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

Rowe is chiefly to be considered (Dr. Johnson observes) in the light of a tragic writer and a translator. In his attempt at comedy he failed so much, that he wisely gave up the pursuit of the comic muse, and his “Biter” is not inserted in his works; and his occasional poems and short compositions are rarely worthy of either praise or censure; for they seem the casual sports of a mind seeking rather to amuse its leisure than to exercise its powers. In the construction of his dramas there is not much art; he is not a nice observer of the unities. He extends time, and varies place, as his convenience requires. To vary the place is not (in the opinion of the learned critic from whom these observations are borrowed) any violation of nature, if the change be made between the acts for it is no less easy for the spectator to suppose himself at Athens in the second act, than at Thebes in the first but to change the scene as is done by Rowe in the middle of an act, is to add more acts to the play, since an act is so much of the business as is transacted without interruption. Rowe, by this licence, easily extricates himself from difficulties; as in “Lady Jane Gray,” when we have been terrified with all the dreadful pomp of public execution, and are wondering how the heroine or poet will proceed, no sooner has Jane pronounced some prophetic rhimes, than pass and be gone the scene closes, and Pembroke and Gardiner are turned out upon the stage. “I know not,” says Dr. Johnson, “that there can be found in his plays any deep search into nature, any accurate discriminations of kindred qualities, or nice display of passion in its progress all is general and undefined. Nor does he much interest or affect the auditor, except in” Jane Shore,“who is always seen and heard with pity. Alicia is a character of empty noise, with no resemblance to real sorrow or to natural madness.” It is concluded, therefore, that Rowe’s reputation arises principally from the reasonableness and propriety of some of his scenes, from the elegance of his diction, and the suavity of his verse. He seldom moves either pity or terror, but he often elevates the sentiments; he seldom pierces the breast, but he always delights the ear, and often improves the understanding. Being a great admirer of Shakspeare, he gave the public an edition of his plays; to which he prefixed an account of that great man’s life. But the most considerable of Mr. Rowe’s performances was a translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” which he just lived to finish, but not to publish; for it did not appear in print till 1728, ten years after his death. It is said he had another talent, not usual with dramatic authors. Mrs. Oldfield affirmed, that the best school she had ever known was, hearing Rowe read her part in his tragedies.

In 1620 he received a commission from Mary de Medici, to adorn the gallery of the palace of the Luxembourg, for which he executed a vvellfknown series of paintings, exhibiting the principal events of the life of that princess. The whole were completed in three years, an astonishing instance both of art and labour. It was at this period he became known to the duke of Buckingham, who was then on a tour with prince Charles. He afterwards became the purchaser of Rubens’s rich museum of works of art, for which he is said to have given 10,000l. sterling.

"Besides the excellency of Rubens in these general powers, he possessed the true art of imitating. He saw the objects of nature with a painter’s eye; he saw at once the predominant feature by which every object is known and Distinguished; and as soon as seen, it was executed with a facility that is astonishing: and let me add, this facility is to a painter, when he closely examines a picture, a source of great pleasure. How far this excellence may be perceived or felt by those who are not painters, I know not to themcertainly it is not enough that objects be truly representedtliey must likewise be represented with grace which means here, that the work is done with facility, and without effort. Rubens was, perhaps, the greatest master in the mechanical part of the art, the best workman with his tools that ever exercised a pencil. This part of the art, though it does not hold a rank with the powers of invention, of giving character and expression, has yet in it what may be called genius. It is certainly something that cannot be taught by words, though it may be learned by a frequent examination of those pictures which possess this excellence. It is felt by very few painters; and it is as rare at this time among the living painters, as any of the higher excellencies of the art.

He was soon after engaged as a tutor in a gentleman’s family, which situation he quitted in about a year for that of schoolmaster in the parish of Lawrence-Kirk. After passing three years and a half in this employment, he had a favourable opportunity of removing to advantage, owing to an accidental introduction to the celebrated Dr. Pitcairne. This gentleman happening to pass through Lawrence-Kirk, was detained by a vidlent storm, and wanting amusement, inquired of his hostess whether she could procure him any agreeable companion at dinner. She replied, that the parish schoolmaster, though young, was said to be learned, and, though modest, she was sure could talk. Pitcairne was delighted with the conversation and learning of his new companion, and invited him to Edinburgh, with a promise of his patronage. Ruddiman accordingly quitted Lawrence-Kirk, and soon after his arrival at Edinburgh was appointed assistant- keeper of the advocates’ library. The emoluments of this place were trifling, but it made him known and made him learned; and after the regular hours of attendance at the library (from 10 to 3) he occupied his leisure hours as a private tutor in the Latin language to various young gentlemen. As his merits became better known, his assistance was anxiously solicited by those who were engaged in literary publications. His first employment of this kind was as editor to sir Robert Sibbald’s “Introductio ad historiam rerum a Romanis gestarum in ea Borealis Britannise parte quse ultra murum Picticum est,” and he likewise contributed his aid to Sir Robert Spottiswood’s “Practiques of the Laws of Scotland.” So little was literary labour rewarded at that time, that for the former of these works he received only 3l. and for the latter 5l. Such poor encouragement obliged him, in 1707, to commence auctioneer. The same year he published an edition of “Voluseni de Animi Tranquillitate Dialogus,” to which he prefixed a life of Volusenus, or Wilson, a learned countryman, who had been patronized by cardinal Wolsey. In 1709, h published “Johnstoni Cantici Solomonis Paraphrasis Poetica,” and “Johnstoni Cantica,” with notes, which he dedicated to his i'riend and patron Dr. Pitcairne. The edition consisted of two hundred copies, which he sold at one shilling each. The expence of printing amounted to 51. 10s. He was next employed by Freebairne, the bookseller, on a new edition of Gawin Douglas’s “Virgil’s yneid,” which he corrected throughout, added the glossary, and probably the forty-two general rules for understanding the language, for all which he received the sum of Sl 6s. Sd.

After the death of the principal keeper of the advocates’ library, Mr. Ruddiman was appointed his successor, but without any increase of salary. He was, however, now acquiring by his other employments a competence according to his moderate desires, and independent spirit. In 173^, he published what is known by the name of Anderson’s “Diplomata Scotiae,” from having been begun by Anderson, but was finished by Ruddiman, who wrote the admirable preface, which displays a greater extent of knowledge than any of his other productions. During the rebellion in 1745, although Ruddiman was firmly attached to the house of Stuart, he took no active part, but employed himself in writing critical observations on Burman’s commentary on Lucan.

, the historian of Marseilles, was born there in 1607, and bred to the law. Being appointed counsellor to the seneschalcy of his native place, he practised in that court for some years, and with a scrupulous integrity rather uncommon; for we are told that on one occasion when, by his own neglect, a client had lost his cause, he sent him a sum of money equivalent to that loss. He was a man of learning, and a good antiquary, and employed much of his time in collecting materials for his “History of Marseilles,” which he published in 1642. In. 1654 he was made a counsellor of state, and next year published a life of Gaspard de Simiane, known by the name of the chevalier de la Coste, and about the same time a history of the counts of Provence from 934 to 1480. He died April 3, 1689, aged eighty-two. His son Louis Anthony, who followed similar pursuits, added to his father’s History of Marseilles a second volume, in an edition published in 1696, and illustrated with plates of seals, coins, &c. He was author, likewise, of “Dissertations Historiques et Critiques sur POrigine des Comtes des Provence, de Venaissin, de Forcalquier, et des Vicomtes de Marseille” and in 1716 he published “Une Dissertation. Historique, Chronologique, et Critique sur les Evéques de Marseille.” Both these were intended as preludes to more elaborate works on the subject, which he was prevented from completing by his death, March 26, 1724, in the sixty-sixth year of his age.

, LL. D. an English divine, and bishop of Derry in Ireland, was born in the parish of Milton-Abbot, near Tavistock, in Devonshire, about 1686, of what family is not known. He was educated at the freeschool of Exeter, under the care of Mr. John Reynolds, uncle to the celebrated painter sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1702 he was removed to Exeter college, Oxford, and about this time his friend and fellow collegian, Joseph Taylor, esq. (father of Thomas Taylor, of Denbury, esq.) introduced him to Mr. Edward Talbot, of Oriel college, the second son of Dr. William Talbot, at that time bishop of Oxford. This event was of great importance in his future life, as it secured him the friendship and patronage of the Talbot family, to whom he owed all his promotion. Recommenced bachelor of civil laws in July 1710, and two years afterwards became acquainted with the celebrated Whiston, and was inclined to adopt his notions as to reviving what he called primitive Christianity. Mr. Whiston, who has given us many particulars respecting bishop Rundie in his “Memoirs of his own Life,” says that Mr. Rundie, before he entered into holy orders, became so disgusted at the corrupt state of the church, and at the tyranny of the ecclesiastical laws, that he sometimes declared against obeying them, even where they were in themselves not unlawful, which, adds Whiston, “was farther than 1 could go with him.” The truth seems to have been, as stated by bishop Rundle’s late biegrapher, that the singular character of Whiston, his profound erudition, and disinterested attachment to the doctrines of Arius, supported by an ostensible love of truth, were likely to attract the notice of young men who, in the ardour of free inquiry, did not immediately perceive the pernicious tendency of their new opinions.

Soon after Mr. Rundle’s acquaintance with bishop Talbot became an intimacy, he was ordained by him in 1718, and published a discourse on Acts x. 34, 35. In 1720 he was promoted by that prelate, on his removal to Salisbury, to the archdeaconry of Wilts; and upon the demise of Mr. Edward Talbot, in the same year, was constituted treasurer of the church of Sarum. These were the first bounties of his munificent patron, who retained him from this time-as his domestic chaplain, and particularly delighted in his elegant manners and brilliant conversation. When bishop Talbot was translated to Durham, he continued Mr. Rundle of his household, and on Jan. 23, 1721, collated him to the first stall in that cathedral but on Nov. 12, in the following year, he was removed to the twelfth prebend He bad likewise the valuable mastership of Sherborne hospital, an appointment incompatible with the cure of souls, but which, it will appear from the foregoing list of preferments, he had never undertaken. If any period of his life afforded him more than ordinary satisfaction, it was this. He was esteemed, in a degree far beyond what is usually to be attained in friendships between persons of unequal rank, by the great and good family who patronised him. He had opportunities of gratifying his literary propensities, by frequent conversations with the first in almost every branch of science, and by the most select epistolary correspondences. He became particularly known at this time to the republic of letters by the liberal support he gave to Thomson, upon his publishing his “Winter,” whose acquaintance he instantly sought; and whom, having recommended to lord chancellor Talbot as a proper person to superintend his son’s education during the grand tour, Thomson found himself on his return rewarded by a lucrative appointment. On July 5, 1723, he had proceeded LL. D. as necessary to the dignities he enjoyed, and was associated with Dr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, as resident chaplain at the palace at Durham.

All this could not be [known without exciting considerable interest in the public mind. In a few weeks a pamphlet appeared, entitled “Reasons alledged against Dr. Rundle’s promotion to the see of Gloucester,” &c. This was written by Dr. Sykes, and followed by several other pamphlets, of which Dr. Disney, in his “Life of Sykes,” has given a list of ten. Even Whiston vindicated his old friend in a very candid manner. Perhaps his best vindication is in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, originally published in “Hughes’ s Correspondence,” which Dr, Rundle wrote in the confidence of friendship, and in which he appears to use no disguise. As to Dr. Sykes’s pamphlets, they evidently are written more with a view to raise a clamour against Dr. Gibson, than to serve the interest of Dr. Run-? die. Dr. Gibson, in his causes for rejecting Dr. Rundle, might have been misinformed, and we trust he was so; but they who accuse him of excessive bigotry, would do well to recollect, that he was the promoter of Dr. Hoadly to the bishopric of Winchester.

, a man of learning and ingenuity, the son of Christopher Russel, esq. of Minorca, was born in 1728. He was bred at Westminster-school, and in 1746 was admitted a member of St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. He commenced a poet in 1744, or before; for in his collection are verses on seeing lady Elizabeth Boyle dance at Marston on her father’s birth-day in that year. In April 1750 he was admitted bachelor of arts, but. did not determine or complete his decree until 1752. About 1753 he obtained the rectory of Skull, in the diocese of Cork, in Ireland, by r the patronage of John, fifth earl of Oork and Orrery. With that nobleman he appears to have lived in intimacy, as well as with his second son, Hamilton Boyle, and frequently visited Marston. He died in 1767; and two years after, were published, in 2 vols. 8vo, “The Works^of the late Rev. George Russel, Rector of Skull, in the diocese of Cork.” From the few specimens Mr. Malone has given, he seems justified in saying that these work?, though little known, owing probably to their having been published only in Ireland, have very considerable merit.

In 1721, he settled as a physician at Edinburgh, and soon afterwards Drs. Rutherford, Sinclair, Plummer, and Innes, purchased a laboratory, where they prepared compound medicines, an art then little known in Scotland; but, having higher views than the mere profits of such a speculation, they demonstrated, as far as they were the* known, the operations of chemistry, to a numerous audience: and soon afterwards, by the advice of their old tnaster Boerhaave, they extended their lectures to other branches of physic. In 1725, they were appointed joint professors in the university: where, we believe, each, for some time, read lectures in every department of medical science, anatomy exempted, and carried forward their classes in rotation. The anatomical lectures were read by the elder Monro, who had been settled a 3*ear or two before them in Edinburgh. But on the death of Dr. Innes, a particular branch of medical science was allotted to each of the other three professors. Dr. Plummer was appointed professor of chemistry and materia medica, Dr. Sinclair of the institutes of physic, and Dr. Rutherford of the practice; and thus they had the honour to establish the medical school of Edinburgh. The lectures on the institutes and practice of physic were then, and for many years afterwards, delivered in Latin, of which Dr. Rutherford had a great command, and talked the language more fluently than that of his country. This practice, we believe, was afterwards discontinued by the successors of these founders; but Dr. Rutherford lectured in Latin as long as he filled the practical chair.

The first publication by which he was known, in his professional character, in this country, was a very elaborate work, entitled, “A Methodical Synopsis of Mineral Waters, comprehending the most celebrated Medicinal waters, both cold and hot, of Great Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, and Italy, and several other parts of the world, wherein their several impregnating minerals being previously described, and their characteristics investigated, each water is reduced to its proper genus; and besides the particular analysis, the virtues, uses, and abuses of the water are described, in a method entirely new. Interspersed with tables, tending to throw a light upon this intricate subject; and abstracts of the principal authors who have treated of mineral waters; and the accounts dispersed in the acts of most of the learned societies in Europe, are collected and properly digested,” 1756, 4to. In the preface he informs us that his original intention was only to do justice to his own country, by giving a history of the mineral waters of Ireland, which appeared to him to be as considerable, both in number and variety, as those of any part of Europe of equal extent; but this inquiry obliging him to institute a comparison between the Irish waters, and those of other countries, he extended his plan at last to a general history of mineral waters. This, however, appears to have been unfortunate for the reputation of the work, by obliging him to give accounts, at second hand, of many mineral waters, particularly some remarkable ones in England, which he had no opportunity of examining and analyzing; and hence there are many inaccuracies in a work, otherwise valuable, and evidently the result of much study and extensive inquiry. Dr. Rutty informs us that this work engaged him in a controversy for three years. With this we are unacquainted, having seen only a scurrilous pamphlet by one Lucas, an apothecary, and of some note as a mob-patriot, but which was spoken of in the literary journals of the day with the contempt which it appears to have amply deserved, and could scarcely have been worthy of Dr. Rutty’s notice.

, a celebrated landscape-painter of Holland, was born at Haerlem in 1636; and, though it is not known by what artist he was instructed, yet it is affirmed that some of his productions, when he was only twelve years of age, surprised the best painters. Nature was his principal instructor as well as his guide; for he studied her incessantly. The trees, skies, waters, and grounds, of which his subjects were composed, were all sketched upon the spot, just as they allured his eye, or delighted his imagination. His general subjects were, views of the banks of rivers hilly ground, with natural cascades; a country, interspersed with cottages and huts solemn scenes of woods and groves, with roads through them windmills and watermills but he rarely painted any subject without a river, brook, or pool of water, which he expressed with all possible truth and transparency. He likewise particularly excelled in representing torrents, and impetuous falls of water; in which subjects the foam on one part, and the pellucid appearance of the water in another, were described with wonderful force and grandeur. Sir Joshua Reynolds says there is a clearness in his landscapes scarce seen in those of any other painter. Most of the collections in England are adorned with some of the works of this master. He died in 1681, aged forty-five.

, an antiquary and critic, was born in the North of England, and educated at the grammar-school of Northallerton, whence he was admitted a scholar at Sidney college, Cambridge. On quitting the university, he became a member of Gray’s-inn; and in 1692 succeeded Mr. Shadwell as historiographer to king William III. He rendered himself known first as a writer for the stage, by his production of “Edgar,” a tragedy, in 1673, which excited little approbation or inquiry until he became the author of “A View of the Tragedies of the last age,” which occasioned those admirable remarks by Dryden, preserved in the preface to Mr. Colman’s edition of “Beaumont and Fletcher,” and since by Dr. Johnson in his “Life of Dryden.” Rymer was a man of considerable learning, and a lover of poetry; but had few requisites for the character of a critic; and was indeed almost totally disqualified for it, by want of candour and the liberties he took with Shakspeare, in his “View of the Tragedies of the last age,” drew upon him the severity of every admirer of that poet. His own talents for dramatic poetry were extremely inferior to those of the persons whose writings he has with so much rigour attacked, as appears very evidently by his tragedy of “Edgar.” But, although we cannot subscribe either to his fame or his judgment as a poet or critic, it cannot be denied that he was a very useful compiler of records, and his “Fœdera” will ever entitle his memory to respect. While collecting this great work, he employed himself, like a royal historiographer, as one of his biographers says, in detecting the falsehood, and ascertaining the truth of history. In 1702, he published his first letter to bishop Nicolson, in which he endeavours to free king Robert III. of Scotland, beyond all dispute, from the imputation of bastardy. He soon after published his second letter to bishop Nicolson, “containing an historical deduction of the alliances between France and Scotland; whereby the pretended old league with Charlemagne is disproved, and the true old league is ascertained.”

, a Spanish political and moral writer, was born May 6, 1584, at Algezares, in the kingdom of Murcia, and studied at Salamanca. In 1606, he went to Rome as secretary to the cardinal Gaspar de Borgia, who was appointed Spanish ambassador to the pope, and assisted in the conclaves of 1621 and 1623, held for the election of the popes Gregory XV. and Urban VIII. For these services Saavedra was rewarded with a canonry in the church of St. James, although he had never taken priest’s orders. Some time after he was appointed agent from the court of Spain at Rome, and his conduct in this office acquired him general esteem. In 1636, he assisted at the electoral congress held there, in which Ferdinand III. was chosen king of the Romans. He afterwards was present at eight diets held in Swisserland, and lastly at the general diet of the empire at Ratisbonne, where he appeared in quality of plenipotentiary of the circle and of the house of Burgundy. After being employed in some other diplomatic affairs, he returned to Madrid in 1646, and was appointed master of ceremonies in the introduction of ambassadors; but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died Aug. 24, 1648. In his public character he rendered the state very important services, and, as a writer, is ranked among those who have contributed to polish and enrich the Spanish language. The Spanish critics, who place him among their classics, say he wrote Spanish as Tacitus wrote Latin. He has long been known, even in this country, by his “Emblems,” which were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in the early part of the last century. These politico-moral instructions for a Christian prince, were first printed in 1640, 4to, under the title of “Idea de un Principe Politico* Christiano representada en cien empress,” and reprinted at Milan in 1642; they were afterwards translated into Latin, and published under the title of “Symbola Christiano-Politica,” and have often been reprinted in various sizes in France, Italy, and Holland. He wrote also “Corona Gotica, Castellana, y Austriaca politicamente illustrada,” 1646, 4to, which was to have consisted of three parts, but he lived to complete one only: the rest was by Nunez de Castro; and “Respublica Literaria,” published in 1670, 8vo. Of this work an English translation was published by I. E. in 1727. It is a kind of vision, giving a satirical account of the republic of letters, not unlike the manner of Swift. The French have a translation of it, so late as 1770.

, known likewise by the name of Andrea da Salerno, is the first artist that deserves notice, of the Neapolitan school. He is supposed to have been born about 1480. Enamoured of the style of Pietro Perugino, who had painted an Assumption of the Virgin in the dome of Naples, he set out for Perugia to become his pupil; but hearing at an inn on the road some painters extol the works of Raphael in the Vatican, he altered his mine!, went to Rome, and entered that master’s school. His stay there was short, for the death of his father obliged him to return home against his will in 1513; he returned, however, a new man. It is said that he painted with Raphael at the Pace, and in the Vatican, and that he copied Jiis pictures well: he certainly emulated his manner with success. Compared with his fellow-scholars, if he falls short of Julio, he soars above Raphael del Colle and the rest of that sphere. He had correctness and selection of attitude and features, depth of shade, perhaps too much sharpness in the marking of the muscles, a broad style of folding in his draperies, and a colour which even now maintains its freshness. Of his numerous works at Naples mentioned in the catalogue of his pictures, the altarpieces at S. Maria delle Grazie deserve perhaps preference; for his fn scoes there and elsewhere, extolled by the writers as miracles of art, are now, the greater part, destroyed. He painted likewise at Salerno, Gaeta, and other places of the kingdom, for churches and private collections, where his Madonnas often rival those of Raphael. This distinguished artist died in 1545.

, a Lybian, known in ecclesiastical history as the head of the sect called Sabellians, lived in the third century, and was born at Ptolemais, and was a disciple of Noetus. He reduced the three persons in the Trinity to three states, or relations, or rather reduced the whole Trinity to the one person of the Father; making the Word and Holy Spirit to be the only emanations or functions thereof. Epiphanius tells us, that the God of the Sabellians, whom they called the Father, resembled the Son, and was a mere subtraction, whereof the Son was the illuminative virtue or quality, and the Holy Ghost the warming virtue. This sect had many followers in Mesopotamia and Rome; but their doctrines are so obscurely -expressed, as to create doubts as to what they really were. It is certain, however, that they were condemned by the Trinitarians, and therefore Lardner, and his followers, seem pleased to add Sabellius to the scanty list of Unitarians of the early ages

, whose family name was Schalter, one of the best Latin poets of his time, was born in the electorate of Brandenburg in 1508; and, at fifteen, sent to Wittemberg, where he was privately instructed by Melancthon, in whose house he lived. He had a great ambitioft: to excel and an enthusiastic regard for what was excellent, especially in Latin poetry and although the specimens ht^ studied made him somewhat diffident of his powers, he ventured to submit to the public, in his twenty-second year, a poem, entitled “Res Gestse Csesarum Germanorum,” which spread his reputation all over Germany, and made all the princes, who had any regard for polite literature, his friends and patrons. Afterwards he travelled into Italy, where he contracted an acquaintance with Bembus and other learned men; and, on his return visited Erasmus at Friburg, when that great man was in the last stage of life. In 1536, he married Melancthon’s eldest daughter, at Wittemberg, to whom he was engaged before his journey into Italy. She was only fourteen, but very handsome, and understood Latin well and Sabinus always lived happily with her but he had several altercations with Melancthon, because he wanted to raise himself to civil employments; and did not relish the humility of Melancthon, who confined himself to literary pursuits, and would be at no trouble to advance his children. This misunderstanding occasioned Sabinus to remove into Prussia in 1543, with his wife, who afterwards died at Konigsberg in 1547. He settled, for some little time, at Francfort upon the Oder, and was made professor of the belles lettres by the appointment of the elector of Brandenburg; and was afterwards promoted to be rector of the new university of Konigsberg, which was opened in 1544. His eloquence and learning brought him to the knowledge of Charles V. who ennobled him, and he was also employed on some embassies, particularly by the elector of Brandenburg into Italy, where he seems to have contracted an illness, of which he died in 1560, the same year in which Melancthon died. His Latin poems were published at Leipsic in 1558 and 1597, the latter with additions and letters. He published some other works, less known, which are enumerated by Niceron.

, an Italian poet, but better known as a writer of novels, was born at Florence about 1335, of an ancient family, some branches of which had held employments of great trust and dignity in the republic. While young he composed some amatory verses, in imitation of Petrarch, but with a turn of thought and style peculiar to himself, and he was frequently employed in drawing up poetical inscriptions for public monuments, &c. in which sentiments of morality and a love of liberty were expected to be introduced. Some of these are still extant, but are perhaps more to be praised for the subject than the style. Sacchetti, when more advanced in life, filled several offices of the magistracy both at Florence and different parts of Tuscany, and formed an acquaintance with the most eminent men of his time, by whom he was highly respected. He suffered much, however, during the civil contests of his country. He is supposed to have died about the beginning of the fifteenth century. Very little of his poetry has been published. He is principally known by his “Novels,” an excellent edition of which was published at Florence in 1724, 2 vols. 8vo, by Bottari, who has prefixed an account of his life. These tales are in the manner of Boccaccio, but shorter, more lively, and in general more decent.

“He was a man,” says Dr. Johnson, “whose elegance and judgment were universally confessed, and whose bounty to the learned and witty was generally known. To the indulgent affection of the public, lord Rochester bore ample testimony in this remark: ‘ I know not how it is, but lord Buckhurst may do what he will, yet is never in the wrong.’ If such a man attempted poetry, we cannot wonder that his works were praised. Dryden, whom, if Prior tells truth, he distinguished by his beneficence, and who lavished his blandishments on those who are not known to have so well deserved them, undertaking to produce authors of our own country superior to those of antiquity, says, c I would instance your Lordship in satire, and Shakspeare in tragedy.' Would it be imagined thai, of this rival to antiquity, all the satires were little personal invectives, and that his longest composition was a song of eleven stanzas The blame, however, of this exaggerated praise falls on the encomiast, not upon the author; whose performances are, what they pretend to be, the effusions of a man of wit; gay, vigorous, and airy. His verses to Howard shew great fertility of mind; and his Dorinda” has been imitated by Pope.

This work has been long known in Europe by the edition and translation published by the learned Gentius, under the title of “Rosarium politicum, sive amoenum sortis humanae Theatrum, Per4ce et Lat.” Amst. 1651, fol. There was also a French traii&Jation by P. du Ryer, 1634, 8vo, and another by d'Alegre, in 1704, 12mo, since which the abbe Gaudin gave a preferable translation, first in 1789, under the title of “Essai historique sur la legislation de la Perse,” and afterwards by the more appropriate title of “Gulistan, ou l'empire des roses,” 1791, 8vo. The English public was in some degree made acquainted with this work by a publication by Stephen Sullivan, esq. entitled “Select Fables from Gulistan, or the Bed of Roses, translated from the original Persian of Sadi,” 1774, 12 mo. These are chiefly of a political tendency, recommending justice and humanity to princes. Mr. Qiadwjn’s includes the whole, and is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of Persian manners and morals. Sadi’s other works are entitled “Bostan, or the Garden of Flowers,” which is in verse, and “Molamaat;” in Arabic, sparks, rays, or specimens. We may add, that Olearius published the “GuJistan,” in German, with plates, in 1634, fol. under the title of “Persianischer Rosenthal.”

, the first of French novelists, was born, according to one of his biographers, in 1677, at Ruys, in Britanny; or, according to another, in 1668, at Vannes. At the age of twenty-five he came to Paris, with a view to study philosophy. His talents, although they did not display themselves very early, proved to be equally brilliant and solid. He made himself first known by a paraphrastic translation of the “Letters of Aristsenetus,” which he published in two small volumes. He then travelled through Spain, and applied to the study of the Spanish language, customs, and writers, from whom he adopted plots and fables, and transfused them into his native tongue with great facility and success. His works of this kind are, “Guzman D'Alfarache” the “Bachelor of Salamanca;” “Gil Bias;” “New Adventures of Don Quixote,” originally written by Avellaneda; “The Devil on two Sticks,” as it is called in our translation, in French “Le Diable boiteux,” and some others of less note. Of the “Devil on two Sticks,” we are told that the first edition had amazing success, and the second sold with still greater rapidity. Two noblemen coming to the bookseller’s, found only one single copy remaining, which each was for purchasing: and the dispute grew so warm, that they were going to decide it by the sword, had not the bookseller interposed. He was also distinguished for some dramatic pieces, of which “Crispin,” and “Turcaret,” both comedies, were the most successful, and allowed to fall very little short of the genius of Moliere. “Turcaret,” which was first played in 1709, has been praised by the French critics, as comprehending a dialogue just and natural, characters drawn with peculiar fidelity, and a well-conducted plot. He composed also many pieces for the comic opera, which, if somewhat deficient in invention, were in general sprightly, and enriched with borrowed fancies very happily adapted to the genius of the French theatre.

, an anatomist, well known in this country on account of the imposture of the Rabbit-woman, and for various eccentricities of conduct, was a native of Switzerland, but, on coming over to England, was placed by some friends under a surgeon of eminence, in which profession he became skilful. He, for a time, read public lectures on anatomy, and obtained considerable reputation; which was ruined by the part he took in the affair of Mary Tofts, as well as by many other irregularities of character. He died in 1776, after having been for many years the subject of more curiosity and conversation than any of his contemporaries, though without any extraordinary talents, or claims to distinction. They who are curious to know more of his character may have their curiosity gratified in the “Anecdotes of Hogarth” by Nichols.

, an English lawyer and law-writer of the sixteenth century, is supposed to have been born at Skilton, near Coventry, in Warwickshire, and educated for some time at Oxford, whence he removed to the Inner Temple for the study of the law. After being admitted to the bar, he became an eminent counsellor, and we should suppose a very popular one, as he frequently refused or returned his fees. What he got by honourable practice and some paternal estate, he expended in the purchase of books, and gathered a very fine library, which was all the property he left to his heirs. Besides his legal knowledge, he was conversant in philosophy and the divinity of the times, and wrote on the latter subject with so much freedom as to render his sentiments suspected, for which reason Bale has given him a very advantageous character. He is commended too for his piety, and pious ordering of his family, to whom he read every night a chapter in the Bible, and expounded it. He died Sept. 28, 1540, and not 1539, as Bale states. He was buried in the church of St. Alphage, within CrL'pp legate, London. It appears by his will that he was a considerable benefactor to Skiiton church, where his father sir Henry St. German, knt. and his mother lie buried, and to that of Laleford. St. German has immortalized his name by his valuable and well-known work, which bears the title of “The Doctor and Student, or Dialogues between a doctor of divinity, and a student in the laws of England, concerning the grounds of those laws,” first printed by Rastell, in Latin, 1523, 12mo, and reprinted in 1528. Mr. Bridgman enumerates above twenty editions which followed, the last in 1787, 8vo, with questions and cases concerning the equity of the law, corrected and improved by William Muchall, or Murchall. On the subject of this celebrated work, Mr. Hargrave (in his Law Tracts, 32 I), has published from a ms. in the Cotton library, “A Replication of a Serjaunte at the Laws of England, to certayne pointes alleaged by a student of the said lawes of England, in a Dialogue in Englishe, between a doctor of divinity and the said student;” and a little “Treatise concerning writs of Subpoena.” Two other tracts are attributed by Ames to St. German, though they bear the name of Thomas Godfrey, viz. “A Treatise concerning the power of the Clergy and of the lawes of the Realme,” 12mo, no date and “A Treatise concernynge divers of the Constitucyons provyncyall and legantines,” 12mo, no date. Tanner attributes to him “A Treatise concerning the division between the Spiritualitie and the Temporaltie,” printed by Redman without date; and this seems to be the same work as “The Pacyfyer of the division between the Spiritualitie aod Temporaltie,” printed by Berthelet, which being remarkable for impartiality and temperate language, was pointed out to sir Thomas More, as an example for him to follow in his controversial writings. This incited sir Thomas to publish “An Apologye made by him, anno 1533, after he had gevhi over th' office of lord chancellor of Englande,” printed by Rastell, 1533, 12mo. St. German was also probably the author of “Newe addicions treating most specially of the power of the Parlyament concernynge the Spiritualitie and the Spiritual Jurisdiction,” 1531, 12mo, now reprinted in all the modern editions of the “Doctor and Student.” He had a controversy with sir Thomas More, which produced “Salem and Bizance, being a dialogue between two Englishmen, one called Salem, and the other Bizance,” 1533, 8vo. This was written in answer to More’s “Apologye” above mentioned and sir Thomas replied in the “Debellation of Salem and Bizance,” by Rastell, in 1533, 8vo.

Upon the death of his father, who lived to be extremely old, he settled at Battersea, the ancient seat of the family, where he passed the remainder of his life. His age, his genius, perfected by long experience and much reflection, gave him a superiority over most of his contemporaries, which his works have not altogether preserved. Pope and Swift, however, were among his most ardent admirers; and it is well known, that the former received from him the materials for his “Essay on Man.” Yet, even in this retirement, he did not neglect the consideration of public affairs; for, after the conclusion of the war in 1747, upon measures being taken which did not agree with his notions of political prudence, he began “Some Reflections on the present state of the nation, principally with regard to her taxes and debts, and on the causes and consequences of them:” but he did not finish them. In 1749, came out his “Letters on the spirit of Patriotism, on the idea of a Patriot King, and on the state of parties at the accession of king George I:” with a preface in which Pope’s conduct, with regard to that piece, is represented as an inexcusable act of treachery to him. Of this subject we have already taken sufficient notice in our accounts of Mallet and Pope, Bolingbroke was now approaching his end. For some time a cancerous humour in his face had made considerable progress, and he was persuaded to apply an empirical remedy, which exposed him to the most excruciating tortures. Lord Chesterfield saw him, for the last time, the day before these tortures be^an. Bolingbroke, when they parted, embraced his old friend with tenderness, and said “God, who placed me here, will do what he pleases with me hereafter, and he knows best what to do. May he bless you” About a fortnight after he died, at his house at Battersea, Nov. 15, 1751, nearU eighty years old, if the date usually assigned to his birth be correct. His corpse was interred with tiiose of his ancestors in that church, where there is a marble monument erected to his memory.

His lordship’s estate and honours descended to his nephew; the care and profits of his manuscripts he left to Mallet, who published them, together with his works already printed, in 1754, 5 vls. 4to. They may be divided into, political anil philosophical w-jrks: the former of which have been mentioned already, and consist of “Letters upon History,” “Letter to Wyndham,” “Letters on Patriotism,” and papers in the “Craiisman;” which had been separately printed in 3 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Dissertation upon Parties,” “Remarks on the History of England,” and “Political Tracts.” His philosophical works consist of, “The substance of some letters written originally in French about 1720 to Mr. de Pouilly letter occasioned by one of abp. Tillotson’s sermons and letters or essays addressed to Alexander Pope, esq.” As Mallet had published an 8vo edition of the “Letters on History,” and the “Letter to Wyndham,” before the 4to edition of the works came out, he afterwards published separately the philosophical writings, 5 vols. 8vo. These essays, addressed to Pope, on philosophy and religion, contain many things which deny or ridicule the great truths of revelation; and, on this account, not only exposed the deceased author to the just animadversions of several writers, but occasioned also a presentment of his works by the grand jury of Westminster; but the saie of them was very slow, and of late years they are perhaps still less consulted. An edition, however, was published in 1809, in 8 vols. 8vo, with many additions, from subsequent authorities, to the life of Bolingbroke, which was written by Dr. Goldsmith. Some time before this, a valuable collection of lord Bolingbroke’s political correspondence was published in 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo, by the rev. Gilbert Parke, which contains much information respecting the memorable peace of Utrecht. His character has been drawn by various able pens, by Chesterfield, Mrs. Cot.kburn, Ruffhead (under the guidance of Warburton), lord Walpole, Horace Walpole, lord Orrery, &c. c. and although they differ in some points, coincide in proving that lord Bolingbroke was considered by all as a politician of an important class; that those who have been at most pains to dt fame him as an enemy, would have been very desirous to secure him as a friend, and that they uiay be credited in every thing sooner than in their affecting to undervalue his talents. Ambition and immorality constitute the great objections to his public and private character. His infidt- 1 principles were not much known before his death, except to his friends. Like Chesterfield and Hume, he left something behind him worse than he had produced in his life-time, and subjected himself to accusations to which he could no longer reply. In his character since, he has suffered equally by the just resentment of piety, and by the unforgiving prejudices of party; and an impartial history of his Conduct and opinions is perhaps yet a desideratum.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Auxerre in 1697. The only information we have of his earlv life is restricted to a notice of the affection which subsisted between him and his twin-brother M. de la Curne. It appears that he devoted himself to researches into the language and antiquities of his country, and was admitted a member of the French academy, and that of inscriptions. In all his labours he was assisted by his brother, who lived with him, and was his inseparable associate in his studies, and even in his amusements. St. Palaye died in 1781. La Harpe has published some spirited verses which he addressed in his eightieth year to a lady who had embroidered a waistcoat for him; but he is chiefly known as an author by “Memoires sur PAncienne Chevalerie,” 3 vols. 12mo, in which he paints in very lively colours the manners and customs of that institution. Mrs. Dobson published an English translation of this in 1784. After his decease the abbe Millot drew up, from his papers, “L'Histoire des Troubadours,” in 3 vols. 12mo. St. Palaye had meditated on an “Universal French Glossary,” which was to be more copious than that of Du Cange, and left two works in manuscript, one a history of the variations that have taken place in the French language, the other a Dictionary of French antiquities.

, a learned writer in the sixteenth century, born at Utrecht, was successively minister of several churches in Holland, and lastly at the Hague, where he died in 1694. His most known and valuable works are, “Otia Theologica,” 4to, containing dissertations on different subjects, from the Old and New Testament “Concionator Sacer,” 12mo; and <c De Libris varioque eorum usu et abusu," Amsterdam, 1668, 12mo.

, a learned Jesuit of Avignon, where he was born in 1557, entered into that society in 1578, and became a noted tutor. He was afterwards made rector of the college of Besancon, and died at Paris Jan. 23, 1640, in the eighty-third year of his age. He wrote some pious tracts, but is principally known for his “Annals of the Old Testament,” published in 1618 24, b vols. folio. As this work appeared too voluminous for general use, M. de Sponde, bishop of Pamiers, requested leave to publish an abridgment in the manner of his abridgment of Baronius; but Salian, conscious how much originals suffer by abridgments, refused this request with much politeness; and when induced at last to make an abridgment himself, contrived to do it in such a manner as to render the original almost indispensable to his readers.

