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

, an eminent physician at Worcester, was the fourth son of John Johnstone, esq. of Galabank, one of the most ancient branches of the family of Johnstone of Johnstone: he was born at Annan in 1730, and received the rudiments of his classical education under the rev. Dr. Henry, author of the History of Great Britain. In the school of Edinburgh, under Whytt, Plummer, Monro, and Rutherford, he learned the science of medicine; and in Paris, under Ferrein and Rouelle, he studied anatomy and chemistry. In 1750, before he had completed twenty-one years, he took the degree of doctor of medicine, publishing a thesis “De Aeris factitii imperio in corpore humano,” which gained him much credit, and some valuable friends. The following year he seated himself at Kidderminster, in Worcestershire; which at that time, and some years afterwards, was subject to a putrid fever of such peculiar malignity, as to be called the Kidderminster fever. His name first became known by the successful treatment he adopted for the cure of this dreadful disorder. Instead of bleeding and purging, means then in common use, he recommended bark, wine, mineral acids, free ventilation of air, and the affusion of water and vinegar; and so prominent was his success, that he was immediately introduced into considerable practice. Of this fever, as it appeared in 1756, he published an account in 1758, which proves him to be the discoverer of the power of mineral acid vapours to correct or destroy putrid febrile contagion: He orders for this purpose, vitriolic acid to be poured upon common salt, in a convenient vessel, over a proper heat. It is not a little singular, that the same means should be recommended by the celebrated Guyton de Morveau for the same purpose, more than twenty years after they were published by Dr. Johnstone, and be then; cried up as a great discovery.

, one of the most intelligent, learned, and affecting dramatic composers of modern times, was born at Avellino, a town about twenty-five miles from Naples, in which city he had his musical education under Leo and Durante. The first opera to which we find his name, is “Riccimero Re de' Goti,” composed for the Argentina theatre at Rome, 1740: and between that period and 1758, he composed for that city fourteen operas, besides others for Venice and different Italian theatres.

, one of the most accomplished scholars in Europe, the son of the preceding, was born Sept. 28, 1746. As his father died when he had scarcely reached his third year, the care of his education devolved on his mother, whose talents and virtues eminently qualified her for the task. Her husband, with affectionate precision, characterized her as one who “was virtuous without blemish, generous without extravagance, frugal but not niggard, cheerful but not giddy, close but not sullen, ingenious but wot conceited, of spirit but not passionate, of her company cautious, in her friendship trusty, to her parents dutiful, and to her husband ever faithful, loving, and obedient.” She must have been yet a more extraordinary woman than all this imports; for we are told that under her husband’s tuition she became a considerable proficient in Algebra, and with a view to act as preceptor to her sister’s son, who was destined for the sea, she made herself perfect in trigonometry, and the theory of navigation, sciences of which it is probable she knew nothing before marriage, and which she now pursued amidst the anxious, and, usually, monopolizing cares of a family. In educating her son, she appears to have preferred a method at once affectionate and judicious. Discovering in him a natural curiosity and thirst for knowledge, beyond what children generally display, she made the gratification of these passions to depend on his own industry, and constantly pointed to a book as the source of information. So successful was this method, that in his fourth year he was able distinctly and rapidly to read any English book, while his memory was agreeably exercised in getting by heart such popular pieces of poetry as were likely to engage the fancy of a child. His taste for reading gradually became a habit; and having in his fifth year, while looking over a Bible, fallen upon the sublime description of the Angel in the tenth chapter of the Apocalypse, the impression which his imagination received from it was never effaced.

As soon as Julian had attained the age of manhood, according to the Roman law, Constantius, at the solicitation of his consort, the empress Eusebia, raised him to the dignity of Caesar, on his birth-day, Nov. 6, in the year 355; and at the same time the emperor gave him his sister Helena in marriage, and made him general of the army in Gaul. Julian filled his command with surprizing abilities, and shewed himself every way equal to the trust; which was the more extraordinary, as he had never any instructions in the military art. The principal officers under him, from whom he was to expect assistance, were very backward in performing this service; restrained apparently by the danger of seeming too much attached to him, and thereby incurring the emperor’s displeasure, whose jealousy on this head was no secret. Under all these disadvantages, our young warrior performed wonders: he was not afraid to undertake the enterprize of driving the barbarians out of Gaul; and he completed the design in a very little time, having obtained one of the most signal victories of that age, near Strasbourg. In this battle he engaged no less than seven German kings, one of whom was the famous Chrodomairus; who had always beaten the Romans till this time, but was now Julian’s prisoner. The defeat of the Salii and Chamavi, French people, followed at the heels of this victory; and the Germans, being conquered again, were constrained to beg a peace. Our hero was crowned with these glorious laurels, when Constantius, who was hard pressed by the Persians, sent for a detachment of troops from the army in Gaul to augment his forces. This order was ill relished by the Gauls, who were reluctant to fight out of their own country. Julian took advantage of this ill humour, and got himself declared emperor by the army; but, not being able to prevail with Constantius to acknowledge him in that character, he went with these troops to Illyria, where he continued till the death of Constantius, which happened Nov. 2, 361.

, bishop of Nebo or Nebbio, one of the most learned men of his time, was descended from a branch of the same noble family with the former; and born at Genoa, in 1470. After having resided some time at Valencia, in Spain, he entered into the order of St. Dominic, at Paris, in 1488; when he took the name of Augustin in the room of Pantaleon, which he received at his baptism. Soon after he distinguished himself by his learning, and knowledge in the languages, which he acquired in a very short time; so that Leo X. named him to the bishopric of Nebo, in the island of Corsica, in which capacity he assisted in the fifth council of Lateran, where he opposed some articles of the concordat between France and the court of Rome. The revenue of his diocese being small, he petitioned the pope for a better; but Francis I. who was a patron of learned men, drew him to France, by making him his almoner, with a good pension; and he was also regius professor of Hebrew for five years at Paris. Returning to Genoa in 1522, he found every thing in confusion, by the sedition of the Adornes; on which he went to visit his diocese, and discharged all the duties of a good prelate, till 1531. In a voyage from Genoa to Nebc, he perished, together with the vessel in which he was embarked, 1536. By his last will, he left his library to the republic of Genoa.

, was the only son of one of the most eminent merchants at Yarmouth, where he was born in 1751. He was entered of Caius college, Cambridge, where he did not long reside; but, returning to Yarmouth, became acquainted -with that celebrated antiquary Thomas Martin of Palgrave, and caught from him that taste for antiquities which he pursued during the short period of his life. He was elected F. S. A. 1771, and F. R. S. 1772; and, by favour of the earl of Suffolk, in him the honour of Suffolk herald extraordinary was revived; an office attended with no profit, but valuable to him by the access it gave to the Mss. muniments, &c. of the heralds college, of which he thereby became an honorary member. His first attempt at antiquarian publication was by proposals (without his name) in 1771, for printing an account of Lothingland hundred in Suffolk; for which he had engraved several small plates of arms and monuments in the churches of Friston, Gorleston, Loud, Lowestoffe, and Somerliton, from his own drawings. His next essay was the short preface to Mr. Swinden’s “History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, 1772,” 4to. Mr. Svvinden, who was a schoolmaster in Great Yarmouth, was a most intimate friend of Mr. Ives, who not only assisted him with his purse, and warmly patronized him while living, but superintended the book for the emolument of the author’s widow, and delivered it to the subscribers . In 1772 he caused to be cut nine wooden plates of old Norfolk seals, entitled “Sigilla antiqua Norfolciensia. Impressit Johannes Ives, S. A. S.” and a copper-plate portrait of Mr. Martin holding an urn, since prefixed to Martin’s “History of Thetford.” On Aug. 16, 1773, by a special licence from the archbishop of Canterbury, he was married at Lambeth church to Miss Kett (of an ancient family in Norfolk), and afterwards resided at Yarmouth.

, a learned Jesuit, was born in Tirnaw in Hungary, about 1572, was received into the Jesuits’ order at Rome, and returning to his own country, was oanished into Transylvania, with the other members of the society, during the commotions which, at that time, agitated the kingdom. After this he discharged the duty of theological professor in the university of Olmutz, and filled some other important posts in different places. His last retreat was to a college which he built at Presburg, where he died in 1634. He was regarded as one of the most eloquent preachers in Hungary, and published some sermons, but he is chiefly celebrated for having completed a translation of the Bible from the Vulgate into the Hungarian tongue, which was printed at Vienna, in 1626.

, a pious and learned regular canon, and one of the most eminent men in the fifteenth century, was born 1380, at Kemp, a village in the diocese oi Cologn, from whence he took his name. He studied at Deventer, in the community of poor scholars established by Gerard Groot, made great progress both in learning and piety, and in 1399 entered the monastery of regular canons of Mount St. Agnes, near Zwol, where his brother was prior. Thomas a Kempis distinguished himself in this situation by his eminent piety, his respect for his superiors, and his charity towards his brethren; and died in great reputation for sanctity, July 25, 1471, aged ninetyone. He left a great number of religious works, which breathe a spirit of tender, solid, and enlightened piety, of which a collection was printed at Antwerp, 1615, 3 torn. 8vo. The abbe de Bellegarde translated part of his works into French, under the title of “Suite du Livre de I'lmitation,” 24mo, and Pere Valette, under that of “Elevation a J. C. sur sa vie et ses mysteries,” 12mo. The learned Joducus Badius Ascensius was the first who attributed the celebrated book on the Imitation of Jesus Christ to Thomas a Kempis, in which he has been followed by Francis de Tob, a regular canon, who in favour of this opinion quotes the Mss. which may still be seen in Thomas a Kempis’s own hand. On the other hand, Pere Possevin, a Jesuit, was the first who attributed this work to the abbot John Gersen or Gessen, in his “Apparatus sacer,” which opinion has been adopted by the Benedictines of the congregations de St. Maur. M. Vallart, in his edition of the “Imitation,” supposes it to be more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, and that it was written by Gersen. Those who wish to be acquainted with the disputes which arose on this subject between the Benedictines, who are for Gersen, and the regular canons of the congregation of St. Genevieve, who are for Thomas a Kempis, may consult the curious account of them which Dom. Vincent Thuilier nas prefixed to torn. 1. of Mabillon’s and Ruinart’s Posthumous Works, or Dupin’s History, who has also entered deeply into the controversy. The first Latin edition is 1492, 12mo, Gothic. There was at that time an old French translation under the title of ‘L’lnternelle Consolation,“the language of which appears as old as Thomas a Kempis, which has raised a doubt whether the book was originally written in Latin or French. The abbe” Langlet has taken a chapter from this ancient translation, which is not in the Latin versions. Dr. Stanhope translated it into English, and there are numerous editions of it in every known language.

, 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.

It is evident that some of these opinions are not peculiar to Labadie, and that others of them are rather wildly expressed than erroneous in themselves; but ^it is equally evident that they are inconsistent one with another, and that in order to be a Labadist, a man must be as great an enthusiast as the founder himself. It was, however, owing to this practice of spirituality, accompanied with an apparent severity of manners, that Labadie acquired a very great authority in a little time. Those who charged him with hypocrisy were looked on as worldlings, sold to the present life; while his followers were esteemed as so many saints. Even mademoiselle Schurman, so famous in the republic of letters, was persuaded, that she chose the better part, in, putting herself under his directions; she became one of the most ardent chiefs of his sect, and had the power to bring over to her way of thinking Elizabeth, princess Palatine, who opened an asylum to all the wandering and fugitive disciples of that preacher, esteemed it an honour to collect what she called the true church, and declared her happiness in being delivered from a masked Christianity, with which she had till then been deceived. She extolled Labadie to the skies. He was the man, she said, who talked to the heart, and it is this kind of talking, wh ch means no more than an influence on weak minds, through the medium of the passions, which has promoted religious impo ture in all ages.

, an ancient Roman knight, who excelled in writing Mimes, or little satirical productions for the stage, died in 46 A. C. Though in his time men of birth made no scruple to furnish entertainments of the theatrical kind, yet it was highly disgraceful to represent them in their own persons. Julius Caesar, however, ordered Laberius to act one of his own Mimes; and though he made all the opposition he could, yet Caesar compelled him. The prologue to the piece is still extant, and Rollin thinks it one of the most beautiful morsels of antiquity. Laberius bemoans himself for the necessity he was under in a very affecting manner, but in the course of the piece glances several strokes of satire at Caesar, which were so well understood as to direct the eyes of the spectators upon him. Coesar, by way of revenge, gave the preference to Publius Syrius, who was his rival upon the same theatre; yet, when the Mimes were over, presented him with a ring, as if to re-establish him in his rank. The very small fragments which remain of Laberius, have been often collected and printed with those of Ennius, Lucilius, Publius Syrus, &c. The prologue above-mentioned is preserved in Aulus Gellius, and there is a good version of it in Beloe’s translation of that author.

After these visits, he returned to Vienna Sept. 28, 1662, and, as it would appear, without any employment or resources. While sitting pensive at his inn, and ignorant which way to turn himself, he received a letter from Miller the Jesuit, mentioned above, and who was confessor to the emperor, requesting him to state in writing in what manner he wished to be employed under his majesty. Lambecius immediately returned for answer, that it had always been his greatest desire to serve the emperor and the august house of Austria, and that if his majesty would be so gracious as to admit him to court, he should endeavour to prove the sincerity of his zeal, by placing the imperial library in a better condition than it had ever been, by writing the history of Germany in general, and of the house of Austria in particular, and by continuing the history of literature, of which he had already dedicated a specimen to, his majesty. In consequence of these offers, the emperor appointed him his under-librarian and historiographer, and the same day (Nov. 27), the emperor spent three hours in shewing Lambecius his collection of medals, and made him a present of some of them. Three months afterwards, on the death of the head librarian, he was appointed to succeed him, and the emperor gave him also the title of counsellor, and bestowed, indeed, every mark of esteem upon him, conversing with him in the most familiar manner, and taking him as part of his suite in some of his travels. During the ten years that he lived at Vienna, he lodged with an advocate, who managed all his domestic concerns, and in return he made him his heir. He died in the month of April 1680. Lambecius was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his time; but his character, in other respects, as may be collected from the preceding narrative, was not without considerable blemishes. With respect to the imperial library, he certainly performed what he undertook, and has laid the learned world under great obligations by his vast catalogue, published in 8 vols. folio, from 1665 to 1679, under the title of “Commentariorum de augustissima Bibliotheca Csesarea Vindobonensi, libri octo.” To thes must be added as a supplement, “Dan. de Nessel Breviarium et supplementum commentariorum Bibl. Caes. Vindobon.” Vienna, 1690, 2 vols. folio. A second edition of this work was published at Vienna in 1766 82, in 8 vols. folio, “opera et studio Ad. Fr. Kollarii,” to which must be added “A. F. Kollarii ad Lambecii commentariorum libros octo, Supplementum liber primus posthumus,” Vienna, 1790, folio. In 1712 Reimann published, at Hanover, an abridgment of this catalogue in one volume, 8vo, under the title “Bibliotheca acromatica.” A new edition of Lambecius’s “Prodromus historic litterariae,” was published by Fabricius, at Leipsic, 1710, folio.

, marquis de Baville, &c. first president of the parliament of Paris, and one of the most eminent magistrates of his age, was born October 20, 1617, at Pans, of a noble and ancient family, which has produced many persons of merit. He was son of Christian de Lamoignon, president of the parliament at Paris, seigneur de Baville, &c. and admitted counsellor to the same parliament 1635, master of the requests 1644, and first president 1658. His prudence, amiable temper, affability, talents for public affairs, and love of learning and learned men, gained him universal esteem. The extent of his genius, and his great eloquence, were admired in his “Remonstrances,” and the harangues which he delivered at the head of the parliament. Nor were his abilities less conspicuous in the verbal process of the ordinances of April 1667, and August 1670, nor in his “Resolutions,” which we have on several important points of the French law, 1702, 4to. He died December 10, 1677, aged sixty, regretted by all persons of worth. M. Flechier spoke his funeral oration, and Boileau justly mentions him, with the highest encomiums.

During the revolutionary storm Larcher lived in privacy, employed on his studies, and especially on the second edition of his “Herodotus,” and was but little disturbed. He was indeed carried before the revolutionary committee, and his papers very much perplexed those gentlemen, who knew little of Greek or Latin. For one night a sentinel was placed at his door, who was set asleep by a bottle of wine, and next morning Larcher gave him a small assignat, and he came back no more. When the republican government became a little more quiet, and affected to encourage men of letters, Larcher received, by a decree, the sum of 3000 livres. He was afterwards, notwithstanding his opinions were not the fashion of the day, elected into the Institute; and when it was divided into four classes, and by that change he became again, in some degree, a member of the Academy of inscriptions, he published four dissertations of the critical kind in their memoirs. The last honour paid to him was by appointing him professor of Greek in the imperial university, as it was then called; but he was now too tar advanced for active services, and died after a short illness, in his eighty-sixth year, Dec. 22, 1812, regretted as one of the most eminent scholars and amiable men of his time. His fine library was sold by auction in Nov. 1814.

, in Latin Larroquanus, whom Bayle styles one of the most illustrious ministers the reformed ever had in France, was born at Leirac, a small city of Guienne, near Agen, in 1619. He was hardly past his youth when he lost his father and mother, who were persons of rank and character. This misfortune was soon ifol lowed by the loss of his whole patrimony, although by what means is not known; but the effect was to animate him more strongly to his studies, and to add to polite literature, which he had already learned, the knowledge of philosophy, and above all, that of divinity. He made a considerable progress in these sciences, and was admitted a minister with great applause. Two years after he had been admitted in his office he was obliged to go to Paris to answer the cavils of those who intended to ruin his church, in which, although he was not successful, he met with such circumstances as proved favourable to him. He preached sometimes at Charenton, and was so well liked by the duchess de la Tremouille, that she appointed him minister of the church of Vitre, in Britany, and gave him afterwards a great many proofs of her esteem; nor was he less respected by the prince and princess of Tarente, and the duchess of Weimar. He served that church about twenty-seven years, and studied the ancient fathers with the utmost application. He gave very soon public proofs of the progress he had made in that study, for the answer he published to the motives which an opponent had alledged for his conversion to popery, abounded with passages quoted from the fathers, and the works which he published afterwards raised his reputation greatly. There was an intimate friendship between him and Messieurs Daille, father and son, which was kept up by a constant literary correspondence; and the journey he took to Paris procured him the acquaintance of several illustrious men of letters. The church of Charenton wished to have invited him in 1669, but his enemies had so prepossessed the court against him, that his majesty sent a prohibition to that church not to think of calling him, notwithstanding the deputy general of the reformed had offered to answer for Mods, de Larroque’s good behaviour. He was afterwards chosen to be both minister and professor of divinity at Saumur. The former he accepted, but refused the professorship of divinity, as it might interfere with the study of church history, to ttfhich he was very partial. The intendant of the province, however, forbad him to go to Saumur; and although the church complained of this unjust prohibition, and petitoned very zealously for the necessary permission, which she obtained, Larroquc did not think it proper to enter upon an employment against the will of the intendant. He continued therefore still at Vitré, where he did not suffer his pen to be idle. Three of the most considerable churches of the kingdom chose him at once, the church of Moutauban, that of Bourdeaux, and thut of Roan. He accepted the invitation of Roan, and there died, Jan. 31, 1684, having gained the reputation not only of a learned man, but also of an honest man, and a faithful pastor.

His sufferings, far from shocking the reformation at Cambridge, inspired the leaders of it with new courage. Latimer began now to exert himself more than he bad yet done; and succeeded to that credit with his party, which Bilney had so long supported. Among other iustances of his zeal and resolution in this cause, he gave one very remarkable: he had the courage to write to the king against a proclamation then just published, forbidding the use of the Bible in English, and other books on religious subjects. He had preached before his majesty once or twice at Windsor, and had been noticed by him in a more affable manner than that monarch usually indulged towards his subjects. But, whatever hopes of preferment his sovereign’s favour might have raised in him, he chose to put all to the hazard rather than omit what he thought his duty. He was generally considered as one of the most eminent who favoured protestantism, and therefore thought it became him to be one of the most forward in opposing aopery. His letter is the picture of an honest and sincere eart: t t was chiefly intended to point out to the king the d intention of the bishops in procuring the proclamation, I concludes in these terms: Accept, gracious oveeign, without displeasure, what I have written; I thought it my duty to mention these things to your majesty. No personal quarrel, as God shall judge me, have I with any man; I wanted only to induce your majesty to consider well what kind of persons you have about you, and the ends for which they counsel. Indeed, great prince, many of them, or they are much slandered, nave very private ends. God grant your majesty may see through all the designs of evil men, and be in all things equal to the high office with which you are intrusted. Wherefore, gracious king, remember yourself, have pity upon your own soul, and think that the day is at hand, when you shall give account of your office, and of the blood that hath been shed by your sword: in the which day, that your grace may stand stedfastly, and not be ashamed, but be clear and ready in your reckoning, and have your pardon sealed with the blood of our Saviour Christ, which alone serveth at that day, is my daily prayer to him who suffered death for our sins. The spirit of God preserve you!"

, one of the most learned critics of the sixteenth century, was born about 1513, at Viterbo. He acquired an extensive knowledge of the belles lettres and sciences, and was chosen with the other learned men, in 1573, to correct Gratian’s “Decretal,” in which great work he took much pains. He died January 21, 1593, at Rome. Latinus left notes on Tertullian, and a very learned book, entitled “Bibliotheca sacra et profana, sive Observationes, correctiones, conjecturae et variaeLectiones,” 1677, fol.

, a learned and judicious protestant writer, was born 157S, at Blois, descended from one of the most respectable families in that city. At the age of forty, he resigned a post in the exchequer, the title of king’s secretary, and all prospects of advancement, that he might devote himself entirely to the sacred writings; and from that time till he was eighty-nine, rose constantly at four in the morning, to read and meditate on Scripture. The French protestants placed an extraordinary confidence in him. He was deputed to all the synods of his province, and to almost every national synod held in his time, and died in 1662, greatly lamented. His works are, “Paraphrases” on all St. Paul’s Epistles, on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, the Proverbs, and Revelations; and “Remarks on the Bible, or an Explanation of the difficult words, phrases, and metaphors, in the Holy Scriptures,” Geneva, 1667, 4to. These two works are much valued. He wrote also a treatise “De la Sainte C6ne,” and another, “Sur le Millénarisme.”

, a distinguished chemical philosopher, was born at Paris, on the 13th of August, 1743. His father, a man of opulence, sparing no expence on his education, he displayed very early proofs of the extent and success of his studies, especially in the circle of the physical sciences. In 1764, when the French government proposed a prize question, relative to the best method of lighting the streets of a large city, Lavoisier presented a dissertation on the subject, which was highly approved, printed at the expence of the academy of sciences, and obtained for him the present of a gold medal from the king, which was delivered to him by the president of the academy, at a public sitting, in April 1766. Two years afterwards, he was admitted a member of that learned body, of which he was constantly one of the most active and useful associates. About the same time, he was occupied in experimental researches on a variety of subjects such as the analysis of the gypsum found in the neighbourhood of Paris; the crystallization of salt; the properties of water; and in exploring the phsenomena of thunder, and of the aurora borealis: and he distinguished himself by several dissertations on these and other topics, practical and speculative, which appeared in different periodical works. In the Memoirs of the Academy for 1770 were published his observations on the nature of water, and on the experiments which had been supposed to prove the possibility of its conversion into earth. He proved, by a careful repetition of these experiments, that the earthy deposit, left after repeated distillations of water, proceeded solely from an abrasion of the vessels employed. Lavoisier performed several journeys into various parts of France, in company with M. Guettard; in the course of which he collected a store of materials for a lithological and mineralogical history of that kingdom, which he ingeniously arranged in the form of a chart. These materials were the basis of a great work on the revolutions of the globe, and on the formation of the strata of the earth: two interesting sketches of which were printed in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1772 and 1787.

The new theory thus acquired farther support and conistency; oxygen appeared to be one of the most active and important agents of chemistry and of nature; combustion, acidification, and calcination (or, as it was now called, oxydatioriy the calces being also termed oxyds^ i. e. something approaching to, or resembling acids), were proved to be processes strikingly analogous to each other; all according in these points, that they produced a decomposition of the atmospheric air, and a fixation of the oxygenous portion in the substance acidified or calcined.

His chief compositions were fantasias for viols, and songs and symphonies for masques; but his brother Henry, in the preface to the “Choice Psalmes” for three voices, which they published jointly, boasts that “he composed more than thirty several sorts of music for voices and instruments, and that there was not any instrument in use in his time but he composed for it as aptly as if he had only studied that.” In Dr. Aldrich’s collection, Christ church,. Oxon, there is a work of his called Mr. William Lawes’s Great Consort, “wherein aresix setts of musicke, six books.” His “Royal Consort” for two treble viols, two viol da gambas, and a thorough-base, which was always mentioned with reverence by his admirers in the seventeenth century, is, says Dr. Burney, one of the most dry, aukward, and unmeaning compositions we ever remember to have had the trouble of scoring. It must, however, have been produced early in his life, as there are no bars, and the passages are chiefly such as were used in queen Elizabeth’s time. In the music-school at Oxford are two large manuscript volumes of his works in score, for various instruments; one of which includes his original compositions for masques, performed before the king, and at the inns of court.

, a learned English prelate, was born at Norwich in 1665, and educated at St. Paul’s school, London, whence he removed to Catherine-hall, Cambridge; and took his degrees of A. B. in 1636, A.M. 1690, and B. D. 1698. He was, in 1708, presented to the rectory of Beddington in Surrey, by sir Nicholas Carew, bart. who had been his pupil; and he was appointed chaplain to king George I. who also promoted him to the see of Norwich in 1723. He died Oct. 26, 1727, of the small-pox, which he caught at the coronation of George II. He lies buried in the church of St. Margaret, Westminster, where is a monument to his memory. Richardson, in his continuation of Godwin, calls him a man of the first-rate genius and abilities. In 1695, he published two of the comedies of Aristophanes, the “Plutus” and “Nubes,” Gr. & Lat. 8vo, with notes; and in 1719 preached the sermons at Boyle’s lecture, which are printed, as are a set of his sermons preached at Tunbridge, and a few others upon occasional subjects. He was editor also of one of the most magnificent and correct editions of “Terence,” that printed at Cambridge in 1701, 4to. For this he consulted thirteen manuscripts, and many ancient editions, and enriched the work with critical notes, and a dissertation “De ratione et licentia metri Terentiani.” It was reprinted at Cambridge, in octavo, 1701 and 1723, which last Dr. Harwood thinks the best editon. Dr. Leng corrected and revised the sixth edition of sir Roger L'Estrange’s translation of Cicero de Officiis, an employment which we are surprized he should have undertaken, who could with more ease and elegance have given a new one.

, surnamed The Great, a doctor of the church, and one of the most eminent popes who have filled the Roman see, was born in Tuscany, or rather at Rome. He made himself very useful to the church under pope St. Celestine, and Sixtus III. and was concerned in all important affairs while but a deacon. The Roman clergy recalled him from Gaul, whither he was gone to reconcile Albums and Ætius, generals of the army, and raised him to the papal chair Sept. 1, 440. He condemned the Manicheans, in a council held at Rome in the year 444, and completely extirpated the remains of the Pelagian heresy in Italy: “Let those Pelagians,” said he, “who return to the church, declare by a clear and public profession, that they condemn the authors of their heresy, that they detest that part of their doctrine which the universal church has beheld with horror, and that they receive all such decrees of the councils as have been passed for exterminating the Pelagian heresy, and are confirmed by the authority of the apostolical see, acknowledging by a clear and full declaration, signed by their hand, that they admit these decrees, and approve them in every thing,” Leo also condemned the Priscillianists, and annulled all the proceedings in the council of Ephesus, which was called “the band of Ephesian robbers,” in the year 449. He presided by his legates at the general council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, but opposed the canon made there in favour of the church of Constantinople, which gave it the second rank, to the prejudice of that at Alexandria. The letter which Leo had written to Flavian us on the mystery of the Incarnation, was received with acclamations in this council, and the errors of Eutyches and Dioscorus condemned. The following year he went to meet Attila, king of the Huns, who was advancing to Rome, and addressed him with so much eloquence that he was prevailed upon to return home. Genseric having taken Rome, in the year 455, Leo obtained from that barbarous prince, that his soldiers should not set fire to the city, and saved the three grand churches (which Constantine had enriched with magnificent gifts) from being plundered. He was a strict observer of ecclesiastical discipline. He died November 3, in the year 461, at Rome. Never has the Romish church appeared with more true grandeur, or less pomp, than in this pontiff’s time; no pope was ever more honoured, esteemed, and respected; no pope ever displayed more humility, wisdom, mildness, and charity. Leo left ninety-six: “Sermons,” on the principal festivals throughout the year, and one hundred and forty-one Letters, which may be found in the library of the fathers. The best edition of his works is that by Pere Quesnel, Lyons, 1700, fol. They have been printed at Rome, by father Cacciaci, 3 vols. fol. and at Venice, by Messrs. Ballarimi, 3 vols. fol. but these editions have not sunk the credit of Quesnel’s. P. Maimbourg has written a history of his pontificate, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo.

From the preceding circumstances, gleaned from Mr. Roscoe’s elaborate account of Leo, a judgment may be formed of his character, in which, although some things may have been exaggerated by the enemies of the Romish church, enough remains uncontested to prove that he had many of the worst vices, and, when it became necessary to his aggrandizement, practised the worst crimes of his predecessors. His biographer, by embodying the history of literature and the arts in the life of Leo, one of the most pleasing and truly valuable parts of the work, has, we think, failed, in attributing much of their advancement to Leo. And indeed it has been too much a fashion to speak of the “age of Leo” as of a glorious period which his patronage created. Too much stress, perhaps, is frequently laid on patronage; and we ought to hesitate in declaring how much it has produced, when we consider how much in all ages has been produced without it. But Leo’s patronage was not general, for it excluded Ariosto and Erasmus, two of the greatest men of the age; nor was it judicious in selection, for he bestowed it on such worthless characters as Aretin and Niso, not to speak of a number of less known characters, whose merit rises no higher than that of being able to write amorous Italian sonnets, and panegyrical Latin verses. With respect to the arts, it has been justly remarked, that when he ascended the throne they were at their meridian. He found greater talents than he employed, and greater works commenced than he completed. Leonard Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, and Raffaello, performed their greatest works before the accession of Leo X.; Bramante, the architect of St. Peter’s, died in the second year of his pontificate; and Da Vinci and Michael Angelo shared none of his favours. It is from his attachment to Raflfaello that he derives his strongest claims as a patron of art; yet a part of his conduct to this great artist makes us question whether Leo had a refined taste. Raffaello made thirteen cartoons of religious subjects to complete the decoration of the hall of Constantine, and had sent them into Flanders, to be returned in worsted copies, without any care to preserve the originals, nor any inquiry made concerning them after the subjects were manufactured into tapestry. By accident, seven of these are yet to be seen in this country, and may enable us to estimate the taste of the pontiff who could so easily forget them. Yet Leo must not be deprived of the merit that justly belongs to him. He drew together the learned men of his time, and formed eminent schools, and he did much in promoting the art of printing, then of incalculable importance to literature. In these respects, and upon account of the share he had in precipitating the reformation, his short pontificate of eight years and eight months must be allowed to form one of the most interesting periods in papal history, and worthy of the illustration it has received.

, a native of Amelbrun in Westphalia, descended from a noble family, was born about 1533. He visited almost all the European courts, and, during his stay in Turkey, collected such excellent materials for an Ottoman history, that the public are indebted to him for their best information respecting that empire. His knowledge of law, as well as of the learned languages, enabled him also to succeed in translating the “Abridgment of the Basilica,” 1596, 2 vols folio. He was indeed one of the most celebrated translator* which Germany has produced. He died June 1593, at Vienna, aged sixty. His works are, “The Mussulman History,” 1591, folio, Latin; “Annals of the Ottoman Sultans,” folio, which he translated into Latin, from the translation made of it, by John Gaudier, otherwise Spiegel, from Turkish into German. The supplement to these Annals he continued to 1588, under the title of

As to his rabbinical learning, he was excelled by none, and had few equals; and foreigners who came to England for assistance in their rabbinical studies, usually paid their court to him, as one of the most eminent scholars in that branch. Among these were Frederic Miege and Theodore Haak, who were peculiarly recommended also to Dr. Pocock, with whom our author had a correspondence as also Dr. Marshal of Lincoln-college, in Oxford Samuel Clarke, keeper of the Bodleian library Dr. Bernard, of St. John’s; and the famous Buxtorf were all correspondents of his. Castell acknowledges his obligations to him, when he had little encouragement elsewhere. It is true, he is charged with maintaining some peculiar opinions t; of which he says, “Innocua, ut spero, semper proponens;” yet he bore the reputation of one of the most ingenious as well as learned of our English commentators, and has been of great service to his successors. He bequeathed his whole library of rabhinical works, oriental books, &c. to Harvard college, in America, where the whole were burnt in 1769. The doctor was twice married; his first wife, already mentioned, brought him four sons and two daughters. His eldest son, John, who was chaplain to Bryan Walton, bishop of Chester, died soon after that prelate. His second was Anastasius, who had also these additions to that name, Cotton us Jackson us, in memory of sir Rowland Cotton and sir John Jackson, two dear friends of our author; he was minister of Thundridge, in Hertfordshire, and died there, leaving one son. His third son was Anastasius too, but without any addition; he was brought up to trade in London. His fourth son was Thomas, who died young. His daughters was Joice and Sarah, the former of whom was married to Mr. John Duckfield, rector of Aspeden, in Hertfordshire, into whose hands fell the doctor’s papers, which he communicated to Mr. Strype. The other married Mr. Coclough, a Staffordshire gentleman. This lady died in 1656, and was interred in the church of Munden, in Hertfordshire. The doctor’s second wife was relict of Mr. Austin Brograve, uncle of sir Thomas Brograve, bart. of Hertfordshire, a gentleman well versed in rabbinical learning, and a particular acquaintance of our author. He had no issue by her. She also died before him, and was buried in Munden church.

In 1772, the late Mr. Pennant invited Mr. Lightfoot to be the companion of his second tour to Scotland and the Hebrides, advising him to undertake the compilation, as he himself modestly calls it, of a “Flora Scotica,” which Mr. Pennant offered to publish at his own expence. Mr. Lightfoot gladly complied, and besides the knowledge acquired by his own observations, was ably assisted by the collections and communications of Dr. Hope, professor of botany at Edinburgh, the rev. Dr. John Stuart of Luss; the rev. Dr. Burgess of Kirkmichael, in Dumfriesshire, and of other gentlemen in England. The “Flora Scotica” was published in 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. The plan and execution of it appeared calculated to render it one of the most popular Flora’s, but for a long time it did not pay its expences, which certainly did not arise from any want of merit; for its only great and radical fault was not known, or at least scarcely considered such till lately. The fault we mean, is the compiling descriptions from foreign authors, without mentioning whence they are taken; so that a student can never be certain of their just application, but on the contrary, often finds them erroneous or unsuitable, without knowing why. Even in the last class, on which Mr. Lightfoot bestowed so much pains, the synonyms of Linnæus and Dillenius often disagree, though in many cases such contrarieties are properly indicated, so as to throw original light on the subject.

, one of the most eminent physicians and scholars of his age, descended from the Linacres of Li nacre-hall in the parish of Chesterfield, Derbyshire, was born at Canterbury about 1460. Having completed his school-education, under William de Sellingj a very eminent master, in his native city, he entered at Oxford, and was chosen fellow of All Souls’ college in 1484. Being desirous of farther advancement in learning, he accompanied De Selling into Italy, whither the latter was sent on an embassy to the court of Rome by Henry VII. De Selling left him at Bologna, with strong recommendations to Politian, one of the most elegant Latinists in Europe; and removing thence to Florence, Linacre acquired the favour of that munificent patron of literature, Lorenzo de Medicis, who granted him the privilege of attending the same preceptors with his own sons; an opportunity, by which he knew how to profit; and under Demetrius Chalcondylas, who had fled from Constantinople when it was taken by the Turks, he acquired a perfect knowledge of the Greek language. He then went to Rome, and studied medicine and natural philosophy under Hermolaus Barbaras. He applied particularly to the works of Aristotle and Galen, and is said to have been the first Englishman who made himself master of those writers by perusing them in the original Greek. He also translated and published several of Galen’s tracts into most elegant Latin, and along with Grocyn and William Latimer, undertook a translation of Aristotle, which, however, they left imperfect. On his return to England, he was incorporated M. D. at Oxford, which degree he had taken at Padua, gave temporary lectures on physic, and taught the Greek language in that university. His reputation soon became so high, that king Henry VII. called him to court, and entrusted him with the care both of the health and education of his son, prince Arthur. He is said also to have instructed princess Catherine in the Italian language. He was made successively physician to the kings Henry VII., Henry VIII., and Edward VI., and to the princess Mary.

But this last line, so often quoted, forms the great objection which modern critics have advanced against this celebrated treatise, viz. his exemplifying rather than explaining the sublime. His taste and sensibility were exquisite, but his observations are too general, and his method too loose. The precision of the true philosophical critic, says Warton, is lost in the declamation of the florid rhetorician. Instead of shewing for what reason a sentiment or image is sublime, and discovering the secret power by which they affect a reader with pleasure, he is ever intent on producing something sublime himself. It has likewise been objected, that although he defines the sublime with precision, he frequently departs from his own rule, and includes whatever, in any composition, pleases highly. Some, therefore, of his instances of the sublime are mere elegancies, without the most distant relation to sublimity. His work, however, in other respects, is one of the most valuable relics of antiquity, and is admirably calculated to give excellent general ideas of beauty in writing. Brurker remarks that Longinus must have seen the Jewish scriptur.es, as he quotes a passage from the writings of Moses, as an example of the sublime (Gen. i. 3) “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.”

, one of the most learned protestants of his time, was born at Westersted, in the county of Oldenburg, March 24, 1556, of which place his father was minister, who sent him first to Leipsic, where he prosecuted his studies with great success, and for further improvement went thence to Cologne. After this he visited the several universities of Helmstadt, Strasburg, Jena, Marpurg, and, last of all, Rostock, where he was made professor of poetry in 1595. Having there read lectures with great applause for ten years, he was advanced to the divinity chair in the same university, in 1605. In 1620 he was seized with a tertian ague, under which he laboured for ten months before it put a period to his life in June 162 1. He has the character of having been a good Greek scholar, and was well skilled in the Latin language, in which he made good verses, and he had much reputation as an orator, a mathematician, and a divine. He published several books, namely, 1. “Antiquarius, sive priscorum et minus usitatorum vocabulorum brevis et dilucida interpretatio.” 2. “Clavis Graecae linguae.” 3. “Anacreon, Juvenal, and Persius, with notes.” 4. “Horace and Juvenal, with a paraphrase.” 5. “The Anthologia, with a Latin version,” 1604, 4to. 6. “Epistolae veterum Grsecorum, Greece et Latine, cum methodo conscribendarum epistolarum.” 7. “Commentaiies upon some of the Epistles of St. Paul.” 8. “Monotessaion,sive historia evangelica,” &c. &c. i. e. a harmony of the four Evangelists. 9. “Nonni Dionysiaca,” in Greek and Latin, at Francfort, 1605, 8vo. 10. “Latin Poems,” inserted in the third volume of “Deliciae ^oetarum Germanorum.”

