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

De Foe certainly possessed very uncommon merit, both as a man and as a writer, and yet few men have received more injurious treatment from their contemporaries. He has repeatedly been represented as an unprincipled writer, who had no view but to his own advantage, and who would write for any party by which he was employed; charges which appear to be totally destitute of foundation. He was not rich; and he naturally and reasonably endeavoured to make some pecuniary advantage of his writings; but he seems always to have written in conformity to ins own principles; and, though much abuse has been thrown out against him, no evidence to the contrary has ever been, produced. His prose works are much more valuable than his poetical performances. As a political writer ue had great merit; his sentiments appear to have been generally just, and he expressed himself with force and perspicuity. His pieces on the subject of trade and commerce exhibit uncommon penetration, and very various and extensive knowledge. But nis fame must ever rest on those works which were entirely the offspring of invention, and of these, his “Robinson Crusoe” rises superior to every thing of the kind. Alrnotigh we know of no imitations of this which deserve notice, some critics have placed De Foe at the head of a school, and have instanced Richardson as one of his best scholars. Richardson, says Dr. Kippis, seems to have learned from him that mode of delineating characters, and carrying on dialogues, and that minute discrimination of the circumstances of events, in which De Foe so eminently excelled. If, in certain respects, the disciple rose above his master, as he undoubtedly did, in others tie was inferior to him; for his conversations are sometimes more tedious and diffuse; and his works, though beautiful in their kind, are not by any means so various. Both of these writers had a wonderful ability in drawing pictures of human nature anJ human life. A careful perusal of the “Family Instructor,” and the “Religious Courtship,” would particularly tend to shew the resemblance between De Foe and Richardson. If, however, Richardson is to be traced to De Foe, we have sometimes thought that the latter was, with regard to simplicity of style, somewhat indebted to Bunyan, an author whom he must have read in his youth, and whose religious principles are obvious in the second volume of his “Robinson Crusoe.” After remaining in comparative obscurity for many years, De Foe at last found a biographer in George Chalmers, esq. who has done ample justice to his memory, and has presented the literary world with a more elegant, accurate, and satisfactory account of his personal history and writings, than could have been expected so long after his decease. It is unnecessary to add, that this, and every succeeding account of De Foe, must be indebted to Mr. Chalmers’s researches.

, a voluminous writer on almost every branch of medicine, was the son of a surgeon of Montpellier. In 1691 he was made M. D. and in 1697, professor of chemistry. He was also honoured with the ribbon of the order of St. Michael, and was admitted one of the foreign members of the royal society of London. In 1732, being appointed physician to the galleys, he quitted Montpellier, and went to Marseilles, where he died on the 3d of April, 1746. Of his works, the following have been most noticed: “Experiences sur la Bile, et les cadavres des pestiferes, faites par M. D.; accompagnees des Lettres, &c.” Zurich, 1772. He was at Marseilles while the plague raged there, and attributed the disease to a prevailing acid. He injected bile taken from persons who had died of the plague, into the veins of some dogs, which were almost immediately killed by the venom; an experiment from which no useful result could be expected to follow. He tried inunctions with mercury in the disease; from which, he says, no benefit nor mischief was found to accrue. “Chymie raisonnee, ou Ton tache de decouvrir la nature et la maniere d'agir des remedes chymiques les plus en usage en medicine et en chirurgie,” Lyon, 1715, 12mo. These experiments were also fruitless; they shew, however, an active and inquisitive turn of mind, which, properly directed, might have been productive of some profits. He published three volumes of consultations and observations, which may be read with advantage, the diseases being generally correctly described, and the method of treating them such as is now commonly practised. For the titles and accounts of the remainder of his works, see Haller’s Bib. Med.

, an Irish poetical writer, was the second son of Robert De la Cour, esq. of the county of Cork, in Ireland, and born at Killowen, near Blarney, in that county, in 1709. He was educated at the university of Dublin, where to his classical studies he added an uncommon predilection for poetry, and before he had reached his twenty-first year, produced a poem entitled “Abelard to Eloisa,” in imitation of Pope, which was thought to possess a considerable portion of the spirit and harmony of that master. From this time he proceeded to publish shorter poems and sonnets, which were all favourably received; and in 1733 appeared his principal work, “The Prospect of Poetry.” So creditable a publication, and at such an age, gained him much and deserved applause; and in this list of admirers he had to count on some of the best judges in both countries.

, one of the French Encyclopaedists, was born at Portets, in the vicinity of Bonrdeanx, in January 1726; was at an early age admitted into the college of the Jesuits, and, when only fifteen years old, was invested with their order. He was a youth of much imagination and sensibility, and at the same time strongly addicted to mental melancholy; during which he almost uninterruptedly directed his thoughts to the two great extremes of futurity, heaven and hell, which distressed him with perpetual agitations of mind. Deleyre, however, did not long continue in this state of mind, but quitted the Jesuit society, and with this, we have no small reason to believe, every religious faith whatever. As he was of plebeian birth, he could have no expectations from the court; his only alternatives were philosophy and the law; and the latter did not exactly correspond, we are told by his eulogist, either with his sensibility or his independence of mind. Montesquieu was at this time the Miecenas of Guienne, and became the patron of Deleyre from a thorough conviction of his talents: he introduced him to Diderot, d'Alembert, J. J. Rousseau, and Duclos; and his destiny was fixed: he decided for philosophy, and became a writer in the Encyclopedic. In this new capacity his hardihood was not inferior to that of his colleagues; the famous, or rather infamous, article on fanaticism was soon known to have been of his production, and it was likely to have been essentially detrimental to him; for he had now fixed his attention upon matrimony, and had obtained the consent of a lady; but the priests of the parish in which the ceremony was to have been celebrated, refused to unite them, in consequence of their having heard that Deleyre was the author of this article. His patronage, however, was at this time increased, and he had found a warm and steady friend in the due de Nivernois, who interfered in the dispute, and Deleyre obtained the fair object of his wishes. The duke had before this solicited, and successfully, the appointment for him of librarian to the infant prince of Parma, who was at this period committed to the immediate care of Condillac. In this situation he continued for some considerable time; and although a dispute respecting the mode of educating their pupil at length separated him from this celebrated logician, he appears to have always entertained for him the highest degree of respect.

, a political writer of great abilities, was born at Geneva about 1745. He received a liberal education, and embraced the profession of the law, but diJ not long practise as an advocate before he formed the resolution of quitting his native country, that he might display his lively talents and his literary attainments on a more conspicuous theatre of action, and might personally observe the constitutions and customs of more powerful states. The English) government, in particular, excited his curiosity; and he resolved to study its nature and examine its principles with particular care and attention. He even endeavoured in the first work which he published after his arrival in England, to lead his readers into an opinion that he was a native of this favoured country. It was written in our language, and appeared in 1772, with the title “A parallel between the English Government and the former Government of Sweden; containing some observations on the late revolution in that kingdom, and an examination of the causes that secure us against both aristocracy and absolute monarchy.” Many of our countrymen were apprehensive that our constitution might be subverted like that of Sweden; but the learned doctor (for M. De Lolme had previously taken the degree of LL. D.) by contrasting with the polity of England the government which Gustavus III. had overturned, plausibly argued that such fears were ill-founded.

, a learned writer of the seventeenth century, whose works have but lately been brought to light, was born in the island of Chio; he took the surname of Domesticus, as appears from the title of his works. In 1637, became to Rome to prosecute his studies in the Greek college, and seven years after he returned to his native country. During his studies at Rome, he made so considerable a progress in learning and belles lettres, that he was appointed to teach his fellow-students the Greek language; but an illness, to which he became subject, and which was thought likely to terminate in an epilepsy, obliged him to leave the college, and disabled him from taking the intended order of priesthood. Yet before his return to the island of Chio, he made, with the celebrated Lucas Holstenius, a tour to Florence, in order to examine the Greek Mss. in the Laurentian library. After his return to Chio, though he was not obliged to preach the Roman catholic religion, he attempted to support and defend it by his writings. Controversial divinity appears to have been the main object of his pursuits; though he also cultivated poetry and physic. He composed a great number of iambic verses on sacred subjects; one, among others, entitled “The Triumph of the Catholic Faith.” He wrote also a physical treatise against Galen and his disciples. He married in 1649; but the latter part of his life and his death are not recorded, though by the account of his countrymen he seems to have died at Messina. His works were published for the first time in 1781, at Rome, in 2 vols. 4to, under thfc title “Demetrii Pi-pani Domestic! Chii Opera quie reperiuntur e Grseca in Latinum verr.it et adnotationes adjecit Bernardus Stephanopolus; accedit praefatio Joannis Christophori Amadutii, cujus cura et studio nunc primum eduntur EpistoUe tres Grgeco-Latinae Imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum Joannis et Emanuelis Comneni ad Romanos poutifices Houorium II. et Alexandrum III.” Demetrius’s manuscripts were discovered by signer Stellio Raffaetli, consul for the English East India company at Chio, who sent them in 1776 to cardinal York, and earnestly requested of his eminence to get them published. The cardinal’s zeal for erudition, and for the interests of the Roman catholic religion, prompted him to grant the request, and to charge Stephanopoli and Amaduzzi, two able Greek scholars, to translate the Mss. in question into Latin, and to publish both the text and their version together. They consist chiefly of polemical treatises in favour of some points in dispute between the Roman catholics and protestants, and between the Roman catholics and the Greek church; but the most valuable part of the work is the very learned preface by Amaduzzi, respecting the origin and progress of the vulgar and modern Greek language, in which several of Demetrius’s treatises are written; and another prefixed to the letters mentioned in the title of the work, which may be considered as one of the best essays extant on the ancient Greek hand-writing.

, a man greatly distinguished in the learned world, was born at Berlin, June 2, 1703, being the son of a merchant there. He studied first at the French college at Bering and thence removed to the university of Francfortoa the Oder. He was examined for the ministry in 1725, and after some difficulties obtained it; but the ecclesiastics there being obl'g^d to certain subscriptions, to which he could not absent, he quitted the country soon after. He preached about five years in different towns of the United Provinces, from whence he was invited to London in 1731, and ordained to serve the French chapel in the Savoy. In 1762 he was named by the bishop of London to be one of the French chaplains to the king in his chapel at St. James’s. He died Aug. 10, 1775. He seldom published any thing, except occasionally, in consequence of unforeseen engagements, or at the importunity of friends. Several iittie poetical pieces, essays both in sacred and profane literature, epitomes of books, memoirs, dissertations, &c. by De Missy, with his initials C. D. M. or some assumed name, and frequently anonymous, appeared in different collections and periodical journals in Holland, France, and England, from 1721, many of which are enumerated by Mr. Nichols. He was greatly assisting to many of the learned, in their several undertakings: among others indebted to him, were the late professor Wetstein in his splendid edition of the Greek Testament, Dr. Jortin in his Life of Erasmus, and Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Nichols in “Two Essays on the Origin of Printing.” His name will frequently occur in the works of the learned, and therefore it was necessary that something should be upon record concerning him. The writer of this short extract can add, from his own personal knowledge of him, that he was not only very acute and very learned, but a sincere lover and bold assertor of truth, and a man of many and great virtues. He was twice married, but left no child. After his death were published “Sermons sur divers Textes de PKcriture Sainte, par feu Monsieur Cesar de Mis^y,” '6 vols. 8vo. His valuable library, which was sold by baker and Leigh in 1778, consisted of many books enriched with his ms notes, some of which were purchased lor his majesty’s library, some for the British Museum, and some by Dr. Hunter, who also bought several of his manuscripts.

, an English divine and theological writer, became a student of Baliiol college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1590; and, when he had taken the degree of M. A. entered into holy orders, and was afterwards admitted to the degree of D. D. He was domestic chaplain to George duke of Buckingham, and to James I. and successively vicar of all the three churches in Reading; being instituted to St. Lawrence’s, Jan. 7, 1603; to St. Giles’s, July 9, 1612; and to St. Mary’s, March 31, 1614. He died at Reading, in Jan. 1628-9, and was buried in St. Mary’s church. Besides some sermons, enumerated by Wood, he published, 1. “A threefold resolution necessary to salvation, &c.” Loud. 1616, 8vo, 4th edit. 2. “Justification of kneeling at the Sacrament,” ibid. 16!9, 8vo. 3. “On the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” ibid. 1621, 4to, and some controversial pieces, the most distinguished of which is a work on auricular confession, in answer to cardinal Bellarmine on that subject. The title is, “De confessionis auricularis vanitate, adversus Card. Bellarmini sophismata,” Oxon. 1621, 4to. Dr. Denison gave several valuable books to the Bodleian library, as appears by a letter of sir Thomas Bodley to Dr. King, dean of Christ-church, and vice-chancellor, which on July 8, 1628, was read in convocation.

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

As a dramatic writer, his first performance was a comedy, entitled “A Plot and no Plot, or Jacobite Credulity,” acted at the theatre royal in Drury-laue, in 1697, and intended as a satire on the party devoted to king James. In the story, Mr. Dennis justly claims the merit of original invention, and many of the scenes abound with wit; but several of the incidents are very absurd and unnatural. His second dramatic production was “Rinaldo and Armida,” a tragedy, acted at Lincoln’s-inn Fields, in 1699; the hint of the chief characters is borrowed from Tasso’s Gierusalemme. As, however, Mr. Dennis was not satisfied with the manners of that great Italian, he has taken the liberty to change them, and to form the characters according to what he apprehended to be more agreeable to the subject. The scene lies on a top of a mountain in the Canaries; and the musical entertainments that accompanied the work were composed by Mr. John Eccles, excepting a chorus in the fourth act, which is borrowed from Mr. Henry Purcell’s frost scene. Another tragedy, “Iphigenia,” was produced by our author in 1700, and brought on at the theatre in Little Lincoln’s-inn Fields, where it was condemned; but although there are undoubtedly many irregular lines in it, and perhaps some passages savour of turgidity, upon the whole, it is a pathetic and interesting performance. It must not, however, be concealed that Mr. Dennis has derived his chief excellence from Euripides’s Iphigenia in Tauris, whence his story is taken, and indeed his obligations to Euripides are so numerous, that he ought to have openly acknowledged them. With less merit than “Iphigenia,” a comedy of Mr. Dennis’s, which was produced by him in 1702, was somewhat more successful at the theatre. The title of it is, “The Comical Gallant, with the Amours of Sir John Falstaff,” a very indifferent alteration of Shakspeare’s “Merry Wives of Windsor.” When it was published, a large essay was added of taste in poetry, and the causes of its degeneracy.

On Mr. Dennis’s character as a political writer it is not necessary to enlarge. It is probable that, in this capacity, he may have been the author of several tracts, which are now forgotten, and with regard to which there would be no utility in endeavouring to rescue them from oblivion. In his select works are inserted the productions of this kind which he himself thought of the most consequence, and the most worthy of preservation. The first of them was published in 1702, and is an answer to a discourse of the famous Henry Sacheverell, called “The Political Union.' 7 Dennis’s piece is entitled” Priestcraft dangerous to Religion and Government;“and is a defence of low-church principles and toleration. In 1703 he printed” A Proposal for putting a speedy End to the War, by ruining the commerce of the French and Spaniards, and securing our own, without any additional expence to the uation.“The scheme was, to form such a junction of the English and Dutch fleets, and such a combination and disposition of a large number of smaller armed vessels, as should effectually carry into execution the purpose intended. Our author has explained his project with sufficient ingenuity; but, like many other projects which voluntary politicians have been so ready to contrive for the public good, it met with no degree of regard. Indeed, the views and measures of die then subsisting ministry were more directed to exertions by land than at sea. In 1711 he produced” An. Essay upon Public Spirit; being a Satire, in prose, upon the manners and luxury of the times, the chief sources of our present parties and divisions," a violent and not very judicious declamation against the vices of his own age, in contrast with the virtues of our remote ancestors.

The character of Mr. Dennis must in general be sufficiently apparent from what has already been said. Illnature has been ascribed to him with too much shew of reason; though perhaps it belonged to him more as a writer than as a man. In a letter to a friend he has endeavoured to vindicate himself from the charge; but not, we think, with entire success. This at least is certain, from several transactions, that he was very irritable in his temper. Till he was five and forty, he was intimately conversant with the first men of the age, both with respect to rank and abilities; and when he retired from the world, he continued to preserve some honourable connections. Such was the estimation in which he was held, that he experienced the patronage of gentlemen whose political principles were extremely different from his own. George Granville, esq. in particular, afterwards lord Lansdowne, behaved to him with distinguished generosity, as did the earl of Pembroke, bishop Atterbury, and sir Robert Walpole.

, a clergyman who is entitled to a place in this Dictionary, as having been a contributor to the first edition of it, was born at Sebergbam, in Cumberland, of an ancient family, in 1724, and was educated under the rev. Josiah Ralph, of whose poems he superintended a handsome edition published by subscription. From school he went to Queen’s-college, Oxford, when be took his master’s degree June 16, 1752. On leaving college, he became curate to the rev. Dr. Graham, of Netherby, at Arthuret, and Kirkandrews; and here he printed a local poem, entitled “Gariston,” which is now scarce a as he only circulated a few copies among his friends. In 1753, Dr. Graham removed him to be his curate at Ashted, in Surrey, in which living, upon the doctor’s resignation, Mr. Demon succeeded him. He died here June 27, 1777, leaving three sons and four daughters. As he had had no opportunity to make much provision for this family, the late lord Suffolk generously gave his widow the next presentation to the living, which bounty was so well managed by a judicious friend, as to secure a very comfortable annuity to her and her children. Mr. Denton was a man of unassuming, modest manners; serene and placid, rather than cheerful; and a facetious man, rather than a man of humour. In discharging the duties of his profession, he was exemplarily decent, and his parishioners loved him when living, and lamented him dead. Early in life he reformed, and published a very useful manual of devotions, entitled “Religions retirement for one day in every month,” from the original of Gother, a popish writer. This he undertook “to free from the peculiarities of the Romish church, and to fit it for the use of Protestants.” He is, however, better known by two well-written poems, “Immortality, or the Consolation of human life, a Monody,” printed separately in 4to, 1755, and afterwards reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection; and “The House of Superstition,” a vision, 1762, 4to, afterwards prefixed by Mr. Gilpin to his “Lives of the Reformers.” In both he has proved himself no unsuccessful imitator of the style of Spenser. He also compiled the supplemental volume to the first edition of the Biographical Dictionary, in which the lives are given with equal candour and accuracy.

, a French writer, who might have been an able coadjutor, in the cause of infidelity, to the D'Alemberts, Diderots, and Voltaires of France, was born at Pondicherry in 1690. His father, who resided here, was a director of the French East India company, and died at St. Domingo in the office of commissary-general of the marine. He was the author of a work entitled “Remarques historiques, critiques, et satiriques d'un cosmopolite,” printed by his son at Nantes, although Cologne is on the title, 1731, 12mo. His son, the object of this article, became commissary-general of the marine at Rochefort and Brest, and a member of the royal academy of Berlin. These employments and honours he resigned in his latter days, and died at Paris in 1757. In 1713 he came to London, for what reason we have not been able to discover, where he was seized with the small pox. In that year he published in London his “Litteraturn Otium,” in which he has very successfully imitated Catullus. He had previously printed at Paris his “Reflexions sur les grands homines qui sont morts en plaisautant,” which was immediately translated by Boyer, and published at London under the title of “A Philological Essay, or Reflections on the death of Freethinkers, with the characters of the most eminent persons of both sexes, ancient and modern, that died pleasantly and unconcerned,” 1714, IL'mo. It would appear from an article in the Guardian, No. 39, that he had expressed some compunction during his sickness for having written this book; but on his recovery he took equal pains to prove that he was as unconcerned as ever. The work itself is sufficiently contemptible, and in the opinion even of his countrymen, some of his great men are very little men: and, what is of more importance, he confounds the impiety of Boletus and Vanini with the intrepidity and firmness of Thuanus and Montmorency, and others, whose heroism was founded on religion. At the conclusion he has some random thoughts on suicide, and the gallantry of it, and informs us of a curious fact, that at one time a poisonous draught was kept at Marseilles, at the public expence, ready for those who desired to rid themselves of life. All the absurdities and impiety in this work are said to have been refuted by the author himself, who on his death-bed, by a solemn act in writing, manifested his sincere repentance. Such is the report in an edition printed at Rochefort in 1758, but this is flatly contradicted by the editors of the-Dict. Hist, who assure us that he persevered in his infidelity to the last, which they prove by some despicable verses written by him when near his death. His other works were, 1. “Histoire critique de la Philosophic,” 4 vols. 12mo, the first three published at Amsterdam in 1737. In this, which is poor in respect of style, and not to be depended on in point of fact, he grossly misrepresents the opinions of the philosophers in order to accommodate them to his own. 2. “Kssai snr la Marine et le Commerce,” which was translated and published at London, under the title, “Essay on Maritime Power and Commerce,” 1743, and was rather more valued here than in France. 3. “Recueil de differents traites de physique et d'histoire naturelle,” 3 vols. 12mo, an useful collection. 4. “Histoire de Constance, minister de Siam,” 1755, 12mo. This missionary he represents as a mere adventurer, the victim of his ambition, contrary to the representation given by father Orleans, who, in the life of Constance, published in 1690, maintains that he was a pious zealot. Deslandes’ other works, less known, are “Pygmalion,” 12mo; “Fortune,” 12mo; “La Comtesse de Montserrat,” 12mo; all of the licentious kind.

, a fellow of the royal society of London, was born in Auvergne, in France, in 1666, and was the son of a protestant clergyman. He came over in his youth to England, and appears to have led the life of a man of letters, continually employed in composing or editing literary works. In 1720 he was elected F. R. S. and from his numerous letters in the British Museum, appears to have carried on a very extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, especially St. Evremont and Bayle. He died at London in June 1745. Bayle he assisted with many articles and remarks for his Dictionary, and published his “Letters” at Amsterdam, 1729, 3 vols. 12mo, with a variety of observations, which shew an extensive knowledge of modern literature. He also wrote the life of Bayle, which was prefixed to the edition of his Dictionary published in. 1730, and was reprinted at the Hague in 2 vols. 1732, 12mo. By a letter in the beginning from Desmaiseaux to M. la Motte, it appears that the latter had induced him to undertake this life of his friend. In 1732 he edited Bayle’s Miscellaneous Works in 4 vols. folio, and probably was likewise the author of the “Nouvelles Lettres de Pierre Bayle,” Hague, 1739, 2 vols. 12mo. His intimacy and friendship for St. Evremond led him to publish the life and works of that writer, in 1709, 3 vols. 4to and 8vo, often reprinted and translated into English. He also published the lives of Boileau in French, and of Chillingworth and Hales of Eton in English, which he wrote fluently. For some time it is 'said he was engaged in an English Dictionary, historical and critical, in the manner of Bayle, but no part of it appears to have been published, except the above-mentioned Life of Hales, in 1719, which was professedly a specimen of the intended Dictionary. In 1720 he published some pieces of Locke’s which had not been inserted in his works; and the same year “Recueii de diverses pieces sur la philosophic, la religion naturelle, l'histoire, les mathematiques, &c.” by Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, and others; Amst. 2 vols. 12mo. He appears likewise to have been the editor of the “Scaligerana, Thuana, Perroniana, Pithoeana, et Colomesiana,” Amst. 1711, 2 vols. Besides these, and his translation of Bayle’s Dictionary, he was a frequent contributor to the literary Journals of his time, particularly the “Bibliotlieque Raisonnæ” and “The Republic of Letters.”

, a French dramatic and miscellaneous writer, a member of the national institute, the philotechnic society, that of letters, sciences, and arts, and of the Athenaeum at Paris, was born at Villers-Coterets, March 11, 1760. After studying with assiduous application and success at the college of Lisieux, he for some years followed the profession of an advocate, which he then quitted to give up his whole time to general literature and a country life. In this retreat he wrote the greater part of his published works, and was meditating others, when death snatched him away at the age of thirty-eight, March 2, 1801. He died in the arms of his mother, to whom he was exceedingly attached, and often mentioned, with tender regard, how much her company had contributed to his happiness. Nor was he less happy in the society of some friends of his youth, whose affection he preserved to the last by his amiable disposition. He published, 1. “Lettres a Emilie sur la Mythologie,” 1790, 6 vols. 18mo, an agreeable and familiar system of mythology, which has gone through several editions, and which has no fault but what is common with young writers of great promise, rather too much glitter and finery. 2. Several comedies and operas, printed at different times, and all performed with great success, particularly “Le Conciliateur.” 3. “Le Siege de Cythere,” a poem, 1790. 4. “La Liberte du Cloitre,” a poem. He left several manuscripts, among which the “Cours de morale, addresse aux Femmes,” a work partly in prose, and partly in verse, read at the Lycasum, is highly praised. He had also begun a long work which was to have been entitled “Galerie du dixhuitieme Siecle,” in which the great characters that illustrated the close of the reign of Louis XIV. were to have been pourtrayed; but he had composed only some parts of this work, which were read in some of the literary societies, of which he was a member.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

It was as a prose-writer that the earl of Essex excelled, and not as a poet. He is said to have translated one of Ovid’s Epistles; and a few of his sonnets are preserved in the Ashmolean museum. They display, however, no marks of poetic genius. “But if Essex,” says Mr. Warton, “was no poet, few noblemen of his age were more courted by poets. From Spenser to the lowest rhymer he was the subject of numerous sonnets, or popular ballads. I will not except Sydney. I could produce evidence to prove, that he scarcely ever went out of England, or even left London, on the most frivolous enterprize, without a pastoral in his praise, or a panegyric in metre, which were sold and sung in the streets. Having interested himself in the fashionable poetry of the times, he was placed high in the ideal Arcadia now just established; and, among other instances which might be brought, on his return from Portugal in 1589 he was complimented with a poem called” An Egloge gratulatorie entituled to the right honorable and renowned shepherd of Albion’s Arcadia, Robert earl of Essex, and for his returne lately into England.“This is a light in which lord Essex is seldom viewed. I know not if the queen’s fatal partiality, or his own inherent attractions, his love of literature, his heroism, integrity, and generosity, qualities which abundantly overbalance his presumption, his vanity, and impetuosity, had the greater share in dictating these praises. If adulation were any where justifiable, it must be when paid to the man who endeavoured to save Spenser from starving in the streets of Dublin, and who buried him in Westminster-abbey with becoming solemnity. Spenser was persecuted by Burleigh because he was patronised by Essex.”

, a learned physician, and voluminous writer on medicine and natural philosophy, was born at Meurs, in the duchy of Juliers, October 16th, 4612. After studying the classics and the Arabic and Persian languages, he went to Leyden, where he completed his education by taking the degree of M. D. in 1634; and three years after was appointed professor in mathematics at Meurs. In 1639, he was called to succeed Isaac Pontanus in the chair of natural philosophy and mathematics; and in 1642 to that of medicine, at Hardenvick, to which was added the office of physician to the city. From Harderwick he went to Groningen, where he was not only professor of medicine, but rector of the university, and ancient of the church. Amid the business which such accumulated duties heaped upon him, he found leisure to write a greater number of treatises on the different parts of medicine and philosophy than have fallen from the pen. of almost any other man. Haller and Manget have given a list of fifty-four, but a small number of these are on practical subjects, many of them being metaphysical and controversial. Those relating to his controversy with Silvius, are written with great acrimony; though the subjects, which are mostly physiological, do not seem calculated to excite so much rancour as we see infused into them. Among these are, “Joannes Cloppenburgius, Heautontimorumenos, seu retorsio injuriarum de libello falsidico, cui titulus, Res judicata, cumulatarum,” 1643, 4to. The subject of dispute is the nature of the soul, and on the intelligences that direct the course of the stars.

Though these labours of sir Symonds contributed not a little to illustrate the general history of Great Britain, as well as to explain the important transactions of one of the most glorious reigns in it, yet two or three circumstances of his life have occasioned him to have been set by writers in perhaps a more disadvantageous light than he deserved; not to mention that general one, common to many others, of adhering to the parliament during the rebellion. Having occasion to write to archbishop Usher in 1639, he unfortunately let fall a hint to the prejudice of Camden’s *' Britannia;“for, speaking of the time and pains he had spent in collecting materials for an accurate history of Great Britain, and of his being principally moved to this task, by observing the many mistakes of the common writers, he adds,” And indeed what can be expected from them, considering that, even in the so much admired ‘Britannia’ of Camden himself, there is not a page, at least hardly a page, without errors?“This letter of his afterwards coming to light, among other epistles to that learned prelate, drew upon him the heaviest censures. Smith, the writer of the Latin life of Camden, assures us, that his” Britannia“was universally approved by all proper judges, one only, sir Symonds D'Ewes, excepted; who,” moved,“says he,” by I know not what spirit of envy, gave out that there was scarce a page,“&c. Nicolson, in his account of Camden’s work, says, that” some early attempts were made by an envious person, one Brook or Brookmouth, to blast the deservedly great reputation of this work but they perished and came to nothing; as did likewise the terrible threats given out by sir Symonds D'Ewes, that he would discover errors in every page.“Bishop Gibson has stated the charge against this gentleman more mildly, in his Life of Camden, prefixed to the English translation of his Britannia.” In the year 1607,“says the bishop,” he put the last hand to his Britannia, which gained him the titles of the Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias of Britain, in the writings and letters of other learned men. Nor did it ever after meet with any enemies that I know of, only sir Symonds D‘Ewes encouraged us to hope for animadversions upon the work, after he had observed to a very great man, that there was not a page in it without a fault. But it was only threatening; and neither the world was the better, nor was Mr. Camden’s reputation e’er the worse for it." Sir Symonds was certainly not defensible for throwing out at random, as it should seem, such a censure against a work universally well received, without ever attempting to support it; yet some have excused him by saying that this censure was contained in a private letter; and that sir Symonds had a high sense of Camden’s merit, whom he mentions very respectfully in the preface to his Journals, &c.

, is the supposed name of a very ancient historian, who, serving under Idomeneus, a king of Crete, in the Trojan war, wrote the history of that expeilition in nine books; and Tzetzes tells us, that Homer formed his Iliad upon his plan: but the Latin history of Dictys, which we have at present, is altogether spurious. There are two anonymous writers still extant, who pretend to have written of the Trojan war previously to Homer, one of whom goes under the name of Dictys Cretensis, the other that of Dares Phrygius, of which last we have already taken some notice. Before the history of Dictys there are two prefaces the first of which relates that Dictys wrote six volumes of the Trojan war in the Phœnician characters; and in his old age, after he was returned to his own country, ordered them, a little before his death, to be buried with him in a leaden chest or repository, which was accordingly done; that, however, after many ages, and under the reign of Nero, an earthquake happened at Cnosus, a city of Crete, which uncovered Dictys’s sepulchre, and exposed the chest; that the shepherds took it up, and expecting a treasure, opened it; and that, finding this history, they sent it to Nero, who ordered it to be translated, or rather transcharactered, from Phoenician into Greek. It has been inferred from this story that the history was forged by some of Nero’s flatterers, as he always affected a fondness for any thing relating to Trojan antiquities. The other preface to Dictys is an epistle of L. Septimius, the Latin translator, in which he inscribes it to Arcadius Kuffinus, who was consul in the reign of Constantino; and tells nearly the same story of the history we have already related. That the present Latin Dictys had a Greek original, now lost, appears from the numerous Grecisms with which it abounds; and from the literal correspondence of many passages with the Greek fragments of one Dictys cited by ancient authors. The Greek original was very probably, as we have just hinted, forged under the name of Dictys, a traditionary writer on the subject, in the reign of Nero. The best editions of Dictys and Dares Phrygius, are that of madame Dacier, Paris, 1680, 4to, and that of Smids, 4to and 8vo, Anist. 1702, 2 volumes.

, of the academy of Berlin, an eminent French writer, was the son of a cutler, and was bora at Langres, in 1713. The Jesuits, with whom he went through a course of study, were desirous of having him in their order, and one of his uncles designing him for a canonry which he had in his gift, made him take the tonsure. But his father, seeing that he was not inclined to be either a Jesuit or a canon, sent him to Paris to prosegute his studies. He then placed him with a lawyer, to whose instructions young Diderot paid little attention, but employed himself in general literature, which not coinciding with the views of his father, he stopped the remittance of his pecuniary allowance, and seemed for some time to have abandoned him. The talents of the young man, however, supplied him with a maintenance, and gradually made him known. He had employed his mind on physics, geometry, metaphysics, ethics, belles-lettres, from the time he began to read with reflection, and although a bold and elevated imagination seemed to give him a turn for poetry, he neglected it for the more serious sciences. He settled at an early period at Paris, where the natural eloquence which animated his conversation procured him friends and patrons. What first gave him reputation among a certain class of readers, unfortunately for France, too numerous in that country, was a little collection of “Pensees philosophiques,” reprinted afterwards under the title of “Etrennes aux esprits-forts.” This book appeared in 1746, 12mo. The adepts of the new philosophy compared it, for perspicuity, elegance, and force of diction, to the “Pensees de Pascal.” But the aim of the two authors was widely different. Pascal employed his talents, and erudition, which was profound and various, in support of the truths of religion, which Diderot attacked by all the arts of an unprincipled sophist. The “Pensées philosophiques,” however, became a toiletbook. The author was thought to be always in the right, because he always dealt in assertions. Diderot was more usefully employed in 1746, in publishing a “Dictionnaire universelle de Medecine,” with Messrs. Eidous and Toussaint, in G vols. folio. Not that this compilation, says his biographer, is without its defects in many points of view, or that it contains no superficial and inaccurate articles; but it is not without examples of deep investigation; and the work was well received. A more recent account, however, informs us that this was merely a translation of Dr. James’s Medical Dictionary, published in this country in 1743; and that Diderot was next advised to translate Chambers’ s Dictionary; but instead of acting so inferior a part, he conceived the project of a more extensive undertaking, the “Dictionnaire Encyclopedique.” So great a monument not being to be raised by a single architect, D'Alembert, the friend of Diderot, shared with him the honours and the dangers of the enterprise, in which they were promised the assistance of several literati, and a variety of artists. Diderot took upon himself alone the description of arts and trades, one of the most important parts, and most acceptable to the public. To the particulars of the several processes of the workmen, he sometimes added reflections, speculations, and principles adapted to their elucidation. Independently of the part of arts and trades, this chief of the encyclopedists furnished in the different sciences a considerable number of articles that were wanting; but even his countrymen are inclined to wish that in a work of such a vast extent, and of such general use, he had learned to compress his matter, and had been less verbose, less of the dissertator, and less inclined to digressions. He has also been censured for employing needlessly a scientific language, and for having recourse to metaphysical doctrines, frequently unintelligible, which occasioned him to be called the Lycophron. of philosophy; for having introduced a number of definitions incapable of enlightening the ignorant, and which he seems to have invented for no other purpose than to have it thought that he had great ideas, while in fact, he had not the art of expressing perspicuously and simply the ideas of others. As to the body of the work, Diderot himself agreed that the edifice wanted an entire reparation; and when two booksellers intended to give a new edition of the Encyclopedic, he thus addressed them on the subject of the faults with which it abounds: “The imperfection of this work originated in a great variety of causes. We had not time to be very scrupulous in the choice of the coadjutors. Among some excellent persons, there were others weak, indifferent, and altogether bad. Hence that motley appearance of the work, where we see the rude attempt of a school-boy by the side of a piece from the hand of a master; and a piece of nonsense next neighbour to a sublime performance. Some working for no pay, soon lost their first fervour; others badly recompensed, served us accordingly. The Encyclopedic was a gulf into which all kinds of scribblers promiscuously threw their contributions: their pieces were ill-conceived, and worse digested; good, bad, contemptible, true, false, uncertain, and always incoherent and unequal; the references that belonged to the very parts assigned to a person, were never filled up by him. A refutation is often found where we should naturally expect a proof; and there was no exact correspondence between the letter-press and the plates. To remedy this defect, recourse was had to long explications. But how many unintelligible machines, for want of letters to denote the parts!” To this sincere confession Diderot added particular details on various parts; such as proved that there were in the Encyclopedic subjects to be not only re-touched, but to be composed afresh; and this was what a new company of literati and artists undertook, but have not yet completed. The first edition, however, which had been delivering to the public from 1751 to 1767, was soon sold off, because its defects were compensated in part by many well-executed articles, and because uncommon pains were taken to recommend it to the public.

, of Alexandria, was an ecclesiastical writer of the fourth century, who supplied a very important defect by dint of genius and application. Jerome and Ruffinus assure us that though he lost his eyes at five years of age, when he had scarcely learned to read, yet he applied himself so earnestly to study, that he not only attained in a high degree grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, and the other arts, but even was able to comprehend some of the most difficult theorems in mathematics. He was particularly attached to the study of the Scriptures; and was selected as the most proper person to fill the chair in the famous divinity-school at Alexandria. His high reputation drew a great number of scholars to him; among the principal of whom were Jerome, Ruffinus, Palladius, and Isidorus. He read lectures with wonderful facility, answered upon the spot all questions and difficulties relating to the Holy Scriptures, and refuted the objections which were raised against the orthodox faith. He was the author of a great number of works of which Jerome has preserved the titles in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers; and of many more whose titles are not known. We have yet remaining a Latin translation of his book upon the Holy Spirit, to be found in the works of Jerome, who was the translator; and which is perhaps the best treatise the Christian world ever saw upon the subject. Whatever has been said since that time, in defence of the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, seems, in substance, to be foand in this book. His other works extant are, a treatise against the Manichees, in the original Greek, and “Enarrations upon the seven catholic epistles in Latin,” and in the Greek Chains are fragments of some of his commentaries. J. C. Wolff, of Hamburgh, published a large collection of notes and observations of Didymus upon the Acts of the Apostles, taken from a manuscript Greek chain, at Oxford. See Wolfii Anecdot. Graec. 1724. Didymus also wrote commentaries upon Origen’s books of Principles, which he defended very strenuously against all opposers. He was a great admirer of Origen, used to consider him as his master, and adopted many of his sentiments; on which account he was condemned by the fifth general council. He died in the year 395, aged eightyfive years.

, who once enjoyed the reputation of a philosopher, the eldest son of sir Everard Digby, was born at Gothurst in Buckinghamshire, June 11, 1603. At the time of his father’s death, he was with his mother at Gothurst, being then in the third year of his age: but he seems to have been taken early out of her hands, since it is certain that he renounced the errors of popery very young, and was carefully bred up in the protestant religion, under the direction, as it is supposed, of archbishop Laud, then dean of Gloucester. Some have said, that king James restored his estate to him in his infancy; but this is an error; for it was decided by law that the king had no right to it. About 1618 he was admitted a gentleman-commoner of Gloucester-hall, now Worcester college, in Oxford; where he soon discovered such strength of natural abilities, and such a spirit of penetration, that his tutor, who was a man of parts and learning, used to compare him, probably for the universality of his genius, to the celebrated Picus de Mirandula. After having continued at Oxford between two and three years, and having raised the highest expectations of future eminence, he made the tour of France, Spain, and Italy, and returned to England in 1623; in which year he was knighted by the king, to whom he was presented at the lord Montague’s house at Hinchinbroke, October 23. Soon after, he rendered himself remarkable by the application of a secret he met with in his travels, which afterwards made so much noise in the world under the title of the “Sympathetic Powder,” by which wounds were to be cured, although the patient was out of sight, a piece of quackery scarcely credible, yet it was practised by sir Kenelm, and his patient Howell, the letter-writer, and believed by many at that time. The virtues of this powder, as himself assures us, were thoroughly inquired into by king James, his son the prince of Wales, the duke of Buckingham, with other persons of the highest distinction, and all registered among the observations of the great chancellor Bacon, to be added by way of appendix to his lordship’s Natural History; but this is not strictly true; for lord Bacon never published that Appendix, although he does give a story nearly as absurd.

