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

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable talents, was one of the two sons of Mr. Jonathan Tyers, the original embellisher of Vauxhall gardens, of which he was himself a joint proprietor till the end of the season of 1785, when he sold his share to his brother’s family. He was born in 1726, and being intended for one of the learned professions, was sent very early in life to the university of Oxford, where he entered of Exeter college, and was so young when he took his bachelor’s degree that he was called the boy bachelor. That of master of arts he completed in April 1745, when he was only nineteen. In 1753 he was admitted a student of the Inner Temple, and became, after he had kept his terms, a barrister in that house; but he tells us that, although his father hoped he would apply to the law, take notes, and make a figure in Westminster-hall, he never undertook any causes, nor went a single circuit. He loved his ease too much to acquire a character in that or any other profession. It is said that the character of Tom Restless (in the Idler, N 8 48) was intended by Dr. Johnson for Mr. Tyers, but he was certainly a man of superior cast to the person described under that name. It could not be said of Mr. Tyers that he sought wisdom more in conversation than in his library, for few men read more, and he was heard to say, not long before his death, that for the last forty years, he had not been a single day, when in health, without a book or a pen in his hand, “nulla dies sine linea.”

He began early to write, and when at college, or very soon after, published two pastorals, “Lucy,” inscribed to lord Chesterfield, and “Rosalind,” to earl Grenville. He was also the author of a great deal of vocal poetry, or what he called “sing song,” principally for Vauxhall-gardens; and the satisfactory description ofVauxhall, published in Mr. Nichols’s “History of Lambeth,” was drawriup by him. Having inherited from his father an easy fortune, and from nature an inclination to indulge in learned leisure, he was happily enabled “to see what friends and read what books he pleased.” He was, if any man could be said to be so, most perfectly master of his own time, which he divided at his pleasure between his villa at Ashted, near Epsom, and his apartments in Southampton-street. Indefatigable in reading the newest publications, either of belles lettres or politics, and blest with a retentive memory, he was every where a welcome guest; and, having the agreeable faculty of always repeating the good-natured side of a story, the anecdotes he retailed pretty copiously were rarely found either tedious or disagreeable. In the country he was considered by all the surrounding gentry as a man of profound learning, who had some little peculiarities in his manners, which were amply atoned for by a thousand good qualities both of the head and heart. In London he was in habits of intimacy with many whom the world have agreed to call both great and good. Dr. Johnson loved him, lord Hardwicke esteemed him, and even the mitred Lowth respected him. The literati in general had more regard for him than authors usually have for each other; as Mr. Tyers, though known for many years to have been a writer, was rather considered by them as an amateur than a professor of the art. He was certainly among the number of “gentlemen who wrote with ease;” witness hi* “Rhapsodies” on Pope and Addison; and particularly his Biographical sketches of Johnson, warm from the heart when his friend was scarcely buried, and which have not been exceeded by any one of our great moralist’s biographers. The “Political Conferences” of Mr. Tyers, however, will place him in a higher point of view; in that production, much ingenuity and sound political knowledge are displayed; and the work has received the plaudits it so well deserved, and passed through two editions. One part of Mr. Tyers’s knowledge he would have been happier had he not possessed. He had a turn for the study of medicine, and its operations on the human frame, which gave him somewhat of a propensity to hypochondriasm, and often led from imaginary to real ailments. Hence the least variation of the atmosphere had not unfrequently an effect both on his mind and body. The last year or two of his life were also embittered by the death of several near and dear friends, whose loss made a deep impression on his sensibility, particularly that of a very amiable lady, to whom he was once attached, and that of his only sister, Mrs. Rogers, of Southampton, who died but a few months before him. He died at his house at Ashted, after a lingering illness, Feb. 1, 1787, in his sixty-first year.

, otherwise named Hitchins, one of the first publishers of the Holy Scriptures in English, was born in 1500, about the borders of Wales, in what county is not mentioned. He was brought up from a child in grammar, logic, and philosophy at Oxford, for the most part in St. Mary Magdalen’s hall, where there is still a painting of him, but accounted an indifferent performance. Here he imbibed the doctrine of Luther, and privately taught it to some of the junior fellows of Magdalen college, and to other scholars. His behaviour was such, at the same time, as gained him a high reputation both for morals and learning, so that he was admitted a canon of cardinal Wolsey’s new college, now Christ-church. But as he made his opinions too public to remain here in safety, and, according to Tanner and Wood, was ejected, he retired to Cambridge, where he pursued his studies, and took a degree. After some time he went and lived at Little Sudbury, in Gloucestershire, with sir John Welch, knight, who had a great esteem for him, and appointed him tutor to his children. Here he embraced every opportunity to propagate the new opinions. Besides preaching frequently in and about Bristol, he engaged in disputation with many abbots and dignified clergymen, whom he met at sir John’s table, on the most important points of religion, which he explained in a way to which they had not been accustomed, and by references to the Scriptures, which they scarcely dared to search. Unable to confute him, they complained to the chancellor of the diocese, who dismissed him after a severe reprimand, accompanied with the usual threatenings against heresy.

Finding that this situation was no longer convenient, and that his patron could not with safety continue his protection, Tyndale came to London, and for some time preached in the church of St. Dunstan’s in the West. While here, having conceived a high opinion of Dr. Cuthbert Tunstall, who had been promoted to the bishopric of London, in 1522, on account of the great commendations bestowed on him by Erasmus, he wished to become one of his chaplains. With this view he applied to sir Henry Guildford, master of the horse, and controller to king Henry VIII. who was a great patron of learned men, a particular friend to Erasmus, and an acquaintance of sir John Welch; and presented to him an oration of Isocrates, translated from the Greek; an undoubted proof of his learning at a time when Greek was understood by very few in England. Sir Henry readily complied with Mr. Tyndale’s request, but the bishop’s answer was, “That his house was full; he had no more than he could well provide for; and therefore advised our author to seek out in London, where, he added, he could not well miss employment.” Not being able to obtain any, however, he was supported by Mr. Humphrey Monmoutb, alderman of London, and a favourer of Luther’s opinions, with whom he remained for half a year, living in the most abstemious manner, and applying closely to his studies. His thoughts were at this time bent upon translating the New Testament into English, as the only means to enlighten the minds of the people in the knowledge of true religion; but being sensible he could not do this with safety in England, he went abroad, receiving very liberal pecuniary assistance from Mr. Monmouth and other persons. He first went to Saxony, where he held conferences with Luther, and his learned friends, then came back into the Netherlands, and settled at Antwerp, where there was a very considerable factory of English merchants, many of whom were zealous adherents to Luther’s doctrine. Here he immediately began his translation of the New Testament, in which he had the assistance of John Fryth, and William Roye, the former of whom was burnt in Smithfield for heresy, July 1533, and the latter suffered that dreadful death in Portugal on the same accusation. It was printed in 1526, in octavo, without the translator’s name. As there were only 1500 printed, and all the copies which could possibly be got in England, were committed to the flames, this first edition is exceedingly rare. The industrious Mr. Wanley could never procure a sight of it; but there was one in Ames’s collection, which was sold after his death, for fourteen guineas and a half.

When this translation was imported into England, the supporters of popery became very much alarmed; they asserted that there were a thousand heresies in it; that it was too bad to be corrected, and ought to be suppressed; that it was not possible to translate the Scriptures into English; and that it would make the laity heretics, and rebels to their king. It is more painful, however, to record that such men as William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, and Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, issued their orders and monitions to bring in all the New Testaments translated into the vulgar tongue, that they might be burnt. To destroy them more effectually, Tunstall being at Antwerp in 1526 or 1S27, procured Augustin Packington, an English merchant, to buy up all the copies of the English Testament which remained unsold; these were accordingly brought to England, and publicly burnt at Paul’s cross. But this ill-fudged policy only took off many copies which lay dead upon Tyndale’s hands, and supplied him with, money for another and more correct edition, printed in 1534, while the first edition was in the mean while reprinted twice, but not by the translator. Of Tunstall’s singular purchase, the following fact is related: “Sir Thomas More being lord chancellor, and having several persons accused of heresy, and ready for execution, offered to compound with one of them, named George Constantine, for his life, upon the easy terms of discovering to him who they were in London that maintained Tyndale beyond the sea. After the poor man had got as good a security for his life as the honour and truth of the chancellor could give him, he told him it was the bishop of London who maintained Tyndale, by sending him a sum of money to buy up the impression of his Testaments. The chancellor smiled, saying that he believed he said true. Thus was this poor confessor’s life saved.” Strict search, however, continued to be made among those who were suspected of importing, and concealing them; of whom John Tyndale, our author’s brother, was prosecuted, and condemned to do penance. Humphrey Monmouth, his great patron and benefactor, was imprisoned in the Tower, and almost ruined.

But these rigorous measures not producing the intended effect; and burning the word of God, in any shape, being regarded by the people as a shocking profanation, sir Thomas More was induced to take up the pen. In 1529, he published “A Dyaloge,” in which he endeavoured to prove that the books burnt were not New Testaments, but Tyndale’s or Luther’s testaments; and so corrupted and changed from the good and wholesome doctrine of Christ to their own devilish heresies, as to be quite another thing. In 15 Jo, Tyndale published an answer to this Dialogue, and proceeded in translating the Five Books of Moses, from the Hebrew into English; but happening to go by sea to Hamburgh, to have it printed there, the vessel was wrecked, and he lost all his money, books, writings, and copies, and was obliged to begin anew. At Hamburgh he met with Miles Coverdale, who assisted him in translating the Pentateuch, which was printed in 1530, in a small octavo volume, and apparently at several presses. He afterwards made an English version of the prophecy of Jonas, with a large prologue, which was printed in 1531; but he translated no more books of the Scripture, as Hall, Bale, and Tanner, have asserted.

From Hamburgh he returned to Antwerp, and was there betrayed into the hands of his enemies. Henry VIII. and his council employed one Henry Philips on this disgraceful commission, who first insinuated himself into Tyndale’s acquaintance, and then got the procurator-general of the emperor’s court at Brussels, and other officers, to seize him, although the procurator declared that he was a learned, pious, and good man, and convey him to the castle of Villefort, where he remained a prisoner about a year and a half. The body of the English merchants procured letters from secretary Cromwell to the court at Brussels, for his release; but, by the farther treachery of Philips, this was rendered ineffectual, and Tyndaie was brought to trial, where he pleaded his own cause. None of his arguments, however, being admitted, he was condemned, by virtue of the emperor’s decree made in the assembly at Augsburg; and being brought to execution in 1536, he was first strangled and then burnt. His last words were, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”

Besides his translations, he wrote various theological and controversial tracts, which were collected together, and printed by John Day, 1572, in one volume folio, together with John Fryth’s and Barnes’s works. Bale and Wood attribute some other pieces to him, and some translations from Luther. He was one of the ablest writers of his time.

Of his translation of the Scriptures, Dr. Geddes says, that “though it is far fr >m a perfect translation, yet few first translations will be found preferable to it. It is astonishing, how little obsolete the language of it is, even at this day: and in point of perspicuity and noble simplicity, propriety of idiom, and purity of style, no English version has yet surpassed it.” He elsewhere declares, that, if he had been inclined to make any prior English version the ground-work of his own, it would certainly have been Tyndale’s: and that perhaps he should have done this, if their Hebrew text had been the same. The edition of the English Bible printed in 1537, usually called Matthew’s, was, in Mr. Wanley’s opinion, Tyndale’s to the end of Chronicles, and the whole of the New Testament; and this edition, by Cranmer’s solicitation, was permitted by the king.

, a celebrated grammarian in the time of Pompey, was of Amisa in the kingdom of Pontus, and was a disciple of Dionysius of Thrace, at Rhodes. In the year 70 B. C. he fell into the hands of Lucullus, when that general of the Roman army defeated Mithridates, and seized his dominions; but his captivity was no disadvantage to him, since it procured him.an opportunity of becoming illustrious at Rome, and raising a fortune. This he partly expended in collecting a library of above 30,000 volumes; and it is probably owing to his care in collecting books that the writings of Aristotle have not perished together with innumerable other monuments of antiquity. The fate of that great philosopher’s works, as it is related by Strabo, is very remarkable. He left them, with his school and his other books, to his scholar Theophrastus; and Theophrastus left his library to Neleus, who had been his as well as Aristotle’s scholar. Neleus conveyed his library to Scepsis, a city of Troas, and in his country; and left it to his heirs, who, being illiterate persons, took no other care of it than to keep it shut up close: and when they were informed of the diligence with which the kings of Pergamus, whose subjects they were, sought out for books, they buried those of Neleus under ground. A considerable time after, their descendants took them out of their prison, much damaged, and sold those of Aristotle and Theophrastus to one Apellicon, who caused them to be copied, but with an infinite number of errors. After the death of Apellicon, his library was conveyed from Athens to Rome by Sylla, whose library-keeper permitted Tyrannio, a great admirer of Aristotle, to take the writings of that philosopher; and from him they came into the possession of the public.

Tyrannio had many scholars at Rome: Cicero’s son and nephew were under him. Cicero employed him to put his library in order; and Tyrannio wrote a book which Atticus admired, but this has flot reached our time. Strabo also had been his scholar, as he himself informs us. Tyrannio died very old, being worn out with the gout.

, an English historian, descended from an ancient family, was the eldest son of sir Timothy Tyrrell, of Shotover near Oxford, kiit. by Elizabeth his wife, sole daughter of the celebrated archbishop Usher. He was born in Great Queen -street, Westminster, in May 1642, and educated chiefly at the free school of Camberwell in Surrey. In 1657 he was admitted a gentleman commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, where he continued three years under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Tully and Mr. Timothy Halton. After going to the Temple to study law, he returned to Oxford in September 1663, and was created M. A. In 1665 he was called to the bar, but did not practise, employing his time chiefly in historical researches, particularly respecting the history and constitution of England. Having an independent fortune, he resided chiefly on his estate at Onkeley, near Brill in Buckinghamshire, and was made one of the deputy lieutenants and justices of the peace for that county; in which offices he continued till king James If. turned him and the rest out of the commission, for not assisting in taking away the penal laws and test. On the revolution, he zealously espoused king William’s interest, and wrote with great effect in vindication of his right to the crown.

Having formed the plan of a History of England, he came to reside chiefly at Shotover, near Oxford, for the sake of easy access to the libraries in the university; and the remainder of his life appears to have been devoted to that and his other literary pursuits. He died in 1718, in his seventy-sixth year, and was buried in Oakeley church. He married Mary daughter and heir of sir Michael Hutchinson, of Fladbury in Worcestershire, knight, by whom he had lieutenant-general James Tyrrell, of Shotover, esq. governor of Gravesend and Tilbury Fort, &c. who died in August 1742, leaving his estate from the Tyrrell family to his kinsman Augustus Schutz.

Mr. Tyrrell’s first appearance as an author was in the dedication of a posthumous work of archbishop Usher’s. Wood says he published this, but the publisher was bishop Sanderson. It was entitled “The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the obedience required of the Subject,” Lond. 1661, 4to. At this time Mr. Tyrrell was very young, and had not probably left Oxford, or was but just beginning his studies in the Temple; but it might perhaps be thought creditable to appear as the nearest relative of the venerable author, and he might not be sorry to have an early opportunity of paying his court to the restored monarch. This much we may infer from the dedication itself, which he concludes in these words: “I shall now make this my most humble suit to your majesty, that as the reverend author in his life-time publicly professed his loyalty to his sovereign, and constantly prayed for your majesty’s happy and glorious return to these your kingdoms, and in all things shewed himself your loyal subject, so you would be pleased to own him as such, by affording your gracious countenance to this his posthumous work, which will eternize the memory of the deceased author, and thereby confer the greatest temporal blessing on your majesty’s most loyal and obedient subject, James Tyrrell.”

In 1686 appeared his vindication of his father-in-law, printed at the end of Parr’s “Life of Archbishop Usher,” under the title of “An Appendix, containing a vindication of his opinions and actions in reference to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and his conformity thereunto, from the aspersions of Peter Heylin, D. D. in his pamphlet called Respondet Petrus” This pamphlet of Heylin’s was his answer to Dr. Bernard’s book entitled “The Judgment of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath,” Lond. 1658, 4to. (See Heylin, p. 442 and 443.) Mr. Tyrrell’s notions in politics were adverse to those of some of his contemporaries, who were for carrying the prerogative to its height, and vindicated passive obedience and non-resistance: he was clearly for a monarchy, but a limited monarchy, and therefore answered sir Robert Filmer in a small volume entitled “Patriarcha non Monarcha, or the Patriarch unmonarched, &c.” 1681, 8vo. This was animadverted upon by Edmund Bohun, in the preface to the second edition of sir Robert’s “Patriarcha;” but Mr. Tyrrell’s opinions on this and other subjects connected with it are most fully displayed in his political dialogues, which were first published at different times, in 1692, 1693, 1694, and 1695, in quarto, until they amounted to fourteen. They were afterwards collected into one volume folio, about the time of his death, and published under the name of “Bibliotheca Politica, or an Enquiry into the ancient Constitution of the English Government, with respect to the just extent of the regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, both for and against the late revolution, are impartially represented and considered. In fourteen dialogues, collected out of the best authors, ancient and modern,” Lond. 1718, reprinted 1727. It appears also that subjects of the religious kind sometimes employed his attention, as in 1692 he published an abridgment of bishop Cumberland’s work on the laws of nature, with the consent and approbation of the right reverend author. This, which was entitled “A brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature, &c.” was reprinted in 1701. But the work which had employed most of Mr. Tyrreli’s time was his “General History of England, both ecclesiastical and civil, from the earliest accounts of time,” 5 vols. fol. generally bound in three, Lond. 1700, 1704. He intended to have brought this down to the reign of William III. but what is published extends no farther than that of Richard II. and of course forms but a small part of the whole plan. It is thought that he left another volume or more ready for the press, but this has never appeared. His chief object seems to be to refute the sentiments of Dr. Brady in his “History of England,” particularly where he asserts that “all the liberties and privileges the people can pretend to were the grants and concessions of the kings of this nation, and were derived from the crown” and that “the commons of England were not introduced, nor were one of the three estates in parliament, before the forty-ninth of Henry III. Before which time the body of commons of England, or freemen collectively taken, had not any share or votes in making laws for the government of the kingdom, nor had any communication in affairs of state, unless they were represented by the tenants in capite.” In refuting these opinions Mr. Tyrrell will probably be thought not unsuccessful; but the work is ill digested, and less fit for reading than for consultation. As a compilation it will be found useful, particularly on account of his copious translations from our old English historians, although even there he has admitted some mistakes.

, an ancient Greek poet, who flourished in the seventh century B. C. was born at Miletus, but lived at Athens, and became celebrated by all antiquity for the composition of military songs and airs, as well as the performance of them and the successof his verses has advanced his name to the rank of the greatest heroes as well as the noblest poets. The Lacedaemonians, during the second Messenian war, about 685 B. C. by advice of the Pythian Oracle, applied to the Athenians for a general. The Athenians sent them Tyrtæus, perhaps in ridicule for, besides his occupation, utterly remote from military affairs, he is reported to have been short and very deformed, blind of one eye, and lame But a memorable victory which they obtained over the Messenians is attributed to the animating sound of a new military flute or clarion, invented and played upon by Tyrtæus; and his military airs were constantly sung and played in the Spartan army, to the last hour of the republic. The poems of Tyrtæus were first printed in a collection by Frobenius in 1532, and separately in 1764 by Klotz. His “War Elegies” have been versified in English by Mr. Polwhele, and imitated by the late Mr. Pye, with a reference to the late war.

, one of the most eminent scholars and critics of the last century, was the son of the rev. Dr. Robert Tyrwhitt, of a very ancient baronet’s family in Lincolnshire, a gentleman of considerable eminence in the church, who was rector of St. James’s, Westminster, which he resigned in 1732, on being appointed a canon residentiary of St. Paul’s. He held also the prebend of Kentishtown, in that cathedral, and was archdeacon of London. In 1740 he obtained a canonry of Windsor, and died June 15, 1742, and was buried in St. George’s chapel, Windsor. He married the eldest daughter of bishop Gibson, and so well imitated the liberality and hospitality of that prelate, that, dying at the age of forty-four years, he left a numerous family very moderately provided for.

Thomas Tyrwhitt, the subject of the present article, the eldest son of Dr. Tyrwhitt, was born March 29, 1730, and had his first education at a school at Kensington, to which he was sent in his sixth year. In 1741 he removed to Eton. Here, as well as afterwards, he manifested the strongest propensities tp literature, at an age when other boys are employed, every moment they can steal from books, in pursuit of pleasure. But Mr. Tyrwhitt, it has been justly said, never was a boy, his calm and contemplative disposition always leading him to manly and scholar-like studies. After a residence of six years at Eton, he was entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1747, and took the degree of bachelor of arts in 1750. He removed to Merton college, in consequence of being elected to a fellowship in 1755, and the following year took his degree of M.A. He remained on his fellowship until 1762, when he left the university, carrying with him an extensive fund of various knowledge, to which he afterwards added by most unwearied application.

He was now made clerk of the House of Commons, in the room of the deceased Jeremiah Dyson, esq. and resigned his fellowship. This, however, was not his first step in public life. He had previously resided for some time in the Temple, and had studied law; and in December 1756 was appointed deputy secretary at war, under his noble friend and patron, lord Barrington, with whom and his family he preserved, and highly valued, the most intimate friendship to the last hour of his life. If the too constant fatigues and late hours of his office, as clerk of the House of Commons, had not proved too much for his constitution, it is thought that some of the higher offices of the state were within his reach. But after getting through one long parliament, he resigned in 1768, or, as he says in a short list of the dates of his life now before us, he was liber factus, and retired to his beloved books. The remainder of his life was devoted entirely to literary pursuits. Besides a knowledge of almost every European tongue, he was deeplyconversant in the learning of Greece and Koine, and in the old English writers; and as his knowledge was directed by a manly judgment, his critical efforts to illustiate the text of Chaucer and Shakspeare are justly ranked among the happiest efforts of modern skill. The profundity and acuteness of his remarks also on Euripides, Babrius, the PseudoRowley, &c. bear sufficient witness to the diligence of his researches and the force of his understanding His mode of criticism is allowed to have been at once rigorous and candid. As he never availed himself of petty stratagems in support of doubtful positions, he was vigilant to strip his antagonists of all such specious advantages. Yet controversy produced no unbecoming change in the habitual gentleness and elegance of his manners. His spirit of inquiry was exempt from captiousness, and his censures were as void of rudeness, as his erudition was free from pedantry. In private life he was a man of great liberality, of which some striking instances are given in our authorities. In one year it is said he gave away 2000l.; and for such generous exertions he had the ability as well as the inclination, for he had no luxuries, no follies, and no vices to maintain. Of such a man it is unnecessary to add that he died lamented by all who knew the worth of his friendship, or enjoyrd the honour of his acquaintance. His constitution had never been of the athletic kind, and therefore easily gave way to a joint attack from two violent disorders, which ended his life, Aug. 15, 1786, in his fifty-sixth year. He died at his house in Welbeck-street, Cavendish-square, and was interred in St. George’s chapel, Windsor. He had for many years been a member of the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries. In 1784 he was, without the slightest private interest or solicitation, elected a curator of the British Museum, in the duties of which office, the highest honour that can be enjoyed by a literary man, he was indefatigably diligent.

The publications of this excellent scholar were, I. “An Epistle to Florio (Mr. Ellis, of Christ-church) at Oxford,” Lond. 1749,4to. 2. “Translations in Verse; Pope’s Messiah; Philips’s Splendid Shilling, in Latin,” and “the eighth Isthmian of Pindar, in English,” 1752, 4to. 3. “Observations and Conjectures on some passages in Sbakspeare,” 1766, 8vo. Mr. Tyrwhitt afterwards communicated many judicious remarks on our national bard to Mr. Steevens and Mr. Reed for the editions of 1778 and 1785. 4 “Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621, from the original ms. in the library of Queen’s college, Oxford, with an appendix, printed at the Clarendon press, 1766, 2 vols. 8vo. 5.” The manner of holding parliaments in England; by Henry Elsynge, Cler. Par. corrected and enlarged from the author’s original ms.“Lond. 1768, 8vo. With a view to raise a spirit of research into ancient classical Mss. his first critical publication in literature was, 6.” Fragmenta duo Plutarchi, 1773, from an Harleian ms. 5612.“He observes himself of this, that it had no great merit, and was only published to stimulate similar inquiries. 7.” The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer,“in 4 vols. 8vo, to which he afterwards added a 5th volume in 1778. There has since been a splendid edition printed at Oxford in 2 vols. 4to. This is certainly the best edited English classic that has ever appeared. 8.” Dissertatio de Babrio, Fabularum jsopicarum scriptore. Inseruntur fabnlse quaedam Æsopese nunquam antehac editae ex cod.ms. Bodl. AcceduntBabriifragmenta. 1776.“The object of this publication, which, though small in sjze, evinced the greatest critical acumen, was to shew, that many of the fables which pass under the name of Æsop, were from another antient writer of the name of Babrius, whose fragments are preserved in Suidas in verse. 9.” Notes on Euripides,“which, in Dr. Harwood’s opinion, form the most valuable part of Musgrave’s edition, 1778. 10.” Poems, supposed to have been written at Bristol in the 15th century, by Rowley and others; with a preface, an account of the Poems, and a Glossary.“This was twice re-published in 1778, with an appendix tending to prove that they were written, not by any antient author, but by Chatterton. This became the subject of warm controversy, which, however, was settled, by 11” A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems called Rowley’s, in reply to the dean of Exeter, Jacob Bryant, esq. and others, by Thomas Tyrwhitt.“Mr. Tyrwhitt’s next work was of a different kind, namely, 12.” Περι Λιθων; de Lapidibus, Poema Orpheo a quibusdam adscriptum, Græce et Latine, ex edit. Jo. Matthæi Gesneri. Recensuit, notasque adjecit, Thomas Tyrwhitt. Simul prodit auctarium dissertationis de Babrio.“Mr. Tyrwhitt in this critical work, refers the poem” on Stones“to the age of Constant! us. He next printed for his private friends, 13.” Conjecturas in Strabonem;“and be also superintended, 14.” Two Dissertations on the Grecian Mythology, and an examination of sir Isaac Newton’s objection to the Chronology of the Olympiads,“by Dr. Musgrave. For this work a very liberal subscription was raised for the doctor’s family, entirely by the exertions of Mr. Tyrwhitt, who had before given up to the widow a bond for several hundred pounds which the Doctor had borrowed of him. His last literary labour was, 15.” A newly discovered Oration of Isaeus against Menecles," which Mr. Tyrwhitt revised in 1785, and enriched with valuable notes, at the request of lord Sandys. These few specimens are from the Medicean Library, and are sufficient to shew Mr. Tyrwhitt’s powers, and to make us regret that his modesty declined the proposal made to him of directing the publication of the second volume of Inscriptions collected by Mr. Chishull, and first laid open to the public by the sale of Dr. Askew’s Mss. How he succeeded in the illustration of such subjects will best appear by that most happy explanation of the Greek inscription on the Corbridge altar, which had baffled the skill of all preceding critics, and will be a lasting proof how critical acumen transcends elaborate conjecture. (See Archseologia, vol. III. p. 324, compared with vol. II. pp. 92, 98.) Nor raust his observations on some other Greek inscriptions in Archseologia, vol. III. p. 230, be forgotten.

Mr. Tyrwhitt left many materials for a new edition of Aristotle’s “Poetics,” which were prepared for the press by Messrs. Burgess and Randolph, afterwards bishops of St. David’s and London, and were published in 1794, at the Clarendon press, in a sumptuous 4to form, with an edition also in 8vo, less expensive. This is a very elegant and accurate edition, and contains Tyrwhitt’s commentaries, as well as his version, which is close and faithful.

, a learned physician, the son of Edward Tyson, of Clevedon, in Somersetshire, gent, was born in 1649, and admitted commoner of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, in 1667, where, after taking the degree of M. A. he entered on the study of medicine, was made fellow of the royal society, and proceeded M. D. at Cambridge in 1680. Soon after this he became fellow of the college of physicians, reader of the anatomical lecture in surgeons’ ­ball, and physician to the hospitals of Bethlevn and Bridewell, London, in which station he died Aug. 1, 1708. He was a skilful anatomist, and an ingenious writer, as appears by his essays in the Philosophical Transactions, and Mr. Hook’s collections. He published also “The anatomy of a Porpoise dissected at Gresham college,” Lond. 1680. “The anatomy of a Pigmy, compared with that of a Monkey, an Ape, and a Man,” Lond. 4to, with a “Philosophical essay concerning the Pygmies of the ancients,” ibid.

, a learned divine and ingenious artist, was the only child of the rev. Michael Tyson, dean of Stamford, archdeacon of Huntingdon, &c. who died in 1794, aged eighty-four, by his first wife, the sister of Noah Curtis, of Wolsthorp, in Lincolnshire, esq. He was born in the parish of All Saints, in Stamford, Nov. 19, 1740, and received his grammatical education in that country. He was then admitted of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, and passed regularly through his degrees; that of B. A. in 1764, of M. A. in 1767, and of B. D. in 1775; and after taking his bachelor’s degree was elected a fellow of his college. In the autumn of 1766 he attended a young gentleman of his college, Mr. Gough (afterwards the celebrated antiquary) in a tour through the north of England and Scotland, and made an exact journal of his several stages, with pertinent remarks on such places as seemed most interesting. At Glasgow and Inverary he had the freedom of the corporations bestowed upon him. After his return, in the following year he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and in 1769 a fellow of the royal society. In 1770 he was ordained deacon at Whitehall chapel, by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln. In 1773, his father being promoted to the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, he gave the officiality of it to his son, which was worth about 50l. per ann. and about the same time, being bursar of the college, he succeeded Mr. Cohnan in the cure of St. Benedict’s church, in Cambridge, as he did also in 1776, in the Whitehall preachership, at the request of the late Dr. Hamilton, sori-in-law of bishop Terrick, who had formerly been of Bene’t college.

In the same year, 177G, he was presented by the college to the rectory of Lambourne, near Ongar, in Essex; but, it being the first time that the college presented to it, the family from which it came litigated the legality of the society’s claim, which, however, after a suit in chancery, was determined in favour of the college. But when they threatened another prosecution, Mr. Tyson, who was eager to settle on his living, as he had an intention 1 of marrying, injudiciously entered into a composition with the parties, which, but for the liberality of the college, might have involved his family in debt. He died of a violent fever. May 3, 1780, in the fortieth year of his age, and was interred in Lambourne church. He left an infant son, who died in 1794. In his early days Mr. Tyson amused himself with sofne poetical attempts, of which two were published, one “On the birth of the prince of Wales,” the other “An Ode on Peace.” He was a good classical scholar, and studied with great success the modern languages, particularly Italian, Spanish, and French. He was also a skilful botanist, but his principal researches were in history, biography, and antiquities, which he very ably illustrated both as a draughtsman and engraver. His taste in drawing and painting is said to have been exquisite. There are several etchings by his hand, particularly the portrait of archbishop Parker, taken from an illumination by T. Berg, in a ms. preserved in the library of Bene't college, and prefixed to Nasmith’s catalogue of the archbishop’s Mss. Strutt also mentions the portrait of sir William Paulet; and of Jane Shore, from an original picture at King’s college, Cambridge. To these we may add that of Michael Dalton, author of “The Country Justice,” Jacob Butler, esq. of Barnwell, Mr. Cole, and others his private friends. He occasionally corresponded in the Gentleman’s Magazine, but his publications were few, as his career was short. In the Archseologia are two articles by him, a description of an illuminated picture in a ms. in Beue‘t college, and a letter to Mr. Gough, with a description and draught of the old drinkinghorn in Bene’t college, called Golclcorne’s horn. His skill was always liberally bestowed on his friends; and his contributions to works of antiquity, &c. were frequently and readily acknowledged by his learned contemporaries.