He continued in the university of Wittemberg, where, as professor of divinity, he employed himself in the business of his calling. The university, as we have observed, had been lately founded by Frederic, elector of Saxony, who was one of the richest and most powerful princes at that time in Germany, as well as one of the most magnificent and bountiful; and who brought a great many learned men thither, by large pensions and other encouragements, and amongst the rest Luther. Here then he feegan in the most earnest manner to read lectures upon the sacred books: he explained the epistle to the Romans, and the Psalms, which he cleared up and illustrated in a manner so entirely new, and so different from what had been pursued by former commentators, that “there seemed, after a long and dark night, a new day to arise, in the judgment of all pious and prudent men.” He settled the precise difference between the law and gospel, which before had been confounded; refuted many errors, commonly received both in "he church and the schools; and brought many necessary truths to light, which might have bee vainly sought in Scotus and Aquinas. The better to qualify himself for the task he had undertaken, he applied himself attentively to the Greek and Hebrew languages; to which, we are told, he was particularly excited by the writings of Erasmus; who, though he always remained in appearance a papist, or at least had nothing decided in his character, yet contributed much to the impelling of monkish ignorance, and overthrowing the kingdom of darkness. In the mean time, Luther, while he was active in propagating truth and instruction by his lectures and sermons, maintained an exemplary severity in his life and conversation, and was a most rigid observer of that discipline which he enjoined to others. This gained him vast credit and authority, and made all he delivered, however new or unusual, more readily accepted by. those who heard him.

In the beginning of 1524, Clement VII. sent a legate into Germany to the diet which was to be held at Nuremberg. This pope had succeeded Adrian, who died in Oct. 1523, and had, a little before his death, canonized Benno, who Was bishop of Meissen in the time of Gregory VII. and one of the most zealous defenders of the holy se. Luther, imagining that this was done directly to oppose him, drew up a piece with this title, “Against the new Idol and Devil set up at Meissen;” in which he treats the memory of Gregory with great freedom, and does not spare even Adrian. Clement VII.'s legate, therefore, represented to the diet at Nuremberg the necessity of enforcing the execution of the edict of Worms, which had been strangely neglected by the princes of the empire; but, notwithstanding the legate’s solicitations, which were very pressing, the decrees of that diet were thought so ineffectual, that they were condemned at Rome, and rejected by the emperor. It was in this year that the dispute between Luther and Erasmus began about free-will. Erasmus had been much courted by the papists to write against Luther; but had hitherto avoided the task, by saying, “that Luther was too great a man for him to write against, and that he had learned more from one short page of Luther, than from all the large books of Thomas Aquinas.” Besides, Erasmus was all along of opinion, that writing would not be found an effectual way to end the differences, and establish the peace of the church. Tired out, however, at length with the importunities of the pope and the catholic princes, and desirous at the same time to clear himself from the suspicion of favouring a cause which he would not seem to favour, he resolved to write against Luther, though, as he tells Melancthon, it was with some reluctance; and he chose free-will for the subject. His book was entitled “A diatriba, or Conference about Free-will,” and was wriuen with much moderation, and without personal reflections. He tells Luther in the preface, “that he ought not to take his differing from him in opinion ill, because he had allowed himself the liberty of differing from the judgment of popes, councils, universities and doctors of the church.” Luther was some time before he answered Erasmus’s book, but at last published a treatise “De servo arbitrio, or, Of the Servitude of Man’s Will;” and though Melancthon had promised Krasmus, that Luther should answer him with civility and moderation, yet Luther had so little regard to Melancthon’s promise, that he never wrote any thing more severe. He accused Erasmus of being carelrsn about religion, and little solicitous what became of it, provided the world continued in peace; and that his notions were rather philosophical than Christian. Erasmus immediately replied to Luther,- in a piece called “Hyperaspistes”. in the first part of which he answers his arguments, and in the second his personal reflections.

, an eminent naturalist, was born at Maestricht July 22, 1707. He was of a French family, originally of Lorraine, whence they were obliged to take refuge in Switzerland, on account of their religion. His father, Benjamin Lyonet, was a protestant minister at Heufdon. In his early years he displayed uncommon activity both of body and mind, with a memory so prompt, that he acquired an exact knowledge of nine languages, ancient and modern, and in the farther pursuit of his academical studies at Leyden, made great progress in logic, philosophy, geometry, and algebra. It was his father’s wish that he should study divinity, with a view to the church, and it appears that he might have passed by an easy transition to any of the learned professions. The law, however, was his ultimate destination; and he applied himself to this with so much zeal, that he was promoted the first year, when he delivered a thesis “on the use of the torture,” which was published, and gained him considerable reputation. At what time he settled at the Hague we are not told, but there he was made decypherer, translator of the Latin and French languages, and patent-master to the States General. It was now that he turned his attention to natural history, especially entomology, and undertook an historical description of such insects as are found about the Hague; and as, among his other accomplishments, he understood drawing, he enriched his work with a great number of plates, which were much admired by the connoisseurs. In 1741 a French translation of Lesser’s “Theology of Insects” was printed at the Hague, which induced Mr. Lyonet to defer the publication of his own work, and make some observations on Lesser’s, to which he added two beautiful plates designed by himself. His observations were thought of so much importance that Reaumur caused the above translation to be reprinted at Paris, merely on account of them. Lyonet afterwards executed drawings of the fresh water polypes for Mr. Trembley’s beautiful work, in 1744. Wandelaar had engraved the first five plates of this work, and being rather dilatory in producing the rest, Lyonet took a single lesson in engraving, and executed the others himself in a manner which astonished not only amateurs, but experienced artists. In 1748 his reputation procured him the honour of being elected a member of the royal society of London, as he xvas afterwards of other learned societies in Europe. In 1764- appeared his magnificent work on. the caterpillar, “Traite anatomique de la Chenille qui ronge le bois de Saule.” In order to enable such as might be desirous of following him in his intricate and astonishing discoveries respecting the structure of this animal, he published, in the Transactions of the Dutch society of sciences, at Haerlem, a description and plate of the instrument and tools he had invented for the purpose of dissection, and likewise of the method he used to ascertain the degree of strength of his magnifying glasses. Mr. Lyonet died at the Hague, Jan. 10, 1789, leaving some other works on entomology unfinished, one of the most extensive collections of shells in Europe, and a very fine cabinet of pictures. In his early years, Mr. Lyonet practised sculpture and portrait-painting. Of the former, his Apollo and the Muses, a basso relievo cut in palm wood, is mentioned by Van Gool, in his “Review of the Dutch Painters,” as a masterpiece. To these many accomplishments Mr. Lyonet added a personal character which rendered him admired during his long life, and deeply regretted when his friends and his country were deprived of his services.

, or Lyranus, a celebrated Franciscan, in the 14th century, and one of the most learned men of his time, was born of Jewish parents at Lyre, a town in Normandy, in the diocese of Evreux. After having been instructed in rabbinical learning, he embraced Christianity, entered among the Franciscans at Verneuil, 1291, and taught afterwards at Paris with great credit. He rose by his merit to the highest offices in his order, and also gained the esteem of the great; queen Jane, countess of Burgundy, and wife of Philip the Long, appointed him one of her executors in 1325. He died at a very advanced age, October 23, 1340, leaving some “Postils,” or short Commentaries on the whole Bible, which were formerly in considerable reputation the most scarce edition of them is that of Rome, 1472, seven vols, folio; and the best that of Antwerp, 1634, six vols. folio. These commentaries are incorporated in the “Biblia Maxima,” Paris, 1660, nineteen vols. folio; and there is a French translation of them, Paris, 1511, and 1512, five vols. folio. He published also “A Disputation against the Jews,” in 8vo, a treatise against a particular rabbi, who made use of the New Testament to combat Christianity. These, and his other works not printed, show the author to have had a much more perfect knowledge of the Holy Scriptures than was common at that time.

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

His success in these affairs had nearly fixed him in political life, when a dispute with the cardinal changed his destination, and the circumstance does credit to his liberality. The cardinal was not only minister of state, but archbishop of Lyons, when the question was agitated respecting the marriages of protestants. The abbe wished him to view this question with the eyes of a statesman only, but the cardinal would consider it only as a prince of the Romish church, and as he persisted in this opinion, the abbe saw him no more. From this time he gave himself up to study, without making any advances to fortune, or to literary men. He always said he was more anxious to merit general esteem than to obtain it. He lived a long time on a small income of a thousand crowns, and an annuity; which last, on the death of his brother, he gave up to his relations. The court, however, struck with this disinterested act, gave him a pension of 2800 Jivres, without the solicitation or knowledge of any of his friends. Mably not only inveighed against luxury and riches, but showed by his example that he was sincere; and to these moderate desires, he joined an ardent love of independence, which he took every opportunity to evince. One day when a friend brought him an invitation to dine with a minister of state, he could not prevail on him to accept it, but at length the abbe said he would visit the gentleman with pleasure as soon as he heard that he was “out of office.” He had an equal repugnance to become a member of any of the learned societies. The marshal Richelieu pressed him much to become a candidate for the academy, and with such arguments that he could not refuse to accept the offer; but he had fio sooner quitted the marshal than he ran to his brother the abbe Condillac, and begged he would get him released, cost what it would. “Why all this obstinacy?” said his brother. “Why!” rejoined the abbe“Mably,” because, if I accept it 1 shall be obliged to praise the cardinal de Uichelieu, which is contrary to my principles, or, it I do not praise him, as I owe every thing to his nephew, I shall be accused of ingratitude.“In the same spirit, he acquired a bluntness of manner that was not very agreeable in the higher circles, where he never tailed to take the part of men of genius who were poor, against the insults of the rich and proud. His works, by which the booksellers acquired large sums of money, contributed very little to his own finances, for he demanded no return but a lew copies to give as presents to his friends. He appeared always dissatisfied with the state of public affairs, and had the credit of predicting the French revolution. Political sagacity, indeed, was that on which he chiefly rested his fame, andhaving formed his theory from certain systems which he thought might be traced to the Greeks and Romans, and even the ancient Gauls, he went as far as must of his contemporaries in undervaluing the prerogatives of the crown, and introducing a representative government. In his latter works his own mind appears to have undergone a revolution, and he pro\ed that if he was before sincere in his notions of freedom, he was now equally illiberal. After enjoying considerable reputation, and bein^ considered as one of the most popular French writers on the subjects of politics, morals, and history, he died at Paris, April 23, 1785. The abbe Barruel ranks him among the class of philosophers, who wished to be styled the Moderates, but whom Rousseau calls the Inconsistents. He adds, that” without being impious like a Voltaire or a Condorcet, even though averse to their impiety, his own tenets were extremely equivocal. At times his morality was so very disgusting, that it was necessary to suppose his language was ambiguous, and that he had been misunderstood, lest one should be obliged to throw off all esteem for his character." Such at least was the defence which Barruel heard him make, to justify himself from the censures of the Sorbonne.

Many excellent works of Mabuse are at Middleburg; one of the most capital is the altar-piece of the great church, representing the descent from the cross. That picture had been so highly commended, that it raised the curiosity of Albert Durer; and he took a journey to Middleburg, merely to be an eye-witness of the merit of that performance. He viewed it with singular attention, and expressed the pleasure it afforded him, by the praise he bestowed upon it. But the picture which is accounted to excel all his other productions, is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, which he finished while he was retained in the service of the marquis ofVeren; and in that subject he contrived to pay an extraordinary compliment to his patron, by making the heads of his lady and son the models for the heads of his figures.

, an author whose fame rests chiefly on his being the editor of Ossian’s poems, was descended from one of the most ancient families in the North of Scotland, being cousin-german to the chief of the clan of the Macphersons, who deduce their origin from the ancient Catti of Germany. His father, however, was a farmer of no great affluence. He was born in the parish of Kingcusie, Inverness-shire, in the latter end of 1738, and received the first rudiments of his education at one of the parish schools in the district, called Badenoch, from which, in 1752, he entered King’s college, Aberdeen, where he displayed more genius than learning, entertaining the society of which he was a member, and diverting the younger part of it from their studies by his humorous and doggrel rhimes. About two months after his admission into the university, the King’s college added two months to the length of its annual session or term, which induced Macpherson, with many other young men, to remove to Marischal college, where the session continued short: and this circumstance has led the biographer, from whom we borrow it, to suppose that his father was not opulent. Soon after he left college, or perhaps before, he was schoolmaster of Ruthven or Riven, of Badenocb, and afterwards is said to have delighted as little as his antagonist Johnson, in the recollection of that period, when he was compelled, by the narrowness of his fortune, to teach boys in an obscure school.

, brother to the preceding, an eminent physician and chemist, was born at Paris, Oct. 9, 171S, and became a doctor of the' faculty of medicine in the university of that metropolis, professor of pharmacy, and censor-royal. He was, likewise, a member of the academies of sciences of Turin, Stockholm, and Paris, and conducted the medical and chemical departments of the Journal des Sgavans. He had the merit of pursuing chemistry as a department of natural philosophy, and was one of the most successful cultivators of the science, upon rational principles, previous to the new modelling which it has received within the last twenty-five years. He died Feb. 15, 1784, after having suffered much by an internal complaint, which appeared beyond the reach of skill. On this account he desired that his body might be opened, when it was discovered that his disorder was an ossification of the aorta, with strong concretions formed in the cavity of the heart. Mr. Macquer’s private character appears to have been truly amiable in every relation, and few men were more respected by his contemporaries. He published, 1. “Elemens de Chymie Theorique,” 1749 1753, 12mo. 2. “Elemens de Chymie Pratique,” 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Plan d'un Cours de Chymie experimentale et raisonnee,” 1757, 12mo. This was composed in conjunction with M. Baume“, who was associated with him in his lectures. 4.” Dictionnaire de Chymie,“1766, 2 vols. 8vo. These works have all been translated into English and German; the Dictionary particularly, by Mr. Keir, with great additions and improvements. 5.” Formulae Medicamentorum Magistralium,“1763 and he had also a share in the compoposition of the” Pharmacopeia Parisiensis," of 1758.

, one of the most celebrated, and certainly one of the most extraordinary men of his time, was born at Florence, Oct. 28 or 29, 1633. His parents, who were of low rank, are said to have been satisfied when they got him into the service of a man who sold fruit and herbs. He had never learned to read, and yet was perpetually poring over the leaves of old books, that were used as waste paper in his master’s shop. A bookseller who lived in the neighbourhood, and who had often observed this, and knew the boy could not read, asked him one day, “what he meant by staring so much on printed paper?” He said, “that he did not know how it was, but that he loved it; that he was very uneasy in the business he was in, and should be the happiest creature in the world, if he could live with him, who had always so many books about him.” The bookseller, pleased with his answer, consented to take him, if his master was willing to part with him. Young Magliabechi thanked him with tears in his eyes, and having obtained his master’s leave, went directly to his new employment, which he had not followed long before he could find any book that was asked for, as ready as the bookseller himself. This account of his early life, which Mr. Spence received from a gentleman of Florence, who was well acquainted with Magliabechi and his family, differs considerably from that given by Niceron, Tiraboschi, and Fabroni. From the latter, indeed, we learn that he was placed as an apprentice to a goldsmith, after he had been taught the principles of drawing, and he had a brother that was educated to the law, and made a considerable figure in that profession. His father died while he was an infant, but Fabroni makes no mention of his poverty. It seems agreed, however, that after he had learned to read, that became his sole employment, but he never applied himself to any particular study. He read every book almost indifferently, as they happened to come into his hands, with a surprizing quickness; and yet such was his prodigious memory, that he not only retained the sense of what he read, but often all the words, and the very manner of spelling them, if there was any thing peculiar of that kind in any author.

In 1676 our author published at Lyons his first work, the “Botanicum Monspeliense/' republished at Montpellier in 1688, with a new tide-page and appendix. In this book all the plants enumerated are found wild about Montpellier, and almost entirely gathered there by the author himself. It is, in fact, one of the most original and authentic works of its kind, being to the Montpellier botanists what Ray’s Synopsis is to those of Britain, the basis of all their knowledge. In 1689 Magnol published an octavo volume entitled” Prodromus Historic Generalis Plantarum,“in which he undertook a scheme of natural arrangement, according to the method of Ray, deduced from all the parts of a plant; and the vegetable kingdom, is disposed into 76 families, subdivided into genera. In 1697 appeared the” Hortus Regius Monspeliensis," 8vo,. an alphabetical catalogue of the garden, in which several new or rare species are described as well as figured. In their generic distribution the author conforms to Tournefort principally, and his preface shews how much he had contemplated this subject and its difficulties. When we consider that Magnol had had the care of the garden only three years previous to the publication of this rich catalogue, and that he found the collection in a very poor state, the book is an honourable monument of his industry as well as knowledge.

But of all his wives, Ayesha, the daughter of that Abubeker who succeeded him, was by far his best beloved. He married her very young, and took care to have her bred up in all the learning of Arabia, especially in the elegance of their language, and the knowledge of their antiquities; so that she became at length one of the most accomplished ladies of her time. She was a bitter enemy to Ali, he being the person who discovered her incontinence to Mahomet, and therefore employed all her interest, upon every vacancy, to hinder him from being chosen Caliph, althougn, as son-in-law to the impostor, he had the fairest pretence to it; and when at last, after having been thrice put by, he attained that dignity, she appeared in arms against him; and although she did not prevail, caused such a defection from him, as ended in his ruin. She lived forty. eight years after the death of Mahomet, and was in great reputation with her sect, being called by them the Prophetess, and the mother of the faithful. One of the principal arguments which the followers of Mahomet used, to excuse his having so many wives, is, that he might beget young prophets: he left, however, neither prophet nor prophetess long behind him of all his wives. The six children which he had by Cadiga, his first wife, all died before him, except Fatima, the wife of Ali, who only survived him sixty days; and be had no child by any of the rest.

After making the usual tour of Europe with the duke’s sows, he returned with them to London, and by the influence of the family, in which he resided, easily gained admission to many persons of the highest rank, to wits, nobles, and statesmen. “By degrees,” says Dr. Johnson, “having cleared his tongue from his native pronunciation, so as to be no longer distinguished as a Scot, he seems inclined to disencumber himself from all adherences of his original, and took upon him to change his name from Scotch Malloch to English Mallet, without any imaginable reason of preference which the eye or ear can discover. What other proofs he gave of disrespect to his native country, I know not; bur it was remarked of him that he was the only Scot whom Scotchmen did not commend.” It seems unreasonable, however, to impute this change of name to disrespect for his country; with his countrymen many of his most intimate connections were formed, and his friendship for Thomson is one of the most agreeable parts of his history; and almost the last character he sustained was that of an intrepid advocate for lord Bute, and what were then called the Scotch junto who ruled the king and kingdom. As to Scotchmen not commending him, he had at least one adherent in Smollet, who engaged him to write in the Critical Review, where all Mallet’s works are highly praised, particularly his “Elvira.” The late commentator, George Steevens, esq. hit upon the truth more exactly, when he wrote in a copy of Gascoigne’s Works, purchased in 1766, at Mallet’s sale, “that he was the only Scotchman who died, in his memory, unlamented by an individual of fyis own nation.” Steevens probably mad this remark to Johnson, who forgot the precise terms. The first time we meet with the name of David Mallet is in 1726, in a list of the subscribers to Savage’s Miscellanies.

, a gentleman of great literary research, and one of the ablest commentators on Shakspeare, was descended from an Irish family of the highest antiquity, an account of which may be found in the seventh volume of Archdall’s Peerage of Ireland, which, it is believed, was drawn up by Mr. Malone himself. All his immediate predecessors were distinguished men. His grandfather, while only a student at the Temple, was entrusted with a negotiation in Holland and so successfully acquitted himself, that he was honoured and rewarded by king William for his services. Having been called to the Irish bar about 1700, he became one of the most eminent barristers that have ever appeared in that country. His professional fame has only been eclipsed by that of his eldest son, the still more celebrated Anthony Malone, who as a lawyer, an orator, and an able and upright statesman, was confessedly one of the most illustrious men that his country has produced. Edmond, the second son of Richard, and the father of the late Mr. Malone, was born on the 16th of April, 1704. He was called to the English bar in 1730, where he continued for ten years to practise; and, in 1740, removed to the Irish bar. After having sat in several parliaments, and gone through the usual gradations of professional rank, he was raised, in 1766, to the dignity of one of the judges of the court of common pleas in Ireland, an office which he filled till his death in 1774. He married, in 1736, Catherine, only daughter and heir of Benjamin Collier, esq. of liuckholts, in the county of Essex, by whom he had four sons, Richard, now lord Sunderlin; Edmond, the subject of our present memoir Anthony and Benjamin, who died in their infancy and two daughters, Henrietta and Catherine.

Mr. Steevens having published a second edition of his Shakspeare, in 1778, Mr. Malone, in 1780, added two supplementary volumes, which contained some additional notes, Shakspeare’s poems, and seven plays which have been ascribed to him. There appears up to this time to have been no interruption to their friendship; but, on the contrary, Mr. Steevens, having formed a design of relinquishing all future editorial labours, most liberally made a present to Mr. Malone of his valuable collection of old plays, declaring that he himself was now become “a dowager commentator.” It is painful to think that this harmony should ever have been disturbed, or that any thing should have created any variance between two such men, who were so well qualified to co-operate for the benefit of the literary world. Mr. Matone, having continued his researches into all the topics which might serve to illustrate our great dramatist, discovered, that although much had been done, yet that much still remained for critical industry; and that a still more accurate collation of the early copies than had hitherto taken place was necessary towards a correct and faithful exhibition of the author’s text. His materials accumulated so fast, that he determined to appear before the world as an editor in form. From that moment he seems to have been regarded with jealousy by the elder commentator, who appears to have sought an opportunity for a rupture, which he soon afterwards found, or rather created. But it is necessary to go back for a moment, to point out another of Mr. Malone’s productions. There are few events in literary history more extraordinary in all its circumstances than the publication of the poems attributed to Rowley. Mr. Malone was firmly convinced that the whole was a fabrication by Chatterton; and, to support his opinion, published one of the earliest pamphlets which appeared in the course of this singular controversy. By exhibiting a series of specimens from early English writers, both prior and posterior to the period in which this supposed poet was represented to have lived, he proved that his style bore no resemblance to genuine antiquity; and by stripping Rowley of his antique garb, which was easily done by the substitution of modern synonymous words in the places of those obsolete expressions which are sprinkled throughout these compositions, and at the same time intermingling some archaeological phrases in the acknowledged productions of Chatterton, he clearly showed that they were all of the same character, and equally bore evident marks of modern versification, and a modern structure of language. He was followed by Mr. Warton and Mr. Tyrwhitt, in his second Appendix; and the controversy was soon at an end. While Mr. Malone was engaged in his Shakspeare, he received from Mr. Steevens a request of a most extraordinary nature. In a third edition of Johnson and Steevens’s Shakspeare, which had been published under the superintendance of Mr. Reed, in 1785, Mr. Malone had contributed some notes in which Mr. Steevens’s opinions were occasionally controverted. These he was now desired to retain in his new edition, exactly as they stood before, in order that Mr. S. might answer them. Mr. Malone replied, that he could make no such promise; that he must feel himself at liberty to correct his observations, where they were erroneous; to enlarge them, where they were defective; and even to expunge them altogether, where, upon further consideration, he was convinced they were wrong; in short, he was bound to present his work to the public as perfect as he could make it. But he added, that he was willing to transmit every note of that description in its last state to Mr. Steevens, before it went to press; that he might answer it if he pleased; and that Mr. Malone would even preclude himself from the privilege of replying. Mr. Steevens persisted in requiring that they should appear with all their imperfections on their head; and on this being refused, declared that all communication on the subject of Shakspeare was at an end between them. In 1790, Mr. Malone’s edition at last appeared and was sought after and read with the greatest avidity. It is unnecessary to point out its merits; the public opinion upon it iias been long pronounced. It cannot indeed be strictly said that it met with universal approbation. Mr. Ritson appeared against it in an angry and scurrilous pamphlet, replete with misrepresentations so gross, and so easy of detection, though calculated to mislead a careless reader, that Mr. Malone thought it worth his while to point them out in a letter which he published, addressed to his friend Dr. Farmer. Poor Ritson, however, has not been the only one who has attempted to persuade the world that they have been mistaken in Mr. Malone’s character as a critic. Mr. Home Tooke in particular, who, whatever were his talents as a grammarian, or his knowledge as an Anglo-Saxon, had by no means an extensive acquaintance with the literature of Shakspeare’s age, has mentioned Mr. Malone and Dr. Johnson with equal contempt, and immediately after proceeds to sneer at Mr. Tyrwhitt. It may readily be supposed that Mr. Malone would not feel very acutely the satire which associated him with such companions. But, to counterbalance these puny hostilities, his work gained the highest testimonies of applause from all who were best qualified to judge upon the subject, and from men whose approbation any one would be prpud to obtain. Dr. J. Warton, in a most friendly letter, which accompanied a curious volume of old English poetry which had belonged to his brother Thomas, and which he presented to Mr. Malone as the person for whom its former possessor felt the highest esteem and the most cordial regard, observes to him that his edition is by far, very far, the best that had ever appeared. Professor Person, who, as every one who knew him can testify, was by no means in the habit of bestowing hasty or thoughtless praise, declared to Mr. Malone’s biographer, that he considered the Essay on the three parts of Henry the Sixth as one of the most convincing pieces of criticism that he had ever read; nor was Mr. Burke less liberal in his praises.

Having concluded his laborious work, Mr. Malone paid a visit to his friends in Ireland; but soon after returned to his usual occupations in London. Amidst his own numerous and pressing avocations he was not inattentive to the calls of friendship. In 1791 appeared Mr. Boswell’s Life of Dr. Johnson, a work in which Mr. Malone felt at all times a very lively interest, and gave every assistance to its author during its progress which it was in his power to bestow. His acquaintance with this gentleman commenced in 1785, when, happening accidentally at Mr. Baldwin’s printing-house to be shewn a sheet of the Tour to the Hebrides, which contained Johnson’s character, he was so much struck with the spirit and fidelity of the portrait, that he requested to be introduced to its writer. From this period a friendship took place between them, which ripened into the strictest and most cordial intimacy, and lasted without interruption as long as Mr. Boswell lived. After his death, in 1795, Mr. Malone continued to show every mark of affectionate attention towards his family; and in every successive edition of Johnson’s Life took the most unwearied pains to render it as much as possible correct and perfect. He illustrated it with many notes of his own, and procured many valuable communications from his friends, among whom its readers will readily distinguish Mr. Bindley. Any account of Mr. Malone would be imperfect which omitted to mention his long intimacy with that gentleman, who is not so remarkable as the possessor of one of the most valuable libraries in this country, as he is for the accurate and extensive information which enables him to use it, and the benevolent politeness with which he is always willing to impart his knowledge to others. There was no one whom Mr. Malone more cordially loved.

, an ingenious and learned French Jesuit, who has written Latin poetry, was born in the diocese of Clermont, in 1581. He was one of the most ambitious imitators of Virgil; and wrote in the same measure, the same number of books, and in the three different kinds to which that illustrious poet applied himself. Thus we have of Mambrun, “Eclogues,” “Georgics, or four books upon the culture of the soul and the understanding;” and an heroic poem in twelve books, entitled “Constantine, or idolatry overthrown. We cannot, however, say that he has imitated the genius and judgment of Virgil as well as he has his exterior form and ceconomy. He is, indeed, allowed to have had great talents for poetry, and was a good critic, as he has sufficiently shewn in a Latin Peripatetic dissertation upon an epic poem; so that it is not without some foundation that Menage has called him” a great poet, as well as a great critic.“His” Peripatetic dissertation“was published at Paris, 1652, 4to; his” ConstantiYie,“at Amsterdam, 1659, in 12mo; his” Eclogues and Georgics," at Fleche, 1661, in 12mo; in which year also he died, aged eighty.

, a statesman and elegant writer, was born at Borgo Taro, a small town of the dukedom of Parma, on the 14th April, 1714. He was the eldest son of Marcel marquis of Ozzano, of an ancient family amongst the Parmesan nobility, and of a lady named Pellegrini, of birth equally illustrious. As soon as he arrived at an age competent for a learned education, he was placed in the college of Parma, where he went through all his studies with assiduity and success; and in the earliest period of his youth displayed that peculiar fondness for the belles lettres and fine arts, which afterwards constituted his predominant and almost exclusive passion. On quitting college, he repaired to his native place, where his father, with a view of giving him some knowledge of domestic economy, associated him in the management of his large estate, and thus gave him for some time rather more occupation than was compatible with his literary pursuits. After his father’s death he married a lady of noble birth, of the name of Antini; and soon added to his other occupations that of superintending the education of his children. In this way he spent many years, on his manor of Borgo Taro, and occasionally gave specimens of his talents in painting and poetry. His performances in the former art were not numerous or highly distinguished, and were only intended as presents to his friends; but in poetry he reached the highest degree of merit, and seemed to have well availed himself of those favourable circumstances which the spirit of the age had introduced. The abbe" Frugoni was then one of the most conspicuous leaders of the new poetical band; and having fixed his residence at Parma, he naturally became, in that small metropolis, the head of a school, in which, by exploding the frequent antitheses, the inflation of style, the wantonness of conceits, and the gigantic strains of imagination, he introduced an easy, regular, descriptive, sentimental, and elegant poesy, and what was more remarkable, gave to blank verse a strength and harmony till then unknown. Mr. Manara, although a professed admirer of Frugoni and his disciples, did not choose to be of their number as far as regarded their enthusiasm, imagery, rapidity of thoughts, and luxury of versification. He was conscious that his own poetical fire was like his temper, endowed with gentleness and sensibility; and with this spirit wrote those elegant eclogues, which soon proved rivals to the pastoral songs of the celebrated Pompei; and in the opinion of the best judges, united the flowing style of Virgil with the graces of Anacreon. His sonnets, too, though not numerous, might be put in competition with those of Petrarch.

The “Astronomicon” of Manilius contains a system of the ancient astronomy and astrology, together with the philosophy of the Stoics. It consists of five books, and he also wrote a sixth, which has not been recovered. That he was young when he composed this work, his translator thinks demonstrable from almost every page of it; and had he lived to revise the whole composition, as he seems to have done the first book, we should perhaps have had a more correct performance. He had a genius equal to his undertaking; his fancy was bold and daring; his skill in mathematics great enough for his design; and his knowledge of the history and mythology of the ancients general. As he is now, some critics have placed him among the judicious and elegant writers; and all allow him to be useful, instructive, and entertaining. He hints at some opinions, in which later ages have been ready to glory as their own discoveries. Thus he defends the fluidity of the heavens against the hypothesis of Aristotle; he asserts that the fixed stars are not all in the same concave superficies of the heavens, and equally distant from the centre of the world: he maintains, that they are all of the same nature and substance with the sun, and that each of them hath a particular vortex of its own; and lastly, he says that the milky way is only the undistinguished lustre of a great many small stars, which the moderns now see to be such, through their telescopes. So that perhaps upon the whole, and notwithstanding all his defects, one may venture to say that he is one of the most discerning philosophers antiquity can shew. The first edition of Manilius, with a date, is that of Bologna, by ttugerius and Berthoqus, 1474. The best editions since, are that of Joseph Scaliger, printed at Leyden, 1600, 4to; that of Bentley,. at London, 1738, 4to; that of Edmund Burton, esq. “cum notis variorum,” London, 1783. 8vo; and that of Sioeber, published at Strasburg, in 1767, 8vo.

He died at Florence, Nov. 30, 1788, in his ninety-ninth year. He left behind him the fame not only of one of the most laborious and deserving writers of his time, but of a most exemplary moral character. He was particularly distinguished for his zeal and kindness in assisting with his superior knowledge, younger writers who wished to treat on any subject connected with his inquiries. A catalogue of all his works, amounting to 104, was published in 1789, by his friend count Tomitano, a patrician of Feltri.

, one of the most learned and eminent nonconformists of the seventeenth century, was born at Lawrence Lydiard, in Somersetshire, in 1620. His father and grandfather were both clergymen, but of them we have no account, except that his father was settled at Whimpole in Devonshire, and sent his son to the freeschool at Tiverton. Here his progress was such that he was thought qualified to begin his academical studies at the age of fourteen, and about a year after, in 1635, he was entered of Wadham college, Oxford. From thence, in 1639, he removed to Hart-hall, where he took his bachelor’s degree in arts. Wood says, he was accounted in his college, “a hot-headed person,” a character very remote from that which he sustained throughout life, and when all eyes were upon him. After studying divinity, he was admitted to deacon’s orders by the celebrated Dr. Hall, bishop of Exeter, and although this was sooner than Mr. Man ton approved upon maturer thought, bishop Hall appears to have thought him duly qualified, and predicted that “he would prove an extraordinary person.” As he came into public life when principles of disaffection to the church were generally prevalent, it appears that he entered so far into the spirit of the times, as to be content with deacon’s orders, and to deny the necessity of those of the priest

Much of his life appears to have been embittered by sickness, and in September 1573 his health began to decline very rapidly. Three months after, he thought himself better, but he had still an extreme weakness in his loins, with frequent and severe head-aches, and he received no benefit from medicines. On the 6th of April, 1574, he expired in the arms of his son, who had just arrived from Venice to attend him in his sickness. He had lived in general esteem; and his death was universally regretted. He left a variety of writings, which distinguish him as one of the most judicious critics, and one of the most elegant Latin writers that modern times have produced. Of these, the principal are his letters in Latin and Italian, his Commentaries on the works of his favourite Cicero, and his treatise “De Curia Rornana.” The productions of his presses are all of the highest value, for both accuracy and beauty.

, 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.

, a nobleman celebrated for musical knowledge, was born July 24, 1680, at Venice, and was the descendant of one of the most illustrious families of that republic. He had cultivated music so seriously and successfully under the guidance of the celebrated Gasparini, that no contemporary professor was more reverenced for musical science, or half so much praised for his abilities as a composer, as Marcello; and besides his musical productions, consisting of psalms, operas, madrigals, songs, and cantatas, he was frequently his own poet, and sometimes assumed the character of lyric bard for other musicians. It is probable that Marcello had received some disgust in his early attempts at dramatic music; for, in 1720, he published a furious satire upon composers, singing-masters, and singers in general, under the title of “Teatro alia Moda,” or “An easy and certain Method of composing and performing Italian Operas in the modern manner.” But his great musical work, to which the late Mr. Avison’s encomiums aud Mr. Garth’s publication to English words, have given celebrity in our own country, was first printed at Venice, in 8 vols. folio, under the following title: “Estro poetico-arznonico, Parafrasi sopra i primi 50 Salmi, Poesia di Girciarno Ascanio Giustiniani, Musica di Benedetto Marcello, Patrizj Veneti, 1724 and 1725.” Dr. Burney, after a careful examination of this elaborate work, is of opinion, that though it has considerable merit, the author has been over-praised; as the subjects of many of his fugues and airs are not only common and old-fashioned at present, but were far from new at the time these psalms were composed. But, adds Dr. Burney, Marcello was a Venetian nobleman, as Venosa was a Neapolitan prince; both did honour to music by cultivating it; and both expected and received a greater return in fame than the legal interest of the art would allow. Marcello died at Brescia, June 25, 173<>, or, according to our principal authority, in 1741. He was author of a drama called “Arato in Sparta,” which was set by Ruggieri, and performed at Venice in 1704; and in 1710 he produced both the words and the music of an oratorio called “Giuditta.” He set the “Psyche” of Cassini about the same time; and in 1718 he published “Sonnets” of his own writing, without music.

Hugh, of whom we now speak, the third earl, was the third son of the above-mentioned Alexander, and twin-­brother of Mr. Hume Campbell, who was in the first practice at the English bar, but retired from it on being appointed lord register of Scotland. The subject of our present article having finished his studies in the learned languages, in which at an early period of his life he was a most distinguished scholar, he was sent to Utrecht to complete his education. Here, under the instruction of one of the most eminent civilians of modern times, he succeeded in the attainment of a knowledge of the civil law to an extent seldom acquired, even by those who were to follow it as a profession; and at the same time became master of several modern languages, which he read and wrote with great facility.

These qualifications, with an unwearied industry to reach the bottom of every subject of discussion, and a habit of speaking, attracted great attention to him, very soon after his coming into parliament for the town of Berwick, in 1734. He was one of the most active members of the opposition of that period; and on the secession of Mr. Pulteney, afterwards earl of Bath, in 1739, he took the decided lead in it; but his career in the House of Commons was stopped by his succession to the peerage, on the death of his father, in 1740. On which occasion sir Robert Walpole said to an intimate and confidential friend, that an event had occurred which had rid him of the opponent by far the most troublesome to him in the House.

, a celebrated divine of the reformed church, was born at Oisemond in Picardy, in 1599. At thirteen he was sent to Paris, where he made great advances in the belles lettres and philosophy; and three years after to Saumur, where he studied divinity under Gomarus, and Hebrew under Ludovicus Capellus. He returned to his father in 1618, and afterwards went to Geneva, to finish his course of divinity. The year following he went to Paris, and, by the advice of M. Durand, applied immediately for admission to the holy ministry, to the synod of Charenton, in March 1620, who received him, and settled him in the church of Laon. But his ministerial functions here were soon disturbed; for, the governor of La Fere’s wife having changed her religion, wrote him a letter in vindication of her conduct, and sent him a pamphlet containing the history of her conversion. His answer to this lady’s letter provoked his adversaries to such a degree, that a Jesuit was supposed to have suborned an assassin, who stabbed him deeply, but, as it happened, not mortally, with a knife into his breast. This induced Des Marets to leave Laon, and go to Falaise in 1624. He afterwards accepted a call to the church of Sedan; and soon after took the degree of doctor in divinity at Leyden, in July 1625. Having made a short visit to England, he returned to Sedan. In 1640, he had an invitation to a professorship at Franeker; and to another at Groningen, in 1642. This last he accepted; and from that time to his death, rendered such services to that university, that it was reckoned one of the most flourishing in the Netherlands. The magistrates of Berne, well informed of his abilities and learning, offered him, in 1661, the professor of divinity’s chair at Lausanne; and, in 1663, the university of Leyden invited him to a like professorship there. He accepted of this last, but died before he could take possession of it, at Groningen, May 18, the same year.

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

Marini had a very lively imagination, but little judgment, and abandoned himself to the way of writing fashionable in those times, which consisted in points and conceits; so that he may be justly reckoned among the corruptors of taste in Italy, as his name and fame, which were very considerable, produced a number of imitators. His works are numerous, and have been often printed. The principal of them are, 1. “Strage degii Innocenti,” a poem on the slaughter of the Innocents, Venice, 1633. 2. “Rime,” or miscellaneous poems, in three parts. 3. “La Sampogna,” or the flageolet; 1620. 4. “La Murtoleide,” 1626, 4to, the occasion of which has been already noticed. 5. “Letters,” 1627, 8vo. 6. “Adone;” an heroic poem. This was one of the most popular poems in the Italian language, little less so than the Aminta of Tasso, and the Pastor Fido of Guarini and, says Baretti, “would cope with any one in our Italian, if Marini had not run away with his overflowing imagination, and if his language was more correct.” It has been frequently printed in Italy, France, and other parts of Europe. One of the most valued editions is the Elzevir, printed at Amsterdam, in 1678, in 4 vols. 16mo.

, M. A. one of the most learned critics of the eighteenth century, was descended from an ancient family of that name, seated near Wigan, in Lancashire. He was one of the twelve children of the rev. Ralph Markland, M. A. vicar of Childwall, in that county, whose unblemished life and character gave efficacy to the doctrines he preached, and rendered him an ornament to the church of which he was a member. He was not, however, the author of a poem, frequently attributed to his pen, entitled “Pteryplegia, or the art of Shooting Fly-, ing,” as it was one of the juvenile productions of his relative, Dr. Abraham Markland, fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, and above thirty years master of St. Cross, near Winchester, of whose life and more important writings Wood has made some mention.