We must allow of Roscommon, what Fenton has not mentioned so distinctly as he ought, and, what is yet very much to his honour, that he is perhaps the only correct writer in verse before Addison; and that, if there are not so many or so great beauties in his compositions as in those of some contemporaries, there are at least fewer faults. Nor is this his highest praise; for Pope has celebrated him as the only moral writer of king Charles’s reign

Though all that is lost of this historian is much to be regretted, yet that is most so which contains the history of the forty last years; for within this period he was an eyewitness of all that passed, and a principal actor in a great part. Before the reign of Commodus, he could relate nothing but what he had from the testimony of others; after that, every thing fell under his own cognizance; and a man of his quality, who had spent his life in the management of great affairs, and had read men as well as books, must have had many advantages in delineating the history of his own times; and it is even now allowed, that no man has revealed more of those state-secrets, which Tacitus styles arcana imperii, and of which he makes so high a mystery. He is also very exact and full in his descriptions, in describing the order of the comitia, the establishing of magistrates, &c. and, as to what relates to the apotheosis, or consecration of emperors, perhaps he is the only writer who has given us a good account of it, if we except Ilerodian, who yet seemh to have been greatly indebted to him. Besides his descriptions, there are several of his speeches, which have been highly admired; those particularly of Maecenas and Agrippa, upon the question, whether Augustus should resign the empire or no. Yet he has been exceedingly blamed for his partiality, which to some has appeared so great, as almost to invalidate the credit of his whole history; of those parts at least, where he can be supposed to have been the least interested. The instances alleged are his partiality for Ciesar against Pompey, for Antony against Cicero, and his strong prejudices against Seneca. “The obvious cause of the prejudice which Dio had conceived against Cicero,” Dr. Middleton supposes “to have been his envy to a man who for arts and eloquence was thought to eclipse the fame of Greece-; 11 but he adds another reason, not less probable, deducible from Dio’s character and principles, which were wholly opposite to those of Cicero.” For Dio,“as he says,” flourished under the most tyrannical of the emperors, by whom he was advanced to great dignity; and, being the creature of despotic power, thought it a proper compliment to it, to depreciate a name so highly revered for its patriotism, and whose writings tended to revive that ancient zeal and spirit of liberty for which the people of Rome were once so celebrated: for we find him taking all occasions in his history, to prefer an absolute and monarchical government to a free and democratical one, as the most beneficial to the Roman state."

, so called from Laerta, or Laertes, a town of Cilicia, where he is supposed to have been born, is an ancient Greek author, who wrote ten books of the Lives of the Philosophers, still extant. In what age he flourished, is not easy to determine. The oldest writers who mention him are Sopater Alexandrinus, who lived in the time of Constantine the Great, and Hesychius Milesius, who lived under Justinian. Diogenes often speaks in terms of approbation of Plutarch and Phavorinus; and therefore, as Plutarch lived under Trajan, and Phavorinus under Hadrian, it is certain that he could not flourish before the reigns of those emperors. Menage has fixed him to the time of Severus; that is, about the year of Christ 200; and from certain expressions in his works, some have fancied him to have been a Christian; however, as Menage observes, the immoderate praises he bestows upon Epicurus will not suffer us to believe this, but incline us rather to suppose that he was an Epicurean. He divided his Lives into books, and inscribed them to a learned lady of the Platonic school, as he himself intimates in his life of Plato. Montaigne was so fond of this author, that, instead of one Laertius, he wishes we had a dozen; and Vossius says, that his work is as precious as old gold. Without doubt we are greatly obliged to him for what we know of the ancient philosophers; and if he had been as exact in the execution, as he was judicious in the choice of his subject, we had been more obliged to him still. Bishop Burnet, in the preface to his Life of sir Matthew Hale, justly speaks of him in the following manner: “There is no hook the ancients have left us,” says he, “which might have informed us more than Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers, if he had had the art of writing equal to that great subject which he undertook: for if he had given the world such an account of them, as Gassendus has done of Peiresc, how great a stock of knowledge might we have had, which by his unskilfulness is in a great measure lost! since we must now depend only on him, because we have no other and better author who has written on that argument.” He is no where observed to be a rigid affecter or favourer of any sect; which makes it somewhat probable, that he was a follower of Potomon of Alexandria, who, after all the rest, and a little before his time, established a sect which were called Eclectics, from their choosing out of every sect what they thought the best. His books shew him to have been a man of universal reading; but as a writer he is very exceptionable, both as to the disposal and the defect of his materials. Brucker, whose opinion must be of sterling value, in estimating the merits of Diogenes Laertius, says, that “he has collected from the ancients with little judgment, patched together contradictory accounts, relied upon doubtful authorities, admitted as facts many tales which were produced in the schools of the sophists, and has been inattentive to methodical arrangement.” Diogenes also composed a book of epigrams, to which he refers. The best edition is that of Meibomius, Amst. 1692, 2 vols. 4to; yet Rossius, in his “Commentationes Laertianae,” has convicted Meibomius of innumerable errors.

, an eminent French surgeon and writer, was born at Paris, and became surgeon in ordinary to Maria Teresa of Austria, queen of France, and to the dauphinesses and the royal family. These honours were bestowed in consequence of the fame which he acquired as lecturer in surgery and anatomy in the royal gardens at Paris, an office founded by Louis XIV. He retained this and his other offices with increasing reputation, until his death, Dec. 11, 1718. His first publication was “Histoire anatomique d'une matrice extraordinaire,” 1683. In 1690, he published “Anatomic de l'homme suivant la circulation du sang, et les nouvelles decouvertes,” 8vo, an useful epitome, containing all that was then known on the subject. It was well received, frequently reprinted, and was translated in 1718, into the Tartar language, by order of Cam-hi, the emperor of China, for the benefit of his subjects. His next work, which first appeared in 1707, was “Cours d'Operations de Chirurgie demontree, au Jardin Royal de Paris,” 8vo. This has been reprinted still more frequently than the former work, and has been translated into nearly all the modern languages. Heister gave an edition of it in Latin, with notes, and it still retains a certain degree of credit. In 1709, he gave “Dissertation sur la mort subite, avec l‘histoire d’une fille cataleptique,” 12mo; and in 1718, “Traite general des Accouchmens,” 8vo. This also has been translated into most modern languages, though it contains little more than an abridgment of the practice of Mauriceau, and is now almost entirely unnoticed.

, junior, flourished, according to Suidas, under the emperor Adrian, and wrote twenty-six books of the “History of Musicians,” in which he celebrated not only the great performers on the flute and cithara, but those who had risen to eminence by every species of poetry. He was, likewise, author of five books, written in defence of music, and chiefly in refutation of what is alleged against it in Plato’s Republic. Aristides Quintilianus has also endeavoured to soften the severity of some animadversions against music in the writings of Cicero; but though time has spared the defence of this author, yet it does not indemnify us for the loss of that which Dionysius junior left behind him; as testimonies are still remaining or his having been a much more able writer than Aristides Quintilianus.

The loss of the entire works of this writer is severely felt by all musical historians, but particularly by those who seek information concerning the music and musicians of the ancient Greeks.

He was a zealous advocate for, and a great friend to, the religious societies (particularly that for the reformation of manners), then in their infancy. His temper was naturally warm and impatient; but he was formed by nature also with a generous and forgiving mind, and his warmth and impatience were generally under the government of his reason. His principles of religion were orthodox in regard to points of doctrine and articles of faith: in respect to the principles of others, they were truly catholic. Mr. Disney’s correspondence with some persons of high name for literature in his age does honour to both parties. His own learning was acknowledged, and the great work which he had designed to have published, under the title of “Corpus Legum de Moribus Reformandis,” was greatly approved by several judicious and learned men, and forwarded by their ready answers to queries proposed to them by the writer, as occasion suggested them, and not unfrequently by their voluntary contributions. His own library contained a very extensive and valuable collection of books in all languages; but he spared not journies to the public libraries in London, and both of our universities, for the consultation of such scarce books and manuscripts as were nowhere else to be met with. His manuscripts, which are numerous, are preserved in his family, and his exactness and precision in their arrangement, and the fairness of their transcript, are peculiar to himself.

This wretched man was married so early as April 1751, even before he was in orders, or had any certain means of supporting himself; but his wife, “though largely endowed with personal attractions, was certainly deficient in those of birth and fortune.” She survived to the year 1784. Dr. Dodd exhibits the most awful instance known in our days of the miserable consequences of indulging habits of gaiety and expence in a profession to which the world looks for a more edifying example. His life, by his own confession, was for many years fearfully erroneous. But the most remarkable part of his history was the uncommon interest excited in the public mind, and the numerous petitions presented to the throne in his favour. Even the talents of Dr. Johnson were engaged to give a fair colouring to his case, and to combine with public sympathy a high opinion of the talents of which the world was about to be deprived. For this purpose the pen of that eminent writer was employed in writing those papers and documents which, to be any thing, ought to have been written by Dodd himself, but which, being immediately known to be Johnson’s, could only be considered as a part of that literary quackery which Dodd had so often practised. Dr. Johnson appears indeed in this instance to have been more swayed by popular judgment, than he would perhaps have been willing to allow. The cry was, the honour of the clergy; but if the honour of the clergy was tarnished, it was by Dodd’s crime, and not his punishment; for his life had been so long a disgrace to his cloth, that he had deprived himself of the sympathy which attaches to the first deviation from rectitude, and few criminals could have had less claim to such a display of popular feeling.

, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, in 1703. His father is said to have kept the tree-school at Mansfield, a situation in which it is natural to suppose he could have bestowed some education on his children, yet it is not easy to reconcile this with the servile track of life into which they were obliged to enter. He is described as a little deformed man, who, after having a large family by his first wife, married at the age of seventy-five a young girl of only seventeen years, by whom he had a child. Of his sons, A Ivory lived many years, and died in the service of the late sir George Saville; Isaac was for some time gardener to Mr. Allen, of Prior-park, and afterwards to lord Weymouth, at Long-leat. In these two families he spent fifty-two years of his life; and has the credit of being the projector of some of the beautiful plantations at both those seats. He retired from Long-leat at the age of seventy-eight, and died about three years after. There was a third, John, whose name with that of Alvory, and of the father, is among the subscribers to our poet’s first publication. James, who was twenty-two years younger than Robert, will come to be mentioned hereafter; when he was taken into partnership. How he passed the preceding part of his time is not known. Of Robert, nothing is now remembered in his native town, but a traditional story, that he was put apprentice to a stocking-weaver of that place, and that, being almost starved, he ran away, and was hired by a lady as her footman: this lady, it is added, observing that he employed his leisure hours in reading, gave him every encouragement; and soon after he wrote an entertainment, which was shewn to Pope and others. Part of this story is probable, but too much of his history is crowded into it. His first service was not that of a lady, nor was the entertainment (The Toy-shop) his first production.

About this time, he established, in conjunction with Moore, a periodical paper, entitled “The World,” a name which Dodsley is allowed to have suggested after the other partners had perplexed themselves in vain for a proper one. Lord Lyttelton, although no contributor himself, used his influence with his friends for that purpose, and Dodsley procured papers from many of his friends and customers. One paper only, No. 32, is acknowledged to come from his own pen. By undertaking to pay Moore a stipulated sum for each paper, whether contributed by that writer, or sent by volunteers, J)odsley secured to himself the copyright, and was amply repaid not only by its sale in. single numbers, but by the many editions printed in volumes. When it was concluded in 1756, he obtained permission of the principal writers to insert their names, which gave it an additional interest with the public. A few chose, at that time, to remain concealed, who have since been discovered, and some are yet unknown. Chesterfield and Horace Walpole were known at the time of publication.

, a very learned writer, was born in the parish of St. Warburgh in Dublin, towards the latter end of October 1641, and baptized November 4th. His father, who was in the army, had an estate at Connaught, but it being seized by the Irish rebels, he came, with his wife and child, to England in 1648, to obtain some assistance among their relations. After some stay in London, they went to York, and placed their son in the free-school of that city, where he continued five years, and laid the foundation of his extensive learning. His father, after having settled him with his mother at York, went to Ireland, to look after his estate, but died of the plague at Waterford: and his mother, going thither for the same purpose, fell into a consumption, of which she died, in her brother sir Henry Slingsby’s house. Being thus deprived of his parents, Mr. Doduell was reduced to such streights that he had not money enough to buy pen, ink, and paper; and suffered very much for want of his board being regularly paid*. Thus he continued till 1654, when his uncle, Mr. Henry Dodvvell, rector of Newbourn

As a writer, Dogget has left behind him only one comedy, which has not been performed in its original state for many years, entitled “The Country Wake, 1696,” 4to. It has been altered, however, into a ballad farce, which frequently makes its appearance under the title of “Flora or, Hob in the Well.”

, an eminent special pleader and law writer, was born in Ireland, and educated at a country school. He came to England early in life, with an able capacity and habits of industry, but without any direct prospect of employment, or choice of profession. He became, however, clerk to the late Mr. Bower, a very profound lawyer, where, with assiduous study, he acquired a knowledge of special pleading, and the law connected with that abstruse science; and such was his diligence, that in a comparatively short time, he accumulated a collection of precedents and notes that appeared to his employer an effort of great labour and ingenuity. After having been many years with Mr. Bower, the latter advised him to commence special pleader, and in this branch of the profession he soon acquired great reputation; his drafts, which were generally the work of his own hand, being admired as models of accuracy. They were formed according to the neat and concise system of Mr. Bower, and his great friend and patron sir Joseph Yates, many of whose books, notes, and precedents, as well as those of sir Thomas Davenport, Mr. Dogherty possessed. This intense application, however, greatly impaired his health, which was visibly on the decline for many months before his decease. This event took place at his chambers in Clifford’s-inn, Sept. 29, 1805, and deprived the profession of a man of great private worth, modest and unassuming manners, independent mind, and strict honour and probity. Mr. Dogherty was the author and editor of some valuable works on criminal law. He published a new edition of the “Crown Circuit Companion;” and an original composition, in 1786, “The Crown Circuit Assistant,” which is a most useful supplement to the former. In 1800 he edited a new edition of Hale’s “Historia Placitorum Coronae,” in 2 vols. 8vo, with an abridgment of the statutes relating to felonies, continued to that date, and with notes and references. His common-place and office-books, still in manuscript, are said to be highly valuable.

, a most laborious Italian writer, was born at Venice in 1508. His family was one of the most ancient in the republic, but reduced in circumstances. Lewis remained the whole of his life in his native city, occupied in his numerous literary undertakings, which procured him some personal esteem, but little reputation or wealth. Perhaps his best employment was that of cor-, rector of the press to the celebrated printer Gabriel Giolito, whose editions are so much admired for the beauties of type and paper, and yet with the advantage of Dolce’s attention, are not so correct as could be wished. As an original author, Dolce embraced the whole circle of polite literature and science, being a grammarian, rhetorician, orator, historian, philosopher, editor, translator, and commentator; and as a poet, he wrote tragedies, comedies, epics, lyrics, and satires. All that can be called events in his life, were some literary squabbles, particularly with Ruscelli, who was likewise a corrector of Giolito’s press. He died of a dropsical complaint in 1569, according to Apostolo Zeno, and, according to Tiraboschi, in 1566. Baillet, unlike most critics, says he was one of the best writers of his age. His style is flowing, pure, and elegant; but he was forced by hunger to spin out his works, and to neglect that frequent revisal which is so necessary to the finishing of a piece. Of his numerous works, a list of which may be seen in Niceron, or Moreri, the following are in some reputation: 1. “Dialogo della pittura, intitolato I'Aretino,” Venice, 1557, 8vo. This work was reprinted, with the French on the opposite page, at Florence, 1735. 2. “Cinque priini canti del Sacripante,” Vinegia^ 1535, 8vo. 3. “Primaleone,” 1562, 4to. 4. “Achilles; 1 * and” Jineas,“1570, 4to. 5.” La prima imprese del conte Orlando," 1572, 4to. 6. Poems in different collections, among others in that of Berni. And the Lives of Charles V. and Ferdinand the First.

, a voluminous French writer, who was burnt for his religious opinions at Paris, was born at Orleans about 1509, of a good family. Some have reported that he was the natural son of Francis L but this does not agree with the age of that monarch, who was born in 1494. Dolet began his studies at Orleans, and was sent to continue them at Paris when twelve years old. He applied with particular diligence to the belles lettres, and to rhetoric under Nicholas Berauld. His taste for these studies induced him to go to Padua, where he remained for three years, and made great progress under the instructions of Simon de Villa Nova, with whom he contracted an intimate friendship, and not only dedicated some of his poetical pieces to him, but on his death in 1530, composed some pieces to his memory, and wrote his epitaph. After the death of this friend, he intended to have returned to France, but John de Langeac, the Venetian ambassador, engaged him as his secretary. During his residence at Venice, he received some instructions from Baptiste F,griatio, who commented on Lucretius and Cicero’s Offices, and he became enamoured of a young lady whose charms and death he has celebrated in his Latin poems. On his return to France with the ambassador, he pursued his study of Cicero, who became his favourite author; and he began to make collections for his commentaries on the Latin language. His friends having about this time advised him to study law, as a profession, he went to Toulouse, and divided his time between law and the belles lettres. Toulouse was then famous for law studies, and as it was frequented by students of all nations, each had its little society, and its orator or president. The French scholars chose Doiet into this office, and he, with the rashness which adhered to him all his life, commenced hy a harangue in which he praised the French at the expence of the Toulousians, whom he accused of ignorance and barbarism, because the parliament of Toulouse wished to prohibit these societies. This was answered by Peter Pinache, to whom JJolet replied with such aggravated contempt for the Toulousians, that in 1533 he was imprisoned for a month, and then banished from the city. Some think he harboured Lutheran opinions, which was the cause of his imprisonment and banishment, but there is not much in his writings to justify this supposition, except his occasional sneers at ecclesiastics. As soon, however, as he reached Lyons, he took his revenge by publishing his harangues against the Toulousians, with some satirical verses on those whom he considered as the most active promoters of his disgrace; and that he might have something to plead against the consequences of such publications, he pretended that they had been stolen from him and given to the press without his knowledge. The verses were, however, inserted in the collection of his Latin poems printed in 1538.

, or Domenico Zampieri,a very much admired artist, was born at Bologna in 1581, and received his first instruction in the art of painting, from Denis Calvart; but afterwards he became a disciple of the Caracci, and continued in that school for a long time. The great talents of Domenichino did not unfold themselves as early in him, as talents much inferior to his have disclosed themselves in other painters; he was studious, thoughtful, and circumspect; which by some writers, as well as by his companions, was misunderstood, and miscalled dullness. But the intelligent Annibal Caracci, who observed his faculties with more attention, and knew his abilities better, testified of Domenichino, that his apparent slowness of parts at present, would in time produce what would be an honour to the art of painting. He persevered in the study of his art with incredible application and attention, and daily made rapid advances. Some writers contend that his thoughts were judicious from the beginning, and they were afterwards elevated, wanting but little of reaching the sublime; and that whoever will consider the composition, the design, and the expression, in his Adam and Eve, his Communion of St. Jerom, and in that admirable picture of the Death of St. Agnes at Bologna, will readily perceive that they must have been the result of genius, as well as of just reflections; but Mr. De Piles says he is in doubt whether Domenichino had any genius or not. That ingenious writer seems willing to attribute every degree of excellence in Domenichino’s performances, to labour, or fatigue, or good sense, or any thing but genius; yet, says Pilkington, how any artist could (according to his own estimate in the balance of painters) be on an equality with the Caracci, Nicolo Poussin, and Lionardo da Vinci, in composition and design, and superior to them all by several degrees in expression, and also approach near to the sublime, without having a genius, or even without having an extraordinary good one, seems to me not easily reconcileable. If the productions of an artist must always be the best evidence of his having or wanting a genius, the compositions of Domenichino must ever afford sufficient proofs in his favour. The same biographer says, that as to correctness of design, expression of the passions, and also the simplicity and variety, in the airs of his heads, he is allowed to be little inferior to Raphael; yet his attitudes are but moderate, his draperies rather stiff, and his pencil heavy. However, as he advanced in years and experience, he advanced proportionably in, merit, and the latest of his compositions are his best. There is undoubtedly in the works of this eminent master, what will always claim attention and applause, what will for ever maintain his reputation, and place him among the number of the most excellent in the art of painting. One of the chief excellences of Domenichino consisted in his painting landscapes; and in that style, the beauty arising from the natural and simple elegance of his scenery, his trees, his well- broken grounds, and in particular the character and expression of his figures, gained him as much public admiration as any of his other performances.

There was another DoNi, whose name was John Bap­Tist, a writer on Music, and who left behind him at his death, about 1650, many printed works upon ancient music, as “Compend. del. Trat. de‘ Generi e de’ Modi della Musica.” “De praestantia Musicse Veteris,” and particularly his “Discorso sopra le Consonanze,” with a great number of unfinished essays and tracts relative to that subject, and the titles of many more. Few men had indeed considered the subject with greater attention. He saw the difficulties, though he was unable to solve them. The titles of his chapters, as well as many of those of father Mersennus, and others, are often the most interesting and seducing imaginable. But they are false lights, which like ignes fatui, lead us into new and greater obscurity. The treatises which he published both in Latin and Italian, on the music of the Greeks, being well written in point of language, obtained him the favour and eulogies of men of the highest class in literature. He has been much extolled by Heinsius, Gassendi, Pietro della Valle, and others. Apostolo Zeno, in his learned notes to the Biblioteca Italiana of Fontanini, speaks of him in the following terms: “We had reason to hope that the works of Doni -would have completed our knowledge of the musical system of the ancients; as he united in himself a vast erudition, a profound knowledge in the Greek language, in mathematics, in the theory of modern music, in poetry, and history, with access to all the precious Mss. and treasures of antiquity.” Doni invented an instrument which he denominated the “Lyra Barberini,” or “Amphichordon,” which he has described in an express treatise, but we hear of it no where else. He was a declared foe to learned music, particularly vocal in fugue, where the several performers are uttering different words at the same time, and certainly manifests good taste, and enlarged views, with respect to theatrical music and the improvement of the musical drama or opera; but his objections to modern music, and proposals of reform, not only manifest his ignorance of the laws of harmony, but a bad ear, as he recommends such wild, impracticable, and intolerable expedients of improvement, as no ear well constructed, however uncultivated, can bear.

, a writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Kiritz, in the marche of Brandenburgh, and was very young when he became a monk of the order of St. Francis. After studying philosophy and theology with distinguished success, he became eminent not only as a preacher, but as a lecturer on the scriptures at Erfurt, and professor of theology at Magdeburgh. He was likewise made minister of his order in the province of Saxe, and held that office in 1431, at which time the Landgrave of Thuringia wrote several letters to him, instructing him to introduce some reform amono 1 the Franciscans of Eisenac. About the same time he was sent as one of the deputies to the council of Basil, by that party of his order who adhered to that council. It was either then, or as some think, ten years later, that he was raised to be general of his order. Whether he had been dismissed, or whether he resigned the office of minister of Saxe, he held it only six years, and went afterwards to pass the rest of his days in the monastery of Kiritz, where he devoted himself to meditation and study, and wrote the greater part of his works. The time of his death is a disputed point. Casimir Oudin gives 1494 as the date of that event, which Marchand, with some probability reduces to 1464.

, bishop of Derry in Ireland, the son of William Downham, bishop of Chester, was born there. He was educated at Cambridge, was elected a fellow of Christ college in 1585, and was afterwards professor of logic. Fuller says that no man was better skilled in Aristotle and Ramus, and terms him “the top-twig of that branch.” He was esteemed a man of learning, and was chaplain to James I. by whom he was advanced to the see of Derry, by letters dated Sept. 6, 1616, and was consecrated Oct. 6, of the same year. During the government of the lord chancellor Loftus, and the earl of Cork, he obtained a commission, by an immediate warrant from himself to arrest, apprehend, and attach the bodies of all people within his jurisdiction, who should decline the same, or should refuse to appear upon lawful citation, or appearing should refuse to obey the sentence given against them, and authority to bind them in recognizances, with sureties or without, to appear at the council-table to answer such contempts. The like commission was renewed to him by the lord deputy Wentworth, Oct. 3, 1633. Both were obtained upon his information, that his diocese abounded with all manner of delinquents, who refused obedience to all spiritual processes. He died at Londonderry April 17, 1634, and was buried there in the cathedral. He had a brother named John, who was an eminent divine and a writer. His own works are very numerous, and evince his theological abilities and piety. 1. “A treatise concerning Antichrist, in two books,” Lond. 1603, 4to. 2. “The Christian’s Sanctuary,” ibid. 1604, 4to. 3. “Lectures upon the Fifteenth Psalm,” ibid. 1604, -4to. 4. “Sermon at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon Apocalypse i. 20,” ibid. 160S, 4to. 5. “Defence of the same Sermon against a nameless author,” ibid. 1611,4to. 6. “Two Sermons, the one commending the ministry in general, the other, the office of bishops in particular,” ibid. 1608. The latter of these, but enlarged, is the consecration sermon above mentioned. 7. “Papa Antichristus, sen Diatriba de Antichristo,” ibid. 1620, a different treatise from the former against Antichrist. 8. “The Covenant of Grace, or an Exposition upon Luke i. 73, 74, 75,” Dublin, 1631, 8vo. 9. “A treatise on Justification,” Lond. 1633, folio. 10. “The Christian’s Freedom, or the doctrine of Christian Liberty,” Oxford, 1635, 8vo. 11. “An Abstract of the Duties commanded, and sins forbidden in the Law of God,” Lond. 1635, 8vo. 12. “A godly and learned Treatise of Prayer,” Lond. 1640, 4to. These three last were posthumous. His brother John, above mentioned, was likewise educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. D. He exercised his ministry in different parts of London, and was the first who preached the Tuesday’s lecture in St. Bartholomew Exchange, which he did with great reputation. His principal work is entitled “The Christian Warfare.” He died in 1644.

, a celebrated political writer and physician, was born at Cambridge in 1667; and at the age of seventeen admitted a member of that university, where he soon distinguished himself by his uncommon parts and ingenuity. Some time before the revolution, he took the degree of B. A. and after that of M. A. bur, going to London in 1693, and discovering an inclinutioji for the study of physic, he was encouraged in the pursuit of it by sir Thomas Millington, and the most eminent members of the college of physicians. In 1696 he took the degree of doctor in that faculty; and was soon after elected F. R. S. and a fellow of the college of physicians. But whether his own inclination led him, or whether he did it purely to supply the defects of a fortune, which was not sufficient to enable him to keep a proper equipage as a physician in town, he applied himself to writing for the booksellers. In 1697 he was concerned in the publication of a pamphlet, entitled “Commendatory verses upon the author of prince Arthur and king Arthur.” In 1702 he published in 8vo, “The History of the last Parliament, begun at Westminster Feb. 10, in the twelfth year of king William, A. D. 1700.” This created him some trouble; for the house of lords, thinking it reflected too severely on the memory of king Williau), summoned the author before" them in May 1702, and ordered him to be prosecuted by the attorney-general; who brought him to a trial, at which he was acquitted the year following.

, lieutenant-general and K. B. was educated at Eton, and at King’s college, Cambridge; and, preferring the military profession, went to the EastIndies in the company’s service; where, in 1760, he received the privilege of ranking as a colonel in the army, with Lawrence and Clive, and returned home that year. In 1761 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier in the expedition to Belleisle. In 1763, he, with admiral Cornish, conducted the expedition against Manila. They sailed from Madras Aug. 1, and anchored Sept. 27, in Manila bay, where the inhabitants had no expectation of the enemy. The fort surrendered Oct. 6, and was preserved from plunder by a ransom of four millions of dollars; half to be paid immediately, and the other half in a time agreed on. The Spanish governor drew on his court for the first half, but payment was never made. The arguments of the Spanish court were clearly refuted by colonel Draper in a letter to the earl of Halifax, then premier. Succeeding administrations declined the prosecution of this claim from reasons of state which were never divulged; and the commander in chief lost for his share of the ransom 25,000l. The colours taken at this conquest were presented to King’s college, Cambridge, and hung up in their beautiful chapel, and the conqueror was rewarded with a red ribband. Upon the reduction of the 79th regiment, which had served so gloriously in the East-Indies, his majesty, unsolicited by him, gave him the 16th regiment of foot as an equivalent. This he resigned to colonel Gisborne, for his half pay, 1200l. Irish annuity. In 1769 the colonel appeared, and with much credit, in a literacy character, drawing his pen against that of Junius, in defence of his friend the marquis of Granby, which drew a retort on himself, answered by him in a second letter to Junius, on the refutations of the former charge against him. On a republication of Junius’s first letter, sir William renewed his vindication of himself; and was answered with great keenness by his famous antagonist. Here the controversy dropped for the present, but he is supposed to have entered the lists once more, under the signature of Modestus, with that extraordinary and still concealed writer, in defence of general Gansel, who had been arrested for debt, and was rescued by a party of soldiers. In Oct. 1769 he retired to South Carolina, for the recovery of his health, and took the opportunity to make the tour of North America. That year he married miss de Lancy, daughter of the chief justice of New York, who died in July 1778, and by whom he had a daughter born Aug. 18, 1773. May 29, 1779, sir William, being then in rank a lieutenant-general, was appointed lieutenant-governor of Minorca, on the unfortunate surrender of which important place he exhibited 29 charges against the late governor, general Murray, Nov. 11, 1782. Of these 27 were deemed frivolous and groundless and for the other two the governor was reprimanded. Sir William was then ordered to make an apology to general Murray, for having instituted the trial against him; in which he acquiesced. From this time he appears to have lived in retirement at Bath till his decease, which happened the 8th of January 1787. Many particulars respecting his controversy with Junius, as well as the controversy itself, may be seen in the splendid edition of “Junius’s Letters,” published by Mr. Woodfall in 1812.

, the third son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1633, and after studying some years at Saumur, he went to Montpellier, where he completed his medical course, and took his doctor’s degree. He afterwards attended the marshal Turenne in his campaigns, and was by him appointed physician to the army. The skill and ability he had shewn in this situation, occasioned his being nominated to succeed Vander Linden, in 168S, as professor of medicine at Leyden, whither he obtained permission to go, though he had been made, several years before, one of the physicians to Lewis the Fourteenth. Two years after, he was advanced to the chair of anatomy in the same university. He was also made physician to William, prince of Orange, and to his princess, Mary. As rector of the university of Leyden, he spoke the congratulatory oration to the prince and princess, on their accession to the throne of England. He continued to hold his professorships, the offices of which he filled so as to give universal satisfaction, to the time of his death, which happened on the last day of May, 1697. He was a voluminous and learned writer; his works, which were much read in his time, and passed through several editions, were collected and published together in 1671, and again in 1680, in 4 vols. 12mo. But the most complete edition of them is that published at the Hague, in 1727, in 4to. In one of his orations he has been careful to exculpate professors of medicine from the charge of impiety, so frequently thrown upon them. “Oratio Doctoralis Monspessula, qufi Medicos Dei operum consideratione atque contemplatione permotos, caeteris hominibus Religioni astrictiores esse demons tratur: atque adeo impietatis crimen in ipsos jactatum diluitur.” He also, in his “Apologia Medica,” refutes the idea of physicians having been banished from, and not allowed to settle in Rome for the space of six hundred years. He was a lover of Greek literature, and like his countryman, Guy Patin, an enemy to the introduction of chemical preparations into medicine, which were much used in his time. He was also a strong opponent to his colleague Sylvius Bayle has given him a high character. As a man he describes him benevolent, friendly, pious, and charitable; as a scholar, versed in the Greek and Latin tongues, and in all polite literature in as high a degree as if he had never applied himself to any thing else; as a professor of physic, clear and exact in his method of reading lectures, and of a skill in anatomy universally admired; as an author, one whose writings are of an original and inimitable characier.

The same year, 1681, he published his Medal, a satire against sedition. This poem was occasioned by the striking of a medal, on account of the indictment against the earl of Shaftesbury for high-treason being found ignoramus by the grand jury at the Old Bailey, November 1611, for which the whig-party made great rejoicings by ringing of bells, bonfires, &c. in all parts of London. The whole poem is a severe invective against the earl of Shaftesbury and the whigs to whom the author addresses himself, ina satirical epistle prefixed to it, thus “I have one favour to desire of you at parting, that, when you think of answering this poem, you would employ the same pens against it, who have combated with so much success against Absalom and Achitophel; for then you may assure yourselves of a clear victory without the least reply. Rail at me abundantly; and, not to break a custom, do it without wit. If God has not blessed you with the talent of rhyming, make use of my poor stock and welcome: let your verses run upon my feet; and for the utmost refuge of notorious blockheads, reduced to the last extremity of sense, turn my own lines upon me, and, in utter despair of your own satire, make me satirize myself.” Settle wrote an answer to this poem, entitled “The Medal reversed;” and is erroneously said to have written a poem called “Azariah and Hushal,” against “Absalom and Achitophel.” This last was the production of one Pordage, a dramatic writer. In 1682, Dryden published a poem, called “Religio Laici; or, the Layman’s Faith.” This piece is intended as a defence of revealed religion, and of the excellency and authority of the scriptures, as the only rule of faith and manners, against deists, papists, and presbyterians. The author tells us in the preface, that it was written for an ingenious young gentleman, his friend, upon his translation of father Simon’s “Critical History of the Old Testament.” In October of this year, he also published his Mac Flecnoe, an exquisite satire against the poet Shad well.

His leg having become mortified, his surgeon recommended an amputation of the limb, with a view to stop the further progress of the disorder; but he would not undergo the operation, saying, that as by the course of nature he had not many years to live, he would not attempt to prolong an uncomfortable existence by a painful and uncertain experiment, but patiently submit to death. This account, which was given by a contemporary writer, not long afterwards, is strongly corroborated by the unquestionable testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Creed, his kinswoman; who informs us, that he received the notice of his approaching dissolution with perfect resignation and submission to the Divine Will; and that in his last illness he took the most tender and affectionate farewell of his afflicted friends, “of which sorrowful number she herself was one.” Twentytwo years afterwards this very respectable lady, who was then in her eightieth year, erected a monument at Tichmarsh, in honour of our poet and his parents, on which these circumstances so much to his honour are recorded. (See Creed, vol. X.)

His translations of Virgil, Juvenal, and Persius, and his Fables, were more successful, as we have observed already. But his poetical reputation is built chiefly upon his original poems, among which his Ode on Saint Caecilia’s Day is justly esteemed one of the most perfect pieces in any language. It has been set to music more than once, particularly in the winter of 1735, by Handel; and was publicly performed with the utmost applause, on the theatre in Covent-garden. Congreve, in the dedication of our author’s dramatic works to the duke of Newcastle, has drawn his character to great advantage. He represented him, in regard to his moral character, in every respect not only blameless, but amiable; and, “as to his writings,” says he, “no man hath written in our language so much and so various matter, and in so various manners, so well. Another thing I may say was very peculiar to him; which is, that his parts did not decline with his years, but that he was an improving writer to the last, even to near se* venty years of age; improving even in fire and imagination, as well as in judgment; witness his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day, and his Fables, his latest performances. He was equally excellent in verse and in prose. His prose had all the clearness imaginable, together with all the nobleness of expression; all the graces and ornaments proper and peculiar to it, without deviating into the language or diction of poetry. I have heard him frequently own with pleasure, that if he had any talent for English prose, it was owing to his having often read the writings of the great archbishop Tillotson. His versification and his numbers he could learn of nobody; for he first possessed those talents in perfection in our tongue. In his poems, his diction is, wherever his subject requires it, so sublimely and so truly poetical, that its essence, like that of pure gold, cannot be destroyed. What he has done in any one species or distinct kind of writing, would have been sufficient to have acquired him a great name. If he had written nothing but his prefaces, or nothing but his songs or his prologues, each of them would have entitled him to the preference and distinction of excelling in his kind.” It may be proper to observe, that Congreve, in drawing this character of Dryden, discharged an obligation laid on him by our poet, in these lines:

Pope had a high opinion of Dryden. His verses upon his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day are too well known to need transcribing. In a letter to Wycherley, he says, “It was certainly a great satisfaction to me, to see and converse with a man, whom in his writings I had so long known with pleasure; but it was a very high addition to it, to hear you at our very first meeting doing justice to your dead friend Mr. Dryden. I was not so happy as to know him: Frrgtlium tantum vidi. Had I been born early enough, I must have known and loved him; for I have been assured, not only by yourself, but by Mr. Congreve and sir William Trumball, that his personal qualities were as amiable as his poetical, notwithstanding the many libellous misrepresentations of them; against which, the former of these gentlemen has told me he will one day vindicate him.” But what Congreve and Pope have said of Dryden, is rather in the way of panegyric, than an exact character of him. Others have spoken of him more moderately, and yet have probably done him no injustice. Thus Felton observes, th^.t “he at once gave the best rules, and broke them in spite of his own knowledge, and the Rehearsal. His prefaces are many of them admirable upon dramatic writings: he had some peculiar notions, which he maintains with great address; but his judgment in disputed points is of less weight and value, because the inconstancy of his temper did run into his thoughts, and mixed with the conduct of his writings, as well as his life.” Voltaire styles him “a writer whose genius was too exuberant, and not accompanied with judgment enough; and tells us, that if he had writ only a tenth part of the works he left behind him, his character would have been conspicuous in every part; but his groat fault is, his having endeavoured to be universal.” Dryden has made no scruple to disparage himself, where he thought he had not excelled. Thus, in his dedication of his Aurengzebe to the earl of Mulgrave, speaking of his writing for the stage, “I never thought myself,” says he, “very fit for an employment where many of my predecessors have excelled me in all kinds; and some of my contemporaries, even in my own partial judgment, have outdone me in comedy. Some little hopes I have yet remaining (and those too, considering my abilities, may be vain), that I may make the world some part of amends for many ill plays, by an heroic poem,” of which, however, he did not execute any part. Upon the whole, Mr. Malone appears to have examined and delineated his character as a man, with most truth and precision; and as a poet it is impossible to refer to any thing equal to that masterly criticism given by Dr. Johnson in his life of our poet.

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

His works, which procured him a very high reputation in France, were published inxhe following order: 1. “Histoire des quatre Gordiens, prouvee et illustree par les medailles,” Paris, 1695, 12mo, in which he proves, contrary to the common opinion, that there was a fourth Gordianus, the son of the younger Gordianus of Africa; but this produced two answers, in which his opinion was attacked. 2. “Animadversiones ad Nicolai Bergerii librog de publicis et militaribus imperii Romani viis,” Utrecht and Leyden, 1699. 3. “Les interets de PAngleterre, mal entendiis dans la guerre presente,” Amst. 1704, of which there have been several editions, but it appears to have been better relished in France than in England; it consists of many melancholy prophecies respecting England, one of which only, the separation of the American colonies from the mother country, which he hints at, has been fulfilled. 4. “Histoire de la ligue de Cambrai, faite Tan 1508, centre la republique de Venise,” Paris, 1709, 2 vols. 12mo, and reprinted in 1728. 5. “Reflections critiques sur la Poesie et la Peinture,” Paris, 1719, 2 vols. 12mo, and often reprinted in 3 vols, and translated into English. This work, on which the abbe“Dubos’s reputation now principally rests, contains many useful remarks, in a style peculiarly agreeable, but his taste has been frequently attacked, and his enthusiasm for the arts doubted. Voltaire gave him the praise of having seen, heard, and reflected upon the fine arts, and he must be allowed to be upon some topics an elegant writer, and an ingenious reasoner; but, with regard to the subject of music, both his prejudices and his ignorance are visible. He not only determines, says Dr. Burney, that the French and Fleming* cultivated music before the Italians; but, wholly unacquainted with the compositions of other parts of Europe, asserted that there was no music equal to that of Lulli, only known and admired in France. And where, adds the doctor, will he be believed, except in that kingdom, when he says that foreigners allow his countrymen to understand time and measure better than the Italians? He never loses an opportunity of availing himself of the favourable opinions of foreigners in behalf of French music, against that of other parts of Europe. Not only Guicciardini, but Addison, Gravina, and Vossius, all equally unacquainted with the theory, practice, or history of the art, and alike deprived of candour by the support of some favourite opinion or hypothesis, are pressed into the service of his country. If when D'Alembert wrote his Eulogy, he could say that Dubos was one of those men of letters who had more merit than fame, the converse of the proposition is now nearer the truth, and yet the merit of having produced a very agreeable book may be allowed him; and a book, a great deal of which will contribute to form a just taste on those subjects with which he is really acquainted. 6.” Histoire critique de l'etablissment de la monarchic Franoise dans les Gaules," Paris, 1734, 3 vols. 4to. Profiting by some criticisms on this work from the pen of M. Hoffman, professor of history at Wittemberg, he left for publication a corrected edition, which appeared in 1743, 2 vols. 4to. Besides these, he published a translation in French prose, of part of Addison’s Cato, and some discourses held in the French academy.