Mr. Salmon died April 2, 1742, leaving three daughters. His elder brother, Thomas, honoured with the name of the historiographer, is said to have died in 1743, but must have been living some years after this, when he published his account of Cambridge, &c. Mr. Cole says, “he was brought up to no learned profession, yet had no small turn for writing, as his many productions shew, most of which were written when he resided at Cambridge, where at last he kept a coffee-house, but not having sufficient custom, removed to London.” He told Mr. Cole that he had been much at sea, and had resided in both Indies for some time. His best known publication, and that is not much known now, is his “Modern History, or Present State of all Nations,” published in many volumes, 8vo, about 1731, &c. and re-published, if we mistake not,' in 3 vols. folio, from which it was afterwards abridged in 2 vols. and long continued to be published under various fictitious names. He wrote also “Considerations on the bill for a general naturalization, as it may conduce to the improvement of our manufactures and traffic, and to the strengthening or endangering of the constitution, exemplified in the revolutions that have happened in this kingdom, by inviting over foreigners to settle among us. With an Inquiry into the nature of the British constitution, and the freedom or servitude of the lower class of people, in the several changes it has undergone,” Lond. 1748, 8vo. “The Foreigner’s Companion through the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the adjacent counties, describing the several colleges and other public buildings, with an account of their respective founders, benefactors, bishops, and other eminent men educated in them,” ibid. 1748, 8vo. This title we give from Cole, as we have not seen the work. Previously to this, Mr. Salmon intended to write “The present state of the Universities, and of the five adjacent counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford, Bucks, and Oxford,” but published only the first volume, 1744, 8vo, which contains the history of Oxford, county and university. To this are added some shrewd remarks on university education, and a college life, with the expences attending it. In the preface he speaks of a “General Description of England, and particularly of London the metropolis,” in 2 Vols. which he had published. His name is also to a “Geographical Grammar,” an “Examination of Burnet’s History of his own Times,” and other works. The “New Historic cal account of St. George for England, and the original of this order,” Lond. 1704, is ascribed by Mr. Gough to Mr. Thomas Salmon, the father, who, it may now be mentioned, was distinguished as a musical theorist, and wrote “An Essay to the Advancement of Music, by casting away the Perplexity of different Cliffs; and uniting all sorts of Music, Lute, Viols, Violins, Organ, Harpsichord, Voice, &c. in one universal Character, by Thomas Salmon, A. IVL of Trinity College, Oxfo/d,” London, 1672. This book, says Dr. Burney, “is well written, and, though very illiberally treated by Lock, Play ford, and some Other professors, contains nothing that is either absurd or impracticable; iior could we discover any solid objection to its doctrines being adopted, besides the effect it would have upon ol*d music, by soon rendering it unintelligible. At present the tenor clef alone is thought an insuperable difficulty in our country, by dilettanti performers on the harpsichord; but if Salmon’s simple and easy musical alphabet were chiefly in use, the bass clef would likewise be soon rendered as obsolete and difficult as the tenor; so that two parts or clefs out of three, in present use, would become unintelligible.”

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

, a learned Jesuit of France, was born at Rouen in 1676. He taught polite literature with distinguished reputation at Caen, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Huet, bishop of Avranche. A taste for poetry is said to have been the principal bond of their union. He afterwards professed rhetoric at Paris; and was for some time charged with the education of the prince of Conti. He was librarian to the king when he died, September 2 I, 1733. He published separately various Latin poems, which are reckoned among the purest of modern times; and also published them in a collected form, “ Carnumim libri quatuor,” Paris, 1715, 12mo, and various theses and philological dissertations but is best known by his translation of the works of Horace with notes a work which has been very well received. The satires and epistles are ably translated; but the odes are rather weakened by a languid paraphrase than a version answerable to the original. His notes are learned, and many of them very useful for understanding his author; but there are also marks of a falsely delicate and fastidious taste, not uncommon among French critics. The best editions of his Horace are those of Paris, 1728, 2 vols. 4to, and 1756, 3 vols. 12mo.

, a learned physician, was born March 7, 1766, at Penna-Macor, in Portugal. His father, who was an opulent merchant, and iritended him for the bar, gave him a liberal education; but, being displeased at finding him, at the age of eighteen, obstinately bent on the profession of physic, withdrew his protection, and he was indebted to Dr. Nunés Ribeiro, his mother’s brother, who was a physician of considerable repute at Lisbon, for the means of prosecuting his medical studies, which he did, first at Coimbra, and afterwards at Salamanca, where he took the degree of M. D. in 1724; and the year following procured the appointment of phvsician to the town of Benevente in Portugal; for which, as is the custom of that country, he had a small pension, His stay at this place, however, was hut short. He was desirous of seeing more of the world, and of improving himself in his profession. With this view he came and passed two years in London, and had even an intention of fixing there; but a bad state of health, which he attributed to the climate, induced him to return to the continent. Soon after, we find him prosecuting his medical studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Boerhaavc; and it will be a sufficient proof of his diligence and merit to observe, that in 1731, when the Empress of Russia (Anne) requested Boerhaave to recommend -to her three physicians, the professor immediately fixed upon Dr. Sanches to be one of the number. Just as he was setting out for Russia, he was informed that his father was lately dead; and that his mother, in an unsuccessful law-suit with the Portuguese admiralty, had lost the greater part of her fortune. He immediately assigned over his own little claims and expectations in Portugal for her support. Soon after his arrival at St. Petersburg, Dr. Bidloo (son of the famous physician of that name), who was at that time first physician to the empress, -ave him an appointment in the hospital at Moscow, where he remained till 1734, when he was employed as physician to the army, in which capacity he was present at the siege of Asoph, where he was attacked with a dangerous fever, and, when he began to recover, found himself in a tent, abandoned by hjs attendants, and plundered of his papers and effects. In 1740, he was appointed one of the physicians to the court, and consulted by the empress, who had for eight years been labouring under a disease, the cause of which had never been satisfactorily ascertained Dr. Sanches, jn a conversation with the prime minister, gave it us his opinion, that the complaint originated from a stone in one of the kidneys, and admitted only of palliation. At the end of six: months the empress died, and the truth of his opinion was confirmed by dissection. Soon after the death of the empress, Dr. Sanche*s was advanced by the regent to the office of first physician; but the revolution of 1742, which placed Elizabeth Petrowna on the throne, deprived him of all his appointments. Hardly a day passed that he did not hear of some of his friends perishing on the scaffold; and it was not without much difficulty that he obtained leave to retire from Russia. His library, which had cost him 1200 pounds sterling, he disposed of to the academy of St. Petersburg, of which he was an honorary member; and, in return, they agreed to give him a pension of forty pounds per annum. During his residence in Russia, he had availed himself of his situation at court, to establish a correspondence with the Jesuits in China, who, in return for books of astronomy and other presents, sent him seeds or plants, together with other articles of natural history. It was from Dr. Sanche*s that the late Mr. Peter Cqllinson first received the seeds of the true rhubarb, but the plants were destroyed by some accident; and it was not till several years afterwards that rhubarb was cultivated with success in this country, from seeds sent over by the late Dr. Mounsey. In 1747, he went to reside at Paris, where he remained till his death. He enjoyed the friendship of the celebrated physicians and philosophers of that capital, and, at the institution of a Royal Medical Society, he was chosen a foreign associate. He was likewise a member of the royal academy of Lisbon, to the establishment of which his advice had probably contributed, as he drew up, at the desire of the court of Portugal, several memorials on the plans necessary to be adopted for the encouragement of science. Some of these papers, relative to the establishment of an university, were printed during his lifetime in Portuguese, and the rest have been found among. his manuscripts. His services in Russia remained for sixteen years unnoticed but, when the late empress Catherine ascended the throne, Dr. Sanches was not forgotten. He had attended her in a dangerous illness when she was very young; and she now rewarded him with a pension of a thousand roubles, which was punctually paid till his death. He likewise received a, pension from the court of Portugal, and another from prince Gallitzin. A great part of this income he employed in acts of benevolence. Of the liberality with with he administered to the wants of his rela T tions and friends, several striking instances, which our limits will not permit us to insert, have been related by Mr. de Magellan. He was naturally of an infirm habit of body, and, during the last thirty years of his life, frequently voided small stones with his urine. The disposition to this disease increased as he advanced in years, and for a considerable time before his death, he was confined to his apartments. The last visit he mad was, in 1782, to the grand duke of Russia, who was then at Paris. In September 1783, he perceived that his end was approaching, and he died on the 14th of October following. His library, which was considerable, he bequeathed to his brother, Dr. Marcello Sanches, who was likewise a pupil of Boerhaave", and who resided at Naples. His manuscripts (amorig which, besides a considerable number of papers on medical subjects, are letters written by him to Boerhaave. Van Swiften, Gaubius, Halter, Werlhof, Pringle, Fothergill, and other learned men) are in. the possession of Dr. An dry. His printed works, on the origin of the venereal disease and other subjects, are well known to medical readers; but his knowledge, it seems, was not confined to his own profession; he possessed a fund of general learning, and is said to have been profoundly versed in politics.

* The first edition was patronized originally written with a view to pubiiby a subscription not known since the cation. She declared, therefore, “that days of the Spectator. The work was no such idea was ever expressed by published for the benefit of the author’s Mr. Sancho; and that not a single letfamily, by Miss Crewe, an amiable ter was printed from any duplicate young lady, to whom many of the let- preserved by himself, but all were co!­ter< are addressed, and who is since lected from the various friends 10 whom married to John Phillips, esq. surgeon they were addressed.” Her reasons of the household to the Prince of Wales, for publishing them were “the desire From the profits of the first edition, and of shewing that an untutored African a sum paid by the booksellers for li- may possess abilities equal to an Euberty to print a second edition, Mrs. ropean and the still superior motive Sancho, we are well assured, received of wishing to serve his worthy family, more than 500l. The editor did not And she was happy,” she declared, venture to give them to the public till “in publicly acknowledging phe had she had obviated an objection which not found the world inattentive to the had been suggested, that they were voice of obscure merit.” and of great reputation for diligence and faithfulness. He is said to have collected out of the most authentic records he could procure, the “Antiquities of Phoenicia,” with the help of some memoirs which came from Hierombaal, [Hierobaal, or Gideon,] a priest of the God Jeuo or Jao. He wrote several things also relating to the Jews. These “Antiquities of the Phoenicians,” Philo-Byblius, in the same Phoenicia, in the days of Adrian, translated into Greek; and Athenseus soon afterward reckoned him among the Phoenician writers. A large and noble fragment of this workj Eusebius has given us, verbatim, in his first book of “Evangelical Preparation,” cap. ix. x. and has produced the strong attestation of Porphyry, the most learned heathen of that age, to its authenticity. Upon these authorities, many learned men have concluded that the genuine writings of Sanchoniathon were translated by Philo-Byblius, and that Sanchoniathon derived a great part of his information from the books of Moses, nay, some have supposed that Thoth, called by the Greeks, Hermes, and by the Romans, Mercury, was only another name for Moses; but the inconsistencies, chiefly chronological* which the learned have detected in these accounts, and especially the silence of the ancients concerning this historian, who, if he had deserved the character given him by Porphyry > could not have been entirely over-looked, create a just ground of suspicion, either against Porphyry or PhiloByblius. It seems most probable, that Philo-Byblius fabricated the work from the ancient cosmogonies, pretending to have translated it from the Phoenician, in order to provide the Gentiles with an account of the origin of the world, which might be set in opposition to that of Moses. Eusebius and Theodoret, indeed, who, like the rest of the fathers, were too credulous in matters of this kind, and after them some eminent modern writers, have imagined, that they have discovered a resemblance between Sanchoniathon’s account of the formation of the world and that of Moses. But an accurate examination of the doctrine of Sanchoniathon, as it appears in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, will convince the unprejudiced reader, that the Phoenician philosophy, if indeed it be Phoenician, is directly opposite to the Mosaic. Sanchoniathon teaches, that, from the necessary energy of an eternal principle, active but without intelligence, upon an eternal passive chsiptic mass, or Mot, arose the visible world; a doctrine, of which there are some appearances in the ancient cosmogonies, and which was not without its patrons among the Greeks. It is therefore not unreasonable to conjecture, that the work was forged in opposition to the Jewish cosmogony, and that this was the circumstance which rendered it so acceptable to Porphyry. Such is the opinion of Brucker on this history; and Dodwell and Dupin, the former in an express treatise, have also endeavoured to invalidate its authenticity.

, an ingenious artist, descended from a branch of the family of Saunby, of Babworth in Nottinghamshire, was born at Nottingham in 1732. In 1746 he came to London, and having an early predilection for the arts, procured admission to the drawing room in the Tower, where he first studied. In 1748, William duke of Cumberland, wishing to have a survey of the Highlands of Scotland, which was the scene of his memorable campaign in 1745-6, Mr. Sandby was appointed draughtsman, under the inspection of general David Watson, with whom he travelled through the North and Western parts of that most romantic country, and made many sketches. During his stay at Edinburgh he made a number of small etchings from these designs; which on his return to London were published in a folio volume. But drawing of plans abounding in straight lines being neither congenial to his taste nor worthy of his talents, he in 1752 quitted the service of the survey, and resided with his brother, Mr. Thomas Sandby, at Windsor, and during his continuance there took more than seventy views of Windsor and Eton. The accuracy, taste, and spirit with which they were in an eminent degree marked, so forcibly struck sir Joseph Banks, that he purchased them all, and at a very liberal price. Mr. Sandby had soon afterwards the honour of being one of this gentleman’s party in a tour through North and South Walesj and made a great number of sketches from remarkable scenes, castles, seats, &c. Under the patronage of the late sir Watkin Williams Wynne, he afterwards took many more views from scenes in the same country, which with those before mentioned he transferred to copper-plates, and made several sets of prints in imitation of drawings, in bister or Indian ink. The first hint of the process by which this effect is given to an engraving, Mr. Sandby is said to have received from the hon. Charles Greville, a gentleman of acknowledged taste and judgment in every branch of polite art. Profiting by this hint, Mr. Sandby so far improved upon it as to bring the captivating art of Aquatinta to a degree of perfection never before known in this country.

, an English writer, whose history may not be unuseful, was a native of Scotland, and born in, or near, Breadalbane, about 1727. He was by business a comb-maker; but not being successful in trade, and having some talents, some education, and a good memory, he commenced a hackney writer, and in that capacity produced some works which have been relished by the lower class of readers. When he came to London is uncertain; but, having travelled over most of the northern parts of these kingdoms, he compiled, from his own survey and the information of books, an itinerary, entitled “The Complete English Traveller,” folio. It was published in numbers, with the fictitious name of Spencer, professedly on the plan of Fuller’s Worthies, with biographical notices of the most eminent men of each county. As the dealers in this kind of publications thought it too good a thing to be lost, it has been republished, depriving Mr. Spencer of his rights, and giving them to three fictitious gentlemen, Mr. Burlington for England, Mr. Murray for Scotland, and Mr. Llewellyn for Wales. He also compiled, about 1764, a work in 5 or 6 vols. 8vo, with cuts, entitled “The Newgate Calendar, or Memoirs of those unfortunate culprits who fall a sacrifice to the injured laws of their country, and thereby make their exit at Tyburn.” He was some time engaged with lord Lyttelton, in assisting his lordship to compile his “History of Henry II.;” and Dr. Johnson, in his life of that poetical nobleman, introduces this circumstance in no very honourable manner. “When time,” says he, “brought the history to a third edition, Reid (the former corrector) was either dead or discharged; and the superintendence of typography and punctuation was committed to a man originally a conjb-maker, but then known by the style of Doctor Sanders. Something uncommon was probably expected, and something uncommon was at last done; for to the doctor’s edition is appended, what the world had hardly seen before, a list of errors of nineteen pages. 7 ' His most considerable work was his” Gaffer Greybeard,“an illiberal piece, in 4 vols. 12mo, in which the characters of the most eminent dissenting divines, his contemporaries, are very freely handled. He had, perhaps suffered either by the contempt or the reproof of some of that persuasion, and therefore endeavoured to revenge himself on the whole, ridiculing, in particular, Dr. Gill under the name of Dr. Half-pint, and Dr. Gibbons under that of Dr. Hymn-maker. He was also the author of the notes to a Bible published weekly under the name of the rev. Henry Southwell: for this he received about twentyfive or twenty-six shillings per week, while Dr. Southwell, the pseudo-commentator, received one hundred guineas for the use of his name, he having no other recommendation to the public, by which he might merit a posthumous memory, than his livings. Dr. Sanders also compiled” Letter-writers,“” Histories of England,“and other works of the paste and scissors kind but his” Roman History," written in a series of letters from a nobleman to his son, in 2 vols. 12mo, has some merit. Towards the latter end of his days he projected a general chronology of all nations, and had already printed some sheets of the work, under the patronage of lord Hawke, when a disorder upon his lungs put a period to his existence, March 19, 1783. He was much indebted to the munificence of Mr. Granville Sharp. More particulars of this man’s history and of the secrets of Bible-making may be seen in our authority.

, an eminent English bishop, was descended from an ancient family, and was the youngest son of Robert Sanderson, of Gilthwaite-hall, Yorkshire, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Richard Carr, of Butterthwaite-hall, in the parish of Ecclesfield. He was born at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, Sept. 19, 1587, and educated in the grammar-school there, where he made so uncommon a progress in the languages, that, at thirteen, he was sent to Lincoln college in Oxford. Soon after taking his degree of B. A. his tutor told Dr. Kilbie, the rector, that his “pupil Sanderson had a metaphysical brain, and a matchless memory, and that he thought he had improved or made the last so by an art of his own invention.” While at college, he generally spent eleven hours a day in study, chiefly of philosophy and the classics. In 1606 he was chosen fellow, and in July 1608, completed his degree of M. A. In November of the same year, he was elected logic reader, and re-elected in Nov. 1609. His lectures on this subject were published in 1615, and ran through several editions. In 1613, 1614, and 1616, he served the office of sub-rector, and in the latter of those years, that of proctor. In 1611, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. King, bishop of London, and took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1617. In 1618, he was presented by his cousin sir Nicolas Sanderson, lord viscount Castleton, to the rectory of Wybberton, near Boston, in Lincolnshire, but resigned it the year following on account of the unhealthiness of its situation; and about the same time was collated to the rectory of Boothby-Paniiell, or Paynel, in the same county, which he enjoyed above forty years. Having now quitted his fellowship, he married Anne, the daughter of Henry Nelson, B. D. rector of Haugham in the county of Lincoln; and soon after was made a prebendary of Southwell, as he was also of Lincoln in 1629. He continued to attend to his parochial duties in a very exemplary manner, and particularly laboured much to reconcile differences, and prevent law-suits both in his parish, and in the neighbourhood. He also often visited sick and disconsolate families, giving advice and often pecuniary assistance, or obtaining the latter by applications to persons of opulence. He was often called upon to preach at assizes and visitations; but his practice of reading his sermons, as it was then not very common, raised some prejudice against him. Walton observes, that notwithstanding he had an extraordinary memory, he had such an innate bashfulness and sense of fear, as to render it of little use in the delivery of his sermons. It was remarked, when his sermons were printed in 1632, that “the best sermons that were ever read, were never preached.” At the beginning of the reign of Charles I. he was chosen one of the clerks in convocation for the diocese of Lincoln; and Laud, then bishop of London, having recommended him to that king as a man excellently skilled in casuistical learning, he was appointed chaplain to his majesty in 1631. When he became known to the king, his majesty put many cases of conscience to him, and received from him solutions which gave him so great satisfaction, that at the end of his month’s attendance, which was in November, the king told him, that “he should long for next November; for he resolved to have more inward acquaintance with him, when the month and he returned.” The king indeed was never absent from his sermons, and used to say, that “he carried his ears to hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson.” In 1633 he obtained, through the earl of Rutland’s interest, the rectory of Muston, in Leicestershire, which he held eight years. In Aug. 1636, when the court was entertained at Oxford, he was,‘ among others, created D. D. In 1642, he was proposed by both Houses of parliament to king Charles, who was then at Oxford, to be one of their trustees for the settling of church affairs, and approved by the king: but that treaty came to nothing. The same year, his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford, with the canonry of Christ church annexed: but the national calamities hindered him from entering on it till 1646, and then he did not hold it undisturbed much more than a year. In 1643, he was nominated by the parliament one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them neither did he take the covenant or engagement, so that his living was sequestered but, so great was his reputation for piety and learning, that he was not deprived of it. He had the’ chief hand in drawing up “The Reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn League and Covenant, the Negative Oath, and the Ordinances concerning Discipline and Worship:” and, when the parliament had sent proposals to the king for a peace in church and state, his majesty desired, that Dr. Sanderson, with the doctors Hammond, Sheldon, and Morley, should attend him, and advise him how far he might with a good conscience comply with those proposals. This request was rejected by the presbyterian party; but, it being complied with afterwards by the independents, when his majesty was at Hampton-court, and in the isle of Wight, in 1647 and 1648, those divines attended him there. Dr. Sanderson often preached before him, and had many public and private conferences with him, to his majesty’s great satisfaction. The king also desired him, at Hampton-court, since the parliament had proposed the abolishing of episcopal government as inconsistent with monarchy, that he would consider of it, and declare his judgment; and what he wrote upon that subject was afterwards printed in 1661, 8vo, under this title, “Episcopacy, as established by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal power.” At Sanderson’s taking leave of his majesty in this his last attendance on him, the king requested him to apply himself to the writing of “Cases of Conscience;” to which his answer was, that “he was now grown old, and unfit to write cases of conscience.” But the king told him plainly, “it was the simplest thing he ever heard from him; for, no young man was fit to be a judge, or write cases of conscience.” Upon this occasion, Walton relates the following anecdote: that in one of these conferences the king told Sanderson, or one of them that then waited with him, that “the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the earl of Stafford’s death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that, if God ever restored him to the peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and a voluntary penance, by walking barefoot from the Tower of London, or Whitehall, to St. Paul’s church, and would desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon.” In 1643, Dr. Sanderson was ejected from his professorship and canonry in Oxford by the parliamentary visitors, and retired to his living of Boothby-Pannel. Soon after, he was taken prisoner, and carried to Lincoln, to be exchanged for one Clarke, a puritan divine, and minister of Alington, who had been made prisoner by the king’s party. He was, however, soon released upon articles, one of which was, that the sequestration of his living should be recalled; by which means he enjoyed a moderate subsistence for himself, wife, and children, till the restoration. But, though the articles imported also, that he should live undisturbed, yet he was far from bein^r either quiet or safe, being once wounded, and several times plundered; and the outrage of the soldiers was such, that they not only came into his church, and disturbed him when reading prayers, but even forced the common prayer book from him, and tore it to pieces. During this retirement, he received a visit from Dr. Hammond, who wanted to discourse with him upon some points disputed between the Caivinists and Arminians; and he was often applied to for resolution in cases of conscience, several letters upon which subjects were afterwards printed*. In 1658, the hon, Robert Boyle sent him a present of 50l.; his circumstances, as of most of the royalists at that time, being very low. Boyle had read his lectures “De juramenti obligatione,” published the preceding year, with great satisfaction; and asked Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, if he thought Sanderson could be induced to write cases of conscience, provided he had an honorary pension allowed, to supply him with books and an amanuensis But Sanderson told Barlow, “that, if any future tract of his could bring any benefit to mankind, he would readily set about it without a pension.” Upon this, Boyle sent the above present by the hands of Barlow; and Sanderson presently revised, finished, and published, his book “De obligatione conscientiae,” which, as well as

1644, 2 vols. fol. a most superb book, well known to the collectors of foreign history and topography. There is an edition published at the Hague in 1730, 3 vols. fol. but the original is preferred on account of the superior beauty of the engravings. 14. “Chorographia sacra Brabantia, sive celebrium aliquot in ea provincia ecclesiarum et ccenobiorum descriptio,” Brussels and Antwerp, 1659, 2 vols. fol. 1669. This is a still more splendid work than the former, and of much more rare occurrence in a complete state, very few copies of the second volume being in existence. The reason assigned is, that the entire impression of the second volume was suppressed as soon as completed, and remained in the warehouse of a bookseller at Brussels until 1695, in which year that city was bombarded by the French, and all the copies, except a few in the possession of the author’s friends, perished by fire. This likewise was reprinted at the Hague in 3 vols. fol. 1726 27, but with different plates, and of course this edition is not so highly esteemed. Sanders wrote other topographical works, which appear to remain in ms.

, an Italian ecclesiastical historian, was born June 31, 1692, and became, by the interest of his bishop, cardinal Rezzonico, who was afterwards pope Clement XIII. librarian and professor of ecclesiastical history at Padua, where he died, Feb. 23, 1751, in the fiftynrnth year of his age. He is known principally by his “Vitae Pontificum Romanorum,” Ferrara, 174-8, reprinted under the title of “Basis Historic Ecclesiasticae.” He also wrote “Historic Familiae Sacne;”. “HistoriaS. S. Apostolorum;” “Disputationes XX ex Historia Ecclesiastica ad Vitas Pontificum Romanorum,” and “Dissertations,” in defence of the “Historic Familiie Sacrae,” which father Serry had attacked.

, or, Van Den Sand, a Socinian writer, was born at Konigsburg in the year 1644. After becoming an ecclesiastic, he went to Amsterdam, where he died in 1680, aged only thirty-six. He published various works, among which are, 1. “Nucleus Historiae Ecclesiasticae,” 1669, in 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Cologne, in 1676: and in London in 1681. 2. “Tractatus de Origine Animae, 167 1.” 3. “Notae et Observationes in G. J. Vossium de Historicis Latinis,” 1677, a work of considerable learning. 4. “Centuria Epigrammatum” 5. “Interpretation es paracloxae IV. Evangeliorum” 6. “Confessio Fidei de Deo Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Saricto, secunduia Scripturam;” “Scriptura Sacrac Trinitatis Revelatrix.” But the only work now much known, which was publibhed after his death, is his “Bibliotheca Anti-Trinitariorum,” Freistadt, 1684, 12mo, containing an account of the lives and writings of Socinian authors, and some tracts giving many particulars of the history of the Polish Socinians.

Here they continued until their apartments being wanted for the persons concerned in Wyat’s conspiracy, they were removed to the Marshalsea. On their way there they found the people’s minds greatly changed. Popery, unmasked and triumphant, had already shewn its nature again, and general disgust had followed the short burst of joy which had attended the queen’s accession. Sandys walked along the streets attended by his keeper: and as he was generally known, the people prayed that God would comfort him, and strengthen him in the truth. Struck with these appearances of popularity, the keeper of the Marshalsea said, “These vain people would set you forward to the fire: but you are as vain as they, if you, being a young man, will prefer your own conceit before the judgment of so many worthy prelates, and so many grave and learned men as are in this realm. If you persist, you shall find me as strict a keeper, as one that utterly misliketh your religion.” Dr. Sandys nobly replied, “My years, indeed, are few, and my learning is small but it is enough to know Christ crucified and who seeth not the blasphemies of popery hath learned nothing. T have read in Scripture of godly and courteous keepers, God make you like one of them; if not, I trust he will give me strength and patience to bear your hard dealing with* me.” The keeper then asked, “Are you resolved to stand to your religion” “Yes,” said Dr. Sandys, “by God’s grace.” “1 love you the better, therefore,” said the keeper, " I did but tempt you: every favour which I can show, you shall be sure of: nay, if you die at a stake, I shall be happy to die with you.' 7 And from that day such was the confidence which this good man reposed in Sandys, that many times he permitted him to walk alone in the fields; nor would he ever suffer him to be fettered, like the other prisoners. He lodged him also in the best chamber of the house, and often permitted his wife to visit him. Great resort was here made to Dr. Sandys for his edifying discourses, and much money was offered him, but he would accept of none. Here too the communion was celebrated three or four times by himself and his companions, of whom Saunders, afterwards the martyr, was one, to many communicants.

After nine weeks confinement in the Marshalsea, he was set at liberty, by the intercession of sir Thomas Holcroft, knight-marshal. This, however, was not accomplished without much difficulty, and so intent was Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, on bringing Sandys to the stake, that it required some management on the part of sir Thomas before he could succeed; and no sooner was Sandys liberated than Gardiner, being told that he had set at liberty one of the greatest heretics in the kingdom, procured orders to be issued to all the constables of London to search for, and apprehend him. In Sandys* s final escape, as related by his late biographer, the hand of Providence was strikingly visible. While he was in the Tower, wanting a pair of new hose, a tailor was sent for, who, not being permitted to measure him, had made them too long, and While he was now concealed at the house of one Hurleston, a skinner in Cornhill, he sent them, as Hurleston’s own, to a tailor to be shortened. This happened to be honest Benjamin the maker, a good protestant, who immediately recognized his own handy work, and required to be shown, to the house where Dr. Sandys was, that he might speak with him for his good. At midnight he was admitted, and informed Dr. Sandys, that all the constables of the city, of whom he himself was one, were employed to apprehend him, thai it was well known that his servant had provided two geldings, and that he meant to ride out at Aldgate tomorrow. “But,” said he, “follow my advice, and, by God’s grace, you shall escape. Let your man walk all the day to-morrow in the street where your horses are stabled, booted and prepared for a journey. The servant of the man of the house shall take the horses to Bethnalgreen. The man himself shall follow, and be booted as if he meant to ride. About eight in the morning I will be with you, and here we will break our fast. It is both term and parliament time, and the street by that hour will be full of people; we will then go forth look wildly, and, if you meet your own brother in the street, do not shun, but outface him, and assure him that you know him not.” Dr. Sand3's accordingly complied, and came out at the appointed hour, clothed in all respects as a layman and a gentleman. Benjamin carried him through bye-lanes to Moorgate, where the horses were ready, and Hurleston as his man. That night he rode to his father-in-law’s house, but had not been there two hours, when intelligence was brought, that two of, the guard had been dispatched to apprehend him, and would be there that night. He was then immediately conducted to the house of a farmer near the sea-side, where he remained two days and two nights in a solitary chamber. Afterwards he removed to the house of one James Mower, a ship-master, near Milton-shore, where was a fleet of merchant-men awaiting a wind for Flanders. While he was there, Mower gathered a congregation of forty or fifty seamen, to whom he gave an exhortation, with which they were so much delighted, that they promised to defend him at the expence of their lives. On Sunday May 6, he embarked in the. same vessel with Dr. Coxe, afterwards bishop of Ely, and the ship was yet in sight, when two of the guard arrived on the shore to apprehend Dr. Sandys.

In May 1602, he resigned his prebend, and in May 1603, received the honour of knighthood from James I.; who afterwards employed him in several affairs of great trust and importance. Fuller tells us, that he was dextrous in the management of such things, constant in par^ liament as the speaker himself, and esteemed by all as an. excellent patriot, “faithful to his country,” says Wood, 66 without any falseness to his prince.“It appears, -however, that for some opposition to the court in the parliament of 1621, he was committed with Selden to the custody of the sheriff of London in June that year, and detained above a month which was highly resented by the House of Commons, as a breach of their privileges but, sir George Calvert, secretary of state, declaring, that neither Sandys nor Selden had been imprisoned for any parliamentary matter, a stop was put to the dispute. Sir Edwin was treasurer to the undertakers of the western plantations. He died in October 1629, and was interred at Northborne in Kent; where be had a seat and estate, granted him by James I. for some services done at that king’s accession to the throne. A monument, now in a mutilated state, was jerected to his memory, but without any inscription. He bequeathed 1500l. to the university of Oxford, for the endowment of a metaphysical lecture. He left five sons, all of whom, except one, adhered to the parliament during the civil wars. Henry, the eldest, died without issue. Edwin, the second, was the well known parliamentary colonel, of whose outrages much may be read in the publications of the times, and who, receiving a mortal wound at the battle of Worcester, in 1642, retired to Northborne to die, leaving the estate to his son sir Richard, who was killed by the accidental explosion of his fowling-piece in 1663. His son, sir Richard, was created a baronet in 1684, and dying in 1726, without male issue, was the last of the family who lived at Northborne, where the mansion remained many years deserted, and at length was pulled down. There was one sir Edwin Sandys, who published, as Wood informs us,” Sacred Hymns, consisting of fifty select Psalms of David," set to be sung in five parts by Rot bert Taylor, and printed at London, 1615, in 4to; but whether this version was done By our author, or by another, of botii his names, of Ladmers in Buckinghamshire, is uncertain.

, brother of the preceding, was the seventh and youngest son of the archbishop of York, and was born at the archiepiscopal pala.ce of Bishopthorp in 1577. In 1588 he was sent to Oxford, and matriculated of St. Mary Hall. Wood is of opinion, that he afterwards removed to Corpus-Christi-coilege. How iang he resided in the university, or whether he took a degree, does not appear. In August 16 10, remarkable for the murder of king Henry IV“. of France, Mr. Sandys set out on his travels, and, in the course of. two years, made an extensive tour, having visited several parts of Europe, and many cities and countries of the East, as Constantinople, Greece, Egypt, and the Holy Land; after which, taking a view of the remote parts of Italy, he went to Rome and Venice, and, on his return, after properly digesting the observations he had made, published, in 1615, his well-known folio, the title of the 7th edition of which, in 1673, is,” Sandys* Travels, containing an history of the original and present state of the Turkish empire; their laws, government, policy, military force, courts of justice, and commerce. The Ma-^ hometan religion and ceremonies. A description of Constantinople, the grand signior’s seraglio, and his manner of living: also of Greece, with the religion and customs of the Grecians. Of Egypt; the antiquity, hieroglyphics, rites, customs, discipline, and religion, of the Egyptians, A voyage on the river Nilus. Of Armenia, Grand Cairo, Rhodes, the Pyramides, Colossus: the former flourishing and present state of Alexandria. A description of the Holy Land, of the Jews, and several sects of Christians Jiving there; of Jerusalem, Sepulchre of Christ, Temple of Solomon, and what else, either of antiquity orworth observation. Lastly, Italy described, and the islands adjoining; as Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Sicilia, the Eolian islands; of Rome, Venice, Naples, Syracusa, Mesena, jEtna, Scylla, and Charybdis; and other places of note. Illustrated with fifty maps and figures.“Most of the plates, especially those relating to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, are copied from the” Devotissimo Viaggio di Zualiardo, Roma,“1587, 4to. Of these travels there have been eight or ten editions published, and it still bears its reputation, his accounts having been verified by subsequent travellers. Mr. Markland has a copy of this work, edit. 1637, with a ms copy of verses by the author, which may be seen in the *' Censura Literaria,” but was first published at the end of his “Psalms,” 1640, 8vo.

Sandys distinguished himself also as a poet; and his productions in that way were greatly admired in the times they were written. In 1632 he published “Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished, mythologized, and represented in figures,” Oxford, in folio. Francis Cleyn was the inventor of the figures, and Solomon Savary the engraver. He had before published part of this translation; and, in the preface to this second edition, he tells us, that he has attempted to collect out of sundry authors the philosophical sense of the fables of Ovid. To this work, which is dedicated to Charles I. is subjoined “An Essay to the translation of the jEneis.” It was reprinted in 1640. In 1636, he published, in 8vo, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms of David, and upon the Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testament,” 1636, 8vo, reprinted in 1638, folio; with a title somewhat varied, This was a book which, Wood tells us, Charles I. delighted to read, when a prisoner in Carisbrooke castle. There was an edition of J 640, with the Psalms set to music, by Lawes. In this last year he published, in 12rno, a sacred drama, written originally by Grotius, under the title of “Christus Patiens,” and which Mr. Sandys, in his translation, has called “Christ’s Passion,” on which, and “Adamus Exul,” and Masenius, is founded Lauder’s impudent charge of plagiarism against Milton. This translation was reprinted, with cuts, in 1688, $vo. The subject of it was treated before in Greek by Apollinarius bishop of Hierapolis, and after him by Gregory Nazianzen; but, according to Sandys, Grotius excelled all others. Langbaine tells us, with regard to Sandys’ translation, that “he will be allowed an excellent artist in it by learned judges; and he has followed Horace’s advice of avoiding a servile translation, * nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres’ so he comes so near the sense of his author, that nothing is lost; no spirits evaporate in the decanting of it into English; and, if there be any sediment, it is left behind.” He published also a metrical paraphrase of “The Song of Solomon,” London, 1641, 4to, dedicated to the King, and reprinted in 1648 with his “Psalms.” There are but few incidents known concerning our author. All who mention him agree in bestowing on him the character, not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety. For the most part of his latter days he lived with sir Francis Wenman, of Caswell, near Witney in Oxfordshire, to whom his sister was married; probably chusing that situation in some measure on account of its proximity to Burford, the retirement of his intimate acquaintance and valuable friend Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who addressed some elegant poems to him, preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” with several by Mr. Sandys, who diejl at the house of his nephew, sir Francis Wyat, at Boxley in Kent, in 1643; and was interred in the* chancel of that parish-church, without any inscription but in the parish register is this entry “Georgius Sandys poetarum Anglorum sui sseculi facile princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7, Stilo Angliae, ann. Dom. 164$.” His memory has also been handed down by various writers, with the respect thought due to his great worth and abilities. Mr. Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age, but objects to his “Ovid,” as too close and literal; and Mr. Pope declared, in his notes to the Iliad, that English poetry owed much of its present beauty to his translations. Dr. Warton thinks that Sandys did more to polish and tune the English versification than Den ham or Waller, who are usually applauded on this subject; yet his poems are not now much read. The late biographer of his father observes, that “the expressive energy of his prose will entitle him to a place among English classics, when his verses, some of which arebeautiful, shall be forgotten. Of the excellence of his style, the dedication of his travels to prince Henry, will afford a short and very conspicuous example.”

, an eminent Greek poetess, was a native of Mitylene in the island of Lesbos. Who was her father is uncertain, there being no less than eight persons who have contended for that honour; but it is universally acknowledged that Cleis was her mother. She flourished, according to Suidas, in the 42d olympiad according to Eusebius, in the 44th olympiad, about 600 years B. C. Her love-affairs form the chief materials of her biography. Barnes has endeavoured to prove, from the testimonies of Chameleon and Hermesianax, that Anacreon was one of her lovers; but from the chronology of both, this has been generally considered as a poetical fiction. She married one Cercolas, a man of great wealth and power in the island of Andros, by whom she had a daughter named Cleis. He leaving her a widow very young, she renounced all thoughts of marriage, but not of love*; nor was she very scrupulous in her intrigues. Her chief favourite appears to have been the accomplished Phaon, a young man of Lesbos; who is said to have been a kind of ferry-man, and thence fabled to have carried Venus over the stream in his boat, and to have received from her, as a reward, the favour of becoming the most beautiful man in the world. Sappho fell desperately in love with him, and went into Sicily in pursuit of him, he having withdrawn himself thither on purpose to avoid her. It was in that island, and on this occasion, that she composed her hymn to Venus. This, however, was ineffectual. Phaon was still obdurate, and Sappho was so transported with the violence of her passion, that she had recourse to a promontory in Acarnania called Leucate, on the top of which was a temple dedicated to Apollo. In this temple it was usual for de­* “Sappho formed an academy of culpate her And might she not have females who excelled*!!) music; and it written the celebrated verses” Blest was doubtless this academy which drew as the immortal gods is he,“&c. for on her the hatred of the women of Mi- another Many of our poetical ladies tylene, who accused her of being too whom we could name, have written fond of her own sex; but will not her excellent impassioned songs of cornlove for Phaon, and the fatal termioa- plaint in a male character.” Dr. Bur* tioa of her existence, sufficiently ex- ney in Hist, of Music. spairing lovers to make their vows in secret, and afterwards to fling themselves from the top of the precipice into the sea, it being an established opinion, that all those who were taken up alive, would immediately be cured of their former passion. Sappho perished in the experiment. The original of this unaccountable humour is not known. Her genius, however, made her be lamented. The Romans erected a noble statue of porphyry to her memory; and the Mitylenians, to express their sense of her worth, paid her sovereign honours after her death, and coined money with her head for the impress. She was likewise honoured with the title of the tenth Muse.

