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

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

We have mentioned that Peter Martyr’s wife died at Oxford, in 1551, and was buried in the cathedral of Christ church. Here her remains quietly reposed until 1556, when cardinal Pole appointed a set of commissioners to reform the university of Oxford, from all remains of the new religion, or heresy, as it was called. In the discharge of their functions, they were ordered to take into their consideration the manners and life “of one Catherine Cathie, or Dampmartin, the late wife of Dr. Peter Martyr, who died about four years ago, and was buried in the cathedral of Christ church, near to the reliques of St. Frideswyde.” They accordingly summoned several persons of her acquaintance, “to the end that if they could find any thing of her, favouring of heresy, they might take up her body and commit it to the fire” but, as these witnesses pretended they did not understand her language, and therefore could not tell what religion she professed, they informed the cardinal of their progress, who immediately wrote to Dr. Marshall, the dean, a letter, which by no means exhibits Pole as a man possessed of that greatness of mind which his late biographers have attributed to him. He tells the dean that “forasmuch as Catherine Cathie, of detestable memory, who had professed herself the legitimate wife of Peter Martyr, a heretic, though he and she had before marriage entered into solemn vows of religion, and that she had lived with him in Oxford in cursed fornication, when he denied the truth of the Sacrament, and that also after her death she was buried near the sepulchre of that religious virgin St. Frideswyde; he should according to his discretion deal so with her carcass that it should be far enough cast from ecclesiastical sepulture.” Melchior Adam imputes this conduct on the part of the cardinal, to a motive of resentment, which he had conceived against Peter Martyr. The cardinal had formerly been his most intimate friend, and even continued to appear so, after Martyr had expressed his disgust at the errors and superstitions of Rome; but when Martyr left Italy, he became his most inveterate enemy, and exercised that indignity, and even cruelty upon the wife, which it was not in his power to shew to the husband.

, a very ingenious and witty English writer, was the son of Mr. Andrew Marvel!, minister and schoolmaster of Kingston upon -Hull, in Yorkshire, and was born in that town in 1620, His abilities being very great, his progress in letters was proportionable; so that, at thirteen, he was admitted of Trinity-college in Cambridge. But he had not been long there, when he fell into the hands of the Jesuits; for those busy agents of the Romish church, under the connivance of this, as well as the preceding reign, spared no pains to make proselytes; for which purpose several of them were planted in or near the universities, in order to make conquests among the young scholars. Marvell fell into their snares, as ChilJingworth had fallen before him, and was inveigled up to London; but his father being apprised of it soon after, pursued him, and finding him in a bookseller’s shop, prevailed with him to return to college. He afterwards applied to his studies with great assiduity, and took a bachelor of arts degree in 1639. About this time he lost his father, who was unfortunately drowned in crossing the Humber, as he was attending the daughter of aa intimate female friend; who by this event becoming childless, sent for young Marvell, and, by way of making all the return in her power, added considerably to his fortune. Upon this the plan of his education was enlarged, and he travelled through most of the polite parts of Europe. It appears that he had been at Rome, from his poem entitled “Flecknoe,” an English priest at Rome in which he has described with great humour that wretched poetaster, Mr. Richard Flecknoe, from whom Dryden gave the name of Mac- Flecknoe to his satire against Shadwell. During his travels, another occasion happened for the exercise of his wit. In France, he found much talk of Lancelot Joseph de Maniban, an abbot; who pretended to understand the characters of those he had never seen, and to prognosticate their good or bad fortune, from an inspection of their band-writing. This artist was handsomely lashed by our author, in a poem written upon the spot, and addressed to him. We know no more of Marvell for several years, only that he spent some time at Constantinople, where he resided as secretary to the English embassy at that court.

The first attack he made with his pen was in 1672, upon Dr. Parker, a man of parts and learning, but a furious partizan, and virulent writer on the side of arbitrary government, who at this time published “Bishop Bramhall’s Vindication of himself, and the rest of the episcopal clergy, from the presbyterian charge of popery, &c.” to which he added a preface of his own. This preface Marvell attacked, in a piece called “The Rehearsal transprosed; or, animadversions on a late book, intituled, A preface, shewing what grounds there are of fears and jealousies of Popery, the second impression, with additions and amendments. London, printed by J. D. for the assigns of John Calvin and Theodore Beza, at the sign of the king’s indulgence, on the south side of the Lake Leman; and sold by N. Ponder in Chancery-lane,” 1672,“in 8vo. The title of this piece is taken in part from the duke of Buckingham’s comedy, called” The Rehearsal;“and, as Dryden is ridiculed in that play under the name of Bayes, Marvell borrowed the same name for Parker, whom he exposed with much strength of argument, and force of humour. Parker answered Marvell in a letter entitled” A Reproof to the Rehearsal transprosed;“to which Marvell replied in,” The Rehearsal transprosed, the second part. Occasioned by two letters: the first printed by a nameless author, entitled A Reproof, &c. the second left for me at a friend’s house, dated Nov. 3, 1673, subscribed J. G. and concluding with these words: If thou darest to print any lie or libel against Dr. Parker, by the eternal God I will cut thy throat. Answered by Andrew Marvell,“Lond. 1673, 8vo. Marveil did not confine himself in these pieces to Parker’s principles, as they appear in the” Preface and the Reproof;“but he exposed and confuted likewise various opinions which the doctor had advanced in his” Ecclesiastical Polity,“published in 1670, and in his” Defence“of it in 167 1. Parker made no reply to Marvell’s last piece:” He judged it more prudent,“says Wood,” to lay down the cudgels, than to enter the lists again with an untowardly combatant, so hugely well versed and experienced in the then but newly refined art, though much in mode and fashion almost ever since, of sporting and buffoonery. It was generally thought, however, by many of those who were otherwise favourers of Parker’s cause, that the victory lay on Marvell’s side; and it wrought this good effect on Parker, that for ever after it took down his high spirit.“Burnet, speaking of Parker, says that,” after he had for some years entertained the nation with several virulent books, he was attacked by the liveliest droll of the age, who wrote in a burlesque strain; but with so peculiar and entertaining a conduct, that from the king down to the tradesman, his books were read with great pleasure. That not only humbled Parker, but the whole party; for the author of the Rehearsal transprosed had all the men of wit on his side.“Swift likewise, speaking of the usual fate of common answerers to books, and how short-lived their labours are, adds, that” there is indeed an exception, when any great genius thinks it worth his while to expose a foolish piece: so we still read MarvelPs answer to Parker with pleasure, though the book it answers be sunk long ago." Several other writers fell with great fury and violence upon Marvell; but Parker being considered as the principal, Marvell took but slight notice of the others.

A few years after, another divine fell under the cognizance of MarvfclPs pen. In 1675, Dr. Herbert Croft, bishop of Hereford, published without his name, a discourse in 4to, entitled, “The Naked Truth; or the true state of the Primitive Church. By an humble Moderator.” This was immediately answered by several persons, and among the rest by Dr. Turner, master of St. John’s-colJege, Cambridge, in a book called “Animadversions upon a late pamphlet, entitled, The Naked Truth,” &c. This animadverter being against moderation, which the author of “Naked Truth” had written his book on purpose to recommend, provoked Marvell to take him to task, in a piece entitled “Mr. Smirke, or the divine in mode; being certain annotations upon the animadversions on The Naked Truth, together with a short historical essay concerning general councils, creeds, and impositions in matters of religion, fiy Andreas Rivetus, junior. Anagrammatised, Res nuda veritas” 1676, 4to. The “Historical Essay” was afterwards printed by itself in folio. The last work of our author, which was published during his life, was “An account of the growth of Popery and arbitrary government in England; more particularly, from the long prorogation of Nov. 1675, ending the 15th of Feb. 1676, till the last meeting of parliament the 16th of July, 1677; _1678,” folio: and reprinted in State tracts in 1689. In this the author, having imputed the Dutch war to the corruption of the court, asserts, that the papists, and particularly the French, were the true springs of all the councils at this time: and these, and other aspersions upon the king and ministry, occasioned the following advertisement to be published in the Gazette: “Whereas there have been lately printed and published several seditious and scandalous libels against the proceedings of both houses of parliament, and other his majesty’s courts of justice, to the dishonour of his majesty’s government, and the hazard of public peace; these are to give notice, that what person soever shall discover unto one of the secretaries of state the printer, publisher, author, or hander to the press, of any of the said libels, so that full evidence may be made thereof to a jury, without mentioning the informer; especially one libel, intituled, An account of the growth of Popery, &c. and another called, A seasonable argument to all the grand juries, &c. the discoverer shall be rewarded as follows: he shall have fifty pounds for such discovery, as aforesaid, of the printer or publisher of it from the press and for the hander of it to the press, \00l. &c.”

Marvell, as we have already observed, by thus opposing the ministry and their measures, created himself many enemies, and made himself very obnoxious to the government: notwithstanding which, Charles II. took great delight in his conversation, and tried all means to win him over to his side, but in vain; nothing being ever able to shake his resolution. There were many instances of his firmness in resisting the offers of the court, in which he showed himself proof against all temptations. The king, having one night entertained him, sent the lord treasurer Danby the next morning to find out his lodgings; which were then up two pair of stairs, in one of the little courts in the Strand. He was busily writing, when the treasurer opened the door abruptly upon him; upon which, surprized at so unexpected a visitor, Marvell told his lordship, “he believed he had mistaken his way” Lord Danby replied, “Not now I have found Mr. Marvell” telling him, that he came with a message from his majesty, which was to know, what his majesty could do to serve him? to which Marvell replied, with his usual facetiousness, that “it was not in his majesty’s power to serve him.” Coming to a serious explanation, our author told the treasurer, “that he knew full well the nature of courts, having been in, many; and that whoever is distinguished by the favour of the prince, is always expected to vote in his interest.” Lord Danby told him, that his majesty, from the just sense he had of his merit alone, desired to know, whether there was any place at court he could be pleased with? To which Marvell replied, “that he could not with honour accept the offer; since, if he did, he must either be ungrateful to the king in voting against him, or false to his country in giving into the measures of the court. The only favour therefore which he begged of his majesty was, that he would esteem him as faithful a subject as any he had, and more truly in his interest by refusing his offers, than he could have been by embracing them.” Lord Danby, finding no arguments would make the least impression, told him, “that the king had ordered him lOOOl. which he hoped he would receive, till he could think of something farther to ask his majesty.” This last offer he rejected with the same steadiness as the first; though, as soon as the treasurer was gone, he was forced to borrow a guinea of a friend.

, one of those learned Greeks who retired into Italy after the Turks had taken Constantinople, where he was born. It is said that it was not his zeal for the Christian religion, but the fear of slavery, which made him abandon his country; but if, according to Tiraboschi, he was brought into Italy in his infancy, this insinuation may be spared. He studied Greek and Latin at Venice, and philosophy at Padua; but for a subsistence was obliged to embrace the profession of arms, and served in the troop of horse under Nicholas Rhalla, a Spartan general. Rejoined the two professions of letters and arms, and would be no less a poet than a soldier: and, as he suspected that it would not be thought any extraordinary thing in him to be able to write Greek verses, he applied himself diligently to the study of Latin poetry, and acquired a good deal of reputation by his success in it. His Latin poems consist of four books of epigrams, and as many of hymns, which were published at Florence in 1197, 4to. He bad begun a poem on the education of a prince, which he did not finish: as much of it, however, as was found among his papers was published along with his epigrams and hymns; and this whole collection has passed through several editions. He appears to have had a poetical mistress, whom he frequently courts under the name of Neraea; but he married Alexandra Scala, a Florentine lady of high accomplishments, and had Politian for his rival, which may account for the contempt with which Politian speaks of his poetry. The critics are divided about his poems, some praising them highly, while others, as the two Scaligers, find great fault with them. Erasmus says, in his “Ciceronianus,” that the poems of Marullus would have been tolerable, if they had savoured less of Paganism: “Marulli pauca legi, tolerabilia si minus haberent paganitatis.” He created himself many enemies by censuring too freely the ancient Latin authors, for which he was equally freely censured by Floridus Sabinns and Politian. The learned men of that time usually rose to fame by translation; but this he despised, either as too mean or too hazardous a task. Varillas, in his “Anecdotes of Florence,” asserts, that Lorenzo de Medici conjured Marullus, by letters still extant, to translate Plutarch’s moral works; but that Marullus had such an aversion to that kind of drudgery, which obliged him, as he said, to become a slave to the sentiments of another, that it was impossible for him to get to the end of the first page. He lost his life in 1499, or 1500, as he was attempting to pass the river Csecina, which runs by Volaterra, in Tuscany. Perceiving that his horse had plunged with his fore feet in such a manner that he could not disengage them again, he fell into a passion, and gave him the spur: but both his horse and himself fell; and, as his leg was engaged under the horse’s belly, there needed but little water to stifle him. Pierius Valerianus, who relates these circumstances, observes, that this poet blasphemed terribly just before his death, and immediately upon his fall discharged a thousand reproaches and curses against heaven. His impiety seems unquestionable; and it is imputed to this turn of mind, that he so much admired Lucretius. He gave a new edition of his poem, which is censured in “Joseph Scaliger’s notes upon Catullus:” and he endeavoured to imitate him. He used to say, that “the rest of the poets were only to be read, but that Virgil and Lucretius were to be got by heart.” Hody, however, has collected a great many honourable testimonies to his merit, from the writings of able and learned critics at or near his time, while be has been equally undervalued by more modern writers.

Towards the end of her father’s reign, at the earnest solicitation of queen Catharine Parr, she undertook to translate Erasmus’s “Paraphrase on the gospel of St. John*' but being cast into sickness, as Udall relates, partly by overmuch study in this work, after she had made some progress therein, she left the rest to be done by Dr. Maliet, her chaplain. This translation is printed in the first volume of” Erasmus’s Paraphrase upon the New Testament,“London, 1548, folio; and before it is a Preface, written by Udall, the celebrated master of Eton-school, and addressed to the queen dowager. This Preface contains some remarks illustrative of the history of the times. Among other things, Udall takes occasion in it to observe to her majesty,” the great number of noble women at that time in England, not only given to the study of human sciences and strange tongues, but also so thoroughly expert in the Holy Scriptures, that they were able to compare with the best writers, as well in enditing and penning of godly and fruitful treatises, to the instruction and edifying of realms in the knowledge of God, as also in translating good books out of Latin or Greek into English, for the use and commodity of such as are rude and ignorant of the said tongues. It was now,“he said,” no news in England, to see young damsels in noble houses, and in the courts of princes, instead of cards, and other instruments of idle trifling, to have continually in their hands either Psalms, Homilies, and other devout meditations, or else Paul’s epistles, or some book of Holy Scripture matters, and as familiarly both to read or reason thereof in Greek, Latin, French, or Italian, as in English. It was now a common thing to see young virgins so trained in the study of good letters, that they willingly set all other vain pastimes at nought for learning’s sake. It was now no news at all, to see queens and ladies of most high estate and progeny, instead of courtly dalliance, to embrace virtuous exercises of reading and writing, and with most earnest study, both early and late, to apply themselves to the acquiring of knowledge, as well in all other liberal arts and disciplines, as also most especially of God and his holy word. And in this behalf,“says he,” like as to your highness, as well for composing and setting forth many godly Psalms, and divers other contemplative meditations, as also for causing these paraphrases to be translated into our vulgar tongue, England can never be able to render thanks sufficient; so may it never be able, as her deserts require, enough to praise and magnify the most noble, the most virtuous, the most witty, and the most studious lady Mary’s grace, for taking such pain and travail in translating this paraphrase of Erasmus upon the gospel of St. John. What could be a more plain declaration of her most constant purpose to promote God’s word, and the free grace of his gospel“&c. Udall, however, was mistaken; as she never entertained any such purpose; for, soon after her accession to the throne, a proclamation was issued for calling in and suppressing this very book, and all others that had the least tendency towards furthering the Reformation. And Walpole is of opinion, that the sickness which came upon her while she was translating St. John, was all affected;” for,“says he,” she would not so easily have been cast into sickness, had she been employed on the Legends of St. Teresa, or St. Catharine of Sienna."

King Edward her brother dying the 6th of July, 1553, she was proclaimed queen the same month, and crowned in October, by Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester. In July 1754, she was married to Philip prince of Spain, eldest son of the emperor Charles the Fifth; and now began that persecution against the Protestants, for which her reign is so justly infamous. Until her marriage with that tyrant, she appears to have been merciful and humane, for Holinshed tells us, that when she appointed sir Richard Morgan chief justice of the Common Pleas, she told him, “that notwithstanding the old error, which did not admit any witness to speak, or any other matter to be heard, (her majesty being party,) her pleasure was, that whatsoever could be brought in favour of the subject should be admitted to be heard; and moreover, that the justices should not persuade themselves to put in judgment otherwise for her highness than for her subject.” Hence some have carried their good opinion of her so far, as to suppose that most of those barbarities were transacted by her bishops, without her knowledge or privity; but as this was impossible, it would be a better defence, if she must be defended, to plead that a strict adherence to a false religion, and a conscientious observance of its pernicious and cruel dictates, overruled and got the better of that goodness of temper, which was natural to her. Yet neither this can be reasonably admitted when we consider her unkind and inhuman treatment of her sister, the lady Elizabeth; her admitting a council for the taking up and burning of her father’s body; her most ungrateful and perfidious breach of promise with the Suffolk men; her ungenerous and barbarous treatment of judge Hales, who had strenuously defended her right of succession to the crown; and of archbishop Cranmer, who in reality had saved her life. These actions were entirely her own; her treatment of Cranmer becomes aggravated by the obligations she had been under to him. Burnet says, “that her firm adherence to her mother’s cause and interest, and her backwardness in submitting to the king her father, were thought crimes of such a nature by his majesty, that he came to a resolution, to put her openly to death; and that, when all others were unwilling to run any risk in saving her, Cranmer alone ventured upon it. In his gentle way he told the king, That she was young and indiscreet, and therefore it was no wonder if she obstinately adhered to that which her mother and all about her had been infusing into her for many years; but that it would appear strange, if he should for this cause so far forget the father, as to proceed to extremities with his own child; that, if she were separated from her mother and her people, in a little time there might be ground gained on her; but that to take away her life, would raise horror through all Europe against him;” by which means he preserved her. Queen Catharine, hearing of the king’s bloody intention, wrote a long letter to her daughter, in which she encouraged her to suffer cheerfully, to trust to God, and keep her heart clean. She charged her in all things to obey the king’s commands, except in the matters of religion. She sent her two Latin books; the one, “De vita Christi, with the Declaration of the Gospels;” the other, “St. Jerome’s Episles to Paula and Eustochium.” This letter of Catharine may be seen in the Appendix to Burnet’s second volume of the “History of the Reformation.” She fell a sacrifice, however, at last to disappointed expectations, both of a public and domestic kind, and especially the absence and unkindness of Philip; which are supposed, by deeply affecting her spirits, to have brought on that fever of which she died, Nov. 7, 1558, after a reign of five years, four months, and eleven days. “It is not necessary,” says Hume, “to employ many words in drawing the character of this princess. She possessed few qualities either estimable or amiable, and her person was as little engaging, as her behaviour and address. Obstinacy, bigotry, violence, cruelty, malignity, revenge, tyranny; every circumstance of her character took a tincture from her bad temper and narrow understanding. And amidst that complication of vices, which entered into her composition, we shall scarcely find any virtue but sincerity; a quality which she seems to have maintained throughout her whole life; except in the beginning of her reign, when the necessity of her affairs obliged her to make some promises to the Protestants which she certainly never intended to perform. But in these cases a weak bigoted woman, under the government of priests, easily finds casuistry sufficient to justify to herself the violation of a promise. She appears also, as well as her father, to have been susceptible of some attachments of friendship; and even without the caprice and inconstancy which were so remarkable in the conduct of that monarch. To which we may add, that in many circumstances of her life she gave indications of resolution and vigour of mind, a quality which seems to have been inherent in her family.”

There are some of her writings still extant, Strype has preserved three prayers or meditations of her composition the first, “Against the assaults of vice” the second, “A Meditation touching adversity;” the third, “A prayer to be read at the hour cf death.” In Fox’s “Acts and Monuments” are printed eight of her letters to king Edvvard and the lords of the council, on her nonconformity, and on the imprisonment of her chaplain Dr. Mallet. In the “Sylloge epistolarum,” are several more of her letters, extremely curious: one on the subject of her delicacy in never having written but to three men; one of affection for her sister; one after the death of Anne Boleyn; and one very remarkable of Cromwell to her. In “Haynes’s State papers,” are two in Spanish, to the emperor Charles the Fifth. There is also a French letter, printed by Strype from the “Cotton library,” in answer to a haughty mandate from Philip, when he had a mind to marry the lady Elizabeth to the duke of Savoy, against the queen and princess’s inclination: it is written in a most abject manner, and a wretched style. Bishop Tanner ascribes to her “A History of her own life and death,” and “An Account of Martyrs in her reign,” dated 1682; but this is manifestly an error.

All these accomplishments, added to a fine person, rendered her so amiable to Henry II. of France and his queen, as to make them desirous of marrying her to the dauphin, which was accordingly arranged: and the nuptials were solemnized the 20th of April, 1558. But this happy marriage, for such it seems to have been, lasted only a little while; as Francis II. as he then was, died Dec. 5, 1560. His disconsolate queen, being left without issue, returned soon after to Scotland; where she had not been long, before Charles archduke of Austria was proposed to her as an husband, by the cardinal of Lorrain. But queen Elizabeth interposed, and desired she would not marry with any foreign prince, but make choice of an husband out of her own nobility. She recommended to her either the earl of Leicester, or the lord Dandy; giving her to understand, that her succession to the crown of England would be very pred&rious, if she did not comply. Being thus overawed by Elizabeth, and not a little pleased with lord Darnly, who was extremely handsome, she consented to marry him; and creating him earl of Ross and duke of Rothesay, July 28, 1565, he was the same day proclaimed king at Edinburgh, and married to the queen the day after. By this husband she had one son, born at Edinburgh, June 19, 1566, who was afterwards James the Sixth of Scotland, and the First of England. Queen Elizabeth congratulated her upon this occasion; though, as Camden says, she inwardly grieved at being prevented by her rival in the honour of being a mother. She openly favoured her title to the succession; and the prince was commended to her majesty’s protection.

Having been detained a prisoner at Lochleven eleven months, and forced to comply with many demands which she conceived to be highly detrimental to her honour and interest, she escaped thence on May 2, 1568, to Hamiltoncastle. Here, in an assembly of many of the nobility, a declaration was drawn up, stating that the grants extorted from her majesty in prison, among which was a resignation of the crown, were actually void from the beginning: upon which such numbersof people came in to her assistance, that, within two or three days, she acquired an army of at least 6000. On the other side, Murray, with great expedition, made preparation to attack the queen’s forces before they became too formidable; and, when they joined battle, her majesty’s army consisting of raw soldiers, was soon defeated, and she obliged to save herself by flight, travelling in one day sixty miles, to the house of Maxwell lord Herris. Thence she dispatched a messenger to queen Elizabeth with a diamond, which she had formerly received from her, as a pledge of mutual amity; signifying, that she would come into England, and beg her assistance, if her rebellious subjects continued to persecute her any further. Elizabeth returned her a very kind answer, with large but not very sincere promises of doing her the most friendly offices. Before the messenger came back, she, rejecting the advice of her friends, found means to convey herself into England, landing, May 17, at Workington, in Cumberland; and on the same day wrote letters in French, with her own hand, to queen Elizabeth, in which she gave her a long detail of her misfortunes, desiring her protection and aid against her rebellious subjects. Elizabeth affected to comfort her; promised to protect her according to the equity of her cause; and, under pretence of greater security, commanded that she should be carried to Carlisle. The unfortunate queen of Scots began now to perceive her own error, in not following the advice of her friends. England, instead of being a sanctuary, was perhaps the worst place she could have visited: for, being denied access to queen Elizabeth from the first, and tossed from one prison to another for the space of about eighteen years, in which she had often struggled for liberty, she was at length brought to trial, condemned, and beheaded, for being concerned in a conspiracy against the life of queen Elizabeth. She professed to die for the Romish religion, and has since been considered as a saint by that church. She was executed within the castle of Fotheringay, on Feb. 8, 1587, and interred, some time after, in the cathedral of Peterborough; but her remains were taken up afterwards by her son, and removed to a vault in Henry the Vllth’s chapel in Westminster-abbey, where a most magnificent monument was erected to her memory.

, queen of England, and wife of William III. with whom she reigned jointly, was born at the royal palace of St. James’s, Westminster, the 30th of April, 1662. She was the daughter of James the Second, by a daughter of lord Clarendon, whom that prince married secretly, during the exile of the royal family. She proved a lady of most uncommon qualities: she had beauty, wit, good-nature, virtue, and piety, all in an eminent degree; and she shone superior to all about her, as well at the ball and the masque, as in the presence and the drawing-room. When she was fifteen, William prince of Orange, and afterwards king of England, made his addresses to her in person, and married her. Many suppose that the prince was so sagacious as to foresee all which afterwards came to pass; as that Charles II. would leave no children; that the duke of York, when he came to the throne, would, through his bigoted attachment to popery, be unable to keep possession of it; and that himself, having married the eldest daughter of England, would naturally be recurred to, as its preserver and deliverer in such a time of danger. If he had really any motives of policy, he had art enough to conceal them; for, having communicated his intentions to sir William Temple, then ambassador at the Hague, he frankly expressed his whole sentiments of marriage in the following terms; namely, that “the greatest things he considered were the person and disposition of the young lady; for, though it would not pass in the world for a prince to seem concerned in those particulars, yet for himself without affectation he declared that he was so, and in such a degree, tljat no circumstances of fortune or interest could engage him, without those of the person, especially those of humour or disposition: that he might, perhaps, be not very easy for a wife to live with; he was sure he should not be so to such wives as were generallj 7 in the courts of this age; that if he should meet with one to give him trouble at home, it was what he should not be able to bear, who was likely to have enough abroad in the course of his life; and that, after the manner he was resolved to live with a wife, which should be the best he could, he would have one that he thought likely to live well with him, which he thought chiefly depended upon their disposition and education.”

They were married at St. James’s, Nov. 4, 1677; and, after receiving the proper congratulations from those who were concerned to pay them, embarked for Holland about a fortnight after, and made their entrance into the Hague with the utmost pomp and magnificence. Here she lived with her consort, practising every virtue and every duty; till, upon a solemn invitation from the states of England, she followed him thither, and arrived at Whitehall, Feb. 12, 1689. The prince of Orange had arrived Nov. 5 preceding; and the occasion of their coming was to deliver the kingdom from that popery and slavery which were just ready to oppress it. King James abdicated the crown; and it was put on their heads, as next heirs, April 11, 1689. They reigned jointly till Dec. 28, 1694, when the queen died of the small-pox at her palace of Kensington. It would lead to an excursion of too much extent, to describe the many virtues and excellences of this amiable princess; a picture of her, however, may be seen in Burnet’s Essay on her memory, printed in 1695, which contains a delineation of every female virtue, and of every female grace. He represents her saying, that she looked upon idleness as the great corrupter of human nature, and as believing, that if the mind had no employment given it, it would create some of the worst to itself: and she thought that any thing which might amuse and divert, without leaving a dreg and impression behind it, ought to fill up those vacant hours that were not claimed by devotion or business. When her eyes, adds the bishop, were endangered by reading too much, she found out the amusement of work; and in all those hours that were not given to better employments, she wrought with her own hands, and that sometimes with so constant a diligence, as if she had been to earn her bread by it. It is said by another writer, that when reflections were once made before queen Mary of the sharpness of some historians who had left heavy imputations on the memory of certain princes, she answered, “that if these princes were truly such as the historians represented them, they had well deserved that treatment and others who tread their steps might look for the same for truth would be told at last.” This excellent princess was so composed upon her deathbed, that when archbishop Tillotson, who assisted her in her last moments, stopped, with tears in his eyes, on coming to the commendatory prayer in the office for the sick, she said to him, “My lord, why do you not go on? I am not afraid to die.”

