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

, a French engraver and man of letters, was born at Paris in 1740, and became the pupil of Le Bas, who taught him the arts of design and engraving. Being early convinced of the importance of learning in his profession, he devoted much of his time to study, and became so celebrated for the productions of his pen as well as his graver, that he was elected a member of various literary societies both at home and abroad. As an artist he succeeded principally in engraving portraits; and his portrait of the queen of Louis XV. is considered as a chef-d'oeuvre; nor was he much less esteemed in France as a writer. In Fontenay’s Dictionary of Artists, published in 1770, he wrote the articles concerning engravers, with much candour, spirit, and discrimination. His other publications are, 1. “Observations sur le Costume Franchise,” in the “Journal des beaux arts,” 1774. 2. “De l'orjgine et de la suppression des Cloches.” 3. “Voyage au Havre.” 4. “Amour maternel,” a successful dramatic piece. 5. “Iconolo'gie, ou Traite complet des allegories et emblemes,” 4'vols. 8vo. 6. “Essai sur la gravure.” 7. “Traite d‘anatomie a l’usage des artistes,” fol. with fine engravings. He is also said to have written *' Le Desaveu des artistes," 1776, 8vo. He died at Paris Nov. 28, 1803.

, a French author, remarkable rather for the magnitude of his work entitled “Causes Cé1ebres,” in twenty volumes duodecimo, than for any merit as a writer, was born at Lyons in 1673, of a noble family of the robe, and was educated at Paris, but seemed destined to fail in every walk of life. He began by taking orders, and became an abbé; he then quitted the church for the army, where he obtained no distinction, and at the age of fifty, became an advocate. Not succeeding in this occupation, he applied himself diligently to his pen; in which employment he rather proved his assiduity than his powers. His great work, though interesting in its subject, is rendered intolerable by the heaviness and badness of the style, with the puerilities and bad verses interspersed. It has been two or three times, abridged. His other works are not more admired. They are, 1. “An Account of the Campaigns of 1713 and 1714;” a compilation from the Memoirs of Vilbart 2. “The Art of adorning and improving the Mind,” a foolish collection of witticisms and 3. A compilation entitled “Bibliotheque des Gens de Cour.” He died in 1743, after repeated strokes of palsy.

, an eminent French writer of the last century, was born at Lausanne in 1727. His father, who was a protestant clergyman of that place, took extraordinary pains in cultivating his mind, and at the age of twelve years, young Gebelin could read German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; and at fifteen, he spoke German and Latin with ease, as well as French in compliment to his parents, who were natives of France, but had left it on account of their religion. His thirst of knowledge was such as to prevent his hours of rest; and when his parents, in order to break him of the habit of studying at night, would not allow him candles, he used to pore over his books as well as he could by moon -light. In 1763, after the death of his father, he came to Paris, bringing with him nothing but a great stock of learning, and the greatest simplicity of manners; and as the persons to whom he had recommendations happened to be absent, he remained for some time alone and friendless in that great metropolis. The first acquaintances he made were two ladies who lived opposite to him, and who lived together in such harmony as to desire no other connections, but were yet so pleased with Gebelin’s amiable manners, as to admit him into their friendship, and furnish him with every assistance he could wish in carrying on his great work, “Le monde primitif,” in digesting the materials of which he employed ten years. One of these ladies, mademoiselle Linot, learned engraving solely with the view of being useful to him in his labours, and actually engraved some of the plates in his work; while the other, mademoiselle Fleury, contributed 5000 livres towards the expences of the first volume of his work. After his -death they transferred their kindness to his relations, a sister and two nieces whom he had sent for to reside at Paris, but to whom he was not able to leave much.

He arrived in London in the beginning of 1780, and was soon invited to officiate as priest in the Imperial ambassador’s chapel, and preached occasionally at the chapel in Duke-street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, until the Easter holidays, 1782, after which he voluntarily withdrew from every stated ministerial function, and seldom officiated in any chapel whatever. The principal reason was, that on his arrival in London he was introduced to men of literature of every class, obtained easy access to public libraries, and in his design of translating the Bible, obtained the patronage of lord Petre. This nobleman engaged to allow him a salary of 200l. and took upon himself the entire expence of whatever private library Dr. Geddes might judge requisite to collect in the prosecution of his favourite object. With such munificent encouragement, he published in 1780 his “Idea of a New Version of the Holy Bible, for the use of the English Catholics.” This was an imperfect sketch, as he had not settled what versions to follow. Among his encouragers, who then thought favourably of him, were Dr. Kennicott, and bishop Lowth. To the latter he presented, in 1785, his “Prospectus,” who returned it with a polite note, in which he recommended him to publish it, not only as an introduction to his work, bifC > as a useful and edifying treatise for young students in divinity. He accordingly published it at Glasgow, and it was very favourably received by biblical scholars in general. Being thus encouraged, he first published “A Letter to the right rev. the bishop of London, containing queries, doubts, and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures.” This was designed as an appendix to his Prospectus, and was accompanied with a success equal to that of his former publication. After this he published several pamphlets on temporary topics, of wliich it will be sufficient to give the titles in our list of his works. In 1788 appeared his “Proposals for printing by subscription, a New Translation of the Bible, from corrected texts of the original; with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical observations.” In this he solicited the opinion, hints, &c. of literary characters, and received so many that, in July 1790, he thought proper to publish “Dr. Geddes’ general Answer to the queries, counsels, and criticisms that have been communicated to him since the publication of his Proposals for printing a New Translation of the Bible.” In this pamphlet, while he resists the generality of counsels and criticisms communicated to him, from motives which he very candidly assigns, he yields to several, and liberally expresses his obligations to the correspondents who proposed them. It appears, however, that his brethren of the catholic persuasion were already suspicious, and that he lost whatever share of popularity he formerly had 'within the pale of his own church. He acknowledges that he received more encouragement from, the established church and the protestant dissenters. His subscribers amounted to 343, among which were very few Roman catholics. In 1792 the first volume of the translation appeared, under the title of “The Holy Bible, or the books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from corrected texts of the originals, with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical remarks: Tr and a second volume appeared in 1797. The manner in which Dr. Geddes executed his translation, brought upon him attacks from various quarters, but especially fromhis catholic brethren. The opposition and difficulties he had, on this account, to encounter, were stated by him m a An Address to the Public.” Indeed, his orthodoxy having been questioned before his volume appeared, he wassummoned by those whom he admitted to be the organs of legitimate authority. His three judges, however, were either satisfied or silenced, much to the doctor’s satisfaction. Shortly after the first volume of his translation was published, an ecclesiastical interdict, under the title of “A Pastoral Letter,” signed by Walmsley, Gibson, and Douglas, as apostolic vicars of the western, northern, and London districts, was published, in which Geddes’s work was prohibited to the faithful. Against this prohibition (whjch bishop Thomas Talbot refused to subscribe) the doctor, first giving bishop Douglas notice, published a remonstrance in a letter addressed to him; but notwithstanding this, he was suspended from all ecclesiastical functions. In 1800 he published the first, and only volume he lived to finish, of “Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures; corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible,” 4to. How far Dr. Geddes merited the cen>­sures bestowed upon him both by Roman catholics and protestants, in his translation and Critical Remarks, the reader may judge, when he is told that in this volume he attacks the credit of Moses in every part of his character, as an historian, a legislator, and a moralist. He even doubts whether he was the author of the Pentateuch; but the writer, whoever he might be, is one, he tells us, who upon all occasions gives into the marvellous, adorns hisnarration with fictions of the interference of the Deity, when every thing happened in a natural way; and, at other times, dresses up fable in the garb of true history. The history of the creation is, according to him, a fabulous cosmogony. The story of the fall a mythos, in which nothing but the mere imagination of the commentators, possessing more piety than judgment, could have discovered either a seducing devil, or the promise of a Saviour. It is a fable, he asserts, intended for the purpose of persuading the vulgar, that knowledge is the root of all evil, and the desire of it a crime. Moses was, it seems, a man of great talents, as Numa and Lycurgus were. But like them, he was a false pretender to personal intercourse with the Deity, with whom he had no immediate communication. He had the art to take the advantage of rare, but natural occurrences, to persuade the Israelites that the immediate power of God was exerted to accomplish his projects. When a violent wind happened to lay dry the head of the Guiph of Suez, he persuaded them that God had made a passage for them through the sea; and the narrative of their march is embellished with circumstances of mere fiction. In the delivery of the ten commandments, he took advantage of a thunder-storm to persuade the people that Jehovah had descended upon mount Sinai; and he counterfeited the voice of God, by a person^ in the height of the storm, speaking through a trumpet, &c. &c. Without proceeding farther in accumulating the proofs of arrogance, ignorance, and impiety, with which this “Translation 11 and” Critical Remarks“abound, we shall only add, that even Dr. Priestley seemed to doubt” if such a man as Geddes, who believed so little, and who conceded so much, could be a Christian."

, a French writer and classical scholar, was born at Orleans June 17, 1667, whence he v/ent to study at Paris, and was a Jesuit for ten years; but returning back to the world, became one of the friends of the celebrated Ninon de PEnclos, and figured as a man of wit and letters, which, however, did not impede his ecclesiastical career, as in 1701 he was appointed canon of thfe holy chapel at Paris. In 1711 he was received into tho academy of belles lettres; in 1719, into the French academy; and 1732, he was named to the abbey of Notredame de Beaugency. He died Aug. 10, 1744. He is distinguished by two excellent French translations, of Quintilian, 4to, or 4 rols. 8vo, and Pausanias, 2 vols. 4to. There were also published in 1745, “CEuvres diverses,” or a collection of little essays by him upon subjects of morality and literature, edited by the abbé Olivet, with a life of the author, by Bachaumont. Gedoyn was besides author of many ingenious dissertations in the memoirs of the French academy.

, an eminent German poet and moral writer, was born at Haynichen, in Saxony, July 4, 1715. His father was a clergyman of a small income, who had thirteen children. Gellert was educated at home, where his poetical powers first appeared in a poem on the birth-day of his father, which was succeeded by many others, but all these in his maturer years he committed to the flames. He was afterwards sent to school at Meissen r where he learned Greek and Latin, and in 1734 he went to Leipsic, whence, after studying four years, his father’s narrow income obliged him to recall him. Gellert wished much to continue at the university, but he submitted to necessity, and at home had an opportunity of again turning his attention to those poetical pursuits for which he had early displayed a predilection; and perhaps it is to his recall from the university that we owe the beauty and simplicity of his fables. At this time he occasion-ally composed sermons, which are in general distinguished both for spirit and sound reasoning, but they contain several indications of a taste not very correct, and a judgment not arrived at maturity. In 1741 he again returned to the university of Leipsic, with a nephew of his own, of whose education he had the charge. Here he met with some friends, from whose conversation and directions he confesses that he derived very considerable advantage. About this time he published several tales and fables in a periodical publication. In 1745 he acquired the right of giving public lessons in the university, particularly on- morals. He had early received an impression of the importance of Christian morality, and thought that he could not pass over the subject in silence, without neglecting one of the most essential duties of his Situation. Soon after the commencement of his academical labours, he published his “Tales and Fables.” Amongst these, the manner in which the character of a devotee was drawn, was much admired. This suggested to Gellert the idea of his comedy of the “Devotee,” which was first published in the Bremen Magazine, but afterwards caused him much vexation. Many condemned it because it appeared to them to have a mischievous tendency, by exposing piety and seriousness to ridicule. But Gellert was not a man who could attempt to sap the foundations of real religion and morality, though he wished to expose hypocrisy and affectation to merited contempt. Among the many flattering instances of public approbation which the “Tales and Fables” produced, Gellert was particularly pleased with that of a Saxon peasant. One day, about the beginning of winter, he saw the man drive up to his door a cart loaded with fire-wood. Having observed Gellert, he asked him whether he was the gentleman who wrote such fine tales? Being answered in the affirmative, he begged pardon for the liberty which he took, and left the contents of his cart, being the most valuable present he could make. At this time the Germans had no original romances of any merit. In order to give some celebrity to this species of composition in his own country, he published the “Swedish Countess,” a work of a melancholy cast, and containing many indications of that depression of spirits which embittered the latter days of Gellert. In 1747 he published a book entitled “Consolations for Valetudinarians,” which was received with as much eagerness as his other works, and translated into various languages. It contains a melancholy representation of the sufferings which he himself endured. Nothing, however, could overcome his activity, and in 1748 the continuation of hisf “Tales and Fables” was published. About this time he was deprived of the society of several friends who had often dispersed the gloom that resulted from his disorder. The only intimate friend that remained was Havener, who persuaded Gellert to give to the public some of his letters. In 1754 he published his “Didactic Poems,” whicu were not so well received as his Tales and Fables, and he himself seems to have been sensible that they were not so agreeable, although useful and instructive. He bestowed particular care on some sacred songs, which were received with great enthusiasm all over Germany, both in the Roman catholic and protestant states. About this time he was appointed professor extraordinary in philosophy, and gave lectures on the Belles Lettres. From this period Gellert suffered extremely from an hypochondriac affection. His days were spent in melancholy reflections, and his rights in frightful dreams. But he made prodigious efforts to resist this malady, and to continue to perform his academical duties; and these efforts were often successful. The constant testimonies of the approbation with which his works were received, and the sympathy of his friends, were never-failing sources of consolation, and served to spread many cheerful moments over the general languor of his life. The calamities of war which desolated Germany after 1757, induced Gellert for some time to quit Leipsic. While in the country, he was attacked by a severe illness, from which, however, contrary to all expectation, he recovered. In 1761 the chair of a professor in ordinary was offered him, but he refused to accept it, from a persuasion that the state of his health was such as to render him incapable of discharging the duties of the situation with that regularity and attention which he thought necessary. In 1763-4, Gellert went to Carlsbad by the advice of his physicians to drink the waters, which, however, seem to have given him little relief. After a few years more of almost constant suffering, GeHett died at Leipsic, on the 13th of December. 1769. Some time before his death he revised and corrected his moral lessons, which he published at the request of the elector of Saxony. He was a man of the easiest and most conciliating manners; pleasing even to strangers; and of a disposition to form and preserve the most valuable friendships. He was open and enthusiastic in his attachments, ready at all times to givtt his counsel, labour, and money, to serve his friends. In himself, of a timid and hypochondriac habit, and disposed to criticise both his own character and works with a severity of which his friends could not acknowledge the justice. He had a constitutional fear of death, which, notwithstanding, receded as the hour of trial approached; so that he died with calmness and fortitude. In this he is thought to have resembled our Dr.Johnson, but in other respects his character and habit seem to approach nearer to those of Cowper. His works were published in ten vols. 8vo, in 1766; and after his death a more complete edition at Leipsic, in eight rolumes, with engravings. Kutner has celebrated his various excellencies; he says, “a century will perhaps elapse, before we have another poet capable of exciting the love and admiration of his contemporaries, in so eminent a degree as Gellert, and of exercising so powerful an influence on the taste and way of thinking of all ranks.” Though not deserving all this, he was an agreeable and fertile writer; the poet of religion and virtue; an able reformer of public morals. His “Moral Lessons” were translated into English, and published by Mrs. Douglas of Eduam house, 1805, 3 vols. 8vo, with an excellent life of the author, to which this article is chiefly indebted.

, an eminent Italian writer, and a man of extraordinary qualities, was born of mean parents at Florence in 1498, and was brought up a taylor. Such, however, was his industry and capacity, that he acquired a knowledge of languages, and made uncommon progress in the belles lettres. Thuanus says, that he did not understand Latin, but this must be a mistake, as he translated, from Latin into Italian, “The Life of Alphonsus duke of Ferrara,” by Paul Jovius, and a treatise of iion Porzio, “De<OolQribus Oculorum,” at the request of those writers. His knowledge of Greek, however, was probably limited, as he translated the “Hecuba” of Euripides into Italian, from the Latin version. His principal excellence was in his native tongue, and he acquired the highest reputation, by the works he published in it. He was acquainted with all the wits and learned men of Florence; and his merit was universally known. He was chosen a member of the academy there,; and the city made him one of their burgesses. Yet he continued the exercise of his trade as a taylor, to the end of his life; and he tells us, in a letter lo F. Melchior, March 3, 1558, that he devoted workingdays to the careof his body, and Sundays and festivals to the culture of his understanding. The same letter shews his modesty, as hereproaches his friend for giving him honourable titles, which did not agree with the lowness of his condition. He died in 1563.

, a celebrated Benedictine, a zealous partizan of the league in France, and a writer for it, but also a learned writer in theology, was born at Riom in Auvergne, in 1537. He studied at Paris, and having acquired a profound knowledge of Hebrew, was professor of that language at the royal college for thirteen years. He was twice named for episcopacy, yet never obtained it, and at last died in a kind of exile at his priory of Semur in Burgundy, in consequence of the violence of his writings against Henry IV. As a polemic as well as a politician, he was a most violent and abusive writer, but is said to have been more prudent in his conduct than in his style. He died in 1597. The following verse, which was placed upon his tomb, served rather to prove the perishable nature of fame, than the merit of the man:

, an ecclesiastical writer, was a priest of Marseilles, but not a bishop, as some have imagined and died about the year 492 or 493. There are two works of his remaining; one, “De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis,” which was falsely attributed to St. Augustin, and has been printed in some editions of his works; another, “De II­lustribus Ecclesiae Scriptoribus,” in St. Jerome’s Works, Antwerp, 1639, fol. and Hamburgh, 1718, fol. Some chapters of it appear to have been added by a more modern hand. Gennadius has been accused of adhering some time to the errors of Pelagius; but, as is now agreed, without any reasonable foundation.

, or, as styled in his Latin works, Antonius Genuensis, an Italian writer of much reputation on subjects of political ceconomy in Italy, was born at Castelione, in November 1712. It not being probably the custom to educate the. eldest sons of Italian families for the church, his biographer, Fabroni, seems to complain of this as an act of severity on the part of Genovesi’s father. He received, however, a suitable education for this profession, and in due time was consecrated a priest; but his views of preferment being obstructed, he attempted the practice of the law, in which he was equally unsuccessful, and at length, when at Naples in 1741, was appointed professor of metaphysics. Some bold opinions delivered in the course of his lectures created a clamour against him, as advancing infidel principles, but he appears to have been befriended by Galiani, who was superintendant of the universities of Naples, and removed him to the professorship of ethics. In 1748 he was a candidate for the professorship of theology, but his notions had given such offence that he was rejected, which seems to have induced him to turn his mind to subjects of political oeconomy, particularly agriculture, in which there was less risk of offending either the principles or prejudices of his countrymen. A professorship was now founded for political ceconorny, and bestowed upon him with a handsome salary. This he continued to hold with the greatest reputation until his death in 1769. His private character appears to have been very amiable, and his works, although little known, and indeed little wanted in this country, were of essential service in the schools of Italy, and directed the attention of youth to subjects more connected with patriotism and public spirit than those they had been accustomed to study. They are, according to Fabroni, 1. “Disciplinarum metaphysicarum Elementa mathematicum in morem adornata,” 1744 1751, 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Elementorum artis logico-criticte libri quinque,” Naples, 1745. 3. “Discorso sopra alcuni trattati d'Agricoitura,” ibid. 1753. 4. “Lettere Accademiche,” ibid. 1764. 5. A translation of Carey’s History of English Trade, under the title “Storia del Commercio della Gran Brettagna,” &c. 1757. 6. “Delle Lezioni di Commercio.” 7. “Discorso sopra rAgricoltura,” with a translation of Tull’s Husbandry. 8. “Discorso sul volgarizzamento del Saggio Francese’sulT Economia de‘ grain,’,' Naples, 1765. 9.” Meditazioni Filosoficbe sulla religione e sulla morale,“ibid. 1766, a work in which Fabroni says there is nothing new, or worthy of the author. 10.” Della Diceosina, o sia della filosofia del giusto e dell' onesto,“1766 1776, 3 rols. 11.” Universae Christiana Tbeologise elementa dogmatica, historica, critica," a posthumous work, Venice, 1771, 2 vols. 4to, on which the author had been employed from the year 1742, but leaving it imperfect, it was completed by the editor, with much trouble.

, a dramatic and poetical writer of the minor order, was born in Ireland, October 23, 1728, and received his education at Dublin. At the age of fifteen he obtained a commission in the same regiment with his father, who likewise belonged to the army; but, making an exchange to a new-raised company, he was dismissed the service on his regiment being reduced at the conclusion of the war in 1748. On this event he indulged his inclination for the stage, and appeared at Dublin in the character of Aboan, in the play of Oroonoko. Notwithstanding an unconsequential figure, and uncommon timidity, he says he succeeded beyond his most sanguine expectations; but, having some property, and hearing that a legacy had been left him by a relation, he determined to come to London, where it appears he dissipated what little fortune he possessed. He then engaged to perform at the theatre in Bath, and remained there some time. From thence he went to Edinburgh, and afterwards belonged to several companies of actors at Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, and other places. Growing tired of a public -life, he settled at Malton, a market-town about twenty miles from York, where he married, and had some expectation of being provided for by the marquis of Granby, to whom he was recommended by a gentleman who had known his father. With this hope he removed to London, but soon had the mortification to find all his prospects clouded by the sudden death of his patron. In 1770 he performed at the Hay-market, under the management of Mr. Foote, and continued with him three seasons, during which time, and afterwards, he wrote some of his dramatic pieces and poems. He returned to his native country probably about 1777, and struggled for the remainder of his life under sickness and want, from which death at last relieved him Dec. 21, 1784. The editor of the “Biographia Dramatica” enumerates fifteen dramatic pieces, either written or altered for the stage by him, none of which are now remembered, or had originally much success. He wrote also “Characters, an Epistle,” 1766, 4to, and “Royal Fables,” 1766, 8vo, poetical productions of very considerable merit. But his best performance was the “Dramatic Censor,” 1770, 2 vols. 8vo, in which he criticises about fifty of the principal acting plays, and the chief actors of his time, with much impartiality and judgment. The latter, however, seems entirely to have forsaken him when he became editor of Shakspeare’s plays, published by Bell in 1774-5, unquestionably the worst edition that ever appeared of any English author.

, a famous writer in favour of Jansenism, was born at Saint Calais, in the French province of Maine, in 1628, and was first of the oratory, and then became a Benedictine in the congregation of St. Maur, in 1649. He there taught theology for some years with considerable success, but being too free in his opinions in favour of the Jansenists, was ordered to be arrested by Louis XIV. in 1682, at the abbey of Corbie. He contrived, however, to escape into Holland, but the air of that country disagreeing with him, he changed his situation for the Low Countries. In 1703 he was taken into custody by the bishop of Mechlin, and being condemned for errors on the doctrine of grace, suffered imprisonment at Amiens, and in the castle of Vincennes. No sufferings could shake his zeal for what he thought the truth, and in 17 10 he was given up to the superiors of his own order, who sent him to the abbey of St. Denis, where he died in 1711. He was author of many works on the subjects of controversy then agitated, particularly a general History of Jansenism, 3 vols. 12mo, Amsterdam, 1703, for which he was called a violent Jansenist. His other principal works were, edi-> tions of Marius Mercator, St. Anselm, and Baius; the Apology of Rupert, abbot of Tuy, respecting the Eucharist, in Latin, 8vo; “Le veritable Penitent, ou Apologie cte ja Penitence,” 12mo, against P. Hazard, a Jesuit “La verit6 Catholique victorieuse, sur la Predestination et la Grace efficase” “Traité historique sur la Grace” “Lettres a M. Bossuet, Eveque de Meaux” “La confiance Chretienne” “Le Chretien disabuse”“” La Regie des Moeurs contre les fausses Maximes de la Morale corrompue,“12mo;” La Defense de l‘Eglise Romaine’.' and “Avis salutaires de la Sainte Vierge a ses Devots indiscrets.” This last is a translation of the “Monita Salutaria” of Adam Windelfels, a German lawyer* Many others are enumerated by Moreri.

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

Notwithstanding this reputation, his contemporaries we*e unwilling to place him in any other rank than that of a writer of light, easy compositions, in which the higher attributes of poetry are not to be found. Gesner, to conrince them of their mistake, produced his “Death of Abel,” in order to prove that he could soar to the sublime, which, however, we think he has not reached; the sublimity of this work appearing to us to be mere turgidity and affectation, more calculated to deprave taste than to gratify it.

, an Italian writer, born at Monza, in Milan, 1589, was educated by the Jesuits at Milan, in polite literature and philosophy. He went afterwards to Parma, where he began to apply himself to the civil and canon law; but was obliged to desist on account of ill health. He returned home, and upon the death of his father married; but, losing his wife, he became an ecclesiastic, and resumed the study of the canon law, of which he was made doctor. He died in 1670, leaving several works; the most considerable of which, and for which he is at present chiefly known, is his “Theatro d'Huomini Letterati.” The first part of this was printed at Milan, 1633, in 8vo, but it was enlarged and reprinted in 2 vols. 4to, at Venice, 1647. Baillet says that this work is es­>teemed for its exactness, and for the diligence which the author has shewn in recording the principal acts and writings of those he treats of: but this is not the opinion of M. Monnoye, his annotator, nor of the learned in general. It is more generally agreed, that excepting a few articles, where more than ordinary pains seem to have been taken, Ghilini is a very injudicious author, deals in general and insipid panegyric, and is very careless in the matter of dates. This work, however, for want of a better, has been made much use of, and is even quoted at this day by those who know its imperfections.

The leisure he could borrow from his more regular plan of study, was employed in perusing the works of the best English authors since the revolution, in hopes that the purity of his own language, corrupted by the long use of a foreign idiom, might be restored. Of Swift and Arldison, who were recommended by Mallet, he seems to fix the true value, praising Swift for his manly original vigour, and Addison for elegance and mildness. The perfect composition, the nervous language, and well-turned periods of Robertson, inflamed him with the ambitious hope that he might one day tread in his footsteps. But charmed as he was at this time with Swift and Addison, Robertson and Hume, and well as he knew how to appreciate the excellence of their respective styles, he lost sight of every model when he became a writer of history, and formed a style peculiar to himself.

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

In addition to these antagonists, it may be mentioned that Dr. Priestley endeavoured to provoke Mr. Gibbon to a controversy. The letters which passed between them are republished in the Memoirs, and are interesting because highly characteristic of both parties. The literary world has seldom seen polemic turbulence and sceptical arrogance so ably contrasted. Of all Mr. Gibbon’s antagonists, he speaks with respect only of Dr. Watson. Davis, it is evident, gave him most uneasiness, because he was able to repel but a few of the many charges that writer brought against him. In sound, manly reasoning, clear, perspicuous, and well-founded, without an atom of controversial asperity, sir David Dalrymple’s Inquiry excels; and may perhaps be considered as completely proving, what it is of most importance to prove, that Mr. Gibbon’s attack on Christianity was unnecessary as to its connection with his history, and is* disingenuous as to the mode in which he conducted it. The controversy was upon the whole beneficial; the public was put upon its guard, and through the thin veil of lofty contempt, it is very evident that Mr. Gibbon repented that he had made a false estimate of the public opinion on the subject of religion.

The prosecution of his history was for some time checked by an employment of a different nature, but for which his talents were thought preferable to that of any writer connected with administration. At the request of the ministers of state, he was induced to answer a manifesto which the French court had issued against Great Britain, preparatory to war. This Mr. Gibbon ably accomplished in a “Memoire Justificatif,” composed in French, which was delivered as a state paper to the courts of Europe. For this service he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations, a place worth about 700l. or 800l. a year, the duties of which were not very arduous. His acceptance of this place, he informs us, provoked some of the leaders of the opposition, with whom he had lived in habits of intimacy, and he was unjustly accused of deserting a party in which he had never enlisted. At the general election, however, in 1780, he lost his seat in parliament, the voters of Leskeard being disposed to favour an oppositioncandidate.

As a historian, the universal acknowledgment of the literary world has placed him in the very highest rank; and in that rank, had his taste been equal to his knowledge, if his vast powers of intellect could have descended to simplicity of narrative, he would have stood without a rival. But in all the varied charms of an interesting an-d pathetic detail, and perhaps in the more important article of fidelity, he is certainly inferior to Robertson as much as he excels that writer in extent of knowledge, and in the comprehensive grasp of a penetrating mind. If he is likewise superior to Hume in these respect^ he falls short of what he has himself so admirably characterised as “the careless, inimitable beauties” of that writer. Hume told him very candidly and justly, that his study of the French writers led him into a style more poetical and figurative, and more highly coloured than our language seems to admit of in historical composition. We find, in his correspondence, that during his first residence abroad, he had ajmost entirely lost his native language, and although he recovered it afterwards, during die twenty years he passed in England, yet his reading was so much confined to French authors, that when he attempted English composition, he every where discovered the turns of thought and expression by which his mind was imbued. It has been asserted that his style has the appearance of labour, yet we know not how to reconcile much effort with his declaration, that the copy sent to the press was the only one he ever wrote. His labour might be bestowed in revolving the subject hi his mind; and as his memory was great, he might commit it to paper, without the necessity of addition or correction. By whatever means, he soon formed a style peculiar to himself, a mixture of dignity and levity, which, although difficult at first, probably became easy by practice, and even habitual, for his Memoirs are written in the exact manner of his History, and the most trivial events of his life are related in the same stately periods with which he embellishes the lives of heroes, and the fate of empires. His epistolary correspondence is in general more free from stiffness, and occasionally assumes the gaiety and familiarity suited to this species of composition.

, an ancestor of the preceding, and a heraldic writer, was born November 3, 1629. He was son of Robert Gibbon, a woollen-draper in London, and a member of the Cloth-workers’ company, by a daughter of the Edgars of Suffolk. Having spent some time in Jersey, he was sent to Jesus college, Cambridge, but afterwards became a soldier, and went to the Netherlands, to France, and in 1659 and 1660 was in Virginia. He procured the appointment of blue-mantle by the patronage of sir William Dugdale, then norroy. His patent was given only during pleasure, and he never received any other. Ab his death, in 17 he was the oldest officer at arms, but thought himself ill-treated in never having farther promotion. To assist in maintaining his family he kept a school. He was a learned, but imprudent man, injuring his best interests by an arrogant insolence to his superiors in the college, filling the margins of the books belonging to the library with severe reflections upon their conduct, couched in quaint terms, and with silly calculations of his own nativity. He despised them for not having had so classical an education as himself, and he supposed his destiny so fixed by the stars which presided at his birth, that good or ill behaviour could never alter it. These were weaknesses which shaded his excellencies. His “Introductio ad Latinam Blazoniam, an essay towards a more correct Blazon in Latin than formerly hath been used,” was a work which did him the highest credit: it was printed in octavo, in 1682. He wrote two small tracts also, in the French language, entitled, “Christian Valour encouraged,” exhorting the king of France to join the Venetians in their design upon the Morea, and to attack the Turks, and leave Germany alone. He likewise wrote “Day Fatality” “Unio Pissidentium” “Prince-protecting Providences;” “Edivardus Confessor redivivus.” “Satan’s welcome,” 1679, and “Flagellum Mercurii Antiducales.” He also diligently collected, out of various authors, a particular account of the great and important services of heralds of former times, which he styled “Heraldo Memoriale,” the heads of which came afterwards into the hands of Maitland, to be inserted in his History of London.

The writer of his life, among many instances which he declares might be assigned of his making a proper use of that spiritual ministry he was honoured with, specifies some few of a more eminent kind. One was his occasional recommendation of several worthy and learned persons to the favour of the secular ministry, for preferments suited to their merits. Another, that of procuring an ample endowment from the crown, for the regular performance of divine service in the royal-chapel, at Whitehall, by a succession of ministers, selected out of both universities, with proper salaries, who are continued until this day, under the name of Whitehall preachers, in number twenty-four, who officiate each a fortnight. A third, that he constantly guarded against the repeated attempts to procure a repeal of the corporation and test acts. By baffling the attacks made on those fences of the church, he thought he secured the whole ecclesiastical institution; for, it was his fixed opinion, that it would be an unjustifiable piece of presumption to arm those hands with power, that might possibly employ it, as was done in the days of our fathers, against the ecclesiastical constitution itself. He was entirely persuaded, that there ought always to be a legal establishment of the church, to a conformity with which some peculiar advantages might be reasonably annexed: and at the same time, with great moderation and temper, he approved of a toleration of protestant dissenters; especially as long as they keep within the just limits of conscience, and attempt nothing that is highly prejudicial to, or destructive of, the rights of the establishment in the church. But he was as hearty an enemy to persecution, in matters of religion, as those that have most popularly declaimed against it.

, knt. lord chief baron of the exchequer, and an eminent law writer, was born Oct. 10, 1674. Of his family, education, or early life, it has been found impossible to recover any information* Either in 1714, or 1715, for even this circumstance is not clearly ascertained, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of king’s bench in Ireland, and within a year was promoted to the dignity of chief baron of the exchequer in that kingdom, which office he held till the beginning of 1722, when he was recalled. During his residence there, he was engaged in an arduous and delicate contest concerning the ultimate judicial tribunal to which the inhabitants were to resort, which was disputed between the English house of lords and the Irish house of lords; and he appears to have been taken into custody by the order of the latter, for having enforced an order of the English house in the case of Annesley versus Sherlock, “contrary to the final judgment and determination of that house.” It appears by the style of this last order of the Irish house of lords, that he was a privy counsellor of that kingdom; and it is noticed in his epitaph, that a tender was made to him of the great seal, which he declining, returned to England. Here he was first called to the degree of an English serjeant at law, preparatory, according to ancient usage, to his taking his seat as one of the barons of the exchequer, in which he succeeded sir James Montague in June 1722. Having remained in that station for three years, he was in Jan. 1724 appointed one of the commissioners of the great seal in the room of lord Macclesfield, his colleagues being sir Joseph Jekyll and sir Robert Raymoqd. The great seal continued in commission till June 1, 1725, when sir Peter King was constituted lord keeper, and on the same day sir Jeffray Gilbert became, on the appointment of sir Rpbert Eyre to the chief-justiceship of the commonpleas, lord chief baron, which office he filled until his death, Oct. 14, 1726, at an age which may be called early, if compared with the multitude and extent of his writings, which were all left by him in manuscript.

, the first practical writer on medicine whom this country produced, is placed by Bale (who calls him Gilbertus Legleus, and says he was physician to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury,) in the reign of king John, about 1210; but Leland, without stating the grounds of his opinion, makes him more modern, and Dr. Freind thinks that he must have lived in the beginning of the reign of Edward 1.; “for he quotes Averrhoes,” Dr. Freind remarks, “who reached the close of the twelfth century; and whose works could not have been translated so early, and indeed were not translated till the middle, at least, of the thirteenth, as Bacon, a good voucher, informs” us: and the mention he makes of a book, * de Speculis,' which, without doubt, is that written by Bacon, and what he transcribes from Theodorick, concerning a leprosy, evidently shews that he lived low in this century, &c.“According to Leiand, he maintained a high character for his knowledge in philosophy and physic, which he had acquired by great study and much travelling; and he was very successful in his practice. His writings are principally compiled from those of the Arabian physicians, like the works of his contemporaries in other nations; sometimes, indeed, he transcribes whole chapters word for word, especially from Rhazes. He is represented as the first English physician who ventured to expose the absurd practices of the superstitious monks, who at that time engrossed much of the treatment of diseases, and is said to have contrasted with them the methods recommended by the ancients. The principal work of Gilbert, entitled” Compendium Medicinse tain morborum universalium quam particularium,“was corrected by Michael Capella, and printed at Lyons in 1510; and afterwards at Geneva, in 1608, under the title of” Laurea Anglicana, seu Compendium totius Medicinse.“His other treatises were,” De viribus Aquarum“”De Re Herbaria;“” Thesaurus Pauperum“and” De tuenda valetudine."

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Gillingham, near Shaftesbury, in Dorsetshire, in 1665. His parents and family were Roman catholics, and consequently endeavoured to instill the same principles into our author, but without success. His father was a member of the society of Gray’s-inn, and had suffered considerably in the royal cause. Mr. Gildon received the first rudiments of his education at Gillingham; but when twelve years of age, his parents sent him over to Doway, and entered him in the English college of secular priests there, with a view of bringing hi<m up likewise to the priesthood; but, during a progress of five years’ study he only found his inclinations more strongly confirmed for a quite different course of life.

, D. D. an eminent dissenting divine, and the most able and learned baptist writer of the last century, was born at Kettering in Northamptonshire, Nov. 23, 1697, of parents in humble life. His father was a deacon of the baptist meeting at Kettering; and having, from various causes, some of which appear rather imaginary, a strong impression on his mind that this son would become a preacher, and an eminent character, exerted his utmost to give him a suitable education. His first attempts were crowned with such success as to confirm his father’s hopes. Being sent to the grammar school, he soon exceeded his equals in age, and even his seniors. At his eleventh year, he had not only gone through the common school books, but had read the principal Latin classics, and made considerable proficiency in the Greek language. Such was at the same time his avidity of knowledge, that he constantly frequented a bookseller’s shop (which was open only on market-days), where his acquirements became noticed by some c.f the neighbouring clergy; and he repaired so regularly to this repository of books, that it became a sort of asseveration, “such a thing is as sure as John Gill is in the bookseller’s shop.” Unfortunately, however, his progress at school was interrupted by an edict of the master, requiring that all his scholars, without exception, should attend prayers at the church on week-days. This, of course, amounted to an expulsion of the children of dissenters, and of young Gill among the rest. His parents not being able to send him to a distant school, some efforts were made to get him upon one of the dissenting funds of London, that he might be sent to one of their seminaries. In order to procure this favour, his progress in literature was probably stated as very extraordinary, and the application produced an answer fully as extraordinary namely, “that he was too young and, should he continue, as it might be supposed he would, to make such rapid advances in his studies, he would go through the common circle of learning before he could be capable of taking care of himself, or of being employed in any public service.” Notwithstanding this illiberal and absurd repulse, young Gill went on improving himself in Greek and Latin, by eagerly studying such books in both languages as he could procure, and added to his stock a knowledge of logic, rhetoric, moral and natural philosophy. Without a master also, he made such progress in the Hebrew as soon to be able to read the Bible with facility; and ever after this language was his favourite study. He read much in the Latin tongue, and studied various systematic works Oh divinity; but all this appears to have been done at such hours as he could spare from assisting his father in his business. In November 1716, he made a public profession of his religious sentiments before the baptist meeting, and was baptised according to the usual forms; soon after which he commenced preacher, and officiated first at Higham Ferrars, where in 1718 he married; he also preached occasionally at Kettering until the beginning of 1719, when he was invited to become pastor of the baptist congregation at Horslydovrn, Southwark, and soon became very popular in the metropolis.

When he first came to settle in London, in 1719, he became intimately acquainted with Mr. John Skepp, author of“The Divine Energy,” and in 1751 new-modelled that work for a second edition. Skepp was an able Hebraist, and had formed a good collection of Hebrew and Rabbinical books, which Gill bought on his death in 1721, and bestowed many years in a careful study of them, reading the Targums, the Mishna, the Talmuds, the book of Zohar; and having collected a vast mass of useful observations, he employed them as illustrations for his Exposition of the Bible. Of this voluminous work> the New Testament appeared first in 3 vols. t'ol. 1746, 1747, and 1748. In this last year he received the degree of D. D. from the Marischal college, Aberdeen, professedly “on account of his learned defence of the true sense of the holy scriptures against deists and infidels.” This diploma was decreed to him in the handsomest manner, without his knowledge, and the fees were remitted. His Exposition of the Old Testament was published afterwards in various years, forming, along with the New, 9 vols. fol. which, becoming of late years in much demand, and the price being greatly raised, a new and very neat edition was published in 1810—12, in 10 vols. 4to, by Mr. Bagster, of the Strand. In 1767 Dr. Gill published a “Dissertation on the Antiquities of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-points, and Accents,” and in the same year collated the various passages of the Old Testament quoted in the Mishna, in the Talmuds, both Jerusalem and Babylonian, and in the Rabbath; and extracted the variations in them, from the modern printed text, which he sent to Dr. Kennicott, who politely acknowledges the obligation in his “State of his Collation,” published in 1767. In 1769 Dr. Gill published a “Body of doctrinal Divinity,” 2 vols. 4to, and in 1770 a “Body of practical Divinity.” This was the last of his numerous publications, in the preparation of which he liad spent many years of his long life. He died at his house at Camberwell, Oct. 14, 1771; his wife had been dead some years before, and his only surviving son died in 1804, aged seventy-seven. Dr. Gill’s private character was so excellent, that the admirers of his writings have said that “his learning and labours were exceeded only by the invariable sanctity of his life and conversation.” His extensive learning and reading cannot be called in question, but as a writer he is in general too copious and diffuse.

