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

Corregio’s exclamation upon viewing a picture by Raphael is well known. Having long been accustomed to hear the most unbounded applause bestowed on the works of that divine painter, he by degrees became less desirous than afraid of seeing any of them. One, however, heat last had occasion to see. He examined it attentively for some minutes in profound silence; and then with an air of satisfaction exclaimed, “I too am a painter.” Julio Romano, on seeing some of Corregio’s pictures at Parma, declared they were superior to any thing in painting he had yet beheld. One of these no doubt would be the famous Virgin and Child, with Mary Magdalene and St. Jerom.

“The excellency of Corregio’s manner,” says sir Joshua Reynolds, “has justly been admired by all succeeding painters. This manner is in direct opposition to what is called the dry and hard manner which preceded him. His colour, and his mode of finishing, approach nearer to perfection than those of any other painter; the gliding motion of his outline, and the sweetness with which it melts into the ground; the cleanness and transparency of his colouring, which stop at that exact medium in which the purity and perfection of taste lies, leave nothing to be wished for.”

, a celebrated engraver, was born at Hoorn in Holland in 1536. After having learned the-first principles of drawing and engraving, he went to Italy to complete his studies, and visited all the places famous for the works of the great masters. At Venice he was courteously received by Titian; and engraved several plates from the pictures of that admirable painter. He at last settled at Rome, where he died, 1578, aged forty -two. According to Basan, he was the best engraver with the burin or graver only that Holland ever produced. “We find in his prints,” adds he, “correctness of drawing, and an exquisite taste.” He praises also the taste and lightness of touch with which he engraved landscapes, and that without the assistance of the point. It is no small honour to this artist, that Agostino Carracci was his scholar, and imitated his style of engraving rather than that of any other master. His engravings are very numerous (151 according to abbe Marolles), and by no means uncommon.

, an eminent French artist, and the earliest historical painter France produced, was born at Souci near Sens, in 1530, and studied the fine arts so strenuously in his youth, that he became profoundly learned, especially in the mathematics. Painting on glass being very much in vogue in those days, he applied himself more to that than to the drawing of pictures. Several fine performances of his are to be seen in the churches of the neighbourhood of Sens, and some in Paris; particularly in St. Gervase’s church, where, on the windows of the choir, he painted the martyrdom of St. Laurence, the history of the Samaritan woman, and that of the paralytic. There are several of his pictures in the city of Sens; as also some portraits. But the chief of his works, and that which is most esteemed, is his picture of the Last Judgment, in the sacristy of the Minims at Bois de Vincennes, which was graved by Peter de Tode, a Fleming, a good designer. This picture shews the fruitfulness of Cousin’s genius, by the numbers of the figures that enter into the composition; yet is somewhat wanting in elegance of design.

During the composition of this work, he at first declined what he had done before, shewing specimens to his friends; and on this subject, indeed, his opinion seems to have undergone a complete change. To his friend Mr. Unwin, who informed him that a gentleman wanted a sample, he says, with some humour, “When I deal in wine, cloth, or cheese, I will give samples, but of verse, never. No consideration would have induced me to comply with the gentleman’s demand, unless he could have assured me, that h^s wife had longed.” From this resolution he afterwards departed in a variety of instances. He first sent a specimen, with the proposals, to his relation general Cowper; it consisted of one hundred and seven lines, taken from the interview between Priam and Achilles in the last book. This specimen fell into the hands of Mr. Fuseli, the celebrated painter, whose critical knowledge of Homer is universally acknowledged; and Cowper likewise agreed that if Mr. Maty, who then published a Review, wished to see a book of Homer, he should be welcome, and the first book and a part of the second were accordingly sent . Mr. Fuseli was afterwards permitted to revise the whole of the manuscript, and how well Cowper was satisfied in falling in with such a critic, appears (among other proofs of his high esteem) from the short character he gives of him in one of his letters: “For his knowledge of Homer, he has, I verily believe, no fellow.” Colman, likewise, his old companion, with whom he had renewed an epistolary intimacy, revised some parts in a manner which afforded the author much satisfaction, and he appears to have corrected the sheets for the press. With Maty he was less pleased, as his criticisms appeared “unjust, and in part illiberal.”

is the name of a family of celebrated painters. Noel Coypel, the grandfather, was director of the academy at Rome; Antony Coypel, the father, was principal painter to the king and the duke of Orleans, and at the same time surveyor of painting and sculpture; and Noel Nicholas Coypel, the uncle, professor of that academy.

was admitted into the academy of painting in his twentieth year, where he had already executed several pictures of great merit; his son, who was born at Paris in 1694, and to whom he left his name, his talents, his knowledge, and virtues, enjoyed the same good fortune. in his 2ist year: he was first painter to the duke of Orleans, and in 1747 to the king. Though his peronal qualities and endowments had already made him a welcome guest with the princes and great men of the court, yet this last appointment increased his reputation; and the first use he made of his consequence, was to induce M. de Tourathem, who had fortitude of mind sufficient for such a sacrifice, to decline the title of a protector of the academy, which hitherto had always been connected with the office of superintendant of the buildings, in order that the academy of painting, like all the rest, might be under the immediate protection of the king. He also erected a preparatory school, at Paris, for the y^ung pupils, who went to Rome, where they studied history, and exercised themselves under able masters. To him likewise the public were indebted for the exhibition of the pictures in the Luxembourg gallery. Like all men of genius, he had his enviers and rivals; but his rivals were his friends, his modesty drew them to him, and he never refused them his esteem. His place as first painter to the king brought him to court, and made him more intimately acquainted with the queen and the dauphin. The queen often gave him, work to do, which chiefly consisted in pictures of the saints and other objects of devotion. On her return from Metz, finding over her chimney a picture which he had privately executed, representing France in the attitude of returning thanks to heaven for the deliverance of the king, she was so moved, that she exclaimed, “No one but my friend Coypel is capable of such. a piece of gallantry!” The dauphin had frequently private conversations with him. He himself executed the drawing for the last work of Coypel, the “Sultan in his seraglio.” His table was always strewed with the manuscripts of this artist, which he intended to publish at his own expence. The death of the author prevented his design, and on hearing of the event, the prince said publicly at supper: “I have in one year lost three of my friends!”

, a Russian by birth, was a landscape painter in London, but chiefly practised as a drawing-master. He taught in a way that was new and peculiar, and which appears to have been adopted from the hint given by Leonardo da Vinci, who recommends selecting the ideas of landscape from the stains of an old plaster wall, and his method of composing his drawings may be considered as an improvement upon the advice of Da Vinci. His process was to dash out, upon several pieces of paper, a number of accidental large blots and loose flourishes, from which he selected forms, and sometimes produced very grand ideas; but they were in general too indefinite in their execution, and unpleasing in their colour. He published a small tract upon this method of composing landscapes, in which he has demonstrated his process. He also published some other works, the most considerable of which was a folio, entitled “The Principles of Beauty relative to the Human Head,” 1778, French and English, a very ingenious, but somewhat fanciful work, illustrated with engravings by Bartolozzi, showing the gradations of character, from the outline of a feature, 'to the outline of the face, and to each face is applied an head dress in the style of the antique. He also published “The various species of Composition in Nature, in sixteen subjects, on four plates,” with observations and instructions and “The shape, skeleton, and foliage of thirty-two species of Trees,” 1771, reprinted 1736; but, in Mr. Edwards’s opinion, not very creditable to the artist. As a drawingmaster, he had very considerable reputation and employment. He attended for some years at Eton school, and among other pupils of high rank, had the honour of giving some lessons to his royal highness the prince of Wales, He died at his house in Leicester-street, Leicester-square, April, 1786, leaving a son John Cozens, who greatly excelled him as a landscape painter: rejecting his lather’s method of fortuitous blots and dashes, he followed the arrangements of nature, which he saw with an enchanted eye, and drew with an enchanted hand. He owes his fame to those tinted drawings, of which, Mr. Fuseli says, the method has been imitated with more success than the sentiment which inspired them. A collection of his drawings, amounting to ninety-four, the property of Mr. Beckford, were sold by Christie in 1805, and produced 510l. He visited Italy twice, where he appears to have drawn most of these In 1794, he was seized with a mental derangement which continued to his death in 1799.

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1585, and was a disciple of Raphael Coxis, the son of that Coxis who had studied under Raphael; but Crayer soon shewed such proofs of genius, that he far surpassed his master, and therefore quitted him. Afterwards he made judicious observations on the particular excellencies of the most renowned masters, and taking nature for his constant guide, formed for himself a manner that was extremely pleasing. The first work which established him in the favour of the court of Brussels, was a portrait of cardinal Ferdinand, brother to the king of Spain, a full length, as large as life, in which he succeeded so happily, that when it was viewed by the court at Madrid it laid the foundation of his fame and fortune. The king sent him a gold chain with a medal; and added, as a farther instance of his favour, a considerable pension. The testimony of Rubens was also highly in his favour, who went to Antwerp to visit Crayer, and after examining attentively a picture of his painting in the refectory of the abbey of Affleghem, he publicly declared that no painter could surpass Crayer. Nor was he less distinguished by Vandyck, who always expressed a friendship for him, and painted his portrait. It has been said that he had somewhat less fire in his compositions than Rubens; but that his design was frequently more correct. Yet, says Mr. Fuseli, let not this high strain of commendation seduce the reader to imagine that Crayer was a painter of the same rank with Rubens. If he was more equal, the reason lay in his inferiority. Rubens had the flights, the falls, and the neglects of genius. Crayer steered a middle course, and preserved dignity by caution. His composition generally consisted of a small number of figures; and he very judiciously avoi ded the encumbering his design with superfluous particulars, or loading his subject with any thing that seemed not to contribute to its elegance. He grouped his figures with skill, and his expressions have all the truth of nature. There is a remarkable variety in his draperies, and an equal degree of simplicity in their folds; and his colouring is admirable. Of all his contemporaries he was reckoned to approach nearest to Vandyck, not only in history, but in portrait. He principally painted religious subjects, and was continually at work; and although he lived to a great age, yet his temperance and regular habits preserved the full use of his faculties; and to the last month of his long life his pencil retained the same force and freedom which it possessed in his most vigorous days. He died in 1669, aged eighty-four. The subject of the picture which was so highly honoured by the approbation of Rubens, is the centurion alighting from his horse to prostrate himself at the feet of Christ. Yet sir Joshua Reynolds says of it, that though it cannot be said to be defective in drawing or colouring, it is far from being a striking picture. There is no union between his figures and the ground; the outline is every where seen, which takes away the softness and richness of effect; the men are insipid characters, and the women want beauty. The composition is something on the plan of the great picture of Rubens in the St. Augustins at Antwerp: that is, the subject is of the same kind, but there is a great difference indeed in their degree of merit.

, a Milanese, born in 1592, at first was a disciple of Gio. Batista Crespi, though he afterwards studied under Giulio Cesare Procaccini, and soon became superior to the first, and at least equal to the second. With great vigour of conception, and facility of execution, he combines equal suavity and strength of colour in oil and fresco the distribution of his figures leavesk> wish for alteration. He seems familiar with the best principles of the Caracci, without having frequented their school. In the church della Passione at Milan, where he painted the “Taking down from the Cross,” he has left many portraits that may vie with the best of Titian’s. Continued progress from good to better marked the short period of his life. His last and most admired works are the histories from the life of St. Bruno, in the Certosa at Milan. The most celebrated of them is that of the Parisian teacher, who, raising himself from the bier, pronounces his own condemnation; despair and terror are personified in him and the assembly. Nor is that of the duke of Calabria, who in hunting discovers the solitary cell of the hermit, much inferior. On this the painter wrote, “Daniel Crispus Mediolanensis pinxit hoc temphim an. 1629,” one year before his death, for he died of the plague in 1630, extremely lamented, and with him all his family.

, a painter, was born at Stockholm in 1656, and came to London at an early age, being introduced into this country by an English merchant, but he afterwards travelled to Paris, and resided there some time. He then visited Italy, where he painted, amongst others, the portrait of queen Christina of Sweden. In 1688 he returned to England, where he acquired very considerable reputation as a portrait painter, and was no contemptible rival of sir Godfrey Kneller, with whom he lived in habits of friendship. He died in London in 1743 at the advanced age of 87 years. His portraits of Addison, queen Anne, prince George of Denmark, the duke of Marlborough, and the duke of Ormond, have been engraved.

, brother to the preceding, keeper of the pictures, medals, &c. and antiquary to his majesty, was originally apprenticed to a coach-painter in Clerkenwell, and after quitting his master, went to Rome to pursue the study of painting, where, about the year 1749, an invitation was given him by Roger Kynaston, esq. of Shrewsbury, in company with Mr. (afterwards sir John) Frederick, to accompany them to Naples. From that city they proceeded in a felucca, along the coast of Calabria, crossed over to Messina, and thence to Catania, where they met with lord Charlemont, Mr. Burton, afterwards lord Cunningham, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Murphy. They then sailed together in a ship, hired by lord Charlemont and his party, from Leghorn, with the intention of making that voyage; the felucca followed first to Syracuse, then to the isle of Malta, and afterwards separated; but Mr. Dalton, accompanying the party in the ship, made the voyage to Constantinople, several parts of Greece, and Egypt. This voyage led to his publication, which appeared in 1781, called, “Explanation of the set of prints relative to the manners, customs, &c. of the present inhabitants of Egypt, from discoveries made on the spot, 1749, etched and engraved by Richard Daiton, esq.” On his return to England, he was, by the interest of his noble patron lord Charlemont, introduced to the notice of his present majesty, then prince of Wales, who, after his accession to the throne, appointed him his librarian, an office for which it would appear he was but indifferently qualified, if Dr. Morell’s report be true. Soon after, it being determined to form a noble collection of drawings, medals, &c. Mr. Daltou was sent to Italy in 1763, to collect the various articles suited to the intention. The accomplishment of that object, however, was unfortunately attended with circumstances which gave rise to sir Robert Strange’s memorable letter of complaint to the earl of Bute, in which he says, indignantly, although not altogether unjustly, that “persecution haunted him, even beyond the Alps, in the form of Mr. Dalton.” On this subject it may here be necessary only to refer to sir Robert’s letter, and to the authorities in the note.

John Danckilkts, of the same family, a designer and engraver, about 1654 settled at Amsterdam; but being invited into England, he went to London, where he designed for the English Juvenal, the plates engraved by Hollar. This artist also engraved some plates. Hesiiy Danckerts, his brother, was also bred an engraver, but afterwards became a landscape-painter. He was born at the Hague, but at an early age travelled into Italy, from whence he came to England. Here he enjoyed the favour of Charles II. who employed him to draw views of the British sea-ports, and royal palaces. During the disturbances which preceded the abdication of James II. he quitted England for Amsterdam, where he died soon after. The landscapes painted by this artist were numerous, anil are chiefly to be found in England. Amongst them are Views of Windsor, Plymouth, Penzance, &c. He also engraved from Vandyk, Titian, Jacopo Palma, &c. Justus Danckerts, of the same family, was a designer, engraver, and print-seller, and resided in Amsterdam. The following plates bear his name: the Portrait of Casimir, king of Poland; a ditto of William III. prince of Orange; the Harbours of Amsterdam, a set of seven pieces. One other of the name remains to be noticed, Cornelius Danckerts. The circumstance of both Milizia and Heinecken dating the birth of this architect in 1.561, and saying that he was born in Amsterdam (the very time and place of the birth of Cornelius Danckerts mentioned above), leads us to suspect some chronological error, if not, indeed, that these two artists were one and the same person. Cornelius was originally a stonemason, but afterwards applied himself to architecture. He constructed in the city of Amsterdam many public and private buildings, highlycreditable to his talents on account of their beauty and convenience, and, amongst others, three of the principal churches, the exchange, and the gate which leads to Haarlem, the most beautiful of the city. He had a son named Peter, who was born at Amsterdam in 1605, and afterwards became painter to Uladislaus, king of Poland.

, an historical painter, was born at Florence in 1595, and was the elder brother and first instructor of Vincent Dandini, the uncle of Pietro. This master had successively studied as a disciple with Curradi, Passignano, and Christofane Allori from whom he acquired a very pleasing but fugitive manner of colouring. He was extremely correct in his drawing, and finished his pictures highly. His best altar-piece is at Ancona, and several other noble altar-pieces in the churches of Florence are of his hand one, which is in the chapel l'Annonciata, is particularly admired. He died in 165S.

, an eminent painter, nephew to the preceding, was born at Florence in 1646, and received his first instruction in the art of painting from Valerio Spada, who excelled in small drawings with a pen. Whilst he was under the tuition of thrt artist he gave such evident proofs of genius, that he was then placed as a disciple with his uncle Vincent. He afterwards travelled through most of the cities of Italy, studying the works of those who were most distinguished; and resided for a long time at Venice, where he copied the paintings of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese. He next visited Parma and Modena, to study the works of Correggio; omitting no opportunity that might contribute to improve his hand or his judgment. When he returned to Florence, the grand duke Cosmo III. the grand duchess Victoria, and the prince Ferdinand, kept him perpetually employed, in fresco painting as well as in oil; his subjects being taken not only from sacred or fabulous history, but from his own invention and fancy, which frequently furnished him with such as were odd and singular, and especially with whimsical caricatures. He died in 1712. — This master had an extraordinary talent for imitating the style of even the most celebrated ancient painters of every school, particularly Titian, Veronese, and Tintoretto; and with a force and elegance, equal to his subjects of history, he painted portraits, landscapes, architecture, flowers, fruit, battles, animals of all kinds, and likewise sea-pieces; proving himself an universal artist, and excellent in even thing he undertook. Mr. Fuseli, however, says that the avidity of gain led him to dispatch and a general mediocrity, compensated by little more than the admirable freedom of his pencil. He exerted his powers according to the price he received for his work: they are seen to advantage in the cupolas of S. Maria Maddalena, in various frescos of the ducal palace and villas, and in the public hall of Pisa, where he represented the taking of Jerusalem. There are likewise altar-pieces which shew his merit: that of St. Francis in S. Maria Maggiore, and another of S. Piccolomini saying mass in the church a'Servi, a pleasing animated performance. He had a son, Octavio, who proved not inferior to him in any branch of his profession, and was an honour to his family and his country.

, one of the professors of the academy of painting, &,c. was born May 22, 1700, at Aix in Provence, and was first intended for the study of the law, but dishknig it at the outset, he took lessons in painting from Vanloo and De Troy, and soon distinguished himself botli as a painter and as a writer. He succeeded more particularly in historical pictures, and undoubtedly had an affection for all the arts, was a man of considerable learning, and in society was sensible, upright, and friendly. He died at Marseilles, where he was director of the academy, April 14, 1783. Some of his writings gained him much reputation. The principal of them are, l. “De l'utilite” d‘un Cours d’Histoire pour les artistes,“1751. 2.” Principesdu Dessin,“1754, 12mo. 3.” Anecdotes sur la Mort de Bouchardon,“1764. 4.” Vie de Carle Vanloo,“1765, 12mo. 5.” Monumens de la ville de Reims,“1765, 12mo. 6.” Traite de Peinture,“1765, 2 vols. 12mo. 7.” Histoire universelle relative aux arts,“1769, 3 vols. 12mo. 8.” Costumes des anciens peuples," 1776, 4to. This curious collection was republishecl in a very enlarged form by Cochin, in 4 vols. 1786 and 1792, 4to. Dandre-Bardon wrote also some poetry, but that his countrymen seem inclined to forget.

, a native of Perugia, of the family of Rainaldi, imitated so well the verses of the poet Dante, that he was generally called by his name. He was not less distinguished by the delicacy of his poetry, than by his skill in the mathematics and in architecture. He died in 1512, in an advanced age, after having invented several machines, and composed a commentary on the sphere of Sacrobosco. His grandson Vincent Dante, an able mathematician, like him, was at the same time painter and sculptor. His statue of Julius III. has been generally looked upon as a master-piece of the art. Philip II. king of Spain, offered him a large salary to induce him to come and finish the paintings of the Escurial; but the delicacy of Dante’s constitution would not permit him to quit his natal air. He died at Perugia in 1576, at the age of forty-six. There is extant by him, “The lives of those who have excelled in drawings for statues.”

, a most extraordinary fanatic, was the son of a waterman of Ghent, and educated a glazier, or, as some say, a glass-painter. He began about 1525 to preach that he was the true Messiah, the third David, nephew of God, not after the flesh, but after the spirit. “The heavens,” he said, “being empty, he was sent to adopt children worthy of that kingdom and to restore Israel, not by death, as Christ, but by grace.” With the Sadducees, he denied eternal life, the resurrection, and the last judgment: with the Adamites, he was against marriage, and for a community of women: and with the followers of Manes, he thought that the body only, and not the soul, could be defiled with sin. According to him, the souk of unbelievers ought to be saved, and those of the apostles damned. Lastly, he affirmed it folly to believe that there was any sin in denying Jesus Christ; and ridiculed the martyrs for preferring death to apostacy. A prosecution being commenced against him and his followers, he fled first to Friesland, and from thence to Basil, where he lurked under the name of John Bruck. He died in that city in 1556, promising to his disciples, that he should rise again in three days; which, as it happened, was not altogether false; for the magistrates of Basil, understanding at length who he was, about that time, dug tip his corpse, which, together with his writings, they caused to be burned by the common executioner. This George David had many followers in his life-time, and it is even said that there are still some remains of them in Holstein, Friesland, and other countries, whose temper and conduct seem to discredit the exaggerated account which some writers have given of their founder.

, an excellent painter and engraver, was the son of William Delft, and a near relation (grandson, according to Pilkington) of Michael Miravelt, and born at Delft in 1619. He drew and painted portraits with excellent taste; and having been instructed by Miravelt, acquired a similar mode of design and colouring, and successfully imitated him in the management of his pencil, so that he is said to have equalled Miravelt in force and delicacy. He is, however, more generally known as an engraver; and his best prints are highly finished: some of them are executed in a bold, powerful, open style, which produces a fine effect. Such was his portrait of Hugo Grotius, dated 1652; and others in a neat and much more finished manner, as we find, says Strutt, in the admirable portrait of Michael Miravelt, from a picture of Vandyke. It does not appear that he was ever in England; and yet he engraved several English portraits, as Charles I. of England, Henrietta Maria, his queen, George Villars, duke of Buckingham, &c. and, accor.lmg to lord Orf'ord, styled himself the king’s engraver He died in 1661.

His works have been several times printed together in one volume, under the title of “Poems and translations, with the Sophy, a tragedy.” The sixth edition is that of 1719, and besides this collection, Wood mentions: 1. “A Panegyric on his excellency the lord general George Monk, commander in chief,” &c. printed at London in 1659, and generally ascribed to him, though his name is not to it, S. “A New Version t>f the Book of Psalms.” 3. A prologue to his Majesty at the first play presented at the Cockpit in Whitehall, being part of that noble entertainment which their majestes received on November 20, 16-0, from his grace the duke of Albemarle. 4. “The True Presbyterian without disguise: or, a character of a Presbyterian’s ways and actions,” Lond. 1680. Our author’s name is to tiiis poem; but it was then questioned by many, whether he was the author of it. In 1666 there were printed by stealth, in 8vo, certain poems, entitled “Directions to a Painter,” in four copies or parts, each dedicated to Charles II. They were very satirically written against several persons engaged in the Dutch war in 1665. At the end of them was a piece, entitled, “Clarendon’s House-warming,” and after that his epitaph; both containing bitter reflections on that excellent nobleman. Sir John Denham’s name is to these pieces; but they were generally thought to be written by the well-known Andrew Marvel: the printer, however, being discovered, was sentenced to stand in the pillory for the same.

, a portrait painter of considerable eminence, for minuteness of labour at least, if not of genius, was born at Hamburgh in 1685, and after studying his art at Altena and Dantzic, improved himself by copying the best pictures in the latter city, and also studied diligently after living models. His first great attempt was the portrait of Duke Christian Augustus, administrator of Holstein Gottorp, which he executed in miniature with such success as to establish his credit at that court, where he also painted, in one very large picture, twenty-one portraits of the family of that prince, and introduced his own. He was principally employed by the princes of Germany; and the king of Denmark, and George I. having seen some of his works at Hanover, promised to sit to him, if he would come over to England Denner accordingly arrived here, but succeeded so ill in the pictures of two of the king’s favourite German ladies, that he did not obtain the footing he had expected at court. His fame, however, rose very high, on his exhibiting the head of an “Old Woman,” that he brought over with him, about sixteen inches high, and thirteen wide, in which the grain of the skin, the hairs, the down, the glassy humour of the eyes, were represented with the most exact minuteness; but it gained him more applause than custom, for a man could not execute many works who employed so much time to finish them. The emperor of Germany, however, gave him six hundred ducats for the picture. He finished here an “Old Man,” as a companion to it, which he had begun at Hamburgh; and also painted himself, his wife, and children, with the same circumstantial detail. Mr. Fuseli very justly remarks of him that he was born to be a fac-similist, and not a painter. With the most anxious transcription of parts, he missed the whole, and that air of life which is the result of imitation. He left England in 1728, and died, probably in his native country, in 1747. His “Old Woman” has been exhibited, or a copy from it, within these few years in London. Lord Orford adds that “the portrait of John Frederic Weichman of Hamburgh, painted by him, is said to be in the Bodleian library at Oxford.” But in the catalogue of pictures there, this is stated to have been painted as well as given by Weichman himself.

, a young man who acquired a short-lived reputation as a poet, was born in the south of Ireland, January 1775. His father, who was a schoolmaster at Ennis for some years, is said to have employed his son, when only in his ninth year, in the situation of Greek and Latin assistant at his own school, and to increase the wonder, we are told time he had written as much genuine poetry at ten, as either Cowley, Milton, or Pope had produced at nearly double that age. At ten, too, he. ran away to Dublin, where he acquired the patronage of a Dr. Houlton, in whose house he resided about ten weeks, giving astonishing proofs of his acquaintance with the Greek and Roman classics, and producing poetical translations ad aperturam libri. This gentleman, when obliged himself to leave Dublin, gave him some money, which he soon spent, and wandered through the streets without a settled home, until he found an asylum with a scene-­painter belonging to the theatre. The scene-painter introduced him to the players, and some attempts were laudably made by them to place him in a situation where he might prosecute his studies; but the depravity of his disposition appears to have been as early wonderful as his poetical talents. The latter, however, procured him one patron after another, all of whom he disgusted by his ingratitude and licentious conduct. At length, abandoned by every person of character, he entered as a private in the 108th regiment, commanded by the earl of Granard, and behaving with some decency under the check of military discipline, he was progressively advanced to the ranks of corporal and serjeant; and in September 1794, in the nineteenth year of his age, embarked with the regiment for England. He accompanied it afterwards abroad in the expedition under the earl of Moira, and appears to have behaved so well, that his lordship promoted him to a second-lieutenancy in the waggon corps, but on the reduction of this army, Dermody was put on the half-pay list.

, an ingenious French painter, was born at Rouen in Normandy, in 1729. He received the first elements of design from his father, and afterwards practised at Paris, under M. Vermont; but learned from Restout those excellent principles which he afterwards cultivated with so much success, and soon obtained many of the medals which the academy gave as prizes for design. In a journey he took to Rouen (his native place), he obtained several commissions for historical pieces, several of which he executed while under M, Restout. His picture of Potiphar’s wife, which he painted as a candidate for the academy’s prize, procured him the friendship of M. Boucher, at that time principal painter to the king, and Restout consented to yield the young Dehais, as an eleve of that artist. In 1751 he carried the first prize of the academy; and in consequence became a disciple of the king’s school, under the direction of M. Carlo Vanloo; and during three years he profited much by the instructions he received from that great master, extcuting many pieces of great merit. After this, hu vesided some time at Rome; and in spite of very bad health, prosecuted his profession with unremitting diligence, and great success. On his return to Paris, he married the daughter of M. Boucher, and was received into the academy with universal approbation the pictures which he presented on that occasion were of such merit as to give very sanguine hopes that he would one day become one of the greatest of the French artists. Every successive exhibition at the Louvre proved in the clearest manner, that his reputation was fixed on the surest foundation: but he died in the midst of his career, in the beginning of 1765. The principal of his works are, the History of St. Andrew, in four large pictures, at Rouen; the Adventures of Helen, in nine pieces, for the manufactory of Beauvais; the Death of St. Benet, at Orleans; the Deliverance of St. Peter, at Versailles. The Marriage of the Virgin is a subject simple in itself, but is nobly elevated by the painter. The grand priest is standing up, and turned towards the sacred spouse; his arms are extended, and his countenance directed towards the illuminated glory. Scarce any thing can be more expressive than the air of this head. The grandeur and the majestic simplicity of the virgin’s head are also finely conceived; and her whole figure admirable. The picturesque composition of the groupe is very well managed the draperies are in a bold and elegant taste the lights and shades finely imagined, melting into all the happy effects of the clear obscure. — His Resurrection of Lazarus is full of expression: the different emotions of surprise, terror, and admiration are most ingeniously varied, and finely characterised in the three apostles. The two women who behold the miracle, display the invention of the painter; one of them is full of astonishment, mixed with terror, at the idea of the sight before her the other falls prostrate to the ground, adoring the divine worker of the miracle: the whole piece is full of character and expression. His picture of Joseph’s Chastity is one of the finest that ever issued from his happy pencil: Potiphar’s wife is represented darting herself from the bed, and catching Joseph by his garment. The crime, hope, and fear of her passion, are expressed in the most lively manner in her eyes and countenance. The figure of Joseph is well designed; but it was on the woman that the painter, with great justness, bent all the efforts of his imagination, and his art. Among his other works are the Combat of Achilles against the Xanthus and Simo'is; Jupiter and Antiope, in which the figure of the woman is wonderfully delicate and pleasing. A small piece representing Study, very fine. Artemisia at the tomb of her husband, &c.

, an eminent painter, was born at the village of Champigneul, in Champagne, in 1661; and being a disciple of Nicasius, a Flemish painter, imitated his manner of painting. The subjects he selected were flowers, insects, animals, and representations of the chace, which he designed and coloured with much truth; his local colours being very good, and the aerial perspective well managed. He was chiefly employed in the service of Lewis XIV.; and accompanied the French ambassader, the duke d'Aumont, to London, where he was much encouraged, particularly by the duke of Richmond and lord Bolingbroke. The hotels of Paris, and the palaces of Versailles, Marli, &c. contain many specimens by this artist, who died at a very advanced age, in 1743. The present Imperial Museum has his portrait, which was engraved by Poullain, and three pictures by him, of great merit.

, a painter of history and portrait, was born at Amsterdam in 1695, and acquired the principles of his art from Albert Spiers, a portrait painter. He afterwards became a disciple of Jaques Van Halen, an historical painter of considerable reputation; under whose instructions he made great improvement, particularly by copying some capital paintings of Rubens and Vandyke. In 1713, he obtained the first prize in the academy, for designing after a living model, and the first prize for painting history; and he became more known by sketching several of the ceilings in the Jesuits’ church at Antwerp, originally painted by Rubens and Vandyke, which had been much injured by lightning. He declined the painting of portraits, though much solicited to engage in this branch of his art, and chiefly restricted himself to the painting of ceilings and grand apartments, in which he excelled by an elegance of taste, and tolerable correctness of design. His most noted work was for the burgo masters of Amsterdam, in their great council-chamber; in which he chose for his subject Moses appointing the 70 elders, and which he executed in a manner highly honourable to him as an artist. Without ever having seen Rome, he acquired the style of the Italian masters, by studying after the finest designs of the best artists of that country, which he collected with great judgment and ex pence. The colouring of Dewit is extremely good, and his compositions are grand and pleasing; his pencil is free, and his touch abounds with spirit and brilliancy; and a better taste of design would have rendered him truly eminent. But his singular excellence consisted in his imitations of bas-relief in stone, wood, or plaster, which he painted both in oil and in fresco, so as to give them the appearance of real carvings. His sketches, though slight, are much admired for their freedom and spirit, and are purchased by persons of the best taste. This artist, who died at Amsterdam in 1754, etched, from his own designs, a set of six small plates, representing “groupes of boys,” which are executed in a very spirited style; and the “Virgin and Child.”

