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

Having taken orders in the church, he was made almoner to the king, and collated to the priory of Juvigne. In 1664, his majesty, out of his special favour, made him commander of the order of St. Michael. He had many years before begun a translation of the History of Charles VI. written by a monk of St. Denys, and continued by John le Fevre, called of St. Remy; but though this translation was finished in 1656, it was not published till 1663, and then too came out with a very small part of those commentaries, which, according to his promise, were to have filled two volumes. He had also published in 1656, the history of the marshal of Guebriant, with the genealogy of Budos, and some other houses in Britanny; and gave the public the memoirs of Michael de Castelnau, with several genealogical histories, 1659, in 2 vols. folio, a scarce and highly-valued edition. He continued to employ himself in writing other pieces in the same way, some of which were published after his death, which happened in 1675. Le Long and others are of opinion that Laboureur had some hand in the two last volumes of Sally’s Memoirs. He had a brother named Louis Le Laboureur, who was bailiff of Montmorency, and author of several pieces of poetry. He died in 1679. These also had an uncle, Claude Le Laboureur, provost of the abbey of L'isle Barbe, upon the Seine, near Lyons, who, in 1643, published “Notes and Corrections upon the Breviary of Lyons;” and in 1665, 1681, and 1682, “Les Mesures de L'Isle Barbe,” i. e. an historical account of every thing relating to that abbey; but the little caution which he observed in speaking of the chapter of St. John at Lyons obliged him to resign his provostship, and raised him an enemy in the person of Besian d'Arroy, a prebendary of the church, who, in 1644, refuted his “Notes and Corrections,” and his “Measures” in 1668, in two publications, the first entitled “L'Apologie de PEglise de Lyon” and the other, “Histoire de PAbbaie de l'lsle Barbe.” Dom. Claude published “A Treatise of the Origin of Arms, against Menetrier,” and “A genealogical History of the House of St. Colombe,” which was printed in 1673.

, a French monk, who became a zealous protestant, was born at Avignon in 1487. At the age of fifteen he entered himself among the Franciscan friars, and continued in the comrnunijty twenty years; during which time he acquired celebrity as a preacher, and was made general of the order. Much addicted to reading and reflection, in the course of his investigations he saw reason to renounce the doctrines of the catholic church, and to adopt those of the reformation; but on that account found it necessary to go to Switzerland, where he arrived in 1522. Here he became a popular preacher among the protestants, and having continued some time at Ba,sil, he set out for Wittemberg to visit Luther, in 1523. With that eminent reformer he grew into high esteem, and it was determined he should go to Zurich, to assist in disseminating the principles of the reformation through France; but this scheme was altered for some employment in the university of Wittemberg, where he most probably continued till 1526. In the following year he was appointed divinity-professor at the university of Marpurg, and in 1530 he died, at the age of forty-three. He was author of commentaries on almost all the parts of the Old and New Testament, and of many theological and controversial pieces.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century, was an Italian, and born in 1005 at Pavia, being son of a counsellor to the senate of that town; but, losing his father in his infancy, he went to Bologna. Hence, having prosecuted his studies for some time, he removed into France in the reign of Henry I. and taught some time at Avranches, where he had many pupils of high rank. In a journey to Rouen, he had the misfortune to be robbed, and tied to a tree on the road, where he remained till next day, when being released by some passengers, he retired to the abbey of Bee, lately founded, and there took the monk’s habit in 1041. He was elected prior of this religious house in 1044; and opened a school, which in a little time became very famous, and was frequented by students from all parts of Europe. Amongst others, some of the scholars of Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, and master of the school at Tours, left that, and went to study at the abbey of Bee. This, it is said, excited the envy of Berenger, and gave rise to a long and violent controversy between him and Lanfranc, on the subject of the eucharist. (See Berengarius). In 1049, Lanfranc took a journey to Rome, where he declared his sentiments to pope Leo IX. against the doctrine of Berenger; for Berenger had xvritten him a letter, which gave room to suspect Lanfranc to be of his opinion. Soon after, he assisted in the council of Verceil, where he expressly opposed Berenger’s notions. He returned a second time to Rome in 1059, and assisted in the council held at the Lateran by pope Nicholas II. in which Berenger abjured the doctrine that he had till then maintained. Lanfranc now obtained a dispensation from the pope, for the marriage of William duke of Normandy with a daughter of the earl of Flanders his cousin. On his return to France, he rebuilt his abbey at Bee; but was soon removed from it by the duke of Normandy, who in 1062 made him abbot of St. Stephen’s at Caen in that province, where he established a new academy, which became no less famous than his former one at Bee. This duke, coming to the crown of England, sent for Lanfranc, who was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, in the room of Stigand, who had been deposed by the pope’s legate. He was no sooner consecrated to this see, than he wrote to pope Alexander II. begging leave to resign it; which not being complied with, he afterwards sent ambassadors to Rome to beg the pall; but Hildebrand answering, in the pope’s name, that the pall was not granted to any person in his absence (which was not strictly true, as it had been sent to Austin, Justus, and Honorius), he went thither to receive that honour in 1071. Alexander paid him a particular respect, in rising to give him audience this pontiff, indeed, had a special regard for him, having studied under him in the abbey of Bee and kissed him, instead of presenting his slipper for that obeisance, nor was he satisfied with giving him the usual pall, but invested him with that pall of which he himself had made use in celebrating mass. Before his departure, Lanfranc defended the metropolitical rights of his see against the claims of the archbishop of York, and procured them to be confirmed by a national council in 1075, wherein several rules of discipline were established. At length, presuming to make remonstrances to the Conqueror upon some oppressions of the subjects, though he offered them with a becoming respect, the monarch received them with disdain and asked him, with an oath, if he thought it possible for a king to keep all his promises From this time, our archbishop lost his majesty’s favour, and was observed afterwards with a jealous eye. He enjoyed, however, the favour of William II. during the remainder of his life. Some years before this, Gregory VII. having summoned him several times to come to Rome, to give an account of his faith, at length sent him a citation to appear there in four months, on pain of suspension: Lanfranc, however, did not think proper to obey the summons. He died May 28, 1089.

Several of our ancient historians who were almost his contemporaries, speak in very advantageous terms of the genius and erudition of Lanfranc; and some of them who were personally acquainted with him, represent him as the most learned man of the age in which he flourished. His charity is said to have been so great, that he bestowed in that way no less than 500l. a year, a very great sum in those days, and equal to 1500l. in ours. Besides this he rebuilt the cathedral of Canterbury, re-established the chapter there, founded the hospitals of St. Nicholas at Herbaldown and St. John at Canterbury, repaired several churches and monasteries in his diocese, obtained a restoration of the estates of the church which had been alienated, and maintained the ecclesiastical immunities. A remarkable suit, which he carried against Odo, bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, put him in possession of five and twenty estates, which had been usurped by that prelate. Lanfranc, besides his piece against Berenger already mentioned, wrote several others, which were published in one volume, folio, in 1647, by father Luke D'Achery, a Benedictine monk, of the congregation of St. Maur. They consist of commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul, and on the Psalms a treatise on confession, letters, &C.

, archbishop of Canterbury, and cardinal, was probably born at Langham in Rutlandshire, whence he took his name, but the date is nowhere specified. He became a monk of St. Peter, Westminster, in 1335, and soon attained a considerable degree of eminence among his brethren. In 1346 he officiated at the triennial chapter of the Benedictines, held at Northampton, by whom in 1349 he was elected prior, and two months after abbot. The revenues of this monastery having been much wasted in his predecessor’s time, the new abbot directed his attention to a system of ceconomy, and partly by his own example, and partly by earnest persuasion, was soon enabled to pay off their debts. When he began this reformation of the abuses which had crept into the cloister, he (knowing the disposition of his fraternity) thought that those which respected the articles of provision were of the first importance. He therefore took care that their mistricordia, or better than ordinary dishes, and those dinners which were somewhat similar to what in our universities have obtained the names of Exceeding and Gaudy-days, should be common to the whole society; and not, as had formerly been the practice, confined to a few, to the extreme mortification of the rest. To effect this purpose, he relinquished the presents which it had been usual for preceding abbots, at certain times, to accept.

, a French monk, was born at Rennes in the year 1600. Before he entered into the religious profession his name was John Mace. He was nominated to all the honourable and confidential posts of his order, and for his eloquence had the honour of preachjng before Louis XIII. and Louis XIV. His early patrons were popes Leo XL and Alexander VIII.; and in France cardinal Richelieu was his friend. He died in 1671, leaving behind him numerous works, the principal of which are, “Studium Sapientise Universalis,” 3 vols. fol. A “History of the Carmelites” “Lives of different Romish Saints” and “Journal of what took place during the last Sickness, and at the Death of cardinal Richelieu.”

lu 1762, he accompanied his general to the siege of Schweidnitz; but after the peace, he was introduced to the king of Prussia, and then resumed his literary occupations at Berlin. Though he produced many works, yet they were not the source of much profit, and, in 1769, his circumstances were so narrow, that he was obliged to sell his library for support. At this critical juncture he met with a generous patron in Leopold, heir-apparent to the duke of Brunswick, through whose means he was appointed librarian at Wolfenbuttle. One of the fruits of this very desirable situation was a periodical publication, entitled “Contributions to Literary History,” containing notices and extracts of the most remarkable Mss. The “Contributions” were made the vehicle of “Fragments of an anonymous Writer discovered in the Library at Wolfenbuttle,” which consisted of direct attacks upon the Christian revelation. They occasioned a great commotion among the German theologians, and would not have been printed but for the interference of prince Leopold with the licensers of the press. In 1778 they were suppressed. Lessing, from his rising fame, and connection with prince Leopold, with whom he went on a tour to Italy, was so distinguished among the German literati, that several potentates of that country made him offers. of an advantageous settlement. Nothing, however, could lead him to break his connection with his liberal patron the prince of Brunswick, who, by his accession in 1730 to the sovereignty, was enabled to augment his favours towards him. His latter publications were “Nathan the Wise;” a second part of the same drama, entitled “The Monk of Lebanon;” and “A Dissertation on the Education of the Human Race.” He died at Hamburgh in the month of February, 1781. Lessing had more genius than learning, and his fame, therefore, even in his own country, rests on his plays, fables, songs, and epigrams. His life was published at Berlin in 1793, and is more replete with anecdote than instruction, as may be gathered from the few circumstances we have detailed. He was a decided deist, and his morals corresponded.

Lloyd’s other publications were: 1. “Modern Policy compleated, or the public actions and councils, '&c. of General Monk,” Lond. 1660, 8vo. 2. “The Pourtraictuue of his sacred Majesty Charles II. &c.” ibid. 1660, 8vo. 3. “The Countess of Bridgwater’s Ghost, &c.” Lond. 1663, a character of this amiable lady, published, as Wood allows, “to make her a pattern for other women to imitate;” but we can scarcely credit what he adds, that “the earl being much displeased that the memory of his lady should be perpetuated under such a title, and by such an obscure person, who did not do her the right that was <Jue, he brought him into trouble, and caused him to suffer six months imprisonment /” We have not seen this work; but had it been a libel instead of a panegyric, which last appears to have been the author’s honest intention, it could not have been punished with more severity. 4. “Of Plots, &c.” Lond. 1664, 4to, published under the name of Oliver Foulis. 5. “The Worthies of the World, &c.” an abridgment of Plutarch, ibid. 1665, 8vo. 6. “Dying and Dead men’s Living Words; or a fair warning to a careless world,” 1665, and 1682, 12mo. 7. “Wonders no miracles; or Mr. Valentine Greatrack’s Gift of Healing examined, &c.” ibid. 1665, 4to. 8. “Exposition of the Catechism and Liturgy, &c.” 9. “A Treatise on Moderation,” 1674.

, an Augustine friar, and geographer to the French king, was born at Paris, Jan. 29, 1624, took the monk’s habit early, passed through all the offices of his order, became provincial-general of the province of France, and at last assistant- general of the Augustine monks of France at Rome. He applied himself particularly to the subject of the benefices of France, and of the abbies of Italy, and acquired that exact knowledge which enabled him to compose, both in France and at Rome, ' The Geographical Mercury;“” Notes upon the Roman Martyrology, describing the places marked in it;“”A history of the French Abbeys;“” The present state of the Abbeys of Italy;“” Orbis Augustinianus, or an account of all the houses of his order;“with a great number of maps and designs, engraved by himself, a very curious work in oblong quarto. He also wrote notes upon” Plutarch’s Lives -,“and we have geographical tables of his, printed with the French translation of Plutarch by the abbe* Tallemant. He also prepared for the press notes to archbishop” Usher’s Chronology;“”A Description of Lapland;“and several other works; especially” A Geography of all the places mentioned in the Bible,“which is prefixed to” Usher’s Annalsi“He likewise wrote notes upon.” Stephanas de urbibus." He died in the convent of the Augustine fathers in St. Germain, at Paris, March 17, 1695, aged seventy-one.

Upon this, he embarked for England; and in the way, at Mi.lford-Comb, found by the public news, that sir Charles Coote had exhibited a charge of high treason against him. On his arrival at London, he took his place in the house; and, obtaining a copy of his charge, moved to be heard in his defence, but the approach of general Monk gave a new turn to public affairs. Ludlow, who waited upon him, was so far deceived as to believe that Monk was inclined to a republic. On learning Monlc’s real design, however, he first applied to sir Arthur Haslerig, to draw their scattered forces together to oppose Monk; and that proposal not being listened to, he endeavoured, with the other republicans, to prevent the dissolution of the Rump, by ordering writs to be issued to fill up the vacant seats; but the speaker refused to sign the warrants. He also pressed very earnestly to be heard concerning the charge of high treason, lodged against him from Ireland, to no purpose; so that when the members secluded in 16448 returned to the house, with Monk’s approbation, he withdrew himself from it, until being elected for the borough of Hindon, (part of his own estate) in the convention parliament, which met the 24th of April, 1660, he took his seat in the House of Commons in pursuance of an order he had received, tQ attend his duty there. He now also sent orders to collect his rents, and dispose of his effects in Ireland; but was prevented by sir Charles Coote, who seized both, the stock alone amounting to 1500l.; and on the vote in parliament, to apprehend all who had signed the warrant for the king’s execution, he escaped by shifting his abode very frequently. During his recess, the House was busy in preparing the bill of indemnity, in which he was, more than once, very near being inserted as one of the seven excepted persons; and a proclamation being issued soon after the king’s return, for all the late king’s judges to surrender themselves in fourteen days time, on pain of being left out of the said act of indemnity, he consulted with his friends, whether he should not surrender himself according to the proclamation. Several of these, and even sir Harbottle Grimston, the speaker, advised him to surrender, and engaged for his safety; but he chose to follow the more solid and friendly opinion of lord Ossory, son to the marquis of Ormond, and determined to quit England. He instantly took leave of his friends, and went over London bridge in a coach, to St. George’s church, in the borough of Southwark; where he took horse, and travelling all night, arrived at Lewes, in Sussex, by break of day the next morning. Soon after, he went on board a small open vessel prepared for him; but the weather being very bad, he quitted that, and took shelter in a larger, which had been got ready for him, but struck upon the sands in going down the river, and lay then a-ground. He was hardly got a-board this, when some persons came to search that which he had quitted, without suspecting any body to be in the boat which lay a-shore, so that they did not examine it, by which means he escaped; and waiting a day and a night for the storm to abate (during which the master of the vessel asked him, whether he had heard that lieutenant-general Ludlow was confined among the rest of the king’s judges), the next morning he put to sea, and landed at Dieppe that evening, before the gates were shut.

Luther, notwithstanding, was not himself altogether satisfied with these reasons. He did not think the step he bad taken could be sufficiently justified upon the principles of human prudence; and therefore we find him, in other places, endeavouring to account for it from a supernatural impulse. “The wise men amongst us are greatly proyoked,” says he; “they are forced to own the thing to be of God, but the disguise of the persons under which it is transacted, namely, of the young woman and myself, makes them think and say every thing that is wicked.” And elsewhere: “The Lord brought me suddenly, when I was thinking of other matters, to a marriage with Catherine (le Bore, the nun.” His party seem also to have favoured this supposition. Thus says Melancthon: “As for the* unreasonableness and want of consideration in this marriage, on which account our adversaries will chiefly slander us, we must take heed lest that disturb us: for perhaps there is some secret, or something divine couched under it, concerning which it does not become us to inquire too curiously; nor ought we to regard the scoffs of those who exercise neither piety towards God, nor virtue towards men.” Bnt whether there was any thing divine in it or not, Luther found himself extremely happy in his new state, and especially after his wife had brought him a son. “My rib Kate,” says he in the joy of his heart, “desires her compliments to you, and thanks you for the favour of your kind letter. She is very well, through God’s mercy. She is obedient and complying with me in all things, and more agreeable, I thank God, than I could have expected; so tuat I would not change my p iverty for the wealth of Croesus.” He was heard to say, Seckeiulorf tells us, “that he would not exchange his wile for the kingdom of France, nor for the riches of the Venetians, and that for three reasons: first, because she had been given him by God, at the time when he implored the assistance of the Holy Ghost in finding a good wife: secondly, because, though she was not without faults, yet she had fewer than other women: and, thirdly, because she religiously observed the conjugal fidelity she owed him.” There was at first a report, that Catherine de Bore was brought to bed soon after her marriage with Luther; but Erasmus, who wrote that news to one of his friends, acknowledged the falsehood of it a little after, in one of his letters, dated the 13th of March, 1526: “Luther’s marriage is certain; the report of his wife’s being so speedily brought to bed is false; but I hear she is now with child. If the common story be true, that antichrist shall be born of a monk and a nun, as some pretended, how many thousands of antichrists are there in the world already? I was in hopes that a wife would have made Luther a little tamer: but he, contrary to all expectation, has published, indeed, a most elaborate, but as virulent a book against me, as ever he wrote. What will become of the pacific Erasmus, to be obliged to descend upon the stage, at a time of life when gladiators are usually dismissed from the service; and not only to fight, but to fight with beasts!”

He was, says Warton, who of all our modern critics has considered him with most attention, a monk of the Benedictine abbey of Bury in Suffolk. After a short education at Oxford, he travelled into France and Italy; and returned a complete master of the language and the literature of both countries. He chiefly studied the Italian and French poets, particularly Dante, Boccaccio, and Alain Chartier; and became so distinguished a proficient in polite learning, that he opened a school in his monastery, for teaching the sons of the nobility the arts of versification, and the elegancies of composition. Yet, although philology was his object, he was not unfamiliar with the fashionable philosophy: he was not only a poet and a rhetorician, but a geometrician, an astronomer, a theologist, and a disputant. Mr. Warton is of opinion that he made considerable additions to those amplifications of our language, in which Chaucer, Gower, and Hoccleve, led the way; and that be is the first of our writers whose style is clothed wjth that perspicuity in which the English phraseology appears at this day to an English reader.