Contrary to the original intention, his edition of the “Two Iphigeniae,” which had been printed in 1768, 8vo, with a view to posthumous publication, was given to the world in 1771, under the title of “Euripidis Dramata, Iphigenia in Aulide, et Iphigenia in Tauris; ad codd. Mss. recensuit, et notulas adjecit, Jer. Markland, Coll. D. Petri Cant. Socius.” Of this, the “Supplices Mulieres,” and the “Quaestio grammatica de Gnecorum quinta declinatione imparisyllabica,” &c. an elegant and correct edition has just been published at Oxford, in 8vo and 4to, under the superintendance of one of the most profound Greek scholars of the age, Mr. Gaisford of Christ-church.

, whom Phillips calls “a kind of second Shakspeare,” was born, as Mr. Elfis conjectures with great probability, about 1562. There is no account extant of his family, but it is well known, says Baker, that he was of Bene't college, in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1543, and M. A. 1597; he, however, quitted the academic life, and went on the stage, where he became one of the most distinguished tragic poets of the age. Thomas Heywood styles him the “best of poets;” and Draytoa also has bestowed a high panegyric on him, in the “Censure of the Poets,” in these lines

, one of the most distinguished French writers of the eighteenth century, was born in 1723, at Bort, a small town in Limosin. His father, who was in very moderate circumstances, and had a very large family, bestowed great pains on this, his eldest son, and was ably assisted in the cultivation of his talents, by his wife, who appears to have been a woman of superior sense and information. Young Marmoutel first studied the classics and rhetoric in the Jesuits’ college of Mauriac, and at fifteen was placed by his father with a merchant at Clermont. As this, however, was very little to his taste, he applied for admission into the college of Clermont, and having been received into the philosophical class, maintained himself by teaching some of the junior scholars. He afterwards went to Toulouse, and became teacher of philosophy in a seminary of the Bernardines, where his abilities acquired considerable distinction.

, a French poet of the fifteenth century, was procurator in parliament, and notary of the chatelet at Paris, where also he was born; and died in 1508, regarded as one of the most pleasing men and easy writers of his age. He wrote, 1. “Arrets l'Amour,” Love-causes, the thought of which was taken from the Troubadours of Provence, but handled with great skill and eloquence. The introduction and the close are in verse the rest in prose. 2. “Vigiles de larnort du Roi,” an historical poem on tKe death of Charles VII.; in which, in the form of the Romish office, entitled Vigils, he recites the misfortunes and the glorious acts of his hero; and displays his honest love of virtue and hatred of vice. 3. “L‘Amant rendu Cordelier de l’observance d' Amour;” a poem of 234 stanzas, reviling the extravagances produced by the passion of love. 4. “Devotes louanges a laVierge Marie,” in 8vo, an historical poem on the life of the virgin Mary a legend in bad verse, filled with the fables which were at that time believed.

nience, he went to Lucca, where he was made superior of St. Fridian, a house of his own order; and there he lived with Tremellius and Zanchius, whom he is said to have converted. But, finding himself in more danger here, he left the city secretly, and travelled to Pisa; whence, by letters to cardinal Pole, and to the society of Lucca, he fully explained the reasons of his departure. Then coming to Florence, but making no long stay there, he set forward for Germany; and, passing the Alps, went to Zurich with Ochinus, who had been one of the most celebrated preachers of Italy, but had now forsaken his former superstitions. From Zurich he went to Basil; and thence, by Bucer’s means, was brought to Strasburg; Here he married a young nun that had left her convent, who lived with him eight years, and died at Oxford, as will be noticed hereafter. After he had spent five years at Strasburg, he was, through the management of Seymour the protector, and archbishop Cranmer, sent for to England by Edward VI. who made him professor of divinity at Oxford in 1549. Here he read lectures, to which even the popish party, from the fame of his learning, resorted: and though they could not be easily reconciled to his doctrines, yet they bore him with some patience, till he came to handle that of the Lord’s Supper. Then they began to disturb him in his lectures, to fix up malicious and scandalous libels against him, and to challenge him to disputes; uhich challenges he did not disdain to accept, but disputed, first privately in the vice-chancellor’s lodge, and afterwards in public, before his majesty’s commissioners, deputed for that purpose. His adversaries, finding no advantage could be gained by argument, stirred up the multitude so successfully, that he was obliged to retire to London till the tumult was suppressed. In 1550, the king bestowed on him a canonry of Christ church, on which he returned, and entered on the lodgings belonging to him, near the great gate of Christ church leading into Fish-street. Here being still much disturbed by the rabble, who broke his windows in the night-time, and rendered the situation very uneasy, he was obliged to exchange his lodgings for those in the cloister, where he quietly passed the remainder of his abode in the university. For the more privacy in his studies, he erected a fabric of stone in his garden, situated on the east side of his apartments, in which he partly composed his commentaries on the first epistle to the Corinthians, and his epistles to learned men. This fabric, which contained two stories, remained until 1684, when it was pulled down by Dr. Aldrich, then canon.

, or Dumas, born in 1516, at Linnich, near Brussels, was one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century. He was secretary to John de Weze, bishop of Constance, after whose death he was sent as an agent to Rome. He married at Cleves in 1558, and was appointed counsellor to William duke of Cleves. He died in April 1573. He was a master of the ancient and oriental languages to such a degree, that Sebastian Minister said he seemed to have been brought up in ancient Rome, or ancient Jerusalem. He produced, 1. “A Collection of various pieces, ancient and modern, translated from the Syriac,” Antwerp, 1569. 2. “Syrorum Peculium,” 1571, folio. This is a Syriac lexicon. 8. “Grammatica Linguae Syricae,” 1571, folio. 4. “A Commentary on the Book of Joshua,” Antwerp, 1574, folio, and also in the Critici Sacri. Dr. Henry Owen, who published a “Critical Disquisition” on this work in 1784, observes, that v although Masius’s professed design was to correct and restore the Greek text, yet his latent intention was merely to confirm the authority of the Septuagint. 5. “Disputatio de Ccena Domini,” Antwerp, 1575. 6. Commentaries on some chapters of Deuteronomy. He was in possession of the famous Syriac ms. written in the year 606, which afterwards belonged to D. E. Jablonsky. This manuscript is the only one that preserves the readings of Joshua as given by Origen.

, 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.

, an English historian, who flourished, according to some, in 1377; while Nicolson thinks he did not outlive 1307, was a Benedictine of the abbey at Westminster, and thence has taken his name. From the title of his history, “Flores historiarum,” he has often been called Florilegus. His history commences from the foundation of the world, but the chief object of which is the English part. It is entitled, “Flores Historiarum, per Matthoeum Wesmonasteriensem collecti, prsecipue de Rebus Britannicis, ab exordio mundi, usque ad annum 1307,” published at London in 1567, and at Franckfort in 1601, both in folio. It is divided into six ages, butis comprised in three books. The first extends from the creation to the Christian aera; the second, from the birth of Christ to the Norman conquest; the third, from that period to the beginning of Edward the Second’s reign. Seventy years more were afterwards added, which carried it down to the death of Edward III. in 1377. He formed his work very much upon the model and plan of Matthew Paris, whom he imitated with great care. He wrote with so scrupulous a veracity/ that he is never found to wander a tittle from the truth; and with such diligence, that he omitted nothing worthy of remark. He is commended also for his acuteness in tracing, and his judgment in selecting facts, his regularity in the method or his plan, and his skill in chronological computations. He is, on the whole, except by bishop Nicolson, very highly esteemed, as one of the most venerable fathers of English history.

, a very able French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Laon in 17 44, where his father was an architect, and at one time a man of considerable property. At an early age he discovered a strong inclination for mathematical pursuits, and while he was under the instruction of his tutors, corresponded with Lalande, whom he was desirous of assisting in his labours. In 1772, Mechain was invited to Paris, where he was employed at the depot of the marine, and assisted M. Darquier in correcting his observations. Here his merit brought him acquainted with M. Doisy, director of the depot, who gave him a more advantageous situation at Versailles. At this place he diligently observed the heavens, and, in 1774, sent to the Royal Academy of Sciences “A Memoir relative to an Eclipse of Aldebaran,” observed by him on the 15th of April. He calculated the orbit of the comet of 1774, and discovered that of 1781. In 1782, he gained the prize of the academy on the subject of the comet of 1661, the return of which was eagerly expected in 1790; and in the same year he was admitted a member of the academy, and soon selected for the superintendance of the Connoissance des Tems. In 1790, M. Mechain discoveredhis eighth comet, and communicated to the academy his observations on it, together with his calculations of its orbit. In 1792 he undertook, conjointly with M. Delambre, the labour of measuring the degrees of the meridian, for the purpose of more accurately determining the magnitude of the earth and the length of a metre. In the month of June 1792, M. Mechain set out to measure the triangles between Perpignan and Barcelona; and notwithstanding that the war occasioned a temporary suspension of his labours, he was enabled to resume and complete them during the following year. He died on the 20th of September 1805, at Castellon de la Plana, in the sixty-second year of his age. Lalande deplores his loss as that of not only one of the best French astronomers, but one of the most laborious, the most courageous, and the most robust. His last observations and calculations of the eclipse of the sun on the llth of February, are inserted in the Connoissance des Tems for the year 15; and he also published a great many in the Ephemerides of M. Bode, of Berlin, which he preferred to a former work after Lalande became its editor. A more extensive memoir of his labours may be seen in Baron von Zach’s Journal for July 1800, and Lalande’s History of Astronomy for 1804.

, one of the most celebrated of the ancient Greek poets, was born at Athens in the year 342 before the Christian aera. He was educated in the school of Theophrastus the peripatetic, Aristotle’s successor, and began to write for the stage at the early age of twenty, when his passions seem to have been no less forward and impetuous than his genius. His attachment to the fair sex, and especially to his mistress Glycera, is upon record, and was vehement in the extreme; several of his epistles to that celebrated courtezan, written in a very ardent style, were collected and made public after his decease; his genius, however, is thought to have been a greater recommendation to Glycera’s favour, than his personal merit, which has not been represented as favourable to his addresses, although he is said to have added the recommendations of luxurious dress and manners. His intrigues, however, are of little importance compared to the fame he acquired as one, if not the principal, of the authors of the comedy, which if it possessed less wit and lire than the old, was superior to it in delicacy, regularity, and decorum, came nearer to nature,and to what we conceive of the legitimate drama. Among his contemporaries, who wrote upon this reformed plan, were Philemon, Diphilus, Apollodorus, Philippides and Posidippus; and from many fragments which remain, it appears that they were not Only bold declaimers against the vice and immorality of the age they lived in, but that they ventured upon truths and doctrines in religion totally irreconcileable to the popular superstition and idolatries of the heathen world; and therefore, says Cumberland, or rather Bentley, we cannot but admire at the extraordinary toleration of their pagan audiences.

, better known by the name of Marsilius of Padua, the place of his birth, was one of the most celebrated philosophers and lawyers of the 14th century. He was educated at the university of Orleans; was afterwards made counsellor to the emperor Louis of Bavaria; and wrote an apology entitled “Defensor pacis,” for that prince, in 1324. In this extraordinary work, for such at that time it might well be deemed, he boldly maintained that the pope ought to submit to the emperor, not only in temporal affairs, but also in what regards the outward discipline of the church. He described in strong colours, the pride, the luxury, and other irregularities of the court of Rome; and shewed at large, that the pope could not, by divine right, claim any powers or prerogatives superior to those of other bishops. John XXII. at that time filled the papal chair, and was so provoked at this doctrine of Marsilius, as well as his manner of propagating it, that he issued out a long decree, in which he endeavoured to refute it, and by which he excommunicated the author, in 1327. Dupin relates, that on this book being translated into French without the author’s name, pope Gregory XL complained of it to the faculty of divinity at Paris when the faculty declared, by an authentic act, that none of their members had any hand in that translation and that neither Marsilius of Padua, nor John de Jande, who was likewise thought to have been concerned in the work, belonged to their body. Besides the “Defensor pacis, seu de re imperatoria et pontifica, adversus usurpatam Romani Pontificis jurisdictionem, libri tres,” Marsilius wrotea treatise entitled “De translatione imperil” and also another, “De jurisdictione imperial! in causis matrimonialibus.” He died at Monternalto, in 1328; and, however his memory may have been honoured elsewhere, was ranked at Rome among the heretics of the first class.

, of Dijon, one of the most learned and curious antiquaries of his time, was born in 1564, and died in 1634, at the age of seventy. His principal works are, 1. “Medals, Coins, and ancient Monuments of the emperors of Rome,” folio. 2. " Illustrious Medals of the ancient emperors and empresses of Rome,' 7 4to. They are both written in French, and are not much esteemed, according to the Diet. Hist.; but Moreri says that all modern antiquaries speak of them with the highest praise (grands eloges).

Thus lived Metastasio. Always employed in writing, sometimes by imperial, sometimes by regal command: always anxious about the merit of his productions, and always composing such as ought to have removed all anxiety. He died, after a short illness, on the 12th of April, 1782, being just eighty-four. Farinelli, aletterto whom, from mademoiselle Martinetz, gives the most exact account of his death, lived only to September of the same year. Metastasio was interred in the parish church of St. Michael, in Vienna. His funeral rites were performed with splendor by signior Joseph Martinetz, whom he had made his heir. The inheritance he left, “consisted in a well furnished habitation, a coach, horses, a great quantity of princely presents, a very ample and select collection of books, with a capital of 130,000 florins; from, which, however, were to be deducted twenty thousand for each of Metastasio’s sisters, and three thousand for each of his younger brothers.” The circumstances of his life are chiefly preserved by means of his letters, a large collection of which has been published; and they are used by his English biographer for amplifying the narrative. His correspondents are among the most extraordinary men of his time, and, in all points of view, his character was respectable, and indeed amiable. His life has frequently been written, and his works appear united in editions published in several parts of Europe. He was an enemy to that pompous, verbose, and obscure style which prevailed in his country a few years ago; and he was persuaded that the first duty of a writer, in prose or verse, is to be understood. “The style of Metastasio,” says an Italian critic, “never fails to please those who give way to their own feelings, more than persons of profound meditation; and I would rather be accused of partiality to him whom I venerate and love, than ranked with cold philosophers and deep thinkers, whom I may respect but cannot love.” He regarded “Atilio Regolo,” as his best opera; “Betnlia liberata,” as his best oratorio; and “Artaserse,” as the most fortunate of his dramas; for, however set or sung, it was always successful. To give a list of his works, as they are always found collectively, would be superfluous. Dr. Burney has given one that is very ample, and arranged in chronological order, with the character and peculiarities of each. Hence it appears, that he produced twenty- six operas, eight oratorios, or sacred dramas, besides occasional pieces, such as we should call masques, in great numbers; with cantatas, canzonets, sonnets, and every kind of miscellaneous poetry. He wrote also, some translations from classics; an excellent analysis of Aristotle’s poetics, entitled “Estrato delP Arte Poetica d'Aristotile, et consideration! sur la medesima;” with short accounts of all the Greek dramas, tragic and comic, and his own critical remarks. Few authors have been more prolific, and none, perhaps, so completely successful in every effort of the mind. It is a pleasing reflection that Metastasio was always as much beloved for his amiable qualities, as admired for those by which he was constituted a poer, and one of the most enchanting of all poets. Perfectly master of the resources of his art, he reduced the opera to rules. He banished from it machines, and other improbabilities, which amuse the eye without affecting the heart; substitnting natural situations of interesting personages, which often produce the full effect of tragedy. His actions are great, his characters well conceived and supported, and his plots conducted with address. There are scenes of Metastasio’s, says Voltaire, worthy of Corneille when he avoids declamation, or of Racine when he is not languid. Never, therefore, was patronage better bestowed than that of Gravina; and though such talents could not have been hidden, their early maturity and final perfection must be in a great part attributed to the culture and attentions of that able master.

, of Constantinople, was one of the most learned Grecians in the fourteenth century. He held considerable offices under the emperor Andronicus the Elder, but in the reign of his successor, was banished, and his goods confiscated. He was afterwards recalled, and died in 1332, in a monastery which he had founded. He was called a living Library, from his great erudition; and left several valuable works, the principal among which are, “An Abridgement of the Roman History, from Julius Caesar to Constantine the Great,” 1628, 4to “The Sacred History,” in two books,“translated by Herve, Paris, 1555, 4to” The History of Constantinople“and” A Paraphrase on Aristotle’s Physics.“In 1790, was published” Specimina operum Theod. Metochitae, cum praefatione et nods primum vulgata ab Jano Bloch," Haunise, in 8vo.

With respect to his talents as a writer, he tells his patron, lord Hervey, in his dedication of “The Life of Cicero,” that “it was Cicero who instructed him to write your lordship,” he goes on, “who rewards me for writing for next to that little reputation with which the public has been pleased to favour me, the benefit of this subscription is the chief fruit that I have ever reaped from my studies.” Of this he often speaks, sometimes in terms of complaint, and sometimes, as in the following passage, in a strain of triumph: “I never was trained,” says he, “to pace in the trammels of the church, nor tempted by the sweets of its preferments, to sacrifice the philosophic freedom of a studious, to the servile restraints of an ambitious life: and from this very circumstance, as often as I reflect upon it, I feel that comfort in my own breast, which no external honours can bestow. I persuade myself, that the life and faculties of man, at the best but short and limited, cannot be employed more rationally or laudably, than in th$ search of knowledge, and especially of that sort which relates to our duty, and conduces to our happiness, &c.” This, however, was the philosophy of a disappointed man. It is true, indeed, that he felt the free spirit he describes, which was manifest in all his writings, yet from many of them it is no less clear that he felt anger and disappointment also, at not being preferred, according t;o his own internal consciousness of merit. So inconsistent are even the most able men. He made his preferment impossible, and then repined at not obtaining it. Some of his late biographers have endeavoured to prove what a “good Christian” he was; he had the same opinion of himself, but it is not easy to discover what, in his view, entered into the character of a good Christian. That he was an apostate, as some of his antagonists have asserted, may be doubtful, r perhaps easily contradicted. From all we have seen of his confidential correspondence, he does not appear to have, ever had much to apostatize from. As far back as 1733, he says, in one of his letters to lord Hervey, “It is my misfortune to have had so early a taste of Pagan sense, as to make me very squeamish in my Christian studies.” In the following year he speaks of one of the most common observances of religion in a manner that cannot be misunderstood: “Sunday is my only day of rest, but not of liberty; for I am bound to a double attendance at church, to wipe off the stain of infidelity. When I have recovered my credit, in which I make daily progress, I may use more freedom.” With such contempt for church and churchmen, it can be no wonder that Dr. Middleton failed both of preferment and respect.

, called Old Francis Miens, one of the most remarkable disciples of Gerard Dow, was born at Leyden, in 1635. He imitated his. master with great diligence, and has been thought in some respects to surpass him. Minute accuracy, in copying common objects on a small scale, was the excellence of this artist, with the same sweetness of colouring, and transparence that marks the paintings of Dow. In design he has been thought more comprehensive and delicate than his master, his touch more animated, with greater freshness and force in his pictures. His manner of painting silks, velvets, stuffs, or carpets, was so studiously exact, that the differences of their construction are clearly visible in his representations. His pictures are scarce, and generally bear a very high price. His own valuation of his time was a ducat an hour: and for one picture of a lady fainting, with a physician attending her, and applying remedies, he was paid at that ratio, so large a sum as fifteen hundred florins. The grand duke of Tuscany is said to have offered 3000 for it, but was refused. One of the most beautiful of the works of Francis Mieris, in this country, where they are not very common, is in the possession of Mr. P. H. Hope, and is known by the appellation of the “Shrimp Man.” Mieris died in 1681, at the age of forty-six. He left two sons, John and William, who were both eminent painters. John, however, died young; William is the subject of the ensuing article.

Of this edition of the Greek Testament, Michaelis remarks, that “the infancy of criticism ends with the edition of Gregory, and the age of manhood commences with that of Mill.” This work is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent publications that ever appeared, and ranks next to that of Wetstein, in importance and utility. It was published only fourteen days before his death, and had been the labour of thirty years. He undertook it by the advice of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford; and the impression was begun at his lordship’s charge, in his printing-house near the theatre. But after the bishop’s death his executors were not willing to proceed; and therefore Dr. Mill, perhaps hurt at this refusal, and willing to shew his superior liberality, refunded the sums which trie bishop had paid, and finished the impression at his own expence. The expectations of the learned, foreigners as well as English, were raised very high in consequence of Dr. Mill’s character, and were not disappointed. It was, however, atacked at length by the learned Dr. Daniel Whitby, in his “Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Milli, S. T. P. &c. in 1710, or, an examination of the various readings of Dr. John Mill upon the New Testament; in which it is shewn, I. That the foundations of these various readings are altogether uncertain, and unfit to subvert the present reading of the text. II. That those various readings, which are of any moment, and alter the sense of the text, are very few; and that in all these cases the reading of the text may be defended. III. That the various readings of lesser moment, which are considered at large, are such as will not warrant us to recede from the vulgarly received reading. IV. That Dr. Mill, in collecting these various readings, hath often acted disingenuously; that he abounds in false citations, and frequently contradicts himself.” The various readings which Mill had collected, amounted, as it was supposed, to above 30,000; and this alarmed Dr. Whitby, who thought that the text was thus made precarious, and a handle given to the free-thinkers; and it is certain that Collins, in his “Discourse upon Free-thinking,” urges a passage out of this book of Whitby’s, to shew that Mill’s various readings of the New Testament must render the text itself doubtful. But to this objection Bentley, in his Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, has given a full and decisive answer, the substance of which will bear transcription “The 30,000 various lections then,” says Bentley, “are allowed and confessed and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what is the inference from this? why one Gregory, here quoted, infers, that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time, as the New Testament has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false, and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common, and in equal proportion, in all classics whatever, I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If,” says he, “there had been but one ms. of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable: besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, to have more anchors than one; and another ms. to join with the first, would give more authority, as well as security. Now chuse that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable that, by a joint and mutual help, all the faults may be mended some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you: every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is a fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. It is a good providence, and a great blessing,” continues he, “that so many Mss. of the New Testament are still among us; some procured from Egypt, otheri from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of the places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering or interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors, as they are called, whereof one ms. only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. It is plain, therefore, to me, that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all, what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several Mss. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful, and, generally speaking, accurate edition, has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text, in your doctor’s notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes, by the various readings, rendered uncertain; nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writer does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any single ms. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst ms. now extant: nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; chuse as aukwardly as you can, chuse the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions, the very words of the writer must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular ms. or edition; but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged wherever they are met with. Not frighted therefore with the present 30,000, I for my part, and, as I believe, many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched, 10,000 more were faithfully collected; some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact; though of no consequence to the main of religion, nay, perhaps, wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, t and quite insensible in any modern version,” p. 88, &c.

, regular canon and procurator general of the congregation of St. Genevieve, and one of the most learned antiquaries of the seventeenth century, was born in 1620, at Chalons sur Marne, of a nohle and ancient family. He collected a large cabinet of curiosities, and placed the library of St. Genevieve at Paris in the state which has rendered it so celebrated. He died September 2, 1687, aged sixty-seven. His principal works are, an edition of the “Epistles of Stephen, bishop of Tournay,” with learned notes; “History of the Popes by Medals,” from Martin V. to Innocent XI. 1679, folio, Latin “Reflexions sur l'origine et Pantiquit6 des Chanoines séculiers et réguliers,” 4to “Dissertation sur ra Mitre des Anciens;” another “Dissertation sur une Tete d'Isis,” &c. “Le Cabinet de la Bibliotheque de Ste. Genevieve,” 1692, folio, a curious book. He was the author also of some dissertations in the literary Journals, and left several Mss. on subjects of history and antiquities. He was a man of vast research but, as his countrymen say, he was “plus rempli d'erudition que de critique,” and certainly in some cases took little pains to discriminate between the true and the fabulous.

Soon after his return to England, he was sent to the court of Madrid, to negociate a peace between Spain and Portugal, which he not only effected in the most satisfactory manner, but also concluded with the court of Spain, one of the most beneficial treaties of commerce that ever was made for this nation. On the renewal of the Dutch war in 1672, his lordship embarked again with the duke of York, and commanded the blue squadron. The fleet came in sight of the Dutch about break of day, May 28, and in the subsequent engagement he performed such exploits as could not fail to have rendered the victory complete, had he been properly seconded by his squadron, but a Dutch fire-ship, covered by the smoke of the enemy, having grappled the Royal James (that on which the earl of Sandwich fought), set her in a flame, and the brave earl perished with several gallant officers. His body being found about a fortnight afterwards, was, by his majesty’s orders brought to London, and interred with great solemnity in Henry VII.'s chapel, Westminster-abbey. It was supposed by many, though unjustly, that the duke of York did not support him as he might have done towards the beginning of the action; but it was agreed by all, that sir Joseph Jordan, the earl’s vice-admiral, might have disengaged him. His loss occasioned great reflections on the duke; and in the parliament which met at Westminster in Oct. 1680, when the exclusion bill was in debate, soma members openly charged him in the House of Commons with the death of the earl of Sandwich.

, an eminent French, writer, was born at the castle of Montaigne, in the Perigord, Feb. 8, 1533. His father, seigneur of Montaigne, and mayor of Bourdeaux, bestowed particular attention on his education, perceiving in him early proofs of talents that would one day reward his care. His mode of teaching him languages is mentioned as somewhat singular at that time, although it has since been frequently practised. He provided him with a German attendant, who did not know French, and who was enjoined to speak to him in Latin, and in consequence young Montaigne is said to have been a master of that language at the age of six years. He was taught Greek also as a sort of diversion, and because his father had heard that the brains of children may be injured by being roused too suddenly out of sleep, he caused him to be awakened every morning by soft music. All this care he repaid by the most tender veneration for the memory of his father. Filial piety, indeed, is said to have been one of the most remarkable traits of his character, and he sometimes displayed it rather in a singular manner. When on horseback he constantly wore a cloak which had belonged to his father, not, as he said, for convenience, but for the pleasure it gave him. “II me semble m'envelopper de lui,” “I seem to be wrapped up in my father;” and this, which from any other wit would have been called the personification of a pun, was considered in Montaigne as a sublime expression of filial piety.

Arias was one of the most learned divines of the sixteenth century. He was a master of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek and Latin languages, and spoke fluently in German, French, and Portuguese. He was sober, modest, pious, and indefatigable. His company was sought by the learned, the great, and the pious; and his conversation was always edifying. Besides the Antwerp Polyglot, he was the author of, 1. “Index correctorius Lib. Theologicorum, Catholici regis anthoritate editus,” Antwerp, 1571, 4to. 2. “Commentaria in duodecim prophetas minores,” ibid. 1571, 4to; reprinted 1582. 3. “Elucidationes in quatuor Evangelia & in Act. Apost.” ibid. 1575, 4to. 4. “Elucidationes in omnia S. S. apostolorum scripta, &c.” ibid. 1588, 4to. 5. “De optimo imperio, sive in Librum Josue commentarius,” ibid. 1583. 6. “De varia Republica, sive Comment, in librum Judicum,” ibid. 1592, 4to. 7. “Antiquitatum Judaicarum, lib. novem,” Leyden, 1593. 8. “Liber generationis et regenerationis Adam, sive historia generis humani,” Antwerp, 1593, 4to; a second' part in 1601. y. “Davidis, aliorumque Psalmi ex Heb. in Lat. carmen conversi,” ibid. 1574, 4to. 10. “Conimentarii in triginta priores Psalmos,” ibid. 1605: with a few other works enumerated by Antonio and Niceron.

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, and one of the most learned antiquaries France has produced, was born Jan. 17, 1655, at Soulage in Langnedoc, whither his parents had removed on some business; and was educated at the castle of Roquetaillade in the diocese of Alet, where they ordinarily resided. His family was originally of Gascony, and of the ancient lords of Montfaucon-le-Vieux, first barons of the comte de Comminges. The pedigree of a man of learning is not of much importance, but Montfaucon was an antiquary, and has given us his genealogy in his “Bibl. Bibliothecarum manuscriptorum,” and it must not, therefore, be forgotten, that besides his honourable ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he was the son of Timoleon de Montfaucon, lord of Roquetaillacle and Conillac in the diocrse of Alet, by Flora de Maignan, daughter of the baron d'Albieres. He was the second of four brothers. From his early studies in his father’s house he was removed to Limoux, where he continued them under the fathers of the Christian doctrine, and it is said that the reading of Plutarch’s Lives inspired him first with a love for history and criticism. A literary profession, however, was not his original destination, for we find that he set out with being a cadet in the regiment of Perpignan, and served one or two campaigns in Germany in the army of marshal Turenne. He also gave a proof of his courage by accepting a challenge from a brother bfficer who wished to put it to the tfcst. About two years after entering the army, the death of his parents, and of an officer of distinction under whom he served, with other circumstances that occurred about the same time, appear to have given him a dislike to the military life, and induced him to enter the congregation of St. Maur in 1675 at the age of twenty. In this learned society, for such it was for many years, he had every opportunity to improve his early education, and follow the literary pursuits most agreeable to him. The first fruits of his application appeared in a kind of supplement to Cottelerius, entitled “Analecta Graeca sive vuria opuscula, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 4to, 1688, with notes by him, Antony Pouget and James Lopin. In 1690 he published a small volume 12mo, entitled “La verite de l'Histoire de Judith,” in which he attempts to vindicate the authenticity of that apocryphal book, and throws considerable light on the history of the Medes and Assyrians. His next publication of much importance was a new edition in Gr. & Lat. of the works of St. Athanasius, which came out in 1698, 3 vols. fol. This, which is generally known by the name of the Benedictine edition, gave the world the first favourable impression of Montfaucon’s extensive learning and judgment. He had some assistance in it from father Lopin, before-mentioned, who, however, died before the publication.

This divine was, after his advancement to the episcopal dignity, one of the most eminent patrons of learning and learned men in his time; and his name will be carried down to posterity, not only by his sermons published by Dr. Samuel Clarke, his chaplain (1715, 2 vols. 8vo), but by the curious and magnificent library collected by him, and purchased after his death by George I. who presented it to the university of Cambridge. Burnet ranks him among those who were an honour to the church and the age in which they lived. He assisted him (as he did many learned men) from his valuable library, when writing his History of the Reformation. He contributed also to Clark’s Caesar, and to Wilkins’s “Ecclesiastes,” by pointing out a multitude of celebrated authors who deserved notice in that useful, but now much-neglected work. His sermons were held in such estimation as to be translated into Dutch, and published at Delft in 1700. His library, consisting of 30,000 volumes, fills upthe rooms on the north and west sides of the court over the philosophy and divinity schools, and is arranged in 26 classes. It ought not to be omitted that his present majesty gave 2000l. towards fitting up this library.

Brigadier-general Moore continued to serve in Ireland, where he succeeded to the rank of major-general, and had a regiment given him, until the latter end of June 1799, when he was ordered to return to England to be employed in the expedition under sir Ralph Abercrombie, which sailed August 13, and was destined to rescue Holland from the tyranny of the French' government. The general result, owing to circumstances which could not be foreseen, was unfavourable; but the English troops had an opportunity of displaying the greatest valour, and none were more distinguished than those under the more immediate command of general Moore, who, after being twice wounded, in the hand, and in the thigh, received a musket-ball through his face, by which he was disabled, and was brought from the ground with some difficulty. He was now carried back to his quarters, a distance of ten miles, and as soon, as he could be moved, he was taken to the Helder, where he embarked on board the Amethyst frigate, and arrived at the Nore on the 24th; from thence he proceeded to London. Soon after his return to England from the Helder, a second battalion was added to the 52d regiment, of which the command was bestowed oa him by the king, in the most gracious manner. Being of an excellent constitution, and temperate habits, his wounds closed in the course of five or six weeks. He joined his brigade at Chelmsford on the 24th of December, 1799. In the early part of 1800 it had been intended to send a body of troops to the Mediterranean under sir Charles Stuart; he wrote to general Moore, and proposed to him to serve under him, which was accepted with the greatest pleasure. It was at first intended that sir Charles should take out of England 15,000 men, but it was afterwards found that the regiments allotted for this service, and which had been part of the expedition to Holland, were insufficient, and only amounted to 10,000 effective. About the middle of March, the first division, amounting to 5000 men, embarked under major-general Pigot. At this time a change took place in the plan of the expedition; sir Charles had some disagreement with ministers, and resigned his situation. Sir Ralph Ahercrombie was appointed to the command, and majorgeneral Moore was named as one of his major-generals, with Hutchinson and Pigot, who sailed about the end of April* with the 5000 men. There was little opportunity during this expedition, the success of which was prevented by various unforeseen occurrences, for any exertions in which general Moore could distinguish himself, until, the armies being ordered to separate, his troops were ordered to go to Egypt under sir Ralph Abercrombie. Having arrived at Malta, major-general Moore was sent to Jaffa to visit the Turkish army, and form a judgment as to what aid was to be expected from it; but the result being unfavourable, sir Ralph determined to land in the bay of Aboukir, and march immediately upon Alexandria. Any satisfactory detail of this memorable expedition would extend this article too far we shall therefore confine oui selves to that part in which major-general Moore was more particularly concerned. As soon as the landing was begun, he, at the head of the grenadiers and light infantry of th< 40th, with the 23d and 28th regiments in line, ascencle< the sand-hill. They did not fire a shot until they gained the summit, when they charged the enemy, drove ther and took four pieces of cannon, with part of their hor& The French retreated to the border of a plain, where g< neral Moore halted, as upon the left a heavy fire of mus quetry was kept up. Brigadier-general Oakes, with tl left of the reserve, consisting of the 42d Highlanders, tin 58th regiment, and the Corsican rangers, landed to th< left of the sand-hill, and were attacked by both infantn and cavalry, which they repulsed and followed into thi plain, taking three pieces of artillery. The guards an< part of general Coote’s brigade landed to the left of tl reserve; they were vigorously opposed, but repulsed tt tenerhy, and followed them into the plain. The want ol cavalry and artillery (for it was some time before the gui that were landed could be dragged through the sand) saved the enemy from being destroyed. This was one of the most splendid instances of British intrepidity that perhaps ever happened. The enemy had eight days to assemble and prepare, and the ground was extremely favourable to them. The loss of the enemy was considerable, that of the British amounted to 600 killed and wounded, of which the reserve lost 400. In the course of the afternoon the rest of the army landed, and the whole moved forward a couple of miles, where they took post for the night.

In 1688 he accompanied his highness in his expedition into England; and, upon his advancement to the throne, was sworn of the privy council, made one of the lords of the bedchamber, and, in order to attend at the coronation as an earl, advanced to the dignity of earl of Monmouth, April 9, 1689, having the clay before been constituted first commissioner of the treasury. He had likewise the command of the royal regiment of horse, which the city of London had raised for the public service, and of which his majesty was colonel: but, in the beginning of Nov. 1690, he was removed from his post in the treasury. On Juno 19, 1697, upon the death of his uncle Henry earl of Peterborough, he succeeded to that title; and, upon the accession of queen Anne, was designed for the West-Indies, being invested with the commission of captain-general and governor of Jamaica, and commander of the army and fleet for that expedition. In March 1705, he was sworn of the privy-council; and the same year declared general and commander in chief of the forces sent to Spain, and joint admiral of the fleet with sir Cloudsley Shovell, of which, the year following, he had the sole command, sir Cloudsley remaining in the British seas. His taking Barcelona with an handful of men, and relieving it afterwards, when greatly distressed by the enemy; his driving out of Spain the duke of Anjou and the French army, which consisted of twenty-five thousand men, though his own troops never amounted to ten thousand; the possession he gained of Catalonia, of the kingdoms of Valencia, Arragon, and Majorca, with part of Murcia and Castile, and thereby giving opportunity to the earl of Galway of advancing to Madrid without a blow; were all astonishing instances of valour, prudence, and conduct in military affairs, and, together with his wit, ready address, and singularities of character, made him be considered as one of the ablest servants of the public, and one of the most extraordinary characters of his time.

, chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. and one of the most illustrious characters of that period, was born in Milk-street, London, in 1480. He was the son of sir John More, knight, one of the judges of the king’s bench, and a man of great abilities and integrity. Sir John had also much of that pleasant wit, for which his son was afterwards so distinguished; and, as a specimen of it, Camden relates, that he would compare the danger in the choice of a wife to that of putting a man’s hand into a bag full of snakes, with only one eel in it; where he may, indeed, chance to light of the eel, but it is an hundred to one he is stung by a snake. It has been observed, however, that sir John ventured to put his hand three times into this bag, for he married three wives; nor was the sting so hurtful as to prevent his arriving at the age of ninety; and then he did not die of old age, but of a surfeit, occasioned by eating grapes. Sir Thomas was his son by his first wife, whose maiden name was Handcombe. He was educated in London, at a free-school of great repute at that time in Threadneedle-street, called St. Anthony’s, where archbishop Whitgift, and other eminent men, had been brought up; and here he made a progress in grammar-learning, suitable to his uncommon parts and application. He was afterwards placed in the family of cardinal Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of England: a method of education much practised in those times, but chiefly in the case of noblemen’s sons, with whom sir John More might be supposed to rank, from the high office he held. The cardinal was delighted with his ingenuous modesty, and with the vivacity and quickness of his wit, of which he gave surprising instances; one of which was, that while the players in Christmas holidays were acting there, he would sometimes suddenly step in among them, and, without any previous study, make a part of his own, to the great diversion of the audience. The cardinal indeed conceived so high an opinion of his favourite pupil, that he used frequently to say to those about him, that “More, whosoever should live to see it, would one day prove a marvellous man.”

Thus died sir Thomas More, who, for learning, integrity, and magnanimity, was one of the most illustrious men of the age, and who would have exceeded all his contemporaries, had his mind been accessible to the light that was then breaking in upon the darkness of superstition. He was of a middle stature, and weli-proportioned his complexion fair, with a slight tincture of red his hair of a dark chesnut colour; his beard thin; his eyes grey; his countenance cheerful and pleasant, and expressive of the temper of his mind; his voice neither strong nor shrill, but clear and distinct. In walking, his right shoulder appeared higher than the other; but this was the effect of habit, and not any defect in his form. He was generally negligent in his dress, unless where his place required more splendour. His diet was simple and abstemious; and he seldom tasted wine but when he pledged those who drank to him.