, an ingenious writer on historical and miscellaneous subjects, was born at Edinburgh, Oct. 12, 1711. He was the son of Mr. Alexander Tytler, writer (or attorney) in Edinburgh, by Jane, daughter of Mr, William Leslie, merchant in Aberdeen, and grand-daughter of sir Patrick Leslie of Iden, provost of that city. He was educated at the high school, and at the university of Edinburgh, and distinguished himself by an early proficiency in those classical studies, which, to the latest period of his life, were the occupation of his leisure hours, and a principal source of his mental enjoyments. At the age of thirty-one, Mr. Tytler was admitted into the society of writers to his majesty’s signet, and continued the practice of that profession with very good success, and with equal respect from his clients and the public, till his death, which happened Sept 12, 1792.

With the duties of his profession he combined a more than common share of classical learning, historical knowledge, and a singularly correct taste in the sister arts of poetry, painting, and music; all of which he continued to cultivate and enjoy to the close of his long life. To his other studies, he added those of metaphysics and moral philosophy; by means of which he had early become acquainted with Dr. Beattie, whom, as the biographer of the latter informs us, he loved and respected as an able champion of truth, and with whom he ever after continued to Jive on the footing of the most intimate friendship. He also possessed the esteem and regard of many of the most distinguished literary characters of the age, as lord Monbodclo, lord Kaimes, Dr. John Gregory, Dr. Reid, Principal Campbell, Dr. Gerard, and others. As an author, Mr. Tytler was first and principally distinguished for his “Inquiry, historical and critical, into the evidence against Mary queen of Scots, and an examination of the Histories of Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume, with respect to that evidence,” 1759, 8vo, frequently reprinted, and in 1790 extended to 2 vols. 8vo, with large additions. In this work, he displayed an uncommon degree of acuteness in the examination of a question, which has been maintained on both sides with great ability, but not always with the temper and manners which guided Mr. Tytler’s pen. As a supplement to this work, he read in the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland, of which society he was a warm friend and protector, and for many years vice-president, “A dissertation on the marriage of queen Mary to the earl of Bothwell,” which forms a distinguished article in the first volume of the transactions of that society published in 1751, in 4to.

His other publications were, 1. “The Poetical remains of James I. of Scotland, consisting of the King’s Q.uair in six cantos, and * Christ’s kirk of the green,' to which is prefixed a dissertation on the life and writings of king James,” Edinburgh, 1783. This dissertation forms a valuable morsel of the literary history of Europe: for James 'ranked still higher in the literary world as a poet, than in the political world as a prince. Great justice is done to his memory in both respects in this dissertation: and the two morsels of poetry here rescued from oblivion, will be esteemed by men of taste, as long as the language in which they are written can be understood. 2. “A Dissertation on Scottish music,” first subjoined to Arnot’s “History of Edinburgh.” 3. “Observations on the Vision, a poem,” first published in Ramsay’s Evergreen, now also printed in the Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. This may be considered as a part of the literary history of Scotland. 4. “On the fashionable amusements in Edinburgh during the last century,” ibid. He also contributed No. 16 to the periodical paper called “The Lounger.”

Mr. Tytler was father to the hon. Alexander Frazer Tytler, lord Woodhouselee, one of the judges of the supreme civil court of law in Scotland, to whom the public is indebted for a valuable and truly original “Essay on the Principles of Translation;” “Elements of General History,” the “Life of Lord Kaimes,” and other ingenious works. This very excellent scholar and upright judge died very lately, but we have not seen any tribute to his memory of which we could avail ourselves, although something of the kind may very naturally be expected from the same pen which has recorded the talents and virtues of his father.

, a celebrated grammarian of Constantinople, died about the end of the twelfth century. Being put under proper masters at fifteen, he learnt not only the belles lettres, and the whole circle of sciences, but even the Hebrew and Syriac tongues. He had a prodigious memory, and, it is said, was able to repeat all the Scriptures by heart. He seems to have been a most accomplished person, who understood almost every thing; but was a severe critic on the performances of others, and not without a considerable share of vanity. He wrote “Commentaries upon Lycophron’s Alexandria,” which he published first under the name of his brother, Isaac Tzetzes: they are inserted by Potter in his edition of this poet at Oxford, 1697, in folio. He wrote also “Chiliades,” or miscellaneous histories, in verse, which Fabricius calls his most celebrated work, as abounding with political and civil knowledge; “Scholia upon Hesiod;” “Epigrams and other Poems;” “Pieces upon Grammar and Criticism.” He mentions also “Allegories upon Homer,” which he dedicated to the empress Irene, wife of Manuel Comnenus. This empress was married in 1143, and died in 1158, which nearly ascertains the age of Tzetzes. The “Allegories” of this author were published by Morel, Paris, 1616, 8vo, and the “Chiliades,” at Basil, 1546, fol.

, was an eminent mathematician irt Italy, in the end of the sixteenth and early part of the seventeenth century, but no particulars are known of his life, nor when he died. The following occur in catalogues as his works: 1. “Mechanica,” Pis. 1577, fol. and Yen. 1615. 2. “Pianisphaeriorum universalium Theorica,” Pis. 1579, fol. and Col. 1581, 8vo. 3. “Paraphrasis in ArchimedisSquiponderantia,” Pis. 1588, fol. 4. Perspectiva,“ibid. 1600, fol. 5.” Problemata Astronomica,“Ven. 1609, fol. 6.” De Cochlaea," ibid. 1615, fol.

, an illuminator on vellum, who was in England in the reign of queen Elizabeth, appears to have been a native of Florence, and, while here, a teacher of the Italian language. Vertue speaks of some of his works as extant in his time, or as having very lately been so; as the Psalms of David in folio, with an inscription by Ubaldini to Henry earl of Arundel, whom he calls his Maecenas. The date is, London, 1565. There was another book on vellum, written and illuminated by him, by order of sir Nicholas Bacon, who presented it to the lady Lumley. This is, or was, at Gorhambury. There were other specimens of his skill in the royal library, now in the British Museum, and he appears also to have been an author. Walpole mentions one of his Mss. in the Museum, entitled “Scotiae descriptio a Deidonensi quodain facto, A. D. 1550, et per Petruccium Ubaldinum transcripta A. D. 1576,” which was published afterwards in Italian, with his name, at Antwerp, 1588, fol. The Museum catalogue attributes also the following to Ubaldini: 1. “Discourse concerning of the Spanish fleet invading England in 1588 and overthroweu,” Lond. 1590, 4to. 2. “Le Vite delle Donne illustri del regno d'lughilterra, e del regnb di Scotia, &c.” ibid. 1591. Walpole, who appears to have examined this work, gives, as a specimen of Petrucchio’s talents for history, two of his heroines. The first was Chembrigia, daughter of Gurguntius, son of king Bellinus, who, having married one Cantabro, founded a city, which, from a mixture of both their names, was called Cambridge. The other illustrious lady he styles expressly donna senza. name, and this nameless lady, as Walpole says, was the mother of Ferrex and Porrex in lord Dorset’s “Gorboduc,” who, because one of her sons killed the other that was a favourite, killed a third son in a passion. 3. “Precetti moral i, politici, et economici,” 1592, 4to. 4. “Scelta di alcune Attioni, e di varii Accidenti,” 1595, 4to. 5. “Rime,”

1597. 7. “Vita di Carlo Magno,” 1599, 4to; and, 8. “Lo Stato delle tre Corti,” 4to.

Thus far we have gathered from Walpole’s Anecdotes, who adds, that Ubaldini seems to have been in great favour at court, and is frequently mentioned in the rolls of new years-gifts, which used to be reposited in the jewel-office. There is a notice of this kind as far as 1588, but how much longer he lived is not known. But we find Baretti giving other particulars of Ubaldini. He says he was a nobleman of Florence, who lived many years in England, in the service of Edward VI. The “Lives of Illustrious Ladies” he penned with great gallantry and elegance, and he must certainly have been the favourite of the British (English) belles of his time, having been as handsome in his figure, and as valiant with his sword, as he was able at his pen. Baretti also in forms us that in the preface* to his Life of Charles the Great, he says it was the first Italian book that was printed in London; the date is 1581, printed by Wolf, and consequently the date given above from the Museum catalogue must have been a subsequent edition. Ubaldini adds, that he wrote it, because, “having seen how many fables and dreams the poets have writ of that emperor, he thought it the duty of a man, born to be useful to others, to explode, as much as possible, falsehood from the world, and substitute truth instead.” Baretti informs us that in the Foscarini library at Venice there is a manuscript history of Ubaldini, written with his own hand, of the reign of his master Edward.

, an Italian poet of the fourteenth century, was the descendant of an illustrious family of Florence, the Uberti, who, when the Guelphs became victorious, were banished from Florence, and their property divided among their enemies. Our poet was born in the poverty and obscurity to which his family had been reduced, and although the Florentines allowed him to return and reside in the country of his forefathers, he never became rich, and was obliged to attend the courts of the nobility, and gain a subsistence by chaunting his verses. Of those he composed a great many in the form of songs and other small pieces which were admired for their novelty; he is even thought to have been the inventor of the ballad species. In more advanced age, he undertook his “Dittamondo,” in imitation of Dante, who in his vision takes Virgil for his guide; Uberti takes Solinus, who conducts him over the whole habitable globe. By means of this fiction he includes geographical and historical matter, which has induced some to call his poem a geographical treatise. It is said to be written with energy and elegance, and was first printed, or at least a part of it, at Vicenza in 1474, fol. and reprinted at Venice in 1501. Both are rare, and chiefly valued for their rarity. Villani, who gives us a sort of eloge rather than a life of Uberti, says that he died at an advanced age in 1370.

, a loyal divine, although of the puritan stamp, was the son of John Udal, an eminent nonconformist of the sixteenth century, and a great sufferer for his nonconformity, being frequently silenced and imprisoned, and at last condemned to die for writing a seditious book called “A Demonstration of Discipline;” but he appears to have been respited, and died in the Marshalsea prison about the end of 1592. He wrote “A Commentary on the Lamentation’s of Jeremiah” “The State of the Church of England laid open in a conference, &c.” and probably the work above-mentioned for which he was condemned b.ut he is better known in the learned world, as the author of the first Hebrew grammar. in English, published onder the title of a “Key to the Holy Tongue,” with a Hebrew Dictionary, which is omitted in the second edition. The first is dated 1593, a year after his death.

When his son Ephraim was born, does not appear, but he was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1609, and that of A. M. in 1614. His only preferment in the church appears to have been the rectory of St. Augustine’s, Watling-street, but the time of his admission is not stated by Newcourt or Walker. He was sequestered, however, in 1643, although he had always been accounted, and indeed admired as a preacher of puritan principles. The truth was, that he early perceived the real designs of the republican party, and exerted himself to oppose them. In a sermon at Mercers’ chapel, he addressed himself to some of them in these words, “You desire truth and peace; leave your lying, and you may have truth; lay down your arms, and you may have peace.” He went farther than even this, by declaring openly for episcopacy and the liturgy, and publishing a learned (Treatise against sacrilege, entitled “A Coal from the Altar;” and another, “Communion comeliness,” in which he recommended the placing of rails around the communion-table. He also published a sermon, called “Noli me tangere,” containing many loyal sentiments and much attachment to the church. Crimes like these were not to be forgiven; and accordingly his house was plundered, his library and furniture carried off, and his old and lame wife literally turned into the street. Mr. Udal died about the latter end of May 1647. His funeral sermon was preached by the rev. Thomas Reeve, B. D. who was neither ashamed nor afraid to give him what he seems to have deserved, a high character for piety and zeal.

, an eminent schoolmaster of the sixteenth century, styled by Leland, in his “Encomia,” Odovallus, was born in Hampshire in 1506, and was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, June 18, 1520. He then took the degree of bachelor of arts, and became probationer fellow Sept. 3, 1524; but was prevented taking the degree of master soon afterwards, on account of his inclination to the tenets of Luther. He then obtained the mastership of Eton school, and, in the performance of his duty there, behaved, as Thomas Tusser the poet tells us, with great severity. He proceeded in arts in 1534, but in 15il was near losing his place, being suspected of some concern in a robbery of plate belonging to the college, with two of his scholars. For this fact he was examined by the king’s council, but we do not know the result of their inquiries. The charge probably was discovered to be ill-grounded, as he was at this time in possession of the living of Braintree in Essex, which he did not resign till 1544, and in 1552 was preferred to the rectory of Calbourne in the Isle of Wight. He afterwards was servant to queen Catherine Parr, and, in the beginning of Edward VI. 's time, was promoted to a canonry at Windsor. The time of his death is not known, unless by a manuscript note on a copy of Bale, in which that event is said to have taken place in 1557, and that he was buried at Westminster. In 1555 he had been appointed headmaster of Westminster-school, a circumstance not noticed by Wood. He is said to have written several comedies, and Bale mentions “The Tragedy of Popery.” But none of these now exist. A specimen, however, of his abilities in this wav, niay be seen in a long quotation from a rhiming interlude by him, printed in Wilson’s “Art of Logicke,” 1587, and reprinted in the new edition of Wood’s Athense. His more useful works were, 1. “Flowers for Latin speaking, selected and gathered out of Terence, and the same translated into English,” &c. often printed, particularly in 1533, 1538, 1568, and 1575. Both Leland and Newton wrote encomiastic verses on this book. 2. A translation of the “Apophthegms” of Erasmus, 1542 and 1564, 8vo. 3. “Epistolce et carmina ad Gul. Hormannum et ad Joh. Lelandum.” 4. A translation of Erasmus’s “Paraphrase on the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles,” 1551, fol. 5. A translation of Peter Martyr’s “Treatise on the Sacrament.*' He also drew up” An answer to the sixteen articles of the Commons of Devonshire and Cornwall," a ms. in the royal collection.

, an eminent artist, called Gio. Da Nanni, or Ricamatori, as Vasari promiscuously calls him, was born in 1494, at Udine in the Friul, and passed from the school of Giorgiorie to that of Raphael Sanzio, under whose direction he executed the greater part of the stuccoes and grotesque ornaments in the Logge and various apartments of the Vatican. In this branch of the art he is not only considered as the first, but as an inventor: for though under Alexander VI. Morto da Feltro had begun to paint in grotesque, he was not acquainted with stucco, which was first discovered in the baths of Titus, and successfully imitated by this artist. His bowers, plants, and foliage, his aviaries, mews, birds and fowls of every kind, impose on the eye by a truth of imitation less the result of labour than of sentiment: his touch is all character, and never deviates into the anxious detail of fac-similists. After the saccage of Rome he visited other parts of Italy, and left various specimens of his art at Florence, Genoa, and Udiue. He died in 1564.

a very learned German, was born at Frankfort Feb. 22, 1683, and was the son of a counsellor of that city, of an antient family. In 1694 he was sent for education to the college of Rudelstadt, where he applied with such ardour that his master was obliged to check him, and especially prevent his studying by night, to which he was much addicted. Besides the classics, which, young as he was, he always read with a pen in his hand, making such remarks or extracts as struck his fancy, he studied also the Hebrew language, and logic, and metaphysics, to which he soon added history, geography, chronology, &c. In 1698 he was obliged to return home to recover his health, which had probably been injured by intense application, and he for some time confined himself to lessons on history and geography from Arnold, then rector of the college of Frankfort. He was afterwards sent to the university of Strasburgh, where he studied the sciences, attended the anatomical lectures, &c. but his leading object was literary history and bibliography, in pursuit of which he passed much of his time in the public libraries. In 1700 he had the misfortune to lose both his parents, which obliged him to return to Frankfort. When his grief had in some degree subsided, he went to Halle, and continued his studies there about two years. In 1702 he took his degree of doctor of laws, and returned to Frankfort with a copious library, which he had collected in the course of his studies. He then visited some of the most famous universities on the continent; but in 1704 settled at Frankfort, where the library he formed was then considered among the best in Europe. To make it still more complete appears to have been the object of his ambition, and he re-commenced his travels for that purpose in 1708 and 1709. In one of those years he was at Oxford, and had some inducement to settle there, but imagined that the climate would not agree with his health. When he returned to Frankfort from these tours in 1711, he brought an addition of four thousand books to his collection. In 1721 he was made a senator of his native city, but became now so diligent in his civic duties as to have little time to spare to his studies, which inclined him in 1729 to publish a catalogue of his library, with a view to dispose of a considerable part of it. He died Jan. 6, 1734, universally regretted. He had begun several learned works, which his employments as a magistrate, and afterwards his bad state of health, prevented his finishing; among these were, 1. “Glossarium Germanicum medii sevi.” 2. A history of his life, in Latin. 3. “Selecta historiae litterariae et librarian,” in several volumes. These he bequeathed to John George Schelhorn, along with his literary correspondence in eighteen large quarto volumes. In 1736 John Christ. Wolff printed an account of two collections made by Uffembach, which he had just purchased 3 the first consisting of an immense quantity of letters, mostly originals, written by the eminent men of the two or three preceding centuries the second comprized various curious Mss. on literary subjects. Schelhorn, in his “Amcenitates litterariaB,” has availed himself much of UfFembach’s collections; and in vol. IX. has an article entitled “Deprimitiis typographicis, quae Haerlemi in civica et Francoforti in bibliotheca Uffembachiana adservantur.” And he afterwards published a Life of Uffembach, prefixed to his “Cornmercii Epistolaris Uffembachiani Selecta, &c.” 5 vols. 1753 1756, 8vo.

, an ecclesiastical historian, was born March 21, 1595, at Florence, of a good family. After pursuing his studies with great credit, he entered among the Cistertians, and held several honourable posts in his order. He was appointed abbot of Trois Fontaines at Rome, procurator in his province, and counsellor to the congregation of the Index. The popes Alexander VII. and Clement IX. esteemed Ughelli, and gave him a pension of 500 crowns; but he refused several bishoprics that were offered. He died at Rome, in his abbey, May 19, 1670, aged seventy-five. His principal work is, “Italia sacra, sive de Episcopis Italiae, et Insularum adjacentium,” &c. Rome, 1642 1662, 9 vols. folio. This work, which is esteemed of good authority, was reprinted at Venice, 1717 1722, 10 vols. with considerable additions; but this second edition is very incorrectly printed. A third, which is said to be free from this objection, and is very much enlarged, was published at Florence, 1763, &c. by the abbe del Riccio. Ughelli’s other works are the Lives of the cardinals of the Cistertian order, and some genealogical familyhistories.

, a celebrated Spanish mathematician, and a commander of the order of St. Jago, was born at Seville Jan. 12, 1716. He was brought up in the service of the royal marines, in which he at length obtained the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1735 he was appointed, with Don George Juan, to sail to South America, and accompany the French academicians who were going to Peru to measure a degree of the meridian. On his return home in 1745, in a French ship, he was taken by two English vessels, and after being detained some time at Louisbourg in Cape Breton, was brought to England, where his talents recommended him to Martin Folkes, president of the Royal Society, and he was the same year elected a member of that learned body. On his return to Madrid he published his “Voyage to South America,” which was afterwards translated into German and French. There is also an English translation, in two vols. 8vo, 1758, but miserably garbled and inaccurate. In 1755 he made a second voyage to America, where he collected materials for another work, which however did not appear until 1772, under the title of “Entretenimientos Physico-historicos.” He travelled afterwards over a considerable part of Europe to collect information respecting such improvements in arts and manufactures as might be serviceable to Spain, and was the means of introducing many which had not before been known in Spain, or very imperfectly carried on. He died on July 5, 1795. There are a few of his papers in the “Philosophical Transactions.”

, or Gulphilas, a Gothic bishop, and the first translator of a part of the Bible into that language, flourished in the fourth century, and during the reign of Valens, obtained leave of that emperor that the Goths should reside in Thrace, on condition of his, the bishop’s, embracing the Arian faith. Little else is known of this prelate, unless that he translated the Evangelists, and perhaps some other books of the New Testament, into the Gothic language, which he achieved by inventing a new alphabet of twenty-six letters. This translation is now in the library of Upsal, and there have been three editions of it, the best by Mr. Lye, printed at Oxford in 1750. Many disputes have been carried on by the learned both as to the antiquity and authenticity of this version. Of later years, however, another fragment of Ulphilas’s translation was discovered in the library at Wolfenbuttle, containing a portion of the Epistle to the Romans. This has been published by Knitel, archdeacon of Wolfenbuttle, who seems of opinion that Ulphilas translated the whole Bible.

, a classical scholar and editor, was the fourth son of a gentleman of Cheshire, and born at Wimslow, in that county, December 10, 1670. He was educated at Eton, and became a fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1697, and M. A. 1701. He afterwards, at the request of Dr. Newborough, the head master, returned to Eton, where he was tutor to the famous sir William Wyndham, and was an assistant teacher at the school. He married the daughter of Mr. Proctor, who kept a boarding-house at Eton, but afterwards removed to Ilminster, in Somersetshire, upon the invitation of several gentlemen of the county, and particularly of the earl Powlett, to whom he was afterwards chaplain, and aii whose sons were under his tuition at Taunton. He remained a few years at Ihninster, and taught the learned languages there till he was elected to the care of the free grammarschool in Taunton: which he conducted with the highest reputation, and raised to be the largest provincial school at that time ever known in England. The number of his pupils amounted to more than 200; and many of them were from the first families in the West of England. He served for many years the church of Bishop’s-Hull, in which parish the school is situated. So early as 1711 he was in possession of the rectory of Brimpton, near Yeovil, in the presentation of the Sydenham family. In 1712 he was presented by sir Philip Sydenham to the rectory of Alonksilver, 14 miles from Taunton. He died August 13, 1749, aged seventy-nine.

In 1696 he published, at Cambridge, an excellent edition of Aristotle “de Arte Poetica,” with notes. In 1702, at Eton, Dionysius Halicarnassensis “de Structura Orationis.” In 1711, a revised and corrected edition of Roger Ascham’s “School-Master,” with explanatory notes. In 1726 his “Novus Historiarum Fabellarumque Delectus;” a very useful and much approved selection of passages from Greek authors, with a Latin translation. He was also the author of several single sermons, and there is a Latin ode of his writing in the Gent. Mag. for Oct. 1737.

He had two sons, one a captain of the navy, who died in the same year with his father; the other, John Upton, born in 1707, who, after receiving a classical education at his father’s school at Taunton, was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1728, and proceeded M. A. in 1732. In the same year the celebrated critic Toup became his pupil, and during the whole of his residence in the university had no other tutor. In 1736 he vacated his fellowship. Having been tutor to the sons of lord chancellor Talbot, that nobleman gave him a prebend in the cathedral of Rochester; besides which he had the rectory of Sevington cum Dinnington, in Somersetshire, by the gift of the earl Powlett; afterwards the rectory of Great Rissington, in Gloucestershire, conferred upon him by earl Talbot, who, as just mentioned, had been one of his pupils; and lastly, he was also rector of the sinecure of Llandrillo, in Denbighshire, in the diocese of St. Asaph, given to him by the bishop. He never married, and died at Taunton, Dec. 9, 1760, in the fifty-third year of his age.

Mr. Upton’s chief publication was an edition of Arrian’s “Epictetus,” printed at London, 1739 41, 2 vols. 4to. This Harwood accounts the most perfect edition that ever was given of a Greek ethical writer. There is his own copy of this edition in the possession of a gentleman of Exeter college, with his curte secundtf, written by him in the margins, and they are very copious and frequent. In 1758 he published an excellent edition of Spencer’s “Fairie Queene,” with a glossary and notes, explanatory and critical, 2 vols. 4to; and “Observations on Shakspeare,” of which Dr. Johnson, in his preface to his edition of that hard, gives no vry favourable opinion, nor indeed a just one.

, one of those pontiffs who deserve some notice on account of his learning, and attention to the interests of literature, was born at Florence in 1568. His family name was Maffei Barbarini, and his family was of the most ancient and honourable. His father dying while Maffei was an infant, he was entrusted to the care of his uncle Francis, a prothonotary of the Roman court, who sent for him to Rome, and placed him for education in the Jesuits’ college. Here he made great proficiency in classical studies under Tursellino and Benci, and was particularly distinguished for his taste for poetry. But as his uncle intended him for active life, he took him from his beloved studies, and sent him to Pisa, where he might acquire a knowledge of the law, so neoessary then to those who would rise to preferment; and here he applied with such diligence, that in his twentieth year the degree of doctor was deservedly conferred upon him. He then returned to Rome, where his uncle received him with the greatest kindness, and having always treated him as his son, bequeathed him, on his death, which happened soon after, a handsome fortune, as his sole heir. His first patron was cardinal Farnese, and by his interest and his own talents he soon passed through the various gradations of preferment which led, in 1606, to the rank of cardinal, bestowed on him by Paul V. In 1623, while cardinal legate of Bologna, he was elected pope, and took the name of Urban VIII. It is not our intention to detail the historical events in which he was concerned. The errors in his government, which were fewer than might have been expected in one so zealous for the church, arose from two circumstances, his early attachment to the Jesuits, and his nepotism, or family partiality. The latter was so powerful, that he bestowed on his relations red hats and temporal employments with a very liberal hand, and often entrusted the management of affairs to them; and the chief errors of his pontificate were imputed to them by the candid, although he only was blamed by the people at large. As a mjjn of learning, and a patron of learned merr, he has generally been praised; but he was no antiquary, and was justly censured for having destroyed some Roman antiquities, which the barbarous nations had spared when masters of Rome; and this gave occasion to the famous pasquinade, “Quod non fecerunt Barbari, fecerunt Barherini.” He wrote many Latin poems in an elegant style, of which an edition was published at Paris in 1642, fol. and a very beautiful one at Oxford, in 1726, 8vo, edited by Joseph Brown, M. A. of Queen’s college, and afterwards provost of that college, with a life and learned notes. Urban’s patronage of learned men was very liberal, and he received those of all nations with equal respect. Among others he extended his patronage to Ciampolo, Cesarini, Herman Hugo, and to Dempster and Barclay, two learned Scotchmen. The latter has celebrated him in his “Argenis” under the name of Ibburranis, the transposition of Barberini. Urban published a remarkable edition of the Romish breviary, aud several bulls and decrees which are in “Cherubini bullarium.” Among the most noticeable is that which abolishes the order of female Jesuits, and certain festivals; and others which relate to image worship; those by which, in compliance with the Jesuits, he condemns Jansenius; and that by which the title of eminence was conferred upon the cardinal-legates, the three ecclesiastical electors, and the grand master of Malta. Among his foundations was the college “De propaganda fide.” In the article of cardinals he was profuse, for he created no less than seventy-four. He died July 29, 1644, and was buried in St. Peter’s, in the stately tomb erected by his own orders by the celebrated Bernini.

, a learned Italian, was born at Rubiera in 1446. He gave himself the name of Codrus, a poor poet in Juvenal, in reply to a speech made to him. After a very learned education, he was invited to Forli, to teach the languages, and while here met with an accident which appears to have affected his brain. He had an apartment in the palace, but his room was so very dark, that he was forced to use a candle in the day-time; and one day, going abroad without putting it out, his library was set on fire, and some papers which he had prepared for the press were burned. The instant he was informed of this, he ran furiously to the palace, and vented his rage in the most blasphemous imprecations, after which he rushed from the city, and passed the whole day in a wood in the vicinity, without nourishment. He returned next day, and shut himself up for six months in the house of an artificer. After a residence of about thirteen years at Forli, he was invited to Bologna, where he was appointed professor of grammar and eloquence, and where he passed the remainder of his days with credit. He died at Bologna in 1500. His works, printed at Basil in 15*0, consist of speeches, letters, and poems: to which is prefixed an account of his life. He appears to have been much esteemed by his learned contemporaries, but modern critics seem less disposed to rank him among the ornaments of his age.

, a writer of romances, was born February 11, 1567, at Marseilles, and was descended from an illustrious house of Forez, originally of Suabia. He was educated among the Jesuits, and sent to Malta, but returned to Forez. In 1574 Anne d'Urfé, his brother, married Diana de Chateau-Morancl, a rich lady, sole heiress of that bouse; but having procured his marriage to be declared null in 1596, he took the ecclesiastical habit, and Honore“d'Urfe, whose interest it was to keep Diana’s very large fortune in his own family, married her, about 1601. Their union did not however prove happy, for the lady, then above forty, had rendered herself otherwise disgusting by having her apartments always filled with great dogs, and as she brought him no children, he left her, and retired to Piedmont, where he died, 1625, aged fifty-eight. His principal work is a celebrated romance, entitled” L' Astrée,“4 vols. 8vo, to which Baro, his secretary, added a fifth. It was reprinted, 1733, 10 vols. 12mo, and was read throughout Europe at one time as the first work of the kind, and was perhaps relished by some from the notion that it contained an account of the gallantries of Henry the Fourth 1 s reign. His other works are: a poem, entitled” La Sirene,“I6.ll, 8vo;” Epitres morales,“1620, 12mo;” La Savoysiade,“a poem, of which only part is in print; a pastoral in blank verse, entitled” La Sylvaniere,“8vo, and some” Sonnets.“Anne d'Urfe”, his eldest brother, was count de Lyon, lived in a very exemplary manner, and died 1621, aged sixty-six. He also was a literary man, and has left “Sonnets,” “Hymns,” and other poetical pieces 5 1603, 4to.

, an eminent archbishop of Rheims, in the fifteenth century, brother of William des Ursins. baron de Traynel, and chancellor ol France, was descended from an illustrious family of Champagne. After having distinguished himself in several posts, being master of requests, he took the ecclesiastical habit, became bishop of Beauvais in 1432, of Laon in 1444, and archbishop of Rheims in 1449, in which see he succeeded his brother James Juvenal des Ursins. He was one of those appointed in 146 1 to revise the sentence pronounced against the famous Maid of Orleans. He died July 14, 1473, aged eighty-five, leaving a “History of the Reign of Charles VI.” from 1380 to 1422, printed at the Louvre, folio. This family has produced several other great men.

, an eminent classical scholar and antiquary, was the illegitimate son of a commander of the order of Malta, of the Ursin family, and was born at Rome Dec. 2, 1529. His education would probably have been neglected, as his mother and himself were turned out of doors by the unnatural father, and were in great poverty, had not some early appearance of talents recommended him to the notice of a canon of the Lateran, Gentilio Delfini, who took him under his protection, and instructed him in classical literature; after which, by this benevolent patron’s interest, he obtained considerable preferment in the church of St. John of Lateran. His talents afterwards made him be taken into the service of the cardinals Ranutius and Alexander Farnese, who rewarded him liberally; and by this means an opportunity was afforded him of collecting a great number of books and ancient manuscripts, and employing them for the benefit of literature. He was in habits of correspondence with the most eminent literary characters of Italy, and he contributed much valuable assistance to the authors of that period. He had attained to great skill in discovering the antiquity and value of Mss., which he seems to have considered as an important secret. Cardinal Frederic Borromeo, being once in his company, requested Ursinus to point out from a book that lay before them, the rules by which he distinguished ancient from modern manuscripts; but he immediately shut the book, and turned the discourse. He died at Rome Jan. 18, 1600, at the age of seventy. He was author of several learned works, as “De Familiis Romanis;” and an Appendix to Ciaconio’s treatise “De Triclinio.” He also published notes oti Sallust, Cecsar, Livy, and most of the Roman historians, the writers de Re Rustica, Cicero, &c. He also caused engravings to be made of a large collection of statues, busts, and other monuments of antiquity, and published them under the title of “Imagines et Elogia Virorum illustrium et eruditorum ex antiquis lapidibus et numismatibus expressa, cum annotationibus Fulvii Ursini.” Mr. Pinkerton, however, says that this work is not to be depended on, and prefers that of Canini, which is better, although far from perfect. Ursinus, in order to keep together the books which, with great labour and at vast expence, he had accumulated, bequeathed them to the Vatican. Castalio published a Life of Ursinus, at Rome, 1657, 8vo. In his will, which is appended to this Life, be bequeaths two thousand crowns to Delfini, bishop of Camenuo, probably a near relation of his early patron.

