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

, a writer of the fourteenth century, was an English Minorite, or Franciscan, of the family of the earls of Suffolk. He is said to have studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, and to have been very familiar with the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Pliny; from which, with his own observations, he compiled his celebrated work “De Proprietatibus rernrn,” a kind of general history of nature; divided into nineteen books, treating of God, angels, and devils, the soul, the body, animals, &c. In some copies there is an additional book, not of his writing, on numbers, weights, measures, sounds, &c. Some v “Sermons” of his were printed at Strasburgh in 1495. But his work “De Proprietatibus*' appears to have been the chief favourite, and was one of the first books on which the art of printing was exercised, there being no fewer than twelve editions, or translations, printed from 1479 to 1494. The English translation printed by Wynkyn de Worde is the most magnificent publication that ever issued from the press of that celebrated printer, but the date has not been ascertained. A very copious and exact analysis of this curious work is given by Mr. Dibdin in the second Volume of his” Typographical Antiquities."

, a learned French Dominican, was born at Paris, of a reputable family, in 1601, and after a classical education, took the habit of his order in 1619. He then employed six years in the study of philosophy and theology, after which he was sent to Toul to instruct the young men of his order in these sciences. In the mean time his extreme partiality to the Greek, and his extensive reading in Greek literature, inspired him with a great desire to visit the country of the modern Greeks, and inquire into their sentiments and customs; and having obtained leave of his superiors, he set out in 1631, as an apostolic missionary, and was for the sake of local convenience, made prior of the convent of St. Sebastian, in the island of Chios. Here he resided eight years, conversing with the ablest of the natives, and inquiring into their history, religion, and manners. Before returning to France he went to Rome in 1640, where he was appointed prior of the convent of St. Sixtus, and being arrived at Paris, was made master of the novices, and began to employ his time in preparing his works for the press. This was an object so much at heart, that when elected in 1652 vicar-general of his order, he accepted it with great reluctance, as likely ta interrupt his labours. It is supposed, indeed, that his intense application, and the various duties of this office, impaired his health, and brought on a slow fever, which proved fatal Sept. 23, 1653. His principal work was his collection of Greek liturgies, published under the title of “Euchologion, sive rituale Grcecorum,” Paris, 1647, fol. a very curious and rare work. There is, however, a second edition printed at Venice in 1730. Goar also translated some of the Byzantine historians for the collection printed at the Louvre.

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

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris in 1716, where his father was an advocate, and himself became a counsellor to the parliament. By close study, and by great assiduity in his pursuits, he produced in 1758 a work that obtained a temporary reputation, and was translated into English, entitled c< Origine des Loix, des Arts, des Sciences, et de leur Progres chez les anciens Peuples," 3 vols. 4to; reprinted in 1778, in six volumes 12mo. This work treats of the origin and progress of human knowledge, from the creation to the age of Cyrus, but displays more genius than erudition, and is rather an agreeable than a profound work. He died of the small-pox, May 2, 1758, immediately after the publication of his work; leaving his Mss. and library to his friend, Alexander Conrad Fugere, who died only three days after him, in consequence of being deeply affected by the death of Goguet, who was a man of much personal worth. Goguet had begun another work on the origin and progress of the laws, arts, sciences, &c. in France, from the commencement of the monarchy, the loss of which the admirers of his first production much regretted.

, an eminent poet and miscellaneous writer, was born on Nov. 29, 1728, at a place called Pallas, in the parish of Forney and county of Longford in Ireland. His father, the rev. Charles Goldsmith, a native of the county of Roscommon, was a clergyman of the established church, and had been educated at Dublin college. He afterwards held the living of Kilkenny West in the county of Westmeath. By his wife, Anne, the daughter of the rev. Oliver Jones, master of the diocesan school of Elphin, he had five sons, and two daughters. His eldest son, Henry, went into the church, and is the gentleman to whom our poet dedicated his “Traveller.” Oliver was the second son, and is supposed to have faithfully represented his father in the character of the Village Preacher in the “Deserted Village.” Oliver was originally intended for some mercantile employment, as his father found his income too scanty for the expences of the literary education which he had bestowed on his eldest son. With this view he was instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, at a common school, the master of which was an old soldier, of a romantic turn, who entertained his pupil with marvellous stories of his travels and feats, and is supposed to have imparted somewhat of that wandering and unsettled turn which so much appeared in his pupil’s future life. It is certain that Oliver had not been long at this humble school before he proved that he was “no vulgar boy.” He made some attempts in poetry when he was scarcely eight years old, and by the inequalities of his temper and conduct, betrayed a disposition more favourable io the flights of genius than the regularity of business. This after some time became so obvious, that his frfends, who had at first pleaded for his being sent to the university, now determined to contribute towards the expence, and by their assistance, he was placed at a school of reputation, where he might be qualified to enter the college with the advantages of preparatory learning.

Some time before his death, although they were not printed until after that event, he wrote his poems “The Haunch of Venison,” “Retaliation,” and some other of his smaller pieces. But the chief project he had at heart was, an “Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences,” in the execution of which it is said he had engaged all his literary friends and the members of the Literary Club; but this was prevented by his death, which is thus related by his biographer:

, one of the most violent of the republican sectaries in the time of Charles I. but whom no sect seems to own, was born in 1593, and educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge. In 1633 he was presented to the living of St. Stephen’s, Coleman-street, from which he was turned out by what was called the “committee for plundered ministers,” because he refused to baptise the children of his parish promiscuously, and refused to administer the sacrament to his whole parish. He was an independent, and carried on many warm disputes with the presbyterian party. What was more singular in these days, was his embracing the Arminian doctrines, which he defended with great vigour both by the pulpit and press; and such was the general turbulence of his temper, and conceit in his own opinions, that he is said to have been against every man, and every man against him. Being a decided republican, he peculiarly gratified the savage spirit of the times by promoting the condemnation of the king, which he afterwards endeavoured to justify in a pamphlet called “The Obstructors of Justice,” the wickedness, absurdity, and impiety of which Mr. Neal has very candidly exposed. At the restoration it was thought he would have been excepted from the act of indemnity, but, although he afterwards was permitted to live, a proclamation was issued in 1660 against the above pamphlet, and in that he is stated to have been “late of Coleman-street, clerk,” and-to have fled. His pamphlet was burnt by the hands of the hangman. Returning afterwards, he kept a private conventicle in Coleman-street, where he died in 1665. His works, now in very little repute, are chiefly theological, among which the following may be mentioned: 11 Redemption Redeemed,“in folio.” The divine Authority of the Scriptures,“4to;” An Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans," 4to.

, a native of Scotland, was an excellent draughtsman, and a good Grecian, who resided many years in Italy, visited most parts of that country, and had also travelled into France, Germany, &c. In 1736 he was appointed secretary to the society for the encouragement of learning, with an annual salary of 50l. which he resigned in 1739. In the same year (1736) he succeeded Dr. Stukeley as secretary to the society of antiquaries, which office he resigned in 1741 to Mr. Joseph Ames, and was for a short time secretary to the Egyptian club, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt, viz. lord Sandwich, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Pococke, &c. In 1741 he went to Carolina with governor Glen, where, besides a grant of land, he had several offices, such as register of the province, &c. and died about 1750, a justice of the peace, leaving a handsome estate to his family. He published, 1. “Itinerarium Septentrionale, or a Journey through most parts of the counties of Scotland, in two parts, with 66 copper-plates, 1726,” folio. 2. “Additions and Corrections, by way of supplement, to the Itinerarium Septentrionale; containing several dissertations on, and descriptions of, Roman antiquities, discovered in Scotland since publishing the said Itinerary. Together with observations on other ancient monuments found in the North of England, never before published, 1732,” folio. A Latin edition of the “Itinerarium,” including the Supplement, was printed in Holland, in 1731. 3. “The Lives of pope Alexander VI. and his son Caesar Borgia, comprehending the wars in the reign of Charles VIII. and Lewis XII. kings of France; and the chief transactions and revolutions in Italy, from 1492 to 1516. With an appendix of original pieces referred to in the work, 1729,” folio. 4. “A complete History of the ancient Amphitheatres, more particularly regarding the Architecture of these buildings, and in particular that of Verona, by the marquis Scipio Maffei; translated from the Italian, 1730,” 8vo, afterwards enlarged in a second edition. 5. “An Essay towards explaining the Hieroglyphical Figures on the Coffin of the ancient Mummy belonging to capt. William Lethieullier, 1737,” folio, with cuts. 6. “Twenty-five plates of all the Egyptian Mummies, and other Egyptian Antiquities in England,” about 1739, folio.

, surnamed Fulgentius, and celebrated for propagating and exciting a controversy on the doctrines of predestination and free grace, was born in Germany, in the beginning, probably, of the ninth century. From early life he had been a monk, and had devoted himself to theological inquiries. He was peculiarly fond of the writings of St. Augustine, and entered with much zeal into his sentiments. About the year 846, he left his monastery at Fulcla, and went into Dalmatia and Pannonia, where he spread the doctrines of St. Augustine, under a pretence, as his enemies said, of preaching the gospel to the infidels. At his return, he remained some time in Lombardy, and in the year 847 held a conference with Notingus, or Nothingus, bishop of Vienne, concerning predestination, who prevailed on Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, to undertake the confutation of what was called a new heresy. This the archbishop undertook, and was supported by a synod at Mentz, which condemned Gotteschalcus. He was farther prosecuted by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, was degraded from the priesthood, and ordered to be beaten with rods, and imprisoned. But as nothing was proved against him, except his adherence to the sentiments of Augustine, which were still held in estimation in the church, this shews, in the opinion of Dupin, that he was an injured man. He was, however, so severely whipped in the presence of the emperor Charles and the bishops, that his resolution failed him, and he complied with their commands so far as to throw into the fire a writing in which he had made a collection of scripture texts in order to prove his opinion. After this he was kept a close prisoner by Hincmar in a monastery, where he continued to maintain his opinions until his death in the same prison in the year 870. Hincmar, hearing that he lay at the point of death, sent him a formulary, which he was to subscribe, in order to his being received into the communion of the church; Gotteschalcus, however, rejected the offer with indignation, and therefore, by orders of Hincrnar, was denied Christian burial. But even in that age there were men who loudly remonstrated against the barbarity with which he had been treated. Remigius, archbishop of Lyons, distinguished himself among these; and, in a council held at Valence, in Dauphiny, in the year 855, both Gotteschalcus and his doctrine were vindicated and defended, and two subsequent councils confirmed the decrees of this council. The churches also of Lyons, Vienne, and Aries, vigorously supported the sentiments of Gotteschalcus, whom nothing but the secular influence of Hincmar could have detained in prison, while his cause was thus victorious. The only writings of this confessor that have reached the present times are, two “Confessions of Faith,” inserted in archbishop Usher’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” printed at Dublin in 1641; an epistle to Ratramnus, published in Cellot’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” at Paris, in 1655, and some fragments of other pieces, noticed by Cave. In 1650, the celebrated Maguin published, at Paris, a collection of the treatises produced on both sides of this controversy, entitled “Veterum Auctorum qui nono saeculo de Prasdestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, &c.” 2 vols. 4to.

, a protestant divine, and voluminous writer, was born at Senlis, Oct. 20, 1543, and studied divinity at Geneva, where he was ordained in October 1566, and was appointed one of the ministers of that city, a situation which he filled for the long space of sixtytwo years. His residence at Geneva was never discontinued but on account of three journies he took to France, on matters relating to the protestant churches, the one in 1576, when he went to Forez; the second in 1582, to Champagne, and the third in 1600, to Grenoble. The rest of his life he devoted to his pastoral duties, and to his numerous works, which prove him one of the most indefatigable writers of his time. He died Feb. 3, 1628, in his eighty-fifth year, and in full possession of his faculties. He preached but seven days before his death. Scaliger, who had a great esteem for him, says he was an ingenious man, who learnt all he knew without the assistance of a master.

, a celebrated physician, was born at Schoonhaven, in Holland, where his father was an eminent architect, July 30, 1641. After having laid a proper foundation for classical learning, he went to study physic at Leydtfn; in which science he made so great progress, that in 1663 he published a treatise “De Succo Pancreatico,” which did him the highest honour. Two years after he went to France, and was made M. D. at Angers; but returned to Holland the year after, and settled at Delft, where he had very extensive practice, tie married in 1672, and died Aug. 17, 1673, when he was only thirty-two years of age. He published three pieces upon the organs of generation both in men and women, upon which subject he had a very warm controversy with Swammerdam. His works, with his life prefixed, were published in 8vo, at Leyden, in 1677 and 1705; and were translated into Flemish, and published at Amsterdam in 1686.

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

The “Septuagint” had never been entirely printed from the Alexandrian ms. in St. James’s library, partly owing to the great difficulty ef performing it in a manner suitable to its real worth, and partly because that worth itself had been so much questioned by the advocates of the Roman copy, that it was even grown into some neglect. To perform this task, and to assert its superior merit, was an honour marked out for Grabe; and when her majesty acquainted him with it, she at the same time presented him with a purse of 60l. by the suggestion of her minister Harley, to enable him to go through with it. This was a most arduous undertaking, and he spared no pains to complete it. In the mean time he employed such hours as were necessary for refreshment, in other works of principal esteem. In 1705 he gave a beautiful edition of bishop Bull’s works, in folio, with notes; for which he received the author’s particular thanks; and he had also a hand in preparing for the press archdeacon Gregory’s edition of the New Testament in Greek, which was printed the same year at Oxford, revising the scholia, which Gregory, then dead, had collected from various authors, and making the proper references.

But whatever truth may be in all this, the letter was an unwise and hasty production, written in the moment of the strongest irritation. The review appeared in December, and the letter in January. There was no time to cool, and perhaps no opportunity of consulting his friends, who could have told him that nothing was to be gained by an exchange of personalities with Smollett. The latter required no great length of time or consideration to prepare an answer, which appeared accordingly in the review for February, and in which every insinuation or accusation is introduced that could tend to lessen Dr. Grainger in the eyes of the public, both as a writer and as a man. But the objections which Grainger took are by no means satisfactorily answered, and the review is still liable to the suspicion of partiality. No reader of candour or of taste can peruse the Translation, without allowing that the author deserved praise, not only for the attempt, but for the elegant manner in which he has in general transmitted the tender sentiments of Tibullus into our language. But this the Reviewer has wholly overlooked, confining himself to the censure of a few defects, part of which he has not proved to be so, and part were typographical errors.

, a Franciscan friar, was born at Douay, in the early part of the seventeenth century, and has been styled the abbreviator of Descartes. He was an eminent professor both of philosophy and divinity in the university of Douay, where he associated much' with the English, and was sent by them as a missionary into England. His residence was chiefly in Oxfordshire, where he led a retired life. He is said to have been the first who reduced the Cartesian system to the method of the schools, and his work on this subject, which was frequently printed in England, first in 1671, 12mo, and afterwards, much enlarged in 4to, was also translated and published in folio. He carried on a controversy for some time with a Mr. John Serjeant on metaphysical subjects. He was alive in Oxfordshire in 1695, but no farther particulars of his history are now known. Among his works we find the following mentioned: 1. “L'homme sans passions, selon les sentimens de Seneque,” Hague, 1662, 12mo. 2. “ Scydromedia, seu Sermo quern Alphonsus de la Vida habtiit, coram Comite de Falmouth, de monarchia,” 1669, 16mo. 3. “Apologia Renati des Cartes contra Sam. Parkerum,” London, 1679, 12mo. 4. “Historia naturee variis expe*­rimentis elucidata,” ibid. 1673, 8vo, reprinted there in 1680, and at Norimb. 1678. 5. “Compendium rerum jucundarum, et memorabilium naturae,” Norimb. 1681, 8vo. 6. “Dissertatio de carentia sensus et cognitionis in Brutis,” Ley den, 1675, 8vo. 7. “L'Epicure Spiritual, ou, Pempire de la volupte sur les vertus,” Paris, 8vo, 8. “Historia sacra a mundo condito ad Constantinum magnum,” which is said to be his best performance.

The story of this unhappy person shews how easily an innocent man may be destroyed by the malice of the few, working upon the credulity and superstition of the many: for, Grandier, though certainly a bad man, was as certainly innocent of the crimes for which he suffered. Renaudot, a famous physician, and the first author of the French gazette, wrote Grandier’s eulogium, which was published at Paris in loose sheets. It was taken from Menage, who openly defends the curate of Loudun, and calls the possession of those nuns chimerical. In 1693 was published at Amsterdam “Histoire des Diables de Loudun;” from which very curious account it appears, that the pretended possession of the Ursulines was an horrible conspiracy against Grandier’s life. As an author he is known only for a funeral oration for Scaevola de St. Martha, which is said to be an eloquent performafice.

, a man of eminent learning in the sixteenth century, was educated at Westminster-school, from whence he was removed either to Christ-church or Broadgate’s-hall, in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. February 27, 1571, and that of master the 27th of March, 1572; about which time he was appointed master of Westminster school, where a great many persons who were afterwards eminent in church and state, were educated under his care. In 1575 he published at London in 4to, “Grcecse Linguse Spicilegium,” which was afterwards epitomized by his learned usher, Mr. William Camden, and printed at London, 1597, in 8vo, under the title of “Institutio Græcæ Grammatices compendiaria in usum Regiae Scholce Westinonasteriensis.” In 1577 our author was made prebendary of the twelfth stall in the collegiate church of Westminster, in the room of Dr. Thomas Watts; and about that time being admitted B. D. of Cambridge, was incorporated in the same degree at Oxford in May 1579. He was afterwards doctor of that faculty at Cambridge. He resigned his mastership of Westminster-school about the month of February 1591, and was succeeded in March following by Mr. Camdcn; he was then presented to the living of Barnet, in Middlesex, and to the rectory of Toppersfield, in Essex, in 1598. He died August 4, 1601, and was interred in St. Peter’s church at Westminster. He collected and published the Letters and Poems of Roger Ascham, to which he subjoined a piece of his own, entitled “Oratio de Vita & Obitu Rogeri Aschami, ac dietionis elegantia, cum adhortatione ad adolescentulos,” London, 1577, in 8vo. He was an excellent Latin poet, as appears from several copies of verses written by him, and printed in various books; and was exceedingly well versed in all parts of polite literature. Bentham says he had been vicar of South Benfleet, in Essex, in 1584, but resigned it soon, and that he was a prebendary of Ely in 1589.

, an English divine and miscellaneous writer, was a younger son of Richard Graves, esq. of Mickleton, in Gloucestershire, where he was born in 1715. His father, who was an able antiquary, died in 1729. His son, Richard, was educated partly at home, under the rev. Mr.Smith, curate of the parish in which his father resided, and partly at a public school at Abingdon, in Berkshire, whence, at the age of sixteen, he was chosen a scholar of Pembroke college, Oxford. Soon after his arrival he joined a party of young men who met in the evening to read Epictetus, Theophrastus, and other Greek authors, seldom read at schools; and a short time after became the associate of his contemporaries, Shenstone the poet, and Anthony Whistler, who used to meet to read poetry, plays, and other light works. In 1736 he was elected a fellow of All Souls college, where he acquired the particular intimacy of sir William Blackstone; but instead of pursuing the study of divinity, according to his original intention, he now devoted his attention to physic, and attended in London two courses of anatomy. A severe illness, however, induced him to resume the study of divinity, and in 1740, after taking his master’s degree, he entered into holy orders. About the same time he removed with Mr. Fitzherbert, fatlier of lord St. Helen’s, to the estate of that gentleman at Tissington, in Derbyshire, where he remained three years enjoying in his house the highest pleasures of refined society. At the end of that period, he set off‘ to make the tour of the north, and while at Scarborough, accidentally met with a distant relation, Dr. Samuel Knight, archdeacon of Berkshire, and the author of the Lives of Colet and Erasmus, by whose recommendation he obtained a curacy near Oxford. This was particularly gratifying to Mr. Graves, who was then coming, by turn, into office in the college, and had been for some time desirous of procuring such a situation. He immediately took possession of his curacy, but as the parsonage-house was out of repair, he took a lodging with a gentleman -farmer in the neighbourhood. The attractions of the farmer’s youngest daughter made such a powerful impression on the heart of Mr. Graves that he resigned his fellowship and married her. After residing about two years on his curacy, he was presented by Mr. Skrine to the rectory of Claverton, where he went to reside in 1750, and till his death, was never absent from it a month at a time. As the narrowness of his circumstances obliged him to superintend in person the education of his children, he likewise -resolved to take other pupils under his tuition; and this practice he continued, with great credit to himself, upwards of thirty years. In 1763, through the interest of Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior-Park, he was presented to the living of Kilmersdon, in addition to tbat of Claverton, and that gentleman likewise procured him the appointment of chaplain to lady Chatham. His conversation was rendered highly agreeable by that epigrammatic turn which points his writings of the lighter kind. His constant good humour rendered him an acceptable companion in every society, his colloquial impromptus being frequently as happy as the jeux d’e^prit of his pen, while both were invariably the unmeditated effusions of a sportive fancy and guileless heart. He died at Claverton, Nov. 23, 1804, at the advanced age of ninety.

ind, the organist of that cathedral. He was early noticed as an elegant organ-player and composer for the church, and obtained the place of organist of St. Dunstan in the West before he was twenty years of age. In 1717, m the death of Daniel Purcel!, he was likewise elected organist of St. Andrew’s, Holborn; but the next year, his master, Brind, dying, Greene was appointed his successor by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s; upon which event he quitted both the places he had previously obtained. In 1726, on the death of Dr. Crofts, he was appointed organist and composer to the chapel royal; and on the death of Eccles, 1735, master of his majesty’s band. In 1750 he obtained the degree of doctor in music at Cambridge, and was appointed public music professor in the same university, in the room of Dr. Tudway. Greene was an intelligent man, a constant attendant at the opera, and an acute observer of the improvements in composition and performance, which Handel and the Italian singers employed in his dramas, had introduced into this country. His melody is therefore more elegant, and harmony more pure, than those of his predecessors, though less nervous and original. Greene had the misfortune to live in the age and neighbourhood of a musical giant, with whom he was utterly unable to contend, but by cabal and alliance with his enemies, Handel was but too prone to treat inferior artists with contempt; and for many years of his life never spoke of Greene without some injurious epithet. Greene’s figure was below the common size, and he had the misfortune to be very much deformed; yet his address and exterior manners were those of a man of the world, mild, attentive, and well-bred.

He went not long after to Arabia; and, having dispatched the affairs of the Arabian churches, he proceeded to Jerusalem, having engaged to confer with the bishops of those parts, and to assist in their reformation. Upon his arrival, finding the place overrun with vice, schism, and faction, some shunning his communion, and others setting up altars in opposition to him, he soon grew weary of it, and returned with a heavy heart to Antioch: and being on this occasion consulted afterwards, whether it was an essential part of religion to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem (which, it seems, was the opinion of the monastic disciplinarians at that time), he declared himself freely in the negative. After this, he was summoned to the great council at Constantinople, where he made no inconsiderable figure, his advice being chiefly relied on in the most important cases; and particularly the composition of the creed, called by us the Nicene creed, was committed to his care. He composed a great many other pieces, commentaries on different parts of the scriptures; sermons; lives, and letters. There is a good edition of his works by Fronton du Due, 1615, 2 vols. fol. and another of 1638, 3 vols. fol. more ample, but not so correct. They are, however, in less estimation than the works of almost any of the fathers. He lived to a great age, and was alive when St. Jerom wrote his “Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers” in the year 392; and two years after was present at the synod of Constantinople, on adjusting the controversy between Agapius and Bagadius, as appears by the acts of that council. He died March 9, 396. He was a married man, and lived with his wife Theosebia, even after he was bishop. Gregory Nazianzen, in a consolatory letter to his sister on her death, gives her extraordinary commendations.

St. Basil says he was an evangelical man in his whole life. In his devotion he shewed the greatest reverence: yea and nay, were the usual measures of his communication. He was also a man of uncommon meekness and humility, and a firm adherent to truth. With respect to the miracles ascribed to him, they do not rest upon the authority of his contemporaries, and are more numerous and extraordinary than will now be readily credited. His works *vere primed in Greek and Latin, 1626, folio, and in the library of the fathers. Gerard Vossius also printed a& edition at Mentz in 1604, 4to. Many of his writings, however, are supposed to be lost.

As a writer, Gregory of St. Vincent was very diffuse and voluminous, but he was an excellent geometrician. He published, in Latin, three mathematical works, the principal of which was his “Opus Geometricum Quadratures Circuli, et Sectionum Coni,” Antwerp, 1647, 2 vols. folio. Although he has not demonstrated, in this work, the quadrature of the circle, as he pretends to have done, the book nevertheless contains a great number of truths and important discoveries; one of which is this, viz. thai if one asymptote of an hyperbola be divided into parts in geometrical progression, and from the points of division ordinates be drawn parallel to the other asymptote, they will divide the space between the asymptote and curve into equal portions; from whence it was shewn by Mersenne, that, by taking the continual sums of those parts, there would be obtained areas in arithmetical progression, adapted to abscisses in geometrical progression, and which therefore were analogous to a system of logarithms.

Dr. Gregory was tall in person, and remarkable for the sweetness of his disposition and countenance, as well as for the ease and openness of his manners. He was an universal and elegant scholar, an experienced, learned, sagacious, and humane physician a professor, who had the happy talent of interesting his pupils, and of directing their attention to subjects of importance, and of explaining difficulties with simplicity and clearness. He entered with great warmth into the interests and conduct of his hearers, and gave such as deserved it every encouragement and assistance in his power: open, frank, social, and undisguised in his life and manners, sincere in his friendships, a tender husband and father: and an unaffected, cheerful, candid, benevolent man.

But he did not enjoy the benefit of these preferments long being a firm loyalist, as well as his patron > he was deprived or both by the tyranny of the usurpers, and was reduced some years before his death to great distress. In. these circumstances, he was taken into the house of one Sutton, to whose son he had been tutor; this was an obscure ale-house on Kiddington-green, near Oxford, where he died March 13, 1646, of an hereditary gout, with which he had been troubled for above twenty years, and which at last seized his stomach. His corpse was carried to Oxford, and interred, at the expence of some friends, in that cathedral. He was honoured with the acquaintance and favour of the greatest men of the age, and held a correspondence with several eminent persons abroad, as well Jews and Jesuits, as others. His works are, “Notes and Observations on some passages of Scripture,” published a little before his death in 1646, 4to, and besides being reprinted four times in the same form, were translated into Latin, and inserted in the “Critici Sacri.” His posthumous works were published by his friend Mr. John Gurgany, B D. of Merton college, in a quarto volume, entitled “Gregorii Posthuma,” 1650, 1664, 1671, and 1683. This volume contains, I. “A Discourse of the LXX Interpreters; the place and manner of their interpretation.” II. “A Discourse declaring what time the Nicene Creed began to be sung in the Church.” III. “A Sermon upon the Resurrection, from 1 Cor. xv. verse 20.” IV. “Kaivav tievrep-, or, a Disproof of him in the third of St. Luke, verse 36.” V. “Episcopus Puerorum in die Innocentium.” VI. “De JEris & Epochis, shewing the several accounts of time among all nations from the creation to the present age.” VII. “The Assyrian Monarchy, being a description of its rise and fall.” “VIII.” The description and use of the Terrestrial Globe.“Besides these, he wrote a tract entitled” Alkibla,“in which he endeavoured to vindicate the antiquity of worshiping towards the East. There is a manuscript of his entitled” Observationes in loca quaedam excerpta ex Johannis Malelae chronographia,“in the public library at Oxford; and he intended to have published a Latin translation of that author with annotations. He translated likewise from Greek into Latin, 1.” Palladius de Gentibus Indiae & Brachmanibus“2.” S. Ambrosius de Moribus Brachmannorum“3.” Anonymus de Brachmanibus" which translations came after his death into the hands of Mr. Edmund Chilmead, chaplain of Christ church, Oxford, and then into those of Edward Byshe, esq. who published them in his own name at London, 1665, 4to.

In 1681 Dr. Grew published a folio volume, entitled “Museum Regalis Societatis,” or a catalogue and description of the natural and artificial rarities belonging to the Royal Society, and preserved at Gresbam college. This is a scientific and descriptive catalogue, with learned references to preceding writers. It is accompanied by “the Comparative Anatomy of Stomachs and Guts begun, being several lectures read before the Royal Society in 1676.” Twenty-two plates illustrate the first part of this volume, and nine the latter, which were given to him by Daniel Coiwell, esq. the founder of the collection. The latest publication of our author was “Cosmographia Sacra, or a Discourse of the Universe, as it is the creature and kingdom of God.” He was an illustrious proof that it is the fool, and not the philosopher, “who hath said in his heart there is no God” The works of Grew were soon translated into French and Latin, but the latter very incorrectly. His funeral sermon was preached at the meeting in the Old Jewry by the rev. John Shower. It appears by this discourse that Dr. Grew illustrated his learned character by a life of strict piety, humility, and charity.

, was an illustrious personage of the blood royal of England by both parents: her grandmother on her father’s side, Henry Grey marquis of Dorset, being queen-consort to Edward IV.; and her grandmother on her mother’s side, lady Frances Brandon, being daughter to Henry VII. queen-dowager of France, and mother of Mary queen of Scots. Lady Jane was born, 1537, at Bradgate, her father’s seat in Leicestershire, and very early gave astonishing proofs of the pregnancy of her parts; insomuch that, upon a comparison with Edward VI. who was partly of the same age, and thought a kind of miracle, the superiority has been given to her in every respect. Her genius appeared in the works of her needle, in the beautiful character in which she wrote; besides which, she played admirably on various instruments of music, and accompanied them with a voice exquisitely sweet in itself, and assisted by all the graces that art could bestow. These, however, were only inferior ornaments in her character; and, as she was far from priding herself upon them, so, through the rigour of her parents in exacting them, they became her grief more than her pleasure.

, a. physician, astronomer, and mathematician, and like his countryman, friar Bacon, violently suspected of magic, lived in the fourteenth century, He studied at Merton college, Oxford; and, probably to escape the disagreeable consequences of such suspicions, went into France, where he devoted himself entirely to the study of medicine, first at Montpelier, and then at Marseilles. In this eity he fixed his residence, and lived by the practice of his profession, in which he acquired much skill and eminence. There is no greater proof of his genius, besides the imputations he laboured under in his youth, than his assiduously pursuing the method instituted by the Greek physicians, of investigating the nature and cause of the disease and the constitution of the patient. The time of his death is not known; but we are told that he was an old man in 1350, and that he had a son, who was first an abbot of canons regular at Marseilles, and at length arrived at the pontificate under the name of Urban V. Bale and Pits both give lists of his works, none of which are known to be extant.

, a French antiquary and polite writer, was born at Troyes Nov. 18, 1718, and was educated in the profession of the law, but a decided turn for literary pursuits interrupted his legal studies, and induced him, in search of knowledge, to travel twice into Italy, twice into England, and once into Holland, besides passing a considerable part of every year at Paris, where he was received into the best company, but would never settle. His disposition appears to have been amiable and liberal, as when yet a youth he gave up a legacy of 40,000 livres in favour of his sister. At his own expence, too, he undertook to embellish the saloon of the town house of his native city, Troyes, with marble busts of the eminent natives of that city, executed by Vasse, the king’s sculptor; and the first put up were those of Pithou, le Comte, Passerat, Girardon, and Mignard. He died in that city, Nov. 4, 1785, being then an associate of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and a member of our royal society. His principal works are, 1. “Recherches pour Fhistoire du Droit Francois,” Paris, 1752, 12mo, a work highly esteemed. 2. “Vie de Pithou,” ibid. 1756, 2 vols. J2mo. 3. “Observations de deux gentil-hommes Stiedou sur l'Italie,” 1774, 4 vols. 12mo, a very lively work, and full of interesting anecdotes. 4. “Londres,” 1770, 3 vols. 12mo, of which nearly the same may be s;iid, although allowances must be made for the mistakes into which a foreigner is very liable to fall. It was translated in 1772, by Dr. Nugent, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Essais historiques sur la Champagne.” 6. “Ephemerides Troyennes,” continued for several years, and containing papers relative to the history of Troyes. He had also a part in the “Memoires de Pacademie de Troyes,” and in the last translation of Davila; and was an useful contributor to the “Journal Encyclopedique,” from 1771 to 17S5, and to the “Dictionnaire Historique.” A Life, written by himself, and some posthumous pieces, have been lately published,

, a pious dissenting divine, was born in London Jan. J, 1675, where his father was an upholder. In 1693 he was placed under the tuition of the rev. Mr. Jollie, of Attercliffe, in Yorkshire, with whom he went through a course of studies preparatory to ordination among the dissenters; and afterwards studied Hebrew under Capell, formerly professor of oriental languages at Saumur, but at this time a refugee ii> London. In 1699 Mr. Grosvenor was admitted into the ministry, and officiated first as assistant to Mr. Oldfield, in Southwark, and afterwards was joint preacher of a lecture in the Old Jewry meeting. His biographers seem all unwilling to tell us that he was at first of the baptist persua-; sion, and having been baptised in 1689 by Mr. Benjamin Keach, became a member of his meeting for about seven or eight years; but in the course of his studies he changed his opinions, and was “dismissed in a general manner from his membership with” the baptists. In 1703 or 1704 he was chosen to succeed Mr. Slater in the meeting in Crosby-square, to which he was formally ordained in July 1704. In 1716 he was chosen one of the lecturers at Salter’s-hall, which added much to his reputation, but which he resigned in 1740. In 1730 the university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of D. D. upon him. After this he continued to preach until 1749, when the increasing infirmities of age obliged him to desist from all public services. He continued, however, his private studies, and kept up an amicable intercourse with his friends until his death, Aug.7, 1758. Dr. Grosvenor possessed great mildness of temper, lively and brilliant wit, a candid disposition towards those who differed from him, and an habitual cheerfulness which rendered his visits peculiarly acceptable. He published various single sermons preached on funeral and other occasions an “Essay on Health,” 1748, 8vo; and a treatise on consolation, entitled “The Mourner,” which has been repeatedly printed, and still preserves his memory.

, a celebrated philologer, was born December 3, 1560, at Antwerp. He was the son of John Walter Gruter, burgomaster of Antwerp; who, having, among others, signed the famous petition tq the duchess of Parma, the governess of the Netherlands, which gave rise to the word Gueux (Beggars), was banished his country. He crossed the sea to Norwich in England, taking his wife (who was an English woman) and family along with him. Young Gruter was then but an infant; he had the peculiar felicity, like Cicero, of imbibing the elements of learning from his mother, Catharine Tishem; who, besides French, Italian, and English, was complete mistress of Latin, and so well skilled in Greek that she could read Galen in the original. The family found an hospitable asylum in England, where they resided several years, and at a proper age sent their son to complete his education at Cambridge. His parents, after some time, repassing the sea to Middleburg, the son followed them to Holland and, going to Leyden, studied the civil law, and took his doctor’s degree there in that faculty but, applying himself at the same time to polite literature, he became an early author, as appears by some Latin verses which he published, under the title of “Ocelli,” at twenty years of age.

As to the productions of his pen, his history claims the first place. It would be tedious to produce all the encomiums bestowed upon it by persons of the first character Bolingbroke calls him “The admirable historian” and says, he “should not scruple to prefer him to Thucydides in every respect.” In him are found all the transaction^ of that aera, in which the study of history ought to begin; as he wrote in that point of time when those events and re volutions began, that have produced so vast a change in, the manners, customs, and interests, of particular nations; and in the policy, ecclesiastical and civil, of those parts of the world. And, as Guicciardini lived in those days, and was employed both in the field and cabinet, he had all opportunities of furnishing himself with materials for his history: in particular, he relates at length the various causes, which brought about the great change in religion by the reformation; shews by what accidents the French kings were enabled to become masters at home, and to extend themselves abroad; discovers the origin of the splendor of Spain in the fifteenth century, by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella; the total expulsion of the Moors, and the discovery of the West-Indies. Lastly, in respect to the empire, he gives an account of that change which produced the rivalship between the two great powers of France and Austria; whence arose the notion of a balance of power, the preservation whereof has been the principal care of all the wise councils of Europe, and is so to this day. Of this history sir William Jones says, “It is the most authentic I believe (may I add, I fear) that ever was composed. I believe it, because the historian was an actor in his terrible drama, and personally knew the principal performers in it; and I fear it, because it exhibits the woeful picture of society in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.”