, a celebrated Armenian archbishop, who flourished about the year 462, was esteemed one of the most learned men of his nation, having studied Greek at Athens, from which language he made many versions into the Armenian. His principal work is “A History of Armenia,” from the deluge to the middle of the fifth century, first published in Armenian in 1695, by Thomas Vanandensis, an Armenian bishop, from one single manuscript, and that f a very faulty one. It was reprinted with a Latin version, in 1736, by William and George, the sons of the famous William Whiston, with a preface concerning the literature of the Armenians, and their version of the Bible; and an appendix containing two epistles, the one of the Corinthians to Paul the Apostle, the other of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, entire, from a ms. 4to. Of Moses, Messrs. Whiston say that he appears to have been a man of probity, simplicity, and sincerity, but of moderate learning, and rather too credulous. They think it was written in the latter end of the fifth century. They speak also of “An Abridgment of Geography,” published at Amsterdam in 1668; and some “Sacred Canticles,” to be sung in the Armenian language on the anniversary of Christ’s presentation at the temple. His history was the first book published in England in the Armenian language, at a time when no person here understood that language, and but two on the continent, La Croze, librarian to the king of Prussia, and Schroder, professor of the Oriental languages at Marpurg in Germany. It is a work now of rare occurrence.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of colonel Mottley, who was a great favourite with king James II. and followed the fortunes of that prince into France. James, not being able himself to provide for him so well as he desired, procured for him, by his interest, the command of a regiment in the service of Louis XIV. at the head of which he lost his life in the battle of Turin, in 1706. The colonel married a daughter of John Guise, esq. of Abload’s Court, in Gloucestershire, with whom, by the death of a brother, who left her his whole estate, he had a very considerable fortune. The family of the Guises, however, being of principles diametrically opposite to those of the colonel, and zealous friends to the revolution, Mrs. Mottley, notwithstanding the tenderest affection for her husband, and repeated invitations from the king and queen, then at St. Germains, preferred living at home on the scanty remains of what he had left behind. The colonel was sent over to England three or four years after the revolution, on a secret commission from king James; and during his stay our author was born, in 1692. Mr. Mottley received the first rudiments of his education at St. Martin’s library-school, founded by archbishop Tenison; but was placed in the excise-office at sixteen years of age, under the comptroller, lord viscount Howe, whose brother and sister were both related by marriage to his mother. This situation he retained till 1720, when, in consequence of an unhappy contract he had made, probably in pursuit of some of the bubbles of that infatuated year, he was obliged to resign it. Soon after the accession of George I. Mr. Mottley had been promised by the lord Halifax, at that time first lord of the treasury, the place of one of the commissioners of the wine-licence office; but when the day came that his name should have been inserted in the patent, a more powerful interest, to his great surprize, had stepped in between him and the preferment, of which he had so positive a promise. This, however, was not the only disappointment of that kind which this gentleman met with; for, at the period above mentioned, when he parted with his place in the excise, he had one in the exchequer absolutely given to him by sir Robert Walpole, to whom he lay under many other obligations; but in this case as well as the preceding, he found that the minister had made a prior promise of it to another, and he was obliged to relinquish it. Other domestic embarrassments induced him to employ his pen, which had hitherto been only his amusement, for the means of immediate support; and he wrote his first play, “The Imperial Captives,” which met witU tolerable success. From that time he depended chiefly on his literary abilities for a maintenance, and wrote five dramatic pieces, with various success. He had also a hand in the composition of that many-fathered piece, “The Devil to Pay.” He published in 1739 a “Life of the great Czar Peter,” 3 vols. 8vo, by subscription, in which he met with the I sanction of some of the royal family, and great numbers of the nobility and gentry; and, on occasion of one of his benefits, which happened Nov. 3, queen Caroline, on the 30th of the preceding month (being the prince of Wales’s birth-day), did the author the singular honour of disposing of a great number of his tickets, with her own hand, in the drawing-room, most of which were paid for in gold, into the hands of colonel Schutz, his royal highness’s privypurse, from whom Mr. Mottley received it, with the addition of a very liberal present from the prince himself. Jn 1744 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “The History of the Life and Reign of the empress Catherine of Russia.” Both this and the preceding are compilations from the journals and annals of the day, but are now valuable from the scarcity of those authorities. He died Oct. 30, 1750. It has been surmised, with some appearance of reason, that Mr. Mottley was the compiler of the lives of the dramatic writers, published at the end of Whincop’s “Scanderbeg.” It is certain that the life of Mr. Mottley, in that work, is rendered one of the most important in it, and is particularized by such a number of various incidents, as it seems improbable should be known by any but either himself or some one nearly related to him. Among others he relates the following humourous anecdote. When colonel Mottley, our author’s father, came over, as has been before related, on a secret commission from the abdicated monarch, the government, who had by some means intelligence of it, were very diligent in their endeavours to have him seized. The colonel, however, was happy enough to elude their search; but several other persons were, at different times, seized through mistake for him. Among the rest, it being very well known that he frequently supped at the Blue Posts tavern, in the Hay-Market, with one Mr. Tredenhatn, a Cornish gentleman, particular directions were given for searching that house. Colonel Mottley, however, happening not to be there, the messengers found Mr. Tredenham alone, and with a heap of papers before him, which being a suspicious circumstance, they immediately seized, and carried him before the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state. His lordship, who, however, could not avoid knowing him, as he was a member of the House of Commons, and nephew to the famous sir Edward Seymour, asked him what all those papers contained. Mr. Tredenham made answer, that they were only the several scenes of a play, which he had been scribbling for the amusement of a few leisure-hours. Lord Nottingham then only desired leave just to look over them, which having done for some little time, he returned them again to the author, assuring him that he was perfectly satisfied; “for, upon my word,” said he, “I can find no plot in them,”

Du Moulin was not only one of the most profound lawyers, but one of the most learned men of his time, and his works were long held in the highest estimation, while the study of law, upon liberal principles, was encouraged in France. Bernardi, one of the writers in the “Biog. Universelle,” published in Ib 14, has ventured to entertain hopes that the happy event of that year which restored to France her legitimate sovereign, would also restore to her that system of laws which had so long been her glory and happiness; and in that hope (too soon disappointed) he predicts that the reputation of Du Moulin would revive. Du Moulin’s works, most of which were published separately, were collected in 1612, in an edition of a vols. folio, and again, in 1654, in 4 vols.; but the most valuable is that of Paris, 1681, 5 vols. folio, edited by Francis Pinson. In 1773, Garrigan, a bookseller of Avignon, issued a prospectus for a new edition, which has not yet appeared. This prospectus contained an eloge on Du Moulin, which Henrion de Pensey pronounced in an assembly of the advocates, and had prefixed to his edition of the “Analyse des Fiefs,” taken from Du Moulin’s commentary on the law of Paris. Several other writers have written the life of this very eminent jurist, particularly Brodeau, 1654, 4to.

On the expiration of his apprenticeship, Mr. Mudge took lodgings, and continued to work privately for some years. About 1757 he married Miss Hopkins, the daughter of a gentleman at Oxford. The circumstance which first rescued him, as it were, from obscurity, is very remarkable: Mr. Ellicot, who was one of the most distin ­guished watch-makers of his time, and who had been often employed by Ferdinand VI. king of Spain, was desired by that prince to make him an equation watch. Mr. Ellicot, not being able to accomplish the undertaking, applied to Mr. Shovel, an ingenious workman, to assist him; but he also being unequal to the task, mentioned it to Mr. Mudge, with whom he was very intimate, and who readily undertook to make such a watch. He not only succeeded to his own satisfaction, but to the admiration of all who had the opportunity of inspecting it. This watch having been made for Mr. Ellicot, his name was affixed to it (as is always customary in such cases), and he assumed the whole merit of its construction. An unfortunate accident, however, did justice to the real inventor: Mr. Ellicot being engaged, one day, in explaining his watch to some men of science, it happened to receive an injury, by which its action was entirely destroyed; and he had also the mortification to find, upon inspecting the watch, that he himself could not repair the mischief. This compelled him to acknowledge that Mr. Mudge was the real inventor of the watch, and that to him it must be sent to be repaired.

In 1750, Mr. Mudge entered into partnership with Mr. William Dutton, who had also been an apprentice of Mr. Graham’s, and took a house in Fleet-street, opposite Water-lane. In 1760, an event happened which he ever considered as one of the most fortunate in his life. This was his introduction to the count de Bruhl, who first came to England that year, as envoy extraordinary from the court of Saxony. This nobleman, who to many other valuable qualities united great knowledge of mechanical operations, ever after treated Mr. Mudge with the most generous and condescending friendship; evincing on every occasion the most ardent zeal for his fame and fortune, by the most active services. About this period Mr. Mudge appears to have first turned his thoughts to the improvement of time-keepers; for, in 1765 he published a small tract entitled “Thoughts on the Means of improving Watches, and particularly those for the use of the Sea.” In 1771 he quitted business, and retired to Plymouth, that he might devote his whole time and attention to the improvement and perfection of the important subject of this pamphlet. Having some years afterwards completed one time-keeper, he put it into the hands of Dr Hornsby, Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. After this gentleman had tried it for four months, during which time it went with great accuracy, it was committed to the care of Dr. Maskelyne, to be tried at Greenwich. After it had been, under his care a considerable time, the Board of longitude, by way of encouraging Mr. Mudge to make another, so as properly to become a candidate for the rewards promised in the act of parliament, thought proper to give him 500l. it being expressly required by the act, that two time-keepers should be made upon the same principles, and both tried at the same time, that if each should go with the required degree of exactness, it might with the more certainty appear to result from the perfection of the principles upon which they were constructed, and not from accident.

He did not long survive this honourable testimony to the utility of his mechanical labours. He died on the 14th of November 1794, in the eightieth year of his age, at the house of his eldest son, Mr. Thomas Mudge, in Newington-place, Surrey. On the death of his wife, in 1789, he had given up house-keeping, residing afterward, sometimes with his eldest son in London, and sometimes in the country with his other son, the rev. John Mudge, M. A. rector of Lustleigh, and vicar of Bramford Speke, both in Devonshire. To speak of Mr. Mudge, in general terms only, as the first watchmaker of his age, would be unjust. Besides his superior merits in bringing time-keepers to a greater degree of perfection than had been hitherto attained, he has done the mechanical world no small service by the invention of a scapement for pocket- watches, which is one of the most considerable improvements that have been introduced for many years.

, an eminent German divine and mathematician, was born at Inghelheim in 1489; and, at fourteen commenced his studies at Heidelberg. Two years after, he entered the convent of the Cordeliers, where he laboured assiduously; yet did not content him self with the studies relating to his profession, but applied himself also to mathematics and cosmography. He was the first who published a “Chaldee Grammar and Lexicon;” and gave the world, a short time after, a “Talmudic Dictionary.” He went afterwards to Basil, and succeeded Pelicanus, of whom he had learned Hebrew, in the professorship of that language. He was one of the first who attached himself to Luther, but meddled little in the controversies of the age, employing his time and attention chiefly to the study of the Hebrew and other Oriental languages, mathematics, and natural philosophy. He published a great number^ of works on these subjects, of which the principal is a Latin version from the Hebrew of all the books of the Old Testament, with learned notes, printed at Basil in 1534 and 1546. This is thought more faithful than the versions of Pagninus and Arias Montanus; and his notes are generally approved, though he dwells a little too long upon the explications of the rabbins. For this version he was called the German Esdras, as he was the German Strabo for an “Universal Cosmography,” in six books, which he printed at Basil in 1550. He published also a treatise on dialling, in fol. 1536, in which is the foundation of the modern art of dialling a translation of Josephus into Latin “Tabulae novae ad geog. Ptolemaei,” “Rudimenta mathematica,” &c. He was a pacific, studious, retired man, and, Dupin allows, one of the most able men that embraced the reformed religion. For this reason Beza and Verheiden have placed him among the heroes of the reformation, although he wrote nothing expressly on the subject. He died at Basil, of the plague, May 23, 1552.

, a learned Italian antiquary, and one of the most voluminous writers of his age and country, was born at Vignola in the duchy of Modena, Oct. 21, 1672. He was educated at Modena, and his inclination leading him to the church, as a profession, he went through the regular courses of philosophy and divinity, but without neglecting polite literature, to which he was early attached. Bacchiiri recommended the ecclesiastical writers to his attention, and he at length became so devoted to general reading, as to pay little attention to his destined profession. In 1695, the knowledge of books which he had accumulated, procured him the place of one of the librarians of the celebrated Ambrosian collection at Milan; and although he had by this time received his doctor’s degree and been admitted into orders, it was now that he entered upon that course of study and research which distinguished him in future life. His first publication was vols. I and II. of his “Anecdota Latina,” printed at Milan in 1697 and 1698, 4to. In 1700 he went to Modena to take possession of the office of keeper of the archives of the house of Este, and that of librarian to the duke of Modena, his patron. Here he remained for some years, with the exception of an interruption occasioned by the war in 1702, when the French took possession of Modena. The same year that he came here he was editor of “Vita et Rime di Carlo M. Maggi,” printed at Milan, 5 vols. and in 1703 published his “Primi disegni della Republica Letteraria d'ltalia;” this was followed by “Prolegomena, &c. in librum, cui titulus, Elucidatio Augustiniange de divina gratia doctrinae,” Cologn, 1705; “Lettere ai generosi e cortesi Letterati d'ltalia,” Venice, 1705; “Delia Perfetta Poesia Italiana, &c.” 2 vols. a very ingenious dissertation on Italian poetry, which occasioned a prolonged controversy, now no longer interesting. Two editions, however, were afterwards published, with critical notes by Salvini, the one in 1724, 2 vols. 4to. and the other, which is esteemed the best, in 1748. He published also at Bologna in 1707, “Lettera in disesa del March. G. G. Orsi;” and “Introduzione alle paci private,” Modena, 1708. In the same year he first began to write tinder the assumed name of Lamindo Pritanio, “Riflessioni SDpra il buon gusto, &c.” of which a second part appeared at Naples in 1715. After this appeared, under his proper name, “Osservazioni sopra una lettera intitolata, II dominio temporale della sede Apostolica sopra la citta di Comacchio,” &c. Modena, 1708; and “Epistola ad Jo. Albert. Fabricium,” 1709. In this last year he published another of his valuable collections under the title of “Anecdota Grseca,” Gr. & Lat. 4to, which, as well as his “Anecdota Latina,” (completed in 4 vols. at Padua, 1713) were taken from Mss. in the Ambrosian library. He published also before 1715 some other works of lesser value, which, however, showed how intense his labours were, for he had accepted of some preferments in the church, the duties of which he performed with great assiduity, and wai particularly distinguished for his humane care of the poor, who indeed shared the greater part of the profits of his benefices, and the rest went to the repairs or furniture of the churches under his care.

, one of the most pleasing painters Spain ever produced, was born at Pilas, near Seville, in 1613, and be.came a disciple of Juan del Castillo, whose favourite subjects were fairs and markets; of which Murillo painted many pictures before he left him to go to Madrid. There he studied and copied the works of Titian, Rubens, and Vandyke, in the royal palaces, and the houses of the nobility; and having very much advanced himself in the knowledge and practice of his art, returned to Seville, where he was employed to paint for most of the principal churches there, as well as at Granada, Cadiz, and Cordova. The style of Murillio is his own. He copied his objects from nature, but combined them ideally; that is, his back-grounds are generally confused and indistinct, and the parts very much blended together, with a loose pencil and indeterminate execution; but most of them have a very pleasing effect, and perhaps the principal objects acquire a degree of finish and beauty from this very circumstance. An instance may be recollected in his very pleasing picture of the good shepherd, an excellent copy of which is at the marquis of Stafford’s gallery. But it was in small pictures of familiar life that this artist most completely succeeded, for in his large pictures, skilfully wrought as they are, he does not appear to have penetrated the arcana of grandeur or style; but in the amiable and tender sentiments which are expressed by the silent actions of the human features, he was eminently successful. He died in 1685.

, an eminent dissenting divine, and the historian of the Puritans, was born in London, Dec. 14, 1678, and educated at Merchant-Taylors’ school, of which he was head scholar in 1697. He appears to have then declined proceeding to St. John’s, Oxford, and determined to enter as a student in a dissenting academy, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe. Three years after he removed, for the farther prosecution of his studies, to Holland, where he heard the lectures of Graevius and Burman, during two years, and afterwards passed a year at Leyden. Soon after his return to London, in 1703, he began to officiate as a preacher, and in 1706 succeeded Dr. Singleton as minister to a congregation at Loriners’ Hall. Of this congregation, which, for want of room, rmoved afterwards to a more commodious meeting in Jewinstreet, he remained pastor for thirty-six years, and was esteemed one of the most useful, laborious, and learned divines of his communion.

, one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, was born at Soraw, a town in Lower Silesia, in 1525, where his father was a merchant. He received his early education under Henry Theodore, who was superintendant of the churches of the duchy of Lignitz. He then studied principally at Wittemberg, where, among other able men, he was instructed by Melanchthon, and became conspicuous for his critical acquaintance with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and his knowledge of the eminent authors in these respective languages. In 1549, he was invited to Northusen, an imperial town of Thuringia; and being appointed regent of the school, acquired the esteem of the senate. He was of the reformed religion, and Thomas Stangius, the last abbot of Isfeld, who was of the same sentiments, havfng, by the advice of Luther and Melanchthon, turned his abbey into a college, Neander was appointed regent, and taught there with great reputation for forty-five years, producing many able scholars. He died at Isfeld, May 6, 1595, in the seventieth year of his age.

After the appointment of lord Keith to the command of the Mediterranean fleet, lord Nelson made preparations to return, and proceeding in company with sir William and lady Hamilton, to Trieste, he travelled through Germany to Hamburgh, every where received with distinguished honours. He embarked at Cuxhaven, and landed at Yarmouth on the sixth of November 1800, after an absence from his native country of three years. In the following January he received orders to embark again, and it was during this short interval that he formally separated from lady Nelson. Some of his last words to her were, “I call God to witness, that there is nothing in you, or your conduct, that I wish otherwise.” He was now raised to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue, and soon after hoisted his flag on board the San Josef of 112 guns, his own prize at the battle of cape St. Vincent. About this time the emperor Paul of Russia had renewed the northern confederacy, the express and avowed object of which was to set limits to the naval supremacy of England. A resolution being taken by the English cabinet to attempt its dissolution, a formidable fleet was fitted out for the North Seas, under sir Hyde Parker, in which lord Nelson consented to go second in command. Having shifted his flag to the St. George of 98 guns, he sailed with the fleet in the month of March, and on the 30th of that same month he led the way through the Sound, which was passed without any loss. But the battle of Copenhagen gave occasion for an equal display of lord Nelson’s talents as that of the Nile. The Danes were well prepared for defence. Upwards of two hundred pieces of cannon were mounted upon the crown batteries at the entrance of the harbour, and a line of twenty-five two-deckers, frigates, and floating batteries, was moored across its mouth. An attack being determined upon, the conduct of it was entrusted to lord Nelson; the action was fought on the second of April; Nelson had with him twelve ships of the line, with all the frigates and small craft, the remainder of the fleet was with the commander in chief, about four miles off. The combat which succeeded was one of the most terrible on record. Nelson himself said, that of all the engagements in which he had borne a part, it was the most terrible. It began at ten in the morning, and at one victory had not declared itself. A shot through the main-mast knocked a few splinters about the admiral “It is warm work,” said he, “and this may be the last day to any of us in a moment; but, mark you, I would not be elsewhere for thousands.” Just at this moment sir Hyde Parker made signal for the action to cease. It was reported to him, but he continued pacing the deck, and appeared to take no notice of it. The signal-lieutenant asked if he should repeat it. “No,” replied Nelson, “acknowledge it.” Presently he called to know if the signal for close action was still hoisted, and being answered in the affirmative, he said, “Mind you keep it so.” About two o'clock, great part of the Danish line had ceased to fire, and the victory was complete, yet it was difficult to take possession of the vanquished ships, on account of the fire from the shore, which was still kept up. At this critical period, with great presence of mind, he sent the following note to the crown prince of Denmark “Lord Nelson has directions to spare Denmark when no longer resisting but, if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, lord Nelson must be obliged to set on fire all the floating-batteries he has taken, without having the power of saving the brave Danes who had defended them.” This immediately produced a treaty, which ended the dispute, and annihilated the northern confederacy. For this service lord Nelson was raised to the rank of a viscount. His last effort, in this war, was an attack on the preparations making at Boulogne, for the invasion of England; but, after the loss of many brave men on our side, the enterprize proved unsuccessful, from the situation of the harbour.

was a Greek philosopher, who embraced Christianity, and was made bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia, where he was born about the year 370. We have a piece by him, entitled “De Natura Hominis;” in which he refutes the fatality of the Stoics, and the errors of the Manichees, the Apollinarists, and the Eunomians: but he espouses the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls. Brucker calls this treatise one of the most elegant specimens, now extant, of the philosophy which prevailed among the ancient Christians. The writer relates and examines the opinions of the Greek philosophers on the subject of his dissertation with great perspicuity of thought, and correctness of language. But the treatise is chiefly curious, as it discovers a degree of acquaintance with physiology, not to be paralleled in any other writers of this period. Brucker adds, that he treats clearly concerning the use of the bile, the spleen, the kidneys, and other glands of the human body, and seems to have had some idea of the circulation of the blood. But Brucker was not aware that his knowledge of this last discovery has been shewn to be a mistake by Dr. Freind, in his “History of Physic.” This treatise was translated by Valla, and printed in 1535. Another version was afterwards made of it by Ellebodius, and printed in 1665; it is also inserted into the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” in Greek and Latin. The last and best edition was published at Oxford, in 1671, 8vo.

, a celebrated historian, was born at Florence in 1485, of one of the most conspicuous families of that city, mentioned by Dante, in the fifteenth canto ic Del Paradiso," where, speaking of the parsimony of the Florentines, he gives two instances of it in two of the most illustrious families of his days, the Nerli and the Vecchi:

At Olney Mr. Newton became acquainted with two gentlemen whose friendship gave an important interest to his future life, the benevolent John Thornton, esq. and William Cowper, the celebrated poet. The farmer, conceiving a high idea of the integrity and usefulness of Mr. Newton in this parish, determined to allow him a certain sum (200l. a year) with which he wished him to keep open house for such as were worthy of entertainment, and to help the poor and needy. Mr. Newton reckoned that he had received of Mr. Thornton upwards of 3000l. in this way during his residence atOlney, a sum which, however great, will not surprize those who knew the extent of Mr. Thornton’s liberality. His intimacy with Cowper forms one of the most interesting periods of that poet’s life. To what is said in our account of Cowper (vol. X. p. 405, &c.) we have only to regret in this place that much information has been lost to the public by the suppression of Mr. Newton’s letters to his afflicted friend. These letters must have been in Cowper’s possession; but what became of them after his death has never been explained. Had they appeared, they probably would have established beyond all power of contradiction, that no part of Cowper’s deplorable melancholy was attributable to his connection with Mr. Newton, or with men of his principles. Mr. Newton was himself a man of remarkable cheerfulness of disposition, and had a particular talent in administering consolation to those whose uneasiness arose from religious affections, nor was he easily mistaken in separating real concern from affectation. It appears that Mr. Newton was once in possession of a life of Cowper, written by himself, at the calmest period of his life; some facts from this have been communicated to the public by his biographer, but more remains, which we have been told would have thrown additional light on Mr. Cowper’s remarkable history.

Sir Isaac Newton was buried with great magnificence, at the public expence. On March 28, he lay in state in the Jerusalem -chamber, and was buried from thence in WesN minster-abbey, near the entry into the choir. The spot is one of the most conspicuous in the abbey, and had been previously refused to different noblemen who had applied for it. The pall was supported by the lord high chancellor, the dukes of Montrose and Roxborough, and the earls of Pembroke, Sussex, and Macclesfield, being fellows of the Royal Society. The hon. sir Michael Newton, knight of the Bath, was chief mourner, and was followed by some other relations, and some eminent persons intimately acquainted with sir Isaac. The office was performed by the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Bradford, attended by the prebendaries and choir. A magnificent monument was afterwards erected to his memory, in the abbey, and, by the munificence of the late Dr. Robert Smith, master of Trinity college, the antichapel of that college contains an admirable full-length statue of sir Isaac, by Roubilliac. Medals also were struck to his memory, one by Croker of our mint; one by Dassier of Geneva; and another by Roettiers in France. The only portrait for which he ever sat was by Kneller, and is, if we mistake not, in the collection of the duke of Rutland.

In 1756 he was appointed one of the king’s chaplains, and permitted at the same time by her royal highness the princess of Wales to retain that rank in her service; and he held both stations during the rest of that reign and the beginning of the next. In the spring 1757 he was made prebendary of Westminster, and at the same time subalmoner, by the interest of Dr. Gilbert, archbishop of York, who held the office of lord almoner, and who likewise conferred on him the precentorship of the church of York, one of the most valuablepieces of preferment belonging to it. His account of his second marriage, and the reasons which Jed to it, we shall give in his own words, principally for the outline he has drawn of a clergyman’s wife, which we liope will suit many of our female readers.

, one of the most useful French biographers, was born at Paris, March 11, 1685. He was of an ancient and noble family, who were in very high repute about 1540. He studied with success in the Mazarine college at Paris, and afterwards at the college Du Plessis. He appears to have been of a serious turn of mind, and of great modesty, and from a dread of the snares to which he might be exposed in the world, de termined to quit it for a religious life. On this subject he consulted one of his uncles, who belonged to the order of Barnabite Jesuits. This uncle examined him; and, not diffident of his election, introduced him as a probationer to that society at Paris. He was received there in 1702, took the habit in 1703, and made his vows in 1704, at the age of nineteen. After he had professed himself, he was sent to Montargis, to study philosophy and theology, a course of both which he went through with credit, although he confesses that he never could relish the scholastic system then in vogue. His superiors then, satisfied with his proficiency and talents, sent him to Loches, in Touraine, to teach the classics and rhetoric. Here his devout behaviour and excellent conduct as a teacher, made him be thought worthy of the priesthood, which he received at Poitiers in 1708, and as he was not arrived at the age to assume this orders a dispensation, which his uncommon piety had merited, was obtained in his favour. The college of Montargis having recalled him, he was their professor of rhetoric during two years, and philosophy during four. In spite of all these avocations, he was humanely attentive to every call and work of charity, and to the instruction of his fellow-creatures, many of whom heard his excellent sermons, pure and unadorned in style, but valuable in matter, which he delivered not only from the pulpits of most of the churches within the province, but even from those of Paris. In 1716 his superiors invited him to that city, that he might have an opportunity of following, with the more convenience, those studies for which he always had expressed the greatest inclination. He not only understood the ancient, but almost all the modern languages; a circumstance of infinite advantage in the composition of those works which he has given to the public, and which he carried on with great assiduity to the time of his death, which happened after a short illness, July 8, 1738, at the age of fifty-three. His works are, 1. “Le Grand Fébrifuge; or, a dissertation to prove that common Water is the best remedy in Fevers, and even in the Plague; translated from the English of John Hancock, minister of St. Margaret’s, London, in 12mo.” This treatise made its appearance, amongst other pieces relating to this subject, in 1720; and was attended with a success which carried it through three editions; the last came out in 1730, in 2 vols. 12mo, entitled “A Treatise on common Water;” Paris, printed by Cavelier. 2. “The Voyages of John Ouvington to Surat, and divers parts of Asia and Africa; containing the History of the Revolution in the kingdom of Golconda, and some observations upon Silk- Worms,” Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “The Conversion of England to Christianity, compared with its pretended Reformtion;” a work translated from the English, and written by an English catholic, Paris, 1729, 8vo. 4. “The Natural History of the Earth, translated from the English of Mr. Woodward, by Mons. Nogues, doctor in physic with an answer to the objections of doctor Camerarius containing, also, several letters written on the same subject, and a methodical distribution of Fossils, translated from the English, by Niceron,” Paris, 1735, 4to. 5. “Memoirs of Men illustrious in the republic of letters, with a critical Account of their Works. Paris,” 12uio. The first volume of this great work appeared in 1727; the others were given to the public in succession, as far as the thirty-ninth, which appeared in 1738. The fortieth volume was published after the death of the author, in 1739. Since that event three others were added, but in these are many articles of which Niceron was not the author. It is not easy to answer all the objections which may be offered to a work of this kind. The author himself, in one of his prefaces, informs us that some of his contemporaries wished for a chronological order; some for the order of the alphabet; some for classing the authors according to the sciences or their professions, and some according to the countries in which they were born. As his work, however, appeared periodically, he thought himself justified in giving the lives without any particular order, according as he was able to procure materials. That the French critics should dwell upon the unavoidable mistakes in a work of this magnitude, is rather surprizing, for they have produced no such collection since, and indeed Niceron has been the foundation, as far as he goes, of all the subsequent accounts of the same authors. Chaufepie only treats him with respect while he occasionally points out any error in point of date or fact.

He wrote a “History, or Annals, from the death of Alexis Comnenus in 1118, to that of Baudouin in 1205,” entitled “Nicetæ Acominati Choniatæ Hist. Gr. et Lat. ed. C. An. Fabroto,” Paris, 1647, the best edition; but it had been printed with a translation, by Jerome Wolf, at Basil, in 1557, and again at Geneva, in 1593. It has since been inserted in the body of the “Byzantine Historians,” printed at the Louvre at Paris. This is considered as one of the most valuable pieces in that collection, but the style is Hot good. Father Morel of Tours, in the sixteenth century, translated the five first books of a piece entitled “The treasure of the Orthodox Faith,” ascribed to Nicetas, printed in 1580, 8vo, and inserted since in the twelfth volume of the “Bibliotheca Patruin” of Cologne. We have also a fragment of the twentieth book, concerning what ought to be observed upon the conversion of a Mahometan to Christianity. Michael Choniates, our author’s brother, composed several “Monodies upon his death,” which are translated by Morel, and also composed some other discourses, particularly one upon the “Cross,” the manuscript of which is in the public library at Paris.

, one of the most learned authors of ancient Rome after Varro, flourished in the time of Cicero, was his fellow-student in philosophy and the counsellor with whom he advised in affairs of state; and, being praetor and senator, he assisted the orator in defeating the conspiracy of Catiline, and did him many services in the time of his adversity. Cicero acknowledged, that it was in concert with Nigidius, that he took those important measures which saved the commonwealth under his consulship: and, when Cicero went to his government of Cilicia, Nigidius, who was returning to Rome, after having exercised a public employment in Greece, waited for him at Ephesus; where these two friends had long philosophical conferences with Cratippus the Peripatetic. Nigidius was a professed advocate for the doctrine of Pythagoras. Cicero speaks of him as an accurate and penetrating inquirer into nature, and ascribes to him the revival of that philosophy, which formerly, for several ages, flourished in the Pythagorean schools, both in Italy and Sicily. He was a considerable proficient in mathematical and astronomical learning, and, after the example of his master, applied his knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. In civil affairs, he attached himself to the party of Pompey; and, upon Caesar’s accession to the supreme power, he was banished from Rome. After his time, the Pythagorean doctrine was much neglected; few persons being then able to decypher, with accuracy, the obscure dogmas of this mysterious sect. Of the impostures practised by Nigidius, there are some anecdotes told, but scarcely worth repeating. It has been thought, that these deceptions were the cause of his banishment; but this appears not to have been the case, nor did he dare to return to Rome after Julius Caesar had possessed himself of that city. He died 45 B. C. His works were entitled, “De Augurio private,” “De Animalibus,” “De Extis,” “De Vento;” and “De Diis.” He also wrote “Commentaries upon Grammar.” Fragments of these only remain, which were collected and published by James Rutgersius, who has also inserted among them the Greek translation of A Treatise of Nigidius," by John Laurentius of Philadelphia.

, one of the most indefatigable writers of his time, was born in 1643, at Troyes, of a good family. He soon made himself known in the literary world by ingenious pasquinades, and other jeux d'esprit. He was once attorney-general to the parliament of Metz but his bad conduct having involved him in difficulties, he was accused of drawing up false acts for his own advantage, confined at the Chatelet, and there sentenced to make amende honorable, and to be banished nine years. From this sentence he appealed, and being removed to the Conciergerie, became there the lover and advocate of Gabrielle Perreau, commonly called la belle Epiciere (the handsome grocer’s wife), whom her husband had shut up in that prison for her irregular conduct, and wrote several memoirs and other pieces in her favour, which were much read. Le Noble finding means to get out of the Conciergerie, 1695, lived a long time concealed with this woman, who had escaped from a convent to which she had been transferred, and had three children by her; but, being retaken, was condemned, notwithstanding his eloquent speech to his judges, while at the bar, March 24, 1698. The sentence passed upon him was for forgery, and condemned him to make an amende seche, privately, in the hall of the Chatelet, and to be banished for nine years. He left his prison four days after, and obtained a repeal of the sentence of banishment the next year, on condition that he should exercise no judicial office. His mistress was tried in May following, and le Noble was charged, by her sentence, with the three children, who were declared bastards. He died at Paris, January 31, 1711, aged 68, so poor, that the alms-house, in the parish of St. Severin, was obliged to bury him. His works have been printed at Paris, 19 vols. 12mo. The principal are, “Dialogues sur les affaires du Terns.” “Le Bouclier de la France, ou les Sentimens de Gerson et des Canonistes touchant les diflerends des Rois de France avec les Papes.” A prose “Translation of the Psalms.” “Relation de PEtat de Gnes.” Hist, de PEstablissement de la Republique d'Hollande.“This is little more than an extract from Grotius. He wrote also tales and fables; and romances, or historiettes, founded on facts;” L'Ecole du Monde,“4 vols. 12mo, consisting of twenty-four dialogues; and published a translation of the” Travels of Gemelli Carreri," Paris, 1727, 6 vols. 12mo.

Nonius was the author of several ingenious works and inventions, and justly esteemed one of the most eminent mathematicians of his age. Concerning his “Art of Navigation,” father Dechaies says, “In the year 1530, Peter Nonius, a celebrated Portuguese mathematician, upon occasion of some doubts proposed to him by Martinus Alphonsus Sofa, wrote a treatise on Navigation, divided into two books; in the first he answers some of those doubts, and explains the nature of Loxodromic lines. In the second book he treats of rules and instruments proper for navigation, particularly sea- charts, and instruments serving to find the elevation of the pole” but says he is rather obscure in his manner of writing. Furetiere, in his Dictionary, takes notice that Peter Nonius was the first who, in 1530, invented the angles which the Loxodromic curves make with each meridian, calling them in his language Rhumbs, and which he calculated by spherical triangles. Stevinus acknowledges that Peter Nonius was scarce inferior to the very best mathematicians of the age. And Schottus says he explained a great many problems, and particularly the mechanical problem of Aristotle on the motion of vessels by oars. His Notes upon Purbach’s Theory of the Planets, are very much to be esteemed: he there explains several things, which had either not been noticed before, or not rightly understood.

, a Greek poet, surnamed Panoplites, from the place of his birth, was born at Panopolis, in Egypt, in the fifth century. He is the author of two works of a very different character; one a miscellany of heathen mythology and learning, in heroic verse, entitled “Dionysiacorum libri xlviii.” which was printed by Falkenburgh, from a ms. in the library of John Sambucb, at Antwerp, in 1569, 4to, and afterwards translated into Latin by Eiihard Lubin, professor at Rostock, who reprinted it at Hanover in 1610, with the notes of various persons, 8vo. There is also an edition printed at Eton, 1610, 4to. This is one of the most irregular poems extant, both with regard to the style, sentiments, method, and constitution: nothing is natural, nothing approaching to the purity of Homer; nothing of the free, easy manner, and beautiful simplicity, of the ancients. In short, this piece is as much beneath, as his other work, his “Paraphrasis,” is above, censure. In his paraphrase in Greek verse, upon the Gospel of St. John, the diction is perspicuous, neat, elegant, and proper for the subject. Hence he is styled by Isaac Casaubon “poeta eruditissimus.” Heinsius, indeed, reproaches him with leaning to Arianism but he appears to hold the same sentiments concerning the Trinity with Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. The first edition of this piece is that of Aldus Manutius at Venice in 1501, 4to; it has since gone through several editions, the last of which, and the best, is that by Heinsius, Gr. and Lat. 1627, 8vo. His various readings, which are deemed important, have been selected by Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, and Griesbach.

, one of the most celebrated scholars of the seventeenth century, was born at Verona, Aug. 29, 1631. His baptismal name was Jerom, which he changed tO'Henry, when he entered the order of the Augustines. His family is said to have been originally of England, whence a branch passed into Ireland, and even to Cyprus. When this island was taken by the Turks, a James Noris, who had defended it as general of artillery, settled afterwards at Verona, and it is from this person that the subject of the present article descended. His father’s name was Alexander, and, according to Niceron, published several works, and among them a History of Germany. Maffei, however, attributes this work only to him, which is not a history of Germany, but of the German war from 1618 to the peace of Lubec, translated from the Italian by Alexander Noris. His son discovered, from his infancy, an excellent understanding, great vivacity, and a quick apprehension. His father, having instructed him in the rudiments of grammar, procured an able professor of Verona to be his preceptor. At fifteen, he was admitted a pensioner in the Jesuits’ college at Rimini, where he studied philosophy; after which, he applied himself to the writings of the fathers of the church, particularly those of St. Augustine; and, taking the habit in the convent of Augustine monks of Rimini, he so distinguished himself among that fraternity, that, as soon as he was out of his noviciate, the general of the order sent for him to Rome, in order to give him an opportunity of improving himself in the more solid branches of learning. Here he indulged his favourite propensity for study to the utmost, and spent whole days, and even nights, in the library of his order at Rome. His daily course of reading was fourteen hours, and this practice he continued till he became a cardinal. It, is easy to conceive that a student of such diligence, and whose memory and comprehension were equally great, must have accumulated a vast stock of knowledge. But for some time his reading was interrupted by the duties of a regent master being imposed on him, according to the usual practice; and we find that for some time he taught at Pesaro, and afterwards at Perugia, where he took his degree of doctor of divinity. Proceeding then to Padua, he applied himself to finish his “History of Pelagianism,” which he had begun at Rome, when he was no more than twentysix: and, having now completed his design, it was printed at Florence in 1673. The great duke of Tuscany invited him, the following year, to that city, made him his chaplain, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Pisa, which the duke had founded with that view.

His answers to all these accusations were so much to the satisfaction of the pope, that at length his holiness honoured him with the purple in 1695. After this he was in all the congregations, and employed in the most important affairs, much to the hindrance of his studies, which he used deeply to regret to his friends. Upon the death of cardinal Casanati, he was made chief librarian of the Vatican, in 1700; and, two years afterwards, nominated, among others, to reform the calendar: but he died at Rome, Feb. 23, 1704, of a dropsy. He had the reputation of one of the most learned men in the sixteenth century, which seems justified by his many able and profound writings on subjects of ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Of the latter the most celebrated are, 1. “Annus et Epochse Syro-Macedonum in vetustis urbium Syriae nummis prsesertim Mediceis expositae,” Florence, 1691, fol. and 2. “Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum dissertationibus illustrata,” Venice, 1681, fol. The whole of his works are comprized in 4 vols. fol. 1729 1732. Some authors mention a fifth volume, but Fabroni gives the contents of only four. They indicate much study of theology, the belles-lettres, sacred and profane history, antiquities and chronology. His History of Pelagianism, as it procured him the most reputation, occasioned also the only uneasiness with which his literary life was disturbed. He had written it with a good deal of caution, and confined himself mostly to historical detail, mixing very little discussion. The Jesuits, however, took occasion to reproach him with Jansenism, and it must be allowed that while he rejected some particular notions of Jansenius, he leaned not a little to the doctrine of St. Augustine.

Nowell, who continued to be a very frequent, and one of the most approved of the public preachers at Paul’s Cross, introduced in one of his sermons, Harding’s answer to Jewell, reading some passages of it, and confuting them. This was no uncommon practice in those days, during the activity of the popish party, and before matters of controversy could be usefully committed to the press. In the same year he“noticed, in another of his sermons, Dorman’s answer to Jewell, and appears from this time to have employed his leisure in preparing a more formal answer to that heap of misrepresentations. It was in 1560 that Jewell made his famous challenge to the papists, that none of the peculiar and discriminating dogmas of popery could be proved, either by warrant of scripture, or by authority of the fathers or councils, during six hundred years from the birth of Christ. Attempts were made to answer this challenge by Rastell, and Harding, (see their articles) and now Mr. Dorman published what he called” A Proof of certain articles in Religion, denied by Mr. Jewell.“Against this, Nowell published,” A Reproof of a book, entitled “A Proof,' &c.” 1565, 4to, reprinted, with some additions, in little more than a month. In the same year appeared Dorman’s “Disproof of Nowell’s Reproof,” followed in 1566 by Nowell’s “Continuation of his Reproof,” and in 1567, by his “Confutation as well of Mr. Dorman’s last book, intituled * a Disproof,' &c.” as also of Dr. Sanders’s causes of Transubstantiation,“&c. In this controversy Nowell’s learning and deep knowledge of ecclesiastical history were not more conspicuous than the candour with which he treated his adversaries. He appears to have had the aid of the bishop of London and other high characters of the time in the publication of these works, which appeared to his learned contemporaries to be of such importance to the cause of the reformation and the character of the reformed church, as to merit their utmost care, even in the minutiae of typographical correction. This circumstance, says his biographer, shows” how solicitous the persons to whom, under God, we in great measure owe the final reformation of our church, were ut writes ipsa limaretur in disputatione, that genuine truth might be fully known, and accurately expressed."