, one of the most celebrated Protestant divines of the 16th century, was born at Breslau, in Silesia, July 28, 1534. He had already made a considerable progress, for one so young, when he was sent to Wittemberg in 1550, where he studied seven years, and, as his father was not rich, he was assisted by gratuities both private and public, and by the profits of taking pupils. At the same time, he applied himself so closely to study, that he acquired great skill both in poetry, lan-r guages, philosophy, and divinity. Melancthon, who was the ornament of that university, had a particular esteem and friendship for him. Ursinus accompanied him in 1557 to the conference of Worms, whence he went to Geneva, and afterwards to Paris, where he made some stay, in order to learn French, and improve himself in Hebrew under the learned John Mercerus. He was no sooner returned to Melancthon at Wittemberg, than he received letters from the magistrates of Breslaw in September 1558, offering him the mastership of their great school; and having accepted it, he discharged the duties of his employment in so laudable a manner, that he might have continued in it as long as he pleased, had he not been prosecuted by the clergy, the instant they perceived he was not a Lutheran. When he explained Melancthon’s book, “De examine ordinandorum ad Ministerium,” he handled the subject of the Lord’s supper in such a manner, as made the demagogues or factious orators (for so the author of his Life calls them) term him Sacramentarian. He wrote, however, a justification of himself, in which he discovered what his opinions were with regard to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and when he found that this did not pacify his adversaries, he obtained an honourable leave from the magistrates; and as he could not retire to his master Melancthon, he being dead a little before, in April 1560, he went to Zurich, where Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Simler, Gesner, and some other eminent personages, had a great friendship for him. From this place he was soon removed by the university of Heidelberg, which was in want of an able professor; and in September 1561 was settled in the Collegium Sapientiae (College of Wisdom) to instruct the students. He also attempted to preach, but finding he had not the talents requisite for the pulpit, he laid that aside. As a professor, he evinced, in the most eminent elegree, the qualifications requisite: a lively genius, a great fund of knowledge, and a happy dexterity in explaining things, and therefore, besides the employment he already enjoyed, he exercised the professorship of the loci communes, or common places in that university. To qualify him for this place, it was necessary for him, agreeably to the statutes, to be received doctor of divinity, and accordingly he was solemnly admitted to that degree the 25th of August, 1562, and he was professor of the common places till 1568. It was he who wrote the Catechism of the Palatinate, which was almost universally adopted by the Calvinists, and drew up an apology for it by ordtr of the elector Frederic III. in opposition to the clamours which Flacius Illyricus, Heshusius, and some other rigid Lutherans, had published in 1563. The elector, finding himself exposed, not only to the complaints of the Lutheran divines, but likewise to those of some princes, as if he had established a doctrine concerning the Eucharist, which was condemned by the Augsburg Confession, was obliged to cause to be printed an exposition of the une doctrine concerning the Sacraments. Ursinus the following year was at the conference of Maulbrun, where he spoke with great warmth against the doctrine of Ubiquity. He afterwards wrote on that subject, and against some other tenets of the Lutherans. The plan and statutes which he drew up for the elector, for the establishment of some schools, and several other services, raised him so high in his esteem, that finding him resolved to accept of a professorship in divinity at Lausanne in 1571, he wrote a letter to him with his own hand, in which he gave several reasons why it would not be proper for him to accept of that employment. This prince’s death, which happened in 1577, produced a great revolution in the palatinate; prince Lewis, his eldest son, who succeeded him, not permitting any clergyman to be there, unless he was a sound Lutheran; so that Ursinus and the pupils educated by him in the Collegium Sapientiae were obliged to quit it. He retired to Neustadt, to be divinity-professor in the illustrious school which prince Casimir, son to Frederic III. founded there at that time. He began his lectures there the 26th of May, 1578. He also taught logic there in his own apartment; published some books, and was preparing to write several more, when his health, which had been frequently and strongly attacked, occasioned by his incredible application to study, yielded at last to a long sickness, of which he died in Neustadt, the 6th of March, 1583, in the forty-ninth year of his age. His works were collected after his death, by the care of his only son, a minister, and by that of David Pareus and Quirinus Reuterus, his disciples; and to the last of these we are indebted for the publication of them in 1612, 3 vols. folio.

Ursinus was not unknown to our English divines, and some of his works were translated into English as, his “Catechism,” or rather, his lectures upon the catechism, entitled “The Summe of the Christian Religion,” translated by Henry Parrie, 1587, 4to. There were also at least two abridgments of it; and a translation of “A collection of learned Discourses,” 1600, &c. Ursinus was a very laborious student; and, that no interruption might be given, he caused the following inscription to be placed on the door of his library:

Sir Philip Sidney, while at Heidelberg, was particularly anxious to cultivate the friendship of Ursinus. “From this eminent scholar,” says Dr. Zouch, “Mr. Sidney learned to estimate the value of time: he learned how criminal it is to waste the hours of life in unedifying discourse, and much more so in vitious pursuits or guilty indulgences.” Dr. Zouch observes, that Ursinus’s moral character was still more excellent than his literary one. He was all humility, attributing nothing to himself, and perfectly uncorrupted by avarice or ambition.

, a writer distinguished for his skill in astronomy, was born at Henstedt in Dhhmarsen, which is part of the dukedom of Holstein, about 1550. He was a swineherd in his younger years, and did not begin to read till he was eighteen; and then he employed all the hours he could spare from his labours in learning to read and write. He afterwards applied himself to the study of the languages; and, having a good capacity and memory, made a very swift progress in Latin and Greek. He also learned the French tongue, mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy; and most of them without the assistance of a master. Having left his native country, he gained a livelihood by teaching which he did in Denmark in 1584, and on the frontiers of Pomerania and Poland in 1585. It was in this last place that he invented a new system of astronomy, very little different from that of Tycho Brahe. He communicated it in 1586 to the landgrave of Hesse, which gave rise to an angry dispute between him and Tycho Brahe. Tycho charged him with being a plagiary; who, as he related, happening to come with his master into his study, saw there, on a piece of paper, the figure of his system; and afterwards insolently boasted, that himself was the inventor of it. Ursus, upon this accusation, wrote with great severity against Tycho; called the honour of his invention into question, ascribing the system which he pretended was his own to Apollonius PergsBUs; and made use of such language, as almost brought on prosecution. He was afterwards invited, by his imperial majesty, to teach the mathematics in Prague, from which city, to avoid the presence of Tycho Brahe, he withdrew silently in 1589, and died soon after. He made some improvements in trigonometry, and wrote several works, which discover the marks of his hasty studies; his erudition being indigested, and his style incorrect, as is almost always the case with those who begin their studies late in life.

, a most illustrious prelate, and as he has been justly styled by Dr. Johnson, the great luminary of the Irish church, was descended from a very antient family, and born at Dublin, Jan. 4, 1580. His father, Arnold Usher, was one of the six clerks in chancery, a gentleman of good estate and reputation, and descended of a very ancient family, which in England bore the name of Nevil, till the reign of Henry II. when it was fchanged by one of his ancestors, who about 1185, passing with prince (afterwards king) John in quality of usher into Ireland, settled there by the name of his office, a practice very common in those early ages, and probably occasioned by the ambition of founding a family; and his descendants, spreading into several branches, filled the most considerable posts in and about Dublin for many ages, to the time of our author, who gave fresh lustre to the family. His mother was the daughter of James Stanyhurst (father of Richard the poet. See Stanyhurst) thrice speaker of the House of Commons, recorder of the city of Dublin, and one of the masters in chancery. This gentleman, of whom we took some notice in our account of his son, is yet more memorable for having first moved queen Elizabeth to found and endow a college and university at Dublin; in which he was vigorously seconded by Henry Usher, archbishop of Armagh, who was James Usher’s uncle. James discovered great parts and a strong passion for books from his infancy; and this remarkable circumstance attended the beginning of his literary pursuits, that he was taught to read by two aunts, who had been blind from their cradle, but had amazing memories, and could repeat most part of the Bible with readiness and accuracy; C<ecorum mens oculatissima. At eight years of age he was sent to a school, which was opened by Mr. James Fullerton and Mr. James Hamilton, two young Scots gentlemen, who were placed at Dublin by king James I. then only king of Scotland, to keep a correspondence with the protestant nobility and gentry there, in order to secure an interest in that kingdom, in the event of queen Elizabeth’s death: but her majesty being very sore upon this point, and unwilling to think of a successor, this was a service of some danger, and therefore it was thought expedient for them to assume the disguise of school-masters, a class of men which was very much wanted in Ireland at that time. Mr. Fullerton was afterwards knighted, and of the bed-chamber to king James; and Mr. Hamilton was created viscount Clandebois.

Having continued five years under these excellent masters, of whom he ever afterwards spoke with honour, and having made a progress far beyond his age, he was admitted into the college of Dublin, which was finished that very year, 1593. He was one of the first three students who were admitted; and his name stands to this day in the first line of the roll. Dr. Bernard seems to hint that he was the first graduate, fellow, and proctor, which we doubt, at least as to the fellowship, his uncle being first fellow, and his tutor at this time senior fellow, according to Harris. Here he learned logic, and the philosophy of Aristotle, under Mr. Hamilton, his tutor, and though, as we are told, his love of poetry and cards retarded his studies for some time, yet he soon recovered himself from these habits, applied to books again with great vigour, and at the same time acquired that pious turn which was ever afterwards a distinguishing; feature in his character. He is said to hare been wonderfully affected with that passage in Cicero, “Nescire quid antea quam natus sis accident, id est semper esse puerum” that is, “to know nothing of what happened before you were born is to be always a boy.” About this time, from meeting with Sleidan’s little book “De quatuor imperiis,” he contracted an extreme fondness for the study of history, which he afterwards pursued with equal depth and preciseness. At fourteen years of age he began to make extracts from all the historical books he could meet with, in order to fix the facts more firmly in his memory; and, between fifteen or sixteen, he had made such a proficiency in chronology, that he had drawn up in Latin an exact chronicle of the Bible, as far as the book of Kings, not much differing from his “Annals,” which have since been published. The difference chiefly consists in the addition of observations and the parallel chronofcugy of the heathens. Before he was full sixteen, he had entered upon theological studies, and perused the most able writers, on both sides, on the Romish controversy. Among the Romanists, he read Stapleton’s “Fortress of Faith;” and, finding that author confident in asserting antiquity for the tenets of Popery, and in taxing our church with novelty in. what it dissented from theirs, he kept his mind in suspense, till he could examine how the truth stood in that particular. He took it for granted, as his historian says, that the ancient doctrines must needs be the right, as the nearer the fountain the purer the stream; and that errors sprang up as the ages succeeded, according to that known saying of Tertullian, “Verum quodcunque primum, adulterum quodcunque posterius.” Bishop Jewel had adopted the same principle before him; and too much deference to the authority of the fathers prevailed in their days and long after. Yet they were far from being ignorant, as has been absurdly imputed to them, that the question concerning doctrines is not how ancient, but how true those doctrines are. The dispute was purely historical. Stapleton quoted the fathers as holding the doctrines of popery. Usher thought this impossible, and rather believed that Stapleton had misquoted them, at least had wrested and tortured them to his own sense. This made him then take up a firm resolution, that in due time (if God gave him life) he would himself read all the fathers, and trust none but his own eyes in searching out their sense: which great work he afterwards began at twenty years of age, and finished at thirty-eight; strictly confining himself to read a certain portion every day, from which he suffered no occasion to divert him.

In 1398, when the earl of Essex came over lord- lieutenant of Ireland, and chancellor of the university of Dublin, there was a solemn philosophy-act for his entertainment; and Usher, being then bachelor of arts, was appointed respondent, in which he acquitted himself with great success. But, while he was busily employed in these studies and great designs to fit himself for the ministry, his father’s inclinations lay towards the common law. He had all along designed his son for this study, and was about to send him over to the English inns of courts, in order that he might there cultivate it the better, but he died in 1588, and thus left him at liberty to pursue his own inclinations, which invariably led him to divinity. The paternal inheritance that was now fallen into his hands did not give the least interruption to his purpose; for, finding it somewhat incumbered with law-suits and sisters portions, and fearing those might prove a hindrance to his studies, which were all his care, he gave it up to his brothers and sisters; only reserving so much of it as might support him in a studious life at college.

Being now settled to his liking, and freed from worldly connexions and cares, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of every species of literature, human and divine; He was admitted fellow of the college, and acknowledged to be a model of piety, modesty, and learning. About this time, the learned Jesuit Fitz-simons (See Fitz-Simons), then a prisoner in Dublin-castle, sent out a challenge, defying the ablest champion that should come against him, to dispute with him about the points in controversy between the Roman and the Protestant churches. Usher, though but in his nineteenth year, accepted the challenge; and when they met, the Jesuit despised him as but a boy; yet, after a conference or two, was so very sensible of the quickness of his wit, the strength of his arguments, and his skill in disputation, as to decline any farther contest with him. This appears from the following letter of Usher, which Dr. Parr has inserted in his life; and which serves also to confute those who have supposed that there was not any actual dispute between them. “I was not purposed, Mr. Fitz-simons, to write unto you, before you had first written to me, concerning some chief points of your religion, as at our last meeting you promised; s but, seeing you have deferred the same, for reasons best known to yourself, I thought it not amiss to inquire farther of your mind, concerning the continuation of the conference begun betwixt us. And to this I am the rather moved, because I am credibly informed of certain reports, which I could hardly be persuaded should proceed from him, who in my presence pretended so great love and affection unto me. If I am a boy, as it hath pleased you very contemptuously to name me, I give thanks to the Lord, that my carriage towards you hath been such as could minister unto you no just occasion to despise my youth. Your spear belike is in your own conceit a weaver’s beam, and your abilities such, that you desire to encounter with the stoutest champion in the host of Israel; and therefore, like the Philistine, you contemn me as being a boy. Yet this I would fain have you know, that I neither came then, nor now do come unto you, in any confidence of any learning that is in me; in which respect, notwithstanding, I thank God I am what I am: but I come in the name of the Lord of Hosts, whose companies you have reproached, being certainly persuaded, that even out of the mouths of babes and sucklings he was able to shew forth his own praises. For the farther manifestation thereof, I do again earnestly request you, that, setting aside all vain comparisons of persons, we may go plainly forward in examining the matters that rest in controversy between us; otherwise I hope you will not be displeased, if, as for your part you have begun, so 1 also for my own part may be bold, for the clearing of myself and the truth which I profess, freely to make known what hath already passed concerning this matter. Thus intreating you in a few lines to make known unto me your purpose in this behalf, I end; praying the Lord, that both this and all other enterprises that we take in hand may be so ordered as may most make for the advancement of his own glory and the kingdom of his son Jesus Christ.” Tuus ad Aras usque,

In 1600 he was received master of arts, appointed proctor, and chosen catechetical lecturer of the university. In 1601, though under canonical age, yet on account of his extraordinary attainments, he was ordained both deacon and priest by his uncle Henry Usher, then archbishop of Armagh. Not long after, he was appointed to preach constantly before the state at Christ-church in Dublin on Sundays in the afternoon; when he made it his business to canvass the chief points in dispute between the papists and the protestants. He vehemently opposed a toleration, which the former were then soliciting, and some were consenting to; of which he gave his opinion from these words of Ezekiel, “And thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days; I have appointed thee each day for a year:” iv. 6. They are part of Ezekiel’s vision concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation, which he applied thus to the state of Ireland “From this year I reckon forty years and then those, whom you now embrace, shall be your ruin, and you shall bear their iniquity.” This being then uttered in a sermon, says Dr. Parr, seemed only the random-thought of a young man, who was no friend to popery; but afterwards, at the end of forty years, namely in 1641, when the Irish rebellion broke out, and many thousand of protestants were murdered, it was considered by many as even prophetical. On other occasions he was thought to betray an extraordinary foresight, and there was a treatise published “De predictionibus Usserii.” In 1603 he was sent over to England with Dr. Luke Challoner, in order to purchase books for the library at Dublin; the English army, who defeated the Spaniards at Kinsale, having contributed the sum of 1800l. for this purpose. On his arrival he found sir Thomas Bodley at London, employed in the same manner for his newlyerected library at Oxford, and they are said to have mutually assisted each other. It was during his absence upon this occasion that his mother was reconciled to the Romish religion, which gave him the most afflicting concern, and the more as she continued obstinate to the last, dying at Drogheda in the communion of that church. It appears also, that her father, the recorder, though outwardly a conformist to the new religion, after its establishment by Q. Elizabeth, yet still retained his old affection for popery, as appears from his supporting first in his own house Edmund Campian, afterwards the famous Jesuit, then a refugee from England, and in the next place recommending him to a friend in the country, where he might be secure from the danger of being seized and brought to justice for treasonable practices, in drawing her majesty’s subjects from their allegiance. The recorder took care however to conduct himself so prudently, as to give no umbrage to the government, and by that means continued unmolested in his post.

In 1606, the necessity of purchasing books and manuscripts relating to English history (in which study our author was then engaged) brought him again into England. He now contracted an intimate acquaintance and friendship with several learned men, and among others, sir Robert Cotton, Thomas Allen of Oxford, and Mr. Camden, which last, designing a new edition of his “Britannia,” consulted with him about publishing Ninias, St. Patrick, and Congal, and other writers or documents relating to the ancient state

of Ireland and the city of Dublin, a great part of the answers to which were inserted in the edition of the “Britannia,” published in 1607, with this elogy of our author: “For many of these things concerning Dublin I acknowledge myself indebted to the diligence and labour of James Usher, chancellor of the church of St. Patrick, who in various learning and judgment far exceeds his years.” The following year, 1607, he proceeded bachelor of divinity, and was chosen professor of that faculty in his college. He was also promoted to the chancellorship of the cathedral of St. Patrick the same year, by Dr. Loftus the archbishop. In his office of divinity-professor he continued thirteen years, reading lectures weekly throughout the year. In 1609 he made a third voyage to England, and became acquainted with other eminent and learned men, Selden, sir Henry Savile, Briggs, Ward, Lydiat, Dr. Davenant, &c. after which he constantly came over into England once in three years, spending one month at Oxford, another at Cambridge, and the rest of his time at London, chiefly in the Cottonian library. In 1609 he wrote a learned treatise concerning the “Herenach, Termon, and Corban lands, anciently belonging to the chorepiscopi of England and Ireland; which was held in great esteem, and presented by archbishop Bancroft to king James. The substance of it was afterward translated into Latin by sir Henry Spelman, in his” Glossary," and by sir James Ware in the 17th chapter of his Antiquities; but it never was published. The ms. is in the Lambeth library. In 1610 he was unanimously elected provost of Dublin college; but refused to accept that post, being apprehensive of its hindering him in those great designs he was then meditating for the promotion of learning and true religion.

In 1612 he took his doctor of divinity’s degree; and the next year, being at London, his first publication appeared, entitled “De Ecclesiarum Christianarum Successione & Statu,” in 4to. This is a continuation of bishop Jewel’s “Apology,” in which that eminent prelate had endeavoured to shew that the principles of protestants are agreeable to those of the fathers of the six first centuries. Usher’s design was to finish what Jewel had begun, by shewing that from, the sixth century to the reformation, namely, for 900 years, Christ has always had a visible church of true Christians, untainted with the errors and corruptions of the Roman church; and that these islands owe not their Christianity to Rome. This work is divided into three parts. The first reaches to the tenth century, when Gregory VII. was raised to the popedom. The second was to have reached from that period to the year 1370. And the third was to bring it to the reformation. How far he had brought it in this edition is stated in the followirig extract of a letter written to his brother-in-law, Thomas Lydiat, dated at Dublin, August 16, 1619: “You have rightly observed,” says be, “that in my discourse ‘ De Christianarum Ecclesiarum Successione et Statu,’ there is wanting, for the accomplishment of the second part, a hundred years [from 1240 to 1370, viz. the last chapter of this part]; which default, in the continuation of the work is by me supplied. I purpose to publish the whole work together, much augmented, but do first expect the publication of my uncle Stanyhurst’s answer to the former, which, I hear, since his death, is sent to Paris, to be there printed. I am advertised, also, that even now there is one at Antwerp who hath printed a treatise of my countryman De sacro Bosco (Holywood), ‘ De ver Ecclesise investigatione,’ wherein he hath some dealing with me. Both these I would willingly see before I set about reprinting my book, meaning, that if they have justly found fault with any thing, I may amend it; if unjustly, I may defend it.” His uncle’s answer, however, was never published, nor did our author publish any other edition of his work, as he here purposed; probably prevented by the distraction of the times. It was reprinted at Hanover in 1658, 8vo, without any amendments. In the last edition of 1687, containing likewise his Antiquity of the British Churches, are these words in the title-page: “Opus integrum ab Auctore auctum et recognitnm;” which, Dr. Smith observes, was a trick of the bookseller. Usher’s work was solemnly presented by archbishop Abbot to king James, as the eminent first fruits of the college of Dublin.

The same year, 1612, upon his return to Ireland, he married Phoebe, only daughter of Dr. Luke Challoner, who died this year April the 12th, and in his last will recommended our author to his daughter for a husband, if she was inclined to marry. In 1615 there was a parliament held at Dublin, and a convocation of the clergy, in which were composed certain articles relating to the doctrine and discipline of the church. These articles were drawn up by Usher, and signed by archbishop Jones, then lord chancellor of Ireland, and speaker of the house of bishops in convocation, by order from James I, in his majesty’s name. Among these articles, which amount to the number of one hundred and four, besides asserting the doctrine of predestination and reprobation in the strongest terms, one of them professes that there is but one catholic church, out of which there is no salvation; and another maintains thut the sabbath-day ought to be kept holy. Upon these accounts Dr. Heylin called the passing of these articles an absolute plot of the Sabbatarians and Calvinists in England to make themselves so strong a party in Ireland as to obtain what they pleased in this convocation. Our author was well known to be a strong asserter of the predestinarian principles; and being besides of opinion that episcopacy was not a distinct order, but only a different degree from that of presbyters, he certainly cannot be exculpated from the charge of puritanism. However, as he always warmly asserted the king’s supremacy, and the episcopal form of church government established, and all the discipline of it, it has been said that all the objections to him, as inclined to puritanism, were the effect of party, the church beginning about this time to be divided between the Calvinistic and Arminiau principles upon the quinquarticular controversy. Dr. Parr tells us, his enemies were of no great repute for learning and worth; and that our author, hearing of their attempts to deprive him of his majesty’s favour, procured a letter from the lord deputy and council of Ireland to the privy council in England, in defence of his principles, which he brought over to England in 1619, and satisfied his majesty so well upon that point, that in 1620 he promoted him to the bishopric of Meath. In November 1622 he made a speech in the castle-chamber at Dublin upon the censuring of certain officers, concerning the lawfulness of taking, and the danger of refusing, the oath of supremacy; which pleased king James so well that he wrote him a letter of thanks for it. In 1623 he was constituted a privy counsellor of Ireland, and made another voyage to England, in order to collect materials for a work concerning the antiquities of the churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which the king himself had employed him to write and soon afterhis return to Ireland was engaged in answering the challenge of Malone, an Irish Jesuit of the college of Louvain.

He was again in England, when king James, just before he died, advanced him to the archbishopric of Armagh; but, as he was preparing to return to Ireland, he was seized with a quartan ague, which detained him nine months. Before he left England he had a disputation with a popish priest at Drayton in Northamptonshire, the seat of lord Mordaunt, afterwards earl of Peterborough. He was scarce recovered from his ague, when this lord Mordaunt, then a zealous Roman catholic, being very desirous to bring his lady into the pale of that church, cpncluded that there could be no better or more certain way than to procure a disputation to be held between two learned and principal persons, one of each side, at which his lady should be present. In that resolution he chose, for the champion of his own cause, the Jesuit Beaumont, whose true name was Rookwood, being brother to that Rookwood who was executed for the gunpowder treason. Against this antagonist lady Peterborough chose our primate, who, notwithstanding his health was not sufficiently confirmed to engage in such a task, yet from the ardent zeal for the reformed doctrine with which he was constantly animated, and to save a soul from falling into the wiles of an artful Jesuit, he did not refuse to comply with her ladyship’s request. The place appointed for holding the disputation was my lord’s seat at Drayton, a place very proper for the business, as being furnished with a most copious library of the writings of all the ancient fathers of the church, which were ready at hand, if it should happen that any of them should be re-> ferred to in the engagement. The heads of the dispute were agreed to be upon transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, of images, and the perpetual visibility of the church. After it had been held for three days, five hours each day, in which our primate sustained the part of respondent, that office for the fourth day lay upon Beaumont, according to the regulation settled by himself. But he sent a letter to the baron, with an excuse, alleging, “that all the arguments which he had formed had slipt out of his memory, nor was he able by any effort to recollect them, imputing the cause of the misfortune to a just judgment of God upon him, for undertaking of his own accord, without the licence of his superiors, to engage in a dispute with a person of so great eminence and learning as the primate.” Such a shameful tergiversation sunk deeply into the mind of lord Mordaunt, so that, after some conferences with the primate, he renounced popery, and Cod­tinued in the profession of the protestant faith to the end of his life.

This account is given in the life of our archbishop by Dr. Nicholas Bernard, who says he had it from an eye and ear witness. And it is in a great measure confirmed by the reproach thrown upon Beaumont by Chaloner, a secular priest, who in a piece wrote against the Jesuit “admonishes him to beware of Drayton-house, lest he should there chance to light upon another Usher, and be again put to flight, to the great disgrace both of himself and his profession.” As to the primate, the eminent service done by this disputation to lady Peterborough could not but be very sensibly felt by her; and that it was so, she gave his grace sufficient proofs in that extraordinary kindness and respect which she shewed to him all his life after.

In the administration of his archbishopric Usher acted, as he had acted in every other station, in a most exemplary manner; and vigorously opposed the design of granting a more full toleration to the Irish papists. An assembly of the whole nation, both papists and protestants, had been called by the then lord deputy Falkland, for the consideration of that point; when the bishops, by the lord primate’s invitation, met first at his house, and both he and they subscribed a protestation against a toleration of popery. About the same time, observing the increase of Arminianism, which he considered as a very dangerous doctrine, he employed some time in searching into the origin of the predestinarian controversy; and meeting with a curiosity upon that subject he published it, in 1631, at Dublin, 4to, under the title “Goteschalci et predestinarianse controversial ab eo motae historia,” which is said to have been the first Latin book ever printed in Ireland. He published another work in 1632, concerning the ancient Irish church, entitled “Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge,” a collection of letters out of several ancient manuscripts, and other authors, to and from. Irish bishops and monks, from anno 592 to 1180, concerning the affairs of the Irish church; which shew the great esteem, as well for learning as piety, in which the bishops and clergy of that church were held both at Rome, France, England, and elsewhere: with several matters relating to the great controversies of those times about the keeping of Easter, and also every thing relating to the ecclesiastical discipline aod jurisdiction of the church of that kingdom.

In 1634, the parliament of Ireland being ready to meet, there arose a dispute between the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin concerning precedence; but Usher asserted his right with such clearness and evidence that the point was determined in his favour. The convocation meeting at the same time with the parliament, he bad the principal hand in composing and establishing the Irish canons, in which the liberties of that church were maintained by him against Dr. Bramhall (See Bramhall), who was for the English canons, and was probably influenced by archbishop Laud. For when they were passed in convocation, Laud thus wrote to Usher: “For your canons, to speak truth, and with liberty and freedom, though I cannot but think the English canons entire (especially with some amendments) would have done better, yet since you and that church have thought otherwise, I do very easily submit to it.” His grace afterwards writes thus: “As for the particular about subscription, I think you have couched that very well, since, as it seems, there was some necessity to carry that article closely; and God forbid you should upon any occasion roll back upon your former controversy about the articles.” To explain his grace’s meaning, it must be observed, that those canons of the thirty-nine articles of the church of England were received, and declared to be the confession of the faith of the church of Ireland, to which every clergyman was obliged to subscribe. Upon which Dr. Heylin asserted, that the Irish articles of 1615 above mentioned were now repealed. But he recalled this error when he found (the truth) that the Irish articles were still retained and confirmed in these very canons. The doctor indeed observed, that the inconsistency of the several articles proved the virtual repeal of the Irish ones: yet it is plain that this was not so understood at that time, nor for several years after, since both the primate and all the rest of the Irish bishops, at all ordinations, took the subscription of the party ordained to both sets of articles, till the Irish rebellion put a stop to all ordinations. However, since the restoratiop of king Charles Ji. a subscription only to. the thirty-nine articles of the church of England is required.

All this while he kept a correspondence in every country for the advancement of learning, and procured in 1634 a very good copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the East; besides one of the Old Testament in Syriac, and other valuable manuscripts. It was one of the first of those Pentateuchs that ever were brought into these western parts of Europe, as Mr. Selden and Dr. Walton acknowledge; and the Syriac Testament was much more perfect than had hitherto been seen in these parts. The other manuscripts were procured by the means of one Mr. Davies, then a merchant at Aleppo. The archbishop collated the Samaritan with the Hebrew, and marked the differences, after which he intended it for the library of sir Robert Cotton. Bat this, as well as the other manuscripts, being borrowed of him by Dr. Walton, and made use of by hhn in the edition of the Polyglot Bible, were not recovered out of the hands of that bishop’s executors till 1686, and are novy in the Bodleian library. And notwithstanding the necessaryavocations in the discharge of his episcopal office, he prosecuted his studies with indefatigable diligence, the fruits of which appeared in 1638, when he pablished at Dublin, in 4to, his “Emmanuel, or a treatise on the Incarnation of the Son of God;” which was followed by his “Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates” in the ensuing year. This history contains a most exact account of the British church: From the first planting of Christianity in twenty years after our Saviour’s crucifixion, he brings it down both in Britain and Ireland, to the end of the seventh century. The piece was of great service, particularly to Dr. Lloyd and bishop Stillingfleet, his followers upon the same subject.

In the beginning of 1640 he came into England with his family, intending (as before) to return in a year or two at farthest. Soon after his arrival he went to Oxford for the more convenience of pursuing his studies: but these were unhappily interrupted by the urgent necessity of the times, which put him upon writing some pieces that were published at Oxford in 1641, on the subject of episcopacy: These were, 1. “The Judgment of Dr. Reynolds concerning the original of Episcopacy defended.” 2. “The Original of Bishops, or a chorographical and-historical disquisition touching the Lydian and proconsular Asia, and the seven metropolitan churches contained therein.” The design of this treatise is to prove, from Acts xix. 17, supported by Rev. ii. 1. and confirmed by ecclesiastical history, that bishops and metropolitans were instituted by the apostles; meaning only with regard to their superiority in degree; for he did not hold episcopacy to be a superior order to presbytery. He also endeavours to prove that the bishop of Ephesus was not only the metropolitan of the proconsular Asia, but the primate, or exarch, of all the provinces that were comprehended within the compass of the whole Asian diocese; and that he acted suitably to the patriarchal jurisdiction, which was in effect conferred upon him, In the prosecution of the argument he shews, 1. That the stars described in the Revelations are the angels of the seven churches. 2. That these angels were the several bishops of those churches, and not the whole college of presbyters. 3. That each of these seven churches was at that time a metropolis. 4. That these bishops were ordained by the apostles as constant permanent officers in the church, and so in a sortjwe (Tivino, not to be dispensed with except in cases of necessity. These tracts were printed, with others on the same subject, under the title “Certain brief Treatises,” &c. Oxf. 1641, 4to. It was about this, time also that he drew up his treatise on “The Power of the Prince and the Obedience of the Subject,” which, as we have mentioned in our account of his grandson, James Tyrrell, was published after the restoration. Archbishop Usher was a man of too much note, and of too high a station, not to. be < deeply involved in and affected with the succeeding troubles. He is charged by some writers with having advised the king to consent to the bill against the earl of Stratford, but is cleared by others; and Dr. Parr tells us, that when the primate lay extremely ill, and expected death at St. Donate’s castle in 164-5, he asked his grace concerning it, who flatly denied it, and said it was wrongfully laid to his charge; for, that he neither advised nor approved it. In the rebellion in Ireland he was plundered of everything except his library and some furniture in his house at Drogheda, whence the library was conveyed to England. On this the king conferred on him the bishopric of Carlisle, to be holden in commendam; the revenues of which, however, were reduced to almost nothing by the Scots and English armies quartering upon it. When all the lands belonging to the English bishoprics were seized by the parliament, they voted him a pension of 400l. per annum; which yet he never received above once or twice. It is said that he was invited into France by cardinal Richelieu, with a promise of the free exercise of his religion, and a considerable pension; and likewise by the States of Holland, who offered him the place of honorary professor at Leyden. Dr. Smith, one of his biographers, seems to doubt these facts, especially the first. But Dr. Parr thinks it not unlikely, from an instance of respect which Richelieu had before shewn to the archbishop, by sending him, in return for a copy of the “Antiquity of the British Churches,” which the author had presented to his eminence, a letter of much kindness and esteem, accompanied with a gold medal, which Dr. Bernard says “is still preserved.” It was in possession of the Tyrrell family in 1738, and was then exhibited to the society of antiquaries. The date is 1631. In 1642 the archbishop removed to Oxford, not lon before the king came thither, and preached every Sunday at some of the churches, principally All Saints. In 1643 he was nominated one of the assembly of divines at Westminster, but refused to sit among them: and this, together with some of his sermons at Oxford, in which he had spoke against their authority, giving offence to the parliament, they ordered his library to be seized, and it would have been sold, had not Dr. Featly, who sat among those divines while his heart was with the church and king, obtained it by means of Mr. Selden for his own use, and so secured it to the right owner, or at least the greater part, but some valuable articles were stolen, and never recovered. In 1644 he published at Oxford his valuable edition of “Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae.”

