 2 vols. 8vo, but from the English work no proper judgment can be formed of the original. A more recent translation, which we have not seen, appeared in 1807. Pope has versified a tale from it in his Essay on Criticism.

, a French Franciscan of the order called* Minimes, was born at Paris Jan. 1, 1652, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college. In the course of his studies, and after taking orders, he acquired very high reputation for learning, and particularly for his eloquence and zeal as a preacher and devotional writer. He died at Paris, May 16, 1729. Moreri has given a long list of his religious treatises, all of which were frequently reprinted, and admired in France, when religion was more prevalent than now. He also wrote a work on Algebra, but committed it to the flames sometime before his death, and it was with much difficulty he was persuaded to publish his “Genealogie de la maison de Fontaine- Soliers, issue dela Case Solare, souveraine d'Aste en Piemont,” 1680, 4to, which has procured him a place in Le Long’s Bibliotheque of the French historians.

, a Spanish statesman and writer, was born in 1731, at Barbanales, near Balbastro in Aragon. An early enthusiasm for the fine arts procured him the friendship of the celebrated artist Mengs, who was first painter to the king of Spain. After the death of Charles III. A zara constructed, in honour of his memory, a temple, in an antique form, in the church of St. James, which, although not faultless, discovered very considerable talents and taste in architecture. He was, however, soon employed in political concerns, and was sent to Rome, under the pontificate of Clement XIII. as ecclesiastical agent at the chancery of Rome. He was afterwards attached to the Spanish embassy, and took a very active part in various important negociations between the courts of Spain and Rome. In 1796 he was employed in a more difficult undertaking, to solicit the clemency of the conqueror of Italy in behalf of Rome, where the French nation had been insulted, and he at least acquired the esteem of general Buonaparte. About the same time he became acquainted with Joseph Bonaparte, then French ambassador at Rome. Being afterwards sent to Paris, in a diplomatic character, he was favourably received, and found some relief from the recollection that he had left behind him his valued friends, his fine library, and museum of paintings and antiques. During this mission he experienced alternate favour and disgrace, being recalled by his court, exiled to Barcelona, and sent again to Paris with the rank of ambassador. His health, however, was now much impaired, and when he was indulging the hope of being able to return to Italy, and pass the rest of his time in the enjoyment of his friends and favourite pursuits, his constitution suddenly gave way, and he expired January 26, 1797. He left a very considerable fortune in furniture, pictures, busts, &c. but appears to have lost his other property. He translated, 1. Middleton’s life of Cicero, and some fragments of Pliny and Seneca, under the title of “Historia della Vida di M. T. Ciceroni,” Madrid, 1790, 4 vols. 4to and also published, 2. “Introduzione alia storia naturale e alia Geografia fisica di Spagna,” Parma, 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Opere di Antonio-Raffaele Mengs,” Parma, by Bodoni, 1780, 2 vols. 4to, of which a copious account may be seen in the Monthly Review, vol. LXV. 1781. This was afterwards translated into English, and published 1796, 2 vols. 8vo.

, or Babrius, was a Greek poet who turned Esop’s fables into choliambics, that is, verses with an iambic foot in the fifth place, and a spondee in the sixth or last. Suidas frequently quotes him, but the age and country in which he lived are unknown. Avienus the fabulist, in Prsef. Fab. seems to intimate, that Babrius was prior to Phaedrus, who wrote under the reign of Augustus or Tiberius. Mr. Tynvhitt, the learned author of the “Dissertatio de Babrio,” published at London in 1776, produces a passage from the Homeric lexicon of Apollonius, which appears to be a quotation from Babrius, and as Apollonius is supposed to have lived about the time of Augustus, or some what earlier, Babrius must have written before that period. From the fragments published in the above-mentioned work, Babrius appears to have been a valuable writer his representations are natural, his expressions lively, and his versification harmonious.

, a French miscellaneous writer, was a native of Paris, and a man of general knowledge. In 1762, he commenced a journal “Historique et Litteraire,” and after his death in 1771, one of his friends collected his manuscript notes, and published them in 1777, in 9 vols. 12mo, under the title of “Memoires Secrets,” which have been continued since as far as thirty volumes. There is much political history in these memoirs, with many private anecdotes of the principal personages concerned they contain also criticisms, poetry, temporary history, and such materials as generally ii!l our magazines and reviews, but with a good deal of truth, they contain a certain proportion of scandal. Bachaumont also published “Lettre Critique sur le Louvre, L' Opera, la Place Louis XV. et les Salles de Spectacle,” 1752, 8vo; “Essai sur la peinture, la sculpture, et Parchitecture,” 1752, 8vo and an edition of Quintilian, with a translation by Gedoyn, and a life of the translator, 1752, 4 vols. 12 mo.

If, however, we contemplate his personal character and his mental powers, he must appear to be one of the greatest and wisest men that ever contributed to human knowledge. The only thing, says Brucker, to be regretted in the writings of Bacon is, that he has increased the difficulties necessarily attending his original and profound researches, by too freely making use of new terms, and by loading his arrangement with an excessive multiplicity and minuteness of divisions. But an attentive and accurate reader, already not unacquainted with philosophical subjects, will meet with no insuperable difficulties in studying his works, and, if he be not a wonderful proficient in science, will reap much benefit as well as pleasure from the perusal. In fine, adds this judicious writer, lord Bacon, by the universal consent of the learned world, is to be ranked in the first class of modern philosophers. He unquestionably belonged to that superior order of men, who, by enlarging the boundaries of human knowledge, have been benefactors to mankind and he may not improperly be styled, on account of the new track of science which he employed, the Columbus of the philosophical world.

, knight of the bath, and an excellent painter, was one of the sons of the lord-keeper sir Nicholas Bacon, and half-brother to the viscount St. Alban’s. He travelled into Italy, and studied painting there; but his manner and colouring approach nearer to the style of the Flemish school. Mr. Walpole observes, that at Culford, where he lived, are preserved some of his works and at Gorhambury, his father’s seat, is a large picture in oil by him, of a cook maid with dead fowls, admirably painted, with great nature, neatness, and lustre of colouring. In the same house is a whole length of him by himself, drawing on a paper his sword and pallet hung up, and a half length of his mother by him. At Redgrave-hall, in Suffolk, were two more pieces by the same hand, which afterwards passed into the possession of Mr. Rowland Holt the one, Ceres with fruit and flowers; the other, Hercules and the Hydra. In Tradescant’s museum was a small landscape, painted and given to him by sir Nathaniel Bacon. In the chancel of Culford, in Suffolk, are a monument and bust of him, with his pallet and pencils. Another monument was erected to his memory at Stiffkey in Norfolk, the inscription upon which is published by Mr. Masters. The same writer informs us, that sir Nathaniel was famed for painting plants, and well skilled in their virtues. He married first, Anne, the daughter of sir Thomas Greshant, and secondly, Dorothy, daughter of sir Arthur Hopton. By the former he had three daughters, the eldest of whom married John Townsend of llainham, ancestor of the present marquis Townsend. The monument above-mentioned was erected by himself in 1615, the 69th year of his age, but has not the date of his death.

As to the vulgar imputation on his character, of his leaning to magic, it was utterly unfounded and the ridiculous story of his making a brazen head, which spoke and answered questions, is a calumny indirectly fathered upon him, having been originally imputed to Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln. That he had too high an opinion of judicial astrology, and some other arts of that nature, was not so properly an error of his as of the age in which he lived and considering how few errors, among the many which infected that age, appear in his writings, it may be easily forgiven. As his whole life was spent in labour and study, and he was continually employed, either in writing for the information of the world, or in reading and making experiments, that might enable him to write with greater accuracy; so we need not wonder his works were extremely numerous, especially when it is considered, that on the one hand his studies took in the whole circle of the sciences, and that on the other, the numerous treatises ascribed to him, are, often in fact, but so many chapters, sections, or divisions and sometimes we have the same pieces under two or three different names so that it is not at all strange before these points were well examined, that the accounts we have of his writings appeared very perplexed and confused. But notwithstanding this seeming perplexity and confusion, it is not a very difficult thing, to give a distinct account of his writings, the greater part of which are extant, and catalogued in the Biographia Britannica, and it were to be wished, that they were also made public. He was very far from being a hasty, incorrect, or desultory writer; on the contrary, all his works have a just reference to one great and general system, which he has executed in all its parts to a much greater degree of perfection, than has been hitherto supposed.

, an English divine, and critical and polemical writer of considerable eminence, was the son of a butcher at South Moulton, in Devonshire, where he was born, Feb. 23, 1747. His relations and friends being dissenters, he was designed by them for the ministerial function and after receiving the first rudiments of his education under his maternal uncle, Mr. Blake, a dissenting minister at South Moulton, he was sent to the dissenting academy at St. Mary Ottery, in the same county. The doctrines taught in this academy were those of the old Nonconformists or Puritans, and for a considerable time, Mr. Badcock adhered to them with sincerity. His proficiency in other respects was such, in the opinion of his tutors, that at the age of nineteen, he received a call to be the pastor of a dissenting congregation at Winborne in Dorsetshire, from which he was invited to the same office, soon after, at Barnstaple in Devonshire where his’ income was more considerable, and which place was more agreeable to him as it was but a few miles from his native town. The date of his removal here is said to be in 1769, and he continued to be the pastor of this congregation for nine or ten years.

, an English writer of considerable talents, was born Feb. 29, 1728, at Darley, a hamlet in the parish of St. Alkmond’s, Derby, where his father was employed on a paper-mill. When put to school, this son made an uncommon progress in such learning as was within his reach, and after remaining there the usual time, he was trained to his father’s business. When he advanced in life, married, and became settled in the business of papermaking, he continued 'to cultivate his mind, by adding a knowledge of the French and Italian languages, and even the more abstruse branches of mathematics. His conversation and correspondence sparkled with all the wit and information which are expected in men of a literary turn, but he was considerably advanced in life before he tried his powers in any regular composition. A loss sustained in business is said to have first induced him to take up the pen, not as a source of emolument, but to divert his mind from repining reflections. With this view he wrote, and in 1781, published “Mount Heneth,” a novel which became justly popular, from the vivicity of its style and dialogue, and the many well-drawn characters, and apposite reflections on questions of morality and humanity. This was followed by other productions of the same kind, < Barham Downs,“the Fair Syrian,” and “James Wallace,” which were all favourably received by the public, as far superior to the common run of novels. In private life, Mr. Hutton of Birmingham, has celebrated him as a man of most amiable and benevolent character; but we are sorry that he adds, that “he laid no stress upon revelation/' and was” barely a Christian." There are, indeed, passages in his works which justify this character, and leave us much to regret in the history of a man of stfich excellent talents and personal worth in other respects. Mr. Bage died Sept. 1, 1801, in the 74th year of his age, at Tamworth.

, or Ballonius, an eminent French physician and writer, was born about 1538, of a considerable family in Perche, and studied at Paris, where he received his doctor’s degree, in 1570, and during the course of his licentiate, was so able and victorious in the disputations, as to be named the Scourge of Bachelors. he was dean of the faculty in 1580, and his high reputation influenced Henry the Great to choose him first physician for his son, the dauphin, in 1601 But he preferred the sweets of domestic life to the honours of the court, and employed such leisure as his practice allowed, in writing several treatises on medical subjects, and was not more distinguished for knowledge in his profession, than for true piety and extensive charity. He died in 1616, His works were published after his death 1. “Consiliorum Medicinalium lib. II.” Paris, 1635, 4to, edited by his nephew Thevart. 2. “Consiliorum Med. lib. tertius,” ibid. 1649, 4to. 3. “Epidemiorum et Ephemeridum lib. II.” ibid. 1640, 4to, and in 1734, dedicated to sir Hans Sloane. 4. “Adversaria Medicinalia,” 4to, ibid, or, according to Haller, the same as “Paradigimata et historic morborum ob raritatem observatione dignissimse,” ibid. 1648, 4to. 5. “Definition tun Medicarum liber,” ibid. 1639, 4to. 6. “Commentarius in libellum Theophrasti de Vertigine,” ibid. 1640, 4to. 7. “De Convulsionibus libellus,” ibid. 1640, 4to. 8. “De Virginum et Mulierium morbis,” ibid. 1643, 4to. 9. “Opuscula Medica,” ibid. 1643, 4to. 10. “Liber de Rheumatismo et Pleuritide dorsali,” ibid. 1642, 4to. Of all these, and other works by him, a complete edition was published at Geneva, 1762, 4 vols. 4 to.