, or Tomaso Da San Giovanni, an eminent artist, was born at St. Giovanni di Valdarno, in 1401, and was the disciple of Masolino da Panicale; but he proved as much superior to his master, as his master was superior to all his contemporaries: and is accounted the principal artist of the second or middle age of modern painting, from its revival under Cimabue. His genius was very extensive, his invention ready, and his manner of design had unusual truth and elegance. He considered painting as the art of representing nature with truth, by the aid of design and colouring: and therefore he made nature his most constant study, till he excelled in a perfect imitation of it. He is accounted the first who, from judicious observations, removed the difficulties that impeded the study and the knowledge of the art, by setting the artists an example in his own works, of that beauty which arises from a proper and agreeable choice of attitudes and motions, and likewise from such a spirit, boldness, and relief, as appears truly just and natural. He was the first among the painters who studied to give the draperies of his figures more dignity, by omitting the multitude of small folds, so customarily practised by the preceding artists, and by designing them with greater breadth and fulness. He was also the first who endeavoured to adapt the colour of his draperies to the tint of his carnations, so as to make the one harmonize with the other. He was uncommonly ^killed in perspective, which he had learned from P. Brujielleschi. His works procured him universal approbation: but the very same merit which promoted his fame, excited envy; and he died, to the regret of every lover of the art, not without strong suspicions of having been poisoned. Most writers agree that this event happened in 1443, but Sandrart fixes his death in 1446. Fuseli says, “Masaccio was a genius, and the head of an epoch in the art. He may be considered as the precursor of Raphael, who imitated his principles, and sometimes transcribed his figures. He had seen what could be seen of the antique, at his time at Rome: but his most perfect work are the frescoes of S, Pietro al Carmine at Florence; where vigour of conception, truth and vivacity of expression, correctness of design, and breadth of manner, are supported by truth and surprising harmony of colour.”

, a French abbé, rather an author by profession than by genius, was born in 1697, at Caen. His works were chiefly formed upon the labours of others, either by translating them, or by working up the materials into a new form. He died at Paris in 1760, at the age of sixty-three. His publications were, l.“A Description of Egypt, from the Memoirs of M. Maillet,” 1735, 4to. This work is fundamentally good, and contains judicious remarks, and curious anecdotes, but the style would be improved by the retrenchment of many affectations and other faults. 2. “An Idea of the ancient and modern Government of Egypt,” 1745, 12mo; a work of less research than the foregoing. 3. “A translation of Caesar’s Commentaries,” 1755, 12mo. 4. “Christian Reflections on the great truths of Faith,” 1757, 12mo. 5. “History of the last Revolution in the East Indies” a work that is curious, but not quite exact. 6. “Lommius’s Table of Diseases,” 1760, 12mo.- He was concerned also in the great work on religious ceremonies, published by Picart, and in the translation of de Thou’s History. 7. A translation of the Epigrams of Martial, 2 vols. 12mo. He published besides, editions of several works: as, of the Memoirs of the marquis de Fouquieres; of Pelisson’s History of Louis XIV. and some papers of de Maillet, under the name of Telliamed, which is de Maillet reversed. He generally published through necessity, and the subjects varied according to the probability of advantage.

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

, a lady distinguished by her piety and extraordinary accomplishments, was the daughter of Dr. Ralph Cudworth, and born at Cambridge on the 18th of January, 1658. Her father, perceiving the bent of her genius, took such particular care of her education, that she quickly became remarkable for her uncommon learning and piety. She was the second wife of sir Francis Masham, of Gates in the county of Essex, bart. by whom she had an only son, the late Francis Cudworth Masham, esq. one of the masters in chancery, accomptant-general of that court, and foreign opposer in the court of exchequer. She was well skilled in arithmetic, geography, chronology, history, philosophy, and divinity; and owed a great part of her improvement to the care of the famous Mr. Locke, who lived many years in her family, and at length died in her house at Gates; and whom she treated with the utmost generosity and respect. She wrote “A Discourse concerning the Love of God,” published at London in 1696; and “Gccasional Thoughts in reference to a virtuous and Christian Life.” This amiable lady died in 1708, and was interred in the cathedral church of Bath, where a monument is erected to her memory, with the following inscription “Near this place lies Dame Damans Masham, daughter of Ralph Cudworth, D. D. and second wife of sir Francis Masham, of Gates, in the county of Essex, bart. who, to the softness and elegancy of her own sex, added several of the noblest accomplishments and qualities of the other. She possessed these advantages in a great degree unusual to either, and tempered them with an exactness peculiar to herself. Her learning, judgment, sagacity, and penetration, together with her candour and love of truth, were very observable to all that conversed with her, or were acquainted with those small treatises she published in her life-time, though she industriously concealed her name. Being mother of an only son, she applied all her natural and acquired endowments to the care of his education. She was a strict observer of all the virtues belonging to every station of life, and only wanted opportunities to make those talents shine in the world, which were the admiration of her friends. She was born on the 18th of January, 1658, and died on the 20th of April, 1708.”

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

In 1764, the office of astronomer-royal becoming vacant by the death of Mr. Bliss, Dr. Maskelyne’s celebrity immediately pointed him out as the most competent person to fill the situation, and to carry into effect the purpose for which the royal observatory haid been established, that o preparing tables for finding the longitude at sea. Accordingly, his appointment to it, which was announced in the London Gazette, Feb 16, 1765, gave universal satisfaction. During the long period of Dr. Maskelyne’s official services, his time may be considered as chiefly occupied either at the observatory, the board of longitude, or the royal society; and his biography, therefore, like that of most other scientific men, consists chiefly in a history of his labours. ­Soon after his appointment he laid belor^he board of longitude the plan of an annual publication, to be entitled the “Nautical Almanac, and Astronomical Ephemeris.” The first volume was for 1767 and it has been continued under his direction, up to the present time, making in the whole fifty volumes a lasting monument of labour and profound learning. It is universally allowed to be the most useful work on practical astronomy ever published. In such high estimation has it been held by foreign astronomers, that they have generally and implicitly adopted its computations, and acknowledged its superior accuracy. M. Lalande, in giving an account of similar publications, says, “Le Nautical Almanac de Londres est l‘Ephemeride la plus parfaite qu’il y aitjarnais eu.”

Another important and laborious duty that devolved on him in consequence of his office was, to examine the pretensions of the various candidates who claimed the parliamentary rewards for new or improved methods of finding the longitude. His appointment took place at a period peculiarly interesting in the history of astronomy. His success in introducing and promoting the lunar observations greatly excited the public attention to the subject of the longitude, which was rendered still more interesting by the great rewards held out by parliament for further improvements in the problem, whether by astronomical or mechanical methods. These offers, united with the powerful motives of honour and emulation, called forth, flaring several years, many extraordinary efforts of genius, and produced useful inventions both in arts and sciences, and particularly in the construction of time-keepers. The parliamentary offers likewise encouraged numerous candidates of very slight pretensions, and even visionaries, whose applications became very troublesome. The claims of all were referred by the board of longitude to the astronomer royal, by whom scientific plans were examined, and the rates of chronometers ascertained. Thus by his office he was constituted arbiter of the fame and fortune of a great number of anxious projectors; and it is easy to conceive how arduous as well as unpleasant such a duty must have been. It was not indeed to be expected that the sanguine hopes and self-love of such a variety of candidates could be gratified, with justice to the high trust and confidence thus 1 reposed in him; and hence complaints were frequently heard, and pamphlets published, expressive of discontent and disappointment. Appeals even were made to parliament; but whatever difference of opinion might have then existed, time and experience have since fully proved the truth and impartiality of Dr. Maskelyne’s decisions.

In the history of science, few persons can be mentioned who have contributed more essentially to the diffusion of astronomical knowledge than Dr. Maskelyne; and perhaps no man has been so successful in promoting practical astronomy, both by land and sea. During his time private observatories became very general, though scarcely known before; nor could such be made useful without his “Nautical Almanac,” and other tables, except by men of great science, and by very laborious calculations. Beside the assistance thus derived from his publications, he was always ready to give advice concerning any plans that were likely to promote the science. Among the observatories that were erected through his encouragement, may be mentioned that of the late Alexander Aubert, esq. whose excellent collection of instruments has been rarely equalled, even in national institutions; and several other instances might be adduced of observatories which were erected by the advice or direction of the astronomer royal. He was besides a great improver of instruments, and the inventor of some, among which may be noticed the prismatic micrometer; but though profoundly skilled in optics, and ingenious in mechanical contrivances, he always paid great deference to the opinions of opticians, and other practical mechanists. His plans were mostly directed to substantial objects, while a steady perseverance gave an efficiency to all his undertakings: and notwithstanding his profound knowledge of physical astronomy, his attention was chiefly directed to reduce the scientific theories of his predecessors to the practical purposes of life. In this he was eminently successful, particularly in his labours for the longitude, by which he essentially contributed to the advancement of navigation, the prosperity of commerce, and the wealth, honour, and power of his country.

Dr. Maskelyne’s private character was likewise truly estimable. He was indeed exemplary in the discharge of every duty. In his manners he was modest, simple, and unaffected. To strangers he appeared distant, or rather diffident; but among his friends he was cheerful, unreserved, and occasionally convivial. He was fond of epigrammatic thoughts and classical allusions; and even somelimes indulged in playful effusions of this kind, at an advanced period of life. He maintained a regular correspondence with the principal astronomers of Europe. He was visited also by many illustrious foreigners, as well as eminent characters of his own country, but his warmest attachments were always manifested to the lovers of astronomy. Among his most intimate friends may be reckoned Dr. Herschel, Dr. Hutton, Messrs. Wollastons, Mr. Aubert, bishop Horsley, sir George Shuckburgh, baron Maseres r professor Robertson; and also professor Vince, whose publications so ably illustrate Dr. Maskelyne’s labours, and whom he appointedthe depositary of his scientific papers.

, an English divine, and able vindicator of his church, was born in 1566, in the county of Durham, and was educated in grammar learning at home. In 1583, he entered of Merton-college, Oxford, where, after taking his bachelor’s degree, he was chosen probationerfellow in 1586. He then received orders, and, besides teing presented to the rectory of Orford, in Suffolk, was made chaplain to king James I. who, in his punning humour, usually styled him a “wise builder (Mason) in God’s house.” In 1619, he was installed archdeacon of Norfolk. He died 1621, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Orford, where is a monument to his memory; and was lamented as a man of learning and piety. His writings in defence of the church of England, are, 1. “The authority of the Church in making canons and constitutions concerning things indifferent,” a Sermon, Lond. 1607, Oxon. 1634, 4to. 2. “Vindication of the Church of England concerning the consecration and ordination of Priests and Deacons, in five books,” Lond. 1613, folio. This is, among other things, a complete refutation of the falsehood propagated about that time, respecting archbishop Parker, who, it was said, had been consecrated at the Nag’s- head, a tavern in Cheapside. So successful was he in this work, that the story was no more heard of for thirty years, when it was again revived by some of the Roman Catholic writers at Doway, but with as little proof as before. 3. Two Sermons preached at court. Lond. 1621, 8vo. The rev. Henry Mason, rector of St. Andrew Undershaft, London, was, according to Walker, a brother of the preceding, and was chaplain to Dr. King bishop of London. Having been ejected from his living, or, as Wood says, vexed out of it, he retired to his native place, Wigan in Lancashire, where he became a great benefactor to the poor, and to the school of that place. He died in 1647. Wood gives a list of some pious tracts by him.

In the same spirit he published, in 1743, a tract entitled “A plain and modest plea for Christianity: or a sober and rational appeal to Infidels, occasioned by a perusal of some of their late productions, particularly a treatise entitled ‘ Christianity not founded on argument’.” This was at first published anonymously, but was possessed of a merit so prominent, that the author was soon inquired after and discovered, and it procured for him, unsolicited and without his knowledge, the degree of M. A. from the university of Edinburgh. His next publication was that on which his reputation now chiefly rests, entitled “Selfknowledge: a treatise shewing the nature and benefit of that important science, and the way to attain it.” It was first printed in, 1745, and instantly became so popular, that a new edition was annually demanded for several years, and it was, and continues to be, reprinted in various forms in other parts of the three kingdoms. It has also been translated into various European languages. Without entering minutely into the merits of this excellent practical manual, we may adopt the words of the editor to whom we are indebted for this account, that while the language is rendered purposely as plain as possible consistent with common elegance, “it is full of sense and sentiment: it comes home to every man’s business and bosom: the sentences are short and apothegmatic: replete with maxims of the utmost importance, and often rivalling the wisdom of those sages of antiquity whose valuable precepts and happy turns of expression are quoted so largely, and with such exquisite taste and appropriation, in the notes. It was written chiefly for the improvement of young persons: and a more valuable present cannot easily be made to them.”

In July 1746, Mr, Mason was induced to quit Dorking for Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, upon the warm and urgent invitation of a large congregation of dissenters in that place. Here his first exertion was to prepare for the press a volume of “Sermons for the benefit of young persons,” preached by his predecessor, a Mr. Oakes, and selected from his manuscripts. Having complied with this last act of duty to his friend, we find him progressively engaged in a multiplicity of original works; some of them of a smaller extent, as single sermons, but many of a much wider range, and giving ample scope to his talents. The largest of his works consists of four 8vo volumes of sermons, entitled “The Lord’s-Dav evening entertainment,” intended as “a complete set of practical discourses for the use of families, recommending and urging the grand and substantial points of Christianity in a plain and striking manner, and tree from all distinguishing peculiarities in style and sentiments.” Of this, which soon became popular, a second edition was published in 1754. In 1758, he published; a single octavo volume of “Fifteen Discourses, devotional and practical, together with an Historical Dissertation on the analogy between the behaviour of God’s people towards him in the several periods of the Jewish and Christian church, and his correspondent dispensations towards them in those respective periods.” In 1761 he published another set of sermons, in 2 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Christian Morals.” This was followed by a “Letter to a Friend upon his entrance to the ministerial office,” and “The Student and Pastor, or Directions how to attain to eminence and usefulness in those respective characters.” These were occasioned bv his having become tutor to several students intended for the ministry among the dissenters. Some parts of his “Theological Lectures,” which he delivered to them, have been published in the Protestant Dissenter’s Magazine for 1794 1796.

But while thus employed, he found leisure for directing his taste and acquaintance with classical criticism to all the elegancies of literature. The result of these less serious pursuits was the three following tracts, all of which passed through several editions, and one of them not less than five or six “Essay on the power and harmony of Prosaic numbers” “Essay on the power of Numbers, and the principles of Harmony in Poetical compositions and” Essay on Elocution“which last became the most popular, and was long employed as a text-book in one of the English universities. Mr. Mason died Feb. 10, 1763, and was buried in Cheshunt church-yard, leaving an excellent character for piety, learning, and a conciliating and liberal temper. After his” Self-Knowledge" had been reprinted a great number of times, often very inaccurately, and, what is more censurable, once, at least, with such alterations as tended to suppress his opinions, and make him the follower of a party which he would have despised, his relative John Mason Good, esq. a gentleman well known in the learned world, became editor of a very correct edition, and prefixed a life of the author, of which we have availed ourselves in this account.

In 1747, by means of Gray, with whom he had become acquainted, and who, on account of ill-treatment, had left Peter-house for Pembroke-hall, he was nominated to a vacant fellowship in the latter college; but, owing to a dispute between the fellows and their master, he was not elected till 1749. His own account of this affair has lately been published: “I have had the honour, since I came here last, to be elected by the fellows of Pembroke into their society; but the master, who has the power of a negative, has made use of it on this occasion, because he will not have an extraneus when they have fit persons in their own college. The fellows say they have a power from their statutes indijferenter eligere ex utraque academia, and are going to try it with him at common law, or else get the king to appoint a visitor. If this turns out well, it will” be a very lucky thing for me, and much better than a Platt*, which I carne hither with an intention to sit for, for they are reckoned the best fellowships in the university."

His intimacy with Gray was cordial and lasting. Their correspondence shews the high respect they had for each other, and their friendship was never interrupted by the freedom and unfeigned candour with which they criticised each other’s performances. About this time, Gray describes him as a young man “of much fancy, little judgment, and a good deal of modesty,” as " a good and wellmeaning creature, but in simplicity a child: he reads little or nothing, writes abundance, and that with a design

In 1752, he published “Elfrida,” a dramatic poem, constructed on the model of the ancients, to which he was enthusiastically attached; and having once formed the opinion that dramas might be successfully written in this way, hq persisted in it to the last, contrary to argument and experience. In the present instance he attempted the plan with certain limitations. He professed that his intention was only to follow the ancient method as far as it is probable a Greek poet, were he alive, would now do, in order to adapt himself to the genius of our times, and the character of our tragedy. How far he has executed an intention, evidently suggested by a series of conjectures, will hardly now admit of a question. All critics are agreed that “Elfrida” is neither adapted to the genius of our times, nor to the character of our tragedy. The letters, however, which he published, may yet be perused as ingenious apologies for his judgment; and whatever the decision may be, there can be little difference of opinion respecting the merit of “Eifnda” as a poem. In 1772, Mr. Colman, at that time manager of Oo\ em-garden theatre, made such alterations as were supposed necessary to its appearance on the stage, and besides the decoration of splendid scenery, Dr. Arne contributed some characteristic iftusir-. The author, however, was so much offended at the alterations, as to have meditated a very angry address to Colman, who, on his part, threatened him with the introduction of a chorus of Grecian washerwomen in some future stage entertainment. Mr. Mason afterwards, in 1778 or 1779, made his own alterations and arrangements, and had it performed at the same theatre; but neither attempt was successful.

His father died in 1753, and in 1754- he went into orders; and through the interest of the earl of “Holdernesse, whose patronage he had obtained, he was preferred to be one of the king’s chaplains, and received about the same time the living of Aston. The reputation he had acquired by the odes of his” Elfrida,“encouraged him to publish, in 1756, four compositions of that class on <c Memory, Independency, Melancholy, and the Fate of Tyranny,” which were not received with favour or kindness. Both ridicule and legitimate criticism seem to have been employed on this occasion to expose the wanton profusion of glittering epithets, and the many instances of studied alliteration scattered over these odes. Colman and Lloyd, who were now beginning to look for satirical prey, published two excellent parodies Oh one of them, and on one of Gray’s. His praise of Andrew Marvell, and attack on bishop Parker, produced about the same time a dull letter of cet>sure, which probably gave him less uneasiness than the cool reception of his “Odes,” by those who then dispensed the laonours of literary fame. On the death of Gibber, he was proposed to succeed him as poet laureat; but, instead of an offer of this place, an apology was made to him by lord John Cavendish, that “being in orders, he was thought merely on that account, less eligible for the office than a layman.*' The notice of this circumstance in his life of W. Whitehead is followed by a declaration of his indifference.” A reason so politely put, I was glad to hear assigned; and if I had thought it a weak one, they who know me, will readily believe that I am the last man in the world who would have attempted to controvert it.“The probability, indeed^ is that Mr. Mason would not have thought himself honoured bv the situation, if compelled to fulfil its duties; for though by his mediation the office was tendered to Gray, it was” with permission to hold it as a mere sinecure."

During some of these intervals he executed a very important task, which devolved on him in consequence of the death of his friend Gray. This justly-celebrated poet gratified him by a visit at Aston in 1770, and after his return to Pembroke-hall, was seized with the gout in his stomach, which proved suddenly fatal. Mason hastened to Cambridge to pay the last duties of friendship, but arrived too late for the funeral, which had been conducted by Dr. Brown, master of Pembroke-hall, who was appointed jointexecutor. To Mason, Gray left the sum of 500l. with all his books, manuscripts, musical instruments, medals, &c. and Mason undertook to write his life, and to publish such of his manuscripts as might appear to be worthy of his high character in the literary world. In his biography he chose to deviate from the usual plan, by adopting one which seemed to present more advantages. Objections have been made to it, because the biographer seldom appears either as the narrator or the critic, but it must be allowed that the whole is rendered more interesting, and that the attention of the reader being constantly fixed on the principal character, he is enabled to form a more impartial opinion than if he had perused no evidence but the assertions of the biographer. The plan has since been followed in the cases of Johnson, Cowper, sir William Jones, Mrs. Carter, and Dr. Beattie and where lives of equal importance to literary curiosity are to be recorded, which cannot be often, it appears to be not only the most engaging species of minute biography, but also the most impartial.

In 1779, he published his political creed in the shape of an animated “Ode to the Naval Officers of Great Britain,” written immediately after the trial of admiral Kepjjel in February of that year. Although attached to a retired life, he became tired of forbearance, when the disappointments of the American war had incited the whig party to discover the more distant or latent sources of national misfortune, and to propose remedies by which Britain should be always, prosperous, and always victorious. He was already one of those who thought the decision of parliament on the Middlesex election, a violation of the rights of the people; and when the counties began, in 1779, to associate for parliamentary reform, he took an active part in assisting their deliberations, and wrote several patriotic manifestos, which raised him as high in the opinion of his own party, as they degraded him in the eyes of the other. He is even said to have given so much offence at court, that he found it convenient to resign his chaplainship. It appears, however, by the poems he wrote in his latter days, that the fever of reform bad abated, and that his cure, which was begun by Mr. Fox’s India bill, was afterwards completed by the French revolution. His “Ode to Mr. Pitt,” published in 1782, expresses the sanguine hopes he entertained of the virtues and talents of that young statesman. When be prepared this ode for a new edition in 1795, he altered the last line from

Among Mr. Mason’s accomplishments, his taste for painting was perhaps not inferior to that he displayed for poetry; and it has been thought that his judgment was more uniformly correct in the former than in the latter. His “Translation of Du Fresnoy’s Art of Painting,” which appeared in 1783, was begun, as he informs us, in his early years, with a double view of implanting in his memory the principles of a favourite art, and of acquiring a habit of versification, for which purpose the close and condensed style of the original seemed peculiarly calculated, especially when considered as a sort of school exercise. The task, however, proved so difficult, that it was long laid aside for original composition, and his translation would have never been made public, if sir Joshua Reynolds had not requested a sight of it, and offered to illustrate it by a series of notes. This induced him to revise the whole with such scrupulous care, that it may be considered, in a great measure, as the production of his mature talents, and whether perused as an original or a translation, is certainly not inferior to his most favourite works. In the poetical address, however, to sir Joshua Reynolds, he has not been thought so happy; and some inaccuracies of rhyme may be objected to a translation which is generally elegant and faithful. How much its value was enhanced to the artist, and to the connoisseur, by the annotations of sir Joshua Reynolds, is too obvious to be noticed.

His last separate publication of the poetical kind was a “Secular Ode in Commemoration of the Glorious Revolution,” 1688, and appeared when men of all parties joined in festal meetings to celebrate the restoration and establishment of English liberty. In the same year he condescended to be the biographer and editor of the poems of his friend William Whitehead, esq. Of his life of Whitehead some notice will be taken hereafter. Neither his subject nor his materials could furnish such memoirs as he has given of Gray, but it is interesting in an inferior degree, and would not have detracted much from his fame as a biographer, had he suppressed his splenetic notice of Dr. Johnson, and shewn that he had preserved that simplicity of character, and those generous feelings, which Gray once attributed to him. He appears to have been equally mistaken in a pamphlet which he published about this time, animadverting on the government of the York Lunatic Asylum; but the mistake was rather of the head than the heart, for he was a cordial and liberal supporter of that institution, and was betrayed into a degree of intemperance of remark by excess of zeal for its prosperity. Of his general humanity, or what he has termed *' moral patriotism," he afforded during this year an eloquent proof in a discourse delivered in York cathedral on the subject of the African slave trade. He was one of the first who contributed to expose the infamy of that trade, and to invigorate those remonstrances which have at length been heard with effect.

In all the editions of his poems hitherto published, Mr. Mason omitted some pieces for various reasons; but, about 1796, he determined to collect the whole into an additional or third volume, interspersed with some which had never been printed. This appeared in 1797, immediately after his death.

in the Cyclopædia, "was not only an accompaniment of a consummate orexcellent poet and able divine, but a ganist. As prec-n' or of the cathedral

luntaites, without melody, accent, or critical and historical Essay on Cathemeasure; and he preferred the me- dral Music.' Printed at York in 1782." chanical execution of a barrel organ in exceptions which, in truth and justice to the merits of others, his contemporaries, may be offered.

Mr. Mason’s life appears to have been principally devoted to the duties of his profession, occasionally relieved by the cultivation of the fine arts. His associates, at least in the latter part of his life, were few. He had the misfortune to survive the greater number whose friendship he had cultivated in his early years, and he was not ambitious *t>f new connections. This brought on him the imputation of that pride, or distance of manner, which is ascribed to men of unsocial habits. But Mason’s heart was not inaccessible, and his friendships were inviolable. The simplicity, hdwever, attributed to him in his young days by Gray, and the patience with which lord Orford informs us, he heard his faults, did not accompany him through life. On the publication of Gray’s life, he was ready to allow that “twenty-five years had made a very considerable abatement in his general philanthropy” and by philanthropy he seems here to mean a diffidence of opinion on matters of literature, and an -unwillingness to censure acknowledged merit. It can have no reference to philanthropy in the more general acceptation of the word, for he was to the last, liberal, humane, and chai-itaWe. What it really means, indeed, we find in the work just alluded to. The contemptuous notice of Waterland, Akenside, and Shenstone, which he did not suppress in Gray, he employed himself with more harshness whenever he could find an opportunity to attack the writings of Dr. Johnson. The opinion this great critic pronounced on Gray may be probably, quoted as the provocation, and great allowance is to be made for the warmth and zeal with which he guards the memory of his departed friend. But surely one of his notes on Gray’s Letters may be here fairly quoted against him. “Had Mr. Pope disregarded the sarcasms of the many writers that endeavoured to eclipse his poetical fame, as much as Mr. Gray appears to have done, the world would not have been possessed of a Dunciad; but it would have been impressed with a more amiable idea of its author’s temper.” Nor was his prosecution of Murray, for taking about fifty lines from his works of Gray into an edition which that bookseller published, much to the credit of his liberality, especially as he refused to drop the prosecution, when requested to name his own terms of compensation. Such httlenesses are to be regretted in a maa who was the friend of genius and literature, whose circumstances placed him far above want, and whose regular discharge of the duties of piety and humanity bespoke an ambition for higher enjoyments than fame and wealth caa yield. Of his regard for sacred truth, and the respect due to it, he exhibited a proof in a letter to lord Orford on his lordship’s childish epitaph on two piping bullfinches, to which he received an answer that was probably not very satisfactory.

As a poet, his name has been so frequently coupled with that of Gray, and their merits have been supposed to approach so nearly, that what has been said of the one will in some degree apply to the other. It is evident that they studied in the same school, and mutually cultivated those opinions which aim at restoring a purer species of poetry than was taught in the school of their predecessor Pope. Whether we consider Mason as a lyric, dramatic, or didactic writer, we find the same grandeur of outline, the same daring and inventive ambition which carries out of the common track of versification and sentiment into the higher regions of imagination. His attachment to the sister art, and his frequent contemplation of the more striking and sublime objects of nature, inclined him to the descriptive; and his landscapes have a warmth and colouring, often rich and harmonious, but perhaps too frequently marked with a glare of manner peculiar to the artist. His compositions, however, even on the same subject, have all the variety of a fertile invention. Although we have Evening, Morning, &c. often depicted, they are to be distinguished, and the preference we are inclined to give is regulated by the feeling which the varieties of natural appearances excite in different minds, and in the same mind at different times.