The king’s affairs declining, and Oxford being threatened with a siege, he left that city, and retired to Cardiff, in Wales, to the house of sir Timothy Tyrrell, who had married his only daughter, and who was then governor and general of the ordnance. He continued six months here in tranquillity, prosecuting his studies, particularly his “Annals,” and then went to the castle of St. Donate, whither he was invited by the lady dowager Stradling; but in his journey thither fell into the hands of the mountaineers, who took away his books and papers; yet these were, by the kindness of the gentlemen and clergy of that country, in a great measure restored. Before this had been achieved, and while his Mss, the labour of so many years, seemed irrecoverable, he was observed to be more concerned than at all his former sufferings. At St. Donate’s he found an excellent library: but a fit of sickness prevented him from making all the use of it he proposed. His sickness was of an extraordinary nature; it was at first a suppression of urine, with extremity of torture, ending in a violent bleeding at the nose for near forty hours, without any intermission; but when he was every moment expected to die, the bleeding stopped, and he gradually recovered. He went to London in 1646, upon an invitation from the countess of Peterborough to make her house his home and, in 1647, was chosen preacher of Lincoln’s Inn, This society ordered him handsome lodgings, ready furnished, and several rooms for his library, which was about this time brought up from Chester, being almost all the remains of his substance that had escaped the rebels. Mr. (afterwards lord chief justice) Hale was then a bencher of the society, and probably had the chief hand in procuring him this place; and it happened that the society was well rewarded for it by that treasure lodged in this library by the lord chief justice in four volumes, which were extracted from the primate’s manuscripts; of which Dr. Parr has subjoined to his Life of the primate a catalogue, consisting of thirty-three very curious books. Here the primate constantly preached all term-time for almost eight years, till at last, his eye-sight and teeth beginning to fail him, he could not well be heard in so large a congregation, and was forced to quit this place about a year and a half 'before his death, to the great regret of the society. In the mean time, amidst all the convulsions of the times, he continued his studies, and the year he was chosen to Lincoln’s Inn, published his treatise “De Romanae Ecclesiae Symbol^,” which he followed by his “Dissertatio de Macedonum et Asianorum anno solari” in the beginning of 1648, 8vo. la this tract, besides fixing the exact time of St. Polycarp’s martyrdom, he compares the Grecian and Macedonian months with the Julian and other nations; and, having laid down the method and disposition of the Macedonian and Asiatic year, he adds rules for finding out the cycles of the sun and moon, and Easter for ever, with several curious accounts of the celestial motions according to the ancient Greek astronomers, Melon, Calippus, Eudoxus, and others. To which is annexed an Ephemeris, or entire Greek and Roman calendar for the whole year, with the rising and setting of the stars in that climate.

About this time he was sent for to the Isle of Wight by his majesty, to assist him in treating with the parliament upon the point of episcopacy; when he proposed an expedient, which he called “Presbyterian and Episcopal Government conjoined,” which the king approved as the likeliest means of reconciling the then differences. But no proposals, how moderate soever, were able to satisfy the presbyterians, till his majesty was taken out of their hands by the army, and brought to the scaffold, the sight of which struck our primate with the utmost horror. The countess of Peterborough’s house, where the primate then lived, being exactly opposite to Charing Cross, several of the family, at the time of the king’s execution, went up to the leads of the house, which commanded a full view of Whitehall; and, as soon as his majesty came upon the scaffold, some of them went down and told the primate, asking him it' he would not see the king once more before he was put to death. Though unwilling at first, yet he was persuaded at length to go up, as well out of a desire to see the king once again, as from curiosity, since he could scarce believe what they told him. When he came upon the leads his majesty was in his speech. The primate stood still, and said nothing, but sighed; and, lifting his hands and eyes full of tears towards heaven, seemed to pray earnestly. But when the king had done speaking, and had taken off“his cloaths and doublet, and stood stript in his waistcoat, and the executioners in vizards began to put up the king’s hair, he grew pale, and would have fainted if he had not been immediately carried off. He kept the 30th of January as a private fast as long as he lived. In 1650 he published the first part of his” Annals of the Old Testament,“and the second in. 1654. The two parts were printed together, under the title of” Annales Veteris 11 Novi Testament!,“at Paris, 1673, and at Geneva, 1722, in folio. In 1652 he published his” Epistola ad Ludovicum Capellum de variantibus textus Hebraici lectionibu*,*' Lond. 1640.

His great reputation having excited in Cromwell a curiosity to see him, the primate, upon the usurper’s intimation of it to him, went, and was received with great civility: Cromwell made him also many promises, but never performed them, and it was on this occasion that the primate predicted the restoration, in a conversation with Dr. Parr, his biographer. “This false man hath broken his word with me, and refuses to perform what he promised. Well, he will have little cause to glory in his wickedness; for he will not continue long. The king will return: Though I shall not live to see it, you may. The government, both in church and state, is in confusion. The papists are advancing their projects, and making such advantages as will hardly be prevented.” The same year, 1654, he published his last piece, 6t De Graeca Septuaginta Interpretum verum Syntagma," &c. and preached Mr. Selden’s funeralsermon in the Temple-church. On March 20, 1655-6, he was taken ill, and died the day following, in the countess of Peterborough’s house at Kyegate in Surrey. Though he was seventy-six, his illness proved to be a pleurisy: for, upon opening his body, a great deal of coagulated blood was found settled in his left side. Preparations were making to bury him privately; but Cromwell ordered him to be interred with great magnificence in Erasmus’s chapel in Westminster-abbey, the funeral service being performed according to the liturgy of the church of England. This was a great indulgence, but the usurper meant to make himself popular, knowing what a high reputation the deceased had among all orders of men yet was politic enough to throw the expence of the funeral upon his relations, who were ill able to bear it. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Nicolas Bernard, who had formerly been his chaplain, and was then preacher of Gray’s-inn: it was printed, and contains many particulars of his life, related with the caution then necessary.

Usher left his library, being the chief part of his property, as a portion to his only daughter, who had been the mother of a numerous offspring. It was first bought by the officers and soldiers of Cromwell’s army in Ireland, and lodged in Dublin-castle, where it lay, though not without being much pillaged, till the restoration; which bringing it into the possession of king Charles II. he gave it, according to the primate’s first intention, to Dublincollege, where it now remains. This, in truth, had been the primate’s first intention; but, upon the loss of every thing else except his books, he was compelled to consider the necessities of his family, his daughter having before had nothing from him except some pieces of gold presented to him by Mr. Selden’s executors and other pqrsons of quality. The library consisted of ten thousand volumes printed and manuscript, and cost the primate many thousand pounds. Both the king of Denmark and cardinal Mazarine offered a good price for it by their agents here; but the executors were forbidden, by an order from Oliver and his council, to sell it to any one without his consent; so it was at last bought by the soldiers and officers of the then army in Ireland, who, out of emulation to the former noble action of queen Elizabeth’s army, were incited by some men of public spirit to the like performance, and they had it for much less than the real worth, or what had been offered for it before by the agents above mentioned. They had also with it all the manuscripts which were not of his own hand-writing, and a choice though not numerous collection of ancient coins. But, when this library was carried over into Ireland, the usurper and his son, who then commanded in chief there, would not bestow it upon the college, lest perhaps the gift should not appear so considerable there as it would do by itself; and therefore they gave out that they intended it for a new college or hall which they said they intended to build and endow. But it proved that, as these were not times, so they were not persons capable of any such noble or pious work; and this library lay in the castle of Dublin till Cromwell’s death; and, during the anarchy and confusion that followed, the rooms where it was kept being left open, many of the books, and most of the best manuscripts, were stolen away, or else embezzled by those that were intrusted with them.

Archbishop Usher was tall, well-shaped, and walked upright to the last. His hair was b'rown, his complexion sanguine, his countenance full of good-nature as well as gravity: yet, Dr. Parr says, the air of his face was hard to hit, and that, though many pictures were taken of him, he never saw but one like him, which was done by sir Peter Lely. He was a man who abounded in all graces, moral as well as spiritual; which, joined with the greatest abilities and learning, made him upon the whole a very complete character. Among his Mss. were many notes and observations upon the writings and characters of the fathers and ecclesiastical authors, which he designed as the foundation of a large and elaborate work, to be called “The.ologica Bibliotheca;” and this was indeed, of all his works, that which, he had most set his heart upon: yet the calamities of the times would not suffer him to finish it. He left these papers, however, to Dr. Gerard Langbaine, proTost of Queen’s college, as the only man on whose learning as well as friendship he could rely, to render them fit for the press: but Langbaine, while pursuing his task in the public library, got so severe a cold, that he died in 1657; and nothing farther appears to have been done, though Dr. Fell afterwards made some attempts to get it finished. A copy of it is lodged ip the Bodleian library. The works from his Mss. published after his death, were: 1. “Chronologia sacra seu Annorum & wadoncltcts Patriarcharum, isapoMiois Israelitarum in Ægypto Annorum etiamJudicum,RegumJudae Israelis, ^o3fi|<jChronologica,” Oxford, 166Q, in 4to, published by Dr. Thomas Barlow,. afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Reprinted with the Annals of the Old and New Testament at Geneva, in 1722, folio. This chronology is imperfect, the author dying while he was engaged in it. He proposed to have subjoined to it a tract “De primitive & veterurn Hebraeorum Kalendario.” 2. A collection of piece’s published by Dr. Nicholas Bernard at London, in 1658, 8vo, under the title of “The Judgment of the late Archbishop,” &c. 3. Dr. Bernard published likewise at London in 1659 our author’s “Judgment and sense of the present See of Rome from Apocal. xviii. 4.” 4. “The power of the prince and obedience of the subject stated;” with a preface by Dr. Robert Sanderson, published by James Tyrrell, esq. grandson to our author, at London, 1661. 5. A volume of “Sermons,” preached at Oxford before his majesty, and elsewhere. 6. “Historia Dogmatica Controversise inter Orthodoxos & Pontificios de Scripturis & sacris Vernaculis. Accessere ejusdem Dissertationes duoe de Pseudo-Dionysii scriptis & de Epistola ad Laodicenos. Descripsit, digessit, & Notis atque Auctario locupletavit Henricus Wharton,” London, 16yO, 4to. 7. “A Collection of three hundred Letters written to James Usher lord archbishop of Armagh, and most of the eminentest persons for piety and learning in his time both in England and beyond the seas. Collected and published from original copies under their own hands by Richard Parr, D. D. his lordship’s chaplain at the time of his death, uith whom the care of all his papers were intrusted by his lordship,” London, 1686, folio. To this Dr. Parr has prefixed the life of the archbishop, collected from authentic documents, and with the assistance of the Tyrrell family, his only descendants. This volume forms the best monument yet erected to his memory, and from the very names of his correspondents, gives us a high ictea of the respect in which he was held, and the high place he filled in the literary world.

, an ingenious writer, was the son of a gentleman-farmer in the county of Dublin, where he was born about 1720. He was descended from the venerable prelate of whom we have just given an account, but was of a Roman catholic family. He received a good classical education, though with no view to any of the learned professious. When grown up, he became a farmer, in imitation of his father, but after some years’ experience, had little success, and having sold his farm, stock, &c. settled for some time as a linen-draper in Dublin: for this business, however, he seems to have been as little qualified as for the other, and was a great loser. In truth he had that secret love of literature about him which generally inspired a train of thought not very compatible with the attention which trade requires: and finding himself, after some years, a widower with a family of four children, and but little prospect of providing for them in any business, he took orders in the church of Rome, sent his three sons for education to the college of Lombard in Paris, and his daughter to a monastery, where she soon after died. He then came to London, and while revolving plans for his support, and the education of his children, Mr. Molloy, an Irish gentleman, who had formerly been a political writer against sir Robert Walpole, died, and left him a legacy of three hundred pounds. With this money Mr. Usher thought of setting up a school, as the most likely way of providing for his sons; and with this view he communicated his intentions to the late Mr. John Walker, author of the Pronouncing Dictionary, and many other approved ' works on the construction and elegance of the English language. Mr. Walker not only approved the plan, but joined him as a partner in the business, and they opened a school under this firm at Kensington Gravel-pits. Mr. Usher’s acquaintance with Mr. Walker commenced during the former’s excursions from Dublin to Bristol, which latter place Mr. Walker’s business led him to visit occasionally. Their acquaintance soon grew into a friendship, which continued unbroken and undiminished to the close of Mr. Usher’s life. But the school these gentlemen were embarked in, did not altogether answer Mr. Walker’s purposes. Whether the profits were too little to divide, or whether he thought he could -do better as a private teacher, it is difficult to say; but Mr. Walker, after trying it for some time, quitted the connection, and commenced a private teacher, which he very successfully continued to the last. They parted, however, with the same cordiality they commenced, and the civilities and friendships of life were mutually continued.

Mr. Usher being now sole master of the school, he cultivated it with diligence and ability, and with tolerable success, for about four years; when he died of a consumption, at the age of fifty-two, in 1772. Mr. Usher’s first publication was a small pamphlet called “A New System of Philosophy,” in which he censures Locke, as leaning too much towards naturalism, a doctrine which he considered as the bane of every thing sublime, elegant, and noble. He next wrote some letters in the Public Ledger, signed “A Free Thinker” in which he shews the inconsistency and impolicy of the persecutions at that time going on against the Roman catholics. His next publication was entitled “Clio, or a discourse on Taste, addressed to a young lady;” in which he endeavours to prove, that there is in several respects an universal standard of taste in the soul of man, which, though it may be depraved or corrupted by education and habit, can never be totally eradicated. To this very ingenious essay, which is touched with elegance and observation, though, perhaps, with too much refinement, he afterwards added “An Introduction to the Theory of the Human Mind,” intended as a refutation of those deists who attack revealed religion under an apparent appeal to philosophy, but, by the occasional shifting of principles and systems, and a dexterous use of equivocal language, draw the dispute into a kind of labyrinth, in which the retreats are endless, and the victory always incomplete.

, a learned botanist, was born in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, May 25, 1642; educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby; whence he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge; B. A. 1662; M. A. 1666; LL. D. Com. Reg. 1682; and was master of the grammar school at Enfield about 1670. He resided in the old manor-house in that town called Queen Elizabeth’s Palace; and, being much attached to the study of botany, had a very curious garden there; and planted, among other trees, a cedar of Libanus, which (till within these few years) was one of the finest in the kingdom, measuring (in October 1793) 12 feet in the girth. In an account of the most remarkable gardens, near London in 1691, by J. Gibson, printed in the Archaeologia, vol. XII. p. 188, Dr. Uvedale is said to have “the greatest and choicest collection of exotics that perhaps was any where in this land.” Dr. Pulteney, hi his brief memoirs of Dr. Leonard Plukenet, says, “I regret that I cannot collect any material anecdotes relating to his friend and fellow collegian Dr. Uvedale, of whom Plukenet ever speaks in a style which indicates that he held him in great esteem.” “The garden which he cultivated at Enfield appears to have been rich in exotic productions; and though he is not known among those who advanced the indigenous botany of Britain, yet his merit as a botanist, or his patronage of the society at large, was considerable enough to incline Petiver to apply his name to a new plant, which Miller retained in his Dictionary, but which has since passed into the genus Polymnia, of the Linnsean system; the author of which has nevertheless retained Uvedalia, as the trivial name.” In the British Museum (Bibl. Sloan. 4064, Plut. 28 F.) are fifteen letters from him to sir Hans Sloane; also letters from him to Dr. Sherard, and Mr. James Petiver. Dryden, Dr. Uredale, and other learned men, having agreed to translate Plutarch’s Lives from the original Greek, Dr. Uvedale translated the Life of Dion, and the work was published in 1684. A whole length portrait of him, and another of his wife, were in the possession of the late admiral Uvedale, of Bosmere-house, Suffolk.

, a French poet of the lower order, was born January 1720, at Ham in Picardy, and carried to Paris, at five years old, by his father, a small tradesman, but he was so headstrong, wild, and dissipated in his youth, that nothing could make him attend to literature. This his biographers seem willing to consider as an advantage, and as giving a degree of originality to his works; yet they tell us that he afterwards read all the best French books. He invented a new species of poetry, which his countrymen called le genre Poissard (the Billingsgate style). In bringing this style to perfection, he carefully studied the manners of the fish-women, and their dialect, and introduced it in his most popular performances, and obtained from his admirers the title of the Teniers of poetry. His various Poissard operas, songs, parodies, &c. had great success but were mostly recommended by his manner of reciting or singing them; for then, say our authorities, it was not imitation, it was nature herself. But this nature, this Poissard style, this freedom of phrase, and licentious expressions, render the works of Vad6 very dangerous, and always disgusting to hearers of taste. They also exposed him to all the temptations of dissolute company; and his passion for gaming, convivial pleasures, and women, shortened his clays. He was become sensible of his errors, and had resolved to be wiser and better, but his resolution came late, and he was cut off in his thirty-seventh year, July 4, 1757. His collected works were published in 1758, 4 vols. 8vo, and since, in 1796, in 4to, with plates, but apparently only a selection, and probably as much as modern taste could bear.

, in German Von Watte, one of the most learned men of his nation or time, was born at St. Gal, Nov. 29, 1484, of which city his father, Joachim Von Watte, was a senator. After some education at home he was sent to Vienna to pursue the higher studies, but for some time entered more into the gaieties of the place, and was distinguished particularly for his quarrels and his duels, until by the sensible and affectionate remonstrances of a merchant of that city, to whose care his father had confided him, he was induced to devote his whole time and attention to books, and never relapsed into his former follies. When he had acquired a competent share of learning he wished to relieve his father from any farther expence, and with that honourable view taught a school at Villach, in Carinthia; but finding this place too remote from literary society, he returned to Vienna, and in a short time was chosen professor of the belles lettres, and acquitted himself with such credit, and gained such reputation by some poetry which he published, that the emperor Maximilian I. honoured him with the laurel crown at Lintz in 1514. After some hesitation between law and physic, both of which he had studied, he determined in favour of the latter, as a profession, and took his doctor’s degree at Vienna in 1518. He appears to have practised in that city, and afterwards at St. Gal, until the controversies arose respecting the reformation. After examining the arguments of the contending parties, he embraced the cause of the reformers; and besides many writings in favour of their principles, befriended them in his rank of senator, to which he had been raised. In 1526 he was farther promoted to the dignity of consul of St. Gal, the duties of which he performed so much to the satisfaction of his constituents that he was re-elected to the same office seven times. He died April 6, 1551, in his sixty-sixth year. He bequeathed his books to the senate of St. Gal, which were ordered to be placed in the public library of the city, with an inscription, honourable both to his character and talents. The latter were very extensive, for he was well versed and wrote well on mathematics, geography, philosophy, and medicine. He was also a good Latin poet, and, above all, a sound divine and an able controversial writer. Joseph Scaliger places him among the most learned men of Germany. He was intimate with our illustrious prelate, archbishop Cranmer, but preceded him in some of the doctrines of the reformation. About 1536 he wrote a book entitled “Aphorismorum libri sex de consideratione Eucharistiae,” &c. which was levelled at the popish doctrine of the corporal presence, and thinking it a proper work for the archbishop to patronize, presented it to him; but Cranmer had not yet considered the question in that view, and therefore informed Vadian that his book had not made a convert of him, and that he was hurt with the idea of being thought the patron of such unscriptural opinions. Vadian therefore pursued the subject at home, and wrote two more volumes on it. The only medical work he published was his “Consilium contra Pestem, Basil, 1546, 4to. Those by which he is best known in the learned world, are, 1. A collection of remarks on various Latin authors, in his” Epistola responsoria ad Rudulphi Agricolas epistolam,“ibid. 1515, 4to. 2. His edition of” Pomponius Mela,“first printed at Vienna in 1518, fol. and often reprinted. 3.” Scholia qoaedam in C. Plinii de Nat. Hist, librum secundum,“Basil, 153 1, fol. 4.” Chronologia Ablmtum Monasterii St.Galli“”De obscuris verborum significationibus epistola;“” Farrago antiquitatum Alamannicarum,“&c. and some other treatises, which are inserted in Goldnst’s” Alamanniae Scnptores."

, a learned Danish botanist, was born at Bergen in Norway, Oct. 10, 1749. He was educated first at Bergen, and afterwards at the university of Copenhagen, where he passed a year in attending the lectures of Zoega, on the plants of the botanical garden. After applying to the same study in Norway for three years, he went in 1769 to Upsal, where he became acquainted with Linnæus. In 1774 he returned to Copenhagen, and continued to pursue his favourite study of natural history until 1779, when he was appointed lecturer in the botanical garden. In 1783, by the king’s order he commenced his travels through various parts of Europe, and visited England, where he formed an acquaintance and attracted the esteem of sir Joseph Banks, Mr. Dryander, &c. On his return in 1785, he was honoured with the title of professor, and appointed to prepare a “Flora Danica,” for which purpose he went to Norway, and investigated every spot where materials for this work could be found.

In 1789 he was, by the Copenhagen society of natural history, appointed its first professor, and in 1799-1800 he made, at the expence of government, another journey to Paris and Holland, where he was received with the highest marks of esteem. On his return he was made professor of botany at the botanical garden, the plants of which were classed under his snperintendance, and a catalogue of them was printed. In 1804 he published his “Enumeratio Plantariwu,” a part of which only he lived to see printed, as he died in December of the same year at Copenhagen, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. Though botany was his chief pursuit, he did not neglect the other branches of natural history. His lectures, his different treatises on that subject, and his instructive collections, prove his knowledge of zoology to have been very extensive. Part of “Zoologia Danica,” still in ms, is by him and of the continuation of“Ascani Icones” he also supplied a part. Cuvier received from him many contributions to the natural history of quadrupeds, and Fabricius to that of insects.

By herborising himself from the extremity of Norway to Portugal, in several islands of the Mediterranean, and io Barbary, he had already collected a considerable herbarium, which was greatly augmented by the liberality of his friends. He also collected an uncommonly complete botanical library.

His writings are, besides the “Flora Danica,” 6 vols. and a great many tracts in the memoirs of the Society of Natural History, “Symbolse Botanicae,” 3 vols. “Ecloga; Americanae,” 2 vols. “Decades Iconum,” 3 vols. and last of all, “Enumeratio Plantarum vel ab ipso vel ab aliis observatarum,” Hafniee, 1804 1S07, 2 vols. 8vo. Shortly before his death, Mr. Vahl received a letter from the governors of the fund “Ad Usos Publicos,” stating in very flattering expressions, that the king, in consideration of his persevering and honourable efforts towards the improvement of botany, had been pleased most graciously to grant him, out of that fund, a gratification of 500 rix-dollars, as an encouragement to the continuation of his “Enumeratio Plantarum.” His great herbarium and botanical library, comprising nearly 3000 volumes, and his manuscripts, have been purchased by the Danish government, for 3000 rixdollars, and an annuity of 400 rix-dollars to his widow, and 100 rix-dollars to each of his six surviving children, for life.

, a great medallist, to whom France was indebted for the science of medals, and Lewis XIV. for one half of his cabinet, was born at Beauvais, May the 24th, 1632. He lost his father when he was three years old, and fell under the care of an uncle, a brother of his mother, who educated him, and made him his heir. He was trained with a view of succeeding to a magistracy which his uncle possessed; but, being too young for this when his uncle died, he changed his views, and applied himself to physic, in which faculty he was admitted doctor at twenty-four. He had as yet discovered no particular inclination for the study of medals; but an occasion now presented itself, which induced him to engage in it. A farmer in the neighbourhood of Beauvais found a great quantity of ancient medals, and carried them to Mr. Vaiilant, who examined them at first slightly and in a cursory way, but afterwards sat down to study them with attention; and his taste for medals increased with the discoveries he made of their nature and use, till he devoted himself almost entirely to them.

Being called to Paris about business, he paid a visit to Mr. Seguin, who had a fine cabinet of medals, and was also greatly attached to this study. Seguin, from their conferences, soon perceived the superior genius of Vaillaiu, which seemed to him to promise much in a science yet in its infancy; and pressed him to make himself a little more known. He accordingly visited some antiquaries of reputation in medailic science; till at length, falling under the notice of the minister Colbert, he received a commission to travel through Italy, Sicily, and Greece, in quest of medals proper for the king’s cabinet; and after spending some years in this pursuit, returned with as many medals as made the king’s cabinet superior to any one in Europe, though great additions have been made to it since. Colbert engaged him to travel a second time; and accordingly, in 1674, he went and embarked at Marseilles with several other gentlemen, who proposed, as well as himself, to be at Rome at the approaching jubilee. But unfortunately, on the second day of their sailing, they were captured by an Algerine corsair; and it was not until a slavery of near five months, that Vaillant was permitted to return to France, and strong remonstrances having been made by the French court, he recovered at the same time twenty gold medals which had been taken from him. He then embarked in a vessel bound for Marseilles, and was carried on with a favourable wind for two days, when another corsair appeared, which, in spite of all the sail they could make, bore down upon them within the reach of cannonshot. Vaillant, dreading the miseries of a fresh slavery, resolved, however, to secure the medals which he had received at Algiers, and had recourse to the strange expedient of swallowing them. But a sudden turn of the wind freed them from this adversary, and cast them upon the coasts of Catalonia; where, after expecting to run aground every moment, they at length fell among the sands at the mouth of the Rhone. Vailiant got on shore in a skiff, but felt himself extremely incommoded with the medals he had swallowed, of which, however, nature afterwards relieved him.

Upon his arrival at Paris, he received fresh instructions, and made another and a more successful voyage. He penetrated into the very heart of Egypt and Persia, and there found new treasures, which made ample amends for all his fatigues and perils. He was greatly caressed and rewarded at his return. When Lewis XIV. gave a new form to the academy of inscriptions in 1701, Vaillant was at first made associate; and the year after pensionary, upon the death of M. Charpentier. He died of an apoplexy, October 23, 1706, in his 76th year. He had two wives, and by virtue of a dispensation from the pope had married two sisters, by whom he had several children, and one son. The first of 1m works was published at Paris in 1674, 1. “Numisroata imperatorum RomanoYum praestantiora a Julio Ceesare ad Posthninuni & tyrannos,” 4to. A second edition, with great additions, was printed 1694, in two volumes 4to; and afterwards a tnird. In this last he omitted a great number of medals which he had discovered to be spurious; but neglected to mention what cabinets each medal was to he found in, as he had done in the second edition, which has made the second generally preferred to it. 2. “Seleucidarnm imperium, seu historia regum Syriæ, ad fidem numismatutum accommodata,” Paris, 1681, 4to. This work throws much light upon an obscure part of ancient history, that of the kings of Syria, usually called Seleucides, from Seleucus, one of Alexander’s lieutenants, who founded that kingdom about 300 years before Christ. 3. “Numismata aerea imperatorum. Augustorirm, & Caesarum, in coloniis, rnunicipiis, & urbibus jure Latio donatis, ex omni mo.dula percussa,” Paris, 1688, 2 torn', folio. 4. “Numismata imperatdram & Csesarum, a populis Romanae ditionis GriEce loquentibus ex omni modulo percussa,” Paris, 1698, 4to. A second edition, enlarged with 700 medals, was printed at Amsterdam, 1700, in folio. 5. “Historia JPtolemasorum yEgypti regum ad fidem numismatum accommodata,” Amst. 1701, folio. 6. “Nummi antiqui familiarum Romanarum perpetuis interpretationibus illustrati,” Aaist. 1703, 12 tom, foilo. 7. “Arsacidarum impetium, sive regum Parthorum histoiia ad fidem numismatum accommodata,” Paris, 1725. 4to. 8. “Achaemenidarum imperium, sive” regum Ponti, Bosphori, Thracioe, & Bithynite historia, ad“fidem numismatum accommodata,” Paris, 1725, 4to. Besides these works, he was the author of some pieces wftich are printed in. the “Memoirs of the academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.”

, son of the preceding, was born at Rome in 16G5, while his father was upon his travels in quest of medals and antiques. He was brought to Beauvais in 1669, and at twelve years of age sent to Paris, where he was instructed by the Jesuits in the belles lettres and philosophy. He applied himself, as his father had done, to the study of physic, and was received doctor in that faculty at Paris in 1691. He was initiated into the science of medals, and would have shone like his father if his life had been spared; yet his merit was reputed very great, and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres in 1702. He died in 1708, about two years after his father, of an abscess in his head, which was supposed to have been occasioned by a fall. He wrote a professional tract on the virtues of coffee, and various dissertations on the subject of medallic history, and one on the Dii Cabiri.

, a distinguished botanist, was born May 26, 1669, at Vigny, near Pontoise. His first pursuits were various, having attained reputation as an organist, then as a surgeon, and afterwards as secretary to M. Fagon, chief physician to Louis XIV. Fagon appears to have given his talents the right direction, by placing him in the office of director of the royal garden, which he enriched with curious plants. Vaillant became afterwards professor and sub-demonstrator of plants in the abovementioned garden, keeper of the king’s cabinet of drugs, and a member of the academy of sciences. He died of an asthma, May 26, 1722, leaving a widow, but no children. His works are some excellent remarks on M. de Tournefort’s “Institutiones Rei herbariae” an essay on the structure of flowers, and the use of their various parts, Leyden, 1728, 4to, but rather too florid for philosophical narration “Botanicon Parisiense,” with plates, published by Boerhaave, Leyden, 1727, fol. When Vaillant found his health de*­clining, he was anxious to preserve his papers from oblivion, and had solicited Boerhaave to purchase and publish them. Our countryman, Dr. Sherard, who was then at Paris, negociated this business, and spent the greater part of the summer with Boerhaave, in reducing the manuscripts into order. To Sherard, therefore, principally, the learned owe the “Botanicon Parisiense,” to which is prefixed a Latin letter by Dr. Sherard, giving an account of this transaction.

, a French historian, was born in 1685, at Gaillac in Agenois. He was for some time king’s attorney in the country of the Albigenses, but in 1711 entered the Benedictine order in the priory of la Daurade at Toulouse. His studious turn, and taste for history, induced his superiors to send for him to Paris in 1713, where they employed him in writing the history of Languedoc with Claude de Vic. The first volume appeared 1730, and de Vic dying in 1734, the whole of this great work devolved on Vaissette, who executed it with success, and published the four other volumes. At the end of each are learned and curious notes, and throughout the whole he is candid and impartial, especially in speaking of the protestants. He had before written a small piece “On the Origin of the French Monarchy,” which was well received; and afterwards published an abridgment of his “History of Languedoc,” 1749, 6 vols. 12mo. Vaissette has also left a “Universal Geography,” 4 vols. 4to, and 12 vols. 12mo, which was formerly thought one of the best the French had, though not wholly free from errors. He died in the abbey of St. Germain-des-Pres’at Paris, April 10, 1756.