While at Oxford, preparing this work, he sent a letter to his daughter, part of which is worth transcribing,as characteristic both of him and his labours. " My condition here is this: one of the most useful and necessary authors I have is written in such a wretched hand, that the very reading of it is perfect decyphering. I am forced sometimes to take three or four lines together, and then pull them all to pieces to find where the words begin and end; for oftentimes it is so written, that a word is divided as if the former part of it was the nd of the foregoing word, and the latter part the beginning of another; besides innumerable other difficulties known only to those that understand the language. Add to this the pains of

, or Ursatus, a celebrated antiquary, historian, grammarian, and poet, was born February 1, 1617, at Padua, of one of the most illustrious families in that city. He applied diligently to the study of antiquities and ancient inscriptions, which occasioned his taking several journies into different parts of Italy. When advanced in life, he was appointed to teach natural philosophy in the university of Padua, and acquitted himself with great success in that office. He died at Venice July 3, 1678. He was a member of the academy of the Ricovrati, and has left a great number of valuable works, some in Latin, others in Italian: the principal among the former are, “Sertum Philosophicum ex variis scientise naturaiis floribus consertum,” Padua, 1635, 4to. 2. “Monumenta Patavina,” Padua,“1652, folio. 3.” Commentarius de Dotis Romanorum,“Padua, 1672, folio, a useful work, and much esteemed. It has been inserted in torn. XI. of the” Thesaurus“of Groevius, and is printed separately, Paris, 1723, 12mo, and at the Hague, 1736. The following are his principal Italian works 4.” A Hist, of Padua, in two parts,“1678, folio. 5.” I Marmi eruditi,“1669, and 1719, 2 vols. 4to; a curious work, in two parts also. 6.” Chronologia di Reggimenti di Padoua;“revised, with notes, 1666, 4to. 7. Several” Lyric Poems,“1637, 12mo;” Comedies," andother poetical pieces, &c.

, one of the most celebrated Swiss divines of the latter age, was born at Neufchatel, Nov. 25, 1663. He was the only son of John Rtfdolph Ostervald, minister of Neufchatel, Inhere the family of Ostervald had been settled for nearly three centuries, and had produced many persons eminent in the army and at the bar. His father determined to give him the best education, with a view to the ministry, should his inclination lead that way. Accordingly, in 1676, he took him to Zurich, to be instructed in the learned languages, and to learn German at the same time, under the care of professor John Henry Ott, who was his intimate friend. After a dilfgent application here for eighteen months, young Ostervald returned home in Oct. 1677, and continued his classical studies tinder Mr. D'Aubigne, principal of the college of Neufchatel. A year after he was sent to Saumur, where he maintained some learned theses with such ability, that the degree of master of arts was conferred upon him with every testimony of respect, although he had not yet reached his sixteenth year. In Sept. 1680, he took a voyage to Rochelle, where he was introduced to some eminent literary characters; and the following year, removed to Orleans, and began the study of divinity under the celebrated Pajou, which he continued afterwards under Mr. Allix, and the celebrated Claude, at Paris. His fellow student here was Mr. Charles Tribolet, his relation, and afterwards his colleague at Neufchatel; few friends, we are told, have been more closely connected, or more similar in sentiment on all occasions.

Dying without issue, sir Thomas’s estate came to hi younger brother, whose son, sir Thomas Overbury, was also the author of some pieces. These are, I. “A true and perfect Account of the Examination, Trial, Condemnation, and Execution, of Joan Perry and her two sons, for the supposed Murder of William Harrison, written by way of letter to Thomas Shirley, M. D. in London, 1676,” 4to. This is one of the most remarkable incidents in story. Harrison was not really murdered, but conveyed away alive by a gang of Mohocks, and carried to Turkey; where, corning into the hands of a physician, he acquired some skill in that faculty; and at length, after many years absence, found means of getting away, and returned home, to the great astonishment of every body, since the sufferers for his supposed death had actually confessed the murder. 2. ' Queries proposed to the serious Consideration of those who impose upon others in things of divine and supernatural Revelation, and prosecute any upon the account of Religion with a desire of their candid and Christian Resolution thereof;“printed in 1677. In answer to which there came out the same year” AtaxiaD Obstaculum; an answer to certain queries, intituled, Queries proposed,“&c. Upon this, sir Thomas wrote a reply, entitled, 3.” Ratiocinium Vernaculum or, a Reply to Ataxiae Obstaculum," &c.

, a learned Englishman, was born about 1432, at or near Winchester, as is generally supposed, and was educated at the charge of Thomas Langton, bishop of that diocese, who employed him, while a youth, as his amanuensis. The bishop, pleased with his proficiency, and particularly delighted with his early turn for music, which he thought an earnest of greater attainments, bestowed a pension on him sufficient to defray the expences of his education at Padua, at that time one of the most flourishing universities in Europe. Accordingly he studied there for some time, and met with Cuthbert Tonstall, afterwards bishop of Durham, and William Latimer, whom he called his preceptors. On his return, he studied for some time at Queen’s-college, Oxford, of which his patron Langton had been provost; and was soon after taken into the service of Dr. Christopher Bambridge, who succeeded Langton in the office of provost, and became afterwards a cardinal. He attended him to Rome, about the beginning of the sixteenth' century, and continued there until the cardinal’s death in 1514. He appears, before this, to have entered into holy orders, for in the beginning of this year, and while abroad, he was made prebendary of Bugthorp, in the church of York, in the room of Wolsey, afterwards the celebrated cardinal; and in May of the same year, was promoted to the archdeaconry of Dorset, on the resignation of his friend Langton, at which time, as Willis supposes, he resigned the prebend of Bugthorp.

From a confidential declaration to count Cayius, it appears, that Mr Paciaudi was highly satisfied with his employment. He considered it as an opportunity of rendering useful his extensive erudition, without those inconveniencies which attend the necessary intercourse with the world. He therefore engaged in the business with a zeal bordering on enthusiasm. Besides the acquisition which he made of the excellent library of count Pertusati at Home, in 1762, he went to Paris in search of other books; and such was his exertion, that, in less than six years, he collected more than sixty thousand volumes of the best xvorks of every kind, and thus erected one of the most copious libraries in Italy. He also compiled such an excellent “Catalogue raisonne*e” of its articles as deserves to be adopted as a model by all who are at the head of large bibliographical establishments.

His character is that of an universal genius; and, having turned himself entirely to the art of war, and particularly to the branch of fortification, he made extraordinary progress in it. He understood mathematics, not only better than is usual for a gentleman whose view is to rise in the army, but even to a degree of perfection above that of the ordinary masters who teach that science. He had so particular a genius for this kind of learning, that he obtained it more readily by meditation than by reading, and accordingly spent less time on mathematical books than he did in those of history and geography. He had also made morality and politics his particular study; so that he may be said to have drawn his own character in his “Homme Hero'ique,” and to have been one of the completes! gentlemen of his time. Louis XIII. was heard to say several times, that the count de Pagan was one of the most worthy, most adroit, and most valiant men in his kingdom. That branch of his family which removed from Naples to France in 1552, became extinct in his person.

, a very celebrated English divine, and one of the most successful writers of his time, was born at Peterborough in July 1743, and was educated by his father, who was the head master of Giggleswick school, in Yorkshire, vicar of Helpstone in Northamptonshire, and a minor canon of Peterborough. In his earliest days he manifested a taste for solid knowledge, and a peculiar activity of mind. In Nov. 1758 he was admitted a sizar of Christ’s college, Cambridge, and before he went to reside there was taught the mathematics by Mr. William Howarth, a master of some eminence at Dishworth, near Rippon. In December 1759, soon after he took up his residence in the university, he obtained a scholarship, and applied to his studies with such diligence as to make a distinguished figure in the public schools, particularly when he took his bachelor’s degree in 1763. He was afterwards employed for about three years as assistant at an academy at Greenwich; in 1765 he obtained the first prize for a prose Latin dissertation; the subject proposed was “A comparison between the Stoic and Epicurean philosophy, with respect to the influence of each on the morals of a people,” in which he took the Epicurean side.

, was of the same family with the preceding cardinal, and merits a brief notice here, as being in some degree connected with our history, although the figure he makes in it has not been thought the most reputable. The family of Pallavicino, or, as sometimes spelt, Palavicini, is one of the most noble and ancient in Italy, and its branches have extended to Rome, Genoa, and Lombardy. Many of them appear to have attained the highest ranks in church, state, and commerce. Sir Horatio, the subject of this article, belonged to the Genoese branch, and was born in that city, but leaving Italy, went to reside in the Low Countries, whence, after marrying two wives, one a person of low birth, whom he did not acknowledge, and the other a lady of distinction, he came over to England, with a recommendation to queen Mary, probably from a relation, one Rango Pallavicino, who belonged to Edward Vlth’s household. Mary, who had then restored the Roman catholic religion, appointed Horatio collector of the papal taxes to be gathered in this kingdom; but at her death, having a large sum of money in his hands, he abjured the religion of Rome, and thought it no harm to keep the money. This transaction, however, does not appear to have much injured his character, or perhaps time had effaced the remembrance of it, for in 1586 queen Elizabeth gave him a. patent of denization, and in the following year honoured him with knighthood. He appears to have been a man of courage, and warmly espoused the interests of the nation at a most critical period. In 1588 he fitted out and commanded a ship against the Spanish armada, and must have rendered himself conspicuous on that occasion, as his portrait is given in the tapestry in the House of Lords, among the patriots and skilful commanders who assisted in defeating that memorable attack on the liberty of England. The queen also employed him in negociations with the German princes, and in raising loans, by which he very opportunely assisted her, and improved his own fortune. He died immensely rich, July 6, 1600, and was buried in the church of Baberham, in Cambridgeshire, near which, at Little Shelford, he had built a seat, in the Italian style, with piazzas. He had likewise two considerable manors in Essex, and provbably. landed property in other counties. His widow, about a year after his death, married sir Oliver Cromwell, K. B. and his only daughter, Baptina, was married to Henry Cromwell, esq. son to this sir Oliver, who was uncle to the usurper. He left three sons, but the family is now unknown in England.

, son of the preceding, one of the most laborious grammarians that Germany ever produced, was born at Hembach, May 24, 1576. He began his studies at Neustadt, continued them at Heidelberg, and afterwards visited some of the foreign universities, at the expence of the elector Palatine, where he was always courteously received, not only on account of his own merit, but his father’s high reputation. Among others, he received great civilities from Isaac Casaubon at Paris. In 1612, he was made rector of the college of Neustadt, which post he held till the place was taken by the Spaniards in 1622, when he was ordered by those new masters to leave the country immediately, at which time his library was also plundered by the soldiers. He published several books on- grammatical subjects, and was remarkably fond of Plautus. This drew him into a dispute with John Gruter, professor at Heidelberg, in 1620, which was carried to such a height, that neither the desolation which ruined both their universities and their libraries, and reduced their persons to the greatest extremities, nor even their banishment, proved sufficient to restrain their animosity, or incline them to the forbearance of mutual sufferers. Philip also undertook the cause of his late father against Owen, mentioned in the last article, whom he answered in a piece entitled “Anti-Owenus,” &c. He was principal of several colleges, as he was of that at Hanau in 1645. The dedication of his father’s exegetical works shews him to be living in 1647, and Saxius conjectures that he died the following year. The same writer informs us that his first publication was “Castigationes in brevem et maledicam admonitionem Joannis Magiri Jesuitae predicantis apud Nemetes Spirantes,” Heidelberg, 1608, 8vo. This refers to a controversy which his father had with Magirus, the Jesuit. He wrote also some commentaries upon the “Holy Scriptures,” and other theological works. He published “Plautus,” in 1609, with notes; also a “Lexicon Plautinum,” in 1614; st Analecta Plautina,“in 1617; a treatise” De imitatione Tereiuiana, ubi Plautum imitatus est,“1617; a second edition of” Plautus,“in 1619, and of the” Analecta Plautina,“in 1620, and again in 1623. H also published a third edition of his” Plautus“in 1641. The” Prolegomena“which it contains of that poet’s life, the character of his versification, and the nature of his comedy, have been prefixed entire to the Delphin edition. He published his answer to Gruter in 1620, with this title,” Provocatio ad senatum criticum pro Plauto et electis Plautinis“and more of this angry controversy may be seen in the long preface prefixed to his” Analecta Plautina.“He also published” Calligraphia Romana, sive Thesaurus phrasium linguae Latinos,“in 1620; and” Electa Symmachiana, Lexicon Symmachianum, Calligraphia Synimachiana,“in 1617, 8vo: to which we may add his father’s life,” Narratio de curriculo vitce et obitu D. Parei," 1633, 8vo.

His son, Samuel, the subject of the present article, was educated among the Puritans at Northampton; whence, when prepared for the university, he was sent to Wadhamcollege in Oxford, and admitted, in 1659, under a presbyterian tutor. While here he affected to lead a strict and religious life, entered into a weekly society, then called the gruellers, because their chief diet was water-gruel; and it was observed “that he put more graves into his porridge than all the rest.” This society met at a house in Holywell, where he was so zealous and constant an attendant upon prayers, sermons, and sacraments, that he was esteemed one of the most valuable young men in the university. He took the degree B. A. Feb. 28, 1660. At the time of the restoration he was a violent independent, and as for some time he continued to rail against episcopacy, he was much discountenanced by the new warden, Dr. Blandford. Upon this he removed to Trinity college, where, by the advice of Dr. Ralph Bathurst, then a senior fellow of that society, he was induced to change his opinions, and became as violent against the nonconformists as he had ever been for them. He afterwards thanked Dr. Bathurst for having restored him “from the chains and fetters of an unhappy education.” He now proceeded M. A. in 1663, and having taken orders, resorted frequently to London, and became chaplain to a nobleman, whom he amused by his humourous sallies at the expence of his old friends the presbyterians, independents, &c. Mason was never more mistaken than when in his “Ode to Independence” he mentions him by the epithet “mitred dullness.” Parker was undoubtedly a man of wit, and although Marvell was his match, yet the success of the latter was not a little owing to his having the best cause.

, a celebrated painter of Ephesus, or, according to others, of Athens, flourished in the time of Socrates, as we learn from Xenophon, who has introduced him in a dialogue, discoursing with that philosopher. He was one of the most excellent painters of his time. Pliny tells us, that it was he who first gave symmetry and just proportions in the art; that he also was the first who knew how to express the truth of character, and the different airs of the face; that he found out a beautiful disposition of the hair, and heightened the grace of the visage. It was allowed even by the masters in the art, that he bore away from all others the glory of succeeding in the outline, in which consists the grand secret of painting. But the same author observes, that Parrhasius became insupportable by his pride; and affected to wear a crown of gold upon his head, and to carry in his hand a baton, studded with nails of the same metal. It is said that, though Parrhasius was excelled by Timanthes, yet he excelled Zeuxis. Among his pictures was a celebrated one of Theseus; and another representing Meleager, Hercules, and Perseus, in a groupe together; as also Æneas, with Castor and Pollux in a third. But of him, or his pictures, the accounts handed down to us are extremely imperfect, and little to be relied on in forming a just estimate of his merit.

Cardinal Passionei did not write much besides the articles that have been already mentioned. He worked, indeed, with Fontanini, in revising the “Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum,” and produced a paraphrase on the nineteenth psalm, with a few more small pieces: but he was most illustrious for his enlightened knowledge of letters, and his judicious and liberal patronage of learned men and useful works; an example but too little followed in the present age. He had one of the most valuable libraries in Rome, composed of the best, the scarcest, and most remarkable books in all sciences, and in all languages, ancient and modern. He himself was the librarian, and did the honours of it in a manner the more satisfactory to the learned, as no one was more able to second and extend their views on the subjects of their researches. “In this,” says a Swedish traveller, “he was very different from the cardinals Davia, Gualterio, and Imperiali, all three also very rich in books. The first was always reading, and never wrote; the second was always writing, and never read; and the third neither read nor wrote.” Cardinal Passionei’s temper, however, was not equable, and Benedict XIV. delighted to put him in a rage, sometimes by taking away one of his books, and making him think it was lost, but more frequently, which was the greatest provocation our cardinal could receive, by introducing a work written by a Jesuit. On one occasion when the pope did this, the cardinal opened the window, and threw the book with all his force into the square of Monte Cavallo. At this instant the pope appeared, and vouchsafed him his grand benediction. It is said, that by way of answer to this benediction, a certain gesture of the cardinal’s put a stop to the pleasantry that the pope had promised himself from this scene. He most cordially hated the Jesuits; and had it depended on him, their society would have been soon dissolved. On this subject and every other on which he entered with the pope Benedict, he spoke with the firmest independence, and the pope generally found it necessary in all disputes to yield to him. Let us not forget, however, that it was this cardinal who opened the treasures of the Vatican to Dr. Kennicott, in a very handsome order signed by his name. This was at the time justly said to be an honour which no work relating to the Bible could boast of since the reformation.

A man so thoroughly conversant in the history of literature could not fail to perceive that a vast number of books were held as valuable and scarce in England, which were rather common in other countries. He thought he could do his native country an essential service, and procure emolument for himself, if he should undertake a journey through some parts of the continent, and succeed in purchasing some articles of this description. With this view he set out for the continent in the year 1776, and actually bought a capital collection of books, which, on his return to England, he digested in the catalogue (the best, perhaps, of his performances) that bears the title of “Bibliotheca Universalis Selecta.” One of the most respectable booksellers of London had been his fellow-traveller in that journey; and, being informed of his design, and relying on his good sense and excellent intention, offered him his friendly assistance. He lent him a thousand pounds, to be employed in an additional purchase of books, in hopes that he might have the money returned to him when the speculation was carried into execution. Mr. Paterson, as usual, proved unsuccessful; and the generous friend, sympathising in his misfortunes, never claimed the return of his loan! Mr. Paterson’s fame had come to the ears of the late marquis of Lansdown, who requested the learned bibliographer to arrange his elegant and valuable library, to compile a detailed catalogue of his books and manuscripts, and to accept, for the purpose, the place of his librarian, with a liberal salary. Mr. Paterson accordingly entered into the office of librarian, remained in it for some years, and perhaps expected to close his life in the same station when, unfortunately, a misunderstanding took place between the noble lord and him, by which he was obliged to withdraw.

This prelate was one of the most learned men as well as best writers of his time. We have noticed his principal writings, but have still to add his “Paraphrases” and Commentaries upon the Old Testament, as far as the prophets, which are the result of extensive reading, and perhaps the most useful of any ever written in the English language. They were published at various times, but reprinted in 2 vols. folio; and, with Lowth on the Prophets, Arnald on the Apocrypha, and Whitby on the New Testament, have been published, in folio, and very recently in 4to, as a regular commentary upon all the sacred books. The style of this prelate is even and easy, his compositions rational, and full of good and sound sense. Burnet ranks him among those many worthy and eminent clergymen in this nation, who deserved a high character; and were indeed au honour to the church, and to the age in which they lived.

, an unfortunate poet, was born at Peasmarsh, in the county of Sussex, in 1706, and was the son of a farmer at that place, who rented a considerable estate of the earl of Thanet. He discovered excellent parts, with a strong propensity to learning and his father, not being in circumstances to give him a proper education, applied to his noble landlord, who took him under his protection, and placed him at Appleby school in Westmoreland. Here he became acquainted with Mr. Noble, a clergyman of great learning and fine taste, who promoted his studies and directed his taste. Upon his leaving Appleby, he went to Sidney college in Cambridge, where he pursued the plan Mr. Noble had given him, and went through the classics, as well as all our English poets, with great advantage. Of these last, Spenser’s “Fairy Queen” and Brown’s “( Britannia’s Pastorals” are said to have given him the greatest delight. He had, however, unfortunately contracted a habit of desultory reading, and had no relish for academical studies. His temper could not brook restraint; and his tutor, he thought, treated him with great rigour. A quarrel ensued; and, to avoid the scandal of expulsion, with which he was threatened, he took his name out of the college book, and went to London. Even now his friends would have forgiven him, and procured his readmission; but the pleasures of the town, the desire of being known, and his romantic expectations of meeting with 0u,e generous patron to reward his merit, rendered him deaf to all advice. He led a pleasurable life, frequented Button’s, and became acquainted with some of the most eminent wits of the time. As he had no fortune, nor any means of subsistence, but what arose from the subscriptions for the poems he proposed to publish; and, as he wanted even common prudence to manage this precarious income, he was soon involved in the deepest distress and most deplorable wretchedness. In a poem, entitled “Effigies Authons,” addressed to lord Burlington, he describes himself as destitute of friends, of money; a prey to hunger; and passing his nights on a bench in St. James’s park. In a private letter to a gentleman, he thus expressed himself: “Spare my blushes; I have not enjoyed the common necessaries of life these two days, and can hardly hold to subscribe myself,” &c. Curll, the bookseller, finding some of his compositions well received, And going through several impression>, took him into his house; and, as Pope affirms in one of his letters, starved him to death. But this does not appear to be strictly true; and his death is more justly attributed to the small-pox, which carried him off in 1727, in his 21st year. His biographer says, that he had a surprising genius, and had raised hopes in all that knew him, that he would become one of the most eminent poets of the age; but surh of his poems as we find in the collection published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1728, would not in our days be thought calculated to Support such high expectations.

, a worthy ecclesiastic of the Romish church, was born April 24, 1576, and studied at Toulouse, where he was ordained a priest in 1600. On his return to Narbonne from Marseilles, his ship was taken by the Turks, and he remained for a considerable time in slavery, under three masters, the last of whom he converted. Returning at length to France, Louis XIII. made him abbot of St. Leonard de Chaulme, and he had afterwards the care of the parish church of Clichy, which he completely repaired and furnished at his own expence. Towards the end of 1609, he went to reside in the house of Emmanuel de Goudy, as tutor to his children, but does not appear to have remained here long. He then obtained the curacy of Chatillon-les-Dombes, which he kept only five months. Compelled by the solicitations of numberless persons of the highest distinction, to return, to the Goudy family, he resigned himself wholly to his natural desire of relieving the poor and afflicted. Louis XIII. being made acquainted with his zeal, appointed him almonergeneral of the gall ies, 1619; and the following year, St. Francis de Sales, because, as he says, he “knew not a worthier priest in the church,”made him superintendant of the nuns of the visitation. On niadame de Goudy’s decease, M. Vincent retired to the college des Bon Knfans, cf which he, wasprincipal, and which he never quitted, but to perform the oftie of a missionary. Some years after, he accepted the house de St. Lazare, though with great reluctance. His life was a continued series of good works, and it is scarcely to be conceived how one man could plan so many, still less, how he could execute them. Among these were missions in all parts of France, as well as in Italy, Scotland, Barbary, Madagascar, &c. ecclesiastical conferences, at which the most eminent bishops of the kingdom were present spiritual retirements, as they were called, which were also gratuitous; an Hospital for Foundlings, for which his humane applications procured an income of 40,000 livres; the foundation of the Charitable Virgins, for the relief of sick poor; to which we may add, the hospitals de Bicetre, de la Salpetriere, de la Piti; those of Marseilles for galley-slaves; of St. Reine for pilgrims, and of le Saint Nom de Jesus, for old men, which are principally indebted to him for their establishment. In times of the greatest distress, he sent above two millions of livres into Lorraine in money and effects; nor did Picardy and Champagne experience much less of his bounty, when the scourges of heaven had reduced those provinces to the most deplorable indigence. During ten years that M. Vincent presided in the council of conscience, under Anne of Austria, he suffered none but the most worthy to be presented to benefices. Being a zealous patron of nunneries, he supported the establishment of the nuns de la Providence, de Sainte Genevieve, and de la Croix. He laboured with success for the reform of Grammorit, Premontre, and the abbey of St. Genevieve, as welt as for the establishment of the great Seminaries. Even those, who have doubted whether his talents were very extensive, have openly acknowledged that he was one of the most pious priests in the kingdom, and more useful to the poor and to the church, than most of those who are considered as great geniuses. This excellent man died loaded with years, labour, and mortifications, Sept.27,1660, aged near 85. He was canonized by Clement XII. on July 16, 1737. Those who wish to know more of St. Vincent de Paul, may consult his Life by M. Collet, 2 vols. 4to, and “PAvocat.du Diable,” 3 vols. 12mo.

“Sometime after, in the same year (the bishop of Rochester declining very fast), the duke of Newcastle sent to the bishop of Bangor, and desired to see him the n x ext day. He went to him, and the duke informed him, that he was told, -that the chancellorship of Bangor was then vacant, and he pressed the bishop so much to bestow it upon one! whom he had to recommend, that the bishop consented to comply with his request. ‘ Well, my lord,’ said the duke, * now I have another favour to ask of you.‘ * Pray, my lord duke,’ said the bishop, e what is that?‘ c Why,’ said the duke, ‘ it is, that you will accept of the bishopric of Rochester, and deanry of Westminster, in exchange for Bangor, in case the present bishop of Rochester should die.’ * My lord,‘ said the bishop, ’ if I had thoughts of exchanging my bishopric, I should prefer what you mention before any other dignities.‘ ’ That is not,‘ said the duke, * an answer to my question: will you accept them in exchange, if they are offered to you?’ ‘ Your grace offers them to me,’ said the bishop, ‘ in so generous and friendly a manner, that 1 promise you to accept them.’ Here the Conversation ended; and Dr. Wilcocks dying in the beginning of the year 1756, the bishop of Bangor was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester and deanry of Westminster.” On the death of Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, lord Bath spoke to the bishop of Rochester, and offered to use his endeavours with his majesty for appointing him to succeed that eminent prelate; but Dr. Fearce told him, that from the earliest time that he could remember himself to have considered about bishoprics, he had determined nevefc to accept the bishopric of London, or the archbishopric of Canterbury, and he begged his lordship not to make any application in his behalf for the vacant see of London. Lord Bath repeated his offer on the death of Dr. Osbaldiston in 1763, but Dr. Pearce again declined the proposal, and was indeed so far from desiring a higher bishopric, that he now meditated the resignation of what he possessed. This is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the Jife of Dr. Pearce. Being now (1763) seventy-three years old, and finding himself less fit for the duties of bishop and dean, he informed his friend lord Bath of his intention to resign both, and to live in a retired manner upon his own private fortune; and after much discourse upon, the subject at different times, he prevailed upon his lordship at last to acquaint his majesty with his intention, and to desire, in the bishop’s name, the honour of a private audience from his majesty for that purpose. This being granted, Dr. Pearce stated his motives as he had done to lord Bath, adding that he was desirous to retire for the opportunity of spending more time in his devotions and studies; and that he was of the same way of thinking with a general officer of the emperor Charles V. who, when he desired a dismission from that monarch’s service, told him, ‘.’ Sir, every wise man would, at the latter end of life, wish to have an interval between the fatigues of business and eternity.“The bishop then shewed the king, in a written paper, instances of its having been done several times, and concluded with telling his majesty, that he did not expect or desire an immediate answer to his request, but rather that his majesty would first consult some pf his ministers as to the propriety and legality of it. This the king consented to do; and about two months after, he sent for the bishop and told him, that he had consulted with two of his lawyers, lord Mansfield and lord Northington, who saw no objection to the proposed resignation, and in consequence of their opinion, his majesty signified his own consent. The interference, however, of lord Bath, in requesting that his majesty would give the bishopric and deanry to Dr. Newton, then bishop of Bristol, alarmed the ministry, who thought that no dignities in the church should be obtained from the crown, but through their hands. Lord Northington suggested to his majesty some doubts on the subject, and represented that the bishops in general disliked the design; and at length Dr. Pearce was told by his majesty, that he must think 110 more about resigning Vtae bishopric but” that he would have all the merit of having done it." In 1768, however, he was permitted to resign his deanry, which was nearly double in. point of income to the bishopric which he was obliged to retain.

, a very learned English bishop, was born Feb. 12, 1612, at Snoring in Norfolk; of which place his father was rector. In 1623 he was sent to Eton school; whence he was elected to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1632. He took the degree of B. A. in 1635, and that of master in 1639; in which year he resigned his fellowship of the college, and lived afterwards a fellow-commoner in it. The same year he entered into orders, and was collated to a prebend in the church of Sarum. In 1640 he was appointed chaplain to Finch, lord-keeper of the great seal; by whom in that year he was presented to the living of Torrington, in Suffolk. Upon the breaking out of the civil war he became chaplain to the lord Goring, whom he attended in the army, and afterwards to sir Robert Cook in London. In 1650 he was made minister of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, in London. In 1657 he and Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, had a dispute with two Roman catholics upon the subject of schism. This conference was managed iivwriting, and by mutual agreement nothing was to be made public without the consent of both parties; yet a partial account of it was published in 1658, by one of the Romish disputants, cum privilegw, at Paris, with this title, “Schism unmasked a late conference,” &c. In 1659 he published “An Exposition of the Creed,” at London, in 4to; dedicated to his parishioners of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, to whom the substance of that excellent work had betn preached several years before, and by whom he had been desired to nnake it public. This “Exposition,” which has gone through twelve or thirteen editions, is accounted one of the most finished pieces of theology in our language. It is itself a body of divinity, the style of which is just; the periods, for the most part, well turned the method very exact; and it is, upon the whole, free from those errors which are too often found in theological systems. There is a translation of it into Latin by a foreign divine, who styles himself “Simon Joannes Arnoldus, Ecclesiarum ballivise, sive praefecturae Sonnenburgensis Inspector;” and a very valuable and judicious abridgment was in 1810 published by the rev. Charles Burney, LL. D. F. R. S. In the same year (1659) bishop Pearson published “The Golden Remains of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales, of Eton;” to which he wrote a preface, containing the character of that great man, with whom he had been acquainted for many years, drawn with great elegance and force. Soon after the restoration he was presented by Juxon, then bishop of London, to the rectory of St. Christopher’s, iri that city; created D. D. at Cambridge, in pursuance of the king’s letters mandatory; installed prebendary of Ely, archdeacon of Surrey, and made master of Jesus college, Cambridge; all before the end of 1660. March 25, 1661, he succeeded Dr. Lore in the Margaret professorship of that university; and, the first day of the ensuing year, was nominated one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy in the conference at the Savoy, where the nonconformists allow he was the first of their opponents for candour and ability. In April 1662, he was admitted master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and, in August resigned his rectory of St. Christopher’s, and prebend of Sarum. In 1667 he was admitted a fellow of the royal society. Jn 1672 he published, at Cambridge, in 4to, “Vindiciae F.pistolarum S. Ignatii,” in answer to mons. Dailie; to which is subjoined, “Isaaci Vossii epistolas duæ adversus Davidem Blondellum.” Upon the death of Wilkins, bishop of Chester, Pearson was promoted to that see, to which he was consecrated Feb. 9, 1673. In 1684- his “Annales Cynrianici, sive tredecim annorum, quibus S. Cyprian, inter Christianos versatus est, historia chronologica,” was published at Oxford, with Fell’s edition. of that father’s works. Dr. Pearson was disabled from all public service by ill health, having entirely lost his memory, a considerable time before his death, which happened at Chester, July 16, 1686. Two years after, his posthumous works were published by Dodweli at London, “Cl. Jaannis Pearsoni Cestriensis nuper Episcopi opera posthuma, &c. &c.” There are extant two sermons published by him, 1. “No Necessity for a Reformation,' 7 1661, 4to. 2.” A Sermon preached before the King, on Eccles. vii. 14, published by his majesty’s special command," 1671, 4to. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1789 p. 493) speaks of some unpublished Mss. by bishop Pearson in his possession. His ms notes on Suidas are in. the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, and were used by Kuster in his edition.

, one of the most excellent of the Italian composers, was born at Casoria in the kingdom of Naples, in 1701; and was educated at Naples under Gaetuno Greco, a very famous musician of that time. The prince of San-Agliano, or Stigiiano, becoming acquainted with the talents of yonng Pergolesi, took him under his protection, and, from 1730 to 1734, procured him employment in the new theatre at Naples, where his operas had prodigious success. He then visited Rome, for which place his “Olympiade” was composed, and there performed, but was by no means applauded as it deserved; after which he returned to Naples, and falling into a consumptive disorder, died in 1737, at the premature age of thirty-three. It is not true, as some authors have asserted, that he was poisoned by some of his rivals, nor indeed was thesuccess of his productions sufficiently great to render him an object of envy. His fame was posthumous. From the style of his composition, the Italians have called him the Domenichino of music. Ease, united with deep knowledge of harmony, and great richness of melody, forms the characteristic of his music. It expresses the passions with the very voice of nature, and speaks to the soul by the natural force of its effects. It has been thought, by some, of too melancholy a cast, which might arise, perhaps, from the depression produced by infirmity of constitution. His principal works are, 1. The “Stabat Mater,” usually considered as his most perfect work, and much better known than any other, in this country. 2. Another famous mass, beginning, “Dixit et laudate,” first heard with rapture at Naples, soon after his return from Rome. 3. The mass called “Salve Regina,” the last of his productions, composed at Torre del Greco, a very short time before his death, but as much admired as any of his compositions. 4. His opera of “Olympiade,” set to the words of Metastasio. 5. “La serva Padrona,” a comic opera. 6. His famous cantata of “Orfeo e Euridice.” The greater part of his other compositions were formed for pieces written in the Neapolitan dialect, and unintelligible to the rest of Italy. Pergolesi’s first and principal instrument was the violin. Dr. Burney says, that “he had, perhaps, more energy of genius, and a finer tact, than any of his predecessors; for though no labour appears in his productions, even for the church, where the parts are thin, and frequently in unison, yet greater and more beautiful effects are often produced in the performance than are promised in the score.” “The church-music of Pergolesi has been censured by his countryman, Padre Martini, as well as by some English musical critics, for too much levity of movement, aud a dramatic cast, even in some of his slow airs; while, on the contrary, Eximeno says, that he never heard, and perhaps never shall hear, sacred music accompanied with instruments, so learned and so divine, as the Stabat Mater.” Dr. Burney thinks it very doubtful whether the sonatas ascribed to this author are genuine; but observes, that the progress since made in instrumental music, ought not, at all events, to diminish the reputation of Pergolesi, “which,” he adds, “was not built on productions of that kind, but on vocal compositions, in which the clearness, simplicity, truth, and sweetness of expression, justly entitle him to supremacy over all his predecessors, and contemporary rivals; and to a niche in the temple of fame, among the great improvers of the art; as, if not the founder, the principal polisher of a style of composition both for the church and stage, which has been constantly cultivated by his successors; and which, at the distance of half a century from the short period in which he flourished, still reigns throughout Europe.” The learned historian, for this reason, justly considers the works of Pergolesi as forming a great sera in modern music.

, one of the most distinguished scholars and assistants of Raphael in the Vatican, was born in a Tuscan village in 1500. Vasari seems to consider him as the first designer of the Florentine school after Michael Angelo, and as the best of Raphael’s pupils: it is certain, that in a general grasp of the art, none approached Julio Romano so near, equally fit to render on a large scale the historic designs of his master, to work in stucco and grotesque ornaments with Giovanni da Udine, or with Polidoro to paint chiaroscuros. The Immolation of Isaac in the Stanze, the taking of Jericho, Joseph sold by his Brethren, Jacob with the Vision, the Drowning of Pharaoh, with others among the frescos of the Loggia, are his. That he had much of the Florentine style may be seen in the works of his own invention, such as the Birth of Eve in the church of St. Marcello, at Rome, a; high-wrought performance, with some Infants that have an air of life. At a monastery in Tivoli there is a St. John in the same style, with an admirable landscape, and many more in Lucca and Pisa.

While here, he was not only esteemed the first preacher of his time, but one of the most laborious students, as indeed his works demonstrate. During the disputes between the church and the puritans, he sided with the latter in principle, but was averse to the extremes to which the conduct of many of his brethren led. Yet he appears to have been summoned more than once to give an account of his conduct, although in general dealt with as his piety, learning, and peaceable disposition merited. Granger says that he was deprived by archbishop Whitgift, Jbut we find no authority for this. He had been a great part of his life much afflicted with the stone, which at last shortened his days. He was only forty-four years of age when he died in 1602. His remains were interred in St. Andrew’s church with great solemnity, at the sole expence of Christ’s college, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Montague (who was also one of his executors) afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, and of Winchester, who spoke highly of his learning, piety, labours, and usefulness. His works were collected and published in 1606, in 3 vols. fol. and are written in a better style than was usual in his time. They have been, however, far more admired abroad than at home. We know not of any of them reprinted in this country since their first appearance, but several of them have been translated into French, Dutch, and Spa-, nish. Bishop Hall said “he excelled in a distinct judgment, a rare dexterity in clearing the obscure subtleties of the schools, and in an easy explication of the most perplexed subjects.”

, an eminent French architect, was the son of an advocate of parliament, and born at Paris, in 1613. He was bred a physician, but practised only among his relations, his friends, and the poor. He discovered early a correct taste for the sciences and fine arts; of which he acquired a consummate knowledge, without the assistance of a master, and was particularly skilled in architecture, painting, sculpture, and mechanics. He still continues to be reckoned one of the greatest architects France ever produced. Louis XIV. who had a good taste for architecture, sent for Bernini from Rome, and other architects; but Perrault was preferred to them all; and what he did at the Louvre justified this preference. The facade of that palace, which was designed by him, “is,” says Voltaire, “one of the most august monuments of architecture in the world. We sometimes,” adds he, “go a great way in search of what we have at home. There is not one of the palaces at Rome, whose entrance is comparable to this of the Louvre; for which we are obliged to Perrault, whom Boileau has attempted to turn into ridicule.” Boileau indeed went so far as to deny that Perrault was the real author of those great designs in architecture that passed for his. Perrault was involved in the quarrel his brother Charles had with Boileau, who, however, when they became reconciled, acknowledged Claude’s merit.

, or Petrus Blesensis, one of the most learned and celebrated writers of the twelfth century, studied at Paris and Bologna, and was appointed preceptor and secretary to William II. king of Sicily, and afterwards was invited into England by Henry II. who made him archdeacon of Bath, but permitted him to reside near Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor he was. Peter de Blois lost this archdeaconry towards the end of his life, and had that of London, where it is said he laboured much for little profit. He died in 1200, in England. There are some letters, sermons, and other works of his, in the library of the fathers, in which he strongly condemns the abuses and disorders which then reigned in the church. He is said to have been the first who used the word transubstantiation, to express the doctrine of the Romish church on the subject of the eucharist. The best edition of this author is by Peter de Gussanville, 1667, folio.

