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

“He was perfectly and intimately acquainted with the works of the most celebrated writers of antiquity in verse and prose. His memory was stocked with the most striking passages contained in them; but he never indulged nor gave way to the strong impressions they had stamped on his mind, but to gratify his confidential friends. Whenever he consented to their entreaties, his allusions were judiciously selected, and applied with the most consummate propriety. His language was manly, nervous, and technical. It was suited to the personal rank, knowledge, and disposition, of those he conversed with; by which means he rendered himself agreeable and intelligible to every person, whom chance, amusement, or business, threw in his way.

“His discernment of spirits, the term which the late lord Bolingbroke substitutes for the familiar phrase of knowing mankind, was no less conspicuous, when he thought proper to exert it with steadiness and vigour; but unfortunately for his own domestic peace, it was extremely difficult to rouse him. He trusted too much to the representations of others, and was always ready to leave the labour of discriminating characters, to those who too often found an interest in deceiving him. Though his steadiness of principle, penetration, and justness of reflection, might be well ranked in the first class, those talents were in a great measure effectually lost, because his employments and pursuits as a public man, his amusements as a man of taste and science, and, in the latter part of his life, his avocations as a writer, so totally engrossed his attention, that he entirely neglected his private affairs, and in a Variety of instances fell a prey to private rapine and literary imposition. This was the joint effect of native indolence, and a certain incurable absence of mind. To show that his want of discrimination was not native, but that the power of knowing those he communicated with, was rendered to some purpose useless, because it was not employed, a stronger proof need not be given, than his thorough knowledge of the court, as exhibited in parties, and the several individuals who composed them. He could tell the political value of almost every veteran courtier, or candidate for power. He could develope their latent views, he could foretell their change of conduct. He foresaw the effect of such and such combinations, the motives which formed them, the principles which held them together, and the probable date of their dissolutioe. Whenever he was imposed on, it was through the want of attention, not of parts; or from a kind of settled opinion, that men of common plain understandings, and good reputation, would hardly risque solid advantages in pursuit of unlawful gain, which last might eventually be accompanied with loss of character, as well as the object proposed to be attained. Whatever plausibility there may appear in this mode of reasoning, experience frequently informed his lordship, that it was not to be depended on. He was plundered by his servants, deceived by his humble companions, misled by his confidents, and imposed on by several of those whom he patronized. He felt the effects of all this, in his family, in his finances, and even in the rank he should have preserved. Those who were not acquainted with the solidity of his judgment, the acuteness of his wit, the brilliancy and justness of his thoughts, the depth of his penetration, and with the amazing extent of his genius, were apt to confound the consequences of his conduct, with the powers and resources of his mind. If his lordship remained out of place, on principle, the ignorant inclined to ascribe this seeming court proscription to simplicity or want of talents. If he did not support his rank with that ostentatious splendour now become so fashionable, the world was ready to impute it to a want of oeconotny, or a want of spirit; but in all those conjectures and conclusions, the world were much mistaken and misled. He had frequent offers, some of them the most flattering, to take a part in administration; but he uniformly rejected them. His manner of living at his seat at Hagley was founded on the truest principles of hospitality, politeness, and society; and as to money, he knew no other use of it but to answer his own immediate calls, or to enable him to promote the happiness of others.”

, third son of sir Thomas, and brother to George lord Lyttelton, was born at Hagley, in 1714. He was educated at Eton-school, and went thence first to University-college, Oxford, and then to the InnerTemple, where he became a barrister at law; but entering into orders, was collated by bishop Hough to the rectory of Alvechurch, in Worcestershire, Aug. 13, 1742. He took the degree of LL. B. March 28, 1745; LL. D. June 18 the same year; was appointed king’s chaplain in Dec. 1747, dean of Exeter in May 1748, and was consecrated bishop of Carlisle, March 21, 1762. In 1754 he caused the cieling and cornices of the chancel of Hagley church to be ornamented with shields of arms in their proper colours, representing the paternal coats of his ancient and respectable family. In 1765, on the death of Hugh lord Willoughby of Parham, he was unanimously elected president of the society of antiquaries; a station in which his distinguished abilities were eminently displayed. He died unmarried, Dec. 22, 1768. His merits and good qualities are universally acknowledged; and those parts of his character which more particularly endeared him to the learned society over which he so worthily presided, shall be pointed out in the words of his learned successor dean Milles: “The study of antiquity, especially that part of it which relates to the history and constitution of these kingdoms, was one of his earliest and most favourable pursuits; and he acquired g cat knowledge in it by constant study and application, to which he was led, not only by his natural disposition, but also by his state and situation in life. He took frequent opportunities of improving and enriching this knowledge by judicious observations in the course of several journies which he made through every country of England, and through many parts of Scotland and Wales. The society has reaped the fruits of these observations in the most valuable papers, which his lordship from time to time has communicated to us; which are more in number, and not inferior either in merit or importance, to those conveyed to us by other hands. Blest with a retentive memory, and happy both in the disposition and facility of communicating his knowledge, he was enabled also to act the part of a judicious commentator and candid critic, explaining, illustrating, and correcting from his own observations many of the papers which have been read at this society. His station and connections in the world, which necessarily engaged a very considerable part of his time, did not lessen his attention to the business and interests of the society. His doors were always open to his friends, amongst whom none were more welcome to him than the friends of literature, which he endeavoured to promote in all its various branches, especially in those which are the more immediate objects of our attention. Even this circumstance proved beneficial to the society, for, if I may be allowed the expression, he was the centre in which the various informations -on points of antiquity from the different parts of the kingdom united, and the medium through which they were conveyed to us. His literary merit with the society received an additional lustre from the affability of his temper, the gentleness of his manners, and the benevolence of his heart, which united every member of the society in esteem to their head, and in harmony and friendship with each other. A principle so essentially necessary to the prosperity and even to the existence of all communities, especially those which have arts and literature for their object, that its beneficial effects are visibly to be discerned in the present flourishing state of our society, which I flatter myself will be long continued under the influence of the same agreeable principles. I shall conclude this imperfect sketch of a most worthy character, by observing that the warmth of his affection to the society continued to his latest breath; and he has given a signal proof of it in the last great act which a wise man does with resp'ect to his worldly affairs; for, amongst the many charitable and generous donations contained in his will, he has made a very useful and valuable bequest of manuscripts and printed books to the society, as a token of his affection for them, and of his earnest desire to promote those laudable purposes for which they were instituted.” The society expressed their gratitude and respect to his memory by a portrait of him engraved at their expence in 1770.

In 1682 he took a journey into Burgundy, in which M. Colbert employed him to examine some ancient titles relating to the royal family. That minister received all the satisfaction he could desire; and, being fully convinced of Mabillon’s experience and abilities in these points, sent him the year following into Germany, in order to search there, among the archives and libraries of the ancient abbeys for materials to illustrate the history of the church in general, and that of France in particular. He spent five months in this journey, and published an account of it. He took another journey into Italy in 1685, by order of the king of France; and returned the year following with a very noble collection of above three thousand volumes of rare books, both printed and manuscript, which he added to the king’s library; and, in 1687, composed two volumes of the pieces he had discovered in that country, under the title of “Museum Italicum.” After this he employed himself in publishing other works, which are strong evidences of his vast abilities and application. In 1698 he published a Latin letter concerning the worship of the unknown saints, which he called “Eusehii Romani ad Theophilum Gallum epistola.” The history of this piece does credit to his love of truth, and freedom from traditional prejudices. While at Rome he had endeavoured to inform himself particularly of those rules and precautions, wh:ch were necessary to be observed with regard to the bodies of saints taken out of the catacombs, in order to be exposed to the veneration of the public. He had himself visited those places, and consulted all persons who could give him light upon the subject; but five or six years elapsed after his return to France, without his having ever thought of making use of these observations. In 1692, however, he drew up the treatise above-mentioned; in which he gave it as his opinion, that the bodies found in the catacombs were too hastily, and without sufficient foundation, concluded to be the bodies of martyrs. Still, aware this was a subject of a very delicate nature, and thai such an opinion might possibly give offence, he kept it by him five years, without communicating it to above one person; and then sent it, under the seal of secresy, to cardinal Colloredo at Rome, whose opinion was, that it should not be published in the form it was then in. Nevertheless, in 1698 it was published; and, as might easily be foreseen, very ill received at Rome; and after many complaints, murmurs, and criticisms, it was in 1701 brought before the Congregation of the Index, and Mabillon fou.id it necessary to employ all his interest to prevent the censure of that body. Nor, perhaps, could he have averted this misfortune if he had not agreed to publish a new edition of it; in which, by softening some passages, and throwing upon inferior officers whatever abuses might be committed with regard to the bodies taken out of the catacombs, he easily satisfied his judges; who, to do them justice, had a great esteem for his learning and virtues, and were not very desirous of condemning him.

This eminent man died of a suppression of urine, at the abbey of St. Germain-des-Pres, in Dec. 1707. His great merit had procured him, in 1701, the place of honorary member of the academy of inscriptions. Du Pin tells us thac “it would be difficult to give Mabillon the praises he deserves: the voice of the public, and the general esteem of all the learned, are a much better commendation of him than any thing we can say. His profound learning appears from his works: his modesty, humility, meekness, and piety, are no less known to those who have had the least conversation with him. His style is masculine, pure, clear, and methodical, without affectation or superfluous ornaments, and suitable to the subjects of which he has treated.” Few men were more honoured by the notice of the great than Mabillon, and to this he was entitled both by his virtues and his extensive learning. Pope Clement XI. paid him the compliment to write to father Iluinart, expressing his hopes that the remains of such a man had been interred with the honours due to him. “Every man of learning who goes to Paris,” said cardinal Colloredo, “will ask where you have placed him”.

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

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

, or Graham, the name of her second husband, was born in 1733, at Ollantigh, in Kent, the seat of her father, John Sawbridge, esq. She appears to have had none of the regular education given to young ladies of her ranl$, but had an early taste for promiscuous reading, which at length terminated in a fondness for history. That of the Romans is supposed to have inspired her with the republican notions which she professed throughout life, and in which she was probably encouraged by her brother the late alderman Sawbridge, whose politics were of the same cast. In 1760 she married Dr. George Macaulay, a physician of London. Soon after this, she commenced her career in literature, and in 1763 published the first volume, in 4to, of her “History of England, from the accession of James I. to that of the Brunswick Line.” This work was completed in 8 vols. in 1783; it was read with some avidity at the period of its publication, as the production of a female pen, but has since fallen into so much disrepute, as scarcely ever to be inquired after. It was written in the true spirit of rancorous republicanism, and was greatly deficient in that impartiality which ought to be the characteristic of true history. While in the height of her fame, Mrs. Macaulay excited the admiration of Dr. Wilson, rector of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, who in his dotage placed her statue, while living, in the chancel of his church. This disgraceful appendage, however, his successor thought himself justified in removing. Having been left a widow, Mrs. Macaulay in 1778 married Mr. Graham, a step which, from the disparity of years, exposed her to much ridicule. In the year 1785 she went to America, for the purpose of visiting the illustrious Washington, with whom she had before maintained a correspondence. She died at Bin field, in Berkshire, June 22, 1791. Her works, besides the history already referred to, which may be regarded as the principal, are, “Remarks on Hobbes’s Rudiments of Government and Society;” “Loose Remarks on some of Mr. Hobbes’s Positions;” the. latter being an enlarged edition of the former: the object of these is to shew the superiority of a republican to a monarchical form of government. In 1770, Mrs. Macaulay wrote a reply to Mr. Burke’s celebrated pamphlet entitled “Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents;” and in 1775 she pub.­lished “An Address to the People of England, Scotland, and Ireland, on the present important Crisis of Affairs.” She wrote also “A Treatise on the Immutability of Moral Truth;” which she afterwards re-published, with much other original matter, under the title of “Letters on Education,” 1790. Her last publication was “Observations on the Reflections of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, oo the Revolution in France, in a letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Stanhope,” 1790, 8vo. Many curious particulars of this lady may be found in our authorities.

The talents of Dr. Macbride were now universally known, his character was duly appreciated, and his professional emoluments increased rapidly; for the public, as if to make amends for former neglect, threw more occupation into his hands than he couid accomplish either with ease or safety. Although much harassed both in body and mind, so as to have suffered for some time an almost total incapacity for sleep, he continued in activity and good spirits until the end of December, 1778, when an accidental cold brought on a fever and delirium, which terminated his life on the 13th of that month, in the fifty-third year of his age; his death was sincerely lamented by persons of all ranks.

, 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.

, a Portuguese Jesuit, and most indefatigable writer, born at Coimbra, in 1596, quitted that order after a time to take the habit of a cordelier. He was strongly in the interest of the duke of Braganza when he seized the crown of Portugal. Being sent to Rome, he acquired for a time the favour of pope Alexander the Vllth, and was preferred by him to several important offices. The violence of his temper however soon embroiled him with this patron, and he went to Venice, where he disputed de omni scibili; and gaining great reputation, obtained the professorship of moral philosophy at Padua. Afterwards, having ventured to interfere in some state matter at Venice, where he had been held very high, he was imprisoned, and died in confinement, in 1681, at the age of 85. He is said, in the “Bibliotheque Portugaise,” to have published 109 different works: and in one of his own books he boasts that he had pronounced 53 public panegyrics, 60 Latin discourses, and 32 funeral orations; that he had written 48 epic poems, 123 elegies, 115 epitaphs, 212 dedications, 700 familiar letters, 2600 poems in heroic verse, 3000 epigrams, 4 Latin comedies, and had written or pronounced 150,000 verses extemporaucously. Yet the man who could declare all this, is hardly known by name in the greater part of Europe; and of the enormous list of his printed works, not more than five are thought worthy of mention by the writers of his life- To write much, is far easier than to write well. The works specified by his biographers are, 1. “Clavis Augustiniana liberi arbitrii,” a book written against father, afterwards cardinal Noris. The disputants were both silenced by authority; but Macedo, not to seem vanquished, sent his antagonist a regular challenge to a verbal controversy, which by some biographers has been mistaken for a challenge to fight. The challenge may be found in the “Journal Etranger” for June 1757. 2. “Schema Sanctae Congregationis,” 1676, 4to a dissertation on the inquisition, full of learning and absurdity. 3. “Encyclopaedia in agonem literatorum,” 1677, folio. 4. “Praise of the French,” in Latin, 1641, 4to; a book on the Jansenian controversy. 5. “Myrothecium Morale,” 4to. This is the book in which he gives the preceding account of what he had written and spoken, &c. He possessed a prodigious memory, and a ready command of language; but his judgment and taste were by no means equal to his learning and fecundity.

, 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.

, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Verona, and flourished about the year 24 B. C. Eusebius relates, that he died a few years after Virgil. Ovid speaks of a poem by him, on the nature and quality of birds, serpents, and herbs; which, he says, Macer, being then very old, had often read to him, and he is said also to have written a supplement to Homer; but the work by which his name is chiefly known, first printed at Naples in 1477, 4to, and often since under the title “De virtutibus Herbarum,” is unquestionably spurious, and the production of a much later writer. By some it is ascribed to Odo or Odobonus, a French physician of the ninth century. This barbarous poem is in Leonine verse, and various manuscripts of it are in our public libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, the British Museum, &c. It was, according to Dr. Pulteney, in common use in Enprland before the sera of printing, and was translated into English by John Lelamar, master of Hereford-school, who lived about 1473. Even Linacre did not disdain to employ himself on this work, as in “Macer’s Herbal practysed by Dr. Lin aero, translated out of Latin into English.” Lond. 1542, 12mo. This jejune performance, adds Dr. Pulteney, which is writ-r ten wholly on Galenical principles, treats on the virtues of not more than eighty eight simples.

, a political and miscellaneous writer, was born in Scotland in 1734, and educated in the university of Edinburgh. He came to London at an early period of life, and for many years keptan academy of considerable reputation at Walthamstow. He was also much engaged in the political disputes at the beginning of the reign of his present majesty, and concentrated his sentiments on them, in a “History of the Reign of George III.” an octavo volume, which was published in 1770. A dispute occurring between him and his bookseller, the late Mr. Thomas Evans of Paternoster-row, the latter employed another person to continue the history, of which vol. II appeared in 1782, and vol. III. about 1794. Mr. Macfarlane being then reconciled to his employer, published a fourth volume. The whole is com-r piled from the journals of the day, and cannot, either in point of style or matter, entitle Mr. Macfarlane, or the other writers, to the character of historians. In early life, also, he was editor of the Morning Chronicle and London Packet, in which he gave the debates with great accuracy and at considerable length, and wrote many letters and papers under fictitious names, in favour of the politics of the opposition. Being an enthusiastic admirer of Ossian, and an assistant, as has been said, to Mr. Macpherson in the arranging and publishing of these poems, he conceived the very preposterous design of translating them into Latin verse. Accordingly, in 176.9, he published “Temora,” as a specimen, and issued, at the same time, proposals for publishing the whole by subscription, in one volume, 4to: but few subscribers appearing, he desisted from his plan. During the latter years of his life, he resumed it, and was employed in it at the time of his death. Curiosity led him one evening to witness the triumphs of an electionmob coming from Brentford, when he fell under a carnage, and was so much hurt as to survive only half an hour. This happened on August 8. 1804. He had at this time in the press, an “Essay on the authenticity of Ossian and his Poems.”

, a Jesuit, was born at Paris in 1651, and was professor of rhetoric in his society, doctor of divinity, and rector of the Jesuits college at Rouen, then of the college de Clermont at Paris. He died March 15, 1619, aged 58. He published under the name of Callus, or Le Cocq, which was his mother’s name, “Jo. Galii jurisconsult! notationes in Historiam Thuani,” Ingoldstadt, 1614, 4to, a scarce volume, because suppressed in that year, as pernicious, seditious, and full of falsehoods and calumnies against the magistrates and officers of the king. Machault also translated from the Italian, a, “History of transactions in China and Japan, taken from letters written 1621 and 1622,” Paris, 1627, 8vo. John Baptist de Machault, another Parisian Jesuit, who died May 22, 1640, aged 29, after having been rector of the colleges at Nevers and Rouen, left “Gesta a Soc. Jes. in Regno Sinensi, ^thiopico, et Tibetano;” and some other works of the historical kind, but of little reputation. James de

, a celebrated political writer and historian, was born of a good family, at Florence, in 1469. He first distinguished himself as a dramatic writer, but his comedies are not formed on the purest morals, nor are the verses by which he gained some reputation about the same time, entitled to much praise. Soon after he had entered public life, either from the love of liberty, or a spirit of faction, he displayed a restless and turbulent disposition, which not only diminished the respect due to his abilities, but frequently endangered his personal safety. He involved himself in the conspiracy of Capponi and Boscoli, in consequence of which he was put to the torture, but endured it without uttering any confession, and was set at liberty by Leo X. against whose house that conspiracy had been formed. Immediately after the death of Leo, he entered into another plot to expel the cardinal de Medici from Florence. Afterwards, however, he was raised to hitjh honours in the state, and became secretary to the republic of Florence, the 'duties of which office he performed with great fidelity. He was likewise employed in embassies to king Lewis XII. of France; to the emperor Maximilian; to the college of cardinals; to the pope, Julius II., and to other Italian princes. Notwithstanding the revenues which must have accrued to him in these important situations, it would appear that the love of money had no influence on his mind, as he died in extreme poverty in June 1527. Besides his plays, his chief works are, 1. “The Golden Ass,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius 2. “Discourses on the first Decade of Livy” 3. “A History of Florence” 4. “The Life of Castruccio Castracani;” 5. “A Treatise on the Military Art;” 6. “A Treatise on the Emigration of the Northern Nations;” 7. Another entitled “Del Principe,” the Prince. This famous treatise, which was first published in 1515, and intended as a sequel to his discourses on the first decade of Livy, has created very discordant opinions between critics of apparently equal skill and judgment, some having considered him as the friend of truth, liberty, and virtue, and others as the advocate of fraud and tyranny. Most generally “the Prince” has been viewed in the latter light, all its maxims and counsels being directed to the maintenance of power, however acquired, and by any means; and one reason for this opinion is perhaps natural enough, namely, its being dedicated to a nephew of pope Leo X. printed at Rome, re*published in other Italian cities, and long read with attention, and even applause, without censure or reply. On the other hand it has been thought impossible that Machiavel, who was born under a republic, who was employed as one of its secretaries, who performed so many important embassies, and who in his conversation always dwelt on the glorious actions of Brutus and Cassius, should have formed such a system against the liberty and happiness of mankind. Hence it has frequently been urged on his behalf, that it was not his intention to suggest wise and faithlul counsels, but to represent in the darkest colours the schemes of a tyrant, and thereby excite odium against him. Even lord Bacon seems to be of this opinion. The historian of Leo considers his conduct in a different point of view; and indeed all idea of his being ironical in this work is dissipated by the fact, mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, that “many of the most exceptionable doctrines in” The Prince,“are also to be found in his” Discourses,“where it cannot be pretended that he had any indirect purpose in view; and in the latter he has in some instances referred to the former for the further elucidation of his opinions. In popular opinion” The Prince“has affixed to his name a lasting stigma; and Machiavelism has long been a received appellation for perfidious and infamous politics. Of the historical writings of Machiavel, the” Life of Castruccio Castracani“is considered as partaking too much of the character of a romance; but his” History of Florence," comprising the events of that republic, between 1205 and 1494, which was written while the author sustained the office of historiographer of the republic, although not always accurate in point of fact, may upon the whole be read with both pleasure and advantage. It has been of late years discovered tnat the diary of the most important events in Italy from 1492 to 1512, published by the Giunti in 1568, under the name of Biagio Buonaccorsi, is in fact a part of the notes of Machiavel, which he had intended for a continuation of his history; but which, after his death, remained in the hands of his friend Buonaccorsi. - This is a circumstance of which we were not aware when we drew up the account of this author under the name Esperiente.

While he made the law his profession and chief study, he cultivated a taste for polite literature; and produced some works which added not a little to his reputation. In 1660, came out his “Aretino, or serious Romance,” in which he shewed a gay and exuberant fancy. In 1663, he published his “Religio Stoici;” or a short discourse upon several divine and moral subjects, with a friendly address to the fanatics of all sects and sorts. This was followed, in 1665, by “A Moral Essay,” preferring solitude to pubHe employment, and all its advantages; such as fame, command, riches, pleasures, conversation, &c. This was answered by John Evelyn, esq. in another essay, in which the preference was given to public employment. In 1667, he printed his “Moral gallantry;” a discourse, in which he endeavours to prove, that the point of honour, setting aside all other ties, obliges men to be virtuous; and that there is nothing so mean and unworthy of a gentleman, as vice: to which is added, a consolation against calumnies, shewing how to bear them with chearfulness and patience. Afterwards he published “The moral history of frugality,” with its opposite vices, covetousness, niggardliness, prodigality, and luxury, dedicated to the university of Oxford; and “Reason,” an essay, dedicated to the hon. Robert Boyle, esq. All these works, except “Aretino,” were collected and printed together at London, in 1713, 8vo, under the title of “Essays upon several moral subjects:” and have been regarded as abounding in good sense and wit, although upon the whole the reasoning is rather superficial. Besides these essays, which were the production of such hours as could be spared from his profession, he was the author of a play and a poem. The poem is entitled “Caelia’s country-house and closet;” and in it are the following lines upon the earl of Montrose:

Besides the moral pieces mentioned above, he wrote several works to illustrate the laws and customs of his country, to vindicate the monarchy from the restless contrivances and attacks of those whom he esteemed its enemies, and to maintain the honour and glory of Scotland. To illustrate the laws and customs of his country, he published “A Discourse upon the laws and customs of Scotland in matters criminal,” 1674, 4to. “Idea eloquentiae tbrensis hodiernae, una cum actione forensi ex unaquaque juris parte,” 1681, 8vo. “Institutions of the laws of Scotland,” 1684, 8vo. “Observations upon the acts of parliament,” 1686, folio. Besides these, several other treatises of law are inserted in his works, printed at Edinburgh, 1716, in 2 vols. folio. In vindication of monarchy, he wrote his “Jus regium; or the just and solid foundations of monarchy in general, and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland; maintained against Buchanan, Naphthali, Doleman, Milton, &c.” Lond. 16S4, 8vo. This book being dedicated and presented by the author to the university of Oxford, he received a letter of thanks from the convocation. With the same view he published his * Discovery of the fanatic plot,“printed at Edinburgh, in 1684, folio; and his” Vindication of the government of Scotland during the reign of Charles II.“Also the” Method of Proceeding against Criminals and Fanatical Covenanters,“1691, 4to. The pieces which he published in honour of his nation, were as follow:” Observations on the Laws and Customs of Nations as to Precedency, with the science of heraldry, treated as a part of the civil law of nations; wherein reasons are given for its principles, and etymologies for its harder terms,“1680, folio.” A Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland; with a true account when the Scots were governed by the kings in the Isle of Britain,“1685, 8vo. This was written in answer to” An historical Account of Church-Government as it was in Great Britain and Ireland, when they first received the Christian religion,“by Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph. Sir George’s defence was published in June 1685; but before it came out it was animadverted upon by Dr. Stillingfleet, who had seen it in manuscript in the preface to his” Origines Britannicae.“Sir George replied the year following, in a piece entitled” The Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland farther cleared and defended against the exceptions lately offered by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph;" and here the controversy appears to have ended. It is remarkable, however, that sir George’s books were translated into Latin, printed at Utrecht in 1689, and then presented to William-Henry prince of Orange, who wrote two very polite letters of thanks to him for his performance. Among the instances of this author’s zeal for his country, it is necessary to mention his founding of the lawyer’s library at Edinburgh, in 1689. This, which is now known by the name of the advocate’s library, was afterwards stored with variety of manuscripts, relating particularly to the antiquities of Scotland, and with a fine collection of books, in all sciences, classed in that excellent order, which he prescribed in an elegant Latin oration, pronounced upon the opening of it, and printed among his works.

, viscount Tarbat, and first earl of Cromerty, a person eminent for his learning and for his abilities as a statesman, was descended from a branch of the family of Seaforth. He succeeded to the family estate on the death of his father sir John Mackenzie, and also to his unshaken fealty for Charles II. during whose exile he had a commission to levy what forces he could procure, to promote the restoration. After that event, he was made one of the senators of the college of justice, clerk register of the pri% 7 y council, and justice-general, an office which had been hereditary in the family of Argyle, till it was surrendered in the preceding reign. James II. made him a baron and viscount, but on the abdication of that monarch, whom it woukl appear he had favoured too much, he lost his office of lord-register for some time, until king William III. was pleased to restore it in 1692, being no stranger to his abilities. In queen Anne’s reign, 1702, he was constituted secretary of state, and the following year was advanced to the dignity of earl of Cromerty. He died in 1714, at the age of eighty-three, or, according to another account, eighty-eight.

Douglas describes him as a man of singular endowments, great learning, well versed in the laws and antiquities of his country, and an able statesman. Macky, or rather Davis, adds, that “he had a great deal of wit, and was the pleasantest companion in the world; had been very handsome in his person; was tall and fair complexioned; much esteemed by the royal society, a great master in philosophy, and well received as a writer by men of letters.” Bishop Nicolson notices a copy of the continuation of Fordun’s “Scotichronicon” in the hand-writing of this nobleman, whom he terms “a judicious preserver of the antiquities of his country.” He wrote, 1. “A Vindication of Robert, the third king of Scotland, from the imputation of bastardy, &c.” Edin. 1695, 4to. 2. “Synopsis Apocalyptica; or a short and plain Explication and Application of Daniel’s Prophecy, and St. John’s Revelation, in consent with it, and consequential to it; by G. E. of C. tracing in the steps of the admirable lord Napier of Merchiston,” Edin. 1708. 3. “An historical Account of the Conspiracies, by the earls of Gourie, and Robert Logan of Restalrig, against king James VI. of glorious memory, &c.” Edin. 1713, 8vo. Mr. Gough has pointed out three papers on natural curiosities, by lord Cromerty, in the “Philosophical Transactions” and “A Vindication,” by him, of the reformation of the church of Scotland, with some account of the Records, was printed in the Scots’ Magazine, for August 1802, from a ms. in the possession of Mr. Constable, bookseller, of Edinburgh.

, the oldest actor, and perhapsthe oldest man of his time, is entitled to some notice in this work, although his fame seems to have been derived principally from his longevity. He is said to have been born in the county of West Meath in Ireland, May I, 1690. His family name was Mac-Laughlin, which, on his coming to London, he changed to Macklin. He was employed in early life, as badgeman in Trinity college, Dublin, until his twenty-first year, when he came to England, and associated with some strolling comedians, after which he went back to his situation in Trinity college. In 1716 he again came to England, and appeared as an actor in the theatre, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, where, in Feb. 1741, he established his fame by his performance of Shylock in the “Merchant of Venice,” in which he followed nature, truth, and propriety, with such effect, as to distance all other performers through the whole course of his long life. It was, however, the only character in which he was pre-eminent, and all his subsequent attempts in characters of importance, particularly in tragedy, were unsuccessful, or, at least, displayed no exclusive merit. The remainder of his life consists of a series of tragi-comic adventures, involving the history of the stage for a considerable period, of which it would be impossible to give a satisfactory abridgment. We therefore refer to our authorities, where his life is detailed with great minuteness, and in a manner highly interesting to those to whom the vicissitudes of the theatres, and the wit of the green-room, are matters of importance. He continued on the stage until 1789, when a decay of memory obliged him to take a last leave of it. In 1791, a sum of money was collected by public subscription for the purchase of an annuity, which rendered his circumstances easy. During the last years of his life, his understanding became more and more impaired, and in this state he died July 11, 1797, at the very great age of 107, if the date usually given of his birth be correct. As a dramatic writer, he appears to much advantage in his “Man of the World” and “Love Alamode,” which still retain their popularity. He was a man of good understanding, which he had improved by a course of reading, perhaps desultory, but sufficient to enable him to bear his part in conversation very satisfactorily. While his memory remained, his fund of anecdote was immense, and rendered his company highly agreeable. His age, however, had in his opinion, conferred a dictatorial ppwer, and it was not easy to argue with him, without exciting his irascible temper, which shewed itself in much coarseness of expression. He is said to have been in his better days, a tender husband, a good father, and a steady friend. By his firmness and resolution in supporting the rights of his theatrical brethren, they were long relieved from a species of oppression to which they had been ignominiouslv subjected for many years, whenever the caprice or malice of their enemies chose to exert itself. We allude, says one of his biographers, “to the prosecution which he commenced and carried on against a certain set of insignificant beings, who, calling themselves The Town, used frequently to disturb the entertainments of the theatre, to the terror of the actors, as well as to the annoyance and disgrace of the publick.” It is almost needless to add that this advantage has been again lost to his brethren, by the toleration recently granted to scenes of brntality in the theatres both of London and Dublin, and which has placed them at the mercy of the lowest and most unprincipled of the populace.

Dr. Maclaine published in 1752 a sermon on the death of the prince of Orange. In 1765 his masterly translation of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History made its first appearance, in 2 vols. 4to, dedicated to William Prince of Orange. It experienced a most favourable reception, and was reprinted, 1758, in six vols. 8vo, in which form it has had several subsequent editions, particularly one published in 1811, withvaluable additions by Dr. Coote, the editor, and the Rev. Dr. Gleig, of Stirling. Few publications, on their first appearance, having been more generally read than Mr. Soame Jenyns’s “View of the internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,” Dr. Maclaine addressed to that gentleman a series of letters, 1777, in 12 mo, written to serve the best purposes of Christianity, on a due consideration of the distinguished eminence of Mr. Jenyns as a writer, of the singular mixture of piety, wit, error, wisdom, and paradox, exhibited in his publication, and of his defence of Christianity on principles which would lead men to enthusiasm or to scepticism, according to their different dispositions. His only publications since were two fast sermons, 1793 and 1797, and a volume of sermons preached at the Hague. He was interred in the abbey church of Bath, where a monument has been since erected to his memory by his friend Henry Hope, esq.

, an eminent mathematician and philosopher, was the son of a clergyman, and born at Kilmodan, near Inverary, in Scotland, Feb. 1698. His family was originally from Tirey, one of the western islands. He was sent to the university of Glasgow in 1709, where he continued five years, and applied himself to study in a most intense manner, particularly to the mathematics. His great genius for this science discovered itself so early as at twelve years of age; when, having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid’s Elements in a friend’s chamber, he became in a few days master of the first six books without any assistance: and it is certain, that in his sixteenth year he had invented many of the propositions, which were afterwards published as part of his work entitled “Geometria Organica.” In his fifteenth year, he took the degree of master of arts; on which occasion he composed and publicly defended a thesis “On the power of gravity,” with great applause. After this he quitted the university, and retired to a country-seat of his uncle, who had the care of his education, his parents being dead some time. Here he spent two or three years in pursuing his favourite studies; and such was his acknowledged merit, that having in 1717 offered himself a candidate for the professorship of mathematics in the Marischal college of Aberdeen, he obtained it after a ten days trial against a very able competitor. In 1719 he went to London, where he left his “Geometria Organica” in the press, and where he became acquainted with Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Bangor, Dr. Clarke, sir Isaac Newton, and other eminent men. At the same time he was admitted a member of the royal society; and in another journey in 1721, he contracted an intimacy with Martin Folkes, esq. the president of it, which lasted to his death.

In Nov. 1725, he was introduced into the university at the same time with his learned colleague and intimate friend, Dr. Alexander Monro, professor of anatomy. After this, the mathematical classes soon became very numerous, there being generally upwards of 100 students attending his lectures every year. These being of different standing and proficiency, he was obliged to divide them into four or five classes, in each of which he employed a full hour every day, from the first of Nov. to the first of June. In the first class he taught the first six books of “Euclid’s Elements,” plain trigonometry, practical geometry, the elements of fortification, and an introduction to algebra. The second studied algebra, the llth and 12th books of Euclid, spherical trigonometry, conic sections, and the general principles of astronomy. The third went on in astronomy and perspective, read a part of sir Isaac Newton’s “Priricipia,” and saw a course of experiments for illustrating them performed: he afterwards read and demonstrated the elements of fluxions. Those in the fourth class read a system of fluxions, the doctrine of chances, and the rest of Newton’s “Principia.” Besides these labours belonging to his professorship, he had frequently other employments and avocations. If an uncommon experiment was said to have been made any where, the feurious were desirous of having it repeated by him; and if an eclipse or comet was to be observed, his telescopes were always in readiness.

He lived a bachelor to the year 1733; but being formed for society, as well as contemplation, he then married Anne, the daughter of Mr. Walter Stewart, solicitor-general to his late majesty for Scotland. By this lady he had seven children, of which, two sons and three daughters, together with his wife, survived him. In 1734, Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne, published a piece called “The Analyst;” in which he took occasion, from some disputes that had arisen concerning the grounds of the fluxionary method, to explode the method itself, and also to charge mathematicians in general with infidelity in religion. Maclaurin thought himself included in this charge, and began an answer to Berkeley’s book: but, as he proceeded, so many discoveries, so many new theories and problems occurred to him, that, instead of a vindicatory pamphlet, it increased to “A complete system of Fluxions, with their application to the most considerable problems in geometry and natural philosophy.” This work, which was published at Edinburgh in 1742, 2 vols. 4to, cost him infinite pains, and will do him immortal honour, being indeed the most complete treatise on that science that has yet appeared . In the mean time, he was continually gratifying the public with some performance or observation of his own, many of which were published in the fifth and sixth volumes of the “Medical Essays,” at Edinburgh. Some of them appeared likewise in “The Philosophical Transactions” as the following: 1. “Of the construction and measure of Curves.” 2. “A new method of describing all kinds of Curves.” 3. “A letter to Martin Folkes, esq. on Equations with impossible Roots, May 1726.” 4. “Coiir tinuation of the same, March 1729.” 5. “December the 21st, 1732, On the description of Curves; with an account of farther improvements, and a paper dated at Nancy, Nov. 27, 1722.” 6. “An account of the treatise of Fluxions, Jan. 27, 1742.” 7. “The same continued, March 10, 1742” 8. “A Rule for finding the meridional parts of a Spheroid with the same exactness as of a Sphere, Aug. 1741.” 9. “Of the Basis of the Cells wherein the Bees deposit their honey, Nov. 3, 1734.”