, a most learned lawyer, an$ upright judge, was born at Alderley, in Gloucestershire, November J, 1609. His father was a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, a man of such tenderness of conscience, as to withdraw from his profession because unwilling to tamper with truth in giving that colour to pleadings which barristers call doing their best for their client;" and this, with some other practices, customary in those days, appearing unworthy of his character, he retired to his estate in the country, where he died in 1614, at which time his son was but five years old. His wife having died two years before, their son was committed to the guardianship of Anthony Kingscot, esq. to whom he was related, and by whom, for grammatical learning, he was placed under the care of Mr. Staunton, vicar of Wotton-under-Edge, a noted puritan. In 1626 he was admitted of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, under the* tuition of Obadiah Sedgwick, another puritan, where he laid the foundation of that learning and knowledge, on which he afterwards raised so vast a superstructure. Here, however, he fell into many levitres and exr travagances, and was preparing to go along with his tutor, who went chaplain to lord Vere into the Low Countries, with a resolution of entering himself into the prince of Orange’s army, when he was diverted from this design by being engaged in a law-suit with sir William Whitmore, who laid claim to part of his estate. Afterwards, by the persuasions of Serjeant Glanville, who happened to be his counsel in this case, and had an opportunity of observing his capacity, he resolved upon the study of the law, and was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, November 8, 1629. Sensible of the time he had lost in frivolous pursuits, he nowstudied at the rate of sixteen hours a day, and threw aside all appearance of vanity in his apparel. He is said, indeed, to have neglected his dress so much, that, being a strong and well-built man, he was once taken by a pressgang, as a person very fit for sea-service; which pleasant mistake made him regard more decency in his cloaths for the future, though never to any degree of extravagant finery. What confirmed him still more in a serious and regular way of life, was an accident, which is related to have befallen one of his companions. Hale, with other young students of the inn, being invited out of town, one of the company called for so much wine, that, notwithstanding all Hale could do to prevent it, he went on in his excess till he fell down in a fit, seemingly dead, and was with some difficulty recovered. This particularly affected Hale, in whom the principles of religion had been early implanted, and therefore retiring into another room, and, falling down upon his knees, he prayed earnestly to God, both for his friend, that he might be restored to life again, and for himself, that he might be forgiven for being present and countenancing so much excess: and he vowed to God, that he would never again keep company in that manner, nor drink a health while he lived. His friend recovered; and from this time Mr. Hale forsook all his gay acquaintance, and divided his whole time between the duties of religion and the studies of his profession. Noy, the attorney-general, who was one of the most eminent men of his profession, took early notice of him, directed him in his studies, and discovered so much friendship for him, that Mr. Hale was sometimes called Young Noy.

, an eminent divine and critic, usually distinguished by the appellation of The Ever Memorable, was the fourth son of John Hales, of High Church, near Bath, in Somersetshire, by Bridget his wife, one of the Goldsburghs of Knahill, in Wiltshire. He was born April 19, 1584, at Bath, where his father then resided, but according to his register at Corpus college, Oxford, at Highchurch. His parents, who are stated to have been of “genteel quality,” placed him to school at Mells and Killmaston,'in Somersetshire, until fit for the university, in which he was entered of Corpus college April 16, 1597, but being then under age, was not sworn till April 17> 1599. He continued at this college until he toolc his bachelor’s degree in arts July 9, 1603, and had distinguished himself in the interval by equal diligence and proficiency in his studies. The reputation he thus acquired engaged the attention of sir Henry Savile, then warden of Mertoncollege, who being always desirous of increasing the number of its learned members, persuaded him to remove; and accordingly he was chosen probationer of Merton in September, and admitted fellow Oct. 13, 1606. He proceeded to his master’s degree in 1609. He had not been long in this station before the warden availed himself of his assistance in preparing his edition of St. Chrysostom’s works, and found him a very able coadjutor, as he was an excellent Greek scholar. His reputation indeed for skill in this language was such as to procure him the place of lecturer in Greek in the college.

Dr. Hales, having been elected a fellow of the royal society in 1717, communicated to that learned body his first essay in Vegetable Physiology, containing an account of some experiments concerning the effect of the sun’s heat in raising the sap. In 1727 appeared the first edition of his “Vegetable Staticks,” in 8vo, illustrated by plates, of which a second edition was published in 1731, followed afterwards by several others. This work was translated into French by Buffon in 1735, and into Italian by a Neapolitan lady named Ardinghelli, in 1756. There are also German and Dutch editions. The original book was, in fact, the first volume of a work entitled “Statical Essays,” of which the second, relating to the circulation of the blood in animals, was called “Hemastaticks,” and came out in 1733. In this the subject of the urinary calculus also is treated chemically and medically. With a laudable view of preventing as well as curing, the sufferings and crimes of his fellow-creatures, this good man published anonymously “a friendly admonition to the drinkers of gin, brandy, and other spirituous liquors,” which has often been reprinted and distributed gratis, by those who consider the temporal and eternal interests of their fellow subjects rather than the increase of the revenue. His invention of a ventilator for mines, prisons, hospitals, and the holds of ships, laid before the royal society in 1741, and applied also to the ventilation and consequent preservation of corn in granaries, has proved one of the most extensively useful contrivances for the preservation of health and human life. His philosophy was not a barren accumulation for the ignorant to wonder at, or for its professor to repose on in sottish self-sufficiency and uselessness; but an inexhaustible bank, on which his piety and his benevolence were continually drawing. Such philosophy and such learning alone entitle their possessors to authority or respect, and such are the best fruits of religion. In this instance at least they were duly honoured, both at home and abroad. The fame of Hales was widely diffused throughout the learned world, of which he received a most distinguished testimony, in being elected one of the eight foreign members of the French academy of sciences, in 1753, in the place of sir Hans Sloane, who died that same year. In 1732 he had been appointed, by the British government, a trustee for settling a colony in Georgia. He was well acquainted with Mr. Ellis, and other naturalists of his day, with whose views and pursuits of all kinds he ardently concurred; but it does not appear that his foreign correspondence was extensive. His name does not occur among the correspondents of Haller, who nevertheless held him in the highest estimation, as a philosopher and a man. As a vegetable physiologist, Dr. Hales is entitled to the highest honour. His experiments and remarks led the way to those of Du Hamel, Bonnet, and all that have followed. His accuracy of observation, and fidelity of relation, have never been impeached, and his ideas in physics, in many instances, went before the knowledge of his day, and anticipated future discoveries: such are his observations relative to airs, and to vegetable secretions. One of his more able successors in the study of vegetable physiology has doubted the accuracy of one of his plates only, tab. 11, in which three trees, having been united by engrafting their branches, the intermediate one, by the earth being removed from its roots, is left hanging in the air, but an experiment of the late Dr. Hope’s at Edinburgh, upon three willows, of which Dr. Smith was an eye-witness, and which was conducted with success in imitation of this of Hales, puts his account beyond all doubt whatever.

, a learned English lady, the daughter of Mr. Robert Murray of the Tullibardin family, and allied by the mother’s side to the Perth family, was born in London, Jan. 4, 1622. Her father was preceptor to Charles I. and afterwards provost of Eton college, and her mother was subgoverness to the duke of Gloucester and the princess Elizabeth. Anne was instructed by her parents in every polite and liberal science; but theology and physic were her favourite studies. She became so particularly versed in the latter art, and in the practice of surgery, that she was consulted by the first personages in the kingdom: and the reputation of her skill was also diffused over Holland, whence many persons came for her advice. She was a faithful royalist, and a sufferer in the cause of Charles. On March 2, 1656, she was married to sir James Halket, a worthy and amiable man, to whom she bore four children, one of which, Robert, her eldest son, only survived. During her first pregnancy she wrote, mder the apprehension that she should not survive her delivery, a tract, containing excellent instructions, entitled “The Mother’s Will to the Unborn Child.” She was fourteen years a wife, and twenty-eight a widow. She was an acute theologian and a profound student. Her learning, simplicity, unaffected piety, exemplary conduct, and sweetness of manners, conciliated universal respect and esteem. She left twenty-one volumes, principally on religious subjects, some in folio, and others in quarto, from which a volume of “Meditations” was printed at Edinburgh in 1701. She died April 22, 1699.

, a very eminent, pious, and learned English prelate, was born July 1, 1574, in Bristow-park, within the parish of Ashby de la Zouch, in Leicestershire. His father was an officer to Henry earl of Huntingdon, then president of the North, and under him had the government of that town, which was the chief seat of the earldom. His mother was of the family of the Bembridge’s, and according to his own account, a woman of great piety. His parents had twelve children, and therefore, although disposed to bring up Joseph for the church, were inclined from motives of oeconomy to confine his education to the care of a private tutor. But Mr. Gilby, fellow of Emanuel college, hearing of this design, represented its disadvantages in such a manner to Mr. Hall’s eldest son, that the latter importuned his father that Joseph might be sent to the university, and generously offered to sacrifice part of his inheritance, rather than prevent his brother from enjoying the advantages of academical education. His father, struck with this mark of brotherly affection, declared that, whatever it might cost him, Joseph should be sent to the university.

and still fewer that his poems were Wood’s Ath. vpl. I. Fasti. 155. Halsted, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the incumbent, who assured him that with such a deduction it was an incompetent maintenance, and that he had been obliged to write books in order to be able to buy some. These arguments not prevailing, he was about to resign Halsted, when Edward lord Denny, afterwards earl of Norwich, gave him the donative of Waltham Holy Cross in Essex. About the same time (1612) he took the degree of doctor in divinity.

He had from his first admission into college, pursued a general scheme for ascertaining the true places of the fixed stars, and thereby correcting the errors of Tycho Brahe. His original view was to carry on the design of that first restorer of astronomy, by completing the catalogue of those stars from his own observations; but upon farther inquiry, finding this province taken up by Hevelius and Flamsteed, he dropped that pursuit, and formed another; which was, to perfect the whole scheme of the heavens by the addition of the stars which lie so near the south pole that they could not be observed by those astronomers, as never rising above the horizon either at Dantzick or Greenwich. With this view he left the university, before he had taken a degree, and applied himself to sir Joseph Williamson, then secretary of state, and to sir Jonas Moore, surveyor of the ordnance, both encouragers of these studies; who, applauding his purpose, mentioned it to Charles II. The king was much pleased with the plan, and immediately recommended him to the East India Company, who readily promised to supply him with every convenience, and to carry him to St. Helena, then in their possession by a grant from the crown, which he had been told was a proper situation for his design. Accordingly he embarked for that island November 1676, and arriving there safely in three months, began his task; but the frequent fogs which hover over the island made it much more difficult than he expected, and it was only by embracing every opportunity which offered during his abode on the island, that he was enabled to execute his purpose. He ascertained the position of 350 Stars, and published an account of his labours in 1676, under the title of “Catalogus Stellarum Australian.” In honour of his royal patron, he formed a new southern constellation, to which he gave the name of “Kobur Carolinum,” or the “Royal Oak.” During his stay at St. Helena, he had an opportunity of observing the transit of Mercury over the sun’s disk; an observation of some importance, because it could not be completely made in Europe, the sun not being risen in that country at the beginning of the transit. Having returned to England November 1678, the king, greatly satisfied, gave him, at his own request, a letter of mandamus to the university of Oxford for the degree of M. A. the words of which are, that “his majesty has received a good account of his learning as to the mathematics and astronomy, whereof he has gotten a good testimony by the observations he has made during his abode in the island of St. Helena.” This letter was dated November 18, and the same month he was also chosen fellow of the royal society. Indeed his catalogue of these southern stars merited particular honour; it was an entirely new acquisition to the astronomical world, and might not unaptly be called “Ccelum Australe eo usque incognitum;” and thence he acquired a just claim to the title, which by Flamsteed was not long after given him, the Southern Tycho.

, of whom some notice has been taken in our account of Grammont, was of an ancient Scotch family, but born in Ireland, whence with his family he passed over to France, as followers of the fate of Charles the Second. At the Restoration he again returned to England, but was a second time compelled to leave this country at the revolution. He was an elegant and accomplished character, and was for many years the delight and ornament of the most splendid circles of society, by his wit, his taste, and above all, his writings. His works have been often published, particularly in 6 vols. 12mo, 1749, and in 3 vols. 8vo, 1805, and consist of pieces of poetry, fairy-tales, and “Memoirs of the Count de Grammont,” all of which are excellent in their kind. The Fairy Tales were intended as a refined piece of ridicule on the passion for the marvellous, which made the Arabian Nights Entertainments so eagerly read at their first appearance. The “Memoirs of Grammont” will always excite curiosity, as giving a striking and too faithful detail of the dissolute manners of Charles II. 's court. Count Hamilton died at St. Germain’s, in 1720, aged seventy-four.

Dr. Hammond was a man of great temperance; his diet was of the plainest kind, and he frequently practised fastng. He seldom went to bed until midnight, or remained in it beyond five or six o'clock. By these means he was enabled to endure cold and fatigue, and in the severest weather sat at a distance from a fire. His studious industry was unceasing. He not only avoided, but had a strong aversion to idleness. “To be always furnished with somewhat to do” he considered as the best expedient both for innocence and pleasure, saying, that no burthen was more heavy, or temptation more dangerous, than to have time lie on one’s hand.“His piety was fervent, and from his youth he spent much of his time in secret devotion. Bishop Burnet says of him, that” his death was an unspeakable loss to the church; for as he was a man of great learning, and of most eminent merit, he having been the person that during the bad times had maintained the cause of the church in a very singular manner; so he was a very moderate man in his temper, though with a high principle, and would probably have fallen into healing counsels. He was also much set on reforming abuses, and for raising the clergy to a due sense of the obligations they lay under."

, of Hamden, in Buckinghamshire, a celebrated political character in the reign of Charles I. was born at London in 1594. He was of as ancient (Whitlocke says the ancientest) extraction as any gentleman in his county; and cousin-german to Oliver Cromwell, his father having married the protector’s aunt. In 1609 he was sent to Magdalen college in Oxford whence, without taking any degree, be removed to the inns of court, and made a considerable progress in the study of the law. Sir Philip Warwick observes, that “he had great knowledge both in scholarship and the law.” In his entrance into the world, he is said to have indulged himself in all the licence of sports, and exercises, and company, such as were used by men of the most jovial conversation; but afterwards to have retired to a more reserved and austere society, preserving, however, his natural cheerfulness and vivacity. In the second parliament of king Charles, which met at Westminster, February 1625-6, he obtained a seat in the house of commons, as he also did in two succeeding parliaments; but made no figure till 1636, when he became universally known, by a solemn trial at the king’s bench, on his refusing to pay the ship-money. He carried himself, as Clarendon tells us, through this whole suit with such singular temper and modesty, that he obtained more credit and advantage by losing it, than the king did service by gaining it. From this time he soon grew to be one of the most popular men in the nation, and a leading member in the long parliament. “The eyes of all men,” says the same writer, “were fixed upon him as their pater patrite, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it.” After he had held the chief direction of his party in the house of commons against the king, he took up arms in the same cause, and was one of the first who opened the war by an action at a place called Brill, a garrison of the king’s, on the edge of Buckinghamshire, about five miles from Oxford. He took the command of a regiment of foot under the earl of Essex, and shewed such skill and bravery, that, had he lived, he would; probably, soon have been raised to the post of a general. But he was cut off early by a mortal wound, which he received in a skirmish with prince Rupert, at Chalgrove-field, in Oxfordshire, where, it is generally reported, he was shot in the shoulder with a brace of bullets, which broke the bone, June 18, 1643; and, after suffering much pain and misery, he died the 24th, an event which affected his party nearly as much as if their whole army had been defeated . “Many men observed,” says Clarendon, “that the field in which this skirmish was, and upon which Hampden received his deathwound, namely, Chalgrove-field, was the same place in which he had first executed the ordinance of the militia, and engaged that county, in which his reputation was very great, in this rebellion: and it was confessed by the prisoners that were taken that day, and acknowledged by all, that upon the alarm that morning, after their quarters were beaten up, he was exceeding solicitous to draw forces together to pursue the enemy; and, being a colonel of foot, put himself amongst those horse as a volunteer, who were first ready, and that, when the prince made a stand, all the officers were of opinion to stay till their body came up, and he alone persuaded and prevailed with them to advance: so violently did his fate carry him to pay the mulct in the place where he had committed the transgression about a year before. This was an observation made at that time;” but lord Clarendon does not adopt it as an opinion of his own.

Hampden, if we form our judgment of him only from the account of those who were engaged in the opposite party to him, was, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary men that ever lived; and is thus delineated by the noble historian already quoted. “He was a man of much greater cunning, and it may be of the most discerning spirit, and of the greatest address and insinuation to bring any thing to pass which he desired, of any man of that time, and who laid the design deepest. He was not a man of many words, and rarely began the discourse, or made the first entrance upon any business that was assumed, but a very weighty speaker; and after he had heard a full debate, and observed how the house was like to be inclined, took up the argument, and shortly, and clearly, and craftily, so stated it, that he commonly conducted it to the conclusion he desired. He was of that rare affability and temper in debate, and of thatseeming humility and submission of judgment, as if he brought no opinion of his own with him, but a desire of information and instruction; yet he had so subtle a way, and under the notion of doubts insinuating his objections, that he infused his own opinions into those from whom he pretended to learn and receive them. And even with them who were able to preserve themselves from his infusions, and discerned those opinions to be fixed in him with which they could not comply, he always left the character of an ingenuous and conscientious person. He was, indeed, a very wise man, and of great parts, and possessed with the most absolute spirit of popularity, and the most absolute faculties to govern the people, of any man I ever knew. For the first year of the parliament he seemed rather to moderate and soften the violent and distempered humours than to inflame them. But wise and dispassionate men plainly discerned, that that moderation proceeded from prudence, and observation that the season was not ripe, rather than that he approved of the moderation and that he begot many opinions and notions, the education whereof he committed to other men so far disguising his own designs, that he seemed seldom to wish more than was concluded. And in many gross conclusions, which would hereafter contribute to designs not yet set on foot, when he found them sufficiently backed by a majority of voices, he would withdraw himself before the question, that he might seem not to consent to so much visible unreasonableness; which produced as great a doubt in some as it did approbation in others of his integrity. After he was among those members accused by the king of high treason, he was much altered; his nature and carriage seeming much fiercer than it did before: and without question, when he first drew his sword, he threw away the scabbard. He was very temperate in diet, and a supreme governor over all his passions and affections; and had thereby a great power over other men’s. He was of an industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious and of parts not to be imposed upon by the most subtle and sharp and of a personal courage equal to his best parts so that he was an enemy not to be wished wherever he might have been made a friend and as much to be apprehended where he was so, as any man could deserve to be. And therefore his death was no less pleasing to the one party than it was condoled in the other. In a word, what was said of Cinna might well be applied to him: he had ahead to contrive, a tongue to persuade, and a hand to execute, any mischief, or,‘-’ as the historian says elsewhere,” any good." Thus is Hampden described by Clarendon, agreeably to the notions usually formed of his character after the restoration; which was that of a great, rather than a good man. But as the characters of statesmen, commanders, or men acting in a public capacity, always vary with the times and fashions of politics, at the revolution, and since, he has been esteemed a good man as well as a great.

, the greatest musical composer of his time, or perhaps of any time or country, was born at Halle, in the duchy of Magdeburgh, February 4, 1684, by a second wife of his father, who was an eminent physician and surgeon of the same place, and then above sixty years of age. From his very childhood he discovered such a propensity to music, that his father, who always intended him for the civil law, took every method to oppose this inclination, by keeping him out of the way of, and strictly forbidding him to meddle with, musical instruments of any kind. The son, however, found means to get a little clavicord privately conveyed to a room at the top of the house; and with this he used to amuse himself when the family was asleep. While he was yet under seven years of age, he went with his father to the duke of Saxe Weisenfels, where it was impossible to keep him from harpsichords, and other musical instruments. One morning, while he was playing on the organ, after the service was over, the duke was in the church; and something in his manner of playing affected his highness so strongly, that he asked his valet-de-chambre (who was Handel’s brother-in-law) who it was that he heard at the organ? The valet replied, that it was his brother. The duke demanded to see him; and after making proper inquiries about him, expostulated very seriously with his father, who still retained his prepossessions in favour of the civil law. He allowed that every father had certainly a right to dispose of his children as he should think most expedient; but that in the present instance he could not but consider it as a sort of crime against the public and posterity to rob the world of such a rising genius. The issue of this conversation was, not only a toleration for music, but consent also that a master should be called in to forward and assist him.

The figure of Handel was large, and he was somewhat corpulent and unwieldy in his motions, and his general cast of countenance seemed rather heavy and sour; yet, when animated in conversation, his visage was full of fire and dignity, and such as impressed ideas of superiority and genius; and when he smiled, there was an uncommon sudden flash of intelligence, wit, and good-humour beaming in his countenance. Though he was generally rough and peremptory in his manners and conversation, he was totally devoid of ill-nature or malevolence; indeed, there was an original humour and pleasantry in his most lively sallies of anger or impatience, which, with his broken English, were extremely risible. His natural propensity to wit and humour, and happy manner of relating common occurrences in an uncommon way, enabled him to throw persons and things into very ridiculous attitudes. Had he been as great a master of the English language as Swift, his bon-mots would have been as frequent, and somewhat of the same kind.

, a learned Greek scholar and teacher, was the son of a father of the same name, who was warden of Winchester, and died in 1613. He was also an able Greek scholar, was employed on the translation of the Bible, and published some of Chrysostom’s homilies from Mss. in the library of New-college, Oxford. His son was born about 1594, at Churchdowne, near Gloucester, and educated at Winchester-school. In 1611 he entered as a demy of Magdalen-college, Oxford, and completed his master’s degree in 1617, the highest Wood says he took, “although he was in his latter days called Dr. Harmar.” His first employment as a teacher was in Magdalen school, about which time he took orders. He was afterwards in succession chief master of the free-school at St. Alban’s, and under-master of Westminster-school. In 1650, when the committee for reforming the university had ejected all the old professors, he was appointed by their authority, Greek professor, and in 1659 was presented to the rectory of Ewhurst, in Hampshire. On account of his connexions with the usurping powers, he was deprived of his professorship and rectory at the restoration, and retired to Steventon, in Hampshire,where he subsisted on his wife’s jointure. He died there Nov. 1, 1670. As a nonconformist Calamy has nothing to say for him, and Neal says “he was an honest, weak man.” He wrote Latin and Greek panegyrics on the leading men of all parties, and complimented Charles II. with as much sincerity as he had Cromwell, and Richard his successor. In the facility of Greek composition he appears to have excelled, and he translated some part of Butler’s Hudibras into Latin, retaining much of the spirit of the original. While engaged as a teacher, he published a “Praxis Grammatica,” Lond. 1622, 1623, 8vo, and a “Janua Linguarum,” of which there were six or seven editions before J 63 1 He published also a “Lexicon Etymologicon Graccum,” which Wood says is “junctim cum Scapula,” Lond. 1637, fol. His other principal works are, 1. “Eclogse sententiarum et similitudinum, e D. Chrysostomo decerptae,” Gr. & Lah with notes, Lond. 1622, 8vo. 2. “Protomartyr Britannus; seu Elogia sacra in conversionem et rnartyrium S. Albani,” ibid. 1630, 4to. 3. “Epistola ad D. Lambertum Osbaldestonum, cui intexitur Apologia pro honoratissimo &c. D. Johanne Williams Arch. Eborac.” ibid. 1649, 8vo. 4. “M. T. Ciceronis vita, ex optimis quibusque scriptoribus delibata,” Ox. 1662, 8vo. He translated from Latin into English, Daniel Heinsius’s “Mirror of Humility;” from English into Greek and Latin, the Assembly’s “Shorter Catechism,” ibid. 1659, 8vo; and from English into Latin, Howell’s “Treatise concerning Ambassadors.”

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Oxford, or, as Anthony Wood expresses it, “turn-; bled out of his mother’s womb in the lap of the Oxonian Muses,” in 1560. Having been instructed in grammarlearning in that city, he became a commoner of St. Maryhall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1579. He had then so distinguished himself, by his uncommon skill in mathematics, as to be recommended soon after to sir Walter Raleigh as a proper preceptor to him in that science. Accordingly, that noble knight became his first patron, took him into his family, and allowed him a handsome pension. In 1585 he was sent over by sir Walter with his first colony to Virginia; where, being settled, he was employed in discovering and surveying that country, in observing what commodities it produced, together with the manners and customs of its inhabitants. He published an account of it under this title, “A brief and true Report of the Newfoundland of Virginia;” which was reprinted in the third voyage of Hakluyt’s “Voyages.” Upon his return to England, he was introduced by his patron to the acquaintance of Henry earl of Northumberland who, “finding him,” says Wood, “to be a gentleman of an affable and peaceable nature, and well read in the obscure pan of learning,” allowed him a yearly pension of 120l. About the same time, Robert Hues, well known by his ' Treatise upon the Globes,“and Walter Warner, who is said to have communicated to the famous Harvey the first hint concerning the circulation of the blood, being both of them mathematicians, received pensions from him of less value, ^o that in 1606, when the earl was committed to the Tower for life, Harriot, Hues, and Warner, were his constant companions, and were usually called the earl of Northumberland’s Magi. They had a table at the earl’s charge, who did constantly converse with them, to divert the melancholy of his confinement; as did also sir Walter Raleigh, who was then in the Tower. Harriot lived for some time at Sion-college, and died in London, July 2, 1621, of a cancer in his lip. He was universally esteemed on account of his learning. When he was but a young man, he was styled by Mr. Hakluyt” Juvenis in disciplinis mathematicis excellens;“and by Camden,” Mathematicus insignis.“A ms. of his, entitled” Ephemeris Chryrometrica,“is preserved in Sion-college library and his” Artis Analytic* Praxis“was printed after his death, in a thin folio, and dedicated to Henry earl of Northumberland. Des Cartes is said to have been obliged to this book for a great many improvements in algebra, which he published to the world as his own, a fact that has been amply proved, in the astronomical ephemeris for 17vS8, by Dr. Zach, astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha, from manuscripts which he found in 1784 at the seat of the earl of Egremont at Petworth, a descendant of the above-mentioned earl of Northumberland. These papers also show that Mr. Harriot was an astronomer as well as an algebraist, As to his religion, Wood says, that,” notwithstanding his great skill in mathematics, he had strange thoughts of the Scripture, always undervalued the old story of the Creation of the World, and could never believe that trite position, * Ex nihilo nihil fit.‘ He made a Philosophical Theology, wherein he cast off the Old Testament, so that consequently the New would have uo foundation. He was a deist; and his doctrine he did impart to the earl, and to sir Walter Raleigh, when he was compiling the ’ History of the World,' and would controvert the matter with eminent divines of those times: who, therefore, having no good opinion of him, did look on the manner of his death, as a judgment upon him for those matters, and for nullify, ing the Scripture.“Wood borrowed all this from Aubrey, without mentioning his authority; and it has been answered, that Harriot assures us himself, that when he was with the first colony settled in Virginia, in every town where he came,” he explained to them the contents of the Bible, &c. And though I told them,“says he,” the book materially and of itself was not of such virtue as I thought they did conceive, but only the doctrine therein contained; yet would many be glad to touch it, to embrace it, to kiss it, to hold it to their breasts and heads, and stroke over all their bodies with it, to shew their hungry desires of that knowledge which was spoken of." To which we may add, that, if Harriot was reputed a deist, it is by no means probable that Dr. Corbet, an orthodox divine* and successively bishop of Oxford and Norwich, sending a poem, dated December 9, 1618, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, when the comet appeared, should speak of

His application during fourteen or fifteen years to the best writers of antiquity continued to be almost unremitting, and his industry was such as is not often exceeded. He rose always very early, frequently at four or five o'clock in the morning, especially during the winter, and by these means he was enabled to mix occasionally in the society of Salisbury and its neighbourhood, without too great a sacrifice of his main object, the acquisition of ancient literature. But it was not until many years after his retirement from London, that he began to read Aristotle and his commen-? tators, or to inquire, so deeply as he afterwards did, into the Greek philosophy. He had imbibed a prejudice, very common at that time even among scholars, that Aristotle was an obscure and unprofitable author, whose philosophy had been deservedly superseded by that of Mr. Locke, a notion which his own writings have since contributed to correct, with no small evidence and authority. In the midst, however, of his literary labours he was not inattentive to the public good, but acted regularly and assiduously as a magistrate for the county of Wilts; giving, in that capacity, occasional proofs of a manly spirit and firmness, without which the mere formal discharge of magisterial duty is often useless and inefficient.

"The distinction by which he was most generally known, and by which he is likely to survive to posterity, is that of a Man of Learning. His profound knowledge of Greek, which he applied more successfully, perhaps, than any modern writer has done, to the study and explanation of ancient philosophy, arose from an early and intimate acquaintance with the excellent poets and historians in that language. They, and the best writers in the Augustan age, were his constant and never-failing recreation. By his familiarity with them, he was enabled to enliven and to illustrate his deeper and more abstruse speculations, as every page almost (of his works) will abundantly testify. But his attainments were not confined to ancient philosophy and classical learning. He possessed likewise a general knowledge of modern history, with a very distinguishing taste in the line arts, in one of which, as before observed, he was an eminent, proficient. His singular industry empowered him to make these various acquisitions, without neglecting any of the duties which he owed to his family, his friends, or his country. I am in possession of such proofs, besides those already given to the public, of my father’s laborious study and reflection, as I apprehend, are very rarely to be met with. Not only was he accustomed, through a long series of years, to make copious excts from the different books which he read, and to write critical remarks and conjectures on many of the passages extracted, but he was also in the habit of regularly cammuting to writing such reBections as arose out of his study, which evince a mind carefully disciplined, and anxiously bent on the attainment of self-knowledge and self-government. And yet, though habituated to deep thinking and laborious reading, he was generally cheerful even to playfulness. There was no pedantry in his manners or conversation, nor was he ever seen either to display his learning with ostentation, or to treat with slight or superciliousness those less informed than himself. He rather sought to make them appear partakers of what he knew, than to mortify tnern by a parade of his own superiority. Nor had he any of that miserable fastidiousness about him which too often disgraces men of learning, and prevents their being amused or interested, at least their choosing to appear so, by common performances and common events.

Dr. Hartley was industrious and indefatigable in the pursuit of all collateral branches of knowledge^ and lived in personal intimacy with the learned men of his age. The bishops Law, Butler, and Warburton, and Dr. Jortin, were his intimate friends, and he was much attached to bishop Hoadiy. Among his other friends or correspondents may be mentioned Dr. Hales, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Dr. Young, Dr. Byrom, and Mr. Hooke the Roman historian. Pope was also admired by him, not only as a man of genius, but as a moral poet; yet he soon saw the hand of Bolingbroke in the “Essay on Man.” Dr. Hartley’s genius was penetrating and active his industry indefatigable his philosophical observations and attentions unremitting. From his earliest youth he was devoted to the sciences, particularly to logic and mathematics. He studied mathematics, together with natural and experimental philosophy, under the celebrated professor Saunderson. He was an enthusiastic admirer and disciple of sir Isaac Newton in every branch of literature and philosophy, natural and experimental, mathematical, historical, and religious. His first principles of logic and metaphysics he derived from Locke. He took the first rudiments of his own work, the “Observations on Man,' 7 from Newton and Locke; the doctrine of vibrations, as instrumental to sensation and motion, from the former, and the principle of association originally from the latter, further explained in a dissertation by the rev. Mr. Gay. He began this work when about twenty-five years of age, and published it in 1749, when about forty-three years of age, under the title of” Observations on Man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations,“2 vols. 8vo. His biographer informs us that” he did not expect that it would meet with any general or immediate reception in the philosophical world, or even that it would be much read or understood; neither did it happen otherwise than as he had expected. But at the same time he did entertain an expectation that at some distant period it would become the adopted system of future philosophers.“In this, however, he appears to have been mistaken. We know of no” future“philosophers of any name, who have adopted his system. Dr. Priestley, indeed, published in 1775” Hartley’s Theory, &c. with Essays on the subject of it," but all he has done in this is to convince us of his own belief in materialism, and his earnest desire to prove Hartley a materialist, who dreaded nothing so much, although it must be confessed that hie doctrines have an apparent tendency to that conclusion. Since that time, Hartley’s work was nearly forgotten, until 1791, when an edition was published by his Son, in a handsome 4to volume, with notes and additions, from the German of the rev. Herman Andrew Pistorius, rector of Poseritz, in the island of Rugen; and a sketch of the life and character of Dr. Hartley. The doctrine of vibrations, upon which he attempts to explain the origin and propagation of sensation, although supported by much ingenious reasoning, isnot only built upon a gratuitous assumption, but as Haller has shewn, it attributes properties to the medullary substance of the brain and nerves, which are totally incompatible with their nature.

The philosophical character of Dr. Hartley, says his Son, is delineated in his works. The features of his private and personal character were of the same complexion. It may with peculiar propriety be said of him, that the mind was the man. His thoughts were not immersed in worldly pursuits or contentions, and therefore his life was not eventful or turbulent, but placid, and undisturbed by passion or violent ambition. From his earliest youth his mental ambition was pre-occupied by pursuits of science. His hours of amusement were likewise bestowed upon objects of taste and sentiment. Music, poetry, and history, were his favourite recreations. His imagination was fertile and correct, his language and expression fluent and forcible. His natu/al temper was gay, cheerful, and sociable. He was addicted to no vice in any part of his life, neither to pride, nor to sensuality, nor intemperance, nor ostentation, nor envy, nor to any sordid self-interest; but his heart was replete with every contrary virtue. The virtuous principles which are instilled in his works, were the invariable and decided principles of his life and doctrine. His person was of the middle size, and well proportioned. His complexion fair, his features regular and handsome. His countenance open, ingenuous, and animated. He was peculiarly neat in his person and attire. He was an early riser, and punctual in the employments of the day methodical in the order and disposition gf his library, papers. and writings, as the companions of his thoughts, but without any pedantry, either in these habits, or in any other part of his character. His behaviour was polite, easy, and graceful; but that which made his address peculiarly engaging, was the benevolence of heart from which that politeness flowed. He never conversed with a fellow-creature without feeling a wish to do him good. He considered the moral end of our creation to consist in the performance of the duties of life attached to each particular station, to which all other considerations ought to be inferior and subordinate; and consequently that the rule of life consists in training and adapting our faculties, through the means of moral habits and associations, to that end. In this he was the faithful disciple of his own theory; and by the observance of it he avoided the tumult of worldly vanities and their disquietudes, and preserved his mind in sincerity and vigour, to perform the duties of life with fidelity, and without distraction. His whole character was eminently and uniformly marked by sincerity of heart, simplicity of manners, and manly innocence of mind.

, a statesman and lawyer in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was the third and youngest son, of William Hatton, of Holdenby in Northamptonshire, by Alice, daughterof Lawrence Saunders, of Horringworth, in the same county. He was entered a gentleman commoner of St. Mary Hall, Oxford, but removed, without taking a degree, to the society of the Inner Temple, not to study law, but that his mind might be enlarged by an intercourse with those who were at once men of business and of the world, for such was the character of the lawyers of that day. He came on one occasion to the court at a masque, where queen Elizabeth was struck by the elegance of his person, and his graceful dancing. It is not improbable also that his conversation corresponded with his outward appearance. He was from this time, however, in the way to preferment; from one of the queen’s pensioners he became successively a gentleman of the privy chamber, captain of the guard, vice-chamberlain, and privy-counsellor, and by these unusual gradations rose to the office of lord chancellor in 1587, when he was likewise elected a knight of the garter. His insufficiency is said at first to have created strong prejudices among the lawyers against him, founded, perhaps, on some degree of envy at his sudden advancement without the accustomed studies; but his good natural capacity supplied the place of experience and study; and his decisions were not found deficient either in point of equity or judgment. In all matters of great moment he is said to have consulted Dr. Swale, a civilian. “His station,” says one of his biographers, “was great, his dispatches were quick and weighty, his orders many, yet all consistent: being very seldom reversed ijii thartcery, and his advice opposed more seldom in council. He was so just, that his sentence was a law to the subject, and so wise, that his opinion was an oracle to the queen.” When, in 1586, queen Elizabeth sent a new deputation to queen Mary of Scotland, informing her that the plea of that unhappy princess, either from her royal dignity, or from her imprisonment, could not be admitted, sir Christopher Hatton was one of the number, along with Burleigh, and Bromley the chancellor; and it was by Hatton’s advice chiefly, that Mary was persuaded to answer before the court, and thereby give an appearance of legal procedure to the trial.