These, and many more, were particular institutions and establishments: but the czar made general reformations, to which indeed the other were only subservient. He changed the architecture of his country, which was ugly and deformed; or, more properly, he first introduced that science into his dominions. He sent for a great number of pictures from Italy and France; and thus instructed in the art of painting a people, who knew no more of it, than what they could collect from the wretched daubing of men who painted the imaginary heads of saints. He sent ships laden with merchandize to Genoa and Leghorn, which returned freighted with marble and statues: and pope Clement XI. pleased with his taste, presented him with a fine antique, which the czar, not caring to trust by sea, ordered to be brought to Petersburgh by land. Religion was not neglected in this general reform ignorance and superstition had over-run it so much, that it scarcely merited the name of Christian. The czar introduced knowledge, where it was miserably wanted; and this knowledge enabled him to abolish, at least in a considerable degree, fasts, miracles, and saint-worship. He ventured further than to the correction of rites: he abolished the patriarchate, though much independent of him; and thus got rid of a power, which was always interrupting and disconcerting his measures. He took away part of the revenues of those churches and monasteries which he thought too wealthy; and, leaving only what was necessary for their subsistence, added the overplus to his own demesnes. He made many judicious ecclesiastical canons, and ordered preaching in the Russian language. Lastly, he established a general liberty of conscience throughout his dominions. There is one more reformation, and perhaps as necessary and useful as any of the former, which he made even in his last illness, though it was exceedingly painful. When the senators and great personages, then about him, mentioned the various obligations which Russia lay under to him, for abolishing ignorance and barbarism, and introducing arts and sciences, he told them, that he had forgot to reform one of the most important points of all, namely, the mal-administration of justice, occasioned by the tedious and litigious chicanery of the lawyers; and signed an order from his bed, limiting the determination of all causes to eleven days, which was immediately sent to all the courts of his empire.

, one of the most celebrated characters in literary history, was born in Tuscany, in 1304. His father was a notary at Florence, who having taken part with the Ghibellin faction, shared their fate, and was banished, after which he took up 'his residence at Pisa. Here, his infant son discovering marks of genius, his father destined him for a learned profession; and having recommended him to study the law, he passed several years at Montpellier and Bologna, listening to the ablest professors in that science, but much more inclined to peruse the writings of the classical authors. He relates himself, that his father, incensed at what he thought a misapplication of time, seized at once every classical author of which, he was possessed, and threw them into the fire; but the frantic grief which Petrarch expressed at that sight, so mollified the old man, that he hastily rescued Cicero and Virgil from the flames, and gave them back to his son; remarking, that it was only the immoderate attachment to these authors which he blamed, and that the works of Cicero, if rightly used, were the best preparative to the study of the law. Petrarch acknowledges that the struggle between the strong propensity of his nature, and the will of a respected parent, was the cause of many unhappy hours: but his father’s death, which happened when he was about the age of twenty-two, put an end to the contest; and left him at liberty to pursue his inclinations.

, an able mathematician of France, aud one of the most learned astronomers of the seventeenth century, was born at Fleche, and became priest and prior of Rillie in Anjou. Coming afterwards to Paris, his superior talents for mathematics and astronomy soon made him known and respected. In 1666 he was appointed astronomer in the Academy of Sciences. And five years after, he was sent, by order of the king, to the castle of Urani burgh, built by Tycho Brahe in Denmark, to make astronomical observations there; and from thence he brought the original manuscripts written by Tycho Brahe; which are the more valuable, as they differ in many places from the printed copies, and contain a book more than lias yet appeared. These discoveries were followed by many others, particularly in astronomy: he was one of the first who applied the telescope to astronomical quadrants: he first executed the work called “La Connoissance des Temps,” which he calculated from 1679 to 1683 inclusively: he first observed the light in the vacuum of the barometer, or the mercurial phosphorus: he also first of any went through several parts of France, to measure the degrees of the French meridian, and first gave a chart of the country, which the Cassini’s afterwards carried to a great degree of perfection. He died in 1682 or 1683, leaving a name dear to his friends, and respectable to his contemporaries and to posterity. His works are: 1. “A treatise on Levelling.” 2. “Practical Dialling by calculation.” 3. “Fragments of Dioptrics.” 4. “Experiments on Running Water.” 5. “Of Measurements.” 6. “Mensuration of Fluids and Solids.” 7. ' Abridgment of the Measure of the Earth.“8.” Journey to Uraniburgh, or Astronomical Observations made in Denmark.“9.” Astronomical Observations made in divers parts of France.“10” La Connoissance des Temps," from 1679 to 1683.

Picus quitted Florence about the end of the year 1485, with a view to visit Perugia, and appears to have beea employed, for some time, in adding to his other stores a knowledge of the oriental languages; stimulated, as he says, by the acquisition of certain oriental works, which he deemed of inestimable value, and which were thrown in his way, he adds, by the peculiar kindness of Providence. In a letter, written in Oct. 1486, to Andreas Corneus, another of his learned correspondents, he says: “I have, by assiduous and intense application, attained to the knowledge of the Hebrew and Chaldaic languages, and am at present struggling with the difficulties of the Arabic. Such are the achievements which I have ever thought, and still think, worthy the ambition of a nobleman: though the expression may contain as much satire as truth.” In this letter he gives a hint of his intended visit to Rome, which constitutes one of the most singular occurrences in his life,

, one of the most celebrated sculptors that France has produced, was born at Paris in 1714, the son of a joiner, and by his talents became not only sculptor to the king, but chancellor of the academy of painting, and knight of the order of St. Michael. He did not manifest any early disposition for designing; he loved to model, but set about it awkwardly, and finished nothing but by means of indefatigable labour. A visit to Italy gave him that facility which he could not acquire at home. He there studied the works of the great artists, and returned thoroughly inspired with their genius. He died at Paris, Aug. 20, 1785. His most known works are, 1. “A Mercury and a Venus,” which he made by order of Louis XV. and which were presented to the king of Prussia. The king, who was delighted with them, was desirous to see the sculptor; and Pigalle, some time after, went to Berlin, but, being announced as the author of the Mercure de France, could not obtain an audience. When Frederic understood the mistake, he was very anxious to repair it; but Pigalle was already gone in some digust. Pigalle maintained that none of the heads of Frederic did justice to his physiognomy, which, in point of spirit, was the finest he had ever seen; and much regretted that he had not been allowed to model it. 2. The monument of marechal Saxe, in which the beauty of the whole obliterates all objections to the parts. 3. The pedestrian statue of Louis *XV. executed in bronze for the city of Rheims. 4. The statue of Voltaire. 5. A little boy holding a cage. '6. A girl taking a thorn from her foot. 7. Several busts of men of letters who were his friends. If Pigaile cannot be ranked among the men of the first genius in his art, the good sense of his designs, and the soundness of his taste, afford him a place in the very next class.

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

, earl of Chatham, one of the most illustrious statesmen whom this country has produced, was the son of Robert Pitt, esq. of Boconnock in Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt, governor of Madras, who was purchaser of the celebrated diamond, afterwards called the Regent. The family was originally of Dorsetshire, where it had been long and respectably established. William Pitt was born Nov. 15, 1708, and educated at Eton; whence, in January 1726, he went as a gentleman-commoner to Trinity-college, Oxford. It has been said, that he was not devoid of poetical talents, of which a few specimens have been produced; but they do not amount to much, and of his Latin verses on the death of George the First, it is natural to suspect that the whole merit was not his own. When he quitted the university, Pitt was for a time in the army, and served as a cornet; but his talents leading him more decisively to another field of action, he quitted the life of a soldier for that of a statesman, and became a member of parliament for the borough of Old Sarum, in February 1735. In this situation his abilities were soon distinguished, and he spoke with great eloquence against the Spanish convention in 1738. It was on the occasion of the bill for registring seamen in 1740, which he opposed as arbitrary and unjustifiable, that he is said to have made his celebrated reply to Mr. Horatio Walpole, who had attacked him on account of his youth (though then thirty-two), adding, that the discovery of truth is little promoted by pompous diction and theatrical emotion. Mr. Pitt retorted, with great severity, “I will not undertake to determine whether youth can justly be imputed to any man as a reproach; but I will affirm, that the wretch who, after having seen the consequences of repeated errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults. Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy; and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country.” Something like this Mr. Pitt might have said, but the language is that of Dr. Johnson, who then reported the debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine.

Pius, in the latter part of his pontificate, made great preparations against the Turks, for which purpose he summoned the assistance of the several princes in Europe; and having raised a considerable number of troops, he went to Ancona to see them embarked; where he was seized with a fever, and died the 14th of August, 1464, in the fifty-­ninth year of his age, and the seventh of his pontificate. His body was carried to Rome, and interred in the Vatican. The Roman catholic writers are profuse in their praises of this pope, whose character, however, whether private or public, will not bear the strictest scrutiny. His secretary, John Gobelin, published a history of his life, which is supposed to have been written by this pope himself: it was printed at Rome in quarto in 1584 and 1589 and at Francfort in folio in 1614. We have an edition of Æneas Sylvius’s works, printed at Basil, in folio, in 1551. They consist of Memoirs of the Council of Bâle; The History of the Bohemians from their origin till A. D. 1458; Cosmography, in two books; the History of Frederick III. whose vice-chancellor he was; a Treatise on the education of children; a Poem on the Passion of Jesus Christ; a collection of 482 Letters; Historia rerum ubicunque gestarum; the first part only of which was published at Venice in 1477, fol. Euryalus and Lucretia, a romance. A collection of all these, with his life, was also published at Helmstadt in 1700, fol. He was, notwithstanding the applauses of the catholics, a man of great ambition, and great duplicity. He has been praised for his wise and witty sayings, but he was also famous for sayings of a very different description. He indulged himself, respecting the reformers, in a rancour of language which must be offensive to every sober Christian; and his letters show that he indulged great licence in point of morals. Mr. Gilpin, after selecting some striking proofs of this, says, “Such is the testimony which Æneas Sylvius hath given us of himself. It may serve to invalidate what he hath said of others; as it seems entirely to show that his censures are founded upon a mere difference of opinion, without any regard to practice, which is one of the characteristics of bigotry. They who are not acquainted with the history of this writer will be surprised to hear that the man of whom we have this authentic character, was not only a pope, but is acknowledged by the generality of popish writers, as one of the most respectable of all the Roman pontiffs.”

, an eminent printer, was born at Mont-Louis, near Tours, in 1514. He was instructed in his art at Caen, under Robert Mace, whence he went to Antwerp, and formed by degrees one of the greatest establishments for printing in Europe, and said indeed to be unique in its kind. The whole was upon the most magnificent scale, and even the building was accounted one of the ornaments of the city of Antwerp, and was so amply furnished with presses, founts of letter of all sorts, a foundery, and other matters necessary for the concern, as to have cost an immense sum of money. One of his biographers informs us that Plantin’s ideas were so magnificent as that he cast some founts in silver, and considered himself as having in.that respect done what no other printer had attempted but this is a mistake, as Robert Stephens had before indulged himself in the luxury of silver types, although not so rich a man as Plantin. In 1576 Thuanus paid a visit to Plantin, who, although not now in such good circumstances, still had seventeen presses at work, and the wages of his workmen amounted to 20O florins per day. But what redounds most to his credit was the number of men of learning whom he retained in his service, and rewarded with great liberality for their assistance in correcting the press. Among these were Victor Giselin; Theodore Pulman; Antony Gesdal; Francis Hardouin Cornelius Kilien and Francis Raphelengius, who became his son-in-law. Cornelius Kilien, one of the most learned and accurate of these, spent fifty years in this printing-house. The correctness, therefore, of Plantin’s editions, with such aid, is not much a matter of surprise, and will appear still less so when it is added that he was so fastidious as not altogether to trust to the assistants now mentioned, nor even to rely on his own skill and knowledge, both of which were great, but used also to hang up the proof sheets, after undergoing every possible degree of correction, in some conspicuous place, promising rewards for the detection of errors. In this, likewise, it will be observed, he followed the example of Robert Stephens. Such care on the part of Plantin, with the beauty of his types, and the judicious choice he made of the authors to be printed, gave him very high reputation among the learned of Europe, who are unbounded in their praises of him, particularly Lipsius, Scaliger, Antonio, Baronius, and Arias Montanus, who expatiates on his merits in the introduction to what may be termed Plantin’s capital work, the Antwerp Polyglot. The king of Spain gave him the title of archi-typographus, and accompanied this title with a salary sufficient to support it and his printing-office, and a kind of patent for the printing of certain works, particularly of the religious kind, with which, Bullart says, he almost exclusively served Europe and the Indies.

, called the elder, to distinguish him from his nephew, was one of the most learned of the ancient Roman writers, and was born in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, about the year of Christ 23. His birth-place was Verona, as appears from his calling Catullus his countryman, who was unquestionably of that city. Tho ancient writer of his life, ascribed to Suetonius, and, after him, St. Jerom, have made him a native of Rome: father Hardouin has also taken some pains to confirm this notion, which however has not prevailed. We can more readily believe Aulus Gellius, who represents him as one of the most ingenious men of his age; and what is related of his application by his nephew the younger Pliny, is almost incredible. Yet his excessive love of study did not spoil the man of business, nor prevent him from filling the most important offices with credit. He was a procurator, or manager of the emperor’s revenue, in the provinces of Spain and Africa; and was advanced to the high dignity of augur. He had also several considerable commands in the army, and was distinguished by his courage in the field, as well as by his eloquence at the bar. His manner of life, as it is described by his nephew, exhibits a degree of industry and perseverance scarcely to be paralleled. In summer he always began his studies as soon as it was night: in winter, generally at one in the morning, but never later than two, and often at midnight. No man ever spent less time in bed; and sometimes he would, without retiring from his books, indulge in a short sleep, and then pursue his studies. Before day-break, it was his custom to wait upon Vespasian, who likewise chose that season to transact business: and when he had finished the affairs which the emperor committed to his charge, he returned home again to his studies. After a slender repast at noon, he would frequently, in the summer, if he was disengaged from business, recline in the sun: during which time some author was read to him, from which he made extracts and observations. This was his constant method, whatever book he read; for it was a maxim of his, that “no book was so bad, but something might be learned from it.” When this was over, he generally went into the cold-bath, after which he took a slight refreshment of food and rest and then, as if it had been a new day, resumed his studies till supper-time, when a book was again read to him, upon which he would make some remarks as they went on. His nephew mentions a singular instance to shew how parsimonious he was of his time, and how covetous of knowledge. His reader having pronounced a word wrong, some person at the table made him repeat it: upon which, Pliny asked that person if he understood it? and when he acknowledged that he did, “Why then,” said he, “would you make him go back again we have lost, by this interruption, above ten lines.” In summer, he always rose from supper by clay-light and in winter, as soon as it was dark. Such was his way of life amidst the noise and hurry of the town but in the country his whole time was devoted to study without intermission, excepting only when he bathed, that is, was actually in the bath for during the operation of rubbing and wiping, he was employed either in hearing some book read' to him, or in dictating himself. In his journeys, he lost no time from his studies, his mind at those seasons being disengaged from all other thoughts, and a secretary or amanuensis constantly attended him in his chariot; and that he might suffer the less interruption to his studies, instead of walking, he always used a carriage in Rome. By this extraordinary application he found leisure to write a great many volumes.

To the works of this author may be added a vast quantity of manuscripts, which he left to his nephew, and for which he had been offered by Largius Licinius 400,000 sesterces, that is, about 3200l. of our money. “You will wonder,” says his nephew, “how a man, so engaged as he was, could find time to compose such a number of books; and some of them too upon abstruse subjects. Your surprise will rise still higher, when you hear, that for some time he engaged in the profession of an advocate, that he died in his 56th year, that from the time of his quitting the bar to his death he was employed in the highest posts, and in the service of his prince: but he had a quick apprehension, joined to an unwearied application.” Ep. iii. 5. Hence he became not only a master in polite literature, in grammar, eloquence, and history, but possessed a knowledge of the various arts and sciences, geography, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, medicine, botany, sculpture, painting, architecture, &c. for of all these things has he treated in the very important work that he has left us. The first edition of Pliny’s “Naturalis Historia” canlfc from the press of Spira at Venice in 1469, and is reckoned one of the most beautiful, rare, and valuable publications of the fifteenth century. Mr. Dibdin describes the copy in lord Spencer’s library as the finest extant. Five other editions were published from 1470 to 1476, such was the demand for this store-house of natural history. Of the modern editions, the preference is usually given to that by the celebrated father Hardouin, of which there are two, the first “in usum Delphini,” Paris, 5 vols. 4to; the second, 1723, 3 vols. folio, which is a more copious, splendid, and critical performance. Since that, we have an excellent edition by Franzius, Leipsic, 1778 9J, 10 vols, 8vo. Another by Brotier, Paris, 1779, 6 vols. 8vo. And a third, Bipont, 1783, 6 vols, 8vo. There are translations of it, or of parts, in all languages. That endless translator Philemon Holland exerted his own and his readers’ patience on a version into English, published in 1601, folio.

There have been many editions of Plutarch, but he came later to the press than most other classical authors. There was no edition of any part of the original Greek, before Aldus printed the “Morals,” which was not until 1509. The “Lives” appeared first at Florence, by Junta, in 1517. The first edition of the “Opera Omnia,” was Stephen’s, at Paris, in 1572, Greek and Latin, 13 vols. Dr. Harwood calls it one of the most correct books H. Stephens ever published; but other critics are by no means of this opinion. The next was that of Cruserius, at Francfort, 1599, 2 vols. folio, which has the advantage of Xylander’s excellent Latin version, who himself published two editions, Francfort, 1620, and Paris, 1624, 2 vols. folio; both valuable. Reiske’s, of Leipsic, 1774, &c. 12 vols. 8vo, is a most elaborate edition, which, however, he did not live to finish. But the best of all is that of Wytteubach, published lately at Oxford in quarto and octavo, and too well known to scholars to require any description.

He was interred in one of the north ailes joining to the choir of the cathedral of Christ church, Oxford; and a monument is erected to him on the north wall of the north isle of that church, with the following inscription. “Edwardus Pocock, S. T. D. (cujus si nomen audias, nil hie de fama desideres) natus est Oxoniae Nov. 8, ann. Dom. 1604, socius in Collegium Corp. Christi cooptatus 1628, in Linguae Arabicse Lecturam publice habendam primus est institutus 1636, deincle etiam in Hebraicam Professori Regio successit 1648. Desideratissimo Marito Sept. 10, 1691, in ccelum reverso, Maria Burdet, ex qua novenam suscepit sobolem, tumuium hunc mcerens posuit.” His Theological works were republished at London in 1740, in 2 vo,l$. fol. by Mr. Leonard Twells, M. A. to which is prefixed a Life of the Author. Of this we have availed ourselves in the present sketch, but not without omitting many very curious particulars relating both to Dr. Pocock and to the history of his times, which render Mr. Twells’ s work one of the most interesting biographical documents. Dr. Pocock’s life was first attempted by the rev. Humphrey Smith, a Devonshire clergyman, who was assisted by the doctor’s eldest son, the rev. Edward Pocock, rector of Minall in Wiltshire, and prebendary of Sarum. What they could collect was, after a long interval, committed to the care of the rev. Leonard Tvvells, M. A. rector of the united parishes of St. Matthew’s Friday-street, and St. Peter Cheap, and prebendary of St. Paul’s, with the consent of the rev. John Pocock, the doctor’s grandson. The contents of these two volumes are the “Porta Mosis,” and his English commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi. The Arabic types were supplied by the society for the promoting Christian knowledge, in consequence of an application made to them by the rev. Arthur Bedford, chaplain to the Haberdashers’ hospital, Hoxton. But what renders this edition peculiarly valuable is, that it was corrected for the press by the rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thomas Hunt, one of Dr. Pocock’s learned successors in the Arabic chair.

a celebrated French cardinal, was born Oct. 11, 1661, at Puy, in Velay, and was the son of Louis Armand, viscount de Polignac, descended from one of the most ancient families in Languedoc. He was.sent early to Paris, where he distinguished himself as a student, and was soon noticed as a young man of elegant manners and accomplishments. In 1689, cardinal de Bouillon carried him to Rome, and employed him in several important negociations. It was at one of his interviews with pope Alexander VIII. that this pontiff said to him, “You seem always, sir, to be of my opinion, and yet it is your own which prevails at last.” We are likewise told that when, on his return to Paris, Louis XIV. granted him along audience, he said as he went out, <4 I have been conversing with a man, and a young man, who has contradicted me in every thing, yet pleased me in every thing.*' In 1693, he was sent as ambassador into Poland, where he procured the prince of Conti to be elected and proclaimed king in 1696; but, this election not having been supported, he was obliged to retire, and return to France, where he arrived in 1698, after losing all his equipage and furniture, which was seized by the Dantzickers. The king then banished him to his abbey at Bonport, but recalled him to court with great expressions of regard in 1702, and in 1706 appointed him auditor of the Rota. M. Polignac then set out again for Rome and cardinal de la Tremouille, who conducted the French affairs there, having the same opinion of him as cardinal de Bouillon had, employed him in several negociations. Going back to France three years after, his majesty sent him as plenipotentiary into Holland in 1710, with marechal d'Uxelles. He was also plenipotentiary at the conferences and peace of Utrecht, in 1712 and 1713. The king, satisfied with his services, obtained a cardinal’s hat for him the same year, and appointed him master of his chapel. During the regency, cardinal de Polignac was banished to his abbey of Anchin in 1718, and not recalled till 172L. In 1724, he went to Rome for the election of pope Benedict XIII. and remained there eight years, being entrusted with the affairs of France. In 1726, he was made archbishop of Auch, returned to his native country in 1732, and died at Paris, November 10, 1741, aged 80. He was a member of the French academy, the academy of sciences, and that of belles lettres. He is now chiefly remembered for his elegant Latin poem, entitled “Anti-Lucretius,” in which he refutes the system and doctrine of Epicurus, according to the principles of Descartes’ philosophy. This he left to a friend, Charles de Rothelin, who published it in 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. It has since been often reprinted, and elegantly translated by M. de Bougainville, secretary to the academy of belles lettres. His Life was published at Paris, 1777, 2 vols. 12mo, by F. Ghrysostom Faucher. The reviewer of this life very justly says, that the man who compiled the “Anti-Lucretius,” and proposed a plan for forming a new bed for the Tiber, in order to recover the statues, medals, basso-relievos, and other ancient monuments, which were buried there during the rage of civil factions, and the incursions of the barbarians, deserves an eminent place in literary biography. Few works have been more favourably received throughout Europe than the cardinal’s celebrated poem, although he was so much of a Cartesian. The first copy that appeared in England was one in the possession of the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and such was its reputation abroad at that time, that this copy was conveyed by a trumpet from marshal Saxe to the Duke of Cumberland, directed for the earl of Chesterfield, It was sent to him both as a judge of the work, and a friend of the writer.

, marquis of, a French nobleman, still more distinguished by his talents in poetry than by his rank, was born at Montauban in 1709. He was educated for the magistracy, and became advocategeneral, and first president of the court of aids at Montauban. His inclination for poetry, however, could not be repressed, and at the age of twenty-five he produced his tragedy of “Dido,” in which he approved himself not only one of the most successful imitators of Racine, but an able and elegant poet. After this success at Paris, he returned to his duties at Montauban, which he fulfilled in the most upright manner; but having suffered a short exile, on account of some step which displeased the court, he became digusted with the office of a magistrate. As he had now also increased his fortune by an advantageous marriage, he determined to remove to Paris, where at first he was received as his virtues and his talents deserved. His sincere attachment to Christianity brought upon him a persecution from the philosophists, which, after a time, drove him back to the country. Voltaire and his associates had nowinundated France with their deistical tracts the materialism of Helvetius in his book de TEsprit, had just been brought forward in the most triumphant manner the enemies of Christianity had filled the Encyclopedic with the poison of their opinions, and had by their intrigues formed a powerful party in the French academy, when the marquis of Pompignan was admitted as an academician, in 1760. He had the courage, at his admission, to pronounce a discourse, the object of which was to prove that the man of virtue and religion is the only true philosopher. From this moment he was the object of perpetual persecution. Voltaire and his associates were indefatigable in pouring out satires against him: his religion was called hypocrisy, and his public declaration in its favour an attempt to gain the patronage of certain leading men. These accusations, as unjust as they were illiberal, mingled with every species of sarcastic wit, had the effect of digusting the worthy marquis with Paris. He retired to his estate of Pompignan, where he passed the remainder of his<laysin the practice of a true philosophy, accompanied by sincere piety and died of an apoplexy in 1784, at the age of seventy-five, most deeply regretted by his neighbours and dependents. The shameful treatment of this excellent man, by the sect which then reigned in the academy, is a strong illustration of that conspiracy against religion, so ably detailed by M. Barruel, in the first volume of his Memoirs of Jacobinism. When once he had declared himself a zealous Christian no merit was allowed him, nor any effort spared to overwhelm him with disgrace and mortification. His compositions nevertheless were, and are, esteemed by impartial judges. His “Sacred Odes,” notwithstanding the sarcasm of Voltaire, “sacred they are, for no one touches them,” abound in poetical spirit, and lyric beauties though it is confessed also that they have their inequalities. His “Discourses imitated from the books of Solomon,” contain important moral truths, delivered with elegance, and frequently with energy. His imitation of the Georgics of Virgil, though inferior to that of the abbe De Lille (whose versification is the richest and most energetic of modern French writers), has yet considerable merit and his “Voyage de Languedoc,” though not equal, in easy and lively negligence to that of Chapelle, is superior in elegance, correctness, and variety. He wrote also some operas which were not acted and a comedy in verse, in one act, called “Les Adieux de Mars,” which was represented with success at the Italian comic theatre in Paris. The marquis of Pompignan was distinguished also as a writer in prose. His “Eulogium on the Duke of Burgundy,” is written with an affecting simplicity. His “Dissertations,” his “Letter to the younger Racine,” and his “Academical Discourses,” all prove a sound judgment, a correct taste, and a genius improved by careful study of the classic models. He produced also a “Translation of some dialogues of Lucian,” and some “Tragedies of Æschylus,” which are very generally esteemed. He was allowed to be a man of vast literature, and almost universal knowledge in the fine arts. Yet such a man was to be ill-treated, and crushed if possible, because he had the virtue to declare himself a partizan of religion. Even his enemies, and the most inflexible of them, Voltaire, were unable to deny the merit of some of his poetical compositions. The following stanza in particular, in “An- Ode on the Death of Rousseau,” obtained a triumph for him in defiance of prejudice. The intention seems to be to illustrate the vanity of those who speak against religion:

, an eminent French engineer, is considered as the first military topographer, or rather as the inventor of that art, in the time of Louis XIV. It was his practice to follow the army, and construct upon the spot plans of the battles and sieges, with historical and perspective accompaniments. We find many of his plans in the “GEvre de Delle-Bella” but his most important work is entitled “Les glorieuses Conquetes de Louis-le-Grand ou Recueil de Plans et Vues des places assiegees, et de celles ou se sont donnee*s des batailles, avec des Discours,” 2 vols. folio. This work, one of the most magnificent of the kind, comprehends all the operations of war, from the battle of Rocroi, in 1643, to the taking of Namur, in 1692. De Pontault died in 1674; but the work was completed to the above date at the expence of his niece, the widow of the sieur Des Roches. This edition is usually called the Grand Beaulieu, to distinguish it' from one on a reduced scale, in oblong quarto, called the Petit fieaulieu, of which there are two series, one in three volumes, comprehending views of the actions in the Netherlands; the other in four, which includes those of France. From the death of this able draftsman, military topography is said to have been productive of very few good specimens in France, uptil within the last fifty years.

, an eminent Florentine artist, whose surname is not known, was called Baccio dellaPorta, from a study which he kept when a youth, near a gate of the city; and this name was afterwards changed to the more celebrated one of Fra Bartolommeo di S. Marco, when he entered the order of that Dominican convent. Sometimes he is only called “il Frate.” He was born in 1469, and studied under Cosimo Roselli but soon grew enamoured of the grand chiaro-scuro of Lionardo da Vinci, and strove to emulate it. His progress was rapid, and he became the instructor of Raphael in colour, who gave him lessons in perspective, and taught him to unite gracefulness with grandeur of form. The composition of his sacred subjects, and he painted little else, is that which adhered to Raphael himself, and was not dismissed by the Florentine school before the epoch of Pontormo; but he disguised its formality by the introduction of architecture and majestic scenery. To repel the invidious charge of incapacity for large proportions, he produced the sublime figure of St. Marc, which alone fills an ample pannel, and is, or was lately, among the spoils of the Louvre. His St. Sebastian, for skill in the naked, and energy of colour, obtained every suffrage of artists and of critics, but being considered as indecent, the monks thought proper to sell and send it to France. In drapery he may be considered as an inventor; no artist of his school formed it with equal breadth or dignity, or so natural and expressive of the limits; and if he were the instructor, he was certainly not the slave, of the layman. One work of his, of prodigious grandeur and beauty, is unnoticed by Mr. Fuseli, whose account we have nearly followed hitherto, viz. the Assumption of the Virgin, at Lucca. Its situation being retired, this picture is little known to travellers, though it is one of the most sublime productions of the pencil. Mr. West, the president of the Royal Academy, has in his possession a considerable part of the Studies mentioned by Vasari as having been left to his scholar, a nun of St. Catharine at Florence; and among them several drawings for this picture and its various parts. They are accompanied by about two hundred drawings of figures, draperies, and limbs, studied from nature with great care and taste; and exhibit the industry and uncommon zeal with which he laid the basis of his justly-acquired fame. He died in 1517.

, a very ingenious but visionary man, was by birth a Norman, of a small hamlet called Dolerie where he was born in 1510. Never did genius struggle with more vigour against the extremes of indigence. At eight years old, he was deprived of both his parents by the plague when only fourteen, unable to subsist in his native place, he removed to another near Pontoise, and undertook to keep a school. Having thus obtained a little money, he went to Paris, to continue his studies but there was plundered and suffered so much from cold, that he languished for two years in an hospital. When he recovered, he again collected a little money by gleaning irv the country, and returned to Paris, where he subsisted by waiting on some of the students in the college of St. Barbe; but made, at the same time, so rapid a progress in knowledge, that he became almost an universal scholar. His acquirements were so extraordinary, that they became known to the king, Francis I. who, touched with so much merit, under such singular disadvantages, sent him to the East to collect manuscripts. This commission he executed so well, that on his return, he was appointed royal professor of mathematics and languages, with a considerable salary. Thus he might appear to be settled for life; but this was not his destiny. He was, unfortunately for himself, attached to the chancellor Poyet, who fell under the displeasure of the queen of Navarre and Postel, for no other fault, was deprived of his appointments, and obliged to quit France. He now became a wanderer, and a visionary. From Vienna, from Rome, from the order of Jesuits, into which he had entered, he was successively banished for strange and singular opinions; for which also he was imprisoned at Rome and at Venice. Being released, as a madman, he returned 10 Paris, whence the same causes again drove him into Germany. At Vienna he was once more received, and obtained a professorship; but, having made his peace at home, was again recalled to Paris, and re-established in his places. He had previously recanted his errors, but relapsing into them, was banished to a monastery, where he performed acts of penitence, and died Sept. 6, 1581, at the age of seventy-one. Postel pretended to be much older than he was, and maintained that he had died and risen again which farce he supported by many tricks, such as- colouring his beard and hair, and even painting his face. For the same reason, in most of his works, he styles himself, “Postellus restitntus.” Notwithstanding his strange extravagances, he was one of the greatest geniuses of his time; had a surprising quickness and memory, with so extensive a knowledge of languages, that he boasted he could travel round the world without an interpreter. Francis I. regarded him as the wonder of his age Charles IX. called him his philosopher; and when he lectured at Paris, the crowd of auditors was sometimes so great, that they could only assemble in the open court of the college, while he taught them from a window. But by applying himself very earnestly to the study of the Rabbins, and of the stars, he turned his head, and gave way to the most extravagant chimeras. Among these, were the notions that women at a certain period are to have universal dominion over men that all the mysteries of Christianity are demonstrable by reason that the soul of Adam had entered into his body that the angel Raziel had revealed to him the secrets of heaven and that his writings were dictated by Jesus Christ himself. His notion of the universal dominion of women, arose from his attachment to an old maid at Venice, in consequence of which he published a strange and now very rare and high-priced book, entitled “Les tres-marveilieuseS victoires des Femmes du Nouveau Monde, et comme elles doivent par raison a tout le monde commander, et me' me a; eeux qui auront la monarchic du Monde viel,” Paris, 1553, 16mo. At the same time, he maintained, that the extraordinary age to which he pretended ttf have lived, was occasioned hy his total abstinence from all commerce with that sex. His works are as numerous as, they are strange and some of them are very scarce, hut very little deserve to be collected. One of the most important is entitled “De orbis concordia,” Bale, 1544, folio. In this the author endeavours to bring all the world to the Christian faith under two masters, the pope, in spiritual affairs, and the king of France in temporal. It is divided into four books; in the first of which he gives the proofs of Christianity; the second contains a refutation of the Koran; the third treats of the origin of idolatry, and all false religions and the fourth, on the mode of converting Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, Of his other works, amounting to twenty-six articles, which are enumerated in the “Dictionnaire Historique,” and most of them by Brunet as rarities with the French collectors, many display in their very titles the extravagance of their contents; such as, “Clavis absconditorum a, constitutione ixmndi,” Paris, 1547, 16mo; “De Ultimo judicio;” “Proto-evangelium,” &c. Some are on subjects of more real utility. But the fullest account of the whole may be found in a book published at Liege in 1773, entitled “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur 3a Vie et les ouvrages de Guillaume Postel,” by father des Billons. The infamous book, “De tribus impostoribus,” has been very unjustly attributed to Postel, for, notwithstanding all his wildness, he was a believer.

Prynne has been thought an honest man, for opposing equally Charles, the army, and Cromwell, when he thought they were betrayers of the country; and after having accurately observed, and sensibly felt, in his own person, the violation of law occasioned by each of them, he gave his most strenuous support to the legal and established government of his country, effected by the restoration of Charles II. The earl of Clarendon calls him learned in the law, as far as mere reading of books could make him learned. His works are all in English; and, “by the generality of scholars,” says Wood, “are looked upon to be rather rhapsodical and confused, than any way polite or concise: yet for antiquaries, critics, and sometimes for divines, they are useful. In most of them he shews greatindustry, but little judgment, especially in his large folios against the pope’s usurpations. He may be well entitled ‘voluminous Prynne,’ as Tostatus Abulensis was, two hundred years before his time, called ‘ voluminous Tostatus;’ for I verily believe, that, if rightly computed, he wrote a sheet for every day of his life, reckoning from the time when he came to the use of reason and the state of man.” Many of his works have lately been in request, and have been purchased at high prices. Whether they are more read than before, is not so certain; but much curious matter might be extracted by a patient and laborious reader, which would throw light on the controversies and characters of the times. He was himself perhaps one of the most indefatigable students. He read or wrote during the whole clay, and that he might not be interrupted, had no regular meals, but took, as he wanted it, the humble refreshment of bread, cheese, and ale, which were at his elbow.

, one of the most famous Italian poets, was born at Florence, Decembers, 1431. He was of a noble family, and was the most poetical of three brothers who all assiduously courted the Muses. His two elder brothers, Bernardo and Luca, appeared as poets earlier than himself. The first production of the family is probably the Elegy of Bernardo addressed to Lorenzo de' Jiedici, on the death of his grandfather Cosmo. He also wrote an elegy on the untimely death of the beautiful Simonetta, mistress of Giuliano de' Medici, the brother of Lorenzo, which was published at Florence in 1494, though written much earlier. He produced the first Italian translation of the Eclogues of Virgil, which appears to have been finished about 1470 and was published in 1481 and a poem on the Passion of Christ. Luca wrote a celebrated poem on a tournament held at Florence in which Lorenzo was victor, in 1468, entitled “Giostra di Lorenzo de' Medici” as Politian celebrated the success of Giuliano, in his “Giostra di. Giuliano de' Medici.” It is confessed, however, that the poem of Luca Pulci derives its merit rather from the minute information it gives respecting the exhibition, than from its poetical excellence. He produced also “II Ciriffo Calvaneo,” an epic romance, probably the first that appeared in Italy, being certainly prior to the Morgante of his brother, and the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo and the “Driadeo d'Amore,” a pastoral romance in ottava rima. There are also eighteen heroic epistles by him in terza rima, the first from LucretiaDonati to Lorenzo de Medici, the rest on Greek and Roman subjects. These were printed in 1481, and do credit to their author. Luigi appeaps, from many circumstances, to have lived on terms of the utmost friendship with Lorenzo de Medici, who, in his poem entitled “La Caccia col Falcone,” mentions him with great freedom and jocularity. His principal work is the “Morgante maggiore,” an epic romance. Whether this or the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo was first written, has been a subject of doubt. Certain it is that the Morgante had the priority in publication, having been printed at Venice in 1488, after a Florentine edition of uncertain date whereas Bojardo' s poem did not appear till 1496, and, from some of the concluding lines, appears not to have been finished in 1494. The Morgante may therefore be justly, as it is generally, regarded as the prototype of the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto. It has been said without foundation that Ficinus and Politian had a share in this composition. It was first written at the particular request of Lucretia, mother of Lorenzo de Medici, but it was not finished till after her death, which happened in 1482. It is said by Crescimbeni that Pulci was accustomed to recite this poem at the table of Lorenzo, in the manner of the ancient rhapsodists. This singular offspring of the wayward genius of Pulci has been as immoderately commended by its admirers, as it has been unreasonably condemned and degraded by its opponents: and while some have not scrupled to prefer it to the productions of Ariosto and Tasso, others have decried it as vulgar, absurd, and profane. From the solemnity and devotion with which every canto is introduced, some have judged that the author meant to give a serious narrative, but the improbability of the relation, and the burlesque nature of the incidents, destroy all ideas of this kind. M. de la Monnoye says that the author, whom he conceives to have been ignorant of rules, has confounded the comic and serious styles, and made the giant, his hero, die a burlesque death, by the bite of a sea-crab in his heel, in the twentieth book, so that in the eight which remain he is not mentioned. The native simplicity of the narration, he adds, covers all faults: and the lovers of the Florentine dialect still read it with delight, especially when they can procure the edition of Venice, in 1546 or 1550, with the explanations of his nephew John Pulci. These, however, are no more than a glossary of a few words subjoined to each canto. There are also sonnets by Luigi Pulci, published with those of Matteo Franco, in which the two authors satirize each other without mercy or delicacy yet it is supposed that they were very good friends, and only took these liberties with each other for the sake of amusing the public. They were published about the fifteenth century, entitled “Sonetti di Misere Mattheo Franco et di Luigi Pulci jocosi et faceti, cioe da ridere.” No other poem of this author is mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, who has given the best account of him, except “La Beca di Dicomano,” written in imitatation and emulation of “La Nencio da Barberino,” by Lorenzo de Medici, ajid published with it. It is a poem in the rustic style and language, but instead of the more chastised and delicate humour of Lorenzo, the poem of Pulci, says Mr. Roscoe, partakes of the character of his Morgante, and wanders into the burlesque and extravagant. It has been supposed that this poet died about 1-487, but it was probably something later. The exact time id not known.

Of all his numerous pieces, the “Art of Poesie,” and the n Partheniades,“are the only ones known to exist, and it seems unaccountable that not a single poem by this author found a place in those miscellaneous and fashionable repositories, the” Paradise of Dainty Devices,“or” England’s Helicon.“His own volume however proves the neglect of the age, for of many poems noticed as the avowed productions of some of our best writers, we have no other knowledge than the scraps there incidentally preserved. His” Partheniades,“lately reprinted, were presented to queen Elizabeth, as a new year’s gift? probably on Jan. 1, 1579 his” Art of English Poesie“was published in 1589. From this last work it appears that he was a candid but sententious critic. What his observations want in argument is compensated by the soundness of his judgment; and his conclusions, notwithstanding their brevity, are just and pertinent. He did not hastily scan his author to indulge in an untimely sneer and his opinions were adopted by contemporary writers, and have not been dissented from by moderns. Mr. Gilchrist, in the” Censura Lit.“has drawn an able and comprehensive character of this work, as” on many accounts one of the most curious and entertaining, and intrinsically one of the most valuable books of the age of Elizabeth." In 1811, Mr. Haslewood reprinted this valuable work with his usual accuracy, and in a very elegant form, prefixing some account of the author, of which we have availed ourselves in the present sketch.

