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

a Jesuit of France, eminently distinguished for his accomplishments in the belles-lettres, was born in 1605, at Paray, a small town in Charolois, in the diocese of Autun. He entered into the society of the Jesnits in 1621; and, after having finished the course of his studies, taught polite literature and rhetoric for seven years. Afterwards he was called to Paris, to explain the Holy Scriptures; which province he sustained for six and thirty years, all the while cultivating poetry and classical literature, in which he particularly excelled. He died at Paris in Dec. 1681. He understood the Latin tongue very exactly, and also spoke it with the greatest purity and elegance. He was a man of good talents, great acuteness, solid and accurate judgment, and profound learning; so that he had all the qualities necessary to make him, what he was generally allowed to be, a very good critic.

His book “De Ludicra Dictione,” printed in 1658, was written to oppose a bad taste, which then prevailed in France, when the works of Scarron and Dassouci were very popular; by shewing, that the Greeks and Komans knew nothing of the burlesque style, although Mons. le Clerc is of opinion, that something of it may be found in Aristophanes. He wrote this at the request of Balzac, who had a great dislike to this style; but Balzac died before it was published. As all the authors of antiquity, who have mixed any pleasantries or bon-mots in their writings, were necessarily to be examined in the course of this treatise, Vavassor had an opportunity of shewing very extensive reading. Another of his works, not approved much less than the former, is his book “De Epigrammate,” printed in 1669, and reprinted with his “Epigrams” in 1672, 12mo; in which there are many new and just observations. It however laid the foundation of a dispute between him and Rapin who, in his “Reflections on Aristotle’s poesy,” printed in 1674, after having said, that the epigram, of all the works in verse that antiquity has produced, is the least considerable, adds, “I find nothing considerable to say on those who have attempted any thing in this way among the moderns. It is one of the sorts of verse, in which a man has little success; for, it is a kind of a lucky hit if it proves well. An epigram is little worth unless it be admirable; and, it is so rare to make them admirable, that it is sufficient to have made one in a man’s life. Maynard has succeeded the best in this way of all our French poets.” A man jealous of his reputation, and naturally splenetic, which is said to have been Vavassor’s character, must have been extremely hurt with this; and accordingly the year after, 1675, he published “Remarks upon the Reflections of Rapin,” which had no name to them and, for the sake of abusing him, pretended not to know, while every body else knew very well, who the author of those reflections was. Rapin complained loudly of this ill-treatment; and Vavassor’s book, by way of re* dress, was suppressed by order of the society. Vavassor’s other treatises are chiefly theological.;-*ii his works were collected and printed at Amsterdam, 1709, in folio; with a prefatory discourse by Le Clerc.

, marechal of France, commissioner-general of fortifications, and the greatest engineer which France has produced, was the son of Urban le Prestre, seigneur de Vauban, a descendant of an ancient and noble family of Nivernois. He was born May 1, 1633, and was in the army at the early age of seventeen, where his uncommon talents and genius for fortification soon became known, and were eminently displayed at the sieges of St. Menehould, 1652 and 1653, of Stenay 1654, and of several other places in the following years. He consequently rose to the highest military ranks by his merit and services: and was made governor of the citadel of Lisle in 1668, and commissioner-general of fortifications in 1678. He took Luxemburg in 1684, and, being appointed lieutenant-general in 1688, was present, the same year, at the siege and capture of Philipsburg, Manheim, and Frankendal, under the dauphin. This prince, as a reward for his services, gave him four pieces of cannon, which he was permitted to chuse from the arsenals of these three towns, and place in his castle at Bazoche; an honour afterwards granted to the famous marechal Saxe. M. de Vauban commanded on the coast of Flanders in 1689, and was made marechal of France, Jan. 14, 1703. His dignity was expensive to him, but the king would not permit him to serve as an inferior officer, though he offered it in a very handsome manner. He died at Paris, March 30, 1707, aged seventy-four. He was a man of high and independent spirit, of great humanity, and entirely devoted to the good of his country. As an engineer, he carried the art of fortifying, attacking, and defending towns, to a degree of perfection unknown before his time. He fortified above 300 ancient citadels, erected thirty- three new ones, and had the principal management and direction of fifty-three sieges, and was present at one hundred and forty engagements. But his countrymen tell us that it was unnecessary for him to exert his skill in defending a fort; for the enemies of France never attacked those in which he was stationed. His works are, a treatise entitled “La Dixme Roïale,” 1707, 4to and 12mo, which displays some patriotic principles, but the plan is considered as impracticable. A vast collection of Mss. in 12 vols. which he calls his “Oisivetés,” contain his ideas, reflections, and projects, for the advantage of France. The three following works are also attributed to him, but whether he wrote them, or whether they have been compiled from his Memoirs, and adapted to his ideas, is uncertain: “Maniere de fortifier,” 8vo and 12mo, printed also at Paris by Michalet, 8vo, under the title of “L'Ingéieur François.” M. Hebert, professor of mathematics, and the abbe“du Fay, have written notes on this treatise, which is esteemed, and is said to have been revised by the chevalier de Cambrai, and reprinted at Amsterdam, 1702 and 1727, 2 vols. 4to; 2.” Nouveau Traite de l'Attaque et de la Défense des Places, suivant le Systeme de M. de Vauban, par M. Desprez de Saint Savin,“1736, 8vo, much esteemed; 3.” Essais sur la Fortification, par M. de Vauban,“1740, 12mo. As to the” Political Testament" ascribed to him, it was written by Peter le Pesant, sieur de Boïs Guillebert, lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of Rouen, who died 1714. M. de Vauban’s second cousin, Anthony de Prestre, known by the name of Puy Vauban, was also a very eminent engineer. He died lieutenant-general of the king’s forces, and governor of Bethune, April 10, 1731, aged seventy-seven.

, an elegant French writer, was born of an ancient family at Chamberry in 1585. His father Antoine Favre, or Antony Faber, was first president of the senate of Chamberry, and published several learned works upon law-subjects. (See Favre.) Vaugelas was sent to the court very young, and there spent his whole life. He was gentleman in ordinary, and afterwards chamberlain, to the duke of Orleans, whom he attended in all his retreats out of the kingdom, and was afterwards governor to the children of prince Thomas. He had a pension from the crown early settled on him; but it never was paid him till Cardinal Richelieu employed the French academy upon forming a dictionary of the language. On that occasion the academy represented to the cardinal, that the only way to have one well executed, was to commit the chief management of it to Vaugelas. His pension was then re-established and punctually paid. But, although he had other advantages besides this, and a handsome patrimony from his father, and was not a man of luxury or extravagance, yet when he died in 1605, he did not leave enough to satisfy his creditors.

He was ont- of those who first corrected and refined the French language to an extraordinary degree of purity. He had cultivated it with peculiar care and attention from his infancy, and formed himself chiefly upon Coeffeteati, whose writings he held in such esteem, and, above all, his “Roman History,” that he could hardly allow any phrases or expressions to be pure and genuine but what were to be found in that work: which made Balzac say pleasantly, that, “in the judgment of Vaugelas, salvation was no more to be had out of the Roman History than out of the Roman church.” His principal talent was in prose: for though he wrote some verses in Italian that were admired, yet he could not succeed in his own language. His most important works are, 1. “Remarques sur la Langue Franchise, Paris, 1647,” in 4to. Mr. de la Monnoye has observed of the preface to this excellent treatise, that it is a masterpiece of elegance and solidity. 2. “Quint.-Curce de la vie & des actions d'Alexandre le Grand, traduit du Latin, Paris, 1653,” in 4to. Vaugelas spent thirty years in translating this author, perpetually altering and correcting it, as it was his principal object to make it a model of the purest style. Voiture, who was the intimate friend of Vaugelas, used to rally him on this fastidious nicety and long delay, and told him that it could never be finished; for that, while he was polishing one part, the language must needs undergo some revolution, and he would have all the rest to do over again: and he applied to him Martial’s epigram upon the barber, who was so long in shaving one part of the face, that the beard in the mean time grew again upon the other. It is allowed, however, that the French language owes much to Vaugelas, and Voltaire says his translation of Quintus Curtius was the first good book written with purity; and that there are few of the expressions and terms that are yet become obsolete.

, an English poet and translator, called the Silurist, from being a native of that part of Wales whose ancient inhabitants were called Silures, was born, in 1621, at Newton St. Bridget, in Brecknockshir. After being educated at home under Matthew Herbert, an able grammar- master, he was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1638, but after two years residence, he departed without taking a degree, his father wishing him to study law in London. On the breaking out of the rebellion he was sent for home, and followed, as Wood says, “the pleasant paths of poetry and philology,” but afterwards studied and practised physic with reputation. He was, adds Wood, “esteemed by scholars an ingenious person, but proud and humorous.” He died in April 1695, and was buried in the parish church of Llansenfreid near Brecknock. His poetical works are, 1. “Olor Iscanus, a collection of some select poems,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. 2. “Silex scintillans, or the Bleeding Heart, sacred poems and private ejaculations,” 1650, 1655, 12mo. 3. “The Mount of Olives: or. Solitary Devotions,” 1652, 8vo. 4. “Thalia Rediviva,” poems, which Wood says were ready for the press in 1673, but knows not whether they were printed. Mr. Ellis has given a few specimens from Vaughan’s poetry, but without being able to applaud it much. He translated some parts of Plutarch’s Morals, which were printed in a second edition of his “Olor Iscanus;” Anselm’s “Blessed state of Man;” Guevara “On the praise and happiness of the Country Life;” the “Life of Paulinus bishop of Nola,” and a few other articles mentioned by Wood.

Henry Vaughan had a twin-brother, Thomas Vaughan, who styles himself in his strange writings, Eugenius Philalethes. He also came to Jesus college at the same time with his brother, but remained longer, and took one degree in arts, and was made fellow. He then entered into holy orders, and was made rector of St. Bridget, near Brecknock, a living conferred upon him by his kinsman, sir George Vaughan. But being interrupted in the quiet possession of this by the commotions of the times, he returned to Oxford, and distinguished himself for extravagant admiration of Cornelius Agrippa, and for many publications of the alchymical kind, replete with the grossest absurdities. Among these are his “Anthroposophia Theomagica,” dedicated to his brethren the Rosicrucians, Lond. 1650, 8vo, and his “Anima magica abscondita.” Dr, Henry More, on whom he had reflected, did him the honour to answer these publications in some “Observations” published the same year under the name of Alazonomastix Philalethes, and as he had made rather free with Vaughan, according to the controversial spirit of the times, and called him a Momus, a mimic, an ape, a fool in a play, a jackpudding, &c. Vaughan answered him in a work with a suitable title, “The Man-Mouse taken in a trap, and tortured to death for gnawing the margins of Eugenius Philalethes.” Mure again replied, but was afterwards ashamed of the controversy, and suppressed it in the edition of his collected works. Wood mentions other works, on magic, by Vaughan, the titles of which we may be excused transcribing. He is said to have died in consequence of some experiment with mercury, Feb. 27, 1665-6, and was buried in Oidbury church, Oxfordshire, at the expence of his friend and fellow Rosicrucian, sir Robert Moray, or Murray, of whom we have given an account in vol. XXII.

, lord chief justice of the commonpleas, was born in Cardiganshire, Sept. 14, 1608, and educated at Worcester school, whence he entered Christ Church, Oxford, in 1623, but left it without taking a degree, in 1626, and went to the Inner Temple for the study of the law. This, according to Wood, he neglected for some time, and was addicted to poetry and philosophy, until becoming acquainted with SeWen, he was advised to apply more diligently to his profession. In this he soon made such a figure as to be returned to the parliament of 1640, as member for the town of Cardigan. It is said that he was in his heart an enemy to monarchy, but never engaged in open hostility to Charles I. On the contrary, when the rebellion broke out he retired to his own country, and lived there principally until the restoration. He was then elected knight of the shire of Cardigan, in the parliament which began in 1661, and was much noticed by Charles II. In 1668 his majesty conferred the honour of knighthood upon him, and on May 22 of that year he was sworn serjeant-at-law, and the day following, lord chief justice of the common-pleas. He died Dec. 10, 1674, and was buried in the Temple church, near the grave of his friend Selden, who had appointed him one of his executors, and whose friendship for him is recorded on sir John’s monument.

Sir John Vaughan was not only versed in all the knowledge requisite to make a figure in his profession, but was also a very considerable master of the politer kinds of learning; but his behaviour among the generality of his acquaintances was haughty, supercilious, and overbearing; hence he was much more admired than beloved. The worst charge laid to him is that of having joined the enemies of lord Clarendon, who was once his friend, and had made him overtures of preferment.

Sir John Vaughan’s “Reports and Arguments in the Common Pleas, being all of them special cases, and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas at the time he was chief justice there,” are fully and ably taken, and were first printed in 1677, and secondly in 1706, by his son Edward Vaughan, esq. with references, to which is added a tract concerning process out of the courts at Westminster into Wales.

, a Latin poet and moral writer, was the son of Walter Vaughan, of the Golden Grove, in Carmarthenshire, esq. and younger brother to sir John Vaughan, first earl of Carbery, and patron of bishop Jeremy Taylor. He was born at Golden Grove in 1577, and became a commoner of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1591, where he took his degrees in arts. The fruits of his scholastic attainments began to appear uncommonly early, as he was only in his fifteenth year when he prepared for printing an easy paraphrase of Persius in English and Latin; and his publications which appeared in 1597 and 1598 bespeak a prematurity of genius. After taking his degrees in arts, he applied to the study of the law, but before he proceeded in that faculty, set out on his travels, and at Vienna performed the necessary exercises for a doctor’s degree, in which he was incorporated at Oxford in 1605. He afterwards appears to have meditated a settlement in Cambriol, Newfoundland, where he was living in 1628, but the time of his death is not mentioned. His Latin poems are, 1. the “Song of Solomon, and some of the Psalms,” translated, Lond. 1597. 2. “Varia Poemata de Sphaerarum online,” 1589, 8vo. 3. “Poemata continent. Encom. Roberti Comitis Essex,” 1598, 8vo. 4. “Cambrensium Caroleia,” &c. a poem on the nuptials of Charles I. 1625 or 1630, 8vo. His English works are, “The Golden Grove, moralized in three books,” 1608, 8vo, which seems to have suggested to bishop Taylor the title of one of his most popular works; and “The Golden Fleece,” 1626, 4to: both works of the moral kind, and replete with observations on the manners of the times, and the principal personages. A particular account of both is given in the “Bibliographer,” vol. II. by which it appears that Vaughan had translated a part of Boccalini’s Advices from Parnassus, and had published “Circles called the Spirit of Detraction, conjured and convicted,” and “Commentaries upon, and paraphrase of, Juvenal and Persius,” all in early life.

. See Ivetaux, and Fresnaye.

, a French writer of considerable talents, was the son of John Vauvilliers, professor of rhetoric in the university of Paris, and of Greek in the royal college, who is known to the learned world by several Latin dissertations, particularly one “De praestantia Grsecarum literarum,” &c. He was born about 1736, and applied so diligently to his studies that he was able to assist his father in his rhetorical lectures. In 1767 he was appointed assistant to Vatry, the Greek professor in the royal college, and succeeding him, held that office for twenty years. On the commencement of the revolution he joined the revolutionists, and was for some time president of the first commune of Paris, and lieutenant to the mayor. In this office he had the care of furnishing Paris with'provisions, which he performed with great skill and success; but finding the mob gaining the superiority, resigned his office, and not only refused to sit in the constituent assembly, to which he was called, but published an opinion on the constitution of the clergy, which was so much in hostility to the measures then pursuing, that he was obliged for a time to conceal himself. He survived the worst period of the revolution, however, and in 1797 was chosen a member of the council of 500, but having joined the party of Clichy, was sentenced to transportation. On this he disappeared again, and found a refuge in St. Petersburgh, where the emperor Paul appointed him a member of the academy of sciences. The climate, however, and the sufferings he had been subjected to at home, did not permit him a long enjoyment of his present tranquillity. He died at St. Petersburg, July 23, 1800, in the sixtyfourth year of his age. He is characterised as a man of great simplicity of manners, joined to a tolerant and enlightened piety, and a contempt of riches. All his property, when confiscated at Paris, did not produce more than 1800 livres, and in Russia he scarcely left enough to pay for his funeral.

Vauvilliers had been in early life one of the French philosophers, and participated in all the sentiments of that sect, but was recalled to a better way of thinking by an incident, which is thus related. “In 1736 he had a dream, in which he saw himself transported to the judgment-seat of God; the book of his life was opened to him, and he was so strongly reproached for his conduct and principles, that he was deeply impressed by it: he awoke in a violent perspiration; his hair turned white; all at once he withdrew from the world, lived for some time in retirement, and did not appear again till the beginning of the revolution: from this time religious sentiments took the place of philosophical principles in his mind, and he became as exemplary in his faith and in his conduct as he had before been unbelieving.” This anecdote, his biographer informs us, he had a pleasure in repeating to his friends. His works are, 1.“Essai sur Pindare,” 1772, 12mo, which, as far as it goes, is the best translation the French have of Pindar, but it is not complete. The notes are very valuable. 2. “Extraits de divers auteurs Grecs a l‘usage de l’ecole militaire,” 1788, 6 vols. 12mo. 3. “Lettres sur Horace,” 12mo. 4. “Examen historique du government de Sparte,” 1769. This procured him admission into the academy of inscriptions. Besides these he completed Caperronier’s edition of Sophocles, published in 1781, and in it displays great diligence, research, and knowledge of the Greek language, although we are aware that this edition has not given universal satisfaction. He also assisted Brotier in his edition of Amyot’s Plutarch.

, Lord Vaux of Harwedon, an English poet, was the eldest son of Nicholas, the first lord Vaux, and was born in 1510. In 1527 he was among the attendants in Wolsey’s stately embassy, when that prelate went to treat of a peace between the emperor Charles V. and the kings of England and France; and in January 1530, he took his place in parliament as a baron. In 1532 he waited on the king in his splendid expedition to Calais and Boulogne, a little before which time he is said to have had the custody of the persecuted queen Catherine. In the following year he was made a knight of the bath, at the coronation of Anne Boleyn. He appears to have held no public office but that of the captain of the island of Jersey, which he surrendered in 1536. He died early in the reign of Philip and Mary.

As a poet, he has long been deprived of his merit by his pieces having been attributed to his father, Nicholas lord Vaux, an error which Dr. Percy first detected, and the title of Thomas lord Vaux seems now indisputable. The largest collection of his poetry is in the “Paradise of dainty Devises,” lately reprinted in the “Bibliographer;” and Dr. Percy and Mr. Ellis have printed “The Assault of Cupid,” and the “Dyttye, or sonet made by the lorde Vaus in time of the noble queeneMarye, representinge the image of Deathe;” but the popular notion of lord Vaux’s having composed this last on his death-bed, seems unfounded. From the prose prologue to Sackville’s “Induction,” in the “Mirror for Magistrates,” it would seem that lord Vaux had undertaken to pen the history of king Edward’s two sons cruelly murdered in the Tower of London; but what he performed of his undertaking does not appear. Lord Vaux, as a poet, is more distinguished by morality of sentiment than by imagery; yet even in the latter, his two celebrated poems of “The Assault of Cupid,” and the “Aged Lover’s renunciation of Love,” are far from deficient and the sweet and touching simplicity of the ideas, and the airy ease of the language, entitle them to high commendation.

, or Lope-Felix de Vega Carpio, a celebrated Spanish poet, was born at Madrid, Nov. 25, 1562. He informs us that his father was a poet, but what he was besides, or the time of his death, is not known. It appears that he was an orphan when at school, about thirteen or fourteen years old, and was then impelled by so restless a desire of seeing the world, that he resolved to escape; and having concerted his project with a schoolfellow, they actually put it in execution, but were soon brought back to Madrid. Before this time, according to his own account, he had not only written verses, but composed dramas in four acts, which, as he tells us, was then the custom. Upon his return to Madrid, however, he abandoned this mode of composition, and ingratiated himself with the bishop of Avila by several pastorals, and a comedy in three acts, called “La Pastoral de Jacinto,” which is said to have formed an epoch in the annals of the theatre, and a prelude to the reform which Lope was destined to introduce.

He shortly after studied philosophy at Alcala, and ingratiated himself with the duke of Alva, at whose instance he wrote his “Arcadia,” a mixture of prose and verse, romance and poetry, pastoral and heroic, the design of which was avowedly taken from Sannazarius, and which contains nearly as many deformities as beauties. Soon, after this he left the duke of Alva’s service, and married, but continued to cultivate his favourite studies, until, being involved in a duel, he wounded his antagonist so dangerously as to be obliged to leave Madrid, and his newly established family. He fixed upon Valencia as the place of his retreat, but returned to Madrid in a few years, when all apprehensions of evil consequences from his duel were allayed. He was probably soothing his imagination with prospects of domestic happiness, which his late absence had suspended, when he had the misfortune to lose his wife. The residence of Madrid, which he had so lately regarded as the summit of his wishes, now became insupportable; and scenes which had long been associated in his mind with ideas of present comfort and future reputation, served only to remind him of their loss. To fly from such painful recollections he hastily embarked on board the memorable Armada, which was then fitting out to invade England. The fate of this expedition is well known; and Lope, in addition to his share in the difficulties and dangers of the voyage, saw his brother, to whose society he had run for refuge in his late calamity, expire in his arms. During the voyage, however, his muse was not idle, for he composed the “Hermosura de Angelica,” a poem, which professes to take up the story of that princess where Ariosto had dropped it. When he published this poem in 1602, he added another, the “Dragontea,” an epic on the death of sir Francis Drake, who is abused by every coarse epithet, as indeed was his royal mistress Elizabeth, whose tyranny, cruelty, and above all, her heresy, are th_e perpetual objects of Lope’s poetical invective.

In 1590 he returned a second time to Madrid, and soon after married again. In 1598, on the canonization of St. Isidore, a native of Madrid, he entered the lists with several authors, and overpowered them all with the number if not with the merit of his performances. Prizes had been assigned for every style of poetry, but above one could not be obtained by the same person. Lope succeeded in the hymns; but his fertile muse, not content with producing a poem of ten cantos in short verse, as well as innumerable sonnets and romances, and two comedies on the subject, celebrated by an act of supererogation both the saint and the poetical competition of the day, in a volume of sprightly poems under the feigned name of Tom6 de Burguiilos. This success raised him, no doubt, in the estimation of the public, to whom he was already known by the number and excellence of his- dramatic writings and this was probably the most fortunate period of his life, and that in which he derived most satisfaction from his pursuits. About this time, however, we must fix the short date of his domestic comforts. Of three persons who formed his family, the son died at eight years, and was soon followed by his mother; the daughter alone survived our poet. He now resolved to seek consolation in the exercises of devotion; and, having been secretary to the Inquisition, he shortly after became a priest, and in 1609 an honorary member of the brotherhood of St. Francis.

Whatever the devotion of Lope, it did not break in upon his habits of composition, and as he had about this time acquired sufficient reputation to attract the envy of his fellow poets, he spared no exertions to maintain his post, and repel the criticisms of his enemies. Among these have been mentioned the formidable names of Gongora and Cervantes. Gongora had introduced an affected, bombast, and obscure style, which Lope first attacked irr hints in his plays, aad afterwards exposed its absurdities. in a letter prefixed to an eclogue on the death of Donna Isabel de Urbino, in 1621, and this he performed with great candour. As to Lope’s dispute with Cervantes, it is less distinctly narrated, and seems in some measure problematical. Whatever it was, posterity has long decided between them. “Cervantes,” says lord Holland,. “who was actually starving in the same street where Lope was living in splendour and prosperity, has been for near two centuries the delight and admiration of every nation in Europe; and Lope, notwithstanding the late edition of his works in 22 vols. is to a great degree neglected in his owft.”

Before the death of Cervantes, the admiration, of Lope was become a species of worship in Spain, and it was hardly prudent in any author to withhold incense from his shrine, much less to interrupt the devotion of his adherents. Nor was he himself entirely exempt from the irritability which frequently attends poets: he often speaks with peevishness of his detractors, and answers their criticisms, sometimes in a querulous, and sometimes in an insolent tone. He even complains of neglect, obscurity, and poverty, although he was laden with honours and pensions, courted by the great, and followed by the crowd.

He seldom passed a year without giving some poem to the press; and scarcely a month, or even a week, without producing some play upon the stage. His “Pastores de Belen,” a work in prose and verse on the Nativity, bad confirmed his superiority in pastoral poems; and rhymes, hymns, and poems without number on sacred subjects, had evinced his zeal in the profession he embraced. Philip IV. the great patron of the Spanish theatre, to which he afterwards is said to have contributed compositions of his own, at the aera of his accession, found Lope in full possession of the stage, and in the exercise of unlimited authority over the authors, comedians, and audience. New honours and benefices were immediately heaped on our poet, and in all probability he wrote occasionally plays for the royal palace. He published about the same time “Los Triumpbos de la F6” “Los Fortunas de Diana;” three novels in prose (unsuccessful imitations of Cervantes); “Circe,” an heroic poem, dedicated to the count duke of Olivarez and “Philomena,” a singular, but tiresome, allegory, in the second book of which he vindicates himself in the person of the nightingale from the accusation of his critics, who are there represented by the thrush.

Such was his reputation that he began to distrust the sincerity of the public, and seems to have suspected that there was more fashion than real opinion in the extravagance of their applause. This engaged him in a dangerous experiment, the publication of a poem without his name. But whether the number of his productions had gradually formed the public taste to his own standard of excellence, or that his fertile and irregular genius was singularly adapted to the times, the result of this trial confirmed the former judgment of the public; and his “Soliloquies to God,” though printed under a feigned name, attracted as much notice, and secured as many admirers, as any of his former productions. Emholdened probably by this success, he dedicated his “Corona Tragica,” a poem on the queen of Scots, to pope Urban VIII, who had himself composed an epigram on the subject. Upon this occasion he received from that pontiff a letter written in his own hand, and the degree of doctor of theology. Such a flattering tribute of admiration sanctioned the reverence in which his name was held in Spain, and spread his fame through every catholic country. The cardinal Barberini followed him with veneration in the streets; the king would stop to gaze at such a prodigy; the people crowded round him whereever he appeared; the learned and the studious thronged to Madrid from every part of Spain to see this phoenix of their country, this “monster of literature;” and even Italians, no extravagant admirers in general of poetry that is not their own, made pilgrimages from their country for the sole purpose of conversing with Lope. So associated was the idea of excellence with his name, that it grew in common conversation to signify any thing perfect in its kind; and a Lope diamond, a Lope day, or a Lope woman, became fashionable and familiar modes of expressing their good qualities.

Lope’s poetry was as advantageous to his fortune as to his fame; the king enriched him with pensions and chaplaincies: the pope honoured him with dignities and preferments; and every nobleman at court aspired to the character of his Maecenas, by conferring upon him frequent and valuable presents. His annual income was not less rhan 1500 ducats, exclusive of the price of his plays, which Cervantes insinuates that he was never inclined to forego, and Montalvan, one of his biographers, estimates at 80,000. He received in presents from individuals as much as 10,500 more. His application of these sums partook of the spirit of the nation from which he drew them. Improvident and indiscriminate charity ran away with these gains, immense as they were, and rendered his life unprofitable to his friends, and uncomfortable to himself. He continued to publish plays and poems, and to receive every remuneration that adulation and generosity could bestow, till 1635, when religious thoughts had rendered him so hypochondriac, that he could hardly be considered as in full possession of his understanding. On the 22d of August, which was Friday, he felt himself more than Usually oppressed in spirits, and weak with age; but he was so much more anxious about the health of his soul than of his body, that he would not avail himself of the privilege to which his infirmities entitled him of eating meat; and even resumed the superstitious flagellation, to which he had accustomed himself, with more than usual severity. This discipline is supposed to have hastened his death. He became ill on that night, and having passed the necessary ceremonies with excessive devotion, he expired on Monday, Aug. 26, 1635, in the seventy-third year of his age.

The sensation produced by his death was, if possible, more astonishing than the reverence in which he was held while living. The splendour of his funeral, which was conducted at the charge of the most munificent of his patrons, the duke of Sesa, the number and language of the sermons on that occasion, the competition of poets of all countries in celebrating his genius and lamenting his loss, are unparalleled in the annals of poetry, and perhaps scarcel) equalled in those of royalty itself. The ceremonies attending his interment continued for nine days. His biographers, however, have been less careful to convey a just idea of this extraordinary man to posterity, and there is little in them that can throw any light upon his character as a man, or his history as an author. His intimate friend Montalvan praises him in general as a person of a mild and amiable disposition, of very temperate habits, of great erudition, singular charity, and extreme good breeding. His temper, he adds, was never ruffled but with those who took snuff before company; with the grey who dyed their locks; with men who, born of women, spoke ill of the sex; with priests who believed in gypsies; and with persons who, without intentions of marriage, asked others their age. These antipathies, which are rather quaint sallies of wit, than traits of character, are the only peculiarities which his intimate friend has t' >ught proper to communicate. We have already noticed his unreasonable complaints of illusage, neglect, and even poverty, which appear to have constituted the greatest blemish in his character. As an author, he is most known, as indeed he is most wonderful, for the prodigious number of his writings. Twenty-one million three hundred thousand of his lines are said to he actually printed; and no less than eighteen hundred plays of his composition to have been acted on the stage. Lord Holland has calculated that according to these accounts, allowing him to begin his compositions at the age of thirteen, we must believe that upon an average he wrote more than nine hundred lines a day; a fertility of imagination, and a celerity of pen, which, when we “consider the occupations of his life as a soldier, a secretary, a master of a family, and a priest; his acquirements in Latin, Italian, and Portuguese; and his reputation for erudition, become not only improhable, but absolutely* and, one may almost say, physically impossible. Yet although there does not now exist the fourth part of the works which he and his admirers mention, enough remains to render him one of the most voluminous authors that ever put pen to paper. Such was his facility, that he informs us himself, that more than an hundred times he composed a play and produced it on the stage in twentyfour hours. To this evidence we may add tins of Montalvan, that he wrote a comedy in two days, which it would not be very easy for the most expeditious amanuensis to copy out in the time. At Toledo he wrote fifteen acts in fifteen days, which, Montalvan adds, make five comedies. He also asserts that Lope wrote 1800 plays and 400 autos sacramentales, a species of dramatic composition” resembling' our old mysteries. That in all this there must be some exaggeration, cannot be doubted.