Mr. Maclaurin is said to have been a very good, as well as a ver^y great man, and worthy of affection as well as admiration. His peculiar merit as a philosopher was, that all his studies were accommodated to general utility; and we find, in many places of his works, an application even of the most abstruse theories, to the perfection of mechanical arts. He had resolved, for the same purpose, to compose a course of practical mathematics, and to rescue several useful branches of the science from the bad treatment they often meet with in less skilful hands. But all this his death prevented; unless we should reckon, as a part of his intended work, the translation of Dr. David Gregory’s “Practical Geometry,” which he revised, and published with additions, 1745. He had, however, frequent opportunities of serving his friends and his country by his great skill. Whatever difficulty occurred concerning the constructing or perfecting of machines, the working of mines, the improving of manufactures, the conveying of water, or the execution of any other public work, he was at hand to resolve it. He was likewise employed to terminate some disputes of consequence that had arisen at Glasgow concerning the gauging of vessels; and for that purpose presented to the commissioners of excise two elaborate memorials, with their demonstrations, containing rules by which the officers now act. He made also calculations relating to the provision, now established by law, for the children and widows of the Scotch clergy, and of the professors in the universities, entitling them to certain annuities and sums, upon the voluntary annual payment of a certain sum by the incumbent. In contriving and adjusting this wise and useful scheme, he bestowed a great deal of labour, and contributed, not a little, towards bringing it to perfection.

, son of the preceding, was born at Edinburgh in December 1734, and educated at the grammar-school and university of Edinburgh. Having applied to the study of the law, he was admitted a member of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh in 1756. In 1782, a royal aociety was established in Edinburgh, of which Mr. Maclaurin was one of the original constituent members, and at an early period of the institution he read an essay to prove that Troy was not taken by the Greeks. In 1787 he was raised from the Scottish bar, at which he had practised long and successfully, to the bench, by the title of lord Dreghorn. He died in 1796. As an author we have “An Essay on Literary Property;” “A Collection of Criminal Cases;” “An Essay on Patronage;” and some poetical pieces, with three dramas, entitled “Hampden,” “The Public,” and “The Philosopher’s Opera.” During the years 1792, 3, 4, and 5, lord Dreghorn kept a journal, or diary, in which he recorded the various events that happened in Europe during those years. From this journal he made a selection for publication: and in 1799 a selection of his lordship’s works was printed in two vols. 8vo, containing most of the pieces mentioned above. It has, however, been generally thought that these added very little to his reputation, the character of his poetry being that of mediocrity, and his prose neither very lively not profound, though he occasionally exhibits learning and acuteness, and always an ardent love of liberty."

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

It was here, however, about 1758, that he published the “Highlander,” an heroic poem in six cantos, 12mo. Of this poem, which has not fallen in our way, we have seen two opinions, the one, that it indicated considerable genius in so young an author; the other that it is a tissue of fustian and absurdity, feeble, and in some parts ridiculous, and shews little or no talent in the art of versification. This last we take to be the opinion of the late Isaac Reed, who had a copy of the poem, which was purchased at his sale by George Chalmers, esq. Mr. Reed adds, that in a short time the author became sensible of its faults, and endeavoured to suppress it. About the same time he wrote an “Ode on the arrival of the Earl Marischal in Scotland,” which he called an attempt in the manner of Pindar, how justly, the reader may determine, as it was published in the European Magazine for 1796.

It was intended that he should enter into the service of the church, but whether he ever took orders is uncertain. Mr. Gray speaks of him as a young clergyman; but David Hume probably more truly describes him as “a modest sensible young man, not settled in any living, but employed as a private tutor in Mr. Graham of Balgowan’s family, a way of life which he is not fond of.” This was in 1760, when he surprized the world by the publication of “Fragments of Ancient Poetry, collected in the Highlands of Scotland, and translated from the Galic or Erse language,” 8vo. These fragments, which were declared to be genuine remains of ancient Scottish poetry, at their first appearance delighted every reader; and some very good judges, and amongst the rest Mr. Gray, were extremely warm in their praises. Macpherson had intended to bury them in a Scotch magazine, but was prevented from so injudicious a step by the advice of his friend, Mr. Home, the auther of “Douglas.” As other specimens were said to be recoverable, a subscription was set on foot to enable our author to quit the family he was then in, and undertake a mission into the Highlands, to secure them. He engaged in the undertaking, and soon after produced the works whose authenticity has since occasioned so much controversy.

The next year he produced “Temora,” an ancient epic poem, in eight books: together with several other poems composed by Ossian, son. of Fingal, 4to, which, though well received, found the public somewhat less disposed to bestow the same measure of applause. Though these poems had been examined by Dr. Blair and others, and their authenticity asserted, there were not wanting some of equal reputation for critical abilities, who either doubted or declared their disbelief of the genuineness of them. After their publication, by which he is said to have gained twelve hundred pounds, Mr, Macpherson was called to an employment which withdrew him for some time from the muses and his country. In 1764, governor Johnstone was appointed chief of Pensacola, and Mr. Macpherson accompanied him as his secretary; but some difference having arisen between them, they parted before their return to England. Having contributed his aid to the settlement of the civil government of that colony, he visited several of the West-India islands, and some of the provinces of North America, and returned to England in 1766. He now resumed his studies, and in 1771 produced “An Introduction to the History of Great Britain and Ireland,” 4to, a work which, he says, “without any of th ordinary incitements to literary labour, he was induced to proceed in by the sole motive of private amusement.” This work is not inelegantly written, but his hypotheses on Celtic origin brought upon him the resentment of some critics, who preserved very little decency on a subject that might certainly have been discussed in an amicable manner. His next performance was more justly entitled to contempt, as it showed him to be utterly destitute of taste, and consequently produced him neither reputation nor profit. This was “The Iliad of Homer” translated, in two volumes 4to, 1773, a work fraught with vanity and selfconsequence, and which met with the most mortifying reception from the public. It was condemned by the critics, ridiculed by the wits, and neglected by the world. Some of his friends, and particularly sir John Elliott, endeavoured to rescue it from contempt, and force it into notice, but their success was not equal to their efforts. After a very acute, learned, and witty critique, inserted in the Critical Review, the new translation was confessed to possess no merit, and ever since has been consigned to oblivion.

About this time seems to be the period of Mr. Macpherson’s literary mortifications. In 1773, Dr. Johnson and Mr. Boswell made the tour to the Hebrides; and in the course of it, the former took some pains to examine into the proofs of the authenticity of Ossian. The result of his inquiries he gave to the public in 1775, in his narrative of the tour, ai^d his opinion was unfavourable. “I believe they (i. e. the poems, says he) never existed in any other form than that which we have seen. The editor or author never could shew the original; nor can it be shewn by any other. To revenge reasonable incredulity by refusing evidence is a degree of insolence with which the world is not yet acquainted; and stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt. It would be easy to shew it if he had it; but whence could it be had? It is too long to be remembered, and the language had formerly nothing written. He has doubtless inserted names that circulate in popular stories, and may have translated some wandering ballads, if any can be found; and the names and some of the images being recollected, make an inaccurate auditor imagine, by the help of Caledonian bigotry, that he has formerly heard the whole.” Again, “I have yet supposed no imposture but in the publisher, yet 1 am far from certainty, that some translations have not been lately made, that may now be obtruded as parts of the original work. Credulity on one part is a strong temptation to deceit on the other, especially to deceit of which no personal injury is the consequence, and which flatters the author with his own ingenuity. The Scots have something to plead for their easy reception of an improbable fiction: they are seduced by their fondness for their supposed ancestors. A Scotchman must be a sturdy moralist who does not love Scotland better than truth; he will always love it better than inquiry, and, if falsehood flatters his vanity, will not be very diligent to detect it. Neither ought the English to be much influenced by Scotch authority; for of the past and present state of the whole Erse nation, the Lowlanders are at least as ignorant as ourselves. To be ignorant is painful; but it is dangerous to quiet our uneasiness by the delusive opiate of hasty persuasion.”

The opinions above declared by Dr. Johnson incensed our author so much, that he was prompted by his evil genius to send a menacing letter to his antagonist, which produced the most severe, spirited, and sarcastic reply ever written . Whether his warmth abated, or whether he had been made sensible of his folly by the interposition of friends, we know not; but certain it is, we hear no more afterwards of this ridiculous affair, except that our author is supposed to have assisted Mr. Mac Nicol in an Answer to Dr. Johnson’s Tour, printed in 1779. This supposition, says one of his biographers, we are inclined to consider as well founded, because we have been told by a gentleman of veracity, that Mr. Mac Nicol affirms, that the scurrility of his book, which constitutes a great part of it, was inserted, unknown to him, after the manuscript was sent for publication to London.

In 1775 Mr. Macpherson published “The History of Great Britain, from the restoration to the accession of the House of Hanover,” in 2 vols. 4to, a work which has been decried with much clamour, but without much argument or proof. The author may perhaps have been influenced by his prejudices in favour of the tory party; but he certainly acted with great fairness, as along with it he published the proofs upon which his facts were founded, in two quarto volumes, entitled “Original Papers, containing the secret History of Great Britain, from the restoration to the accession of the House of Hanover. To which are prefixed, extracts from the life of James II. as written by himself.” These papers were chiefly collected by Mr. Carte, but are not of equal authority. They, however, clear up many obscurities, and set the characters of many persons in past times in a different light from that in which they have been usually viewed.

In Mrs. Grant’s “Letters from the Mountains” we “have some affecting particulars of his death.” Finding some inward symptoms of his approaching dissolution, he sent for a consultation, the result of which arrived the day after his confinement. He was perfectly sensible and collected, yet refused to take any thing prescribed to him to the last, and that on this principle, that his time was come, and it did not avail. He felt the approaches of death, and hoped no relief from medicine, though his life was not such as one should like to look back on at that awful period. Indeed, whose is? It pleased the Almighty to render his last scene most affecting and exemplary. He died last Tuesday evening; and from the minute he was confined till, a very little before he expired, never ceased imploring the divine mercy in the most earnest and pathetic manner. People about him were overawed and melted by the fervour and bitterness of his penitence. He frequently and earnestly entreated the prayers of good serious people of the lower class who were admitted. He was a very goodnatured mart; and now that he had got all his schemes of interest and ambition fulfilled, he seemed to reflect and grow domestic, and shewed of late a great inclination to be an indulgent landlord, and very liberal to the poor, of which I could relate various instances, more tender and interesting than flashy or ostentatious. His heart and temper were originally good. His religious principles were, I fear, unfixed and fluctuating; but the primary cause that so much genius, taste, benevolence, and prosperity, did not produce or diffuse more happiness, was his living a stranger to the comforts of domestic life, from which unhappy connexions excluded him, &c."

, was a name assumed by a modern poet, whose true name was John Salmon; or, as some say, given to him on account of his excessive thinness, from the Latin adjective macer. It became, however, the current appellation of himself and Charles, his brother, who was also a writer of some celebrity, preceptor to Catherine of Navarre, sister of Henry IV, and who perished in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Some have called Macrinus the French Horace, on account of his talents for poetry, particularly the lyric kind. He was born at Loudon, where he died in 1557, at an advanced age. He wrote hymns, naeniae, and other works, which appeared from 1522 to 1550: and was one of those who principally contributed to restore the taste for Latin poetry. Varillas relates a story of his drowning himself in a well, in despair, on being suspected of Lutheranism. But this, like most anecdotes of the same writer, is a matter of invention rather than fact.

, 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 preacher and writer, was the son of Martin Madan, esq. of Hertingfordbury near Hertford, member of parliament for Wootton Basset, and groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales. His mother was daughter of Spencer Cowper, esq. and niece of the lord chancellor Cowper, an accomplished lady, and author of several poems of considerable merit. He was born in 1726, and was bred originally to the law, and had been called to the bar; but being fond of the study of theology, well versed in Hebrew, and becoming intimate with Mr. Jones and Mr. Romaine, two clergymen of great popularity at that time, by their advice he left the law for the pulpit, and was admitted into orders. His first sermon is said to have been preached in the church of Allhallows, Lombard -street, and to have attracted immediate attention and applause. Being appointed chaplain to the Lock-hospital, his zeal led him to attend diligently, and to preach to the unfortunate patients assembled in the parlour: his fame also brought many others thither, till the rooms and avenues were crowded. This led to a proposal for a chapel, which was finished in 176.1, and opened with a sermon from the chaplain. He subjected himself to much obloquy, about the year 1767, by the advice he gave to his friend Mr. Havveis, to retain the rectory of Aldwincle, and several pamphlets were written on the subject; but lord Apsley (afterwards Bathurst) did not seem to consider the affair in an unfavourable light, as he afterwards appointed him his chaplain. Mr. Madan became an author in 1761, when he published, 1. “A sermon on Justification by Works.” 2. “A small treatise on the Christian Faith,” 1761, 12mo. 3. “Sermon at the opening of the Lock Hospital, 1762.” 4. “Answer to the capital errors of W. Law,” 1763, 8vo. 5. “Answer to the narrative of facts respecting the rectory of Aldwinckle,” 1767, 8vo. 6. “A comment on the Thirty-nine Articles,” 1772, 8vo. 7.“Thelyphthora,” 1780, 2 vols. -&vo. In this book the author justifies polygamy, upon the notion that the first cohabitation with a woman is a virtual marriage; and supports his doctrine by many acute arguments. The intention of the work was to lessen or remove the causes of seduction; but it met with much opposition, many very severe animadversions, and cost the author his reputation among the religious world. He, however, was not discouraged; and in 1781, published a third volume, after which the work sunk into oblivion, a fate to which the masterly criticism on it in the Monthly Review, by the rev. Mr. Badcock, very greatly contributed. It is somewhat remarkable that Mrs. Manley in the “Atalantis” speaks of lord chancellor Cowper, as maintaining the same tenets on polygamy. Mr. Madan next produced, 8. “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” 1787, 12mo. 9. A literal version of “Juvenal and Persius,” with notes, 1789, 2 vols. 8vo: and some controversial tracts on the subject of his Thelyphthora. Mr. Madan died at Epsom in May, 1790, at the age of 64, after a short illness, and was buried at Kensington. The late Dr. Spencer Madan, bishop of Peterborough, was brother to our author.

, D. D. (“a name,” says Dr. Johnson, “which Ireland ought to honour,”) was born in 1687, and received his education at Dublin. He appears, however, to have been in England in 1729; and having written a tragedy called “Themistocles, or the Lover of his country,” was, as he himself says, tempted to let it appear, by the offer of a noble study of books from the profits of it. In 1731, he projected a scheme for promoting learning in the college of Dublin by premiums, at the quarterly examinations, which has proved highly beneficial. In 1732, he published his “Memoirs of the Twentieth Century; being original Letters of State under George the Sixth, relating to the most important events in Great-Britain, and Europe, as to church and state, arts and sciences, trade, taxes, and treaties, peace and war, and characters of the greatest persons of those times, from the middle of the eighteenth to the end of the twentieth century, and the world. Received and revealed in the year 1728; and now published, for the instruction of all eminent statesmen, churchmen, patriots, politicians, projectors, papists, and protestants.” In 6 vols. Lond. 1733, 8vo. In 1740, we find him in his native country, and in that year setting apart the annual sum of one hundred pounds to be distributed, by way of premium, to the inhabitants of Ireland only; namely, 50l. to the author of the best invention for improving any useful art or manufacture; 25l. to the per-> son who should execute the best statue or piece of sculpture; and 25l. to the person who should finish the best piece of painting, either in history or landscape the premiums to be decided by the Dublin society, of which Dr. Madden was the institutor. The good effects of these well applied benefactions have not only been felt to advantage in the kingdom where they were given, but have even extended their influence to its sister country, having giren rise to the society for the encouragement of arts and sciences in London. In 1743 or 4, he published a long poem, called “Boulter’s Monument;” which was corrected for the press by Dr. Johnson; and an epistle of about 200 lines by him is prefixed to the second edition of Leland’s “Life of Philip of Macedon.” In an oration spoken at Dublin, Dec. 6, 1757, by Mr. Sheridan, that gentleman took occasion to mention Dr. Madden’s bounty, and intended to have proceeded in the following manner, but was prevented by observing the doctor to be then present. Speaking of the admirable institutions of premiums, he went on, “Whose author, had he never contributed any thing farther to the good of his country, would have deserved immortal honour, and must have been held in reverence by the latest posterity. But the unwearied and disinterested endeavours, during a long course of years, of this truly good man, in a variety of branches, to promote industry, and consequently the welfare of this kingdom, and the mighty benefits which have thence resulted to the community, have made many of the good people of Ireland sorry, that a long-talked of scheme has not hitherto been put in execution: that we might not appear inferior in point of gratitude to the citizens of London, with respect to a fellow-citizen [sir John Barnard], (surely not with more reason,) and that like them we might be able to address our patriot, Praesenti tibi matures largimur honores.”

Dr. Madden had some good church preferment in Ireland, particularly a deanery, we know not which, and the living of Drummully, worth about 400l. a year, the right of presentation to which was divided between his own family, and another. As his family had presented on the last vacancy, the other of course had a right to present now; but the Maddens offering to give up all right of presentation in future, if allowed to present on the present occasion, this was agreed to, and thus the Doctor got the living. At what time this occurred we are not told, but he was then a colonel of militia, and was in Dublin dressed in scarlet. Besides this living, he had a very good estate; but as he was almost entirely devoted to books, or acts of charity and public good, he left the management of his income, both ecclesiastical and temporal, to his wife, a lady of a somewhat different turn of mind. They lived at Manor-water-house, three miles from Newtown-Botler; and the celebrated rev. Philip Skelton lived with them for some time, as tutor to the children. Dr. Madden also gave him the curacy of Newtown-Butler.

Mons. Grosley, a lively French traveller, speaking of a city in the centre of France, “which at the beginning of the fifteenth century served as a theatre to the grandest scene that England ever acted in that kingdom,” mentions several English families as lately extinct, or still subsisting there. “This city,” he adds, “in return, has given the British dominions an illustrious personage, to whom they are indebted for the first prizes which have been there distributed for the encouragement of agriculture and arts. His name was Madain: being thrown upon the coast of Ireland by events of which I could never hear any satisfactory account, he settled in Dublin by the name of Madden, there made a fortune, dedicated part of his estate, which amounted to four or five thousand pounds a year, to the prizes which I have spoken of, and left a rich succession part of this succession went over to France to the Madains his relations, who commenced a law-suit for the recovery of it, and caused ecclesiastical censures to be published against a merchant, to whom they had sent a letter of attorney to act for them, and whom they accused of having appropriated to himself a share of their inheritance.”

, the learned exchequer antiquary, and historiographer royal, of whose personal history we have no information, is well known among antiquaries and lawyers for his valuable collection of records relating to the ancient laws and constitution of this country; the knowledge of which tends greatly to the illustration of English history. In 1702, under the patronage of the learned lord Somers, he published the first fruits of his researches, under the title of “A Collection of antique Charters and Instruments of divers kinds taken from the originals, placed under several heads, and deduced (in a series according to the order of time) from the Norman conquest, to the end of the reign of king Henry VIII.” This is known by the name of the “Formulare AngJicanum.” To it is prefixed a dissertation concerning “Ancient Charters and Instruments,” replete with useful learning upon that subject. He was prompted to this work, by considering that there was no methodical history or system of ancient charters and instruments of this nation then extant; and that it would be acceptable to curious persons, and useful to the public, if something were done for supplying that defect. Having entertained such a design, and being furnished with proper materials from the archives of the late court of augmentations, he was encouraged to proceed in it, especially by lord Somers and prosecuted it with so much application, that out of an immense heap of original charters and writings, remaining in that repository, he selected and digested the chief substance of this volume. In 1711, he proceeded to a work of still greater importance than the foregoing, “The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England, in two periods, viz. from the Norman conquest, to the end of the reign of king John; and from the end of the reign of king John, to the end of the reign of king Edward II. Taken from records. Together with a correct copy of the ancient dialogue concerning the Exchequer, generally ascribed to Gervasius Tilburiensis and a Dissertation concernlag the most ancient great roll of the exchequer, commonly styled the roll of Quinto Regis Stephani,” folio; reprinted in 1769, in 4to. This was dedicated to queen Anne; but there is likewise prefixed to it a long prefatory epistle to the lord Somers, in which he gives that illustrious patron some account of this unprecedented undertaking. He observes, that though some treatises had been written concerning the exchequer, yet no history [of it had been yet attempted by any man; that he had pursued his subject to those ancient times, to which, he thinks, the original of the exchequer in England may properly be assigned; and thence had drawn down an orderly account of it through a long course of years; and, having consulted, as well the books necessary to be perused upon this occasion, as a very great number of records and manuscripts, he had endeavoured all along x to confirm what he offered by proper vouchers, which are subjoined column-wise in each page, except where their extraordinary length made it impracticable. The records. which he here attests were, as he adds, taken by his own pen from the authentic parchments, unless where it appears by his references to be otherwise. He has contrived throughout the whole (as far as the subject-matter would permit) to make use of such memorials as serve either to make known or to explain the ancient laws and usages of this kingdom. For which reason, as he notes“, this work may be deemed, not merely a history of the exchequer, but likewise a promptuary towards a history of the ancient law of England. He afterwards acquaints” his lordship in what method he began and proceeded in compiling this work. First, he made as full a collection from records as he could, of materials relating to the subject. Those materials being regularly arranged in several books of collectanea, he reviewed them, and, weighing what they imported, and how they might be applied, he drew from thence a general scheme of his design. When he had pitched upon the heads of his discourse, he took materials for them out of the aforesaid fund, and digested them into their proper rank and order. In do ng this, it was his practice for the most part to write down, in the draught of his book, the respective records or testimonies first of all; i. e. before he wrote his own text or composition; and from them formed his history or accouit of things; connecting and applying them afterwards, as the case would admit. At the end of this history (as we have expressed it in the title) Mr. Maddox has publisteti a copy of the treatise concerning the exchequer, written in the way of dialogue, and generally ascribed to Gervasius Tilburiensis. This treatise is certainly very ancient, and intrinsically valuable. Our author introduces it by an epistolary dissertation, in Latin, to the then lord Halifax. The dialogue is followed by another epistolary dissertation, in the same language, addressed to the lord Somers, relating to the great roll of the exchequer, commonly styled the “Roll of Quinto Regis Stephani.” No historical account has been given, in this volume, of the records reposited in the exchequer. Mr. Madox thought that it might be more properly done if there was occasion for it, hereafter, in a continuation of this work; which he seems to have had some intention of performing himself when he published this part; or hoped some other hand would supply, if he did not. The concluding chapter of the history is a list of the barons of this court from the first year of William the Conqueror to the 20th of Edward II. The last work this laborious historiographer published himself, was the “Firma Burgi, or historical essay concerning the cities, towns, and boroughs of England. Taken from records.” This treatise was inscribed to king George I. The author warns his readers against expecting to find any curious or refined learning in it; in regard the matter of it is low. It is only one part of a subject, which, however, is extensive and difficult, concerning which, be tells us, much has been said by English writers to very little purpose, serving rather to entangle than to clear it. When he first entered upon the discussion of it, he found himself encompassed with doubts, which it hath been his endeavour, as he says, to remove or lessen as he went along. He has throughout mixed history and dissertation together, making these two strengthen and diversify each other. However modestly Mr. Madox might express himself concerning the learning of this work, it is in reality both curious and profound, and his inquiries very useful. The civil antiquities of this country would, in all probability, have been further obliged than they are to this industrious person, if his life had been of a somewhat longer continuance; for it may be presumed, from two or three passages in the prefaces of those books he published himself, that he meditated and intended some others to follow them, different from this posthumous History of Baronies, which his advertisement of it apparently suggests to be the only manuscript left finished by the author. This is compiled much in the manner of his other writings. In the first book he discourses largely of land baronies; in the second book he treats briefly of titular baronies and in the third of feudal tenure in capite.

, the great friend and counsellor of Augustus Caesar, was himself a polite scholar, but is chiefly memorable for having been the patron and protector of men of letters. He was descended from a most ancient and illustrious origin, even from the kings of Hetruria, as Horace often tells us; but his immediate forefathers were only of the equestrian order. He is supposed to have been born at Rome, because his family lived there; but in what year antiquity does not tell us. His education is supposed to have been of the most liberal kind, and agreeable to the dignity and splendour of his birth, as he excelled in every thing that related to arms, politics, and letters. How he spent his younger years is also unknown, there being no mention made of him, by any writer, before the death of Julius Caesar, which happened in the year of Rome 709. Then Octavius Caesar, who was afterwards called Augustus, went to Rome to take possession of his uncle’s inheritance; and, at the same time, Mæcenas became first publicly known; though he appears to have been Augustus’s friend, and, as it should seem, guardian, from his childhood. From that time he accompanied him through all his fortunes, and was his counsellor and adviser upon all occasions; so that Pedo Albinovanus, or rather the unknown author whose elegy has been ascribed to him, justly calls him “Caesaris dextram,” Caesar’s right hand.

U. C. 717, when Augustus and Agrippa went to Sicily, to fight Sextus Pompeius by sea, Mæcenas went with them but soon after returned, to appease some commotions which were rising at Rome for though he usually attended Augustus in all his military expeditions, yet whenever there was any thing to be done at Rome, either with the senate or people, he was also dispatched thither for that purpose. He was indeed invested with the government while Augustus and Agrippa were employed in the wars. Thus Dion Cassius, speaking of the year 718, says that Mæcenas “had then, and some time after, the administration of civil affairs, not only at Rome, but throughout all Italy,” and V. Paterculus relates, that after the battle of Actium, which happened in the year 724, “the government of the city was committed to Mæcenas, a man of equestrian rank, but of an illustrious family.” Upon the total defeat of Antony at Actium, he returned to Rome, to take the government into his hands, till Augustus could settle some necessary affairs in Greece and Asia. Agrippa soon followed Mæcenas and, when Augustus arrived, he placed these two great men and faithful adherents, the one over his civil, the other over his military concerns. While Augustus was extinguishing the remains of the civil war in Asia and Kgypt, young Lepidus, the son of the triumvir, was forming a scheme to assassinate him at his return to Rome. This conspiracy was discovered at once by the extraordinary vigilance of Mæcenas who, as Paterculus says, “observing the rash councils of the headstrong youth, with the same tranquillity and calmness as if nothing at all had been doing, instantly put him to death, without the least noise and tumult, and by that means extinguished another civil war in its very beginning.”

The civil wars being now at an end, Augustus returned to Rome; and after he had triumphed according to custom, he began to talk of restoring the commonwealth. Whether he was in earnest, or did it only to try the judgment of his friends, we do not presume to determine however he consulted Mæcenas and Agrippa about it. Agrippa advised him to it but Mæcenas dissuaded him, saying, that it was not only impossible for him to live in safety as a private man, after what had passed, but that the government would be better administered, and flourish more in his hands than if he was to deliver it up to the senate and people. The author of the “Life of Virgil” says that Augustus, “wavering what he should do, consulted that poet upon the occasion.” But this life is not of sufficient authority; for, though it has usually been ascribed to Servius or Donatus, yet the critics agree, that it was not written by either of them. Augustus, in the mean time, followed Mæcenas’s advice, and retained the government and from this time Mæcenas indulged himself, at vacant hours, in literary amusements, and the conversation of the men of letters. In the year 734 Virgil died, and left Augustus and Mæcenas heirs to his possessions. Mæcenas was excessively fond of this poet, who, of all the wits of the Augustan age, stood highest in his esteem; and, if the “Georgics” and the “Æneid” be owing to the good taste and encouragement of this patron, as there is some reason to think, posterity cannot commemorate him with too much gratitude. The author of the “Life of Virgil” tells us that the poet “published the Georgics in honour of Mæcenas, to whom they are addressed” and adds, that “they were recited to Augustus four days together at Atella, where he rested himself for some time, in his return from Actium, Mæcenas taking upon him the office of reciting, as oft as Virgil’s voice failed him.” Horace may be ranked next to Virgil in Mæcenas’s good graces we have already mentioned how and what time their friendship commenced. Propertius also acknowledges Mæcenas for his favourer and protector nor must Varius be forgot, though we have nothing of his remaining; since we find him highly praised by both Virgil and Horace. He was a writer of tragedies: and Quintilian thinks he may be compared with any of the ancieats. In a word, Mæcenas’s house was a place of refuge and welcome to all the learned of his time-, not only to Virgil, Horace, Propertius, and Varius, but to Fundanius, whom Horace extols as an admirable writer of comedies: to Fuscus Aristius, a noble grammarian, and Horace’s intimate friend to Plotius Tucca, who assisted Varius in correcting the “Æneid” after the death of Virgil to Valgius, a poet and very learned man, who, as Pliny tells us, dedicated a book to Augustus “De usu Herbarum;” to Asinius Pollio, an excellent tragic writer, and to several others, whom it would be tedious to mention. All these dedicated their works, or some part of them at least, to Mæcenas, and repeatedly celebrated his praises in them; and we may observe further, what Plutarch tells us, that even Augustus himself inscribed his “Commentaries” to him and to Agrippa.

Lady Mary Wortley Montague, in her letters lately published, has given a very lively description of Maffei’s employments: “After having made the tour of Europe in search of antiquities, he fixed his residence in his native town of Verona, where he erected himself a little empire, from the general esteem, and a conversation (so they call an assembly) which he established in his palace, one of the largest in that place, and so luckily situated, that it is between the theatre and the ancient amphitheatre. He made piazzas leading to each of them, filled with shops, where were sold coffee, tea, chocolate, all sorts of sweetmeats, and in the midst, a court well kept, and sanded, for the use of those young gentlemen who would exercise their managed horses, or show their mistresses their skill in riding. His gallery was open every evening at five o'clock, where he had a fine collection of antiquities, and two large cabinets of medals, intaglios, and cameos, arranged in exact order. His library joined to it: and on the other side a suite of five rooms, the first of which was destined to dancing, the second to cards (but all games of hazard excluded), and the others (where he himself presided in an easy chair), sacred to conversation, which always turned upon some point of learning, either historical or poetical. Controversy and politics being utterly prohibited, he generally proposed the subject, and took great delight in instructing the young people, who were obliged to seek the medal, or explain the inscription that illustrated any fact they discoursed of. Those who chose the diversion of the public walks, or theatre, went thither, but never failed returning to give an account of the drama, which produced a critical dissertation on that subject, the marquis having given shining proofs of his skill in that art. His tragedy of” Merope,“which is much injured by Voltaire’s translation, being esteemed a master-piece and his comedy of the” Ceremonies,“being a just ridicule of those formal fopperies, it has gone a great way in helping to banish them out of Italy. The walkers contributed to the entertainment by an account of some herb, or flower, which led the way to a botanical conversation; or, if they were such inaccurate observers as to have nothing of that kind to offer, they repeated some pastoral description. One day in the week was set apart for music, vocal and instrumental, but no mercenaries were admitted to the concert. Thus, at a very little expence (his fortune not permitting a large one), he had the happiness of giving his countrymen a taste of polite pleasure, and shewing the youth how to pass their time agreeably without debauchery.”

The complete catalogue of his works would resemble that of a library; the chief of them are these: I. “Rime e prose,” Venice, 1719, 4to. 2. “La scienza Cavalleresca,” Rome, 1710, 4to. This is against duelling, and has passed through six editions. 3. “Merope,” of which there have been many more editions, and several foreign versions. 4. “Traduttori Italiani,” &c. Venice, 1720, 8vo, contains an account of the Italian translations from the classics. 3. “Theatre Italiano,” a selection of Italian tragedies, in 3 vols. 8vo. 6. “Cassiodori complexiones, in Epistola et Acta Apostolorum,” &c. Flor. 1721. 7. “Istoria Diplomatica,” or a critical introduction to diplomatic knowledge. 8. “Degli Anfiteatri,” on amphitheatres, particularly that of Verona, 1728. 9. “Supplementum Acaciarum,” Venice, 1728. 10. “Museum Veronense,” 1729, folio. 11. “Verona Illustrata,” 1732, folio. 12. An Italian translation of the first book of Homer, in blank verse, printed at London, in 1737. 13. “La Religione di Gentili tiel morire,” 1736, 4to. 14. “Osservationi Letterarie,” intended to serve as a continuation of the Giornale de‘ Leterati d’ Italia. He published also a work on grace, some editions of the fathers, and other matters. A complete edition of his works was published at Venice in 1790, in 18 vols. 8vo.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Bergamo in 1536, and was instructed by his uncles Basil and Chrysostom Zanchi, canons regular of that city, in Greek, Latin, philosophy and theology. His studies being finished he went to Rome, where his talents became so well known that several princes invited him to settle in their dominions, but he gave the preference to Genoa, where in 1563 he was appointed professor of eloquence, with an ample salary. He continued in that office two years, and was chosen to the office of secretary of state; but in 1565, he returned to Rome, where he entered into the society of Jesuits. He spent six years as professor of eloquence in the Roman college, during which he translated, into the Latin language, the history of the Indies by Acosta, which was published in 1570. He then went to Lisbon at the request of cardinal Henry, and compiled from papers and other documents with which he was to be furnished, a complete history of the Portuguese conquests in the Indies, and of the progress of the Christian religion in that quarter. He returned to Italy in 1581, and some years after was placed, by Clement VIII. in the Vatican, for the purpose of continuing, in the Latin language, the annals of Gregory XIII. begun by him in the Italian of this he had finished three books at the time of his death, which happened at Tivoli Oct. 20, 1603. Soon after he entered among the Jesuits he wrote the life of Ignatius Loyola; but his principal work is entitled “Historiarum Indicarum,” lib. XVI. written in a very pure style, which has been frequently reprinted. The best edition is in two volumes 4to, printed at Bergamo in 1747. The purity of his style was the effect of great labour. Few men ever wrote so slowly; nothing seemed to please him, and he used to pass whole hours in polishing his periods; but we cannot readily credit all that has been reported on this subject, as that he never could finish above twelve or fifteen lines in a clay; that he was twelve years in writing his history of the Indies, and that, to prevent his mind being tainted with bad Latin, he read his breviary in Greek. There are, however, some other particulars of his personal history which correspond a little with all this. He disliked the ordinary commons of the Jesuits’ college, aftid had always something very nice and delicate provided for him, considering more substantial and gross food as incompatible with elegant writing; yet with all this care, he was of such an irascible temper as to be perpetually giving offence, and perpetually asking pardon.

His principal works are, 1. “Saggi di natural! esperienze fatte nel academia de Cimento,” &c. 1666, fol. reprinted in 1691. 2. “Lettera proemiale per la traduzione della concordia dei quattro Evangeliste di Giansenio,” &c. 1680, with various other translations, the titles of which may be seen in Fabroni. 3. “Lettere familiare,” Venice, 1761, 4to, written against the Atheists. A second volume appeared in 1768. 4. “Lettere scientifiche,” Florence, 1721, 4to. 5. “Canzonette Anacreontiche di Lindoro Eleato” (his academical name), Florence, 1723, &c. A long list is given by Fabroni of his unpublished works; but neither these nor his printed works are much known in England or France.

, an ingenious and learned man of the sixteenth century, was born at Anghiari in Tuscany. He was educated in the Italian universities, where his genius and application carried him almost through the whole circle of sciences; for, besides the belles lettres and law, he applied to the study of war, and even wrote books upon the subject. In this also he afterwards distinguished himself: for he was sent by the Venetians to the isle of Cyprus, with the commission of judge-martial and when the Turks besieged Famagosta, he performed all the services to the place that could have been expected from a skilful engineer. He contrived a kind of mine and fire-engines, by which he laid the labours of the Turks in ruins: and he destroyed in a moment works which had cost them no small time and pains. But they had too good an opportunity of revenging themselves on him; for the city falling at last into their hands, in 1571, Magius became their slave, and was used very barbarously. His comfort lay altogether in the stock of learning with which he was provided; and so prodigious was his memory, that he did not think himself unqualified, though deprived entirely of books, to compose treatises full of quotations. As, he was obliged all the day to do the drudgery of the meanest slave, he spent a great part of the night in writirjg. He wrote in prison a treatise upon bells, “De tintinnabulis,” and another upon the wooden horse, “De equuleo.” He was determined to the first of these subjects by observing, that the Turks had no bells; and to the second, by ruminating upon the various kinds of torture to which his dismal situation exposed him, which brought to his reflection, that the equuleus had never been thoroughly explained. He dedicated the first of these treatises to the emperor’s ambassador at Constantinople, and the other to the French ambassador at the same place. He conjured these ambassadors to use their interest for his liberty; which while they attempted to procure him, they only hastened his death: for the bashaw Mahomet, who had not forgot the mischief which Magius had done the Turks at the siege of Famagosta, being informed that he had been at the Imperial ambassador’s house, whither they had indiscreetly carried him, caused him to be seized again, and strangled that night in prison. This happened in 1572, or 1573, it is not certain which.