Sir George Baker, as an author, is to be estimated rather from the value than the'bulk of his works. His very extensive practice, while it enriched his own treasures of experience, left him little leisure for writing, and he never went beyond the extent of a tract or dissertation. Those he published were, 1. “De affectibus animi et morbis hide oriundis, dissertatio habita Cantabrigiae in scholis publicis, 5 kalend. Feb. 1755,” London, 1755, 4to. 2. “Oratio ex Harveii institute, habita in theatro coll. reg. Medicorum Lond. Oct. 19, 1761. Calci orationis accedit Commentarius quidam de Joanne Caio Anatomise conditore apud nostrates,” 4to, ib. 1761. This contains an elegant eulogy on Dr. Stephen Hales, and an argument to prove that Dr. Caius was the founder of anatomy in this country. Dr. Baker also adverts to Dr. Conyers Middleton’s essay on the servile condition of physicians in ancient Rome, which, he imagined, glanced at the honour of the profession itself. 3. “De Catarrho, et de Dysenteria Londinensi, epidemicis utrisque anno 1762, libellus,” 4to, ib. 1763. 4. “An Inquiry into the merits of a method of inoculating the Small Pox, which is now practised in several counties in England,” 8vo, ib. 1766. This produced two letters from Dr. Glasse, addressed to Dr. Baker, on the same subject. 5. “An essay concerning the cause of the Endemial Colic of Devonshire, which was read in the theatre of the College of Physicians, June 29, 1767,” printed at first for private distribution, but afterwards inserted in the Medical Transactions, vol. I. In this he derives the Devonshire colic from an impregnation of lead in the making of cyder, lead being very much used in the vessels employed in that operation. It was immediately followed by “Some observations on Dr. Baker’s Essay, by Francis Geach, surgeon at Plymouth,” 8vo, in which he endeavours to invalidate Dr. Baker’s theory, by proving that lead is not used in the preparation of cyder but this pamphlet was also immediately answered by Dr. Saunders, 8vo, and in 1769 Mr. Geach published “A Reply to Dr. Saunders’s pamphlet,” 8vo, and was supported by the Rev. Thomas Alcock in a pamphlet entitled, “The Endemical Colic of Devon not caused by a solution of lead in the cyder,” 1769, 8vo. At a considerable distance, in point of time, appeared “A candid examination of what has been advanced on the Colic of Poitouand Devonshire, by James Hardy, M.D. of Barnstaple, Devonshire,” 1778, 8vo. This writer, while inclined to agree with Drs. Baker and Saunders, as to the cholic arising from a solution of lead, wished to transfer the evil from the cyder- utensils to the drinking vessels, which are of glazed earthen ware, the vitreous coating of which contains a large proportion of lead but the argument is rather feebly supported. In 1771, Dr. Baker re-published the three first tracts, under the title of “Opuscula.” His other treatises were published in the Medical Transactions, vol. I. II. and III.

Mr. Baker was a constant and useful attendant at the meetings of the royal and antiquary societies, and in both was frequently chosen one of the council. He was peculiarly attentive to all the new improvements which were made in natural science, and very solicitous for the prosecution of them. Several of his communications are printed in the Philosophical Transactions and, besides the papers written by himself, he was the means, by his extensive correspondence, of conveying to the society the intelligence and observations of other inquisitive and philosophical men. His correspondence was not confined to his own country. To him we are obliged for a true history of the coccus polonicus, transmitted by Dr. Wolfe. It is to Mr. Baker’s communications that we owe the larger alpine strawberry, of late so much cultivated and approved of in England. The seeds of it were sent in a letter from professor Bruns of Turin to our philosopher, who gave them to several of his friends^ by whose care they furnished an abundant increase. The seeds likewise of the true rhubarb, or rheum palmatum, now to be met with in almost every garden in this country, were first transmitted to Mr. Baker by Dr. Mounsey, physician to the empress of Russia. These, like the former, were distributed to his various acquaintance, and some of the seeds vegetated very kindly. It is apprehended that all the plants of the rhubarb now in Great Britain were propagated from this source. Two or three of Mr. Baker’s papers, which relate to antiquities, may be found in the Philosophical Transactions. The society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, is under singular obligations to our worthy naturalist. As he was one of the earliest members of it, so he contributed in no small degree to its rise and establishment. At its first institution, he officiated for some time gratis, as secretary. He was many years chairman ^of the committee of accounts and he took an active part in the general deliberations of the society. In his attendance he was almost unfailing, and there were few questions of any moment upon which he did not deliver his opinion. Though, fronl the lowness of his voice, his manner of speaking was not powerful, it was clear, sensible, and convincing; what he said, being usually much to the purpose, and always proceeding from the best intentions, had often the good effect of contributing to bring the society to rational determinations, when many of the members seemed to have lost themselves in the intricacies of debate. He drew up a short account of the original of this society, and of the concern he himself had in forming it; which was read before the society of antiquaries, and would be a pleasing present to the public. Mr*. Baker was a poetical writer in the early part of his life. His “Invocation of Health” got abroad without his knowledge; but was reprinted by himself in his “Original Poems, serious and humourous,” Part the first, 8vo, 1725. The second part came out iri 1726. He was the author, likewise, of “The Universe^ a poem, intended to restrain the pride of man,” which has been several times reprinted. His account of the water polype, which was originally published in the Philosophical Transactions, was afterwards enlarged into a separate treatise, and hath gone through several editions. In 1728 he began, and for five years conducted the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper, under the assumed name of Henry Stonecastle a selection of these papers was afterwards printed in 4 vols. 12mo. In 1737 he published “Medulla Poetarum Romanorum,” 2 vols. 8vo, a selection from the Roman poets, with translations. But his principal publications are, “The Microscope made easy,” and “Employment for the Microscope.” The first of these, which was originally published in 1742, or 1743, has gone through six editions. The second edition of the other, which, to say the least of it, is equally pleasing and instructive, appearedin 1764. These treatises, and especially the latter, contain the most curious and important of the observations and experiments which Mr. Baker either laid before the royal society, or published separately. It has been said of Mr. Baker, “that he was a philosopher in little things.” If it was intended by this language to lessen his reputation, there is no propriety in the stricture. He was an intelligent, upright and benevolent man, much respected by those who knew him best. His friends were the friends of science and virtue and it will always be remembered by his contemporaries, that no one was more ready than himself to assist those with whom he was conversant in their various researches and endeavours for the advancement of knowledge and the benefit of society. His eldest son, David Erskine Baker, was a young man of genius and learning, and, like his father, a philosopher, an antiquary, and a poet. Being very partial to mathematical and geometrical studies, the duke of Montague, then master of the ordnance, placed him in the drawing-room in the Tower, to qualify him for the royal engineers. In a letter to Dr. Doddridge, dated 1747, his father speaks of him in these terms: “He has been somewhat forwarder than boys usually are, from a constant conversation with men. At twelve years old he had translated the whole twenty-four books of Telemachus from the French before he was fifteen, he translated from the Italian, and published, a treatise on physic, of Dr. Cocchi, of Florence, concerning the diet and doctrines of Pythagoras and last year, before he was seventeen, he likewise published a treatise of sir Isaac Newton’s Metaphysics, compared with those of Dr. Leibnitz, from the French of M. Voltaire. He is a pretty good master of the Latin, understands some Greek, is reckoned no bad mathematician for his years, and knows a great deal of natural history, both from reading and observation, so that, by the grace of God, I hope he will become a virtuous and useful man.” In another letter he mentions a singular commission given to his son, that of making drawings of all the machines, designs, and operations employed in the grand fire- works to be exhibited on occasion of the peace of 1748. It is to be regretted, however, that his father’s expectations were disappointed by a reverse of conduct in this son, occasioned by his turn for dramatic performances, and his marrying the daughter of a Mr. Clendon, a clerical empiric, who had, like himself, a similar turn. In consequence of this unhappy taste, he repeatedly engaged with the lowest strolling companies, in spite of every effort of his father to reclaim him. The public was, however, indebted to him for “The Companion to the Playhouse,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo; a work which, though imperfect, had considerable merit, and shewed that he possessed a very extensive knowledge of our dramatic authors and which has since (under the title of “Biographia Dramatica”) been considerably improved, first in 1782, by the late Mr. Isaac Reed, 2 vols. 8vo, and more recently, in 1812, enlarged and improved by Mr. Stephen Jones, so as to form 4 vols. 8vo. He died Feb. 16, 1767. Mr. Baker’s other son, Henry, followed the profession of a lawyer, and occasionally appeared as a poet and miscellaneous writer. In 1756 he published te Essays Pastoral and Elegiac,“2 vols. 8vo, and left ready for the press an arranged collection of all the statutes relating to bankruptcy, with cases, precedents, &c. entitled” The Clerk to the Commission," a work which is supposed to have been published under another title in 1768.

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.

, 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.

, Baldi, or Baldius, a native of Florence, in the seventeenth century, was a very eminent physician and medical writer. He was reader on medicine in the university of Rome, where he held a canon’s place, and acquired the first reputation throughout Italy. His great ambition was to be physician to pope Innocent X. which he had no sooner obtained than he contracted a distemper which proved fatal a few months after his promotion. None of his biographers give the date of his death (probably about 164. ), but all attribute it to the luxurious change in the mode of living at court. He published many works which bear a high character, and among others: 1. “Praelectio de Contagione pestifera,” Rome, 1631, 4to. 2. “Disquisitio iatrophysica de Aere,” Rome, 1637, 4to, 3. “De loco affecto in pleuritide disceptationes,” Paris, 1640, 8vo Rome, 1643, &c.

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.

, the most famous master in the art of penmanship, and all its relative branches, of his time, in our country, was born in 1547. Anthony Wood says he was a most dextrous person in his profession, to the great wonder of scholars and others, and adds, “That he spent several years in sciences among the Oxonians, particularly, as it seems, in Gloucester hall but that study which he used for a diversion only, proved at length an employment of profit.” It seems probable, however, that he resided at that university to teach his own art, for profit. The earliest account we have of his skill, mentions a micrographical performance, in which the writing was so wonderfully small, yet so very legible, that it surprised all who saw it, and advanced his name into Holinshed’s Chronicle. This delicate specimen of his art is also thus celebrated by Mr. Evelyn. “Adrian Junius speaks of that person as a miracle (F. Alumnus), who wrote the apostles’ creed, and beginning of St. John’s gospel, in the compass of a farthing. What would he have thought of our famous Bales, who, in 1557, wrote the Lord’s prayer, creed, decalogue, with two short Latin prayers, his own name, motto, day of the month, year of our Lord, and of the queen’s reign, to whom he presented it at Hampton court, all within the circle of a single penny, enchased in a ring and border of gold, and covered with crystal, so nicely wrote as to be plainly legible, to the admiration of her majesty, her privy council, and several ambassadors who then saw it.” He wasalso skilled in other excellencies of the pen, which seem to have recommended him to employment, upon certain particular emergencies, under the secretary of state, about 1586, when the conspiracies of Mary queen of Scots with the Popish faction were discovered. And as sir Francis Walsingham had other able instruments to unveil the disguised correspondence which passed between them, he had also need of some one who was expert in the imitation of hands, and could add, according to instruction, any postscript, or continuation of one, in the very form and turn of letters wherein the rest of the epistle was written, to draw out such farther intelligence as was wanted for a complete discovery from the traitors themselves, of their treasonable intercourse. Mr. Bales was famous for this dangerous talent, and was employed to exercise the same, sometimes, for the service of the state. A few years after, about 1589, and not long before the death of the said secretary, Bales, by a friend, complained that some preferment which he had been led to expect, had not been settled upon him, for what he had formerly performed in behalf of the government before the said queen’s death and, upon the merit of this service, he was several years after in quest of a place at court, though we cannot find that he ever obtained it. It appears also, that he had some occasion given him to write er speak something in defence of accurate penmen, or those who were masters in the art of writing, against the unreasonable and illiberal insinuations of some supercilious courtier, who would have objected his profession against his promotion, as if writing were but a mechanic art, and the masters of it fitter to guide the hands of boys than the heads of men. Bales took much pains to confute these objections, and although disappointed, he continued to follow his business, teaching the sons and daughters of many persons of distinction, some at their own houses, others at his school, situated at the upper end of the Old Bailey, where also some of the best citizens sent their children. Here we find him in 1590, publishing the first fruits of his pen, as he observes in his epistle, his “Writing Schoolmaster, in three parts.” From the first of which, shewing how, by the contraction of words into literal abbreviations, the pen of a writer may keep pace with the tongue of a moderate speaker, Mr. Evelyn conceived he was the inventor of short-hand, but he was rather the improver of a scheme published about two years before (1588) by Dr. Timothy Bright, a physician of Cambridge yet his improvement was so great as perhaps to constitute him the founder of all those successive systems of short-hand which have since led to perfection in this useful art.