, an artist, was born at Bois-le-Duc, in 1607, and was at first a painter on glass, in which he was accounted excellent, and even superior to any of his time; yet he discontinued it, on account of a variety of discouraging accidents that happened to him, in his preparations for that kind of work. He studied for some time in Italy, and found there good employment as a glass painter; but he turned his thoughts entirely to painting in oil; and, to obtain the best knowledge of colouring, entered himself in the school of Rubens, where he improved exceedingly, and was considered as one of the good disciples of that great master; yet, notwithstanding the opportunity he had of refining his national taste, during his residence in Italy, he never altered his original style of design; for all his subsequent compositions were too much loaded, and not very correct. His invention was fertile, and shewed genius, and his execution was full of spirit; but it was no inconsiderable prejudice to him, to have been engaged in such a number of designs as were perpetually thrown in his way, and which he was obliged to strike out in a hurry, without competent time allowed for judgment to revise, digest, and correct them. Designs for title-pages, for theses, and devotional subjects, engrossed the greatest part of his time and his labour; or designs for the decoration of books; of which kind, that called the “Temple of the Muses,” 1662, afforded him great employment, and added much honour to the artist, merely as a designer. His designs, indeed, of the Bellerophon, the Orpheus, the Dioscuri, the Leander, the Ixion, Tantalus, and Sisyphus, have never been excelled by the conception of the best masters of the best schools. He was one of the few scholars of Rubens that came to England, where he was much employed by William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, whose managed horses he drew from the life; from whence were engraved the cuts that adorn that nobleman’s book of horsemanship. Several of the original pictures are, or very lately were, in the hall at Welbeck. Diepenbeck drew views of the duke’s seats in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and portraits of the duke, duchess, and his children, and gave designs for several plates prefixed to the works of both their graces. At Cassiobery is the story of Dido and Æneas by him.

, another artist, known in this country, was born at the Hague, in 1655; but spent the greatest part of his life in England, to which he came in his seventeenth year, and where he gradually rose into considerable credit, having been well instructed by his father, who was a skilful painter of sea-pieces. His taste of landscape was formed almost entirely (as he often declared) by designing the lovely views in the western parts of England, and along the coasts. Some of his pictures have great clearness and transparence in the colouring, and a peculiar tenderness in the distances; they are truly fine in the skies, have an uncommon freedom in the clouds, and an agreeable harmony through the whole. But, as he was often obliged to paint for low prices, there is a great disproportion in his works. The narrowness of his circumstances depressed his talent, and rendered him inattentive to fame, being solely anxious to provide for his family. Had he been so happy as to receive a proper degree of encouragement, it is not improbable that he might have approached near to those of the first rank in his profession. The figures in his landscapes were frequently inserted by the younger Adrian Coloni, his brother-in-law. He began to engrave a set of prints, after views from his own designs, but the gout put an end to his life in 170-1, in the forty- ninth year of his age. Lord Orford, who has a portrait of him, thinks he was not much encouraged in England, except by Granville earl of Bath, for whom he drew several views and ruins in the West of England.

, an English painter, was born in London, in 1610. His father was master of the Alienation office; but “spending his estate upon women, necessity forced his son to be the most excellent painter that England hath yet bred.” He was put out early an apprentice to one Mr. Peake, a stationer and trader in pictures, with whom he served his time. Nature inclined him very powerfully to the practice of painting after the life, in which he had some instructions from Francis Cleyne; and, by his master’s procurement, he had the advantage of copying many excellent pictures, especially some of Titian and Van Dyck. How much he was beholden to the latter, may easily be seen in all his works; no painter having ever so happily imitated that excellent master, who was so much pleased with his performances, that he presented him to Charles I. This monarch took him into his immediate protection, kept him in Oxford all the while his majesty continued in that city, sat several times to him for his picture, and obliged the prince of Wales, prince Rupert, and most of the lords of his court, to do the like. Dobson \\as a fair, middle-sized man, of a ready wit and pleasing conversation; but somewhat loose and irregular in his way of living; and, notwithstanding the opportunities he had of making his fortune, died poor at his house in St. Martin’s-lane, in 1647. Although it was his misfortune to want suitable helps in beginning to apply himself to painting, and he was much disturbed by the commotions of the unhappy times tie nourished in, yet he shone out through all disadvantages; and it is universally agreed, that, had his education and encouragement been answerable to his genius, England might justly have been as proud of her Dobson, as Venice of her Titian, or Flanders of her Van Dyck. He was both a history and portrait painter; and there are in the collections of the dukes of Marlborough, Devonshire, Northumberland, and the earl of Pembroke, several of his pictures of both kinds.

, a Bolognese artist, born in 1575, was called II Mastelletta, from his father’s trade, that of a pail-maker; and seems to have been born a painter. He was a pupil of the Caracci, but did not attend to their suggestions on the necessity of acquiring a competent foundation for drawing, and contrived to catch the eye by a more compendious method; surrounding a splendid centre by impenetrable darkness, which absorbed every trace of outline. It is probable that his success greatly contributed to encourage that set of painters distinguished by the name of Tenebrosi, shade-hunters, so numerous afterwards in the Venetian and Lombard schools. Donducci was distinguished, though not by correctness, by a great spirit of design, a sufficient imitation of Parmigiano, whom he exclusively admired, and a certain native facility which enabled him to colour the largest dimensions of canvas in a little time. He failed in his attempts at changing this manner, as he grew older and more impatient of the praise bestowed on an open style. Light, no longer supported by obscurity, served only to expose his weakness and the two miracles of S. Domenico, in the church of that saint, which had been considered as his master-pieces, became by alteration the meanest of his works. The same diversity of manner is observable in his smaller pictures; those of the first, such as the Miracle of the Manna, in the Spada palace, are as highly valuable as his landscapes, which in many galleries would be taken for works of the Caracci, were they not discriminated by that original shade that stamps the genuine style of Mastelletta. The time of his death is not ascertained.

, a painter and engraver, was born at St. Quentin, in France, in 1617, and manifesting an early inclination for the arts, was placed under Simon Vonet, a painter at that time of great reputation, whose daughter he married, and whose manner as a painter he copied, but is better known as an engraver. He performed his plates chiefly with the point, in a bold, powerful style: the lights are broad and massy, especially upon the figures. But the marking of the folds of the draperies, and the shadows upon the outlines of the flesh, are frequently so extravagantly dark, as to produce a harsh, disagreeable effect, and sometimes to destroy the harmony of the engraving entirely. Although he understood the human figure, and in some instances it was correctly drawn; yet by following the manner of Vouet, instead of the simple forms of nature, his outlines were affected, and the extremities of his figures too much neglected. This artist was made professor of the royal academy of painting at Paris, where he died in 1665, aged forty- eight. His works are said by abbe Marolles to have consisted of 105 prints. Amongst these were, “the Adoration of the Magi,” the “Nativity of Christ,” “Venus at her toilet,” “Venus, Hope, and Love, plucking the feathers from the wings of Time,” “Mercury and ther Graces,” and “the Rape of Europa,” all from pictures of Vouet. He also engraved from Le Seur, Sarasin, and other masters.

, an historical painter, the son of the preceding, was born at Paris, in 1654, and was taught the rudiments of the art by his father till he was ten years of age; when, being deprived of his instructor, by the death of his parent, he became a disciple of Le Brun. la that school he made a considerable progress; but being disappointed in his expectation of obtaining the first prize at the academy, he travelled to Italy, and studied for several years at Rome, Venice, and Verona. He is highly commended by the French writers for quick conception, lively colouring, and a spirited pencil; yet they acknowledge that a sketch for a cieling which he produced at Paris, representing the Fall of Phaeton, was so much discommended by Rigaud, Largilliere, and others, that in great disgust he returned to Verona, where he ended his days. His principal work is the dome of the great church at Trent. He died at Verona in 1742.

His drawing was incorrect and affected; the naked parts of his figures are often falsely marked, and the extremities are defective. His draperies are coarse, the folds stiff and hard; and a manner of his own pervades all his prints, so that the style of the painter is constantly lost in that of the engraver. Nor did he ever fail more than in working from the paintings of Raphael. Basan, with an excusable partiality for his countryman, says of him, “we have many excellent prints by his hand, in which one justly admires the good taste of his drawing, and the intelligent picturesque manner, which he acquired by the judicious reflections he made upon the works of the great masters, during the residence of twenty-two years in Italy.” We have of his prints the following, viz. “St. Peter curing the Lame Man at the gate of the temple,” from Civoli; “The Transfiguration,” from Raphael; “The Descent from the Cross,” from Daniello da Volterra; “The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian,” from Domenichino, which two last are said to be his best prints “The Trinity,” from Guido; “The History of Cupid and Psyche,” from Raphael’s pictures in the Vatican; “The Cartoons,” seven very large plates from the pictures of Raphael. He also engraved from Annibale Caracci, Lanfranche, Louis Dorigny, and other masters.

Dr. Johnson conceived, that no description of Dryden’s person had been transmitted to us but, on the contrary, there are few English poets, of whose external appearance more particulars have been recorded. We have not indeed any original whole-length portrait of him, such as that very curious delineation of Pope, with which we have been lately gratified, whence a more perfect notion of that poet’s external appearance may be obtained than from all the friendly drawings of Richardson; yet from various descriptions of Dryden’s person that have come down to us, a very adequate idea of it may be formed. He was certainly a short, fat, florid man, “corpore quadrato,” as lord Hailes some years ago observed to Mr. Malone, “a description which ^neas Sylvius applied to James the First of Scotland” The same gentleman remarked, that that at one time he wore his hair in large quantity, and that it inclined to gray, even before his misfortunes; a circumstance which, he said, he had learned from a portrait of Dry den, painted by Kneller, formerly in the possession of the late Mr. James West. But perhaps his lordship here is not quite accurate. By “before his misfortunes” was meant before the Revolution; but the portrait in question was probably painted at a later period. From other documents, however, it appears that he became gray before he was deprived of the laurel. In Riley’s portrait, painted in 1683, he wears a very large wig: so also in that by Closterman, done at a late period. By Tom Brown he is always called “little Bayes,” and by Rochester, when he quarrelled with, and wished to depreciate him, he was nick-named “poet Squab.” The earliest portrait of Dryden hitherto discovered is that in the picture gallery, Oxford, but the painter is not known. It is engraved in Mr. Malone’s Life.

, an eminent English antiquary and historian, was the only son of John Dngdale, of Shustoke, near Coleshill, in Warwickshire, gent, and born there Sept. 12, 1605. He was placed at the freeschool in Coventry, where he continued till he was fifteen; and then returning home to his father, who had been edueatrd in St. John’s college, Oxford, and had applied himself particularly to civil law and history, was instructed by him in those branches of literature. At the desire of his father, he married, March 1623, a daughter of Mr. Huntbach, of Seawall, in Staffordshire, and boarded with his wife’s father till the death of his own, which happened July 1624 but soon after went and kept house at Fillongley, in Warwickshire, where he had an estate formerly purchased by his father. In 1625 he bought the manor of Blythe, in Shvstoke, above-mentioned; and the year following, selling his estate at Fillongley, he came and resided at Blythehall. His natimil inclination leading him to the study of antiquities, he soon became acquainted with all the noted antiquaries with Burton particularly, whose “Description of Leicestershire” he had read, and who lived but eight miles from him, at Lindley, in that county. In 1638 he went to London, and was introduced to sir Christopher Hatton, and to sir Henry Spelman by whose interest he was created a pursuivant at arms extraordinary, by the name of Blanch Lyon, having obtained the king’s warrant for that purpose. Afterwards he was made RougeCroix-pursuivant in ordinary, by virtue of the king’s letters patent, dated March 18, 1640; by which means having a lodging in the Heralds’ office, and convenient opportunities, he spent that and part of the year following, in augmenting his collections out of the records in the Tower and other places. In 1641, through sir Christopher Hatton’s encouragement, he employed himself in raking exact draughts of all the monuments in Westminster-abbey, St. Paul’s cathedral, and in many other cathedral and parochial churches of England particularly those at Peterborough, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln, Newarkupon-Trent, Beverley, Southwell, York, Chester, Lichfield, Tamworth, Warwick, &c. The draughts were taken by Mr. Sedgwick, a skilful arms-painter, then servant to sir Christopher Hatton; but the inscriptions were probably copied by Dugdale. They were deposited in sir Christopher’s library, to the end that the memory of them might be preserved from the destruction that then appeared imminent, for future and better times. June 1642 he was ordered by the king to repair to York; and in July was commanded to attend the earl of Northampton, who was marching into Worcestershire, and the places adjacent, in order to oppose the forces raised by lord Brook for the service of the parliament He waited upon the king at the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards at Oxford, where he continued with his majesty till the surrender of that garrison to the parliament June 22, 1646. He was created M. A. October 25, 1642, and April 16, 1644, Chester-heraid. During his long residence at Oxford, he applied himself to the search of such antiquities, in the Bodleian and other libraries, as he thought might conduce towards the furtherance of the “Monp.sticon,” then designed by Roger Dodsworth and himself; as also whatever might relate to the history of the ancient nobility of this realm, of which he made much use in his Baronage.

, an eminent engraver and painter, descended from an Hongarian family, was born at Nuremberg May 20, 1471. Having made a slight beginning with a pencil in the shop of his father, who was a goldsmith, one Martin Hupse taught him a little of colouring and engraving. He was also instructed in arithmetic, perspective, and geometry and then undertook, at twenty-six years of age, to exhibit some of his works to the public. His first work was the three Graces, represented by three naked women, having over their heads a globe, in which was engraved the date of the year 1497. He engraved on wood the whole life and passion of Christ in thirty-six pieces, which were so highly esteemed, that Marc Antonio Franci copied them on copper, and so exactly, that they were thought to be Albert’s, and sold as such. Albert hearing of this, and receiving at the same time one of the counterfeit cuts, was so enraged, that he immediately went to Venice, and complained of Marc Antonio to the government; but obtained no other satisfaction, than that Marc Antonio should not for the future put Albert’s name and mark to his works.

The particular account which we find in Vasari of his engravings is curious; and it is no small compliment to him to have this Italian author own, that the prints of Durer, being brought to Italy, excited the painters there to perfect that part of the art, and served them for an excellent model. Vasari is profuse in his praises of Duivr’s delicacy, and the fertility of his imagination. As Durer could not hope to execute all his designs while he worked on copper, he bethought himself of working on wood. One of his best pieces in this style is a Saint Eustachius kneeling before a stag, which has a crucifix between its horns which cut, says Vasari, is wonderful, and particularly for the beauty of the dogs represented in various attitudes. John Valentine Andreas, a doctor in divinity in the duchy of Wirtemberg, sent this piece to a prince of the house of Brunswick; to whom the prince replied by letter, “You have extremely obliged me by your new present; a cut which merits a nobler metal than brass, done by the celebrated painter of Nuremberg, and which, I think, wants nothing, unless Zeuxis or Parrhasius, or some person equally favoured by Minerva, should add colours and the native form.” The praises which this same divine gave to Durer in his answer to the prince’s letter, are remarkable, and worth transcribing: “I could easily guess,” says he, “that the Eustachius of Durer would not prove an unacceptable present to you, from whatever hand a performance of that admirable artist came. It is very surprising in regard to that man, that, in a rude and barbarous age, he was the first of the Germans who not only arrived to an exact imitation of nature by the perfection of his art, but likewise left no second; being so absolute a master of it in all its parts, in etching, engraving, statuary, architecture, optics, symmetry, and the rest, that he had no equal, except Michel Angelo Buonaroti, his contemporary and rival; and left behind him such works as were too much for the life of one man. He lived always in a frugal manner, and with the appearance of poverty. The Italians highly esteem him, and reproach us for not setting a due value on the ornaments of our own country.” We learn from the same authority, that the emperor Rodolphus II. ordered the plate of St. Eustachius to be gilded; and that Durer, at the intimation of his friend and patron Bilibaldus Pirkheimer, corrected an error in it, which was, that the stirrups of the horse on which Eustachius was to ride, were too short.

, an English poet, was born in 1700, the second son of Robert Dyer, of Aberglasney, in Caermarthenshire, a solicitor of great capacity and note. He passed through Westminster-school under the care of Dr. Freind, and was then called home to be instructed in his father’s profession. His genius, however, led him a different way; for, besides his early taste for poetry, having a passion no less strong for the arts of design, he determined to make painting his profession. With this view, having studied awhile under his master, he became, as he tells his friend, an itinerant painter, and wandered about South Wales and the parts adjacent; and about 1727 printed “Grongar Hill,” a poem which Dr. Johnson says, “is not very accurately written but the scenes which it displays are so pleasing, the images which they raise so welcome to the mind, and the reflections of the writer so consonant to the general sense or experience of mankind, that when it is once read, it will be read again.” Being probably unsatisfied with his own proficiency, he made the tour of Italy; where, besides the usual study of the remains of antiquity, and the works of the great masters, he frequently spent whole days in the country about Rome and Florence, sketching those picturesque prospects with facility and spirit. Images from hence naturally transferred themselves into his poetical compositions; the principal beauties of the “Ruins of Rome,” are perhaps of this kind, and the various landscapes in the “Fleece” have been particularly admired. On his return to England, he published the “Ruins of Rome,” 1740; but soon found that he could not relish a town life, nor submit to the assiduity required in his profession; his talent indeed, was rather for sketching than finishing; so he contentedly sat down in the country with his little fortune, painting now and then a portrait or a landscape, as his fancy led him. As his turn of mind was rather serious, and his conduct and behaviour always irreproachable, he was advised by his friends to enter into orders; and it is presumed, though his education had not been regular, that he found no difficulty in obtaining them. He was ordained by the bishop of Lincoln, and had a law degree conferred on him.

, a Dutch painter, thought to be a native of Friesland, painted landscapes justly held in great esteem. He went over to Surinam, for the purpose of drawing insects and plants; this department, however, appearing to him too confined, he quitted it for the taking of views, drawing trees, &c. He then went to the English colonies in America, where he applied to all manner of subjects; and painted several pictures which he brought with him to London about 1670. Whatever he put out of his hand, was well coloured, and finished with spirit. His pictures found a quick reception here in England, as representing prospects of a continent in which the public was so highly interested. Edema took his advantage of this taste for his works, and became famous for painting landscapes, in which he exhibited a variety of scenes of horror, such as rocks, mountains, precipices, cataracts, and other marks of savage nature. He would have died more wealthy, and perhaps would have lived longer, had he not been too fond of wine. He died about 1700.

, Mowbray herald extraordinary, F. S. A. and an able heraldic writer, was a man who raised himself by dint of ingenuity and perseverance from a very humble station to considerable celebrity. He was originally an apprentice to a barber, but discovering some knowledge of the art, became an herald painter, and was much employed in emblazoning arms upon carriages. This led him to study heraldry as a science, which imperceptibly led him also to genealogical researches, and his progress hi both was rapid and successful. When the baronets of England wished for some augmentation to their privileges, as appendages to their titles (in which, however, they were flot successful), they chose Mr. Edmoudson their secretary. In 1764 he was appointed Mowbray herald extraordinary. He died in Warwick-street, Golden -square, Feb. 17, 1786, and was buried in the church-yard of St. James’s, Piccadilly. He was a man of good sense as well as skill in his profession, and maintained an excellent private character. His works, which will convey his name to posterity with great credit, were, 1. “Historical account of the Grevillc Family, with an account of Warwick Castle,” Lond. 1766, 8vo. 2. “A Companion to the Peerage of Great Britain and Ireland,” ibid. 1776, 8vo. 3. “A Complete Body of Heraldry,” ibid. 1780, 2 vols. folio; and 4. his very magnificent work, entitled “Buronagium Genealogicum, or The Pedigree of English Peers,” 176 84, 6 vols. folio.

The early part of Mr. Edwards’s life was chiefly spent in town, and at Pitzhanger in Middlesex. But in 1739 he purchased an estate at Turrick, in the parish of Ellesborough, in Buckinghamshire, where he resided till his decease. This, however, did not prevent his frequent mixture with his literary friends, who were numerous and, respectable, both in rank and character. It appears that he was acquainted with Richard Owen Cambridge, esq. the honourable Philip Yorke (afterwards second earl of Hardwicke), Daniel Wray, esq. the honourable Charles Yorke, Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq. the lord chancellor Hardwicke, archbishop Herring, lord Willoughby of Parham, Mr. Samuel Richardson, George Onslow, esq. (now lord Onslow), Dr. Heberden, the right honourable Arthur Onslow, Mr. Highmore the painter, and other accomplished gentlemen. Dr. Akenside’s regard for him has already been displayed. Three of his letters to Dr. Birch may be perused in the fifty-third volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine;" and Mrs. Chapone, -when Miss Mulso, addressed an elegant ode to him, which he answered by a sonnet.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Brussels in 1656, but it is not ascertained from what master he learned the art. He travelled to Italy with his brother-in-law Lewis Deyster, a very eminent artist, with whom he painted in conjunction, during the whole time of his continuance abroad, Deyster executing the figures, and Eeckhout the fruit and flowers, and with such perfect harmony and union, that the difference of their pencils was quite imperceptible. When he returned to Brussels, he received many marks of respect and distinction, and also an appointment to a very honourable station; yet he soon forsook friends, honours, and a certainly of being enriched, and embarked for Italy, where he wished to spend the remainder of his days. But chance conducted him to Lisbon, where his pictures sold for an exceeding high price, as he painted all his subjects in the Italian taste, and, during his residence in Italy, he had taken pains to sketch so many elegant forms of fruits and flowers, that he had a sufficient number for all his future compositions. He had lived at Lisbon about two years, when he married a young lady of quality, and extremely rich. This splendid fortune probably raised him rivals, who were jealous of his prosperity. Being out one day in his coach, he was shot with a ball, of which he instantly died, in 1695; but the cause of this assassination, or who were the authors and perpetrators of it, was never disf covered.

, a painter, was born at Leyden in 1602. Who was his master is not known. He travelled early in life, and his longest stay was in France, where he was painter to Lewis XIII. and Lewis XIV. and one of the twelve elders of the then establishment of the royal academy of painting and sculpture of Paris, Jan. 20, 1649. He assisted Vouet in many of his historical works, and himself painted history in various dimensions. He was a person of consideration in his time, and especially at court. It is not known what induced him to leave France; but it is certain that he returned to Antwerp, where he died, January 8, 1674, and his wife on June 19, 1685. They were both buried in the church 'of St. James.

, an ingenious botanical painter, the son of the prince of Baden Durlach’s gardener, was born in 1710, and very early shewed a taste for drawing, and painting the flowers of the garden. Although he received no instructions, yet such was his proficiency, that, whilst a very young man, he had painted 500 plants with a skill and accuracy that was almost unexampled, under the disadvantages of so total a want of instruction as this young artist had experienced. His merit, however, remained long unknown, or at least ineffectually noticed, until it was discovered by a gentleman of curiosity and judgment, who visited the garden of which his father was the superintendant. Fortunately for young Ehret, this stranger was a physician and a friend of the celebrated Dr. Trew, of Norimberg, to whom he justly supposed these paintings would be acceptable. Ehret by this means was introduced to Trew, who immediately purchased the whole 500 paintings, and generously gave him double the price at which the young artist had modestly valued them.

, an eminent painter, was born in the village of Peene, near Cassel, in 1658, of parents extremely poor, and seemed destined to rise in the world by slow degrees. His mother, who was a widow, lived in the country on what she earned by washing linen; her whole wealth consisted in a cow, which her little boy used to lead to pick up its pasture by the side of the ditches. One day Corben, a famous painter of landscapes and history, going to put up some pictures which he had made for Cassel, as he went along the road, took notice of this lad, who had made a fortification of mud, and little clay" figures that were attacking it. Corbéen was immediately struck with the regularity and taste that was evident in the work. He stopped his chaise, and put several questions to the lad, whose answers increased his astonishment. His figure and countenance added to the impression; and the painter asked him whether he would go and live with him, and he would endeavour to put him in a way of getting his bread; the boy said he would willingly accept of his offer, if his mother would but agree to it. Elias failed not to be at the same place on the day appointed, accompanied by his mother; he ran before the chaise, and Corbéen told the woman to bring her son to him at Dunkirk, where he lived. The boy was received, and the master put him to school, where he was taught the languages, and he himself taught him to draw and to paint. The scholar surpassed his fellow-students: he acquired the esteem of the public, and gained the favour of his master to such a degree, that he sent him to Paris at the age of twenty; whence Elias transmitted his works to his master and benefactor. With great gentleness of character, he possessed the good quality of being always grateful; he thus repaid his master for his kindness to him, as Corbéen frequently confessed. Elias, after having been some while at Paris, married. He made a journey to Dunkirk for the purpose of visiting his master, and it was while there that he painted a picture for the altar of St. Barbara’s chapel, in which he represented the martyrdom of that saint; a fine composition. On his return to Paris, he was appointed professor at St. Luke, and successively obtained several other posts. He was much employed, and composed several subjects taken from the life of St. John Baptist de la Barriere, author of the reform of the Feuillants. All these subjects were painted on glass, by Simpi and Michu, and are in the windows of the cloister. Elias, now become a widower, took a journey to Flanders, in hopes of dispelling his grief. Being arrived at Dunkirk, the brotherhood of St. Sebastian engaged him to paint their principal brethren in one piece; he executed this great picture, with a number of figures as large as life, and some in smaller dimensions. The company of taylors having built a chapel in the principal church, Elias was employed to paint the picture for the altar, in which he represented the baptism of Christ; in the fore-ground is St. Lewis at prayers, for obtaining the cure of the sick. Being now on the point of returning to Paris, he was so earnestly solicited to remain in his native country, that at length he yielded to the entreaties of his numerous friends. He now executed a grand picture for the high altar of the Carmelites; it was a votive piece of the city to the Virgin Mary. This picture is a fine composition, and of a style of colouring: more true and warm than was usual with him the artist, as is often the practice, has introduced his own portrait. Elias was complimented on this alteration in his colouring; by which he was encouraged to redouble his care. He executed for the parish church of Dunkirk art altar-piece of the chapel of St. Croix; a Transfiguration for the altar of the parish church of Bailleul, and in that of the Jesuits at Cassel, a miracle of St. Francis Xavier, &c. The abbot of Bergues, St. Winox, employed our artist a long time in ornamenting the refectory of his house. Among his great works he made some portraits in a capital manner. In his greatest successes, Elias never made any change in his conduct, but always continued to lead the same regular life; he was seen no where but at church and in his work-room, into which he rarely admitted visitors. He was much esteemed for the mildness of his disposition. Detesting those malicious reports which are but too common among rival artists, he minded only his business. Not desirous of having pupils, he rather dissuaded young men from cultivating an art that was attended with so much trouble, than encouraged them to enter upon it; those that knew him best, always spoke of this artist as a model of good conduct. He continued working to the end of his days, which happened at Dunkirk the 22d of April 1741, in the eighty -second year of his age. He had but one son, who died at Paris, doctor of the Sorbonne. Neither had he more than one pupil, Carlier, who was living at Paris in 1760.

, an artist, was the son of an able physician, and was born at Gottemburg the I 8th of September 1633, according to Houbraken, and in 1632 by Weyermann’s account. Ottomar’s father centred all his views in making his son a scholar, and he therefore put him to study the languages under the most famous professors. It was soon perceived that he relaxed in his progress in every other of his lessons, in proportion as his taste for painting was unfolded: and that in the very classes and school-hours he was secretly practising with the crayon. Chastisements were even found ineffectual to his correction, notwithstanding the obstinacy of his mother in not altering her purpose. A lucky accident delivered our young man from this disagreeable situation. One day a poor person desired to speak in private with the physician: the beggar displayed to him his extreme distress in several languages. The wife of the physician, who was present at this conversation, said to her husband, “Since I see that there are men of learning in indigence as well as painters, I think it altogether indifferent to which profession my son applies; let him satisfy his own inclination.” Elliger was then placed at Antwerp in the school of Daniel Segers, the Jesuit; where he learnt to paint flowers and fruit, and at length equalled his master. He was called to the court of Berlin, where he was highly honoured for his talents, and the elector Frederic William appointed him his principal painter. This prince found great amusement in conversing with Elliger, and his smart replies on all occasions pleased him so much, that he made frequent visits to his lodgings. This agreeable life, in which he found much profit as well as pleasure, continued till his death, the year of which is not known. Elliger’s works, which are as much sought after as those of his master, are principally in Germany, where they are preserved with the utmost care.

, the son of the preceding, was born at Hamburgh, Feb. 16, 1666. He learned of his father the first elements of painting; from whom he went to Amsterdam, and studied under Michael Van Musscher. Struck with the beauty of the works of Lairessc, he was fortunate enough to gain admission to his school in 1686, None conld be more assiduous than this disciple in follow^ ing the lessons of his master, whether in copying his works and those of others, or in painting from nature. The genius of the young painter was encouraged by Lairesse: one year of his instructions qualified him for composing freely, without following any other model than nature, and without having in view the manner of any one; his own is grand and noble, and his back grounds are of a fine architecture: among them are to be found the most valuable remains of the Ægyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. If the scene of his composition was to be laid in one of these countries, he likewise introduced bas-reliefs relative to the time: he was a man of genius, and had a mind well stored with literature, and his pictures are therefore interesting both to painters and scholars. At Amsterdam he painted several cielings and large subjects for ornaments to the public halls and grand apartments. The elector of Mcntz took so much pleasure in contemplating his works, that he ordered of him two very large pictures, owe representing the Death of Alexander, the other the nuptials of Thetis and Peleus; which are both highly celebrated. The elector was so satisfied with them, that be amply paid the artist, and made him a rich present besides: he also appointed him his principal painter, but which title Elliger refused, as well as the pension that was attached to it, preferring his liberty, as he said, to an honourable bondage; and soon after retired to his own country. Typography was embellished with the ingenious compositions of his hand but this took up so much of his time, that he had but little for applying to grand works he made pictures in small sixes, not unworthy of being placed in the first cabinets. This good artist may justly boast also of the “Banquet of the Gods,” a large picture, sufficient, of itself to immortalize his name. But this man, to amiable, and so much esteemed, soon fell into intemperance and contempt, and his works no longer resembled those of his former years, scarcely any of them rising above mediocrity. He died Nov. 24, 1732, in the sixtysixth year of his age. In the cabinet of M. Half-Wassenaer, at the Hague, was lately his very fine picture representing Alexander dying.

, F. R. S. an eminent naturalist, is thought to have been born in London, about 1710, but of his early life and occupations no certain information has been obtained, except that he was engaged in mercantile pursuits. He imbibed a taste for natural history, probably when young, made collections of natural curiosities, and by attentive observation and depth of thought soon rose superior to the merit of a mere collector. It is to him we owe the discovery of the animal nature of corals and corallines, which is justly said to form an epocha in natural science. The first collection he made of these new-discovered animals, after being presented to, and examined by the royal society, was deposited in the British museum, where it till remains. His mind was originally turned to the subject by a collection of corallines sent him from Anglesey, which he arranged upon paper so as to form a kind of natural landscape. But although the opinion he formed of their being animals was confirmed by some members of the royal society, as soon as he had explained his reasons, he determined to make farther observations, and enlarge his knowledge of corallines on the spot. For this purpose he went, in August 1752, to the isle of Sheppy, accompanied by Mr. Brooking, a painter, and the observations which he made still further confirmed him in his opinions. In 1754, he prevailed on Ehret, the celebrated botanist and artist, to accompany him to Brighthelmstone, where they made drawings, and formed a collection of zoophites. In 1755, he published the result of all his investigations, under the title of an “Essay to wards a Natural History of Corallines,” 4to, one of the most accurate books ever published, whether we consider the plates, the descriptions, or the observations which demonstrate the animal nature of the zoophites. His opinions on this subject were opposed by Job Easier, a Dutch physician and naturalist, who published various dissertations in the Philosophical Transactions in order to prove that corallines were of a vegetable nature. But his arguments were victoriously refuted by Ellis, whose opinions on the subject were almost immediately assented to by naturalists in general, and have been further confirmed by every subsequent examination of the subject.

, a celebrated painter, born at Francfort upon the Maine in 1574, was a taylor’s son, and at first a disciple of Philip Uftenbach, a German: but an ardent desire of improvement carrying him to Rome, he soon became an excellent artist in landscapes, histories, and night-pieces. He was a person by nature inclined to melancholy, and through continued study and thoughtfulness so far settled in that unhappy temper, that, neglecting his domestic concerns, he contracted debts, and imprisonment followed; which struck such a damp upon his spirits, that though he was soon released, he d'ld not long survive it, but died about 1610. The Italians had a great esteem for him, and lamented the loss of him exceedingly. James Ernest Thomas, of Landaw, was his disciple; and his pictures are so like Elsheimer’s, that they are often taken the one for the other.