Dr. Hawes was a man totally without guile; and self never entered into his contemplation. There was a simplicity in his manners, the result of an innocent and unsuspecting heart. Without possessing, or affecting to possess, any very superior literary talents, he contrived to furnish to the public an acceptable work in his “Annual Reports.” His practice had been considerable; and his medical knowledge was respectable. In the resuscitative part he was eminently skilled. He was an honorary member of the Massachusetts Humane Society; and of many others, at Edinburgh, Manchester, Bath, &c. &c. and a vice-president of the London Electrical Dispensary.

This account, chiefly from the pen of Dr. Kippis, captain Cook’s biographer, in the Biographia Britannica, is too favourable: the public was not satisfied with this work. The literary journals, indeed, examined it with candour, and rather with favour; but men of science were disappointed, and the friends of religion and morals were shocked/ No infidel could have obtruded opinions more adverse to the religious creed of the hation, than what Dr. Hawkesworth advanced in his preface. He denied a special providence; he supposed that providence might act in some general way in producing events, but contended that one event ought not to be distinguished, or accounted an extraordinary interposition more than another. He asks, “If the deliverance of the Endeavour was an extraordinary interposition, why did not Providence interpose to prevent the ship from striking at all, rather than to prevent her from being beaten to pieces after she had struck?” a question which was considered as much fitter for the mouth of a professed scoffer than that of a man whose regard for revealed religion approached, in the opinion of some, to intemperate zeal. In his “Almoran and Hamet,” his notions of providence are confused and perplexed; but in this he has attacked revealed religion, by striking off one of its principal duties, and one of its most consoling hopes, the duty and efficacy of prayer, of which he was not, however, insensible when he wrote No. 28 of the Adventurer.

, a recent English writer, the son of a man, who, though descended from the preceding sir John Hawkins, followed at first the occupation of a house-carpenter, which he afterwards exchanged for the profession of a surveyor and huijder. He had married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Gwatkin of Tou nhope, co. Hereford, gentleman; and the issue of this marriage were several children. Of these the present object of this article was the youngest, and was born in the city of London, on the 30th day of March, 1719. After fcaving been sent first to one school, and afterwards to a second, where he acquired a tolerable knowledge of Latin, he was placed under the tuition of Mr. Hoppus, the author of a well-known and useful architectural compendium, published in 1733, 8vo, and entitled “Proportional Architecture, or the Five Orders regulated by equal Farts.” Under this person he went through a regular course of architecture and perspective, in order to fit him for his father’s profession of a surveyor, for which he was at first intended; but his first cousin, Mr. Thomas Gwatkin, being clerk to Mr. John Scott of Devonshire-street, Bishopsgate, an attorney and solicitor in full practice, persuaded him *to alter his resolution, and embrace that of the law, which he did, and was accordingly articled as a clerk to Mr. Scott. In this situation his time was too fully employed in the actual dispatch of business, to permit him without some extraordinary means to acquire the necessary knowledge of his profession by reading and study; besides that, his master is said to have been more artxious to render him a good copying-clerk, by scrupulous attention to his hand-writing, than to qualify him by instruction to conduct business. To remedy this inconvenience, therefore, he abridged himself of his rest, and rising at four in the morning, found opportunity of reading all the necessary and most eminent law-writers, and the works of our mos% celebrated authors. By these means, before the expiration of his clerkship, he had already rendered himself a very able lawyer, and had possessed himself of a taste for literature in general, but particularly for poetry and the polite arts; and the better to facilitate his improvement, he from time to time furnished to “The Universal Spectator,” “The Westminster Journal,” The Gentleman’s Magazine,“and other periodical publications of the time, essays and disquisitions on several subjects. The first of these is believed to have been an” Essay on Swearing;“but the exact time of its appearance, and the paper in which it was inserted, are both equally unknown. It was, however, re-published some years since (without his knowledge till he saw it in print) in one of the newspapers. His next production was an” Essay on Honesty," inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March, 1739; and which occasioned a controversy, continued through the magazines for several succeeding months, between him and a Mr. Calamy, a descendant of the celebrated Dr. Edmund Calamy, then a fellow-clerk with him.

, of Haiti, or Grossen-hayn, in Misnia, was born in 1675. His first publication was an edition of Empedocles “de Sphsera,” xvith his own notes, and the Latin version of Septimius Florens, in 1711, Dresden, 4to. He then published a “Notitia Auctorum,” 1714, 8va. His celebrated “Greek Lexicon” was published, first at Leipsic, in 1722, 8vo, and has been republished here with many additions, by Young, Patrick, and Morell. It was also much improved by Ernesti, and republished at Leipsic in 1767. Hedench published other lexicons on different subjects, and died in 1748. Erncsti says of him, that he was a good man, and very laborious, but not a profound scholar in Greek, nor well qualified for compiling a lexicon for the illustration of Greek authors.

, of Mitylene, was an ancient Greek historian, born in the year A. C. 496, twelve years before the birth of Herodotus. He wrote a history of “the earliest Kings of various Nations, and the Founders of Cities;” which is mentioned by several ancient authors, but is not extant. He lived to the age of eighty-five. There was another Hellanicus of much later times, who was a Milesian, but very little is known of either.

"A wealthy canonry was promised me then, so that I might, if I pleased, turn myself to divinity but saint Bernard affrighted me from it, saying, that I should eat the sins of the people. 7 I begged therefore of the Lord Jesus, that he would vouchsafe to call me to that profession in which 1 might please him most. The Jesuits began at that time to teach philosophy at Louvain, and one of the professors expounded the disquisitions and secrets of magic. Both these lectures I greedily received; but instead of grain, I reaped only stubble, and fantastic conceits void of sense. In the mean time, lest an hour should pass without some benefit, I run through some writings of the stoics, those of Seneca, and especially of Epictetus, who pleased me exceedingly. I seemed, in moral philosophy, to have found the quintessence of truth, and did verily believe, that through stoicism I advanced in Christian perfection; but 1 discovered afterwards in a dream, that stoicism was an empty and swollen bubble, and that by this study, under the appearance of moderation, I became, indeed, most self-sufficient and haughty. Lastly, 1 turned over Mathiolus and Dioscorides; thinking with myself nothjng equally necessary for mortal man to know and admire, as the wisdom and goodness of God in vegetables; to the end that he might not only crop the fruit for food, but also minister of the same to his other necessities. My curiosity being now raised upon this branch of study, I inquired, whether there were any book, which delivered the maxims and rule of medicine for I then supposed, that medicine was not altogether a mere gift, but might ]be taught, and delivered by discipline, like other arts and sciences: at least I thought, if medicine was a good gift coming down from the Father of lights, that it might have, as an human science, its theorems and authors, into whom, as into Bazaleel and Aholiab, the spirit of the Lord had infused the knowledge of all diseases and their causes, and also the knowledge of the properties of things. I inquired, I say, whether no writer had described the qualities, properties, applications, and proportions of vegetables, from the hyssop even to the cedar of Libanus? A certain professor of medicine answered me, that none of these things were to be looked for either in Galen or Avicen. I was very ready to believe this, from the many fruitless searches I hau made in books for truth and knowledge before; however, following my natural bent, which lay to the study of nature, I read the institutions of Fuchsius and Fernelius; in whom I knew I had surveyed the whole science of medicine, as it were in an epitome. Is this, said I, smiling to myself, the knowledge of healing Is the whole history of natural properties thus shut up in elementary qualities Therefore I read the works of Galen twice of Hippocrates once, whose aphorisms I almost got by heart; all Avicen, as well as the Greeks, Arabians, and moderns, to the tune of 600 authors. I read them seriously and attentively through; and took down, as I went along, whatever seemed curious and worthy of attention; when at length, reading over my common-place book, I was grieved at the pains I had bestowed, and the years I had spent, in throwing together such a mass of stufc Therefore I straightway left off all books whatever, all formal discourses, and empty promises of the schools; firmly believing every good and perfect gift to come down from the Father of lights, more particularly that of medicine.

“I have attentively surveyed some foreign nations; but I found the same sluggishness, in implicitly following” the steps of their forefathers, and ignorance among them all. I then became persuaded, that the art of healing was a mere imposture, originally set on foot by the Greeks for filthy lucre’s sake; till afterwards the Holy Scriptures informed me better. I considered, that the plague, which then raged at Louvain, was a most miserable disease, in which every one forsook the sick; and faithless helpers, distrustful of their own art, fled more swiftly than the unlearned common people, and homely pretenders to cure it. I proposed to myself to dedicate one salutation to the miserable infected; and although then no medicine was made known to me but trivial ones, yet God preserved my innocency from so cruel an enemy. I was not indeed sent for, but went of my own accord; and that not so much to help them, which I despaired of doing, as for the sake of learning. All that saw me, seemed to be refreshed with hope and joy; and I myself, being fraught with hope, was persuaded, that, by the mere free gift of God, 1 should sometimes obtain a mastery in the science. After ten years’ travel and studies from my degree in the art of medicine taken at Louvain, being then married, I withdrew myself, in 1609, to Vilvord, that, being the less troubled by applications, I might proceed diligently in viewing the kingdoms of vegetables, animals, and minerals. I employed myself some years in chemical operations. I searched into the works of Paracelsus; and at first admired and honoured the man, but at last was convinced, that nothing but difficulty, obscurity, and error, was to be found in him. Thus tired out with search after search, and concluding the art of medicine to be all deceit and uncertainty, I said with a sorrowful heart, ‘ Good God how long wilt thou be angry with mortal man, who hitherto has not disclosed one truth, in healing, to thy schools How long wilt thou deny truth to a people confessing thee, needful in these days, more than in times past Is the sacrifice of Molech pleasing to thee wilt thou have the lives of the poor, widows, and fatherless children, consecrated to thyself; under the most miserable torture of incurable diseases How is it, therefore, that thou ceasest not to destroy so many families through the uncertainty and ignorance of physicians’ Then I fell on my face, and said, ’ Oh, Lord, pardon me, if favour towards my neighbour hath snatched me away beyond my bounds. Pardon, pardon, O Lord, my indiscreet charity for thou art the radical good of goodness itself. Thou hast known my sighs and that I confess myself to be, to know, to be worth, to be able to do, to have, nothing and that I am poor, naked, empty, vain. Give, O Lord, give knowledge to thy creature, that he may affectionately know thy creatures; himself first, other things besides himself, all things, and more than all things, to be ultimately in thee.' “After I had thus earnestly prayed, I fell into a dream; in which, in the sight or view of truth, I saw the whole universe, as it were, some chaos or confused thing without form, which was almost a mere nothing. And from thence I drew the conceiving of one word, which did signify to me this following: ‘ Behold thou, and what things thou seest, are nothing. Whatever thou dost urge, is less than nothing itself in the sight of the Most High. He knoweth all the bounds of things to be done; thou at least may apply thyself to thy own safety.’ In this conception there was an inward precept, that I should be made a physician; and that, some time or other, Raphael himself should be given unto me. Forthwith therefore, and for thirty whole years after, and their nights following in order, 1 laboured always to my cost, and often in danger of my life, that I might obtain the knowledge of vegetables and minerals, and of their natures and properties also. Meanwhile, I exercised myself in prayer, in reading, in a narrow search of things, in sifting my errors, and in writing down what I daily experienced. At length I knew with Solomon, that t had for the most part hitherto perplexed my spirit in vain; and I said, Vain is the knowledge of all things under the sun, vain are the searchings of the curious. Whom the Lord Jesus shall call unto wisdom, he, and no other, shall come; yea, he that hath come to the top, shall as yet be able to do very little, unless the bountiful favour of the Lord shall shine upon him. Lo, thus have I waxed ripe of age, being become a man; and now also an old man, unprofitable, and unacceptable to God, to whom be all honour.”

, professor of the Greek and eastern languages, and of divinity, in the university of Giessen, was born Dec. 26, 1581, at Sprendlingen, a little town near Francfort, where his father was minister. He went throb gh his studies in Marpurg, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1599, having taken his bachelor’s in 1595. He was an early genius composed a prodigiousnumber of Greek verses at fifteen years old and was capable of teaching Greek, Hebrew, and even philosophy, before he was twenty. The Hebrew he spoke as fluently as if it had been his native language. He thoroughly read the Greek authors; and even studied physic for some time, though he had devoted himself to the ministry. In 1605, he was chosen to teach Greek and Hebrew, in the college which the landgrave had recently established at Giessen;, and which the year after was converted into an university by the emperor, who endowed it with privileges. Having discharged for five years the several duties of his employment with great reputation, he was appointed divinity professor in 1610. In 1611, a church was offered him in Moravia, and a professorship at Hamburgh with a considerable stipend: but he refused both. In 1613, he took the degree of D. D. at the command of the landgrave; who sent him to Francfort, that he might view the library of the Jews, who had been lately driven away by popular tumults. Helvicus, fond of reading the rabbins, bought several of their books on that occasion. He died in the flower of his age, Sept. 10, 1616; and his loss was bewailed by the German poets of the Augsburg confession. A collection was made of his poems, which were printed with his funeral sermon and some other pieces, under the title of “Cippus Memorialis,” by the care of Winckleman, who had been his colleague.

, an eminent person of the Pembroke family, was born at York, where his grandfather was an alderman, and admitted of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1621: but before he took a degree, removed to Trinity-­college in Cambridge. He made a short stay there, and then went to wait upon William earl of Pembroke, recorded in the following article; who owning him for his kinsman, and intending his advancement, sent him in 1626 to travel, with an allowance to bear his charge. He spent four years in visiting Asia and Africa; and then returning, waited on his patron at Baynard’s-castle in London. The earl dying suddenly, he was disappointed in his expectations of preferment, and left England a second time, and visited several parts of Europe. After his return he married, and now being settled, devoted much of his time to literary employments. In 1634 he published in folio, “A Relation of some Years Travels into Africa and the great Asia, especially the territories of the Persian Monarchy, and some parts of the Oriental Indies, and Isles adjacent.” The edition of 1677 is the fourth, and has several additions. This work was translated by Wiquefort into French, with “An Account of the Revolutions of Siam in 1647,” Paris, 1663, in 4to. All the impressions of Herbert’s hook are in folio, and adorned with cuts.

, earl of Pembroke, was born at Wilton in Wiltshire, April 8, 1580, and admitted of Newcollege in Oxford in 1592, where he continued about two years. In 1601, he succeeded to his father’s honours and estate; was made knight of the garter in 1604; and governor of Portsmouth six years after. In 1626 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, and about the same time made lord steward of the king’s houshold. He died suddenly at his house called Baynard’s-castle, in London, April 10, 1630; according, as Wood foolishly says, to the calculation of his nativity, made several years before by Mr. Thomas Allen, of Gloucester-hall. Clarendon, however, seriously relates, concerning this calculation, that some considerable persons connected with lord Pembroke being met at Maidenhead, one of them at supper drank a health to the lord steward: upon which another said, that he believed his lordship was at that time very merry; for he had now outlived the day, which it had been prognosticated upon his nativity he would not outlive; but he had done it now, for that was his birth-day, which had completed his age to fifty years. The next morning, however, they received the news of his death. Mr. Park remarks that had his lordship possessed a credulous mind, it might have been suspected that this astrological prediction had worked upon his feelings, and occasioned a temporary suspension of the animal faculties, which was too hastily concluded to be dissolution; for Mr. Granger states it as an accredited fact in the Pembroke family, that when his lordship’s body was opened in order to be embalmed, he was observed, immediately after the incision was made, to lift up his hand. This remarkable circumstance, adds Granger, compared with lord Clarendon’s account of his sudden death, affords a strong presumptive proof that his distemper was an apoplexy. Lord Pembroke was not only a great favourer of learned and ingenious men, but was himself learned, and endued with a considerable share of poetic genius. All that are extant of his productions in this way, were published with this title: “Poems written by William earl of Pembroke, &c. many of which are answered by way pf repartee by sir Benjamin Rudyard, with other poems written by them occasionally and apart,” 1660," 8vo.

, an eminent French botanist, was born at Paris in 1746. In 1772 he was appointed superintendant of the waters and forests of the generality of Paris, and his active mind being turned to fulfil the duties of his office, he began to apply to botany, with a particular view to the knowledge of foresttrees. Broussonet, who had studied with sir Joseph Banks, and was an ardent Linnaean, was the intimate friend of L'Heritier, and contributed in no small degree to urge him forward in his career. The first fruits of his labours was a splendid book, with finely engraved plates, entitled “Stirpes novae,” of which the first fasciculus, containing eleven plates with their descriptions, appeared in J7S4. Five more followed, amounting to eighty-four platas. To secure to himself some of his own discoveries, and especially the establishment of certain new genera and their names, L'Heritier contrived a method of publishing such in the form of monographs, with one or two plates. Of these he distributed the copies gratuitously to different people, so that no individual might be possessed of the entire collection. A complete set, however, is in the library of sir Joseph Banks, and another in that of the president of the Linnaean society. In 1786 he came over to England, and collected from the English gardens the materials of his “Sertum Anglicum,” a Work consisting of several fasciculi, on a similar plan to his Stirpes Novafe, but it remains unfinished. In 1775 he became a conseiller a la cour des aides, was for a long time the dean of that court, and accepted the office of a judge in the civil tribunals of the department of the Seine, and is recorded to have fulfilled its duties with the most exemplary rectitude and incorruptibility. He also sat from time to time as a member of the representative body. His views were always those of a true patriot, the correction of abuses, the maintenance of the laws in their genuine force and purity; and the darling object of his emulation was the uncorrupted British constitution.

, or Hermas commonly called the Shepherd, was an antient father of the church, and is generally supposed to have been the same whom St. Paul mentions in Rom. xvi. 14. He is ranked amongst those who are called Apostolical Fathers, from his having lived in the times of the apostles: but who he was, what he did, and what he suffered for the sake of Christianity, are all in a great measure, if not altogether, unknown to us. He seems to have belonged to the church at Rome, when Clement was bishop of it; that is, according to Dodwell, from the year 64 or 65 to the year 81. This circumstance we are able to collect from his “Second Vision,” of which, he tells us, he was commanded to communicate a copy to Clement. What his condition was before his conversion, we know not; but that he was a man of some consideration, we may conclude from what we read in his “Third Vision;” where he owns himself to have been formerly unprofitable to the Lord, upon the account of those riches which afterwards he seems to have dispensed in works of charity and beneficence. After his conversion he probably lived a very strict life, since he is said to have been employed in several messages to the church, both to correct their manners, and to warn them of the trials that were about to come upon them. His death, if we may believe the “Roman Marty rology,” was conformable to his life; where we read, that being “illustrious for his miracles, he at last offered himself a worthy sacrifice unto God.” Baronius says, that “having undergone many labours and troubles in the time of the persecution under Aurelius, he at last rested in the Lord July 26th, which is therefore observed in commemoration of him.” But Hermas being sometimes called by the title of “Pastor, or Shepherd,” the Roman martyrologist has divided the good man into two saints: and they observe the memorial of Hennas May the 9th, and of Pastor July the 26th.

"Such was his character as an oiVicer, which made him deservedly conspicuous in a profession, as honourable to the individual as important to the public: nor was he without those qualifications and abilities which could give full weight to the situation in which his rank and connections had placed him in civil life; his early entrance into his profession had indeed deprived him of the advantages of a classical education; this defect was however more than balanced by the less ornamental, but more solid instruction of the school he studied in as a member of parliament, he was an eloquent, though not a correct speaker those who differed from him in politics, confessed the extent of his knowledge, the variety of his information, and the force of his reasoning, at the same time that they admired the ingenuity with which he applied them to the support of his opinions.

"He was not more eminent for those talents by which a country is served, than distinguished by those qualities which render a man useful, respected, esteemed, and beloved in society. In the general intercourse of the world, he was an accomplished gentleman and agreeable companion his manners were noble as his birth, and engaging as his disposition he was humane, benevolent, compassionate, and generous his humanity was conspicuous in his profession when exercised towards the seamen, the sensibility and attention of a commander they adored, was the most flattering relief that could be afforded to the sufferings or distresses of those who served with him; when exerted towards her enemies, it did honour to his country, by exemplifying in the most striking manner that generosity which is the peculiar characteristic and most distinguished virtue of a brave, free, and enlightened people. In other situations his liberality was extensive without ostentation, and generally bestowed where it would be most felt and least secn/upon modest merit, and silent distress. His friendships were warm, and permanent beyond the grave, extending their influence to those who shared the affections or enjoyed the patronage of their objects. His resentment was open, and his forgiveness sincere; it was the effect, perhaps the weakness, of an excellent mind, that with him, an injury which he had forgiven was as strong a claim to his protection, as a favour received could be to his gratitude.

, a very ancient Greek poet, is thought by some to have been contemporary with Homer, but there is more re.ason to think he was at least thirty years older. His father, as he tells us, was an inhabitant of Cuma, in one of the Æolian isles, now called Taio Nova and removed from thence to Ascra, a village of Bceotia at the foot of mount Helicon, where Hesiod was probably born, and called, as he often is, Ascraeus from it. Of what quality his father was, is no where said; but that he was driven by misfortunes from Cuma to Ascra, Hesiod himself informs us. His father seems to have prospered better at Ascra, than he did in his own country; yet his son could arrive at no higher fortune, than that of keeping sheep at the top of Helicon, where the Muses met with iiim, and received him into their service.

, was an eminent bishop and martyr, who, after becoming very distinguished in the church by his writings, shed his blood for the Christian faith about the year 230, in the reign of Alexander Severus. It is certain that he was author of many works much esteemed by the ancients, but it is by no means certain that what remain under his name, and are ascribed to him, were really written by him. Fabricius has published an elegant edition of them in Greek and Latin, 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. Some may be also found in the library of the Fathers.

was an Ephesian satiric poet, who flourished in the sixtieth olympiad, itbout 540 years B. C. He was so remarkably ugly and deformed, that certain painters and sculptors amused themselves by displaying representations of him to public ridicule, and Hipponax was so offended at the insult, that he exercised against the otfuuders all the force of his satyric vein with such effect, that two of them, sculptors of Chios, Bupalus and Anthernus, are said to have hanged themselves; but Pliny contradicts the story, Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5. Hipponax is said to be the inventor of the scazontic verse, which is an iambic, terminating with a spondee, instead of an iambic foot.

, was an officer under Julius Caisar, and wrote a supplementary part of the Commentaries published in his name, viz. the eighth of the Gallic war, and those of the Alexandrine and African wars. Of the two latter he received his information partly from Caesar’s own mouth, but he is a less perspicuous writer, although his style is good. He was made consul, together with Vibius Pansa, in the year B. C. 43, and was killed in a battle with Antony in the neighbourhood of Mutina.

Hoffman and Beza wrote against each other upon the subject of the Holy Eucharist. Hoffman accused Hunnius, an eminent Lutheran minister, for having misrepresented the book of the Concord; for here, says Hoffman, the cause of election is not made to depend upon the qualifications of the person elected but Hunnius, says he, and Mylius assert, that the decree of election is founded upon the foresight of faith. Hunnius and Mylius caused Hoffman to be condemned at a meeting of their divines in 1593, and threatened him with excommunication, if he did not comply. The year following, Hoffman published an apology against their censure. Hospinian gives the detail of this controversy: he observes, that some divines of Leipsic, Jena, and Wittemburg, would have had Hoffman publicly censured as a Calvinist, and such a heretic as was not fit to be conversed with; others who were more moderate, were for admonishing him by way of letter before they came to extremities: this latter expedient was approved, and Hunnius wrote to him in the name of all his brethren. Hoffman’s apology was an answer to this letter, in which he gives the reasons for refusing to comply with the divines of Wittemburg, and pretends to shew that they were grossly mistaken in several articles of faith. At last he was permitted to keep school at Helmstadt, where he died in 1611. He must not be confounded with Melchior Hoffman, a fanatic of the sixteenth century, who died in prison at Strasburgh. There was also a Gasper Hoffman (the name being common), a celebrated professor of medicine at Altdorf, who was born at Golha in 1572, and died in 1649; and who left behind him many medical works.

, the most eminent physician of his name, was born at Halle, in Saxony, Feb. 19, 1660. He received his early education in his native town, and had made great progress in philosophy and the mathematics, when, at the age of fifteen, he lost his father and mother during the prevalence of an epidemic disease. In 1679 he commenced the study of medicine at Jena, and in the following year attended the chemical lectures of Gaspar Cramer, at Erfurth; and, on his return to Jena, received the degree of M. D. in February 168!. In 1682 he published an excellent tract “De Cinnabari Antimonii,” which gained him great applause, and a crowd of pupils to the chemical lectures, which he delivered there. He was then induced to visit Minden, in Westphalia, op the invitation of a relation, and practised there for two years with considerable success. He then travelled into Holland and thence to England, where he was received with distinction by men of science, and particularly by Paul Herman, the botanist, in the former, and Robert Boyle in the latter. On his return to Minden, in 1685, he was made physician to the garrison there, and in the following year was honoured by Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with the appointments of physician to his own person, and to the whole principality of Minden. Yet he quitted that city in 1688, in consequence of an invitation to settle at Halberstadt, in Lower Saxony, as public physician. Here he published a treatise “De uisufficientia acidi ct viscidi,” by which he overthrew the system of Cornelius Bontekce. In 1689 he married the only daughter of Andrew Herstel, an eminent apothecary, with whom he had lived forty-eight years in perfect iniion, when she died. About this time, Frederic III., afterwards first king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle; and in Hoffmann was appointed primary professor of medicine, composed the statutes of that institution, and extended its fame and elevated its character, while his own reputation procured him admission into the scientific societies at Berlin, Petershurgh, and London, as well as the honour of being consulted by persons of the highest rank. He was called upon to visit many of the German courts in his capacity of physician, and received honours from several princes; from whom some say that he received ample remuneration in proportion to the rank of his patients; while others have asserted that he took no fees, but contented himself with his stipends. Haller asserts that he acquired great wealth by various chemical nostrums which he vended. In 1704 he accompanied some of the Prussian ministers to the Caroline warm baths in Bohemia, on which occasion he examined their nature, and published a dissertation concerning them. On subsequent visits, he became acquainted with the Sedlitz purging waters, which he first introduced to public notice, having published a treatise on them in 1717: and he afterwards extended his inquiries to the other mineral waters of Germany. In 1 708 he was called to Berlin to take care of the declining health of Frederic, and was honoured with the titles of archiater and aulic counsellor, together with a liberal salary. After three years residence at this court he returned to Halle, and gladly resumed his academical functions. He continued also to labour in the composition of his writings; and in 1718, at the age of 60, he began the publication of his “Medicina Rationalis Systematica,” which was reoeived with great applause by the faculty in various parts of Europe, and the completion of which occupied him nearly twenty years. He likewise published two volumes of “Consultations,” in which he distributed into three “centuries,” the most remarkable cases which had occurred to him; and also “Observationum Physico-Chemicarum Libri tres,” 1722. In 1727 he attended the prince of Schwartzemburg through a dangerous disease; in recompence for which his noble patient created him count palatine. He quitted Halle in 1734, in order to pay a short visit to his daughter and son-in-law at BerJin, and was detained five months by the king of Prussia, Frederic William, in order to attend him during a dangerous illness, by whom he was treated with great honour, elevated to the rank of privy counsellor, and presented with a portrait of the king, set in diamonds. Hoffmann declined a pressing invitation to settle at Berlin, on account of his advanced age, and returned to Halle in April 1735. The illness and death of his heloved wife, in 1737, turned his thoughts to the consolations of religion, and he drew up in Latin a summary of Christian doctrine, which, at the king’s desire, was translated into German. He continued to perform his academical duties until 174!?, when he died in the month of November, aged eighty-two. Frederick Hoffmann was an industrious and copious writer. Haller has occupied thirty-eight quarto pages in the enumeration of his works in detail. The principal of these were collected, during the life of the author, by two Genevese booksellers, and published with his approbation, and with a preface from his pen, in 1740, in six vols. folio. It was reprinted by the same booksellers, the freres de Tournes, in 1748; and in the following year, having raked together every thing which his pen had touched, they published a supplement in three additional volumes folio, which was also reprinted in 1753-4. The writings of Hoffmann contain a great mass of practical matter of considerable value, partly compiled from preceding writers, and partly the result of his own observation; but they contain also many trifling remarks, and not a little hypothetical conjecture, which was indeed a common fault of the times; and in the detail there is considerable prolixity and repetition. Asa theorist his suggestions were of great value, ad contributed to introduce that revolution in the science of pathology, which subsequent observation has extended and confirmed. His doctrine of atony and spasm in the living solid, by which he referred all internal disorders to some “preternatural affection of the nervous system,” rather than to the morbid derangements and qualities of the fluids, first turned the attention of physicians from the mere mechanical and chemical operations of the animal body to those of the primary moving powers of the living system. To Hoffmann Dr. Cullen acknowledges the obligations we are under for having first put us into the proper train of investigation; although he himself did not apply his fundamental doctrine so extensively as he might have done, and every where mixed with it a humoral pathology as incorrect and hypothetical as any other. Hoffmann pursued the study of practical chemistry with considerable ardour, and improved the department of pharmacy by the addition of some mineral preparations; but on the whole, and especially in his latter years, his practice was cautious, and even inert, and he trusted much to vegetable simples.

At the time when these hostilities were carrying on in a manner so virulent and disgraceful to all the parties, Hogarth was visibly declining in his health. In 1762, he complained of an inward pain, which, continuing, brought on a general decay that proved incurable. This last year of his life he employed in re-touching his plates, with the assistance of several engravers whom he took with him to Chiswick. Oct. 25, 1764, he was conveyed from thence to Leicester-fields, in a very weak condition, yet remarkably cheerful; and, receiving an agreeable letter from the American Dr. Franklin, drew up a rough draught of an answer to it; but going to bed, he was seized with a vomiting, upon which he rung his bell with such violence that he broke it, and expired about two hours afterwards. His disorder was an aneurism; and his corpse was interred in the church-yard at Chiswick, where a monument is erected to his memory, with an inscription by his friend Mr. Garrick.

In 1745, one Launcelot Burton was appointed naval officer at Deal. Hogarth had seen him by accident; and on a piece of paper, previously impressed by a plain copper-plate, drew his figure with a pen in imitation of a coarse etching. He was represented on a lean Canterbury hack, with a bottle sticking out of his pocket; and underneath was an inscription, intimating that he was going down to take possession of his place. This was inclosed to him in a letter; and some of his friends, who were in the secret, protested the drawing to be a print which they had seen exposed to sale at the shops in London; a circumstance that put him in a violent passion, during which he wrote an abusive letter to Hogarth, whose name was subscribed to the work. But, after poor Burton’s tormentors had kept him in suspense throughout an uneasy three weeks, they proved to him that it was no engraving, but a sketch with a pen and ink. He then became so perfectly reconciled to his resemblance, that he shewed it with exultation to admiral Vernon, and all the rest of his friends. In 1753, Hogarth returning with a friend from a visit to Mr. Rich at Cowley, stopped his chariot, and got out, being struck by a large drawing (with a coal) on the wall of an alehouse. He immediately made a sketch of it with triumph; it was a St. George and the Dragon, all in straight lines.

He remained at Antwerp several years, copying from his patron’s collection, and working for printsellers, booksellers, and, publishers; but seems to have cultivated no interest among men of fortune and curiosity in the art, to dispose of them by subscription, or otherwise most to his advantage. In 1647, and 1648, he etched eight or ten of the painters’ heads with his own, with various other curious pieces, as the picture of Charles I. soon after his death, and of several of the royalists; and in the three following years, many portraits and landscapes after BreughUl, Ei sheimer, and Teniers, with the Triumphs of Death. He etched also Charles II. standing, with emblems; and also published a print of James duke of York, aetat. 18, aun. It>51, from a picture drawn of him when he was in Flanders, by Teniers. He was more punctual in his dates than roost other engravers, which have afforded very agreeable lights and directions, both as to his own personal history and performances, and to those of many others. At last, either not meeting with encouragement enough to keep him longer abroad, or invited by several magnificent and costly works proposed or preparing in England, in which his ornamental hand might be employed more to his advantage, he returned hither in 1652. Here he afterwards executed some of the most considerable of his publications: but though he was an artist superior to almost most others in genius as well as assiduity, yet he had the peculiar fate to work here, as he had done abroad, still in a state of subordination, and more to the profit of other people than himself. Notwithstanding his penurious pay, he is said to have contracted a voluntary affection to his extraordinary labour; so far, that he spent almost two-thirds of his time at it, and would not suffer himself to be drawn or disengaged from it, till his hour-glass had run to the last moment proposed. Thus he went on in full business, till the restoration of Charles II. brought home many of his friends, and him into fresh views of employment. It was but two years after that memorable epocha, that Evelyn published his “Sculptura, or the History and Art of Chalcography and engraving in copper:” in which he gave the following very honourable account of Hollar: “Winceslaus Hollar,” says he, “a gentleman of Bohemia, comes in the next place: not that he is not before most of the rest for his choice and great industry, for we rank them very promiscuously both as to time and pre-eminence, but to bring up the rear of the Germans with a deserving person, whose indefatigable works in aqua fortis do infinitely recommend themselves by the excellent choice which he fyath made of the rare things furnished out of the Arundelian collection, and from most of the best hands and designs: for such were those of L. da Vinci, Fr. Parmensis, Titian, Julio Komano, A. Mantegna, Corregio, Perino del Vaga, Raphael Urbin, Seb. del Piombo, Palma, Albert Durer, Hans Holbein, Vandyck, Rubens, Breughel, Bassan, Elheimer, Brower, Artois, and divers other masters of prime note, whose drawings and paintings he hath faithfully copied; besides several books of landscapes, towns, solemnities, histories, heads, beasts, fowls, insects, vessels, and other signal pieces, not omitting what he hath etched after I>e Cleyn, Mr. Streter, and Dankerty, for sir Robert Stapleton’s * Juvenal,‘ Mr. Ross’s * Silius Italicus,’ ‘ Polyglotta Biblia,’ * The Monasticon,‘ first and second part, Mr. Dugdale’s ’ St. Paul’s,‘ and ’ Survey of Warwickshire,' with other innumerable frontispieces, and things by him published, and done after the life; and to be on that account more valued and esteemed, than where there has been more curiosity about chimeras, and things which are not in nature: so that of Mr. Hollar’s works we may justly pronounce, there is not a more useful and instructive collection to be made.”

, an ingenious and learned German, was born at Hamburg in 1596; and after a liberal education in his own country, went to France, and at Paris distinguished himself by uncommon parts and learning. He was educated a protestant, but afterwards by the persuasions of Sirmond the Jesuit, embraced the Roman catholic religion, and going from France to Rome, attached himself to cardinal Francis Barberini; who took him under his protection, and recommended him to favour. He was honoured by three popes, Urban VIII. Innocent X. and Alexander VII. The first gave him a canonry of St. Peter’s; the second made him librarian of the Vatican; and the third sent him, in 1665, to Christina of Sweden, whose formal profession of the Catholic faith he received at Inspruck. He spent his life in study, and died at Rome in 1661, Cardinal Barberini, whom he made his heir, caused a marble monument to be erected over his grave, with a Latin inscription much to his honour. He was very learned both in sacred and profane antiquity, was an acute critic, and wrote with the utmost purity and elegance. His works consisted chiefly of notes and dissertations, which have been highly esteemed for judgment and precision. Some of these were published by himself; but the greater part were communicated after his death, and inserted by his friends in their editions of authors, or other works that would admit them. His notes and emendations upon Eusebius’s book against Hierocles, upon Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras,” upon Apollonius’s “Argonautics,” upon the fragments of Demophilus, Democrates, Secundus, apd Sallustius the philosopher, upon Stephanus Byzantinus de Urbibus, &c. are to be found in the best editions of those authors. He wrote a “Dissertation upon the Life and Writings of Porphyry,” which is printed with his notes on Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras;” and other dissertations/ of his are inserted in Grsevius’s “Collection of Roman Antiquities,” and elsewhere.