Mason’s correctness is almost proverbial, and his ambition undoubtedly was to be equally correct and elegant: yet his style must often lead the reader to question his judgment, and to wonder that he could not see what every one else saw. That a man with so many endowments as a scholar, a critic, and an admirer of the simplicity of the ancients, should have fallen so frequently into a style ornamented with a finical profuseness, would be sufficiently remarkable, if his decorations had readily presented themselves; but, when we see him so frequently pausing for an epithet that incumbers what it cannot illustrate, when we see him more attentive to novelty than strength of imagery, and above all, taxing his memory to produce repeated alliterations, we are forced to conclude that judgment is not always consistent, or that in some men it occasionally exists independent of true taste. With these exceptions, however, few indeed of the modern poets in our collections deserve a higher rank than Mason, as a lyric and descriptive poet, nor has he given any finished piece to the world from which examples of excellence may not be quoted.

It is now necessary to advert to a series of poems which have been added to Mr. Mason’s works in the late edition of the English poets. The author of the “Heroic Epistle” was long concealed from the world, and for reasons which are obvious; but the poem had merit enough to be ascribed to the best living satirists, to Mason, Walpole, Hayley, Cowper, Anstey, and others. It appears, however, to be now universally given to Mason. Mr. Thomas Warton was of opinion that “it might have been written by Walpole and buckram 'd by Mason.” Mr. Malone, in a note on this opinion, which occurs in Boswell’s Life of Johnson, says, “It is now known that the Heroic Epistle was written by Mason.” Mr. Mant, in his life of Warton, informs us that when it was first published, Warton ascribed it to Mason, and endeavoured to confirm his opinion by internal evidence. Mason heard of this, and sent to him a letter in 1777, published by Mr. Mant, in which he professes to expostulate with him for raising a report merely from critical conjecture. "I have been told that you have pronounced me very frequently in company to be the author of the Heroic Epistle to sir William Chambers, and I am told too, that the premier himself suspects that I am so upon your authority. Surely, sir, mere internal evidence (and you can possibly have no other) can never be sufficient to ground such a determination upon, when you consider how many persons in this rhyming age of ours are possessed of that knack of Pope’s versification, which constitutes one part of the merit of that poem, and as to the wit, humour, or satire, which it contains, no part of my writings could ever lead you, by their analogy, to form so peremptory a judgment. I acquit you, however, in this procedure of every, even the slightest degree of ill nature; and believe that what you have said was only to show your critical acumen. I only mention it that you may be more cautious of speaking of other persons in like manner, who may throw such anonymous bantlings of their brain into the wide world. To some of these it might prove an essential injury; for though they might deserve the frown of power (as the author in question certainly does), yet I am persuaded that your good nature would be hurt if that frown was either increased or fixed by your ip$e dixit.

“To say more on this trivial subject would betray a solicitude on my part very foreign from my present feelings or inclination. My easy and independent circumstances make such a suspicion sit mighty easy upon me; and the minister, nay the whole ministry, are free to think what they please of a man, who neither aims to solicit, nor wishes to accept, any favour from them.”

What our author has here remarked concerning internal evidence, has probably occurred to all who fixed their suspicions on him. From the works published under his name, no person could for a moment suppose him to be a man of humour, or inclined to personal and political satire. He might even have asked whether it was probable that a man whose pen had been uniformly devoted to solemn and serious poetry, and who had never brought forward the shadow of a claim for the honours of wit, should at an advanced period of life suddenly eclipse his contemporaries and some of his predecessors by exhibiting a humour which he had never been suspected to possess, and a spirit which would have better become a Paul Whitehead, or a Charles Churchill: and that he should carry this humour and this spirit through six poems of no inconsiderable length, on dissimilar subjects. Yet as even this, however remarkable, is not beyond the reach of genius, it was surely in his power to bring the question to a more prompt issue. But this he evades, and uses every argument against Mr.Warton’s opinion but that which must have at once refuted it, the plain and flat denial of a man of honour and principle. On this account, therefore, the “Heroic Epistle,” and the other pieces published under the name of Macgregor, are now added to Mr. Mason’s works, but not without a wish that they could have been attributed to some writer of less private and public worth. If they be his, they will add to his literary reputation, by placing him among the first satirical poets of his day, if not above the first; but whoever contemplates the disaffected spirit in which they are written, will probably be of opinion that by adopting the floating invectives and prejudices of a party and of a turbulent period, he did not consult the consistency of his character, or the dignity of his Muse.

, a very eminent dramatic writer, was born in 1584. His father was Arthur Massinger, a gentleman attached to the family of Henry second earl of Pembroke. He was born at Salisbury, and educated, probably, at Wilton, the seat of the earl of Pembroke. When he had reached his sixteenth year, he sustained an irreparable loss in the death of that worthy nobleman, who, from attachment to the father, would, not improbably, have extended his powerful patronage to the son. In May 1602 Massinger became a commoner of Aiban-Hall, Oxford, but left it soon without taking a degree. Various reasons have been assigned for this, as the earl of Pembroke’s withdrawing his support; or the same effect resulting from the death of the poet’s father; but his late excellent editor, Mr. Gifford, is probably right in attributing his removal to a change in his principles, to his becoming a Roman catholic. Whatever might be the cause, the period of his misfortunes commenced with his arrival in London, where he was driven by his necessities to dedicate himself to the service of the stage. We hear little, however, of him, from 1606, when he first visited the metropolis, until 1622, when his “Virgin Martyr,” the first of his printed works, was given to the stage. For this hiatus, his biographer accounts by his having assisted others, particularly Fletcher, and his having written some plays which have perished. He afterwards produced various plays in succession, of which eighteen only have descended to us. Massinger died March 17, 1640. He went to bed in good health, says Langbaine, and was found dead in his bed in the morning in his own house on the Bankside. He was buried in the church-yard of St. Saviour’s. It does not appear from the strictest search, that a stone, or inscription of any kind, marked the place where his dust was deposited: even the memorial of his mortality is given with a pathetic brevity, which accords but too well with the obscure and humble passages of his life: “March 20, 1639-40, buried Philip Massinger, a stranger!” So few particulars are known of his private history, that his life is little more than a detailed account of his various productions, for which we may refer the reader to Mr. Gifford’s edition. But, says this editor, though we are ignorant of every circumstance respecting- Massinger, unless that he lived, wrote, and died, we may yet form to ourselves some idea of his personal character from the incidental hints scattered through his works. In what light he was regarded may be collected from the recommendatory poems prefixed to his several plays, in which the language of his panegyrists, though warm, expresses an attachment apparently derived not so much from his talents as his virtues. All the writers of his life unite in representing him as a man of singular modesty, gentleness, candour, and affability; nor does it appear that he ever made, or found an enemy. He speaks indeed of opponents on the stage; but the contention of rival candidates for popular favour mast not be confounded with personal hostility. With all this, however, he appears to have maintained a constant struggle with adversity; since not only the stage, from which, perhaps, his natural reserve prevented him from deriving the usual advantages, but even the bounty of his particular friends, on which he chiefly relied, left him in a state of absolute dependence. Other writers for the stage, not superior to him in abilities, had their periods of good fortune, their bright as well as their stormy hours; but Massinger seems to have enjoyed no gleam of sunshine: his life was all one wintry day, and “shadows, clouds, and darkness” rested upon it.

His dedications, says Mr. Gifford, are principally characterised by gratitude and humility, without a single trait of that gross and servile adulation which distinguishes and disgraces the addresses of some of his contemporaries. That he did not conceal his misery, his editors appear inclined to reckon among his faults; he bore it, however, without impatience, and we only hear of it when it is’ relieved. Poverty made him no flatterer, and, what is still more rare, no maligner of the great: nor is one symptom of envy manifested in any part of his compositions. His principles of patriotism appear irreprehensible: the extravagant and slavish doctrines which are found in the dramas of his great contemporaries make no part of his creed, in which the warmest loyalty is skilfully combined with just and rational ideas of political freedom. But the great distinction of Massinger, is the uniform respect with which he treats religion and its ministers, in an age when it was found necessary to add regulation to regulation, to stop the growth of impiety on the stage. No priests are introduced by him, “to set on some quantity of barren spectators” to laugh at their licentious follies; the sacred name is not lightly invoked, nor daringly sported with; nor is Scripture profaned by buffoon allusions lavishly put into the mouths of fools and women. Compared with the other dramatic writers of his age, he appears more natural in his characters, and more poetical in his diction, than Jonson or Cartwnght, more elevated and nervous than Fletcher, the only writers who can be supposed to contest his pre-eminence. He ranks, therefore, in the opinion of the ablest recent critics, immediately under Shakspeare. It must be confessed, says Dr. Ferriar, in his “Essay on the Writings of Massinger,” that in comedy he falls considerably beneath Shakspeare; his wit is less brilliant, and his ridicule less delicate and various; but he affords a specimen of elegant comedy (“The Great Duke of Florence”), of which there is no archetype in his great predecessor. In tragedy Massinger is rather eloquent than pathetic: yet he is often as majestic, and generally more elegant, than his master; he is as powerful a ruler of the understanding, as Shakspeare is of the passions; with the disadvantage of succeeding that matchless poet, there is still much original beauty in his works; and the most extensive acquaintance with poetry will hardly diminish the pleasure of a reader and admirer of Massinger.

, an enterprizing botanist, was born at Aberdeen, in North-Britain, in 1741, and after coming to London, probably in pursuit of employment as a gardener, in which capacity he was known to Mr. Aiton, the superintendant of Kevv gardens, he was sent in 1771 or 1772 to the Cape of Good Hope. That country had been, for near a century, celebrated as a mine of botanical riches, which had scarcely reached our gardens but through the medium of those of Holland. This deficiency, however, in our supply of curious plants, was little felt while Mr. Masson continued at the Cape, and the Dutch appear not to have restrained his inquiries or acquisitions. He was allowed to travel many hundred miles up the country, and having amply effected the purpose of his mission, he was, in 1776, ordered to explore the Canary islands, the Azores, Madeira, and part of the West-Indies, especially the island of St. Christopher. In this he employed about five years more, and returned to England in 1781.

During his stay at the Cape, he entered into a correspondence with Linnæus. Having discovered a bulbous plant of a new genus, he was not only laudably ambitious of botanical commemoration in its name, but he was particularly anxious, as appears by one of his letters, to receive this honour from no less a hand than that of his illustrious correspondent. This indeed, his learned biographer remarks, was the unicum prteinium, the only reward to which he aspired for all his labours. That he sought no pecuniary advancement, the extreme slenderness of the stipend which could be obtained for him, and his disregard of such objects at all times, abundantly evinced. He obtained the honour to which he aspired. The specimen of Massonia in the herbarium of Linnæus, named by his own trembling hand near the close of his life, proves that the name had his sanction, though it appears to have beea originally suggested by Thunberg, in whose company Masson botanized for two years at the Cape. In 1783, he visited Portugal and Madeira, and returned to the Cape of Good Hope in 1786, where, inconsequence of the knowledge he had already acquired, it was settled, in consultation with his able adviser, sir Joseph Banks, that his travels should now be restrained to within forty miles of the Cape town. In 1795, Mr. Masson returned to England, and spent two years there among his botanical friends, after which he was sent to explore such parts of North America, under the British government, as appeared most likely to produce new and valuable plants; and his success was equal to the expectations that had been formed. Newplants, of interesting characters and properties, sprang up under his steps, and it seemed probable that much practical knowledge was likely to result from his discoveries, but he did not live to reap or to communicate more than a foretaste of these advantages. He died about Christmas, 1805, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, at Montreal, in Canada. He was a man of a mild temper, persevering in his pursuits, even to a great enthusiasm. Of great industry; which his specimens and drawings of fish, animals, insects, plants, and views of the countries he passed through, evince. And though he passed a solitary life, in countries distant from society, his love of natural history never forsook him. In 1796 he published a splendid work on the genus Stapelia, consisting of a thin folio volume, with forty-one coloured plates of as many species, almost entirely non-descript, accompanied by descriptions.

The marriage of Charles IX. of France with Elizabeth, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, being celebrated in 1570 at Mezieres, Masson, who was present, wrote an elegant description of it, which was published the same year in 8vo, and was the first thing from which he derived literary reputation. He then resolved to apply to the law, and with this vie<v went to Angers to study under the celebrated Baudouin, or Balduinus. After two years he returned to Paris, and became librarian to the chancellor de Cheverney, a lover of literature, in which place he continued ten years. In 1576 he was made an advocate of parliament; yet never pleaded more than one cause, which however he gained with universal applause. The rest of his life appears to have been devoted to study, and when the troubles of France were at an end, he married the sister of a counsellor in parliament, with whom he lived thirty-four years, but had no children. The infirmities of age attacked him some time before his death, which happened Jan. 9, 1611. Rewrote, 1. “Annals of France,” a good work, the best edition of which is, 1598, 4to. 2. “Eulogies on illustrious Men,” 1656, 8vo. 3. “A Description of France by its Rivers,” 1685, 8vo. 4. “An Account of the French Bishoprics,” 8vo. “De Episcopis Urbis,” 4to, a history of the popes; and several other works, which discover great genius and learning. “Vita Joannis Calvini,” 4to, a well-written work, is also ascribed to him by some, and, by others, to James Gillot. The above-mentioned are all in Latin. His friend, M. de Thou, has written his life, which is prefixed to his Eulogies.

, or perhaps Masters (Thomas), a poet and historian, was the son of the rev. William Master, rector of Cote near Cirencester in Gloucestershire. He was first educated at the grammar-school of Cirencester, and afterwards at Winchester-school, from which he entered New college, Oxford, as a probationer fellow in 1622, and was admitted perpetual fellow in 1624. He took his degrees in arts, that of M. A. in 1629, and being in orders, was in 1640 admitted to the reading of the sentences. At this time he was considered as a man of great learning, well-versed in the languages, and a good poet and preacher. There are no other circumstances recorded of his life, except his connection with lord Herbert of Cherbury, whom he assisted in some of his writings. He died of a putrid fever in 1643, and was buried in the outer chapel of New-college. Lord Herbert honoured his memory with a Latin epitaph, which is among his lordship’s poems, but was not inscribed on the place of his burial. His poems were in Latin and Greek: 1. “Mensa Lubrica,” Oxon. 1658, 4to, second edition. This is a poem in Lat. and English, describing the game of shovel-board. 2. “Movorfotpnta ei$ mv TsXfi<r7s alavgutriv,” a Greek poem on the passion of Christ, which was translated into Latin by Mr. Jacob of Merton-college, and into English by Cowley, and published at Oxford, 1658, 4to. His other Latin productions were, an oration delivered in New-college; “Iter Boreale,” “Carolus Redux,” “Ad regem Carolum,” &c. We have termed him a historian from his having given lord Herbert great assistance in his “Life of Henry VIII.” He also had a share in the Latin translation of his lordship’s book “De Veritate.” He had accumulated a great mass of historical information and authorities from the public records; Wood speaks of having four thick volumes in folio of these, “lying by him,” but does not mention whether his own property or borrowed. Dr. Fiddes, however, informs us, in the introduction to his “Life of Wolsey,' 7 that in his time Mr. Master’s” diligent and faithful collections“were in the library of Jesus-college, Oxford. He adds that” Lord Herbert appears to be indebted for good part of his history to those collections."

, the first of a family of nonconformist divines, of considerable reputation both in the new and old world, was born at Lowton, in the parish of Winwick, in Lancashire, in 1596. After some education at Winwick-school, he was, in 1611, at the early age of fifteen, appointed master of a public school at Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, where, as Wood says, “he was converted to godliness.” In 1618, however, he was admitted a student of Brazenose college Oxford, where his stay must have been short, as the same year we are told he preached his first sermon at Toxteth, having been ordained by Dr. Morton, bishop of Chester, and chosen minister of that place. Here he officiated until 1633, when he was suspended for nonconformity; and although this suspension was soon taken off, his prejudices against the church establishment became so strong, that he was again suspended, and then determined to seek the kind of church-government which he fancied the most pure, in New England. The year after his arrival there, in 1635, he was chosen minister of a congregation newly formed at Dorchester, where he remained until his death April 22, 1669, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was the author of one or two pious treatises, but of more respecting church government. He had four sons, Samuel, Nathanael, Eleazer, and Increase, who all imbibed their father’s principles, and became sufferers for nonconformity. Of these, the eldest and youngest seem entitled to some notice.

He is said to have published during his life 382 pieces, many of them indeed but small, as single sermons, essays, &c. yet several of larger size. Among these were “Magnalia Christi Americana,” or “An Ecclesiastical History of New-England, from its first planting in 1620 to 1698,” folio. “The Christian Philosopher,” 8vo. “Ratio disciplines fratrum Nov-Anglorum,” that is, “The reason of the discipline of the brethren in New-England.” “Directions to a candidate for the ministry.” “Psalterium Americanum,” or “American psalter,” &c. But the most remarkable of all his works was that in which, like Glanville, he defended the reality of witchcraft. This is entitled “The wonders of the invisible world; being an account of the trials of several witches, lately executed in New-England, and of several remarkable curiosities therein occurring. Together with, 1. Observations upon the nature, the number, and the operations of the devils. 2. A short narrative of a late outrage committed by a knot of witches in Swedeland, very much resembling, and so far explaining that under which New-England has laboured. 3. Some counsels directing a due improvement of the terrible things lately done by the unusual and amazing range of evil spirits in New-England. 4. A brief discourse upon those temptations, which are the more ordinary devices of Satan. By Cotton Mather. Published by the special command of his excellency the governor of the province of Massachusets-Bay in New-England.” Printed first at Boston in New-England, and reprinted at London, in 1693, 4to.

It may perhaps appear surprizing that a man so highly praised by his biographers for learning, judgment, and piety, should not only give credit to, but assistance in the propagation of, such falsehoods and absurdities as were followed by the inhuman execution of several innocent persons. But whoever looks into his most useful work, his “Ecclesiastical History of New England,” will discover what his more recent biographers have suppressed, an uncommon degree of enthusiasm in his mind, on the most ordinary occurrences. Neal, only, speaks impartially on this shocking subject. He observes that those suspected wizzards and witches “were convicted on very slender evidence,” a necessary consequence of their being tried at all, for what but the most slender evidence could be expected in the case of a crime which it was impossible to commit? Neal also allows, that there is some unfairness in the report of the trials by Mather: for, when he has given the depositions of the witnesses against the prisoners at large, he passes over their defence in general terms, and leaves the reader in the dark, and incapable of judging the merits of the cause. Yet upon such evidence twenty-eight persons received sentence of death, of whom nineteen were executed. They all suffered without the least acknowledgment of their guilt, laying their blood at the door of false witnesses. But neither integrity of manners, nor the strongest protestations of innocence with their dying breath, were sufficient to move compassion, or stop the tide of the people’s zeal against those unhappy persons at this time. Nor, says Neal, were these all who were in danger of their lives: there were then a hundred and fifty more in prison, and above two hundred under accusation. The worst part of this affair, however, as far as respects the conduct of our author, is, that no stop was put to these murders until the pretended sufferers, by witchcraft, began to accuse some of his relations, and the relations of the governor himself. “It was time then,” says Neal, “to make a stand,” and it is curious to observe how easily this stand appears to have been made for the very next sessions, out of fifty-six who were accused, three only were found guilty, whom the governor pardoned; and at length both judge and jury publicly acknowledged their error, and a phrenzy abated which had lasted about fifteen months, and struck all Europe with astonishment. As to Dr. Mather, his apology does little credit to his understanding; for the only thing which appears to have affected him was the great number of the persons accused, and the quality of some of them. These circumstances, he says, gave just ground to suspect some mistake; but he appears to have retained his former belief in the existence and practice of witchcraft, as we may infer from many parts of his History of New England. Let us not, however, press this accusation too far. Let us recollect, that it was not until the 10th George II. that the laws against witchcraft in this country ceased to be a disgrace to our statute-book; and that the rev. John Brown of Haddington, the eminent divine among the sect of Seceders in Scotland, and their principal tutor, published a very few years ago, as a ground of lamentation, that the British parliament had “repealed the penal statutes against witchcraft”

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

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

In 1579, he served the office of Vice-chancellor of the university. At a convocation held in 1580, archbishop Grindal being then under the queen’s displeasure, it was agreed, that our prelate, then dean of Christ-church, should, in the name of that assembly, draw up an humble address to her majesty, for the archbishop’s restitution; but it was not favourably received. June 22, 1583, he was collated to the precentorship of Salisbury; and Sept. 3 following, was made dean of Durham, being then thirtyseven years of age, on which he resigned his precentorship. From this time, says Le Neve, to the twenty-third Sunday after Trinity in 1622, he kept an account of all the sermons he preached, the place where, the time when, the text what, and if any at court, or before any of the prime nobility; by which it appears, that he preached, while dean of Durham, seven hundred and twenty-one; while bishop of Durham five hundred and fifty; and while archbishop of. York, to the time above mentioned, seven hundred and twenty-one; in all one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two sermons; and among them several extempore. This prelate, adds Le Neve, certainly thought preaching to be the most indispensible part of his duty; for in the diary before quoted, wherein, at the end of each year, he sets down how many sermons he had preached at the end of 1619, “Sum. Ser. 32, eheu! An. 1620, sum. ser. 35, eheu! An. 1621, sore afflicted with a rheume and coughe diverse months together, so that I never could preach until Easter-daye. The Lord forgive me!” On the 28th of May, 1590, he was inducted to the rectory of Bishopwearmouth, co. Durham; and in 1595, April 13, was consecrated bishop of Durham, and resigned Bishopwearmouth.

Archbishop Matthew appears to have been a man of great wit (including perhaps the punning rage of the time), of a sweet disposition, very bountiful and learned, and as a divine, most exemplarily conscientious and indefatigable both in preaching, and other duties. Preferment never once induced him to desist from preaching, and there was scarcely a pulpit in the dioceses of Durham or York, in which he had not appeared. No imputation, says Mr. Lodge, remains on his memory, except the alienation of York house in the Strand to the duke of Buckingham, for which he is said to have accepted lauds in Yorkshire of inferior value.

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

His published works are, 1. “The Life of St. Teresa,” 1623, 8vo. 2. “St. Augustine’s Confessions,” translated, 1624, 8vo. 3. “The Penitent Banduto, or the History of the Conversion and Death of the most illustrious Lord Signor Troilo Savelli, a baron of Rome,” 1625, 1663, 8vo. 4. “A collection of Letters made by sir Tobie Matthews, kt. with a character of Lucy, countess of Carlisle,” Lond. 1660, 8vo. These were properly made by sir Tobie, as many of them appear fictions; but others are real and curious. There are also some of his letters in the “Cabala” and the “Scrinia Sacra.” The following are attributed to him, but probably not printed: “A Cabinet of Rich Jewels;” Benefit of Washing the Head every Morning;“”The History of the Times," left imperfect.

In order to make himself known, in 1750 he began to publish, in French, an account of the productions of the English press, printed at the Hague, under the name of the “Journal Britannique.” This humble, though useful labour, says Gibbon, “which had once been dignified by the genius of Bayle, and the learning of Le Clerc, was not disgraced by the taste, the knowledge, and the judgment of Maty; he exhibits a candid and pleasing view of the state of literature in England during a period of six years (Jan. 1750 December 1755); and, far different from his angry son, he handles the rod of criticism with the tenderness and reluctance of a parent. The author of the ‘ Journal Britannique’ sometimes aspires to the character of a poet and philosopher: his style is pure and elegant; and in his virtues, or even in his defects, he may be ranked as one of the last disciples of the school of Fontenelle.” This Journal, whatever its merits, answered the chief end he intended by it, and introduced him to the acquaintance of some of the most eminent literary characters in the country he had made his own; and it was to their active and uninterrupted friendship, that he owed the places he afterwards possessed. In 1758, he was chosen fellow, and, in 1765, on the resignation of Dr. Birch (who died a few months after, and made him his executor), secretary to the Royal Society. He had been appointed one of the under-librarians of the British Museum at its first institution in 1753, and became principal librarian at the death of Dr. Knight in 1772. Useful in all these posts, he promised to be eminently so in the last, when he was seized with a languishing disorder, which, in 1776, put an end to a life uniformly devoted to the pursuit of science, and the offices of humanity. His body being opened, the appearances which presented themselves were thought so singular as to be described before the Royal Society by Dr. Hunter, whose account is inserted in vol. LXVII. of the Philosophical Transactions.

, son of the former, was born ini 1745. He was educated at Westminster-school, whence, in 1763, he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge. After a time, he obtained a travelling fellowship of that college, which enabled him to pass three years on the continent; and in 1774$ he was appointed chaplain to lord Stormont, then ambassador at the court of France. Soon after this, he married one of the daughters of Joseph Clark, esq. of Weatherfield in Essex; whose brother, captain Charles Clark, afterwards became famous, as being successor in command to the celebrated Cook, in that unfortunate voyage which proved fatal to both those officers. By this lady he had one son, who survived his father, but died while yet at school. Mr. Maty, much respected for his abilities, acquirements, and character, by persons able to contribute to his advancement, would have been very likely to gain preferment in the church, after his return to England, had not some scruples arisen in his mind on the subject of those articles of faith which formerly he had subscribed. From that time he determined, from the most conscientious motives, never to accept of any ecclesiastical appointment; and, after the death of his father in 1776, he withdrew himself entirely from the functions of the ministry in the established church. His reasons for this step, dated Oct. 22, 1777, were printed at his own request in the Gent. Mag for that year. They are chiefly the doctrines of the Trinity, of original sin, and of absolute predestination; which last he finds in the seventeenth article. His own inclination is to the Arian hypothesis, and to a liturgy somewhat like Dr. Clarke’s; and he says, although he has left the church, he has no objection to preach to a congregation holding the same opinions. His life was thenceforward more particularly devoted to literary pursuits, which were highly favoured by the appointment he obtained, at the same time, of an assistant librarian in the British Museum. He was afterwards advanced to be one of the underlibrarians of the same establishment, in the department of Natural History and Antiquities. In November 1778, on the resignation of Dr. Horsiey, he was appointed one of the secretaries to the Royal Society. In January 1782, he began a review of publications, principally foreign, which be continued with considerable success, though with little assistance, till September 1786, when he was compelled by ill health to discontinue it. The motto which he took for this work was modest, and well appropriated “Sequitur patrem non passibus sequis” alluding to his father’s “Journal Britannique” and the truth appears to be, that, though he was far from being deficient either in learning or critical abilities, he was inferior in both to his father; and being the avowed author of this review, is thought to have created at least as many enemies as admirers. In the disputes which arose in the Royal Society, in 1784, respecting the re-instatement of Dr. Hutton, as secretary for foreign correspondence, he took so warm a part, that becoming very angry, he resigned his office of secretary. In this, as in other instances in his life, his vivacity outran his judgment. As a secretary, an officer of the societv, he was not called upon to take any active part; and the advantages he derived from the situation were such as he could ill afford to relinquish. In preferring always his conscience to his interest, he certainly was highly commendable; but in this question his conscience had no occasion to involve itself. To make himself amends for this diminution of his income, Mr. Maty undertook, on moderate terms, to read the Greek, Latin, French, or Italian classics, with such persons as might be desirous of completing their knowledge of those languages: but it does not appear that this employment turned out very profitable. In 1787, an asthmatic complaint, under which he long had laboured, completed the subversion of his constitution, and he died on the 16th of January in that year, at the early age of forty-two. Besides his review, he published a translation of the travels of Riesbeck through Germany; and translated into French, the accounts of the gems, in that magnificent work, the “Gemmae Marlburienses,” which Mr. Bryant had first written in Latin. For this he received lOOl. from the duke of Marlborongh, and a copy of the book. After his death, a volume of his sermons was published by subscription, in which, by an oversight, that has sometimes happened in other cases, two or three which he had transcribed from other author^ were reprinted. Notwithstanding much irritability of temper, he was of a warm and friendly disposition, which often manifests itself in his Review.

