It is unknown what he wrote or published after he became a Jesuit. It is said that he was a great critic in the Hebrew language, and that he digested an easy and short method, (reduced into tables) for novices to learn that language, which Wood supposes was a compendium of a Hebrew grammar. Our author paid the common debt of nature at Naples, 1598, and was buried in the college of Jesuits there. [Footnote 1: Langb. Lives of the Poets, p. 249.] [Footnote 2: Langb. ubi supra.] [Footnote 3: Athen. Oxon.] * * * * * JOHN LILLY, A writer who flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; he was a Kentish man, and in his younger years educated at St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxon, where in the year 1575 he took his degree of Master of Arts. He was, says Langbaine, a very close student, and much addicted to poetry; a proof of which he has given to the world, in those plays which he has bequeathed to posterity, and which in that age were well esteemed, both by the court, and by the university. He was one of the first writers, continues Langbain, who in those days attempted to reform the language, and purge it from obsolete expressions. Mr. Blount, a gentleman who has made himself known to the world, by several pieces of his own writing (as Horæ Subsecivæ, his Microcosmography, &c.) and who published six of these plays, in his title page stiles him, the only rare poet of that time, the witty, comical, facetiously quick, and unparallell'd John Lilly. Mr. Blount further says, 'That he sat 'at Apollo's table; that Apollo gave him a wreath of his own bays without snatching; and that the Lyre he played on, had no borrowed strings:' He mentions a romance of our author's writing, called Euphues; our nation, says he, are in his debt, for a new English which he taught them; Euphues, and his England began first that language, and all our ladies were then his scholars, and that beauty in court who could not read Euphism, was as little regarded, as she who now speaks not French. This extraordinary Romance I acknowledge I have not read, so cannot from myself give it a character, but I have some reason to believe, that it was a miserable performance, from the authority of the author of the British Theatre, who in his preface thus speaks of it; "This Romance, says he, so fashionable for its wit; so famous in the court of Queen Elizabeth, and is said to have introduced so remarkable a change in our language, I have seen and read. It is an unnatural affected jargon, in which the perpetual use of metaphors, allusions, allegories, and analogies, is to pass for wit, and stiff bombast for language; and with this nonsense the court of Queen Elizabeth (whose times afforded better models for stile and composition, than almost any since) became miserably infected, and greatly help'd to let in all the vile pedantry of language in the two following reigns; so much mischief the most