But whatever may have been the original number of Lope’s productions, enough yet remain to render an examination of them all nearly impossible*. The merit, independent of those intended for representation, consists chiefly in smoothness of versification and purity of language, and in facility rather than strength of imagination. His invention is chiefly shown in his dramas, which, whatever their individual merit, formed upon the whole the school which has produced the greatest dramatic writers of the continent. On this subject we may refer to lord Hol­* Lope’s miscellaneous prose and printed at Madrid, Valladolid, Jtc.

printed at Madrid, 1776 79; and procure this collection complete.

his dramatic works, in 25 vols. 4to, land’s elegant and interesting narrative, who observes in the conclusion that “it seems but an act of justice to pay some honour to the memory of men whose labours have promoted literature, and enabled others to eclipse their reputation. Such was Lope de Vega; once the pride and glory of Spaniards, who in their literary, as in their political achievements, have, by a singular fatality, discovered regions, and opened mines, to benefit their neighbours and their rivals, and to enrich every nation of Europe, but their own.”

, an ancient Latin writer, lived in the fourth century, under the reign of Valentinian, to whom he dedicates a work, entitled “Epitome iflstitutorum rei militaris.” This is a compilation from many authors: yet the subject is treated with much method and exactness, and the Latinity, all things considered, exceedingly pure. Of the author little is known; he probably was a military man, and has the title of Conies. His work was first published without date or place, supposed at Utrecht, about 1473. The best editions since, are that of Schwebelius, 1767, 4to of Valart, Paris, 1762; and of Strasburgh, 1806, 8vo. It was also published, with other writers upon “Tactics,” Frontinus, Ælian, and Mnezs, at Leyden, 1644, in 12mo; and afterwards “Vesaliae Clivorum,” 1670, 8vo. There are also extant, under Vegetius’s name, if indeed the same Vegetius, of which Fabricius doubts, “Artis Veterinarise sive Mulomedidnae libri quatuor,” Basil, 1524, 4to; and afterwards, 1574, 4to.

, or Mapheus Veqids, a Latin poet of the fifteenth century, was born at Lodi in 1406. He studied law, in compliance with his father, but had a stronger predilection for poetry. He made, however, such proficiency as to be successively chosen professor of both in the university of Pavia. He went afterwards to Rome, and was secretary of the briefs under the popes Eugenius IV. Nicholas V. and Pius II. and died there in 1458. He wrote a great many works in prose, as “Dialogues de miseria et felicitate,” “Disputatio inter solem, terrain et aurum,” and others of the ascetic kind, ali inserted in the Library of the fathers. Dupin and other writers of the Romish church, bestow the highest commendations on one of his treatises “De educatione liberorum,” in which he borrows much from St. Augustine. Such was his enthusiasm for this saint, that he built a chapel in his church at Rome on the right hand of the great altar, and having caused the bones of St. Augustine, and of St. Monica his mother, to be placed in a very fine shrine, he removed them from Ostia to that chapel. He wrote a poem on the death of Astyanax, four books on the expedition of the Argonauts, four on the life of St. Antony, and other poems, in which there is more of copiousness than force, and more of ease than elegance. But his supplement to Virgil is his most remarkable effort. Fancying that the Æneid was imperfect, and wanted a denouement, he wrote a thirteenth book, which has been printed in some editions of Virgil, and even translated into Italian and French. In English we have likewise a translation, published in 1758, but it is of the burlesque kind, in imitation of Cotton.

, an eminent Spanish history and portrait painter, was born at Seville in 1594, and was at first the pupil of Francis Herrera, and afterwards of Pacheco, in whose school his progress was remarkable, and he soon gave manifest proofs of his abilities. He studied diligently alter nature, and painted birds, beasts, fishes, ana landscapes) as they occurred, and designed them with such truth and exactness, that his performances rose into high esteem. His most favourite subjects, at first, were taverns, kitchens, conversations, and persons feasting; and those he executed with a bold pencil, and uncommon tints of colour, in a style peculiar to himself. But at length the sight of some pictures of the Italian masters inspired Velasquez with nobler ideas; and being particularly charmed with the colouring of Caravaggio, he made him his model, and his success in that" style answered his most sanguine expectations.

Having spent five years under I ajheco, he- went to Madrid, where he received great encouragement, and had an opportunity of improving himself still more by viewing the paintings in that city. There also he procured the patronage of the duke d'Olivarez, favourite of Philip IV.; and the portrait which he painted of that grandee obtained him, the royal favour, in consequence of which he was appointed principal painter to the king of Spain, with an honourable pension, and an apartment in the palace. While in that station, Rubens arrived in Spain; and having visited Velasqnez, and considered his works, recommended it to him to spend some time in Italy. Velasquez, convinced of the sincerity and probity of Rubens, as well as of his judgment, followed his advice, and travelled to Venice and Rome: at the former he copied the works of Titian, Tintoretto, and P. Veronese; and at the latter studied the works of Raphael, Buonaroti, and the Caracci’s; by which means he acquired such an improvement of taste, correctness, composition, and colouring, as placed him at the head of his profession.

At his return to Spain, he was received with every mark of esteem by the king, and applause by the public; and having finished a noble design of the Crucifixion for the convent of St. Placidia, the whole court had an incontestable evidence of his merit, and the improvement he had obtained, by studying the finest productions of art and genius in Italy. As the king had determined to procure the best collection possible of antique statues, and the works of the greatest masters of Italy, he commissioned Velasquez to purchase the most curious, and also to copy such celebrated paintings as he found unpurchaseable. During that progress, he painted the portrait of Innocent X. and most of the cardinals and princes at Rome; and was treated with the utmost distinction and honour, as long as he continued in that city. He had the happiness to enrich his own country with many admirable curiosities of ancient and modern artists; and adorned it also with a number of his own works, in portrait and history. The compositions of Velasquez were remarkable for strong expression, a freedom of pencil, a spirited touch, and an admirable tone of colour. The most capital performance of this eminent master, is the historical representation of the expulsion of the Moors by Philip III., which is in the grand saloon at Madrid. Velasquez died at Madrid in 1600, and was interred with great magnificence.

, a Spanish comic poet and satirist, was born at Icija, in Andalusia, and recommended himself at the court of Philip IV. by his humour and pleasantries, so as to obtain the title of the Spanish Scarron. He is said to have possessed in the highest degree the talent of ridicule. He was the author of several comedies, which were printed at different places in Spain; and of an humorous piece entitled “El diabolo cojuelo, novella de la otra vida,” printed at Madrid in 1641. This Le Sage afterwards imitated in French, and his work has been often printed in English under the title of the “Devil on Two Sticks,” but Le Sage is thought to have very much improved on his original. Velez died at Madrid in 1646.

, a French historian, was born near Fismes, in Champagne, in 1711. He entered the Jesuits’ order, but quitted it at the end of eleven years, was tutor to M. Goguet, counsellor to the parliament, and having finished that gentleman’s education, devoted himself wholly to the study of French history. He died suddenly at Paris, September 4, 1759, aged about forty-eight, leaving a “History of France,” written in a simple and correct style, and with great candour. Six only, however, of the eight volumes were published by him; the seventh, which he had entirely finished, and the eighth, which was nearly completed at the time of his death, have been published since by M. Villaret, who continued the history to vol. XII. But the complete edition, with Garnier’s continuation, amounts to 15 vols. 4to, 1770 1789. M. Velli also left a French translation of Dr. Swift’s “History of John Bull.”

, a learned civilian, and celebrated writer of Germany, was descended of an ancient and wealthy family, and born at Augsburg, June 20, 1558. He was educated with great care; and, as he discovered a love for polite literature, was sent very young to Rome, where he was a pupil of Antony Muretus, in 1575. He joined to the study of antiquity that of the Italian tongue, and wrote it with great elegance. Upon his return to his own country he applied himself to the bar in 1589; obtained the dignity of a senator in 1592; was advanced to be a member of the little council in 1594; and was elected praetor in 1600. He discharged all these offices with great reputation, and was the ornament of his country. He loved and patronized learning and learned men; and never any person had more friends in the republic of letters. He furnished assistance to several authors; and particularly contributed to the great collection of inscriptions published by Gruter. He gave the security of a thousand florins, in order to procure to Rittershusius a manuscript of the epistles of Isodorus Pelusiota, which was in the library of the duke of Bavaria, and could not be had without such security; and, what made this act of generosity the greater, he did it without Rittershusius’s knowledge. He was also the author of several works of reputation himself. His first essay, according to Melchior Adam, was a work which he published at Venice in 1594, thus entitled: “Reruin Augustanarum Vindelicarum Libri Octo, quibus a prima Rhaetorum ac Vindelicorum origine ad annum usque 552 a Nato Christo nobilissimae gentis Historia et Antiquitates traduntur; ac antiqua monumenta, tarn quae Augusta?, quam quae in agro Augustano, quia et quae alibi extant ad res Augustanas spectantia sere incisa et notis illustrata exhibentur.” In 1602 he published, at Augsburg, “Rerum Boicarum libri quinque, Historiam a gentis origine ad Carolum Magnum complexi,” containing the history of Bavaria from the year 600, when Sigoves led the Boii from Gaul to Germany, to the year 788, when Charlemagne dethroned the last Bavarian duke Tassilo II. and confined him in a cloister. Velser intended to continue this work, which is reckoned his best, and had already collected materials for it, and nearly composed two additional books, but was prevented by death from finishing his task; and the two books were a long time supposed to be lost. One of these, however, was discovered in 1778, by M. de Lippert, in the university library at Ingolstadt, and published at Augsburgh in that year. Velser published, at different times, the lives of several martyrs at Augsburg. His works were collected and reprinted at Nuremburg 1682, in folio, under the inspection and care of Arnoldus, professor there, who wrote “Prolegomena,” in which he informs us of many particulars concerning him. As Velserus held a great correspondence with the learned of Italy, and several other countries, many of his Latin and Italian letters were collected and inserted in this edition. He passed for the author of a celebrated piece called Squittinio della liberta Veneta," which was published in 1612. Gassendi having observed that several ascribed this book to Peiresc, adds, that they were deceived; and that it was probably written bv the illustrious Yemenis, as he calls him. Velserus’s genius, liberality of mind, his fine taste, and his classical diction, enabled him to communicate his historical acquisitions to the public with success and applause. He died June 13, 1614, and left no issue by his marriage. He was one of those who never would suffer his picture to be drawn; yet it was done without his knowledge, as Gassendi informs us in hi> life of Peiresc.

, or Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus, a Christian poet of the sixth century, was a native of Italy, and studied at Ravenna. He applied himself to grammar, rhetoric, poetry, and jurisprudence, but was most attached to rhetoric and poetry, and was honoured by Hilduinus, the abbot of St. Denis, with the title of Scholasticissimus. It sems uncertain what was the cause of his leaving Italy for France, but the step was peculiarly fortunate for him, as his poetical genius procured him the most honourable reception. Princes, bishops, and persons of the highest ranks, became eager to confer on him marks of their esteem. He arrived in France during the reign of Sigebert, king of Austrasia, who received him with great respect. This being about the time of the king’s marriage with Brunehaut, in the year 566, Venantius composed an epithaiamium, in which he celebrated the graces and perfections of the new queen. It is also said, that he gave the king lectures on politics. The following year he went to Tours to perform a vow to St. Martin, whose image had cured him of a complaint in his eyes. He then went to Poictiers, and was invited by St. Radegonda, the foundress of a monastery there, to reside in the capacity of her secretary; and afterwards, when he became a priest, she appointed him her chaplain and almoner. He resided here for some years, employing his time in study and writing, and edifying the church as much by his example as by his works. He was much esteemed by Gregory of Tours and other prelates, and was at last himself raised to be bishop of Poictiers, which dignity, it is said, he did not long enjoy. He died about the commencement of the seventh century, some say in the year 609. His works consist of eleven books of poetry, mostly of the elegiac kind, and generally short: hymns adapted to the services of the church: epitaphs, letters to several bishops, and some to Gregory of Tours: courtly verses addressed to queen Radegonda, and her sister Agnes, usually sent with presents of flowers, fruit, &c. four books of the “Life of St. Martin,” in heroic verse: several lives of the saints. Editions of his works were published at Cagliari in 1573, 1574, and 1584, and at Cologne in 1600: but all these are said to be incomplete and incorrect, yet they shew the respect paid to him as the best Latin poet of his time. In 1603 Christopher Brower, a German Jesuit, produced a very correct edition, with notes, printed at Fulda, and reprinted at Mentz, in 1617, 4to; but this contains only his poems. His other works are in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” of Lyons, 1677. The most complete edition is that of Rome, published under the title of “Venantii opera omnia quae extant, post Browerianam editionetn mine recens novis addiiamentis aucta, not. et scholiis illustr. opera Mich-Ange Luchi,” 1786—87, 2 vols. 4to.

, who has the credit of promoting Italian literature in the last century, particularly in France, was a native of Verdun. His name was Vigntron, but as he had made the Italian language his study, and wished to acquire reputation at Paris as a teacher, he Italianized his name, and gave out that he was a native of Florence. He published an Italian Grammar and Dictionary; both of which have been repeatedly printed in France and Eng T land, but with modern improvements. He published also Translations of Bentivoglio’s and Loredano’s letters, the Italian on one side. His grammar, it is said, was not written by him, but by the famous Roselli, whose adventures have been printed as a romance. This latter, passing through France, dined with Veneroni, who finding that he reasoned very justly upon the Italian language, engaged him to compose a grammar, for which he gave him a hundred franks. Veneroni only made some additions according to his taste, and published the book under his own name. His “Translation of the Select Fables,” is printed with a German version and plates, Augsburg, 1709, 4to. We find no account of his death; but, from the dates of his publications, he appears to have flourished, if that phrase be allowable in his case, in the early part of the last century.

, or Agostino de Musis, a very eminent engraver, was a native of Venice, and was the scholar of the celebrated Marc Antonio Raimondi. It is not certain at what period he began his studies under that great master, but the first dated print by Agostino appeared in 1509, at which time, it is probable, his tutor still resided at Venice. After the death of Raphael, which happened in 1520, Veneziano and Marc de Ravenna, his fellow- pupil, who had conjointly assisted each other, separated, and worked entirely upon their own account. When the city of Rome was taken and sacked by the Spaniards in 1527, Veneziano retired to Florence, and applied for employment to Andrea del Sarto, who was then in high repute; but del Sarto, dissatisfied with the dead Christ which he had engraved in 1516, after his design, refused to permit him to engrave any more of his pictures. Veneziano afterwards returned to Rome, where he followed his professional pursuits with great success, and where he died some time about 1540.

He generally marked his prints with the initials A.V., which were sometimes inscribed on a tablet. He imitated the style of his master with great attention, and, as far as regards manual execution, with considerable success: sometimes, indeed, he in this respect excelled Marc Antonio; but in point of taste, and in the purity and correctness of his outline, he fell far short of that distinguished artist. Good impressions of the works of Veneziano are now become extremely scarce, and a complete set is hardly to be obtained; among them will be found a few, wherein he has expressed the flesh entirely by means of stippling, in a manner which, being imitated by Boulanger, grew by degrees into what is now termed the chalk manner of engraving.

a Dutch painter of great eminence, was descended of a considerable family in Leyden, and born in 1556. He was carefully educated by his parents in the belles lettres, and at the same time learned to design of Isaac Nicolas. In his fifteenth year, when the civil wars obliged him to leave his country, he retired to Liege, finished his studies, and there gave the first proofs of his talents. He was particularly known to cardinal Groosbeck, who gave him letters of recommendation when he went to Rome, where he was entertained by cardinal Maduccio. His genius was so active, that he at once applied himself to philosophy, poetry, mathematics, and painting, the latter under Frederico Zuchero. He acquired an excellence in all the parts of painting, especially in the knowledge of the chiar-oscuro, and he was the first who explained to the Flemish artists the principles of lights and shadows, which his disciple Rubens afterwards carried to so great a degree of perfection. He lived at Rome seven years, during which time he executed several fine pictures; and then, passing into Germany, was received into the emperor’s service. After this the duke of Bavaria and the elector of Cologn employed him: but all the advantages he got from the courts of foreign princes could not detain him there. He had a desire to return into the Low Countries, of which Alexander Farnese, prince of Parma, was then governor. He drew the prince’s picture in armour, which confirmed his reputation in the Netherlands. After the death of that prince, Venius returned to Antwerp, where he adorned the principal churches with his paintings. The archduke Albert, who succeeded the prince of Parma in the government of the Low Countries, sent for him to Brussels, and made him master of the mint, a place which took up much of his time; yet he found spare hours for the exercise of his profession. He drew the archduke and the infanta Isabella’s portraits at large, which were sent to James L of Great Britain: and, to shew his knowledge of polite learning, as well as of painting, he published several treatises, which he embellished with cuts of his own designing. Among these are, 1. “Horatii Emblemata,” Antwerp, 1607, 4to, often reprinted, but this edition has the best plates. 2. “Amoris divini emblemata,” Antwerp, 1615, 4to. 3. “Amorum emblemata,” ibid. 1608, 4to. 4. “Batavorum cum Romanis bellum, &c.” ibid. 1612, 4to, &c. Venius died at Brussels, 1634, in his seventy-eighth year. He had two brothers; Gilbert, who was an engraver; and Peter, a painter; but his greatest honour was his having Rubens for a pupil.

, a pious divine of the church of England, was the son of the rev. Richard Venn, rector of St. Antholiri’s, London, who distinguished himself as a noted disputant in his day, particularly in conjunction with bishop Gibson, in opposing the promotion of Dr. Rundle to a bishopric, on account of a conversation in which the doctor had expressed sentiments rather favourable to deism. Mr. Venn also assisted Dr. Webster in writing the “Weekly Miscellany,” a periodical publication which, under the venerable name of Richard Hooker, laboured zealously in defence of high church principles. He died in 1740; and a volume of his sermons and tracts was published by his widow, the daughter of Mr. Ashton, who had been executed in the reign of William III. for being concerned in a plot to bring back the Stuart family.

Mr. Henry Venn was born at Barnes, in the county of Surrey, 1725. He was educated, partly under Dr. Pitman, at Market-street, and partly under the reverend Mr. Catcott, rector of St. Stephen, Bristol, a Hutchinsonian divine of great ingenuity and learning, the author of a curious treatise on the deluge, and a volume of sermons. In 1742 Mr. Venn was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge, proceeded to the degree of B.A. in 1745, and to that of M.A. in 1749. There being no fellowship vacant in his own college, the fellows of Queen’s unanimously elected him a member of their society, in which he continued till his marriage in 1757. The lady to whom he became united was daughter of Dr. Bishop of Ipswich, author of an Exposition of the creed, and a volume of Sermons preached at Lady Moyer’s lecture in 1724.

At this period Mr. Venn was curate of Glapham, where he was greatly beloved by the inhabitants, and contracted a close friendship with those eminently good men, sir John Barnard and John Thornton, esq. By way of exhibiting his gratitude to his parishioners, he published and dedicated to them, in 1759, on his resignation of the curacy, a volume cf sermons. In the course of that same year he was presented to the vicarage of Huddersfield in Yorkshire. While here, he laboured with unwearied assiduity in his vocation, and his memory will long be cherished with affection and veneration in that extensive parish. His zeal, however, carried him beyond his strength. By his earnest and frequent preaching, in the course of ten years, he had materially injured his constitution, and brought on a cough and spitting of blood, which rendered him incapable of officiating any longer in so extensive a sphere. He therefore accepted, in 1770, the rectory of Yelling in Huntingdonshire, a crown living, which was presented to him by his great and good friend the lord chief baron Smythe, then one of the commissioners of the great' seal During his residence at Huddersfield he published “The Complete Duty of Man,” which has gone through seven large editions, including those printed in Ireland and America. The great object of this book is to counteract certain Arniinian principles of the celebrated work which bears a similar title, and to infuse more of an evangelical spirit into the mind of the reader.

Mr. Venn was remarkably cheerful and facetious in conversation, so that piety, as recommended by him, was pleasant and alluring; and the young and the careless were often struck, in his company, with admiration at this circumstance. His works were, 1. “The Perfect Contrast, or the entire opposition of Popery to the Religion of Jesus the Son of God; a sermon preached at Clapham, November 5, 1758,” 8vo. A second edition was printed in 1778. 2. “Sermons on various subjects,” 1759, 8vo. 3. “The Variance between real and nominal Christians considered, and the cause of it explained,” a sermon, 1759, 8vo. 4. “The Duty of a parish priest,” a sermon preached at WakefieM, July 2, 1760, 8vo. 5. “Christ the joy of the Christian life, and death his gain,” a sermon preached at Haworth, on the death of William Grimshaw, minister of that parish, 1763, 8vo. 6. “The Complete Duty of Man, or a System of Doctrinal and Practical Christianity. Designed for the use of families,” 1764, 8vo. 7. “Man a condemned sinner, and Christ the strong hold to save him,” an assize sermon, 1769, 8vo. 8. “A full and free Examination of the rev. Dr. Priestley’s Address on the Lord’s Supper, with some siricrures on the treatise itself,” 1769, 8vo. 9. “A token of respect to the Memory of the rev. Mr. Whitfield,” preached at the countess of Huntingdon’s, Bath, 1770, 8vo. Jo. “Mistakes in religion exposed, in an essay on the Prophecy of Zachariah,” 1774, 8vo. 11. “The Conversion of Sinners the greatest charity: a sermon preached before the Society for promoting religions knowledge,” 1779, 8vo.

His son, John, whom we have mentioned as the late rector of Clapham, was born in that parish March 9, 1759, and received the early part of his education under Mr. Shute at Leeds. He was then removed to Hippasholme school, where he was well grounded in classics by the care of Mr. Sutcliffe. He had afterwards the benefit of the rev. Joseph Milner’s instruction at the grammar-school at Hull; and of the rev. Thomas Robinson’s and the rev. William Ludlam’s, the last an eminent mathematician at Leicester. He was admitted a member of Sidney Sussex college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. B. in 1781. In September 1782, he was ordained deacon, as curate to his father; he entered into priest’s orders in March 1783, and two days afterwards was instituted to the living of little Dunham, in Norfolk. In Oct. 1789, he married Miss Catherine King, of Hull, who died April 15, 1803, leaving a family of seven children. In June 1792, on the death of sir James Stonehouse (predecessor in the baronetcy to the sir James Stonehouse recorded in our vol. XXVIII.) he was instituted to the rectory of Clapham. In August Is 12, he married Miss Turton, daughter of John Turton, esq. of Clapham, and resided at this place from the beginning of 1793, to the day of his death, July 1, 1813, aged fifty-four. Mr. Venn never appeared in the character of an author, nor prepared any sermons for the press; but two volumes have since been published, selected from his manuscripts, and may be considered “as a fair exhibition of his manner, sentiments, and doctrine.” They are more polished in style than his father’s, but there is a perceptible difference in their opinions on some points, the father being a more decided Calvinist. Prefixed to these sermons, is a brief account of the author, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, a physician of the seventeenth century, was born of genteel parents at Petherton, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in 1577, and in 1594 became a commoner of St. Alban’s-hall, Oxford. After taking a degree in arts, he studied physic, and practised for a time about Oxford. In 1613, he took his doctor’s degree, and returning to his own country, practised for many years at Bridgewater; but afterwards, at or near Bath. He was highly esteemed in that part of the country for skill in his profession, and maintained the character of an upright and charitable person. He died March 27, 1660, and was buried in St. Peter’s church in Bath, where a monument with a large inscription, by Dr. Pierce of that city, was erected to his memory.

Dr. Venner acquired great popularity by a work on the subject of diet and regimen, entitled ' Via recta ad vitam longam,“published in two separate parts, the first in 1620, and the second in 1623, but joined in subsequent editions. It is a plain practical piece, extremely different in manner from Dr. Mousset’s” Treatise on Foods,“though similar in subject. His account of the several articles treated of, is compiled (though without any quotations) from the current authors of that time; and his rules and admonitions, delivered with all due gravity and authority, are equally trite. His style and manner are well calculated for a popular work, being plain, grave, and diffuse. To the edition of the” Via Recta“of 1638, were added,” A compendious Treatise concerning the nature, use, and efficacy of the Bathes at Bath;“”Advertisement concerning the taking of Physic in the Spring;“” Censure concerning the water of St. Vincent’s rocks near Bristol,“said to be the first treatise relating to Bristol water; and a” Brief and accurate Treatise concerning the taking of the fume of Tobacco."

, a nonconformist divine, was born about 1620, and educated in Emmanuel college, Cambridge. He does not appear to have had any preferment in the church, except the lectureship of St. Olave’s, Southwark, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662. After this he preached at a dissenting meeting at Pewterers’-hall, Lime-street, as colleague to a Mr. Bragge, who outlived him and preached his funeral sermon. As Mr. Venning was a man of no faction himself, men of different factions and sects were generally disposed to do justice to his character, which was that of a man, the object of whose labours and writings was to promote piety. He was, in his charity sermons, a powerful advocate for the poor, among whom he distributed annually some hundreds of pounds. His oratory on this topic is said to have been almost irresistible; as some have gone to church with a resolution not to give, and have been insensibly and involuntarily melted into compassion, and bestowed their alms with uncommon liberality. He died March 10, 1673. He was the author of nine practical treatises, specified by Calamy, among which the principal are, 1. “Orthodox and Miscellaneous Paradoxes,” 1647, 12mo. 2. “Things worth thinking on, or helps to piety,” 12mo, often reprinted. 3. “His Remains,” with a portrait by Hollar," &c. He was also one of the compilers of the English-Greek Lexicon published in 1661, 8vo.

, a very useful biographer and bibliographer, was born at Montbrison en Forez, Nov. 11, 1544. He appears to have served the king both in a military and civil capacity, and was historiographer and gentleman in ordinary to his majesty. He died at Duerne, Sept. 25, 1600. In his youth he had cultivated poetry, but of his poetical efforts he published only some indifferent specimens in his great work. He had, according to Scaliger, a fine library of Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, and Latin authors, and was conversant in books of all kinds. The fruits of his labours were, 1. “La Prosopographie, ou Description des personnes insignes, &c. avec les effigies d‘aucuns d’iceux, et braves observations de leur temps, annees, fails, et dits,” Lyons, 1373, 4to. This he reprinted three times with improvements; and the last, left also by him for the press, was published by his son Claude, who made some, few additions at Paris in 1603, 3 vols. folio. This is a very miscellaneous compilation, in which, although there are a few particulars of the eminent men of his time, it requires some patience to find them. 2. “Les Diverses lemons d'Antoine Duverclier, suivant celJes de P. Messi-e,” Lyons, 1576, 8vo. Of this there have been several editions, the most complete of which is that ofTournon, 1605. These legons were part of Duverdier’s extracts, in the course of his reading, from various Greek, Latin, and Italian authors, 3. “Le Compseutique, ou Traits facetieux,” 12mo; but there are some doubts whether this, which did not appear until 1584-, was not the compilation of another author. 4. “La Bibliotheque d'Ant. Duverdier, contenant le catalogue de tons les auteurs qui ont ecrit ou traduit en Frangais, avec le supplement Latin, du meme Duverdier, a la biblioiheque de Gesner,” Lyons, 1585, folio. Croix Du Maine’s work of the same kind had appeared the year before, and was thought to be the best executed of the two; but they have both been republished with so many improvements, that, like Moreri’s, they retain very little of the original authors. This improved edition was the production of Rigoley and Juvigny, who added the notes of Lamonnoye, the president Bouhier and Falconet, and published the whole in six handsome volumes, 4to, under the title of Les Bibliotheques Franchises de Lacroix du Maine et de Duverdier,“1772. The work is undoubtedly still capable of improvement, but, as it is, it forms a very valuable addition to the bibliographical library. There is a copy in the king’s library at Paris, with a vast mass of ms additions and corrections by Mercier de Saint-Leger. Le Long and some others attribute to Du. Verdier” La Biographic et Prosopographie des rois de France jusqu'a Henri III.“Paris, 1583, and 1586, 8vo. But others have doubted this, because he makes no mention of it in a list of his works which he wrote in 1585, and in which he gave not only what he had published, but what remained in manuscript, such as a translation of Seneca, &c. His son, Claude Verdier, was born about 1566, and had the ambition to become an author, but turned out to be a bad poet and a worse critic; he also spent the property his father left him, and lived an obscure and miserable life till about 1649, which is said to have been its period. The worst feature of his character is the disrespectful manner in which he has treated his father’s talents and labours, in a work which he published in 1586, and 1609, 4to, entitled” In autores pene omnes anttquos potissimum censiones et correctiones." It is a sufficient character of this work, that he blames Virgil for his bad Latin.

, one of the most prolific authors in the French series, deserves some notice as having been often mistaken for Claude Du Verdier, and even for Antony, who was dead long before this Gilbert was born. It is not known to what part of France he belonged. It appears that he was historiographer of France, and that after all his numerous publications, he was obliged in 1676 to apply for an asylum, for himself and his wife, in the hospital of Salpetriere, where he died in 1636. Bayle has a very superficial article on him. Joly allows him to have been the author of the historical works attributed to him, but doubts whether the romances under the name of Duverdier are not by another hand, and his reason is, that it is difficult to conceive a man’s continuing to write and publish for the long space of sixty years. This, however, is not absolutely decisive. Thirteen historical works are ascribed to Duverdier, all published in 12mo, in one, two, or more volumes each, consisting of histories of France, Turkey, Spain, England, Rome, and some lives. His romances amount to fourteen, but seem to be quite forgotten in his own country, and will not easily be revived in this by any list we can give. Some of them seem to be translations.