He is said to have been very nice and scrupulous in regard to his works, having always some correction to make; hence Erasmus imputes the same fault to him that was objected to the painter Protogenes, who thought he had never finished his pieces; “That very learned man Paulus Emilius (says he) gave pretty much into this fault he was never satisfied with himself but, as often as he revised his own performances, he made such alterations, that one would not take them for the same pieces corrected, but for quite different ones; and this was his usual custom. This made him so slow, that elephants could bring forth sooner than he could produce a work; for he took above thirty years in writing his history.” Lipsius was much pleased with this performance: “Paulus Emilius (says that author) is almost the only modern who has discovered the true and ancient way of writing history, and followed it very closely. His manner of writing is learned, nervous, and concise, inclining to points and conceits, and leaving a strong impression on the mind of a serious reader. He often intermixes maxims and sentiments not inferior to those of the ancients. A careful examiner, and impartial judge of facts; nor have J met with an author in our time, who has less prejudice or partiality. It is a disgrace to our age that so few are pleased with him; and that there are but few capable of relishing his beauties. Among so many perfections there are, however, a few blemishes, for his style is somewhat unconnected, and his periods too short. This is not suitable to serious subjects, especially annals, the style of which, according to Tacitus, should be grave and unaffected. He is also unequal, being sometimes too studied and correct, and thereby obscure; at other times (this however but seldom) he is loose and negligent. He affects also too much of the air of antiquity in the names of men and places, which he changes, and would reduce to the ancient form, often learnedly, sometimes vainly, and in my opinion always unbecomingly.” Emilius’s history is divided into ten books, and extends from Pharamond to the fifth year of Charles VIII. in 1438. The tenth book was found among his papers in a confused condition, so that the editor, Daniel Xavarisio, a native of Verona, and relation of Emilius, was obliged to collate a great number of papers full of rasures, before it could be published. He has been censured by several of the French writers, particularly by M. Sorel: “It does not avail (says this author) that his oratorical pieces are imitations of those of the Greeks, and Romans: all are not in their proper places; for he often makes barbarians to speak in a learned and eloquent manner. To give one remarkable circumstance: though our most authentic historians declare, that Hauler, or Hanier, the counsellor, who spoke an invective, in presence of king Lewis Hautin, against Enguerrand de Mar rigny, came off poorly, and said many silly things; yet Paulus Emilius, who changes even his name, calling him Annalis, makes him speak with an affected eloquence. He also makes this Enguerrand pronounce a defence, though it is said he was not allowed to speak; so that what the historian wrote on this occasion was only to exercise his pen.” He has been also animadverted upon for not taking notice of the holy vial at Ilheims. “I shall not (says Claude de Verdier) pass over Paulus Emilius of Verona’s malicious silence, who omitted mentioning many things relating to the glory of the French nation. Nor can it be said he was ignorant of those things, upon which none were silent before himself; such as that oil which was sent from heaven for anointing our monarchs; and also the lilies. And even though he had not credited them himself, he ought to have declared the opinion of mankind.” Vossius, however, commends his silence in regard to these idle tales. Julius Scaliger mentions a book containing the history of the family of the Scaligers, as translated into elegant Latin by Paulus Emilius; and in his letter about the antiquity and splendour of the family, he has the following passage: “By the injury of time, the malice of enemies, and the ignorance of writers, a great number of memoirs relating to our family were lost; so that the name of Scaliger would have been altogether buried in obscurity, had it not been for Paulus Emilius of Verona, that most eloquent writer and preserver of ancient pedigrees; who having found in Bavaria very ancient annals of our family, written, as himself tells us, in a coarse style, polished and translated them into Latin. From this book my father extracted such particulars as seemed to reflect the” greatest honour on our family." Scaliger speaks also of it in the first edition of his Commentary on Catullus, in 1586, and in the second, in 1600, but in such a manner as differs somewhat from the passage above cited. Scioppius has severely attacked Scaliger on account of these variations: he observes, that no mention being made of the place where this manuscript was pretended to be found, nor the person who possessed it, and such authors as had searched the Bavarian libraries with the utmost care, having met with no such annals; he therefore asserts, that whatever the Scaligers advanced concerning this work, was all im posture. Emilius, as to his private life, was a man of exemplary conduct and untainted reputation. He died in 1529, and was buried in the cathedral at Paris.

, a celebrated painter, was born in 1468, in the town of Leyden, and took for his guide the works of Johu van Eyck. He was the first that painted in oil in his country; was a good draftsman, and executed with no less vigour than dispatch both in water-colours and in oil. His works, which escaped the disturbances that ravaged the country, being preserved with respect, by the citizens in the town-house of Leyden, were two altar-pictures, with the side-pieces, since put up in the church of Notre-dame du Marais; one representing Christ on the Cross between the Thieves, the other Abraham’s Sacrifice, and another, a Descent from the Cross. In the same place is preserved a cartoon in water-colours, representing the adoration of the kings. Lucas van Leyden formed himself on his manner. But the principal work of Enghelbrechtsen, according to his biographer Van Marnier, is a picture designed to enrich the tombs of the barons of Lockhorst. It was in their chapel in the church of St. Peter of Leyden, and in 1604 was conveyed to Utrecht, to M. van den Bogaert, son-in-law of M. van Lockhorst. The main subject represents the lamb of the Apocalypse: a multitude of figures, well disposed, the physiognomies noble and graceful, and the delicate style of his pencil render this picture the admiration of all that see it. His genius led him to make a particular study of the emotions of the soul, which he had the art. of expressing in every physiognomy. He was considered by the masters his contemporaries as one of the greatest painters of his age. He died at Leyden in 1533, in the sixty-fifth year of his age.

, an excellent sculptor and painter of Athens, was the disciple of Aristides, and flourished about 362 years before Christ. He wrote several volumes on the art of colouring, and on symmetry, which are lost. His conceptions were noble and elevated, his style masculine and bold; and he was, according to Pliny, the first who signalized himself by representing the majesty of heroes. Among his most celebrated paintings were the twelve Gods, the battle of Mantinea, and Theseus. The refinements of expression were certainly carried very far by Euphranor, if we may form our judgment from the Theseus, which he opposed to that of Parrhasius > and the bronze figure of Alexander Paris, in whom, says Pliny, the umpire of the goddesses^ the lover of Helen, and yet the murderer of Achilles, might be traced. He made the character of Paris so pregnant, that those who knew his history might trace in it the origin of all his future feats, though first impressed by the expression allotted to the predominant quality and moment. Such appears to be the expression of the sitting Paris, formerly in the cortile of the palace Altheims at Rome, a work of the highest style, and worthy of Euphranor, “though,” says Mr. Fuseli, “I shall not venture to call it a repetition in marble of his bronze.”

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

, a painter of histories, portraits, and landscapes, was born at Alkmaer in 1606, and studied under Van Bronkhorst, who soon observed and encouraged talents which he found superior to those of the rest of his disciples. He had a lively invention, and painted with freedom and firmness, and a good force of colouring. Many of his pictures are spoken of in terms of praise; but the one selected as his principal performance is the representation of the victory of David over Goliath, executed in 1648. It was painted on the folding doors of the organ in the great church at Alkmaer and the sketch of it was preserved in the council chamber of that city. Everdingen died in 1679, aged 73.

, a painter, born at Maaseyk in 1366, is regarded as the founder of the Flemish school of painting, the Giotto of Flanders; and exhibited, for that early period of art, great genius and skill. In concert with his brother John, he was celebrated for many extraordinary and curious works, executed in oil, after the latter had made his discovery of that mode of painting., He painted well also in distemper, but gave that up after he adopted the other. One work of his, painted in conjunction with John, was in a chapel of the cathedral of Ghent. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who saw it there, says of it, “it represents the adoration of the lamb taken from the Apocalypse: it contains a great number of figures in a hard manner, but there is great character of truth and nature in the heads, and the landscape is well coloured.” It is now among the spoils of the French in the gallery of the Louvre; but whileat Ghent it was held in such estimation as to be shut up from public view, except on festivals; and at other times was only shewn to ambassadors or princes themselves who desired to see it. Philip I. of Spain wished to purchase it; but that not being practicable, he employed Michael Coxis to copy it, who spent two whole years about it, and received four thousand florins for his labour from the king, who placed it in the Escurial. This artist died in 1426, aged sixty.

The fame of this discovery soon spread over Flanders and into Italy; and when he grew old, but not till then, he imparted his secret to several painters, both Flemish and Italian. And it must be confessed the art of painting is very highly indebted to him for this foundation of the wonderful success with which succeeding ages have profited by this very useful discovery. As a painter he possessed very good talents, considering the early period of the art. He copied his heads generally from rtature; his figures are seldom well composed or drawn. But his power of producing richness of positive colours is surprising, and their durability no less so. He paid great attention evidently to nature, but saw her in an inferior style. He la-> boured his pictures very highly, particularly in the ornaments, which he bestowed with a lavish hand, but with alf the Gothic taste of the time and country in which he lived. In the gallery of the Louvre is a picture of the “Divine Being,” as he chose to call it, represented by an aged man with a long beard, crowned with the pope’s tiara, seated in a chair with golden circles of Latin inscriptions round his head, but without the least dignity of character, or evident action or intention. It is the very bathos of the art. At the earl of Pembroke’s, at Wilton house, is a small picture which does him more credit. -It represents the nativity of our Saviour, with the adoration of the shepherds, and the composition consists of four figures, besides the Saviour and four angels, and has in the back ground the anomaly of the angels at the sa.me time appearing to the shepherds. It is in oil, and the colours are most of them very pure, except those of the flesh. The garment of Joseph is very rich, being glazed thick with red lake, which is as fresh as if it were new. Almost all the draperies are Sg glazed with different colours, and are still very clear, except the virgin’s, which, instead of maintaining its blue colour, is become a blackish green. There is a want of harmony in the work, but it is more the effect of bad arrangement of the colours than the tones of them. The glory surrounding the heads of the virgin and child is of gold. We have been the more particular in stating these circumstances of this picture, because our readers will naturally be curious to know how far the original inventor of oil painting succeeded in his process, and they will see by this account that he went very far indeed, in what relates to the perfection of the vehicle he used, which, if he had happily been able to employ as well as he understood, the world would not have seen many better painters. He lived to practise his discovery for thirty-one years, dying in 1441, at the advanced age of seventy-one. Although in the preceding sketch we have principally followed the first authority in our references^ it must not remain unnoticed that the learned antiquary, Mr. Raspe, has proved, in the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds beyond all contradiction, that the art of painting in oil was invented and practised many ages betbre Van Eyck was born.

, one of the agents in the French revolution, was born at Carcassane, Dec. 28, 1755, and was educated in polite literature and natural philosophy by his parents, whom he quitted in his youth, and became by turns a painter, musician, engraver, poet, and actor. He performed on the stages of Versailles, Brussels, and Lyons, but with no great success. As a writer for the stage, however, he was allowed considerable merit, and obtained, on one occasion, at the Floral ia, the prize of the Eglantine, the name of which he added to his own. In 1786 he published in a French periodical work, “Les Etrennes du Parnasse,” a little poem called “Chalons sur Marne,” in which he drew a very charming picture of the moral pleasures that were to be found in that place and its neighbourhood. This piece, however, fell very short of the celebrity to which he afterwards attained. In 1789 and 1790 he published two comedies, “Le Philinte,” and “L'Intrigue Epistolaire,” the former of which was reckoned one of the best French pieces of the last century.

, a famous painter, in the early stage of the art after its restoration, was born at Verona in 1332, and was a disciple of Giovanni da Fiesole. His most conspicuous work was a picture in the great council chamber of the state of Venice, executed by order of the doge and senate, who regarded the work in so extraordinary a degree of esteem, that they granted him a pension for life, and conferred upon him the privilege of wearing the habit of a noble Venetian; the highest honour in the power of the state to bestow. Many of his pictures adorn the pope’s palace of St. Giovanni Laterano, and the churches in Florence, Urbino, Perugia, Sienna, and Rome. One of them in the church of Santa Maria Nuova, placed over the tomb of cardinal Adimari, representing the Virgin and child, with St. Joseph and St. Benedict, was highly commended by Michael Angelo; whom Vasari represents as being accustomed to say that in painting the hand of Gentile was correspondent with his name. He died in 1412, 80 years old.

, a painter of history, Was born at Bologna in 1560. He began to paint when already grown up to manhood, at the advice of An. Caracci, who, on seeing a whimsical design of his in charcoal, concluded he would be an acquisition to his school. Of this advice he had reason to repent, not only because Facini roused his jealousy by the rapidity of his progress, but because he saw him leave his school, become his rival in the instruction of youth, and even lay snares for his life. Facini had two characteristics of excellence, a vivacity in the attitudes and heads of his figures, that resembled the style of Tintoretto, and a truth of carnation which made Annibal himself declare that his colours seemed to be mixed with human flesh Beyond this he has little to surprise; his design is weak, his bodies vast and undefined, his heads and hands ill set on, nor had he time to correct these faults, as he died young, in 1602. At St. Francesco, in Bologna, is an altar-piece of his, the marriage of St. Catherine, attended by the four tutelary saints of the city, and a number of infant angels, which shews the best of his powers. His children carolling, or at play, in the gallery Matvezzi, and elsewhere at Bologna, are equally admired; they are in the manner of Albani, but with grander proportions.

, a self-taught genius, was born in 1648 at Lisle en Albigeois in Languedoc. He drevr with the pen, or Indian ink, and arrived at such eminence in that branch as to be complimented upon it by Carlo Marat. He went to visit that painter, who received him with politeness, and offered him his pencil; when he declined using it, saying, that he had never practised painting. “I am glad to hear it,” said the artist, “for if I may judge from your drawings of the progress you would have made in painting, I must certainly have given place to you.” Fage lived irregularly, generally drawing at a public-house, and sometimes paying his bills by a sketch, produced upon the occasion. He died in 1690; Audran, Simoneau, and others, engraved a collection of one hundred and twenty-three prints from his designs, and Strutt mentions some prints engraved by himself.

, an Italian painter, was born at Verona in 1522; his mother dying in labour of him. He was a disciple of Nicolo Golfino, and an admirable designer, but not altogether so happy in his colouring: though there is a piece of his painting in St. George’s church at Verona, 50 well performed in both respects, that it does not seem inferior to one of Paul Veronese, which is placed next to it. He was famous also for being an excellent swordsman, and a very good orator, and Strutt mentions some engravings by him. He had considerable knowledge in sculpture and architecture, especially that part of it which relates to fortifications. His last moments are said to have been as remarkable as his first, on account of the death of his nearest relation. He lay upon his death-bed in 1606; and his wife, who was sick in the same room, hearing him cry out r 4< He was going,“told him,” She would bear him company; and actually did so, as they both expired at the same minute.

, a German artist, born at Vienna in 1689, had different masters. He quitted Vienna in 1718, and exercised his art with success at Bamberg, went from thence to Dresden, in company with Alexander Thiele, in whose landscapes he inserted the figures and animals. He also passed over to England, where he married, became involved in his circumstances, and, according to report, was found dead at the door of his lodgings, apparently exhausted by cold, want, and misery, in 1740. The style and subjects of this painter resemble those of Berghem and Wouwermans. The ruins which adorn his landscapes are selected in a grand taste, and often executed with a finish that discriminates the rougher surface of hewn stone from the polished one of marble. He combined with great force of colour great truth of imitation. He etched well in aqua fortis, and his prints are eagerly sought for by the curious.

, a skilful painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Rome in 1634, where, being in. easy circumstances, he pursued his inclination and taste for painting. He was a faithful imitator of Peter da Cortona, whose favourite disciple he was, and to whom he came so near in his ideas, his invention, and his manner of painting, that his cielings particularly are often mistaken, for Cortona’s. Generally, however, Mr. Fuseli says, Ferri has less grace of design, less ease in his actions and draperies, and less compass of mind; but he has more solidity and carefulness of finish than his master. Though he set great prices on his works, he was in continual employ. Pope Alexander VII. had a great esteem for him; and his three successors were no less favourable to him. The great duke sent for him to Florence, and assigned him a large pension to finish the works which Cortona had left imperfect. He entered so well into the spirit of them, and acquitted himself so worthily, that the whole work seems to be of the same hand. The great duke nominated him chief of the school of Florence, in which rank he continued for a long time. Ferri returned to Rome, where he appeared a great architect as well as a good painter. Several palaces and grand altars, as St. John of the Florentines, and that of the Chiesa Nuova, were raised from his designs. He diverted himself more with drawing than painting. He was much importuned for devices, figures for breviaries, and titles of books: several of which have been engraved by Spierre and Bloemart. The pope employed him in making cartoons for the Vatican; and few men have worked in more different ways. The cupola of St. Agnes, in the palace of Navona, was his last work. The chagrin he felt in seeing the angels of Bacici, a Genoese painter, which were directly under it, the force of whose colouring made his appear too weak, is said to have been the cause of his death. One day he told Lazaro Baldi, his companion, that his cupola appeared very different on the scaffold from what it did from below, and that the angels of Bacici gave him great pain; and, falling sick soon after, he died in 1689, at the age of fifty-five.

, an eminent painter, was born at Rome in 1589, and educated under Lodovico Civoli, a famous Florentine painter. As soon as he quitted the school of Civoli, he went to Mantua; where the paintings of Julio Romano afforded him the means of becoming a great painter, and from them he derived his colouring, and the boldness of his characters. Cardinal Ferdinand Gonzaga, afterwards duke of Mantua, discovering the merit of Fetti, retained him at his court, furnished him with means of continuing his studies, and at last employed him in adorning his palace. Few painters, according to a modern connoisseur, have possessed a greater freedom of pencil, a more harmonious style of colouring, or a greater knowledge of expression than Fetti. If he painted a head of character, he entered into the detail of it with such spirit, that it produced an astonishing relief; and that too without the least hardness, so judiciously are the tints varied. It is the same* with his large composition* the light and shade are ingeniously balanced the figures are grouped with so much art, and the general disposition is so well observed, that they produce the most striking and harmonious effects. His pictures are scarce, and mucb Bought alter. He painted very little for churches. Goingto Venice, he abandoned himself to disorderly courses, which put an end to his life in its very prime, in 1624, when he was only in his thirty-fifth year. The duke of Mantua regretted him exceedingly, and sent for his lather and sister, whom he took care of afterwards. The sister, who painted well, became a nun, and exercised her talent in the convent, which she adorned with several of her works. Other religious houses in Mantua, were also decorated with her paintings.

Feuillee published “Journal des Observations physiques, mathematiques, & botaniques, faites par l‘ordre du Hoi, sur les cotes orientates (occidentales) de l’Amerique meridionale, & dans les Indes occidentales, depuis l'anne 1707 jusques en 1712,” Paris, 1714, 2 vols. 4to, with numerous plates. This work is not elegant in style, but valuable for solid information upon all the subjects announced in its title, with various incidental matter besides. What relates to Peru makes a principal part of these volumes. In his descriptions of plants, their reputed medical virtues met with laudable attention from Feuillee, and are always added to his botanical descriptions, and he describes some species still unknown to us. The magnificent Flori-pondio (Datura arborea) was here first made known to botanists. He published another quarto volume, with a similar title, in 1725, in the preface to which he censures Frezier, as above mentioned. The appendix, of 7 1 pages, with 50 plates, describes many extremely interesting plants of Chili. These 100 botanical plates were, according to Haller, republished at Nuremberg in 1756 and 1757, in 2 vols. 4to, with a German translation of their descriptions. The original drawings of Feuillee, many of which were never published, remain in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, but they are very rudely coloured, and without any pretensions to the skill of a painter.

Fischer left England in 178G, and in the beginning of the next year had not been heard of. His majesty inquired several times, with some solicitude, whether he had written to any of his friends in England, and was answered in the negative; one of them understood, by report, that he was at Strasburg. He returned, however, at the end of 1787, and continued in England during the rest of his life. About 1777 he had married a daughter of the admirable painter, Gainsborough, an enthusiastic lover of good music and performance, and of none so much as Fischer’s; indeed he enchanted the whole family with his strains, which were beyond measure captivating, and he stood so well at his instrument, that his figure had all the grace of a Tibian at the altar of Apollo, But this marriage was not auspicions; Fischer, with a good person, and superior genius for his art, was extremely deficient in colloquial eloquence, and in all those undefinable charms of conversation which engage the attention and endear the speaker. He had not a grain of sense but what he breathed through his reed; he never spoke more than three words at a time, and those were negatives or affirmatives. Yet, though he had few charms for a friend or companion, he delighted the public at large in a higher degree than is allowed to any but gifted mortals. This admirable musician was seized with an apoplectic fit April 29, 1800, during the performance of a solo at the queen’s house, at his majesty’s concert. Prince William of Gloucester, observing his situation, supported him out of the apartment, whence he was conveyed to his residence in Compton-street, Soho, where he expired about an hour afterwards.

, a painter of historical subjects, was born at Liege in 1614, and began his studies in Flanders, but at the age of twenty-four he went into Italy to cultivate his talents by a view of the works of the renowned painters of that country. At Rome, he copied the best works of the great masters, and soon acquired a reputation which recommended him to the court of Florence, to which the grand duke invited him, and there employed him in several works, the execution of which acquired for him the esteem of that prince, and the applause of the public. In returning from hence homewards, after an absence of nine years, he went to Paris, where some of his best works were executed. In 1647 he returned to Liege, where he was received with great warmth, and by his subsequent works confirmed the high, opinion which his countrymen had conceived of his merit. He then visited Paris again, was admitted a member of the academy of painting, and appointed professor. Returning home, he became rich enough to build a house at St. Remi, which cost 50,000 florins. He also embraced the clerical profession, and although he knew nothing of Latin, was made a canon of St. Paul, by a dispensation from the pope. But in the midst of wealth, possessed of public and private esteem, and of every other circumstance that could render life comfortable, he was seized with an unaccountable melancholy and dejection of spirits, which incessantly oppressed him, till it occasioned his death in 1675; and many persons believed his disorder to have been occasioned by poison administered to him by the celebrated marchioness de Brinvilliers, with whom he had formed an unfortunate connexion, but for this there appears no proof, and his death seems more reasonably attributed to his disordered mind. He appears indeed to have given way to that selfish jealousy which some have reckoned a system of approaching derangement. When one of his scholars, Carlier, had begun to give extraordinary proofs of excellence in his art, Flameel did every thing he could to discourage him, and actually transferred him to a grinder of colours. Carlier, however, conscious of his abilities, secretly painted “the Martyrdom of St. Denis,” which was placed in the church dedicated to that saint; and Flameel had no sooner seen it, than he threw his pencil into the fire, and never painted more.

, an English poet, was born in Aldersgate-street, London, about 1633; and educated at Winchester school. He went from thence to New college, in Oxford; but leaving the university without a degree, he removed to the Inner Temple, where in due time he became a barrister. Jt does not appear that he ever followed the profession of the law; but, having a turn for the fine arts, he indulged his inclination, and made some proficiency, both as a poet and a painter. He speaks of himself as a painter, in a poem called “The Review,” and it appears from thence, that he drew in miniature. The third edition of his poems, with additions and amendments, was published by himself, with his portrait before them, in 1682, and dedicated to the duke of Ormond. The first poem in this collection is, “On the Death of the right honourable Thomas earl of Ossory,” and had been published separately the year before. Soon after, it was read by the duke of Ormond his father, who was so extremely pleased with it, that he sent Flatman a mourning ring, with a diamond in it worth 100l. He published also in 1685, two Pindaric odes; one on the death of prince Rupert, the other on the death of Charles II.

In 1660, came out, under the letters T. F. a collection of poems, entitled “Virtus Rediviva; a Panegyric on the late king Charles the First, of ever blessed memory,” &c, but these not being reprinted in any edition of his “Poems,” Wood will not afiinn them to be FJatman’s. In 1661, was published a piece in prose, entitled “Don Juan Lamberto, or a Comical History of the late Times,” with a wooden cut before it, containing the pictures of giant Desborough with a great club in his right hand, and of Lambert, both leading under the arms the meek knight Richard Cromwell; and this being very successful, a second part was published the same year, vrith the giant Husonio before it, and printed with the second edition of the first. This satirical work has to it the disguised name of Montelion, knight of the oracle; but Wood says, the acquaintance and contemporaries of Flatman always averred him to be the author of it. Montelion' s Almanack came out in 1660, 1661, 1662. The Montelions of the two last years are supposed to be Flatman’s, that of the first was written by Mr. John Philips. It is remarkable, that Flatman, in his younger days had a dislike to marriage, and made a song describing the incumbrances of it, with this beginning “Like a dog with a bottle tied close to his tail, Like a tory in a bog, or a thief in a jail,” &c. But being afterwards, according to Wood, “smitten with a fair virgin, and more with her fortune, he espoused her in 1672; upon which,” says the same author, “his ingenious comrades did serenade him that night with the said song.” He died at his house in Fleet-street, London, in 1688; his father, a clerk in chancery, being then alive, and in his eightieth year. Although of very little value as a poet, he succeeded better as a painter, and as Granger says, one of his heads is worth a ream of his Pindarics.

, a painter of history, was born at Antwerp in 1520, but practised the art of sculpture till he was twenty years of age, when he changed his profession, and studied painting under Lambert Lombard. He afterwards went to Rome, and copied the works of the ancients; but was particularly struck with the works of Michel Angelo Buonaroti, which he imitated with great zeal, particularly his Last Judgment; but, probably from want of a comprehensive genius, attended more to the parts than die whole. Such was his success, however, in his general improved style of painting on his return to his native city, that it acquired for him the honourable appellation of the “Raphael of Flanders,” though his style of design is certainly more in imitation of M. Angelo than of Raphael. He painted for the contrafestivity hail of St. Michael, at Antwerp, a large picture, now at the Louvre, at Paris. The subject is, " The Fall of Lucifer and his Angels/' It is highly celebrated for the goodness of the composition and handling, for the variety of attitudes in the fallen angels, and for the strong expression of the muscles in the naked figures. In fact it is a very curious picture, painted with great capacity, and exhibits a powerful, though eccentric, imagination. The fiends in M. Angelo’s Last Judgment are not more horrible, or nearly so grotesque. The power of colour also is admirable, and in some parts has been rarely surpassed. He had a strong and bold manner, and, like his great model Buonaroti, marked the muscular parts too full for a just imitation of nature. He invented and composed with ease, but in a dry and gothic manner; and though sometimes his figures have an agreeable air, yet in general they possess a reprehensible degree of the stiffness and formality peculiar to the age and country he lived in. There are some etchings by him, which, though slight, are bold and spirited. He died in 1570, aged 50.

, a French painter, the pupil of Le Brun, who suffered him to paint for him occasionally in some of his most capital works, was the son of a goldsmith, and born at Paris in 1640. He perfected his talents in Italy, and on his return was employed to paint the dome of the hotel of invalids. Louis XIV. settled upon him a pension of 1000 crowns, and he was received into the academy of painting, where he became rector and professor. His fame extended even to England, whither he was invited by the earl of Montagu, and employed by liini in decorating his magnificent house, now the British Museum, where his paintings at that time attracted universal admiration. William III. on seeing them, offered him a handsome establishment in this country; but, at the same time, the celebrated architect Mansard, wrote to him from France, that he was wanted there to co-operate with him in finishing some public buildings, and he returned to his native country, where he died in 1716. He was reckoned inimitable in his time as a colourist, and excellent both in landscape and historical painting.

, a Flemish painter of the 17th century, born at Antwerp in 1580, was one of the most learned and celebrated of landscape painters. Some have placed him so near Titian, as to make the difference of their pictures consist, rather in the countries represented, that) in the goodness of the pieces. The principles they went upon are the same, and their colouring alike good and regular. He painted for Rubens, of whom he learned the essentials of his art The elector palatine employed him at Heidelberg, and from thence he went to Paris, where, though he worked a long time, and was well paid, yet he grew poor for want of conduct, and died 1659, in the house of an ordinary painter called Silvain, who lived in the suburbs of St. Jaques.

, commonly called Francesco Dal Borgo A San Sepolcro, a painter of considerable renown, was born at Borgo in Umbria, in 1372. In his youth he studied the mathematics; but at fifteen years of age determined on being a painter, when he was patronised by Gindobaldo Fettro, duke of Urbino. He did not, however, so completely devote his time to painting as to neglect his former studies, but wrote several essays on geometry and perspective, which were long preserved in the duke’s^ library at Urbino. He afterwards painted in Pesara, Ancona, and Ferrara; but few of his works remain at either of these places. Having obtained much reputation, he was sent for to Rome by pope Nicholas V. to paint two historical subjects in the chambers of the Vatican, in concurrence with Bramante di Milano, called Bramantino; but Julius II. destroyed these to make room for Raphael’s Miracle of Bolsena, and St. Peter in Prison. Notwithstanding this degradation of his labours, before the superior powers of Raphael, he was very deserving of esteem, if the account which Vasari gives of him be true, and we consider the imperfect state of the art at the time in which he lived. He exhibited much knowledge of anatomy, feeling of expression, and of distribution of light and shade. The principal work of Franceses was a night scene, in which he represented an angel carrying a cross, and appearing in vision to the emperor Constantine sleeping in his tent with his chamberlain near him, and some of his soldiers. The light which issued from the cross and the angel illuminated the scene, and was spread over it with the utmost discretion. Every thing appeared to have been studied from nature, and was executed with great propriety and truth. He also painted a battle, which was highly commended for the spirit and fire with which it was conducted; the strength of the expression, and the imitation of nature; particularly a groupe of horsemen, which, Vasari says, “considering the period, cannot be too highly commended.”

, an historical painter, born at Bologna in 1648, was at first a disciple of G. Battista Galli, and from him entered the school of Carlo Cignani, who soon discovered the talents of his pupil, and not only formed his style, but made him his relation by macrying him to his niece, and he soon became his principal assistant. He was employed in embellishing many churches and convents in his native city, and in other parts of Italy; and particularly at Modena, he painted the grand hall of the duke’s palace so much to the satisfaction of that prince, that he wished to retain him at his court by an offer of a large pension, and such honours as were due to his merit. But Franceschini preferred his freedom and ease to the greatest acquisitions of wealth, and with polite respect refused the offer. At Genoa he painted, in the great council chamber, a design that at once manifested the fertility of his invention, and the grandeur of his ideas; for most of the memorable actions of the republic were there represented with a multitude of figures nobly designed, judiciously grouped and disposed, and correctly drawn. And in the Palazzo Monti at Bologna is a small gallery painted by him, of which the colouring is exceedingly lovely, though the figures appear to want roundness. Franceschini, though of the school of Cignani, is original in the suavity of his colour, and the facility of his execution. He is fresh without being cold, and full without being crowded. As he was a machinist, and in Upper Italy what Cortona was in the Lower, symptoms of the mannerist appear in his works. He had the habit of painting his cartoons in chiaro-scuro, and, by fixing them to the spot where the fresco was to be executed, became a judge of their effect. He preserved the powers 6f his mind and pencil unaltered at a very advanced age; and when he was even seventy-eight years old, he designed and coloured his pictures with all that fire and spirit for which he had been distinguished in his best time. He died in 1729, at the age of eighty-one.

, an historical painter, whose real name was Raibolini, was born at Bologna in 1450, and wa bred to the profession of a goldsmith, which he exercised for some time with very considerable celebrity, having the coinage of the city of Bologna under his care. His desire of reputation, and his acquaintance with Andrea Mantegna and other painters, led him to the study of painting-, but from whom he received the first elements of instruction is not known. In 1490 he produced a picture of the Virgin seated, and surrounded by several figures; among whom is the portrait of M. Bart. Felisini, for whom the picture was painted. In this he still calls himself “Frauciscus Francis, aurifex,” and it, with another picture of a similar subject, painted for the chapel Bentivoglio a St. Jacopo, gained him great reputation. He painted many pictures for churches, &c. in Bologna, Modena, Parma, and other cities; but they were in the early, Gothic, dry manner, called “stila antico moderuo,” which he greatly improved upon in his latter productions. On Pietro Perugino he formed his characters of heads, and his choice of tone and colour; on Gian. Bellino, fullness of outline and breadth of drapery; and if the best evidence of his merit, the authority of Raphael, be of weight, in process of time he excelled them both. In a letter dated 1508, edited by Malvasia, Raphael declares that the Madonnas of Francia were inferior, in his opinion, to none for beauty, devoutness, and form. His idea of Francia’s talents exhibited itself still stronger in his entrusting his picture of St. Cecilia, destined for the church of St Gio da Monte at Bologna, to his care, by letter soliciting him as a friend to See it put in its place, and if he found any defect in it, that he would kindly correct it. Vasari says that Francia died with grief in 1518, upon seeing by this picture that he was as nothing in the art, compared with the superior genius of Raphael; but Malvasia proves that he lived some years afterwards, and in an improved style produced his celebrated St. Sebastian, which Caracci describes as the general model of proportion and form for the students at Bologna. A copy of this figure still exists in the church della Misericordia.