, an eminent divine of the church of England in the last century, was born on the 12th of August 1686, at Sheffield in Yorkshire. His father, Thomas JBalguy, who died in 1696, was master of the free grammarschool in that place, and from him he received the first rudiments of his grammatical education. After his father’s death he was put under the instruction of Mr. Daubuz, author of a commentary on the Revelations, who succeeded to the mastership of the same school, Sept. 23, 1696, for whom he always professed a great respect. In 1702 he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the care of Dr. Edmondson and of Dr. Lambert, afterwards master of that college. He frequent^ lamented, in the succeeding part of his life, that he had wasted nearly two years of his residence there in reading romances. But, at the end of that tinie happening to meet with Livy, he went through him with great delight, and afterwards applied himself to serious studies. In 1705-6, he was admitted to the degree of B. A. and to that of M. A. in 1726. Soon after he had taken his bachelor’s degree, he quitted the university, and was engaged, for a while, in teaching the free school at Sheffield, but whether he was chosen master, oxonly employed during a vacancy, does not appear. On the 15th of July 1708, he was taken into the family of Mr. Banks, as private tutor to his son, Joseph Banks, esq. air terwards of Reresby in the county of Lincoln, and grandfather of the present sir Joseph Banks, K. B. so eminently distinguished for his skill in natural history, and the expences, labours, and voyages, he has undergone to promote that part of science. Mr. Balguy, in 1710, was admitted to deacon’s orders, and in 1711 to priest’s by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York. By Mr. Banks’ s means, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Mr. Bright of Badsworth, in the county of York, and was by him recommended to his father, sir Henry Liddel, of llavensworth castle, who in 1711 took Mr. Balguy into his family, and bestowed upon him the donative of Lamesly and Tanfield in that county. For the first four years after he had obtained thissmall preferment, he did not intermit one week without composing a new sermon and desfrous that so excellent an example should be followed by his son, he destroyed almost his whole stock, and committed, at one time, two hundred and fifty to the flames. In July 1715, he married Sarah, daughter of Christopher and Sarah Broomhead of Sheffield. She was born in 1686, and by her he had only a son, the late Dr. Thomas Balguy, archdeacon of Winchester. After his marriage he left sir Henry Liddel' s family, and lived at a house not far distant, called Cox close, where he enjoyed, for many years, the friendship of George Liddel, esq. member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, a younger son of sir Henry, who usually resided at Raven sworth castle. The first occasion of Mr. Balguy’s appearance as an author, was afforded by the Bangorian controversy. In 1718 he published, without his name, “Silvius’s examination of certain doctrines lately taught and defended by the. llev. Mr. Stebbing;” and, in the following year, “Silvius’s letter to the Rev. Dr, Sherlock.” Both of these performances were written in vindication of bishop Hoadly. Mr. Stehbing having written against these pamphlets, Mr. Balguy, in 1720, again appeared from the press, in the cause of the-bishop, in a tract entitled “Silvius’s defence of a dialogue between a Papist and a Protestant, in answer to the Rev. Mr. Stebbing; to which are added several remarks and observations upon that author’s manner of writing.” This also being answered by Mr. Stebbing, Mr. Balguy had prepared a farther defence but Dr. Hoadly prevailed Upon him to suppress it, on account of the public’s having grown weary of the controversy, and the unwillingness of the booksellers to venture upon any new works relating to it, at their own risk, For a different reason the bishop persuaded him, though with difficulty, to abstain from printing another piece which he had written, called “A letter to Dr. Clarke/' of whom, through his whole life, he was a great admirer. In 1726 he published” A letter to a deist cocerning the beauty and excellence of Moral Virtue, and the support and improvement which it receives from the Christian revelation.“In this treatise he has attacked, with the greatest politeness, and with equal strength of reason, some of the principles advanced by lord Shaftesbury, in his” Inquiry concerning Virtue.“On the 25th of January, 1727-8, Mr. Balguy was collated, by bishop Hoadly, to a prebend in the church of Salisbury, among the advantages of which preferment was the right of presenting to four livings, and of presenting alternately to two others. The best of them did not fall in his life-time. But two small livings were disposed of by him one to the Rev. Christopher Robinson, who married his wife’s sister; the other to his own son. In 1727 or 1728, he preached an assize sermon at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the subject of which was party spirit. It was printed by order of the judges, and either inscribed or dedicated to Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham.” The foundation of Moral Goodness, or a farther inquiry into the original of our idea of Virtue,“was published by him in 1728, This performance, which is written in a very masterly and candid manner, was in, answer to Mr. Hutcheson’s” Inquiry into the original of our ideas of Beauty and Virtue“and its design is to shew that moral goodness does not depend solely upon instincts and affections, but is grounded on the unalterable reason of things. Mr. Balguy acquired, about this time, the friendship of Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, for which he was chiefly indebted to Dr. llundle, afterwards bishop of Derry though something, perhaps, might be due to his acquaintance with Dr. Benson, Dr. Seeker, and Dr. Butler. Through the assistance of his friends in the chapter of Durham, supported by the good offices of bishop Talbot, he obtained, on the 12th of August 1729, the vicarage of North-AJlerton in Yorkshire, at that time worth only 270l. a year, on which preferment he continued to his death. This was, in some measure, his own fault, for he neglected all the usual methods of recommending himself to his superiors. He had many invitations from Dr. Blackburne, archbishop of York, and Dr. Chandler, bishop of Durham but he constantly refused to accept of them. In the same year he published ”The second part of the foundation of Moral Goodness illustrating and enforcing the principles and reasonings contained in the former being an answer to certain remarks communicated by a gentleman to the author.“The writer of these remarks was lord Darcy. His next publication was” Divine Rectitude or, a brief inquiry concerning the Moral Perfections of the Deity, particularly in respect of Creation and Providence.“A question then much agitated was, concerning the first spring of action in the Deity. This is asserted by our author to be rectitude, while Mr. Grove contended that it is wisdom, and Mr. Bayes, a dissenting minister of Tunbridge, that it is benevolence. The difference between Mr. Grove and Mr. Balguy was chiefly verbal but they both differed materially from Mr. Bayes, as they supposed that God might have ends in view, distinct from, and sometimes interfering with the happiness of his creatures. The essay on divine rectitude was followed by” A second letter to a deist, concerning a late book, entitled ‘ Christianity as old as the Creation,’ more particularly that chapter which relates to Dr. Clarke.“To this succeeded” The law of Truth, or the obligations of reason essential to all religion to which are prefixed some remarks supplemental to a late tract entitled “Divine Rectitude.” All the treatises that have been mentioned (excepting the assize sermon, and the pieces which were written in the Bangorian controversy) were collected, after having gone through several separate editions, by Mr. Balguy, into one volume, and published with a dedication to bishop Hoadly. This dedication was reprinted in the late edition of the works of that prelate, together with two letters of the bishop relating to it, one to Mr. Balguy, and the other to lady Sundon. The greatest regard for our author is expressed by Dr. Hoadly in both these letters, and he acknowledges the pleasure it gave him to receive the sincere praises of a man whom he so highly esteemed. In 1741 appeared Mr. Balguy’s “Essay on Redemption,” in which he explains the doctrine of the atonement in a manner similar to that of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, but Hoadly was of opinion he had not succeeded. This, and his volume of sermons, iittluding six which had been published before, were the last pieces committed by him to the press . A posthumous volume was afterwards printed, which contained almost the whole of the sermons he left behind him. Mr, Balguy may justly he reckoned among the divines and writers who rank with Clarke and Hoadly, in maintaining what they term the cause of rational religion and Christian liberty. His tracts will be allowed to be masterly in their kind, by those who may not entireJy agree with the philosophical principles advanced in them and his sermons have long been held in esteem, as some of the best in the English language. He was remarkable for his moderation to dissenters of every denomination, not excepting even Roman Catholics, though no man had a greater abhorrence of popery. Among the Presbyterians and Quakers he had a number of friends, whom he loved and valued, and with several of them he kept up a correspondence of letters as well as visits. Among other dissenters of note, he was acquainted with the late lord Barrington, and Philips Glover, esq. of Lincolnshire, author of an “Inquiry concerning Virtue and Happiness,” published after his decease in 1751. With the last gentleman Mr. Balguy had a philosophical correspondence. Having always had a weakly constitution, his want of health induced him, in the decline of life, to withdraw almost totally from company, excepting what he found at Harrogate, a place which he constantly frequented every season, and where at last he died, on the 21st of September, 1748, in the sixtythird year of his age. With regard co the letter to Dr. Clarke, which Hoadiy prevented him from publishing, we have the following information from a note in the Biographia Britannica. “From two letters of bishop Hoadly to Mr. Balguy, it appears that both the bishop and Dr. Clarke were exceedingly fearful of any thing’s being published which might be prejudicial to the doctor’s interest so that he could not then (1720) have come to the resolution which he afterwards formed, of declining farther preferment, rather than repeat his subscription to the thirty-nine articles. The solicitude of Dr. Hoadly and Dr. Clarke to prevent Mr. Balguy’s intended publication, was the more remarkable, as it did not relate to the Trinity, or to any obnoxious point in theology; but to the natural immortality of the soul, and such philosophical questions as might have been deemed of an innocent and indifferent nature.”

, a learned French writer, was born in 1631, at Tulles, in the province of Guienne, where he began his education, and finished it at Toulouse, obtaining a scholarship in the college of St. Martial. In 1656, Peter de Marca, archbishop of Toulouse, invited him to Paris, which he accepted, and in a little time gained the esteem and entire ron-adence of this prelate. But upon his death, in June 1662, Baluze, looking out for another patron, was agreeably prevented by M. le Tellier, afterwards chancellor of France, who having an intention to engage him in the service of abbe le Tellier his son, afterwards archbishop of Rheims, made him several considerable presents. Some obstacles, however, having happened to prevent his continuance in this family, and Mr. Colbert having offered to make Baluze his library-keeper, he accepted the office with the consent of M. le Tellier. He continued in, this employment till some time after the death of M. Colbert when, not being so well treated by the archbishop of Rouen, he declined being any longer librarian. The excellent collection, however, of manuscripts, and many other books, which are to be found in that library, was formed by his care and advice.

, a French writer, Lorn in 1594 at Angouleme. When about seventeen years of age he went to Holland, where he composed a discourse on the state of the United Provinces. He accompanied also the duke d'Epernon to several places. In 1621 he was taken into the service of the cardinal de la Valette, with whom he spent eighteen months at Rome. Upon his return he retired to his estate at Balzac, where he remained for several years, till he was drawn thence by the hopes he had conceived of raising his fortune under cardinal llichelieu, who had formerly courted his friendship but being in a few years tired of the dependent state of a court- life, he went again to his country retirement all he obtained from the court was a pension of two thousand livres, with the addition of the titles of counsellor of state and historiographer of France, which he used to call magnificent trifles, He was much esteemed as a writer, especially for his letters, which went through several editions, but there were in his own time some critics who started up against him the chief of these was a young Feuillant, named Andre de St. Denis, who wrote a piece entitled, “The conformity of M. de Balzac’s eloquence, with that of the greatest men in the past and present times.” Although this piece was not printed, yet it was circulated very extensively, which made Balzac wish to have it publicly refuted, which was accordingly done by prior Ogier in 1627, with the assistance of Balzac himself. Father Goulu, general of the Feuillants, undertook the cause of brother Andre, and, under the title of Phyllarchus, wrote two volumes of letters against Balzac. Several other pieces were also written against him, but he did not think proper then to answer his adversaries he did, indeed, write an apology for himself, but this was never made public till it appeared witli some other pieces of his in 1645. The death of his chief adversary father Goulu having happened in 1629, put an end to all his disputes, and restored him to a state of tranquillity for father Andre de St. Denis, who had been the first aggressor, became heartily reconciled, and went to pay him a visit at Balzac.

Of all these, his Letters, of which there is an English translation, and which passed through many editions in French, contributed most to his reputation. During his time he was not only deemed the most eloquent, but the only eloquent writer, and Maynard, a contemporary poet, pronounced him not mortal who could speak like Balzac. It was not only by such praises that he was encouraged. It became a fashion to write to Balzac, in hopes of an answer, which was a treasure worth boasting of. “1 am,” says he, “the butt of all the aukward compliments in Christendom, not to speak of the genteel ones, which give me still more trouble. I am harassed I am teazed to death with encomiums from the four quarters of the globe yesterday, there lay upon the table tir'ty letters requiring answers and oh unconscionable! well turned, eloquent answers answers it to be shewn, copied, and printed. At this instant, I see before me not less than a hundred letters, which must all have their answers; I am in arrears to crowned heads.” As he seems, therefore, to have suspected the use that would be made of his letters, we cannot be surprised at the artificial and inflated style which frequently occurs, Voltaire, however, allows that he contributed to the harmony of French prose. But the magic which gave them for many years an unprecedented popu<­larity was dispelled probably in Boileau’s time, who asserts that what Balzac employed himself most upon, viz. writing letters, was what he least understood in them all, he adds, we meet with the two faults that are the most inconsistent with the epistolary style affectation, and bombast. Boileau, also, in his two letters to the marechal de Vivonne, very successfully imitates the style of Balzac and Voiture but Dr. Warton considers Balzac as much superior to Voiture, and adds, that although he was affectedly turgid, pompous, and bloated on all subjects and on all occasions alike, yet he was the first that gave form and harmony to the French prose.