, a very learned French writer, was born Nov. 23, 1632, at Pierre-mont, on the frontiers of Champagne. He was educated in the university of Rheims, and afterwards entered into the abbey of the Benedictines of St. Remy; where he took the habit in 1653, and made the profession the year following. He was looked upon at first as a person that would do honour to his order; but a perpetual head-acb, with which he was afflicted, almost destroyed all the expectations which were conceived of him. He was ordained priest at Amiens in 1660; and afterwards, lest too much solitude should injure his health, which was not yet re-established, was sent by his superiors to St. Denis, where he was appointed, during the whole year 1663, to shew the treasure and monuments of the kings of France. But having there unfortunately broken a looking-glass, which was pretended to have belonged to Virgil, he obtained leave to quit an employment, which, as he said, frequently obliged him to relate things he did not believe. As the indisposition of his head gradually abated, he began to shew himself more and more to the world. Father d'Acheri, who was then compiling his “Spicilegium,” desiring to have some young monk, who could assist him in that work, Mabillon was chosen for the purpose, and accordingly went to Paris in 1664, where he was very serviceable to d'Acheri. This began to place his talents in a conspicuous light, and to shew what might be expected from him. A fresh occasion soon offered itself to him. The congregation of St. Maur had formed a design of publishing new editions of the fathers, revised from the manuscripts, with which the libraries of the order of the Benedictines, as one of the most ancient, are furnished. Mabillon was ordered to undertake the edition of St. Bernard, which he had prepared with great judgment and learning, and published at Paris, in 1667, in two volumes folio, and nine octavo. In 1690 he published a second edition, augmented with almost fifty letters, new preliminary dissertations, and new notes; and just before his death was preparing to publish a third. He had no sooner published the first edition of St. Bernard, than the congregation appointed him to undertake an edition of the “Acts of the Saints of the order of Benedictines;” the first volume of which, he published in 1668, and continued it to nine volumes in folio, the last of which was published in 1701. The writers of the “Journal de Trevoux” speak not improperly of this work when they say that “it ought to be considered, not as a simple collection of memoirs relating to monastic history, but as a valuable compilation of ancient monuments; which, being illustrated by learned notes, give a great light to the most obscure part of ecclesiastical history.” The prefaces alone,“say they,” would secure to the author an immortal reputation. The manners and usages of those dark ages are examined with great care; and an hundred important questions are ably discussed.“Le Clerc, in the place referred to above, from which we have chiefly drawn our account of Mahillon, has given us one example of a question occasionally discussed by him in the course of his work, concerning the use of unleavened bread, in the celebration of the sacrament. Mabillon shews, in the preface to the third age of his” Acta Sanctorum,“t'hat the use of it is more ancient than is generally believed; and, in 1674, maintained it in a particular dissertation, addressed to cardinal Bona, who was before of a contrary opinion. But the work which is supposed to have done him the most honour is his” De re diplomatica libri sex, in quibus quicquid ad veterum instrumentorum antiquitatem, materiam, scripturam et stilutn; quicqnid ad sigilla, monogrammata, subscriptiones, ac notas chronologicas; quicquid inde ad antiquariam, historicam, forensemque disciplinam pertinet, explicatur, et illustratur. Accedunt commentarius de antiquis regum Francorum palatiis, veterum scripturarum varia specimina tabulis LX. comprehensa, nova ducentorum et amplius monumentoruoi collectio," Paris, 1631, folio. The examination of almost an infinite number of charters and ancient titles, which had passed through his hands, led him to form the design of reducing to certain rules and principles an art, of which before there had been only very confused ideas. It was a bold attempt; but he executed it with such success, that he was thought tp have carried it at once to perfection.

, the younger, another famous monk, a friend of the former, and a native also of Alexandria, had near 5000 monks under his direction. He was persecuted by the Arians, and banished into an island where there was not a single Christian, but where he converted almost all the inhabitants by his preaching, and as some say, by his miracles. He died in the year 394 or 395. “The Rules of Monks,” in 30 chapters, are attributed to him, and a discourse by him on the “Death of the Just,” was published by Tollius, in his “Insignia Itinerarii Italici.”

, was an ancient heretic of the church of Constantinople, whom the Arians made bishop of that see in the year 342, at the same time that the orthodox contended for Paul. This occasioned a contest, which rose at length to such a height, that arms were taken up, and many lives lost. The emperor Constantius, however, put an end to the dispute, by banishing Paul, and ratifying the nomination of Macedonius; who, after much opposition, which ended at the death of Paul, became peaceably and quietly settled in his see, and might have remained so had he been of a temper to be long peaceable and quiet in any situation: he soon fell into disgrace with Constantius, for acting the part of a tyrant, rather than a bishop. What made him still more disliked by the emperor, was his causing the body of Constantine to be translated from the temple of the Apostles to that of Acacius the martyr. This also raised great tumults and confusion among the people, some highly approving, others loudly condemning, the procedure of Macedonius and the parties again taking up arms, a great number on both sides were slain. Macedonius, however, notwithstanding the emperor’s displeasure, which he had incurred by his seditious and turbulent practices, contrived to support himself by his party, which he had lately increased by taking in the Semi-Arians; till at length, imprudently offending two of his bishops, they procured his deposition by the council of Constantinople, in the year 359. He was so enraged at this, as to resolve to revenge the insult by broaching a new heresy. He began to teach, therefore, that the Holy Spirit had no resemblance to either the Father or the Son, but was only a mere creature, one of God’s ministers, and somewhat more excellent than the angels. The disaffected bishops subscribed at once to this opinion; and to the Arians it could not be unacceptable. According to St. Jerome, even the Donatists of Africa joined with them: for he says, that Douatus of Carthage wrote a treatise upon the Holy Ghost, agreeable to the doctrine of the Arians; and the outward shew of piety, which the Macedonians observed, drew over to their party many others. One Maratorus, who had been formerly a treasurer, having amassed vast riches, forsook his secular life, devoted himself entirely to the service of the poor and sick, became a monk; and at last adopted the Macedonian heresy, which he disseminated very extensively. In this he succeeded in most cases by his riches; which, being freely and properly distributed, were found of more force in effecting conversions than all his arguments: and from this man, as Socrates relates, the Macedonians were called Maratorians. They were also called Pneumatomachi, or persons who were enemies of the Holy Ghost. The report of the Macedonian heresy being spread over Egypt, the bishop Serapion advertised Athanasius of it, who then was leading a monastic life, and lay hid in the desert and this celebrated saint was the hrst who confuted it.

, said to be a lineal descendant (Mr. Nichols says great-grandson) of the preceding, was born in 1723, and became an Augustine monk at Lisbon, but, having renounced the Roman Catholic religion, came to reside in England, about 1764. He was an able linguist, and well versed in chemistry and other branches of natural philosophy. He published several treatises in that science, particularly a work on mineralogy, taken principally from Crons’tadt; an account of various philosophical instruments; and a narrative of the last days of* Rousseau, to which his name is not affixed. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1774, and was a member of several foreign academies. He died at his lodgings at Islington, Feb. 7, 1790.

Mahomet pretended to receive all his revelations from the angel Gabriel, who, he said, was sent from God, on purpose to deliver them unto him. He was subject, it is said, to the falling-sickness, and whenever the fit was upon him, he pretended it to be a trance, and that then the angel Gabriel was come from God with some new revelations. These revelations he arranged in several chapters; which make up the Koran, the Bib!e of the Mahometans. The original of this book was laid up, as he taught his followers, in the archives of heaven; and the angel Gabriel brought him the copy of it, chapter by chapter, as occasion required that they should be published to the people; that is, as often as any new measure was to be pursued, any objection against him or his religion to be answered, any difficulty to be solved, any discontent among his people to be quieted, any offence to be removed, or any thing else done for the furtherance of his grand scheme, his constant recourse was to the angel Gabriel for a new revelation; and then appeared some addition to the Koran, to serve his purpose. But what perplexed him most was, that his opposers demanded to see a miracle from him; “for,” said they, “Moses, and Jesus, and the rest of the prophets, according to thy own doctrine, worked miracles to prove their mission from God; and therefore, if thou be a prophet, and greater than any that were sent before thee, as thou boastest thyself to be, do thou work the like miracles to manifest it unto us.” This objection he endeavoured to evade by several answers; all oi which amount omy to this, “that God had sent Moses and Jesus with miracles, and yet men would not be obedient to their word; and therefore he had now sent him in the last place without miracles, to force them by the power of the sword to do his will.” Hence it has become the universal doctrine of the Mahometans, that their religion is to be propagated by the sword, and that all true mussulmen are bound to fight for it. It has even been said to be a custom among them for their preachers, while they deliver their sermons, to have a drawn sword placed by them, to denote, that the doctrines they teach are to be defended and propagated by the sword Some miracles, at the same time, Mahomet is said to have wrought; as, “That he clave the moon in two; that trees went forth to meet him, &c. &c.” but those who relate them are only such as are ranked among their fabulous and legendary writers: their learned doctors renounce them all; and when they are questioned, how without miracles they can prove his mission, their common answer is, that the Koran itself is the greatest of all miracles; for that Mahomet, who was an illiterate person, who could neither write nor read, or that any man else, by human wisdom alone, should be able to compose such a book, is, they think, impossible. On this Mahomet himself also frequently insists, challenging in several places of the Koran, both men and devils, by their united skill, to compose any thing equal to it, or to any part of it. From all which they conclude, and as they think, infallibly, that this book could come from none other but God himself; and that Mahomet, from whom they received it, was his messenger to bring it unto them. That the Koran, as to style and language, is the standard of elegance in the Arabian tongue, and Uiat Mahomet was in truth what they aifirm him to have been, a rude and illiterate man, ate points agreed on all sides. A question therefore will arise among those who are not so sure that this book was brought by the angel Gabriel from heaven, by whose help it was compiled, and the imposture framed? There is the more reason to ask this, because this book itself contains so many particulars of the Jewish and Christian religions, as necessarily suppose the authors of it to have been well skilled in both; which Mahomet, who was bred an idolater, and lived so for the first forty years of his life, among a people totally illiterate, for such his tribe was by principle and profession, cannot be supposed to have been: but this is a question not so easily to be answered, because the nature of the thing required it to have been transacted very secretly. Besides this, the scene of this imposture being at least six hundred miles within the country of Arabia, amidst those barbarous nations, who all immediately embraced it, and would not permit any of another religion to live among them, it could not at that distance be so well investigated by those who were most concerned to discover the fraud. That Mahomet composed the Koran by the help of others, was a thing well known at Metca, when he first published his imposture there; and he was often reproached on that account by his opposers, as he himself more than once complains. In the twenty-fifth chapter of the Koran, has words are “They say, that the Koran is nothing but a lie of thy own invention, and others have been assisting to thee herein.” A passage in the sixteenth chapter also, particularly points at one of those who was then looked upon to have had a principal hand in this matter: “I know they will say, that a man hath taught him the Koran; but he whom they presume to have taught him is a Persian by nation, and speaketh the Persian language. But the Koran is in the Arabic tongue, full of instruction and eloquence.” The person here pointed at, was one Abdia Ben Salon, a Persian Jew, whose name he afterwards changed into Abdollah Ebn Salem, to make it correspond with the Arabic dialect; and almost all who have written of this imposture have mentioned him as the chief architect used by Mahomet in the framing of it: for he was an artful man, thoroughly skilled in all the learning of the Jews; and therefore Mahomet seems to have received from him whatsoever of the rites and customs of the Jews he has ingrafted into his religion. Besides this Jew, the impostor derived some aid from a Christian monk: and the many particulars in the Koran, relating to the Christian religion, plainly prove him to have had such an helper. He was a monk of Syria, of the sect of the Nestorians. The name which he had in his monastery, and which he has since retained among the western writers, is Sergius, though Bahira was that which he afterwards assumed in Arabia, and by which he has ever since been mentioned in the East, by all that write or speak of him. Mahomet, as it is related, became acquainted with this Bahira, in one of his journeys into Syria, either at Bostra or at Jerusalem: and receiving great satisfaction from him in many of those points in which he had desired to be informed, contracted a particular friendship with him; so that Bahira being not long after excommunicated for some great crime, and expelled his monastery, fled to Mecca to him, was entertained in his house, and became his assistant in the framing of his imposture, and continued with him ever after; till Mahomet having, as it is reported, no farther occasion for him, to secure the secret, put him to death.

, of Antioch, a sophist, who was a teacher of rhetoric, and a member of the church of Antioch, is supposed to have lived about the year 900, though some authors have been inclined to place him earlier. He is a writer of little value, and abounds in words of a barbarous Greek. He must not be confounded with John of Antioch, another historian of the same place, who was a monk. We have a chronicle written by Malelas, which extends from the creation to the reign of Justinian, but is imperfect. His history was published by Edward Chilmead at Oxford, in 1691, in 8vo, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library; and republished among the Byzantine historians, as a kind of appendix, at Venice, in 1733. The Oxford edition contains an interpretation and notes by Chilmead, with three indexes, one of events, a second of authors, a third of barbarous words. Prefixed is a discourse concerning the author, by Humphrey Hody; and an epistle is subjoined from Bentley to Mill, with an index of authors who are there amended.

, an ancient English historian, who flourished in the twelfth century, was born in Somersetshire, and, on that account, as Bale and Pits inform us, was called Somersetanus. When a child, he himself says, he discovered a fondness for learning, which was encouraged by his parents, and increased with his years. Some have supposed Oxford to have been the place of his education. He became, however, a monk of Malmsbury, and it reflects no small honour on his fraternity, that they elected him their librarian. He had studied several sciences, as they could then be acquired, logic, physic, and ethics, but history appears to have been his favourite pursuit. After studying that of countries abroad, he began to inquire into the memorable transactions of his own nation but not finding any satisfactory history already written, he resolved, as he says, to write one, not to display his learning, “which is no great matter, but to bring to light things that are covered with the rubbish of antiquity.” This resolution produced his valuable work “De regibus Anglorum,” a general history of England in five books, from the arrival of the Saxons, in the year 449 to the 26 Henry I. in 1126; and a modern history, in two books, from that year to the escape of the empress Maud out of Oxford in 1143 with a church history of England in four books, published in sir H. Savile’s collection, 1596. His merits as a historian have been justly displayed and recommended by lord Lyttelton in his “History of Henry II.” In all his works (the Latin style of which is more pure than that of any of his contemporaries), he discovers great diligence, much good sense, and a sacred regard to truth, accompanied with uncommon modesty. He says that he can scarcely expect the applause of his contemporaries, but he hopes that when both favour and malevolence are dead, he shall obtain from posterity the character of an industrious, though not of an eloquent historian. Besides what we have mentioned, Gale has printed his “Antiquities of Glastonbury,” and Wharton his “Life of St. Adhelm.” But his abilities were not confined to prose. He wrote many pieces of Latin poetry; and it is remarkable, says Warton, that almost all the professed prose writers of this age made experiments in verse. William of Malmsbury died in that abbey in 1143.

, a Spanish historian, was born at Talavera, in Castille, in 1537; and entered into the order of Jesuits when he was seventeen. He was one of the most learned men of his age, an able divine, a considerable master of polite literature, admirably skilled in sacred and profane history, and a good linguist. In 1561 he was sent by his superiors to Rome, where he taught divinity, and received the order of priesthood; and at the end of four years weut to Sicily, where he continued the same profession two years more. He came to Paris in 1569, and read lectures publicly upon Thomas Aquinas for five years; then returned into Spain, and passed the remainder of his life at Toledo. He wrote many books in Latin. His piece “De rnonetse mutatione,” gave great offence to the court of Spurn; for Philip III. having altered and emr based the coin by the advice of the duke of Lerma, Mariana shewed, with great freedom, the injustice and disadvantage of this project; for which he was put into prison, and kept there about a year by that minister. But what made more noise still, was his tract De rege & regis institutione,“consisting of three books, which he published to justify James Clement, a young monk, for assassinating Henry III. of France. In this he argues against passive obedience and non-resistance; asserts the lawfulness of resisting” the powers that be,“where the administration is tyrannical; and founds his whole argument upon this principle,” that the authority of the people is superior to that of kings." This book of Mariana, though it passed without censure in Spain and Italy, was burnt at Paris, by an arret of parliament.

, a Benedictine monk, who distinguished himself by an edition of St. Jerome, was born at St. Sever, a village in Gascony, in 1647. He entered into the congregation of St. Maur at twenty years of age; and applied himself to the study of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages. He read lectures upon the holy scriptures in several monasteries, at x\rles, at Avignon, at Bourdeaux: in the last of which places he accidentally met with father Pezron’s book called “The antiquity of time re-established;” “L'Antiquite du temps retablie.” The authority of the Hebrew text, and the chronology of the Vulgate, being attacked in this work, Martianay resolved to defend them in two or three pieces, published against Pezron and Isaac Vossius, who maintained the Septuagint version. This monk died of an apoplexy in 1717, after having spent fifty years in a scrupulous observance of all the duties belonging to his order, and in writing more than twenty works, of which the most distinguished is his edition of the works of St. Jerome, in 5 vols. folio; the first of which was published at Paris in 1693, the second in 1699. In his notes on these two volumes he criticized several learned men, as well papists as protestants, with much severity, and even contumely; which provoked Le Clerc, who was one of them, to examine the merits of this edition and of the editor. This he did in a volume published in 12mo, at Amsterdam, in 1700, with this title, “Quaestiones Hie,ronymianae, in qnibus expenditur Hieronymi nupera editio Parisina, &c.” in which he endeavours to shew that Martianay, notwithstanding the indecent petulances he had exercised towards other critics, had none of the requisites to qualify him for an editor of St. Jerome; that he had not a competent skill either in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, or in the ancient interpreters of scripture, or in profane authors, or in the science of manuscripts, for this work. Martianay published the third volume in 1704, the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1706; and Le Clerc published, in the seventeenth tome of his “Bibliotheque choisee,” some copious remarks upon these three last volumes, in order to confirm the judgment he had passed on the two first. Nevertheless, Martianay’s edition of Jerome was by many thought the best, even after the appearance of Vallarsius’s edition.

, a learned monk and historian of the order of the Camaldoli, was born at Venice Sept. 10, 1708, and after a course of study, during which he distinguished himself by arduous application, and acquired the fame of great learning, he became, in 1732, professor of philosophy and theology in the monastery of St. Michael at Venice. Being also appointed master of the novices, he remained in that office until 1747, when he removed to Faenza, as chancellor of his order. Here he first began to form the plan and collect materials for his celebrated work, the “Annales Camaldulenses,” in which he had the assistance of father Anselm Costadoni. In 1756 he was chosen abbe of his order in the state of Venice, and became, of course, head of the monastery of St. Michael. In 1764 he was appointed general of his order, and went to Rome, where he was received with every mark of respect by pope Clement XIII. He died at St. Michael’s Aug. 14, 1777. His annals were published in 1773, under the title of “Arinales Camaldulenses ordinis S. Benedicti ab anno 907 ad annum 1764, &c.” Venice, 9 vols fol. His other works were,. “Memorie del monistero della santissima Trinita irr Fv.erza,” Faenza, 1749. 2. “Ad scriptores rerum Itahcarum Cl. Mnratorii accessiones historicge Faventinae,” &c. Venice, 1771. 5. “De litteratura Faventinorum, sive de viris dociis, et scriptoribus urbis Faventinae (Faenza), appendix ad accessiones hist. Faventinas,” Venice, 1775. 6. “Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterii S. Michaeiis Venetiaruhi, cum appendice librorum impressorum seculi XV.” ibid. 1779, fol.

Molesworth served his country in the House of Commons in both kingdoms, being chosen for the borough of Swordes in Ireland, and for those of Bodmyn, St. Michael, and East Retford in England; his conduct in the senate being always firm and steady to the principles he embraced. He was a member-of the privy-council to queen Anne, till the latter end of her reign when, party running high, he was removed from the board in Jan. 1713. This was upon a complaint against him from the lower, house of convocation, presented Dec.^2, by the prolocutor, to the House of Peers, charging him- with speaking these words, in the hearing of many persons: “They jhat have turned the world upside down, are come hither also;” and for affronting the clergy in convocation, when they presented their address to lord chancellor Phipps. Steele’s “Crisis” was written partly in vindication of Molesworth, and severely animadverted upon by Swift in his “Public Spirit of the Whigs.” But as Molesworth constantly asserted, and strenuously maintained the right of succession in the house of Hanover, George I. on the forming of his privy-council in Ireland, made him a member of it, Oct. 9, 1714, and the next month a commissioner of trade and plantations. His majesty also advanced him to the peerage of Ireland in 1716, by the title of Baron of Philipstown, and viscount Molesworth of Swordes. He was fellow of the Royal Society and continued to serve his country with indefatigable industry, till the two last years of his life when, perceiving himself worn out with constant application to public affairs, he passed these in a studious and learned retirement. His death happened on May 22, 1725, at his seat at Breedenstown, in the county of Dublin. He had a seat also in England, at Edlington, near Tickill, in Yorkshire. By his will he devised 50l. towards building a church at Philipstown. He had by his wife seven sons and four daughters; one of whom, Mary, married to Mr. Monk, an Irish gentleman, acquired some reputation as the authoress of poems published after her death, in 1715, by her father, under the title of “Marinda, Poems and Translations upon several occasions.” See Mo>Ik hereafter.