The mode in which Mr. Home occupied his time, both in town and country, appears to have been most judicious. In town he was an active and industrious barrister; in the country he was a scientific farmer on his paternal estate, which came to him in a very waste and unproductive condition. He had the honour to be among the first who introduced the English improvements in agriculture into Scotland. Amidst all this he found leisure, during the vacations of the court, to compose those various works which he has left to posterity. In 1741 he published, in 2 vols. fol. the “Decisions of the Court of Session, from its institution to the present time, abridged and digested tinder proper heads, in the form of a Dictionary,” a composition of great labour, the fruit of many years, and a work of the highest utility to the profession of the law in Scotland. In 1747 he published a small treatise entitled “Essays upon several subjects concerning British Antiquities.” The subjects are, the feudal law; the constitution of parliament; honour and dignity; succession or descent; and the hereditary and indefeasible rights of kings. These were delicate subjects at that time in Scotland, and the general doctrines perhaps more seasonable than now.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

Samuel was educated in his early years chiefly by his father, and we are assured, never was at Westminster school, as has been asserted; but of this and the other transactions of his youth, his studies, and early character, we have very few particulars that can be depended on, and have failed in obtaining information on these subjects from the only quarter whence it could have been expected. It is certain, however, that he was entered of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where it is easy to conceive that he was an industrious student, applying himself much to the study of mathematics, and storing his mind with the writings of the ancient and modern divines and logicians. Why with such qualifications he took no degree in arts, cannot now be ascertained. We find only that he took that of LL. B. in 1758, and became his father’s curate at Newington, to which living he succeeded, on the resignation of his father, in the following year, and held it till his translation to the see of Rochester in 1793.

Dr. Priestley, however, felt none of the alarm with which his admirers were affected. He promised an early and satisfactory answer. He predicted that he should rise more illustrious from his supposed defeat; he promised to strengthen the evidence of his favourite opinion by the very objections that had been raised against it; he seemed to flatter himself that he should find a new convert in his antagonist himself, and even hinted in print somewhat concerning the shame and remorse with which he was confident his adversary must be penetrated. From all this it soon became evident that Dr. Priestley, who could not but feel personally what every unprejudiced man felt argumentatively, that Dr. Horsley was an antagonist of no mean stamp, did not profit by this conviction so far as to take sufficient leisure to revise his own writings, but immediately repeated his former assertions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity not having been maintained by the Christian church in the first three centuries, in a publication entitled “Letters to Dr. Horsley, in answer to his animadversions on the ‘ History of the Corruptions of Christianity:’ with an additional evidence that the primitive Christian church was Unitarian,” 1783, 8vo. Irt this there are more of the weaknesses of argument, and the errors of haste, than could have been expected from one who had so much at stake, and it was therefore no very difficult task for Dr. Horsley to continue the contest, in the same epistolary form which his antagonist had adopted, by “Letters from the archdeacon of St. Alban’s in Reply to Dr. Priestley, with an Appendix, containing short strictures on Dr. Priestley’s Letters, by an unknown hand,” 1784, 8vo. These letters are seventeen in number, and their object is to prove that if Dr. Priestley’s mistakes which he pointed out, are few in number, tliey are too considerable in size to be incident to a well-informed writer; that they betray a want of such a general comprehension of the subject as might have enabled Dr. P. to draw the trne conclusions from the passages he cited; that they prove him incompetent in the very language of the writers from whom his proofs should be drawn, and unskilled in the philosophy whose doctrines he pretended to compare with the opinions of the church. These are serious charges, but our author did not confine himself merely to substantiate them, but followed up his numerous proofs by others in behalf 6f the doctrine of the Trinity, drawn from the early fathers of the church, and the best ecclesiastical historians. The display of reading and research in these letters is wonderful. The style also is admirable, and while it assumes the lofty and somewhat dictatorial manner peculiar to Dr. Horsley, and which indeed the high ground on which he stood in this case, seemed to justify, the reader of taste finds himself often charmed with the elegance of the language, and always with the closeness of the reasoning.

, a Roman orator, was the contemporary and rival of Cicero, and so far his senior, that he was an established pleader some time before the appearance of the latter. He pleaded his first cause at the age of nineteen, in the consulship of L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Mutius Scevola, ninety-four years before the Christian aera, Cicero being then in his twelfth year. This early effort was crowned with great success, and he continued throughout his life a very favourite orator. His enemies, however, represented his action as extravagant, and gave him the name of Hortensia, from a celebrated dancer of that time. He proceeded also in the line of public honours, was military tribune, praetor, and in the year 68 B. C. consul, together with Q. Caecilius Metellus. He was an eminent member of the college of augurs, and was the person who elected Cicero into that body, being sworn to present a man of proper dignity. By him also Cicero was there inaugurated, for which reason, says that author, “it was my duty to regard him as a parent.” He died in the year 49 B. C.“; and Cicero, to whom the news of that event was brought when he was at Rhodes, in his return from Ciiicia, has left a most eloquent eulogy and lamentation upon him, in the opening of his celebrated treatise on orators entitled Brutus.” I considered him,“says that writer,” not, as many supposed, in the light of an adversary, or one who robbed me of any praise, but as a companion and sharer in my glorious labour. It was much more honourable to have such an opponent, than to stand unrivalled; more especially as neither his career was impeded by me, nor mine by him, but each, on the contrary, was always ready to assist the other by communication, advice, and kindness." If, however, Cicero was sincere in his attachment, it was surmised that Hortensius was not, and this is even insinuated in one of the epistles of Cicero. Hortensius amassed great wealth, but lived at the same time in a splendid and liberal manner; and it is said that at his death his cellars were found stocked with 10,000 hogsheads of wine. His orations have all perished; but it was the opinion of Quintillian, that they did not in perusal answer to the fame he obtained by speaking them. Hortensius must have been si^ty-four at the time of his death.

, a voluminous female author, was born at Geneva in 1710, and died at Lyons in 1753. Her principal works are, 1. “Le monde fou, prefere au monde sage,” 1731—1744, in 8vo. 2. “Le Systeme des Theologiens anciens et modernes, sur l'etat des Ames separees des corps,” 1731—1739, 12mo. 3. “Suite du meme ouvrage, servant de reponse a M. Ruchat,” 1731—1739, 12mo. 4. “Reduction du Spectateur Anglois.” This was an abridgment of the Spectator, and appeared in 1753, in six parts, duodecimo; but did not succeed. 5. “Lettres sur la Religion essentielle a l'homme,” 1739 1754. Mary Huber was a protestant, and this latter work, in particular, was attacked by the divines of the Romish communion. She had wit and knowledge, but was sometimes obscure, from wanting the talent to develope her own ideas.

, was an eminent English navigator, who flourished in high fame in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Where he was born and educated, we have no certain account; nor have we of any private circumstances of his life. The custom of discovering foreign countries for the benefit of trade not dying with queen Elizabeth, in whose reign it had been zealously pursued, Hudson, among others, attempted to find out a passage by the north to Japan and China. His first voyage was in 1607, at the charge of some London merchants; and his first attempt was for the north-east passage to the Indies. He departed therefore on the 1st of May; and after various adventures through icy seas, and regions intensely cold, returned to England, and arrived in the Thames Sept. 15. The year following he undertook a second voyage for discovering the same passage, and accordingly set sail with fifteen persons only, April 22; but not succeeding, returned homewards, and arrived at Gravesend on Aug. 26.

Dr. Hudson intended, if he had lived, to publish a catalogue of the Bodleian library, which he had caused to be fairly transcribed in 6 vols. folio. He was an able assistant to several editors in Oxford, particularly to Dr. Gregory in his “Euclid,” and to the industrious Mr. Hearne in his “Livy,” &c. He corresponded with many learned men in foreign countries; with Muratori, Salvini, and Bianchini, in Italy; with Boivin, Kuster, and Lequien, in France; with Olearius, Menckenius, Christopher Woifius, and, whom he chiefly esteemed, John Albert Fabricius, in Germany; Eric Benzel, in Sweden; Frederic Rostgard, in Denmark; with Pezron, Reland, Le Clerc, in Holland, &c. He used to complain of the vast expence of foreign letters; for he was far from being rich, never having been possessed of any ecclesiastical preferment; of which he used also to make frequent and not unjust complaints. He met, sometimes, however, with generous patronage. When employed on his edition of Josephus, the earl of Caernarvon (afterwards duke of Chandos) hearing of his merit and the expensive nature of his undertaking, sent him a present of two hundred guineas, which Dr. Hudson handsomely acknowledges in the dedication to the earl’s son, lord Wilton, of his edition of Esop’s Fables. On his decease, several sets of his Josephus were disposed of by his widow, at twelve shillings per set, a work which now ranks in the very first class of Variorum editions in folio. Dr. Hudson had been long conversant with Josephus, had revised sir Roger L'Estrange’s translation, and added some critical notes. He also digested and finished Dr. Willis’s two discourses prefixed to that work. Hearne was a kind of pupil to Dr. Hudson, and directed by him in his critical studies.

On the whole, though it cannot be questioned that Huet, on account of his great learning and fertile genius, may justly claim to have his name preserved with honour in the republic of letters, several circumstances must prevent us from ranking him among the first philosophers of the seventeenth century. Better qualified to accumulate testimonies than to investigate truth, and more disposed to raise difficulties than to solve them, he was an injudicious advocate for a good cause. If we are not very much mistaken, Huet did not strictly adhere to the scholastic art of reasoning which he had learned in the schools of the Jesuits; otherwise he must have seen that there can be no room for faith, or for, what he artfully conceals under that name, the authority of the church, if every criterion of truth be rejected, and human reason be pronounced a blind and fallacious guide.

Of the person of Dr. Hunter it may be observed that he was regularly shaped, but of a slender make, and rather below a middle stature. There are several good portraits of him extant. One of these is an unfinished painting by Zoffany, who has represented him in the attitude of giving a lecture on the muscles at the royal academy, surrounded by a groupe of academicians. His manner of living was extremely simple and frugal, and the quantity of his food was small as well as plain. He was an early riser, and when business was over, was constantly engaged in his anatomical pursuits, or in his museum. There was something very engaging in his manner and address, and he had such an appearance of attention to his patients when he was making his inquiries, as could hardly fail to conciliate their confidence and esteem. In consultation with his medical brethren^ he delivered his opinions with diffidence and candour. In familiar conversation he was chearful and unassuming. All who knew him allowed that he possessed an excellent understanding, great readiness of perception, a good memory, and a sound judgment. To these intellectual powers he united uncommon assiduity and precision, so that he was admirably fitted for anatomical investigation. As a teacher of anatomy, he was long and deservedly celebrated. He was a good orator, and having a clear and accurate conception of what he taught, he knew how to place in distinct and intelligible points of view the most abstruse subjects of anatomy and physiology. How much he contributed to the improvement of medical science in general, may be collected from the concise view we have taken of his writings. The munificence he displayed in the cause of science has likewise a claim to our applause. Dr. Hunter sacrificed no part of his time or his fortune to voluptuousness, to idle pomp, or to any of the common objects of vanity that influence the pursuits of mankind in general. He seems to have been animated with a desire of distinguishing himself in those things which are in their nature laudable; and being a bachelor, and without views of establishing a family, he was at liberty to indulge his inclination. Let us, therefore, not withhold the praise that is due to him; and undoubtedly his temperance, his prudence, his persevering and eager pursuit of knowledge, constitute an example which we may, with advantage to ourselves and to society, endeavour to imitate.

, a topographical historian, the son of the rev. Richard Hutchins, was born in the parish of Bradford Peverel, Sept. 21, 1698. His father was rector of All Saints in Dorchester, and curate of Bradford Peverel. His income was small, and his son’s education was suited to the frugality of the station in which he was born. He appears to have been sent early to the grammar-school at Dorchester, where his master was the rev. Mr. Thornton, rector of West Stafford, whom he afterwards mentioned with gratitude, as behaving to him with the kindest attention, and as a second parent. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, where his residence was not long; for he took his master of arts degree at Cambridge, a proof that he had not kept a statutable residence for that degree in his own university, by applying to another in which none is required; and it is also a proof that he determined in Oxford; for, unless that exercise be performed, a certificate of a bachelor of arts degree is never granted. He was matriculated in Easter term, 1718, from Hart-hair, now Hertford college; but was afterwards removed by a bene discessit to Baliol college; and, as it appears by their books, he was admitted a member of that society in Easter term, April 10, 1719, and was regularly admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts in Lent term, Jan. 18, 1721-2. He was a determining bachelor in the same term; so that his whole residence in the university did not exceed four years; yet the friendships he contracted in both societies of which he was a member, continued with life; of which Mr. Charles Godwyn, fellow of Baliol college, was an instance in one; and his tutor, Mr. Davis, vice-principal of Harthall, in the other; and in what esteem he held both the one and the other, different passages in his “History” evince.

In 1703 were printed at Leyden, in 1 vol. 4to, Hnygens’s “Opuscula Posthuma, quse continent Dioptricam, Commentaries de vitris figurandis, Dissertationem de Corona & Parheliis, Tractatum de motu & de vi centrifuga, descriptionem Automati Planetarii.” Huygens had left by will to the university of Leyden his mathematical writings, and requested de Voider and Fullenius, the former professor of natural philosophy and mathematics at Leyden, and the other at Franeker, to examine these works, and publish what they should think proper. This was performed in the volume here mentioned. Huygens had written in Low Dutch the second of the tracts it contains, relating to the art of forming and polishing telescope -glasses, to which he had greatly applied himself; and Boerhaave translated it into Latin for this work. In 1700, were published in 4to, his “Opera Varia.” This collection is generally bound in 4 volumes. It contains the greatest part of the pieces which he had published separately, and is divided into four parts. The first part contains the pieces relating to mechanics; the second, those relating to geometry; the third, those relating to astronomy; and the fourth, those which could not be arranged under any of the former titles. Gravesancle had the care of this edition, in which he has inserted several additions to the pieces contained in it, extracted from Huygens’s manuscripts. In 1728 were printed at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. 4to, his “Opera lleliqua;” which new collection was published also by Gravesande. The first volume contains his “Treatises on Light and Gravity;” the second his “Opuscula Posthuma,” which had been printed in 1703. His whole time had been employed in curious and useful researches. He loved a quiet and studious life; and perhaps through fear of interruption, never married. He was an amiable, chearful, worthy man; and in all respects as good as he was great. As an inventor, the first and not the least considerable of his discoveries was that he made of the real nature, or rather figure of the luminous appearance which accompanies the planet Saturn; but the most important was his pendulum clock and his micrometer. His history, however, includes many controversies respecting priority in these inventions, which may be seen at large in our authorities.

By the judicious he was accounted to paint with greater freedom than Mignon or Brueghel; with more tendernessand nature than Mario da Fiori, Michael Angelo dr Campidoglio, or Segers; with more mellowness than De Heem, and greater force of colouring than Baptist. His reputation rose to such a height at last, that he fixed immoderate prices on his works; so that none but the very opulent could pretend to become purchasers. Six of his paintings were sold, at a public sale in Holland, for prices that were almost incredible. One of them, a flower-piece, for fourteen hundred and fifty guilders; a fruit-piece, for a thousand and five guilders; and the smaller pictures for nine hupdred. These vast sums caused him to redouble his endeavours to excel; no person was admitted into his room while he was painting, not even his brothers; and his method of mixing the tints, and preserving the lustre of his colours, was an impenetrable secret which he never would disclose. From the same principle he would never take any disciples, except one lady, named Haverman, and he grew envious and jealous even of her merit. By several domestic disquiets, his temper became changed; he grew morose, fretful, and apt to withdraw himself from society. He had many enviers of his fame, which has ever been the severe lot of the most deserving in all professions; but he continued to work, and his reputation never diminished. It is universally agreed, that hd lias excelled all who have painted fruit and flowers before him, by the confessed superiority of his touch, by the delicacy of his pencil, an-d by an amazing manner of finishing; nor does it ap'pear probable that any future artist will ever become his competitor. The care which he took to. purify his oils, and prepare his colours, and the various experiments he made to discover the most lustrous and durable, is another instance of his extraordinary care and capacity.

But though Hyde was very zealous for redressing the grievances of the nation, he was no less so for the security of the established church, and the honour of the crown. When a bill was brought in to take away the bishops’ vote in parliament, and to leave them out of all commissions of the peace, or any thing that had relation to temporal affairs, he was very earnest for throwing it out, and said, that, “from the time tbat parliaments begun, bishops had always been a part of it that if they were taken out, there was nobody left to represent the clergy which would introduce another piece of injustice, that no other part of the kingdom could complain of, who, being all represented in parliament, were bound to submit to whatever was enacted there, because it was, upon the matter, with their own consent: whereas, if the bill was carried, there was nobody left to represent the clergy, and yet they must be bound by their determination.” He was one of the committee employed to prepare the charge against the earl of Strafford: but, as soon as he saw the unjustifiable violence with which the prosecution was precipitated, he left them, and opposed the bill of attainder warmly. He was afterwards appointed a -manager at the conference with the house of lords, for abolishing the court of York, of which that earl had been for several years president; and was chairman also of several other committees, appointed upon the most important occasions, as long as he continued to sit among them. But, when they began to put in execution their ordinance for raising the militia against his majesty, Hyde, being persuaded that this was an act of open rebellion, left them; and they felt the blow given to their authority by his absence so sensibly, that in their instructions shortly after to the earl of Essex their general, he was excepted with a few others from any grace or favour.

, was an ancient Latin writer, who flourished in the time of Augustus. Suetonius, in. his book “De illustribus Grammaticis,” says that he was a freedman of Augustus, and by nation a Spaniard; though some think that he was an Alexandrian, and brought by Caesar to Rome when Alexandria was taken. He was a diligent follower and imitator of Cornelius Alexander, a celebrated Greek grammarian; and was also himself a teacher at Rome. He was made keeper of the Palatine library; was very intimate with the poet Ovid, and with Caius Licmius, a man of consular dignity and an historian, who has taken occasion to inform us, that he died very poor, and, while he lived, was supported chiefly by his generosity; but Vossius thinks that the person here named the consular historian Caius Licinius, should be Caius Asinius, who wrote a history of the civil war, and was consul with Cneius Domitius Calvinus, U. C. 723.

, son of the preceding, was born either in 1606 or 1607. As his father was warmly attached to puritanical principles, he was sent abroad for education; in the course of which he was put under the tuition of the celebrated Erpenius, professor of Arabic in the university of Leyden, and by the help of strong natural parts, united with a vigorous application, he in a short time made a surprising progress in philological and oriental literature. When he was about twenty-two years of age he returned to England, and was recommended by Mr. William Bedwell, a noted orientalist of that time, to William earl of Pembroke, chancellor of Oxford, as an extraordinary young man, who deserved particular encouragement. Accordingly, that generous nobleman immediately wrote to the university letters in his behalf, requesting that he might be created bachelor of arts to which degree he was admitted in Jan. 1628-9. In the earl’s recommendation, Jacob was described as having profited in oriental learning above the ordinary measures of his age. Soon after he obtained the patronage of John Selden, Henry Briggs, and Peter Turner, and, by their endeavours, was elected probationer fellow of Mertonr college in 1630. Not, however, being sufficiently skilled in logic and philosophy to carry him through the severe exercises of that society, the warden and fellows tacitly assigned him the situation of philological lecturer. He was then, for a while, diverted from his studies by attending to some law-suits concerning his patrimony, at the conclusion of which he fell into a Dangerous sickness, and, by the sudden loss of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, his life was in danger. Bishop Laud, that great encourager of literature, having succeeded the earl in the chancellorship of Oxford, a way was found out, from Merton college statutes, to make Mr. Jacob Socius Grammaticus, that is, Reader of Philology to the Juniors, a place which had been disused for about a hundred years. Being now completely settled in his fellowship, he occasionally resided with Mr. Selden, and assisted him as an amanuensis in one of the works which he was publishing, and which, we apprehend, must have been the “Mare clausum.” Selden, in acknowledging his obligations, styles him, “doctissimus Henricus Jacobus.” It is even understood, that Jacob added several things to the book, which Mr. Seldeir, finding them to be very excellent, permitted to stand. Nay, it is said, that Jacob improved Selden in the Hebrew language. In 1636, Mr. Jacob was created master of arts, and in June 1641, he was elected superior beadle of divinity. At the beginning of the November of the following year, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of ptiysic: “but his head,” says Anthony Wood, “being always over-busy about critical notions (whicbr made him sometimes a little better than crazed), he neglected his duty so much, that he was suspended once, if not twice, from his place, and had his beadle’s staff taken from him.” In consequence of the rebellion, and his attachment to archbishop Laud, he soon became exposed to other calamities. Sir Nathaniel Brent, the republican warden of Merton college, silenced Mr Jacob as philological lecturer; and at length he was totally deprived of his fellowship by the parliamentary visitors. Being now destitute of a sufficient maintenance, he retired to London, where Mr. Selden assisted him, gave him his clothes, and, among the rest, an old scarlet cloak, the wearing of which rendered poor Jacob an object of mirth to some of his acquaintance, who, when they saw it upon his back, used to call him “Young Selden.” “But being,” says Wood, “a shiftless person, as most mere scholars are, and the benefactions of friends not sufficing him,” he sold a small patrimony which he had at Godmersham in Kent, to supply his necessities, and died before the money was spent. He had brought on a bad habit of body by his close application to his studies. In September 1652, he retired to the city of Canterbury, where he was kindly entertained by Dr. William Jacob, a noted physician of that place; but who, though of the same name, was not related to our author. By this gentleman he was cured of a gangrene in his foot; but this being followed by a tumour and abscess in one of his legs, the discharge proved too violent for his constitution, and he died Nov. 5, 1652. The next day Dr. Jacob buried him in a manner answerable to his quality, in the parish-church of All Saints in Canterbury. Anthony Wood says, that Mr. Jacob died about the year of his age forty-Spur. But if the circumstances of his history be carefully compared together, it will be found that he was probably not less than forty-six years old at the time of his decease. As to his character, it appears that he was an innocent, harmless, careless man, who was entirely devoted to the pursuits of literature, and totally ignorant of the world.

, an industrious French author and bibliographer, was born at Chalons sur Saone, Aug. 20, 1608. He was educated among the Carmelites, and entered into that order in 1625, and, during his studies, the distinguished progress he made in theology and 'he belles lettres, procured him easy access to the libraries and the collections of literary men of eminence, who contributed very readily to promote his taste for bibliography and literary history. In 1639 he went to Italy, and resided some time at Rome, consulting the libraries, and collecting materials for his future works, particularly his “Bibliotheca Pontificia,” which he undertook at the solicitation of Gabriel Naude“, and published at Lyons in 1642; but this is by far the worst specimen of his talents, and has many ridiculous errors, which we can only ascribe to his having hastily copied erroneous catalogues, without consulting the books themselves. On his return to Paris he became librarian to de Gondi, afterwards cardinal de Retz, and was likewise appointed counsellor and almoner to the king. We find him then librarian to de Harlay, first president of the parliament of Paris, in whose house he lodged, and where he died May 10, 1670. He was a man of great industry and application, and continually employed in inquiries into the history of literature and literary men; but he was deficient in critical taste, undertook too many things at once, and hence committed errors which have thrown a suspicion on the general accuracy of all his works. Niceron has enumerated thirty-seven of his publications, of which the principal are, 1.” Bibliotheca Pontificia,“already mentioned, Lyons, 1643, 4to. 2.” Traite“des plus belles Bibliotheques du monde,” Paris, 1644, 8vo. 3. “Bibliotheca Parisina, hoc est Catalogus omnium librorum Parisiis annis 1643 & 1644 inclusive excusorum,” Paris, 1645, 4to. This catalogue, for such it simply is, without any thing but the titles of the books, he continued to the year 1650; and by way of supplement compiled his “Bibliotheca Gallica universalis,” for the same or a greater number of years, including books published in other parts of France. 4. “De Claris Scriptoribus Cabilonensibus, libri tres,” 1652, 4to. Among the many plans which he meditated, one was an universal library of French authors, which he is said to have compiled, but what became of it is not known. If completed, as Mr. Dibdin says, in 1638, it could not have been a work of much accuracy, for he had then scarcely attained his thirtieth year, and published long afterwards works which sufficiently shew that he never attained much experience and correctness in his researches.

king of England, and VI. of Scotland, was the son of the unfortunate Mary queen of Scotland, by her cousin Henry, lord Darnley, and was born at Edinburgh-castle in June 1566, at the time when his mother had fixed her affections on the earl of Bothwell; the young prince, however, was committed to the charge of the earl of Mar, and in the following year, his mother being forced to resign the crown, he was solemnly crowned at Stirling, and all public acts from that time ran in his name. He was educated by the celebrated Buchanan while he was at Stirling castle; his progress in school-learning was rapid, and he manifested talents which presaged the future great man: but he became the prey of flatterers, who urged him to unpopular measures, which in 1582 produced a conspiracy of the nobles against him, who took possession of his person at Ruthven castle. From thence he was conveyed to the palace of Holyrood-house, and treated with much external respect, while in reality he was held in the utmost restraint. A new confederacy of other nobles produced his liberation, and he put himself under the sway of his favourite the earl of Arran, who was violent and unprincipled, and who carried on measures of severity againsf the nobles of the former conspiracy, and against the clergy who favoured them. He contrived to engage the mind of the young king with a constant round of amusement, and he himself exercised with unlimited sway all the regal authority, and by his insolence and rapacity rendered himself universally odious. Queen Elizabeth of England had long employed her arts to maintain a party in the country, which policy was become more necessary on account of her conduct to its queen. Though James had hitherto been induced to treat his mother very irreverently, yet when her life appeared to be in imminent danger, from the sentence pronounced against her by an English court of judicature, he felt himself bound to interfere, and wrote a menacing letter to Elizabeth on the occasion. He also applied to other courts for their assistance, and assembled his own nobles, who promised to stand by him in preventing or avenging such an injustice. When he learned the fatal catastrophe, he rejected with a proper spirit of indignation the hypocritical excuses of Elizabeth, and set about preparations for hostilities; but reflecting on his own resources, which were inadequate to the purposes of carrying on a serious war, he resolved to resume a friendly correspondence with the English court. It is to the honour of James that one of the' first acts of his full iriajority, in 1587, was an attempt to put an end to all family feuds among the nobility, and personally to reconcile them with each other at a solemn festival in Holyrood-house. When the invasion of England was resolved upon by Philip, king of Spain, he put his kingdom into a state of defence, resolving to support the queen against her enemies. His people also were zealous for the preservation of Protestantism, and entered into a national bond for the maintenance of true religion, which was the origin and pattern of all future engagements of the kind, under the name of solemn leagues and covenants. In 1589 he married Anne, daughter of Frederic king of Denmark, and as contrary winds prevented her coming to Scotland, he went to fetch her, and passed the winter in a series of feasting and amusements at Copenhagen. On his return he was frequently in danger from conspiracies against his life, particularly from those excited by the earl of Bothwell. In 1600, while the country was in a state of unusual tranquillity, a very extraordinary event took place, the nature and causes of which were never discovered. While the king was upon a hunting excursion, he was accosted by the brother of Ruthven earl of Gowrie, who, by a feigned tale, induced him and a small train to ride to the earl’s house at Perth. Here he was led to a remote chamber on pretence of having a secret communicated td him, where he found a man in complete armour, and a dagger was put to his breast by lluthven, with threats of immediate death. His attendants were alarmed, and came to his relief; in the end Gowrie and his brother were slain, and the king escaped unhurt. In 1603, on the death of queen Elizabeth, James was proclaimed her successor, and proceeded, amidst the acclamations of his new subjects, to London. One of his first acts was to bestow a profusion of honours and titles upon the great men, as well of his own country as those of England. A conference held at Hampton-court in 1604, between the divines of the established church and the Puritans, afforded James a good opportunity of exhibiting his skill in theological controversy, and the ill-will he bore to popular schemes of church-government. Although the king had distinguished himself in his own country by lenity to the Roman Catholics, yet those of that religion in England were so much disappointed in their expectations of his favour, that a most atrocious plot was formed by the zealots of that party to bloxv up the House of Lords at the first meeting of parliament, and with it the king, queen, and prince of Wales, and all the principal nobility and gentry of the kingdom, and then to set upon the throne the young princess Elizabeth, and establish the Catholic religion. This plot was fortunately discovered on the eve of the designed execution, and the principal persons in it suffered the punishment dae to their crimes. His next object was to reduce Ireland to a settled form of law and government. fc

No circumstance, however, in James’s reign was more unpopular than his treatment of the celebrated sir Walter Raleigh, after the detection of a conspiracy with lord Grey, and lord Cobham, to set aside the succession in favour of Arabella Stuart: he was tried and capitally convicted, but being reprieved, he was kept thirteen years in prison. In 1615 he obtained by bribery his release from prison, but the king would not grant him a pardon. He went out on an expedition with the sentence of death hanging over his head; he was unsuccessful in his object, and on his return the king ordered him to be executed on his former sentence. James is supposed to have been more influenced to this deed by the court of Spain than by any regard to justice. The influence of that court on James appeared soon after in his negociations for marrying his son prince Charles to the infanta. The object was, however, not attained, and he afterwards married him to the French princess Henrietta, with the disgraceful stipulation, that the children of that marriage should be educated by their mother, a bigoted papist, till they were thirteen years of age. As he aavanced in years he was disquieted by a concurrence of untoward circumstances. The dissentions of his parliament were very violent, and the affairs of his son-in-law, the elector palatine, now king of Hungary, also were in a very disastrous state. He had undertaken the cause of the protestants of Germany, but instead of being the arbiter in the cause of others, he was stripped of his own dominions. In his defence, James declared war against the king of Spain and the emperor, and sent troops over to Holland to act in conjunction with prince Maurice for the recovery of the palatinate; but from mismanagement, the greater part of them perished by sickness, and the whole enterprise was defeated. Oppressed with grief for the failure of his plans, the king was seized with an intermitting fever, of which he died in March 1625. It would be difficult, says Hume, to find a reign less illustrious, yet more unspotted and unblemished, than that of James in both kingdoms. James possessed many virtues, but scarcely any of them pure or free from the contagion of neighbouring vices. His learning degenerated into pedantry and prejudice, his generosity into profusion, his good nature into pliability and unmanly fondness, his love of peace into pusillanimity, and his wisdom into cunning. His intentions were just, but more adapted to the conduct of private life than to the government of kingdoms. He was an encourager of learning, and was himself an author of no mean genius, considering the times in which he lived. His chief works were, “Basilicon Doron” and “The true Law of free Monarchies” but he is more known for his adherence to witchcraft and demoniacal possessions in his “Demonology,” and for his “Counterblast to Tobacco.” He was also a poet, and specimens of his talent, such as it was, are to be found in many of our miscellanies. He also wrote some rules and cautels t for the use of professors of the art, which, says Mr. Ellis, have been long, and perhaps deservedly disregarded. The best specimen of his poetical powers is his “Basilicon Doron,” which bishop Percy has reprinted in his “Reliques,” and declares that it would not dishonour any writer of that time. Both as a man of learning, and as a patron of learned men, sufficient justice, in our opinion, has never been done to the character of James I.; and although a discussion on the subject would extend this article too far, it would not be difficult to prove that in both respects he was entitled to a considerable degree of veneration.

He published, “Christian Morals, by sir Thomas Browne.” “Moral and religious Aphorisms, collected from Dr. Whichcote’s Papers,” and three volumes of sermons, by the same author, 1702. In 1701 he had printed a volume of his own discourses, and occasionally various sermons and tracts separately, for twenty years before. All these were collected, and published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1751. Dr. Jeffery was an enemy of religious controversy, alleging, “that it produced more heat than light.” He left behind him many manuscript volumes, entitled, Τα Εισ Εαυτον, affording an irrefragable proof of his great industry.

But whatever difference of opinion was excited by this performance, it would be unjust to question the author’s sincerity, or to omit the very explicit declaration he has made of his belief. “Should my work ever have the honour to be admitted into such good company (persons of fashion), they will immediately, I know, determine that it must be the work of some enthusiast or methodist, some beggar, or some madman; I shall therefore beg leave to assure them, that the author is very far removed from all these characters; that he once perhaps believed as little as themselves; but having some leisure, and more curiosity, he employed them both in resolving a question which seemed to him of some importance: Whether Christianity was really an imposture, founded on an absurd, incredible, and obsolete fable, as many suppose it? or whether it is what it pretends to be, a revelation communicated to mankind by the interposition of some supernatural power? On a candid inquiry, he soon found that the first was an absolute impossibility, and that its pretensions to the latter were founded on the most solid grounds. In the further pursuits of his examination, he perceived at every step new lights arising, and some of the brightest from parts of it the most obscure, but productive of the clearest proofs, because equally beyond the power of human artifice to invent, and human reason to discover. These arguments, which have convinced him of the divine origin of this religion, he has here put together in as clear and concise a manner as he wa? able, thinking they might have the same effect upon others; and being of opinion, that, if there were a few more true Christians in the world, it would be beneficial to themselves, and by no means detrimental to the public.”

“Such was the exterior of a man, who was the charm of the circle, and gave a zest to every company he came into. His pleasantry was of a sort peculiar to himself; it harmonized with every thing; it was like the bread to our dinner, you did not perhaps make it the whole, or principal part of your meal, but it was an admirable and wholesome auxiliary to your other viands. Soame Jenyns told you no long stories, engrossed not much of your attention, and was not angry with those that did. His thoughts were original, and were apt to have a very whimsical affinity to the paradox in them. He wrote verses upon dancing, and prose upon the origin of evil yet he was a very indifferent metaphysician, and a worse dancer. Ill-nature and personality, with the single exception of his lines upon Johnson, I never heard fall from his lips; those lines I have forgotten, though I believe I was the first person to whom he recited them: they were very bad, but he had been told f that Johnson ridiculed his metaphysics, and some of us had just then been making extempore epitaphs upon each other. Though his wit was harmless, the general cast of it was ironical; there was a terseness in his repartees that had a play of words as well as of thought; as when speaking of the difference between laying out money upon land or purchasing into the funds, he said, * One was principal without interest, and the other interest without principal.‘ Certain it is, he had a brevity of expression that never hung upon the ear, and you felt the point in the very moment that he made the push. It was rather to be lamented that his lady, Mrs. Jenyns, had so great a respect for his good sayings, and so imperfect a recollection of them, for though she always prefaced her recitals of them with ’ As Mr. Jenyns says,' it was not always what Mr. Jenyns said and never, I am apt to think, as Mr. Jenyns said but she was an excellent old lady, and twirled her ian with as much mechanical address as her ingenious husband twirled his snuff-box.”

The truth is, he was his own chief enemy; and his disappointment, in his expectations of preferment, was the effect of his own temper and conduct. For, with very good abilities, considerable learning, and great clearness, strength, and vivacity of sentiment and expression, of which his writings are a sufficient evidence; and with a firmness of mind capable of supporting the severest trials, for any cause which he considered as important, he was passionate, impatient of contradiction, conceited in his own opinions, haughty, apt to overrate his own services, and undervalue those of others, whose advancement above himself was an insupportable mortification to him. The roughness of his temper, and turbulency of his genius, rendered him also unfit for the higher stations of the church, of which he was immoderately ambitious. Not being able to obtain a bishopric, lady Russel made use of the influence she had with Dr. Tillotson, to solicit a pension for him ; and in consequence of this application, king William granted him, 300l. a year out of the post-office, for his own and his son’s life, with 1000l. in money, and a place of 100l. a year for his son.