, born at Dinant in Bretagne, about the close of 1705, the son of a hatter, received a distinguished education at Paris. His taste for literature obtained him admission to the most celebrated academies of the metropolis, of the provinces, and of foreign countries. Being chosen to succeed Mirabaud, as perpetual secretary of the French academy, he filled that post as a man who was fond of literature, and had the talent of procuring it respect. Though domesticated at Paris, he was appointed in 1744 mayor of Dinant; and in 1755 had a patent of nobility granted him by the king, in reward for the zeal which the states of Bretagne had shewn for the service of the country. That province having received orders to point out such subjects as were most deserving of the favours of the monarch, Duclos was unanimously named by the tiers-6tat. He died at Paris, March 26, 1772, with the title of historiographer of France. His conversation was at once agreeable, instructive and lively. He reflected deeply, and expressed his thoughts with, energy, and illustrated them by well selected anecdotes. Lively and impetuous by nature, he was frequently the severe censor of pretensions that had no foundation. But age, experience, intercourse with society, a great fund of good sense, at length taught him to restrict to mankind in general those hard truths which never fail to displease individuals. His austere probity, from whence proceeded that bluntness for which he was blamed in company, his beneficence, and his other virtues, gave him a right to the public esteem. “Few persons,” says M. le prince de Beauvau, “better knew the duties and the value of friendship. He would boldly serve his friends and neglected merit on such occasions he displayed an art which excited no distrust, and which would not have been expected in a man who his whole life long chose rather to shew the truth with force, than to insinuate it with address.” At first he was of the party which went under the name of the philosophers; but the excesses of its leader, and of some of his subalterns, rendered him somewhat more circumspect. Both in his conversation and in his writings he censured those presumptuous writers, who, under pretence of attacking superstition, undermine the foundations of morality, and weaken the bands of society. Once, speaking on this subjert, “these enthusiastic philosophers,” said he, “will proceed such lengths, as at last to make me devout.” Besides, he was too fond of his own peace and happiness to follow them in their extravagancies, and placed no great value on their friendship or good will. “Duclos est a la fois droit et adroit,” said one of his philosophical friends, and it was in consequence of this prudence, that he never would publish any tiling of what he wrote as historiographer of France. “Whenever I have been importuned,” said he, “to bring out some of my writings on the present reign, I have uniformly answered, that I was resolved neither to ruin myself by speaking truth, nor debase myself by flattery. However, I do not the less discharge my duty. If I cannot speak to my contemporaries, I will shew the rising generation what their fathers were.” Indeed, we are told that he did compose the history of the reign of Lewis XV. and that after his death it was lodged in the hands of the minister. The preface to this work may be seen in the first vol. of the “Pieces inte>essantes” of M. de la Place. Duclos’s works consist of some romances, which have been much admired in. France; 1. “The Confessions of count ***.” 2. “The baroness de Luz.” 3. “Memoirs concerning the Manners of the eighteenth Century;” each in 1 vol. 12mo. 4. <l Acajou;“in 4to and 12mo, with plates. In the Confessions he has given animation and action to what appeared rather dry and desultory in his” Considerations on the Manners.“Excepting two or three imaginary characters, more fantastical than real, the remainder seems to be the work of a master. The situations, indeed, are not so well unfolded as they might have been; the author has neglected the gradations, the shades; and the romance is not sufficiently dramatical. But the interesting story of madame de Selve proves that M. Duclos knew how to finish as well as to sketch. His other romances are inferior to the” Confessions.“The memoirs relating to the manners of the eighteenth century abound in just observations on a variety of subjects. Acajou is no more than a tale, rather of the grotesque species, but well written. 5.” The History of Lewis XI.“1745, 3 vols. 12mo; and the authorities, an additional volume, 1746, contain curious matter. The style is concise and elegant, but too abrupt and too epigrammatical. Taking Tacitus for his model, whom, by the way, he approaches at a veryhumble distance, he has been less solicitous about the exact and circumstantial particularization of facts, than their aggregate compass, and their influence on the manners, laws, customs, and revolutions of the state. Though his diction has been criticised, it must be confessed that his lively and accurate narration, perhaps at the same time rather dry, is yet more supportable than that ridiculous pomp of words which almost all the French authors have employed in a department where declamation and exaggeration are the greatest defects. 6.” Considerations on the Manners of the present Century,“12mo; a book replete with just maxims, accurate definitions, ingenious discussions, novel thoughts, and well-drawn characters, although the style is sometimes obscure, and there is here and there an affectation of novelty, in which a writer of consummate taste would not have indulged; but these defects are amply compensated by a zeal for truth, honour, probity, beneficence, and all the moral and social virtues. Lewis XV. said of this book,” It is the work of a worthy man.“7.” Remarks on the general Grammar of PortRoyal.“In these he shews himself a philosophical grammarian. 7.” Voyage en Italie,“1791, 8vo. This trip he took in 1767 and 1768. 8.” Memoirs secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. 1791," 2 vols. 8vo, in which are many curious anecdotes and bold facts. He wrote also several dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of belles-lettres, which contain much eruuiti Hi, qualified by the charms of wit, and ornamented by a diction clear, easy, correct, and always adapted to the subject. Duclos had a greater share than any other in the edition of 1762 of the Dictionary of the French Academy; in which his usual accuracy and judgment are everywhere apparent and he had begun a continuation of the history of that society. His whole works were collected for the first time, and printed at Paris in 1806, 10 vols. 8vo, with a life by M. Auger, and many pieces left by him in manuscript. This edition appears to have revived his fame in France, and made him be enrolled among her standard authors.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

The general preface to the “Monasticon” was drawn up by the learned sir John Marsham, and is followed by a short view of the first institution of the monastic life. Great part of the impression of the third volume was accidentally burnt, and that is now of course the scarcest. The variations in the price of these volumes have been singular. Whiston informs us that in 1728, they sold for 18l., and in 1764 for only seven but of late they have risen to 50l. The first volume was reprinted with large additions, in 1682; and the whole was abridged in 1695, by James Wright, author of the “History of Rutlandshire.” Another epitome, by an anonymous writer, was published in 1718. Great additions were made to the Monasticon itself in “The History of the ancient Abbeys, Monasteries, Hospitals, Cathedral and Collegiate Churches,” by John Stephens, gent. This work, which contains in folio, two additional volumes to sir William Dugdale’s Monasticon, appeared in 1722 and 1723. Mr. Peck promised a fourth volume of the Monasticon, and in 1735, told the world that it was in great forwardness. He left behind him on this subject, some curious manuscript volumes, in 4to, now in the British Museum, some particulars concerning which may be seen in the Anecdotes of Mr. Bowyer, vol. I. p. 518, and a full enumeration of their contents in Ayscough’s Catalogue, vol. I. p. 55 67. We have, however, at length the prospect of a much improved edition, which has been undertaken by the rev. Bulkeley Bandinell, F. S. A. principal librarian of the Bodleian; and which, if we may judge from the part delivered in July (1813) to the subscubers, may be justly praised for the accuracy, splendour, and spirit of the learned editor and proprietors. In the mean time he printed at his own charge, and published in 1656, “The Antiquities of Warwickshire iilustr ted; from records, leiger-books, manuscripts, charters, evidences, tombs, and arms; beautified with maps, prospects, and portraitures,” folio. The author tells us in his preface, that he spent the greatest part of his lime, for more than twenty years, in accomplishing this work which indeed is reckoned his master- piece, and is allowed to be one of the best methodized and most accurate accounts that ever was written of this nature. A second edition was published in 1730, “in two volumes, printed from a copy corrected by the author himself, and with the original copper-plates. The whole revised, augmented, and continued down to this present time, by William Thomas, D. D. some time rector of Exhall, in the same county.” While this work was printing, which was for near a year and a half, Dugdale continued in London, for the sake of correcting the press; during which time he had an opportunity of collecting materials for another work, which he published in 1658. “The History of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in London,” folio. A second edition of this curious work, corrected and enlarged by the author’s own hand, was published in 1716, in folio, by Edward Maynard, D. D. rector of Boddington, in Northamptonshire; to which is prefixed his life written by himself, from which these memorials of him are chiefly extracted. Five of the original plates being lost, five new ones were engraved for this second edition; to which are great additions in several places, and particularly a new introduction. Besides these there is an account of the new building of St. P.nil’s to 1685; with a catalogue of the several benefactors, and the sums they gave towards it; and, “An historical Account of the Cathedral and. collegiate Churches of York, Hippon, Southwell, Beverly, Durham, and Carlisle;” of which, however, the first four appear to have been by sir Thomas Herbert, and the two last are probably not by Dugdale.

, an eminent Scotch poet, was born about the year 1465, and, as it is generally supposed, although without much foundation, at Salton, a village on the delightful coast of the Forth in East Lothian. This is collected from what Kennedy, a contemporary poet, says in one of his satires; who mentions likewise his own wealth, and Dunbar’s poverty. If we are to credit the same author, Dunbar was related to the earls of March; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence. In his youth he seems to have been a travelling noviciate of the Franciscan order; but this mode of life not being agreeable to his inclination, he resigned it, and returned to Scotland, as is supposed, about 1490, when he might be 25 years of age. In his “Thistle and Rose,” which was certainly written in 1503, he speaks of himself as a poet that had already made many songs: and that poem is the composition rather of an experienced writer, than of a novice in the art. It is indeed probable that his tales, “The twa marrit wemen and the wedo;” and, “The freirs of Bervvik,” (if the last be his) were written before his “Thistle and Rose.” However tin’s may have been, Dunbar, after being the author of “The gold in Terge,” a poem rich in description, and of many small pieces of the highest merit, died in old age about 1530. In his younger years, our poet seems to have had great expectations that his abilities would have recommended him to an ecclesiastical benetice; and in his smaller poems he frequently addresses the king lor that purpose: but there is no reason to believe that he was successful, although it may be thought that the “Thistle and Rose,” which was occasioned by the marriage of James IV. king of Scotland, with Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. king of England, deserved better treatment at the hands of the young royal pair. Mr. Pinkerton, in his list of Scottish poets, tells us, he has looked in vain over many calendars of the characters, &c. of this period, to find Dunbar’s name; but suspects that it was never written by a lawyer. Mr. Warton, in characterising the Scottish poets of this time, observes that the writers of that nation have adorned the period with a degree of sentiment and spirit, a command of phraseology, and a fertility of imagination, not to be found in any English poet since Chaucer and Lydgate. “He might safely have added,” says Mr. Pinkerton, “not even in Chaucer or Lydgate.” Concerning Dunbar, Mr. Warton says, that the natural complexion of his genius is of the moral and didactic cast. This remark, however, Mr. Pinkerton thinks, must not be taken too strictly. “The goldin Terge,” he adds, “is moral; and so are many of his small pieces: but humour, description, allegory, great poetical genius, and a vast wealth of words, all unite to form the complexion of Dunbar’s poetry. He unites, in himself, and generally surpasses the qualities of the chief old English poets; the morals and satire of Langland; Chaucer’s humour, poetry, and knowledge of life; the allegory of Gower; the description of Lydgate.” This is a very high character, but surely the morality of his poems may be questioned. Several of his compositions contain expressions which appear to us grossly profane and indecent; and one of his addresses to the queen would not now be addressed to a modern courtezan. Even the most sacred observances of the church are converted into topics of ridicule; and its litanies are burlesqued in a parody, the profaneness of which is almost unparalleled. The notes added to the collection published by sir David Daly rm pie in 1770 are peculiarly valuable; for they not only explain and illustrate the particular expressions and phrases of the pieces in question, but contain several curious anecdotes, and throw considerable light on the manners of the times.

, professor of philosophy in the marischal college, Aberdeen, and a learned writer, was born in that city in the month of July 1717. His father, William Duncan, was a respectable tradesman in the same place, and his mother, Euphemia Kirkwood, was the daughter of a wealthy farmer in East Lothian, the first district in Scotland where agriculture was much improved. Young Duncan received his grammatical education partly in the public grammar-school of Aberdeen, and partly at Foveran, about fifteen miles distant, where there was a boardingschool, which at that time was greatly frequented, on account of the reputation of Mr. George Forbes, the master. In November 1733, Mr. Duncan entered the marischal college of Aberdeen, and applied himself particularly to the study of the Greek language, under the celebrated professor Dr. Thomas Blackwell. After going through the ordinary course of philosophy and mathematics, which continues for three years, he took the degree of M. A. This was in April 1737, and he never took any other degree. Mr. Duncan appears to have been designed for the ministry, and in this view he attended the theological lectures of the professors at Aberdeen for two winters. Not, however, finding in himself any inclination to the clerical profession, he quitted his native place, and removed to London in 1739, where he became an author by profession. In this capacity various works were published by him without his name; the exact nature and number of which it is not in our power to ascertain. It is in general understood that he translated several books from the French, and that he engaged in different undertakings which were proposed to him by the booksellers. There is reason to believe that he had a very considerable share in the translation of Horace which goes under the name of Watson. Without, however, anxiously inquiring after every translation, and every compilation in which Mr. Duncan might be concerned, we shall content ourselves with taking notice of the three principal productions upon which his literary reputation is founded. The first, in point of time, was his translation of several select orations of Cicero. It has gone through several impressions, and was much used as a schoolbook, the Latin being printed on one side, and the English on the other. A new edition in this form appeared in 1792. Sir Charles Whitworth, in 1777, published Mr. Duncan’s version in English only, for the benefit of such young persons of both sexes, as have not had the benefit of a liberal education. The publication is in 2 vols. 8vo. In his preface, sir Charles speaks highly, and we believe justly, of Mr. Duncan’s merit as a translator, and ranks him with a Leland, a Hampton, and a Melmoth. Mr. Duncan accompanied his translation with short but judicious explanatory notes.

, an ingenious poetical and miscellaneous writer, youngest son of John Buncombe, esq. of Stocks, in the parish of Ahibury, Hertfordshire, and Hannah his wife, was born at his father’s house in Hatton-garden, London, Jan. 9, 1689-90, and owed his Christian name to the revolution principles of his father and family. On the same principles, his father in 1693 put his life into the tontine, or annuities increasing by survivorship, subscribing 100l. on it, for which \Ql. per annum was paid immediately, and from which, in the course of his long life, our author received some thousands. He was educated in two private seminaries, viz. at Cheney, in Bucks, and afterwards at Pinner, near Harrow-on-the- Hill, Middlesex, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Goodwin. In December 1706, Mr. Buncombe was entered as a clerk in the navy-office, and was advanced to a higher salary in January 1707-8. So early as 1715, we find a translation by him of the twenty-ninth ode of the first book of Horace, in the collection commonly known by the name of “The Wit’s Horace.” About this time, being acquainted with Mr. Jabefc Hughes, Mr. Buncombe was introduced to his brother John, author of the “Siege of Damascus,” and also to his sister (afterwards Mrs. Buncombe), who was a woman of excellent sense and temper. Our author’s translation of the Carmen Seculare of Horace was printed in folio in 1721, and was collected in 1731, in Concanen’s Miscellany, entitled “The Flower-piece.” This was followed in 1722, by a translation of the tragedy of “Athaliah” by Racine, which was published by subscription, and has gone through three editions. Having contracted an intimacy at the Navy-office with Mr. Henry Needier, a gentleman endued with a like taste, our author, by supplying him with proper books, enabled him to gratify his ardent thirst for knowledge; and, on his early death in 1718, hastened by his intense application, discharged the debt of friendship by collecting and publishing his “Original Poems, Translations, Essays, and Letters,” in 1724, one vol. 8vo, of which there have been also three editions. On Becember 3, 1725, Mr. Buncombe quitted his place at the Navy-office, and spent the remainder of a long and happy life, among his friends and his books, in literary 7 leisure;­Having a share in the “Whitehall Evening Post,” several of his fugitive pieces appeared occasionally in that paper; in particular, a translation of Buchanan’s “Verses on Valentine’s Day;” “Verses to Euryalus (Mr. John Carleton) on his coming of age;” “The Choice of Hercules,” fr.,;u Xenophon, (for which there was such a demand, that the paper was in a few days ont of print); and a “Defence of some passages in Paradise Lost,” from the hyper-criticism of M. de Voltaire. About the same time, numberless errors in a new edition of Chillingworth were pointed out by him, and translations of the “Letters between Archbishop Fenelon and M. de la Motte,” since republished in the appendix to archbishop Herring’s Letters, and of the “Adventures of Melesickton,” and other fables from Fenelon, were published in the London Journal. In the lottery of 1725, a ticket which Mr. Duncombe had in partnership with miss Elizabeth Hughes, sister of John Hughes, esq. author of “The Siege of Damascus,” was drawn a pnze of 1000l. a circumstance which probably hastened his m image with that amiable lady, which took place Sept 1, 1726, on which he removed to her mother’s house in Red-lion-street, Holborn.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

, “an English musician of the fifteenth century, at an early stage of counterpoint, acquired on the continent the reputation of being its inventor, which, however, Dr. Burney has proved could not belong to him. He was the musician whom the Germans, from a similarity of name, have mistaken for saint Dunstan, and to whom, as erroneously, they have ascribed with others the invention of counterpoint in four parts. He was author of the musical treatise” De Mensurabili Musica,“which is cited by Franchinus, Morley, and Ravenscroft. But though this work is lost, there is still extant in the Bodleian library, a Geographical Tract by this author and, if we may believe his epitaph, which is preserved by Weever, he was not only a musician, but a mathematician, and an eminent astrologer. Of his musical compositions nothing remains but two or three fragments in Franchinus, and Morley. He is very unjustly accused by this last writer of separating the syllables of the same words by rests. Stow calls him” a master of astronomy and music," and says he w;;s buried in the church of St. Stephen, Walbrook, in 1458.

, bookseller and miscellaneous writer, was born at Graff bam, in Huntingdonshire, the 14th of May, 1659; the son of John Dunton, fellow of Trinity-college, Cambridge, and rector of Graft ham, whose works he published in 8vo, embellished with very curious engravings. Dunton was in business upwards of twenty years, during which time he traded considerably in the Stationers’ company; but, about the beginning of the last century, he failed, and commenced author; and in 1701, was amanuensis to the editor of a periodical paper called the “Post Angel.” He soon after set up as a writer for the entertainment of the public; and projected and carried on, with the assistance of others, the “Athenian Mercury,” or a scheme to answer a series of questions monthly, the querist remaining concealed. This work was continued to about 20 volumes; and afterwards reprinted by Bell, under the title of the “Athenian Oracle,” 4 vols. 8vo. It forms a strange jumble of knowledge and ignorance, sense and nonsense, curiosity and impertinence. In 1710 he published his “Athenianism,” or the projects of Mr. John Dunton, author of the “Essay on the hazard of a deathbed repentance.” This contains, amidst a prodigious variety of matter, six hundred treatises in prose and verse, by which he appears to have been, with equal facility, a philosopher, physician, poet, civilian, divine, humourist, &c. To this work he has prefixed his portrait, engraved by M. Vander Gucht; and in a preface, which breathes all the pride of self-consequence, informs his readers he does not write to flatter, or for hire. As a specimen of this miscellaneous farrago, the reader may take the following heads of subjects: 1. The Funeral of Mankind, a paradox, proving we are all dead and buried. 2. The spiritual hedge-hog; or, a new and surprising thought. 3. The double life, or a new way to redeem time, by living over to-morrow before it comes. 4. Dunton preaching to himself; or every man his own parson. 5. His creed, or the religion of a bookseller, in imitation of Brown’s Religio Medici, which h.is some humour and merit. This he dedicated to the Stationers’ company. As a satirist, he appears to most advantage in his poems entitled the “Beggar mounted” the “Dissenting Doctors;” “Parnassus hoa!” or frolics in verse “Dunton’s shadow,” or the character of a summer friend but in all his writings he is exceedingly prolix and tedious, and sometimes obscure. His “Case is altered, or Dunton’s remarriage to his own wife,” has some singular notions, but very little merit in the composition. For further particulars of this heterogeneous genius, see “Dunton’s Life and Errors,” a work now grown somewhat scarce, or, what will perhaps be more satisfactory, the account of him in our authority. Dunton died in 1733.

, a political writer of much note in France and England, and a citizen of Geneva, was born in 1749, of an ancient family in Switzerland, who had been distinguished as magistrates and scholars. At the age of twenty-two he was appointed, through the interest of Voltaire, professor of belles-lettres at Cassel, and about that time he published two or three historical tracts. He was afterwards concerned with Linguet in the publication of the “Annales Politiques,” at Lausanne. In 1783 he went to Paris, where, during the three years’ sitting of the first French assembly, he published an analysis of their debates, which was read throughout all Europe, and considered as a model of discussion no less luminous than impartial. While he intrepidly attacked the various factions, he neither dissembled the faults nor the exaggerations of their adversaries. In the month of April, 1792, he left Paris on a confidential mission from the king to his brothers, and the emperor of Germany. In consequence of his quitting Paris, his estate in France, and his personal property, were confiscated; and among other losses, he had to regret that of a valuable library, and a collection of Mss. including a work of his own, nearly ready for the press, on the political state of Europe before the French revolution. Whilst resident at Brussels with the archduke Charles, in 1793, he published a work on the French revolution, which was warmly admired by Mr. Burke, as congenial with his own sentiments, and indeed by every other person not influenced by the delusions which brought about that great event. In 1794 he returned to Switzerland, which he was obliged to leave in 1798, the French, to whom he had rendered himself obnoxious by his writings, having demanded his expulsion. The same year he came to England, where he published a well-known periodical journal called the “Mercure Britannique,” which came out once a fortnight, nearly to the time of his death. This event took place at the house of his friend count Lally Tollendal, at Richmond, May 10, 1800. His “Mercure,” and other works, although of a temporary nature, contain facts, and profound views of the leading events of his time, which will be of great importance to future historians, and during publication contributed much to enlighten the public mind.

, an eminent Scotch divine of the seventeenth century, the eldest son of John Durham of Easter-Powrie, esq. and descended from the ancient family of Grange Durham in the county of Angus, was born about 1622, and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s, which he left without taking a degree, as he had then no design of following any of the learned professions. When the civil wars broke out, he served in the army, with the rank of captain, but was so much affected by his narrow escape from being killed in an engagement with the English, that, encouraged by Dr. David Dickson, professor of divinity at Glasgow, he determined to devote himself to the church. With this view he went to Glasgow, studied divinity under Dr. Dickson, and in 1646 was licensed by the presbytery of Irvine to preach. In the following year he was ordained minister of the Black-friars 7 church in Glasgow, where he became one of the most popular preachers of his time. In 1650 he was chosen to succeed Dr. Dickson as professor, and about the same time attended Charles II. when in Scotland, as one of his chaplains. In 1651, when Cromwell and his army were at Glasgow, Durham preached before the usurper, and upbraided him to his face for having invaded the country. Next day Cromwell sent for him, and told him he thought he had been a wiser man than to meddle with public affairs in his sermons. Durham answered that it was not his common practice, but that he could not help laying hold of such an opportunity of expressing his sentiments in his presence. Cromwell dismissed him with a caution, but met with so many other instances of similar rebuffs from the Scotch clergy, that he thought it unadvisable to pursue any more severe course. Durham was a man of such moderation of temper and sentiment, as to be able to conduct himself without giving much offence in those troublesome times, and gained the favour of all parties by the conscientious discharge of his pastoral duties. This character gave him unusual authority in the country where he lived; but his incessant labours both as a preacher and writer brought on a consumptive disorder, of which he died June 25, 1658, in the prime of life. He wrote, 1. “A Commentary on the Revelations.” 2. “Sermons on the liii. of Isaiah.” 3. “Sermons on the Song of Solomon.” 4. “A treatise on Scandal.” 5. “An Exposition of the Commandments:” the two latter posthumous; with some single sermons and pious tracts, which have been often reprinted.

, a French writer of distinguished taste and talents, was born at Chartres, Dec. 28, 1728, of a family which made a considerable figure in the profession of the law. He appears to have first served in the army under the marechal Richelieu, and was noted for his courage. On his return to Paris, by the advice of the learned professor Guerin, he devoted his time to literature, and was in 1776 admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions. On the breaking out of the revolution, although chosen into the convention, he was too moderate for the times, and was imprisoned, and probably would have ended his days on the scaffold, had not Marat obtained his pardon by representing him as an old dotard, from whom nothing was to be feared. In 1797 he was chosen a member of the council of ancients, and on that occasion delivered a long speech against the plan of a national lottery. He died March 16, 1799. His principal works are, 1. A French translation of Juvenal, by far the best that ever appeared in that language, and which he enriched with many valuable notes. It was first published in 1770, 8vo, in a very correct and elegant manner, and was reprinted in 1796. 2. “De la passion du Jeu,” 1779, 8vo. The author had been once fond of play, but renounced it in consequence of witnessing the many miseries it occasions, which he has displayed in this treatise. He was afterwards, in 1793 or 1794, charged by the committee of public instruction to draw up, in conjunction with M. Mercier, a report on the suppression of games of chance, which produced a treatise from him, “Sur la suppression des Jeux de Hazard,” probably a repetition of what he had advanced before. 3. “Eloge de l'abbe Blanches,” prefixed to his works. 4. “Memoire sur les Satiriques Latins,” in the 43d vol. of the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. 5. “Voyage a Barrege et dans les hautes Pyrenees,” 1796, 8vo, an amusing tour, which would not have been less so if he had avoided an affected imitation of Sterne. 6. “Mes rapports avec J. J.Rousseau,” 1798, 8vo, in which there are some curious particulars of the Genevan philosopher. From the Memoirs of the National Institute we learn that when M. Dussaulx was in the army he married a lady who survived him, and to whom he appears to have been attached with extraordinary fidelity and unremitted affection. He declared, towards the close of his life, that she had been his first and his last love; and it was to her he was indebted for nearly the whole of his literary reputation. Madame Dussaulx, from the casual effusions of his pen, conceived him to be capable of spirited as well as elegant versification, and proposed to him to translate particular passages of Juvenal. These he executed with so much success, that he was incited by degrees to make a complete version of the whole of his satires, and thereby produced a performance which secured to him a very large acquaintance and friendship with the literary world.

With this gentleman he left London in October of that year, and when Mr. M‘Kenzie returned to England in 1760, Mr. Dutens filled the honourable situation of charg6 des affaires at Turin till May 1762, when he rejoined Mr. M’Kenzie at London, and assisted him as one of the members of lord Bute’s administration. Before this administration closed he obtained a handsome pension; and shortly after was invited to resume his situation as charge des affaires at Turin, a place to which he manifested an evident partiality. He continued two years at Turin, and at his leisure hours planned an edition of Leibnitz’s works, which was published in six vols. 4to, at Geneva, in 1768, and evinced the serious attention which he had bestowed on the opinions of that philosopher, and his extensive correspondence at this time with many of the most learned men in Europe. At Turin also he displayed a very intimate acquaintance with the philosophy, arts, &c. of ancient and modern times, by his “Recherches sur l'Origine des Deeouvertes,” &c. a work in which he endeavours to prove that our most celebrated philosophers have been indebted to the ancients for the greatest part of their knowledge. This was published at Paris, 1766, 2 vols. 8vo, and afterwards translated into English and published at London. Although it cannot be said that Mr. Dutens has accomplished his full intention in this work, many of his positions being rather the whims and caprices of a lively writer, in support of a pre-conceived theory, yet he has at least proved that much of his own time had been devoted to the inquiry, and that his range of reading had been very extensive.

Before he quitted Turin, Mr. M'Kenzie’s interest with the duke of Northumberland, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, procured him the promise of a deanery in that kingdom, which he declined accepting; but soon after received from the same noble patron a presentation to the rectory of Elsdon in Northumberland, then worth 800l. a year; which induced him, in 1766, to return to England, where he received a present of 1000l. from the king, and was highly delighted with the reception he met with at Northumberland-house. In 1768 he performed an extensive tour through the continent with lord Algernon Percy, the duke of Northumberland’s son. In the course of this tour, some conversation at Genoa with the marchioness of Babbi, gave rise to a work which Mr. Dutens afterwards published at Rome under the title of “The Tocsin,” and afterwards at Paris, under the title of “Appel au bons sens.” After this tour was finished, he resided for some time at Paris, where he published several works, and lived in a perpetual round of splendid amusements. In 1776 he returned to London, and lived much with the Northumberland family, and with his early patron Mr. M'Kenzie, until lord Montstuart was appointed envoy-extraordinary to the court of Turin, whom he accompanied as his friend, but without any official situation, except that when lord Montstuart was called to England upon private business, he again acted for a short time as charge des affaires. After this, according to his memoirs, his time was divided for many years between a residence in London, and occasional tours to the continent, with the political affairs of which he seems always anxious to keep up an intimate acquaintance. At length the death of his first friend and patron placed him in easy if not opulent circumstances, as that gentleman left him executor and residuary legatee with his two nephews, lord Bute and the primate of Ireland. The value of this legacy has been estimated at 15,000l. which enabled Mr. Dutens to pass the remainder of his life in literary retirement and social intercourse, for which he was admirably qualified, not only by an extensive knowledge, but by manners easy and accommodating. In the complimentary strain of a courtier few men exceeded him, although his profuse liberality in this article was sometimes thought to lessen its value. He died at his house in Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, May 23, 1812, in his eighty-third year. Not many days before his death, he called, in a coach, on many persons of eminence with whom he had corresponded, for the sole purpose of returning the letters he had received from them. His publications, not already noticed were, 1 “Explications des quelques Medailles de peuple, de villes, et des rois Grecques et Pheniciennes,” 1773, 4to. 2. The same translated. 3. “Itineraire des Routes les plus frequentées; ou Journal d‘un Voyage aux Villes principales de l’Europe,” often reprinted. 4. “Histoire de ce qui s’est passe” pour establissement d'une Regence en Angleterre. Par M. L. D. Ne D. R. D. L. Ge. Be.“1789, 8vo; in which he adopted the sentiments of Mr. Pitt’s administration on the important question of the regency, which, he says, lost him the favour of a great personage. 5.” Recherches sur le terns le plus recule de l'usage des Voutes chez les Anciens,“1795. He wrote also the French text of the second volume of the Marlborough gems, a task for which he was well qualified, as he was an excellent classical antiquary and medallist. In 1771 he translated” The manner of securing all sorts of brick buildings from fire,“&c. from the French of count d'Espie. His last publication, in 1805, was his own history, in” Memoires d'un Voyageur," &c. of which we have availed ourselves in this sketch but, although this work may often amuse the reader, and add something to the knowledge of human nature, it will not perhaps create an unmixed regard for the character of the writer.

, an English poet, was born in 1700, the second son of Robert Dyer, of Aberglasney, in Caermarthenshire, a solicitor of great capacity and note. He passed through Westminster-school under the care of Dr. Freind, and was then called home to be instructed in his father’s profession. His genius, however, led him a different way; for, besides his early taste for poetry, having a passion no less strong for the arts of design, he determined to make painting his profession. With this view, having studied awhile under his master, he became, as he tells his friend, an itinerant painter, and wandered about South Wales and the parts adjacent; and about 1727 printed “Grongar Hill,” a poem which Dr. Johnson says, “is not very accurately written but the scenes which it displays are so pleasing, the images which they raise so welcome to the mind, and the reflections of the writer so consonant to the general sense or experience of mankind, that when it is once read, it will be read again.” Being probably unsatisfied with his own proficiency, he made the tour of Italy; where, besides the usual study of the remains of antiquity, and the works of the great masters, he frequently spent whole days in the country about Rome and Florence, sketching those picturesque prospects with facility and spirit. Images from hence naturally transferred themselves into his poetical compositions; the principal beauties of the “Ruins of Rome,” are perhaps of this kind, and the various landscapes in the “Fleece” have been particularly admired. On his return to England, he published the “Ruins of Rome,” 1740; but soon found that he could not relish a town life, nor submit to the assiduity required in his profession; his talent indeed, was rather for sketching than finishing; so he contentedly sat down in the country with his little fortune, painting now and then a portrait or a landscape, as his fancy led him. As his turn of mind was rather serious, and his conduct and behaviour always irreproachable, he was advised by his friends to enter into orders; and it is presumed, though his education had not been regular, that he found no difficulty in obtaining them. He was ordained by the bishop of Lincoln, and had a law degree conferred on him.

Mr. Dyer’s character as a writer, has been fixed by three poems, “Grongar Hill,” “The Ruins of Rome,” and “The Fleece,” in which a poetical imagination perfectly original, a natural simplicity connected with the true sublime, and often productive of it, the warmest sentiments of benevolence and virtue, have been universally observed and admired. These pieces were published separately in his life-time but after his death collected in 1 vol. 8vo, 1761; with a short account of himself prefixed.

, master of Catharine-hall, in the university of Cambridge, and author of several ingenious works, was descended from a good family in the county of Suffolk, and born about 1636. Having been carefully instructed in grammar and classical literature, he was sent to Catharine-hall, in the university of Cambridge, where he was admitted on the 10th of May, 1653. He took the degree of B. A. in 1656, was elected fellow of his college 1 in 1658, and in 1660 became M. A. We meet with no farther particulars about him till 1670, when he published, but without his name, “The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy and Religion enquired into. In a letter to R. L.” This piece had a very rapid sale, and passed through many editions. It was attacked by an anonymous writer the following year, in “An Answer to a Letter of Enquiry into the Grounds,” &c. and by Barnabas Oley, and several others; particularly the famous Dr. John Owen, in a preface to some sermons of W. Bridge. Eachard replied to the first of his answerers in apiece entitled “Some Observations upon the Answer to an Enquiry into the Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy: with some additions. In a second letter to R. L.” In 1671 he published, “Mr. Hobbes’s State of Nature considered: in a dialogue between Philautus and Timothy. To which are added, five letters from the author of The Grounds and Occasions of the” Contempt of the Clergy.“In these letters he animadverted, with his usual facetiousness, on several of the answerers of his first performance. He soon after published some farther remarks on the writings of Hobbes, in” A second Dialogue between Philautus and Timothy." On the death of Dr. John Lightfoot, in 1675, Mr. Eachard was chosen in his room master. of Catharine-hall; and in the year following he was created D. D. by royal mandamus. It does not appear that he produced any literary works after being raised to this station; but it is said that he executed the trust reposed in him, of master of his college, with the utmost care and fidelity, and to the general satisfaction of the whole university. He was extremely desirous to have rebuilt the greatest part, if not the whole, of Catharine-hall, which had fallen ipto decay: but he died before he could accomplish any part of that design, except the master’s lodge. He contributed, however, largely towards rebuilding the whole; and was very assiduous in procuring donations for it from his learned or wealthy friends. He died on the 7th of July, 1697, and was interred in the chapel of Catharine-hall, with an elegant Latin inscription, said to have been more recently added by the late Dr. Farmer.

, who was born at Hamburgh Feb. 8, 1725, is ranked among the revivers of true literary taste in Germany, in which undertaking, he associated with Gartner, Schlegel, Cramer, Gellert, Rabener, Schmidt, Klopstock, &c. who used to communicate their works to each other, and diffuse various knowledge by means of periodical papers. Ebert was professor of the Carolinean Institute at Brunswick, and in high esteem with the duke, who made him a canon of St. Cyriac, and afterwards conferred on him the title of counsellor. He wrote with equal elegance in prose and verse, and his songs are much esteemed in Germany. Besides many contributions to the periodical journals, he published two volumes of “Poems” at Hamburgh, the one in 1789, and the other in 1795, 8vo. He was well acquainted with the English language and English literature, and translated into German, Young’s “Night Thoughts,” and Glover’s “Leonklas,” both which, we are told, are well executed. This writer died at Brunswick March 19, 1795.

, Mowbray herald extraordinary, F. S. A. and an able heraldic writer, was a man who raised himself by dint of ingenuity and perseverance from a very humble station to considerable celebrity. He was originally an apprentice to a barber, but discovering some knowledge of the art, became an herald painter, and was much employed in emblazoning arms upon carriages. This led him to study heraldry as a science, which imperceptibly led him also to genealogical researches, and his progress hi both was rapid and successful. When the baronets of England wished for some augmentation to their privileges, as appendages to their titles (in which, however, they were flot successful), they chose Mr. Edmoudson their secretary. In 1764 he was appointed Mowbray herald extraordinary. He died in Warwick-street, Golden -square, Feb. 17, 1786, and was buried in the church-yard of St. James’s, Piccadilly. He was a man of good sense as well as skill in his profession, and maintained an excellent private character. His works, which will convey his name to posterity with great credit, were, 1. “Historical account of the Grevillc Family, with an account of Warwick Castle,” Lond. 1766, 8vo. 2. “A Companion to the Peerage of Great Britain and Ireland,” ibid. 1776, 8vo. 3. “A Complete Body of Heraldry,” ibid. 1780, 2 vols. folio; and 4. his very magnificent work, entitled “Buronagium Genealogicum, or The Pedigree of English Peers,” 176 84, 6 vols. folio.

, a famous presbyterian writer in the seventeenth century, and a bitter enemy to the independents, who then bore sway in this kingdom, was educated in Trinity-college, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1605, and that of M. A. in 1609. He was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, July 14, 1623. Where and what his preferments were, we do not find; but we learn from himself, that though he conformed, yet he was always a puritan in his heart. He exercised his ministry, chiefly as a lecturer, at Hertford, and at several places in and about London; and was sometimes brought into trouble for opposing the received doctrines, or not complying duly with the established church. When the long parliament declared against Charles I. our author espoused their cause, and by all his actions, sermons, prayers, praises, and discourses, earnestly promoted their interest. But, when the independent party began to assume the supreme authority, he became as furious against them as he had been against the royalists, and wrote the following pieces against them: 1. “Reasons against the Independent Government of particular Congregations,” &c. Lond. 1641, 4to which was answered the same year by a woman called Catherine Chidley. 2. “Antapologia,” or a full answer to the “Apologeticall Narration of Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Bridge, members of the assembly of divines. Wherein is handled many of the controversies of these times; viz. I. Of a particular visible church. II. Of classes and synods. III. Of the Scriptures, how farre a rule for church government. IV. Of formes of prayer. V. Of the qualifications of church members. 6.” Of submission and noncommunion. VII. Of excommunication. VIII. Of the power of the civill magistrate in ecclesiasticals. IX. Of separation and schisme. X. Of tolerations, and particularly of the toleration of independencie. XI. Of suspension from the Lord’s supper. XII. Of ordination of ministers by the people. XIII. Of church covenant. XIV. Of non-residencie of church-members,“Lond. 1644, 4to. 3.” Gangnrna: or a catalogue and discovery of many of the errours, heresies, blasphemies, and pernicious practices of the sectaries of this time, vented and acted in England in these four last years as also a particular narration of divers stories, remarkable passages, letters an extract of many letters, concerning the present sects together with some observations upon, and corollaries from, all the forenamed premisses,“Lond. 1G46, 4to, reprinted afterwards. 4.” The second part of C'angrjena,“&c. Lond. 1646, 4to. 5.” The third part of Gangracna; or, A new and higher discovery of the errors, heresies, blasphemies, and insolent proceedings of the sectaries of these times; with some animadversions, by way of confutation, upon many of the errors and heresies named.“In these three parts of Gangrsena, he gives catalogues of the errors of the independents, and exposes the errors of the other sectaries of his time, in a manner which could not fail to render him particularly obnoxious to them, but at the same time in such a spirit of bitter invective, as must render many of his facts doubtful. He also published,' 6.” The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan; or, a Treatise against Toleration,“Part I. Lond. 1647, 4to. 7.” Of the particular visibility of the Church.“8.” A treatise of the Civil Power of Ecclesiasticals, and of suspension, from the Lord’s supper,“Lond. 1642, 1644. He promised several other pieces, but it does not appear that he published them; particularly, 1. A fourth Part of his Gangracna. 2. An Historical Narration of all the proceedings and ways of the English Sectaries. 3. Catalogue of the Judgments of God upon the Sectaries within these four years last past. 4. Many Tractates against the errors of the times. He promised likewise to resemble that tree spoken of in the Revelation, to yield fruit every month i. e. to be often setting forth one tractate or other but we do not hear of more than have been enumerated. As for his character, he professes himself” a plain, open-hearted man, who hated tricks, reserves, and designs;" zealous for the assembly of divines, the directory, the use of the Lord’s Prayer, singing of Psalms, &c. and so earnest for what he took to be truth, that he was usually called in Cambridge, young Luther.