, a brave English commander, was second son to Geoffrey Vere, who was third son of John Vere, earl of Oxford. He was born in 1554, and applying himself early to the military art, became one of the most famous generals of his time. He served first among the forces sent by queen Elizabeth, under the command of the earl of Leicester, to the assistance of the States of Holland, where he gave proofs of a warlike genius, and undaunted courage. In 1588, he was part of the English garrison which gallantly defended Bergen -op- Zoom against the prince of Parma and “that true courage might not want its due reward or distinction,” says Camden, “the lord Willoughby, who was general of the English after Leicester’s departure, conferred the honour of knighthood on sir Francis Vere, whose great fame commenced from this siege.”

In 1589, the town of Bergh, upon the Rhine, being besieged by the marquis of Warrenbon, and distressed for want of provisions, sir Francis Vere was sent by the Statesgeneral to count Meurs, governor of Guelderland, with nine companies of English, to concert with him measures for the relief of that town. At his coming to Arnheim, the governor being greatly hurt by an explosion of gunpowder, and the states of the province representing to sir Francis the importance of the place, and the great extremity it was reduced to; at their earnest desire he hastened to its relief, with seven companies of Dutch foot, and twelve troops of horse. With these, and carriages laden with provisions, he marched towards Bergh, through a heathy and open country, with such diligence, that having surprised the enemy, who lay dispersed in their forts about the town, in full view of them", he put provisions into it, and returned without loss. After some days refreshment, the States, who had received advice how matters passed at Bergh, ordrred a fresh supply of provisions for it under the command of sir Francis. When he caine within two English miles of the town, the way they were to take being very narrow, and leading by the castle of Loo, th<- enemy from the castle galled his men and horses in their passage with such resolution, that sir Francis perceived they were not the ordinary garrison. Yet, by his military skill and valour, he beat them back to their castle, and was no farther interrupted by them in his passage through the narrow way: but before he could well form his men on an adjoining plain, he was again attacked by a fresh body of the enemy. At the first encounter, his horse was killed under him by a pike, and falling upon him, he could not presently rise, but lay between the two armies, receiving a hurt in his leg, and several thrusts with pikes through his clothes, till the enemy was forced to give way; and though his forces consisted only of the two English troops under his command, and did not exceed four hundred men, yet by his valour and conduct the enemy was defeated, and lost about eight hundred men. He afterwards threw in provisions into Bergh, and exchanged the garrison, though count Mansfeldt was near with thirteen or fourteen thousand foot, and twelve hundred horse.

In 1590, he bravely relieved the castle of Lickenhooven, in the fort of Recklinchusen, with the diocese of Cologn, in which the States had a garrison that was besieged; and he also recovered the town of Burick in Cleves, and a little fort on that side of the Rhine, which had been surprized by the enemy. In 1591, he took by stratagem a fort near Zutphen, in order to facilitate the siege of that town. The manner in which he made himself master of this place is thus related by himself in his “Commentaries:” “I chose,” he says, “a good number of lusty and hardy young soldiers, the most of which I apparelled like the country-women of those parts, the rest like the men: gave to some baskets, to others packs, and such burthens as the people usually carry to the market, with pistols, and short swords, and daggers under their garments, willing them, by two or three in a company, by break of day, to be at the ferry of Zutphen, which is just against the fort, as if they stayed for the passage boat of the town; and bade them there to sit and rest themselves in the mean time, as near the gate of the fort as they could for avoiding suspicion, and to seize upon the same as soon as it was opened, which took so good effect, that they possessed the entry of the fort, and held the same till an officer with two hundred soldiers (who was laid in a covert not far off) came to their succour, and so btcame fully master of the place. By which means the siege of the town afterwards proved the shorter.”

Sir Francis also assisted count Maurice at the siege of Deventer, being the chief instrument in the taking that place; and it was also through his conduct and valour, that the duke of Parma received a signal defeat before Knodsenburgh fort, near Nimeguen: which obliged that prince to retire from thence, with more dishonour than m any action that he had undertaken in those wars. In 1596 he was recalled from the Low Countries, and employed in the expedition against Cadiz, -with the title of Lord Marshal: and in this enterprize he displayed his usual courage and military skill. He returned again to Holland the following year, and had a principal share in the action near Turnhout, where near three thousand of the enemy were killed and taken. Some time after he was appointed governor of the Brill, one of the cautionary towns in the Low Countries, and was permitted at the same time to retain the command of the English troops in the service of the States. In 1599, when a new Spanish invasion was apprehended, the queen constituted him Lord Marshal: and being sent over in all possible haste, he embarked on the 22d of August at the Brill, and arrived in London the next day, where he remained until all apprehensions of an invasion were over. He then returned back to the Hague, and had there an audience of the States.

In the beginning of 1600, he had much dispute with the States about some accounts, and particularly their having lessened, in his absence, the companies he commanded for them, from an hundred and fifty to an hundred and thirteen men. He still however continued in his command, and abomt this time the forces of the States laid siege to Nieuport; but Albert, archduke of Austria, who commanded the Spanish forces, having recovered many forts which had been surprized by the troops in the Dutch service, and cut off eight hundred Scots who were posted as a rear-guard to intercept his passage, came to the relief of Nieuport, and a battle became unavoidable The army of the States was commanded by prince Maurice, and the chief officers under him were sir Francis Vere, who was lieutenant-general of the foot, and colonel Lodovick of Nassau, general of the horse. Vere, who commanded in the front, having occasion to repass a ford, before he could come to a convenient place of action, ordered his men not to strip themselves; for which he assigned this reason, “that they would in a few hours either have better clothes, or stand in need of none.” A council of war being then held, prince Maurice was entirely directed by Vere, who was of opinion, that the army of the States ought to wait for the enemy. The dispositions for the battle were then made by Vere with admirable judgment: and the English, who were not above one thousand five hundred, were posted upon the eminences of the downs, and supported by a body of Friesland musqueteers. The archduke was all this time advancing: but his horse, the foot being left behind, were beat back by Vere. The foot, however, coming up, a bloody conflict ensued, in which Vere was wounded, receiving one shot through his leg, and another through his thigh, whilst his horse was killed under him, and himself almost taken prisoner: but prince Maurice advancing with the main body, the battle became general; and the Spaniards, by the courage and good conduct of Vere, received a total defeat.

The last and most signal military exploit performed by sir Francis Vere, was his gallant defence of Ostend, which, was besieged by the archduke Albert and a very numerous army. Vere had been appointed general of all the army of the States in and about Ostend; and accordingly he entered that city on the llth of July, 1601, in or-ier to undertake the defence of it, with eight companies of English, and found in the place thirty companies of Netherlanders, making about sixteen or seventeen hundred men. With this handful, for no less than four thousand were necessary for a proper defence, he resolutely defended the place for a long time against the Spanish army, which was computed at twelre thousand men. During the course of the siege he received a reinforcement of twelve companies of English, and. cut out a new harbour at Ostend, which proved of gi'eat service to him. On Aug. 14, he was wounded in the head by the bursting of a cannon, which obliged him to remov" into Zealand till Sept. 19, when he returned to Ostenti, and found that in his absence some English troops had arrived there to reinforce the garrison. On Dec. 4, in the night, the Spaniards fiercely assaulted the English trendies, so that sir Francis Vere was callt d up without having time to put on his clothes; but by his conduct and valour the enemy were repulsed, and lost about 500 men. In the mean time the place began to be much distressed; and sir Francis, having advice that the besiegers intended a general assault, in order to put them off, and gain time, he artfully contrived to enter into treaty with them for the surrender of the place; but receiving part of the supplies which he had long expected from the States, with an assurance of more at hand, he broke off the treaty. The archduke, equally surprized and enraged at this conduct, which indeed is scarcely to be vindicated, took a resolution to revenge himself of those within the town, saying he would put them all to the sword; and his officers and soldiers likewise took an oath, that, if they entered, they would spare neither man, woman, nor child. They made a general assault on Jan. 7, 1602; but sir Francis, with only twelve hundred men, kept off the enemy’s army of 10,000, which threw that day above 2,200 shot on the town; and had before discharged on it no less than 163,200 cannon shot, leaving scarcely a whole house standing. Our heroic general having acquired immortal honour in the defence of Osrend for eight months together, resigned his government March 7, 1602, to Frederic Dorp, who had been appointed by the States to succeed him; and he and his brother, sir Horatio Vere, returned into Holland.

Soon after his discharge from the government of Ostend, sir Francis, at the request of the States, came into England to desire fresh succours, which went over in May, and were to be under his command. He accordingly returned again to Holland; and upon receiving the news of queen Elizabeth’s death, he proclaimed king James I. at the Brill, in April 1603. A few months after he came to England, and his government of the Brill expiring, or he being superseded at Elizabeth’s death, it was renewed to him by king James. But under this pacific sovereign, a peace was concluded with Spain in 1601. Sir Francis survived this about four years, and died at home, Aug. 28, 1608, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. He was interred in St. John’s chapel, Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his lady. Besides his other preferments, he was governor of Portsmouth. He had three sons and two daughters, who all died before him. He married Elizabeth, second daughter of John Dent, a citizen of London, and she re-married with Patrick Murray, a son of John earl of Tullibardine, in Scotland.

Sir Francis Vere was a general of the greatest bravery, and of equal military talents. Queen Elizabeth had an high opinion of him, and always treated him with the greatest respect, often saying that she “held him to be the worthiest captain of her time.” He was a man of letters, as well as an accomplished general, and wrote an account of his principal military transactions, which were published from the author’s original, compared with two other transcripts, in 1657, by William Dillingham, D. D. under the title of “The Commentaries of sir Francis Vere, being divers pieces of service, wherein he had command, written by himself, in way of commentary,” Cambridge, fol. with portraits of sir Francis, and sir Horace Vere, sir John Ogle, and maps and plans, &c. and additions by sir John Ogle, Henry Hexham, Isaac Dorislaus, and the editor.

, baron of Tilbury, and younger brother.to the preceding sir Francis Vere, was born at Kirby-hall, in Essex, in 1565. Entering early into a military life, he accompanied, in the twentieth year of his age, his brother, sir Francis, into the Low Countries, uhere he acquired great reputation by his valour and conduct. In 1600 he had a considerable share in the victory obtained by the English and Dutch near Nieuport. He afterwards, as well as his brother, signalized himself in the defence of Ostend. He commanded the forces sent by king James I. to the assistance of the elector Palatine. He was a man of a steady and sedate courage, and possessed that presence of mind in the greatest dangers and emergencies, which is the highest qualification of a general. It was owing to this quality that he made that glorious retreat from Spinola, the Spanish general, which was the greatest action of his life; and his taking of Sluys was attended with difficulties which were thought insuperable.

Upon the accession of king Charles I. sir Horace Vere, as a reward for his services, was advanced to the peerage, by the title of lord Vere, baron of Tilbury; being the first peer created by that monarch. He died the 2d of May, 1635, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He married a lady who was then the widow of Mr. John Hoby: she was the youngest daughter of sir John Tracy of Doddington, or Tuddington, in Gloucestershire. She died in 1671, at a great age. The parliament placed the younger children of Charles I. under the care of this lady, who was a person of great piety and worth, and in her punning epitaph, written by Dr. Simon Ford, is thus addressed,

Clark has a long account of her in his lives published in 1684, fol. and so highly was sir Horace esteemed, that at his death a volume was published, dedicated to her, containing “Elegies celebrating the happy memory of sir Horatio Vere,” &c. Lond. 1642, 8vo.

, seventeenth earl of Oxford, was the only son of John the sixteenth earl, who died in 1563, by his second wife, Margaret, daughter of John Golding, esq. He is supposed to have been born about 1540 or 1541, and in his youth travelled in Italy, whence it is said he was the first who imported embroidered gloves and perfumes into England, and presenting queen Elizabeth with a pair of the former, she was so pleased with them, as to be drawn with them in one of her portraits. This gives us but an indifferent opinion of his judgment, yet he had accomplishments suited to the times, and made a figure in the courtly tournaments so much encouraged in queen Elizabeth’s reign. He once had a rencounter with sir Philip Sidney (see Sidney, vol. XXVII. p. 507), which did not redound much to his honour. In 1585, Walpole says he was at the head of the nobility that embarked with the earl of Leicester for the relief of the States of Holland; but Camden, who gives a list of the principal personages concerned in that expedition, makes no mention of him. In 1586 he sat as lord great chamberlain of England on the trial of Mary queen of Scots. In 1588 he hired and fitted out ships at his own charge against the Spanish Armada. In 1589 he sat on the trial of Philip Howard, earl of Arwndel; and in 1601, on the trials of the earls of Essex and Southampton. One of the most remarkable events of his life was his cruel usage of his first wife, Anne, daughter of the celebrated William Cecil, lord Burleigh, in revenge for the part acted by that statesman against Thomas duke of Norfolk, for whom he had a warm friendship. Camden says, that having vainly interceded with his father-in-law for the duke’s life, he grew so incensed that he vowed revenge against the daughter, and “not only forsook her bed, but sold and consumed that great inheritance descended to him from his ancestors;” but in answer to this, Collins says, that the estate descended to his son. It was probably, however, much impaired, as Arthur Wilson agrees with Camden, and something of the same kind may be inferred from a letter in Winwood’s Memorials, III. 422. The earl was buried at Hackney, July 6, 1604.

His character appears to have been marked with haughtiness, vanity, and affectation. He aped Italian dresses, and was called “the mirror of Tuscanismo.” His rank, however, and his illustrious family commanded the respect of a large portion of the literary world, and among his eulogists were the contemporary writers, Watson, Lily, Golding, Munday, Greene, Lock, and Spenser. Scattered pieces of his poetry are found in the collections of the times, and particularly in the “Paradise of dayntie devises,” lately reprinted in the Bibliographer. In these there appear the same traits as are said to have been exhibited in his character. They are generally affected, full of conceit and antithesis, and obscure. He is said also to have written comedies, and to have been reckoned the best writer of comedy in his time, but the very names of these plays are lost. His lady, Anne, has lately been introduced to public observation, as a poetess, by Mr. George Steeveris, the editor of Shakspeare. Her poetical attempts are to be found in a collection of odes and sonnets, entitled “Diana,” published by one John Southern or Soothern. Some account of these, which seem to be below mediocrity, is given by Mr. Park as a supplementary article to Walpole’s “Royal and Noble Authors.”

, abbot of St. Cyran, famous in the seventeenth century as a controversial writer, was born in 1581, at Bayonne, of a good family. He pursued his studies at Lou vain, and formed a strict friendship with the celebrated Jansenius, his fellow student. In 1610 he was made abbot of St. Cyran, on the resignation ( of Henry Lewis Chateignier de la Roche-Posai, bishop of Poitiers. The new abbot read the fathers and the councils with Jansenius, and took great pains to impress him with his sentiments and opinions, as well as a number of divines with whom he corresponded; nor did he leave any means untried to inspire M. le Maitre, M. Arnauld, M. d'Andilly, and several more disciples whom he had gained, with the same opinions. This conduct making much noise, cardinal Richelieu, who was besides piqued that the abbot of St. Cyran refused to declare himself for the nullity of the marriage between Gaston, duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis the thirteenth, and Margaret of Lorraine, confined him at Vincennes, May 11, 1638. After this minister’s death, the abbot regained his liberty, but did not enjoy it long, for he died at Paris, October 18, 1643, aged sixtytwo, and was buried at St. Jacques du Haut-Pas, where his epitaph may be seen on one side of the high altar. His works are, 1. “Lettres Spirituelles,” 2 vols. 4to, or 8vo, reprinted at Lyons, 1679, 3 vols. 12mo, to which a fourth has been added, containing several small tracts written by M. de St. Cyran, and printed separately. 2. “Question Royale,” in which he examines in what extremity a subject might be obliged to save the life of his prince at the expence of his own, 1609, 12mo. This last was much talked of, and his enemies drew inferences and consequences from it, which neither he nor his disciples by any means approved 3. “L‘Aumône Chrétienne, ou Tradition de l’Eglise touchant la charité envers les Pauvres,” 2 vols. 12mo. The second part of this work is entitled “L'Aumône ecclesiastique.” M. Anthony le Maitre had a greater share in the last-mentioned book than the abbot of St. Cyran. He published some other works of a similar cast, but his last appears to deserve most notice. It is entitled “Petrus Aurelius,” -and is a defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Jesuits. He was assisted in this book by his nephew, the abbé de Baicos, and it seems to have done him the most honour of all his works, though it must be acknowledged, says the abbé L'Avocat, that if all the abuse of the Jesuits, and the invectives against their order, were taken from this great volume, very little would remain. L'Avocat is also of opinion that M. Hallier’s small tract on the same subject, occasioned by the censure of the clergy in 1635, is more solid, much deeper, and contains better arguments, than any that are to be found in the great volume of “Petrus Aurelius.” The first edition of this book is the collection of different parts, printed between 1632 and 1635, for which the printer Morel was paid by the clergy, though it was done without their order. The assembly held in 1641 caused an edition to be published in 1642, which the Jesuits seized; but it was nevertheless dispersed on the remonstrances of the clergy. This edition contains two pieces, “Confutatio collections locorum quos Jesuits compilarunt, &c.” that are not in the third edition, which was also published at the clergy’s expence in 1646. But to this third edition is prefixed the eulogy, written by M. Godeau on the author, by order of the clergy, and the verbal process which orders it; whence it appears that their sentiments respecting him, differed widely from those of the Jesuits and their adherents. The abbot de St. Cyran was a man of much simplicity in his manners and practice: he told his beads; he exorcised heretical books before he read them: this simplicity, however, concealed a great fund of learning, and great talents for persuasion, without which he could never have gained so many illustrious and distinguished disciples, as Mess. Arnauld, le Maltre de Sacy, Arnauld d'Andilly, and the other literati of Port Royal, who all had the highest veneration for him, and placed the most unbounded confidence in him. But whatever talents he might have for speaking, persuading, and directing, he certainly had none for writing; nor are his books answerable to his high reputation.

, one of the most learned men of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was born in 1349 at Justinopolis, now Capo d'Istria, a town situated at the extremity of the Adriatic gulph, not far from Trieste. Of his preceptors we only know that he learned Greek of Chrysoloras at Venice, and canon law of Francis de Zabarelia at Florence. -He is said to have composed the inscription on the monument of Chrysoloras in the Dominican monastery at Constance, where that eminent scholar died in 1415. After visiting several cities in Italy, where he displayed his knowledge of philosophy, civil law, mathematics, Greek, &c. he assisted at the council of Constance, and went thence to Hungary, to which it was thought he was invited by the emperor Sigismond. The prince of Carrara, then in possession of Padua, chose him for preceptor to his children. He is supposed to have died about 1431; Saxius says 1428. In his last days his faculties experienced a total decay, nor did he appear to have any enjoyment of his reason but at short intervals.

He wrote a history of the princes of Carrara, which is inserted in Muratori’s collection, vol. XVI. published at Milan 173iQ, who did not know that it had appeared eight years before in the “Thesaur. Antiq. Ital.” vol. VI. part III. published at Leyden. He wrote also alife of Petrarch, which may be seen in Tomasijii’s “Petrarcha Redivivus;” an elogium on St. Jerorn; a treatise de “Republica Veneta,” published at Rome in 1526; and testified his zeal for the honour of classical learning, by publishing an invective against Malatesta, who, by a misguided zeal, had removed from the market-place of Mantua a statue of Virgil. One of his most celebrated treatises was that “Deingenuis moribus,” composed for the use of the prince of Carrara’s children. This, which was so popular as to become a school-book, aod as such Paul Jovius mentions its being put into his hands when a youth, was first published, with other treatises of the same kind, at Milan in 1474, 4to, and reprinted in 1477. Brunet, however, mentions an edition prior to either of these, which he supposes printed about 1472, with the title “Ad Ubertinum Carariensem de ingenuis moribus opus e Magno Basileo, et e Xenophonti de tirannide Leonardi Aretini traductio.” Brunet also mentions, that the editions of 1474 and 1477 are to be found separate from the other treatises; but it was certainly afterwards printed with them, at Venice: for example in 1502, with Bonardus and others on the subject of education; and at Basil in 1541, with Vitruvius Roscius “de docendi studendique modo,” &c. Vergerius translated into Latin Arrian’s history of the expedition of Alexander the Great, and it is said purposely avoided any particular elegance of style, lest his royal reader should stand in need of the assistance of an interpreter. If this be true it cannot be a matter of much regret that such a translation was not printed. Vergerius is likewise said to have written poetry, and even a Latin comedy, which is preserved in manuscript in the Ambrosian library. It was the production of his youth, and is entitled “Paulus.” Sassi, in his typographical history of Milan, has printed the prologue.

, usually called the Younger, to distinguish him from the preceding, was born at Justinopolis, and of the same family. Where he was educated we are not told, but he soon became celebrated for his acquirements in canon-law and scholastic divinity; and these recommended him to the attention of the pope, Clement VII. who employed him as his nuncio at the memorable diet of Augsburgh in 1530, and entrusted him with a very ample commission. He was instructed to use every endeavour to prevent the holding of a national council in Germany, and to induce king Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, to oppose any proposition of that kind. Vergerius executed this commission with great 2eal, and gave every opposition to the Lutherans, by shewing his partiality to Eckius, Faber, Cochlaeus, and other enemies to the reformation; he also made Eckius a canon of Ratisbonne, a piece of preferment which, as the pope’s legate, he could confer. Vergerius executed this commission with such ability, that he was thought the most proper person to succeed the superannuated bishop of Rhegio, as the pope’s ambassador to Germany. He accordingly was sent, with instructions, openly to represent his holiness’s ardent desire to convene a general council, but secretly to take every step to prevent that measure. On the death of Clement VII. and the accession of Paul III. the latter recalled Vergerius from Germany, in order to be exactly informed of the state of religion in that country; and, says Sleidan, he also consulted with the cardinals, as to the prevention of a national council, until they should, by private and unsuspected contrivances, be able to embroil the emperor afhd other princes in a war. As a part of this plan, Paul III. resolved at length to send Vergerius back to Germany to profer a general council, and in the mean time to learn what form the Protestants would insist upon as to the qualifications, votings, and disputations, of such a council; and his object in this was, to be able to impose such rules and terms as he was sure they would never accept; by which contrivance the odium of not holding a general council would fall upon them. Vergerius was also instructed to exasperate the princes of the empire against the king of England, Henry V1IL whose dominions the pope had in contemplation to bestow upon those who would conquer them: and he had also a secret article of instruction to tamper with Luther and Melancthon, in order to bring them over to the cause of Rome.

Early in the Spring of 1535, Vergerius set out on this embassy, in which he was exceedingly indiistrious, and negociated with almost all the princes of Germany. At Prague he met with John the pious elector of Saxony, with whom he dealt very artfully, and, among other things, suggested, that the intended council should be held at Mantua, pretending the convenience of its situation as to plenty and facility of access, but really because the heads of the protestant party being assembled in Italy would be more in the pope’s power. This, however, was easily seen through, and objected to. He also went to Wittemberg, and had a conference with Luther, which has been variously represented. It appears, however, both from father Paul and Pallavicino, that he treated Luther with urbanity, but made no impression on the steady mind of that illustrious reformer.

In 1556 Vergerius returned to the pope, and reported, as the issue of his inquiries, that the protestants demanded a free council, in a convenient place, within the territories of the empire, which the emperor had promised them: that as to the Lutheran party, there was no remedy but absolute force and entire suppression: that the protestants would hear nothing of hostility to the king of England, and that the rest of the princes had equal repugnance. The only comfortable hint Vergerius communicated was, that George duke of Saxony (Luther’s greatest enemy) had declared, that the pope and the emperor ought to make war against the protestants as soon as possible,. Catching at this, the pope immediately sent Vergerius to Naples, where the emperor then was, in order to propose such a war, as the quickest method of settling the controversy. The emperor so far listened to this as to take a journey to Rome to debate the matter; and the issue was, that a council was proposed to be held at Mantua: but to this, from motives of self-preservation, the protestants could not consent. As a reward, however, for his services, Vergerius was made bishop of Justinopolis.

From this time to 1541, Vergerius appeajrs to have remained in Italy. In this last mentioned year, he was commissioned to go to the diet at Worms, where he made a speech on the unity and peace of the church, which he printed and circulated, and in which he principally insisted on the arguments against a national council. On his return to Rome, the pope intended to have rewarded his services with a cardinal’s hat, but changed his purpose on hearing it insinuated that a leaning towards Lutheranism was perceptible in him, from his long residence in Germany. The pope, however, was not more offended than Vergerius was surprized at this charge, which he knew to be absolutely groundless; yet this circumstance, probably arising from personal malice or envy, proved ultimately the means of Vergerius’s conversion. With a view to repel the charge of heresy, he now sat down to write a book, the title of which was to be, “Adversus apostatas Germanise,” against the apostates of Germany; but as this led him to a strict investigation of the protestant doctrines, as found in the works of their ablest writers, he found his attachment to popery completely undermined, and rose up from the perusal of the protestant writers with a strong conviction that they were in the right. He then immediately went to confer with his brother, John Baptist Vergerius, bishop of Pola, in Istria, who was exceedingly perplexed at his change of sentiment, but on his repeated entreaties, joined him in examining the disputed points, particularly the article of justification, and the result was, that both prelates soon preached to the people of Istria the doctrines of the reformation, and even dispersed the New Testament among them in the vulgar tongue. The Inquisition, as well as the monks, soon became alarmed at this, and Vergerius was obliged to seek refuge in Mantua, under the protection of cardinal Hercules Gonzaga, who had been his intimate friend; but Gonzaga was after a short time obliged by remonstrances from Rome to withdraw his protection, and he finally went to Padua, and thence to the Grisons, where he preached the gospel for several years, until invited by the duke of Wirtemberg to Tubingen, and there he passed the remainder of his days. In the mean time his brother, the bishop of Pola, died, and, as suspected, by poison, administered by some of those implacable enemies who were also thirsting for Vergerius’s blood. But he was now out of their reach, and died quietly at Tubingen, Oct. 4, 1566. Verged us, after his conversion, wrote a great many treatises, most of them small, against popery and popish writers, the titles of which are to be found in our authorities, but they are all of rare occurrence, owing to their having been suppressed or strictly prohibited by his enemies. Some are in Italian, and some in Latin. A collection of them was begun to be printed at Tubingen in 1563, but one volume only was published, under the title of “Primus tomus operum Vergerii adversus Papatum,” 4to. A valuable defence of Vergerius was published by Schelhorn, in 1760, “Apologia pro P. P. Vergerio adversus loh. Casam. Accedunt Monumenta inedita, et quatuor epistoltE memorabiles,” 4to.

, a writer who did not want either genius or learning, was born at Urbino, in Italy, in the fifteenth century; but the year is not named, nor have we any account of his early history. He was first known in the literary world by “A Collection of Proverbs,” 1498, and this being the first work of the kind, it occasioned some jealousy between him and Erasmus. When Erasmus afterwards published his “Adagia,” and did not take notice of his work, Vergil reproached him in terms not civil, in the preface to his book “De llerum Inventoribus.” Their friendship, however, does not seem to have been interrupted by it; and Vergil, at the instigation of Erasmus, left the passage out in the later editions. These “Adagia” of Polydore Vergil were printed three or four times in a very short space; and this success encouraged him to undertake a more difficult work, his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” printed in 1499. At the end of the 4th edition at Basil, 1536, 12mo, is subjoined a short commentary of his upon the Lord’s prayer. After this, he was sent into England by pope Alexander VI. to collect the papal tribute, called Peter-pence, and was the last collector of that oppressive tax. He recommended himself in this country so effectually to the powers in being, and was so well pleased with' it, that, having obtained the rectory of Church Langton in Leicestershire, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life in England. In 1507 he was presented to the archdeaconry of Wells, and prebend of Nonnington, in the church of Hereford; and was the same year collated to the prebehd of Scamelsby in the church of Lincoln, which he resigned in 1513 for the prebend of Oxgate in that of St. Paul’s. In 1517 he published at London a new edition of his work “De Rerum Inventoribus,” then consisting of six books, with a prefatory address to his brother John Matthew Vergil. About 1521 he undertook a considerable work at the command of Henry VIII.; upon which he spent above twelve years. It was a “History of England,” which he published and dedicated in 1533 to his royal patron. The purity of his language is generally allowed, and he excelled most of the writers of this age for elegance and clearness of style, but his work is chargeable with great partiality, and even falsehood, and this charge has been advanced by sir Henry Savile and Humphrey Lloyd, who reproaches him in very severe terms. Caius, in his book “De Antiquitatibus Cantabrigiae,” mentions it as a thing “not only reported, but even certainly known, that Polydore Vergil, to prevent the discovery of the faults in his history, most wickedly committed as many of our ancient and manuscript histories to the flames as a waggon could hold.” For this, however, we have no direct authority. His greatest fault is, that he gives a very unfair account of the reformation, and of the conduct of the protestants. Yet his work has been printed several times, and very much read; and is necessary to supply a chasm of almost seventy years in our history, including particularly the lives of Edward IV. and Edward V. which period is hardly to be found in Latin in any other author.

In 1526, he published a treatise “Of Prodigies:” consisting of dialogues, and attacks upon divination. He did not desire to leave England till 1550, and he would not have desired it then, if old age had not required a warmer and more southern climate. Bishop Burnet tells us, that “having been now almost forty years here, growing old, ha desired leave to go nearer the sun. It was granted him on the 2d of June: and, in consideration of the public service he was thought to have done the nation by his History, he was permitted to hold his archdeaconry of Wells, and his prebend of Nonnington, notwithstanding his absence from the kingdom.” It is said that he died at Urbino in 1555. Although a zealous papist in some points, he approved the marriage of the clergy, and condemned the worship of images; nor was he at all disgusted with the alterations that were made in the affairs of England under Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and it has been observed that there are several things occasionally dropped in his writings, which did not please the adherents of his own church. His name of late has been written “Virgil” but, before the Basil edition in 1536 of his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” it is printed “Vergilius.”