The turn which Banier had for researches of this nature, perpetually incited him to carry them to their utmost stretch his knowledge of the learned languages made him, perhaps of all others, the most equal to the task nor can there be more convincing instances of his excellence as a writer, than his historical explanation, and his thirty dissertations before the academy of belles lettres, which are now printed in the memoirs of that body, either entire or by extracts. The lists may be seen in the third volume of the panegyrics upon their deceased members, printed in 12mo, at Paris, 1740. There are also to be found the titles of many other essays, on subjects different from mythology, and which prove in how extensive a circle the abilities of Banier were capable of moving. In 1725, he gave new life to “The treatises on History and Literature,” under the fictitious name of Vigneul Marville, but whose real author was Bonaventure d'Argonne, a carthusian friar. Three editions of this work had been already published, and in the third volume of the third edition, which was an appendix to the whole, scarce any thing appeared but articles relating to the former part of it, and an index referring to the pages in which the principal matters were contained. Banier added those articles to their proper subjects in the two first volumes, which were injudiciously designed to have been read as detached pieces in the third. And in return for having stripped this last volume, the able editor has replaced it by a new one which is filled with tracts of history, anecdotes of literature, critical remarks, comparisons, extracts from scarce and valuable books, sentiments on various authors, refutations of errors and ridiculous customs; together with memorable sayings and lively repartees.

, an English miscellaneous writer of some note, was born at Sunning, in Berkshire, in 1709, and put apprentice to a weaver at Reading but accidentally breaking his arm before the expiration of his time, he was unable to follow his trade, and for some time, probably, lived upon charity. Ten pounds, however, being left him by a relation, he came up to London, and set up a book-stall in Spital-nelds, hoping to be as lucky as Duck, who about this time raised himself to notice by his poem called “The Thresher,” in imitation of which Banks wrote “The Weaver’s Miscellany,” but without success, which he afterwards acknowledged was not unjust. He then quitted this settlement, and lived some time with Mr. Montague, a bookseller and bookbinder, employing his leisure hours in the composition of small poems, for a collection of which he solicited a subscription, and sent his proposals, with a poem, to Mr. Pope, who answered him in a letter, and subscribed for two copies. He was afterwards concerned in a large work in folio, intituled the “Life of Christ,” which was drawn up with much piety and exactness. He also wrote the celebrated “Critical Review of the Life of Oliver Cromwell,” 12mo, which has been often printed, and is, upon the whole, an impartial work. Towards the end of his life he was employed in writing the Old England and Westminster Journals, and was now enabled to live in easy circumstances. He died of a nervous disorder at Islington, April 19, 1751. His biographer represents him as a pleasing and acceptable companion, and a modest and unassuming man, free from every inclination to engage in contests, or indulge envy or malevolence.

, an English dramatic writer, was bred an attorney at law, and belonged to the society of New-inn. The dry study of the law, however, not being so suitable to his Natural disposition as the more elevated flights of poetical imagination, he quitted the pursuit of riches in the inns of court, to attend on the muses in the theatre, but here he found his rewards hy no melins adequate to his deserts. His emoluments at the best were precarious, and the various successes of his pieces too feelingly convinced him of the error in his choice. Yet this did not prevent him from pursuing with cheerfulness the path he had taken his thirst of fame, and warmth of poetic enthusiasm, alleviating to his imagination many disagreeably circumstances, into which indigence, the too frequent attendant on poetical pursuits, often threw him. His turn was entirely to tragedy his merit in which is of a peculiar kind. For at the same time that his language must be confessed to be extremely unpoetical, and his numbers uncouth and inharmonious nay, even his characters, very far from being strongly marked qr distinguished, and his episodes extremely irregular yet it is impossible to avoid being deeply affected at the representation, and even at the reading of riis tragic pieces. This is owing in general to a happy choice of his subjects, which are all borrowed from history, either rpal or romantic, and most of them from circumstances in the annals of our own country, which, not only from their being familiar to our continual recollection, but even from their having some degree of relation to ourselves, we are apt to receive with a kind of partial prepossession, and a predetermination to be pleased. He has constantly chosen as the basis of his plays such tales as were, in themselves and their wellknown catastrophes, best adapted to the purposes of the drama. He has, indeed, seldom varied from the strictness of historical facts, yet he seems to have made it his constant rule to keep the scene perpetually alive, and never suffer his characters to droop. His verse is not poetry, but prose run mad, Yet will the false gem sometimes approach so near in glitter to the true one, at least in the eyes of all but the real connoisseurs, that bombast frequently passes for the true sublime and where it is rendered the vehicle of incidents in themselves affecting, and in which the heart is apt to take an interest, it will perhaps be found to have a stronger power on the human passions, than even that property to which it is in reality no more than a bare succedaneum. On this account only Mr. Banks’s writings have in general drawn more tears from the eyes, and excited more terror in the breasts even, of judicious audiences, than those of much more correct ariid more truly poetical authors. The tragedies he has left behind him are seven in number, yet few of them have been performed for some years past, excepting “The Unhappy Favourite, or Earl of Essex,” which continued till very lately a stock tragedy at both theatres. The writers on dramatic subjects have not ascertained either the year of the birth, or that of the death of this author. His last remains, however, lie interred in the church of St. James, Westminster.

, the son of Candiano Barbaro, was an accomplished soldier and a man of letters. He was a scholar of the celebrated Chrysoloras, under whom he studied Greek and Latin. His character raised him to the highest offices in the republic of Venice, and he acquired great reputation on account of the bravery with which he defended the city of Brescia, when governor, against the forces of the duke of Milan. It was riot less to his credit that he was able to reconcile the two opposite factions of the Avogadri and the Martinenghi, and prevailed on them to support the common cause. He died procurator of St. Mark, in 1454. Rewrote a Latin treatise on marriage, which was published by Badius Ascensius, in Paris, 1513, 4to, entitled “F. Barbari patricii Veneti oratorisque clarissimi de Re Uxoria libelli duo.” It is a work of pure morality, and contains excellent advice, in a very perspicuous style, and has been often reprinted, and translated into French. Barbaro also translated the lives of Aristides and Cato from Plutarch, and his letters were printed at Brescia, 1743, 4to. Bayle has a long note, by which it appears somewhat doubtful, whether the defender of Brescia and the writer of the “De Re Uxoria,” were the same person.

, was an elegant writer in the sixteenth century but whether he was English or Scotch by birth is disputed. It seems most probable that he was Scotch, but others have contended that he was born in Somersetshire, where there is both a village called Barcley, and an ancient family of the same name, yet there is no such village, except in Gloucestershire, and Mr. Warton thinks he was either a Gloucestershire or Devonshire man. But of whatever country he was, we know nothing of him, before his coming to Oriel college in Oxford, about 1495, when Thomas Cornish was provost of that house. 'Having distinguished himself there, by the quickness of his parts, and his attachment to learning, he went into Holland, and thence into Germany, Italy, and France, where he applied himself assiduously to the* languages spoken in those countries, and to the study of the best authors in them, and made a wonderful proficiency, as appeared after his return home, by many excellent translations which he published. His patron was now become bishop of Tyne, and suftragan under the bishop of Wells, who first made him his chaplain, and afterwards appointed him one of the priests of St. Mary, at Ottery in Devonshire, a college founded by John Grandison bishop of Exeter. After the death of this patron, he became a monk of the order of St. Benedict, and afterwards, as some say, a Franciscan. He was also a monk of Ely, and upon the dissolution of that monastery in 1539, he was left to be provided for by his patrons, of which his works had gained him many. He seems to have had, first, the vicarage of St. Matthew at Wokey, in Somersetshire, on the death of Thomas Eryngton, and afterwards was removed from that small living to a better, if indeed he received not both at the same time. It is more certain, that in Feb. 1546, being then doctor of divinity, he was presented to the vicarage of Much-Badew, or, as it is commonly called, Baddow-Magna, in the county of Essex and diocese of London, by Mr. John Pascal, on the death of Mr. John Clowes; and the dean and chapter of London, upon the resignation of William Jennings, rector of Allhallows, Lombard-street, on the 30th of April 1552, presented him to that living, which he did not however enjoy above the space of six weeks. He was admired in his lite-time for his wit and eloquence, and for a fluency of style not common in that age. This recommended him to many noble patrons though it does not appear that he was any great gainer by their favour, otherwise than in his reputation. He lived to a very advanced age, and died at Croydon in Surrey, in month of June, 15-52, and was interred in the church there. Bale has treated his memory with great indignity he says, he remained a scandalous adulterer under colour of leading a single life but Pits assures us, that he employed all his study in favour of religion, and in reading and writing the lives of the saints. There is probably partiality in both these characters but that he was a polite writer, a great refiner of the English tongue, and left behind him many testimonies of his wit and learning, cannot be denied.

, a learned and eminent Civilian, was born in Aberdeenshire, in 1541, and descended from one of the best families in Scotland. He was in favour with Mary queen of Scots but, after that princess was dethroned, and detained in captivity in England, finding that he had no prospect of making his fortune in the court of her son James, he resolved to retire into France, which. he did about 1573. He was then more than thirty years of age, and went to Bourges, in order to study law. He there took his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and had applied himself so closely to his books, that he was qualified to fill a chair. Edmund Hay, the Jesuit, who was his countryman, and is said to have been related to him, procured him accordingly a professorship in civil law in the university of Pontamousson, by his interest with the duke of Lorrain, who had lately founded that seminary. And the duke not only conferred upon Barclay the first professorship, but also appointed him counsellor of state, and master of requests. In 1581, Barclay married Anne de Malleville, a young lady of Lorrain, by whom he had his son John, who afterwards became a writer of considerable note, and whom the Jesuits endeavoured to prevail on to enter into their society. But Barclay opposing their scheme, the Jesuits resented it so highly, and did him so many ill offices with the duke, that he was obliged to leave Lorrain. He then went to London, where king James I. is said to have offered him a place in his council, with a considerable pension but he declined these offers, because it was made a necessary condition of his accepting them, that he should embrace the protestant religion. In 1604, he returned into France, and accepted the professorship of the civil law, which was offered him by the university of Angers. He taught there with reputation, and is said to have been fond of making a splendid appearance in his character of professor. But he did not hold this office long, dying in 1606. He was buried in the church of the Franciscans. He appears to have been much prejudiced against the Protestants and was a zealous advocate for passive obedience, and the divine right of kings, as appears from his writings, of which the following are “the principal, 1.” De Reguo et llegali Potestate ad versus Buchananum, Brutum, Boucherium, et reliquos Monarchoniachos,“Paris, 1600, dedicated to Henry IV. 2.” De Potestate Papse, quatenus in Reges et Principes seculares Jus et Imperium habeat,“Franco!'. 1609, 1613, 1621, Hannovias, 1612, in 8vo, and Lond. in English, 1611, in 4to, Mussiponti, 1610, 8vo, and Parisiis, 1600, 4to. In this he proves that the pope has no power, direct or indirect, over sovereigns in temporals, and that they who allow him, any such power, whatever they may intend, do very great prejudice to the Roman catholic religion. 3.” A commentary upon the Title of the Pandects de Rebus creditis et de Jure] urando,“Paris, 1605, 8vo. 4.” Prcemetia in vitam Agricolse," Paris, 1599, 2 vols. 8vo. This last is said to be an excellent commentary on Tacitus. There are two letters from him to Lipsius in Burman’s Sylloges Epistolarum, and four from Lipsius to him.

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.

Mr. Barclay vyas in private life a man of a very amiable character, and may justly be celebrated by those of his sect, as their ablest defender. In this respect, however, the editors of the Biographia Britannica, from which the present sketch is taken, have surely gone too far, in asserting that his defence of quakerism was unanswerable. It is necessary, says a recent and acute writer, to enter into the true spirit of Barclay’s writings. This ingenious man appeared as a patron and defender of quajcerism, and not as a professed teacher or expositor of its various doctrines and he interpreted and modified the opinions of this sect after the manner of an advocate, who undertakes the defence of an unpopular cause. In the first place, he obeervep an entire silence in relation to those fundamental principles of Christianity, concerning which it was of great consequence to know the real opinions of the Quakers and thus he exhibits a system of theology that is evidently lame and imperfect. Secondly, he touches, in a slight and superficial manner, some tenets, the explanation of which had exposed the Quakers to severe censure and, lastly, he employs the greatest dexterity and art in softening and modifying those invidious doctrines which he cannot conceal, and presumes not to disavow for which purpose he carefully avoids all those phrases and terms which are used by the Quakers, and are peculiar to their sect, and expresses their tenets in ordinary language, in terms of a vague and indefinite nature, and in a style that casts a sort of mask over their natural aspect. And with all the reputation he acquired, it has been thought that Perm and Whitehead declared the sentiments of the sect with far more freedom, perspicuity, and candour.

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.