, or Maginus, professor of mathematics in the university of Bologna, was born at Padua in 1536. He was remarkable for his great assiduity in acquiring and improving the knowledge of the mathematical sciences, with several new inventions for these purposes, and for the extraordinary favour he obtained from most princes of his time. This doubtless arose partly from the celebrity he had in matters of astrology, to which he was greatly addicted, making horoscopes, and foretelling events both relating to persons and things. He was invited by the emperor Rodolphus to come to Vienna, where he promised him a professor’s chair, about 1597; but not being able to prevail on him to settle there, he nevertheless gave him a handsome pension. It is said, he was so much addicted to astrological predictions, that he not only foretold many good and evil events relative to others with success, bat even foretold his own death, which came to pass the same year: all which he represented as under the influence of the stars. Tomasini says, that Magini, being advanced to his 61st year, was struck with an apoplexy, which ended his days; and that a long while before, he had told him and others, that he was afraid of that year. And Roffeni, his pupil, says, that Magini died under an aspect of the planets, which, according to his own prediction, would prove fatal to him; and he mentious Riccioli as affirming that he said, the figure of his nativity, and his climacteric year, doomed him to die abouf that time; which happened in 1618, in the 62d year of his age.

, 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.

This extraordinary application, and talents, soon recommended him to Ermini, librarian to the cardinal de Medicis, and to Marmi, the grand duke’s librarian, who introduced him into the company of the literati, and made him known at court. Every where he began to be looked upon as a prodigy, particularly for his vast and unbounded memory, of which many remarkable anecdotes have been given. A gentleman at Florence, who had written a piece that was to be printed, lent the manuscript to Magliabechi; and some time after it had been returned with thanks, came to him again with the story of a pretended accident by which he had lost his manuscript. The author seemed inconsolable, and intreated Magliabechi, whose character for remembering what he read was already very great, to try to recollect as much of it as he possibly could, and write it down for him against his next visit. Magliabechi assured him he would, and wrote down the whole ms. without missing a word, or even varying any where from the spelling. Whatever our readers may think of this trial of his memory, it is certain that by treasuring up at least the subject and the principal parts of all the books he ran over, his head became at last, as one of his acquaintances expressed it to Mr. Spence, “An universal index both of titles and matter.”

By this time Magliabechi was become so famous for the vast extent of his reading, and his amazing retention of what he had read, that he was frequently consulted by the learned, when meditating a work on any subject. For example, and a curious example it is, if a priest was going to compose a panegyric on any saint, and came to consult Magliabechi, he would immediately tell him, who had said any thing of that saint, and in what part of their works, and that sometimes to the number of above an hundred authors. He would tell not only who had treated of the subject designedly, but point out such as had touched upon it only incidentally; both which he did with the greatest exactness, naming the author, the book, the words, and often the very number of the page in which they were inserted. All this he did so often, so readily, and so exactly, that he came at last to be looked upon as an oracle, on account of the ready and full answers that he gave to all questions, that were proposed to him in any faculty or science whatever. The same talent induced the grand duke Cosmo III. to appoint him his librarian, and no man perhaps was ever better qualified for the situation, or more happy to accept it, He was also very conversant with the books in the Laurentian library, and the keeping of those of Leopold and Francis Maria, the two cardinals of Tuscany. Yet all this, it is said, did not appease his voracious appetite; he was thought to have read all the books printed before his time, and all in it. Doubtless this range, although very extensive, must be understood of Italian literature only or principally. Crescembini paid him the highest compliment on this. Speaking of a dispute whether a certain poem had ever been printed or not, he concluded it had not, “because Magliabechi had never seen it.” We learn farther that it was a general custom for authors and printers to present him with a copy of whatever they printed, which must have been a considerable help towards the very large collection of books which he himself made. His mode of reading in his latter days is said to have been this. When a book first came into his hands, he would look over the title-page, then dip here and there in the preface, dedication and advertisements, if there were any; and then cast his eyes on each of the divisions, the different sections, or chapters, and then he would be able to retain the contents of that volume in his memory, and produce them if wanted. Soon after he had adopted this method of what Mr. Spence calls “fore-shortening his reading,” a priest who had composed a panegyric on one of his favourite saints, brought it to Magliabechi as a present. He read it over in his new way, the title-page and heads of the chapters, &c. and then thanked the priest very kindly “for his excellent treatise.” The author, in some pain, asked him, “whether that was all that he intended to read of his book?” Magliabechi coolly answered, “Yes, for I know very well every thing that is in it.” This anecdote, however, may be explained otherwise than upon the principles of memory. Magliabechi knew all that the writers before had said of this saint, and he knew this priest’s turn and character, and thence judged what he would chuse out of them and what he would omit. Magliabechi had even a local memory of the place where every book stood, as in his master’s shop at first, and in the Pitti, and several other libraries afterwards; and seems to have carried this farther than only in relation to the collections of books with which he was personally acquainted. One day the grand duke sent for him after he was his librarian, to ask him whether he could get him a book that was particularly scarce. “No, sir,” answered Magliabechi; “for there is but one in the world; that is in the grand signior’s library at Constantinople, and is the seventh book on the second shelf on the right hand as you go in.” Though this extraordinary man must have lived a sedentary life, with the most intense and almost perpetual application to books, yet he arrived to a good old age. He died in his eighty-first year, July 14, 1714. By his will he left a very fine library of his own collectionfor the use of the public, with a fund to maintain it and whatever should remain over to the poor. By the funds which he left, by the addition of several other collections, and the bounty of some of the grand dukes, his library was so much augmented as to vie with some of the most considerable in Europe. Of this collection, a catalogue and description of the works printed in the fifteenth century was published by Fossi, under the tide “Catalogus codicum sseculo XV impressorum in Bibliotheca Magliabechiana, Florentiae adservantur,” Florence, 3 vols. fol. 1793—1795.

He died in the midst of the public applause, after enjoying, during all the latter part of his life, such an affluence as very few persons have ever procured by their knowledge or learning, and which, as he had acquired honourably, he bestowed liberally.

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

In 1708 Magnol was admitted a member of the 'academic des sciences of Paris, in the place of his distinguished friend Tournefort, and contributed some papers to their memoirs. He died in 1715, at the age of seventy-seven. He left a son, named Anthony, who wa professor of physic at Montpellier, but not of Botany. To this son we are indebted for the publication of the “Novus Character Plantarum,” on which the fame of Magnol as a systematic botanist chiefly rests. This posthumous work appeared in 1720, making a quarto volume of 341 pages. The system therein taught is much celebrated by Linnæus, who in his Classes Plautarutn, 375 403, gives a general view of it, expressing his wonder that so new and singular a system had not made more proselytes. That noble genus of trees or shrubs, called the Magnolia, received that name from Plumier, in honour of our author.

, or Mohammed, founder of the system of religious imposture called Mahometanism, was born in the year 569, at Mecca, a city of Arabia, of the tribe of the Korashites, which was reckoned the noblest in all that country; and was descended in a direct line from Pher Koraish, the founder of it. Yet in the beginning of his life he was in a very poor condition; for his father dying before he was two years old, and while his grandfather was still living, all the power and wealth of his family devolved to his uncles, especially Abu Taleb. Abu Taleb, after the death of his father, bore the chief sway in Mecca during the whole of a very long life; and it was under his protection chiefly, that Mahomet, when he first began topropagate his imposture, was sufficiently supported against all opposers, so as to be able, after his death, to establish it through all Arabia by his own power.

In his fortieth year, Mahomet began to take upon him the style of the Apostle of God, and under that character to carry on the plan which he had now contrived; but for four years he confined his doctrines to such as he either had most confidence in, or thought himself most likely to gain. When he had gained a few disciples, some of whom, however, were the principal men of the city, he began to publish it to the people at Mecca, in his forty-fourth year, and openly to declare himself a prophet sent by God, to convert them from the error of paganism, and to teach them the true religion. On his first appearance, he was treated with derision and contempt, and called by the people a sorcerer, magician, liar, impostor, and teller of fables, of which he frequently complains in the Koran; so that for the first year he made little or no progress. But persevering in his design, which he managed with great address, he afterwards gained so many proselytes, that in the fifth year of his pretended mission, he had increased his party to the number of thirty-nine, himself making the fortieth. People now began to be alarmed at the progress he made. Those who were addicted to the idolatry of their forefathers, stood up to oppose him as an enemy of their gods, and a dangerous innovator in their religion. Others, who saw further into his designs, thought it time to put a stop to them, for the sake of preserving the government, at which they thought he aimed: and therefore they combined together against him, and intended to have cut him off with the sword. But Abu Taleb, his uncle, defeated their design; and by his power, as being chief of the tribe, preserved him from many other attempts of the same nature; for though Abu Taleb himself persisted in the paganism of his ancestors, yet he had so much affection for the impostor, as being his kinsman, and one that was bred up in his house, and under his care, that he extended his full protection to Mahomet as long as he lived. The principal arguments, which Mahomet employed to delude men into a belief of this imposture, were promises and threats, both well calculated to influence the affections of the vulgar. His promises were chiefly of Paradise, which with great art he framed agreeably to the taste of the Arabians: for they, lying within the torrid zone, were, through the nature of their climate, as well as the corruption of their manners, exceedingly given to the love of women; and the scorching heat and dryness of the country, making rivers of water, cooling drinks, shaded gardens, and pleasant fruits, most refreshing and delightful unto them, they were from hence apt to place their highest enjoyment in things of this nature. For this reason, he made the joys of his Paradise to consist totally in these particulars; which he promises them abundantly in many places of the Koran. On the contrary, he described the punishments of hell, which he threatened to all who would not believe in him, to consist of such torments as would appear to them the most afflicting and grievous to be borne; as, “that they should drink nothing but boiling and stinking water, nor breathe any thing but exceeding hot winds, things most terrible in Arabia; that they should dwell for ever in continual fire, excessively burning, and be surrounded with a black hot salt smoke, as with a coverlid, &c.” and, that he might omit nothing which could work on their fears, he terrified them with the threats of grievous punishments in this life. To which purpose he expatiated, upon all occasions, on the terrible calamities which had befallen such as would not be instructed by the prophets who, were sent before him; how the old world was destroyed by water, for not being reformed at the preaching of Noah; how Sodom was consumed by fire from heaven, for not hearkening to Lot when sent unto them; and how the Egyptians were plagued for despising Moses: for he allowed the divinity of both the Old and New Testament, and that Moses and Jesus Christ were prophets sent from God; but alledged that the Jews and Christians had corrupted those sacred books, and that he was sent to purge them from those corruptions, and to restore the law of Cod to that original purity in which it was first delivered. And this is the reason, that most of the passages which he takes out of the Old and New Testaments, appear different in the Koran from what we find them in those sacred books.

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.

Many other particulars are recorded by some ancient writers, both as to the composition of the Koran, and also as to the manner of its first propagation; as, that the impostor taught a bull to bring it him on his horns in a public assembly, as if it had been this way sent to him from God; that he bred up pigeons to come to his ears, to make it appear as if the Holy Ghost conversed with him; stories which have no foundation at all in truth, although they have been credited by great and learned men. Grotius in particular, in that part of his book “De veritate, &c.” which contains a refutation of Mahometanism, relates the story of the pigeon; on which our celebrated orientalist Pococke, who undertook an Arabic version of that performance, asked Grotius, “Where he had picked up this story, whether among the Arabians, or the Christians?” To which Grotius replied, that “he had not indeed met with it in any Arabian author, but depended entirely upon the authority of the Christian writers for the truth of it.” Pococke thought fit, therefore, to omit it in his version, lest we should expose ourselves to the contempt of the Arabians, by not being able to distinguish the religion ofc Mahomet from the tales and fictions which its enemies have invented concerning it; and by pretending to confute the Koran, without knowing the foundation on which its authority stands.

The first thing that Mahomet did after he had settled himself at Medina, was to marry his daughter Fatima* to his cousin Ali. She was the only child then living of six which were born to him of Cadiga his first wife; and indeed the only one which he had, notwithstanding the mcltifnde of his wives who survived him. Having now obtained the end at which he had long been aiming, that is, that of having a town at his command, he entered upon a scheme entirely new. Hitherto he had been only preaching his religion for thirteen years together; for the remaining ten years of his life he took the sword, and fought for it. He had long been teazed and perplexed at Mecca with questions, and objectiows, and disputes about what he had preached, by which he/v as often put to silence-; but iKjnceforth he forbad all manner of disputing, telling his disciples that his religion was to be propagated not by disputing, but by fighting. He commanded them therefore to arm themselves, and slay with the sword all that. would not embrace it, unless they submitted to pay a yearly tribute for the redemption of their lives: and according to this injunction, even to this day, all who live under any Mahometan government, and are not of their religion, pay an annual tax for a mulct of their infidelity; and are punished with death if they contradict or oppose any doctrine taught by Mahomet. After he had sufficiently infused this doctrine into his disciples, he next proceeded to put it in practice; and having erected his standard, called them all to come armed to it. His first expeditious were against the trading caravans, in their journeys between Mecca and Syria, which he attacked with various success; and-if we except the establishing and adjusting a few particulars relating to his grand scheme, as occasion required, his time, for the two first years after his flight, was wholly spent in predatory excursions upon his neighbours, in robbing, plundering, and destroying all those that lived near Medina, who would not embrace his religion.

In the third year of the Hegira, A. D. 624, he made war upon those tribes of the Arabs which were of the Jewish religion near him; and having taken their castles, and reduced them under his power, he sold them all for slaves, and divided their goods among his followers. But the battle of Ohud, which happened towards the end of this year, had like to have proved fatal to him; for his uncle Hamza, who bore the standard, was killed, himself grievously wounded, and escaped only by one of his companions comincr to his assistance. This defeat gave rise to many objections against him, some asked, How a prophet of God could be overthrown in a battle by the infidels and others murmured as much for the loss of their friends and relations who were slain. To satisfy the former, he Jakt the cause of the overthrow on the sins of some that followed him; and said, that for this reason God suffered them to he overthrown, that so the good might be distinguished from the bad, and that those who were true believers might on this occasion be discerned from those who were not. Tq quiet the complaints of the latter, he invented his doctrine of fate and predestination; telling them that those who were slain in the battle, though they had tarried at home in their houses, must nevertheless have died at that moment, the time of every man’s life being predetermined by God; but-as they died fighting for the faith, they gained the advantage of the crown of martyrdon), and the rewards which were due to it in Paradise; both which doctrines served his purpose so well, that he proj>a-jated them afterwards on all occasions. They have also been the favourite notions of the Mahometans ever since, and enforced especially in their wars; where, it musk be owned, nothing can be more conducive to make them fight valiantly, than a settled opinion, that to whatever dangers they expose themselves, they cannot die either sooner or later than is predestinated by God; and that, in case this predestined time be come, they shall, by dying martyrs for their religion, immediately enter into Paradise as the reward of it.

Having thus made a truce with the men of Mecca, and thereby obtained free access for any of his party to go into that city, he ordained them to make pilgrimages thither, which have ever since been observed, with much superstition, by all his followers, once every year: and now being thus established in the sovereignty, at which he had long been aiming, he assumed all the insignia belonging to it; still retaining the sacred character of chief pontiff of his religion, as well as the royal, with which he was invested. He transmitted both to his successors, who, by the title of Caliphs, reigned after him: so that, like the Jewish princes of the race of Maccabees, they were kings and chief-priests of their people at the same time. Their pontifical authority consisted chiefly in giving the interpretation of the Mahometan law, in ordering all matters of religion, and in praying and preaching in their public mosques: and this at length was all the authority the caliphs had left; as they were totally stripped of the rest, first by the governors. of the provinces, who, about the 325th year of the Hegira, assumed the regal authority to themselves, and afterwards by others, who gradually usurped upon them; till at length, after a succession of ages, the Tartars came in, and, in that deluge of destruction with which they over-ran all the East, put a total end not only to their authority, but to their very name and being. Ever since that time, most Mahometan princes have a particular officer appointed in their respective dominions, who sustains this sacred authority, formerly invested in their caliphs; who in Turkey is called the Mufti, and in Persia the Sadre. But they, being under the power of the princes that appoint them, are in reality the mere creatures of state, who make the law of Mahomet speak just such language as is necessary to support the measures of the government, however unjust or tyrannical.

In the seventh year of the Hegira, A. D. 628, the impostor led forth his army against Caibar, a city inhabited by Arabs of the Jewish religion and, after routing them irt battle, he besieged their city, and took it by storm. Having entered the town, he took up his quarters in the house of Hareth, one of the principal inhabitants of the place, whose daughter Zainoh, preparing a shoulder of mutton for his supper, poisoned it. Here those who would ascribe miracles to Mahomet, tell us, that the shoulder of mutton spake to him, and discovered that it was poisoned; but, if it did so, it was, it seems, too late to do him any good; for Basher, one of his companions, beginning too greedily to eat of it, fell down dead on the place; and although Mahomet had not immediately the same fate, because, not liking the taste, he spit out again what he had taken into his mouth, yet he took enough to have a fatal effect; for he never recovered, and, at the end of three years, died of this meal. The maid being asked why she did this, answered, that “she had a mind to make trial, whether he were a prophet or not: for, were he a prophet,” said she, “he would certainly know that the meat was poisoned, and therefore would receive no harm from it; but, if he were not a prophet, she thought she should do the world good service in ridding it of so wicked a tyrant.”

He was buried in the place where he died, which was in the chamber of his best-beloved wife, at Medina. The story that Mahomet’s tomb, being of iron, is suspended in the air, under a vault of loadstones, is a mere fable; and the Mahometans laugh, when they know that the Christians relate it, as they do other stories of him, for a certain matter of fact. A king of Egypt, indeed, formerly attempted to do this, when he had a mind to procure the same advantage to a statue of his wife. “Dinocrates the architect,” says Pliny, “had begun to roof the temple of Arsinoe, at Alexandria, with loadstone, that her image, made of iron, might seem to hang there in the air.” But no such Attempt was ever made in regard to Mahomet; whose body continued in the place where he was buried, without having been moved or disturbed. They have, it is said, built over it a small chapel, joining to one of the corners of the chief mosque of that city; the first mosque which was erected to that impious superstition, Mahomet himself being, as hath been related above, the founder of it.

As the impostor allowed the divinity of the Old and New Testament, it is natural to suppose that he would attempt to prove his own mission from both; and the texts used for this purpose by those who defend his cause, are these following. In Deuteronomy it is said, “The Lord came down from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from mount Pharan^ and he came with ten thousand of saints: from his right-hand went a fiery law for them.” By these words, according to the Mahometans, are meant the delivery of the law to Mosea, on mount Sinai; of the gospel to Jesus, at Jerusalem; and of the Koran to Mahomet, at Mecca: for, say they, Seir are the mountains of Jerusalem, where Jesus appeared; and Pha-. ran the mountains of Mecca, where Mahomet appeared. But they are here mistaken in their geography; for Pharan is a city of Arabia Petraea, near the Red Sea, towards the bottom of the gulph, not far from the confines of Egypt and Palestine, and above 500 miles distant from Mecca. It was formerly an episcopal see, under the patriarchs of Jerusalem, and famous for Theodorus, once bishop of it, who was the first that published to the world the opinion of the Monothelites. It is at this day called Fara: and hence the deserts, lying from this city to the borders of Palestine, are called the deserts or wilderness of Pharan, and the mountains lying in it, the mountains of Pharan, in holy scripture; near which Moses first began to repeat, and more clearly to explain the law to the children of Israel, before his death: and it is to that, to which the text above mentioned refers.

, 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.”

, a celebrated German alchymist and rosicrucian of the seventeenth century, who sacrificed his health, his fortune, his time, and his understanding, to those ruinous follies, wrote many works, all having reference, more or less, to the principles or rather absurdities of his favourite study. The following are mentioned as the chief of these publications. 1. “Atalanta fugiens,” 1618, 4to, the most rare and curious of his works. 2. “Septimana philosophica,” 1620, 4to. In both these works he has given abundance of his reveries. 3. “Silentium post clamores, seu tractatus -Revelationum fratrum roseae Crucis,” 1617, 8vo. 4. “De fraternitate roseae Crucis,” 1618, 8vo. 5. “Jocus severus,” 1617, 4to. 6. “De rosea Cruce,” 1618, 4to. 7. “Apologeticus revelationum fratrum roseae Crucis,” 1617, 8vo. 8. “Cantilenas intellectuals,” Rome, 1624. 9. “Museum Chymicum,” 1708, 4to. 10. “De Cnrculo physico-quadrato,” 1616, 4to.

However freely he examined the opinions of philosophy, instead of shewing himself incredulous in matters of divinity, he implicitly submitted to all the tenets of his church. But, as the arguments of the Peripatetics were commonly applied to illustrate and confirm those tenets, where he did not upon examination find them wellgrounded, he made no scruple to prefer the assistance of Plato to that of Aristotle. His reputation was so great, that it spread beyond the Alps and Pyrenees; and the general of the minims ordered him to Rome, in 1636, to fill a professor’s chair. His capacity in mathematical discoveries and physical experiments soon became known; especially from a dispute which arose between him and father Kircher, about the invention of a catoptrical work. In 1648 his book “De perspectiva horaria” was printed at Rome, at the expence of cardinal Spada, to whom it was dedicated, and greatly esteemed by all the curious. From Rome he returned to Toulouse, in 1650, and was so well received by his countrymen, that they created him provincial the same year; though he was greatly averse to having his studies interrupted by the cares of any office, and he even refused an invitation from the king in 1660, to settle in Paris, as it was his only wish to pass the remainder of his days in the obscurity of the cloister, where he had put on the habit of the order. Before this, in 1652, he published his “Course of Philosophy,” at Toulouse, in 4 vols. 8vo, in which work, if he did not invent the explanation of physics by the four elements, which some have given to Empedocles, yet he restored it, as Gassendus did the doctrine of the atomists. He published a second edition of it in folio, 1673, and added two treatises to it the one against the vortices of Des Cartes, the other upon the speaking-trumpet invented by our countryman sir Samuel Morland. He also formed a machine, which shewed by its movements that Des Cartes’s supposition, concerning the manner in which the universe was formed, or might have been formed, and concerning the centrifugal force, was entirely without foundation.

Maimbourg had a great reputation as a preacher, and published two volumes of sermons. But what have made him most known were the several histories he published. He wrote the History of Arianism, of the Iconoclasts, of the Croisades, of the Schism of the West, of the f-chism of the Greeks, of the Decay of the Empire, of the League, of Lutheranism, of Calvinism, the Pontificate of St. Leo; and he was composing the “History of the Schism of England” when he died. These histories form 14 vols. 4to, or 26 in 12mo. Protestant authors have charged him with insincerity, have convicted him of great errors and misrepresentations, in their refutations of his “History of Lutheranism and Calvinism.” The Jansenists criticued his “History of Arianism,” and that of the “Iconoclasts,” leaving all the rest untouched. The “History of Calvinism,” which he published in 1681, stirred up a violent war against him; the operations whereof he left entirely to his enemies, without ever troubling himself in the least about it, or acting either offensively or defensively. The abbé L'Avocat says that his historical works were admired at first, on account of a kind pf romantic style which prevails in them; but this false taste did not continue long, and the greatest part of them were exploded while their author was yet living. It is asserted that P. Maimbourg never took up his pen till he had heated his imagination by wine, nor ever attempted to describe a battle till he had drank two bottles; making use of this precaution, as he said jestingly, lest the horrors of the combat should enfeeble his style. The same biographer adds, that Theodore Maimbourg, his cousin, turned Calvinist, then went back to the catholic church, then changed afresh to “what is called the reformed religion,” and died a Socinian at London, about 1693. This last left an answer to “M. Bossuet’s Exposition of the Catholic Faith” and other works.

, or Moses the son of Maimon, a celebrated rabbi, called by the Jews “The eagle of the doctors,” was born of an illustrious family at Cordova in Spain, 1131. He is commonly named Moses Egyptius, because he retired early, as it is supposed, into Egypt, where he spent his whole life in quality of physician to the Soldan. As soon as he arrived there he opened a school, which was presently filled with pupils from all parts, especially from Alexandria and Damascus; who did such credit to their master by the progress they made under him, that they spread his name throughout the world. Maimonides was, indeed, according to all accounts of him, a most uncommon and extraordinary man, skilled in all languages, and versed in all arts and sciences. As to languages, the Hebrew and Arabic were the first he acquired, and what he understood in the most perfect manner; but perceiving that the knowledge of these would distinguish him only among his own people, the Jews, he applied himself also to the Chaldee, Turkish, &c. &c. of all which he became a master in a very few years. It is probable also, that he was not ignorant of the Greek, since in his writings he often quotes Aristotle, Plato, Galen, Themistius, and others; unless we can suppose him to have quoted those authors from Hebrew and Arabic versions, for which, however, as far as we can find, there is no sufficient reason.

He was famous for arts as well as language. In all branches of philosophy, particularly mathematics, he was extremely well skilled; and his experience in the art of healing was so very great, that as we have already intimated, he was called to be physician in ordinary to the king. There is a letter of his extant, to rabbi Samuel Aben Tybbon, in which he has described the nature of this office, and related also what vast incumbrances and labours the practice of physic brought upon him. Of this we shall give a short extract, because nothing can convey a clearer or a juster idea of the man, and of the esteem and veneration in which he was held in Egypt. Tybbon had consulted him by a letter upon some difficult points, and had told him in the conclusion of it, that as soon as he could find leisure he would wait upon him in person, that they might canvas them more fully in the freedom of conversation. Maimonides replied, that he should be extremely glad to see him, and that nothing could give him higher pleasure than the thoughts of conversing with him; but yet that he must frankly confess to him that he durst not encourage him to undertake so long a voyage, or to think of visiting him with any such views. “1 am,” says he, “so perpetually engaged, that it will be impossible for you to reap any advantage from me, or even to obtain a single hour’s private conversation with me in any part of the four-and-twenty. I live in Egypt, the king in Alkaira; which places lie two sabbath-days journey asunder. My common attendance upon the king is once every morning; but when his majesty, his concubines, or any of the royal family, are the least indisposed, I am not suffered to stir a loot from them; so that my whole time, you see, is almost spent at court. In short, 1 go to Alkaira every morning early, and, if all be well there, return home about noon; where, however, I no sooner arrive, than I find my house surrounded with many different sorts of people, Jews and Gentiles, rich men and poor, magistrates and mechanics, friends as well as enemies, who have all been waiting impatiently for me. As I am generally half famished upon my return from Alkaira, I prevail with this multitude, as well as I can, to suffer me to regale myself with a bit of dinner; and as soon as I have done, attend this crowd of patients, with whom, what with examining into their particular maladies, and what with prescribing for them, I am often detained till it is night, and am always so fatigued at last, that I can scarcely speak, or even keep myself awake. And this is my constant way of life,” &c.

But however eminent Maimorides was as a physician, he was not less so as a divine. The Jews have this saying of him, “A Mose ad Mosen non surrexit sicut Mose;” by which they would insinuate, that of all their nation none ever so nearly approached to the wisdom and learning of their great founder and lawgiver, as Moses, the son of Maim on. He was, says Isaac Casaubon, “a man of great parts and sound learning; of whom, I think, we may truly say, as Pliny said of old of Diodorurs Siculus, that he was the first of his tribe who ceased to be a trifler.” He was so far from paying an undue regard to absurd fables and traditious, as his nation had always been accustomed to do, that he dissuaded others from it in the most express terms. “Take heed,” says he, “and do not waste your time in attempting to draw sense or meaning out of that which has no meaning in it; I myself have spent a great deal of time in commenting upon, and explaining the Gemara, from which I have reaped nothing but my labour for my pains.”

The works of Maimonides are very numerous. Some of them were written in Arabic originally, but are now extant in Hebrew translations only. The most considerable are his Jad, which is likewise called “Mischne Terah,” his “More Nevochim,” and his “Peruschim, or Commentaries upon the Misna.” His “Commentaries upon the Misna” he began at the age of three-and-twenty, and finished in Egypt, when he was about thirty. They were translated from the Arabic by rabbi Samuel Aben Tybbon. His “Jad” was published about twelve years after, written in Hebrew, in a very plain and easy style. This has always been esteemed a great and useful work, being a complete code, or pandect of Jewish law, digested into a clear and regular form, and illustrated throughout with an intelligible commentary of his own. “Those,” says Collier, “that desire to learn the doctrine and the canon law contained in the Talmud, may read Maimonides’s compendium, of it in good Hebrew, in his book entitled Jad; wherein they will find a great part of the fables and impertinences in the Talmud entirely discarded.” But of all his productions, the “More Nevochim” has been thought the most important, and valued the most, not only by others, but also by himself. This was written by him in Arabic, when he was about fifty years old; and afterwards translated into Hebrew, under his own inspection, by rabbi Samuel Aben Tybbon. The design of it was to explain the meaning of several difficult and obscure words, phrases, metaphors, parables, allegories, &c. in scripture which, when interpreted literally, seemed to have no meaning at all, or at least a very absurd and irrational one. Hence the work, as Buxtorf says, took its title of “More Nevochim,” that is, “Doctor perplexorum;” as being written for the use and benefit of those who were in doubt whether they should interpret such passages according to the letter, or rather figuratively and metaphorically. Jt was asserted by many at that time, but very rashly, that the Mosaic rites and statutes had no foundation in reason, but were the effects of mere will, and ordained by God upon a principle purely arbitrary. Against these Maimonides argues, shews the dispensation in general to be instituted with a wisdom worthy of its divine author, and explains the causes and reasons of each particular branch of it. This procedure, however, gave offence to many of the Jews; those especially who had long been attached to the fables of the Talmud. They could not conceive that the revelations of God were to be explained upon the principles of reason; but thought that every institution must cease to be divine the moment it was discovered to have any thing in it rational. Hence, when the “More Nevochim” was translated into Hebrew, and dispersed among the Jews of every country, great outcries were raised, and great disturbances occasioned about it. They reputed the author to be a heretic of the worst kind, one who had contaminated the religion of the Bible, or rather the religion of the Talmud, with the vile allay of human reason; and would gladly have burnt both him and his book. In the mean time, the wiser part of both Jews and Christians have always considered the work in a very different light, as formed upon a most excellent and noble plan, and calculated in the best manner to procure the reverence due to the Bible, by shewing the dispensation it sets forth to be perfectly conformable to all our notions of the greatest wisdom, justice, and goodness: for, as the learned Spencer, who has pursued the same plan, and executed it happily, observes very truly, “nothing contributes more to make men atheists, and unbelievers of the Bible, than their considering the rites and ceremonies of the law as the effects only of caprice and arbitrary humour in the Deity: yet thus they will always be apt to consider them while they remain ignorant of the causes and reasons of their institution.”

In the mean time, her elevation was to her only a retreat. Shut up in her apartment, which was on the same floor with the king’s, she confined herself to the society of two or three ladies, as retired as herself; and even these she saw but seldom. The king came to her apartment every day after dinner, before and after supper, and continued there till midnight. Here he did business with his ministers, while madam de Maintenon employed herself in reading or needle-work, never shewing any eagerness to talk of state affairs, often seeming wholly ignorant of them, and carefully avoiding whatever had the least appearance of cahal and intrigue. She studied more to please him who governed, than to govern; and preserved her credit, by employing it with the utmost circumspection. She did not make use of her power, to give the greatest dignities and employments among her own relations Her brother count d'Aubigne, a lieutenant-general of long standing, was not even made a marshal of France; a blue ribbon, and some appropriations in the farms of the revenue, were all his fortune: which made him once say to the marshal de Vivone, the brother of madam de Montespan, that “he had received the staff of marshal in ready money.” It was rather high fortune for the daughter of this count, to marry the duke de Noailles, than an advantage to the duke. Two more nieces of madam de Maintenon, the one married to the marquis de Caylus, the other to the marquis de Villette, had scarcely any thing. A moderate pension, which Louis XIV. gave to madam de Caylus, was almost all her fortune; and madam de Villette had nothing but expectations. This lady, who was afterwards married to the celebrated lord Bolingbroke, often reproached her aunt for doing so little for her family; and once told her in some anger, that “she took a pleasure in her moderation, and in seeing her family the victim of it.” This Voltaire relates as a fact, which he had from M. de Villette herself. It is certain, that M. de Maintenon submitted every thing to her fears of doing what might be contrary to the king’s sentiments. She did not even dare to support her relation the cardinal de Noailles, against father le Tellier. She had a great friendship for the poet Kacine, yet did not venture to protect him against a slight resentment of the king’s. One day, moved with the eloquence with which he had described to her the people’s miseries in 1698, she engaged him to draw up a memorial, which might at once shew the evil and the remedy. The king read it; and, upon his expressing some displeasure at it, she had the weakness to tell the author, and not the courage to defend him. Racine, still weaker, says Voltaire, was so hurt, that it was supposed to have occasioned his xleath. The same natural disposition, which made her incapable of conferring benefits, made her also incapable of doing injuries. When the minister Louvois threw himself at the feet of Louis XIV. to hinder his marriage with the widow Scarron, she not only forgave him, but frequently pacified the king, whom the rough temper of this minister as frequently angered.

About the end of 1683, Louis married madam de Maintenon; and certainly acquired an agreeable and submissive companion. He was then in his forty-eighth year, she in her fiftieth. The only public distinction which made her sensible of her secret elevation (for nothing could be conducted more secretly then, or kept a greater secret afterwards, than this marriage) was, that at mass she sat in one of the two little galleries, or gilt doors, which appeared only to be designed for the king and queen: besides this, she had not any exterior appearance of grandeur. That piety and devotion, with which she had inspired the king, and which she had applied very successfully to make herself a wife, instead of a mistress, became by degrees a settled disposition of mind, which age and affliction confirmed. She had already, with the king and the whole court, given herself the merit of a foundress, by assembling at Noisy a great number of women of quality; and the king had already destined the revenues of the abbey of St. Denis, for the maintenance of this rising community. St. Cyr was built at the end of the park at Versailles, in 1686 She then gave the form to this establishment; and, together with Desmarets, bishop of Chartres, made the rules, and was herself superior of the convent. Thither she often went to pass away some hours; and, as we learn from herself, melancholy determined her to this employment. “Why cannot I,” says she in a letter to madam de la Maisonfort, “why cannot I give you my experience? Why cannot I make you sensible of that uneasiness, which wears out the great, and of the difficulties they labour under to employ their time? Do not you see that I am dying with melancholy, in a height of fortune, which once my imagination could scarcely have conceived? I have been young and beautiful, have had a relish for pleasures, and have been the universal object of love. In a more advanced age, I have spent my time in intellectual amusements. I have at lastrisen to favour but I protest to you, my dear girl, that every one of these conditions leaves in the mind a dismal vacuity.” If any thing, says Voltaire, could shew the vanity of ambition, it would certainly be this letter. She could have no other uneasiness than the uniformity of her manner of living with a great king; and this made her say once to the count d'Aubigne, her brother, “I can hold it no longer; I wish I was dead.”