, an eminent English divine and voluminous writer, the son of the preceding Thomas Edwards, was born at Hertford, February 26, 1637. His father, as we have already noticed, died in 1647, and by his wife, who was an heiress of a very considerable fortune, he left one daughter and four sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present narrative. After having received his grammatical education at Merchanttaylors’ school, in London, he was removed in 1653 to the university of Cambridge, and was admitted of St. John’s college, then under the government of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, a presbyterian divine of acknowledged character and learning, and particularly distinguished for the wise and exact discipline of his college. Mr. Edwards, soon after his admission, was chosen scholar of the house, and was quickly taken notice of for his exercises, both in his tutor’s chamber, and in his college-hall. Towards the close of his undergraduateship, the senior proctor being then of the college, he was appointed one of the moderators for the year. Whe: he was middle bachelor, he was elected a fellow of his college, for which he was principally indebted to the exertions of Dr. Tuckney in his behalf. During the time of his senior bachelorship he was again chosen moderator in the schools, and his performances were long remembered with esteem and praise. In 1661 he was admitted to the degree of M. A.; and soon after sir Robert Carr presented him to Dr. Sanderson, bishop cf Lincoln, who conferred upon him the order of deacon. That learned prelate engaged him, at the same time, to preach a sermon at the next ordination, when with the other candidates, he was ordained priest. In 1664, he undertook the duty of Trinity-church, in Cambridge, and went through the whole both parts of the day. In his preaching, without affecting eloquence, he studied to be plain, intelligible, and practical; and his church was much frequented by the gown, and by persons of considerable standing in the university. Dr. Sparrow, master of Queen’s, Dr. Beaumont, master of Peterhouse, and Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, were often heard to applaud his pulpit performances. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he quitted his residence in the college, and dwelt all that year, and part of the next, in the town, that he might devote himself entirely to the edification and comfort of the parishioners of Trinity church, in that season of calamity. A little after this, sir Edward Atkins offered him a good living near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, but he chose to continue in his station at Cambridge. In 1668 he was admitted to the degree of B. D. About the same time, through the interest of sir Robert Carr with sir Thomas Harvey, Mr. Edwards was unanimously chosen lecturer at St. Edmund’s Bury, with a salary of loo/, a year. This office he discharged with great reputation and acceptance, notwithstanding which, after a period of twelve months, he resigned it, and returned to his college, where, however, his situation was uneasy to him. He had not been upon the best terms with Dr. Peter Gunning, the former master of St. John’s, and being still more dissatisfied with Dr. Francis Turner, Gunning’s successor, who had somehow offended him, he determined to resign his fellowship. On quitting his college, he was presented by the fellows with a testimonial of his worthy and laudable behaviour among them. From St. John’s he removed to Trinity-hall, where he entered himself as a fellow-commoner, and performed the regular exercises in the civil Jaw. Being willing to be employed in the offices of jits clerical function, he accepted of the invitation of the parishioners of St. Sepulchre, in Cambridge, to be their minister; and his sermons there were as much attended by persons of consequence in the university as they had formerly been at Trinity church. In 1676 Mr. Edwards married Mrs. Lane, the widow of Mr. Lane, who had been ati alderman, a justice of peace, and an eminent attomey in the town. “This gentlewoman,” says his biographer, “was an extraordinary person, of unusual accomplishments and singular graces but had the unhappiness (as some others of that sex) to be misrepresented to the world. She being naturally of a high and generous spirit, and not framed to low observances and vulgar compliances, incurred thereby the imputation of pride and superciliousness among vulgar minds. But those who were no strangers to good breeding, and knew how to make distinction of persons, admired the agreeableness of her conversation, and saw those excellent and worthy things in her deportment which they could find but in very few of her sex. She understood herself and her duty, and all the rules of civil and religious behaviour.”

, an English divine and able writer against Socinianism, was born at Wrexham in Denbighshire in 1629; and in 1655 became a servitor of Christ church, Oxford, where he was admitted B. A. in Oct. 1659; elected fellow of Jesus college in 1662, and took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in March 1669. He was afterwards rector of Kiddington in Oxfordshire, which he exchanged, in 1681, for Hinton in Hampshire. On Nov. 2, 1636, he was unanimously elected principal of Jesus college, and became treasurer of Llandaff in 1687. He took his degree of D. D. immediately after his election as principal, and served the office of vice-chancellor in the years 1689, 1690, and 1691. He held two other livings, one in Anglesea and the other in Caernarvonshire. He was also proctor in the convocation, 1702, for the chapter of Llandaff. He died July 20, 1712, and was buried in the chapel of his college, where is an inscription celebrating his learning, usefulness as principal, and his munificence as a benefactor. Besides many books given in his life-time, he bequeathed his own collection of upwards of 1000 volumes to the college library, and gave near 1000l. to the repairs of the chapel, &c. What he wrote against the Socinians is entitled “A Preservative against Socinianism” in four parts, 4to, published from 1693 to 1703.

, one of our ancient English poets, was born in Somersetshire in 1523, and admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, under the tuition of George Etheridge, May 11, 1540, and probationer fellow Aug. 11, 1514. In 1547, when Christ church was founded by Henry VIII. he was admitted student of the upper table, and the same year took his master’s degree. Warton cites a passage from his poems to prove that in his early years, he was employed in some department about the court. In the British Museum there is a small set of manuscript sonnets, signed with his initials, addressed to some of the beauties of the courts of queen Mary and queen Elizabeth. He therefore probably did not remain long at the university. In the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, he was made one of the gentlemen of her chapel, and master of the children there, having the character of not only being an excellent musician, but an exact poet, as many of his compositions in music and poetry testify. For these he was highly valued, by those who knew him, especially his associates in Lincoln’s- Inn (of which he was a member), and much lamented by them when he died. This event, according to sir John Hawkins, happened Oct. 31, 1556, but others say in 1566. He wrote “Damon and Pythias,” a comedy, acted at court and in the university, first printed in 1570, or perhaps’ in 1565, and “Palamon and Arcyte,” another comedy in two parts, probably never printed, but acted in Christ-church hall, 1566, before queen Elizabeth, of which performance Wood gives a curious account. Warton thinks it probable that he wrote many other dramatic pieces now lost. He is mentioned by Puttenham, as gaining the prize for comedy and interlude. Besides being a writer of regular dramas, he appears to have been a contriver of masques, and a composer of poetry for pageants. In a word, he united all those arts and accomplishments which ministered to popular pleasantry, in an age when the taste of the courtiers was not of a much higher order than that of the vulgar in our time. His English poems, for he wrote also Latin poetry, are for the most part extant in “The Paradise of Dainty Devises,” Lond. 1578, 4to, lately reprinted in the “Bibliographer,” where, as well as in our other authorities, are some farther notices of Edwards. It is justly observed by Warton, that his popularity seems to have altogether arisen from those pleasing talents, of which no specimens could be transmitted to posterity, and which prejudiced his partial contemporaries in favour of his poetry.

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

, late bishop of Durham, a descendant of the preceding, was the son of Henry Egerton, bishop of Hereford (fifth son of John third earl of Bridgewater, by lady Jane Powlett, first daughter of Charles duke of Bolton), who marrying lady Elizabeth Ariana Bentinck, daughter of William earl of Portland, had by her one daughter and five sons, of whom John was the eldest. He was born in London, on the 30th of November, 1721, was educated at Eton school, and admitted a gentleman commoner in Oriel college, Oxford, upon the 20th of May 1740, under the tuition of the rev. Dr. Bentham, afterwards regius professor of divinity in that university, where he prosecuted his studies extensively and successfully for six or seven years. He was ordained deacon privately by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Worcester, in Grosvenor chapel, Westminster, on the 21st of Dec. 1745, and the following day he was ordained priest, at a general ordination holden by the same bishop in the same place. On the 23d he was collated by his father to the living of Ross in Herefordshire, and on the 28th was inducted by Robert Breton archdeacon of Hereford. On the 3d of January 1746 (a short time before his father’s death, which happened on the 1st of April following), he was collated to the canonry or prebend of Cublington, in the church of Hereford. Upon the 30th of May 1746, he took the degree of bachelor of civil law, for which he went out grand compounder. On the 21st of November 1748 he married Indy Anne Sophia, daughter of Henry de Grey, duke of Kent, by Sophia, daughter of William Bentinck, earl of Portland. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the king upon the lyth of March 1749; and was promoted to the deanery of Hereford on the 24th of July 1750. He was consecrated bishop of Bangor on the 4th of July 1756, at Lambeth; and had the temporalities restored to him upon the 22d, previously to which, on the 21st of May, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. by diploma, and he was empowered to hold the living of Ross, and the prebend of Cublington, with that bishopric, in commendam, dated the 1st of July. On the 12th of November 1768, he was translated to the see of Lichfield and Coventry, with which he held the prebend of Weldland, and residentiary ship of St. Paul’s, and also the two preferments before mentioned. He was inducted, installed, and enthroned at Lichfield by proxy, upon the 22d of November, and had the temporalities restored upon, the 26th. On the death of Dr. Richard Trevor, he was elected to the see of Durham, upon the 8th of July 1771, and was confirmed on the 20th in St. James’s church, Westminster. Upon the 2d of August following he was enthroned and installed at Durham by proxy. The temporalities of the see were restored to his lordship on the 15th of August, and on the 3d of September he made his public entry into his palatinate. On his taking possession of the bishopric, he found the county divided by former contested elections, which had destroyed the general peace: no endeavours were wanting on his part to promote and secure a thorough reconciliation of contending interests, on terms honourable and advantageous to all; and when the affability, politeness, and condescension, for which he was distinguished, uniting in a person of his high character and station, had won the affections of ll parties to himself, he found less difficulty in reconciling them to each other, and had soon the high satisfaction to see men of the first distinction in the county conciliated by his means, and meeting in good neighbourhood at his princely table. The harmony he had so happily restored, he was equally studious to preserve, which he effectually did, by treating the nobility and gentry of the county at all times with a proper regard, by paying an entire and impartial attention to their native interests, by forbearing to improve any opportunities of influencing their parliamentary choice in favour of his own family or particular friends, and by consulting on all occasions the honour of the palatinate. The same conciliating interposition he had used in the county, he employed in the city of Durham with the same success. At the approach of the general election in 1780 he postponed granting the Mew charter, which would considerably enlarge the number of voters, till some months after the election, that he might maintain the strictest neutrality between the candidates, and avoid even the imputation of partiality; and when he confirmed it, and freely restored to the city all its ancient rights, privileges, and immunities, in the most ample and advantageous form, he selected the members of the new corporation, with great care, out of the most moderate and respectable of the citizens, regardless of every consideration but its peace and due regulation; objects which he steadily held in view, and in the attainment of which he succeeded to his utmost wish, and far beyond his expectation. A conduct equally calculated to promote order and good government, he displayed, if possible, still more conspicuously in the spiritual than in the temporal department of his double office. Towards the chapter, and towards the body of the clergy at large, he exercised every good office, making them all look up to him as their common friend and father: and to those who had enjoyed the special favour of his predecessor, he was particularly kind and attentive, both from a sense of their merit, and that he might mitigate in some degree their loss of so excellent a friend and patron. In the discharge of all his episcopal functions, he was diligent and conscientious. He was extremely scrupulous whom he admitted into orders, in respect of their learning, character, and religious tenets. In his visitations, he urged and enforced the regularity, the decorum, and the well-being of the church, by a particular inquiry into the conduct of its ministers, encouraging them to reside upon their several henetices, and manifesting upon all opportunities, a sincere and active concern for the interests and accommodation of the inferior clergy. His charges were the exact transcripts of his mind. Objections have been made to some compositions of this kind, that they bear the resemblance of being as specious as sincere, and are calculated sometimes, perhaps, rather a little more to raise the reputation of their author as a fine writer, than to edify the ministry and advance religion. Of the charges his lordship delivered, it may truly be said, that, upon such occasions, he recommended nothing to his clergy which he did not practise in his life, and approve of in his closet.

, of the Palatinate, an able writer against the Jews, was born at Manheim, in 1654, was educated at Heidelberg, and afterwards, at the expence of the elector palatine, travelled in Holland and England. At Amsterdam he applied himself to the study of the Arabic, and copied the Alcoran with his own hand from three manuscripts. In 1693 when the palatinate was invaded, he retired to Francfort, with the electoral regency, and was made keeper of the archives. He was next advanced to the office of registrar of the electoral chancery at Heidelberg, and afterwards appointed professor of the oriental languages. He had also an invitation to succeed Leusden at Utrecht, but declined it, and died at Heidelberg, Dec. 20, 1704. Having very much studied the Talmudical writings, he was desirous to convince the Jews of their folly in preferring the oral to the written law, the traditions of men to the precepts of God, and the Talmud to the Holy Scriptures. With this view he took great pains to collect all the fables, allegories, and contradictions in the Talmud and other rabbinical works, and published this collection in 2 vols. 4to, at Francfort, under the title of “Judaism discovered,” but the Jews had interest enough at the court of Vienna to interdict the sale of it. At length the king of Prussia ordered it to be reprinted at Konigsberg in 1711, at his sole expence, and with great liberality gave a part of the impression to the heirs of Eisenmenger, to recompense them for their loss. In 1743, an abridgement of this work was published in English by the rev. John Peter Stehelin, London, 2 vols. 8vo, under the title “The Traditions of the Jews, or the Doctrines and Expositions contained in the Talmud, and other Rabbinnical writings,” &c. This is a work of great curiosity, and the first in which the English public was made acquainted with the traditions of the Jews.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

, a writer of some reputation among the Quakers, was born at Crowell, near Thame, in Oxfordshire, in 1639, where he received such education as his father, a man in poor circumstances, could afford. In his twenty-first year, the preaching of one Edward Burroughs induced him to join the society of the friends, and soon after he became a writer and a preacher among them. His principal work was entitled “Sacred History, or the historical part of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,” 2 vols. fol. He appears to have sometimes uffered imprisonment in the reign of Charles II. in common with other dissenters; but his confinement on these occasions was neither long nor severe. The only incident in his life worth noticing is his introduction to Milton, to whom he acted for some time as reader, and to whom he is said to have suggested the “Paradise Regained,” by asking him, “Thou hast said much here of Paradise lost; but what hast thou to say of Paradise found?” Ellwood died March 1, 1713. He was a man of considerable abilities, and by dint of study and attention made up for the deficiencies of his early education. His life, written by himself, is rather tedious, but affords many interesting particulars of the history of the sect.

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

, a miscellaneous writer and schoolmaster, was born at Edinburgh, Dec. 6, 1721, and was the son of the Rev. William Elphinston. He was educated at the high school of Edinburgh, and afterwards at the university, where, or soon after he left it, and when only in his seventeenth year, he was appointed tutor to lord Blantyre, a circumstance which seems to indicate that his erudition was extraordinary, or his place nominal. When of age he accompanied Carte, the historian, on a tour through Holland and Brabant, and to Paris, where he acquired such a knowledge of the French language as to be able to speak and write it with the greatest facility. On leaving France he returned to Scotland, and became private tutor to the son of James Moray, esq. of Abercairny, in Perthshire, and an inmate in the family. How long he remained here is uncertain, but in 1750 he was at Edinburgh, and superintended an edition of Dr. Johnson’s “Ramblers,” by the author’s permission, with a translation of the mottos, which was completed in 8 vols. 12 mo, beautifully printed, but imperfect, as being without the alterations and additions introduced in the subsequent editions by Dr. Johnson. In 1751 he married, and leaving Scotland, fixed his abode near London, first at Brompton, and afterwards at Kensington, where for many years he kept a school in a large and elegant house opposite to the royal gardens, and had considerable reputation; his scholars always retaining a very grateful sense of his skill as a teacher, and his kindness as a friend.

The works of sir Thomas Elyot were, 1. “The Castle of Health,” Lond. 1541, 1572,“1580, 1595, &c. in 8vo. 2.” The Governor,“in three books, Lond. 1531, 154.4, 1547, 1557, 1580, &c. in 8vo. 3.” Of the Education of Children,“Load, irt 4to. 4.” The Banquet of Sapience,“Lond. in 8vo. 5.” De Rebus Memorabilibus Angliee,“for the completing of which he had perused many old English monuments. 6.” A Defence or Apology for good Women.“7.” Bibliotheca Eliotae: Elyot’s Library, or Dictionary,“Lond. 1541, &c. fol. which woik Cooper augmented and enriched with thirty-three thousand words and phrases, besides a fuller account of the true signification qf word*. Sir Thomas translated likewise, from Greek into English,” The Image of Governance, compiled of the Acts and Sentences by the Emperor Alexander Severus,“Lond. 1556, 1594, &c. in 8vo. Bayle accuses him of having pretended to translate this from a Greek ms. whereas he says he borrowed his materials from Lampridius and Herodian. Selden, however, thought that he translated a Greek ms. composed by a modern writer. It is not on Bayle’s authority that we should chuse to rank such a man as sir T. Elyot among impostors. He also translated from Latin into English, 1.” St. Cyprian’s Sermon of the Mortality of Man,“Lond. 1534, in 8vo. 2.” The Rule of a Christian Life," written by Picus earl of Mirandola, Lond. 1534, in 8vo.

He is said to have been very nice and scrupulous in regard to his works, having always some correction to make; hence Erasmus imputes the same fault to him that was objected to the painter Protogenes, who thought he had never finished his pieces; “That very learned man Paulus Emilius (says he) gave pretty much into this fault he was never satisfied with himself but, as often as he revised his own performances, he made such alterations, that one would not take them for the same pieces corrected, but for quite different ones; and this was his usual custom. This made him so slow, that elephants could bring forth sooner than he could produce a work; for he took above thirty years in writing his history.” Lipsius was much pleased with this performance: “Paulus Emilius (says that author) is almost the only modern who has discovered the true and ancient way of writing history, and followed it very closely. His manner of writing is learned, nervous, and concise, inclining to points and conceits, and leaving a strong impression on the mind of a serious reader. He often intermixes maxims and sentiments not inferior to those of the ancients. A careful examiner, and impartial judge of facts; nor have J met with an author in our time, who has less prejudice or partiality. It is a disgrace to our age that so few are pleased with him; and that there are but few capable of relishing his beauties. Among so many perfections there are, however, a few blemishes, for his style is somewhat unconnected, and his periods too short. This is not suitable to serious subjects, especially annals, the style of which, according to Tacitus, should be grave and unaffected. He is also unequal, being sometimes too studied and correct, and thereby obscure; at other times (this however but seldom) he is loose and negligent. He affects also too much of the air of antiquity in the names of men and places, which he changes, and would reduce to the ancient form, often learnedly, sometimes vainly, and in my opinion always unbecomingly.” Emilius’s history is divided into ten books, and extends from Pharamond to the fifth year of Charles VIII. in 1438. The tenth book was found among his papers in a confused condition, so that the editor, Daniel Xavarisio, a native of Verona, and relation of Emilius, was obliged to collate a great number of papers full of rasures, before it could be published. He has been censured by several of the French writers, particularly by M. Sorel: “It does not avail (says this author) that his oratorical pieces are imitations of those of the Greeks, and Romans: all are not in their proper places; for he often makes barbarians to speak in a learned and eloquent manner. To give one remarkable circumstance: though our most authentic historians declare, that Hauler, or Hanier, the counsellor, who spoke an invective, in presence of king Lewis Hautin, against Enguerrand de Mar rigny, came off poorly, and said many silly things; yet Paulus Emilius, who changes even his name, calling him Annalis, makes him speak with an affected eloquence. He also makes this Enguerrand pronounce a defence, though it is said he was not allowed to speak; so that what the historian wrote on this occasion was only to exercise his pen.” He has been also animadverted upon for not taking notice of the holy vial at Ilheims. “I shall not (says Claude de Verdier) pass over Paulus Emilius of Verona’s malicious silence, who omitted mentioning many things relating to the glory of the French nation. Nor can it be said he was ignorant of those things, upon which none were silent before himself; such as that oil which was sent from heaven for anointing our monarchs; and also the lilies. And even though he had not credited them himself, he ought to have declared the opinion of mankind.” Vossius, however, commends his silence in regard to these idle tales. Julius Scaliger mentions a book containing the history of the family of the Scaligers, as translated into elegant Latin by Paulus Emilius; and in his letter about the antiquity and splendour of the family, he has the following passage: “By the injury of time, the malice of enemies, and the ignorance of writers, a great number of memoirs relating to our family were lost; so that the name of Scaliger would have been altogether buried in obscurity, had it not been for Paulus Emilius of Verona, that most eloquent writer and preserver of ancient pedigrees; who having found in Bavaria very ancient annals of our family, written, as himself tells us, in a coarse style, polished and translated them into Latin. From this book my father extracted such particulars as seemed to reflect the” greatest honour on our family." Scaliger speaks also of it in the first edition of his Commentary on Catullus, in 1586, and in the second, in 1600, but in such a manner as differs somewhat from the passage above cited. Scioppius has severely attacked Scaliger on account of these variations: he observes, that no mention being made of the place where this manuscript was pretended to be found, nor the person who possessed it, and such authors as had searched the Bavarian libraries with the utmost care, having met with no such annals; he therefore asserts, that whatever the Scaligers advanced concerning this work, was all im posture. Emilius, as to his private life, was a man of exemplary conduct and untainted reputation. He died in 1529, and was buried in the cathedral at Paris.

, bishop of Pavia in Italy, and an eminent writer, was descended from an illustrious family in Gaul, and horn in Italy about the year 473. Losing an aunt, who had brought him up, at sixteen years of age, he was reduced to very necessitous circumstances, but retrieved his affairs by marrying a young lady of great fortune and quality. He enjoyed for some time all the pleasures and advantages which his wealth could procure him; but afterwards resolved upon a more strict course of life. He entered into orders, with the consent of his lady, who likewise betook herself to a religious life. He was ordained deacon by Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, with whom he lived in the most inviolable friendship. His application to divinity did not divert him from prosecuting, at his leisure hours, poetry and oratory, in which he had distinguished himself from his youth; and his writings gained him very great reputation. Upon the death of Epiphanius, he appears to have been elected one of the deacons of the Roman church; and in the year 603, having presented to the synod of Rome an apology for the council there, which had absolved pope Symmachus the year before, it was ordered to be inserted among the acts of the synod. He was advanced to the bishopric of Pavia about the year 511, and appointed to negociate an union between the eastern and western churches; for which purpose he took two journeys into the east, the former in the year 515, with Fortunatus, bishop of Catanaea; the latter in the year 517, with Peregrinus, bishop of Misenum. Though he did not succeed in these negotiations, he shewed his prudence and resolution in the management of them. For the emperor Anastasius, having in vain used his utmost efforts to deceive or corrupt him, after other instances of ill treatment, ordered him to be put on board an old ship; and, forbidding him to land in any part of Greece, exposed him to manifest danger, yet he arrived safe in Italy; and, returning to Padua, died there, not long after, in the year 521. His works consist of, 1. “Epistolarum ad diversos libri IX.” 2. “Panegyricus Theodorico regi Ostrogothorum dictus.” 3. “Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo Palmari.” 4. “Vita B. Epiphanii episcopi Ticinensis.” 5. “Vita B. Antonii monachi Lirinensis” 6. “Eucharisticon de Vita sua ad Elpidium.” 7. “Parasnesis didascalica ad Ambrosium & Beatum.” 8. “Proeceptum de Cellulanis Episcoporum.” 9. “Petitorium, quo absolutus est Gerontius.” 10. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis I.” 11. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis II.” 12. “Dietiones sacrae VI.” 13. “Dictiones scholastics VII.” 14. “Controversioe X.” 15. “Dictiones Ethicae V.” 16. “Poeinata, seu Carminum Liber I.” 17. “Epigrammata, seu Carminum Liber II.” They" were all published by Andrew Scottus at Tournay, 1610, 8vo; and by James Sirrnond at Paris, 1611, 8vo, with notes, explaining the names and titles of the persons mentioned by Ennodius, and containing a great many observations very useful tot illustrating the history of that age. Ennodius’s works are likewise printed with emendations and illustrations, at the end of the first volume of father Sirmond’s works, published at Paris in 1626[?]; and, from that edition, at Venice, 1729, folio. Dupiu observes, that there is a considerable warmth and liveliness of imagination in the writings of Ennodius but that his style is obscure, and his manner of reasoning far from exact.

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

, an ancient Christian writer of the fourth century, was a native of Edessa, according to some; or, as others say, of Nisibe in Syria; and was born under the emperor Constantine. He embraced a monastic life from his earliest years, and in a short time was chosen superior to a considerable number of monks. He is also said to have been ordained deacon at Edessa, and priest at Caesarea in Cappadocia by St. Basil, who taught him Greek; but these two last circumstances are questionable, and it is more generally asserted that he did nat understand Greek, and that he died a deacon. He might have been a bishop, which promotion he averted in a very singular manner, that reminds us of the conduct of Ambrose on a similar occasion: Sozomen relates, that when the people had chosen him, and sought him in order to have him ordained to that function, he ran into the market-place and pretended to be mad, and they desisting from their purpose, he escaped into some retired place, where he continued till another was chosen. He wrote a great number of books, all in the Syriac language; a great part of which is said to have been translated in his lifetime. Photius tells us that he wrote above a thousand orations, and that himself had seen forty-nine of his sermons: and Sozomen observes, that he composed three hundred thousand verses, and that his works were so highly esteemed that they were publicly read in the churches after the scriptures. The same writer adds, that his works were so remarkable for beauty and dignity of style, as well as for sublimity of sentiments, that these excellences did not disappear even in their translations: and St. Jerom assures us, that in reading the truiislatiun of St. Ephrem’s treatise of the Holy Ghost, he recognized all the excellence of the original. Gregory Nyssen, in his panegyric on this father, is very copious with regard to the merit of his writings, and his attachments to the orthodox faith. St. Ephrem had an extreme aversion to the heresies of Sabellius, Arius, and Apollinarius; the last of whom, as Gregory relates, he treated in a manner which partakes too much of the modern trick to deserve much credit. It is thus related: Apollinarius having written two books, in which he had collected all the arguments in defence of his own opinion, and having entrusted them with a lady, St. Ephrem borrowed these books, under the pretence of being an Apollinarian; but before he returned them he glewed all their leaves together. The lady seeing the outside of the books to be the same as before, and not discovering that any thing had been done to them, returned them to Apollinarius to be used in a public conference he was going to have with a catholic: but he, not being able to open his books, was obliged to retire in disgrace. St. Ephrem was a man of the greatest severity of morals, and so strict an observer of chastity, that he avoided the sight of women. Sozomen tells us, that a certain woman of dissolute character, either on purpose to tempt him, or else being hired to it by others, met him on purpose in a narrow passage, and stared him full and earnestly in the face. St. Ephrem rebuked her sharply for this, and bade her look down on the ground. But the woman said, “Why should 1 do so, since I am not made out of the earth, but of thee It is more reasonable that thou shouldst look upon the ground, from which thou hadst thy original, but that I should look upon thee, from whom I was procreated.” St. Ephrem, wondering at the woman, wrote a book upon this conversation, which the most learned of the Syrians esteemed one of the best of his performances. He was also a man of exemplary charity, and as a late historian remarks, has furnished us with the first outlines of a general infirmary. Edessa having been long afflicted with a famine, he quitted his 'cell; and applying himself to the rich men, expostulated severely with them for suffering the poor to starve, while they covetously kept their riches hoarded up. He read them a religious lecture upon the subject, which affected them so deeply, that they became regardless of their riches: “but we do not know,” said they, “whom to trust with the distribution of them, since almost every man is greedy of gain, and makes a merchandise and advantage to himself upon such occasions.” St. Ephrern asked them, “what they thought of him” They replied, that they esteemed him a man of great integrity, as he was universally thought to be. “For your sakes, therefore,” said he, “I will undertake this work;” and so, receiving their money, he caused three hundred beds to be provided and laid in the public porticoes, and took care of those who were sick through the famine. And thus he continued to do, till, the famine ceasing, he returned to his cell, where he applied himself again to his studies, and died notlongafter, in the year 378, under the emperor Valens. Upon his death-bed he exhorted the monks who were about him, to remember him in their prayers forbade them to preserve his clothes as relics and ordered his body to be interred without the least funeral pomp, or any monument erected to him. St. Ephrem was a man of the severest piety, but confused in his ideas, and more acquainted with the moral law than the gospel.

, an ancient Christian writer, was born, about the year 320, at Besanduce, a village of Palestine, His parents are said by Cave to have been Jews; but others. are of opinion that there is no ground for this suspicion, since Sozomen affirms, that “from his earliest youth he was educated under the most excellent monks, upon which, account he continued a very considerable time in Ægypt.” It is certain, that, while he was a youth, he went into Ægypt, where he fell into the conversation of the Gnostics, who had almost engaged him in their party; but he soon withdrew himself from them, and, returning to his country, put himself for some time under the discipline of Hilarion, the father of the monks of Palestine. He afterwards founded a monastery near the village where he was born, and presided over it. About the year 367 he was elected bishop of Salamis, afterwards called Constantia, the metropolis of the isle of Cyprus, where he acquired great reputation by his writings and his piety. In the year 382, he was sent lor to Rome by the imperial letters, in order to determine the cause of Paulinus concerning the see of Antioch. In the year 3yi a contest arose between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem. Epipbanius accused John of holding the errors of Origen; and, going to Palestine, ordained Paulinian, brother of St. Jerom, deacon and priest, ill a monastery which did not belong to his jurisdiction. John immediately complained of this action of Epiphanius, as contrary to the canons and discipline of the church, and Epiphanius defended what he had done, in a letter to John. This dispute irritated their minds still more, which were already incensed upon the subject of Origen; and both of them endeavoured to engage Theophilus of Alexandria in their party. That prelate, who seemed at first to favour the bishop of Jerusalem, declared at last against Origen condemned his books in a council held in the year 399 and persecuted all the monks who were suspected of regarding his memory. These monks, retiring to Constantinople, were kindly received there by John Chrysostom; which highly exasperated Theophilus, who, from that time, conceived a violent hatred to Chrysostom. In the mean time Theophilus informed Epiphanius of what he had done against Origen, and exhorted him to do the same; upon which Epiphanius, in the year 401, called a council in the isle of Cyprus, procured the reading of Origen’s writings to be prohibited, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same. Chrysostom, not approving this proposal, Epiphanius went to Constantinople, at the persuasion of Theophilus, in order to get the decree of the council of Cyprus executed. When he arrived there, he would not have any conversation with Cbrysostom, but used his utmost efforts to engage the bishops, who were then in that city, to approve of the judgment of the council of Cyprus against Origen. Not succeeding in this, he resolved to go the next day to the church of the apostles, and there condemn publicly all the books of Origen, and those who defended them; but as he was in the church, Cbrysostom informed him, by his deacon Serapion, that he was going to do a thing contrary to the laws of the church, and which might expose him to danger, as it would probably raise some sedition. This consideration stopped Epiphanius, who yet was so inflamed against Origen, that when the empress Eudoxia recommended to his prayers the young Theodosius, who was dangerously ill, he answered, that “the prince her son should not die, if she would but avoid the conversation of Dioscorides, and other defenders of Origen.” The empress, surprised at this presumptuous answer, sent him word, that “if God should think proper to take away her son, she would submit to his will that he might take him away as he had given him but that it was not in the power of Epiphanius to raise him from the dead, since he had lately suffered his own archdeacon to die.” Epiphanius’s heat was a little abated, when he had discoursed with Ammourns and his companions, whomTheophilus had banished for adhering to Origen’s opinions; for these monks gave him to understand that they did hot maintain an heretical doctrine, and that he had condemned them in too precipitate a manner. At last he resolved to return to Cyprus, and in his farewell to Chrysostom, he said, “I hope you will not die a bishop;” to which the latter replied, “I hope you will never return to your own country,” and both their hopes were realized, as Chrysostom was deposed from his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea about the year 403. His works were printed in Greek at Basil, 1544, in folio, and had afterwards a Latin translation made to them, which has frequently been reprinted. At last Petavius undertook an edition of them, together with a new Latin translation, which he published at Paris, 1622, with the Greek text revised and corrected by two manuscripts. This, which is the best edition, is in two volumes folio, at the end of which are the animadversions of Petavius, which however, are rather dissertations upon points of criticism and chronology, than notes to explain the text of his author. This edition was reprinted at Cologne, 1682, in 2 vols. folio.

, one of the most illustrious of the revivers of learning, was born at Rotterdam, October 28, 1467. His father Gerard, who was of Tergou, in that neighbourhood, fell in love with Margaret, the daughter of one Peter, a physician of Sevenbergen; and after promises of marriage, as Erasmus himself suggests, connected himself with her, though the nuptial ceremonies were not performed. From this intercourse Gerard had a son, whom Erasmus calls Anthony, in a letter to Lambert Grunnius, secretary to pope Julius II. and whose death, in another letter he tells us, he bore better than he did the death of his friend Frobenius. About two years after, Margaret proved with child again; and then Gerard’s father and brethren (for he was the youngest of ten children) beginning to be uneasy at this attachment, resolved to make him an ecclesiastic. Gerard, aware of this, secretly withdrew into Italy, and went to Rome; he left, however, a letter behind him, in which he bade his relations a final farewell; and assured them that they should never see his face more while they continued in those resolutions. At Rome he maintained himself decently by transcribing ancient authors, which, printing being not yet commonly used, was no unprofitable employment. In the mean time, Margaret, far advanced in her pregnancy, was conveyed to Rotterdam to lie in, privately; and was there delivered of Erasmus. He took his name from this city, and always called himself Roterodamus, though, as Dr. Jortin, the writer of his life, intimates, he should rather have said Roterodamius, or Roterodamensis. The city, however, was not in the least offended at the inaccuracy, but made proper returns of gratitude to a name by which she was so much ennobled; and perpetuated her acknowledgments by inscriptions, and medals, and by a statue erected and placed at first near the principal church, but afterwards removed to a Station on one of the bridges. Gerard’s relations, long ignorant what was become of him, at last discovered that he was at Rome and now resolved to attempt by stratagem what they could not effect by solicitation and importunity. They sent him word, therefore, that his beloved Margaret was dead; and he lamented the supposed misfortune with such extremity of grief, as to determine to leave the world, and become a priest. And even when upon his return to Tergou, which happened soon after, he found Margaret alive, he adhered to his ecclesiastical engagements; and though he always retained the tenderest affection for her, never more lived with her in any other manner than what was allowable by the laws of his profession. She also observed on her part the strictest celibacy ever after. During the absence of his father, Erasmus was under the care and management of his grandmother, Gerard’s mother, Catharine. He was called Gerard, after his father, and afterwards took the name of Desiderius, which in Latin, and the surname of Erasmus, which in Greek, signify much the same as Gerard among the Hollanders, that is, “amabilis,” or amiable. Afterwards he was sensible that he should in grammatical propriety have called himself Erasmius, and in fact, he gave this name to his godson, Joannes Erasmius Frobenius. As soon as Gerard was settled in his own country again, he applied himself with all imaginable care to the education of Erasmus, whom he was determined to bring up to letters, though in low repute at that time, because he discovered in him early a very uncommon capacity. There prevails indeed a notion in Holland, that Erasmus was at first of so heavy and sl9w an understanding, that it was many years before they could make him learn any thing; and this, they think, appears from a passage in the life written by himself, where he says, that “in his first years he made but little progress in those unpleasant studies, for which he was not born; in literis ill is inamoenis, quibus non natus erat.” When he was nine years old, he was sent to Dav enter, in Guelderland, at that time one of the best schools in the Netherlands, and the most free from the barbarism of the age; and here his parts very soon shone 'out. He apprehended in an instant whatever was taught him, and retained it so perfectly, that he infinitely surpassed all his companions. Rhenanus tells us that Zinthius, one of the best masters in the college of Daventer, was so well satisfied with Erasmus’s progress, and so thoroughly convinced of his great abilities, as to have foretold what afterwards came to pa>s, that “he would some time prove the envy and wonder of all Germany.” His memory is said to have b~?en so prodigious, that he was able to repeat all Terence and Horace by heart. We must nojt forget to observe, that pope Adrian VI. was his schoolfellow, and ever after his friend, and the encourager of his studies.

, of Lombardy, a writer who lived in the eighth and part of the ninth century, began early in life to bear arms, and was made prisoner of war, but afterwards retired to Monte Cassino, where he embraced the rule of St. Benedict at the age of about twenty-five. The government of a neighbouring monastery was conferred upon him but here he was exposed to so many vexations, that he was obliged once more to retire and in his retreat wrote a Chronicle, or a History at large of the Lombards, which is thought to be lost, and an abridgment of the same history, from the year 774 to 888, which forms & sort of supplement to Paul the deacon. Anthony Caraccioli, priest of the order of regular clerks, published this abridgment, which relates some curious facts, with other pieces, at Naples, in 1620, 4to. Camillus Peregrinus inserted it afterwards in his history of the princes of Lombardy, 1643, 4to.

, a numismatical writer of considerable reputation in the sixteenth century, was of a noble family in Venice, where he was born in 1530. After a very liberal education, he passed some time in political employment, but at last devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. In the course of his various studies he published a treatise on the money of the ancients’; an explanation of Aristotle’s ethics; and translated into Italian the TimeUs of Plato, and wrote some other philosophical pieces. At the age of forty he was again employed in the affairs of the republic, and managed what was entrusted to him with great reputation. He died in 1585. His work on money was esteemed so much superior to that of Eneas Vieo, who preceded him, that he was considered in his own country as the father of the numismatic science. It was published tinder the title of “Discorso sopra la Medaglie degli antichi, con la dichiarazione delle Monete Consolari, e deJle Medaglie degl' Imperatori,” Venice, 4to, without date, but some copies have the date of 1471. His other works were, 1. “Le Sei Giornati, mandate in luce da Ludovico Dolce,'” Venice,1567, 4to. 2. “Esposizioue delle tre Canzoni di Francesco Petrarca chiamate le tve Sorelle,” Venice, 1561, 4to. 3. “Trattato dello strumento, e della via inventrice degli antichi,” ibid. 1554, 4to. 4. A discourse on Civil Government, published with those of Barth. Cavalcanti, Venice, 1555, and 1571, 4to. We have mentioned his translation of the Timeus of Plato, which was published at Venice in 1558, 4to, and may now add that he translated five other of Plato’s dialogues, Venice, 1574, 8vo.

, or, as he was called in Dutch, Thomas van Erpe, a very learned writer, and eminently skilled in the oriental tongues, was descended, both by his father and mother’s side, from noble families at Boisleduc in Brabant, which place his parents had quitted on account of their adherence to the protestant religion, and was born, at Gorcum in Holland, Sept. 11, 1584. Prom his earliest years he shewed a peculiar disposition for learning, which induced his father, though no scholar himself, to send him to Leyden, where he began his studies, and prosecuted them with such success, as to excite the admiration of his masters. In 1608, at the age of eighteen, he was admitted into the university of that city, where he took the degree of doctor in philosophy. Vossius informs us, that, soon after he became a student in that place, he grew so diffident of succeeding in his labours, as to have thoughts of laying them entirely aside; but that, being encouraged to persevere, and inspired with fresh courage, be made himself master of several branches of literature, and particularly metaphysics, in the pursuit of which last, his patience appears to have been invincible. He is said to have read over not only Aristotle, but likewise a great number of his interpreters, with all the commentaries of Suarez; in which he was so conversant, that, several years after he had gone through his course of philosophy, and was engaged in other studies, he could give a distinct account of the contents of almost every page of that vast work.

, a Portuguese writer, was born at Lisbon in 1614. After having early acquired a taste for literature, he went and studied the military art in Italy, and on his return to his native country was successively governor of Penicha, and of Tangiers, counsellor of war, gentleman of the chamber to the infant don Pedro, and counsellor of state. In the midst of these several employments he found time, for study and composition. On the subject of his numerous publications, the reader may consult the “Journal Etranger” of 1757. The principal of them are, 1. “The History of Tangiers,” 1723, fol. 2. “The History of Portugal, from 1640 to 1657,” in 2 vols. folio. 3. “The Life of John I. king of Portugal.”

, a writer on military affairs, was born at Brive-la-Gaillarde, March 25, 1713, and died at Paris, Feb. 28, 1783. He bore arms at the age of nineteen, signalized his prowess in Italy in 1734, and was aid de-camp in the campaigns of Bavaria in 1742. Marshal Saxe, who was well acquainted with his military talents, employed him either as aide-major-general of the army, or as colonel of one of the regiments of grenadiers created in 1745. Being appointed in 1766 governor of the hotel-des-invalides, he not only maintained the utmost regularity, but introduced great improvements there. He obtained the rank of lieutenant-general in 1780. Among his works are, 1. “Campagnesdu roi en 1745, 1746, 1747, et 1748,” 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Essai sur la science de la Guerre, 1751,” 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Essai sur les grandes operations de la Guerre,” 1755, 4 vols. 8vo; works that display the sound knowledge of an experienced officer. 4. “Supplement aux Reveries du marechal de Saxe,” Paris, 1773, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. He gave the history of this same mare‘chal in 3 vols. 4to, and 2 vols. 12mo. This performance is highly interesting to military men, on account of the plans of battles and of marches found in the 4to edition. The author, after having related the warlike exploits of his hero, concludes, in the manner of Plutarch, with the particular anecdotes and incidents of his life. The baron d’Espagnac had married at Brussels, the 18th of December 1748, Susanna Elizabeth, baroness de Beyer, by whom he had four sons and a daughter. One of these sons went into the church, and was a canon fit Paris, where he was first distinguished by considerable literary talents, and afterwards by his avarice and peculation. He belonged at one time to M. Calonne’s office, from which he was dismissed for improper conduct, but in 1791 made his appearance in the national assembly with a plan of finance. He was afterwards employed by the revolutionary government as commissary to the army of the Alps, and to that of Dumouriez, by which he got an immense fortune, but this he lost, as well as his life, by a decree of the revolutionary tribunal, being guillotined at Paris, April 4, 1794. Of his literary productions, the best were his “Eloge de Catinat,” and “Reflexions sur I'abbS Suger et son siecle.”