, a Spanish reformer of the sixteenth century, was of a noble family in Spain; and a soldier under Charles the Vth, who knighted him. After some years spent in a military life, he desired leave to retire; and when Charles inquired whether his request proceeded from disgust, his answer was, “It is necessary that a soldier, before his death, should give some time to religious meditation.*' He left his native country, and retired to Naples, where he became the head of a sect of the reformed, and many persons of great distinction attended his lectures. He was particularly connected with Bernard Ochin, Peter Martyr, and other learned men of great character amongst the reformers of that time; and he attacked, with success, many of the corruptions of the church of Rome. Thus far is collected from the old French preface to his” Considerations," and confirmed by Mr. Ferrar’s (the translator) account in a letter of Mr. George Herbert.

By some, Valdesso was thought to lean too much to the doctrines of the Unitarians, in opposition to the Trinitarian system. And this circumstance, we suppose, may account for a passage in Mr. George Herbert’s letter to Mr. Nicholas Ferrar concerning his translation of this work, which he earnestly desires may be published, notwithstanding some things which he does not approve. Mr. George Herbert was a conscientious Trinitarian; and, besides this, there are undoubtedly some passages in Valdesso, in which he seems to depreciate the authority of the Scriptures; which might give just cause of offence.

The French edition of Valdesso referred to above was published at Paris in 1565, and was taken from an Italian translation of the original Spanish: in which, it is said, were preserved, not only some of the idioms, but also many words of the Spanish original. Mr. Ferrar’s English translation was printed at Oxford in 1638, but without his name; and if it should be asked why Mr. Ferrar, who was perfect master of the Spanish, as well as the Italian language, chose to translate from a translation rather than the original, he himself has given the reason in his own preface: “These truly divine meditations of sir John Valdesso, a nobleman of Spain (who died almost a hundred years ago), having been so acceptable to pious Vergerius, to learned Caelius Secundus Curio, and to many other both French and Italian Protestants, that they have been translated out of the original Spanish copy, and printed three or four times in those languages; it seemeth to me a reasonable, and a charitable desire, to print them now in English, without any alteration at all from the Italian copy, the Spanish being either not extant, or not easy to be found.”

In a letter of Herbert’s he gives the following additional particulars of Valdesso: “John Valdesso was a Spaniard of great learning and virtue, much valued by Charles V. whom he had attended in all his wars. When he was grown old, and weary both of war and of the world, he took a proper opportunity to declare to the emperor his resolution to decline the military service, and betake himself to a quiet contemplative life, because, he said, there ought to be some vacancy of time between fighting and dying. It happened at that time the emperor himself had made, though not publicly declared, the same resolution. He therefore desired Valdesso to consider well what he had said, and conceal his purpose till they might have opportunity for a friendly discourse about it. This opportunity soon offered, and, after a pious and free discourse together, they agreed, that on a certain day they would publicly receive the sacrament. At which time the emperor appointed an eloquent friar to preach on the contempt of the world, and the happiness of a quiet contemplative life. After sermon, the emperor declared openly that the preacher had begotten in him a resolution to lay down his dignities, to forsake the world, and betake himself to a monastic life. And he pretended that he had also persuaded John Valdesso to do the like. Not long after they carried their resolutions into execution.”

The translation of the above work of Valdesso was printed at Oxford 1638, 8vo, and entitled “The hundred and ten Considerations of Signior John Valdesso, &c.” Subjoined is an epistle, written by Valdesso to lady Donna Julia de Gonzaga, to whom he dedicates “A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans.” It appears, that along with this commentary he sent to her all St. Paul’s epistles, translated from the Greek into the ordinary Castilian language. He says, that he had before translated the Psalms of David from the original Hebrew, for her use; and he promises to furnish her with the history of Christ in the same language, at such time and manner as shall please the “divine Majesty.”

In the mean time Valdesso had made many converts to the reformed opinions, until the Spanish Inquisition interfered, and either compelled his disciples to fly or to recant. He died at Naples in 1540. He wrote some commentaries on different parts of the Bible; but his “Considerations” are his principal work.

, is the name, real or assumed, of a celebrated alchymist, and one of the founders of modern chemistry. The few particulars we have of his life are so contradictory that many have supposed that no such person ever existed, and that the name Basil Valentine, which is composed of a Greek and Latin word, signifying a powerful king, was a disguise under which some adept rvished to conceal his real name, and at the same time indicate the sovereign power of chemistry. At what time this adept lived is also a disputed point. Some say he lived ia the twelfth century, others make him a native of Erfurt, born in 1394, and give 1415 as the date of his writings, or as the time when he began to write, but this last is certainly inadmissible, as he mentions the morbus Galliots and Luts Gallica as being common in Germany, which we know could not be the ase before the end of the fifteenth century.

Those who make him a native of Erfurt tell us likewise that he was a Benedictine monk, and that after making some experiments on the stibium of the ancients, he threw a quantity of it to the hogs, whom it first purged and afterwards fattened. This suggested to him that it might be useful in order to give a little of the embonpoint to his brother monks, who had become lean by fasting and mortification. He accordingly prescribed it, and they all died, whence the medicine was afterwards known by the name of antimony, quasi anti-monk. It is added that his works were not known for a long time after his death, until on opening one of the pillars of the church of Erfurt, they were miraculously discovered. But unfortunately for these stories, Boerhaave has proved that there never was a monastery of Benedictines at Erfurt, and we have already proved that the books published under the name of Basil Valentine could not have been written in the beginning of the fifteenth century. It appears, however, whatever their date, that they were originally written in Dutch, and that a part only have been translated into Latin, and probably have received additions from other hands. All that have been published are still in considerable request, and are become scarce. Among them are; 1. “De microcosmo, deque magno mundi ministerio et medicina hominis,” Marpurg, 1609, 8vo. 2. “Azoth, sive Aureliae philosophorum,” Francfort, 1613, 4to. 3. “Practice, una cum duodecim clavibus et appendice,” ibid. 1618, 4to. 4. “Apocalypsis chymica,” Erfurt, 1624, 8vo. 5. “Manifestatio artificiorum,” Erfurt, 1624, 4to. 6. “Currus triumphalis antimonii,” Leip. 1624, 8vo, reprinted at Amsterdam, 1671, 12mo, “cum commentariis Theod. Kerkringii.” 7. “Tractatus chimicophilosophus de rebus naturalibus et praeternaftiralibus metallorum et mineralium,” Francfort, 1676, 8vo. 8. “HaKographia, de praeparatione, usu, ac virtutibus omnium salium mineralium, animalium, ac vegetabiliuni, ex manuscriptis Basilii Valentini collecta ab Ant. Salimncio,” Bologna, 1644, 8vo. There are editions of these in Dutch, and translations into French, English, and other languages of most of them. Whoever Basil was, his experiments are always to be depended on, and his style is clear and precise, unless where he talks of his arcana and the philosopher’s stone, on which he is as obscure as any of his brethren. After every preparation, he gives its medicinal uses, and it has been said that Van Helmont, Lemery, the father, and other moderns, are under greater obligations to his works than they have thought proper to acknowledge. He was the first who recommended the internal use of antimony, and he has enriched the pharmacopoeia with various preparations of that metal, particularly the empyreumatic carbonate of antimony, of which Sylvius Deleboe claimed the discovery.

, author of the heretical sect called Valeutinians, was an Egyptian, and, according to Danaeus, was educated at Alexandria. He aspired to the episcopal dignity; but being set aside by another, who was afterwards martyred, he formed the design to oppose the true doctrine of Christ. He came to Rome A.D. 140, during the pontificate of Hyginus, and there created great disturbances. In 143, he was censured by the church, and excluded the congregation; which was so far from humbling him, that he retired into Cyprus, where he propagated his erroneous doctrines with still greater boldness: He was learned, eloquent, and had studied the Grecian language, particularly the Platonic philosophy. Thus, from nice and witty, or sophistical, distinctions, mixing the doctrine of ideas, and the mysteries of numbers with the Theogony of Hesiod, and the Gospel of St. John, which was the only one received by him, he formed a system of religious philosophy, not very different from that of Basilides and the Gnostics, and in some respects more absurd than either. The rise of his heresy was in the reign of Adrian. Fleury places it A. D. 143, as do Danasus, Tillemont, and Echard. Valentine himself died A.D. 160. His errors spread at Rome, in Gaul, and Syria, but particularly in the Isle of Cyprus and Egypt, and continued until the fourth century. Bishop Hooper, in his tract “De Haeresi Valentiniana,” has deduced this heresy from the Egyptian mysteries. Irenseus was the principal writer against Valentinus, to whom may be added Tertullian, Clemens Alexandriuus, &c. and among the moderns, Buddeus “Dissert. de hreresi Valentiniana.” The author of this heresy is said to have at last abjured his errors, and was received into the church again, but we have no farther account of his personal history.

, a botanical and medical writer, was born at Giessen in Germany, Nov. 26, 1657, and having studied medicine, became a professor of the science in his native place, where he died March 13, 1726. He wrote a great many works on the subject of his profession, but is thought to have succeeded best in those which concern botany. Among his writings of both kinds are, 1. “Historia simplicimn reformata, Francfort, 1716, fol. 1726, both with plates. 2.” Amphitheatrurn Zootomicum,“ibid. 1720, fol. This was Becker’s translation from the original, published in German in 1704 1714, 3 vols. fol. and subjoined is a life of Valentinus, written in verse by himself. 3.” Medicina nova-antiqua,“ibid. 1713, 4to. 4.” Cynosura materiiE medicse,“Strasburgh, 1726, 3 vols. 5.” Viridarium reformatum,“Francfort, 1720, fol. with fine plates. 6.” Corpus juris medicolegale,“ibid. 1722, fol.; but this appears to be a second edition of his” Novellaj Medico-legales,“printed in 1711, 4to, and contains many curious cases and questions which illustrate the state of medical jurisprudence at a time when it was not much freed from superstition and credulity. Valentinus published also a” Praxis medicinae infallibilis,“in which he describes the filtering-stone now so well known; and another work, giving a history of philosophy,” Armamentarium Naturae systematic am, seu Introductio ad philosophiam modernorum naturalem,“Giessen, 4to. To this he adds an abridgment of the most remarkable papers on natural history from the transactions of the society” Naturae Curiosorum."

, or Valeriano Bolzam, an ingenious and learned Italian, was born at Belluno, in the state of Venice, about 1477. He lost his father at nine years of age, and was reduced with his mother and brethren to great poverty, which so retarded his studies that he was fifteen years old before he learned to read; but his uncle Urbanus Bolzanius (see vol. VI. p. 36), who was afterwards preceptor in the Greek language to Leo X. took him under his protection, and had him liberally educated. He studied the Latin and Greek tongues under Valla and Lascaris; and made so wonderful a progress, that he was accounted one of the most learned men of his age. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Julius II. he became the favourite of John de Medicis (afterwards Leo X.), who committed to his care the conduct and instruction of two nephews; and the cardinal Julius de Medicis, who entered upon the pontificate in 1523, under the name of Clement VII. shewed him the same regard. He offered him first the bishopric of Justinople, and then that of Avignon; but Valerianus refused them both, being fully satisfied with the place of apostolic notary. He was in imminent danger, when Rome was taken in 1527; and the year after retired to Belluno, for the sake of that tranquillity which he had never found at court. Yet he suffered himself to be drawn from his retirement by Hypolite de Medicis, one of his pupils; who, being made a cardinal in 1529, chose him for his secretary. He continued in this office till the death of the cardinal in 1535; and seems to have passed the next two years with his other pupil Alexander de Medicis, who had been made first duke of Florence in 1531. Upon the death of Alexander, in 1537, he retired to Padua; where he spent the remainder of his life among his books, and died in 1558.

He composed several learned and curious works, some of which were published in his life-time, some not till after his death. Among the former are, “De Fulminum significationibus,” Romae, 1517, printed also in the 5th volume of Grsevius’s Roman Antiquities. “Pro Sacerdotum barbis defensio,” Romae, 1531, occasioned by an intention to renew a decree, pretended to be made by an ancient council, and confirmed by pope Alexander III. by which priests were forbidden to wear long beards. “Castigationes Virgilianae iectionis,” printed in Robert Stepbens’s Virgil at Paris, 1532, and since reprinted with the best editions of this poet. “Hieroglyphica, sive de sacris Egyptiorum aliarumque gentium literis Commentariorum libri LVIII.” Basil, 1566. In this he attempts to illustrate, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman symbols, almost every branch of science and art, but is supposed to display more imagination than judgment. Among the works published after his death are, “Diaiogo della volgar lingua, non prima uscito in luce,” 4to; “Antiquitatum Belluuensium libri quatuor,” 8vo; and “Contarenus, sive de literatorum infelicitate libri duo,” 8vo; all printed at Venice in 1620, by the direction and under the care of Alorsio Lollini, bishop of Belluno. The last piece contains a great number of curious anecdotes; and is entitled “Contarenus,” because the first book of it is a dialogue between Caspar Contareno, a Venetian ambassador, and some learned persons at Rome. It has been often printed at Amsterdam, 1647, in 12mo, “cum Cornelii Tollii Appendice,” at Helmstadt, 1695, in 12mo; and at Leipsic, 1707, in 8vo, with two other pieces upon similar subjects, namely, “Alcionius de Exilio,” and “Barberius de miseria Poetarum Grascorum,” and a preface by Joannes Burchardus Menkenius, the editor. Mr. D'Israeli, who has written so well on this interesting subject, considers Valerianus’s as “a meagre performance, iti which the author shews sometimes a predilection for the marvellous, which happens so rarely in human affairs; and he is so unphilosophical, that he places among the misfortunes of literary men, those fatal casualties to which all men are alike liable.” “Yet,” adds Mr. D'Israeli, “evert this small volume has its value; for, although the historian confines his narrative to his own times, he includes a sufficient number of names to convince us that to devote t>nf life to authorship is not the true means of improving our happiness or our fortune.”

Valerianus published also at different times two volumes of Latin poems, among which were “Amorum libri <juin- r que.” It may be proper to observe here, that Valerianus’s Christian name was Petej; but changed, according to the custom of those times, by one of his masters into Pieritls, in allusion to Pierides, a name of the Muses, and therefore probably done as a compliment to his talents for poetry.

, a learned prelate, was born April 7, 1531, at Venice, descended from one of the best families in that city. After having made a rapid progress in his studies, he was admitted among the Savii deir Ordini, a small society of five 5'oung men of the highest rank at Venice, who had access to the college where affairs relative to the republic were debated, that they might be trained up to the science of government. Valerio took a doctor’s degree in divinity and in canon law, became professor of philosophy at Venice, 1558, and having afterwards chosen the ecclesiastical profession, was appointed bishop of Verona, on the resignation of his uncle, cardinal Bernardo Naugerio, 1565. He discharged the duties of the episcopal station with great prudence, and to the edification of his diocese, and formed a friendship with St. Charles Borromeo. Pope Gregory XIII. created him cardinal, 1583, invited him to Rome, and placed him at the head of several congregations. Valerio acquired universal esteem by his skill in public affairs, his learning and virtue. He died at Rome, May 24, 1606, aged 75, and although so advanced, his death is supposed to have been hastened by chagrin, occasioned by the interdiction under which pope Paul V. had laid the republic of Venice. This learned bishop left several excellent works: the most known are, “The Rhetoric of a Preacher,” “De Rhetoric* Ecclesiastica libri tres,” Venice, 1574, 8vo, composed by the advice and according to the plan of his intimate friend, St. Charles Borromeo. This was so popular as to be printed eight times in the author’s life, besides being translated into French, of which there is an edition so late as 1750, 12mo, nor, say the French writers, can the study of it be too strongly recommended to young ecclesiastics. His other works are on subjects of philosophy and history. In 1719, appeared in 4to, a work entitled “De cautione adhibenda in edendis Libris,” which contains a complete list of Augustine Valerio’s other works both printed and ms.

, an ancient Latin writer, of whom remain “libri novem factorum dictorumque memorabilium,” dedicated to Tiberius Caesar, appears to have been a Roman, and lived under the reign of Tiberius Caesar, probably about 32 of the Christian usra; for, he treats the memory of Sejanus with scorn and abhorrence, though he does not expressly mention him. His style is not so pure as might be expected from the age he lived in; and therefore many learned men conjectured, that what we have is not the original work, but only an epitome made by some later writer. Fabricius calls it “opus jucundum, varium, utiLe,” as indeed it is; and many eminent critics have employed their lucubrations upon it. The first edition, of uncommon rarity and price, is that printed atMentz, 1471, fol. It was reprinted at Venice in the same year. The best editions since are, that by Thysius “cum Notis Variorum,” 1670, 8vo; that “in usum Delphini,” 1679, 4to; that by Torrenius at Leyden, 1726, in 2 vols. 4to, “cum notis integris Lipsii, Pighii, Vorstii, Perizonii, &c.” and that by Kappius, at Leipsic, 1782, 8vo.

, or Henry de Valois, a French critic of great abilities and learning, was born at Paris in 1603, of parents, whose circumstances supported them without any profession. He began his studies at Verdun in 1613, under the Jesuits, and the greatest hopes were formed of him from his childhood. He was recalled to Paris five years after, and continued there in the college of Clermont; where he learned rhetoric under Petavius, who, as well as father Sirmond, conceived a great esteem for him. After having maintained his theses in philosophy with much applause, he went to Bourges in 1622, to study the civil law; and at the end of two years returned to Paris, where he was received advocate. He frequented the bar for seven years, but more to oblige his father than out of any fondness for the law, which he at length quitted, and devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. Greek and Latin authors were all his study, and all his pleasure. Sunday he consecrated to devotion, Saturday afternoon he allotted to his friends; but all the rest of the week was spent in reading and labour. His own library not sufficing, he borrowed books of every body; and he used to say, that he learned more from other people’s books than his own, because, not having the same opportunity of reviewing them, he read them over with more care. He acquired a great reputation by his learning and publications, when a misfortune befel him, which interrupted the course of his studies. He had always a weak sight; but continual application had hurt him so, in this respect, that he lost his right eye, and saw very indifferently with the left. This put him under the necessity of having a reader; for, though his father was of too sparing a humour to make him an allowance for this purpose, yet the defect was supplied by the generosity of his friends. His father, however, died in 1650; and then his circumstances were better suited to his necessities. The same year he composed an oration in praise of Christina queen of Sweden, who had just ascended the throne; and her majesty, by way of acknowledging the favour, promised to send him a gold chain, and gave him at the same time an invitation to accompany the learned Bochart to Sweden. But the chain never came, and the invitation ended in nothing, for which Valesius himself is said to have been to blame, having been so imprudent, while he was meditating this journey, as to make use of some satirical expressions on the learned in those parts; which, being related to the queen, occasioned her majesty’s neglect of him.

In 1734, Valesius had published at Paris, in 4to, “Excerpta Polybii, Diodori Siculi, Nicolai Damasceni, Dionysit Halicarnassensis, Appiani Alexandrini, Dionis, & Joannis Antiocheni, ex Collectaneis Constantini Augusti Porphyrogenitae, nunc primum Greece edita, Latine versa cum notis.” The emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetes, who died in the year 959, had made extracts from the Greek historians of such things as he thought most useful; and had ranged these extracts under certain titles and common places, in number fifty-three. Each contained two books; one of “Extracts from the writers of Universal History,” another of “Extracts from the Historians of the Emperors.” Only two of these titles are extant: one “de Legationibus,” the first book of which was published by Fulvius Ursinus, at Antwerp, 1582, in 4to; the second by David Ho3schelius, at Augsburg, 1603, in 4to; and both under the title of “Eclogse Legationum, &c.” The other title is “de Virtutibus & Vitiis,” and is the work under present consideration. A merchant of Marseilles had brought an ancient manuscript of it from the Isle of Cyprus, and sold it to Mons. Peiresc, who sent it to Paris. Here it lay neglected a long time till at length Pithaeus engaged Valesius to translate and publish it: which he did, and very properly dedicated it to Peiresc, to whom the public is obliged for it, and of whose ardour, in the promotion of letters, we have the following anecdote. Some time after, Valesius had read a passage in an ancient author, relating to the harbour of Smyrna, which could not be understood without viewing the situation upon the spot. He acquainted Peiresc with this difficulty; who immediately sent a painter, to take a view of that port, and afterwards communicated it to Valesius. Valesius thanked Peiresc for the trouble he had been at; but added, probably not in very guarded language, that it did not clear up the doubt so well as he could wish. Peiresc, vexed that he had been at so much expence, wrote back, that he had endeavoured to give him satisfaction; and that, if he had not succeeded, it must not be ascribed to either himself or the painter, but to his own temper and humour, which were satisfied with nothing.

In 1636 he gave a good edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus,” in 4to, corrected in a great number of places from the manuscripts, and illustrated with very ingenious and learned notes. A second edition, with more notes of Valesius, and those of Lindenbrog, came out at Paris, 1681, in folio, edited by his brother Adrian Valesius; and James Gronovius also published a third at Leyden, 1693, fol. and 4to. The critical talents and learning which Valesius had displayed in these publications, recommended him as the most proper person to superintend a work of greater importance, an edition of the ancient ecclesiastical historians. M. de Montchal, abp. of Tholouse, a learned man, whom the clergy of France had requested to give an edition of these historians, undertook the affair; and applied to Valesius to assist him privately. But Valesius was too jealous of his reputation, to let another person enjoy the fruits of his labours; and therefore absolutely refused his aid. The archbishop, either too much taken up with the business of his see, or despairing of success in what he had undertaken, soon after excused himself to the clergy; and at the same time advised them to apply to Valesius, as a man who was every way qualified for the task. To this Valesius had no objection, and his employers by way of encouragement settled a pension upon him. This was about 1650, and the Historians were published in Greek and Latin, with good notes, in the following order: “Eusebii Pamphili historia ecclesiastica, ejusdemque libri de vita Constantini, & panegyricus atque oratio Constantini ad sanctos,” Paris, 1659; “Socratis & Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica,” 166S; “Theodoreti et Evagrii historia ecclesiastica, item excerpta & historia ecclesiastica Philostorgii,” 1673. These were reprinted in 3 vols. folio, first at Amsterdam in 1699, and then at Cambridge in 1720; to which last edition some remarks, but very inconsiderable ones, scattered up and down in various authors, were collected and subjoined by the editor William Reading.

In 1660, Valesius was honoured with the title of historicgrapber of France; and had also a pension settled on him by the king, in consideration of his edition of Eusebius, which had appeared the year before. In 1662 he lost his left eye, so that now he was blind; and, notwithstanding all the skill of oculists, the most that could be done for him was, to enable him to see a little with the left eye, a new cataract, almost as soon as it was removed, forming itself again in the right. In 1663 he had an addition to his pension from the crown. He had hitherto lived among his books, but now, at the age of sixty, he surprized his friends by marrying a handsome young woman, by whom he had seven children. He died the seventh of May, 1676, having spent the two last years of life in all the miseries of one oppressed with infirmities. He was a man of great abilities and learning, and an admirable critic; but his disposition was far from being amiable. He was sparing in his praise, but so tenacious of the respect he thought due to him, as to resent the smallest attempt to criticise or find fault with what he wrote, and this irritable temper increased with his years.

After his death, was published, by the care of James Gronovius, “Notae & animadversiones in Harpocrationem & Philippi Jacobi Maussaci Notas. Ex Bibliotheca Gulielmi Prousteau,” Lugd. Bat. 1682, in 4to. Three Latin, funeral orations upon three of his intimate friends are inserted in Bates’s “Vitæ selectoruip aliquot virorum;” the first made upon Sirmond in 1651, the second upon Petrus Puteanus in 1652, and the third upon Petavius in 1653. We omitted an hexameter poem, made upon the recovery of the king’s health, and published by himself in 1663, with the title of “Soteria pro Ludovico magno.” There are also “Harangues à la reine de Suede, & quelques autres petites pieces.”

, or Adrien de Valois, brother of Henry, and a very learned man also, was born at Paris in 1607, and educated in the college of Clermont there, under the Jesuits. He followed the example of his brother, and had the same counsellors in his studies, the fathers Sirmond and Petavius. History was his principal object; and he spent many years in searching into the most authentic records, manuscript as well as printed. His long perseverance in these pursuits enabled him to give the public an elaborate Latin work, entitled “Gesta Francorum, seu de rebis Francicis,” in 3 vols. folio; the first of which came out in 1646, the two others in 1658. This history begins with the year 254; and ends with 752. It is written with care and elegance, and may serve for an excellent commentary upon the ancient historians of France, who wrote rudely and barbarously: but some have considered it as a critical work filled with rude erudition, rather than a history. Colbert asked him one day concerning his Latin history of France, and pressed him to continue it; but he answered the minister, that he might as well take away his life, as put him upon a work so full of difficulties, and so much beyond what his age could bear; for he was then in years. He is the author of several other Latin works; as “Notitia Galliarum, ordine alphabetico digesta,” 1675, in folio; a work of great utility in explaining the state of ancient Gaul. He was the editor, as we have mentioned, of the second edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus;” to which, besides additional notes of his brother and Lindenbrog, he added notes and emendations of his own. He wrote also a Panegyric upon the king, and a life of his brother. There is also a “Valesiana.”

In 1660, he was, with his brother, honoured with the title of historiographer to the king; and had a pension settled upon him. In 1664, he lost the company of his brother; who, when he married, left his mother and brethren, with whom he had lived till then. Adrian, however, some years after, followed his brother’s example, and married a wife too; by whom he had children. He enjoyed good health, till he was eighty-five, and then died, July the 2d, 1692.

, a French miscellaneous writer, was born in 1653, of a good family, at St. Quentin in Picardy. He became secretary to the king’s closet, to the marine, a member of the French academy, an honorary member of the academy of sciences, and historiographer to his majesty. M. de Valincour had collected a great number of very curious and important memoirs respecting marine affairs; but these Mss. were consumed with his library by a fire, which burnt his house at St. Cloud in the night, between the thirteenth and fourteenth of January, 1725. He died January 5, 1730, at Paris, aged seventy. His works are, A Criticism on the romance of the princess of Cleves, entitled “Lettres a Madame la Marquise de sur le sujet de la Princesse de Cleves,” Paris, 1678, 12mo, which is much esteemed. A good “Life of Francis de Lorraine, duke of Guise,” 1681, 12mo. “Observations critiques sur PCEdipe de Sophocle,” and several short poetical pieces in Pere Boiihours’ collection.

, an Italian physician and professor of the belles lettres at Venice, was born at Picenza, and was a contemporary of Laurentius Valla. He was well skilled in the Latin and Greek tongues, and wrote a considerable number of books both in physic and literature. One of his books in the former has a title, which gives us no less an opinion of his honesty than of his skill in his profession: it is “De tuenda sanitate per victum;” but it is doubtful whether he practised physic. He wrote “Commentaries on some books of Cicero, Horace’s Art of Poetry, Juvenal, &c.” and “A Comment upon the second book of Pliny’s Natural History,” printed at Venice 1502, in 4to: which, however, must be certainly very scarce, since father Hardouin tells us that he could not meet with it. He was also the compiler of a work entitled “De expetendis et fugiendis rebus,” Venice, 1501, 2 vols. fol. a kind of philosophical and literary Cyclopædia, in which the articles are generally short, but many of them curious. Valla exasperated the duke of Milan so much by his too impetuous zeal for the Trivulcian faction, that the prince procured him to be committed to prison even at Venice. He suffered great hardships in that confinement, but was at last released. He died suddenly, as he was going from his lodgings, in order to read a lecture upon the immortality of the soul, about the close of the fifteenth century.

, a man of letters of great emience in the fifteenth century, was born at Rome in 1407. His father was a doctor of civil and common law, and advocate of the apostolic consistory. He was educated at Rome, and learned Greek under Aurispa; but in consequence of the troubles which arose on the death of pope Martin, and the advancement of Eugenius to the papal chair, he retired to Pavia. Here he read lectures on rhetoric, and wrote his three books “De Voluptate ac vero bono.” From thence he removed to Milan, and read the same lectures: and before 1435 read them to Alphonsus, king of Arragon, Sicily, and Naples, that learned patroa of letters, who took minutes of his lectures, and acknowledged his literary obligations to him. While in this place he wrote his book on free-will, against Bbetius, and his detection of the forged gift which Constantine is said to have made, of liome, to pope Sylvester, which was first published in 1492. Here too he translated Homer into Latin, and began his six books of “Elegantiae linguae Latinae.” All this while he had followed Alpbonsus in his wars, and had exposed his person in several sea-fights; and, among his other literary undertakings he had written three books of logical disputations, in which, having reduced the ten predicaments, or elements, to three, he was accused of heretical pravity by the inquisitor-general.

He next turned his thoughts to Livy, and drew up notes on that author on the following occasion. It was the custom of Alphonsus to have some ancient author read by one of the literati about his court, during his public dinners, where the king himself gave some opinion on the subject of the book, and invited the different guests to give theirs; and, as the discussion of any particular point pleased him, he divided the sweetmeats among the competitors, and poured out a glass of wine to the reader. This office had fallen on Beccadelli and Valla, who, from intimate friends, became inveterate enemies, by disputing about passages in Livy on these occasions. Valla became equally hostile to Bartholomew Facio (see Facio), whom Alphonsus had made his historiographer, and had appointed Valla at the same time to write the Life of his royal father Ferdinand. The first copy of this Life, in three books, drawn up in two months, and submitted to the king for his correction, was privately overlooked by Facio, who, boasting of having detected five hundred errors in it, was answered by Valla in four books of invectives, or recriminations, in the last of which he inserted his corrections and notes on the first six books of Livy, on the Punic war. These books he had heard Beccadelli read before Alphonsus, and his enemies charged him with saying that he would undertake to correct these better than Aretine, Guarini, and eve Petrarch himself, whose corrections were in the ms. at Naples sent to the king by Cosmo de Medici from Florence. Valla’s frequent attacks on barbarous Latinists and ignorant theologists of his time exposed him to imminent danger from the inquisition; bat he generally found a protector in the king.

Having accepted an invitation to return to Rome from pope Nicholas V. he was favourably received by that pontiff, who settled a handsome pension on him. He now applied himself to a translation of Thucydides, and on presentino- it to the pope, was rewarded by a gratuity of five hundred gold crowns, and was recommended to translate Herodotus, which death prevented him from finishing. What he had done came into the possession of Alphpnsus, and was published by Pontanus, but neither of these translations have been thought eminently successful. That of Thucydides is charged by H. Stephens (who printed it along with his edition of the original (1564) as well as separately) with ignorance, carelessness, and inelegance of language, and Dr. Hudson repeats the charge. Wesseling speaks equally unfavourably of his Herodotus, but he apologizes that the ms. whence he translated was imperfect, and himself overwhelmed with the hostilities of his enemies. Pope Nicholas, in addition to his other favours, appointed him professor of rhetoric; and he employed his leisure time in putting the finishing hand to his “Elegantise lingua: Latino?,” which, as we already noticed, he began at Naples, and sent to the king’s secretaries, one of whom published them without his knowledge. He seems to have written six more books on this subject, which may possibly be concealed in some of the libraries of Italy. He also completed his “Illustrations” of the New Testament, which the pope, and many of the cardinals, earnestly solicited him to circulate, and which Erasmus published in 1504. Valla attacked the Vulgate Latin version by Jerome, which drew on him the censure of his antagonists, and occasioned his notes to be condemned by Paul IV. after the council of Trent had given its sanction to Jerome’s translation. Among the bitterest of his antagonists was the celebrated Poggio, with whom he quarrelled late in life on account of some criticisms of that eminent scholar. It is difficult perhaps to say who gave the first provocation, but it is certain that nothing can exceed the intemperate language and low abuse which passed between them, for 'an account of which we may refer to Mr. Shepherd’s excellent Life of Poggio. Another of Valla’s enemies was Morandus of Bologna, who accused him to pope Nicholas V. of misrepresenting Livy. This Valla answered by two “Confutations,” written with much asperity.