In April 1607, the division between Rome and the republic was healed by the interposition of France; and Fulgentio relates, that the affair was transacted at Rome by cardinal Perron, according to the order of the king his master. But some English writers are of opinion, that this accommodation between the Venetians and the pope was owing to the misconduct of king James I., who, if he had heartily supported the Venetians, would certainly have disunited them from the see of Rome. Isaac Walton observes, that during the dispute it was reported abroad, “that the Venetians were all turned Protestants, which was believed by many: for it was observed, that the English ambassador (Wotton) was often in conference with the senate and his chaplain, Mr. Bedel, more often with father Paul, whom the people did not take to be his friend and also, for that the republic of Venice was known to give commission to Gregory Justiniano, then their ambassador in England, to make all these proceedings known to the king of England, and to crave a promise of his assistance, if need should require,” c. Burnet tells us, “That the breach between the pope and the republic was brought very wear a crisis, so that it was expected a total separation not only from the court, but the church of Rome, was like td follow upon it. It was set on by father Paul and the seven divines with much zeal, and was very prudently conducted by them. In order to the advancing of it, king James ordered his ambassador to offer all possible assistance to them, and to accuse the pope and the papacy as the chief authors of all the mischiefs of Christendom. Father Paul and the seven divines pressed Mr. Bedel to move the ambassador to present king James’s premonition to all Christian princes and states, then put in Latin, to the senate; and they were confident it would produce a great effect. But the ambassador could not be prevailed on to do it at that time; and pretended, that since St. James’s day was not far off, it would be more proper to do it on that day. Before St. James’s day came, the difference was made up, and that happy opportunity was lost; so that when he had his audience on that day in which he presented the book, all the answer he got was, that they thanked the king of England for his good will, but they were now reconciled to the pope; and that therefore they were resolved not to admit any change in their religion, according to their agreement with the court of Rome.” Welwood relates the same story, and imputes the miscarriage of that important affair to “the conceit of presenting king James’s book on St. James’s day.” But JDr. Hickes attempts to confute this account, by observing, that the pope and the Venetians were reconciled in 1607, and that the king’s premonition came not out till 1609, which indeed appears to be true; so that, if the premonition was really presented, it must have been only in manu* Script.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench towards the close of the seventeenth century, seems entitled to some notice on account of his “Reports,” although his character in other respects may as well be consigned to oblivion. He was originally a strolling beggar about the streets, without known parents or relations. He came often to beg scraps at Clement’s Inn, where his sprightliness and diligence made the society desirous to extricate him from his miserable situation. As he appeared desirous to learn to write, one of the attornies fixed a board up at a window on the top of a stair-case, which served him as a desk, and there he sat and wrote after copies of court and other hands, in which at length he acquired such expertness, as in some measure to set up for himself, and earn a pittance by hackney- writing. He also took all opportunities of improving himself by reading such books as he borrowed of his friends, and in the course of a few years, became an able attorney and a very eminent counsel, his practice in the King’s-bench being exceeded by none. All this would have redounded to his honour, had his progress in integrity kept pace with other accomplishments, but he appears to have brought into his profession the low habits of his early life, and became as much a disgrace as an ornament to the bar. His art and cunning were equal to his knowledge, and he carried many a cause by sinister means, and when detected, he never was out of countenance, but evaded the matter with a jest, which he had always at hand. He was much employed by the king against the city of London, in the business of the quo warranto, and was a very fit tool in the hands of the court, and prompted the attorney- general Sawyer, to overthrow the city charter. It was when this affair was to be brought to a decision, that Saunders was knighted and made lord chief justice Jan. 23, 1682-3. But just as sentence was about to be given, he was seized with an apoplexy and died. In our authority, a disgusting description is given of his person, which seems to have corresponded with his mind.

, an illustrious professor of the mathematics in the university of Cambridge, and fellow of the Royal Society, was born in 1682, at Thurlston in Yorkshire; where his father, besides a small estate, enjoyed a place in the Excise. When he was a year old, he was deprived, by the small-pox, not only of his sight, but of his eye-balls, which were dissolved by abscesses; so that he retained no more idea of light and colours than if he had been born blind. He was sent early to a freeschool at Penniston, and there laid the foundation of that knowledge of the Greek and Roman languages, which he afterwards improved so far, by his own application to the' classic authors, as to hear the works of Euclid, Archimedes, and Diophantus, read in their original Greek. When he had passed some time at this school, his father, whose occupation led him to be conversant in numbers, began to instruct him in the common rules of arithmetic. Here it was that his genius first appeared: for he very soon became able to work the common questions, to make long calculations by the strength of his memory, and to form new rules to himself for the more ready solving of such problems as are often proposed to learners, as trials of skill. At eighteen, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Richard West of Underbank, esq. a gentleman of fortune and a lover of the mathematics, who, observing his uncommon capacity, took the pains to instruct him in the principles of algebra and geometry, and gave him every encouragement in the prosecution of these studies. Soon after, he became acquainted with Dr. Nettleton, who took the same pains with him; and it was to these gentlemen that he owed his first institution in the mathematical sciences. They furnished him with books, and often read and expounded them to him; but he soon surpassed his masters, and became fitter to teach than learn any thing from them. His passion for learning growing up with him, his father sent him to a private academy at Attercliff near Sheffield. But logic and metaphysics being the principal learning of this school, were neither of them agreeable to the genius of our author; and therefore he made but a short stay. He remained some time after in the country, prosecuting his studies in his own way, without any other assistant than a good author, and some person that could read it to him; being able, by the strength of his own abilities, to surmount all difficulties that might occur. His education had hitherto been at the expence of his father, who, having a numerous family, found it difficult to continue it; and his friends therefore began to think of fixing him in some way of business, by which he might support himself. His own inclination led him strongly to Cambridge; and, after much consideration, it was resolved he should make his appearance there in a way very uncommon; not as a scholar, but a master; for, his friends, observing in him a peculiar felicity in conveying his ideas to others, hoped that he might teach the mathematics with credit and advantage, even in the university; or, if this design should miscarry, they promised themselves success in opening a school for him in London. Accordingly, in 1707, being now twenty-five, he was brought to Cambridge by Mr. Joshua Dunn, then a fellowcommoner of Christ’s college; where he resided with that friend, but was not admitted a member of the college. The society, however, much pleased with so extraordinary a guest, allotted him a chamber, the use of their library, and indulged him in every privilege that could be of advantage to him. But still many difficulties obstructed his design: he was placed here without friends, without fortune, a young man, untaught himself, to be a teacher of philosophy in an university, where it then flourished in the greatest perfection. Whiston was at this time mathematical professor, and read lectures in the manner proposed by Saunderson; so that an attempt of the same kind by the latter looked like an encroachment on the privileges of his office; but, as a good-natured man, and an encourager of learning, Whiston readily consented to the application of friends, made in behalf of so uncommon a person. Mr. Dunn had been very assiduous in making known his character his fame in a short time had filled the university men of learning and curiosity grew ambitious and fond of his acquaintance, so that his lecture, as soon as opened, was frequented by many, and in a short time very much crowded. “The Principia Mathematica, Optics, and Arithmetica Universalis, of sir Isaac Newton,” were the foundation of his lecture; and they afforded a noble field to display his genius in. It was indeed an object of the greatest curiosity that a blind youth should read lectures in optics, discourse on the nature of light and colours, explain the theory of vision, the effect of glasses, the phenomena of the rainbow, and other objects of sight: nor was the surprize of his auditors much lessened by reflecting, that as this science is altogether to be explained by lines, and is subject to the rules of geometry, he might be a master of these subjects, even under the loss of sight.

But his most considerable work was, “Discourses historical, critical, and moral, on the most memorable Events of the Old and New Testament.” His first intention was to have published a set of prints, with titles and explanations; but, as that had been before executed by Fontaine amongst the Roman catholics, and by Basnage amongst the protestants, it became necessary to adopt a newer plan. This gave rise to the work above mentioned, which the author left imperfect. Two volumes made their appearance in folio, and the work was afterwards reprinted in four in 8vo. Six other discourses form a part of a fifth volume in 8vo, published by Mr. Roques, who undertook a continuation of the work. It is replete with learning. The Christian and the heathen authors, philosophers, poets, historians, and critics, are cited with the utmost profusion, and it forms a compilation of all their sentiments on every subject discussed throughout the work. The author shews himself to be a warm advocate for toleration; and, though the catholics are more frequently censured than commended, yet his principles are very moderate. “A Dissertation on the Expediency of sometimes disguising the Truth” raised a clamour against the author, the fury of which he had riot power to appease. As an historian, he believed that he was permitted to produce the chief arguments of those that maintain, that in certain cases truth may be disguised; and the reasons which they gave who have asserted the contrary. Without deciding the question, it is easy to perceive that he is a favourer of the former. His principal antagonist was Arrnand de la Chapelle; to whom Francis Michael Ganicon replied with great spirit, in a work, entitled “Lettres serieuses & jocoses.” The three first of the lettres, in the second volume, are in favour of Saurin. He was answered by La Chapelle with great violence. Saurin imagined, that he should be able to terminate this dispute by reprinting the dissertation separately, with a preface in defence of his assertions: but he was deceived; for La Chapelle published a very long and scurrilous reply. It was Saurin’s intention entirely to have neglected this production; but he found a new champion in Francis Bruys. This dispute was at length brought before the synod of Campen; who, in May 1730, ordered the churches of Utrecht, Leyden, and Amsterdam, to make their examinations, and report the result of them to the synod of the Hague, which was to sit in the September following. Commissaries were appointed for this purpose. The synod of Campen gave its opinion, and that of the Hague confirmed it: but, having made no mention of the instructions sent to the Walloon church at Utrecht, that assembly complained, and ordered Mr. Bonvoust, one of its ministers, to justify his proceedings and his doctrine. This he did in a large octavo volume, printed at Utrecht in 1731, after the death of Saurin, entitled “The Triumph of the Truth and Peace; or, Reflections on the most important Events attending the last Synod assembled to determine in the case of Messieurs Saurin and Maty.” Saurin had contributed to this peace, by giving such a declaration of his sentiments as satisfied the protestant churches; and he repeated that declaration, when he foresaw that the new lights, which Mr. Bruys had thrown upon this subject, were going to raise a storm that might perhaps have been severer than the last. Saurin’s sermons are now well known in this country by the selections translated into English, and published in 1775 1784, by the rev, Robert Robinson, 5 vols. 8vo, to which Dr. Henry Hunter added a sixth volume in 1796.

His poverty still increasing, he only dined by accident, when he was invited to the tables of his acquaintance, from which the meanness of his dress often excluded him. Having no lodgings, he passed the night often in mean houses, which are set open for any casual wanderers, sometimes in cellars, amongst the riot and filth of the meanest and most profligate of the rabble; and sometimes, when he was totally without money, walked about the streets till he was weary, and lay down in the summer upon a bulk, and, in the winter, with his associates in poverty, among the ashes of a glass-house. His distresses, however afflictive, never dejected him. In his lowest sphere, his pride kept up his spirits, and set him on a level with those of the highest rank. He never admitted any gross familiarity, or submitted to be treated otherwise than as an equal. This wretched life was rendered more unhappy, in 1738, by the death of the queen, and the loss of his pension. His distress was now publicly known, and his friends, therefore, thought proper to concert some measures for procuring him a permanent relief. It was proposed that he should retire into Wales, with an allowance of 50l. per annum, to be raised by subscription, on which he was to live privately in a cheap place, and lay aside all his aspiring thoughts.

, a very learned philologer and literary historian, was born at Eppendorff, a village between Chemnitz and Freyberg, in Saxony, where his father was a clergyman, Jan. 13, 1714. His proper name was Christopher Gottlob Sach, which, when he commenced author, he Latinized into Sachsius, and afterwards into Saxius, dropping the Gottlob altogether. His father first gave him some, instructions in the teamed languages, which he afterwards improved at the school of Chemnitz, but more effectually at the electoral school of Misnia, where he also studied classical antiquities, history, and rhetoric, and in 1735 went to Leipsic with the strongest recommendations for industry and proficiency. Here he studied philosophy under the celebrated Wolff, but as he had already perused the writings both of the ancient and modern philosophers with profound attention, he is said to have had the courage to differ from the current opinions. Philosophy, however, as then taught, was less to his taste than the study of antiquities, classical knowledge, and literary history, to which he determined to devote his days; and the instructions of professor Christ, and his living in the house with Menkenius, who had an excellent library, were circumstances which very powerfully confirmed this resolution. He had not been here above a year, when two young noblemen were confided to his care, and this induced him to cultivate the modern languages most in use. His first disputation had for its subject, “Vindiciae secundum libertatem pro Maronis jEneide, cui manum Jo. Harduinus nuper assertor injecerat,” Leipsic, 1737. Among other learned men who highly applauded this dissertation was the second Peter Burmann, in the preface to his Virgil, but who afterwards, in his character as a critic, committed some singular mistakes in condemning Saxius, while he applauded Sachsius, not knowing that they were one and the same. In 1738 Saxius took his master’s degree, and commenced his literary career by writing a number of critical articles in the “Nova acta eruditorum,” and other literary journals, from this year to 1747. Tiiis employment involved him sometimes in controversies with his learned brethren, particularly with Peter Burmann, or with foreign authors with whose works he had taken liberties. In 1745 he visited the most considerable parts of Germany, and was at Franckfort on the Maine during the coronation of the Emperor. In 1752 he was appointed professor of history, antiquities, and rhetoric at Utrecht, and on entering on his office pronounced an oration on the science of antiquity, which was printed in 1753, 4to. After this his life seems to have been devoted entirely to the duties of his professorship, and the composition of a great many works on subjects of philology and criticism, some in German, but principally in Latin. The most considerable of these, the only one much known in this country, is his “Onomasticon Literarium,” or Literary Dictionary, consisting of a series of biographical and critical notices or references respecting the most eminent writers of every age or nation, and in every branch of literature, in chronological order. The first volume of this appeared in 1775, 8vo, and it continued to be published until seven volumes were completed, with a general Index, in 1790. To this, in 1793, he added an eighth or supplementary volume, from which we have extracted some particulars of his life, as given by himself. This is a work almost indispensable to biographers, and as the work of one man, must have been the production of many years* labour and attention. Some names, however, are omitted, which we might have expected to find in it; and the English series, as in every foreign undertaking of the kind, is very imperfect. We have seen no account of his latter days. He lived to a very advanced age, dying at Utrecht. May 3, 1806, in his ninety-second year.

In the preface to his works, we are told that Mr. Say te was a tender husband, an indulgent father, and of a most benevolent, communicative disposition, ever ready to do good, and to distribute. He was well versed in astronomy and natural philosophy; had a taste for music and poetry, was a good critic, and a master of the classics. Yet so great was his modesty, that he was known only to a few select friends, and never published above two or three sermons, which were in a manner extorted from him.“Among the modern Latin poets Broukhusius was his favourite; among the English, Milton, whose head, etched by Mr. Richardson, is prefixed to his second essay, A letter. from Mr. Say to Mr. Hughes, and two from Mr. Say to Mr. Duncombe, with a Latin translation of the beginning of” Pa* radise Lost,“are printed among the” Letters of Eminent Persons deceased,“vol. J. and vol. II. His characters of Mrs. Bridget Bendysh, grand-daughter of Oliver Cromwell, in the appendix to vol. II. first appeared (without a name) jn Gent. Mag. 1765, p. 357. In the same volume, p. 423,” The Resurrection illustrated by the Changes of the Silkworm“is by the same hand. And some of his poetical pieces are in Nichols’s” Select Collection, vol. VI.

After his settlement at Agen, he bega'n to apply himself seriously to those general studies which made him most known in the literary world. He learned the French tongue at his first coming, which he spoke perfectly well in three months; and then made himself master of the Gascon, Italian, Spanish, German, Hungarian, and Sclavonian During these studies, he maintained himself by the practice of physic. It is probable that he had taken a doctor’s degree in this faculty at Padua; for, the letters of naturalization, which were granted him by Francis I. in 1528, give him this title. As he began his studies late, it was proportionably so before he commenced author, none of his works having appeared until he was forty-seven; but he soon gained a name in the republic of letters, which was both great and formidable. From this time, composition and controversy employed him till his death, which happened in 1558, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. His epitaph was, “Julii Gaesaris Scaligeri quod fuit.”

, an eminent physician and naturalist, was the son of a very learned physician of the same mimes at Zurich, where he was born, August 2, 1672. His father dying in the prime of life, he appears to have been left to the care of his mother, and his maternal grandfather. He was educated at Zurich under the ablest professors, of whom he has left us a list, but Says that he might with great propriety add his own name to the on cber, as he went through the greater part of his studies with no other guide than his own judgment. In 1692 he commenced his travels, and remained some time at \ltdorf, attending the lectures of Wagenseil, Hoffman^ father and son, Sturm, &c. In 1693 he went to Utrecht, where he took his degree of doctor of physic in Jan. 1694, and Pi 1695 returned to Nuremberg and Altdorf to study mathematics under Sturm and Eimmart. To Sturm he addressed a learned letter on the generation of fossil shells, which iie attempted to explain on mathematical principles; but, discovering the fallacy of this, he adopted the theory of our Dr. Woodward, whose work on the subject of the natural history of the earth he translated into Latin, and published at Zurich in 1704. Returning to Zurich, before this period, he was appoint-, ed first physician of the city, with the reversion of the professorship of mathematics. He now began to write various dissertations on subjects of natural history, particularly that of Swisserland, and wrote a system of natural history in German, which he published in parts in the years 1705, 6, and 7, the whole forming three small 4to volumes. He published afterwards three more in 1716, 1717, and 1718, which complete the natural history of Swisserland, with the exception of the plants, of which he had formed an herbal of eighteen vast volumes in folio. His “Nova litteraria Helvetica” began in 1702, and were continued to 1715. In 1694 he began his tours on the Alps, which he repeated for many years, the result of which was published under the title of “Itinera Alpina,” one volume of which was published at London in 1708, 4to, and four at Leyden in 1713. In the course of these journeys, he improved the geography of his country, by a small map of Toggenbourg, and by his map of Swisserland in four large sheets. Amidst all these pursuits, his official duties, and his extensive literary correspondence, he found leisure to gratify his taste for medallic history, and translated Jobert’s work on that subject, which does not, however, appear to have been printed. In 1712, Leibnitz, being acquainted with his learning and fame, procured him an invitation from the czar, Peter the Great, to become his majesty’s physician, but the council of Zurich induced him to decline the offer, by an additional salary. Some time afterward, he obtained a canonry; but, according to Meister, his colleagues had no very profound respect for him, of which he gives the following ludicrous proof: A favourite crane belonging to Dr. Scheuchzer one day made her escape, and the doctor was obliged to climb the roof of the house to recover her, which he did at no small risk. The canons are said to have declared on this occasion, that they would have given a pension to the crane, if the doctor had broke his neck. It appears that this disrespect was mutual. They considered Scheuchzer as an intruder, and he despised their ignorance in condemning the Copernican system, and the theory of Swammerdam, as profane and pernicious. He appears to have had a considerable hand in the political and ecclesiastical affairs of Zurich, and had at one time a sharp controversy on religion with a Jesuit of Lucerne, whom Meister describes as the Don Quixote of the Romish church. In 1731 appeared his great work, “Physica sacra,” in 4 vols. folio, which was immediately republished in French at Amsterdam, in both instances enriched with a profusion of fine plates illustrative of the natural history of the Bible. This had been preceded by some lesser works on the same subject, which were now incorporated. He did not long survive this learned publication, dying at Zurich about the end of June 1733. He was a member of many learned societies, of our Royal Society, and of those of Berlin, Vienna, &c. and carried on a most extensive correspondence with the principal literati of Europe. He left a well-chosen and numerous library, a rich museum of natural history, and a collection of medals. Besides the works we have incidentally noticed, he published, 1. “Herbarium Diluvianum,” Zurich, 1709, reprinted and enlarged, at Leyden, 1723, folio. 2. “Piscium querelse et vindicise,” Zurich, 1708, 4to. 3. “Oratio cle Matheseos su in Theologia,” ibid. 1711, 4to. 4. “Museum Diluvianum,” ibid. 1716, 8vo.5. “Homo diluvii testis,” ibid. 1726, 4to. G. “De Helvetii aeribus, aquis, locis, specimen,” ibid. 1728, 4to. He also wrote in German, a treatise on the mineral waters of Swisserland, Zurich, 1732, 4to. In 1740, Klein published “.Sciagraphia lithologica curiosa, seu lapidum figuratorum nomenclator, olim a Jo. Jac. Scheuchzero conscriptus, auctus et illustratus,” 4to. Of his “Physica Sacra,” we have noticed the first edition published at Augsburgh, 1731—1735, four vols. folio, or rather eight volumes in four, the text of which is in German; this edition is valued on account of its having the first impressions of the plates. The Amsterdam edition, 1732 38, 8 vols. has, however, the advantage of being in French, a language more generally understood, and has the same plates. Scheuchzer had a brother, professor of natural philosophy at Zurich, who died in 1737, and is known to all botanists by his laborious and learned “Agrostographia,” so valuable for its minute descriptions of grasses. He had a son with whom we seem more interested, John Gaspak Scheuchzer, who was born at Zurich in 1702, and after studying at home came over to England, and received the degree of' M. D. at Cambridge, during the royal visit of George I. in 1728, and died at London April 13, 1729, only twenty-seven years old. He had much of the genius and learning of his family, and was a good antiquary, medallist, and natural historian. He translated into English Koempfec’s history of Japan, 1727, 2 vols. folio, and had begun a translation 1 of Koempfer’s travels in Muscovy, Persia, &c. but did not live to complete it. He wrote also a treatise on inoculation. Some part of the correspondence of this learned family is in the British Museum.

, a German writer, principally known in this country as a dramatist, was born Nov. 10, 1759, at Marbach, in the duchy jf Wurtemberg, where his father was lieutenant in the service of the duke. While a boy, he was distinguished by uncommon ardour of imagination, which he never sought to limit or controul. When young, he was placed in the military school at Stuttgard, but disliked the necessary subordination. He was intended for the profession of surgery, and which he studied for some time; but from the freedom of his opinions, he was obliged to withdraw himself through apprehension of the consequences, and it is said that, at this time, he produced his first play, “The Robbers.” This tragedy, though full of faults and pernicious extravagancies, was the admiration of all the youth of enthusiastic sentiments in Germany, and several students at Leipsic deserted their college, with the avowed purpose of forming a troop of banditti in the forests of Bohemia; but their first disorders brought on them a summary punishment, which restored them to their senses, and Schiller’s biographer gravely tells us, that this circumstance added to his reputation. The tragedy certainly was quite adapted to the taste of Germany, was soon translated into several foreign languages, and the author appointed to the office of dramatic composer to the theatre of Mauheim. For this he now wrote his ' Cabal and Love,“the” Conspiracy of Fiesco,“and” Don Carlos,“and published a volume of poems, which procured him a wife of good family and fortune. This lady fell in love with him from reading his works, and is said to have roused him from those habits of dissipation in which he had in* dulged, and to which he was in great danger of falling a victim. He was now patronized by the duke of Saxe- Weimar, who conferred on him the title of aulic counsellor, and nominated him to the professorship of history and philosophy at the university of Jena. He had previously written an account of the” Revolt of the Netherlands from the Spanish government,“and he now set about composing his 4< History of the thirty Years’ War in Germany,” a work which has been much admired in his own country. At length he removed to Weimar, where the pension, as honorary professor from the duke, was continued to him; and produced the “History of the most memorable Conspira cies,” and the “Ghost-Seer,” which displayed the peculiar turn of his mind, and were much read. In the latter part of his life he conducted a monthly work published at Tubingen, and an annual poetical almanac, and composed a tragedy entitled “The Maid of Orleans.” He was the author of other dramatic pieces, some of which are known, though imperfectly, in this country, through the medium of translation. He died at Weimar, May 9, 1805, and he was interred with great funeral solemnity. In his private character Schiller was friendly, candid, and sincere. In his youth he affected eccentricity in his manners and appearance, and a degree of singularity seems always to have adhered to him. In his works, brilliant strokes of genius are unquestionably to be found, but more instances of extravagant representation of passion, and violation of truth and nature. They enjoyed some degree of popularity here, during the rage for translating and adapting German plays for our theatres; and although this be abated, they have contributed to the degeneracy of dramatic taste, and have not produced the happiest effects on our poetry.

, was son of a native of Zurich, in Switzerland, lieutenant in the Dutch army at the memorable siege of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1747; when, after a gallant resistance of two months, it was, as generally believed, surprised by the French under marshal Lowendal. Upon quitting the service Mr. Schnebbelie came over to England, and settled in the business of a confectioner, in which capacity he had frequently the honour of attending on king George II. He afterwards opened a shop at Rochester, where one of his sons still resides; and the same profession his son Jacob (who was born Aug. 30, 1760, in Duke’s Court, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields) followed for some time, first at Canterbury, and afterwards at Hammersmith till, nature pointing out to him the proper road to fame and credit, he quitted his shop and commenced self-taught teacher, at Westminster and other public schools, of the art of drawing, in which he made a proficiency which introduced him to the notice of many among the learned and the great. To the earl of Leicester’s notice he was first introduced by accidentally sketching a view in his park near Hertford, and was employed by him in taking some of the most picturesque landscapes about Tunbridge Wells, with a view to their publication for his benefit. At their noble president’s express recommendation he was appointed draughtsman of the society of antiquaries; and filled that office with equal credit to himself and his patron. The merits of his pencil are too generally known and acknowledged to require any exaggerated eulogium, Happy in a quick eye and a discriminating taste, he caught the most beautiful objects in the happiest points of view; and for fidelity and elegance of delineation, may be ranked high among the list of firstrate artists. The works put forth on his own account are not numerous. In 1781 he intended to publish six views of St. Augustine’s Monastery, to be engraved by Mr. Rogers, &c. five of which. were completed, and one small view of that religious house was etched by himself. In 1787 he etched a plate representing the Serpentine River, part of Hyde Park, with the house of earl Bathurst, a distant view of Westminster Abbey, &c. now the property and in the possession of Mr. Jukes, intended to be aquatinted for publication, Mr. Jukes purchased also from him several views of Canterbury cathedral, St. Augustine’s monastery, &c. In March 1788 he published four views of St. Alban’s town and abbey, drawn and etched by himself; which in the November following were published, aquatinted by F. Jukes. About the same time that he set on foot the “Antiquaries Museum,' he became an associate with the late James Moore, esq. F. S. A. and Mr, Parkyns, in the f< Monastic Remains*;” which, after five numbers had appeared, he relinquished to his coadjutors. The assistance he occasionally gave to “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” the smallest part of his merit, it will be needless to particularize; his masterly hand being visible on whatever it was exerted. It is of more consequence to his fame to point out the beauties of many of the plates in the second and third volumes of the “Vetusta Monumenta” of the Society of Antiquaries and in the second volume of the “Sepulchral Monuments of Great Britain ,” the far greater part of the numerous plates in which are after him; or in the very many drawings he had finished, and the sketches he had designed, for Mr. Nichols’s “History of Leicestershire.” He had completed also some views of King’s college chapel at Cambridge, in a style worthy that most beautiful and most perfect of all our gothic buildings, and in a manner which had so far recommended him to royal notice, that, had his life been spared, there is no doubt but he would have been properly distinguished.

From this period Dr. Schomberg took his station in the medical profession, with credit and approbation, though without the success that inferior talents sometimes experienced. On the last illness of David Garrick, he was fcalled in, and hailed, by his dying friend, in the affectionate terms of “though last not least in'our dear love.” He survived Garrick but a short time, dying at his house in Conduit-street, the 4th of March, 1780; and the following character was given of him by one who seems to have known him well:

, a noted German philosopher and mathematician, was born at Carolostadt in 1477, and died in 1547, aged seventy. From his uncommon acquirements, he was chosen mathematical professor at Nuremberg when he was but a young man. He wrote a great many works, and was particularly famous for his astronomical tables, which he published after the manner of those of Regiomontanus, and to which he gave the title of Resolute, on account of their clearness. But, notwithstanding his great knowledge, he was, after the fashion of the times, much addicted to judicial astrology, which he took great pains to improve. The list of his writings is chiefly as follows: I. “Three Books of Judicial Astrology.” 2. “The astronomical tables named Resolutoj.” 3. “De Usu Globi Stelliferi; De Compositione Giobi Ccelestis De Usu Globi Terrestris, et de Compositione ejusdem.” 4. “Æquatorium Astronomicum.” 5. “Libeilus de Distantiis Locorum per Instrumenturn et Numeros investigandis.” 6. “De Compositione Torqueti.” 7. “In Constructionem et Usum Rectangnli sive Radii Astronomic! Annotationes.” S. “Horarii Cylindri Canones.” 9. “Planisphserium, sen Meteoriscopium.” 10. “Organum Uranicum.” 11.“Instrumentum Impedimentorum Luna3.” All printed at Nuremberg, in 1551, folio. Of these, the large treatise of dialling rendered him more known in the learned world than all his other works besides, in which he discovers a surprising genius and fund of learning of that kind; but some have attributed this to his son.

, a learned and very laborious writer, was born April 1, 1614, at Utrecht, and was successively professor of languages, rhetoric, history, natural philosophy, logic, and experimental philosophy in that city, at Deventer, Groningen, and lastly, at Francfort upon Oder, where he died in 1665, aged fifty-one. Schoockius delighted in singular subjects, and has left a prodigious number of works. Burman says he never knew a man who published so much and acquired so little fame in the learned world. Some of his works are critical, others on philosophy, divinity, history, and literature, chiefly ia 12 mo or 8vo, &c. The most known are, tracts on turfs, “De Turffis, seu de cespitibus Bituminosis” “On Butter;” “On Antipathy to Cheese” “On Eggs and Chickens;” “On Inundations” “De Harengis, seu Halecibus” “De Signaturis foetus” “De Ciconiis” “De Nihilo” “De Sternutatione” “De figmento legis Regies” “De Bonis Ecclesiasticis et Canouicis,” 4toj “De Statu Reipublicse faederati Belgii,” &c. c. He wrote also against Des Cartes, at the request of the famous Voetius, with whom he was much connected. Some other pieces on singular subjects are in his “Exercitationes variae,” 1663, 4to, reprinted under the title of “Martini Themidis exercitationes,” 1688, 4to, &C.

Her father, who had settled at Utrecht while she was an infant, and afterwards removed to Franeker for the more convenient education of his children, died there in 1623. His widow then returned to Utrecht, where Anna Maria continued her studies very intensely; which probably prevented her from marrying, as she might have done advantageously v.ith Mr. Cats, pensionary of Holland, and a celebrated poet, who wrote verses in her praise when she was only fourteen. Her modesty, which was as great as her knowledge, would have kept her in obscurity, if Rivetus, Spanheim, and Vossius, had not made her merit known. Salmasius also, Beverovicius, and Huygens, maintained a literary correspondence with her; and, by shewing her letters, spread her fame into foreign countries. This procured her a correspondence with Balzac, Gassendi, Mersennus, Bo chart, Conrart, and other eminent men; persons of the first rank paid her visits, and cardinal Richelieu likewise shewed her marks of his esteem. About 1650, a great alteration took place in her religious system. She performed her devotions in private, without frequenting any church, upon which it was reported that she was inclined to popery; but she attached herself to the famous mystic Labadie, and embracing his principles and practice, lived some time with him at Altena, in Holstein, and attended him at his death there in 1674. She afterwards retired to Wiewart, in Friseland, where the famous Penn, the Quaker, visited her in 1677; she died at this place in 1678. She took for her device these words of St. Ignatius: “Amor meus crucifixus est.”

, who passes for being the discoverer of that fatal composition so well known by the name of gun-powder, was born at Friburg in Germany in the thirteenth century, and is said to have discovered this dangerous secret in prison, as he was making some chemical experiments. Albertus Magnus speaks of him as a Cordelier, and says that he invented some sorts of firearms. The discovery of this fatal secret has been attributed by some to the Chinese, and by others to our countryman, Roger Bacon: however, the use of artillery was introduced about the time of the battle of Crecy, 1346, and made an absolute change in the whole art of war; whether a beneficial one, has not yet been decided.

, a learned English gentleman, was a younger son of sir John Scot, of Scot’s-hall, near Smeeth in Kent, where he was probably born; and, at about seventeen, sent to Hart-hall, in Oxford. He retired to his native country without taking a degree, and settled at Smeetb; and, marrying soon after, gave himself up solely to reading, to the perusing of obscure authors, which had by the generality of scholars been neglected, and at times of leisure to husbandry and gardening. In 1576, he published a second edition, for we know nothing of the first, of “A perfect platform of a Hop-garden,” &c. in 4to and, in 1584, another work, which shewed the great depth of his researches, and the uncommon extent of his learning, entitled “The Discoverie of Witchcraft,” &c. reprinted in 1651, 4to, with this title: “Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft; proving the common opinion of witches contracting with devils, spirits, familiars, and their power to kill, torment, and consume, the bodies of men, women, and children, or other creatures, by diseases or otherwise, their flying in the air, &c. to be but imaginary erroneous conceptions and novelties. Wherein also the practices of witch. mongers, conjurors, inchanters, soothsayers, also the delusions of astrology, alchemy, legerdemain, and many other things, are opened, that have long lain hidden, though very necessary to be known for the undeceiving of judges, justices, and juries, and for the preservation of poor people, &c. With a treatise upon the nature of spirits and devils,” &c, In the preface to the reader he declares, that his design in this undertaking, was “first, that the glory of God be not so abridged and abased, as to be thrust into the hand or lip of a lewd old woman, whereby the work of the Creator should be attributed to the power of a creature secondly, that the religion of the gospel may be seen to stand without such peevish trumpery thirdly, that favour and Christian compassion be rather used, towards these poor souls, than rigour and extremity,” &c.

Immediately on his arrival at Geneva, 1563, he was earnestly solicited by the magistrates to resume the chair of philosophy. With this he complied, and notwithstanding the dedication of much of his time to the study of physics, he, two years afterwards, instituted a course of lectures in the civil law,and had the honour of being its first professor at Geneva. Being now settled here, he intended to have printed his various works, but a suspicion which Henry Stephens entertained, that it was his intention to set up a rival press at Geneva, occasioned great dissentions between them. The result of the dispute was, that almost all Scrimzeor’s publications were posthumous-. Among them are critical and explanatory notes upon Athenaeus’s “Deipnosophists,” published by Isaac Casaubon at Leyden in 1600, but without distinguishing his own notes from those of Scrimzeor; also a commentary and emendations of Strabo, which were published in Casaubon’s edition of that geographer, 1620, but likewise without acknowledging the assistance he derived from Scrimzeor. Scrimzeor collated different manuscripts of all the works of Plutarch, probably with a view to an edition of that author, and also the ten books of Piogenes Laertius on the lives of the philosophers. His corrected text of this author, with notes full of erudition, came into Casaubon’s possession, and is supposed to have contributed much to the value of his edition of Laertius, printed at Paris in 1593. The works of Phornutus and Palsephatus were also among the collations of Mr. Scrimzeor. To the latter of these authors he made such considerable additions that the work became partly his own. Tht: manuscripts of both these were for some time preserved in the library of sir Peter Young, after that of his uncle Scrimzeor, which was brought into Scot-, laud in 1573, had been added to it. What became of this valuable bequest at the death of the former, is not known. Our learned philologer left also behind him, in manuscript, the orations of Demosthenes, Æschines, and Cicero, and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, all carefully collated; and among his literary remains was a collection of his Latin epistles. But of the many performances which had exercised his pen, it does not appear that any were published by himself but his translation of “Justinian’s Novels” into Greek. This was printed at Paris in 1558, and again with Holoander’s Latin version at Antwerp in 1575. This work has been highly extolled both for the purity of its language and the accuracy of its execution. He wrote also a Latin translation of “The Basilica,” or Basilics, a collection of Roman Laws, which the Eastern emperors Basil and Leo, who reigned in the fifth century, commanded to be translated into Greek, and which preserved their authority till the dissolution of the Eastern empire.

, a French writer of eminence in his day, was descended from an ancient and noble family of Apt in Provence, and born at Havre-de-Grace in 1603. He spent part of his youth at Apt, and afterwards came and settled at Paris, where at first he subsisted by the efforts of his pen, particularly in poetry, and dramatic pieces, none of which are now in any estimation, and we may, therefore, be spared the trouble of giving their titles. In 1627 he published observations upon the “Cid” of Corneille, with a view of making his court to cardinal Richelieu, who was absurdly envious of that great poet, and did every thing he could to oppose the vast reputation and success of the “Cid:” and by his influence alone enabled even such a man as Scuderi “to balance,” as Voltaire says, “for some time, the reputation of Corneille.” Scuderi was received a member of the academy in 1650. He had before been made governor of the castle of Notre-Dame de la Garde, in Provence; and although this was a situation of very little profit, Scuderi, who was still more vain than indigent, gave a pompous description of it in a poem, which drew upon him the raillery of Chapelle and Bachaumont. Scuderi died at Paris, May 14, 1667, leaving a name now better known than his works.

, called also Cu­Ropalates, from an office he held in the household of the emperor of that name, was a Greek historian, known for his abridgment of history from the death of Nicephorus Logothetes, in 811, to the deposition of Nicephorus Botoniates, in 1081. This history, from 1067, is the same as that of Cedrenus, which has raised a doubt whether Cedre-. nus or Scylitza was the original author. Scylitza is thought to have been a native of Lesser Asia, and a prefect of the guards before he attained the dignity of curopalates. A Latin translation of his history entire, was published at Venice in 1570; and the part concerning which there is no dispute was printed in Greek and Latin conjointly with that author, at Paris, in 1647.

Nor was his concern for the Protestant cause confined to his own country he was well known as the great patron and protector of it in various parts of Europe from whence he had frequent applications for assistance, which never failed of being favourably received. To several foreign Protestants he ailowed pensions, to others he gave occasional relief, and to some of their universities was an annual benefactor.

Besides these donations, he left 100G/. to be distributed amongst his servants 200l. to such poor persons as he assisted in his life-time 5000l. to the two daughters of his nephew Mr. Frost 500l. to Mrs. Seeker, the widow of his nephew Dr. George Seeker, and 200l. to Dr. Daniel Burton. After the payment of those and some other smaller legacies, he left his real and the residue of his personal estate to Mr. Thomas Frost of Nottingham. The greatest part of his very noble collection of books he bequeathed to the Archiepiscopal library at Lambeth, the rest betwixt his two chaplains and two other friends. To the manuscript library in the same palace, he left a large number of very learned and valuable Mss. writtenby himself on a great variety of subjects, critical and theological. His well-known catechetical lectures, and his ms sermons he left to be revised by his two chaplains, Dr. Stinton and Dr. Porteus, by whom they were published in 1770. His options he gave to the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and the bishop of Winchester for the time being, in trust, to be disposed of by them (as they became vacant) to such persons as they should in their consciences think it would have been most reasonable for him to have given them, had he been living.

, a French historian, was born January 8, 1691, at Paris. He began to study the law in obedience to his father’s desire, who was an able advocate; but losing both his parents shortly after, he quitted the bar, for which he had not the least taste, and devoted himself wholly to the belles lettres, and French history. His unwearied application to books, which no other passion interrupted, soon made him known among the learned; and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions in 1723, and chosen by chancellor d'Aguesseau five years after, to continue the great collection of statutes, made by the French kings, which M. de Laurier had begun. As Secousse possessed every talent necessary for such an important undertaking, the voiumes which he published were received with universal approbation. He died at Paris, March 15, 1754, aged sixty-three, leaving a library, the largest and most curious, in French history, that any private person had hitherto possessed. His works are, the continuation of the collection of statutes before mentioned, to the ninth volume inclusively, which was printed under the inspection of M. de Villevault, counsellor to the court of aids, who succeeded M. Secousse, and published a table, forming a tenth volume, and since, an eleventh and twelfth. Secousse also wrote many dissertations in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions editions of several works, and of several curious pieces “Memoirs for the History of Charles the Bad,” 2 vols. 4to,

Selden was a man of extensive learning, and had as much skill in the Hebrew and Oriental languages as perhaps any man of his time, Pocock excepted. Grotius, over whom he triumphed in his “Mare clausum,” styles him “the glory of the English nation.” He was knowing in all laws, human and divine, yet did not greatly trouble himself with the practice of law: he seldom appeared at the bar, but sometimes gave counsel in his chamber. “His mind also,” says Whitelocke, “was as great as his learning; he was as hospitable and generous as any man, and as good company to those he liked.” Wilkins relates, that he was a man of uncommon gravity and greatness of soul, averse to flattery, liberal to scholars, charitable to the poor; and that, though he had a great latitude in his principles with regard to ecclesiastical power, yet he had a sincere regard for the church of England. Baxter remarks, that “he was a resolved se-> rious Christian, a great adversary, particularly, to Hobbes’s errors;” and that sir Matthew Hale affirmed, “how he had seen Selden openly oppose Hobbes so earnestly, as either to depart from him, or drive him out of the room.” But the noblest testimony in his favour is that of his intimate friend the earl of Clarendon, who thus describes him in all parts of his character: “Mr. Selden was a person,” says he, “whom no character can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his merit and virtue. He was of such stupendous learning in all kinds and in all languages, as may appear from his excellent and transcendant writings, that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among books, and had never spent an hour but in reading or writing; yet his humanity, courtesy, and affability, was such, that he would have been thought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good-nature, charity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew, exceeded that breeding. His style in all his writings seems harsh, and sometimes obscure; which is not wholly to be imputed to the abstruse subjects of which he commonly treated, out of the paths trod by other men, but to a little undervaluing the beauty of a style , and too much propensity to the language of antiquity: but in his conversation he was the most clear discourser, and had the best faculty in making hard things easy, and present to the understanding, of any man that hath been known.” His lordship also used to say, that *' he valued himself upon nothing more than upon having had Mr. Selden’s acquaintance, from the time he was very young; and held it with great delight as long as they were suffered to continue together in London: and he was very much troubled always when he heard him blamed, censured, and reproached for staving in London, and in the parliament, after they- were in rebellion, and in the worst times, which his age obliged him to do; and how wicked soever the actions were, which were every day done, he was confident he had not given his consent to them, but would have hindered them if he could with his own safety, to which he was always enough indulgent. If he had some infirmities with other men, they were weighed down with wonderful and prodigious abilities and excellences in the other scale.“The political part of Selden’s life, is that which the majority of readers will contemplate with least pleasure; but on this it is unnecessary to dwell. The same flexibility of spirit, which made him. crouch before the reprehension of James I. disfigured the rest of his life, and deprived him of that dignity and importance which would have resulted from his standing erect in any place he might have chosen. Clarendon seems to have hit the true cause of all, in that anxiety for his own safety to which, as he says,” he was always indulgent enough."