, a voluminous and useful French writer of the last century, was born at Paris, Nov. 17, 1726, and being educated in the profession of the law, became successively counsellor of the parliament of Paris, and member of the grand council. He died in that city in 1807. His countrymen owe to him various translations, which are held in high repute, particularly one of Homer, first printed in 1784, 8vo, of which there were afterwards two splendid editions printed by Didot; and translations of Hesiod, Theocritus, Demosthenes, and Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield. His original works were, 1. “Traite de Peloquence de barreau,” 1767, 12mo. 2. “De la” Religion, par un homme du monde,“1778, and following years, 5 vols. 8vo. This work, though loaded with a superabundance of quotations, which render it too prolix, was well received. In 17 85 he published a judicious abridgment of it, under the title of” Nouveaux Melanges de Philosophic et de la Litterature,“exhibiting in a regular plan the fundamental principles of religion in general, and the moral government of the Deity. 3.” Les vrais principes du Governement Francaise,“Geneva, 8vo, Paris, 8vo, and 2 vols. 12mo. 4.” Analyse raisonnée du droit Français," Paris, 1782, 4to.

, a skilful mathematician, was born December 13, 1633, at Bitonto. He spent his youth in idleness and debauchery, and married a young woman without any fortune; and having killed one of his brothersin-law, who reproached him with his indolence and laziness, he entered as a soldier in a fleet fitted out by the pope against the Turks. The admiral, finding that he did not want genius, gave him a writer’s place which happened to be vacant; and Giordani, being obliged in consequence to learn arithmetic, eagerly studied that of Clavius, and acquired a taste for mathematics. Returning to Rome, in 1659, he was made keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, and devoted the leisure that office afforded him to mathematical studies, in which he made so rapid a progress, that queen Christina chose him for her mathematician during her stay at Rome; and Louis XIV, appointed him to teach mathematics in the academy of painting and sculpture which he had founded in that city, 1666. Giordani was made engineer to the castle of St. Angelo by pope Clement X., appointed mathematical professor at the college della Sapienza 1685, and admitted into the academy of the Arcadi, May 5, 1691. He died November 3, 1711. His principal works are, “Euclide restitute,” foiio; “De componendis gravium momentis,” folio; “Fundamentum doctrines motus gravium,” 1705, folio; “Ad Hyacinthum Christophorum Epistola,” 1705, folio.

His works consist of seventeen productions, which were first printed separately; but afterwards collected and published in 2 vols. folio, at Basil 15SO, and at Leyden 1696. The most valued pieces among them are, “Historia de Deis Gentium,” <( Historian Poetarum tarn Grajcorum, quam Latinorum Dialogi decem,“and,” Dialogi duo de Poetis nostrorum.“The first of these books is one of the last he composed, and full of profound erudition. The other two, which make up 'the history of the ancient and modern poets, are written with great exactness and judgment. Vossius speaks highly of this work, as the production of great judgment and learning, as well as industry, and observes, that though his professed design is to collect memoirs concerning their persons, characters, and writings in general, yet he has occasionally interspersed many things, regarding the art of poetry, which may be useful to those who intend to cultivate it. Joseph Scaliger, indeed, would persuade us, though not very consistently, that nothing can be more contemptible than the judgment be passes on the poets he treats of: for in another place he allows all the works of Giraldus to be very good, and that no man knew better how to temper learning with judgment. There is a work also by Giraldus,” De annis & mensibus, ciEterisque temporis partibus, una cum Kalendario Romano & Grocco,“written with a view to the reformation of the kalerular, which was afterwards effected by pope Gregory XIII. about 1582. There are likewise among his works a few poems, the principal of which is entitled,” Epistola in qua agitur de incommodis, quse in direptione Urbana passus est ubi item est quasi catalogus suorum, umicorurn Poetarum, & deileaiur interitus Herculis Carclinalis Rangonis.“This poem is annexed to the Florentine edition of th6 two dialogues concerning his contemporary poets; and contains a curious literary history of that time. To other praises bestowed upon Giraldus by authors of the first name, we may add that of Casaubon, who calls him,” vir solide doctus, & in scribendo accuratus,“a man solidly learned and an accurate writer. Thuanus says, that” he was excellently skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues, in polite literature, and in antiquity, which he has illustrated in several works; and that, though highly deserving a better fate, he struggled all his life with illhealth and ill-fortune." His books he bequeathed to his relatives John Baptist Giraldi and Pasetius.

, an ingenious French writer, wa born at Clermont in Auvergne in 1678, and educated for the church. In his youth he had a canonry in the collegiate church of Notre Dame de Monferrand, but resigned it to one of his brothers, that he might be at liberty to go to Paris and devote his time to literary pursuits. There by the interest of some friends he was made almoner to the duchess of Berri, daughter of the regent, and also obtained the place of king’s interpreter for the Sclavonian and Russian languages. In 1744 he was admitted a member of the French academy. He died Feb. 4, 1748. The work by which he is best known, and to which indeed he chiefly owed his reputation in France, is his “Synonymes Fransais,” 12mo, of which a new edition, with some posthumous pieces by Girard, was published by M. Beauzee in 1769, 2 vols. 12mo. No grammatical work was ever more popular in France, nor more useful in denning the precise meaning of words apparently synonymous; and the elegance and moral tendency of the examples he produce* have been much admired. The abbe“Roubaud has since published” Les Nouveaux Synonymes Francais,“1786, 4 vols. 8vo, which may be considered as a supplement to Girard. Our author published also a grammar under the title of” Les vrais principes de la laugue Franc.ais," 2 vols. 12mp, far inferior in ingenuity to his former, and full of metaphysical whims on the theory of language, not unmixed with those infidel principles which were in his time beginning to be propagated.

, a writer of the fourteenth century, was an English Minorite, or Franciscan, of the family of the earls of Suffolk. He is said to have studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, and to have been very familiar with the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Pliny; from which, with his own observations, he compiled his celebrated work “De Proprietatibus rernrn,” a kind of general history of nature; divided into nineteen books, treating of God, angels, and devils, the soul, the body, animals, &c. In some copies there is an additional book, not of his writing, on numbers, weights, measures, sounds, &c. Some v “Sermons” of his were printed at Strasburgh in 1495. But his work “De Proprietatibus*' appears to have been the chief favourite, and was one of the first books on which the art of printing was exercised, there being no fewer than twelve editions, or translations, printed from 1479 to 1494. The English translation printed by Wynkyn de Worde is the most magnificent publication that ever issued from the press of that celebrated printer, but the date has not been ascertained. A very copious and exact analysis of this curious work is given by Mr. Dibdin in the second Volume of his” Typographical Antiquities."

, a distinguished writer, was born in 1636, at Plymouth in Devonshire, where he probably received the first rudiments of his education, and was entered at Exeter-college, Oxford, April 19, 1652. He was placed under Samuel Conant, an eminent tutor, and having made great proficiency in his studies, he proceeded B. A. Oct. II, 1655. The following year, he removed to Lincoln-college, probably upon some view of preferment. Taking the degree of M. A. June 29, 1658, he assumed the priestly office, according to the forms used by the sectaries at that time, and became chaplain to Francis Rouse, esq. then made provost of Eton-college, by Oliver Cromwell, and designed for one of his house of lords. Had tin* patron lived a little longer, Glanvil’s expectations would, no doubt, have been fully answered; since according to Wood, he entirely complied with the principles of the then prevailing party, to whom his very prompt pen must needs have been serviceable. But Rouse dying the same year, he returned to his college in Oxford, and pursued his studies there during the subsequent distractions in the state. About this time, he became acquainted with Mr. Richard Baxter, who entertained a great opinion of his genius, and continued his respect for him after the restoration; when they espoused different causes. The friendship was equally warm on Glanvil’s side, who, Sept. 15, 1661, addressed an epistle to his friend, professing himself to be an admirer of his preaching and writings; he v also offered to write something in his defence, but yielded to his advice, not to sacrifice his views of preferment to their friendship.

His character was drawn up by the late Dr. Brocklesby for the Gentleman’s Magazine, and as far as respects his amiable disposition, was confirmed to us by Dr. VVarton, who knew him well. “Through the whole of his life Mr. Glover was by all good men revered, by the wise esteemed, by the great sometimes caressed and even flattered, and now his death is sincerely lamented by all who had the happiness to contemplate the integrity of his character. Mr. Glover, for upwards of 50 years past through every vicissitude of fortune, exhibited the most exemplary simplicity of manners; having early attained that perfect equanimity, which philosophy often recommends in the closet, but which in experience is too seldom exercised by other men in the test of trial. In Mr. Glover were united a wide compass of accurate information in all mercantile concerns, with high intellectual powers of mind, joined to a copious flow of eloquence as an orator in the house of commons. Since Milton he was second to none of our English poets, in his discriminating judicious acquaintance with all ancient as well as modern literature witness his Leon i das, Medea, Boadicea, and London for, having formed his own character upon the best models of the Greek writers, he lived as if he had been bred a disciple of Socrates, or companion of Aristides. Hence his political turn of mind, hence his unwarped affection and active zeal for the rights and liberties of his country. Hence his heartfelt exultation whenever he had to paint the impious designs of tyrants in ancient times frustrated, or in modern defeated in their nefarious purposes to extirpate liberty, or to trample on the unalienable rights of man, however remote in time or space from his immediate presence. In a few words, for the extent of his various erudition, for his unalloyed patriotism, and for his daily exercise and constant practice of Xenophou’s philosophy, in his private as well as in public life, Mr. Glover has left none his equal in the city, and some time, it is feared, may elapse before such another citizen shall arise, with eloquence, with character, and with poetry, like his, to assert their rights, or to vindicate with equal powers the just claims of freeborn men. Suffice this testimony at present, as the wellearned meed of this truly virtuous man, whose conduct was carefully marked, and narrowly watched by the writer of the foregoing hasty sketch, for his extraordinary qualities during the long period in human life of upwards of 40 years and now it is spontaneously offered as a voluntary tribute, unsolicited and unpurchased but as it appears justly due to the memory of so excellent a poet, statesman, and true philosopher, in life and death the same.”

, a herald and heraldic writer, was the son of Thomas Glover, of Ashford in Kent, the place of his nativity. He was first made Portcullis Poursuivant, and afterwards in 1571, Somerset herald. Queen Elizabeth permitted him to travel abroad for improvement. In 1582, he attended lord Willoughby with the order of the garter, to Frederick II. of Denmark. In 1584, he waited with Clarenceux on the earl of Derby, with that order to the king of France. No one was a greater ornament to the college than this gentleman; the suavity of his manners was equal to his integrity and skill: he was a most excellent, and very learned man, with a knowledge in his profession which has never been exceeded, perhaps been paralleled; to this, the best writers of his own and more recent time* bear testimony. He left two treatises, one “I)e Nobilitate politica vel civili” the other “A Catalogue of Honour” both of which were published by his nephew, Mr. Thomas Milles, the former in 1608, the latter in 1610, both folio, to “revive the name and learned memory of his deceased friend and uncle, whose private studies for the public good deserved a remembrance beyond forgetful time.” His answer to the bishop of Ross’s book, in which Mary queen of Scots’ claim to the crown was asserted, was never published. He made great collections of what had been written by preceding heralds, and left of his own labours relative to arms, visitations of twenty-four counties, and miscellaneous matters belonging to this science, all written by himself. He assisted Camden in his pedigrees for his Britannia; communicated to Dr. David Powell, a copy of the history of Cambria, translated by H. Lloyd; made a collection of the inscriptions upon the funeral monuments in Kent; and, in 1584, drew up a most curious survey of Herewood castle, in Yorkshire. Mr. Thoresby had his collection of the county of York taken in 1584, and his catalogue of northern gentry whose surnames ended in son. He died in London, says Stow, April 14, (Lant and others, 10), 1588, aged only forty-five years, and was buried in St. Giles’s church, Cripplegate. His loss was severely felt by all our lovers of English antiquities. His “Ordinary of Arms” was augmented and improved by Edmondson, who published it in the first volume of his Body of Heraldry.

, was one of the Byzantine historians, but biographers are not agreed as to the period when he lived. Some years ago, professor Walchius published in the Gottingen Transactions an inquiry into this subject, but was obliged to confess that he could arrive at no probable conclusion. Some place Glycas in the twelfth, and some in the fifteenth century. No ancient record or writer mentions even his name, and all that is known of him has been gleaned from his works. It appears that he was a native of Constantinople; but passed a great part of his life in Sicily. Some have thought he was a monk, but this is uncertain, nor do we know whether he lived in public life, or in retirement. His letters, however, show that he was a grammarian, and was acquainted with theology, history sacred and profane, and other branches of knowledge; and such was his reputation that he was frequently consulted by monks, bishops, and the most celebrated doctors of his time. His “Annals,” by which only he is now known, contain an account of the patriarchs, kings, and emperors, and, in a word, a sort of history of the world as far as the emperor Alexis Comnenus, who died in 1118, including many remarks on divinity, philosophy, physic, astronomy, &c. Leunclavius first translated this work into Latin, and the whole was published by father Labbe, Paris, 1660, fol. Some of his letters have been published in the “Deliciae eruditorum,” Florence, 1736, and other collections.

, a learned French bishop and writer, was descended from a good family at Dreux, and born in 1605. Being inclined to poetry from his youth, he applied himself to it, and so cultivated his genius, that he made his fortune by it. His first essay was a paraphrase in verse of the Benedicite, which was much commended. He was but twenty -four when he became a member of that society which met at the house of Mr. Conrart, to confer upon subjects of polite learning, and to communicate their performances. From this society cardinal Richlieu took the hint, and formed the resolution, of establishing the French academy for belles lettres; and our author in a few years obtained the patronage of that powerful ecclesiastic. The bishopric of Grasse becoming vacant in 1636, cardinal Richelieu recommended him to the king, who immediately conferred it upon him; and as soon as the ceremony of consecration was over, he repaired to his diocese, and applied himself to the functions of his office. He held several synods, composed a great number of pastoral instructions for the use of his clergy, and restored ecclesiastical discipline, which had been almost entirely neglected. He obtained from pope Innocent X. a bull for uniting the bishopric of Vence to that of Grasse, as his predecessor William le Blore had before obtained from Clement VIII. This arrangement, considering the propinquity of the two dioceses, and the small income of both together (about 450l.) was not unreasonable; but when Godeau found the people and clergy averse to it, he gave up his pretensions, and contented himself with the bishopric of Vence only. He assisted in several general assemblies of the clergy, held in 1645 and 1655; in which he vigorously maintained the dignity of the episcopal order, and the system of pure morality, against those who opposed both. One of his best pieces upon this subject, was published in 1709, with the title of “Christian Morals for the Instruction of the Clergy of the Diocese of Vence” and was afterwards translated into English, by Basil Kennet. These necessary absences excepted, he constantly resided upon his diocese, where he was perpetually employed in visitations, preaching, reading, writing, or attending upon the ecclesiastical or temporal affairs of his bishopric, till Easter-day, April 17, 1671; when he was seized with a fit of an apoplexy, of which he died the 21st.

, a learned English writer, and an excellent schoolmaster, was born in Somersetshire, in 1587; and, after a suitable education in grammar-learning, was sent to Oxford. He was entered of Magdalenhall in 1602; and took the two degrees in arts 1606 and 1609. This last year he removed to Abingdon in Berkshire, having obtained the place of chief master of the freeschool there; and in this employ distinguished himself by his industry and abilities so much, that he brought the school into a very flourishing condition; and bred up many youths who proved ornaments to their country, both in church and state. To attain this commendable end he wrote his “Roman Historiae Anthologia,” an English exposition of the Roman antiquities, &c. and printed it at Oxford in 1613, 4to. The second edition was published in 1623, with considerable additions. He also printed for the use of his school, a “Florilegium Phrastcon, or a survey of the Latin Tongue.” However, his inclinations leading him to divinity, he entered into orders, and became chaplain to Montague bishop of Bath and Wells. He proceeded B. D. in 1616, in which year he published at Oxford, “Synopsis Antiquitatum Hebraicarum, &c.” a collection of Hebrew antiquities, in three books, 4to. Thi he dedicated to his patron; and, obtaining some time after from him the rectory of Brightwell in Berkshire, he resigned his school, the fatigue of which had long been too great for him. Amidst his parochial duties, he prosecuted the subject of the Jewish antiquities; and, in 1625, printed in 4to, “Moses and Aaron, &c.” which was long esteemed an useful book for explaining the civil and ecclesiastical rites of the Hebrews. He took his degree of D. D. in 1637, but did not enjoy that honour many years; dying upon his parsonage in 1642-3, and leaving a wife, whom he had married while he taught school at Abingdon.

, a Portuguese writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Alanquar near Lisbon, of a noble family, in 1501, and brought upas a domestic in, the court of king Emanuel, where he was considered both as a man of letters and of business. Having a strong passion for travelling, he contrived to get a public commission; and travelled through almost all the countries of Europe, contracting as he went an acquaintance with all the learned. At Dantzic he became intimate with the brothers John and Olaus Magnus; and he spent five months at Friburg with Erasmus. He afterwards went to Padua, in 1534, where he resided four years, studying under Lazarus Bonamicus; not, however, without making frequent excursions into different parts of Italy. Here he obtained the esteem of Peter, afterwards cardinal Bembus, of Christopher Maclrucius, cardinal of Trent, and of James Sadolet. On his return to Lou vain in 1538, he had recourse to Conrad Goclenius and Peter Nannius, whose instructions were of great use to him, and applied himself to music and poetry; in the former of which he made so happy a progress, that he was qualified to compose for the churches. He married at Louvain, and his design was to settle in this city, in order to enjoy a little repose after fourteen years travelling; but a war breaking out between Charles V. and Henry II. of France, Louvain was besieged in 1542, and Goez, who has written the history of this siege, put himself at the head of the soldiers, and contributed much to the defence of the town against the French, when the other officers had abandoned it. When he was old, John III. of Portugal, recalled him into his country, in order to write the history of it; but as it became first necessary to arrange the archives of the kingdom, which he found in the greatest confusion, he had little leisure to accomplish his work. The favours also which the king bestowed upon him created him so much envy, that his tranquillity was at an end, and he came to be accused; and, though he cleared himself from all imputations, was confined to the town of Lisbon. Here, it is said that he was one day found dead in his own house; and in such a manner as to make it doubted whether he was strangled by his enemies, or died of an apoplexy; but other accounts inform us, with more probability, that he fell into the fire in a fit, and was dead before the accident was discovered. This happened in 1560, and he was interred in the cburck of Notre Dame, at Alanquar. Rewrote “Fides, Religio, Moresque Æthiopum” “De Imperio et Rebus Lusitanorum” “Hispania;” “Urbis OlissiponensisDescriptio;” “Chronica do Rey Dom Emanuel” “Historia do Principe Dom Juao” and other works, which have been often printed, and are much esteemed. Antonio says, that, though he is an exact writer, yet he has not written the Portuguese language in its purity; which, however, is not to be wondered at, considering how much time he spent out of his own country.

, a divine and dramatic writer, was born in Essex, about 1592, and was educated at Westminster-school, from which, at the age of eighteen, he entered as a student of Christ Church college, Oxford. Here he completed his studies, and, by dint of application and industry, became a very able scholar, obtained the character of a good poet, and, being endowed with the powers of oratory, was, after his taking orders, esteemed an excellent preacher. He had the degree of B. D. conferred on him before he quitted the university, and, in 1623, was preferred to the living of East Clandon, in Surrey. Here, notwithstanding that he had long been a professed enemy to the female sex, and even by some esteemed a woman-hater, he unfortunately tied himself to a wife, the widow of his predecessor, who was aXantippe, and he being naturally of a mild disposition, became at last unable to cope with so turbulent a spirit, backed as she. was by the children she had by her former husband. It was believed by many, that the uneasiness he met with in domestic life shortened his days. He died in July 1629, being then only thirty -five years of age, and was buried on the 27th of the same month *at his own parish church. He wrote several pieces on different subjects, among which are five tragedies; none of which were published till some years after his death. Philips and Winstanley have ascribed a comedy to this author, called “Cupid’s Whirligig;” but with no appearance of probability; since the gravity of his temper was such, that he does not seem to have been capable of a performance so ludicrous. In the latter part of his life he forsook the stage for the pulpit, and wrote sermons, some of which appeared the year he died. With the quaintness common to the sermons of James Ist’s time, they have a portion of fancy and vivacity peculiar to himself. To these works may be added, his “Latin Oration at the Funeral of sir Henry Savile,” spoken and printed at Oxford in 1622; another in Christ Church cathedral, at the funeral of Dr. Godwin, canon of that church, printed in London, 1627.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris in 1716, where his father was an advocate, and himself became a counsellor to the parliament. By close study, and by great assiduity in his pursuits, he produced in 1758 a work that obtained a temporary reputation, and was translated into English, entitled c< Origine des Loix, des Arts, des Sciences, et de leur Progres chez les anciens Peuples," 3 vols. 4to; reprinted in 1778, in six volumes 12mo. This work treats of the origin and progress of human knowledge, from the creation to the age of Cyrus, but displays more genius than erudition, and is rather an agreeable than a profound work. He died of the small-pox, May 2, 1758, immediately after the publication of his work; leaving his Mss. and library to his friend, Alexander Conrad Fugere, who died only three days after him, in consequence of being deeply affected by the death of Goguet, who was a man of much personal worth. Goguet had begun another work on the origin and progress of the laws, arts, sciences, &c. in France, from the commencement of the monarchy, the loss of which the admirers of his first production much regretted.

, a laborious writer in civil law and history, was born at Bischoffsel in Switzerland, in 1576, and was a protestant of the confes-^ sion of Geneva. He studied the civil law at Altorf under Conrade Rittershusius, with whom he boarded; and returned in 1598 to Bischoffsel, where for some time he had no other subsistence but what he acquired by writing books, of which, at the time of publication he used to send copies to the magistrates and people of rank, from whom he received something more than the real value; and some of his friends imagined they did him service in promoting this miserable traffic. In 1599 he lived at St. Gal, in the house of a Mr. Schobinger, who declared himself his patron; but the same year he went to Geneva, and lived at the house of professor Lectius, with the sons of Vassan, whose preceptor he was. In 1602 he went to Lausanne, from a notion that he could live cheaper there than at Geneva. His patron Schobinger, while he advised him to this step, cautioned him at the same time from such frequent removals as made him suspected of an unsettled temper. But, notwithstanding Schobinger’s caution, he returned soon after to Geneva; and, upon the recommendation of Lectius, was appointed secretary to the duke of Bouillon, which place he quitted with his usual precipitation, and was at Francfort in 1603, and had a settlement at Forsteg in 1604. In 1605 he lived at Bischoffsel; where he complained of not being safe on the score of his religion, which rendered him odious even to his relations. He was at Francfort in 1606, where he married, and continued till 1610, in very bad circumstances. Little more is known of his history, unless that he lost his wife in 1630, and died himself Aug. 11, 1635. He appears to have been a man of capricious temper, and some have attributed to him a want of integrity. The greatest part of the writings published by Goldast are compilations arranged in form, or published from Mss. in libraries; and by their number he may be pronounced a man of indefatigable labour. Conringius says he has deserved so well of his country by publishing the ancient monuments of Germany, that undoubtedly the Athenians would have maintained him in the Prytaneum, if he had lived in those times; and adds, that he neither had, nor perhaps ever will have, an equal in illustrating the affairs of Germany, and the public law of the empire. The following are the most considerable among his various works: A collection of different tracts on civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, entitled “Monarcbia Sancti Romani Imperii*” &c. 1611, 1613, and 1614, 3 vols. fol. “Alamaniae Scriptores,” 1730, 5 vols. fol.; “Scriptores aliquot rerum Suevlearum,” 1605, 4to; “Commentarius de Bohemise regno,” 4to “Informatio de statu Bohemia3 quoad jus,” 4to “Sybilla Francica,” 4to which is a collection of pieces relating to the Maid of Orleans “Paraeneticorum veterum pars prima,” 1604, 4to. A curious collection of letters was published in 1688, under the title “Virorum clarissimorum ad Melchior Goldastum Epistolae,” 4to, Francfort.

, an eminent poet and miscellaneous writer, was born on Nov. 29, 1728, at a place called Pallas, in the parish of Forney and county of Longford in Ireland. His father, the rev. Charles Goldsmith, a native of the county of Roscommon, was a clergyman of the established church, and had been educated at Dublin college. He afterwards held the living of Kilkenny West in the county of Westmeath. By his wife, Anne, the daughter of the rev. Oliver Jones, master of the diocesan school of Elphin, he had five sons, and two daughters. His eldest son, Henry, went into the church, and is the gentleman to whom our poet dedicated his “Traveller.” Oliver was the second son, and is supposed to have faithfully represented his father in the character of the Village Preacher in the “Deserted Village.” Oliver was originally intended for some mercantile employment, as his father found his income too scanty for the expences of the literary education which he had bestowed on his eldest son. With this view he was instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, at a common school, the master of which was an old soldier, of a romantic turn, who entertained his pupil with marvellous stories of his travels and feats, and is supposed to have imparted somewhat of that wandering and unsettled turn which so much appeared in his pupil’s future life. It is certain that Oliver had not been long at this humble school before he proved that he was “no vulgar boy.” He made some attempts in poetry when he was scarcely eight years old, and by the inequalities of his temper and conduct, betrayed a disposition more favourable io the flights of genius than the regularity of business. This after some time became so obvious, that his frfends, who had at first pleaded for his being sent to the university, now determined to contribute towards the expence, and by their assistance, he was placed at a school of reputation, where he might be qualified to enter the college with the advantages of preparatory learning.

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

, a German antiquary, was born at Venloo, in the duchy of Gueldres, in 1526. His father was a painter, and he was himself bred up in this art, learning the principles of it from Lambert Lombard; but he seems to have quitted the pencil early in life, having a particular turn to antiquity, and especially to the study of medals, to which he entirely devoted himself. He considered medals as the very foundation of true history; and travelled through France, Germany, and Italy, in order to make collections, and to“draw from them what lights he could. His reputation was so high in this respect, that the cabinets of the curious were every where open to him; and on the same account he was honoured with the freedom of the city of Rome in Io67. He was the author of several excellent works, in all which he applies medals to the illustration of ancient history, and for the greater accuracy, had them printed in his own house, and corrected them himself. He also engraved the plates for the medals with his own hands. Accordingly, his books were admired all over Europe, and thought an ornament to any library; and succeeding antiquaries have bestowed the highest praises upon them. Lipsius, speaking of the” Fasti Consulares,“says, that” he knows not which to admire most, his diligence in seeking so many coins, his happiness in finding, or his skill in engraving them." Some, however, have said that although his works abound with erudition, they must be read with some caution. The fact seems to be, that all his works have many coins not yet found in cabinets, because his own collection was unfortunately lost, yet the medals which he describes, and which were once looked upon as fictitious, are yearly found really existent, and of undoubted antiquity. A French writer compares him to Pliny the natural historian, who was thought to deal much in falsehood, till time drew the truth out of the well; so that as knowledge advances, most of his wonders acquire gradual confirmation. Yet it is certain that he was often imposed upon, and the caution above given is not unnecessary. His coins of the Roman tyrants, for instance, are clearly false; for they bear Pren. and Cog. on the exergue, which marks never occur on the real coins. It has been also said that many errors of this nature must be committed by a man, whose love and veneration for Roman antiquities was such, that he gave to all his children Roman names, such as Julius, Marcellus, &c. so that he might easily receive for antiques what were not so, out of pure fondness for any thing of that kind. Upon this principle, it is probable, that he took, for his second wife, the widow of the antiquary Martini us Smetius; whom he married more for the sake of Smetius 1 s medals and inscriptions than for any thing belonging to herself. She was his second wife, and a shrew, who made his latter days unhappy. He died at Bruges March 14, 1583.

, Sieurde, an ingenious French writer, was born at Chevreuse, in the diocese of Paris, or as some say in Paris itself, in 1599. He was early distinguished by some successful publications which had given him a literary reputation, and made him be enrolled among the number assembled by cardinal Richelieu for the purpose of founding the French academy in 1635. His first publications were romances and works of a light nature, but at the age of forty-five he formed the resolution of consecrating his pen to religion, and adopted a penitentiary course of life, which some think was more strict at the commencement than at the termination of it. He died June 14, 1674. One of the most curious of his works, “La doctrine des Mceurs, tiree de la philosophic des Stoiques, representee en cent tableaux,” 1646, fol. is perhaps now more admired for the plates than for the letterpress. They are engraved by Peter Daret from designs by Otho V emius. In this work Gornberville assumes the disguised name of Thalassius Basilides (Marin le Roi) His romances were il Cariti'e,“” Polexandre,“” Cytherea,“and” La jeune Alcidiane,“published in 1733 by madame Gomez, who says that Gomberville left merely an outline of it. His other works were, 1.” Relation de la riviere des Amazones,“1632, 2 vols. 12mo. 2.” Memoires de Louis de Gonzague, due de Nevers,“1665, 2 vols. fol. 3.” Discours des vertus et des vices de Phistoire," 1620, 4to, and various pieces of sacred poetry, &c.

, a native of Scotland, and onc distinguished by his party writings on political and religious subjects, was born at Kircudbright in Galloway, about th fend of the seventeenth century. He had an university education, and went through the common course of aca* demical studies; but whether at Aberdeen or St. Andrew’s is uncertain. When a young man he came to London, and at first supported himself by teaching the languages, but afterwards commenced party writer, and was employed by the earl of Oxford in queen Anne’s time; but we know not in what capacity. He first distinguished himself in the Bangorian controversy by two pamphlets in defence of Hoadly, which recommended him to Mr. Tjrenchard, an author of the same stamp, who took him into his house, at first as his amanuensis, and afterwards into partnership, as an author. In 1720, they began to publish, in conjunction, a series of letters, under the name of “Cato,” upon various and important subjects relating to the public. About the same time they published another periodical paper, under the title of “The Independent Whig,” which was continued some years after Trenchard’s death by Gordon alone. The same spirit which appears, with more decent language, in Cato’s letters against the administration in the state, shews itself in this work in much more glaring colours against the hierarchy in the church. It is, in truth, a gross and indecent libel on the established religion, which, however, Gordon was admirably qualified to write, as he had no religion of his own to check his intemperate sallies. After Trenchard’s death, the minister, sir Robert Walpole, knowing his popular talents, took him into pay to defend his measures, for which end he wrote several pamphlets. At the time of his death, July 28, 1750, he was first commissioner of the wine-licences, an office which he had enjoyed many years, and which diminished his patriotism surprisingly. He was twice married. His second wife was the widow of his friend Trenchard by whom he had children, and who survived him. Two collections of his tracts have been preserved the first entitled, “A Cordial for Low-spirits,” in three volumes; and the second, “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken,” in two volumes. But these, like many other posthumous pieces, had better have been suppressed. His translations of Sallust and Tacitus, now, perhaps, contribute more to preserve his name, although without conferring much reputation on it. His Tacitus appeared in 2 vols. fol. in 1728, with discourses taken from foreign commentators and translators of that historian. Sir Robert Walpole patronised a subscription for the work, which was very successful; but no classic was perhaps ever so miserably mangled. His style is extremely vulgar, yet affected, and abounds with abrupt and inharmonious periods, totally destitute of any resemblance to the original, while the translator fancied he was giving a correct imitation.

, a heraldic writer, was born of an ancient family at Alderton, in Wiltshire, in 1631, and was educated at Magdalen college, Oxford. Thence he went to Lincoln’s-inn, but probably with no serious purpose to study the law, as he retired afterwards to his patrimony at Alderton. Here his property entitled him to the honour of being appointed high sheriff of Wiltshire in 1680, at which time some unjust aspersions on his character induced him to write a defence entitled “Loyalty displayed, and falsehood unmasked,” &c. Lond. 1681, 4to. He died March 31, 1684, at Alderton, leaving a variety of curious Mss. and printed collections on his favourite study of heraldry. His publications were, 1. “A Table shewing how to blazon a coat ten several ways,” 1655, a single sheet copied from Feme. 2. “Series Alphabetica, LatinoAnglica, Nomina Gentilitiorum, sive cognominum plurimarum familiarum, quse multos per annos in Anglia floruere,” Oxon. 1667, 8vo. A copy of this rare book is in the British Museum. 3. “Catalogus in certa capita, seu Classes, alphabetico ordine concinnatusj, plerorumque omnium Authorum (tarn antiquorum quam recentiorum) qui de re Heraldica, Latine, Gallice, Ital. Hisp. &c. scripserunt,” Ox. 1C68, reprinted with enlargements, 1674. 4. “Nomenclator geographicus,” &c. Ox. 1667, 8vo.

, an Italian poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Rome in 1525, where he pursued his studies in the house of the cardinal de Santa Fiora, but in his seventeenth year was taken into the service of Ferdinand Gonzaga, then viceroy of Sicily, and governor of Milan, to which city he accompanied that nobleman in 1546, and became his secretary. He was afterwards taken to the court of Spain, where he obtained the esteem and favour of Philip II. Under the duke of Albuquerque he was imprisoned on a charge of conspiracy against the life of John Baptist Monti, but vindicated his own cause, and was not only released, but admitted to public employment under the succeeding governors of Milan. He died Feb. 12, 1587, leaving behind him several works, that obtained for him high reputation; of these the principal are, “The Life of Ferdinand Gonzaga,” 1579, 4to. “Three Conspiracies,” &c. 1588, 8vo. “Rime,” or a collection of poems, several times reprinted. “Discourses.” “Letters,” &c. and he translated into Italian a French work entitled “A true account of things that have happened in the Netherlands, since the arrival of Don Juan of Austria.”

, a protestant divine, and voluminous writer, was born at Senlis, Oct. 20, 1543, and studied divinity at Geneva, where he was ordained in October 1566, and was appointed one of the ministers of that city, a situation which he filled for the long space of sixtytwo years. His residence at Geneva was never discontinued but on account of three journies he took to France, on matters relating to the protestant churches, the one in 1576, when he went to Forez; the second in 1582, to Champagne, and the third in 1600, to Grenoble. The rest of his life he devoted to his pastoral duties, and to his numerous works, which prove him one of the most indefatigable writers of his time. He died Feb. 3, 1628, in his eighty-fifth year, and in full possession of his faculties. He preached but seven days before his death. Scaliger, who had a great esteem for him, says he was an ingenious man, who learnt all he knew without the assistance of a master.

, a French writer of some note, was the son of Nicholas Goulu, royal professor of Greek in the university of Paris, in 1567, and author of a translation from Greek into Latin of Gregentius’s dispute with the Jew Herbanus, which De Noailles, the French ambassador, had brought from Constantinople, and of other works, a collection of which was printed at Paris in 1580. His son was born at Paris Aug. 25, 1576, and educated for the bar; but, having failed in the first cause he pleaded, he felt the disappointment so acutely as to relinquish the profession, and retire into a convent. He chose the order of the Feuillans, and entered amongst them in 1604. He was so much esteemed in his order that he always enjoyed some office in it, and was at last made general. The name he took when he became a monk, was Dom John of St. Francis. As he understood the Greek tongue, he translated into French Epictetus’s Manual, Arrian’s Dissertations, some of St. Basil’s treatises, and the works of Dionysius Areopagita; to which he added a vindication of this St. Dionysius’s works. He also revised his father’s Latin translation of St. Gregory Nyssen against Eunomius, and published it. He also wrote a book against Du Moulin’s treatise of the calling of pastors, “De la Vocation des Pasteurs” the Life of Francis de Sales, bishop of Geneva; and a Funeral Oration on Nicholas le Fevre, preceptor to Lewis XIII.; but it is said that he never delivered it. He did not, however, gain so great reputation by all those writings as by his angry controversy with Balzac, already noticed in our account of that writer. Goulu died Jan. 5, 1629.

But whatever truth may be in all this, the letter was an unwise and hasty production, written in the moment of the strongest irritation. The review appeared in December, and the letter in January. There was no time to cool, and perhaps no opportunity of consulting his friends, who could have told him that nothing was to be gained by an exchange of personalities with Smollett. The latter required no great length of time or consideration to prepare an answer, which appeared accordingly in the review for February, and in which every insinuation or accusation is introduced that could tend to lessen Dr. Grainger in the eyes of the public, both as a writer and as a man. But the objections which Grainger took are by no means satisfactorily answered, and the review is still liable to the suspicion of partiality. No reader of candour or of taste can peruse the Translation, without allowing that the author deserved praise, not only for the attempt, but for the elegant manner in which he has in general transmitted the tender sentiments of Tibullus into our language. But this the Reviewer has wholly overlooked, confining himself to the censure of a few defects, part of which he has not proved to be so, and part were typographical errors.

, a French historical writer, was born Feb. 6, 1653, at St. Lo, in Normandy. After studying philosophy at Caen, he entered into the congregation of the oratory in 1671, where he applied to the belles lettres and theology, but quitted it in 1676, and went to Paris, where he engaged in the education of two young men of rank, the marquis de Vins, and the duke cTEstrees, and at the same time applied himself to the study of history under the direction of father Le Cointe, who formed a very high opinion of him. He first appeared as a writer in 1688, in “A History of the Divorce of Henry VIII. and Catharine of Arragon,” in three vols. 12mo. The main object of this work is to refute certain facts and arguments contained in the first two books of Burnet’s History of the Reformation. In 1685, when Burnet was at Paris, he had an interview with Le Grand in the presence of Messrs. Thevenot and Auzout, in which the latter proposed his doubts, and the former answered them, both preserving a tone of elegance and mutual respect. The publication of the above work, however, produced a controversy, in the course of which, in 1691, Le Grand addressed three letters to the bishop, to which he replied. How long the controversy might have continued is uncertain, as Le Grand was necessarily diverted from it in 1692, when he received the appointment of secretary to the abbe d'Estrees, in his embassy to Portugal. In this situation he continued till 1697. The leisure which his diplomatic functions allowed was employed in translations of voyages and travels from the Portuguese. In 1702 he accompanied the same minister in Spain, where he remained about two years as secretary. Soon after this, the marquis de Torci, minister of state, took him into his service, and employed his pen in drawing up several memorials concerning the Spanish monarchy, and other political topics, in which he acquitted himself with great ability, but most of them were printed without his name. He employed much of his time in writing a life of Louis XL; but, although this was quite finished in 1728, it still remains in manuscript. In that year, however, hepublished his translation of Lobo’s History of Abyssinia, with many additions; and about the same time his treatise “De la succession a la Couroune de France.” He died of an apoplectic stroke, April 30, 1733. He had been possessed of church preferment, and had held, for a time, the office of censor royal of books.