His sentiments will further appear by his publishing his “Paraphrase on the Acts, and all the Epistles,” in the manner of Dr. Clarke. This was followed by his “Paraphrase on the Revelation of St. John,” and on the “Historical books of the Old Testament;” all which, comprising what was thought necessary for illustration, within a small compass, and in a plain and perspicuous manner, were much recommended and much read. His writings are generally characterised by perspicuity and manly sense, rather than by any elevation of style yet in the delivery of his sermons, so impressive was his elocution that, both in the metropolis and in the country, he was one of the most admi /ed preachers of his time. His sole aim was to amend or improve his auditors. For this purpose he addressed himself, not to their passions, but to their understandings and consciences. He judiciously preferred a plainness, united with a force of expression, to all affectation of elegance or rhetorical sublimity, and delivered hi* discourses with so just and animated a torie of voice, as never failed to gain universal attention. Although he lived in friendship and familiar correspondence with many eminent churchmen, as bishop Hoadly, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Sykes, &c. yet he remained long in a situation of comparative obscurity. This, according to a passage in one of archbishop Herring’s letters to Mr. Duncomb, was, “in some measure, owing to himself; for that very impetuosity of spirit which, under proper government, renders him the agreeable creature he is, has, in some circumstances of life, got the better of him, and hurt his views.” This probably alludes to his being heterodox with respect to the Trinity, which was common with most of the divines with whom he associated. He continued to be preacher at St. Nicholas, King’s Lynn, till 1732, when he succeeded to the vicarage of St. Margaret, which he held till 1755. Being then no Jonger capable of discharging the duties annexed to it, he gave in his resignation, both to the dean and chapter of Norwich, and also to the mayor and corporation of Lynn, early in the summer of that year. He then retired to SwafFham, where he died, Dec. 31, 1756, aged eighty-two > and was buried in the church of Lynn All Saints.

, a noted republican in the time of Charles I. was descended of a good family in Somersetshire, and born in 1584. In his fifteenth year he entered as a gentleman-commoner of Broadgate’s-hall, now Pembroke-college, Oxford, where he had for his tutor Degory Wheare, but appears to have left the university without taking a degree, and, as Wood supposes, went to one of the inns of court. He appears, indeed, to have been intended for public business, as he was very early placed as a clerk in the office of the exchequer. He was likewise not far advanced when he was elected member of parliament for Tavistock, in the reign of James I. He uniformly distinguished himself by his opposition to the measures of the court, both in the reign of that king and of his successor. In 1626 he was one of the managers of the articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham, and in 1628 brought into the House of Commons a. charge against Dr. Main waring, who held some doctrines which he conceived to be equally injurious to the king and the kingdom. He was likewise a great opponent of Arnainianism, being himself attached to Calvinistic principles. In 1639, he, with several other cominoners and lords, held a very close correspondence with the commissioners sent to London by the Scotch covenanters; and in the parliament which met April 13, 1640, was one of the most active and leading members. On the meeting of the next, which is called the Long Parliament, he made an elaborate speech concerning the grievances of the nation, and impeached the earl of Strafford of high treason, at whose trial he was one of the managers of the House of Commons. His uncommon violence led the king to the unhappy measure of coming to the parliament in person, to seize him and four other members. Pym, however, continued firm to the interests of the parliament, but thought it necessary, some time before his death, to draw up a vindication of his conduct, which leaves it doubtful what part he would have taken, had he lived to see the serious consequences of his early violence. In Nov. 1643, he was appointed lieutenant of the ordnance, and probably would have risen to greater distinction, but he died at Derby-house, Dec. 8 following, and was interred with great solemnity in Westminster- abbey. He left several children by his lady, who died in 1620, and is said to have been a woman of rare accomplishments and learning. Many of his speeches were printed separately, and are inserted in the annals and histories of the times.

, a French Dominican, and a very learned man, was born at Boulogne in 1661. He was well acquainted with the Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew languages and was critically skilled in the Holy Scriptures. Father Pezron, having attempted to establish the chronology of the Septuagint against that of the Hebrew text, found a powerful adversary in Le Quien who published a book in 1690, and afterwards another, against his “Amiquité des Terns rétablie,” a well-written work. Quien called his book “Antiquite des Terns detruite.” He applied himself assiduously to the study of the eastern churches, and that of England and wrote against Courayer upon the validity of the ordinations of the English bishops. In all this he was influenced by his zeal for popery, and to promote the glory of his church but he executed a work also for which both protestantism and learning were obliged to him, and on which account chiefly he is here noticed, an excellent edition in Greek and Latin of the works of Joannes Damascenus, 1712, 2 vols. folio. This did him great honour; and the notes and dissertations, which accompany his edition, shew him to have been one of the most learned men of his age. His excessive zeal for the credit of the Roman church made him publish another work in 4to, called “Panoplia contra schisma Graecorum” in which he endeavours to refute all those imputations of pride, ambition, avarice, and usurpation, that have so justly been brought against it. He projected, and had very far advanced, a very large work, which was to have exhibited an historical account of all the patriarchs and inferior prelates that have filled the sees in Africa and the East; and the first volume was printed at the Louvre, with this title, “Oriens Christianus in Africa,” when the author died at Paris in 17 S3.

, a celebrated archbishop of Mentz, and one of the most learned divines in the ninth century, was born in the year 785 at Mentz, or rather at Fulda, and descended from one of the most noble families in that country. Mackenzie, however, has inserted him among his Scotch writers, but without much apparent authority. The parents of Rabanus sent him, at ten years old, to the monastery of Fulda, where he was instructed in learning and virtue, and afterwards studied underthe famous Alcuinus, at Tours. In this situation he made so rapid a progress, as to acquire great reputation from his writings at the age of thirty. On his return to Fulda he was chosen abbot there, and reconciled the emperor Louis le Débonnaire to his children. Rabanus wrote a letter of consolation to this prince when unjustly deposed, and published a tract on the respect due from children to their parents, and from subjects to their princes, which may be found in “Marca de Concordiâ,” published by Baluze. He succeeded Orgar, archbishop o Mentz, in the year 847, but was so much a bigot, as to procure the condemnation of Godeschalc. He died at his estate of Winsel, in the year 856, aged sixty-eight, after having bequeathed his library to the abbeys of Fulda and St. Alban’s, leaving a great number of works printed at Cologn, 1627, 6 vols. in 3 folio. The principal are, 1. “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” the greatest part of which are mere extracts from the fathers, as was the usual method among commentators in his time. 2. A poem in honour of the holy cross, of which there is a neat edition printed at Augsburg, 1605, in folio; but the most rare is that printed at Phorcheim, in ædibus Thomæ Anselim, 1503, curiously ornamented. Of the frontispiece the first figure is that of Albinus, abbot of Fulda, who presents Rabanus to the pope, with a poetical piece entitled “Intercessio Albini;” Rabanus appears next, presenting his book to the pope, with a poetical piece, entitled “Commendatio Papæ,” Then follows a kind of dedication to the emperor Louis le Débonnaire, who is delineated on this dedication holding a shield in one hand, and a cross in the other, his head surrounded with glory all the letters comprised in these ornamented lines, form a discourse foreign to the dedication. The poem is in the same style on each of the 28 pages of which it consists, are figures of the cross, stars, cherubim, seraphim, &c. The last represents a cross, with the author adoring it; the letters comprised in this cross form various pious exclamations. 3. A treatise on “the Instruction of the Clergy.” 4. A treatise on “the Ecclesiastical Calendar,” in which he points out the method of distinguishing the leap years, and marking the inductions. 5. A book “on the sight of God, purity of Jieart, and the manner of doing penance.” 6. A large work, entitled “De Universe, sive Etymologiarum Opus.” 7. “Homilies.” 8. “A Martyrology,” &c. But a treatise on “Vices and Virtues,” which is attributed to Rabanus Maurus, was written by Halitgarius bishop of Orleans. His treatise “against the Jews,” may be found in Martenne’s “Thesaurus;” and some other small tracts in the “Miscellanea” of Baluze, and Father Sirmond’s works. Rabanus was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his age, and his character in this respect has been highly extolled both by Dupin and Mosheim.

After the death of Raphael, Marc Antonio was employed by Julio Romano. This connection was unfortunate, for he disgraced himself and his profession by engraving that painter’s abominable designs to accompany Aretine’s infamous verses. For this pope Clement VII. sent him to prison, from which he was released with great difficulty by the interest of the cardinal Julius de Medici and Baccio Bandinelli, the sculptor. The exquisite merit of his “martyrdom of St. Laurence,” at length reconciled the pope to him, who pardoned his offence entirely, and took him under his protection. He had now attained his highest reputation, and had accumulated wealth, but lost the latter entirely in 1527, when Rome was taken by the Spanish army. After this misfortune he retired to Bologna, where perhaps he died, but when is not known. The last print we have of his is dated 1539, after which he cannot be traced with certainty. Strutt considers him as one of the most extraordinary engravers that ever lived. The purity of his outlines, the correctness with which the extremities of his figures are marked, and the beauty and character which appear in the heads, prove him to have been a man of great taste and solid judgment, as well as a perfect master of drawing. These beauties, without doubt, appear most striking in his works from Raphael, a circumstance which seemsr greatly to confirm the report of his being much assisted by that great master. Strutt has given a list of the best of Marc Antonio’s prints, which however are rarely to be met with in their original state.

, one of the most learned and eminent divines of the sixteenth century, and a strenuous champion against popery, was the fifth son of Richard Rainolds of Pinho, or Penhoe, near Exeter in Devonshire, where he was born in 1549. He became first a student in Merton college, Oxford, in 1562, of which his uncle, Dr. Thomas Rainolds, had been warden in queen Mary’s time, but was ejected in 1559 for his adherence to popery, which appears to have been the religion of the family. In \5GJ he was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college, and in October 1566, was chosen probationer fellow. In Oct. 1568, he took his degree of bachelor of arts, and in May 1572, that of master, being then senior of the act, and founder’s Greek 'lecturer in his college, in which last station he acquired great reputation by his lectures on Aristotle.

, an English divine, was born at Missenden in Buckinghamshire, and sent very young to Sr. Mary Hall, Oxford, in 1581, whence he removed to Trinity college, and took his degree of bachelor of arts. In July 1587, he was chosen to a fellowship of Lincoln college, and in 1589 proceeded in the degree of master of arts. About this time he was ordained, and became one of the most noted preachers in the university. In 1598, he was admitted bachelor of divinity, and the year after resigned his fellowship, and was presented to the rectory of St. Andrew Hubbard, in East-cheap, London. Here, Antony Wood informs us, “after some time, he became so great a labourer in God’s vineyard by his frequent and constant work in the ministry, as well in resolving of doubts and cases of conscience as in preaching and lecturing, that he went beyond his brethren in that city, to the wonder of all.” Wood adds that this was the more wonderful, as he was a great sufferer by sickness; and that he was “accounted a judicious, orthodox, and holy man, and by some a zealous and innocent puritan, of a harmless life and conversation, and one that was solely framed to do good acts.” He died in June 1622, aged about fifty- four, and was buried in his church. By his will he left a tenement situated in St. Mary ­Hall-Iane, to Lincoln college. Besides some single sermons, and a collection of “Eleven Sermons on Romans viii.” London, 1623, he was the author of the following posthumous works: 1. “The great Mystery of Godliness,” 1624, 4to; and 1640, third edition. 2. “Treatise concerning the Sacraments,” 1630, 4to. 3. “Catechistical Lectures upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 1630, 4to. 4. “Nine-and-twenty Lectures of the Church, for the support of the same in these times,” ibid. 1631, 4to.

, an eminent antiquary, and great benefactor to the university of Oxford, was the fourth son of sir Thomas; and was educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he was admitted gentleman commoner, and proceeded M. A. and grand cornpounder in 1713, and was admitted to the degree of doctor of civil law by diploma in 1719. He was F. R. S. and became F. S. A. May 10, 1727. He was greatly accessary to the bringing to light many descriptions of counties; and, intending one of Oxfordshire, had collected materials from Wood’s papers, &c. had many plates engraved, and circulated printed queries, but received accounts only of two parishes, which in some degree answered the design, and encouraged him to pursue it. In this work were to be included the antiquities of the city of Oxford, which Wood promised when the English copy of his “Historia & Antiquitates Oxon.” was t.o be published, and which have since been faithfully transcribed from his papers, by Mr. Gutch, and much enlarged and corrected from ancient original authorities. All Dr. Rawlinson’s collections for the county, chiefly culled from Wood, or picked up from information, and disposed b,y hundreds in separate books, in each of which several parishes are omitted, would make but one 8vo volume. But he made large collections for the continuation of Wood’s “Athena Oxonienses” and “History of Oxfor.d,” and for an account of “Non-compilers” at the Revolution which, together with some collections of Hearne’s, and note-books of his own travels, he bequeathed by his will to the university of Oxford. The Life of Mr. Anthony Wood, historiographer of the most famous university of Oxford, with an account of his nativity, education, works, &c. collected and composed from Mss. by Richard Rawlinson, gent, commoner of St. John’s college, Oxon. was printed at London in 1711. A copy of this life, with ms additions by the author, is in the Bodleian library. He published proposals for an “History of Eton College,” 1717; and, in 1728, “Petri Abselardi Abbatis Ruyensis & Heloissae Abbatissae Paracletensis Epistolae,” 8vo, dedicated to Dr, Mead. The books, the publication of which he promoted, are supposed to be the “History and Antiquities of Winchester,” 1715, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Hereford,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Rochester,” 1717, 1723, 8vp. “Inscriptions on tombs in Bunhill-fields,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of the Churches of Salisbury and Bath,” 1719, 1723, 8vo. “Aubrey’s History of Surrey,” 1719, 5 vols. 8vo. “Norden’s Delineation of Northamptonshire,” 1720, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Glastonbury,” Oxford, 1722, 8vo. In 1728, he translated and printed Fresnoy’s “New Method of studying History, with a Catalogue of the chief Historians,” 2 vols. 8vo. But his principal work was “The English Topographer, or, an Historical Account of all the Pieces that have been written relating to the antient Natural History or Topographical Description of any Part of England,” 1720, 8vo, the plan of which has been so much augmented and improved in Mr. Cough’s two editions of the “British Topography.” In 1750, he gave, by indenture, the yearly sum of 87l. 165. Sd. being the rents and profits of various estates which he inherited under the will of his grandfather Daniel Rawlinson to the university of Oxford, for the maintenance and support of an Anglo-Saxon lecture or professorship for ever. To the Society of Antiquaries, he gave, by will, a small freehold and copyhold estate at FulEam, on condition that they did not, upon any terms, or by any stratagem, art, means, or contrivance howsoever, increase or add to their (then) number of 150 members, honorary members only excepted. He also made them a considerable bequest of dies and matrices of English seals and medals, all his collection of seals , charters, drawings by Vertue and other artists, and other antiquities ten walnut-tree book-cases, which had been given to his late brother Thomas by the then earl of Pembroke, and four mahogany presses, all marked P, all his English prints of which they had not duplicates, and a quit-rent of 5L per annum, in Norfolk, for a good medal for the best description on any English, Saxon, Roman, or Greek, coin, or other antiquity not before treated of or in print; but, resenting some supposed want of deference to his singularities and dictatorial spirit, and some reflections on his own and his friend’s honour, in an imputation of libelling the Society in the public papers, he, by a codicil made and signed at their house in Chancery lane, revoked the whole, and excluded all fellows of this or the Royal Society from any benefit from his benefactions at Oxford, which, besides his Anglo-Saxon endowment, were extremely considerable; including, besides a number of books with and without ms notes, all his seals, English and foreign, his antique marbles, and other curiosities; his copper-plates relative to several counties, his ancient Greek and Roman coins and medals, part of his collection of English medals, his series of medals of Louis XIV. and XV. a series of medals of the popes, which Dr. Rawlinson supposed to be one of the most complete collections in Europe; and a great number of valuable Mss. which he ordered to be safely locked up, and not to be opened till seven years after his decease . His music, ms. and printed, he gave to the music-school at Oxford. He died at Islington, April 6, 1755 and in the same year was printed “The Deed of Trust and Will of Richard Rawlinson, of St. John the Baptist college, Oxford, doctor of laws concerning his endowment of an Anglo-Saxon lecture, and other benefactions to the college and university.” He left to Hertford college the estate in F-ulham before mentioned, and to the college of St. John the Baptist the bulk of his estate, amounting to near 700l. a year, a plate of archbishop Laud, thirty-one volumes of parliamentary journals and debates; a set of the “Fo?dera,” all his Greek, Roman, and English, coins not given to the BocU leian library, all his plates engraved at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries, with the annuity for the prizemedal, and another to the best orator. The produce of certain rents bequeathed to St. John’s college was, after 40 years’ accumulation, to be laid out in purchase of an estate, whose profits were to be a salary to a keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, being a master of arts, or bachelor Ib civil law; and all legacies refused by the university or others, to center in this college. To the hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlehem, for the use of the incurables of the latter he left 200l. and ten guineas as an equivalent for the monthly coffee which he had received in Bethlehem common room: but, if they did not give up the picture of his father hanging in their hall, in order to its being put up in the Mansion-house, they were to forfeit the larger sum, and receive only the smaller. This picture, after it had hung up at the Mansion-house for some years, without any companion, in a forlorn, neglected state, and received considerable damage, the late sir Walter Rawlinson obtained leave of the court of aldermen (being then himself & member of that body, and president of those hospitals) to restore to Bridewell. It is one of sir Godfrey Kneller’s best performances, and well engraved by Vertue. Constanxine, another brother, is mentioned by Richard RawJinson’s will, as then residing at Venice, where he died in 1779. To him he gave the copper-plate of his father’s portrait, and all family-pictures, except his father’s portrait by Kneller, which was given to the Vintners’ company, of which his father was a member. He left him also his rents in Paul’s-head court, Fenchurch-street, jointly with his sisters, Mary Rawlinson, and Anne Andrews, for life. In the same will is mentioned another brother, John, to whom he left estates in Devonshire-street, London; and a nephew Thomas. To St. John’s college he bequeathed also his diploma, and his heart, which is placed in a beaur tiful marble urn against the chapel- wall, inscribed

The great trait of Raynal’s character was a love of liberty, which, in his earlier writings, he did not properly define; but when he lived to see some of the consequences of this, in the progress of the French revolution, he made one glorious effort to retrieve his errors. In the month of May 1791, he addressed to the constituent assembly one of the most eloquent, argumentative, and impressive letters that ever was written on any subject; a letter which, if the majority of them had not been intoxicated with their newly-acquired consequence, must have given some check to their mad career.

, one of the most learned divines of his time, was born in 1499, descended from a Yorkshire family, and was nearly related to Tonstall, bishop of Durham. By the encouragement of this learned prelate, he was from his infancy devoted to literature, which he cultivated first in Corpus Christi, Oxford, under the first president, John Claymond, a man of singular erudition and generosity. From Oxford he went for a time to study at Paris, and continued there until he became of age. He then, on his return, fixed himself in St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he is said to have been so adorned with the knowledge of Cicero and the purest authors of antiquity, that Cheke, then a young man there, was fired with emulation; and in a short time, through their united pains and example, that seminary acquired the fame of being more than a match for a whole foreign university. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1526, that of master in 1530, and that of D. D. in 1534. He was also elected public orator of the university. He was soon after chosen master of King’s-hall, which he resigned in 1547, being then appointed the first master of Trinity college. He was likewise archdeacon of Taunton, and a member of the convocation in 1547 and 1550; also prebendary of Wells, and of Westminster, in the college of which cathedral he died in 1551, aged fifty-two, and was buried in the north aile of the abbey.

His collection of books, chiefly English, was perhaps one of the most extensive in that series; and most of them were enriched by his ms notes. They were sold in November 1807 by Messrs. King and Lochee, in a sale which lasted thirty-nine days, and produced more than 4000l. Few collections have attracted more attention of late years, and it may be doubted whether we shall ever see a collection dispersed, in all respects so well suited to the taste of those who are ambitious of possessing literary curiosities, or of enlarging their knowledge of English literature.

, called also Albubecar Mohamed, one of the most distinguished of the Arabian physicians, was born at Rei, in the province of Chorosan, about the year 852. He was first much addicted to music, and is said not to have studied medicine until he was thirty years of age, when he removed to Bagdad, became indefatigable in his application, and having obtained the highest reputation, was selected out of a hundred eminent physicians, who were then resident at Bagdad, to superintend the celebrated hospital of that city. His biographers speak of him as the Galen of the Arabians; and from his long life and constant practice, during which he paid the most assiduous attention to the varieties of disease, he obtained the appellation of the experimenter, or the experienced. He was said also to be profoundly skilled in all the sciences, especially in philosophy, astronomy, and music. He travelled much in pursuit of knowledge, and made frequent journies into Persia, his native country, and was much consulted by several princes, particularly by Almanzor, the chief of Chorasan, with whom he frequently corresponded, and to whom he dedicated several of his writings. Two hundred and twenty-six treatises are said to have been composed by Rhazes, among which the ten books addressed to his patron Almanzor, were designed as a complete body of physic, and may be deemed the great magazine of all the Arabian medicine; the ninth book, indeed, which treats of the cure of diseases, was in such general estimation for several centuries, that it was the text-book of the public schools, and was commented upon by the most learned professors. Yet, like the rest of the Arabian writings, it contains very little more than the substance of the works of the Greeks, from whom the Arabians borrowed almost all their medical knowledge. They have, indeed, and Rhazes in particular, given the first distinct account of the small-pox; and Rhazes wrote also the first treatise ever composed respecting the diseases of children. His book on the affections of the joints contains an account of some remarkable cures, effected chiefly by copious blood-letting. He describes the symptoms of hydrophobia very well; and also some diseases peculiar to eastern countries, and first noticed the disease called spina ventosa. Rhazes had the reputation of being a skilful alchemist; and is the first, as Dr. Freind has shewn, who mentions the use of chemical preparations in medicine. He has a chapter on the qualifications of a physician; and a singular tract on quacks and impostors, who appear to have been at least as numerous, and ingenious in their contrivances as in more recent times.

In 1619 the king recalled Richelieu, and sent him into Angouleme, where he persuaded the queen to a reconciliation, which was concluded in 1620; and in consequence of this treaty, the duke de Luynes obtained a cardinal’s hat for him from pope Gregory XV. Richelieu, continuing his services after the duke’s decease, was admitted, in 1624, into the council, through the interest of the queen, and almost against the will of the king, who, devout and scrupulous, considered him as a knave, because he had been informed of his gallantries. It is even said that he was insolent enough to aspire to queen Anne of Austria, and that the railleries to which this subjected him were the cause of his subsequent aversion to her. Cardinal Richelieu was afterwards appointed prime minister, head of the councils, high steward, chief, and superintendant-generai of the French trade and navigation. He preserved the Isle of Rhe in 1627, and undertook the siege of Rochelle against the protestants the same year. He completed the conquest of Rochelle in October 1628, in spite of the king of Spain, who had withdrawn his forces, of the king of England, who could not relieve it, and of the French king, who grew daily more weary of the undertaking, by means of that famous mole, executed by his orders, but planned by Lewis Metezeau and John Tiriot. The capture of Rochelle proved a mortal blow to the protestants, but in France was reckoned the most glorious and beneficial circumstance of cardinal Richelieu’s administration. He also attended his majesty to the relief of the duke of Mantua in 1629, raised the siege of Casal, and, at his return, compelled the protestants to accept the treaty of peace which had been concluded at Alais, and completed the ruin of their party. Six months after this, cardinal Richelieu, having procured himself to be appointed lieutenant-general of the army beyond the mountains, took Pignerol, relieved Casal a second time, which was besieged by the marquis Spinola, defeated general Doria, by means of the duke de Monttnorenci at Vegliana, July 10, 1630, and made himself master of all Savoy. Louis XIII. having returned to Lyons, in consequence of sickness, the queenmother, and most of the nobility, took advantage of this circumstance to form plots against Richelieu, and speak ill of his conduct to the king, which they did with so much success, that Louis promised the queen to discard him. The cardinal’s ruin now seemed inevitable, and he was actually preparing to set out for Havre-de Grace, which he had chosen for his retreat, when cardinal de la Valette, knowing that the queen had not followed her son to Versailles, advised him first to see his majesty. In this interview, he immediately cleared himself from all the accusations of his enemies, justified his conduct, displayed the advantages and necessity of his administration, and wrought so forcibly upon the king’s mind by his reasoning, that, instead of being discarded, he became from that moment more powerful than ever. He inflicted the same punishments upon his enemies which they had advised for him; and this day, so fortunate for Richelieu, was called “The Day of Dupes.” Those who had the misfortune to incur his displeasure, certainly did not all deserve the penalties to which he doomed them; but he knew how to make himself master of their fate, by appointing such judges to try them as were at his disposal. That abominable method of taking the accused from their lawful judges, had, in the preceding century, served as a means for the families of condemned persons to get their characters restored; after which the French had no reason to fear its revival; but Richelieu hesitated not to adopt it, though at the risque of general odium, as being favourable to his designs. By thus making himself master of the lives and fortunes of the mal-contents, he imposed silence even on their murmurs. This artful minister, being now secure of his lasting ascendancy over the king, and having already accomplished one of the two great objects which he had proposed to himself from the beginning of his administration, which were, the destruction of the protestants, and the humbling the too great power of the house of Austria, began now to contrive means for executing this second undertaking. The principal and most efficacious method employed by the cardinal with that view, was a treaty he concluded, January 23, 1631, with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, for currying the war into the heart of Germany. He also formed a league with the duke of Bavaria, secured to himself Lorrain, raised part of the German princes against the emperor, treated with Holland to continue the war wirh Spain, favoured the Catalonians and Portuguese when they shook off the Spanish yoke, and, in short, made use of so many measures and stratagems, that he completely accomplished his design. Cardinal Richelieu was carrying on the war with success, and meditating on that glorious peace, which was not concluded till 1648, when h died in his palace at Paris, worn out by his long toils, December 4,“1642, aged fifty-eight. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where his mausoleum (the celebrated Girardon’s master-piece) may be seen. He is considered as one of the most complete statesmen, and ablest politicians, that France ever had. Amidst all the anxieties which the fear of his enemies must necessarily occasion, he formed the most extensive and complicated plans, and executed them with great superiority of genius. It was cardinal Richelieu who established the throne, while yet shaken by the protestant factions, and the power of the House of Austria, and made the royal authority completely absolute, and independent, by the extinction of the petty tyrants who wasted the kingdom. In the mean time he omitted nothing which could contribute to the glory of France. He promoted arts and sciences; founded the botanical garden at Paris called the king’s garden; also the French academy, and the royal printing-office; built the palace since called the Palais Royal, and gave it to his majesty; rebuilt the Sorbonne (of which he was provisor) in a style of kingly magnificence; and prepared for all the splendour of Louis the Fourteenth’s reign. His enemies, says the abbe L'Atocat, unable to deny his great talents, have reproached him with great faults; irregularity of conduct, unbounded ambition, universal despotism, from which even the king, his master, did not escape; for he left him, as they express it, only the power of curing the evil; a vanity and ostentation which exceeded the dignity of the throne itself, where all was simplicity and negligence, while the cardinal’s court exhibited nothing but pomp and splendour; unexampled ingratitude to his benefactress, queen Mary de Medicis, whom he inhumanly compelled to end her da*ys in Germany, in obscurity and indigence; and, finally, his revengeful temper, which occasioned so many cruel executions; as those of Chalais, Grandier, the marechal de Marillac, M. de Montmorenci, Cinqmars, M. de Thou, &c. Even the queen, for having written to the duchess de Chevreuse, Richelieu’s enemy, and a fugitive, saw all her papers seized, and was examined before the chancellor Sequier. Mad. de la Fayette, mad. de Hautefort, and father Caussin, the king’s confessors, were all disgraced in consequence of having offended this despotic minister. But, says his apologist, there are many points to be considered with respect to these accusations: it appears certain, from a thousand passages in the life of this celebrated cardinal, that he was naturally very grateful, and never proceeded to punishment but when he thought state affairs required it; for which reason, when in his last sickness, his confessor asked” if he forgave his enemies?“he replied,” I never had any but those of the state.“At the head of his” Political Testament“may be seen his justification of himself on the subject of these bloody executions, with which he has been so much reproached. It is equally certain, that he never oppressed the people by taxes or exorbitant subsidies, notwithstanding the long wars he had to carry on; and that, if he was severe in punishing crimes, he knew how to distinguish merit, and reward it generously. He bestowed the highest ecclesiastical dignities on such bishops and doctors as he knew to be men of virtue and learning; placed able and experienced generals at the head of the armies, and entrusted public business with wise, punctual, and intelligent men. It was this minister who established a navy. His vigilance extended through every part of the government; and, notwithstanding the cabals, plots, and factions, which were incessantly forming against him during the whole course of his administration (and which must have employed great part of his time) he left sufficient sums behind him to carry on the war with glory; and France was in a more powerful and flourishing state at the time of his decease than when Louis XIV. died. After stating these facts, Richelieu’s enemies areinvited to determine whether France would have derived more advantage from being governed by Mary de Medicis, Gaston of Orleans, &c. than by this cardinal The estate of Richelieu was made a dukedom in his favour, in 1631, and he received other honours and preferments. Besides the” Method of Controversy“he wrote, 2.” The principal points of the Catholic Faith defended, against the writing addressed to the king by the ministers of Charenton.“3.” The most easy and certain Method of converting those who are separated from the Church.“These pieces are written with force and vivacity. He wrote also,” A Catechism,“in which he lays down the doctrine of the church, in a clear and concise manner and a treatise of piety, called,” The Perfection of a Christian.“These are his theological works; and they have been often printed: but that which is most read, and most worthy of being read, is his” Political Testament," the authenticity of which has been doubted by some French writers, particularly Voltaire. The cardinal also had the ambition to be thought a dramatic poet; and, says lord Chesterfield, while he absolutely governed both his king and country, and was, in a great degree, the arbiter of the fate of all Europe, he was more jealous of the great reputation of Corneille, than of the power of Spain; and more flattered with being thought (what he was not) the best poet, than with being thought (what he certainly was) the greatest statesman in Europe; and affairs stood still, while he was concerting the criticism upon the Cid.

By this artful falsehood, he so animated his auditors, that they declared they would make no scruple of securing these treasures for whatever end might be most convenient, and that they were devoted to his will. Having obtained so much to secure his adherents from a revolt, he tendered them a paper, superscribed, “an oath to procure the good establishment;” and made them subscribe and swear to it, before he dismissed them. By what means he prevailed on the pope’s vicar to give a tacit sanction to his project is not certainly known; that he did procure that sanction, and that it was looked on as a master-piece of policy, is generally admitted. The 20th of May, being Whitsunday, he fixed upon to sanctify in some sort his enterprize; and pretended, that all he acted was by particular inspiration of the Holy Ghost. About nine, he came out of the church bare-headed, accompanied by the pope’s vicar, surrounded by an hundred armed men. A vast crowd followed him with shouts and acclamations. The gentlemen conspirators carried three standards before him, on which were wrought devices, insinuating, that his design was to re-establish liberty, justice, and peace. In this manner he proceeded directly to the capitol, where he mounted the rostrum; and, with more boldness and energy than ever, expatiated on the miseries to which the Romans were reduced; at the same time telling them, without hesitation, *' that the happy hour of their deliverance was at length come, and that he was to be their deliverer, regardless of the dangers he was exposed to for the service of the holy father and the people’s safety.“After which, he ordered the laws of what he called the good establishment to be read: and assured that the Romans would resolve to observe these laws, he engaged in a short time to re-establish them in their ancient grandeur. The laws of the good establishment promised plenty and security, which were greatly wanted; and the humiliation of the nobility, who were deemed common oppressors. Such laws could not fail of being agreeable to a people who found in them these double advantages; and therefore enraptured with the pleasing ideas of a liberty to which they were at present strangers, and the hope of gain, they adopted most zealously the fanaticism of Rienzi.-^­They resumed the pretended authority of the Romans; they declared him sovereign of Rome, and granted him the power of life and death, of rewards and punishments, of enacting and repealing the laws, of treating with foreign powers; in a word, they gave him the full and supreme authority over all the extensive territories of the Romans. Rienzi, arrived at the summit of his wishes, kept at a great distance his artifice: he pretended to be very unwilling to accept of their offers, but upon two conditions; the first, that they should nominate the pope’s vicar (the bishop of Orvieto) his co-partner the second, that the pope’s consent should be granted him, which (he told them) he flattered himself he should obtain. On the one hand, he hazarded nothing in thus making his court to the holy father, and, on the other, he well knew, that the bishop of Orvieto would carry a title only, and no authority. The people granted his request, but paid all the honours to him: he possessed the authority without restriction; the good bishop appeared a mere shadow and veil to his enterprizes. Rienzi was seated in his triumphal chariot, like an idol, to triumph with the greater splendor. He dismissed the people replete with joy and hope. He ^eized upon the palace, where he continued after he had turned out the senate; and, the same day, he began to dictate his laws in the capitol. This election, though not very pleasing to the pope, was ratified by him; yet Rienzi meditated the obtaining of a title, exclusive of the papal prerogative. Well versed in the Roman history, he was no stranger to the extent of the tribunitial authority; and, as he owed his elevation to the people, he chose to have the title of their magistrate. He asked it, and it was conferred on him and his co- partner, with the addition of deliverers of their country. Our adventurer’s behaviour in his elevation was at first such as commanded esteem and respect, not only from the Romans, but from all the neighbouring states. His contemporary, the celebrated Petrarch, in a letter to Charles, king of the Romans, gives the following account of him:” Not long since a most remarkable man, of the plebeian race, a person whom neither titles nor virtues had distinguished until he presumed to set himself up for a restorer or the Roman liberty, has obtained the highest authority at Rome. So sudden, so great is his success, that this man has already won Tuscany and all Italy. Already Europe and the whole world are in motion; to speak the whole in one word, I protest to you, not as a reader, but as an eye-witness, that he has restored to us the justice, peace, integrity, and every other token of the golden age.“But it is difficult for a person of mean birth, elevated at once, by the caprice of fortune, to the most exalted station, to move rightly in a sphere in which he must breathe an air he has been unaccustomed to. Rienzi ascended by degrees the summit of his fortune. Riches softened, power dazzled, the pomp of his cavalcades animated, and formed in his mind ideas adequate to those of princes born to empire. Hence luxury invaded his table, and tyranny took possession of his heart. The pop conceived his designs contrary to the interests of the holy see, and the nobles, whose power it had been his constant endeavours to depress, conspired against him; and Rienzi was forced to quit an authority he had possessed little more than six months. It was to a precipitate flight that he was indebted, at this juncture, for his life; and to different disguises for his subsequent preservation. Having made an ineffectual effort at Rome, and not knowing where to find a new resource to carry on his designs, he took a most bold step, conformable to that rashness which had so often assisted him in his former exploits. He determined to go to Prague, to Charles, king of the Romans, whom the year before he had summoned to his tribunal, and who he foresaw would deliver him up to a pope highly incensed against him. He was accordingly soon after sent to Avignon, and there thrown into a prison, where he continued three years. The divisions and disturbances in Italy, occa* sioned by the number of petty tyrants that had established themselves in the ecclesiastical territories, and even at Rome, occasioned his enlargement. Innocent VI. who succeeded Clement in the papacy, sensible that the Romans still entertained an affection for our hero, and believing that his chastisement would teach him to act with more moderation than he had formerly done, as well as that gratitude would oblige him, for the remainder of his life, to preserve au inviolable attachment to the holy see (by whose favour he should be re-established), thought him a proper instrument to assist his design of reducing those other tyrants; and therefore, not only gave him his liberty, but also appointed him governor and senator of Rome. He met with many obstacles to the assumption of this newly-granted authority, all which, by cunning and resolution, he at length over> came. But giving way to his passions, which were immoderately warm, and inclined him to cruelty, he excited so general a resentment against him, that he was murdered, Oct. 8, 1354.” Such,“say his biographers,” was the end of Nicolas Rienzi, one of the most renowned men of the age; who, after forming a conspiracy full of extravagance, and executing it in the sight of almost the whole world, with such success that he became sovereign of Rome; after causing plenty, justice, and liberty to flourish among the Romans; after protecting potentates, and terrifying sovereign princes; after being arbiter of crowned heads; after re-establishing the ancient majesty and power of the Roman republic, and filling all Europe with his fame during the seven months of his first reign after having compelled his masters themselves to confirm him in the authority he bad usurped against their interests; fell at length at the end of his second, which lasted not four months, a sacrifice to the nobility whose ruin he had vowed, and to those vast projects which his death prevented him from putting into execution."

His easel-pictures were either few, or the greater part must have perished one of the most remarkable, in the house of Werdmiiller, is Job emaciated and diseased, listening patiently to the invectives of his wife; a picture which, even on close inspection, differs little in handling and tone from the best works of Spaguoletto. But perhaps the most valuable remains of Ririggli are his designs, generally drawn with the pen, and washed with bister or India ink; these are sometimes of considerable size, and chiefly biblical or allegorical subjects. That of our Saviour’s burial, Susannah with the Elders, the royal Father shot at by his Sons from the “Gesta Romanorum,” Faith sheltered from the storms of Persecution, and many more of mystic content, are remarkable for beauties of composition, light, shade, and outline, but perhaps obscure in their meaning: they were in Fuessli’s possession once, but now are probably dispersed in different collections. He etched several things in an easy picturesque manner, generally marked by a monogram of the letters G. and R, He died in 1635.

Riolan, although one of the most expert and learned anatomists of his time, was hindered in his progress as a discoverer, by tiis extreme devotion to the ancients; and yet was arrogant in his claims to originality, and by his pertinacity, and contempt of others, he raised himself many opponents and enemies. He published several new observations, however, respecting many parts of anatomical science, especially the structure of the colon, the biliary ducts, the uterus and vagina, the tongue, os hyoides, &c. but he did not illustrate them by engravings, as it was a maxim with him, that no representations could supersede the study of nature. His principal works, which were by no means confined to anatomy, are noticed in the following list. 1. “Brevis excursus in Battologiam Quercetani, quo Alchemias principia funditus diruuntur, et Artis veritas demonstratur,” Par. 1604. 2. “Comparatio veteris Medictate cum nova, Hippocraticae in Hermetica, Dogrnaticae cum Spargyrica,” 1605. 3. “Disputatio de Monstro Lutetiae 1605 nato.” 4. “Incursionum Quercetani depulsio,” id. 5. “Censura demonstrations Harveti pro veritate Alchymiae,” 1606. 6. “Scholu Anatomica novis et raris observationibus illustrata. Adjuncta est accurata fcetus humani historia,” 1607; enlarged by the author with the title of “Anatome corporis humani,” 1610. 7. “In Librum Cl. Galeni de Ossibus, ad Tyrones explanationes apologeticae pro Galeno, adversus novitios et novatores Anatomicos,” 1G13. 8. “Gigantomachie,” 1613, written in refutation of Habicot’s account of the discovery of the bones of the giant Teutobochus. Riolan published two other tracts, or more, upon this controversy, which ended with the appearance of his, 9. “Gigantologie; discours sur la grandeur des Grants, &c.” in 1618. 10. “Osteologia ex veterum et recentiorum praeceptis descripta,” 1614. 11. “Discours sur les Hermaphrodits, ou il est demontre*, centre l‘opinion commune, qu’il n'y a point de vrais Hermaphrodits,” 1614. 12. “Anatomica, seu Anthropographia,” 1618. 13. “Enchiridium anatomicum et pathologicum,” 164S, and many times reprinted; the best edition is of Paris, 1658. 14. “Opuscula anatomica nova,” Lond. 1649, containing remarks on the anatomical works of the most celebrated physicians, and an attack upon Harvey, and his doctrine of the circulation,' of which Riolan was a great antagonist. 15. “Curieuses Recherches sur les e*coles de Medecine de Paris et de Montpelier,” 1651. He also published three different works, entitled “Opuscula anatomica,” in 1650, and the three following years, opposing the doctrines of Bartholine and Pecquet, respecting the absorbents and lacteals, and Harvey’s on the circulation; and two more on the same subjects, with the titles of “Responsio prima, et altera,” 1652 and 1655.