, a scholastic divine and historian, was born, not at Haddington, as is usually said, but at Gleghorn, a village near North Berwick, in 1469. From some passages in his writings, it appears that he resided for a time both at Oxford and at Cambridge. At the former particularly, we learn from the dedication of one of his works to cardinal Wolsey, he resided, not three months, as Wood says, but a year. The cardinal, whom he styles “your majesty,” received him “after the old manner of Christian hospitality, and invited him with a splendid salary to Oxford, where he had lately founded his college, which Major did not accept, on account of the love he bore to his mother university of Paris.” It appears that he went in 1493 to Paris, and studied in the college of St. Barbe, under the famous John Boulac. Thence he removed to the college of Montacute, where he began the study of divinity, under the celebrated Standouk. In 1498 he was entered of the college of Navarre in 1505 he was created D. D. returned to Scotland in 1519, and taught theology for several years in the university of St. Andrew’s. At length, disgusted with the quarrels of his countrymen, he returned to Paris, and resumed his lectures in the college of Montacute, where he had several pupils, afterwards men of eminence. About 1530, he removed once more to Scotland, was chosen professor of divinity at St. Andrew’s, and afterwards became provost. It is usually supposed that he died in 1547, but it is certain that he was alive in 1549; for in that year he subscribed (by proxy, on account of his great age) the national constitutions of the church of Scotland. He died soon after, probably in 1550, which must have been in his eighty-second year. Du Pin says, that of all the divines who had written on the works of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard), Major was the most learned and comprehensive. His History of Scotland is written with much commendable freedom; but in a barbarous style, and not always correct as to facts. Hs was the instructor, but not, as some have said, the patron of the famous George Buchanan. He also had the celebrated John Knox as one of his pupils. Baker in a ms note on the “Athenae,” adds to the mention of this fact, that “a man would hardly believe he ha.d been taught by him.” Baker, however, was not sufficiently acquainted with Major’s character to be able to solve this doubt. Major, according to the very acute biographer of Knox (Dr. M‘Crie) had acquired a habit of thinking and expressing himself on certain subjects, more liberal than was adopted in his native country and other parts of Europe. He had imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson, Peter D’Ailly, and others, who defended the decrees of the council of Constance, and liberties of the Gallican church, against those who asserted the incontroulable authority of the sovereign pontiff. He thought that a general council was superior to the pope, might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes; maintained that ecclesiastical censures and even papal excommunications had no force, it* pronounced on invalid or irrelevant grounds; he held that tithes were merely of human appointment, not divine right; censured the avarice, ambition, and secular pomp of the court of Rome and the episcopal order; was no warm friend of the regular clergy, and advised the reduction of monasteries and holidays. His opinions respecting civil government were analogous to those which he held as to ecclesiastical policy. He taught that the authority of kings and princes was originally derived from the people that the former are not superior to the latter, collectively considered that if rulers become tyrannical, or employ their power for the destruction of their subjects, they may lawfully be controuled by them; and proving incorrigible, may be deposed by the community as the superior power; and that tyrants may be judicially proceeded against, even to capital punishment. The affinity between these and the political principles afterwards avowed by Knox, and defended by the classic pen of Buchanan, is too striking to require illustration. But although Major had ventured to think for himself on these topics, in all other respects be was completely subservient to the opinions of his age; and with a mind deeply tinctured with superstition, defended some of the absurdest tenets of popery by the most ridiculous and puerile arguments. We cannot, therefore, greatly blame Buchanan, who called him in ridicule, what he affected to call himself in humility, “Joannes, solo cognomine, Major.” His works are, 1. “Libri duo fallaciarum,” Lugd. 1516, comprising his “Opera Logicalia.” 2. “In quatuor sententiarum commentarius,” Paris, 1516. 3. “Commentarius in physica Aristotelis,” Paris, 1526. 4. “In primum et secundum sententiarum commentarii,” Paris, 1510. 5. “Commentarius in tertium sententiarum,” Paris, 1517. 6. “Literalis in Matthaeum expositio,” Paris, 1518. From these two last may be collected his sentiments on ecclesiastical polity, mentioned above. 7. “De historia gentis Scotorum, sen historia majoris Britanniae,” Paris, 1521, 4to. Of this a new edition was printed at Edinburgh, 17+0, 4to. 8. “Luculenta in 4 Evangelia expositiones,” &c. Paris, 1529, folio. 9. “Placita theologica.” 10. “Catalogus episcoporum Lucionensium.” He also translated Caxton’s Chronicle into Latin.

, an early French poet, was born at Bavai, in Hainault, in 1473, and died, according to some authors, in 1524, according to others, towards 1548. He is the author of an allegorical poem entitled “Les trois Contes de Cupidon et d'Atropos, dont le premier fut invente par Seraphin, Poete Italien; le 2 et le 3 de Maitre Jean le Maire,” Paris, 1525, 8vo. Several other poems by him are extant, all indicating a lively imagination, wit, and facility of writing, but with little correctness, taste, or delicacy. Some of his productions are not even decent. He wrote also, “Les Illustrations des Gaules, et singularites de Troyes,” 1512, folio. And a panegyric on Margaret of Austria, entitled “La Couronne Marguaritique,” printed at Lyons, in 1546, in which he reports some curious traits of the wit and repartee of that princess.

, a French poet of later times, was born at Besan^on, in 1604, and was gentleman in waiting to the duke of Montmorency, under whom he signalized himself in two battles against the Hugonots. His patron settled upon him a pension of 15,000 livres but, not contented with that, he complained heavily that the poets of his time received praises and incense, like the deities of antiquity, but nothing that could support life. He was in truth a lover of good cheer, and would have been more pleased with presents of wine, or delicacies for the table, than crowns of laurel, or any unsubstantial honour. His remonstrances were not ineffectual. He received many presents from the duke de Longueville, and favours in, great number from cardinal Richelieu, the count of Soissons, and cardinal la Valette. He married in 1648, and retired to Besangon, where he principally resided from that time, though he lost his wife in about ten years. He had some talent for negotiation, and conducted the business of a suspension of arms for Franche Comte with such success, that the emperor rewarded him in 1668, by reestablishing an ancient claim to nobility that had been in his family. He died in 1686, at the age of eighty-four. Mairet was never rich, yet led a life of ease and gratification. He very early began to write. His first tragedy of “Chryseide,” was written at sixteen “Sylvia,” at seventeen “Sylvianire,” at twenty-one “The Duke de Ossane,” at twenty-three “Virginia,” at twenty-four and “Sophonisba,” at twenty-five. He wrote in all, 1. Twelve tragedies, which, though they have some fine passages, abound in faults, and are written in a feeble style of versification. Corneille had not yet established the style of the French drama. On the Sophonisba of Mairet, Voltaire has formed another tragedy of the same name. 2. A poem, entitled “Le Courtisan solitaire,” a performance of some merit 3. Miscellaneous poems, in general moderate enough. 4. Some criticisms against Corneille, which were more disgraceful to the author than to the person attacked. His Sophonisba, however, was preferred to that of Corneille, but then that drama is by no means esteemed one of the happiest efforts of the great tragic poet.

, duke of Lauderdale, grandson of the preceding, was a statesman of great power and authority, but of most inconsistent character. On the breaking out of the wars in Scotland in the reign of Charles I. he was a zealous covenanter; and in Jan. 1644-5, one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, during which, upon the death of his father the earl of Lauderdale, he succeeded to his titles and estate. He took an active but not very useful part in the above treaty; “being,” says lord Clarendon, “a young man, not accustomed to an orderly and decent way of speaking, and having no gracious pronunciation., and full of passion, he made every thing much more difficult than it was before.” In April 1647, he came with the earl of Dumfermling to London, with a commission to join with the parliament commissioners in persuading the king to sign the covenant and propositions offered to him; and in the latter end of the same year, he, in conjunction with the earl of Loudon, chancellor of Scotland, and the earl of Lanerick, conducted a private treaty with his majesty at Hampton court, which was renewed and signed by him on Dec. 26 at Carisbrook castle. By this, among other very remarkable concessions, the king engaged himself to employ the Scots equally with the English in all foreign employments and negociations; and that a third part of all the offices and places about the king, queen, and prince, should be conferred upon persons of that nation; and that the king and prince, or one of them, should frequently reside in Scotland. In August the year following, the earl of Lauderdale was sent by the committee of estates of Scotland to the prince of Wales, with a letter, in which, next to his father’s restraint, they bewailed his highness’s long absence from that kingdom; and since their forces were again marched into England, they desired his presence to countenance their endeavours for religion and his father’s re-establishment. In 1649, he opposed with great vehemence the propositions made by the marquis of Montrose to king Charles II.; and in 1651 attended his majesty in his expedition into England, but was taken prisoner after the battle of Worcester in September the same year, and confined in the Tower of London, Portland-castle, and other prisons, till the 3d of March, 1659-60, when he was released from his imprisonment in Windsor-castle.

Upon the Restoration he was made secretary of state for Scotland, and persuaded the king to demolish the forts and citadels built by Cromwell in Scotland; by which means he became very popular. He was likewise very importunate vfith his majesty for his supporting presbyterv in that kingdom; though his zeal, in that respect, did not continue long. In 1669, he was appointed lord commissioner for the king in Scotland, whither he was sent with great pomp and splendour to bring about some extraordinary points, and particularly the union of the two kingdoms. For this purpose he made a speech at the opening of the parliament at Edinburgh on the 19th of October that year, in which he likewise recommended the preservation of the church as established by law, and expressed a vast zeal for episcopal government. And now the extending of the king’s power and grandeur in that kingdom. was greatly owing to the management of his lordship although he had formerly been as much for depressing the prerogative; and from the time of his commission the Scots had reason to date all the mischiefs and internal commotions of that and the succeeding reign. Having undertaken to make his majesty absolute and arbitrary, he stretched the power of the crown to every kind of excess, and assumed to himself a sort of lawless administration, the exercise of which was supposed to be granted to him in consequence of the large promises he had made. In the prosecution of this design, being more apprehensive of other men’s officious interfering, than distrustful of his own abilities, he took care to make himself his majesty’s sole informer, as well as his sole secretary; and by this means, not only the affairs of Scotland were determined in the court of England, without any notice taken of the king’s council in Scotland, but a strict watch was kept on all Scotchmen, who came to the English court; and to attempt any access to his majesty, otherwise than by his lordship’s mediation, was to hazard his perpetual resentment. By these arrogant measures, he gradually made himself almost the only important person of the whole Scotch nation; and in Scotland itself assumed so much sovereign authority, as to name the privy-counsellors, to place and remove the lords of the session and exchequer, to grant gifts and pensions, to levy and disband forces, to appoint general officers, and to transact all matters belonging to the prerogative. Besides which, he was one of the five lords, who had the management of affairs in England, and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the garter. But these honours did not protect him from the indignation of the House of Commons; by whom, in November the year following, he was voted a *' grievance, and not fit to be trusted or employed in any office or place of trust.“And though his majesty thought proper on the 25th of June, 1674, to create him a baron of England by the title of Baron of Petersham in Surrey, and earl of Guildford, yet the House of Commons the next year presented an address to the king to remove him from all his employments, and from his majesty’s presence and counsels for ever; which address was followed by another of the same kind in May 1678, and by a third in May the year following. He died at Tunbridge Wells, August 24, 1682, leaving a character which no historian has been hardy enough to vindicate. In Clarendon, Burnet, Kennet, Hume, Smollet, &c. we find a near conformity of sentiment respecting his inconsistency, his ambition, and his tyranny . Mr. Laing observes, that” during a long imprisonment, his mind had been carefully improved by study, and impressed with a. sense of religion, which was soon effaced on his return to the world. His learning was extensive and accurate; in public affairs his experience was considerable, and his elocution copious, though unpolished and indistinct. But his temper was dark and vindictive, incapable of friendship, mean and abject to his superiors, haughty and tyrannical to his inferiors; and his judgment, seldom correct or just, was obstinate in error, and irreclaimable by advice. His passions were furious and ungovernable, unless when his interest or ambition interposed; his violence was ever prepared to suggest or to execute the most desperate counsels; and his ready compliance preserved his credit with the king, till his faculties were visibly impaired with age." The duke died without male issue, but his brother succeeded to the title of Earl, whose son Richard was the author of a translation of Virgil, which is rather literal than poetical, yet Dryden adopted many of the lines into his own translation.

, an antiquary of some note, was born, according to the best accounts we can obtain, at Brechin in Forfarshire in Scotland, about 1693. What education he had is uncertain, but his original employment was that of a hair-merchant; in the prosecution of which business he travelled into Sweden, and Denmark, to Hamburgh, and other places. At length he settled in London, and applied himself to the study of English and Scottish antiquities, and must have acquired some literary reputatation, as in 1733 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, and in 1735 a fellow of the society of antiquaries, which he resigned in 1740, on going to reside in the coun­'try. His first publication was his History of London, published in folio, in 1739; a work compiled from Stow, and afterwards, in T765, enlarged by Entick to 2 vols. folio, with a great many views, plans, &c. the plates of which are now in Mr. Nichols’s possession. In 1740, as just mentioned, he retired into his native country, and in 1753, published a history of Edinburgh, comprised also in one folio volume. In 1757, appeared his work on the history and antiquities of Scotland, in 2 vols. folio; a performance not in general so highly esteemed as the two former, although he appears to have taken considerable pains to acquire information, by a set of printed queries which he sent to every clergyman in Scotland, and himself travelled over it for the same purpose. On July the 16th of the same year, he died, at Montrose, according to our account at the age of 64; the papers of the time say, at an advanced age, by which possibly it may be meant that he was still older; but this is matter of doubt. He was said, in the accounts of his death, to have died worth more than 10,000l. Mr. Maitland was rather a compiler from printed or written authorities, than an original collector of antiquary knowledge. Mr. Gough, a very competent judge, pronounces him, eren in this respect, “self-conceited and credulous,” and adds that he “knew little, and wrote worse.” The merit of his history of London was chiefly in supplying the place of Stowe, which was become scarce, and in modernizing the style. His “History of Edinburgh” is the most useful of his works.

, an eminent classical editor, of a foreign family, was born in 1668. He was educated at Westminster school, under Dr. Busby, who kept him to the study of Greek and Latin some years longer than usual. He then gained another powerful friend in Dr. South, for whom he compiled a list of the Greek words falsely accented in Dr. Sherlock’s books. This so pleased Dr. South, who was then a canon of Christ church, Oxford, that he made him a canoneer student (i. e. one introduced by a canon, and not elected from Westminster school), where he took the degree of M. A. March 23, 1696. From 1695 till 1699, he was second master of Westminsterschool which was afterwards indebted to him for “Græcæ Linguæ Dialecti, in usum Scholas Westmonastcriensis,” 1706, 8vo , (a work recommended in the warmest terms by Dr. Knipe to the school over which he presided, “cui se sua omnia debere fatetur sedulus Author”) and for “The English Grammar, applied to, and exemplified in, the English tongue,” 1712, 8vo. In “Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Angliae & Hiberniae,” Oxon. 1697, t. ii. p. 27, is inserted “Librorum Manuscriptorum Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis Catalogus. Accurante viro erudito Michaele Mattaerio.” But before the volume was published, the whole collection, amounting to 230, given by bishop Williams, except one, was destroyed by an accidental fire in 1694. In 1699 he resigned his situation at Westminster-school; and devoted his time solely to literary pursuits. In 1711, he published “Remarks on Mr. Whision’s Account ef the Convocation’s proceedings with relation to himself: in a Letter to the right reverend Father in God, George, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells,” 8vo; and also “An Essay against Arianism, and some other Heresies; or a Reply tp Mr. William Whiston’s Historical Preface and Appendix to his Primitive Christianity revived,” 8vo. In 1709, he gave the first specimen of his great skill in typographical antiquities, by publishing “Stephanorum Historia, vitas ipsorum ac libros complectens,” 8vo; which was followed in 1717, by “Historia Typographorum aliquot Parisiensium, vitas & libros complectens,” 8vo. In 1719, “Annales Typographic! ab artis inventae origine ad annum MD. Hagae Com.” 4to. To this volume is prefixed, “Epistolaris de antiquis Qnintiliani editionibus Disseitatio, clarissimo viro D. Johanni Clerico.” The second volume, divided into two parts, and continued to 1536, was published at the Hague in 1702; introduced by a letter of John Toland, under the title of “Conjectura verosimilis de prima Typographies Inventione.” The third volume, from the same press, in two parts, continued to 1557, and, by an Appendix, to 1564, in 1725. In 1733 was published at Amsterdam what is usually considered as the fourth volume, under the title of “Annales Typographic! ab artis inventae origine, ad annum 1564, opera Mich. Maittaire, A. M. Editio nova, auctior & emendatior, tomi priori pars posterior.” In 1741 the work was closed at London, by “Annalium Typographicorum Tomus Quintus & ultimus; indicem in tomos quatuor praeeuntes complectens;” divided (like the two preceding volumes) into two parts.

, a very learned Spanish Jesuit, was born at Fuente del Maestro, a small village in the province of Estramadura, in 1534. He studied under Dominicus Asoto, a Dominican, and also under Francis Tolet, a Jesuit, who was afterwards a cardinal, and there was no better scholar in the university of Salamanca in his time, than Maldonat. He there taught philosophy, divinity, and the Greek language. He entered into the society of the Jesuits, but did not put on the habit of his order till 1562, when he was at Rome. In 1563, he was sent by his superiors to Paris, to teach philosophy in the college which the Jesuits had just established in that city; where, as the historians of his society tell us, he was so crowded with hearers, that he was frequently obliged to read his lectures in the court or the street, the hall not being sufficient to contain them. He was sent, with nine other Jesuits, to Poictiers, in 1570, where he read lectures in Latin, and preached in French. Afterwards he returned to Paris, where he was not only accused of heresy, but likewise of procuring a fraudulent will from the president de St. Andre, by which the president was made to leave his estate to the Jesuits. But the parliament declared him innocent of the forgery, and Gondi, bishop of Paris, entirely acquitted him of the charge of heresy. He afterwards thought proper to retire to Bourges, where the Jesuits had a college, and continued there about a year and a half. Then he went to Rome, by the order of pope Gregory XIII. to superintend the publication of the “Septuagint'? and after finishing his” Commentary upon the Gospels," in 1582, he died there, in the beginning of 1583.

He composed several works, which shew great parts and learning; but published nothing in his life-time. The first of his performances which came abroad after his death, was his “Comment upon the Four Gospels;” of which father Simon says: “Among all the commentators which we have mentioned hitherto, there are few who have so happily explained the literal sense of the Gospels as John, Maldonat the Spanish Jesuit. After his death, which happened at Rome before he had reached his fiftieth year, Claudius Aquaviva, to whom he presented his” Comment“while he was dying, gave orders to the Jesuits of Pont a Mousson to cause it to be printed from a copy which was sent them. The Jesuits, in the preface to that work, declare that they had inserted something of their own, according to their manner; and that they had been obliged to correct the manuscript copy, which was defective in some places, because they had no access to the original, which was at Rome. Besides, as the author had neglected to mark, upon the margin of his copy, the books and places from whence he had taken a great part of his quotations, they supplied that defect. It even appeared, that Maldonat had not read at first hand all that great number of writers which he quotes; but that he had made use of the labours of former writers. Thus he is not quite so exact, as if he had put the last hand to his Comment. Notwithstanding these imperfections, and some others, which are easily corrected, it appears plainly, that this Jesuit had bestowed abundance of pains upon that excellent work. He does not allow one difficulty to pass without examining it to the bottom. When a great number of literal interpretations present themselves upon the same passage, he usually fixes upon the best, without paying too great a deference to the ancient commentators*, or even to the majority, regarding nothing but truth alone, stript of all authorities but her own.” Cardinal Perron laid, that he “was a very great man, and a true divine; that he had an excellent elocution as a speaker, understood the learned languages well, was deeply versed in scholastic divinity and theology, and that he had thoroughly read the fathers.” His character has been as high among the Protestants, for an interpreter of Scripture, as it was among the Papists. Matthew Pole, in the preface to the fourth volume of his “Synopsis Criticorum,” calls him a tvriter of great parts and learning. “He was,” says Dr. Jackson, “the most judicious expositor among the Jesuits. His skill in expounding the Scriptures, save only where doting love unto their church had made him blind, none of theirs, few of our church, have surpassed.” His “Commentaries upon Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, and Daniel,” were printed at Lyons in 1609, and at Cologne in 1611. To these were added, his “Exposition of the cixth Psalm,” and “A letter concerning a celebrated dispute which he had with above twenty Protestant ministers at Sedan.” His treatise “De fide,” was printed at Maienne in 1600; and that upon “Angels and Demons” at Paris, in 1605. In 1677, they published at Paris some pieces which had never appeared before; namely, his treatise “Of Grace,” that upon “Original Sin,” upon “Providence,” upon “Justice,” upon “Justification,” and that upon “The Merit of Works;” besides “Prefaces, Harangues, and Letters,” one volume, folio.

We will conclude our account of this celebrated Jesuit, with mentioning an high eulogium of him, given by the impartial and excellent Thuanus; who, after observing that he “joined a singular piety and purity of manners, and an exquisite judgment, to an exact knowledge of philosophy and divinity,” adds, “that it was owing to him alone, that the parliament of Paris, when they had the Jesuits under their consideration, did not pronounce any sentence to their disadvantage, though they were become suspected by the wisest heads, and greatly hated by the university.” Nothing can set the importance of Maldonat in a stronger light, or better shew the high opinion that was had of his merit.

He wrote several works. The first and principal, as in-deed it gave rise to almost all that followed, was his “Be la Recherche de la Verite,” or his “Search after Truth,” printed at Paris in 1674, and afterwards augmented in several successive editions. His design in this book is to point out the errors into which we are daily led by our senses, imaginvvtion, and passions;. and to prescribe a method for discovering the truth, which he does, by starting the notion of seeing all things in God. Hence he is led to think and speak meanly of human knowledge, either as it lies in written books, or in the book of nature, compared with that light which displays itself from the ideal world; and by attending to which, with pure and defecated minds, he supposes knowledge to be most easily had. These sentiments, recommended by various beauties of style, made many admire his genius who could not understand, or agree to his principles. Locke, in his “Examination of Malebranche’s opinion of seeing all things in God,” styles him an “acute and ingenious author;” and tells us, that there are “a great many very fine thoughts, judicious reasonings, and uncommon reflections in his Recherche:” but in that piece, endeavours to refute the chief principles of his system. Brucker is of opinion that the doctrine of his “Search after Truth,” though in many respects original, is raised upon Cartesian principles, and is, in some particulars, Platonic. The author represents, in string colours, the causes of error, arising from the disorders of the imagination and passions, the abuse of liberty, and an implicit confidence in the senses. He explains the action of the animal spirits, the nature of memory; the connection of the brain with other parts of the body, and their influence upon the understanding and will. On the subject of intellect, he maintains, that thought alone is essential to mind, and deduces the imperfect state of science from the imperfection of the human understanding, as well as from the inconstancy of the will in inquiring after truth. Rejecting the ancient doctrine of species sent forth from material objects, and denying the power of the mind to produce ideas, he ascribes their production immediately to God; and asserts, that the human mind immediately perceives God, and sees all things in him. As he derives the imperfection of the human mind from its dependence upon the body, so he places its perfection in union with God, by means of the knowledge of truth and the love of virtue. Singular and paradoxical, Brucker adds, as the notion of “seeing all things in God,” and some other dogmas of this writer, must have appeared, the work was written with such elegance and splendour of diction, and its tenets were supported by such ingenious reasonings, that it obtained general applause, and procured the author a distinguished name among philosophers, and a numerous train of followers. Its popularity might, perhaps, he in part owing to the appeal which the author makes to the authority of St. Augustine, from whom he professes to have borrowed his hypothesis concerning the origin of ideas. The immediate intercourse which this doctrine supposes, between the human and the divine mind, has led some to remark a strong resemblance between the notions of Malebranche, and those of the sect called Quakers.

Dr. Reid, on the other hand, does not allow, that either Plato or the latter Platonists, or St. Augustine, or the Mystics, thought, that we perceive the objects of sense in the divine ideas. This theory of our perceiving the objects of sense in the ideas of the Deity, he considers as the invention of father Malebranche himself. Although St. Augustine speaks in a very high strain of God’s being the light of our minds, of our being illuminated immediately by the eternal light, and uses other similar expressions; yet he seems to apply those expressions only to our illumination in moral and divine things, and not to the perception of objects by the senses. Mr. Bayle imagines, that some traces of this opinion of Malebranche are to be found in Amelius the Platonist, and even in Democritus; but his authorities seem, as Dr. Reid conceives, to be strained, Malebranche, with a very penetrating genius, entered into a more minute examination of the powers of the human mind than any one before him; and he availed himself of the previous discoveries made by Des Cartes, without servile attachment. He lays it down as a principle admitted by all philosophers, and in itself unquestionable, that we do not perceive external objects immediately, but by means of images or ideas of them present to the mind. “The things which the soul perceives,” says Malebranche,“are of two kinds. They are either in the soul, or without the soul: those that are in the soul are its own thoughts, that is to say, all its different modifications. The soul has no need of ideas for perceiving these things. But with regard to things without the soul, we cannot perceive them but by means of ideas.” He then proceeds to enumerate all the possible ways by which the ideas of sensible objects may be presented to the mind: either, 1st, they come from the bodies, which we perceive; or, 2dly, the soul has the power of producing them in itself; or, 3dly, they are produced by the Deity in our creation, or occasionally as there is use for them: or, 4thly, the soul has in itself virtually and eminently, as the schools speak, all the perfections which it perceives in bodies: or, 5thly, the soul is united with a Being possessed of all perfection, who has in himself the ideas of all created things. The last mode is th^it which he adopts, and which he endeavours to confirm by various arguments. The Deity, being always present to our minds in a more intimate manner than any other being, may, upon occasion of the impressions made on our bodies, discover to us, as far as he thinks proper, and according to fixed laws, his own ideas of the object; and thus we see all things in God, or in the divine ideas.

The next piece which Malebranche published, was his “Conversations Chretiennes, dans lesquelles sont justifié la verite de la religion & de la morale de J. C.” Paris, 1676. He was moved, it is said, to write this piece, at the desire of the duke de Chevreuse, to shew the consistency and agreement between his philosophy and religion. His “Traité de la nature & de la grace,” 1680, was occaioned by a conference he had with M. Arnaud, about those peculiar notions of grace into which Malebranche’s system had led that divine. This was followed by other pieces, which were all the result of the philosophical and theological dispute our author had with M. Arnaud. In 1688, he published his “Entretien sur la inetaphysique & la religion:” in which work he collected what he had written against M. Arnaud, but disengaged it from that air of dispute which is not agreeable to every reader. In 1697, he published his “Traite de P amour de Dieu.” When the doctrine of the new mystics began to be much talked of in France, father Lamy, a Benedictine, in his book “De la connoissance de soi-mme,” cited some passages out of this author’s “Recherche de la verit6,” as favourable to that party; upon this, Malebranche thought proper to defend himself in this book, by shewing in what sense it may be said, without clashing with the authority of the church or reason, that the love of God is disinterested. In 1708, he published his “Entretiens d‘un philosophe Chretien, & d’un philosophe Chinois sur l'existence & la nature de Dieu:” or, “Dialogues between a Christian philosopher and a Chinese philosopher, upon the existence and nature of God.” The bishop of Rozalie having remarked some conformity between the opinions of the Chinese, and the notions laid down in the “Recherche de la Verite”,“mentioned it to the author, who on that account thought himself obliged to write this tract. Malebranche wrote many other pieces besides what we have mentioned, all tending some way or other to confirm his main system established in the” Recherche," and to clear it from the objections which were brought against it, or from the consequences which were deduced from it: and, if he has not attained what he aimed at in these several productions, he has certainly shewn great ingenuity and abilities.

This poet was a man of a very singular humour; and many anecdotes are related of his peculiarities, by Racan, his friend and the writer of his life. A gentleman of the law, and of some distinction, brought him one day some indifferent commendatory verses on a lady; telling him at the same time, that some very particular considerations had induced him to compose them. Malherbe having run them over with a supercilious air, asked the gentleman bluntly, as his manner was, “whether, he had been sentenced to be hanged, or to make those verses?” His manner of punishing his servant was likewise characteristic, and partook not a little of the caprice of Swift. Besides twenty crowns a year, he allowed this servant ten-pence a day board wages, which in those times was very considerable; when therefore he had done any thing amiss, Malherbe would very gravely say: “My friend, an offence against your master is an offence against God, and must be expiated by prayer, fasting, and giving of alms; wherefore I shall now retrench five-pence out of your allowance, and give them to the poor on your account.” From other accounts it may be inferred that his impiety was at least equal to his wit. When the poor used to promise him that they would pray to God for him, he answered them, that “he did not believe they could have any great interest in heaven, since they were left in so bad a condition upon earth; and that he should be better pleased if the duke de Luyne, or same other favourite, had made him the same promise.” He would often say, that “the religion of gentlemen was that of their prince.” During his last sickness he was with great difficulty persuaded to confess to a priest; for which he gave this reason, that “he never used to confess but at Easter.” And some few moments before his death, when he had been in a lethargy two hours, he awaked on a suddea to reprove his landlady, who waited on him, for using a word that was not good French; saying to his confessor, who reprimanded him for it, that “”he could not help it, and that he would defend the purity of the French language to the last moment of his life."

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

Mallet’s first production in England was the celebrated and affecting ballad of “William and Margaret,” which was printed in Aaron Hill’s “Plain Dealer,” No. 36, July 14, 1724, and which in its original state was very different from what it is in the last editions of his works. Of this, says Dr. Johnson, he has been env ied the reputation; and plagiarism has been boldly charged, but never proved. In 1728 he published “The Excursion,” a poem in two cantos, containing a desultory view of such scenes of nature as his fancy or his knowledge led him to describe, and which is not devoid of poetical spirit, and in respect to diction is a close imitation of Thomson, whose “Seasons” were then in their full blossom of reputation.

Soon after the exhibition of “Eurydice,” Mr. Mallet published his poem on “Verbal Criticism,” a subject which he either did not understand, or willingly misrepresented. “There is’in this poem,” says Dr. Johnson, “more pertness than wit, and more confidence than knowledge. The versification is tolerable, nor can criticism allow it a, higher praise.” It was written to pay court to Pope, who soon after introduced him, we may add, “in an evil hour” to lord Bolingbroke. The ruin of Pope’s reputation might have been dated from this hour, if the joint malignity of Bolingbroke and Mallet could have effected it. Mallet was now in the way to promotion. When the prince of Wales, at variance with his father, placed himself at the head of the opposition, and kept a separate court, he endeavoured to increase his popularity by the patronage of literature; and Mallet being recommended to him, his royal highness appointed him his under-secretary, with a salary of 200l. a year.

In 1747 Mallet published his “Hermit, or Amyntor and Theodora,” a poem in which Dr. Johnson allows that there is copiousness and elegance of language (which indeed appear in most of Mallet’s works), vigour of sentiment, and imagery well adapted to take possession of the fancy. It abounds also with many excellent moral precepts, which receive weight and energy from the sanction of religion, a foundation on which Mallet did not always build. Dr. Warton was much censured for saying in his “Essay on the Life and Writings of Pope,” that “the nauseous affectation of expressing every thing pompously and poetically, is nowhere more visible than in a poem lately published, called Amyntor and Theodora;” but Warton was not a rash critic, and retained the sentence in the subsequent editions of his “Essay.”

Not long after this, Mallet was employed by lord Bolingbroke in an office which he executed with all the malignity that his employer could wish. This was no other than to defame the character of Pope Pope, who by leaving the whole of his Mss to lord Bolingbroke, had made him in some respect the guardian of his character Pope, onwhose death-bed lord Bolingbroke looking earnestly down, repeated several times, interrupted with sobs, “O great God, what is man? I never knew a person that had so tender a heart for his particular friends, or a warmer benevolence for all mankind!” who certainly had idolized this nobleman throughout his whole life, and who adhered to his lordship’s cause through all the vicissitudes of popular odium and exile. What could have induced Bolingbroke to the malice of degrading Pope’s character, and the cowardice of employing a hireling to do it? The simple fact is, that after Pope’s death it was thought to be discovered that he had privately printed 1500 copies of one of lord Bolingbroke’s works, “The Patriot King,” the perusal of which his lordship wished to be confined to a select few. This offence, which Mallet only could have traced to a bad motive, if fairly examined, will probably seem disproportioned to the rage and resentment of Bolingbroke. A very acute examiner of evidence (Mr. D'Israeli) has therefor imputed that to the preference with which Pope had distinguished Warburton, and is of opinion that Warburton, much more than Pope, was the real object. Between Bolingbroke and Warburton there was, it is well known, a secret jealousy, which at length appeared in mutual and undisguised contempt. But much of this narrative belongs rather to them than to Mallet, who could feel no resentment, could plead no provocation. On the contrary, he had every inducement to reflect with tenderness on the memory and friendship of Pope, who speaks of him, in a letter we have already alluded to, in the following terms “To prove to you how little essential to friendship I hold letter-writing I have not yet written to Mr. Mallet, whom I love and esteem greatly, nay whom I know to have as tender a, heart, and that feels a friendly remembrance as long as any man.” Such was the man who gladly undertook what Bolingbroke was ashamed to perform, and in a preface to the “Patriot King” misrepresented the conduct of Pope in language the most malignant and contemptuous. That he had an eye to his own interest in all this, it would be a miserable affectation of liberality to doubt. No other motive can account for his conduct, and this conduct will be found to correspond with his general character. Bolingbroke accordingly rewarded him by bequeathing to him all his writings published and unpublished, and Mallet immediately began to prepare them for the press. His conduct at the very outset of this business affords another illustration of his character. Francklin, the printer, to whom many of the political pieces written during the opposition to Walpole, had been given, as he supposed, in perpetuity, laid claim to some compensation for those. Mallet allowed his claim, and the question was referred to arbitrators, who were empowered to decide upon it, by an instrument signed by the parties; but when they decided unfavourably to Mr. Mallet, he refused to yield to the decision, and the printer was thus deprived of the benefit of the award, by not having insisted upon bonds of arbitration, to which Mallet had objected as degrading to a man of honour! He then proceeded, with the help of Millar, the bookseller, to publish all he could find; and so sanguine was he in his expectations, that he rejected the offer of 3000l. which Millar offered him for the copy-, right, although he was at this time so distressed for money that he was forced to borrow some of Millar to pay the stationer and printer. The work at last appeared, in 5 vols. 4to, and Mallet had soon reason to repent his refusal of the bookseller’s offer, as this edition was not sold off in twenty years. As these volumes contained many bold attacks on revealed religion, they brought much obloquy on the editor, and even a presentment was made of them by the grand-jury of Westminster. His memory, however, will be thought to suffer yet more by his next appearance in print When the nation was exasperated by the ill success of the war, and the ministry wished to divert public indignation from themselves, Mallet was employed to turn it upon admiral Byng. In this he entered as heartily as into the defamation of Pope, and wrote a letter of accusation under the character of a “Plain Man,” a large sheet, which was circulated with great industry, and probably was found to answer its purpose. The price of blood, on this occasion, was a pension which he retained till his death.

, a learned historian and antiquary, first professor of history in his native city, was born at Geneva in 1730, became afterwards professor royal of the belles lettres at Copenhagen, a member of the academies of Upsal, Lyons, Cassel, and of the Celtique academy of Paris. Of his life no account has yet appeared. He joined an extensive acquaintance with history and general literature to great natural talents. The amenity of his disposition caused his company to be much sought, while his solid qualities procured him friends who deeply regretted his loss. The troubles of Geneva during the first revolutionary war deprived him of the greatest part of his fortune; and he was indebted, for the moderate competence he retained, to pensions from the duke of Brunswick and the landgrave of Hesse; but the events of the late war deprived him of both those pensions. The French government is said to have designed him a recompense, but this was prevented by his death, at Geneva, Feb. 8, 1807. His works were: 1. “Histoire de Danernarck,” to the eighteenth century, the best edition of which is that of 1787. 2. A translation of Coxe’s “Travels,” with remarks and additions, and a relation of his own Travels in Sweden, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Translation of the Acts and form of the Swedish government, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de Hesse,” to the seventeenth century, 3 vols. 8vo. 5. “Histoire de la rnaison de Brunswick,” to its accession to the throne of Great Britain, 3 vols. 8vo. 6. “Histoire des Suisses,” from the earliest times to the commencement of the late revolution, Geneva, 1803, 4 vols. 8vo. 7. “Histoire de la Ligne Anseatique,” from its origin to its decline, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo. He had discovered at Rome the chronological series of Icelandic bishops, which had been lost in Denmark. It is published in the third volume of Langebeck’s collection of Danish writers. The late Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, has made us acquainted with professor Mallet’s merit as an antiquary by his excellent translation entitled “Northern Antiquities; or a Description of the manners, customs, religion, and laws, of the ancient Danes, and other northern nations including those of our own Saxon ancestors. With a translation of the Edda, or system of Runic mythology, and other pieces from the ancient Islandic Tongue. Translated from M. Mallet’s Introduction a l'Histoire de Danemarck,” &c. 1770, 2 vols, 8vo. To this Dr. Percy has added many valuable and curious notes, and Goranson’s Latin version of the “Edda.” It was very justly said, at the time, by the Monthly Reviewer, that Dr. Percy had, in this instance, given a translation more valuable than the original.

Edmond Malone was born at his father’s house in Dublin, on the 4th of October, 1741. He was educated at the school of Dr. Ford, in Molesworth-street and went from thence, in 1756, to the university of Dublin,where he took the degree of batchelor of arts. Here his talents very early displayed themselves; and he was distinguished by a successful competition for academical honours with several young men, who atterwarda became the ornaments of the Irish senate and bar. It appears that at his outset he had laid down to himself those rules of study to which he ever afterwards steadily adhered. When sitting down to the perusal of any work, either ancient or modern, his attention was drawn to its chronology, the history and character of its author, the feelings and prejudices of the times in which he lived; and any other collateral information which might tend to illustrate his writings, or acquaint us with his probable views, and cast of thinking. In later years he was more particularly engrossed by the literature of his own country; but the knowledge he had acquired in his youth had been too assiduously collected, and too firmly fixed in his mind, not to retain possession of his memory, and preserve that purity and elegance of taste which is rarely to be met with but in those who have early derived it from the models of classical antiquity. He appears frequently at this period, in common with some of his accomplished contemporaries, to have amused himself with slight poetical compositions; and on the marriage of their present majesties contributed an ode to the collection of congratulatory verses which issued on that event from the university of Dublin. In 1763 he became a student in the Inner Temple; and in 1767 was called to the Irish bar, and, at his first appearance in the courts, he gave every promise of future eminence. But an independent fortune having soon after devolved upon him, he felt himself at liberty to retire from the bar, and devote his whole attention in future to literary pursuits, for which purpose he soon after settled in London, and resided there with very little intermission for the remainder of his life. Among the many eminent men with whom he became early acquainted, he was naturally drawn by the enthusiastic admiration which he felt for Shakspeare, and the attention which he had already paid to the elucidation of his works, into a particularly intimate intercourse with Mr. Steevens. The just views which he himself had formed led him to recognize in the system of criticism and illustration which that gentleman then adopted, the only means by which a correct exhibition of our great poet could be obtained. Mr. Steevens was gratified to find that one so well acquainted with the subject entertained that high estimation of his labours which Mr. Malone expressed; and very soon discovered the advantage he might derive from the communications of a mind so richly stored. Mr. Malone was ready and liberal in imparting his knowledge, which, on the other part, was most gratefully received.