, a French moral writer, was boni at Beziers in loll, and entered in 1629 into the oratory, which he quitted five years afterwards to mix again in society; in which, indeed, he -possessed all the qualities adapted to please sense, wit, and the advantages of a good figure. The duke de la Rochefoucault, the chancellor Se'guier, and the prince de Conti, gave him unequivocal testimonies of their esteem and friendship. The first introduced him into the circles of fashion the second obtained for him a pension of 2000 livres and a brevet of counsellor of state; the third heaped his favours upon him, and consulted him upon all occasions. Esprit died in 1678, at the age of sixty-seven. He was a member of the French academy, and one of those who shone in the infancy of that society. His works are: 1. “Paraphrases on some of the Psalms,” which cannot be read with much pleasure since the appearance of those of Masillon. 2. “The fallacy of Human Virtues,” Paris, 1678, 2 vols. 12mo; and Amsterdam, 1716, 8vo, which was intended as a commentary on the Maxims of the duke de la Rochefoucault; but In some places, say his countrymen, it may be compared to the ingenious and lively Horace commented by the heavy Dacier. He cannot, however, be censured for directing his reflections more on persons than on vices a defect too frequent among modern moralists; and it is to his credit that after having shewn the fallacy of merely human virtues, he concludes all his chapters by proving the reality of the Christian virtues. Louis de Bans has taken from this book, his “Art of knowing mankind.”

, well known both as an actor and a writer, was born at Tewksbury, in Gloucestershire, in 1668, and received his education at the Latin school of that town; but, having an early inclination for the stage, he stole away from his father’s house at fifteen years of age, and joined a travelling company of comedians then at Worcester, where, for fear of being known, he made his first appearance in woman’s clothes, in the part of Roxana, in Alexander the Great. But this disguise not sufficiently concealing him, he was obliged to make his escape from a pursuit that was made after him; and, under the appearance of a girl, to proceed with great expedition to Chipping Norton. Here, however, being discovered and overtaken by his pursuers, he was brought back to Tewksbury; and his father, in order to prevent such excursions for the future, soon after carried him up to London, and bound him apprentice to an apothecary in Hatton-garden. From this confinement Mr. Chetwood, who probably might have known him, and perhaps had these particulars from his own mouth, tells us that he broke away, and passed two years in England in an itinerant life; though Jacob, and Whincop after him, say that he set up in business, but, not finding it succeed to his liking, quitted it for the stage. Be this, however, as it will, it is certain that he went over to Ireland, where he met with good success on the stage, from whence he, came back to London, and was received in Drury-lane theatre. His first appearance there was in the part of Dominic, the “Spanish Fryar,” in which, although in himself but a very middling actor, he established his character by a close imitation of Leigh, who had been very celebrated in it. And indeed, in this and all his other parts, he was mostly indebted for his applause to his powers of mimicry, in which he was inimitable, and which not only at times afforded him opportunities of appearing a much better actor than he really was, and enabling him to copy very exactly several performers of capital merit, whose manner he remembered and assumed, but also by recommending him to a very numerous acquaintance in private life, secured him an indulgence for faults in his public profession, that he might otherwise, perhaps, never have been pardoned; among which he was remarkable for the gratification of that “pitiful ambition,” as Shakspeare justly styles it, and for which he condemns the low comedians of his own time, of imagining he could help his author, and for that reason frequently throwing in additions of his own, which the author not only had never intended, but perhaps would have considered as most opposite to his main intention.

, a celebrated wit and comic writer in the reigns of king Charles II. and king James II. is said to have been descended of an ancient family in Oxfordshire, or allied to it He was born about 1636, not very distant from London, it is believed, as some of his nearest relations appear to have been settled not far from this metropolis. It is thought he was partly educated at the university of Cambridge, but travelled into France, and perhaps Flanders also, in his younger years. At his retu,rn, he studied for a while the municipal laws at one of the inns of court in London; but the polite company he kept, and his own natural talents, inclining him rather to court the favour of the muses and cultivate the belles lettres, he produced his first dramatic performance in 1664, entitled “The Comical Revenge; or, Love in a tub,” which brought him acquainted, as he himself informs us, with Charles afterwards earl of Dorset, to whom it is dedicated. Its fame also, with his lively humour, engaging conversation, and refined taste in the fashionable gallantries of the town, soon established him in the societies, and rendered him the delight of those leading wits among the quality and gentry of chief rank and distinction, who made pleasure the chief business of their lives, and rendered that reign the most dissolute of any in our history; such as George Villiers duke of Bucks, John Wilmot earl of Rochester, sir Car Scroop, sir Charles Sedley, Henry Savile, &c. Encouraged by his first success, he brought another comedy upon the stage, in 1668, entitled “She would if she could,” which gained him no less applause, and it was supposed he would now make the stage his principal pursuit, but whether from indolence, or his pleasurable engagements, there was an interval of above seven years before the appearance of his next and last dramatic production, entitled “The Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter.” It is dedicated by him to the duchess of York, who then was Mary, the daughter of the duke of Modena; in the service of which duchess our author, as he says in his said dedication, then was. This play still exalted his reputation, even above what both the former had done; he having therein, as perhaps he had also partly set himself some example in the others before, shadowed forth (but somewhat disguisedly) some of his noted acquaintance and contemporaries, who were known, or thought to be so, by his said draughts of them, to many of the audience; and this rendered the play very popular. In the famous poem written by the lord Rochester, after the example of sir John, Suckling’s upon the like subject, Apollo finds some plausible pretence of exception to the claim of every poetical candidate for the laurel crown; therefore our poet, by the scheme or drift of it, could escape no less disappointment than the rest: yet his lordship, to do him ample justice, has sufficiently shewed his merits to it, in every thing but his perseverance to exert them; which, after having first of all discarded Mr. Dryden, he next expresses thus:

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

Euclid, as a writer on music, has ever been held in the highest estimation by all men of science who have treated of harmonics, or the philosophy of sound. As Pythagoras was allowed by the Greeks to have been the first who found out musical ratios, by the division of a monochord, or single string, a discovery which tradition only had preserved, Euclid was the first who wrote upon the subject, and reduced these divisions to mathematical demonstration. His “Introduction to Harmonics,” which in some Mss. was attributed to Cleonidas, is in the Vatican copy given to Pappus; Meibomius, however, accounts for this, by supposing those copies to have been only two different ms editions of Euclid’s work, which had been revised, corrected, and restored from the corruptions incident to frequent transcription by Cleonidas and Pappus, whose names were, on that account, prefixed. It first appeared in print with a Latin version, in 1498, at Venice, under the title of “Cleonidae Harmonicum Introductorium:” who Cleonidas was, neither the editor, George Valla, nor any one else pretends to know. It was John Pena, a mathematician in the service of the king of France, who first published this work at Paris, under the name of Euclid, 1557. After this, it went through several editions with his other works.

, a Greek writer of the fifth century, composed a book under the title of “Altercatio Symonis Judaei & Theophili Christiani,” which may be seen in Martenne’s­“Thesaurus Anecdotorum.” The authors of the “Histoire literaire de la France,” torn. II. have shewn that the author of this writing mentioned by Gennadius was not a Greek, but a French priest, who had been the disciple of St. Martin. They place him accordingly in the former half of the fifth century, and ascribe to him likewise the “Consultationes seu deliberationes Zachan Christiani & Apollonii philosophi,” which Luke d'Acheri has printed in his “Spicilegium,” tom. X.

, celebrated as a philosopher, patriot, and learned writer of the seventeenth century, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, a branch of which, at the time of his birth, was settled in the county of Surrey, though it flourished originally in the county of Salop, at a place which is still called Evelyn. George Evelyn, esq. purchased the family estate at Wotton in Surrey, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and had, by two wives, sixteen sons and eight daughters. He died May 30, 1603, in the seventy-third year of his age, leaving his estate at Wotton to Richard Evelyn, esq. his youngest and only surviving son by his second wife. This Richard Evelyn, esq. married Eleanor, or Ellen, daughter and heiress of John Stansficld, of die Cliff" near Lewes, esq. and had by her three sons, George, John, and Richard.

Immediately after the king’s return, Mr. Evelyn was introduced, on June 5, 1660, to the king by the duke of York, and very graciously received; nor was it long before be experienced the king’s esteem and confidence, in a remarkable instance. There had been many disputes between the ambassadors of the crowns of France and Spain, for precedence in the courts of foreign princes, and amongst these there was none more remarkable than that upon Tower-hill, on the landing of an ambassador from Sweden, September 30, 1660, which was so premeditated a business on both sides, that the king, foreseeing it would come to a quarrel, and being willing to carry himself with indifference towards both, which could not be otherwise done than leaving them at liberty to adjust their respective pretences, yet for the sake of public tranquillity, orders were given that a strict guard should be kept upon the place, and all his majesty’s subjects were enjoined not to intermeddle, or take part with either side; and the king was farther pleased to command, that Mr. Evelyn should, after diligent inquiry made, draw up and present him a distinct narrative of the whole affair, which he accordingly did, and it is a very curious and remarkable piece. It is inserted in Baker’s Chronicle, Our author began now to enter into the active scenes of life, but yet without bidding adieu entirely to his studies. On the contrary, he published, in the space of a few months, several learned treatises upon different subjects, which met with great applause; the rather because the author expressed in some of. them his intention to prosecute more largely several philosophical subjects, in a manner that might render them conducive to the benefit of society; and of his capacity for performing these promises, some of these pieces were instances sufficient to satisfy every intelligent reader, as well as to justify the character he had already acquired, of being at once an able and agreeable writer. It is certain that very few authors of his time deserve this character so well as Mr. Evelyn, who, though he was acquainted wkh most sciences, and wrote upon many different subjects, yet was tar from being a superficial writer. He had genius, taste, and learning, and he knew how to give all these a proper place in his works, so as never to pass for a pedant, even with such as were least in love with literature, and to be justly esteemed a polite author by those who knew it best.

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

, a writer, who distinguished himself by his talents and productions in polite literature, and who was many years resident in England,. was born at St. Denis le Guast, in Lower Normandy, April 1, 1613. He was the third son of Charles de St. Denis, castellan or baron of St. Denis le Guast; and took the name of St. Evremond from a manor which was part of the estate of his father, and of which he was sometimes styled lord. He was intended, by his father, for the profession of the law; and, when he was nine years of age, he was sent to Paris to be bred a scholar. He was entered in the second form in the college of Ciermont; and continued there four years, during which he went through a course of grammar learning and rhetoric. He was next sent to the university of C;ien, in order to study philosophy but he continued there one year only, and then returned to Paris, where he pursued the same study a year longer in the college of Harcourt. He distinguished himself not only by his application to literature, but by other accomplishments; and he particularly excelled in fencing, so that “St. Evremond’s pass” was famous among those who were skilled in that art. When he had passed through a course of philosophy, be began to study the law: but whether his relations had then other views for him, or that his inclination led him to a military life, he quitted that study after he had prosecuted it somewhat more than a jear, and was made an ensign before he hud quite attained to the age of sixteen. After he had served two or three campaigns, he obtained a lieutenant’s commission; and, after the siege of Laiidvecy, in 1637, he had the command of a company of foot.

St. Evremond was a kind of epicurean philosopher; but though his speculative morality was too lax, yet in his general conduct he appears to have acted like a man of probity. He preserved his health and his chearfulness to a very great age. In one of his letters to Ninon de TEnclos he says, “At eighty-eight years of age, I eat oysters every morning. I dine heartily, and sup tolerably. Heroes are celebrated for less merit than mine.” He was at length afflicted with a strangury, which was attended with great pain, and by which he was much weakened. Bayle tells us, in one of his letters, that it was publicly known, that St. Evremond used no assistance of minister or priest to prepare him for death; and that it was said, that the envoy from the court of Florence sent to him an ecclesiastic, who, asking him whether he would be reconciled, received for answer, “With all my heart: I would fain be reconciled to my stomach, which no longer performs in usual functions.” Bayle also says, “I have seen verses, which he wrote fifteen days before his death; and his only regret was, that he was reduced to boiled meats, and could no longer digest partridges and pheasants.” He died on the 9th of Sept. 1703, aged ninety years, five months, and twenty days. Des Maizeaux says, “He preserved, to the very last, a lively imagination, a solid judgment, and a happy memory. The great and acute pains, which he felt during his sickness, never disturbed his tranquillity. He bore them with a courage and constancy that may be envied by philosophers of the first rate.” The same writer gives the following description of his person: “M. de St. Evremond had blue, lively, and sparkling eyes, a large forehead, thick eye-brows, a handsome mouth, and a sneering physiognomy. Twenty years before his death, a wen grew between his eye-brows, which in time increased to a considerable bigness. He once designed to have it cut oft; but, as it was no ways troublesome to him, and he little regarded that kind of deformity, Dr. Le Fevre advised him to let it alone, lest such an operation should be attended with dangerous symptoms in a man of his age. He would often make merry with himself on account of his wen, his great leather cap, and grey hair, which he chose to wear rather than a periwig .” Des Maizeaux afterwards adds, “His behaviour was civil and engaging, his conversation lively and pleasant, his repartees quick and happy. We find very few that know how to read well. M. de St. Evre-p mond told me one day, that he had not known three in his whole life that could read justly. He had this art in perfection; and, what is altogether as uncommon, he had a very happy way of telling a story.” “His humour was ever gay and merry; which was so far from declining towards the latter end of his life, that it seemed rather to gather fresh strength.” “He was extremely fond of the company of young people, and delighted to hear the stories of their adventures.” “Although he did not pretend to over-rigid morals, yet he had all the qualities of a man of honour. He was just, generous, and grateful; and full of goodness and humanity.”

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

, a French writer, and canontreasurer of the chapter of St. Marine at Tarascon, was born at St, llemy in Provence, of an obscure family, in 1719. He was educated for the church, but his course of studies was general, and he early manifested a taste for voyages and works of geography, and expended all he was worth in gratifying this inclination, by travelling over part of Europe and the coasts of Africa to verify the relative situations of places, and correct the errors of former geographers. On his return, he employed himself in arranging and methodizing the observations and information he had collected on the climate, manners, population, and 1 political interests of the different countries he had visited. These labours appeared so meritorious, that he was elected a member of the academies of Madrid, Stockholm, and Berlin. He died about the commencement of the French revolution, after having passed his life in successful study, and established an excellent character for benevolence. He published, as the result of his travels, 1. “Cosrnographie,” 1749, folio. 2. “Delia casa Milano,” 1753, 4to. 3. “Polychorographie,” Avignon, 1755, 8vo, an abridged account of astronomy, chronology, history, geography, hydrography, &c. but too short to be useful, and altogether the worst of Expilli’s works. 4. “Topographic de TUnivers,” 1758, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Description de l‘Angleterre, de l’Ecosse, et de Irelande,” 1759, 12mo, executed with great truth and impartiality, and illustrated with many judicious reflections; the narrative is entertaining, but the author’s inattention to his authorities has betrayed him into some blunders, although they do not affect the general merit of the performance. 6. “De la population de la France,” 1765, folio, one of the best statistical accounts of the produce of French industry and cultivation, and very superior' to all that had preceded. 7. “Dictionnaire geographique des Gaules et de la France,” 1762 1770, 6 vols. folio. This work was left incomplete, but as far as it goes, appears to have given general satisfaction. 8. “Manuel geographe,” 1782, a small volume for the use of schools, and well written.

, a physician and medical writer, was born at Erfurt in 1652, and first educated in the college of that place, and afterwards studied medicine both there and at Jena. He took his doctor’s degree at Erfurt in 1680, and removing soon after into Westphalia, was made physician to the city of Bockem; but on the plague disappearing, which had broke out there, he returned in 1685 to Erfurt, and two years after was appointed professor extraordinary of medicine. In 1693 he was promoted to be professor in ordinary, and obtained at the same time a place in the faculty. In 1694 he exchanged his professorship of pathology for that of anatomy and surgery, to which botany was afterwards united. In 1713 he was presented with the degree of master of arts, and in 1715 admitted a member of the academy of the “Curieux de la Nature.” He died June 80,1717, leaving the following works: 1. “Enchyridion de formulis prescribendis, secundum method um Gaspari Crameri,” Erfurc, 1698, 8vo. 2. “Compendium Anatomicum,” ibid. 1698, 8vo, 1710, 4to. 3. “Compendium Physiologicum,” ibid. 1699, 8vo. 4. “Compendium Chirurgicurn,” ibid. 1714, 8vo. These, with his other works, theses, &c. were collected and published in fol. 1.7 Is, under the title of " Opera Medica et Chirurgica.

, a Jew, was a Greek poet, who wrote tragedies on subjects of the sacred history. Large fragments of a tragedy by him, on the departure of Israel from Egypt, have been preserved by Clemens of Alexandria, and Eusebius. Various opinions are held concerning the time in which he lived. Eusebius introduces a Demetrius as quoting him; and if that was (as an eminent writer of the present day supposes) Demetrius Phalereus, he must have lived near 300 years before the birth of our Saviour. Others bring him down to a century after that period. He must, at all events, have been prior to Clemens, who quotes him; and certain it is, that there are some remarkable expressions concerning the divine Logos in his fragments. 3

, a Roman historian, the first prose writer on the subject of Roman history, was the son of C. Fabius Pictor, who was consul with Ogulnius Callus in the year 271 B. C. and grandson of the Fabius who painted the temple of health, from whom this branch of the family obtained the name of Pictor. He was nearly related to the preceding Fabius, and after the battle of Cannae was sent to the Delphic oracle to inquire by what supplications the gods might be appeased. He wrote the history of this war with Hannibal, and is cited by Livy as authority in it. The fragments of his annals that remain in the works of the ancients, whether in Greek or Latin, for he wrote in both, relate chiefly to the antiquities of Italy, the beginnings of Rome, or the acts of the Romans. He is censured by Polybius, as too partial to the Romans, and not even just to the Carthaginians. His style was doubtless that of his age, unformed, and imperfect. An history, circulated as his, consisting of two books, one on the golden age, the other on the origin of Rome, is now known to have been a forgery of Annius of Viterbo,

, one of the agents in the French revolution, was born at Carcassane, Dec. 28, 1755, and was educated in polite literature and natural philosophy by his parents, whom he quitted in his youth, and became by turns a painter, musician, engraver, poet, and actor. He performed on the stages of Versailles, Brussels, and Lyons, but with no great success. As a writer for the stage, however, he was allowed considerable merit, and obtained, on one occasion, at the Floral ia, the prize of the Eglantine, the name of which he added to his own. In 1786 he published in a French periodical work, “Les Etrennes du Parnasse,” a little poem called “Chalons sur Marne,” in which he drew a very charming picture of the moral pleasures that were to be found in that place and its neighbourhood. This piece, however, fell very short of the celebrity to which he afterwards attained. In 1789 and 1790 he published two comedies, “Le Philinte,” and “L'Intrigue Epistolaire,” the former of which was reckoned one of the best French pieces of the last century.

, a voluminous French writer, or rather compiler, was born April 25, 1668, at Paris, the son of an eminent surgeon. He was subdeacon, and bachelor of the Sorbonne, and had been second teacher at St. Quintin, when he entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris. He rose to be successively professor of philosophy at Itumilly in Savoy, at Toulon, Riom, Mans, and Nantes; afterwards taught theology three years at Riom, and during three more at the seminary of the congregation at Lyons. While he lived in the last named city, he published a small dictionary, Latin and French, 8vo, compiled from the best classical authors, which has passed through several editions; and he also published at Lyons, in 1709, a new edition of Richelet’s dictionary, 2 vols. folio, under the title of Amsterdam, which edition was suppressed on account of several theological articles respecting the affairs of the times; and because in his list of authors, he bestowed great encomiums on Messrs, of Port Royal, but none on their adversaries. This obliged him to quit the oratory, and retire to Clermont in Auvergne, where, being destitute of a maintenance, he undertook the education of some children, and had recourse to father Tellier, a Jesuit, the king’s confessor, who twice supplied him with money. In the latter end of 171 Fabre again entered the congregation of the oratory, and was sent to Douay, where he wrote a small pamphlet, entitled “Entretigns de Christine^ et de Pelagie, sur la lecture de PEcriture-Sainte” which is still in request. Having afterwards preached the Sunday sermons of the oratory of Tragany with great credit (for he had also talents for preaching), he went to reside at Montmorency, towards the end of 1723, and there began his “Continuation de l'Histoire Ecclesiastique, de feu M. TAbbe Fleury;” and published 16 vols. 4to or 12mb, which induced his superiors to invite him again to their houses, Rue St. Honore*, at Paris, where he died, October 22, 1755, aged eighty-five, much lamented by his brethren and friends, for his mildness, candour, modesty, and virtue. The discourse “Sur le renouvellement des etudes ecclesiastiques,” &c. at the beginning of the thirteenth volume of the Continuation, is by the abbe Goujet. This Continuation discovers great learning, and facility in writing, but has neither the wit, penetration, character, style, nor accuracy of judgment possessed by the abbe Fleury. Fabre would have carried it on much farther, but was forbidden to print any new volumes. He made the index to M, de Thou’s history translated into French, 4to, and had begun one to the “Journal des Sgavans,” but soon gave up his undertaking to the abbe* de Claustre, to whom the public owes that useful work, 10 vols. 4to. Fabre also left a moderate translation of Virgil, 4 vols. 12mo, and a translation of the Fables of Phaedrus, Paris, 1728, 12mo, with notes.

Besides these, Reimar gives a list of fifteen works to which he contributed additions and dissertations; thirteen original dissertations, or academical theses, published from 1688 to 1695; sixteen programmata thirteen lives; six prations, and thirty-eight prefaces, all from the pen of this indefatigable writer: he left also a considerable number of unfinished manuscripts.

There have been five editions of Fabyan; the first printed by Pynson, in 1516, the great rarity of which is attributed by Bale to cardinal Wolsey, who ordered some copies “exemplaria nonnulla” to be burnt, because the author had made too clear a discovery of the revenues of the clergy. This obnoxious part, Mr. Ellis thinks, was the abstract of the bill projected by the house of commons in the eleventh year of Henry IV. for depriving ecclesiastics of their temporal possessions. Bale’s assertion, however, is unsupported by any other writer. The second edition was printed by Rastell in 1533; the third by John Reynes in 1542; the fourth by Kingston in 1559, all in folio; and the fifth makes part of the series of Chronicles lately reprinted by a society of the most eminent booksellers of London, and was edited by Henry Ellis, esq. F. R. S. and F. S. A. with such collations and improvements as give it a very superior value. It is reprinted from Pynson’s edition of 1516, the first part collated with the editions of 1533, 1542, and 1559, and the second with a manuscript of the author’s own time, as well as the subsequent editions including the different continuations.

, a French comic writer of some eminence within the last century, was born at Paris in 1702. He was son of a clerk in a public office at Paris, in which he also obtained an appointment that gave him little trouble, and left him leisure for literary occupations. He wrote for several of the French theatres, and his works were collected into four volumes, 12mo,1760. The general character of his comedies is a delicate and natural liveliness. The most approved of them were, “The Rendezvous,” and “The Ward.” In his own character, as well as in talents, he was not unlike la Fontaine, indolent, averse to business, negligent of his appearance, absent, timid, and by no means likely to be taken by a stranger for a man of genius. He died April 28, 1755, at the age of fifty-three.

, a French topographical writer, was born at Castelnaudari in Upper Languedoc, Oct. 30, 1616. after going through a course of studies at Toulouse, he was in 1638 appointed king’s advocate to the presidial of his native city, which office he resigned in 1655 on being chosen syndic to the city of Toulouse, and came to reside in the latter, where he was enabled to cultivate his taste for the belles lettres; and during the discharge of the duties of his office, which he executed with zeal and disinterestedness, the opportunity he had of inspecting the archives suggested to him the design of writing the annals of Toulouse. On making known his intentions, the parliament granted him permission to examine its registers, and the city undertook to defray the expense of printing his work. Having been advanced to the rank of capitoul, or alderman of the city, which office he served for the third time in 1673, he communicated to his brethren a plan of ornamenting their capitolium, or town -hall, with busts of the most distinguished personages who had filled the offices of magistracy, and they having allowed him to make choice of the proper objects, a gallery was completed in 1677 with the busts of thirty persons whom he had selected as meriting that honour. This, and other services which he rendered to the citizens of Toulouse, induced them to confer a handsome pension on him, and likewise to bestow the reversion of the place of syndic on his nephew, who dying before La Faille, they gave it to his grand-nephew. In 1694 the academy of the “Jeux Floraux” elected him their secretary, a situation which he filled for sixteen years with much reputation; for, besides the fame he had acquired as an historian and magistrate, he possessed considerable literary taste and talents, and even in his ninetieth year produced some poetical pieces in which there was more spirit and vivacity than could have been expected at that very advanced period. He died at Toulouse Nov. 12, 1711, in his ninety-sixth year. His “Annales de la ville de Toulouse” were published there in 2 vols. fol. 1687 and 1701. The style, although; somewhat incorrect, is lively and concise. The annals are brought down only to 1610, the author being afraid, if he proceeded nearer to his own times, that he might be tempted to violate the impartiality which he had hitherto endeavoured to preserve. He published also “Traité de la noblesse des Capitouls,” 1707, 4to, a very curious work,. which is said to have given offence to some of the upstart families. To the works of Goudelin of Toulouse, a poet, published in 1678, 12mo, he prefixed a life, and criticism on his poems. Some of his own poetical pieces are in the “Journal de Verdun,” for May 1709.

Such are the few particulars that are related concerning the private life of Fairfax. But it is as a poet that he is principally entitled to attention; and in this respect he is held in jqst reputation, and deserves to have his name transmitted with honour to posterity. His principal work was his translation of Tasso’s heroic poem of “Godfrey of Bologne” out of Italian into English verse; and what adds to the merit of the work is, that it was his first essay in poetry, and executed when he was very young. On its appearance, it was dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The book was highly commended by the best judges and wits of the age in which it was written, and their judgment has been sanctioned by the approbation of succeeding critics. King James valued it above all other English poetry; and king Charles used to divert himself with reading it in the time of his confinement. All who mention Fairfax, do him the justice to allow that he was an accomplished genius. Dryden introduces Spenser and Fairfax almost on the level, as the leading authors of their times, and Waller confessed that he owed the music of his numbers to Fairfax’s Godfrey of Bologne. “The truth is,” says the author of Cibber’s Lives, “this gentleman is, perhaps, the only writer down to sir William Davenant, who needs no apology to be made for him on account of the age in which he lived. His diction is so pure, elegant, and full of graces, and the turn of his lines so perfectly melodious, that one cannot read it without rapture; and we can scarcely imagine the original Italian has greatly the advantage in either: nor is it very probable, that while Fairfax can be read, any author will attempt a new translation of Tasso with success.” Without disputing the general truth of this eulogium (which, however, might somewhat have been softened), it cannot fail to be observed, how much the biographer has been mistaken in his concluding conjecture. A new translation of Tasso has not only been attempted, but executed, by Mr. Hoole, with remarkable success and with distinguished excellence; and indeed in such a manner, that in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, Fairfax’s work will perhaps not soon be reprinted. Of Fairfax, it has been justly said that he had the powers of genius and fancy, and broke through that servile custom of translation which prevailed in his time. His liberal elegance rendered his versions more agreeable than the dry ness of Jonson, and the dull fidelity of Sandys and May; and he would have translated Tasso with success, had he not unhappily chosen a species of versification which was ill adapted to the English language. Mr. Hoole, in assigning the reasons for his giving a new version of Tasso’s “Jerusalem Delivered,” remarks that Fairfax’s stanzas cannot be read with pleasure by the generality of those who have a taste for English poetry: of which no other proof is necessary than that it appears scarcely to have been read at all. It is not only unpleasant, but irksome, in such a degree as to surmount curiosity, and more than counterbalance all the beauty of expression and sentiment, which is to be found in that work. He does not, however, flatter himself that he has excelled Fairfax, except in measure and versification; and, even of these, the principal recommendation is, that they are more modern, and better adapted to the ear of all readers of English poetry, except of the very few vtho have acquired a taste for the phrases and cadencies of those times, when our verse, if not our language, was in its rudiments.“The author of iris life in the Biog. Britannica, however, is of opinion that it was not necessary to the justification of Mr. Hoole’s new version, that he should pass so severe a censure on Fairfax’s measure. To say that” it is not only unpleasant, but irksome, in such a degree as to surmount curiosity, and more than counterbalance all the beauty of expression which is to be found in the work,“appears to be very unjust The perspicuity and harmony of Fairfax’s ver>ification are indeed extraordinary, considering the time in which he wrote; and in this respect he ranks nearly with Spenser. Nothing but a fine fancy and an elegant mind could have enabled him, in that period, to have made such advances towards perfection. Hume seems to be nearly of the same opinion.” Fairfax,“says that historian,” has translated Tasso with an elegance and ease, and at the same time with an exactness, which for that age are surprising. Each line in the original-is faithfully rendered by a correspondent line in the translation. Harrington’s translation of Ariosto is not likewise without its merit. It is to be regretted, that these poets should have imitated the Italians in their stanza, which has a prolixity and uniformity in it that displeases in long performances. They had otherwise, as well as Spenser, contributed much to the polishing and refining of English versification.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

These memoirs, from the variety of interesting matter they contain, might, if they were published, prove an acceptable present to the public. The excellent writer of them was no less distinguished for her strength of mind and courage than for her piety and virtue. When the vessel that carried her from Ireland to Spain was attacked, she put on men’s clothes, and fought with the sailors. In the second volume of Mr. Seward’s “Anecdotes” are many other curious extracts from lady Fanshawe’s Memoirs.

Mr. Farmer’s first appearance as an author was in a discourse on the suppression of the rebellion of 1745. It was preached on the day of public thanksgiving appointed upon that occasion in 1746, and printed in the same year. This was the only sermon that we recollect his having ever committed to the press. His abilities, though they might have been usefully displayed in that way, led him to those novel opinions on which his temporary fame was founded. Iiv 1761, he published “An Inquiry into the nature and design of Christ’s Temptation in the Wilderness” the general intention of which is to show, that this part of the evangelical history is not only to be understood as a recital of visionary representations, but that the whole was a divine vision, premonitory of the labours and offices of our Lord’s future ministry. An interpretation so new and singular, could not pass unnoticed. In 1762 there appeared a pamphlet against the Inquiry, entitled “Christ’s Temptations, real facts: or, a Defence of the Evangelic History; shewing that our Lord’s temptations may be fairly and reasonably understood as a narrative of what was really transacted.” A second edition of Mr. Farmer’s treatise was soon called for; in which the subject received additional illustration from a considerable number of new notes. Besides this, he published in 1764, an appendix to the “Inquiry,” containing some farther observations on the point in debate, and an answer to objections. Another tract, the publication of which was occasioned by the “Inquiry,” was entitled “The Sovereignty of the Divine Administration vindicated, or a rational Account of our blessed Saviour’s remarkable Temptation in the Wilderness; the Possessed at Capernaum, the Demoniacs at Gadara, and the Destruction of the Swine: with free Remarks on several other important passages in the New Testament.” This was a posthumous piece, which had been written before Mr. Farmer’s work appeared, by Mr. Dixon, who had been a dissenting minister, first at Norwich, and afterwards at Bolton in Lancashire. Mr. Dixon proposes a figurative or allegorical interpretation of our Lord’s temptation. A third edition, with large additions, of Mr. Farmer’s “Inquiry” was published in 1776. In 1771, he published “A Dissertation on Miracles, designed to shew that they are arguments of a divine interposition, and absolute proofs of the mission and doctrine of a Prophet,” 8vo. Not long -after the appearance of the “Dissertation,” a notion was propagated, that Mr. Farmer had made considerable use of a treatise of Le Moine l s on the same subject, without acknowledging it; and it was asserted, that his book had the very same view with Mr. Le Moine’s, and was a copy of his work.Mr. Farmer therefore endeavoured to vindicate himself in a pamphlet, published in 1772, entitled “An Examination of the late rev. Mr. Le Moine’s Treatise on Miracles,” in which he enters into a particular discussion of that performance, and a defence of himself; but the accusation continued to be repeated, particularly by a writer in th? London Magazine.

Mr. Farmer’s last work appeared in 1783, and was entitled “The general prevalence of the worship of Human Spirits in the ancient lieathen Nations asserted and proved.” In this work, which had liule success, there arc a number of notes referring to Mr. Fell, and which shew Mr. Farmer’s sensibility to the attack that had been made upon him by that writer. Indeed, says his panegyrist, we cannot approve of the oblique manner in which some of these notes are composed. It would have been far preferable in our author, either not to have taken any notice of Mr. Fell at all, or to have done it in a more open and manly way. Mr. Fell was not backward in his own vindication. This appeared in 1785, in a publication entitled “The Idolatry of Greece and Rome distinguished from that of other heathen nations: in a letter to the reverend Hugh Farmer.” At the same time that in this tract ample retaliation is made upon Mr. Farmer for his personal severities, it appears to us to contain many things, which, if he had continued to publish on the subject, would have been found deserving of consideration and reply.

His works are: 1. “Notse ad Juveualis et Persu Satyras,” Lond. 1612, 8vo. The third edition was printed at London, in 1620, under the following title “Junii Juvenalis et Auli Persii Flacci Satyrse cum annotationibus ad marginem, quse obscurissima quseque dilucidare possint. Tertia Editio, prioribus multo emendatior et auctior.” book is dedicated to Henry prince of Wales, who received the author very kindly, and in some measure commanded him to write such comments on all the Latin poets. 2. “Notae ad Seneca? Tragcedias,” Lond. 1613, 8vo. The third edition was printed at the same place, in 1634, under the following title: “L. et M, Annaei Senecte Trngccdisc. Post omnes omnium editiones recensionesque editio tertia auctior et emendatior, opera et studio Thorn te Farnabii.” To this edition is prefixed a privilege granted him from the king, dated October 1634, for the sole printing of that, and several other of his works, for one-and-twenty years. The book is accompanied with commendatory verses, by Daniel Heinsius, Richard Andrews, M. D. Hugh Holland, Laurence Whitaker, and Na, Tomkins. 3. “Notrc ad Martialis Epigrammata,” Lond. 1615, 8vo. Other editions in 12 mo, were afterwards printed, both at London and Geneva. These notes were dedicated to sir Robert Killegrew. 4. “Lucani Pharsalia, sive de Bello Civili Caesaris et Pompeii Libri X. Adjeclis ad marginem notis T. Farnabii, quae loca obscuriora illustrent,” London, 1618, 8vo. Dedicated to sir Francis Stuart. To this edition are prefixed commendatory verses by R. A. M. D.and Mr. Selden. 5. “Index Rhetoricus Scholis et Institutioni tenerioris Ætatis accommodatus,” Lond. 1625, 8vo. To an edition published in the same city, in 1646, were added, “Formulae Oratoriae et Index Poeticus.” The fifth edition was printed at London, in 1654, under the following title: “Index Rhetoricus et Oratorius, Scholis et Institutioni tenerioris Ætatis accommodatus. Cui adjiciuntur Formula; Oratoriae et Index Poeticus. Opera et studio Thomae Farnabii. Editio quinta, prioribus emendation” This book is dedicated to Dominico Molino, Senator of Venice. The Index Poeticus, annexed to this, was first printed at London in 1634. In the preface to the “Index Rhetoricus,” Mr. Farnabie informs his readers, that he had published, about twenty years before, his Scheme of Tropes, in verse, without his nume which, meeting with success, was claimed by a certain plagiary upon which our author composed his “Index Rhetoricus.” Mons. Gibert speaks of this work with commendation, and observes that Mons. BaiHet has passed a favourable judgment upon it. Father Vavasseur, though he afiirms that Mr. Farnabie' s Latin is sometimes exceptionable, allows him, nevertheless, to have been a diligent and learned writer. 6. “Florilcgium Epigrammatum Graecorum, eorumque Latino versu a variis redditorum,” London, 1629, 8vo, &c. 7. “Notae ad Virgilium,” London, 1634, 8vo. 8. Ci Systeraa Grammaticum,“London, 1641, 8vo. King Charles the First ordered Mr. Farnabie to write a Latin grammar, for the use of all the schools, when that which had been established by law, and against which many complaints had been made, was to be reformed. 9.” Notae in Ovidii Metamorphoses,“Paris, 1637, folio; and London, in 12mo, 1677, &c. 10.” Phrasiologia Anglo-Latina,“London, 8vo. 11.” Tabula? Graeca? Linguae,“London, 4to. 12.” Syntaxis,“London, 8vo. 13.” Notse in Terentium.“Our author had finished his notes upon Terence only as far as the fourth comedy, when he died. But Dr. Meric Casaubon completed the two last comedies, and published the whole at London, 1651, 12mo. Anthony Wood hath added to the catalogue,” Epistolac variae ad doctissimos Viros." But this article does not refer to a distinct publication, but to the letters occasionally written by Farnabie to learned men, and particularly to Vossius.

, an ingenious comic writer, was the son of a clergyman in Ireland, and born at Londonderry in 1678, where he received the rudiments of education, and discovered a genius early devoted to the muses. When he was very young, he gave specimens of his poetry; and discovered a force of thinking, and turn of expression, much beyond his years. His parents, having a numerous issue, could bestow on him no other fortune than a liberal education therefore, when he was qualified for the university, he was sent in 1694 to Trinitycollege, in Dublin. He made great progress in his studies, and acquired a considerable reputation: but his gay and volatile disposition could not long relish the gravity and retirement of a college life, and therefore, soon quitting it, he betook himself to the diversions of the stage, and got admitted into the company of the Dublin theatre. He had the advantage of a good person, and was well received as an actor, though his voice was somewhat weak: for which reason he resolved to continue on the stage, till something better should offer. But his resolution was soon broken by an accident: being to play the part of Guyomar, who kills Vasquez, in Dryden’s “Indian Emperor,” and forgetting to exchange his sword for a foil, in the engagement he wounded his brother tragedian, who represented Vasquez, very dangerously; and though the wound did not prove mortal, yet he was so shocked at it, that he determined never more to appear on the stage.

The success of Farquhar’s comedies is said, in general, far to have exceeded his own expectations; and of his merits as a writer, various opinions have been entertained. It may be allowed, however, that he was usually happy in the choice of his subjects, and adorned them with a great variety of characters and incidents that his style is pure and unaffected his wit natural and flowing and his plots generally well contrived. Licentiousness has been justly objectecl to his comedies, which was the vice of the times. Pope used to call him a farce-writer; but his productions were so pleasing, that many years ago his works had gone through eight editions; and to this day his comedies keep their rank upon the stage.

, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, was born in Yorkshire about 1721. He was educated at Leeds, under the care of the rev. Mr. Cookson, vicar of that parish, from whence he went to Jesus college, Cambridge, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1741, and his master’s in 1745. After being admitted into holy orders, he settled at Bramham in Yorkshire, near the elegant seat of that name belonging to Robert Lane, esq. the beauties of which afforded him the first subject for his muse. He published his “Bramham Park,” in 1745, but without his name. His next publications were the “Descriptions of May and Winter,” from Gawen Douglas, the former ia 1752, the latter in 1754: these brought him into considerable notice as a poetical antiquary, and it was hoped that he would have been encouraged to modernize the whole of that author’s works. About the year last mentioned, he removed to the curacy of Croydon in Surrey, where he had an opportunity of courting the notice of archbishop Herring, who resided there at that time, and to whom, among other complimentary verses, he addressed an “Ode on his Grace’s recovery,” which was printed in Dodsley’s Collection. These attentions, and his general merit as a scholar, induced the archbishop to collate him, in 1755, to the vicarage of Orpington, with St. Mary Cray in Kent. In 1757 he had occasion to lament his patron’s death in a pathetic elegy, styled Aurelius, printed with his grace’s sermons in 1763, but previously in our author’s volume of poems in 17-61. About the same time he married miss Furrier of Leeds. In April 1774, by the late Dr. Plumptre’s favour, he exchanged his vicarage for the rectory of Hayes, This, except the office of chaplain to the princess dowager of Wales, was the only ecclesiastical promotion he obtained.