, a poetical critic and editor, was born Oct. 2, 1752, at Stockton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, and was bred to the profession of the law, which he practised chiefly in the conveyancing branch. In 1785 he purchased the office of high bailiff of the liberties of the Savoy, and retained it until his death. These seem the only particulars of Mr. Ritson’s progress in his profession, which have been recorded by his friends. He became, however, far better known for his researches into the antiquities of English literature, particularly poetry; and these he was enabled to carry on for many years, by dint of memory and extraordinary industry. In recovering dates, assigning anonymous fragments to their authors, and those other minute particulars which are important to poetical antiquaries, Mr. Ritson had perhaps few superiors; but all he performed was disgraced by a harsh, rugged, and barren style, and an affectation of a new orthography, and yet more by the contempt, approaching to malignity, with which hfe treated Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone, and his other contemporaries who had acquired any name in the world. Although not absolutely incapable of civility, his conversation partook much of the harshness of his writings; and giving the lie was not uncommon with him, even when the subject in dispute had nothing in it to excite passion. His wretched temper seems also to have been exasperated by the state of public affairs, his hatred of the reigning family, and his attachment to republicanism. Many instances might be given of his unhappy prejudices, but it appeared at last that the whole might be traced to a diseased mind, which was completely overthrown by insanity. When this became too visible to be neglected, he was removed to a receptacle for insane persons at Hoxton, where he died a few days after, Sept. 3, 1803, leaving many works which will prove useful and interesting to poetical antiquaries long after the peculiarities of his temper are forgotten. His first publication was an anonymous quarto pamphlet of “Observations on the three volumes of Warton’s History of English Poetry;” one of the most illiberal productions that had then appeared. He wrote, also anonymously, three sets of. remarks on the editors of Shakspeare: I. On Mr. Sieevens’s edition, 1773, entitled “Remarks, critical and illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the last edition of Shakspeare,” 8vo; 2. “The Quip modest,” &c. on Mr. Reed’s republication of that edition, particularly illiberal 3. “Cursory Criticisms,” &c. on Mr. Malone’s edition. He published also a select collection of English Songs, in 3 vols. 8vo. Ancient Songs, from the time of Henry III. to the Revolution, 8vo. A volume of pieces of ancient popular poetry, 8vo. “The English Anthology,” a selection of poetry, in 3 small octavo volumes. “Robin Hood; a collection of all the ancient Poems, Songs, affd Ballads, now extant, relative to that celebrated Outlaw. To which are added, Historical Anecdotes of his Life,” 1795, 2 vols. 8vo. A collection of Scotch Songs, with the genuine Music, 2 vols. 12mo. “Biographia Poetica a Catalogue of English Poets of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; with a short Account of their Works.” 1801, 12mo. He put his name to “Ancient English Metrical Romances; selected and published by Joseph Ritson,” 1802, 3 vols. 12mo. This last publication is perhaps the least interesting of the list.

, a French writer, chiefly on subjects of bibliography and literary history, was born May 19, 1730, at Apt in Provence, and was bred to the church. He was first professor of philosophy in the seminary of Sh Charles, at Avignon, a situation for which he was not very well qualified. He then became curate of Molleges, in the diocese of Aries, but was not much better satisfied with this than his preceding occupation, as he had more taste for bibliographical researches than for pastoral duties. While here he had the credit of an amour with a married woman, that did not advance him much in the public opinion; and when the husband reproached him, the abbe threw him headlong out of the window, from which, however, he received no great injury. In 1767 he came to Paris, and his turn for books being already known, the duke de Valliere appointed him his librarian, and in allusion to his arrogant manner of deciding on literary points, used to call him his bull-dog. On the revolution breaking out, he became one of the most implacable of the anarchists, and denounced vengeance on the clergy, the nobility, and especially those writers who were his rivals in bibliographical pursuits, particularly William Debure, and the abbe Mercier, to whom he was uncommonly abusive. He afterwards led a life of turbulence and hostility, which at last closed at Marseilles in 1792. Among his numerous publications, the most useful were, 1. “Eclaircissemens sur l'inyention des Cartes a jouer,” Paris, 1780, 8vo. 2. “Prospectus sur Tessai de verifier Page de Miniatures,” such as appear on manuscripts from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century; ibid. 1782, fol. 3. “Notices historiques et critiques sur deux manuscrits de la bibliotheque du due de la Valliere,” ibid. 1779, 4to. 4. “Notices sur le traite manuscrit de Galeotto Martio, intitule De Excelientibus,” ibid. 1785, 8vo. 5. “Histoire critique de la Pyramide de Caius Sestius,” &c. ibid. 1787, foi. 6. La Chasse aux Bibliographes et aux Antiquaires mal avises,“ibid. 1789, 2 vols. a receptacle of almost every kind of abuse and awkward wit against Le Long, Debure, Mercier, &c. 7.”Dictionnaire de critique litteraire," &c. with other works of a similar kind, which are very scarce even in France, as he printed but a small number of each edition.

The literary character of Mr. Robertson would rank high among those of his contemporaries in the same line, if he had concentrated his ideas in one large and compact work. Taken, however, as it is, it will unquestionably exhibit a learned critic and philologer, and one of the most accurate writers of his age. Although he was endowed with a vigorous understanding, and enriched with an uncommonly extensive knowledge, his predominant power was memory; and his favourite study, civil and literary history. In the last-mentioned branch he had, perhaps, no superior; and perhaps too, not many among the very professed bibliographers could rival him in the science of books, authors, and literary anecdotes.

, D.D. one of the most illustrious names in modern literature, and one of the most eminent of modern historians, was born in 1721, at Borthwick, in the county of Mid-Lothian, where his father was then minister; and received the first rudiments of his education at the school of Daikeith. In 1733, when his father removed to Edinburgh, on being appointed minister of the old Gray-friars’ church, tie placed his son at the university, where his industry and application appear to have been of that extraordinary and spontaneous kind, which bespeaks a thirst for knowledge, and is a pledge of future eminence. From a very early period of life he employed every means to overcome the peculiarities of a provincial idiom, and accustom his pen to the graces of the best English style. For this purpose he frequently exercised himself in the practice of translation, and was about to have prepared for the press a version of Marcus Antoninus, when he was anticipated by an anonymous publication at Glasgow. Nor did he bestow less pains on acquiring a fluent and correct eloquence, associating for that purpose with some fellowstudents and others, who assembled periodically for extempore discussion and debate. Thus in all his early pursuits he deviated knowingly, or was insensibly directed into those paths which led to the high fame he afterwards enjoyed.

It is but justice to say that Mr. Robins was one of the most accurate and elegant mathematical writers that our language can boast of; and that he made more real improvements in artillery, the flight and the resistance of projectiles, than all the preceding writers on that subject. His “New Principles of Gunnery” were translated into several other languages, and commented upon by several eminent writers. The celebrated Euler translated the work into the German language, accompanied with a large and critical commentary; and this work of Euler’s was again translated into English in 1784, by Mr. Hugh Brown, with notes, in one volume, 4to.

, a celebrated general of the Dominicans, and one of the most zealous defenders of papal authority, was born at Peselada on the frontiers of Roussillon and Catalonia, about 1624. He was the son of Francis viscount de Rocaberti, of an ancient family. Having entered the Dominican order early in life, he became provincial of Arragon in 1666, general of his order in 1670, archbishop of Valencia in 1676, and grand inquisitor of the faith in 1695. His catholic majesty, whose favour he acquired, made him twice viceroy of Valencia. He died June 13, 1699, leaving a long treatise “De Romani Pontilicis Automate,” 3 vols. folio, esteemed in Spain and Italy, but prohibited in France; and “Bibliotheca Pontificia;” a large collection of all the treatises which have been written by different authors in favour of the pope’s authority and infallibility, Rome, 1700, &c. 21 vols, folio. The parliament of Paris also prohibited the sale of this immense collection.

This lady Sondes, who was daughter of the right hon. Henry Pelham, was one of the most charitable persons of quality in her time. She had a little French woman, who was her almoner, and whose whole life was spent in finding out proper objects for her lady’s bounty, which she distributed with a zeal for their welfare, and a delicacy for their feelings, which makes it the subject of regret, that the name of this excellent creature is not recollected. They, unsolicited, discovered and applied to Mrs. Rolt the protection of lady Sondes, on the death of her husband.

These were collected soon after his death, in uniform edition, with some additional pieces and a life, in which a very full account is given of his religious principles and ministerial labours. He appears to have been in some respects an extraordinary character. Although usually reproached with being a methodist, a word which is not always very clearly understood by those who employ it in the service of controversial animosity, he was one of the most zealous advocates for the church of England that has appeared in modern times. His attachment to her doctrines and discipline, indeed, was such as left him but a moderate share of respect for the dissenters, by whom he was often accused of intolerance and bigotry. Towards the close of life, however, it is said, he entertained more candour towards the Calvinist dissenters, although he was to the last a strenuous advocate for the service and forms of the church; and it is certain that many dissenters of the stricter sort contributed to increase his audiences, which were in general the fullest ever known in London. Nor ought it to be forgotten in the catalogue of his virtues that he evinced, in money matters, a great share of independent spirit. He refused large offers from the booksellers for the use of his name to religious compilations, and on one occasion no less than 500l. when his annual income did not amount to half the sum. His funeral, besides being attended by a very numerous concourse of friends, and a long train of carriages of persons of considerable rank, was honoured with the presence of the city marshals and other officers, and funeral sermons were preached on the occasion in various churches, some of which were afterwards published. Mr. Romaine married in 1755, a Miss Price, who survived him about six years, by whom he had a daughter who died young, and two sons, the eldest, Dr. Romaine of Reading, now living, the second, capt. Romaine, who died in 1782, at Trincomale, in the island of Ceylon.

In both the sister arts of poesy and painting, he was esteemed one of the most excellent masters that Italy produced in the seventeenth century. In the first, his province was satire; in the latter, landscapes, battles, havens, c. with little figures, which are still admired, and are purchased at high prices. Mr. Fuseli says that, without choice of form in design, or much propriety of conception, by picturesque combination, concordant tones, facility and dash of pencil, he obtained a conspicuous place among historic painters. Though his talent was better adapted to smaller dimensions, he knew how to fill an altar-piece or a large canvas with striking and terrific effects, of which the conspiracy of Catiline, in the house of Martelli at Florence, is a powerful instance. In landscape he was a genius. His choice is the original scenery of Abruzzo, which he made often, though not always, a vehicle of terror: he delights in ideas of desolation, solitude, and danger, impenetrable forests, rocky or storm-lashed shores; in lonely dells leading to dens and caverns of banditti, alpine ridges, trees blasted by lightning or sapped by time, or stretching their extravagant arms athwart a murky sky, louring or thundering clouds, and suns shorn of their beams. His figures are wandering shepherds, forlorn travellers, wrecked mariners, banditti lurking for their prey, or dividing their spoils. But this genuine vein of sublimity or terror forsook him in the pursuit of witcheries, apparitions, and spectres; here he is only grotesque or capricious. His celebrated witch of Endor is a hag; and cauldrons, skeletons, bats, toads, and herbs, are vainly accumulated to palliate the want of dignity and pathos in Saul, and of sublimity in the apparition.

After passing three winters at Glasgow, he attended thecourts of law in Edinburgh, and here obtained an introduction to the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, who was so highly pleased with him, that as long as he resided in Edinburgh,, Mr. Rose was constantly invited to the literary circle of that eminent philosopher. His subsequent intimacy with Cowper appears in Mr. Hayley’s interesting volumes, and perhaps Cowper’s visit to Mr. Rose in Chancery-lane is one of the most affecting incidents in the eventful history of that poet. Mr. Rose had the misfortune to lose his ex* cellent father, while he was pursuing his studies in the North; but a loss so unseasonable did not induce him to shrink from the first irksome labours of an arduous profes^ sion. Having entered his name at LincolnVInn, Nov. 6, 3786, he devoted himself to the law, for which he seemed equally prepared by nature and education. With a mind acute and powerful, with a fund of classical learning, and of general knowledge, with an early command of language, and with manners, as we have already noticed, peculiarly conciliating, he had every thing to hope. Though his spirit was naturally ardent, he submitted to the most tire-r some process of early discipline in his profession, placing himself under a special pleader in 1787, and attending him three years. Being called to the bar in 1796, he attached himself to the home circuit, and to the sessions of Sussex. His first opportunity of displaying professional ability occurred in Chichester, where, having a clergyman for his client, he conciliated the esteem of his audience byexpatiating with propriety, eloquence, and success, on the character of a divine. He was still more admired for the rare talent of examining a witness with a becoming ture of acuteness and humanity; and upon the whole his friends were persuaded, from this first display of his talents^ that he was destined to rise l>y sure, though slow degrees, to the highest honours of his profession.

, a learned Italian, who assumed and is generally known by the name of Janus Njcius Erythræus, was born at Rome, of a noble, but not opulent family, about 1577. He studied in the college of the Jesuits, and before he was nineteen years of age had made such progress in the law, that he was permitted to give lessons on the subject. These were so much admired by a magistrate of eminence, that he appointed Rossi his auditor; but as this gentleman died the same year, all his hopes from his patronage were disappointed. The law, however, still holding out the prospect of those honours to which he aspired, he omitted no opportunity of increasing his knowledge under the direction of Lepidus Piccolomini, one of the most famous lawyers of his time, and who advised him to turn pleader; but Piccolomini dying soon after, Rossi was so discouraged by this second disappointment that, as he had devoted himself to the study of the law rather from ambition than liking, he now determined to employ his time in the study of the belles lettres. With this view he became a member of the academy of the Umoristi, where he read several of his compositions, the style of which was so much admired by Marcel Vestri, secretary of the briefs to pope Paul V., that he invited Rossi to his house, to assist in drawing up the briefs, and with a view that he should be his successor in case of himself rising to higher preferment. Rossi soon made himself useful in this office, but unfortunately Vestri died in about eight months, and Rossi was again left unemployed, Many expedients he tried, and made many applications, but without success, and his only consolation, we are told, he derived from his vanity, which suggested to him that persons in office would not employ him, from a consciousness of their inferiority to him, and a jealousy of his supplanting them. It appears, however, that a certain satirical and arrogant temper was more to blame; for this was what he could not easily repress.

, a very conspicuous racter during the republican state of England, descended from an ancient family in Devonshire, was the younger son of sir Anthony Rons, knight, by Elizabeth, his first wife, daughter of Thomas Southcote, gent. He was born at Halton, in Cornwall, in 1570, and entered a commoner of Broadgate-hall, now Pembroke-college, Oxford, where he took a bachelor’s degree in arts. He afterwards studied the law, and there is a report that he took orders, and preached at Saltash; but for this there was probably no other foundation than what his works afforded, which would not have disgraced many of the divines of that period. It is evident that he had studied religious controversy with, more attention than laymen usually bestow on such subjects. His destination, however, was to make a figure in political history. In the first parliament called by Charles I, he was returned for Truro in Cornwall, for Tregony in the third, and for Truro again in the 15th and 16th of that reign; in all which he proved one of the most zealous enemies to the established church, and a vehement declaimer. against what he termed innovations and abuses both in church and state, and particularly against Arminianism, which was also the subject of some of his works. He was one of the few laymen appointed by the Commons to sit in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. In the parliament called in 1653, he was one of the representatives for Devonshire, and at that time was first chosen chairman, and then speaker for a month; but continued, during the whole sitting, to forward Cromwell’s plans. He procured a vote, that Cromwell, Lambert, Harrison, Disbrowe, and Tomlinson, should sit in that house as members; and afterr wards proposed, that the parliament should resign the govertment into Cromwell’s hands, with the title of Protector. His original intention was to form the English commonwealth after the model of the Jewish; but as a theocracy was rejected, he made the above proposal in favour of Cromwell, whom he affected to look upon as a compound of the characters of Moses and Joshua. In gratitude for this, he was declared one of Jus highness’ s privy-council. In 1656, he was returned one of the members for Cornwall; and in the year following was seated in the House of Lords. He had been made provost of Eton in 1643, and had a college- lease, which together were worth 1200l. per annum. He died at Acton, near London, Jan, 7, 1659, and was buried with great pomp at Eton, and a standard-­pennon, with other things relating to a baron, were erected over his grave, but these were taken away at the Restoration. We have omitted to notice, that he was principal trier and approver of public preachers, and a commissioner for the ejectment of “scandalous and ignorant ministers.” He founded three fellowships in Pembroke college, and bequeathed other property to pious uses. Lord Clarendon and other contemporaries undervalue his abilities, which certainly did not appear to much advantage in parliament, where his speeches were rude, vulgar, and enthusiastic, both in style and sentiment, yet perhaps not the worse adapted to the understandings of his hearers. Wood has given a long catalogue of his writings, the principal of which relating to subjects of religions controversy, or general piety, were collected in a folio printed at London in 1657, under the title of “The Works of Francis Rous, esq. or treatises and meditations dedicated to the saints, and to the excellent throughout the three nations.” This has Faithorne’s fine print from the picture in Pembroke college. He published also, a tract, “The Lawfulness of obeying the present Government,” 1649, 4to, and “Mel la Patrum,” a thick octavo, 1650, containing what may he termed the beauties of the fathers of the first three centuries; “Jnteriora regni Dei,” 1665, 12mo, and a translation of the Psalms into English metre, printed in 1645, by order of the House of Commons. His son Francis was a young physician of great talents, but died early in life in 1643. When at Merton college, he was distinguished for classical attainments, and published a work on Greek antiquities, “Archaeologiae Atticae libri tres,” Oxon. 1637, which Wood says went through several impressions.

, in Latin Oricellarius, a learned writer of the fifteenth century, was born in 1449. His mother was daughter of the celebrated Pallas Strozzi, one of the most powerful and opulent citizens of Florence, a great patron of literature, and who in his collections of books and antiquities, was the rival of Niccoli, and even of the Medicis themselves. To this last mentioned illustrious family Bernard became allied, in his seventeenth year, by his marriage with the sister of Lorenzo, which joyful occasion his father John Ruccellai is said to have celebrated with princely magnificence, at the expence of 37,000 florins. Bernard after his marriage pursued his studies with the same avidity as before; and after Lorenzo de Medici’s death, the Platonic academy found in him a very generous protector. He built a magnificent palace, with gardens and groves convenient for the philosophic conferences held by the academicians, and ornamented it with the most valuable specimens of the antique, collected at an immense expence.

About this time he gave his assistance to Mr. Ames, in his typographical researches. In October 1751, at the age of 77, he was obliged to ask the aid of physicians for preserving his eye-sight, which, however, they did not effect. Yet this misfortune, that to a scholar cannot easily be supplied, did not prevent him from doing kind acts to his relations, and continuing his correspondence with his friends, nor from pursuing his studies, and producing his edition of Livy, in four volumes 12mo, which Harwood declares to be one of the most accurate that ever was published. Glasgow had to boast of the spotless perfection of her Horace, in 1744; Edinburgh had reason, said that critic, to triumph in the immaculate purity of Ruddiman’s Livy, in 1751. Ruddiman resigned his place of keeper to the advocates’ library in a very handsome English letter; and the celebrated David Hume was appointed to succeed him. Mr. Ruddiman soon gave a fine specimen of his knowledge of the Latin language, in a letter on the subject to Mr. John Garden, of Brechin, 1712, still in ms.; but, with his usual judgment, he concluded his elaborate dissertation by remarking, that, if the Latin tongue be written with Roman accuracy, Roman pronunciation may be left, without much inconvenience, to find its own fashion in the learned world. He had scarcely closed this friendly correspondence when he was called from his favourite studies into an acrimonious contest, by James Man, master of the poor-hospital in Aberdeen, concerning his edition of Buchanan’s Works, which had been published 38 years before. Of this we have already taken notice in our account of Mr. Man. Mr. Ruddiman died at Edinburgh, Jan. 19, 1757, when he had advanced into the eighty-third year of his age, and was buried in the cemetery of the Grey Friers. His brother and partner, Walter, died in 1770, aged 83.

, the Ephesian, a physician and anatomist in the reign of the emperor Trajan, obtained great reputation by his extensive knowledge and experience. Galen esteemed him one of the most able of the physicians who had preceded bin:-. Rufus appears to have cultivated anatomy, by dissecting brutes, with great zeal and success. He traced the origin of the nerves in the brain, and considered some of them as contributing to motion, and others to sensation. He even observed the capsule of the crystalline lens in the eye. He considered the heart as the seat of life, and of the animal heat, and as the origin of the pulse, which he ascribed to the spirit of its left ventricle and of the arteries; and he remarked the difference in the capacity and thickness of the two ventricles. He deemed the spleen to be a very useless viscus, and his successors have never discovered its use. He examined very fully the organs of generation, and the kidnies and bladder; he has left, indeed, a very good treatise on the diseases of the urinary organs, and the methods of cure. He also wrote a work on purgative medicines, mentioning their different qualities, the countries from which they were obtained; and a little treatise on the names given by the Greeks to the different parts of the body. Galen affirms also that Rufus was the author of an essay on the tnateria medica, written in verse; and Suidas mentions a treatise of his on the ' atra bilis, with some other essays; but these are lost. What remains of his works are to be found in the “Artis medicse principes” of Stephens, and printed separately at London, Gr. and Lat. 4to, by W. Clinch, 172G.

Dr. Rutty died April 27, 1775; and after his death were published “Observations on the London and Edinburgh Dispensatories, with an account of the various subjects of the Materia Medica, not contained in either of those works,” 1776, 12mo. In this Dr. Rutty contends, but with no great force of argument, or proof from their efficacy, that several medicines were improperly omitted in the above dispensatories. “Materia Medica Antiqua et Nova, repurgata et illustrata; sive de Medicamentorum simplicium officinalium facultatibus tractatus,” 4to. On this compilation he had bestowed forty years, and calls it “the principal work of his life,” but it has not acquired the same estimation with the faculty. Besides being unnecessarily prolix, there are many symptoms of credulity in the efficacy of certain medicines, which does no honour to the regular practitioner. The last of this author’s works which appeared, was his “Spiritual Diary and Soliloquies,” 1776, 2 vols. 8vo, one of the most extraordinary of those books which have been published under the title of “Confessions.” It is scarcely possible, however, to read it or characterize it with gravity, being a series of pious meditations perpetually interrupted with records of too much whiskey, piggish or swinish eating, and ill temper. Had his friends been left to their own judgment, this strange farrago had never appeared; but by a clause in his will, his executors were obliged to publish it. Nor, after all, does it exhibit a real character of the man; who, we are assured by his friends (in the preface), was correct and temperute in his conduct and mode of living, a man of great benevolence, and a very useful, as he certainly was a very learned physician.

, called Lorenzin di Bologna, was one of the most genteel and most delicate painters of his age. He has been often mistaken for a scholar of Raphael, from the resemblance of his Holy Families in style of design and colour to those of that master, though the colour be always weaker. He likewise painted Madonnas and angels in cabinet- pictures, which seem of Parmigiano nor are his altar-pieces different the most celebrated is that of S. Michele at S. Giacomo, engraved by Agostino Caracci, and recommended to his school as a model of graceful elegance. He excelled in fresco; correct in design, copious in invention, equal to every subject, and yet, what surprises, rapid. Such were the talents that procured him employ, not only in many patrician families of his own province, but a call to Rome under the pontificate of Gregorio XIII. where, according to Baglioni, he pleased much, especially in his naked figures, a branch he had not much cultivated at Bologna. The stories of St. Paul in the Capella Paolina, Faith triumphant over Infidelity in the Sala regia, and various other subjects in the galleries and loggie of the Vatican, are the works of Sabbatini, always done in competition with the best masters, and always with applause: hence among the great concourse of masters who at that time thronged for precedence in Rome, he was selected to superintend the different departments of the Vatican in which office he died in the vigour of life, 1577.

, one of the most learned men of the seventeenth century, and whom Baillet has with great propriety classed among his “Enfant celebres par les etudes,” was born at Semur-en-Auxois, in Burgundy. His family was ancient and noble, and his father, an eminent lawyer, and a member of the parliament of Burgundy, wasa man of worth and learning. Respecting the time of his birth, all his biographers differ. Peter Burman, who has compared their differences, justly thinks it very strange that so many persons who were his contemporaries and knew him intimately, should not have ascertained the exact dates either of his birth or death. The former, however, we presume may be fixed either in 1593 or 1594. He was educated at first solely by his father, who taught him Latin and Greek with astonishing success. At the age of ten he was able to translate Pindar very correctly, and wrote Greek and Latin verses. At the age of eleven, his father wished to send him for farther education to the Jesuits’ college at Dijon, not to board there, but to attend lessons twice a day, and improve them at his lodgings. In this scheme, however, he was disappointed. His mother, who was a protestant, had not only inspired Claude with a hatred of the Jesuits, but encouraged him to write satires against the order, which he did both in Greek and Latin, and entertained indeed throughout life the same aversion to them. Having refused therefore to comply with his father’s request m this respect, his mothef proposed to send him to Paris, where her secret wish was that he should be confirmed in her religion. This being complied with, he soon formed an acquaintance with Casaubon and some other learned men in that metropolis, who were astonished to find such talents and erudition in a mere boy. During his residence here he conversed much with the clergy of the reformed church, and being at length determined to make an open avowal of his attachment to protestantism, he asked leave of his father to go to Heidelberg, partly that he might apply to the study of the law, but principally that he might be more at his freedom in religious matters. Baillet calls this a trick of his new preceptors, who wished to persuade Salmasius’s father that Paris, with respect to the study of the law, was not equal to Heidelberg, where was the celebrated Denis Godefroi, and an excellent library.

Salmasius’s father hesitated long about this proposition. As yet he did not know that his son was so far gone in a change of religion, but still did not choose that he should be sent to a place which swarmed with protestants. He therefore wished his son would prefer Toulouse, where were at that time some eminent law professors; but“Claude refused, and some unpleasant correspondence took place between the father and the son, as appears by the words in which the former at last granted his permission” Go then, I wish to show how much more I am of an indulgent father than you are of an obedient son." The son indeed in this manifested a little of that conceit and arrogarice which appeared in many instances in his future life, and unmoved by the kindness he had just received, refused to travel by the way of Dijon, as his fatter desired, but joined some merchants who were going to Francfort fair, and arrived at Heidelberg in Oct. 1606, or rather 1607, when he was only in his fourteenth year. Whatever may be thought of his temper, we need no other proof that he was one of the most extraordinary youths of this age that the world ever knew, than the letters addressed to him at this time by Jungerman and others on topics of philology. They afford an idea of his erudition, says Burman, which could only be heightened by the production of his answers.

, an eminent physician, and one of the most learned writers in the sixteenth century, was born in 1531, at Tirnau in Hungary. He visited the universities of Germany, Italy, and France, and applied with almost equal success to the study of medicine, the belles lettres, poetry, history, and antiquities. His learning and reputation introduced him with great advantage at the courts of the emperors Maximilian Ji. and Rodolphus II. to whom he became counsellor and historiographer. Sambucus died of an apoplexy at Vienna in Austria, June 13, 1584, aged fifty-three, leaving an excellent “History of Hungary,” in the German histories published by Schardius; “Lives of the Roman Emperors;” Latin translations of “Hesiod, Theophylacr, and part of Plato, Ovid, and Thucydides” f Commentaries pn Horace’s Art of Poetry“notes on several Greek and Latin authors” Icones m'edicorum,“Antwerp, 1603, fol.;” Emblemata," Antwerp, 1576, 16to. and several other works in verse and prose.

, a learned Spanish ecclesiastic, was born at Vigo in Gallicia in 1740. After the preparatory studies of divinity, &c. he entered into the church, and obtained a canonry in the cathedral of St. James, and was likewise appointed professor of divinity in that city. His fame procured him admission into many learned societies, and he became one of the most celebrated preachers of the last century, nor was he less admired for his benevolence. He obtained the honourable title of the father of the unfortunate, among whom he spent the whole profits of his canonry, and at his death in 1806, left no more than was barely sufficient to defray the expences of his funeral. The leisure he could spare from his professional duties was employed in the study of the ecclesiastical history of his country, which produced several works that are highly esteemed in Spain. Some of them were written in Latin, and some probably in Spanish, but our authority does not specify which. Among them are, 1. “Summa theologize sacrse,” Madrid, 1789, 4 jrols. 4to. 2. “Annales sacri,” ibid. 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. ^History of the church of Africa,“ibid. 1784, 8vo, a work abounding in learned research. 4.” A treatise on Toleration in matters of Religion,“ibid. 1783, 3 vols. 4to, rather a singular subject for a Spanish divine. 5.” An essay on the eloquence of the pulpit in Spain,“ibid. 1778, 8vo. This is a history of sacred oratory in that country in various ages, with the names of those who were the best models of it. The restoration of a true taste in this species of eloquence he attributes to his countrymen becoming acquainted with the works of those eminent French preachers Bossuet, Massillon, Bourdaloue, &c. 6.” A collection of his Sermons,“ibid. 3 vols. 4to. These were much admired in Spain, and were the same year translated into Italian, and printed at Venice in 4 vols. 4to. 7.” A paper read in the Patriotic Society of Madrid in 1782, on the means of encouraging industry in Gallicia," ibid. 1782, 8vo. This being his native country, Dr. Sanchez had long laboured to introduce habits of industry, and had influence enough to procure a repeal of some oppressive laws which retarded an object of so much importance.

, a German painter, was born at Francfort in 1606. He was sent by his father to a grammar school; his inclination to engraving and designing . being irresistible, he was suffered to indulge it, and went on foot to Prague, where he put himself under Giles Sadeler, the famous engraver, who persuaded him to apply his genius to painting. He accordingly went to Utrecht, and was some time under Gerard lionthrost, who took him into England with him; where he stayed till 1627, the year in which the duke of Buckingham, who was the patron of painting and painters, was assassinated by Felton at Portsmouth. He went afterwards to Venice, where he copied the finest pictures of Titian and Paul Veronese; and from Venice to Rome, where he became one of the most considerable painters of his time. The king of Spain sending to Rome for twelve pictures of the most skilful hands then in that city, twelve painters were set to work, one of whom was Sandrart. After a long stay in Rome, he went to Naples, thence to Sicily and Malta, and at length returned through Lombardy to Francfort, where he married. A great famine happening about that time, he removed to Amsterdam; but returned to Francfort upon the cessation of that grievance. Not long after, he took possession of the manor of Stokau, in the duchy of Neuburg, which was fallen to him; and, finding it much in decay, sold all his pictures, designs, and other curiosities, in order to raise money for repairs’. He had but just completed these, when, the war breaking out between the Germans and the French, it was burned by the latter to the ground. He then rebuilt it in a better style; but, fearing a second invasion, sold it, and settled at Augsburgh, where he executed many fine pictures. His wife dying, he left Augsburgh, and went to Nuremberg, where he established an academy of painting. Here he published his “Academia artis pictoria?,” 1683, fol. being an abridgment of Vasari and Ridolfi for what concerns the Italian painters, and of Charles Van Manderfor the Flemings, of the seventeenth century. He died at Nuremberg, in 16S8. His work above mentioned, which some have called superficial, is but a part of a larger work, which he published before under the title of “Academia Todesca della architettura, scultura, e pittura, oderTeutsche academic der edlen banbild-rnahleren-kunste,” Nuremberg, 1675 79, 2 vols. fol. He published also, “Iconologia Deorum, qui ab antiquis colebantur (Germanice), ibid. 1680, fol.” Admiranda Sculptures veteris, sive delineatio vera perfectissrma statuarum,“ibid. 1680, fol.” Koiiiaj antiquse et novae theatrum,“1684, fol. ”Rotna-norum Fontinalia," ibid. 1685, fol. A German edition of all his works was published by Volkmann, at Nuremberg, in 1669 75, 8 vols. fol.

, a celebrated president and lieutenant-general in the seneschalshit> and presidial court of Clerinont in Auvergne, was born there about the beginning of the seventeenth century. He had an extensive ^knowledge of the belles lettres and law, and was one of the most learned men and eloquent magistrates of his time. He attended the states-general held at Paris in 1614, as a deputy from the Tiers Etat of the province of Auvergne, and defended its rights with zeal and firmness against the nobility and the clergy. He afterwards pleaded with great credit in. the parliament of Paris, and died at a very advanced age in 1682, leaving many learned works much esteemed; the principal are, an edition of “Sidonius Apollinaris,” 1609, 4to. with notes. “Origine de Clermont, Capitale d' Auvergne,” the most complete edition of which is by Peter Durand, 1662, folio. “Traite des ”Duels,“8vo.” Traite“de la Souverainte” du Roi et de son Roiaume aux Deputes de la Noblesse,“1615, 8vo, two parts a curious and scarce work.” Chronologies des Etats G6ne>aux," 8vo the object of which is to prove that the Tiers Etat has always had admittance there, a seat, and a deliberative voice.

, a learned historian and antiquary, was born September 6, 1694-, at Sulzbourg, a town in the margraviate of Baden Dourlach; his father, holding an honourable office in the margrave’s court, died soon after in Alsace, leaving his son to the care of his mother. After tei: years studying at Dourlach and Basil, he kept a public exercise on some contested points of ancient history with applause, and finished his studies in eight years more at Strasbourg. In 1717, he there spoke a Latin panegyric on Ge^manicus, that favourite hero of Germany, which was printed by order of the city. In return for this favour he spoke a funeral oration on M. Barth, under whom he had studied; and another on Kuhn, the professor of eloquence and history there, whom he was soon after elected to succeed in 1720, at the age of twenty ­ix. The resort of students to him from the Northern nations was very great, and the princes of Germany sent their sons to study law under him. The professorship of history at Francfort on the Oder was offered to him; the czarina invited him to another at St. Petersburg, with the title of historiographer royal; Sweden offered him the same professorship at Upsal, formerly held by Scheffer and Boeder, his countrymen; and the university of Leyden named him successor to the learned Vitriarius. He preferred Strasbourg to all. Amidst the succession of lectures public and private, he found time to publish an innumerable quantity of historical and critical dissertations, too many to be here particularised. In 1725 he pronounced a congratulatory oration before king Stanislaus, in the name of the university, on the marriage of his daughter to the king of France; and, in 1726, another on the birth of the dauphin, besides an anniversary one on the king of France’s birthday, and others on his victories. In 1726 he quitted his professorship, and began his travels at the public expence. From Paris he went to Italy, stayed at Rome six months, re* ceived from the king of the Two Sicilies a copy of the “Antiquities of Herculaneum,” and from the duke of Parma the “Museum Florentinum.” He came to England at the beginning of the late king’s reign, and left it the day that Pere Courayer, driven out of Paris by theological disputes, arrived in London. He was now honoured with a canonry of St. Thomas, one of the most distinguished Lutheran chapters, and visited Paris a third time in 1728. Several dissertations by him are inserted in the “Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres;” one, ascribing the invention of moveable types to Guttenberg of Strasbourg, 1440, against Meerman,

, a learned German writer, and one of the most arrogant and contentious critics of his time, was born about 1576; and studied first at Amberg, then at Heidelberg, afterwards at Altdorf, at the charges of the elector palatine. Having made a considerable stay at Ingolstadt, he returned to Altdorff, where he began to publish some of his works. Ottavia Ferrari, a celebrated professor at Padua, says, that he “published books when he was but sixteen, which deserved to be admired by old men;” some, however, of his early productions do not deserve this encomium. He took a journey into Italy; and, after he had been some time at Verona, returned into Germany, whence he went again into Italy, and published at Ferrara a panegyric upon the king of Spain and pope Clement VIII. Iti 1599, he embraced the Roman catholic religion, but had an extraordinary antipathy to the Jesuits; against whom, Baillet tells us, he wrote about thirty treatises under fictitious names. Nor was he more lenient to the Protestants, and solicited the princes to extirpate them by the most bloody means, in a book which he published at Pavia in 1619, under the title of “Gasp. Scioppii Consiliarii Regii Classieum belli sa'cri, sive, Heldus Redivivus.” The following is the title of another, printed at Mentz in 1612, against Philip Mornay du Plessis; and which, as he tells us in the title-page, he sent to James I. of England, by way of new-year’s gift: “Alexipharmacum Regium felli clraconum et veneno aspidum sub Philippi Mornaei de Piessis nuper Papatus historia abdito appositum, et sereniss. Jacobo Magnae Britanniae Regi strenae Januariae loco muneri missum.” He had before attacked the king of England, by publishing in 1611, two books with these titles; “Ec­clesiasticus auctoritati Sereniss. D. Jacob), &c. oppositus,” and “Collyrium Regium Britanniae Regi graviter ex oculis laboranti muneri missum;” that is, “An Eye-salve for the use of his Britannic majesty.” In the first of these pieces he ventured to attack Henry IV. of France in a most violent manner which occasioned his book to be burnt at Paris. He gloried, however, in this disgrace and, according to his own account, had the farther honour of being hanged in effigy in a farce, which was acted before the king of England. He did not, however, always escape with impunity; for, in 1614, the servants of the English ambassador are said to have beaten him with great severity at Madrid. Of the wounds he received in this conflict, he, as usual, made his boasts, as he also did of having been the principal contriver of the Catholic league, which proved so ruinous to the Protestants in Germany. In his way through Venice in 1607, he had a conference with father Paul, whom he endeavoured by promises and threats to bring over to the pope’s party; which, perhaps, with other circumstances, occasioned his being imprisoned there three or four days. After he had spent many years in literary contests, he applied himself to the prophecies of holy scripture, and flattered himself that he had discovered the true key to them. He sent some of these prophetical discoveries to cardinal Mazarine, who paid no attention to them. It has been said that he had thoughts at last of going back to the communion of Protestants; but this, resting upon the single testimony of Hornius, has not been generally believed. He died in 1649.

, one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, was born at Dundee in Scotland, in 1506, and after making great progress in the Greek and Latin languages at the grammar school of that place, studied philosophy at St. Andrew’s university with equal success* He afterwards studied civil law at Paris and Bourges. At this latter city he became acquainted with the Greek professor, James Amiot, who recommended him to be tutor to two young gentlemen; and this served also to introduce him to Bernard Bornetel, bishop of Rennes, a celebrated political character, who invited Mr. Scrimzeor to accompany him to Italy. There he became acquainted with the most distinguished scholars of the country. The death of the noted Francis Spira * happened during his visit at Padua, and as the character and conduct of this remarkable person at that time engaged the attention of the world, Mr. Scrimzeor is said to have collected memoirs of him, which, however, does not appear in the catalogue of his works.