, duke of Albemarle, memorable for having been the principal instrument in the restoration of Charles II. to his crown and kingdoms, was descended from a very ancient family, and born at Potheridge, in Devonshire, Dec. 6, 1608. He was a younger son; and, n provision being expected from his father, sir Thomas Monk, whose fortune was reduced, he dedicated himself to arms from his youth. He entered in 1625, when not quite seventeen, as a volunteer under sir Richard Grenville, then, at Plymouth, and just setting out under lord Wimbledon on the expedition against Spain. The year after he obtained a pair of colours, in the expedition to the isle of Rhee; whence returning in 1628, he served the following year as ensign in the Low Countries, where he was promoted to the rank of captain. In this station he was present in several sieges and battles; and having, in ten years service, made himself absolute master of the military art, he returned to his native country on the breaking out of the war between Charles I. and his Scotish subjects. His reputation, supported by proper recommendations, procured him the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in which post he served in both the king’s northern expeditions; and was afterwards a colonel, when the Irish rebellion took place. In the suppression of this he did such considerable service, that the lords justices appointed him governor of Dublin but the parliament intervening, that authority was vested in another. Soon after, on his signing a truce with the rebels, by the king’s order, September 1643, he returned with his regiment to England; but, on his arrival at Bristol, was met by orders both from Ireland and Oxford, directing the governor of that place to secure him. The governor, however, believing the suspicions conceived against him groundless, suffered him to proceed to Oxford on his bare parole; and there he so fully justified himself to lord Digby, then secretary of state, that he was by that nobleman introduced to the king; but his regiment was given to colonel Warren, who had been his major. As some amends for this, the king made him major-general in the Irish brigade, then employed in the siege of Nantwich, in Cheshire; at which place he arrived just soon enough to share in the unfortunate surprisal of that whole brigade by sir Thomas Fairfax. He was sent to Hull, and thence conveyed in a short time to the Tower of London, where he remained in close confinement till Nov. 13, 1646; and then, as the only means to be set at liberty, he took the covenant, engaged with the parliament, and agreed to accept a command under them in the Irish service. Some have charged him with ingratitude for thus deserting the king, who had been very kind to him during his confinement, and in particular had sent him from Oxford 100l. which was a great sum for his majesty, then much distressed. It has, however, been pleaded in his favour, that he never listened to any terms made him by the parliamentarians while the king had an army on foot. Whatever strength may he in this apology, it is certain that when his majesty was in the hands of his enemies, he readily accepted of a colonel’s commission; and, as he had been engaged against the Irish rebels before, he thought it consistent with the duty he owed, and which he had hitherto inviolably maintained to the king, to oppose them again. He set out for Ireland, Jan. 28, 1646-7, but returned in April on account of some impediments. Soon after, he had the command in chief of all the parliament’s forces in the north of Ireland conferred upon him; upon which he went again, and for the following two years performed several exploits worthy of an able and experienced soldier. Then he was called to account for having treated with the Irish rebels; and summoned to appear before the parliament, who, after hearing him at the bar of the house, passed this vote, Aug. 10, 1649, “That they did disapprove of what major-general Monk had done, in concluding a peace with the grand and bloody Irish rebel, Owen Roe O'Neal, and did abhor the having any thing to do with him therein; yet are easily persuaded, that the making the same by the said major-general was, in his judgment, most for the advantage of the English interest in that nation; and, that he shall not be further questioned for the same in time to come.” This vote highly offended the major-general, though not so much as some passages in the House, reflecting on his honour and fidelity. He was, perhaps, the more offended at this treatment, as he was not employed in the reduction of Ireland under Oliver Cromwell; who, all accounts agree, received considerable advantage from this very treaty with O‘Neal. Monk’s friends endeavoured to clear his reputation his reasons for agreeing with O’Neal were also printed yet nothing could wipe off the stain of treating with Irish rebels, till it was forgotten in his future fortune.

About this time his elder brother died without issue male; and the family estate by entail devolving upon him, he repaired it from the ruinous condition in which his father and brother had left it. He had scarce settled his private affairs, when he was called to serve against the Scots (who had proclaimed Charles II.) under Oliver Cromwell; by whom he was made lieutenant-general of the artillery, and had a regiment given him. His services were now so important, that Cromwell left him commander in chief in Scotland, when he returned to England to pursue Charles II. In 1652, he was seized with a violent fit of illness, which obliged him to go to Bath for the recovery of his health: after which, he set out again for Scotland, was one of the commissioners for uniting that kingdom with the new-erected commonwealth, and, having successfully concluded it, returned to London. The Dutch war having now been carried on for some months, lieutenant-general Monk was joined with the admirals Blake and Dean in the command at sea; in which service, June 2, 1653, he contributed greatly by his courage and conduct to the defeat of the Dutch fleet. Monk and Dean were on board the same ship; and, Dean being killed the first broadside, Monk threw his cloak over the body, and gave orders for continuing the fight, without suffering the enemy to know that we had lost one of our admirals. Cromwell, in the mean time, was paving his way to the supreme command, which, Dec. 16, 1653, he obtained, under the title of protector; and, in this capacity, soon concluded a peace with the Dutch. Monk remonstrated warmly against the terms of this peace; and his remonstrances were well received by Oliver’s own parliament. Monk also, on his return home, was treated so respectfully by them, that Oliver is said to have grown jealous of him, as if he had been inclined to another interest, but, receiving satisfaction from the general on that head, he not only took him into favour, but, on the breaking out of fresh troubles in Scotland, sent him there as commander in chief. He set out in April 1654, and finished the war by August; when he returned from the Highlands, and fixed his abode at Dalkeith, a seat belonging to the countess of Buccleugh, within five miles of Edinburgh: and here he resided during the remaining time that he stayed in Scotland, which was five years, amusing himself with rural pleasures, and beloved by the people, though his government was more arbitrary than any they had experienced. He exercised this government as one of the protector’s council of state in Scotland, whose commission bore date in June 1655. Cromwell, however, could not help distrusting him at times, on account of his popularity; nor was this distrust entirely without the appearance of foundation. It is certain the fcing entertained good hopes of him, and to that purpose sent to him the following letter from Colen, Aug. 12, 1655.

However, Monk made no scruple of discovering every step taken by the cavaliers which came to his knowledge, even to the sending the protector this letter; and joined in promoting addresses to him from the army, one of which was received by the protector March 19, 1657, in which year Monk received a summons to Oliver’s house of lords. Upon the death of Oliver, Monk joined in an address to the new protector Richard, whose power, nevertheless, he foresaw would be but short-lived; it having been his opinion, that Oliver, had he lived much longer, would scarce have been able to preserve himself in his station. And indeed Cromwell himself began to be apprehensive of that great alteration which happened after his death, and fearful that the general was deeply engaged in those measures which procured it; if we may judge from a letter written by him to general Monk a little before, to which was added the following remarkable postscript: “There be that tell me, that there is a certain cunning fellow in Scotland, called George Monk, who is said to lie in wait there to introduce Charles Stuart; I pray you, use your diligence to apprehend him, and send him up to me.” It belongs to history to relate all the steps which led to the restoration of Charles II. and which were ably conducted by Monk. Immediately after that event, he was loaded with pensions and honours; was made knight of the garter, one of the privycouncil, master of the horse, a gentleman of the bedehamber, first lord-commissioner of the treasury; and soon after created a peer, being made baron Monk of Potheridge, Beauchamp, and Tees, earl of Torrington, and duke of Albemarle, with a grant of 7000Z. per annum, estate of inheritance, besides other pensions. He received a very peculiar acknowledgment of regard on being thus called to the peerage; almost the whole house of commons attending him to the very door of the house of lords, while he behaved with great moderation, silence, and humility. This behaviour was really to be admired in a man, who, by his personal merit, had raised himself within the reach of a crown, which he had the prudence, or the virtue, to wave: yet he preserved it to the end of his life: insomuch, that the king, who used to call him his political father, said, very highly to his honour, “the duke of Albemarle demeaned himself in such a manner to the prince he had obliged, as never to seem to overvalue the services of general Monk.*‘ During tRe remainder of his life he was consulted and employed upon all great occasions by the king, and a.t the same time appears to have been esteemed and beloved by his fellow-subjects. In 1664, on the breaking out of the first Dutch war, he was, by the duke of York, who commanded the fleet, intrusted with the care of the admiralty: and, the plague breaking out the same year in London, he was intrusted likewise, with the care of the city by the king, who retired to Oxford. He was, at the latter end of the year, appointed joint-admiral of the fleet with prince Rupert, and distinguished himself with great bravery against the Dutch. In September 1666, the fire of London occasioned the Duke of Albemarle to be recalled from the fleet, to assist in quieting the minds of the people; who expressed their affection and esteem for him, by crying out publicly, as he passed through the ruine’d streets, that,” if his grace had been there, the city had not been burned." The many hardships and fatigues he had undergone in a military life began to shake his constitution somewhat early; so that about his 60th year he was attacked with a dropsy; which, being too much neglected, perhaps on account of his having been hitherto remarkably healthy, advanced very rapidly, and put a period to his life, Jan. 3, 1669-7O, when he was entering his 62d year. He died in the esteem of his sovereign, and his brother the duke of York, as appears not only from the high posts he enjoyed, and. the great trust reposed in him by both, but also from the tender concern shewn by them, in a constant inquiry after his state during his last illness, and the public' and princely paid to his memory after his decease; for, his funeral was honoured with all imaginable pomp and solemnity, and his ashes admitted to mingle with those of the royal blood; he being interred, April 4, 1670, in Henry the Vllth’s chapel at Westminster, after his corpse had lain in state many weeks at Somerset-house.

This extraordinary man was an author: a light in which he is by no means generally known, and yet in which he did not want merit. After his death, was published, by authority, a treatise which he composed while a prisoner in the Tower: it is called, “Observations upon military and political Affairs, written by the honourable George Duke of Albemarle,” &c. London, 1671, small folio. Besides a dedication to Charles II. signed John Heath, the editor, it contains thirty chapters of martial rules, interspersed with political observations, and is in reality a kind of military grammar. We have, besides, “The Speech of general Monk in the House of Commons, concerning the settling the conduct of the Armies of Three Nations, for the Safety thereof;” another delivered at Whitehall, Feb. 21, 1659, to the members of parliament, at their meeting before the re-admission of their formerly-secluded members and “Letters relating to the Restoration,” London, 1714-15.

, daughter of Lord Molesworth, and wife to George Monk, esq. was celebrated for her poetical talents. She acquired by her own application a perfect knowledge of the Latin, Italian, and Spanish languages; and, from a study of the best authors, a decided taste for poetical composition. She appears to have written for her own amusement, rather than with any view to publication. Her poems were not printed till after her death, when they were published under the title of “Marinda; Poems and Translations upon several Occasions,” London, 1716, 8vo. A dedication'to Caroline, princess of Wales, was prefixed to them by lord Molesworth, the father of Mrs. Monk, who speaks of the poems as the production * c of the leisure hours of a young woman, who, in a remote country retirement, without other assistance than that of a good library, and without omitting the daily care due to a large family, not only acquired the several languages here made use of, but the good morals and principles contained in those books, so as to put them in practice, as well during her life and languishing sickness, as at the hour of her death; dying not only like a Christian, but a Roman lady, and becoming at once the grief and the comfort of her relations.“She died in 1715, at B^t 1. On her deathbed she wrote some very affecting verses to her husband, which are not printed in her works, but may be found in vol. II. of the” Poems of Eminent Ladies,“and in” Cibber’s Lives."

His retirement was not of long duration; and upon the nearer approach of the restoration, general Monk having procured him to be replaced in his former rank in the navy, he convoyed the king to England, who made him a knight of the garter, and soon afterwards created him baron Montague of St. Neots in Huntingdonshire, viscount Hinchinbroke in the same county, and earl of Sandwich in Kent, He was likewise sworn a member of the privy council, made master of the king’s wardrobe, admiral of the narrow seas, and lieutenant admiral to the duke of York, as lord high admiral of England. When the Dutch war 'began in 1664, the duke of York took upon him the command of the fleet as high admiral, and the earl of Sandwich commanded the blue squadron; and by his well-timed efforts, a great number of the enemy’s ships were taken. In the great battle, JuneS, 1665, when the Dutch lost their admiral Opdam, and had eighteen men of war taken, and fourteen destroyed, a large share of the honour of the victory was justly assigned to the earl of Sandwich, who also on Sept. 4, of the same year, took eight Dutch men of war, two of their best East India ships, and twenty sail of their merchantmen.

, an eminent English divine and philosopher, was the second son of Alexander More, esq. and born at Grantham in Lincolnshire, Oct. 12, 1614. His parents, being zealous Calvinists, took especial care to breed up their son in Calvinistic principles; and, with this design, provided him with a private master of their own persuasion, under whose direction he continued till he was fourteen years of age. Then, at the instigation of his uncle, who discerned in him very uncommon talents, he was sent to Eton-school, in order to be perfected in the Greek and Latin tongues; carrying with him, a strict charge not to recede from the principles in which he had been so carefully trained. Here, however, he abandoned his Calvinistic opinions, as far as regarded predestination; and, although his uncle not only chid him severely, but even threatened him with correction, for his immature philosophizing in such matters; yet he persisted in his opinion. In 1631, after he had spent three years at Eton, he was admitted of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and, at his own earnest solicitations, under a tutor that was not a Calvinist. Here, as he informs us, “he plunged himself immediately over head and ears in philosophy, and applied himself to the works of Aristotle, Cardan, Julius Scaliger, and other eminent philosophers;” all which he read over before he took his bachelor of arts’ degree, which was in 1635. But these did not answer his expectations; their manner of philosophising did not fall in with his peculiar turn of mind; nor did he feel any of that high delight, which he had promised himself from these studies. This disappointment, therefore, induced him to search for what he wanted in the Platonic writers and mystic divines, such as Marsilius Ficinus, Plotinus, Trismegistus, &c. where his enthusiasm appears to have been highly gratified. Among all the writings of this kind, there was none which so much affected him as the “Theologia Germanica,” once a favourite book with Luther. This was written by one John Taulerus, a Dominican monk, in the fourteenth century; and who, being supposed by the credulity of that age to be favoured with revelations from heaven, was styled the “illuminated divine.” He preached chiefly at Cologne and Strasburg, and died in 1631. His book, written in German, was translated into Latin, first by Surius, and afterwards by Sebastian Castalio; and it went through a great number of editions from 1518 to 1700, when it was printed in French at Amsterdam.

At the age of twenty-one, he had a seat in parliament, and shewed great independence of spirit, in 1503, by opposing a subsidy demanded by Henry VII. with such strength of argument, that it was actually refused by the parliament: on this Mr. Tyler, one of the king’s privycouncil, went presently from the house, and told his majesty, that a beardless boy had defeated his intention. The king resented the matter so highly, that he would not be satisfied, till he had some way revenged it: but as the son, who had nothing, could lose nothing, he devised a causeless quarrel against the father; and, sending him to the Tower, kept him there till he had forced a fine of 100l. from him, for his pretended offence. It happened soon after, that More, coming on a suit to Fox, bishop of Winchester, one of the king’s privy-council, the bishop called him aside, and with much apparent kindness, promised, that if he would be ruled by him, he would not fail to restore him to the king’s favour. It was conjectured, perhaps unjustly, that Fox’s object was to draw from him some confession of his offence, so that the king might have an opportunity of gratifying his displeasure against him. More, however, if this really was the case, had too much prudence to be entrapped, and desired some time to consider the matter. This being granted, he obtained a conference with Mr. Whitford, his familiar friend, then chaplain to the bishop, and afterwards a monk of Sion, and related what the bishop proposed. Whitford dissuaded him from listening to the bishop’s motion: “for,” says he, “my lord and master, to serve the king’s turn, will not stick to consent to the death of his own father.” After receiving this opinion, which Fox does not seem to have deserved, More became so alarmed, as to have some thoughts of visiting the continent. With this view he studied the French tongue, and cultivated most of the liberal sciences, as music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and history; but the death of Henry VII. rendered the precaution unnecessary, and he again resumed his profession.

The first edition of his “Dictionary” was comprized in one vol. folio, which he soon found very defective, and therefore applied himself with great vigour to enlarge it; which he did in two volumes, and the year after his death it was printed at Paris in 1681. The third edition, in 1683, is likewise in two volumes, and was copied from the second. The two following editions, of which the fourth was printed in 1687, and the fifth in 1683, were published at Lyons in two volumes, and were the same with that of 1683, except that some articles were added. It was afterwards thought proper to give a “Supplement or third Volume of the Historical Dictionary,” which was printed in 1689 in folio. The sixth edition, in which is inserted the Supplement in the same alphabetical order, corrected in a great number of places, and enlarged by many important articles and Remarks, was printed at Amsterdam in 1691 in four volumes in folio. Le Clerc had the care of this edition, in which the articles of the Supplement are incorporated, and made the additions, consisting either of new articles, or improvements of other articles. Three more editions followed, almost the same, in 1694, 1698, and 1699, all in 4 vols. folio. The tenth was printed from the edition revised by Le Clerc, at Amsterdam, 1702, in 4 vols. folio. The eleventh was published by Mons. Vaultier with new additions, at Paris, 1704, 4 vols. folio. It was preceded by a piece entitled “Projet pour la Correction du Dictionnaire Historique de M. Moreri, deja revu, corrigé, & angmenté dans le derniere Edition de Paris par M. Vaultier,” Paris, 1701, 4to. It was followed by a piece entitled “Remarques Critiques sur ia Nouvelle Edition du Dictionnaire Historique de Moreri, donneé en 1704.” The second edition of this piece, printed at Rotterdam in 1706, 12mo, is enlarged with a preface and a great many notes by another author, viz. Bayle, who published this edition. The twelfth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1707, 4 vols. folio, and the thirteenth in 1712, in 5 vols. folio. Dupin had a considerable share in it, as also in the following editions. In 1714, there was printed separately in that city a large Supplement, composed, as is said in the advertisements, of new articles, corrected in the last edition of 1712, to serve as a supplement to the preceding editions. This supplement was reprinted with great additions by Bernard at Amsterdam in 1716 in two volumes, folio. The fourteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Amsterdam in 1717, in six volumes, folio, with the Supplement, which is not incorporated in the body of the work. The fifteenth edition was printed at Parisj 1718, 5 vols. fol. The articles of the Supplement published in Holland are inserted in their proper places, with some additions. This edition has been greatly criticised. The authors of the “Europe Sçavante” have inserted in their fourth volume, p. 230, a memoir, in which is shewn, that in the single letter Z, which is one of the shortest, there are a great many faults, and several articles omitted. The abbé Le Clerc also published “Remarks upon different Articles,” in the three first volumes, printed in three volumes 8vo; the first in 1719, the second in 1720, and the third in 1721. Father Francis Meri, a Benedictine Monk, published likewise upon this subject a pamphlet, entitled “Discussion Critique & Theologique des Remarques de M. sur le Dictionnaire de Moreri de 1718,” 1720, 8vo. It is a defence of some passages of the Dictionary against the criticism of the abbé Le Clerc. The sixteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1724, in 6 vols. folio. Monsieur de la Barre had the care of it. What relates to genealogy was revised by Monsieur Vailly, an advocate; and the abbé Le Clerc furnished five or six thousand corrections, as he informs us in his “Bibliotheque de Richelet.” The seventeenth edition was printed at Basil in 1731; and the eighteenth at Paris, in 1732, 6 vols. folio, to which supplementary volumes were added. The last and best edition, in which all these were incorporated, is that of 1759, 10 vols. folio. This is still a work of great value and utility, particularly the biographical part, but much of the historical and geographical part has become almost obsolete, owing to the more correct information and improvements introduced in those branches.

, a French historian, who flourished in the fourteenth century, was a Benedictine monk of the abbey of St. Denis, and supposed to have taken his name from the place where he was born. He wrote the lives of St. Lewis, and of Philip le Hardi, and two chronicles; the first from the creation to 1300, the second a chronicle generally of the kings of France. The lives were printed, for the first time, in Pithou’s collection in 1596, and the chronicle from 1113, in the “Spicilegium” of D. Luc d' Archery. The life of St. Lewis was again reprinted along with Joinville’s history of the same prince, with a glossary, &c. by J. B. Mellot, Ch. Sallier, and J. Capperonier, at Paris in 1761, fol.

Nestor was successively followed by three annalists; the first was Sylvester, abbot of the convent of St. Michael at Kiof, and bishop of Perislaf, who died in 1123; he commences his “Chronicle” from 1115, only two years posterior to that of Nestor, and continues it to 1123; from which period a monk, whose name has not been delivered down to posterity, carries the history to 1157 and another, equally unknown, to 1203. With respect to these performances, Mr. Muller informs us, “the labours of Nestor, and his three continuators, have produced a connected series of the Russian history so complete, that no nation can boast a similar treasure for so long and unbroken a period.” We may add, likewise, from the same authority, that these annals record much fewer prodigies and monkish legends than others which have issued from the cloister in times so unenlightened.