, an English divine and miscellaneous writer, was a younger son of Richard Graves, esq. of Mickleton, in Gloucestershire, where he was born in 1715. His father, who was an able antiquary, died in 1729. His son, Richard, was educated partly at home, under the rev. Mr.Smith, curate of the parish in which his father resided, and partly at a public school at Abingdon, in Berkshire, whence, at the age of sixteen, he was chosen a scholar of Pembroke college, Oxford. Soon after his arrival he joined a party of young men who met in the evening to read Epictetus, Theophrastus, and other Greek authors, seldom read at schools; and a short time after became the associate of his contemporaries, Shenstone the poet, and Anthony Whistler, who used to meet to read poetry, plays, and other light works. In 1736 he was elected a fellow of All Souls college, where he acquired the particular intimacy of sir William Blackstone; but instead of pursuing the study of divinity, according to his original intention, he now devoted his attention to physic, and attended in London two courses of anatomy. A severe illness, however, induced him to resume the study of divinity, and in 1740, after taking his master’s degree, he entered into holy orders. About the same time he removed with Mr. Fitzherbert, fatlier of lord St. Helen’s, to the estate of that gentleman at Tissington, in Derbyshire, where he remained three years enjoying in his house the highest pleasures of refined society. At the end of that period, he set off‘ to make the tour of the north, and while at Scarborough, accidentally met with a distant relation, Dr. Samuel Knight, archdeacon of Berkshire, and the author of the Lives of Colet and Erasmus, by whose recommendation he obtained a curacy near Oxford. This was particularly gratifying to Mr. Graves, who was then coming, by turn, into office in the college, and had been for some time desirous of procuring such a situation. He immediately took possession of his curacy, but as the parsonage-house was out of repair, he took a lodging with a gentleman -farmer in the neighbourhood. The attractions of the farmer’s youngest daughter made such a powerful impression on the heart of Mr. Graves that he resigned his fellowship and married her. After residing about two years on his curacy, he was presented by Mr. Skrine to the rectory of Claverton, where he went to reside in 1750, and till his death, was never absent from it a month at a time. As the narrowness of his circumstances obliged him to superintend in person the education of his children, he likewise -resolved to take other pupils under his tuition; and this practice he continued, with great credit to himself, upwards of thirty years. In 1763, through the interest of Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior-Park, he was presented to the living of Kilmersdon, in addition to tbat of Claverton, and that gentleman likewise procured him the appointment of chaplain to lady Chatham. His conversation was rendered highly agreeable by that epigrammatic turn which points his writings of the lighter kind. His constant good humour rendered him an acceptable companion in every society, his colloquial impromptus being frequently as happy as the jeux d’e^prit of his pen, while both were invariably the unmeditated effusions of a sportive fancy and guileless heart. He died at Claverton, Nov. 23, 1804, at the advanced age of ninety.

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

As a writer, Gregory of St. Vincent was very diffuse and voluminous, but he was an excellent geometrician. He published, in Latin, three mathematical works, the principal of which was his “Opus Geometricum Quadratures Circuli, et Sectionum Coni,” Antwerp, 1647, 2 vols. folio. Although he has not demonstrated, in this work, the quadrature of the circle, as he pretends to have done, the book nevertheless contains a great number of truths and important discoveries; one of which is this, viz. thai if one asymptote of an hyperbola be divided into parts in geometrical progression, and from the points of division ordinates be drawn parallel to the other asymptote, they will divide the space between the asymptote and curve into equal portions; from whence it was shewn by Mersenne, that, by taking the continual sums of those parts, there would be obtained areas in arithmetical progression, adapted to abscisses in geometrical progression, and which therefore were analogous to a system of logarithms.

, D. D. a divine and miscellanebus writer, was descended from a family, originally from Scotland, but a branch of which was settled in Ireland. His father, who had been educated in Trinity college, Dublin, held, at the time of his son’s birth, the living of Edernin, and a prebend in the cathedral of Ferns. Dr. Gregory was born April 14, 1754, and after his father’s death in 1766, was removed to Liverpool, where his mother fixed her residence. He passed some time under the tuition of an excellent schoolmaster of the name of Holder), by whom he was much distinguished for his proficiency in learning. As it was his mother’s desire that he should be brought up to commerce, he spent some years in mercantile employments; but a taste for literature, which continued to be his ruling propensity, produced a final determination in favour of a learned profession. Although the regular process of education for this purpose had been interrupted, the intervening variety of pursuit and observation proved the foundation of a great store of information relative to the arts and sciences, to commerce, manufactures, and political institutions, that was very useful in his subsequent compilations. When his destination was fixed, he passed an interval of study at the university of Edinburgh, and in 1776 entered into holy orders. He first officiated as a curate at Liverpool, where he distinguished himself as a preacher, and wrote some occasional pieces in the periodical journals and magazines, particularly against the slave trade, which he had the spirit to attack in the principal seat of that traffic. In 1782 he removed to London, and obtained the curacy of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, in which parish he became very popular, both in that capacity and afterwards as their morningpreacher. His other London preferments, if they may be so called, were the curacy and lectureship of St. Botolph’s, the lectureship of St. Lute’s, one of the weekly lectureships of St. Antholin’s, and a small prehend in St. Paul’s, which he relinquished for the rectory of Stapleford in Hertfordshire. He was also some time one of the evening preachers at the Foundling hospital. In 1804 he was presented by Mr. Addington, now lord Sidmbuth, to the valuable living of West Ham in Essex, where in a little time the powers of his constitution, although apparently a strong one, suddenly gave way, and he died, after a short confinement, March 12, 1808.

, lord Brooke, an ingenious writer, was the eldest son of sir Fulk Greville, of Beauchamp-court (at Alcaster) in Warwickshire, and born there in 1554. It is conjectured, that he was educated at the school in Shrewsbury; whence he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted a fellow-commoner at Trinitycollege; and some time after, making a visit to Oxford, he became a member of that university, but of what college is not certain. Having completed his academical studies, he travelled abroad to finish his education and Upon his return, being well accomplished, was introduced to the court of queen Elizabeth by his uncle Robert Greville, where he was esteemed a most ingenious person, and particularly favoured by the lovers of arts and sciences. He was soon nominated to some beneficial employment in the court of marches of Wales by his kinsman, sir Henry Sidney, then lord-president of that court and principality.

, LL. D. an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was of a Yorkshire family, originally from France. He was born in 1687, and was admitted a pensioner in Jesus college, Cambridge, April 18, 1704, but afterwards removed to Trinity-ball, where he was admitted scholar of the house, Jan. 6, 1706-7; LL. B. 1709 LL. D. 1720; and though he was never fellow of that college, he was elected one of the trustees for Mr. Ayloffe’s benefaction to it. He was rector of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire: and vicar of St. Peter’s and St. Giles’s parishes in Cambridge, where he usually passed the winter, and the rest of his time at Ampthill, the neighbouring market-town to his living. He died Nov. 25, 1766, at Ampthill, and was buried at Houghton Conquest. Very little of his history has descended to us. How he spent his life will appear by a list of his works. He is said to have been of a most amiable, sweet, and communicative disposition; most friendly to his acquaintance, and never better pleased than when performing acts of friendship and benevolence. Being in the commission of the peace, and a man of reputable character, he was much courted for his interest in elections. He was not, however, very active on those occasions, preferring literary retirement. His works were, 1. “A Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to Mr. Pearce’s Vindication of the Dis^ senters; by a Presbyter of the Church of England.” 1720, 8vo. 2. “Presbyterian Prejudice displayed,” 1722, 8vo. 3. “A pair of clean Shoes and Boots for a Dirty Baronet; or an answer to Sir Richard Cox,” 1722. 4. “The Knight of Dumbleton foiled at his own weapons, &c. In a Letter to Sir Richard Cocks, knt. By a Gentleman and no Knight,” 1723. 5. “A Century of eminent Presbyterians: or a Collection of Choice Sayings, from the public sermons before the two houses, from Nov. 1641 to Jan. 31, 1648, the day after the king was beheaded. By a Lover of Episcopacy,” 1723, 6. “A Letter of Thanks to Mr. Benjamin Bennet,” 1723. This Bennet published “A memorial of the Reformation,” full of gross prejudices against the established church, and “A defence of it.” 7. “A Caveat against Mr. Benj. Bennet, a mere pretender to history and criticism. By a lover of history,” 1724, 8vo. 8. “A Defence of our ancient and modern Historians against the frivolous cavils of a late pretender to. Critical History, in which the false quotations smd unjust inferences of the anonymous author are confuted and exposed in the manner they deserve, la two parts,” 1725, 4vo. In reply, Oldmixon, the critical historian alluded to, published “A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern historians. Wherein, instead of dwelling upon his frivolous cavils, false quotations, unjust inferences, &c it is proved (to his glory be it spoken) that there is not a book in the English tongue, which contains so many falsehoods in so many pages. Nori vitiosus homo es, Zachary, sed vitium. By the author,” &c. y. “An Appendix by way of Answer to the Critical Historian’s Review,” 1725. 10. * f A Looking-glass for Fanatics, or the true picture of Fanaticism; by a gentleman of the university of Cambridge,“1725. 11.” The Ministry of the Dissenters proved to be null and void from Scripture and antiquity,“1725. 12. In 1732 he wrote a preface to his relation dean Moss’s sermons,” by a learned hand.“Mr. Masters in his history of C. C. C. C. ascribes this to Dr. Snape, who might perhaps have been editor of the sermons, but it was written by Dr. Grey. 13.” The spirit of Infidelity detected, in answer to Barbeyrac, with a defence of Dr. Waterland,“1735, 8vo. 14.” English Presbyterian eloquence. By an admirer of monarchy and episcopacy,“1736, 8vo. 15.” Examination of Dr. Chandler’s History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 16.” The true picture of Quakerism,“1736. 17.” Caveat against the Dissenters,“1736, 8vo. 18.” An impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans,“1736, 8vo. The first volume of Neal had been examined by Dr. Madox, assisted in some degree by Dr. Grey, who published his examination of the third volume in 1737, and that of the fourth in 1739. J 9.” An examination of the fourteenth chapter of Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel,“1736, 8vo. This is in answer to sir Isaac’s notion of the rise of Saintworship. 20.” An attempt towards the character of the Royal Martyr, king Charles I.; from authentic vouchers,“1738. 21.” Schismatics delineated from authentic vouchers, in reply to Neal, with Dowsing' s Journal, &c. By Philalethes Cantabrigiensis,“1739, 8vo. 22.” The Quakers and Methodists compared,“&c. 1740. 23.” A Review of Mr. Daniel Neil’s History of the Puritans, with a Postscript. In a letter to Mr. David Jennings;“a pamphlet, Cambridge, 174-4. 24.” Hudibras with large annotations, and a prelate,“&c. 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. 2b.” A serious address to Lay Methodists: by a sincere Protestant,“1745, 8vo. 27.” Popery in its proper colours, with a list of Saints invocated in England before the Reformation,“17, 8vo. 28,” Remarks upon a late edition of Shakspeare, with a long string of emendations borrowed by the celebrated editor from the Oxford edition without acknowledgement. To which is prefixed, a Defence of the late sir Thomas Hanmer, bart. addressed to the rev. Mr. Warburton, preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn,“8vo, no date, but about 1745. 29.” A word or two of Advice to William Warburton, a dealer in many words; by a friend. With an Appendix, containing a taste of William’s Spirit of Railing,“1746, 8vo. 30.” A free and familiar Letter to that great refiner of Pope and Shakspeare, the rev. William Warburton, preacher at Lincoln’s-Inn. With Remarks upon the epistle of friend W. E. (query if not T. E. i. e. Thomas Edwards). In which his unhandsome treatment of this celebrated writer is exposed in the manner it deserves. By a Country Curate,“1750, 8vo, 31.” A Supplement to Hudibras,“1752, 8vo. 32.” Critical, historical, and explanatory notes on Shakspeare, with emendations on the text and metre,“1755, 2 vols. 8vo. 33.” Chronological account of Earthquakes,“1757, 8vo. In 1756 he assisted iVIr. Whalley in his edition of Shakspeare; he had also contributed to Mr. Peck’s” Desiderata,“and” Life of Cromwell," and collected some materials for a Life of Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, which were afterwards enlarged and published by the rev. Robert Masters. Dr. Grey left some other Mss. and a collection of letters, now in Mr. Nichols’s possession.

The above attack by Warburton produced, from Dr. Grey, the pamphlets mentioned above, No. 28, 29, and 30, in which there is much of the grossness as well as the acuteness of the controversial spirit. Warburton’s conduct, however, appears wanton and unprovoked, for he not only was at one time on good terms with Grey, and had himself some thoughts of illustrating Hudibras, but had actually supplied Grey with the result of his own inquiries, and was therefore a contributor to “so execrable an heap of nonsense;” for which Grey makes very grateful acknowledgment in his preface. To account for Warburton’s contempt for a commentator whom he had thus assisted, and for a plan which he meant to have executed (perhaps as he executed his plan on Shakspeare), we are inclined to prefer the conjeeture of a gentleman whom extensive reading, reflection, and taste have constituted an able umpire in literary quarrels. Mr. D'Israeli thinks that V/arburton’s motive was jealousy, and that “though he had naif reluctantly yielded the few notes he had prepared, his proud heart sickened when he beheld the amazing subscription Grey obtained for his first edition of Hudibras he received for that work 1500l. a proof that J;his publication was felt as a want by the public.” Grey, “however, may be entitled to a higher merit than that of gratifying the public taste by his edition of Hudibras. He was unquestionably the founder of that species of commentary which has since been so successfully employed in illustrating Shakspeare, by bringing together all the information, the contemporary writing, and the style, manners, prejudices, and peculiarities of the age, however distant, in which the author to be explained wrote. And although this example has been followed, perhaps in some instances, to a degree of minuteness that exposes the commentator to the ridicule of the wits, and although it must be allowed that some of the Shakspeare commentators have” bestowed all their tediousness“upon us with a too liberal hand, yet it cannot be controverted, that they have pursued the only just and legitimate process for elucidating the writings of distant ages. The merit of this example, therefore, is due to Grey, and is that on which his fame as a writer and literary antiquary will rest, long after his other publications, with the exception perhaps of his Examinations of Neal, are forgotten. He had also made some progress in an edition of Shakspeare upon the plan of his Hudibras, which we presume his advanced age prevented his completing. What he had collected, however, appeared in his” Critical, historical, and explanatory notes“above-mentioned. Of this work Dr. Johnson says that” what Dr. Grey undertook he has well enough performed, but as he neither attempts judicial nor emendatory criticism, he employs rather his memory than his sagacity;“and he adds,” It were to be wished that all would endeavour to imitate his modesty, who have not been able to surpass his knowledge?."

, a French writer of considerable reputation, was born October 9, 1698, at Moulins. He entered early among the Jesuits at Paris, was professor of belles lettres in the college of Louis le Grand, and distinguished himself afterwards in the pulpit. On the dissolution of his order, he retired to Brussels, where he died of a nephritic cholic, February 22, 1775. His works are, 1. An edition of Daniel’s “History of France,” Paris, 1756, 17 vols. 4to, in which the reign of Louis XIII. occupying three volumes, is entirely his own. 2. “Traité des differentes sortes de preuves qui servent à etablir la verite de l'Histoire,” Liege, 1769, 12mo, a very judicious performance. 3. “Sermons,” Liege, 1767, 4 vols. 8vo, not remarkable for spirit or eloquence. 4. Several pious works, among which the most popular is his “Anneé du Chretien,” Paris, 1747, 18 vols. 12mo. 5. “Latin Poems,” written at college, of indifferent character. 6. An improved edition of‘ D’Avrigny’s Memoirs, 1757, 5 vols. 12mo. 7. “Insuffisance de la religion naturelle,” Liege, 2 vols. 12mo. 8. An enlarged edition of the “Delices des Pays Bas,” Liege, 1769, 5 vols. 12mo.

, a lady once of some note a a writer of novels and plays, whose maiden name was Griffith, was of Welch descent, and early in life married Richard Griffith, a gentleman of a good family, but reduced fortune, in Ireland. The first performance by which she became known was entitled “The Letters of Henry and Frances,” which are said to contain the genuine correspondence between her and her husband before their marriage, and for some years after. They were published at the particular request of Margaret countess of Cork, who was one of her friends, and privy to her connexion with Mr. Griffith, which was at first kept secret. From these letters, a few particulars of the private history of the parties may be collected. Mr. Griffith appears to have received no regular education, although in his youth he had evinced some talents for poetry; he introduced himself, however, by degrees into “the genteelest and most reputable company;” but tired of a city life, passed several years with a relation in the country of Ireland, where he read, learned French, and “studied husbandry philosophically.” He then engaged in a farm and the linen manufacture; and about 1760 appears to have received a place from the duke of Bedford, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland. His acquaintance with Mrs. Griffith was accidental, and commenced on his parr, to use his own phrase, “as an act of gallantry” but rinding “no probability of success,” a strange declaration and being enafrioured with her writings, conversation, and character, became, at last, a real and honourable lover, but declined matrimony for several years, as she had no fortune, and his expectations from his father were much larger than they were likely to turn out. At length, however, they married, about the year 1752; and their first publication was this correspondence, published by subscription, and not very successful with any class of readers, not even the sentimentalists, for whom it was chiefly calculated. Some of the letters, however, are of a superior cast, and contain many sensible remarks on books, men, and manners. Their next publication, which was also written in conjunction, was “Two Novels, in Letters, 4 vols. the first and second, entitled Delicate Distress, by Frances the third and fourth, entitled the Gordian Knot, by Henry,” 1769, 12mo. Both these are of a strict moral tendency; but, like the correspondence of the authors, too much tinged with the pedantry of quotation and philosophizing, instead of natural description and feeling. Previously to this, Mr. Griffith had published in 1764, “The Triumvirate; or the authentic Memoirs of A. B. and C.” 2 vols. 12mo, a novel of so Joose a kind, that even his wife could not venture to recommend it to the fair sex, and yet adds her opinion that “every gentleman will read it with pleasure, and I trust without any injury to his morals.” Of Mr. Griffith’s performances we hear no more, nor have been able to ascertain the time of his death. Mrs. Griffith’s other novels were “Lady Barton,” and “Juliana HarJey.” She also wrote some dramas which had various success, but none of them have preserved their station on the stage. One of her most agreeable publications svas “The Morality of Shakspeare’s Drama illustrated,” 1775, 8vo. She published also some translations, “The Adventures of Pierre Viaud,” and the “Letters of Ninon de L'Enclos,” c. She died Jan. 3, 1793, at Millecenr, in the county of Kildare. She was unquestionably a woman of considerable literary talents, but does not appear to have found in her lover and husband the judgment which could give them a proper direction. Nor did he contribute much to bar happiness in his latter days. He had long accustomed himself to the cant of sentiment, which is too frequently mistaken for genuine moral feeling. When in his grand climacteric, he seduced a girl of fortune and consequence, with whom he lived the reminder of his days. The libehine notions in his “ Triumvirate” appear to have been more predominant sense he affected to entertain of pure morals in his “Letters.”

, a poet of considerable rank in his time, was a native of Huntingdonshire, and received the first part of his academical education at Christ’s college in Cambridge, where he became B. A. in 1539 or 1540. Removing to Oxford in 1542, he was elected fellow of Merton college; but, about 1547, having opened a rhetorical lecture in the refectory of Christ church, then newly founded, he was transplanted to that society, which gave the greatest encouragement to such students as were distinguished for their proficiency in criticism and philology. The same year he wrote a Latin tragedy, which probably was acted in the college, entitled “Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista,” dedicated to the dean, Richard Cox, and printed Colon. 1548, 8vo. In 1548, he explained all the four books of Virgil’s Georgics in a regular prose Latin paraphrase, in the public hall of his college, which was printed at London in 1591, 8vo. He wrote also explanatory commentaries, or lectures, on the <c Andria“of Terence, the Epistles of Horace, and many pieces of Cicero, perhaps for the same auditory. He translated Tully’s Offices into English, which he dedicated to the learned Thirlby, bishop of Ely, printed at London, 1553, 8vo, and reprinted in 1574 and 1596. He also made translations from some of the Greek classics; but these, Mr. Warton thinks, were never published; among others was the” Cyropaedia.“Bale mentions some plays and poems, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to know whether they were in Latin or English. It is allowed, however, that he was the second English poet after lord Surrey who wrote in blank verse, and added to Surrey’s style new strength, elegance, and modulation. In the disposition and conduct of his cadences, says our poetical historian, he often approaches to the legitimate structure of the improved blank verse, although he is not quite free from those dissonancies and asperities, which in his time adhered to the general character and state of English diction. Both Mr. Warton and Mr. Ellis have given specimens of his poetry from” The Songes written by N. G.“annexed to the” Songes and Soanettes of uncertain Auctours“in TottelPs edition of lord Surrey’s Poems (reprinted in the late edition of the English poets). As a writer of verses in rhyme, Mr. Warton thinks that Grimbold yields to none of his contemporaries, for a masterly choice of chaste expression, and the concise elegancies of didactic versification; and adds that some of the couplets in his” Praise of Measure-keeping,“or moderation, have all the smartness which mark the modern style of sententious poetry, and would have done honour to Pope’s ethic epistles. It is supposed that he died about 1563. Wood and Tanner, and after them, Warton, are decidedly of opinion that he is the same person, called by Strype” one Grimbold," who was chaplain to bishop Ridley, and who was employed by that prelate while in prison, to translate into English Laurentius Valla’s book against the fiction of Constantine’s Donation, with some other popular Latin pieces against the papists. In Mary’s reign, it is said that he was imprisoned for heresy, and saved his life by recantation. This may be true of the Grimbold mentioned by Strype, but we doubt whether he be the same with our poet, who is mentioned in high terms by Bale, on account of his zeal for the reformed doctrines, without a syllable of his apostacy, which Bale must have known, and would not have concealed.

, a French antiquary and polite writer, was born at Troyes Nov. 18, 1718, and was educated in the profession of the law, but a decided turn for literary pursuits interrupted his legal studies, and induced him, in search of knowledge, to travel twice into Italy, twice into England, and once into Holland, besides passing a considerable part of every year at Paris, where he was received into the best company, but would never settle. His disposition appears to have been amiable and liberal, as when yet a youth he gave up a legacy of 40,000 livres in favour of his sister. At his own expence, too, he undertook to embellish the saloon of the town house of his native city, Troyes, with marble busts of the eminent natives of that city, executed by Vasse, the king’s sculptor; and the first put up were those of Pithou, le Comte, Passerat, Girardon, and Mignard. He died in that city, Nov. 4, 1785, being then an associate of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and a member of our royal society. His principal works are, 1. “Recherches pour Fhistoire du Droit Francois,” Paris, 1752, 12mo, a work highly esteemed. 2. “Vie de Pithou,” ibid. 1756, 2 vols. J2mo. 3. “Observations de deux gentil-hommes Stiedou sur l'Italie,” 1774, 4 vols. 12mo, a very lively work, and full of interesting anecdotes. 4. “Londres,” 1770, 3 vols. 12mo, of which nearly the same may be s;iid, although allowances must be made for the mistakes into which a foreigner is very liable to fall. It was translated in 1772, by Dr. Nugent, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Essais historiques sur la Champagne.” 6. “Ephemerides Troyennes,” continued for several years, and containing papers relative to the history of Troyes. He had also a part in the “Memoires de Pacademie de Troyes,” and in the last translation of Davila; and was an useful contributor to the “Journal Encyclopedique,” from 1771 to 17S5, and to the “Dictionnaire Historique.” A Life, written by himself, and some posthumous pieces, have been lately published,

For a list of his works, both published, which are but few, and unpublished, we must necessarily refer to Dr. Pegge-'s elaborate life of our prelate, where it occupies twenty-five closely printed pages in quarto. It is thought Grosseteste was the most voluminous writer of any Englishman, at least wrote more tracts, and on a greater variety of subjects, than any one. Archbishop Williams had once an intention of collecting them for publication; but as Dr. Pegge has very justly remarked, it is not much to be regretted that the design was not executed,when we consider the superior light and knowledge of our times, and how much better every thing is understood. His style is copious and verbose, and bordering frequently upon turgidity, abounding with uncouth words, which, though formed analogically, are yet new, and not very pleasing to a reader of the classics; but he expresses himself in general very intelligibly, particularly in his books “De Sphaera” and “De Cessatione Legalium.” He proceeds also in his compositions very methodically and perspicuously.

Grotius, having chosen the law for his profession, had taken an opportunity before he left France, to obtain a doctor’s degree in that faculty; and upon his return he attended the law-courts, and pleaded his first cause at Delft with universal applause, though he was scarcely seventeen; and he maintained the same reputation as lung as he continued at the bar. This employment, however, not filling up his whole time, he found leisure to publish the same year, 1599, another work, which discovered as much knowledge of the abstract sciences in particular as the former did of his learning in general. Stevin, mathematician to prince Maurice of Nassau, composed a small treatise for the instruction of pilots in finding a ship’s place at sea; in which he drew up a table of the variations of the needle, according to the observations of Plancius, a celebrated geographer, and added directions how to use it. Grotius translated into Latin this work, which prince Maurice had recommended to the college of admiralty, to be studied by all officers of the navy; and, because it might be equally useful to Venice, he dedicated his translation to that republic. In 1600, he published his “of Aratus,” which discovers a great knowledge in physics, and especially astronomy. The corrections he made in the Greek are esteemed very judicious: the notes shew that he had reviewed several of the rabhies, and had some knowledge of the Arabic tongue; and the verses he made to supply those of Cicero that were lost have been thought very happy ‘imitations of that writer’s style. In the midst of these profound studies, this extraordinary young man found time to cultivate the muses, and with such success, that he was esteemed one of the best Latin poets in Europe. The prosopopoeia, in which he makes the city of Ostend speak, after having been three years besieged by the Spaniards, was reckoned a masterpiece, and was translated intoJFrench by Du Vae’r, Rapin, Pasquier, and Malherbe; and Casanbon turned it into Greek. Neither did Grotius content himself with writing small pieces of verse; he rose to tragedy, of which he produced three specimens; the first, called “Adamus Exul,” was printed in Leyden, in 1601, with which, however, he became afterwards dissatisfied, and would not let it appear in the collection of hi* poems published by his brother. “Christus patiens,” his second tragedy, was printed at Leyden in 1608, and much approved: Casaubon greatly admires its poetical fire. Sandys translated it into English verse, and dedicated it to Charles I. It was favourably received in England, and in Germany proposed as the model of perfect tragedy. His third was the story of Joseph, and its title “Sophornphanceus,” which, in the language of Egypt, signifies the Saviour of the World; he finished this in 1633, and the following year, at Hamburgh.

It seems universally allowed that Grotius’s treatise “On the Truth of Christianity” is the most valuable of his theological writings. This has been translated into almost every European, and into some of the Eastern languages, and is still used at schools and universities as a text book. In English we have at least five translations of it. But the work on which his fame principally rests is his treatise “De Jure Belli ac Pacis,” in which he first reduced the law of nations to a system. It wns by the advice of lord Bacon and Peiresc that he undertook this arduous task. “Few works,” says an elegant modern writer, “were more celebrated than that of Grotius in his own days, and in the age which succeeded. It has, however, been the fashion of the last half century to depreciate his work as a shapeless compilation, in which reason lies buried under a mass of authorities and quotations. This fashion originated among French wits and declaimers, and it has been, I know not for what reason, adopted, though with far greater moderation and decency, by some respectable writers among ourselves. As to those who first used this language, the most candid supposition that we can make with respect to them is, that they never read the work; for, if they had not been deterred from the perusal of it by such a formidable display of Greek characters, they must soon have discovered that Grotius never quotes on any subject till he has first appealed to some principles, and often, in my humble opinion, though not always, to the soundest and most rational principles.

, a French writer who attained some share of reputation among the encyclopedists, was born at Paris June 6, 1738, in which city he died Feb. 26, 1812. His countrymen have as yels given us very little of his history, except that he was, either by talents or interest, advanced to be a member of the academies of Marseilles and Lyons, an associate of the Frencij institute, and a member of that of Auxerre. He was intimately connected with Beaumarehais, whom he often assisted with his pen, and passed for his secretary. In political sentiments he was a disciple of Rousseau, and eagerly promoted those opinions which led to the revolution. Besides three tragedies of no great merit, he published, i. “Graves observations stir les bonnes moeurs,” in poetical tales, published under the name of Frere Prul, Paris> 1777. 2. “Discours,” likewise in verse, o h abolition of slavery, Paris, 1781, in which he compli acnti Henry IV. as

, an elegant French writer, was born in 1641, at Paris, and admitted advocate to the parliament in that city, and although he seldom pleaded, was much consulted as a chamber counsel, in which rank he met with great success. He died April 22, 1688, at Paris. His principal works are, 1. “Les sept Sages de la Grcce.” 2. “Entretiens sur l'Eloquence de la Chaire et du Barreau.” 3. “Le Parnassus reforme.” 4. “La Guerre des Auteurs.” 5. “Le Journal du Palais,” a well-digested collection of the decrees of parliament, in the compilation of which he was assisted by Claude Blondeau, 1755, 2 vols. folio. 6. La Carte de'la Cour.“7.” La Promenade de St. Cloud, ou Dialogues sur les Auteurs,“a small work, but elegantly written, and full of wit; which the abbe” Joly, chanter of the chapel aux Riches at Dijon, having copied at the abbe L'Avocat’s house from the original ms. published without the abbe’s knowledge in the “Mcnioires historiques de Bruys.” M. Gueret published an edition of “Le Prester,” “Arrets notable du parlement,” with learned notes and additions, 1679, folio, &c. All his works discover an excellent taste, great penetration, and judicious criticism. Messrs. Gueret, doctors of the house and society of the Sorbonne, one curate of St. Paul, who died 1773, the other late grand vicar of lihodez, were sons of this celebrated author, and have supported their father’s reputation with distinction. The latter, named Lewis Gabriel, was author of a “Memoire sur l'Immunite du Clerge*,” 1751, 12mo; “Sur les Refus des Sacremens,” 1752, 12mo; “Sur le Droit qu'ont les Cures de commettre leur Vicaires, et les Confesseurs, dans leur Paroisses,” 1759, 12mo. He died 1759, aged eighty.

, a Spanish writer, was born in the province of Alaba, towards the end of the fifteenth century, and was brought up at court. After the death of Isabella, queen of Castile, he turned Franciscan monk, but afterwards having made himself known at court, became preacher and historiographer to Charles V. He was much admired for his politeness, eloquence, and great parts, but his preaching and conversation proved very superior to his writing. His style was found to be extravagantly figurative, and full of antitheses, but this was trifling, compared with his notions of writing history, and the liberty he took to, falsify whatever he pleased, and to advance as matter of fact the inventions of his own brain, and when censured for it, alleged by way of excuse, that no history, excepting the Holy Scripture, is certain enough to be credited. Being in the emperor’s retinue he had an opportunity of visiting a great part of Europe, an4 was made bishop of Guadix, in the kingdom of Granada, and then bishop of Mondonedo, in Galicia. He died in 1544, or 1548. He was the author of several works in Spanish, the most famous of which is his “Dial of Princes, or Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” which has been translated into all the languages of Europe. Vossius says it “has nothing in it of Antoninus, but is all a fiction, and the genuine offspring of Guevara himself, who scandalously imposes upon the reader, plainly against the duty of an honest man, but especially of a bishop. In the mean time he has many things not unuseful nor unpleasant, especially to a prince, whence it is entitled The Dial of Princes’.” Those who may be supposed to have spoken of Guevara in the most indulgent manner, have yet been forced to set him in a most scandalous light. “It deserves our pity rather than our censure,” says Nicolas Antonio, “that a writer of such fame should think himself at liberty to forge ancient facts, and to play with the history of the world, as with Æsop’s Fables or Lucian’s Monstrous Stories.” Among Guevara’s works must be ranked his “Epistles,” with which some have been so charmed, that they have not scrupled to call them Golden Epistles; but Montaigne says, “Whoever gave them this title, had a very different opinion of them from what I have, and perhaps saw more in them than I do.” Bayle had such a contempt for Guevara as an author, as to speak with surprize of “the eagerness of foreigners in translating some of his works into several languages.” Mr. Hay ley, however, remarks, that if we may judge of his personal character from his “Letters,” he appears to have been an amiable man. In one he reproves a female relation, with good nature, for intemperate sorrow on the death of a little dog and in another he draws the character of a true friend, with great energy of sentiment and expression. One of Guevara’s sayings, that heaven is filled with those that have done good works, and hell with those that have resolved to do them," has been, under a different form of expression, ascribed to other writers.

, a French writer on military affairs, was born at Montauban, Nov. 12, 1743. His father, who was a very intelligent officer, ook great pains in forming his son for the army, in which, Design he so perfectly succeeded, that at the school at which young Guibert was placed, his name was honourably quoted as an example to others, long after he left it. At the age of thirteen he followed his father to the field, and served six campaigns in the German war; three as a captain in the regiment d'Auvergne, and the three other upon the staff, where he gave frequent proofs of his judgment and spirit. After the peace in 1763, he assiduously devoted himself to the study of the theory of his profession till the expedition to Corsica took place, where he obtained the rank of colonel for his services in the action of Ponte Nuovo, and at the end of the campaign was rewarded with the cross of St. Louis. In 1770, two years after his return to France, he published his celebrated “Essai general de Tactique,” a work which though known and admired over all Europe, drew upon its author the envy too often attendant on merit, which embittered a great part of his days. But his pride disdaining to answer his enemies, as much as his mild spirit disliked controversy, he therefore determined to travel, and leave his work to answer for itself. So says his panegyrist, without informing us that his unsparing censures and conceited style had proyoked the hostilities of those enemies.

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

, a heraldic writer, was son of John Guillim of Westburg in Gloucestershire, but born in Herefordshire about 1565. He was sent to a grammar school at Oxford, and apparently entered a student of Brazen* nose college in 1581. Having completed his pursuit of literature in the university, he returned to Minsterworth in Gloucestershire; and had been there only a short space, when he was called to London, and made a member of the society of the college of arms, by the name of Portsmouth; and hence promoted to the honours of rouge-croix pursuivant of arms in ordinary in 1617 in which post he continued till his death, which happened May 7, 1621. His claim to a place in this work arises from the concern he had in a work entitled “The display of Heraldry,” published by him in 1610, folio, which has gone through many editions. To the fifth, which came out in 1679, was added a treatise of honour, civil and military, by captain John Loggan. The last was published, with very large additions, in 1724, and is generally esteemed the best book extant upon the subject, but the entire merit of it does not belong to Guillim, %ut to Barkham (See Barkkam), chaplain to archbishop Bancroft, who gave the manuscript to Guillim, and allowed him to publish it in his own name.

, called Quintus Icilius, an able writer on military tactics, was born at Magdeburg, and studied at the universities of Halle, Marpurg, and Leyden, where he applied to the classics, theology, and the oriental languages. He first carried arm* in the service of the United Provinces, and while thus einployed found leisure to prepare materials for his “Memoirs Militaires sur les Grecs et les Remains,” which induced him to obtain permission to visit England, where he re^­mained a year. The work was at length published, in two volumes quarto, 1757, received with much approbation, and went through five editions in France and Holland. In the same year he entered as a volunteer in the allied army, acquired the esteem of Ferdinand of Brunswick, and was recommended to the notice of Frederic II. of Prussia, who kept him near his person, often conversed with him on the art of war, and on account of his great knowledge on this subject, gave him the name of Quintus Icilius, the com* mander of Caesar’s tenth legion, when he appointed him to the command of a regiment formed out of the refuse of all nations, during the heat of the war. At the general peace he was one of the few persons whom his majesty admitted into his convivial parties at Potsdam, and to whom he gave the freest access to his library and coins, which latter Guise-hard increased so much, that he valued both at the sum of a hundred thousand dollars. The king, however, in his latter days, treated him with much disrespect, and took every opportunity to mortify him in the presence of others. Giiiscliard died May 13, 1775. Frederic purchased his library of his heirs for the sum of 12,000 dollars. Besides the work already mentioned, he was author of a very useful work to military or classical students, entitled “Memoires Critiques et Historiques sur plusieurs Points d'Antiquites Militaires,” in 4 vols. Hvo. Gibbon, who read his “Military Memoirs” with great attention, bestows high encomiums on him, and considers him as very superior to Folard, whom however Guischard affected too much to undervalue.

, a miscellaneous writer and compiler, whose name is now chiefly preserved by a geographical grammar, which it is said he did not write, was a gentleman descended from an ancient family, being the representative of the Guthries of Haukerton, in the county of Angus, Scotland. He was born at Brichen in that county in 1708, and educated at King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and followed the profession of a schoolmaster. He is said to have removed to London, in consequence of a love-affair, which created some disturbance in his family; others report that having but a small patrimony, and being an adherent of the unfortunate house of Stuart, he could not accept of any office in the state; he came therefore to London, and employed his talents and learning as, what he himself calls, “an author by profession.” His talents and learning were not of the inferior kind, when he chose to employ them leisurely; but he wrote hastily, and often in need, and seems to have cared little for his reputation, by lending his name frequently where he did not contribute with his pen. Among his first employments was that of compiling the parliamentary debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, before Dr, Johnson had undertook that business; for this purpose Guthrie sometimes attended the house, but more frequently had to depend on very slight information. Connecting himself terwards with the booksellers, he compiled a variety of work among which are “A History of the English Peerage,” “History of the World,” 12 vols. 8vo, “A History of England,” “History of Scotland,” 10 vols. 8vo, and the well-known “Geographical Grammar,” said to have been really compiled by Knox the bookseller. Besides these, he translated “Quintilian,” 3 vols. 8vo, “Cicero’s Offices,” 8vo, and “Cicero’s Epistles to Atticus,” 2 vols. 12mo. Of his original compositions we have heard only of a beautiful poem, “The Eagle and Robin Red-breast,” in the collection of poems called the “Union,” where, however, it is said to be written by Archibald Scott, before 1600; “The Friends, a sentimental history,” 1754, 2 vols. 12mo; and “Remarks on English Tragedy,” a pamphlet. He was engaged, however, in many political papers and pamphlets, to which his name did not appear; and in 1745-6, received a pension of 200l. from government, for the services of his pen, which was continued during his life. In 1762 he renewed the offer of his services to the minister of the day, and they probably were accepted. He had the pen of a ready writer, and his periodical essays were perhaps his best. Much was expected from his “Peerage,” in which he was assisted by Mr. Ralph Bigland, each individual article being submitted to the inspection of the representative of the noble family treated of; yet, notwithstanding all this care, the work abounds with errors, contradictions, and absurdities His “History of England” merits greater praise, and had at least the honour of irritating Horace Wai pole to a gross abuse of Guthrie, because he had anticipated some of Walpole’s opinions concerning Richard III. Guthrie wrote at that time in the Critical Review, and pointed out his own discoveries. Boswell informs us, that Dr. Johnson esteemed Guthrie enough to wish that his life should be written. This, however, was neglected when the means of information were attainable. He died March I', 177O, and was interred in Marybone burial-ground, with a monument and inscription against the east wall.

, an agreeable French writer, was born at Marseilles in 1720, and became a merchant of distinguished probity. Having often had occasion to visit Constantinople, Smyrna, &c. in the course of business, he conceived the idea of comparing the ancient and modern Greeks, and endeavouring to trace among the latter what was yet to be found of the grandeur, spirit, and institutions of their ancestors. For this purpose he made frequent excursions from Constantinople, where he lived under the immediate protection of the king of France, into Greece, with Homer in his hand; and how extensive and minute his observations were, appeared in his “Voyage Litteraire de la Grece,” on which his fame chiefly rests, and which was first published in 1771, 2 vols. 12mo; in 1783, 4 vols. 8vo. He was taking another voyage in order to correct and enlarge a new edition of this work, when he died at Zante in 1799. This work procured him a very considerable name in the literary wprld; but in whatever reputation it was held in Europe, he afforded such satisfaction to the subjects of his inquiry) that the modern Greeks, to testify to him their gratitude for his having so well defended them from their detractors, unanimously offered him the diploma of citizen of Athens; reviving^ in his favour, an ancient ceremony fallen into desuetude for a great many centuries. Some years before, he had received a similar compliment from a northern power. This true philosopher, without ceasing to serve his country, knew how to extend his beneficent views beyond the limits of his country. The “Voyage Litteraire de la Grece,” however, is the chief work of C. Guys. His other pieces are, a “Relation Abrege*e de ses Voyages en Italic et dans le Nord;” and a translation in verse of the elegies of Tibullus, an essay upon the antiquities of Marseilles his native place, and the eloge of Duguay-Trouin. A translation of his Journey was published in English in 1772, 3 vols. 12mo, with the improper title of a “Sentimental Journey.”