, 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,

, a learned and voluminous writer, was born Sept. 28, 1488, at Barland, a village of Zealand, from which he took his name. His father sent him to Ghent at the age of eleven, where he studied the classics under Peter Scot, a man eminently skilled in the ancient orators and poets, who, discovering his pupil’s promising talents, and that he excelled all his schoolfellows, bestowed particular care in cultivating his mind. At the expiration of four years, he went, in compliance with his father’s wish* to Loitvaine, an university which Barland allows to be very celebrated* but where, he says, he passed his time, without much acquisition of knowledge, and had nearly forgot what he had learned at Ghent. Representations of this kind, from young men, are generally to be suspected. Barland does not inform us how he was employed during the four years he passed at this university. It is certain, however, that he was admitted master of arts in his twentieth year, r and soon after returned to his classical studies, which he cultivated with such success, that he was enabled to teach and for more than nine years had a very flourishing school. According to Andreas Valerius, he taught Latin in the college of the three languages, called Busleiden, at Louvaine. In 1518 he went into England, but soon after, we find him at Afflinghem, superintending the studies of one of his Lonvaine pupils. In 152G he was invited to the professorship of rhetoric at Louvaine, which he continued to hold until his death in 1542. In 1603, a collection of some of his works was published at Cologne, under the title of “Historica,” all of which had been published separately, except a letter to one of his friends, in which he gives an account of his early studies. Besides these, he published, 1. “In omnes Erasmi Adagiorum chiliados epitome,” Colon. 1524, fol. 2. “Historica narratio Papiensis obsidionis anni 1525,” printed in the second volume of Schardius’s German writers. 3. “Dialogi ad profligandam e scholis barbariem,” the best edition of which is that of 1530. 4. “De Litteratis urbis Roma principibus opusculum. Elysii Calentii oppido quam elegantes epistolse, a Barlando recognitas et argumentis auctae. Menandri dicta eximia, adnotationibus illustrata,” Louvaine, 1515, 4to. 5. “Epistola de ratione studii.” 6. “Commentarii in Terentii comedias,” added to the Paris editions of Terence, 1522, 1552, and that of Francfort, 1637, fol. 7. “Enarrationes in quatuor libros Eneidos Virgilianse,” Antwerp, 1529 and 1535, 4to. He also published scholia, on some of Pliny’s epistles, and other classical authors.

, son of the above, an eminent mathematician and divine, in the sixteenth century, was born in Pembrokeshire. In 1560 he was entered commoner of Baliol college in Oxford; and in 1564, having taken a degree in arts, he left the university, and went to sea; but in what capacity is uncertain however, he thence acquired considerable knowledge in the art of navigation, as his writings afterwards shewed. About the year 1573, he entered into orders, and became prebendary of Winchester, and rector of Easton, near that city. In 1588 he was made prebendary of Lichneld, which he exchanged for the office of treasurer of that church. He afterwards was appointed chaplain to prince Henry, eldest son of king James the first and in 1614, archdeacon of Salisbury. Barlowe was remarkable, especially for having been the first writer on the nature and properties pf the loadstone, twenty years before Gilbert published his book on that subject. He was the first who made the inclinatory instrument transparent, and to be used with a glass on both sides. It was he also who suspended it in a compass-box, where, with two ounces weight, it was made fit for use at sea. He also found out the difference between iron and steel, and their tempers for magnetical uses. He likewise discovered the proper way of touching magnetical needles and of piecing and cementing of loadstones and also why a loadstone, being double-capped, must take up so great a weight.

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.

, a dissenting minister, but most noted for his zeal as a political writer, was born at Leeds in Yorkshire, and educated at the university of Glasgow, which he quitted in 1740, with very honourable testimonies to his learning and personal character, from the celebrated Hutchinson, and the mathematical professor Simpson. Where he passed his time after this, we know not; but in 1753, he was ordained pastor of the dissenting meeting at Pinners’ hall, Broad-street, London, a congregation, if we are not mistaken, of the Baptist persuasion. What he was as a divine, is not very clear, but tho whole bent of his studies was to defend and advance civil and religious liberty. This zeal led the famous Thomas Hollis, csq. to engage his assistance in editing some of the authors in the cause of freedom, whose works he wished to reprint with accuracy, and in an elegant form. Toland’s Life of Milton, Milton’s Iconoclastes, and afterwards an Edition of Milton’s prose works, were prepared and corrected by Mr. Baron. For this task he was well qualified, being an industrious collector of books on the subject of constitutional liberty, several of which he communicated to Mr. Hollis, with ms notes, or memorandums of his own in the blank pages, in which, we are told, he was not always in the right. Still he was indefatigable in searching for what he reckoned scarce and valuable liberty-tracts, many of which Mr. Hollis bought of him while he lived, and others he bought at the sale of his books after his death. Mr. Baron, we are likewise told, “only breathed, he did not live, in his own estimation, but whilst he was in someway or other lending his assistance to the glorious cause of religious and civil liberty. He wrote, he published, and republished perpetually in its defence. His character was one of the most artless and undisguised in the world. He was a man of real and great learning of fixed and steady integrity and a tender and sympathizing heart.” Yet with such a heart, we are told, not very consistently, that had he been mindful of his domestic concerns, he might have left a competency behind for his wife and family, but his whole soul was engaged in the cause, and he neglected every other concern. For this absurd and unjust train of feeling, we are referred to the natural impetuosity of his temper, and his eccentricities, which indicated occasional derangements of mind. With many virtues, it is added, and a few faults, which must have been of a peculiar kind, since “they only wanted the elevation of a higher station and a better fate to have assumed the form of virtues,” Mr. Baron passed the greatest part of his life in penurious circumstances, which neither abated the generous ardour, or overcame the laudable independency of iiis spirit. These virtues, “with their blessed effects,” were all he left behind him, for the consolation and support of a widow and three children. He died at his house at Blackheath, Feb. 22, 1768. His principal publication was a collection of what he called liberty-tracts, first published in 2 vols. 1752, under the title of “The pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken.” In 1767, he prepared another edition, enlarged to four volumes, to be published by subscription. In his advertisement he describes himself as a man “who has been made a sacrifice to proud bigots, religious rogues, and psalm-singing hypocrites:” and flatters himself that his subscribers will “enable him to express his utter contempt, and everlasting abhorrence of them all.” To this meek wish, he adds an assurance that the *' names of the subscribers shall not be printed." This edition appeared after his death, and was published for the benefit of his family, along with a-new edition of Milton’s Eikonoclastes, and his manuscript sermons and papers.

, an eminent ecclesiastical writer, and a cardinal of the Roman church, was born at Sora, an episcopal city in the kingdom of Naples, October the 30th, 1538, of Camillo Baronio and Porcia Phebonia, who educated him with great care. He went through his first studies at Veroli, and afterwards applied himself to divinity and civil law at Naples. But the troubles of that kingdom obliged his father to remove him in 1557 to Rome, where he finished his studies in the law under Cesar Costa, afterwards archbishop of Capua, and put himself under the discipline of St. Philip de Neri, founder of the congregation of the oratory, who employed him in the familiar instructions which his clerks gave to the children. After he was ordained priest, St. Philip de Neri sent him, with some of his disciples, in 1564, to establish his congregation in the church of St. John the Baptist. He continued there till 1576, when he was sent to 8,t. Mary in Vallicella, and in both houses he was much admired for his pious zeal and charity. St. Philip de Neri having, in 1593, laid down the office of superior of the congregation of the oratory, thought he could not appoint a more worthy successor than Baronius, and pope Clement VIII. who knew his merit, in compliance with the desires of the founder and his congregation, approved the choice, and some time after made him his confessor. The esteem which that pope had for him, increased as he had an opportunity of growing more intimately acquainted with him, and induced him to appoint our author apostolical prothonotary in 1595, and to advance him to the dignity of cardinal, June 5th, 1596, to which he afterwards added the post of library-keeper to the see of Rome. Upon the death of Clement VIII. m 1605, Baronius had a great prospect of being chosen pope, one and thirty voices declaring for him; but the Spaniards strongly opposed his election on account of his treatise, “Of the Monarchy of Sicily,” in which he argued against the claim of Spain to Sicily. His intense application to his studies weakened his constitution in such a manner, that towards the end of his life he could not digest any kind of food. He died June the 30th, 1607, aged sixtyeight years and eight months, and was interred in the church of St. Mary in Vallicella, in the same tomb where his intimate friend cardinal Francesco Maria Taurusio was buried the year following. Dupin observes, that “an high regard ought to be paid to the memory of Baronius, who was a man of sincere religion, probity, learning, and extensive reading, and laboured with success for the service of the church, and the clearing up of ecclesiastical antiquity. But it were to be wished that he had been exempt from the prejudices which his education and country inspired him with*” In a book of lather Parsons, printed in 1607, and entitled “I)e sacris alienis non adeundis qusestiones du; ad usum praximque Angliae breviter explicate,” is published the judgment of Baronius, together with that of cardinal Bcllarmin and others, declaring that it was absolutely unlawful for the Roman Catholics to be present at the religious worship of the Protestants in England. The work for which Baronius was most celebrated, and which is certainly a wonderful monument of industry and research, was his “Ecclesiastical Annals.” He undertook this work at the age of thirty, and laboured for thirty years in collecting and digesting the materials for it, by reading over carefully the ancient monuments of the church, as well in printed books as in manuscripts, in the Vatican library. He published in 1588 the first volume, which contains the first century after the birth of Christ. The second, which followed after, contains two hundred and five years. These two volumes are dedicated to pope Sixtus V. The third, dedicated to king Philip 11. of Spain, comprehends the history of fifty-five years immediately following. The fourth, dedicated to Clement VIII. contains the history of thirty-four years, which end in the year 395. The fifth, dedicated to the same pope, as well as the following volumes, extends to the year 440. The sixth ends in the year 518. The seventh contains seventy-three years. The eighth extends to the year 714. The ninth, dedicated to king Henry IV. of France, concludes with the year 842. The tenth, dedicated to the emperor Rodolphus II. begins with the year 843, and reaches to 1000. The eleventh, dedicated to Sigismond III. king of Poland, and published in 1605, continues the history to the year 1099. The twelfth, printed under the pontificate of Paul V. in 1607, concludes with 1198. So that we have, in these twelve volumes, the history of the twelve first ages of the church. Henry Spoudunns informs us, that Baronius had left memoirs for three more volumes, which were used by Odoricus Kaynaldus in the continuation of his work. The first edition of Baronius’ s Annals, begun in 158S, and continued the following years, was printed at Rome, where the first volumes were reprinted in 1593. It was followed by some others, with alterations and additions. The second edition was that of Venice, and was begun in 1595. The third was printed at Cologne in 1596, and the foil owing years. The fourth at Antwerp in 1597, &c. The fifth at Mentz in 1601, The sixth at Cologne in 1609. There were several other editions published afterwards, at Amsterdam in 1610, at Cologne in 1624, at Antwerp in 1675, at Venice in 1705, and at Lucca in 1738—1759, by far the best. Before this, the best editions, according to the abbe Longlet de Fresnoy, in his “New method of studying History,” were that of Home, as the original, and that of Antwerp, and the most convenient for study, is that of Mentz, because the authorities of the ecclesiastical writers are marked in it by a different character from the text of Baronius, and the impression is in two columns. The edition of Cologne has the same advantage, though ill printed.

In 1725 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, his “Miscellanea Sacra: or, anew method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is contained in scripture; in an abstract of their history, an abstract of that abstract, and four critical essays.” In this work the noble author has traced, with great care and judgment, the methods taken by the apostles, and first preachers of the gospel, for propagating Christianity; and explained with great distinctness the several gifts of the spirit, by which they were enabled to disciiarge that office. These he improved into an argument for the truth of the Christian religion; which is said to have staggered the infidelity of Mr. Anthony Collins. In 1725 he published, in 8vo, “An Essay on the several dispensations of God to mankind, in the order in which they lie in the Bible; or, a short system of the religion of nature and scriptwre,” &c. He was also author of several other tracts, of which the principal were, 1. “.A Dissuasive from Jacobitism; shewing in general what the nation is to expect from a popish king; and, in particular, from the Pretender.” The fourth edition of this was printed in 8vo, in 1713. 2. “A Letter from a Layman, in communion with the church of England, though dissenting from her in some points, to the right rev. the bishop of ———, with a postscript, shewing how far the bill to prevent the growth of schism is inconsistent with the act of toleration, and the other laws of this realm.” The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 4to. 3. “The Layman’s Letter to the bishop of Bangor.” The second edition of this was published in 1716, 4to. 4. “An account of the late proceedings of the Dissenting-ministers at Salters’-hall; occasioned by the differences amongst their brethren in the country: with some thoughts concerning imposition of human forms for articles of faith;” in a letter to the rev. Dr. Gale, 1719, 8vo. 5. “A Discourse of natural and revealed Religion, and the relation they bear to each other,” 1732, 8vo. 6. “Reflections on the 12th query, contained in a paper, entitled Reasons offered against pushing for the repeal of the corporation and test-acts, and on the animadversions on the answer to it,” 1733, 8vo. A new edition of his “Miscellanea Sacra” was published in 1770, 3 vols. 8vo, under the revision of his son, the present learned and munificent bishop of Durham. Lord Barrington sometimes spoke in parliament, but appears not to have been a frequent speaker. He died at his seat at Becket in Berkshire, after a short illness, Dec. 4, 1734, in the 6Gth year of his age. He generally attended divine worship among the dissenters, and for many years received the sacrament at Pinner’s-hall, when Dr. Jeremiah Hunt, an eminent and learned non-conformist divine, was pastor of the congregation. He had formerly been an attendant on Mr. Thomas Bradbury, but quitted that gentleman on account of his zeal for imposing unscriptural terms upon the article of the Trinity. His lordship was a disciple and friend of Mr. Locke, had a high value for the sacred writings, and was eminently skilled in them. As a writer in theology, he contributed much to the diffusing of that spirit of free scriptural criticism, which has since obtained among all denominations of Christians. As his attention was much turned to the study of divinity, he had a strong sense of the importance of what is called free inquiry in matters of religion. In his writings, whenever he thought what he advanced was doubtful, or that his arguments were not strictly conclusive, though they might have great weight, he expressed himself with a becoming diffidence. He was remarkable for the politeness of his manners, and the gracefulness of his address. The only virulent attack we have seen against his lordship, occurs in lord Orford’s works, vol. I. p. 543, which from its contemptuous and sneering notice of the Barrington family, and especially the present worthy prelate, may be safely left to" its influence on the mind of any unprejudiced reader.