, or Fiuncia Bigio, was an historical painter, born in 1483. He studied for a short time under Albertinelli, but is chiefly known as the competitor, and in some works the partner of Andrea del Sarto. Similar in principle, but inferior to him in power, he strove to supply by diligence the defects of nature; with what success, will appear on comparison of his work in the cloister of the Nunziata at Florence, with those of Andrea at the same place. On its being uncovered by the monks, the painter in a fit of shame or rage gave it some blows with a hammer, nor ever after could be induced to finish it. He appears to have succeeded better in two histories which he inserted among the frescos of Andrea at the Scalzo, nor is he there much inferior. He likewise emulated him at Poggio a Cajano, where he represented the return of M. Tullius from exile, a work, which though it remained unfinished, shews him to great advantage. This artist died in 1524, in the prime of life.

, commonly called Young Francks, the son of the preceding, and of both his names, was born in 1580, and instructed in the art of painting by his father, whose style and manner he imitated in a large and small size; but when he found himself sufficiently skilled to be capable of improvement by travel, he went to Venice, and there perfected his knowledge of colouring, by studying and copying the works of those artists who were most eminent. But it seems extraordinary that a painter so capable of great things in his profession, should devote his pencil to the representation of carnivals and other subjects of that kind, preferably to historical subjects of a much higher rank, which might have procured for him abundantly more honour. At his return, however, to Flanders, his works were greatly admired and coveted, being superior to those of his father in many respects; his colouring was more clear, his pencil more delicate, his designs had somewhat more of elegance, and his expression was much better. The taste of composition was the same in both, and they seemed to have the same ideas, and the same defects’, multiplying too many historical incidents into one subject, and representing a series of actions, rather than one principal action or event. The subjects of both painters were usually taken from the Old and New Testament, and also from the Roman history (except the subjects of young Francks while he continued in Italy); and it might have been wished that each of them had observed more order and propriety in the disposition of their subjects.

He had a great particularity in touching the white of the eyes of his figures, which appears as if a small lump of unbroken white was touched on, with the point of a fine pencil, and it gives the figures a great deal of spirit. liven that particularity, well attended to, may be a means of determining the hand of this master. It ought to ht observed, that from the similarity of names, taste, style, and colouring of the Old and Young Francks, their works are often mistaken and miscalled, and the work of the one purchased for the work of the other. The most capital performance of this painter, is a scriptural subject in the church of Notre Dame at Antwerp; and an excellent picture, in the small size, is “Solomon’s Idolatry,” in which that king is represented as kneeling before an altar, on which is placed the statue of Jupiter. There is a noble expression in the figure of Solomon, apd the drapery of the figure is broad and flowing; the altar is exceedingly enriched with fine bas-relief in the Italian style, and it exquisitely finished; the penciling is neat, the colouring clear and transparent, and the whole picture appears to have been painted on leaf gold. Young Francks died in 1642.

, an historical painter, born at Imola, and known by the name of Innocenzio da Iinola, became a disciple of Francesco Francia, in 1506; then passed some time with Albertinelli at Florence; and from the evidence of his works, and the testimony of Vasari, studied much after Fra. Bartolomeo and Andrea del Sarto: for though the main disposition of his altar-pieces be still gothic, he no longer used the ancient gilding; he placed, the Virgin on high in the centre, and surrounded her with saints and angels, architecture, and back grounds skilfu.lly grouped and arranged with novelty and taste. Such is his style in the surprizing picture of the Duomo at Fagnza, and in another at Pesaro. The aerial perspective and back ground remind us of Leonardo da Vinci. He sometimes placed smaller pictures under his altar-pieces, like that at St. Giacorno of Bologna, which breathes the very spirit of Raphael; that spirit he seems indeed to have aimed at in the greater part of his works, and to have approached it nearer than most of Raphael’s own scholars. He excelled Francia and his fellow-scholar Bagnacavallo in erudition, majesty, and correctness. Subjects of novel combination and fiery fancy he has not produced; nor seem they to have been congenial with that mildness and tranquillity of character which history ascribes to. him. He wks fifty-six: years old at the time of his death, but that is not known.

, a celebrated French painter; was born at Paris in 1567. When he was studying at Rome, the suffrages of that place were divided between Michael Angelo Caravaggio, and Joseph of Arpino, called Giuseppino; and he succeeded in imitating the excellencies of both. He was a great master of design, and of the sciences connected with his art, perspective and architecture; but there is a boldness in his manner, approaching to hardness, which is not always approved. Henry IV. however, appointed him his chief painter, and Louis XIII. honoured him with the order of St. Michael. He painted the cieling in the chapel at Fontainbleau, and died at Paris, June 18, 1619.

, a celebrated French poet and painter, was born at Paris in 1611. His father, who was an eminent apothecary in that city, intended him for the medical profession, and during the first year which he spent at college, he made very considerable progress in his studies; but as soon as he was raised to the highest classes, and began to contract a taste for poetry, his genius for it appeared, and he carried all the prizes of it, which were proposed to excite the emulation of his fellow-students. His inclination for poetry was heightened by exercise; and his earliest performances shewed that he was capable of attaining very considerable fame in this pursuit, if his love of painting, which equally possessed him, had not divided his time and application. At last he laid aside all thoughts of the study of physic, and declared absolutely for that of painting, notwithstanding the opposition of his parents, who by all kinds of severity endeavoured to divert him from pursuing that art, the profession of which they unjustly considered in a very contemptible light. But the strength of his inclination defeating all the measures taken to suppress it, he took the first opportunity of cultivating his favourite study.

He was nineteen or twenty years of age when he began to learn to design under Francis Perier, and having spent two years in the school of that painter, and of Simon Vouet, he thought proper to take a journey into Italy, where he arrived at the end of 1633, or the beginning of 1634. As he had di.ring his studies, applied himself very much to that of geometry, he began upon his coming to Rome to paint landscapes, buildings, and ancient ruins. But, for the first two years residence in that city, he had the utmost difficulty to support himself, being abandoned by his parents, who resented his having rejected their advice in the choice of his profession; and the little stock of money which he had provided before he left France, proving scarce sufficient for the expences of his journey to Italy. 3eing destitute therefore of friends and acquaintance at Rome, he was reduced to such distress, that his chief subsistence for the greatest part of that time was bread, and a small quantity of cheese. But he diverted the sense of uneasy circumstances by an intense and indefatigable application to painting, until the arrival of the celebrated Peter Mignard, who had been the companion of his studies under Vouet, set him more at ease. They immediately engaged in the strictest friendship, living together in the same house, and being commonly known at Rome by the name of the Inseparables. They were employed by the cardinal of Lyons in copying all the best pieces in the Farnese palace. But their principal study was the works of Raffaelle and other great masters, and the antiques; and they were constant in their attendance every evening at the academy, in designing after models. Mignard had superior talents in practice; but Du Fresnoy was a great master of the rules, history, and theory of his profession. They communicated to each other their remarks and sentiments; Du Fresnoy furnishing his friend with noble and excellent ideas, and the latter instructing the former to paint with greater expedition and ease.

His poem was not published till three years after his death, at Paris, 12mo, with the French version, and remarks of Mons. Du Piles, and it has been justly admired for its elegance, perspicuity, and the utility of the instruction it contains. In 1694, Dryden made a prose translation of it into English, which he accompanied with his ingenious parallel between poetry and painting. It was again translated into English by Mr. Wills, a painter, who gave it in metre without rhyme. He attempted to produce the sense of his author in an equal number of lines, and thus cramped his own skill; and produced a work unequal in itself, in which, however well he appears to hare understood the original text, he fails to impress it on his reader. It is now almost totally forgotten. More ample justice has been done in our language to the talents of Du Fresnoy, by our late skilful poet, William Mason, M. A.; by whom, in 1782, he was first clothed in an English dress suited to his elevated pretensions. And still greater honour was done to him by the hand of that extraordinary genius of our isle in the art of painting, sir Joshua Reynolds, for whose more valuable remarks upon the most important points in the poem, Mr. Mason was induced to discard those of Mons. Du Piles. By the union of the talents of two men so renowned in the arts of poetry and painting, Du Fresnoy is rendered for ever dear to the English reader; and the thorough knowledge he has exhibited of the best principles of the art of painting, is become more agreeably and more extensively diffused.

, an eminent and ancient French historian and poet, was born in Valenciennes, about 1337. Of his parents we know only that his father, Thomas Froissart, was a painter of arms, and although our historian is titled knight, at the beginning of a manuscript in the abbey of St. Germain des Prez, it is thought that the copyist had given it to him of his own authority. His infancy announced what he would one day be: he early manifested that eager and inquisitive mind, which during the course of his life never allowed him to remain long attached to the same occupations, and in the same place; and the different games suitable to that age, of which he gives us a picture equally curious and amusing, kept up in his mind a fund of natural dissipation, which during his early studies tried the patience and exercised the severity of his masters. He loved hunting, music, assemblies, feasts, dancing, dress, good living, wine and women; these tastes, which almost all shewed themselves from twelve years of age, being confirmed by habit, were continued even to his old age, and perhaps never left him. The mind and heart of Froissart being not yet sufficiently occupied, his love for history filled up that void, which his passion for pleasure left; and became to him an inexhaustible source of amusement.

, an ingenious artist, was a native of Ireland, where he was born in 1710. He came very early to London, when he practised portrait-painting in oil, crayons, and in miniature. In 1734 he had the honour of painting his royal highness, Frederick prince of Wales, a full length, now in Sadler’s-hall, Cheapside. But his genius was not confined to this art, and it is said that he was the inventor and first manufacturer of porcelain in England, and that he spent fifteen years of his life in bringing this to perfection at a manufactory at Bow, during which, his constitution being impaired by constantly working in furnaces, he retired into Wales, with little hope of recovery. Here, however, his health was perfectly restored, and he returned again to London, and resumed his profession, to which he now added the art of mezzotinto engraving, and had considerable employment and success, both as a painter and engraver, tie died of a decline, brought on by intense application, April 2, 1762.

, was an English painter of some note in the reign of Charles II. but of his family or masters we have no account, except that he studied many years in France under Perrier, who engraved the antique statues. In his historical compositions he has left little to admire, his colouring being raw and unnatural, and not compensated by disposition or invention, but in portraits his pencil was bold, strong, and masterly. In the latter he was much employed, particularly at Oxford. His own portrait in the gallery there is touched with great force and character. The altar-piece of Magdalen was also by him, but has not been much approved. As an imitation of Michel Angelo, it falls far short of the sublime, although sometimes wild imagination of that great artist; nor is the colouring harmonious. Some of the figures, however, are correctly drawn; and he has at least imitated the temper of Michel Angelo with success, in introducing among the damned, the portrait of an hostler at the Greyhound-inn, near the college, who had offended him. The picture, it is well known, was honoured by Addison in an elegant Latin poem. At Wadham college is an altar-cloth by Fuller in a singular manner, and of merit; which is just brushed over for the lights and shades, and the colours melted in with a hot iron. Soon after the restoration, he was engaged in painting the circumstances of king Charles II.'s escape, which he executed in five large pictures. These were presented to the parliament of Ireland, where they remained for many years in one of the rooms of the parliament house in Dublin. But some time in the last century the house undergoing a thorough repair, these pictures were not replaced, but lay neglected, until they were rescued by the late earl of Clanbrassil, who obtained possession of them, and had them cleaned and removed to his seat at Tullymore park, co. Down, where they were a few years ago. Lord Orford speaks slightingly of these, which he had never seen, and probably with as much justice as of Fuller’s altar-piece at All-souls college, which he never could have seen, for Fuller had no picture there. Fuller died in Bloomsbury-square July 17, 1672, and left a gon, an ingenious but idle man, chiefly employed ia coach -painting, who died young.

, or Gerards, a Flemish painter, was born at Bruges in 1561, and practised history, landscape, architecture, and portrait. He also engraved, illuminated, and designed for glass-painters. His etchings for Esop’s fables, and view of Bruges were much esteemed. He came to England not long after the year 1580, and remained here until his death in 1635, having been painter to queen Elizabeth and Anne of Denmark. His works are numerous, though not easily known, as he never used any peculiar mark. In general they are neat, the ruffs and liabits stiff, and rich with pearls and other jewels. His flesh-colours are thin and light, tending to a blueish tincture. His procession of queen Elizabeth to Hunsdonhouse has been engraved by Vertue, who thought that part of the picture of sir Thomas More’s family at Burford might have been completed by this painter.

, two brothers, the sons of Ercole Gennari, by a sister of Guercino, were the heirs of the latter, and his copyists, and imitators they made numerous repetitions of his Sibyl, his St. John, and Herodias, recognized by tints less vigorous, and the want of that freshness which distinguishes the originals. After having worked jointly at Cento, Bologna, and various towns of Italy, x Caesar established himself at Bologna, and continued to imitate his uncle. Benedict, or, as he is more familiarly called, Benedetto, went to England, and adopted a neater and more studied manner: as painter to James II. he painted the portrait of that prince and of his family; but at their expulsion, returned to Italy, nearly transformed to a Dutch or Flemish artist; such was the truth with which he imitated velvets, silks, stuffs, ornaments, and whatever can give brilliancy to portraits, whilst at the same time he corrected and embellished the character of his sitters without impairing the resemblance: a taste so novel in Italy acquired him applause and distinguished employment. His historic works are, a St. Leopardo in the dome of Osimo, and a St. Zaccaria at Forli, which want only more vigour and relief, to be equal to Guercino. He died 1715, aged eighty-two. There was another artist of this family, Bartholomew, uncle to the preceding, who, as a copyist resembles Guercino less than the three already mentioned; perhaps, as an imitator, more. He has animation and expression. One Lorenzo Gennari, of Rimini, who appears to advantage in a picture at the Capuchins, was likewise a pupil of Guercino, and perhaps a relative.

, an Italian painter, whose family name was Lomi, which he exchanged for that of his maternal uncle, Gentileschi, was born at Pisa in 1563. After having made himself famous at Florence, Rome, Genoa, and in other parts of Italy, he removed to Savoy; whence he went to France, and at last, upon the invitation of Charles I. came over to England. He was well received by that king, who appointed him lodgings in his court, together with a considerable salary; and employed him in his palace at Greenwich, and other public places. The most remarkable of his performances in England, were the cielings of Greenwich and York-house. He painted a Madona, a Magdalen, and Lot with his two Daughters, for king Charles; all which he performed admirably well. After the death of the king, when his collection of paintings were exposed to sale, nine pictures of Gentileschi were sold for 600l. and are now said to be the ornaments of the hall in Marlborough-house. His most esteemed work abroad was the portico of cardinal Bentivoglio’s palace at Rome, and a “David standing over Goliah,” painted with a vigour and vivacity of tints that make' him start from the canvass, and give the idea of a style yet unknown. This is in the house Cambiasi, at Genoa. He made several attempts in portrait- painting, but with little success his talent lying altogether in histories, with figures as large as the life. He was much in favour with the duke of Buckingham, and many others of the nobility. After twelve years continuance in England, he died here in 1647, and was buried in the queen’s chapel at Somersethouse. His head is among the prints taken from Vandyke, by whom he had been painted.

, a painter in miniature, was born at Antwerp in 1592. He was employed by Charles I. but is far more conspicuous as having been engaged, in conjunction with Rubens, to negociate a treaty with Spain; and for having been for a time British resident at Brussels. His being in the suite of Buckingham in Spain was the means of this elevation; for which he does not appear to have been duly qualified. He was somewhat acquainted with architecture, and was employed by lord Craven to give designs for Ilempsted-hall, which has since been burnt. Being neglected by the court, he in 1648 appeared as an author, and founder of an academy at Bethnal-green; and in 1649 published his first lecture on geography. This was followed by others, and by various pamphlets respecting quackish schemes and projects, with which his head appears to have been full. He afterwards went to Cayenne, and settled with his family at Surinam; where, by order of the Dutch, he was seized and sent back to Holland, from the jealousy of that government, which regarded him since his naturalization in England as an agent of the king. On the restoration of Charles II. hereturned to England, and prepared triumphal arches for; his honour. Here he practised various means of riving forsome years, with no great respect or profit, and at last died in 1667, having passed his latter days in all the expedients of quackery. Lord Orford has bestowed a long article upon sir Balthasar, but has not much exalted his merit as a man or an artist.

At this crisis, after he had secreted himself for some time in a hired room, he waited on Hempel, the king’s painter, whose friendship he had already gained, and requested that gentleman to follow him to his chambers. Here the walls were covered with paintings which he had just finished, entirely from his own invention. The painter complimented him, although with the proviso, that farther labour and experience would be necessary to render him an accomplished artist. Probably, by Hempel’s means, his father was persuaded not only to pardon him, but to grant him leave to prolong his stay at Berlin, where he formed an acquaintance with artists and men of letters. Krause, Hempei, Rainier, and Sulzer, were his principal companions, and Ramler, to whom he had communicated some of his poetical attempts, gave him very useful advice on the nature of poetical composition, and the defects which he perceived in Gesner' s pieces.

About his thirtieth year be became acquainted with Heidegger, a man of taste, who bad a large collection of paintings and engravings, and, what was more interesting, a daughter, whose charms made a very lively impression on our author. After some difficulties were surmounted, he married this lady, and from this time appears to have carried on the businesses of poet, engraver, painter, and bookseller. The latter department, however, was attended to chiefly by Mrs. Gesner, as well as the care of the house and the education of the children. With him, painting and engraving occupied the hours which were not devoted to poetry, and his mode of life was marked by cheerfulness and liveliness of temper, and a condu-ct truly amiable and exemplary. He was highly loved and respected, and uniting to taste and literature the talents requisite for active life, he was raised by the citizens of Zurich to the first offices in the republic. In 1765 he was called to the great council, and in 1767 to the lesser. In 1768 he was appointed bailiff of Eilibach; and to other offices, all which he filled with the greatest honour and fidelity. But in the height of his fame and usefulness, he was cut off by a stroke of the palsy, on the 2d of March 1788, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, leaving a widow, three children, and a sister behind. His fellow-citizens have since erected a statue to his memory, in his favourite walk on the banks of the Limrnot, where it meets the Sihl.

, a painter, of whom Vasari speaks as being of the first rank in his time, was properly called Corradi, and was born in 1449. He at first was employed by his father in his own profession of goldsmith, at Florence, who obtained the name of Ghirlandaio, by having been the first to make little metallic garlands (Ghirlandi) for children to wear. Domenico, after he had adopted painting as his profession, worked for the churches and convents in Florence, both in fresco and in oil, like other artists introducing into his pictures the portraits of his friends, but with more character than had hitherto been done there; and he was the first who left off gilding in pictures, and attempted to imitate its effects by colours. He was called to Rome by Sixtus IV. to assist other masters employed in painting his chapel. His works there were afterwards spoiled to make room for those of M. Angelo. He was highly honoured, and employed nobly; but his greatest glory is, having had the great hero of the art, M. Angelo, for a pupil. He died in 1493. His brothers, David and Benedetto, finished many of his works, and educated his son Riclolfo to the art, who afterwards made great progress, and obtained esteem from Raphael himself, who invited him, but not successfully, to work in the Vatican. In Ridolfo’s pictures, Mr. Fuseli says, “there is something analogous to the genius of Raphael; the composition, the vivacity of the face, the choice of colours, something ideal in the use of nature, betray similar maxims, with inferior powers.” He died in 1560, aged seventy-­five.

, commonly called the Dwarf, was a painter of some eminence in the time of sir Peter Lely, to whose manner he devoted himself, and whose picture’s he copied very faithfully. He was originally servant to a lady at Mortlake, who, observing that his genius led him to painting, put him to De Cleyn, to be instructed in the? rudiments of that art. De Cleyn was master of the tapestry-works at Mortlake, and famous for the cuts which he designed for some of Ogilby’s works, and for Sandys’s translation of Ovid. Gibson’s paintings in water-colours were well esteemed; but the copies he made of Lely’s portraits gained him the greatest reputation. He was greatly in favour with Charles I. to whom he was page of the back -stairs; and he also drew Oliver Cromwell several times. He had the honour to instruct in drawing queen Mary and queen Anne, when they were princesses, and he went to Holland to wait on the former for that purpose. He married one Mrs. Anne Shepherd, whb was also a dwarf. Charles I. was pleased, out of curiosity or pleasantry, to honour their marriage with his presence, and to give away the bride. Waller wrote a poem on this occasion, “of the marriage of the dwarfs.” Fenton, in his notes on it, tells us, that he had seen this couple painted by sir Peter Lely; and that they appeared to have been of an equal stature, each of them measuring three feet ten inches. They had, however, nine children, five of which attained to maturity, and were proportioned to the usual standard of mankind. To recompense the shortness of their stature, nature gave this little couple an equivalent in length of days for Gibson died in Covent-garden, in his 75th year, in 1690; and his wife, surviving him almost 20 years, died in 1709, aged 89. Gibson’s nephew, William, was instructed in the art of painting both by him and sir Peter Lely, and became also eminent. His excellence, like his uncle’s, lay in copying after sir Peter Lely; although he was a good limner, and drew portraits for persons of the first rank. His great industry was much to be commended, not only for purchasing sir Peter Lely’s collection after his death, but likewise for procuring from the continent a great variety of valuable works, which made his collection of prints and drawings equal to that of any person of his time. He died of a lethargy in 1702, aged 58. There was also one Edward Gibson, William’s kinsman, who was instructed by him, and first painted portraits in oil; but afterwards, finding more encouragement in crayons, and his genius lying that way, he applied himself to them. He was in the way of becoming a master, but died when he was young.

, a late artist, and a descendant of the Apostle of the North, was born at Carlisle in 1733, from whence, after having acquired some relish for the art from his father, who was a captain in the army, he came to London, and was articled to a ship-painter. His first interesting works were composed of some market groups which struck his eye from his window. Soon after he went to Newmarket, being encouraged by the late William, duke of Cumberland, where he executed many compositions which might have vied with Hogarth in point of character. In the duke’s stud he acquired that knowledge of the horse, which he afterwards displayed with such superior spirit and beauty; and when we see with what felicity he applied it to the higher departments of the art, to historic compositions in the triuiph of Camillas, the election of Darius, the story of Phaeton, we must lament that such talents should have been drawn aside to the meaner employment of horse-portrait painting, which occupied too much of his valuable life.

, an eminent painter, sculptor, and architect, was born in 1276, at a village near Florence, of parents who were plain country people. When a boy, he was sent out to keep sheep in the fields; and, having a natural inclination for design, he used to amuse himself with drawing his flock after the life upon sand, in the best manner he could. Cimabue travelling once that way, found him at this work, and thence conceived so good an opinion of his genius for painting, that he prevailed with his father to let him go to Florence, and be brought up under him. He had not applied himself long to designing, before he began to shake off the stiffness of the Grecian masters. He endeavoured to give a finer air to his heads, and more of nature to his colouring, with proper actions to his figures. He attempted likewise to draw after the life, and to express the different passions of the mind; but could not come up to the liveliness of the eyes, the tenderness of the flesh, or the strength of the muscles in naked figures. What he did, however, had not been done in, two centuries before, with any skill equal to his. Giotto’s reputation was so far extended, that pope Benedict IX. sent a gentleman of his court into Tuscany, to bring him a just report of his talents; and withal to bring him a design from each of the Florentine painters, being desirous to have some notion of their skill. When he came to Giotto, he told him of the pope’s intentions, which were to employ him in St. Peter’s church at Rome; and desired him to send some design by him to his holiness. Giotto, who was a pleasant ready man, took a sheet of white paper, and setting his arm close to his hip to keep it steady, he drew with one stroke of his pencil a circle so round and so equal, that “round as Giotto’s O” afterwards became proverbial. Then, presenting it to the gentleman, he told him smiling, that “there was a piece of design, which he might carry to his holiness.” The man replied, “I ask for a design:” Giotto answered, “Go, sir, I tell you his holiness asks nothing else of me.” The pope, who understood something of painting, easily comprehended by this, how much Giotto in strength of design excelled all the other painters of his time; and accordingly sent for him to Rome. Here he painted many pieces, and amongst the rest a ship of Mosaic work, which is over the three gates of the portico, in the entrance to St. Peter’s church, and is known to painters by the name of Giotto’s vessel. Pope Benedict was succeeded by Clement V. who transferred the papal court to Avignon; whither, likewise, Giotto was obliged to go. After some stay there, having perfectly satisfied the pope by many fine specimens of his art, he was largely rewarded, and returned to Florence full of riches and honour in 1316. He was soon invited to Padua, where he painted a new-built chapel very curiously; thence he went to Verona, and then to Ferrara. At the same time the poet Dante, hearing that Giotto was at Ferrara, and being himself then in exile at Ravenna, got him over to Ravenna, where he executed several pieces; and perhaps it might be here that he drew Dante’s picture, though the friendship between the poet and the painter was previous to this. In 1322, he was again invited abroad by Castruccio Castrucani, lord of Luca; and, after that, by Robert king of Naples. Giotto painted much at Naples, and chiefly the chapel, where the king was so pleased with him, that he used very often to go and sit by him while he was at work: for,Giotto was a man of pleasant conversation and wit. One day, it being very hot, the king said to him, “If I were you, Giotto, I would leave off working this hot weather” “and so would I, Sir,” says Giotto, “if I were you.” He returned from Naples to Rome, and from Rome to Florence, leaving monuments of his art in almost every place through which he passed. There is a picture of his in one of the churches of Florence, representing the death of the blessed Virgin, with the apostles about her: the attitudes of which story, Michael Angelo used to say, could not be better designed. Giotto, however, did not confine his genius altogether to painting: he was both a sculptor and architect. In 1327 he formed the design of a magnificent and beautiful monument for Guido Tarlati, bishop of Arezzo, who had been the head of the Ghibeline faction in Tuscany: and in 1334 he undertook the famous tower of Sancta Maria del Fiore; for which work, though it was not finished, he was made a citizen of Florence, and endowed with a considerable yearly pension. His death happened in 1336: and the city of Florence erected a marble statue over his tomb. He had the esteem and friendship of most of the excellent men of the age in which he lived and among the rest, of Dante and Petrarch. He drew, as already noticed, the picture of the former and the latter mentions him in his will, and in one of his familiar epistles.

In the French revolution which took place in the following year, and which let loose all kinds of principles and opinions except what had stood the test of experience, Miss Woollstonecraft found much that was congenial with her own ways of thinking, and much which it will appear soon she determined to introduce in her conduct. She was therefore among the first who attempted to answer Mr. Burke’s celebrated “Reflections on the French Revolution,” and displayed a share of ability which made her reputation more general than it had yet been. This was followed by her “Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” in which she unfolded many a wild theory on the duties and character of her sex. How well she was qualified to guide them appeared now in the practical use of her own precepts, of which the first specimen was the formation of a violent attachment for a very eminent artist, which is thus embellished by her biographer “She saw Mr. Fuseli frequently; he amused, delighted, and instructed her. As a painter, it was impossible she should not wish to see his works, and consequently to frequent his house. She visited him; her visits were returned. Notwithstanding the inequality of their years, Mary was not of a temper to live upon terms of so much intimacy with a man of merit and genius, without loving him. The delight she enjoyed in his society, she transferred by association to his person. What she experienced in this respect, was no doubt heightened, by the state of celibacy and restraint in which she had hitherto lived, and to which the rules of polished society condemn an unmarried woman. She conceived a personal and ardent affection for him. Mr. Fuseli was a married man, and his wife the acquaintance of Mary. She readily perceived the restrictions which this circumstance seemed to impose upon her, but she made light of any difficulty that might arise out of them.” Notwithstanding this contempt for difficulties, Mr. Fuseli was not to be won, and in order to get rid of a passion which he would not indulge, she went ever to France in 1792. Here within a few months she found a cure in that “species of connection,” says her biographer, “for which her heart secretly panted, and which had the effect of diffusing an immediate tranquillity and cheerfulness over her manners.” This was an illicit connection with a Mr. Imlay, an American, and we are gravely told, that “she was now arrived at the situation, which, for two or three preceding years, her reason had pointed out to her as affording the most substantial prospect of happiness.” Her reason, however, unfortunately pointed wrong in this instance, as she was afterwards most basely and cruelly abandoned by the object of her affections, whose conduct cannot be mentioned in terms of indignation too strong. She now made two attempts at suicide, on which we shall only remark that they were totally inconsistent with the character given of her by her biographer, as possessing “a firmness of mind, an unconquerable greatness of soul, by which, after a short internal struggle-, she was accustomed to rise above difficulties and suffering.” Having overcome two ardent passions, she formed a third, of which her biographer, Mr. William Godwin, was the object. A period only of six months intervened in this case; but, says Mr. Godwin, with a curious felicity of calculation, although “it was only six months since she had resolutely banished every thought of Mr. Imlay (the former lover), it was at least eighteen that he ought to have been banished, and would have been banished, had it not been for her scrupulous pertinacity in determining to leave no measure untried to regain him.” This connection, likewise, was begun without the nuptial ceremonies; but, after some months, the marriage took place; the principal reason was that she was pregnant, and “unwilling to incur that seclusion from the society of many valuable and excellent individuals, which custom awards in cases of this sort.” But it did not produce the desired effect. Some who visited her, or were visited by her, and who regarded her as the injured object of Mr. Imlay' s indifference, were not pleased to bestow their countenance on one who was so eager to run into the arms of another man, and alike informally. Mr. Godwin takes this opportunity of censuring the prudery of these nice people in terms of severity with what justice our readers may determine. The happiness of this connection, however, was transient. In August 1797, she was delivered of a daughter, and died Sept. 10, of the same year. From the account given of her, by her biographer, in which we must condemn the laboured vindication of principles inconsistent with the delicacy of the female sex, and the welfare of society, Mrs. Godwin appears to have been a woman of strong intellect, which might have elevated her to the highest rank of English female writers, had not her genius run wild for want of cultivation. Her passions were consequently ungovernable, and she accustomed herself to yield to them without scruple, treating female honour and delicacy as vulgar prejudices. She was therefore a voluptuary and sensualist, without that refinement for which she seemed to contend on other subjects. Her history indeed forms entirely a warning, and in no part an example. Singular she was, it must be allowed, for it is not easily to be conceived that such another heroine will ever appear, unless in a novel, where a latitude is given to that extravagance of character which she attempted to bring into real life.