, a noted political adventurer, and well known about sixty years ago, as the editor of the Brussels Gazette, was born at Rouen in 1721. He took the habit of a capuchin in 1740, but broke through his religious engagements as soon as he found them incompatible with his inclinations, and determined to seek that fortune in foreign countries which he could no longer hope for in France. Of his future proceedings we have two accounts; the one, that he eloped with a nun, professed himself a protestant, and came to Brussels, where he obtained the protection of M. Kinschot, resident of the States, by whose means he got safe to Holland. Here a Saxon count falling in love with his nun, carried her with him to Dresden, and, at the same time recommended Maubert to a Saxon nobleman in that city, as preceptor to his sons. The other account, not the more true for being his own, conducts him in a more honourable manner, to the office of tutor to the young count de Rutowski, while he had also obtained an introduction to count Bruhl. The father of his pupil being an inveterate enemy of count Bruhl, had engaged with some friends to ruin him, and found Maubert by no means reluctant to assist in the plot. He accordingly drew up a deduction of grievances, which gained him the applause and confidence of the party, and greatly flattered his ambition. The plot being discovered, however, Maubert was arrested at the hotel de Rutowski, and irv a few weeks was sent to the fortress of Konigstein, where, he says, he was treated handsomely, allowed even luxuries, provided with books, and the liberty of walking and visiting in the fortress, with no other guard than a subaltern officer. Of his release we have also two accounts; the one, that it was accomplished by interest, the other by fraud. This was not the only prison, however, which he had occasion to visit and escape from; the rest of his life forms a series of adventures, more fit for a romance than any other species of narrative, and consists of the vicissitudes to which he was exposed by selling his talents, such as they were, to the best bidder, and writing on the side of that nation or government which paid him best.

The first publication that made him noticed, was his “Testament politiquedu Cardinal Alberoni,” one of those fictions that were very common in France and Holland on the death of any minister of state of great eminence. Of this kind were the Testaments of Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert, Louvois, &c. vehicles for political sentiment, but of no authority as to the parties whose names are assumed. The reputation he acquired by this work, which was well enough written to deceive Voltaire into the opinion that it was the production of one long acquainted with the courts and politics of Europe, encouraged Maubert to publish “Histoire politique de siecle,” 1757, 2 vols. 4to. About this time, or soon after, we find him in England, where he boasts of the patronage of lord Bolingbroke, and his friend Mr. Henry Furnese, one of the lords of the admiralty, who endeavoured to procure him a place in that office at the head of which the duke of Newcastle then was, but that the death of his protector put an end to his hopes. In this account are some of those blunders which French writers seem to delight to commit, in speaking of the affairs of England. Mr. Furnese was a commissioner of the treasury for a year, and the duke of Newcastle first lord; but, whatever truth or falsehood there may be in his account of his connexions here, Maubert was at last obliged to make a precipitate retreat, being taken for a spy, and once more landed in Holland, where he published several political pamphlets, for which, such was his tergiversation, he was paid by that very count Bruhl who had prosecuted him some years before. At length he became obnoxious here too, and was obliged to go to Brussels, where he became editor of the Brussels Gazette, a paper, that under his management was for some time proverbial for want of veracity, marked hostility to the principles of liberty, and ignorance of the real state of the political affairs it professed to discuss or narrate. This character applied also with peculiar justice to Maubert’s “Historical and Political Mercury,” two numbers of which were translated and published in English in 1760, and to his other political pamphlets, “Testament politique de Walpole;” “Ephruimjustifie,” &c. As to the conclusion of his life, there are many reports, but they all agree that he died at Altona in 1767.

In 1746 Maupertuis was declared, by the king of Prussia, president of the royal academy of sciences at Berlin, and soon after by the same prince was honoured with the order of merit. However, all these accumulated honours and advantages, so far from lessening his ardour for the sciences, seemed to furnish new allurements to labour and application. Not a day passed but he produced some new project or essay for the advancement of knowledge. Nor did he confine himself to mathematical studies only: metaphysics, chemistry, botany, polite literature, all shared his attention, and contributed to his fame. At the same time Jie had, it seems, a strange inquietude of spirit, with a dark atrabilious humour, which rendered him miserable amidst honours and pleasures. Such a temperament did not promise a pacific life; and he was in fact engaged in several quarrels. One of these was with Koenig the professor of philosophy at Franeker, and another more terrible with Voltaire. Maupertuis had inserted in the vohime of Memoirs of the Academy of Berlin for 1746, a discourse upon the laws of motion; which Koenig was not content with attacking, but attributed to Leibnitz. Maupertuis, stung with the imputation of plagiarism, engaged the academy of Berlin to call upon him for his proof; which Koenig failing to produce, his name was struck out of the academy, of which he was a member. Several pamphlets were the consequence of this measure and Voltaire, for some reason or other, engaged in the quarrel against Maupertuis, although they had been apparently upon the most amicable terms. Voltaire upon this occasion exerted all his wit and satire against him; and upon the whole was so much transported beyond what was thought right, that he found it expedient in 1753 to quit the court of Prussia. Our philosopher’s constitution had Jong been considerably impaired by the great fatigues of various kinds in which his active mind had involved him; though, from the amazing hardships he had undergone in his northern expedition, most of his bodily sufferings may be traced. The intense sharpness of the air could only be supported by means of strong liquors; which helped but to lacerate his lungs, and bring on a spitting of blood, which began at least twelve years before he died. Yet still his mind seemed to enjoy the greatest vigour; for the best of his writings were produced, and most sublime ideas developed, during the time of his confinement by sickness, when he was unable to occupy his presidial chair at the academy. He took several journeys to St. Malo during the last years, of his life, for the recovery of his health: and though he always received benefit by breathing his native air, yet still, upon his return to Berlin, his disorder likewise returned with greater violence. His last journey into France was undertaken in 1757; when he was obliged, soon after his arrival there, to quit his favourite retreat at St. Malo, on account of the danger and confusion which that town was thrown into by the arrival of the English in its neighbourhood. From thence he went to Bourdeaux, hoping there to meet with a neutral ship to carry him to Hamburgh, in his way back to Berlin; but, being disappointed in that hope, he went to Toulouse, where he remained seven months. He had then thoughts of going to Italy, in hopes a milder climate would restore him to health but finding himself grow worse, he rather inclined towards Germany, and went to Neufchatel, where for three months he enjoyed the conversation of lord Marischal, with whom he had formerly been much connected. At length he arrived at Basil, October 16, 1758, where he was received by his friend Bernoulli and his family with the utmost tenderness and affection. He at first found himself much better here than he had been at Neufchatel: but this amendment was of short duration; for as the winter approached, his disorder returned, accompanied by new and more alarming symptoms. He languished here many months, during which he was attended by M. de la Condamine; and died in 1759, at sixty-one years of age.

The works which he published were collected into 4 volumes, 8vo, published at Lyons in 1756, where also a new and elegant edition was printed in 1768. These contain the following works: 1. Essay On Cosmology. 2. Discourse on the different Figures of the Stars. 3. Essay on Moral Philosophy. 4. Philosophical reflections upon the Origin of Languages, and the signification of words. 5. Animal Physics, concerning Generation, &c. 6. System of Nature, or the formation of bodies. 7. Letters on various subjects. 8. On the progress of the Sciences. 9. Elements of Geography. 10. Account of the expedition to the Polar Circle, for determining the figure of the Earth; or the measure of the Earth at the Polar Circle. 11. Account of a Journey into the heart of Lapland, to search for an ancient Monument. 12. On the Comet of 1742. 13. Various Academical Discourses, pronounced in the French and Prussian academies. 14. Dissertation upon Languages. 15. Agreement of the different Laws of Nature, which have hitherto appeared incompatible. 16. Upon the Laws of Motion. 17. Upon the Laws of Rest. 18. Nautical Astronomy. 19. On the Parallax of the Moon. 20. Operations for determining the figure of the Earth, and the variations of Gravity. 21. Measure of a Degree of the meridian at the Polar Circle.

, a French historian of the seventeenth century, was a protestant, and passed the chief part of his life in the courts of Germany. He died September 22, 1681. He calls himself in the titles of his works Seigneur de Sallettes, chevalier of the order of St. Michael, counsellor secretary to the elector of Mentz, and counsellor to the duke of Wirtemberg, titles which, Marchand remarks, do not very well agree with that of “teacher of the French language in the college of Tubingen.” His writings are now considered as feebly written, and are little known or consulted, but they had a degree of reputation in their day. The principal of them are, 1. “Etat de l'Empire,” State of the Empire, or an abridgment of the public law of Germany, 12 mo. 2. “Science des Princes,” which is an edition of the political considerations of Gabriel Naudee; with reflections added by du May, 1683, 8vo. 3. “The prudent Voyager,” 1681, 12mo.

His skill is in parody; and he was breaking out of the civil wars, joined himself very heartily to the parliament. Fuller gives a reason for this when he says that “some disgust at court was given to, or taken by him, as some would have it, because his bays were not gilded richly enough, and his verses rewarded by king Charles according to expectation.” Others, as Phillips and Winstanley, say more particularly, “that his desertion from the court was owing to his being disappointed of the place of queen’s poet, to which sir William Davenant, his competitor, was preferred before him;” and Clarendon seems to have suggested this opinion. Whatever was the cause, it is certain that he threw himself under the protection, and into the service of the parliament; and recommended himself so effectually to them, as to be appointed their secretary and historiographer. Agreeably to the duties of this last office, he published, in 1647, “The History of the Parliament of England, which began Nov. 3, 1640; with a short and necessary view of some precedent years,” folio. The first book of this history begins with short characters of queen Elizabeth and king James, passing through the former part of king Charles’s reign, to 1641; and the last ends with a narrative of the first battle of Newbury, in 1643. He afterwards made an abstract of this history, and a continuation of it to the death of king Charles I. in Latin, in 16^-9; and then an English translation of it, entitled “A Breviary of the History of the Parliament of England,” 1650, 8vo. Echard calls this history, “one of the genteelest and handsomest libels of those times.” Granger is of opinion that there is more candour in this history than the royalists were willing to allow him, but less elegance than might have been expected from the pen of so polite and classical a scholar. Warburton’s praise of this work is perhaps of more value. In a letter to Dr. Hurd he says, “May’s History of the Parliament is a just composition, according to the rules of history. It is written with much judgment, penetration, manliness, and spirit. And with a candour that will greatly increase your esteem, when you understand that he wrote by order of his masters the parliament. It breaks off (much to the loss of the history of that time) just when their armies were new modelled by the self-denying ordinance”

His abilities, or that charm with which an independent mind never fails to conciliate its enemies, seem to have preserved him while thus apparently “serving two masters;” for in 1653, he was by writ called to the rank of serjeant at law; and in May of the same year was made, by patent, Cromwell’s serjeant. Here, too, his love of justice predominated, and he zealously pleaded the cause of a merchant of London, who had the boldness to oppose paying a tax imposed by Oliver without the consent of parliament. For this Oliver sent serjeant Maynard, serjeant Twysden, and counsellor Wadham Wyndham, to the Tower; nor were they released without making submission in some form or other. Maynard was afterwards continued serjeant to Richard Cromwell during his short period of usurpation.

In 1661 he was chosen member of parliament for Beralston in Devonshire, and soon after, disliking the measures of the king’s ministers, engaged in opposition to them. He appears also to have sat, either for Beralston or Plymouth, in every parliament until the revolution. In 1679-80, he was one of the committee appointed to manage the evidence against William Viscount Stafford, impeached of high treason for being concerned in the popish plot. He was afterwards a member of the convention which brought about the revolution, and was active in promoting that event, ably supporting the parliamentary vote that the king had abdicated, and that the throne was thereby vacant.“He was now about eighty-seven years old, yet possessed his original vigour of understanding. Burnet has recorded a bon mot of his, on his first waiting on the prince of Orange, afterwards William III. which has been often repeated to his praise. On the prince noticing his great age, and that he had outlived all the men of the law of his time, Sir John Maynard replied, that” he had like to have out-lived the law itself, if his highness had not come over." The old serjeant had forgot that he had once seen the law as near its dissolution as ever it was in king James’s time.

, an English poet and divine, was born at Hatherlagh in Devonshire, in 1604. He received his education at Westminster-school; and was afterwards removed to Christ-church in Oxford, when he was about twenty. He took his bachelor and master of arts degrees in the regular way; and then, entering into holy orders, was presented by his college to the vicarages of Cassington, near Woodstock, and of Pyrton, near Watlington in Oxfordshire. He became, says W T ood, “a quaint preacher, and a noted poet;” and, in the latter capacity, distinguished himself by the production of two plays, entitled “The City Match,” a comedy; and “The Amorous War,” a tragi-comedy. When the rebellion broke out, and Charles I. was obliged to keep his court at Oxford, to avoid being exposed to the resentment of the populace in London, where tumults then prevailed, Dr. Mayne was one of those divines who were appointed to preach before his majesty. In 1646, he was created a doctor of divinity; and the year after, printed a sermon at Oxford, “Against false prophets,” upon Ezek. xxii. 26. which occasioned a dispute between him and the memorable antagonist of Chillingworth, Mr. Cheynell. Cheynell had attacked his sermon from the pulpit at St. Mary’s in Oxford; and several letters passed between them, which were published by Dr. Mayne the same year, in a piece entitled “A late printed sermon against false prophets vindicated by letter from the causeless aspersions of Mr. Francis Cheynell; by Jasper Mayne, D. D. the misunderstood author of it.” Mayne having said, in one of his letters to Cheynell, that “God, upon a true repentance, is not so fatally tied to the spindle of absolute reprobation, as not to keep his promise, and seal merciful pardons;” Cheynell animadverted upon him in the following terms: “Sir, Reprobatio est tremendum mysterium. How dare you jet upon such a subject, at the thought of which each Christian trembles? Can any man repent, that is given up to a reprobate mind and impenitent heart? And is not every man finally impenitent, save those few to whom God gives repentance freely, powerfully, effectually? See what it is for a man to come from Ben Jonson or Lucian, to treat immediately of the high and stupendous mysteries of religion. The Lord God pardon this wicked thought of your heart, that you may not perish in the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness. Be pleased to study the ixth chapter to the Romans.” The same year Mayne published also another piece, entitled, “OXAOMAXIAj or, the people’s war examined according to the principles of scripture and reason, in two of the most plausible pretences of it. ID answer to a letter sent by a person of quality, who desired satisfaction.” In this piece he examines, first, how far the power of a king, who is truly a king, not one only in name, extends itself over subjects; secondly, whether any such power belongs to the king of England; and, thirdly, if there does, how far it is to be obeyed, and not resisted. The conclusion he draws is, that the parliamentary resistance to the king was rebellion. We cannot be surprized if a man of such principles was deprived of his studentship at Christ-church, in 1648, and soon after of both his livings. During the time of the usurpation, he was chaplain to the earl of Devonshire, and consequently became the companion of the celebrated Hobbes, who then attended his lordship; but, as Wood informs us, Mayne and he did not agree well together. At the restoration he not only recovered both his livings, but, for his services and attachment to the royal cause, was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, and made archdeacon of Chichester, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, which preferments he held to the time of his death, Dec. 6, 1672. He was interred in the choir at Christ-church, where a monument was erected for him, at the charge of his executors, Dr. Robert South, and Dr. John Lamphire. By his will he left 500l. towards the re-building of St. Paul’s cathedral, and lOOl each to both of his livings. Though very orthodox in his opinions, and severe in his manners, he is said to have been a most facetious and pleasant companion, and a great joker. Of this last, Langbaine gives an instance which affords no very pleasing specimen of Mayne, either as a serious or a jocular man. Langbaine says that he had a servant, who had long lived with him; to whom he bequeathed a trunk, “with something in it,” as he said, “which would make him drink after his death.” The doctor dying, the servant immediately paid a visit to the trunk; but instead of a treasure, or at least a valuable legacy, which he expected, he found Only a red herring.

Besides the writings above-mentioned, Mayne published “A Poem upon the Naval Victory over the Dutch by the duke of York,” and four sermons one “Concerning unity and agreement, preached at Oxford in 1646;” another “Against schism, or the separations of these times, preached it) the church. of Watlingtoti in Oxfordshire, in 1652,” at a public dispute held there, between himself and an eminent Anabaptist preacher, the same year; a “Concio ad academiam Oxoniensem, in 1662,” and “A Sermon at the consecration of Herbert lord bishop of Hereford, in 1662.” He translated some of “Lucian’s Dialogues,” in 1638; and also “Donne’s Latin epigrams,” in 1652, which he entitled “A sheaf of miscellany epigrams.”

, a very learned and ingenious physician of the seventeenth century, appears to have been born in Cornwall, in 1645, was a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, and a probationary fellow of All Souls’ college. He took his degrees in civil law, but studied and practised physic; and principally at Bath, in the summer. He died at the house of an apothecary in York-street, Covent-garden, in September 1679, and was buried in the church of that parish. He published, “Tractatus quinque medicophysici, 1. de sale nitro, et spiritu nitro-aerio; 2. de re spiratione; 3. de respiratione foetus in utero, et ovo; 4. de motu musculari et spiritibus animalibus; 5. de Rachitide.” These were published together at Oxford, in 1674, 8vo; but there is an edition of two of them, “de respiratione,” and “de Rachitide,” published together at Leyden, in 1671. The fame of this author has been lately renewed and extended by Dr. Beddoes, who published in 179O, “Chemical Experiments and Opinions, extracted from a work published in the last century,” 8vo, in which he gives to Mayow the highest credit as a chemist, and ascribes to him some of the greatest modern discoveries respecting air; giving many extracts from the three first of his treatises. His chief discovery was, that dephlogisticated air (or as he called it, with Scheele) fire-air, exists in the nitrous acid, and in the atmosphere; which he proved by such decisive experiments, as to render it impossible to explain how Boyle and Hales could avoid availing themselves, in their researches into air, of so capital a discovery. Mayow also relates his manner of passing aeriform fluids under water, from vessel to vessel, which is generally believed to be a new art. He did not collect dephlogisticated air in vessels, and transfer it from one jar to another, but he proved its existence by finding substances that would burn in vacuo, and in water when mixed with nitre; and after animals had breathed and died in vessels filled with atmospheric air, or after fire had been extinguished in them, there was a residuum, which was the part of the air unfit for respiration, and for supporting fire; and he further shewed, that nitrous acid cannot be formed, but by exposing the substances that generate it to the atmosphere. Mayow was undoubtedly no common man, especially since, if the above dates are right, he was only thirty-four at the time of his death. But he was not so unknown as Dr. Beddoes supposed, for, since the repetition of the same discovery by Priestley and Scheele, reference has frequently been made by chemists to Mayow, as the original inventor; though no other person appears so closely to have examined his work as that writer. At the same time it appears, that with the partiality of a commentator, he has exalted his author unwarrantably at the expence of other chemists, and to a height, which, without the aid of strained interpretations, cannot be justified by the text.

The cardinal de Richelieu was induced from these services to conceive an esteem for him, while Barberini was equally attached to him, and prevailed upon Urban VIII. to make him keeper of the seals. He went in 1634 to Avignon, in quality of vice- legate, and to France in that of nuncio extraordinary, where he acquired a profound knowledge of state affairs, and with much art cultivated at the same time, the friendship of Richelieu, and the good-will of Louis XIII. In compliment to the nomination of this monarch, the pope added him to the number of cardinals in 1641. When Richelieu died, the same king made Mazarin his minister of state, and one of the executors to his will. In these departments, he took upon him the administration of affairs, during the minority of Louis XIV. and the regency of the queen Anne of Austria. The dawnings of his power were attended with the happiest success; and the good fortune of the king’s armies was to our cardinal a source of much national applause. But these advantages were very soon succeeded by the murmurs of an oppressed people, and the envious combination of the great nobles, who were jealous of his high advancement. Hence arose the civil wars in 1649, and the three following years; and the dissatisfaction becoming more general, it was insisted upon, that he should be dismissed from the royal presence. Mazarin, who knew how necessary it was for him to retire, demanded that he might take his leave; and immediately departed from the kingdom. He was stili so conscious of fortune’s always attending him, that he mentioned even this event as one of the chief incidents contributing to his greatness; and although decrees were issued out against him, his fine library was sold, and a price was fixed upon his head, he contrived to quell this fury with most astonishing dexterity. He even was enabled to return to court, and with a double share of power; and so mutable is popular opinion, that many who once had been his bitterest enemies, were now become his warmest friends. After this, he continued to render the state many important services, the chief of which was the obtaining of peace between France and Spain: for this purpose, he went in person to hold a conference with the Spanish minister, don Louis de Haro, in 1659. The successful termination of this affair, was followed by the king’s marriage, with the Infanta. The continual application of Mazarin to business brought on a very dangerous iUness: he was at that time at the Louvre, but gave orders to be carried to Vincennes, where he died March 9, 1661, aged 59. When sensible of his danger, he began to feel scruples concerning the wealth which he had heaped together, and his confessor plainly told him that restitution was necessary for his salvation. He gave the whole to the king, in the hope that, as was the case, his majesty would restore it to him. His wealth is said to have amounted to eight millions sterling, all collected in a time of war, or national commotion. The king paid the highest honours to his memory. His body was magnificently entombed in the college usually called after his name, but sometimes by that of “the four nations,” having been designed as a place of education for the youth of the four conquered nations.

Mazarin had a brother and two sisters. His letters have been published; thirty-six of them made their appearance at Paris in 1691; and, in 1693, a second volume came out, containing seventy-seven more: the whole was reprinted in two parts in 1694. These letters are not arranged in the order of their dates; but this error was amended in a later edition, published (as the title-page informs us) at Amsterdam, by Zachary Chatelain, in 1745, in 2 vols. 12mo. For this we are indebted to the care of the abbe“d'Alainval; but this edition is rendered more valuable than the others, being augmented by more than fifty letters, which had never before appeared, and which are all placed in their just order. The title of this work is,” Letters of cardinal Mazarin, containing the Secrets of the Negociations concerning the Pyrenean Peace, and the Conferences which he had on that subject with Don Louis de Haro, the Spanish minister; the whole enriched with historical Notes." The character of Mazarin has been compared with that of Richelieu, but unjustly. In Mazarin’s there was nothing amiable or great, and his ambition was too nearly allied to avarice to command respect.

Dr. Mead’s reputation now greatly increased his business, and recommended him to the patronage of the most eminent of the faculty. In 1707 he had the degree of M. D. conferred on him by the university of Oxford, by diploma. On the last illness of queen Anne, he was called in consultation, two days before her death. Cautious and reserved as physicians usually are on such occasions, Dr. Mead, either more discerning or more bold, no sooner saw the queen than he declared her in immediate danger; and when he found his brethren demur on this opinion, he said it would be sufficient to send to Hanover an account of the present symptoms, by which the physicians of that court would immediately perceive that, before the account came to them, the queen would be no more. Having opened his mind freely on this subject to his friend and protector Dr. Radcliffe, the latter made use of that friendship to excuse his own attendance. Radcliflfe surviving the queen but three months, Mead removed to his house, and resigned his office in St. Thomas’s hospital.

Dr. Mead was not more to be admired for the qualities of his head than to be loved for those of his heart. Though he was himself a zealous whig, yet party principles did not prevent his attachment to men of merit, by whatever denomination they might happen to be distinguished. Thus he was intimate with Garth, with Arbuthnot, and with Freind. Of his connexion with, and liberal conduct to, the latter, we have already given an account (vol. XV. p. 112, 113). Dr. Mead, however, amidst so many excellent qualities, was not without resentments equally steady. That against Woodward was certainly carried to a length highly exceptionable; as we find by Mead’s preface to his treatise on the small pox, it had not subsided twenty years after Woodward’s death. The first quarrel between Mead and Woodward was of a personal kind, but in what it originated we know not. Mead felt it, however, in such a manner, that he went to Woodward’s lodgings to demand satisfaction; and meeting him at Gresham college, under the arch in the way from the outer court to the green court, he drew his sword, and bid Woodward defend himself, or beg pardon, which, it is supposed, he did. This rencontre is recorded in the view of the college, prefixed to Ward’s “Lives of the Gresham Professors,” in which Woodward is represented kneeling, and laying his sword at the feet of his antagonist. Mead was the friend and patron of Ward, which may account, although it cannot well excuse, his introducing and perpetuating a foolish circumstance so foreign to the nature of his work.

Dr. Mead was admitted fellow of the college of physicians, April 9, 1716; and executed the office of censor in 1716, 1719, and 1724. In 1719, on an alarm confirmed by the fatal plague at Marseilles, the lords of the regency directed Mr. Craggs, then secretary of state, to apply to Dr. Mead, to give the best directions for preventing the importation of the plague, or stopping its progress. His opinion was approved; and quarantine directed to be performed. Of his “Discourse concerning Pestilential Contagion,” no less than seven editions were printed in 1720; the eighth, which appeared in 1722, and again in 1743, was enlarged with many new observations, and translated into Latin by professor Ward, as the first edition had been by Mr. Maittaire. This discourse is said to have greatly hurt his practice, fora time at least, not for medical, but political reasons, as it was suspected to be intended to prepare the way for barracks, &c. at a time when the nation was extremely jealous of a standing army. By order of the prince of Wales, Dr. Mead assisted, Aug. 10, 1721, at the inoculation of some condemned criminals; and the experiment succeeding, the two young princesses, Amelia and Caroline, were inoculated April 17, 1722, and had the distemper favourably.

Being arrived at the time of life when retirement becomes necessary, he declined the presidentship of the college of physicians, which was offered him in October 1744, and now employed his leisure in revising his former, and composing new works. He had, so early as 1712, communicated to Dr. Freind his opinions respecting the importance of purgatives in the secondary fever of small-pox, upon which subject Dr. Freind published a letter in 1719. But it was not till 1747, that Dr. Mead printed his treatise “De Variolis et Morbillis,” which contains many valuable observations on both these diseases, and also strong recommendations of the practice of inoculation. To this treatise, which was written in a pure Latin style, he subjoined a translation of Rhazes’s commentary on the Smallpox, into the same language, a copy of which be had obtained from Leyden, through the assistance of his fellowstudent Boerhaave, with whom he had maintained a constant correspondence. In 1749 he published his “Medicina Sacra, seu de Morbis insignioribus qui in Bibliis memorantur,” 8vo. The object of this work was to shew that the diseases, mentioned in the Bible, were explicable on natural grounds and in this he particularly attempted to prove that the daemoniacs mentioned in the gospel were only insane, or epileptic persons. His last work, a summary of the experience of his professional life, was published in 1751, under the title of “Monita et Praecepta Medica,” 8vo. This little volume was almost purely practical, consisting of detached observations on a variety of diseases and medicines, many of which have stood the test of subsequent experience: it was frequently reprinted, and was translated into English, under his inspection, by Dr. Stack.