However, he wrote an ode upon that occasion, in which he introduces Britannia congratulating the king upon his return. In 1660, he was chosen, without a competitor, Greek professor of the university of Cambridge. His oration, spoken upon that occasion, is preserved among his Opuscula. When he entered upon this province, he designed to have read upon the tragedies of Sophocles: but, altering his intention, he made choice of Aristotle’s rhetoric. These lectures, having been lent to a person who never returned them, are irrecoverably lost. The year following, which was 1661, he took the degree of bachelor in divinity. July the 16th, 1662, he was elected professor of geometry in Gresham-college, in the room of Mr. Lawrence Rooke, chiefly through the interest and recommendation of Dr. Wilkins, master of Trinity-college, and afterwards bishop of Chester. In this station, he not only discharged his own duty, but supplied, likewise, the absence of Dr. Pope the astronomy professor. Among his lectures, some were upon the projection of the sphere which being borrowed and never returned, are lost but his Latin oration, previous to his lectures, is in his works. The same year, 1662, he wrote an epithalamium on the marriage of king Charles and queen Catherine, in Greek verse. About this time, Mr. Barrow was offered a valuable living, but the condition annexed of teaching the patron’s son, made him refuse it, as too like a simouiacal contract. Upon the 20th of May 1663, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in the first choice made by the council after their charter. The same year, Mr. Lucas having founded a mathematical lecture at Cambridge, Mr. Barrow was so powerfully recommended, by Dr. Wilkins, to that gentleman’s executors Mr. Raworth and Mr. Buck, that he was appointed the first professor; and the better to secure the end of so noble and useful a foundation, he took care that himself and his successors should be obliged to leave yearly to the university ten written lectures. We have his prefatory oration, spoken in the public mathematical school, March the 14th, 1664. Though his two professorships were not incompatible, he resigned that of Gresham-college, May the 20th, 1664. He had been invited to take the charge of the Cotton library; but, after ;a short trial, he declined it, and resolved to settle in the university. In 1669, he resigned the mathematical chair to his very worthy friend the celebrated Isaac Newton, being now determined to exchange the study of the mathematics for that of divinity, partly from a strong inclination for the latter, and partly because his mathematical works were less favourably received than he thought they deserved. In 1670, he wrote a Latin poem upon the death of the duchess of Orleans, an epicedium upon the duke of Albemarle, and a Latin ode upon the Trinity. He was only a fellow of Trinity-college, when he was collated by his uncle, the bishop of St. Asaph, to a small sinecure in Wales, and by Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, to a prebend in that cathedral; the profits of both which he applied to charitable uses, and afterwards resigned them, when he became master of his college. In the same year he was created doctor in divinity by mandate. In 1672, Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, being, upon the death of bishop Wilkins, removed to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Barrow was appointed by the king to succeed him; and his majesty was pleased to say upon that occasion, “he had given it to the best scholar in England.” His patent hears date February the 13th, 1672, with permission to marry, which he caused to be erased, as contrary to the statutes, and he was admitted the 27th of the same month. He gave the highest satisfaction to that society, whose interest he constantly and carefully consulted. In 1675, he was chosen vice-chancellor of the university. This great and learned divine died of a fever, the 4th of May 1677, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to him by the contribution of his friends. His epitaph was written by his friend Dr. Mapletoft. He left his manuscripts to Dr. Tillotson and Mr. Abraham Hill, with permission to publish what they should think proper. He left little behind him, except books, which were so well chosen, that they sold for more than the prime cost. Though he could never be prevailed to sit for his picture, some of his friends contrived to have it taken without his knowledge, whilst they diverted him with such discourse as engaged his attention. As to his person, he was low of stature, lean, and of a pale complexion, and negligent of his dress to a fault; of extraordinary strength, a thin skin, and very sensible of cold; his eyes grey, clear, and somewhat short-sighted; his hair a light brown, very fine, and curling. He was of a healthy constitution, very fond of tobacco, which he used to call his panpharmacon, or universal medicine, and imagined it helped to compose and regulate his thoughts. If he was guilty of any intemperance, it seemed to be in the love of fruit, which he thought very salutary. He slept little, generally rising in the winter months before day. His conduct and behaviour were truly amiable; he was always ready to assist others, open and communicative in his conversation, in which he generally spoke to the importance, as well as truth, of any question proposed; facetious in his talk upon fit occasions, and skilful to accommodate his discourse to different capacities; of indefatigable industry in various studies, clear judgment on all arguments, and steady virtue under all difficulties; of a calm temper in factious times, and of large charity in mean estate; he was easy and contented with a scanty fortune, and with the same decency and moderation maintained his character under the temptations of prosperity. In short, he was, perhaps, the greatest scholar of his times and, as an ingenious writer expresses it, “he may be esteemed as having shewn a compass of invention equal, if not superior, to any of the moderns, sir Isaac Newton only excepted.”

When a design was formed of decorating St. Paul’s cathedral with the works of our most eminent painters and sculptors, Barry was to have been employed, and his subject was “The Jews rejecting Christ, when Pilate entreats his release,” but the scheme was discouraged, and its probable success can now be only a subject of speculation. In 1775, he appeared as an author, in a publication entitled, an “Inquiry into the real and imaginary obstructions to the acquisition of the arts in England,” in answer to Winckleman. In this treatise there are some fanciful opinions, but upon the whole it is the best and most dispassionate of all the productions of his pen, and a masterly defence of the capabilities of English artists under proper encouragement; and it contains many just remarks on that state of public taste which is favourable to the perfection of the art. The same train of ideas has been since pursued by Mr. Shee, in his poetical works; an artist, whose productions of the pencil, great and superior as they are, suggest a doubt whether if he had been a writer, and only a writer, he would not have been the first man of his age, in the philosophy of the art, in exquisite fancy and taste, and that variety of imagery and illustration which belongs only to poets of the higher class.

Soon after this event, the earl of Buchan set on foot a subscription, which amounted to about 1000l. with which his friends purchased an annuity for his life; but his oeath prevented his reaping any benefit from this design. The manner of his death is thus related by his biographer: 44 On the evening of Thurday, Feb. 6, 1806, he was seized as he entered the house where he usually dint-d, with the cold fit of a pleuritic fever, of so intense a degree, that all his faculties were suspended, and he unable to articulate or move. Some cordial was administered to him, and on his coming a little to himself, he was taken in a coach to the door of his own house, which, the keyhole being plugged with dirt and pebbles, as had been often done before, by the malice, or perhaps the roguery of boys in the neighbourhood, it was impossible to open. The night being dark, and he shivering under the progress of his disease, hisfriends thought it advisable to drive away without loss of time to the hospitable mansion of Mr. Bononni. By the kindness of that good family, a bed was procured in a neighbouring house, to which he was immediately conveyed. Here he desired to be left, and locked himself up, unfortunately, for forty hours, without the least medical assistance. What took place in the mean time, he could give but little account of, as he represented himself to be delirious, and only recollected his being tortured with a burning pain in his side, and with difficulty of breathing. In this short time was the deathblow given, which, by the prompt and timely aid of copious bleedings, might have been averted; but without this aid, such had been the re-action of the hot fit succeeding the rigours, and the violence of the inflammation on the pleura, that an effusion of lymph had ' taken place, as appeared afterwards upon dissection. In the afternoon of Saturday, Feb. 8, he rose and crawled forth to relate his complaint to the writer of this account. He was pale, breathless, and tottering, as he entered the room, with a dull pain in his side, a cough short and incessant, and a pulse quick and feeble. Succeeding remedies proved of little avail. With exacerbations and remissions of fever, he lingered to the 22d of February, when he expired." His remains, after lying in state in the great room of the society of arts, Acielphi, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral, with solemnity, and the attendance of many of his friends and admirers, among whom was not one artist.

, an eminent French writer, was born at Cassis, a sea-port in Provence, the 20th Jan. 1716. His family had been long established at Aubagne, in that neighbourhood, where it had been universally respected. His mother, the daughter of a merchant at Cassis, he lost at the age of four years. When he arrived at the age of twelve years, he was sent to school at Marseilles, whence he was transferred to the seminary of the Jesuits, where he received the tonsure. While witli the Jesuits, he formed a plan of study for himself, independent of the professors of the college, and applied with unwholesome sedulity to the study of Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, and Syriac, by which he for some time lost his health, and nearly his life. At the beginning of this arduous course of study, he became acquainted with a young Maronite, who had been educated at Home, but was then resident at Marseilles, from whom he acquired a fundamental knowledge of the Arabic language, and learned to speak it with facility. By the advice of this person he committed to memory several Arabic sermons, which he delivered to a congregation of Arabian and Armenian Catholics, who were ignorant of the French language.

, a French physician and medical writer, was born Dec. 1734, at Montpellier, and discovered in his earliest years a noble ardour for study, particularly of the languages, both ancient and modern, which laid the foundation for that extensive and various knowledge for which he was afterwards distinguished. Having at length given the preference to medicine as a profession, he applied himself to that art under the ablest masters; and such was his proficiency, that he obtained his doctor’s degree in 1753, when only nineteen years of age. In 1756 he was crowned by the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris, having been before, in 1754, appointed physician to the military hospital in Normandy. During this service he made many observations and inquiries, which were published in the Memoirs of the academy of sciences. In 1757 he was sent to the army in Westphalia, with the rank of consulting physician, and in 1761 he was appointed professor of medicine at Moutpellier, where he became as celebrated as Boerhaave at Ley den, Stahl at Hall, or Cullen at Edinburgh, giving such a new direction to the medical studies as to create an important epoch in the history of that school. Here he filled the professor’s chair for twenty years, with the highest reputation. In 1775, he was named joint chancellor of the faculty of Montpellier, and in 1786 obtained the full title of chancellor. About six years before, he had been appointed member of the court of accounts and finance, and some time before that, physician to the duke of Orleans. About the time that he visited Paris, and formed an intimacy with the leading men in the learned world, particularly d'Alembert and Malesherbes, he became, a member of the academy of sciences of Paris, Berlin, Gottingen, and Stockholm. At length he was chosen corresponding member of the national institute of France, and professor, honorary and actual, of the new school of medicine at Montpellier, physician to the French government, and consulting physician to the emperor. He died at Paris, Oct. 15, 1806, aged seventy-two. His works, according to the Dict. Historique, are various medical theses and dissertations, memoirs published by various academies, particularly that of Paris, in the years 1799 and 1801; and, 1. “La nouvelle mecanique de l'homme et des animaux,” 1802. 2. “L'Histoire des maladies goutteuses,” Paris, 1802. 3. “Discours sur le genie d'Hippocrate,” pronounced in the school of Montpellier. 4. “Traite sur le Beau,” a posthumous work. In Fourcroy’s catalogue we find another publication attributed to him, under the title of “Elnathan, ou les ages de Phomme, trad, du Chaldeen,” 1802, 3 vols. 8vo. The compiler of this catalogue calls him Barthes-Marmorieres.

, a very learned and voluminous writer, was born at Custrin in Brandenburg, June 22, 1587. His father was professor of civil law at Franc fort upon the Oder, councillor to the elector of Brandenburg, and his chancellor at Custrin. Having discovered in his son very early marks of genius, he provided him with proper masters; but:ie enjoyed only a little time the pleasure of seeing the fruits of his care, for he died in 1597. Mr. Baiilet has inserted Caspar in his “Enfans celebres;” where he tells us, that, at twelve years of age, he translated David’s psalms into Latin verse of every measure, and published several Latin poems. Upon the death of his father he was sent to Gotha, then to Eisenach, and afterwards, according to custom, went through the different universities in Germany. When he had finished his studies, he began his travels; he visited Italy, France, Spain, England, and Holland, improving himself by the conversation and works of the learned in every country. He studied the modern as well as ancient languages, and his translations from the Spanish and French shew that he was not content with a superficial knowledge. Upon his return to Germany, to took up his residence at Leipsic, where he led a retired life, his passion for study having made him renounce all sort of employment; so that as he devoted his whole time to books, we need he the less surprised at the vast number which he published.