, a priest and monk of Mount Athos, flourished in the thirteenth century. He refused the patriarchate of Constantinople from his partiality to the Latin church, and being more inclined to peace than any of the Greeks of his time, la this spirit he composed two treatises concerning “The Procession of the Holy Ghost;” one addressed to James patriarch of Bulgaria, and the other to the emperor Theodore Lascaris, in both which he refutes those who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. These two tracts are printed in Greek and Latin, by Aliatius, who has also given us a letter, written by Blemmides on his expelling from the church of her convent the mistress of the emperor John Ducas. There are several other pieces of our author in the Vatican library.

, the son of Callistus Xanthopulus, a learned monk of Constantinople, is placed by Wharton at 1333, but by Lardner in 1325. He wrote in Greek an “Ecclesiastical History,” in twenty-three books, eighteen of which are still extant, containing the transactions of the church from the birth of Christ to the death of the emperor Phocas in the year 610. We have nothing left besides the arguments of the five other books, from the commencement of the reign of the emperor Heraclius to the end of that of Leo the philosopher, who died in the year 911. He dedicated this history to the emperor Andronicus Palseologus the elder: it was translated into Latin, by John Langius, and has gone through several editions, the best of which is that of Paris, in 1630. There is only one manuscript of this history, which was said to be formerly in the library of Matthias, king of Hungary, and now in that of Vienna. Nicephorus was no more than thirty years of age when he compiled it, and it is said to abound in fables, and therefore has been treated with contempt by Beza, and by Gesner. Some other pieces are ascribed to our author. Labbe, in his preliminary discourse prefixed to the “Byzantine Historians,” has given a catalogue of the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople, composed by Nicephorus. His abridgment of the Bible in iambic verse was printed at Basil in 1536, and Dr. Hody has attributed to him a small piece which he published in Greek and Latin, during his controversy with Mr. Dodwell, under the title of “Anglicani Schismatis Redargutio.” His homilies on Mary Magdalen are also inserted in Bandini “Monumenta,” 1762, vol. III.

, an eminent Russian prelate, was born in a village under the government of Nishnei Novogorod, in 1613. His parents were so obscure that neither their names nor stations are known. He was educated under the care of a monk in the convent of St. Macarius, and here he imbibed a strong and increasing prejudice in fa*­vour of the monastic life. In compliance, however, with the wishes of his family, he married, and was ordained a secular priest. The loss of his children by death disgusted him with the world, and he persuaded his wife to take the veil, whilst he became a monk. He retired into an island in the White Sea, and instituted a society in this solitude remarkable for its great austerities. He had not been in this place many years before he was made, after a series of ecclesiastical dignities, archbishop of Novogorod; and, finally, patriarch of Russia. He was not only eminent as a priest, but discovered the great and energetic talents of a statesman; and to them he fell a victim. In 1658 he was compelled to abdicate his dignity of patriarch, on which he returned to his cell, and lived over his former austerities; but his degradation did not satisfy the malice of his enemies, who procured his imprisonment. He obtained, after a number of years, his release, with permission to return to his favourite cell; but, whilst on the road to this spot, he expired in his 66th year, in 1681. Nicon did not spend his whole time in the performance of useless austerities, but occasionally employed himself in compiling a regular series of Russian annalists from Nestor, the earliest historian of that country, to the reign of Alexey Michaelovitch. This collection is sometimes called, from its author, “The Chronicle of Nicon,” and sometimes, from the place where it was begun and deposited, “The Chronicle of the Convent of Jerusalem.” It is considered as a work of authority.

, a learned Italian monk, was born at Verona, in 1594. He entered among the Theatins when he was about eighteen years of age, and after passing his noviciate at Venice, took the vows in 1614. He afterwards studied philosophy and divinity, was ordained priest in 1621, and exercised the various functions of his office and order, applying at his leisure hours to study, and writing the many works enumerated by his biographers. The principal of these are, “Comment, in quatuor Evangel, et Acta Apostol.” in 4 vols. folio; “Adagia Sanctorum Patrum,” in 2 vols. folio; “Eiectra Sacra, in quibus qua ex Latino, Grseco, Hebraico, et Chaldaico fonte, qua ex antiquis Hebraeorum, Persarum, GnecoruiD, Romanorum, aliarumque Gentium ritibus, qusedam divinse Scripturae loca noviter explicantur et illustrantur,” in 3 vols. folio. He died at Verona Jan. 14, 1650, aged fifty-six.

, a celebrated Italian, was born at Sienna in 1487, and first took the habit of a Cordelier; but throwing it off in a short time, and returning into the world, applied himself to the study of physic, and acquired the esteem of cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII. At length, changing his mind again, he resumed his monk’s habit, and embraced, in 1534, the reformed sect of the Capuchins. He practised, with a most rigorous exactness, all the rules of this order; which, being then in its infancy, he contributed so much to improve and enlarge, that some writers have called him the founder of it. It is certain he was made vicar-general of it, and became in the highest degree eminent for his talents in the pulpit. He delivered his sermons with great eloquence, success, and applause. His extraordinary merit procured him the favour of pope Paul III. who, it is said, made him his father-confessor and preacher; and he was thus the favourite of both prince and people, when, falling into the company of one John Valdes, a Spaniard, who had imbibed Luther’s doctrine in Germany, he became a proselyte. He was then at Naples, and began to preach in favour of protestant doctrines with so much boldness, that he was summoned to appear at Rome, and was in his way thither, when he met at Florence Peter Martyr, with whom, it is probable, he had contracted an acquaintance at Naples. This friend persuaded him not to put himself into the pope’s power; and they both agreed to withdraw into some place of safety. Ochinus went first to Ferrara, where he disguised himself in the habit of a soldier; and, proceeding thence to Geneva, arrived thither in 1542, and married at Lucca, whence he went to Augsburg, and published some sermons.

, or Walter of Evesham, a monk of that monastery in Worcestershire, was eminent in the early part of the thirteenth century, during the reign of Henry III. not only for his profound knowledge in music, but astronomy, and mathematics in general. The translator and continuator of Dugdale’s Monasticon, speaks of him among; learned Englishmen of the order of St. Benedict in the following manner:

“Walter, monk of Evesham, a man of a facetious wit, who applying himself to literature, lest he should sink under the lahour of the day, the watching at night, and continual observance of regular discipline, used at spare hours to divert himself with the decent and commendable diversion of music, to render himself the more cheerful for other duties.” This apology, however, for the time he bestowed on music, was needless; for it was, and is still, so much the business of a Romish priest, that to be ignorant of it disqualifies him for his profession. And at all times, where an ecclesiastic thought it necessary to trace the whole circle of the sciences, music having the second or third rank, could not be neglected. But what this author adds farther concerning Odington is still less defensible: “Whether,” says he, “this application to music drew him off from other studies I know not, but there appears no other work of his than a piece entitled ‘Of the Speculation of Music’.” Yet we are told by Pits, Bale, Tanner, Moreri, and all his biographers, that he wrote fc De Motibus Planetarum, et de Mutatione Aeris," as well as on other learned subjects. His treatise on music is preserved in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, and is, in the opinion of Dr. Burney, so copious and complete, with respect to every part of music when it was written, that if all other musical tracts, from the time of Boethius to Franco and John Cotton, were lost, our knowledge would not be much diminished, if this ms. was accessible. The musical examples, adds Dr. Burney, as usual in old manuscripts, are incorrect, and frequently inexplicable, owing to the ignorance of music in the transcribers; but if this tract were corrected, and such of the examples as are recoverable, regulated, and restored, it would be the most ample, satisfactory, and valuable, which the middle ages can boast; as the curious inquirer into the state of music at this early period may discover in it not only what progress our countrymen had made in the art themselves, but he chief part of what was then known elsewhere.

, the second abbot of Clugni in France, illustrious for his learning and piety, and certainly as learned and pious as the ignorance and superstition of the times would permit, was born at Tours in 879. He was educated by Foluques, count of Anjou, and became a canon of St. Martin, at Tours, at nineteen years of age, after which he went to Paris, and was the disciple of St. Remy of Auxerre. He was fond of solitude, and took the monk’s habit in the convent of Beaume, in the diocese of Besangon. After which, he became prior and abbot of St. Clugni, in 927, where he introduced a new discipline, or set of ceremonies of a severe and rigorous kind, which, however, with the sanctity of his life contributed greatly to increase the congregation of Clugni; and such was the influence of his personal character, that popes, bishops, and secular princes, usually chose him for the arbitrator of their disputes, and the order or discipline of Clugni attained a very high degree of eminence and authority. He died about 943. He applied himself to study as well as to the aggrandizing of his order; but his original works are filled with the grossest superstitions. While he was canon, he abridged the “Morals of St. Gregory,” and the “Hymns in honour of St. Martin.” While a simple monk, he composed three books of “The Priesthood;” and another upon the “Prophecy of Jeremy,” dedicated to Turpion bishop of Limoges, which bore the title of “Collations or Conferences, or Occupations.” After he became abbot, he wrote the “Life of St. Gerard,” and of “St. Martial of Limoges,” and several sermons, and a “Panegyric upon St. Benedict.” All these are prinfed in the.“Bibliotheque of Clugni,” together with some “Hymns upon the Sacrament,” and “The Magdelain;” but the “History of St. Martyn’s Translation” is improperly ascribed to him. It appears also that he understood music; and besides some hymns, chaunts, and anthems, still preserved in the Romish church, there are two copies of a ms tract on music, of his writing, in the royal library of Paris, and one in Bene't college, Cambridge. This is noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music.

, or of Kent, so called because he was a native of that county in England, where he flourished in the twelfth century, was a Benedictine monk, of which order his learning and eloquence raised him to be prior and abbot, first of St. Saviour’s, and afterwards of Battleabbey. He died in March 1200. Thomas a Becket was his friend, and his panegyric was made by John of Salisbury. He composed several works, as “Commentaries upon the Pentateuch;” “Moral Reflections upon the Psalms, the Old Testament, and the Gospels;” a treatise entitled, “De onere Philistini;” another, “De raoribus ecclesiasticis” a third, “De vitiis & virtutibus animae,” &c. Besides these, a “Letter to a brother novitiate,” in the abbey of Igny, is printed by Mabillon in the first tome of “Analects;” and another “Letter to Philip earl of Flanders,” about 1171, upon the miracles of St. Thomas, is in the “Collectio amplissima veterum monumentorum,” p. 882, published by the fathers Martenne and Durand, Benedictines.

His mind becoming easier by degrees, he returned to his favourite studies, and through the course of the year 1751, he published his “Amusements Periodiques,” a monthly publication, in which he entered with great freedom into the controversy between the protestant and Romish churches, and they were therefore soon prohibited both in Portugal and Rome. In 1753 he retired to a house at Kentish town, where he divided his time between the care of a small garden, the pursuit of his studies, and the conversation of several learned friends who frequently visited him. When the news arrived of the dreadful earthquake at Lisbon in December 1755, he published his “Discours Pathetique” early in 1756, addressed to his countrymen, but particularly to the king of Portugal. The rapid sale of several editions of this work, both in French and English, in the course of a few weeks, was no inconsiderable proof of its merit; but while it made him more known and esteemed in this and other countries, it drew upon him the resentment of some of his countrymen, and particularly of the inquisitors, who now laid a prohibition on all his works in geaeral. Even his brother, Thomas de Aquinas, a Benedictine monk, wrote to exhort him to retract his errors. This occasioned the chevalier to publish a second part, or “Suite de Discours pathetique,” 1757, in which he not only answered the objections made to the “Discours,” but inserted his brother’s letter, with a suitable answer.

, a peripatetic philosopher of Alexandria, lived under Theodosius the younger, about the year 430, and wrote Commentaries on part of Aristotle, 1551, fol. and a Life of Plato, which contains many particulars not to be met with in Diogenes Laertius. James "WinJet has translated this Life into Latin, and added notes to it. It seems probable, however, that the commentator on Aristotle, and the author of the life of Plato, were different persons; and there is a third Olympiodorus, a Greek monk, who lived in the fifth or sixth century, and left short and elegant Commentaries on Job and Ecclesiastes, which may be found in the library of the Greek fathers. The little that is known of either of these may be seen in our authorities.

All Origen’s works, which remain only in Latin, were collected by Merlinus, and afterwards by Erasmus, and printed at Paris, in 1512, and at Basil in 1536, in 2 vols. folio. Genebrard has since made a larger collection, which was printed at Paris, in 1574, 1604, 1619, 2 vols. folio. All the Greek fragments of Origen upon the Scriptures were published, with a Latin translation by Huetius, and printed in 1668, 1679, and 1685, 2 vols, folio; to which are prefixed by the editor large Prolegomena, under the title of “Origeniana,” in which are given, in three books, a very copious and learned account of the life, the doctrines, and the writings of Origen. The eight books against U Oelsus,“an Epicurean philosopher, which are by far the most valuable of his works, were published in Greek, with the” Translation of Gelenius,“and the” Notes of Hoeschelius,“in 1605, 4to; and afterwards very correctly at Cambridge, in 1658, 4to, by William Spencer, fellow of Trinity-college, who corrected the translation, and also added notes of his own. To this edition are subjoined the” Philocalia, sive de obscuris sacrse scripturae locis,“of Origen. Wetstein, Greek-professor at Basil, caused to be printed there, with a Latin version and notes, in 1674, 4to,” The Dialogue against Marcion“(which, by the way, is supposed by Huetius to be a spurious piece), the” Exhortation to Martyrdom,“and the” Letters of Africanus and Origen, concerning the “History of Susannah and lastly, the book” De Oratione,“was published at London, in 1718, 4to, with notes by Dr. Ashton and Mr. Reading. An edition of all Origen’s works was undertaken by Charles Delarue, a Benedictine monk, who began to publish it at Paris, in 1733, folio; and though the four volumes he has given us do not complete his plan, yet they contain the best, and indeed the only part of Origen’s works wprth any attention. This was reprinted by Oberthur, in 1780, 15 vols. 8vo. The celebrated Montfaucon has published in 2 vols, folio, some remains and fragments of his” Hexapla," and more recently Bahrdt published at Leipsic the Hexapla, 1769, in 2 vols. 8vo.

, a learned French monk, originally of a family of Rheims, was born at Mezieres, Feb. 11, 1638. His father was a weaver, and designed to breed him to his own business; but the son’s inclination leading him to literature, he retired in 1656, against the will of his parents, among the Premontres, passed his noviciate in the abbey of Verdun, and made his profession in November, 1658. He was afterwards sent into France, where he spent four years in the studies of philosophy and theology, with, however, very little assistance from his masters, who were very ignorant; he then applied himself particularly to ecclesiastical history, which was his favourite study. Thus employed, he remained in obscurity for twenty years, among those of his order, when his talents became known by one of those apparently accidental circumstances which give a turn to the lives of men. His superiors happened to place him in 1678, in the abbey of Bucilly, in Champagne, and Lewis XIV. on a journey in 1680, coming to this abbey, stopped to dine. It was usual for such a guest to receive the compliments of the society; and when Oudin found that all the monks were afraid to appear, in order to address his majesty, he undertook the task, and acquitted himself so well, that the king and court were surprized to find, in so savage and solitary a place, a person of so much address and good sense; and his majesty, greatly pleased with his reception, ordered the abbey a purse of fifty louis d'ors. Oudin’s abilities being thus discovered, he was sent in 1614, by Michael Colbert, the principal and reformergeneral of this order, to visit the abbeys and churches belonging to them, and to take from their archives whatsoever might be of use in his history. On this occasion he went to all the convents in the Netherlands, returned to France with a large collection of historical documents, and in 1685 wade the same researches in Lorrain, Burgundy, and Alsace. In 1688 he published “A Supplement of the Ecclesiastical Writers, omitted by Bellarmine,” a work which did him much honour, under the title “Supplementum de scriptoribus vel scriptis ecclesiasticis a Bellarmino omissis, ad annum 1460, vel ad artem typographical!! inventam.” He published afterwards a complete body of those works, with the title of “Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesias antiquis, illorumque scriptis, adhunc extantibus in celebrioribus Europae bibliothecis, a Bellarmino, Possevino, Phil. Labbeo, Gul, Caveo, Ellio, Du Pin,” &c. 3 vols. folio. This is his principal work; but if we may believe Le Clerc, our author did not understand either Greek or; Latin sufficient for it and it certainly abounds in errors, a great many of which, however, belong to the press.

, a famous Cordelier, and one of the ablest critics of his time, was born at Rognes, a small town in Provence, March 31, 1624. He took the monk’s habit in the convent of the Cordeliers at Aries, and professed himself there in 1641. After he had finished the usual course of studies in philosophy and divinity, he preached some time, and was at length made four times provincial of his order. These occupations did not hinder him from applying to chronology and ecclesiastical history, in which he excelled. He printed in the Journal des Savans, Nov. 11, 1686, a learned “Dissertation upon the Consular Office,” in which he pretends to have discovered the rules, according to which the Roman emperors took the dignity of consul at some certain times more than others, but in this he is not thought to have been successful. His most considerable work is “A Critique upon the Annals of Baronius;” in which he has rectified an infinite number of mistakes, both in chronology and in facts. He published the first volume of this work, containing the first four centuries, at Paris, in 1689; with a dedication to the clergy of France, who allowed him a pension. The whole work was printed after his death, in four volumes, folio, at Geneva, in 1705, by the care of his nephew, father Francis Pagi, of the same order. It is carried to the year 1198, where Baronius ends. Pagi was greatly assisted in it by the abbe* Longuerue, who also wrote the eloge of our author, which is prefixed to the Geneva edition. Another edition was published at Geneva in 1727. It is a work of great utility, but the author’s chronology of the popes of the first three centuries is not approved by the learned. He has also prefixed a piece concerning a new chronological period, which he calls “Graeco-Romana,” and uses for adjusting all the different epochas, which is not without its inconveniences. Our author wrote some other works of inferior note before his death, at Aix, in Provence, June 7, 1699. His character is that of 'a very able historian, and a learned and candid critic. His style has all the simplicity and plainness which suits a chronological narration. He held a correspondence with several learned men, as Stillingfleet, Spanheim, Cuper, Dodwell, the cardinal Noris, &c.

Although he had here a handsome gratuity, and was only to attend his scholars one hour in the twenty-four, yet it was entirely owing to the expences of his family that he engaged in this employment, which was otherwise irksome to him. He passed, however, some years at Lucca, before he obtained the offer of several immunities, and a handsome stipend from the magistrates of Milan, where he hoped that he was now settled in peace for life, but the event proved otherwise. Paul V. who had been a Dominican monk, coming to the pontificate in 1566, determined to show his bigotry against every thing that had the appearance of heresy, and therefore ordered the cause of Palearius to be re-heard. On which Palearius was suddenly arrested at Milan, and carried to Rome, where they found it not difficult to convict him of having said “That the German doctors who followed Luther were to be commended in respect to some points; and that the court of the inquisition was erected for the destruction of men of learning.” He was then condemned to be burnt, which sentence was executed the same year, 1566. He was greatly respected by the most eminent scholars of his time, such as Bembusj Sadoletus, Sfondratus, Philonardus, cardinals; Benedictus Lampridius, Anthony Flaminius, and Andreas Alciatus; besides others, whose names may be seen in the catalogue to the last edition of his “Letters,” containing the names of his literary correspondents.

, an English historian, was a Benedictine monk of the congregation of Clugny, in the monastery of St. Alban’s, the habit of which order he took in 1217. He was an universal scholar; understood, and had a good taste both in painting and architecture. He was also a mathematician, a poet, an orator, a divine, an historian, and a man of distinguished probity. Such rare accomplishments and qualities as these, did not fail to place him very high in the esteem of his contemporaries; and he was frequently employed in reforming some monasteries, visiting others, and establishing the monastic discipline in all. He reproved vice without distinction of persons, and did not even spare the English court itself; at the same time he shewed a hearty affection for his country in maintaining its privileges against the encroachments of the pope. Of this we have a clear, though unwilling, evidence in Baronius, who observes, that this author remonstrated with too sharp and bitter a spirit against the court of Rome; and that, except in this particular only, his history was an incomparable work. He died at St. Alban’s in 1259. His principal work, entitled “Historia Major,” consists of two parts: The first, from the creation of the world to William the Conqueror; the second, from that king’s reign to 1250. He carried on this history afterwards to the year of his death in 1259. Rishanger, a monk of the monastery of St. Alban’s, continued it to 1272 or 1273, the year of the death of Henry III. It was first printed at London in 1571, and reprinted 1640, 1684, fol. besides several foreign editions. There are various ms copies in our public libraries, particularly one which he presented to Henry III. and which is now in the British Museum. From Jiis Mss. have also been published “Vitas duorum Offarum, Merciae regum, S, Albani fundatorum” <c Gesta viginti duo abbatum S. Albani“”Additamenta chronicorum ad historian) majorern,“all which accompany the editions of his” Historia Major“printed in 1640 -and 1684. Among his unpublished Mss. are an epitome of his” Historia Major," and a history from Adam to the conquest, principally from Matthew of Westminster. This is in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge. The titles of some other works, but of doubtful authority, may be seen in Bale and Pits.