As Valla had formerly entertained thoughts of a clerical life, he declined forming any matrimonial engagement, but is reproached by Poggio with having debauched his sister’s husband’s maid, by whom he had three children, and of whom he speaks, for he does not deny this charge, with tenderness and affection. He afterwards became a canon of St. John Lateran, and secretary and apostolical writer to the pope. He died in 1457, in his fiftieth year, and was buried in the church of which he was canon, where there is a monument and inscription, the latter wrong in stating his death to have happened in 1465. Of all his writings his “Elegantiae linguae Latinos” only serves now to preserve him in the rank of eminent schotars of his time. His irritable temper rendered his life a perpetual literary warfare, but at no time were the quarrels of authors more disgraceful than at the revival of literature.

If Valla had his enemies, he has also had his defenders, and of these Erasmus was one of the most strenuous. He expresses his indignation that Poggio should be in every body’s hands, while Valla, who had a hundred times his learning, “centuplo doctior,” was read by nobody and he declares, in the same epistle, that “the mordacity of Valla alone, if they will call it so, has contributed more to the promoting of literature than the foolish and insipid candour of thousands, who admire all the productions of all men without distinction, and who applaud and (as they say) scratch one another:” “itaque unius Laurentii mordacitas, siquidem ita malunt appellare, non paulo plus conduxit rei literarire, quam plurimorum ineptus candor, omnia omnium sine delectu mirantium, sibique invicem plaudentium, ac mutuum (quod aiunt) scabentium.” In short, this whole epistle, which is by no means a short one, is written entirely in the defence of Valla; though at the same time it would be easy to collect from it, if Valla’s works were not extant, that he cannot be defended from the charge of envious and abusive language. The first edition of his “Elegantiae” was printed at Rome in 1471, folio, and the last by Robert Stephens, at Paris, in 1542, 4to.

, a celebrated traveller, was a Roman gentleman, and member of the academy dell' Umaristi. He commenced his travels in 1614, over the East, and his account of it in Italian, 1662, 4 vols. 4to, has always been considered as giving the best account that had then appeared of Egypt, Turkey, Persia, and India. Gibbon calls him “a gentleman and a scholar, but intolerably vain and prolix.” The French have a good translation by Carreau and le Comte, 1663, 4 vols. 4to, and Rouen, 1745, 8 vols. 12mo. There is also an English translation, London, 1665, folio. He did not return from his travels until 1626. He married at Babylon a virtuous young woman, who accompanied him in his journeys, and died at Mina in Carainania, 1622, aged twenty-three. Her husband was so deeply affected with her loss, that he caused her body to be embalmed and carried it always with him in a wooden coffin, till his arrival at Rome, where he buried it with great magnificence in his family vault in the church of Ara cceli. He spoke her funeral oration himself, which may be found in Italian and French, in the 12mo edition of his Travels, He died at Rome in 1652.

, a celebrated professor of physic at Padua, was born May 3, 1661, at the old castle of Trasilico in Modena, of a noble and ancient family. He distinguished himself among the learned, with whom he held a very extensive correspondence, and was admitted a member of many learned societies; among others of our Royal Society. He practised and taught physic with great reputation, was honorary physician to the emperor, and created a knight by the duke of Modena. He died January 28, 173O, aged sixty-nine. His works on insects, natural history, and physic, are numerous, and were printed at Venice, in 1733, 3 vols, folio, in Italian. They are curious, learned, and much esteemed. He left a son, who was a physician also, and the editor of his father’s works.

, an eminent French naturalist, was bora at Rouen, Sept. 17, 1731, and had his classical education in the Jesuits’ college there, where he was principally distinguished for the proficiency he made in the Greek language. He afterwards became a pupil of the celebrated anatomist Lecat, and after studying pharmacy came to Paris in 1750. His father, who was an advocate of the parliament of Normandy, intended him for the bar, but his predilection for natural history was too strong for any prospects which that profession might yield. Having obtained from the duke d'Argenson, the war minister, a kind of commission to travel in the name of the government, he spent some years in. visiting the principal cabinets and collections of natural history in Europe, and in inspecting the mines, volcanos, and other interesting phenomena of nature. On his return to Paris in 1756, he began a course of lectures on natural history, which he regularly continued until 1788, and acquired so much reputation as to be admitted an honorary member of most of the learned societies of Europe, and had liberal offers from the courts of Russia and Portugal to settle in those countries; but he rejected these at the very time that he was in vain soliciting to be reimbursed the expences he had contracted in serving his own nation. He appears to have escaped the revolutionary storms, and died at Paris Aug. 24, 1807, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He first appeared as an author in 1758, at which time he published his “Catalogue d‘un cabinet d’histoire naturelle,” 12mo. This was followed next year by a sketch of a complete system of mineralogy; and two years after by his “Nouvelle exposition du regne minerale,” 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774; but his greatest work, on which his reputation is chiefly built, was his “Dictionnaire raisonne” universe! d'histoire naturelle," which has passed through many editions both in 4to and 8vo, the last of which was published at Lyons in 1800, 15 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent physician, was born at Imola in 1666, and died in 1723. He was the pupil of the celebrated Morgagni, and taught anatomy at Bologna with the greatest reputation. His “Anatomical Dissertations” were published in Latin, at Venice, 1740, 2 vols. 4to, by Morgagni, who commented on them with great freedom, pointing out what he thought erroneous, and liberally praising his merits and discoveries. Of the latter kind are his observations on the ear, published at Bologna in 1707, 4to, “De Aure humana.” On this interesting subject the author employed sixteen years, and dissected a prodigious number of subjects to illustrate it.

, a gentleman eminent in the very different characters of dramatic poet and architect, was descended from a family originally of Ghent in Flanders. His grandfather, Giles Vanburg, being obliged to quit his native country on account of the persecution of the protestants by the duke of Alva, came to England, and settled as a merchant in London, in the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrooke, where he continued until his death in 1646. He left a son, Giles Vanbmgb, who settled in the city of Chester, and was, it is supposed, a sugar-baker, where he acquired an ample fortune. Blome, in his “Britannia,” calls him gentleman, and afterwards he was styled an esquire. Removing to London, he obtained the place of comptroller of the Treasury-chamber. He died in 1715. He married Elizabeth, the fifth and youngest daughter and coheir of sir Dudley Carleton, of Imber-court in Surrey, knt. She died in 1711. By her he had eight sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present article. The time of his birth has not been ascertained, b,ut it probably was about the middle of the reign of Charles II.

We have no account of his education, but it probably was liberal, and he seems to have made a rapid progress in the accomplishments suited to his rank in life. A gay, lively disposition led him to the army, in which at a very early age he bore an ensign’s commission, but does not appear to have remained long a candidate for higher promotion. His course of desultory reading, or the company he kept, seems to have given him a taste for the drama, which he cultivated with the greatest success, and divided with Congreve the merit of reviving the comic muse. In some of his winter-quarters he became acquainted with sir Thomas Skipwith; who being a sharer in a theatrical patent, though little concerned in the conduct of it, young Vanbrugh shewed him the outlines of two plays; and sir Thomas encouraged him to finish “The Relapse,” which, notwithstanding its gross indecencies, being acted in 1697, succeeded beyond their warmest expectations, placed Vanbrugh in a high degree of reputation, and stimulated him (under the patronage of lord Halifax) to complete his “Provok'd Wife;” which was successfully brought out at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1698. Though both these comedies met with greater applause than the author expected, yet both were liable to the severest censure, and verified the observation of Pope,

< f That Van wants grace, who never wanted wit.“In the same year, 1693, he brought out his comedy of” Æsop,“which was acted at Drury-Lane, and contains much general satire and useful morality, but was not very successful.” The False Friend,“his next comedy, came out in 1702. He had interest enough to raise a subscription of thirty persons of quality, at 100l. each, for building a stately theatre in the Hay-Market; on the first stone that was laid of this theatre were inscribed the words Little Whig, as a compliment to a celebrated beauty, lady Sunderland, second daughter of the duke of Marlborough, the tast and pride of that party. The house being finished in 1706, it was put by Mr. Betterton and his associates under the management of sir John Vanbrugh and Mr. Congreve, in hopes of retrieving their desperate fortunes; but their expectations were too sanguine. The new theatre was opened with a translated opera, set to Italian music, called” The Triumph of Love,“which met with a cold reception.” The Confederacy“was almost immediately after produced by sir John, and acted with more success than so licentious a performance deserved, though less than it was entitled to, if considered merely with respect to its dramatic merit. The prospects of the theatre being unpromising, Mr. Congreve gave up his share and interest wholly to Vanbrugh,” who, being now become sole manager, was under a necessity of exerting himself. Accordingly, in the same season, he gave the public three other imitations from the French; viz. 1. “The Cuckold in Conceit.” 2. “Squire Treeloby;” and, 3. “The Mistake.” The spaciousness of the dome in the new theatre, by preventing the actors from being distinctly heard, was an inconvenience not to be surmounted; and an union of the two companies was projected. Sir John, tired of the business, disposed of his theatrical concerns to Mr. Owen Swinney, who governed the stage till another great revolution occurred. Our author’s last comedy, “The Journey to London,” which was left imperfect, was finished to great advantage by Mr. Cibber, who takes notice in the prologue of sir John’s virtuous intention in composing this piece, to make amends for scenes written in the fire of youth. He seemed sensible indeed of this, when in 1725 he altered an exceptionable scene in “The Provoked Wife,” by putting into the mouth of a woman of quality what before had been spoken by a clergyman; a change which removed from him the imputation of prophaneness, which, however, as well as the most gross licentiousness, still adheres to his other plays, and gave Collier an irresistible advantage over him in the memorable controversy respecting the stage.

At what time Vanbrugh began to be an architect by profession, we do not find mentioned. His principal buildings are Blenheim Castle- Howard, in Yorkshire; Eastberry, in Dorsetshire; King’s Weston, near Bristol; Easton-Neston, in Northamptonshire; Mr. Buncombe’s, in Yorkshire; and the opera-house; to which we may indeed add his most tasteless pile, St. John’s church, in Westminster; but neither want of taste nor of grandeur of conception can be justly attributed to sir John’s greatest works, Blenheim and Castle-Howard. Walpole says, " However partial the court was to Vanbrugh, every body was not so blind to his defects. Swift ridiculed both his own diminutive house at Whitehall, and the stupendous pile at Blenheim. Of the first he says,

And of the other,

Thus far the satirist was well founded party-rage warped his understanding when he censured Vanbrugh’s plays, and left him no more judgment to see their beauties than sir John had when he perceived not that they were the only beauties he was formed to compose.“Walpole, perhaps, was not aware of the handsome apology Dr. Swift and Mr. Pope have made, in the joint preface to their miscellanies” In regard to two persons only we wish our raillery, though ever so tender, or resentment, though ever so just, had not been indulged. We speak of sir John Vanbrugh, who was a man of wit, and of honour; and of Mr. Addison, whose name deserves all the respect from every lover of learning.“And notwithstanding Walpole’s own contribution of wit and flippancy to depreciate the character of Vanbrugh’s Blenheim and Castle-Howard, we are far more inclined to the opinion of our illustrious artist and elegant writer, str Joshua Reynolds, delivered, as it is, with the modesty that distinguishes, however seldom it accompanies, superior genius.” In the buildings of Vanbrugh, who was a poet as well as an architect, there is a greater display of imagination than we shall find, perhaps, in any other; and this is the ground of the effect we feel it) many of his works, notwithstanding the faults with which many of them are charged. For this purpose Vanbrugh appears to have had recourse to some principles of the Gothic architectore, which, thoueh not so ancient as the Grecian, is more so to

our imagination, with which the artist is more concerned than will; absolute truth.“”To speak of Vanbrugh,“adds sir Joshua,” in the language of 'a painter, he had originality of invention; he understood light and shadow, and had great skill in composition. To support his principal object, he produced his second and third groupes or masses. He perfectly understood in his art, what is the most difficult in ours, the conduct of the back-ground, by which the design and invention are set off to the greatest advantage. What the back-ground is in painting, in architecture is the real ground on which the building is erected; and no architect took greater care that his work should not appear crude and hard, that is, that it did not abruptly start out of the ground without expectation or preparation. This is a tribute which a painter owes to an architect who composed like a painter, and was defrauded of the due reward of his merit by the wits of his time, who did not understand the principles of composition in poetry better than he, and who knew little or nothing of what he understood perfectly, the general ruling principles of architecture and painting. Vanbrugh’s fate was that of the great Perrault. Both were the objects of the petulant sarcasms of factious men of letters, and both have left some of the fairest monuments which, to this day, decorate their several countries; the fagade of the Louvre; Blenheim, and Castle Howard."

Castle-Howard Vanbrugh built for Charles, earl of Carlisle, deputy to the earl marshal, who gave him the appointment of Clarenceux, king-at-arms, in 1704. The appointment, however, was remonstrated against by the superseded heralds, and the college at large felt the slight put upon them by having a total stranger made king-at-­arms, and who was likewise ignorant of the profession of heraldry and genealogy. Swift’s pun was, that he might now build houses He was knighted at Greenwich, September 9, 1714, appointed comptroller of the royal works January 6, 1714-5, and surveyor of the works at Greenwich hospital, August 17, 1716. It was designed to have given him the place of garter but finding that the younger Anstis had a reversionary grant, he resigned his tabard to Knox Ward, esq. February 9, 1725-6, and died March 26 following, at Whitehall. His country residence was Vanbrugh-Fields, at Greenwich,- where he built two seats, one called the Bastile, standing on Maize, or Maze-Hill, on the east side of the park. Lady Vanbrugh, his relict, sold it to lord Trelawny, who made it his residence: the name was taken from the French prison of which it was a model. It is said, but no time is mentioned, that on a visit to France, his curiosity and natural taste exciting him to take a survey of the fortifications in that kingdom, he was taken notice of by an engineer, secured by authority, and carried to the Bustile, where his confinement was so much softened by humanity, that he amused himself by drawing rude draughts of some comedies. This circumstance raised such curiosity at Paris, that he was visited by several of the noblesse, and by their means procured his liberty before any solicitation for it came from England. He had another built in the same style at Blackheath, called the Mincepye-house, now or lately inhabited by a descendant. Lady Vanbrugh, his relict, died April 26, 1776, aged ninety, and their only son, an ensign of the second regiment of the foot-guards, died of the wounds he received in a battle fought near Tournay, in 1745.

, a learned writer, was born in Holland, Nov. 8, 1638. He early discovered an eager taste for acquiring the languages, which, for some time, his parents obliged him to give up for the more profitable pursuit of commerce. He, however, resumed his studies when about thirty years of age, acquired skill in Greek and Latin antiquities, and took his degrees in physic, which science he practised with success. He was also for some time a preacher in the sect of the Mennonites (a species of Anabaptists: see Menno) and seems, upon the whole, to have cultivated theological as much as medical studies. The latter, however, were not neglected, and he died at Harlem, physician to the hospital in that city, November 28, 1708. He wrote in Latin some learned dissertations “on the Heathen Oracles,” Amsterdam, 1700, 4to, in which he maintained that they were frauds of the idolatrous priests. Fontenelle has given an excellent abridgment of this work in French in his treatise “des Oracles.”; Van-Dale also published a treatise on the “Origin and progress of Idolatry,” 169G, 4to; “Dissertatio super Aristea, de 70 interpretibus,” Amsterdam, 1705, 4to, and “Dissertations” on important subjects, 1712, 4to, and 1743, 4to. All his works discover deep learning and great critical skill; but are defective in order and method.

, a learned professor of physic at Leyden, was descended from ancestors distinguished in the republic of letters. His grandfather, Henry, born in 1546, was a master of the learned languages, and suffered greatly on account of the reformation, which he embraced very young, having lost his father, his wife’s father, and other relations and friends, in the Spanish massacre at Naerden in 1572. After this he exercised the function as a minister at Enckhuisen till 1585, when he was invited to be professor of divinity at the university of Franeker, then founded, pi'onounced the inaugural oration when it was opened, and was the first lecturer. He died there in 1614, and left, among other children, a son, named Antony, also a man of talents and learning, and on that account promoted by the magistrates of Enckhuisen to be rector of their college. He was skilled in music, and no stranger to divinity; but his leading study was physic, in which faculty, having taken the degree of doctor at Franeker in 1608, he practised with success and reputation, first at Enckhuisen, and afterwards at Amsterdam, to which he removed in 1625.

His son, John Antonides, the subject of this article, was born at Enckhuisen, Jan. 13, 1609. He was sent to Leyden in 1625, tb study philosophy, and afterwards applied himself entirely to physic. From Leyden he went to Franeker in 1629, in order to continue his studies, and received the degree of doctor some months after. He then returned to Amsterdam, where his father died in 1633, and where he continned to practise physic with great reputation until, in 1639, he was invited to be professor of physic in the university of Franeker. He discharged that office with great applause for almost twelve years; reading lectures, both on the theory and practice of anatomy and botany; and it was by his care that the garden of the university was enlarged, and an house built to it. The library was no less indebted to him for a great number of books, which were procured by his address. The university of Utrecht offered him a professor’s place in 1649, which he declined; but, two years after, accepted the same offer from the curators of the university of Leyden, and filled the chair with high reputation till his death, which happened March 4, 1664. Guy Patin, who was a friend of this physician, often mentions him in his letters, and seems to insinuate that he neglected himself during his illness, for he died of a complaint of the lungs, in which bleeding might have been useful. Patin adds, in allusion to Vander-Linden’s learning, “I had rather be a blockhead, and bleed sometimes.”

Vander-Linden wrote many books upon physic, which are enumerated in our authorities, and one “De Scriptis Medicis.” This, which is a catalogue of books upon physic, was printed and enlarged several times by the author in his life-time; and very considerably so after his death, by a German, named Merklinns, who published it in a thick quarto, under the title of “Lindenius Renovattis,” at Nuremberg, in 1686, but it never was either correct or complete, and has since given place to more recent works of the kind, particularly Eloy’s Dictionary. Vander-Linden was also the editor of “Celsus,” Leyden, 1657, 12mo, and left an edition of the works of Hippocrates, published there in 1665, 2 vols. 8vo, Greek and Latin. With this he had taken great pains, but did not live to finish more than a correct text, to attain which he carefully compared all the old editions and several manuscripts, and restored a great number of passages, which were not correct even in Foesius’s edition. His Latin translation is that of Cornarius, because the oldest, and that commonly used. Having been attacked by his last illness a little before this edition was finished, he was prevented from publishing the notes which he intended.

, a learned member of the French Institute, whose Christian name we have not been able to discover, was born at Paris in 1735. In his youth he applied sedulously to study, but we have no account of his progress until he became acquainted with the celebrated geometrician Fontaine, who foresaw the progress which Vandermonde would one day make in the mathematics; and under his patronage, Vandermonde determined to devote himself to geometry. In 1771 he presented himself to the Academy of Sciences, into which he was admitted; and justified the suffrages of his associates, by a paper relative to the resolution of equations.

From the sixteenth century, the method of resolving equations of the four first degrees has been known, and since that time the general theory of equations has received great improvements. In spite, however, of the recent labours of many great geometricians, the solutions of equations of the fifth degree had in vain been attempted. Vandermonde wished to consolidate his labours with those of other illustrious analysts; and he proposed a new theory of equations, in which he seems to have made it particularly his business to simplify the methods of calculation, and to contract the length of theformufac, which he considered as one of the greatest difficulties of the subject.

This work was quickly followed by another, on the problems called by geometricians, '“problems of situation.” Leibnitz was of opinion, that the analysis made use of in his time, by the geometricians, was not applicable to all questions in the physical sciences; and that a new geometry should be invented, to calculate the relations of positions of different bodies, in space; this he called “geometry of situation.” Excepting, however, one application, made by Leibnitz himself, to the i game of solitaire, and which, under the appearance of an object of curiosity, scarcely worthy the sublimity and usefulness of geometry, is an example for solving the most elevated and important questions, Euler was almost the only one who had practised this geometry of situation. He had resorted to it for the solution of a problem called the cavalier, which, also, appeared very familiar at first sight, and was also pregnant with useful and important applications. This problem, with the vulgar, consisted merely in running through all the cases of the chess-board, with the knight of the game of chess; to the profound geometrician, however, it was a precedent for tracing the route which every body must follow, whose course is submitted to a known law, by conforming to certain required conditions, through all the points disposed over a space, in a prescribed order. Vandermonde was chiefly anxious to find in this species or analysis, a simple notation, likely to facilitate the making of calculations; and he gave an example of this, in a short and easy solution "of the same problem of the cavalier, which Euler had rendered famous.

In the year following (1772) he printed a third memoir; in which he traced out a new path for geometers, discover* ing by learned analytical researches, irrational quantities of a new species, shewing the sequels of which these irrationals are the terms or the sum, and pointing out a,direct and general method of making in them all the possible reductions. In the same year appeared his work on the “Elimination of unknown quantities in Algebra,” or the art of bringing back those equations which include many unknown quantities, to equations which contain only one. In 1778 he presented, in one of the public sittings of the academy, a new system of harmony, which he detailed more fully in another public sitting of 1780. This system obtained the approbation of the three great musicians of his time, Gluck, Philidor, and Piccini.

With these labours, intermingled with frequent researches on the mechanic arts, as well as on objects of political ceconomy, the attention of Vandermonde was taken up, until 1789, the period of the revolution, when he became so decided an enemy to every thing established, that he concurred even in the abolition of the Royal Academy, and associated himself with Robespierre, Marat, and the rest of that party who covered France with ruins, with scaffolds, and blood. This part of Vandermonde’s history is suppressed by his eulogist LaCepede, because discussions on political topics ought not, in his opinion, to be admitted into the sanctuary of the sciences. In that sanctuary, however, Vandermonde did not long remain. He died of a rapid decline brought on by a disorder of the lungs, Jan. 1, 1796.

, Vandenvelde, or Vandevelde (William), called the Old, one of a distinguished family of painters, was born at Leyden in 1610. He was originally bred to the sea, but afterwards studied painting, and retained enough of his former profession to make it the source of his future fame. In marine subjects, he became a most correct and admirable designer, and made an incredible number of drawings on paper, heightened with Indian ink, which he sketched after nature, with uncommon elegance and fidelity.

As the English were remarkable for constructing their vessels in a much more graceful form than any other European power, and were equally remarkable for their generous encouragement of artists, Vandervelde determined to come to London, with his son, and was soon after taken into the service of Charles II. with the salary of lOOl. ayear for himself, and the same sum for his sort: in the order of privy-seal for these salaries it is expressed that the salary is given to the father “for taking and making draughts of sea-fights,” and to the son “for putting the said draughts into colours.” It was, however, not much to the honour of William the Old that he conducted, it is said, the English fleet to burn Schelling. It was, adds Walpole, pushing his gratitude too far to serve the king against his own country.

Vandervelde was such an enthusiast in his art, that in order more exactly to observe the movements and various positions of ships engaged in a sea-fight, he did not hesitate to attend sea-engagements in a small light vessel, and sail close to the enemy, attentive only to his drawing, and without the least apparent anxiety for the danger to which he was every moment exposed. In this way he took sketches of the severe battle between the duke of York and adnwral Opdam, in which the Dutch admiral and five hundred men were blown up, and of the memorable engagement which continued three days between Monck and )e Ruyter, sailing alternately between the fleets, so as to represent minutely every movement of the ships, and the most material circumstances of the action, with incredible exactness and truth. In the latter part of his life, he commonly painted in black and white, on a ground so prepared on canvas as to make it have the appearance of paper. He died in 1693, and was buried in St. James’s church, Piccadilly.

, called The Young, was born at Amsterdam in 1633, and was the son of the preceding, by whom he was carefully instructed in the art$ but afterwards he was placed under the direction of Simon de Vlieger, a very excellent painter of ships, sea-shores, and sea-ports, who however was far surpassed by his disciple. As soon as young Vandervelde felt his strength, and thought he might appear with advantage in his profession, he went to his father in London; and some of his paintings, being exhibited at the English court, immediately procured him employment from the king, and the principal nobility. His subjects were the same as those of his father, and he observed the same method of sketching every object after nature; but his pictures upon the whole are not only superior to the works of his father, but to all other artists in that style; and no age, since the revival of the art, is thought to have produced his equal. Whether we consider the beauty of his design, the correctness of his drawing, the graceful forms and positions of his vessels, the elegance of his disposition, the lightness of his clouds; the clearness and variety of his serene skies, as well as the gloomy horror of those that are stormy; the liveliness and transparence of his colouring; the look of genuine nature that appears in agitated and still waters; and the lovely gradation of his distances, as well as their perspective truth, they are all executed with equal nature, judgment, and genius. Houbraken and other writers observe, that the pictures of the young Vandervelde are so esteemed in England, that those which were scattered through the Low Countries were eagerly sought after, and purchased at vast prices; so that in Holland they rarely have the pleasure of seeing any of them. Undoubtedly the most capital of his works are in England in the royal collections, and in the cabinets of the nobility and gentry, and some few are also in Ireland. He died April 6, 1707, in the seventy -fourth year of his age.

, a most illustrious portraitpainter, whose works, lord Orford remarks, are so frequent in England, that the generality of our people can scarcely avoid thinking him their countryman, was born at Antwerp, March 22, 1598-9. His father was a merchant, and his mother, Cornelia Kersboom, was an admired flower-painter. He was first placed with Van Balen, who had studied at Rome, but afterwards with Rubens, under whom he made such progress as to be able to assist in the works from which he learned. While at this excellent school, the following anecdote is told of him: Rubens having left a picture unfinished one night, and going out contrary to custom, his scholars took the opportunity of sporting about the room; when one, more unfortunate than the rest, striking at his companion with a maul-stick^ chanced to throw down the picture, which not being dry acquired some damage. Vandyck, being at work in the next room, was prevailed on to repair the mischief; and when Rubens came next morning to his work, first going at a distance to view his picture, as is usual with painters, and having contemplated it a little, he cried out suddenly, that he liked the piece far better than he did the night before.

Rubens, discovering in his pupil an amiable temper joined to the most promising talents, took a pleasure in cultivating both, by not concealing from him any part of that knowledge which he had himself attained by long experience. Vandyck was yet young when he was capable of executing pictures, which astonished, as much from the facility with which they were painted, as the general knowledge which reigned throughout the whole. Rubens, at this time, gave him two pieces of advice; the first was, to devote himself to portraits, in which he foresaw he would excel; and the second to make the tour of Italy, where he would have an opportunity of extending his studies. Vandyck accordingly, after making Rubens presents of two or three historical paintings, and a portrait of that artist’s wife, esteemed one of his best, set out for Italy, and made his first residence at Genoa, where he painted many excellent portraits. From thence he went to Venice, where he so deeply imbibed the tints of Titian, that he is allowed to approach nearer to the carnations of that master than even Rubens. He then went to Rome and lived splendidly, avoiding the low conversation of his countrymen, and was distinguished by the appellation of the Pittore Cavalieresco. Soon after his arrival there, he had an opportunity of exercising his abilities upon the portrait of cardinal Bentivoglio, which is justly esteemed the mostiperfect of the kind that ever came from the pencil of this- artist. While at Rome he received an invitation to Palermo, and there he painted prince Philibert of Savoy, the viceroy, and a paintress Angosciola (see Angosciola, vol. II.) then at the age of ninety-one. But the plague soon drove him from Sicily, and he returned to Genoa, where he had gained the highest reputation, and left many considerable works in the Balbi, Durazzo, and other palaces.

He now went back to Antwerp, and practised both history and portrait. Of the former kind were many applauded altar-pieces; in the latter were particularly the heads of his contemporary artists, drawn in chiaroscuro on small panels, thirty-five of which, Walpole mentions, are in the possession of the Cardigan family. Engravings of these have ibeen published thrice, by Vanden Euden, containing fourscore plates by Giles Hendrix, containing one hundred; and lastly, by Verdassen, who effaced the names and letters of the original engravers. Some of the plates were etched by Vandyck himself in a free and masterly style.

But the advantages he reaped in his own country were not proportioned to his merits, and as he loved to make a figure, he resolved to augment his fortune by a visit to England, where he had heard of the favour king Charles I. shewed to the arts. On his arrival he lodged with Geldorp, a painter, hoping to be introduced to the king; but, owing to whatever means, this was not accomplished, and he went away chagrined. The king, however, soon learning what a treasure had been within his reach, ordered sir Kenelm Digby, who had sat to Vandyck, to invite him over. He immediately complied, and was lodged among the king’s artists at Black-friars. Thither the king went often by water, and viewed his performances with singular delight, frequently sitting to him himself, and bespeaking pictures of the queen, his children, and his courtiers; and he conferred the honour of knighthood on him at St. James’s July 5, 1632. This was the following year attended bv the grant of an annuity of 200^. a year, and with this he had the title of painter to his majesty.

According to Walpole, Vandyck’s prices were 40l. for a half, and 60l. for a whole length; but from some documents communicated by Mr. Malone, it appears that he painted, for the royal family at least, at the rate of 251. each portrait, and sometimes less. From the number of his works he must have been indefatigable; for though he was not above forty-two when he died, they are not exceeded by those of Rubens. He lived sumptuously, kept a great table, and often detained the persons who sat to him, to dinner, for an opportunity of studying their -countenances, and of retouching their pictures again in the afternoon. In summer he lived at Eltham in Kent. He was not only luxurious in his living, but in his pleasures; and this, with a sedentary life, brought on the gout, and hurt his fortune. He sought to repair it by the silly pursuit of the philosopher’s stone, in which probably he was encouraged by the example or advice of his friend sir Kenelm Digby. Towards the end of his life, the king bestowed on him for a wife, Mary, the daughter of the unfortunate lord Gowry, and soon after his marriage he set out for Paris, in hopes of being employed in the Louvre; but disappointed in this, he returned to England, and proposed to the king, by sir Kenelm Digby, to paint the walls of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, of which the ceiling was already adorned by Rubens -, and Vandyck’s subject was to have been the history and procession of the order of the garter. The proposal struck the king’s taste, and, in Walpole’s opinion, was accepted; though, he adds, that “some say it was rejected, on the extravagant price demanded by Vandyck I would not specify the sum, it is so improbable, if I did not find it repeated in Fenton’s notes on Waller; it was fourscore thousand pounds!” But the sum being expressed in figures, this was probably a typographical error of 80,000l. for 8000l. The rebellion, however, prevented further thoughts of the scheme, as the death of Vandyck would have interrupted the execution, at least the completion of it. He died in Blackfriars Dec. 9, 1641, and was buried in St. Paul’s near the tomb of John of Gaunt.

By his wife, Maria Ruthven, lord Cowry’s daughter, he left one daughter, married to Mr. Stepney, whose grandson, Walpole says, was George Stepney the poet. Lady Vandyck, the widow, was married again to Richard Pryse, son of sir John Pryse, of Newton-Averbecham, in Montgomeryshire, knt. by whom she had no issue. Vandyck. died rich, and was generous in his legacies, but, owing to the confusions of the times, some were with difficulty recovered, and some lost.

Walpole has enumerated the best of his pictures, but the number is too great for our limits. Among those of transcendant excellence, however, we may notice his portrait of Charles I. a whole-length in the coronation robes, engraved by Strange, and exhibiting in his opinion one of the most perfect characters of the monarch; George Villiers, the second duke of Buckingham, and lord Francis his brother, when children, at Kensington; Philip, earl of Pembroke, at Wilton, where, Walpole says, Vandyck is on his throne, the great saloon being entirely furnished by his hand; and lastly, the earl of Strafford and his secretary at Wentworth-house.