, an excellent classical scholar and editor, was born at Stadhampton, in Oxfordshire, and educated at KingVcollege, Cambridge, as Mr. Cole says, but according to others, at Magdalen -college, of which he was afterwards a fellow. He took his bachelor’s degree in 1688, and that of M. A. in 1692, after which he left the university, and married. He had also an Eton fellowship, and was assistant at the school. He was likewise usher of Ipswich school, and taught school once at Brentford, and in other places. Little else is known of his history, nor have we been able to ascertain the time of his death. Cole says his character is represented as having been dissolute, but he was an excellent scholar. He is best known as the editor of “Sophocles,” Oxon. and London, 1705, and 1746, 3 vols. He published also “Gratius, de Venatione, cum notis,” Lond. 1699, 8vi “Cebetis Tabula,” Lond. 1720, 8vi; “Novum Graecorum Epigrammatum delectus,” for the use of Eton school, repeatedly printed from 1699, &c. “The Iliad of Homer made English from the French version of Madame Dacier; revised and compared with the Greek” “Questiones Philosophic^ in usum juventiitis academics,” 173.5, 8vi, at that time a most useful manual and an edition of “PuffendoriF de Officio hominis et civis,” 4to. To these may be added, “An Essay on Moral Obligation, with a view towards settling the controversy concerning moral and positive duties,” Cambridge, 1731; “A letter to Mr. Chandler, in vindication of a passage in the bishop of London’s second Pastoral Letter,” 1734, p 8vo. In this last-mentioned year appeared the new edition of Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,” of which our author was one of the editors.

“A mere catalogue of the writings of sir William Jones,” says his biogragher, “would shew the extent and variety of his erudition; a perusal of them will prove that it was no less deep than miscellaneous. Whatever topic he discusses, his ideas flow with ease and perspicuity, his style is always clear and polished; animated and forcible, when his subject requires it. His philological, botanical, philosophical, and chronological disquisitions, his historical researches, and even his Persian grammar, whilst they fix the curiosity and attention of the reader, by the novelty, depth, or importance of the knowledge displayed in them, always delight by elegance of diction. His compositions are never dry, tedious, nor disgusting; and literature and science -come from his hands adorned with all their grace and beauty. No writer, perhaps, ever displayed so much learning, with so little affectation of it.” With regard to his law publications, it is said that his “Essay on Bailments” was sanctioned by the approbation of lord Mansfield and all his writings in this department shew that he had thoroughly studied the principles of law as a science. As to his opinion of the British constitution, it appears from repeated declarations that occur in his letters, and particularly in his 10th discourse, delivered to the Asiatic society in 1793, that he considered it as the noblest and most perfect that ever was formed. With regard to his political principles, he was an enlightened and decided friend to civil and religious liberty. Like many others of the same principles, he entertained a favourable opinion of the French revolution at its commencement, and wished success to the exertions of that nation for the establishment of a free constitution; but subsequent events must have given him new views, not so much of the principles on which the revolution was founded, as of the measures which have been adopted by some of its zealous partizans. To liberty, indeed, his attachment was enthusiastic, and he never speaks of tyranny or oppression but in the language of detestation. He dreaded, and wished to restrain, every encroachment on liberty; and though he never enlisted under the banners of any party, he always concurred in judgment and exertion with those who wished to render pure and permanent the constitution of his country.

“Mr. Camden recommended (Jonson) to sir Walter Raleigh, who trusted him with the care and instruction of his eldest son Walter, a gay spark, who could not brook Ben’s rigorous treatment, but, perceiving one foible in his disposition, made use of that to throw oft* the yoke of his government. And this was an unlucky habit Ben had contracted, through his love of jovial company, of being overtaken with liquor, which sir Walter did of all vices most abominate, and hath most exclaimed against. One day, when Ben had taken a plentiful dose, and was fallen into a sound sleep, young Raleigh got a great basket, and a touple of men, who laid Ben in it, and then with a pole carried him between their shoulders to sir Walter, telling him their young master had sent home his tutor. This I had from a ms memorandum-book written in the time of the civil wars by Mr. Oldisworth, who was secretary, I think, to Philip earl of Pembroke. Yet in 1614, when sir Walter published his History of the World, there was a good understanding between him and Ben Jonson; for the verses, which explain the grave frontispiece before that history, were written by Jonson, and are reprinted in his” Underwoods,“where the poem is called” The Mind of the frontispiece to a book;“but he names not this book.”

, or Josephus Iscanus, a writer of considerable taste and elegance, in an age generally reputed barbarous, was a native of Devonshire, and flourished in the close of the twelfth, and the commencement of the thirteenth centuries. He was an ecclesiastic, and patronized by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury. Some say that he was a priest of the cathedral of Exeter, from which he took his name. According to Camden, he accompanied Richard I. of England into the Holy Land, and was a great favourite with that prince. By archbishop Baldwin’s interest he was made archbishop of Bourdeaux, where he is supposed to have died in the reign of Henry III. and to have been buried in the cathedral of that city. He was author of two epic poems in Latin heroics. The first, in six books, is on the Trojan war the other is entitled “Antiochesis,” the war of Antioch, or the Crusade; of this last only a fragment remains, in which the heroes of Britain are celebrated. His style is not only for the most part pure, but rich and ornamented, and his versification approaches the best models of antiquity. His diction is compounded chiefly of Ovid, Statius, and Claudian, the favourite poets of the age, and wants only Virgilian chastity. “Italy,” says Warton in his History of English Poetry, “had at that time produced no poet comparable to him.” He was also author of love verses, epigrams, and miscellaneous poems. His “De Bello Trojano, lib. V.” was published at Basil, 1541, 8vo; Lond. 1675, 8vo Francfcnt, 1620, 4to, and ibid. 1623; Amst. 1702, 4to. All that remains of his “Antiochesis” is printed in Warton’s “Ftistory of English Poetry.” His love-verses, &c. are lost.

His “History of the Jewish War and the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in seven books, was composed at the command of Vespasian first in the Hebrew language, for the use of his own countrymen, and afterwards in the Greek. It is singularly interesting and affecting, as the historian was an eye-witness of all he relates. With the very strong colouring of an animated style and noble expression, he paints to the imagination, and affects the heart. National vanity and partiality, however, led him to imagine that all knowledge and wisdom had originated in Judea, and had flowed thence through all the nations of the earth; a notion which, says Brucker, gave rise to many errors and misrepresentations in his writings. The authenticity of the celebrated passage in Josephus, respecting our Saviour, is ably vindicated by our learned countryman Jacob Bryant, in his “Vindiciae Flavians.”

, a supposed heretic of the fourth century, was an Italian monk, and observed all the austerities of a monastic life for a time, and taught some points of doctrine directly opposite to the growing superstitions; for this he was expelled Rome, and fled to Milan, with an intent to engage Ambrose, bishop of that place, and the emperor Theodosius, who was then in that city, in his favour; but Syricius, then bishop of Rome, dispatched three presbyters to Milan, Crescentius, Leopardus, and Alexander, with letters to that church, which are still extant in Ambrose’s works, acquainting them with the proceedings of himself and his followers, in consequence of which he was rejected by Ambrose, and driven out of the town by the emperor. From Milan, Jovinian returned to the neighbourhood of Home, where his followers continued to assemble under his direction, till the year 398, when the emperor Honorius commanded him and his accomplices to be whipped and banished into different islands. Jovinian himself was confined to Boas, a small island on the coast of Dal matin, where he died about the year 406. Jovinian wrote several books, which were answered by Jerome in the year 392, but in such a manner as to render it difficult to know what were Jovinian’s errors, or what his general character, except that he was no friend to celibacy or fasting.

With these dispositions he came to the empire, and consequently with a determined purpose of subverting the Christian and restoring the pagan worship. His predecessors had left him the repeated experience of the inefficacy of downright force. The virtue of the past times then rendered this effort fruitless, the numbers of the present would have made it now dangerous: he found it necessary, therefore, to change his ground. His knowledge of human nature furnished him with arms; and his knowledge of the faith he had abandoned, enabled him to direct those arms to most advantage. He began with re-establishing paganism by law, and granting a full liberty of conscience to the Christians. On this principle, he restored those to their civil rights who had been banished on account of their religion, and even affected to reconcile to a mutual forbearance the various sects of Christianity. Yet he put on this mask of moderation for no other purpose than to inflame the dissensions in the church. He then fined and banished such of the more popular clergy as had abused their power, either in exciting the people to burn and destroy pagan temples, or to commit violence on an opposite sect: and it cannot be denied, but that in the turbulent and insolent manners of some of them, he found a plausible pretext for this severity. He proceeded to revoke and take away those immunities, honours, and revenues, which his uncle and cousin had granted to the clergy. Neither was his pretence for this altogether unreasonable. He judged the grants to be exorbitant; and, besides, as they were attendant on a national religion, when the establishment came to be transferred from Christianity to paganism, he concluded they must follow the religion of the state. But there was one immunity he took away, which no good policy, even under an establishment, should have granted them and this was an exemption from the civil tribunals. He went still farther he disqualified the Christian laity for bearing offices in the state and even this the security of the established religion may often require. But his most illiberal treatment of the Christians, was his forbidding, the professors of that religion to teach polite letters, and the sciences, in the public schools; and Amm. Marcellinus censures this part of his conduct as a breach in his general character of humanity, (lib. xx. c. 10.) His more immediate design, in this, was to hinder the youth from taking impressions to the disadvantage of paganism; his remoter view, to deprive Christianity of the support of human literature. Not content with this, he endeavoured even to destroy what was already written in defence of Christianity. With this view he wrote to the governor and treasurergeneral of Egypt, to send him the library of George bishop of Alexandria, who, for his cruelty and tyranny, had been ton) in pieces by the people: nay, to such a length did his aversion to the name of Christ carry him, as to decree, by a public edict, that his followers should be no longer called Christians, but Galileans; well knowing the efficacy of a nick-name to render a profession ridiculous. In the mean time, the animosities between the different sects of Christianity, furnished him with the means of carrying on these projects. Being, for example, well assured that the Arian church oi Edessa was very rich, he took advantage of their oppressing and persecuting the Valentinians to seize every tiling belonging to that church, and divided the plunder among his soldiers; scornfully telling the Edessians, he did this to ease them of their burthens, that they might proceed more lightly, and with less impediment, in their journey to heaven. He went farther still, if we may believe the historian Socrates, and, in order to raise money to defray the extraordinary expence of his Persian expedition, he imposed a tax or tribute on all who would not sacrifice to the pagan idols. The tax, it is true, was proportioned to every man’s circumstances, but was as truly an infringement upon his act of toleration. And though he forbore persecuting to death by law, which would have been a direct contradiction to that act, yet he connived at the fury of the people, and the brutality of the governors of provinces, who, during his short reign, brought many martyrs to the stake. He put such into governments, whose inhumanity and blind zeal for their country superstitions were most distinguished. And when the suffering churches presented their complaints to him, he dismissed them with cruel scoffs, telling them, their religion directed them to suffer without murmuring.

, another able French artist, and a member of the ancient academy of painting, was born in 1736, of poor parents at the village of Carigliano near Locarno in Swisserland, and was first a pupil of Bardon at Marseilles; and afterwards of Carlo Vanloo at Paris, where having gained the prize of the academy, he was sent to the French school at Rome under Natoire. The sight of the ancient and modern works of that city determined him to abandon the manner taught in France, and adopt that of the great masters of Italy. This procured him, among the wits, the name of Julien the apostate, to distingush him from others of the same name, and of the same school. His successes at Rome prolonged his stay there for ten years, after which he returned to Paris, and distinguished himself by various works of great merit. He painted for the hotel of the princess Kinski a St. Dominic, and several decorations for ceilings, mentioned in the “Reeueil des curiosites de Paris,” which attracted the attention of connoisseurs and strangers. Among the works which he exhibited to the academy, when nominated a member, was the “Triumph of Aurelian,” executed for the duke ^le Rochefoucault. In the saloon of St. Louis, he exhibited in 1788, his fine picture, “Study spreading her flowers over Time,” a work of admirable composition. This was sent into England, and engraved. Among other capital performances from his hand may be mentioned his Jupiter and Juno, and Aurora and Titan. His last important work was an altar-piece for the chapel of the archbishop of Paris at Conflans, representing St. Anthony in a trance. Notwithstanding his merit, we have to add that this artist died poor, in 1799.

, a native of Leipsic, was the first who published an ancient Greek translation of “Caesar’s Commentaries,” Francfort, 1606, 2 vols. 4to, a work much in request and gave a Latin version of the “Pastorals” of Longus, with notes, Han. 1605, 8vi. Some of his letters are also printed. He died August 16, 1610, at Hanau. Lewis Jungerman, his brother, born also at Leipsic, was an excellent botanist, and to him are attributed, “Hortus Eystettensis,” “Catalogus plantarum quae circa Altorfinuui nascuntur,” Altorf, 1646, 8vi; and “Cornucopias Floras Giessensis,” Giessae, 1623, 4to. He died June 7, 1653, at Altorf. Gaspard Jungerman, another brother, was also a man of learning.

Before the death of Edward, he returned to his own country, and led a sedentary life, closely pursuing his studies; but, upon the accession of queen Mary, he returned thither; and, being a very good poet, he published, in 1554, an epithalamium on the marriage of Philip II. with that queen, entitled “Philippis.” This address could not fail of introducing him in a favourable light to that court, whence he would probably have made a considerable fortune, had not the turbulent state of those times driven him home again. He confined himself some time in Hoorn, but, after a while, settled at Haeriem; and repaired the disappointment he sustained respecting his finances in England, by marrying a young woman of fortune, which he knew how to improve by making the most of his dedications to his books, of which he published three at Haarlem in 1556. Some years after, he accepted an offer from the king of Denmark, to be his physician, with a considerable salary, and removed to Copenhagen; but neither liking the climate nor genius of the inhabitants, he left the country about 1564, very abruptly, without taking leave of the king. Returning to Haerlem, he practised physic, and was made principal of the college, or great school, in that town. He continued there till the place was besieged by the Spaniards in 1573, when he found means to escape, by obtaining leave to attend the prince of Orange, who desired his assistance as a physician; but lost his library, in which he had left a great many works which had cost him much pains and labour; and the loss was aggravated by this circumstance, that they were almost fit for the press. In this exigency he went to Middleburgh, where the prince had procured him a public salary to practise physic; but the air of the country did not agree with his constitution, and he fell into some disorders, which, with the grief he felt for the loss of his library, put an end to his life in 1575. There was a design to have given him a professorship at Leyden, which university was but just rising when he died. He had a prodigious memory, which enabled him to treasure up a vast stock of learning. Besides his skill in physic, which was his profession, he was an historian, poet, philosopher, and understood perfectly eight languages. His works make up 24 articles, among which are, “Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” 1548; “Adagiorum ab Erasmo omissorum centuriae octo & dimidia,” 1558 which last was published after his death, as others of his pieces were.

, was a printer, and a son of a printer; but he applied himself to letter-cutting in 1730, and carried on a foundery and a printing-house together. He was an expeditious compositor, and was said to know the letters by the touch; but being not perfectly sound in mind, produced some strange works. In 1751 he published a pretended translation of “The Book of Jasher;” said to have been made by one Alcuin of Britain. The account given of the translation is full of glaring absurdities; but the publication, in fact, was secretly written by him, and printed off by night. He published, in 1733, an Oration, intended to prove the plurality of worlds, and asserting that this earth is hell, that the souls of men are apostate angels, and that the fire to punish those confined to this world at the day of judgment will be immaterial. This was written in 1729, and spoken afterwards at Joiners- hall, pursuant to the will of his mother, who had held the same extraordinary opinions. In this strange performance the author unveils his deistical principles, and takes no small liberty with the sacred Scriptures, especially the character of Moses. Emboldened by this first adventure, he determined to become the public teacher of infidelity, or, as he calls it, “The religion of nature.” For this purpose, he hired the use of Carpenters’-hall, where, for some considerable time, he delivered his orations, which consisted chiefly of scraps from Tindal, and other similar writers. In the course of the same year, 1733, appeared a second pamphlet called “A Dialogue between a Doctor of the Church of England and Mr. Jacob Hive, upon the subject of the oration.” This strange oration is highly praised in HolwelPs third part of “Interesting Events relating to Bengal.” For publishing “Modest Remarks on the late bishop Sherlock’s Sermons,” Hive was confined in Clerkenwell- bridewell from June 15, 1756, till June 10, 1758; during which period he published “Reasons offered for the Reformation of the House of Correction in Clerkenwell,” &c. 1757, and projected several other reforming treatises, enumerated in Gough’s “British Topography;” where is alsjo a memorandum, communicated by Mr. Bowyer, of Hive’s attempt to restore the company of Stationers to their primitive constitution. He died in 1763,

, an eminent physician and chemist, was born at Breda in 1730. In 1767 he came to England with a view of obtaining information on the Suttonian method of inoculation for the small-pox, and in the following year he went, on the recommendation of the late sir John Pringle, to Vienna, to inoculate the archduchess Theresa- Elizabeth, only daughter of Joseph II. and the archdukes Ferdinand and Maximilian, brothers of the emperor. For these services he obtained rewards and honours: he was made body-physician aJid counsellor of state to their imperial majesties, with a pension of 600l. per annum. In the following spring he went to Italy, and inoculated the grand duke of Tuscany. After this he returned to England, to which he was much attached, where he spent his time in scientific pursuits. He published a very valuable work, entitled “Experiments on Vegetables, discovering their great power of purifying the common air in sunshine, but injuring it in the shade or night.” This work was first published in 1779, and was translated into the French and German languages, and highly esteemed by all the experimental philosophers of that period. He ascertained, that not only from the green matter found on stagnant waters, but likewise from the leaves of vegetables, from the green branches and shoots, even from the entire vegetable, when placed under water and exposed to the solar light, oxygen gas, in a state generally of great purity, is evolved; and as the result of his numerous experiments he adopted the conclusion, that oxygen is elaborated in the leaves and other organs of vegetables, by a vital action excited and sustained by the solar light. The doctor, through the whole of life, was fond of exhibiting among his friends, particularly young persons, experiments of this kind, which required scarcely any apparatus, excepting a bell glass and a phial or two; and with the oxygen gas which he obtained from cabbage-leaves or other vegetables, he would exhibit the combustion of iron-wire, which is a striking and very brilliant experiment. Dr. Ingenhouz was author of many papers inserted in the Transactions of the Royal Society, of which body he was an active and useful member. Of these papers we may notice the following: Experiments on the Torpedo. Methods of measuring the diminution of bulk taking place on the mixture of nitrous with common air. Experiments on the Electrophorus. New Methods of suspending Magnetic Needles. Considerations on the influence of the Vegetable Kingdom on the Animal Creation. He died in 1799, highly esteemed for the simplicity of his manners, and for the discoveries which he had made in the several departments of experimental philosophy.

, mentioned in the preceding article, and we trust more unfortunate than accessary in the possession of the forged Mss. of Shakspeare, was originally a mechanic in Spitalfields, but taking advantage of the taste of the age for literary curiosities, commenced a speculator in scarce books, prints, and drawings. He had some skill in drawing and engraving, and endeavoured to turn it to account, by combining it with description, under the name of “Travels.” With this view he published in 1790, “A Picturesque tour through Holland, Brabant, and part of France, made in the autumn of 1789,” 2 vols. 8vo, illustrated with aqua-tinta and other prints. This succeeded well, although his descriptions were common-place, and his information seldom new. Encouraged, however, by the sale of the work, he produced in 1792, “Picturesque Views on the river Thames,” 2 vols. 8vo, and in 1793 “Picturesque Views on the river Medway,” in 1 vol. In 1794 he published his “Graphic Illustrations of Hogarth,” consisting of anecdotes of that eminent artist, and engraved Copies of many of his lesser and fugitive works, such as shop-cards, tickets, &c. In 1796, he was an accomplice in that fraud which eventually proved fatal to his character and comfort. This was the production of a large quantity of manuscripts, pretended to be in the hand-writing of Shakspeare and consisting of poems, letters, and one entire play. These were exhibited at his house in Norfolkstreet for the inspection of the public, and for some time divided their opinions. Connoisseurs, however, in ancient writings, and particularly in the genius and history of Shakspeare, soon detected the fraud, which, although it did for a time impose on some gentlemen in the literary world, was executed in the most slovenly and clumsy manner. A more full account of this imposition, and the controversies to which it gave rise, may be seen in our authorities: it is scarcely worth reviving in this work. After complete detection, it appeared that Mr. Ireland had been himself the dupe of a near and worthless relation; but his obstinacy in maintaining the authenticity of these papers long after he ought to have given them up, injured his character, and it is thought hastened his death, which took place in July 1800. We have to add to his works “Picturesque Views of the Severn and Warwickshire Avon,” and a “History of the Inns of Court,” the latter a posthumous work. The Mss. of Shakspeare were published under the title of “Miscellaneous papers and legal instruments, under the hand and seal of William Shakspeare, including the tragedy of King Lear, &c.” at the price of four guineas to subscribers. What was yet more absurd, a play pretended to be Shakspeare’s, entitled “Vortigern,” was actually performed on Drury-lane theatre, but hooted from the stage the first night.

, an English writer, and bishop of Peterborough, was the son of the rev. Basil Kennet, rector of Dunchurch, and vicar of Postling, near Hythe, in Kent, and was born at Dover, Aug. 10, 1660. He was called White, from his mother’s father, one Mr. Thomas White, a wealthy magistrate at Dover, who had formerly been a master shipwright there. When he was a little grown up, he was sent to Westminster-school, with a view of getting upon the foundation; but, being seized with the srnall-pox at the time of the election, it was thought advisable to take him away. In June 1678 he was entered of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford, where he was pupil to Mr. Allam, a very celebrated tutor, who took a particular pleasure in imposing exercises on him, which he would often read in the common room with great approbation. It was by Mr. Allam’s advice that he translated Erasmus on Folly, and some other pieces for the Oxford booksellers. Under this tutor he applied hard to study, and commenced an author in politics, even while he was an under-graduate; for, in 1680, he published “A Letter from a student at Oxford to a friend in the country, concerning the approaching parliament, in vindication of his majesty, the church of England, and tfye university:” with which the whig party, as it then began to be called, in the House of Commons, were so much offended, that inquiries were made after the author, in order to have him punished. In March 1681 he published, in the same spirit of party, “a Poem,” that is, “a Ballad,” addressed “to Mr. E. L. on his majesty’s dissolving the late parliament at Oxford,” which was printed on one side of a sheet of paper, and began, “An atheist now must a monster be,” &c. He took his bachelor’s degree in May 1683; and published, in 1684, a translation of Erasmus’s “Morise encomium,” which he entitled “Wit against Wisdom, or a Panegyric upon Folly,” which, as we have already noticed, his tutor had advised him to undertake. He proceeded M. A. Jan. 22, 1684; and, the same year, was presented by sir William Glynne, bart. to the vicarage of Amersden, or Ambroseden, in Oxfordshire; which favour was procured him by his patron’s eldest son, who was his contemporary in the halh To this patron he dedicated “Pliny’s Panegyric,” which he translated in 1686, and published with this title, “An address of thanks to a good prince, presented in the Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan, the best of the Roman emperors.” It was reprinted in 1717; before which time several reflections having been made on him for this performance, he gave the following account of it in a “Postscript” to the translation of his “Convocation Sermon,” in 1710. “The remarker says, the doctor dedicated Pliny’s Panegyric to the late king James: and, what if he did? Only it appears he did not. This is an idle tale among the party, who, perhaps, have told it till they believe it: when the truth is, there was no such dedication, and the translation itself of Pliny was not designed for any court address. The young translator’s tutor, Mr. Allam, directed his pupil, by way of exercise, to turn some Latin tracts into English. The first was a little book of Erasmus, entitled,” Moriae Encomiumu;“which the tutor was pleased to give to a bookseller in Oxford, who put it in the press while the translator was but an under-graduate. Another sort of task required by his tutor was this ‘ Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan,’ which he likewise gave to a bookseller in Oxford, before the translator was M. A. designing to have it published in the reign, of king Charles; and a small cut of that prince at full length was prepared, and afterwards put before several of the books, though the impression happened to be retarded till the death of king Charles; and then the same tutor, not long before his own death, advised a new preface, adapted to the then received opinion of king James’s being a just and good prince. However, there was no dedication to king James, but to a private patron, a worthy baronet, who came in heartily to the beginning of the late happy revolution. This is the whole truth of that story, that hath been so often cast at the doctor not that he thinks himself obliged to defend every thought and expression of his juvenile studies, when he had possibly been trained up to some notions, which he afterwards found reason to put away as childish things.”

His first separate publication appeared in 1767, under the title of “An Essay on the English Government;” and his second, after a long interval, in 1780, without his name, “Hymns to the Supreme Being, in imitation of the Eastern Songs.” Of this pleasing publication two editions were printed. In 1784 he circulated, also without his name, “Proposals for establishing, at sea, a Marine School, or seminary for seamen, as a means of improving the plan of the Marine Society,” &c. His object was to fit up a man of war as a marine school. In 1788 he published a large 4to volume, entitled “Morsels of Criticism, tending to illustrate some few passages in the Holy Scriptures upon philosophical principles and an enlarged view of things.” The fate of this work was somewhat singular. The author received sixty copies for presents; and the greater part of the remaining impression, being little called for, was converted into waste paper. Some time after, however, the notice taken of it in that popular poem, “The Pursuits of Literature,” brought it again into notice; a second edition appeared in 8vo, and a second volume of the 4to in 1801. This works abounds in singular opinions: among others, the author attempts to prove that John the Baptist was an angel from heaven, and the same who formerly appeared in the person of Elijah: that there will be a second appearance of Christ upon earth (something like this, however, is held by other writers): that this globe is a kind of comet, which is continually tending towards the sun, and will at length approach so near as to be ignited by the solar rays upon the elementary fluid of fire: and that the place of punishment allotted for wicked men is the centre of the earth, which is the bottomless pit, &c, &c. It is unnecessary to add, that these reveries did not procure Mr. King much reputation as a philosophical commentator on the Scriptures. His next publications indicated the variety of his meditations and pursuits. In 1793 he produced “An Imitation of the Prayer of Abel,” and “Considerations on the Utility of the National Debt.” In 1796 he amused himself and the public with “Remarks concerning Stones said to have fallen from the Clouds, both in these days and in ancient times;” the foundation of which was the surprizing shower of stones said, on the testimony of several persons, to have fallen in Tuscany, June 16, 1796, and investigated in an extraordinary and full detail by the abbate Soldani, professor of mathematics in the university of Sienna. This subject has since employed other pens, but no decisive conclusions have been agreed upon. Mr. King’s next publication, however, belonged to the province in which he was best able to put forth his powers of research “Vestiges of Oxford Castle or, a small fragment of a work intended to be published speedily, on the history of ancient castles, and on the progress of architecture,” 1796, a thin folio. This interesting memoir was accordingly followed by a large history of ancient castles, entitled “Munimenta Antiqua,” of which 3 vols. folio have appeared, and part of a fourth. These volumes, although he maintains some theories which are not much approved, undoubtedly entitle him to the reputation of a learned, able, and industrious antiquary. It was his misfortune, however, to be perpetually deviating into speculations which he was less qualified to establish, yet adhered to them with a pertinacity which involved him in angry controversies. In 1798 he published a pamphlet called “Remarks on the Signs of the Times;” about which other ingenious men were at that time inquiring, and very desirous to trace the history and progress of the French Revolution and war to the records of sacred antiquity; but Mr. King ventured here to assert the genuineness of the second book of Esdras in the Apocrypha. Mr. Gough criticised this work with much freedom and justice in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and Mr. King thought himself insulted. On his adding “A Supplement to his Remarks” in 1799, he met with a more powerful antagonist in bishop Horsley, who published “Critical Disquisitions on Isaiah xviii, in a Letter to Mr. King.” While preparing a fourth volume of his “Mummenta,” Mr. King died, April 16, 1807, and wa buried in the church -yard at Beckenham, where his country-seat was. Mr. King was a man of extensive reading, and considerable learning, and prided himself particularly on intense thinking, which, however, was not always under the regulation of judgment.

In the progress of the controversy, Dr. King published his “Dialogues of the Dead,” written (as he says) “in self-defence,” and replete with that species of banter which was his peculiar talent, and which must have greatly mortified his adversary. How much Dr. King had this controversy at heart, may be seen by the various memoranda concerning it which are scattered up and down in his works. At the end of 1698, or early in 1699, came out “A Journey to London in the year 1698, after the ingenious method of that made by Dr. Martin Lister the same year;” which he designed as a vindication of his country. This was an excellent specimen of that particular humour in which he excelled. Dr. King thought it better than any of his former works, as he frequently wrote afterwards under the name of “The Author of the Journey to London.”

On the dedication of Radcliffe’s library, 1749, he spoke a Latin oration in the theatre at Oxford, which was received with the highest acclamations by a splendid auditory. Mr. Warton, in “The Triumphs of Isis,” pays him a very great compliment on that occasion. But this oration, which was soon after printed, did not meet with such favourable reception from the public; for he was attacked in several pamphlets on account of it, in which he was charged with writing barbarous Latin, with being disaffected to the government, and that he instigated the younger members of the university to sedition and licentiousness; very heavy accusations, if we may not candidly suppose them dictated by the spirit of malevolence and party zeal. And again, in 1755, when the memorable election contest happened in Oxfordshire, his attachment to the old interest drew -on him the resentment of the new. He was libelled in newspapers and in pamphlets, and charged with the following particulars, viz. that he was an Irishman; that he had received subscriptions for books never published to the amount of 1500l. of which sum he had defrauded his subscribers; that he had offered himself to sale both in England and Ireland, and was not found worth the purchase that he was the writer of “The London Evening Post” the author of a book in queen Anne’s reign, entitled “Political Considerations,” 1710, in which there was false English; and of a book then just published, called, “The Dreamer,” 1754, 8vo. At this time he published his “Apology” in 4to, and plausibly vindicated himself from the several matters charged on him, except only the last article, of his being the author of “The Dreamer;” and warmly retaliated on his adversaries.

Dr. Knight, whose attention appears to have been much directed to literary and ecclesiastical history, was an useful assistant to many authors of his time, and his assistance was acknowledged by Peck, Grey, Ward, and others. He had made collections for the lives of bishops Grosseteste, Overal, and Patrick. Whiston had the latter, which is probably in the hands of his grandson, Samuel Knight, esq. His own publications were the “Life of Erasmus,” 1724, 8vo, and of “Dean Colet,” 1726, 8vo. Neither of these are written with much animation or elegance, but they contain many curious and useful materials, and are now sold at very high prices, especially the Erasmus, on account of the numerous and well-engraven portraits and plates.

, an ecclesiastic and antiquary, was born in Worcestershire towards the latter end of the fifteenth century. When he was about fifteen years of age, he was received into the monastery of Benedictine monks at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire; whence, being professed one of that order, he was sent to Gloucester-hall, Oxford, which was then a school for young Benedictines. After studying there four years, he was recalled to his monastery, and made principal chapjain; and his good conduct procured him to be chosen abbot in 1487. He had considerable reputation as a scholar and a promoter of learning; and was an exact observer and reformer of the discipline of his house. In one of his visits to Oxford, which were frequent, he took the degree of D. D. in 1500. He also visited Rome on some affairs belonging to his order, and on his return acquired much reputation as a preacher in the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. In 1515, when there was a great debate between the clergy and the laity concerning exceptions; some asserting that what is called the “benefit of clergy,” should not be extended but to the higher orders, our abbot contended that the minor or inferior orders should also be included. He died in 1531, leaving “Tractatus contra doctrinam Lutheri,” 1521, one of the first attacks on that reformer’s doctrines from this country. But he was more known for his history of the foundation of Winchcombe monastery a list of its abbots and its charters and privileges manuscripts which have been partly lost.

, an English poet, son of sir Edward Kynaston, knt. was of an ancient family, whose seat was at Otely in Shropshire, where, probably, he was born in 1587. In 1601 he entered as a gentleman- commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, being then, as Wood says, “more addicted to the superficial parts of learning, poetry and oratory (wherein he excelled), than logic and philosophy.” He afterwards, however, went to Cambridge, and after taking his master’s degree, returned in 1611 to Oxford, and was admitted ad eundem. He then became a courtier, admired for his talents, and had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, and was afterwards made esquire of the body to Charles I. He was the first regent of a literary institution called the Musaum Minerv& 9 of which he drew up and published “The Constitutions,” Lond. 4to, 1636. It was an academy instituted in the eleventh year of the reign of Charles I. and established at a house in Coventgarden, purchased by Sir Francis, and furnished by him with books, Mss. paintings, statues, musical and mathematical instruments, &c. and every requisite for polite and liberal education: but the nobility and gentry only were admissible. Sir Francis was chosen regent, and professors were appointed to teach the various arts and sciences. It probably, owing to the rebellion, did not survive its founder, who died about 1642. He translated Chaucer’s 46 Troilus and Cresseide“into Latin, published at Oxford, 1635, 4to; but is better known to the lovers of our early poetry by his” Leoline and Sydanis,“with” Cinthiades,“1641, of which Mr. Ellis has given some beautiful specimens, and the story is analized by Mr. Gilchrist, with additional extracts, in the” Censtira."

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

, a very celebrated French astronomer, was born at Bourg, in the department of l'Ain, July 11, 1732. His father, who was possessed of property, intended him for the bar, and sent him to Paris to study the law, to which, for some time, he applied with so much assiduity, as to answer the most sanguine expectations of his friends, when the sight of an observatory awakened in him a propensity, which deranged the projects of his parents, and became the ruling passion of his life. He put himself under the instructions of Le Monnier, one of the then most celebrated astronomers of France, and profited so much by the lessons of his able instructor, as to afford him the highest degree of satisfaction, who, on his part, conceived for the young man a truly paternal affection, and was determined to promote his interests. An opportunity soon offered; the great astronomer Lecaille was preparing to set out for the Cape of Good Hope, in order to determine the parallax of the moon, and its distance from the earth. To accomplish this purpose, it was necessary he should be seconded by an observer placed under the same meridian, and at the greatest distance that could be conveniently chosen on the globe. Berlin was fixed on, and Le Monnier signified his intention of undertaking the business himself, but the mo.­ment when he appeared ready to depart, he had the credit to get his pupil appointed in his stead. Frederic, to whom Maupertuis had explained the delicacy and difficulty of the enterprize, could not forbear shewing some astonishment when the youthful astronomer was presented to him; “However,” said he, “the Academy of Sciences has appointed you, and you will justify their choice.” From that moment his age, being only eighteen, was an additional recommendation; he was admitted at court, welcomed by the academy, and became intimate with the most distinguished persons at Berlin. On his return, the account which he gave of his mission procured him free access to the Academy of Sciences, and its transactions were enriched every year by important communications from the young astronomer. The active part which he took in the labours of the academy, was not confined to the astronomical science: we have from his pen, a description of seven arts, as different from each other, as they are remote from the objects of his habitual meditations. He published the French edition of Dr. Halley’s tables, and the history of the comet of 1759, and he furnished Clairault with immense calculations for the theory of that famous comet. Being charged in 1760 with the compilation of the “Connoissance des Temps,” he entirely changed the form of that work, and of this collection he published thirty-two volumes, viz. from 1775 to 1807.

, was an English artist, who obtained celebrity upon the revival of painting in this coontry. His taste led him to admire and to imitate the style of Caspar Poussin in landscape and he has produced several works of considerable merit; which, if theyhave not the brilliancy and force of Gaspar, are rich, and abound with beauties of a gentler kind. He also painted scenes from common nature; and at the Foundling hospital may be seen one he presented to that institution, which is deserving of very great praise. He was engaged to paint scenes for the play-houses, for which his pencil was peculiarly qualified, and, in concert with Scott, painted sir large pictures of their settlements for the East India Company, which are placed at their house in Leadenhall-street. He died in 1765. Mr. Edwards gives some anecdotes of this artist; and, among others, relates that he was the founder of the celebrated “Beef-steak-club” in Coventgarden.