, a celebrated professor of eloquence in the royal college at Paris, and one of the politest writers of his time, was born Oct. 18, 1534, atTroyes in Champagne. His uncle, who undertook to educate him, placed him at the college of his native city, where some harsh conduct of his master induced him to run away. Arriving at Bourges, he entered first into the service of a farrier, and afterwards waited upon a monk; but, growing in time sagacious enough to see his folly, he returned to his uncle, who pardoned him, and maintained him for three years at college, where he proceeded in his studies with so much diligence, that he became in a short time able to teach irv public. In that capacity his first post was master of the second class in the college of Du Plessis, from which he removed to that of cardinal Le Moine but being obliged to retire for some time from Paris on account of the plague, on his return he engaged in the business of teaching Latin. At length he took up a resolution to study the law; for which purpose he went to Bourges, and spent three years under Cujacius; but at last became professor of eloquence, having obtained that chair in 1572, on the vacancy which happened by the assassination of Ramus. In the discharge of this post he grew so eminent, that the most learned men of the time, and the counsellors of the supreme courts at Paris, went to hear his lectures. He was an indefatigable student, passing frequently whole days without taking any food; yet to an extraordinary erudition he joined an uncommon politeness of manners, having nothing of the mere scholar, except the gown and hood. These accomplishments brought him acquainted with all the people of quality but he contracted an intimacy only with M. de Mesmes, in whose house he lived for thirty years, till his death, which was occasioned by a palsy, Sept. 14, 1602.

, the Deacon, or Paulus Diaconus, so called because he had been a deacon of the church of Friuli, though some call him by his father’s name Warmafridcs, and others, from the profession he took up in his latter years Paulus Monachus, was originally a Lombard, born in the city of Friuli, in the eighth century, and educated in the court of the Lombard kings at Pavia. After Desiderius, the last king of the Lombards, was taken prisoner by Charlemagne, and carried to France, tired of the tumult of the public world, he retired from the busy scenes he had been engaged in, and became a monk in the famous monastery of Monte Casino, where he wrote his history of the Lombards, in six books, from their first origin down to the reign of Luitprandus, who was their eighteenth king that reigned in Italy, and died in the year 743. He was an eye-witness of many of the transactions he relates; and as he was a Lombard, we may suppose him well informed of the affairs of his own nation, and had read the history of the Lombards, written in the same century in which they began to reign in Italy, by Secundus Tridentinus, originally a Lombard, but a native of the city of Trent, who flourished, according to Baronius, in the year 615; but his history is now lost. He often quotes his authority, and though he sometimes falls into trivial mistakes, about foreign affairs, and such as happened long before his time, as Grotius learnedly evinces, yet, in the transactions of his own nation, he is, generally speaking, very exact. He died in the year 799.His history was printed at Hamburgh in 1611, and is besides to be found in the eighteenth volume of Muratori’s Rerum Italic. Scriptores.

, or Peter the Venerable, a native of Auvergne, descended from the family of the counts Maurice, or de Montbois.vier, took the monk’s habit at Clugny, was made prior of Vezelay, afterwards abbot, and general of his order in 1121, at the age of twentyeight. He revived monastic discipline in the abbey of Clugny, and received pope Innocent II. there in 1130. He opposed the errors of Peter de firuys and Henry, and died in his abbey, December 24, 1156. We have six books of his letters, with several other works of very little consequence, in the “Library of Clugny,” and some homilies in Martenne’s “Thes. Anecd.” That so ignorant and trifling a writer shoaid have been honoured with the title of Venerable, is a strong mark of the low state of religious knowledge at that time. In these his works he takes great pains to vindicate the manners and customs of his monastery, and appears to place the essence of Christianity in frivolous punctilios and insignificant ceremonies. It was he, however, who received the celebrated Abelard in his afflictions with great humanity, and who consoled Eloisa after his death, by sending to her, at her request, the form, of Abelard’s absolution, which she inscribed on his sepulchre.

When Ignatius was expelled and deposed from the see of Constantinople, Photius was nominated by the court to succeed him; and although at this time only a layman, in the space of six days he accumulated the degrees of monk, reader, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest, and in this rapid manner rose to the patriarchate on Christmas- day 858. The metropolitans, subject to the see of Constantinople, acknowledged Photius; but great opposition was made to this uncanonical ordination from other quarters, and he was actually degraded at Rome. Photius, however, ordered a council to be called at Constantinople, and got himself confirmed in 'his patriarchal dignity; in which, by various arts not very worthy of his high and sacred office, he continued during the life of his friend the emperor Michael. But Michael being murdered by the order of Basilius, who succeeded him in the year 867, the affairs of Photius were ruined, and Basilius banished him to a monastery, and reinstated Ignatius in his see. In this degraded state Photius remained for more than ten years, until a division between the pope and Ignatius afforded him an opportunity to attempt his own restoration; and, having obtained the emperor’s favour, he returned to Constantinople while Ignatius was yet alive. It is said Ignatius would have proposed conditions, but Photius, determined upon full restoration to the patriarchate, would be satisfied with nothing less. Ignatius however died Oct. 23, 878; and Photius immediately went into St. Sophia’s church with armed men; forced a great many bishops, clerks, and monks, to communicate with him; deposed and persecuted all that refused; and to prevent all opposition from the papal side, prevailed by threats and presents on two of the pope’s legates who were there, to declare publicly to the clergy and people, that they had come to depose Ignatius, and to declare Photius their patriarch. He kept his seat, thus forcibly obtained, till the year 886, and then was turned out, and banished by the emperor Leo into a monastery in Armenia, where he is supposed to have died soon after. He was, as we have observed, a man of great talents, great learning, and every way accomplished; but his ardent love of glory, and unbounded ambition, prompted him to such excesses, as made 'him rather a scourge than a blessing to those about him. He was the author of many intestine tumults and civil commotions; and not only divided the Greek church, but laid the foundation of a division between the Greek and Latin churches.

, or Leo Pilatus, a monk of Calabria, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is considered as one of the most industrious of those eminent scholars who contributed to the revival of literature and taste in Europe, and was the first who taught Greek in Italy, where he had Petrarch and Boccaccio for his scholars. He was on his return from a journey through Greece, in search of manuscripts in that language, when he was killed by lightning. Notwithstanding his knowledge of Greek, he was thought but moderately skilled in Latin.

, is said to have been the real name of a German author, who, tinder the fictitious one of Publius Porcius Porcellus, wrote the Latin poem entitled “Pugna porcorum,” consisting of 360 verses, in which every word begins with a P. It was published separately at Antwerp, in 1530, and is in the “Nugae venales,” &c. We have followed Baillet in- calling him Peter Placentinus, but Le Clerc says that his name was John Leo Placentius, a Dominican monk, who died about 1548, and that he composed an history of the bishops of Tongres, Maestricht, and Liege, taken out of fabulous memoirs, and several poems besides the “Pugna Porcorum.” In this last he imitated one Theobaldus,. a Benedictine monk, who flourished in the time of Charles the Bald, to whom he presented a panegyric on baldness, every word of which began with the letter C (calvities, baldness). Placentinus is said to have had another object,

, a Greek monk of Constantinople, who lived at the end of the thirteenth, and the beginning of the fourteenth century, is the author of a “Life of Æsop,” full of anachronisms, absurdities, and falsehoods and of 149 “Fables;” which, though he published them as Æsop’s, have been suspected to be his own. There is also a collection of Greek epigrams, under the title of “Anthologia,” made by this monk and it is but just to allow him the merit of having preserved many valuable compositions which otherwise would have been lost. His “Anthologia” was published at Florence, 1494, a very rare edition, reprinted in 1600. No particulars are known of Planudes, except that he suffered some persecution on account of his zeal for the Latin church, and, although he wrote a recantation, Bessarion thinks he was not sincere.

In 1659, being considered as one of the secluded members of the House of Commons, he was restored to sit again, and became instrumental in recalling Charles II. in which he shewed such zeal, that general Monk was obliged to check his intemperate and irritating language, as being then unseasonable. In 1660 he was chosen for Bath, to sit in the healing parliament; and, after the restoration, expected to have been made one of the barons of the Exchequer, but this was not thought proper. When the king was asked what should be done with Prynne to keep him quiet, “Why,” said he, “let him amuse himself with writing against the Catholics, and in poring over the records in the Tower.” Accordingly he was made chief keeper of his majesty’s records in the Tower, with a salary of 500l. per annum. He was again elected for Bath in 1661; and, July that year, being discontented at some proceeding in the House, he published a paper, entitled “Sundry Reasons tendered to the most honourable House, of Peers by some citizens and members of London, and other cities, boroughs, corporations, and ports, against the new-intended Bill for governing and reforming Corporations:” of which being discovered to be the author, he was obliged to beg pardon of the House, in order to escape punishment. After the restoration, he published several books, altogether, with what he had already published, amounting to forty volumes, folio and quarto, a copy of all which, bound together, he presented to the library of Lincoln’sInn: so that March mont Needham was not far from the mark, when he called him “one of the greatest paperworms, that ever crept into a closet or library.” He died at his chambers in Lincoln’s-Iun, Oct. 24, 1669, and was interred under the chapel there.

Mabillon exhibits, in his “German Travels,” an effigy of Ptolemy looking at the stars through an optical tube which effigy, he says, he found in a manuscript of the thirteenth century, made by Conradus a monk. Hence some have fancied, that the use of the telescope was known to Conradus. But this is only matter of mere conjecture, there being no facts or testimonies, nor even probabilities, to support such an opinion. It is rather likely that the tube was nothing more than a plain open one, employed to strengthen and defend the eye-sight, when looking at particular stars, by excluding adventitious rays from other stars and objects; a contrivance which no observer of the heavens can ever be supposed to have been without.

In 1532, he published at Lyons some pieces of Hippocrates and Galen, with a dedication to the bishop of Mailezais in which he tells him, that he had read lectures upon the aphorisms of Hippocrates, and the “ars medica” of Galen, before numerous audiences in the university of Montpellier. This was the last year of his cootinuance in that place for the year after he went to Lyons, where he became physician to the hospital, and joined lectures with practice for some years following. John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, and afterwards cardinal, with whom he had been acquainted in his early years, going to Rome in? 1534, upon the business of Henry VIITs divorce from Catherine of Spain, and passing through Lyons, carried Rabelais with him, in quality of his physician who returned home, however, in about six months. He had sometime before quitted his religious connections for the sake of leading a life more suitable to his taste and humour; but now renewed them, and in a second journey to Rome, obtained in 1536, by his interest with some cardinals, a brief from pope Paul III. to qualify him for holding ecclesiastical benefices. John du Bellay, had procured the abbey of St. Maur near Paris to be secularized; and into this was Rabelais, now a Benedictine monk, received as a secular canon. Here he is supposed to have begun his famous romance, entitled “The lives, heroic deeds, and sayings of Gargantua and Pantagruel.” He continued ifi this retreat till 1545, when Du Bellay, his friend and patron, and now a cardinal, nominated him to the cure of Meudon, which he is said to have filled with great zeal and application to the end of his life. His profound knowledge and skill in physic made him doubly useful to the people under his care and he was ready upon all occasions to relieve them under indispositions of body as well as mind. He died in 1553. As he was a great wit, many witticisms and facetious sayings are laid to his charge, of which he knew nothing and many ridiculous circumstances are related of him by some of his biographers, to which probably little credit is due.

His son, Carew, incidentally noticed above, was born in the Tower of London, in 1604, and was edupated at Wadham college, Oxford, After spending five years in the university he went to court; but meeting with no encouragement there, his friend, the earl of Pembroke, advised him to travel, as he did till the death of James, which happened about a year after. On his return he petitioned Parliament to restore him in blood; but, while this was under consideration, the king sent for him, and told him that he had promised to secure the manor of Sherborn to the lord Digby, it having been given by king James to that nobleman on the disgrace of Carr earl of Somerset. Mr. Ralegh, therefore, was under the necessity of complying with the royal pleasure, and to give up his inheritance. On this submission an act was passed for his restoration, a pension of 400l. a year was granted to him after the death of his mother, who had that sum paid during life in lieu of her jointure. About a year after this he married the widow *of sir Anthony Ashley, by whom he had two sons and three daughters, and soon after he was made one of the gentlemen of the king’s privy chamber. In 1645 he wrote a vindication of his father against some misrepresentations which Mr. James Howel had made relative to the mine-affair of Guiana. After the death of the king he again applied to Parliament for a restoration of his estate; but was not successful, although he published, in order to enforce the necessity of his claim, “A brief relation of sir Walter Ralegh’s Troubles.” In 1656 he printed his *' Observations on Sanderson’s History of king James," which were replied to by that historian with considerable asperity. In 1659, by the favour of General Monk, Mr. Ralegh was appointed governor of Jersey. King Charles II. would have conferred some mark of favour upon him, but he declined it. His son Walter, however, received the honour of knighthood from that monarch. Mr. Ralegh died in 1666, and was buried in his father’s grave at St. Margaret’s, Westminster. Anthony Wood says that he had seen some sonnets of his composition, and certain ingenious discourses in ms.

, Ratram, or Bertramn, a celebrated monk, and priest of the abbey of Corby, flourished in the 9th century, in the reign of Charles the Bald. He appears to have been well acquainted with the Greek and Latin classics, and with the Holy Scriptures. Of all Ratramn’s works, his treatise “On the Body and Blood of Christ” made the most noise. This treatise was written in answer to Paschasius Radbert, and so much appeared to favour the protestant opinion respecting the real presence in the Eucharist, that many learned catholics considered it either as heretical or spurious; but its authenticity was clearly proved afterwards by Mabillon, M. Boileau, and a doctor of the Sorbonne, who published an excellent edition in Latin and French, 1686, 12mo, reprinted with a defence in Latin only, 1712, 12mo, and according to catholic writers, has also shewn the work to be orthodox. But this is ably controverted in the English translation published in Dublin in 1753. His other works, which are less interesting, are mostly inserted in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium. The time of his death is not known.

Christopher Rawlinson, of Caik-hall in Carimel, in the county of Lancaster, esq. whose remains are deposited in a vault near this place. He wa son of Curwen Rawlinson, member of parliament for the town of Lancaster, and Klizabeth Monk, daughter and co-heir of the loyal Nicholas Monk, lord bishop of Hereford, brother to (Jen. Monk duke of Albemarle. The said Christopher was of Queen’s college, in Oxford, and published the Saxon version of “Boethius de Consolatione Philosophise” in the Saxon language. He was born in the parish of Springfield in Essex, June 13, 1677, and died in Jan. 1733. This monument was erected pursuant to the will of his cousin and co-heiress, Mrs. Mary Blake, youngest daughter of Roger More, of Kirkby Lonsdale, in the county of Westmoreland, serjeant at law, and Catharine Rawlinson, sister of the said Curwen Rawlinson.

For this gentleman’s pedigree, see “Sandford’s Genealogical History of the Kings and Queens of England, 1707;” where also is a print of the monument erected by him to his grandfather and mother, in the church of St. Mary, at Cartmel, in Lancashire. There are two engravings of him; one in a wig and night-gown, in a frame of oakJeaves, engraved by Nutting, with his initials in a cypher at the corners, and his arms quartering a chevron between 3 lions 7 heads, and Ar. fretty Gu. a chief Az. Another, by Nutting also (mentioned in Granger), in the same plate with four others, viz. Robert^ his grandfather; Curvven, his father; Elizabeth, his mother, and Dr. Nicholas Monk, bishop of Hereford, his mother’s father. There is likewise a mezzotinto half-sheet, by Smith, representing him younger, and of a more comely person, than either of the engravings. It is dated “Anno Christi 1701, aetatis suae 24.”

, was a learned French Benedictine monk in the ninth century, and brought up in the abbey of St. Germain, at Auxerre, whence he derived that appendix to his name by which he is distinguished. Having made great proficiency in profane and sacred literature, he was appointed principal teacher in the schools belonging to his monastery, and afterwards taught at Rheims with great reputation, until he went to Paris, and opened the first public school in that city, after learning had sunk under the ravages of the Normans. His works are, 1. “Commentarius in omnes Davidis Psalmos,” Cologne, 1536, a methodized collection of opinions from the fathers. 2. “Enarrationes in posteriores XI. minores Prophetas,” Antwerp, 1545, with the “Commentaries” of Oecumenius upon the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles, and those of Aretbas upon the book of Revelation and “Expositio Missa;.” A “Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul,” has been also ascribed to him, but on doubtful authority. It is move certain that he left behind him “A Commentary on the Musical Treatise of Martianus Capella,” which is among the Mss. in the king of France’s library, No. 5304.

Notwithstanding his acting with his brother-visitors in all the changes and ejectments they brought about in the university, he at length refused the engagement “to be true and faithful to the commonwealth of England, as established without a King and a House of Lords,” and therefore was in his turn ejected from his deanery, in 1651. He lived afterwards mostly in London, and preached there, as vicar of St. Lawrence-Jury. On the prospect of the restoration he joined with general Monk, to bring in the king, using his interest for that purpose in London, where he was the pride and glory of the presbyterian party. Dr. Pierce, in the introduction to his “Divine Purity defended,” says he was a person of great authority as well as fame among the Calvinists.

, an English historian, so named from his birth-place, flourished in the fourteenth century. No (races of his family or connections can be discovered, but they appear to have been such as to afford him a liberal education. In 13 50 “he entered into the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and his name occurs in various documents of that establishment in 1387, 1397, and 1399. He devoted his leisure hours to the study of British and Anglo-Saxon history and antiquities, in which he made such proficiency, that he is said to have been honoured with the name of the Historiographer. Pits informs us, without specifying his authority, that Richard visited different libraries and ecclesiastical establishments in England, in order to collect materials. It is at least certain that he obtained a licence to visit Rome, from his abbot, William of Colchester, in 1391, and there can be little doubt that a man of his curiosity would improve his knowledge on such an occasion. He is supposed to Have performed this journey in the interval between 1391 and 1397, for he appears to have been confined in the abbey infirmary in 1401, and died in that or the following year. His works are,” Historia ab Hengista ad ann. 1348,“in two parts. The first contains the period from the coming of the Saxons to the death of Harold, and is preserved in the public library of Cambridge. Whitaker, the historian of Manchester, speaks of this as evincing very little knowledge or judgment; the second part is probably a ms. in the library of the Royal Society, p. 137, with the title of” Britonum Anglorum et Saxonurn Historia.“In the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, is” Epitome Chronic. Ric. Cor. West. Lib. I.“Other works of our author are supposed to be preserved in the Lambeth library, and at Oxford. His theological writings were,” Tractatus super Symbolum Majus et Minus,“and” Liber de Officiis Ecclesiasticis,“in the Peterborough library. But the treatise to which he owes his celebrity, is that on the ancient state of Great Britain,” De situ Britanniae,“first discovered by Charles Julius Bertram, professor of the English language in the royal marine academy at Copenhagen, who transmitted to Dr. Stukeley a transcript of the whole in letters, together with a copy of the map. From this transcript Stukeley published an analysis of the work, with the itinerary, first in a thin quarto, 1757, and afterwards in the second volume of his ” Itinerarium Curiosum.“In the same year the original itself was published by professor Bertram at Copenhagen, in a small octavo volume, with the remains of Gildas and Nennius, under the title” Britannicarum gentium Historiae Antiquæ scriptores tres, Ricardns Corinensis, Gildas Badonicus, Nennius Banchorensis, &c.“This work has long been scarce, and in very few libraries; but in 1809, a new edition, with an English translation, &c. was published at London. To this the editor, Mr. Hatchard, has prefixed an account of Richard’s life, from which we have extracted the above particulars, and an able defence of his merit and fidelity as a historian, against the objections of certain writers. Among these we observe that Gibbon cannot be reckoned, for he says that Richard of Cirencester” shews a genuine knowledge of antiquity, very extraordinary for a monk of the fourteenth century.“This useful and accurate republication is entitled” The Description of Britain, translated from Richard of Cirencester; with the original treatise de situ Britanniæ; and a commentary on the Itinerary; illustrated with maps," 8vo.