About 1636 he wrote his tract on “Schism” for the use of his friend Chilling-worth, in which, as already noticed, he expresses his sentiments on liturgies, forms of worship, &c. in exact conformity with those who are for dispensing with all obligations of the kind in established churches. Being informed that archbishop Laud was displeased with it, he drew up a vindication of himself in a letter addressed to his grace, who in 1638 sent for him to Lambeth, and after a conference of several hours, appears to have been reconciled to him. Of this conference we have a curious account by Dr. Heylin, in his “Cyprianus Anglicus,” some particulars of which have been eagerly contested by Des Maizeaux, in his Life of Hales. What seems most clear is, that Hales made some kind of declaration to the^ archbishop, purporting that he was a true son of the church of England, both in doctrine and discipline, which certainly implies a change or intended change of opinion, unless we allow to the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica, that “a true son of the church,” or an “or­* Such is the story given by all his 87 and 92, we shall see more reasor. biographers; but if we consult his to think that he was influenced by the Letters in the” Golden Remains,“p. opinions of Martinius. thodox son of the church,” were phrases used, not in opn ^ition to heretics, but to puritans. In either way, the archbishop appears to have been satisfied, and informed Mr. liuies that he might have any preferment he pleased. Hales at this time modestly declined the offer, but the year following was presented by the archbishop at a public dinner, with a canonry of Windsor, in which he was installed June 27, 1639. With respect to the letter above-r ttientioned, which he wrote to the archbishop, it is said to have been first published by Dr. Hare in the seventh edition of his pampnlet entitled “Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the study of the Scriptures in the way of private judgment.” Des Maizeaux says it was probably found among the papers of archbishop Laud, which after the restoration were taken from Prynne; but this conjecture is erroneous; it was found in the house of Mrs. Powney, where Mr. Hales died, and there are even some reasons for doubting whether it was ever sent to the archbishop, although this is certainly not improbable. The original is at Eton, and appeared in print before it fell into the hands of Dr. Hare, the author of “Difficulties and Discouragements,” if indeed Dr. Hare was that author, which has been questioned.

He died May 19, 1656, aged seventy-two, and was buried, according to his own desire, in Eton church-yard, where a monument was erected over his grave by Mr. Peter Curwen. In person, he was of an ingenuous and open countenance, sanguine, cheerful, and vivacious; his body was well proportioned, and his motion quick and sprightly. As to the excellence of his character, all writers seem agreed. Whatever his errors, he was esteemed a good man by those who knew him, and an able writer, as appears by the testimonies of lord Clarendon, lord Say and Sele, Dr. Pearson, bishop of Chester, Dr. Heylin, Andrew Marvel, Wood, Sailing-fleet, and others, quoted by sir David Dalrymple lord Hailes, in his fine edition of Hales’s works, and in the Biographia Britannica. “They,” says lord Hailes, “who are acquainted with the literary and political history of England, will perceive that the leading men of all parties, however different and discordant, have, with a wonderful unanimity, concurred in praise of the virtues and abilities of the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton.”

, a Roman catholic writer, was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, which his principles obliged him to leave about 1572. He then went to Doway, and thence to Italy, where he resumed his studies and took his degree of D. D. Returning afterwards to Doway, he obtained a professorship and some preferment. He died in 1604-. He wrote some books of controversy; but is chiefly worthy of notice now, as the author of that “Life of bishop Fisher” which goes under the name of Bailey. He left it in manuscript at his death, and it was long preserved as a choice rarity in the library of the English Benedictines at Dieuward in Lorraine; but several transcripts getting abroad, one fell into the hands of Thomas Bailey, D. D. a son of Bailey, or Bayly, bishop of Bangor. This Dr. Bailey, who was a Roman catholic, sold it to a bookseller, by whom it was printed at London in 1655, under the editor’s name. In 1739 another edition was published at London, 12mo, edited by Coxeter. It is valued as a narrative of considerable interest and authenticity.

, a pious Scotch divine, and professor of divinity in the university of St. Andrew’s, was born at Duplin in the parish of Aberdalgy, near Perth, Dec. 25, 1674. His father had been minister of that parish, from which he was ejected after the restoration, for nonconformity. He died in 1682, and as the country was still unsafe for those who professed the presbyterian religion, his mother went over to Holland with her son, then about eight years old. During their stay there, he was educated at Erasmus’s school, and made great proficiency in classical literature. On his return to Scotland in 1687, he resumed his studies, and was also sent to the university. When he had finished his philosophical course there, he entered upon the study of divinity; and being, in June 1699, licensed to preach, he was in May 1700, appointed minister of the parish of Ceres, in which he performed the part of a zealous and pious pastor; but his labours proving too many for his health, the latter became gradually impaired. In April 1710, he was appointed by patent from queen Anne, professor of divinity in the college of St. Leonard at St. Andrew’s, through the mediation of the synod of Fife. On this occasion he entered on his office an inaugural oration, in qua, post exhibitam rationem suscepti muneris, examinatur schedula nupera, cui titulus ' Epistola Archimedis ad Regem Gelonem Albae Graecae reperta anno serae Christianas 1688, A. Pitcarnio, M. D. ut vulgo creditur, auctoreV Pitcairn’s reputation as a deist was at that time very common in Scotland, however justly he may have deserved it; and Mr. Halyburton’s attention had been much called to the subject of deism as revived in the preceding century. He did not, however, enjoy his professorship long, dying Sept. 23, 1712, aged only thirty-eight. It does not appear that he published any thing in his life-time; but soon after his death two works were published, which still preserve his memory in Scotland. 1. “The Great Concern of Salvation,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “Ten Sermons preached before and after the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,” 1722. But the work which proves his ability as a controversial writer, and the great extent of his reading, although it is less known than the preceding, is his “Natural Religion insufficient; and Revealed necessary to man’s happiness,” Edinburgh, 1714, 4to. This was written in confutation of the deism of lord Herbert and Mr. Blount. In this elaborate performance he largely and distinctly shews that the light of nature is greatly defective, even with respect to the discoveries of a Deity, and the worship that is to be rendered to him with respect to the inquiry concerning man’s true happiness with respect to the rule of duty, and the motives for enforcing obedience, &c. Dr. Leland says that “whosoever carefully examines what this learned and pious author has offered on these several heads, will find many excellent things; though the narrowness of his notions in some points has prejudiced some persons against his work, and hindered them from regarding and considering it so much as it deserves.”

, an eminent French writer on rural ceconomy and vegetable physiology, was born at Paris in 1700. Being a member of the academy of sciences, he published in the memoirs of that body in 1728, “his first ceconomical essay, on a kind of parasitical fungus which infests the roots of the cultivated saffron, and is fatal to them. In the same year he published in that work his first treatise on a much more important subject, the propagation of trees by grafting, where he hazarded some physiological opinions, and entered on a course of experiment and observation, subsequently pursued to an extent which has been of great service to science, and has justly rendered his name famous. He continued from time to time to communicate to the academy various papers relative to these matters. In 1750 he began to publish in 12mo, his” Traite de la Culture des Terres,“which was continued in following years till 1761, when the sixth volume came out. Our English writer Tull was his first guide, but he subsequently profited widely by the experience of himself and of various other people, aided by his physiological sagacity, of which he made a far more cautious use than is general with farming philosophers, and deserves to be reckoned the father of intelligent agriculture in France. His” Elements d'Agriculture," in 2 vols. 12mo, published in 1764, may be considered as a sequel to the preceding work. These two volumes have been translated into German, Spanish, and English. Du. Hamel wrote also on the cultivation and preparation of Madder, in 1757, 4to.

In 1760 he published another valuable practical volume in 4to, with plates, entitled “Des Semis et Plantations des Arbres, et de leur Culture.” This had an especial view to the great national object of improving the forests of the kingdom, highly important in a country where so much wood is continually used for fuel, and so little, in proportion to some other countries, naturally produced. The author laudably takes advantage of the panic with which his countrymen are every now and then seized, of a scarcity of fuel, to excite their attention to the means he would recommend for the prevention of so dreadful an evil, and his book is a mine of practical information for the woodman, the planter, and the gardener, of the first authority and value. The same subject is followed up in 2 vols. 4to, published in 1764, under the title of “De l'exploitation des Bois, ou moyen de tirer parti des taillis demi futayes et hautes futayes;” and in 1767 appeared another 4to volume, “Du transport, de la conservation, et de la force du Bois,” full of practical information relative to the properties, qualities, and uses of different woods, intermixed with physiological remarks, as in the preceding performances of this excellent writer, who published also in 1764, upon the art of refining sugar, in folio, and in 1765, on the preservation of grain, in 12mo. His most splendid work was printed at Paris in 1768, in 2 vols. 4to, with fine coloured plates. Its title is “Traite des Arbres fruitiers.” In this the varieties of fruit-trees are elegantly distinguished by figures and descriptions, and their treatment illustrated with the usual science of the author.

Among the revivers of his fame, professor Richardson, and lord Woodhouslee, are entitled to the highest respect. The latter, in his elaborate life of lord Kames, says, “With the elegant and accomplished William Hamilton of Bangour, whose amiable manners were long remembered with the tenderest recollection by all who knew him, Mr. Home (lord Kames) lived in the closest habits of friendship. The writer of these memoirs has heard him dwell with delight on the scenes of their youthful days; and he has to regret, that many an anecdote to which he listened with pleasure, was not committed to a better record than a treacherous memory. Hamilton’s mind is pictured in his verses. They are the easy and careless effusions of an elegant, fancy and a chastened taste; and the sentiments they convey are the genuine feelings of a tender and susceptible heart, which perpetually owned the dominion of some favourite mistress; but whose passion generally evaporated in song, and made no serious or permanent impression. His poems had an additional charm to his contemporaries, from being commonly addressed to his familiar friends of either sex, by name.”

Some of Hamilton’s poems were first published at Glasgow in 1748, and afterwards reprinted, not only without the author’s name, but without his consent, and even without his knowledge. He corrected, however, many errors of that copy, and enlarged some of the poems, though he did not live to make a new and complete publication. The improvements he made were carefully inserted in the edition published at Edinburgh in 1760, with the addition of many pieces taken from his original manuscripts. Since that time, although they have been inserted in the new edition of the English Poets, there has been no demand for a separate edition. It would be of importance, but it is seldom easy, to account for the various fates of poets. Hamilton, if not of the first class, and in whom we find only those secondary qualities which professor Richardson has so ably pointed out in the “Lounger,” surely excels some whose works are better known and more current. The neglect which he has experienced naay be partly attributed to his political principles, and partly to the local interest which his effusions excited, and to which they were long confined. Verses of compliment and personal addresses tnust have extraordinary merit, if they attract the notice of distant strangers. Prejudice, however, is now at an end, and the friends of Scottish genius, who have lately called the attention of the puhlic to this writer, have proved that he deserves a higher rank than has yet been assigned to him. He is perhaps very unequal, and the blemishes in his verse and diction to which professor Richardson has alluded are frequent, yet it is no inconsiderable merit to have been one of the first of his countrymen who cultivated the purity and harmony of the English language, and exhibited a variety of composition and fertility of sentiment that are rarely to be found in the writings of those whose poetical genius is of the second degree.

We are informed in the abbe Winkelman’s Letters, that the above-mentioned work was intended to be comprised in four large folio volumes. Of these, the two former only appeared at the stated time. The two latter volumes (as we are informed by a note in the last edition of the Letters of Winkelnian) were published in Naples in 1775; but the writer of this article has never been able to procure a sight of them, or even to gain the least information on the subject. The two former volumes were reduced to a smaller size, and republished at Paris, by Mr. David, in 1787, in five 8vo volumes. The adventurer D‘Hancarville, editor of the work, as we are told by Winkelman, expected, by that publication, to acquire a fortune of twenty thousand pounds. It is not probable that he ever realized this expectation, but we know from D’Hancarville himself, that Mr. Hamilton allowed him to reap the emolument which might arise from the work. Of the particulars of which, he himself says, that “long since Mr. Hamilton had taken pleasure in collecting those precious monuments, and had afterwards trusted them to him for publication, requiring only some elegance in the execution; and the condition, that the work should appear under the auspices of his Britannic majesty.” “It answers no purpose to have of the ancient vases that general and vague idea which is given of them by the books of Caylus, or Montfaucon. There are few antiquaries and scholars who have not entertained a wish to see such a collection executed with care and precision. They can now compare the present with that of cardinal Gualtieri, reported by Montfaucon, and with all the others which have hitherto appeared. Mr. Hamilton, justly apprehensive that the vases, already destined for England, might be damaged in their way, has resolved to have them engraved at Naples.”

, well remembered as a man esteemed and caressed by the elegant and great, was the second son of Anthony Hammond mentioned above: he was born about 1710, and educated at Westminster-school; but it does not appear that he was of any university, although Mr. Cole claims him for Cambridge, but without specifying his college. When about eighteen, he was introduced to the earl of Chesterfield, and from a conformity of character, manners, and inclinations, soon became particularly attached to his lordship. He was equerry to the prince of Wales, and seems to have come very early into public notice, and to have been distinguished by those whose patronage and friendship prejudiced mankind at that time in favour of those on whom they were bestowed; for he was the companion of Cobham, Lyttelton, and Chesterfield. He is said to have divided his life between pleasure and books; in his retirement forgetting the town, and in his gaiety losing the student. Of his literary hours all the effects are exhibited in his memorable “Love Elegies,” which were written very early, and his “Prologue” not long before his death. In 1733, he obtained an income of 400l. a year by the will of Nicholas Hammond, esq. a near relation. In 1741 he was chosen into parliament for Truro in Cornwall, probably one of those who were elected by the prince’s influence; and died June 2, 1742, at Stowe, the famous seat of the lord Cobham. His mistress long outlived him, and, in 177D, died unmarried, bed-chamber woman to the queen. The character which her lover bequeathed her was, indeed, not likely to attract courtship, yet it was her own fault that she remained single, having had another very honourable offer. The “Elegies” were published after his death; and while the writer’s name was remembered with fondness, they were read with a resolution to admire them. The recommendatory preface of the editor, who was then believed, and is affirmed by Dr. Maty, to be the earl of Chesterfield, raised strong prejudices in their favour; but Dr. Johnson is of opinion that they have neither passion, nature, nor manners, and Dr. Beattie was informed on very good authority that Hammond was not in love when he wrote his “Elegies.”

, of Hamden, in Buckinghamshire, a celebrated political character in the reign of Charles I. was born at London in 1594. He was of as ancient (Whitlocke says the ancientest) extraction as any gentleman in his county; and cousin-german to Oliver Cromwell, his father having married the protector’s aunt. In 1609 he was sent to Magdalen college in Oxford whence, without taking any degree, be removed to the inns of court, and made a considerable progress in the study of the law. Sir Philip Warwick observes, that “he had great knowledge both in scholarship and the law.” In his entrance into the world, he is said to have indulged himself in all the licence of sports, and exercises, and company, such as were used by men of the most jovial conversation; but afterwards to have retired to a more reserved and austere society, preserving, however, his natural cheerfulness and vivacity. In the second parliament of king Charles, which met at Westminster, February 1625-6, he obtained a seat in the house of commons, as he also did in two succeeding parliaments; but made no figure till 1636, when he became universally known, by a solemn trial at the king’s bench, on his refusing to pay the ship-money. He carried himself, as Clarendon tells us, through this whole suit with such singular temper and modesty, that he obtained more credit and advantage by losing it, than the king did service by gaining it. From this time he soon grew to be one of the most popular men in the nation, and a leading member in the long parliament. “The eyes of all men,” says the same writer, “were fixed upon him as their pater patrite, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it.” After he had held the chief direction of his party in the house of commons against the king, he took up arms in the same cause, and was one of the first who opened the war by an action at a place called Brill, a garrison of the king’s, on the edge of Buckinghamshire, about five miles from Oxford. He took the command of a regiment of foot under the earl of Essex, and shewed such skill and bravery, that, had he lived, he would; probably, soon have been raised to the post of a general. But he was cut off early by a mortal wound, which he received in a skirmish with prince Rupert, at Chalgrove-field, in Oxfordshire, where, it is generally reported, he was shot in the shoulder with a brace of bullets, which broke the bone, June 18, 1643; and, after suffering much pain and misery, he died the 24th, an event which affected his party nearly as much as if their whole army had been defeated . “Many men observed,” says Clarendon, “that the field in which this skirmish was, and upon which Hampden received his deathwound, namely, Chalgrove-field, was the same place in which he had first executed the ordinance of the militia, and engaged that county, in which his reputation was very great, in this rebellion: and it was confessed by the prisoners that were taken that day, and acknowledged by all, that upon the alarm that morning, after their quarters were beaten up, he was exceeding solicitous to draw forces together to pursue the enemy; and, being a colonel of foot, put himself amongst those horse as a volunteer, who were first ready, and that, when the prince made a stand, all the officers were of opinion to stay till their body came up, and he alone persuaded and prevailed with them to advance: so violently did his fate carry him to pay the mulct in the place where he had committed the transgression about a year before. This was an observation made at that time;” but lord Clarendon does not adopt it as an opinion of his own.

As a composer, it would be affectation to attempt any character of Handel after what Dr. Burney has given. “That Handel was superior in the strength and boldness of his style, the richness of his harmony, and complication of parts, to every composer who has been most admired for such excellencies, cannot be disputed; and while fugue, contrivance, and a full score were more generallyreverenced than at present, he remained wholly unrivalled. We know it has been said that Handel was not the original 3-nd immediate inventor of several species of music for which his name has been celebrated; but with respect to originality, it is a term to which proper limits should be set before it is applied to the productions of any artist. Every invention is clumsy in its beginning; and Shakspeare was not the first writer of plays, or Corelli the first composer of violin solos, sonatas, and concertos, though those which he produced were the best of his time; nor was Milton the inventor of epic poetry. The scale, harmony, and cadence of music being settled, it is impossible for any composer to invent a genus of composition that is wholly and rigorously new, any more than for a poet to form a language, idiom, and phraseology for himself. All that the o-reatest and boldest musical inventor can do, is to avail himself of the best effusions, combinations, and effects of his predecessors; to arrange and apply them in a new manner; and to add from his own source, whatever he can draw, that is grand, graceful, gay, pathetic, or in any other way pleasing. This Handel did in a most ample and superior manner; being possessed in his middle age and full vigour, of every refinement and perfection of his time; uniting the depth and elaborate contrivance of his own country with Italian elegance and facility; as he seems while he resided south of the Alps, to have listened attentively in the church, theatre, and chamber, to the most exquisite compositions and performers of every kind that were then existing. We will not assert that his vocal meTodies were more polished and graceful than those of his countryman and contemporary Hasse; or his recitatives or musical declamation, superior to that of his rivals Buononcini and Porpora. But in his instrumental compositions there is a vigour, a spirit, a variety, a learning, and invention, superior to every other composer that can be named; and in his organ fugues and organ playing, there is learning always free from pedantry; and in his choruses a grandeur and sublimity which we believe has never been equalled since the invention of counterpoint.”

, a distinguished statesman and polite writer, was born about 1676, and had his education at Westminster-school, and Christ-church, Oxford. When he arrived at years of maturity, he was chosen knight of the shire for the county of Suffolk, and sat in parliament near thirty years, either as a representative for that county, or for Flintshire, or for the borough of Thetford. In this venerable assembly he was soon distinguished; and his powerful elocution and unbiassed integrity drew the attention of all parties. In 17 13 he was chosen speaker of the house of commons; which office, difficult at all times, but at that time more particularly, he discharged with becoming dignity. All other honours and emoluments he declined. Having withdrawn himself by degrees from public business, he spent the remainder of his life in an honourable retirement amongst his books and friends; and there prepared an elegant and correct edition of the works of Shakspeare. This he presented to the university of Oxford; and it was printed there 1744, in 6 vols. 4to, with elegant engravings, by Gravelot, at the expence of sir Thomas. He died at his seat in Suffolk, April 5, 1746.

, a popish divine of considerable note, and the antagonist of bishop Jewel, was born at Comb-Martin in Devonshire, 1512. His school education was first at Barhstaple, and afterwards at Winchester, whence he was removed to New-college, Oxford, and after two years’ probation, was chosen fellow there in 1536. In 1542, having completed his degrees in arts, he was chosen Hebrew professor of the university by Henry VIII. and, fcis religion probably kept pace with the king’s, but Edward no sooner ascended the throne, than Harding became a zealous protestant. He was afterwards chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, father of Jane Grey, and had the honour to instruct this young lady in the protestant religion; but, on the accession of queen Mary, he immediately became a confirmed papist, and was chaplain and confessor to Gardiner bishop of Winchester. There is a curious epistle preserved by Fox, said to be written by lady Jane to Harding on his apostacy, which, Burnet observes, “is full of Jife in the thought, and zeal in the expression.” In 1554, he proceeded D. D. at Oxford, and was the year after made treasurer of the cathedral of Salisbury, as he had been a little before prebendary of Winchester. When Elizabeth came to the crown, being deprived of his preferment, he left the kingdom; and, having fixed his abode at Louvain in Flanders, he became, says Wood, “the target of popery,” in a warm controversy with bishop Jewel, respecting ordination, against whom, between 1554 and 1567, he wrote seven pieces. He died at Louvain Sept. 16, 1572, and was buried in the church of St. Gertrude, with an epitaph, given at length by Pits. He was undoubtedly a man of parts and learning, and not an inelegant writer. Humphrey, in his “Life of Jewel,” comparing himwith his adversary, says, “in multis pares sunt, & arnbo doctrinae & eloquentiae gloria praecellentes.”

, a polite French writer, was born at Tours in 1686, and coming to Paris in 1704, devoted his time to the study of the belles lettres, and at the same time cultivated a critical knowledge of the Greek language under Boivin and Massieu, professors in the royal college. In 1711, he was admitted as a pupil into the academy of inscriptions, became an associate in 1715, and a pensionary in 172S. For their Memoirs he wrote a great many curious and interesting papers, and his general knowledge and reputation procured him at length the office of keeper of the library and antiquities in the royal cabinet. In 1730 he was chosen a member of the French academy, and the following year began his “Histoire de l'origine et des progres de la Rhetorique dans la Grece.” He had published twelve dissertations on this subject, when, in 1748, the king honoured him with the appointment of preceptor in history and geography to madame Victoire, one of the princesses, and he afterwards taught other illustrious females of that family. It was for their use that he wrote his “Histoire Poetique,” with two treatises, one on French poetry, and the other on rhetoric, Paris, 1751, 3 vols. 12mo, and his universal history, “Histoire Universelle,” 18 vols. 12mo, to which Linguet added two others. All his works are valued for elegance of style and the accuracy of his researches, and his personal character was not less admired, as a man of integrity whom a court-life had not spoiled, and who preserved the dignity of the literary character amidst the cabals arrd intrigues by which he was surrounded. Hardion died at Paris in September 1766. His dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions display a profound knowledge of classical antiquities.

, an English bishop, was born in London, and educated at Eton, whence he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1688, and took his degree of A. B. in 1692, and of A. M. 1696. He afterwards became tutor in the college, and in that capacity superintended the education of the celebrated Anthony Collins, who was fellow-commoner there. He had also the tuition of the marquis of Blandford, only son of the illustrious duke of Marlborough, who appointed him chaplain-general to the army; but this promising young nobleman died in 1702, and was buried in King’s college chapel. The inscription on his monument is by our author. In 1708 Mr. Hare took his degree of D. D. obtained the deanery of Worcester, and in 1726 the deanery of St. Paul’s. In Dec. 1727, he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, where he sat about four years, and was translated, Nov. 25, 1731, to the bishopric of Chichester, which he held with the deanery of St. Paul’s to his death. He was dismissed from being chaplain to George I. in 1718, by the strength of party prejudices, in company with Dr. Moss and Dr. Sher-r lock, persons of distinguished rank for parts and learning. About the latter end of queen Anne’s reign he published a remarkable pamphlet, entitled “The difficulties and discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures, in the way of private judgment;” in order to shew, that since such a study of the scriptures is an indispensable duty, it concerns all Christian societies to remove, as much as possible, those discouragements. This work was thought to have such a direct tendency to promote scepticism, and a loose way of thinking in matters of religious concern, that the convocation judged it right to pass a severe censure on it; and Whiston says, that, finding this piece likely to hinder preferment, he aimed to conceal his being the author. The same writer charges him with being strongly inclined to scepticism that he talked ludicrously of sacred matters and that he would offer to lay wagers about the fulfilling of scripture prophecies. The principal ground for these invidious insinuations some suppose to be, that, though he never denied the genuineness of the apostolical constitutions (of which he procured for Whiston the collation of two Vienna Mss.), yet “he was not firm believer enough, nor serious enough in Christianity, to hazard any thing in this world for their reception.” He published many pieces against bishop Hoadly, in the Bangorian controversy; and also other learned works, which were collected after his death, and published in four volumes, 8yo. 2. An edition of “Terence,” with notes, in 4to. 3. “The Book of Psalms, in the Hebrew, put into the original poetical metre,” 4to. In this last work he pretends to have Discovered the Hebrew metre, which was supposed to be irretrievably lost. But his hypothesis, though defended by some, yet has been confuted by several learned men, particularly by Dr. Lowth in his “Metrics Hareaue brevis confutatio,” annexed to his lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebreeorum.” He was yet more unfortunate in the abovementioned edition of Terence, which sunk under the reputation of that of Dr. Bentley, of whom he was once the warm admirer, and afterwards the equally warm opponent. During their friendship the emendations on Menander and Philemon were transmitted through Hare, who was then chaplain-general to the army, to Burman, in 1710; and Bentley’s “Remarks on the Essay on Freethinking” (supposed to be written by Collins) were inscribed to him in 1713. As soon as the first part of these were published, Hare formally thanked Dr. Bentley by name for them, in a most flattering letter called “The Clergyman’s Thanks to Phileleutherus,” printed the same year; but, in consequence of the rupture between them, not inserted in the collection of Hare’s works. This rupture took place soon after the above-mentioned date, and Bentley in the subsequent editions of his “Remarks” withdrew the inscription. Hare was excessively piqued at the utter annihilation of his Terence and Phoedrus, the one soon after its birth, the other before its birth, by Bentley’s edition of both together in 1726, who never once names Hare.

The reputation he had gained by his various prize essays and poems, and by his “Warwick,” at length opened the doors of the French academy, into which he was admitted in 1776. In 1779 he wrote his “Muses Rivales” in compliment to Voltaire, and the year following an eloge on that celebrated writer, with whom he had been acquainted since 1765. He was not less a favourite, or less connected with the encyclopedists, and was at this time accounted an adept in that audacious philosophy which infected France, and finally dissolved her morals.

, an eminent political writer, was born in January 1611, being the eldest son of sir Sapcote Harrington, and Jane the daughter of sir William Samuel of Upton, in Northamptonshire, the place of his nativity. When he had made a progress in classical learning, he was admitted in 1629 a gentleman-commoner of Trinity college, in Oxford, and placed under Mr. Chillingworth, who had lately been elected fellow of that college; from whom he might possibly acquire some portion of that spirit of reasoning and thinking for himself, which afterwards shone forth so conspicuously in his writings. About three years after, his father died; upon which he left the university, and commenced travelling, having previously furnished himself with the knowledge of several foreign languages. His first step was into Holland, then the principal school of martial discipline; and, what may be supposed to have affected him more sensibly, a country wonderfully flourishing, under the auspices of liberty, commerce, strength, and grandeur. Here it is probable that he began to make government the subject of his meditations; for, he was often heard to say, that, “before he left England, he knew no more of anarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, or the like, than as hard words, whose signification he found in his dictionary.” On coming into the Netherlands, he entered a volunteer, and remained in that capacity some months, in lord Craven’s regiment; during which time, being much at the Hague, he had the farther opportunity of accomplishing himself in two courts, those of the prince of Orange, and of the queen of Bohemia, daughter of our James I. who was then a fugitive in Holland. He was taken into great favour by this princess, and also by the prince elector, whom he attended to Copenhagen, when his highness paid a visit to the king of Denmark; and, after his return from travelling, was entrusted by him with the affairs of the Palatinate, so far as they were transacted at the British court.

In July 1745 he was married to miss Elizabeth Clarke, daughter and eventually heiress of John Clarke, esq of Sandford, near Bridgewater, in the county of Somerset, Five children were the issue of this marriage, of whom two daughters, and a son, the present lord Malmsbury, sur-> vived their father. This change in his state of life by no means withdrew his attention from those studies in which he had been used to take so great delight, and which he had cultivated with such advantage and reputation; for in 1751 he published another work, entitled “Hermes, or a philosophical inquiry concerning Universal Grammar,” 8vo. Of this work, Dr. Lowth, the late bishop of London, says, “Those who would enter deeply into the subject (of universal grammar) will find it fully and accurately handled, with the greatest acuteness of investigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance of method, in a treatise entitled Hermes, by James Harris, esq. the most beautiful example of analysis that has been exhibited since the days of Aristotle.” What first led Mr. Harris to a deep and accurate consideration of the principles of universal grammar, was a book which he held in high estimation, and has frequently quoted in his Hermes, the “Minerva” of Sanciius. To that writer he confessed himself indebted for abundance of, valuable information, of which it appears that he knew well how to profit, and to push his researches on the subject of grammar to a much greater length, by the help of his various and extensive erudition. Mr. Harris’s system in this work still maintains its ground in the estimation of most men of taste, notwithstanding the coarse attack made on it by Home Tooke.

"The distinction by which he was most generally known, and by which he is likely to survive to posterity, is that of a Man of Learning. His profound knowledge of Greek, which he applied more successfully, perhaps, than any modern writer has done, to the study and explanation of ancient philosophy, arose from an early and intimate acquaintance with the excellent poets and historians in that language. They, and the best writers in the Augustan age, were his constant and never-failing recreation. By his familiarity with them, he was enabled to enliven and to illustrate his deeper and more abstruse speculations, as every page almost (of his works) will abundantly testify. But his attainments were not confined to ancient philosophy and classical learning. He possessed likewise a general knowledge of modern history, with a very distinguishing taste in the line arts, in one of which, as before observed, he was an eminent, proficient. His singular industry empowered him to make these various acquisitions, without neglecting any of the duties which he owed to his family, his friends, or his country. I am in possession of such proofs, besides those already given to the public, of my father’s laborious study and reflection, as I apprehend, are very rarely to be met with. Not only was he accustomed, through a long series of years, to make copious excts from the different books which he read, and to write critical remarks and conjectures on many of the passages extracted, but he was also in the habit of regularly cammuting to writing such reBections as arose out of his study, which evince a mind carefully disciplined, and anxiously bent on the attainment of self-knowledge and self-government. And yet, though habituated to deep thinking and laborious reading, he was generally cheerful even to playfulness. There was no pedantry in his manners or conversation, nor was he ever seen either to display his learning with ostentation, or to treat with slight or superciliousness those less informed than himself. He rather sought to make them appear partakers of what he knew, than to mortify tnern by a parade of his own superiority. Nor had he any of that miserable fastidiousness about him which too often disgraces men of learning, and prevents their being amused or interested, at least their choosing to appear so, by common performances and common events.

, a learned English prelate, successively bishop of Chichester and Norwich, and archbishop of York, the son of William Harsnet, a baker at Colchester, was born in that town, and baptised June 20, 1561. He was probably sent to the free-school of Colchester, but was admitted Sept. 8, 1576, of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Pembroke-hall, of which he became a scholar, and was elected fellow Nov. 27, 1583. He took his degree of B.A. in 1580, and that of M. A. in 15'84. Three years after, in March 1586-7, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester, but, preferring the prosecution of his studies at Cambridge, he resigned this office in November 1588, and returned to Pembrdke-hall, where he studied divinity, in which indeed he had made great progress before, and had been admitted into holy orders, as appears by a sermon preached by him at St. Paul’s cross, Oct. 27, 1584, on the subject of predestination. In 1592 he served the office of proctor, and five years after became chaplain to Dr. Bancroft, bishop of London, by whose favour he obtained the rectory of St. Margaret Fish-street, London, which he resigned in 1604; and the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex, which he resigned in 1605, but continued to reside at Chigwell, where he had purchased a house and estate, now the property and residence of his descendant Mrs. Fisher. In 1598 he was collated to the prebend of Mapesbury in St. Paul’s, and Jan. 1602 to the archdeaconry of Essex, all in bishop Bancroft’s disposal. In April 1604, sir Thomas Lucas of Colchester presented him to the rectory of Shenfield in that county. The year following, upon the resignation of bishop Andrews, he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, which he held until 1616, when he resigned in consequence of the society having exhibited to the king an accusation branching into fifty-seven articles. Many of these, Le Neve says, were scandalous, and the proof evident; but, as Le Neve was iiot able to procure a sight of tHem, we are not enabled to judge. They do not, however, appear to have injured his interest at court. He had been consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1609, and was now, in 1619, three years after he quitted Pembroke-hall, translated to Norwich, on the death of Dr. Overall. In 1624 we find him again accused in the house of commons of “putting down preaching setting up images praying to the east;” and other articles which appear to have involved him with the puritans of his diocese, but which he answered to the satisfaction of the parliament as well as of the court. On the death of Dr. Montague, he was translated to the archbishopric of York in 1628, and in Nov. 1629, was sworn of the privy council. These dignities, however, he did not enjoy long, dying atMorton-on-the-marsh, Gloucestershire, while on a journey, May 25, 1631. He was buried at Chigwell church, agreeably to his own desire, where his effigies is still to be seen fixed on the north side of the chancel, against the wall. He left several charitable legacies and a year or two before his death founded and endowed a free school at Chigwell, and some alms-houses the history of his school may be seen in Lysons’s “Environs.” He bequeathed his library to the corporation of Colchester for the use of the clergy. Besides the sermon above noticed, the only other occasion on which Dr. Harsnet appeared as a writer, was in writing some pamphlets to expose the impostures of one John Darrell, who pretended to have the power of casting out devils. Bishop Harsnet’s character, from what we have related, appears to be equivocal it is said he was equally an enemy to puritanism and to popery and, according to Fuller, was the first who used the expression conformable puritans, i. e. those who conformed out of policy, and yet dissented in their judgments.

The time of our poet’s birth has not been settled. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine fixes it about 1707, but an earlier date will correspond better with circumstances. If he was born in 1707, his lines to lady Hertford must have been written at eleven, which is highly improbable, yet there is some difficulty in adjusting the date of this poem. In Lintot’s edition, it is subscribed Sept. 30, 1725; but Francis, the late marquis of Hertford, was born in 1719, a year after his father’s marriage, and when Mr. Harte, according to the above account, could have been only eleven years of age. We have his own authority that all the poems published in this volume were written when he was under nineteen, consequently the date of 1725 must be an error, especially if Collins’s account of the Hertford family be correct But here, too, there is something that requires explanation, as the title of Beauchamp was not conferred on the family for many years after the publication of these poems.

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

, an ingenious writer on agriculture in the seventeenth century, was the son of a Polish merchant, who, when the Jesuits prevailed in that country, was obliged to remove himself into Prussia, where he settled and built the first house of credit at Elbing, and his grandfather, the deputy of the English company at Dantzick, brought the English company to Elbing; whence that town came by trade to the splendour and result which it afterwards attained. His family, indeed, was of a very ancient extraction in the German empire, there having been ten brothers of the name cf Hartlib. Some of them were privy-counsellors to the emperor, some to other inferior princes; some syndics of Ausperg and Norimberg.

Sir Christopher did not enjoy his high office above four years, and died unmarried, Sept. 20, 1591, of a broken heart, as usually reported, owing to the stern perseverance with which Elizabeth had demanded an old debt which he was unable to pay. Camden enumerates him among the liberal patrons of learning, and as eminent for his piety towards God, his fidelity to his country, his untainted integrity, and unparalleled charity. In his opinions respecting matters of religion, he appears to have been averse to persecution, which brought upon him the reproach of being secretly affected to popery, but of this we have no proof. As chancellor of Oxford, which office he held from 1588 to his death, he did much to reform the education and discipline of that university. He was buried under a stately monument in the choir of St. Paul’s. Wood says he wrote several things pertaining to the law, none of which are extant 2 but the following has been attributed to him, “A Treatise concerning Statutes or Acts of Parliament, and the exposition thereof,” Lond. 1677, 8vo. Warton thinks he was the undoubted writer of “the fourth act in the tragedy of Tancred and Gismund,” which bears at the end composuit Ch. Hat. This play was the joint production of five students of the Inner Temple, and was acted at that society before the queen in 1568, but not printed till 1592. It is reprinted in the second edition of Dodsley’s collection.

Hawes’s principal work is his “Pastime of Pleasure,” first printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1517, with wooden cuts. This, Mr. Warton says, contains no common touches of romantic and allegoric fiction. The personifications are often happily sustained, and indicate the writer’s familiarity with the Provincial school: he also says that “Hawes has added new graces to Lvdgate’s manner.” Mr. Ellis, however, seems to be of a different opinion, and thinks that he has copied Lydgate’s worst manner; and that he is diffuse, fond of expletives and epithets which add nothing to the sense. Hawes’s other works are, “The Temple of Glass,” in imitation of Chaucer’s “Temple of Fame;” “The Conversyon of Swerers,” and one or two other rarities, described in our authorities.

In 1780 was published, his third edition of an “Examination of the Reverend John Wesley’s Primitive Physick;” in which the absurdities and dangerous remedies recommended by that venerable and (on many other accounts) respectable writer were acutely exposed by a combination of irony and serious argument. In 1780, or 1731, he removed to Palsgrave-place, and commenced practice as a physician; the degree of doctor of medicine having been conferred upon him some time before.

In 1781, Dr. Hawes published “An Address to the Legislature, on the Importance of the Humane Society;” and, by his steady perseverance, and personal endeavours, he lived to see most of his objects realized, as conducive to the restoration of suspended animation. About the same period, appeared his “Address to the King and Parliament of Great Britain; with Observations on the General Bills of Mortality.” These useful and interesting publications gradually raised the reputation of the author to the notice of many learned, as well as benevolent, characters. In the same year, he was elected physician to the Surrey Dispensary and about the same time, commenced his medical lectures on suspended animation and was the first, and perhaps the only, person that ever introduced the subject as a part of medical education. These lectures were closed by a proposal of bestowing prize-medals, suggested by the ardour of his mind, and founded by his munificence; and in October 1782, the gold medal was awarded, by four respectable physicians, to Dr. Richard Pearson, of Birmingham, and the silver medal to a writer whose paper wat signed Humanitas. Since that period similar prize-medals, bestowed by the Medical Society, have given rise to the invaluable works of Pearson, Goodwin, Coleman, Kite, and Fothergill.

, an elegant and ingenious English writer, was born either in 1715, or 1719, in London, and was, as some report, brought up to the trade of a watchmaker. Sir John Hawkins, however, informs us that he was, when very young, a hired clerk to one Harwood, an attorney in Grocers’-alley in the Poultry. His parents were probably dissenters, as he was a member of the celebrated Mr. Bradbury’s meeting, from which, it is said, he was expelled for some irregularities. It does not appear that he followed any profession, but devoted himself to study and literary employment. So early as 1744 he succeeded Dr. Johnson in compiling the parliamentary debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, to which he afterwards contributed many of his earlier productions in verse. In 1746, he wrote in that publication, under the' name of Greville, the “Devil Painter, a tale;” the “Chaise Percee,” from the French; “Epistle to the King of Prussia;” “Lines to the Rev. Mr. Layng” (who was at this time a writer in the Magazine), and to the celebrated Warburton “On a series of theological inquiries” “A Thought from Marcus Antoninus” “The Smart.” In- 1747 he contributed “The Accident” “Ants’ Philosophy” “Death of Arachne;” “Chamontand Honorius” “Origin of Doubt;” “Life,” an ode “Lines to Hope” “Winter,” an ode“”The Experiment,“a tale. In 1748,” The Midsummer Wish“” Solitude“” The two Doves,“a fable” Autumn“in 1749,” Poverty insulted“”Region allotted to Old Maids;“” The Nymph at her Toilet;“” God is Love;“” Cloe’s Soliloquy." Some of these are signed H. Greville. Whether he wrote any prose compositions is doubtful. Mr. Duncombe, on whose authority the above list is given, says nothing of prose.