, a barrister and law writer, was

In 1610, and the two following years, we find him in attendance upon sir Thomas Edmondes, the king’s minister at the court of France. Several of the sermons he preached, during this time, in the ambassador’s chapel, are collected in his “Clavis Mystica,” and those which were levelled at the errors of popery are said to have been very successful both in converting some catholics, and in confirming the opinions of those who had before embraced. the doctrines of the reformation. He had also very frequent conferences in the Cleremont with the Jesuits, and with the members of the Sorboane, but especially with fathers Sirmund and Petau, who, although they at first ridiculed his figure, for he was low of stature, yet afterwards were impressed with a regard for his controversial talents, and treated his memory with respect. His three disputations at Paris are confessed by Holden, an eminent English catholic writer, to have done more harm to the popish cause than thirtythree he had read of before. By most of the foreign universities he was held in such honour as a disputant, that in the tables of the celebrated schoolmen, whom they honoured with the epithets of resolute, subtle, angelic, &c. he was called acutissimus et acerrimus. According to Wood, he commenced B. D. in 1613, and was the preacher at the act of that year. His sermon on this occasion is said to have been No. 37. in the “Clavis Mystica;” but, according to the evidence of his nephew John Featley, he did not take that degree until 1615, and the sermon he delivered was a Latin concio ad clerum, dated March 25. In 1610 he had preached the rehearsal sermon at Oxford, and by the bishop of London’s appointment he discharged the same duty at St. Paul’s cross in 1613. By invitation from Mr. Ezekiel Ascot, who had been his pupil, he accepted the rectory of Northill in Cornwall, which he vacated on his institution to the rectory of Lambeth in 1618. a change which, if not more profitable, was certainly highly agrees ahle to him, as he became now, by the recommendation of the university, domestic chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury.

While the ecclesiastical constitution stood, Dr. Featley was member of several of the convocations; and upon account, as is supposed, of his being a Calvinist, he was in 1642 appointed by the parliament one of the Assembly of Divines. He is said to have continued longer with them than any other member of the episcopal persuasion; but this was no longer than he discovered the drift of their proceedings. That he was not acceptable to the ruling party, appears from his becoming in the same year, a victim to their revenge. In November, the soldiers sacked his church at Acton, and at Lambeth would have murdered him, had he not made his escape. These outrages were followed Sept. 30, 1643, by his imprisonment in Peter-house, in Aldersgate-street, the seizure of his library and goods, and the sequestration of his estate. Charges were preferred against him of the most absurd and contradictory kind, which it was to little purpose to answer. He was voted out of his living. Among his pretended offences were, that he refused to assent to every clause in the solemn league and covenant, and that he corresponded with archbishop Usher, who was with the king at Oxford. During his imprisonment, he amused himself by writing his celebrated treatise, entitled “The Dippers dipt, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, at a disputation in Southwark.” It is, however, a striking proof of that anarchy of sentiment which disgraced the nation at this period, that he not only dedicates this book to the parliament which had imprisoned him, but exhorts them to employ the sword of justice against “heretics and schismatics,” although himself was n'ow suffering under the latter description by that very parliament. He was better employed soon after in an able vindication of the church of England against the innovators who now bore rule; but his long confinement of eighteen months impaired his health and shortened his days. His situation appears to have been represented to his persecutors, but it was not until six weeks before his death that he obtained leave from the parliament to remove to Chelsea for the benefit of the air. Here he died April 17, 1645, on the very day that he was bound to have returned to his confinement at Peter-house. It was reported that a few hours before his deaih, he prayed for destruction to the enemies of the church and state, in expressions which have been called “irascible and resentful.” How far they were used by him seems doubtful but had he prayed only for the restoration of the constitution in church and state, it might have still, in those times, been imputed to him that the destruction of their enemies was a necessary preliminary and a fair innuendo. He was buried in the chancel of Lambeth church, where his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Leo or Loe, who had been in habits of intimacy with him for thirty-seven years. Dr. Leo represents him as being “in his nature, meek, gracious, affable, and merciful:” as a writer he was esteemed in his time one of the ablest defenders of the doctrines of the reformation against the papists, and one of the ablest opponents of the anabaptists.

Sir John Fenn distinguished himself early by his application to the study of our national history and antiquities, for which he had formed great collections, particularly that of Peter Le Neve, for the contiguous counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, from the wreck of that of Thomas Martin, to erect a monument to whose memory in the church where he was buried, he left a large sum of money. Among the rest was a large collection of original letters, written during the reigns of Henry VI. Edward IV. Richard III. and Henry VII. by such of the Paston family and others, who were personally present in court and camp, and were, in those times, persons of great consequence in the county of Norfolk. These letters contain many curious and authentic state anecdotes, relating not only to Norfolk, but to the kingdom in general. Two volumes of them were published in 1787, 4to, and dedicated by permission to his majesty, who rewarded the merit of the editor with the honour of knighthood. Two more volumes appeared in 1789, with notes and illustrations by sir John and a fifth was left nearly ready for the press, which, however, if we mistake not, has not yet been published. Though he contributed nothing to the “Archaeologia” of the Society of Antiquaries, of which he was a fellow, he was a benefactor to them, by drawing up “Three Chronological Tables” of their members, which were printed in a 4to pamphlet, 1734, for the use of the society. His biographer concludes his character with observing, that “if the inquisitive antiquary, the clear, faithful, and accurate writer, be justly valued by literary characters; the intelligent and upright magistrate, by the inhabitants of the county in which he resided; the informing and pleasing companion, the warm and steady friend, the honest and worthy man, the good and exemplary Christian, by those with whom he was cpnnected; the death of few individuals will be more sensibly felt, more generally regretted, or more sincerely lamented.”

, an eminent writer and statesman during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. was brother to the preceding, but the time of his birth does not appear. He was certainly educated liberally, though we cannot tell where; since, while a young man, he gave many proofs of his acquaintance with ancient and modern learning, and of his being perfectly versed in the French, Spanish, and Italian languages. He is well known for a translation from the Italian of “The History of the Wars of Italy, by Guicciardini,” the dedication of which to queen Elizabeth bears date Jan. 7, 1579. This was, however, his last work. He had published before, 1. “Certaine Tragical Discourses written oute of French and Latin,” 1567, 4to, reprinted 1579. Neither Ames nor Tanner appear to have seen the first edition. The work is, says Warton, in point of selection and size, perhaps the most capital miscellany of the kind, a. e. of tragical novels. Among the recommendatory poems prefixed is one from Turberville. Most of the stories are on Italian subjects, and many from Bandello. 2. “An Account of a Dispute at Paris, between two Doctors of the Sorbonne, and two Ministers of God’s Word,”1571, a translation. 3. “An Epistle, or Godly Admonition, sent to the Pastors of the Flemish Church in Antwerp, exhorting them to concord with other Ministers: written by Antony de Carro, 1578,” a translation. 4. “Golden Epistles; containing variety of discourses, both moral, philosophical, and divine, gathered as well out of the remainder of Guevara’s works, as other authors, Latin, French, and Italian. Newly corrected and amended. Mon heur viendra, 1577.” The familiar epistles of Guevara had been published in English, by one Edward Hellowes, in 1574; but this collection of Fenton’s consists of such pieces as were not contained in that work. The epistle dedicatory is to the right honourable and vertuous lady Anne, countess of Oxen ford; and is dated from the author’s chamber in the Blackfriars, London, Feb. 4, 1575. This lady was the daughter of William Cecil lord Burleigh; and it appears from the dedication, that her noble father was our author’s best patron. Perhaps his chief purpose in translating and publishing this work, was to testify his warm zeal and absolute attachment to that great minister.

In 1603, sir Geoffrey married his only daughter Katherine to Mr. Boyle, afterwards the great earl of Corke; and died at his house in Dublin, Oct. 19, 1608. He was interred with much funeral solemnity at the cathedral church of St. Patrick, in the same tomb with his wife’s father, the lord chancellor Weston; leaving behind him the character of a polite writer, an accomplished courtier, an able statesman, and a true friend to the English nation, and protestant interest in Ireland. His translation of Guicciardini, and his Guevara’s Epistles, have lately risen in price, since the language of the Elizabethan period has been more studied; and the style of Fenton, like that of most of his contemporaries, is far superior to that of the authors of the succeeding reign, if we except Raleigh and Knowlles.

His next engagement was with Pope himself, who after the great success of his translation of the Iliad, undertook that of the Odyssey, and determined to engage auxiliaries. Twelve books he took to himself, and twelve he distributed between Broome and Fenton. According to Johnson and Warton, Fenton translated the first, fourth, nineteenth and twentieth. But John, earl of Orrery, in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, asserts that Fenton translated double the number of books in the Odyssey that Pope has owned. “His reward,” adds the noble writer, “was a trifle, an arrant trifle. He has even told me, that he thought Pope feared him more than he loved him. He had no opinion of Pope’s heart, and declared him, in the words of bishop Atterbury, Mens curia in corpore curvo.” It is, however, no small praise to both Fen tun and Broome, that the readers of poetry have never been able to distinguish their books from those of Pope. In 1723, Fenton’s tragedy of “Mariamne” was brought on the stage in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and was performed with such success, that the profits of the author are said to have amounted to nearly a thousand pounds, with which he very honourably discharged the debts contracted by his fruitless attendance on Mr. St. John. The poetical merit of this tragedy is confessedly great, but the diction is too figurative and ornamental. Colley Cibber has been termed insolent for advising Fenton to relinquish poetry, by which we presume he meant dramatic poetry; but Cibber, if insolent, was not injudicious, for Mariamne has not held its place on the stage, In 1 1727, Fenton revised a new edition of Milton’s Poems, and prefixed to it a short but elegant and impartial life of the author. In 1729 he published a very splendid edition of Waller, with notes, which is still a book of considerable value.

, a celebrated self-taught mechanic, was born at Bassano, in the territory of Padua, in 1692. His first occupation being that of a sawyer, for his parents were very poor, he invented a saw which worked by the wind, and went on progressively to several more curious inventions, such as making clocks in iron, hydraulic machines, &c. till he was noticed by the great men of Italy. In his native town of Bassano, he constructed a famous bridge over the Brenta, remarkable for the boldness of its design, and the solidity of its construction. He died soon after the completion of this work. An history of his life and inventions was published at Venice in 1764, by a writer whose name was Memo, 4to.

, a French lawyer, was born in 1515, and was a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux. He was an elegant writer in Latin, an imitator of the style of Terence, admired by Scaliger, and honoured by him with the name of Atticus. --He continued the history of France in Latin (which Paulus Æmilius, a writer of Verona, had given from the reign of Pharamond to 1488) as far as the end of the reign of Francis I. This work was published at Paris, by Vascosan, in 1554, fol. and 1555, 8vo. It is copious, but not too long, and abounds with curious anecdotes and very exact details. He wrote also “Observations sur la Coutume de Bourdeaux,” Lyons, 1565, fol. He had considerable employments. His death happened in 1563, when he was no more than forty-eight.

, was a celebrated grammarian of antiquity, who abridged a work of “Verrius Flaccus de signih'catione verborum,” as is supposed, in the fourth century. Flaccus’s work had been greatly commended by Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Priscian, and other ancient writers, but Festus in his abridgment took unwarrantable liberties; for he was not content with striking out a vast number of words, but pretended to criticize the rest, in a manner, as Vossius has observed, not favourable to the reputation of Flaccus. Another writer, however, in the eighth century, afterwards revenged this treatment of Flaccus, by abridging Festus in the same way. This was Paul the deacon, who so maimed and disfigured Festus, that it was scarce possible to know his work, which lay in this miserable state till, a considerable fragment being found in the library of cardinal Farnese, some pains were taken to put it again into a little order. The first, or princeps editio, is without a date, but supposed to have been printed in 1470, which, was followed by one with the date of 1471. Since that time there have been various editions by Scaliger, Fulvius Ursinus, Aldus Minucius, and others; but the most complete is the Delphin edition of Paris, 1681, in 4to, published by Dacier, or perhaps the reprint of it by Le Clero, Amst. 1699. It is also among the “Auctores Latinae Linguae,” collected by Gothofredus in 1585, and afterwards reprinted with emendations and additions at Geneva, in 1622. Scaliger says that Festus is an author of great use to those who would attain the knowledge of the Latin tongue with accuracy.

, an English divine, and laborious writer, was born of reputable parents, at Hunmanby near Scarborough in Yorkshire in 1671. In his education he was much encouraged by his uncle the rev. Mr. Fiddes of Brightwell in Oxfordshire, who was as a father to him. After being instructed at a private school at Wickham in that neighbourhood, he was admitted of Corpus Christi, and then of University college, in Oxford; where by his parts and address he gained many friends. He did not, however, continue there; but, after taking a bachelor of arts degree in 1693, returned to his relations, and married, in the same year, Mrs. Jane Anderson, a lady of good family and fortune. In 1694, he was ordained priest by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York; and not long after, presented to the rectory of Halsham in that county, of about 90l. per annum. Halsham, being situated in a marsh, proved the occasion of much ill health to Fiddes and his family; and he had the misfortune, while there, to be suddenly so deprived of his speech, as never after to be able to utter words very articulately, unless his organs were strengthened with two or three glasses of wine, which, as he was a mun of great temperance, was to him an excess. His diocesan, however, dispensed with his residence upon his benefice for the future; on which he removed to Wickham, and continued there some months. Being no longer able to display his talents in preaching, which before were confessedly great, and having a numerous family, he resolved to devote himself entirely to writing. For this purpose, he went to London in 1712; and, by the favour of dean Swift, was introduced to the earl of Oxford, who received him kindly, and made him one of his chaplains. The dean had a great esteem for Fiddes, and recommended his cause with the warmth and sincerity of a friend. The queen soon after appointed him chaplain to the garrison at Hull, and would probably have provided handsomely for him, had not death prevented her. Losing his patrons upon the change of the ministry in 1714, he lost the above mentioned chaplainship; and the expences of his family i icreasing, as his ability to supply them lessened, he was obliged to apply himself to writing with greater assiduity than ever. Yet he continued in high esteem with contemporary writers, especially those of his own party; and was encouraged by some of the most eminent men of those times. By the generosity of his friend and relation Dr. Radcliffe, the degree of bachelor of divinity was conferred upon him by diploma, Feb. 1, 1713, and in 1718 he was honoured by the university of Oxford with that of doctor, in consideration of his abilities as a writer. He died at the house of his friend Anstis at Putney, in 1725, aged fifty ­four years, leaving behind him a' family consisting of a wife and six children. His eldest daughter was married to the rev. Mr. Barcroft, curate of St. George’s, Hanover-square, who abridged Taylor’s “Ductor Dubitantium.” Dr. Fiddes was buried in Fulham churchyard, "near the remains of bishop Compton, to whom he had been much obliged.

His first publication appears to have been, 1. “A prefatory Epistle concerning some Remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad: occasioned by the proposals of Mr. Pope towards a new English version of that poem, 17 14,” 12mo. It is addressed to Dr. Swift. It would seem to have been his intention to write a kind of moral commentary upon Homer; but, probably for want of encouragement, this never appeared. The first work by which he distinguished himself in any considerable degree, was, 2. “Theologia Speculativa: or the first part of a body of divinity under that title, wherein are explained, the principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1718,” folio. This met with a favourable reception from the public: yet when Stackhouse, a man certainly not of much higher talents, afterwards executed a work of a similar nature, he endeavoured to depreciate the labours of his predecessor. Dr. Fiddes’s second part is entitled “Theologia Practica, wherein are explained the duties of Natural and Revealed Religion;” and was published in 1720, folio. The same year also he published in folio, 3. “Fifty-two practical Discourses on several subjects, six of which were never before printed.” These, as well as his Body of Divinity, were published by a subscription, which was liberally encouraged at Oxford. But the work which gained him the most friends, and most enemies, was, 4. “The Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1724,” in folio, dedicated to the chancellors, vice-chancellors, doctors, and other members of the two universities; and encouraged by a large subscription. This work was attacked with great severity in “The London Journal,” and the author charged him with being a papist; who repelled this accusation in, 5. “An Answer to Britannicus, compiler of the London Journal, 1725,” in two letters; in the first of which he endeavours to obviate the charge of popery; in the second, to show his impartiality in the life of this cardinal. Dr. Knight, in the “Life of Erasmus,” published a little after our author’s death, attacked him in the severest terms, accusing him of speaking irreverently of Erasmus, “probably,” says he, “because he had by his writings favoured the reformation.” Dr. Fiddes, he says, vilifies the reformation, depreciates the instruments of it, and palliates the absurdities of the Romish church. He declares also that the life was written at the solicitation of bishop Atterbury, on the occasion of the dispute in which he was then engaged with archbishop Wake: and that Atterbury supplied him with materials, suggested matter and method, entertained him at his deanery, procured him subscribers, and “laid the whole plan for forming such a life as might blacken the reformation, cast lighter colours upon popery, and even make way for a popish pretender.” Fiddes, indeed, had given occasion for part of this surmise, by saying that “a very learned prelate generously offered to let me compile the life of cardinal Wolsey in his house.” Suspicion was likewise heightened by the eulogium he made on Atterbury, a little before his deprivation. Though it may be difficult to determine how far this author was at the bottom an enemy to the reformation, yet in his Life of Wolsey, his prejudices in favour of the ancient religion are unquestionably strong, and in these he shared with some contemporaries of no inconsiderable fame. Asa collection of facts, however, the work is highly valuable, and he has the merit (whatever that may be esteemed) of placing the life and character of Wolsey in a more just light than any preceding writer. As the munificent founder of Christ church, he could not avoid a certain reverence for Wolsey, nor, if Atterbury assisted him, can we wonder at that prelate’s disposition to think well of so great a benefactor to learning, who would have proved a still greater benefactor, had he not been sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of his royal master.

Causes, have compassion on me." Dr. Fiddes was an ingenious, but not a very learned man. He had so happy a memory, that he retained every thinghe read, and never made use of notes in preaching. He was far from being a nervous writer, abounding in matter, but was prolix and tedious, for which it has been offered as an apology that his necessities did not allow him time to contract his thoughts into a narrower compass. It is reasonable to suppose, that he was sincere in his professions concerning the hierarchy; and as reasonable to suppose, that he had no affection for popery. In his Life in the General Dictionary, is a letter from him to a protestant lady, to dissuade her from turning Roman catholic, which sets this question at rest. His misfortunes, in the latter part of his life, were chiefly owing to his strong attachment to a party. His application to his studies was so intense, that he would frequently pass whole nights in writing, which, together with his misfortunes, is supposed not a little to have hastened his death . He was reckoned, upon the whole, a good man, but rather wanting in point of prudence, and by no means a manager of his money.

, beyond all comparison the first novel-writer of this country, was born at Sharpham Park in Somersetshire, April 22, 1707. His father, Edmund Fielding, esq. was the third son of John Fielding, D. D. canon of Salisbury, who was the fifth son of George earl of Desmond, and brother to William third earl of Denbigh, nephew to Basil the second earl, and grandson to William, who was first raised to the peerage. Edmund Fielding served under the duke of Maryborough, and towards the close of king George the First’s reign, or the accession of George II. was promoted to the rank of a lieutenant-general. His mother was daughter to the first judge Gould, and aunt to sir Henry Gould, lately one of the judges of the common pleas. This lady, besides Henry, who seems to have been the eldest, had four daughters, and another son named Edmund, who was an officer in the sea-service. Afterwards, in consequence of his father’s second marriage, Fielding had six half-brothers, George, James, Charles, John, William, and Basil. Of these nothing memorable is recorded, except of John, who will be the subject of a subsequent article as will also Sarah, the sister of Henry Fielding. His father died in 1740. Henry Fielding received the first rudiments of his education at home, under the care of the rev. Mr. Oliver, for whom he seems to have had no great regard, as he is said to have designed a portrait of him in the very humorous yet unfavourable character of parson Tralliber, in his “Joseph Andrews.” From this situation he was removed to Eton school, where he had an opportunity of cultivating a very early intimacy and friendship with several young men who afterwards became conspicuous personages in the kingdom, such as lord Lyttelton, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, sir Charles Hanbury Williams, &c. who ever through life retained a warm regard for him. But these were not the only advantages he reaped at that great seminary of education; for, by an assiduous application to study, and the possession of strong and peculiar talents, he became, before he left that school, uncommonly versed in Greek authors, and a master of the Latin classics. Thus accomplished, at about eighteen years of age he left Eton, and went to Leyden, where he studied under the most celebrated civilians for about two years, when, the remittances from England not coming so regularly as at first, he was obliged to return to London.

General Fielding’s family being very greatly increased by his second marriage, it became impossible for him to make such appointments for this his eldest son as he could have wished; his allowance was therefore either very ill paid or entirely neglected. This unhappy situation soon produced all the ill consequences which could arise from poverty and dissipation. Possessed of a strong constitution, a lively imagination, and a disposition naturally but little formed for Œconomy, Henry Fielding found himself his own master, in a place where the temptations to every expensive pleasure are numerous, and the means of gratifying them easily attainable. From this unfortunately pleasing situation sprang the source of every misfortune or uneasiness that Fielding afterwards felt through life. He very soon found that his finances were by no means proportioned to the brisk career of dissipation into which he had launched; yet, as disagreeable impressions never continued long upon his mind, but only rouzed him to struggle through his difficulties with the greater spirit, he flattered himself that he should find resources in his wit and invention, and acccordingly commenced writer for the stage in 1727, at which time he had not more than attained the completion of his twentieth year. His first dramatic attempt was a piece called “Love in several Masques,” which, though it immediatetysucceeded the long and crowded run of the “Provoked Husband,” met with a favourable reception, as did likewise his second play, “The Temple Beau,” which came out in the following year. He did not, however, meet with equal success in all his dramatic works, for he has even printed, in the title-page of one of his farces, “as it was damned at the theatre-royal Drury-lane;” and he himself informs us, in the general preface to his miscellanies, that for the “Wedding-Day,” though acted six nights, his profits from the house did not exceed fifty pounds. Nor did a much better fate attend some of his earlier productions, so that, though it was his lot always to write from necessity, he would, probably, notwithstanding his writings, have laboured continually under that necessity, had not the severity of the public, and the malice of his enemies, met with a noble alleviation from the patronage of several persons of distinguished rank and character, particularly the late dukes of Richmond and Roxburgh, John duke of Argyle, the first lord Lyttelton, &c. the last-named of which noblemen, not only by his friendship softened the rigour of our author’s misfortunes while he lived, but also by his generous ardour has vindicated his character, and done justice to his memory, after death.

Fielding’s genius excelled most in those strong, lively, and natural paintings of the characters of mankind, and the movements of the human heart, which constitute the basis of his novels; yet, as comedy bears the closest affinity to this kind of writing, his dramatic pieces, every one of which is comic, are far from being contemptible. His farces and ballad pieces, more especially, have a sprightImess of manner, and a furcibleness of character, by which it is impossible not to be agreeably entertained; and in itiose which he has in any degree borrowed from Moliere, or;.ny other writer, he has done great honour and justice t>j Irs original, by the manner in which he has treated the subject. Having married a second time, he left a wife and four children, who were educated under the care of their uncle, with the aid of a very generous donation given annually by Ralph Allen, esq. the celebrated man of Bath. One of his sons is still living, a barrister of considerable reputation. This second wife died at Canterbury, in May 1802, at a very advanced age. Fielding’s frame was naturally very robust, and his height rather above six feet. It was thought that no picture was taken of him while he lived, and it is certain that the portrait prefixed to his Works was a sketch executed by his friend Ho r garth, from memory. We find, however, in Mr. Nichols’s new edition of the Life of Bowyer, a beautiful engraving from a miniature in the possession of his grand-daughter, Mrs. Sophia Fielding. His character as a man, may in great measure be deduced from the incidents of his life, but cannot perhaps be delineated better than by his biographer Mr. Murphy, with whose words this article may properly be closed.

, lord Say and Sele, a person of literary merit, but not so well known on that account as for the part he bore in the Grand Rebellion, was born at Brpughton in Oxfordshire, in 1582, being the eldest son of sir Richard Fiennes, to whom James I. had restored and confirmed the dignity of baron Say and Sele: and, after being properly instructed at Winchester school, was sent in 1596 to New-college in Oxford, of which, by virtue of his relationship to the founder, he was made fellow. After he had spent some years in study, he travelled into foreign countries, and then returned home with the reputation of a wise and prudent man. When the war was carried on in the Palatinate, he contributed largely to it, according to his estate, which was highly pleasing to king James; but, indulging his neighbours by leaving it to themselves to pay what they thought fit, he was, on notice given to his majesty, committed to custody in June 1622. He was, however, soon released; and, in July 1624, advanced from a baron to be viscount Say and Scle. At this time, says Wood, he stood up for the privileges of Magna Charta; but, after the rebellion broke out, treated it with the utmost contempt: and when the long-parliament began in 3640, he shewed himself so active that, as Wood says, he and Hampden and Pym, with one or two more, were esteemed parliament-drivers, or swayers of all the parliaments in which they sat. In order to reconcile him to tne court, he had the place of mastership of the court of wards given him in May 1641 but this availed nothing; for, when arms were taken up, he acted openly against the king. Feb. 1642, his majesty published two proclamations, commanding all the officers of the court of wards to. attend him at Oxford; but lord Say refusing, was outlawed, and attainted of treason. He was the last 'who held the office of master of this court, which was abolished in 1646 by the parliament, on which occasion 10,000l. was granted to him, with a part of the earl of Worcester’s estate, as a compensation. In 1648 he opposed any personal treaty with his majesty, yet the same year was one of the parliament-commissioners in the Isle of Wight, when they treated with the king about peace: at which time he is said to have urged against the king this passage out of Hooker’s “Ecclesiastical Polity,” that “though the king was singulis major, yet he was universis minor” that is, greater than any individual, yet less than the whole community. After the king’s death, he joined with the Independents, as he had done before with the Presbyterians; and became intimate with Oliver, who made him one of his house of lords. “After the restoration of Charles II. when he had acted,” says Wood, “as a grand rebel for his own ends almost twenty years, he was rewarded forsooth with the honourable offices of lord privy seal, and lord chamberlain of the household; while others, that had suffered in estate and body, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, had then little or nothing given to relieve them; for which they were to thank a hungry and great officer, who, to fill his own coffers, was the occasion of the utter ruin of many.” Wood relates also, with some surprise, that this noble person, after he had spent eighty years mostly in an unquiet and discontented condition, had been a grand promoter of the rebellion, and had in some respect been accessary to the mupdler of Chailes I. died quietly in his bed, April 14, 1662, and was buried with his ancestors at Broughton. On the restoration he was certainly made lord privy seal, but nut, as Wood says, chamberlain of the household. Whitlock says, that “he was a person of great parts, wisdom, and integrity:” and Clarendon, though of a contrary, party, does not deny him to have had these qualities, but only supposes them to have been wrongly directed, and greatly corrupted. He calls him, “a man of a close and reserved nature, of great parts, and of the highest ambition; but whose ambition would not be satisfied with offices and preferments, without some condescensions and alterations in ecclesiastical matters. He had for many years been the oracle of those who were puritans in the worst sense, and had steered all their counsels and designs. He was a notorious enemy to the church, and to most of the eminent churchmen, with some of whom he had particular contests. He had always opposed and contradicted all acts of state, and all taxes and impositions, which were not exactly legal, &c. In a word, he had very great authority with all the discontented party throughout the kingdom, and a good reputation with many who were not discontented; who believed him to be a wise man, and of a very useful temper in an age of licence, and one who would still adhere to the law.” But from a comparison of every authority, a recent writer observes, that he appears to have been far from a virtuous or amiable man; he was poor, proud, and discontented, and seems to have opposed the court, partly at least with the view of extorting preferment from thence. He had the most chimerical notions of civil liberty, and upon the defeat of those projects in which he had so great a share, retired with indignation to the isle of Lundy, on the Devonshire coast, where he continued a voluntary prisoner until the protector’s death.

, a celebrated Italian political writer, the descendant of a very illustrious but decayed family at Naples, was born there Aug. 18, 1752. His parents had very early destined him for the military profession, but the attachment he showed to the acquisition of literary knowledge, induced them to suffer him to pursue his own course of study. His application to general literature became then intense, and before he was twenty years of age, he was not only an accomplished Greek and Latin scholar, but had made himself intimately acquainted with mathematics, ancient history, and the laws of nature and nations as administered in every country. He had also begun at this time to write two works, the one on public and private education, and the other on the duties of princes, as founded on nature and social order, and although he did not complete his design in either, yet he incorporated many of the sentiments advanced in his great work on legislation. He afterwards studied law, more in compliance with the will of his friends, who considered the bar as the introduction to public honour and preferment, than from his own inclination; and the case of an arbitrary decision occurring, he published an excellent work on the subject, entitled “Riflessioni Politiche sull' ultima legge Sovrana, che riguarda ramministrazione della giustizia,” Naples, 1774, 8vo. This excited the more attention, as the author was at this time only in his twenty-second year, and a youth averse to the pleasures and amusements of his age, and intent only on the most profound researches into the principles of law and justice. Nor were these studies much interrupted by his obtaining in 1777 a place at court, that of gentleman of the bedchamber, with the title of an officer of the marines, which appears to have been usually conferred on gentlemen who were near the person of the monarch. In 1780 he published the first two volumes of his celebrated work on Legislation, “Scienza della Legislatione,” at Naples the third and fourth appeared in 1783 the fifth, sixth, and seventh in 1785; and the eighth, after his death, in 1789. This was reprinted at Naples, Venice, Florence, Milan, &c. and translated into French, German, and Spanish. The encomiums bestowed on it were general throughout Europe, and although some of his sentiments were opposed with considerable violence, and some of them are perhaps more beautiful in theory than in practice, a common case with speculators who take upon them to legislate for the whole world; yet it has been said with justice, that he brought to his great task qualifications in which both legislators and authors, who have made great exertions on the same subject, have been lamentably deficient, knowledge, temper, and moderation; and if assent is withheld from any proposition, or conviction does not attend every argument, the sentiment of esteem and respect for an enlightened, industrious, and virtuous man, labouring for the benefit of his fellow-creatures, and seeking their good by temperate and rational means, is never for a moment suspended. This valuable writer had not quite completed his plan, when his labours were ended by a premature death, in the spring of 1788, when he was only in his thirty-sixth year. He was universally lamented by his countrymen at large; and the king, who a little before his death had called him to the administration of the finances, testified his high regard for so useful a servant, by providing for his children, by a wife whom he had married in 1783. His biographer applies to him, with the change of name, what Tacitus says of Agricola, “Quidquid ex Filangierio amavimus, quidquid mirati sumus, manet mansurumque est in animis hominum, in aeternitate temporum, famarerum.” In 1806, sir Richard Clayton published an excellent translation of Filangieri in 2 vols. 8vo, as far as relates to political and Œconomical laws, and omitting what is said on criminal legislation, which the translator conceived was not wanted in this country, where the distribution of public justice is scarcely susceptible of amendment.

, was a native of Paris, who taught ethics, and afterwards philosophy, at the college de la Marche, and was rector of the university in 1.586. He took his doctor’s degree, April 9, 1590, and became curate of St. John en Greve. Filesac, who was eminent among his contemporaries for his firmness, learning, and piety, died at Paris, senior of the Sorbonne, and dean of the faculty of theology, May 27, 1638, leaving several very learned works, the principal of which are, “A Treatise on the sacred Authority of Bishops,” in Latin, Paris, 1606, 8vo another “on Lent;” a treatise on the “Origin of Parishes” treatises on “Auricular Confession;” on “Idolatry,” and on “the Origin of the ancient Statutes of the Faculty of Paris.” They are united under the title of “Opera Pieraque,” Paris, 1621, 3 vols. 4to, but he has on the whole too much in the form of compilations from other authors to entitle him to the credit of an original writer.

, was an ancient Christian writer, and author of a piece entitled “De Er-> rore Profanarum Religionum;” which he addressed to the emperors Constantius and Constans, the sons of Constantine. It is supposed to have been written after the death of Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Great, which happened in the year 340, and before that of Constans, who was slain by Magnentius in the year 350: being addressed to Constantius and Constans, there is reason to believe that Constantine their eldest brother was dead, and it is evident that Constans was then alive. It is remarkable, that no ancient writers have made any mention of Firmicus; so that we do not know what he was, of what country, or of what profession. Some moderns conjecture that he was by birth a Sicilian, and in the former part of his life an heathen. His treatise “Of the Errors of the Prophane Religions,” discovers great parts, great learning, and great zeal for Christianity, and has been often printed, sometimes separately, sometimes with other fathers. Among the separate editions are one printed at Strasbourg, in 1562, another at Heidelberg, 1599, and a third at Paris, 1610, all in 8vo; afterwards it was joined with Minucius Felix, and printed at Amsterdam, 1645, at Leyden, 1652, and again at Ley den, at the end of the same father, by James Gronovius, in 1709, 8vo. It is likewise to be found in the “Bibliotheca Patrum;” and at the end of Cyprian, printed at Paris in 1666.

, a poetical writer of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was the son of Alexander Fitzgeffrey, of a good family in Cornwall, and born in 1575. He became a commoner of Broadgate-ball, Oxford, in 1592, took the degrees in arts, and entered into orders. At length he became rector of St. Dominick, in his own county, where he was esteemed a grave and learned divine, as he was, while at the university, an excellent Latin poet. He died at his parsonage of St. Dominick, and was buried in the chancel of the church therein 1636. His works are, 1. “The Life and Death of Sir Francis Drake,” which being written in lofty verse, while he was A. B. he was then called “the high towering Falcon.” 2. “Affanias sive epigrammata lib. III. and Cenotaphia, lib. I.” Oxford, 1601, 8vo. 3. Several Sermcns. Wood has erroneously ascribed to him a collection of poetry, under the title of “Choice flowers and descriptions,” which belongs to Allot, but he appears to have been the author of a prose tract entitled “A curse for Corne-horders,” 1631, 4to, and a religious poem, called “The blessed Birth-day,” 1634, 4to; 1636, 1654, 8vo. An interesting account of some of his works may be seen in our authorities.

In 1760 he published a theological work entitled “Reipublicae Sacrae Origines Divinse,” but he acquired far more celebrity by his astronomical labours, both as an observer and a writer. The abbot Alexander Fixlmillner, a great friend of the sciences, and particularly of the mathematics, having resolved in 1747 to form an establishment in his convent for promoting the latter, first set apart a spacious room for containing mathematical and philosophical instruments. This paved the way for something further; and he determined, for the improvement of his conventuals in astronomy, to erect an observatory. Among those convents which for a long time have devoted their leisure and riches to the advancement of science and the good of mankind, none has distinguished itself more than that of Kremsmunster. This very old abbey is not the seat of infidelity and indolence, but a patron of the noblest branches of science. The observatory founded in 1748, was completed in 1758, and the superintendence of it was intrusted to Eugenius Dobler, a brother of the order.

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

Upon his brother-in-law Richard Cromwell’s succeeding to the title of protector, he signed the order for his proclamation; but soon discovered his enmity to that succession, being disappointed of the protectorship, which he had expected, and determined that no single person should be his superior. He joined therefore with the discontented officers of the army in deposing Richard, after he had persuaded him to dissolve his parliament; and invited the members of the long parliament, who had continued sitting till April 20, 1653, when they were dissolved by Oliver Cromwell, to return to the exercise of their trust. Upon their meeting in May 1659, he was chosen one of the council of state, and the next month made lieutenant general of the forces; which post he held till Oct. 12 following, when he was appointed one of the commissioners to govern all the forces; and on the 17th of that month was nominated by the general council of state, commander in chief of all the forces. But in December 1659, finding that his interest declined in the army, who were now zealous to have the parliament sit again in honour, freedom, and safety, and that this, concurring with the general temper of the nation, would evidently restore the king, he was advised by Whitelocke to send immediately some person of trust to his majesty at Breda, with offers of restoring him to his rights, and by that means anticipate Monk, who had undoubtedly the same design. Fleetwood in return asked Whiteiocke, whether he was willing to undertake that employment; who consenting, it was agreed that he should prepare himself for the journey that evening or the^ next morning, while the general and his friends should draw up instructions for him. But sir Henry Vane, general Disbrowe, and col. Berry, coming in at that critical moment, diverted Fleetwood from this resolution; who alledged, that those gentlemen had reminded him of his promise, not to attempt any such affair without general Lambert’s consent; while Whitelocke, on the other hand, represented to him that Lambert was at too great a distance to give his assent to a business which must be immediately acted, and was of the utmost importance to himself and his friends. He appears, indeed, before that time, to have entertained some design of espousing the king’s interests, if he had had resolution to execute it; for lord Mordaunt, in a letter to the king, dated from Calais, October 11, 1659, asserts, that Fleetwood then 1 looked upon his majesty’s restoration as so clearly his interest as well as his duty, that he would have declared himself publicly, if the king or the duke of York had landed; and that although that engagement failed, he was still ready to come in to his majesty, whensoever he should attempt in person. Sir Edward Hyde likewise, in a letter to the marquis of Ormonde from Brussels of the same date, rves, that the general made then great professions of being converted, and of his resolution to serve the king upon the first opportunity. But the same noble writer, in his “History of the Rebellion,” represents Fleetwood as “a weak man, though very popular with all the praying part of the army, whom Lambert knew well how to govern, as Cromwell had done Fairfax, and then in like manner to lay him aside;” and that amidst tbo several desertions of the soldiers from the interests of their officers to the parliament in December 1659, he remained still in consultation with the “committee of safety;” and when intelligence was brought of any murmur among the soldiers, by which a revolt might ensue, and he was desired to go among them to confirm them, he would fall upon his knees to his prayers, and could hardly be prevailed with to go to them. Besides, when he was among them, ancj in the middle of any discourse, he would invite them all to prayers, and put himself upon his Icnees before them. And when some of his friends importuned him to appear more vigorous in the charge he possessed, without which they must be all destroyed, they could get no other answer from him than that “God had spit in his face, and would not hear him.” So that it became no great wonder why Lambert had preferred him to the office of general, and been content with the second command for himself.

, a miscellaneous writer in the sixteenth century, and a classical translator, was a native of London. In 1575 he published a version of the “Bucolics of Virgil,” with notes, a plain and literal translation verse for verse. In 589 he published a new version, both of the “Bucolics and Georgics” with notes, dedicated to John Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. This is in the regular Alexandrine verse, without rhyme. He supervised, corrected, and enlarged the second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicle in 1585. He translated “Ælian’s Various History” into English in 1576, which he dedicated to Goodman, dean of Westminster, und^r the title of “Ælian’s Registre of Hystories,” 4to. He published also “Certaine select Epistles of Cicero into English,” Lond. 1576, 4to; and in the same year he imparted to our countrymen a fuller idea of the elegance of the ancient epistle, by his “Panoplie of Epistles from Tully, Isocrates, Pliny, and others,” Lond. 4to. He translated Synesius’s Greek “Panegyric on Baldness,” which had been brought into vogue by Erasmus’s “Moriae Encomium,” Lond. 1579', 12mo; at the end is his “Fable of Hermes.” Among some other pieces he Englished many celebrated books written in Latin about the fifteenth century and at the restoration of learning, which was a frequent practice, after it became fashionable to compose in English, and our writers had begun to find the force and use of their own tongue. Among his original pieces are, 1. “A memorial of the charitable almes deedes of William Lambe, gentleman of the chapel under Henry VIII. and citizen of London,” Lond. 1580, 8vo. 2. “The Battel between the Virtues and Vices,” ibid. 1582, 8vo. 3. “The Diamant of Devotion, in six parts,” ibid. 1586, 12mo. 4. “The Cundyt of Comfort,” 1579, &c. Verses by him are prefixed to various works published in his time. Sir William Cordall, the queen’s solicitor-general, was his chief patron. He had a brother, Samuel, who assisted in compiling the index to Holinshed, and who wrote an elegant Latin life of queen Mary, never printed. He has also a Latin recommendatory poem to Edward Grant’s “Spicilegium of the Greek Tongue,” &c. Lond. 1575, 8vo.

, an Irish Roman ecclesiastic and writer, the son of capt. Garret Fleming, nearly related to the lords of Slane, was born in the county of Louth, April 17, 1599. Being dedicated by his parents to the church, they sent him at the age of thirteen to Flanders, and placed him under the care of his maternal uncle Christopher Cusack, who was president of the colleges of Doway, Tournay, and other seminaries, founded in those parts for the education of Irish youth in the popish, religion. Having' studied at Doway for some time, he removed to the college of St. Anthony, at Louvaine, where he became a Franciscan, and changed his baptismal name (Christopher) to Patrick, according to a custom then very frequent. In 1623, after completing his philosophical and theological studies, he removed to Rome, but in his way through Paris, happening to become acquainted with Hugh Ward, he prevailed on the latter to undertake writing the Lives of the Irish Saints, and when he arrived at Rome he made large collections from Mss. for the same purpose, which he sent to Ward. At Rome he continued his studies in the Irish college of St. Isidore, and both there and afterwards at Louvaine, was appointed to lecture on philosophy. From Louvaine, where he continued for some years, he removed to Prague, and was appointed first superior and lecturer of divinity, and here he remained until the city was besieged by the elector of Saxony in 1631, when he was obliged to fly with his companion Matthew Hoar; but they had scarcely escaped the Saxon forces, when they were met by some peasants in arms who murdered them, both, Nov. 7. A third companion, Francis Magenis, also a Franciscan, who made his escape on this occasion, wrote an account of Fleming, which is prefixed to his “Collectanea Sacra,” under the title “Historia Martyrii venerabilis fratris Patricii Fleming!,” &c.