, an eminent modern Italian dramatist, was born at Venice in 1707. In his infancy the drama was his darling amusement, and all his time was devoted to the perusing comic writers, among whom was Cicognini, a Florentine, little known in the dramatic commonwealth. After having well studied these, he ventured to sketch out the plan of a comedy, even before he went to school. When he had finished his grammatical studies at Venice, and his rhetorical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Perugia, he was sent to a boarding-school at Rimini, to study philosophy, but he paid far more attention to the theatres, entered into a familiar acquaintance with the actors, and when they were to remove to Chiozza, made his escape in their company. This was the first fault he committed, which, according to his own confession, drew a great many others after it. His father had intended him to be a physician, like himself: the young man, however, was wholly averse to the study. He proposed afterwards to make him an advocate, and sent him to be a practitioner in Modena; but a horrid ceremony of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at which he was present, inspired him with a melancholy turn, and he determined to become a Capuchin. Of this, however, he was cured by a visit to Venice, where he indulged in all the fashionable dissipation of the place. He was afterwards prevailed upon by his mother, after the death of his father, to exercise the profession of a lawyer in Venice, but by a sudden reverse of fortune he was compelled to quit at once both the bar and Venice. He then went to Milan, where he was employed by the resident of Venice in the capacity of secretary, and becoming acquainted with the manager of the theatre, he wrote a farce entitled “II Gondoliere Veneziano,” the Venetian Gondolier; which was the first comic production of his that was performed and printed. Some time after, Goldoni quitted the Venetian resident, and removed to Verona, where he got introduced to the manager of the theatre, for which he composed several pieces. Having removed along with the players to Genoa, he was for the first time seized with an ardent passion for a lady, who soon afterwards became his wife. He then returned with the company to Venice, where he displayed, for the first time, the powers of his genius, and executed his plan of reforming the Italian stage. He wrote the “Momolo,” “Courtisan,” the “Squanderer,” and other pieces, which obtained universal admiration. Feeling a strong inclination to reside some time in Tuscany, he repaired to Florence and Pisa, where he wrote “The Footman of two Masters,” and “The Son of Harlequin lost and found again.” He returned to Venice, and set about executing more and more his favourite scheme of reform. He was now attached to the theatre of S. Angelo, and employed himself in writing both for the company, and for his own purposes. The constant toils he underwent in these engagements impaired his health. He wrote, in the course of twelve months, sixteen new comedies, besides forty-two pieces for the theatre; among these many are considered as the best of his productions. The first edition of his works was published in 1753, in 10 vols. 8vo. As he wrote afterwards a great number of new pieces for the theatre of S. Luca, a separate edition of these was published, under the title of “The New Comic Theatre:” among these was the “Terence,” called by the author his favourite, and judged to be the master-piece of his works. He made another journey to Parma, on the invitation of duke Philip, and from thence he passed t Rome. He had composed 59 other pieces so late as 1761, five of which were designed for the particular use of Marque Albergati Capacelli, and consequently adapted to the theatre of a private company. Here ends the literary life of Goldoni in Italy, after which he accepted of an engagement of two years in Paris, where he found a select and numerous company of excellent performers in the Italian theatre. They were, however, chargeable with the same faults which he had corrected in Italy; and the French supported, and even applauded in the Italians, what they would have reprobated on their own stage. Goldoni wished to extend, even to that country, his plan of reformation, without considering the extreme difficulty of the undertaking. His first attempt was the piece called “The Father for Love;” and its bad success was a sufficient warning to him to desist from his undertaking. He continued, during the remainder of his engagement, to produce pieces agreeable to the general taste, and published twenty-four comedies; among which “The Love of Zelinda and Lindor” is reputed the best. The term of two years being expired, Goldoni was preparing to return to Italy, when a lady, reader to the dauphiness, mother to the late king, introduced him at court, in the capacity of Italian master to the princesses, aunts to the king. He did not live in the court, but resorted there, at each summons, in a post-chaise, sent to him for the purpose. These journeys were the cause of a disorder in the eyes, which afflicted him the rest of his life; for being accustomed to read while in the chaise, he lost his sight on a sudden, and in spite of the most potent remedies, could never afterwards recover it entirely. For about six months lodgings were provided him in the chateau of Versailles. The death, however, of the dauphin, changed the face of affairs. Goldoni lost his lodgings, and only, at the end of three years, received a bounty of 100 Louis in a gold box, and the grant of a pension of four thousand livres a year. This settlement would not have been sufficient for him, if he had not gained, by other means, farther sums. He wrote now and then comedies for the theatres of Italy and Portugal; and, during these occupations, was desirous to shew to the French that he merited a high rank among their dramatic writers. For this purpose, he neglected nothing which could be of use to render himself master of the French language. He heard, spoke, and conversed so much in it, that, in his 62d year, he ventured to write a comedy in French, and to have it. represented in the court theatre, on the occasion of the marriage of the king. This piece was the “Bourru Bienfaisant;” and it met with so great success, that the author received a bounty 'of 150 Louis from the king, another gratification from the performers, and considerable sums from the booksellers who published it. He published soon after, another comedy in French, called “L'Avare Fastueux.” After the death of Lewis XV. Goldoni was appointed Italian teacher to the princess Clotilde, and after her marriage, he attended the late unfortunate princess Elizabeth in the same capacity. His last work was the “Volponi,” written after he had retired from court. It was nis misfortune to live to see his pension taken away by the revolution, and, like thousands in a similar situation, he was obliged to pass his old age in poverty and distress. He died in the beginning of 1793. As a comic poet, Goldoni is reckoned among the best of the age in which he flourished. His works were printed at Leghorn in 1788—91, in 31 vols. 8vo. He has been reckoned the Moliere of Italy, and he is styled by Voltaire “The Painter of Nature.” Dr. Burney says that he is, perhaps, the only author of comic operas in Italy who has given them a little common sense, by a natural plot, and natural characters; and his celebrated comic opera of the “Buona Figliuola,” set by Piccini, and first performed in London Dec. 9th, 1766, rendered both the poet and composer, whose names had scarcely penetrated into this country before, dear to every lover of the Italian language and music, in the nation.

, a celebrated engraver and painter, was born in 1658, at Mulbrec, in the duchy of Juliers; and learned his art at Haerlem, where he married. An asthmatic disorder afterwards inclining him to travel in Italy, his friends remonstrated against this, but he answered, that “he had rather die learning something, than live in such a languishing state.” Accordingly, he passed through most of the chief cities of Germany, where he visited the painters, and the curious; and went to Rome and Naples, where he studied the works of the best masters, and designed a great number of pieces after them. To prevent his being known, he passed for his man’s servant, pretending that he was maintained and kept by him for his skill in painting; and by this stratagem he came to hear what was said of his works, without being known, which afforded him no small amusement as well as instruction. His disguise, his diversion, the exercise of travelling, and the different air of the countries through which he travelled, had such an effect upon his constitution, that he recovered his former health and vigour. He relapsed, however, some time after, and died at Haerlem in 1617. Mr. Evelyn has given the following testimony of his merit as a graver: “Henry Goltzius,” says he, “was a HoU lander, and wanted only a good and judicious choice, to 'have rendered him comparable to the profoundest masters that ever handled the burin for never did any exceed this rare workman witness those things of his after Gasporo Celio, &c. and in particular his incomparable imitations after Lucas Van Leyden, in The Passion, the Christus Mortuus, or Pieta; and those other six pieces, in each of which. he so accurately pursues Durer, Lucas, and some others of the old masters, as makes it almost impossible to discern the ingenious fraud.” As a painter he drew his resources from the study of the antique, of Raphael, Polidoro, and Michael Angelo; the last of whom appears to have been his" favourite, but whose faults he exaggerated in an outrageous manner, seldom attaining any of his beauties. Hence his style of design is inflated and caricature and his expressions participate of the same taste but his sense of hue in colour is rich, vigorous, and transparent. 7t is as an engraver, however, that he deserves the highest commendation, having never been surpassed, and seldom equalled in the command of the graver, and in freedom of execution.

, a German antiquary, was born at Venloo, in the duchy of Gueldres, in 1526. His father was a painter, and he was himself bred up in this art, learning the principles of it from Lambert Lombard; but he seems to have quitted the pencil early in life, having a particular turn to antiquity, and especially to the study of medals, to which he entirely devoted himself. He considered medals as the very foundation of true history; and travelled through France, Germany, and Italy, in order to make collections, and to“draw from them what lights he could. His reputation was so high in this respect, that the cabinets of the curious were every where open to him; and on the same account he was honoured with the freedom of the city of Rome in Io67. He was the author of several excellent works, in all which he applies medals to the illustration of ancient history, and for the greater accuracy, had them printed in his own house, and corrected them himself. He also engraved the plates for the medals with his own hands. Accordingly, his books were admired all over Europe, and thought an ornament to any library; and succeeding antiquaries have bestowed the highest praises upon them. Lipsius, speaking of the” Fasti Consulares,“says, that” he knows not which to admire most, his diligence in seeking so many coins, his happiness in finding, or his skill in engraving them." Some, however, have said that although his works abound with erudition, they must be read with some caution. The fact seems to be, that all his works have many coins not yet found in cabinets, because his own collection was unfortunately lost, yet the medals which he describes, and which were once looked upon as fictitious, are yearly found really existent, and of undoubted antiquity. A French writer compares him to Pliny the natural historian, who was thought to deal much in falsehood, till time drew the truth out of the well; so that as knowledge advances, most of his wonders acquire gradual confirmation. Yet it is certain that he was often imposed upon, and the caution above given is not unnecessary. His coins of the Roman tyrants, for instance, are clearly false; for they bear Pren. and Cog. on the exergue, which marks never occur on the real coins. It has been also said that many errors of this nature must be committed by a man, whose love and veneration for Roman antiquities was such, that he gave to all his children Roman names, such as Julius, Marcellus, &c. so that he might easily receive for antiques what were not so, out of pure fondness for any thing of that kind. Upon this principle, it is probable, that he took, for his second wife, the widow of the antiquary Martini us Smetius; whom he married more for the sake of Smetius 1 s medals and inscriptions than for any thing belonging to herself. She was his second wife, and a shrew, who made his latter days unhappy. He died at Bruges March 14, 1583.

,or Graet Barent, was an historical painter, whose name is remembered principally upon account of his close imitation of the works of Bamboccio, and of his having founded an academy at Amsterdam, where he was born. The best artists of his time resorted here to study after living models; by which means much improvement was obtained by those who cultivated taste and science in the arts. He died in 1709, aged eighty-one.

, a very ingenious English painter, was descended from a good family in Salisbury, where he was born. He was the most successful of all the disciples of sir Peter Lely, who is said to have considered him so much as a rival, that he never suffered him to see him paint. Greenhill, however, prevailed with sir Peter to draw his wife’s picture, and took the opportunity of observing how he managed his pencil; which was the great point aimed at. He is said to have been equally qualified by nature for the sister-arts of painting and poetry; but his loose and unguarded manner of living was probably the occasion of his early death; and only suffered him just to leave enough of his hand, to make us wish he had been more careful of a life so likely to do honour to his country. Mrs. Behn, with whom he was a great favourite, endeavoured to perpetuate his memory by an elegy, to be found among her works. He painted a portrait of bishop Ward, which is now in the town-hall of Salisbury. He died May 19, 1676.

In 1668 our author published at London another work, entitled “Exercitationes Geometricae,” which contributed still much farther to extend his reputation. About this time he was elected professor of mathematics in the university of St. Andrew’s, an office which he held for six years. During his residence there he married, in 1669, Mary, the daughter of George Jameson, the celebrated painter, whom Mr, Walpole has termed the Vandyke of Scotland, and who was fellow disciple with that great artist in the school of Rubens at Antwerp. His fame placed him in so great esteem with the royal academy at Paris, that, in the beginning of 1671, it was resolved by that aca^ demy to recommend him to their grand monarch for a pension; and the design was approved even by Mr. Huygens, though he said he had reason to think himself improperly treated by Mr. Gregory, on account of the controversy between them. Accordingly, several members of that academy wrote to Mr. Oldenburg, desiring him to acquaint the council of the royal society with their proposal; informing him likewise, that the king of France was willing to allow pensions to one or two learned Englishman, whom they should recommend. But no answer was ever made to that proposal; and our author, with respect to this particular, looked upon it as nothing more than a compliment.

, a landscape painter, born at Amsterdam in 1645, was a pupil of Roland Roghman, whose manner he relinquished after he became acquainted with the more perfect one of A. Vandervelde and Lingelbach. He settled in England, and made views of many of the principal places, which are highly wrought, but with rather an artificial tone of colouring. His execution was minute and laboured, but his pictures are very well completed in that style. He likewise employed his talents in imitations of Rembrandt, Rysdael, Polemburg, and Teniers; and so successfully, that his productions are often taken for originals. He died in the seventy-third year of his age, in 1718. He was known by the appellation of the old Griffier.-^-His son, Robert Griffier, or the young Griffier, practised the same profession as his father, and in the same style. He resided chierly upon the continent, and produced a great number of elaborate pictures of views on the Rhine, &c. with many figures in them. He was alive in 1713.

, called Bolognese, was born at Bologna in 1606, and studied under A. Caracci, to whom he was related. He was a good designer of figures, but became chiefly distinguished for his landscapes. When he arrived at Rome, Innocent X. did justice to his merit, employed him to paint in the Vatican and the Q,uirinal, and even in churches. This pope used to visit him when at work, and talk familiarly with him. His reputation reached cardinal Mazarine at Paris, who sent for him, settled a large pension on him, and employed him for three years in embellishing hi? palace and the Louvre, by the order of Lewis XIII. The troubles of the state, and the clamours raised against the cardinal, whose party he warmly espoused, put him so much in danger, that his friends advised him to retire among the Jesuits, for whom he painted a decoration for the exposition of the sacrament during the holy days, according to the custom of Rome. This piece was much relished at Paris: the king honoured it with two visits, and commanded him to paint a similar piece for his chapel at the Louvre. Grimaldi after that returned to Italy, and at his arrival at Rome found his great patron Innocent X. dead; but his two successors Alexander VII, and Clement IX. honoured him equally with their friendship, and found him variety of employment. His chief power lay in landscape, though he designed figures well, and his pencil equalled his design, light, and flowing with great depth of colour, bolder in the masses and the dash of bushy foliage than Caracci’s, but perhaps tc-o green. The gallery Colon n a, at Rome, has many of his views, which remained chiefly in Italy, less known on this side of the Alps than those of Poussin and Claude. He understood architecture, and has engraved in aqita fortis forty-two landscapes in an excellent manner, five of which are after Titian. Grimaldi was amiable in his manners, as well as skilful in his profession: he was generous without profusion, respectful to the great without meanness, and charitable to the poor. The following instance of his benevolence may serve to characterise the man. A Sicilian gentleman, who had retired from Messina with his daughter, during the troubles of that country, was reduced to the misery of wanting bread. As he lived over-against him, Grimaldi was soon informed of it; and in the dusk of the evening, knocking at the Sicilian’s door, without making himself known, tossed in money and retired. The thing happening more than once, raised the Sicilian’s curiosity to know his benefactor; who, finding him out, by hiding himself behind the door, fell down on his knees to thank the hand that had relieved him: Grimaldi remained confused, offered him his house, and continued his friend till his death. He died of a dropsy at Rome in 1G60, and left a considerable fortune among six children; of which the youngest, named Alexander, was a pretty good painter.

Many of Guido’s latter performances are not to be placed in competitionwith those which he painted before he unhappily fell into distressed circumstances, by an insatiable appetite to gaming, when his necessities compelled him to work for immediate subsistence, and he contracted a habit of painting in a more slight and negligent manner, without any attention to his honour or his fame. In the church of St. Philip Neri, at Fano, there is a grand altar-piece by Guido, representing Christ delivering the keys to St. Peter. The head of our Saviour is exceedingly fine, that of St. John admirable and the other apostles are in a grand style, full of elegance, with a strong expression and it is well preserved. In the archiepiscopal gallery at Milan, is a St. John, wonderfully tender in the colouring, and the graces diffused through the design excite the admiration of every beholder. At Bologna, in the Palazzo Tanaro, is a most beautiful picture of the Virgin, the infant Jesus, and St. John; Jn which the heads are exquisitely graceful, and the draperies in a grand style. But in the Palazzo Zampieri is preserved one of the most capital paintings of Guido: the subject is, the Penitence of St. Peter after denying Christ, with one of the apostles seeming to comfort him. The figures are as large as life, and the whole is of an astonishing beauty; the painter having shewn, in that single performance, the art of painting carried to its highest perfection. The heads are nobly designed, the colouring clear and precious, and the expression inimitably just and natural.

Great were the honours this painter received from Paul V. from all the cardinals and princes of Italy, from Lewis XIII. of France, Philip IV. of Spain, and from the king of Poland and Sweden, who, besides a noble reward, made him a compliment, in a letter under his own hand, for an Europa he had sent him. He was extremely handsome arul graceful in his person; and so very beautiful in his younger days, that his master Luclovico, in painting his angels, took him always for his model. Nor was he an angel only in his looks, if we may jDelieve what Gioseppino told the pope, when he asked his opinion of Guido’s performances in the Capella Quirinale, “Our pictures,” said he, “are the works of men’s hands, but these are made by hands divine.” In his behaviour he was modest, gentle, and very obliging; lived in great splendour both at Bologna and Rome; and was only unhappy in his immoderate love of gaming. To this in his latter days he abandoned himself so entirely, that all the money he could get by his pencil, or borrow upon interest, was too little to supply his losses: and he was at last reduced to so poor and mean a condition, that the consideration of his present circumstances, together with reflections on his former reputation and high manner of living, brought a languishing distemper on him, of which he died in 1642.

, a portrait painter of great celebrity, was born at Mechlin in 1584. He was a pupil of C. Van Mander, and by a careful observation of nature obtained that accurate knowledge of the structure of the human frame, which is so useful in his art. No man ever set the features of a face together with more truth than Frank Hals, or with a readier pencil; and he did it with great truth and spirit also of colour, as well as of execution. He avoided the laboured mode of finish so much admired among his countrymen at the time, and gave his portraits much expression and animation of countenance, particularly of a gay and humourous nature. A decided character of individual nature is remarkable in his portraits, and is not found in an equal degree in any other painter. If he had joined to this most difficult part of the art, a patience in finishing what he had so correctly planned, he might justly have claimed the place which Vandyke, all things considered, so justly holds as the first of portrait painters. This last mentioned artist was so delighted with his works, that he went to Haerlem, where he resided, for no other purpose than to pay him a visit. He introduced himself as a gentleman on his travels, who wished in haste to have his portrait painted. Hals was hurried from the tavern, where he usually passed his leisure time, seized the first canvas he could find, and began his labour. In a short time he had proceeded so far, that he asked Vandyke to look at what he had done, who expressed himself as very well pleased with it, at the same time saying that he thought such work so easy, he was persuaded he could do it himself. Taking the palette and pencils, he desired F. Hals to sit down, and in a quarter of an hour shewed him the portrait. The moment he saw it he recognized his visitor, and embraced him with transport. Vandyke endeavoured to prevail upon Hals to accompany him to England, engaging to enrich him but he was not able to succeed Hals declaring that his happiness consisted in the enjoyment of his friends and his bottle, and while he possessed these he was satisfied with his condition. For his treatment of Brouwer, see our account of that artist. He died in 1666, at the age of eighty-two. He had a brother, Dirk Hals, a painter of animals, merry-makings, conversations, feasts, and subjects of drollery, to whom, however, as an artist, he was far superior in all the better qualities of art: yet Dirk’s works gained him much reputation, and he practised with great success till he was sixty-seven years old, when he died in 1656.

, an excellent painter, descended from the ancient family of the Hamiltons of Murdieston, originally of Fife, but now of Lanarkshire, in Scotland, was born at Lanark, and having discovered from his infancy a great predilection for historic painting, went young to Rome, where he became the scholar of Augustine Massuchi. With the exception of a few occasional visits to Britain, he resided the whole of his life at Rome, where he died in 1797. He had not perhaps the genius of an inventor; but the advantages of liberal education, and of a classic taste in the choice of his subjects, and the style at which he always, and often successfully, aimed, made him at least equal to his most celebrated contemporaries. Some of the subjects which he painted from the Iliad bear ample evidence of this. Achilles grasping the body of Patroclus, and rejecting the consolation of the Grecian chiefs, and Hector tied to his chariot, have something of Homeric sublimity and pathos; the moment chosen is the crisis of the fact, and the test of the hero’s character. But in this last he is not always happy, as in Achilles dismissing Briseis, where the gesticulation of an actor supplants the expression of the man. Of his women the Briseis in the same subject is the most attractive. Neither his Andromache mourning over Hector, nor the Helen in the same, or the scene with Paris, reach our ideas of the former’s dignity and anguish, or the form and graces of the latter. Indeed, what idea can be supposed to reach that beauty, which, in the confession of age itself, deserved the ten years’ struggle of two nations And yet, in the subject of Paris, those graces and that form are to be subordinate to the superior ones of Venus. He would rank with the first names in art, who from such a combination should escape without having provoked the indignation, contempt, or pity of disappointed expectation.

, an historical painter, the son of a Scotch gentleman who resided many years at Chelsea, as deputy to Mr. Robert Adams, the celebrated architect, when clerk of the works to that college, was born in 1750, and sent to Italy, when very young, under the patronage of Mr. Adams. He was there some time under the tuition of Zucchi, the painter of arabesque ornaments at Rome, and although Mr. Edwards thinks he was then too young to receive any material benefit from this tour, it served at least to increase his early taste for the art, and he caught a pleasant manner of painting, much in the style of his master. When he returned to England he became a pupil in the royal academy, and by attention to his studies, acquired considerable employment. He practised in many different ways, mostly history, and frequently arabesque, of which latter kind he executed some decorations at the seat of the late earl of Bute at High Cliff, Hampshire. He sometimes painted portraits, but his manner was not well adapted to that branch, yet his portrait of Mrs. Siddons in the character of lady Randolph (now in the possession of Samuel Whitbread, esq.) was allowed to have great merit. He was much employed by the late alderman Boydell, for his Shakspeare, and by Macklin for his edition of the Bible and of the Poets. In the former his “Woman of Samaria 7 ' deserves much praise. One of his most capital works was a picture of the” Queen of Sheba entertained at a banquet by Solomon," a design for a window in Arundel castle. His manner of painting was light, airy, and pleasant, and he excelled in ornaments to which he gave a propriety, richness, and a classic air. His coloured drawings imitate the fulness of his oil-paintings with more freshness, and, without much labour, are finished with taste. He was elected associate of the royal academy Nov. 8, 1784, and royal academician, February 10, 1789. He died in the vigour though not in the bloom of life, Dec. 2, 1801, of a violent fever of only three days 1 duration, deeply lamented by his friends, and regretted by the public. He was a man of great affability and gentle manners; his politeness covered no insincerity, nor his emulation envy. He was one of the few artists we have personally known who spoke with high respect of his brethren, and was equally respected by them for his amiable temper.

, an historical and portrait painter, was born at the Hague in 1611, and as some writers report, was a disciple of Vandyke; But with more probability, was a disciple of Hubert Kavestein. However, he formed his taste, and his manner of penciling, by studying and copying the works of Vandyke, observing particularly the airs of the heads, which he very happily imitated; and in the tints of his carnations he had somewhat so extremely soft and delicate, as to give them an appearance little inferior to those of Vandyke. Several of Hannetnan’s copies after that illustrious painter’s works shewed such exactness, and at the same time such a freedom of hand, that they are frequently mistaken for originals. Although he was usually employed in portrait-painting, yet he sometimes designed historical and allegorical subjects. Of the latter kind there is^a large picture in the hall of the States of Holland, representing Peace, under the figure of a beautiful woman seated on a throne, holding a dove on her knees, and crowned with wreaths of laurel by two genii. The composition is rich, and it is painted with a great deal of force; the carnations approaching very near to the tints of Vandyke. He came to England in the reign of Charles I. and continued here for sixteen years, and, at his return to the Hague, became the favourite painter of the princess Mary of Orange. There is a picture of her, and the prince in armour, at lord Stratford’s at Wentworth castle, painted, as lord Orford thinks, by him; there are also portraits by him at Windsor, Worksop, and other places. He died about 1680.

For his “Essay on Painting,” he pleads that it was written at intervals, upon such remarks as casually occurred itv his reading, and is therefore deficient in connection. He adds that he had finished the whole before he saw Du Fresnoy, which may readily be believed. He discovers, however, a very correct notion of an art which was not at that time much studied in this country, and has laid down many precepts which, if insufficient to form a good painter, will at least prevent the student from falling into gross improprieties. So much knowledge of the art, and acquaintance with the works of the most eminent painters, argues a, taste surprizing at his early age. He had some turn for drawing, and made several sketches when abroad, which were afterwards engraved as head pieces for the poems in the “Amaranth.” In this essay, he delights in images which, although in general pleasing and just, are perhaps too frequently, and as it were periodically, introduced. With all his admiration of Pope, he was not less attached to Dryden as a model; and if he has less harmony than Pope, has at the same time less monotony.

, an elegant and ingenious English writer, was born either in 1715, or 1719, in London, and was, as some report, brought up to the trade of a watchmaker. Sir John Hawkins, however, informs us that he was, when very young, a hired clerk to one Harwood, an attorney in Grocers’-alley in the Poultry. His parents were probably dissenters, as he was a member of the celebrated Mr. Bradbury’s meeting, from which, it is said, he was expelled for some irregularities. It does not appear that he followed any profession, but devoted himself to study and literary employment. So early as 1744 he succeeded Dr. Johnson in compiling the parliamentary debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, to which he afterwards contributed many of his earlier productions in verse. In 1746, he wrote in that publication, under the' name of Greville, the “Devil Painter, a tale;” the “Chaise Percee,” from the French; “Epistle to the King of Prussia;” “Lines to the Rev. Mr. Layng” (who was at this time a writer in the Magazine), and to the celebrated Warburton “On a series of theological inquiries” “A Thought from Marcus Antoninus” “The Smart.” In- 1747 he contributed “The Accident” “Ants’ Philosophy” “Death of Arachne;” “Chamontand Honorius” “Origin of Doubt;” “Life,” an ode “Lines to Hope” “Winter,” an ode“”The Experiment,“a tale. In 1748,” The Midsummer Wish“” Solitude“” The two Doves,“a fable” Autumn“in 1749,” Poverty insulted“”Region allotted to Old Maids;“” The Nymph at her Toilet;“” God is Love;“” Cloe’s Soliloquy." Some of these are signed H. Greville. Whether he wrote any prose compositions is doubtful. Mr. Duncombe, on whose authority the above list is given, says nothing of prose.

, an English artist, much celebrated in his day, was born in 1708, at Exeter, and was the scholar of Brown. He appears to have come to London in the early part of his life, and was much employed by Fleetwood, the proprietor of Drury-lane theatre, for whom he painted many scenes. In the pursuit of his profession, he was not extremely assiduous, being more convivial than studious; yet he acquired a very considerable degree of power in his art, and was the best historical painter in the kingdom, before the arrival of Cipriani. It was this superiority of talent that introduced him to the notice of Mr. Jonathan Tyers, the founder and proprietor of Vauxhall, by whom he was employed in decorating those well-known gardens, and where some of his best historical pictures are still to be seen. He also painted four pictures from subjects taken from Sbakspeare, for what is called the prince’s pavilion in Vauxhall, but Mr. Tyers had such an high opinion of them, as to remove them to his own residence, and place copies in their room. His reputation procured him much employment from the booksellers, whom he furnished with drawings for their editions of Moore’s Fables, Congreve’s Works, Newton’s Milton, Hammer’s Shakspeare, Smcllet’s Don Quixote, Pope’s Works, &c. These drawings have in general great merit.

, a painter of considerable fame, when there were few who deserved it, was born at Ghent, in 1534, the son of John de Heere, the best statuary of his time; and Anne Smyters, who had the reputation of being a most surprising pain tress of landscapes in miniature. Van Mander gives almost an incredible account of one performance of that female artist. From such parents De Heere had a fair prospect of gaining every necessary part of instruction; and having under their direction learned to design and handle the pencil with ease and freedom, he was placed as a disciple with Francis Fioris. With that master he improved very expeditiously, and on quitting his school travelled to France, where he was employed for some years by the queen-mother, in drawing designs for tapestry. At his return to his native city, he painted a great number of portraits with applause; and was remarkable for having so retentive a memory, that if he save any person but once, he could paint his likeness as strong as if he had his model before his eyes. On the shutters of the altar-piece in the church of St. Peter at Ghent, he painted the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, in which the draperies are extremely admired; and in the church of St. John he painted an altar-piece representing the Resurrection.

, an eminent painter, was a peasant’s son, and born at a village of that Dame in Holland, in 1498. In his youth he was extremely dull, and nothing was expected from him; but afterwards he became a correct painter, easy and fruitful in his inventions. He was the disciple and imitator of Schoreal. He went to Home, and intended to stay there a long time; but at the end of three years, returned to his own country, settled at Haerlem, and lived there the remainder of his days. Most of his works were engraved. Vasari, who gives a particular account of them, and commends them, says, Michael Angelo was so pleased with one of the prints, that he had a mind to colour it. Mr. Fuseli thinks that he invented with more fertility than taste or propriety; “his design is ostentatious without style, and his forms long without elegance. He rather grouped than composed, and seems to have been unacquainted with chiaroscuro. His costume is always arbitrary, and often barbarous, and in the admission of ornaments and the disposition of his scenery, he oftener consulted the materials which he had compiled at Rome, than fitness of place, or the demands of his subject.” He died in 1574.

, another painter, perhaps c-f the family with the former, exhibited much fancy in the subjects he chose for his pencil, but with vigour of execution. He was born at Haerlem in 1645, and was a disciple of Peter Grebber, whose manner he left for that of Brouwer. In his own time his compositions were much esteemed, because of their gross humour, and the whimsical imagination that reigned in them; but they are not now so much prized. His delight was in painting fanciful, wild, and uncommon scenes of his own composing; such as the nocturnal intercourse of witches, devils, and spectres; enchantments, temptations of St. Anthony, interiors of alehouses with drunken men, monldes in the actions of men and women, &c. &c. all which he wrought with great freedom of touch and intelligence of drawing. His colour likewise, though not always pure, was in general rich and agreeable. He quitted his own country to settle in London, where he died in 1704. It was customary with him to paint his own portrait in his drolls, and which was not of the most engaging kind; and he wrought by means of a looking-glass his characters from his own face. There was another Egbert Hemskirk, called by distinction the Old, who painted subjects of the like kind with more success.

, an heretic of the second century, was a native of Africa, a painter, and stoic philosopher, and was alive in the days of Tertullian, according to Fleury. Tillemont makes him flourish in the year 200; but Du Fresnoy says he did not preach his erroneous opinions concerning the origin of the world, and the nature of the soul, till the year 208. He established matter as the first principle, and made Idea the mother of all the elements; for which reason his followers were commonly called Mattriarians. By his assertion of the self-existence and improduction of matter, he endeavoured to give an account (as stoic philosophers had done before him) of the original of evils; and to free God from the imputation of them, he argued thus: God made all things either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of pre-existent matter. He could not make all things out of himself, because, himself being always unmade, he should then really have been the maker of nothing: and he did not make all out of nothing, because, being essentially good, he would have made every thing in the best manner, and so there could have been no evil in the world: but since there are evils, and these could not proceed from the will of God, they must needs rise from the fault of something, and therefore of the matter out of which things were made. His followers denied the resurrection, rejected water-baptism, asserted that angels were composed of fire and spirit, and were the creators of the soul of man; and that Christ, as he ascended, diveste'd himself of human nature, and left his body in the sun. Tertullian has written against him.

, was a Spanish artist, but although he wrote his own life, the year and place of his birth remain uncertain. He was probably born about 1656, and was living in 1711. At Valencia, he tells us, he was called a Castilian; perhaps he was a Murcian, for in Mtircia he applied first to the art under Villacis and Gilarte: he then travelled to Rome, and under the direction of Giacinto Brand i was making considerable progress, when declining health hastened his return to the milder climate of Valencia, from whence, after a studious residence of some years, he advanced to Madrid, and in 1674 received the commission of decorating the cloisters of S. Felipe el Real with a series of paintings; a labour often interrupted by other numerous avocations, and protracted to 1711: in the twenty-four subjects of this extensive work, he shewed himself master of composition. Garcia was made painter to the court, and knight of S. Miguel, by Philip V.; and by the tribunal of the inquisition appointed censor of public paintings. His exertions in art were chiefly directed to the improvement of style and the acquisition of a classic taste in Spain; with this view he published, in 1691, his “Principios para estudiar el Nobilissimo Arte de la Pintura.”

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

iect, but removed, by its perspicuity, the only objection that can be made to the system of Dr. Taylor. It accordincrly received, from his friends and the intelligent public, the applauses it deserved. In 1765, he published (without his name) Observations cm a pamphlet intituled, “Christianity not founded on Argument/ [by Dodwell];” in which, after shewing that it is a continued irony, and lamenting that so ample a field should be offered the author of it for the display of his sophistry, he gives up creeds, articles, and catechisms, as out-works raised by fallible men, and, confining himself to the defence of the Gospel, or citadel, shews, that pure primitive Christianity, though assaulted by infidels, will ever remain impregnable. His opinion of Rubens may be seen in the Gent. Mag. for 1766, p. 353, under the title of “Remarks on some Passages in Mr.” NVebb’s ‘ Enquiry into the Beauties of Painting,’ &c.“In the same year he published, with only his initials,” J. H.“two small volumes of” Essays, moral, religious, and miscellaneous; with a translation in prose of Mr. Browne’s Latin poem on the Immortality of the Soul,“selected from a large number written at his leisure, at different periods of his life.” As such,“says Dr. Hawkesworth, in his review of them in Gent. Mag. vol. XXXV.” they do the author great credit. They are not excursions of fancy, but efforts of f thought, and indubitable indications of a vigorous and active mind.“In the Gent. Mag. for 1769, p. 287, he communicated” A natural and obvious manner of constructing sun-dials, deduced from the situation and motion of the earth with respect to the sun,“explained by a scheme: and in that for 1778, p. 526, his remarks on colouring, suggested by way of a note on the” Epistle to an eminent Painter," will shew that his talents were by no means impaired at the age of 86. He retained them indeed to the last, and had even strength and spirit sufficient to enable him to ride out daily on horseback, the summer before he died. A strong constitution, habitual temperance, and constant attention to his health in youth as well as in age, prolonged his life, and preserved his faculties to his 88th year, when he gradually ceased to breathe; and, as it were, fell asleep, on March 3, 1780. He was interred in the south aile of Canterbury cathedral, leaving one son, Anthony, educated in his own profession; and a daughter, Susanna, mentioned above.