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

Mr. Malone, in his person, was rather under the middle size. The urbanity of his temper, and the kindness of his disposition, were depictured in his mild and placid countenance. His manners were peculiarly engaging. Accustomed from his earliest years to the society of those who were distinguished for their rank or talent, he was at all times and in all companies easy, unembarrassed, and unassuming. It was impossible to meet him, even in the most casual intercourse, without recognizing the genuine and unaffected politeness of the gentleman born and bred His conversation was in a high degree entertaining and instructive; his knowledge was various and accurate, and his mode of displaying it void of all vanity or pretension. Though he had little relish for noisy convivial merriment, his habits were social, and his cheerfulness uniform and unclouded. As a scholar, he was liberally communicative. Attached, from principle and conviction, to the constitution of his country in church and state, which his intimate acquaintance with its history taught him how to value, he was a loyal subject, a sincere Christian, and a true son of the Church of England. His heart was warm, and his benevolence active. His charity was prompt, but judicious and discriminating; not carried away by every idle or fictitious tale of distress, but anxious to ascertain the nature and source of real calamity, and indefatigable in his efforts to relieve it. His purse and his time were at all times ready to remove the sufferings, and promote the welfare of others, and as a friend he was warm and steady in his attachments.

, an Italian physician and anatomist, was born March 10, 1628, at Crevalcuore, near Bologna, in Italy, where he was taught Latin and studied philosophy. In 1649, losing his parents, and being obliged to choose his own method of life, he determined to apply himself to physic. The university of Bologna was then supplied with very learned professors in that science, particularly Bartholomew Massari, and Andrew Mariano, under whose instructions Malpighi in a short time made great progress in physic and anatomy. After he had finished the usual course, he was admitted doctor of physic, April 6, 1653, In 1655 Massari died, a loss which Malpighi severely felt, as independent of his esteem for him as a master, he had become more nearly related to him by marrying his sister. In 1656, the senate of Bologna gave him a professorship, which he did not long hold; for the same year the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to Pisa, to be professor of physic there. Here he contracted a strict friendship with Borelli, whom he subsequently owned for his master in philosophy, and to whom he ascribed all the discoveries which he afterwards made. They dissected animals together, and it was in this employment that he found the heart to consist of spiral fibres; a discovery, which has been ascribed to Borelli in his posthumous works. The air of Pisa not agreeing with Malpighi, be continued there but three years: and, in 1659, returned to Bologna, to resume his former posts, notwithstanding the advantageous offers which were made him to stay at Pisa. In 1662 he was sent for to Messina, in order to succeed Peter Castello, first professor of physic, who was just dead. It. was with reluctance that he went thither, though the stipend was great; and although he was prevailed on at last by his friend Borelli, to accept it, yet in 1666 he returned to Bologna. In 1669 he was elected a member of the royal society of London, with which he ever after kept a correspondence by letters, and communicated his discoveries in anatomy. Cardinal Pignatelli, who had known him while he was legate at Bologna, being chosen pope in 1691, under the name of Innocent XII. immediately sent for him to Rome, and appointed him his physician. In 1694 he was admitted into the academy of the Arcadians at Rome. July the 25th, of the same year, he had a fit, which struck half his body with a paralysis; and, November the 29th following, he had another, of which he died the same day, in his 67th year. His remains were embalmed, and conveyed to Bologna, where they were interred with great funeral honours in the chureh of St. Gregory, and a statue was erected to his memory. Malpighi is described as a man of a serious and melancholy temperament, which is confirmed by his portrait in the meeting-room of the royal society at Somerset-house. He was indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge, on the sure ground of experience and observation, ever candid in his acknowledgments to those who had given him any information, and devoid of all ostentation or pretension on the score of his own merits. He ranks very high among the philosophers of the physiological age in which he lived, when nature began to be studied instead of books, and the dreams of the schools. Hence arose the discoveries of the circulation of the blood, the absorbent system of the animal body, and the true theory of generation. To such improvements the investigations of Malpighi, relative to the anatomy and transformation of insects, particularly the silk-worm, and the developement of the chick in the egg, lent no small aid. From these inquiries he was led to the anatomy and physiology of plants, in which he is altogether an original, as well as a very profound, observer. His line of study was the same as that of Grew, but these philosophers laboured independent of each other, and their frequent coincidence evinces the accuracy of both.

In 1669, when he became a fellow of our royal society, his essay “de formatione pulli in ovo” was first printed, in London, in quarto, as well as his remarks on the “Bombyx” or silk-worm, and “De Glandulis conglobads,” forming his three “Dissertationes Epistolicae.” His “Anatome Piantarum,” addressed to the royal society, accompanied by observations on the incubation of the egg, was published by that learned body in folio, with wurny plates, in 1675 and 1679. His works were republished at London in 1686, making two folio volumes and more correctly at Amsterdam, in 1687, 4to, and a posthumous volume appeared Jiere, accompanied with an account of his life, in 1697, of which a re-impression was given at Venice, and another at Leyden, the ensuing year. Some other dissertations are to be found in the “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” published by Le Clerc and Manget at Geneva in 1685; especially “De Cornuum Vegetgtione,” “DeUtero et Viviparorum Avis;” and “Epistolae quaedam circa illam de ovo dissertationem.” His only medical work, “Consultationum Medicinalium Centuria prima,” was edited by Gaspari, in 1713, 4to, Patau. He is not, indeed, distinguished as a practitioner, but he deserves praise for pointing out the mischiefs of blood-letting, in the malignant epidemics prevalent in Italy in his time. An edition of the whole of his works was printed at Venice, in 1733, in folio, by Gavinelli.

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

, a schoolmaster of considerable learning, but chiefly known as the antagonist of the celebrated Ruddiman, was born about the beginning of the last century, at Whitewreatb, in the parish of Elgin, and county of Murray, and was educated, first at the parish school of Longbride, and afterwards at King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1721. He was afterwards appointed schoolmaster of the parish school of Touch, in the county of Aberdeen; and at length, in 1742, master of the poor’s hospital, in the city of Aberdeen. While in this station, his zeal for the character of the very celebrated Scotch historian and poet, Buchanan, led him to join the party of Scotch scholars, politicians, and writers, who were dissatisfied with Ruddiman’s edition of Buchanan’s worfcs, published in 1715, 2 vols. folio, and Jie determined himself to give a new edition more agreeable to the views he entertained of Buchanan as a historian, which, he being a staunch presbyterian, were of course adverse to Ruddiman’s well known sentiments. In the mean time he thought it necessary to show the errors and defects of Ruddiman’s edition, and accordingly published a work, the title of which will give the reader some idea of its contents: “A censure and examination of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s philological notes on the works of the great Buchanan, more particularly on the history of Scotland; in which also, most of the chronological and geographical, and many of the historical and political notes, are taken into consideration. In a letter to a friend. Necessary for restoring the true readings, the graces and beauties, and for understanding the true meaning of a vast number of passages of Buchanan’s writings, which have been so foully corrupted, so miserably defaced, so grossly perverted and misunderstood: Containing many curious particulars of his life, and a vindication of his character from many gross calumnies,” Aberdeen, 1751. This work, which extends to 574 pages small octavo, forms a very elaborate examination of Ruddiman’s edition, not only as referring to classical points, but matters of history, and is distinguished throughout by an unjustifiable contempt for Ruddiman’s knowledge and talents. Blameable as this was, and as his style generally is, he evidently proves that he was no mean verbal critic, and that his researches into the history of Buchanan and his works had been very extensive. With a better temper he might have proved an antagonist more worthy of Rnddiman’s serious attention. The latter, however, replied in 1754, in a pamphlet entitled “Anticrisis, or a Discussion of the scurrilous and malicious libel published by one James Man of Aberdeen,” 8vo, which was followed by “Audi alteram partem; or a further vindication of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s edition of the great Buchanan’s works,” 1756, 8vo. Both these contain an able vindication of the author; but the latter is particularly valuable, on account of the critical remarks Ruddiman offers on Burman’s philological notes on Buchanan.

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

, an Italian grammarian, poet, and orator, was born atVelitri, in 1452. He taught classical learning in different parts of Italy with considerable success. He published in 1492 a poem entitled “Silva vitse suae,” or an account of his own life, which Meuschenius reprinted, in 1735, in the first volume of his collection, entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum.” He was distinguished also by some other poems, as “de Floribus, de Figuris, de Poetica virtute.” 2. “Epigrams,” published at Venice in 1500, in 4to. 3. Notes upon some of the classic authors. He died some time after 1506; but the story of his having his hands cut off, and his tongue cut out, by order of the pope Alexander VI. for having made an insolent speech to him, and which was related by Flaccius Illyricus, appears to be without foundation.

, a celebrated English traveller, was born at St. Alban’s, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, of a family whose ancestor is said to have come into England with William the Conqueror. Leland, who calls this knight Magdovillanus, affirms that he was a proficient in theology, natural philosophy, and physic, before he left England, in 1322, to visit foreign countries. He returned, after having been long reputed dead, at the end of thirty-four years, when very few people knew him; and went afterwards to Liege, where it seems he passed under the name of Joannes de Barbam, and where he died, according to Vossius, who has recorded the inscription on his tomb, Nov. 17, 1372. His design seems to have been to commit to writing whatever he had read, or heard, or knew, concerning the places which he saw, or has mentioned in his book. Agreeably to this plan, he has described monsters from Pliny, copied miracles from legends, and related, without quotation, stories from authors who are now ranked among writers of romances and apocryphal history, so that many or most of the falsehoods in. his work properly belong to antecedent relators, but who were certainly considered as creditable authors at the time he wrote.

Sir John Mandevile visited Tartary about half a century after Marco Polo, who was there in 1272. In this interval a true or fabulous account of that country, collected by a cordelier, one Oderic D'Udin, who set out in 1318, and returned in 1330, was published in Italian, by Guillaume de Salanga, in the second volume of Ramusio, and in Latin and English by Hakluyt. It is suspected that sir John made too much use of this traveller’s papers; and it is certain that the compilers of. the “Histoire Generale des Voyages” did not think our English knight’s book so original, or so worthy of credit, as to give any account of it in their excellent collection. Sir John indeed honestly acknowledges that his book was made partly of hearsay, and -'partly of his own knowledge; and he prefaces his most improbable relations with some such words as these, thei seyne, or men seyn^ but I have not sene it. His book, however, was submitted to the examination of the pope’s council, and it was published after that examination, with the approbation of the pope, as Leland thinks, of Urban V. Leland also affirms that sir John Mandevile had the reputation of being a conscientious man, and that he had religiously declined an honourable alliance to the Soldan-of Egypt, whose daughter he might have espoused, if he would have abjured Christianity. It is likewise very certain that many things in his book, which were looked upptv as fabulous for a long time, have been since verified beyond all doubt. We give up his men of fifty feet high r but his hens that bore wool are at this day very well known, under the name of Japan and silky fowls, &c. Upon the whole, there does not appear to be any very g.ood reason why sir John Mandevile should not be believed in any thing that he relates on his own observation. He was, as may be easily credited, an extraordinary linguist, and wrote his book in Latin, from which he translated it into French, and from French into English, and into Italian; and Vossius says that he knows it to be in Belgic and German. The English edition has the title of “The Voiyage and Travaile of Sir John Maundevile, knight, which treateth of the way to Hierusalem, and marvayles of lude,” &c. Lond. 1568, 4to, reprinted in 1684, same form, and again in 1727, 8vo. All these are in the British Museum, together with copies of the French, Spanish, Latin, and Italian. Of the last there are two editions, printed at Venice in 1537 and 1567, both in 8vo. The original English ms, is in the Cotton library. The English editions are the most valuable to us, as written in the very language used by our countrymen three hundred years ago^ at a time when the orthography of the English language was so little fixed, that it seems to have been the fashionable affectation of writers, to shew their wit and scholarship by spelling the same words in the greatest variety of ways imaginable. The reader will be amused by Addison’s pretended discovery of sir John Mandevile’s Mss. and the pleasant fiction of “the freezing and thawing of several short speeches which sir John made in the territories of Nova Zembla.” This occurs in the Tatler, No. 254, the note upon which has principally furnished us with the above account.

, an author of temporary celebrity in the last century for his writings, was born about 1670, in Holland, where he studied physic, and took the degree of doctor in that faculty. He afterwards came over into England, and wrote several books, not without ingenuity, but some of them were justly considered as likely to produce a bad effect upon society. In 1709 he published his “Virgin Unmasked, or A dialogue between an old maiden aunt and her niece, upon love, marriage,” &c. a piece not very likely to increase virtue and innocence among his female readers. In 1711 came out his “Treatise of the hypocondriac and hysteric passions, vulgarly called the hyppo in men, and the vapours in women.” This work, which is divided into three dialogues, may be read with amusement at least, and contains some shrewd remarks on the art of physic and the modern practice of physicians and apothecaries, among whom he probably did not enjoy much reputation. In 1714 he published a poem entitled “The grumbling hive, or knaves turned honest;” on which he afterwards wrote remarks, and enlarged the whole into his celebrated publication, which was printed at London in 1723, under the title of “The Fable of the Bees, or private vices made public benefits with an Essay on charity and charity-schools, and a search into the nature of society.” In the preface to this book he observes, that since the first publication of his poem he had met with several, who, either wilfully or ignorantly mistaking the design, affirmed that the scope of it was a satire upon virtue and morality, and the whole written for the encouragement of vice. This made him resolve, whenever it should be reprinted, some way or other to inform the reader of the real intent with which that little poem was written. In this, however, he was so unfortunate, that the book was presented by the grand jury of Middlesex in July the same year, and severely animadverted upon in “A Letter to the Right Honourable Lord C.” printed in the London Journal of July the 27tb, 1723. The author wrote a vindication of his book from the imputations cast upon it in that Letter, and in the presentment of the grand jury, which he published in the “London Journal” of August the 10th, 1723. It was attacked, however, by various writers, to whom Mandeville made no reply until 1728, when he published, in another 8vo volume, a second part of “The Fable of the Bees,” in order to illustrate the scheme and design of the first. In 1720, he published “Free thoughts on Religion,” builfc upon the system called rational; an arrogant epithet, which generally excludes from the province of reason a belief in the truths of revelation. In 1732 he published “An inquiry into the origin of honour, and usefulness of Christianity in war;” a work which abounds in paradoxical opinions.

Mandeville died Jan. 21, 1733, in his sixty-third year. He is said to have been patronized by the first earl of Macclesfield, at whose table he was a frequent guest, and had an unlimited licence to indulge his wit as well as his appetite. He lived in obscure lodgings, in London, and never had much practice as a physician. Besides the writings already enumerated, which came spontaneously from his pen, we are told by sir John Hawkins that he sometimes employed his talents for hire, and in particular wrote letters in the “London Journal” in favour of spirituous liquors, for which he was paid by the distillers. Sir John adds, that “he was said to be coarse and overbearing in his manners, where he durst be so, yet a great flatterer of some vulgar Dutch merchants, who allowed him a pension.”' The principles indeed, inculcated in some of his works, although there are many ingenious and many just remarks in them, forbid us to entertain any very high opinion of his morals; and among all his faults, we do not hear that he ever acted the hypocrite, or was ashamed of what he had written.

The “Fable of the Bees,” as we have observed, was attacked by several writers; particularly by Dr. Fiddes, in the preface to his “General treatise of morality formed upon the principles of natural religion only,” printed in 1724; by Mr. John Dennis, in a piece entitled “Vice and luxury public mischiefs,” in 1724; by Mr. William Law, in a book entitled “Remarks upon the Fable of the Bees,” in 1724; by Mr. Bluet, in his “Enquiry, whether the general practice of virtue tends to the wealth or poverty, benefit or disadvantage, of a people? In which the pleas offered by the author of The Fable of the Bees, for the usefulness of vice and roguery, are considered; with some thoughts concerning a toleration of public stews,” in 1725; by Mr. Hutcheson, author of the “Inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue, in several papers published at Dublin, and reprinted in the first volume of Hibernicus’s Letters;” and lastly, by Mr. Archibald Campbell, in his “Astoria,” first published by Alexander Innis, D. D. in his own name, but claimed afterwards by the true author. Mandeville’s notions were likewise animadverted upon by Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne in Ireland, in his “Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher,” printed in 1732; in answer to which Mandeville published, the same year, “A Letter to Dion, occasioned by his book called Alciphron.” In this year also a pamphlet appeared, entitled “Some remarks on the Minute Philosopher, in a letter from a country clergyman to his friend in London;” the anonymous author of which, supposed to have been John lord Harvey, interferes in the controversy between Mandeville and Berkeley with an apparent impartiality. It would be very unnecessary now, however, to enter minutely into the merits of a work no longer read. The prevailing error in the “Fable of the Bees” appears to us to be, that the author did not sufficiently distinguish between what existed, and what ought to be; that while he could uicontestibly prove “private vices” to be in some degree “public benefits,” that is, useful to the grandeur and financial prosperity of a state, he did not distinguish between vices properly so called, and superfluities, or articles of luxury, which are the accompaniments, and the usetul accompaniments too, of certain ranks of life. As to his tracing good actions to bad motives, and the general disposition he has to dwell on the unfavourable side of appearances in human nature and conduct, no apology can be offered, and none can be wanted for the contempt into which his writings have fallen.

, 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.

Manicheism, as we have seen, is a. great deal older than Manes. The Gnostics, the Cordonians, the Marcionites, and several other sectaries, who introduced this doctrine into Christianity before Manes occasioned any contest about it, were by no means its inventors, but found it in the books of the heathen philosophers. In truth, the Manicheau doctrine was a system of philosophy rather than of religion. They made use of amulets, in imitation of the Basilidians; and are said to have made profession of astronomy and astrology. They denied that Jesus Christ, who was only God, assumed a true human body, and maintained it was only imaginary; and, therefore, they denied his incarnation, death, &c. They pretended that the law of Moses did not come from God, or the good principle, but from the evil one; and that for this reason it was abrogated. They rejected almost all the sacred books, in which Christians look for the sublime truths of their holy religion. They affirmed that the Old Testament was not the work of God, but of the prince of darkness, who was substituted by the Jews in the place of the true God. They abstained entirely from eating the flesh of any animal; following herein the doctrine of the ancient Pythagoreans: they also condemned marriage. The rest of their errors may be seen in St. Epiplianius and St. Augustin; which last, having been of their sect, may be presumed to have been thoroughly acquainted with them.

Though the Manichees professed to receive the books of the New Testament, yet, in effect, they only took so much of them as suited with their own opinions. They first formed to themselves a certain idea or scheme of Christianity, and to this adjusted the writings of the apostles; pretending that whatever was inconsistent with this, had been foisted into the New Testament by later writers, who were half Jews. On the other hand, they made fables and apocryphal books pass for apostolical writings; and even are suspected to have forged several others, the better to maintain their errors. St. Epiphanius gives a catalogue of several pieces published by Manes, and adds extracts out of some of them. These are the Mysteries, Chapters, Gospel, and Treasury.

The rule of life and manners which Manes prescribed to his followers, was most extravagantly rigorous and severe. However, he divided his disciples into two classes; one of which comprehended the perfect Christians, under the name of the elect; and the other, the imperfect and feeble, under the title of auditors or hearers. The elect were obliged to a rigorous and entire abstinence from flesh, eggs, milk, fash, wine, all intoxicating drink, wedlock, and all amorous gratifications; and to live in a state of the severest penury, nourishing their emaciated bodies with bread, herbs, pulse, and melons, and depriving themselves of all the comforts that arise from the moderate indulgence of natural passions, and also from a variety of innocent and agreeable pursuits. The auditors were allowed to possess houses, lands, and wealth, to feed on flesh, to enter into the bonds of conjugal tenderness; but this liberty was granted them with many limitations, and under the strictest conditions of moderation and temperance. The general assembly of the Manieheans was headed by a president, who represented Jesus Christ. There was joined to him twelve rulers or masters, who were designed to represent the twelve apostles, and these were followed by seventytwo bishops, the images of the seventy-two disciples of our Lord. These bishops had presbyters or deacons under them, and all the members of these religious orders were chosen out of the class of the elect. Their worship was simple and plain; and consisted of prayers, reading the scriptures, and hearing public discourses, at which both the auditors and elect were allowed to be present. They also observed the Christian appointments of baptism of infants and the eucharist, communicating frequently in both kinds. They kept the Lord’s day, observing it as a fast and they likewise kept Easter and Pentecost.

, an ancient Egyptian historian, who pretends to take all his accounts from the sacred inscriptions on the pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, to whom the Egyptians ascribed the first invention of their learning, and all excellent arts, and from whom they derived their history. Manethos, as Eusebius tells us, translated the whole Egyptian history into Greek, beginning from their gods, and continuing his history down to near the time of Darius Codomannus, whom Alexander conquered; for in Eusebius’s <k Chronica,“mention is made of Manethos’s history, ending in the sixteenth year of Artaxerxes Ochus, which, says Vossius, was in the second year of the third olympiad. Manethos, called from his country Sebennyta, was highpriest of Heliopolis in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, at whose request he wrote his history, and digested it into three tomes; the first containing the eleven dynasties of the gods and heroes, the second eight dynasties, the third twelve, and altogether, according to his fabulous computation, the sum oft 53, 53 5 years. These dynasties are yet preserved, being first epitomized by Julius Africanus, from him transcribed by Eusebius, and inserted in his” Chronica;“from Eusebius by Georgius Syncellus, out of whom they are produced by Joseph Scaliger, and may be seen both in his Eusebius and his” Canones Isagogici.“Manethos, as appears by Eusebius, vouches this as the principal testimony of the credibility of his history, that he took his relations” from some pillars in the land of Seriad, on which they were inscribed in the sacred dialect by the first Mercury Thoth, and after the flood were translated out of the sacred dialect into the Greek tongue in hieroglyphic characters, and are laid up in books among the reveries of the Egyptian temples by Agathodsemon, the second Mercury, the father of Tat.“” Certainly,“says bishop Stillingfleet, in his” Origines Sacroe,“” this fabulous author could not in fewer words have more manifested his own impostures, or blasted his own credit, than he hath done in these."

, a celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was born at Bologna in 1674, and soon displayed a genius above his age. He wrote ingenious verses while he was but a child, and while very young formed in his father’s house an academy of youth of his own age, which in time became the Academy of Sciences, or the Institute, there. He was appointed professor of mathematics at Bologna in 1698, and superintendant of the waters there in 1704. The same year he was placed at the head of the college of Montalto, founded at Bologna for young men intended for the church. In 1711 he obtained the office of astronomer to the institute of Bologna. He became member of the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1726, and of the Royal Society of London in 1729; and died on the 15th of February 1739. His works are: 1. “Ephemerides Motuum Coelestium ab anno 17 15 ad annum 1750;” 4 vols. 4to. The first volume is an excellent introduction to astronomy; and the other three contain numerous calculations. His two sisters were greatly assisting to him in composing this work. 2. “De Transitu Mercurii per Solem, anno 1723,” Bologna, 1724, 4to. 3. “De annuls Inerrantium Stellarum aberrationibus,” Bologna, 1729, in 4to; besides a number of papers in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, and in other places, which are enumerated by Fabroni. The best edition of his Poems, which are still in repute, is that by Bodoni, in 1793, 8vo, with a life of the author.

, 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.

, a learned English divine, was born at Leeds in 1684, and was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge, where he was admitted to his degrees, that of B. A. in 1707, M. A. 1711, LL.D. 1719, and D.D. 1725. He was also a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and rector of St. Mildred, Bread-street, London. He was early distinguished by his “Practical Discourses upon the Lord’s Prayer, preached before the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn; published by the special order of the Bench,” 1716, 8vo. These discourses were again printed in 1717, and in 1721; and in 1718 he published “Remarks upon Nazarenus; wherein the falsity of Mr. Toland’s Mahometan Gospel, and his misrepresentations of Mahometan sentiments in respect of Christianity, are set forth; the history of the old Nazaraeans cleared up, and the whole conduct of the first Christians, in respect to the Jewish laws, explained and described.” The author then stiled himself “Rector of St. Nicholas’s in Guilford,” to which he was instituted in 1717, and resigned in 1719-20. In, January 1719, he published “Plain Notions of our Lord’s Divinity,” a sermon preached on Christmas-day; in June 1719, “The eternal Existence of our Lord Jesus Christ,” a Visitation-sermon in October that year, “The Holiness of Christian-churches,” a sermon preached at Sunderland, on consecrating a new church there; and in 1720, “The providential Sufferings of good men,” a 30th of January sermon before the House of Commons. In 1719, Dr. Mangey wrote “A Defence of the Bishop of London’s Letter,” 8vo and, besides the sermons already mentioned, published five single ones, in 1716, 1726, 1729, 1731, and 1733. On May 11, 1721, he was presented to a prebend, the fifth stall in the cathedral church of Durham, being at that time chaplain to Dr. Robinson bishop of London, and vicar of Yealing, or Ealing, in the county of Middlesex. He was advanced to the first stall of Durham, Dec. 22, 1722; and, when treasurer of the chapter, greatly advanced the fines upon the tenants, and improved the rents of his prebendal lands nearly a hundred pounds a year. He was one of the seven doctors in divinity created July 6, 1725, when Dr. Bentley delivered the famous oration prefixed to his Terence; and at the end of 1726 he circulated proposals for an edition of “Philo Judaeus,” which he completed in 1742, under the title of “Philonis Judaei Opera omnia quas reperiri potuerunt,” 2 vols. folio. He died March 6, 1755, and was interred in the cathedral of Durham, where is an elegant Latin inscription to his memory, composed by Dr. Sharp, then a prebendary and archdeacon of Northumberland. His manuscript remarks on the New Testament came into the possession of Mr. Bowyer, who extracted from them many short notes, which are printed in his “Conjectures.” A very elegant inscription to Dr. Mangey by Dr. Taylor is prefixed to “Lysias Fragmenta.”

which he could not have done with propriety, had his relation to that state commenced so lately, or had his ancestors had no interest in the losses and victories of Rome in that age. But this verse, as well as the 776th line of the. same book, Bentley proves to be spurious, and overthrows the whole of Creech’s conjectures. It may, however, still be allowed that he was conversant at court, and acquainted with the modish flattery of the palace, and that he made his compliments in the same phrase that was used by the most finished courtier of his time, which renders it not improbable that he was of a good family.

, an English lady, authoress of a noted piece of scandal called “The Atalantis,” was born in Guernsey, or one of those small islands, of which her father, sir Roger Mauley, was governor. He wa* the second son of an ancient family, and had been a great sufferer for his loyalty in the reign of Charles I. without receiving either preferment or recompense in that of Charles II. He was a man of considerable literary talents, wnich appeared in several publications, particularly his Latin commentaries on the rebellion, under the title of “Commentaria de Rebelhone Anglicana, ab anno 1640 ad annum 1685,” Lond. 1686, 8vo, and of which an English translation was published in 1691; and his “History of the late wars of Denmark,” 1670. He is also said to have been the author of the first volume of the “Turkish Spy,” which was found among his papers, and continued to its present number of volumes by Dr. Midgley, a physician, who had the care of his papers; but this has been justly doubted (See Marana). His daughter, the subject of this article, received an education suitable to her birth, and gave indications of genius above her years, and, as her biographer says, “much superior to what is usually to be found amongst her sex.” The loss of her parents before she was settled in life, seems to have been peculiarly unfortunate, for her father confided the care of her to his nephew, a married man, who first pretended that his wife was dead, then by a series of seductive manoeuvres cheated her into a marriage. When he could no longer conceal his infamy, he deserted her, and the world tamed its back upon her. While in this situation, she accidentally acquired the patronage of the duchess of Cleveland, one of Charles II.'s mistresses, having been introduced to her by an acquaintance to whom she was paying a visit; but the duchess, a woman of a very fickle temper, grew tired of Mrs. Manley in six months, and discharged her upon a pretence that she intrigued with her son. When this lady was thus dismissed, she was solicited by general Tidcomb to pass some time with him at his country-seat; but she excused herself by saying, “that her love of solitude was improved by her disgust of the world; and since it was impossible for her to be in public with reputation, she was resolved to remain concealed.” In this solitude she wrote her first tragedy, called “The Royal Mischief,” which was acted at the theatre in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, in 1696. This play succeeded, and she received such unbounded incense from admirers, that her apartment was crowded with men of wit and gaiety, which proved in the end very fatal to her virtue, and she afterwards engaged in various intrigues. In her retired hours she wrote her four volumes of the “Memoirs of the New Atalantis,” in which she was very free with her own sex, in her wanton description of loveadventures, and with the characters of many high and distinguished personages. Her father had always been attached to the cause of Charles I. and she herself having a confirmed aversion to the Whig ministry, took this method of satirising those who had brought about the revolution. Upon this a warrant was granted from the secretary of state’s office, to seize the printer and publisher of those volumes. Mrs. Mauley had too much generosity to let innocent persons suffer on her account; and therefore voluntarily presented herself before the court of King’s -bench, as the author of the “Atalantis.' 1 When she was examined before lord Sunderland, then the secretary, he was curious to know from whom she got information of some particulars which they imagined to be above her own intelligence. She pleaded that her only design in writing was her own amusement and diversion in the country, without intending particular reflections and characters; and assured them that nobody was concerned with her. When this was not believed, and the contrary urged against her by several circumstances, she said,” then it must be by inspiration, because, knowing her own innocence, she could account for it no other way.“The secretary replied, that” inspiration used to be upon a good account; but that her writings were stark naught.“She acknowledged, that” his lordship’s observation might be true; but, as there were evil angels as well as good, that what she had wrote might still be by inspiration.“The consequence of this examination was, that Mrs. Manley was close shut up in a messenger’s house, without being allowed pen, ink, and paper. Her counsel, however, sued out her habeas corpus at the King’s-bench bar, and she was admitted to bail. Whether those in power were ashamed to bring a woman to a trial for this book, or whether the laws could not reach her, because she had disguised her satire under romantic names, and a feigned scene of action, she was discharged, after several times exposing herself in person, to oppose the court before the bench of judges, with her three attendants, the printer, and two publishers. Not long after, a total change of the ministry ensued, when she lived in high reputation and gaiety, and aroused herself in writing poems and letters, and conversing with wits. To her dramatic pieces she now added” Lucius,“the first Christian king of Britain, a tragedy, acted in Drury-lane, in 1717. She dedicated it to sir Richard Steele, whom she had abused in her” New Atalantis,“but was now upon such friendly terms with him, that he wrote the prologue to this play, as Mr. Prior did the epilogue. This was followed by her comedy called the” Lost Lover, or the Jealous Husband,“acted in 1696. She was also employed in writing for queen Anne’s ministry, certainly with the consent and privity, if not under the direction, of Dr Swift, and was the author of” The Vindication of the Duke of Maryborough,“and other pamphlets, some of which would not disgrace the best pen then engaged in the” defence of government. After dean Swift relinquished “The Examiner,” she continued it with great spirit for a considerable time, and frequently finished pieces begun by that excellent writer, who also often used to furnish her with hints for those of her own composition. At this season she formed a connection with Mr. John Barber, alderman of London, with whom she lived in a state of concubinage, as is supposed, and at whose house she died July 11, 1724.

The superior accomplishments of her sex in our days must now place her very low in the scale of female authors; and she seems to have owed her fame in a great measure to her turn for intrigue and for recording intrigues. This will probably ba the opinion of those who will take the trouble to peruse any of the works already mentioned, of the following: 1. “Letters, one from a supposed nun in Portugal,” Lond. 1696, 8vo. 2. “Memoirs of Europe towards the close of the eighth century,” 1710, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Court Intrigues,” 1711, 8vo. 4. “Adventures of Rivelle,” 1714, 8vo. 5. “The Power of Love, in seven novels,” 1720, 8vo. 6. “A Stage-coach Journey to Exeter,” 1725, 8vo. 7. “Bath Intrigues,” 1725, 8vo. 7. "Secret History of Queen Zarah/' 1745, 8vo. The two last, from the dates, must be posthumous, or second editions.

, an eminent Italian writer, was born at Florence, April 8, 16yO He was early distinguished by great powers of retention, and a strong passion for research into facts, two attributes for which he was celebrated during the whole of his life. He was regularly instituted in every class of literature, but his particular bias was to history, in which he began his career by inquiries into the modern history of his native city. This produced in 1722 his “Series of Florentine Senators,” 2 vols. fol. a work which, under the modest garb of a collection of notices on private individuals, exhibited the most original, authentic, and curious information respecting the public law and government of Tuscany, from the extinction of the line of the marquises, to the creation of the grand dukes in 1332. In 1731 he published a work of yet greater interest, “De Florentine inventis Commentarium,” in which he gave the most satisfactory account of the manufactures which either originated or were improved in Florence; he showed how the art of banking was there first invented; how, in the subsequent times, the art ef engraving also originated there, &c. Among the discoveries made at Florence in the middle ages, there was one so highly beneficial as to demand * methodical disquisition for itself alone; this was the invention of spectacles, which in 1738 Manni illustrated by his “Historical Treatise on Spectacles.” In this, after a careful examination of evidence, he is inclined to attribute the invention to Salvino Armati.

Of the historical works of Manni v relative to other places, and more general subjects, we shall only mention his “History of the Jubilees,” published in 1750, in which he did justice to his subject in a philosophical and political light, by shewing who were the most distinguished persons who had ever visited Rome on those occasions, and how far, on their return to their native countries, they grafted on those countries the manners and practices of Italy. He also illustrated every particular by curious anecdotes, medals, fac-similes, &c. In biography, Manni wrote a singular work, but perhaps of local interest, entitled “Le Veglie Piacevoli,” &c. or “Agreeable Evenings,” being the lives of the most jocose and eccentric Tuscans. This was published in 1757, in 4 vols. 4to. He wrote also the “Life of the well-deserving prelate, Nicholas Steno, of Denmark,” published in 1775. Manni’s publications, not of the historical or biographical kind, were few, and none of them added much to his fame, except his “Lectures on Italian Eloquence,” 1758, 2 vols. 4to.

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

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

He was then one of the ministers who waited upon the king after his arrival, to beg his majesty’s interposition for reconciling the differences in the church; and afterwards joined several of his brethren, in a conference with the episcopal clergy, at the lord chancellor’s house; preparatory to the declaration of his majesty, who was likewise present. Being satisfied with this declaration, Dr. Manton continued in his living of Covent-garden, and received episcopal institution from Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London, Jan. 16,1661, after having first subscribed the doctrinal articles only of the church of England, and taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and of canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest. He also allowed that the common-prayer should be read in his church. Soon after he was offered the deanery of Rochester, which he might have held until 1662, and enriched himself by letting leases; but, either dissatisfied with the advances he bad already made towards conformity, or foreseeing that greater would soon be expected, he honourably refused to enrich himself by accepting a dignity, the very existence of which he and his brethren were prepared to oppose. In 1661 he was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference, and continued preaching until St. Bartholomew’s day in 1662, when he was obliged to resign his living. After this he preached occasionally, either in private or public, as he found it convenient, particularly during the indulgence granted to the nonconformists from 1668 to 1670, but was imprisoned for continuing the practice when it became illegal. From this time his history is too generally involved with that of his brethren to admit of being separated. He preserved, amidst all vicissitudes, the friendship of the duke of Bedford, the duke of Richmond, lord Wharton, and many other persons of rank. To this they were probably induced by a congeniality of principle; but independent of this, Dr. Manton was a man of great learning and extensive reading, and his conversation as much recommended him to men of the world, as to those who admired his pious services. Waller, the poet, said “that he never discoursed with such a man as Dr. Manton in all his life.” He was also a person of extraordinary charity, and supplicated the assistance of his great friends more for the poor than for himself, being perfectly disinterested. Wood has misrepresented his character in all these respects. His constitution, although a man of great temperance, early gave way; and his complaints terminating in a lethargy, he died Oct. 18, 1677, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. He was buried in the chancel of the church at Stoke Newington, where his intimate friend Dr. Bates preached his funeral sermon, which includes a very copious character of him.