, 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.

du Fraqueny, second son of Benjamin, was born at St. Mere Eglise in Lower Normandy, Oct. 16, 1615. He was admitted an advocate in the parliament of Normandy in 1636, and proved one of the most learned and eloquent of his order, and was employed in a great many causes, as well as political affairs of importance, in all which he gave the greatest satisfaction. As a writer, likewise, he stood very high in the opinion of his countrymen. His “Commentiiire sur la Continue de Normandie,” or common law of Normandy, was first published in 1678, and was so much approved, that a new edition was published in 1694, 2 vols. fol. His “Traite des Hypotheques,” or Mortgages, was also so popular as to go through three editions before the above year. Notwithstanding his religion, persons of rank and influence in the Romish church, testified the highest esteem for him. He died at Roan, Oct. 20, 1695.

, esq. a gentleman of a good family, and a writer in the fifteenth century, was chamberlain, or gentleman of the privy chamber, to king Henry V. on whom he was a constant attendant and an eye-witness of most of his glorious actions both at home and abroad; all which he particularly described. Beginning at his tenderest years, he gave a full and exact account of Henry’s several expeditions into France; his glorious victories, large conquests, and illustrious triumphs in that kingdom; his advantageous and honourable peace with Charles VI. his marriage with the princess Catherine, his coronation at Paris: and, finally, his death, and the coronation of king Henry VI. his son and successor. These several remarkable events Peter Basset comprized in one volume, which he entitled “The Actes of king Henry V.” This book was never printed; and was said to be extant in manuscript in the college of heralds, and perhaps in some other places but upon the closest examination it appears that he is originally quoted only by Edward Hall, in his Chronicle, and perhaps by Bale. What has been quoted out of his writings, either by Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his “History of the reign of Henry the Fifth,” or by other historians within that period, is visibly borrowed from Hall. Dr. Nicolson mentions Basset only upon the authority of Pits, who Had taken his account from Bale.

, a very industrious French writer, was born at Marseilles, July 15, 1724, and after studying in his own country, came to Paris, where he engaged in a great variety of literary enterprises. He was editor of the “Bibliotheque universelle des Romans,” Paris, 1775 1789, 112 vols. 12mo, and the “Choix des anciens Mercures,” 1757 1764,' in Ids vols. 12mo. He also published, 1. “L'etre pensant,” a kind of romance, Paris, 1755, 12mo. 2. “Les choses comme ont doit les voir,” ibid. 1758, 8vo, in which he endeavours partly to excuse, and partly to reform, what is wrong in morals and manners. 3. “Le Nouveau Spectateur,” 2 vols. 8vo, an attempt at a periodical essay in the manner of the Spectator, but without the materials which a free country furnishes. 4. “Aventures de Victoire Ponty,” Amsterdam and Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Confessions d'un Fat,”' Paris, 174-9, 12mo. 6. “Le Depit et le Voyage,” a poem with notes, and “Letlres Venitiennes,” Paris, 1771, 8vo. 7. “Le Monde comme il est,” ibid. 1760, 4 vols. 12mo. 8. “Le Tombeau Philosophique,” Amsterdam, 1751, 12rno. 9. “Les Tetes Folles,” Paris, 1753, 12mo. 10. “Varietes Litteraires, Galantes, &c. ibid. 1774, 8vo. 11.” Le Tribunal de l'Amour,“ibid. 1750, 12mo. 12.” La Trentainede Cythere," Paris, 1753, 12mo. In the opinion of his countrymen, there are few of these works which rise above mediocrity, although the author generally pleases by his sprightly manner. The Dict. Hist, to which we are chiefly indebted for this article, does not mention the time of his death. There was another la Bastide, called the elder, who published, in 1773, two volumes of a history of French literature, but how far connected with the author we know not.

, an English divine of the Hutchinsonian principles, was a younger son of the Rev. Richard Bate, vicar of Chilham and rector of Warehorn, who died in 1736. He was born about 1711, and matriculated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, of B. A. 1730, and M. A. 1742. He was an intimate friend of the celebrated Hutchinson, as we learn from Mr. Spearman’s life of that remarkable author), by whose recommendation he obtained from Charles duke of Somerset a presentation to the living of Sutton in Sussex, near his seat at Petworth. Mr. Bate attended Hutchinson in his last illness (1737), and was by him in a most striking manner recommended to the protection of an intimate friend, “with a strict charge not to suffer his labours to become useless by neglect.” It having been reported that Hutchinson had recanted the publication of his writings to Dr. Mead a little before his death; that circumstance was flatly contradicted by a letter from Mr. Bate, dated Arundel, January 20, 1759. He died at Arundel, April 7, 1771. His evangelical principles of religion shone with a steady lustre, not only in his writings, but in his life. Disinterested, and disdaining the mean arts of ambition, he was contented with the small preferment he had in the church. As a Christian and a friend, he was humble and pious, tender, affectionate, and faithful; as a writer, warm, strenuous, and undaunted, in asserting the truth.

, an eminent nonconformist divine of the seventeenth century, was born in November 1625, and after a suitable school education, was sent to Cambridge, where he was admitted of Emanuel college, from which he removed to King’s, in 1644. He commenced bachelor of arts in 1647, and applying himself to the study of divinity, became a distinguished preacher among the Presbyterians. He was afterwards appointed vicar of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London; and joined with several other divines in preaching a morning exercise at Cripplegate church. At this exercise Dr. Tillotson preached, in September 1661, the first sermon which was ever printed by him. Upon the restoration of Charles II. Mr. Bates was made one of his majesty’s chaplains; and, in the November following, was admitted to the degree of doctor in divinity in the university of Cambridge, by royal mandate. The king’s letter to this purpose was dated on the 9th of that month. About the same time, he was offered the deanery of Lichfield and Coventry, which he refused; and it is said that he might afterwards have been raised to any bishopric in the kingdom, if he would have conformed to the established church. Dr. Bates was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference in 1660, for reviewing the public liturgy, and was concerned in drawing up the exceptions against the Common Prayer. He was, likewise, chosen on the part of the Presbyterian minfoters, together with Dr. Jacomb and Mr. Baxter, to manage the dispute with Dr. Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, Dr. Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, and Dr. Sparrow, afterwards bishop of Ely. In 1665, he took the oath required of the nonconformists by the act commonly called the Five Mile Act, and which had passed in the parliament held that year at Oxford, on account of the plague being in London. When, about January 1667-8, a treaty was proposed by sir Orlando Bridgman, lord keeper of the great seal, and countenanced by the lord chief baron Hale, for a comprehension of such of the dissenters as could be brought into the communion of the church, and for a toleration of the rest, Dr. Bates was one of the divines who, on the Presbyterian side, were engaged in drawing up a scheme of the alterations and concessions desired by that party. He was concerned, likewise, in another fruitless attempt of the same kind, which was made in 1674. His good character recommended him to the esteem and acquaintance of lord keeper Bridgman, lord chancellor Finch, and his son, the earl of Nottingham. Dr. Tillotson had such an opinion of his learning and temper, that it became the ground of a friendship between them, which continued to the death of that excellent prelate, and Dr. Bates, with great liberality, used his interest with the archbishop, in procuring a pardon for Nathaniel lord Crewe, bishop of Durham, who, for his conduct in the ecclesiastical commission, had been excepted out of the act of indemnity, which passed in 1690. When the dissenters presented their address to king William and queen Mary, on their accession to the throne, the two speeches to their majesties were delivered hy Dr. Bates, who was much respected by that monarch; and queen Mary often entertained herself in her closet with his writings. His residence, during the latter part of his life, was at Hackney, where he preached to a respectable society of Protestant dissenters, in an ancient irregular edifice in Mare-street, which was pulled down in 1773. He was also one of the Tuesday lecturers at Salter’s hall. He died at Hackney, July 14, 1699, in the 74th year of his age. After his death, his works, which had been separately printed, were collected into one volume fol. besides which a posthumous piece of his appeared in 8vo, containing some “Sermons on the everlasting rest of the Saints.” He wrote, likewise, in conjunction with Mr. Howe, a prefatory epistle to Mr. Chaffy’s treatise of the Sabbath, on its being reprinted; and another before lord Stair’s vindication of the Divine Attributes. Dr. Bates is universally understood to have been the politest writer among the nonconformists of the seventeenth century. It is reported, that when his library came to be disposed of, it was found to contain a great number of romances; but, adds his biographer, it should be remembered that the romances of that period, though absurd in several respects, had a tendency to invigorate

, an Irish Jesuit, was born in Dublin in 1564. It is said that he was of a sullen, saturnine temper, and disturbed in his mind, because his family was reduced from its ancient splendour. His parents, who were Protestants, having a greater regard to learning than religion, placed him under the tuition of an eminent popish school-master, who fitted him for that station of life which he afterwards embraced. He then removed to Oxford, where he studied several years with indefatigable industry: but the inquisitive Anthony Wood could not discover in what college or hall he sojourned, or whether he took any university degree. The same writer alledges, that growing weary of the heresy professed in England (as he usually called the Protestant faith), he quitted the nation and his religion together, and in 1596 was initiated among the Jesuits, being then between thirty and forty years of age; though one of his own order says he was then but twentyfive, which certainly is erroneous. Having spent some time among the Jesuits in Flanders, Ik; travelled into Italy, and completed his studies at Padua; from whence he passed into Spain, being appointed to govern the Irish seminary at Salamanca. He is said to have had a most ardent zeal for making converts, and was much esteemed among the people of his persuasion for his extraordinary virtues and good qualities, though he was of a temper not very sociable. At length, taking a journey to Madrid to transact some business of his order, he died on the 17th of June 1614, and was buried in the Jesuits 7 convent of that city, bearing among his brethren a reputation for learning; particularly on account of a work which he published to facilitate the acquirement of any language, entitled “Janua Linguarum, seu modus maxime accommodatus, quo patent aditus ad omnes linguas intelligendas,” Salamanca, 1611. Besides one or two tracts on confessions and penance, he wrote, when a youth at Oxford, “An introduction to the art of Music,” London, 1584, 4to. In this work, which is dedicated to his uncle Gerald Fitzgerald earl of Kildare, the author displays a good opinion of his own performance, but thought proper, some years after its first publication, to write it over again in such a manner, as scarcely to retain a single paragraph of the former edition. This latter edition was printed by Thomas Este, without a date, with the title of “A briefe introduction to the skill of Song; concerning the practice; set forth by William Bathe, gent.” From sir John Hawkins’s account of both these productions, and his extracts from them, it does not appear that they have any great merit. The style, in particular, is very perplexed and disagreeable.

, a Roman catholic divine of the sixteenth century, was at first a monk, and afterwards prior of the Carthusian monastery or Charter-house, in the suburbs of London. For some time he studied divinity at Oxford; but it does not appear that he took any degree in that faculty. He was intimately acquainted with, and a great favourite of, Edward Lee, archbishop of York; at whose request he wrote against Erasmus and Luther. He died on the 16th of November 1531, and was buried in the chapel belonging to the Charter-house. Pits gives him the character of a man of quick and discerning genius; of great piety and learning, and fervent zeal; much conversant in the study of the scriptures; and that led an angelical life among men. Bale, on the contrary, represents him as a proud, forward, and arrogant person; born for disputing and wrangling; and adds, that Erasmus, in one of his letters to Richard bishop of Winchester, styles him an ignorant fellow, encouraged by Lee, and vain-glorious even to madness, but Bale allows that he was a very clear sophist, or writer. “John Batmanson,” Mr. Warton observes, “controverted Erasmus’s Commentary on the New Testament with a degree of spirit and erudition, which was unhappily misapplied, but would have done honour to the cause of his antagonist, in respect to the learning displayed.” Dodd says that he revised the two works against Erasmus and Luther, and corrected several unguarded expressions. Others say that he retracted both, the titles of which were, 1. “Animadversiones in Annotationes Erasrni in Novum Testamentum.” 2. “A Treatise against some of M. Luther’s writings.” The rest of his works were, 3. “Commentaria in Proverbia Salomonis.” 4. “in Cantica Canticorum.” 5. “De unica Magdalena, contra Fabrum Stapulensem.” 6. “Institutiones Noviciorum.” 7. “De contemptu Mundi.” 8. “De Christo duodenni;” A Homily on Luke ii. 42. 9. “On the words Missus est,” &c. None of his biographers give the dates of these publications, and some of them, we suspect, were never printed.