, an Italian ecclesiastic, and able philologist, was born at Santa-croce, between Pisa and Florence, Feb. 6, 1697. His father, Benedict Lami, a learned physician, died when he was an infant, but this loss was in a great measure supplied by the care which his mother took of his education. After learning with great facility the elements of Greek, Latin, history, and geography, he was placed at the college of Prato, where he studied so hard as to injure his health. Having recovered this in some degree, he pursued his studies at Pisa, and with such success that in 1718 he was unanimously appointed vice-rector. He was afterwards appointed chaplain to the grand duke of Tuscany, professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Florence, and keeper of the Ricardi library. He died at Florence, Feb. 6, 1770. He was not more remarkable for learning than for wit. One day at Florence, shewing some Swedish gentlemen the ancient palace of the dukes of Medicis, “There,” said he, “behold the cradle of literature” then, turning to the college of the Jesuits, “and there behold its tomb.” The Jesuits he neither loved nor flattered, and was often engaged in controversies with them. His principal works are, 1. “De recta patrum Nicenorum fide Dissertatio,” Venice, 1730, reprinted with additions at Florence, 1770, 4to. 2. “De recta Christianorum in eo quod mysterium divinse Trinitatis adtinet sententia libri sex,” Florence, 1733, 4to. 3. “De eruditione Ap<~,stolorum liber singularis,” Florence, 173$. A very much enlarged edition of this curious work on the antiquities of the primitive church, was printed in 1766, 4to. 4. “Deliciae eruditorum, seu veterum anecdoton opusculorum collectanea,” Florence, a miscellany published from 1736 to 1769, forming 18 vols. 8vo, in which are many essays from his own pen. 5. “Meursii opera,” Florence, 12 vols. folio. 6. An edition of “Anacreon,” Florence, 1742, 12mo. f. “Memorabilia Italorum eruditione praestantium, quibus vertens sseculum gloriatur,” ibid. 1742, 1748, 2 vols. 8. “Dialogi d'Aniceto Nemesio,” 1742: this was written in defence of his work on the antiquities of the primitive church, in which some of his opponents discovered a tendency towards Socinianism. 9. “Sanctae ecclesiae Florentine monumenta,” Florence, 1758, 3 vols. fol. 10. “Lezioni d'antichita Toscane, e speciaimente dellacittadi Firenze,” ibid. 1766, 2 vols. 4to.

Professor Lampe was a man of great learning in ecclesiastical history and antiquities, and published various works which procured him a high reputation among his contemporaries. Thirty-one articles are enumerated by Burman, which were published some in Latin and some in German. His first publication was “De Cymbalis veterum libri tres,” Utrecht, 1703, 12mo, a work, says Dr. Burne}', of great learning and research, and containing much precious information for a classical antiquary. Another of his works was an excellent compendium of church history, entitled “Synopsis historiae sacrx et ecclesiasticse, ab origine mundi ad prcesentia tempora, secundum seriem periodorum deductae,” Utrecht, 1721, 12mo, of which a third edition appeared in 1735. This book is not uncommon in this country, and was used by Dr. Doddridge as the ground work of his course of lectures on ecclesiastical history, and its a text book for his students. His other works consist of sermons, and commentaries on various parts of holy writ, the most considerable of which is his commentary on the gospel of St. John, “Commentarius Analytico-exegeticus evangelii secundum Joannem,” Amst. 1724, and 1725, 3 vols. 4to. Fabricius pronounces this a very learned work. It was afterwards translated into German. As professor Lampe obtained very early reputation for learning, Klefeker has given him a place in his “Bibliotheca eruditorum praecocium.”

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

, an eminent French scholar and translator, was born at Dijon, Oct. 12, 1726, of ancestors who were mostly lawyers, connected with some of the first names in the parliament of Burgundy, and related to the family of Bossuet. His father was a counsellor in the office of finance, who- died while his son was an infant, leaving him to the care of his mother. It was her intention to bring him up with a view to the magistracy, but young Larcher was too much enamoured of polite literature to accede to this plan. Having therefore finished his studies among the Jesuits at Pont-a-Mousson, he went to Paris and entered himself of the college of Laon, where he knew he should be at liberty to pursue his own method of study. He was then about eighteen years of age. His mother allowed him only 500 livres a year, yet with that scanty allowance he contrived to buy books, and when it was increased to 700, he fancied himself independent. He gave an early proof of his love and care for valuable books, when at the royal college. While studying Greek under John Capperonnier, he became quite indignant at having every day placed in his hands, at the risk of spoiling it, a fine copy of Duker’s Thucydides, on large paper. He had, indeed, from his infancy, the genuine spirit of a collector^ which became an unconquerable passion in his more mature years. A few months before his death he refused to purchase the new editions of Photius and Zonaras, because he was too old, as he said, to make use of them, but at the same time he could not resist giving an enormous price for what seemed of less utility, the princeps editio of Pliny the naturalist. It is probable that during his first years at Paris, he had made a considerable collection of books, for, when at that time he intended, unknown to his family, to visit England for the purpose of forming an acquaintance with the literati there, and of learning English, to which he was remarkably partial, he sold his books to defray theexpence of his journey. In this elopement, for such it was, he was assisted by father Patouillet, who undertook to receive and forward his letters to his mother, which he was to date from Paris, and make her and his friends believe that he was still at the college of Laon.

, 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.

Among those in Cambridge who favoured the reformation, the most considerable was Thomas Bilncy, a clergyman of a most holy life, who began to see popery in a very disagreeable light, and made no scruple to own it. Biiney was an intimate, and conceived a very favourable opinion, of Latimer; and, as opportunities offered, used to suggest to him many things about corruptions in religion, till be gradually divested him of his prejudices, brought him to think with moderation, and even to distrust what he had so earnestly embraced. Latimer no sooner ceased from being a zealous papist, than he became (such was his constitutional warmth) a zealous protesiunt; active in supporting the reformed doctrine, and assiduous to make converts both in town and university. He preached in public, exhorted in private, and everywhere pressed the necessity of a holy life, in opposition to ritual observances. A behaviour of this kind was immediately taken notice of: Cambridge, no less than the rest of the kingdom, was entirely popish, and every new opinion was watched with jealousy. Latimer soon perceived bow obnoxious he had made himself; and the first remarkable opposition he met with from the popish party, was occasioned by a course of sermons he preached, during the Christmas holidays, before the university; in which he spoke his sentiments with great freedom upon many opinions and usages maintained and practised in the Romish church, and particularly insisted upon the great abuse of locking up the Scriptures in an unknown tongue. Few of the tenets of popery were then questioned in England, but such as tended to a relaxation of morals; transubstantiation, and other points rather speculative, still held their dominion; Lattmer therefore chiefly dwelt upon those of immoral tendency. He shewed what true religion was, that it was seated in the heart; and that, in comparison with it, external appointments were of no value. Having a remarkable address in adapting himself to the capacities of the people, and being considered as a preacher of eminence, the orthodox clergy thought it high time to oppose him openly. This task was undertaken by Dr. Buckingham, prior of the Black-friars, who appeared in the pulpit a few Sundays after; and, with great pomp and prolixity, shewed the dangerous tendency of Latimer' s opinions; particularly inveighing against his heretical notions of having the Scriptures in English, laying open the bad effects of such an innovation. “If that heresy,” said he, “prevail, we should soon see an end of every thing useful among us. The ploughman, reading that if he put his hand to the plough, and should happen to look back, he was unfit for the kingdom of heaven, would soon lay aside his labour; the baker likewise reading, that a little leaven will corrupt his lump, would give us a very insipid bread; the simple man also finding himself commanded to pluck out his eyes, in a few years we should have the nation full of blind heg jars.” Latimer could not help listening with a secret pleasure to this ingenious reasoning; perhaps he had acted as prudently, if he had considered the prior’s arguments as unanswerable; but he could not resist the vivacity of his temper, which strongly inclined him to expose this solemn trirler. The whole university met together on MI ml ay, wnen it was known Mr. Latimer would preach. That vein of pleasantry and humour which run through all hiswords and notions, would here, it was imagined, have its full scope; and, to say the truth, the preacher was not a little conscious of his own superiority: to complete the scene, just before the sermon began, prior Buckingham himself entered the church with his cowl about his shoulders, and seated himself, with an air of importance, before the pulpit. Latimer, with great gravity, recapitulated the learned doctor’s arguments, placed them in the strongest light, and then rallied them with such a flow of wit, and at the same timt with so much good humour, that, without the appearance of ill-nature, he made his adversary in the highest degree ridiculous. He then, with great address, appealed to the people; descanted upon the low esteem in which their guides had always held their understandings; expressed the utmost offence at their being treated with such contempt, and wished his honest countrymen might only have the use of the Scripture till they shewed themselves such absurd interpreters. He concluded his discourse with a few observations upon scripture metaphors. A figurative manner of speech, he said, was common in all languages: representations of this kind were in daily use, and generally understood. Thus, for instance, continued he (addressing himself to that part of the audience where the prior was seated), when we see a fox painted preaching in a friar’s hood, nobody imagines that a fox is meant, but that craft aud hypocrisy are described, which are so often found disguised in that garb. But it is probable that Latimer thought this levity unbecoming; for when one Venetus, a foreigner, not long after, attacked him again upon the same subject, and in a manner the most scurrilous and provoking, we find him using a graver strain. Whether he ridiculed, however, or reasoned, with so much of the spirit of true oratory, considering the times, were his harangues animated, that they seldom failed of their intended effect; his raillery shut up the prior within his monastery; and his arguments drove Venctus from the university.

These advantages increased the credit of the protestant party in Cambridge, of which Bilney and Latimer were the leaders; and great was the alarm of the popish clergy, of which some were the heads of colleges, and senior part of the university. Frequent convocations were held, tutors were admonished to have a strict eye over their pupils, and academical censures of all kinds were inflicted. But academical censures were found insufficient. Latimer continued to preach, and heresy to spread. The heads of the popish party applied to the bishop of Ely, Dr. West, as their diocesan; but that prelate was not a man for their purpose; he was a papist indeed, but moderate, tie, however, came to Cambridge, examined the state of religion, and, at their intreaty, preached against the heretics; but he would do nothing farther; only indeed he silenced Mr. Latimer, which, as he had preached himself, was an instance of his prudence. But this gave no check to the reformers; for there happened at this time to be a protestant prior in Cambridge, Dr. Barnes, of the Austinfriars, who, having a monastery exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and being a great admirer of Latimer, boldly licensed him to preach there. Hither his party followed him; and, the late opposition having greatly excited the curiosity of the people, the friars’ chapel was soon incapable of containing the crowds that attended. Among others, it is remarkable, that the bishop of Ely was often one of his hearers, and had the ingenuousness to declare, that Latimer was one of the best preachers he had ever heard. The credit to his cause which Latimer had thus gained in the pulpit, he maintained by the piety of his life. Bilney and he did not satisfy themselves with acting unexceptionably, but were daily giving instances of goodness, which malice could not scandalize, nor envy misrepresent. They were always together concerting their schemes. The place where they used to walk, was long afterwards known by the name of the Heretics’ Hill. Cambridge at that time was full of their good actions; their charities to the poor, and friendly visits to the sick and unhappy, were then common topics. But these served only to increase the heat of persecution from their adversaries. Impotent themselves, and finding their diocesan either unable or unwilling to work their purposes, they determined upon an appeal to the higher powers; and heavy complaints were carried to court of the increase of heresy, not without formal depositions against the principal abettors of it.

One of his first acts, after his advancement to the archbishopric, was an injunction, October 18, pursuant to the king’s letter, that no clergyman should be ordained priest without a title. At the same time came out the king’s declaration about lawful sports on Sundays, which Laud was charged with having revived and enlarged; and that, with the vexatious persecutions of such clergymen as refused to read it in their churches, brought a great odium upon him. It was in vain that he pleaded precedents in foreign churches; and perhaps no act of this unhappy reign gave a more violent shock to the loyalty of the people, which Laud, unfortunately, seldom consulted. Soon after he yet farther interfered with popular prejudices." During a metropoliticul visitation, by his vicar-general, among other regulations, the church-wardens in every parish were enjoined to remove the communion-table from the middle to the east end of the chancel, altar-wise, the ground being raised for that purpose, and to fence it in with decent rails, to avoid profaneness; and the refusers were prosecuted in the high-commission or star-chamber courts. In this visitation, the Dutch and Walloon congregations were summoned to appear; and such as were born in England enjoined to repair to the several parish-churches where they inhabited, to hear divine service and sermons, and perform all duties and payments required on that behalf; and those of them, ministers and others, that were aliens born, to use the English liturgy translated into French or Dutch; but many of these, rather than comply, chose to leave the kingdom, to the great detriment of our manufactures.

On Oct. 24, an order was brought to the archbishop, from the Lords, with ten additional articles of impeachment from the Commons, adding to the charge of treason “other high crimes and misdemeanours.” He petitioned for his. papers, but the committee of sequestrations would not grant them, nor permit any copies but at his own expence; and as to any allowance for the charges of his trial, it was insultingly said by Mr.Glyn, “that he might plead in forma pauperis.” At length Mr. Dell, his secretary, was appointed his solicitor, and Mr. Herne, of Lincoln’s-inn, his counsel; and two more servants were sent to him, for his assistance. After nearly three years’ imprisonment, on Nov. 13 the archbishop was brought to the bar of the House of Lords, and put in his answer in writing, in this form, “all advantages of law against this impeachment saved and reserved to this defendant, he pleads, not guilty, to all and every part of the impeachment, in manner and form as it is changed in the articles;” and to this answer he then set his hand. He then petitioned that his counsel might be heard, and might advise him, both with regard to law and fact; which was allowed in things not charged as treason. On Jan. 8, there was an order for the archbishop’s appearance; but, at his request, it was postponed to the 16th; when the committee began with the former general articles, to which the archbishop had put in no answer, nor even joined issue: therefore he was peremptorily commanded to put in his answer both to the original and additional articles, in writing; which he did, pleading, in general, not guilty.

, or Launoius, a very learned man and voluminous writer, was born about 1601, and took a doctor of divinity’s degree in 1636. He made a journey to Rome, for the sake of enlarging his ideas and knowledge; and there procured the esteem and friendship of Leo Allatius and Holsten. Upon his return to Paris, he shut himself up, entering upon an extensive course of reading, and making collections upon all subjects. He held at his house every Monday a meeting where the learned conversed on many topics, but particularly on the discipline of the church, and the rights of the Gallican church; and they cordially agreed in condemning such legends as the apostolate of St. Dionysius the Areopagite into France, the voyage of Lazarus and Mary Magdalen into Provence, and a multitude of other traditions. Launoi was such an enemy to legendary saints, that Voltaire records a curate of St. Eustachius, as saying, “I always make the most profound obeisance to Mr. Launoi, for fear he should take from me my St. Eustachius.” He died at cardinal d‘Estr^es’s hotel, March 10, 1678, aged 75, and was buried at the convent of the Minimes de la Place Ro’iale, to whom he left two hundred crowns in gold, all the rituals which he had collected, and half his books; bequeathing the remainder to the seminary at Laon. Few men were so industrious and so disinterested, as M. de Launoi, who persisted in refusing all the benefices which were offered him, and lived in a plain, frugal manner, contented with his books and his private fortune, though the latter was but moderate. He was an enemy to vice and ambition, charitable, benevolent, a kind friend, ever consistent in his conduct, and submitted to be excluded from the faculty of theology at Paris, rather than sign the censure of M. Arnauld, though he differed in opinion from that celebrated doctor on the subject of Grace.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born at Auxerre in 1687, and became a member of the academy of belles lettres and inscriptions of Paris in 1750. He died in 1760, aged 73. Among his productions are, 1. “Recueil de divers Merits servant a Pe‘claircissement de l’histoire fie France,” 1738, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Dissertations sur l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Paris;” to which are added several matters that elucidate the history of France; 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “Traité historique et pratique sur le chant ecciesiastique,” 1741, 8vo. This was dedicated to Vintimille, archbishop of Paris, who had employed him in composing a chant for his new breviary and missal. 4. “M6moires sur l‘Histoire d’Anxerre,” 1743, 2 vols. 4to. 5. “Histoire de la ville et de tout le diocese de Paris,” 15 vols. 12mo. 6. Several dissertations dispersed in the journals, and in the memoirs of the academy of which he was member. The learned are indebted to him likewise for the discovery of a number of original pieces, which he found in various libraries, where they had long remained unknown. He was a man of extensive learning and laborious research; and undertook several journeys through the different provinces of France for the purpose of investigating the remains of antiquity. In such matters he was an enthusiast, and so engaged in them, as to know very little of the world, being content with the very small competency on which he lived.

In this spirited conduct Leslie acted like a sound divine and an upright magistrate; but, while he thought himself authorized to resist the illegal mandates of his sovereign, be never approved of carrying these principles of resistance so far as to deprive the king of the supreme power; and persevering steadily in that opinion, he continued, after the revolution, in allegiance to king James. In consequence, refusingto take the new oaths appointed upon that change, he lost all his preferments and in 1689, when the troubles began to arise in Ireland, withdrew, with his family, into England. Here he employed his time in writing a great many political pieces in support of the cause he had embraced; and being confessedly a person of extraordinary wit and learning, he became a very formidable champion of the nonjurors. His first piece in this cause was an answer to Abp. King’s “State of the Protestants in Ireland, under the late King James’s Government,” in which he shewed himself as averse from the principles and practices of the Irish and other Papists, as he was from those of the author whom he refuted. Neither did his sufferings make him forget his duty to the church of England; in defence of which he shewed himself a strenuous champion against the quakers, many of whom were converted by him. But, as these converts were desirous of returning to presbytery, whence they had last sprung, he was obliged to treat the subject of church government in defence of episcopacy. He likewise employed his pen in the general cause of the Christian religion, against Jews, Deists, and Socinians. In the mean time, however, these writings, and his frequent visits to the courts of St. Germain’s and Bar le Due, rendered him obnoxious to the government; but he became more so upon the publication of the “Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted;” of which he was the reputed author. Finding himself, on this account, under a necessity of leaving the kingdom, he repaired to the Pretender at Bar le Due; where he was allowed to officiate, in a private chapel, after the rites of the Church of England; and it is said he took much pains to convert the Pretender to the Protestant religion, but in vain . However, to promote the said Pretender’s interest, when some hopes of his restoration were entertained by his party in England, he wrote a letter from Bar le Due, dated April 23, 1714, which was printed and dispersed among his adherents, in which, after giving a flattering description of the Pretender’s person and character, his graceful mien, magnanimity of spirit, devotion free from bigotry, application to business, ready apprehension, sound judgment, and affability, so that none conversed with him without being charmed with his good sense and temper; he concludes with a proposal, “on condition of his being restored to his crown, that, for the security of the church of England as by law established, he would so far wave his prerogative, in the nomination of bishops, deans, and all other ecclesiastical preferments in the gift of the crown, that five bishops should be appointed, of which the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being always to be one, who, upon any vacancy, might name three persons to him, from whom he would chuse.” Many other proposals of the like nature were made soon after, and several projects were concerted not only in England, but an actual insurrection begun in Scotland by his party, in 1715, all which ended in the crushing and dispersing of the rebels, and in the Pretender’s being obliged to leave the French dominions.

“But farther, Burnet bishop of Sarum was an excellent scholar, and well-readj as every one knows, in the works of foreign divines. Is it conceivable, that this prelate, when smarting under the lash of Leslie, would have let slip so good an opportunity of covering with disgrace his most formidable antagonist, had he known that antagonist to be guilty of plagiarism from the writings of the abbé St. Réal? Let it be granted, however, that Burnet was a stranger to these writings and to this plagiarism; it can hardly be supposed that Le Clerc was a stranger to them likewise. Yet this author, when, for reasons best known to himself, he chose (1706) to depreciate the argument of the” Short Method,“and to traduce its author as ignorant of ancient history, and as having brought forward his four marks for no other purpose than to put the deceitful traditions of popery on the same footing with the most authentic doctrines of the gospel, does not so much as insinuate that he borrowed these marks from a popish abbe, though such a charge, could he have established it, would have served his purpose more than all his rude railings and invective. But there was no room for such a charge. In the second volume of the works of St. Real, published in 1757, there is indeed a tract entitled” Methode courte et aisee pour combattre les Deistes,“and there can be little doubt but that the publisher wished it to be considered as the work of his countryman. Unfortunately, however, for his design, a catalogue of the abbe’s works is given in the first volume; and in that catalogue the * Methode courte et aisee' is not mentioned.”

, gentleman-commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, was the second son of John Lethieullier, esq. of Aldersbrook, in Essex, where he had a noble collection of Mss. choice books, medals, and na-, tural curiosities, which he had collected in his travels through France, Italy, and Germany. His father dying Jan. 1, 1736-7, and his elder brother being dead before, he became heir to the paternal estates, which were very considerable. He was elected F. S. A. in July 1724. He married, Feb. 6, 1725-6, Margaret, daughter of William Sloper, esq. of Woodhay, in Berkshire; but died Aug. 27, 1760, aged fifty-nine, without issue. He was succeeded in his estates, to which he had added the manor of Birch- hall in They don Bois, by Mary, only daughter of his next brother Charles Lethieullier, LL.D. fellow of All Souls college, F. A. S. and counsellor at law, who died the year before him. He was an excellent scholar, a polite gentleman, and universally esteemed by all the learned men of his time. Some papers of his are printed in Phil. Trans. No. 497, and Archseologia, I. p. 26, 57, 73, 75; II. 291. His library was sold by auction, 1760. The following eloge was written by the late Mr. Collinson immediately after the death of Mr. Lethieullier: “He was descended from an ancient family from France in time of persecution, and a gentleman every way eminent for his excellent endowments. His desire to improve in the civil and natural history of his country led him to visit all parts of it; the itineraries in his library, and the discoveries he made relating to its antiquities, with drawings of every thing remarkable, are evidences of his great application to rescue so many ancient remains from mouldering into oblivion. His happy turn of mind was not confined solely to antiquities, but in these journeys he was indefatigable in collecting all the variety of English fossils, with a view to investigate their origin: this great collection, which excels most others, is deposited in two large cabinets, disposed under their proper classes. The most rare are elegantly drawn, and described in a folio book, with his observations on them. As the variety of ancient marbles had engaged his attention, and he found so little said of them with respect to their natural history, it was one of his motives, iti visiting Italy, to furnish himself with such materials as he was able to procure from books, and learned men, relating to them. He collected specimens of the most curious, and had drawings, finely painted, of the most remarkable monuments of the ancient marbles; they are bound up in a folio volume, with all the observations he could gather relating to their natural history and antiquity. His cabinet of medals, his collection of antiquities of various kinds, and most elegant books of the finest engravings, are ‘instances of the fine taste with which he has enriched his library and cabinet with the spoils of Italy. This short but imperfect memoir is candidly offered as a tribute due to a Jong friendship. It is wished it may excite an abler pen ’to do more justice to the memory of this great and good man. But it is humbly hoped that these hints will be accepted not only as a testimony of respect, but may also inform an inquisitive genius in these branches of science where he may be assisted with such valuable materials for the prosecution of his future studies.”

, a voluminous writer of history, was born at Milan, May 29, 1630, of a family once of considerable distinction at Bologna. He was intended for the church, but was induced to make open profession of the protestant religion at Lausanne in 1657. This so pleased Guerin, an eminent physician, with whom he lodged, that he gave him his daughter for a wife; and Leti, settling at Geneva in 1660, passed nearly twenty years in that city employed on many of his publications. In 1674, the freedom of the city was presented to him, which had never before been granted to any stranger. Five years after he went to France, and in 1680, to England, where he was very graciously received by Charles II.; received a large present in money, and was promised the place of historiographer. On this he wrote his “Teatro Britannico,” a history of England; but, this work displeasing the court, he was ordered to quit the kingdom. Leti then went to Amsterdam, had the office of historiographer in that city, and died suddenly June 9, 1701, aged seventy-one. He was an indefatigable writer, and tells us in his “Belgic Theatre,” that three days in the week he spent twelve hours in writing, and six hours the other three days; whence the number of his works is prodigious. The greatest part are written in Italian; among which are, “The Nepotism of Rome,” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Universal Monarchy of Louis XIV.” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Life of Pope Sixtus V.” in Italian, Amsterdam, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo, plates; in French, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo and in English by Farneworth. “The Life of Philip 11. king of Spain,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Of Charles V.”. Amsterdam, 1730, 4 vols. 12mo; “Of Queen Elizabeth,” Amsterdam, 1741, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “History of Cromwell,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “Life of Giron, duke d'Ossone,” 3 vols. 12mo; “The French Theatre,*' 7 vols. 4to, a bad work;” The Belgic Theatre,“2 vols. 4to, equally bad;” The British Theatre, or History of England, 11 Amsterdam, 1684, 5 vols. 12mo; in which there is a capital portrait of queen Elizabeth. It was for this work that he was sent out of England. “L'ltalia regnante,” 4 vols. 12mo; “History of the Roman Empire in Germany,” 4 vols. 4to; “The Cardinalism of the Holy Church,” 3 vols. 12mo, a violent satire; “History of Geneva,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The just balance in which are weighed all the maxims of Rome, and the actions of the living cardinals,” 4 vols. 12mo; “The Historical Ceremonial,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Political Dialogues on the means used by the Italian Republics for their preservation,” 2 vols. 12mo “An Abridgment of Patriotic virtues,” 2 vols. 8vo “Fame jealous of Fortune a panegyric on Louis XIV,” 4to “A Poem on the enterprize of the Prince of Orange in England,” 1695, folio; “An Eulogy on Hunting,” 12mo; “Letters,” 1 vol. 12mo; “The Itinerary of the Court of Rome,” 3 vols. 8vo “History of the House of Saxony,” 4 vols. 4to “History of the House of Brandenburg,” 4 vols. 4to “The slaughter of the Innocent reformed,” 4to “The Ruins of the Apostolical See,” 1672, 12mo, &c. Although M. le Clerc, his son-in-law, has mentioned him with high encomiums, we know few writers of history who are less to be depended on, having debased all his productions with fable. It is impossible to give credit to him unless his facts can be supported by other authority. He, on some occasions, assumes all the dignity of conceited ignorance, and relates his fictions with all the confidence of a vain man, who thinks he cannot be contradicted. His aim indeed was to please rather than instruct, and he has, with his anecdotes, frequently amused and misled his readers. We know few more amusing works than his “Life of pope Sixtus V.” Granger, whose character of him we have partly adopted, relates that Leti being one day at Charles II.'s levee, the king said to him, “Leti, I hear you are writing the history of the court of England.” “Sir,” said he, “I have been for some time preparing materials for such a history.” “Take care,” said the king, “that your work give no offence.” “Sir,” replied Leti, “I will do what 1 can but if a man were as wise as Solomon, he would scarce be able to avoid giving some offence.” “Why then,” rejoined the king, “be as wise as Solomon, write proverbs, not tories.”

, a learned English divine and antiquary, was the eldest son of John Lewis, wine-cooper, in the parish of St Nicholas, Bristol, where he was born, Aug. 29, 1675. His father dying while he was in his infancy, he was committed to the care of his maternal grandfather John Eyre, merchant of Poole in Dorsetshire, who instilled into his infant mind the first principles of religion. Losing this relation, however, before he was seven years old, he was taken into the house of the rev. Samuel Conant, rector of Liichet Matravers (an intimate acquaintance of his grandfather Eyre), and educated along with a nephew whom Mr. Conant was preparing for a public school. This was an assistance peculiarly acceptably to Mr. Lewis’s mother, who appears to have been left in circumstances which were not adequate to a liberal education. After remaining with Mr. Conant two years, he was placed under the instruction of the learned Mr. John Moyle, at the grammar-school of Winborne, in 1687, upon whose decease the year following, he was removed to Poole, but reaped little benefit there, until he was put under the care of Mr. John Russel, who was encouraged to establish a grammar-school there. Mr. Russel, finding him to be a youth of talents and industry, employed him as his assistant: and after his removal to Wapping in London, conr tinued his favours to him, placing him at the free-school of Ratcliffe-cross, belonging to the Coopers’ company.

His first patron was the honourable Mr. Lane, son to the late lord Bingley. Lord chancellor Northington presented him to the living of Shelden, in Hants, which he resigned on taking the rectory of Gotham, co. Nottingham. He had also Sutton in Lownd, in the same county; to both of which he was presented by his grace the duke of Portland. His ecclesiastical preferments amounted to above 500l. a year. He was also domestic chaplain to his illustrious patroness the late duchess dowager of Portland, and by her liberality enjoyed during her grace’s life, an annuity of a hundred a year. During her grace’s summer residence at Bulstrode, he performed duty in the family twice a week, and at other times was of very considerable use to her grace in arranging her magnificent collection of natural history, particularly the shells and the botanical part. He also drew up the catalogue of her museum for sale. He was an excellent scholar in many branches of literature, but, next to the study of his profession, he addicted himself chiefly to botany and conchy I iology, excelling in both, but particularly in botany, and he was equally versed in the knowledge of foreign as of British botany.

Having pursued the strictest temperance through life, he preserved the vigour of his mind, and health of his body, to a considerable age, but in the autumn of 1711 he was seized with the St. Anthony’s fire which, growing more violent in the winter, carried him oft, April So, 1713. His funeral oration was spoken by John Le Clerc, who gives him the following character: “Mr, Limborch had many friends among the learned, both at home and abroad, especially in England, where he was much esteemed, particularly by archbishop Tillotson, to whom his history of the inquisition was dedicated, and Mr. Locke. With Mr, Locke he first became acquainted in Holland, and after-> wards held a correspondence by letters, in which, among other things, he has explained the nature of human liberty, a subject not exactly understood by Mr. Locke. He was of an open sincere carriage, which was so well tempered with humanity and discretion as to give no offence. In his instructions, when professor, he observed the greatest perspicuity and the justest order, to which his memory, which retained whatever he had written, almost to a word, contributed very much; and, though a long course of teaching had given him an authority with those about him, and his advanced age had added a reverence to him, yet he was never displeased with others for differing from him, but would both censure, and be censured, without chagrin. Though he never proposed the understanding of languages as the end of his studies, yet he had made large advances in them, and read over many of the ancient and modern writers, and would have excelled in this part of literature, if he bad not preferred that which was more important. He bad all the qualifications suitable to the character of a divine. Above all things, he had a love for truth, and pursued the search of it, by reading the Scriptures with the best commentators. As a preacher, his sermons were methodical and solid, rather than eloquent. If he had applied himself to the mathematics he would undoubtedly have excelled therein; but he had no particular fondness for that study, though he was an absolute master of arithmetic. He was so perfectly acquainted with the history of his own country, especially for 150 years, that he even retained the most minute circumstance?, and the very time of each transaction; so that scarce any one could deceive him in that particular. In his manner he was grave withput pride or sullenness, affable without affectation, pleasant and facetious, upon occasion, without sinking into a vulgar lowness, or degenerating into malice or ill-nature. By these qualifications he was agreeable to all who conversed with him; and his behaviour towards his neighbours was such, that all who knew him, or had any dealings with him, ever commended it.”

, an ancient Scotch poet, descended from a noble family, was born in 1490, at Garmylton in Hadingtonshire, and received his early education probably at the neighbouring school of Coupar. In 1505 he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s, which he is supposed to have left in 1509. He then entered into the service of the court, where, in 1512, he was an attendant, or page of honour to James V. then an infant. In this situation he continued until 1524, when, by the intrigues of the queen mother, the young king was deprived of his servants, Bellenden, Lindsay, and others, for whom he seems always to have entertained a just regard, and whom he dismissed with a pension, the payment of which his majesty was studious to enforce, while his means were few, and his power was little. From 1524 to 1528, Lindsay was a witness of the confusions and oppressions arising from the domination of the Douglasses over both the prince and his people. From that thraldom the king, at the age of sixteen, made his escape, by his own address and vigour, in July of 1528, after every other exertion had failed. Lindsay had now liberty and spirits to support him in the cultivation of his muse, and about the end of the year just mentioned, produced his “Dreme.” In the following year he presented his “Complaynt” to the king, and in 1530 he was inaugurated lion king of arms, and incidentally became a knight. In December of this year he published his satire on the clergy, called “The Complaynt of the Papingo.”

, a Socinian writer, was born at Middlewich, in Cheshire, June 20th, 1723, old style. His father, Mr. Robert Lindsey, was an opulent proprietor of the salt-works in that neighbourhood; his mother’s name was Spencer, a younger branch of the Spencer family, in the county of Buckingham. Theophilus was the second of three children, and so named after his godfather, Theophilus earl of Huntingdon. He received the rudiments of grammar-learning at Middlewich, and from his early attachment to books, and the habitual seriousness of his mind, he was intended by his mother for the church. He lost some time by a change of schools, until he was put under the care of Mr. Barnard of the free-school of Leeds, under whom he made a rapid progress in classical learning. At the age of eighteen he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, by exemplary diligence and moral conduct, he obtained the entire approbation of his tutors. As soon as he had finished his studies at college, taken his first degree, and had been admitted to deacon’s orders, he was nominated by sir George Wheler to a chapel in Spital-square London. Soon after this, he was, by the recommendation of the earl of Huntingdon, appointed domestic chaplain to Algernon duke of Somerset. The duke, from a great regard for his merit, determined to procure him a high rank in the church, but an early death deprived Mr. Lindsey of his illustrious patron. In 1754, be accompanied the present duke of Northumberland to the continent, and on his return he supplied, for some time, the temporary vacancy of a good living in the north of England, called Kirkby-Wisk: here he became acquainted with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, and in 1760 married his daughter-in-law. From Kirkby Mr. Lindsey went to Piddletown, in Dorsetshire, having been presented to the living of that place by the earl of Huntingdon: this, through the interest of the same patron, he exchanged, in 1764, for the vicarage of Catterick, in Yorkshire. Here he resided nearly ten years, an exemplary pattern of a primitive and conscientous pastor, highly respected and beloved by the people committed to his charge. Besides his various and important duties as a parish clergyman, Mr. Lindsey was ever alive, and heartily active, in every cause in which a deviation from the formularies and obligations of the church was considered as necessary. With this view, in 1771 he zealously co-operated with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, Dr. John Jebb, Mr. Wyvil, and others, in endeavouring to obtain relief in matters of subscription to the thirty-nine articles. Mr. Lindsey had, probably, for some years, entertained doubts with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, and other leading topics of the established faith; and these pressed so heavy upon him that he could no longer endure to remain in a church, partaking of its emoluments, which he could not deserve, and preaching its doctrines, which he could not believe. He therefore, in November 1773, wrote to the prelate of his diocese, informing him of his iateiuion to quit the church, and signifying, that in a few days he should transmit to him his deed of resignation. The bishop endeavoured to persuade him to remain at his post, but he had made up his mind that duty required the sacrifice, and he was resolved to bear the consequences. When the act was done, he said he felt himself delivered from a load which had long lain heavy upon him, and at times nearly overwhelmed him. Previously to his quitting Catterick, Mr. Lindsey delivered a farewell address to his parishioners, in which he stated his motives for quitting them in a simple and very affecting manner, pointing out the reasons why he could no longer conduct, nor join in their worship, without the guilt of continual insincerity before God, and endangering the loss of his favour for ever. He left Catterick about the middle of December, and after visiting some friends in different parts of the country, he arrived in London in January 1774, where he met with friends, who zealously patronized the idea which he entertained of opening a place of worship, devoted entirely to unitarian principles. A large room was at first fitted up for the purpose in Essex-street in the Strand, which was opened April 17, 1774. The service of the place was conducted according to the plan of a liturgy which had been altered from that used in the established church by the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, whose conscience was not quite so delicate as that of Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey published the sermon which he preached on the opening of his chapel, to which was added an account of the liturgy made use of. About the same time he published his “Apology,” of which several editions were called for in the course of a few years. This was followed by a still larger volume, entitled “A Sequel to the Apology,” which was intended as a reply to his various opponents, and likewise to vindicate and establish the leading doctrines which he professed, and on account of which he had given up his preferment in the church. This work was published in 1776; and in 1778 he was enabled, by the assistance of his friends, to build the chapel of Essex-street, and to purchase the ground on which it stands. Till the summer of 1793, Mr. Lindsey, with the aid of his friend the Rev. Dr. Disney, conducted the services of the place, upon strict unitarian principles, to a numerous congregation. He then resigned the whole into the hands of his coadjutor, notwithstanding the, earnest wishes of his hearers that he should still continue a part of the services, Though he had quitted the duties of the pulpit, he continued to labour in the cause, by his publications, till he had attained his 80th, year. In 1802, he published his last work, entitled “Conversations on the Divine Government, shewing that every thing is from God, and for good to all.” The professed object of this piece is to vindicate the Creator from those gloomy notions which are too often attached to his providence, and to shew that the government of the world is the wisest that could have been adopted, and that afflictions and apparent evils are permitted for the general good. From this principle Mr. Lindsey derived consolation through life, and upon it he acted in every difficult and trying scene. On his death-bed he spoke of his sufferings with perfect patience and meekness, and when reminded, by a friend, that he doubtless was enabled to bear them with so much fortitude in the recollection of his favourite maxim, that “Whatever is, is right; w “No,” said he with an animation that lighted up his countenance, “Whatever is, is best.” This was the last sentence which he was able distinctly to articulate: he died Novembers, 1808. Besides the works already referred to, he published two dissertations: 1. On the preface to St. John’s Gospel; 2. On praying to Christ:” An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship from the Reformation to our own Times;“and several other pieces. Among controversial writers Mr. Lindsey takes a place as his” Vindiciae Priestleianae,“and his” Examination of Mr. Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ," will shew. Two volumes of his Sermons have been published since his death.