Dr. Mead was twice married. By his first lady, whom we have mentioned, he had ten children (of whom three survived him, two daughters married to Dr. Wilmot and Dr. Nicholls, and his son Richard, heir to his father’s and uncle’s fortunes): by the second lady, Miss Anne Alston, sister to sir Rowland Alston of Odell in Bedfordshire (whom he married in 1724), he had no issue. Dr. Mead raised the medical character to a higher dignity than ever was known in this or any other country. During almost half a century he was at the head of his profession, which is said to have brought him in one year upwards of seven thousand pounds, and between five and six for several years. The clergy, and in general all men of learning, were welcome to his advice; and his doors were open every morning to the most indigent, whom he frequently assisted with money; so that, notwithstanding his great income, he did not die very rich. He was a most generous patron of learning and learned men, in all sciences, and in every country; by the peculiar munificence of his disposition, making the private gains of his profession answer the end of a princely fortune, and valuing them only as they enabled him to become more extensively useful, and thereby to satisfy that greatness of mind which will transmit his name to posterity with a lustre not inferior to that of the most distinguished characters of antiquity. To him the several counties of England, and our colonies abroad, applied for the choice of their physicians. No foreigner of any learning, taste, or even curiosity, ever came to England without being introduced to Dr. Mead; and he was continually consulted by the physicians of the continent. His large and spacious house in Great Ormond street became a repository of all that was curious in nature or in art, to which his extensive correspondence with the learned in all parts of Europe not a little contributed. The king of Naples sent to request a collection of all his works; presented him with the two first volumes of signor Bajardi, and invited him to his own palace: and, through the hands of M. de Boze, he frequently had the honour of exchanging presents with the king of France. He built a gallery for his favourite furniture, his pictures, and his antiquities. His library, as appears by the printed catalogue of it, consisted of 6592 numbers, containing upwards of 10,000 volumes, in which he had spared no expence for scarce and ancient editions. It was at that time mentioned as remarkable, although it will not be thought so now, that many of his books sold for much more than they had cost him. The sale of the whole amounted to 5500l. His pictures also were chosen with so much judgment, that they produced 3417l. 11s. about six or seven hundred pounds more than he gave for them; and the total amount of his books, pictures, coins, &c. &c. was 16,069l. 8s. Md. Nor did he make this great collection for his own use only, but freely opened it to public inspection. Ingenious men were sure of finding at Dr. Mead’s the best helps in all their undertakings; and scarcely any thing curious appeared in England but under his patronage. By his singular humanity and goodness, “he conquered even Envy itself;” a compliment which was justly paid him in a dedication, by the editor of lord Bacon’s Works, in 1730. But the most elegant compliment he received, or couid receive, was in the dedication written by Dr Johnson for Dr James, which we have inserted in vol. XVIII. art. James. Dr. Johnson once said of Dr. Mead, that “he lived more in the broad sunshine of life than almost any man.” He constantly kept in pay a great number of scholars and artists of all kinds, who were at work for him or for the public. He was the friend of Pope, of Halley, and of Newton; and placed their portraits in his house, with those of Shakspeare and Milton, near the busts of their great masters, the ancient Greeks and Romans. A marble bust of Dr. Harvey, the work of an excellent artist, from an original picture in his possession, was given by him to the college of physicians: and one of Dr. Mead, by Roubillac, was presented to the college in 1756, by the late Dr. Askew. A portrait of him was etched by Pond, another by Richardson; a mezzotinto by Houston, from a painting of Ramsay; and an engraved portrait by Baron. There was also a medal of him struck in 1773, long after his decease, by Lewis Pingo.

Among the many characteristic anecdotes of Dr. Mead, which have been published, one is, that he never took a fee of any clergyman, except of Mr. Robert Leake, fellow of St. John’s college, Cambridge; who, falling into a valetudinarian state, dabbled rather too much with the writings, and followed too closely some of the prescriptions, of the celebrated Dr. Cheyne. Being greatly emaciated in a course of time, by keeping too strictly to that gentleman’s regimen, misapplying perhaps his rules, where the case required a different treatment, his friends advised him to apply to Dr. Mead; which he did, going directly to London to wait on the doctor, and telling him that “he had hitherto observed Cheyne’s directions, as laid down in his printed books.” Mead (a proud man and passionate), spoke with contempt of Cheyne and his regimen. “Follow my prescriptions,” said he, “and I will set you up again.” Mr. Leake submitted; and beginning to find some benefit, he asked the doctor every now and then, whether it might not be proper for him to follow at the same time such and such a prescription of Cheyne; which Mead took ill. When the well-meaning patient was got pretty well again, he asked the doctor what fees he desired or expected from him. “Sir,” said the physician, “I have never yet, in the whole course of my practice, taken or demanded any the least fee from any clergyman. But since you have been pleased, contrary to 'what I have met with in any other gentleman of your profession, to prescribe to me, rather than to follow my prescriptions, when you had committed the care of your recovery tomy skill and trust, you must not take it amiss, nor will, I hope, think it unfair, if I demand ten guineas of you.” The money, though not perhaps without some little reluctance, was paid down. The doctor at the sa.ne time told Leake, “You may come to me again, belore you quit London.” He did so; and Mead returned to him six guineas out of the ten which he had received.

, an Irish physician and poet, was born at Ormond, about the close of the sixteenth century, in the county of Tipperary, and educated at Oxford. Wood doubts this, because he could find no record of his matriculation or degrees; but in one of his writings he styles himself “lately a member of the university of Oxford,” and it is probable that he took his medical degrees there, as immediately on his leaving Oxford, he settled in his own country, and soon attained the highest eminence in his profession. He was living in 1620, but the time of his death is not specified in our authorities. He wrote a heroic poem, in Latin, on the earl of Ormond and Ossory, entitled “Ormonius, sive illust. herois et Domini D. Thomse Butler, &c. prosapia, &c.” printed at London in 1615, 8vo, % with an English version by William Roberts, Ulster king at arms. He wrote also some medical treatises, of which one only was published, on hereditary disorders, “Pathologia hereditaria generalis, &c.” Dublin, 1619, 12mo. It was afterwards reprinted with the works of his son Edmund Meara, London, 1665, and Amsterdam, 1666, 12mo. This son, a graduate of Oxford, practised both in Ireland and England, was a member of the college of physicians of London, and resided for some time at Bristol. He died about 1680, and had a short controversy with Dr. Lower, occasioned by Meara’s publishing an “Examen Diatribae Thomae Willisii, de Febribus,” London, 1665, 8vo. Lower answered it by a “Vindicatio Diatribae Willisii,” written with much controversial bitterness.

, a learned -English divine, was born in 1586, of a good family, at Berden, in Essex. When he was about ten years old, both he and his father fell sick of the small pox; which proving mortal to the father, the son fell under the care of a Mr. Gower, to whom his mother was soon after married. He was sent to school first to Hoddesdon, in Hertfordshire, and then to Wethersfield, in Essex. While he was at this last school, going to London upon some occasion, he bought “Bellarmine’s Hebrew Grammar” and though his master, who had no skill in that language, told him it was a book not fit fof him, yet he studied it with so much eagerntss, that in a little time he attained considerable skill in Hebrew. In 1602, he was sent to Christ’s-college, in Cambridge; where, although he had an uncommon impediment in his speech, which would not suffer him to shew himself to advantage, he was soon distinguished for his abilities and learning. Not long after his entrance upon philosophical studies, he became disquieted with scepticism: for, meeting with a book in a fellow-student’s chamber, either “Sextus Empiricus,” or some other of the Pyrrhonic school, he began, upon the perusal of it, to move strange questions to himself, and even to doubt whether the To Ilav, the whole frame of things, as it appears to us, were any thing more than a mere phantasm, or imagination; and, till his principles were settled, his life, as he professed, was utterly without comfort.

He was not chosen fellow of his college till after he was master of arts, and then not without the assistance of his friend bishop Andrews: for he had been passed over at several elections, on account of a groundless suspicion which Dr Cary, then master of the college, afterwards bishop of Exeter, had conceived of him, that “he looked too much towanis Geneva;” that is, was inclined to the tenets of that church. Being made fellow, he became an eminent and faithful tutor. After he had well grounded his pupils in classics, logic, and philosophy, his custom was to set every one his dnily task; which he rather chose, than to confine himself and them to precise hours for lectures. In the evening they all came to his chamber; and the first question he put to each was, “Quid dubitas? What doubts have you met with in your studies to-day?” For he supposed, that to doubt nothing and to understand nothing was the same thing. By this method he taught the young men to exercise their reasoning powers, and not acquiesce in what they learn mechanically, with an indolence of spirit, which prepares them to receive implicitly whatever is offered them. In the mean time he was appointed reader of the Greek lecture of Sir Walter Mildmay’s foundation; an office which he held during the remainder of his life. While at college, he was so entirely devoted to study that he made even the time he spent in his amusements serviceable to his purpose. He allowed himself little or no exercise but walking; and often, in the fields or college garden, would take occasion to speak of the beauty, distinctions, virtues, or properties, of the plants then in view: for he was a curious florist, an accurate herbalist, and thoroughly versed in the book of nature. The chief delight he took in company was to discourse with learned friends; and he used to spend much time with his worthy friend Mr. William Chappel, afterwards provost of Trinity-college, Dublin, and bishop of Cork and Ross, a man of great learning, and who had a high regard for Mr. Mede.

In 1618 he took the degree of bachelor in divinity, but his modesty restrained him from proceeding to that of doctor. In 1627, a similar motive induced him to refuse the provostship of Trinity-college, Dublin, into which he had been elected at the recommendation of archbishop Usher, who was his particular friend; as he did also when it was offered him a second time, in 1630. The height of his ambition was, only to have had some small donative sinecure added to his fellowship, or to have been preferred to some place of quiet, where, retired from the noise and tumults of the world, and possessed of a competency, he might be entirely at leisure for study and acts of piety. When, therefore, a report was spread that he was made chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, he thus expressed himself in a letter to a friend: that “he had lived, till the best of his time was spent, in tranquillitate et secessu; and now, that there is but a little left, should 1,” said he, “be so unwise, suppose there was nothing else, as to enter into a tumultuous life, where I should not have time to think my own thoughts, and must of necessity displease others or myself? Those who think so, know not my disposition in this kind to be as averse, as some perhaps would be ambitious.” In the mean time, though his circumstances were scanty, for he had nothing but his fellowship and the Greek lecture, his charity was diffusive and uncommon; and, extraordinary as it may now seem, he devoted the tenth of his income to pious and charitable uses. But his frugality and temperance always afforded him plenty. His prudence or moderation, either in declaring or defending his private opinions, was very remarkable; as was also his freedom from partiality, prejudice, or prepossession, pride, anger, selfishness, flattery, and ambition. He died Oct. 1, 1638, in his 52d year, having spent above two-thirds of his time in college, to which he bequeathed the residue of his property, after some small legacies. He was buried next day in the college chapel. As to his person, he was of a comely proportion, and rather tall than otherwise. His eye was full, quick, and sparkling-; his whole countenance sedate and grave; awful, but at the same time tempered with an inviting sweetness: and his behaviour was friendly, affable, cheerful, and upon occasion intermixed with pleasantry. Some of his sayings and bon mots are recorded by the author of his life; one of which was, his calling such fellow-commoners as came to the university only to see it, or to be seen in it, “the university tulips,” that made a gaudy shew for a while; but, upon the whole, his biographers have made a better estimate of his learning than of his wit. In his life-time he produced three treatises only: the first entitled “Clavis Apocalyptica ex innatis & insitis visionum characteribus eruta et demonstrata,” Cant. 1627, 4to; of which he printed only a few copies, at his own expence, and for the use of friends. To this he added, in 1632, “In sancti Joannis Apocalypsin. commentarius, ad amussim Clavis Apocalypticse.” This is the largest and the most elaborate of any of his writings. The other two were but short tracts: namely, “About the name vtriao-lyfiov, anciently given to the holy table, and about churches in the apostles’ times.” The rest of his works were printed after his decease; and in the best edition published by Dr. Worthington, in 1672, folio, the whole are divided into five books, and disposed in the following order. The first book contains fifty-three “Discourses on several texts of Scripture' the second, such” Tracts and discourses as are of the like argument and design“the third, his” Treatises upon some of the prophetical Scriptures, namely, The Apocalypse, St. Peter’s prophecy concerning the day of Christ’s second coming, St. Paul’s prophecy touching the apostacy of the latter times, and three Treatises upon some obscure passages in Daniel:“the fourth, his” Letters to several learned men, with their letters also to him :“the fifth,” Fragmenta Sacra, or such miscellanies of divinity, as could not well come under any of the aforementioned heads.“ These are the works of this pious and profoundly learned man, as not only his editor calls him in the title-page, but the best livin: s have allowed him to be. His comments on the book of Revelation, are still considered as containing the mo-t satisfactory explanation of those obscure prophecies, so far as they have been yet fulfilled: and, in every other [>a< t of iiis works, the talents of a sound and learned divine are eminently conspicuous. It is by no means the least considerable testimony toiis merit, that he has been highly and frequently commended by Jortin but the writer of our times who has bestoweJ most pains on the character and writings of Mr Mede, and who has done the most honour to both, is the late learned bishop Hurd. This prelate has devoted the greater part of his tenth sermon” On the Study of the Prophecies“to the consideration of the” Clavis Apocalyptica.“It would be superfluous to extract at much length from a work so well known; but we may be permitted to conclude with Dr. Kurd’s manner of introducing Mr. Mede to his hearers. Sjie iking of the many attempts to explain the Apocalypse, in the infancy of the reformed church, he says,” The issue of much elaborate enquiry was, that the book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators, and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when a Sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and surprized the learned world with that great desideratum, a * Key to the Revelations’." 1

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

, grandson of the preceding, was born Jan. 1, 1448. From his earliest years he gave proofs of a vigorous mind, which was carefully cultivated, and exhibited many traits of that princely and liberal spirit which afterwards procured him the title of “Magnificent.” In polite literature he cultivated poetry, and gave some proofs of his talents in various compositions. At the death of Cosmo, on account of the infirmities of his father Peter de Medici, he was immediately initiated into political life, although then only in his sixteenth year. He was accordingly sent to visit the principal courts in Italy, and acquire a personal knowledge of their politics and their rulers. In 1469 his father died, leaving his two sons Lorenzo and Julian heirs of his power and property; but it was Lorenzo who succeeded him as head of the republic. Upon the accession of Sixtus IV. to the papal throne, he went, with some other citizens, to congratulate the new pope, and was invested with the office of treasurer of the holy see, and while at Rome took every opportunity to add to the remains of ancient art which his family had collected. One of the first public occurrences after he conducted the helm of government, was a revolt of the inhabitants of Volterra, on account of a dispute with the Florentine republic; by the recommendation of Lorenzo, means of force were adopted, which ended in the sack of the unfortunate city, an event that gave him much concern. In 1472, he re-established the academy of Pisa, to which he removed in order to complete the work, exerted himself in selecting the most eminent professors, and contributed to it a large sum from his private fortune, in addition to that granted by the state of Florence. Zealously attached to the Platonic philosophy, he took an active part in the establishment of an academy for its promotion, and instituted an annual festival in honour of the memory of Plato, which was conducted with singular literary splendour. While he was thus advancing in a career of prosperity and reputation, a tragical incident was very near depriving his country of his future services. This was the conspiracy of the Pazzi, a numerous and distinguished family in Florence, of which the object was the assassination of Lorenzo and his brother. In the latter they were successful; but Lorenzo was saved, and the people attached to the Medici collecting in crowds, putto death or apprehended the assassins, whose designs were thus entirely frustrated, and summary justice was inflicted on the criminals. Salviati, archbishop of Pisa, was hanged out of the palace window in his sacerdotal robes; and Jacob de Pazzi, with one of his nephews, shared the same fate. The name and arms of the Pazzi family were suppressed, its members were banished, and Lorenzo rose still higher in the esteem and affection of his fellow-citizens. The pope, Sixtus IV. who was deep in this foul conspiracy, inflamed almost to madness by the defeat of his schemes, excommunicated Lorenzo and the magistrates of. Florence, laid an interdict upon the whole territory, and, forming a league with the king of Naples, prepared to invade the Florentine dominions. Lorenzo appealed to all the surrounding potentates for the justice of his cause; and he was affectionately supported by his fellow-citizens. Hostilities began, and were carried on with various success through two campaigns. At the close of 1479, Lorenzo took the bold resolution of paying a visit to the king of Naples, and, without any previous security, trusted his liberty and his life to the mercy of a declared enemy. The monarch was struck with this heroic act of confidence, and a treaty of mutual defence and friendship was agreed upon between them, and Sixtus afterwards consented to a peace. At length the death of Sixtus IV. freed him from an adversary who never ceased to bear him ill-will; and he was able to secure himself a friend in his successor Innocent VIII. He conducted the republic of Florence to a degree of tranquillity and prosperity which it had scarcely ever known before; and by procuring the institution of a deliberative body, of the nature of a senate, he corrected the democratical part of his constitution.

Lorenzo distinguished himself beyond any of his predecessors in the encouragement of literature and the arts: and his own productions are distinguished by a vigour of imagination, an accuracy of judgment, and an elegance of style, which afforded the first great example of improvement, and entitle him, almost exclusively, to the honourable appellation of the “restorer of Italian literature.” His compositions are sonnets, canzoni, and other lyric pieces, some longer works in stanzas, some comic satires, and jocose carnival songs, and various sacred poems, the latter as serious as many of the former are licentious. Some of these pieces, especially those of the lighter kind, in which he imitated the rustic dialect, became extremely popular. His regard to literature, in general, was testified by the extraordinary attention which he paid to the augmentation of the Laurentian library. Although the ancestors of Lorenzo laid the foundation of the immense collection of Mss. contained in this library, he may claim the honour of having raised the superstructure. If there was any pursuit in which he engaged more ardently and persevered in more diligently than the rest, it was that of enlarging his collection of books and antiquities: for this purpose he employed the services of learned men, in different parts of Italy, and especially of his intimate friend and companion Poiitian, who took several journeys in order to discover and purchase the valuable remains of antiquity. “I wish,” said Lorenzo to him as he was proceeding on one of these expeditions, “that the diligence of Picus and yourself would afford me such opportunities of purchasing books that I should be obliged even to pledge my furniture to possess them.” Two journeys, undertaken at the instance of Lorenzo, into the east, by John Lascar, produced a great number of rare and valuable works. On his return from his second expedition, he brought with him two hundred copies, many of which he had procured from a monastery at mount Athos; but this treasure did not arrive till after the death of Lorenzo, who, in his last moments, expressed to Politian and Picus his regret that he could not live to complete the collection which he was forming for their accommodation. On the discovery of the invaluable art of printing, Lorenzo was solicitous to avail himself of its advantages in procuring editions of the best works of antiquity corrected by the ablest scholars, whose labours were rewarded b5 T his munificence. When the capture of Constantinople by the Turks caused the dispersion of many learned Greeks, he took advantage of the circumstance, to promote the study of the Greek language in Italy. It was now at Florence that this tongue was inculcated under the sanction of a public institution, either by native Greeks, or learned Italians, who were their powerful competitors, whose services were procured by the diligence of Lorenzo de Medici, and repaid by his bounty. “Hence,” says Mr. Roscoe, “succeeding scholars have been profuse of their acknowledgments to their great patron, who first formed that establishment, from which, to use their own classical figure, as from the Trojan horse, so many illustrious champions have sprung, and by means of which the knowledge of the Greek tongue was extended, not only through all Italy, but through France, Spain, Germany, and England; from all which countries numerous pupils attended at Florence, who diffused the learning they had there acquired throughout the rest of Europe.”

, a French historian, of Irish extraction, as his name sufficiently denotes, was born in 1721 at Salle in the Cevennes. He addicted himself very early to letters, and the' history of his life is only the history of his publications. He produced in 1752, 1. “The origin of the Guebres, or natural religion put int;o action.” This book has too much of the cast uf modern philosophy to deserve recommendation, and has now become very scarce. 2. In 1755 he published “Considerations on the Revolutions of Arts,” a work more easily to be found; and, 3. A small volume of “Fugitive Pieces” in verse, far inferior to his prose. In the ensuing year appeared, 4. His “Memoirs of the Marchioness de Terville, with the Letters of Aspasia,” 12rno. The style of these memoirs is considered as affected, which, indeed, is the general fault prevalent in his works. In his person also he is said to have been affected and finical; with very ready elocution, but a mode of choosing both his thoughts and expressions that was rather brilliant than natural. His style, however, improved as he advanced in life. In 1759 he gave the world a treatise on, 5. “The origin, progress, and decline of Idolatry,” 12mo; a production in which this improvement in his mode of writing is very evident. It is still more so in his, 6. “Picture of modern History,” “Tableau de THistoire moderne,” which was published in 1766, in 3 vols. 12mo. Hts chief faults are those of ill- regulated genius, which is very stronglyapparent in this work it is eloquent, full of those graces of elocution, and richness of imagination, which are said to have made his conversation so peculiar but it becomes fatiguing from an excessive ambition to paint every thing in brilliant colours. He speaks of every thing in the present tense, and he embellishes every subject with images and allusions. He died Jan. 23, 1766, before this most considerable of his works was quite ready for publication. He was married, and his wife is said to have been a woman who in all respects did honour to the elegance of his taste. All his writings are in French.

, a very learned man, of the same family as the preceding, was born in 1611. He devoted himself to literature and criticism, but particularly to the learning of the ancients; as their music, the structure of their galleys, &c. In 1652 he published a collection of seven Greek authors, who had written upon ancient music, to which he added a Latin version by himself. It was entitled “Antiques Musicae auctores septem Greece et Latine, Marcus Meibomius restituit ac Nods explicavit.” Amst. The first volume contains: I. Aristoxeni Harmonicorum Elementorum, libri iii. II. Euclidis Introductio Harmonica. III. Nichomachi Geraseni, Pythagorici, Harmon. Manuale. IV. Alypii Introductio Musica. V. Gaudentii Philosophi Introductio Harmonica. VI. Bacchii Senioris Introductio Artis Musicae. The second volume: Aristidis Quintiliani de Musica, libri iii. Martiani Capellse de Musica, liber ix. This, says Dr. Burney, is the most solid and celebrated of his critical works, in which all subsequent writers on the subject of ancient music place implicit faith. It is from these commentaries on the Greek writers in music, particularly Alypius, that we are able to fancy we can decipher the musical characters used by the ancient Greeks in their notation; which, before his time, had been so altered, corrupted, disfigured, and confounded, by the ignorance or negligence of the transcribers of ancient Mss., that they were rendered wholly unintelligible.

Meibomius, after this learned and elegant publication, was invited to the court of the queen of Sweden, to whom be had dedicated it; but this visit was not followed by the most pleasing consequences. Having by his enthusiastic account of the music of the ancients, impressed this princess with similar ideas, the younger Bourdelot, a physician, and his rival (as a classical scholar) in the queen’s favour, instigated her majesty to desire him to sing an ancient Grecian air, while Naudet, an old Frenchman, danced a la Grec to the sound or his voice. But the performance, instead of exciting admiration, produced loud bursts of laughter from all present; which so enraged Meibomius, that seeing the buffoon Bourdelot in the gallery among the scoffers, and having no doubt but that it was he who, with a malicious design, had persuaded her majesty to desire this performance, immediately flew thither, and exercised the pugilist’s art on his face so violently, without being restrained by the presence of the qneen, that he thought it necessary to quit the Swedish dominions before he could be called to an account for his rashness; and immediately went to Copenhagen, where being well received, he fixed his residence there, and became a professor at Sora, a Danish college for the instruction of the young nobility. Here too he was honoured with the title of aulic counsellor, and soon after was called to Elsineur, and advanced to the dignity of Architesorie, or president of the board of maritime taxes or customs; but, neglecting the duty of his office, he was dismissed, and upon that disgrace quitted Denmark'. Soon after, he settled at Amsterdam, and became professor of history in the college of that city; but refusing to give instructions to the son of a burgomaster, alleging that he was not accustomed to instruct boys in the elements of knowledge, but to finish students arrived at maturity in their studies, he was dismissed from that station. After quitting Amsterdam, he visited France and England; then returning to Holland, he led a studious and private life at Amsterdam till 1710 or 1711, when he died at near 100 years of age.

Meibomius pretended that the Hebrew copy of the Bible was full of errors, and undertook to correct them by means of a metre, which he fancied he had discovered in those ancient writings; but this drew upon him no small raillery from the learned. Nevertheless, besides the work above mentioned, he produced several others, which shewed him to be a good scholar; particularly his “Diogenes Laertius,” Amst. 1692, 2 vols. 4to, by far the most critical and perfect edition of that writer; his “Liber de Fabrica Triremium,” 1671, in which he thinks he discovered the method in which the ancients disposed their banes of oars his edition of the ancient Greek Mythologists and his dialogues on Proportions, a curious work, in which the interlocutors, or persons represented as speaking, are Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Pappus, Eutocius, Theo, and Hermotimus. This last work was opposed by Langius, and by Dr. Wallis in a considerable tract, printed in the first volume of his works.

, a German writer on philosophical subjects, was born in 1718, at Ammendorff, near Halie in Saxony. He appeared first as an author in 1745, when he published, in German, 1. His “Representation of a Critic,” being his delineation of the character of a perfect critic. In the same year he produced, 2. “Instructions how any one may become a Modern Philosopher,” 8vo. We have a translation in this country, called “The Merry Philosopher, or Thoughts on Jesting,” published in 1764, from the German of Meier, but whether a translation of the last- mentioned work, we know not. It is a very dull performance. Whatever merit might belong to his works on philosophical and critical subjects, they were peculiarly his own, for he was not master of the learned languages. Yet his work on the elements of all the polite arts, was received by his countrymen with no inconsiderable approbation. It is entitled, 3. “Introduction to the elegant arts and sciences;” and was printed at Halle, in 8vo, 1748—1750; and republished, in three parts, in 1754—1759. J. Matthew Gesner, however, in his “Isagoge,” is frequently severe against this, author, and particularly derides his form of Æsthetics, which had been much applauded. Meier died in 1777.

, an ancient Latin writer, was born in the province of Boctica in Spain, and flourished in the first century, in the reign of the emperor Claudius. His three books of “Cosmography, or De situ Orbis,” are written in a concise, perspicuous, and elegant manner; and have been thought worthy of the attention and labours of the ablest critics. Isaac Vossius gave an edition of them in 1658, 4to, with very large and copious notes, in which he takes frequent occasion to criticize “Salmasius’s Commentaries upon Solinus.” James Gronovius published “Mela,” in 1658, 12mo, with shorter notes; in which, however, as if he resented Vossius’s treatment of Sahnasius, he censures his animadversions with some degree of severity. To this edition of Mela, is added, “Julii Honorii oratoris excerptum cosmographioe,” first published from the manuscript; and “Æthici Cosmographia.” Vossius answered the castigations of Gronovius, in an “Appendix to his Annotations,” 1686, 4to; but, dying the same year, left his manes to be insulted by Gronovius, in another edition of Mela immediately published, with illustrations by medals. In this last edition by Gronovius, are added five books, “De geographia,” written by some later author; by Jornandes, as Fabricius conjectures. Perhaps one of the best editions of Pomponius Mela, is that by Reynolds, printed at Exeter in 1711, 4to, illustrated with 27 maps, and which was reprinted at London, 1719 and 1739, and at Eton, 1761 and 1775, 4to. The last edition, collated with many Mss. is that by C. H. Tzschuckius, printed at Leipsic, 1807, 7 vols. 8vo.

, whom the common consent of all ecclesiastical historians has placed among the most eminent of the reformers, was born at Bretten, in the Palatinate upon the Rhine, Feb. 16, 1497. His family name, Schwartserd, in German, means literally black earth, which, according to the custom of the times (as in the case of Oecolampadius, Erasmus, Chytraeus, Reuchlin, c.), was exchanged for Melancthon, a compound Greek word of the same signification. His education was at first chiefly under the care of his maternal grandfather Reuter, as his father’s time was much engrossed by the affairs of the elector Palatine, whom he served as engineer, or commissary of artillery. He first studied at a school in Bretten, and partly under a private tutor, and gave very early proofs of capacity. He was afterwards sent to Pfortsheim, a city in the marquisate of Baden, where was a flourishing college, and here he became known to the celebrated Reuchlin, to whom it would appear he was distantly related, and who assisted him in learning the Greek language. Probably by his advice, Melancthon went to the university of Heidelberg, where he was matriculated on Oct. 13, 1509. Such was his improvement here that his biographers inform us he was admitted to his bachelor’s degree, although under fourteen years of age, and that he was intrusted to teach the sons of count Leonstein. Yet, notwithstanding his extraordinary proficiency, he was refused his degree of master on account of his youth; and, either disappointed in this, or because the air of Heidelberg did not agree with his constitution, he left that university in 1512, and went to Tubingen, where he resided six years. Baillet has with much propriety classed Melancthon among the enfans celebres, or list of youths who became celebrated for early genius and knowledge. It is said that while at Heidelberg he was employed in composing the greatest part of the academical speeches, and Baillet adds, that at thirteen he wrote a comedy, and dedicated it to Reuchiin. With such capacity and application he could not fail to distinguish himself during his residence at Tubingen, where he studied divinity, law, and mathematics, and gave public lectures on the Latin classics, and on the sciences. About this time Reuchiin had made him a present of a small edition of the Bible, printed by Frobenius, in reading which, we are told, he took much delight. In 1513 he was created doctor in philosophy, or master of arts, and had attracted the notice of Erasmus, who conceived the highest hopes of him “What hopes, indeed,” he said about 1515, “may we not entertain of Philip Melancthon, who though as yet very young, and almost a boy, is equally to be admired for his knowledge in both languages What quickness of invention what purity of diction what powers of memory what variety of reading what modesty and gracefulness of behaviour!”