, an Italian poet of great temporary fame, was born at Mantua, whence he took his name, in 1448, and not in 1444, as Cardan and others have said; for Mantuan himself relates, in a short account of his own life, that he was born under the pontificate of Nicholas V. and Nicholas was only made pope in March 1447. He was of the illustrious family of the Spagnoli, being a natural son of Peter Spagnolo, as we learn from Paul Jovius, who was his countryman, and thirty-three years old when Mantuan died, and therefore must have known the fact. Mantuan too speaks frequently and highly, in his works, of his father Peter Spagnolo, to whom he ascribes the care of his education. In his youth, he applied himself ardently to books, and began early with Latin poetry, which he cultivated all his life; for it does not appear that he wrote any thing in Italian. He entered himself, we do not know exactly when, among the Carmelites, and came at length to be general of his order; which dignity, upon some disgust or other, he quitted in 1515, and devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of the belles-lettres. He did not enjoy his retirement long, for he died in March 1516, upwards of eighty years of age. The duke of Mantua, some years after, erected to his memory a marble statue crowned with laurel, and placed it next to that of Virgil; and even Erasmus went so far as to say that a time would come, when Baptist Mantuan would not be placed much below his illustrious countryman. In this opinion few critics will now join. If he had possessed the talents of Virgil, he had not his taste, and knew not how to regulate them. Yet allowance is to be made, when we consider that, in the age in which he lived, good taste had not yet emerged. Liiius Gyraldiis, in his “Dialogues upon the poets of his own times,” says, “that the verses which Mantuan wrote in his youth are very well; but that, his imagination afterwards growing colder, his latter productions have not the force or vigour of his earlier.” We may add, that Mantuan was more solicitous about the number than the goodness of his poems; yet, considering that he lived when letters were but just reviving, it must be owned, that he was a very extraordinary person. His poetical works were first printed, in a folio volume without a date, consisting of his eclogues, written chiefly in his youth seven pieces in honour of the virgins inscribed on the kalendar, beginning with the virgin Mary these he calls “Parthenissal.” “Parthenissa II.” &c. four books of Silvge, or poems on different subjects; elegies, epistles, and, in short, poems of every description. This was followed by an edition at Bologna, 1502, folio, and by another at Paris in 1513, with the commentaries of Murrho, Brant, and Ascensius, 3 vols. fol. but usually bound in ne. A more complete, but now more rare, edition of them was published at Antwerp, 1576, in four vols. 8vo, under this title, “J. Baptistae Mantuani, Carmelitae, theologi, philosophi, ppetae, & oratoris clarissimi, opera omnia, pluribus libris aucta & restituta.” The Commentaries of the Paris edition are omitted in this; but the editors have added, it does not appear on what account, the name of John, to Baptist Mantuan.

In 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, and 1505, Aldus printed in folio, or in octavo, a considerable number of the best authors, Greek, Roman, and Italian, such as Demosthenes, Lucian, Dante, Horace, Petrarch, Cicero’s epistles to his familiar friends, Juvenal, Lucan, Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, &c. &c. He published, at the least, a volume every month. These publications were in all respects excellent. They were of works the most valuable in all literature, ancient or modern. The composition of the types was finely regular and uniform; the press-work was admirably executed; and the ink so truly good, that it retains to this day all its beauty and lustre of colour.

There are some curious circumstances in the history of the acquaintance and connexion between Erasmus and Aldus. The “Adagia” of Polydore Vergil had been printed at Venice, and well received in the world. Erasmus, aware of this fact, wrote from Bologna, to request that Aldus would undertake the printing of his “Adagia.” Aldus readily agreed to the proposal, and invited Erasmus upon it to Venice. When Erasmus came, it was not till after some delay that he obtained admittance to the printer’s closet, whose servants were not aware of the stranger’s Jiterary consequence. But Aldus no sooner knew that it was Erasmus who waited for him, than he hastened to rer ceive his visitor with open arms. He did more he stopped the progress, of several important Greek and Latin works, which he had then in the press, to make room for the printing of the great collection of Erasmus with the desired, expedition. Erasmus was, in the mean time, entertained in the house of Andrew d‘Asola, father-in-law to Aldus, with whom Aldus and his wife appear, by Erasmus’s account, to have lived. D’Asola was rich; yet his table was, even for that of an Italian family, parsimoniously served: and Erasmus loved good cheer. The Dutchman made frequent remonstrances to his friend Aldus, against the thinness of the soups, the absence of solid animal food, the weakness and sourness of the wine, the general scantiness of the whole provisions. The Italians, whose climate and natural habits had taught them to live much more sparingly than was usual for the Dutch and Germans, were astonished and offended by his complaints. Some small additions, such as a fowl or two, and perhaps half a dozen eggs a week, were made on his account to the commons of the family. But these dainties were sometimes intercepted by the women in the kitchen, on their way to the table. On the table, they were devoured by the rest who sat at it still more eagerly than by Erasmus. And if he was not absolutely starved, he wiis assuredly a good deal mortified in his appetite for a glass of good wine and a mess of delicate and savoury meat, before he could see the printing of his “Adagia” entirely at an end. His humours and complaints made him at length a very unpleasant inmate to the family; while he was, on the other hand, dissatisfied still more, that his murmurs were not more complaisantly attended to. They parted with mutual dislike. Erasmus wrote afterwards his dialogue, which has the title of “Opulentia Sordida,” in ridicule of the parsimonious spirit, and the scantily-served table of Andrea D'Asola. Aldus and his successors, whenever they, after this time, reprinted any work by Erasmus, avoided to mention his name, and gave him simply the appellation of “Transalpinus quidain homo.” Aldus, not thinking that he did enough for the interests of literature, in printing, for the first time, so many excellent books in the Latin, Greek, and Italian languages, gave, in his Latin grammar, in 1501, a short introduction to the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue; and even proposed to give a beautiful edition of the original Hebrew of the sacred Scriptures, with the Septuagint and the Vulgate Latin versions. Of this, however, he was diverted from printing more than a specimen sheet. That sheet, now ia the royal library at Paris, exhibits the text in the three different languages, each occupying one of three parallel columns on the same page. It is to be regretted that Aldus should have been hindered from completing a design so noble.

The character of Aldus as a printer is so well known to every scholar, and to such only it can be interesting, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it here. But he may be considered also as an original benefactor to the literature of the age. He published a Latin grammar of his own composition; and in 1515, after his death, was published by his friend Marcus Musurus, a Greek grammar, which Aldus had compiled with great research and industry. He wrote likewise a treatise “de metris Horatianis,” which is reprinted in Dr. Combe’s edition of that poet. He produced a Greek dictionary, printed by himself, in folio, 1497, and reprinted by Francis D' Asola in 1524. He was likewise the author of many of the Latin translations of the classics, wrote many letters, some of which have been published, and for some years after he settled at Venice, gave a course of lectures on the best Greek and Roman authors, which was attended by a great number of students. Aldus, however, has not escaped the censures of criticism. Urceus Codrus, the learned professor of Bologna, complained, that he suffered many errors to escape uncorrected, in his editions of the Greek authors; that he sold his copies too dear; and printed them with an useless and unsuitable width of margin. Later critics have not been sparing of remarks somewhat similar. Krnesti, in his notes on the Letters of Pliny, blames Aldus for excessive boldness of conjectural criticism. In the preface to his Tacitus, the same critic remarks, that Aldus rarely made on the second and subsequent editions of the works he printed, any alterations but such as consisted in neglected errors of the press. It is indeed true, that the editions of Greek works printed by Aldus, are not always so correct as his Latin and Italian editions. But their defects are owing to the disadvantages of Aldus’s situation, much rather than to negligence, or inability in himself, as a printer and a man of letters. He had not always a sufficient number of manuscripts to collate: and sometimes he could not have the benefit of the judgment of a sufficient number of the learned upon the difficulties which occurred to him. After beginning to print any particular work, he often had not leisure to pause for a sufficient length of time, over the difficulties occurring in the progress of the edition. He might, in some instances, also, print a manuscript which he did not approve, lest it should otherwise have been lost to posterity.

In 1535 he accepted an invitation to Rome, upon the promise of an opulent and eligible situation; but, not being received with respect or attention, he returned to Venice, and resumed his studies and employment. Having, however, attained no degree of opulence, he engaged in the business of education, took twelve young men of family into his house, and superintended their education for three years. Of these, two were Matth. Senarega, who translated Cicero’s Letters to Atticus into Italian, and Paul Contarinus. In 1538 he went on an excursion to examine the manuscripts in certain old libraries, particularly the library of the Franciscans in Cesena, which contained some Mss. left to their convent by Malatesta Novellus; and such was his reputation at this time, that he was invited to fill the chair of the professor of eloquence at Venice, and had the offer of a similar situation at Padua, vacant by the death of Bonamicus. But his ill heahh, and his predilection for his business, induced him to devote his whole time to the printing-house, from which a great number of the classics issued.

After a second journey to Rome, in 1546, he married Margarita, the daughter of Jerome Odonus. His eldest son, Aldus, the subject of our next article, was the firstfruit of this marriage: he had also two other sons, who died young, and a daughter, who is often mentioned in his letters, and was married in 1573. In 1556 an academy was established at Venice, in the house of Frederick Badoarus, one of the principal senators of the republic, which was composed of about an hundred members, who endeavoured to unite every species of literary and scientific excellence. Belonging to this academy was a printing-house, in which it was proposed to print good editions of all books and manuscripts already known to exist, as well as the original writings of the academicians. Over this establishment, Paul was appointed to preside, and it was completely furnished with new founts of his own types, and he had under him several other skilful printers, particularly Dominick Bevilacqua. In 1558 and 1559, fifteen different books were printed in this house, none very large, but intended as a prelude to greater undertakings, of which a catalogue was published both in Italian and Latin, and may be seen in Renouard’s “Annales de Plmprimerie des Aides,” vol. I. The books printed in this academy were all executed with admirable correctness and beauty, and are become exceeding scarce, and valuable. Paul was farther honoured with the professorship of eloquence in this academy, which, however, did not exist long. It was probably thought to have been an engine in Badoarus’s hands, by which he might have become dangerous to the state; or perhaps its expences might exceed his resources, and drive him to pecuniary shifts of the discreditable kind. In August 1562, however, the academy was dissolved by a public decree.

In 1561 Paul had been invited by Pius IV. upon terms of great honour and advantage, to repair to Rome, and engage in printing the Holy Scriptures and the works of the lathers of the church. He accordingly undertook this journey, of which his holiness bore the expences, as well as of the removal of his printing-materials and of his family; and conditioned to allow him, from the time of his arrival, a yearly salary of at least 500 crowns. From this time, till the death of Pius, he continued to exercise his profession as a printer with great reputation at Rome, while he also kept open his printing-house at Venice. But at length dissatisfied with his situation, and in ill health, he left Rome in September 1570, and after visiting several distinguished places in Italy, returned to Venice in May 1572. From Venice, after a very short stay, he went back again to Rome, where he was cheered by the seasonable liberality of the pope, which was made more agreeable by being bestowed without any exaction of personal labour or attendance.

, a physician and scholar, ^was the son of a father of both his names, whom Wood calls “a sufficient shoemaker,” and was born in 1615 in St. Martin’sle-grand, London, and educated at Westminster-school. He was thence elected a student of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1630, where he took his degrees in arts. Wood gives it as a report that he was first admitted to holy orders, but it is more certain that he was made M. D. in 1647, and principal of Gloucester Hall. He then travelled on the continent with his pupil, Lucius, lord Falkland, for two years, and wrote an account of his travels in Latin, which. Guidot promised to publish. He then travelled with Henry, brother to Lucius lord Falkland, and on his return settled as a physician at Bath in summer, and at Bristol in winter, and had great practice. During the usurpation he had been ejected from his office of principal of Gloucester Hall, but was restored in 1660, and soon after resigned it. He died at Bath, Aug. 4, 1670, and was buried in the cathedral, with a monument and inscription celebrating his learning and skill as a physician. Wood speaks of his Consultations with certain physicians, his cosmetics, and his poems, and epitaphs, but does not say where these are to be found, or whether printed. He has not escaped the diligence of Eloy, who, however, merely copies from the Ath. Ox. The only publication printed appears to have been a collection of letters on the efficacy of the Bath waters, published by Guidot under the title “Epistolarum Medicarum specimen de Thermarum Bathoniensium effectis, ad clariss. medicos D. Bate Eraser, Wedderbourne, &c.” Lond. 1694, 4to. He appears to have been a different person from the J. Maplet who wrote “A Discourse of metals, stones, herbs, &c.” printed in 8vo. This is mentioned by Dr. Pulteney, who says the author was of Cambridge.

, an English divine, was born at North Thoresby in the county of Lincoln, in the beginning of 1610, of which place his father, Henry Mapletoft, was many years rector. He was educated at the free grammar school of Louth, and admitted of Queen’s college in Cambridge. When he had taken the degree of B. A. he removed to Pembroke hall, and was there made fellow January 6, 1630; and in or about 1633 was appointed chaplain to bishop Wren. He was one of the university preachers in 1641, and was some time after one of the proctors of the university. In 1644 (being then bachelor in divinity) he was ejected from his fellowship for not taking the covenant. After this he retired, and lived privately among his friends, and particularly with sir Robert Shirley in Leicestershire, where he became acquainted with Dr. Sheldon, who became archbishop of Canterbury. He had afterwards a private congregation in Lincoln, where he used to officiate according to the Liturgy of the church of England: this had like to have produced him much trouble; but it being found that he had refused a considerable sum of money offered him by his congregation, he escaped prosecution. On the restoration he returned to Cambridge, and was re-instated in his fellowship, and was presented by the Crown, August 1, 1660, on the death of Dr. Newell, to the prebend of Clifton in Lincoln cathedral, to which he was installed August 23, 1660: and then resigning it, he was also on the same day installed to the sub-deanery of the same church, which he resigned in 1671; and about the same time he became rector of Clayworth in Nottinghamshire, which living he afterwards exchanged for the vicarage of Soham, in Cambridgeshire. In 1661 he resigned his fellowship, and about that time was invited by archbishop Sheldon to be chaplain to the duchess of York, then supposed to be inclining to popery, and in want of a person of Dr. Mapletoft’s primitive stamp to keep her steady to her religion; but he could not be prevailed upon to accept the appointment. In 1664 he was elected master of Pembroke hall, and became doctor in divinity, and was by the king, August 7, 1667, promoted to the deanery of Ely. He served the office of vice-chancellor of the university of Cambridge in 1671, and died at Pembroke hall, August 20, 1677. His remains, according to his own desire, were deposited in a vault in the chapel of that college, near the body of bishop Wren, the founder of it, his honoured friend and patron, without any memorial.

In a codicil to his last will, signed 17th day of August, 1677, he gives to the use of the town of North Thoresby, in the county of Lincoln, his two cottages and one messuage, with all his lands in the same town and fields of the same for ever, to be settled upon trustees, for and towards the maintenance of one fit person to teach the scholars there to read, to learn them their catechism, and instruct them in it, to write, to cast accounts, and to teach tuem their accidence, and to make them fit for the grammar school, according to the rules and orders which he or his executors should prescribe; and also gives all those his lands, meadow, and pasture in Saltfleetby to the use of the town of Louth for ever, for and towards the maintenance of one fit person to teach the children there in like manner as in his gift to North Thoresby, per omnia. He gives likewise to the master, fellows, and scholars of Pembroke Hall, lands in Coveney for ever, on condition, that they pay yearly for ever to two poor scholars to be called his exhibitioners, 4l. each, and that they lay out yearly 4bs, in good books for the library of the said college.

, a learned author, born at Lucca in 1612, became a member of the congregation of regular clerks, “de la Mere de Dieu.” He obtained a name in the literary world by an edition of the Koran, published at Padua in 1698, in 2 vols. folio, and entitled “Alcorani Textus universus, Arabice et Latine,” to which he subjoined notes, with a refutation, and a life of Mahomet. The argumentative part, however, is not always solid; the critics in Arabic have found several faults in the printing of that language; and the editor appears to be more versed in the Mussulman authors than in philosophy or theology. Maracci had a large share in the edition of the Arabic Bible printed at Rome in 1671, in 3 vols. folio; and was certainly very successful as a professor of Arabic, in the college della Sapienza. Innocent XI. respected his virtues and knowledge, chose him for his confessor, and would have raised him to the purple, had not his great modesty declined that honour. He died in 1700. Niceron recounts a long list of his works.

, the author of the Turkish Spy, a book cried up far beyond its merits, for a long time, both in France and England, was born about 1642, at or near Genoa. When he was only twenty-seven or twentyeight, he was involved in the conspiracy of Raphael de la Torre, who was desirous to give up Genoa to the duke of Savoy. After being imprisoned four years, he retired to Monaco, where he wrote the history of t&at plot, printed at Lyons, in 1682, in Italian. It contains some curious particulars.

, a prominent actor in the French revolution, was born of protestant parents, in Neufchatel, in 1744. In early life he went to Paris to study physic, and appears to have made very great proficiency in it; but probably from not having patience to pursue the profession in a regular course, he became an empyric, selling his medicines at an extravagant price. On the breaking out of the revolution, he took the lead among the most violent and savage of all the factions that disgraced the capital; and had endeavoured to preach murder and robbery long before it appeared probable that such crimes could have been practised with impunity. His first publication was a periodical paper, entitled the “Publiciste Parisien,” in which he, without scruple, and without any regard to decency and truth, attacked Neckar, and other men eminent for their integrity and public talents. His next paper was entitled “The Friend of the People,” in which he more openly excited the troops to use their arms against their generals, the poor to plunder the rich, and the people at large to rise against the king. After the deposition of Louis XVI. he was named a deputy of the department of Paris to the convention, in which assembly he appeared armed with pistols. In April 1793, he publicly denounced the leaders of the Brissotine party, accusing them oF treason against the state he was supported by Robespierre; a violent tumult ensued, but Marat and his friends were subdued, and himself impeached and prosecuted; in a few days, being brought to trial, he was acquitted. The triumph of his party was now unbounded, and they soon gained such an ascendancy over their enemies, that they murdered or banished all that attempted to obstruct the progress of their nefarious projects; till at length their leader Marat fell a victim to the enthusiastic rage of a female, Charlotte Cord6, who bad travelled from Caen, in Normandy, with a determination of rescuing, as she hoped, her country from the hands of barbarians, by the assassination of one of the chief among them. He died unpitied by every human being who was not of the atrocious faction which he led, having, for some weeks, acted the most savage parts, and been the means of involving many of the most virtuous characters in France in almost indiscriminate slaughter. Previously to joining in revolutionary politics, he was known as an author, and published a work “On Man, or Principles of the reciprocal Influence of the Soul and Body,” in two volumes, 12mo: also some tracts on Electricity and Light, in which he attacked the Newtonian System. These works had been forgot long before he began to make a figure in the political world; but it is remarkable that his death occasioned a fresh demand for them. They are now, however, again sunk into oblivion, and his name is never mentioned but with contempt and horror.

Of this artist Mr. Fuseli says, that although " he enjoyed in his life the reputation of one of the first painters of Europe, his talent seldom rose above mediocrity; he delighted in easel-pictures or altar-pieces, though not unacquainted with fresco. He is celebrated for the lovely, modest, and yet dignified air of his Madonnas, the grace of his angels, the devout character of his saints, and their festive dresses. His best pictures are in the style of Sacchi: those of his second manner are more elaborate, more anxiously studied, but, with less freedom, have less grandeur. The masses of his draperies are too much intersected, shew the naked too little, and sometimes make his figures appear too heavy or too short. He certainly aimed at fixing his principal light -to the most important spot of his picture; but, being unacquainted with the nature and the gradations of shade, involved its general tone in a certain mistiness, which was carried to excess by his pupils, and became a characteristic mark of his school. He studied in his youth the style and works of Raphael with the most sedulous attention, and strove to imitate him at every period of his practice; but it does not appear that he ever discriminated his principles of design or composition, notwithstanding the subsequent minute and laborious employment of restoring his frescoes.

In 1644, de Marca was sent into Catalonia, to perform the office of visitor-general, and counsellor of the viceroy, which he executed to the year 1651, and so gained the affections of the Catalonians, that in 1647, when he was dangerously ill, they put up public prayers, and vows for his recovery. The city of Barcelona, in particular, made a vow to our lady of Montserrat, and sent thither in their name twelve capuchins and twelve nuns, who performed their journey with their hair hanging loose, and bare-footed. De Marca was persuaded, or rather seemed to be persuaded, that his recovery was entirely owing to so many vows and prayers; and would not leave Catalonia without going to pay his devotions at Montserrat, in the beginning of 1651, and there wrote a small treatise, “De origine & progressu cultûs beatæ Mariæ Virginis in Monteserato,” which he left in the archives of the monastery; so little did he really possess of that liberality and firmness of mind which is above vulgar prejudice and superstition. In August of the same year, he went to take possession of his bishopric; and the year after was nominated to the archbishopric of Toulouse, but did not take possession till 1655. In 1656 he assisted at the general assembly of the French clergy, and appeared in opposition to the Jansenists, that he might wipe off all suspicion of his not being an adherent of the court of Rome, for he knew that his being suspected of Jansenism had for a long time retarded the bull which was necessary to establish him in the archbishopric of Toulouse. He was made a minister of state in 1658, and went to Toulouse in 1659. In the following year he went to Roussillon, there to determine the marches with the commissaries of the king of Spain. In these conferences he had occasion to display his learning, as they involved points of criticism respecting the language of Pomponius Mela and Strabo. It was said in the Pyrenean treaty, that the limits of France and Spain were the same with those which anciently separated the Gauls from Spain. This obliged them to examine whereabouts, according to the ancient geographers, the Gauls terminated here; and de Marca’s knowledge was of great use at this juncture. He took a journey to Paris the same year, and obtained the appoiutment of archbishop of Paris; but died there June 29, 1662, the very day that the bulls for his promotion arrived. His sudden death, at this time, occasioned the following jocular epitaph:

He left the care of his manuscripts to Mr. Baluze, who had lived with him ever since June, 1656, and who has written his life, whence this account is taken. Baluze also published an edition of his work “De Concordia,” in 1704, as originally written. The only other works he wrote of any note are his “Histoire de Bearn,” Paris, 1640, fol. and his “Marca Hispanica, sive Limes Hispanicus,” Paris, 1688, fol. edited by Baluze. Le Clerc very justly thinks Baluze’s account of De Marca, a panegyric or an apology rather than a life. The most favourable trait in De Marca’s character was his ambition to rise by learning, which certainly first brought him into notice. He is said to have renounced all the pleasures of youth, while he was at school, for the love of books; and to have foretold to his school-fellows, who spent their time in vain amusements, the difference which would one day appear between their glory and his. It was at Toulouse that he laid the groundwork of his great learning; and he did not neglect to make himself a complete master of the Greek tongue, which greatly distinguished him from other learned men. He was early married to a young lady of the ancient family of the viscounts of Lavedan, who bore him several children; but she dying in 1632, he went into orders.

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

Besides the “Anti-Cotton, ou Refutation de la lettre declaratoire du P. Cotton, avec un dissertation,” printed at the Hague in 1738, at the end of the history of Don Inigo de Guipuscoa, and the “Chef-d‘oeuvre d’un inconnu,” often reprinted, he published in 1740 “Histoire de PImprimerie,” Hague, 4to, a work of great research, and often consulted by typographical antiquaries, but deficient in perspicuity of arrangement. A valuable supplement to it was published by Mercier, the abbé of St. Leger, 1775, 2 vols. 4to, which French bibliographers say is better executed than Marchand’s work, and certainly is more correct. But the vvork which best preserves the name of Marchand, was one to which we have taken many opportunities to own our obligations, his “Dictionnaire Historique, ou Memoires Critiques et Litteraires, concernant la vie et les outrages de divers personnages distingués, particulierement dans la republique des-lettres,” 1758 9, 2 vols. folio. This has been by his editor and others called a Supplement to Bayle; but, although Marchand has touched upon a few of the authors in Bayle’s series, and has made useful corrections and valuable additions to them, yet in general the materials are entirely his own, and the information of his own discovering. The articles are partly biographical, and partly historical; but his main object being the history of books, he sometime*enlarges to a degree of minuteness, which bibliographers only can pardon, and it must be owned sometimes brings forward inquiries into the history of authors and works which his utmost care can scarcely rescue from the oblivion in which he found them. With this objection, which by no means affects the totality of the work, we know few volumes that afford more satisfaction or information on the subjects introduced. His accuracy is in general precise, but there are many errors of the press, and the work laboured under the disadvantage of not being handed to the press by the author. He often intended this, and as often deferred it, because his materials increased so that he never could say when his design was accomplished; and at length, when he had nearly overcome all his scruples, and was about to print, a stroke of palsy deprived him of the use of his right hand, and unfitted him for every business but that of preparing to die, and the settlement of his affairs. This last took up little time. He was a man of frugal habits, content with the decent necessaries of life, and laid out what remained of his money in books. The items of his will, therefore, were few, but liberal. He left his personal property to a society established at the Hague for the education of the poor; and his library and Mss. to the university of Leyden. He died, at an advanced age, June 14, 1756. His “Dictiormaire” he consigned to the care of a friend, who has given us only the initials of his name (J. N. S. A.) to whom he likewise intrusted a new edition of his “History of Printing,” which has never appeared. This friend undertook to publish the Dictionary with the. greater alacrity, as Mart-hand assured him that the manuscript was ready. Ready it certainly was, hut in such a state as frightened the editor, being all written upon little pieces of paper of different sizes, some not bigger than one’s thumb-nail, and written in a character so exceeding small, that it was not legible to the naked eye. The editor, therefore, said perhaps truly, that this was the first book ever printed by the help of a microscope. These circumstances, however, may afford a sufficient apology for the errors of the press, already noticed; and the editor certainly deserves praise for having so well accomplished his undertaking amidst so many difficulties.

, a French courtier and author, of the fifteenth century, was the son of a Burgundian gentleman. He was first page, and afterwards gentleman to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, who so highly esteemed his fidelity, that he refused to give him up at the demand of Louis XI. La Marche served afterwards with zeal under Charles the Rash, who was slain at the battle of Nancy, in 1477. After this, he had the office of grand maitre d'hotel to Maximilian of Austria, who had married the heiress of Burgundy; and, maintaining the same post under the archduke Philip, was sent on an embassy to France after the death of Louis XI. He died at Brussels Feb. 1, 1501. His works are, 1. “Memoirs, or Chronicles,” printed at Lyons in I 562, and at Brussels in 1616, 4to. They are reckoned inferior to the Memoirs of Comines, as to their style, but perhaps superior as to their sincerity. The author relates several curious anecdotes in a manner which, though flat, is rendered pleasing by its frankness. 2. “ATreatiseon Duels,” &c. 8vo. 3. “Triomphe des Dames d'Honneur,” 1520, 8vo; the Triumph of virtuous Women. This is a work of dull and trivial morality, full of quaint allusions and metaphors. Several other performances are said to be extant, in print, and. in manuscript, but from the account given of them there is little motive for making them the object of any further inquiry.

When a near relation, very dear to sir Patrick, was again imprisoned, he thought it adviseable to keep himself concealed. The following account of his concealment is taken, from the ms. preserved in the family by his grand-daughter. “After persecution began afresh, and my grandfather Baillie again in prison, sir Patrick thought it necessary to keep concealed; and soon found he had too good reason for so doing, parties being continually sent out in search of him, and often to his own house, to the terror of all in it, though not from any fear for his safety, whom they imagined at a great distance from home, for no soul knew where he was but my grandmother, and my mother, except one man, a carpenter, called Jamie Winter, who used to work in the house, and lived a mile off, on whose fidelity they thought they could depend; and were not deceived. The frequent examinations and oaths put to servants in order to make discoveries were so strict, they durst not run the risk of trusting any of them. By the assistance of this man they got a bed and bed-clothes carried in the night to the burying-place, a vault under ground at Polwarth church, a mile from the house, where he was concealed a month; and had only for light an open slit at the one end, through which nobody could see what was below; she (his daughter) went every night by herself at midnight, to carry him victuals and drink, and staid with him as long as she could to get home before day. In all this time my grandfather shewed the same constant composure and cheerfulness of mind that he continued to possess to his death, which was at the age of eighty -four; all which good qualities she inherited from, him in a high degree; often did they laugh heartily in that doleful habitation, at different accidents that happened. She at that time had a terror for a church-yard, especially in the dark, as it is not uncommon at her age, by idle nursery stories; but when engaged by concern for her father, she stumbled over the graves every night alone, without fear of any kind entering her thoughts, but for soldiers and parties in search of him, which the least noise or motion of a leaf put her in terror for. The minister’s house was near the church; the first night she went, his dogs kept such a barking as put her in the utmost fear of a discovery; my grandmother sent for the minister next day, and upon pretence of a mad dog, got him to hang all his dogs. There was also difficulty of getting victuals to carry him without the servants suspecting; the only way it was done, was by stealing it off her plate at dinner into her lap many a diverting story she has told about and other things of a like nature. Her father liked sheep’s head, and while the children were eating their broth, she had conveyed most of one into her lap; when her brother Sandy (the second lord Marchmont) had done, he looked up with astonishment, and said,” Mother, will ye look at Grizzel; while we have been eating our broth, she has eat up the whole sheep’s head.“This occasioned so much mirth among them, that her father at night was greatly entertained by it; and desired Sandy might have a share in the next. I need not multiply stories of this kind, of which I know many. His great comfort and constant entertainment (for he had no light to read by) was repeating Buchanan’s Psalms, which he had by heart from beginning to end; and retained them to his dying-day two years before he died, which was in 1724, I was witness to his desiring my mother to take up that work, which, amongst others, always lay upon his table, and bid her try if he had forgot his psalms, by naming any one she would have him repeat; and by casting her eye over it she would know if he was right, though she did not understand it; and he missed not a word in any place she named to him, and said they had been the great comfort of his life, by night and day, on all occasions. As the gloomy habitation my father was in, was not to be long endured but from necessity, they were contriving other places of safety for him; amongst others, particularly one under a bed which drew out, on a ground Moor, in a room of which my mother kept the key; she and the same man worked in the night, making a hole in the earth after lifting the boards, which they did by scratching it up with their hands not to make any noise, till she left not a nail upon her fingers, she helping the man to carry the earth as they dug it, in a sheet, on his back, out at the window into the garden; he then made a box at his own house, large enough for her father to lie in, with bed and bed-clothes, and bored holes in the boards for air; when all this was finished, for it was long about, she thought herself the most secure happy creature alive. When it had stood the trial for a month of no water coming into it, which was feared from being so low, and every day examined by my mother, and the holes for air made clear, and kept clean-picked, her father ventured home, having that to trust to. After being at home a week or two, the bed daily examined as usual, one day in lifting the boards, the bed bounced to the top, the box being full of water: in her life she was never so struck, and had near dropped down, it being at that time their only refuge; her father, with great composure, said to his wife and her, he saw they must tempt Providence no longer, and that it was now fit and necessary for him to go off, and leave them; in which he was confirmed hy the carrier telling for news he had brought from Edinburgh, that the day before, Mr. Baillie of Jerviswoode had his life taken from him at the Cross, and that every body was sorry, though they durst not shew it; as all intercourse by letters was dangerous, it was the first notice they bad of it; and the more shocking, that it was not expected. They immediately set about preparing for my grandfather’s going away. My mother worked night and day in making some alterations in his clothes for disguise; they were then obliged to trust John Allen, their grieve, who fainted away when he was told his master was in the house, and that he was to set out with him on horseback before day, and pretend to the rest of the servants that he had orders to sell some horses at Morpeth fair. Accordingly, my grandfather getting out at a window in the stables, they set out in the dark; though with good reason it was a sorrowful parting, yet after he was fairly gone they rejoiced, and thought themselves happy that he was in a way of being safe, though they were deprived of him, and little knew what was to be either his fate or their own.”

When the circumstances here alluded to are considered, it will not be thought surprising that the society of his lordship, anil his correspondence, should have been sought by some of the most distinguished characters of the time: he lived in close intimacy with lord Cobham, who placed his bust among the worthies at Stowe lord Cornbury, sir William Wyndham, lord Chesterfield, and Mr. Pope and notwithstanding an essential difference of opinion from lord Bolingbroke on some very important points, he was so attracted by his most extraordinary talents, as to form an intimate friendship with him, which continued to the death of the viscount, although with a short temporary interruption to it, owing to the part which lord Marchmont took in vindicating, rather or extenuating, the conduct of Pope, respecting the printing of lord Bolingbroke’s “Patriot King.” Of this affair we have taken some notice in our account of Mallet; and shall be able to throw additional light on it when we come to the article of Pope, from lord Marchmont’s account, with which we have been favoured.

The points on which lord Marchmont and lord Bolingbroke differed, were occasionally the subject of conversation between them; respecting which there was certainly some change in the mind of lord Bolingbroke, towards the close of his life. This is proved beyond the possibility of contradiction by the author of a recent publication, of which we have already availed ourselves . The evidence is clear as to the “Essays” having been written and addressed to lord Marchmont; and it is equally certain, they are not among the works of his lordship, as edited by Mr. Mallet, to whose care the whole was intrusted, in consequence of a decided influence he acquired over his lordship, not long previous to his death. How little either of fame or fortune accrued to Mallet from this advantage, we have already noticed in our account of him.

, a heretic, who lived in the second century of the church, was born at Sinope, a city of Paphlagonia, upon the Euxine sea, and had for his father the bishop of that city. Eusebius calls him 5 votumg, the mariner; and Tertullian, more than once, Ponticus Nauclerus. Whether he acquired this name from having learned the art of sailing in his youth, or from being born in a sea-port town, ecclesiastical antiquity has not told us. At first he professed continency, and betook himself to an ascetic life; but, having so far forgotten himself as to debauch a young lady, he was excommunicated by his father, who was so rigid an observer of the discipline of the church, that he could never be induced, by all his prayers and vows of repentance, to re-admithim into the communion of the faithful. This exposed him so much to the scoffs and insults of his countrymen, that he privily withdrew himself, and went to Rome, hoping to gain admittance there. But his case being known, he was again unsuccessful, which so irritated him, that he became a disciple of Cerdo, and espoused the opinions of that famous heretic. The most accurate chronologers have not agreed as to the precise time when Marcion went to Rome; but the learned Cave, after considering their reasons, determines it, and with the greatest appearance of probability, to the year 127; and supposes further, that he began to appear at the head of his sect, and to propagate his doctrines publicly, about the year 130. Indeed it could not well be later, because his opinions were dispersed far and wide in the reign of Adrian; and Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the heretics who lived under that emperor, mentions Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, who, he says, “conversed along with them, as a junior among seniors:” and Basilides died in the year 134.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, Aug. 15, 1750, and was bred up to the bar, which he quitted for the more general pursuits of literature. He became librarian to the Mazarine college, and from time to time published a great many works, on various subjects of polite literature, criticism, manners, poetry, &c. most of which shew considerable genius and learning, and all were well received by the public. His very amiable private character appears to have procured him many friends and much respect, although his principles were not always sound, his person had little to recommend it, and an impediment in his speech rendered his conversation somewhat painful. He retired to the country about the close of his life, as he said, “that he might enjoy the sun more at his ease.” He died at Montrouge, Jan. 18, 1805. His principal works are: 1. “De Bergeries,” 1770, 12mo. 2. “Le Temple de Hymen,” 1771, 12mo. 3. “Bibliotheque des Amans,” 1777, J6mo. 4. “Tombeau de J. J. Rousseau,” 1779, 8vo. 5. “Le Livre de tous les ages,” 1779, 12mo. 6. “Fcagmens d'un poeme moral sur Dieu, ou, Nouvelle Lucrece,” 1781, a poem which the Diet. Hist, says is neither moral nor religious. 7. “L‘age d’or,” 1782, 12mo, an agreeable collection of anecdotes. 8. “Prophetic d'Arlamek,” 12mo. 9. “Livre echappe” au deluge,“1784, 12mo, a collection of psalms in the orie'ntal style, of which the moral is pure; but we are told it afforded his enemies a pretence to get him dismissed from his office of librarian to the Mazarine college. 10.” Recueil des poetes moralistes Franais r “1784, 2 vols. 18mo. 11.” Costumes civils actuels de tous les peuples,“1784, 4to. 12.” Tableau de la fable,“1787. 13.” Paris et la Province, ou Choix des plus beaux moriumens d'architecture en France,“1787. 14.” Catechisme de cure 1 Meslier,“1789, 8vo. 15.” Dictionnaire d'amour,“1789, 16mo. 16.” Le Pantheon, ou les figures de la fable, avec leurs histoires,“1791, 8vo. 17.” Almanee des honnetes gens,“1788, a publication containing some impieties, for which he suffered imprisonment. 18. ”Decades tlu cultivateur,“2 vols. 18mo. 19.” Voyage de Pythagore,“1798, 16 vols. 8vo, in imitation of the Anacharsis of Barthelemi, but greatly inferior. 20.” Dictionnaire des athees," 1800. He was also the author of prefaces and introductions to various collections of engravings, as the hjstory of Greece, 1795, 5 vols. 4to, the Florence Museum, 6 vols. 4to, &C.