, whose adventures have given rise to the popular romance of Robinson Crusoe, was born at Largo, in Fifeshire, in Scotland, about 1676, and was bred a seaman. He left England in 1703, in the capacity of sailing-master of a small vessel, called the Cinque- PortsGalley, Charles Pickering captain and in the month of September, the same year, he sailed from Cork, in company with another ship of 26 guns and 120 men, called the St. George, commanded by captain William Dampier, intended to cruise against the Spaniards in the South sea. On the coast of Brasil, Pickering died, and was succeeded in the command by lieutenant Stradling. They proceeded round Cape Horn to the island of Juan Fernandez, whence they were driven by the appearance of two French ships of 36 guns each, and left five of Stradling’s men on shore, who were taken off by the French. Hence they sailed to the coast of America, where Dampier and Stradling quar^ relied, and separated by agreement. This was in the month of May 1704; and in the following September, Stradling came to the island of Juan Fernandez, where Selkirk and his captain having a quarrel, he determined to remain there alone. But when the ship was ready to sail, his resolution was shaken, and he desired to be taken on board; but now the captain refused his request, and he was left with hm clothes, bedding, a gun, and a small quantity of powder and ball, some trifling implements, and a few books, with certain mathematical and nautical instruments. Thus left sole monarch of the island, with plenty of the necessaries, of life, he found himself at first in a situation scarcely supportable; and such was his melancholy, that he frequently determined to put an end to his existence. It was full eighteen months, according to his own account, before he could reconcile himself to his lot. At length his mind became calm, and fully reconciled to his situation: he grew happy, employed his time in building and decorating his huts, chasing the goats, whom he soon equalled in speed, and scarcely ever failed of catching them. He also tamed young kids, and other animals, to be his companions. When his garments were worn out, he made others from the skins of the goats, whose flesh served him as food. His only liquor was water. He computed that he had caught, during his abode in the island, about 1000 goats, half of which he had suffered to go at large, having first marked them with a slit in the ear. Commodore Anson, who went there 30 years after, found the first goat which they shot, had been thus marked; and hence they concluded that it had been under the power of Selkirk. Though he constantly performed his devotions at stated hours, and read aloud, yet when he was taken from the island, his language, from disuse of conversation, had become scarcely intelligible. In this solitude he remained four years and four months, during which only two incidents occurred which he thought worthy of record. The first was, that pursuing a goat eagerly, he caught at the edge of a precipice, of which he was not aware, and he fell over to the bottom, where he lay some time senseless; but of the exact space of time in which he was bereaved of his active powers he could not ferm an accurate estimate. When, however, he came to himself, he found the goat lying under him dead. It was with difficulty that he could crawl to his habitation, and it was not till after a considerable time that he entirely recovered from his bruises. The other event was the arrival of a ship, which he at first supposed to be French, but, upon the crew’s landing, he found them to be Spaniards, of whom he had too great a dread to trust himself in their hands. They, however, had seen him, and he found it extremely difficult to make his escape. In this solitude Selkirk remained until the 2d of February, 1709, when he saw two ships come to the bay, and knew them to be English. He immediately lighted a fire as a signal, and he found, upon the landing of the men, that they were two privateers from Bristol, commanded by captains Rogers and Courtney. These, after a fortnight’s stay at Juan Fernandez, embarked, taking Selkirk with them, and returned byway of the East Indies to England, where they arrived on the 1st of October, 1711; Selkirk having been absent eight years. The public curiosity being much excited, he, after his return, drew up some account of what had occurred during his solitary exile, which he put into the hands of Defoe, vvho made it the foundation of his well-known work, entitled “Robinson Crusoe.” The time and place of Selkirk’s death are not on record. It is said, that so late as 1798, the chest and musket, which Selkirk had with him on the island, were in possession of a grand nephew, John Selkirk, a weaver in Largo, North Britain. Such are the particulars of this man’s history as recorded in “The Englishman,” No. 26, and elsewhere, but what credit is due to it, we do not pretend to say.

, an Italian biographer, was born at Bergamo in 1721, and at the age of twenty had so distinguished himself as to be elected a member of the academy of Transforrnati at Milan, and on his return to Bergamo, was appointed professor of the belles lettres. In 1742, he published his “Opinion concerning the country of Bernardo and of Torquato Tasso,” a tract in which he vindicated, to the district of Bergamo, the honour of being the native country of these poets, which had been denied by Seghezzi, the author of a very elegant life of Bernardo; but Seghezzi now candidly confessed that his opponent was right, and that he should treat the subject differently, were he again to write on it. In the succeeding years, Serassi published editions of several of the best Italian writers, with their lives, particularly Maffei, Molza, Politian, Capelia, Dante, Petrarch, &c. The most distinguished of his biographical productions, however, was his life of Tasso, 17b5, 2 vols. 4to, on which he had been employed during twenty years. Mr. Black, in his life of that eminent poet, has availed himself of Serassi' s work, but not without discovering its delects. Serassi also published a life of “Jacopo Mazzoni, patrician of Cessena,” 3. personage little known, but whose history he has rendered interesting. Serassi was employed in some offices under the papal government, and in the college of Propaganda. he died Feb. 19, 1791, at Rome, in the seventieth year of his age. A monument was erected to his memory in the church of St. Maria, in Via lata, where he-was interred; and the city of Bergamo ordered a medal to be struck to his honour, with the inscription “Propagatori pcitriae laudis.”

He published several works in Latin and in French, relating to the history of France among the rest, in French “Memoires de la troisieme Guerre Civile, et derniers troubles de France sous Charles IX., &c.” “Inventaire general de l‘Histoire de France, illustre par la conference de i’Eglise et de i'Empire, &c.” “Recueil des choses memorables avenues en France sous Henri II. Francois II. Charles IX. et Henri III.” &c. These have been many times reprinted, with continuations and improvements; but it is objected that Serranus is not always impartial. Besides his theological works, he is perhaps best known for his “Latin version of Plato,” which was printed with Henry Stephens’s magnificent edition of that author’s works, 1578, 3 vols. fol. This translation, although more elegant, is not thought so faithful as that of Ficinus. Stephens had a very high opinion of Serranus, and printed in 1575, twenty-four of the Psalms, translated by Serranus into Greek verse, with two “Idyllia” from Daniel and Isaiah. Of this very rare volume, Francis Okely published anew edition at London in 1772, 12mo.

, a celebrated grammarian and critic of antiquity, flourished in the fifth century. He is known now chiefly by his commentaries upon Virgil, which Barthius and others have supposed to be nothing more than a collection of ancient criticisms and remarks upon that poet, made by Servius. They were first published by Valdarfer in 1471, and reprinted several times in that century, afterwards in an edition of Virgil, at Paris, by Robert Stephens, 1532, in folio, and by Fulvius Ursinus, in 1569, 8vo. A better edition was given by Peter Daniel at Paris, in 1600; but the best is that printed with the edition of Virgil, by Masvicius, in 1717, 4to. Burman, in his edition of 1746, has so blended these notes with those of Heinsius, as to render it difficult to determine how he reconciles their opposite authorities. There is also extant, and printed in several editions of the ancient grammarians, a piece of Servius upon the feet of verses and the quantity of syllables, called “Centiaietrum.” This was first printed in 1476. Macrobius has spoken highly of Servius, and makes him one of the speakers in his “Saturnalia.”

Madam Sevigne often visited her daughter, and in her last journey to Grignan, after having gone through incredible fatigue during a long illness of this darling child, she was herself seized with a fever, of which she died in 1696. The best edition of madame de Sevigne’s “Letters,” published by the chevalier Perrin, is Paris, 1775, 8 vols. 12mo. This contains the “Select Letters” of her society, but not those from madame de Sevign6 to M. de Pompone, on M. Fouquet’s disgrace; nor those that are in the “Collection, of Bussy Rabutin’s Letters,” which may be met with separately. A collection of “Ingenious thoughts; literary, historical, and moral anecdotes,” which are dispersed through these letters, were published, 1756, 12mo, under the title “Sevigniana.” Her Letters have long been known in this country, by a translation published about 1758 60.

About 1754, Mr. Seward removed with his family to Liehfield, which continued ever afterwards to be his daughter’s residence, although varied, during her father’s life, by occasional visits to his rectory at Eyam. For the first ten years of Miss Seward’s residence here, she was^rather checked than encouraged in the cultivation of her poetical talents. Her mother possessed no taste for her daughter’s favourite amusements, and even her father withdrew his countenance from them, under the apprehension that his continued encouragement might produce in his daughter that dreaded phenomenon, a learned lady. Poetry was therefore prohibited, and Miss Seward resorted to other amusements, and to the practice of ornamental needlework, in which she is said to have excelled. When, however, she arrived at an age to select her own society and studies, her love of literature was indulged, and the sphere in which she moved was such as to increase her taste for its pursuits. Dr. Darwin, the enthusiast Mr. Day, Mr. Edgeworth, sir Brooke Bootbby, and other names, well known in the literary world, then formed part of the Lichfield society. Dr. Johnson was an occasional visitor in their circles, but not much of a favourite with Dr. Darwin or Miss Seward. He neither agreed with the one, nor flattered the other.

Mr. Seward was in every respect a desirable acquaintance; he had travelled abroad with great improvement, and was known to most o/ those who had distinguished themselves by genius or learning, by natural or acquired endowments, or even by eccentricity of character; and he had stored his memory with anecdotes which made his conversation extremely entertaining. But though he wished to observe the manner of eminent or extraordinary men, he did not indiscriminately form friendships with them. He knew many, but was intimate with few. He was the friend of Dr. Johnson, bad conversed with Mr. Howard, and condescended to know Tom Paine. Party distinctions, appeared to have but little weight with him. He visited and received the visits of many whose opinions were directly opposite to each other, and equally to his own.

How long he acted has not been discovered, but he continued to write till the year 1614. During his dramatic career he acquired a property in the theatre , which he must have disposed of when he retired, as no mention of it occurs in his will. His connexion with Ben Jonson has been variously related. It is said, that when Jonson was unknown to the world, he offered a play to the theatre, which was rejected after a very careless perusal; but that Shakspeare having accidentally cast his eye on it, conceived a favourable opinion of it, and afterwards recommended Jonson and his writings to the public. For this candour he was repaid by Jonson, when the latter became a poet of note, with an envious disrespect. Jonson acquired reputation by the variety of his pieces, and endeavoured to arrogate the supremacy in dramatic genius. Like a French critic, he insinuated Shakspeare’s incorrectness, his careless manner of writing, and his want of judgment; and as he was a remarkably slow writer himself, he could not endure the praise frequently bestowed on Shakspeare, of seldom altering or blotting out what he had written. Mr. Malone says, that “not long after the year 1600, a coolness arose between Shakspeare and him, which, however he may talk of his almost idolatrous affection, produced on his part, from that time to the death of our author, and for many years afterwards, much clumsy sarcasm, and many malevolent reflections.” But from these, which are the commonly received opinions on this subject, Dr. Farmer is inclined to depart, and to think Jonson’s hostility to Shakspeare absolutely groundless; so uncertain is every circumstance we attempt to recover of our great poet’s life . Jonson had only one advantage over Shakspeare, that of superior learning, which might in certain situations be of some importance, but could never promote his rivalship with a man who attained the highest excellence without it. Nor will Shakspeare suffer by its being known that all the dramatic poets before he appeared were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlowe, Nashe, Lily, and Kyd, had all, says Mr. Malone, a regular university education, and, as scholars in our universities, frequently composed and acted plays on historical subjects .

“The first syllable in Socratem,” says Mr. Steevens, "is here made short, which cannot be allowed. Perhaps we should read Sophoclem. Shakspeare is then appositely compared with a dramatick author among the ancients; but still it should be remembered that the elogium is lessened while the metre is reformed; and it is well known that some of our early writers of Latin poetry were uncommonly negligent in their prosody, especially in proper names. The thought of this distich, as Mr. Toilet observes, might have been taken from ‘The Faery Queene’ of Spenser, B. II. c. ix. st. 48, and c. x. st. 3.

In the year 1741, a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of the earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker (who received 300l. for it), after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expences, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performers at Drury-Iane theatre amounted to above 200l. but the receipts at Covent-garden did not exceed 100l. From these imperfect notices, which are all we have been able to collect from the labours of his biographers* and commentators, our readers will perceive that less is known of Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has been considered as an object of laudable curiosity. Nothing could be more highly gratifying than an account of the early studies of this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, his moral and social qualities, his friendships, his failings, and whatever else constitutes personal history. But on all these topics his contemporaries and his immediate successors have been equally silent, and if aught can hereafter be discovered, it must be by exploring sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives, and their most vigorous talents, to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch. we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may not be involved in controversy, and perplexed with contradictory opinions and authorities

His admirers, however, if he had admirers in that age, possessed no portion of such enthusiasm. That curiosity which in our days has raised biography to the rank of an independent study, was scarcely known, and where known, confined principally to the public transactions of eminent characters. And if, in addition to the circumstances already stated, we consider how little is known of the personal history of Shakspeare’s contemporaries, we may easily resolve the question why, of all men who have ever claimed admiration by genius, wisdom, or valour, who have eminently contributed to enlarge the taste, or increase the reputation of their country, we know the least of Shakspeare; and why, of the few particulars which seem entitled to credit, when simply related, and in which there is no manifest violation of probability, or promise of importance, there is scarcely one which has not swelled into a controversy. After a careful examination of all that modern research has discovered, we know not how to trust our curiosity beyond the limits of those barren dates which afford no personal history. The nature of Shakspeare’s writings prevents that appeal to internal evidence which in other cases has been found to throw light on character. The purity of his morals, for example, if sought in his plays, must be measured against the licentiousness of his language, and the question will then be, how much did he write from conviction, and how much to gratify the taste of his hearers How much did he add to the age, and how much did he borrow from it Pope says, “he was obliged to please the lowest of the people, and to keep the worst of company;” and Pope might have said more, for although we hope' it was not true, we have no means of proving that it was false.

Mr. Capell is of opinion that he wrote some prose works, because “it can hardly be supposed that he, who had so considerable a share in the confidence of the earls of Essex and Southampton, could be a mute spectator only of controversies in which they were so much interested.” This editor, however, appears to have taken for granted a degree of confidence with these two statesmen, which he ought first to have proved. Shakspeare might have enjoyed the confidence of their social hours, but it is mere conjecture that they admitted him into the confidence of their state affairs. Mr. Malone, whose opinions are entitled to a higher degree of credit, thinks that his prose compositions, if they should be discovered, would exhibit the same perspicuity, the same cadence, the same elegance and vigour, which we find in his plays. It is unfortunate, however, for all wishes and all conjectures, that not a line of Shakspeare' s manuscript is known to exist, and his prose writings are nowhere hinted at. We have only printed copies of his plays and poems, and those so depraved by carelessness or ignorance, that all the labour of all his commentators has not yet been able to restore them to a probable purity. Many of the greatest difficulties attending the perusal of them yet remain, and will require, what it is scarcely possible to expect, greater sagacity and more happy conjecture than have hitherto been employed.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and the third prelate of that see who suffered from popular or private revenge, was born of a good family in Banffshire in 1618. In his youth he displayed such a capacity as determined his father to dedicate him to the church, and to send him to the university of Aberdeen, whence, on account of the Scottish covenant, made in 1638, he retired into England, and was in a fair way of obtaining promotion from his acquaintance with doctors Sanderson, Hammond, Taylor, and other of our most eminent divines, when he was obliged to return to his native country on account of the rebellion, and a bad state of health. Happening by the way to fall into company with lord Oxenford, that nobleman was pleased with his conversation, and carried him to his own house in the country. Here he became known to several of the nobility, particularly to John Lesley, earl of Rothes, who patronized him on account of his merit, and procured him a professorship in St. Andrew’s. After some stay here with growing reputation, through the friendship of the earl of Cranford, he was appointed minister of Crail. In this town he acquitted himself of his ministry in an exemplary and acceptable manner; only some of the more rigid sort would sometimes intimate their fears that he was not sound; and it is very certain that he was not sincere.

, eminent as a Christian, a scholar, and a gentleman, one of the sons of Dr. Thomas Sharp, and grandson to the archbishop, was born in 1734. He was educated for the bar, but did not practise at it. When he quitted the legal profession, he obtained a place in the ordnance office, which he resigned at the commencement of the American war; of the principles of which he did not approve. He now took chambers in the Temple, and devoted himself to a life of study; at the same time, laying himself out for public utility. He first became known to the public in the case of a poor and friendless negro, of the name of Somerset. This person had been brought from the West Indies to England, and falling into bad health, was abandoned by his master, and turned into the streets, either to die, or to gain a miserable support by precarious charity. In this destitute state, almost, it is said, on the point of expiring on the pavement of one of the public streets of London, Mr. Sharp chanced to see him. He instantly had him removed to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, attended personally to his wants, and in a short time had the happiness to see him restored to health. Mr. Sharp now clothed him, and procured him comfortable employment in the service of a lady. Two years had elapsed, and the circumstance almost, and the name of the poor negro, had escaped the memory of his benefactor, when Mr. Sharp received a letter from a person, signing himself Somerset, confined in the Poultry Compter, stating no cause for his commitment, but intreating his interference to save him from a greater calamity even than the death from which he had before rescued him. Mr. Sharp instantly went to the prison, and found the negro, who in sickness and misery had been discarded by his master, sent to prison as a runaway slave. Mr. Siiarp went immediately to the lord major, William Nash, esq. who caused the parties to be brought before him; when, after a long hearing, the upright magistrate decided that the master had no property in the person of the negro, in this country, and gave the negro his liberty. The master instantly collared him, in the presence of Mr. Sharp and the lord mayor, and insisted on his right to keep him as his property. Mr. Sharp now claimed the protection of the English law, caused the master to be taken into custody, and exhibited articles of peace against him for an assault and battery. After various legal proceedings, supported by him with most undaunted spirit, the twelve judges unanimously concurred in an opinion that the master had acted criminally. Thus did Mr. Sharp emancipate for ever the race of blacks from a state of slavery, while on British ground, and in fact banished slavery from Great Britain. Such an incident could not fail deeply to impress a benevolent mind; and slavery, in every shape and country, became the object of his unceasing hostility. In 17G9, he published a work, entitled “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of toleratinaSlavery, or of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men in England. 7 ' Having succeeded in the case of an individual negro, he interested himself in the condition of the many others who were seen wandering about the streets of London, and at his own expence collected a number of them, whom he sent back to Africa, where they termed a colony on the river Sierra Leone. He performed a still more essential service to humanity, by becoming the institutor of the” Society for the abolition of the Slave trade;“which, after contending against a vast mass of opposition, at length succeeded, as far as this country was concerned, and it is hoped will soon be universal. Similar principles led Mr. Sharp to use his endeavours to restrain the practice of marine impressment; and a citizen of London having been carried off by a press-warrant, Mr. Sharp obtained a habeas corpus from the court of king’s bench, to bring him back from a vessel at the Nore; and by his arguments obliged the court to liberate him. His political principles led him to become the warm advocate of” parliamentary reform,“and he published” A Declaration of the people’s natural right to a share in the legislature, which is the fundamental principle of the British constitution of state." In this he proposed to restore the ancient tithing$, hundreds, &c. and the whole body of the people were to form a national militia, each thousand to constitute a regiment, the alderman or magistrate to be the colonel; and each hundred to constitute a company, the constable of each fo.r the time being to be their captain. So many of the thousands to be summoned once in every year, by their magistrate, as would have a right to vote in their respective hundreds, before the constable, in the choice of their part of the representative legislature. After stating that the division of this kingdom into tithings and hundreds was instituted by the immortal Alfred, he endeavours to prove that such a division is consistent with the most perfect state of liberty that man is capable of enioying, and yet fully competent to answer all the purposes of mutual defence, to secure the due execution of the laws, and maintain public peace. Mr. Sharp was educated in the principles of the established church, and through life shewed a warm attachment to them. This led him to recommend an episcopal church in America; and he introduced the first bishops from that country to the archbishop of Canterbury for consecration.

, not related, as we have been told, to the preceding family, was an able and distinguished surgeon in the middle of the last century. He was a pupil of the celebrated Cheselden, and afterwards studied his profession with great zeal at the hospitals of Paris. He is said to have commenced his profession rather late in lire; yet after settling in London, and obtaining an appointment as surgeon of Guy’s hospital, his genius and assiduity soon obtained for him a high degree of celebrity, and extensive practice. He speaks of having known Voltaire early in life, and of being sometimes his conductor when that extraordinary genius was in London. He saw him likewise at Paris in 1749, and visited him for the last time during his travels in 1765. In the beginning of 1749 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and a foreign member of the Academy of Surgery at Paris; and he contributed to the improvement of his art by two valuable publications, which passed through many editions, and were translated into several foreign languages. The first of these was “A Treatise on the Operations of Surgery, with a Description and Representation of the Instruments; and an Introduction on the Nature and Treatment of Wounds, Abscesses, and Ulcers;” first printed in 1739. The edition printed in 1751, is the sixth. The second work was entitled “A critical Inquiry into the present State of Surgery;” first printed, we believe, in 1750. The edition of 1761 is the founh. In 1765 Mr. Sharp visited the continent for the sake of health, if we mistake not; and on his return published “Letters from Italy, describing the Manners and Customs of that Country,” an 8vo volume, written in a lively pleasant style, but giving such an account of Italy as roused the indignation of Baretti (See Baretti, vol. III. p. 465.) and produced his “Account of the Manners and Customs of Italy;” and a reply afterwards from each of the parties. Some time before his death Mr. Sharp retired from business, and died March 24, 1778.

As few men have left behind them a character more estimable in every quality that regards personal merit, or public service, his name will be transmitted to posterity among those who give lustre to their age and country, who do honour to human nature by their virtues, and who contribute to the advancement of science and the interests of literature by their superior talents. Endued by nature with considerable intellectual parts, and those improved by assiduous cultivation, he acquired a vast stock of general knowledge. His extensive information was treasured up without confusion, applied in his works with discernment, and communicated to every inquirer with cheerfulness and freedom. At an early period of life he became an excellent scholar. He wrote Latin with facility, with elegance, and with great purity, Upon most subjects of polite literature he manifested in his conversations a critical taste, and a high relish for the productions of genius. Among the relaxations from graver studies, poetical compositions occasionally employed his talents, and the productions of this kind, which are dispersed in his General Zoology, and in Dr. Thornton’s “Temple of Flora,” are equally creditable to his taste and his imagination. He had a prodigious and a most tenacious memory: to such a perfection did he enjoy this faculty, that he could refer persons correctly to almost every author he had read, for any fact that they needed. In trials that have been made upon him in the earlier part of his life, he could repeat the preceding or following line of any one recited from Milton’s Paradise Lost, or the works of Horace. Dr. Shaw’s reputation was great in botany, but still greater in Zoology. Herein posterity will be ever indebted for the services he has rendered this branch of natural history, especially that portion of it which relates to arrangement and description. A clear and correct account of the generic and specific character of animals, the essentials of this science, is the remarkable feature and meritorious character of all his works. Having in the first place strictly attended to these, he then proceeded to give his subjects all the suitable embellishments that extensive erudition, good taste, and a correct memory could bestow. His descriptions, if they were minute, yet they were never trifling; if enlivened by anecdote, and rich in information, it was done with propriety, and without being tedious; they were too, always popular, and at the same time possessing all that the dignity of science required. His hours of amusement were frequently employed upon mechanical contrivances, connected with his philosophical pursuits, or his domestic comforts, in which he shewed great ingenuity in invention, and a delicate neatness in execution. His behaviour was remarkably polite. In his person he was neat, gentlemanlike in his dress, methodical in his habits, in the disposition of his library, his papers, and in the order of every thing that belonged to him. His natural temper was lively, good-humoured, sociable. His conversation was precise, full of information, always amusing, frequently smart and witty. He was universally esteemed by men of science, beloved by a large circle of his friends, and had it not been for a few sarcastic expressions which he had, without any malicious intention, suffered to escape him, he had lived without an enemy. None of those passions which produce so much disquietude and misery amongst mankind, seem ever to have found a place in his bosom. He was frugal in his expences, moderate in his wishes, temperate to an uncommon degree in eating and drinking, and so chaste in his desires, that no one could reproach him with the commission of an indecent action, or the use of an immodest word; nay, such was the delicacy and purity of his mind, that the writer of this memoir has repeatedly heard him assert, thnt he had scrupulously endeavoured to avoid in his writings every expression which a woman would blush to read. Sincerity of heart, innocence of mind, and simplicity of manners, eminent!/ and uniformly marked his whole character. Of his religious sentiments little is known, as he was remarkably reserved upon all subjects connected with his personal conduct and opinions. He however sufficiently shewed in his conversation, and by performing the public duties of religion in his attendance upon the service of the Church of England, that his notions were, in this respect, serious and pious.

* This story has been differently the publisher, and the edition was suptold. Mr. Gough, in a letter in the pressed, so that the rarity of the quarto Gent. Mag. Vol. LXXII. says that copies, more than any intrinsic merit, “Shebbeare being engaged by the has now enhanced their value.” This university to arrange or transcribe the seems probable, except what relates to Clarendon Mss. transmitted a copy to Cooper being an assumed name. M. a ncokseller in London to publish under or Mary Cooper was at that time a the assumed name of Cooper. The well known bookseller in Paternosteruniversity, a? soon as they discovered row, and was frequently Dodsley’s city the trick, obtained an injunction against publisher. While confined in the King’s Bench prison, he solicited Subscriptions for the first volume of a History of England, ' from the revolution to the then present time; but this, at the persuasion of his friends, he altered to a first volume of the History of England and of the.constitution from its origin, and is said to have made some progress in the design, which, however, after many excuses and promises, was never accomplished. At the expiration of his imprisonment a new reign had commenced, and the king was not only persuaded to entertain a favourable opinion of Dr. Shebbeare, but to grant him a pension. From this time he became an uniform, defender of the measures of government; but still his character was not such as to conciliate the good opinion of all the friends of power. Smollet introduced him in no very respectful light, under the name of Ferret, in the novel of Sir Launcelot Greaves, and Hogarth made him one of the groupe in the third Election print. Scarce a periodical publication was without some contemptuous notice of him, to which he in general paid little attention: but in 1774 he published a pamphlet in his own defence, coupled with such a virulent attack on the character of king William, as roused the indignation of every Whig in the kingdom.

The consequence of this expedition was the retreat of the Moors, and the blowing-up of Tangier. The poem above alluded to was “The Vision,” a licentious one, such as was fashionable in those times, with little power of invention or propriety of sentiment. At his return he found the king kind, who, as Dr. Johnson says, perhaps had never been angry, and he continued a wit and a courtier as before. At the succession of king James, to whom he was intimately known, and by whom he thought himself beloved, he was admitted into the privy council, and made lord chamberlain. He accepted a place in the high commission without knowledge, as he declared after the Revolution, of its illegality. Having few religious scruples, he attended the king at mass, and kneeled with the rest; but had no disposition to receive the Ilomish faith, or to force it upon others; for when the priests, encouraged by his appearances of compliance, attempted to convert him, he told them, as Burnet has recorded, that he was willing to receive instruction, and that he had taken much pains to believe in God who had made the world and all men in it; but that he should not be easily persuaded “that man was quits, and made God again.” A pointed sentence, says Dr. Johnson, is bestoweo^ by successive transmission to the last whom it will fit; this censure of transubstantiation, whatever be its value, was uttered long ago by Anne Askew, one of the first sufferers for the Protestant religion, who, in the time of Henry VIII. was tortured in the Tower; concerning which there is reason to wonder that it was not known to the historian of the Reformation.

His life was unstained by any crime, for the Elegy on “Jessy,” which has been supposed tp relate an unfortunate and criminal amour of his own, was known by his friends to have been suggested by the story of Miss Godfrey in Richardson’s lt Pamela."

, an English poet, was descended from an antient family of the same name at Stanyhurst, in Lancashire. His grandfather, Henry, appears to have belonged, but in what capacity is not known, to Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and settled in that city, where Edward the father of our poet was born. This Edward went afterwards to London, and became secretary to the first East India company, established by queen Elizabeth’s charter, and in 1613, obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the ordnance. He was afterwards knighted by Charles I. He married Frances, the second daughter pf John Stanley of Roydon Hall, in Essex, esq. and resided in Goldsmith’s Rents, near Redcross-street, Cripplegate. Mis son, the poet, was born here Sept 18, 1618, and educated by the celebrated Thomas Farnaby, who then taught a school in Goldsmith’s rents. On his removal to Sevenoaks in Kent, in 1636, young Sherburne was educated privately, under the care of Mr. Charles Aleyn, the poetical historian of the battles of Cressy and Poictiers, who had been one of Farnaby’s ushers. On the death of Aleyn in 1640, his pupil being intended for the army, was sent to complete his education abroad, and had travelled in France and part of Italy, when his father’s illness obliged him to return. After his father’s death in 1641, he succeeded to the clerkship of his majesty’s ordnance, the reversion of which had been procured for him in 1638,- but the rebellion prevented his retaining it long. Being a Roman catholic, and firmly attached to the king, he was ejected by a warrant of the house of Lords in April or May 1642, and harassed by a long and expensive confinement in the custody of the usher of the black rod.

, D. D. the intimate friend of Dean Swift, is said by Shield, in Cibber’s “Lives of the Poets,” to have been born about 1684, in the county of Cavan, where, according to the same authority, his parents lived in no very elevated state. They are described as being unable to afford their son the advantages of a liberal education; but he, being observed to give early indications of genius, attracted the notice of a friend to his family, who sent him to the college of Dublin, and contributed towards his support while he remained there. He afterwards entered into orders, and set up a school in Dublin, which long maintained a very high degree of reputation, as well for the attention bestowed on the morals of the scholars, as for their proficiency in literature. So great was the estimation in which this seminary was held, that it is asserted to have produced in some years the sum of one thousand pounds. It does not appear that he had any considerable preferment; but his intimacy with Swift, in 1725, procured for him a living in the south of Ireland, worth about 150l. a year, which he went to take possession of, and, by an act of inadvertence, destroyed all his future expectations of rising in the church; for, being at Corke on the first of August, the anniversary of king George’s birth-day, he preached a sermon, which had for its text, “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” On this being known, he was struck out of the list of chaplains to the lord-lieutenant, and forbidden the castle.

Mr. Sheridan appeared to much more advantage afterwards as a reformer of the manners of the Dublin audience, which he attempted with great spirit. The young and unruly among the male part of the audience, had long claimed a right of coming into the green-room, attending rehearsals, and carrying on gallantries, in the most open and offensive manner, with such of the actresses as would admit of them, while those who would not were perpetually exposed to insult and ill-treatment. These grievances Sheridan determined by degrees to remove, and at last happily effected, though not until he was involved in contests with the most tumultuous audiences, both at the hazard of losing his means of subsistence, and even of losing his life, from the resentment of a set of lawless rioters, who were at length, through an exertion of justice in the magistracy of Dublin in the support of public decency, convinced of their error, or at least of the impracticability of pursuing it any farther with impunity. During the space of about eight years, Mr. Sheridan possessed the office of manager of the theatre royal of Dublin, with all the success both with respect to fame and fortune that could well be expected; till at length he was driven from the stage and its concerns by another of those popular tumults by which managers and performers are daily liable to suffer. In the summer of the year 1754, in which the rancour of political party arose to the greatest height that it had almost ever been known to do in Dublin, Mr. Sheridan unfortunately revived a tragedy, viz. Miller’s “Mahomet.” In this play were many passages respecting liberty, bribery, and corruption, which pleased the anti-courtiers as expressive of their own opinions in regard to certain persons at that time in power, and therefore they insisted on those passages being repeated, a demand which, on the first night of its representation, the actor in whose part most of them occurred, complied with. The absurdity, however, of such repetitions, merely as destroying the effect of the tragedy, having occurred to the manager, the same speeches, when again called for by the audience on the succeeding night, were refused by the actor, and he being obliged to hint the cause of his refusal, the manager became the object of their resentment. On his not appearing to mollify their rage by some kind of apology, they flew out into the most outrageous violence, cul the scenery to pieces with their swords, tore up the benches and boxes, and, in a word, totally despoiled the theatre; concluding with a resolution never more to permit Mr. Sheridan to appear on that stage.

Besides the works already enumerated, a fifth volume of his “Sermons” was published in 1776: this consists of fourteen occasional sermons, printed at the expense of Lockyer Davis and Thomas Davies, two well-known booksellers, whose initials D. D. are subscribed to the preface, and but for this notice, may perhaps perplex some future inquirer. He was also the author of “The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus,” first published in 1729, without his name, and which went through fourteen editions. Dr. Leland remarks that this piece has been “very justly admired for the polite and uncommon turn, as well as the judicious way of treating the subject.” It is indeed a very ingenious effort both of argument and imagination, and places Sherlock’s talents in a new light*. On

, an eminent English admiral, was born near Clay, in Norfolk, about 1650, of parents in middling circumstances, and put apprentice to some mechanic trade, to which he applied himself for som.e time. He is said to have early discovered an inclination for the naval service, and at length went to sea, under the protection of sir Christopher Mynns, as a cabbin-boy, and applying himself very assiduously to the study of navigation, became an able seaman, and quickly arrived at preferment. In 1674, our merchants in the Mediterranean being very much distressed by the piratical state of Tripoly, a strong squadron was sent into those parts under the command of sir John Narborough, who arrived before Tripoly in the spring of the year, and found considerable preparations for defence. Being, according to the nature of his instructions, desirous to try negotiation rather than force, he thought proper to send Shovel, now a lieutenant, to demand satisfaction for what was past, and security for the time to come. Shovel went on shore, and delivered his message with great spirit; but the Dey, despising his youth, treated him with much disrespect, and sent him back with an indefinite answer. Shovel, on his return to the admiral, acquainted him with some remarks he had made on shore. Sir John sent him back with another message, and well furnished him with proper rules for conducting his inquiries and observations. The Dey’s behaviour was worse the second time, which Shovel made a pretence for delaying his departure that he might complete his observations. On his return he assured the admiral it was very practicable to burn the ships in the harbour, notwithstanding their lines and forts: accordingly, in the night of the 4th of March, Shovel, with all the boats in the fleet, filled with combustibles, went boldly into the harbour, and destroyed the vessels in it, after which he returned safe to the fleet, without the loss of a single man; and the Tripolines were so disconcerted at the boldness and success of the attack, as immediately to sue for peace. Of this affair sir John Narborough gave so honourable account in all his letters, that the next year Shovel had the command given him of the Sapphire, a fifth rate; whence he was not long after *e* moved into the James galley, a fourth rate, in which he continued till the death of Charles II. Although he was known to be unfriendly to the arbitrary measures of James II. yet that prince continued to employ him, and he was preferred to the Dover, in which situation he was when the Revolution took place, and heartily concurred in that event. In 1689, he was in the first battle, that of Bantry-bay, in the Edgar, a third-rate; and so distinguished himself by courage and conduct, that when king William came down to Portsmouth, he conferred on him the honour of knighthood. In 1690, he was employed in conveying king YVilr liam and his army into Ireland, who was so highly pleased with his diligence and dexterity, that he did him the honour to deliver him a commission of rear-admiral of the blue with his own hand. Just before the king set out for Holland, in 1692, he made him rear-admiral of the red, at the same time appointing him commander of the squadron that was to convoy him thither. On his return, Shovel joined admiral Russell with the grand fleet, and had a share in the glory of the victory at La Hogue. When it was thought proper that the fleet should be put under command of joint admirals in the succeeding year, he was one; and, as Campbell says, “if there had been nothing more than this joint commission, we might well enough account from thence for the misfortunes which happened in our affairs at sea, during the year 1693.” The joint admirals were of different parties; but as they were all good seamen, and probably meant well to their country, though they did not agree in the manner of serving it, it is most likely, “that, upon mature consideration of the posture things were then in, the order they had received from court, and the condition of the fleet, which was not either half manned or half victualled, the admirals might agree that a cautious execution of the instructions which they had received was a method as safe for the nation, and more so for themselves, than any other they could take.” On this occasion sir Cloudesley Shovel was at first an object of popular odium; but when the affair came to be strictly investigated in parliament, he gave so clear and satisfactory an account of the matter, that it satisfied the people that the commanders were not to blame; and that if there was treachery, it must have originated in persons in office at home. The character of sir Cloude&ley remaining unimpeached, we find him. again at sea, in 1694, under lord Berkley, in the expedition to Camaret-bay, in which he distinguished himself by his dextrous embarkation of the land forces, when they sailed on that unfortunate expedition; as also when, on their return to England, it was deemed necessary to send the fleet again upon the coast of France, to bombard Dieppe, and other places. In 1702 he was sent to bring the spoils of the Spanish and French fleets from Vigo, after the capture of that place by sir George Rooke. In 1703, he commanded the grand fleet up the Streights; where he protected our trade, and did all that was possible to be done for the relief of the protestants then in arms in the Cevenues; and countenanced such of the Italian powers as were inclined to favour the allies. In 1704 he was sent, with a powerful squadron, to join sir George liooke, who commanded a grand fleet in the Mediterranean, and had his share in the action off Malaga. Upon his return he was presented to the queen by prince George, as lord high admiral, and met with a very gracious reception; and was next year employed as commander in chief. In 1705, when k was thought necessary to send both a fleet and army to Spain, sir Cloudesley accepted the command of the fleet jointly with the earls of Peterborough and Monmouth, which sailed to Lisbon, thence to Catalonia, and arrived before Barcelona on the 12th of August and it was chiefly through his activity, in furnishing guns for the batteries, and men ta play them, and assisting with his advice, that the place was taken.

, a learned divine of the last century, was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1716, and that of M. A. in 1720. He afterwards became curate of Shelthon in Norfolk, prebendary of Canterbury, and lastly had the city living of All-hallows, Lombard-street. He died July 14, 1754. He published a few occasional sermons, but is principally known for his “History of the World, sacred and profane,” 3 vols. 8vo, intended to serve as an introduction to Prideaux’s “Connection,” but he did not live to carry it down to the year 747 B. C. where Prideaux begins. He wrote also a treatise on “The Creation and Fall of Man,” intended as a supplement to the preface to his history. His works are heavily written, but display a great deal of erudition, although not well applied, in the opinion of the late bishop Home, and his biographer Mr. Jones. They blame Shuckford for rendering the subject almost ridiculous, by illustrating the sacred history of the creation from Ovid, and Cicero, and even Pope’s “Essay on Man.”