In 1518, Frederic elector of Saxony, on the recommendation of Reuchiin, presented him to the Greek professorship in the university of Wittemberg; and his learned and elegant inauguration speech was highly applauded, and removed every prejudice which might be entertained against his youth. Here he read lectures upon Homer and part of the Greek Testament to a crowded audience, and here also he first formed that acquaintance with Luther, then divinity professor at Wittemberg, which was of so much importance in his future life. He became also known to Caroiostadt, one of Luther’s most zealous adherents in opposing the corruptions of popery, and who was at this time archdeacon of Wittemberg. Finding that, some of the sciences had been taught here in a very confused and imperfect manner for want of correct manuals, or text-books, he published in 1519 his “Rhetoric,” which was followed by similar works on “Logic” and “Grammar.” In the above-mentioned year (1519) he accompanied Luther to Leipsic, to witness that conference which Luther had with Eckius (see Luther, vol. XXL p. 507), andjoined so much in the debate as to give Eckius a very unpleasant specimen of his talents in controversy. From this time Melancthon became an avowed supporter of the doctrines of the reformation.

In 1520, Meiancthon read lectures on St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which were so much approved by. Luther, that he caused them to be printed for the good of the church, and introduced them by a preface. In the following year, hearing that the divines of Paris had condemned the works and doctrine of Luiher by a formal decree, Meiancthon opposed them with great zeal and force of argument, and affirmed Luther’s doctrine to be sound and orthodox. In 1527 he was appointed by the elector of Saxony, to visit all the churches within his dominions. He was next engaged to draw up, conjointly with Luther, a system of laws relating to church government, public worship, the ranks, offices, and revenues of the priesthood, and other matters of a similar nature, which the elector promulgated in his dominions, and which was adopted by the other princes of the empire, who had renounced the papal supremacy and jurisdiction. In 1529 he accompanied the elector to the diet at Spire, in which the princes and members of the reformed communion acquired the denomination of Protestants, in consequence of their protesting against a decree, which declared unlawful every change that should be introduced into the established religion, before the determination of a general council was known. He was next employed by the protestant princes assembled at Cobourg and Augsburgh to draw up the celebrated confession of faith, which did such honour to his acute judgment and eloquent pen, and is known by the name of the Confession of Augsburgh, because presented to the emperor and German princes at the diet held in that city in June 1530. The princes heard it with the deepest attention: it confirmed some in the principles they had embraced, and conciliated those who from prejudice or misrepresentation, had conceived more harshly of Luther’s sentiments than they deserved. The style of this confession is plain, elegant, grave, and perspicuous, such as becomes the nature of the subject, and such as might be expected from Melancthon’s pen. The matter was undoubtedly supplied by Luther, who, during the diet, resided at Cobourg; and even the form it received from the eloquent pen of his colleague, was authorized by his approbation and advice. This confession contains twentyeight chapters) of which twenty-one are employed in representing the religions opinions of the protestants, and the other seven in pointing out the corruptions of the church of Rome. To the adherents of that church it could not therefore be acceptable, and John Faber, afterwards bishop of Vienne in Dauphine“, with Eckius and Cochlaeus, were selected to draw up a refutation, to which Melancthon replied. In the following year he enlarged his reply, and published it with the other pieces that related to the doctrine and discipline of the Lutheran church, under the title of” A Defence of the Confession of Augsburgh."

Melancthon was a man in whom many good as well as great qualities were wonderfully united. He had great abilities, great learning, great sweetness of temper, moderation, contentedness, and other qualities, which would have made him very happy in any other times but those in which he lived. He never affected dignities, honours, or riches, but was rather negligent of them too much so, in the opinion of some, considering he had a family and his son-in-law Sabinus, who was of a more ambitious disposition, was actually at variance with him upon this subject. Learning was infinitely obliged to him on many accounts; on none more than this, that he reduced almost all the sciences, which had been taught before in a vague irregular manner, into systems. We have mentioned that he compiled compendiums for the use of his scholars; and also a treatise “On the Soul, 11 the design of which was, to free the schools from the nugatory subtleties and idle labours of the scholastics, and to confine the attention of young men to useful studies. He industriously ransacked the writings of the ancients, to collect from them, in every branch of learning, whatever was most deserving of attention. Mathematical studies he held in high estimation, as appears from his declamation De Mathematicis Disciplinis,” On Mathematical Learning,“which will very well repay the trouble of perusal. In philosophy he followed Aristotle as, in his judgment, the most scientific and methodical guide, but always in due subordination to Revelation, and only so far as was likely to answer some valuable purpose.” I would have no one,“says he,” trifle in philosophising, lest he should at length even lose sight of common sense; rather let him be careful both in the study of physics and morals, to select the best things from the best sources."

, a Greek epigrammatic poet, and the first collector of the epigrams that form the Greek Anthologia, was the son of Eucrates, and is generally considered as a native of Gadara in Syria, where he chiefly lived; but, according to Harles, was born rather at Atthis, an inconsiderable place, in the territory of Gadara. The time in which he lived has been a subject of controversy. Vavassor, in some degree, with the consent of Fabricius, and Reiske, in his Notitia Poetarum Anthologicorum, p. 131, contend, that he lived under Seleucus VI. the last king of Syria, who began to reign in olym. 170. 3. A. C. 96. This is confirmed by an old Greek scholiast, who says, ἤχμασεν ἐπὶ Σελεύχ τᾶ ἐσχάτα. “He flourished under Seleucus the last.” Saxius accordingly inserts his name at the year abovementioned. Some would carry him back to the 148th olympiad, A. C. 186, which, however, is not incompatible with the other account; and Schneider would bring him down to the age of Augustus, from a supposed imitation of an epigram of Strato, who lived then. But, as it may equally be supposed that Strato imitated him, this argument is of little validity. One of his epigrams in praise of Antipater Sidonius, seems to prove that he was contemporary with him (Epig. cxxiii*. ed. Brunck.) and another, in which he speaks of the fall of Corinth as a recent event, which happened in olym. 158. 4. may be thought to fix him also to that time. As he calls himself Kokuetw, or aged, in one of his compositions, there will be no inconsistency between these marks, and the account of the scholiast.

, bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who is known in church history as the chief of the sect of Mdctiansy was convicted of sacrificing to idols, during the Dioclesian persecution, and imprisoned and degraded by a council held by Peter, bishop of Alexandria. Upon his release, Meletius caused a schism about the year 301, separating himself from Peter, and the other bishops, charging them, but particularly Peter, with too much indulgence in the reconciliation of apostates. By the council of Nice, A. D. 325, he was permitted to remain in his own city, Lycopolis, but without the power either of electing, or prdaining, or appearing upon that account either in the country or city; so that he retained only the mere title of bishop. His followers at this time were united with the Arians. Meletius resigned to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the churches over which he had usurped superiority, and died some time after. When he was dying, be named one of his disciples his successor,- Thus the schism began again, and the Meletians subsisted as far as the fifth century, but were condemned by the first council of Nice.

, a philosopher of Samos, of the Eleatic sect, who flourished about the year 444 B. C. was a disciple of Parmenides, to whose doctrines he closely adhered. He was likewise a man of political wisdom and courage, which gave him great influence among his countrymen, and inspired them with a high veneration for his talents and virtues. Being appointed by them to the command of a fleet, he obtained a great naval victory over the Athenians. As a philosopher, he maintained that the principle of all things is one and immutable, or that whatever exists is one being that this one being includes all things, and is infinite, without beginning or end that there is neither vacuum nor motion in the universe, nor any such thing as production or decay, that the changes which it seems to suffer, are only illusions of our senses, and mere appearances; and that we ought not to lay down any thing positively concerning the gods, since our knowledge of them js so uncertain. Dr. Cudworth, in his *' Intellectual System," has opposed these opinions.

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

, a learned and worthy bencher of LincolnVinn, was born in 1666. In conjunction with Mr. Peere Williams, Mr. Melmoth was the publisher of “Vernon’s Reports,” under an order of the court of chancery. He had once an intention of printing his own “Reports;” and a short time before his death, advertised them at the end of those of his coadjutor Peere Williams, as then actually preparing for the press. They have, however, not yet made their appearance. But the performance for which he justly deserves to be held in perpetual remembrance, is, “The Great Importance of a Religious Life.” It is a singular circumstance that the real author of this most admirable treatise should never have been publicly known until mentioned in the Anecdotes of Bowyer. It was ascribed by Walpole in his “Royal and Noble Authors,” to the first earl of Egmont. Of this work Mr. Melmoth’s son says, in the short preface which accompanies it, that “It may add weight, perhaps, to the reflections contained in the following pages, to inform the reader, that the author’s life was one uniform exemplar of those precepts, which, with so generous a zeal, and such an elegant and affecting simplicity of style, he endeavours to recommend to general practice. He left others to contend for modes of faith, and inflame themselves and the world with dndless controversy; it was the wiser purpose of his more ennobled aim, to act up to those clear rules of conduct which Revelation hath graciously prescribed. He possessed by temper every moral virtue; by religion every Christian grace. He had a humanity that melted at every distress; a charity which not only thought no evil, but suspected none. He exercised his profession with a skill and integrity, which nothing could equal, but the disinterested motive that animated his labours, or the amiable modesty which accompanied all his virtues. He employed his industry, not to gratify his own desires no man indulged himself less not to accumulate useless wealth no man more disdained so unworthy a pursuit it was for the decent advancement of his family, for the generous assistance of his friends, for the ready relief of the indigent. How often did he exert his distinguished abilities, yet refuse the reward of them, in defence of the widow, the fatherless, and him that had none to help him In a word, few have ever passed a more useful, not one a more blameless life y and his whole time was employed either in doing good, or in meditating it. He died on the 6th day of April, 1743, and lies buried under the cloister of Lincoln’sinn chapel.” This passage is repeated in a short tract entitled “Memoirs of a late eminent Advocate,” published in 1796, in which the character of his father is rather -more unfolded. We learn from this tract, that Mr. Melmoth “from early youth performed the paiuful but indispensable duty of communing with his own heart, with the severest and most impartial scrutiny.” This appears by a copy of a letter from some eminent casuit, whom he had consulted respecting certain religious scruples. He was afterwards perplexed respecting taking the oaths at the revolution, which happened when he had the prospect of being admitted to the bar. On this occasion he consulted the celebrated Mr. Norris of Bemerton, and a correspondence took place, part of which is* published in the “Memoirs.” It is probable that he was at last convinced of the lawfulness of the oaths, as he was called to the bar in 1693. There are other letters and circumstances given in these “Memoirs,” which tend to raise the character of Mr. Melmoth as a man of sincerity and humility, not, however, perhaps, unmixed with what may now be reckoned a degree of superstitious weakness.

, son of the above, by his second wife, was born in 1710. Of his early history little is known. He probably received a liberal education, although we do not find that he studied at either university. He was bred to the law, as appears by his being appointed a commissioner of bankrupts in 1756, by sir John Eardley Wilmot, at that time one of the commissioners of the great seal, and an excellent discerner and rewarder of merit. The greater part of Mr. Melmoth’s life, however, was spent in retirement from public business, partly at Shrewsbury, and partly at Bath, where he was no less distinguished for integrity of conduct, than for polite manners and elegant taste. He first appeared as a writer about 1742, in a volume of “Letters” under the name of Fitzosborne, which have been much admired for the elegance of their language, and their just and liberal remarks on various topics, moral and literary. In 174-7 he published “A Translation of the Letters of Pliny,” in 2 vols. 8vo, which was regarded as one of the best versions of a Latin author that had appeared in our language. In 1753, he gave a translation of the “Letters of Cicero to several of his Friends, with Remarks,” in 3 vols. He had previously to this, write ten an answer to Mr. Bryant’s attack, in his Treatise on the Truth of the Christian Religion, on his remarks on Trajan’s Persecution of the Christians in Bithynia, which made a note to his translation of Pliny’s Letters. He was the translator likewise of Cicero’s treatises “De Amicitia” and “De Senectute,” which were published in 1773 and 1777. These he enriched with remarks, literary and philosophical, which added much to their value. In the former he refuted lord Shaftesbury, who had imputed it as a defect to Christianity, that it gave no precepts in favour of friendship, and Soame Jenyns, who had represented that very omission as a proof of its divine origin. The concluding work of Mr. Melmoth was a tribute of filial affection, in the Memoirs of his father, which we have already noticed. After a long life passed in literary pursuits, and the practice of private virtue, Mr. Melmoth died at Bath, March 15, 1799, at the age of eighty-nine. He had been twice married first to the daughter of the celebrated Dr. King, principal of St. Mary’s- hall, Oxford, and secondly to Mrs. Ogle. The author of “The Pursuits of Literature” says, “Mr. Melmoth is a happy example of the mild influence of learning on a cultivated mind; I mean that learning which is declared to be the aliment of youth, and the delight and consolation of declining years. Who would not envy this fortunate old man, his most finished translation and comment on Tully’s Cato? Or rather, who would not rejoice in the refined and mellowed pleasure of so accomplished a gentleman, and so liberal a scholar” Dr. Warton, in a note on Pope’s works, mentions his translation of Pliny as “one of the few that are better than the original.” Birch, in his Life of Tillotson, had made nearly the satae remark, which was the more liberal in Birch, as Melmoth had taken' great liberties with the style of Tillotson. To Mr. Melmoth’s other works we may add a few poetical efforts, one in Dodsley’s Poems (vol. I. p. 216, edit. 1782), entitled “Of active and retired life;” and three in Pearch’s poems (vol. II.) “The Transformation of Lycou and Euphormius;” a Tale,“in p. 149; and Epistle to Sappho.”

, called Melozzo of Foiii, flourished about 1471, and was probably the scholar of Ansovino da Forli, a pupil of Squarcione. The memory of Melozzo is venerated by artists as the inventor of perspective representation and true foreshortening on arched roofs and ceilings, of what the Italians style “di Sotto in Sti;” the most difficult and most rigorous branch of execution. A tolerable progress had been made in perspective after Paolo Uccelio, by means of Piero della Francesca, an eminent geometrician, and some Lombards; but the praise of painting roofs with that charming illusion which we witness, belongs to Melozzo. Scannelli and Orlandi relate, that, to learn the art, he studied the best antiques; and, though“born to affluence, let himself as servant and colour-grinder to the masters of his time. Some make him a scholar of Piero della Francesco: it is at least not improbable that Melozzo knew him and Agostino di Bramantino, when they painted in Rome for Nicolas V. towards 1455. Whatever be the fact, Melozzo painted on the vault of the largest chapel in Ss. Apostoli, an Ascension, in which, says Vasari, the figure of Christ is so well foreshortened, that it seems to pierce the roof. That picture was painted for cardinal Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV. about 1472 and at the rebuilding of that chapel, was cut out and placed in the palace of the Quirinal, 1711, where it is still seen with this epigraphe” Opus Melotii Foroliviensis, qui summos fornices pingendi artem vel primus invenit vel illustravit.“Some heads of the apostles were likewise sawed out and placed in the Vatican. His taste on the whole resembles that of Mantegna and the Padouati schools more than any other. The heads are well formed, well coloured, well turned, and almost always foreshortened; the lights duly toned and opportunely relieved by shadows which give ambience and almost motion to his figures on that space; there is grandeur and dignity in the principal figure, and the lightsome drapery that surrounds him; with finish of pencil, diligence, and grace in every part. It is to be lamented, that so uncommon a genius has not met with an exact historian, of whom we might have learned his travels and labours previous to this great work painted for Riario. At Forli, they shew, as his work, the front of an apothecary’s shop, painted in arabesque, of exquisite style, with a half-length figure over the door pounding drugs, very well executed. We are informed by Vasari, that Francesco di Mirozzo da Forli painted before Dosso, in the villa of the dukes of Urbino, called L'lmperiale; we ought probably to read Melozzo, and to correct the word in the text, as one of that writer’s usual negligences, of which Vasari gives another instance in Marco Palmegiani, of Forli, whom he transforms to Parmegiano; a good and almost unknown artist, though many of his works survive, and he himself seems to have taken every precaution not to be forgotten by posterit3 T inscribing most of his altar-pieces and oil-pictures with Marcus pictor Foroliviensis, or, Marcus Palmasanus P. Foroliviensis pinsebat. Seldom he adds the year, as in two belonging to prince Ercolani, 1513 and 1537. In those, and in his works at Forli, we recognise two styles. The first differs little from the common one of Quattrocentist’s, in the extreme simplicity of attitude, in the gilding, in minute attention, and even in anatomy, which extended its researches at that time seldom beyond a S. Sebastian, or a S. Jerome. Of his second style the groups are more artificial, the outline larger, the proportions grander, but the heads perhaps less varied and more mannered. He used to admit into his principal subject others that do not belong to it thus in the crucifix at St. Agostino, in Forli, he placed two or three groups in different spots in one of which is S. Paul visited by S. Anthony in another, S. Augustine convinced, by an angel, of the absurdity of his attempt to fathom the mystery of the Trinity; and in those small figures he is finished and graceful beyond belief. Nor is his landscape or his architecture destitute of charms. His works abound in Romsagna, and are met with even in Venetian galleries: at Vicenza there is, in the palace Vicentini, a Christ of his between Nicodemus and Joseph; an exquisite performance, in which, to speak with Dante,” il morto par morto e vivi i vivi.

His “Memoirs” were accidentally found in the castle of Edinburgh, in 1660, somewhat imperfect, and injured by time and civil confusion. They passed thence into the hands of sir James Melvil of Halhill, the author’s grandson, from whom the editor George Scott received them, and published them in 1683, in folio, under this title, “The Memoirs of sir James Melvil, of Halhill, containing an impartial account of most of the remarkable affairs of state, during the last age, not mentioned by other historians: more particularly relating to the kingdoms of England and Scotland, under the reigns of queen Elizabeth, Mary queen of Scots, and king James: in all which transactions the author was personally and publicly concerned. Now published from the original manuscript.” There is an epistle to the reader, prefixed by the editor, from which we have" made this extract. It is remarkable, that nobody knew how these memoirs came to be deposited in the castle of Edinburgh, or when they were so: and also, that they were preserved almost entire, in a place which could not secure the public records of the kingdom from the rude incursions of civil discord. Notwithstanding some mistakes, owing to the advanced age of the writer^ they are much esteemed, and have been reprinted both in French and English.

, called, from his great learning, the Varro of his times, was born at Angers, Aug. 15, 1613. He was the son of William Menace, the king’s advocate at Angers; and discovered so early an inclination to letters, that his father was determined to spare no cost or pains in his education. He was accordingly taught the belles lettres and philosophy, in which his progress fully answered the expectations of his father, who, however, thought it necessary to divert him from too severe application, by giving him instructions in music and dancing; but these were in a great measure thrown away, and he had so littie genius for music, that he never could learn a tune. He had more success in his first profession, which was that of a barrister at law, and pleaded various causes, with considerable eclat, both in the country, and in the parliament of Paris. His father had always designed him for his profession, the law, and now resigned his place of king’s advocate in his favour, which Menage, as soon as he became tired of the law, returned to him. Considering the law as a drudgery, he adopted the vulgar opinion that it was incompatible with an attention to polite literature. He now declared his design of entering into the church, as the best plan he could pursue for the gratification of his love of general literature, and of the company of literary men; and soon after he had interest to procure some benefices, and among the rest the deanery of St. Peter at Angers. In the mean time his father, displeased at him for deserting his profession, would not supply him with the money which, in addition to what his livings produced, was necessary to support him at Paris. This obliged him to look out for some means of subsistence there, independent of his family; and at the recommendation of Chapelain, a member of the French academy, he was taken into the family of cardinal de Retz, who was then only coadjutor to the archbishop of Paris. In this situation he enjoyed the repose necessary to his studies, and had every day new opportunities of displaying his abilities and learning. He lived several years with the cardinal; but having received an affront from some of his dependants, he desired of the cardinal, either that reparation might be made him, or that he might be suffered to depart. He obtained the latter, and then hired an apartment in the cloister of Notre Dame, where he held every Wednesday an assembly, which he called his “Mercuriale.” Here he had the satisfaction of seeing a number of learned men, French and foreigners; and upon other days he frequented the study of Messieurs du Puy, and after their death that of Thuanus. By his father’s death, which happened Jan. 18, 1648, he succeeded to an estate, which he converted into an annuity, for the sake of being entirely at leisure to pursue his studies. Soon after, he obtained, by a decree of the grand council, the priory of Montdidier; which he resigned also to the abbe de la Vieuville, afterwards bishop of Rennes, who procured far him, by way of amends, a pension of 4000 livres upon two abbeys. The king’s consent, which was necessary for the creation of this pension, was not obtained for Menage, till he had given assurances to cardinal Mazarin, that he had no share in the libels which had been dispersed against that minister and the court, during the troubles at Paris. This considerable addition to his circumstances enabled him to prosecute his studies with more success, and to publish la great many works, which he generally did at his own expence. The excessive freedom of his conversation, however, and his total inability to suppress a witty thought, whatever hiight be the consequence of uttering it, created him many enemies; and he had contests with several men of eminence, who attacked him at different times, as the abbe d'Aubignac, Boileau, Cotin, Salo, Bohours, and Baillet. But all these were not nearly so formidable to him, as the danger which he incurred in 1660, by a Latin elegy addressed to Mazarin; in which, among his compliments to his eminence, it was pretended, that he had satirized a deputation which the parliament had sent to that minister. It was carried to the grand chamber by the counsellors, who proposed to debate upon it; but the first president, Lamoignon, to whom Menage had protested that the piece had been written three months before the deputation, and that he could not intend the parliament in it, prevented any ill consequences from the affair. Besides the reputation his works gained him, they procured him a place in the academy della Crusca at Florence; and he might have been a member of the French academy at its first institution, if it had not been for his “Requete des dictionnaires.” When the memory of that piece, however, was effaced by time, and most of the academicians, who were named in it, were dead, he was proposed, in 1684, to fill a vacant place in that academy, and was excluded only by the superior interest of his competitor, M. Bergeret: there not being one member, of all those who gave their votes against Menage, who did not own that he deserved the place. After this he would not suffer his friends to propose him again, nor indeed was he any longer able to attend the academy, if he had been chosen, on account of a fall, which had put his thigh out of joint; after which he scarcely ever went out of his chamber, but held daily a kind of an academy there. In July 1692, he began to, be troubled with a rheum, which was followed by a defluxion on the stomach, of which he died on the 23d, aged seventy- nine.

6, “Recueil des Eloges faits pour M. le cardinal Mazarin,” 1666, folio. 7. “Origine delta Lingua Italiana,” 1669, foL He undertook this work only to shew the academy della Crusca, that he was not unworthy of the place with which they had honoured Inm. Dr. Burney says that in his *' Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Franchise,“and in his” Origine della Lingua Italiana,“curious inquirers after the musical language of the middle ages wilt find more information than in any other lexicons or philosophical works with which we are acquainted, except lathe Glossarium of Ducange. 8.” Juris civilis amcenitates,“Paris, 1677, 8vo, reprinted with a preface by J. G. Hoffmann, Francfort, 1737, 8vo. 9.” Les poesies de Malherbe, avec des notes,“1666,” 8vo, reprinted more than once. Io. “Observations sur la Langue Francois,” 1675, and 1676,“in 2 vols. 12mo. 11. Histoire de Sable, contenant les seigneurs de la ville de Sable, jusqu‘a Louis I, due d’Anjou et roy de Sicile; premiere partie,” 1686, folio. He was very much prejudiced in favour of this history, and was engaged in the second part at his death. In the “Menagiana,” he is represented as saying, that it is an incomparable book that one may find every thing in it; and that in every page there are many learned observations?; kut the public have not been of this opinion. 12. “Historia mulierum philosopher urn,” Lugd. 1690, 12mo. This is reprinted in Meibom’s Diogenes Laertius. 13. <* AntiBailiet,“1690: a criticism of the” Jugemens des Sgavans“of M. Baillet, who in that work had spoken of Menage in a manner that displeased him. 14.” Menagiana," not published till after his death, and printed at first in one volume, afterwards in two. But M. de la Monnoye published an edition with great additions, at Paris, 1715, in 4 rols. 12mo. This is a very amusing collection, but will admit of abridgment without any injury to the memory of Menage.

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

By the lowest account Menander wrote eighty plays; but some authorities more than double them, an improbable number to have been composed by a poet who died at the age of fifty, or very little after; whatever their number, it has been thought that morality, taste, and literature, scarcely ever suffered more irreparably than by the loss of them. A few fragments only remain, which, says Warton, ought “to be as highly prized by the curious, as was the Coan Venus, which Apelles left imperfect and unfinished.” Terence is supposed to have copied all his comedies from Menander, except the “Phormio” and “Hecyra;” and therefore from him we are enabled to form some idea of Menander’s manner. His general character we must still take from his contemporaries, or immediate successors; for all that we can deduce from his fragments will not raise him to the high rank to which he belongs* Some of these are excellent morals, and some of a more elevated cast, but the greater part are of a morose, gloomy, and acrimonious character.

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

, a counsellor in the presidial court at Nismes, was born at Tarascon, in 1706, and died in 1767. He lived chiefly at Paris, and employed himself in the study of history and antiquities, and in writing books, which, though approved for their learning, did not rescue him from the inconveniences of poverty. They are these: 1. “The civil, ecclesiastical, and literary History of the city of Nismes,” 7 vols. 4to, published in 1750, and the following years. This work has no fault but that of prolixity. 2. “Mceurs et Usages cles Grecs,” 1743, 12mo, a small and useful compilation. 3. “The Amours of Calisthenes and Aristoclea,” 1766, 12mo, a novel, in which the author has skilfully painted the manners of Greece. 4. “A collection of fugitive pieces, illustrative of French history,” 3 vols. 4to, published in 1748. The materials were communicated to him by the marquis d'Aubais. There was also a chronologer, named Peter Menard, who died the first year of the last century a James Menard, a lawyer of the sixteenth century and one or two more of interior note.