, an English dramatic writer, the son of the preceding, is said to have been born in Northamptonshire, in 1576, while his father was dean of Peterborough, but as this does not correspond with his age at the time of his death, it is more probable he was a native of London, a person of that name and place being admitted pensioner of Bene't college, Oct. 15, 1591, when he must have been about fifteen, the usual age of admission in those days. He was made one of the bible clerks in 15i>3, but his further progress in the university cannot be traced, nor how long he remained in it. On his arrival in London he became acquainted, and wrote plays jointly with Beaumont; and Wood says that he assisted Ben Jouson in a comedy called “The Widow.” After Beaumont’s death, which happened in 1615, he is said to have consulted Shirley, in forming the plots of several of nis plays; but which those were, we have no means of discovering. Beaumont and Fletcher, however, wrote plays in concert, though it is not known what share each bore in forming the plots, writing the scenes, &c. and the general opinion is, that Beaumont’s judgment was usually employed in correcting and retrenching the superfluities of Fletcher’s wit. Yet, if Winstanley may be credited, the former had his share likewise in the drama, in forming the plots, and writing the scenes: for that author relates, that these poets meeting once at a tavern, in order to form the rude draught of a tragedy, Fletcher undertook to kill the king; and that his words being overheard by a waiter, they were seized and charged with high treason: till the mistake soon appearing, and that the plot was only against a theatrical king, the affair ended in mirth. Some farther, and perhaps preferable, remarks on their respective shares may be seen in our account of Beaumont (vol. IV.) Fletcher survived Beaumont some years, but died of the plague at London in 1625, and was interred in St. Mary Overy’s church in Southwark . Sir Aston Cockaine among his poems has an epitaph on Fletcher and Massinger, who, he, tells us, he both buried there in one grave though Wood informs us, from the parish-register there, that Massinger was buried, not in the church, but in one of the four yards belonging to it For a judgment upon this author, Edward Philips observes, that “he was one of the happy triumvirate of the chief dramatic poets of our nation in the last foregoing age, among whom there might be said to be a symmetry of perfection, while each excelled in his peculiar way Ben Jonson in his elaborate pains and knowledge of authors Shakspeare in his pure vein of wit and natural poetic height and Fletcher in a courtly elegance and genteel familiarity of style, and withal a wit and invention so overflowing, that the luxuriant branches thereof were fre^ quently thought convenient to be lopped off by his almost inseparable companion Francis Beaumont.” Dryden tells us, that Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays in his time were the most pleasing and frequent entertainments, two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakspeare’s or Jonson’s; and the reason he assigns is, because there is a certain gaiety in their comedies, and a pathos in their most serious plays, which suits generally with all men’s humours. The case, however, is now reversed, for Beaumont and Fletcher are not acted above once for fifty times that the plays of Shakspeare are represented. Their merit, however, is undoubted; and though it could not avert the censure of the cynical Rymer, has been acknowledged by our greatest poets. Their dramas are full of fancy and variety, interspersed with beautiful passages of genuine poetry; but there is not the nice discrimination of character, nor the strict adherence to nature, that we justly admire in Shakspeare. Some of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays were printed in 4to, during the lives of their authors; and in 1645, twenty years after Fletcher’s death, there was published a folio collection of them. The first edition of all their plays, amounting to upwards of fifty, was published in 1679, folio. Another edition was published in 1711, in seven volumes, 8vo. Another in 1751, in ten volumes, 8vo. Another by Colman, also in ten volumes, in 1778.

That Mr. Headley is not blind to the defects of his favourite will farther appear from his remarks on Orpheus and Eurydice in The Purple Island. “These lines of Fletcher are a paraphrase, or rather a translation from Boethius. The whole description is forcible: some of the circumstances perhaps are heightened too much; but it is the fault of this writer to indulge himself in every aggravation that poetry allows, and to stretch his prerogative of 4 quidlibet audendi' to the utmost.”

, a very popular French writer, was born in 1755, at the chateau de Flonan, in the province of Languedoc. His father, Charles Claris, was a gentleman of small fortune, who, being by no means of an enterprising disposition, died poor. His mother was Gillette de Sulgue, a Castilian Spaniard; and it may be presumed that in this circumstance originated that high esteem and peculiar affection which Florian has since expressed for that sensible, generous, and highspirited nation. This affectionate mother dying in childfred, the care of young Florian devolved wholly on his father, who obtained for him the best masters, and spared no expence nor trouble in the superintendance of his education, and the cultivation of his mind. In his earliest days young Florian displayed that love of his fellow-creatures’which ever after so strongly marked his character; and he evinced even in infancy that suavity of manners and benevolence of disposition which afterwards rendered him so universally esteemed. Even his childhood was marked by acts of benevolence, and many instances of his sensibility and benevolence have been mentioned by his biographers. His occupations and amusements too were always of a nature much superior to those of other children of the same age. He employed much of his time in the cultivation of flowers, and in learning the art of gardening; and agriculture also engaged his attention, and gave him a taste for rural pleasures, to which his countrymen owe Jiis pastorals.

His father sent him to his near kinsman Voltaire for his education, who afterwards placed him in the rank of page to the duke de Penthievre. The duke soon distinguished his talents, bestowed many favours on him, and although, he at one time gave him a commission in the army, on observing the success of his first publication, the duke determined that he should confine himself to literature, and furnished him with a library. His first production was his “Gaiathee,” which appeared in 1782, and was followed by the first two volumes of his “Theatre,” containing “Les deux Billets,” “Le bon Menage,” “Le bon Pere,” <? La bonne Mere,“and” Le bon Fils.“Notwithstanding the success of these, the duke so reproved him for writing on profane subjects, that he chose his next subject” Ruth" from the sacred history, which completely reconciled him to his patron, and was followed hy a succession of dramas and novels which placed him in the first rank of popularity as a sentimental writer.

, or de Fluctibus, an English philosopher, was the son of sir Thomas Fludd, knight, sometime treasurer of war to queen Elizabeth in France and the Low Countries; and was born at Milgate, in the parish of Bearsted, in Kent, in 1574. He was admitted of St. John’s-college, Oxford, in 1591; and having taken both the degrees in arts, applied himself to physic. He then spent six years in travelling through France, Spain, Italy, and Germany: in most of which countries he not only became acquainted with several of the nobility, but read lectures to them. After his return, being in high repute for his chemical knowledge, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of physic. This was in 1605; about which time he practised in London, and became fellow of the college of physicians. He did not begin to publish till 1616, but afterwards became a voluminous writer, being the author of about twenty works, mostly written in Latin, and as dark and mysterious in their language, as in their matter. Some of his productions were aimed against Kepler and Mersennus; and he had the honour of replies from both those philosophers. He wrote two books against Mersennus; the first entitled “Sophias cum Moria certamen, in quo lapis Lydius, a falso structore Patre Marino Mersenno Monacho reprobatus, celeberrima voluminis sui Babylonici in Genesim figmenta accuratæ examinat.” Franc. 1629, folio. The second, “Summum Bonorum, quod est verum Magiae, Cabalae, Alchymije, Fratrum Roseug Crucis Verorum, subjectum: in dictarum scientiarum laudem, in insignis calumniatoris Fr. Mar. Mersenni dedecus publicatum, per Joachim. Frizium,” 1629, folio. Mersennus desiring Gassendus to give his judgment on these two books of Fludd against him, that great man drew up an answer divided into three parts: the first of which sifts the principles of Fludd’s whimsical philosophy, as they lie scattered throughout his works the second is against “Sophiae cum Moria certamen” and the third against “Summum Bonorum,” &c. This answer, called “Examen Fluddanae Philosophise,” is dated Feb. 4, 1629, and is printed in the third volume of Gassendus’s works in folio. In the dedication to Merseniius, this antagonist fairly allows Fludd the merit of extensive learning. His other works were: 1. “Utriusque Cosmi, majoris et minoris, Technica Historia,” Oppenheim, 1617, in two volumes foiio. 2. “Tractatus Apologeticus integritatena societatis de Rosea cruce defendens,” Leyden, 1617. 3. “Monochordon mundi symphoniacum, eu Replicatio ad Apologiam Joannis Kepleri,” Francfort, 1620. 4. “Anatomise Theatrum triplici effigie designatum,” ibid. 1623. 5. “Philosophia Sacra et vere Christiana, seu Meteorologia Cosmica,” ibid, 1626. 6, “Mediclna Cathotica, sen, Mysticum artis Medicandi Sacrarium,” ibid. 1626. 7. “Integrum Morborum Mysterium,” ibid. 1631. 8. “De Morborum Signis,” ibid. 1631. These two treatises are a part of the Medicina Catholica. 9. “Clavis Philosophise et Alchyrniae Fluddanse,” ibid. 1633. 10. “Philosophia Mosa'ica,” Goudae, 1638. 11. “Pathologia Daemoniaca,” ibid. 1640.

Mr. Folkes was a man of great modesty, affability, and integrity; a friend to merit, and an ornament to literature among others whom he zealously patronized, were Edwards the ornithologist, and Norden the Danish traveller. His library was large and well-chosen, and his cabinet enriched with a collection of English coins, of great extent and value. The manuscripts of his composition, which were not a few, and upon points of great curiosity and importance, not having received from him that revision and completion which he was capable of giving them, were expressly directed by him to be suppressed, an injunction which the public has probably great reason to regret. His knowledge was very extensive, his judgment exact and accurate, and the precision of his ideas appeared from the perspicuity and conciseness of his style on abstruse and difficult topics, and especially in his speeches at the. anniversary elections of the royal society on the delivery of the prize medals, in which he always traced out the rise and progress of the several inventions for which they were assigned as a reward. He had turned his thoughts to the study of antiquity and the polite arts with a philosophical spirit, which he hid contracted by the cultivation of the mathematical sciences in his youth. His talents appeared to greatest advantage upon the subjects of coins, weights, and measures, which had been extremely perplexed by other writers, for wan-t of a moderate share of arithmetic; in the prosecution of which he produced many arguments and proofs, which were the results of his own experiments and observations on common things, not sufficiently attended to, or seen with less distinguishing and penetrating eyes by others. He had a striking resemblance to Peiresk, particularly in some parts of his character represented by the elegant writer of that great man’s life. The generosity of his temper was no less remarkable than the politeness and vivacity of his conversation. His love of a studious and contemplative life, amidst a circle of friends of the same disposition, disinclined him in a very high degree to the business and hurry of a public one; and his only ambition was to distinguish himself by his zeal and activity for the promotion of science and literature. The sale of his library, prints, coins, &c. in 1756, lasted fifty-six days, and produced the sum of 3090l. 5s. A fine monument was erected (in 1792) to his memory in Westminster Abbey, in a window on the south side of the choir, opposite to Thynne’s monument

Beside “Tales,” he was the author of “Fables;” and in both he has merited the title of an original writer, who is, and probably will ever be, single in his kind. In his subjects indeed, he has made great use of the Greek, and Larin, and French, and Italian authors; but he is truly original in his manner, which is so easy, so natural, so simple, so delicate, that it does not seem possible to exceed it. His compositions have much nature, entirely devoid of affectation: his wit seems unstudied, and so much pleasantry is hardly to be met with. He never grows languid or heavy, but is always new and surprising*. His Tales are said to have been a great while the cause of his exclusion from the French academy; but at last, upon his writing a letter to a prelate of that society, wherein he declared his dissatisfaction for the liberties he had taken, and his resolution that his pen should never relapse, he was received into that body with marks of esteem. His first Fables are more valued than his last he seems to have thrown the best of his fire and force into them and both the one and the other have more sobriety and correctness than his Tales.

It has been observed, that the finest writers, and the deepest thinkers, have frequently been but indifferent companions. This was Fontaine’s case: for, having once been invited to dine at the house of a person of distinction, for the more elegant entertainment of the guests, though he ate very heartily, yet not a word could be got from him; and when, rising soon after from the table, on pretence of going to the Academy, he was told he would be too soon, “Oh then,” said he, “I'll take the longest way.” Kacine once carried him to the Tenebrae, which is a service in the church of Rome, in representation of our Saviour’s agony in the garden; and, perceiving it too long for him, put a Bible into his hands. Fontaine, happening to open it at the prayer of the Jews in Baruch, read it over and over with such admiration, that he could net forbear whispering to Racine, “This Baruch is a fine writer do you know any thing of him” and for some days after, if he chanced to meet with any person of letters, when the usual compliments were over, his question was, “Have you ever read Barnch there’s a lirst-rate genius” and this so loud, that every body might hear him. This is of a piece with another anecdote. Being one day with Boileau, Racine, and other eminent men, among whom were some ecclesiastics, St. Austin was talked of for a long time, and with the highest commendations. Fontaine listened with his natural air; and at last, after a profound silence, asked one of the ecclesiastics with the most unaffected seriousness, “Whether he thought St. Austin had more wit than Rabelais?” The doctor, eyeing Fontaine from head to foot, answered only by observing, that “he had put on one of his stockings the wrong side outward;” which happened to be the case.

, a voluminous French writer, the son of a scrivener at Paris, was born in 1625, and received at the age of twenty into the: society of the celebrated solitaries of Port Royal, in a subordinate office, but in the course of time obtained the^ chief superintendance of the young men who were sent there for education; He employed his leisure hours in severe literary labours, such as transcribing the works of several of these solitaries. He followed Nicole and Arnauld, to whom he had been a kind of secretary, into their different places of retreat; in 1664 he was shut up in the Bastille with Sacy, and came out of it with him in 16f>8. After the death of Sacy, in 1684, he frequently changed his retreat, but established himself finally at Mel un, where he died in 1709, at the age of eighty-four. His works are principally, 1. “Lives of the Saints of the Old Testament,” 4 torn. 8vo. 2. “Lives of the Saints” in general, the same number of volumes, or 1 in folio. 3. “Les figures de Bible,” or a history of tha Bible, in short chapters, which has often been printed under the title of “Bible de Royaumont,” and there is an English edition in 4to, with above 300 prints. 4. “Memoirs of the Solitaries of Port Royal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Translation of St.' ChrysostonVs Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistles,” 7 vols. 8vo. His versions are written with fidelity, but not always with vigour. He was far inferior to Arnauld and Nicole, whom he admired; but his piety was worthy of Port Royal. He was distinguished for innocence of manners, laborious, edifying simplicity of life, sincere modesty, unparalleled disinterestedness, and a steadiness of faith superior to all trials. A man of so many virtues deserves to be recorded, though not among the first class of authors. It remains to be added that his translation of Chrysostom involved him in trouble. Father Daniel, a Jesuit, accused him of Nestorianism, and denounced, him in a letter to the Sorbonne. Fontaine made a very humble and respectful retraction, and substituted several new pages in those parts which had been found reprehensible; but, as this did not prevent M. de Harlai from condemning his translation, he undertook its defence in a work where he asserts, that he has faithfully translated St. Chrysostom, and not fallen into heresies.

, esq. called the English Aristophanes, a distinguished writer and actor in comedy, was of a good family, and born at Truro, in Cornwall, about 1720. His father, John Foote, esq. enjoyed the offices of commissioner of the prize-office and line contract, and was finally member of parliament for Tiverton, in Devonshire. His mother, by an unhappy quarrel between her two brothers, sir John Dinely Goodere, bart. and sir Samuel Goodere, captain of the Ruby man of war, became heiress of the Goodere family. The quarrel alluded to, after subsisting for some years, ended in the murder of sir John by his brother, and the subsequent execution of the latter, in 1741. Foote received his education at Worcester-college, Oxford; and was thence removed to the Temple, as designed for the law. The dry ness and gravity of this study, however, not suiting the vivacity and volatility of Foote' s spirit, and his fortune, whatever it was, being soon dissipated, he left the law, and had recourse to the stage. He appeared first in Othello; but whether he discovered that his forte did not lie in tragedy, or that the language of other writers would not serve sufficiently to display his humour, he soon struck out into a new and untrodden path, by taking upon himself the double character of author and performer. In this double capacity, in 1747, he opened the little theatre in the Haymarket with a sort of drama of his own, called “The Diversions of the Morning,” This piece was nothing more than the introduction of well-known characters in real life; whose manner of conversing and expressing themselves he had a most amazing talent at imitating, copying not only the manner and voice, but in some degree, even the persons of those he ridiculed.

, an eminent political and financial writer of France, was born at Mans, Oct. 2, 1722. His father, Francis, Louis Veron Duverger, was a merchant of that city. Having finished his education at the college of Beauvais, i,Ek Paris, he left it in the sixteenth year of his age, to followthe tarn my trade, which had long been carried on by his family; his great grandfather having established at Mans a, manufactory of tammies, which, from that circumstance, in Spain were called Verones. In 1741 he was sent by his father to Spain and Italy, whence he returned to Mans in 1743. His grandfather by the mother’s side, having soon after retired from business, he was thereby enabled to trade on his own account; but declining, from motives of delicacy, to carry on at Mans the same trade as his father, he Avent to Nantes, where his uncle was established as a shipowner, to obtain a knowledge of the mercantile concerns and transactions of that city. Having spent several years at Nantes, and collected much valuable information on maritime and colonial trade, he entered in 1752 upon a speculation, which induced him to go to Paris. Confined to a small circle of friends and acquaintance, he lived there in great privacy, yet presented to government several memoirs, which experiencing a very cool reception, he resolved to write in future, not for administration, but the public. He published accordingly in 1753, his “ThtJorie et pratique du Commerce et de la Marine,” a free translation from the Spanish of Dr. Geron. de Votariz, which was soon followed by the “Considerations sur les Finances d'Espagne relativement a eel les de France,” a work in which he displayed such intimate acquaintance with the Spanish system of finance, that the Spanish ambassador at the court of Versailles proposed him to marshal cle Noailles, as consul-general of Spain; but the former being soon after recalled by his court, the appointment did not take place. About the same time he published, in 1754, his “Essai sur la partie politique du commerce de terre et de mer, de Pagriculture et des finances,” which within three weeks passed through two editions; the third edition was published in 1766, and the fourth in 1796, considerably improved and enlarged. From his profound knowledge in matters relative to money and coinage, he was appointed in 1755, to examine into the enormous abuses which had crept into the administration <yf the French mint. He immediately proposed a new coinage, but his plan was not carried into execution until 1771; he was, however, in the meanwhile, appointed inspectorgeneral of the mint, a new office expressly established for him. Having obtained free admittance to the library of the family of Noailles, rich in manuscripts relative to the administration of the finances of France, he conceived the idea of composing his “Recherches et considerations sur les finances de France depuis 1595 jusqu'a 1721,” printed at Basle, 1758, in 2 vols. 4to, and reprinted the same, year at Liege, in 6 vols. 8vo. This valuable work expeperienced the most distinguished reception both in France and other countries, and supplied Thomas with matter for his observations on the true principles of financial administration in his eulogy of Suny. The duke de Choiseuil being appointed prime minister, he endeavoured to place Forbonnois in the department for foreign affairs; but the latter declining the appointment, Choiseuil requested he would apply himself to lay down a general system of trade, and to comment on all commercial treaties concluded by France, in order that certain and uniform principles might be introduced into that important department of political economy. While he was making the necessary preparations for executing that commission, the abandoned state of the French finances in 1759, occasioned the appointment of the noted Sithonette to the office of comptroller-general or minister of finances. Without being in the least connected with that minister, Forbonnois received an offer of the place of principal clerk of the department of finance, which being declined, the minister requested he would at least privately lend him his assistance in projecting the first financial operations necessary for opening the war both by sea and land, at a time when 1,500,000 livres only were left in the treasury. Eight days after, Forbonnois brought him all the plans and draughts of edicts for the first operations. They were approved by the minister, and laid before Louis XV. who in consequence thereof appointed Forbonnois inspector of the depot of the general financial comptrol, a title which he himself suggested, in order to avoid the eclat of a more brilliant appointment. However, Forbonnois’ acknowledged superiority as a financier, which proved exceedingly offensive to the minister’s lady, soon brought on a coolness between her husband and him, which induced Forbonnois to retire into the country until Sithonette’s disgrace and dismission. He might have succeeded him as comptroller-general, had he been willing to consent to sacrifices which he could not reconcile with his honesty and candour. While he held the place of inspector of the depot of the general financial comptrol, he published his “Lettre d'un Banquier a son correspondent cle province;” chiefly intended to give a favourable account of the minister’s operation. In 1760 he pointed out to the Duke de Choiseuil the perilous situation of France, and suggested the plan of a treaty of peace, calculated to tempt the ambition of Great Britain, and at the same time to save resources for France. This plan met with so much applause, that Don de Fuentes, at that lime Spanish ambassador at Paris, who was admitted to the conferences, offered an armed neutrality on the part of his court to tacilitate its execution. Forbonnois was charged to draw up the necessary acts and plans, and to elucidate a great variety of points respecting the fisheries, the means of enlarging them, the sacrifices to be made to England, &c. nay, he was offered the appointment of plenipotentiary to conclude the treaty; but having executed his charge, and demanded a conference, he received no answer. Being entrusted with the secrets of the state, he began to entertain strong apprehensions for his personal safety, and took refuge in a glass-manufactory in the mountains of Burgundy, in which he was concerned. He returned, however, afterwards to Paris, and in order to render both the minister and the financiers perfectly easy on his account, he purchased the place of a counsellor or member of the parliament of Metz.

, an early English dramatic author, the second son of Thomas Ford, esq. a gentleman in the commission of the peace, was a native of Ilsington in Devonshire, where he was born in 158G, probably in the beginning of April, as he was baptised on the 17th of that month at Ilsington. It does not appear where he was educated, but on Nov. 16, 1602, he entered as a member of the Middle Temple, for the purpose of studying law. While there he published, in 1606, “Fame’s Memoriall, on the earle of Devonshire deceased; with his honourable life, peaceful end, and solemne funerall,” a small quarto of twenty-eight leaves. This poem, considered as the production of a youth, is creditable to the talents of Ford, as it exhibits a freedom of thought and command of language, of which there are few contemporaneous examples. At this time Ford was in his twenty-first year, and deeply engaged, but unfortunate, in an affair of the heart; and being disappointed also by the death of lord Mountjoy, the liberal friend of the poet Daniel, to whom he was about to look up as a patron, he determined to seek relief in travel. Whether he actually went abroad, or finding a nymph less cruel, and an avenue to fame without individual patronage, remained in England, is matter of conjecture: but we next hear of him on the stage. With a forbearance, however, unusual with those who have once adventured before the public, Ford abstained from the press from 1606 to 1629, when he printed his tragicomedy of the “Lover’s Melancholy.” But this was not his first attempt on the stage, as his play entitled “A bad beginning makes a good ending,” was acted at court as early as 1613. He wrote at least eleven dramas, and such as were printed appeared from 1629 to 1639. The greater part of those were entirely of his own composition, but in some he wrote conjointly, probably with Decker, Drayton, Hatherewaye, or some of the numerous retainers of the stage. It has been asserted that Jonson was jealous of Ford, and that Ford was frequently pitted against Jonson, as the champion of his antagonists. But Mr. Gilchrist, in, “A Letter to William Gifford, esq.” 1811, has most satisfactorily proved that there is no foundation for either of these assertions. The date of Ford’s death is unknown; he wrote nothing for the stage after 1639, and it is probable that he did not long survive that period. A writer in the “Censura Literaria,” has attributed to him an excellent little manual, entitled “A Line of Life, pointing at the immortalitie of a vertuous name,” 1620, 12mo.

As a dramatic writer, his merit has been thus appreciated by one admirably qualified for the task. Reversing the observation of Dry den on Shakspeare, it may be said of Ford, that “he wrote laboriously, not luckily;” always elegant, often elevated, never sublime, he accomplished by patient and careful industry what Shakspeare and Fletcher produced by the spontaneous exuberance of native genius. He seems to have acquired early in life, and to have retained to the last, a softness of versification peculiar to himself. Without the majestic march of verse which distinguishes the poetry of Massinger, and with none of that playful gaiety which characterizes the dialogue of Fletcher, he is still easy and harmonious. There is, however, a monotony in his poetry, which those who have perused his scenes long together must have inevitably perceived. His dialogue is declamatory and formal, and wants that quick chace of replication and rejoinder so necessary to effect in representation. His genius was mostly inclined to tragedy. In his plots he is far from judicious; they are for the most part too full of the horrible, and he seems to have had recourse to an accumulation of terrific incidents to obtain that effect which he despairs of producing by pathos of language. Another defect in Ford’s poetry, proceeding from the same source, is the alloy of pedantry which pervades his scenes, at one time exhibited in the composition of uncooth phrases, at another in perplexity of language; and he frequently labours with a remote idea, which, rather than throw it away, he obtrudes upon his reader involved in inextricable obscurity. For this opinion of Ford’s merits, as well as for the particulars of his life, we are indebted to an elaborate and comprehensive article in the “Quarterly Review,” occasioned by an edition of “The Dramatic Works of John Ford; with an introduction and explanatory notes, by Henry Weber, esq.” 1811, 2 vols. 8vo. In this article the reader will also find a masterly delineation of the principal plays of Ford.

, a Prussian writer of various talents, originally of a French refugee family, was born at Berlin in 17 1L He was educated at the royal French college for the church, and being ordained in his twentieth year, he was chosen one of the officiating ministers of the French congregation in Berlin. In 1737 he was appointed professor of eloquence in the French college, and in 1739 succeeded to the philosophical chair of the same college. On the restoration of the royal academy of sciences and belles lettres at Berlin in 1744, M. Formey was made secretary to the philosophical class, and four years afterwards sole and perpetual secretary of -the academy. His talents and fame procured him admission into many foreign learned bodies, as those of London, Petersburg, Haarlem, Mantua, Bologna, and many others in Germany, and he was personally acquainted with several of the most eminent and illustrious characters throughout Europe. Besides his academical employments, he rttas agent or secretary to the dowager princess of Wirtemberg: he filled several offices in the French colony at Berlin, and at length became a privy counsellor in its superior directory. He was twice married, and by his second wife had many children, seven of whom survived him. He died in the month of March 1797, at the great age of eighty-five years and eight months. In Thiebault’s “Anecdotes of Frederic II.” there are some of Formey, by which it would appear that he was apt to be very unguarded, and almost licentious in conversation, but often procured his pardon by the ingenuity of his excuses. His publications were extremely numerous, but we have nowhere seen a complete list. The following, however, probably includes the principal: 1. “Articles des Pacte Conventa, dresses et conclus entre les etats de Pologne et le roi Frederic-Auguste,” 1733, 4to, translated from the Latin. About this time he was concerned in the publication of several political pieces on the affairs of Poland. 2. “Le fidele fortifie par la grace,” a sermon, Berlin, 1736. 3. “Ducatianaj ou remarques de feu M. leDuchat, &c.” Amst. 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheque Germanique;” in this journal he wrote from vol. XXVII. The lives of Duchat, Beausobre, Baratier, &c. are from his pen. 5. “Mercure et Minerve% ou choix de nouvelles, &c.” another periodical work, begun in Dec. 1737, and concluded in March 1738. C. “Amusemens litteraires, moraux, et politiques,” a continuation of the preceding, as far as July of the last mentioned year. 7. “Correspondence entre deux amis sur la succession de Juliers et de Bergues,” Hague, 1738. 8. “Sermons sur le mystere de la naissance de Jesus Christ,” from the German of lleinbeck, Berlin, 1738. 9. “Sermons sur divers textes de Tecriture sainte,” ibid. 1739, 8vo. 10. “Remarques historiques sur les medaille* et monnoies,” ibid. 1740, 4to, from the German of Koehler. II.“Journal de Berlin,” 1740, of which he edited the last six months of that year. 12. “La Belle Wolfienne,” 1741, 8vo. Formey had adopted the philosophy of Leibnitz, as explained by Wolf, and in this publication endeavoured, but without success, to render their principles familiar to the ladies. 13. “Memoires pour servir a Tbistoire de Pologae,” Hague, 1741, 8vo, from the Latin of Lengnich. 14. “La yie de Jean-Philippe Baratier,” Berlin, ifo. 15. ‘ Le iriomphe de i’evidence, ou refnta.­tion du Pyrrhonisme ancien et moderne,“2 vols. 8vo, an abridgment from Crousaz. 16.” Traite sur la reformation de la justice en Rrusse,“to which is added a treatise on dreams. 17.” Eloges des academicians de Berlin et de divers autres savans,“Berlin, 1757, 2 vols. 12mo. 18.” Principes du droit naturel et des gens,“Amst. 3 vols. 12mo, from Wolff’s Latin work. 19.” Conseils pour former une bibliotheque,“Francfort, 1746, of which the sixth edition appeared in 1775, 8vo. 20.” Le systeme du vrai bonheur,“1761. 21.” Melanges philosophiques,“Leyden, 1754, 2 vols. 12mo, translated afterwards into English. 22.” La comtesse Suedoise,“Berlin, 1754, 8vo, from the German of Gellert. 23.” Examen philosophique de la liaison reelle entre les sciences et les mceurs,“1755, 8vo. 24.” L'Abeille du Parnasse,“1750 1754, 10 vois. 8vo. 25.” Le Philosophe Paien, ou pensees de Pline, avec un commentaire literal et moral,“Leyden, 3 vols. 12mo. 26.” Principes elementaires des Belles Lettres,“Berlin, 1759. 27.” Diversite’s historiques,“1764, 8vo f from ^lian, with notes. 28.” Abrege de toutes les sciences a Tusage des adolescens,“Berlin, 1764—1778, 8 vols. 12mo. 9-9.” Introduction generate aux sciences, avec des conseils pour former un bibliotheque choisie,“Amst. 1764. 30.” Discours de Gellert sur la morale,“Berlin, 1766. 31.” Traduction Franchise de l'Histoire des Protestans,“by Hansen, Halle, 1767. Some of these have been published in English, particularly his small work on the belles lettres, and another not noticed above,” Histoire abrege*e de la Philosophic," which we can remember a very popular book in this country. Formey, indeed, if not one of the most profound, was one of the most pleasing of writers, and all his works were calculated by clearness and precision of style for popular reading. He deserves credit also as one of the defenders of revelation against Diderot and Rousseau; and for this reason Voltaire endeavoured to prejudice the king of Prussia against him. Besides the extensive labours we have enumerated, and the list is by no means complete, Formey wrote many articles in the French Encyclopaedia, and in that of Yverdun. His correspondence with literary men was most extensive, and almost all the booksellers on the continent occasionally engaged his services as an editor.

Fourcroy’s works rank among the most considerable which France has produced in chemistry, and must be allowed in a great measure to confirm the high encomiums which his countrymen have bestowed on him, not only as a profound, but a pleasing and elegant writer. He published, 1. “The translation of Ramazzini,” before-mentioned. 2. “Lemons elementaires d'histoire naturelle et de chimie,” 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, of which there have been many editions, the last in 1794, 5 vols. 8vo. 3. “Memoires et observations pour servir de suite aux elemens de chimie,” 1784, 8vo. 4. “Principes de chimie a l‘usage de l’ecole veterinaire,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “L‘art de connoitre et d’employer les medicamens dans les maladies qui attaquent le corps humain,” 1785, 2 vols. 8vo. 6. “Entomologia Parisiensis” by Geoffrey, an improved edition, 1785, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Methode de nomenclature chimique proposer par Morveau, &c.” with a new system of chemical characters, 1787, 8vo. 8. “Essai sur le phlogistique, et sur la constitution des acides,” from the English of Kirwan, with notes by Morveau, Lavoisier, Bertholet, and Fourcroy, 1788, 8vo. 9. “Analyse chimique de l‘eau sulphureuse d’Enghein, pour servir a l'histoire des eaux sulphureuse en general,” by Fourcroy & La Porte, 1788, 8vo. 10. “Annales de Chimie,” by Fourcroy and all the French chemists, published periodically from 1789 to 1794, 18 vols. 8vo. 11. “La eclairée par les sciences physiques,” 1791, 1792, 12 vols. 12. “Philosophic chimique,” 1792. Fourcroy wrote also in the “Magasin encyclopeclique,” and the “Journal de l'ecole polytechnique,” and drew up several reports for the national convention, which were published in the Moniteur, &c. His last publications were, 13.“Tableaux pour servir de resume aux Ie9ons de chimie faites a l'ecole de medicine de Paris pendant 1799 et 1800. 14.” Systeme des connoissances chimiques, et de leurs applications aux phenomenes de la nature et de Part," 1800, 10 vols. 8vo, and 5 vols. 4to. To these extensive labours may be added the chemical articles in the Encyclopaedia. Fourcroy left a very valuable library, which was sold by auction at Paris, in 1810, and of which Messrs. Tilliard, the booksellers, published a well-arranged catalogue. Several of his works have been translated into English.

The effect of Fox’s work, in promoting, or rather confirming the principles of the reformation, to which we owe all that distinguishes us as a nation, is acknowledged with universal conviction. It is proved even by the antipathy of his enemies, who would not have taken such pains to expose his errors, and inveigh against the work 2t large, if they had not felt that it created in the public mind an abhorrence of the persecuting spirit of popery, which has suffered little diminution, even to the present day. All the endeavours of the popish writers, however, from Harpsfield to Milner, “have not proved, and it never will be proved, that John Fox is not one of the most faithful and authentic of all historians.” And in the words of the writer from whom we borrow this assertion, we add, although with some reluctance from respect to the gentleman’s name, “We know too much of the strength of Fox’s book, and of the weakness of those of his adversaries, to be farther moved by Dr. John Milner’s censures, than to charge them with falsehood. All the many researches and discoveries of later times, in regard to historical documents, have only contributed to place the general fidelity and truth of Fox’s’ melancholy narrative on a rock which cannot be shaken.”

, an eminent political writer, was a native of Rovigno in Italy, and spent several years at Rome, where he was greatly esteemed by Sessa, ambassador of Philip II. king of Spain. He was employed in civil as well as military affairs, and acquitted himself always with great applause; yet he had like to have been ruined, and to have even lost his Hfe, by his enemies. This obliged him to withdraw to Naples; and still having friends to protect his innocence, he proved it at length to the court of Spain, who ordered count de Benevento, viceroy of Naples, to employ him, and Frachetta lived in a very honourable manner at Naples, where a handsome pension was allowed him. He gained great reputation by his political works, the most considerable of which is that entitled “II Seininario de Governi di Stato, et di Guerra.” In this work he has collected, under an hundred and ten chapters, about eight thousand military and state maxims, extracted from the best authors; and has added to each chapter a discourse, which serves as a commentary to it. This work was printed twice, at least, by the author, reprinted at Venice in 1647, and at Genoa in 1648, 4to; and there was added to it, “II Principe,” by the same writer, which was published in 1597. The dedication informs us, that Frachetta was prompted to write this book from a conversation he had with the duke of Sessa; in which the latter observed, among other particulars, that he thought it as important as it was a difficult task, to inform princes truly pf such transactions as happen in their dominions. His other compositions are, “Discorso della Ragione di Stato: Discorso della Ragione di Guerra: Esposizione di tutta l'Opera di Lucrezio.” He died at Naples in the beginning of the seventeenth century, but at what age is unknown.

, a French writer, was born of a noble family at Paris in 1666. His first studies were under the Jesuits; and father La Baune had the forming of his taste to polite literature. He was also a v disciple of the fathers Rapin, Jouvenci, La Rue, and Commire; and the affection he had for them induced him to admit himself of their order in 1683. After his noviciate, and when he had finished his course of philosophy at Paris, he was sent to Caen to teach the belles lettres, where he contracted a friendship with Huet and Segrais, and much improved himself under their instructions. The former advised him to spend one part of the day upon the Greek authors, and another upon the Latin: by pursuing which method, he became an adept in both languages. Four years being passed here, he was recalled to Paris, where he spent other four years in the study of divinity. At the end of this course, he was shortly to take upon him the occupation of either preaching, or teaching; but finding in himself no inclination for either, he quitted his order in 1694, though he still retained his usual attachment to it. Being now at liberty to indulge his own wishes, he devoted himself solely to improve and polish his understanding. He soon after assisted the abbé Bignon, under whose direction the “Journal des Scavans” was conducted; and he had all the qualifications necessary for such a work, a profound knowledge of antiquity, a skill not only in the Greek and Latin, but also Italian, Spanish, and English tongues, a soundjudgment, an exact taste, and a very impartial and candid temper. He afterwacds formed a plan of translating the works of Plato; thinking, very justly, that the versions of Ficinus and Serranus had left room enough for correction and amendments. He had begun this work, but was obliged to discontinue it by a misfortune which befel him in 1709. He had borrowed, as we are told, of his friend father Hardouin, a manuscript commentary of his upon the New Testament, in order to make some extracts from it; and was busy at work upon it one summer evening, with the window half open, and himself inconsiderately almost undressed. The cold air had so unhappy an efiect in relaxing the muscles of his neck, that he could never afterwards hold his head in its natural situation. The winter increased his malady; and he was troubled with involuntary convulsive motions of the head, and with pains which often hindered him from sleeping; yet he lived nineteen years after; and though he could not undertake any literary work, constantly received visits from the learned, and conversed with them not without pleasure. He died suddenly of an apoplexy, 1728, in his sixty-second year. He had been made a member of the academy of inscriptions in 1705, and of the French academy in 1708. His works consist of Latin poems, and a great number of very excellent dissertations in the Memoirs of the French academy . His poems were published at Paris in 1729, in 12mo, with the poems of Huet, under the care of the abbé d'Olivet, who prefixed an eulogy of Fraguier; and at the end of them are three Latin dissertations concerning Socrates, which is all that remains of the Prolegomena he had prepared for his intended translation of Plato. These dissertations, with many others upon curious and interesting subjects, are printed in the Memoirs above-mentioned.

In 1753, he published a poem called “Translation,” in which he announced his intention of giving a translation of “Sophocles.” In January 1757, on the periodical paper called “The World” being finished, he engaged to publish a similar one, under the title of “The Centinel,” but after extending it to twenty-seven numbers, he was obliged to drop it for want of encouragement, The next year he published “A Fast Sermon” preached at Queen-street chapel, of which he was minister, and at St. Paul’s Coveut-garden, of which he was lecturer; and he afterwards published a few sermons on occasional topics, or for charities. In 1759 appeared his translation of “Sophocles,” 2 vols. 4to, which was allowed to be a bold and happy transfusion into the English language of the terrible simplicity of the Greek tragedian. This was followed by a “Dissertation on ancient Tragedy,” in which he mentioned Arthur Murphy by name, and in terms not the most courtly. Murphy, a man equally, or perhaps more irritable, replied in a poetical “Epistle addressed to Dr. Johnson,” who calmly permitted the combatants to settle their disputes in their own way, which, we are told, amounted to a cessation of hostilities, if not to an honourable peace. At this time Francklin is said to have been a writer in the Critical Review, which indeed is acknowledged in an article in that review, and might perhaps be deduced from, internal evidence, as, besides his intimacy with Smollet, his works are uniformly mentioned with very high praise. In 1757 he had been preferred by Trinity-college to the livings of Ware and Thundrich, in Hertfordshire, and although his mind was more intent on the stage than the pulpit, he published in 1765 a volume of “Sermons on the relative duties,” which was well received by the publick. Next year he produced at Drury-lane theatre, the tragedy of “The Earl of Warwick,” taken, without any acknowledgement, from the French of La Harpe. In Nov. 1767, he was enrolled in the list of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1768 he published apiece of humour, without his name, entitled “A Letter to a Bishop concerning Lectureships,” exposing the paltry shifts of the candidates for this office at their elections; and next year he wrote “An Ode on the Institution of the Royal Academy.” In March of the same year, he translated Voltaire’s “Orestes” for the stage. In July 1770 he took the degree of D. D. but still debased his character by producing dramatic pieces of no great fame, and chiefly translations; “Electra,” “Matilda,” and “The Contract,” a farce. About 1776 he was presented to the living of Brasted, in Surrey, which he held until his death. He had for some years employed himself on his excellent translation of the works of *' Lucian,“which he published in 1780, in 2 vols. 4to. He was also concerned with Smollet, in a translation of Voltaire’s works, but, it is said, contributed little more than his name to the title-pages. There is a tragedy of his still in ms. entitled” Mary Queen of Scots.“Dr. Francklin died at his house in Great Queen-street, March 15, 1784. He was unquestionably a man of learning and abilities, but from peculiarities of temper, and literary jealousy, seems not to have been much esteemed by his contemporaries. After his death 3 volumes of his” Sermons" were published for the benefit of his widow and family. Mrs. Francklin died in May 1796. She was the daughter of Mr. Venables, a wine-merchant.