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

, bishop of St. David’s in the fifteenth century, was, according to Fuller, a native of Hertfordshire, and took his name from Rudborne, a village near St. Alban’s; but Wood says he was born at Rodburne in Wiltshire. He studied at Merton college, Oxford, and became one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, and an able architect. He built the gateway and fine tower of Merton college, and probably the chapel, for that seems improperly given to bishop Rede. He was so much esteemed, that Henry V. who became acquainted with him when a student at Queen’s college, afterwards appointed him his chaplain, on his going to Franc previous to the battle of Agincourt. He received some ecclesiastical preferments, as the prebend of Horton in the church of Salisbury, the living of East Deping in Lincolnshire, and the archdeaconry of Sudbury. He served the office of proctor in the university, and was elected chancellor, but Wood thinks that if he accepted this office, he did not retain it long. In 1426 he was admitted warden of Merton college, which he appears to have resigned the following year. In 1433 he was promoted to the see of St. David’s, from which the king, Henry VI. would have translated him to Ely; but Wood says, “could not effect it.” He died about 1442. The tower and chapel of Merton will long remain monuments of his skill and taste. He was also a benefactor to the first public library in Oxford. Like the majority in his day, he was an opponent of the first attempts at reformation in religion, and in 1411 was one of the commissioners for suppressing Wickliff’s doctrines and writings. He wrote, according to Bale, a “Chronicle,” and some epistles “ad Thomam Waldenem et alios.” He must be distinguished from the Thomas Rudborne, whose “Historia Major Wintoniensis” is printed by Wharton in vol. I. of his “Anglia Sacra,” who was, however, a monk of Winchester about the middle of the same century, but survived bishop Rudborne.

, was a Benedictine monk, born in 1685, who became so learned in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in divinity, that Montfaucon too|i him into his friendship, and made him an associate with him in his studies. Montfaucon had published, in 1713, the remains of “Origen’s Hexapla;” and was very desirous, that a correct and complete edition should be given of the whole works of this illustrious father. His own engagements not permitting him, he prevailed with de la Rue, whose abilities and learning he knew to be sufficient for the work, to undertake it: and accordingly two volumes were published by him, in 1733, folio, with proper prefaces and useful notes. A third volume was ready for the press, when de la Rue died in 1739; and though it was published afterwards by his nephew, yet the edition of Origen not being quite completed, some remaining pieces, together with the “Origeniana” of Huetius, were published in 1759, as a fourth volume, and the whole reprinted in 1780 by Oberthur, at W-iselburg, in 15 vols, 8vo.

, a French theologian, was born at Rheims, June 10, 1657, and became a Benedictine monk in 1674. He studied the scriptures, the fathers, and ecclesiastical writers, in so masterly a way, that Mabillon chose him for a companion in his literary labours. He shewed himself not unworthy of the good opinion Mabillon had conceived of him, when he published, in 1689, “Acta Primorurn Martyrum,” &c. 4to, meaning the martyrs of the first four centuries. In a preface to this work, he endeavours to refute a notion, which our Dodwell had advanced in a piece “De paucitate Martyrum,” inserted among his “Dissertationes Cyprianicae.” A new edition of this work, with alterations and additions, was printed ie 1713, folio. Ruinart publisnec other learned works, as *' Hist, persecutionis Vandalicae,“”Jtor Literariinn in Alsatiam et Lotharingiain,“&c.; and assisted Mabillon, whom he survived, and whose life he wrote, in the publication of the acts of the saints, and annals of their order. He gave alsc -in excellent edition of the works of” Gregory of Tours, it Paris, 1699, in folio. When Mabillon died, in 1707, he was appointed to continue the work in which he had jointly laboured with him; upon which he travelled to Champagne, in quest of new memoirs, but on his return to Pads died Sept. 24, 1707.

, a celebrated Dutch admiral, was born at Flushing in 1607, and entered into the naval service of his country very early. Much of the early part of his life was spent in the service in the West Indies, to which he is said to have made eight voyages, and two to Brasil. Jn 1641 he was sent to the assistance of the Portuguese, who had thrown off the yoke of Spain, and on this occasion he was raised to the rank of rear-admiral. He afterwards rendered some important services on the Barbary coast, entering the road of Sallee in a single ship, although five Algerine corsairs disputed the passage. When war broke out, in 1652, between the English and Dutch, Van Tromp having been disgraced, De Ruyter was appointed to the command of a separate squadron, for the purpose of convoying home a rich fleet of merchantmen. He fell in with the English admiral Ayscough, with whom he had an engagement off Plymouth, in the month of August, which lasted two days, and terminated so far to the advantage of the Dutch, that he brought his convoy safe into port. In the following October De Ruyter aud De Witte had an action with Blake and Ayscough on the Flemish coast, which was severely contested; but De Ruyter, being deserted by some of his captains, found it advisable to retreat to his own coast, the loss having been Dearly equal on both sides. Van Tromp was now restored to the chief command, and De Ruyter had a squadron under him in the battle of December, offFolkstone, in which Blake was obliged to take shelter in the Thames. De Ruyter likewise distinguished himself in the terrible battle of three days, fought in February 1653, between Tromp and Blake, near the mouth of the Channel. In the month of June, Tromp and De Ruyter engaged Monk and Dean off Nieuport; and after a battle of two days, in which the two Dutch admirals successively rescued each other from imminent danger, the Dutch confessed their inferiority by retiring behind their own sand-banks, where having received a reinforcement, they were enabled to attack the English under Monk and Lawson, near Scheveling. In the final battle between the two fleets Tromp was killed, and De Ruyter compelled to withdraw his shattered ships to the Meuse. After the peace, which was concluded the following year, De Ruyter was sent to cruize in the Mediterranean, to reinforce Opdam; and this service being effected, he returned to his station, and put an end to the predatory warfare carried on by the French privateers. The Dutch having quarrelled with Portugal, De Ruyter exhibited his vigilance, taking several Portuguese ships at the mouth of the Tagus, and made several prizes from the Brazil fleet, till a want of provisions obliged him to return to Holland. War having recommenced between the Swedes and Danes in 1658, De Ruyter, who was sent with a fleet to the assistance of the latter, made a descent on the island of Funen, defeated the Swedes, and forced them to surrender at discretion in Nyborg, whither they had retired. He then wintered at Copenhagen, where the king of Denmark ennobled him for his services. In 1662 he was sent with a strong squadron to curb the insolence of the Barbary states, who had exercised their piracy upon the Dutch shipping, and succeeded entirely to the satisfaction of his employers. At the commencement of the disputes between Charles II. and the United Provinces, De Ruyter had a command on the coast of Africa, where he recovered the forts which had been taken from the Dutch by the English, and made prizes of some merchant ships. After the defeat of the fleet of Opdam by the duke of York in 1665, D Ruyter returned, and was raised to the rank of lieutenant-admiralgeneral of the Dutch navy. The first service of De Ruyter was to convoy home a fleet of merchantmen; and in June 1666, the great fleets of the two maritime powers met in the Downs; the Dutch commanded by De lluyter and Tromp, the English by prince Rupert, and Monk, now the duke of Albemarle. In the three days’ fight which ensued, the Dutch had the advantage, though the valour of the English rendered the contest very severe; and on the fourth, the English, who had been the greatest sufferers, withdrew to their harbours.

, a bishop of the old episcopal church of Scotland, a man of great learning and worth, and an able controversial writer in defence of the church to which he belonged, was born in 1652. He was the son of captain Sage, a gentleman of Fifeshire in Scotland, and an officer of merit in lord Duffus’s regiment, who fought on the side of the royalists when Monk stormed Dundee in 1651. Although, like many other royalists, he was scantily rewarded for his services, he was able to give his son a liberal education at school, and at the university of St. Andrew’s, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1672. He passed some years afterwards as schoolmaster of the parishes of Bingry in Fifeshire, and of Tippermoor in Perthshire, and as private tutor to the sons of a gentleman of fortune, whom he attended at school, and accompanied to the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1684, when his pupils left him, he removed from St. Andrew’s, and when uncertain what course to pursue, was recommended to archbishop Rose, who gave him priest’s orders, and advised him to officiate at Glasgow. Here he continued to display his talents till the revolution in 1688, when the presbyterian form of church government was established, and then went to Edinburgh. He preached in this city a while, but refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, was obliged to desist, and found an asylum in the house of sir William Bruce, the sheriff of Kinross, who approved his principles, and admired his virtues. Returning to Edinburgh in 1695, where he appears to have written some defences of the church to which he belonged, he was observed, and obliged again to retire. At length he found a safe retreat with the countess of Callendar, who employed him as chaplain, and tutor to her sons, and afterwards he lived with sir John Steuart of Garntully as chaplain, until Jan. 25, 1705, when he was consecrated a bishop. In the following year his health began to decay, and after trying the waters of Bath, in 1709, and change of air in other places, without much benefit, he died at Edinburgh June 7, 1711.

Cardinal Perron gave his opinion of father Paul in these terms “I see nothing eminent in that man he is a man of judgment and good sense, but has no great learning I observe his qualifications to be mere common -ones, and little superior to an ordinary monk’s.” But the learned Morhoff has justly remarked, that “this judgment of Perron is absurd and malignant, and directly contrary to the clearest evidence; since those who are acquainted with the great things done by father Paul, and with the vast extent of his learning, will allow him to be superior, not only to monks, but cardinals, and even to Perron himself.” Courayer, his French translator, says, that “in imitation of Erasmus, Cassander, Thuanus, and other great men, Paul was a Catholic in general, and sometimes a Protestant in particulars. He observed every thing in the Roman religion, which could be practised without superstition; and, in points which he scrupled, took great care not to scandalize the weak. In short, he was equally averse to all extremes: if he disapproved the abuses of the Catholics, he condemned also the too great heat of the reformed; and used to’say to those who urged him to declare himself in favour of the latter, that God had not given him the spirit of Luther.” Courayer likewise observes, that Paul wished for a reformation of the Papacy, and not the destruction of it; and was an enemy to the abuses and pretences of the popes, not their place.“We see by several of Paul’s letters, that he wished well to the progress of the reformation, though in a gentler manner than that which had been taken to procure it; and, if he himself had been silent on this head, we might have collected his inclinations this way, from circumstances relating to Fulgentio, the most intimate of his friends, and who was best acquainted with his sentiments. Burnet informs us, that Fulgentio preaching upon Pilate’s question,” What is Truth“told the audience, that at last, after many searches, he had found it out and holding forth a New Testament, said, it was there in his hand but, adds he, putting it again in his pocket,” the book is prohibited."

, a celebrated Italian monk, was born at Ferrara in 1452. In 1466 he became a Dominican at Bologna, and afterwards preached at Florence, but with very little success, and left the place. In 1489 he was invited by Lorenzo de Medici to return to Florence, where he became a very popular preacher. By pretensions to superior sanctity, and by a fervid eloquence, he hurried away the feelings of his hearers, and gained an ascendancy over their minds by his prophecies, which were directed both against church and state. Having by these means acquired a powerful influence, he began to despise the patronage of Lorenzo, and avoided his presence. After the death of Lorenzo, he placed himself at the head of a popular party in Florence, who aimed at the establishment of a free constitution. Savonarola seems to have promised them something between a republic and a theocracy. By such means his party became very formidable; and to flatter them yet more, he denounced terrible judgments to the court of Rome, and to the rest of the Italian states. In 1498 many complaints having been carried to Rome, in which he was accused of having reproached, in his sermons, the conduct of that court and the vices of the clergy, he was publicly excommunicated, which at first he regarded so far as to abstain from preaching, but finding that silence was considered as submission, and would ruin his cause, he resumed his function, and renewed his invectives against the pope and the court of Rome. But when the pope Alexander threatened to interdict the city, the magistrates commanded him to desist from preaching. At length he procured the assistance of a friar of his own convent, named Fra. Domenico da Pescia, who proposed to confirm his master’s doctrines by the ordeal of xvalking through the flames, provided any one of their adversaries would do the same. The challenge was accepted by a Franciscan friar, and a day was appointed for the trial. Savonarola, finding that the adverse party were not to be intimidated, proposed that Domenico should be allowed to carry the host with him into the fire. This was exclaimed against by the whole assembly as an impious and sacrilegious proposal. It was, however, insisted upon by Domenico, who thereby eluded the ordeal. But the result was fatal to the credit of Savonarola, who was deserted by the populace, apprehended and dragged to prison, and condemned to be first strangled and then burnt, which sentence was put into execution on the 23d of May, 1498.

About this time the covenanting presbyterians in Scotland split into two parties. The spirit raged with great violence; and the privy-council established in that country could not restrain it, and therefore referred them to Cromwell himself, then protector. These parties were called public resolutioners, and protestators or remonstrators. They sent deputies up to London the former, Mr. Sharp, knowing his activity, address, and penetration the latter, Mr. Guthrie, a noted adherent to the covenant. A day being appointed for hearing the two agents, Guthrie spoke first, and spoke so long that, when he ended, the protector told Sharp, he would hear him another time; for his hour ior other business was approaching. But Sharp begged to be heard, promising to be short; and, being permitted to speak, in a few words urged his cause so well as to incline Oliver to his party. Having succeeded in this important affair, he returned to the exercise of his function; and always kept a good understanding with the chief of the opposite party that were most eminent for worth and learning. When general Monk advanced to London, the chief of the kirk sent Sharp to attend him, to acquaint him with the state of things, and to put him in mind of what was necessary; instructing him to use his utmost endeavours to secure the freedom and privileges of their established judicatures; and to represent the sinfulness and offensiveness of the late established toleration, by which a door was opened to many gross errors and loose practices in their church.

The earl of Lauderdale and he had a meeting with ten of the chief presbyterian ministers in London, who all agreed upon the necessity of bringing in the king upon covenant terms. At the earnest desire of Monk and the leading presbyterians of Scotland, Sharp was sent over to king Charles to Breda, to solicit him to own the cause of presbytery. He returned to London, and acquainted his friends, “that he found the king very affectionate to Scotland, and resolved not to wrong the settled government of their church:” at last he came to Scotland, and delivered to some of the ministers of Edinburgh a letter from the king, in which his majesty promised to protect and preserve the government of the church of Scotland, “as it is settled by law.” The clergy, understanding this declaration in its obvious meaning, felt all the satisfaction which such a communication could not fail to impart; but Sharp, who had composed the letter, took this very step to hasten the subversion of the presbyterian church government, and nothing could appear more flagitious than the manner in which he had contrived it should operate. When the earl of Middleton, who was appointed to open the parliament in Scotland as his majesty’s commissioner, first read this extraordinary letter, he was amazed, and reproached Sharp for having abandoned the cause of episcopacy, to which he had previously agreed. But Sharp pleaded that, while this letter would serve to keep the presbyterians quiet, it laid his majesty under no obligation, because, as he bound himself to support the ecclesiastical government “settled by law,” parliament had only thus to settle episcopacy, to transfer to it the pledge of the monarch. Even Middleton, a man of loose morals, was shocked with such disingenuity, and honestly answered, that the thing might be done, but that for his share, he did not love the way, which made his majesty’s first appearance in Scotland to be in a cheat. The presbyterian government being overturned by the parliament, and the bishops restored, Sharp was appointed archbishop of St. Andrew’s; and still, in consistence with his treacherous character, endeavoured to persuade his old friends, that he had accepted this high office, to prevent its being filled with one who might act with violence against the presbyterians.

, an Italian annalist, was born in 1613, and was a monk of Parma, where he employed the leisure hours which a monastic life afforded, in writing- the history of his times. The confidence placed in him by political men, and the correspondence to which he had access, enabled him to penetrate into the secret motives and causes of actions and events, and gave an air of authenticity and consequence to his public communications. He is said to have been the first, in Italy at least, who published a kind of political journal under the name of “Memorie recondite,” afterwards collected into volumes. The first two having found their way into France, induced cardinal Mazarine to entertain a very high opinion of the author, and by his persuasion, Louis XIV. invited Siri to Paris. On his arrival, he was preferred to a secular abbey, and quitting his ecclesiastical functions, lived at court in great intimacy and confidence with the king and his ministers, and was made almoner and historiographer to his majesty. There, in 1677, he published the 3d and 4th volumes of his journal, and continued it as far as the eighth, 4to. This, says Baretti, is as valuable a history as any in Italian, though the style and language are but indifferent, and it is very difficult to find all the volumes. The period of time they include is from 1601 to 1640. He published also another work of a similar kind, called “11 Mercurio, owero istoria de' correnti Tempi,” from 1647 to 1682, which extends to fifteen 4to volumes, the two last of which are more difficult to be found than all the rest. The former work, however, is in most estimation on account of the historical documents it contains, which are always useful, whatever colouring an editor may please to give. Siri has not escaped the imputation of venality, especially in his attachment to the French court, yet Le Cierc observes (Bibl. Choisie, vol. IV.) that no French writer dared to speak so freely of the public men of that nation as Siri has done. There is a French translation of the “Memorie recondite,” under the title of “Memoires secrets,” which, Landi says, might have been much improved from Siri’s extensive correspondence with almost all the ministers of Europe, now extant in the Benedictine library of Parma, and among the private archives of Modena. Siri died in 1683, in the seventieth year of his age.