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

, a recent English writer, the son of a man, who, though descended from the preceding sir John Hawkins, followed at first the occupation of a house-carpenter, which he afterwards exchanged for the profession of a surveyor and huijder. He had married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Gwatkin of Tou nhope, co. Hereford, gentleman; and the issue of this marriage were several children. Of these the present object of this article was the youngest, and was born in the city of London, on the 30th day of March, 1719. After fcaving been sent first to one school, and afterwards to a second, where he acquired a tolerable knowledge of Latin, he was placed under the tuition of Mr. Hoppus, the author of a well-known and useful architectural compendium, published in 1733, 8vo, and entitled “Proportional Architecture, or the Five Orders regulated by equal Farts.” Under this person he went through a regular course of architecture and perspective, in order to fit him for his father’s profession of a surveyor, for which he was at first intended; but his first cousin, Mr. Thomas Gwatkin, being clerk to Mr. John Scott of Devonshire-street, Bishopsgate, an attorney and solicitor in full practice, persuaded him *to alter his resolution, and embrace that of the law, which he did, and was accordingly articled as a clerk to Mr. Scott. In this situation his time was too fully employed in the actual dispatch of business, to permit him without some extraordinary means to acquire the necessary knowledge of his profession by reading and study; besides that, his master is said to have been more artxious to render him a good copying-clerk, by scrupulous attention to his hand-writing, than to qualify him by instruction to conduct business. To remedy this inconvenience, therefore, he abridged himself of his rest, and rising at four in the morning, found opportunity of reading all the necessary and most eminent law-writers, and the works of our mos% celebrated authors. By these means, before the expiration of his clerkship, he had already rendered himself a very able lawyer, and had possessed himself of a taste for literature in general, but particularly for poetry and the polite arts; and the better to facilitate his improvement, he from time to time furnished to “The Universal Spectator,” “The Westminster Journal,” The Gentleman’s Magazine,“and other periodical publications of the time, essays and disquisitions on several subjects. The first of these is believed to have been an” Essay on Swearing;“but the exact time of its appearance, and the paper in which it was inserted, are both equally unknown. It was, however, re-published some years since (without his knowledge till he saw it in print) in one of the newspapers. His next production was an” Essay on Honesty," inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March, 1739; and which occasioned a controversy, continued through the magazines for several succeeding months, between him and a Mr. Calamy, a descendant of the celebrated Dr. Edmund Calamy, then a fellow-clerk with him.

, esq. an agreeable English writer, was born at Glenburne in Sussex, Aug. 21, 1695, and educated partly at Newick, near Lewes, and partly at Lewes. In 1712 he went to Oxford, which he left without a degree, and removed to the Temple. Here he studied the law until a defect in his sight from the small pox obliged him to relinquish it. In 1718 he travelled in England and Scotland, and in 1720 on the continent, where he was a very acute observer and inquirer. After his return he resided for some years at his house in Sussex.

, a strenuous advocate for Socinianism, was born in 1672, and became assay-master of the mint, and principal tally-writer of the exchequer. In defence of the independence and prerogatives of his office, he printed and privately dispersed a tract entitled “A hriel enquiry relating to the right of his majesty’s Chapel Royal, and the privileges of his servants within the Tower, in a Memorial addressed to the rignt hon. the lord viscount Lonsdale, constable of his majesty’s Tower of London,” 1728, folio. His principal effort in favour of Socicianism was entitled “The Scripture account of the attributes and worship of God, and of the character and offices of Jesus Christ, by a candid Enquirer after Truth.” This he left for the press, and it was accordingly printed by his son, in obedience to his father’s injunctions, but probably against his own inclinations, nor was it generally known as a publication until reprinted in 1790 by the late rev. Theophilus Lindsey. Mr. Haynesdied November 19, 1749. His son Samuel Haynes was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B in 1723, A. M. 1727, and D. D. in 1748. He was tutor to the earl of Salisbury, with whom he travelled, and who, in 1737, presented him to the valuable rectory of Hatfield in Hertfordshire. In March 1743, he succeeded to a canonry of Windsor; and in May 1747, he was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Clothal, which he held by dispensation with Hatfield. He died June 9, 1752. He published “A Collection of State-papers, relating to affairs in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary and Elizabeth, from 1542 to 1570,” transcribed from the Cecil Mss. in Hatfield-house, 1740, fol.

, an eminent English antiquary, and indefatigable collector and editor of books and manuscripts, was the son of George Hearne, parish-clerk of White Waltham, Berkshire, by Edith, daughter of Thomas Wise. He was born at Littlefteld-green in the above parish, in 1678, and baptised July 11th of that year. He appears to have been born with a taste for those researches which formed afterwards the business of his life; and even when he had but attained a knowledge of the alphabet, was seen continually poring over the old tomb-stones in the church-yard. As to education, he had very little. His father, who kept a writing-school, and who, as parishclerk, was also a kind of amanuensis to the illiterate part of his neighbours, could teach him English and writing, in both which he made considerable proficiency; but he had other children, and, instead of being able to place Thomas at any superior school, was obliged to let him earn his subsistence as a day-labourer. His natural abilities, however, appeared through this disadvantage, and his being a better reader and writer than could have been expected from his scanty opportunities, recommended him to the kind attention of an early patron, whom he calls “that pious and learned gentleman Francis Cherry, esq.” By this gentleman, in whose house he was for some time a menial servant, he was placed at the free-school of Bray in Berkshire, in the beginning of 1693, and rewarded his care by such diligent application, as to acquire an accurate knowledge of Greek and Latin. He was on this account much respected both by the master and his fellow-scholars, who were accustomed to consult him in their little difficulties, and used to listen to his information respecting English history, which his original taste had led him to study as he found opportunity.

, an ingenious English divine, and miscellaneous writer, descended of an ancient Derbyshire family, whose property was injured during the civil wars, was born Dec. 16, 1721, at Barrow upon Soar, in Leicestershire. His father was then curate of that place, but afterwards had the vicarage of Sileby in that county, and the rectory of Morton in Derbyshire. He died in 1765. His mother was a daughter of Simon Ockley, Arabic professor at Cambridge. He passed the first fourteen years at home with his father, who taught him Greek and Latin, but in April 1736, sent him to the public school of Chesterfield, where he continued five years under the rev. William Burrow, a learned man, and a very skilful teacher. In April 1741 r he was admitted sizar of Jesus college, Cambridge, and in Jan. 1745, took his degree of A. B. and soon after entered intered into holy orders. In March 1748 he undertook the cure of St. Margaret’s, Leicester, and the year after waspresented to the small vicarage of Barkby, in the neighbourhood, which, with his curacy (worth 50l. yearly) he says made him “well to live.” In July 1748, he took his master’s degree, and at the same time withdrew his name from college, having in view a marriage with miss Margaret Mompesson, a Nottinghamshire la;iy of good family, which tie accomplished in August 1750, and whose fortune, in his estimation, made him independent. This lady died April 12, 1790.

On the appearance of lord Bolingbroke’s works, he published in 1755, “A Sketch of lord Bollngbroke’s philosophy,” the object of which was to vindicate the moral attributes of the Deity. In the latter end of the same year, came out, “The use of Reason asserted in matters of Religion, in answer to a Sermon preached by Dr Patten at Oxford, July 13, 1755,” whom he act used of being a Hutchinsonian; and, the year after, a Defence of this against Dr. Patten, who had replied. Dr. Home also, a friend to Dr. Patten, animadverted on Mr. Ht athcote’s pamphlet: but it seems not to have been long before all their sentiments concurred; at least, the Hutchinsonians could not blame Mr. Heathcote more than he blamed himself. “When,” says he, “the heat of controversy was over, I could not look into them (the pamphlets) myself, without disgust and pain. The spleen of Middleton, and the petulancy of Warburton, had too much infected me.” This candid acknowledgment, however, seems to justify Mr. Jones’s language in his life of bishop Home. “A Mr. Heathcote, a very intemperate and unmanly writer, published a pamphlet against Dr. Patten, laying himself open, both in the matter and the manner of it, to the criticisms of Dr. Patten, who will appear to have been greatly his superior as a scholar and a divine, to any candid reader who shall review that controversy. Dr. Patten could not with any propriety be said to have written on the Hutchinsonian plan; but Mr. Heathcote found it convenient to charge him with it, &c.” Warburton, too, who had complimented Mr. Heathcote to his face, speaks of him in a letter to Dr. Hurd (in 1757) as one whose “matter is rational, but superficial and thin spread.” He adds, “he will prove as great a scribbler as Comber. They are both sensible, and both have reading. The difference is, that the one has so much vivacity as to make him ridiculous; the other so little as to be unentertaining. Comber’s excessive vanity may be matched by H.'s pride; which I think is a much worse quality.” In this censure the reader may perceive somewhat that will recoil upon the writer, but Heathcote, we see, lived to acknowledge what was amiss, which Warburton did not.

To this character, part of a sketch of his life prefixed to his “Commentaries, published in 1802, much might be added. No physician, indeed, was ever more highly or more deservedly respected. His various and extensive learning, his modesty in the use of it, his freedom from jealousy or envy, his independent spirit, his simple yet dignified manners, and his exemplary discharge of all the relative duties, are topics on which all who knew him delight to dwell. Mr. Cole, who bestows very high praise on him, an article in which that gentleman was in general penurious, gives us the following anecdote of Dr. Heberden, which corresponds with the above account of his reverence for religion.” Understanding that Dr. Con. Middleton had composed a book on the ‘ Inefficacy of Prayer,’ he called upon his widow soon after the Dr.‘s death, and asked her if she was not in possession of such a tract? She answered that she was; he then asked her, if any bookseller had been in treaty with her for it? She said that a bookseller had offered her 50l. for it. He then demanded, if there was a duplicate ’ No' upon that he requested to see it, and she immediately brgught it, and put it into his hands. The Dr. holding it in one hand, and giving it a slight perusal, threw it into the fire, and with the other hand gave her a 50l. note.“This anecdote Mr. Cole had from Dr. Newton, bishop of Bristol. It is certain that Dr. Middleton’s widow bequeathed her husband’s remaining Mss. to Dr. Heberden, from which, in, 1761, he obliged the learned world with a curious tract, entitled” Dissertations de servili Medicorum conditione Appendix,“&c. with a short but elegant advertisement of his own. In 1763, a most valuable edition of the” Supplices Mulieres“of Euripides, with the notes of Mr. Markland, was printed entirely at the expence of Dr. Heberden; and, in 1763, the same very learned commentator presented his notes on the two Jphigenix,” Doctissimo, & quod longe prastantius est, humanissimo viro Wilhelmo Heberden, M. D. arbitratu ejus vel cremandtE, vel in publicum emittendae post obiturn scriptoris,“&c. He wrote the epitaph in Dorking church on Mr. Markland, who had” bequeathed to him all his books and papers. One of these, a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in folio, the margin filled with notes, was kindly lent by Dr. Heberden, “with that liberal attention to promote the cause of virtue and religion which was one of his many well-known excellences,” to the publisher of the last edition of Mr. Bowyer’s “Conjectures on the New Testament, 1782,” 4to. To Dr. Heberden Mr. Bowyer also bequeathed his “little, cabinet of coins, a few books specifically, and any others, which the doctor might chuse to accept.” To Dr. H.'s other publications, we may add his “Αντιθηριακα, an Essay on Mithridatium and Theriaca,” 1745, 3vo. He was also a writer in the “Athenian Letters,” and in his early life contributed some notes to Grey’s “Hudibras,” as acknowledged by that editor in his preface.

, at first an advocate, afterwards an ecclesiastic, and abbé of Auhignac and Meimac, was born at Paris in 1604. Cardinal Richelieu, whose nephew he educated, bestowed on him his two abbeys, and the protection of that minister gave him consequence both as a man of the world and as an author. He figured by turns as a grammarian, a classical scholar, a poet, an antiquary, a preacher, and a writer of romances; but he was most known by his book entitled “Pratique du Theatre,” and by the quarrels in which his haughty and presumptuous temper engaged him, with some of the most eminent authors of his time. The great Corneille was one of these, whose disgust first arose from the entire omission of his name in the celebrated book above mentioned. He was also embroiled, on different accounts, with madame Scuderi, Menage, and Richelet. The warmth of his temper exceeded rhat of his imagination, which was considerable; and yet he lived at court a good deal in the style of a philosopher, rising early to his studies, soliciting no favours, and associating chiefly with a few friends, as unambitious as himself, he describes himself as of a slender constitution, not capable of taking much exercise, or even of applying very intensely to study, without suffering from it in his health; yet not attached to any kind of play. “It is,” ays he, “too fatiguing for the feebleness of my body, or too indolent for the activity of my mind.” The abbé d'Aubignac lived to the age of seventy-two, and died at xnours in 1676. His works are, 1. “Pratique du Theatre,” Amsterdam, 1717, two vols. 8vo; also in a 4to edition published at Paris; a book of considerable learning, but little calculated to inspire or form a genius. 2. “Zenobie,” a tragedy, in prose, composed according to the rules laid down in his “Pratique,” and a complete proof of the total inefficacy of rules to produce an interesting drama, being the most dull and fatiguing performance that was ever represented. The prince of Condé said, on the subject of this tragedy, “We give great credit to the abbé d'Aubignac for having so exactly followed the rules of Aristotle, but owe no thanks to the rules of Aristotle for having made the abbé produce so vile a tragedy.” He wrote a few other other tragedies also, which are worse, if possible, than Zenobia. 3. “Macaride; or the Queen of the Fortunate Islands,” a novel, Paris, 1666, 2 vok 8vo. 4. “Conseils d'Ariste à Celimene, 12mo. 5.” Histoire da terns, ou Relation du Royaume de Coqueterie,“12mo, 6.” Terence justifié,“inserted in some editions of his” Pratique.“7.” Apologie de Spectacles," a work of no value. A curious book on satyrs, brutes, and monsters, has been attributed to him; but, though the author’s name was Hedelin, he does not appear to have been the same.

Heister seems early to have had a taste for botany, and to have collected plants, as Haller observes, in his various journeys. This taste enabled him to (ill the botanical chair at Helmstad with credit and satisfaction, and he paid great attention to the garden there, which he much enriched. His first botanical publication, “De Coilectione Simplicium,” was the inaugural dissertation. of one of his pupils named Rabe, printed in 1722; and had he written nothing else, his botanical labours should have been consigned to oblivion; but his subsequent works rank him as an original writer, and he might have acquired more fame had he been favoured with leisure to look deeper, and not been warped by preconceived ideas. In 1732 ha published a dissertation on the “Use of the Leaves” in founding genera of plants, preferring those parts for a natural arrangement, on account of the obscurity and difficulty attending those of the flower. In August 1741, our author came forth as the professed adversary of Linnæus, in the inaugural dissertation of one of his pupils named Goeckel, entitled tl Meditationes et Animadversiones in novum Systema Botanicum sexuale LinniEi;“but the arguments by which the learned professor and his pupil attempt to prove the position they assume, that the” method of Linnæus is extremely difficult, very doubtful, and uncertain,“are not very cogent. Another dissertation of Heister’s, published in Oct. 1741,” de Nominum Piantarum Mutaiione utili ac noxia,“is a more diffuse and elaborate attack on the nomenclature of the great Swedish teacher, whom, however, he terms” a most diligent and most valuable botanist.“Nor does it appear that he was instigated to these attacks by any personal enmity, nor by any more extraordinary flow of bile than was usual among controversialists, of that day at least. Whatever he pursued, he pursued with ardour, and perhaps as he advanced in age, seated in professional state, he grew more pertinacious in his opinions. Hence his subsequent attacks on Linnæus are marked with more vehemence, but proportionably, as usual, with less reason. In 1748, notwithstanding his dislike to the Linnsean principles, he published a” Systema Piantarum Generale ex fructificatione, cui annectuntur regulaj ejusdem, de Nominibus Piantarum, a celeb. Linnaei longe diversae." This system is allied to that of Boerhaave, and though it takes into consideration many particulars of general habit or structure, is not more natural than the professedly artificial system of Linnæus.

, by birth an Englishman, arrived at the singular distinction of being admired in France as a writer in the French language. He was born in Gloucestershire about 1740. He began his career in the army, and served in Jamaica till the peace of 1763. A desire of seeing the most remarkable parts of Europe, now carried him into Italy, where he was so captivated with the beauty of the climate, and the innumerable objects of liberal curiosity which presented themselves, that he continued there several years. About 1770, having satisfied his curiosity in Italy, he turned his thoughts to France, and went to Paris. There also he studied the state of the arts, and was particularly attentive to the theatre. At length he began to write for the Italian comedy, which had principally attracted his notice, and wrote with considerable success. The pieces for that theatre are written chiefly in French, with French titles, and only one or two characters in Italian. He wrote, l. “Le Jugement de Midas,” on the contest between French and Italian music, which was much applauded. But his 2. “Amant jaloux,” had still more success. 3. His third piece, “Les Evenemens imprevus,” met with some exceptions, on which he modestly withdrew it, and after making the corrections suggested, brought it forward again, and had the pleasure to find it much approved. The comedies of this writer, are full of plot, the action lively and interesting: his versification is not esteemed by the French to be of consummate perfection, nor his prose always pure; yet his dialogue constantly pleased, and was allowed to have the merit of nature and sound composition. Mr. Hele died at Paris, of a consumptive disorder, in December 1750 and it may possibly be long before another Englishman will be so distinguished as a writer in the French language. We take this account from French authors, who write his name d'Hele, perhaps it was properly Hale or Dale.

"A wealthy canonry was promised me then, so that I might, if I pleased, turn myself to divinity but saint Bernard affrighted me from it, saying, that I should eat the sins of the people. 7 I begged therefore of the Lord Jesus, that he would vouchsafe to call me to that profession in which 1 might please him most. The Jesuits began at that time to teach philosophy at Louvain, and one of the professors expounded the disquisitions and secrets of magic. Both these lectures I greedily received; but instead of grain, I reaped only stubble, and fantastic conceits void of sense. In the mean time, lest an hour should pass without some benefit, I run through some writings of the stoics, those of Seneca, and especially of Epictetus, who pleased me exceedingly. I seemed, in moral philosophy, to have found the quintessence of truth, and did verily believe, that through stoicism I advanced in Christian perfection; but 1 discovered afterwards in a dream, that stoicism was an empty and swollen bubble, and that by this study, under the appearance of moderation, I became, indeed, most self-sufficient and haughty. Lastly, 1 turned over Mathiolus and Dioscorides; thinking with myself nothjng equally necessary for mortal man to know and admire, as the wisdom and goodness of God in vegetables; to the end that he might not only crop the fruit for food, but also minister of the same to his other necessities. My curiosity being now raised upon this branch of study, I inquired, whether there were any book, which delivered the maxims and rule of medicine for I then supposed, that medicine was not altogether a mere gift, but might ]be taught, and delivered by discipline, like other arts and sciences: at least I thought, if medicine was a good gift coming down from the Father of lights, that it might have, as an human science, its theorems and authors, into whom, as into Bazaleel and Aholiab, the spirit of the Lord had infused the knowledge of all diseases and their causes, and also the knowledge of the properties of things. I inquired, I say, whether no writer had described the qualities, properties, applications, and proportions of vegetables, from the hyssop even to the cedar of Libanus? A certain professor of medicine answered me, that none of these things were to be looked for either in Galen or Avicen. I was very ready to believe this, from the many fruitless searches I hau made in books for truth and knowledge before; however, following my natural bent, which lay to the study of nature, I read the institutions of Fuchsius and Fernelius; in whom I knew I had surveyed the whole science of medicine, as it were in an epitome. Is this, said I, smiling to myself, the knowledge of healing Is the whole history of natural properties thus shut up in elementary qualities Therefore I read the works of Galen twice of Hippocrates once, whose aphorisms I almost got by heart; all Avicen, as well as the Greeks, Arabians, and moderns, to the tune of 600 authors. I read them seriously and attentively through; and took down, as I went along, whatever seemed curious and worthy of attention; when at length, reading over my common-place book, I was grieved at the pains I had bestowed, and the years I had spent, in throwing together such a mass of stufc Therefore I straightway left off all books whatever, all formal discourses, and empty promises of the schools; firmly believing every good and perfect gift to come down from the Father of lights, more particularly that of medicine.

, perhaps Elliot, properly, as he was of British extraction, was born in Jan. 1660, and became in 1633 a religious of the order of Picpus near Paris, which is a branch of that of St. Francis, and was raised to several offices in his order. His fame is founded on a large work, the toil of twenty -three years, in eight volumes 4to, “A History of Monastic Orders, religious and military, and of secular congregations of both sexes,” &c. &c. which he began to print in 1714. The four last volumes were edited by father Louis, the provincial of his order, with the assistance of Maximilian Bullot. Helyot died at Picpus, near Paris, Jan. 5, 1716. His work is full of learned research, and more correct than any thing on that subject which had then appeared. He was a man of exemplary piety, and a neat, though not elegant, or natural writer.

, an eminent French writer, and president in parliament, was born at Paris, Feb. 8, 1685. His great grandfather, Remi Henault, used to be of Lewis XIII.' s party at tennis, and that prince called him “The Baron,” because of a fief which he possessed near Triel. He had three sons, officers of horse, who were all killed at the siege of Casal. John Remi, his father, an esquire, and lord of Moussy, counsellor to the king, and secretary to the council, kept up the honour of the family, and becoming farmer-general, made his fortune. He was honoured with the confidence of the count de Pontchartrain; and, being of a poetical turn, had some share in the criticisms which appeared against Racine’s tragedies. He married the daughter of a rich merchant at Calais, and one of her brothers being president of that town, entertained the queen of England on her landing there in 1689. Another brother, counsellor in the parliament of Metz, and secretary to the duke of Berry, was associated with Mr. Crozat in the armaments, and, dying unmarried, left a great fortune to his sister. Young Renault early discovered a sprightly, benevolent disposition, and his penetration and aptness soon distinguished itself by the success of his studies. Claude de Lisle, father of the celebrated geographer, gave him the same lessons in geography and history which he had before given to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. These instructions have been printed in seven volumes, under the title of “Abridgment of Universal History.”

, an eminent dissenting teacher, and a voluminous writer, was the son of the foregoing, and born in 1662. He continued under his father’s eye and care till about eighteen; and had the greatest advantages of his education from him, both in divine and human literature. He was very expert in the learned languages, especially in the Hebrew, which had been made familiar to him from his childhood; and from first to last, the study of the scriptures was his most delightful employment. For further improvement, he was placed in 16SOat an academy at Islington. He was afterwards entered in Gray’s-inn, for the study of the law where he went on with his usual diligence, and became acquainted with the civil law, and the municipal law of his own country. His proficiency was soon observed; and it was the opinion of those who knew him, that his great industry, quick apprehension, tenacious memory, and ready utterance, would render him very eminent in that profession. But he adhered to his first resolution of making divinity his study and business, and attended the most celebrated preachers in town; and, as an instance of his judgment, was best pleased with Dr. Stillingfleet for his serious practical preaching; and with Dr. Tillotson for his admirable sermons against popery, at his lectures at St. Lawrence Jewry. In 1686, he returned into the country, and preached several times as a candidate for the ministry with such success and approbation, that the congregation at Chester invited him to be their pastor. To this place he was ordained in 1687, where he lived about twenty-five years. He had several calls from London, which he constantly declined but was at last prevailed ou to accept a very important and unanimous one from Hackney. He died in 1714, at Nantwich, of an apoplectic fit, upon a journey, and was interred in Trinity-church, in Chester.

, a miscellaneous writer, and an imitator of the periodical essays of queen Anne’s reign, was born in Scotland in 1690, and in 1711 began a periodical paper called The Tatler, by Donald Macstaff of the North,“which extended to thirty numbers. They are evidently the production of a man of vigorous native powers, and of a, mind not meanly stored with ancient learning, and familiar with the best writings of the moderns; but they gave much offence, by the description of known characters, and by the personal satire which the author employed, with no gentle or delicate hand, on some men of note, both in the ecclesiastical and civil departments, among his countrymen. Mr. Hepburn, who had studied the civil law in Holland, became a member of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh in 1712, and died soon after very young. Lord Hailes justly termed him” ingenii praecocis etpraefervidi.“In the concluding paper of his” Tatler“he announced, as then in the press, a translation of sir George Mackenzie’s” Idea eloquentia? Forensis;“and in the Advocates’ library is a small volume containing two treatises of his writing; the one entitled” Demonstratio quod Deus sit,“and the ether, Dissertatio de Scriptis Pitcarnianis.” The former of these is neatly and methodically written; the latter is somewhat jejune in point of matter, and too lavish of general panegyric.

, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-­castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford, where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in. such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which he became singularly expert. He returned to England in 1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in. order that he might have the opportunity of serving with the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low. Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616 he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a complaint to our king, he was called back into England in some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly sent back upon the same embassy.”

Another writer relates this more particularly. Sir Edward, while he was in France, had private instructions from England to mediate a peace for the protestants in France; and, in case of a refusal, to use certain menaces. Accordingly, being referred to de Luines, he delivered to him the message, reserving his threatenings till he saw how the matter was relished. De Luines had concealed a gentleman of the reformed religion behind the curtain; who, heing an ear-witness of what passed, might relate to his friends what little expectations they ought to entertain of the king of England’s intercession. De Luines was very haughty, and asked what our king had to do in this affair. Sir Edward replied, “It is not to you, to whom the king my master owcth an account of his actions; and for me it is enough that I obey him. In the mean time I must maintain, that my master hath more reason to do what he doth, than you to ask why he doth it. Nevertheless, if you desire me in a gentle fashion, I shall acquaint you farther.” Upon this, de Luines bowing a little, said, “Very well.” The ambassador then gave him some reasons; to which de Luines said, “We will have none of your advices.” The ambassador replied, “that he took that for an answer, and was sorry only, that the affection and good-will of the king his master was not sufficiently understood and that, since it was rejected ii> that manner, he could do no less than say, that the king his master knew well enough what to do.” De Luines answered, “We are not afraid of you.” The ambassador smiling a little, replied, “If you had said you had not loved us, I should have believed you, and given you another answer. In the mean time, all that I will tell you more is, that we know very well what we have to do.” De Luines upon this, rising from his chair with a fashion and countenance a little discomposed, said, “By G, if you were not monsieur the ambassador, I know very well how I would use yon.” Sir Edward Herbert rising also from his chair, said, that “as he was the king of Great Britain’s ambassador, so he was also a gentleman; and that his sword, whereon he laid his hand, should give him satisfaction if he had taken any offence.” After which, de Luines making no reply, the ambassador went on towards the door, and de Luines seeming to accompany him, sir Edward told him, that “there was no occasion to use such ceremony after such language,” and so departed, expecting to hear farther from him. But no message being brought from de Luines, he had, in pursuance of his instructions, a more civil audience from the king at Coignac; where the marshal of St. Geran told him that tf he had offended the constable, and was not in a place of security there:“to which he answered, that” he thought himself to be in a place of security wheresoever he had his sword by him." De Luines, resenting the affront, procured Cadinet his brother, duke of Chaun, with a train of officers, of whom there was not one, as he told king James, but had killed his man, to go as an ambassador extraordinary; who misrepresented the affair so much to the disadvantage of sir Edward, that the earl of Carlisle, who was sent to accommodate the misunderstanding which might arise between the two crowns, got him recalled; until the gentleman who stood behind the curtain, out of a regard to truth and honour, related all the circumstances so as to make it appear, that though de Luines gave the first affront, yet sir Edward had kept himself within the bounds of his instructions and honour. He afterwards fell on his knees to king James, before the duke of Buckingham, requesting that a trumpeter, if not an herald, might be sent to de Luines, to tell him that he had made a false relation of the whole affair; and that sir Edward Herbert would demand satisfaction of him sword in hand. The king answered, that he would take it into consideration; but de Luines died soon after, and sir Edward was sent again ambassador to France.

, A. M. an English controversial writer, was a native of Suffolk, and admitted pensioner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Fawcett, Oct. 29, 1711; he was made scholar of the house next year, and proceeded A. B. in 1715. About this time he was recommended to the duchess of Bedford, who took him into her family, for the instruction of her sons, Wrotthesly, the third, and John, the fourth duke of Bedford; and the year following he was made fellow of Merton college, Oxford, where he commenced M. A. in 1718. He was a man of learning, virtue, and spirit, and continued a batcheior and a layman till the time of his death, which happened at Woburn about the year 1722. He published “The False notion of a Christian priesthood, &c.” in answer to Mr. Law, 1717-8 “A Letter to the Prolocutor,” jjo answer to one from him to Dr. Tenison, 1717-8. “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Tenison concerning Citations out of Arch. Wake’s Preliminary Discourse to the Apostolic Fathers,” Lond. 1718; ' Three Discourses on private Judgment, against the authority of the Magistrate over conscience, and considerations concerning uniting Protestants, translated from Professor Werenfels, with a preface to Dr. Teaison by Philakuthtirus Cantabrigiemis, Lond. 171-8.“Under this name he was one of the writers in the Bangorian controversy, of which he began in some measure the history, by publishing an account of all the considerable pamphlets to which it gave rise, with a continuation and occasional observations, to the end of the year 1719, by the name of Philonagnostes Criticus. He published also, w An account of all the considerable books and pamphlets written in the controversy concerning the Trinity,” from 1712 to the same time, Lond. 1720: also a “Vindication of the Archbishop of Canterbury from being the author of a Letter on the State of Religion in England, printed at Zurich,” Lond. 1719; and “Two letters to Dr. Mangey on his Sermon upon Christ’s Divinity,” published about the same time.

, a political and poetical writer of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John first earl of Bristol, by his second wife, Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir to sir Thomas Felton of Playford in the county of Suffolk, bart. He was born Oct. 15, 1696, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1715, previously to which, on Nov. 7, 1714, he had been made gentleman of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. He came into parliament soon after the accession of George I. and was appointed vice-chamberlain to the king in 1730, and a privy counsellor. In 1733 he was called up by writ to the house of peers, as lord Hervey of Ickworth; and in 1740 was constituted lord privy seal, from which post he was removed in 1742. He died Aug. 5, 1743, in the forty-seventh year of his age, a short period, but to which his life had been protracted with the greatest care and difficulty. Having early in life felt some attacks of the epilepsy, he entered upon and persisted in a very strict regimen, which stopped the progress of that dreadful disease, but prevented his acquiring, or at least long enjoying, the blessing of sound health. It is to this rigid abstemiousness that Pope malignantly alludes in the character he has given of lord Hervey, under the name of Sporus, in the line “the mere white curd of asses milk.” But lord Hervey affords a memorable instance of the caution with which we ou^ht to read the characters drawn by Pope and his associates; nor can too much praise be given to his late editors for the pains they have taken to rescue some of them from the imputations which proceeded from the irritable temper and malignity of that admired satirist. In the character of Sporus, Dr. Warton has justly observed, that language cannot afford more glowing or more forcible terms to express the utmost bitterness of contempt. Pope and his lordship were once friends; but they quarrelled at a time when the poetical world seemed to be up in arms, and perpetually contending in a manner disgraceful to their characters. In the quarrel between Pope and lord Hervey, it appears that Pope was the aggressor, and that lord Hervey wrote some severe lines in reply, and An Epistle from a Nobleman to a Doctor of Divinity.“1733. (Dr. Sherwin). In answer to this, Pope wrote the” Letter to a Noble Lord, on occasion of some libels written and propagated at court in the year 1732-3,“which is printed in his Works, and, as Warburton says,” is conducive to what he had most at heart, his moral character,“to which, after all, it conduced very little, as he Violated every rule of truth and decency in his subsequent attack on lord Hervey in the” Prologue to the Satires,“under the character of Sporus, whic,h, we agree with Mr. Coxe,” cannot be read without disgust and horror disgust at the indelicacy of the allusions, and horror at the malignity of the poet, in laying the foundation of his abuse on the lowest species of satire, personal invective; and what is still worse, on sickness and debility."

He was a very voluminous writer, and although few of his works can be recommended to general perusal, there are none perhaps of the whole series which may not be consulted with advantage, by those who have leisure and inclination to study the history of parties, in the distracted period in which he lived. Many of his lesser pieces were published together in 1681, in a folio volume, with a life of the author by the rev. George Vernon, which having given offence to his relations, a new life was published by his son-in-law Dr. Barnard, 1682, 12mo. It is from a comparison of both (Vernon’s has since been published in 12mo) that a proper judgment can be formed of Dr. Heylin. His other works of most note are, 1. “An Help to English History,” &c. 1641, 8vo, published under the name of Robert Hall, gent, republished with the additions of Christopher Wilkinson a bookseller, but with Heylin’s name in 1670, 8vo. It was again republished, and brought down to 1709 and in 1773 an improved edition was published by Paul Wright, D. D. in 1773, a lar^e 8vo. Capt. Beatson’s “Political Index” may be considered as a continuation of this work. 2. “History of the Sabbath,” 3636, 4to, intended to reconcile the public to that dreadful error in the conduct of the court, the “Book of Sports,” which did incalculable injury to the royal cause. 3. “Theologia Veterum; the Sum of the Christian Theology contained in the creed, according to the Greeks and Latins, &c. Lond. 1654, fol. reprinted 1673. 4. Ecclesia Vindicata; or the Church of England justified, 1. In the way and manner of her Reformation, &c. 2. In officiating by a public Liturgy. 3. In prescribing a set form of Prayer to be used by preachers before their sermons. 4. In her right and patrimony of tithes. 5. In retaining the episcopal government, and therewithal the canonical ordination of priests and deacons,” London 1657, in 4to, dedicated to Mr. Edward Davys, vicar of Shilton in Berkshire, formerly his master in the free-school of Burford in Oxfordshire. 5. “Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (the second monarch of Great Britain) from his birth to his burial,” London, 1658, in 8vo. This Life Wood supposes to be the same with that which was printed with and prefixed to “Reliquiae sacrae Carolina,” printed at the Hague, 1649, in 8vo. 6. “Examen Historicum or a discovery and examination of the mistakes and defects in some modern histories, viz. 1. In the Church History of Britain, by Tho. Fuller. To which is added, an Apology of Dr. Jo. Cosin, dean of Peterborough, in answer to some passages in the Church History of Britain, in which he finds himself concerned. 2. In the History of Mary Queen of Scots, and of her son King James VI,; the History of King James I. of Great Britain; and the History of King Charles I. from his cradle to his grave, by Will. Sanderson, esq. London, 1658, in a large 8vo. To this is ndded, An Appendix in an answer to some passages in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Post-haste Reply, &c. by Will. Sanderson, esq.” Soon after Dr. Thomas Fuller published a thin folio, entitled “The Appeal for injured Innocence,” which was commonly bound up with the remaining copies of his Church History in quires; and Mr. Sanderson wrote. a pamphlet, entitled “Peter pursued; or Dr. Heylin overtaken, arrested, and arraigned upon his three Appendixes: 1. Respondet Petrus. 2. Answer to Post-Haste Reply. 3. Advertisements on three Histories. viz. of Mary Queen of Scots, King James, and King Charles,” 1658, in 8 sheets in 4to. 7. “Historia QuinquArticularis: or a declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. Collected in the way of an Historicall Narration out of the public acts and monuments, and most approved authors of those scverall churches,” London, 1660, in 4to. This involved him in a controversy with some able writers. 8. “History of the Reformation of the Church of England from the first preparations to it made by King Henry VIII. until the legal settling and establishing of it underQueen Elizabeth,*' &c. London, 1661, 1670, and 1674, in folio. 9.” Cyprianus Anglicus r or the History of the Life and Death of William (Laud) Archbishop of Canterbury,“&c. London, 1668 and 1671, fol. 10.” Aerius Redivivus: or the History of the Presbyterians. Containing the beginning, progress, and successes of that sect. Their oppositions to monarchical and episcopal government. Their innovations in the church; and their inbroylments of the kingdoms and estates of Christendom in the pursuit of their designes. From the year 1536 to the year 1647," London, 1670 and 1672, in folio.

, a voluminous female writer, was the daughter of a tradesman of London, of the name of Fowler, and was born about 1693. An unfortunate marriage reduced her *o the necessity of depending on her pen, for the support of herself and two children, the eldest of whom was then only seven years of age. Her genius leading her to novel-writing, she took Mrs. Manley’s “Atalantis” for her model, and produced “The Court of Arimania,” “The New Utopia,” with other pieces of a like kind. The looseness of these works were the ostensible reason of Pope for putting her into his “Dunciad;” but it is most probable, that some provocation of a private and personal nature was the real motive to it. She seemed, however, to be convinced of her error; since, in the numerous volumes she published afterwards, she generally appeared a votary of virtue, and preserved more purity and delicacy of sentiment. Her latter writings are, 1. “The Female Spectator,” 4 vols; 2. “Epistles for the Ladies,” 2 vols. 3. “Fortunate Foundling,” 1 vol. 4. “Adventures of Nature,” 1 vol. 5. “History of Betsey Thoughtless,” 4 vofs. 6. “Jenny and Jemmy Jessamy,” 3 vols. 7. “Invisible Spy,” 2 vols. 8. “Husband and Wife,” 2 vols. all in 12mo; and a pamphlet, entitled “A Present for a Servant Maid.”

, an actor, and a writer of plays, in the reigns of queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. has not had the time of his birth and death recorded. Winstanley says, he was one of the most voluminous writers ef his age: and, in a preface to one of his plays, he tells us, that it was one preserved out of 220; of which number only 24 now remain. He displayed much learning in his “Actor’s Vindication;” but what rank he held on the stage none of his biographers have informed us. Langbaine observes of him, that he was a general scholar and tolerable linguist, as his translations from Lucian, Erasmus, and from other Latin as well as Italian authors, sufficiently shew: the wits and poets, however, have always held him cheap. Besides his “Actor’s Vindication,” he wrote “A Life of Merlin” The Hierarchy of Angels“Life of queen Elizabeth” “The Lives of nine Worthies” “The Lives of nine Women Worthies;” “A general History of Women,” &c. &c. Notices of some of these may be found in our authorities.

, a half-crazy kind of writer, whose works may probably excite some curiosity respecting the author, was born in 1630, in Essex, where there was a considerable family of that name. He was first a pensioner in St. John’s college, Cambridge; then, in 1650, junior bachelor of Gonvill and Caius college. He was soon after a lieutenant in the English army in Scotland, then a captain in general Fleetwood’s regiment, when he was Swedish ambassador in England for Carolus Gustavus. He afterwards went to Jamaica in some capacity, and on his return, in 1660, published an account of it, called “Jamaica viewed,” 4to. two editions of which were printed in 1661, dedicated to Charles II. who in return appointed the author secretary to the earl of Windsor, then going out as governor of Jamaica. This post, however, he did not accept, but took orders, and first obtained the vicarage of Boxted in Essex, Oct. 22, 1662, and, about the same time, the rectory of All Saints, Colchester. The former he resigned in 1664, but retained the latter the whole of his life, notwithstanding he gave much offence to his brethren by his wild and often scurrilous attacks on the church in a variety of pamphlets. “He was a man,” says Newcourt, “though episcopally ordained (by bishop Sanderson), yet publicly bade defiance to the prelacy, and that of his own diocesan in particular: an impudent, violent, ignorant fellow, very troublesome, as far as he could, to his right reverend diocesan, and to all that lived near him.” He died Nov. 30, 1708, and was interred in the church of All Saints, Colchester, with a long Latin epitaph, part of which, “Reverendus admodum Dominus tarn Marte quain Mercurio clarus, quippe qui terra marique militavit non sine gloria, ingeniique vires scriptis multiplice argumento insignitis demonstravit, c.” was afterwards effaced, by order, as it was commonly reported at Colchester, of bishop Compton. His tracts, which in point of style and often of matter, are beneath criticism, were collected and published by himself in a quarto vol. 1707. They include his account of Jamaica the trial of the spiritual courts general history of priestcraft; a satyr upon poverty; a satyr against fame the survey of the earth and the writ de excommunicato capiendo unmasked receipts to cure the evil of this wicked world the art of contentment, a poem, &c. &c. Mr. Malone has introduced him in his life of Dryden, as the author of the “Mushroom, or a satyr against libelHng tories and preiatical-tantivies, &c.” He published also a few occasional sermons, which are reprinted in a Second edition of his works, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo.