, a celebrated rabbi, not un-: known in this country, was born in Portugal about 1604. His father, Joseph Ben Israel, a rich merchant, having suffered greatly both in person and property, by the Portuguese inquisition, made his escape with his family into Holland, where this son was educated, under the rabbi Isaac Uriel, and pursued his studies with such diligence and success, that at the age of eighteen he was appointed to succeed his tutor as preacher and expounder of the Talmud in the synagogue of Amsterdam, a post which he occupied with high reputation for many years. He was not quite twenty-eight years of age when he published in the Spanish language the first part of his work entitled “Conciliador:” of which was published a Latin version, in the following year, by Dionysius Vossius, entitled “Conciliator, sive de Convenientia Locorum S. Scriptune, quas pugnare inter se videntur, opus ex vetustis et recentioribus omnibus Rabbinis magna industria ac fide congestum;” a work which was recommended to the notice of biblical scholars by the learned Grotius. The profits of his situation as preacher and expounder, being inadequate to the expences of a growing family, he engaged with his brother, who was settled at Basil, in mercantile concerns; and also set up a printing-press in his own house, at which he printed three editions of the Hebrew Bible, and a number of other books. Under the protectorate of Cromwell he came over to England, in order to solicit leave for the settlement of the Jews in this country, and actually obtained greater privileges for his nation than they had ever enjoyed before in this country; and in 1656 published an “Apology for the Jews,” in the English language, which may be seen in vol. II. of the “Phcenix,” printed from the edition of 1656. At the end of it in the Phoenix is a list of his works, published, or ready for the press. He likewise informs us that he had at that time printed at his own press, above sixty other books, amongst which are many Bible^ in Hebrew and Spanish, &e. He died at Amsterdam about 1659. The rabbi was esteemed as well for his moral virtues as for his great learning, and had been long in habits of correspondence and intercourse with some of the most learned men of his time, among whom were the Vossii, Episcopius, and Grotius. The following are his principal works independently of that already noticed: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, 2 vois. 4to, 2. The Talmud corrected, with notes. 3. “De Resurrectione Mortuorum.” 4. “Esperanza de Israel,” dedicated to the parliament of England in 1650: it was originally published in Spanish, and afterwards translated into the Hebrew, German, and English, one object of which is to prove that the ten tribes are settled in America. Of his opinions in this some account is given in the last of our references.

The books he wrote were very numerous, and very learned; one of which, in particular, had it been as well executed as planned, would have been very curious and entertaining. Its title is the following: “De Charlataneria eruditorum declamationes duae; cum notis variorum. Accessit epistola Sebastiani Stadelii ad Janum Philomusum, de circumforanea literatorum vanitate, Leipsic, 1715,” 8vo. It has been said that there never was a worse book with a better title. It has, however, been translated into French, and is entitled “De la Charlatanerie des par M. Mencken: avec des remarques critiques de differens auteurs, Hague,” 1721, in Bvo. Mencke’s design here was to expose the artifices used by false scholars to raise to themselves a name; but, as he glanced so evidently at certain considerable persons that they could not escape being known, some pains were taken to have his book seized and suppressed: which, however, as usual, made the fame of it spread the faster, and occasioned editions to be multiplied. In 1723 he published at Leipsic, “Bibliotheca Menckeniana,” &e. or, “A catalogue of all the books and manuscripts in all languages, which had been collected by Otto and John Mencke, father and son.” Mencke himself drew up this catalogue, which is digested in an excellent method, with a design to make his library, which was very magnificent and valuable, public: but in 1728 he thought proper to expose it to sale and for that purpose published catalogues, with the price of every book marked. Mencke had a considerable share in the “Dictionary of learned men,” printed at Leipsic, in German, in 1715, folio, the plan of which he had formed, and furnished the persons employed in it with the principal materials, and wrote the articles of the Italians and English. He continued the <c Acta eruditorum," as he had promised his father upon his death-bed, for twenty-five years, ancl published 33 volumes, including the supplements and the indexes.

, a Jewish philosophical writer, was born at Dessau, in Anhalt, in 1729. After being educated under his father, who was a schoolmaster, he devoted every hour he could spare to literature, and obtained as a scholar a distinguished reputation; but his father ber ing unable to maintain him, he was obliged, in search of labour, or bread, to go on foot, at the age of fourteen, to Berlin, where he lived for some years in indigence, and frequently in want of necessaries. At length he got employment from a rabbi as a transcriber of Mss, who, at the same time that he afforded him the means of subsistence, liberally initiated him into the mysteries of the theology, the jurisprudence, and scholastic philosophy of the Jews. The study of philosophy and general literature became from this time his favourite pursuit, but the fervours of application to learning were by degrees alleviated and animated by the consolations of literary friendship. He formed a strict intimacy with Israel Moses, a Polish Jew, who, without any advantages of education, had become an able, though self-taught, mathematician and naturalist. Hg very readily undertook the office of instructor of Mendelsohn, in subjects of which he was before ignorant; and taught him the Elements of Euclid from his own Hebrew version. The intercourse between these young men was not of long duration, owing to the calumnies propagated against Israel Moses, which occasioned his expulsion from the communion of the orthodox; in consequence of this he became the victim of a gloomy melancholy and despondence, which terminated in a premature death. His loss, which was a grievous affliction to Mendelsohn, was in some measure supplied by Dr. Kisch, a Jewish physician, by whose assistance he was enabled to attain a competent knowledge of the Latin language. In 1748 he became acquainted with another literary Jew, viz. Dr. Solomon Gumperts, by whose encouragement and assistance he attained a general knowledge of the living and modern languages, and particularly the English, by which he was enabled to read the great work of our immortal Locke in his own idiom, which he had before studied through the medium of the Latin language. About the same period he enrolled the celebrated Lessing among his friends, to whom he was likewise indebted for assistance in his literary pursuits. The scholar amply repaid the efforts of his intructor, and soon became his rival and his associate, and after his death the defender of his reputation against Jacobi, a German writer, who had accused Lessing of atheism. Mendelsohn died Jan. 4, 1785, at the age of fifty-seven, highly respected and beloved by a numerous acquaintance, and by persons of very different opinions. When his remains were consigned to the grave, he received those honours from his nation which are commonly paid to their chief rabbies. As an author, the first piece was published in 1755, entitled “Jerusalem,” in which he maintains that the Jews have a revealed law, but not a revealed religion, but that the religion of the Jewish nation is that of nature. His work entitled “Phaedon, a dialogue on the Immortality of the Soul,” in the manner of Plato, gained him much honour: in this hepresents the reader with all the arguments of modern philosophy, stated with great force and perspicuity, and recommended by the charms of elegant writing. From the reputation which he obtained by this masterly performance, he was entitled by various periodical writers the “Jewish Socrates.” It was translated into French in 1773, and into the English, by Charles Cullen, esq. in 1789. Among his other works, which are all creditable to his talents, he wrote “Philosophical Pieces;” “A Commentary on Part of the Old Testament;” “Letters on the Sensation of the Beautiful.”

, an Augustine friar of the province of Castille, was chosen by the king of Spain to be ambassador to the emperor of China, in 1584. He was made bishop of Lipari in Italy in 1593, bishop of Chiapi in New Spain in 1607, and bishop of Propajan in the West Indies in 1608. He wrote “A History of China,” in Spanish, which has been translated into several languages. A general idea of it may be taken from the mere title of the French translation, published at Paris, in 1589, which runs thus “The history of the great kingdom of China, in the East Indies, in two parts the first containing the situation, antiquity, fertility, religion, ceremonies, sacrifices, kings, magistrates, manners, customs, laws, and other memorable things of the said kingdom; the second, three voyages to it in 1577, 1579, and 1581, with the most remarkable rarities either seen or heard of there; together with an itinerary of the new world, and the discovery of New Mexico in 1583.”

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

, or Menin, a most celebrated German orientalist, was born in Lorraine, then subject to the emperor, in 1623; and for copiousness of learning, elegance of genius, and profound knowledge of languages, particularly those of the East, proved undoubtedly one of the principal ornaments of the age in which he lived. He studied at Rome under Giattino. When he was about thirty, his love of letters induced him to accompany the Polish ambassador to Constantinople, where he studied the Turkish language under Bobovius and Ahmed, two very skilful teachers. So successful was he in this study, that when he had been there only two years, the place of first interpreter to the Polish embassy at the Porte was promised to him. When the place became vacant, he was accordingly appointed to it, and obtained so much credit by his conduct, that, after a time, he was sent for into Poland, and again sent out with full powers as ambassador to the Porte. For his able execution of this office, he was further honoured, by being naturalized in Poland, on which occasion he added the Polish termination of ski to his family name, which was Menin. Being desirous afterwards to extend his sphere of action, he went to the court of the emperor, as interpreter of oriental languages, in 1661. Here also, as in other instances, his talents and behaviour obtained the highest approbation; on which account he was not only sent as interpreter to several imperial ambassadors at the Porte, but was entrusted in many important and confidential services, and, in 1669, having paid a visit to the holy sepulchre at Jerusalem, was made one of the knights of that order. After his return to Vienna he was advanced to further honours; being made one of the counsellors of war to the emperor, and first interpreter of oriental languages. He died at Vienna, at the age of seventy-five, in 1698. His great work, 1. The “Thesaurus linguarum orientalium,” was published at Vienna, in 1680, in 4 yols. folio: to which was added, in 1687, another volume, entitled “Complenaentum Thesauri linguarum orientalium, seu onomasticum Latino-Turcico-Arabico-Persicum.”* The former volumes having become extremely scarce, partly on account of the destruction of a great part of the impression in the siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1683, a design was formed some time ago in England of reprinting the work, by a society of learned men, among whom was sir William Jones. But as this undertaking, probably on account of the vast expenee which must have been incurred, did not proceed, the empress queen, Maria Theresa, who had heard of the plan, took it upon herself, and with vast liberality furnished every thing necessary for its completion. In consequence of this, it was begun to be splendidly republished at Vienna in 1780, with this title, “Francisci a Mesgnien Meninski Lexicon Arabico-Persico-Turcicum, adjecta ad singulas voces et phrases interpretatione Latina, ad usitatiores, etiam Italica,” and has been completed in four volumes, folio. In this edition, say the editors, the Lexicon of Meninski may be said to be increased, diminished, and Amended. Increased, because many Arabic and Persian words are added, from Wankuli and Ferhengi, the best Arabic and Persic Lexicographers whom the East has produced; and, from Herbelot, are inserted the names of kingdoms, cities, and rivers, as well as phrases in common use among the Turks, &c. diminished, because many useless synonyma are omitted, which rather puzzled than assisted the student; as well as all the French, Polish, and German interpretations, the Latin being considered as sufficient for all men of learning amended, with respex?t to innumerable typographical errors which, from a work of this naturej Ho care can perhaps altogether exclude, Brunei remarks, however, that this edition does not absolutely supplant the preceding, as the grammar and onomasticon are not reprinted in it. There is a Vienna edition of the grammar, entitled “Institutiones linguae Turcicae,” 1756, in quarto, two vols. in one; but the onomasticon must still be sought in the original edition. The other works of Meninski were occasioned chiefly by a violent contest between him and J. B. Podesta, in which much acrimony was employed on both sides. These it is hardly worth while to enumerate, but they may all be seen in the account of his life from which this article is taken. It should be observed however, that, in 1674, Podesta published a book entitled “Prodromus novi linguarum Orientalium collegii, jussu Aug. &c. erigendi, in Univ. Viennensi” to which Meninski opposed, 2. “Meninskii Antidotum in Prodromum novi ling*, orient collegii, &c.” 4to. But such was the credit of his antagonist in the university, that soon after there came out a decree, in the name of the rector and consistory, in which that antidote of Meninski’s is proscribed and prohibited, for six specific reasons, as impious and infamous. Meninski was defended against this formidable attack by a friend, in a small tract, entitled “Veritasdefensa, seu justitia causae Dn. F. de M. M. [Meninski] contra infame decretum Universitatis Viennensis, anno 1674, 23 Novernbris, &c. ab Amico luci exposita, anno 1675,” in which this friend exposes, article by article, the falsehood of the decree, and exclaims strongly against the arts of Podesta. This tract is in the British Museum. Podesta was oriental secretary to the emperor, and professor of those languages at Vienna but is described in a very satirical manner by the defender of Meninski “Podesta, natura Semi-Italus, statura nanus, caecutiens, balbus, imo bardus repertus, aliisque vitiis ac stultitiis plenus, adeoque ad discendas linguas Orientales inhabilis.” A list of the works of Podesta, is, however, given by the late editors of Meninski.

, a Cynic, and a disciple of the second Menedemus before mentioned, was a native of Gadara in Palestine. His writings were chiefly of a ridiculous kind, and very satirical; so much so, that Lucian, himself no very lenient satirist, calls him in one passage “the most barking and snarling of all the Cynic dogs.” For this reason he is introduced into two or three of Lucian’s dialogues, as a vehicle for the sarcasms of that author. It appears, that the satires of Menippus were written in prose, with verses occasionally intermixed; for which reason the satires of Varro, who wrote in the same style, were called Menippean; and the same title, that of “Satyre Menippe'e,” was given, for the same reason, to a famous collection, written in France against the faction of the league; in which compositions Pierre le Roy, Nicolas Rapin, and Florent Chretien, bore a principal share. Varro himself lias been therefore called Mtnippeus, and sometimes Cynicus Romanus. Menippus was imitated also by his countryman Meleager, of whom an account has been given before. It is said by Laertius, that Menippus, having been robbed of a large sum of money, which he had'amassed by usury, hanged himself in despair. The same author mentions some of his works, of which, however, no part is now extant. He had been originally a slave, but purchased his freedom, and procured himself to be made a citizen of Thebes.

a celebrated seaman, traveller, and poet, the third son of Andrew Mennes, esq. of Sandwich in Kent, was born there March 1, 159S. He was educated at Corpus Christ! college, Oxford, where he distinguished himself by his literary acquirements; and afterwards became a great traveller, and well skilled in naval architecture. In the reign of James I. he had a place in the Navy-office, and by Charles i. was appointed its comptroller. In the subsequent troubles he took an active part, both military and naval, in favour of his royal master: and being a vice-admiral, in 1641 was knighted at Dover. In 1642, he commanded the Rainbow: but was afterwards displaced from his services at sea for his loyalty, and was implicated in the Kentish insurrection in favour of the king in 1648. After the Restoration he was made governor of Dover-castle, and chief comptroller of the navy, which he retained till his death. In 1661 he was appointed commander of the Henry, and received a commission to act as vice-admiral and commander in chief of his majesty’s fleet in the North Seas. He died Feb. 18, 1670-1, at the Navy-office in Seething-lane, London, with the character of an honest, stout, generous, and religious man, whose company had always been delightful to the ingenious and witty. He was buried in the church of St. Olave, Hart-street, where a monument and inscription were erected over his grave, and are there still. Wood says he was the author of a poem entitled “Epsom Wells,” and several other poems scattered in other men’s works. What can with most certainty be attributed to him are contained in a volume entitled “Musarum Deliciae, or the Muses Recreation,” second edit. 1656, 12mo. The celebrated scoffing ballad on sir John Suckling, “Sir John got him an ambling nag,” &c. was written by Mennes. The poems in this volume are the joint compositions of sir John Mennes and Dr. James Smith.

, surnamed Simon, or Simonson, was the founder of a sect called from him Mennonites. He was born at Witmarsum, in Friesland, in 1505. He was at first a Romish priest, and a notorious profligate, and resigned his rank and office in the Romish church, and publicly embraced the communion of the anabaptists. He died in 1561, in the duchy of Holstein, at the country-seat of a certain nobleman, not far from the city of Oldesloe, who, moved with compassion by a view of the perils to which Menno was exposed, and the snares that were daily laid for his ruin, took him, with certain of his associates, into his protection, and gave him an asylum. He began to propagate his opinions in 1636, and had many followers, whose history may be found in Mosheim. They split afterwards into parties, but the opinions that are held in common by the Mennonites, seem to be all derived from this fundamental principle, that the kingdom which Christ established upon earth is a visible church or community, into which the holy and just alone are to be admitted, and which is consequently exempt from all those institutions and rules of discipline, that have been invented by human wisdom, for the correction and reformation of the wicked. This principle, indeed, was avowed by the ancient Mennonites, but it is now almost wholly renounced; nevertheless, from this ancient doctrine, many of the religious opinions, that distinguish the Mennonites from all other Christian communities, seem to be derived: in consequence of this doctrine, they admit none to the sacrament of baptism, but persons that are come to the full use of their reason; they neither admit civil rulers into their communion, nor allow any other members to perform the functions of magistracy; they deny the lawfulness of repelling force by force, and consider war, in all its shapes, as unchristian and unjust: they entertain the utmost aversion to the execution of justice, and more especially to capital punishments; and they also refuse to confirm their testimony by an oath. Menno’s writings, in Dutch, were published in 1651, folio.

Menzikoff had a very strong attachment to Peter I. and to his maxims for civilizing the Russian nation. He was affable and polite towards strangers, that is, to all who were submissive, and not ambitious of eclipsing him in wit, or other talents. His inferiors, in general, he treated with gentleness, and never forgot a service rendered to him. His courage was incontestible, and proved on many trying occasions. His friendship, when once fixed, was steady and zealous. On the other hand, his ambition was boundless; he could not bear a superior, or an equal; much less a rival in any quality or advantage. He was not destitute of wit; but for want of an early polish it was rather coarse. His avarice was insatiable, and led him into several difficulties, even with his indulgent master Peter I.; and when he was disgraced, he was found to possess the value of three millions of roubles, in jewels, plate, and money, besides his vast estates. There are many features of resemblance between Menzikoff and Wolsey, not only in his rise from a low origin, but more particularly in the imprudence, haughtiness, and ostentation, which accelerated his fall.

, an Italian poet, was born at Florence in 1646, of poor and humble parents. Notwithstanding the disadvantage of his circumstances, he began his studies under Miglioraccio, and pursued them with ardour; till, being noticed for his talents by Vincentio SaU viati, he, was removed from the difficulties of poverty, received into the house of that patron, and encouraged to indulge his genius in writing. In 1674, he inscribed a volume of poems to Cosmo III. of Medicis, but obtained Do great approbation from that depraved man. In 1679, he published a book, entitled “Construzione irregolare della linga Toscana;” on the irregular construction of the Tuscan language; and, in the following year, a volume of lyric poems, by way of illustrating his own precepts. His first patron seems now to have deserted him, or not to have afforded him sufficient support, for we find hirn at this period, after several disappointments, and particularly that of not obtaining a professorship at Pisa, venting his discontent in twelve satires. These, however, were not published in his life, but given to a friend, Paulo Falconeri. When they did appear, they went through several editions. In 1685, Menzini obtained the notice and patronage of Christina queen of Sweden, whom he celebrated in Latin as well as in Italian. Under her protection he lived at Rome, and enjoyed the best period of his life. It was at this period, in 1688, that he published his “Arte Poetiea,” which he dedicated to cardinal Azzolini. Being always more or less in want, owing to mismanagement, he contrived by these dedications to lay some of the chief nobility of his country under contribution: but he did not so succeed with cardinal Atestini, who received his dedication of “II Paradiso terrestre,” without granting him any remuneration. As he had a wonderful vein of ready eloquence, one of his resources was that of composing sermons for preachers who were not equally able to supply themselves. To this there is an allusion in one of the satires of his con<­temporary Sectanus.

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

, a major in the army, and a very elegant and accomplished scholar, was the son of a private gentleman in Aberdeenshire, who, having joined the Highland army in the year 1745, retired to France after the battle of Culloden, where he resided till his death. His son, who was born Feb. 27, 1734, was educated at Marischal college, Aberdeen, and afterwards went to reside with his father at Paris. There he spent his time in elegant society, and devoted his leisure hours to the cultivation of letters, and thus acquired those polished manners, and that taste for study, by which he was ever after so highly distinguished. He possessed, too, a very high degree of elegant and chastised wit and humour, which made his company to be universally sought after by those who had the happiness of his friendship or acquaintance.

In 1802 major Mercer had the misfortune to lose his wife, after a long course of severe indisposition, during which he had attended her with the most anxious assiduity. Of this loss, indeed, he may be said never to have got the better, and he survived her little more than two years. He had long been in a very valetudinary, nervous state, till at last his constitution entirely failed: and he expired without a struggle or a pang, Nov. 18, 1804, in the seventyfirst year of his age. Besides possessing no ordinary share of knowledge both of books and men (for in the course of his military life especially, he had lived much in society of various sorts), and being one of the pleasantest companions, he was a man of much piety, strict in the observance of all the ordinances of religion, and of high honour in every transaction of life.

, or Mercerus, a celebrated philologer, uas a native of Usez in Languedoc. He was bred to. the study of jurisprudence, which he quitted for that of the learned languages, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Chaldee; and in 1549, succeeded Vatablus in the professorship of Hebrew in the royal college at Paris. Being obliged to quit the kingdom during the civil wars, he retired to Venice, where his friend Arnoul du Ferrier resided as French ambassador; but returned with him afterwards to France, and died at Usez, his native place, in 1572. He was a little man, worn by excess of application, but with a voice which he could easily make audible to a large auditory. His literature was immense, and among the proofs of it are the following works: 1. “Lectures on Genesis, and the Prophets,” Geneva, 1598, folio. 2. “Commentaries on Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles,” 1573, 2 vols. folio, which have been much esteemed. 3. “Tables of the Chaldee Grammar,” Paris, 1550, 4to. These are all written in Latin. He was considered as inclined to Calvinism. His son Josiah Le Mercier, an able critic, who died December 5, 1626, published an excellent edition of “Nonnius Marcellus;” notes on Aristae ­netus, Tacitus, DictysCretensis, and Apuleius’s book “De Deo Socratis,” and an “Eulogy,” on Peter Pithon; some of his letters are in Goldast’s collection. Salmasius was his son-in-law.

, a learned and eminent physician, was born at Forli, in Romagna, Sept 30, 1530. He was educated according to Niceron at Padua, and according to Eloy at Bologna. It seems, however, agreed that he received his doctor’s degree in 1555, and began to practice at Forli. In 1562 he was sent as ambassador to pope Pius IV. at Rome, where he was honoured with the citizenship, and upon a pressing invitation determined to reside in a place which presented so many opportunities for the pursuit of his favourite studies. During his abode at Rome, besides his professional concerns, he studied classical literature, and the monuments of antiquity, and produced a learned and elegant work, which acquired him much celebrity in the literary world, and which was first published at Venice in 1569, under the title of “De Arte Gymnastica Libri sex,” 4to. It was many times reprinted, and its merit occasioned his being appointed professor of medicine in the university of Padua. In 1573 he was called to Vienna by the emperor Maximilian II., to consult respecting a severe illness under which that personage laboured; and his treatment was so successful, that he returned loaded with valuable presents, and honoured with the dignities of a knight and count palatine. In 1587 he removed to a professorsip at Bologna, which has been partly attributed to a degree of dissatisfaction or self-accusation, in consequence of an error of judgment, which had been committed by him and Capivaccio, several years before, when they were called to Venice, in order to give their advice respecting a pestilential disorder which prevailed in that city. On this occasion both he and his colleague seem to have fallen into the mistake of several medical theorists, of denying the reality of contagion; and their counsels were said to have been productive of extensive mischief. Nevertheless his reputation appears to have suffered little from this error; for he was invited by Ferdinand, the grand duke of Tuscany, to settle at Pisa in 1599, where he was ordered a stipend of eighteen: hundred golden crowns, which was ultimately raised to two thousand. Here he died Nov. 9, 1606, and was interred, with great honours, in a chapel, which he had himself erected at Forli. He left a large property in money and effects, among which was a valuable collection of pictures; and he made a great number of charitable bequests.

Of mortal syre, or other living wight,

It was supposed that Merlin did not die, but was laid asleep by magic, and was, after a long period, to awake and live again. Spenser alludes to this fable also. Extravagant prophecies, and other ridiculous works are ascribed to Merlin, and some authors have written Commentaries on them, as ridiculous as the text. In the British Museum is “Le compte de la vie de Merlin et de ses faiz, et compte de ses prophecies,” 2 vols. fol. on vellum, without date or place. There is a French edition, 3 vols. small folio, black letter, dated 1498. There are also other French and Italian editions. In English we have 46 The Life of Merlin, surnamed Ambrosius. His prophesies and predictions interpreted: and their truth made good by our English annals, published by T. Heywood," Lond. 1641, 4to. This was Hey wood the actor, of whom some notice is taken in our seventeenth volume.

cannot be a more deserving man in all only a good scholar, but (which is iarespects. His learning (which is be- finitely better) a good Christian." yond comparison great for his years) is extraordinary proof of classical erudition and taste, and was deservedly supported by a more numerous list of subscribers than perhaps any work of the time. It was handsomely printed in an 8vo volume, at the Clarendon press, but without date or publisher’s name.

The rest of Mr. Merrick’s works were published in the following order: 1. “A Dissertation on Proverbs, chapter ix. containing occasional remarks on other passages in sacred and profane writers,” 1744, 4to. 2. “Prayers for a time of Earthquakes and violent Floods,” a small tract, printed at London in 1756, when the earthquake at Lisbon had made a very serious impression on the public rnind. 3. “An encouragement to a good life; particularly addressed to some soldiers quartered at Reading,” 1759. His biographer informs us that a list is still preserved of the names of many thousand soldiers, whom Mr. Merrick had instructed in religious duties, and to whom he had distributed pious books. Among the latter, Granger mentions Rawlet’s “Christian Monitor,” of which he says Mr. Merrick distributed near 10,000 copies “chiefly among the soldiers, many of whom he brought to a sense of religion.” 4. “Poems on Sacred subjects,” Oxford, 1763, 4to. 5. “'A Letter to the rev. Joseph Warton, chiefly relating to the composition of Greek Indexes,” Reading, 1764. In this letter are mentioned many indexes to Greek authors, some of which were then begun, and others completed. Mr. Robert Robinson, in the preface to his “Indices Tres,” of words in Longinus, Eunapius, and Hierocles, printed at the Clarendon press in 1772, mentions these as composed by the advice of Mr. Merrick, by whose recommendation to the delegates of the press they were printed at the expence of the university; and they rewarded the compiler with a very liberal present. 6. “Annotations, critical and grammatical, on chap. I. v. 1 to 14 of the Gospel according to St. John,” Reading, 1764, 8vo. 7. “Annotations, critical, &c. on the Gospel of St. John, to the end of the third chapter,” Reading, 1767, 8vo. 8. “The Psalms translated, or paraphrased, in English verse,” Reading, 1765. Of this, which is esteemed the best poetical English version of the Psalms now extant, the only defect was, that not being divided into stanzas, it could not be set to music for parochial use. This objection has been removed, since the author’s death, by the rev. W. D. Tfcttersall; who with great and laudable zeal for the improvement of our parochial psalmody, has published three editions properly divided, and procured tunes to be composed for them by the best masters. Custom, however, has so attached the public to the old versions, that very little progress has yet been made in the introduction of Mr. Tattersall’s psalmody in churches and chapels. 9. “Annotations on the Psalms,” Reading, 1768, 4to. 10. “A Manual of Prayers for common occasions,” ibid. 1768, 12mo. This is now one of the books distributed by the society for promoting Christian knowledge, who have also an edition of it in the Welsh language.

, an English poet of considerable merit, was born in London, April 1755, and was descended in a right line from sir Henry Merry, who was knighted by James I. at Whitehall. Mr. Merry’s father was governor of the Hudson’s Bay company. His grandfather, who was a captain in the royal navy, and one of the elder brethren of the Trinity-house, established the commerce of the Hudson’s Bay company upon the plan which it now pursues. He made a voyage to Hudson’s Bay, and discovered the island in the North seas, which still bears the name of Merry’s island. He also made a voyage to the East Indies, and was, perhaps, the first Englishman who returned home over land; in which expedition he encountered inconceivable hardships. Mr. Merry’s mother was the eldest daughter of the late lord chief justice Willes, who presided for many years with great ability in the court of Common Pleas, and was for some time first lord commissioner of the great seal. Mr. Merry was educated at Harrow, under Dr. Sumner, and had the celebrated Dr. Parr as his private tutor. From Harrow he went to Cambridge, and was entered of Christ’s college. He left Cambridge without taking any degree, and was afterwards entered of Lincoln’s-inn, but was never called to the bar. Upon the death of his father he bought a commission in the horse-guards, and was for several years adjutant and lieutenant to the first troop, commanded by lord Lothian. Mr. Merry quitted the service, and went abroad, where he remained nearly eight years; during which time he visited most of the principal towns of France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Holland. At Florence he stayed a considerable time, enamoured (as it is said) of a lady of distinguished rank and beauty. Here he studied the Italian language, encouraged his favourite pursuit, poetry, and was elected a member of the academy Delia Crusca. Here also he was a principal contributor to a collection of poetry, by a few English of both sexes, called “The Florence Miscellany.” The name of the academy he afterwards used as a signature to many poems which appeared in the periodical journals, and the newspapers, and excited so many imitators as to form a sort of temporary school of poets, whose affectations were justly ridiculed by the author of the “Baviad and Maeviad,” and soon despised by the public. Mr. Merry, however, had more of the qualities of a poet than his imitators, although not much more judgment. His taste, originally good, became vitiated by that love of striking novelties which exhausts invention. Of his poems published separately, scarcely one is now remembered or read.