, an English statesman, whose family name had for some generations been Fane, but originally Vane, to which he restored it, was born Feb. 18, 1589. The family is said to have been at first of the diocese of Durham, but were now settled in Kent. (See Collins, art. Darlington). In 16 11 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him by king James I. after which he improved himself by travel, and the acquisition of foreign languages. On his return he was elected member of parliament for Carlisle, in which his abilities were conspicuous. Such also was his attachment to the royal family, that king James made him cofferer to his son Charles, prince of Wales, on the establishment of his household, and he was continued in the same office by the prince when Charles I. He was also sent by the new king to notify to the States of Holland the death of his royal father, and made one of the privy-council. In Sept. 1631 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary, to renew the treaty of friendship and alliance with Christian IV. king of Denmark; and to conclude peace and confederacy with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden. He returned to England in Nov. 1632, and in May of the following year, entertained Charles I. in a sumptuous manner, at Raby-castle, on his way to Scotland to be crowned; as he did again, April 30, 1639, in his majesty’s expedition to Scotland, when sir Henry commanded a regiment of 1099 men. In 1639 he was made treasurer of the household, and next year, principal secretary of state in the room of sir John Coke. Hitherto he had enjoyed the confidence of the king, and had always been employed in the most important public affairs. But when he appeared in the prosecution against the earl of Strafford, his motives to which appear to have been of a personal kind, the king was so offended, that he removed him from his places of treasurer of his household, and also from being secretary of state, though, in the patent granting that office to him, he was to hold it during life. The parliament therefore made this one of their pleas for taking up arms against the king. In their declaration, they avowed, “it was only for the defence of the king’s person, and the religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom, and for those, who for their sakes, and for those ends, had observed their orders. That, by the instigation of evil counsellors, the king had raised an army of papists, by which he intended to awe and destroy the parliament, &c.; and the putting out the earl of Northumberland, sir Henry Vane, and others, &c. from their several places and employments, were sufficient and ample evidences thereof.”

It does not, however, appear that he was concerned in any measures against the king, but continued in London, without acting in the rebellion. And although on December 1, 1645, the parliament, debating on propositions of peace with the king, voted, that it be recommended to his majesty 10 create sir Henry Vane, senior, a baron of the kingdom, he never accepted any commission or employment under them. Before the murder of the king, he retired to his seat at Raby castle, neither he nor his sons being concerned therein. The earl of Clarendon is severe in his character of sir Henry Vane. He certainly was at one time in full confidence with the king, but his taking part against Strafford did incalculable mischief to the royal cause. Clarendon allows that, in his judgment, “he liked the government, both in church and state.” As to what his lordship observes, “of his growing at last into the hatred and contempt of those who had made most use of him, and died in universal reproach;” it may, says Collins, be more justly represented, that he saw the vile use they made of their power, and, contemning them, chose retirement. He lived to the latter end of 1654, when he departed this life, at his seat at Raby-castle, in the sixtyninth year of his age.

, eldest son of the preceding, and one of the most turbulent enthusiasts which the rebellion produced, was born in 1612, and educated at Westminsterschool, whence he went to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, and even at this early age seems to have embraced some of those republican opinions which were destined to plunge his country in all the miseries of anarchy. He is said to have then travelled to France and Geneva, and on his return betrayed such an aversion to the discipline and liturgy of the Church of England, as greatly displeased his father. Finding how obnoxious his principles made him, he determined to go to New England, then the resort of all who were disaffected to the Church of England. His father was against this wild scheme, but, according to Neal (in his History of New England), the king advised him to consent to it, and to limit his stay to three years. Young Vane’s purpose was to have begun a settlement on the banks of the river Connecticut; but the people upon his arrival, in 1635, complimenting him with the government of Massachusetts for the next year, he resolved to stay among them. He was, however, Neal says, ' no sooner advanced to the government, than he appeared to be a person of no conduct, and no ways equal to the post he was preferred to: being a strong enthusiast, he openly espoused the Antinomian doctrines, and gave such encouragement to the preachers and spreaders of them, as raised their vanity, and gave them such an interest among the people, as the very next year had like to have proved fatal both to the church and commonwealth; but the sober party observing his conduct, concerted such measures among themselves, as put an end to his government the next election.“Mather, another New England historian, speaks with still greater contempt of Vane, and says, that” Mr. Vane’s election will remain a blemish to their judgments who did elect him, while New England remains a nation.“Baxter tells us, that he became so obnoxious that” he was fain to steal away by night, and take shipping for England, before his year of government was at an end,“Baxter adds, that” when he came over into England, he proved an instrument of greater calamity to a people more sinful and more prepared for God’s judgments."

According to these accounts he must have returned home about 1636, and not 1639, as some have asserted. It is said that he now appeared to be reformed from the extravagances of his opinions, and married Frances, daughter of sir Christopher Wray, of Ash by, in Lincolnshire. He was also by his father’s interest joined with sir William Russel in the office of treasurer of the navy, a place of great trust and profit. He represented Kingston-upon-Hull in the parliament chosen 1640, and for some time seemed well satisfied with the government; but, upon his father’s taking umbrage at the lord Strafford’s being created in 1639 baron Raby (which title he had promised himself, and which Strafford laid hold of, merely out of contempt to the Vanes), both father and son formed a resolution of revenge. For this purpose the latter, who had received the honour of knighthood in 1640, joined Pymand other declared enemies of the court; and contributed all that intelligence which ended in the ruin of the earl, and which fixed himself in the entire confidence of the enemies of the king and of StrafFord, so that nothing was concealed from him, though it is believed that he communicated his thoughts to very few.

Upon the breaking out of the rebellion he adhered to the interest of the parliament with enthusiastic zeal. He began with carrying to the House of Peers the articles of impeachment against archbishop Laud; and was nominated one of the ]ay members of the assembly of divines. In 1643 he was appointed one of the commissioners sent by parliament to invite the Scots to their assistance. Under this character he distinguished himself as the “great contriver and promoter of the solemn league and covenant;” though, even at that time, he was known to have an equal aversion to it and to presbytery, which he demonstrated afterwards upon all occasions, being a zealous independent. In 1644, he was the grand instrument of carrying the famous self-denying ordinance, a delusive trick, which for a time gave life and spirit to the independent cause; and in his speech, upon introducing the debate on that subject, observed, that, though he had been possessed of the treasurership of the navy before the beginning of the troubles, without owing it to the favour of the parliament, yet he was ready to resign it to them; and desired that the profits of it might be applied towards the support of the war. He was likewise one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, in Jan. 1644-5, and of that of the Isle of Wight in 1648; in which last, as he was now determined to procure, if possible, a change in the government, he used all his efforts to retard any conclusion with his majesty till the army could be brought to London; and for that purpose amused the king’s party by the offer of a toleration for the common prayer and the episcopal clergy. Like many others, however, he did not foresee the consequences of his favourite measures, and therefore did not approve of the force put upon the parliament by the army, nor of the execution of the king; withdrawing for some time from the scene while these things were acted. But, upon the establishment of the commonwealth, 1648-9, he was appointed one of the council of state, in which post he was continued till the memorable dissolution of the parliament by Cromwell in 1643. On this occasion Cromwell, who treated individual members with personal insolence, took hold of sir Henry Vane by the cloak, saying, “Thou art a juggling fellow.” Vane, however, was too much of a republican to submit to his, or any authority, and was therefore, in 1656, summoned by Cromwell to appear before him in council. On his appearance Cromwell charged him with disaffection to his government, which appeared in a late publication of his called “A healing question proposed and resolved.” Vane acknowledged the publication, and avowed his displeasure with the present state of affairs. Cromwell therefore ordered him to give security for his good behaviour; but instead of this, which such a man as sir Henry Vane might probably find very difficult, he delivered to Cromwell a justification of his conduct; and this not being satisfactory, he was imprisoned in Carisbrooke castle, the spot on which he had so recently contributed to injure the cause of his legitimate sovereign. About four months after, he was released, and Cromwell tried to bring down his spirit by threatening to deprive him of some of his estates by legal process, that is, by such perversion of the law as he might find some of his creatures capable of attempting; intimating at the same time, that all this should drop, and he be gratified with, what he pleased, provided he would comply with the present government. But he remained inflexible, as well during Cromwell’s life, as during the short reign of Richard, against whom many meetings of the republicans were held at his house near Charing Cross.

Endeavours were used to keep him out of Richard’s parliament in 1659, yet he was at last chosen for Whitchurch; in Hampshire. In that assembly, he and other republicans laboured to overturn the settlement of a protector and two houses of parliament, and to introduce a commonwealth, and gained considerable ascendancy. After the abdication. of Richard, the long parliament was restored, and sir Henry Vane made one of the committee of safety, and one of the council of state, and finally president of the council, at which time he proposed a new model of republican government. Still, however, he had the misfortune to displease his associates, and his temporary grandeur ended in their confining him to his house at Raby, in the county of Durham.

Upon the restoration it was imagined, that, as the declaration from Breda was full of indemnity to all except the regicides, he was comprehended in it; his innocence of the king’s death was represented in such a manner by his friends, that an address was agreed upon by both houses of parliament in his behalf, to which a favourable answer, though in general terms, was returned by his majesty; and this being equivalent to an act of parliament, though it wanted the necessary forms, he was thought to be secure. But the share he had in the attainder of the earl of Strafford, and in all the violent measures which overturned the government, and, above all, the great opinion which was entertained of his parts and capacity to embroil matters again, made the court think it necessary to include him among the most dangerous enemies of the restoration. He was brought therefore to his trial on the 4th of June, 1G62, for imagining and compassing the death of king Charles I, and for taking upon him and usurping the government: in answer to which he urged, that neither the king’s death, nor the members themselves, could dissolve the long parliament, whereof he being one, no inferior could call him in question; but, being found guilty, he was, on the 14th, beheaded on Tower-hill, where he intended to have addressed the spectators, but drummers were placed under the scaffold, who, as soon as he began to speak, upon a sign given, struck up their drums. This, which is said to have been a new and very indecent practice, put him in no disorder; he only desired they might be stopped, for he understood what was meant by it. Then he went through his devotions; and, as he was taking leave of those about him, happening to say somewhat with relation to the times, the drums struck up a second time. Upon this he gave over, and died with such resolution as to excite the sympathy of those who had no respect for his general character and conduct.

Lord Clarcndoq styles him a man of a very profound dissimulation, of a quick conception, and very ready, sharp, and weighty, expression; of a pleasant wit, a great understanding, which pierced into and discerned the purposes of other men with wonderful sagacity, whilst he had himself vtdtum clausum, that no man could make a guess of what he himself intended; of a temper not to he moved, though compliant, when it was not seasonable to contradict, without losing ground by the condescension. Burnet represents him as naturally a very fearful man, whose head was as darkened in his notions of religion as his mind was clouded with fear; for, though he set up a form of religion in a way of his own, yet it consisted rather in withdrawing from all other forms, than in any new particular opinion or form; from which he and his party were called seekers, and seemed to wait for some new and clearer manifestations. Baxter calls them the Vanuts. In their meetings sir Henry preached and prayed often himself, but with a peculiar darkness, which ran likewise through his writings, to a degree that rendered them wholly unintelligible. He inclined to Origen’s notion of an universal salvation to all, both the devils and the damned; and to the doctrine of pre-existence.

In peace, and reckons thee her eldest son."

For sure, as his commentator, Warton, observes (almost, however, in Echard’s words) no single man ever exhibited such a medley of fanaticism and dissimulation, solid abilities and visionary delusions, good sense and madness.

His writings, which were of a very peculiar cast, were, 1. “A healing Question, propounded and resolved, upon occasion of the late public and seasonable call to humiliation, in order to love and union amongst the honest party, 1656,” 4to. It was written upon occasion of a general fast; and contained, says Ludlow, the state of the republicans’ controversy with the king, the present deviation from that cause for which they engaged, and the means to unite all parties in the accomplishment of it. 2. “The retired Man’s Meditations; or, the mystery and power of godliness shining forth in the living world,” &c. 1656, 4to, an enthusiastic treatise on our Saviour’s coming down to erect a fifth monarchy upon earth, which would last 1000 years. 3. “Of the Love of God and Union with God,” 1657, 4to. Of this book lord Clarendon says, “When I had read it, and found nothing of his usual clearness and ratiocination in his discourse, in which he used much to excel the best of the company he kept, and that, in a crowd of very easy words, the sense was too hard to find out, I was of opinion that the subject-matter of it was of so delicate a nature that it required another kind of preparation of mind, and, it may be, another kind of diet than men are ordinarily supplied with.” 4. “An Epistle General to the mystical body of Christ on earth, the church universal in Babylon, who are pilgrims and strangers on the earth, desiring and seeking after the heavenly country,” 1662, 4to. 5. “The Face of the Times; whereby is briefly discovered, by several prophetical Scriptures, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation, the rise, progress, and issue, of the enmity and contest between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, to the final breaking of the serpent’s head, to the total and irrecoverable ruin of the monarchies of this world,” &c. 1662, 4to. 6. “The People’s Cause stated. The valley of Jehosaphat considered and opened, by comparing 2 Chron. xx. with Joel iii. Meditations concerning man’s life government friendship enemies death;” penned during his imprisonment, and printed at the end of his trial, in 1662, 4to.

, a man of letters, and one of the first periodical essayists on the continent, was born at Utrecht, April 21, 1684. He was the son of an officer, who had no other fortune than a moderate pension, and as he died before Justus had completed his studies, the latter was left to provide as he could for his mother and a sister. Some friends who took an interest in the family procured him to be appointed tutor to the baron de Welderen’s son, which placed him above want; but as he could not do so much for his family as he wished, he had recourse to his pen for a farther supply. His first publication was “Le Misanthrope,” a periodical paper in imitation of our “Spectator,” which he wrote in French, commencing May 1711, and continuing till December 17 12. In thi he had great, and from what we have seen, deserved success. If he falls short of his model in that delicate humour of Addison, which has never been equalled, he abounds in just remarks on life and manners, evidently derived from extensive observation. Van Effen contrived to conceal himself throughout the whole of this publication, of which a second and improved edition was published at the Hague in 1726, 2 vols. 12mo, to which is added his “Journey to Sweden,” performed in 1719, in the suite of the prince of Hesse PhiJippsthal, who promised to make his fortune, but disappointed him. He consequently returned to the Hague as poor as he left it, and resumed his labours on the “Journal litteraire de la Haye,” in which he had been engaged before his departure. Having got into a literary quarrel with Camusat, who had treated his “Misanthrope” with contempt, he was so much hurt as to be glad to embrace the opportunity of going to Leyden with a young gentleman to whom he was appointed tutor. Here he engaged in some literary schemes by which he got more money than reputation. Count de Welderen, however, having been appointed ambassador to England from the States General, took Van Efien with him as secretary, and on his return procured him the place of inspector of the magazines at Bois-le-Duc, where he died Sept. 18, 1735-. Van Effen’s works were numerous, but being almost all anonymous, it is not easy to ascertain the whole. The following are said to be the principal: 1. “Le Misanthrope,” already noticed. 2. “Journal Litteraire,” 1715 to 1718, many of which volumes are entirely of his editing. 3. “La Bagatelle, ou Discours ironiques, ou Ton prete des sophistries ingenieux au vice et a l'extravagance, pour en mieux faire sentir le ridicule,” Artist. 1718 1719, 3 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Lausanne, 1743, 2 vols. 4. “Le nouveau Spectateur Francais,” of which only twenty-eight numbers appeared; four of them are employed on a critique on the works of Houdard de la Motte, who thanked the author for his impartiality. 5. “The Dutch Spectator,” in Dutch, Amst. 173J 1735, 12 vols. 8vo. 6. “Parallele d'Homere et de Chapelain,” Hague, 1714, 8vo. This has been also printed in the different editions of the “Chef-d‘oeuvre d’un inconnu,” i. e. M. de Themiseuil de St. Hyacinthe. 7. Translations of Robinson Crusoe, Swift’s Tale of a Tub, and some of Mandeville’s writings. 8. “Le Mentor moderne,” a translation of “The Guardian,” except the political papers. 9. “Histoire metallique des dix-sept Provinces de Pays-Bas,” translated from the Dutch of Van Loon, Hague, 1732, 5 vols. Van Effen is said also to have written “Les Petits Maitres,” a comedy; “Essai sur la maniere de trailer la controverse;” and a part of the “Journal historique, politique, et galante.”

, a Jesuit, and a modern Latin poet of considerable talents, was born in 1664 at Gausses in the diocese of Beziers, in Languedoc. He was educated at the Jesuits’ college in Beziers, and became one of the society in 1680. He was afterwards professor and rector of the schools belonging to the Jesuits in Montpellier, Toulouse, and Auch and died at Toulouse in 1739. He published a volume of poetical “Opuscula” and a good “Dictionary of Poetry,” in Latin,“4to, and had made great progress on a Latin and French Dictionary, which he did not live to finish. His principal Latin poem is his” Praedium Rusticum,“on the subject of a country farm, which, some thought, raised him to the first rank of modern Latin poets. The poem, however, is confessedly tedious, perhaps from the nature of the plan, and cannot be read with pleasure unless by those who happen to unite the scholar’s taste with the farmer’s knowledge. Arthur Murphy published in 1799, a translation of the fourteenth book of the” Praedium Rusticum,“which treats of bees. This he says was a juvenile performance, but he has introduced among the bees” French principles,“” corresponding societies," and other articles of very recent date, the prototypes of which are certainly not to be found in Vaniere.

, a writer who has generally been distinguished by the title of Atheist, was born at Tourosano, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1585; and was the son of John Baptist Vanini, steward to Don Francis de Castro, duke of Tourosano, and viceroy of Naples. His Christian name was Lucilio: but it was customary with him to assume different names in different countries. In Gascony, he called himself Pompeio; in Holland, Julius Ceesar, which name he placed in the title-pages of his books; and, at Toulouse, when he was tried, he was called Lucilio. He had an early taste for literature, and his father sent him to Rome to study philosophy and divinity, and on his return to Naples, he continued his studies in philosophy, and applied himself some time to physic. Astronomy likewise employed him much, which insensibly threw him into the reveries of astrology: but he bestowed the principal part of his time upon divinity. The title of “Doctor in utroque Jure,” which he assumes in the title-page of his dialogues, may indicate that he had applied himself to the civil and canon law; and from his writings, it certainly appears that he understood both. He finished his studies at Padua, where he resided some years, and procured himself to be ordained priest, and became a preacher, with what success is not known. His mind appears to have been perverted or confused by the reading of Aristotle, Averroes, Cardan, and Pomponatius, who became his favourite guides. His admiration of Aristotle was such, that he calls him “the god of philosophers, the dictator of human nature, and the sovereign pontiff of the sages.” The system of Averroes, which is but a branch of that of Aristotle, was so highly approved of by him, that he recommended it to his scholars at their first entrance upon the study of philosophy. He styles Pomponatius his “divine master,” and bestows great encomiums upon his works. He studied Cardan very much, and gives him the character of “a man of great sense, and not at all affected with superstition.” It is supposed that he derived from these authors those infidel doctrines which he afterwards endeavoured to propagate. Father Mersene assures us, that Vanini, before he was executed at Toulouse, confessed to the parliament, that at Naples he had agreed with thirteen of his friends to travel throughout Europe, for the sake of propagating atheism, and that France had fallen to his share: but this is very improbable, as the president Gramond, who was upon the spot, says nothing of such a scheme in his account of Vanini’s trial and execution. It is more probable, that his inclination to travelling, or perhaps the hopes of procuring an agreeable settlement, led him to the several places through which he passed; and that he spread his singular sentiments according as he had opportunity.

It has been remarked that we have very few dates in the biography of Vanini. We can only therefore say generally that, after he had commenced his travels, he went through part of Germany and the Low Countries, to Geneva, and thence to Lyons; whence, having presumed to vent his irreligious notions, under the pretext of teaching philosophy, he was obliged to fly. He passed over into England, and in 1614 was at London, where he was imprisoned for nine and forty days, “well prepared,” says he, with that air of devotion which runs through all his writings, “to receive the crown of martyrdom, which he longed for with all the ardour imaginable.” Being set at liberty, he repassed the sea, and took the road to Italy. He first stopped at Genoa, and undertook to teach youth; but, it being discovered that he had infused pernicious notions into their minds, he was forced to abandon that city. He then returned to Lyons, where he endeavoured to gain the favour of the ecclesiastics by a pretended confutation of Cardan and other atheistical writers, in which he artfully contrived, by the weakness of his arguments, to give his opponents the advantage. This work was printed at Lyons, in 1615, 8vo, under the title of “Amphitheatrum eeternae Providentiae Divino-Magicum, Christiano-Physicum, necnon Astrologo-Catholicum, adversus veteres Philosophos Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos, & Stoicos. Autore Julio Ceesare Vanino, Philosopho, Theologo, ac Juris utriusque Doctore;” dedicated to the count de Castro, the protector of his family and his benefactor; and it so far imposed orVtbe licensers of books, as to receive their approbation. But Vanini being apprehensive that his artifice might be detected, went again into Italy; where being accused of reriving and propagating his former impieties, he returned to France, and became a monk in the convent of Guienne, a/nd from this he is said to have been banished for immorality. He then retired to Paris, where he endeavoured to introduce himself to Robert Ubaldini, the pope’s nuncio; and, in order to make his court to him and the clergy in general, undertook to write an apology for the council of Trent. He procured likewise several friends, and had access to the mareschal de Bassompierre, who made him his chaplain, and gave him a pension of two hundred crowns. Upon this account, he dedicated to him his “Dialogues,” which were printed at Paris in 1616, 8vo, with this title, “Julii Caesaris Vanini, Neapolitani, Theologi, Philosophi, & Juris utriusque Doctoris, de admirandis Naturae Reginae Deaeque Mortalium arcanis, libri quatuor.” This work likewise was printed with the king’s privilege, and the approbation of three learned doctors, either from carelessness or ignorance. In his “Amphitheatrum” he had taken some pains to disguise his irreligion; but in these “Dialogues,” his sentiments are too obvious, and notwithstanding their having escaped the censors of the press, the faculty of the Sorbonne soon discovered their tendency, and condemned them to the flames. Finding himself now become generally obnoxious, and in consequence reduced to poverty, he is said to have written to the pope, that, “If he had not a good benefice soon bestowed upon him, he would in three months’ time overturn the whole Christian religion;” but although it is not impossible that Vanini might have written such a letter for the amusement of his friends, it is scarcely credible that he should have sent it to Rome. Whatevermay be in this, it is certain that he quitted Paris in 1617, and returned to Toulouse; where he soon infused his impious notions into the minds of his scholars, in the course of his lectures on physic, philosophy, and divinity. This being discovered, he was prosecuted, and condemned to be burnt to death, which sentence was executed Feb. 19, 1619. Gramond, president of the parliament of Toulouse, gives us the following account of his death. “About the same time, Feb. 1619, by order of the parliament of Toulouse, was condemned to death Lucilio Vanini, who was esteemed an arch-heretic with many persons, but whom I always looked upon as an atheist. This wretch pretended to be a physician, but in reality was no other than a seducer of youth. He laughed at every thing sacred: he abominated the incarnation of our Saviour, and denied the being of a God, ascribing all things to chance. He adored nature, as the cause of all beings: this was his principal error, whence all the rest were derived; and he had the boldness to teach it with great obstinacy at Toulouse. He gained many followers among the younger sort, whose foible it is to be taken with any thing that appears extraordinary and daring. Being cast into prison, he pretended at first to be a catholic; and by that means deferred his punishment. He was even just going to be set at liberty, for want of sufficient proofs against him, when Franconi, a man of birth and probity, deposed, that Vanini had often, in his presence, denied the existence of God, and scoffed at the mysteries of the Christian religion. Vanini, being brought before the senate, and asked what his thoughts were concerning the existence of a Gpd answered, that < he adored with the church a God in three persons,‘ and that * Nature evidently demonstrated the being of a deity:’ and, seeing by chance a straw on the ground, he took it up, and stretching it forth, said to the judges, ‘ This straw obliges me to confess that there is a God;’ and he proved afterwards very amply, that God was the author and creator of all things, nature being incapable of creating any thing. But all this he said through vanity or fear, rather than an inward conviction; and, as the proofs against him were convincing, he was by sentence of parliament condemned to die, after they had spent six months in preparing things for a hearing. I saw him in the dung-cart, continues Gramond, when he was carried to execution, making sport with a friar, who was allowed him in order to reclaim him from his obstinacy. Vanini refused the assistance of the friar, and insulted even our Saviour in these words, ‘ He sweated with weakness and fear in going to suffer death, and I die undaunted.* This profligate wretch had no reason to say that he died undaunted: I saw him entirely dejected, and making a very ill use of that philosophy of which he so much boasted. At the time when he was going to be executed he had a horrible and wild aspect; his mind was uneasy, and he discovered in all his expressions the utmost anxiety; though from time to time he cried out that he ’ died like a philosopher.' Before the fire was applied to the wood-pile, he was ordered to put out his tongue, that it might be cut off; which he refused to do; nor could the executioner take hold of it but with pincers. There never was heard a more dreadful shriek than he then gave; it was like the bellowing of an ox. His body was consumed in the flames, and his ashes thrown into the air. I saw him in prison, and at his execution; and likewise knew him before he was arrested. He had always abandoned himself to the gratification of his passions, and lived in a very irregular manner. When his goods were seized there was found a great toad alive in a large crystal bottle full of water. Whereupon he was accused of witchcraft; but he answered, that that animal being burned, was a sure antidote against all mortal and pestilential diseases. While he was in prison he pretended to be a catholic, and went often to the sacrament, but, when he found there were no hopes of escaping, he threw off the mask, and died as he had lived.”

Vanini has not been without his apologists, who bay* considered him rather as a victim to bigotry and envy, than as a martyr to impiety and atheism. They even go so far as to maintain that neither his life nor his writings were so absurd or blasphemous as to entitle him to the character of a despiser of God and religion. The arguments of these apologists may be found in Buddeus’s “Theses de Atheismo et Superstitione,” in Arp’s “Apologia pro Vanino,” 1712, and in Heister’s “Apologia pro medicis.” The life of Vanini has been written several times; but that by M. Durand, entitled “La Vie et les Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini,” and printed at Rotterdam, 1727, in 12 mo, comprises every thing which has been said of him, bnt by no means justifies the zeal of his apologists. An English translation of Durand was published in 1730.

, a portrait-painter, brother to Carlo Vanloo, was born at Aix, in Provence, about 1684. He distinguished himself eminently in historic and portrait painting, both which he studied at Rome, and became painter to the king of Sardinia, in whose service he realized a considerable fortune; but lost it all in the Mississippi, going to Paris in the year of that bubble. In 1737 he came to England with his son. His first works were the portraits of Gibber and Mac Swinney; the latter, whose long silver grey hairs were very picturesque, contributed much to- give the new painter reputation, and he very soon bore away the chief business of London from every other painter, and introduced a better style than was then known. He died at Provence, whither he had retired for the benefit of the air, in April 1746. Louis Michael Vanloo, first painter to the king of Spain, and Charles Philip Vanloo, painter to the king of Prussia, were sons and pupils of the above-mentioned, and have with eclat supported the name.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Nice, Feb. 15, 1705. He went to Turin with his brother John in 1712, and thence to Rome in 1714. He learnt from his brother the first elements of design; and, by his constantly studying the antique, and the works of the greatest masters, he laid the foundation of his future fame. He came to Paris with his brother in 1719, and in 1723 gained the academy’s first medal for design: in the year following he carried the first prize for painting; and departed again for Rome in 1727. He returned to Turin in 1732, where he painted many historical pieces with success for the king of Sardinia. The next year he married Signora Sommis, who was celebrated for singing and knowledge of music, but more celebrated for the private virtues of domestic life. In 1734 he returned to Paris, and the year following was received into the academy. In 1749 he was chosen for the direction of the royal eleves. In 1751 he was honoured with the order of St. Michael, and in 1762 named first painter to the king, and died in 1765. His principal performances are in the churches of Paris, and are much admired.

, another eminent artist, was born at Meulebeke, a small distance from Courtray, in 1548, and was successively the disciple of Lucas de Heere, at Ghent, and Peter Vlerick, at Courtray; but his principal knowledge in the art of painting was acquired at Rome, where he studied for three years. There he designed after the antiques, and the curious remains of Roman magnificence; the temples, baths, ruinous theatres, sepulchral monuments and their decorations, and, in short, every elegant and noble object that invited his attention. He also studied after nature in the environs of Rome, sketching every scene that pleased his imagination, or could afford him materials for future compositions in the landscape-style; and having practised to paint with equal freedom in fresco and in oil, he executed several historical works as well as landscapes, for the cardinals and nobility of Rome, with extraordinary approbation.

At his return to his own country he was received with unusual respect, and soon after painted the representation of the Terrestrial Paradise, which procured him great honour, and a picture of the Deluge, which was highly applauded for the composition and expression, as it described all the passions of grief, fear, terror, horror, and despair, with a sensible and affecting variety. In general he was esteemed a good painter of landscape; the choice in his trees was judicious, his figures were well designed, his colouring was agreeable, and his composition full of spirit; though, in the advanced part of his life he appeared to have somewhat of the mannerist. This artist distinguished himself not only as a painter, but as a writer. He composed tragedies and comedies, which were acted with applause; and, what is very uncommon, he painted also the decorations of the theatre. At Haerlem he introduced an academy, to diffuse among his countrymen a taste for the Italian masters; and the world is indebted eminently to Van Mander for searching out, and transmitting to posterity, the characters and merits of so many memorable artists as are comprised in his “Lives of the Painters.” He died in 1605, aged fifty-eight.

, an eminent painter, was born at Siena, in 1563, the son of a painter who was in no great reputation, and received his earliest instruction in the school ofArchangelo Salimbeni; but when he was twelve years old he travelled to Bologna, and there studied for two years under the direction of Passerotti. Yet finding in himself an impatient desire to see the celebrated antiques, and the works of Raphael, he went to Rome, and placed himself with Giovanni da Vecchia. By the precepts of that master, his proficiency was extraordinary; so that his performances not only extorted applause from the ablest judges, but also excited the jealousy and envy of Gioseppino, who was instructed in the same school. Having thus established his taste, he returned to his native city, where he studiously contemplated the paintings of Baroccio, and so highly admired them, that he preferred the style and manner of that master to all others, imitated him with success; and was generally esteemed to be no way inferior. Yet he profited afterwards by studying the compositions of Correggio. He was principally engaged in grand works for the churches and convents at Siena and at Rome. To the latter of those cities he was invited by pope Clement VIII. and, by order of that pontiff, he painted in the church of St. Peter an incomparable design, representing Simon the sorcerer reproached by St. Peter; for which performance he received the honour of knighthood. He undoubtedly had an excellent genius; his invention was fruitful and ready, his style of composition truly fine, and his design correct. His manner of colouring was bold, lively, and beautiful his penciling tender and delicate; and the airs of his heads were remarkably graceful. The most capital works of Vanni are at Siena, Rome, Pisa, and Pistoia; among which are mentioned a Crucifixion, a Flight into Egypt, the Wise Men’s offering to Christ, and the Marriage of St. Catherine, all of them esteemed admirable. He died in 1610, aged forty-seven.

, one of the most celebrated physicians of the last century, and who attained the highest honours in his profession, was born at Leyden, May 7, 1700, of a very ancient family, which had furnished many distinguished characters for the state, the bar, and the array. He had the misfortune to lose his parents at a time when their affection would have been of most importance to him, and fell into the hands of tutors who took very little care of his property, and less of his education. This last, however, became early his own concern, and a thirst for knowledge led him to form a successful plan. After studying the classics at Leyden, he went in 1716 to Louvain, where, after a course of philosophy for two years, he was admitted into the first class, and his masters would have been glad to have detained him that he might become a farther ornament to their university; but he had by this time fixed his choice on medicine as a profession, and therefore returned to Leyden, where he placed himself under the illustrious Boerhaave. Van Swieten was not more happy in such a master than Boerhaave was in directing the studies of a pupil who soon promised to extend his favourite science. After seven years’ study here, Van Swieten, in 1725, received his doctor’s degree, and Boerhaave, notwithstanding the disparity of years and of fame, chose him for his friend, and discerned in him his future successor.