He was admitted advocate at the Hague, the 5th of Jarmary 1587; but being soon tired of the bar, went to France, where he remained ten years, and was much esteemed, acquiring both friends and patrons. Achilles de Harlai, first president of the parliament of Paris, got him to be admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris in 1592. In 1602, he went to England with Christopher de Harlai, the presidents son, who was sent ambassador thither by Henry the Great; and the same year, having been named professor of eloquence at Leyden, he settled in that university. He read lectures on history after the death of Morula, and was permitted also to do the same on the civil Jaw. In 1611, the states conferred upon him the office of historiographer in. conjunction with Meursius and in consequence thereof he wrote “The history of the Truce.” Baudius is an elegant prose-writer, as appears from his “Letters,” many of which were published after his death. He was also an excellent Latin poet: the first edition of his poems. was printed in 1587; they consist of verses of all the different measures: he published separately a book of iambics in 1591, dedicated to cardinal Bourbon. Some of his poems he dedicated to the king of England; others to the prince of Wales, in the edition of 1607, and went over to England to present them, where great respect was paid to him by several persons of rank and learning.

, a philosopher of the German school, was born at Berlin, June 17, 1714. He studied divinity at Halle, at a time when it was a crime to read the writings of the celebrated Wolff, but these he perused with avidity, and cultivated the friendship of their author. Mathematics became afterwards his favourite study, and he conceived at the same time the idea of elevating the belles-lettres to a rank among the sciences, and the science according to which he explained his principles on this subject, he called Esthetics. At Halle, he was professor of logic, metaphysics, the law of nature and moral philosophy. He died at Francfort on the Oder, May 26, 1762. His principal works are: 1. “Disputa-io de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus,” Halle, 1735, 4to, in which he discloses the principles of his Esthetics. 2. “Metaphysica,” Halle, 1739, 1743, and 1763, 8vo, a work highly praised by his countrymen. 3. “Etica philosophica,” ibid. 1740, 1751, 1762. 4. “JEsthetica,” Francfort, 1750, 1758, 2 vols. 8vo, but not completed. 5. “Initia philosophise practicae primae,” ibid. 1760, 8vo. His brother Siegmond, was a Lutheran divine, and a most voluminous writer. He died in 1757. One of the best of his works which we have seen, is a supplement to the English Universal History, printed about 1760.

, a learped French physician and medical writer, was royal professor of philosophy in the university of Toulouse, where he died, Sept. 24, 1709, in the eighty-seventh year of his age. He was a member of the Floreal academy, and a man of integrity, always more ready to discern merit in others than in himself, a strict disciplinarian, and, through many unpleasant vicissitudes, a truly Christian philosopher. As to his profession, it appears from his works that he was a good theorist, as well as a successful practitioner. Haller pronounces him “latromechanicus, sed ex cautioribus.” His works, which are partly in Latin and partly in French, were, 1. “Systema generale philosophise,” Toulouse, 1669, 8vo. 2. “Tractatus de Apoplexia,” ib. 1676, 12mo; Hague, 1678. 3. “Dissertationes Medicae tres,” Toulouse, 1678, fol. 4. “Dissertationes Physicae,” Hague, 1678, 12mo. 5. “Dissertationes de experientia et ratione conjnngenda in Physica, Medicina, et Chirurgia,” Paris, 1675; Hague, 1678. 6. “Problemata Physica et Medica,' 7 ib. 1678, 12mo. 7.” Histoire Anatomique d'une grossesse de 25 ans,“Toulouse, 1678, 12mo. 8.” Instructiones Physicee ad usum scholarum accommodate,“ibid. 1700, 3 vols. 4to. 9.” Dissertatio quaestiones nonnullas PhysicasetMedicasexplanans,“ibid. 1688, 12mo. 10.” Opuscula," ibid. 1701, 4to.

, a French writer who once made a great figure in the literary world, was born Nov. 18, 1647, at Carla, a small town in the county of Foix, the son of John Bayle, a Protestant minister. Peter gave early proofs of genius, which his father cultivated with the utmost care; he himself taught him the Latin and Greek languages, and sent him to the Protestant academy at Puylaurens in 1666. The same year, when upon a visit to his father, he applied so closely to his studies, that it brought upon him an illness which kept him at Carla above eighteen, months. On his recovery he returned to Puylaurens to prosecute his studies, and afterwards he went to Toulouse in 1669, where he attended the lectures in the Jesuits’ college. The controversial books which he read at Puylaurens raised several scruples in his mind in regard to the Protestant religion, and his doubts were increased by some disputes he had with a priest, who lodged in the same house with him at Toulouse. He thought the Protestant tenets were false, because he could not answer all the arguments raised against them; so that about a month after his arrival at Toulouse, he embraced the Roman catholic religion. This gave much uneasiness to all his relations, and Mr. Bertier, bishop of Rieux, rightly judging, that after this step young Bayle had no reason to expect any assistance from them, took upon him the charge of his maintenance. They piqued themselves much, at Toulouse, upon the acquisition of so promising a young man. When it came to his turn to defend theses publicly, the most distinguished persons of the clergy, parliament, and city, were present; so that there had hardly ever been seen in the university a more splendid and numerous audience. The theses were dedicated to the Virgin, and adorned with her picture, which was ornamented with several emblematical figures, representing the conversion of the respondent.

In 1686, he was drawn into a dispute respecting the famous Christina queen of Sweden: in his Journal for April, he took notice of a printed letter, supposed to have been written by her Swedish majesty to the chevalier de Terlon, wherein she condemns the persecution of the protestants in France. He inserted the letter itself in his Journal for May; and in that of June following he says: “What we hinted at in our last month, is confirmed to us from day to day, that Christina is the real author of the letter concerning the persecutions in France which is ascribed to her: it is a remainder of protestantism.” Mr. Bayle received an anonymous letter, the author of which says, that he wrote to him of his own accord, being in duty bound to it, as a servant of the queen. He complains that Mr. Bayle, speaking of her majesty, called her only Christina, without any title; he finds also great fault with his calling the letter, “a remainder of protestantism.” He blames him likewise for inserting the words “I am,” in the conclusion of the letter. “These words, says this anonymous writer, are not her majesty’s; a queen, as she is, cannot employ these words but with regard to a very few persons, and Mr. de Terlon is not of that number.” Mr. Bayle wrote a vindication of himself as to these particulars, with which the author of the anonymous letter declared himself satisfied, excepting as to what related to “the remainder of protestantism.” He would not admit of the defence with regard to that expression; and, in another letter, advised him to retract it. He adds in a postscript, “You mention in your Journal of August, a second letter of the queen, which you scruple to publish. Her majesty would be glad to see that letter, and you will do a thing agreeable to her, if you would send it to her. You might take this opportunity of writing to her majesty. This counsel may be of some use to you; do not neglect it.” Mr. Bayle took ithe hint, and wrote a letter to her majesty, dated the 14th of November 1686; to which the queen, on the 14th of December, wrote the following answer:

Mr. Bayle was a most laborious and indefatigable writer. In one of his letters to Des Maizeaux, he says, that since his 20th year he hardly remembers to have had any leisure. His intense application contributed perhaps to impair his constitution, for it soon began to decline. He had a decay of the lungs, which weakened him considerably; and as this was a distemper which had cut off several of his family, he judged it to be mortal, and would take no medicines. He died the 28th of December 1706, after he had been writing the greatest part of the day. He wrote several books besides what we have mentioned, many of which were in his own defence against attacks from the abbe Renaudot, M. le Clerc, M. Jaquelot, and others; a particular account of his works may be seen in the sixth volume of Niceron. Among the productions which do honour to the age of Lewis XIV. M.Voltaire has not omitted the Critical Dictionary of our author: It is the first work of the kind, he says, in which a man may learn to think. He censures indeed those articles which contain only a detail of minute facts, as unworthy either of Bayle, an understanding reader, or posterity. In placing him, continues the same author, amongst the writers who do honour to the age of Lewis XIV. although a refugee in Holland, I only conform to the decree of the parliament of Toulouse; which, when it declared his will valid in France, notwithstanding the rigour of the laws, expressly said, “that such a man could not be considered as a foreigner.”

, an English prelate, was born at Caermarthen in Whales, and educated at the university of Oxford; but in what college, or what degrees he took is uncertain. We find only that he was admitted, as a member of Exeter college, to be reader of the sentences in 1611; about which time he was minister of Evesham in Worcestershire, chaplain to prince Henry, and rector of St. Matthew’s, Friday-street, in London. Two years after he took his degrees in divinity; and being very much celebrated for his talent in preaching, was appointed one of the chaplains to king James I. who nominated him to the bishopric of Bangor in the room of Dr. H. Rowlands, in which see he was consecrated at Lambeth, Dec. 8, 1616. On the 15th of July 1621, he was committed to the Fleet, but was soon after discharged. It is not certain what was the reason of his commitment, unless, as Mr. Wood observes, it was on account of prince Charles’s intended marriage with the Infanta of Spain. He died in the beginning of 1632, and was interred in the church of Bangor. His fame rests chiefly on his work entitled “The practice of Piety,” of which there have been a prodigious number of editions in 12mo and 8vo, that of 1735 being the fifty-ninth. It was also translated into Welsh and French in 1633, and such was its reputation, that John D'Espagne, a French writer, and preacher at Somerset-house chapel in 1656, complained, that the generality of the common people paid too great a regard to it, and considered the authority of it as almost equal to that of the Sqriptures. This book was the substance of several sermons, which Dr. Bayly preached while he was minister of Evesham. But Lewis du Moulin, who was remarkable for taking all opportunities of reflecting upon the bishops and church of England, in his “Patronus Bonce Fidei, &c.” published in 8vo, 1672, asserts, that “this book was written by a Puritan minister, and that a bishop, whose life was not very chaste and regular, after the author’s death, bargained with his widow for the copy, which he received, but never paid her the money; that he afterwards interpolated it in some places, and published it as his own.” It is not very probable, however, that a man “whose life was not very chaste and regular,” should have been anxious to publish a work of this description; but Dr. Kennet, in his Register, has very clearly proved that bishop Bayly was the real author.

, was born in April 1758, at Middleham, in Yorkshire where his father, who afterwards retired from business, then followed the profession of the Jaw. Mr. Baynes received his education at Richmond, under the rev. Mr. A. Temple, author of three discourses, printed in 1772; of “Remarks on the Layman’s Scriptural Confutation; and letters to the rev. Thomas Randolph, D. D. containing a defence of Remarks on the Layman’s Scriptural Confutation,” 1779, 8vo. At school he soon distinguished himself by his superior talents and learning, and by the age of fourteen years was capable of reading and understanding the Greek classics. From Richmond he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge; where, before he had arrived at the age of twenty years, he obtained the medals given for the best performances in classical and mathematical learning. In 1777 he took the degree of B. A.; and determining to apply himself to the study of the law, he about 1778, or 1779, became a pupil to Alien Chambre, esq. and entered himself of the society of Gray’s-inn. In 1780 he took the degree of M. A. and about the same time was chosen fellow of the college. From this period he chiefly resided in London, and, warmed with the principles of liberty, joined those who were clamorous in calling for reformation in the state. He was a member of the constitutional society, and took a very active part at the meeting at York, in December, 1779. In his political creed he entertained 'the same sentiments with his friend Dr. Jebb; and, like him, without hesitation renounced those of his party whom he considered to have disgraced themselves by the unnatural coa^ lition between lord North and Mr. Fox. We are told, however, that if the warmth of his political pursuits was not at all times under the guidance of discretion, he never acted but from the strictest principles of integrity. He had a very happy talent for poetry, which by many will be thought to have been misapplied, when devoted as it was, to the purposes of party. He wrote many occasional pieces in the newspapers, particularly in the London Courant, but was very careful to conceal himself as the writer of verses, which he thought would have an ill effect on him in his profession, a species of caution not much calculated to prove that independence of spirit for which men of his stamp contend. There is great reason to believe that he wrote the celebrated Archaeological epistle to Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter. It is certain this excellent performance was transmitted to the press through his hands; and it is more than probable, that the same reason which occasioned him to decline the credit of his other poetical performances, influenced him to relinquish the honour of this. It is a fact, however, which should not be suppressed, that he always disclaimed being the author of this poem; and when once pressed on the subject by a friend, he desired him to remember when it should be no longer a secret, that he then disowned it. Mr. Baynes had many friends, to whom he was sincerely attached, and by whom he was greatly beloved. Scarce any man, indeed, had so few enemies. Even politics, that fatal disuniter of friendships, lost its usual effect with him. As he felt no rancour towards those from whom he differed, so he experienced no malignity in return. What he conceived to be right, neither power nor interest could deter him from asserting. In the autumn before his death, when he apprehended the election for fellows of Trinity college to be irregularly conducted, he boldly, though respectfully, with others of the society, represented the abuse to the heads of the college; and when, instead of the expected reform, an admonition was given to the remonstrants, to behave with more respect to their superiors, conscious of the rectitude of their intentions, he made no scruple of referring the conduct of himself and his friends to a higher tribunal, but the matter was not decided before his death. It was his intention to publish a more correct edition of lord Coke’s tracts; and we are informed he left the work nearly completed. His death is supposed to have been occasioned by an intense application to business, which brought on a putrid fever, of which he died, universally lamented, August 3, 1787, after eight days illness. In the ensuing week he was buried near the remains of his friend Dr. Jebb, privately, in Bunhill-fields burying-ground.