His abilities as a painter appear in his works, which will not only be admired by his contemporaries, but by their posterity; as his tints, like those of Rubens and Vandycfc, instead of being impaired, are improved by time, which some of them have now withstood above 60 years. His idea of beauty, when he indulged his fancy, was of the highest kind; and his knowledge of perspective gave him great advantages in family-pieces, of which he painted more than any one of his time. He could take a likeness by memory as well as by a sitting, as appears by his picture of the duke of Lorrain (the late emperor), which Faber engraved and those ol king George II. (in York assemblyroom) queen Caroline, the two miss Gunnings, &c. Like many other great painters, he had “a poet for his friend,” in the late Mr. Browne; to which may be added, a poem addressed to him in 1726, by the Rev. Mr. Bunce, at that time of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, who succeeded Mr. Highmore, and in 1780, was vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury.

, an English artist, the son of Nicholas Hilliard of Exeter, was born in that city in 1547 and for want of a proper instructor, studied the works of Hans Holbein, which to him seemed preferable to all others, but he was incapable of acquiring the force and nature which that great master impressed on all his smaller performances. He could never arrive at any strength of colouring his carnations were always pale, and void of any variety of tints yet his penciling was exceedingly neat, the jewels and ornaments of his portraits were expressed with lines incredibly slender, and even the hairs of the head and of the beard were almost distinctly to be counted. He was exact in describing the dress of the times, but he rarely attempted more than a head; and yet his works were much admired and highly prized. He painted the portrait of the queen of Scots, which gained bina universal applause; and queen Elizabeth sat to him for her portrait several times. He was this queen’s goldsmith, carver, and portrait-painter. He was very much employed by the nobility and gentry, and was admired and highly prized in his time. Enjoying his reputation to the age of seventy-two, he died in 1619. Donne has celebrated him in a poem called “The Storm;” where he says,

Lord Orford, who has given some anecdotes of this painter, concludes with observing, that the greatest obligation we have to Hilliard is his having contributed to form the celebrated Isaac Oliver.

, an eminent French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Paris, March 18, 1640. His father Laurence, who was painter in ordinary to dm king, professor in the academy of painting and sculpture, and much celebrated, intended him also for the same occupation; and with that view taught him the principles of design, and some branches of mathematics, but died when Philip was no more than seventeen. Falling afterwards into a bad habit of body, he projected a journey into Italy; which he conceived might contribute not less to the recovery of his health, than to bring him to perfection in his art. He accordingly set out in 1660, and soon found himself well enough to contemplate the remains of antiquity, with which Italy abounds, and also to study geometry, to which he had indeed more propensity than to painting, and which soon afterwards engrossed him entirely. The retired manner in which he spent his time in Italy, very much suited his disposition; and he would willingly have continued longer in that country, but for the importunity of his mother, who prevailed upon him to return, after an absence of about four years.

, an ingenious and amiable English artist, was born about the year 1707, at Eye, near Ipswich, in Suftblk. His father was possessed of considerable property, holding a farm of large extent in his own hands. William shewing very early a disposition to study, was sent to a. school at Faringdon in Berkshire, where the master enjoyed a hii;h reputation for classical learning. The pupil eagerly availed himself of every opportunity of improvement, and in the course of a few years attained such a degree of proficiency as to assist his master occasionally in the tuition of the other scholars. To these acquirements he added no indifferent skill in drawing, which was also taught in the school; and he soon distinguished himself above his competitors in the prize exhibitions, which took place once a year. Indulging the bent of his mind to this art, he solicited and obtained his father’s permission to follow his studies in painting with a professional view. For this purpose, after having completed the school courses with great credit to himself, he was removed to London, where he was placed under the care of Grisoni, an Italian painter of history, the best, and perhaps the only one, which that time afforded. Grisoni, however, was at the best a very poor painter, and the example of his works was little calculated to produce eminence in his scholar. But he was a man of sound judgment and benevolent disposition, and it is probable that the sense of his own insufficiency induced him to persuade young William to seek a more satisfactory guidance in the pursuit to which he devoted himself so earnestly. The schools’ of Italy appeared to him the place to which a learner should resort for the means of accomplishment in his art. William caught the suggestion with eagerness, and the father’s permission was again earnestly sought, for visiting the foreign treasures of painting and sculpture, which were then known to the English only through the communications of such of our gentlemen and nobility as travelled on the continent for the purposes of polite accomplishment. William Hoare was the first English painter who visited Rome for professional study.

In London the young painter looked around in vain for the encouragement which he had hoped to find in the historical department of his profession; and the impoverished state of his family not allowing him any alternative, he immediately resorted to portrait-painting, in which, from his superior talents, he was sure to find an unfailing resource. In this situation of his circumstances he formed a matrimonial engagement with a young lady of the name of Barker, between whose relations and his own there had long subsisted the most cordial intimacy, arising from mutual respect. Among the connexions of Miss Barker’s family were some who were established at Bath, and Mr. Hoare soon received an invitation to settle at that city, where, as there was no person of any eminence in his profession, he might reasonably look to the highest prospects of success. He accordingly accepted the invitation, and fully realized the expectations of his friends in every point. His painting-room was the resort of all that could boast the attractions either of beauty or fashion; and the number of his sitters was for a long time so great, as scarcely to allow him a momentary interval of relaxation, much less sufficient leisure for such an attention to the higher performances of his art as formed the constant object of his wishes.

It should be noticed, that in an early part of his successful practice at Bath, finding a general desire prevailing for pictures in crayons, he sent an order to Rosalba, the celebrated Venetian paintress, for two heads of fancy painted in that manner, and he received from that eminent mistress of her art two of her most studied performances; the one “Apollo with his lyre,” the other “A Nymph crowned with vernal flowers.” These beautiful works became the models of the Bath painter in his first efforts in crayons, in which mode of painting he afterwards carried the practice of the art to so high a degree as to be scarcely excelled by Rosalba herself. On the formation of the Royal Academy in London, his long-established reputation secured him an election among its original members, and he was a constant exhibitor for many years.

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

, a very eminent painter, is supposed to have been born about 1611, at Antwerp; but the master from whom he received his instruction is not known. He studied entirely after nature, sketching every scene that afforded him pleasure, and his choice was exceedingly picturesque. His grounds are always agreeably broken, and he was particularly fond of describing slopes diversified with shrubs, plants, or trees, which conducted the eye to some building, ruin, grove, or piece of water, and frequently to a delicate remote distance; every object perspectively contributing to delude our observation to that point. The forms of his trees are not unlike Ruysdael and Dekker; and in all his pictures he shews an admirable knowledge of the chiaroscuro. His colouring is extremely good, and his skies evidently shew that he made nature his principal director, by the shape and disposition of his clouds, as also by those peculiar tints, by which he expressed the rising and setting of the sun, the morning and evening. His touch is light, free, and firm; and his paintings have a very striking effect, by the happy distribution of his light and shadow. The figures which he himself designed are but indifferent, which was a defect imputable to Claude Lorraine and Caspar Poussin, as well as to Hobbima; but the latter, conscious of his inability in that respect, admitted but few figures into his designs, and those he usually placed somewhat removed from the immediate view, at a prudent distance from the front line. However, most of his pictures were supplied with figures by Ostade, Teniers, and other very famous masters, which must always give them a great additional value. The works of Hobbima are now exceedingly scarce, and industriously sought for. A very fine landscape of his, the property of the late Edward Coxe, esq. was sold a few years ago for nearly 700l.

, an English landscape painter, was born in London, in 1744, and received his tuition in the art from Wilson, whom he assisted for some time, and under whom he acquired a good eye for colouring, and great freedom and boldness of hand; but unluckily, like too many pupils, he caught the defects of his master more powerfully than his beauties; and was, in consequence, too loose in his definition of forms, by which means, that which added grace to the works of the master, became slovenliness in the pupil. “Hodges,” says Fuseli, “had the boldness and neglect of Wilson, but not genius enough to give authority to the former, or make us forgive the latter: too inaccurate for scene-painting, too mannered for local representation, and not sublime or comprehensive enough for poetic landscape; yet, by mere decision of hand, nearer to excellence than mediocrity; and, perhaps, superior to some who surpassed him in perspective, or diligence of execution.” He accepted an appointment to go out draughtsman with captain Cook on nis second voyage to the Soutn Seas, from which he returned after an absence of three years, and painted some pictures for the admiralty, of scenes in Otaheite and Ulietea. Afterwards, under the patronage of Warren Hastings, he visited the East Indies, where he acquired a decent fortune. On his return home, after practising the art some time, he engaged in commercial and banking speculations; which not proving successful, he sunk under the disappointment, and died in 1797.

, an eminent historical and landscape painter, born at Bommel in 1648, was a disciple of Warnard van Rysen, an excellent artist, who had been bred in the school of Polemburg. He was at first invited to Cleve, where his paintings procured him very great credit; but he was afterwards prevailed on to visit Paris, where not meeting with encouragement in any degree proportioned to his merit, he turned his attention to England, whither he certainly would have directed his course, had he not been dissuaded by Vosterman. After practising, therefore, for some time at Paris and Cleves, he settled at Utrecht, and in that city and its neighbourhood displayed his abilities, in executing several grand designs for ceilings, saloons, and apartments, and also in finishing a great number of easel pictures for cabinets; and his reputation was so universally established at Utrecht, that he was appointed director of an academy for drawing and painting, which he conducted, with great honour to himself, and remarkable advantage to his pupils. He had a lively imagination, a very ready invention, a talent for composition and correctness in the costume. His manner of painting was clean and neat, and he was thoroughly master of the true principles of the chiaroscuro. His figures in general are designed with elegance, his colouring is vivid, natural, and harmonious, his touch is light and firm, and his pictures have a great deal of transparence. His small easel-paintings are as distinctly touched as highly finished; and yet his larger works are always penciled with a freedom that is suitable to those grander compositions.

How long he continued in obscurity we cannot exactly learn; but the first piece in which he distinguished himself as a painter, is supposed to have been a representation of Wanstead Assembly. The figures in it, we are told, were drawn from the life, and without any circumstances of burlesque. The faces are said to have been extremely like, and the colouring rather better than in some of his later and more highly-finished performances. From the date of the first plate that can be ascertained to be the work of Hogarth, it may be presumed that he began business, on his own account, at least as early as 1720.

It happened in the early part of Hogarth’s life, that a nobleman who was uncommonly ugly and deformed, came to sit to him for his picture. It was executed with a skill that did honour to the artist’s abilities; but the likeness was rigidly observed, without even the necessary attention to compliment or flattery. The peer, disgusted at this counterpart of his dear self, never once thought of paying for a reflector that would only insult him with his deformities. Some time was suffered to elapse before the artist applied for his money; but afterwards many applications were made by him (who had then no need of a banker) for payment, but without success. The painter, however, at last hit upon an expedient which he knew must alarm the nobleman’s pride, and by that means answer his purpose. It was couched in the following card: “Mr. Hogarth’s dutiful respects to lord; finding that he does not mean to have the picture which was drawn for him, is informed again of Mr. H.'s necessity for the money; if, therefore, his lordship does not send for it in three days, it will be disposed of, with the addition of a tail, and some other little appendages, to Mr. Hare, the famous wild-beast man; Mr. H. having given that gentleman a conditional promise of it for an exhibition picture, on his lordship’s refusal.” This intimation had the desired effect. The picture was sent home, and committed to the flames.

Mr. Walpole has remarked, that if our artist “indulged his spirit of ridicule in personalities, it never proceeded beyond sketches and drawings,” and wonders “that he never, without intention, delivered the very features of any identical person.” But this elegant writer, who may be said to have received his education in a court, had perhaps few opportunities of acquaintance among the low popular characters with which Hogarth occasionally peopled his scenes. The friend who contributed this remark, was assured by an ancient gentleman of unquestionable veracity and acuteness of remark, that almost all the personages who attended the levee of the Rake were undoubted portraits; and that in “Southvvark Fair,” and the “Modern Midnight Conversation,” as many more were discoverable. In the former plate he pointed out Essex the dancingmaster; and in the latter, as well as in the second plate to the “Rake’s Progress,” Figg the prize-fighter. He mentioned several others by name, from his immediate knowledge both of the painter’s design and the characters represented; but the rest of the particulars by which he supported his assertions, have esca'ped the memory of our informant. While Hogarth was painting the “Rake’s Progress,” he had a summer reidence at Isleworth, and never failed to question the company who came to see these pictures if they knew for whom one or another figure was designed. When they guessed wrongly, he set them right.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

The ingenious abbe du Bos has often complained, that no history-painter of his time went through a scries of actions, and thus, like an historian, painted the successive fortune of an hero, from the cradle to the grave. What Du Bos wished to see done, Hogarth performed. He launches out his young adventurer a simple girl upon the town, and conducts her through all the vicissitudes of wretchedness to a premature death. This was painting to the understanding and to the heart; none had ever before made the pencil subservient to the purposes of morality and instruction; a book like this is fitted to every soil and every observer, and he that runs may read. Nor was the success of Hogarth confined to his figures. One of his excellencies consisted in what may be termed the furniture of his pieces; for as in sublime and historical representations the seldomer trivial circumstances are permitted to divide the spectator’s attention from the principal figures, the greater is their force; so in scenes copied from familiar life, a proper variety of little domestic images contributes to throw a degree of verisimilitude on the whole. “The Rake’s levee-room,” says Mr. Walpole, “the nobleman’s dining-rootn, the apartments of the husband and wife in Marriage a la Mode, the alderman’s parlour, the bedchamber, and many others, are the history of the manners of the age.” The novelty and excellence of Hogarth’s performances soon tempted the needy artist and printdealer to avail themselves of his designs, and rob him of the advantages which he was entitled to derive from them. This was particularly the case with the “Midnight Conversation,” the “Harlot’s” and “Rake’s Progresses,” and Others of his early works. To put a stop to depredations Kke these on the property of himself and others, and to secure the emoluments resulting from his own labours, as Mr. Walpole observes, he applied to the legislature, and obtained an act of parliament, 8 Geo. II. cap. 38, to vest an exclusive right in designers and engravers, and to restrain the multiplying of copies of their works without the consent of the artist. This statute was drawn by his friend Mr. Huggins, who took for his model the eighth of queen Anne, in favour of literary property; but it was not so accurately executed as entirely to remedy the evil; for, in a cause founded on it, which came before lord Hardwicke in chancery, that excellent lawyer determined, that no assignee, claiming under an assignment from the original inventor, could take any benefit by it. Hogarth, immediately after the passing of the act, published a small print, with emblematical devices, and an inscription expressing his gratitude to the three branches of the legislature. Small copies of the “Rake’s Progress” were published by his permission. In 1745, finding that, however great the success of his prints might be, the public were not inclined to take his pictures off his hands, he was induced to offer some of them, and those of the best he had then produced, for disposal by way of auction; but after a plan of his own, viz. by keeping open a book to receive biddings from the first day of February to the last day of the same month, at 12 o'clock. The ticket of admission to the sale was his print of “The Battle of the Pictures,” a humourous production, in which he ingeniously upheld his assertions concerning the preference so unfairly given to old pictures, and the tricks of the dealers in them.

Hogarth had projected a “Happy Marriage,” by way of counterpart to his “Marriage a la Mode.” A design for the first of his intended six plates he had sketched out in colours; and the following is as accurate an account of it as could be furnished by a gentleman who long ago enjoyed only a few minutes sight of so great a curiosity. The time supposed was immediately after the return of the parties from church. The scene lay in the hall of an antiquated country mansion. On one side the married couple were represented sitting. Behind them was a group of their young friends of both sexes, in the act of breaking bridecake over their heads. In front appeared the father of the young lady, grasping a bumper, and drinking, with a seeming roar of exultation, to the future happiness of her and her husband. By his side was a table covered with refreshments. Jollity rather than politeness was the designation of his character. Under the screen of the hall, several rustic musicians in grotesque attitudes, together with servants, tenants, &c. were arranged. Through the arch by which the room was entered, the eye was led along a passage into the kitchen, which afforded a glimpse of sacerdotal luxury. Before the dripping-pan stood a wellfed divine, in his gown and cassock, with his watch in his baud, giving directions to a cook, dressed all in white, who was employed in basting a haunch of venison. Among the faces of the principal figures, none but that of the young lady was completely finished. Hogarth had been often reproached for his inability to impart grace and dignity to his heroines. The bride was therefore meant to vindicate his pencil from so degrading an imputation. The effort, however, was unsuccessful. The girl was certainly pretty; but her features, if we may use the term, were uneducated. She might have attracted notice as a chambermaid, but would have fa-iled to extort applause as a woman of fashion. The clergyman and his culinary associate were more laboured than any other parts of the picture. It is natural for us to dwell longest on that division of a subject which is most congenial to our private feelings. The painter sat down with a resolution to delineate beauty improved by art, but seems, as usual, to have deviated into meanness, or could not help neglecting his original purpose, to luxuriate in such ideas as his situation in early life had fitted him to express. He found himself, in short, out of his element in the parlour, and therefore hastened in quest of ease and amusement, to the kitchen fire. Churchill, with more force than delicacy, once observed of him, that he only painted the backside of nature. It must be allowed, that such an artist, however excellent ia his walk, was better qualified to represent the low-born parent than the royal preserver of a foundling.

The following well-authenticated story will also serve to shew how much more easy it is to detect ill-placed or hyperbolical adulation respecting others, than when applied to ourselves. Hogarth being at dinner with the celebrated Cheselden, and some other company, was told that Mr>. John Freke, surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, a few evenings before at Dick’s coffee-house, had asserted that Greene was as eminent in composition as Handel. “That fellow Freke,” replied Hogarth, “is always shooting his bolt absurdly one way or another! Handel is a giant in music; Greene only a light Florimel kind of a composer.” —“Ay,” said, the informant, “but at the same time Mr. Freke declared you were as good a portrait-painter as Vandyck.”—“There he was in the right,” adds Hogarth: “and so I am, give me my time, and let one choose my subject!”

In the “Miser’s Feast,” Mr. Hogarth thought proper to pillory sir Isaac Shard, a gentleman proverbially avaricious. Hearing this, the son of sir Isaac, the late Isaac Pacatus Shard, esq a young man of spirit, just returned from his travels, called at the painter’s to see the picture; and among the rest, asking the Cicerone “whether that odd figure was intended for any particular person;” on his replying, “that it was thought to be very like one sir Isaac Shard,” he immediately drew his sword, and slashed the canvas. Hogarth appeared instantly in great wrath; to whom Mr. Shard calmly justified what he had done, saying, “that this was a very unwarrantable licence; that he was the injured party’s son, and that he was ready to defend any suit at law;” which, however, was never instituted.

About 1757, his brother-in-law, Mr. Thornhill, resigned the place of king’s serjeant-painter in favour of Mr. Hogarth. “The last memorable event in our artist’s life,” as Mr. Walpole observes, " was his quarrel with Mr. Wilkes, in which, if Mr. Hogarth did not commence direct hostilities on the latter, he at least obliquely gave the first offence, by an attack on the friends and party of that gentleman. This conduct was the more surprising, as he had all his life avoided dipping his pencil in political contests, and had early refused a very lucrative offer that was made, to engage him in a set of prints against the head of a courtparty. Without entering into the merits of the cause, I shall only state the fact. In September 1762, Mr. Hogarth published his print of * The Times.‘ It was answered by Mr. Wilkes in a severe ’ North Briton.‘ On this the painter exhibited the caricatura of the writer. Mr. Churchill, the poet, then engaged in the war, and wrote his ’ Epistle ta Hogarth,‘ not the brightest’ of his works, and in which the severest strokes fell on a defect that the painter had neither caused nor could amend his age; and which, however, was neither remarkable nor decrepit; much less had it impaired his talents, as appeared by his having composed but six months before, one of his most capital works, the satire on the Methodists. In revenge for this epistle, Hogarth caricatured Churchill, under the form of a canonical bear, with a club and a pot of porter So vituld tit dignus & hie never did two angry men of their abilities throw mud with less dexterity.

"When Mr. Wilkes was the second time brought from the Tower to Westminster-hall, Mr. Hogarth skulked behind in a corner of the gallery of the court of Common Pleas; and while the chief justice Pratt, with the eloquence and courage of old Koine, was enforcing the great principles of Magna Charta, and the English constitution, while every breast from him caught the holy flame of liberty, the painter was wholly employed in caricaturing the person of the man, while all the rest of his fellow-­citizens were animated in his cause, for they knew it to be their own cause, that of their country, and of its laws. It was declared to be so a few hours after by the unanimous sentence of the judges of that court, and they were all present.

It may be truly observed of Hogarth, that all his powers of delighting were restrained to his pencil. Having rarely been admitted into polite circles, none of his sharp corners had been rubbed off, so that he continued to the last a gross uncultivated man. The slightest contradiction transported him into rage. To some confidence in himself he was certainly entitled; for, as a comic painter, he could have claimed no honour that would not most readily have been allowed him; but he was at once unprincipled and variable in his political conduct and attachments. He is also said to have beheld the rising eminence and popularity of sir Joshua Reynolds with a degree of envy; and, if we are not misinformed, frequently spoke with asperity both of him and his performances. Justice, however, obliges us to add, that our artist was liberal, hpspitable, and the most punctual of paymasters; so that, in spite of the emoluments his works had procured to him, he left but an inconsiderable fortune to his widow. His plates indeed were such resources to her as could not speedily be exhausted. Some of his domestics had lived many years in his service, a circumstance that always reflects credit on a master. Of most of these he painted strong likenesses, on a canvas which was left in Mrs. Hogarth’s possession.

Hogarth made one essay in sculpture. He wanted a sign to distinguish his house in Leicester-fields; and thinking none more proper than the Golden Head, he out of a mass of cork made up of several thicknesses compacted together, carved a bust of Vandyck, which he gilt and placed over his door. It decayed, and was succeeded by a head in plaster, which in its turn was supplied by a head of sir Isaac Newton. Hogarth also modelled another resemblance of Vandyck in clay; which has also perished. His works, as his elegant biographer has well observed, are his history; and the curious are highly indebted to Mr. Walpole for a catalogue of his prints, drawn up from his own valuable collection, in 1771. But as neither that catalogue, nor his appendix to it in 1780, have given the whole of Mr. Hogarth’s labours, Mr. Nichols, including Mr. Walpole’s catalogue, has endeavoured, from later discoveries of our artist’s prints in other collections, to arrange them in chronological order. There are three large pictures by Hogarth, over the altar in the church of St. Mary Redcliff at Bristol. Mr. Forrest, of York-buildings, was in possession of a sketch in oil of our Saviour (designed as a pattern for painted glass); and several drawings, descriptive of the incidents that happened during a five days’ tour by land and water. The parties were Messrs. Hogarth, Thornhill (son of the late sir James), Scott (an ingenious landscape-painter of that name), Tothall, and Forrest. They set out at midnight, at a moment’s warning, from the Bedford-Arms tavern, with each a shirt in his pocket. They had all their particular departments. Hogarth and Scott made the drawings; Thornhill the map; Tothall faithfully discharged the joint offices of treasurer and caterer; and Forrest wrote the journal. They were out five days only; and on the second night after their return, the book was produced, bound, gilt, and lettered, and read at the same tavern to the above parties then present. Mr. Forrest had also drawings of two of the members, remarkably fat men, in ludicrous situations. Etchings from all these have been made, and the journal has been printed. A very entertaining work, by Mr. John Ireland, entitled “Hogarth illustrated,” was published by Messrs. Boydell, in 1792, and has since been reprinted. It contains the small plates originally engraved for a paltry work, called “Hogarth moralized,” and an exact account of all his prints. Since that, have appeared “Graphic illustrations of Hogarth, from pictures, drawings, and scarce prints, in the possession of Samuel Ireland.” Some curious articles were contained in this volume. A supplementary volume to “Hogarth illustrated,” has more recently appeared, containing the original manuscript of the Analysis, with the first sketches of the figures. 2. A Supplement to the Analysis, never published. 3. Original Memoranda. 4. Materials for his own Life, &c. But the most ample Memoirs of Hogarth are contained in Mr. Nichols’s splendid publication of his life and works, 2 vols. 4to, with copies of all his plates accurately reduced.

, better known by his German name Hans Holbein, a most excellent painter, was born, according to some accounts, at Basil in Switzerland in 1498, but Charles Patin places his birth three years earlier, supposing it very improbable that he could have arrived at such maturity of judgment and perfection in painting, as he shewed in 1514 and 1516, if he had been born so late as 1498. He learned the rudiments of his art from his father John Holbein, who was a painter, and had removed from Augsburg to Basil; but the superiority of his genius soon raised him above his master. He painted our Saviour’s Passion in the town house of Basil; and in the fish-market of the same town, a Dance of peasants, and Death’s dance. These pieces were exceedingly striking to the curious; and Erasmus was so affected with them, that he requested of him to draw his picture, and was ever after his friend. Holbein, in the mean time, though a great genius and fine artist, had no elegance or delicacy of manners, but was given to wine and revelling company; for which he met with the following gentle rebuke from Erasmus. When Erasmus wrote his “Moriæ Encomium,” or “Panegyric upon Folly,” he sent a copy of it to Hans Holbein, who was so pleased with the several descriptions of folly there given, that he designed them all in the margin; and where he had not room to draw the whole figures, pasted a piece of paper to the leaves. He then returned the book to Erasmus, who seeing that he had represented an amorous fool by the figure of a fat Dutch lover, hugging his bottle and his lass, wrote under it, “Hans Holbein,” and so sent it back to the painter. Holbein, however, to be revenged of him, drew the picture of Erasmus for a musty book-worm, who busied himself in scraping together old M'Ss. and antiquities, and wrote. under it “Adagia.”

It is said, that an English nobleman, who accidentally saw some of Holbein’s performances at Basil, invited him to come to England, where his art was in high esteem; and promised him great encouragement from Henry VIII.; but Holbein was too much engaged in his pleasures to listen to so advantageous a proposal. A few years after, however, moved by the necessities to which an increased family and his own mismanagement had reduced him, as well as by the persuasions of his friend Erasmus, who told him how improper a country his own was to do justice to his merit, he consented to go to England: and he consented the more readily, as he did not live on the happiest terms with his wife, who is said to have been a termagant. In his journey thither he stayed some days at Strasburg, and applying to a very great master in that city for work, was taken in, and ordered, to give a specimen of his skill. Holbein finished a piece with great care, and painted a fly upon the most conspicuous part of it; after which he withdrew privily in the absence of his master, and pursued his journey. When the painter returned home, he was astonished at the beauty and elegance of the drawing; and especially at the fly, which, upon his first casting his eye upon it, he so far took for a real fly, that he endeavoured to remove it with his hand. He sent all over the city for his journeyman, who was now missing; but after many inquiries, found that he had been thus deceived by the famous Holbein, This story has been somewhat differently told, as if the painting was a portrait for one of his patrons at Basil, but the effect was the same, for before he was discovered, he had made his escape.

, was born in Dublin in 1767, and came to England in the early part of life, painting in several parts of the country, particularly at York, where he married a lady of some property. A short time after his marriage, he settled in London, and practised with reputation, both as a painter in oil, and in miniature, particularly enamel; and after the death of Zincke, ranked among the principal artists of his day in that branch. He was chosen one of the members of the royal academy at its first institution; but took offence at one of his pictures, intended as a satire on sir Joshua Reynolds, being rejected from the exhibition. Another was also objected to, as containing a very profane allusion, which he altered with a substance easily washed away, and the picture was again exhibited in its original state at an exhibition of his own, in 1775. As a painter in oil, he was by no means an inferior artist, yet the colouring of his pictures was too red for the carnations, and the shadows not sufficiently clear. A few years before his death, he removed to Rathboneplace. He died Aug. 14, 1784, and was buried at Hendon, where five of his children lie.

His pencil is free and firm, and his colouring has a great deal of force, although it often is not pleasing, by a predominancy of the yellow and brown tints; yet undoubtedly Honthorst would have been an excellent painter if he had known how to give more grace and more correctness to his figures. At his return from London to Holland he adorned the pleasure houses of the prince of Orange with many poetical subjects, which he executed in fresco as well as in oil; but he principally was employed in painting portraits, which are described as having good expression, and extraordinary life and force, by their broad masses of light being contrasted by strong shadows. He died in 1660, aged sixty-eight. His brother, William, was born at Utrecht in 1604, and learned the art of painting from Abraham Bloemart. The portraits which he painted were very much esteemed, and are far superior to his historical subjects, which are in no degree equal to those of Gerard, although they are frequently sold for the works of that master. He died in 1683, aged seventy-nine.

, an eminent English mathematician, and one of the most inventive geniuses that the world has ever seen, was son of Mr. John Hooke, rector of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, and born there July 18, 1635. He was designed for the church; but being of a weakly constitution, and very subject to the head-ache, he was left to follow the bent of his genius, which led him to mechanics, and first appeared in his making little toys, which he did with wonderful art and dexterity. Seeing, on one occasion, an old brass clock taken to pieces, he made a wooden one that would go: he made likewise a small ship about a yard long, fitly shaped, masted, and rigged, with a contrivance to make it fire small guns, as it was sailing across a haven of some breadth. These indications led his friends to think of some trade for him in which such talents might be useful; and after his father’s death in 1648, as he had also a turn for drawing, he was placed with sir Peter Lely, but the smell of the oil-colours increased his headaches, and he quitted painting in a very short time. Afterwards he was kindly taken by Dr. Busby into his house, and supported there while he attended Westminster-school. Here he not only acquired Greek and Latin, together with some knowledge of Hebrew and other oriental languages, but also made himself master of a good part of Euclid’s Elements; and Wood adds, that while he lived with Dr. Busby he “learned of his own accord to play twenty lessons on the organ, and invented thirty several ways of flying as himself and Dr. Wilkins of Wadham- college have reported.” About 1653 he went to Christ-church, Oxford, and in 1655 was introduced to the philosophical society there; where, discovering his mechanic genius, he was first employed to assist Dr. Willis in his operations of chemistry, and afterwards recommended to Mr. Boyle, whom he served many years in the same capacity. He was also instructed about this time by Dr. Seth Ward, Savilian professor of astronomy, in that science; and from henceforward distinguished himself by a greater number of important inventions and improvements of the mechanic kind, than any one man had ever discovered. Among these were several astronomical instruments for making observations both at sea and land; and he was particularly serviceable to Boyle, in completing the air-pump. Wood tells us, that he also explained “Euclid’s Elements,” and “Des Cartes’s Philosophy,” to Boyle. In Nov. 1662, sir Robert Moray, then president, having proposed him for curator of experiments to the Royal Society, he was unanimously accepted, and it was ordered that Boyle should have the thanks of the society for dispensing with him for their use; and that he should come and sit among them, and both exhibit every day three or four of his own experiments, and take care of such others as should be mentioned to him by the society. He executed this office so much to their satisfaction, that when that body was established by the royal charter, his name was in the list of those who were first nominated by the council, May 20, 1663; and he was admitted accordingly, June 3, with a peculiar exemption from all payments. Sept. 28 of the same year, he was nominated by Clarendon, chancellor of Oxford, for the degree of M.A.; and Oct. 19, it was ordered that the repository of the Royal Society should be committed to his care, the white gallery in Gresham-college being appointed for that use. In May 1664, he began to read the astronomical lecture at Gresham for the professor, Dr. Pope, theri in Italy; and the same year was made professor of mechanics to the Royal Society by Sir John Cutler, with a salary of 50l. per annum, which that gentleman, the founder, v settled upon him for life. On Jan. 11, 1664-5, he was elected by that society curator of experiments for life, with an additional salary of“30l. per annum to sir John Cutler’s annuity, settled on him” pro tempore:“and, March folJowing, was elected professor of geometry in Greshamcollege. In 1665, he published in folio his” Micrographia, or some philosophical descriptions of minute bodies, made by magnifying glasses, with observations and enquiries thereupon:" and the same year, during the recess of the Royal Society on account of the plague, attended Dr. Wilkins and other ingenious gentlemen into Surrey, where they made several experiments. In Sept. 1666, he produced his plan for rebuilding the city of London, then destroyed by the great fire; which was approved by the lord -may or and court of aldermen. According to it, all the chief streets were to have been built in regular lines; all the other cross streets to have turned out of them at right angles; and all the churches, public buildings, marketplacesj &c. to have beetl fixed in proper and convenient places; but the nature of the property, and the impossibility of raising funds to indemnify the landholders who would be injured by this scheme, prevented its being carried into execution. The rebuilding of the city, however, according to the act of parliament, requiring an able person to set out the ground to the several proprietors, Hooke was appointed one of the city surveyors, and Oliver, a glass-painter, the other. In this employment he acquired the greatest part of that estate of which he died possessed; as appeared sufficiently evident from a large iron chest of money found after his death, locked down with a key in it, and a date of the time, which shewed that the contents had been so shut up for above thirty years, and seldom disturbed, for he almost starved himself and all in his house.