On the 20th of March, 1794, Dr. Sibthorp set out from London, on his second tour to Greece. He travelled to Constantinople in the train or' Mr. Listen, ambassador to the Porte, and was attended by Francis Borone, as a botanical assistant. They reached Constantinople on the 19th of May, not without Dr. Sibthorp’s having suffered much from the fatigues of the journey, which had brought on a bilious fever. He^oon recovered his health at Constantinople, where he was joined by his friend Mr. Hawkins from Crete. Towards the end of August they made an excursion into Bithynia, and climbed to the summit of Olympus, from whence they brought a fresh botanical harvest. Dr. Sibthorp discovered at Fanar an aged Greek botanist, Dr. Dimitri Argyrami, who had known the Danish traveller Forskall, and who was possessed of some works of Linnæus.

, a Roman poet, and author of a poetical history of the second Punic war, which decided the empire of the world in favour of the Romans, was born in the reign of Tiberius, about A. D. 15, and is supposed to have derived the name of Italicus from the place of his birth; but whether he was born at Italica in Spain, or atCorsinium in Italy, which, according to Strabo, had the name of Italica given it during the social war, is a point which cannot be known: though, if his birth had happened at either of these places, the grammarians tell us, that he should have been called Italicensis, and not Italicus. When he came to Rome, he applied himself to the bar; and, by a close imitation of Cicero, succeeded so well, that he became a celebrated advocate and most accomplished orator. His merit and character recommended him to the highest offices in the republic, even to the consulship, of which he was possessed when Nero difed. He is said to have been aiding in the accusation of persons of high rank and fortune, whom that tyrant had devoted to destruction: but he retrieved his character afterwards by a long and uniform course of virtuous behaviour, and held a principal office under the emperor Vitellius, which he executed so well as to preserve his credit with the public. Vespasian sent him as proconsul into Asia, where he behaved with integrity and unblemished reputation. After having thus spent the best part of his life in the service of his country, he bade adieu to public affairs, resolving to consecrate the remainder of his days to retirement and the Muses. He had several fine villas in the country one at Tusculum, celebrated for having been Cicero’s and a farm near Naples, said to have been Virgil’s, and at which was his tomb, which Silius often visited. Martial compliments him on both these accounts. In his retirement he applied himself to poetry, not so much from the impulse of genius, which would have appeared earlier, but from his enthusiastic regard for Virgil, to whose memory he paid the highest veneration, and whose birth-day he is said to have celebrated annually with more solemnity than his own. He has endeavoured to imitate him in his poem; and, though he falls greatly short, yet there are some splendid passages and strains of imagination which enliven a historical detail that otherwise may be read with more pleasure in Livy’s prose. After spending a considerable time in this retirement, and reaching his seventy- fifth year, he was seized with an incurable ulcer, which afflicted him with unsupportable pains, and drove him to put an end to his life by refraining from sustenance. The best and almost the only account we have of Silius Italicus is in one of Pliny’s letters, from which most of the above particulars are taken.

, a late learned physician, and physician extraordinary to the king, was born March 17, 1750, at Sandwich, in Kent, where his father, who followed the profession of the law, was so respected, that, at the coronation of their present majesties, he was deputed by the cinque ports one of their barons to support the king’s canopy, according to ancient custom. His mother, whose maiden name was Foart, and whose family was likewise of Sandwich, died when he was an infant. He was educated at a seminary in France, where he not only improved himself in the learned languages, but acquired such a perfect knowledge of the French tongue, as to be able to write and speak it with the same facility as his own. He pursued his medical studies for nearly three years at Edinburgh, and afterwards went to Holland, and studied during a season at Leyden, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of physic: he chose the measles for the subject of his inaugural discourse, which he inscribed to Cullen, and to Gaubius, both of whom hud shewn him particular regard. After taking his degree at Leyden, he visited and became acquainted with professor Camper in InesKuul, who had at that time one of the finest anatomical museums in Kurope. From thence he proceeded to Aix-lct-Chapelle and the Spa, and afterwards visited different parts of Germany; stopped for some time at the principal universities; and wherever he went cultivated the acquaintance of learned men, especially those of his own profession, in which he was ever anxious to impr >ve himself. At Berne, in Switzerland, he became known to the celebrated Haller, who afterwards ranked him among his friends and correspondents. He came to reside in London towards the close of 1778, being then in his 2Stii year, and was admitted a member of the College of Physicians, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society 1779, and of the Society of Antiquaries 1791, as he had been before of different foreign academies at Nantz, Montpellier, and Madrid: he was afterwards admitted an honorary member of the Literary and Philosophical Society at Manchester, and of the Royal Society of Medicine at Paris, at which place he was elected one of the Associes Etrangers de l‘Ecole de Medicine; and in 1807, Correspondant de la Premiere Classe de I’Institut Imperial. Previous to 1778, he had written an elementary work on Anatomy, which was greatly enlarged and improved in its second edition, 1781: and he had communicated to the Royal Society the History of a curious case, which was afterwards published in their Transactions, “Phil. Trans.” vol. LXIV. He became also the sole editor of the London “Medical Journal;” a work which, after going through several volumes, was resumed under the title of “Medical Facts and Observations’.” these two works have ever been distinguished for their correctness, their judicious arrangement, and their candour. About this time he published an account of the Tape-worm, in which he made known the specific for this disease, purchased by the king of France. This account has been enlarged in a subsequent edition. — He likewise distinguished himself by a practical work on “Consumptions,” which, at the time, became the means of introducing him to considerable practice in pulmonary complaints. In 1780, he was elected physician to the Westminster General Dispensary; a situation he held for many years, and which afforded him ample scope for observation and experience in the knowledge of disease. These opportunities he did not neglect; and though, from his appointment soon after to St. Luke’s Hosr he was led to decline general practice, and to attach himself more particularly to the diseases of th mi-.;, continued to communicate to the publick such facts and remarks as he considered likely to promote the extension of any branch of professional science. With this view, he published some remarks on the treatment of Hydrocephalus internus (“Med. Comment, of Edinburgh, vol. V.”), and in the same work a case of Ulceration of the Œsophagus and Ossification of the Heart. He wrote also an account of a species of Hydrocephalus, which sometimes takes place in cases of Mania (London Med. Journal, vol. VI.) and an account of the Epidemic Catarrh of the year 1788, vol. IX. He had given an account also of the “Life of Dr. William Hunter,” with whom he was personally acquainted, a work abounding in interesting anecdote, and displaying an ingenuous and impartial review of the writings and discoveries of that illustrious anatomist. From the time of his being elected physician to St. Luke’s Hospital to the period of his death, he devoted himself, nearly exclusively, to the care and treatment of Insanity; and his skill in this melancholy department of human disease, became so generally acknowledged, that few, if any, could be considered his superiors. In the year 1803, it was deemed expedient to have recourse to Dr. Simmons, to alleviate the mournful malady of his sovereign, of whom he had the care for nearly six months, assisted by his son: the result was as favourable as the public could have wished; and on taking their leave, his majesty was pleased to confer a public testimony of his approbation, by appointing Dr. Simmons one of his physicians extraordinary, which took place in May 1804. — In the unfortunate relapse, which occurred in 1811, Dr. Simmons again attended; and, in conjunction with the other physicians, suggested those remedies and plans which seemed most likely to effect a cure. In February of that year he resigned the office of physician to St. Luke’s, in a very elegant letter, in which he assigned his age and state of health as the reasons for his resignation. The governors were so sensible of the value of his past services, and the respect due to him, as immediately to elect him a governor of the charity. They also proposed his being one of the committee; and, expressly on his account, created the office of Consulting Physician, in order to have the advantage of his opinion, not merely in the medical arrangement, but in the domestic ceconomy of the hospital. His last illness began on the evening of the 10th. of April, 1813, when he was seized with sickness, and a violent vomiting of bile, accompanied with a prostration of strength so sudden, and so severe, that on the second day of the attack he was barely able to stand; and a dissolution of the powers of life seeming to be rapidly coming on, he prepared for his departure with methodical accuracy, anticipated the event with great calmness, and, on the evening of the 23d of the same month, expired in the arms of his son. He was buried May 2, at Sandwich in Kent, and, according to the directions expressed in his will, his remains were deposited in a vault in the church-yard of St. Clement, next to those of his mother. In private life, Dr. Simmons was punctiliously correct in all his dealings; mild and unassuming in his manners, and of rather retired habits, passing Ins time chiefly in his study and in his professional avocations. He was one of the earliest proprietors of the Roy;d Institution and, in 1806, became an hereditary governor of the British Institution for the promotion of the Fine Arts. He has left one son, who is unmarried, and a widow, to deplore his loss.

After, however, he took leave of astrology and its emoluments, he was driven to hardships for the subsistence of his family, having married the taylor’s widow with two children, who soon brought him two more. He, therefore, came up to London in 1735 or 1736, and for some time wrought at his business in Spitalfields, and taught mathematics when he had any spare time. His industry soon became so productive, that he was enabled to bring up his wife and children to settle in London. The number of his scholars increasing, and his abilities becoming in some measure known to the public, he issued proposals for publishing, by subscription, “A new Treatise of Fluxions, wherein the Direct and Inverse Method are demonstrated after a new, clear, and concise manner; with their application to Physics and Astronomy. Also the Doctrine of infinite Series and reverting Senes universally and amply explained; fluxionary and exponential Equations solved,” &c. When he first proposed his intentions of publishing such a work, he did not know of any English book founded on the true principles of fluxions, that contained any thing material, especially the practical part; and, though some progress had been made by several learned and ingenious gentlemen, the principles were nevertheless left obscure and defective, and all that had been done by nny of them in “infinite series” very inconsiderable. The book was not published till 1737, 4to; the author having been frequently interrupted from furnishing the press so fast as he could have wished, through his unavoidable attention to his pupils for his immediate support. In 1740 he published “A Treatise on the Nature and Laws of Chance,” in 4to; to which are annexed full and clear Investigati ns of two important Problems added in the second edition of Mr. De Moivre’s “Book on Chances, and two new Methods for summing of Series.” His next performance was, “Essays on several curious and useful subjects in speculative and mixed Mathematics. Dedicated to Francis Blake, esq. since fellow of the Royal Society, and his very good Friend and Patron,” 174-0, 4to. Soon after the publication of this book he was chosen a member of the Royal Academy at Stockholm. Our author’s next work appeared in 1742, 8vo, “The Doctrine of Annuities and Reversions deduced from general and evident Principles: with useful Tables, shewing the values of single and joint lives, &c. at different rates of interest,” &c. This, in 1743, was followed by “An Appendix, containing some Remarks on a late Book on the same subject (by Mr. Abr. De Moivre, F. R. S.) with answers to some personal and malignant representations in the Preface thereof.” To this De Moivre never thought fit to reply. In 1743 he published also “Mathematical Dissertations on a variety of Physical and Analytical subjects,” 4to. This work he dedicated to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the Royal Society. His next book was, “A Treatise of Algebra, wherein the fundamental principles are fully and clearly demonstrated, and applied to the solution of a variety of problems.” To which he added, “The Construction of a great number of geometrical Problems, with the method of resolving them numerically.” This work was designed for the use of young beginners; inscribed to William Jones, esq. F. R. S. and printed in 1745, 8vo. A new edition appeared in 1755, with additions and improvements. This is dedicated to James earl of Morton, F. R. S. Mr. Jones being dead; and there was a sixth edition in 1790. His next work was, “Elements of Geometry, with their application to Mensuration of Superficies and Solids, to the determination of Maxima and Minima, and to the construction of a great variety of Geometrical Problems,” 1747, 8vo, reprinted in 1760, with large alterations and additions, designed for young beginners; particularly for the gentlemen at the king’s academy at Woolwich, and dedicated to Charles Frederick, esq. surveyor-general of the ordnance; and other editions have appeared since*. In 1748 came out his “Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical, with the construction and application of Logarithms,” 8vo. This little book contains several things new and useful. In 1750 appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, “The doctrine and application of Fluxions, containing, besides what is common on the subject, a number of new improvements in the Theory,and the solution of a variety of new and very interesting Problems, in different branches of the Mathematics.” In the preface the author offers this to the world as a new book rather than a second edition of that published in 1737; in which he acknowledges, that, besides errors of the press, there are several obscurities and defects, for want of experience, in his first attempt. This work is dedicated to George earl of Mat-clesfield. In 1752 appeared in 8vo, “Select Exercises for young proficients in Mathematics,” dedicated to John Bacon, esq. F. R. S. His “Miscellaneous Tracts,” printed in 1757, 4to, was his last legacy to the public; a most valuable bequest, whether we consider the dignity and importance of the subjects, or his sublime and accurate manner of treating them. These are inscribed to the earl of Macclesfield, and are ably analyzed in Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary.

In his person, Dr. Sunson was tall and erect; and his countetance, which was handsome, conveyed a pleasing expression of the superior character of his mind. His manner had always somewhat of the fashion which prevailed in the early part of his life, but was uncommonly graceful. He was seriously indisposed only for a few weeks before his death, and through a very long life had enjoyed a uniform state of good health. He died October I, 1768, when his eighty-first year was almost completed; having bequeathed his small paternal estate in Ayrshire to the eldest son of his next brother, probably of his brother Thomas, who was professor of medicine in the university of St Andrew’s, and who is known by some works of reputation, particularly a “Dissertation on the Nervous System, occasioned by the Dissection of a Brain completely Ossified.”

Sirmond returned to Paris in 1606; and from that time did not cease to enrich the public with a great number of works, particularly editions of the authors of the middle age, printed by him with great care from original manuscripts discovered by him in the public libraries. Much of his life was employed, and the better part of his reputation depends, on his labours as an editor, which produced correct copies of Geoffrey de Vendome, Ennodius, Flocloard, Fulgentius, Valerian, Sidonius Apollinaris, one of his most valuable editions, Paschasius Radbert, Eugene of Toledo, Jdacius, AJarcellinus, and many others When his reputation> came more generally known, pop.- Urban VIII. had a desire to draw him again to Rome and caused a letter for that purpose 10 be sent to him by fattier Vittelleschi, general of their order: but Louis XIII. would not suffer a person who did so much honour to his kingdom, to leave it; and, in 1637, appointed him his confessor, in the room of father Caussin, which delicate office he accepted with great reluctance, yet demeaned himself with the utmost caution and prudence, never meddling with political affairs, or employing his interest in enriching his relations. In 1643, however, after the death of Louis XIII. he left the court, and resumed his ordinary occupations with the same tranquillity as if he had never quitted his retirement. In 1645, he went to Rome, notwithstanding his great age, for the sake of assisting at the election of a general, upon the death of Vittelleschi, as he had done thirty years before upon the death of Aquaviva; and, after his return to France, resumed his studies. But having engaged in a warm dispute in the college of the Jesuits, the exertion brought on a disorder which carried him off in a few days. He died Oct. 7, 1651, aged ninety- two.

This laureatship, however, it must be observed, was not the office now known as pertaining to the court, but was a degree conferred at the university. Churchyard, in the poem prefixed to Skelton’s works, says,

Mr. Skelton died May 4, 1787, and was buried near the west door of St. Peter’s church-yard. His character has been in some degree displayed in the preceding sketch taken from his “Life,” by the rev. Samuel Burdy, 1792, 8vo. With the exception of some oddities of conduct and expression, in which he somewhat resembled Swift and Johnson, his life was truly exemplary in all its parts, and his writings deserve to be better known.

, a learned divine and poet, was born in Somersetshire in 1587, and was admitted a member of St. Mary hall, Oxford, in 1600, whence he removed to Brasenose college in 1607. In the following year he took his degree of B. A. and was chosen to a fellowship. He took his master’s degree in 1611, entered into holy orders, and was beneficed. In 1623 he took his degrees in divinity, and bad by this time acquired very considerable reputation for his poetical talent, and his knowledge in English history. He died at Otterden in Kent, where he was beneficed, in Oct. or Nov. 1647. His works are, 1. “Threnodia, sive Pandioniuni,” &c. being elegies and epitaphs on the queen Anne of Denmark, to whom he had been chaplain. It is a quarto of four sheets, printed in 1619. The elegies and epitaphs are in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English verses, and some of them in the fantastical shape of pillars, circles, &c. 2. “PaltcAlbion, or the History of Great Britain from the first peopling of this island to the reign of king James,” Lond. 1621, fol. in Latin and English verse, with historical notes, which Granger, who calls this Slater’s “capital work,” thinks the most valuable part. 3. “Genethliacon, sive stemma regis Jacobi,” Lond. 1630, a thin folio in Lat. and English, with a foolish genealogy of king James from Adam. He published also “The Psalms of David, in fowre languages, Hebrew, Greeke, Latin, and English, and in 4 parts, set to the tunes of our church, with corrections,” 1652, 16mo. There appears to have been an edition before this, which was posthumous, but the date is not known. Dr, Burney says this is the most curious and beautiful production of the kind, during the seventeenth century, that has come to his knowledge. Both words and music are very neatly engraved on near sixty copper- plates. The English version is that of Sternhold, retouched, not always for the better, and the music is selected from Ravenscroft.

In the exercise of his function as a physician, sir Hans Sloane is said to have been remarkable for the certainty of his prognostics; and the hand of the anatomist verified, in a signal manner, the truth of his predictions relating to the seat of diseases. By his practice he not only confirmed the efHcacy of the Peruvian bark in intermittents, but exied its use in favour of other denominations, in nervous disorders, and in gangrenes and hemorrhages. The sanction he gave to inoculation, by performing that operation on some of the royal family, encouraged, and much accelerated its progress throughout the kingdom. His ointment for the leucoma has not yet lost its credit with many reputable names in physic. He published only the works already mentioned, except his papers in the Philosophical Transactions, which are considerably numerous, and may be found in the volumes XVII to XLIX. His valuable museum, it is well known, formed the foundation of that vast national repository known by the name of the British Museum. Sir Hans was naturally very desirous to prevent his collection being dissipated after his death, and bequeathed it to the public on condition that 20,000l. should be paid by parliament to his family. Parliament accordingly passed an act, in 1753, for the purchase of sir Hans Sloane’s collection, and of the Harleian collection of Mss, and for procuring one general repository for their reception, along with the Cottonian collection, &c. Montague-house, in Russel- street Bloomsbury, was purchased as the repository, and statutes and rules having been formed for the use of the collection, and proper officers appointed, the British Museum was opened for the public in 1759. It were unnecessary to expatiate on the utility of an institution, so well known, so easily accessible, and so highly important to the interests of science and general literature. From the vast additions made of late years, however, it may be worthy of the parliament, as soon as the national finances will permit, to consider of the propriety of an entire new building for this immense collection, the present being much decayed, and, as a national ornament, bearing no proportion to its invaluable contents.

In 1747, Smart took the degree of master of arts, and became a candidate for the Seatonian prize, which was adjudged to himfor five years, four of them in succession. The Mibjects of his poems were, “The Eternity,” March 5, 1750. “The Immensity,” April 20, 1751. “The Omniscience,” Nov. 1, 1752. “The Power,” Dec. 5, 1753. and “The Goodness of the Supreme Being,” Oct. 28, 1755. It is probable he might have succeeded in the year 1754, but his thoughts were for some time diverted by an important change in his situation. In 1753 he quitted college. on his marriage with Miss Ann-Maria Carnan, the daughter by a former husband of Mary wife of the hue worthy Mr. John Newbery. He had been introduced to this gentleman’s family by Dr. Burney, the celebrated author of the History of Music, who composed several of Smart’s songs, and enriched the coilection of his works published in 1791 with some original compositions not generally known tobelong to our poet. Before this time, Smart had occasionally visited London, and had relinquished the prospects of any regular profession. In 1751 he published his Seatonian poem on the “Immensity of the Supreme Being:” and about the same time appears to have been engaged with Newbery in a general scheme of authorship. He had a ready turn for original composition, both in prose and verse, and as Newbery projected many works in the form of periodical miscellanies, must have been an useful coadjutor. During the years 1750 and 1751 he was a frequent contributor to the “Student, or Oxford and Cambridge Miscellany,” and carried on at the same time “The Midwife, or the Old Woman’s Magazine,” a small periodical pamphlet, which was published in three-penny numbers, and was afterwards collected into three volumes, 12mo. Smart and Newbery were almost the sole writers in this last work, which consists of short pieces in prose and verse, mostly of the humorous kind, and generally in a style of humour which in our more polished days would be reckoned somewhat coarse.

The truth was, that Hill pretended to take the part of our poet in the “Inspector,” which he was known to write, while he abused him in the “Impertinent,” the author of which, he flattered himself, was not known. But it was among the misfortunes of this arch-quack, although advantageous to the public, that whatever disguise he put on was always too thin to elude the penetration of his contemporaries. This trick in particular had been discovered by the reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine five months before the “Inspector” appeared in which he accused Smart of ingratitude. We are not therefore to wonder that the discovery of such malignant hypocrisy stimulated Smart to write “The Hilliad,” which, it appears, he first read or circulated in manuscript among his friends. But whatever praise they bestowed on the genius displayed in this satire, they were not pleased that he had involved himself in a war of obloquy with one whom to conquer was to exceed in the worst part of his character; and Smart probably listened to their opinions, for he published no more of the Hilliad. Hill had the credit of writing a Smartiad, which served no other purpose than to set off the merit of the other.

, a very celebrated mechanic and civil engineer, was born May 28, 1724, at Austhorpe near Leeds, where his relations still reside. From his early childhood he discovered a strong propensity to the arts in which he afterwards excelled, was more delighted in talking with workmen than in playing with other boys; and surprised, or occasionally alarmed his friends by mechanical efforts disproportioned to his years; sometimes being at the summit of a building to erect a kind of mill, and sometimes at the side of a well, employed in the construction of a pump. When he was about fourteen or fifteen he had constructed a lathe to turn rose-woik, and presented many of his friends with specimens of its operation in wood and ivory. “In the year 1742,” says his biographer, “I spent a month at his father’s house, and being intended myself for a mechanical employment, and a few years younger than he was, J could not but view his works with astonishment. He forged his iron and steel, and melted his metal; he had tools of every sort for working in wood, ivory, and metals. He had made a lathe by which he had cut a perpetual screw in brass, a thing little known at that day, and which, I believe, was the invention of Mr. Henry Hindley of York, with whom I served my apprenticeship. Mr. Hindley was a man of the most communicative disposition, a great lover of mechanics, and of the most fertile genius. Mr. Srneaton soon became acquainted with him, and they spent many a night at Mr. Hindley ‘s house, ’till day-light, conversing on those subjects.”

The father of Mr. Stneaton was an attorney, and wished to bring him up to the same profession. Mr. Smeaton therefore, came up to London in 1742, and attended the courts in Westminster-hull; but, finding that the law did not suit the bent of his genius, he wrote a strong memorial on the subject to his father, who had the good sense to allow him from that time to pursue the path which nature pointed for him. Early in 1750 he had lodgings in Turnstile, Holborn, and was commencing the business of a mathematical-instrument-maker. In 1751 be invented a machine to measure a ship’s way at sea, and a compass of peculiar construction, touched by Dr. Knight’s artificial magnets: and made two voyages with Dr. Knight, to ascertain the merit of his contrivances. In 1753 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and the number of his papers inserted in the Transactions of that body sufficiently evinces how highly he deserved that distinction. In 1759 he received, by an unanimous vote, their gold medal, for his pape/ entitled “An Experimental Enquiry concerning the natural Powers of Wind and Water to turn Mills, and other MacJiines depending on a circular Motion.” This paper, he says, was the result of experiments made on working models, in 1752 and 1753, but not communicated to the society till 1759; before which time he had not an opportunity of putting the effect of these experiments into real practice, in a variety of cases, and for various purposes, so as to assure the society that he had found them to answer. These experiments discovered that wind and water could be made to do one-third more than was before known, and they were made, we may observe, in his 27th anil 28th years.

An honour like this, for an honour it certainly was, could not fail to make his abilities known and his friends began now to solicit him to follow one of the learned professions-, but this he declined. He had indeed gone through a complete course o; studies connected with medicine, but the only result of his labour was the assistance he gave Dr. Buchan in the compilation of that very popular work, “Domestic Medicine,” first published in 1770. In 1765, as before noticed, he commenced business as a printer with Messrs. William and Robert Auld; and about two years after Mr. John Balfour was added to the firm, but before 1771 the Messrs. Auld had quitted it.

After the publication of this work, Dr. Smith remained four years at Glasgow, discharging his official duties with increasing reputation. Towards the end of 1763 he received an invitation from Mr. Charles Townsend to accompany the duke of Buccieugh on his travels; and the liberal terms of the proposal, added to a strong desire of visiting the continent of Europe, induced him to resign his professorship at Glasgow. Early in the year 1764 he joined the duke of Buccieugh in London, and in March set out with him for the continent. Sir James Macdonald, afterwards so justly lamented by Dr. Smith and many other distinguished persons, as a young man of the highest accomplishments and virtues, met them at Dover. After a fevr days passed at Paris, they settled for eighteen months at Thou louse, and then took a tour through the south of France to Geneva, where they passed two months. About Christmas 1765 they returned to Paris, and there remained till the October following. By the recommendations of David Hume, with whom Dr. Smith had been united in. strict friendship from the year 1752, they were introduced to the society of the first wits in France, but who were also unhappily the most notorious deists. The biographer of Dr. A. Smith has told us, in the words of the duke of Buccleugh himself, that he and his noble pupil lived together in the most uninterrupted harmony during the thres years of their travels; and that their friendship continued to the end of Dr. Smith’s life, whose loss was then sincerely regretted by the survivor. The next ten years of Dr. A. Smith’s life were passed in a retirement which formed a striking contrast to his late migrations. With the exception of a few visits to Edinburgh and London, he passed the whole of this period with his mother at Kirkaldy, occupied habitually in intense study. His friend Hume, who considered a town as the true scene for a man of letters, in vain attempted to seduce him from his retirement; till at length, in the beginning of 1776, he accounted for his long retreat by the publication of his “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” 2 vols. 4to. This book is well known as the most profound and perspicuous dissertation of its kind that the world has ever seen. About two years after the publication of this work the author was appointed one of the commissioners of the customs in Scotland. The greater part of these two years he passed in London, in a society too extensive and varied to allow him much time for study. In consequence of his new appointment, he returned in 1778 to Edinburgh, where he enjoyed the last twelve years of his life in affluence, and among the companions of his youth. “During the first years of his residence in Edinburgh,” says his biographer, “his studies seemed to be entirely suspended; and his passion for letters served only to amuse his leisure and to animate his conversation. The infirmities of age, of which he very early began to feel the approaches, reminded him at last, when it was too late, of what he yet owed to the public and to his own fame. The principal materials of the works which he had announced had long ago been collected, and little probably was wanting, but a few years of health and retirement, to bestow on them that systematical arrangement in which he delighted; and the ornaments of that flowing, and apparently artless style, which he had studiously cultivated, but which, after all his experience and composition, he adjusted with extreme difficulty to his own taste.” The death of his mother in 1784, who, to an extreme old age, had possessed her faculties unimpaired, with a considerable degree of health, and that of a cousin, who had assisted in superintending his household, in 1788, contributed to frustrate his projects. Though he bore his losses with firmness, his health and spirits gradually declined, and, in July 1790, he died of a chronic obstruction in his bowels, which had been lingering and painful. A few days before his death he gave orders to destroy all his manuscripts, with the exception of some detached essays, which he left to the care of his executors, and which have since been published in one volume 4to, in 1795.

One thing, however, is much to be regretted, in the life of Dr. A. Smith, of which his biographer has not thought fit to take the smallest notice; and that is his infidelity. “When his friend Hume died, he published the life which that celebrated sceptic had written of himself; with such remarks as proved, but too plainly, that his sentiments on the subject of religion were nearly the same with those of the deceased. This publication, which apparently was intended to strike a powerful blow against Christianity, and to give proportionable support to the cause of deism, produced an anonymous letter to Dr. A. Smith from the Clarendon press; which was afterwards known to have proceeded from the pen of Dr. Home In this celebrated letter, the argument is so clear, and the humour so easy and natural, that it produces an effect which no one but a determined infidel can resist or resent. Dr. A. Smith had assumed an air of great solemnity in his defence of his friend Hume; but the author of the letter treats them both with a jocularity which has wonderlui force. He alludes to certain anecdotes coneerning Hume, which are very inconsistent with the account given ii> his life for at the very period when he is reported to have been in the utmost tranquillity of spirits, none of his tiu n;is could venture to mention Dr. Beattie in his presence,” lest it shoul.l throw him into a fit of passion and sweariri“-” From whatever unfortunate cause this bias in Dr. Adam Smith’s mind arose, whether from his intimacy with Hume, from his too earnest desire to account for every thing metaphysically, or from a subsequent intercourse with the infidel wits and phdosophers of France, it is much to be regretted, as the only material stain upon a character of much excellence.

He died in 1710, in his forty-second year, at the seat of George Ducket, esq. called Hartham, in Wiltshire; and was buried in the parish church there. Some time before his death, he engaged in considerable undertakings; and raised expectations in the world, which he did not live to gratify. Oldisworth observes, that he had seen of his about ten sheets of Pindar, translated into English; which, he says, exceeded any thing in that kind he could ever hope for in our language. He had drawn out a plan for a tragedy of Lady Jane Grey, and had written several scenes of it; a subject afterwards nobly executed by Mr. Rowe. But his greatest undertaking was a translation of Longinus, to which he proposed a large addition of notes and observations of his own, with an entire system of the art of poetry in three books, under the titles of “thoughts, diction, and figure.” He intended also to make remarks upon all the ancients and moderns, the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and English poets; and to animadvert upon their several beauties and defects. Oldisworth has represented Smith as a man abounding with qualities both good and great; and that may perhaps be true, in some degree, though amplified by the partiality of friendship. He had, nevertheless, some defects in his conduct one was an extreme carelessness in the particular of dress which singularity procured him the name of “Captain Rag.” The ladies, it is said, at once commended and reproved him, by the name of the “handsome sloven.” It is acknowledged also, that he was much inclined to intemperance which was caused perhaps by disappointments, but led to that indolence and loss of character, which has been frequently destructive to genius, even of a higher order than he appears to have possessed. Dr. Johnson thus draws up his character: “As his years advanced, he advanced in reputation; for he continued to cultivate his mind; but he did not amend his irregularities, by which, he gave so much offence, that, April 24, 1700, the dean and chapter declared ' the place of Mr. Smith void, he having been convicted of riotous misbehaviour in the house of Mr. Cole, an apothecary; but it was referred to the dean when and upon what occasion the sentence should be put in execution. Thus tenderly was he treated; the governors of his college could hardly keep him, and yet wished that he would not force them to drive him away. Some time afterwards he assumed an appearance of decency; in his own phrase, he whitened himself, having a desire to obtain the censorship, an office of honour and some profit in the college; but when the election came, the preference was given to Mr. Foulkes, his junior; the same, I suppose, that joined with Freind in an edition of part of Demosthenes; it not being thought proper to trust the superintendance of others to a man who took so little care of himself. From this time Smith employed his malice and his wit against the dean, Dr. Aldrich, whom he considered as the opponent of his claim. Of his lampoon upon him, I once heard a single line too gross to be repeated. But he was still a genius and a scholar, and OxtV-rd was unwilling to lose him: he was endured, with all his pranks and his vices, two years longer; but on December 20, 1705, at the instance of all the canons, the sentence declared five years before was put in execution. The execution was, I believe, silent and tender; for one of his friends, from whom I learned much of his life, appeared not to know it. He was now driven to London, where he associated himself with the whigs, whether because they were in power, or because the tories had expelled him, or because he was a whig by principle, may perhaps be doubted. He was, however, caressed by tnen of great abilities, whatever were their party, and was supported by the liberality of those who delighted in his conversation. There was once a design, hinted at by Oldisvvorih, to have made him useful. One evening, as he was sitting with a friend at a tavern, he was called down by the waiter, and, having stayed some time below, came up thoughtful. After a pause, said he to his friend, ‘ He that wanted me below was Addison, whose business was to tell me that a history of the revolution was intended, and to propose that I should undertake it. I said, ’ What shall I do with the character of lord Sunderland?‘ And Addison immediately returned, ’ When, Rag, were you drunk last?' and went away. Captain Rag was a name that he got at Oxford by his negligence of dress. This story I heard from the late Mr. Clark, of Lincoln’s Inn, to whom it was told by the friend of Smith. Such scruples might debar him from some profitable employments; but as they could not deprive him of any real esteem, they left him many friends; and no man was ever better introduced to the theatre than he, who, in that violent conflict of parties, had a prologue and epilogue from the first wits on either side. But learning and nature will now-and-then take different courses. His play pleased the critics, and the critics only. It was, as Addison has recorded, hardly heard the third night. Smith had, indeed, trusted entirely to his merit; had insured no band of applauders, nor used any artifice to force success, and found that naked excellence was not sufficient for its own support. The play, however, was bought by Lintot, who advanced the price from fifty guineas, the current rate, to sixty; and Halifax, the general patron, accepted the dedication. Smith’s indolence kept him from writing the dedication, till Lintot, after fruitless importunity, gave notice that he would publish the play without it. Now, therefore, it was written; and Halifax expected the author with his book, and had prepared to reward him with a place of three hundred pounds a year. Smith, by pride, or caprice, or indolence, or bashful ness, neglected to attend him, though doubtless warned and pressed by his friends, and at last missed his reward by not going to solicit it. In 1709, a year after the exhibition of Phaedra, died John Philips, the friend and fellow-collegian of Smith, who, on that occasion, wrote a poem, which justice must place among the best elegies which our language can shew, an elegant mixture of fondness and admiration, of dignity and softness. There are some passages too ludicrous; but every human performance has its faults. This elegy it was the mode among his friends to purchase fora guinea-, and, as his acquaintance was numerous, it was a very profitable poem. Of his ‘ Pindar,’ mentioned by Oldisworth, I have never otherwise heard. His ‘ Longinus’ he intended to accompany with some illustrations, and had selected his instances of * the false Sublime,’ from the works of Blackmore. He resolved to try again the fortune of the stage, with the story of * Lady Jane Grey.' It is not unlikely that his experience of the inefficacy and incredibility of a mythological tale might determine him to choose an action from English history, at no great distance from our own times, which was to end in a real event, produced by the operation of known characters. Having formed his plan, and collected materials, he declared that a few months would complete his design; and, that he might pursue his work with fewer avocations, he was, in June, 1710, invited by Mr. George Ducket, to his house at Hartham in Wiltshire. Here he found such opportunities of indulgence as did not much forward his studies, and particularly some strong ale, too delicious to be resisted. He ate and drank till he found himself plethoric: and then, resolving to ease himself by evacuation, he wrote to an apothecary in the neighbourhood a prescription of a purge so forcible, that the apothecary thought it his duty to delay it till he had given notice of its danger. Smith, not pleased with the contradiction of a shopman, and boastful of his own knowledge, treated the notice with rude contempt, and swallowed his own medicine, which, in July 1710, brought him to the grave. He was buried at Hartham. Many years afterwards, Ducket communicated to Oldmixon, the historian, an account, pretended to have been received from Smith, that Clarendon’s History was, in its publication, corrupted by Aldrich, Smalridge, and Atterbury; and that Smith was employed to forge and insert the alterations. This story was published triumphantly by Oldmixon, and may be supposed to have been eagerly received: but its progress was soon checked for, finding its way into the journal of Trevoux, it fell under the eye of Atterbury, then an exile in France, who immediately denied the charge, with this remarkable particular, that he never in his whole life had once spoken to Smith; hrs company being, as must be inferred, not accepted by those who attended to their characters. The charge was afterwards very diligently refuted by Dr< Burton of Eton a man eminent for literature, and, though not of the same party with Aldrich and Atterbury, too studious of truth to leave them burthened with a false charge. The testimonies which he has collected have convinced mankind that either Smith or Ducket were guilty of wilful and malicious falsehood. This controversy brought into view those parts of Smith’s life which with more honour to his name might have been concealed. Of Smith I can yet say a little more. He was a man of such estimation among his companions, that the casual censures or praises which he dropped in conversation were considered, like those of Scaliger, as worthy of preservation. He had great readiness and exactness of criticism, and by a cursory glance over a new composition would exactly tell all its faults and beauties. He was remarkable for the power of reading with great rapidity, and of retaining with great fidelity what he so easily collected. He therefore always knew what the present question required; and, when his friends expressed their wonder at his acquisitions, made in a state of apparent negligence and drunkenness, he never discovered his hours of reading or method of study, but involved himself in affected silence, and fed his own vanity with their admiration and conjectures. One practice he had, which was easily observed: if any thought or image was presented to his mind that he could use or improve, he did not suffer it to be lost; but, amidst the jollity of a tavern, or in the warmth of conversation, very diligently committed to paper. Thus it was that he had gathered two quires of hints for his new tragedy; of which Howe, when they were put into his hands, could make, as he says, very little use, but which the collector considered as a valuable stock of materials. When he came to London, his way of life connected him with the licentious and dissolute; and he affected the airs and gaiety of a man of pleasure; but his dress was always deficient: scholastic cloudiness still hung about him, and his merriment was sure to produce the scorn of his companions. With all his carelessness, and all his vices, he was one of the murmurers at form tie; and wondered why he was suffered to be poor, when Addison was caressed and preferred: nor would a very little have contented him; for he estimated his wants at six hundred pounds a year. In his course of reading it was particular, that he had diligently perused, and accurately remembered, the old romances of knight-errantry. He had a high opinion of his own merit, and something contemptuous in his treatment of those whom he considered as not qualified to oppose or contradict him. He had many frailties; yet it cannot but be supposed that he had great merit, who could obtain to the same play a prologue from Addison, and an epilogue from Prior; and who could have at once the patronage of Halifax, and the praise of Oldisworth.”

, of Ch'uhester, the second, but most known, of three brothers, all distinguished as painters, was born in 1714. George is celebrated as a painter of landscape, but it was expected by the connoisseurs of the time, that his younger brother John would have surpassed him in that syle of painting. In the contests for prizes, at the society for the encouragement of arts, John’s landscapes were frequently preferred to those of George; but he died at an earlier period, and all memory of his works, as well as of the artist himself, has been nearly obliterated. William, the eldest brother, was a painter of portraits, but produced also some good landscapes. He is said, however, by some who remember him, to have been more remarkable for painting fruit and flowers, than for the other branches of his art. William was deformed, and his countenance was thought by many to resemble that of the celebrated John Locke. John died July 29, 1764, at the age of forty- seven, William on the 27th of the ensuing September, at the age of fifty -seven. George survived till Sept. 7, 1776, when he died, at the age of sixty-two. Their remains are deposited in the church-yard of St. Paneras at Chichester, and distinguished only by a plain stone, containing their names and the profession of each, with the dates above recited. Mr. W. Pether, an ingenious painter and engraver in mezzotinto, who was intimate with these brothers, published several years ago an admirable print, with fine likenesses of the three, represented in a groupe; the eldest is reading a lecture upon landscape to the two younger, who are listening with great attention.