, de Saint Sorlin, was a man of getiius, and a favourite of cardinal Richelieu, who used to receive him at his retired hours, and unbend his mind by conversing with him upon gay and delicate subjects. On. this account, and because he assisted the cardinal in the tragedies he composed, Bayle used to say, that “he possessed an employment of genius under his eminence;” which in French is a pun, as genie means genius and engineers/lip. He was born at Paris in 1595. He has left us himself a picture of his morals, which is by no means advantageous; for he owns that, in order to triumph over the virtue of such women as objected to him the interest of their salvation, he made no scruple to lead them into atheistical principles. “I ought,” says he, “to weep tears of blood, considering the bad use I have made of my address among the ladies; for I have used nothing but specious falsehoods, malicious subtleties, and infamous treacheries, endeavouring to ruin the souls of those I pretended to love. I studied artful speeches to shake, blind, and seduce them; and strove to persuade them, that vice was virtue, or at least a thing natural and indifferent.” Marets at length became a visionary and fanatic; dealt in nothing but inward lights and revelations; and promised the king of France, upon the strength of some prophecies, whose meaning be tells us was imparted to him from above, that he should have the honour of overthrowing the Mahometan empire. “This valiant prince,” says he, “shall destroy and expel from their dominions impiety and heresy, and reform the ecclesiastics, the courts of justice, and the finances. After this, in common agreement with the king of Spain, he shall summon together all the princes of Europe, with the pope, in order to re-unite all the Christians to the true and only catholic religion. After all the heretics are re-united to the holy see, the king, as’eldest son of the chu/ch, shall be declared generalissimo of all the Christians, and, with the joint forces of Christendom, shall destroy by sea and land the Turkish enapire, and law of Mahomet, and propagate the faith and dominion of Jesus Christ over the whole earth:” that is to say, over Persia, the empire of the great mogul, Tartary, and China.

His works are thus enumerated: 1. “A Paraphrase of the Psalms of David.” 2. “The Tomb of Card. Richelieu,” an ode. 3. “The Service to the Virgin,” turned into verse. 4. “The Christian Virtues,” a poem in eight cantos. 5. The four books, “On the Imitation of Jesus Christ,” 1654, 12mo, very badly translated into French verse. 6. “Clovis,” or France converted, an epic poem in twenty-six books, 1657. This poem, though the author thought so highly of it, as we have already seen, is wholly destitute of genius, and its memory is preserved more by a severe epigram of Boileau against it, than by any other circumstance. He wrote also, 7. “The Conquest of Franche Comte,” and some other poems not worth enumerating. Besides these works in verse, he published in prose, 8. “Les Delices de l'Esprit,” a fanatical and incomprehensible work above-mentioned, which was best criticized by a person who said, that at the head of the Errata should be put, “for Delices, read Delires;” instead of delights of the mind, ravings of it. 9. “Avis du St. Esprit an Roi,” still more extravagant if possible than the former. 10. “Several Romances, and among them one entitled” Ariane,“or Ariadne, at once dull and indecent. 11.” La Verit6 des Fables," 1648, 2 vols. 8vo. 12. A dissertation on Poets, in which the author ventures to attack the maxims of Aristotle and Horace. Some writings against the satires of Boileau, and several against the Jansenists, complete the list. His countrymen now consider the verses of Des Marets as low, drawling, and incorrect; his prose, as disgraced by a species of bombast which renders it more intolerable than his poetry.

, queen of Navarre, and sister to Francis I. of France, celebrated as an author yet more than for her rank, was born at Angouleme, April 11, 1492; being the daughter of Charles of Orleans, duke of Angouleme, and Louisa of Savoy. In 1509 she married Charles the last duke of Alen^on, who died at Lyons, after the battle of Pavia, in 1525. The widow, inconsolable at once for the loss of her husband, and the captivity of her beloved brother, removed to Madrid, to attend the latter during his illness. She was there of the greatest service to her brother, by her firmness obliging Charles and his ministers to treat him as his rank demanded. His love and gratitude were equal to her merits, and he warmly promoted her marriage with Henry d‘Albret, king of Navarre. The offspring of this marriage was Joan d’Albret, mother of Henry IV. Margaret filled the character of a queen with exemplary goodness; encouraging arts, agriculture, and learning, and advancing by every means the prosperity of the kingdom. She died at the castle of Odos, in Bigorre, Dec. 2, 1549. She had conversed with protestant ministers, and had the sagacity to perceive the justness of their reasonings; and their opinions were countenanced by her in a little work entitled “Le Miroir de l'Ame pecheresse,” published in 1533, and condemned by the Sorbonne as heretical; but on her complaining to the king, these pliant doctors withdrew their censure. The Roman catholic writers say, that she was completely re-converted before she died. The positive absolution of the Romish priests is certainly a great temptation to pious minds in the hour of weakness and decline. Margaret is described as an assemblage of virtues and perfections, among which, that of chastity was by no means the least complete, notwithstanding the freedom, and, to our ideas, licence of some of her tales. Such is the difference of manners. She wrote well both in verse and prose, and was celebrated in both. She was called the tenth muse and the Margaret, or pearl, surpassing all the pearls of the east. Of her works, we have now extant, 1. her “Heptameron,” or, Novels of the queen of Navarre, 1559, and 1560, in 4to, and several times re-published. They are tales in the style of Boccace, and are told with a spirit, genius, and simplicity, which have been often serviceable to Fontaine in his tales. Several editions have been printed with cuts, of which the most valued are that of Amsterdam, in 1698j in 2 vols. 8vo, with cuts by Roinain de Hooge; the reprints of this edition in 1700 and 1708, are not quite so much valued, yet are expensive, as are the editions with Chodoviechi’s cuts, Berne, 1780 1, 3 vols. 8vo; Paris, 1784, and 1790. 2. “Les Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses;” a collection of her productions, formed by John de la Haye, her valet de chambre, and published at Lyons, in 1547, 8vo; a very rare edition, as is that of 1554. In this collection there are four mysteries, or sacred comedies, and two farces, according to the taste of the times. A long poem entitled “The Triumph of the Lamb,” and “The Complaints of a Prisoner,” apparently intended for Francis I.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Berlin, March 3, 1709. His father was apothecary to the court, and assessor of the college of medicine, and under his care his attention was naturally turned to the pursuits of chemistry and pharmacy. To pursue these, his father sent him to study under the celebrated professor Neumann, for five years, and subsequently under professor Spielmann, at Strasburg. In 1733 he went to the university of Halle, where be became a pupil of Hoffmann in the study of medicine, and continued his chemical pursuits under the direction of Juncker, to which last science he ultimately devoted his sole attention. He also studied mineralogy, under Henckel, and the art of assaying under Susmilch. In the following year he visited the Hartz mines, and then returned to Berlin, where his incessant application to chemical labours so materially injured his health, that it was never afterwards vigorous. In 1738 he was received into the society of sciences, and furnished some memoirs for the “Miscellanea Berolinensia;” and when this society was renovated in 1744, as the royal academy of sciences and belles lettres, he was placed in the class of experimental philosophy, of which he was chosen director in 1760. He had also the high gratification of being entrusted with the laboratory of the academy in 1754, in which he almost lived, absorbed in the study or practice of his favourite art. He was, nevertheless, a man of great amenity of temper, and considerable conviviality, when mixing in the society of his friends. He had been for some years liable to spasmodic affections, and in 1774, was attacked with apoplexy, which left a paralysis behind it. He continued, however, to attend the meetings of the academy till the autumn of 1776; after which his mental and bodily powers gradually declined, and he died in August, 1782.

But the tiiost considerable by far of all his performances, is his “History of Spain,” divided into thirty books. This he wrote at first in Latin; but, fearing lest some unskilful pen should sully the reputation of his work by a bad translation of it into Spanish, he undertook that task himself, not as a translator, but as an author, who might assume the liberty of adding and altering, as he found it requisite, upon further inquiry into records and ancient writers. Vet neither the Latin nor the Spanish came lower down than the end of the reign of king Ferdinand, grandfather to the emperor Charles V. where Mariana concluded his thirty books; not caring to venture nearer his own times, because he could not speak with the freedom and impartiality of a just historian, of persons who were either alive themselves, or whose immediate descendants were. At the instigation of friends, however, he afterwards drew up a short supplement, in which he brought his history down to 1621, when king Philip 111. died, and Philip IV. came to the crown. After his death, F. Ferdinand Camargory Salcedo, of the order of St. Augustin, carried on another supplement from 1621, where Mariana left off, to 1649$ inclusive; where F. Basil Voren de Soto, of the regular clergy took it up, and went on to 1669, being the fifth year of the reign of Charles II. king of Spain. Gibbon says that in this work he almost forgets that he is a Jesuit, to assume the style and spirit of a Roman classic. It is a work of great research and spirit, although not free from the prejudices which may be supposed to arise from his education and profession. The first edition was entitled “Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, lib.iginti,” Toleti, 1592, folio. To some copies were afterwards added five more books, and a new title, with the date 1595, or in some 1592. The remaining five books were printed as “Histories Hispanic<E Appendix, libri scilicet XXI XXX, cum indice,” Francfort, 1616, fol. There is an edition printed at the Hague, with the continuations, 1733, 4 vols. in 2, fol. The best editions in the Spanish are, that of Madrid, 1780, 2 vols. folio, and that with Mariana’s continuation, ibid. 1794, 10 vols. 8vo. The French have various translations, and the English an indifferent one by capt. Stevens, 1699, fol.

Mariana’s history did not pass without animadversions in his own time. A secretary of the constable of Castile, who calls himself Pedro Mantuana, published “Critical Remarks” upon it at Milan, in 1611, which were answered by Thomas Tamaius de Vorgas. The latter informs us, “that Mariana would never cast his eyes upon the work of his censurer, or on that of his apologist; though this latter offered him his manuscript before he gave it to the printer, and desired him to correct it.”

, a writer of several romances or novels much esteemed in France, was born at Marseilles in 1697, his family having been originally of Genoa. He was early in orders, and settled at Avignon, where, as a minim, he was much employed in all the offices of his order, and preached against the Jews with no little success. He published some works on pious discipline, which were much esteemed, and gained him the favour of pope Clement XIII. From this pontiff he received several marks of honour, and was employed by him to collect the “Acts of the Martyrs.” He had composed only two volumes in 12mo of this work, when he was seized with a dropsy in the heart, and died April 3, 1767, in his seventieth year. He was much esteemed by all worthy men; and his novels, as well as his other writings, were calculated to serve the cause of virtue and religion. The principal of his works are 1. “Conduct of Sister Violet, who died in odour of sanctity, at Avignon,” 12mo. 2. “Adelaide de Vitzburg, or the pious pensioner,” 12mo. 3. “The perfect Nun,” 12mo. 4. “Virginia, or the Christian Virgin,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Lives of the Solitaries of the East,” 9 vols. 12mo. 6. “Baron Van-Hesden, or the Republic of Unbelievers,” 5 vols. 12mo. 7. “Theodule, or the Child of Blessing,” 16mo. 8. “Farfalla, or the converted Actress,” 12mo. 9. “Retreat for a Day in each Month,” 2 vols. 12mo. 10. “Spiritual Letters,” 1769, 2 vols. 12mo; and a few more of less consequence.

, a once celebrated Italian poet, was born at Naples in 1569; and made so great a progress in his juvenile studies, that he was thought qualified for that of the civil law at thirteen. His father, who was a lawyer, intended him for that profession, as the properest means of advancing him; but Marini had already contracted a taste for poetry, and was so far from relishing the science to which he was put, that he sold his law-books, in order to purchase books of polite literature. This so much irritated his father, that he turned him out of doors, and obliged him to seek for protectors and supporters abroad. Having acquired a reputation for poetry, he happily found in Inico de Guevara, duke of Bovino, a friend who conceived an affection for him, and supported him for three years in his house. The prince of Conca, grand admiral of the kingdom of Naples, next took him into his service, in quality of secretary; and in this situation he continued five or six years; but having assisted a friend in a very delicate intrigue, he was thrown into prison, and very hardly escaped with his life. Thence he retired to Rome, where, after some time spent in suspense and poverty, he became known to Melchior Crescendo, a prelate of great distinction, who patronized him, and provided him with every thing he wanted.

In 1601, he went to Venice, to print some poems which he dedicated to Crescentio; and after making the tour of that part of Italy, returned to Rome. His reputation increased greatly, so as to engage the attention of the cardinal Peter Aldobrandini, who made him his gentleman, and settled on him a considerable pension. After the election of pope Paul V. which was in 1605, he accompanied this cardinal to Ravenna, his archbishopric, and lived with him several years. He then attended him to Turin, at which court he ingratiated himself by a panegyric upon the duke Charles Emmanuel; for which this prince recompensed him with honours, and retained him, when his patron the cardinal left Piedmont. During his residence here he had a violent dispute, both poetical and personal, with Gasper Murtola, the duke’s secretary. Murtola was, or fancied himself, as good a poet as Marini, and was jealous of Marini’s high favour with the duke, and therefore took every opportunity to speak ill of him. Marini, by way of revenge, published a sharp sonnet upon him at Venice, in 1608, under the title of “II nuovo mondo;” to which Murtola opposed a satire, containing an abridged life of Marini. Marini answered in eighty-one sonnets, named the “Murtolelde:” to which Murtola replied in a “Marineide,” consisting of thirty sonnets. But the latter, perceiving that his poems were inferior in force as well as number to those of his adversary, resolved to put an end to the quarrel, by destroying him; and accordingly fired a pistol, the ball of which luckily missed him. Murtola was cast into prison, but saved from punishment at the intercession of Marini, who, nevertheless, soon found it expedient to quit his present station.

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

, an eminent French philosopher and mathematician, was born at Dijon, and admitted a member of the academy of sciences of Paris in 1666. His works, however, are better known than his life. He was a good mathematician, and the first French philosopher who applied much to experimental physics. The law of the shock or collision of bodies, the theory of the pressure and motion of fluids, the nature of vision, and of the air, particularly engaged his attention. He carried into his philosophical researches that spirit of scrutiny and investigation so necessary to those who would make any considerable progress in it. He died May 12, 16S4. He communicated a number of curious and valuable papers to the academy of sciences, which were printed in the collection of their Memoirs dated 1666, viz. from volume 1 to volume 10. And all his works were collected into 2 volumes in 4to, and printed at Leyden in 1717.

Marivaux had the misfortune, or rather the imprudence, to join the party of M. de la Motte, in the famous dispute concerning the superiority of the ancients to the moderns. His attachment to the latter produced his travesty of Homer, which contributed but little to his literary fame. His prose works, while they display great fertility of invention, and a happy disposition of incidents to excite attention, and to interest the affections, have been censured for affectation of style, and a refinement that is sometimes too metaphysical. His “Vie de Marianne,” and his “Paysan Parvenu,” hold the first rank among French romances; yet, by a fickleness which was natural to him, he left one of them incomplete to begin the other, and finished neither. He died at Paris, Feb. 11, 1763, aged seventy-five. His works consist of, 1. “Pièces de Théâtre,” 5 vols. 12mo. 2. “Homere travesti,” 12mo. 3. “Le Spectateur François,” 2 vols. 12mo rather affected in style, but containing many fine thoughts. 4. “Le Philosophe indigent,” 12mo, lively and instructive. 5. “Vie de Marianne,” 4 vols. 12mo; one of the best romances in the French language. 6. “Le Paysan Parvenu,” 12mo; more ingenious, perhaps, than Marianne, but less instructive, and containing some scenes that ought to have been omitted. 7. “Pharsamon; ou les nouvelles follies romanesques;” inferior to the former. This was republished under the name of “Nouveau Dom Quichotte.” The chief objection made to this, and indeed many other writings of Marivaux, is a mixture of metaphysical style, sometimes too refined to be intelligible; but amends are generally made for this fault, by correct pictures of the human heart, and sentiments of great truth and beauty.

, 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.

, an English author, who lived in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. but whose private history is involved in much obscurity, was son of Robert Markham, esq. of Gotham, in the county of Nottingham. He bore a captain’s commission under Charles I. in the civil wars, and was accounted a good soldier, as well as a good scholar. One piece of dramatic poetry which he has published will shew, says Langbaine, that he sacrificed to Apollo and the muses, as well as to Mars and Pallas. This play is extant under under the title of “Herod and Antipater,” a tragedy, printed in 1622. Markham published a great many volumes upon husbandry and horsemanship: one upon the latter, printed in quarto, without date, he dedicated to prince Henry, eldest son to James I. In husbandry he published “Liebault’s La Maison rustique, or the country -farm,” in 1616. This treatise, which was at first translated by Mr. Richard Surfleit, a physician, Markham enlarged, with several additions from the French books of Serris and Vinet, the Spanish of Albiterio, and the Italian of Grilli. He published other books of husbandry, particularly “The English Husbandman, in two parts,” Lond. 1613 1635, with the “Pleasures of Princes in the Art of Angling.” Granger mentions “The whole Art of Angling,” 1656, 4to, in which he says Markham very gravely tells us that an angler should “be a general scholar, and seen in all the liberal sciences; as a grammarian, to know how to write or discourse of his art in true and fitting terms. He should have sweetness in speech to entice others to delight in an exercise so much laudable. He should have strength of argument to defend and maintai n his profession against envy and slander,” &c. Markham also wrote a tract entitled “Hunger’s prevention, or the whole Art of Fowling,” 1621, 8vo. In military discipline he published “The Soldier’s Accidence and Grammar,” in 1635. But he appears to have been earliest distinguished by his talents for poetry. In 1597 he published “Devereux Vertues tears for the loss of the most Christian king Henry, third of that name king of France, and the untimely death of the most noble and heroical Walter Devereux, who was slain before Roan, in Fraunce,” a translation from the French, 4to. He was the author also of “England’s Arcadia, alluding his beginning from sir Philip Sydney’s ending,” 1607, 4to. The extracts from Markham in “England’s Parnassus,” are more numerous than from any other minor poet. The most remarkable of his poetical attempts appears to have been entitled “The Poem of Poems, or Sion’s Muse, contaynyng the diuine Song of king Salomon, deuided into eight eclogues,” J 596, 16mo. This is dedicated to “the sacred virgin, divine mistress Elizabeth Sydney, sole daughter of the everadmired sir Philip Sydney.” Bishop Hall, who was justly dissatisfied with much of the spiritual poetry with which his age was overwhelmed, alludes to this piece in his “Satires” (B. I. Sat. VIII.); and says that in Markham’s verses Solomon assumes the character of a modern sonneteer, and celebrates the sacred spouse of Christ with the levities and in the language of a lover singing the praises of his mistress. For this censure, Marston in his “Certayne Satires” (Sat. IV.) endeavours to retort upon Hall.

Langbaine is very lavish of his praise of Markharn; but he does not appear to have known much of his poetry, or of his real characier. In the works referred to below are some conjectures, and some information respecting Markham, which place his character rather in an equivocal light. It appears, however, that his works on husbandry, agriculture, &c. were once held in great esteem, and often reprinted. On the records of the stationers’ company is a very extraordinary agreement signed by this author, which probably arose from the booksellers’ knowledge of the value of Markham’s work, and their apprehensions that a new performance on the same subject might be hurtful to the treatises then circulating. It is as follows:

“Md. That I Gervase Markham, of London, gent, do promise hereafter never to write any more book or books to be printed of the diseases or cures of any cattle, as horse, oxe, cowe, sheepe, swine, and goates, &c. In witnes whereof I have hereunto sett my hand the 24th day of Julie, 1617. Gervis Markham.”

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

After his return from France, Mr. Markland again took up his residence at college, and resumed his learned labours. In 1739 we find Mr. Taylor acknowledging his obligations to Mr. Markland for the “Conjecturse” annexed to his “Orationes et Fragmenta Lysiae,” an incomparable edition, on which Taylor’s fame may securely rest. In 1740 Mr. Markland contributed annotations to Dr. Davies’s second edition of Maximus Tyrius. This volume was printed by Mr. Bowyer, uncier the sanction of the society for the encouragement of learning; and such was Mr. Markland’s care, that this society, although on their part not very consistently, complained of the expence which Mr. Markland occasioned by his extreme nicety in correcting the proof-sheets. In an address to the reader, prefixed to his annotations, Mr. Markland brought forward a very singular discovery, that Maximus had himself published two editions of his work. It is very surprizing, therefore, that at this time, when Markland was receiving the thanks and praises of his learned contemporaries, Warburton only should under-rate his labours, and say in a letter to Dr. Birch, “I have a poor opinion both of Markland’s and Taylor’s critical abilities.” Whether this “poor opinion” proceeded from temper or taste, we find that it was afterwards adopted by Warburton’s friend Dr. Kurd, who went a little farther in compliment to his correspondent, and, somewhat luckily for Mr. Markland, involves himself in a direct contradiction, calling Mr. Markland, in the same sentence, a “learned man,” and a man of “slencjer parts and sense.” It cannot be too much regretted that bishop Hurd should have left his Warburtonian correspondence to be printed, after he had, in the republication of his own works, professed to recant many of the harsh opinions of his early days.

In 1743, we find Mr. Markland residing at Twyford, where, in June of that year, he talks of the gout as an old companion: and at this period of life, it appears that he was twice encouraged to offer himself a candidate for the Greek professorship; but had either not ambition enough to aspire to this honour, or had some dislike to the office, to which, however, abilities like his must have done credit. From 1744 to 1752, his residence was at Uckfield in Sussex, where he boarded in the house of the schoolmaster under whose care young Mr. Strode had been placed, and where he first formed an intimacy with the rev. William Clarke, whose son Edward was placed uncier his private tuition. In 1745, he published “Remarks on the Epistles of Cicero to Brutus, and of Brutus to Cicero, in a letter to a friend. With a dissertation upon four orations ascribed to Cicero; viz. I. Ad Quirites post rediturn: 2. Post reditum in seriatu 3. Pro domo sua, ad pontifices 4. De haruspicum responsis To which are added, some extracts out of the notes of learned men upon those orations, and observations on them, attempting to prove them all spurious, and the works of some sophist,” 8vo. These remarks, which were addressed to Mr. Bowyer, although very ingenious, brought on the first controversy in which Mr. Markland was concerned; but in which he was unwilling to exert himself. He seems to have contented himself with his own conviction upon the subject, and with shewing only some contempt of what was offered. “I believe,” says he, in a letter to Mr. Bowyer, “I shall drop the affair of these spurious letters, and the orations I mentioned; for, though I am as certain that Cicero was not the author of them, as I am that you were not, yet I consider that it must be judged of by those who are already prejudiced on the other side. And how far prejudice will go, is evident from the subject itself; for nothing else could have suffered such silly and barbarous stuff as these Epistles and Orations to pass so long, and through so many learned men’s hands, for the writings of Cicero; in which view, I confess, I cannot read them without astonishment and indignation.”

These melancholy views of literary patronage and support did not hinder Mr. Markland from hazarding his little property on the more uncertain issue of a law-suit, into which he was drawn by the benevolence of his disposition. His primary object in this affair, which occurred in 1765, was to support the widow with whom he lodged against the injustice and oppression of her son, who, taking advantage of maternal weakness, persuaded her to assign over to him the whole of her property. The consequence was a law-suit , which, after an enormous expence to Mr. Markland, was decided against the widow; and his whole fortune, after this event, was expended in relieving the distresses of the family. Some assistance he appears to have derived from his friends; but such was his dislike of this kind of aid, that he could rarely be prevailed upon to accept it. Yet at this time his whole property, exclusive of his fellowship (about seventy pounds a-year), consisted of five hundred pounds three per cent, reduced annuities; and part of the latter we find him cheerfully selling out for the support of his poor friends, rather than accept any loan or gift from his friends. He appears indeedabout this time to have been weaning himself from friendly connections, as well as his customary pursuits. In October of this year he even declined entering into a correspondence with his old acquaintance bishop Law, who wished to serve him, and desires Mr. Bowyer to write to the bishop, that “Mr. Markland is very old, being within a few days of seventy-three, with weak eyes and a shaking hand, so that he can neither read nor write without trouble: that he has scarce looked into a Greek or Latin book for above these three years, having given over all literary concerns and therefore it is your (Mr. Bowyer’s) opinion that he (the bishop) had much better not write to Mr. Markland, which will only distress him; but that you are very sure that he will not now enter into any correspondence of learning.” At length, in 1768, after much negotiation, and every delicate attention to his feelings, his pupil, Mr. Strode, prevailed on him to accept an annuity of one hundred pounds, which, with the dividends arising from his fellowship, was, from that time, the whole of his income.

Fortunately for the world of letters, the notes on the two “Iphigenias,” which Mr. Markland at one time intended to destroy, from despair of public encouragement, were preserved and given by him to Dr. Heberden, with permission to burn or print them as he pleased; but if the latter, then they should be introduced by a short Latin dedication to Dr. Heberden, as a testimony of his gratitude for the many favours he had received from that gentleman. Dr. Heberden, whose generosity was unbounded, readily accepted the gift on Mr. Markland’s own conditions, paid the whole expence of printing, as he had before done that of the “Supplices Mulieres,” and in 1770 had secured a copy of it corrected for a second edition, though at that time it was intended that the first should not be published till after Mr. Markland’s death. He had then burnt all his notes, except those on the New Testament; and the disposal of his books became now to him a matter of serious concern. He wished them to be in the hands of Dr. Heberden, to whom he presented the greater part of them in his life-time, and the remainder at his death. These notes n the New Testament had often made part of Mr. Markland’s study, and many of them have since appeared in Bowyer’s “Conjectures on the New Testament.” Thej T were written in Kuster’s edition.

Repeated attacks of the gout, and an accumulation of infirmities, at length put an end to Mr. Markland’s life, at Milton-court, July 7, 1776, in the eighty-third year of his age. His will was short. He bequeathed his books and papers to Dr. Heberden, and every thing else to Mrs. Martha Rose, the widow with whom he lived, and whom he made sole executrix, although he had a sister, Catherine, then living, and not in good circumstances. This is the more remarkable, as we find in his letters, expressions of affectionate anxiety for this sister; but he delayed making his will until the year before his death, when his memory and faculties were probably in some degree impaired. He had formerly entertained hopes of being able to make some acknowledgment to Christ’s-hospital for his education, and to Peterhouse, from which he had for so many years received the chief part of his maintenance; but, to use his own words, “as the providence of God saw fit that it should be otherwise, he was perfectly satisfied that it was better it should be as it was.” Immediately on his death, his friend Mr. Strode and Mr. Nichols went to Milton-court, to give directions for the funeral, which was performed, strictly agreeable to his own request, in the church of Dorking, where a brass plate commemorates his learning and virtues. Several of his books, with a few ms notes in them, after the death of Dr. Heberden, were sold to Mr. Payne; and some of them were purchased by Mr. Gough, and others are now in the possession of Dr. Burney, Mr. Heber, Mr. Hibbert, &c. c. Such are the outlines of the history of this excellent scholar and critic, concerning whom many additional particulars may be found in our authority. The most conspicuous trait in his character was his singular and unwearied industry. The scholar, who secludes himself from tlic world for the purposes of study, frequently abandons himself to desultory reading, or at least is occupied at intervals only, in deep and laborious research. This, however, was not the case with Markland. The years that successively rolled over his head, in the course of a long life, constantly found him engaged in his favourite pursuits, collating the classic authors of antiquity, or illustrating the book of Revelation. Of the truth of this remark, which we borrow from his amiable relative, his correspondence affords sufficient testimony; and the proofs which he there displays, even after he had passed his eighty-first year, of vigour and clearness of intellect, are perfectly astonishing. To this we may add what has recently been said of iMr. Markland, that “for modesty, candour, literary honesty, and courteousness to other scholars, he has been considered as the model which ought to be proposed for the imitation of every critic.” With exception to the opinions of Warburton and Hurd, which were concealed when they might have been answered, and published when they were not worth answering, his deep and extensive learning appears, from the concurrent testimony of his contemporaries and survivors, to have been at all times most justly appreciated; and a tribute, of great value, has lately been paid to his memory by Dr. Burney in tho preface to his “Tentamen de Metris ahæschylo in Choricis Cantibus adhibitis,” where he places him among the “magnanimi heroes” of the eighteenth century, Bentley, Dawes, Taylor, Toup, Tyrwhitt, and Porson.

Which rightly should possess a poet’s brain." In 1557 he translated Coluthus’s “Rape of Helen” into English rhyme. He also translated the elegies of Ovid, which book was ordered to be burnt at Stationers’-hall, 1599, by command of the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London. Before 1598 appeared his translation of the “Loves of Hero and Leander,” the elegant prolusion of an unknown sophist of Alexandria, but commonly ascribed to the ancient Musseus. It was. left unfinished by Marlow’s death; but what was called a second part, which is nothing more than a continuation from the Italian, appeared by one Henry Petowe, in 1598. Another edition was published, with the first book of Lucan, translated also by Marlow, and in blank verse, in 160O. At length Chapman, the translator of Homer, completed, but with a striking inequality, Marlow’s unfinished version, and printed it at London in 1606, 4to. His plays were, 1. “Tamerlane the great Scythian emperor, two parts,” ascribed by Phillips erroneously to Newton. 2. “The rich Jew of Maltha.” 3. “The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Dr. John Faustus.” 4. “Lnst’s Dominion,” Lond. 1661, 8vo, from which was stolen the greater part of Aphra Behn’s “Abdelazer, or the More’s Revenge,” Lond. 1677. 5. “The Tragedy of King Edward II.” 6. “The Tragedy of Dido, queen of Carthage,” in the composition of which he was assisted by Thomas Nash, who published it in 1594.

His tragedies, says Warton, manifest traces of a just dramatic conception, but they abound with tedious and uninteresting scenes, or with such extravagancies as proceeded from a want of judgment, and those barbarous ideas of the times, over which it was the peculiar gift of Shakspeare’s genius alone to triumph and predominate. As a poet, there is one composition preserved in the collection called “England’s Helicon,” and often reprinted, which entitles him to the highest praise. It is that entitled “The Passionate Shepherd to his Love,” beginning “Come live with me, and be my love.” We can remember the revival of this beautiful pastoral about forty years ago, with some pleasing music, which made it the fashion of every theatre, concert, and private party. Sir Walter Raleigh wrote a reply to this piece.

, a dramatic writer, was born of an ancient family at Aynhoe in Northamptonshire, about the beginning of January, 1602. He went to school at Thame in Oxfordshire, and was thence removed to Wadham-college, Oxford, as a gentleman-commoner, and took his master of arts’ degree in 1624. Wood says, that “he was a goodly proper gentleman, and had once in his possession seven hundred pounds per annum at least.” The whole of this he dissipated, and afterwards went to serve in the Low Countries. Not being promoted there, after three campaigns, he returned to England, and was admitted in 1639, by sir John Suckling, into a troop raised for Charles I. in his expedition against Scotland, but at York he fell sick, and was obliged to return to London, where he died the same year. Marmion, although not a voluminous writer, for he produced only four dramas, is considered by the author of the Biographia Dramatica as one of the best among the dramatic writers of his time. “His plots are ingenious,” says that author, “his characters well drawn, and his language not only easy and dramatic, but full of lively wit and solid understanding.” His plays are, 1 “Holland’s Leaguer, an excellent comedy, as it hath bin lately and often acted with great applause, by the high and mighty prince Charles his servants, at the private house in Salisbury court,” 1632, 4to. According to Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, there was a tract in prose, published under the same title of “Holland’s Leaguer,” in the same year, from which this drama might possibly be taken 2. “A fine Companion, acted before the King and Queen at Whitehall, and sundrie times with great applause at the private house in Salisbury-court, by the Prince his servants,” 1633, 4to. 3. “The Antiquary, a comedy, acted by her Majesty’s servants at the Cockpit,” 1641, 4to. This is also printed in Dodsley’s Collection of Old Plays, vol. X. second edition. The Biographia Dramatica, and other books, add to these, 4. “The Crafty Merchant, or the Souldier'd Citizen;” which, as welt as the rest, was a comedy; but they all state that it was never printed, and neglect to tell where it is extant in manuscript. He also published, 5. “Cupid and Psiche; or an epic poem of Cupid and his Mistress, as it was lately presented to the Prince Elector.” Prefixed to this are complimentary verses, by Richard Brome, Francis Tuckyr, Thomas N abbes, and Thomas Hey wood. He wrote, be sides these, several poems, which are scattered in different publications; and Wood says that he left some things in ms. ready for the press, but what became of them is not known.

, an industrious French translator, was born in 1600. He was the son of Claude de Marolles, a military hero, but entered early into the ecclesiastical state, and by the interest of his father, obtained two abbeys. He early conceived an extreme ardour for study, which never abated; for from 1610, when he published a translation of Lucan, to 168 1, the year of his death, he was constantly employed in writing and printing. He attached himself, unfortunately, to the translating of ancient Latin writers; but, being devoid of all classical taste and spirit, they sunk miserably under his hands, and especially the poets. If, however, he was not the most elegant, or even the most faithful of translators, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and discovered all his life a love for the arts. He was one of the first who paid any attention to the collection of prints, and formed a series amounting to about an hundred thousand, which made afterwards one of the ornaments of the king’s cabinet. There are by him translations of “Plautus,” “Terence,” “Lucretius,” “Catullus,” “Virgil,” “Horace,” “Juvenal,” “Per&ius,” “Martial” (at the head of which Menage wrote “Epigrammes centre Martial”); also “Statius,” “Aurelius Victor,” “Ammianus Marcellinus,” “Athena3us,” &c. He composed “Memoirs of his own Life,” which were published by the abbe Goujet, in 1775, in 3 vols. 12mo. They contain, like such publications in general, some interesting facts, but many more which are trifling. His poetry was never much esteemed. He said once to Liniere, “My verses cost me very little,” meaning little trouble. “They cost you quite as much as they are worth,” replied Liniere.

The principal works of du Marsais are, 1. “An Explanation of the Doctrine of the Gallican church, with respect to the pretensions of the court of Rome,” 12mo. This esteemed work was undertaken by the desire of the president des Maisons, and was not published till after the death of the author. 2. “Explanation of a reasonable Method of learning the Latin language,” 1722, 12mo. This work, which was most highly commended by d'Alembert and others, was long very scarce, even in France. 3. “A treatise on Tropes,” 1730, 8vo, and 1731, 12mo; a tract much and justly admired for its original conceptions and logical precision. 4. “Les veritables Principes de la Grammaire,” &c. 1729, 4to only the preface toan intended Latin grammar. 5. “The Abridgment of Father Jouvenci'a Mythology,” disposed according to his method, 1731, 12mo. 6. “Logic,” or reflections on the operations of the mind; a very short work, in which is compressed almost the whole art of reasoning. It was reprinted at Paris, in 1762, in 12mo, with the articles which he furnished for the Encyclopedia. At length, his whole works were collected by Duchosal and Millon, and published at Paris, 1797, 7 vols. 8vd In 1804 the institute of France proposed his eloge as a prize essay, and the prize was gained by Degerando, who published it in 1805. That prefixed to his works was by D'Alembert, with whom, as well as with Voltaire, he was at one time too much connected for his reputation.

, an exemplary Irish prelate, was descended from a Saxon family, formerly seated in Kent, whence his great-grandfather removed; and was born at Hannington, in Wiltshire, Dec. 20, 1638. He received the first rudiments of learning in his native place; and being there well fitted for the university, was admitted of Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, in 1654. He became B. A. in 1657, master in 16 60, bachelor of divinity in 1667, and doctor in 1671. In the mean time he was made fellow of Exetercollege, in 1658; afterwards chaplain to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Exeter, and then to chancellor Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In 1673, he was appointed principal of Alban-hall, Oxford, by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university; and executed the duties of his office with such zeal and judgment, that, according to Wood, “he made it flourish more than it had done many years before, or hath since his departure.” In 1678 he was removed by the interest of Dr. John Fell, together with that of the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the dignity of provost of Dublin-college. He was promoted to the bishopric of Leighlin and Ferns in 1683, translated to the archbishopric of Cashell in 1690, thence to Dublin in 1699, and then to Armagh in 1703. After having lived with honour and reputation to himself, and benefit to mankind in general, he died Nov. 2, 1713, aged seventy-five, and was buried in a vault in St. Patrick’s church-yard.