, count de Tressan, a lively French writer, was born at Mons, Nov. 4, 1705, of a noble family originally from Languedoc, one branch of which had been protestants, and fought on that side in the civil wars preceding the massacre. He came early in life to Paris, and attached himself to Voltaire and Fontenelle, who initiated him in the belles lettres, and in those principles which afterwards made him be ranked among the philosophers of France. He served afterwards in the French army, and attained the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1750 he was admitted a free associate of the French academy, and contributed a memoir on Electricity, a subject then not much known, and written with so much ability that it was supposed he might have acquired no small fame in pursuing scientific subjects. This, however, was not agreeable to his disposition. After the battle of Fontenoy, in 1741, in which he served as aide-de-camp to Louis XV. he went to the court of Stanislaus, king of Poland, at Luneville, where he recommended himself by the sprightliness of his temper, and by the freedom of his remarks, but at the same time made some enemies by his satirical and epigrammatic productions. On the death of Stanislaus, he retired from active life, and devoted his time to the composition of a variety of works, particularly romances. Some of which were however translations, and others abridgments. These fill 12 octavo volumes published in 1791. His translation of Ariosto seems to have done him most credit. A light, trifling spirit never deserted him, but still sported even in his grey-hairs, until death put a serious end to it, Oct. 31, 1782, in his seventy-seventh year. Almost up to this period he was abridging Amadis de Gaul, and writing tales of chivalry, after having begun his career with the grave and abstruse parts of science. While in this latter employment he was, in 1749, chosen a member of our Royal Society.

, a physician and anatomist, was born in 1643 at Vesbrouck, in the county of Waes. He was descended of a family who had many years subsisted from the profits arising from the cultivation of the earth; and he had himself worked with the spade to the age of twenty-two years; when the curate of his village, taking notice of him, gave him the first rudiments of learning. He afterwards obtained a place in the college of the Trinity at Louvain, where he was made professor of anatomy in 16y, and afterwards doctor in medicine. He died there in Feb. 1710, aged 62. The following epitaph was found after his decease, written with his own hand: “Philippus Vt-rheyen Medicina; Doctor & Professor, partem sui materialem hie in Cremeterio condi voluit, ne Templum dehonestaret, am nocivis halitibus inficeret. Requiescat in pace.”

His “Corporis Humani Anatomia,” published in 1693, met with a good reception from the public, as containing, besides the opinions of the ancients, the modern discoveries, described more at large and more accurately than in the bodies of anatomy that were published before. There are also many observations, the result of his own experiments.

, a celebrated French marine painter, was born at Avignon in 1712, and received the early part of his education at Rome. While there he contracted au acquaintance with Mr. Drake, of Sharlowes, in Buckinghamshire, then on his travels. Mr. Drake employed him to paint six pictures, and left the subjects to his own choice. They are very capital performances, in the painter’s best manner, and are now in the drawing-room at Sharlowes.

Having stayed a competent time, eagerly employed in the contemplation of the finest models of antiquity, he returned to France, and his first designs were views of some of the principal sea-ports on the coast. These being shewn to his late majesty of France, procured him the appointment of marine painter to the king, with a competent salary, and every assistance that he requested to go through his plan of giving a view of every sea' port in the kingdom. This he completed, and under royal and national patronage the views have been engraved and the prints, which are in general most exquisitely performed, have been disseminated through all Europe. Many of these engravings were by Balechon; one of them, well known to collectors by the name of “The Storm,” was much admired for the fluidity of the water, and the spirit of the figures. One hundred of the prints were consigned to an engraver in London, and part of them sold; but some persons objecting to the very clumsy style in which a long dedication, inscribed under the print, was written, Balechon said he would soon remedy that, and with his graver drew a number of black lines upon the copper, over the dedication, so as in a degree to obliterate the words, and sent 100 impressions to England. These our connoisseurs soon found to be “the second impression,” and eagerly bought up the first; but a print with the lines no man of taste would look at. This mortified the English printseller, who wrote to the French engraver, and complained that he could not sell the second set for half price. “Morbleu” cries the Frenchman, “How whimsical are these English Virtuosi! They must be satisfied, however.” To work he sets with his punch and hammer, and, repairing the letters, sends out the print, with the inscription apparently in its first state. A few of these were sold; but the imposition was soon discovered by the faintness of the impressions; and then those who did not possess the first impressions, were glad to have the plate in the second, rather than the third state; so that nearly all the third set lay upon the hands of the printseller. This produced a complaint; and the complaisant Frenchman, ever eager to satisfy his English customers, again punched out the lines, and brought the inscription to its second state.

This Proteus of a print very frequently appears in sales; and the contests of the connoisseurs about the superiority of those without lines to those with, and vice versa, are innumerable, and sometimes proceed to blows. This little history may perhaps induce them to consult their own eyes, in preference to black lines.

After a long and active life, in a manner that did honour to himself and his country, Vernet began to fear that his well-earned pension would be stopped by the troubles arising in France; and as 81 years of age is rather too late a period for a man to take a very active part in national disputes, he meditated a retreat to England, which was put a stop to by his death in 1789. His works will, however, live as long as those of any artist of his day. In a light and airy management of his landscape, in a deep and tender diminution of his perspective, in the clear transparent hue of the sky, liquid appearance of the water, and the buoyant air of the vessels which he depicted on it, he had few superiors. In small figures employed in dragging off a boat, rigging a ship, or carrying goods from the quay to a warehouse, or any other employ which required action, he displayed most uncommon knowledge, and gave them with such spirit (though sometimes a little in the French fluttered style), as has never been equalled by any man except our most excellent Mortimer; and to be the inferior of Mortimer in that line is no dishonour. It has been the lot of every painter who ever lived, and will probably be the lot of all who ever will live. He carried that branch of the art to its highest degree of perfection. As a proof in what estimation Vernet was held, it may be mentioned that two of his pictures, now in the Luxembourg, were purchased by madame du Barry for 50,000 livres. It was said of him, that his genius neither knew infancy nor old age.

, a French refugee, was born at Bourdeaux in 1583, and educated in the university of Montauban until he took his master’s degree, when he was obliged to leave his country for the sake of his religion, and came to England, and found a friend in sir Thomas Leigh. In 1608 he was admitted a member of Magdalen college, Oxford, and in 1625 was incorporated master of arts, being then second keeper of the Bodleian library, in which Wood says, his services were valuable. He died at Oxford in Sept. 1647, and was buried in the church of St. Peter in the East, “at which time,” says Wood, “our library lost an honest and useful servant, and his children a good father.”

He wrote, for the use of his students, 1. “Catalogus ID­terpretum S. Scripturae, juxta numerorurn ordinem, qui extant in Bibl. Bodl.” Oxon. 1635, 4to, the second edition. This was first begun by Dr. Thomas James. To it is added an “Elenchus auctorum, tarn reoentium quam antiquorum, qui in quatuor libros sententiarmn et Thomas Aquinatis summas, &c. scripserunt.” 2. “Nomenclator of such tracts and sermons as hare been printed, or translated into English upon any place or book of Scripture, now to be had in Bodley’s library,” Oxon. 1637, and enlarged in 1642, 16mo. He also translated from French into English, principal Cameron’s “Tract of the sovereign judge of controversies,” Oxon. 1628, 4to, and from English into Latin, Daniel Dyke “On the deceitfulness of man’s heart.” This was printed at Geneva, 1634, 8vo.

, an eminent French anatomist, was born Aug. 15, 1648, at Feurs en Fores, where his father was a physician. He studied medicine for five years at Avignon, and soon acquired fame for skill in anatomy, on which subject he read lectures with great accuracy and perspicuity. In 1676 he became a member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, and was appointed to give lessons on anatomy to the dauphin. In 167U he was appointed professor of anatomy, and attracted a great concourse of pupils, especially from foreign countries. He died Sept. 10, 1730, aged eighty-two, and had continued to the last his anatomical pursuits. He published in his life-time only one work, “Traite de I‘organe de I’ouie,” but which is said to have been enough for his fame. This appeared first in 1683, and was soon reprinted and translated into Latin and German. From his manuscripts was published in 1751, “Traite des maladies des os,” and published in English in 1762; and his “Oeuvresanatomiques,” in 2 vols. 4to, edited by his pupil Senac. He contributed a great many observations to the Memoirs of the Academy, and the Journal des Savans.

, esq. an admiral of distinguished bravery, was descended from an ancient family in Staffordshire, and born at Westminster on the 12th of November, 1684. His father, who was secretary of state to king William and queen Mary, gave him a good education, but never intended him for the sea-service: but, as the youth became desirous of entering on that employment, his father at last consented, and he pursued those studies which had a relation to navigation and gunnery with surprising alacrity and success. His first expedition at sea was under admiral Hopson, when the French fleet and Spanish galleons were destroyed at Vigo. In 1702, he served in an expedition to the West Indies under commodore Walker; and, in 1704, on board the fleet commanded by sir George Rooke, which convoyed the king of Spain to Lisbon, when Mr. Vernon received a hundred guineas and a ring from that monarch’s own hand. He was also at the famous battle of Malaga, the same year. In January 1705, he was appointed commander of the Dolphin; and, in 1707, commanded the Royal Oak, one of the ships sent to convoy the Lisbon fleet, which falling in with the French, three of our men of war were taken, and a fourth blown up. In 1708, Mr. Vernon commanded the Jersey, and was sent to the W'est Indies as rear-admiral under sir Charles Wager, where he took many valuable prizes, and greatly interrupted the trade of the enemy. In 1715, he commanded the Assistance, a ship of fifty guns, under sir John Norris, in an expedition to the Baltic; and, in 1726, the Grafton of seventy guns, under sir Charles Wager, in the same seas. On the accession of his late majesty George II. in 1727, Mr. Vernon was chosen member for Penryn, in Cornwall, and soon after was sent, to Gibraltar, as commander of the Grafton, to join sir Charles Wager. The next expedition in which he was engaged was that which immortalized his name. This was in 1739: he was sleeping in his bed at Chatham when the courier arrived with the news at about two in the morning; and, being informed that dispatches of the utmost importance were arrived from London, he arose. On opening the packet, he found a commission appointing him vice-admiral of the blue, and commander in chief of a squadron fitting out for destroying the settlements of the Spaniards in the West Indies, with a letter from his majesty, requiring his immediate attendance on him. Having received his instructions, he weighed anchor from Spithead on the 23d of July; and, on the 20th of November, arrived in sight of Porto Bello, with only six ships under his command. The next day he began the attack of that town; when, after a furious engagement on both sides, it was taken on the 22nd, together with a considerable number of cannon, mortars, and ammunition, and also two Spanish men of war. He then blew up the fortifications, and left the place for want of land forces sufficient to keep it; but first distributed 10,000 dollars, which had been sent to Porto-Bello for paying the Spanish troops, among the forces for their encouragement. In 1741, he made an unsuccessful attempt upon Carthagena in conjunction with general Wentworth. After his return home, the rebellion in 1745 breaking out, he was employed in guarding the coasts of Kent and Sussex; when he stationed a squadron of men of war in so happy a manner as to block up the French ports in the channel. But, soon after, complaints being made against him for superseding the orders of the lords of the admiralty, in appointing a gunner in opposition to one recommended by themselves, and for exacting too severe duty from his men, he was struck off the list of admirals; on which he retired from all public business, except attending the House of Commons as member for Ipswich in Suffolk. He died suddenly at his seat at Nacton in Suffolk, on the 29th of October, 1757, in the seventythird year of his age.

It was the misfortune of this brave man, that too much of temper and political ambition made his life turbulent and unhappy. “Of all men,” says the candid Charnock, “who have been fortunate enough to obtain celebrity as naval commanders, few appear to have taken greater pains to sully their public fame by giving full scope to all their private feelings; yet probably, for this very uncommon reason, he rose the greater favourite of fortune, in the minds of the people, to that pinnacle of popularity, the height of which was indeed great enough to dazzle and distract the firmest minds; so that to the infirmity of human nature may, in some measure, be ascribed that extravagance of conduct which might otherwise be more condemned. To say he was a brave, a gallant man, would be a needless repetition of what no person has ever presumed to deny him. His judgment, his abilities as a seaman, are unquestioned; and his character, as a man of strict integrity and honour, perfectly unsullied, &c.” Admiral Vernon wrote some pamphlets in his own defence, or in defence of his peculiar opinions.

, a learned lawyer, of whom our accounts are very imperfect, was the son and heir of Richard Vernon, esq. of Henbury-hall, Worcestershire, and made a considerable figure in the reigns of queen Anne and George I. representing the borough of Whitechurch, Hampshire, in the parliaments called in 1710, 1713, 1714, and 1722. He had been secretary to the unfortunate duke of Monmouth. He died at Twickenham-park, August 22, 1726. His “Law Reports” were printed by order of the court of chancery, in 2 vols. fol. 1726, 1728, under the title of the “Reports” of Thomas Vernon, esq. “of Cases argued and adjusted in the high court of chancery, from 33 Car. II. to 5 Geo. I.” Among other eminent authorities, the late lord Kenyon took occasion to observe, that it had been an hundred and an hundred times lamented that Vernon’s Reports were published in a very inaccurate manner; there were some private reasons, said his lordship, assigned for that, which he would not mention. Mr. Vernon’s notes were taken for his own use, and never intended for publication. He was, added lord Kenyon, the ablest man in his profession. There being a dispute after Mr. Vernon’s death, whether his Mss. should go to his heir-at-law, or pass under the residuary clause in his will to his legal personal representatives, the court of chancery made an order for the publication of them, under the direction of Mr. Melmoth and Mr. Peere Williams, but as many of the cases have been found inaccurate, and to consist of loose notes only, John Raithby, esq. has lately edited and republished them with great labour, and as he has taken pains to examine all the cases with the register’s book, they cannot fail to be an acceptable offering to the profession. Mr. Raithby 's elaborate edition appeared in 1806 and 1807, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Dutch painter,- was the son of a captain, and born at Gorcum in 1727. Having discovered an early turn for designing, his father placed him at eight years of age with a portrait-painter at Gorcum, but at the age of thirteen he left this master to learn the greater principles of his art at Utrecht. After he had continued about six years with Both, a painter of good reputation there, he went to Rome, where he frequented the academies, and employed himself in designing after the best models. His genius leading him to paint animals, hunting, and battles, he studied every thing that might be useful to him in those ways. He also designed landscapes, and the famous buildings, not only in the neighbourhood of Rome, but all over Italy; which employment gave him a relish for architecture. After residing ten years in Italy, he resolved to return to his own country. He passed through Switzerland into France; and, while he was at Paris, met with a young gentleman who was going to make the tour of Italy, and was prevailed on to accompany him, after spending three years more in Italy, he came back to Holland, arriving at Gorcum in 1C62. His taste for battlepieces induced him to make a campaign in 1672, in the course of which he designed all the circumstances and accompaniments of war. His genius was fruitful; there was a great deal of fire in his imagination and in his works; and, as he had studied much after nature, he formed a particular taste which never degenerated into what is called manner, but comprehended a great variety of objects, and had more of the Roman than the Flemish in it. Such was the pleasure he took in his profession, that he had always a crayon in his hand; and, wherever he came, designed some object or other after nature. His best perfomances are at the Hague, Amsterdam, and Utrecht.

He was a man of so excellent a character, that he was chosen to be one of the magistrates of the city he lived in; and he accepted the office, with the condition that he should not be obliged to quit his profession. He was in the full career of fame and esteem both as a man and an artist, when, happening to undertake a small voyage, he was cast away two leagues from Dort, and drowned the 6th of April, 1G90, aged sixty-two.

, principally known as an antiquary, was the grandson of Richard Roland Verstegan, of an ancient family in the duchy of Guelderland, who being driven out of his own country by the confusions of war, came to England in the time of Henry VII. Here he married, and dying soon after, left an infant son, who was afterwards put apprentice to a cooper, and was father to the subject of this article. Richard was born in St. Catherine’s parish, near the Tower of London, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was sent to Oxford, where he was generally called Roland. It does not appear what college he belonged to, cr whether he is to be considered as a regular member of any, but he seems to have distinguished himself in Saxon literature, then very little studied. He was, however, a zealous Roman catholic, and finding no encouragement in his studies without taking oaths adverse to his principles, he quitted the university, and settled at Antwerp, and practised drawing and painting. About 1592 he published a work, now very rare, entitled “Theatrum crudelitatum Hsereticorum nostri temporis,” a thin quarto, with curious cuts representing the deaths of the Jesuits, and other missionaries who were hanged or otherwise put to death for their machinations against the church and state. This effort of zeal does not appear to have been in all respects agreeable to some of his own party; and either his fears on this account, or some other causes, induced him to leave Antwerp for Paris. There being complained of by the English ambassador as a calumniator of his royal mistress, he was thrown into prison by the French king’s orders. How long he was confined is not known, but when released he returned to Antwerp, and resumed his studies, which produced his “Restitution of decayed Antiquities,” 1605, 4to, several times reprinted, a work of very considerable merit and judicious research; but, the principal subjects on English antiquities having been since more accurately investigated and treated, Verstegan’s work is rather a curious than a necessary addition to the historical library. When he published it he seems to have been in better humour with England, and dedicated it very respectfully to James I. He corresponded much with sir Robert Cotton, and other antiquaries of the time. It is uncertain when he died, but some place that event soon after 1634. Verstegan wrote also “The successive regal Governments of England,” Antwerp, 1620, in one sheet, with cuts; “A Dialogue on Dying well,” a translation from the Italian; and a collection of very indifferent poetry, entitled “Odes; in imitation of the seven penitential Psalmes. With sundry other poems and ditties, tending to devotion and pietie,” imprinted 1601, 8vo, probably at Antwerp.

, a celebrated and learned monk of Cluni, born October 4, 1645, at Paris. He was treasurer to the abbey of Cluni, visitor of the order, and vicar-general, in 1694. In 1695 he obtained the priory of St. Peter, at Abbeville, and died there, May 1, 1708. De Vert made the ceremonies of the church his particular study, and undertook to explain them both literally and historically in the 4 vols. 8vo (the first two of 1720, and 3 and 4 of 1713) which he has left on that subject, under the title of “Explications simples, litteVales et historiques des Ceremonies de la Messe,” &c. This work contains many curious, and to those of his own persuasion, many interesting particulars, and still continues to be esteemed. He was the author of some other works of less note.

, a very pleasing French historian, whose principal works have been translated into English, was born at the castle of Bennetot, in Normandy, Nov. 25, 1655, of a good family. Such was his application to study, that in his seventeenth year he maintained his last philosophical theses. Much against his father’s will he entered among the Capuchins, and took the name of brother Zachary, but the austerities of this order proving hurtful to his health, he was induced to exchange it for one of milder rules. Accordingly, in 1677, he entered among the Premonstratenses, where he became successively secretary to the general of the order, curate, and at length prior of the monastery. But with this he does not appear to have been satisfied, and after some other changes of situation, became a secular ecclesiastic. In 1701 he came to Paris in that character, and was in 1705 made an associate of the academy of belles lettres. His talents soon procured him great patronage. He was appointed secretary of commands to the duchess of Orleans Bade-Baden, and secretary of languages to the duke of Orleans. In 1715 the grand-master of Malta appointed him historiographer to that order, with all its privileges, and the honour of wearing the cross. He was afterwards appointed to the commandery of Santery, and would, but for some particular reasons, not specified, have been intrusted with the education of Louis XV. His last years were passed in much bodily infirmity, from which he was released June 15, 1735. His literary career has in it somewhat remarkable. He was bordering on his forty- fifth year when he wrote his first history, and had passed his seventieth when he bad finished the last, that of Malta. He lived nine years afterwards, but under extreme languor of body and mind. During this, when, from the force of habit, he talked of new projects, of the revolutions of Carthage, and the history of Poland, and his friends would represent to him that he was now incapable both of reading or writing, his answer was, that he had read enough to compose by memory, and written enough to dictate with fluency. The French regard him as their Quintus Curtius. His st)le is pleading, lively, and elegant, and hjs reflections always just, and often profound. But he yielded too much to imagination, wrote much from memory, which was not always sufficiently retentive, and is often wrong in facts, from declining the labour of research, and despising the fastidiousness of accuracy. His works, which it is unnecessary to characterise separately, as they have been so long before both the French and English public, are, 1. “Histoire des Revolutions de Portugal,” Paris, i6?9, 12mo. 2. “Histoire des Revolutions de Suede,” 1696, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Histoire des Revolutions Romanies,” 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “histoire de Malte,” 1727, 4 vols 4to, and 7 vols. 12mo. 5. “Traité de la mouvance de Bretagne.” 6. “Hisjtoire critique de l'etablissment des Bretons dans les Gaules,” 2 vols 12mo, a posthumous work, 1713. H wrote also some dissertations in the Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres, and corresponded much with the literati of his time on subjects of history, particularly with earl Stanhope, on the senate of ancient Rome. His and lord Stanhope’s Inquiry on this subject were published by Hooke, the Roman historian, in 1757, or 1758.

, an eminent engraver and antiquary, was born in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-fields, London, in 1684. His parents, he says himself, were more honest than opulent; but, according to his biographer, “if vanity had entered into his composition, he might have boasted the antiquity of his race: two of his name were employed by Henry VIII. in the board of works.” He might have added, that in Ashmole’s “History of the Order of the Garter,” p. 136, a William Vertue is mentioned, as free-mason, 21 Henry VII. and one of the architects of the royal chapel of St. George, at Windsor. About the age of thirteen Vertue was placed with a master who engraved arms on plate, and had the chief business of London; but who, being extravagant, broke, and returned to his country, France, after Vertue bad served him between three and four years. Vertue then studied drawing for two years, after which he entered into an agreement with Michael Vandergutch for three more, which term he protracted to seven, engraving copper-plates for him. Having in 1709 received instructions and advice from several painters, he quitted his master on handsome terms, and began to work for himself, and employed his first year in drawing and engraving for books. At intervals he practised drawing and music, learned French, a little Italian, and Dutch, and was able to read all that was written in these languages on his art.

About this time he acquired the notice of sir Godfrey Kneller, which he acknowledges with gratitude, as of great importance to him, for his father had died and left a widow and several children to be supported by his labours. His words on this occasion do him honour: “I was the eldest, and then the only one that could help them; which added circumspection to my affairs then, as well as industry to the end of my life.” When his works began to attract attention he found other patrons. Lord Somers employed him to engrave a plate of archbishop Tillotson, and rewarded him nobly. This print was the ground-work of his reputation; nothing like it had appeared for some years, nor at the hour of its production had he any competitors.

In 1711 an academy of painting was instituted by sir Godfrey Kneller, where Vertue continued to draw for some years with great assiduity. Soon after the accession of the present royal family, he published a large portrait of king George I. from a picture by Kneller. As it was the first portrait of that monarch, many thousands were sold, though by no means a laborious or valuable performance. However it was shewn at court, and was followed by his undertaking to engrave portraits of the prince and princess.

Vertue had now commenced those biographical and antiquarian researches, in which he has been so eminently successful. In these pursuits he made many journeys to different parts of our island, and his time was industriously employed in making drawings, catalogues, and various memoranda. His thirst after British antiquities soon led him to a congenial Maecenas. That munificent collector, Robert Harley, second earl of Oxford, distinguished the merit and application of Verttte; and the invariable gratitude of the latter, expressed on all occasions, attests at once the bounty. of his patron and his own humility. Another of his patrons was Heneage Finch, earl of Winchelsea, whose portrait he painted and engraved, and who, being president of the society of antiquaries on its revival in 1717, appointed Venue, who was a member, engraver to that learned body. Henry Hare, the last lord Coleraine, was also one of iiis antiquarian benefactors, and the university of Oxford employed him for many years to engrave the head pieces for their almanacks.

With lord Orford, lord Coleraine, and Mr. Stephens the historiographer, he made several tours to various parts of England. For the former he engraved portraits of Matthew Prior, sir Hugh Middleton, and other distinguished men: for the duke of Montague he engraved sir Ralph Windwood; for sir Paul Methuen, the portraits of Cortez, and archbishop Warham from Holbein’s original at Lambeth; and for lord Burlington, Zncchero’s queen Mary of Scotland, a plate which evinces more felicity, and a better taste of execution, than most other of his works. In 1727 he travelled with lord Oxford to Burleigh, Lincoln, Weibeck, Chatsworth, and York, at which latter place he obtained from Francis Place many of those anecdotes of Hollar which are inserted in his biography. In the next year, the duke of Dorset invited him to Knowle. From the gallery there, he copied the portraits of several of the poets, but he was disappointed on an excursion to Penshurst, at not finding there any portrait of sir Philip Sidney.

In 1730 appeared his twelve heads of distinguished poets, one of his capital works, which he meant to have followed with the portraits of other eminent men, arranged in classes, but this scheme was taken out of his hands by the Messrs. Knapton; and there is reason to think that Vertue’s rigid regard for veracity, which made him justly scrupulous of authenticating the likenesses of deceased characters without the clearest proofs, and not the superior taste or discernment of the Knaptons, made them engage the superior talents of Houbraken and Gravelot, to finish a work which our artist had begun, and had himself projected.

His next considerable production was, the portraits of king Charles I. and the loyal sufferers in his cause, with their characters subjoined from Clarendon. But this was scarcely finished, before Rapiu’s history of England appeared; a work which bad a prodigious run, insomuch that it became all the conversation of the town and country, and the noise being heightened hy opposition and party, it was, proposed to publish it in folio by numbers, of which thousands were sold every week. The Messrs. Knapton engaged Vertue to accompany it with effigies of the kings and other suitable embellishments, an undertaking which occupied three years of his life. He presented a copy of this work, when finished, richly bound, to the prince of Wales, at Kensington.

He now renewed his topographical journeys, accompanied sometimes by the earl of Leicester, sometimes by lord Oxford, and sometimes by Roger Gale the antiquary; and between 1734—38, visited St Albans, Northampton, Oxford, Penshurst, Warwick, Coventry, Stratford, and travelled through the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire, where he made various sketches, drawings, and notes, always presenting a duplicate of his observations to his patron lord Oxford. In 1739 he travelled eastward with lord Coleraine, through the counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk, stopping as usual to make drawings and observations at every memorable church, seat, or other spot congenial to his pursuits. In 1741 he lost his noble friend and patron the earl of Oxford, who died on the loth of June. But his merit and modesty still raised him benefactors. The countess dowager of Oxford, even, alleviated his loss, and the duchess of Portland (their daughter), the duke of Richmond, and lord Burlington, did not forget him among the artists whom they patronized.

In 1749 he found a yet more exalted protector in the prince of Wales, whom he often had the honour of attending, and to whom he sold many prints, miniature pictures, &c. and had now reason to flatter himself with permanent fortune; but the death of this prince suddenly blasted the hopes of Vertue, and affected him with considerable dejection of spirits, from which he never perfectly recovered. He died in 1756, and was buried in the cloisters of Westminster-abbey. Lord Orford has given a catalogue of his engravings (amounting to near five hundred!) classed under the heads of Royal Portraits, Noblemen, Bishops, Poets, Antiquaries, Tombs, Historic Prints, Coins, Medals, Frontispieces, &c. &c. &c.

Valuable as Vertue’s engravings are, he would have had more admirers, if his style had been more spirited; yet the antiquary and the historian who prefer truth to elegance of design, and correctness to bold execution, have properly appreciated his works, and have placed him, in point of professional industry at least, next to his predecessor Hollar. But the public owe another obligation to Vertue. After his death the late lord Orford purchased the manuscript notes and observations which he had put down, as materials for a history of artists, and from them published that very useful and entertaining work, which he entitled “Anecdotes of Fainting in England; with some account of the principal Artists, and incidental notes on other Arts, collected by Mr. George Vertue,” 1762, 5 vols. 4to; since republished in 1782, 5 vols. 8vo. “Vertue,” says Mr. Walpole, “had for several years been collecting materials for a work ‘ upon Painting and Painters:’ he conversed and corresponded with most of the virtuosi in England he was personally acquainted with the oldest performers in the science: he minuted down every thin^ he heard from them. He visited every collection of them, attended sales, copied every paper he could find relative to the art, searched offices, registers of parishes, and registers of wills for births and deaths, turned over all our own authors, and translated those of other countries which related to his subject. He wrote down every thing he heard, saw, or read. His collections amounted to near forty volumes, large and small. In one of his pocket-books I found a note of his first intention of compiling such a work: it was in 1713, and he continued it assiduously to his death in 1757. These Mss. I bought of his widow after his decease.” Venue’s private character, it must not be omitted, was of the most amiable kind; friendly, communicative, upright in all his dealings, a most dutiful son, and an affectionate husband. He laboured almost to the last, solicitous to leave a decent competence to a wife, with whom he lived many years in tender harmony, and who died in 1776, in the seventy-sixth year of her age. He had a brother James, who followed the same profession at Bath, and died about 1765.

, a celebrated anatomist and physician, was descended from a family which had abounded with physicians. John Vesalius, his great-grandfather, was physician to Mary of Burgundy, first wife of Maximilian I.; and went and. settled at Louvain when he was old. Everard, his grandfather, wrote commentaries upon the books of Rhases, and upon Hippocrates’s “Aphorisms:” and his father Andrew was apothecary to the emperor Charles V. Our Vesalius was born at Brussels, but in what year seems to be uncertain; Vander-Linden finding his birth in 1514, while others place it in 1512. He was instructed in the languages and philosophy at Louvain, and there gave early tokens of his love for anatomy, and of his future skill in the knowledge of the human body; for, he was often amusing himself with dissecting rats, moles, dogs, and cats, and with inspecting their viscera.

Afterwards he went to Paris, and studied physic under James Sylvius; but applied himself chiefly to anatomy, which was then a science very little known. For, though dissections had been made formerly, yet they had long been discontinued as an unlawful and impious usage; and Charles V. had a consultation of divines at Salamanca, to know, if, in good conscience, a human body might be dissected for the sake of comprehending its structure. He perfected himself in this science very early, as we may know from his work “De Humani Corporis Fabrica:” which, though then the best book of anatomy in the world, and what justly gave him the title of “the Father of Anatomy,” was yet composed by him at eighteen years of age. Afterwards he went to Louvain, and began to communicate the knowledge he had acquired: then he travelled into Italy, read lectures, and made anatomical demonstrations at Pisa, Bologna, and several other cities there. About 1537, the republic of Venice made him professor in the university of Padua, where he taught anatomy seven years, and was the first anatomist to whom a salary was given; and Charles V. called him to be his physician, as he was also to Philip II. king of Spain. He acquired a prodigious reputation at those courts by his sagacity and skill in his profession, of which Thuanus has recorded this very singular proof. He tells us, that Maximilian d'Egmont, count of Buren, grand general, and a favourite of the emperor, being ill, Vesalius declared to him, that he could not recover; and also told him, that he could not hold out beyond such a day and hour. The count, firmly persuaded that the event would answer the prediction, invited all his friends to a grand entertainment at the time after which he made them presents, took a final leave of them, and then expired precisely at the moment Vesalius had mentioned. If this account be not true, it shews at least the vast reputation Vesalius must have risen to, where such stories were invented to do him honour.