, an eminent engraver, was the son of Arnold Houbraken, a native of Holland, and a painter, but of no very superior merit. He is known, however, to the literary world, as the author of a work in Dutch, entitled “The Great Theatre of the Dutch and Flemish Painters,” in 3 vols. folio, with their portraits. He came over into England, to make drawings of the pictures of Vandyke, which were afterwards engraved by Peter Van Gunst. He died at Amsterdam in the fifty-ninth year of his age, 1719.

, a portrait-painter of some celebrity, born in 1701, was the scholar and son-in-law of Richardson, and enjoyed for many years the chief business of portrait-painting in the capital, after the favourite artists, his master and Jervas, were gone off the stage. Though Vanloo first, and Liotard afterwards, for a few years diverted the torrent of fashion from the established professor, still the country gentlemen were faithful to their compatriot, and were content with his honest similitudes, and with the fair tied wigs, blue velvet coats, and white satin waistcoats, which he bestowed liberally on his customers, and which with complacence they beheld multiplied in Faber’s mezzotintos. The better taste introduced by sir Joshua Reynolds, who had been for some time his pupil, put an end to Hudson’s reign, who had the good sense to resign the throne soon after finishing his capital work, the family piece of Charles duke of Marlboro ugh, about 1756. He retired to a small villa he had built at Twickenham, on a most beautiful point of the river, and where he furnished the best rooms with a well- chosen collection of cabinet-pictures and drawings by great masters having purchased many of the latter from his father-inlaw’s capital collection. Towards the end of his life he married to his second wife, Mrs. Fiennes, a gentlewoman with a good fortune, to whom he bequeathed his villa. He died Jan. 26, 1779.

A few weeks before he died, he sent, as a testimony of gratitude, to his noble friend earl Cowper, his own picture drawn by sir Godfrey Kneller, which he had received as a present from that painter: upon which the earl wrote him the following letter. “24 January 1719-20. Sir, I thank you for the most acceptable present of your picture, and assure you, that none of this age can set an higher value on it than I do, and shall while 1 live; though I am sensible that posterity will outdo me in that particular.”

, a distinguished artist, was the sixth, but only surviving son and heir of John Hussey of Marnhull, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and was born at Marnhull (in Dorsetshire), Feb. 10, 1710. At seven years of age he was sent by his father, who was a Roman catholic, to Doway for his education, where he continued two years. He then was removed to St. Osier’s, where he pursued his studies for three years more. His father, though willing to afford him some education, yet designed him for trade; to which, perhaps, he was the more inclined, as a near relation, in the commercial world, offered to take him under his protection and care. Thought from a sense of parental authority, and filial obedience, Mr. Hussey did not at first openly oppose this design, yet it was so repugnant to his natural turn and bent, that he found his mind greatly embarrassed and perplexed; but after some opposition, his father very wisely yielded to his son’s request, to be permitted to follow the direction of his genius; and for that end he placed him under the care and tuition of Mr. Richardson, the painter; with whom he continued scarcely a month; revolting at the idea and proposal of being kept in the bondage of apprenticeship for seven years. He then commenced pupil at large under one Damini, a Venetian artist, esteemed one of the best painters at that time in England, with whom he continued nearly four years. During this time he was principally employed in copying pictures, and finishing those of his master, whom he assisted in painting the ornaments of the cathedral of Lincoln. During their work, on a scaffold nearly twenty feet high, as Mr. Hussey was drawing back to see the effects of his pencil, he would have fallen, had not his master saved him as ingeniously as affectionately, and at some risque to himself. Mr. Hussey entertained such a sense of his master’s humanity and kindness, that he could not bear the thought of being separated from him, and therefore requested permission of his father for Damini to attend him whilst pursuing his studies in Italy. This he obtained; and under the care and direction of the Venetian, our young and inexperienced pupil set out for the seat of science and genius; bending first his course for Bologna. But, soon after their arrival, the poor unsuspecting pupil found that one act of friendship is by no means a sure pledge of another; Damini having in a few days decamped, taking with him all his pupil’s money and the best of his apparel. Mr. Hussey was, however, kindly relieved from this state of distress by signor Gislonzoni, who had been ambassador from the States of Venice to the court of London, and now became his friend and protector.

, an illustrious painter who surpassed all who have ever painted in his style, and whose works excite as much surprise by their finishing, as admiration by their truth, was born at Amsterdam in 1682, and was a disciple of Justus Van Huysum, his father. He set out in his profession with a most commendable principle, not so much to paint for the acquisition of money, as of fame; and therefore he did not aim at expedition, but at delicacy, and if possible, to arrive at perfection in his art. Having attentively studied the pictures of Mignon, and all other artists of distinction who had painted in his own style, he tried which manner would soonest lead htm to imitate the lightness and singular beauties of each flower, fruit, or plant; and then fixed on a manner peculiar to himself, which seems almost inimitable. He soon received the most deserved applause from the ablest judges of painting; even those who furnished him with the loveliest flowers, confessing that there was somewhat in his colouring and pencilling that rendered every object more beautiful, if possible, than even nature itself. His pictures are finished with inconceivable truth; for he painted every tiling after nature, and was so singularly exact, as to watch even the hour of the day in which his model appeared in its greatest perfection.

It is observed of him, that in the grouping of his flowers, he generally designed those which were brightest in the centre, and gradually decreased the force of his colour from the centre to the extremities. The birds.' nests and their eggs, the feathers, insects, and drops of dew, are' expressed with the utmost truth, so as even to deceive the spectator. And yet, after all this merited and just praise, it cannot but be confessed, that sometimes his fruits appear like wax or ivory, without that peculiar softness and warmth w 1 ich is constantly observable in nature. Beside his merit as a flower-painter, he also painted landscapes with great applause. They are well composed and although he had never seen Rome, he adorned his scenes with the noble remains of ancient magnificence which are in that city. His pictures in that style are well coloured, and every tree is distinguished by a touch that is proper for the leafing. The grounds are well broken, and disposed with taste and judgment; the figures are designed in the manner of JLairesse, highly finished, and touched with a great deal of spirit; and through the whole composition, the scene represents Italy, in the trees, the clouds, and the skies. He died in 1749, aged sixty-seven.

, commonly called Lucas Van Leyden, and by the Italians, Luca d'Ollanda, was born at Leyden, 1494. He was the disciple of his father Hugh Jacobs, and after him of Cornelius Engelbrecht, and distinguished himself in very early life as a painter and engraver. With fewer faults than his contemporaries, he possessed qualities to them unknown, more freshness and mellowness of colour, more aerial perspective, and equal dexterity in oil, distemper, and on glass. He delighted in subjects of extensive composition, though he was ignorant of light and shade in masses. His forms, like those of Albert Durer, are implicit copies of the model, but with less variety and less intelligence, lank, meagre, ignoble. Of expression he had little more than the vulgar grimace. Though he was without attention or knowledge of the costume in the general attire of his figures, his drapery is often ample and broad, but rather snapt than folded. Many pictures of this master in oil and distemper still exist in public places and private collections, at Leyden, Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere. His name, however, chiefly survives in the numerous prints which he engraved with equal diligence and facility of touch. He died in 1533.

, an excellent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1569, with a wonderful genius for painting, and in his youth executed some pieces which set him above all the young painters of his time; but becoming enamoured of a young woman at Antwerp, whom he obtained in marriage, he gave himself up to a dissipated course of life, which soon impoverished him, and affected his temper. He grew jealous of Rubens, and sent a challege to that painter, with a list of the names of such persons as were to decide the matter, so soon as their respective works should be finished; but Rubens, instead of accepting the challenge, answered that he willingly yielded him the preference, leaving the public to do them justice. There are some of Janssens’ works in the churches at Antwerp. He painted a descent from the cross for the great church of Boisleduc, which has been taken for a piece of Rubens; and is thought no ways inferior to any of the works of that great painter; but his chief work is his resurrection of Lazarus, in the Dussldorf gallery.

, another artist, was born at Brussels in 1664. Having applied sedulously to the practice of the art, and made much proficiency, he was employed by the duke of Holstein at a pension of 800 florins, and afterwards enabled, by the same munificent patron, to go to Italy, where, at Rome, he studied the works of Raphael, and became eminent in fame. He afterwards associated withTempesta the landscape painter, and painted figures in his pictures. In general his pictures are small in size, and have somewhat of the style of Albano His invention was copious, and his works are very pleasing. He died in 1739, at the age of 75.

, called also Johnson, a portrait-painter of very extraordinary merit, was born at Amsterdam; when, is not exactly ascertained. It appears that he painted in England as early as the year 1618, in the reign of James I. Here he continued with very great and deserved success till the arrival of Vandyke, whose transcendent talents and taste Janssens was not quite equal to cope with. On the breaking out of the civil war he returned to his own country in 1648; leaving behind him a number of excellent characteristic portraits in the great families of this island. He retired first to Middleburg, and afterwards to Amsterdam, where he died in 1665. His style of design was formal and void of taste, but his features are justly marked, and the faces of his portraits have great character, and an air of nature, possessing much sweetness of tone in the colouring, and finished very highly; too much so, indeed. His pictures are generally on wood, and with black draperies an arrangement adopted frequently by Rubens and Vandyke.

, a painter of this country, more known from the praises of Pope, who took instructions from him in the art of painting, and other wits, who were influenced probably by the friendship of Pope, than for any merits of his own, was a native of Ireland, and studied for a year under sir Godfrey Kneller. Norris, framer and keeper of the pictures to king William and queen Anne, was the first friend who essentially served him, by allowing him to study from the pictures in the royal collection, and to copy them. At Hamptou-cour the made small copies of the cartoons, and these he sold to Dr. George Clark of Oxford, who then became his protector, and furnished him with money to visit France and Italy. In the eighth number of the Tatler, (April 18, 1709), he is mentioned as “the last great painter Italy has sent us.” Pope speaks of him with more enthusiasm than felicity, and rather as if he was determined to praise, than as if he felt the subject. Perhaps some of the unhappiest lines in the works of that poet are in the short epistle to Jervas. Speaking of the families of some ladies, he says,

In this passage the whole is obscure, the connection with the preceding part particularly so; and part is parodied from Denham. It is no wonder that Jervas did not better inspire his friend to praise him, if the judgment of lord Orford be accurate, on which we may surely rely. He says, that “he was defective in drawing, colouring, and composition, and even in that most necessary, and perhaps most easy talent of a portrait- painter, likeness. In general, his pictures are a light, flimsy kind of fan-painting, as iargv as life.” His vanity, inflamed perhaps by the undeserved praises he received from wits and poets, was excessive. He affected to be violently in love with lady Bridgewater; yet, after dispraising the form of her ear, as the only faulty part about her face, he ventured to display his own as the complete model of perfection. Jervas appeared as an author in his translation of Don Quixote, which he produced, as Pope used to say of him, without understanding Spanish. Warburton added a supplement to the preface of Jervas’ s translation, on the origin of romances of chivalry, which was praised at the time, but has since been totally extinguished by the acute criticisms of Mr. Tyrwhitt. Jervas died about 1740.

, a painter of history and portraits, possessed of very superior abilities in his art, was born at Antwerp in 1594. He first studied with Adam Van Oort, whose daughter he married at an early period of his life but it was to Rubens he stood indebted for the principal part of his knowledge; though it is dubious whether he ever was admitted into the school of that master. Certain it is, however, that he more forcibly carried into effect his principles than any of his disciples, except Vandyke. It is said by Sandrart, that Rubens was jealous of him, but this assertion is generally thought to be unfounded; yet if so great a man were capable of that mean passion, certainly the talents of Jordaens might well excite it. He painted with almost incredible force and brilliancy. Neither Rubens nor Tintoretto, in that respect, excel him; his compositions are full of bustle, and designed with great truth, even grandeur of form. His defect (and it must be allowed that it is a great one, in an art whose principal end is to adorn, to improve, to please mankind) is grossness of subject and of form; not indecent, but vulgar, low common life. His power to give rotundity and relief to his figures, is amazing; and his execution is of the most masterly kind. The French have possessed themselves of many of his principal works; two are particularly noticeable in the gallery of the Louvre, the Flemish celebration. of Twelfth night, known by the appellation of “L'e Roi boit,” and Christ driving the money-changers from the temple. He was remarkable for the rapidity of his execution, and appears to have studied his figures and effects by candle-light, or in bright sun-shine. Having obtained great renown and success, he died in 1678.

, an historical painter, born at Bouen, in Normandy, in 1644, received his first instructions from his father; but his principal teacher was Poussin, and his most useful studies the works of that master. He had a ready invention, and was therefore employed to adorn the apartments of Versailles and the Trianon. In the hospital of the invalids at Paris, he painted the twelve apostles; each figure 14 feet high. It must be acknowledged, however, that he failed in true taste. His style partakes too much of French flippancy the substitution of something striking for what is solid and good and his colouring is heavy. In the latter end of his life, he was struck with a palsy on his right side, and after having tried to no purpose the virtue of mineral waters, despaired of being able to paint any longer; but in one of his lectures happening to take the pencil into his left hand, and trying to retouch a piece before him, the attempt succeeded so well, that it encouraged him to make others; till at length he determined to finish with his left hand a large cieling, which he had begun in the grand hall of the parliament at Kouen, and a large piece of the Annunciation, in the choir of the church of Paris. These last works are no ways inferior to any of his best. He died at Paris in 1717.

, a painter of still life, was born at Amsterdam in 1630, and was a disciple of Hendrick Pot, a portrait and historical painter; of whom he learned the practice of the art, but from whom he varied in the application of it; and applied his talents, which were very considerable, in a close imitation of objects in still life; which he composed with great beauty and effect. In the gallery of the Louvre at Paris, are two exquisite works of his, in which he is said to unite the merits of Rembrandt and Teniers. He possessed an eye informed with the power of Rembrandt’s arrangements and contrast of light and shade, and a hand, that managed the pencil with the neatness and correctness of Teniers. He died in 1693.

Whatever offence this sermon might give to others, it did not offend the succeeding duke of Devonshire, to whom it was dedicated, who, on the contrary, recommended the doctor to the queen for the deanery of Peterborough, which he obtained in 1707. In 1709, he published “A Vindication of the Church and Clergy of England from some ]ate Reproaches rudely and unjustly cast upon them” and, “A true Answer to Dr. SacheverelPs Sermon before the Lord-Mayor, November 5 of that year.” In 1710, he was greatly reproached, for not joining in the London clergy’s address to the queen. When the great point in SacheverelPs trial, the change of the ministry, was gained, and addresses succeeded, an address was prepared from the bishop and clergy of London, so worded that they, who would not subscribe it, might be represented as enemies to the queen and her ministry. Dr. Kennet, however, refused to sign it, which was announced in one of the newspapers, Dyer’s Letter of Aug. 4, 1710. This zealous conduct in Kennet, in favour of his own party, raised so great an odium against him, and made him so very obnoxious to the other, that very uncommon methods were taken to expose him; and one, in particular, by Dr. Weiton, rector of WhitechapeL In an altar-piece of that church, which was intended to represent Christ and his twelve apostles eating the passover and the last supper, Judas, the traitor, was drawn sitting in an elbow-chair, dressed in a black garment, between a gown and a cloak, with a black scarf and a white band, a short wig, and a mark in his forehead between a lock and a patch, and with so much of the countenance of Dr. Kennet, that under it, in effect, was written “the dean the traitor.” It was generally said, that the original sketch was designed for a bishop under Dr. Welton’s displeasure, which occasioned the elbow-chair, and that this bishop was Burnet: but the painter being apprehensive of an action of Scandalum Magnatum, leave was given him to drop the bishop, and make the dean. Multitudes of people came daily to the church to admire the sight; but it was esteemed so insolent a contempt of all that is sacred, that, upon the complaint of others, (for the dean never saw or seemed to regard it, the bishop of London obliged those who set the picture up to take it down again. But these arts and contrivances to expose him, instead of discouraging, served only to animate him; and he continued to write and act as usual in the defence of that cause which he had espoused and pushed so vigorously hitherto. In the mean time, he employed his leisure-hours in things of a different nature; but which, he thought, would be no less serviceable to the public good. In 1713, he made a large collection of books, charts, maps, and papers, at his own expence, with a design of writing “A full History of the Propagation of Christianity in the English American Colonies;” and published a catalogue of all the distinct treatises and papers, in the order of time as they were first printed or written, under this title, “Bibliothecae Americanae primordia.” About the same time he founded “an antiquarian and historical library” at Peterborough; for which purpose he had long been gathering up pieces, from the very beginning of printing in England to the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. In the rebellion of 1715, he published a sermon upon “the witchcraft of the present Rebellion;” and, the two following years, was very zealous for repealing the acts against occasional conformity and the growth of schism. He also warmly opposed the proceedings in the convocation against Hoadly, then bishop of Bangor which was thought to hurt him so as to prove an effectual bar to his farther advancement in the church nevertheless, he was afterwards promoted to the see of Peterborough, November 1718. He continued to print several things after his last promotion, which he lived to enjoy something above ten years; and then died in his house in James’s-street, December 19, 1728. His numerous and valuable ms collections, which were once in the collection of Mr. West, were purchased by the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and sold with the rest of his lordship’s Mss. to the British Museum, where they are now deposited. Among these are two volumes in a large Atlas folio, which were intended for publication under the following comprehensive title “Diptycha Ecclesise Anglicanae sive Tabulae Sacrse in quibus facili ordine recensentur Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, eorumque Suffraganei, Vicarii Generales, et Cancellarii; Ecclesiarum insuper Cathedralium Priores, Decani, Thesaurarii, Praecentores, Cancellarii, Archidiaconi, & melioris notae Canonici, continua serie deducti a Gulielmi I. Conquestu, ad auspicata Gul. III. tempora.”

, an ingenious artist, was born in Yorkshire, in 1685, and put apprentice to a coach-painter, but, feeling the superiority of his talents, he left his master, and came up to London, where he soon proved himself worthy of encouragement and patronage. In 1710 he was sent, by the munificence of some gentlemen of his own country, to Rome, whither he accompanied Mr. Tallman. There he studied under Cavalier Luti, and in the academy gained the second prize of the second class. He also became acquainted with lord Burlington, whose sagacity discovered the rich vein of genius that had been hid even from himself; and, on their return to England in 1719, lodged him in his own house, and shewed for him all the marks of the most disinterested friendship. By his interest he was employed in various works, both as a painter in history and portrait; and yet there appear but very faint traces of that creative talent he displayed in a sister art. His portraits did not resemble the persons that sat for them. His colouring was worse than that of the most errant journeyman to the profession; and his drawing was defective, witness the hall at Wanstead, and his picture at St. Clement’s. Fie designed some of the drawings of Gay’s Fables, the prints for Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and the vignettes to the large edition of Pope’s works. In architecture, however, of the ornamental kind, he was deservedly admired he executed the temple of Venus at Stowe the earl of Leicester’s house at Holkham in Norfolk; the great hall at Mr. Pelham’s, Arlington-street; and the stair-case at lady Isabella Finch’s in Berkeley-square. Mr. Walpole considers him likewise as the inventor of modern gardening, in which it is certain that he excelled, and every thing in that branch has been since his time more natural, graceful, and pleasing. By the patronage of the dukes of Grafton and Newcastle, Mr. Pelham, and the earl of Burlington, he was made master-carpenter, architect, keeper of the pictures, and, after the death of Jervas, principal painter to the crown; the whole, including a pension of 100l. a year, which was given him for his works at Kensington, produced 600l. a year. In 1743 he was disordered in his eyes, but recovered, and in March 1748 an inflammation in his bowels put an end to his life at Burlington-house, April 12, 1748, aged sixty-three years. He was buried in lord Burlington’s vault at Chiswick.

, a heraldic and commercial writer, the son of a father of both his names, was born at Lichfield, Dec. 15, 1648, and was educated at the grammarschool of that city, and at the age of fourteen had been taught Greek, Latin* and somewhat of Hebrew. At that age he was recommended by Dr. Hunter, of Lichfield, to sir William Dugdale, then Norroy, who took him into his service, which was very acceptable to his father, who had five other children to provide for; and Dr. Hacket, bishop of Lichfield, had intended to have sent him to the university, had not this opening taken place. He was at this time so small of his age, that when he became clerk to Dugdale, and for two years after, he was unable to mount a horse from the ground. Yet he accompanied that king of arms in his visitations, and tricked the arms of Staffordshire, which though not equal to what he afterwards did$ still remain in the college. He at that time applied himself to the French language, and painting of pedigrees > and within a year or two, painted several for Mr. Dugdale, particularly a large one of Claverin, of Northumberland, and some time after painting and engrossing the grants of arms filled up the greatest part of his time; but Dugdale gave him leave to take with him into the northern counties blank escocheons on vellum, upon which he depicted the arms of those who desired an attestation of them under Dugdale’s hand; and this he was enabled to do* instead of an arms painter, who had usually attended that officer of the college. He shewed uncommon attention to improvement during the time Dugdale visited his whole province, in 1662, and 1666, for he took prospects of the towns, castles, and other remarkable places in the counties through which he passed. In 1667 he passed into the service of lord Hatton, who was a great lover of antiquities, and the particular patron of Dugdale during the civil war; and now employed Mr. King until 1669, when he was dismissed with great promises of future kindness. He then went to Lichfield, where he found his father re-married; and here he supported himself for some time in the humble occupations of teaching writing and arithmetic, painting coaches, signs, and other kinds of work in oil colours, as hatchments, &c. and in instructing the registrar of the dean and chapter, and some other inquisitive persons, to read ancient records. At this time Mr. Chetwynd of Ingestry, invited him to peruse and transcribe his family muniments, which he did in a fair vellum book, tricking the most considerable seals.

, eminent for his talents in perspective, was the eldest son of Mr. John Kirby, who was originally a schoolmaster at Orforcl, and who is known to topographers by a map of Suffolk which he published, and by “The Suffolk Traveller,” 12mo, a new edition of which was published in 1764. He was born at Parham, near Wickham-market, in 1716, and settled as a house-painter at Ipswich about 1738. Me had a turn for drawing, and published, early in life, twelve prints of castles, ancient churches, and monuments, in Suffolk, with a small descriptive pamphlet. He afterwards became intimate with the celebrated artist Gainsborough, the contemplation of whose works increased his taste for painting, but he had very little leisure to cultivate it, and has left only a few landscapes in the possession of his family; one of which, a view of the old kitchen at Glastonbury-abbey, was exhibited at Spring-gardens in 1770.

, an eminent portrait painter, was born at Lubec about 1648. His father was surveyor-general of the mines, and inspector of count Mansfeldt’s revenues. At first Godfrey was destined for a military life, and was sent to Leyden, where he applied to mathematics and fortification; but the predominance of nature determining him to painting, his father acquiesced, and placed him under Bol, at Amsterdam, and he had also some instructions from Rembrandt. He visited Italy in 1672, and remained some time at Venice, where he painted some of the first families, and amongst them the cardinal Bassadonna. It is probable that he here learned that free, loose style of execution in which he delighted, but by no means excelled; with him it fell to negligence and clumsiness, particularly in his draperies, whilst sometimes his heads exhibit a perfect master of the pencil.

He was equally encouraged by Charles, James, and William; and had the honour of painting the portraits of ten/ sovereigns (viz. Charles II. James II. and his queen, William and Mary, Anne, George I. Louis XIV. the czar Peter the Great, and the emperor Charles VI.), which is more than can be said of any other painter. His best friend was William, for whom he painted the beauties of Hampton Court; and by whom he was knighted in 1692, and presented with a gold medal and chain worth 300l. In his reign he also painted several of the admirals for Hampton, Court, and the Kit-Cat club. He lived to paint George I, and was -made a baronet by him. In 1722, sir Godfrey was seized with a violent fever, from tjie immediate danger of which he was rescued by Dr. Mead. He languished, however, some time, and died in October 1723. His body lay in state, and was buried at his country seat called Wilton; but a monument was erected to him in Westminster abbey, for which he left 300l. and gave particular instructions for the execution of it to Rysbrach.

, a very original artist, was born at Dort in 1606, and was the son of Jacob Gerritz Kuyp, a landscape painter of much merit, whom, however, he far surpassed in his progress. He was one of the most agreeable painters that ever lived; imitating with the greatest perfection the purity and brilliancy of light. No artist ever represented the atmosphere which surrounds all objects more completely than Cuyp; not even Claude: and in the effect of sun-shine, none ever approached him. The simplest scenes and combinations of objects were sufficient for him to exert his talents upon; and he never failed to give an interest to them by the sweetness of his colour, and the beauty of his light and shade.

, a painter of histories on ceilings, staircases, halls, &c. and an assistant and imitator of Verrio, was born in France; and his father being master of the menagerie at Versailles, he had Louis XIV. for his godfather, and after him he was named. At first he was intended for the church, and was placed in the Jesuits’ college for education; but, having a hesitation in his speech, and having exhibited some taste in drawing, the king recommended to his parents to bring him up to the profession of painting. He then studied in the school of Le Brun, and in the royal academy of Paris; and made so much progress, that, in 1683, at the age of twenty, he came to England, and was immediately employed by Verrio upon the large work at St. Bartholomew’s hospital; in which he succeeded so well, that he soon obtained considerable employment on his own account, and executed a great number of ceilings, halls, and staircases, in the houses of the principal nobility of the country, particularly at lord Exeter’s at Burleigh, at Devonshire house, Piccadilly, Petworth, and Blenheim. King William gave him lodgings at Hampton Court, where he painted the “Labours of Hercules,” and repaired the large pictures called “The Triumphs of Caesar,” by Andrea Mantegna. His talents were not of a cast to demand very high respect, but they were fully equal to the mode in which they were employed, which requiring a certain portion of ingenuity, is a certain waste of talents of a superior class. In a few years, it is probable, his name will repose for perpetuity on the records of history, and the unlucky satire of Pope, “where sprawl the saints of Verrio and Laguerre.' He died in 1721, and in a place very seldom disturbed by such an event, viz. in the theatre of Drury-lane. He had gone there to see the” Island Princess" acted for the benefit of his son, who was newly entered upon the stage as a singer; but, before the play began, he was seized by an apoplexy, and carried away senseless.

, an eminent Flemish painter, was born at Liege, in 1640. His father, who was a tolerable painter, put his son first to study the belles lettres, poetry, and music, to the last of which Gerard dedicated a day in every week: but at length taught him design, and made him copy the best pictures, particularly those of Bertholet Flaraael, a canon of that city. At the age of fifteen, Gerard began to paint portraits, and some historical pieces, for the electors of Cologne and Brandenburgh, which contributed-to make him known, and gave him great reputation. The ease, however, with which he got his money tempted him to part with it as easily, and run into expence. He was fond of dress, and making a figure in the world; he had also an ambition to please the ladies, and fancied that the liveliness of his wit would compensate in some degree for the deformity of his person. But one of his mistresses, whom he had turned off, having out of revenge wounded him dangerously with a knife, he abandoned such promiscuous gallantry, and married. While settled at Utrecht, and poor, he was seized with a contagious distemper; and, his wife lying-in at the same time, he was reduced to offer a picture to sale for present support, which, in three days’ time, was bought by Vytenburgh, a picture-merchant at Amsterdam, who engaged him to go to that city. Accordingly Lairesse settled there; and his reputation rose to so high a pitch, that the Hollanders esteem him the best history-painter of their country, and commonly call him their second Raphael; Hemskirk is their first. Yet his style of painting was but a compound of those of Poussin and the old French school. While he aimed at imitating the best Italian masters, he never avoided those false airs of the head and limbs, which seem rather taken from the stage than from nature; so that his works do not rise to the level of true merit. At length, borne down with infirmities, aggravated by the loss of his eye-sight, he finished his days at Amsterdam, in 1711, at the age of seventy-one.

He had three sons, of whom two were painters and his disciples. He had also three brothers, Ernest, James, and John: Ernest and John painted animals, and James was a flower-painter. He engraved a great deal in aqua-fortis. His work consists of 256 plates, great and small, more than the half of which are by his own hand; the others are engraved by Poole, Berge, Glauber, &c. Lairesse has the credit of an excellent book upon the art, which has been translated into English, and printed both in 4to and 8vo, at London, but it is thought that it consists only of observations made by him, and published with the authority of his name.

, an artist of the English school, though of German extraction, was probably born about 1628. His father, a soldier of fortune, came with his wife and this only son into the Netherlands; and that country being then embroiled in a war, procured a colonel’s command, which he enjoyed not many years, dying a natural death at Antwerp. His widow, a prudent woman, so managed her small fortune, as to maintain herself suitably to her husband’s quality, and give her son a liberal education, designing him for a monastery; but early discovering his turn for painting, she, although with reluctance, placed him with a painter, from whom he learned the rudiments of his art; but his chief instruction was derived from the city-academy of Antwerp. His advances in the science were very great, especially in landscape, in which he had the advantage of Mr. Van Lyan’s collection of curious pieces of all the eminent masters of Europe. Here he selected as his favourite models Titian and Salvator Rosa.

His mother dying, he came to his fortune young; and, passing over to England, met with a reception suitable to his merit. Admiral sir Edward Sprag, a patron of the art, recommended him to several persons of quality, among whom was sir William Williams, whose house was finally adorned with this master’s pictures, but not long after unfortunately burnt; so that, of this great painter, there are but very few finished pieces remaining, he having bestowed the greatest part of his time, while in England, on that gentleman’s house. He was also much courted by sir Peter Lely, who employed him in painting the grounds, landscapes, flowers, ornaments, and sometimes the draperies, of those pictures by which he intended to gain esteem. Lancrinck’s performances in landcapewere admired for invention, harmony, colouring, and warmth, and he was particularly successful in his skies, which were thought to excel the works of the most eminent painters in this article. Besides the specimens in the possession of Mr. Henly, of Mr. Trevox, and Mr. Austen, the father of which last was his great friend and patron, he painted a cieling at the house of Richard Lent, esq. at Causham in Wiltshire, near Bath, which was much admired. He practised also drawing after the life, and succeeded well in small figures, which were a great ornament in his landscapes, and in which be imitated the manner of Titian. Lancrinck is said to have shortened his days by too free indulgence, and died in August 1692, leaving a wellchosen collection of pictures, drawings, prints, antique heads, and models, most of which he brought from abroad.

, an eminent Italian painter, was born at Parma, in 1581. His parents, being poor, carried him to Placenza, to enter him into the service of the count Horatio Scotte. While he was there, he was always drawing with coal upon the walls, paper being too small for him to scrawl his ideas on. The count, observing his disposition, put him to Agostino Caracci; after whose death he went to Rome, and studied under Annibale, who set him to work in the church of St. Jago, and found him capable of being trusted with the execution of his designs; in which Lanfranco has left it a doubt whether the work be his or his master’s. His genius lay to painting in fresco in spacious places, as appeared by his grand performances, especially the cupola of Andrea de Laval, in which he has succeeded much better than in his pieces of a less size. His taste in design he took from Annibale Caracci; and as long as he lived under the discipline of that illustrious roaster, he was always correct; but, after his master’s death, 'he gave a loose to the impetuosity of genius, without regarding the rules of art. He joined with his countryman Sisto Badalocchi, in etching the histories of the Bible, after Raphael’s painting in the Vatican; which work, in conjunction with Badalocchi, he dedicated to his master Annibale. Lanfranco painted the history of St. Peter for pope Urban VIII. which was engraved by Pietro Santi; he executed other performances, particularly St. Peter walking on the water, for St. Peter’s church, and pleased the pope so much, that he knighted him.