, a late eminent anatomist and physician, was born in Fifeshire, in 1742, at Park-hill, a large farm on the side of the Tay, near Newburgh, held by his father, Mr. John Marshal, of the earl of Rothes. His lather had received a classical education himself; and being desirous that his son should enjoy a similar advantage, sent him first to the grammar-school at Newburgh, and afterwards tothat of Abernethy, then the most celebrated place of education among the Seceders, of which religious sect he was a most zealous member. Here he was regarded as a quick and apt scholar. From his childhood he had taken great delight in rural scenery. One day, while under the influence of feelings of this kind, being then about fourteen years old, he told his father that he wished to leave school, and be a farmer, but he soon shewed that it had not arisen from any fondness for ordinary country labours. In the following harvest-time, for instance, having been appointed to follow the reapers, and bind up the cut corn into sheaves, he would frequently lay himself down in some shady part of the field, and taking a book from his pocket, begin to read, -utterly forgetful of his task. About two years after, however, he resumed his studies, with the intention of becoming a minister: and soon after, he was admitted a student of philosophy at Abernethy; and next became a student of divinity. In his nineteenth year he went to Glasgow, and divided his ­time between teaching a school, and attending lectures in the university. The branches of learning which he chiefly cultivated were Greek and morals. At the end of two years passed in this way, he became (through the interest of the celebrated Dr. Reid, to whom his talents and diligence had recommended him), tutor in a gentleman’s family, of the name of Campbell, in the Island of Islay. He remained here four years, and removed to the university of Edinburgh, with Mr. -Campbell’s son, whom the following year he carried back to his father. Having surrendered his charge, he returned to Edinburgh, where he subsisted himself by reading Greek and Latin privately with students of the university; in the mean time taking no recreation, but giving up all his leisure to the acquisition of knowledge. He still considered himself a student of divinity, in which capacity he delivered two discourses in the divinity-hall; and from motives of curiosity began in 1769 to attend lectures on medicine. While thus employed, he was chosen1 member of the Speculative society, where, in the beginning of 1772, he became acquainted with lord Balgonie, who was so much pleased with the display which he made of genius and learning in that society, that he requested they“should read together; and in the autumn of the following year made a proposal for their going to the Continent, which was readily accepted. They travelled slowly through Flanders to Paris, where they stayed a month, and then proceeded to Tours, where they resided eight months, in the house of a man of letters, under whose tuition they strove to acquire a correct knowledge of the French language and government. They became acquainted here with several persons of rank, among whom were a prince of Rohan, and the dukes of Clioiseul and Aguilon, at whose seats in the neighbourhood they were sometimes received as gnests. An acquaintance with such people would make Marshal feel pain on account of his want of external accomplishments; and this, probably, was the reason of his labouring” to learn to dance and to fence while he was at Tours, though he was then more than thirty years old. He returned to England in the summer of 1774; and proceeded soon after to Edinburgh, where he resumed the employment of reading Latin and Greek with young men. Hitherto he seems to have formed no settled plan of life, but to have bounded his views almost entirely to the acquisition of knowledge, and a present subsistence. His friends, however, had been induced to hope that he would at some time be advanced to a professor’s cl; ir and it is possible that he entertained the same hope himself. In the spring of 1775, this hope appeared to be strengthened by his being requested by Mr. Stewart, the professor of humanity at Edinburgh, to officiate for him, as he was then unwell: Marshal complied, but soon after appears to have given up all hopes of a professorship, and studied medicine with a determination to practise it. In the spring of 1777, he was enabled by the assistance of a friend, Mr. John Campbell of Edinburgh, to come to London for professional improvement; and studied anatomy under Dr. W. Hunter, and surgery under Mr. J, Hunter. After he had been here a twelvemonth, he was appointed surgeon to the S3rd, or Glasgow regiment, through the interest of the earl of Leverv, the father of his late pupil, lord Balgonie. The first year after was passed with his regiment, in Scotland. In the following he accompanied it to Jersey, where he remained with it almost constantly till the conclusion of the war in the beginning of 1783, when it was disbanded. In this situation he enjoyed, almost for the first time, the pleasures best suited to a man of independent mind. His income was more than sufficient for his support; his industry and knowledge rendered him useful; and his character for integrity and honour procured him general esteem. From Jersey he came to London, seeking for a settlement, and was advised by Dr. D. Pitcairn (with whom he had formed a friendship while a student at Glasgow) to practise surgery here, though he had taken the degree of doctor of physic the preceding year at Edinburgh; and to teach anatomy at St. Bartholomew’s hospital, it being at the same time proposed, that the physicians to that hospital (of whom Dr. Pitcairn was one) should lecture on other branches of medical learning. He took a house, in consequence, in the neighbourhood of the hospital; and proceeded to prepare for the execution of his part of the scheme. This proving abortive, he began to teach anatomy, the following year, at his own house; and at length succeeded in procuring annually a considerable number of pupils, attracted to him solely by the reputation of his being a most diligent and able teacher. In 1788 he quitted the practice of surgery, and commenced that of medicine, having previously become a member of the London college oF physicians. In the ensuing year a dispute arose between John Hunter and him, which it is proper to relate, as it had influence on his after-life. When Marshal returned to London, he renewed his acquaintance with Mr. Hunter, who thought so well of him, that he requested his attendance at a committee of his friends, to whose correction he submitted his work on the venereal disease, before it was published. He became also a member of a small society, instituted by Dr. Fordyce and Mr. Hunter, for the improvement of medical and surgical knowledge. Having mentioned at a meeting of this society, that, in the dissection of those who had died insane, he had always found marks of disease in the head, Mr. Hunter denied the truth of this in very coarse language. The other members interfering, Mr. Hunter agreed to say, that his expressions did not refer to Dr. Marshal’s veracity, but to the accuracy of his observation. Marshal, not being satisfied with this declaration, at the next meeting of the society demanded a.i ample apology; but Mr. Hunter, instead of making one, repeated the offensive expressions; on which Marshal poured some water over his head out of a bottle which had stood near them. A scuffle ensued, which was immediately stopped by the other members, and no father personal contention between them ever occurred. But Marshal, conceiving that their common friends in the society had, from the superior rank of Mr. Hunter, favoured him more in this matter than justice permitted, soon after estranged himself from them. He continued the teaching of anatomy till 1800, in which year, during a tedious illness, the favourable termination of which appeared doubtful to him, he resolved, rather suddenly, to give it up. While he taught anatomy, almost the whole of the fore-part of the day, during eight months in the year, was spent by him in his dissecting and lecture rooms. He had, therefore, but little time for seeing sick persons, except at hours frequently inconvenient to them; and was by this means prevented from enjoying much medical practice; but as soon as he had recovered his health, after ceasing to lecture, his practice began to increase. The following year it was so far increased as to render it proper that he should keep a carriage. From this time to within a few months of his death, an interval of twelve years, his life flowed on in nearly an equable stream. He had business enough in the way he conducted it to give him employment during the greater part of the day; and his professional profits were sufficient to enable him to live in the manner he chose, and provide for the wants of sickness and old age. After having appeared somewhat feeble for two or three years, he made known, for the first time, in the beginning of last November, that he laboured under a disease of his bladder, though he must then have been several years affected with it. His ailment was incurable, and scarcely admitted of palliation. For several months he was almost constantly in great pain, which he bore manfully. At length, exhausted by his sufferings, he died on the 2nd of April, 1813, at his house in Bartlett’s buildings, Holborn, being then in the seventy-first year of his age. Agreeably to his own desire, his body was interred in the church-yard of the parish of St. Pancras. His fortune, amounting to about bOOO/. was, for the most part, bequeathed to sisters and nephews.

Dr. Marshal’s many amiable qualities placed him high in the estimation of those who knew him well; but unfortunately the alloy mixed with them was considerable. His temper was extremely irritable; and, when he had once taken offence, he seldom returned to his former state with respect to the person who had given it, if an equal or superior, though he might afterwards discover that his resentment was without sufficient cause. He seemed to be afraid, in this case, that a confession of error would be attributed to some base motive for when he found that he had taken offence improperly with persons beneath him, with his servants for instance, he was very ready to avow his fault, and atone for it. He was, besides, of a. melancholy disposition; and, like other men of this temperament, frequently believed, that persons of the most honourable conduct were conspiring to betray and to ruin him. From the nature of his early pursuits, these parts of his character seem not to have exhibited themselves very strongly before he returned to London in 1783; but when he came to mix and jostle in this great city with a crowd of persons intent on their own concerns, and little regardful of those of others, when he found himself neglected by some on whom he fancied he had claims for assistance, and experienced unexpected opposition from others, they became very conspicuous, and often rendered him miserable. The causes of irritation, indeed, ceased in a great measure with his lecturing, and the remainder of his life was passed with comparative tranquillity; but he was now almost without a friend to whom he could freely communicate his thoughts, and, from long disuse, with little relish or fitness for the pleasures of society. In this desolate state his chief amusement consisted in reading the ancient classics, after he had closed his professional labours for the tiay. He generally carried one of these to bed, and read it there till he composed himself for sleep. The Greek authors were more frequently used by him in this way than the Latin; and of the former, Plato more frequently than any other.

, an English divine, was born at Barkby in Leicestershire, about 1621, and educated there in grammar learning, under the vicar of that town. He was entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, in 1640; and, about the same time, being a constant hearer of archbishop Usher’s sermons in All-hallows church in that university, he conceived such a high opinion of that prelate, as to wish to make him the pattern of his life. Soon after, Oxford being garrisoned upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he bore arms for the king at his own charge; and therefore, in 1645, when he was a candidate for the degree of bachelor of arts, he was admitted to it without paying fees. Upon the approach of the parliamentary visitors, who usurped the whole power of the university, he went abroad, and became preacher to the company of English merchants at Rotterdam and Dort. In 1661, he was created bachelor of divinity; and, in 1663, chosen fellow of his college, without his solicitation or knowledge. In 1669, while he was at Dort in Holland, he was made doctor of divinity at Oxford; and, in 1672, elected rector of his college, in the room of Dr. Crew, promoted to the bishopric of Oxford. He was afterwards appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, rector of Bladon near Woodstock in Oxfordshire, in May 1680, and was installed dean of Gloucester on April 30, 1681. He resigned Bladon in the year 1682. He died at Lincoln-college in 1685. By his will he gave to the public library at Oxford all such of his books, whether manuscript or printed, as were not then in the library, excepting such only as he had not other-­wise disposed of, and the remaining part to Lincoln-college library; in which college also he fitted up the common room, and built the garden-wall.

, a very learned English writer, was the second son of Thomas Marsham, esq. alderman of London, and born in the parish of St. Bartholomew’s, Aug. 23, 1602. He was brought up at Westminster school, and sent thence, in 1619, to St. John’s college in Oxford, where betook, in due time, his degrees in arts. In 1625, he went to France, and spent the winter at Paris; in 1626 and 1627, he visited most parts of that kingdom, and of Italy, and some parts of Germany, and then returned to London. In 1629, he went through Holland and Guelderland, to the siege of Boisleduc; and thence by Flushing to Boulogne and Paris, in the retinue of sir Thomas Edmondes, ambassador extraordinary, who was sent to take the oath of Louis XIII. to the peace newly concluded between England and France. During his residence in London, he studied the law in the Middle Temple; and, in 1638, was sworn one of the six clerks in chancery. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he followed the king and the great seal to Oxford for which he was deprived of his place by the parliamentarians, and suffered a vast loss by the plundering of his estate. After the surrender of the garrison at Oxford, and the ruin of the king’s affairs, he returned to London; and, having compounded for his estate, he betook himself wholly to retirement and study. In the beginning of 1660, he served as a burgess for the city of Rochester, in the parliament which recalled Charles the Second; about which time, being restored to his place in chancery, he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, and three years after was created a baronet. He died at Bushy-hall in Hertfordshire, in May 1685; and his body was interred at Cuckstone near Rochester, where he had an estate. By Elizabeth his wife, daughter of sir William Hammond of St. Alban’s, in East Kent, he left two sons; sir John Marsham, of Cuckstone, bart. and sir Robert Marsham, of Bushy-hall, knt. both of them studious and learned men, and the ancestors of the Romney family. Sir John Marsham was a very accomplished gentleman, and had acquired a critical knowledge of history, chronology, and languages. He published in 1649, 4to, “Diatriba chronologica;” in which he examines succinctly the principal difficulties which occur in the chronology of the Old Testament.“The greatest part of this was afterwards inserted in another work, entitled” Canon chronicus, Ægyptiacus, Ebraicus, Groecus, & disquisitiones,“Lond. 1672, folio. The principal object of this is to reconcile the Egyptian dynasties. The Egyptians, as is well known, pretended to excessive antiquity, and had framed a list of thirty successive dynasties, which amounted to a number of years (36,525) greatly exceeding the age of the world. These were rejected as fabulous by some of the ablest chronologers; but sir John Marsham first conjectured that these dynasties were not successive, but collateral; and therefore without rejecting any, he endeavoured to reconcile the entire series in this manner, to the scripture chronology. The attempt, which was highly ingenious, gained him great reputation, and many contemporary as well as succeeding authors, have been liberal in their praises. Mr. Wotton represents him as the first” who has made the Egyptian antiquities intelligible: that most learned gentleman,“says he,” has reduced the wild heap of Egyptian dynasties into as narrow a compass as the history of Moses according to the Hebrew account, by the help of a table of the Theban kings, which he found under Eratosthenes’s name in the Chronography of Syncellus. For, by that table, he, 1. Distinguished the fabulous and mystical part of the Egyptian history, from that which seems to look like matter of fact. 2. He reduced the dynasties into collateral families, reigning at the same time in several parts of the country; which, as some learned men saw before, was the only way to make those antiquities consistent with themselves, which, till then, were confused and incoherent.“Dr. Shuckford, after having represented the foundation of sir John Marsham’s Canon with regard to Egypt, says that,” upon these hints and observations, he has opened to us a prospect of coming at an history of the succession of the kings of Egypt, and that in a method so natural and easy, that it must approve itself to any person who enters truly into the design and conduct of it.“Afterwards, having given a view of sir John’s scheme, from the beginning of the reigns of the Egyptian kings down to his Sesostris, or Sesac, he observes, that,” if the reader will take the pains thoroughly to examine it, if he will take it in pieces into all its parts, review the materials of which it is formed, consider how they He in the authors from whom they are taken, and what manner of collecting and disposing them is made use of, he will find that however in some lesser points a variation from our very learned author may be defensible, yet no tolerable scheme can be formed of the ancient Egyptian history, that is not in the main agreeing with him. Sir John Marsham has led us to a clear and natural place for the name of every Egyptian king, and time of his reign," &c. But although sir John Marsham’s system has been followed by some, it has been strenuously opposed by other writers, who have represented it as not only false, but even prejudicial to revelation.

, an English dramatic author, who lived in the time of James I. and wrote eight plays. Wood says, “that he was a student in Corpus-Christi college, Oxford; but where he was born, or from what family descended, is not known.” When he left Oxford, he was entered of the Middle Temple, of which society he was chosen lecturer in the 34th of Elizabeth; but much more of his personal history is not known. He lived in friendship with Ben Jonson, as appears by his addressing to him his “Malecontent,” a tragi-comedy, in 1604; yet we find him afterwards glancing with some severity at Jonson, on account of his “Catiline and Sejanus,” in his “Epistle” prefixed to “Sophonisba,” another tragedy. “Know,” says he, “that I have not laboured an this poem, to relate any thing as an historian, but to enlarge every thing as a poet. To transcribe authors, quote authorities, and to translate Latin prose orations into English blank verse, hath in this subject been the least aim of my studies.” Langbaine observes, and with good reason, “that none, who are acquainted with the works of Ben Jonson, can doubt that he is meant here, if they will compare the orations in Sallust with those in his Cataline.” Jonson appears to have quarrelled with him and Decker, and is supposed to have ridiculed both in his “Poetaster.”

Marston contributed eight plays to the stage, which were all acted at the Black-Friars with applause and one of them, called “The Dutch Courtezan,” was once revived since, the restoration, under the title of “The Revenge, or a Match in Newgate.” In 1633, six of this author’s plays were collected, and published in one volume, dedicated to the lady viscountess Falkland. Besides his dramatic poetry, he wrote three books of satires, entitled, “The Scourge of Villainy,'” which were printed at London in 1599, and reprinted in 1764, by the rev. John Bowie. We have no account when Marston died; but he was certainly living in 1633. As a specimen of his poetry, Mr. Dodsley has republished the “Malecontent^” in his Collection of Old English Plays, vol. IV. Marston was a chaste and pure writer, avoiding all that obscenity, ribaldry, and scurrility which too many of the playwrights of that time, and much more so in periods since, have made the basis of their wit, to the great disgrace of the age. He abhorred such writers, and their works, and pursued so opposite a practice in his performances, that “whatsoever even in the spring of his years, he presented upon the public and private theatre, in his autumn and declining age he needed not be ashamed of.”

, a Latin poet, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Paris, and entered early into the society of Jesuits, where he displayed and cultivated very excellent literary talents. When he was hardly twenty, he published some Latin poems which gained him credit. His religious opinionsbeing soon found too bold for the society to which he belonged, he was obliged to quit it; and having published in 1754, an “Analysis of Bayle,” in 4 vols. 12mo, he fell into still greater and perhaps more merited disgrace. His books were proscribed by the parliament of Paris, and himself shut up in the Bastile. This book contains a compilation of the most offensive matter contained in the volumes of Bayle, and has since been republished in Holland, with four additional volumes. Having, for a time, regained his liberty, he was proceeding in his modern history (a work of which he had already published some volumes), when he died suddenly in December 1763. Besides the analysis of Bayle, already mentioned, he published, I. The History of Mary Stuart,“1742, 3 vols. 12mo, a correct and elegant work, in which he was assisted by Fréron. 2.” Memoires de Melvill,“translated from the English, 1745, S^vols. 12mo. 3.” Abridged Dictionary of Painting and Architecture,“2 vols. 12mo. 4.” Le Rabelais moderne,“or the works of Rabelais made intelligible to readers in geaeral, 1752, 8 vols. 12mo. This is by no means executed in a manner either satisfactory to the reader, or creditable to the author. Some of the obscurities are removed or explained, but all that is offensive to decency is left. 5.” The Prince,“translated from father Paul, 1751. 6.” The Modern History, intended to serve as a continuation of Rollin’s Ancient History,“in 26 vols. 12mo. This is written with regularity, but little elegance. The abbe Marsy has since had a continuator in Richer, who has written with less order, but more profundity of research, especially respecting America and Russia. 7.” Pictura," in 12mo, 1756. This poem on painting, is considered as less learned in the art, and in that respect less instructive, than that of du Fresnoy; but he has shown himself a more pure and original Latin poet. There is also a poem in Latin by this author, on tragedy. The opinion of his countrymen is, that his fame rests principally on these Latin poems, and that there was nothing brilliant in his literary career afterwards.

, a Florentine poet, born about 1500, wrote verses serious and grotesque. The former were published in 8vo, at Florence, in 1548; the latter appear in the second volume of “Poesie Bernesche.” 'He was also a celebrated dramatic writer. He died in 1527, when he was no more than twenty-eight years old. His brother Vincent was also a poet, and left some “Rime,” or lyrics, which were much esteemed. He died in 1556, and his poems and letters appeared in 1607.

, an ancient Latin poet, and the model of epigrammatists, was born at Bilbilis, now called Bubiera, a town of the ancient Celtiberia in Spain, which is the kingdom of Arragon. He was born, as is supposed, in the reign of Claudius, and went to Rome when he was about twenty-one. He was sent thither with a view of prosecuting the law; but soon forsook that study, and applied himself to poetry. He excelled so much in the epigrammatic style, that he soon acquired reputation, and was courted by many of the first rank at Rome. Silius Italicus, Stella, and Pliny the younger, were his friends and patrons. Stertinius, a noble Roman, had so great an esteem for his compositions, that he placed > his statue in his library, while he was yet living; and the emperor Verus, who reigned with Antoninus the philosopher, used to call him his Virgil, which was as high an honour as could well be paid to him. We learn also from Pliny and Tacitus, as well as from several passages in his own writings, that he had honours and dignities bestowed upon him by some of the emperors. Domitian, whom it must be confessed he has flattered not a little, made him a Roman knight, and gave him likewise the “Jus trium liberorum,” the privileges of a citizen who had three children. He was also advanced to the tribunate. But though he was so particularly honoured, and had so many great and noble patrons, who admired him for his wit and poetry, it does not appear that he made his fortune among them. There is reason to think that, after the death of Domitian, his credit and interest declined at Rome; and if he had still remaining among the nobles some patrpns, such as Pliny, Cornelius Priscus, &c. yet the emperor Nerva took but little notice of him, and the emperor Trajan none at all. Tired of Rome, therefore, after he had lived in that city about four and thirty years, and grown, as himself tells us, grey-headed, he returned to his own country Bilbilis, where he took a wife, and had the happiness to live with her several years. He admired her much, as one who alone was sufficient to supply the want of every thing he enjoyed at Rome. She appears to have brought him a very large fortune; for, in one of his epigrams he extols the magnificence of the house and gardens he had received from her, and says, “that she had made him a little kind of monarch.” About three years after he had retired into Spain, he inscribed his twelfth book of Epigrams to Priscus, who had been his friend and benefactor; and is supposed to have died about the year 100. As an epigrammatist, Martial is eminently distinguished, and has been followed as a model by all succeeding wits. All his efforts, however, are not equally successful, and many of his epigrams are perhaps unjustly so called, being merely thoughts or sentiments without applicable point. He offends often by gross indelicacy, which was the vice of the times; but his style is in general excellent, and his frequent allusion to persons and customs render his works very interesting to classical antiquaries.

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

, an eminent optician, was born at Worplesdon, in Surrey, in 1704, and began life as a plough-boy at Broad-street, a hamlet belonging to that parish. By some means, however, he contrived to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, so as to be soon enabled to teach them to others. For some time he continued to assist in the farming business, but, as our authority states, “finding that he became a poor husbandman in proportion as he grew a learned one, he prudently forsook what indeed he had no great inclination for,” and having a strong inclination to mathematics and philosophical speculations, now entered upon such a course of reading and study as in some measure supplied the want of a learned education. The historian of Surrey says that he first taught reading and writing at Guildford. It was probably some time after this that a legacy of five hundred pounds bequeathed to him by a relation encouraged his laudable ambition, and after purchasing books, instruments, &c. and acquiring some knowledge of the languages, we find him, in 1735, settled at Chichester, where he taught mathematics, and performed courses of experimental philosophy. At this time he published his first work, “The Philosophical Grammar; being a view of the present state of experimental physiology, or naturaf philosophy, &c.” London, 8vo. When he came up to London we have not been able to discover, but after settling there he read lectures on experimental philosophy for many years, and carried on a very extensive trade as an optician and globe-maker in Fleet-street, till the growing infirmities of old age compelled him to withdraw from the active part of business. Trusting too fatally to what he thought the integrity of others, he unfortunately, though with a capital more than sufficient to pay all his debts, became a bankrupt. The unhappy old man, in a moment of desperation from this unexpected stroke, attempted to destroy himself; and the wound, though not immediately mortal, hastened his death, which happened Feb. 9th, 1782, at seventy-eight years of age.

He had a valuable collection of fossils and curiosities of every species, which after his death were almost given away by public auction. He was indefatigable as an artist, and as a writer he had a very happy method of explaining his subject, and wrote with clearness, and even considerable elegance. He was chiefly eminent in the science of optics; but he was well skilled in the whole circle of the mathematical and philosophical sciences, and wrote useful books on every one of them; though he was not distinguished by any remarkable inventions or discoveries of his own. His publications were very numerous, and generally useful some of the principal of them were as follow 1 “The Philosophical Grammar,” already mentioned. 2. “A new, complete, and universal system or body of Decimal Arithmetic,” 1735, 8vo. 3. “The young student’s Memorial Book, or Patent Library,” 1735, 8vo. 4. “Description and use of both the Globes, the Armillary Sphere and Orrery,” 1736, 2 vols, 8vo. 5. “Elements of Geometry,” 1739, 8vo. 6. “Memoirs of the Academy of Paris,” 1740, 5 vols. 8vo. 7. “Panegyric of the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1754. 8. “On the new construction of the Globes,” 1755. 9. “System of the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1759, 3 vols. 8vo. 10. “New Elements of Optics,” 1759. 11. “Mathematical Institutions, viz. arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and fluxions,” 1759. 12. “Natural History of England, with a map of each county,” 1759, 2 vols. 8vo. 13. “Philology and Philosophical Geography,” 1759. 14. “Mathematical Institutions,” 1764, 2 vols. 15. “Biographia Philosophica, or Lives of Philosophers,” 1764, 8vo. 16. “Introduction to the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1765. 17. “Institutions of Astronomical Calculations,” two parts, 1765. 18. “Description and use of the Air Pump,” 1766. 19. “Description of the Torricellian Barometer,” 1766. 20. “Appendix to the Description and Use of the Globes,” 1766. 21. “Philosophia Britannica,” 1778, 3 vols. 22. “Philosophical Magazine.” This when complete consists of 14 volumes, but there are parts sold separately, as “The Miscellaneous Correspondence,” 4 vols. It was discontinued for want of encouragement, which, however, it appears to have deserved, as it afforded a very correct state of scientific knowledge at that time.

, a learned Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at Tanjaux in Upper Languedoc, in 1694, and became a Benedictine in 1709. After having taught the learned languages in his native province, he removed to the capital in 1727. He was there regarded as a man of a singular and violent temper; rather whimsical as a scholar, and not always sufficiently prudent or modest as a writer; yet he was one of the ablest authors produced by the congregation of St. Maur, and would have been excellent had he met with any judicious friend to correct the sallies of his too active imagination. His latter years were much embittered by the gravel and the gout, under the torments of which complaints he suffered, with great piety, a kind of lingering death, which did not dismiss him from his sufferings till 1751, when he was in his seventieth year. He wrote, 1. “A treatise on the Religion of the ancient Gauls,” Paris, 1727, 2 vols. 4to. This book is much esteemed for the curious and learned researches of the author; but contains some uncommon opinions, which have not been generally adopted by his readers. One point which he particularly labours, is to derive the religion of the ancient Gauls from that of the patriarchs. Tbis subject has been more successfully handled lately by Mr. Maurice, with the aid of oriental knowledge. 2. “History of the Gauls, &c. from their origin to the foundation of the French monarchy,” 1754, 2 vols. 4to, continued and published by his nephew de Brezillac, and much esteemed. 3. “An Explication of several difficult Texts of Scripture,” Paris, 1730, 2 vols. 4to. The fire, the ingenuity, and the presumption of the author, are sufficiently manifest in this book; which would be much more valuable if deprived of several discussions and citations about trifles, and some points by no means suited to a book of divinity. 4. “An Explanation of ancient Monuments, &c. wiih an examination of an edition of St. Jerom, and a treatise on Judicial Astrology,” Paris, 173u, 4to. Besides a vast scope of erudition, this book is adorned by many lively traits, and a very animated style. 5. “A Project for an Alphabetical Library,” containing much learning, and many misplaced witticisms. 6. “A Translation of -the Confessions of St. Augustin,” which is exact, and is accompanied with judicious notes.

, an eminent civilian, the son of Thomas Martin, was born at Cerne, in Dorsetshire, and educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1539. He applied himself chiefly to the canon and civil law, which he likewise studied at Bourges, and was admitted doctor. On entering upon practice in Doctors’ Commons, he resigned his fellowship; and in 1555, being incorporated LL. D. at Oxford, he was made chancellor of the diocese of Winchester. This he owed to the recommendation of bishop Gardiner, who had a great opinion of his zeal and abilities, and no doubt very justly, as he found him a ready and useful assistant in the persecution of the protestants in queen Mary’s time. Among other instances, he was joined in commission with Story in the trial of archbishop Cranmer at Oxford. His proceedings on that occasion may be seen in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments” under the years 1555 and 1556. His conduct probably was not very grosser tyrannical, as, although he was deprived of his offices in Elizabeth’s reign, he was allowed quietly to retire with his family to Ilfield in Sussex, where he continued in privacy until his death in 1584. He wrote two works against the marriage of priests; but that which chiefly entitles him to some notice here, was his Latin “Life of William of Wykeham,” the munificent founder of New college, the ms. of which is in the library of that college. It was first published in 1597, 4to, and reprinted, without any correction or improvement, by Dr. Nicholas, warden of Winchester, in 1690, who does not seem to have been aware how much more might be recovered of Wykeham, as Dr. Lowth has proved. This excellent biographer says that Martin seems not so much to have wanted diligence in collecting proper materials, as care and judgment in digesting and composing them. But it is unnecessary to say much of what is now rendered useless by Dr. Lowth’s work. Dr. Martin bequeathed, or gave in his life-time, several valuable books to New college library.

Objections.—" First, my mind and inclinations are wholly to Cambridge, having already found by experience that I can never settle to my present employment. 2. I was always designed for Cambridge by my father, and I believe am the only instance in the world that ever went to school so long to be a lawyer’s clerk. 3. 1 always wished that I might lead a private retired life, which can never happen if I be an attorney but on the contrary, I must have the care and concern of several people’s business besides mine own, &c. 4. If I be a lawyer, the will of the dead can never be fulfilled, viz. of my sister Elizabeth, who left 10l. to enter me at college; and aunt Burrough, to whom I have promised (at her earnest request) that I never would be a lawyer; nay, my brother himself had promised her I never should. 5. It was always counted ruination for young persons to be brought up at home, and I'm sure there’s no worse town under the sun for breeding or conversation than this. 6. Though I should serve my time out with my brother, I should never fancy the study of the law, having got a taste of a more noble and pleasant study. Questions. But perhaps these questions may be asked me, to which I shall answer as follows: Why I came to my brother at all? and have absented myself thus long from school? Or why I have not spoke my mind before this time? Answers. 1. Though I am with my brother, it was none of my desire (having always confessed an aversion to his employment), but was almost forced to it by the persuasion of a great many, ringing it in my ears that this was the gainfullest employment, &c. 2. Though I have lost some time in school learning, I have read a great deal of history, poetry, &c. which might have taken up. as much time at Cambridge had 1 kept at school. 3. I have staid thus long, thinking continual use might have made it easy to me; but the longer I stay, the worse I like it.

He was, however, by some means or other, kept from executing his favourite plan of going to Cambridge. In 1722 be still probably resided at Thetford; for, having married Sarah the widow of Mr. Thomas Hopley, and daughter of Mr. John Tyrrel, of Thetford, his first child was born there that year; in 1723 his second was born at Palgrave in Suffolk, as were the rest. This wife bore him, eight children, and died Nov. 15, 1731, ten days after she had been delivered of twins. He very soon, however, repaired this loss, by marrying Frances, the widow of Peter le Neve, Norroy king at arms, who had not long been dead, and to whom he was executor. By this lady he came into the possession of a very valuable collection of English antiquities, pictures, &c. She bore him also about as many children as his former wife (four of whom, as well as five of the others, arrived at manhood), and died, we believe, before him. He died March 7, 1771, and was buried, with others of his family, in Palgrave church-porch, where no epitaph as yet records the name of that man who has so industriously preserved those of others , though Mr. Ives had promised his friends that he would erect a monument for him, and had actually drawn up a plain inscription for it.

Mr. Martin’s collection of antiquities, particularly of such as relate to Suffolk, was very considerable, greater than probably ever were before, or will be hereafter, in the possession of an individual; their fragments have enriched several private libraries. His distresses obliged him to dispose of many of his books, with his manuscript notes on them, to Mr. T. Payne, in his life-time, 1769. A catalogue of his library was printed after his death at Lynn, in 1771, in octavo, in hopes of disposing of the whole at once. Mr. Worth, above mentioned, purchased the rest, with all his other collections, for six hundred pounds. The printed books he immediately sold to Booth and Berry of Norwich, who disposed of them by a catalogue, 1773. The pictures and lesser curiosities Mr. Worth sold by auction at Diss; part of his manuscripts in London, in April 1773, by Mr. Samuel Baker; and by a second sale there, in May 1774, manuscripts, scarce books, deeds, grants, pedigrees, drawings, prints, coins, and curiosities.

, known all over Europe by the name of Padre Martini, was born at Bologna in 1706, and entered into the order of the friars minor, as offering him the best opportunities for indulging his taste for music, which he cultivated with so much success as to be regarded, during the last fifty years of his life, as the most profound harmonist, and the best acquainted with the history and progress of the art and science of music in Italy. All the great masters of his time were ambitious of becoming his disciples, and proud of his approbation; and young professors within his reach never thought themselves, or were thought by others, sufficiently skilled in counterpoint, till they had received lessons from this deep theorist, and most intelligent and communicative instructor.

At the close of this year the Professorship of Botany at Cambridge becoming vacant, by the death of Mr. Bradley, all eyes were directed towards Mr. Marty n as the properest person for this situation; and, after some slight opposition to him as a nonjuror, which he removed, by taking the requisite oaths, he was unanimously elected Feb. 8, 1733. In two or three years, however, after obtaining the appointment, he finally ceased to lecture, from want of encouragement, and especially the want of a botanic garden, at Cambridge. There had been hopes of the latter being established in 1731, through the liberality and zeal of a Mr. Brownell of Willingham; but the scheme fell to the ground, nor was it revived with effect till many years afterwards.

, recorder of Exeter, was born in that city in 1562, and educated in the grammar school, whence he was sent to Broadgates-hall, now Pembroke college, Oxford, in 1579. Here he is supposed to have taken one degree in arts, and then removed to some of the inns of court in London to study law. In 1605, he was elected reeofder of his native city, where he died April 12, 1617. He is noticed here as the author of a history or chronicle of the kings of England, entitled “The History and Lives of the Kings of England, from William the Conqueror to King Henry VIII.” Lond. 1616, folio, reprinted in 1618, an amusing, and not ill-written work, taken principally from the Chronicles. An appendix was published in 1638, by B. R M. A. including the history of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth. It is said that king James took offence at some passages in Mr. Martyn’s work respecting his own family or the Scottish nation, and that the author was brought into some trouble. Of what kind this trouble was we are not told, but that it preyed on his mind, and hastened his death. Mr. Martyn also published a book for the use of one of his sons, entitled “Youth’s Instruction,” Lond. 1612, 'Jto, which Wood saysj shows a great deal of reading. His family appears to have been somewhat poetical, as his history was preluded by copies (if verses by his three sons, and his son-in-law. 1 Ma&Tyr, Justin, see Justin. Martyr, Peter. See Anghiera. Martyr (Peter), a very distinguished divine, was born at Florence, Sept. 8, 1500. His family name was VermiliUs; but his parents gave him that of Marty*, from one Peter a martyr, whose church happened to stand near their house. The first rudiments of literature he received from his mother, who was a very ingenious lady; and used, as it is said, to read Terence and other classics to him in the original. When he was grown up, he became a regular Augustine in the monastery of Fiesoli; and, after three years’ stay there, was sent to the university of Padua, to study philosophy and the Greek language. At twenty-six, in 1526, he was made a public preacher, and preached first at Brixia, in the church of Afra, then at Rome, Venice, Mantua, and other cities of Italy. He read lectures of philosophy and divinity in his college, and applied himself to the study of the Hebrew tongue, the knowledge of which he attained by the assistance of one Isaac, a Jewish physician. Such was his fame at this time, that he was made abbot of Spoletto, in the duchy of Umbria, where he continued three years. Afterwards, he was made go1 Prince’s Worthies 6f Devon. Fuller’s Worthies. Ath. Ox. vol I. vernor of the monastery of St. Peter ad aram in Naples. Here he first became acquainted with the writings of Zuinglius and Bucer, which led him to entertain a good opinion of protestantism: and afterwards his conversation with Valdes, a Spanish lawyer, so confirmed him in it, that he made no scruple to preach it at Rome privately to many persons of quality, and sometimes even publicly. Thus when he came to I Cor. iii. 13, he boldly affirmed, that place not to be meant of purgatory “because,” said he, “the fire there spoken of is such a fire, as both good and bad must pass through and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” “And this,” says Fuller, in his quaint manner, “seeming to shake a main pillar of purgatory, the pope’s furnace, the fire whereof, like the philosopher’s stone, melteth all his leaden bulls into pure gold; some of his under-chemists, like Demetrius and the craftsmen, began to bestir themselves, and caused him to be silenced.”