The “Systema Naturæ” had already gone through nine editions in different countries. Its author had, for several years, a more ample edition of the animal department in contemplation, on the plan of his “Species Plantarum,” and this constituted the first volume of the tenth edition, published in 1758. The second volume, which came out the following year, was an epitome of the vegetable kingdom. This same work appeared still more enlarged, in a twelfth edition, in 1766: to this the mineral kingdom was added in a third volume on the same plan with the first. We can readily pardon the self-complacency of its author, when, in his diary written for the use of his friend Menander, he calls the “Systema Naturæ” “a work to which natural history never had a fellow.” We may venture to predict, says his learned biographer, that as this was the first performance of the kind, it will certainly be the last; the science of natural history is now become so vast, that no man can ever take the lead again as an universal naturalist.

Although, as a physician, Linnæus appears to advantage in his “Clavis Medicinae” and his “Genera Morborum,” his abilities are more striking in his classification of natural objects. He excelled in a happy perception of such technical characters as brought together things most naturally allied. His lectures on the natural order of plants were published long after his death in 1792, at Hamburgh, and evince his deep consideration of a subject then in the infancy of cultivation. In the zoological department, his classification of birds and insects is the most original as well as the best of the whole. The arrangement of fishes was an original idea of Linnæus; and in the arrangement of shells, he has succeeded at least as well as any of his fellow-labourers: though we are, says his biographer, by no means inclined to justify some of his terms, which are borrowed from an anatomical analogy, not only false in itself, but totally exceptionable. This leads us to consider a charge, often brought against this great man, of pruriency of phraseology in many parts of his works. The most attentive contemplation of his writings has satisfied us that in such instances he meant purely to be anatomical and physiological; and if his fondness for philosophical analogies sometimes led him astray, it was not in pursuit of any thing to contaminate his own mind, much less that of others. That the mind of Linnæus was simple and chaste, as his morals were confessedly pure, is evinced by his Lapland Tour, written only for his own use, but which is now, as we have already mentioned, before the public. This is such a picture of his heart as will ever render any justification of his moral character, and any elaborate display of his religious principles or feelings, alike superfluous. His apparent vanity, as displayed in his diary,published in Dr. Maton’s valuable edition of Dr. Pulteney’s “View of his Writings,” is perhaps far less justifiable. All we can say for him is, that this paper was drawn up for the use of his intimate friend Menander, as materials from which his life was to be written. If it be unbecoming, and indeed highly ridiculous in many instances, for a man to speak as he does of himself, the justice and accuracy of his assertions, had they come from any other person, could in no case be disputed.

As the habits of Linnæus were temperate and regular, he retained his health and vigour in tolerable perfection, notwithstanding the immense labours of his mind, till beyond his sixtieth year, when his memory began in some degree to fail him. In 1774, at the age of sixty-seven, an attack of apoplexy greatly impaired his constitution. Two years afterwards a second attack rendered him paralytic on the right side, and materially affected his faculties. The immediate cause of his death, which happened January 10th, 1778, in the seventy-first year of his age, was an ukeration of the bladder. His remains were deposited in a vault near the west end of the cathedral of Upsal, where a monument of Swedish porphyry was erected by his pupils. His obsequies were performed, in the most respectful manner, by the whole university, the pall being supported by sixteen doctors of physic, all of whom had been his pupils. A general mourning took place on the occasion at Upsal. His sovereign, Gustavus III. commanded a medal to be struck, expressive of the public loss, and honoured the academy of sciences at Stockholm with his presence, when the eulogy of this celebrated man was pronounced there by his intimate friend Back. A still higher compliment was paid to his memory by the king in a speech from the throne, wherein his majesty publicly celebrated the talents of his deceased subject, and lamented the loss which his country had so recently sustained. Various testimonies of respect were given to the merits of Linnæus in the different parts of Europe, even where rival systems or interests had heretofore triumphed at his expence. The celebrated Condorcet delivered an oration in his praise to the Parisian academy of sciences, which is printed in its memoirs. We cannot wonder that his memory was cherished in England, where he had long had numerous correspondents, and where two of his most distinguished pupils, Solander and Dryander, have, in their own talents and character, conferred singular honour upon their preceptor. Ten years after his decease a new society of naturalists, distinguished by his name, was founded in London, and has since been incorporated by royal charter, whose publications, in ten quarto volumes of Transactions, sufficiently evince that its members are not idle venerators of the name they bear. This name, in imitation of them, has been adopted by several similar institutions in other parts of the world.

He died June 30, 1694, aged sixty-seven years, and was buried on the north side of the chancel of Chelsea church, where there is a handsome monument, with an epitaph to his memory. He was an excellent philologist and grammarian, particularly in the Latin, as appears from his Dictionary of that language; he appears also to have studied the Greek with equal minuteness, a Lexicon of which he had long been compiling, and left unfinished at his death. He was also well skilled in the Oriental languages and in rabbinical learning; in prosecution of which he exhausted great part of his fortune in purchasing ' books and manuscripts from all parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The consequence of this improvidence, we are sorry, however, to add, was his dying insolvent, and leaving his widow in very distressed circumstances. Some time before his death, he made a small essay towards facilitating the knowledge of the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic tongues, which he intended to have brought into a narrower compass. He was versed also in the abstruse parts of the mathematics, and wrote a great many pieces concerning mystical numeration, which came into the hands of his brother-in-law Dr. Hockin. In private life he was extremely charitable, easy of access, communicative, affable, facetious in conversation, free from passion, of a strong constitution, and a venerable countenance. Besides his “Latin Dictionary,” which appeared first in 1678, 4to, and was often reprinted, but is now superseded by Ainsworth’s, he published, 1. “Tragicomcedia Oxoniensis,” a Latin poem on the Parliament-Visitors,“1648, a single sheet, 4to, which, however, was afterwards attributed to a Mr. John Carrick, a student of Christ-churdi. 2.” Pasor metricus, sive voces omnes Nov. Test, primogenias hexametris versibus compreherusae,“1658, 4to, Greek and Latin. 3.” Diatriba in octo Tractatus distributa,“&c. printed with the former. 4.” Elementa Religionis, sive quatuor Capita catechetica totidem Linguis descripta, in usum Scholarum,“1658, 8vo, to which h added, 5.” Complicatio Radicum in primaeva Hebrseorurh Lingua.“6.” Solomon’s Gate, or an entrance into the Church,“&c. 1662, 8vo. Perhaps this title was taken from the north gate of Westminster-abbey, so called 7.” Sixty-one Sermons,“1680, fol. 8.” A Sermon at a solemn meeting of the natives of the city and county of Worcester, in Bow-church, London, 24th of June, 1680,“4to. 9.” Preface to Cicero’s Works,“Lond. 1681, 2 vols.'fol. 10.” A Translation of ‘ Selden’s Jani Anglorum Facies Altera,’ with Notes,“which for some unkuown reason he published under the name of Redman Westcote, 1683, fol. With this were printed three other tracts of Selden, viz. his” Treatise of the Judicature of Parliaments,“&c.” Of the original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments.“”Of the Disposition of Intestates Goods.“11.” The Life of Themistocles,“from the Greek, in the first vol. of Plutarch’s Lives, by several hands, 1687, 8vo. He also published” Dissertatio epistolaris de Juramento Medicorum qui Ορκοσ Ἱπποκρατουσ dicitur," &c. also A Latin Inscription, in prose and verse, intended for the monument of the fire of London, in Sept. 1666. This is printed at the end of his Dictionary; with an elegant epistle to Dr. Baldwin Hamey, M. D.

The “Actor” was his most favoured piece, and which. he never surpassed; but it sunk before the “Rosciad.” The rest of his poems are effusions addressed to friends on subjects which relate principally to himself, and with a distinction which friends only would think valuable. Mr. Wilkes’s character of Lloyd represents him as “mild and affable in private life, of gentle manners, and very engaging in conversation. He was an excellent scholar, and an easy natural poet. His peculiar excellence was the dressing up an old thought in a new, neat, and trim mantier. He was contented to scamper round the foot of Parnassus on his little Welsh poney, which seems never to have tired. He left the fury of the winged steed and the daring heights of the sacred mountain to the sublime genius of his friend Churchill.” Although Lloyd followed Churchill in some of his prejudices, and learned to rail at colleges, and at men of prudence, we find him generally good-tempered and playful. His satire is seldom bitter, and probably was not much felt. Having consented to yield the palm to Churchill, the world took him at his word, and his enemies, if he had any, must have been, those who were very easily provoked.

In 1664, sir William Swan being appointed envoy from the English court to the elector of Brandenburgh, and some other German princes, Mr. Locke attended him as his secretary, but returned to England within the year, and applied himself again with great vigour to his studies, and particularly to that of natural philosophy. While at Oxford, in 1666, he became acquainted with lord Ashley, afterwards earl of Shaftesbury, and that in the character of a medical practitioner. Lord Ashley by a fall had hurt his breast in such a manner, that there was an abscess formed in it, and being advised to drink the mineral waters at Astrop, wrote to Dr. Thomas, a physician at Oxford, to procure a quantity of those waters, which might be ready on his arrival. Dr. Thomas, being obliged to be absent from Oxford at that time, desired his friend Mr. Locke to execute this commission. By some accident or neglect, the waters were not ready the day after lord Ashley’s arrival, and Mr. Locke thought it his duty to wait on his lordship to make an apology, which he received with his usual civility, and was so pleased with Locke’s conversation as to detain him to supper, and engaged him to dine with him next day, that he might have the more of his company. And when his lordship left Oxford to go to Surinirig-hill, where he drank the waters, he made Mr. Locke promise to come thither, as he did in the summer of 1667. Lord Ashley afterwards returned, and obliged him to promise that he would come and lodge at his house. Mr. Locke accordingly went thither, and though not a regular practitioner, his lordship confided entirely in his advice, with regard to the operation, which was to be performed by opening the abscess in his breast, and which saved his life, though it never closed.

In 1668, he attended the earl and countess of Northumberland into France; but the earl’s death did not allow him to remain long in that country. On his return, Mr. Locke lived, as before, at lord Ashley’s, who was then chancellor of the exchequer, but made frequent visits to Oxford, in the prosecution of his studies, as well as for change of air, which appeared to be necessary to his health. While he was at lord Ashley’s, he had the care of the education of that nobleman’s eldest son, who was then about sixteen years of age. This province he executed with great care, and to the full satisfaction of his noble patron. The young lord being of a weakly constitution, his father wished to see him married, lest the family should be extinct by his death; and as he thought him too young to make a proper choice for himself, he not only consulted Mr. Locke on the subject, but even requested he would make a suitable choice for the youth. This was an affair of some delicacy, and no small risk; for, although lord Ashley did not regard fortune, yet he conditioned for a lady of a good family, an agreeable temper, and a fine person; of good education, and of good understanding, and whose conduct would be different from that of the generality of court-ladies. In all these respects Mr.Xocke had the happiness to succeed, and the marriage was fruitful. The eldest son, afterwards the author of the “Characteristics,” was committed to the care of Mr. Locke in his education, and his pupil, when lord Shaftesbury, always spoke of Mr. Locke with the highest esteem, and manifested on all occasions a grateful sense of his obliga r tions to him, but there are some passages in his works, in which he speaks of Mr. Locke’s philosophy with great severity. It will not, however, be thought a very serious objection to Mr. Locke, that his philosophy did not give entire satisfaction to lord Shaftesbury.

, sometimes called Abre Anam, or father of Anam, was a philosopher of great account among the Easterns, but his personal history is involved in much obscurity, and what we have is probably fabulous. Some say he was an Abyssinian of Ethiopia or Nubia, and was sold as a slave among the Israelites, in the reigns of David and Solomon. According to the Arabians, he was tlje son of Baura, son or grandson of a sister or aunt of Job. Some say he worked as a carpenter, others as a tailor, while a third sort will have him to be a shepherd; however that be, he was certainly an extraordinary person, endowed with great wisdom and eloquence, and we have an account of the particular manner in which he received these divine gifts; being one day asleep about noon, the angels saluted Lokman without making themselves visible, in these terms: “We are the messengers of God, thy creator and ours; and he has sent us to declare to thee that he will make thee a monarch, and his vice-gerent upon earth.” Lokman replied, “If it is by an absolute command of God that I am to become such a one as you say, his will be done in all things; and I hope if this should happen, that he will bestow on me all the grace necessary for enabling me to execute his commands faithfully; however, if he would grant me the liberty to chuse my condition of life, I had rather continue in my present state, and be kept from offending him; otherwise, all the grandeur and splendours of the world would be troublesome to me.” This answer, we are told, was so pleasing to God, that he immediately bestowed on him the gift of wisdom in an eminent degree; and he was able to instruct all men, by a multitude of maxims, sentences, and parables, amounting to ten thousand in number, every one of which his admirers reckon greater than the whole world in value.

Besides his astronomical work,- he published in 1731, under the name of Dicaiophilus Cantabrigiensis, “The Rights of Churches and Colleges defended; in answer to a pamphlet called * An Enquiry into the customary estates and tenant-rights of those who hold lands of church and other foundations, by the term of three lives, &c. by Everard Fleetwood, esq.;' with remarks upon some other pieces on the same subject,” 8vo. The author of this pamphlet, to which our author replied, was not Fleetwood, which was an assumed name, but Samuel Burroughs, esq. a master in chancery. Dr. Long published also a “Commencement-Sermon, 1728;” and an answer to Dr. Gally’s pamphlet “On Greek Accents.” We shall subjoin a few traits of him, as delineated in 1769, by Mr. Jones: " He is now in the eighty-eighth year of his age, and, for his years, vegete and active. He was lately (in October) put in nomination for the office of vice-chancellor. He executed that trust before; I think in the year 1737. A very ingenious person, and sometimes very facetious. At the public commencement in the year 1713, Dr. Greene (master of Bene't college, and afterwards bishop of Ely) being then vice-chancellor, Mr. Long was pitched upon for the tripos-performance; it was witty and humourous, and has passed through divers editions. Some that remembered the delivery of it told me, that, in addressing ttye vice chancellor (whom the university-wags usually styled Miss Greene), the tripos-orator, being a native of Norfolk, and assuming the Norfolk dialect, instead of saying, Domine vice-cancellarie, did very archly pronounce the words thus, Domina vice-cancellaria; which occasioned a general smile in that great auditory. His friend the late Mr. Bonfoy of Ripton told me this little incident: `That he and Dr. Long walking together in Cambridge, in a dusky evening, and coming to a short post fixed in the pavement, which Mr. B. in the midst of chat and inattention, took to be a boy standing in his way, he said in a hurry, `Get out of my way, boy.‘ `That boy, sir,’ said the doctor very calmly and slily, `is a post-boy, who turns out of his way for nobody.'

was an ancient Greek author, probably of the fifth century, who seems to have written after Heliodorus, and, in some places, to have imitated him. He is called a sophist; but we have no remains of his except four books of “Pastorals upon the Loves of Daphnis and Cloe.” Huet speaks advantageously of this work, and had proposed, when he was young, to have made a translation of it; but he also takes notice of several defects in it, and, doubtless, its obscenities made him lay aside his purpose of translating it. None of the ancient writers mention Longus. There is a good edition of the original by Petrus Moll, a professor of the Greek language at Franeker, 1660, in 4to, but Villoison’s, Gr. and Lat. Paris, 1778, '2 vols. 8va, is the best. It was translated into English by George Thorney, and printed at London in 1657. The last edition of the English version, of which there have been four, is inscribed to James Craggs, esq. secretary of state. The French, with whom this work has always been a favourite, have many translations of it. That by Amyot has passed through many editions; the most elegant of which is that of 1718, 12mo, with 29 plates, drawn by the regent, Philip duke of Orleans, and engraved by Benoft Audran; the 29th is not his engraving, and is seldom found in the edition of 1718, the reason of which, some say, was, that only 250 copies were taken, which the prince disposed of as presents; but Brunei thinks it is too common for so small an impression. Next to this edition, that of 1745, 8vo, is preferred, with the same plates retouched.

, a learned French physician, was born at Crosny, near Paris, in 1725. In 1748, he was admitted doctor of the faculty of medicine at Paris, and became doctor-regent of the faculty. He was author of several works, some of which still maintain their value. His first publication was entitled “Essai sur l'Usage des Alimens, pour servir de Commentaire aux livres diete”­tiques d'Hippocrate,“Paris, 1753, 12mo; the second part of which appeared in 1757. His next publication was an edition of the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, Greek and Latin, in 1759. Afterwards he produced a treatise” De Melancholia et Morbis Melancholicis,“-ibid. 1765, in two volumes 8vo, and edited Dr. Astruc’s” Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire de la Faculte de Medecine dp Montpeliier,“ibid, 1767, 4to; and” Sanctorii de Medicina Statica,“with a commentary, 1770, in 12mo. His last work, which combined the merits of much erudition and accurate observation, with great clearness of arrangement and perspicuity of language, was” Tractatus de Morbis Cutanais," Paris, 1777, in 4to. Dr. Lorry also edited a Latin edition of the works of Mead, and a French one of Barker’s dissertation on the conformity of the doctrines of ancient and modern medicine. He died at the baths of Bourbonne, in 1783.

, a modern poet whose personal history has been neglected, was, according to the preface to his poems, “a gentleman of fortune, who passed the greater part of his years in the neighbourhood of Hampton, in Middlesex, where he lived greatly beloved by those who best knew him. He was an admirable scholar, of very amiable manners, and of universal benevolence, of which all his writings bear strong testimony. The little pieces which compose (his works) were chiefly written on such incidents as occasionally arose in those societies of intimate acquaintance which he most frequented. After his death, which happened in 1775, his poems being dispersed in the hands of different friends, to whom they had been given by himself, many people expressed to his only brother, Anthony, Lovibond Collins, esq. a wish to have them collected together, and preserved. This gentleman, equally zealous for the reputation of a brother he affectionately loved, hath put into the editor’s hands those pieces he hath selected for that purpose.”

, a learned dissenting clergyman, was born in 1680. He was originally destined for the law, and in 1697 entered as a student in the Middle-Temple, but in about two years he changed his purpose and determined to study divinity. With this view he went over to Holland in 1699, where he studied partly at Utrecht and partly at Leyden. In 1710, after being admitted to the ministry among the dissenters, he settled with the congregation at Claphana, as assistant to Mr. Grace, whom he succeeded as their pastor, and was ordained in 1714. In this situation he continued to his death, preaching twice each Sunday until within a few weeks of that event. He distinguished himself, from the period of his academical studies, in metaphysics and divinity: and, to the close of his life, he was an indefatigable reader, and acquired an extraordinary stock of useful knowledge, particularly in Jewish learning and antiquities, to which last he was much devoted. The result of this application appeared in the learned works he published, and which constituted his chief fame; for as a pulpit orator, it does not appear that he was much admired. Dr. Chandler, who preached his funeral sermon, gives him a very high personal character. He died May 3, 1752, in the seventy-third year of his age.

, also a native of Erfurt, and born in 1655, was son to George Henry Ludolpb, a counsellor of that city, and nephew to the preceding Job Ludolpb, who had some share in the care of his education, and* the regulation of his studies. He thus became qualified for the post he afterwards enjoyed, of secretary to Mr. Lenthe, envoy from Christian V. king of Denmark, to the court of Great Britain. This gentleman, for his faithfulness and ability, recommended him afterwards to prince George of Denmark, and in 1680 he became his secretary, which office he enjoyed for some years, until, being incapacitated by illness, he was discharged, with a handsome pension. After his recovery, he took a resolution to visit some foreign countries, particularly Russia, which then was hardly known to travellers; and, as he had some knowledge of the Russian language before be left England, he easily became acquainted with the principal men of that country. He also met with some Jews there, with whom he frequently conversed, and became so great a master of the Hebrew tongue, that he could talk with them in that language; and he gave such uncommon proofs of his knowledge, that the Russian priests took him for a conjuror. He also understood music, and had the honour to play before the czar at Moscow, who expressed the utmost surprise and delight at his performance. Ludolph returned to London in 1694, when he was cut for the stone. As soon as his health would permit, in gratitude for the civilities he had received in Russia, he undertook to write a grammar of their language; by which the natives might be taught their own tongue in a regular form. This book was printed by the university press at Oxford, and published in 1696. This essay, as he says in his preface, he hoped might be of use to traders and travellers; as it was an introduction to the knowledge of a language, which was spoken through a vast tract of country, from Archangel as far as Astracan, and from Ingermania as far as the confines of China.

, of Udina in the Venetian territory, was an eminent scholar in the sixteenth century. He was born in 1523, and was remarkable for the integrity of his life, part of which was employed in teaching Greek and Latin at Reggio: he was afterwards secretary to the duke of Parma, and died in 1568, at the age of forty-five. He wrote, 1. “Parergon libri tres,” inserted in the third volume of Gruter’s “Fax Critica;” and consisting of illustrations of various obscure passages in ancient authors. 2. A Latin commentary on Horace’s Art of Poetry, published in 4to, at Venice, in 1544. 3. A treatise “de componendis Animi affectibus,” Bale, 1562, in 8vo.

, an Athenian orator, contemporary with Demosthenes, was born about 408 years before the Christian acra, and died about or after 328. He was an Athenian, and the son of a person named Lycophron. He studied philosophy under Plato, and rhetoric under Isocrates. He was of the most exalted character for integrity, in which he was severely scrupulous; a strenuous defender of liberty, a perpetual opposer of Philip and Alexander, and a firm friend of Demosthenes. As a magistrate, he proceeded with severity against criminals, but kept a register of all his proceedings, which, on quitting his office, he submitted to public inspection. When he was about to die, he publicly offered his actions to examination, and refuted the only accuser who appeared against him. He was one of the thirty orators whom the Athenians refused to give up to Alexander. One oration of his, against Leocrates, is still extant, and has been published in the collections of Aldus, Taylor, and Reiske. His eloquence partook of the manly severity and truth of his character.

, an ingenious young writer, was the son of the rev. Mr. Macdiarmid, minister of Weem in the northern part of Perthshire, and was bern in 1779. He studied at the universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews, and was for some years tutor in a gentleman’s family. Such a situation is generally desired in Scotland with the view of provision in the church, but as this was not Mr. Macdiarmid’s object, he became desirous of visiting the metropolis, and trying his fortune in the career of literary competition. He accordingly came to London in 1801, and was soon in the receipt of a competent income from periodical writing. His principal occupations of this kind were, as editor of the St. James’s Chronicle (a paper in which some of the first scholars and wits of the last half century have employed their pens), and as a reviewer in a critical publication. On the commencement or rather the renewal of the late war in 1802-3, his attention was directed to our military establishment, and he relinquished his periodical engagements to become the author of a very elaborate work, entitled “An Inquiry into the System of Military Defence of Great Britain,” 1803, 2 vols. 8vo. This exposed the defects of the volunteer systeui, as well as of all temporary expedients, and asserted the superiority of a regular army; and had he lived, he would have doubtless been highly gratified to contemplate the army formed by the illustrious Wellington. His next work was, an “Inquiry into the Nature of Civil and Military Subordination,” 1804, 8vo, perhaps the fullest disquisition which the subject has received. He now determined to suspend his theoretic labours, and to turn his attention to works of narrative. He accordingly wrote the “Lives of British Statesmen,” 4to, beginning with the life of sir Thomas More. This work has strong claims on public attention. The style is perspicuous and unaffected; authorities are quoted for every statement of consequence, and a variety of curious information is extracted from voluminous records, and brought for the first time before the public view. His political speculations were always temperate and liberal. He was indeed in all respects qualified for a work of this description, by great powers of research and equal impartiality. But unfortunately he was destined to enjoy, for a short time only, the approbation with which his work was received. His health, at all times delicate, received in November 1807, an irreparable blow by a paralytic stroke; and in February 1808 a second attack proved fatal, April 7. Mr. D'Israeli has paid a just and pathetic tribute to his memory and talents in the work referred to below.

, a learned French priest, was born at Paris about 1640, and pursued his divinity studies at the university of his native city, where he took his degrees. About this time he was appointed secretary to the council for managing the domains and finances of the queen, consort to Lewis XIV.; and when he took holy orders, in 1685, he was immediately appointed canon and rector of the church of St. Opportune, at Paris. He was a very diligent student as well in profane as in sacred literature, and was celebrated for his popular talents as a preacher. He died in 1721, leaving behind him a great number of works that do honour to his memory, of which we shall mention “A chronological, historical, and moral abridgment of the Old and New Testament,” in 2 vols. 4to “Scriptural Knowledge, reduced into four tables;” a French version of the apocryphal “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs;” of which Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, gave the first Latin translation, Grabe the first Greek edition, from Mss. in the English universities, and Whiston an English version (S The History of the Four Ciceros,“in which he attempts to prove, that the sons of Cicero were as illustrious as their father. Mace (Thomas), a practitioner on the lute, but more distinguished among lovers of music by a work entitled” Music’s Monument, or a Remembrancer of the best practical Music, both divine and civil, that has ever been known to have been in the world," 1676, folio, was born in 1613, and became one of the clerks of Trinity-college, Cambridge. He does not appear to have held any considerable rank among musicians, nor is he celebrated either as a composer or practitioner on the lute: yet his book is a proof that he was an excellent judge of the instrument; and contains such variety of directions for the ordering and management of it, and for performing on it, as renders it a work of great utility. It contains also many particulars respecting himself, many traits of an original and singular character; and a vein of humour which, far from being disgusting, exhibits a lively portraiture of a good-natured gossiping old man. Dr. Burney recommends its perusal to all who have taste for excessive simplicity and quaintness, and can extract pleasure from the sincere and undissembled happiness of an author, who, with exalted notions of his subject and abilities, discloses to his reader every inward working of self-approbation in as undisguised a manner, as if he were communing with himself in all the plenitude of mental comfort and privacy. There is a print of him prefixed to his book, from an engraving of Faithorne, the inscription under which shews him to have been sixty-three in 1676: how long he lived afterwards, is not known. He had a wife and children.

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

, 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.

, was an ancient Latin writer, who flourished towards the latter part of the fourth century. What countryman he was, is not clear Erasmus, in his Ciceronianus, seems to think he was a Greek and he himself tells us, in the preface to his “Saturnalia,” that he was not a Roman, but laboured under the inconveniences of writing in a language which was not native to him. Of what religion he was, Christian or pagan, is also uncertain. Barthius ranks him among the Christians; but Spanheira and Fabiicius suppose him to have been a heathen. It seems, however, agreed that he was a man of consular. dignity, and one of the chamberlains, or masters of the wardrobe to Theodosius; as appears from a rescript directed to Florentius, concerning those who were to obtain that office. He wrote “A Commentary upon Cicero’s Somnium Scipiouis,” full of Platonic notions, and seven books of “Saturnalia;” which resemble in plan the “Noctes Atticae” of Aulus Gellius. He termed them “Saturnalia,” because, during the vacation observed on these feasts of Saturn, he collected the principal literati of Rome, in his house, and conversed with them on all kinds of subjects, and afterwards set down what appeared to him, most interesting in their discourses. His Latinity is far from being pure, but as a collector of facts, opinions, and criticism, his works are valuable. The “Somnium Sci r pionis,” and “Saturnalia,” have been often printed; to which has been added, in the later editions, a piece entitled “De difterentiis & societatibus Graeci Latinique verbi.” The best editions are those of the Variorum; of Gronovius in 1670, and Leipsic in 1777. There is a specimen of an English translation of the “Saturnalia” in the Gent. Mag. for 1760, but it does not appear to have been completed.

, a celebrated Italian writer, and a marquis, was born of an illustrious family at Verona, in 1675, and was very early associated to the academy of the Arcadi at Home. At the age of twenty -seven, he distinguished himself at Verona, by supporting publicly a thesis on love, in which the ladies were the judges and assessors; and displayed at once his talents for gallantry, eloquence, and poetry. Anxious for glory of all kinds, he made his next effort in the army, and served as a volunteer at the battle of Donawert, in 1704; but the love of letters prevailed, and he returned into Italy. There his first literary enterprise, occasioned by an affair of honour, in which his elder brother was involved, was an earnest attack upon the practise of duelling. He brought against it all the arguments to which it is so evidently exposed; the opposite practice of the ancients, the suggestions of good sense, the interests of social life, and the injunctions of religion. He proceeded then to the drama, and produced his “Merope,” which was acted with the most brilliant success. Having thus purified tragedy, he proceeded to render the same service to comedy, and wrote one entitled “La Ceremonia,” which was much applauded. Jn 1732, he visited France, where he passed four years, caressed in the greatest degree for his talents and learning; and then went into England, where he was much esteemed, to Holland, and finally to Vienna, and was most honourably received hy the emperor Charles VI. After several years thus employed, he returned into Italy, and in literary activity, extended his attention to almost every subject of human knowledge. He died in 1755, at the age of eighty. He was gifted with a comprehensive genius, a lively wit, and a penetrating mind, eager for discoveries, and well calculated for making them. His disposition was cheerful, sincere, and disinterested, full of zeal for religion, and faithful in performing its duties. The people of Verona almost idolized him. During his last illness they offered public prayers for his recovery, and the council of state decreed solemn obsequies after his death, with the ceremony of a funeral oration in the cathedral of Verona.

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

, 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.

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

, the eleventh sultan of the Turks, born at Adrianople, the 24th of March, 1430, is to be remembered chiefly by us, for taking Constantinople in 1453, and thereby driving many learned Greeks into the West, which was a great cause of the restoration of learning in Europe, as the Greek literature was then introduced here. He was one of the greatest men upon record, with regard to the qualities necessary to a conqueror: and he conquered two empires, twelve kingdoms, and two hundred considerable cities. He was very ambitious of the title of Great, which the Turks cave him, and even the Christians have not disputed it with him; for he was the first of the Ottoman emperors, whom tue Western nations dignified with the title of Grand Seignior, or Great Turk, which posterity has preserved to his descendants. Italy had suffered greater calamities, but she had never felt a terror equal to that which this sultan’s victories imprinted. The inhabitants seemed already condemned to wear the turban; it is certain that pope Sixtus IV. represented to himself Rome as already involved in the dreadful fate of Constantinople; and thought of nothing but escaping into Provence, and once more transferring the holy see to Avignon. Accordingly, the news of Mahomet’s death, which happened the ad of Mav, 1481, was received at Rome with the greitest joy that ever was beheld there. Sixtus caused all the churches to be thrown open, made the trades-peopld leave off their work, ordered a feast of three days, with. public prayers and processions, commanded a discharge of the whole artillery of the castle of St. Angelo all that time, and put a stop to his journey to Avignon. Some authors have written that tbis sultan was an atheist, and derided all religions, without excepting that of his prophet, whom he treated as no better than a leader of banditti. This is possible enough; and there are many circumstances which make it credible It is certain he engaged in war, not to promote Mahometism, but to gratify his own ambition: he preferred his own interest to that of the faith he professed; and to this it was owing that he tolerated the Greek church, and even shewed wonderful civility to the patriarch of Constantinople. His epitaph deserves to be noted; the inscription consisted only of nine or ten Turkish words, thus translated: “I proposed to myself the conquest of Rhodes and proud Italy.”

, Man!, or Manicileus, the founder of a remarkable sect of heretics, flourished towards the conclusion of the third century, and began about the year 267 to propagate his doctrines, which he had taken from the books of one Scythianus. Scythianus was an Arabian, educated upon the borders of Palestine, and extremely well skilled in all the learning of the Greeks. Afterwards he went to Alexandria, where he studied philosophy, and acquainted himself also with the learning of the Egyptians. Here he espoused the opinion of Empedocles, concerning two co-eternal principles, one good and the other bad; the former of which he called God and light, the latter matter and darkness; to which he joined many dogmas of the Pythagorean school. These he formed into a system, comprised in four books; one of which was called “Evangelium,” another “Capita,” a third “Mysteria,” and a fourth “Thesauri.” After this he went to Jerusalem, ivhere he disputed with the Jews, and taught openly his opinions. Upon the death of Scythianus, his books and effects devolved by will to Terebinthus his disciple, who, however, soon quitted Palestine, and fled into Persia, where, to avoid the persecutions to which his doctrines exposed him, he took up his abode with a certain rich widow. Here he died, by a sudden and violent death, as it is commonly related. When, according to his usual way, he had ascended to the top of the house, in order to invoke the demons of the air, which custom the Manichees afterwards practised in their ceremonies, he was in a moment struck with a blow from heaven, which threw him headlong down and fractured his skull. St. Epiphanius says, that Scythianus had also met with the same fate before him. Here, however, it was that Manes became acquainted with the writings of Scythianus; for, having a handsome person and a ready wit, this widow, who had bought him, adopted him for her son, and took care to have him instructed by the magi in the discipline and philosophy of the Persians, in which he made so considerable a progress that he acquired the reputation of a very subtile and learned philosopher. When this lady died, the writings of Terebinthus, to whom she had been heir, or rather of Scythianus, from whom Terebinthus had received them, fell of course into the hands of Manes.

, a very learned scholar, was born at Florence, June 5, 1396, of an illustrious family that had fallen into decay. After a course of philosophical, theological and mathematical studies, he became, in the Greek language, the pupil of Camaldoli, who then taught that language at Florence, and not of Chrysoloras, as Vossius, and Hody, if we mis-take not, have reported. Manetti then lectured on philosophy in that city to a numerous auditory. He was afterwards employed by the state in various negociatious; and became successively governor of Pescia, Pistoria, and Scarperia, and commissary of the army along with Bernardetto de Medicis. He filled also several offices in the government of Florence, and rendered his own country many important services. When at Rome in 1452, at the coronation of the emperor Frederick, pope Nicholas V. bestowed on him the honour of knighthood. His talents and services, however, excited the envy of some of the families of Florence, and even the favour he acquired with the princes at whose courts he had been employed as ambassador, was considered as a crime; and a heavy fine being imposed on him, he found it necessary to leave his country, and take refuge in Rome, where pope Nicholas V. made him one of his secretaries, with a handsome salary, besides the perquisites of his place. He remained in the same office under the succeeding popes Calixtus III. and Pius II. which last made him librarian of the Vatican. Manetti at length left Rome to reside with Alphonsus, king of Naples, who had a great esteem for him, and gave him an annuity of 900 golden crowns. He did not, however, enjoy this situation long, dying Oct. 26, 1459, in his sixty-third year. He was an excellent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which at that time was little known in Italy, and employed twenty-two years on those languages. He kept three domestics, two of whom were Greeks, and the third a Syrian, who knew Hebrew, and whom he ordered always to speak to him in their respective languages. He was the author of a great many works, most of which remain in manuscript in the Laurentian Library. Those published were, 1. “De dignitate et excellentia hominis,” Basle, 1532, 8vo. 2. “Vita Petrarchae.” This life of Petrarch is inserted in Tommasini’s “Petrarcha redivivus.” 3. “Oratio ad regem Alphonsum in nuptiis filii sui.” This, which was spoken in 1445, was printed by Marquard Freher, in 1611, 4to, along with three other orations, addressed to Alphonsus on the peace, to the emperor Frederic on his coronation, and to pope Nicholas V. Other works have been attributed to him, as a “History of Pistoria,” and the lives of Dante, Boccacio, and Nicholas V,; but we find no particular account of them.