, a traveller and ambassador, was the son of sir Clement Smith, of Little Baddow in Essex, by a sister of Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, and consequently sister to Jane Seymour, the third queen of Henry VIII. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college is not known. Wood informs us that he travelled into foreign countries, and became very accomplished both as a soldier and a gentleman. He was in France in the reign of his cousin Edward VI. and from the introduction to his book of “Instructions,” it appears that he had been in the service of several foreign princes. In 1576, when the states of the Netherlands took up arms in defence of their liberty against the encroachments of the Spanish government, they solicited queen Elizabeth for a loan; but, this being inconvenient, she sent Smith to intercede with the Spanish monarch in their behalf. For this purpose she conferred the honour of knighthood upon him. Wood imputes his mission to his “being a person of a Spanish port and demeanour, and well known to the Spaniards, who held him, as their king did, in high value, and especially for this reason that he was first cousin to king Edward VI.” Carnden, in his “History of Elizabeth,” says that he was graciously received by the king of Spain, and that “he retorted with such discretion the disgraceful injuries of Caspar Quiroga, archbishop of Toledo, against the queen, in hatred of her religion, and of the inquisitors of Sevil, who would not allow the attribute of Defender of the Faith in the queen’s title, that the king gave him thanks for it, and was displeased with the archbishop, desiring the ambassador to conceal the matter from the queen, and expressly commanded the said attribute to be allowed her.” We have no further account of his history, except that he was living in 1595, irv great esteem by learned and military men. He wrote, 1. A “Discourse concerning the forms and effects of divers Weapons, and other very important matters military; greatly mistaken by divers men of war in their days, and chiefly of the rnusquet, calyver, and long-bow, &c.” Lond. 1589, reprinted 1590, 4to. 2. “Certain instructions, observations, and orders military, requisite for all chieftains, captains, higher and lower officers,” ibid. 1594, 1595, 4to. To this are added “Instructions for enrolling and mustering.” There are two Mss. relative to his transactions in Spain in the Cotton library, and one in the Lambeth library.

Dr. Smith married Mary eldest daughter of William Cooper, of Scarborough, esq. by whom he had a considerable fortune, and five sons. Besides his edition of Bede’s History, he published four occasional sermons, and had made some progress in a History of Durham, for which bishop Nicolson thought him well qualified. He likewise furnished Gibson with the additions to the bishopric of Durham, which he used in his edition of Camden’s “Britannia.” He also assisted Mr. Anderson in his “Historical Essay” to prove that the crown and kingdom of Scotland is imperial and independent. Dr. Smith’s eldest son, George, was born at Durham May 7, 1693, and educated at Westminster-school and at St. John’s-college, Cambridge, but in two years was removed to Queen’s-college, Oxford, where his uncle was provost, and the learned Edward Thwaites his tutor. He afterwards studied law in the Inner Temple, but being a nonjuror, quitted that profession, took orders among the nonjurors, and was made titular bishop of Durham. He died Nov. 4, 1756, at Burnhall in the county of Durham. He is represented as an universal scholar, and particularly an able antiquary. He is said to have written, anonymously, some controversial pieces, one of which was entitled “Britons and Saxons not converted to Popery, in answer to a popish book, bearing the title of ‘ England’s Conversion and Reformation compared’.” He also supplied Carte with some materials for his history; but he is chiefly known for his splendid edition of Bede’s works, which was prepared for the press by his father, and published by this son at Cambridge in 1722, folio, with a life, and some additions to what his father had left. p. 224.

, younger brother of the preceding Dr. John Smith, and the munificent provost of Queen’s college, Oxford, was born at Lowther, Oct. 10, 1670. His father dying when he was five years old, his mother removed with her family to Guisborough in Yorkshire, where he was educated for some time, until his brother placed him under his own eye at the public school at Durham, under Mr. Thomas Battersby, a very diligent master, who qualified him for the university at the age of fifteen. He was not, however, sent thither immediately, but put under the tuition of the rev. Francis Woodman, one of the minor canons of Durham, an excellent classical scholar. The dean also, Dr. Dennis Granville, invited him to his house, and took a lively interest in his education. Here he continued until the revolution, when Dr. Granville, who could not be reconciled to the new government, determined to follow his master, king James, to France, and much solicited young Smith to embark in the same cause, which his party did not think at that time hopeless. But Smith being very eager to commence his university education, and hearing of the arrival of his uncle, Dr. John, from Madrid, preferred going to London to meet and advise with him. This had another happy effect, for he now found a generous patron in his godfather, sir Joseph Williamson, who received him very kindly, and gave him recommendatory letters to Oxford, where he was admitted, May 10, 1689, to a scholarship in Queen’s college. Here he had Mr. William Lancaster for his tutor, and pursued his studies with such zeal and success as to become an honour to the society. Among his contemporaries were, the afterwards well known and highly respected prelates Tanner and Gibson, with both of whom now began an intimacy which subsisted all the-ir lives. In 1693, being chosen a taberder, he took his first degree in arts, and was advancing in his studies, when sir Joseph Williamson removed him from college, by appointing him his deputy keeper of the paper-office at Whitehall; and sir Joseph being soon after one of the plenipotentiaries at Ryswick, took Mr. Smith with him as his secretary.

These promotions requiring a residence in London, Mr. Smith was soon after appointed chaplain to Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, then lord chamberlain, whom he had known at Ryswick, where his lordship was one of the plenipotentiaries. Lord Jersey now introduced him at court, and he preached several times before the' queen, and would have been otherwise promoted by his lordship’s interest had he lived. But he not only lost this patron by death, but another, William Henry Granviile, nephew to dean Granville, and the last earl of Bath of that family, who had a very high esteem for him.

, a learned English divine, was born in 1618, at Achurch, near Oundle in Northamptonshire, where his father possessed a small farm. In April 1636, he was admitted of Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he had the happiness of having Dr. Whichcote, then fellow of that college, afterwards provost of King’s, for his tutor. He took a bachelor of arts’ degree in 1640, and a master’s in 1644; and, the same year, was chosen a fellow of Queen’s college, the fellowships appropriated to his county in his own college being none of them vacant. Here he became an eminent tutor, and read a mathematical lecture for some years in the public schools. He died Aug. 7, 1652, and was interred in the chapel of the same college; at which time a sermon was preached by Simon Patrick, then fellow of Queen’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely, giving a short account of his life and death. In this he is represented as a man of great abilities, vast learning, and possessing also every grace and virtue which can improve and adorn human nature. His moral and spiritual perfections could be only known to his contemporaries; but his uncommon abilities and erudition appear manifestly in those treatises of his, which were published by Dr. John Worth in gton at Cambridge, in 1660, 4to, under the title of “Select Discourses,” consisting, 1. “Of the true Way or Method of attaining to Divine Knowledge.” 2. “Of Superstition.” 3. “Of Atheism.” 4. “Of the Immortality of the Soul.” 5. Of the Existence and Nature of God.“6.” Of Prophesy.“7.” Of the Difference between the Legal and the Evangelical Righteousness, the old and new Covenant, &c. 8. “Of the Shortness and Vanity of a Pharisaical Righteousness.” 9. “Of the Excellency and Nobleness of true Religion.” 10. “Of a Christian’s conflict with, and conquests over, Satan.”

These are not sermons, but treatises; and are less known than they deserve. They shew an uncommon reach of understanding and penetration, as well as an immense treasure of learning, in their author. A second edition of them, corrected, with the funeral sermon by Patrick annexed, was published at Cambridge, in 1673, 4to. The discourse “upon Prophesy,” was translated into Latin by Le Clerc, and prefixed to his “Commentary on the Prophets,” published in 173 1.

, pronounced by Mr. Walpole (since lord Orford) to be the best mezzotinter that has appeared, was certainly a genius of singular merit, who united softness with strength, and finishing with freedom. He flourished towards the end of king William’s reign, but of his life lit' tie is known, except that he served his time with one Tillet, a painter, in Moor-fields; and that as soon as he became his own master, he applied to Becket, and learned the secret of mezzotinto. Being further instructed by Vander Vaart, he was taken to work in the house of sir Godfrey Kneller; and, as he was to be the publisher of that master’s works, no doubt he received considerable hints from him, wh,tch he amply repaid. “To posterity, perhaps,” says lord Orford, “his prints will carry an idea of something burlesque; perukes of outrageous length flowing over suits of armour, compose wonderful habits. It is equally strange that fashion could introduce the one, and establish the practice of representing the other, when it was out of fashion. Smith excelled in exhibiting both, as he found them in the portraits of Kneller.” Lord Orford and Mr. Strutt have given a list of his best works, and the latter an instance of avarice not much to his credit.

, another Roman catholic champion, was born in Lincolnshire in 1566, and studied for some time at Trinity-college, Oxford; but afterwards went to llome, where he was a pupil of Bellarmin. Having concluded his studies in Spain, he took his doctor’s degree at Valladolid, and in 1603 arrived in England as a missionary. His proceedings here were not much different from those of other popish propagandists, except that he appears to have been frequently at variance with those of his own communion, and particularly with Parsons the celebrated Jesuit. In 1625, he was appointed bishop of Chalcedon. He happened at this time to be at Paris, but returned immediately to England “to take upon him the government of the English catholicks,” and remained unmolested until he had a quarrel with the regulars of his own church, which made his character known; and a reward being offered for apprehending him, he escaped to France, where he died March 18, 1655. He wrote various works in defence of popery, as well as of himself, in his dispute with the regulars. The former were answered by bishop Martin, Dr. Hammond, and Dr. Daniel Featley, in whose works, as his name occurs, this brief sketch has been thought necessary.

The same obscurity envelopes his early years. Wood indeed says, that he was trained up in grammar-learning in his own country; but in what seminary, or whether his country at that time could boast of any institution deserving the name of a grammar-school, are subjects of conjecture. His late biographer, with equal acuteness and reason, has supposed him to have been educated in the household of Thomas, the first earl of Derby. The countess of Richmond, who was the second wife of this nobleman, according to a laudable custom in the houses of the nobility, provided in this manner for the instruction of young men of promising talents: and it is known, that she was an early patron of our founder.

To the course of learning usual in his time, and which was neither copious nor solid, he appears to. have added the study of the Latin classics of the purer ages, which was., then less frequent, although more liberally tolerated, aiifl more admired, than an acquaintance with the Greek language. In the fifteenth century the latter was scarcely known, unless to the enterprizing spirit of Grocyn, Linacre, and the other restorers of literature; and was so little relished, as to be sometimes a topic of ridicule, and sometimes as dangerous as heresy.

In the last-mentioned year, Smyth was requested by the university of Oxford to accept the office of chancellor, then vacant by the death of archbishop Morton. How long he continued chancellor is not exactly known, but his resignation must have taken place abont 150'i, when we find Dr. Mayew held that office. In 1507-8, he concerted the plan of Brasen-nose college, along with iiis friend sir Richard Sutton, and lived to see it completed. Of his death we have few particulars, nor can his age be ascertained. After making a will in due form, characterized by the liberality which had distinguished his whole life, he expired at Buckden, Jan. 2, 1513-14, and was interred on the south side of the nave of Lincoln cathedral, under a marble grave stone, richly adorned with brass, which sir William Dugdale had leisure to describe just before it was destroyed by the republican soldiers or mob. A mural monument was recently put up, with a suitable inscription, by the rev. Ralph Cawley, D. D. and principal of Brasennose from 1770 to 1777.

, a learned English divine and translator, was the son of the rev. Richard Smith, rector of AllSaints, and minister of St. Andrew, both in Worcester, who died in 1726. He was born at Worcester in 1711, and educated at the grammar-school of that city. In 1728 he was admitted of New-college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. in 1732, M. A. in 1737, and D. D. in 1758. In 1735 he was presented by his patron, James earl of Derby, in whose family he was reader, to the rectory of Trinity-church, Chester, and by his son and successor’s interest, whose chaplain he was, to the deanery of Chester in 1753. He held the mastership of Brentwood-school in Essex for one year, 1748; and in 1753 was nominated by the corporation of Liverpool one of the ministers of St. George’s church there, which he resigned in 1767. With his deanery he held the parish churches of Handley and Trinity, but in 1780 resigned the last for the rectory of West Kirkby. He died Jan. 12, 1787. His character is thus briefly drawn by his biographer: “He was tall and genteel; his voice was strong, clear, and melodious; he spoke Latin fluently, and was complete master not only of the Greek but Hebrew language; his mind was so replete with knowledge, that he was a living library; his manner of address was graceful, engaging, and delightful; his sermons were pleasing, informing, convincing; his memory, even in age, was wonderfully retentive, and his conversation was polite, affable, and in the highest degree improving.” He is known in the learned world, chiefly by his valuable translations of “Longinus on the Sublime,” 1739, 8vo, which went through four editions, the last of which, with the frontispiece designed by Dr. Wall of Worcester, is said to be the best; “Thucydides,” 1753, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1781, 8vo; “Xenophon’s History of the Affairs of Greece,” 1770, 4to. In 1782 he published “Nine Sermons on the Beatitudes,” 8vo, very elegantly written. In 1791, appeared “The Poetic Works of the rev. William Smith, D. D. late dean of Chester; with some account of the life and writings of the Author. By Thomas Crane, minister of the parish church of St. Olave in Chester, &c.” This work we have not seen, and for the account of Dr. Smith’s life we are indebted to a review of it in the Gent. Mag.

It would be superfluous to dwell long on the merits of a work so well known, and undoubtedly entitled to high praise as a compilation, but beyond this his warmest admirers cannot judiciously extend their encomiums. Although it may be allowed to excel the histories of Carte or Guthrie, and on account of its brevity to be preferable to Rapin, and far more to his continuator Tindal, yet it is impossible to place it on a level with the histories of Hume, Robertson, Gibbon, or Henry. In the “Critical Review” it was highly praised, as might be expected, but with an affectation of candour and moderation which Smollett could not long preserve. In the Review for September 1758, we have a piece of querulous declamation which is, far more fully characteristic of the man and of the author. It is here extracted as a general specimen of the indignation which he felt against any serious attack, and it may serve to explain the relative position in which he stood with his contemporaries. The cause of the following effusion was a pamphlet published by the Rev. T. Comber, in which he censures the characters given by Smollett of king William and queen Mary, &c.

*Most of the names in this passage are printed only with the initial and final letters, except that of Rapin which follows. This R a may mean Eobertcon, whose first history was then in the press. wages with surprising eagerness and resolution: he has dashed through thick and thin, without, fear of repulse, without dread of reputation. Indeed he writes with a degree of acrimony that seems to be personal perhaps, if the truth was known, hewould be found one of those obscure authors, who have occasionally received correction in some number of the Critical Review, and looks upon Dr. Smollett as the n.iministrator of that correction; but

The success of his “History” encouraged him to write a continuation of it from 1748 to 1764. The volume for 1765, his biographer seems not to have known, was written by Guthrie, during Smollett’s absence on the Continent. By the History and Continuation he is said to have cleared 2000l. He is also supposed to have written the accounts of France, Italy, and Germany, for the Universal History, when published in octavo volumes. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine states that he received fifteen hundred guineas for preparing a new edition of the same history, but this must be a mistake, as he was dead some years before that edition was undertaken.

, son of the preceding, and an excellent mathematician, was born at Leyden in 1591, where he succeeded his father in the mathematical chair in 1613, and where he died in 1626, at only thirty-five years of age. He was author of several ingenious works and discoveries, and was the first who discovered the true law of the refraction of the rays of light; a discovery which he made before it was announced by Des Cartes, as Huygens assures us. Though the work which Snell prepared upon this subject, and upon optics in general, was never published, yet the discovery was very well known to belong to him, by several authors about his time, who had seen it in his manuscripts. He undertook also to measure the earth. This he effected by measuring a space between Alcmaer and Bergen-op-zoom, the difference of latitude between these places being 1° 1′ 30″. He also measured another distance between the parallels of Alcmaer and Leyden; and from the mean of both these measurements, he made a degree to consist of 55,021 French toises or fathoms. These measures were afterwards repeated and corrected by Musschenbroek, who found the degree to contain 57,033 toises. He was author of a great many learned mathematical works, the principal of which are, 1. “Apollonius Batavus;” being the restoration of some lost pieces of Apollonius, concerning Determinate Section, with the Section of a Ratio and Space, in 1608, 4to, published in his seventeenth year; but on the best authority this work is attributed to his father. The present might perhaps be a second edition. 2. “Eratosthenes Batavus,” in 1617, 4to; being the work in which he gives an account of his operations in measuring the earth. 3. A translation out of the Dutch language, into Latin, of Ludolph van Collen’s book “De Circulo & Adscriptis,” &c. in 1619, 4to. 4. “Cyclometricus, De Circuli Dimensione,” &c. 1621, 4to. In this work, the author gives several ingenious approximations to the measure of the circle, both arithmetical and geometrical. 5. “Tiphis Batavus;” being a treatise on Navigation and naval affairs, in 1624, 4to. 6. A posthumous treatise, being four books “Doctrinæ Triangulorum Canonicæ,” in 1627, 8vo: in which are contained the canon of secants; and in which the construction of sines, tangents, and secants, with the dimension or calculation of triangles, both plane and spherical, are briefly and clearly treated. 7. Hessian and Bohemian Observations; with his own notes. 8. “Libra Astronomica & Philosophica;” in which he undertakes the examination of the principles of Galileo concerning comets, 9. “Concerning the Comet which appeared in 1618, &c.”

, a man of great learning and abilities, was the third son of Marianus Socinus, an eminent civilian at Bologna, and has by some been reckoned the founder of the Socinian sect, as having been in reality the author of all those principles and opinions, which Faustus Socinus afterwards propagated with more boldness. He was born at Sienna in 1525, and designed by his father for the study of the civil law. With this he combined the perusal of the scriptures; thinking that the foundations of the civil law must necessarily be laid in the word of God, and therefore would be deduced in the best manner from it. To qualify himself for this inquiry, he studied the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic tongues. What light he derived from this respecting the civil law is not known, but he is said to have soon discovered, that the church of Rome taught many tilings plainly contrary to scripture. About 1546 he became a member of a secret society, consisting of about forty persons, who held their meetings, at. different times, in the territory of Venice, and particularly at. Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a general reformation of the received systems of religion, and particularly endeavoured to establish the doctrines afterwards publicly adopted by the Socinians; but being discovered, and some of them punished, they dispersed into other countries; and our Socinus, in 1547, began his travels, and spent four years in France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland; and then settled at Zurich. He contracted a familiarity, and even an intimacy, with the learned wherever he went and Calvin, Melancthon, Builinger, Beza, and others of the same class, were amongst. the number of his friends. But having soon discovered, by the doubts he proposed to them, that he had adopted sentiments the most obnoxious to these reformers, he became an object of suspicion and Calvin, in particular, wrote to him an admonitory letter, of which the following is a part; “Don't expect,” says he, “that I should answer all your preposterous questions. If you chuse to soar amidst such lofty speculations, suffer me, an humble disciple of Jesus Christ, to meditate upon such things as conduce to my edification; as indeed I shall endeavour by my silence to prevent your being troublesome to me hereafter. In the mean time, I cannot but lament, that you should continue to employ those excellent talents with which God has blessed you, not only to no purpose, but to a very bad one. Let me beg of you seriously, as I have often done, to correct in yourself this love of inquiry, which may bring you into trouble.” It would appear that Socinus took this advice in part, as he continued to live among these orthodox divines for a considerable time, without molestation. He found means, however, to communicate his notions to such as were disposed to receive them, and even lectured to Italians, who wandered up and down in Germany and Poland. He also sent writings to his relations, who lived at Sienna. He took a journey into Poland about 1558; and obtained from the king some letters of recommendation to the doge of Venice and the duke of Florence, that he might be safe at Venice, while his affairs required his residence there. He afterwards returned to Switzerland, and died at Zurich in 1562, in his thirty-seventh year. Being naturally timorous and irresolute, he professed to die in the communion of the reformed church, but certainly had contributed much to the foundation of the sect called from his, or his nephew’s name, for he collected the materials that Faustus afterwards digested and employed with such dexterity and success. He secretly and imperceptibly excited doubts and scruples in the minds of many, concerning several doctrines generally received among Christians, and, by several arguments against the divinity of Christ, which he left behind him in writing, he so far seduced, even after his death, the Arians in Poland, that they embraced the communion and sentiments of those who looked upon Christ as a mere man, created immediately, like Adam, by God himself. There are few writings of Laelius exta.it, and of those that bear his name, some undoubtedly belong to others.

The doctrine of Socrates, concerning God and religion, was rather practical than speculative. But he did not neglect to build the structure of religious faith upon the firm foundation of an appeal to natural appearances. He taught that the Supreme Being, though invisible, is clearly seen in his works, which at once demonstrate his existence, and his wise and benevolent providence. Besides the one supreme Deity, Socrates admitted the existence of beings who possess a middle station between God and man, to whose immediate agency he ascribed the ordinary phoenomena of nature, and whom he supposed to be particularly concerned in the management of human affairs. Hence, speaking of the gods, who take care of men, he says, “Le t it suffice you, whilst you observe their works, to revere and honour the gods and be persuaded, that this is the way in which they make themselves known for, among all the gods who bestow blessings upon men, there are none who, in the distribution of their favours, make themselves visible to mortals.” Hence he spoke of thunder, wind, and other agents in nature, as servants of God, and encouraged the practice of divination, under the notion, that the gods sometimes discover future events to good men.

In 1768, Dr. Solander was prevailed upon by his friend Mr. (afterwards sir Joseph) Banks, to undertake the voyage round the world, in pursuit of discoveries in natural history: and permission was obtained for him from the trustees of the British Museum, still to hold his appointment during his absence. The circumstance of going is thus mentioned, in the introduction to captain Cook’s first voyage, in speaking of Mr. Banks: “As he was determined to spare no expence in the execution of his plan, he engaged Dr. Solander to accompany him in the voyage. This gentleman, by bi th a Swede, was educated under the celebrated Linnæus, from whom he brought letters of recommendation into England and his merit being soon known, he obtained an appointment in the British Museum, a public institution which was then just established. Such a companion Mr. Banks considered as an acquisition of no small importance, and to his great satisfaction, the event abundantly proved that he was not mistaken.” One of the most remarkable circumstances which attended these heroes of natural history in this expedition, was the difficulty they experienced in attempting to ascend a mountain in Terra del Fuego, in search of Alpine plants. In the danger they here encountered, Dr. Solander undoubtedly preserved the lives of the party by the advice he gave; and what is more remarkable, was himself preserved by their attention to his directions. The matter is thus related in the voyage.

“Dr. Solander, who had more than once crossed the mountains which divide Sweden from Norway, well knew that extreme cold, especially when juined with fatigue, produces a torpor and sleepiness that are almost irresistible: he therefore conjured the company to keep moving, whatever pain it might cost them, and whatever relief they might be promised by an inclination to rest. Whoever sits down, says he, will sleep; and whoever sleeps will wake no more. Thus, at once admonished and alarmed, they set forward but while they were still upon the naked rock, and before they had got among the bushes, the cold became suddenly so intense, as to produce the effects that had been dreaded. Dr. Solander himself was the first who found the inclination, against which he had warned others, irresistible; and insisted upon being suffered to lie down. Mr. Banks intreated and remonstrated in vain; down he lay upon the ground, though it was covered with snow; and it was with great difficulty that his friend prevented him from sleeping. Richmond also, one of the black servants, began to linger, having suffered from the cold in the same manner as the doctor. Mr. Banks, therefore, sent five of the company, among whom was Mr. Buchan, forward to get a fire read)', at the first convenient place they could find; and himself, with four others, remained with the doctor and Richmond, whom, partly by persuasion and intreaty, and partly by force, they brought on; but when they had got through the greatest part of the birch and swamp, they both declared they could go no farther. Mr. Banks had recourse again to entreaty and expostulation, but they produced no effect; when Richmond was told that if he did not go on he would in a short time be frozen to death; he answered, that he desired nothing but to lie down and die. The doctor did not so explicitly renounce his life; he said, he was willing to go on, but that he must first take some sleep, though he had bet >re told the company that to sleep was to perish. Mr. Banks and the rest found it impossible to carry them, and there being no remedy, they were both suffered to sit down, being partly supported by the bushes, and in a few minutes they fell into a profound sleep: soon after, some of the people who had been sent forward returned, with the welcome news that a fire was kindled about a quarter of a mile further on the way. Mr. Banks then endeavoured to wake Dr. Solander, and happily succeeded; but, though he had not slept five minutes, he had almost lost the use of liis limbs, and the muscles were so shrunk, that the shoes fell from his feet; he consented to go forward with such assistance as could be given him; but no attempts to relieve poor Richmond were successful. Mr. Banks, with much difficulty, at length got the doctor to the fire.” Richmond and a seaman finally perished from the cold; the remainder of the party, to the number of ten, happily regained the ship, alter the utmost difficulties and hazards. The “Dictionnaire Historique” affirms, that Dr. Solan. tier had a salary of 400l. sterling a year, during this voyage. “Whatever he had must have been t'ri>tn the munificence of Mr. Banks, as he had no public appointment. There can be no doubt that the zeal and generosity of that friend rewarded him very amply, both for the time employed in the voyage, and for that which he afterwards spent in arranging and describing the vast collection of plants which they had made. In 1773, Dr. Solander was advanced from the office of assistant to be one of the under-librarians in the British Museum. He died in consequence of a stroke of apoplexy, onMay Ui, 178 1. Dr. Pulteney, in his” Sket> of the progress of Botany in England,“regards the arrival of Dr. Solander in this country as an acra of importance in that history.” At this juncture,“he says,” it is material, among those circumstances which accelerated the progress of the new system, to mention the arrival of the late muchlamented Dr. Solander, who came into England on the 1st of July, 1760. His name, and the connection he was known to bear, as the favourite pupil of his great master, had of themselves some share in exciting a curiosity which led to information; while his perfect acquaintance with the whole scheme enabled him to explain its minutest parts, and elucidate all those obscurities with which, on a superficial view, it was thought to be enveloped. I add to this that the urbanity of his manners, and his readiness to afford every assistance in his power, joined to that clearness and energy with which he effected it, not only brought conviction of its excellence in those who were inclined to receive it, but conciliated the minds, and dispelled the prejudices, of many who had been averse to it.“It is testified of him by others, who knew him intimately, that to a very extensive knowledge he added a mode of communication, not only remarkable for its readiness, but for so peculiar a modesty, that he contrived almost to appear to receive instruction when he was bestowing it in the most ample manner. There are said to be some papers by him scattered in the various memoirs of philosophical societies; but in the transactions of the Royal Society of London, there is only one letter, which is in vol. LI I. p. 654, and is entitled,” Account of the Gardenia (Jasminoides), in a Letter to Philip Carteret Webb, esq. F. R. S. from Daniel C. Solander, M. D." Nor, though his time was always usefully employed, do we know of any other production of which he was the author. He was a short, fair man, rather fat with small eyes, and a good-humoured expression of countenance.

, called L‘Abate Ciccio, from his mode of dressing like an abbot, an illustrious Italian painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Nocera de’ Pagani near Naples in 1657. His father Angelo, who had been a scholar of Massimo, and was a good painter and a man of learning, discerned an uncommon genius in his son; who is said to have spent whole nights in the studies of poetry and philosophy. He designed also so judiciously in chiaro obscure, tiiat his performances surprised all who saw them. Angelo intended him for the Jaw, and did not alter his purpose, though he was informed of his other extraordinary talents, till cardinal Orsini advised him. This cardinal, afterwards Benedict Xiji. at a visit happened to examine the youth in philosophy, and, although satisfied with his answers, observed, that he would do better, if he did not waste so much of his time in drawing; but when these drawings were produced, he was so surprised, that he told the father how unjust he would be both to his son and to the art, if he attempted to check a genius so manifestly displayed. Ou this, Solimene had full liberty given him to follow his inclination. Two years passed on, while he studied under his lather, after which, in 1674, he went to Naples, and put himself under the direction of Francesco di Maria. Thinking, however, that this artist laid too great a stress on design, he soon left him, and guided himself by the works of Lanfranc and Calabrese in composition and chiaro obscuro, while those of Pietro Cortona and Luca Jordano were his standards for colouring, and Guido and Carlo Maratti for drapery. By an accurate and well-managed study of these masters, he formed to himself an excellent style, and soon distinguished himself as a painter. Hearing that the Jesuits intended to paint the chapel of St. Anne in the church Jesu Nuovo, he sent them a sketch by an architecture painter; not daring to carry it himself, lest a prejudice against his youth might exclude him. His design was nevertheless accepted, and, while he was employed on this chapel, the best painters of Naples visited him, astonished to h'nd themselves surpassed by a mere boy. This was his first moment of distinction, and his reputation increased so fast, that great works were offered him from every quarter. His fame extending to other countries, the kings of France and Spain made him very advantageous proposals to engage him in their service, all which he declined. Philip V. arriving at Naples, commanded him to paint his portrait, and allowed him to sit in his presence: and the emperor Charles VI. knighted him on account of a picture he sent him. In 1701, he resided at Rome during the holy year: when the pope and cardinals took great notice of him. This painter is also known by his sonnets, which have been often printed in collections of poetry; and, at eighty years of age, he could repeat from memory the most beautiful passages of the poets, in the application of which he was very happy. He died in 1747, at almost ninety. He painted entirely after nature; being fearful, as he said, that too servile an attachment to the antique might damp the fire of his imagination. He was a man of a good temper, who neither criticised the works of others out of envy, nor was blind to his own defects. He told the Italian author of his life, that he had advanced many falsities in extolling the character of his works: which had procured him a great deal of money, but yet were very far short of perfection. The grand duke of Tuscany with difficulty prevailed on Solimene’s modesty to send him his picture, which he wanted to place in his gallery among other painters.

, an ingenious Spanish writer, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at Placenza in Old Castile, July 18, 1610. He was sent to Salamanca to study law; but, having a natural turn for poetry, gave it the preference, and cultivated it with a success which did him great honour. He was but seventeen, when he wrote an ingenious comedy, called “Amor y Obligacion:” and he afterwards composed others, which were received with the highest applause. Antonio affirms him to have been the best comic poet Spain has ever seen. At six and twenty, he applied himself to ethics and politics. His great merit procured him a patron in the count d'Oropesa, viceroy then of Navarre, and afterwards of the kingdom of Valence, who appointed him his secretary. In 1642, when he wrote his comedy of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” for representation at Pampeluna, upon the birth of the count’s son, Philip IV. of Spain made him one of his secretaries; and, after Philip’s death, the queen regent made him first historiographer of the Indies, a place of great profit as well as honour. His “History of the Conquest of Mexico” was thought to justify this honour, and was much praised. But it is evident that his object was to celebrate the glories of Ferdinand Cortez, his hero, to whom he has imputed many strokes of policy, many reflections, and many actions, of which he was not capable; and he has very wisely closed his account with the conquest of Mexico, that he might not have occasion to introduce the cruelties afterwards committed. Nevertheless, the history is reckoned upon the whole very interesting, and has been translated into several languages; and he is better known for it, out of his own country, than for his poetry and dramatic writings, although they are said to be excellent. After living many years in the busy and gay world, he resolved to dedicate himself to the service of God, by embracing the ecclesiastical state; and accordingly was ordained a priest at fifty- seven. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon subjects of devotion, which are represented in Spain on certain festivals. He died April 19, 1686. His comedies were printed at Madrid in 1681, 4to; his sacred and profane poems, at the same place, 1716, 4to; his “History of Mexico” often, but particularly at Brussels in 1704, folio; with his life prefixed by D. Juan de Goyeneche. There is also a collection of his “Letters” published at Madrid in 1737.

In 1675, Mr. (afterwards lord) Somers, was entered as a commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford. In the year following he is known to have contributed 5l. towards the embellishment of the chapel and some years afterwards, as appears by the bursar’s book, 100l. more.It is said that he did not entirely quit the university until 1682, and had in the interim become a student of law in the Middle Temple, and returning to college took his degree of M. A, June 14, 1681. While studying- law, he never neglected the belles lettres, and it was by his amusements in that way, his translations, and poetical performances, that he first became known to the public At that time merit of this kind was a passport both to tame and riches, and Mr. Somers, who in some degree owed his promotion to the muses, showed himself not ungrateful when he endeavoured to raise into notice their favourite votary Addison. Sir Francis Winnington, then solicitor, was one of his earliest patrons. By such assistance, united to his own merit and application, he became, what was very rarely seen in those days, when a deeper legal knowledge was supposed essential to a barrister, an eminent counsel, before he had attained the age of thirty. It is imagined by some, that his early acquaintance vvth the duke of Shrewsbury, might have contributed to turn his attention to the law, and possibly accelerated his rapid progress in that profession. His abilities, however, and powerful oratory, were always exerted in favour of liberty, and in the support of that rational freedom which is equally opposed to licentiousness and slavery.

Having formed an acquaintance with lord Russell, Algernon Sidney, and other supporters of liberty at that time, he frequently employed his pen against the arbitrary proceedings of the reign of Charles II.; but as it was his practice to publish such pieces without his name, very few of them are now known, and these we shall notice at the conclusion of this article. In 1688, when in his thirtysixth year, he distinguished himself as counsel for the seven prelates who were tried for opposing the dispensing power of James II. He had afterwards a considerable share in concerting the measures for bringing about the revolution. He was chosen representative for his native city of Worcester, in the convention-parliament; and in the conference between the two houses about the word abdicated, on which he delivered a celebrated speech, he was appointed one of the managers for the House of Commons.

, an English poet, was descended from a very ancient family in the county of Warwick. His ancestors had large possessions at Kingston, in Worcestershire, so early as the reign of Edward I. He was the son of Robert Somervile, of Edston, in Warwickshire, and, as he says himself, was born near Avon’s banks. He was born at Edston, in Warwickshire, in 1692, bred at Winchester school, and chosen from thence fellow of New college, Oxford, as was his brother Dr. Somervile, rector of Adderbury, in Oxfordshire. Dr. Johnson says, he “never heard of him but as a poet, a country gentter man, and a useful justice of the peace;” and indeed very little is known of his history.

His distresses, says Dr. Johnson, need not be much pitied: his estate is?aid to have been fifteen hundred a year, which by his death devolved to lord Somervile, of Scotland. His mother, indeed, who lived till ninety, had a jointure of six hundred. Dr. Johnson regrets his not being better enabled to exhibit memorials of a writer, who at least must be allowed to have set a good example to men of his own class, by devoting part of his time to elegant knowledge; and who has shewn by the subjects which his poetry has adorned, thn it is practicable to be at once a skilful sportsman and a man of letters. He tried many modes of poetry; and though perhaps he has not in any reached such excellence as to raise much envy, it may commonly be said at least, that “he writes very well for a gentleman.” His serious pieces are sometimes elevated, and his trifles are sometimes elegant. His subjects are commonly such as require no great depth of thought or energy of expression. His fables are generally stale, and therefore excite no curiosity. Of his favourite, The Two Springs, the fiction is unnatural, and the moral inconsequential. In his Tales there is too much coarseness, with too little care of language, and not sufficient rapidity of narration. As a poet, however, he is chiefly known by his “Chace,” which is entitled to great praise as a descriptive poem.

Just before the Restoration, he was imprisoned in the castle of Deal, for endeavouring to procure hands to petition for a free parliament. In 1660, he was made master of St. John’s hospital, in the suburbs of Canterbury; and about the same time auditor of Christ-church, in that city. The same year he published, in quarto, “A treatise of Gnvel-kind, both name and thing, shewing the true etymology and derivation of the one; the nature, antiquity, and original, of the other; with sundry emergent observations, both pleasant and profitable to be known of Kentishtnen and others, especially such as are studious either of the ancient custom, or the common law of this kingdom.” In this work he shewed himself an absolute civilian, and a complete common lawyer, as well as a profound antiquary. This was his last publication: he left behind him many observations in manuscript, and some treatises, one of which, “of the Roman ports and forts in Kent,” was published at Oxford, 1693, 8vo, by James Brome, M. A. rector of Cheriton, and chaplain to the Cinque-ports and “Julii Caesaris Portus Iccius illustratus a Somnero, Du Fresne, et Gibson,” was printed at the same place, 1624, 8vo. To the former is prefixed his life by White Kennet, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. These works were parts of an intended history of the antiquities of Kent.

In 1653 he embraced the Popish religion; and, going to Paris in 1654, published, according to custom, a discourse upon the motives of his conversion, which he dedicated to cardinal Mazarine. He went afterwards to Rome, where he made himself known to Alexander VII, by a Latin letter addressed to that pope, in which he inveighed against the envious Protestants, as he called them. Upon his return from Rome, he came over to England; and afterwards published, in 1664, a relation of his voyage hither, which brought him into trouble and disgrace; for, having taken some unwarrantable liberties with the character of a nation with which France at that time thought it policy to be on good terms, he was stripped of his title of “Historiographer of France,” which had been given him by the king, and sent for some time into banishment. His book also was discountenanced and discredited, by a tract published against it in the city of Paris; while Sprat, afterwards bishop of Rochester, refuted its absurdities in “Observations on M. de Sorbiere’s Voyage into England,” 1665, 12mo. This work was reprinted with an English edition of Sorbiere’s voyage, and a life of him in 1709, 8vo. Voltaire has also been very severe upon this work: “I would not,” says he, “imitate the late Mr. Sorbiere, who, having stayed three months in England, without knowing any thing either of its manners or of its language, thought fit to print a relation, which proved but a dull scurrilous satire upon a nation he knew nothing of.”

Cardinal Rospigliosi being likely to succeed Alexander VII. in the papal chair, Sorbiere made a second journey to Rome. He was known to the cardinal when he was at Rome before, and having published a collection of poems in his praise, fancied that promotion must follow. Rospigliosi was made pope, and took the name of Clement IX.; but Sorbiere was disappointed; for, though the pope gave him good words, yet he gave him nothing more, except a small sum to defray the charges of his journey. Sorbiere is said to have been one of those who could not be content, and was therefore never happy. He was continually complaining of the injustice and cruelty of fortune; and yet his finances were always decent, and he lived in tolerable plenty. Louis XIV,. cardinal Mazarine, and pope Alexander VII. had been benefactors to him; and many were of opinion, that he had as much as he deserved. He could not help bemoaning himself even to Clement IX. who contenting himself, as we have observed, with doing him some little honours, without paying any regard to his fortune, is said to have received this complaint from him, “Most holy father, you give ruffles to a man who is without a shirt.”

In the mean time, it is supposed that Sorbiere’s connections would have advanced him higher in the church, if he had been sound in his principles; but he was more of a philosopher than a divine. He revered the memory of such writers as Rabelais, whom he made his constant study: Montaione and Charron were heroes with him, nor would he suffer them to be ill spoken of in his presence: and he had a known attachment to the principles and person of Gassendi, whose life, prefixed to his works, was written by Sorbiere. These connections and attachments made him suspected of scepticism, and this suspicion was probably some check to his promotion: for, otherwise, he was a man of learning, and not destitute of good qualities. He was very well skilled in languages and polite literature, and had some knowledge in many sciences. He died of a dropsy, the 9th of April, 1670.

Though his name is so well known in the literary world, yet it is not owing to any productions of his own, but rather to the connections he sought, and the correspondences he held with men of learning. He was not the author of any considerable work, although there are more than twenty publications of his of the smaller kind. Some have been mentioned in the course of this memoir, and there are others as, “Lettres & Discours sur diverses matieres curieuses,” Paris, 1660, 4to; “Discours sur la Comete,” written upon Gassendi’s principles against comets being portents, 1665; “Discours sur la transfusion de sang d‘un animal clans le corps d’un homme,” written at Rome; “Discours sceptiqne sur le passage dn chyle, & sur le mouvement du cceur,” a production of Gassendi, but published by Sorbiere in his own name. He published in 1669 at Paris, “Epistolueillustrintn & eruditorum virorum;” among which are some of Clement IXth’s letters to him, while that pope was vet cardinal. This publication was thought improper, and imputed to vanity. He translated some of our English authors into French: as More’s Utopia, some of Hobbes’s works, and part of Camden’s Britannia. He corresponded with Hobbes; and a story has been circulated of his management in this correspondence, which is not much to his credit. Hobbes used to write to Sorbiere on philosophical subjects; and, those letters being sent by him to Gassendi, seemed so worthy of notice to that great man, that he set himself to write proper answers to them. Gassendi’s answers were sent by Sorbiere as his own to Hobbes, who thought himself happy in the correspondence of so profound a philosopher: but at length the artifice being discovered, Sorbiere was disgraced. Other minute performances of Sorbiere are omitted as being of no consequence at all. There is a “Sorberiana,” which is as good as many other of the “Ana;”' that is, good for very little.