Vesalius was now at the very height of his reputation, when all at once he formed a design of making a journey to Palestine. Many reasons have been given, and more conjectures formed, about his motive to this strange adventure; yet nothing certain appears concerning it. Hubert Languet, in a letter to Gasparus Peucerus, gives this account of the affair: “Vesalius, believing a young Spanish nobleman, whom he had attended, to be dead, obtained leave of his parents to open him, for the sake of inquiring into the real cause of his illness, which he had not rightly comprehended. This was granted; but he had no sooner made an incision into the body, than he perceived the symptoms of life, and, opening the breast, saw the heart beat. The parents, coming afterwards to the knowledge of this, were not satisfied with prosecuting him for murder, but accused him of impiety to the inquisition, in hopes that he would be punished with greater rigour by the judges of that tribunal than by those of the common law. But the king of Spain interposed, and saved him; on condition, however, that, by way of atonement, he should undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.” Manget, in his “Bibliotheca Medicorum,” states the same; and the account has been generally adopted. In the mean time others pretend, that he undertook this journey out of an insatiable thirst after riches: but this is a more improbable reason than the former; for, how was a journey to Jerusalem calculated to make a man rich? Swertius ascribes it to the querulous and imperious humour of his wife, which made home insupportable to him: and Imperialis informs us, that the uneasiness arising from the cabals of envy, and the hatred of the Galenists, whose master and doctrines he censured with great freedom, without allowing any thing to inveterate prejudices, so disgusted him with his present situation, and perhaps hurt him with his prince, that, in order to withdraw from court with the best grace he could, he formed this extraordinary resolution. But, whatever was the motive, he set out with De Rimini, general of the Venetian army, whom he accompanied to Cyprus whence he passed to Jerusalem. He was returning, at the invitation of the senate of Venice, to fill the physic-chair at Padua, become vacant in 1563 by the death of Fallopius; but, being shipwrecked and thrown upon the island of Zante, perished miserably, Oct. 1564. His body was afterwards found, and buried in the church of St. Mary in that island.

He was the author of several medical works; the chief of which is his “De Humani Corporis Fabrica,” published in 1543, a work which occupies a most conspicuous place in the annals of science, which freed medicine from the trammels of authority, laid the foundation of genuine anatomy, and even contained a bold and pretty full outline of the science. This work exhibited a regular and minute description of the human body, illustrated by excellent engravings, and a resolute exposure of the mistakes of Galen, whose ignorance Vesalius is at great pains to point out. He has therefore been justly considered as the restorer of anatomy, in which he was indeed profoundly skilled. Thuanus relates a singular proof he gave of his exact knowledge of the human body while he was at Paris; where, with his eyes bound, he undertook to mention any the least bone that should be put into his hands, defying them to impose upon him; and actually performed what he undertook. Being at Basil in 1542, he presented the university there with a human skeleton which he had prepared himself, and which is still in the lecture- room there, with a long inscription over it. The whole of his works were published by Boerhaave and Albinus at Leyden, 1725, 2 vols. fol.

, an able anatomist, was born in 1598, at Minden, in Westphalia, and studied the classics, philosophy, and medicine, at Vienna. After he had applied to thelatter for some time, he undertook a voyage to the Levant, in pursuit of natural history, remained a considerable time at Egypt, and finished by going to Jerusalem, where he was made a knight of the holy sepulchre. He then returned to Venice, and in 1608 gave private lectures on anatomy and botany, with such success that the regular professors were soon deserted. The republic, sensible of the services of so able a man, made him, in 1632, first professor of anatomy at Padua, a chair which was then vacant, and which he Ijded with increasing reputation, although he was a little deaf, and had impediments of speech which rendered him rather difficult to be understood. But these defects were soon overlooked, and he was also appointed to lecture on surgery and botany, until finding so many labours too much for his health, he obtained leave, in 1638, to con* fine himself to surgery and botany only, with the care of the botanic garden. Here he was in his element, for botany had always been his favourite study; and in order to render the garden at Padua the best in Europe, he solicited permission to pay another visit to the Levant, in 1648. The fatigues of this voyage, however, undermined, his constitution, and soon after his return he died, Aug. 30, 1649. His works, all of which were esteemed valuable, are, 1. “Observationes et notse ad Prosperi Alpini librum de plantis Ægyptii, cum additamentis aliarum plantarum ejusdem regionis,” Padua, 1638, 4 to. Of this work, Ray availed himself. 2 “Syntagma Anatomicum,” his principal work, of which there Inve been many editions, the best by Blasius, at Utrecht, 1696, 4to. It was also translated into Dutch and German, and into English by Culpepper, 1653, fol. 3. “Catalogns plantarum horti Patavini,” Padua, 1642, 12mo, reprinted with additions in 1644. 4. “Opobalsami veteribus cogniti vmdicias,” ibid. 1644, 8vo. 5. “A very curious work, compiled from his Mss. after his death,” De pullitione vEgyptioruin, et alias Observationes Anatomicae, et Epistolae medics posthurme," Hafnise, (Copenhagen), 1664, 8vo.

, or Amerigo Vespucci, a navigator from whose name the largest quarter of the world has very unjustly been named, was born at Florence, March 9, 1451, of a distinguished family, and educated by an uncle, a man of learning- who had the care of the education of the Florentine nobility. Vespucci made great progress in natural philosophy, astronomy, and cosmography, the principal branches in which the Florentine nobility were instructed, because being for the most part destined for commerce, it was necessary they should become acquainted with the sciences connected with navigation. Commerce had been the foundation of the grandeur and prosperity of the republic, and as each family educated some member who was to serve his country in that pursuit, that of Vespucci chose Amerigo, or Americus, to follow the example of their ancestors in this respect. Accordingly he left Florence in 1490, and went to Spain, to be initiated in mercantile life. He is said to have been at Seville in 1492, when Columbus was preparing for a new voyage, and the rage for new discoveries was at its height. The success of that celebrated navigator raised this passion in Americus, who determined to give up the pursuit of trade, in order to go and reconnoitre the new world, of whose existence Europe had just heard.

With this design he began his first voyage on May 10, 1497, leaving Cadiz with five ships under the command of Ojeda. This fleet sailed towards the Fortunate islands, and keeping a Western course, reached the continent of America, in thirty-seven days. They visited the gulph of Paria, and the island of St. Marguerite, and sailed along the coast for four hundred leagues. After a voyage of thirteen months, they returned to Cadiz, Nov. 15, 1498. Americus, who by his skill in navigation had very much contributed to the success of this expedition, was extremely well received at the court of Seville. In the month of May 1499, he left Cadiz for Cape de Verd, passed the Canaries within sight, and in forty-four days after his departure, reached an unknown land, situated under the torrid zone, which was the continuation of that which he had discovered io his first voyage. After sailing for some time along the coast, he returned to the Spanish island of St. Domingo, where Ojeda had some disputes with the Europeans, who six years before had come there with Columbus. The fleet now directed its course northwards, and discovered several islands, the number of which, Americus says, amounted to a thousand, a calculation which his panegyrist contents, himself with considering as a poetical exaggeration. Ojeda intended to have continued this route, but the complaints of the crew obliged him to return to Europe. On the arrival of his tieet, Ferdinand and Isabella, to whom Americus presented various productions of the new world, received him in the most flattering manner; and when his discoveries reached the ears of the Florentines, they rejoiced in having produced so great a man. Seduced, however, by the promises of Emanuel, king of Portugal, Americus quitted the service of Spain, and set sail from Lisbon, May 10, 1501, with three Portuguese ships. In this fleet he arrived at Cape St. Augustine, and coasted almost the whole of Brazil to Patagonia, but a succession of tempestuous weather forced him to return to Portugal, where he arrived Dec. 7, 1502. The king, very much pleased with this voyage, wished Americus to undertake another; and for the fourth time, this Florentine navigator embarked with a fleet of six ships, May 10, 1505, with the hope of discovering, by the West, a new way to Malacca; but this expedition was Jess successful than the preceding. After losing one of the vessels, and encountering the greatest dangers, they gained the bay of All Saints, Brazil, and lost no time in returning to Europe.

Americus remained in Portugal until 1506, the time of Columbus’s death, when the Spanish court wishing to repair the loss occasioned by that event, recalled Americus into their service, who again sailed, in 1507, in a Spanish fleet, with the title of first pilot, and it was during this voyage that the new world took its name from him. Thus, says the abbe kaynal, the moment America became known from the rest of the world, it was distinguished by an act of injustice. Americus jived a considerable time afterwards to enjoy this usurped honour, and is said to hare often visited the continent which bore his name. He died in 1516, at which time he was again in the service of Portugal. Emanuel, in order to do honour to his memory, caused the remains of his ship to be deposited in the cathedral of Lisbon, and Florence bestowed honours on his family.

In 1745, Bandini published in 4to, “Vitta e I.ettere di Amerigo Vespucci, &c.” a continued panegyric on the Florentine adventurer, to whom he does not hesitate to attribute the discovery of America. According, indeed, to the dates which he gives of the first two voyages of Americus, and which we have followed in the preceding account, it would appear that he had the priority in the discovery; but the Spanish writers have proved that the dates of those voyages are fictitious, and that the first, if it ever took place at all, must have been in 1499 instead of 1497. It seems also generally agreed that Americus never had the command in any expedition, that he acted only as geographer or pilot, and that he never undertook any of his voyages until after the return of Columbus. By some unaccountable caprice, however, America was at first, and is still, called by his name, and succeeding ages, although they may regret, cannot correct the error.

Americus left a journal of his four voyages, which was printed in Latin at Paris in 1532, and at Bale in 1555, but there are Italian and French translations of the earlier dates of 1519 and 1516. Some of his letters were printed in a thin 4to, of 22 pages, at Florence in 1516, which are addressed to Soderini and Lorenzo de Medici, and are said to discover a very superior knowledge of navigation.

, an extraordinary enthusiast in the seventeenth century, was born in London in 1582, descended from the family of Vicars in Cumberland. He was educated in Christ’s hospital, London, and afterwards was a member of Queen’s college, Oxford, but whether he took his degrees, Wood has rppt discovered. After leaving college he went to London, and became usher of Christ’s hospital, which place he held till towards the close of his life. It does not appear that he was a preacher, although most of his writings concern the religious controversies of the times Upon the commencement of the rebellion, “he showed his great forwardness,” says Wood, “for presbyterianism, hated all people that loved obedience, and affrighted many of the weaker sort, and others, from having any agreement with the king’s party, by continually inculcating into their heads strange stories of God’s wrath against the cavaliers. Afterwards, when the independents became predominant, he manifested great enmity against them, especially after the king’s death.” Foulis, in his “History of Plots,” says that “he could out-scold the boldest face in Billingsgate, especially if kings, bishops, organs, or maypoles, were to be the objects of his zealous indignation.” This indeed is a pretty just character of John Vicars’s writings, which form a store-house of the abusive epithets and gross personal reflections which passed between the lower order of sectaries in that period of confusion. The title of his work against John Goodwin, will afford a good specimen of John’s language. This was published in 1648, “Coleman-street Conclave visited; and that grand impostor, the schismatics’ cheater-in-chief (who hath long slily lurked therein) truly and duly discovered; containing a most palpable and plain display of Mr. John Goodwin’s self-conviction (under his own hand- writing), and of the notorious heresies, errors, malice, pride, and hypocrisy, of this most huge Garagantua in falsely pretended piety, to the lamentable misleading of his too credulous soul-murdered proselytes of Coleman-street, and elsewhere; collected principally out of his own big-braggadochio wave-like swelling and swaggering writings, full fraught with six-footed terms, and fleshlie rhetorical phrases, far more than solid and sacred truths, and may fitly serve (if it be the Lord’s will) like Belshazzar’s hand-writing on the wall of his conscience, to strike terror and shame into his own soul and shameless face, and to undeceive his most miserably cheated, and iuchanted or be-witched followers.” This is accompanied by a portrait of Goodwin (the only one mentioned by Granger, and of course in great request) with a windmill over his head, and a weather-cock upon it; the devil is represented blowing the sails; and there are other emblems, significant of Goodwin’s fickleness. Vicars died Aug. 12, 1652, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Wood has given a list of sixteen of his writings, the most curious of which is his “Parliamentary Chronicle.” This is still esteemed useful, and being scarce, is generally sold at a very high price. It was printed at different times under the following titles: 1. “God in the Molint; or England’s Remembrancer, being the first and second part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1644, 4to. 2. “God’s Arke overtopping the World’s waves; or, a third part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. 3. “The Burning-bush not consumed; or the fourth and last part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. These were then published together, under the title of “Magnalia Dei Anglicana, or, England’s Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. Vicars was also a poet, and in the “Censura Literaria,” we have an account and specimen of a work of this kind entitled “Mischief’s Mysterie; or, Treason’s Master-piece; the powder-plot, invented by hellish malice; prevented by heavenly mercy truly related, and from the Latin of the learned and reverend Dr. Herring, translated, and very much dilated by John Vicars,” 1617. At the end of this are some smaller poems.

, of whose personal history we have no account, deserves some notice, as the first anatomical writer in the English language. He was a citizen of Londdn, serjeant-surgeon to Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary I. and Elizabeth and chief surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, His book is entitled “A Treasure for Englishmen; containing the Anatomic of Man’s Bodie, 1548;” or, as given by Ames, “A profitable Treatise of the Anatomy of Man’s Body; compiled by T. Vicary, and published by the Surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital,” 1577, 12mo, and in 1633 in 4to; together with several other medical and chirurgical tracts’. It is a short piece, designed for the use of his more unlearned brethren, and taken almost entirely from Galen and the Arabians. Before the latter editions is prefixed a rude figure of a skeleton.

, a skilful medallist of the sixteenth century, was born at Parma, where, hearing of the reputation which Marc Antonio Raimondi had acquired at Rome by his engravings, he went to that city, and became his pupil. As an engraver, Strutt thinks that Vico was a man of abilities, but does not seem to have been endowed with patience enough to pay sufficient attention to the mechanical part of the execution of his plates. He could draw correctly, but seldom exerted himself. He is noticed here, however, chiefly for his knowledge of medals. In 1548, he published his “Discourses on the Medals of the Ancients,” Venice, 4to, succeeded by a second edition in 1555. This, which is a treatise of very considerable intelligence for that period, treats of the metals employed in ancient coinage of portraits to be found on coins of the types on their reverses of their legends of medallions of false medals, and rules for discerning them dates of history; forms of edifices names of magistrates, &c. This he dedicated to one of his patrons, the grand duke Cosmo, himself a distinguished amateur.

The following publications of his are also in great request: “Monumenta aliquot antiquorum ex gemmis et cameis incisa,” Rom. fol. “Omnium Cacsarum verissimaj imagines ex antiquis numismatibus desumptae,” 15*4, 4to '; and “Augustarum imagines formis expressa?, vitae quoque earumdem breviter enarratae,” &c. Venice, 1558, 4to, the two last edited by P. Manutius. The time of his birth or death is not known.

Vicq-D‘Azir (Felix), a French physician, was born at Valognes, in Normandy, April 28, 1748. His ’father was a physician, and probably inspired him with a loye for the same profession, as in his early years he became ambitious of a name in the medical world. At the age of seventeen he came to Paris, and soon was distinguished for some essays on anatomy and physiology, written in a, pure and correct style. He became one of the principal founders of the medical society of Paris, and it was long his office to pronounce the eloges of deceased men of eminence in the profession, which were so much admired that, in 1788, the French academy elected him a member in the room of Buffon. He had been before a member of the academy of sciences. He was in the height of fame and usefulness when his constitution, which had long suffered by a weakness of the chest, became sensibly affected by the horrors of the revolutionary victims daily presented to his eyes. He died June 20, 1794. His works, including his eloges, were collected by J. L. Moreau de la Sarthe, a physician, and published in 6 vols. 8vo, and one in 4to of places, 1804. To this is prefixed a life of Vicq-d'Azir, which is said to be interesting; but it has not fallen in our way.

, a Roman historian, lived in the fourth century, probably in the reigns of Constantius and Theodosius, as may be collected from some dates in his history. He was the son of very obscure parents, and had not the benefit of education. He was probably a native of Africa, as he makes very honourable mention of that country in his writings, calling it the glory of the world. In spite, however, of the meanness of his extraction, he had talents which raised him to the highest honours. In the year 361, Julian appointed him prefect of Pannonia; and, as, a recompense of his services, he was honoured with a statue of brass. A considerable time afterwards, he was prefect of Rome, and in the year 369 consul with Valentinian. He obtained this last dignity probably under the reign of Theodosius; for there is an inscription extant, which Se-xtus Aurelius Victor, prefect of the city, caused to be engraved on a monument in honour of Theodosiua. If all this belongs to the same Sextus Aurelius Victor, as is not unlikely, he filled, under various emperors, posts of great distinction, and appears to have lived till towards the end of the fourth century. There are some works extant under his name: 1. “Arigo gentis Romanae.” This history should extend, ats its title imports, from the uncertain times of Janus to the tenth consulate of Constantius; but what remains comes no lower down than the first year from the foundation of Rome.

2. “DC virjx illustrious urhis Romoe.” This was often reprinted in the sixteenth century, un.ler the names of the younger Pliny, or Suetonius or Emilius Probus. It has also been attributed to Cornelius Nepos. The series of illustrious men begins with Phocas, and ends with Pompey.

3. “De Cwsaribus histori-a, ab Augusto Octavio, id est, a fine Titi Livii usque ad cousulatum decimum Constantii Augusti et Jdliaiii Caesaris t^rtium.” 4. “De vita et moribus imperatorum Romauorum exeerpta, e Coesare Augusto usque ad Theodosium imperatorem.” The third of these works, “De Ca-sanbus historia,” is, perhaps, the only one that can be ascribed with certainty to Aurelius. The first edition of Aurelius Victor was printed at Antwerp, 1579, 8vo, with notes by Schottus, who was the first restorer of the text. The other good editions arr the “Variorum,” by Pitiscus, 1696, 8vo; that by Arntzenius, Amst. 1733, 4to; by Gruner, 1757, 8vo and the Bipont. 1789.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Florence, in the month of July, 1499. In very early life he began his studies in philosophy, mathematics, jurisprudence, and particularly Greek and Latin. In 1522, he went to Spain with Paul Vettori, a relation, who was general of the gallies, and appointed to accompany the new pope, Adrian VI. into Italy. Our author stopt at Catalonia, and travelled over that and the neighbouring parts in quest of the remains of Roman antiquities, of which he took copies. He also afterwards continued this research at Rome, when he went there to congratulate Clement VII. on his accession to the popedom. This pope had been a npbleman of Florence, and of his own standing. When the revolt took place at Florence Vettori sided with the republican party, and, during the prevalence of the Medici family, retired to the country, and devoted himself to study, with the firm resolution to meddle no more with public affairs. When the duke Alexander was killed, and the senators and patricians were assembled to consider of a new form of government, they invited Vettori to take part in their deliberations; but instead of complying, he went to Rome, and left his discordant and tumultuous countrymen to determine among themselves whether they would be freemen or slaves. “My country,” he used to say, “is in the same situation as Rome formerly; it will neither tolerate liberty nor slavery. Riches have produced pride, and pride, ambition. The laws have no longer any force; every day they are repealing old laws and making new ones, and no more respect is paid to the new than to the old. In the present state of my country, I clearly see that it must have a sovereign, but I will not aid in giving it a sovereign, for fear of giving it a tyrant.”

With such arguments he always answered those who by letter or in person pressed him to return to Florence, and affected even to consider his refusal as criminal. He bad the wisdom to abandon politics, and dedicate his whole time and attention to the acquisition of knowledge. And in such esteem was he held on account of his learning, that Cosmo I. who could not love him on account of his hostility to the Medici family, yet sent him an invitation to become Greek and Latin professor in the university of Florence. This was a noble sacrifice of prejudice on the part of the duke, and Vettori executed the duties of his office for more than forty years with the highest reputation, and formed many distinguished scholars both Italians and foreigners. Whether we consider the utility of his lectures or his public works, it will appear that literature was as highly indebted to him as to almost any scholar of his time. Had he done nothing but collate and correct the editions of the Greek and Latin authors which had appeared from the invention of printing to his own time, his labours would have been of infinite service in that comparatively dark period; but we are indebted to his industry also for the collation of avast number of manuscripts, and selecting the best for the press, in which he shewed great judgment, and assigned his reasons with critical precision. But his services did not end even here, for he furnished the learned world with notes and commentaries, which gave superiority to many editions of the classics, as various parts of Aristotle’s works, Terence, Varro, Sallust, Euripides, Porphyry, Plato, Xenophon, &c. but of all his editions, that of Cicero, printed in 1534 37, four vols. folio, has justly received the encomiums of the literary world ever since his time. He has been called “Verus Ciceronis sospitator,” and Grasvius is of opinion that Cicero is more indebted to him than to all the other critics and commentators. Besides these and his “Variae lectiones,” of which there have been several editions, and which discover great critical knowledge, he was the author of some Latin poetry and orations, of letters both in Latin and Italian, and an Italian treatise on the culture of olives. Men of learning of all countries were happy in his acquaintance and correspondence, and princes and other great personages not only attended his lectures, but expressed their veneration of his talents and worth, by diplomas, titles, and presents. He died in the eighty-sixth year of his age, in 1585, and was interred with great solemnity at the public expence in the church of the Holy Spirit, where is a marble monument and inscription to his memory. It is said that his private virtues, as well as his talents, made his death the subject of universal regret.

, an elegant modern Latin poet and critic, was a native of Cremona, and was born, as is generally thought, about 1470, but with more probability about 1480. His parents were not wealthy, yet enabled to give him a good education. After having made considerable proficiency in philosophy, theology, an-d political science, he came to Rome in the latter part of the pontificate of Julius II. and appears to hate mixed in the literary societies of the place; and his poem on the game of chess, “Scacchiae Ludus,” introduced hi fcothe favour of Leo X. who received him with particular distinction and kindness, admitted him as an attendant at court, and rewarded him with honours and emoluments. But that upon which the poet appears chiefly to have congratulated himself was, that his works were read and approved by the pontiff himself. It was at the suggestion of Leo that he began his celebrated “Cbristiad,” which he afterwards completed in six books, but Leo did not live to see it finished. It was, however, published under the patronage of Clement VII. in 1535. In the mean time Clement had already raised Vida to the rank of apostolical secretary, and in 1532, conferred on him the bishopric of Alba. Soon after the death of that pontiff, Vida retired to his diocese, and was present at its defence against the attack of the French in 1542, where his exhortations and example animated the inhabitants successfully to oppose the enemy. After having attended in his episcopal character at the council of Trent, and taken an active part in the ecclesiastical and political transactions of the times, he died at his see at Alba, Sept. 27, 1566, more respected for his talents, integrity, and strict attention to his pastoral duties, than for the wealth which he had amassed from his preferments.

Mr. Roscoe, whom we have hitherto principally followed, observes, that of all the writers of Latin poetry at the period in which he lived, Vida has been the most generally known beyond the limits of Italy. This is to be attributed, Mr. Roscoe adds, not only to the fortunate choice of his subjects, but to his admirable talent of uniting a considerable portion of elegance, and often of dignity, with the utmost facility and clearness of style; insomuch that the most complex descriptions or abstruse illustrations are rendered by him perfectly easy and familiar to the reader. Dr. Warton is of opinion that the merits of Vida seem not to have been particularly attended to in England, till Pope introduced him in these lines:

The poet’s bays and critic’s ivy grow."

The first specimen of the talents of Vida in Latin poetry appeared in a collectoin of pieces on the death of the poet Aquila, which happened in 1500, towards which he contributed two piees, which were published in that collection at Bologna, in 1504. His whole works were first printed at Romae in 1527 and 1535, in 2 vols. 4to, but he published a more complete edition at Cremona, 1550, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains, “Hymni de rebus divinis,” and “Christiados libri sex” the second “De Arte Poetica libri tres;” “De Bombyce libri duo;” Scacchiae Ludus“”Bucolica;“” Eclogæ, et Carmina diversi generis.“Besides the poems comprehended in these two volumes, others are ascribed to him, as” Italorum Pugilum cum totidem Gallis certamen;“” Carmen Pastorale in Obltum Juliill. Pontificis Maximi;“” Epicedion in Funera Oliverii Cardinalis Caraphæ;“but these he disavowed in a postscript to the above edition of his poems. He was also the author of some pieces in prose, as” Dialogi de Republics Dignitate“” Orationes tres Cremonensium adversus Papienses in Controversia Principatus“and” Constitutiones Synodales Civitati Albæ et Diœcesi prescriptæ.“Of such of these works, a-s his reputation as a Latin poet is at this day founded on, his three books” De Arte Poetica“were probably the first produced; and these were soon afterwards followed by the” Bombyx,“and by his” Scacchias Ludus,“which, as we noticed, introduced him to Leo X. The” Bombyx,“or silk-worm, is written with classical purity, and with a just mixture of the styles of Lucretius and Virgil. Dr. Warton says it was a happy choice to write a poem on” Chess;“nor is the execution less happy.” The various stratagems and manifold intricacies of this ingenious game, so difficult to be described in Latin, are here expressed with the greatest perspicuity and elegance; so that, perhaps, the game might be learned from this description.“Of the” Christiad,“the same excellent critic observes, that amidst many prosaic flatnesses, there are many fine strokes in this poem; particularly his angels, with respect to their persons and insignia, are drawn with that dignity which we so much admire in Milton, who seems to have had his eye on those passages. The” Poetics,“however, are perhaps the most perfect of his compositions; he had formed himself upon Virgil, who is therefore his hero, and he has too much depreciated Homer. He is, in truth, so much an imitator of Virgil as to be very defective in originality. Although his precepts principally regard epic poetry, yet many of them are applicable to every species of composition. This poem has the praise of being one of the first, if not the very first piece of criticism, that appeared in Italy since the revival of learning; for it was finished, as is evident from a short advertisement prefixed to it, in 1520. We have an excellent translation of this poem by Pitt, and one more recent, with notes, by Mr. Hampson. There are, if we mistake not, English translations also of the” Game of Chess,“a'.id the” Bombyx." Of his original works, the best recent editions are that of Oxford, by Tristram, 1722, 4 vols. 8vo, with elegant plates; that of the Vulpii (including the prose works) Padua, 1731, 2 vols. 4to.

, a learned converted Jew, of Metz in Lorrain, was originally educated in that religion, the rites and customs of which, it appears by his writings, he well understood; but by perusing the prophetical parts of the Old Testament, and comparing them with the New, he became convinced that Christ was the true Messiah, and embraced Christianity, according to the Roman Catholic form. His abilities recommended him to considerable promotion, and to the degree of D. D. from one of the French universities. In 1672 he published a “Commentary on the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke,” in which, besides a literal exposition of the text, collected from the monuments of the ancients, he took an opportunity to defend the doctrines of the church of Rome, which so advanced his reputation, that he was requested to write against the protestants, and much was expected from a man of his learning and an able reasoner. This, however, only led to another change; for, in examining the controversies between the papists and protestants, he became satisfied that truth was on the side of the latter. France was of course no longer a safe residence, and he immediately went to Holland, abjured the errors of popery, and soon after came over to England. Here he became acquainted with Stillingfleet, Sharp, Tillotson, Patrick, Lloyd, and other eminent English divines, and particularly with Compton bishop of London. Under this patronage, he was admitted into orders in the English church, and became chaplain to a nobleman, and tutor to his children.

In 1673 he revised his Commentary on St. Matthew and Mark, omitting what was in favour of the Romish church, and improving it in other respects. In 1679 he published his literal “Explication of Solomon’s Song,” dedicated to sir Joseph Williamson. This was so well received, that many of the most eminent of the clergy of England, and of the foreign reformed churches, encouraged him to proceed to a farther translation of the sacred writings. Accordingly in 1680 he published his “Literal Exposition of the minor Prophets.” But his principles were still unsettled, and meeting, in the bishop of London’s library, to which he had at all times access, with the writings of the English baptists, he became convinced that there was no foundation for infant baptism, and leaving the church, joined a small baptist congregation in Gracechurch-street, where he was publicly baptised. This is said to have lost him all his powerful friends, except Tillotson, who still preserved a respect for his talents. He now published an “Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles” in English, in which he endeavoured to defend his baptist sentiments. He preached also among that sect, but was not very popular, as he could not speak English fluently. His flock, however, raised him a salary, which he enjoyed till his death. He also practised physic for his maintenance. He is supposed to have died about the commencement of the last century.

There was another Lewis de Compiegne de Viel, also a converted Jew, and born at Metz, who published many learned pieces, particularly in 1679, in Hebrew, with a Latin version by himself, “Catechismus Judaeorum in disputatione & dialogo magistri & discipuli, scriptus a R. Abrahamo Jagel, monte Silicis onu^o,” with a dedication to Dr. Compton, bishop of London: this book was reprinted at Franeker, in 1690, in 8vo. He gave the public likewise a Latin translation of, and notes upon, rabbi Moses Maimonides’s book “De $acrificiis,” and his tract “De Consecratione & de Ratione irjtercalandi,” and Abarbanel’s “Exordium sive proo3mium in Leviticum,” printed at London, in 1683, in 4to. H,e had published also at Paris, in 1678, the eighth book of Maimonicles “De cultu divino,” with a Latin version, just before he left France, where he was the king’s interpreter for the Oriental languages. He was born a Jew, but afterwards embraced the Popish religion, which he at last renounced for the Protestant, and entered into the communion of the Church of England, whither he retired about 1679.