As to the fellowships, they were granted to those only among the Socii who had not forty livres, of Paris money, per annum, either from benefices or paternal inheritance; and when they became possessed of that income, they ceased to be fellows. A fellowship was worth about five sous and a half per week, and was held ten years. At the end of seven years all who held them were strictly examined, and if any one appeared incapable of teaching, preaching, or being useful to the public in some oilier way, he was deprived of his t<-!! /wship. Yet, as the founder was far from wishing to exclude the rich from his college, but, on the contrary, sought to inspire them with a taste for learning, and to revive a knowledge of the sciences among the clergy, he admitted associates, who were not fellows, “Socii uon Bursales.” These were subject to the same examinations and exercises as the Socii, with this only difference, that they paid fn - e sols and a half weekly to the honse, a sum eqnal to that which the fellows received. All the Socii bore and still bear the title of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House and Society of Sorbonne,” whereas the Hospites have only the appellation of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House of Sorbonne.” Their founder ordered that every thing should be managed and regulated by the Socii, and that there should be neither superior nor principal among them. Accord'ngly he forbade the doctors to treat the bachelors as pupils, or the bachelors to treat the doctors as masters, whence the ancient Sorbonists used to say, “We do not live together as doctors and bachelors, nor as masters and pupils; but we live as associates and equals.” In consequence of this equality, no monk of whatever order, has at any time been admitted “Socius of Sorbonne;” and from the beginning of the seventeenth century, whoever is received into the society takes an oath on the gospels, ' That he has no intention of entering any society or secular congregation, the members of which live in common under the direction of one superior, and that if after being admitted into the society of Sorbonne, he should change his mind, and enter any such other community, he will acknowledge himself from that time, and by this single art, to have forfeited all privileges of the society, as well active as passive, and that he will neither do nor undertake any thing contrary to the present regulation.“Robert de Sorbonne permitted the doctors and bachelors to take poor scholars, whom he wished to receive benefit from his house; and great numbers of these poor scholars proved very eminent men. The first professors in the Sorbonne were William de Saint Amour, Odon de Douai, Gerard de Rheims, Laurence the Englishman, Gerard ^'Abbeville, &c. They taught theology gratis, according to the founder’s intention; and from 1253, to the revolution, there have been always six professors at least, who gave lectures on the different branches of that science gratis, even before the divinity professorships were established. Fellowships were given to the poor professors, that is, to those whose incomes did not amount to forty livres; but it appears from the registers of the Sorbonne, that the first professors above mentioned, were very rich, consequently they were not fellows. Robert de Sorbonne ordered that there should always be some doctors in his college who applied particularly to the study of morality and casuistry; whence the Sorbonne has been consulted on such points ever since his time from all parts of the kingdom. He appointed different offices for the government of his college. The first is that of the Proviseur, who was always chosen from among the most eminent persons. Next to him is the Fn‘ciu’, chosen from the Socii bachelors, who presided in the assemblies of the society, at the Robertine acts, at the reading of the Holy Scriptures, at meals, and at the Sorboniques, or acts of the licentiates, for which he fixed the day; he also made two public speeches, one at the first, the other at the last of these. The keys of the gate were delivered up to him every night, and he was the first person to sign all the acts. The other offices are those of” Senieur, Conscripteur, Procureurs, Professors, Librarian, &c.“There is every reason to believe that the Sorbonne, from its foundation, contained thirty-six apartments, and it was doubtless in conformity to this first plan that no more were added when cardinal Richelieu rebuilt it in the present magnificent style. One, however, was afterwards added, making thirty-seven, constantly occupied by as many doctors and bachelors. After Robert de Sorbonne had founded his divinity college, he obtained a confirmation of it from the pope, and it was authorized by letters patent from St. Louis, uho had before given him, or exchanged with him, some houses necessary for that establishment in 1256, and 1258. He then devoted himself to the promotion of learning and piety in his college, and with success, for it soon produced such excellent scholars as spread its fame throughout Europe. Legacies and donations now flowed in from every quarter, which enabled the Sorbonists to study at their ease. The founder had aLvays a particular partiality for those who were poor, for although his society contained some very rich doctors, as appears from the registers and other monumeiHs remaining in the archives of the Sorbonne, yet his establishment had the poor principally in view, the greatest part of its revenues being appropriated to their studies and maintenance. He would even have his college called” the House of the Poor,“which gave rise to the form used by the Sorbonne bachelors, when they appear as respondents, or maintain theses in quality of Antique; and hence also we read on many Mss. that they belong to the” Pauvrcs Matures de Sorbonne.“The founder, not satisfied with providing sufficient revenues for his college, took great pains to establish a library. From the ancient catalogue of the Sorbonne library drawn up in 1289 and 1290, it appears to have consisted at that time of above a thousand volumes; but the collection increased so fast, that a new catalogue became necessary two years after, i. e. in 1292, and again in 1338, at which time the Sorbonne library was perhaps the finest in France. All the books of whatever value were chained to the shelves, and accurately ranged according to their subjects, beginning with grammar, the belles lettres, &c. The catalogues are made in the same manner, and the price of each book is marked in them. These Mss. are still in the house. Robert de Sorbonne (very different from other founders, who begin by laying down rules, and then make it their whole care to enforce the observance of them,) did not attempt to settle any statutes till he had governed his college above eighteen years, and then prescribed only such customs as he had before established, and of which the utility and wisdom were confirmed to him by long experience. Hence it is that no attempt towards reformation or change has ever been made in the Sorbonne; all proceeds according to the ancient methods and rules, and the experience of five centuries has proved that the constitution of that house is well adapted to its purposes, and none of the French colleges since founded have supported themselves in so much regularity and splendour. Robert de Sorbonne having firmly established his society for theological studies, added to it a college for polite literature and philosophy. For this purpose he. bought of William de Cambrai, canon of S. Jean de Maurienne, a house near the Sorbonne, and there founded the college tie Culvi, in 1271. This college, which was also called” the little Sorbonne,“became very celebrated by the great men xvho were educated there, and subsisted till 1636, when it was demolished by cardinal Richelieu’s order, and the chapel of the Sorbocne huilt upon the same spot. The cardinal had, however, engaged to erect another, which should belong equally to the house, and be contiguous to it; but his death put a stop to this plan: and to fulfil his promise in some degree, the family of Richelieu united the college du Plessis to the Sorbonne in 1648. Robert de Sorbonne had been canon of Paris from 1258, and became so celebrated as to be frequently consulted even by princes, and chosen for their arbiter on some important occasions.' He bequeathed all his property, which was very considerable, to the society of Sorbonne, and died at Paris, August 15, 1274, aged seventy-three, leaving several works in Latin. The principal are, a treatise on” Conscience,“another on” Confession,“and” The Way to Paradise,“all which are printed in the” Bibl. Patrum." He wrote also other things, which remain in ms. in the library. The house and society of Sorbonne is one of the four parts of the faculty of theology at Paris, but has its peculiar revenues, statutes, assemblies, and prerogatives.

, 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.”

, a Roman catholic writer, of considerable celebrity in his day, was the son of sir William Talbot, and was born in 1620, of an ancient family in the county of Dublin. He was brother to colonel Richard Talbot, commonly called, about the court of England, “Lying Dick Talbot,” whom James II. created duke of Tyrconnell, and advanced to the lieutenancy of IrelandPeter was received into the society of the Jesuits in Portugal in 1635, and after studying philosophy and divinity, went into holy orders at Rome, whence he returned to Portugal, and afterwards to Antwerp, where he read lectures on moral theology. He was supposed to be the person who, in 1656, reconciled Charles II. then at Cologn, to the popish religion, and Charles is reported to have sent him secretly to Madrid to intimate to the court of Spain his conversion. He was also sent by his superiors to England to promote the interests of the Romish church, which he appears to have attempted in a very singular way, by paying his c ourt to Cromwell, at whose funeral he attended as one of the mourners, and even joined Lambert in opposing general Monk’s declaration for the king. He fled therefore at the restoration, but was enabled to return the year following, when the king married the infanta of Portugal, and he became one of the priests who officiated in her family. His intriguing disposition, however, created feome confusion at court, and he was ordered to depart the kingdom. The Jesuits, too, among whom he had been educated, thought him too busy and factious to be retained in their society, and it is supposed that by their interest pope Clement IX. was prevailed upon to dispense with his vows, and to advance him to the titular archbishopric of Dublin, in 1669. On his return to Ireland he recommenced his services in behalf of the church of Rome, by excommunicating those regulars and seculars of his own persuasion who had signed a testimony of their loyalty to the king. His ambition and turbulence led him also to quarrel with Plunket, the titular primate, a quiet man^ over whom he claimed authority, pretending that the king had appointed him overseer of all the clergy of Ireland; but when this authority was demanded, he never could produce it. In 1670, when lord Berkeley landed as lord lieutenant, Talbot waited upon him, and being courteously received, had afterwards the presumption to appear before the council in his archiepiscopal character, a thing without a precedent since the reformation. He was, however, disniissed without punishment; but when the popish plot was discovered in England in 1678, he was imprisoned in the castle of Dublin, on suspicion of being concerned in it, and died there in 1680. He was a man of talents and learning, but vain, ambitious, and turbulent. Sotwell, Harris, and Dodd have enumerated several of his publications, which, says Dodd, are plausible, and generally in defence of the Jesuits, but some of them are virulent against the English church.

, styled by Dr. Burney, “the admirable,” was born in April 1692, at Pirano in the province of Istria. His father having been a great benefactor to the cathedral at Parenzo, was ennobled for his piety. Joseph was intended for the law, but taking up the study of music, among his other pursuits, it prevailed over all the rest in gaining his attachment. In 1710, he was sent to the university of Padua, to study as a civilian; but, before he was twenty, having married without the consent of his parents, they wholly abandoned him. After wandering for some time in search of an asylum, he was received in a convent at Assissi, by a monk to whom he was related. Here he amused himself by practising the violin, till being accidentally discovered by a Paduan acquaintance, family differences were accommodated, and he settled with his wife at Venice. While he remained there, he heard, ia 1714, the celebrated Veracini, whose performance, excelling every thing he had then heard, excited in his mind a wonderful emulation. He retired the very next day to Ancona, to study the use of the bow with more tranquillity, and attain, if possible, those powers of energy and expression which he had so greatly admired. By diligent study and practice, he acquired such skill and reputation, that iti 1721, he was invited to the place of first violin, and master of the band, in the famous church of St. Antony of Padua. He had also frequent invitations, which he declined, to visit Paris and London By 17i38, he had made many excellent scholars, and formed a school, or method of practice, that was celebrated all over Europe, and increased in fame to the end of his life. In 1744, he is said to have changed his style, from extremely difficult execution, to graceful and expressive; and Pasqualino Bini, one of his besfc scholars, having heard of the change, placed himself afresh under his tuition. This admirable musician, and worthy mail, for such he is represented, died Feb. 26, 1770, to the great regret of the inhabitants of Padua, where he had resided near fifty years; and where he was not only regarded as its chief and most attractive ornament, but as a philosopher, and even a saint, having devoted himself to the service of his patron St Antony of Padua.

, a writer famous among the mystical devotees, flourished in the fourteenth century. We have no certain account of the year or place of his birth, He was born in Germany, and became a monk of the Dominican order, and acquired great skill in philosophy and school-divinity; but he applied himself principally to mystical divinity; and as it was believed that he was favoured with revelations from heaven, he was styled the illuminated, divine. He had great talents for preaching, and there was no preacher in that age more followed than he. He reproved with great zeal and great freedom the faults of every body; and this made him odious to some monks, whose persecutions of him he bore patiently. He submitted witii the same resolution to other trials, and it was thought that he was thus visited by God, that he might not grow proud of the extraordinary gifts which he had received from heaven. The two principal cities in which he preached, were Cologne and Strasburg. He died in the latter after a long sickness, May 17, 1361, and was honourably interred there in the academical college, near the winter-auditory. He wrote several books; concerning which different judgments have been formed; some catholics have censured them, and some protestants have commended them. Among the latter, we may mention our Dr. Henry More, who exceedingly admired Taulerus’swork entitled “Theologia Germanica,” which Luther also praises. This was first translated from the German into Latin by Surius, and then by Sebastian Castalio, and went through a great many editions from 1518 to 1700, when it was printed in French at Amsterdam.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was a monk of Tarsus. He was ordained bishop by pope Vitalianus, and sent into England in the year 668, to govern the church of Canterbury. Being kindly received by king Egbert, he restored the faith, and promoted, or rather founded, a form of ecclesiastical discipline, which he is said to have exercised with great rigour, placing and displacing several bishops in an arbitrary manner, particularly those belonging to the diocese of York. He died Sept. 19, 690, aged eighty -eight. He is said to have imported into England a great many valuable Mss. Godwin mentions a Homer, extant in his time, of exquisite beauty. He is also the supposed founder of the school called Greeklade, whence arose the university of Oxford, but this is somewhat fabulous. What remains of his form of discipline, called the “Penitential,” and of his other works, has been collected by James Petit, and printed at Paris, 1677, 2 vols. 4to, with learned notes.

In Feb. 1658 he was made chancellor of the university of Glasgow; and, in June following, concurred with Whitelocke in advising the protector to leave the persons who had been detected in a plot, to be proceeded against in the ordinary course of trials at the common law, and not by an high court of justice; it being always his opinion, that the forms and rules of the old constitution should, on every occasion, be inviolably preserved, especially in the administration of justice. Upon the death of Oliver, he was continued in the post of secretary and privy counsellor to his successor Richard; though he was very obnoxious to the principal persons of the army, to whose interests, whenever they interfered with those of the civil government, he was a declared enemy: and their resentment against him on that account was carried to so great a height, that they accused him as an evil counsellor, and one who was justly formidable by the ascendant he had gained over the new protector. For this reason, in Nov. 1658, he desired leave to retire from public business; in hopes that this might tend to quiet things, and facilitate the protector’s affairs with the army: but he was induced still to continue in his employment; and, in December, was chosen member of parliament for the university of Cambridge. He was returned likewise for the tpwn and borough of Wisbech, and for the borough of Huntingdon; but made his election for Cambridge, where he had a greater number of votes than had ever been known on a similar occasion. In April 1659, he used his utmost efforts to dissuade the protector from dissolving the parliament; a step which proved fatal to his authority, though, upon his quitting it, Thurloe still continued in his office of secretary till Jan. 14, 1660. It was then conferred on Thomas Scott, esq.; but on Feb. 27, upon a report of the council of state, the parliament resolved, that Thurloe should be again one of the secretaries of state, and John Thomson, esq. the other. In April 1660, he made an offer of his service for the restoration of Charles II. as appears from a letter of chancellor Hyde to sir John Grenville, in which his lordship observes, that Mr. Thurloe' s offers were very frank, and accompanied with many great professions of resolving to serve his majesty, not only in his own endeavours, but likewise by the services of his friends; but that these offers were mixed with somewhat of curiosity in Mr. Thurloe, who was very inquisitive to know whether his majesty had any confidence in general Monk, or had approached him in the right way: which he desired to know, only to finish what was left undone, or be able the better to advise his majesty. The king returned such answers as were proper, and desired to see some effects of his good affection; and that then he would find his services more acceptable. However, on May 15 following, he was committed by the House of Commons to the custody of their serjeant at arms, upon a charge of high treason; but was soon released, and retired to Great Milton in Oxfordshire, where he generally resided, except in term-time, when he came to his c;, bers at Lincoln’s-inn. He was of great use occasionally to the chancellor Clarendon, by the instructions he gave him with respect to the state of foreign affairs; of which there is a very remarkable instance among his state-papers, in the recapitulation he drew up of all the nei>ociations between England, France, and Spain, from the lime of Cromwell’s taking upon him the protectorship till the restoration. He was likewise often solicited by Charles II. to engage in the administration of public business, but thought proper to decline those offers. He died suddenly, at his chambers in Lincoln’s-inn, Feb. 21, 1668, aged fifty-one; and was interred under the chapel there with an inscription over his grave. He was twice married, first to a lady of the name of Peyton, by whom he had two sons who died before him; and secondly to Anne, third daughter of sir John Lytcote of East Moulsey in Surrey, by whom he had four sons and two daughters.

In 1713 he published “An Appeal to honest People, against wicked Priests,” relating to Sachevereirs affair; aixi another pamphlet called “Dunkirk or Dover, or, the queen’s honour, the nation’s safety, the liberties of Europe, and the peace of the world, all at stake, till that fort and port be totally demolished by the French.” In 1714- he published a piece which shewed that he was very attentive to times and seasons, for it ran through ten editions within a quarter of a year: the title is, “The art of Restoring, or, the piety and probity of general Monk in bringing about the last restoration, evidenced from his own authentic letters; with a just account of sir Roger, who runs the parallel as far as he can.” This sir Roger was intended for the earl of Oxford, who was supposed to be then projecting schemes for the restoration of the Pretender. The same year, 1714, he produced “A collection of Letters by general Monk, relating to the restoration of the royal family;” “The Funeral Elegy of the princess Sophia,” translated from the Latin; and “Reasons for naturalizing the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland, on the same foot with all other nations; with a defence of the Jews against all vulgar prejudices in all countries. He prefixed to this an ingenious, but ironical dedication to the superior clergy. In 1717 he published” The State Anatomy of Great Britain," &c. which being answered by Dr. Fiddes, chaplain to the earl of Oxford, and by )aniel De Foe, he produced 9 second part, by way of vindication of the former.

an illustrious mathematician and philosopher of Italy, was born at Faenza, in 1608, and was trained in Greek and Latin literature by an uncle who was a monk, Natural inclination led him to cultivate mathematical knowledge, which he pursued some time without a master; but, at about twenty years of age, he went to Rome, where he continued the pursuit of it under father Benedict Castelli. Castelli had been a scholar of the great Galilei, and had been called by pope Urban VIII. to be a professor of mathematics at Rome. Torricelli made so extraordinary a progress under this master, that, having read Galilei’s “Dialogues,” he composed a “Treatise concerning Motion” upon his principles. Castelli, astonished at the performance, carried it and read it to Galilei, who heard it with much pleasure, and conceived a high esteem and friendship for the author. Upon this Castelli proposed to Galilei, that Torricelli should come and live with him; recommending him as the most proper person he could have, since he was the most capable of comprehending those sublime speculations which his own great age, infirmities, and, above all, want of sight, prevented him from giving to the world. Galilei accepted the proposal, and Torricelli the employment, as things of all others the most advantageous to each. Galilei was at Florence, whither Torricelli arrived in 1641, and began to take down what Galilei dictated, to regulate his papers, and to act in every respect according to his directions. But he did not enjoy the advantages of this situation long, for at the end of three months Galilei died. Torricelli was then about returning to Rome. But the grand duke Ferdinand II. engaged him to continue at Florence, making him his own mathematician for the present, and promising him the chair as soon as it should be vacant. Here he applied himself intensely to the study of mathematics, physics, and astronomy, making many improvements and some discoveries. Among others, he greatly improved the art of making microscopes and telescopes; and it is generally acknowledged that he first found out the method of ascertaining the weight of the atmosphere by a proportionate column of quicksilver, the barometer being called from him the Torricellian tube, and Torricellian experiment. In short, great things were expected from him, and great things would probably have been farther performed by him if he had lived; but he died, after a few days illness, in 1647, when he was but just entered the fortieth year of his age.

, an ancient historian, of the eleventh century, was an Anglo-Saxon, of a good family in Lincolnshire. When a young man, he was delivered by the people of Lindsay, as one of their hostages, to William the Conqueror, and confined in the castle of Lincoln. From thence he made his escape to Norway, and resided several years in the court of king Olave, by whom he was much caressed and enriched. Returning to his native country, he was shipwrecked on the coast of Northumberland, by which he lost all his money and effects, escaping death with great difficulty. He then travelled to Durham; and applying to Walter, bishop of that see, declared his resolution to forsake the world, and become a monk; in which he was encouraged by that pious prelate, who committed him to the care of Aldwine, the first prior of Durham, then at Jarrow. From that monastery he went to Melross; from thence to Wearmouth, where he assumed the monastic habit; and lastly returned to Durham, where he recommended himself so much to the whole society, by his learning, piety, prudence, and other virtues, that, on the death of Aidwine, in 1087, he was unanimously chosen prior, and not long after was appointed by the bishop archdeacon of his diocese. The monastery profited greatly by his prudent government; the privileges were enlarged, and revenues considerably increased by his influence; and he promoted many improvements in the sacred edifices. In this office he spent the succeeding twenty years of his life, sometimes residing in the priory, and at other times visiting the diocese, and preaching in different places. At the end of these twenty years, he was, in 1107, elected bishop of St. Andrew’s and primate of Scotland, and consecrated by archbishop Thomas, at York, Aug. 1, 1109. Dissentions arising between our archbishop and the king of Scotland, the prelate’s anxiety and distress of mind brought on a decline of health, under which he obtained permission to return to England; and came back to Durham in 1115, where he resided little more than two months before his death. Stevens, in the “Monasticon,” says that he returned to Durham after the death of king Malcolm and his queen; and Spotiswood, in his “Church History,” that he died in Scotland, and was thence conveyed to and buried at Durham, in the Chapter-house, between bishops Walcher and William.

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

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

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

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

, a learned divine in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in the north of England, and educated at the university of Cambridge, whence, after taking his degrees in arts, he went abroad to study the Oriental languages. In a few years he made a considerable progress in the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac; and taught those languages both in Paris and in Germany. In 1519 he was Hebrew professor at Louvain, but after holding that office only a few months, he returned home, and became chaplain to Dr. Pace, then dean of St. Paul’s, who recommending him to the king as an able linguist, he was sent to Cambridge, and there honoured with the degree of B. D. which qualified him for ecclesiastical preferments. When the controversy relating to king Henry VIII.'s divorce commenced, Wakefield is said to have been of the queen’s party, and thought the divorce unjustifiable, but was afterwards induced to be of the king’s opinion. Dodd says that the reason he gave for changing sides was the circumstance of prince Arthur’s having consummated the marriage, of which he was not before aware; and Dodd adds, that “as the world is apt to judge the worst of things of this nature, Mr. Wakefield was represented as a mercenary writer, especially by those that maintained the queen’s cause.” We have, however, the evidence of another Roman catholic biographer that the world was not much to blame for its unfavourable opinion. Phillips, in his Life of cardinal Pole, assures us, that a letter is extant, “to Wakefield’s eternal infamy,” addressed by secretary Pace to the king, in which he informs him, that “he had treated with Dr. Wakefield of the divorce, and that the doctor was ready to solve the question, either in the negative or affirmative, just as the king thought proper, and in such a manner as all the divines in England should not be able to make any reply.” This letter is dated 1526. Accordingly he soon after wrote a work in favour of the divorce; and in 1530, the king sent him to Oxford, and made him public professor of Hebrew; by which means he had an opportunity of being more serviceable to his majesty. In 1532, he was made a canon of Wolsey’scollege, and incorporated bachelor of divinity. He appears to have been a lover of learning, and when, in 1536, the lesser monasteries were dissolved, he took care to save from destruction several valuable books and Mss. especially such as were in Greek and Hebrew; and, among others, several curious Mss. in Ramsay-abbey, particularly a Hebrew dictionary, which had been lodged there by Robert Holbeach, a monk of that monastery in the reign of Henry IV. Wakefield died at London, Oct. 8, 1537. He left some learned works, as, 1, “Oratio de laudibus et militate trium linguarum, Arabics, Chaidaicae, et liebraicae, atque id -viaicis qua- ii utfoque Testajnr- io niveniuntur,” 15^4, 4to. Thepmuei w. Wynix lie Worde; and the author complains, that he was obliged to omit his whole third part, because the printer had no Hebrew types. Some few Hebrew and Arabic characters, however, are introduced, but extremely rude, and evidently cut in wood. They are the first of the sort used in England. 2. “Koster Codicis,” &c. the same mentioned by Bale and Pits, with the title “De non ducenda fratria,” and is the book he wrote in favour of king Henry’s -divorce, Lond. 1628, 4to. Tanner and Wood attribute other pieces to him, but they are probably in ms. except “Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum incorruptione,” 4to, without date; and " Paraphrasis in Hbrum Koheleth (Ecclesiasticen) succincta, clara, et fidelis, 4to.