The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae & Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas. Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. inscribed to archbishop Sancroft. While the dean was writing the preface to this book, there were great disputes in the house of commons, and throughout the kingdom, about the original contract; which occasioned him to insert the ancient coronation oath of our Saxon kings, to shew, what was not very necessary, that there is not the least footstep of any such contract. 2. “Antiquae literature Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im, necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus, Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities, have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at 3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that they believed the author to be a man of a particular head; for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After his death was published another volume of his Sermons, with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.” A Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of” The judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon him the title of king. 5.” Ravillac Redivivus, being a narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, &c.“6.” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh, 'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction made them much read, and did the author considerable service with several great personages, and even with the king. 7.” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the author of” Julian.“8.” The case of Infant Baptism, 1683;“printed in the second vol. of the” London Cases, 168.5,“4to. 9.” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted, with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.” The celebrated story of the Thebati Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714, for reasons given in the preface. 12.” Reflections upon a Letter out of the country to a member of this present parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion was afterwards contradicted, 13.” A Letter to the author of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience, 16S9.“The author of the” Vindication,“was Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not to it. 14.” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr. Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs, 1689.“15.” An Apology for the new Separation, in a letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.” The Pretences of the Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19. A letter in the” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled, “Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions, quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr. G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.” The person on whose account this book was published, was the lady Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A second collection of controversial Letters relating to the church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.” This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order, against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.” Trie third edition in 1711, enlarged into two volumes, 8vo. 23. “A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas Wise, D. D. 1710.” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes, and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;” printed, after several editions, in 1714, with another title, “Seasonable Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain person.” Besides the works enumerated here, there are many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the earnest request of others, either authors or editors.

, an English divine and writer, was, the son of Roger Hieron, a learned clergyman, vicar of Epping, in Essex, who died in 1592. His son, who was born in 1572, received his early education from his father, who afterwards sent him to Eton school, whence he was elected by the free choice of provost Goade, into a scholarship of King’s college, Cambridge. On the death of his father, who probably left no great provision behind him, he was much assisted in the prosecution of his studies in the university by sir Francis Barrington, of Barringtonhall, in Essex, knt. While at Cambridge he studied divinity under Lawrence Chaderton, master of Emanuel college, and made such progress that at his first preaching at King’s, he was heard with the utmost approbation, seeming, as his biographer says, “rather a bachelor in divinity than a bachelor in arts, and rather a divine of forty, than only twenty-four years of age.” On his appearance as a preacher in London, he immediately became so popular that many congregations, together with the inns of court, desired to have him settled as their minister. But being offered the living of Moclbury, in Devonshire, in the gift of Eton college, he preferred that, and preached with great success, both there and at other places, particularly Plympton, where, by the means of sir Ferdinand Gorges, and other gentlemen of the neighbourhood, a lecture was established, of which he became one of the preachers. His public and private character procured him the reverence both of the poor and rich, and it appears by the dedications of his works that he had many friends of high rank. He inclined to puritan principles, but with a strict adherence to the church of England; and was particularly zealous against popery. He was long afflicted with a chronical distemper, but continued his public services and private studies notwithstanding the apparent incapacity of his weak body. This disorder, however, put an end to his useful life in the forty-fifth year of his age, in 1617. He was interred in Modbury church. His works, consisting principally of sermons and commentaries, printed often separately, in 4to and 8vo, were collected by him and published in 1614 in fol. and reprinted at London in 1620, with an additional volume edited by Robert Hill, D. D. rector of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. To this Dr. Hill prefixed a life, from which the above particulars are taken.

, a polite writer in the seventeenth century, was born in 1580, at or near Alderton, Gloucestershire, and became a gentleman commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1595. He was soon, however, removed to Corpus Christi, where his father William Higford, esq. and his grandfather sir John Higford, had both studied, the latter under the celebrated bishop Jewell, and both, as well as the subject of the present article, became zealous puritans. At Corpus Christi, Mr. Higford was placed under the tuition of Seb. Benefield, and was accounted an accomplished scholar and gentleman. After taking a degree in arts, he went home, was admitted into the commission of the peace, and was much respected by the lord Chandois, and other persons of quality in his country. He died at his house at Dixton, near Alderton, April 6, 1657. He left behind him some things fit for the press, but which were lost. A manuscript, however, was preserved, entitled “Institution, or Advice to his Grandson,” of which an abridgment was published by Barksdale, 1660, 12mo. This sensible volume is amply described in the “Censura Literaria.” A descendant of the author’s, the rev. Henry Higford, died at Dixton, aged eighty-six, March 25, 1795.

, is recorded as a celebrated abbot of St. Denys in France, in the ninth century, in the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire, and Lothaire his son. He became despicable by his attachment to the latter, and by frequently violating the oath of fidelity which he swore to the emperor Louis, whenever he was reconciled to his children. As a writer he was the first who confounded St. Denys, or Dionysius, bishop of Paris, with Dionysius the Areopagite, in his life of St. Dionysius entitled " Areopagitica, n Paris, 1565, 8vo, which is replete with fabulous absurdities.

, an English poet and dramatic writer of some celebrity in his day, was born in Beaufort-buildings in the Strand, February 10, 1685. He was the eldest son Of George Hill, esq. of Malmsbury-abbey in Wiltshire and, in consequence of this descent, the legal heir to an, entailed estate of about 2000l. per annum; but the misconduct of his father having, by a sale of the property, which he had no right to execute, rendered it of no advanl tage to the family, our author was left, together with Mr. Hill’s other children, to the care of, and a dependence on, his mother and grandmother; the latter of whom (Mrs. Anne Gregory) was more particularly anxious for his education and improvement. The first rudiments of learning he received from Mr. Reyner, of Barnstaple in Devonshire^ to whom he was sent at nine years old, and, on his removal from thence, was placed at Westminster-school, under the care of the celebrated Dr. Knipe. After remaining here until he was fourteen years of age, he formed a resolution singular enough in one so young, of paying a visit to his relation lord Paget, then ambassador at Constantinople; and accordingly embarked for that place, March 2, 1700. When he arrived, lord Paget received him with much surprise, as well as pleasure; wondering, that a person so young should run the hazard of iuch a voyage, to visit a relation whom he only knew by character. The ambassador immediately provided for him a very learned ecclesiastic in his own house; and, under his tuition, sent him to travel, so that he had an opportunity of seeing Egypt, Palestine, and a great part of the East. With lord Paget he returned home about 1703, and in his journey saw most of the courts in Europe, and it is probable that his lordship might have provided genteelly for him at his death, had he not been dissuaded by the misrepresentations of a female about him, which in a great measure prevented his good intentions. The young man’s well known merit, however, soon recommended him to sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire baronet, who being inclined to make the tour of Europe, his relations engaged Mr. Hill to accompany him as a travelling tutor, which office he performed, for two or three years, to their entire satisfaction. In 1709, he commenced author, by the publication of an “History of the Ottoman Empire,” compiled from tinmaterials 'which he had collected in the course of his di rent travels, and during his residence at the Turkish conr:. This work, though it met with success, Mr. Hill frequently afterwards repented the having printed, and would himself, at times, very severely criticize it; and indeed, to say the truth, there are in it a great number of puerilities, which render it far inferior to the merit of his subsequent writings; in which correctness has ever been so strong a characteristic, that his critics have even attributed it to him as a fault; whereas, in this work, there at best appears the labour of a juvenile genius, rather choosing to give the full reign to fancy, and indulge the imagination of the poet, than to aim at the plainness and perspicuity of the historian. About the same year he published his first poetical piece, entitled “Camillus,” in vindication and honour of the earl of Peterborough, who had been general in. Spain. This poem was printed without any author’s name; but lord Peterborough, having made it his business to find out to whom he was indebted, appointed Mr. JHill his secretary; which post, however, he quitted the year following, on occasion of his marriage.

As a writer, we cannot follow his panegyrists so far, as to allow him to stand in a very exalted rank of merit. The rigid correctness with which he constantly re-perused his works for alteration, the frequent use of compound epithets, and an ordo verborum in great measure peculiar to himself, have justly laid him open to the charge of being very generally turgid and obscure; yet he is not in some parts without a portion of nervous power, and of intrinsic sterling sense. The sera of his fume, however, is gone by, and although four volumes of his works, in 8vo, have been published since his death, they have never been in much favour with the public. His quarrel with Pope would have scarcely been worth reviving in this place, if a recent publication had not thrown new light on Hill’s conduct. He seems to have lived in perfect harmony with all the writers of his time excepting Pope, with whom he had a short paper war, occasioned by that gentleman’s introducing him in the “Dunciad,” as one of the competitors for the prize offered by the goddess’ of Dulness, in the following lines:

This, though far the gentlest piece of satire in the whole poem, and conveying at the same time a very elegant compliment, roused Hill to the taking some notice of it, which he did by a poem, written during his peregrination in the North, entitled “The Progress of Wit, a Caveat for the use of an eminent writer,” which he begins with the following eight lines, in which Pope’s too well-known disposition is elegantly, yet very severely characterized:

, an English writer, and most extraordinary character, was the son of a Mr. Theophilus Hill, a clergyman of Peterborough or Spalding, and born about the year 1716. He was bred an apothecary, and set up in St. Martin’s-lane, Westminster; but marrying early, and without a fortune on either side, he was obliged to look round for other resources than his profession. Having, therefore, in his apprenticeship, attended the botanical lectures which are periodically given under the patronage of the apothecary’s company, and being possessed of quick natural parts, he soon made himself acquainted with the theoretical as well as practical parts of botany; after which, being recommended to the duke of Richmond and lord Petre, he was by them employed in the inspection and arrangement of their botanic gardens. Assisted by the liberality of these noblemen, he executed a scheme of travelling over several part* of this kingdom, to gather some of the most rare and uncommon plants, accounts of which he afterwards published by subscription. But, after great researches, and the exertion of uncommon industry, which he possessed in a peculiar degree, this undertaking turned out by no means adequate either to his merits or expectations.

But the disposition of Dr. Hill was greatly changed with his circumstances: from being humble and diffident, he had become vain and self-sufficient. There appeared in him a pride, which was perpetually claiming a more than ordinary homage, and a vindictive spirit, which could never forgive the refusal of it. Hence his writings abounded with attacks on the understandings, morals, or peculiarities of others, descending, even to personal abuse and scurrility. This licence of his pen engaged him frequently in disputes and quarrels; and an Irish gentleman of the name of Browne, supposed to be ridiculed in an “Inspector,” proceeded so far as to cane him in the public gardens at Ranelagh. He had a paper war with Woodward the comedian was engaged with Henry Fielding in the affair of Elizabeth Canning and concerned in a contest with the Royal Society, Of this, the origin and progress has been thus detailed by one who had every opportunity of knowing the circumstances. When Mr. Hill had started all at once as before related, from a state of indigence and distress, to taste the comforts of very considerable emoluments from his labour, giddy with success, and elated beyond bounds with the warm sunshine of prosperity, he seemed to be seized with a kind of infatuation. Vanity took entire possession of his bosom, and banished from thence every consideration but of self. His conversation turned on little else, and even his very writings were tainted with perpetual details of every little occurrence that happened to him. His raillery, both in company and in his writings, frequently turned on those who closely attached themselves to philosophical investigations, especially in the branches of natural philosophy. The common -place wit of abusing the medal-scraper, the butterfly-hunter, the cockle-shell-merchant, &c. now appeared in some of his Magazines and Inspectors, and in two or three places he even indulged some distant glances of satire at the Royal Society. Notwithstanding which, however, when the Supplement to “Chambers’s Dictionary” was nearly finished, the proprietors of that work, very sensible of the weight of an F. R. S. annexed to the author’s name, were very desirous that Dr. Hill should have this addition as well as Mr. Scott, his colleague in the work. In consequence of this design, Dr. Hill procured Mr. Scott to propose him for election into that honourable body; but the doctor’s conduct for some time past having been such as had rendered him the object of contempt to some, of disgust to others, and of ridicule to almost all the rest of his former grave and philosophical acquaintances, he now stood but a very indifferent chance for carrying an election, where an opposition pf one third was sufficient to reject the candidate; and as. the failing in that attempt might have done our author more essential prejudice than the succeeding in it could even have brought him advantage, the late ingenious and worthy president, Martin Folkes, esq. whose remembrance must ever live in the highest estimation with all who ever had the honour of knowing him, notwithstanding that Dr. Hill had given him personal occasion of offence against him, yet with the utmost generosity and candour, advised Mr. Scott to dissuade his friend, for his own sake, against a design which there appeared so little probability of his succeeding in. This advice, however, Dr. Hill, instead of considering in the generous light it was meant, misinterpreted into a prejudiced opposition against his interest, am would have persisted in his intention even in despite of it, had net his being unable to obtain the subscription o requisite number of members to his recommendation^ obliged him to lay it aside, from a conviction that he could not expect to carry an election in a body composed of three hundred members, of which he could not prevail on three to set their names to the barely recommending him as a candidate. Thus disappointed, his vanity piqued, and his pride lowered, no relief was left him but railing and scurrility, for which purpose, declaring open war with the society in general, he first published a pamphlet entitled *' A Dissertation on Royal Societies,“in a letter from a Sclavonian nobleman in London to his friend in Sclavonia; which, besides the most ill-mannered and unjust abuse on the whole learned body he had been just aiming, in vain, to become a member of, is interlarded with the grossest personal scurrility on the characters of Mr. Folkes and Mr. Henry Baker, two gentlemen to whom Dr. Hill had formerly been under the greatest obligations, and whose respective reputations in both the moral and literary world had long been too firmly established for the weak efforts of a disappointed scribbler to shake or undermine. Not contented with this, he proceeded to compile together a large quarto volume entitled” A Review of the Works of the Royal Society,“in which, by the most unfair quotations, mutilations, and misrepresentations, numbers of the papers read in that illustrious assembly, and published under the title of the” Philosophical Transactions,“are endeavoured to be rendered ridiculous. This work is ushered into the world with a most abusive and infamous dedication to Martin Folkes, esq. against whom and the afore-mentioned Mr. Henry Baker the weight of this furious attack was chiefly aimed but the whole recoiled upon himself; and by such personal abuse, malignant altercation, proud and insolent behaviour, together with the slovenliness and inaccuracy of careless and hasty productions, he wrote himself out of repute both with booksellers and the town; and, after some time, sunk in the estimation of the public nearly as fast as he had risen. He found, however, as usual, resources in his own invention. He applied himself to the preparation of certain simple medicines namely,” the Essence of Water-dock; Tincture of Valerian Pectoral Balsam of Honey and Tincture of Bardana.“The well-known simplicity of these preparations led the public to judge favourably of their effects; they had a rapid sale, and once more enabled the doctor to live in splendour. Soon after the publication of the first of these medicines, he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute; under which he published a very pompous and voluminous botanical work, entitled” A System of Botany;“but is said to have been a very considerable loser by this speculation. His botanical works, however, had a favourable influence in promoting the science in general. To wind up the whole of so extraordinary a life, having a year or two before his death presented an elegant set of his botanical works to the king of Sweden, that monarch invested him with one of the orders of his court, that of Vasa, in consequence of which he assumed the title of Sir John. He died Nov. 22, 1775, of the gout, which he professed to cure others. As to his literary character, and the rank of merit in which his writings ought to stand, Hill’s greatest enemies could not deny that he was master of considerable abilities, and an amazing quickness of parts. The rapidity of his pen was ever astonishing, and he has been known to receive within one year, no less than 1500l. for the works of his own single hand; which, as he was never in such estimation as to be entitled to any extraordinary price for his copies, is, we believe, at least three times as much as ever was made by any one writer in the same period of time. But, had he written much less, his works would probably have been much more read. The vast variety of subjects he handled, certainly required such a fund of universal knowledge, and such a boundless genius, as were never perhaps known to centre in any one man; and it is not therefore to be wondered, if, in regard to some he appears very inaccurate, in some very superficial, and in others altogether inadequate to the task he had undertaken. His works on philosophical subjects seemed most likely to have procured him fame, had he allowed himself time to digest the knowledge he possessed, or preserved that regard to veracity which the relation of scientific facts so rigidly demands. His novels, of which he has written many, such as” The History of Mr. Lovell,“(in which he had endeavoured to persuade the world he had given the detail of his own life),” The Adventures of a Creole,“” The Life of Lady Frail,“&c. have, in some parts of them, incidents not disagreeably related, but the most of them are merely narratives of private intrigues, containing throughout the grossest calumnies, and endeavouring to blacken and undermine the private characters of many worthy persons. In his” Essays,“which are by much the best of hia writings, there is, in general, a liveliness of imagination, and adroitness in the manner of extending, perhaps some very trivial thought, which at first may by many be mistaken for wit; but, on a nearer examination, will be found to lose much of its value. A continued use of smart short periods, bold assertions, and bolder egotisms, produces a transient effect, but seldom tempts the spectator to take a second glance. The utmost that can be said of Hill is, that he had talents, but that, in general, he either greatly nisapplied them, or most miserably hackneyed them for profit. As a dramatic writer he stands in no estimation^ nor has he been known in that view by any thing but three very insignificant pieces: namely, 1.” Orpheus,“an opera, 1740. 2.” The Critical Minute,“a farce, published in 1754, but not acted, 3.” The Rout," a farce, 1754*. A large volume might be written on the life and! adventures of this extraordinary man, as affording a complete history of literary quackery, every branch of which he pursued with a greater contempt for character than perhaps any man in our time.

, was an officer under Julius Caisar, and wrote a supplementary part of the Commentaries published in his name, viz. the eighth of the Gallic war, and those of the Alexandrine and African wars. Of the two latter he received his information partly from Caesar’s own mouth, but he is a less perspicuous writer, although his style is good. He was made consul, together with Vibius Pansa, in the year B. C. 43, and was killed in a battle with Antony in the neighbourhood of Mutina.

As a writer, he possessed uncommon talents; his greatest defect was in his style, extending his periods to a disagreeable length, for which Pope has thus recorded him:

* Archbishop Seeker one day, at be Christians, replied, “If they were, his table, when the Monthly Reviewers it was certainly ‘secundum usum Winwt-re said, by one of the company, to ton’.” the list of persons to be created doctors of physic: but either by chance or management, his name was not found in the last list; and he had not his degree of M. D, till about a month after, by a particular mandamus. He was elected F. R. S. in 1726, when he was very young, and had the honour of being made known to the learned world as a philosopher, by “A Letter from the rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F. R. S. occasioned by the present controversy among the mathematicians concerning the proportion of Velocity and Force in bodies in motion.” He was made registrar of Hereford while his father filled that see; and was appointed physician to his majesty’s household so early as June 9, 1742. Jt is remarkable, that he was for some years physician to both the royal households; having been appointed to that of the prince of Wales, Jan. 4, 1745-6, in the place of Dr. Lamotte, a Scotch physician, whom the prince had himself ordered to be struck out of the list, on some imprudent behaviour at the Smyrna coffee-house at the time of the rebellion in 1745. The appointment was attended with some circumstances of particular honour to Dr. Hoadly. The prince himself, before the warrant could be finished, ordered the style to be altered; and that he should be called physician to the household, and not extraordinary, as the other had been: observing, that this would secure that place to him in case of a demise, and be a bar against any one getting over him. Nay, not content with this, his royal highness voluntarily wrote a letter to the bishop with his own hand “that he was glad of this opportunity of giving him a token of his gratitude for his services formerly to his family; and that he was his affectionate Frederic, P.” Dr. Hoadly is said to have filled these posts with singular honour. He married, 1. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Betts, esq. of Suffolk, counsellor at law, by whom he had one son, Benjamin, that died an infant. 2 Anne, daughter and co-heiress of the honourable general Armstrong, by whom he left no issue. He died in the lifetime of his father, Aug. 10, 1757, athishouM it Chelsea, which he had built ten years before. He published, 1. “Three Letters on the Organs of Respiration, read at the royal college of physicians, London, A. D. 1737, being the Gulstonian lectures for that year. To which is added, an Appendix, containing remarks on some experiments of Dr. Houston, published in the Transactions of the Royal Society for the year 1736, by Benjamin Hoadly, M. B. fellow of the college of physicians, and of the royal society, London,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Oratio anniversaria in Theatro Coll. Medicor. Londinensium, ex Harveii instttuto habita die 18 Oct. A. D. 1742, a Benj. Hoadly, M. D. Coll. Med. & S. R. S.” 1742, esteemed a very elegant piece of Latin. 3. “The Suspicious Husband, a Comedy.” 4. “Observations on a Series of Electrical experiments, by Dr. Hoadly and Mr. Wilson, F. R. S.” 1756, 4to. The doctor was, in his private character, an amiable humane man, and an agreeable sprightly companion. In his profession he was learned and judicious; and, as a writer, has been long known in the theatrical world as the author of a comedy, “The Suspicious Husband,” which appeared first in 1747, and has kept its place on every stage since with undiminished attractions.

, an eminent English philosopher and miscellaneous writer, was born at Malmsbury in Wiltshire, April 5, 1588, his father being minister of that town. The Spanish Armada was then upon the coast of England; and his mother is said to have been so alarmed on that occasion, that she was brought to bed of him before her time. After having made a considerable progress in the learned languages at school, he was sent, in 1603, to Magdalen hall, Oxford; and, in 1608, by the recommendation of the principal, taken into the family of the right honourable William Cavendish lord Hardwicke, soon after created earl of Devonshire, as tutor to his son William lord Cavendish. Hobbes ingratiated himself so effectually with this young nobleman, and with the peer his father, that he was sent abroad with him on his travels in 16:0, and made the tour of France and Italy. Upon his return with lord Cavendish, he became known to persons of the highest rank, and eminently distinguished for their abilities and learning. The chancellor Bacon admitted him to a great degree of familiarity, and is said to have made use of his pen for translating some of his works into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had such an esteem for him, that he revised the first work which he published, viz. his “English Translation of the History of Thucyciides.” This Hobbes undertook, as he tells us himself, “with an honest view of preventing, if possible, those disturbances in which he was apprehensive his country would be involved, by shewing, in the history of the Peloponnesian war, the fatal consequences of intestine troubles.” This has always been esteemed one of the best translations that we have of any Greek writer, and the author himself superintended the maps and indexes. But while he meditated this design, his patron, the earl of Devonshire, died in 1626; and in 1628, the year his work was published, his son died also. This loss affected him to such a degree, that he very willingly accepted an offer of going abroad a second time with the son of sir Gervase Clifton, whom he accordingly accompanied into France, and staid there some time. But while he continued there he was solicited to return to England, and to resume his concern for the hopes of that family, to which he had attached himself so early, and owed many and great obligations.

, an ancient English poet, who scarcely, however, deserves the name, was born probably about 1370, and has been styled Chaucer’s disciple. He studied law at Chester’s Inn, in the Strand, and was a writer to the privy seal for above twenty years. When he quitted this office, or what means of subsistence he afterwards had, cannot be easily determined. Pits seems wrong in asserting that he was provided for by Humphrey duke of Gloucester. Nor is Bale more correct in saying that he had imbibed the religious tenets of Wickliff. From his poems the following scanty particulars of his history have been communicated by a learned friend: " He dwelt in the office of the privy seal, a writer * unto the seal twenty-four years come Easter, and that is nigh.‘ The king granted him an annuity of twenty marks in the exchequer, which it appears he had much difficulty in getting paid. He expresses much doubt of obtaining it from * yere to yere:’ fears it may not be continued when he is no longer able to ‘ serve’ (i. e. as a writer in the privy seal office). Besides this annuity he has but six marks coming in yearly * in noo tide.‘ Speaks of dwelling at home in his ’ pore coote,' and that more than two parts of his life are spent he is ignorant of husbandry;

* scarcely could skare away the kite;‘ can neither use plough or harrow, knows not * what land is good for what corn;’ unable to fill a cart or barrow from long use to writing; descants on the troubles and difficulties attending writing; says that ‘ hit is welle grett laboure,’ and contrasts very happily the life of an husbandman or artificer with that of a writer, adding that he has continued in writing twenty years and more. He ‘ whilom’ thought to have been a priest, but now is married, having long waited for a benefice; describes the corruption in his office, but that no share of the bribes come to the clerks. Name ‘ Okkleve’ acquainted with Chaucer has small knowledge of Latin and of French. He is advised to complain to the prince that he cannot get paid in the exchequer, and petition that his patent be removed into the haniper, but observes this cannot be done because of the ‘ ordinance,’ for

, the most eminent physician of his name, was born at Halle, in Saxony, Feb. 19, 1660. He received his early education in his native town, and had made great progress in philosophy and the mathematics, when, at the age of fifteen, he lost his father and mother during the prevalence of an epidemic disease. In 1679 he commenced the study of medicine at Jena, and in the following year attended the chemical lectures of Gaspar Cramer, at Erfurth; and, on his return to Jena, received the degree of M. D. in February 168!. In 1682 he published an excellent tract “De Cinnabari Antimonii,” which gained him great applause, and a crowd of pupils to the chemical lectures, which he delivered there. He was then induced to visit Minden, in Westphalia, op the invitation of a relation, and practised there for two years with considerable success. He then travelled into Holland and thence to England, where he was received with distinction by men of science, and particularly by Paul Herman, the botanist, in the former, and Robert Boyle in the latter. On his return to Minden, in 1685, he was made physician to the garrison there, and in the following year was honoured by Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with the appointments of physician to his own person, and to the whole principality of Minden. Yet he quitted that city in 1688, in consequence of an invitation to settle at Halberstadt, in Lower Saxony, as public physician. Here he published a treatise “De uisufficientia acidi ct viscidi,” by which he overthrew the system of Cornelius Bontekce. In 1689 he married the only daughter of Andrew Herstel, an eminent apothecary, with whom he had lived forty-eight years in perfect iniion, when she died. About this time, Frederic III., afterwards first king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle; and in Hoffmann was appointed primary professor of medicine, composed the statutes of that institution, and extended its fame and elevated its character, while his own reputation procured him admission into the scientific societies at Berlin, Petershurgh, and London, as well as the honour of being consulted by persons of the highest rank. He was called upon to visit many of the German courts in his capacity of physician, and received honours from several princes; from whom some say that he received ample remuneration in proportion to the rank of his patients; while others have asserted that he took no fees, but contented himself with his stipends. Haller asserts that he acquired great wealth by various chemical nostrums which he vended. In 1704 he accompanied some of the Prussian ministers to the Caroline warm baths in Bohemia, on which occasion he examined their nature, and published a dissertation concerning them. On subsequent visits, he became acquainted with the Sedlitz purging waters, which he first introduced to public notice, having published a treatise on them in 1717: and he afterwards extended his inquiries to the other mineral waters of Germany. In 1 708 he was called to Berlin to take care of the declining health of Frederic, and was honoured with the titles of archiater and aulic counsellor, together with a liberal salary. After three years residence at this court he returned to Halle, and gladly resumed his academical functions. He continued also to labour in the composition of his writings; and in 1718, at the age of 60, he began the publication of his “Medicina Rationalis Systematica,” which was reoeived with great applause by the faculty in various parts of Europe, and the completion of which occupied him nearly twenty years. He likewise published two volumes of “Consultations,” in which he distributed into three “centuries,” the most remarkable cases which had occurred to him; and also “Observationum Physico-Chemicarum Libri tres,” 1722. In 1727 he attended the prince of Schwartzemburg through a dangerous disease; in recompence for which his noble patient created him count palatine. He quitted Halle in 1734, in order to pay a short visit to his daughter and son-in-law at BerJin, and was detained five months by the king of Prussia, Frederic William, in order to attend him during a dangerous illness, by whom he was treated with great honour, elevated to the rank of privy counsellor, and presented with a portrait of the king, set in diamonds. Hoffmann declined a pressing invitation to settle at Berlin, on account of his advanced age, and returned to Halle in April 1735. The illness and death of his heloved wife, in 1737, turned his thoughts to the consolations of religion, and he drew up in Latin a summary of Christian doctrine, which, at the king’s desire, was translated into German. He continued to perform his academical duties until 174!?, when he died in the month of November, aged eighty-two. Frederick Hoffmann was an industrious and copious writer. Haller has occupied thirty-eight quarto pages in the enumeration of his works in detail. The principal of these were collected, during the life of the author, by two Genevese booksellers, and published with his approbation, and with a preface from his pen, in 1740, in six vols. folio. It was reprinted by the same booksellers, the freres de Tournes, in 1748; and in the following year, having raked together every thing which his pen had touched, they published a supplement in three additional volumes folio, which was also reprinted in 1753-4. The writings of Hoffmann contain a great mass of practical matter of considerable value, partly compiled from preceding writers, and partly the result of his own observation; but they contain also many trifling remarks, and not a little hypothetical conjecture, which was indeed a common fault of the times; and in the detail there is considerable prolixity and repetition. Asa theorist his suggestions were of great value, ad contributed to introduce that revolution in the science of pathology, which subsequent observation has extended and confirmed. His doctrine of atony and spasm in the living solid, by which he referred all internal disorders to some “preternatural affection of the nervous system,” rather than to the morbid derangements and qualities of the fluids, first turned the attention of physicians from the mere mechanical and chemical operations of the animal body to those of the primary moving powers of the living system. To Hoffmann Dr. Cullen acknowledges the obligations we are under for having first put us into the proper train of investigation; although he himself did not apply his fundamental doctrine so extensively as he might have done, and every where mixed with it a humoral pathology as incorrect and hypothetical as any other. Hoffmann pursued the study of practical chemistry with considerable ardour, and improved the department of pharmacy by the addition of some mineral preparations; but on the whole, and especially in his latter years, his practice was cautious, and even inert, and he trusted much to vegetable simples.

Mr. Walpole has remarked, that if our artist “indulged his spirit of ridicule in personalities, it never proceeded beyond sketches and drawings,” and wonders “that he never, without intention, delivered the very features of any identical person.” But this elegant writer, who may be said to have received his education in a court, had perhaps few opportunities of acquaintance among the low popular characters with which Hogarth occasionally peopled his scenes. The friend who contributed this remark, was assured by an ancient gentleman of unquestionable veracity and acuteness of remark, that almost all the personages who attended the levee of the Rake were undoubted portraits; and that in “Southvvark Fair,” and the “Modern Midnight Conversation,” as many more were discoverable. In the former plate he pointed out Essex the dancingmaster; and in the latter, as well as in the second plate to the “Rake’s Progress,” Figg the prize-fighter. He mentioned several others by name, from his immediate knowledge both of the painter’s design and the characters represented; but the rest of the particulars by which he supported his assertions, have esca'ped the memory of our informant. While Hogarth was painting the “Rake’s Progress,” he had a summer reidence at Isleworth, and never failed to question the company who came to see these pictures if they knew for whom one or another figure was designed. When they guessed wrongly, he set them right.

About 1757, his brother-in-law, Mr. Thornhill, resigned the place of king’s serjeant-painter in favour of Mr. Hogarth. “The last memorable event in our artist’s life,” as Mr. Walpole observes, " was his quarrel with Mr. Wilkes, in which, if Mr. Hogarth did not commence direct hostilities on the latter, he at least obliquely gave the first offence, by an attack on the friends and party of that gentleman. This conduct was the more surprising, as he had all his life avoided dipping his pencil in political contests, and had early refused a very lucrative offer that was made, to engage him in a set of prints against the head of a courtparty. Without entering into the merits of the cause, I shall only state the fact. In September 1762, Mr. Hogarth published his print of * The Times.‘ It was answered by Mr. Wilkes in a severe ’ North Briton.‘ On this the painter exhibited the caricatura of the writer. Mr. Churchill, the poet, then engaged in the war, and wrote his ’ Epistle ta Hogarth,‘ not the brightest’ of his works, and in which the severest strokes fell on a defect that the painter had neither caused nor could amend his age; and which, however, was neither remarkable nor decrepit; much less had it impaired his talents, as appeared by his having composed but six months before, one of his most capital works, the satire on the Methodists. In revenge for this epistle, Hogarth caricatured Churchill, under the form of a canonical bear, with a club and a pot of porter So vituld tit dignus & hie never did two angry men of their abilities throw mud with less dexterity.

It is observed by most authors, that Holbein always painted with his left hand; though Walpole objects against that tradition, (what he considers as a proof), that in a portrait of Holbein painted by himself, which was in the Arundelian collection, he is represented holding the pencil in the right hand. But that evidence cannot be sufficient to set aside so general a testimony of the most authentic writers on this subject; because, although habit and practice might enable him to handle the pencil familiarly with his left hand, yet, as it is so unusual, it must have had but an unseemly and awkward appearance in a picture; which probably might have been his real inducement for representing himself without such a particularity. Besides, the writer of Holbein’s life, at the end of the treatise by De Piles, mentions a print by Hollar, still extant, which describes Holbein drawing with his left hand. Nor is it so extraordinary or incredible a circumstance; for other artists, mentioned in this volume, are remarked for the very same habit; particularly Mozzo of Antwerp, who worked with the left; and Amico Aspertino, as well as Ludovico Cangiagio, who worked equally well with both hands. This great artist died of the plague at London in 1554; some think at his lodgings in Whitehall, where he had lived from the time that the king became his patron,' but Vertue rather thought at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in. the priory of Christ church near Aldgate, then called Uuke’s-place. Strype says that he was buried in St. Catherine Cree church; but this seems doubtful.

, a lawyer of considerable eminence, and law writer, flourished in the time of Charles I. but of his early history, we have no account. In 1640 he was chosen representative for St. Michael in Cornwall in the Long-parliament, and on one occasion argued for two hours in justification of the canons. In 1641 he was Lent reader of Lincoln’s-inn, but soon after quitted the parliament when he saw the extremities to which they were proceeding. He had formerly given his advice against ship-money, but was not prepared to overthrow the constitution entirely, and therefore went to Oxford, where, in 1643, he sat in the parliament assembled there by Charles I. [[he]] was made the prince’s attorney, one of the privy council, and received the honour of knighthood. In 1644 he was present at the treaty of Uxbridge, and afterwards at that of the Isle of Wight. Returning to London, after these ineffectual attempts to restore peace, he was forced to compound for his estate, and was not permitted to remain in any of the inns of court. He died in 1647, and was interred in the crypt under Lincoln’s-inn chapel. His “Readings on the Statute of Treasons, 25 Edward III. c. 2.” were published in 1642, 4to, and in 1681. He was the author also of “The Freeholder’s Grand Inquest touching our Sovereign Lord the King and his Parliament,” which hears the name of sir Robert Filmer, who reprinted it in 1679, and 1680, 8vo, with observations upon forms of government. He left also some Mss.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer and translator, was born in Orange-court, Leicesterfields, Dec. 22, 1744. His father was in the humble occupation of a shoe-maker, and does not appear to have given his son any education. The first employment mentioned, in which the latter was concerned, was as servant to the hon. Mr. Vernon, of whose race-horses he had the care, and became very expert in the art of horsemanship. He is said also to have worked for many years at his father’s trade. He possessed, however, good natural abilities, and a thirst for knowledge, of which he accumulated a considerable fund, and learned with facility and success the French, German, and Italian languages. When about his twenty-fifth year, he conceived a passion for the stage, and his first performance was in Ireland. He had afterwards an engagement of the same kind in London, but never attained any eminence as an actor, although he always might be seen to understand his part better than those to whom nature was more liberal. He quitted the stage in 1781, after the performance of his first play, “Duplicity,” which was successful enough to encourage his perseverance as a dramatic writer. From this time he contributed upwards of thirty pieces, which were either acted on the London stages, or printed without having been performed. Scarcely any of them, however, have obtained a permanent situation on the boards. He published also the following novels “Alwyn,” 1780; “Anna St. Ives,” 1792; “Hugh Trevor,” 1794; and “Brian Perdue,” 1807. His translations were, “The private Life of Voltaire,” 12mo; “Memoirs of Baron Trenck,” 3 vols. 12mo; Mirabeau f $ “Secret History of the Court of Berlin,” 2 vols. 8vo; madame de Genlis’s “Tales of the Castle,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The posthumous Works of Frederick II. of Prussia,” 13 vols. 8vo; “An abridgment of Lavater’s Physiognomy,” 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Holcroft having imbibed the revolutionary principles of France, had joined some societies in this country, which brought him under suspicion of being concerned with Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall, who were tried for high treason in 1794, but they being acquitted, Mr. Holcroft was discharged without being put upon his trial. His last work was his “Travels,” in Germany and France, 2 vols. 4to, which, like some other of his speculations, was less advantageous to his bookseller than to himself. Iri 1782 he published a poem called “Huntan happiness, or the Sceptic,” which attracted little notice on the score of poetical merit, but contained many of those loose sentiments on religion, which he was accustomed to deliver with more dogmatism than became a man so little acquainted with the subject. In these, however, he persisted almost to the last, when, on his death-bed, he is said to have acknowledged his error. He died March 23, 1809.

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable merit, was born at Mottram in Cheshire in 1742, and educated with a view to the ministry among the dissenters; but this pursuit he very early relinquished, in consequence of becoming a member of the church of England. He continued, however, to cultivate his mind by every opportunity within his power, although his circumstances in early life were unfavourable to a liberal education. About the year 1761 he removed to Walton in Lancashire, three miles from Liverpool, where he commenced schoolmaster and parish-clerk; the latter he resigned some years before his death. Having married a very sensible and worthy woman, he opened a boarding-school for young ladies, with the assistance of his wife, and carried it on with great reputation. His time was for many years divided between the cares of the school and the study of agriculture, which had always in some measure engaged his mind. For his scholars he compiled several useful manuals, particularly the “Characters of the Kings and Queens of England,” 1786 1788, 3 vols. 12mo, so judiciously laid down, and illustrated by so many sensible and original remarks, that had Mr. Holt applied himself to history only, it is not improbable he might have produced a work of higher importance in that science. In the course of his agricultural pursuits, he wrote “An Essay on the Curie in Potatoes,'” for which he received the medal from the society of arts, manufactures, and commerce. The many essays and memoirs which he drew up on such subjects having acquired him the character of a minute and skilful observer, the Board of agriculture appointed him surveyor of the county of Lancaster, and the “Report” which he returned, rich in valuable matter, judiciously arranged, was the first that was republished by the Board; and he had various premiums and other testimonies of approbation adjudged to him. It appears to have been his utmost ambition to employ his time in what was useful, and no part of that time was allowed to pass without adding something to his stock of knowledge. He was at last employed in collecting materials for a History of Liverpool, when a bilious disorder carried him off, March 21, 1801, to the very great regret of all who knew his amiable character. A portrait, and some other particulars of his life, may be seen in our authority.