, an English Jesuit and poet, was born in 1560, and is said to have descended from an ancient family, either in Norfolk or Suffolk. Being sent abroad for education, he became a Jesuit at Rome, Oct. 1578. In 1585, he was appointed prefect of studies in the English college there, and not long after was sent as a missionary into England. His chief residence was with Anne countess of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London. After carrying on his mission for some time, he was, in July 1592, apprehended and examined with the strictest rigour, but having evaded the questions put to him, was imprisoned for three years, and as he affirmed, underwent the torture several times. He owned that he was a priest and a Jesuit, that he came into England to preach the truths of the catholic religion, and was prepared to lay down his life for it. In Feb. 1595, he was tried at the bar of the King’s Bench, Westminster, and executed the next day at Tyburn. He was a man of singular parts, says Dodd, and happy in a peculiar talent of expressing himself in the English language, both in prose and verse. Edmund Bolton, whom Warton calls a sensible critic, speaks of Southwell’s works in the same strain of panegyric “Never must be forgotten St. Peter’s complaint, and those other serious poems said to be father Southwell’s: the English whereof, as it is most proper, so the sharpness and light of wit is very rare in them.” Mr. Headley seems first to have revived the memory of Southwell, as a poet, by some curious specimens, in which he has been followed by Mr. Ellis. “There is a moral charm,” says Headley, “in the little pieces of Southwell, that will prejudice most readers of feeling in their favour.” Unless, however, there were encouragement for republication, which is not very probable, Southwell’s fame must principally rest on these specimens, as his works are rarely to be met with; yet Mr. Ellis remarks that the few copies known to exist, are the remnant of at least twenty-four different editions, of which eleven were printed between 1593 and 1600.

In 1660, he published at Heidelberg a French translation of the emperor Julian’s “Caesars,” with notes and illustrations from medals and other monuments of antiquity. He had always an extraordinary turn for antiquities and medals; but had not yet seen Italy, where the study of them was much cultivated, and therefore was highly gratified in receiving a commission from the elector, to go to Rome, in order to watch the intrigues of the catholic electors at that court On his arrival he gained the esteem of that general patroness queen Christina, at whose palace was held an assembly of learned men every week; and in 1664, he complimented her with the dedication of his “Dissertationes de praestantia & usu numismatum antiquorum,” printed at Rome, in 4to. The same year he took a journey to Naples, Sicily, and Malta, and then returned to Rome, where he found the princess Sophia, mother of George I. of England. That princess, being highly pleased to meet with one whom she had already known as a man of learning, and corresponded with upon subjects of politics and literature, was desirous of enjoying his conversation at leisure, and, therefore, wish the leave of the elector her brother, carried him with her into Germany.

, a learned prelate, successively bishop of Exeter and Norwich, was born at Depden in Suffolk, and was educated in Queen’s college, Cambridge, of which he became scholar and fellow, but was ejected in 1643, with the rest of the society, for their loyalty and refusing the Covenant. Soon afterwards he accepted the rectory of Hawkedon in Suffolk, but before he had held it above five weeks, was again ejected for reading the Common Prayer. After the restoration he returned to his living, was elected one of the preachers at St. Edmund’s Bury, and was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and a prebendary of Ely. About 1577 he was elected master of Queen’s college, where he had been educated, and resigned his charge at St. Edmund’s Bury, and the rectory of Hawkedon, on which he had bestowed in repairs 200l. On Nov. 3, 1667, he was consecrated bishop of Exeter, and on the death of Dr. Reynolds in 1678 was translated to Norwich, where he died in May 1685. He is well known by a very useful book, and if we mistake not, the first of its kind, entitled the “Rationale of the Book of Common-prayer of the Church of England,” Lond. 1657, J2mo, often reprinted. The best edition is that of 1722, 8vo, with Downes’s Lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, and bishop Sparrow’s sermon on “Confession of Sins and Absolution.” Bishop Sparrow also published another useful “Collection of Articles, Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Ordinances, &c.” 1671, 4to.

, a well-known English historian, was born at Farington in Cheshire, about 1555, and brought up to the business of a taylor, and became a freeman of the company of Merchant-taylors in the city of London. He had probably shewn some taste for literature, as sir Fulk Grevile, a patron of learning, took him from his shop-­board, and supported him in his study of English history and antiquities. By such encouragement he published, in 1606, his “Theatre of Great-Britain;” which was afterwards reprinted, particularly in 1650, under this title: “The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the isles adjoyning. With the shires, hundreds, cities, and shire-townes within the kingdome of England, divided and described by John Speed,” folio. Nicolson observes, that these maps “are extremely good; and make a noble apparatus, as they were designed, to his history: but his descriptions of the several counties are mostly short abstracts of what Camden had said before him.” In 1614 he published, in folio, “The History of Great Britain under the conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; their originals, manners, warres, coines, and scales, with the successions, lives, actes, and issnes of the English monarchs, from Julius Cæsar to our most gracious sovereigne king James;” dedicated to James I. He borrowed many of his materials from Camden; and was supplied with many by sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, and other antiquaries, with whom he was well acquainted. There are prefixed to it commendatory poems in Latin, French, and English, by sir Henry Spelman and others; and many writers have spoken of it in terms of high commendation. Speed was not only an historian, but also a divine; for, in 1616, he published a work in 8vo, called “The Cloud of Witnesses, or the Genealogies of Scripture, confirming the truth of holy history and humanity of Christ.” This was prefixed to the new translation of the Bible in 1611, and printed for many years in the subsequent editions, particularly of the folio and quarto sizes, and king James I. gave him a patent for securing the property of it to him and his heirs.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

When he left Cambridge he is supposed to have gone to reside with some friends in the North of England, probably as a tutor. At what time he began to display his poetical powers is uncertain, but as genius cannot be concealed, it is probable that he was already known as a votary of the Muses among his fellow-students. There are several poems in the “Theatre for Worldlings,” a collection published in the year in which he became a member of the university, which are thought to have come from his pen. The “Visions,” in this work, were probably the first sketch of those which now form a part of his acknowledged productions. Absolute certainty, however, cannot be obtained in. fixing the chronology of his early poems; but it may be conjectured, with great probability, that his muse would not be neglected at an age when it is usual to court her favours, and at which he had much leisure, the scenery of nature before his eyes, and no serious cares to disturb his enthusiasm. His “Shepheard’s Calender” was published in 1579. The tenderness of complaint in this elegant poem, appears to have been inspired by a mistress whom he has recorded under the name of Rosalind; and who, after trifling with his affection, preferred his rival. He is supposed also to allude to the cruelty of this same lady in book VI. of the “Faerie Queene,” under the name of Mirabella.

The year preceding the publication of this poem, he had been advised by his friend Harvey to remove to London, where he was introduced to sir Philip Sidney, and by him recommended to his uncle the carl of Leicester. There is a wide difference of opinion, however, among Spenser’s biographers, as to the time and mode of the former of these events. Some suppose that his acquaintance, with sir Philip Sidney was the consequence of his having presented to him the ninth canto of the “Faerie Queene.” Others think that his first introduction was owing to the dedication of the “Shepherd’s Calender,” but a long letter from Spenser to Harvey, which Mr. Todd has preserved, proves that he was known to Sidney previous to the publication of the “Shepheard’s Calender” in 1579.

It is certain that in consequence of this introduction, by whatever means procured, he became a welcome guest in iir Philip’s family, and was invited to their seat at Penshurst in Kent, where it is conjectured that he wrote at least the ninth eclogue. Under such patronage, the dedication of the “Calender,” when finished, to “Maister Philip Sidney,” became a matter of course, as a mark of respectful acknowledgment for the kindness he had received. The praise, however, bestowed on this poem was but moderate, and the name of the author appears to have been for some time not generally known. Dove-, whose translation of it. into Latin is extant in the library of Caius college, Cambridge, speaks of it not only as an “unowned” poem, but as almost buried in oblivion. On the wther hand, Abraham Fraunce, a barrister as well as a poet of that time, selected from it examples to illustrate his work entitled “The Lawier’s Logike;” but Fraunce, it may be said, was the friend of sir Philip Sidney, and would naturally be math; acquainted, anil perhaps induced to admire the productions of a poet whom he favoured.

, an atheistical philosopher, was the son of a merchant, who was originally a Portuguese; and was born at Amsterdam about 1633. He learned Latin of a physician, who taught it at Amsterdam; and who is supposed to have been but loose in the principles of religion. He also studied divinity for many years; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to philosophy. He was a Jew by birth; but soon began to dislike the doctrine of the Rabbins; and discovered this dislike to the synagogue. It is said that the Jews offered to tolerate him, provided he would comply outwardly with their ceremonies, and even promised him a yearly pension, being unwilling to lose a man who was capable of doing such credit to their profession; but he could not comply, and by degrees left their synagogue; and was excommunicated. Afterwards he professed to be a Christian, and not only went himself to the churches of the Calvin i>t., or Lutherans, but likewise frequently exhorted others to go, and greatly recommended some particular preachers. His tirst apostacy was to Mennonism, on embracing which, he exchanged his original name, Baruch, for that of Benedict. He removed from Amsterdam, whither he had gone to avoid the Jews, to the Hague, where he subsisted as an optical-instrument-maker, and led a frugal and retired life, the leisure of which he devoted to study. While known only as a deserter from Judaism, he was invited by the elector Palatine to fill the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg; but from an apprehension that his liberty would, in that situation, be abridged, he declined the proposal. He lived in retirement, with great sobriety and decency of manners, till a consumption brought him to an early end, in 1677.

The impious system of Spinoza was maintained with so much ingenuity, that it found many patrons in the United Provinces, among whom were Lewis Meyer, who republished Spinoza’s works, and himself wrote a work entitled, “Philosophy the Interpreter of Scripture” and Van Leenhof, an ecclesiastic of Zwoll, who wrote a piece entitled “Heaven in Earth,” of the doctrine of which he was obliged to make a public recantation. Others, under the pretence of refuting Spinoza, secretly favoured his system. But, against the poison of their impious tenets sufficient antidotes were soon provided by many able defenders of religion, whose writings are well known, particularly in Cudwortb’s “Intellectual System,” the professed object of which is, the refutation of atheism. In this country Spinoza does not appear to have had many followers. Few have been suspected of adhering to his doctrine; and among those who have been suspected, few have studied it: to which we may add, with Bayle, that of those who have studied it few have understood it. Toland seems to have approached the nearest to his system of any modern freethinker: and indeed the doctrines inculcated in his “Pantheisticon,” are much the same with those of Spinoza. Abroad, a German professor, E. G. Paulns, of Je;ia, lias lately attempted to revive the memory, at le;':-.t, of Spinoza, by a new edition of his works published in 1302; and at the Hague, was edited, about the same time, by C. T. de Murr, a manuscript of Spinoza’s, never before printed, containing annotations on his “Tractatum theologico-politicum.”

, known first by the name of mademoiselle de Launai, was thedaughter of a painter of Paris, who being obliged to quit the kingdom, left her exposed to poverty while yet a child. Chance occasioned her receiving a distinguished education in the priory of St. Louis, at Rouen; but on the death of the superior of that monastery, who was her friend, she was again reduced to extreme indigence, and finding no other resource, engaged herself as a waiting-woman to the duchess of Maine. Unfit, however, for the duties of such an office, she lived in obscurity and sorrow, till a singular event, in which she seemed totally unconcerned, made her known much to her honour. A beautiful young lady of Paris., named Tetard, was persuaded by her mother to counterfeit being possessed. All Pans flocked to see this pretended wonder, not excepting the court; and this becoming the universal topic of conversation, mademoiselle de Launai wrote a very witty letter on the- occasion to M, de Fontenelle, which was universally admired. The duchess having discovered the writer in the person of her waiting-woman, employed he:­from that time in all the entertainments given at Sceaux, and made her her confidant. M. de Launai wrote verses for some of the pieces acted at Sceaux, drew up the plans of others, and was consulted in all. She soon also acquired the esteem of mess, de Fontenelie, de Tourreii, de Valincourt, de Chaulieu, de Malezieu, and other persons of merit, who frequented the court. This lady was involved in the duchess of Maine’s disgrace, during the regency of the duke of Orleans, and confined in the Bastile near two years; but being set at liberty, the duchess married her to M. de Staal, lieutenant of the Swiss guards, afterwards captain and marechal de camp. It is said she had refused to marry the celebrated M. Dacier. She died in 1750, and some “Memoirs of her Life,” written by herself, were soon after published in 3 vols. 12mo. They contain nothing very important, but are very amusing, and very well written, their style being pure and elegant. A fourth volume has since appeared, consisting of two pleasing plays, one entitled L'Engouement, the other La Mode, which were acted at Sceaux.

The earliest of his publications, or at least the first which Brought him into notice was, l. “The miseries and great hardships of the Inferior Clergy in and about London; and a modest plea for their rights and better usage; in a letter to a right rev. prelate,” 1722, 8vo. 2. “Memoirs of' bishop Atterbury, from his birth to his banishment,” 1723, 8vo. 3. “A Funeral Sermon on the death of Dr. Brady,” 172G, 8vo. 4. “A complete body of Divinity,” 1729, folio. 5. “A fair state of the Controversy between Mr. Woolston: his adversaries containing the substance of what he asserts in his discourses against the literal sense of our blessed Saviour’s miracles; and what Bp. Gibson, Bp. Chandler, Bp. Smalbroke, Bp. Sherlock, Dr. Pearce, Mr. Ray, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Chandler, &c. have advanced against him,” 1730, 8vo. This, which Leland calls a <' clear account,“is not a mere; compilation, but shows the author intimately acquainted with the controversy, and fully able to strengthen the cause for which Woolston was opposed. As this work was soon out of print, he incorporated its principal contents in a larger volume, entitled, 6.” A Defence of the Christian Religion from the several objections or' Antiscripturists,“&c. 1731, 8vo. 7.” Reflections on the nature and property of Languages,“1731, 8vo. 8.” The Book-binder, Book-printer, and Book-seller confuted, or the Author’s vindication of himself from the calumnies in a paper industriously dispersed by one Edition. Together with some Observations on the History of the Bible, as it is at present published by the said Ediin. By the rev. Mr. Stackhouse, curate of Finchley,“17.'J2, 8vo. This v scarce pamphlet, of which but one copy is known (now in the curious collection of James Bindley, esq.) relates to a squabble Mr. Stackhouse had with Ediin (who appears to have been a mercenary bookseller of the lower order, and a petty tyrant over his poor authors), respecting Mr. Stackhouse’s” History of the Bible.“Stackhouse, however, engaged afterwards with more reputable men, and produced, 9. his” New History of the Bible, from the beginning of the world to the establishment of Christianity,“1732, 2 vols. folio. This has always been considered as a work of merit, and has been often reprinted the best edition is said to be that of 1752, of which the engravings are of a very superior cast to what are usually given in works published periodically. 10.” A Sermon on the 30th of January.“1736, 8vo. 11.” A Sermon on the Decalogue,“1743, 8vo. 12.” A new and practical Exposition oo the Creed,“1747, folio. 13.” Vana doctrinae emolumenta,“1752, 4to. This is a poem, and his last publication, in which he deplores his miserable condition in the language of disappointment and despair. Besides these, he had been, we know not at what period, the author of, 14.” An Abridgment of Burnet’s Own Times,“8vo. 15.” The art of Short- hand,“4to. 16.” A System of Practical Duties,“8vo. Long after his death, if they were not re-publications, appeared, under his name, a” Greek Grammar,“and” A general view of Ancient History, Chronology, and Geography, &c." 4to. There was a rev. Thomas Stackhouse, styled minister of St. Mary Magdalen at Bridgnorth in Shropshire, who communicated to the Royal Society som-e extracts from a topographical account of Bridgnorth (Phil. Trans, vol. XLIV.) but whether this was our author does not appear.

, an eminent schoolmaster, was born at Heyford in Northamptonshire, probably about the middle of the fifteenth century, and was educated at Winchester-school. From this he was sent to New college, Oxford, and in 1481 admitted perpetual fellow. About 1486, being then B. A. he was appointed first usher of the free-school adjoining Magdalen college, and succeeded John Anwykyll, as chief master. As a teacher he became very eminent, and produced some scholars afterwards much celebrated in the world. He was yet more useful to future generations by the elementary books which he published, and which were soon introduced in most of the principal schools of that time, by which, says Wood, “the Latin tongue was much refined and amended.” His enthusiasm for the interests of his school seems to have got the better of prudential considerations, as, according to Wood, “when in his old age he should have withdrawn himself from his profession, and have lived upon what he had gotten in his younger years, he refused it, lived poor and bare to the last, yet with a juvenile and cheerful spirit.” His life extended beyond 1522, but the precise time of his death is not known.

He was soon distinguished in this house, as he had been in the lower, by his talent for speaking, which indeed he exerted with more success as a peer than as a commoner. “Lord Chesterfield’s eloquence,” says Dr. Maty, “though the fruit of study and imitation, was in great measure his own. Equal to most of his contemporaries in elegance and perspicuity, perhaps surpassed by some in extensiveness and strength, he could have no competitors in choice of imagery, taste, urbanity, and graceful irony. This turn might originally have arisen from the delicacy of his frame, which, as on one hand it deprived him of the power of working forcibly upon the passions of his hearers, enabled him, on the other, to affect their finer sensations, by nice touches of raillery and humour. His strokes, however poignant, were always nnd r the controui of decency and good sense. He reasoned best when he appeared most witty; and while he gained the affections of his hearers, he turned the laugh on his opposers, and often forced them to join in it. It might, in some degree, be owing to this particular turn that he was not heard with so much applause in the lower, as in the upper house.” Besides being eminent as a speaker in parliament, lord Chesterfield had the credit of being intimate with all the wits of his time. The friendship of Pope in particular, with whom he passed much time at Twickenham, led to the very best society which could then be enjoyed. He was known also to Algarotti, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, when they visited England, and with the latter he formed a friendship, and established a correspondence.

On the llth of January, 1745, he was again sent ambassador and plenipotentiary to Holland, and succeeded in the purposes of his embassy, beyond the hopes of those who had employed him. He took his leave of the statesgeneral eight days after the battle of Fontenoy, and hastened to his office of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to which he had been nominated before he went to Holland. That he filled this difficult office at a very critical time, with the greatest dignity and ability, is well known, and few viceroys have succeeded so completely in conciliating the esteem and confidence of the Irish nation. He left it, however, in April 1746. His services there and in Holland had succeeded in removing the prejudices of the king, at whose express desire he accepted the place of principal secretary of state in November the same year, and returned no more to Ireland. He retired from this office on the 6th. of January 1748, even more to the regret of the king, whom he had conciliated by his manners as well as his services, than he had entered at first into administration. He was, however, determined to the step, by finding that he could not carry measures in the cabinet, which appeared to him of the highest political importance. His health also had greatly declined, he was troubled by frequent attacks of vertigo, and appears from this time to have determined to preserve himself free from the fatigues of office. His retirement was amused and dignified by literature and other elegant pursuits; and the chief part of his miscellaneous works bear date after this period. Deafness corning upon him, in addition to his other complaints, he did not often take an active part in the business of the House of Lords, but in the debates concerning the alteration of the style, which took place in February 1751, he distinguished himself by an eloquent speech in favour of the measure. Of this he speaks with modesty in one of his letters to his son. Every one complimented him, and said that he had made the whole very clear to them, “when, God knows,” says he, “I had not even attempted it. I could as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well. Lord Macclesfield,” he adds, “who had the greatest share in forming the bill, and is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterwards with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of; but as his words, his periods, and his utterance were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me.”

But the work to which Mr. Stanley deservedly owed his high reputation as a scholar, was his “History of Philosophy, containing the Lives, Opinions, Actions, and Discourses of the Philosophers of every Sect.” This he dedicated to his uncle John Marsham, esq. the well-known author of the “Canon Chronicus,” who first suggested the design; and in the dedication Mr. Stanley mentions the learned Gassendus as his precedent; “whom,” he adds, “nevertheless I have not followed in his partiality. For h<? though limited to a single person, yet giveth himself liberty of enlargement; and taketh occasion, from this subject, to make the world acquainted with many excellent disquisitions of his own. Our scope, being of a greater latitude, affords less opportunity to favour any particular, while there is due to every one the commendation of their own deserts.” This very elaborate and useful work has gone through four editions in English, the first in parts, 1655 1660, the second in 1687, the last and best in 1743, 4to. It was also translated into Latin, and published at Leipsic in 1711, by Fritch, in quarto, with considerable additions and corrections. The account of the Oriental learning and philosophy, with which it concludes, appeared so valuable to Le Clerc, that he published a Latin translation of it in 1690, 8vo, with a dedication to bishop Burnet, and placed it at the end of the second volume of his “Opera Philosophic*.”

When Stanley had finished this work, which was when in his thirtieth year, he undertook to publish “Æschylus,” the most obscure and intricate of all the Greek poets; and after employing much pains in restoring his text and illustrating his meaning, produced an accurate and beautiful edition of that author, under the title of “Æschyli Tragrediae Septem, &c. Versione et Commentario Thorn ae JStanleii,” 1663 and 1664, two dates, but the same edition, folio. Dedicated to sir Henry Puckering Newton, baronet. The merits of this celebrated edition are sufficiently known. Morhoff, Fabricius, and Harles, have all stated its excellencies; and the labours of every preceding commentator, the fragments of the lost dramas, with the entire Greek scholia, are embodied in it. De Bure observes, that when Pauw gave out his proposals for printing an edition of Æschylus, the work of Stanley sunk in value but when Pauw’s edition actually appeared, the learned were disappointed, and Stanley’s edition rose in price and value. Good copies are now very rare. Besides these monuments of his learning, which are published, there were many other proofs of his unwearied application, remaining in manuscript after his death, in the library of More, bishop of Ely, and now in the public library at Cambridge; namely, his large “Commentaries on JEschylus,” in 8 vols. folio; his “Adversaria, or Miscellaneous Remarks,” on several passages in Sophocles, Euripides, Callimachus, Hesychius, Juvenal, Persius, and other authors of antiquity ' Copious Prelections on Theophrastus’s Characters;“and” A Critical Essay on the First-fruits and Tenths of the Spoil,", said in the epistle to the Hebrews to be given by Abraham to Melchisedeck.

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

, a dramatic poet, was the third son of Richard Stapleton, esq. of Carleton, in Yorkshire, and uncle to sir Miles Stapleton, and Dr. Stapleton, a Benedictine monk. As his family were zealous Roman catholics, he was educated in the same religion in the college of the English Benedictines at Douay: hut, being born with a poetical turn, and too volatile to be confined within the walls of a cloister, he threw off the restraint of his education, quitted a recluse life, came over to England, and turned protestant. Having good interest, which was perhaps also promoted by the change of his religion, he was made gentleman-usher of the privy-chamber to the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. We find him constantly adhering to, the interest of his royal master; for when his majesty was driven out of London by the threatenings and tumults of the discontented, he followed him, and, in 1642, received the honour of knighthood. After the battle of Edgehill, when his majesty was obliged to retire to Oxford, our author then attended hi.n, and was created doctor of the civil laws. When the royal cause declined, Stapleton thought proper to retire and apply himself to study; and, as he was not amongst the most conspicuous of the royalists, he was suffered to enjoy his solitude unmolested. At the restoration he was again promoted in the service of Charles II. and held a place in that monarch’s esteem till his death, July 11, 1C69. He was interred near the vestry door in Westminster-abbey. Langbaine says that his writings have “made him not only known, but admired, throughout all England, and while Musæus and Juvenal are in esteem with the learned, sir Robert’s fame will still survive the translation of these two authors having placed his name in the temple of immortality.” “The Loves of Hero and Leander, from the Greek of Musaeus, with notes,” was published, Lond. 1647, 8vo, and such was Stapleton’s regard for Musseus, that he afterwards reduced the story into a dramatic poem. His “Juvenal” was published in 1647, 8vo, and was thought to be preferable to Holyday’s, but they are both too literal. In 1650 he published a translation of Strada’s “History of the Belgic War,” fol. His dramatic pieces are, l.“The Slighted Maid”, 1663. 2. “The Step-mother,” 1664. 3. “Hero and Leander,” 1669 and, according to the books of the stationers’ company, 4. “The Royal Choice.”

, secretary and historian of an embassy to China, was son of a gentleman of small fortune in the county of Galway, in Ireland; and sent early to study physic at Montpelier, where he proceeded M. D. On his return to London, he translated Dr. Stb'rck’s treatise on hemlock, and drew up for the “Journal Etranger” in France a comparison between the literature of England and France. About the year 1762, Dr. Staunton embarked for the West Indies, as we find from a farewell letter written to him by Dr. Johnson, given by Mr. Boswell in his life of that great man. This epistle is replete with excellent advice, and does equal credit to the writer, and the person to whom it is addressed. Dr. Staunton resided, for several years, in the West Indies, where he acquired some addition to his fortune by the practice of physic purchased an estate in Grenada which he cultivated; and had the good fortune to obtain the friendship of the late lord Macartney, governor of that island, to whom he acted as secretary, and continued in that capacity until the capture of it by the French, when they both embarked for Europe. Having studied the law, while in Grenada, Dr. Staunton filled the office of attorney-general of the island. Soon after lord Macartney’s arrival in England, he was appointed governor of Madras, and took Mr. Staunton with him (for he seems now to have lost the appellation of doctor) as his secretary. In this capacity, Mr. Staunton had several opportunities of displaying his abilities and intrepidity, particularly as one of the commissioners sent to treat of peace with Tippoo Sultaun, and in the seizure of general Stuart, who seemed to have been preparing to act by lord Macartney as had been before done by the unfortunate lord Pigot. The secretary was sent with a small party of seapoys to arrest the general, which he effected with great spirit and prudence, and without bloodshed. On his return to England, the India Company, as a reward for his services, settled on him a pension of 500l. per annum; the king soon after created him a baronet of Ireland, and the University of Oxford conferred on him the degree of LL.D. It having been resolved to send an embassy to China, lord Macartney was selected for that purpose, and he took his old friend and countryman along with him, who was not only appointed secretary of legation, but had also the title of envoy-extraordinary and minister-plenipotentiary bestowed on him, in order to be able to supply the place of the ambassador in case of auy unfortunate accident. The events of this embassy, which, on the whole, proved rather unpropitious, are well known, and were given to the public in two quarto volumes, written by sir George. This account is rather to be considered as a proof of learning and observation than of genius and reflection. The subject itself was highly interesting, but it is certainly not rendered very much so in the relation. However, it is on the whole a valuable work, and creditable to his character for knowledge and diligence. And when we consider the short time he took to compile these volumes^ added to the severe illness he actually laboured under, and with which he was attacked soon after his return, we cannot withhold our praise and approbation. As a proof of tha esteem in which the India Company held sir George Staunton, they appointed his son, who accompanied him in the former voyage, a writer to China; and had the father’s health permitted, he would, probably, again have attended lord Macartney in some honourable and confidential station to his government at the Cape of Good Hope. The memoirs of sir George, if drawn up at full length, would exhibit many instances of a strong and ardent mind, labouring occasionally under difficulties, and surmounting dangers by patience, talents, and intrepidity. His conduct in the seizure of general Stuart, demonstrated his resolution and presence of mind; and when treating with Tippoo, he had the address to induce M. Suffrein to suspend hostilities, even before he had received advice from his court of the treaty of peace being signed between Great Britain and France.

, a celebrated commentator on the works of Shakspeare, was the only son of George Steevens, esq. of Stepney, many years an East India captain, and afterwards a director of the East India company, who died in 1768. He was born at Stepney, May 10, 1736, and was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, about 1751 or 1752. He seems to have left the university without taking a degree, although not without accumulating a considerable degree of classical knowledge, and exhibiting that general acuteness and taste which he afterwards more fully displayed, particularly on subjects of ancient English literature. His attention, probably very early in life, was by some means attracted to the works of our great dramatic bard Shakspeare, who furnished Mr. Steevens throughout the whole of his life with constant employment. Shakspeare was the property which he thought himself bound to cultivate, improve, protect, and display to the best advantage; and it must be allowed that in illustrating this author, he stands unrivalled. His first appearance as an editor of Shakspeare was in 1766, when he was about thirty years old. At this time he published twenty of Shakspeare’s plays in 4 vols. 8vo, about a year after Dr. Johnson’s edition of the whole works had appeared. In this edition Mr. Steevens performed chiefly the office of a collator of these twenty plays with the quarto and subsequent editions; but about the same time he published, in the newspapers, and probably otherwise, a circular address, announcing his intention of an edition of all the plays with notes and illustrations. In this address, which we believe is not now generally known, he requests assistance from the public, which he says “is not desired with a lucrative view to the editor, but to engage the attention of the literary world. He will no more trust to his own single judgment in the choice of the notes he shall admit or reject, than he would undertake the work in confidence of his own abilities. These shall in their turn be subjected to other eyes and other opinions; and he has reason to hope, from such precautions, that he shall bici fairer for success than from any single reliance. He is happy to have permission, to enumerate Mr. Garrick among those who will take such a trouble on themselves; and is no less desirous to see him attempt to transmit some part of that knowledge of Shakspeare to posterity, without which, he can be his best commentator no longer than he lives.”

“The characters of living or dead commentators,” says Mr. Steevens in his present real or assumed humility, “shall not be wantonly traduced, and no greater freedom of language be made use of, than is necessary to convince, without any attempts to render those ridiculous, whose assertions may seem to demand a confutation. An error in a quotation, or accidental misrepresentation of a fact, shall not be treated with the severity due to a moral crime, nor as the breach of any other laws than those of literature, lest the reputation of the critic should be obtained at the expence of humanity, justice, and good manners; and by multiplying notes on notes we should be reduced at last, * to fight for a spot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause.' The ostentation of bringing in the commentaries of others, merely to declare their futility, shall be avoided; and none be introduced here, but such as tend to the illustration of the author.” He concludes with signing his name, and requesting that letters may be addressed to him at Mr. Tonson’s. About the same time he opened a kind of correspondence in the St. James’s Chronicle, then the principal literary newspaper, the object of which was to obtain hints and remarks on any passages of Shakspeare which individuals might think themselves able to illustrate. What returns were made to these applications, we know not, but it appears that he became acquainted about this time with Dr. Johnson, and in 1770 they were both employed in that edition of the whole of Shakspeare’s plays which was first called “Johnson and Steevens’s edition,” and which was published in 1773, 10 vols. 8vo. In 1778 it was again reprinted, with the same names, but entirely under the care and with the improvements of Mr. Steevens; and again in 1785, when he availed himself of the assistance of Mr. Isaac Reed, although merely as superintendant of the press. It was a work of which Mr. Steevens would never surrender the entire care to any one, and his jealousy, as an editor of Shakspeare, was the cause of those many splenetic effusions for which he has been so justly blamed, and his character disgraced. This kind of hostility, in which Mr. Steevens unfortunately delighted, was not confined to the commentators on Shakspeare. He had from the earliest period that can be remembered a disposition to display his talents for ridicule at the expence of those who were, or whom he thought, inferior to himself. He was never more gratified than when he could irritate their feelings by anonymous attacks in the public journals, which he would, in their presence, affect to lament with all the ardour of friendship. Nor was he content to amuse himself with the sufferings of those who were candidates for literary fame, a species of inhumanity in which he had some contemporaries, and has had many successors, but would even intrude into the privacies of domestic life, and has been often, we fear too justly, accused of disturbing the happiness of families, by secret written insinuations, the consequences of which he could not always know, and must therefore have enjoyed only in imagination. But as such artifices long practised could not escape detection, his character for mischievous duplicity became known, and not long after the publication of the second edition of his Shakspeare, in conjunction with Dr. Johnson, he lived, in the language of that great man, “the life of an outlaw.” He was scarcely respected even by those who tasted his bounty (for he could at times be bountiful), and was dreaded as a man of great talents and great powers both of pen and tongue, with whom nevertheless it was more dangerous to live in friendship than in hostility.

“Though Mr. Steevens,” says an eulogist, " is known rather as a commentator, than as an original writer, yet, when the works which he illustrated, the learning, sagacity, taste, and general knowledge which he brought to the task, and the success which crowned his labours, are considered, it would be an act of injustice to refuse him a place among the first literary characters of the age. Mr. Steevens possessed that knowledge which qualified him, in a superior degree, for the illustration of Shakspeare; and without which the utmost critical acumen would have proved abortive. He had, in short, studied the age of Shakspeare, and had employed his persevering industry in becoming acquainted with the writings, manners, and laws of that period, as well as the provincial peculiarities, whether of language or custom, which prevailed in different parts of the kingdom, but more particularly in those where Shakspeare passed the early years of his life. This store of knowledge he was continually encreasing, by the acquisition of the rare and obsolete publications of a former age, which he spared no expence to obtain; while his critical sagacity and acute observation were employed incessantly in calling forth the hidden meanings of the great dramatic bard, from their covert; and consequently enlarging the display of his beauti

, the Young, son of the preceding, was born about 1589, and, by studying the works of his father from his infancy, and also receiving excellent directions from him, he adopted the same manner and style; and, by some very competent judges, was thought to have often equalled, if not surpassed, his father. Vaudyck, who admired his works, introduced him. to the court of ki'ig Charle^ I. where he met with such a degree of encouragement as was due to his extraordinary talents, and found employment in England for several years. His usual subjects were the insides of churches and grand edifices; but at last he quitted the dark manner, which he had originally acquired by imitating the manner of his father. He sometimes painted the back grounds of Vandyck’s portraits, as often as they required ornamental architecture; and it is the portrait of the younger Stenwyck which was painted by Vandyck, and perpetuated by his hand among the distinguished artists of his time. He died at London, but when is not known; and his widow, who practised perspective painting during the life of her husband, retired after his death to Amsterdam, where she followed that profession, and painted in the style of her husband and his father with great credit; and as her works were generally esteemed, she was enabled to live in affluence and honour.

, or familiarly in this country Stephens, and in France Estienne, the first of an illustrious family of printers, was born at Paris in 1470; and began the business of printing about 1503, in which year appeared the abridgment of the Arithmetic of Boethius, which is the first work known to have issued from his press. His printing-house was in the rue de Tecole de Droit, and his mark the old arms of the university, with the device, plus olei quam vini. His great object was correctness, and besides reading the proofs himself with the greatest care, he submitted them to the learned men who visited him. If, notwithstanding these pains, any mistakes occurred, he informed the reader, by an “errata,” an attention which he is said to have been the first who paid. He died at Paris, according to his biographers, July 24, 1520; but this has been doubted, as not agreeing with the date of the last work he printed. He left three sons, all printers, Francis, Robert, and Charles. His widow married Simon de Colines, or Colinseus, his partner. Among the works he executed^ which are in greatest request, are the “Psalterium quintuplex,” 1509 and 1513 the “Itinerarium” of Antoninus, 1512, and Mara “De Tribus fugiendis,” &c.

These favours, however honourable to the king’s taste and discernment, were ultimately of disadvantage to Robert, by exciting the jealousy of the Sorbonnists, who could not endure that his majesty should bestow his confidence on a man whom they suspected of being unsound in the faith, and therefore sought occasion to convict him of heresy. Grounds for this they thought were to be found in the new edition of the Bible which Robert published in 1545, and which had a double Latin version, and the notes of Vatablus. Leo Juda, well known to be a Zuinglian, was the translator of one of these versions; and they farther alleged that Robert had corrupted the notes of Vatablus. This was, in those days, a serious accusation, and the king had again to interpose between him and his enemies. His majesty died about this time, and Robert, as a mark of gratitude, printed with particular care, Duchatel’s funeral oration on Francis L in which that orator happened to say that the king was “translated from the present life to eternal glory.” This expression, although common in every eulogium of the kind, was now made the subject of an accusation by the Sorbonnists, who asserted that it was contrary to the doctrine of the church respecting purgatory. Robert, therefore, soon perceived that he could no longer depend on the protection he had hitherto received, and after some years struggling against the machinations of his enemies, determined to remove to Geneva with his family. He accordingly took his leave of Paris, and arrived at Geneva in the beginning of 1552. There he printed the same year, in partnership with his brother-in-law Conrad Radius, the New Testament in French. He afterwards set up a printing-house of his own, from which some valuable works issued. He was chosen a burgher of Geneva in 1556, and died there Sept. 7, 1559. Robert is said to have been a man of a firm and decided character; but it has been objected by his popish biographers, that he did not allow that liberty to other* which he had taken himself, and that he disinherited one of his children for not embracing the reformed religion. Beza, Dorat, and St. Marthe, have given him the highest character. Thuanus places him above Aldus Manutius, and Froben, and asserts that the Christian world was more indebted to him than to all the great conquerors it had produced, and that he contributed more to immortalize the reign of Francis I. than all the renowned actions of that prince. His mark was an olive with branches, and the device, Noli altum sapere, to which sometimes were added the words sed time. The works he executed as King’s printer, are marked with a lance, round which a serpent is entwined, and a branch of olive, and underneath a verse of Homer, “B<nXi raya&ia xgaltfjca r‘ai%/*>iV’” to the good king and the valiant soldier.“All the printers who afterwards were permitted to use the royal Greek types adopted the same emblems. The works which he printed at Geneva are marked only with the olive, and these words, Oliva Roberti Stephani. It was not Robert, however, as has been commonly said, who first divided the Bible into verses, which he is said to have done inter equitandum, while riding from Paris to Lyons. That mode of division had been used in the Latin Bible of Pagninus in 1527, 4to, in the” Psalterium quintuples," 1509, and in other works. Another report concerning him is untrue, namely, that when he left Paris, he carried with him the Greek types belonging to the royal printing-house. The fact seems to have been that the matrices employed in casting those types were already at Geneva, and were the property of the family of Robert, and probably given to him by Francis I.; for when the French clergy in 1619 were about to reprint the Greek fathers, they requested that the king would demand of the state of Geneva the matrices used in casting the Greek types for Francis I. The answer was, that they might be bought for the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid either to the state of Geneva, or to the heirs of Robert Stephens.

In 1559 his father died, which appears to have thrown him into melancholy, which his friends did every thing in their power to dissipate, and among other schemes recommended him to marry. He accordingly married a lady of the family of Schrimger, whom he often praises for the sweetness of her disposition. His health and tranquillity being now restored, he applied himself to business with his usual activity. His father had appointed him his executor, and recommended the care of his brothers, which appears to have been attended with some trouble and vexation. Another source of trouble arose from his having made a public profession of his adherence to the reformed religion. This made him in continual fear of being obliged to quit his business at Paris, and for such fear he had an additional reason, having written a French translation of Herodotus, to which he added a collection of anecdotes, satirical remarks, and epigrams against priests and monks, and he well knew his danger, if he should be known as the author.