, a Carmelite monk of great learning in the fourteenth century, was born at Walden in Essex, about 1367. His father’s name was John Netter, but he chose to be denominated, as indeed was very commoil then, from the place of his nativity. He was educated among the Carmelites in London, whence he removed for the farther prosecution of his studies to Oxford. Here he continued some years, and received the degree of doctor in divinity, after which he returned to London, and took the habit of the Carmelites. Being introduced at the court of Henry IV. he became a favourite with the king, and was appointed the principal champion of the church against heretics, and especially those who had adopted the tenets of Wickliff, Huss, or Jerome of Prague. In 1409 he was sent by the king to the grand council at Pisa, where he is said to have been much admired for his eloquence and learning. After his return to England, he was made provincial of his order; and Henry V. admitted him of his privy-council, and appointed him his confessor. In 1415 he was sent to the council of Constance, and about 1419, was employed to negociate peace between Uladislaus, king of Poland, and Michael, general of the Teutonic order. In 1422 the king died in the arms of Waldensis, at Vincennes in France. He became afterwards a favourite with the young king Henry VI. and was appointed his confessor. In 1430 he attended the king to France, and at Roan was seized with an acute disease, of which he died Nov. 2, and was buried in the convent of Carmelites in that city. He appears to have been a man of abilities; Pits says that he was master of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in general a polite scholar. His principal work, the only one printed, is his “Doctrinale antiquum fidei ecclesias catholicse,” Paris, 1521—1523, 3 vols, folio, and reprinted at Saumur, Venice, and Paris. Mr. archdeacon Churton, in his valuable Lives of the founders of Brasenose-college, informs us, that the bishop of Lincoln, Russel, being harassed and fatigued, as he feelingly complains, with the multitude of heretics at Oxford in 1491, met with this book of Waldensis, and resolved to make extracts from it (vol. III. “de sacramentalibus”), for the more speedy and effectual refutation of the “insane dogmas, with which, he says, so many of his countrymen were infected.” Having framed his compendium with great care, by a written injunction under his own hand he ordered it to be preserved in the registry of the see, for the benefit of his successors in their examinations of “heretical depravity;” pronouncing an anathema at the same time against any one who should obliterate the title, expressive of the design of the performance and the name of the compiler. The original copy of this “touchstone of error,” which was completed at Woburn on the feast of the Epiphany 1491-2, is still extant in the library of University-college, Oxford.

, D. D. and F. R, S. was an English Benedictine monk, and a Roman catholic bishop also senior bishop and vicar apostolic of the western district, as well as doctor of theology of the Sorbonne. He died at Bath in 1797, in the seventy-sixth year of his age; and the forty-first of his episcopacy. He was the last survivor of those eminent mathematicians who were concerned in regulating the chronological style in England, which produced a change of the style in this country in 1752. Besides some ingenious astronomical essays in the Philosophical Transactions, he printed several separate works, both on mathematics and theology; as, 1. “Analyse cles Mesures des Rapports et des Angles,” 1749, 4to, being an extension and explanation of Cotes’ s '“Harmonia Mensurarum.” 2. “Theorie du monument des Aspides,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “De inaequalitatibus motuum Lunarium,” 1758, 4to. 4. “An Explanation of the Apocalypse, Ezekiel’s Vision,” &c. By the fire at Bath in the time of the riots, 1780, several valuable manuscripts which he had compiled in the course of his life and travels through many countries, were irretrievably lost.

, ar learned and laborious divine, grandson to bishop Sparrow, was born in December 1689,. and having been admitted a student of Caius-college, Cambridge, there took his degrees of B. A. 1711, M. A. 1716, and D. D. 1752. In 1715 he was made curate of St. Dunstan in the West, London; and in 1725, edited the “Life of General Monk,” from the original manuscript of Dr. Skinner. This volume he Dedicated to the countess Granville, and to John lord Gower, who were descended from the family of Monk. His next production was, “The Clergy’s Right of Maintenance vindicated,” 8vo, which is also inscribed to lord Gower, who was afterwards his patron.

Besides his skill in the law, he is said to have been an able antiquary, and in this character is chiefly known by his “Historiarum Britannise insulae ab origine mundi ad ann. Dom. octingentesimum, libri noveui,” Douay, 1602. The object of this history, according to Nicolson, is to assert the rights of the papacy in this kingdom; and therefore, having settled religion by Augustine, the monk, and other emissaries, he ends his story in the year 800, He is said to have been first noticed by the learned world for the explanation he gave of the well-known enigmatical epitaph near Bononia in Italy. This he published under the title of “Ælia Laelia Crispis. Epitaphium antiquum in agro Bononiensi adhuc videtur a diversis interpretation varienovissime autem a Richardo Vjto Basingstochio, amicorum precibus explicatum.” Padua, 4to, 1568. Two other publications are attributed to him, “Orationes quinque,” 1596, 8vo, which was read as a classic at Winchester school; “Notse ad leges Decemvirorum in xii tabulas,” 159.7, 8vo; “Explicatio brevis privilegiorum juris et consuetudinis circa ven. sacramentum eucharistiae,” Douay, 1609, 8vo; and “De reliquiis et veneratione Sanctorum,” ibid. 1609. It is said there is a tenth and eleventh book of his history in existence, a copy of which was in Mr. West’s Catalogue.

With these acquisitions, he did not hastily obtrude the novel opinions to which they had given rise. He was thirty-six years of age before his talents appeared to the world, and even then they were called forth rather by necessity than choice. In 1360 he became the advocate for the university against the incroachments made by the mendicant friars, who had been very troublesome from their first establishment in Oxford in 1230, and had occasioned great inquietude to the chancellor and scholars, by infringing their statutes and privileges, and setting up an exempt jurisdiction. Their misconduct had decreased the number of students from thirty thousand to six thousand, parents being afraid to send their children to the university, where they were in danger of being enticed by these friars from the colleges into convents; and no regard was paid to the determination of parliament in 1366, that the friars should receive no scholar under the age of eighteen. But Wickliffe now distinguished himself against these usurpations, and, with Thoresby, Bolton, Hereford, and other colleagues, openly opposed the justification which the friars had advanced in favour of their begging trade from the example of Christ and his apostles. Wickliffe also wrote several tracts against them, particularly “Of Clerks Possessioners,” “Of the Poverty of Christ, against able Beggary,” and “Of Idleness in Beggary.” These were written, with an elegance uncommon in that age, in the English language, of which he may be considered as one of the first refiners, while his writings afford many curious specimens of old English orthography. His controversies gave him such reputation in the university, that, in 1361 he was advanced to be master of Baliol college; and four years after he was made warden of Canterbury-hall, founded by Simon de Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1361, and now included in Christ-church. The letters of institution, by which the archbishop appointed him to this wardenship, were dated 14 Dec. 1365, and in them he is styled, “a person in whose fidelity, circumspection, and industry, his grace very much confided; and one on whom he had fixed his eyes for that place, on account of the honesty of his life, his laudable conversation, and knowledge of letters.” Wickliffe amply fulfilled these expectations, till the death of the archbishop in 1366, who was succeeded in che archiepiscopal dignity by Simon Langham. This prelate had been a monk, and being inclined to favour the religious against the seculars, was easily persuaded by the morrks of Canterbury to eject Wickliffe in 1367 from his wardenship, and the other seculars from their fellowships. He also issued out his mandate, requiring WicklifFe and all the scholars to yield obedience to Wodehall as their warden. This Wodehall had actually been appointed warden by the founder, but he was at such variance with the secular scholars, that the archbishop was compelled to turn him and three other monks out of his new-founded hall, at which time he appointed Wickliffe to be warden, and three other seculars to be scholars. The scholars now, however, refused to yield obedience to Wodehall, as being contrary to the oath they had taken to the founder, and Langham, irritated at their obstinacy, sequestered the revenue, and took away the books, &c. belonging to the balL Wickliffe, and his expelled fellows, appealed to the pope, who issued a bull, dated at Viterbo 28 May, 1370, restoring Wodehall and the monks, and imposing perpetual silence on Wickliffe and his associates. As this bull was illegal, and interfered with the form of the licence of mortmain, the monks in 1372 screened themselves by procuring the royal pardon, and a confirmation of the papal sentence, for which they paid 200 marks, nearly 800l. of our money.

, a nonconformist divine, poet, and wit, was born at St. Ives in Huntingdonshire in 1609, and was educated at the university of Cambridge. In 1642 he was created bachelor of divinity at Oxford, and, probably had the degree of doctor there also, as he was generally called Dr. Wild. In 1646 he was appointed rector of Aynho in Northamptonshire, in the room of Dr. Longman, ejected by the parliamentary visitors; and on this occasion Calamy’s editor gives us one of his witticisms. He and another divine had preached for the living, and Wild being asked whether he or his competitor had got it, he answered “We have divided it; I have got the Ay, and he the No.” Wood says he was “a fat, jolly, and boon presbyterian,” but Calamy asserts that those who knew him commended him not only for his facetiousness, but also his strict temperance and sobriety; and he was serious, where seriousness was wanted. He was ejected from Aynho at the restoration. He died at Oundle, in Northamptonshire in 1679, aged seventy. His works afford a curious mixture. 1. “The tragedy of Christopher Love at Tower-hill,” Lond. 1660, a poem in one sheet 4to. 2. “Iter Boreaie, attempting something upon the successful and matchless march of the L Gen. George Monk from Scotland to London,” ibid. 1660, 4to, in ridicule of the republican party. This was at that time a favourite subject, and Wood mentions three other Iter Borealt’s by Eades, Corbet, and Master. 3. “A poem on the imprisonment of Mr. Edmund Calamy in Newgate,” 1662, printed on a broad sheet, which produced two similar broadsheets in answer, the one “Antiboreale, an answer to a lewd piece of poetry upon Mr. Calamy, &c.” the other “Hudibras on Calamy’s imprisonment and Wild’s poetry.” These, with his Iter Boreaie, and other pieces of a similar cast and very indifferent poetry, but with occasional flashes of genuine humour, were published together in 1668 and 1670. Wood mentions “The Benefice, a comedy,” written in his younger years, but not printed till 1689. Wood adds, that there “had like to have been” a poetical war between Wild and Flaxman, but how it terminated he knows not. Wild had the misfortune to have some of his poems printed along with some of lord Rochester’s. He has a few serrrjons extant.

, called also Baramus, a monk of the sixth century, rendered himself conspicuous in the Eastern church by reviving the sect of the Monophysites, founded by Eutyches, and called from him Eutychians. Their doctrine was, that in Christ there is but one nature, that of the incarnate word. The sect was now reduced to very few, but these had ordained Zanzalus bishop of Edessa, and by his uncommon zeal and indefatigable labours, he left his sect, when he died in 588, in a most flourishing state in Syria, Mesopotamia* Armenia, Egypt, &c. and other countries, and such as exist in those countries are still called by the name of Jacobites in honour of him.

Dr. Zimmermann was unhappy in the fate of his children. His amiable daughter, whom he most tenderly loved, fell in,to a lingering malady soon after she left Lausanne: it continued five years, and then carried her off. His son, who, from his infancy, was troubled with an acrid humour, after various vicissitudes of nervous affections, settled in perfect idiotcy in which state he remained at his father’s death. To alleviate these distresses^ a second marriage properly occurred to the mind of his friends, and they chose for him a most suitable companion, in the daughter of Dr. de Berger, king’s physician at Lunenberg. This union took place in 1782, and proyed the greatest charm and support of all his remaining life. Jiis l.ady was thirty years youngerthan he;but s,he perfectly Accommodated herself to his taste, and induced him to cultivate society abroad and at home more than he had hitherto done. About this time he employed himself in completing his favourite work on “Solitude,” which, at the distance of thirty years from the publication of the first essay on the subject, appeared in its new form in the years 178^ and 1786, in four volumes. His ideas of solitude had probably been softened by so long an intercourse with the world and as he now defined it, “that state of the soul in which it abandons itself freely to its reflections,” it was not necessary to become either a monk or an anchorite, in orderto partake of its benefits. Had it not been presented under such an accommodating form, a philosopher might have smiled at the circumstance of a recommendation of solitude from a court physician becoming t.he favourite wojrk of one of the most splendid and ambitious of crowned jbeads. The empress of Russia sent her express thanks to the author for the pleasure which she had derived from the work, accompanied with a magnificent present, and commenced with hjrri a regular correspondence, which subsisted, with great freedom onher part, till 1792, when she suddenly dropped it. She also gave him an invitation to settle at Petersburgh as her first physician; and, on his declining the offer, she requested his recommendation of medical practitioners for her towns and armies, and conferred on him the order of Wladomir. One of the most distinguished incidents of Zimmermann’s life was the summons which he received to attend the great Frederic in his last illness, in 1786. It was at once evident that there was no room for the exercise of his medical skill; but he improved the opportunity which he thus enjoyed of confidential intercourse with that illustrious character, whose mental faculties were pre-eminent to the last; and 'he derived from it the materials of an interesting narrative which he afterwards published. The partiality of this prince in his favour naturally disposed him to a reciprocal good opinion of the monarch; and, in 17S8, he published “A Defence of Frederic the Great against the count de Mirabeau” which, in 1790, was followed by “Fragments on Frederic the Great,” in 3 vols. 12mo. All his publications relative to this king gave offence to many individuals, and subjected him to severe criticism; which he felt with more sensibility than was consistent with his peace of mind. His religious and political opinions, likewise, in his latter years, began to be in wide contradiction to the principles that were assiduously propagated all over Europe; and this added perpetual fuel to his irritability. The society of the Illuminated, coalesced with that of Free-masons, rose about this time in Germany, and excited the most violent commotions among men of letters and reflection. It was sup­'posed to have in view nothing less than the abolition of Christianity, and the subversion of all constituted authorities; and, while its partizans expected from it the most beneficial reforms of every kind, its opponents dreaded from it every mischief that could possibly happen to mankind. Zimmerrnann was among the first that took alarm at this formidable accusation. His regard for religion and social order, and, perhaps, his connexions with crowned heads, made him see in the most obnoxious light all the principles of the new philosophers. He attacked them with vigour, formed counter associations with other men of letters, and, at length, addressed to the emperor Leopold a memoir, painting in the strongest colouring the pernicious maxims of the sect, and suggesting the means of suppressing -it; means which are said to have depended on the decisive interference of civil authority. Leopold, who was well inclined to such measures, received his memoir very graciously, and sent him a letter and splendid present in return; but his death, soon after, deprived the cause of its most powerful protection. Ziminermann, however, in conjunction with M. Hoffman of Vienna, who had instituted a periodical work on the old principles, did not relax in his zeal. They attacked, and were attacked in turn; and Zimrnermann embroiled himself with the courts of law by a paper published in Hoffman’s Journal, entitled “The Baron de Knigge unmasked as an Illuminate, Democrat, and Seducer of the People.” As this charge was in part founded on a work not openly avowed by the baron, 3, prosecution was instituted against Zimmermann as a libeller, and he was unable to exculpate himself. This state of warfare may well be imagined to have been extremely unfriendly to an irritable system of nerves; and, the agitation of the doctor’s mind was further increased by his personal fears on the approach of the French towards the electorate of Hanover in 1794; and his mancer of expressing his fears announced the greatest depression. “I saw therein,” says Tissot, “a mind whose springs began to fail, and which dared no longer say, as it could have justly done, `I carry every thing with me.‘ I neglected nothing in order to raise his spirits, and entreated him. to come to me with his wife, to a country that was his own, where he would have remained in the most perfect security, and enjoyed all the sweets of peace and friendship. He answered me in December, and one part of his letter resembled those of other times; but melancholy was still more strongly marked, and the illness of his wife, which he unfortunately thought more serious than it really was, evidently oppressed him: he had been obliged to take three days to write me details which at another time would not have occupied him an hour, and he concluded his letter with, 1I conjure you, perhaps for the last time, &c.’ The idea that he should write no more to his friend (and unfortunately the event justified him), the difficulty of writing a few pages, the still fixed idea of being forced to leave Hanover,although the face of affairs had entirely changed all, all indicated the loss I was about to sustain.” From the month of November he had lost his sleep, his appetite, his strength, and became sensibly thinner; and this stated of decline continued to increase. In January he was still able to make a few visits in his carriage; but he frequently fainted on the stairs: it was painful for him to write a prescription: he sometimes complained of a confusion in his head, and he at length gave over all business. This was at first taken for an effect of hypochondria, but it was soon perceived, that his deep melancholy had destroyed the chain of his ideas. What has happened to so many men of genius, befell him. One strong idea masters every other, and subdues the mind that is no longer able either to drive it away, or to lose sight of it. Preserving all his presence of mind, all his perspicuity, and justness of thought on other subjects, but no longer desirous of occupying himself with them, no longer capable of any business, nor of giving advice, but with pain^he had unceasingly before his eyes the enemy plundering his house, as Pascal always saw a globe of fire near him, Bonnet his friend robbing him, and Spinello the devil opposite to him, In February he commenced taking medicines, which were either prescribed by himself or by the physicians whom he consulted; at the beginning of March he desired Tissot' s advice; but he was no longer able himself to describe his disorder, and his wife wrote Tissot the account of it. Tissot answered her immediately; but there could be no great utility in the directions of an absent physician in a disorder whose progress was rapid, and with an interim of near a month between the advice asked, and the directions received. His health decayed so fast, that M. Wichman, who attended him, thought a journey and change of air would now be the best remedy. Eutin, a place in the dutchy of Holstein, was fixed upon for his residence. Ingoing through Luneburgh on his way thither, M. Lentin, one of the physicians Jn whom he placed most confidence, was consulted; but Zimmermann, who, though so often uneasy on account of health, had, notwithstanding, the wisdom to take few medicines, and who did not like them, always had a crowd of objections to make against the b.est advice, and did nothing. Arrived at Eutin, an old acquaintance and his family lavished on him all the caresses of friendship. This reception highly pleased him, and he grew rather better. M. Hensler came from Kiel to see him, and gave him his advice, which was probably very good, but became useless, as it was very irregularly followed. At last, after a residence of three months, he desired to return to Hanover, where he entered his house with the same idea with which he had left it; he thought it plundered, and imagined himself totally ruined. Tissot wrote to intreat him to go to Carlsbad;but he was no longer capable of bearing the journey. Disgust, want of sleep, and weakness, increased rapidly; he took scarcely jftiy nourishment, either on account of insurmountable Aversion, or because it was painful to him; or perhaps, as M. Wichman believed, because he imagined he had not a farthing left. Intense application, the troubles of his mind, his pains, want of sleep, and of sufficient nourishment, had on him all the effects of time, and hastened old age: at sixty -six he was in a state of complete decrepitude, and his body was become a perfect skeleton. He clearly foresaw the issue of his disorder: and above six weeks before his death be said to jthis same physician, “I shall die slowly, but very pain fu)ly;” and fourteen hours before he expired, he said, “Leave me alone, I am dying.” He expired Oct. 7, 1795. Most of the works mentioned above have been translated into English, and that on solitude particularly has acquired a considerable degree of popularity.