, a learned English gentleman, well known in the history of British India, was the son of Zephaniah Holwell, timber-merchant and citizen of London, and grandson of John Holwell, a mathematical writer of much fame in the seventeenth century. The father and grandfather of this John Holwell both fell in support of the royal cause during the usurpation, and the family estate of Holwell-hall, in Devonshire, was lost to their descendants for ever; for although Mr. Holwell applied to king Charles at the restoration, the only recompense he obtained was to be appointed royal astronomer and surveyor of the crown lands, and the advancement of his wife to a place of some honour, but of little emolument, about the person of the queen. Some years after he was appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Monmouth, for whom he conceived a warm attachment, and, believing him to be the legitimate sou of the king, was induced to take a very active and imprudent part against the succession of the duke of York, which in the end proved his ruin. Having published in 1683 a small Latin tract called “Catastrophe Mundi,” which was soon after translated, and is a severe attack on the popish party, he was marked for destruction as soon as the duke of York came to the throne. Accordingly, in 1685, it was contrived that, in quality of surveyor to the crown, he should be sent to America, to survey and lay down a chart of the town of New York; and at the same time secret orders were sent to the government agents there, to take some effectual means to prevent his return. In consequence of this, it is said, that he had no sooner executed his commission, than he died suddenly, and his death was attributed, at the time and on the spot, to the application of poison administered to him in a dish of coffee. His son was father to the subject of the present article.

With no other stock of learning than what he had acquired from this Mr. Wingate, he was, about 1712, bound by indenture to attend the office of a writer of the signet in Edinburgh, as preparatory to the profession of a writer or solicitor before the supreme court; but circumstances inspired him with the ambition of becoming an advocate; and now being sensible of his defective education, he resumed the study of the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added French and Italian, and likewise applied himself to the study of mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. These pursuits, which he followed at the same time with the study of the law, afforded, independently of their own value, a most agreeable variety of employment to his active mind. His attention appears to have been much turned to metaphysical investigation, for which he all his life entertained a strong predilection. About 1723, he carried on a correspondence with the celebrated Andrew Baxter, and Dr. Clarke, upon subjects of that kind. In January 1724, he was called to the bar, at a time when bath the bench and bar were filled by men of uncommon eminence. As he did not possess in any great degree the powers of an orator, he engaged for some time but a moderate share of practice as a barrister. In 1728, he published a folio volume of “Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Session,” executed with so much judgment, that he began to be regarded as a young man of talents, who had his profession at heart, and would spare no pains to acquit himself, with honour, in the most intricate causes in which he might be employed. His practice was quickly increased; and after 1732, when he published a small volume, entitled “Essays upon several subjects in Law,” he was justly considered as a profound and scientific lawyer. These essays afford an excellent example of the mode of reasoning which he afterwards pursued in most of his jurisprudential writings, and, in the opinion of his biographer, furnish an useful model for that species of investigation.

, a clergyman of the church of Scotland, but known only as a dramatic writer, was born in the vicinity of Ancrum in Roxburghshire, Scotland, in 1724, and was educated at the parish school, whence he went to the university of Edinburgh, and went through the usual academical course, as preparatory for his entering the church. Here his studies were for some time suspended by the rebellion in 1745. On the approach of the rebels, the citizens of Edinburgh assembled, and formed themselves into an association for the support of their sovereign, and the defence of their city. Mr. Home, having once taken up arms in this cause, was not to be deterred by danger, and inarched with a detachment of the royal army to Falkirk, where he was taken prisoner in the battle fought in that neighbourhood, and confined for some time in the castle of Donne. He contrived, however, to make his escape about the time that tranquillity was restored to the country by the battle of Culloclen; and having resumed his studies, was licensed to preach the gospel in 1747.

Not long after, while on a visit in England, he was introduced to Collins, the poet, at Winchester, and Collins addressed to him his “Ode on the Superstition of the Highlanders.” In 1750 Home was settled as minister of the parish of Athelstaneford in East Lothian, on the demise of the rev. Robert Blair, author of the “Grave;” but such a situation could not be very agreeable to one who had tasted the sweets of literary society, and who, in particular, had a paramount ambition to shine as a dramatic writer. His first tragedy was “Agis,”“with which it is said he went to London, where the managers refused it, and immediately returning home he wrote his” Douglas,“which Garrick peremptorily refused. By such discouragement, however, the ardour of the author was not to be suppressed. Being acquainted with the leading characters in Scotland, a ready reception of his play was secured; and accordingly” Douglas" was performed at the theatre in the Canongate, Edinburgh, in December 1756, Mr. Home and several of his clerical brethren being present. Such a departure from the decorum enjoined by the church of Scotland could not be overlooked, and the author was so threatened with ecclesiastical censures, and in reality became so obnoxious in the eyes of the people, that in the following year he resigned his living, and with it all connexion with the church, wearing ever afterwards a lay habit. In the mean time the presbytery of Edinburgh published an admonition and exhortation against stage-plays, which was ordered to be read in all the pulpits within their bounds on a Sunday appointed, immediately after divine service. In it there is no mention of Home or his play, although the latter was probably the cause. It merely contains a recapitulation of what had formerly been done by the church and the laws to discourage the theatres.

Waller, the writer of his life, has given the following character of him, which, though not an amiable one, seems to be drawn with candour and impartiality. He was in person but a despicable figure; short of stature, very crooked, pale, lean, and of a meagre aspect, with dark brown hair, very long, and hanging over his face, uncut, and lank. Suitable to this person, his temper was penurious, melancholy, mistrustful, and jealous; which qualities increased upon him with his years. He set out in his youth with a collegiate or rather a monastic recluseness, and afterwards led the life of a cynical hermit; scarcely allowing himself necessaries, notwithstanding the great increase of his fortunes after the fire in London . He declared sometimes, that he had a great project in his head as to the disposal of his estate, for the advancement of natural knowledge, and to promote the ends and designs for which the Royal Society was instituted; to build a handsome fabric for the society’s use, with a library, repository, laboratory, and other conveniences for making experiments; and to found and endow a physico-mechanic lecture like that of sir John Cutler. But though he was often solicited by his friends to put his designs down in writing, and make his will as to the disposal of his estate, yet he could never be prevailed on to do it, but died without any will that could be found. In like manner, with respect to his philosophical treasures, when he first became known to the learned world, he was very communicative of his inventions and discoveries, but afterwards grew close and reserved to a fault; alleclging for an excuse, that some persons challenged his discoveries for their own, and took occasion from his hints to perfect what he had not finished. For this reason he would suggest nothing, till he had time to perfect it himself; so that many things are lost which he affirmed he knew, though he was not supposed to know every thing which he affirmed. For instance, not many weeks before his death, he told Mr. Waller and others, that he knew a certain and infallible method of discovering the longitude at sea; yet it is evident that his friends distrusted his asseveration of this discovery; and how little credit was then given to it in general, appears from Waller’s own account. “Hooke,” says he, “suffering this invention to be undiscovered to the last, gave some persons cause to question, whether he was ever the possessor of it; and to doubt whether what in theory seemed very promising, would answer when put in practice. Others indeed more severely judged, that it was only a kind of boasting in him to assert that which had not been performed though attempted by many.” In the religious part of his character he was so far exemplary, that he always expressed a great veneration for the Deity, and seldom received any remarkable benefit in life, or made any considerable discovery in nature, or invented any useful contrivance, or found out any difficult problem, without setting down his acknowledgment to God, as many places in his diary plainly shew. He frequently studied the sacred writings in the originals; for he vvas acquainted with the ancient languages, as well as with all the parts of mathematics. “To conclude,” says Waller, “all Ins errors and blemishes were more than made amends for by the greatness and extent of his natural and acquired p-trts, and more than common if not wonderful sagacity, in diving into the most hidden secrets of nature, and in contriving proper methods of forcing her to confess the truth, by driving and pursuing the Proteus through all her changes to her last and utmost recesses. There needs no other proof of this, than the great number of experiments he made, with the contrivances for them, amounting to some hundreds; his new and useful instruments and inventions, which were numerous; his admirable facility and clearness in explaining the phenomena of nature, and demonstrating his assertions; his happy talent in adapting theories to the phenomena observed, and contriving easy and plain, not pompous and amusing, experiments to back and prove those theories; proceeding from obsenations to theories, and from theories to farther trials, which he asserted to be the most proper method to succeed in the interpretation of nature. For these his happy qualifications he was much respected by the most learned philosophers at home and abroad; and as with all his failures he may be reckoned among the great men of the last age, so, had he been free from them, possibly he might have stood in the front.”

But whatever value Hooker himself might put upon his books of “Ecclesiastical JPolity,” he could not in that respect exceed the estimate which has been formed by the general judgment of mankind, with the exception only of the enemies of our church establishment. This work has ever been admired for soundness of reasoning, and prodigious extent of learning; and the author has universally acquired from it the honourable titles of “the judicious,” and “the learned.” When James I. ascended the throne of England, he is said to have asked Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker, from whose books of “Ecclesiastical Polity” he had so much profited; and being informed by the archbishop that he died a year before the queen, he expressed the greatest disappointment, and the deepest concern. Charles I. it is well known, earnestly recommended the reading of Hooker’s books to his son; and they have ever since been held in the highest veneration and esteem by all. An anecdote is preserved by the writer of his life, which, if true, shews that his fame was by no means confined to his own country, but reached even the ears of the pope himself. Cardinal ALen and Dr. Stapleton, though both in Italy when his books were published, were yet so affected with the fame of them, that they contrived to have them sent for; and after reading them, are said to have told the pope, then Clement VIII. that “though his holiness had not yet met with an English book, as he was pleased to say, whose writer deserved the name of an author, yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and so they did not doubt it would appear to his holiness, if it was in Latin; which was, that ‘a pure obscure English priest had written four such books of law and church polity, in so majestic a style, and with such clear demonstrations of reason,’ that in all their readings they had not met with any thing that exceeded him.” This begetting in the pope a desire tq know the contents, Stapleton read to him the first book in Latin upon which the pope said, “there is no learning that this man hath not searched into nothing too hard for his understanding. This man indeed deserves the name of an author. His books will get reverence by age; for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning;” all which, whether the pope said it or no, we take to be strictly true.

, son of the preceding, was born at Exeter, in 1664; but his father being taken chaplain to Ireland, he received the early part of his education at Trinity college, Dublin; and afterwards was a student at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1688. The rebellion breaking out in Ireland in that year, he returned thither, and exerted his early valour in the cause of his country, religion, and liberty. When public tranquillity was restored, he came again into Elngland, and formed an acquaintance with gentlemen of wit, whose age and genius were most agreeable to his own. In 1694 he published some “Epistolary Poems and Translations,” which may be seen in Nichols’s “Select Collec-' tion;” and in 1695 he shewed his genius as a dramatic writer, by “Pyrrhus king of Egypt,” a tragedy, to which Congreve wrote the epilogue. He published also in that year, “The History of Love,” a connection of select fables from. “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” 1695; which, by the sweetness of his numbers and easiness of his thoughts, procured him considerable reputation. With Dryden in particular he became a great favourite. He afterwards published the “Art of Love,” which, Jacob says, “added to his fame, and happily brought him acquainted with the earl of Dorset, and other persons of distinction, who were fond of his company, through the agreeableness of his temper, and the pleasantry of his conversation. It was in his power to have made his fortune in any scene of life; but he was always more ready to serve others than mindful of his own affairs; and by the excesses of hard drinking, and too passionate an addiction to women, he died a martyr to the cause in the thirty-sixth year of his age.” Mr. Nichols has preserved in his collection an admirable hymn, “written about an hour before his death, when in great pain.” His “Court-Prospect,” in which many of the principal nobility are very handsomely complimented, is called by Jacob “an excellent piece;” and of his other poems he adds, “that they are all remarkable for the purity of their diction, and the harmony of their numbers.” Mr. Hopkins was also the author of two other tragedies; “Boadicea Queen of Britain,” 1697; and “Friendship improved, or the Female Warrior,” with a humourous prologue, comparing a poet to a merchant, a comparison which will hold in most particulars except that of accumulating wealth. The author, who was at Londonderry when this tragedy came out, inscribed it to Edward Coke of Norfolk, esq. in a dedication remarkably modest and pathetic. It is dated Nov. 1, 1699, and concludes, “I now begin to experience how much the mind may be influenced by the body. My Muse is confined, at present, to a weak and sickly tenement; and the winter season will go near to overbear her, together with her household. There are storms and tempests to beat tier down, or frosts to bind her up and kill her; and she has no friend on her side but youth to hear her through; If that can sustain the attack, and hold out till spring comes to relieve me, one use I shall make of fa<ther life shall be to shew how much I am, sir, your most devoted humble servant, C. Hopkins.”

, an Arian writer, although belonging to the Church of England, was born at Monmouth in 1706. He received the elements of a learned education at his native town, whence he was sent to All-Souls, Oxford, in 1724. He was admitted to deacon’s orders in 1728, and in the following year undertook the curacy of Waldron, in Sussex. In 1731 he was presented to the vicarage of Bolney, in the same county. In 1753 he published anonymously, “An Appeal to the common sense of all Christian people, more particularly the members of the Church of England, with regard to an important point of faith and practice, imposed upon their consciences.” This excited a controversy which was carried on many years. In 1756 he was elected master of the grammar school of Cuckfield; and in 1766, undertook the curacy of Slaugham, and continued to officiate there many years, and in his own parish of Bolney, making what alterations he pleased in the service, at which the churchwardens were pleased to connive. He supported the famous petition to parliament for relief, in the matter of subscription to the liturgy and thirty-nine articles of the church; and wrote some pamphlets on the subject, but all anonymously. His last work, in 1784, was “Exodus, a corrected translation, with notes critical and explanatory,” in which notes there is little that can gratify the taste of curious and critical readers, but so many severe reflections on the articles and liturgy of the Church of England, that the Monthly Reviewer took for granted he had quitted it, although in the title he called himself the vicar of Bolney. Immediately after this publication, his health began to decline; and his mental faculties were greatly impaired before his decease, which happened in 1786, when he had attained to his eightieth year.

It cannot often fall to the lot of the biographer to record a man so blameless in character and conduct as bishop Home. Whatever might be his peculiar opinions on some points, he was undoubtedly a sincere and exemplary Christian; and as a scholar, a writer, and a preacher, a man of no ordinary qualifications. The cheerfulness of his disposition is often marked by the vivacity of his writings, and the sincerity of his heart is every where conspicuous in them. So far was he from any tincture of covetousness, that he laid up nothing from his preferments in the church. If he was no loser at the year’s end he was perfectly satisfied. What he gave away was bestowed with so much secrecy, that it was supposed by some persons to be little; but, after his death, when the pensioners, to whom he had been a constant benefactor, rose up to look about them for some other support, it began to be known who, and how many they were.

Dr. Horsley was now about to enter on that controversy with Dr. Priestley, in which he displayed his greatest learning and abilities, and on which his fame is irremoveably founded. In the year 1782 (we use Dr. Horsley’s words), an open and vehement attack was made by Dr. Priestley upon the creeds and established discipline of every church in Christendom, in a work in 2 vols. 8vo, entitled a “History of the Corruptions of Christianity.” At the head of these Dr. Priestley placed both the catholic doctrine of our Lord’s divinity, and the Arian notion of his pre-existence in a nature far superior to the human, representing the Socinian doctrine of his mere humanity, as the unanimous faith of the first Christians. It seemed to Dr. Horsley that the most effectual preservative against the intended mischief would be to destroy the writer’s credit, and the authority of his name, which the fame of certain lucky discoveries in the prosecution of physical experiments had set high in popular esteem, by a proof of his incompetency in every branch of literature connected with his present subject, of which the work itself afforded evident specimens in great abundance. For this declared purpose, a review of the imperfections of his work in the first part, relating to our Lord’s divinity, was made the subject of Dr. Horsley’s Charge, delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St. Alban’s at a visitation held May 22, 1783, the spring next following Dr. Priestley’s publication. The specimens alledged by Dr. Horsley of the imperfections of the work, and the incompetency of the author, may be reduced to six general classes. 1. Instances of reasoning in a circle. 2, Instances of quotations misapplied through ignorance of the writer’s subject. 3. Instances of testimonies perverted by artful and forced constructions. 4. Instances of passages in the Greek Fathers misinterpreted through ignorance of the Greek language. 5. Instances of passages misinterpreted through the same ignorance, driven further out of the way by an ignorance of the Platonic philosophy; and 6. Instances of ignorance of the phraseology of the earliest ecclesiastical writers. Dr. Horsley concludes this masterly and argumentative Charge, by saying, “I feel no satisfaction in detecting the weaknesses of this learned writer’s argument, but what arises from a consciousness, that it is the discharge of some part of the duty which I owe to the church of God.” The whole of this charge affords a characteristic specimen of Dr. Horsley’s controversial style, with a mixture of temper leading him, perhaps, somewhat nearer the bounds of irony then became the solemnity of an address of this kind. After speaking of many things that may be perfectly obvious to the penetration of such a mind as Dr. Priestley’s, how absurd and contradictory and improbable soever they may appear to persons of plain sense and common understandings, unsubtilized by sophistry and metaphysics, and not stimulated by the love of paradox, he observes, that, to those who want the doctor’s sagacity, the “true meaning of an inspired writer” will not very readily be deemed “to be toe reverse of the natural and obvious sense of the expressions which he employs.”

Dr. Priestley, however, felt none of the alarm with which his admirers were affected. He promised an early and satisfactory answer. He predicted that he should rise more illustrious from his supposed defeat; he promised to strengthen the evidence of his favourite opinion by the very objections that had been raised against it; he seemed to flatter himself that he should find a new convert in his antagonist himself, and even hinted in print somewhat concerning the shame and remorse with which he was confident his adversary must be penetrated. From all this it soon became evident that Dr. Priestley, who could not but feel personally what every unprejudiced man felt argumentatively, that Dr. Horsley was an antagonist of no mean stamp, did not profit by this conviction so far as to take sufficient leisure to revise his own writings, but immediately repeated his former assertions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity not having been maintained by the Christian church in the first three centuries, in a publication entitled “Letters to Dr. Horsley, in answer to his animadversions on the ‘ History of the Corruptions of Christianity:’ with an additional evidence that the primitive Christian church was Unitarian,” 1783, 8vo. Irt this there are more of the weaknesses of argument, and the errors of haste, than could have been expected from one who had so much at stake, and it was therefore no very difficult task for Dr. Horsley to continue the contest, in the same epistolary form which his antagonist had adopted, by “Letters from the archdeacon of St. Alban’s in Reply to Dr. Priestley, with an Appendix, containing short strictures on Dr. Priestley’s Letters, by an unknown hand,” 1784, 8vo. These letters are seventeen in number, and their object is to prove that if Dr. Priestley’s mistakes which he pointed out, are few in number, tliey are too considerable in size to be incident to a well-informed writer; that they betray a want of such a general comprehension of the subject as might have enabled Dr. P. to draw the trne conclusions from the passages he cited; that they prove him incompetent in the very language of the writers from whom his proofs should be drawn, and unskilled in the philosophy whose doctrines he pretended to compare with the opinions of the church. These are serious charges, but our author did not confine himself merely to substantiate them, but followed up his numerous proofs by others in behalf 6f the doctrine of the Trinity, drawn from the early fathers of the church, and the best ecclesiastical historians. The display of reading and research in these letters is wonderful. The style also is admirable, and while it assumes the lofty and somewhat dictatorial manner peculiar to Dr. Horsley, and which indeed the high ground on which he stood in this case, seemed to justify, the reader of taste finds himself often charmed with the elegance of the language, and always with the closeness of the reasoning.

As a preacher, or rather as a writer of sermons, Dr. Horsley might be allowed to stand in the first class, if we knew with whom of that class we can compare him. Some comparisons we have seen, the justice of which we do not think quite obvious. In force, profundity, and erudition, in precision and distinctness of ideas, in“aptitude and felicity of expression, and above all, in selection of 'subjects and original powers of thinking, Dr. Horsley’s Sermons have been very justly termed” compositions sui generis" Upon most of these accounts, or ^rather upon all in the aggregate, they remove him from a comparison with those who may have acquired‘ very just fame as popular preachers. Bishop Horsley ’everywhere addresses himself to scholars, philosophers, and biblical' critics. By these he was heard with delight, and by these his works will continue to be appreciated as the component parts of every theological library, although they may not assent to all his doctrines.

, was a philologer, a writer of verses, and a historian. His real name is unknown; he took that of Hortensius, either because his father was a gardener, or because his family name signified gardener. He was born at Montfort, in the territory of Utrecht, in 1501, and studied at Louvain. Hortensius was for several years rector of the school at Naarden, and when that city was taken in 1572, he would have fallen a sacrifice to the military fury, had he not been preserved by the gratitude of' one who had been his pupil. His death happened at Naarden, in 1577. There are extant by him, besides satires, epithalamia, and other Latin poems, the following works: 1. Seven books, “De Bello Germanico,” under Charles V. 8vo. 2. “De Tumultu Anabaptistarum,” fol. 3. “De Secessionibus Ultrajectinis,” fol. 4. Commentaries on the six first books of the Æneid, and on Lucan. 5. Notes on four Comedies of Aristophanes.

, a Roman orator, was the contemporary and rival of Cicero, and so far his senior, that he was an established pleader some time before the appearance of the latter. He pleaded his first cause at the age of nineteen, in the consulship of L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Mutius Scevola, ninety-four years before the Christian aera, Cicero being then in his twelfth year. This early effort was crowned with great success, and he continued throughout his life a very favourite orator. His enemies, however, represented his action as extravagant, and gave him the name of Hortensia, from a celebrated dancer of that time. He proceeded also in the line of public honours, was military tribune, praetor, and in the year 68 B. C. consul, together with Q. Caecilius Metellus. He was an eminent member of the college of augurs, and was the person who elected Cicero into that body, being sworn to present a man of proper dignity. By him also Cicero was there inaugurated, for which reason, says that author, “it was my duty to regard him as a parent.” He died in the year 49 B. C.“; and Cicero, to whom the news of that event was brought when he was at Rhodes, in his return from Ciiicia, has left a most eloquent eulogy and lamentation upon him, in the opening of his celebrated treatise on orators entitled Brutus.” I considered him,“says that writer,” not, as many supposed, in the light of an adversary, or one who robbed me of any praise, but as a companion and sharer in my glorious labour. It was much more honourable to have such an opponent, than to stand unrivalled; more especially as neither his career was impeded by me, nor mine by him, but each, on the contrary, was always ready to assist the other by communication, advice, and kindness." If, however, Cicero was sincere in his attachment, it was surmised that Hortensius was not, and this is even insinuated in one of the epistles of Cicero. Hortensius amassed great wealth, but lived at the same time in a splendid and liberal manner; and it is said that at his death his cellars were found stocked with 10,000 hogsheads of wine. His orations have all perished; but it was the opinion of Quintillian, that they did not in perusal answer to the fame he obtained by speaking them. Hortensius must have been si^ty-four at the time of his death.

, a learned Swiss writer, who rendered important service to the Protestant cause, was born at Altdorf near Zurich, where his father was minister, in 1547. He began his studies with great diligence and success at Zurich, under the direction of Woltius, his uncle by his mother’s side; and losing his father in 1563, found an affectionate patron in his godfather Rodolphus Gualterus. He left Zurich in 1565, in order to visit the other universities and spent some time in Marpurg and Heidelberg. He was afterwardsrecalled, and received into the ministry in 1568; the year following he obtained the freedom of the city; and was made provisor of the abbey school in 1571. Though his school and his cure engrossed much of his time, he had the courage to undertake a noble work of vast extent, “An History of the Errors of Popery.” He considered, that the Papists, when defeated by the Holy Scriptures, had recourse to tradition; were for ever boasting of their antiquity, and despised the protestants for being modern. To deprive them of this plea, he determined to search into the rise and progress of the Popish rites and ceremonies; and to examine by what gradations the truth, taught by Christ and his apostles, had been corrupted by innovations. He could not, however, complete his work, agreeably to the plan he had drawn out; but he published some considerable parts of it, as, 1. “De Templis: hoc est, de origine, progressu, usu, & abusu Templorum, ac omnino rerum omnium ad Templa pertinentium,” 1587, folio. 2. “De Monachis: seu de origine & progressu monachatus & ordinum monasticorum,” 1588, folio. 3. “De Festis Judaeorum, et Ethnicorum: hoc est, de origine, progressu, ceremoiiiis, et ritibus festorum dierum Judaeorum, Graecorum, Romanorum, Turcarum, & Indianorum,” 1592, folio. 4. “Festa Christianorum,” &c. 1593, folio. 5. “Historia Sacramentaria hoc est, libri quinque Je Ccsnae Dominicae prima institutione, ejusque vero usu & abusu, in primaeva ecclesia necnon de origine, progressu, ceremoniis, & ritibus Missas, Transubstantiationis, & aliorum pene infinitorum errorum, quibus Ccenx prima institutio horribiliter in papatu polluta & profanata est,” 1598, folio. 6. “Pars altera: de origine et progressu controversies sacramentarias de Coena Domini inter Lutheranos, Ubiquistas, & Orthodoxos, quos Zuinglianos seu Calvinistas vocant, exortae ab anno 1517 usque ad 16,02 deducta, 1602,” folio. These are all of them parts of his great work, which he enlarged in succeeding editions, and added confutations of the arguments of Bellarmin, Baronius, and Gretser. What he published on the Eucharist, and another work entitled “Concordia Discors,” &c. printed in 1607, exasperated the Lutherans in a high degree; and they wrote against him with great animosity. He did not publish any answer, though he had almost finished one, but turned his arms against the Jesuits and published “Historia Jesuitica hoc est, de origine, regulis, constitutionibus, privileges, incrementis, progressu, & propagatione ordinis Jesuitarum. Item, de eorum dolis, fraudibus, imposturis, nefariis faci- ­noribus, cruentis consiliis, falsa quoque, seditiosa, & sanguinolenta doctrina,” 1619, folio.

, a very learned writer, and famous for his skill in the oriental languages, was born at Zurich in Switzerland, in 1620. He had a particular talent for learning languages; and the progress he made in his first studies gave such promising hopes, that it was resolved he should be sent to study in foreign countries, at the public expence. He began his travels in 1638, and went to Geneva, where he studied two months under Fr. Spanheim. Then he went into France, and thence into Holland; and fixed at Groningen, where he studied divinity under Gomarus and Alting, and Arabic under Pasor. Here he intended to have remained; but being very desirous of improving himself in the oriental languages, he went in 1639 to Leyden, to be tutor to the children of Golius, who was the best skilled in those languages of any man of that age. By the instructions of Golius, he improved greatly in the knowledge of Arabic, and also by the assistance of a Turk, who happened to be at Leyden. Besides these advantages, Golius had a fine collection of Arabic books and Mss. from which Hottinger was suffered to copy what he pleased, during the fourteen months he staid at Leyden. In 1641, he was offered, at the recommendation of Golius, the place of chaplain to the ambassador of the States-general to Constantinople; and he would gladly have attended him, as such a journey would have co-operated wonderfully with his grand design of perfecting himself in the eastern languages: but the magistrates of Zurich did not consent to it: they chose rather to recall him, in order to employ him for the advantage of their public schools. They permitted him first, however, to visit England; and the instant he returned from that country, they appointed him professor of ecclesiastical history; and a year after, in 1643, gave him two professorships, that of catechetical divinity, and that of the oriental tongues.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

The birth of lord Surrey may be conjectured to have taken place some time between 1515 and 1520, probably the former, or at least earlier than 1520. He was, it is, universally agreed, the school companion of the duke of Richmond, who died in 1536, in his seventeenth year, and if we allow that Surrey was two or three years older, it will not much affect the high probability that he was a very young man at the time when his biographers made him fall in love with Geraldine, and maintain her beauty at Florence. None of the portraits of Surrey, as far as the present writer has been able to ascertain, mention his age, except that in the picture gallery at Oxford, on which is inscribed, that he was beheaded in “1547, set. 27.” The inscription, indeed, is in a hand posterior to the date of the picture (supposed to be by Holbein), but it may have been the hand of some successful inquirer. None of the books of peerage notice his birth or age, nor are these circumstances inserted on his monument at Framlingham. Conjecture, it has been already observed, supposes him to have been born some time between 1515 and 1520. If we take the earliest of these dates, it will still remain that his biographers have either crowded more events into his life than it was capable of holding, or that they have delayed his principal adventures until they become undeserving of credit, and inconsistent with his character.

If it be said that Surrey’s age is not exactly known, and therefore allowing 1536, the date of his travels, to be erroneous, it is possible that he might have been enamoured of Geraldine long before this, and it is possible that his travels might have commenced in 1526, or any other period founded on this new conjecture. This, however, is as improbable as all the rest of the story, for it can be decidedly proved that there was no time for Surrey’s gallantries towards Geraldine, except the period which his biographers, however absurdly, have assigned, namely, when he was a married man. The father of lady Elizabeth, the supposed Geraldine, married in 1519, one of the daughters of Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and by her had five children, of whom Elizabeth was the fourth, and therefore probably not born before 1523 or 1524. If Surrey’s courtship, therefore, must be carried farther back, it must be carried to the nursery; for even in 1536, when we are told he was her knight-errant, she could not have been more than eleven or twelve years old. Let us add to this a few particulars respecting Geraldine’s husband. She married Edward lord C'linton. He was born in 1512, was educated in the court, and passed his youth in those magnificent and romantic amusements which distinguished the beginning of Henry VIII.'s reign, but did not appear as a public character until 1544, when he was thirty-two years of age, Geraldine about twenty-four, and Surrey within two years of his death, and most probably a widower. This earl of Lincoln had three wives; the date of his marriage with any of them is not known, nor how long they lived, but Geraldine was the third, the only one by whom he had no children, and who survived his death, which took place in 1584, thirty-eight years after the death of Surrey. Mr. Warton, in his earnest desire to connect her with Surrey, insinuates that she might have been either cruel, or that her “ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune, to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover.” On this it is only necessary to remark, that the lady’s ambition might have been as highly gratified by marrying the accomplished and gallant Surrey, the heir of the duke of Norfolk, as by allying herself to a nobleman of inferior talents and rank. But of his two conjectures, Mr. Warton seems most to adhere to that of cruelty^ for he adds, that “Surrey himgelf outlived his amorous vows, and married the daughter of the earl of Oxford.” This, however, is as little deserving of serious examination, as the ridiculous story of Cornelius Agrippa showing Geraldine in a glass, which Anthony Wood found in Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle,” or probably, as Mr. Park thinks, took it from Nash’s fanciful “Life of Jack Wilton,” published in 1594, where, under the character of his hero, he professes to have travelled to the emperor’s court as page to the earl of Surrey. But it is unfortunate for this story, wheresoever borrowed, that Agrippa was no more a conjurer than any other learned man of his time, and that he died at Grenoble the year before Surrey is said to have set out on his romantic expedition. Drayton has made a similar mistake in giving to Surrey, as one of the companions of his voyage, the great sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535, a year likewise before Surrey set out. Poetical authorities, although not wholly to be rejected, are of all others to be received with the greatest caution, yet it was probably Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle” which led Mr. Warton into so egregious a blunder as that of our poet being present at Flodden-field, in 1513. Dr. Sewell, indeed, in the short memoirs prefixed to his edition of Surrey’s Poems, asserts the same; tut little credit is due to the assertion -of a writer who at the same time fixes Surrey’s birth in 1520, seven years after that memorable battle was fought.

It is now time to inquire whether the accounts hitherto given can be confirmed by internal evidence. It has been so common to consider Geraldine as the mistress of Surrey, that all his love-poems are supposed to have a reference to his attachment to that lady. Mr. Warton begins his narrative by observing, that “Surrey’s life throws so much light on the character and subjects of his poetry, that it is almost impossible to consider the one without exhibiting a few anecdtes of the other.” We have already seen what those anecdotes are, how totally* irreconcileable with probability, and how amply refuted by the dates which hi biographers, unfortunately for their story, have uniformly furnished. When we look into the poems, we find the celebrated sonnet to Geraldine, the only specious foundation for his romantic attachment; but as that attachment and its consequences cannot be supported without a continual violation of probability, and in opposition to the very dates which are brought to confirm it, it seems more safe to conjecture that this sonnet was one of our author’s earliest productions, addressed to Geraldine, a mere child, by one who was only not a child, as an effort of youthful gallantry, in one of his interviews with her at Hunsdon. Whatever credit may be given to this conjecture, for which the present writer is by no means anxious, it is certain that if we reject it, or some conjecture of the same import, and adopt the accounts given by his biographers, we cannot proceed a single step without being opposed by invincible difficulties. There is no other poem in Surrey’s collection that can be proved to have any reference to Geraldine, but there are two with the same title, viz. “The Complaint of the absence of her lover being upon the sea,” which are evidently written in the character of a wife, lamenting the absence of her husband, and tenderly alluding to “his faire litle Sonne.” Mr. Wanon, indeed, finds Geraldine in the beautiful lines beginning “Give place, ye lovers, here before,” and from the lines “Spite drave me into Boreas reign,” infers that her anger “drave him into a colder climate,” with what truth may now be left to the reader. But another of his conjectures cannot be passed over. “In 1544,” he says, “lord Surrey was fieldmarshal of the English army in the expedition to Boulogne, which he took. In that age, love and arms constantly went together; and it was amid the fatigues of this protracted campaign, that he composed his last sonnet, called * The Fansie of a Wearied Lover.” But this is a mere supposition. The poems of Surrey are without dates, and were arranged by their first editor without any attention to a matter of so much importance. The few allusions made to his personal history in these poems are very dark, but in some of them there is a train of reflection which seems to indicate that misfortunes and disappointments had dissipated his Quixotism, and reduced him to the sober and serious tone of a man whose days had been “fevr and evil.” Although he names his productions songs and sonnets, they have less of the properties of either than of the elegiac strain. His scripture- translations appear to be characteristic of his mind and situation in his latter days. What unless a heart almost broken by the unnatural conduct of his friends and family, could have induced the gay and gallant Surrey, the accomplished courtier and soldier, to console himself by translating those passages from Ecclesiastes which treat of the shortness and uncertainty of all human enjoyments, or those Psalms which direct the penitent and the forsaken to the throne of almighty power and grace? Mr. Warton remarks that these translations of Scripture “show him to have been a friend to the reformation;” and this, which is highly probable, may have been one reason why his sufferings were embittered by the neglect, if not the direct hostility of his bigotted father and sister. The translation of the Scriptures into prose was but just tolerated in his time, and to familiarize them by the graces of poetry must have appeared yet more obnoxious to the enemies of the reformation.

Although the present writer has taken some liberties with the Historian of English poetry, in his account of Surrey’s life, he has not the presumption to omit Mr. Warton’s elegant and just criticism on his poems. “Surrey for justness of thought, correctness of style, and purity of expression, may justly be pronounced the first English classical poet. He unquestionably is the first polite writer of love-verses in our language, although it must be allowed that there is a striking native beauty in some of our love-verse, written much earlier than Surrey’s.” It is also worthy of notice, that while all his biographers send him to Italy to study its poetry, Mr. Warton finds nothing in his works of that metaphysical cast which marks the Italian poets his supposed masters, especially Petrarch. “Surrey’s sentiments are for the most part natural and unaffected; arising from his own feelings, and dictated by the present circumstances. His poetry is alike unembarrassed by learned allusions, or elaborate conceits. If our author copies Petrarch, it is Petrarch’s better manner; when he descends from his Platonic abstractions, his refinements of passion, his exaggerated compliments, and his play upon opposite sentiments, into a track of tenderness, simplicity, and nature. Petrarch would have been a better poet had he been. a worse scholar. Our author’s mind was not too much over-laid by learning.”

, earl of Northampton, second son of the preceding, but unworthy of such a father, was born at Shottisham in Norfolk about 1539. He was educated at King’s college, and afterwards at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. M. to which he was also admitted at Oxford, in 1568. Bishop Godwin says, his reputation for literature was so great in the unU versity, that he was esteemed“the learnedest among the nobility; and the most noble among the learned.” He was at first, probably, very slenderly provided for, being often obliged, as Lloyd records, “to dine with the chair of duke Humphrey.” He contrived, however, to spend some years in travel; but on his return could obtain no favour at court, at least till the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, which was probably owing to his connections. In 1597, it seems as if he was in some power (perhaps, however, only through the influence of his friend lord Essex), because Rowland White applied to him concerning sir Robert Sydney’s suits at court. He was the grossest of flatterers, as appears by his letters to his patron and friend lord Essex; but while he professed the most unbounded friendship for Essex, he yet paid his suit to the lord treasurer Burleigh. On the fall of Essex, he insinuated himself so far into the confidence of his mortal enemy, secretary Cecil, as to become the instrument of the secretary’s correspondence with the king of Scotland, which passed through his hands, and has been since published by sit David Dalrymple. It is not wonderful, therefore, that a man of his intriguing spirit, was immediately on king James’s accession, received into favour. In May 1603, he was made a privy-counsellor; in January following, lord warden of the Cinque Ports; in March, baron of Marnhill, and earl of Northampton; in April 1608, lord privy seal; and honoured with the garter. In 1609, he succeeded John lord Lumley, as high steward of Oxford; and in 1612, Robert, earl of Salisbury, as chancellor of Cambridge. Soon after he became the principal instrument in the infamous intrigue of his great niece the countess of Essex with Carr viscount Rochester. The wretch acted as pander to the countess, for the purpose of conciliating die rising favourite and it is impossible to doubt his deep criminality in the murder of Overbury. About nine months afterwards, June 15, 1614, he died, luckily for himself, before this atrocious affair became the subject of public investigation. He was a learned man, but a pedant dark and mysterious, and far from possessing masterly abilities. It causes astonishment, says the elegant writer to whom we are indebted for this article, “when we reflect that this despicable and wicked wretch was the sou of the generous and accomplished earl of Surrey.” One of his biographers remarks, that “his lordship very prudently died a papist; he stood no chance for heaven in any other religion.”

, an English writer of some abilities and learning, born Jan. 1626, was a younger son of Thomas earl of Berkshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge. During the civil war he suffered with his family, who adhered to Charles I. but at the Restoration was made a knight, and chosen for Stockbridge in Hampshire, to serve in the parliament which began in May 1661. He was afterwards made auditor of the exchequer, and was reckoned a creature of Charles II. whom the monarch advanced on account of his faithful services, in cajoling the parliament for money. In 1679 he was chosen to serve in parliament for Castle Rising in Norfolk; and re-elected for the same place in 1688. He was a strong advocate for the Revolution, and became so passionate an abhorrer of the nonjurors, that he disclaimed all manner of conversation and intercourse with persons of that description. His obstinacy and pride procured him many enemies, and among them the duke of Buckingham; who intended to have exposed him under the name of Bilboa in the “Rehearsal,” but afterwards altered his resolution, and levelled his ridicule at a much greater name, under that of Bayes. He was so extremely positive, and so sure of being in the right upon every subject, that Shadwell the poet, though a man of the same principles, could not help ridiculing him in his comedy of the “Sullen Lovers,” under the character of Sir Positive At-all. Jn the same play there is a lady Vaine, a courtezan which the wits then understood to be the mistress of sir Robert, whom he afterwards married. He died Sept. 3, 1698. He published, 1. “Poems and Plays.” 2. “The History of the Reigns of Edward and Richard II. with reflections and characters of their chief ministers and favourites; also a comparison of these princes with Edward I. and III.” 1690, 8vo. 3. “A letter to Mr. Samuel Johnson, occasioned by a scurrilous pamphlet, entitled Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian,” 1692, 8vo. 4. “The History of Religion,” 1694, 8vo. 5. “The fourth book of Virgil translated,” 1660, 8vo. 6. “Statius’s Achilleis translated,” 1660, 8vo.