, an historical painter, was a native of Vercelli) a pupil of Gaudenzio Ferrari, and imitated the style of that master in his first works to a degree of illusion. As he advanced in practice he cast a bolder eye on nature, and by equal vigour of conception and execution, proved to the first artists of Milan, that, like Ferrari, he was born for grand subjects such is that of S. Catarina, near S. Celso the face and attitude of the heroine anticipate the graces of Guido the colour of the whole approaches the tones of Titian, the glory of the angels rivals Gaudenzio; a less neglected style of drapery would have left little to wish for. Among his copious works at Milan, and in its districts, the dome of Novara claims distinguished notice. There he painted those Sybils, and that semblance of an Eternal Father, so much admired by Lomazzo; and near them certain subjects from the life of Mary, which even now, in a ruined state of colour, enchant by spirit and evidence of design. His versatile talent indulged sometimes in imitations of Lionardo da Vinci; and at the Basilica of St. Ambrogio, the figure of Christ between two Angels, in form, expression, and effect, fully proves with what felicity he penetrated the principles of that genius.

, the celebrated physiognomist, was born at Zurich, Nov. 15, 1741. He was from his earliest years of a gentle, timid disposition, but restless in the pursuit of knowledge. At school he was perpetually varying his studies by attempting mechanical operations, and often showed indications of genius and invention in his amusements. When he reached the upper classes of school, his diligence in study was encouraged by the advice of Bodmer and Breitenger, and quickened by a wish to emulate some school -fellows of superior talent. His turn of thinking was original, liberal, and manly. As he grew up he wrote some essays on subjects of morals and religion, which gained him the hearts of his countrymen. Having gone through the usual course of reading and instruction for the ecclesiastical profession, he was admitted into orders in May 1761, and two years afterwards he travelled with the brothers Hess, two amiable friends, of whom death deprived him, and, with Henry Fuseli, our celebrated painter. They went over Prussia, under the tuition of professor Sulzer, and Lavater made a considerable stay with Spalding, then curate of Barth in Pomeranian Prussia, and afterwards counsellor of the grand consistory. On his return to Zurich he became a very eloquent and much admired preacher, and proved himself the father of his flock by the most benevolent attention to their wants bodily and mental. After having been for some years deacon of th Orphans’ church, he was in 1774 appointed first pastor. In 1778 the parishioners of the church of St. Peter, the only persons in the canton of Zurich who have a right to chuse their own minister, made choice of Lavater as deacon; and, in 1786, as first pastor. Here he remained, intenton the duties of his office, and on his physiognomical studies until Zurich was stormed in 1797. On this occasion he was wounded by a Swiss soldier, on whom he had conferred important benefits; from the effects of this he never recovered, although he lived in full possession of his faculties till Jan. 2, 1801, when he expired in the sixtieth year of his age. His principal works are, 1. “Swiss Songs,” which he composed at the desire of the Helvetic society, aud which were sung in that society, and in other cantons. 2. Three collections of “Spiritual Songs, or Hymns,” and two volumes of “Odes,” in blank verse. 3. “Jesus Messiah, or the Evangelists and Acts of the Apostles,” 4 vols. a poetical history of our Saviour, ornamented with 72 engravings from his designs, executed by Chodoweiki, Lips, &c. 4. “A Look into Eternity,” which being severely criticised by Gothe, Lavater, who loved truth in every shape, instead of being offended at the liberties he took, sought out the author, and became his friend and correspondent. 5. “The secret Journal of a Self-Observer,” which was published here in 1795. In this Lavater unveils his secret conduct, and displays the motions of his heart. It may justly be said that every good heart is generally in unison with him, but it is impossible not to differ from many of his opinions, and not to perceive in them an uncommon degree of extravagance and enthusiasm. We learn from his Journal, however, and indeed from all his works, that a warm desire to promote the honour of God, and the good of his fellow creatures, was the principal feature in his character, and the leading motive of all he did. Next to these were an indefatigable placability, and an inexhaustible love for his enemies.

, a herald and antiquary, son of captain Stephen Martin, mentioned in the preceding article, was born April 5, 1702. He was educated at the school of Mr. Michael Maittaire, and was admitted of the Middle-temple. In 1724 he was appointed a deputylieutenant of the Tower-hamlets; in which station he afterwards distinguished himself by his exertions during the rebellion in 1745. On the revival of the order of the Bath in 1725, he was one of the esquires of the earl of Sussex, deputy earl-marshal. He was elected F. A. S. March 2, 1726-7. In the same year he was created Lancaster herald, in the room of Mr. Hesketh; in 1729 constituted Norroy; in 1741 Clarenceux; and by patent dated December 19, 1754, appointed garter. In all his situations in the college Mr. Leake was a constant advocate for the rights and privileges of the office. He obtained, after much solicitation, a letter in 1731, from the duke of Norfolk to the earl of Sussex, his deputy earl -marshal, requesting him to sign a warrant for Mr. Leake’s obtaining a commission of visitation, which letter, however, was not attended with success. In the same year he promoted a prosecution against one Shiets, a painter, who pretended to keep an om'ce of arms in Dean’s-court. The court of chivalry was opened with great solemnity in the paintedchamber, on March 3, 1731-2, in relation to which he had taken a principal part. In 1733, he appointed Francis Bassano, of Chester, his deputy, as Norroy, for Chester and North Wales; and about the same time asserted his right, as Norroy, to grant arms in North Wales, which right was claimed by Mr. Longville, who had been constituted Gloucester King at Arms partium Walii<t, annexed to that of Bath King at Arms, at the revival of that order. He drew up a petition in January 1737-8, which was presented to the king in council, for a new charter, with the sole power of painting arms, &c. which petition was referred to the attorney and solicitor general; but they making their report favourable to the painters, it did not succeed. He printed, in 1744, “Reasons for granting Commissions to the Provincial Kings at Arms for visiting their Provinces.” Dr. Cromwell Mortimer having, in 1747, proposed to establish a registry for dissenters in the college of arms, he had many meetings with the heads of the several denominations, and also of the Jews, and drew up articles of agreement, which were approved by all parties: proposals were printed and dispersed, a seal made to affix to certificates, and the registry was opened on February 20, 1747-8; but it did not succeed, owing to a misunderstanding between the ministers and the deputies of the congregations. A bill having been brought in by Mr. Potter, in the session of parliament in the year 1763, for taking the number of the people, with their marriages and births, he solicited a claim in favour of the college: but the bill did not pass. In 1755-6, he made an abstract of the register- books belonging to the order of the garter, which being translated into Latin, was deposited in the register’s office of the order.

, a most capital painter of the reign of Charles II. was born at Soest, in Westphalia, in 1617. His family name was Vander Vaas; but from the circumstance of his father, who was a captain of foot, being born in a perfumer’s shop, whose sign was a lily, and receiving the appellation of captain Du Lys, or Lely, our artist obtained it as a proper name. He was first instructed in the art by Peter Grebber, at Haerlem; and having acquired a very considerable degree of skill in execution, he came to England in 1641, and commenced portrait-painter. After the restoration he was appointed state-painter to Charles II. and continued to hold that office with great reputation till his death, which happened in 1680. He was seized by an apoplexy while painting a portrait of the duchess of Somerset, and died instantly, at the age of sixty-three.

, a historical painter of great merit, was born in 1607, at Ley den, and placed under the care of Joris Van Schooten, and afterwards of Peter Lastman. Portrait was perhaps that branch of the art in which he uniformly excelled, yet some of his historical pieces are deserving of the highest praise. His,“Resurrection of Lazarus” is a work, Mr. Fuseli says, which, in sublimity of conception, leaves all attempts of other masters on the same subject far behind. His “Contiqence of Scipio,” is also celebrated in very high terms. Another of his performances, applauded by the poets as well as the artists of his time, is his “Student in his library,” the figures as large as life. This was purchased by the prince of Orange, and presented by him to Charles I. It was the means of procuring him a favourable reception at the English court, where he painted the portraits of the royal family and many of the nobility. After residing in England for three years, he went to Antwerp, and was incessantly employed. The time of his death is not specified.

, a Dutch painter, or at least one who painted much in the Dutch manner, was born at Frankfort on the Maine, in 1625, and learned his art in Holland, but afterwards went to Koine, where he studiously observed every thing that was curious in art or nature, and continued at Rome till he was twenty-five years of age. His usual subjects are fairs, mountebanks, seaprospects, naval engagements, and landscapes. His landscapes are enriched with antiquities, ruins, animals, and elegant figures; his sea-fights are full of expression, exciting pity and terror; and all his objects are well-designed. His skies are generally light, and thinly clouded, and his management of the aerial perspective is extremely judicious; his keeping is usually good; his distances of a clear bluish tint; and the whole together is masterly, producing an agreeable effect. In painting figures or animals, he had uncommon readiness, and on that account he was employed by several eminent artists to adorn their landscapes with those objects; and whatever he inserted in the works of other masters, was always well adapted to the scene and the subject. His pencil is free, his touch clean and light, and his compositions are in general esteem. It may be observed, that he was particularly fond of introducing into most of his compositions, pieces of architecture, the remains of elegant buildings, or the gates of the sea-port towns of Italy; embellished with statues, placed sometimes on the pediments and cornices, and sometimes in niches. He also excelled in representing Italian fairs and markets, inserting in those subjects abundance of figures, well grouped and designed, in attitudes suitable to their different characters and occupations; and although )ie often repeated the same subjects, yet the liveliness of liis imagination, and the readiness of his invention, always enabled him to give them a remarkable variety. He died in 1687.

, a painter, called from his dress “the Turk,” was born at Geneva, in 1702. He went to Paris to study in 1725, and thence accompanied the marquis de Puisieux to Rome, where the earls of Sandwich and Besborough engaged him to accompany them to Constantinople. There he became acquainted with sir Everard Fawkener, our ambassador, who persuaded him to come to England, where he remained two years. He painted admirably in miniature, and in enamel, though he seldom practised the last, but he is best known by his crayons. The earls of Harrington and Besborough have some of his most capital works. His portraits, however, were so exact as to displease those who sat to him, for he never could conceive the absence of any imperfection or mark in the face that presented itself. Such a man could not be long a favourite, and therefore, according to lord Orford, although he had great business the first year, he had very little the second, and went abroad. It is said that he owed much of his encouragement to his making himself conspicuous by adopting the manners and habits of the Levant He came to England again in 1772, and brought a collection of pictures of different masters, which he sold by auction; and some pieces of glass painted by himself with surprizing effect of light and shade, but more curious than useful, as it was necessary to darken the room before they could be seen to advantage. He staid two years likewise on this visit. He went to the continent afterwards, but we find no account of his death. He carried his love of truth with him on all occasions; and we are told that at Venice and Milan, and probably elsewhere, all but firstrate beauties were afraid to sit to him, and he would have starved if he had not so often found customers who were of opinion that they belonged to that class.

, an eminent historical painter, was born at Florence, probably about the beginning of the fifteenth century, as he was a scholar of, and of course nearly contemporary with, Massaccio. At the age of sixteen, being entered a noviciate in the convent of Carmelites at Florence, he had there an opportunity of seeing that extraordinary artist at work upon the astonishing frescoes with which he adorned the chapel of Brancacci, in the church there; and being eager to embrace the art, such was his success, that after the death of his master, it was said by common consent, that the soul of Massaccio still abode with Fra. Filippo. He now forsook the habit of his convent, and devoted himself entirely to painting; but his studies were for a time disturbed by his being unfortunately taken, while out on a party of pleasure, by some Moors, and carried prisoner to Barbary; where he remained in slavery eighteen months. But having drawn, with a piece of charcoal, the portrait of his master upon a wall, the latter was so affected by the novelty of the performance, and its exact resemblance, that, after exacting a few more specimens of his art, he generously restored him to his liberty. On his return home he painted some works for Alphonso, king of Calabria. He employed himself also in Padua; but it was in his native city of Florence that his principal works were performed. He was employed by the grand duke Cosmo di Medici, who presented his pictures to his friends; and one to pope Eugenius IV. He was also employed to adorn the palaces of the republic, the churches, and many of the houses of the principal citizens; among whom his talents were held in high estimation. He was the first of the Florentine painters who attempted to design figures as large as life, and the first who remarkably diversified the draperies, and who gave his figures the air of antiques. It is to be lamented that such a man should at last perish by the consequences of a guilty amour he indulged in at Spoleto; where he was employed at the cathedral to paint the chapel of the blessed virgin. This is differently told by different writers, some saying that he seduced a nun who sat to him for a model of the virgin, and others that the object of his passion was a married woman. In either case, it is certain that he was poisoned by the relations of the lady whose favours he was supposed to enjoy. Lorenzo di Medici erected a marble tomb in the cathedral to his memory, which Politian adorned with a Latin epitaph. His son Lippi Filippo, was renowned for excellent imitations of architectural ornaments. He died in 1505, at the age of forty-five. There was also a Florentine painter, Lorenzo Lippi, born in 1606, and likewise a great musician and a poet. In the latter character he published “II Malmantile racquistato,” which is considered as a classical work in the Tuscan language. He died in 1664.

Lutti was lively in conversation; he had a politeness in his behaviour, which, as it prompted him to treat every body with proper civility, so it also procured him a return of esteem and respect. He spoke well in general of all his contemporary painters, but contracted no particular acquaintance with any, though he was principal of the academy of St. Luke nor did he court the protection of the great, whom he never visited, and who very seldom visited him convinced that the true protection of a painter is his own merit.

, a celebrated statuary among the ancients, was a native of Sicyon, and flourished in the time of Alexander the Great. He was bred a locksmith, and followed that business for a while; but, by the advice of Eupompus, a painter, he applied himself to painting, which, however, he soon quitted for sculpture, and being thought to execute his works with more ease than the ancients, he became more employed than any other artist. The statue of a man wiping and anointing himself after bathing was particularly excellent: Agrippa placed it before his baths at Rome. Tiberius, who was charmed with it, and not able to resist the desire of being master of it, when he came to the empire, took it into his own apartment, and placed another very fine one in its place. But the Roman people demanding, in a full theatre, that he would replace the first statue, he found it necessary, notwithstanding his power, to comply with their solicitations, in order to appease the tumult. Another of Lysippus’s capital pieces was a statue of the sun, represented in a car drawn by four horses; this statue was worshipped at Rhodes. He made also several statues of Alexander and his favourites, which were brought to Rome by Metellus, after he had reduced the Macedonian empire. He particularly excelled in the representation of the hair, which he more happily expressed than any of his predecessors in the art. He also made his figures less than the life, that they might be seen such as statues appear when placed, as usual, at some height; and when he was charged with this fault, he answered, "That other artists had indeed represented men such as nature had made them, but, for his part, he chose to represent them such as they appeared to be to the eye/' He had three sons, who were all his disciples, and ac quired great reputation in the art,

, called Giovanni da san Giovanni, from a village near Florence, where he was born, was a celebrated painter of the Florentine school, where he shone by a natural superiority of genius. He perfectly understood the poetical part of his art, and excelled, therefore, in the ingenuity of those designs by which he at once ornamented the palace, and illustrated the beneficence and taste of Lorenzo de Medicis. He was particularly successful in painting in fresco, and his colours remain uninjured to the present day: in the imitation of bas-relief he was so skilful, that the touch only could distinguish his paintings of that kind from sculpture. He had profound skill also in perspective and optics. With all these excellencies in his art, he was capricious, envious, and malevolent, and consequently raised himself enemies who were not a little inveterate. He died at the age of forty-six, in 1636.

, an eminent Italian painter, was born in 1431, at Padua or in its district. His parents were poor, but Squarcione, whose pupil he became, was so deeply struck with his talents, that he adopted him for his son, and repented of it when Andrea married a daughter of Jacopo Bellini, his competitor. But the censure which now took place of the praise he had before lavishe'd on his pupil, only added to his improvement. Certain basso-relievos of the ancient Greek style, possessed by the academy in which Andrea studied, captivated his taste by the correctness of their outline, the simplicity of the forms, the parallelism of the attitudes, and strictness of the drapery: the dry servility with which he copied these, suffered him not to perceive that he had lost the great prerogative of the originals, the soul that animates them. The sarcasms of Squarcione on his picture of S. Jacopo, made him sensible of the necessity of expression and character; he gave more life to the figures in the story of S. Cristophoro; and in the face of St. Marc, in the church of S. Giustina, united the attention of a philosopher with the enthusiasm of a prophet. While the criticisms of Squarcione improved Mantegna in expression, the friendly advice of the Bellini directed his method, and fixed his principles of colour. During his short stay at Venice, he made himself master of every advantage of that school; and in some of his pictures there are tones and tints in flesh and landscape, of a richness and zest equal to the best Venetians of his day. Whether he taught Bellini perspective is uncertain; Lomazzo affirms “that Mantegna was the first who opened the eyes of artists in 'hat branch.”

The chief abode and the school of Mantegna were at Mantua, where under the auspices of Marchese Lodovico Gonzaga, he established himself with his family, but he continued to work in other places, and particularly at Rome, where the chapel which he had painted for Innocenzio VIII. in the Vatican existed, though injured by age, at the accession of Pius VI. The style of those frescoes proved that he continued steady in his attachment to the antique, but that from a copyist he was become an imitator. Of his works in oil Mantua possesses several; but the principal one, the master-piece of the artist, and the assemblage of his powers, the picture della Vittoria, afterwards in the Oratorio de Padri di S. Filippo, is now at Paris. It is a votive picture dedicated, for a victory obtained, to the Madonna seated on her throne with the infant standing on her lap, and giving benediction to the kneeling marquis in arms before her. At one side of the throne stands the archangel Michael, holding the mantle of the Madonna; at the other are S. George, S. Maurice, John the Baptist, and S. Elizabeth on her knees. The socle of the throne is ornamented with figures relative to the fall of Adam: the scene is a leafy bower peopled by birds, and here and there open to a lucid sky. No known work of Mantegna equals in design the style of this picture: they generally shew him dry and emaciated, here he appears in all the beauty of select forms: the two infants and St. Elizabeth are figures of dignity, so the archangel who seems to have been, by the conceit of his attitude and the care bestowed on him, the painter’s favourite object. The head has the beauty and the bloom of youth, the round fleshy neck and the breast, to where it confines with the armour, are treated with great art, the expression is to a high degree spirited, and as characteristic. The countenance of the Madonna is mild and benign, that of Christ humane. The future prophet is announced in the uplifted arm of St. John. The guardian angel kindly contemplates the suppliant, who prays with devout simplicity. The whole has an air of life, All the draperies, especially that of St. Elizabeth, are elegant, and correctly folded; with more mass and less intersection of surfaces, they would be perfect. The extreme finish of execution, as it has not here that dryness which disfigures most other works of this master, does not impair the brilliancy of colour. The head of the Madonna, of the infant, of St. Michael, have a genial bloom of tints. The lights are everywhere true, the shades alone are sometimes too grey or too impure. The general scale of light has more serenity than splendour, more the air of nature than of art, but the reflexes are often cut off too glaringly from the opaque parts. The whole of the picture has preserved its tone to this day, is little damaged, and in no place retouched.

, one of the most admired painters of the Italian school, was born in 1625, at Camerino in the march of Ancona. When quite a child he is said to have pressed out the juices of flowers, which he used for colours in drawing on the walls of his father’s house. This propensity most probably induced his parents to send him to Rome at eleven years old; where, by his manner of copying the designs of Raphael in the Vatican, he obtained the favour of Andrea Sacchi, and became his pupil. From the grace and beauty of his ideas he was generally employed in painting Madonnas and female saints; on which account he was, by Salvator Rosa, satirically called Carluccio delta Madonna. He was far from being ashamed of this name, and in the inscription placed by himself on his monument (nine years before his death), he calls it gloriosum cognomen, and professes his particular devotion to the Virgin Mary. The pope, Clement XI. gave him a pension, and the title of Cavaliero di Cristo and he was appointed painter in ordinary to Louis XIV. He died at Home, loaded with honours, in 1713, at the advanced age of eighty-eight. Extreme modesty and gentleness were the characteristics of his disposition; and Jiis admiration of the great models he had studied was such, that not content with having contributed to preserve the works of Raphael and the Caraccis in the Farnese gallery, he erected monuments to them in the Pantheon, at his own expence. Several plates are extant, etched hy him in aquafortis, in which he has displayed abundant taste and genius.

dilettante painter and musician; and of York, it is to be feared, be has stript

, an excellent Frencn miniature painter, was horn at Paris in December 1687, and died in September 1767. He preserved his liveliness and gaiety to his death. His religion was that of the protestant communion, but so averse was he to the interference of any principle but fair conversion, that he dismissed a Roman catholic servant who had long served him faithfully, because he wished to change his religion to please him. Being questioned about his mode of thinking, he answered, “I serve God, and 1 feel myself so free, as to depend on nothing upon earth except my own exertions.” The collection of prints from the great gallery and other apartments at Versailles, were copied from the originals of Le Brun, by Massac, and engraved by the best artists under his inspection.

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp, in 1460, and for several years followed the trade of a blacksmith or farrier, at least till he was in his twentieth year. Authors vary in their accounts of the cause of his quitting his first occupation, and attaching himself to the art of painting, some attributing it to his falling in love with the daughter of a painter; others to the accidental sight of a piece of art. Whatever may have been his motive, it is certain that he appears to have had an uncommon talent: his manner was singular, not resembling the manner of any other master; and his pictures were strongly coloured, and carefully finished, though somewhat dry and hard. By many competent judges it was believed, when they observed the strength of expression in some of his compositions, that if he had been acquainted with the great masters of the Roman school, he would have proved one of the most eminent painters of the Low Countries. But he only imitated ordinary life, and seemed more inclined, or at least more qualified, to imitate the defects than the beauties of nature. Some historical compositions of this master deserve commendation particularly a Descent from the Cross, which is in the cathedral at A ntwerp, justly admired for the spirit, skill, and delicacy of the whole. Sir Joshua Reynolds says there are heads in this picture not excelled by Raphael. But the most remarkable and best known picture of Matsys, is that of the Two Misers in the gallery at Windsor, which has been engraved. Of this there is a duplicate at Hagley, the seat of lord Lyttleton. Matsys died in 1529, aged sixty-nine. — He had a son, John Matsys, who was born at Antwerp, and became his father’s disciple. He painted in the same style and manner, but not with a reputation equal to his father; though many of his pictures are sold to unskilful purchasers, for the paintings of Quintin. His most frequent subject was the representation of misers counting their gold, or bankers examining and weighing it, very common occurrences when Antwerp was in her glory.

Although politics were his favourite pursuit in England, he affected the reputation of a man of universal genius, and certainly possessed many accomplishments. In his lighter hours he was a poet, a painter, and a man of gallantry. Lord Orford informs us that he made a portrait of the Infanta; and the famous character of Lucy Percy, countess of Carlisle, inserted by Fenton in his notes on Waller, was the production of his pen, and printed first in his volume of “Letters.” His excellent constitution required but few hours sleep, which he frequently took in a great chair, and rising by break of day, he used to dip his head in cold water. He was then fresh as the morning, and in spirits to write panegyrics upon lady Carlisle, or to pursue whatever else was started by his volatile genius. He was often, adds Granger, a spy upon such companies as he was admitted into upon the footing of an agreeable companion; and with the most vacant countenance would watch for intelligence to send to Rome. He affected much to whisper in public, and often pretended to disclose, when he was only attempting to obtain secret intelligence.

, a portrait-painter, was the son of Medina de TAsturias, a Spanish captain, who had settled at Brussels, where this son was born in 1659, and was instructed in painting by Du Chatel. He married young, and came into England in 1686, where he drew portraits for several years. The earl of Leven encouraged him to go to Scotland, and procured him a subscription of five hundred pounds worth of business. He accepted the otFer, and, according to Walpole, carried with him a large number of bodies and postures, to which he painted heads. He returned to England for a short time, but went again to Scotland, where he died in 1711, aged fifty-two, and was buried in the Grey Friars church-yard. He was knighted by the duke of Queensbury, lord high commissioner, being the last instance of that honour conferred in Scotland while a separate kingdom. He painted most of the Scotch nobility; but was not rich, having twenty children. The portraits of the professors in the Surgeons’ ­hall at Edinburgh were painted by him. Walpole notices other portraits by him in England, and adds, that he was capable both of history and landscape. The duke of Gordon presented his portrait to the grand duke of Tuscany, who pLiced it in the gallery at Florence, among the series of eminent artists painted by themselves. The prints in an octavo edition of Milton were designed by him, but Mr. Walpole does not tell us of what date. Sir John’s grandson, John Medina, the last of the family, died at Edinburgh in 1796. He practised painting in some measure, although all we have heard specified is the repair he gave to the series of Scottish kings in Holy rood -house, which are well known to be imaginary portraits.

, a celebrated modern painter, was born at Aussig in Bohemia, in 1726. His lather was painter to Augustus 111. king of Poland, and he, observing the talents of his son for the same art, took him to Rome in 1741. After studying about four years, the young painter returned to Dresden, where he executed several works for Augustus with uncommon success. But his greatest patron was Charles III. king of Spain, who having, while only king of Naples, become acquainted with Mengs and his merits, in 1761, within two years after his accession to the throne of Spain, settled upon him a pension of 2000 doubloons, and gave him an house and an. equipage. Mengs, nevertheless, did not go to Spain, but resided chiefly at Rome, where he died in 1779. The labours of his art, grief for the loss of a most beautiful and amiable wife, and the injudicious medicines of an empiric, his countryman, who pretended to restore his health, are said to have occasioned his death. His character was very amiable, with no great fault but that which too commonly attends genius, a total want of reconomy; so that, though his profitsin various ways,forthe last eighteen years of his life, were very considerable, he hardly left enough to pay for his funeral. In his address, he was timid and aukward, with an entire ignorance of the world, and an enthusiasm for the arts, which absorbed almost all his passions. He left five daughters, and two sons, all of whom were provided for by his patron the king of Spain. He was an author as well as a painter, and his works were published at Parma in 1780, by the chevalier d'Azara, with notes, and a life of Mengs, in 2 vols. 4to, which were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 1796, 8vo. They consist chiefly of treatises and letters on taste, on several painters, and various subjects connected with the philosophy and progress of the arts. They were partly translated into French, in 1782, and more completely in 1787. All that is technical on the subject of painting, in the work of his friend Winckelman, on the history of art, was supplied by Mengs. He admired the ancients, but without bigotry, and could discern their faults as well as their beauties. As an artist, Mengs seems to have been mostly admired in Spain. In this country, recent connoisseurs seem disposed to under-rate his merit, merely, as it would appear, because it had been over-rated by Azara and Winckelman. The finest specimen of his art in this country is the altar- piece of All Souls Chapel, Oxford. The subject of this picture is our Saviour in the garden it consists of two figures in the foreground, highly finished, and beautifully painted. It was ordered by a gentleman of that college whilst on his travels through Spain; but being limited to the price, he was obliged to choose a subject of few figures. This gentleman relates a singular anecdote of Mengs, which will further show the profundity of his knowledge and discernment in things of antiquity. While Dr. Burney was abroad collecting materials for his History of Music, he found at Florence an ancient statue of Apollo, with a bow and riddle in his hand: this, he considered, would be sufficient to decide the long-contested point, whether or not the ancients had known the use of the bow. He consulted many people to ascertain the certainty if this statue were really of antiquity; and at last Mengs was desired to give his opinion, who, directly as he had examined it, without knowing the cause of the inquiry, said, “there was no doubt but that the statue was of antiquity, but that the arms and fiddle had been recently added.” This had been done with such ingenuity that no one had discovered it before Mengs; but the truth of the same was not to be doubted.

, a lady much and justly ceJebrated for her skill in drawing insects, flowers, and other subjects of natural history, was born at Francfort on the Maine, in 1647; being the grand-daughter and daughter of Dutch engravers of some celebrity, whose talents were continued and improved in her. She was instructed by Abraham Mignon. She married John Andriez Graff, a skilful painter and architect of Nuremberg, but the fame she had previously attached to her own name, has prevented that of her husband from being adopted. They had two children, both daughters, who were also skilful in drawing. By liberal offers from Holland, this ingenious couple were induced to settle there; but Sibylla, whose great object was the study of nature, had the courage to travel in various parts, for the sake of delineating the insects, and several other productions peculiar to each country. She ventured to take the voyage to Surinam, where she remained two years, for the express purpose of making the drawings which have since added so considerably to her fame; and, though it does not appear that there was any kind of disagreement between her and her husband, she went, if we mistake not, without him. His own occupations, probably, precluded such a journey. Madame Merian died at Amsterdam in 1717, at the age of seventy.

, a Dutch painter of small portraits, was born at Leyden in 1615. His master is not known, but he studiously imitated Gerard Dow, and Mieris. The beauty of his colouring is particularly esteemed, and he finished his paintings with great labour. His subjects were usually taken from low life, but they were all designed after nature, and represented with astonishing skill; such as women selling fish, fowls, or game; sick persons attended by the physician; chemists in their laboratories; painters rooms, shops, and drawing-schools, hung with prints and pictures; all which he finished with extraordinary neatness. They are not scarce in this country, although highly valued. By confining himself so closely to a sedentary life, he became violently afflicted with the stone. He submitted to the operation of cutting for it, but had not strength of constitution to survive the operation, and died in 1658, at the age of forty-three.

, an eminent artist, was born at Brussels in 1634. He was a disciple of Peter Snayers, a battle painter of considerable note, and his early progress gave strong promise of his future eminence. His ingenious pictures attracted the attention of M. Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV., who induced V. Meulen to settle in Paris; and soon afterwards introduced him to the king, who appointed him to attend and paint the scenes of his military campaigns, gave him a pension of '2000 livres, and paid him besides for his performances. He made sketches of almost all the most remarkable events that occurred in these expeditions of Louis; designing upon the spot the encampments, marches, sieges, &c. of the armies the huntings of the king; the assembling of the officers, &c.: from these he composed his pictures, which are skilfully arranged, with great bustle, animation, and spirit, and executed with a very agreeable, though not always a natural tone of colour, and with a sweet and delicate pencil. Some of his pictures exhibit uncommon skill and taste in composition. Frequently the scene he had to paint was flat and insipid, such as a marshy country before long extended walls; even these he contrived to render agreeable by his judicious management of the chiaroscuro, and the pleasing groups which he displayed with his figures, which, though dressed in the stiff uncouth frippery of the French court of that period, are handled with so much delicacy and corresponding taste, that they never fail ^o please. He was particularly skilful in pourtraying the actions of the horse, of which he has left behind him a number of excellent studies, drawn with great care from nature. His pictures frequently include a great extent of country, and an immense number of objects. His perfect knowledge of perspective enabled him to manage the objects and distances with the greatest ease and effect, so that the eye accompanies the figures without confusion, and assigns to each its due action and distance. He lived not beyond the age of 56, but left a great number of pictures, most of which are in France, but they are not very unfrequent in this country.

, an excellent miniature painter, was born at Tubingen, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in 1735, and came to England in 1749, with his father, who was portrait-painter to the duke of Wirtemberg, a painter, says Edwards, of small subjects, but of no great talent. His son studied two years (1757 and 1758), under Zink, the eminent painter in enamel, to whom he paid two hundred pounds for instruction, and two hundred pounds more for materials of his art; but Meyer soon surpassed his master, in the elegance and gusto of his portraits, a superiority which he acquired by his attention to the works of sir Joshua Reynolds, who, as well as himself, was at that time rising to fame. In 1761, the Society for the Encouragement of Arts offered a premium of twenty guineas for the best drawing of a profile of the king, for the purpose of having a die engraved from it; and Meyer obtained the prize. He was afterwards appointed miniature painter to the queen. In 1762, he was naturalized by act of parliament, and in the following year married a lady of considerable fortune and great accomplishments. In 1764, he was appointed painter in enamel to his majesty.