, a learned physician and laborious historian of that science, was horn June 19, 1652, at Geneva, where his father was an eminent merchant. His father’s brother, author of a work on fevers, was physician to the king of Poland. Manger, having finished his classical studies at the age of fourteen, bestowed two years on philosophy, and then studied theology for five years, when, changing his destination, he entered on a course of medical reading (for he says he had no teacher but his books), and made such proficiency, that in 1678, he received his doctor’s degree at Valence, along with the celebrated Hartman. On his return home he entered upon practice, to which he joined the laborious perusal of many medical works, which served as the foundation of his own publications. In 1699, the elector of Brandenburgh appointed him, by letters patent, his first physician, and the kings of Prussia continued this title to him during his life. He was dean of the faculty at Geneva at the time of his death, Aug. 15, 1742, in the ninetieth year of his age. His works are: l.“Messis Medico-spagyrica, &c.” Geneva, 1683, folio, which contains a most abundant collection of pharmaceutical preparations, arranged in a very complex order. 2. In the same year he edited, “Pauli Barbetti Opera omnia Medica et Chirurgica,” with additional cases and illustralions. 3. “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” 1685, two vols, folio a work which was executed in conjunction with Daniel le Clerc. He afterwards edited, 4. The “Compendium Medicinae Practicum,” of J. And. Sehmitz. 5. The “Pharmcopeia Schrodero-Hoffmanniana.” 6. The “Tractatus de Febribus,” of Franc. Pieus; and, 7. The “Sepulchretum” of Bonetus, to which he added several remarks and histories. 8. In 1695, he published his “Bibliotheca Medico-Practica,” four vqls. folio; a vast collection of practical matter relative to all the diseases of the human body, arranged in alphabetical order. 9. “Bibliotheca Chemica curiosa,” 1702, two vols. folio. 10 “Bibliotheca Pharmaceutico Medica,” 1711, two vols. folio; and 11. “Bibliotheca Chirurgica,” 1721, four vols. in two, folio. 12. “Theatrum Anatomicum, cum Eustachii Tabulis Anatomicis,” 1716, two vols. folio, a description of all the parts of the body, abridged from various authors. On the appearance of the plague at Marseilles, he published a collection of facts and opinions on that disease, under the title of “Traite de la Peste recueilli des meilleurs Auteurs,” 1721, two vols. 12mo; and in the following year, 14. “Nouvelles Reflexions sur l'Origine, la Cause, la Propagation, les Preservatifs, et la Cure de la Peste,” 12mo. 15. His “Observations sur la Maladie qui a commence depuis quelques annees a attaquer le gros Betail,” was a collection of the opinions of the Genevese physicians concerning the distemper of horned cattle. The last work of Manget was his “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Medicorum veterum et recentiorum,” at which he laboured when at least eighty years of age, and published it in 1731, in four vols. folio. It is the most important of his productions, being an useful collection of medical lives, and catalogues of writings. It has not been so much thought of since the appearance of Haller’s Bibliotheca, and particularly of Eloy’s; but the plans are different, and Manget’s, as well as the rest of his voluminous compilations, may be yet consulted with advantage. Although he was so intent on accumulating information, and reprinting scarce works and tracts, that he did not employ his judgment always, either in selection or arrangement, yet those, who, like himself, wish to trace the progress of medical knowledge, will find his works of great use. They contain, indeed, the substance of many libraries, and a variety of treatises which it would not be easy to procure in their separate form.

The doctrines of this heretic were, many of them, the same with those which were afterwards adopted by Manes and his followers; that, for instance, of two co-eternal, and independent principles, jDne the author of all good, the other of all evil. In other to support and propagate this principle more successfully, he is said to have applied himself to the study of philosophy, that of the stoics especially. Marcion likewise taught, as Manes did after him, that the God of the Old Testament was the evil principle; that he was an imperious tyrannical being, who imposed the hardest laws upon the Jews, and injuriously restrained Adam from touching the best tree in Paradise; and that the serpent was a nobler being than he, for encouraging him to eat of its fruit: on which account, as Theodoret tells us upon his own knowledge, the Marcionites worshipped a brazen serpent, which they always kept shut up in an ark. He taught, that Christ came down from heaven to free us from the yoke, which this being had put upon us; that Christ, however, was not clothed with real flesh and blood, but only appeared to the senses to be so, and that his sufferings were nothing more than appearance; that when Christ descended into hell, and preached the Gospel there, he brought the followers of Cain, the inhabitants of Sodom, and other wicked people, who were converted from the error of their ways, back with him to heaven; but that he left Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, who would not listen to his preaching, but trusted too much to their own righteousness, fast bound in that horrible dungeon; that there would be no resurrection of the body, but only of the soul, &c. &c. He rejected the law and the prophets, as being written tinder the inspiration of the evil god. He rejected also four epistles of St. Paul, together with all the gospels, except that of St. Luke; out of which, and the rest of St. Paul’s epistles, he composed, for the use of his followers, two books, which he persuaded them were of divine authority calling one “Evangelium,” and the other “Apostolicon.” Such is the account given in Irenaeus, in Tertullian’s five books against Marcion, and in Epiphanius.

, an eminent protestant divine, was born at Sneck in Friesland, in 1655, and became professor of divinity at Franeker, and professor of divinity and ecclesiastical history at Groningen, whence in 1689 he was removed to the same office at Leyden, and died there, Jan. 30, 1731. His first publication was an inaugural dissertation in 1676, “De augmento scientiac theologicae.” He afterwards derived great reputation from his “Disputationes duodecim de Sibyllinis carminibus,” Franeker, 1682, 8vo, written in opposition to the sentiments of Crasset. 2. “Compendium theologiae,” Amst. 1712, 4to. 3. “Exercitationes Biblicae,” published at different times, amounting to eight volumes. 4. “Exercitationes miseellaneae.” These turn on various disputed passages in the holy Scriptures, concerning which he combats the opinions of the Roman catholics, Socinians, &c. A selection from his works was published at Groningen in 1748, 2 vols. 4to. In the Museum library are two of his orations, one on the agreement between the old and new errors of popery, Groningen, 16S3; the other on the reverence due to the sacred Scriptures, Leyden, 1689, both in 41O.

, or Marcus, the founder of the sect of the Marcosians, is said to have appeared about the year 160, or, according to some, about the year 127. Many learned moderns are of opinion that Mark belonged to the Valentinian school, but Rhenford and Beausobre say that the Marcosians were Jews, or judaizing Christians; and Grabe likewise owns that they were of Jewish extract. Irenseus leads us to imagine that Mark, who was an Asiatic, had come into Gaul and made many converts there. Nevertheless, learned moderns think that they were only disciples of Mark, who came into that country, where Irenaeus resided, of whom, in one place, he makes particular mention. Irenaeus represents him as exceedingly skilful in all magical arts, by means of which he had great success. Tertullian and Theodoret concur in calling Mark a magician. Irenseus, after giving an account of the magical arts of Mark, adds, that he had, probably, an assisting daemon, by which he himself appears to prophesy, and which enabled others, especially women, to prophesy likewise: this practice favoured his seduction of many females, both in body and mind, which gained him much wealth. He is also said to have made use of philters and love-potions, in order to gain the affections of women; and his disciples are charged with doing the same. Dr. Lardner suggests some doubts as to the justice of these accusations; and indeed there is considerable obscurity in every particular of his personal history. His followers, called Marcosians, are said to have placed a great deal of mystery in the letters of the alphabet, and thought that they were very useful in finding out the truth. They are charged unjustly with holding two principles, and as if they were Docetse, and denied the resurrection of the dead; for which there is no sufficient evidence. They persisted in the practice of baptism and the eucharist. As to their opinion concerning Jesus Christ, they seem to have had a notion of the great dignity and excellence of his person, or his ineffable generation: and, according to them, he was born of Mary, a virgin, and the word was in him, When ha came to the water, the supreme power descended upon him; and he had in him all fulness; for in him was the word, the father, truth, the church, and life. They said that the Christ, or the Spirit, came down upon the man Jesus. He made known the Father, and destroyed death, and called himself the Son of Man; for it was the good pleasure of the Father of all that he should banish ignorance and destroy death: and the acknowledgment of him is the overthrow of ignorance. From the account of Irenceus, we may infer that the Marcosians believed the facts recorded in the gospels and that they received most, or all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Irenaeus also says that they had an innumerable multitude of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they had forged: and that they made use of that fiction concerning the child Jesus, that when his master bade him say, alpha, the Lord did so; but when the master called him to say beta, he answered, “Do you first tell me what is alpha, and then I will tell you what beta is.” As this story concerning alpha and beta is found in the gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ, still in being, some are of opinion that this gospel was composed by the Marcosians.

This likewise seems to confirm the opinion of some that he was an author by profession, and one of the earliest on record. Numerous, however, as were this writer’s works, his memory has not had the fate of being transmitted with any clearness to posterity. The time of his birth, death, and all other particulars regarding him, are utterly unknown.

, an eminent printer, was born at Alost, in Flanders, in 1454. He began printing in 1473, and died in 1534. He is celebrated as the person who first introduced the art of printing into the Netherlands; having exercised this useful and noble art nearly sixty years at Alost, Louvain, and Antwerp. He was an author as well as a printer; and wrote Latin hymns in honour of the saints, a dialogue on the virtues, and other pieces; but he is more renowned for the many beautiful editions of other men’s works which issued from his presses. He was highly esteemed by the learned men of the period in which he lived, arf8 enjoyed the friendship of Erasmus, who lodged in his house. He employed the double anchor as a sign of the books that were printed at his office.

*About this time he was an unsuc- Transactions“from 1720 to that time, cessful candidate for the post of secre- in conjunction with Mr, John Eames, taryto the royal society. His oppo- who, however, abridged only three nent was Dr. Mortimer, who had the chapters, while Mr. Martyn completinterest of s r Hans Sloane and of the ed the whole in 3 vols. 4to. 1734, as coim, which, Mr. Martyn’s son says, a continuation of the previous abridgwas” too prevalent for 1 he literary ment in 5 vols, by Lowthorp and part of the society;“In 1731 he was Jones. Among his other literary laengaged in putung together Churchill’s hours, he was also engaged in the Collect ion of Voyages and Travels;” General Dictionary, including Bayle,“published proposals fir an edition of 1 vols, fol. but his articles appear only Virgil’s Georgics, anl entered into ar- in the first three volumes, tides for abridging the” Philosophical air disagreeing with his constitution, which was asthmatic, he removed to Chelsea, where he married, on the 20th of August, 1732, Eulalia, youngest daughter of John King, D. D. rector of Chelsea, and prebendary of York, by whom he had three sons and five daughters. Four of the latter died young, but the other children survived him.

Peter Martyr is described to have been a man of an able, healthy constitution, large-boned, well limbed, and of a countenance which expressed an inwardly grave and settled turn of mind. His parts and learning were very uncommon; as was also his skill in disputation, which made him as much admired by the protestants, as hated by the papists. He was very sincere and indefatigable in promoting a reformation in the church; yet his zeal was never known to get the better of his judgment. He was always moderate and prudent in his outward behaviour; nor, even in the conflict of a dispute, did he suffer himself to be transported into intemperate warmth, or unguarded expressions ever to escape him. But his pains and industry were not confined to preaching and disputing against the papists; he wrote a great many books against them, none of which raised his reputation higher, than his “Defence of the orthodox doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” against bishop Gardiner. He wrote also several tracts of divinity, and commentaries on many books of Scripture; for all which he was as much applauded by one party, as he was condemned by the other. Dupin, however, with his usual candour, bestows the highest praise on the learning and critical skill of Martyr as a commentator. It is easy to conceive, that Peter Martyr would be ranked at Rome amongst the heretics of the first class; yet, as bishop Jewel observes in his “Defence of the Church of England,” he “was an illustrious man, and must never be named without the highest respect and honour.”

, a Jesuit, and a writer of Latin poetry, was born at Dalen in the dutchy of Juliers, in 1606. He professed eloquence and poetry with great credit at Cologne; and wrote, among other things, a long Latin poem entitled “Sarcotis,” or “Sarcothea,” which Lauder brought into new celebrity, by pretending that Milton had borrowed from it. It was an allegory describing the fall of man. Masenius wrote good Latin, and good verses, but full of amplification and declamation. The tracts occasioned by Lander’s accusation of Milton, were translated into French, and published collectively by Barbou, in 2 vols. 12mo, in 1759. Masenius produced also, 1. A kind of art of poetry, under the title of “Palaestra eloquentiae ligatae,” in 4 vols. 12mo. 2. Another treatise entitled “Palaestra styli Romani.” 3. “Anima Historic, seu vita Caroli V. et Ferdinandi,” in 4to. 4. Notes and additions to the Antiquitates et Annales Trevirensium, by Brower, 1670, in folio. 5. “Epitome Annalium Trevirensium,” 1676, 8vo. He died in 1681.

, a Spanish poet, was born at Oropesa in New Castile, in 1663. His poetical essays were published in 1682, in one volume, 4to. This fortunate commencement encouraged the young poet; but it gained himjnvoluntarily, as he was an ecclesiastic, the affections of a lady of great beauty and high rank. In order to retire from this temptation, he went to Rome, where he was received a member of the Arcadi; and Innocent XII. delighted with his talents, appointed him dean of Alicant. At that place he died,. Dec. 18, 1737, being then 74 years old. His letters and Latin poetry, published at Madrid in 1735, in 2 voh. 12mo, prove that he was gifted both with facility of writing and with imagination.

He was an early and active advocate for inoculation; and when there was a doubt entertained that one might have the small-pox after inoculation a second time, tried it upon himself, unknown to his family. He was a member of the medical club (with the doctors Parsons, Templeman, Fothergill, Watson, and others), which met every fortnight in St. Paul’s church-yard. He was twice married, viz. the first time to Mrs. Elizabeth Boisragon; and the second to Mrs. Mary Deners. He left a son and three daughters. A portrait of Dr. Maty, by his own order, was engraved after his death by Bartolozzi, to be given to his friends; of which no more than 100 copies were taken off, and the plate destroyed. He had nearly finished the “Memoirs of the Earl of Chesterfield” which were completed by his son-in-law Mr. Justamond, and prefixed to that nobleman’s Miscellaneous Works, 1777, 2 vols. 4 to.

, There are two saints of this name, of whom some notice may be taken; the oldest Maximus, of Turin, so called because he was bishop of that city in the fifth century, was eminent for his learning and piety. Many of his “Homilies” remain, some of which bear the name of St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, and Eusebius of messa, in the Library of the fathers. The other St. Maximus was an abbot, and confessor in the seventh century, born of an ancient and noble family at Constantinople. He warmly opposed the heresy of the Monothelites, and died in prison, August 13, 662, in consequence of what he had suffered on that occasion. We have a commentary of his on the books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and several other works, which father Combesis published, 1675, 2 vols. folio; and they are also in the Library of the fathers.

, 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.

By the time he had taken the degree of master of arts, which was in 1610, he had made such progress in all kinds of academical study, that he was universally esteemed an accomplished scholar. He was an acute logician, an accurate philosopher, a skilful mathematician, an excellent anatomist, a great philologer, a master of many languages, and a good proficient in history and chronology. His first public effort was an address that he made to bishop Andrews, in a Latin tract “De sanctitate relativa;” which, in his maturer years, he censured as a juvenile performance, and therefore never published it. That great prelate, however, who was a good judge and patron of learning, liked it so well, that he not only was the author’s firm friend upon an occasion that offered soon after, but also then desired him to be his domestic chaplain. This Mede very civilly refused; valuing the liberty of his studies above any hopes of preferment, wnd esteeming that freedom which he enjoyed in his cell, so he used to call it, as the haven of all his wishes. These thoughts, indeed, had possessed him. betimes: for, when he was a school-boy, he was invited by his uncle, Mr. Richard Mede, a merchant, who, being then without children, offered to adopt him for his son, if he would live with him: but he refused the offer, preferring, as it should seem, a life of study to a life of gain.

, a celebrated citizen of Florence, born in that city iii 1389, was the eldest son of John de Metlici, the founder of his illustrious family. 4i The maxims,“says Mr. Roscoe,” which, m iformly pursued, raised the house of Medici to the splendour which it afterwards enjoyed, are to be found in the charge given by this venerable old man on his death-bed to his two sons “I feel,” said John de Medici, “that I have lived the time prescribed me. I die content; leaving you, my sons, in affluence and in health, and in such a station, that while you follow my example, you may live in your native place honoured and respected. Nothing affords me more pleasure than the reflection that my conduct has not given offence to any one; but that, on the contrary, I have endeavoured to serve all persons to the best of my abilities. I advise you to do the same. With respect to the honours of the state, if you would live with security, accept only such as are bestowed on you by the laws, and the favour of your fellow-citizens; for it is the exercise of that power which is obtained by violence, and not of that which is voluntarily conferred, that occasions hatred and violence.” At the death of this venerable man, in 1428, Cosmo had already obtained distinction both in the political and commercial world. In 1414, when the pope, John XXIII., was summoned to attend the council of Constance, he chose to be accompanied by Cosmo de Medici, among other men of eminence, whose high characters might countenance his cause. On the death of his father, Cosmo succeeded to the influence possessed by him as head of that powerful family, which rendered him the first citizen of the state, though without any superiority of rank or title, and his conduct being marked by urbanity and generosity to all ranks, he acquired numerous and zealous partizans. Such was the influence of his family, that while the citizens of Florence fancied they lived under a pure republic, the Medici generally assumed to themselves the first offices of the state, or nominated such persons as they esteemed fit for those employments. Cosmo exerted this influence with great prudence and moderation; yet, owing to the discontent of the Florentines, with the bad success of the war against Lucca, a party arose, led on by Rinaldo de' Albizi, which, in 1433, after filling the magistracies with their own adherents, seized the person of Cosmo, and committed him to prison, and he was afterwards banished to Padua for ten years, and several other members and friends of the Medici family underwent a similar punishment. He was received with marked respect by the Venetian government, and took up his abode in the city of Venice. Within a year of his retreat, Rinaldo was himself obliged to quit Florence; and Cosmo being recalled, he returned amidst the acclamations of his fellow-subjects. Some victims were offered to his future security, and the gonfaloniere who had pronounced his sentence, with a few others of that party, were put to death. Measures were now taken to restrict the choice of magistrates to the partizans of the Medici, and alliances were formed with the neighbouring powers for the avowed purpose of supporting and perpetuating the system by which Florence was from that time to be governed. The manner in which Cosmo employed his authority, has conferred upon his memory the greatest honour. From this time his life was an almost uninterrupted series of prosperity. The tranquillity enjoyed by the republic, and the satisfaction and peace of mind which he experienced in the esteem and confidence of his fellow-citizens, enabled him to indulge his natural propensity to the promotion of science, and the patronage and encouragement of learned men. The richest private citizen in Europe, he surpassed almost all sovereign princes in the munificence with which he patronized literature and the fine arts. He assembled around him some of the most learned men of the age, who had begun to cultivate the Grecian language and philosophy. He established, at Florence, an academy expressly for the elucidation of the Platonic philosophy, at the head of which he placed the celebrated Marsilius Ficinus. He collected from all parts by means of foreign correspondences, manuscripts of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental languages, which formed the foundation of the Laurentian library nor was he less liberal in the encouragement of the fine arts. During the retirement of his latter days, his happiest hours were devoted to the study of letters and philosophy, and the conversation of learned men. He also endowed numerous religious houses, and built an hospital at Jerusalem for the relief of distressed pilgrims. While the spirit of his government was moderate, he avoided every appearance of state which might excite the jealousy or discontent of the Florentines; and therefore, byway of increasing his interest among them, restricted the marriages of his children to Florentine families: By such wise measures, and the general urbanity of his behaviour to all orders of men, he attained the title of “Father of his country,” which was inscribed on his tomb. He died Aug. 1, 14-64, aged seventyfive years, deeply lamented by the citizens of Florence.

His time was now chiefly employed in conferences and disputes about religion. In 1539, there was an assembly of the protestant princes at Francfort, concerning a reformation; and another in 1541, at Worms, where there happened a warm dispute between Melancthon and Eckius respecting original sin. But, by the command of the emperor, it was immediately dissolved, and both of them appointed to meet at Reinspurg; where Eckius proposing a sophism somewhat puzzling, Melancthon paused a little, and said, “that he would give an answer to it the next day.” Upon which Eckius represented to him the disgrace of requiring so long a time; but Melancthon replied, that he sought not his own glory, but that of truth. In 1543 he went to the archbishop of Cologne, to assist him in introducing a reformation into his diocese but without effect. He attended at seven conferences in 1548 and was one of the deputies whom Maurice, elector of Saxony, was to send to the council of Trent, in 1552. His last conference with the doctors of the Romish communion was at Worms, in 1557. He died at Wittemberg, April 19, 1560, in his sixty-third year; and was buried near Luther, in the church of the castle, two days after. Some days before he died, he wrote upon a piece of paper the reasons which made him look upon death as a happiness; and the chief of them was, that it “delivered him from theological persecutions.” Nature had given him a peaceable temper, which was but ill-suited for the time in which he lived. His moderation greatly augmented his uneasiness. He was like a lamb in the midst of wolves. Nobody liked his mildness it looked as if he was lukewarm and even Luther himself was sometimes angry at it. It was, indeed, considering his situation, very inconvenient; for it not only exposed him to all kinds of slander, but would not suffer him to “answer a fool according to his folly.” The only advantage it procured him, was to look upon death without fear, by considering, that it would secure him from the “odium theologicum,” the hatred of divines, and the discord of false brethren. He was never out of danger, but might truly be said, “through fear, to be all his life-time subject to bondage.” Thus he declared, in one of his works, that he “had held his professor’s place forty years without ever being sure that he should not be turned out of it before the end of the week.”

He married a daughter of a burgomaster of Wittemberg in 1520, who lived with him till 1557. He had two sons and two daughters by her; and his eldest daughter Anne, in 1536, became the wife of George Sabinus, one of the best poets of his time. His other daughter was married, in 1550, to Caspar Peucer, who was an able physician, and very much persecuted. Melancthop was a very affectionate father; and there is an anecdote preserved of him, which perfectly agrees with his character for humility. A Frenchman, it is said, found him one day, holding a book in one hand, and rocking a child with the other; and upon his expressing some surprise, Melancthon made such a pious discourse to him about the duty of a father, and the state of grace in which the children are with God, “that this stranger went away,” says Bayle, “much more edified than he came.” Melchior Adam relates a curious dialogue which passed between his son-in-law Sabinus, and cardinal Bembus, concerning Melancthon. When Sabinus went to see Italy, Melancthon wrote a letter to cardinal Bembus, to recommend him to his notice. The cardinal laid a great stress upon the recommendation; for he loved Melancthort for his abilities and learning, however he might think himself obliged to speak of his religion. He was very civil therefore to Sabinus, invited him to dine with him, and in the time of dinner asked him a great many questions, particularly these three “Wliat salary Melancthon had what number of hearers and what he thought concerning the resurrection and a future state” To the first question Sabinus replied, “that his salary was not above 30O florins a year. 1” Upon hearing this, the cardinal cried out, “Ungrateful Germany to value at so low a price so many labours of so great a man.” The answer to the second was, “that he had usually 1500 hearers.” “I cannot believe it,” says the cardinal: “I do not know an university in Europe, except that of Paris, in which one professor has so many scholars.” To the third, Sabinus replied, “that Melancthon’s works were a full and sufficient proof of his belief in those two articles.”— “I should think him a wiser man,” said the cardinal, “if he did not believe any thing about them.”

, an ancient Christian father, was bishop of Sardis in Asia, and composed several works upon the doctrine and discipline of the church; of which we have nothing now remaining but their titles, and some fragments preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical Hist, book IV. The most valuable of these is part of an humble petition, which he presented to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; in which he beseeches him, “to examine the accusations which were brought against the Christians, and to stop the persecution, by revoking the edict which he had published against them.” He represents to him, that “the Roman, empire was so far from being injured or weakened by Christianity, that its foundation was more firmly established, and its bounds considerably enlarged, since that religion had taken footing in it;” that “the Christian religion had been persecuted by none but the worst emperors, such as Nero and Domitian that Adrian and Antoninus had granted privileges in its favour and that he hoped from his clemency and goodness, that they should obtain the same protection of their lives and properties from him.” This petition was presented, according to Eusebius, in the year 170; but other authors give it the date of 175 or 177, and Dupin 182. Melito died before the pontificate of Victor, probably about the year 192, as we learn from a letter of Polycrates to that pope, where he speaks of Melito as of a man dead, and in the following terms: “What shall I say of Melito, whose actions were all guided by the operations of the Holy Spirit? who was interred at Sardis, where he waits the resurrection and the judgment.” He passed, it seems, for a prophet in his day; that is, for a man inspired by God; according to the testimony of Tertullian, as Jerome represents it. The same Tertullian observes also, that he was an elegant writer and a good orator; which, however, it would not be easy to discover from the fragments that remain of him.

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

, was a prince of the Russian empire, deeply concerned in the politics of his time. The general opinion of the origin of Menzikoff is, that his father was a peasant, who had placed him at Moscow with a pastry-cook, and that he carried little pies about the streets, singing as he went. In this situation, he was seen by the emperor Peter, who, pleased with the wit and liveliness which on examination he found in him, took him about his person, and thus opened the way to his fortune. Others, however, say, that his father was an officer in the service of the czar Alexis Michaelowitz, and that, as it was not extraordinary for gentlemen to serve in the stables of the czar, Menzikoff was there employed as one of the head grooms, and that in this situation his talents were noticed by the czar, and his advancement begun. Whatever may in this respect be true, it is certain that when he had begun to attend the emperor, he soon made himself agreeable, and finally necessary to that prince, whose projects he seconded with great address; and, having studied several languages, was able to be useful in various situations. Being appointed to the government of Ingria, his services in that situation obtained him the rank of prince, with the title of major-general in the army. He signalized himself in Poland in 1708 and 1709; but in 1713, he was accused of peculation, and condemned to pay a fine of three hundred thousand crowns. The czar, however, remitted the fine, and having received him again into his favour, sent him with a command into the Ukraine in 1719, and ambassador to Poland in 1722. When the czar died, in 1725, Menzikoff had already contrived the means of continuing and increasing his own power. He was aware of the design of Peter, to give his throne to his empress Catherine, and therefore to secure her gratitude, MenzikofF prepared all parties to acquiesce in this arrangement. Catherine was not insensible of her obligations to him, and agreed that her son, afterwards Peter II. should marry the daughter of Menzikoff, which she made an article in her will. At her death in 1727, the prince being then under twelve years, Menzikoff was also one of the regency appointed by her will, and the most active member in it.

, an eminent mathematician and astronomer, whose name in High-Dutch was Kauffman, was born about 1640, at Holstein in Denmark. From his works we learn, that he had an early and liberal education, suitable to his distinguished genius, by which he was enabled to extend his researches into the mathematical sciences, and to make very considerable improvements: for it appears from his writings, as well as from the character given of him by other mathematicians, that his talent rather lay in improving, and adapting any discoveries and improvements to use, than invention. However, his genius for the mathematical sciences was very conspicuous, and introduced him to public regard and esteem in his own country, and facilitated a correspondence with such as were eminent in those sciences, in Denmark, Italy, and England, In consequence, some of his correspondents gave him an invitation to this country, which he accepted; and he afterwards continued in England till hi death. In 1666 he was admitted F. R. S. and gave frequent proofs of his close application to study, as well as of his eminent abilities in improving some branch or other of the sciences. But he is charged sometimes with borrowing the inventions of others, and adopting them as his own, and it appeared upon some occasions that he was not of an over-liberal mind in scientific communications. Thus, it had some time before him been observed, that there was an analogy between a scale of logarithmic tangents and Wright’s protraction of the nautical meridian line, which consisted of the sums of the secants; though it does not appear by whom this analogy was first discovered. It appears, however, to have been first published, and introduced into the practice of navigation, by Henry Bond, who mentions this property in an edition of Norwood’s Epitome of Navigation, printed about 1645; and he again treats of it more fully in an edition of Gunter’s works, printed in 1653, where he teaches, from this property, to resolve all the cases of Mercator’s sailing by the logarithmic tangents, independent of the table of meridional parts. This analogy had only been found to be nearly true by trials, but not demonstrated to be a mathematical property. Such demonstration seems to have been first discovered by Mercator, who, desirous of making the most advantage of this and another concealed invention of his in navigation, by a paper in the Philosophical Transactions for June 4, 1666, invites the public to enter into a wager with him on his ability to prove the truth or falsehood of the supposed analogy. This mercenary proposal it seems was not taken up by any one; and Mercator reserved his demonstration. Our author, however, distinguished himself by many valuable pieces on philosophical and mathematical subjects. His first attempt was, to reduce astrology to rational principles, which proved a vain attempt. But his writings of more particular note, are as follow: 1. “Cosmographia, sive Descriptio Cceli & Terrse in Circulos, qua fundamentum sterniter sequentibus ordine Trigonometric Sphericorum Logarithmicse, &c. a” Nicolao Hauffman Holsato,“Dantzic, 1651, 12mo. 2.” Rationes Mathematics subductse anno 1653,“Copenhagen, 4to. 3.” De Emendatione annua Diatribae duae, quibus exponuntur & demonstrantur Cycli Soiis & Lunce,“&c. 4to. 4.” Hypothesis Astronomica nova, et Consensus ejus cum Observationibus,“Lond. 1664, folio. 5.” Logarithmotechnia, sive Method us construendi Logarithmos nova, accurata, et facilis; scripto antehac communicata anno sc. 1667 nonis Augusti; cui nunc accedit, Vera Quadratura Hyperbolae, & inventio summae Logaritbmorum. Auctore Nicolao Mercatore Holsato e Societate Regia. Huic etiam jungitur Michaelis Angeli Riccii Exercitatio Geometrica de Maximis et Minimis, hie ob argument! praestantiam & exemplarium raritatem recusa,“Lond. 1668, 4to. 6.” Institutionum Astronomicarum libri duo, de Motu Astrorum communi & proprio, secundum hypotheses veterum & recentiorum praecipuas deque Hypotheseon ex observatis constructione, cum tabulis Tychonianis, Solaribus, Lunaribus, Lunae-solaribus, & Rudolphinis Solis, Fixarum &*quinque Errantium, earumque usu prajceptis et exemplis commonstrato. Quibus accedit Appendix de iis, quae uovissimis temporibus coelitus innotuerunt,“Lond. 1676, 8vo. 7.” Euclidis Elementa Geometrica, novo ordine ac methodo fere, demonstrata. Una cum Nic. Mercatoris in Geometriam Introductione brevi, qua Magnitudinum Ortus ex genuinis Principiis, & Ortarum Affectiones ex ipsa Genesi derivantur," Lond. 1678, 12mo. His papers in the Philosophical Transactions are, 1. A Problem on some Points of Navigation vol. I. p. 215. 2. Illustrations of the Logarithmo-technia vol. Hi. p. 759. 3. Considerations concerning his Geometrical and Direct Method for finding the Apogees, Excentricities, and Anomalies of the Planets; vol. V. p. 1168. Mercator died in 1594, about fifty-four years of age.

Mr. Merry was an accomplished gentleman, and for many years highly esteemed by a numerous circle of friends of rank and learning, but in his latter years he unfortunately became enamoured of those loose and theoretical principles which produced the French revolution; and this change gave a sullen gloom to his character, which made him relinquish all his former connexions, and attach himself to company far beneath his talents, and unsuitable to his habits. There is reason to think, however, that his mind recovered somewhat of its better frame after he had resided a few months in America, and had leisure to reflect on what he had exchanged for the gay visions of republican fancy. Mrs. Merry, who married Mr. Warren, the manager of a theatre in America, died in 1808.

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.

He returned through Paris towards the end of 1725, and arrived at Cambridge before Christmas. He had not been long employed in his study, before he incurred the displeasure of the whole medical faculty, by the publication of a tract, entitled, 8. “De medicorum apud veteres Romanos degentiiuu coiulitione dissertatio qua, contra viros celeberrimos Jacobutn Sponimn &, Richardum Meadium, servilem atque ignobilem earn fuisse ostenditur,” Cant. 1726. Mead had just before published an Harveian Oration, in which he had defended the dignity of his profession: so that this seeming attempt of Middleton to degrade it, was considered by the faculty as an open attack upon their order. Much resentment was shewn, and some pamphlets were published: one particularly with the title of “Responsio,” of which the late professor Ward of Gresham-college was the author. Ward was supposed to be chosen by Mead himself for this task: for his book was published under Mead’s inspection, and at his expence. Middleton defended his dissertation in a new publication entitled, 9. “Dissertations, &e. contra anonymos quosdam notarum brevium, responsionis, atque animadversionis auctores, defensio, Pars prima, 1727.” The purpose of this tract seems to have been, not to pursue the controversy, for he enters little into it, but to extricate himself from it with as good a grace as he could: for nothing more was published about it, and the two doctors, Mead and Middleton, without troubling themselves to decide the question, became afterwards very good friends. A “Pars secunda,” however, was actually written, and printed for private circulation, after his death, by Dr. Heberden, in 1761, 4to. In 1729 Middleton published, 10. “A Letter from Rome, shewing an exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism: or, the Religion of the present Romans derived from that of their Heathen Ancestors.” This letter, though written with great politeness, good sense, and learning, yet drew upon the author the displeasure of some even of our own church; because he attacked in it the Popish miracles with that general spirit of incredulity and levity, which seemed, in their opinion, to condemn all miracles. In his second edition he endeavoured to obviate this objection, by an -express declaration in favour of the Jewish and Christian miracles, to which perhaps more credit was given now than afterwards. A fourth edition came out in 1741, 8vo, to which were added, 1. “A prefatory Discourse, containing an Answer to the Writer of a Popish book, entitled, The Catholic Christian instructed, &c. with many new facts and testimonies, in farther confirmation of the general Argument of the Letter:” and, 2. “A Postscript, in which Mr. Warburton’s opinion concerning the Paganism of Rome is particularly considered.” Hitherto certainly the opinion of the world was generally in his favour, and many thought that he had done great service to Protestantism, by exposing the absurdities and impostures of Popery. He had also several personal qualities, which recommended him; he was an excellent scholar, an elegant writer, a very polite man, and a general favourite with the public, as well as with the community in which he lived; but an affair now happened, which ruined all his hopes, proved fatal to his views of preferment, and disgraced him with his countrymen as long as he lived.

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.

, Mus. D. younger brother of the preceding, was apprenticed to his father’s business, that of a paviour, in Norwich, but his dislike of the occupation became so great, that he absconded, and came to London. Soon afterwards he placed himself under the tuition of the celebrated Dr. Burney, with whom he continued in habits of intimacy and correspondence throughout his life. In 1756 he went to reside at Doncaster in Yorkshire, where he followed his profession with great reputation, and was organist of the church fifty-one years. He took his degree of doctor of music at Cambridge in 1786. Dr. Miller’s company was much sought after, as he was an agreeable, well-bred man, and his conversation abounded in anecdote and apt quotation. His only failing was an occasional absence of mind; which led him into several ludicrous mistakes that will long be remembered in the neighbourhood of Doncaster.

Milton’s next employment was to answer the celebrated Salmasius, who, at the instigation of the exiled Charles II. had written a defence* of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius was an antagonist worthy of Milton, as a general scholar, but scarcely his equal in that species of political talent which rendered Milton’s services so important to the new government. Salmasius’s work was entitled “Defensio Kegia,” and Milton’s “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” which greatly increased Milton’s reputation abroad, and at home we may be certain would procure him no small share of additional favour. That his work includes a very great portion of controversial bitterness, may be attributed either to the temper of the times, or of the writer, as the reader pleases; but the former was entirely in his favour, and his triumph was therefore complete. Of Salmasius’s work, the highest praise has been reserved to our own times, in which the last biographer of Milton has compared it to Mr. Burke’s celebrated book on the French revolution.

, a learned German, was born at Brussels in 1573; and was first almoner and librarian of Albert, archduke of Austria. He was an ecclesiastic, and laboured all his life for the good of the church and of his country. He died in 1640. His works are, 1.“Elogiaillustrium Belgii scriptorum,” 1609, 4to. 2. “Opera Historica et Diplomatica.” This is a collection of charters and diplomas, relating to the Low Countries. The best edition is that of 1724, 4 vols. in folio, by Foppens, who has made notes, corrections, and additions to it. 3. “Rerum Belgicarum Chronicon;” useful for the history of the Low Countries. 4. “De rebus Bohemicis,” 12mo. 5. “Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica.” 6. “Vita Justi Lipsii,” &c. Penetration, and exactness in facts and citations, are usually esteemed the characteristics of this writer.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

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