, a voluminous English writer, the son of Thomas Howell, minister of Abernant in Caermarthenshire, was born about 1594, and, to use his own words, “his ascendant was that hot constellation of cancer about the midst of the dog-days.” He was sent to the freeschool at Hereford -, and entered of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1610. His elder brother Thomas Howell was already a fellow of that society, afterwards king’s chaplain, and was nominated in 1644 to the see of Bristol. James Howell, having taken the degree of B. A. in 1613, left college, and removed to London; for being, says Wood, “a pure cadet, a true cosmopolite, not born to land, lease, house, or office, he had his fortune to make; and being withal not so much inclined to a sedentary as an active life, this situation pleased him best, as most likely to answer his views.” The first employment he obtained was that of steward to a glass-house in Broad-street, which was procured for him by sir Robert Mansel, who was principally concerned in it. The proprietors of this work, intent upon improving the manufactory, came to a resolution to send an agent abroad, who should procure the best materials and workmen; and they made choice of Howell for this purpose, who, setting off in 1619, visited several of the principal places in Holland, Flanders, France, Spain, and Italy. In Dec. 1621, he returned to London; having executed the purpose of his mission very well, and particularly having acquired a masterly knowledge in the modern languages, which afforded him a singular cause for gratitude. “Thank God,” he says, “I have this fruit of my foreign travels, that I can pray unto him every day of the week in a separate language, and upon Sunday in seven.”

, successively bishop of Oxford and Durham, was born in St. Bride’s parish, London, in 1556, and educated at St. Paul’s school, whence he became student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1577. After taking his degrees in arts, and entering into holy orders, he was vicar of Bampton in Oxfordshire, rector of Brightwell in Berkshire, a fellow of Chelsea college, and canon of Hereford. When vice-chancellor of Oxford he exerted himself against those puritans who opposed the discipline and ceremonies, but was afterwards a more distinguished writer and preacher against popery. He appears to have entered the lists against Bellarmine and his friends with determined resolution, declaring “that he'd loosen the pope from his chair, though he were fastened thereto with a tenpenny nail.” King James commanded his polemical discourses, which are the most considerable of his works, to be printed, in 1622, 4to. They are all in the form of sermons.

, a late dramatic and miscellaneous writer, and an actor, was born in the Strand, London, in 1728, where his father was in considerable practice as an apothecary. He was educated at the Charter-house, with a view to the church, but afterwards embraced his father’s profession, which, however, he was obliged to relinquish after an unsuccessful trial. What induced him to go on the stage we know not, as nature had not been very bountiful to him in essential requisites. He performed, however, for some time in the provincial theatres, and in 1759 obtained an engagement at Covent-garden theatre, which he never quitted, unless for summer engagements. In one of these he became acquainted with Shenstone the poet, who, observing his irreproachable moral conduct, so different from that of his brethren on the stage, patronized him as far as he was able, and assisted him in writing his tragedy of “Henry II.” and “Rosamund.” It was indeed Mr. Hull’s moral character which did every thing for him. No man could speak seriously of him as an actor, but all spoke affectionately of his amiable manners and undeviating integrity. He was also a man of some learning, critically skilled in the dramatic art, and the correspondent of some of the more eminent literary men of his time. His poetical talents were often employed, and always in the cause of humanity and virtue, but he seldom soared above the level of easy and correct versification. In prose, perhaps, he is entitled to higher praise, but none of his works have had more than temporary success. He died at his house at Westminster, April 22, 1808. For the stage he altered, or wrote entirely, nineteen pieces, of which a list may be seen in our authority. His other works were, I. “The History of sir William Harrington,” a novel, 1771, 4 vols. 2. “Genuine Letters from a gentleman to a young lady his pupil,” 1772, 2 vols. 3. “Richard Plantagenet,” a legendary tale, 1774, 4to. 4. “Select Letters between the late duchess of Somerset, lady Luxborough, miss Dolman, Mr. Whistler, Mr. Dodsley, Shenstone, and others,” 1778, 2 vols. This is now the most interesting of his publications, and contains many curious particulars of literary history and opinions. The letters were given to him by Shenstone. 5. “Moral Tales in verse,” 1797, 2 vols. 8vo.

It is, indeed, as an historian, or perhaps occasionally as a political writer, that Hume will probahly be best known to posterity; and it is in these capacities that he can be read with the greatest pleasure and advantage by the friends of sound morals and religion. Yet even as an historian, he has many faults; he does not scruple to disguise facts from party motives, and he never loses an opportunity of throwing out his cool sceptical sneer at Christianity, under the names of fanaticism and superstition. “When Mr. Hume rears the standard of infidelity,” says Gilpin, “he acts openly and honestly; but when he scatters his careless insinuations, as he traverses the paths of history, we characterize him as a dark, insidious enemy.”

, a learned English writer, was born at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, about 1527, and had his school education at Cambridge; after which he became first a demy, then a fellow, of Magdalen-college in Oxford. He took the degree of M. A. in 1552, and about that time was made Greek reader of his college, and entered into orders. In June 1555 he had leave from his college to travel into foreign countries; he went to Zurich, and associated himself with the English there, who had fled from their country on account of their religion. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England, and was restored to his fellowship in Magdalen college, from which he had been expelled because he did not return within the space of a year, which was one condition on which he was permitted to travel; another was, that he should refrain from all heretical company. In 1560 he was appointed the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford; and the year after elected president of his college. In 1562 he took both the degrees in divinity; and, in 1570, was made dean of Gloucester. In 1580 he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and had probably been promoted to a bishopric if he had not been disaffected to the church of England. For Wood tells us, that from the city of Zurich, where the preaching of Zuinglius had fashioned people’s notions, and from the correspondence he had at Geneva, he brought back with him so much of the Calvinist both in doctrine and discipline, that the best which could be said of him was, that he was a moderate and conscientious nonconformist. This was at least the opinion of several divines, who used to call him and Dr. Fulke of Cambridge, standard-bearers among the nonconformists; though others thought they grew more conformable in the end. Be this as it will, “sure it is,” says Wood, that “Humphrey was a great and general scholar, an able linguist, a deep divine and for his excellency of style, exactness of method, and substance of matter in his writings, went beyond most of our theologists .” He died in Feb. 1590, N. S. leaving a wife, by whom he had twelve children. His writings are, 1 “Epistola de Graecis literis, et Homeri lectione et imitatione;” printed before a book of Hadrian Junius, entitled “Cornucopias,” at Basil, 1558. 2. “De Religionis conservatione et reformatione, deque primatu regum, Bas. 1559.” 3. “De ratione interpretandi auctores, Bas. 1559.” 4. “Optimates: sive de nobilitate, ejusque autiqua origine, &c.” Bas. 1560. 5. “Joannis Juelli Angli, Episcopi Sarisburiensis, vita et mors, ejusque verae doctrinae defensio, &c. Lond. 1573.” 6. “Two Latin orations spoken before queen Elizabeth; one in 1572, another in 1575.” 7. “Sermons;” and 8. “Some Latin pieces against the Papists, Campian in particular.” Wood quotes Tobias Matthew, an eminent archbishop, who knew him well, as declaring, that “Dr. Humphrey had read more fathers than Campian the Jesuit ever saw; devoured more than he ever tasted; and taught more in the university of Oxford, than he had either learned or heard.”

, a popular preacher and writer, was born at Culross, in Perthshire, in 1741. He had the best education that the circumstances of his parents would permit, and at the age of thirteen was sent to the university of Edinburgh, where, by his talents and proficiency, he attracted the notice of the professors, and when he left Edinburgh he accepted the office of tutor to lord Dundonald’s sons at Culross abbey. In 1764 he was licensed to preach, having passed the several trials with great applause: and very quickly became much followed on account of his popular talents. He was ordained in 1766, and was appointed minister of South Leith. On a visit to London in 1769, he preached in most of the Scotch meeting-houses with great acceptance, and soon after his return he received an invitation to become pastor of the Scotch church in Swallow-street, which he declined; but in 1771 he removed to London, and undertook the pastoral office in the Scotch church at London-wall. He appeared first as an author in 1783, by the commencement of his “Sacred Biography,” which was at length extended to seven volumes octavo. While this work was in the course of publication, he engaged in the translation of Lavater’s “Essays on Physiognomy,” and in order to render his work as complete as possible, he took a journey into Swisserland, for the purpose of procuring information from Lavater himself. He attained, in some measure, his object, though the author did not receive him with the cordiality which he expected, suspecting that the English version must injure the sale of the French translation. The first number of this work was published in 1789, and it was finished in a style worthy the improved state of the arts. From this period Dr. Hunter spent much of his time in translating different works from the French language. In 1790 he was elected secretary to the corresponding board of the “Society for propagating Christian Knowledge in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.” He was likewise chaplain to the “Scotch Corporation;” and both these institutions Were much benefited by his zealous exertions in their behalf. In 1795, he published two volumes of Sermons; and in 1798 he gave the world eight “Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,” being the completion of a plan begun by Mr. Fell. The whole contains a popular and useful elucidation of the proofs in favour of the Christian religion, arising from its internal evidence, its beneficial influence, and the superior value of the information which it conveys with respect to futurity. During the latter years of his life, Dr. Hunter’s constitution suffered the severest shocks from the loss of three children, which, with other causes, contributed to render him unable to withstand the attacks of disease. He died at the Hot-Wells, Bristol, on the 27th of October, 1802, in the 62d year of his age. Dr. Hunter was a man of learning: his writings are eloquent, and shew how well he had studied human nature. In the pulpit his manner was unaffected, solemn, and impressive. He indulged his liberal and friendly heart in the exercise of hospitality, charity, and the pleasures of social intercourse, but the latter frequently beyond the limits which a regard to prudence and economy should have prescribed. He was the translator of “Letters of Euler to a German Princess, on different subjects in Physics and Philosophy” “The Studies of Nature by St. Pierre” “Saurin’s Sermons;” “Sonnini’s Travels.” Miscellaneous pieces and sermons of his own have been published since his death, to which are prefixed memoirs: from these the foregoing particulars have been taken. Dr. Hunter, about 1796 or 7, began “A History of London and its Environs,” which came out in parts, but did little credit to him, as he evidently had no talents or research for a work of this description.

In 1795 the life of bishop Warburton appeared under the title of “A Discourse, by way of general preface to the quarto edition of bishop Warburton’s works; containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” Of this work, which excited no common portion of curiosity/ the style is peculiarly elegant and pure, but the whole is too uniform in panegyric not to render the author liable to the suspicion of long-confirmed prejudices. Even the admirers both of Warburton and Hurd would have been content with less effort to magnify the former at the expence of all his contemporaries; and conscious that imperfection is the lot of all, expected that age and reflection would have abated, if not wholly extinguished, the unscholarlike animosities of former times. But in this all were disappointed; and it was with regret they saw the worst characteristics of Warburton, his inveterate dislikes, his strong contempt, and sneering rancour, still employed to perpetuate his personal antipathies; and employed, too, against such men as Lowth and Seeker. If these were the feelings of the friends who venerated Warburton, and who loved Hurd, others who never had much attachment to Warburton, or his school, found little difficulty in accumulating charges of gross partiality, and illiberal language, against his biographer. This much may be sufficient in noticing this life as the production of Dr. Hurd. It will come hereafter to be more particularly noticed as regarding Warburton. The remainder of bishop Kurd’s life appears to have been spent in the discharge of his episcopal duties, as far as his increasing infirmities would permit; in studious retirement; and often in lamenting the loss of old and tried friends. So late as the first Sunday in February before his death, though then declining in health and strength, he was able to attend his parish church, and to receive the sacrament. Free from any painful or acute disorder, he gradually became weaker, but his faculties continued perfect. After a few days’ confinement to his bed, he expired in his sleep, on Saturday morning, May 28, 1808, having completed four months beyond his eighty-eighth year. He was buried in Hartlebury church-yard, according to his own directions. As a writer, Dr. Hurd’s taste, learning, and genius, have been universally acknowledged, and although a full acquiescence has not been given in all his opinions, he must be allowed to be every where shrewd, ingenious, and original. Even in his sermons and charges, while he is sound in the doctrines of the church, his arguments and elucidations have many features of novelty, and are conveyed in that simple, yet elegant style, which renders them easily intelligible to common capacities. Dr. Hurd’s private character was in all respects amiable. With his friends and connexions he obtained the best eulogium, their constant and warm attachment; and with the world in general, a kind of veneration, which could neither be acquired nor preserved, but by the exercise of great virtues. One of his last employments was to draw up a series of the dates of his progress through life. It is to be lamented he did not fill up this sketch. Few men were more deeply acquainted with the literary history of his time, or could have furnished a more interesting narrative. Much of him, however, may be seen in his Life of Warburton, and perhaps more in the collection of Warburton’s “Letters” to himself, which he ordered to be published after his death, for the benefit of the Worcester Infirmary. Of this only 250 copies were printed, to correspond with the 4to edition of Warburton’s works, but it has since been reprinted in 8vo.

, an ingenious philosopher of the sceptical class, was the son of Mr. William Hutton, merchant in Edinburgh, and born in that city on the 3d of June, 1726. He entered the university as a student of humanity, in Nov. 1740. He studied afterwards under the celebrated Maclaurin, but did not prosecute the mathematical sciences to any great extent. The origin of his attachment to the study of chemistry is traced to the accidental mention of a chemical fact by professor Stevenson, in his prelections on logic. The fact was, that aqua regia is the only solvent of gold which requires the united action of two acids, each of which singly is capable of dissolving any of the baser metals. This important phenomenon drew him, as if by a kind of electric attraction, to the study of chemistry, with a force that could never afterwards be overcome. His philosophical career was however interrupted by his engaging, at the request of his friends, as an apprentice to a writer to the signet. But instead of copying writs and deeds, or studying th,e forms of legal proceedings, it was found that his favourite object of pursuit was the experiments of the crucible and retort. He was accordingly released from his engagement as an apprentice, and permitted to direct his attention to studies more congenial to his inclinations. He applied himself to the study of medicine as being the most closely connected with chemistry, and after attending the lectures in the university for some years, repaired, as was then customary, to the continent, to finish his course of study. He took the degree of M. D. at Leyden, in 1749.

It is as a historian that lord Clarendon will be longest remembered, and if compared with those who preceded, or were contemporaries with him, his superiority must in every respect be acknowledged. He knew more and has told more of the histories of his times than any other man, and that with an impartiality which gives us an equally favourable opinion of his head as of his heart. It may be every where seen that he cannot disguise the truth even when it makes against the cause he supports; and where there is any appearance of partiality, it may easily be traced to a warmth of loyalty and friendship, for which every honourable man will find an apology in his own breast. The republicans of his time had much to allege against him, and those of more modern times will never forgive a loyalty which they cannot comprehend, a steadiness of principle which ill accords with their versatile schemes of innovation, and a species of patriotism which would preserve the balance between liberty and licentiousness. “Like justice itself,” says lord Orford, in a character of our author, by no means very favourable, “he held the balance between the necessary power of the supreme magistrate and the interests of the people. This never-dying obligation his contemporaries were taught to overlook and to clamour against, till they removed the only man, who, if he could, would have corrected his master’s evil government.” Such was Clarendon’s n^-erit in the corrupt court of Charles II. when, “if he had sought nothing but power, his power |iad never ceased.” The fact was, that Clarendon, in his History, not then published, but certainly written, had traced the misfortunes of the preceding reign to their true source, and was the only man at court who wished to profit by his experience. As to his style, as a historian, it has chiefly been objected that his periods are long; but it seems scarcely worth while to enlarge on the style of a writer who lived at a time when style was so little cultivated, so imperfectly known. His excellencies are his comprehensive knowledge of mankind, which enabled htm to draw those exact portraits of the leading characters of:his time, which have scarcely been equalled, and probably can never be excelled. No man brings us nearer to the personages with whom we wish to be familiar. He is, says Granger, in this particular as unrivalled among the moderns as Tacitus among the ancients. He paints himself in drawing the portraits of others; and we every where see the clear and exact comprehension, the uncommon learning, the dignity and equity of the lord chancellor, in his character as a writer.

His State Letters, during his government of Ireland, and his Diary for the years 1687, 1688, 1689, and 169O, were published in 2 vols. 4to, 1763, from the Clarendon press in Oxford. “This diary,” says the editor, “presents us with a picture of the manners of the age in which the writer lived. We may learn from it, that at the close of the seventeenth century, a man of the first quality made it his constant practice to go to church, and could spend the day in society with his family and friends, without shaking his arm at a gaming-table, associating with jockies at Newmarket, or murdering time by a constant round of giddy dissipation, if not of criminal indulgence.” Besides the above, lord Clarendon drew up “Some account of the tombs and monuments in the cathedral church of Winchester, Feb. 1683,” which was continued and printed with Gale’s history of that church; and there are three tracts attributed to him, printed in Gutch’s “Collectanea.”

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

, a very learned writer, was son of Mr. Ralph Hyde, minister of Billingsley near Bridgenorth in Shropshire, and born there June 2i), 1636. Having a strong inclination for the Oriental languages from his youth, he studied them first under his father; and afterwards, in 1652, being admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, he became acquainted with Mr. Abraham Wheelock, an admirable linguist, who encouraged him to prosecute his study of them in that place. By him, Hyde, when he had been at Cambridge little more than a year, was sent to London, and recommended to Walton, afterwards bishop of Chester, as a person very capable of assisting him in the Polyglott Bible, in which work he was then engaged. Hyde rendered him great services; for, besides his attendance in the correction of it, he transcribed the Pentateuch out of the Hebrew characters, in which it was first printed at Constantinople, into the proper Persian characters; which by archbishop Usher was then judged impossible to have been done by a native Persian, because one Hebrew letter frequently answered to several Persian letters, which were difficult to be known. He translated it likewise into Latin. What he did farther in the Polyglott, is specified by the editor in these words: “Nee praetereundus est D. Thomas Hyde, summae spei juvenis, cjui in linguis Orientalibus supra aetatem magnos progressuB fecit, quorum specimina dedit turn in Arabibus, Syriacis, Persicis, &c. corrigendis, turn in Pentateucho Persico characteribus Persicis describendo, quia antea soils Hebraicis extitit, ejusque versionem Latinam concinnando.”

, was an ancient Latin writer, who flourished in the time of Augustus. Suetonius, in. his book “De illustribus Grammaticis,” says that he was a freedman of Augustus, and by nation a Spaniard; though some think that he was an Alexandrian, and brought by Caesar to Rome when Alexandria was taken. He was a diligent follower and imitator of Cornelius Alexander, a celebrated Greek grammarian; and was also himself a teacher at Rome. He was made keeper of the Palatine library; was very intimate with the poet Ovid, and with Caius Licmius, a man of consular dignity and an historian, who has taken occasion to inform us, that he died very poor, and, while he lived, was supported chiefly by his generosity; but Vossius thinks that the person here named the consular historian Caius Licinius, should be Caius Asinius, who wrote a history of the civil war, and was consul with Cneius Domitius Calvinus, U. C. 723.

, an Italian writer, was born at Florence, in 1466, and was the disciple of Marsiiius Ficinus, under whom he studied the- Platonic philosophy, and became a great master of it. He was also a good orator, and succeeding Ficinus in his professorship, held it till his death, which happened in 1522. There is extant by him, “A Treatise of Beauty,” and another of “Love,” according to the doctrine of Plato, besides several others, which were all printed together at Basil in 1563.

In 1742, he had an epistolary debate with his friend William Whiston, concerning the order and times of the high priests. In 1744, he published “An Address to the Deists, &c.” in answer to Morgan’s “Resurrection of Jesus considered by a Moral Philosopher;” and, in 1745, entered the lists against Warburtori, in “The Belief of a Future State proved to be a fundamental article of the religion of the Hebrews, and held by the philosophers, &c.” and two or three polemic pieces with Warburton were the consequence of this. His next work was, “Remarks upon Middleton’s Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c.” and, after this, he does not appear to have published any thing till 1752, except that, in 1751, he communicated to Mr. John Gilbert Cooper, for the use of his “Life of Socrates,” some learned notes; in which he contrived to avenge himself upon his old antagonist Warburton. At the same time he exposed the young and incautious writer to the resentment of that veteran, who did not fail to shew it in one of his notes upon Pope. In 1752, came out his last and best work, “Chronological Antiquities,” in 3 vols. 4to. He afterwards made many collections and preparations for an edition of the New Testament in Greek, with Scholia in the same language; and would have inserted all the various readings, had not the growing infirmities of age prevented him. An account of the materials of this intended edition, with notes containing alterations, corrections, additions to his “Chronology,” are inserted in an appendix to “Memoirs” of him printed in 1764, by Dr. Sutton of Leicester.

, a learned English divine, was born at Willowing, in the bishopric of Durham, 1579. Many of his relations being merchants in Newcastle, he was designed to have been bred in that profession; but his great inclination to learning being observed, he was sent to Oxford, and admitted into Queen’s college in 1595, and removed to Corpus- Christi the year after. He took his degrees in arts at the stated times; and May 10, 1606, became probationer-fellow, being then well-grounded in arithmetic, grammar, philology, geometry, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, the oriental languages, history, &c. with an insight into heraldry and hieroglyphics. But he made all his knowledge subservient to the study of divinity, to which he applied with great vigour, and became so distinguished in it, that he not only read a divinity-lecture in his college every Sunday morning, but another on the week-day at Pembroke college (then newly founded) at the request of the master and fellows. He was al|p chosen vice-president of his college for many years successively, by virtue of which office he moderated at the divinity disputations, with remarkable learning, and no less candour and modesty. He commenced D. D. in 1622, and quitted the college two years afterwards, being preferred to a living in his nativfc county, and soon after to the vicarage of Newcastle. In that large and laborious cure, he performed all the duties of an excellent parish-priest, and was particularly admired for his discourses from the pulpit. At this time he was a rigid Calvinist, but yielded the point of absolute predestination to the persuasions of Dr. Richard Neile, bishop of Durham, who took him for his chaplain, and joined with Dr. Laud in bringing him back to his college, where he was elected president by their interest, in 1630. Upon this promotion he resigned the vicarage of Newcastle; and, in 1635, was collated to a prebend of Winchester, having been made king’s chaplain some time before. Dr. Towers being advanced to the bishopric of Peterborough, Dr. Jackson succeeded him in the deanery in 1638; but he did not enjoy this dignity quite two years, being taken from it by death, in 1640. He was interred in the inner chapel of Corpus-Christi college. He was a man of a blameless life, studious, humble, courteous, and remarkably charitable, pious, exemplary in his private and public conversation; so that he was respected and beloved by the most considerable persons in the nation; and indeed the greatest esteem was no more than his due, on account of his learning, for he was well skilled in all the learned languages, arts, sciences, and physics. As an instance of his charitable disposition, we are told, that while he was vicar of Newcastle, whenever he went out, he usually gave what money he had about him to the poor, who at length so flocked about him, that his servant took care he should not have too much in his pocket. Dr. Jackson was profoundly read in the fathers, and endued with an uncommon depth of judgment. His works are very numerous, printed at different times, but were all collected and published in. 1672 and 1673, in three volumes, folio, consisting chiefly of sermons, besides his “Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed,” which are his principal work. His writings were much admired and studied by the late bishop Home, in the account of whose life his merits are thus displayed by the biographer. “Dr. Jackson is a magazine of theological knowledge, every inhere penned with great elegance and dignity, so that his style is a pattern of perfection. His writings, once thought inestimable by every body but the Calvinists, had been greatly neglected, and would probably have continued so, but for the praises bestowed upon them by the celebrated Mr. Merrick, of Trinity college, Oxford, who brought them once more into repute with many learned readers. The early extracts of Mi;. Home, which are now remaining, shew how much information he derived from this excellent writer, who deserves to be numbered with the English fathers of the church.”

, a poetical and dramatic writer, was the son of a considerable maltster of Romsey, in the county of Southampton, at which place he was born in 1686. He was bred to the Jaw under an eminent attorney, and was afterwards steward and secretary to the Hon. William Blathwayt, esq. a celebrated courtier in the reign of king William, and who enjoyed great preferments in that and the subsequent reign. These are the only particulars of his life which have been handed down, and are what he inserted in his “Poetical Register,” where he also informs us that he was a great admirer of poets. He died May 8, 1744. His admiration of poetry, although it could not make him a poet, led him to inquire into poetical history, and gradually produced his “Poetical Register, or Lives and Characters of the English dramatic poets,” 1723, 2 vols. which, says Baker, notwithstanding some few errors in it, is by much the best book of the kind hitherto extant; and yet so little merit had his own two dramatic pieces, Love in a Wood“and” The Soldier’s Last Stake,“that, according to Whincop, Dr. Sewel, who was by no means remarkable for ill-nature, on reading his” Love in a Wood," wrote the following very severe lines in the title-page:

He also published several poems: “A Journey to Bath and Bristol,” “The Lover’s Miscellany,” “Essays relating to the conduct of Life,” and “An Essay on Criticism, &c.” But as a law-writer, few men have left more ample testimonies of industry, and one at least of his productions still preserves his name. He published, 1. “The Accomplished Conveyancer,” 1714, reprinted in 1736 and 1750, 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “The Clerk’s Remembrancer.” 1714, reprinted 1730. 3. “The Grand Precedent,” 1716, 8vo. 4. “A Catalogue of all Writs and Processes of the Courts at Westminster,” 1717, 8vo. 5. “Lex Mercatoria, or the merchants’ companion,” 1718, 8vo, reprinted 1729. 6. “The Laws of Appeals and Murder,” from the Mss. of Mr. Gale, an eminent practiser, 1719, 8vo. 7. “Lex Constitutions, or the gentleman’s law,” 1719, 8vo, reprinted 1737. 8. “The Modern- Justice, containing the business of a justice of peace, with precedents,” 1720, reprinted in 1726 and 1729. 9. “Review of the Statutes,” 3720, and again the same year. 10. “A Treatise of the Laws, or a general introduction to the common, civil, and canon law,” 1721, 8vo. 11. “The complete Court Keeper, or lord steward’s assistant,” 1724, 8vo, reprinted 1740, 1752, 1764, and 1781, which last edition, much improved, is called the seventh. 12. “The Student’s Companion, or reason of the law,” 1725, again in 1734 and 1743. 13. “The Common Law common-placed/' 1726, 8vo, reprinted in fol. 1733. 14.” The new Law Dictionary,“1729, reprinted in 1733, and often since, with the valuable improvements of Ruffhead, Morgan, and lastly of Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlyns, in 1797: an abridgment of it was published in 1743. 15.” The complete Chancery Practitioner,“1730, 2 vols. 8vo. 16.” Tables to the Law,“1736, fol. 17.” The complete. Attorney’s Practice,“1737, 2 vols. 8vo. 18.” City Libertie,“1732, and with a new title only, 1737. 19.” General Law of Estates,“1740, 8vo. 20.” Game Law,“1740, 12mo. the seventh edition. 21.” New complete Conveyancer,“1744, 8vo. 22.” The Statute Law common-placed,“1748, 8vo, fifth edition, 23. Law Grammar,” 1749 and 1754, 12mo. and again in folio, to bind up with the author’s Law Dictionary.

No circumstance, however, in James’s reign was more unpopular than his treatment of the celebrated sir Walter Raleigh, after the detection of a conspiracy with lord Grey, and lord Cobham, to set aside the succession in favour of Arabella Stuart: he was tried and capitally convicted, but being reprieved, he was kept thirteen years in prison. In 1615 he obtained by bribery his release from prison, but the king would not grant him a pardon. He went out on an expedition with the sentence of death hanging over his head; he was unsuccessful in his object, and on his return the king ordered him to be executed on his former sentence. James is supposed to have been more influenced to this deed by the court of Spain than by any regard to justice. The influence of that court on James appeared soon after in his negociations for marrying his son prince Charles to the infanta. The object was, however, not attained, and he afterwards married him to the French princess Henrietta, with the disgraceful stipulation, that the children of that marriage should be educated by their mother, a bigoted papist, till they were thirteen years of age. As he aavanced in years he was disquieted by a concurrence of untoward circumstances. The dissentions of his parliament were very violent, and the affairs of his son-in-law, the elector palatine, now king of Hungary, also were in a very disastrous state. He had undertaken the cause of the protestants of Germany, but instead of being the arbiter in the cause of others, he was stripped of his own dominions. In his defence, James declared war against the king of Spain and the emperor, and sent troops over to Holland to act in conjunction with prince Maurice for the recovery of the palatinate; but from mismanagement, the greater part of them perished by sickness, and the whole enterprise was defeated. Oppressed with grief for the failure of his plans, the king was seized with an intermitting fever, of which he died in March 1625. It would be difficult, says Hume, to find a reign less illustrious, yet more unspotted and unblemished, than that of James in both kingdoms. James possessed many virtues, but scarcely any of them pure or free from the contagion of neighbouring vices. His learning degenerated into pedantry and prejudice, his generosity into profusion, his good nature into pliability and unmanly fondness, his love of peace into pusillanimity, and his wisdom into cunning. His intentions were just, but more adapted to the conduct of private life than to the government of kingdoms. He was an encourager of learning, and was himself an author of no mean genius, considering the times in which he lived. His chief works were, “Basilicon Doron” and “The true Law of free Monarchies” but he is more known for his adherence to witchcraft and demoniacal possessions in his “Demonology,” and for his “Counterblast to Tobacco.” He was also a poet, and specimens of his talent, such as it was, are to be found in many of our miscellanies. He also wrote some rules and cautels t for the use of professors of the art, which, says Mr. Ellis, have been long, and perhaps deservedly disregarded. The best specimen of his poetical powers is his “Basilicon Doron,” which bishop Percy has reprinted in his “Reliques,” and declares that it would not dishonour any writer of that time. Both as a man of learning, and as a patron of learned men, sufficient justice, in our opinion, has never been done to the character of James I.; and although a discussion on the subject would extend this article too far, it would not be difficult to prove that in both respects he was entitled to a considerable degree of veneration.

He had made good progress in this undertaking, and no doubt would have proceeded much farther towards completing his design, had not he been prevented by death. This happened August 1629. He was buried towards the upper end of New college chapel at Oxford. Wood informs us, that he left behind him the character of being the most industrious and indefatigable writer against the papists, that had been educated in Oxford since the reformation; and in reality his designs were so great, and so well known to be for the public benefit of learning and the church of England, that Camden, speaking of him in his ife-time, calls him “a learned man and a true lover of books, wholly dedicated to learning; who is now laboriously searching the libraries of England, and proposeth that for the public good which will be for the great benefit of England.”

Mr. Jameson died at Edinburgh in 1644, and was interred in the churchyard of the Grey Friars, but without, any monument. By his will, written witli his own hand in 1641, and breathing a spirit of much piety and benevolence, he provides kindly for his wife and children, and leaves many legacies to his relations and friends. Of his family, his daughter Mary was thrice married: first to Mr. Burnett, of EIrick, in the county of Aberdeen; afterwards to James Gregory, the celebrated mathematician; and lastly to Mr. Eddie, one of the magistrates of Aberdeen. By all these gentlemen she had children, and many of the descendants of the two first have numerous families in the county of Aberdeen. Mary seems to have inherited a portion of her father’s genius. Several specimens of her needle-work remain, particularly Jephtha’s rash vow; Susannah and the Elders, &c. probably from a design of her father’s; these now adorn the East end of St. Nicholas church, Aberdeen. Though Jameson was little known in England, and has not been noticed by any English writer on the arts, except lord Orford, his character, as well as his works, were highly esteemed in his own country. Arthur Johnston, the poet, addressed to him an elegant Latin epigram, on the picture of the marchioness of Huntley, which may be seen in the works of that author, printed at Middleburgh in 1642.

, a political writer of some note, was born at Paris in 1674, the son of a Protestant, and sent early into Holland for education. For a time he quitted his studies for the army, but at the peace of Ryswick he resumed his literary labours, and became concerned in the gazettes of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht. A simple and historical style, with a clear head, and much political sagacity, seemed to promise great success to these labours; but his press being silenced, on account of a political tract (in which, however, he had no concern), he retired to the Hague, and became agent to the landgrave of Hesse. He died of an apoplexy in 1730, at the age of fifty-six. Of his works there are, 1. His *' Gazettes,“written in a good style, and with sound political knowledge, t. A translation of Steele’s” Ladies’ Library,“published in 1717 and 1719, in 2 -vols. duodecimo. 3. A translation of an indifferent satire against monks and priests, written originally by Antony Gavin, and printed in 1724, in 4 vols. 12mo. 4.” The present State of the Republic of the United Provinces, and their dependencies," published in 1729, in 2 vols. 12mo. This is the most correct work that is extant, though it has been considered by Niceron as not altogether devoid of faults.

, otherwise Raschi and Isaaki, a famous rabbi, was born in 1104, at Troyes in Champagne in France. Having acquired a good stock of Jewish learning at home, he travelled at thirty years of age visiting Italy, Greece, Jerusalem, Palestine, and Egypt, where he met with Maimonides. From Egypt he passed to Persia, and thence to Tartary and Muscovy; and last of all, passing through Germany, he arrived in his native country, after he had spent six years abroad. After his return to Europe, he visited all the academies, and disputed against the professors upon any questions proposed by them. He was a perfect master of the Talmud and Gemara, but filled the postils of the Bible with so many Talmudical reveries, as totally extinguished both the literal and moral sense of it. Many of his commentaries are printed in Hebrew, and some have been translated into Latin by the Christians, among which is his “Commentary upon Joel,” by Genebrard; those upon Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah, by Pontac; that upon Esther, by Philip JDaquin. But the completest of these translations is that of his Commentaries on the Pentateuch, and some other books, by Fred. Breithaupt, who has added learned notes. The style of Jarchi is so concise, that it is no easy thing to understand him in several places, without the help of other Jewish interpreters. Besides, when he mentions the traditions of the Jews recorded in their writings, he never quotes the chapter nor the page; which gives no small trouble to a translator. He introduces also several French words of that century, which have been very much corrupted, and cannot be easily understood. M. Breithaupt has overcome all those difficulties. The style of his translation is not very elegant: but it is clear, and fully expresses the sense of the author. It was printed at Gotha in 1710, 4to. There are several things in this writer that may be alleged against the Jews with great advantage. If, for instance, the modern Jews deny that the Messias is to be understood by the word Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10, they may be confuted by the authority of this interpreter, who agrees with the Christians in his explication of that word. M. Reland looks upon rabbi Jarchi as one of the best interpreters we have and tells us in his preface to the “Analecta Rabbinica,” that when htf met with any difficulty in the Hebrew text of the Bible, the explications of that Jewish doctor appeared to him more satisfactory than those of the great critics, or any other commentator.

Amidst the cares of his new profession, he did not decline his attention to theological study, nor to what he considered as the cause of true liberty. He was, as he had been for many years, zealous for the abolition of subscription, a warm friend to the cause of America against England, an incessant advocate for annual parliaments and universal suffrage (those pernicious engines for destroying the British constitution), a writer in newspapers, and a speaker in public meetings. So many eager pursuits seem to have exhausted his constitution, and he died, apparently of a decline, in March 1786. Dr. John Jebb was a man of various and extensive learning, master of many languages, among which were Hebrew and Arabic; and during his last illness, he studied the Saxon, with the Anglo-Saxon laws and antiquities. He was twice a candidate for the professorship of Arabic at Cambridge. Besides his theological and medical knowledge, he was not a little versed in the science of law, which he once thought of making his profession, even after he had studied physic. He was also a mathematician and philosopher, and was concerned with two friends in publishing at Cambridge a small quarto, entitled “Excerpta quaedam e Newtonii principiis Philosophise naturalis, cum notis variorum;” which was received as a standard book of education in that university. His other works have been collected into 3 vols. 8vo, published in 17S7 by Dr. Disney, and contain chiefly, (besides the plan of his lectures, and harmony of the gospels, six sermons, and a medical treatise on paralysis,) controversial tracts and letters, on his intended improvements at Cambridge, on subscription, on parliamentary reform, &c. He seems to have been an active, enterprising, and rather turbulent, but a sincere man.

Leland, Bale, and Pits inform us, that Walter Mapreus, or Mapes, alias Calenius, who was at this time archdeacon of Oxford, and of whom Henry of Huntingdon, and other historians, as well as Jeffery himself, make honourable mention, as a man very curious in the study of antiquity, and a diligent searcher into ancient libraries, and especially after the works of ancient authors, happened while he was in Armorica to meet with a history of Britain, written in the British tongue, and carrying marks of great antiquity. Being overjoyed at his discovery, he in a short time came over to England, where inquiring for a proper person to translate this curious but hitherto unknown book, he very opportunely met with Jeffery of Monmouth, a man profoundly versed in the history and antiquities of Britain, excellently skilled in the British tongue, and besides (considering the time) an elegant writer, both in verse and prose; and to him he recommended the task. Jeffery accordingly undertook to translate it into Latin; which he performed with great diligence, approving himself, according to Matthew Paris, a faithful translator. At first he divided it into four books, written in a plain simple style, a copy of which is said to be at Bene't-college, Cambridge, which was never yet published; but afterwards made some alterations, and divided it into eight books, to which he added the book of “Merlin’s Prophecies,” which he had also translated from British verse into Latin prose. A great many fabulous and trifling stories are inserted in the history, upon which account Jeffery’s integrity has been called in question and many authors, Polydore Vevgil, Buchanan, and some others, treat the whole as fiction and forgery. On the other hand, he is defended by very learned men, such as Usher, Leland, Sheringham, sir John Rice, and many more. His advocates do not deny, that there are several absurd and incredible stories inserted in this book; but, as he translated or borrowed them from others, the truth of the history ought not to be rejected in the gross, though the credulity of the historian may deserve censure. Canulen alleges, that his relation of Brutus, and his successors in those ancient times, ought to be entirely disregarded, and would have our history commence with Caesar’s attempt upon the island, which advice has since been followed by the generality of our historians. But Milton pursues the old beaten tract, and alleges thai we cannot be easily discharged of Brutus and his line, with the whole progeny of kings to the entrance of Julius Ca-sar; since it is a story supported by descents of ancestry, and long continued laws and exploits, which have no appearance of being borrowed or devised. Cainden, indeed, would insinuate, that the name of Brutus was unknown to the ancient Britons, and that Jeffery was the first person who feigned him founder of their race. But Henry of Huntingdon had published, in the beginning of his history, a short account of Brutus, and made the Britons the descendants of the Trojans, before he knew any thing of Jeffery’s British history: and he professes to have had this account from various authors. Sigibertus Gemblacensis, a French author, somewhat more early than Jeffery, or Henry of Huntingdon (for he died, according to Beilarmine, in 1112) gives an account of the passage of Brutus, grandson of Ascanius, from Greece to Albion, at the head of the exiled Trojans and teljs us, that he called the people and country after his own name, and at last left three sons to succeed him, after he had reigned twentyfour years. Hence he passes summarily over the affairs of the Britons, agreeably to the British history, till they were driven into Wales by the Saxons.

, a pious English divine and writer, was born in 1646, and was descended from an ancient family at Eaton under Heywood, in Shropshire. He was related to bishop Williams, of Chichester, to whom he dedicated his book of “Prayers.” Where he was educated we are not told, nor is it discoverable that he was at either university. He appears, however, when admitted into orders, to have been for some time curate of Harlay, in Shropshire. On the death of his rector, Richard earl of Bradford, the patron of the living, hearing Mr. Jenks spoken of respectfully by the parishioners, went one Sunday, in private, to hear him preach; and was so much pleased with the discourse, that he presented him to the living in 1668, and made him his chaplain. Mr. Jenks had also the living of Kenley, a small village about two miles from Harlay, at both which churches he officiated alternately, and kept no curate until old age and infirmities made assistance necessary. He died at Harlay on May 10, 1724, and was buried in the chancel of that church, where there is a monument to his memory. The work by which Mr. Jenks is best known is his “Prayers and offices of Devotion,” of which the 27th edition was published in 1810 by the Rev. Charles Simeon, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, with alterations and amendments in style. Mr. Jenks also was the author of “Meditations upon various important subjects,” of which a second edition was published in 1756, 2 vols. 8vo, with a recommendatory preface by Mr. Hervey. This, however, has never attained any high degree of popularity. One of these “Meditations” is upon his coffin, which he kept by him for many years, and in which were two sculls, one of them that of a near relation.