, a very celebrated French mathematician, was born in 1540, at Fontenai, or Fontenai-le-­Comte, in Lower Poitou, a province of France. He was master of requests at Paris, where he died in 1603, in the sixty-third year of his age. Among other branches of learning in which he excelled, he was one of the most respectable mathematicians of the sixteenth century, or indeed of any age. His writings abound with marks of great originality and genius, as well as intense application. His application was such, that he has sometimes remained in his study for three days together, without eating or sleeping. His inventions and improvements in all parts of the mathematics were very considerable. He was in a manner the inventor and introducer of Specious Algebra, in which letters are used instead of numbers, as well as of many beautiful theorems in that science. He made also corir siderable improvements in geometry and trigonometry. His angular sections are a very ingenious and masterly performance: by these he was enabled to resolve the problem of Adrian Roman, proposed to all mathematicians, amounting to an equation of the 45th degree. Romanus was so struck with his sagacity, that he immediately quitted his residence of Wirtzbourg in Franconia, and came to France to visit him, and solicit his friendship. His “Apollonius Gallus,” being a restoration of Apollonius’s tract on Tangencies, and many other geometrical pieces to be found in his works, shew the finest taste and genius for true geometrical speculations. He gave some masterly tracts on Trigonometry, both plane and spherical, which may be found in the collection of his works, published at Leyden in 1646, by Schooten, besides another large and separate volume in folio, published in the author’s life-time at Paris 1579, containing extensive trigonometrical tables, with the construction aad use of the same, which are particularly described in the introduction to Dr. Hutton’s Logarithms, p. 4, &c. To this complete treatise on Trigonometry, plane and spherical, are subjoined several miscellaneous problems and observations, such as, the quadrature of the circle, the duplication of the cube, &c. Vieta having observed that there were many faults in the Gregorian Calendar, as it then existed, he composed a new form of it, to which he added perpetual canons, and an explication of it, with remarks and objections against Clavius, whom he accused of having deformed the true Lelian reformation, by not rightly understanding it. Besides those, it seems, a work greatly esteemed, and the loss of which cannot be sufficiently deplored, was his “Harmonicon Cceleste,” which, being communicated to father Mersenne, was, by some perfidious acquaintance of that honest-minded person, surreptitiously taken from him, and irrecoverably lost, or suppressed, to the great detriment of the learned world. There were also, it is said, other works of an astronomical kind, that have been buried in the ruins of time, Vieta was also a profound decypherer, an accomplishment that proved very useful to his country. As the different parts of the Spanish monarchy lay very distant from one another, when they had occasion to communicate any secret designs, they wrote them in cyphers and unknown characters, during the disorders of the league: the cypher was composed of more than five hundred different Characters, which yielded their hidden contents to the penetrating genius of Vieta alone. His skill so disconcerted the Spanish councils for two years, that they reported at Rome, and other parts of Europe, that the French king had only discovered their cyphers by means of magic.

, a physician and anatomist, was born in 1641, at the village of Rovergue, and after studying and taking his degrees in medicine at Montpellier, settled there as a practitioner. In 1671, he was appointed physician to the hospital of St. Eloy, where from frequent opportunities of anatomical dissection, he was led to pay particular attention to the subject of neurology, which, notwithstanding what the celebrated Dr. Willis had published, was a part of the animal economy very little known. After ten years study of the nerves, he published the work which has redounded most to his honour, “Neurologia universalis, hoc est, omnium huniani corporis nervorum, simul ac cerebri, medullaeque spinalis, descriptio anatomica,” Leyden, 1685, fol. Even of this work, however, the anatomical part is the most valuable, for what respects the physiology, which forms a considerable part of the volume, deserves very little regard, as being founded on wrong principles. He afterwards published other anatomical works, but does not appear to have advanced his reputation by them. Astruc and Senac have given a very unfavourable account of his genius and judgment, yet neither can deny that his anatomical researches have been of service. In 1690 he was sent for to be physician to mademoiselle de Montpensier, but at her death returned to Montpellier, where he died in 1716.

, king’s physician, and historiographer of France, was born in 1530, of a good family, at Troyes, in Champagne. He became very celebrated by his practice, and died at Paris, 1596, aged sixty-six, after having abjured protestantism, in which he was brought up. His principal works are, 1. “Les Fastes des anciens Hébreux, Grecs, et Remains,” 4to. 2. “Bibliotheque Historiale,” 4 Vols. fol. 3. A collection of “Church History,” fol. but little valued. 4. An excellent treatise “On the state and origin of the ancient French,” fol. and 4to. 5. “Sommaire de l'Histoire des François,” fol. 6. “Traité de l'ancien etat de la petite Bretagne,” 4to, and other works on French history, which are said to be useful for consultation. His son, Nicholas Vignier, was minister at Blois at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but adopted the sentiments of the Catholic church after the year 1631, and left several controversial works.

, grandson of the preceding historian, was born in 1606, at Blois. He was bred a protestant, and became bailiff“of Baugency; but having afterwards abjured the Protestant religion, he entered the congregation of the Oratory, in which he distinguished himself by his learning. He understood Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee, cultivated the belles lettres with success, and had a talent for Latin poetry, as appears from his paraphrases of some Psalms. He died November 14, 1661, at Paris, aged fiftysix. He left several works: among the principal are,” La Genealogie des Seigneurs d'Alsace,“1649, fol.; a very useful supplement to St. Augustine’s works, of which he found some Mss. at Clairvaux that had never been published.” A Harmony of the Gospels,“in French;” Stemma Austriacum,“1650, fol.; and” La Genéalogie des Comtes de Champagne.“He meant to have published a treatise, written by St. Fulgentius against Faustus, but was prevented by death, nor is it known what became of this treatise. Vignier found an ancient ms. at Metz, containing a relation of events in that city, and in which there was a long account of the famous Joan d‘Arc, better known by the name of the Maid of Orleans. According to this it appear,ed that she had been married to the Sire des Amboises, or D’Hermoises, descended from an illustrious house, and of the ancient knighthood. He also found in the treasury of Messrs, des Amboises, the contract of the above marriage, which imports” that in 1436, Robert des Amboises married Joan d'Arc, called the Maid of Orleans." But this fact is very generally doubted.

, an eminent architect and writer on the subject, was the son of Clement Barozzio, of one of the best families of Milan, but who being ruined by the civil wars, retired to Vignola, a small town in the marquisate of that name, situated in the territory of Bologna. It was there that his son, the subject of this article, was born, Oct. 1, 1507, and became afterwards generally known by the name of his native place. His father dying when he was almost in his infancy, and leaving him little provision, he wished to have recourse to painting; and having some knowledge of the first principles of the art, he went to Bologna to be farther instructed, but soon changed his mind, and determined to confine himself to architecture and perspective. He was no sooner known in this profession, than several persons applied to him for designs for buildings, and he executed some for the governor of Bologna, which were very much admired. On such occasions, in order to see the effect of what he laid down, he had models made in wood by Damien de Bergamo, a Dominican, who excelled in that species of ingenuity, and used to express, by means of coloured woods, every kind of material to be used in the building.

In order to acquire a greater knowledge of the principles of architecture, Vignola went to Rome, and at first returned to painting fora maintenance; but not reaping much profit, abandoned that art a second time, and procured employment as a draughtsman from Melighini, of Ferrara, then architect to pope Paul III. and who had established a school of architecture at Rome. Yignola was afterwards employed to make drawings, for the use of this academy, of the ancient edifices of the city, from which he derived great advantage in his studies. While here, about 1537, or J 540, he met with Primaticcio, who was employed by Francis I. king of France, to purchase antiques (See Primaticcio); and Vignola was of so much service in making casts for him, that Primaticcio engaged him to go with him to France. There Vignola assisted that celebrated artist in all his works, and particularly in making the bronze casts which are at Fontainebleau. He also made various architectural designs for the king, who was prevented from having them executed, by the wars in which France was then involved. After a residence of about two years, he was invited to Bologna, to undertake the new church of St. Petronius, and his design was allowed the preference, and highly approved by Julio Romano, the celebrated painter, and Christopher Lombard, the architect. At Minerbio, near Bologna, he built a magnificent palace for count Isolani, and in Bologna the house of Achilles Bocchi. The portico of the exchange in that city is also of his designing, but it was not built until 1562, in the pontificate of Pius IV. His most useful work at Bologna was the canal of Navilio, which he constructed with great skill for the space of a league. But happening to be ill rewarded for this undertaking, he went to Placentia, where he gave a design for the duke of Parma’s palace, which was executed by his son Hyacinth, who was now able to assist him in his various works. He afterwards built several churches and chapels in various parts of Italy, which it is unnecessary to specify. These, it is supposed, he had finished before his return to Rome in 1550, where Vasari presented him to pope Julius III. who appointed him his architect. While at Rome, he was employed in various works, both of grandeur and utility, the last of which, and reckoned his finest work, was the magnificent palace or castle of Caprarola, so well described and illustrated by plates in his works.

In his latter days, he succeeded Michael Angelo as architect of St. Peter’s, and was strongly solicited by Philip II. to assist in building the Escurial; but his age, and his numerous employments, prevented his accepting the offer. The only interval between this and his death, was employed in a commission from Gregory XIII. to settle the limits between the territories of the church, and those of the duke of Tuscany; on his return he was seized with a fever, which proved fatal, July 7, 1575, in his sixty-sixth year. He was solemnly interred in the church of St. Mary of the Rotunda.

Vignola’s fame as an architectural author, is scarcely less than that of a practical artist. He published the “Regola delli cinque ordini d'architettura,” fol. no date, with thirtytwo fine plates, which has often been reprinted with additions and comments. The best is probably that printed at Amst. in 1631, or 1G42, fol. “con la nuova aggiunta de Michael Angelo Buonaroti.” The French have several good editions, with improvements, particularly the “Cours d'architecture qui comprend les ordres de Vignole, avec des cornmentaires, les figures, et descriptions de ses plus beaux batimens, et de ceux de Michel Ange,” by Daviler: the third edition, now before us, is dated 1699, but there are others of 1738 and 1760, large 4to. Jombert published at Paris in 8vo, “Regies des cinq orders d'architecture,” translated from the Italian of Vignola, with remarks, &c.

, a learned chronologist, was born Oct. 29, 1649, at the castle of Aubais, in Languedoc, of a very ancient family, and received a liberal education. His preparatory studies being finished, he passed a year at Geneva, and heard a course of lectures ou divinity. His father had intended him for the army, but was unwilling to put any restraint upon his inclinations, and therefore permitted him to go to Saumur, and afterwards to England, to complete his divinity studies. In 1675 he returned to Aubais, and was appointed minister of that church, which he afterwards resigned for that of Cailar, and while he performed the functions of his order with great zeal, found leisure at the same time to indulge his taste for chronological researches. On the revocation of the edict of Nantz he returned to Geneva, and afterwards to Berlin, where he was appointed pastor of the church of Schwedt. When his merit became better known, he had the choice of many churches of more emolument, but ^ave the preference to that of Brandenburgh, on account of its vicinity to the metropolis, where he might enjoy opportunities of study. In the mean time he began to form an intimacy with many eminent men, as Lenfant, La Croze, Kirck, &c. and distinguished himself by some learned papers inserted in the iiterary journals. When the royal society of Berlin was founded in 1701, he was chosen one of the members, and at the suggestion of Leibnitz was invited to settle in Berlin, that the new society might profit by his communications. With this he appears to have complied, and on the formation of the society of the Anonymi was chosen their secretary. In 1711 he became one of the editors of the “Bibliotheque Germanique,” which he enriched with many valuable criticisms, and analyses of books. Amidst all these employments he did not neglect the duties of his profession, but was a very frequent preacher, and having obtained the cure of Copenick, near Berlin, he passed his summers there, and there composed his great chronological work, the plan of which he published in 1721, but the whole did not appear until some years afterwards. Its success did not answer the expectation of the author, or of his friends, and although one of the best which had appeared on the subject, sold so slowly, that tKe bookseller was obliged more than once to have recourse to the trick of a new title-page. Vignoles, however, satisfied with a moderate competence, a stranger to worldly ambition and passions, lived quietly and happily among his books, with the occasional conversation of a few agreeable and steady friends. His wife died in child-bed, and none of the children she brought survived him. He was, in his old age, on the point of losing his sight by two cataracts, the one of which was dissipated naturally, and the other removed by an operation, the particulars of which he published in the “Miscellanea Berolinensia,” vol. IV. The king and queen shewed him many marks of kindness. The latter, it appears from the dedication of his chronology, had at one time ordered the eve of his birth-day to be kept by an entertainment, at which her proxy expressed her royal wishes forthe continuance of his life. He died at Berlin, July 24, 1744, aged upwards of ninety-four. His principal work, already noticed, was published under the title of “Chronologic de l‘historie sainte et des histoires etrangeres depuis la sortie d’Egypte jusqu'a la captivite de Babylone,” Berlin, 1738, 2 vols. 4to, a work unquestionably of vast labour and extent, and consequently cannot be supposed altogether free from imperfections.

a learned Spanish Jesuit, was born at Cordova in 1552, and entered the society of the Jesuits in the twenty-sixth year of his age. We have very few particulars, even by Antonio, of his personal history, unless that he was distinguished for his extensive theological and mathematical knowledge, and for some time was associated with Jerome Prado in a commentary on Ezekiel. It would appear that Villalpando had the king’s orders for this undertaking, as far as respected the description of the Temple, and city of Jerusalem; and Prado, dying before the work was finished, Villalpando has the sole reputation of the whole. It was published under the title of “Explanationes in Ezechielem,” Rome, 1596 1604, 3 vols. fol. As a commentary, the catholic writers, Dupin, &c. assure us that it is one of the most learned. His skill in architecture gave him great advantages in endeavouring to trace the figure and dimensions of the temple of Solomon, but unfortunately he employed a sort of theory which was guided more by imagination than judgment. Having laid it down as a first principle, that the model of the temple, having been given by God himself, must be perfect, he therefore exhausted all the powers of conjecture and fancy to describe an edifice that should answer that character. This led him, among other errors, to introduce many embellishments and additions not mentioned in the sacred text; instead of three courts, for example, he has described no less than eleven. But the reader who is curious in the inquiry, may consult Calmet’s Dictionary, where there are engravings as well as a description, from Villalpando. He edited also a work of St. Remi, “Remigii Rhemensis in Epistolas S. Pauli tractatus,” Mentz, which was not, however, published until after his death, as the date is 1614, fol. He died at Rome, May 23, 1608.

, a Florentine historian of the fourteenth century, was the son of a native of that place, and is supposed to have been born about the end of the thirteenth century, as he was somewhat older than an infant in 1300, when he informs us he went to Rome to see the Jubilee, and young as he was, first formed, on that occasion, the design of writing his “Chronicle.” Before, however, he began this work, he visited various parts of Italy, France, and the Netherlands, and having collected much information, began to compile his history as soon as he returned home. His first intention was to write only the history of Florence, a city which he imagined would rise in splendour and prosperity as Rome declined, but he was induced to extend his plan to the events of other countries wherever they could be introduced. In the mean time the public employments to which his merit raised him, delayed the completidn of his history for many years. Tnrice, 1316, 1317, and 1321, he was one of the priors of Florence; he had also some office in the mint, and at various times was employed in the service of the republic. He died of the plague in 1348. He had written his history up to this period, and his brother Matthew Villani made a continuation till the year 1363, when he also died of the plague. The work then fell into the hands of Philip Villani, son to Matthew, who made a still longer addition to the labours of his father and uncle. The first edition was printed at Florence by the Junti in 1537, fol. and was often reprinted. The last, corrected from three ms copies, was printed at Milan in 1729, 2 vols. fol. The original part by John Villani, is, like most chronicles, mere compilation of fabulous history, until he comes to his own times, when he is allowed to be accurate and useful, and the same praise is due to his successors.

Philip Villani also composed the “Lives of the illustrious Men of Florence,” which Mazzuchelli published for the first time in 1747, not, however, the original text, which is Latin, but an ancient Italian translation, with copious and learned notes. Philip was appointed, in 1401, to give lectures on Dante in the chair which Boccaccio had filled. He was again appointed to the same office in 1404, and it is supposed he died soon after. He was the first author of a local literary history, and much use has since been made of his Lives of the celebrated Florentines.

, marshal of France, was born at Moulins in Bourbonnais in 1653. His father had served with ability and courage, both in the civil and military capacity, and the son very early shewed a zeal to excel in arms. He served first a& aid -de -camp to his cousin, the marshal de Belleforis, and signalized himself in several sieges and engagements, till 1702, when having defeated the prince of Baden at the battle of Friedlingen, he was appointed marechal of France, October 22, the same year. The following year he took the fortress of Kell, won a battle at Hochstet, 1703, and subdued the insurgents in the Cevennes, by negociating with their leader in a manner that did credit to his humanity; for ttiese services he was raised to the title of dukeofVillarsin 1706. His neM considerable action was forcing the lines at Stolhoffen, 1707, and obtaining more than eigtteed millions in contributions from the enemy. It was thought that he would have gained the battle of iMalplaquet, in 1709, had he not been dangerously wounded before the action finished. Such at least was his own opinion, towhich historians seem, not disposed to accede. But it is less doubtful that he afterwards acquired great glory from the stratagem by which he forced the entrenchments of Denain on the Schelde, July 24, 1712. This success was followed by the capture of Marchiennes, Douay, Bouchain, Landau, Friburg, &c. and by a peace concluded at Radstadt, between the emperor and France, May 6, 1714. Marechal de Villars, who had been plenipotentiary at the treaty of Radstadt, was made president of the council of war in 1715, and afterwards counsellor to the regency and minister of state. In 1733 he went into Italy as commander under the king of Sardinia, and his majesty declared him marshal general of his camps and armies; a title granted to no one, since the death of marechal de Turenne, who appears to have been the first person honoured with it. M. de Villars took Pisighitona, Milan, Novarra, and Tortona; but after having opened the following campaign, he fell sick and died at Turin, on his return to France, June 17, 1734, aged eighty-two, regretted as one of the greatest and most fortunate generals of France. He had been admitted into the French academy, June 23, 1714. M. the abbe Seguy spoke his funeral oration, which was printed in 1735. He was a man of undoubted courage, but he was vain and unaccommodating, and never beloved. “The Memoirs of M. de Villars” were published in Dutch, in 1734 36, 3 vols. 12mo; but the first volume only was written by himself. Another life was published by M. Anquetil in 1784, 4 vols. J2mo, which is said to contain more ample information and historical documents.

, a French abbe, related to the celebrated Montfaucon the antiquary, appears to have been a native, or to have been educated at Toulouse, whence he came to Paris, in hopes of recommending himself by his talents in the pulpit, which were of no mean kind, and by his lively conversation, which perhaps fully as much contributed to procure him friends. He also entertained the public with his pen, and published various works of imagination and criticism, written in a peculiar style of humour, one of which at least entitles him to the notice of the English reader. This, which was first published at Paris in 1670, was entitled “Le eomte de Gabalis, ou entretiens sur les sciences secrettes,” with an addition entitled “Les genies assistans et les gnomes irreconciliables.” D'Argonne, in his “Melanges d'Histoire et de Litterature,” gives the following account of this singular work, as quoted by Dr. Warton: “The five dialogues of which it consists, are the result of those gay conversations in which the abbe was engaged with a small circle of men, of fine wit and kumour, like himself. When the book first appeared, it was universally read as innocent and amusing. But at length its consequences were perceived, and reckoned dangerous, at a time when this sort of curiosities began to gain credit. Our devout preacher was denied the pulpit, and his book forbidden to be read. It was not dear whether the author intended to be ironical, or spoke all seriously. The second volume, which he promised, would have decided the question; but the unfortunate abbe was soon afterwards assassinated by ruffians on the road to Lyons. The laughers gave out, that the gnomes and sylphs, disguised like ruffians, had shot him, as a punishment for revealing the secrets of the Cabala; a crime not to be pardoned by those jealous spirits, as Villars himself has declared in his book.” It was from this book that Pope took the machinery of the sylphs, of which he has made such admirable use in his “Rape of the Lock,” although it does not appear that he borrowed any particular circumstances relating to those spirits, but merely the general idea of their existence. The abbe* was killed in 1675, and it is said that the fatal shot came from one of his relations.

, a French biographer, was born December 24, 1652, at Paris, and was the son of James Bourgoin, king’s counsellor, and hereditary judge and warden of the mint in that city. He spent some years in the community of gentlemen established in the parish of St. Sulpice, with a view of concealing himself from the world, and having more leisure for study; but his merit discovered him, and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions in 1706. In 1708, however, he voluntarily withdrew from this academy, alleging, as an excuse, that his health would not permit him to perform the duties of it. He retired afterwards to a small apartment in the cloisters of the Metropolitan church, and there passed the rest of his life, contented with a little, free from ambition, employed in study and prayer, and enjoying the society of a small number of select friends. He continued a layman, but neither married, nor held any office in the state. He died December 2, 1737, aged eighty-five, leaving a great number of biographical works, translations, and small pieces. His biographical productions are, “The Life of St. Bernard,” 4to; “The Lives of the Holy Fathers of the Deserts in the East and West,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The Life of St. Theresa,” with “Select Letters” of the same Saint, 4to, and 2 vols. 12mo; “Anecdotes and secret Memoirs concerning the constitution Unigenitus,” 3 vols. 12mo; but this work was suppressed by a decree of council, as well as the “Refutation” of it, written by M. Peter Francis Lafitau, bishop of Sisteron; “The Life of Anne Genevieve de Bourbon, duchess de Longueville,” the best edition of which is Amsterdam, 1739, 2 torn. 8vo. M. de Villefore’s translations are, several of St, Augustine’s, St. Bernard’s, and Cicero’s works, all said to be faithfully executed.

, duke of Buckingham, and memorable in English story for having been the favourite of two kings, was born Aug. 20, 1592, at Brookesby in Leicestershire, and was the son of sir George Villiers, by a second wife of the ancient family of Beaumont. At an early age he was sent to a private school in that county, but never discovered any genius for letters; so that more regard was had in the course of his education to the accomplishments of a gentleman than those of a scholar. About eighteen, he travelled into France, where he made himself familiar with the French language, and with all the exercises of the noblesse; such as fencing and dancing, in which last he particularly excelled. Soon after his return to England, which was at the end of three years, his mother, who was a sagacious and enterprising woman, introduced him at court; concluding probably, and not without good reason, that a young gentleman of his fine person and accomplishments could not fail of making his fortune under such a monarch as James I. The king, about March 1614-15, went according to his custom to take his huntingpleasures at Newmarket; and the Cambridge scholars, who knew the king’s humour, invited him to a play, called “Ignoramus.” At this play it was contrived, that Viiliers should appear with every advantage of dress and person; and the king no sooner cast his eyes upon him than he became confounded with admiration; for, says lord Clarendon, “though he was a prince of more learning and knowledge than any other of that age, and really delighted more in books and in the conversation of learned men, yet, of all wise men living, he was the most delighted and taken with handsome persons and fine cloaths.” Thus he conceived such a liking to the person of Villiers, that he “resolved, as sir Henry Wotton says, to make him a masterpiece; and to mould him, as it were, Platonically to his own idea.”

The king began to be weary of his favourite, the earl of Somerset; and many of the courtiers were sufficiently angry and incensed against him, for being what they themselves desired to be. These, therefore, were pleased with the prospect of a new favourite; and, oat of their zeal to displace Somerset, did all they could to promote Villiers. Their endeavours, concurring with the inclinations of the king, made the promotion of Villiers advance so rapidly, that in a few days after his first appearance at court, he was made cup-bearer to the king. Soon after he was made a gentleman of the bed-chamber, and knight of the order of the garter. In a short time, “very short,” says lord Clarendon, “for such a prodigious ascent,” he was made a baron, a viscount, an earl, a marquis; he became lord high admiral of England, lord warden of the Cinque-ports, master of the horse; and entirely disposed of the favours of the king, in conferring all the honours and all the offices of the three kingdoms without a rival. In this he shewed the usual partialities of personal and family ambition, and raised almost all of his own numerous family and dependents, without any other merit than their alliance to him; which equally offended the ancient nobility and people of all conditions, who saw the flowers of the crown every day fading and withered, while the revenues of it were sacrificed to the aggrandizement of a private family.

In 1620, the marquis of Buckingham married the only daughter of the earl of Rutland, who was the richest heiress in the kingdom. Some have said that he debauched feer first, and that the earl of Rutland threatened him into the marriage: but this may reasonably be ranked with many other imputations of perhaps doubtful authority, which now began to be accumulated against him. In 1623, the marquis persuaded Charles prince of Wales to make a journey into Spain, and bring home his mistress the Infanta; by representing to him, how gallant and brave a thing it would be, and how soon it would put an end to those formalities, which, though all substantial matters were already determined, might yet retard her voyage into England many months. The king was greatly enraged at the proposal, and the event shewed that he had sufficient reason; but the solicitation of the prince and the impetuosity of the marquis prevailed. The marquis attended the prince, and was made a duke in his absence: yet it is certain, says lord Clarendon, that the king was never well pleased with the duke after this journey into Spain, which was totally against his will, and contrived wholly by the duke out of e^nvy, lest the earl of Bristol should have the sole management of so great an affair. Many were of opinion, therefore, that king James, before his death, was become weary of this favourite, and that, if he had lived, he would have deprived him at least of his large and unlimited power; but it did not openly appear that the king’s affection towards him was at all lessened.

Charles succeeded to the throne in 1625; and the duke continued in the same degree of favour at the least with the son which he had enjoyed so many years under the father. This greatly disappointed certain courtiers, who, recollecting the great jealousy and indignation which the prince had heretofore conceived against the duke, for having been once very near striking him, expected that he would now take revenge. But, on the contrary, the new king, from the death of the old, even to the death of the duke himself, discovered the most entire confidence in, and even friendship to, him. All preferments in church and state were given by him; all his kindred and friends promoted to the degree in honour, or riches, or offices, that he thought fit; and all his enemies and enviers discountenanced, as he appointed. But, whatever interest he might have in the prince, he had now none with the parliament and people. The parliament, which nad so rashly advanced the war with Spain upon the breaking of the match with the Infanta, and so passionately adhered to his person, was now no more; and the attachment which the major part had for the duke, was changed now into prejudice and animosity. All the actions of his life were scrutinized, and every unfavourable representation given of what he had said and done. Votes and remonstrances passed against him as an enemy to the nation; and his misconduct was made the ground of the refusal to give the “king a supply. This kind of treatment, however, had no effect in taming the duke’s great spirit, who expressed the utmost indignation upon finding, that they who flattered him most before, mentioned him now with the greatest bitterness and acrimony; and that the same men, who called him” our Saviour“for bringing the prince safe out of Spain, called him now” corrupter of the king, and betrayer of the liberties of the people," without being able to impute to him the least crime, committed since the time of that exalted adulation. He ventured therefore to manifest a greater contempt of them than he should have done; for he caused this and the next parliament to be quickly dissolved, and, upon every dissolution, had such as had given any offence, imprisoned or disgraced. He caused new projects to be every day set on foot for raising money; and bad defiance to temperate and conciliatory measures.

In this fatal conjuncture, and while the war with Spain was yet kept up, anew war was precipitately declared against France; for which no reasonable cause could ever be assigned. It has been said, that the king was hurried into this war, purely from a private motive of resentment in the duke of Buckingham, who, having bfeen in France to bring over the queen, had the confidence to make overtures of love to Anne of Austria, the consort of Lewis XIII.; and that his high spirit was so fired at the repulse he met with on this extraordinary occasion, as to be appeased with nothing less than a war between the two nations. Whatever was the cause, the fleet, which had been designed to have surprised Cadiz, was no sooner returned without success and with much damage, than it was repaired, and the army reinforced for the invasion of France. Here the duke was general himself, and made that unfortunate descent upon the Isle of Rhee, in which the flower of the army was lost. Having returned to England, and repaired the fleet and the army, he was about to sail to the relief of Rochelle, which was then closely besieged by the cardinal Richelieu; and to relieve which the duke was the more obliged, because at the Isle of Rhee he had received great supplies of victuals and some men from that town, the want of both which he laboured under at this time. He was at Portsmouth for this purpose, when he was assassinated by one Felton, on the 23d of August, 1628, in the thirty-sixth year of his age. The particulars of this assassination are well known, being related, at large by lord Clarendon, to whom we refer the reader; but we may subjoin another account, as being circumstantial and curious, and less known. This is given by sir Simonds D'Ewes, in a manuscript life of himself: “August the 23d, being Saturday, the duke having eaten his breakfast between eight and nine o‘clock in the morning, in one Mr. Mason-’ s house in Portsmouth, he was then hasting away to the king, who lay at Reswicke, about five miles distant, to have some speedy conference with him. Being come to the farthef part of the entry leading out of the parlour into the hall of the house, he had there some conference with sir Thomas Frier, a colonel; and stooping down in taking his leave of him, John Felton, gentleman, having watched his opportunity, thrust a long knife, with a white helfc, he had secretly ahout him, with great strength and violence, into his breast, under his left pap, cutting the diaphragm* and lungs, and piercing the very heart itself. The duke having received the stroke, and instantly clapping his right-hand on his sword-hilt, cried out ` God’s wounds! the villain hath killed me.‘ Some report his last words otherwise, little differing for substance from these; and it might have been wished, that his end had not been so sudden, nor his last words mixed with so impious an expression. He was attended by many noblemen and leaders, yet none could see to prevent the stroke. His duchess, and the countess of Anglesey (the wife of Christopher Villiers, earl of Anglesey, his younger brother), being in an upper room, and hearing a noise in the hall, into which they had carried the duke, ran presently into a gallery, that looked down into it $ and there beholding the duke’s blood gush out abundantly from his breast, nose, and mouth (with which his speech, after those his first words, had been immediately stopped), they brake into pitiful outcries, and raised great lamentation. He pulled out the knife himself; and being carried by his servants unto the table, tha,t stood in the same hall, having struggled with death near upon a quarter of an hour, at length he gave up the ghost, about ten o’clock, and lay a long time after he was dead upon the table.”