Van Swieten’s course of study was such as laid a solid foundation for his future fame. He began by tracing the fundamental principles of the healing art to their origin in the writings of the most eminent authors of antiquity, and examined with historical precision the progress of improvement through every age, distinguishing what was conjectural and temporary from what was founded on the basis of experience, and permanent; and during this extensive course of reading, he was content to abstract himself from rtie pleasures of society, and even abridged himself of the necessary hours of sleep and refreshment, until his faithful preceptor admonished him against an excess which would injure his health, and disappoint him of the object he wished to attain. Such, however, was the progress he made, that "at the age of twenty-five he was justly classed among the Savans of Europe.

After he had taken his doctor’s degree he continued to attend Boerhaave’s lectures for about twenty years, and having within this period been himself appointed a professor, his fame and talents brought a vast addition to the number of medical students at Leyden, who came from Germany, France, and England, to what was then the greatest and perhaps the only school of medicine in Europe. Celebrated as the school of Leyden was, however, from the joint labours of Boerhaave and Van Swieten, it was at last disgraced in the person of the latter. His growing reputation excited the envy of some of his contemporaries, who having nothing else to object, took the mean advantage of his being a Roman catholic, and insisting that the law should be put in force, obliged him to resign an office which he had filled with so much credit to the university. Van Swieten submitted to this treatment with dignified contempt, and being now more at leisure, began his great work, his Commentaries on Boerhaave’sAphorisms, the first volume of which was finished, and the second nearly so, when the empress Maria Theresa invited him to her court; and although he felt some reluctance at quitting the studious life he had hitherto led, he could not with propriety reject the offer, and accordingly arrived at Vienna in June 1745. Here he was appointed first physician to the court, with a handsome establishment, and some time after the dignity of baron was conferred upon him. How well he merited these honours, the favourable change effected by him in the state of medical science sufficiently proved. He was now in the prime of life, and perhaps few men in Europe were better qualified, by extent of knowledge, to lay the foundation for a school of medicine. He was not only thoroughly versed in every branch of medicine, in botany, anatomy, surgery, chemistry, &c. but was well acquainted with most of the European languages. He was a good Greek and Latin scholar, and wrote the latter with ease and elegance, and in his lectures was frequently happy in his quotations from the Greek and Latin classics. He was also well versed in all the branches of mathematics, and natural philosophy; and had paid no little attention to divinity, law, politics, and history. Such attainments procured him the confidence of his sovereign, whom he easily prevailed upon to rebuild the university of Vienna in an elegant style, and with every accommodation for the pursuit of the different sciences. The botanical garden was enlarged, and the keeping of it given to M. Langier; and a clinical lecture was established in one of the principal hospitals by M. De Haen. It was in 1746 that Van Swieten first began to execute his plan for reforming the study of medicine in the university of Vienna, by giving lectures in the vestibule of the imperial library; and when his business as first physician increased, he called in the aid of able professors who understood his views; among whom were the celebrated Storck and Crantz. Having been appointed keeper of the imperial library, his first measure was to abolish a barbarous law that had long been in force, which prohibited any person from making notes or extracts from any of the books. Van Swieten, on the contrary, laid the whole open to the use of readers, and provided them with every accommodation, and ample permission to transcribe what they pleased. He also prevailed on the empress to increase the salaries of the professors of the university, and to provide for the education of young men of talents. He was himself a most liberal patron to such as stood in need of this aid, and employed his whole influence in their favour; and he lived to promote the interests of learning in general throughout the Austrian dominions to an extent hitherto unknown.

Amidst all his engagements he enjoyed good health until 1769, when he perceived symptoms of decay: it was not, however, until 1772 that his constitution visibly declined, and a mortification in one of his toes coming on proved fatal June 18th of that year, in the seventy -third year of his age. Such was the respect of his royalmistress, that she visited him several times during his illness, and saw him only a few hours before his death, when she shed tears at the near prospect of that event. He died at Schonbrun, and his corpse was brought to Vienna, and interred in the chapel of the Augustines, and a statue was placed in the university to his memory. Few persons indeed have received more honours. At the time of his death he bore the titles ofcommander of the royal order of St. Stephen, counsellor, first physician, royal librarian, president of the censors of books; vice-president of the Imperial and royal commission of studies; perpetual director of the faculty of medicine; and a member of all the principal literary societies of Europe, and, among these, of our Royal Society, into which he was chosen in 1749. He married in 1729, and had two sons and two daughters. One of his sons, Geoffrey Baron Van Swieten, died in March 1803 he was commander of the order of St. Stephen, and director of the Imperial library, and was, some years since, the Imperial envoy at the court of Berlin. He bequeathed his library (including a very considerable musical collection) to the university of Vienna.

The work, which amidst all the changes of medical theory, must ever preserve the memory of Van Swieten, was his “Commentaria in H. Boerhaave Aphorismos,” 1743, &c. 5 vol. 4to. This has been often reprinted, and translated into French, German, and English. He wrote also “Description abregee des maladies qui regnent communement dans les arme'es,” Vienna, 1759, 8vo.

. See Perugino, and Sarto.

, an eminent landscape-painter, was born at Antwerp in 1595, and learned the art of painting from his father; but he derived his chief excellence from a diligent observation of nature. Every hour that was not employed at his easel was spent abroad in the fields, where he noticed, with curious exactness, the variety of appearances perpetually occurring from the dawn to the evening over the face of nature. He watched the different effects of light on different objects, nor suffered any incident to escape his observation. His pictures are agreeably pencilled, and the distant objects in particular delicately touched. So perfectly was his style of colouring suited to that of Rubens, that this great painter often had recourse to him in finishing the back-grounds of his pictures, particularly when they consisted of landscape. Strange engraved two of these, in which the figures are by Rubens. There are also several etchings by Vanuden, in a spirited and masterly style, and among them a set of landscapes, small plates, length-ways, inscribed “Lucas Vanuden pinx. inv. et fee.” He died about 1663. He had a brother, Jacques Vanuden, also a painter, and in his manner, but far inferior to Lucas.

, an Italian historian, poet, and critic, was born at- Florence in 1502. His father, a lawyer, placed him with a master, who reported that he was not fit for literature, and advised him to breed the boy up to merchandise. He was accordingly sent to a counting-­house, and there his masters discovered that he never was without a book, and minded nothing but reading. His father then, after examining him, found that he had been deceived by the school-master, and determined to give his son a learned education, and for that purpose sent him to Padua and Pisa. Unfortunately, however, he prescribed the study of the law, which Varchi relished as little as commerce; and although, out of filial respect, he went through the usual courses, he immediately, on his father’s death, relinquished both the study and practice of the law, and determined to devote all his attention to polite literature. In this he acquired great reputation; but when Florence became distracted by civil commotions, he joined the party in opposition to the Medici family, and was banished. During his exile he resided at Venice, Padua, and Bologna, where his talents procured him many friends; and his works having diffused his reputation more widely, Cosmo de Medicis had the generosity to forgive the hostility he had shewn to his family, and, respecting him as a man of letters, recalled him home, and appointed him his historiographer. In this capacity he recommended him to write the history of the late revolutions in Florence. All this kindness, accompanied with a handsome pension, produced a great change in the mind of the republican Varchi, who became now the equally zealous advocate of monarchy. As soon as he had finished a part of it, he submitted it to the inspection of his patron, and some copies were taken of it. These being seen by soma persons who suspected that he would make free with their characters, or the characters of their friends, they conspired to assassinate the apostate author, as they thought him; and having one night attacked him, left him weltering in his blood, but his wounds were not mortal; and although it is said he knew who the assassins were, he declined appearing against them. He was, however, so much affected by the affair, that he embraced the ecclesiastical profession, and obtained some preferment. He died at Florence in 1565. His history, which extends from 1527 to 1538, was not published until 1721, at Cologne, and reprinted at Leydeu 1723; but both these places are wrong, as both editions were published in Italy. There is a recent edition, Milan, 1803, 5 vols. 8vo. The style, like that of all his works, is pure and elegant, though a little too much elaborated. The facts, of course, are strongly tinctured with an attachment to the house of Medici.

Varchi was a man of extensive literature, and particularly excelled in criticism, grammar, and the classics; nor was he unacquainted with philosophy, law, morals, and the fine arts. He published many orations, delivered in the Florentine academy, and wrote some poetry, greatly applauded in his time. But his chief merit lay in the elegance of his Italian style, which is still reckoned a model. His principal philological work is his “L'Ercolano,” a dialogue on language, one object of which is to prove that the Italian ought to be called the Florentine language, an opinion which has been successfully opposed.

, a Dutch physician, is known in literary history as the author of a “System of Universal Geography,” which was accounted an excellent and comprehensive work, and was written originally in Latin, and printed at Amsterdam in 1650. It was re-published at Cambridge in 1672, with great improvements, by sir Isaac Newton; and in 1712, on the recommendation of Dr. Bentley, by Dr. Jurin. It was afterwards translated into English by Dr. Shaw, and illustrated with additional notes and copper-plates, 2 vols. 8vo; and in this form has gone through several editions. We have besides a curious description of Japan and the kingdom of Siam, in Latin, by this author, printed at Cambridge, 1673, 8vo. Varenius died in 1660, but we have no particulars of his life.

, a celebrated French mathematician and priest, was born at Caen in 1654. He was the son of an architect in middling circumstances, but had a college education, being intended for the church. Having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid’s Elements, he was inclined to study it, and this led him to the works of Des Cartes, which confirmed his taste for geometry, and he even abridged himself of the necessaries of life to purchase books which treated on this science. What contributed to heighten this passion in him was, that he studied in private: for his relations observing that the books he studied were not such as were commonly used by others, strongly opposed his application to them; and as there was a necessity for his being an ecclesiastic, he continued his theological studies, yet not entirely sacrificing his favourite subject to them. At this time the Abbé St. Pierre, who studied philosophy in the same college, became acquainted with him. A taste in common for rational subjects, whether physics or metaphysics, and continued disputations, formed the bonds of their friendship, and they became mutually serviceable to each other in their studies. The abbe, to enjoy Varignon’s company with greater ease, lodged in the same house with him; and being in time more sensible of his merit, he resolved to give him a fortune, that he might fully pursue his inclination. Out of only 18 hundred livres a year, which he had himself, he conferred 300 of them upon Varignon; and when determined to go to Paris to study philosophy, he settled there in 1686, with M. Varignon, in the suburbs of St. Jacques. There each studied in his own way; the abbé applying himself to the study of men, manners, and the principles of government whilst Varignon was wholly occupied with the mathematics. Fontenelie, who was their countryman, often went to see them, sometimes spending two or three days with them. They had also room for a couple of visitors, who came from the same province. “We joined together,” says Fontenelle, “with the greatest pleasure. We were young, full of the first ardour for knowledge, strongly united, and, what we were not then perhaps disposed to think so great a happiness, little known. Varignon, who had a strong constitution, at least in his youth, spent whole days in study, without any amusement or recreation, except walking sometimes in fine weather. I' have heard him say, that in studying after supper, as he usually did, he was often surprised to hear the clock strike two in the morning; and was much pleased that four hours rest were sufficient to refresh him. He did not leave his studies with that heaviness which they usually create; nor with that weariness that a long application might occasion. He left off gay and lively, filled with pleasure, and impatient to renew it. In speaking of mathematics, he would laugh so freely, that it seemed as if he had studied for diversion. No condition was so much to be envied as his; his life was a continual enjoyment, delighting in quietness.” In the solitary suburb of St. Jacques, he formed however a connection with many other learned men; as Du Hamel, Du Verney, De la Hire, &c. Du Verney often asked his assistance in those parts of anatomy connected with mechanics: they examined together the positions of the muscles, and their directions; hence Varignon learned a good deal of anatomy from Du Verney, which he repaid by the application of mathematical reasoning to that subject. At length, in 1687, Varignon made himself known to the public by a “Treatise on New Mechanics,” dedicated to the Academy of Sciences. His thoughts on this subject were, in effect, quite new. He discovered truths, and laid open their sources. In this work, he demonstrated the necessity of an equilibrium, in such cases as it happens in, though the cause of it is not exactly known. This discovery Varignon made by the theory of compound motions, and his treatise was greatly admired by the mathematicians, and procured the author two considerable places, the one of geometrician in the Academy of Sciences, the other of professor of mathematics in the college of Mazarine, to which he was the first person raised.

As soon as the science of Infinitesimals appeared in the world, Varignon became one of its most early cultivators. When that sublime and beautiful method was attacked in the academy itself (for it could not escape the fate of all innovations) he became one of its most zealous defenders, and in its favour he put a violence upon his natural character, which abhorred all contention. He sometimes lamented, that this dispute had interrupted him in his inquiries into the Integral Calculation so far, that it would be difficult for him to resume his disquisition where he had left it off. He therefore sacrificed Infinitesimals to the Interest of Infinitesimals, and gave up the pleasure and glory of making a farther progress in them when called upon by duty to undertake their defence. All the printed volumes of the Academy bear witness to his application and industry. His works are never detached pieces, but complete theories of the laws of motion, central forces, and the resistance of mediums to motion. In these he makes such use of his rules, that nothing escapes him that has any connection with the subject he treats. In all his works he makes it his chief care to place every thing in the clearest light; he never consults his ease by declining to take the trouble of being methodical, a trouble much greater than that of composition itself; nor does he endeavour to acquire a reputation for profoundness, by leaving a great deal to be guessed by the reader. He learned the history of mathematics, not merely out of curiosity, but because he was desirous of acquiring knowledge from, every quarter. This historical knowledge is doubtless an ornament in a mathematician; but it is an ornament which, is by no means without its utilityThough Varignon’s constitution did not seem easy to be impaired, assiduity and constant application brought upon him a severe disease in 1705. He was six months in clanger, and three years in a languid state, which proceeded from his spirits being almost entirely exhausted. He said that sometimes when delirious with a fever, he thought himself in the midst of a forest, where all the leaves of the trees were covered with algebraical calculations. Condemned by his physicians, his friends, and himself, to lay aside all study, he could not, when alone in his chamber, avoid taking up a book of mathematics, which he bid as soon as he heard any person coming, and again resumed the attitude and behaviour of a sick man, which unfortunately he seldom had occasion to counterfeit.

In regard to his character, Fontenelle observes, that it was at this time that a writing of his appeared, in which he censured Dr. Wallis for having advanced that there are certain spaces more than infinite, which that great geometrician ascribes to hyperbolas. He maintained, on the contrary, that they were finite. The criticism was softened with all the politeness and respect imaginable; but a criticism it was, though he had written it only for himself. He let M. Carre see it, when he was in a state that rendered him indifferent about things of that kind; and that gentleman, influenced only by the interest of the sciences, caused it to be printed in the memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, unknown to the author, who thus made an attack against his inclination.

He recovered from his disease; but the remembrance of what he had suffered did not make him more prudent for the future. The whole impression of his “Project for a New System of Mechanics,” having been sold off, he formed a design to publish a second edition of it, or rather a work entirely new, though upon the same plan, but naorc extended. It must be easy to perceive how much learning he must have acquired in the interval; but he often complained, that he wanted time, though he was by no means disposed to lose any. Frequent visits, either of French or of foreigners, somti of whom went to see him that they might have it to say that they had seen him, and others to consult him and improve by his conversation: works of mathematics, which the authority of some, or the friendship he had for others, engaged him to examine, and of which he thought himself obliged to give the most exact account; a literary correspondence with all the chief mathematicians of Europe; all these obstructed the book he had undertaken to write. Thus, says his biographer, a man acquires reputation by 'having a great deal of leisure time, and he loses this precious leisure as soon as he has acquired reputation. Add to this, that his best scholars, whether in the college of Mazarine or the Royal college (for he had a professor’s chair in both), sometimes requested private lectures of him, which he could not refuse. He sighed for his two or three months of vacation, for that was all the leisure time he had in the year, and he could then retire into the country, where his time was entirely his own.

Notwithstanding his placid temper, in the latter part of his life he was involved in a dispute. An Italian monk, well versed in mathematics, attacked him upon the subject of tangents and the angle of contact in curves, such as they are conceived in the arithmetic of infinites; he answered by the last memoir he ever gave to the Academy, and the only one which turned upon a dispute.

In the last two years of his life he was attacked with an asthmatic complaint. This disorder increased every day, and all remedies were ineffectual. He did not, however, cease from any of his customary business; so that, after having finished his lecture at the college of Mazarine, on the 22d of December 1722, he died suddenly the following night. His character, says Fontenelle, was as simple as his superior understanding could require. He was not apt to be jealous of the fame of others: indeed he was at the head of the French mathematicians, and one of the best in Europe. It must be owned, however, that when a new idea was offered to him, he was too hasty to object, and it was frequently not easy to obtain from him a favourable attention.

His works that were published separately, were, 1. “Projet d'une Nouvelle Mechanique,” Paris, 1687, 4to. 2. “Dcs Nouvelles conjectures sur la Pesanteur. 3. <c Nouvelle Mechanique ou Statique,” 1725, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “UnTraite du Mouvement et de laMesure des Eaux Courantes, &c.” 1725, 4to. 5. “Eclaircissement sur l'Analyse des Infiniment-petits,” 4to. 6. “De Cahiers de Matheraatiques, ou Elemens de iVlathematiques,” 1731. 7. “Une Demonstration de la possibilit6 de la presence reelle du Corps de Jesus Christ dans PEucbariste,” printed in a collection entitled “Pieces fugitives sur I'Eucharistie,” published in 1730; an extraordinary thing for a mathematician to undertake to demonstrate; which he does, as may be expected, not mathematically but sophistically. His “Mamoirs” in the volumes of the Academy of Sciences are extremely numerous, and extend through almost all the, volumes down to the time of his death in 1722.

, a French writer, more known than esteemed for several historical works, was descended from a good family, and born at Gueret in 1624. After a liberal education, of which he made the proper advantage, he became a private tutor to some young persons of quality; and then went to Paris, where he was well received as a man of letters, and had access to the Dupuy’s, whose house was the common rendezvous of the learned. He obtained afterwards a place in the kings’ library, by his interest with Nicolas Colbert, who was made librarian after the death of James Dupuy in 1655. Mr. Colbert, afterwards minister of state, commissioned his brother Nicolas to find out a man capable of collating certain manuscripts. Varillzte was recommended, and had the abbe" of St. Real for his coadjutor; and handsome pensions were settled upon both. But whether Varillas was negligent and careless, or had not a turn for this employment, he did not give satisfaction, and was therefore dismissed from his employment in 1662; yet had his pension continued till 1670. He then retired from the royal library, and spent the remainder of his days in study, refusing, it is said, several advantageous offers. He lived frugally and with oeconomy, and yet not through necessity, for his circumstances were easy. St. Come was the seat of his retirement; where he died June 9, 1696, aged seventy-two.

He wrote a great number of works, chiefly of the historical kind; and published, at different times and in distinct portions, a history of France, comprising a period of 176 years under nine different reigns, beginning with Lewis XL and ending with Henry III. He published also “Les Anecdotes de Florence, ou THistoire secrette de la Maison de Medicis, at the Hague,” 1685, in 12mo; and, -“Histoire des Revolutions arrives en Europe en matiere de Religion,” Paris, 1686, and often reprinted. Varillas had some advantages of style to recommend him as an historian; he had likewise a pleasing manner of relating and setting off facts; and his characters, though somewhat diffuse, are drawn with art, and for the most part appear curious and interesting. Add to this, that he abounds in anecdotes, and told Menage that, “of ten things which he knew, he had learned nine from conversation.” He was also profuse in his professions of sincerity, and was thought to have penetrated into the inmost recesses of the cabinet, and drawn forth a great deal of secret history from the numerous and important manuscripts which he pretends in his prefaces to have been from time to time communicated to him. All this procured him a vast reputation at first: his books were read with eagerness: and such was the call for them, that the booksellers generally sent forth two editions, in different forms, at the same time. The public, however, were at length undeceived, and came to be convinced that the historical anecdotes, which Varillas put off for authentic facts, were wholly of his own invention, notwithstanding his affected citations of titles, instructions, letters, memoirs, and relations, all of them imaginary. As his design was to please rather than instruct his readers, he omitted nothing which he thought might conduce to this. Thus he characterised persons he knew little of, as if he had lived in the greatest familiarity with them; and gave particular reasons for all the steps they took, as if he had been privy to their councils. He advanced facts with the utmost confidence, which were scarcely probable: the air of politics, which runs through all his writings, is romantic; and every event, according to him, proceeded from premeditation and design. Such is the opinion which his own countrymen soon learned to give of his “History of France,” and “Florentine Anecdotes;” but his “History of the Revolutions in matters of Religion which have happened in Europe,” utterly ruined his reputation abroad, and exposed him to the criticisms of able men in each country: of Burnet and Dr. King, in England, Brunsmann in Denmark, Puffendorf and Seckendorf in Germany, vtho copiously detected and exposed his falsehoods and misrepresentations concerning the state of religion in their respective countries, and totally destroyed the reputation of his works.

, an able anatomist, was horn at Bologna in 1542. He taught surgery in his native place, until pope Gregory XIII. soon after his elevation to the pontificate in 1572, invited him to Rome, and appointed him his first physician. Here he lectured on anatomy, and acquired very great reputation, not only for his discoveries in that branch, but for his skill in lithotomy and other surgical operations; and he promised to have attained the highest rank in his profession, when a premature death deprived the world of his services. He died in 1575, at the age of thirty-two. The Pons Varolii, which still perpetuates his name, and his other discoveries in the ceconomy of the brain and nerves, are contained in his “Anatomise, sive de resolutione corporis hurnani, libri quatuor,” Padua, 1573, 8vo, and “De Nervis opticis Epistola,” ibid.

, usually styled the most learned of all the Romans, was born in the year of Rome 638, or 28 B.C. His immense learning made him the admiration of his time; which yet was the most flourishing for arts and glory that Rome ever knew. He was an intimate friend of Cicero; and his friendship was confirmed and immortalized by a mutual dedication of their learned works to each other. Thus Cicero dedicated his “Academic Questions” to Varro; and Varro dedicated his “Treatise on the Latin tongue” to Cicero, who, in a letter in which he recommends him as questor to Brutus, assures the commander, that he would find him perfectly qualified for the post, and particularly insists upon his good sense, his indifference to pleasure, and his patient perseverance in business. To these virtues he added uncommon abilities, and large stores of knowledge, which qualified him for the highest offices of the state. He attached himself to the party of Pompey, and in the time of the triumvirate was proscribed with Cicero: and, though he escaped with his life, he suffered the loss of his library, and of his own writings; a loss which would be severely felt by one who had devoted a great part of his hfe to letters. Returning, at length, to Rome, he spent his last years in literary leisure. He died in the 727th year of the city. His prose writings were exceedingly numerous, and treated of various topics in antiquities, chronology, geography, natural and civil history, philosophy, and criticism. He was, besides, a poet of some distinction, and wrote in almost every kind of verse. He is said to have been eighty when he wrote his three books “De Re Rustica,” which are still extant. Five of his books “De Lingua Latina,” which he addressed to Cicero, are also extant, and some fragments of his works, particularly of his “Menippean Satires,” which are medleys of prose and verse. Scaliger has likewise collected some of his epigrams from among the “Catalecta Virgilii. The first edition of Varro” De Lingua Latina“is a quarto, without date or place, but supposed to be Rome, 1471. There is a second, at Venice, 1474, 4to, and a third at Rome, 1474, fol. His whole works, with the notes of Scaliger, Turnebus, &c. were printed by Henry Stephens, 1573, 8vo, reprinted 1581; but the former edition is in greatest request among the curious, on account of a note of Scaliger' s, p. 212, of the second part, which was omitted in the subsequent editions. Varro” De Re Rustica“is inserted among the” Auctores de Re Rustica." The use which Virgil makes of this work in his Georgics entitles it *o some respect; and it is amusing as giving us a notion of the agriculture of his time, and the method of laying out gardens, and providing the luxuries of the table, in which the Romans were particularly extravagant. It contains many absurdities, however, and many of those remarks and pieces of information which would now be thought a disgrace to the meanest writer on agriculture. The rev. T. Owen, of Queen’s college, Oxford, and rector of Upper Scudamore, in Wiltshire, published a good translation of this work in 1800, 8vo.

, was born about ten years after the preceding, at a small town near Narbonne. Though infinitely below the Roman in learning, he was at least as good, if not a better poet; which perhaps has made Lilius Gyraldus, and other critics, confound them. He composed many works in verse; some fragments of which were collected, and published with those of other ancient poets at Lyons, 1603. His chief works were, *' A poem on the war with frhe Sequani, a people of Gaul;“and the” Astronomies,“which went under the name of Planciades the Grammarian. But the” Argonautics,“in four books, was what gained him the greatest reputation; and though indeed nothing but a translation of” Apollonius Rhodius," yet it has been liberally commended by Quintilian. Seneca also observes, that Virgil had so good an opinion of this author, that he sometimes inserted his verses into his works.

, an artist, though better known as the biographer of his profession, was born at Arezzo, in 1512, and was taught the rudiments of drawing by his father, and the first principles of painting by William of Marseilles, a Frenchman, and a painter on glass; but being taken to Florence by cardinal da Cortona, he improved himself under Michael Angelo, Andrea del Sarto, and other eminent masters. By the cardinal he was introduced into the Medici family, but in 1527, when they were driven from Florence, he returned to his native city. Finding an epidemic disease prevailing there, he spent his time in the surrounding country, improving himself by painting subjects of devotion for the farmers. His father unfortunately died of the contagion, and left a young family unprovided for. Vasari, to contribute more effectually to their support, quitted the uncertain profession of a painter, and applied himself to the more lucrative trade of a goldsmith. In 1529, the civil war, which then existed at Florence, obliged the goldsmiths’ company to remove to Pisa: and there, receiving commissions to paint some pictures both in oil and in fresco, he was induced to resume his former profession, and afterwards through life met with encouragement, that left him neither motive nor desire to change. The dukes of Florence and other distinguished persons were his liberal patrons, and he was constantly employed in works both profitable and honourable to himself.

In 1544, by the friendship of PaulJovius, he was recommended to make designs and paint a hall for the cardinal Farnese, in Rome. While he was executing this work, he attended the cardinal’s evening parties, which were frequented by men of genius. At one of these parties, Jovius, speaking of his own museum, arranged and embellished with inscriptions and portraits of illustrious men, said, “that it had always been his desire to add to it, and make his book of eulogiums more complete, by a treatise on the celebrated artists, from Cimabue down to his own time;” and enlarged upon the subject with much general information. The cardinal then turned to Vasari, and asked him “if he did not think that subject would make a fine work?” Vasari concurred with his eminence, but added, that “it would require the assistance of an artist to collate the materials, and arrange them in their proper order: for although Jo?ius displayed great knowledge in his observations, yet he had not been equally accurate in the arrangement of his facts.” “You can then,” replied the cardinal, “give him assistance, which will be doing an essential service to the arts.” To pay a proper deference to so flattering an opinion, he collected such materials as he thought necessary to the plan then suggested: and the information he contributed was drawn up so much to Jovius’s satisfaction, that he recommended him to enlarge upon it, and make a more complete work, alleging his own want of leisure and capacity to do justice to such an undertaking. Vasari, with reluctance, consented; and with his own industry, and some assistance from others, he fulfilled his task; and, in 1550, published his work in 2 vols, entitled “Vite de piu eccellenti Pittori, Scultori, e Architetti.” In 1571 he reprinted it in 3 vols. 4to, with portraits cut in wood, and with the addition of his own life to the fifty-fifth year of his age. The subsequent editions are, that of Bottari, Rome, 1759 60, 3 vols. 4to, and those printed at Leghorn, 1767 72, 7 vols. 4to; at Sienna, 1791—98, 11 vols. 8vo. There is likewise one printed at Bologna in 1647, 3 vols. 4to, but not esteemed a good one.

Vasari died in 1574, and in 1588 his nephew published a work to commemorate and honour his uncle’s abilities, entitled, “Ragionamenti del Sig. Cavaliere Georgio Vasari pittore ed architetto sopra le invenzioni de lui depinta in Fiorenza nel palazzo di Loro Altezze Serenissime, &c.” It is not however to painting that Vasari is indebted for his present fame, but to his miscellaneous work; which, though crude and incorrect, affords the most ample source of our information concerning the painters of Italy before his time, or contemporary with himself. As an artist he had little originality, and the extravagances of genius mark the most predominant feature of his style.

an eminent Hebrew scholar, was born at Gamache in Picardy, in the early part of the sixteenth century. In 1531 he was appointed regius professor of Hebrew in the university of Paris, one of the royal professorships at that time founded by Francis I. and in this office gained the highest reputation. Among his hearers were many learned Jews, who much admired his lectures, which were all delivered extempore, nor does he appear to have committed any of them to writing. Some of his scholars, however, having taken notes of his observations on the Old Testament, Robert Stephens made a collection of them, which he added to Leo Juda’s version of the Bible, printed at Paris in 1545. Of their accuracy no doubts have been entertained, although Stephens probably might correct what he thought the errors of the transcribers. Yet as a protestant translation was joined to them, the doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris condemned them, while those of Salamanca, with more liberality, caused Vatablus’s Bible, for such it was called, to be reprinted in Spain with approbation. Stephens wrote a defence of it against the censures of the Parisian divines, who, Dupin allows, were at that time not sufficiently acquainted with the Hebrew language.

Vatablus was an excellent Greek scholar, and translated some parts of Aristotle’s works. He also assisted Clement Marot in his poetical translation of the Psalms, by giving him a literal version from the Hebrew. He had the credit of being the restorer of the study of the Hebrew language in France, and taught many able scholars, particularly Brentius and Mercerus (see Mercier), who both succeeded him in his professorship. He died March 16, 1547.

an eminent publicist, was the son of a clergyman of Neufchatel, where he was born April 25, 1714. After completing his studies, he went to Berlin, where he became acquainted with some of the literati of that city, and thence to Dresden, and was introduced to the king of Poland and the elector of Saxony, who received him with great kindness, and some years after he was appointed privy- councillor to the elector. He was residing at Dresden in 1765 when his health began to decline, which obliged him to try the air of his native country; but this proved ineffectual, and he died at Neufehatel in 1767, in the fifty-third year of his age. He owed his literary reputation first to some publications, which, we believe, are not much known in this country, as a “Defence of Leibnitz’s philosophy against M. de Crousaz,” published in 1741, and dedicated to Frederick the Great, king of Prussia; and “Pieces diverses de morale et d'amusement,” published at Paris in 1746. But he became known to all Europe by his “Droit des gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle,” published at Neufchatel in 1758, and translated into most European languages, and often reprinted. We have at least two editions of it in English, under the title of “The Law of Nations; or, principles of the Law of Nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns,” 1760, 4to, and 1793, 8vo. What particularlyrecommended this work to the favour of the English, was their finding the opinions of their countrymen generally adopted, and England brought as a proof of a wise and happy constitution. The opinions of Milton and Harrington are frequently confirmed, while the maxims of Puffendorf and Grotius, who often adapted their opinions to the states in which they lived, are refuted with strength and perspicuity. In general Vattel takes Wolff, the celebrated Saxon philosopher, for his guide; but in many places be differs totally from him, and this produced a controversy between them. The points on which they differ may be seen in a publication by Vattel, which appeared in 1762, entitled “Questions sur le Droit Naturel: et Observations sur le Traite du Droit de la Nature de M. le Baron de Wolff.” In the mean time Vattel’s “Law of Nations” became more and more the favourite of men who study such subjects, and has for many years been quoted as a work of high authority, and as in many respects preferable to Grotius and Puffendorf, being more methodical, more comprehensive, and more simple than either.