The most valued of his own works, original or compiled, are, 1. “Ciceronianum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” Paris, 1557, 8vo. 2. “In Ciceronis quamplurimos locos castigationes,” ibid. 1557, 8vo; this is usually printed with th former. 3. “Admonitio de abusu linguae Graecae in quibusdam vocibus quas Latina usurpat,” 1563, 8vo; of this there was a new edition by Koloff and Kromayer, Berlin, 1736, 8vo. 4. “Fragmenta poetarum veterum Latinorum, quorum opera non extant,” 1564, 8vo. 5. “Dictionarium medicum,” 1564, 8vo. 6. “Introduction au traite de la conformite des merveilles anciennes avec les modernes, ou Traite preparatif a l'apologie pour Herodote,” 1566, 8vo, of great rarity and value, and the only edition in which the text was not altered, as was the case in the subsequent ones, of which there were about twelve before 1607. Duchet published a new edition at the Hague in 1733, 3 vols. 8vo. We have mentioned the author’s fears respecting his being known to have written it, but in fact he never was discovered, nor is there any truth in the story of his having been obliged to fly from the city, and take refuge in the mountains of Auvergne. 7. “Traite de la conformite du langage Francois avec le Grec,” 8vo, without date. The second edition, of Paris, 1569, was cancelled in some places, which makes the other the more valuable. 8. “Artis typographicae querimonia de illiteratis quibusdam typographis,” 1569, 4to. This little poem, for such it is, has been added to those published by Almeloveen and Maittaire, and there is a recent edition by Lottin, printed at Paris in 1785, 4to, with a French translation, and the genealogy of the Stephani, from 1500. 9. “Epistola qua ad multas multorum amicorum respondet de suas typographic statu, nominatimque de suo Thesauro linguae Graecoe,” 1569, 8vo, reprinted also by Almeloveen and Maittaire. 10. “Comicoruin Graecorum sententiae,” 1569, 12mo. 11. “Epigrammata Graeca selectaex Anthologia interpretata ad verbum et carmina,” 1570, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Grsecae linguae,” 1572, 4 vols. fol. with which is connected the “Glossariaduo,” &C.1573, fol. Of this celebrated work it is unnecessary to say much, as it is so well known to the learned in Europe, and to others information vvoxild be unnecessary. Maittaire was of opinion that Henry published a second edition, but has not discovered the date. Niceron thinks he only printed a new title for the unsold copies, with an epigram on Scapula. But Brunet, after examining a great many copies, both with the first and second titles, inclines to the existence of a second edition. Of late a spirited invitation has been held out to public taste and liberality by Messrs. Valpy, who have undertaken a nevr edition, with improvements and every lover of literature, every scholar anxious for the honour of his country must wish them success. 13. “Virtutum encomia, sive gnomas de virtutibus,” 1575, 12mo. 14. “Francofordiense emporium, sive Francofordienses nundinse,” 1574, 8vo. This collection of prose and verse pieces, which he calls “merchandize,” is but little known. 15. “Discours merveilleux de la vie et deportments de la reine Catherine de Medecis,” 1575, 8vo. This satire, translated in 1575, by a protestant writer, into Latin, with the title of “Legenda sanctae Catharinae JMediceas,” is attributed to Henry Stephens, and has been often reprinted. 16. “De Latinitate falso suspecta expostulatio, necnon de Plauti Latinitate dissertatio,” 1576, 8vo. This is a hit at the Ciceronians, or those who undervalue all Latin that is not borrowed from Cicero. 17. “Pseudo-Cicero, dialogus in quo de multis ad Ciceronis sermonem pertinentibus, de delectu editionum ejus, et cautione in eo legendo,” 1577, 8vo. 18. “Schediasmatum variorum, id est, observationum, &c. libri tres,” 1578, 8vo. These three books of critical remarks bear the names of the first three months of the year, and three others were added in 1589, but this second part is very rare. Gruter, however, has inserted it in the supplement to vol. V. of his “Thesaurus criticus.” 19. “ Nizolio-Didascalus, sive monitor Ciceronianorum-Nizoliandrum dialogus,” 1578, 8vo. (See Nizolius). 20. “Deux dialogues du nouveau Frangois Italianize” et autrement deguise entre les courtesans de ce temps,“3vo, no date, but printed, as Brunet thinks, in 1579, by Patisson, and reprinted at Antwerp the same year in 12mo. 21.” Projet de livre intitule de la precellence du langage Frangois,“1579, 8vo, a curious and very rare work, for which, as we have noticed, the king rewarded him. 22.” Paralipojnena grammaticarum GrEecae linguae institutionum,“1581, 8vo. 23.” Hypomneses de Gallica lingua,“1582, 8vo, and inserted also in his father’s French grammar. 24.” De criticis veteribus Grsecis et Latinis, eorumque variis apud poetas potissimurn reprehensionibus dissertatio,“1587, 4to. 25.” Les premices, ou le premier livre des proverbes epigrammatises, ou des epigrammes proverbiales rangees ea lieux communs,“1593, 8vo. 26.” De Lipsii Latinitate palestra," Francfort, 1595, 8vo.

We shall now briefly mention the remaining branches of this justly celebrated family. Henry Stephens, the third of that name, and son to Robert, the second, was treasurer of the royal palaces. Prosper March and thinks he was a printer in 1615, but no work is known to have issued from his press. He had two sons, Henry and Robert, and a daughter married to Fougerole, a notary. His son Henry, sieur des Fossés, was the author of “L' Art de faire les devices, avec un Traité des rencontres ou mots plaisants,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. His “Art of making devices” was translated into English by our countryman Thomas Blount (See vol. V. p. 430) and published in 1646, 4to. Henry assumed the title of interpreter of the Greek and Latin languages, and was reckoned a good poet. We also are indebted to him for a character of Louis XIII. and eloges of the princes and generals who served under that monarch, which he published in a work entitled “Les Triomphes de Louis-le-Juste,” Paris, 1649, fol. Robert, his brother, was an advocate of parliament, and completed the translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric begun by his uncle, Robert the third of the name, and published at Paris in 1630, 8vo. He left off printing about 1640, and was bailli of St. Marcel.

His principal works consist of the “Tristram Shandy,” the “Sentimental Journey,” and some volumes of “Sermons.” Several letters have been published since i:is death, which partake much of the style and manner of his other works. Were a judgment to be formed of his character from these, it would appear that, with more laxity of morals than becomes the clerical character, he was a man abounding in the tenderness and delicacy of humanity; but there were many well-known circumstances in his life which proved, that he was more an adept in the language than the practice of these virtues.

Mr. Stevens died Feb. 6, 1807, at his house in Broadstreet,;nd was interred in Oiharn church-yard in the county of Kent. Otham wa* not the place of his nativity, yet, from being the parish of his maternal relations, he had always regarded it as his home; and in that church-yard he expressed his desire to be buried. Indeed to the church of Otham he had, during his life-time, been a great benefactor, having laid out about 600l. in repairing and adorning it. An epitaph has since been placed on a marble tablet, containing a just summary of his excellent character. For a more minute detail of it, and particularly of his extensive -charities, both as ari individual, and as treasurer of queen Anne’s bounty, which office he held many years, and it afforded to him a wide scope for benevolent exertion for many admirable traits of temper and proofs of talent, and for an example of integrity, private virtues, and public usefulness, rarely to be met with, we must refer to the “Memoirs of William Stevens, esq.” printed for private distribution in 1812, 8vo, and in 1815 for sale. 7'his very interesting and instructive work is the well-known, although not avowed, production of a learned judge, who bus ably proved “how much every man has it in his power, even under very discouraging circumstances, by diligence, fidelity, and attention, to advance himself, not only in worldly prosperity, but in learning and wisdom, in purity of life, and in moral and religious knowledge,” and that “a life of the strictest piety and devotion to God, and of the warmest and most extensive benevolence to our fellow men, is strictly compatible with the utmost cheerfulness of disposition, with all rational pleasures, and with all the gaiety, which young persons naturally feel.”

Mr. Stewart’s views made it necessary for him to attend the lectures in the university of Edinburgh in 1741; and that his mathematical studies might suffer no interruption, he was introduced by Dr. Simson to Mr. Maclaurin, who was then teaching with so much success both the geometry and the philosophy of Newton, and under whom Mr. Stewart made that proficiency which was to be expected from the abilities of such a pupil, directed by those of so great a master. Eut the modern analysis, even when thus powerfully recommended, was not able to withdraw his attention, from the relish of the ancient geometry, which he had imbibed under Dr. Simson. He still kept up a regular correspondence with this gentleman, giving him an account of his progress, and of his discoveries in geometry, which were now both numerous and important, and receiving in return many curious communications with respect to the Loci Plani, and the Porisms of Euclid. Mr. Stewart pursued this latter subject in a different, and new direction, and was led to the discovery of those curious and interesting propositions, which were published, under the title of “General Theorems,” in 1746, which, although given without the demonstrations, placed their discoverer at once among the geometricians of the first rank. They are, for the most part, Porisms, though Mr. Stewart, careful not to anticipate the discoveries of his friend, gave them only the name of Theorems. While engaged in them, Mr. Stewart had entered into the church, and become minister of Roseneath. It was in that retired and romantic situation, that he discovered the greater part of those theorems. In the summer of 1746, the mathematical chair in the university of Edinburgh became vacant, by the death of Mr. Maclaurin. The “General Theorems” had not yet appeared; Mr. Stewart was known only to his friends; and the eyes of the public were naturally turned on Mr. Stirling, who then resided at Leadhills, and who was well known in the mathematical world. He however declined appearing as a candidate for the vacant chair; and several others were named, among whom was Mr. Stewart. Upon this occasion he printed his “Theorems,” which gave him a decided superiority above all the other candidates. He was accordingly elected professor of mathematics in the university of Edinburgh, in September 1747. The duties of this office gave a turn somewhat different to his mathematical pursuits, and led him to think of the most simple and elegant means of explaining those difficult propositions, which were bit erto only accessible to men deeply versed in the modern analysis. In doing this, he was pursuing the object which, of all others, he most ardently wished to obtain, viz. the application of geometry to such problems as the algebraic calculus alone had been thought able to resolve. His solution of Kepler’s problem was the first specimen of this kind which he gave to the world, and which, unlike all former attempts, was at once direct in its method and simple in its principles. This appeared in vol. II. of the “Essays of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh,” for 1756; and in the first volume of the same collection are some other propositions by him, which are an extension of a curious theorem in the fourth book of Pappus.

In the course of prosecuting his plan of introducing into the higher parts of mixed mathematics, the strict and simple form of ancient demonstration, he produced the “Tracts Physical and Mathematical,” which were published in 1761. In the first of these, Mr. Stewart lays down the doctrine of centripetal forces in a series of propositions demonstrated, the quadrature of curves beingadmitted, with the utmost rigour, and requiring no previous knowledge of mathematics, except the elements of plane geometry and of conic sections. The good order of these propositions, added to the clearness and simplicity of the demonstrations, renders this tract the best elementary treatise of physical astronomy that is any where to he found. In the three following tracts, his object was to determine, by the same method, the effect of those forces which disturb the motions of a secondary planet: and from these he proposed to deduce, not only the theory of the rnoon, but a determination of the sun’s distance from the earth. The former, it is well known, is the most difficult subject to which mathematics have been applied. It must be regretted, therefore, that the decline of Dr. Stewart’s health, which began soon after the publication of the “Tracts” did not permit him to pursue this investigation. In regard to the distance of the sun, the transit of Venus, which was to happen in 1761, had turned the attention of mathematicians to the solution of this curious problem; but when it was considered of how delicate a nature the observations were from which that solution was to be deduced, and to how many accidents they were exposed, it was natural that some attempts should be made to ascertain the dimensions of our system by some method less subject to disappointment. Such accordingly was the design of Dr. Stewart, and his inquiries into the lunar irregularities had furnished him with the means of accomplishing it.

Soon after the publication of the “Sun’s Distance,” Dr. Stewart’s health began to decline, and the duties of his office became burdensome to him. In 1772 he retired to the country, where he afterwards spent the greater part of his life, and never resumed his labours in the university. He was, however, so fortunate as to have a son to whom, though very young, he could commit the care of them with the greatest confidence. Mr. Dugald Stewart, having begun to give lectures for his father from the period above mentioned, was elected joint professor with him in 1775, and gave an early specimen of those abilities which are now so universally known.

This was the last of Mr. Stillingfleet' s publications; for he died, at his lodgings in Piccadilly opposite Burlingtonhouse, Dec. 15, 1771 (the year this last-me.itioned work was published), aged sixty-nine. He was interred in St. James’s church, where his great nephew Edward Hawke Locker, esq. third son of captain Locker, has recently erected a monument to his memory. The merit most generally attributed to Mr. Stillingfleet is the service which he has rendered to our Natural History and Agriculture. In the present age it may not be deemed a merit in a gentleman, who is at the same time a man of letters, to encourage such pursuits by precept and example; as we have numerous instances of men of the first rank and abilities, who have dedicated their time and labours to the promotion of this branch of useful knowledge. But, in the time of Mr. Stillingfleet, the case was far different; for few men of respectable rank in society were farmers; and still fewer, if any, gave the result of their experience and observations to the public. On the contrary, there seems to have existed among the higher classes a strong prejudice against agricultural pursuits; which Mr. Stillingfleet took some pains to combat, and which, indeed, his example, as well as his precepts, greatly contributed to overcome. As a poet, Mr. Stillingfleet is less known, because few of his compositions were ever given to the public, and those were short, and confined to local or temporary subjects. The “Essay on Conversation” the “Poem on Earthquakes” the dramas and sonnets; will certainly entitle him to a place on the British Parnassus but, when we consider his refined and classical taste, his command of language, his rich and varied knowledge, and the flights of imagination which frequently escape from his rapid pen, we can have no hesitation in asserting, that if, instead of the haste in which he apparently prided himself, he had employed more patience and more assiduous correction, he would have attained no inconsiderable rank among our native poets. Independently of his merits as a naturalist and a poet, he possessed great versatility of genius and multifarious knowledge. His intimate acquaintance with the higher branches of the mathematics, and his skill in applying them to practice, are evident from his treatise on the principles and powers of harmony: and all his works, both printed and manuscript, display various and undoubted proofs of an extensive knowledge of modern languages, both ancient and modern, and a just and refined taste, formed on the best models of classic literature.

, an eminent, though self-taught mathematician, was a native of Scotland, and son of a gardener in the service of the duke of Argyle. Neither the time nor place of his birth is exactly known, but from a ms memorandum in our possession it appears that he died in March or April 1768. The chief account of him that is extant is contained in a letter written by the celebrated chevalier Ramsay to father Castel, a Jesuit at Paris, and published in the Journal de Trevoux, p. 109. From this it appears, that when he was about eighteen years of age, his singular talents were discovered accidentally by the duke of Argyle, who found that he had been reading Newton’s Principia. The duke was surprised, entered into conversation with him, and was astonished at the force, accuracy, and candour of his answers. The instructions he had received amounted to no more than having been taught to read by a servant of the duke’s, about ten years before. “I first learned to read,” said Stone; “the masons were then at work upon your house: I went near them one day, and I saw that the architect used a rule and compasses, and that he made calculations. I inquired what might be the use of these things; and I was informed, that there was a science called arithmetic: I purchased a book of arithmetic, and I learned it. I was told there was another science called geometry: I bought the books, and I learned geometry. By reading I found that there were good books in these two sciences in Latin: I bought a dictionary, and 1 learnt Latin. I understood that there were good books of the same kind in French: I bought a dictionary, and I learned French. And this, my lord, is what I have done. It seems to me that we may learn every thing, when we know the twenty-four letters of the aipiuibet.” Delighted with this account, the duke drew him from obscurity, and placed him in a situation which enabled him to pursue his favourite objects. Stone was author and translator of several useful works 1 “A new Mathematical Dictionary, 1726, 8vo. 2.” Fluxions,“1730, 8vo. The direct method is a translation of L' Hospital’s Analyse des infiniment petits, from the French; and the inverse method was supplied by Stone himself. 3.” The Elements of Euclid," 1731, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a neat and useful edition of the Elements of Euclid, with an account of the life and writings of that mathematician, and a defence of his elements against modern objectors. 4. ' A paper in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. xli. p. 218, containing an account of two species of lines of the third order, not mentioned by sir Isaac Newton, or Mr. Sterling; and some other small productions.

To this account, as given in the last edition of this work, we may add that when Stone had obtained the duke of Argyle’s patronage, he probably was enabled to come to London, as we find he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1725, a year before the publication of his “Mathematical Dictionary,” and his subsequent works were all published in London: but in what capacity he lived or how supported, we know not. Io 1742 or 1743 his name was withdrawn from the list of the Royal Society. In 1758 he published “The Construction and Principal Uses of Mathematical Instruments, translated from the French of M. Bion, chief instrument -maker to the French king. To which are added, the construction and uses of such instruments as are omitted by M. Bion, particularly of those invented or improved by the English. By Edmund Stone,” folio. Here he omits the title of F. R S. which appeared to his former publications. From the introductory part of an account of this work in the Critical Review, it would appear that he was known to the writer of that article, and that he was now old and neglected. “Since the commencement of our periodical labours,” says the critic, “none of Mr. Stone’s works have passed through our hands. It is with pleasure we now behold this ingenious gentleman breaking a silence, for the service of the publick, which we were ready to attribute to his sense of its ingratitude. There is hardly a person the least tinctured with letters in the British dominions, who is unacquainted with the extraordinary merit of our author. Untutored, and self-taught, he ascended from the grossest ignorance, by mere dint of genius, to the sublimest paths of geometry. His abilities are universally acknowledged, his reputation unblemished, his services to the public uncontested, and yet he lives to an advanced age unrewarded, except by a mean employment that reflects dishonour on the donors.” What this employment was, we know not, but the work itself is said to be a second edition, and that the first had a rapid sale. In 1767, was published a pamphlet entitled “Some reflections on the the uncertainty of many astronomical and geographical positions, with regard to the figure and magnitude of the earth, &c. &c. By Edmund Stone,” 8vo. We have not seen this production, but from the account given of it in the Monthly Review, it must have been written either by a Mr. Edmund Stone of far inferior abilities and good sense to our author, or by our author in his dotage.

After twenty-five years labour in this way, and publishing his large “Summary,” as a specimen of his capacity, he addressed the lord-mayor and aldermen to grant him two freedoms, which perhaps he received, although we find no record of the fact. Some years after, he again petitioned the lord-mayor and aldermen, stating, “That he was of the age of threescore and four, and that he had for the space of almost thirty years last past, besides his Chronicles dedicated to the earl of Leicester, set forth divers” Summaries“dedicated to them, &c. He therefore prayeth them to bestow on him some yearly pension, or otherwise, whereby he might reap somewhat toward his great charges.” Whether this application had any success, is not known. There is no instance of his reaping any reward from the city, adequate to the extraordinary pains he underwent in the establishment of the reputation of it, unless his being promoted to the office of its Fee'd Chronicler; a post of no great consequence, and to which probably a very small salary was annexed. Whatever it might he, it was so far from retrieving his ruined circumstances, that it did not even afford him the means of subsistence; so that he was forced to beg a brief from king James I. to collect the charitable benevolence of well-disposed people. To the liberal feelings of the present age, it must appear very strange that such a man should have been reduced to such a situation; that neither the opulent city of London, whose service and credit he had so greatly advanced, by writing such an elaborate and accurate survey of it; nor the wealthy company of Merchant Taylors, of which he was a member; nor the state itself; should have thought it their duty to save a person from want, to whom they were all so highly indebted. The licence or brief which his majesty granted him to beg, was a libel upon his own bounty; and the produce of it, so far as we know, fixes an indelible reproach on the charity of the Londoners of that day. We may judge of the sum total collected on this occasion by what was gathered from the parishioners of St. Mary Wolnoth, which amounted to no more than seven shillings and sixpence.

In this state of poverty, he died April 5, 1605, in his eightieth year, and was buried towards the upper end of the north-isle of the church of St. Andrew Undershaft, in Leadenhall-street, where a monument was erected by his widow, of a composition resembling alabaster, and altogether a very animated work. How she could afford this, when her husband died in such poor circumstances, does not appear. Probably she was assisted by some persons who were ashamed of their neglect of our author in his life-time. We are sorry to add a very disgraceful circumstance to this account, which was not known to the editors of the edition of 17 54, and which we have upon the authority of Maitland. After noticing this monument, and paying a just compliment to the deceased’s character, Maitland adds, “that neither that, nor any other consideration was sufficient to protect his repository from being spoiled of his injured remains by certain men in the year 1732, who removed his corpse to make way for another.”

Although his “Prolusiones” is by far his best work, he is yet perhaps better known as a historian. His “Historia de Bello Belgico” was published at Rome in two parts or decades, 1640—1647, 2 vols. fol. It is written in what some have termed elegant Latin, and which character, “in a certain degree, it deserves; but the style is florid and fuse, and too obviously an affected imitation of that of Livy. His partiality to the Spanish cause is another objection, of which his readers must be warned. This history appeared at the same time wit!) that o(' Beniivoglio, who says that Strada’s work is fitter for a college than a court, and that he did not understand war and politics. It was also attacked by Scioppius in a very rude manner, in a book entitled” Infamia Faimani." Strada, or Stradanus (John), a Flemish painter, born at Bruges in 1536, was famous in several branches of his art. He painted history, battles, chaces, and animals, all with great success. His family was illustrious, but his inclinations led him to the study of painting; and to complete his knowledge of the art he went to Italy. The exquisite remains of antiquity, with the works of Raphael, and other great painters, were the models which enabled him to attain considerable eminence in his profession. Florence was the place where he chose to fix his residence, though invited to several others; and there the best of his works remain. He died there in 1604, at the age of sixtyeight. His taste is esteemed good, though not entirely divested of the Flemish style, after all his diligent study in Italy. The tone of his colouring, however, is pleasing, and his works maintain an honourable place with those of Salviati, Volterra, and others.

When the vigilance of pursuit was somewhat abated, Strange left the Highlands, and returned to Edinburgh, where, for the first time, he began to turn his talents to account, and contrived to maintain himself, in concealment, by the sale of small drawings of the rival leaders in the rebellion, many of which must still be extant. They were purchased, at the time, in great numbers, at a guinea each. A fan also, the primary destination of which gave it in his eyes an additional value, and where he had, on that account, bestowed more than usual pains, was sold at this period, with a sad heart, “non hos quacsitum munus in usus,” to the earl of Wemyss; who was too sensible of its value to suffer it to be re-purchased, when that was proposed a short time afterwards. Tired of a life of alarm and privacy,lr. Strange, at length, after much difficulty, procured a safe conduct to London, intending to embark for France; but not till he had received the reward peculiarly due to the brave; and made that hand his own, for the sake of which he had risked his life in the field. The name of the lady to whom he was thus united in 1747, and in whose steady affection, through the whole of a long life, all those dangers were forgotten, was Isabella Lumisden, the daughter of an ancient and respectable family, and sister to a gentleman well known in the literary world for his instructive work on the antiquities of Rome.

His remains were interred, in compliance with what had long been known to be his own modest desire, in the most private manner, in Covent-garden churchyard; his ashes being placed immediately adjoining to those of a daughter once tenderly beloved. A simple tablet, with his name inscribed, is all that distinguishes the spot. The works indeed of such an artist form his truest and most appropriate monument. These no time has power to destroy, and, as long as the labours of taste shall be objects of admiration among mankind, these assuredly will perpetuate his reputation; and with it a name not more to be remembered for the genius which gave it lustre, than the virtues by which it was adorned.

, a German Luthe-an divine and mathematician, but in this country known only as a chronologist, was born in 1632, at Wittemberg. He studied at Leipsic, and was afterwards professor of theology at Wittemberg, and at Dantzick. He was frequently involved in theological disputes, both with the Roman catholics and the Calvinists, from his intemperate zeal in favour of Lutheranism. He died at Wittemberg in 1682. He published some mathematical works; but was chiefly distinguished for his chronological and historical disquisitions, of which he published a considerable number from 1652 to 1680. One of the best and most useful, his “Breviarium Chronologicum,” was long known in this country by three editions (with improvements in each) of an English translation, by Richard Sault, called in the title F. R. S. but his name does not occur in Dr. Thomson’s list of the members of the Royal Society. Locke’s high commendation of this work probably introduced it as a useful manual of chronology. The edition of 1745, which, we believe, was the last, received many improvements and corrections, but it has since given way to lesser chronological systems.

In this suffering Stubbs had the sympathy of the people, and did not lose the regard of thuse who had previously known his learning and talents, and who probably thought little of an offence that proceeded from his zeal for the reformation, and evidently from no principle of disloyalty. A very few years afterwards he was employed by the lord treasurer, to answer cardinal Allan’s “Defence of the English Catholics;” a task which he executed with acknowledged ability. Several letters of Stubbs, addressed to the lord treasurer and his secretary Hickes, are preserved in the Burghley -papers, now in the British Museum; and most of them having been written with his left-hand, he usually, in allusion to the loss of his right, signed himself Scæva. Whether his answer to Allen was ever published is uncertain; but he translated Beza’s meditations on the first Psalm, and the seven penitential Psalrns, from the French, which he dedicated to lady Anne Bacon, wife of sir Nicholas Bacon. The dedication is dated from v Thelveton in Norfolk, where he appears to have taken up his residence, May 31, 1582, and it is signed “John Stubbe, Sceva.” It is said that Stubbs was afterwards a commander in the army in Ireland, but we have no farther accouu- of him, or any notice of his death. Wood is of opinion, that he was either father or brother to Philip Stubbs, author of “The Anatomy of Abuses,” and other works against the vices and abuses of his time. This man, who was not m orders, although all his publications are such as might have been expected from a divine, lived about the same time with John Stubbs; but Wood’s account of him is imperfect.

In the science of fortification, Sturmius acquired great fame. The celebrated general Coehorn was of opinion that no man understood the subject better, and that he only wanted to have the conduct of some siege in order to prove himself one of the ablest engineers of the age. In 1711 he left Francfort, for the honourable offices of counsellor of the chamber of finances, and director of the buildings at the court of Frederick William duke of Mecklenburgh. There he built the palace of Neustadt on the Elde, which is acknowledged to be in a good taste, but it excited envy, and the duke having too easily listened to the prejudiced reports of some about him, Sturmius left his situation in 1713, and went to Hamburgh, where he employed some time in writing. While there he accepted the office of the duke of Brunswick to enter his service as first architect at Blanckenburgh, but did not enjoy that situation long. He died June 6, 1719, in the fiftieth year of his age. His mathematical and architectural works, not mentioned, were very numerous, but being mostly in the Germa-n language, are but little known. He also acquired reputation as a theologian, and had a controversy with certain Lutheran divines, in which persuasion he was originally bred up, on their peculiar notions respecting the Lord’s supper.

, an ancient historian and biographer, was born at Rome about the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, perhaps in the year 70, as may be collected from his own words in the life of Nero. His father Suetonius Lenis was tribune of a legion, in the service of the emperor Otho, against Vitellius. He passed his first years probably at Romej and when grown up, applied himself to the bar. He appears to have very early acquired the friendship of the younger Pliny, who procured for him the office of tribune and aiteru lkl.N, upon his resignation, transferred it to his kinsman, at Sdetonius’s request. He ohtained also In* him th “Jus trimn liberon.m;” a favour seldom granted, and which Pliny could not have obtained, if, besides hU great interest at court, he had not very earnestly solicited the emperor Trajan, in a letter written from Bnhynia, of which he was at that time governor. In this letter he describes Suetonius as a man of gr<at integrity, honour, a. d learning, whose manners and studies were the same with his own; and he adds, “the better I have known him, the more I have loved him. He has been rather unhappy in his marriage; and the privileges of those who have three children are upon several accounts necessary. He begs through me, therefore, that your bounty will supply what his ill fortune has denied him. I know, sir, the high value of the favour I ask but I am asking a sovereign whose indulgence to all my wishes I have long experienced. How desirous I am to obtain it, you will easily conclude, from my applying to you at this distance; which I should not have done, if it had been a mutter of indifference to me.” Suetonius advanced himself to be afterwards secretary to the emperor Adrian; but he lost that place, for not paying a due respect to the empress. Spartian, speaking of him and others involved in the same blame, uses the words “quod apud Sabinam uxorem, injussu ejus, familiarius se tune egerant, quam reverentia domus aulicae postulabat.” On the nature of this disrespect, or “too great familiarity,” critics are not agreed. Their offence probably rose only from the capricious temper of the emperor, who, we are told, treated her with great contempt himself for some reason, and permitted others also to do so under certain limitations; which limitations Suetonius and others might ignorantly transgress.

, author of a celebrated Greek Lexicon, is a personage of whom we are unable to give many particulars. Who he was, or when he lived, are points of great uncertainty; no circumstances of his life having been recorded, either by himself or any other writer. Politian and some oihers have been of opinion that no such person ever existed; but thai Suidas was a real person, appears, not only from his name being found in all the manuscripts of his Lexicon, but from his being often mentioned by Eustathius in his Commentary upon Homer. The learned have differed in the same manner concerning the age of Suidas; some, as Grotins, supposing him to have lived under Conjstantinus, the son of Leo, emperor of the East, who began to reign in the year 912; while others have brought him even lower than Eustathins, who is known to have lived in 1180. The learned Bentley thinks that as he has referred a point of chronology to the death of the emperor Zimisces, that is, to the year of Christ 975: we may infer that he wrote his Lexicon between that time and the death of the succeeding emperor, which was in 1075. This Lexicon is a compilation of matters from various authors, sometimes made with judgment and diligence, but often from bad copies; and he therefore sometimes gives his reader corrupt and spurious words, instead of those that are pure and genuine. He also mixes things of a different kind, and belonging to different authors, promiscuously; and some of his examples to illustrate the signification of words are very little to the purpose. His Lexicon, however, is a very useful book, and a storehouse of all sorts of erudition. Scholars by profession have all prized it highly; as exhibiting many excellent passages of ancient authors whose works are lost. It is to be ranked with the Bbliotheca of Photuis ard works of that kind. The “Etymologicon Magnum” has been ascribed to Suidas, but without sufficient authority, though it may have been composed in the same period with the Lexicon. Suidas’s Lexicon was first published at Milan, 1499, in Greek only: it has since been printed with a Latin version: but the best edition, indeed the only good one, is that of Kuster, Gr. & Lat. Cambridge, 1705, 3 vols. folio. To this should be added Toup’s valuable “Emendationes in Suidam,” Oxon. 1790, 4 vols. 8vo. Mr. Taylor had begun an appendix to Suidas, four sheets only of which were printed off at the time of his death, April 4, 1766. It had the following title, “Appendix notarum in Suidae Lexicon, ad paginas edit. Cantab. 1705, adcommodatarum; colligente, qui et suas etiani aliquammultas adjecit, Joanne Taylor.” This, we believe, was never finished.

Nothing could be more kind than the reception which the queen of Navarre, her children, and principal servants, met with from the king and queen; nor more obliging, than their treatment of them. The queen of Navarre died, and some historians make no doubt but she was poisoned; yet the whole court appeared sensibly affected, and went into deep mourning. Still many of the Protestants, among whom was Sully’s father, suspected the designs of the court; and had such convincing proofs, that they quitted the court, and Paris itself, or at least lodged in the suburbs. They warned prince Henry to be cautious; but he listened to nothing; and some of his chiefs were as incredulous, and the admiral de Coligni in particular, though one of the wisest and most sagacious men in the world. The fact to be perpetrated was fixed for the 24th of August, 1572, and is well known by the name of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. The feast of St. Bartholomew fell this year upon a Sunday; and the massacre was perpetrated in the evening.

, a very eminent German, or rather Swiss, philosopher, was born at Wmterthour, in the canton of Zurich, October 16, 1720, and is said to have been the youngest of twenty-five children. Both his parents died on the same day in 1734, and left him barely enough to defray the expence of his education. His taJents did not develope themselves early; and, at sixteen, jhe had not even acquired a taste for study. Wolfe’s Metaphyiics was the first book that awakened in him a love of philosophy; and the counsels and example of the celebrated Gesner soon after incited him to apply himself eagerly to mathematics and general science, and to resume the study of Grecian and Oriental literature. In 1739, he became an ecclesiastic; and a favourable situation for examining the beauties of nature, made him an enthusiast in that branch of knowledge. He published, therefore, at twenty- one, “Moral contemplations of the works of Nature” and, in the same year, 1741, “A Description of the most remarkable Antiquities in the Lordship of Knonau,” written in German. The year after, he published an account of a journey which he took in the Alps; in which he displayed, not only his sensibility of the beauties of nature, but his profound sense of the infinite power and goodness of its author. Becoming a tutor at Magdeburg, he obtained the acquaintance of Maupertuis, Euler, and Sack; in consequence of which his merits became more known, and he obtained, in 1747, the appointment of mathematical professor in the royal college at Berlin and became a member of the Royal Academy there in 1760.

, a celebrated Hebrew and Greek professor in the university of Amsterdam, is most known for his edition of the Mischna of the Jews, with notes, and a Latin version, which he began to publish in 1698, and completed in 1703, in 3 vols. folio. It contains also the commentaries of the Rabbins, Maimonides, and Bartenora. The period at which he flourished is ascertained by this publication; but, in the books which we have been able to consult, we do not find any account of the time when he was born or died. The latter event must have, however, been posterior to 1713, when he published a learned work in Latin, “in which the passages of the Old Testament, quoted in the New, are vindicated and reconciled, according to the forms of quotation, and the several ways of interpreting the scripture, used by the ancient Hebrew Theologers,” Amst. 4to.

At first the undertaking seemed attended with good omens: prince Henry was a zealous friend to it: the king consented to be deemed the founder, called the college after his own name, “King James’s college at Chelsea,” endowed it with the reversion of certain lands at Chelsea, which were fixed upon for its site, laid the first stone of the building, gave timber out of Windsor forest, issued his royal letters to encourage his subjects throughout the kingdom to contribute towards the completion of the structure; and as a permanent endowment, procured an act of parliament to enable the college to raise an annual rent, by supplying the City of London with water from the river Lea. It appears by the charter of incorporation, dated May 8, 1610, that the college consisted of a provost and twenty fellows, eighteen of whom were required to be in holy orders; the other two, who might be either laymen or divines, were to be employed in writing the annals of their times. Sutcliffe himself was the first provost; Camden and Haywood the first historians; and among the fellows we find the well-known names of Overall, Morton, Field, Ahbot, Howson, Spencer, Boys, &c. When a vacancy happened in any department, the successor was to he nominated and recommended by the vice-chancellor and heads of colleges in the two universities, and approved by the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor or' each university, and the bishop of London. The charter granted th college the power of using a common seal; various privileges and immunities, and licence to possess lands in mortmain to the value of 3000l. per ann.

It is uncertain at what time he became steward of the monastery of Sion near Brentford in Middlesex, but he occurs in this office in 1513, and had chambers in the monastery, where he frequently resided. Besides bestowing estates and money on this religions house, he bore the exr pense of publishing a splendid, and now very rare book, in honour of the house, called “The Orcharde of Syon.” In 1512, he was employed in purchasing the manor of Pinchepolles in Farringdon, Berkshire, with lands in Westbrook and Farnham in that county, which were given by Mrs. Morley, and constituted the first permanent benefaction bestowed on Brasen-nose college. He appears to have received the honour of knighthood in 152'J, about two years before his death, but the exact time of the latter event is not known. As an annual commemoration of him is observed by the society on the Sunday after Michaelmas, it may be inferred that he died about that time. His will, drawn up March 16, 1523-4, was proved November 7, 1524; and he is supposed to have been buried, either at Macclesfield, or in the monastery of Sion. His bequests are almost all of the religious or charitable kind. To these scanty memoirs we may add, in the grateful language of his biographer, that, “Unmarried himself, and not anxious to aggrandize his family, which had long ranked among the best in a county justly proud of its ancient gentry, sir Richard Sutton bestowed handsome benefactions and kind remembrances among his kinsmen; but he wedded the public, and made posterity his heir. An active coadjutor from the first to the bishop of Lincoln in laying the foundation of Brasen-nose college, he completed the building, revised the laws, and doubled.the revenues of the growing seminary, leaving it a perpetual monument of the consolidated wisdom and joint munificence of Smyth and of Sutton.”

, a Swedish enthusiast, and the founder of a well-known, although, we trust, declining sect, was born at Stockholm J.n. 29, 1689. His father was bishop of West Gothia, and it may be supposed that his education was good, since he published a volume of Latin poetry when he was only twenty years old. The title was, “Ludus Heliconius, sive Carmina Miscellanea, quie variis in locis cecinit.” The same year he began his travels; and having visited England, Holland, France, and Germany, returned in 1714 to Stockholm, where two years after, he was appointed by Charles XII. assessor of the metallic college. His studies during this part of his life, were chiefly devoted to mathematics and natural philosophy; and he was essentially useful to his king by enabling him to convey his heavy artillery by water, where they could not go by land. He published about this period, many scientih'cal and philosophical works; and succeeding to the favour of queen Ulrica Kleanora, after the death of Charles XI I. was by her ennobled in 171I>. In pursuance of his duty, as belonging to the metallic college, he travelled to view the mines, and then inspected aiso the manufactures of his country. In consequence of this, he published several tracts on subjects relating to the philosophy of the arts. He returned to Stockholm in 1722,;.nd divided his time between the duties of his ofiice and his private studies. In 1733, he had completed his great work, entitled “Opera Philosophica et Mineralia,” which was printed under his direction in 1734, partly at Dresden, and partly at Leipsic. It forms 3 vols. folio, is illustrated hy plates, and is written with great strength of judgment. In 1720, he had been admitted into the society of sciences at Upsal; and between that and 1724, had received a similar honour from the royal academy at Stockholm, and that of Petersburgh. He corresponded also with many learned foreigners. But the time was now approaching when all the desire of baron Swedenborg, for literary or other worldly distinction, was to be absorbed in feelings of a sublimer nature. Whether too intense an application to study had disordered, or a natural tendency to enthusiasm had inflamed his mind, he conceived himself miraculously called to the office of revealing the most hidden arcana. “In the year 1743,” he says, in one of his works, “the Lord was graciously pleased to manifest himself to me, in a personal appearance; to open in me a sight of the spiritual world, and to enable me to converse with spirits and angels; and this privilege has continued with me to this day.” From this time, he devoted his very able pen to such subjects as this most extraordinary state of mind suggested. He published, “De cultu et Amore Dei,” Lond. 1745, 4to; “De telluribus in mundo nostro solari,” 1758 “De Equo albo in Apocalypsi,” 1758 “De nova Hierosolyma” “De Ccelo et Inferno” “Sapientia angelica de Divina Providentia,” Amsterdam, 1764 “Vera Christiana religio,” Amst. 1771 and many other books. He particularly visited Amsterdam and London, where these extravagant works were published, and where they have since been translated by his admirers. One of his fancies about the spiritual world is, that it admits not of space: yet he tells us, that a man is so little changed after death, that he does not even know that he is not living in the present world; that he eats and drinks, and even enjoys conjugal delights, as in the present world; that the resemblance between the two worlds is so great, that in the spiritual there are cities, palaces, houses, books, merchandise, &c. &c. Universal Theology, vol. J. p. 734. This extraordinary man died in London, March 29, 1772; his remains lay in state, and were afterwards deposited in a vault in the Swedish church near Radcliff-highway.

Swedenborg was, in himself, a harmless, though a very extravagant enthusiast. His sect does not appear to have made much progress during his life, but is now established in England, under the title of The New Jerusalem Church. It is a kind of Christianity, modified according to the whims of the author; acknowledging a Trinity, but not exactly in the sense of any other church, and an unity in a peculiar sense also; pretending that the spiritual sense of the Scriptures was never known till it was revealed to Swedenborg. The continued intercourse of spirits with men is one part of his doctrine; with many other reveries, which would hardly appear to deserve notice, were they not still considered by many as the result of inspiration. That these strange delusions should subsist in a time when true faith has wavered without reason, is extraordinary. To a reasonable person, the inspection of any one of his mystical books seems a sufficient preservative from the infection. Some of his followers have been bold enough to represent him as a man without enthusiasm.

, a Flemish historian and antiquary, was born at Antwerp in 1567. We have no particulars of his literary progress, but a general character that he was a man of science and learning, of an amiable disposition, and occasionally a wit, a poet, and a man of business. He devoted much of his time to study, and published a great many works which brought him considerable reputation. Saxius says he does not know whother he married or lived single, nor, he acids, “is it of much importance. This, I know, that he does not speak very respectfully of the ladies and their company. He says of Janus Dousa, the father, that when he returned home, he married that necessary evil, a icife” Whatever reason Swert had for using this expression, Saxius might have known from Valerius Andreas, or from Foppen, that he married Susanna Van Erp, and had a family of six children. He died at Antwerp in 1629, aged sixty- two.