As to the character of this great man, Clarendon says, he was “of a noble and generous disposition, and of such other endowments as made him very capable of being a great favourite with a great king. He understood the arts of a court, and all the learning that is possessed there, exactly well. By long practice in business, under a master that discoursed excellently, and surely knew all things wonderfully, and took much delight in indoctrinating his young unexperienced favourite, who (he knew) would always be looked upon as the workmanship of his own hands, he bad obtained a quick conception and apprehension of business, and had the habit of speaking very gracefully anci pertinently. He was of a most flowing courtesy and affability to all men who made any address to him, and so desirous to oblige them that he did not enough consider the value of the obligation, or the merit of the person he chose to oblige; from which much of his misfortune resulted. He was of a courage not to be daunted, which was manifested in all his actions, and in his contests with particular persons of the greatest reputation; and especially in his whole demeanour at the Isle of Rhee, both at the landing and upon the retreat; in both which no man was more fearless, or more ready to expose himself to the highest dangers. His kindness and affection to his friends was so vehement, that they were as so many marriages for better or worse, and so many leagues offensive and defensive: as if he thought himself obliged to love all his friends, and to make war upon all they were angry with, let the cause be what it would. And it cannot be denied, that he was an enemy in the same excess $ and prosecuted those he looked upon as enemies with the utmost rigour and animosity, and was not easily induced to a reconciliation. His single misfortune was, which was indeed productive of many greater, that he had never made a noble and a worthy friendship with a man so near his equal, that he would frankly advise him for his honour and true interest against the current, or rather the torrent, of his passions; and it may reasonably be believed, that, if he had been blessed with one faithful friend, who had been qualified with wisdom and integrity, he would have committed as few faults, and done as transcendant worthy actions, as any man who shined in such a sphere in that age in Europe; for he was of an excellent disposition, and of a mind very capable of advice and counsel; he was in his nature just and candid, liberal, generous, and bountiful; nor was it ever known, that the temptation of money swayed him to do an unjust or unkind thing. If he had an immoderate ambition, with which he was charged, it doth not appear that it was in his nature, or that he brought it with him to the court, but rather found it there. He needed no ambition, who was so seated in the hearts of two such masters.” This is the character which the earl of Clarendon has thought fit to give the duke; and if other historians have not drawn him in colours quite so favourable, yet they have not varied from him in the principal features.

The story of George Villiers, the duke’s father, appearing to an officer in the king’s wardrobe at Windsor castle, and predicting the duke’s death, is so very well known, that it does not seem necessary to enter into any detail about it. If the reader thinks it worthy of any credit, and is curious to examine farther into it, he may find it at large in the first hook of Clarendon’s “History of the Rebellion.”

, duke of Buckingham, and a very distinguished personage in the reign of Charles II. was the son of the preceding, by his wife lady Catherine Manners, and was born at Wallingford-house, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, January 30, 1627, which being but the year before the fatal catastrophe of his father’s death, the young duke was left a perfect infant, a circumstance which is frequently prejudicial to the morals of men born to high rank and affluence. The early parts of his education he received from various domestic tutors; after which he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where having completed a course of studies, he, with his brother lord Francis, went abroad, under the care of one Mr. Aylesbury. Upon his return, which was not till after the breaking-out of the rebellion, the king being at Oxford, his grace repaired thither, was presented to his majesty, and entered of Christ-church college. Upon the decline of the king’s cause, he attended prince Charles into Scotland, and was with him at the battle of Worcester in 1651; after which, making his escape beyond sea, he again joined him, and was soon after, as a reward for his attachment, made knight of the Garter. Desirous, however, of retrieving his affairs, he came privately to England, and in 1657 married Mary, the daughter and sole heiress of Thomas lord Fairfax, through whose interest he recovered the greatest part of the estate he had lost, and the assurance of succeeding to an accumulation of wealth in the right of his wife. We do not find, however, that this step lost him the royal favour; for, after- the restoration, at which time he is said to have possessed an estate of 20,000l. per annum, he was made one of the lords of the bed-chamber, called to the privy -council, and appointed lord-lieutenant of Yorkshire, and master of the horse. All these high offices, however, he lost again in 1666; for, having been refused the post of president of the North, he became disaffected to the king, and it was discovered that he had carried on a secret correspondence by letters and other transactions with one Dr. Heydon (a man of no kind of consequence, but a useful tool), tending to raise mutinies among his majesty’s forces, particularly in the navy, to stir up seditioa among the people, and even to engage persons in a conspiracy for the seizing the Tower of London. Nay, to sucii base lengths had he proceeded, as even to have given money to villains to put on jackets, and, personating seamen, to go about the country begging, and exclaiming for want of pay, while the people oppressed with taxes were cheated of their money by the great officers of the crown. Matters were ripe for execution, and an insurrection, at the head of which the duke was openly to have appeared, on the very eve of breaking-out, when it was discovered by means of some agents whom Heydon had employed to carry letters to the duke. The detection of this affair so exasperated the king, who knew Buckingham to be capable f the blackest designs, that he immediately ordered him to be seized; but the duke finding means, having defended his house for some time by force, to make his escape, his majesty struck him out of all. his commissions, and issued out a proclamation, requiring his surrender by a certain day. This storm, however, did not long hang over his head; for, on his making an humble submission, king Charles, who was far from being of an implacable temper, took him again into favour, and the very next year restored him both to the privy-council and bed-chamber. But the duke’s disposition for intrigue and machination was not lessened; for, having conceived a resentment against the duke of Ormond, because he had acted with some severity against him in the last-mentioned affair, he, in 1670, was supposed to be concerned in an attempt made on that nobleman’s life, by the same Blood who afterwards endeavoured to steal the crown. Their design was to have conveyed the duke to Tyburn, and there have hanged him; and so far did they proceed towards the putting it in execution, that Blood and his son had actuallyforced the duke out of his coach in St. James’s-street, and carried him away beyond Devonshire-house, Piccadilly, before he was rescued from them. That there must hare been the strongest reasons for suspecting the duke of Buckingham of having been a party in this villainous project, is apparent from a story Mr. Carte relates from the best authority, in his “Life of the duke of Ormond,” of the public resentment and open menaces thrown out to the duke on the occasion, by the earl of Ossory, the duke of Onnond’s son, even in the presence of the king himself. But as Charies II. was more sensible of injuries done to himself than others, it does not appear that this transaction hurt the duke’s interest at court; for in 1671 he was installed chancellor of the university of Cambridge, and sent ambassador to France, where he was very nobly entertained by Lewis XIV. and presented by that monarch at his departure with a sword and belt set with jewels, to the value of forty thousand pistoles; and the next year he was employed in a second embassy to that king at Utrecht. However, in June 1674, he resigned the chancellorship of Cambridge, and about the same time became a zealous partizan and favourer of the nonconformists. On February 16, 1676, his grace, with the earls of- Salisbury and Shaftesbury, and lord Wharton, were committed to the Tower, by order of the House of Lords, for a contempt, in refusing to retract the purport of a speech which the duke had made concerning a dissolution of the parliament; but upon a petition to the king, he was discharged thence in May following. In 1680, having sold Wallingfordhouse in the Strand, he purchased a house at Dowgate, and resided there, joining with the earl of Shaftesbury in all the violences of opposition. About the time of king Charles’s death, his health became affected, and he went into the country to his own manor of Helmisley, in Yorkshire, where he generally passed his time in hunting and entertaining his friends. This he continued until a fortnight before his death, an event which happened at a tenant’s house, at Kirkby Moorside, April 16, 1688, after three days illness, of an ague and fever, arising from a cold which he caught by sitting on the ground after foxhunting. The day before his death, he sent to his old servant Mr. Brian Fairfax, to provide him a bed at his own house, at Bishophill, in Yorkshire; but the next morning the same man returned with the news that his life was despaired of. Mr. Fairfax came; the duke knew him, looked earnestly at him, but could not speak. Mr. Fairfax asked a gentleman there present, a justice of peace, and a worthy discreet man in the neighbourhood, what he had said or done before he became speechless: who told him, that some questions had been asked him about his estate, to which he gave no answer. This occasioned another question to be proposed, if he would have a Popish priest; but he replied with great vehemence, No, no! repeating the words, he would have nothing to do with them. The same gentleman then askod him again, if he would have the minister sent for; and he calmly said, “Yes, pray seud for him.” The minister accordingly came, and did the office enjoined by the church, the duke devoutly attending it, and received the sacrament. In about an hour

after, he became speechless, and died on the same night. His body was buried in Westminster-abbey. As to his personal character, it is impossible to say any thing in its vindication; for though his severest enemies acknowledge him to have possessed great vivacity and a quickness of parts peculiarly adapted to the purposes of ridicule, yet his warmest advocates have never attributed to him a single virtue. His generosity was profuseness, his wit malevolence, the gratification of his passions his sole aim through life, his very talents caprice, and even his gallantry the mere love of pleasure. But it is impossible to draw his character with equal beauty, or with more justice, than iti that given of him by Dryden, in his “Absalom and Achitophel,” under the name of Zimri, to which we shall refer our readers. If he appears inferior to his father as a statesman, he was certainly superior to him as a wit, and wanted only application and steadiness to have made as conspicuous a figure in the senate and the cabinet as he did in the drawing-room. But his love of pleasure was so immoderate, and his eagerness in the pursuit of it so ungovernable, that they were perpetual bars against the execution of even any plan he might have formed solid or praise-worthy. In consequence of which, with the possession of a fortune that might have enabled him to render himself an object of almost adoration, we do not find him on record for any one deservedly generous action. As he had lived a profligate, he died a beggar; and as he had raised no friend in his life, he found none to lament him at his death. As a writer, however, he has very considerable merit. His poems, indeed, are very indifferent, but his memory will owe much to his celebrated comedy of “The Rehearsal,” 1672, which is a master-piece of wit, and every way an original.

Besides “The Rehearsal,” the duke was the author of some other dramatic pieces; as “The Chances,” a comedy altered from Fletcher; “The Restauration, or Right will take place,” a tragi-comedy; “The Battle of Sedgmoor,”' a farce; “The Militant Couple, or the Husband may thank himself,” a fragment. He was the author of some prose pieces, among which were “An Essay upon Reason and Religion,” in a letter to Nevile Pain, esq.; “On Human Reason,” addressed to Martin Clifford, esq.; “An account of a Conference between the duke and father Fitzgerald, whom king James’sent to convert his grace in his sickness;” and, “A short Discourse upon the reasonableness of men’s having a religion or worship of God.” This last was printed in 1685, and passed through three editions. The duke wrote also several small poems complimentary and satirical. One is entitled “The lost mistress, a complaint against the countess of” Shrewsbury, as is supposed; whose lord he killed in a duel on her account, and who is said to have held the duke’s horse, disguised like a page, during the combat. The loves of this tender pair are touched by Pope, in some well-known lines. Pope informed Spence, “that the duke’s duel with lord Shrewsbury was concerted between him and lady Shrewsbury. All that morning she was trembling for her gallant, and wishing for the death of her husband; and after his fall, 'tis said the duke lay with her in his bloody shirt.” The following account of this infamous affair, which Mr. Malone copied from a ms letter dated Whitehall, Jan. 10, 1673-4, affords but a sorry idea of the profligate reign in which such a tragedy could be acted vrith impunity.

“Upon Wednesday the 7th, the two Houses met. In the Lords’ House, immediately upon his majesty’s recess, the earl of Westmoreland brought in a petition against the ttuke of Bucks, in the name of the young earl of Shrewsbury, desiring justice against him, for murthering his father, making his mother a whore, and keeping her now as an infamous strumpet. To this the duke replied, 'tis true he had the hard fortune to kill the earl of Shrewsbury, but it was upon the greatest provocations in the world that he bad fought him- twice before, and had as often given him his life that he had threatened to pistol him, wheresoever he (should) meet him, if he could not fight him that for these reasons the king had given him his pardon. To the other part of the petition concerning the lady Shrewsbury, he said, he knew not how far his conversation with that lady was cognizable by that House; but if that had given offence, she was now gone to a retirement.” A day was appointed for considering the merits of the petition; but the parliament being prorogued on Feb. 25, nothing more appears to have been done in the business. Three clays before the duke was pardoned for killing lord Shrewsbury (Feb. 25, 1667-8), that nobleman’s second, sir John Talhot, received a pardon for killing the duke’s second, Mr. William Jenkins; for at that time the seconds in duels regularly engaged, as well as the principals. Andrew Marvell says, in one of his letters, that the duke had a son by lady Shrewsbury, who died young, and whom he erroneously calls earl of Coventry. The duke had no heirs by his duchess. What the duke meant by lady Shrewsbury’s going to a retirement, we know not. She afterwards married George Rodney Bridges, second son of sir Thomas Bridges of Keynsharn in Somersetshire, knt and died April 20, 1702.

, a very learned Frenchman, member oi the Institute, and of all the academies and learned societies of Kurope, was born at Corbeille-sur- Seine, March 5, 1750. His family was originally of Spain, but had settled in France in the early part of the seventeenth century. His father, as well as others of his ancestors, had served in the army. He began his stiuiies at a very early age at the college of Lisieux, from which he removed to that of Du Plessis, and in both was distinguished by a decided taste for the ancient languages, especially the Greek, for the sake of which he again removed to the college of Des Grassis, that he might attend the Greek lectures of M. le Beau. Under his tuition he distanced all his fellow-students, and gained all the prizes destined to those who proved the superiority of their taste in Homer. He afterwards attended the lectures of Capperonier, Greek professor in the royal college of France,' which were adapted to a more advanced state of proficiency, and soon made such progress as to need no other instructor than his own study. And such was the extent of his application, that he had already, although scarcely fifteen years of age, perused almost all the writers of antiquity, poets, orators, historians, philosophers, and grammarians. Having thus exhausted the usual stores of printed works, he sought new treasures in manuscripts; and having foil' 1 i in the library of St. Germain-des-Pres, a collection of inedited Greek lexicons, among which was that of Homer by Apollonius, he formed the design of publishing this last, which accordingly appeared in 1773, preceded by ample prolegomena, and accompanied by notes and observations, the extensive and profound erudition of which appeared very extraordinary in a young man of only twenty-two. The academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, to which Villoison submitted his work before it was printed, had admitted him a member during the preceding year, after having obtained a dispensation on account of his age, without which he could not be elected. The reason assigned was extremely honourable to him: “that having anticipated the age of profound knowledge, it was just that he should enjoy its advantages earlier than other men; and that he should outstrip them in a career of honours, as he had in that of learning.”

The fame he had so justly acquired involved him now in a literary correspondence with the most eminent men of his time, who were desirous of his communications, and he soon became an authority in what regarded the Greek language. This, however, he did not permit to give any serious interruption to his studies; and the value he set on his time and labour appeared in the offence he took at the conduct of the academy. He had communicated several memoirs, of which they published only extracts, and therefore he desisted for several years from making any farther communications. His next publication was an edition of the pastoral of Longus, which appeared in 1778, and would have been an enormous volume if one of his learned friends had not prevailed on him to retrench half of his remarks, and even then its “superfluity of erudition” was objected to; “a charge,” says his biographer, “which did no injury to that species of reputation of which M. de Villoison was ambitious.”

He was not however fully satisfied with its success, and thought with reason that he might be more usefully employed in publishing some valuable work, not before given to the world. He had examined the libraries of France for this purpose ineffectually, and formed a project of going to Venice, to search the library of St. Mark, to which he knew that cardinal Bessarion had left his numerous manuscripts. He accordingly set out in 1781, under the patronage of the king, who appointed that the expenses of his journey and residence (to which no limits were fixed) should be defrayed by the government. His researches were not fruitless. In that depository, he soon discovered several inedited works of the rhetoricians and philosophers, and especially grammarians, which he deemed worthy of publication, either entire or in extracts; and these form the celebrated collection which was printed the same year, in 2 vols. 4to, under the title of “Anecdota Graeca e regia Parisiensi et e Veneta 8. Marci bibliotheca deprompta,” Venice. Of this some copies were taken off“in folio, and two on vellum. It was however unfortunate that publication followed so hastily on discovery, for Villoison soon found, but found too late, that a considerable proportion of the first volume of these” Anecdota“had already been given to the public. He made however a very important discovery in the library of Mark, of a ms. of Homer, which he judged to be of the 10th century, and consequently anterior by two centuries to the commentator Eustathius. This precious volume, which does not appear to have been before examined, contained the whole Iliad, enriched with the scholia of the most eminent grammarians of antiquity. The margins also were filled with various marks by which these grammarians distinguished the verses of Homer, which they judged to be supposititious, corrupted, or transposed, from those whose genuineness was universally recognized. He immediately prepared an edition of this valuable treasure, which was published in 1788, fol. accompanied by learned prolegomena, and was regarded as one of the most valuable presents made to the literary world during the last century, and every scholar hastened with his congratulations. But, says his biographer,” the satisfaction which this brilliant success must have given to M. de Villoison was not long unmixed. He could not see, without sentiments of pain, the spirit of system abusing his discoveries to attack the glory of the father of poetry: and perverting the critical marks affixed to a great number of verses in the Iliad, in support of the darling position, that parts of this poem, even entire books, were the work of ancient rhapsodists, and the first editors, &c. and the idea that he had unintentionally furnished the basis on which these conjectures were constructed, and the weapons by which their authors pretended to defend them, troubled him so much, that he almost repented of having published his work.“He had advanced but a little way in printing the Iliad, when he yielded to the invitation of the duke and duchess of Saxe-Weimar, who honoured him with their particular esteem, and quitting Venice, repaired to their capital. While here, he formed the collection of critical letters, printed at Zurich in 1783, under the title of” Epistolse Vinarienses, in quihus multa Graecorum scriptorum ioca emendantur ope librorum Ducalis bibliothecte,“4to. Having found in the library of St. Mark a very liberal translation of part of the Old Testament, made by a Jew in the ninth century, he laboured, during his stay at Weimar, to put it into a state fit for publication; and on his return to France in 1784, he remained some time at Strasburgh for the purpose of having it printed there under his own inspection. He soon after set out for Greece, in quest of other ancient Mss.; but after a tour of two years, found nothing of that description. He had made, however, many observations, and intended, with the aid of these, to have composed a history of ancient and modern Greece, For the same purpose he determined on a fresh perusal of all the Greek and Latin authors extant, and as Paris had now become the scene of the revolution, and all its enormities, he removed to Orleans, in the public library of which he executed his extensive plan of reading, and its fruits were fifteen large quarto volumes of extracts and observations, which were to contribute to his history of Greece. He also prepared during his retreat at Orleans, materials for a new edition of Montfaucon’s” Palasographia Graeca," all of which are now in the royal library.

After the last storms of the revolution, he returned to Paris with his treasures; and his property of other kinds having been lost in the general confusion, he endeavoured to supply his wants by a course of lectures on the Greek language, but either had few scholars, or was unable to level himself to their capacities. A professorship of modern Greek had just been founded, which was bestowed on him, but soon suppressed by Bonaparte, who, however, created for him a professorship of ancient and modern Greek in the college of France. On this he scarcely entered, when a malady, which at first he regarded as very slight, but the force of which was aggravated by degrees, put an end to his life, April 26, 1805.

“Nature,” says his biographer, “had gifted Villoison with a quick and penetrating mind, but his memory, which was, in truth, a prodigy, and which he had perhaps exercised too exclusively, appears in. some degree to have checked the developement of his other intellectual faculties, and to have prevented them from reaching their perfect growth. Insatiably desirous of knowledge, he had never too much time for reading, and he rarely appropriated any to thought and reflection; hence the incoherence, the sudden digressions, the want of proportion and integrity which are to be remarked in some of his works; hence the want of consistency and steadiness in conduct and conversation of which he sometimes incurred the charge. But these imperfections (adds his biographer) disappear before the splendour of his great and useful qualities: if he always remained young in judgment, taste, and sense of propriety, in erudition he condensed the acquisition of centuries, with all the vigour of manly age; and learned societies might esteem themselves happy if they possessed many members possessed of similar excellence, though mingled with similar alloy.”

, a Dominican of the thirteenth century, was reader to St. Louis, king of France, and tutor to his children. He compiled a summary of varions knowledge, called the “Speculum Majus,” containing matters of a natural, doctrinal, moral, and historical kind, which contains the opinions of authors that are not now extant, and on that account is an object of some curiosity. In other respects it serves only to shew the ignorance and superstition of the age. It was first printed at Strasburgh in 1476, and has often been reprinted, as low as the beginning of the seventeenth century. Vincent died in 1264, as some assert, but, according to Dupin, this is a matter of great doubt. He left some other works.

, a saint of the fifth century, was a native of France, and originally a soldier; but determining to forsake the world, retired to the monastery of Lerins in Provence, and became a priest. The time of his death is uncertain, but after that event he was canonized, He wrote a work to which he is supposed to have owed this honour, entitled “Commonitorium adversus Hsereticos,” in which he proposes to confute heretics by two authorities: first, that of the Holy Scriptures; and secondly, that of the church, and he advances many arguments that have at least the appearance of ingenuity. There have been many editions of this work abroad, and one at Cambridge, in 1687, 12mo. Mosheim calls it an excellent treatise, but his translator says he sees nothing in it but that blind veneration for ancient opinions, which is so fatal to the discovery and progress of truth, and an attempt to prove that nothing but the voice of tradition is to be consulted in fixing the sense of the holy scriptures.

, a nonconformist divine of great popularity, courage, and piety, was born in the month of May 1634, in Hertford. He was the eldest son of the rev. John Vincent, who died possessed of the valuable living of Sedgfield in the county of Durham, but who was so often troubled on account of his nonconformity, that although he had a numerous family, it is said that not two of his children were born in the same county. This son, Thomas, was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was, in 1647, elected to Christ Church, Oxford. There he made such proficiency, that, after taking h'is degree of M. A. in 1654, the dean, Dr. Owen, chose him catechist, an office which, Wood says, usually belongs to a senior master. On leaving Oxford he became chaplain to Robert, earl of Leicester, and afterwards succeeded to the living of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-street, London, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662. He then taught school for some time with another famous nonconformist, the rev. Thomas Doolittle, at x lslington, and occasionally preached when it could be done with safety. In 1665 the memorable and last-plague with which this kingdom was visited, broke out in the metropolis with uncommon fury, and Mr. Vincent informed his colleague that be now thought it his duty to relinquish his present employment, and devote himself to the service of the sufferers in this great calamity. Doolittle endeavoured in vain to dissuade him, and Mr. Vincent, that he might not seem obstinate, agreed to refer the case to the city ministers, who, after hearing his reasons, and admiring his courage and humanity, gave all the approbation that such an act of self-devotion could admit, and Mr. Vincent came to lodge in the city, and throughout the whole continuance of the plague preached constantly every Sunday in some parish church. This was not ouly connived at by government, but he was followed by persons of all ranks. He also visited the sick whenever called upon, and yet aontinued in perfect health during the whole time, although seven persons died of the plague in the house where he resided. This remarkable instance of courage and humanity probably reconciled many to him who disapproved of his nonconformity; for although he preached afterwards at a dissenting meeting at Hoxton, and was the founder of another at Hand-alley, Bishopsgate-street, we do not find that he was molested. He died Oct. 15, 1678, in the forty-fourth year of his age. He was the author of several pious tracts, which went through many editions in his life-time, and afterwards; and had some controversy with Penn the quaker, and with Dr. William Sherlock. The most popular of his tracts were his “Explanation of the Assemblies Catechism,” which still continues to be printed; and his “God’s terrible voice to the city by Plague and Fire,” in which are some remarkable accounts of both these fatal events. This work, which was first printed in 1667, 12mo, went through thirteen editions before 1671. He published a work of the same kind, occasioned by an eruption of Mount Etna, entitled “Fire and Brimstone,” &c. 1670, 8vo. He had a brother, Nathanael, also educated at Christ Church, who was ejected from the living of Langley-march, in Buckinghamshire, in 1662, and afterwards was frequently prosecuted for preaching in conventicles. He was also imprisoned, as being concerned in Monmouth’s expedition, but nothing was proved against him. He died in 1697, and left several practical treatises, and funeral sermons. Wood attributes to him more Cl brisk and florid parts“than belong to his fraternity, and adds, that he was” of a facetious and jolly humour," which certainly does not correspond with the other characters given of him.

, the late learned dean of Westminster, was born in London, Nov. 2, 1739. His father was a citizen of London, in commercial business, first as a packer, and afterwards as a Portugal'merchant, in which last concern he acquired opulence, but was impoverished by the failures consequent upon the great earthquake at Lisbon, in 1755. He lost also his second son, Giles, in that terrible catastrophe^ He was for twenty-seven years deputy of Lime-street Ward, London. His eldest son, Francis, continued the business of a packer, and prospered in it; and by him William was assisted in his expenses at college. His school education, excepting a mere infantine initiation at Cavendish, in Suffolk, was received entirely at Westminster; and from fourteen years old, when he entered the school, to the day of his death, he was never unconnected with that seminary, nor long personally absent from its precincts, except for the five years in which he was pursuing his academical studies. Passing through every gradation in the school, and collegiate foundation, he was thence elected scholar of Trinity college, Cam.­bridge, in 1757. In 1761 he took his first degree in arts, and was chosen a fellow of his college; soon after which (1762), he returned to Westminster, as usher, or assistant in the school. In that capacity he proceeded from, the lowest to the highest situation, so justly approved, in all respects, by the patrons of the school, that, on the resignation of Dr. Lloyd, the veteran second master in 1771, he was appointed to that office. In the same year he was nominated one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty.

The place of second master at Westminster schoqi is a situation of much labour and responsibility. Besides the daily business of the school, which, if not arduous, is at least fatiguing, the person who holds that office has the whole care and superintendence of the scholars on the foundation when out of school; that is, of forty boys, rapidly growing up into men, and yearly drafted off, by elections of from eight to ten, to the two universities. Yet in this much occupied situation it was, that Mr. Vincent was prosecuting those studies which gradually established his reputation at home as a scholar, and a man of research; and finally extended his celebrity over the whole continent of Europe. What is much to his honour, he studied under a natural disadvantage, which to a less ardent and persevering spirit would have served as an excuse for idleness. From an early period of life h was subject to a weakness of the eyes, attended with pain and inflammation, which never suffered him to read or write with impunity by artificial light. These attacks were so severe, that, to avoid yet more formidable consequences, he found himself compelled altogether to relinquish evening studies. But zeal can always find resources,. As he could not read at night he formed the habit of rising very early. Before the hours of school, in the intervals between morning and evening attendance, and after both, when the length of the days permitted, he was generally employed in his study. Of exercise, properly so called, he took very little, but his constitution was robust; and of a man who completed seventy-six years, we can hardly say that his days were shortened by his habits of life, of whatever kind they might be.

He had three principal objects of pursuit; theology, classical learning, and history in all its branches. Historical research was his peculiar delight, including geography, navigation, commerce, and even the military art, as illustrating the history of men, and connecting the memorials of remote periods. To this taste, perseveringly indulged, we owe his various works, particularly those on ancient commerce and navigation, on which his reputation chiefly rests. Yet he was no impatient candidate for fame. During the whole period of his being under-master, which was no less than seventeen years, he published nothing that was at all considerable. One small publication was a letter to Dr. Watson, then professor of divinity at Cambridge (afterwards bishop of Llandaff) on the subject of a sermon preached by him in 1780; a production neither then nor afterwards publicly avowedi; though far from being unworthy of his principles or talents, being a very clear and able argument against such theories as tend to overturn governments, and against the spirit of opposition in those times. The, other tract was entitled “Considerations on Parochial Music” (1787); not written as pretending to any knowledge of the science, or talent for it, which he had not; but byway of improving its rational and devotional effects in parish churches. He had then become a parish priest, and it was natural for him to attend to every thing relating to that office.

It was apparently on becoming second master of Westminster, that he thought himself authorised to marry; and obtained the hand of miss Hannah Wyatt of that city. This union proved uniformly happy; and was productive of two sons; the rev. W. St. Andrew Vincent, now rector of Allhallows; and George Giles Vincent, esq. chapter clerk of Westminster; who became his effectual comforters, when their mother was at length taken from him, in 1807. But from his appointment in 1771, he remained without clerical preferment till 1778, when he obtained the vicarage of JLongdon, in Worcestershire, by the gift of the dean and chapter of Westminster. This living he resigned in about six months, on being collated, by the archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of Allhallows the Great and Less, in Thames-street, London.

No man could be better qualified to enjoy and to promote domestic happiness. Easy of access, friendly, social, without any of the reserve of a student, or any of the pride of wisdom, real or assumed, he was always ready to take an active part in the innocent gratifications of society. With the learned, equally ready to inquire and to communicate, but never ostentatious of knowledge; with the ignorant and even the weak, so very indulgent that they hardly suspected their inferiority; certainly were never made to feel it painfully. Never ashamed to ask for information, when he found he wanted it; and most frankly ready to confess ignorance, if consulted upon any subject to which his mind had not been particularly applied. Never, perhaps, was “I know nothing of it,” so often said by one who knew so much. His entire contempt for every species of affectation produced these sometimes too sweeping declarations, in which he was hardly just to himself.

But neither his amusements nor his studies were ever suffered to interfere with his public or professional duties. In the church, in the school^ among his parishioners, or among his boys, he was always active and assiduous: fully prepared for the task of the day, whether to preach or teach; to illustrate the classics, or expound the Scriptures. His mode of instructing the boys on the foundation at Westminster, is admirably described by a well-informed writer in the Gent. Mag. 1815. “The under-master,” he says, “has the care of the college; and in his hands are the preservation of its discipline, the guardianship of its morals, and the charge of its religious instruction. With a steadiness and fidelity rarely equalled Dr. Vincent discharged these difficult functions; but perhaps there never existed a man who rivalled him in the art of attracting from boys attention to his lectures. Four times a year, each week preparatory to receiving the sacrament, Dr. V. explained the nature of that religious rite; its institution, its importance, and its benefits. And we believe, such was his happy mode of imparting instruction, that there never was known an instance of any boy treating the disquisition with levity, or not shewing an eagerness to be present at, and to profit by, the lesson. A clear sonorous voice, a fluent, easy, yet correct delivery, an expression at once familiar and impressive, rendered him a delightful speaker. These advantages he possessed in common conversation, but he displayed them more especially on. public occasions, and never to greater advantage than in the pulpit.”