, a French abbé and very useful writer, was born at Arinthod, in Franche-comte, Nov. 2, 1698, and for some time belonged to the chevaliers of St. Lazarus, but quitting that society, came to Paris and engaged in teaching. He afterwards wrote several works, in a style perhaps not very elegant, but which were admired either for their intrinsic usefulness, or as antidotes to the pernicious doctrines of the French philosophers and deists, who, conscious of his superiority in argument, affected to regard him as a man of weak understanding, and a bigot; reproaches that are generally thrown upon the advocates of revealed religion in other countries as well as in France. The abbé François, however, appears from his works to have been a man of learning, and an able disputant. He died at Paris, far advanced in years, Feb. 24, 1782, escaping the miseries which those against whom he wrote, were about to bring on their country. His principal works are, I. “Geographic,” 12tno, an excellent manual on that subject, often reprinted, and known by the name of “Crozat,” the lady to whom he dedicated it, and for whose use he first composed it. 2. “Prenves de la religion de Jesus Christ,” 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Defense de la Religion,” 4 vols. 12mo. 4. “Examen du Catechisme de i'honnete homme,” 12mo. 5. “Examen des faits qui servent de fondement a la religipn Chretienne,” 1767, 3 vols. 12mo. 6. “Observation sur la philosophic de i'histoire,” 8vo. He left also some manuscripts, in refutation of the “.Philosophical Dictionary,” the “System of Nature,” and other works which emanated from the philosophists of France.

About 1728 or 1729, Franklin setup a newspaper, the second in Philadelphia, which proved very profitable, and afforded him an opportunity of making himself known as a political writer, by his inserting several attempts of that kind in it. He also set up a shop for the sale of books and articles of stationary, and in 1730 he married a lady, now a widow, whom he had courted before he went to England, when she was a virgin. He afterwards began to have some leisure, both for reading books, and writing them, of which he gave many specimens from time to time. In 1732, he began to publish “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” which was continued for many years. It was always remarkable for the numerous and valuable concise maxims which it contained, for the Œconomy of human life; all tending to industry and frugality; and which were comprized in a well-known address, entitled “The Way to Wealth.” This has been transiated into various languages, and inserted in almost every magazine and newspaper in Great Britain or America. It has also been printed on a large sheet, proper to be framed, and hung up in conspicuous places in all houses, as it very well deserves to be. Mr. Franklin became gradually more known for his political talents. In 1736, he was appointed clerk to the general assembly of Pennsylvania; and was re-elected by succeeding assemblies for several years, till he was chosen a representative for the city of Philadelphia; and in 1737 he was appointed post-master of that city. In 1738, he formed the first fire-company there, to extinguish and prevent fires and the burning of houses; an example which was soon followed by other persons, and other places. And soon after, he suggested the plan of an association for insuring houses and ships from losses by fire, which was adopted; and the association continues to this day. In 1744, during a war between France and Great Britain, some French and Indians made inroads upon the frontier inhabitants of the province, who were unprovided for such an attack; the situation of the province was at this time truly alarming, being destitute of every means of defence. At this crisis Franklin stepped forth, and proposed to a meeting of the citizens of Philadelphia, a plan, of a voluntary association for the defence of the province. This was approved of, and signed by 1200 persons immediately. Copies of it were circulated through the province; and in a short time the number of signatures amounted to 10,000. Franklin was chosen colonel of the Philadelphia regiment; but he did not think proper to accept of the honour.

As a philosopher the distinguishing characteristics of Franklin’s mind, as they have been appreciated by a very judicious writer, seem to have been a clearness of apprehension, and a steady undeviating common sense. We do not rind him taking unrestrained excursions into the more difficult labyrinths of philosophical inquiry, or indulging in conjecture and hypothesis. He is in the constant habit of referring to acknowledged facts and observations, and suggests the trials by which his speculative opinions may be put to the teat. He does not seek for extraordinary occasions of trying his philosophical acumen, nor sjts down with the preconceived intention of constructing a philosophical system. It is in the course of his familiar correspondence that he proposes his new explanations of phenomena, and brings into notice his new discoveries. A question put by a friend, or an accidental occurrence of the day, generally form the ground-work of these speculations. They are taken up by the author as the ordinary topics of friendly intercourse; they appear to cost him no Jahour; and are discussed without any parade. If an ingenious solution of a phenomenon is suggested, it is introduced with as much simplicity as if it were the most natural and obvious explanation that could be offered; and the author seems to value himself so little upon it, that the reader is in danger of estimating it below its real importance: If a mere hypothesis be proposed, the author himself is the first to point out its insufficiency, and abandons it with more facility than he had constructed it. Even the letters on electricity, which are by far the most finished of Franklin’s performances, are distinctly characterized by all these peculiarities. They are at first suggested by the accidental present of an electrical tube from a correspondent in London; Franklin and his friends are insensibly engaged in a course of electrical experiments; the results are from time to time communicated to the London correspondent; several important discoveries are made; and at length there arises a finished and ingenious theory of electricity. On this account the writings of Franklin possess a peculiar charm. They excite a favourable disposition and a friendly interest in the reader. The author never betrays any exertion, nor displays an. unwarrantable partiality for his own speculations; he assumes no superiority over his readers, nor seeks to elevate the importance of his conceptions, by the adventitious aid of declamation, or rhetorical flourishes. He exhibits no false zeal, no enthusiasm, but calmly and modestly seeks after truth; and if he fails to find it, has no desire to impose a counterfeit in its stead. He makes a familiar amusement of philosophical speculation; and while the reader thinks he has before him an ordinary and unstudied Jetter to a friend, he is insensibly engaged in deep disqu*­sitions of science, and made acquainted with the ingenious solutions of difficult phenomena. Of Franklin’s more private and personal character, we have few particulars; but it is to be regretted that in his religious principles he was early, and all his life, one of the class of free-thinkers.

Frederic, like Cesar, united the talents of a writer with those of a warrior. He wrote in French, and was a tolerable poet; but his abilities are more displayed in history. His poem on the art of war is, however, valuable, both from his deep knowledge of the subject, ^and the traits of genius it displays. His works compose altogether nineteen volumes, 8vo. His poetical compositions, which, excepting his poem on the Art of War, consist chiefly of odes and epistles, passed through many editions under the title of “Oeuvres melees du Philosophe de Sans Souci.” But all the works published in his life, both in prose and verse, were collected in four vols. 8vo, in 1790, under the title of “Oeuvres primitives de Frederic II. Roi de Prusse, ou collection desouvragesqu'il publia pendant son regne.” Of this publication, the first volume contains his “AntiMachiuvel; military instructions for the general of his army; and his correspondence with M. de la Motte Fouquei.” TJie second, his “Memoirs of the House of Branden burgh.” In the third volume are his poems; and in the fourth, a variety of pieces in prose, philosophical, moral, historical, critical, and literary; particularly “Reflections on the military talents and character of Charles XII. king of Sweden; a discourse on war; letters on education, and on the love of our country; and a discourse on German literature.” His posthumous works hud been published stiil earlier. They appeare4 at Berlin in 1788, in 15 vols. 8vo. The two first of these contain the “History of his own Time, to the year 1745.” The third and fourth, his “History of the Seven Years’ War.” The fifth contains “Memoirs from the Peace of Hubertsbourg in 1763, to the Partition of Poland in 1775.” The sixth is filled with miscellaneous matter, particularly “Considerations on the present state of the political powers of Europe,” and “an Essay on Forms of Government, and on the duties of Sovereigns.” The seventh and eighth volumes contain poetical pieces, and some letters to Jordan and Voltaire. The remaining seven volumes continue his correspondence, including letters to and from Fontenelle, Rollin, Voltaire, D‘Argens, D’Alembert, Condorcet, and others. Of these productions many are valuable, more especially his “History of his own Times,” where, however, he is more impartial in his accounts of his campaigns, than in assigning the motives for his wars, or estimating the merits of his antagonists.

, an elegant Portuguese writer in prose and verse, was born in 1597, at Beja in Portugal, and became abbé of St. Mary de Chans. He appeared at first with some distinction at the court of Spain, but his attachment to the house of Braganza impeded his advancement. In 1640, when John IV. was proclaimed king of Portugal, he went to his court, and was well received. Yet it was found difficult to advance him, for he was of too light and careless a character to be employed in diplomatic business; and though the king would have gone so far as to make him bishop of Visieu, this dignity he had the wisdom to refuse, well-knowing that the pope who did not acknowledge his master as king, would never confirm his appointment as bishop. He did not choose, he said, merely to personate a bishop, like an actor on a stage. He died at Lisbon in 1657. Notwithstanding the levity of his character, he had a generous heart, and was a firm and active friend. He wrote with much success; his “Life of Don Juan de Castro,” is esteemed one of the best written books in the Portuguese language. It was published in folio, and was translated into Latin by Rotto, an Italian Jesuit. He wrote also a small number of poems in the same language, which have considerable elegance, and are to be found in a collection published at Lisbon in 1718, under the title of “Fenix Renacida.”

, a French poet, chiefly celebrated for his dramatic writings, was born at Paris in 1648. He had a good natural taste for music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and all the fine arts. He had also a taste for laying-out gardens, and this procured him the place of overseer of gardens to the king, which he sold for a moderate sum, as a supply to his extravagance, which was unbounded. He was valet-de-chambre to Louis XIV. and highly in favour with him; but his love of expence outwent even the bounty of his master. “There are two men,” said Louis, “whom I shall never enrich, Fresny and Bontems.” These were his two valets-dechambre, who were well matched in extravagance. At length, Fresny sold all his appointments at court, and flew from the constraint of Versailles to the liberty of Paris, where he became a writer for the stage. He is the person who is humourously represented by Le Sage in his “Diable Boiteux,” as marrying his laundress by way of paying her bill. He was twice married, and both times, it is said, in a similar way. He wrote many dramatic pieces, some of which were long established on the stage. These were, “La Reconciliation Normande, Le Double Voyage, La Coquette de Village, Le Marriage rompu, L'Esprit de Contradiction, Le Dedit.” He was also the author of cantatas, which he set to music himself; several songs, some of which were famous; a little work often reprinted, called “Les Amusements serieux et comiques,” and “Nouvelles Historiques” all enlivened by a singular and gay fancy. He died, aged seventy-six, in 1724. D'Alembert has drawn a parallel between Destouches and him as comic writers. His works were collected in 6 volumes, duodecimo.

, a learned critical and poetical writer of Germany, was born at Baling, in Suabia, in 1547. His father being a minister and a man of letters, taught him the rudiments of learning, and then sent him to Tubingen, where he made so amazing a progress in the Greek and Latin tongues, that he is said to have written poetry in both when he was no more than thirteen years of age. He continued to improve himself in compositions of several kinds, as well prose as verse; and at twenty years old was made a professor in the university of Tubingen. Though his turn lay principally towards poetry, insomuch, that as Melchior Adam tells us, he really could make verses as, fast as he wanted them, yet he was acquainted with every part of science and learning. He used to moderate in philosophical disputes; and to read public lectures in mathematics and astronomy, before he had reached his twenty-fifth year. In 1579, his reputation being much extended, he had a mind to try his fortune abroad, and therefore prepared to go to the ancient university of Friburg, where he had promised to read lectures. But he was obliged to desist from this purpose, partly because his wife refused to accompany him, and partly because the duke of Wirtemberg would not consent to his going thither, or any where else.

He had but just left school, and was scarcely twenty years ol i, when at the intreaty of “his dear lord and master sir Robert de Namur, lord of Beaufort,” he undertook to write the history of the wars of his own time, more particularly of those which ensued after the battle of Poitiers. Four years afterwards, having gone to England, he presented a part of this history to queen Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward III. However young he might then be, he had already travelled into the most distant provinces of France. The object of his visit to England was to tear himself from the pains of an attachment which had tormented him for a long time. This passion took possession of his heart from his infancy; it lasted ten years, and sparks of it were again rekindled in a more advanced age. The history of this attachment may be seen in our authority. It appears to have been first childish, and then romantic, and for his feelings in either state, we have only poetical evidence, and from that we learn that he had more mistresses than one. He had made two journies to England, but on which occasion he presented his history to queen Philippa is not certain. It was well received, however, and probably gained him the title of Clerk (secretary or writer) of the chamber to that princess, which he was in possession of from 1361. She is said frequently to have amused herself, in that age of romantic gallantry, by making Froissart compose amorous ditties; but this occupation must be considered solely as a relaxation that no way impeded more serious works, since during the five years he was attached to the service of queen Philippa, he travelled at her expence to various parts of Europe, the object of which seems to be a research after whatever might enrich his history.

His works were, 1. “Sumtna totins philosophise e D. Thomae Aquinatis doctrina,” Paris, 1640, fol. 2. “Thomas a Kempis vindicatus per unuin e Canonicis regularibus congregationis Gallicanae,” Paris, 1641, 8vo. The purpose of this is to prove that Thomas a Kempis, and not Gerson, was the author of the celebrated “Imitation,” &c. and it produced a controversy, of which some notice will be taken in our article on that writer. 3. “Ivonis Carnotens-is Episcopi opera,” Paris, I 647, fol. This edition of the works of Ives de Chartres gave some offence to Souchet, whose notes he had adopted; and he was obliged to defend himself in a letter addressed to the bishop of Puy. 4. “Dissertatio philologiea de virginhate honorata, erudita, adornata, fnecunda,” ibid. 1651. 5. “Antitheses Angustini et Calvini,” ibid. 1651, 16mo. In this he gives the parallel passages of St. Augustin and Calvin on the subject of grace. The general of the congregation, thinking it might make some noise in the world, suppressed all the copies except one, from which a friend of Fronteau had a new edition printed. 6. “Kalendarinm Romanum,” taken from an ancient ms. and illustrated by a preface and two dissertations, on festival days, and saints’ days, ibid. 1652, 8vo. 7. “O ratio in obitum Matthoei Mole”,“ibid. 1656, 4to. Mole was keeper of the seals. He published also various epistles and tracts on subjects of ecclesiastical history. His own life was published in 1663, 4to, under the title” Joan. Frontonis Memoria disertis per amicos virosque clarissimos encomiis celebrata."

, a Roman writer, who flourished in the first century, and was in high repute under Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan, was a man of consular dignity, a great officer who commanded the Roman armies in England, and elsewhere, with success; and he is mentioned in high terms of panegyric by all the writers of his time. He was city-prgetor when Vespasian and Titus were consuls. Nerva made him crfrtitor of the aquasducts, which occasioned him to write his treatise, “De Aquaeductibus Urbis Romse.” He wrote also “Tres libros’ Stratagematum,” or, concerning the stratagems used in war by the most eminent Greek and Roman commanders; and afterwards added a fourth, coritaining examples of those arts and maxims, discoursed of in the former. These two works are still extant, together with a piece “De Re Agraria;” and another, “De Limitibus.” They have been often printed separately, but were all published together in a neat edition at Amsterdam in 1661, with notes by Robertus Keuchenius, who has placed at the end the fragments of several works of Frontinus that are lost. This eminent man died in the year 106, under Trajan, and was succeeded as augur by the younger Pliny, who mentions him with honour. He forbade any monument to be erected to him after his death, declaring, that every man was sure to be remembered without any such testimonial, if he had lived so as to deserve it. His words, as Pliny has preserved them, were these: “Impensa monument! supervacua est memoria nostri durabit, si vita meruimus.”

, an English law-writer, was the son of Thomas Fulbeck, who was mayor of Lincoln at the time of his death in J 566. He was born in the parish of St. Benedict in that city in 1560, entered as a commoner of St. Alban hall, Oxford, in 1577, and was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college about two years after. In 1581 he took his bachelor’s degree, and the next year became probationer fellow. He then removed to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college) where he completed the degree of M. A. in 1584. From Oxford he went to Gray’s Inn, London, where he applied with great assiduity to the study of the municipal law. Wood says, he had afterwards the degree of civil law conferred on him, but where he had not been able to discover, nor is the place or time of his death known. From an extract from, bishop Kennet, in the new edition of Wood, it seems not improbable that he took orders. His works are, 1. “Christian Ethics,” Lond. 1587, 8vo. 2. “An historical collection of the continual factions, tumults, and massacres -of the Romans before the peaceable empire of Augustus Caesar,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, 1601, 4to. 3. “A direction or preparative to the study of the Law,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, afterwards published, with a new title-page, as “A parallel or conference of the civil, the canon, and the common law,” ibid. 1618. 4. “The Pandects of the Laws of Nations; or the discourses of the matters in law, wherein the nations of the world do agree,” ibid. 1602, 4to.

, an ecclesiastical writer, was borti at Telepta, or Tellepte, about the year 468. He was of an illustrious family, the son of Claudius, and grandson of Gordianus, a senator of Carthage. Claudius dying early, left his son, then very young, to the care of his widow Mariana. He was properly educated in the knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages, and made such progress in his studies, that while yet a boy he could repeat all Homer, and spoke Greek with fluency and purity. As soon as he was capable of an employment he was made procurator or receiver of the revenues of his province. But this situation displeased him, because of the rigour he was forced to use in levying taxes; and therefore, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasions of his mother, he left the world, and took the monastic vows under Faustus, a bishop persecuted by the Arian faction, who had founded a monastery in that neighbourhood. The continued persecutions of the Arians soon separated him and Faustus; and not long after, the incursions of the Moors obliged him to retire into the country of Sicca, where he was whipped and imprisoned. Afterwards he resolved to go into Egypt; but in his voyage was dissuaded by Eulalius bishop of Syracuse, because the monks of the East had separated from the catholic church. He consulted also a bishop of Africa, who had retired into Sicily; and this bishop advised him to return to his own country, after he had made a journey to Rome. King Theodoric was in that city when he arrived there, which was in the year 500. After he had visited the sepulchres of the apostles he returned to his own country, where he built a monastery.

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

, called Bibaculus, perhaps from his excessive drinking, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Cremona about the year of Rome 650, or 100 before Christ. He wrote annals, of which Macrobius has preserved some fragments. They are inserted in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum. >r Quintilian says, that he wrote iambics also irt a very satirical strain, and therefore is censured by Cremutius Cordus, in Tacitus, as a slandering and abusive writer. Horace is thought to have ridiculed the false sublime of his taste; yet, according to Macrobius, Virgil is said to have imitated him in many places. But some are of opinion that the” Annals" may be attributed to Furius Antias, or Anthius, a contemporary poet, whose fragments are likewise in Maittaire’s collection.

, a learned Rabbinical writer, was the son of Dr. Gaffarell, by Lucrece de Bermond, his wife; and was born at Mannes, in Provence, about 1601. He was educated at the university of Apt, in that county, where he prosecuted his studies with indefatigable industry; and applying himself particularly to the Hebrew language and Rabbinical learning, was wonderfully pleased with the mysterious doctrines of the Cabala, and commenced author in their defence at the age of twenty-two. He printed a 4to volume at Paris in 1623, under_the title of “The secret mysteries of the divine Cabala, defended against the trifling objections of the Sophists,” or “Abdita divinae Cabalae mysteria,” &c. The following year he published a paraphrase upon that beautiful ode the 137th Psalm, “By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, when we remembered thee, O Sion>” -&c. He began early to be inflamed with an ardent desire of travelling for his improvement in literature, in which his curiosity was boundless.

, an eminent musical writer, a native of Lodi, born Jan. 14, 1451, of obscure parents, was first intended for priest’s orders, but after studying music for two years under John Goodenach, a carmelite, he manifested so much genius for that science, that it was thought expedient to make it his profession. After learning the rudiments of music at Lodi, he went to Mantua, where he was patronized by the marquis Lodovico Gonzago; and where, during two years, he pursued his studies with unwearied assiduity night and day, and acquired great reputation, both in the speculative and practical part of his profession. From this city he went to Verona, where he read public lectures on music for two years more, and published several works; after which he removed to Genoa, whither he was invited by the doge Prospero; there he entered into priest’s orders. From Genoa he was invited to Milan by the duke and duchess Galeazzo, but they being soon after expelled that city, he returned to Naples, where Philip of Bologna, professor- royal, received him as his colleague; and he became so eminent in the theory of music, that he was thought superior to many celebrated and learned musicians, his contemporaries, with whom he now conversed and disputed. He there published his profound <“Treatise on the Theory of Harmony,” 1480 which was afterwards enlarged and re- published at Milan, 1492; but the plague raging in Naples, and that kingdom being likewise much incommoded by a war with the Turks, he retreated to Otranto, whence, after a short residence, he returned to Lodi, where he was protected and favoured by Pallavicino, the bishop, and opened a public school, in which, during three years, he formed many excellent scholars. He was offered great encouragement at Bergamo, if he would settle there; but the war being over, and the duke of Milan, his old patron, restored, he preferred the residence of that city to any others It was here that he composed and polished most of his works; that he was caressed by the first persons of his time for rank and learning; and that he read lectures by public authority to crowded audiences, for which he had a faculty granted him by the archbishop and chief magistrates of the city in 1483, which exalted him far above all his contemporaries; and how much he improved the science by his instructions, his lectures, and his writings, was testified by the approbation of the whole city; to which may be added the many disciples he formed, and the almost infinite number of volumes he wrote, among which several will live as long as music and the Latin tongue are understood. He likewise first collected, revised, commented, and translated into Latin the ancient Greek writers on music, Bacchius senior, Aristides, Quintilianus, Ptolemy’s Harmonics, and Manuel Briennius. The works which he published are, 1. “Theoricum Opus Harmonicae Disciplinse,” mentioned above, Neapolis, 1480, Milan, 1492. This was the first book on the subject of music that issued from the press after the invention of printing, if we except the “ Deftnitiones Term. Musicae,” of John Tinctor. 2. “Practica Musicse utriusque Cantus,” Milan, 1496; Brescia, 1497, 1502; and Venice, 1512. 3. “Angelicum ac Divinum Opus Musicae Materna Lingua Scrip.” Milan, 1508. 4. “De Harmonica Musicor. Instrumentorum,” Milan, 1518. This work, we are told by Pantaleoue Melegulo, his countryman and biographer, was written when Gaffurius was forty years of age; and though the subject is dark and difficult, it was absolutely necessary for understanding the ancient authors. With these abilities, however, Gaft'urius did not escape the superstitions of his time. He was not only addicted to astrology, but taught that art at Padua, in 1522. He was then seventy-one years of age, and is supposed to have died soon after, although Dr. Burney fixes his death two years before.

Wood says, “he was an excellent poet, especially in the Latin tongue, and reputed the best comedian (i.e. dramatic writer) of his time.” He had a controversy with Dr. John Rainolds, on the lawfulness of stage-plays, which appears to have been carried on in manuscript letters, until Raiuolds published his “Overthrow of Stage-plays,” containing his answer to Gager and a rejoinder. He had a more singular controversy with Mr. Heale, of Exeter-college, in consequence of his (Gager’s) asserting at the Oxford Act in 1608, “That it was lawful for husbands to beat their wives.” This Mr. Heale answered in “An Apology for Women,*' &c. Oxon. 1609, 4to. In the” Exequiae D. Philippi Sidnxi,“Gager has a copy of verses in honour of that celebrated character, who, when living, had a great respect for his learning and virtues. His Latin plays are, 1.” Meleager,“a tragedy. 2.” Rivales,“a comedy; and 3.” Ulysses redux," a tragedy. These were all acted, and we are told, with great applause, in Christ church hall. The first only was printed in 1592, 4to, and occasioned the controversy between the author and Dr. Rainolds. Gager’s letter in defence of this and his other plays, is in the library of University-college.

, an elegant French historian, member of the old French academy, of that of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and of the third class of the institute, was born at Ostel, near Soissons, March 20, 1728. On his education or early pursuits, the only work in which we find any notice of him is totally silent, and we are obliged for the present to content ourselves with a list of his works, all of which, however, have been eminently successful in France, and procured to the author an extensive reputation and many literary honours, he wrote, 1. “Rhetorique Franchise, a l'usage des jeunes demoiselles,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, which has gone through six editions. 2. “Poetique Françoise,” ibid. 1749, 2 vols. 3. “Parallele des quatre Electre, de Sophocle, d'Euripide, de Crebillon, et de Voltaire,” ibid. 1750, vo. 4. * Melanges litteraires en prose et en vers,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 5.” Histoire de Marie de Bourgogne,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 6.” Histoire de Francois I.“1769, 7 vols. 12mo; of this there have been several editions, and it is not without reason thought to be Gaillard’s principal work; but Voltaire is of opinion that he softens certain obnoxious parts of Francis’s conduct rather too much, but in general his sentiments are highly liberal, and more free from the prejudices of his country and his religion than could have been expected. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he was much attached to the latter. 7.” Histoire des rivalités de la France et de l'Angleterre,“1771—1802, 11 vols. 12mo, a work in which the author, not altogether unsuccessfully, struggles to be impartial. 8.” Histoire de Charlemagne,“4 vols. 12mo. Gibbon, our historian, who availed himself much of this history, says that” it is laboured with industry and elegance.“9.” Observations sur l'Histoire de France de Messieurs Velly, Villaret, et Gamier,“1807, 4 vols. 12mo, a posthumous work. Besides these he was the author of various eloges, discourses, poems, odes, epistles, &c. which were honoured with academical prizes; and several learned papers in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. He wrote also in the” Journal des Savans“from 1752 to 1792, and in the” Mercure“from 1780 to 1789, and in the new Encyclopedic he wrote three fourths of the historical articles. His last performance, which bore no mark of age, or decay of faculties, was an” Eloge historique" on M. de Malesherbes, with whom he had been so long intimate, that perhaps no man. was more fit to appreciate his character. This writer, the last of the old school of French literati, died at St. Firmin, near Chantilly, in 1806.

, or Galateus Liciensis, an eminent Italian writer, whose proper name was Ferrari, isgenerally known by that of Galateo, from his native place, Galatina, in Otranto, where he was born in 1444. His father dying in his infancy, he was taken in to the protection of his grandfather, who had him educuted at Nardo. He afterwards studied medicine, which, after taking his degrees at Ferrara, he practised at Naples with great reputation, and was appointed physician to the king, in consequence of the recommendation of Sannazarius and Pontanus. The air of Naples, however, not agreeing with him, he removed to Gailipoli, near Galatina, where he resumed his practice. He died Nov. 12, 1517. He was not only eminent as a physician, but his natural and moral philosophy is said to have risen beyond the level of the age in which he lived. He is also said to have indicated the possibility of the navigation to the East by the Cape of Good Hope, in his treatise “De situ Elementorum,” published in 1501, but written some years prior to that period. He also illustrated the topography of his native country with accurate maps and descriptions; and was reputed a poet of considerable merit. His works are, besides what we have mentioned, 1. “De situ lapygiae,” Basil, 1558, but the best edition is that of 1727, with the notes of Tasneri, and some lesser pieces by Galateo. 2. “A Description of Gailipoli.” 3. “Successi dell‘ armata Turchescanella citta d’Otranto dell' anno 1480,” 4to, 1480. He had accompanied the son of the king of Naples on this expedition. He published also some poems in Latin and Italian.

Galen is the writer that contains by far the most anatomy of all the ancients. He has given a much more complete anatomical account of the human body than any of his predecessors, or even successors for a thousand years after. There can be no doubt that he dissected the bodies of the inferior animals. But Vesalius, the first of the moderns who ventured to call in question his infallibility, affirmed that he had never dissected a human subject; and this seems now the general opinion, particularly of Haller, and other learned historians of the art.

, or Gallæus, a Dutch writer, who was born at Rotterdam, according to the inscription on his portrait, or according to other authorities, at Zuriczee, in 1627, and died at Campen in 1709, was a clergyman and an able philologist. His principal work is his treatise on the “Sybilline Oracles,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which,containing the Oracles, was published at Amsterdam in 1689, and the second, which consists of dissertations, appeared soon after. In this he has brought together every thing relating to these celebrated fictions, but neither with success, nor judgment, according to Fabricius and his biographer Reimar, who speak with harshness of his abilities, and give us an extraordinary instance of his ignorance in classing Agathias and Jamblicus among Latin writers. They also seem to intimate that he frequently borrows without acknowledgment. Galle was more successful in a very correct edition of “Lactantius,” published at Leyden in 1660. He had also begun an edition of “Minutius Felix,” but did not live to complete it.

, a writer of some eminence, and a member of the French academy of sciences, was born at Meulan in 1672, and, entering the church, obtained the office of canon of the Holy Cross de la Bretonniere, and died at Paris in 1756. He was much esteemed for his literary talents, which appeared in the following works: 1. “Physical Astronomy,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Literary and Philosophical Dissertations,” 1755, 8vo. 3. 4 “System of the Christian Philosopher,” 1721, 8vo. 4. “System of the Heart,” published in 1708, under the feigned name of Clerigny. 5. “The Elegancies of Language reduced to their Principles,” a book called by one writer, the “Dictionary of fine Thoughts,” and by others pronounced to be a work which every man who writes should read.

, who was elevated to the popedom by the name of Clement XIV. was the son of a physician, and born in 1705. He was educated at Rimini, near his birth-place, and at the age of eighteen entered into the Franciscan order at Urbino. After finishing his studies at various seminaries, he was appointed in 1740 to be professor of divinity in the college of St Bonaventure, at Rome. In this situation he gained the good opinion of pope Benedict XIV. who gave him the place of counsellor of the holy office; and in 1759 Clement XIII. made him a cardinal. It is said that in all his intercourse with his brethren and at their public assemblies, he endeavoured to lower their tone, and to persuade them that it was almost too late to oppose the will of the sovereigns of Europe by a display of ecclesiastical power. This could not be very acceptable to the cardinals, who persisted in their opinion of the power of the reigning pontiff, and encouraged him in his disputes with France and other kingdoms. On the death of Clement XIII. Ganganelli was elected in his room In May 1769, chiefly by the influence of the courts of France and Spain, who now urged him to suppress the order of Jesuits, and although he did not enter on that measure without much deliberation, it was at last carried, and forms the principal event of his pontificate. He signed the brief for this purpose on July 21, 1773, and it is said, with considerable reluctance. The consequence to papal power was no doubt great, but it appeared after all to be but one link in the great chain of causes which must relieve the world entirely from its influence. Ganganelli did not long survive this event, dying Sept. 22, 1773. After his death, a life of him was published by Caraccioli, replete with anecdotes illustrative of his amiable character and liberal sentiments; but we know not how to give credit to a writer who soon afterwards published some volumes of “Letters” by Ganganelli, which, it is now universally acknowledged, were forgeries.

As this step proved the ruin of Wolsey, in his distress he applied to his old servant the secretary, who on this occasion is said by the writer of his life in the Biog. Britannica, to have afforded an eminent proof of his gratitude, in soliciting his pardon; which was followed in three days by his restoration to his archbishopric, and 6000l. sent him, besides plate and furniture for his house and chapel. It is certain, however, that Gardiner did not interpose before Wolsey had supplicated him more than once in the most humble manner, to intercede for him, and it is equally certain that Gardiner did not risk much in applying to the king, who for some time entertained a considerable regard for the fallen Wolsey. Gardiner also, at the cardinal’s recommendation, in 1530, introduced the provost of Beverly to the king, who received him graciously, and shewed him that he was his good and gracious lord, and admitted and accepted him as his orator and scholar. These were matters of easy management. But the year had not expired, when the king’s service called the secretary to a task of another nature, which was to procure from the university of Cambridge their declaration in favour of his majesty’s cause, after Cranmer’s book should appear in support of it. In this most difficult point his old colleague Fox was joined with him; and they spared no pains, address, or artifice in accomplishing it. To make amends for such an unreserved compliance with the royal will, a door was presently opened in the church, through which, by one single step (the archdeaconry of Leicester, into which he was installed in the spring of 1531), Gardiner advanced to the rich see of Winchester, and was there consecrated the November following. Gardiner was not, at the time, apprized of the king’s design of conferring on him this rich bishopric; for Henry, in his caprice, would sometimes rate him soundly, and when he bestowed it on him said, “I have often squared with you, Gardiner, but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give you will convince you.” As bishop of Winchester he now assisted in the court when the sentence, declaring Katharine’s marriage null and void, was passed by Cranmer, May 22, 1533. The same year he went ambassador to the French king at Marseilles, to discover the designs of the pope and that monarch in their interview, of which Henry was very suspicious; and upon his return home, being called, as other bishops were, to acknowledge and defend the king’s supremacy, he readily complied, and published his defence for it, with this title, “De vera Obedientia.” His conduct was very uniform in this point, as well as in that of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, and he acquired great reputation by his writings in defence of them.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Goron in the Maine, March 13, 1729. After b.eing educated, probably in his own country, he came to Paris, withput money or interest, and depending only on his learning. This soon recommended him, however, to a place in the college of Harcourt, and in 1760 he was appointed coadjutor to the abbé Sellier in the royal college, and was made before 1764 Hebrew professor, and chosen a member of the academy of inscriptions au4 belles lettres. His useful studies were interrupted by the revolution, and in 1793 he was compelled ta fly, for refusing the republican oaths. He then went to Bougival, where he died in 1795. All he could save from confiscation was his library; but his friend Lalande, the celebrated astronomer, so effectually represented to the government, the disgrace of suffering a man of so much merit to want bread, that a pension was granted him. He wrote, 1. “L'Homme de lettres,” Paris, 1764, 2 vols. 12mo, in which the method he lays down to form a map of letters is highly liberal and ingenious. 2. “Traité” de l'origine du gouveruement françoise,“1765, ib. 12 mo. 3.” De l'education civile,“1765, 12mo. 4.” De commerce remis a sa place." In 1770 he published the 9th vol. 4to of Velly and Villaret’s History of France, beginning with the year 1469, and continuing his labours in this work, produced the 15th vol. in 1786, displaying throughout the whole more erudition than his predecessors. He wrote several papers in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions, relative, among other subjects, to the philosophy of the ancients, and especially to that of Plato, of which he was perhaps rather too fond, though less fanciful than some modern Platonists.

As a writer, Garrick claims but a second place. There is in the Biog. Dramatica a list of about forty dramatic pieces, some original, but chiefly alterations of old plays, or light temporary pieces. Besides these he wrote some minor poems, and a vast number of prologues and epilogues. The general character of all these is vivacity, neatness, and a happy adaptation to the occasion.

In politics, Dr. Garth was prompted not more by good sense than by good disposition, to make his muse subservient to his interest, only by proceeding uniformly in the same road, without any malignant deviations. Thus, as he had enjoyed the sunshine of the court during lord Godolphin’s administration in queen Anne’s reign, that minister had the pleasure to find him among the first of those who paid the muse’s tribute on the reverse of his fortune in 1710; and in the same unchangeable spirit, when both the sense and poetry of this address were attacked by Prior with all the outrage of party virulence, he took no notice of it; but had the satisfaction to see an unanswerable defence made for him, by Addison. The task, indeed, was easy, and that elegant writer in the conclusion of it observes, that the same person who has endeavoured to prove that he who wrote the “Dispensary” was no poet, will very suddenly undertake to shew that he who gained the battle of Blenheim, was no general. There was, indeed, no need of a prophetic spirit to inspire the prediction. It was written in Sept. 1710; and the following year, in December, the duke of Marlborough was removed from all his places, and having obtained leave to go abroad, embarked at Dover for Ostend, Nov. 30, 1712. Dr. Garth had lived in the particular favour and esteem of this great man while in power, and when he was out of power he lamented in elegant verse, his disgrace and voluntary exile.

, an Italian writer of some note, was born in 1549, at Bagnacavallo, near Ferrara; he was a regular canon lateran, and died in his own country, 1589, set. 40. He had chiefly educated himself, and learned Hebrew and Spanish without a master. He was author of several moral works, printed at Venice, 1617, 4to. But the principal production of this active writer and general reader is entitled “La Piazza universale di tutti le profession! del mondo,” a work of infinite labour and considerable use at the time it was written, as the author had almost all the materials to seek, there being no direct model on so extensive a scale then extant. It seems first to have been published at Venice, the year in which he died, and afterwards went through innumerable editions. Superficial knowledge only is to be found in his book; but it points out where more and better information may be found. It has been truly said by Niceron, that the works of Garzoni prove him to have dipped into all the sciences, and sufficiently manifest the extent of his knowledge, and of what he would have been capable with a regular education and a longer life. His reflections, when he allows himself time to make them, and room in his book for their insertion, are excellent. But the task he had set himself was too great for a single mind, or the bodily labour of an individual. It is extremely difficult to render the title of this book in English; the word Piazza, has twelve or fourteen different meanings and shades of meaning in the Crusca; it implies a square or market-place appropriated to commerce. Perhaps “the universal commerce of all the arts and professions in the world” may nearly express the author’s meaning. 1

, a distinguished English bishop, was born about 1662, at Slapton in Northamptonshire; and, being sent to Westminster school in 1676, was admitted on the foundation, and elected to Christ Church, in Oxford, where he of course became a student in 1680. He took the degrees in arts in 1687; after which, entering into orders, and proceeding in divinity, he took a bachelor’s degree in that faculty, June 23, 1694. The same year he was made preacher to the hon. society of Lincoln’s Inn, in which station he acquitted himself so well that he was appointed to preach Mr. Boyle’s lecture in 1697. Having finished those eight sermons, he drew them up in the form of a continued discourse, which he published the same year. The subject of this piece being a defence of religion in general against atheism, Gastrell prosecuted the design further, in asserting the truth of the Christian religion against the deists. This he published in another discourse, in 1699, by way of continuation, or second part of the same subject. He commenced D. D. July 13, 1700; being then chaplain to Robert Harley, esq. speaker of the house of commons. The ferment that had been raised by the dispute between South and Sherlock upon the Trinity, being still kept up, Dr. Gastrell, in 1702, published“Some Considerations concerning the Trinity, and the ways of managing that Controversy:” and the same year was collated to a canonry of Christ Church in Oxford. Meanwhile, he continued to give public proofs of his hearty concern for religion; and published, in 1707, his excellent work entitled “The Christian Institutes, or the sincere Word of God, &c.” collected out of the Old and New Testament, digested under proper heads, and delivered in the words of scripture. This has been repeatedly printed. The same year also, being appointed to preach the sermon at the aniversary meeting of the charity-schools in London, he printed that discourse; in which the peculiar advantage of these charities is set in a new light, by contrasting them with the popish monasteries. Mr. Collins, in his “Essay concerning the use of Reason,” having animadverted on some things in the doctor’s “Considerations concerning the Trinity,” which had gone through two editions, he this year published a third, subjoining a vindication of the work, in answer to Collins. In 1711 he was chosen proctor in convocation for the chapter of Christ Church, and appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to the queen. In 1714 he published “Remarks upon the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, by Dr. Samuel Clarke,” who acknowledged that the objections to his doctrine were there set forth to particular advantage, by the skill of a very able and learned writer, and proposed with a reasonable and good spirit. He resigned the preacher’s place at Lincoln’s-inn this year, upon his promotion to the see of Chester; and he was allowed to hold his canonry of Christ Church in commendam. He had for some time before been appointed one of the commissioners for building the fifty new churches in and about London; and had become a member of the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts.

3. “The Papists’ bait; or their usual method in gaining proselytes answered,” London, 1674, 4to. To which is added a Letter of the Lord Viscount Falkland to the same gentleman. 4. “Examination of the case of the Quakers concerning Oaths, propounded by them, ann. f673, to the consideration of the king and both houses of parliament,” c. London, 1675, 4to. 5. “Ichnographia doctrinae de Justificationesecundum typum in monte,” London, 1681, 4to. Our author wrote likewise some animadversions on Mr. Bull’s “Harmonia Apostolica,” which Mr. Gataker, concealing his name, communicated to several bishops, stirring them up by letter to make use of their authority against the doctrines maintained by Mr. Bull, as pernicious and heretical, and contrary to the decrees of the Church of England, andof all other reformed churches. These “Animadversions,” which are commonly cited by Mr. Bull under the name of Censura, were communicated to him in 1670 by Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester; angl in 1671 they were discovered to Mr. Bull to have been written by Mr. Charles Gataker, who in these “Animadversions,” endeavours to reconcile St. Paul with St. James by the distinction of a twofold Justification, as respecting a twofold accusation, according to the different conditions of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. For he maintains, that we are accused before God, either as sinners or as unbelievers; and that we are justified against the first accusation by faith alone, laying hold on the grace and righteousness of Christ; and against the second by works, and not by faith only, as these are the signs and evidences of our being true believers. Mr. Nelson observes, that Mr. “Gataker” appears to have been a person of great violence in his temper, but one well-intentioned, and a very zealous protestant; and had he had but more coolness of thought, and had he withal read more of the ancients, and fewer of the moderns, he would have made no inconsiderable writer.“Mr. Bull wrote an answer to these” Animadversions,“which he entitled” Examen Censurae," in which he reflects severely on Mr. Charles Gataker for publishing his father’s posthumous tract abovementioned, since he had not thereby consulted the reputation of a parent, who by his great critical knowledge and other learning had made himself more considerable, than to deserve that such crudities should be published under his name, at least by a son.