Never was an eulogium more just. Nor did these serious and habitual occupations of his mind preclude its more lively excursions. In all those instances, at Westminster of periodical occurrence, when the talents of the masters are called frib, to give example and encouragement to the scholars, Pi prologues and epilogues at the plays, exercises and epigrams at the elections, &c. the compositions of Vincent were sure to be distinguished. He had not, indeed, nor did he rlatter himself that he had. that strong and original determination to poetry, which is denominated genius; but he possessed that lively relish for its genuine beauties, which, a-sisted by a familiar and exact knowledge of the best models, will always qualify a strong and versatile iniinl to think poetically, and to express its thoughts, always witn propriety, often with felicity. In many different styles he proved his talent for Latin composition in verse and prose; and what he produced of any kind, it was not easy to surpass. On these multifarious objects was his assiduity employed throughout the seventeen years in which he continued under-master.

At length, on the death of Dr. Smith in 1788, Dr. Vincent (who had taken his doctor’s degree in 1776), was nominated to succeed him r.s head-master an appointment which gave great satisfaction to the friends of the school, though the whole extent and force of his talents were far from being completely known. Particular attention seems to have been first paid to a sermon he preached at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, for a charity-school. This was in 1792, a period of great political turbulence and danger; and this sermon, being remarkable for the clear and powerful statement of principles favourable to social order, and for explaining the necessity of the gradations of rich and poor, was welcomed on its publication by all the zealous friends of the Britisu constitution, and to render it more serviceable, the patriotic association against republicans and levellers obtained leave from the author to reprint the principal part of it, for circulation among the people; and twenty thousand copies were thus distributed in London, and throughout the country, probably with excellent effect. We have seen already that the first publication of Dr. Vincent, though anonymous, was a defence of sound principles, against factious measures and artifices: and, as that tract was never afterwards owned, there cannot be any possible suspicion that the author wrote it with a view to praise or emolument; or otherwise than from the honest impulse of his heart, and the clear conviction of his mind. The principles which he there discovered, remained unaltered through life; and were felt with particular force when the movements of faction called for opposition. It cannot be floubted, therefore, that he must have felt the liveliest satisfaction in having his discourse thus circulated, in a, more attractive form than a sermon might have borne, for the general instruction of the people.

But the fruits of his long studies were now about to appear in a manner more conspicuous, or at least more conducive to his credit as a scholar, A small tract, in quarto, which he published in 1793, marked him to the learned world as a diligent investigator of historical facts, and an acute, though modest, verbal critic. This publication, which tends to clear up an almost desperate passage in Livy, was, with very good judgment, written in Latin, that it might be submitted not only to domestic but to foreign critics. It is entitled, “De Legione Manlian&, Quicstio ex Livio desumta, et Rei militaris Romanae studiosis proposita.” Subjoined to it is what the author has termed * An Explanatory Translation' in English. Polybius, in his description of the construction of the Roman legian, has given an account of it, which seems entirely irreconcileable with what Livy has said, in the eighth book of his History, of a manoeuvre of the great general Manlius in the management of his own army against the Latins. As both authors must have been perfectly well acquainted with the subject, the difficulty was to reconcile the difference between them, without supposing a mistake on either side.

In the attempt to do this, neither Lipsius, Fabricius, nor even Drakenborch, the most famous editor of Livy, appeared to have succeeded; and their conjectures for the purpose could not be admitted, without considerable violence to the text. How well Dr. Vincent succeeded appeared by the generous approbation of the illustrious Heyne on the continent, and of the no less acute Porson at home. The few points in which these critics differed from him, the author fairly states in a short preface, and endeavours to answer but leaves the ultimate decision to the reader. Two successive years produced two publications, the result of our author’s long and careful study of the analysis of languages. The first of these, entitled “The Origination of the Greek Verb, an Hypothesis,” appeared in 1794; and was followed, in 1795, by “The Greek Verb analyzed, an Hypothesis, in which the source and structure of the Greek language in general is considered.” The latter of these was principally a sequel to the first, and an extension of its theory. Sagacity and learning are eminently displayed in both these publications; nor is it easy to say which quality is most conspicuous in them, sagacity in sug* gesting probable reasons for the various inflections of verbs in the Greek, and afterwards in other languages; or learning, in the production of proofs or illustrations in support of every fact assumed. The principal notion is, that such inflections were derived from some simple and very short original verb, signifying to do or to exist, which being afterward subjoined to radicals denoting various actions or modes of being, formed their tenses, modes, and other variations. The idea was happy, and it is astonishing how far it may be pursued; and nothing can more fully prove its foundation in probable conjecture, than that it had occurred, nearly at the same time, to a writer at Edinburgh, who published it in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica:” the time of composition so exactly coincided, that neither author could possibly have seen or heard of the theory of the other. In both it was equally original.

It is observable, that in both these tracts, Dr. Vincent terms his doctrine only “An Hypothesis.” A more presumptuous author would have called it a discovery. But it would have been perfectly unlike him to assume a particle of merit more than he had an undoubted right to claim; and the manly passage, in the second of these tracts, in which he repels every charge and suspicion of plagiarism, while it strongly marks the character of the writer, proves also how long the subject had been considered and revolved in his mind. “I have been accused,” he says, “of appropriating to myself the discoveries of others, without due acknowledgment, but I must say, in my defence, that, wherever I was sensible of an obligation, I have owned it. I wished to defraud no writer of his honours; but, in treating a subject, which had long been in contemplation, I could not always say from whence the source of my opinion was derived. In a course of years, I have consulted more authors than Fean readily enumerate; and I am still, on the other hand, accused of not consulting a sufficient number. There is no end to this; and I am equally indifferent to the charge on either side. If what I have said is true, it will support itself; if otherwise, it cannot be bolstered up by authorities.” The speculations of lord Mon bod-do, and other metaphysicians, at home and abroad, had probably led both Dr. Vincent and the northern grammarian, into this train of investigation.

Dr. Vincent had long been diligently employed upon a much more arduous task, and more connected with the studies, to which he was by preference attached. In 1797, he published the result of those labours r in his celebrated commentary on Arrian’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” which formed the basis of our author’s reputation. On a work so well known, it is not necessary that we should expatiate at any great length. Nearchus’s voyage is related by Arrian of Nicomedia (See Arrian), and is comprised in his “ludica,” or general account of India, and is professedly taken from the journal of Nearchus himself. The authenticity of the narrative had indeed been questioned by some learned men; but it is so victoriously defended by Dr. Vincent, in the concluding section of his preliminary Disquisitions, that Schmieder, the latest editor of Arrian, has translated the whole of his arguments into Latin; and has subjoined them to the objections of Dodwell, as a complete and satisfactory refutation. So strongly was Schmieder himself of the same opinion, that in his preface to the Indica he says, that “they who deny the genuineness of this account are hardly worth refuting.”

Two most sagacious and diligent inquirers, M. D'Anville and Major Kennel, had already traced“Nearehus down the Indus, and up the Persian Gulf; but the whole intermediate line, extending through ten degrees of longitude direct, besides the sinuosities of 4he coast, they had, from whatever cause, abandoned altogether; though, as Dr. Vincent observes,” the merit of the commander depends upon the difficulties he surmounted, in this part of his voyage more especially; and the clearing up of the geographical obscurity was an object worthy of the talents of two such masters of the science."

If this obscurity could have been completely removed by any sagacity or patience, it would undoubtedly have yielded to the labours of Dr. Vincent. His researches extended to every possible source of information, ancient and modern, rist excepting the oral intelligence of individuals who had recently visited those coasts, and whom he was always anxious to see and to consult. Dr. Horsley, then dean of Westminster, a man who had tew if any superiors in learning and sagacity, was often his adviser on difficult points. He admired the zeal and talents of the author, and strongly marked his regard for him and his work, by furnishing uvo very profound dissertations on astronomical subjects. To Mr. Wales he sometimes resorted for similar information; candidly confessing his own want of skill in that branch of knowledge. But his most abundant source of original information was found in the friendly kindness of Mr. Dalrymple, then hydrographer to the admiralty, who opened to him, without reserve, all the stores of his vast geographical collections, and documents of every kind. Of this indulgence he was most happy to avail himself, and often refers to charts and journals, so communicated, to which there were no other means of access.

Dr. Vincent persevered with such vigour, that the first part of “The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, containing an account of the Navigation of the ancients, from the sea of Suez, to the coast of Zanguebar: with dissertations,” was published in 1800, only three complete years after the Nearchus. It cannot be doubted that the chief researches, necessary for this continuation of the author’s great design, were already made, and much of the materials prepared; otherwise, the interval could not have been sufficient, even for a man who had no other occupation, to produce so elaborate a volume. The appendix alone contains more matter of curious information than many bulky works; particularly the copious alphabetical list of Grecian armies of export and import; and the dissertation of the Adulitic inscription: matters collateral to the general inquiry, and illustrative of the whole work.

“The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea,” though usually called Adrian’s, is confessedly not the work of the author of the Voyage of Nearchus. This is avowed by Dr. Vincent, in entering upon the subject. It had probably been imputed to Arrian in later times, from his having written the Periplus of the Euxine Sea. Whether ewn i<<e name properly belonged to this writer is altogether uncertain; and the probability is rather against it: but, from the most accurate examination of the work, Dr. Vincent thinks that the author, whatever was his true name, was a Greek merchant of Alexandria, between the times of the emperors Claudius and Adrian, in the first or second century, and probably by near a century prior to Arrian of Nicornedia. The author was certainly a man who had sailed ora board of a Greek fleet from Egypt to the Gulph of Cambay, if not beyond it. Those who had assigned a different age or character to his author, Dr. Vincent has answered in a manner the most satisfactory.

The “Second Part of the Periplus,” which completes the whole design, appeared in 1805, making a larger volume than the first, furnished with further dissertations, and an additional appendix of commercial articles, thus completing the knowledge of oriental commerce and oriental geography, as they existed among the ancients. Both parts of the Periplus were dedicated to the king. Throughout this work Dr. Vincent followed the same plan which he had formed for his Nearchus: not translating his author, but supplying a continual commentary upon his text, the sections of which are formed by the stations of the navigator, or the geographical divisions of the coast. This plan was here even more necessary than it had been in the former work, since in this the account of each place consists frequently of little more than a mere invoice of the usual exports and imports, very curious when explained, but very unsatisfactory, because unintelligible to a common reader in the original form. He has said, therefore, very properly, in his first disquisition, “of this work no adequate idea could be formed by a translation; but a comparison of its contents with the knowledge of India, which we have obtained, since Gama burst the barrier of discovery, cannot but be acceptable to those who value geography, as a science, or delight in it, as a picture of the world.”

All these volumes are furnished with maps, and other illustrations, from original materials, collected from various sources, by the author’s own researches, or with the aid of friendly communication. One or two charts, in defect of direct authorities, were made out by himself, on the basis of his own reasonings and proofs. For these he has condescended to apologize, as not deeming himself regularly a practical geographer; which others will probably consider as the more meritorious exertion. But his care was, in all cases, not to assume too much to himself, and to err, if at all, on the opposite side. One important map, that by De la Rochette, he greatly wished to have added, but as the proprietors would neither consent to have it copied, nor accommodate him with a sufficient number for an edition, on such terms as he could prudently accept, he unwillingly gave up the thought. Into a very few copies of Nearchus he inserted it, for the benefit of particular friends, but the public was deprived of the advantage.

Soon after the appearance of the first part of the “Periplus,” Dr. Vincent, being then past sixty, began to feel the effects of constant exertion and confinement in the deteriorated state of his health. He had been, at that time, eleven years head master of Westminster, and thirty-nine years in his various situations in the school, and very naturally began to entertain a wish for retirement; and having been presented in 1801 to a stall in the church of Westminster, he immediately determined to carry hi* wish into effect at a very early period. But he was first to render an essential service, not only to Westminster, but to all dur public schools. These schools, whose plans and regulations have been matured by the practice of ages, had lately been the subject of attack by two very eminent divines, who complained that religion was neglected in the systems and conduct of our publicschools. Dr. Vincent was naturally roused at this alarming accusation unjust as he felt it to be, and unfounded as he immediately undertook to prove it, with respect, at least, to the great school over which he so honourably presided; and for which alone he thought himself responsible. He published almost immediately “A Defence of Public Education,” addressed to a learned prelate, whose attack upon it had 'been most conspicuous. Confining himself to such facts as he could assert upon his own knowledge, he took little notice of other schools than his own; but his defence was conducted with such manly plainness, and at the same time with such becoming zeal for religion as well as for education, that -its effect was irresistible. It passed through three editionsj in a period surprisingly short, and taught him, for tb first time, what it is to be a popular writer. It was, in fact, the only publication from which he ever derived pecuniary profit; and that profit, as the first fruits of his authorship, he good-huroouredly presented to Mrs. Vincent. Compliments upon his defence were now poured in from various quarters; and he had the gratificatioa afterwards of knowing that the king, whose judgment rarely erred in matters to which he seriously applied it, was particularly pleased to have his public schools defended, and still more with the spirit and effect of the defence.

But the author was still very far from anticipating the further advantage that he was to derive from it. Among the persons most highly gratified by this tract, was lord Sidmouth, then Mr. Addington, the friend and ornament of another illustrious school, Winchester. It powerfully recalled his attention to the various merits and long public services of the author; and with that promptness and liberality of decision, of which his short administration furnished more instances than many of the longest, he recommended Dr. Vincent to his majesty, as successor to his friend bishop Horsley, in the deanery of Westminster. The king did not fail to express his satisfaction in giving the appointment; and, at a subsequent opportunity, was pleased even to express regret, that the see of Rochester had not. as in many former instances, gone with the deanery. This appointment vacated of course the inferior situations of prebendary and master of the school, the latter of which he left, accompanied by the most gratifying marks of affection from those who had been under his care.

The first use made by the dean of his higher advancement was to obtain the presentation of a living, for a curate who had been his assistant at Allhallows twenty-four years. His own eldest son was then in orders, and totally unbeneficed; but he paid, what he considered as a debt of gratitude, before he would consent to think of his own more immediate concerns. For this forbearance he was soon rewarded; and in the second year after his promotion, the rectory of St. John’s, Westminster, came to his choice, and when he accepted it for himself, he had the satisfaction of obtaining the living of Allhallows for his son. He might have continued to hold it, but he preferred resigning it in that manner. He held St. John’s only about two years, when he exchanged it for the rectory of Islip, in Oxfordshire, which is also in the patronage of the church of Westminster. He was presented to it by the chapter in 1805.

The acquisition of this living formed another fortunate epoch in his life. He had always been accustomed to pass his summer holidays in the country; a change quite necessary for his health, while confined to the school; and desirable, when he'had no longer that tie. But hisonly resource on these occasions had hitherto been in temporary lodgings. He had now a country residence of his own, to which he could at any time retire, and which had the additional recommendation of being in the vicinity of Oxford. At Westminster, the noble fabric of his church was a principal object of his care, and he happily succeeded in effecting great repairs, removing considerable deformities, and promoting the most important improvements. The most remarkable instances were the very effectual and substantial repair, which he caused to be made after the alarming fire in 1803; and that beautiful work, now so far advanced, the restoration of Henry VII. 's chapel, of which he was the first adviser and most zealous promoter.

But all these various objects could not estrange him from his great pursuit, the investigation of ancient commerce and navigation. He continued assiduous in extending his inquiries; and was most scrupulous in acknowledging and correcting every error which his unremitting diligence could detect. Attentive more especially to the remarks of those wko had visited the places described, he anxiously sought their conversation, as well as their writings, and was highly gratified to learn, that several very intelligent men had carefully compared his books with the situations to vrhich they alluded, and expressed in general extreme surprise, that a recluse scholar, quietly seated in his study, could possibly have arrived at suchaccuracy of conjecture or discovery. When they thought him mistaken, he readily resumed the inquiry, and, weighing all the reasons, quitted it not till he had brought it to a satisfactory result. Truth was his sole object, and whether it was brought to light by himself or others, he was equally ready to embrace it-; abandoning the most favoured opinion, without hesitation, if not without regret, when he discovered its foundations to be unsound. As his materials were thus increased, and his work improved, he prepared for a second edition -, which, with more view to the propriety of the measure, than any hope of advantage from it, was published in 1807.

In the new edition, the three former publications were formed into two handsome and uniform volume*; with the geui-nil title of “The Commerce and Navigation of the Aucieuts in the Indian Ocean, by William Vincent, D. D. dean of Westminster.” Each volume had also a second till the first for the voyage of Nearchus, the second for the Peripius. Gratitude now demanded the introduction of lord Sidmouth’s name, to whose unsolicited patronage the author owed so much. To him, therefore, the whole work was now dedicated, in. a sincere and manly strain of acknowledgment; retaining, however, the two dedications to the king, which had introduced the two parts of the Periplus. It was afterwards translated into German and French, the latter by M. Billecoq, under the express authority of Buonaparte. At that period of inveterate enmity on his part, it would not have been safe, perhaps, to translate an English work, on any subject, without that sanction. Approbation so undeniably impartial gave the author a pleasure, which he avowed as frankly as he did his other sentiments; and that satisfaction was complete, when, in 1814, a degree from Goitingen, conferred upon him by diploma, was transmitted to him, with the most honourable testimony borne to the merit and value of his works. Though far from anxious for fame, he was much above affecting an insensibility to it, which no man ever felt who was capable of deserving it.

While the second edition of his great work was passing through the press, he suffered a domestic loss, which they only who are equally attached to their home can justly estimate. Mrs. Vincent died early in 1807: and his sense of her merits has been strongly expressed in a Latin inscription, which he wrote to be placed over her grave at Westminster. But the heaviest evils that would otherwise have followed upon this destitution were happily prevented by the interposition of his nearest relatives. His eldest son, with his truly amiable wife, and a growing family, immediately relinquished house-keeping, alid became his constant inmates, both in town and country; omitting no possible attention that duty and affection could suggest, to make his home again delightful to him. They succeeded, as they deserved, to the utmost of their wishes. The dean recovered his spirits, resumed his usual labours and his usual relaxations, and persevered in both, to almost the latest hour of his life.

But though he continued his remarks and additions to the Ancient Commerce, as his further reading enabled him, he had in truth dismissed all thoughts of further publication on that subject. But the opinion of his friend, Mr. archdeacon Nares, after some time prevailed upon him to add a supplemental volume, for the sake of adding to his work the Greek text of Arrian’s Indica, (including the Journal of Nearchus) with that of the Pseudo-Arrian, which was before too scarce for scholars in general to obtain. This volume concluded the dean’s separate publications. He printed, indeed, afterwards, a letter in French to a M. Barbié (as he chose to write himself, but more probably Barbier) du Bocage, who had very unhandsomely attacked his voyage of Nearchus; but this he never published. It contained a dignified remonstrance, without asperity, with a man whom the writer treats with a respect, little merited by the mode of the attack.

The principal works of Dean Vincent have now been distinctly enumerated; as forming an important part of his history, as a literary man; but he wrote occasionally in periodical works, in which he had no other interest, but such as arose from the general wish to promote the progress of sound literature, both sacred and profane; or to benefit the editors of works whose design was of that nature. His communications to the “Classical Journal” were not many, but va|uable, and regularly signed with his name. They were these 1. On Ancient Commerce No. v. p. 60. 2. On China, as known to Classic Authors No. xiii. p. 32. 3. On Theophilus, an African Bishop No. xiv. p. 382. 4. On the Geography of Susiana; Suppl. to No. xviii. p. 449. 5. Correction of an Error in the Periplus; No. xx. p. 322. The contributions of Dr. Vincent to the “British Critic” commenced at a very early period of that publication, and were never entirely discontinued till the close of the first series. The friendship with which he honoured the original editor of that work, together with his entire approbation of the design and principles, with which it was undertaken and conducted, made him at all times ready to give his aid to it, when his other occupations and studies would permit. As he was always completely a volunteer, so the choice of his subjects, as well as of his opportunities, was left entirely to himself. These communications were not marked with his name, because it was not suitable to the practice of the Review, but he had no particular wish to be concealed, and his biographer has accordingly given a list of his articles, with useful remarks, for which, on account of its length, we must refer to our authority.

He continued to assist in this Review until 1812 or 1813, when the close of his career was more nearly approaching than his friends were willing. to believe, or any visible decay appeared to indicate. It was not, however till the Spring of 1815, that the powers of the stomach began to fail, so much as to create alarm. But the apprehensions then excited were soon too fully justified. Imperfect efforts towards recovery were constantly followed by relapses, each more formidable than the former. He remained at Islip, to his usual period of removal in the autumn, when he returned to Westminster, infirm, but not despaired of by the faculty; sound in mind, which he continued to the last, and not materially impaired in his external organs. But he felt within, that his complaints were beyond the reach of medicine, and calmly rejected all attempts to persuade him to rely upon it. At length, with the least possible disturbance from bodily suffering, he placidly obeyed the inevitable call; and died on the 21st of December, 1815, having passed his seventy-sixth year, by rather more than a month.

“Of the character and talents of Dr. Vincent,” says his biographer, “a tolerably correct notion may be collected from the foregoing narrative *. That he was benevolent, charitable, generous, and placable, should undoubtedly be added to that view. That which, perhaps, would be least conceived, by those who had no personal knowledge of him, is the ease with which he could, on fit occasions, and without the smallest impropriety, sink the man of learning and research, in the cheerful friend and unassuming companion.”

In tracing the steps of dean Vincent’s progress through life, no notice has been taken of those temporary offices, which he held in consequence of his other situations such as being president of Sion-college in 1793, and prolocutor to the Lower house of Convocation in Nov. 1802, and perhaps some others. When such services were required, there can be no doubt that he undertook them readily, and was studious to perform the part allotted to him with punctuality and propriety.

, an illustrious Italian painter, and universal genius, was the natural son of one Piero, a notary at Florence, and was called Da Vinci from the place of his birth, a small burgh or castle of Valdarno di Sotto. He was born in 1452, and was placed under Andrea Verrochio, a painter of some note in that city; but soon surpassed him, particularly in a piece which that painter had made of St. John baptizing our Saviour, and in which Da Vinci, by his order, had painted an angel, holding up some of the vestments. This appeared so much the finest figure, that it visibly discredited all the rest: which so hurt Verrochio, that he relinquished painting ever after.

Da Vinci now set up for himself; and executed many pictures at Florence of great credit, and the universality of his genius soon appeared. He had a perfect knowledge of the theory of his art. He was, by far, the best anatomist and physiologist of his time, the first who raised a spirit for anatomical study, and gave it credit, and certainly the first man we know of who introduced the practice of making anatomical drawings. His first attempt, according to Vasari, was a book of the anatomy of a horse; he afterwards applied with more diligence to the human anatomy, in which study he reciprocally received and communicated assistance to Marc. Antonio della Torra, an excellent philosopher, who then read lectures in Pavia, and wrote upon this subject. For him Da Vinci made a book of studies, drawn with red chalk, and touched with a pen, with great diligence, of such subjects as he had himself dissected: where he made all the bones, and to those he joined, in their order, all the nerves, and covered them with the muscles. And concerning those, from part to part, he wrote remarks in letters of an ugly form, which are written by the left hand, backwards, and not to be understood but by those who know the method of reading them. These very drawings and writings are now in his majesty’s collection of drawings. After inspecting them some years ago, Dr. Hunter expressed his full persuasion that Da Vinci was the best anatomist, at that time, in the world, Lionardo was also well skilled in optics and geometry, almost every branch of literature, and the arts. He was a good architect, an able carver, and extremely well versed in the mechanics: he had a fine voice, and understood music, and both played and sang with taste and skill. Having also the advantage of a well-formed person, he excelled in all the manly exercises. He understood the management of a horse, and took delight in appearing well mounted: and he was very dextrous in the use of arms’. His behaviour also was polite, and his conversation so engaging, that no man ever partook of it without pleasure, or left it without regret.

His reputation soon spread itself all over Italy, and Lewis Sforza, duke of Milan, invited him to his court, and prevailed with him to be a director of the academy for architecture he had just established, where Lionardo restored the simplicity and purity of the Greek and Roman models. About this time, the duke having formed a design of supplying the city of Milan with water by a new canal, the execution of the project was deputed to Lionardo. In order to accomplish this vast design, he spent much time in the study of philosophy and mathematics; applying with double ardour to those parts which might give him light into the work he had undertaken. To these he joined antiquity and history; and observed, as he went along, hoiy the Ptolemies had conducted the waters of the Nile through the several parts of Egypt; and how Trajan had opened a commerce with Nicomedia, by rendering navigable the lakes and rivers lying between that city and the sea. At length, he happily achieved what some thought next to impossible, by rendering hills and valleys navigable with security. The canal goes by the name of Mortesana, being above 200 miles in length; and passes through the Valteline and the valley of Chiavenna, conducting the waters of the river Adda to the very walls of Milan.

After Lionardo had been labouring some years for the service of Milan, in quality of architect and engineer, he was requested by the duke to adorn it by his paintings; and be painted, among other things, his celebrated “Last Supper.”. Francis I. was so charmed with this, that, finding it impracticable to have it removed into France, he ordered a copy to be taken, which was placed at St. Germains; while the original, being painted in oil, and upon a wall not sufficiently secured from moisture, has been defaced long ago. The wars of Italy began how to interrupt him; and his friend and patron duke Lewis being defeated and carried prisoner to France, the academy was destroyed, the professors dispersed, and the arts effectually banished out of Milan. In 14^9, the year before duke Lewis’s defeat, Lionardo, be'ing at Milan, was desired, by the priucipals of the place, to contrive some new device for the entertainment of Lewis XII. of France, who was just then ready to make his entrance into that city. Lionardo consented; and accordingly made a very curious automaton of the figure of a lion, whose inside was so well furnished with machinery, that it marched out to meet the king; made a stand when it came before him; reared up its hinder legs; and, opening his breast, presented a scutcheon, with fleurs-de-lis quartered upon it.

The disorders of Lombardy, and the misfortunes of his patrons the Sforzi, obliging Lionardo to quit Milan, h retired to Florence, where he flourished under the patronage of the Medici. In 1503 the Florentines resolving to have their council- chamber painted, Lionardo, by a public decree, was elected to the office and got Michael Angelq to assist him in painting one side of it, while he himself painted the other: Michael Angelo was then but a young man, yet had acquired a great reputation, and was not afraid to vie with Lionardo, but jealousy arose between them; an.d each having his partizans, they became open enemies. About this time, Raphael was led by Lionardo’s reputation to Florence; the first view of whose works astonished him, and produced a change in his style, to which all the glory he afterwards acquired has been ascribed by some. Lionardo remained in Florence till 1513, and then is stated to have. gone to Rome, which it is said he had never seen. Leo X. received him graciously, and resolved to employ him; upon which, Lionardo set himself to the distilling of oils, and the preparing of varnish, to cover his paintings with. Leo, informed of this, said smartly enough, that “nothing could be expected from a man, who thought of finishing his works before he had begun them.” There seems, however, some reason to doubt, whether Lionardo ever was at Rome in Leo’s time. It seems more certain that about this time, having an invitation from Francis I, he removed into France. He was above seventy years of age when he undertook this journey; and it is probable that the fatigues of it, together with the change of climate, contributed to the distemper of which he died. He languished several months at Fontainebleau; during which time the king went frequently to see him: and one day, as he was raising himself up in bed to thank the king for the honour done him, he was at that instant seized with a fainting fit; and, Francis stooping to support him, he expired in the arms of that monarch. He died in 1520.

The life of Da Vinci, says Mr. Fuseli, may be nearly divided into four periods, the first of which is that of his youth, when he lived at Florence. To this not only the Medusa and the few works mentioned by Vasari, but probably all those paintings of his, belong, that have less energy of shade, less complicated drapery, and heads of forms rather delicate than exquisite, seemingly derived from the school of Verrocchio. Such are the Maddalenas of the Pitti at Florence, and the Aldobrandini at Rome, the Madonnas of the Giustiniani and Borghese palaces, and some heads of the Saviour and his Baptist, though the multitude of his imitators must render all decision on their originality ambiguous.

The second period is that which he spent at Milan in the service of Lodovico Sforza. There he staid till 1499, with little exertion in painting, if we except the most capital as the most celebrated of his works, perhaps the compendium of his powers, the Last Supper, in the refectory of the Dominicans. Of this performance, which the whole history of painting agrees to class among the first products of art, three heads only remain by Lionardo’s own hand, and those rather delineated than coloured. Had he contented himself to paint it in distemper instead of oil, we should now be in the possession of a work, which was already found half decayed by Armenini, fifty years after it had been finished, and is spoken of by Scannelli, who examined it in 1642, as evanescent, and a thing tfcut once was.

The third period dates from the return of Lionardo to Florence, after the fall of Francesco Sforza. The thirteen years of his stay there produced some of his best works; the celebrated portrait of Mona Lisa, a labour of four years, though still declared unfinished; the cartoon of St. Anna, prepared for an altar-piece at the church A'Servi, which never was coloured; the other cartoon of the battle of Niccolo Piccinino, in competition with Michael Angelo, and likewise never made use of, because his endeavour to paint it in oil on the wall had failed. He employed perhaps anpther method in a Madonna with the child, at St. Onofrio of Rome, a Raffaelesqne picture, but peeling in many places off the pannel. To this period probably belongs his own portrait in the ducal gallery, in an age which does not disagree with these years, a head whose energy leaves all the rest in that room far behind; and that other, in a different cabinet, which is called the portrait of Raffaello; and that half-figure of a young nun in the palace Niccolini, so much celebrated by Bottari. Christ among the doctors, formerly a picture of the Doria palace; the supposed portrait of queen Gioyanna with architecture; and Vertumnus with Pomona, commonly called vanity and modesty, a work as often copied as inimitable, in the Barberini; seem to coincide with this epoch; and we may count with them the Madonna begging the lily of the infant Christ in the Albani, a picture full of graces, and considered by Mengs as the masterpiece of the collection. It would however be too bold a conjecture to decide the date of every picture painted by an artist whose life was spent in search of new methods, and who too often dropped his work before it had received its finish.