He was a man of universal learning, but excelled so much in physical and mathematical knowledge, that Des Cartes scarcely ever did any thing, or at least was not perfectly satisfied with any thing he had done, without first knowing what Mersenne thought of it. He published a great many books, the first of which occasioned him some trouble. The title is, “Qusestiones celeberrimse in Genesim, cum accurata textus explicatione: in quo volumine athei & deisti impugnantur,” &c. Paris, 1623. Two sheets of this book, from column 669 to column 676 inclusive, were suppressed by him; and it is very difficult to meet with any copy in which these sheets are not taken out. He had given there a list of the atheists of his time, mentioned their different works, and specified their opinions, as appears from the index in the word Athei, which has not been altered. Whether this detail was thought of dangerous consequence, or whether Mersenne had enlarged too much the number of atheists, it was judged proper that he should retrench all he had said upon that subject. Baillet calls Mersenne, to whose 671st page he refers, the most credulous man alive for believing, that there could be at that time, us he supposes, 50,000 atheists in Paris; and considers this pretended number, as nothing more than a fiction of the Hugonots, that they might take, occasion thence to abuse the catholics. In this work, he has undoubtedly inserted a variety of things which are of a nature foreign to his main subject. Thus he calls it in his title-page, “Opus theologis, philosophis, medicis, jurisconsuhis, mathematicis, musicis vero & catoptricis praesertim utile.” His largest digression relatesao music, which be had studied, and upon which he wrote several books. He attacks also Dr. Robert Fludd, fellow of the college of physicians in London; the severity of whose answers raised up many defenders for Mersenne, and among the rest the illustrious Gassendi, whose tract on this subject was printed at Paris in 1628, under this title: “Epistolica exercitatio, in qua proecipua principia philosophise Robert! Fludd deteguntur, & ad recentes illius libros ad versus patrem Marimim Mersennum scriptos respondetur.” This piece is reprinted in the third volume of Gassendi’s works at Paris, in 1658, under the title of “Examen philosophic Fltiddanae,” &c.

, the illustrious founder of Merton college, Oxford, which became the model of all other societies of that description, was bishop of Rochester and chancellor of England in the thirteenth century. Of his personal history very little is known. From a pedigree of him, written about ten years after his death, we learn, that he was the son of William de Merton, archdeacon of Berks in 1224, 1231, and 1236, by Christina, daughter of Walter Fitz-Oliver, of Basingstoke. They were both buried in the church of St. Michael, Basingstoke, where the scite of their tomb has lately been discovered. Their son was born at Merton, in Surrey, and educated at the convent there. So early as 1239 he was in possession of a family estate, as well as of one acquired. From his mother he received the manor of St. John, with which he commenced a public benefactor, by founding, in 1261, the hospital of St. John, for poor and infirm clergy; and after the foundation of Merton college, it was appointed in the statutes, that the incurably sick fellows or scholars of that college should be sent thither; and the office of master was very early annexed to that of warden of Merton. Not many years ago, part of the chapel roof of this hospital remained, pannelled with the arms of Merton college in the intersections, and one of the gothic windows stopped up; but all this gave way to a new brick building in 1778.

According to Mr. Denne (Custumale Roffense, p. 193), he occurs prebendary of Kentish town, and afterwards had the stall of Finsbury, both of them in the church of St. Paul’s, London. He held in 1259 a prebend in Exeter cathedral; and, according to Browne Willis, was vicar of Potton in Bedfordshire at the time of his promotion to the see of Rochester. Other accounts say, that he was first canon of Salisbury, and afterwards rector of Stratton. He became eminent in the court of Chancery, first as king’s clerk, then as prothonotary, and lastly rose to be chancellor of England in 1258. Of this office he was deprived in the same year by the barons, but restored in 1261, with a yearly salary of four hundred marks; and held it again in 1274, in which year he was consecrated bishop of Rochester. He appears to have been of high credit in affairs of state, and consulted on all matters of importance, as a divine, a lawyer, and a financier. His death was occasioned by a fall from his horse, in fording a river in his diocese; soon after which accident he died, Oct. 27th, 1277. Notwithstanding his liberality, at his death he was possessed of goods valued by inventory at 5110l. of which he left legacies to the amount of 2126l. His debts amounted to 746l., and he had owing to him about 622l. He was interred on the north side of St. William’s chapel, at the north end of the cross aile in Rochester cathedral, with a marble monument, which had probably been injured or decayed, as in 1598, the present beautiful alabaster monument was erected by the society of Merton college, at the suggestion of the celebrated sir Henry Savile, then warden of the college.

With respect to the foundation of this college, an opinion has long prevailed, which the inquiries of some recent antiquaries have rendered doubtful. It was stated by Wood and others, that Walter de Merton first founded a college at Maldon, as a nursery for that at Oxford; that at a certain age the scholars were removed from Maldon to Oxford, where the founder provided a house for them on the site of the present college, and that the whole establishment was not removed from Maldon to Oxford until the year 1274, when the third and last charter was obtained. On the other hand, his original intention appears to have been to establish a religious house at Maldon, consisting of a warden and priests, who were to appropriate certain funds, with which he entrusted them, to the maintenance and education of twenty scholars at Oxford or elsewhere, and that when he founded Merton college, he removed the warden and priests thither. What seems to confirm this account is, that the founder appointed a fellow of Merton college to instruct such of his students as were ignorant of grammar, which would not probably have been the case had they been brought from a preparatory school.

Nothing could be more satisfactory than to be able to trace the progress of this great work from these small beginnings, but all that can be now collected is, that having purchased several tenements, on the ground where the college stands, he began his erection, and by charter dated Jan. 7, 1264, established it by the name of Domus Scholarium da Merlon. This first charter, with the statutes prescribed in it, continued in force until 1270, when it was confirmed by a second, in which great additions were made to the endowment by estates in Oxford, Oxfordshire, and other counties; the scholars were increased, and the term f rat res became used as a farther step towards the present form. A third charter was granted in 1274. All these which respect the creation in 1264, the enlargement in 1270, and the completion in 1274, and refer to, and confirm one another, are now perserved in the library, and were consulted as precedents in the foundation of Peterhouse, the earliest college of the sister university, and probably of others in both universities. The first officers of Merton were appointed in 1276. It yet remains to be noticed that Walter de Merton’s preference of Oxford is thought to have been owing to his better acquaintance with the place, there being a tradition that he studied some time among the canons regular of Oseney, or in Mauger hall, in St. Martin’s parish, Oxford. By the assistance of subsequent benefactors, Merton college was progressively raised to its present state, in which it consists of a warden, twenty- four fellows, two chaplains, fourteen. portionista or postmasters, four scholars, and two clerks.

, an Italian of very uncommon talents and learning, was born at Alexandria, in the duchy of Milan, about 1420. His family name was Merlani, which he exchanged for Merula. He was the disciple of Philephus, and taught polite literature at Venice and at Milan for forty years, and laboured with great success in restoring and correcting ancient authors. Jovius calls him “Grammaticorum exactissimus,” the most exact of grammarians and Erasmus, in his “Ciceronianus,” represents him as a man, who translated the Greek authors with a dignity and elegance sufficient to rank him with many of the ancients. He died at Milan in 1494. His original works are of the historical kind, the most distinguished of which is his “Antiquitates Vicecomiturn, lib. X.” fol. without place or date, but printed at Milan about the beginning of the sixteenth century. This only extends to the death of Matthew, whom the Italians are accustomed to call *' the Great.“The style is pure, but he has adopted too many of the fabulous reports of the old chronicles, and is in other respects incorrect as to dates and facts. It is not, however, to this, or his other historical pieces that he owes his reputation, which was more substantially built on the aid he gave in the restoration of classical learning, as one of the first editors of ancient authors. It is to him we are indebted for the first edition, collectively, of the” Scriptores de re Rustica,“Gato, Varro, Columella, and Palladius, which he published at Venice, 1472, fol. with notes. He also published the first edition of Plautus, at Venice, 1472, fol. and assisted in the publication of the early editions of Juvenal, Martial, and Ausonius, and translated several of the Greek authors. His Juvenal is entitled” Enarrationes Satyrarum Juvenalis, per GeorgiumMerulam Alexandrinum," Tarvisii (Trevigny) 1478, fol.

From these works the character of Merula justly stood high; but whether he was naturally vain and arrogant, or spoiled by flattery, his disposition was jealous and irritable, and he treated some of his learned contemporaries with that species of harshness and contempt which, although in all ages the disgrace of literature, seems reviving in our own. In our authorities may be found an account of his quarrels with his old master Philephus, with Politian, whom he once declared the only scholar in Italy that had any share of merit, and with others, in whose cases his provocations were so trifling, that we may be justified in ascribing the virulence of his style in controversy to the worst of sources. It is said, however, that at his death he repented of his conduct towards Politian, at least; earnestly desired to be reconciled to him, and ordered that every thing he had written against that illustrious scholar should be expunged from his works.

, or Van Merle, a very learned Hollander, was born at Dort, Aug. 19, 1558; and went to France and Geneva, to study the law. Afterwards he traTelled to Italy, Germany, and England; and, having been absent nine years, returned to Dort. Here he frequented the bar four years, and then quitted it for the professorship of history, which was vacated by the cession of Justus Lipsius in 1592. It has been thought a sufficient encomium on him that he was doemed worthy to succeed so great a man. In 1598, the curators of the university of Leyden joined to his professorship the office of public librarian, vacant by the death of the younger Dousa. He married in 1589, and had several children. He hurt his constitution so much by an overstrained application to books, that he died July 20, 1607, when he was no more than forty-nine. Merula was the author or editor of several works, some of the principal of which are, 1. “Q. Ennii annalium librorum xviii. fragmenta collecta & commentariis illustrata,” L. Bat. 1595, 4to. 2. “Eutropii Historiae Rom an Sb, libri x.” 1592, 8vo; but more complete with the entire notes of Glareanus and Merula, Leyden, 1594, 8vo. 3. “Urbi$ Romae delineatio & methodica ex variis authoribus descriptio,” 1599. 4. “Vita Desiderii Eras on ex ipsius manu fideliter representata. Additi sunt epistolarum ipsius libri duo,” 1607, 4to. 5. “Cosmographiae generalis libri tres. Item geographies particularis libri quatuor, quibus Europa in genere, speciatim Hispania, Galiia, Italia describuntur, cum tabuiis geographicis,” 1605, 4to. This work went through many editions; but its use is now superseded by the more accurate labours of subsequent geographers. Merula published several other works enumerated in our authorities.

From this time Metastasio united his family establishment with that of the Romanina and her husband, and lived the life of a poet, amidst harmony and poetry. Thus situated, he wrotewithin a short period, three more dramas; “Catone in Utica,” “Ezio,” and “Semiramide riconosciuta.” But it was now, in 1729, the thirty-second year of Metastasio’s life, that he was to change his country. A letter, dated Aug. 31, in that year, from prince Pio of Savoy, invited him to the court of the emperor, as coadjutor to signior Apostolo Zeno, in the office of imperial laureat. All matters of appointment being settled to his mind, he resolved, though with reluctance, to quit Italy, and his Italian connections, for this new country: and he actually arrived at Vienna in July 1730. From this time the life of Metastasio was uniform, even beyond what is usual to men of letters. He resided continually in one city, Vienna; and in one house, that of M. Martinetz: with the exception only of a visit in the autumn, which for a long time was annual, to the countess of Althan in Moravia, where he sought health from the bracing air of the mountains. To make the uniformity of his life more singular, he was naturally and habitually attached to an exact regularity, and passed one day precisely as he passed another, allotting particular hours for particular occupations. His usual routine was this, according to the report of Dr. Burney. “He studied from eight in the morning till noon; then he visited his friends, and those families and individuals from whom he had received civilities. He dined at two; and at five received his most familiar and intimate friends. At nine, in summer, he went out in his carnage, visited, and sometimes played at ombre; a game which he liked better than those of mere chance, as it afforded him exercise of mind in calculation. He returned home at ten o'clock, supped, and went to bed before eleven.” This monotonous mode of life has by some been ridiculed, and certainly would not be expected in a poet; but the varieties of human nature are endless, and in him the love of order had superseded the more common passion for change and variety. A very interesting part of the history of Metastasio, is his long and steady friendship with the celebrated Farinelli. From appearing first before the public about the same time, the one as a singer, the other as a poet, in 1723, they called each other Gemelli, or twins; and their attachment, which was of the most sincere and ardent kind, ended only with their lives, which were extended nearly to the same period. His other tuneful friend died early, namely, in the beginning of 1734, and, as a mark of her regard, left him heir to all her property, after the death of her husband, to the amount of 25,000 crowns; but Metastasio, with his usual sense of propriety, and with great generosity, relinquished the whole bequest, and restored it to the disposal of her husband.

“Whether Metastasio’s connection with the Romanina was purely Platonic,” says Dr. Burney, “or of a less seraphic kind, I shall not pretend to determine; but the husband residing in the same house with them, both at Naples and at Rome, and the friendly manner in which the poet always mentioned him in his letters to the wife, with, the open manner in which he expressed his affliction, in writing to him after her death, would, in England, be thought indications favourable to conjugal fidelity. But a chaste actress, and opei^, singer,” he adds, “is a still more uncommon phenomenon in Italy, than in Britain.” The ideas of that country are indeed totally different from those which we entertain on these subjects; and it is very probable, that the mutual attachment of Metastasio and his wife gave great pleasure to the husband Bulgarini, as an honour conferred upon his family.

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

a protestant historian, was born at Antwerp July 9, 1535. His father, Jacob de Meteren, was of Balda; his mother, Ortelia, was the daughter of William Ortelis, or Ortelius, of Augsburgh, grandfather of the celebrated geographer, Abraham Ortelins. He was carefully educated in the languages and sciences, and when a youth, is reported to have attempted to translate the Bible into English, which, says Bullart, made his religious principles to be suspected. His father, who had embraced the protestant religion, being obliged to take refuge in England, took this son with him, and gave him the choice of continuing his studies, or embarking in commerce. Emanuel, having preferred the latter, was sent to Antwerp, and engaged with a merchant in that city, where he continued about ten years, but his father had not the happiness to witness his progress, as he and his wife were drowned in their passage from Antwerp to London. Emanuel, during his residence at Antwerp, after this disaster, employed his leisure hours in collecting information respecting the history of the Netherlands; and having acquired the confidence of various persons of eminence in the government, he succeeded in obtaining much secret history of the times, which he published under the title of “Historia rerum potissimum in Belgio gestarum,” &c. It appears that he had sent some copies of this work in German to a friend, who was to procure engravings for it, but who caused it to be printed for his own benefit in Latin and German, yet with the name of the author, whose reputation he did not value so much as the profits of the work. Meteren, on hearing this, procured an order from the States to suppress this edition, which is dated 1599, and afterwards published it himself. He was enabled to revisit London again in the reign of James I. as consul for the Flemings. In this office he acquitted himself with spirit and ability, and wrote an ample volume of the treaties of commerce which formerly subsisted betwixt the English nation, the house of Burgundy, and the states of Holland. He died at London, April 8, 1612, and was interred in the church of St. Dionis Back-Church, Fenchurch-street, where his relict erected a monument to his memory, which was destroyed in the great fire.

, a father of the church, bishop of Olympus, or Patara, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, suffered martyrdom at Chalcis, a city of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian’s persecution in the year 302 or 303. Epiphanius says “that he was a very learned man, and a strenuous assertor of the truth.” St. Jerome has ranked him in his catalogue of church writers; but Eusebius has not mentioned him; which silence is attributed by some, though merely upon conjecture, to Methodius’s having written very sharply against Origen, who was favoured by Eusebius. Methodius composed in a clear and elaborate style several works i a large one “Against Porphyry the philosopher;” “A Treatise on the Resurrection,” against Origen; another on “Pythonissa,” against the same a book entitled “The banquet of Virgins” one on “Free-will” “Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles” and several other pieces extant in St. Jerome’s time. Father Combesis collected several considerable fragments of this author, cited by Epiphanius, Photius, and others, and printed them with notes of his own at Paris, in 1644, together with the works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis, in folio. But afterwards Possinus, a Jesuit, found “The Banquet of Virgins” entire, in a manuscript belonging to the Vatican library; and sent it, with a Latin version of his own, into France, where it was printed in 1657, folio, revised and corrected by another manuscript in the library of cardinal Mazarin. We cannot doubt that this is the true and genuine work of Methodius; as it not only carries all the marks of antiquity in it, but contains word for word all the passages that Photius had cited out of it. It is written in the way of dialogue, after the manner of “Plato’s Banquet of Socrates;” with this difference, that the speakers here are women, who indeed talk very learnedly and very elegantly.

, or Meetkercke, or Mekerchus (Adolphus), a learned writer, was born at Bruges in 1528, and passed the greater part of his life in the service of the revolted states of the Low Countries, as counsellor of state, and envoy to the foreign potentates. He was employed on an embassy to queen Elizabeth in the latter part of his life, an office which was probably very agreeable to him, as he was a protestant, and had resided here for the quiet enjoyment of his religion for some time before he was appointed on the embassy. He appears to have been an ornament and delight of the age in which he lived, second to none in literary accomplishments, and was a man also of great benevolence and amiable temper. Grief for the loss of his son is said to have hastened his death, which took place at London in 1591, in his sixty-fourth year. He was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, under a monument which, when that church was rebuilt, was conveyed to Julians, near Buntingford, in Hertfordshire, the seat of his descendants who settled in this country, and where some of them are still living. The present owner of the estate is in possession, among others, of a folio ms. of Greek and Latin poetry by his ancestor, the subject of this article, with additions by his son Adolphus, who died without issue, and by his son Edward, D. D. of Christchurch, Oxford, professor of Hebrew in that university, and prebendary of Winchester. He became professor in 1621, and died in 1660. Foppen asserts that sir Adolphus, as the ambassador was called, declared in writing, on his death-bed, that there was no true religion out of the catholic church, and that his daughter was so struck with this as to return to Bruges, and to the Roman catholic religion. As far as respects the daughter, this may be true, but her father certainly died in the protestant faith, as appears by the inscription on his monument, which Foppen is obliged to confess, is written “stylo acatholico.” Sir AdoU phus published in 1565, not a translation of some pieces of Bion and Moschus, as it has been erroneously called, but the first edition of “Bion and Moschus,” printed at Bruges in 1565, 4to, Gr. and Lat. It has a double Latin version with the Variorum scholia, the elegies of Phanoclis, and some fragments of Propertius. It is a very rare and curious edition. Retranslated into Latin verse “Theocriti Epigrammata,” and published a treatise “De veteri et recta pronuntiatione linguae Graecas Commentarius,” Bruges, 1565, and Antwerp, 1576, 8vo. He contributed also to editions of the “Fasti Consulares,” “Vitae Caesarum,” “Magna Grsecia,” &c. and in his political character published “A Collection of the Proceedings at the Peace of Cologne, in 1579.”

, or Meton, a celebrated mathematician of Athens, who flourished 432 B. C. was the son of Pausanias. He observed, in the first year of the 87th olympiad, the solstice at Athens, and published his cycle of 19 years, by which he endeavoured to adjust the course of the sun and moon, and to make the solar and lunar years begin at the same point of time. This is called the Metonic period, or cycle. It is also called the golden number, from its great use in the calendar. Meton was living about the year 412 B. C. for when the Athenian fleet was sent to Sicily, he escaped from being embarked on that disastrous expedition by counterfeiting an appearance of idiotism.

, a very eccentric French author and physician, was born at St. Maloes in 1709. He studied physic under Boerhaave, after which he removed to Paris, and became an army-surgeon in the French guards. The duke of Grammont, who was his protector, being taken very ill at the siege of Fribourg, he began, in his attendance upon him, to speculate upon the nature of the soul, and to perceive, as he fancied, that it is mortal. He wrote “The Natural History of the Soul,” which being highly impious in its doctrines, raised a storm against him from which his patron with difficulty could defend him. He then turned his pen against his brethren, and wrote “Penelope, or the Machiavel in medicine,” in 3 vols. 12mo. The rage of the faculty, in consequence of this satire, drove him out of France; and he retired to Leyden, where he published “L'Homme Machine,” a treatise of materialism, in which the philosophy is as incorrect and ill argued as it is pernicious. But he declaims with an ardour too likely to captivate weak minds, and draw them over to his opinions. This book could not obtain toleration even in Holland; it was publicly burnt, and the author obliged, in 1748, to fly for refuge to Berlin, and at this court he was protected, made a member of the academy, and honoured with places under the king. Here he lived in tranquillity, till his violent system of bleeding, very like that of Dr. Sangrado, put an early period to his life, as it had to those of several patients; and he died in 1.751, being then only 48. His works were published collectively at Berlin the same year, in one vol. 4to, and two 12mo. The same kind of false philosophy pervades them all. The king of Prussia, however, conferred on him a very singular honour, even after his death; for he wrote his funeral oration, which he caused to be pronounced in the academy by one of his secretaries. Voltaire said of him, that he was a madman who wrote in a state of intoxication.

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

It seems almost needless to observe, that the shamefully obscene Latin work, entitled “Meursius de elegantiis Latinae linguae,” was not written either by this author or his son; but was, as the French biographers assures us, the production of Nicolas Chorier, an attorney at Grenoble. It probably had the name of John Meursius prefixed by way of throwing a ridicule upon the grave and learned professor. His son produced, as we have said, some learned works, but not such as to rival those of his father.

, a historian of some note in Spain, when history was mere compilation, was a native of Seville, of a family of some rank, and liberally educated. His inclination being principally for historical studies, he was made chronographer, perhaps what we should call, historiographer to Charles V. He is also said to have been a poet. Antonio has collected from various authors, his contemporaries, opinions highly favourable to his learning and knowledge. The only fault imputable seems to be that of mixing Latin words too frequently with his Spanish. He died about 1552. His principal work, for which he is known in this country, is entitled “Silvade varia Leccion,” which with the additions of the Italian and French translators, was published at London under the title of the “Treasury of ancient and modern Times,” fol. The original was first printed at Seville, in black-letter, in 1542, fol. often reprinted, and translated into most European languages, with additions. His other writings were, a “History of the Caesars,” Seville, 1545, fol. likewise translated by W. T. and enlarged by Edward Grimeston, Lond. 1623. foL 2. “Colloquies o Dialogos,” or “Laus Asini,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius, Seville 1547, 8vo, often reprinted and translated into Italian. 3. “Parenesis de Isocrates.” He left some Mss. and an unfinished life of Charles V.

He wrought both in enamel and water-colours, and had no competitor until Mr. Humphrey, in the latter process, produced some performances of exquisite merit: but as that gentleman soon quitted miniature painting, he left Meyer without a rival in his department. Meyer was many years a member of the academy in St. Martin’s-lane; and at the institution of the royal academy he was chosen one of the founders. He long resided in Covent-garden, but at the latter part of his life he retired to Kew, where he died Jan. 20, 1789. This event was the consequence of a fever contracted by friendly zeal, in the service of a gentleman in a contested election. Mr. Hayley says he was no less admirable as a friend than as an artist: and endeared to all who knew him by a pleasant social vivacity, and by an indefatigable spirit of extensive beneficence. “Were I required,” adds Mr. Hayley, “to name the individual whom I believe to have been most instrumental in promoting the prosperity of others (without the advantages of official authority, or of opulence), I should say, without hesitation, Meyer.”

, an eminent French historian, was born at Ry, near Argentau in Lower Normandy, in 1610. He was educated in the university of Caen, where he discovered an early inclination for poetry; and had himself so high an opinion of his talent in that art, that he thought he should be able to raise both a character and a fortune by it. But, upon going to Paris, he was dissuaded from pursuing poetry, by Vauquelin des Yveteaux, who had been the preceptor of Louis XIII. and advised to apply himself earnestly to history and politics, as the surest means of succeeding in life. In the mean time, that gentleman procured him the place of commissary of war, which he held for two or three campaigns, and then quitted it. Upon his return to Paris, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life there; and, changing the name of his family as being an obscure one, he took the name of Mezerai, which is a cottage in the parish of Ry. But his little stock of money made him apprehensive that he should not be able to continue long at Paris; and therefore, to support himself, he had recourse to writing satires against the ministry, articles which were then extremely well received, and for which he had naturally a turn. M. Larroque, in his Life of Mezerai, assures us, that he was author of all the pieces published against the government under the name of Sandricourt. They are written in a low and burlesque style, and adapted merely to please the populace. Larroque has given us the titles of nineteen of these pieces, but would not give those of others which Mezerai wrote, either during the minority of Louis XIV. or against cardinal Richelieu; “because,” he says, “they ought to be forgotten, out of reverence to the persons whom they attacked.”

By these satires Mezerai gained a considerable sum in less than three years; and being now in easy circumstances, applied himself, at the age of twenty-six, to compile an “History of France.” Cardinel Richelieu, hearing of his character and circumstances, made him a present of two hundred crowns, with a promise to remember him afterwards. He published the first volume of his history in 1643, which extends from Pharamond to Charles VI.; the second in 1646, which contains what passed from Charles VI. to Charles IX.; and the third in 1651, which comprehends the history from. Henry Hi. till the peace of Vervins, in 1598; all in folio. This history procured him a pension from the king. It was received with extraordinary applause, as if there had been no history of France before: and perhaps there was none more agreeable as to Teracity. In 1668, he published, in 3 vols. 4to, an “Abridgement of the history of France:” in which there being several bold passages, which displeased Colbert, that minister ordered Perrault, of the French academy, to tell Mezerai, in his name, that “the king had not given him a pension of 4000 livres to write in so free a manner; that his majesty had indeed too great a regard to truth, to require his historiographers to disguise it, out of fear or hope; but that he did not think they ought to take the liberty of reflecting, without any necessity, upon the conduct of his ancestors, and upon a policy which had long been established, and confirmed by th.e suffrages of the whole nation.” Upon this remonstrance, the author promised to retouch the passages complained of, which he did in a new edition, 1672, in 6 vols. 12mo. In this, however, he was so unfortunate as neither to satisfy the public, who were displeased to see the truth altered, nor the minister, who retrenched half his pension. Mezerai was extremely piqued at this, and complained of Colbert in such severe terms, as induced that minister to deprive him of the remainder of his pension. Mezerai then declared that he would write history no longer; and that the reason of his silence might not be concealed, he put the last money which he recieved as historiographer, into a box by itself with this note “Here is the last money I have received of the king he has ceased to pay me, and 1 to speak of him either good or ill.” * Mezerai had designed at first to revise his great work; but some friends giving him to understand that a correct abridgement would be more acceptable, he followed their advice, as we have related, and spent ten whole years in drawing it up. The first edition of it “met with greater applause than even his larger work, and was much sought after by foreigners as well as Frenchmen. Learned men, and critics in historical matters, have remarked many errors in it; but he did not value himself at all upon correctness; and used to tell his friends, who reproached him with the want of it, that” very few persons could perceive the difference between a history that is correct and one that is not so; and that the glory which he might gain by greater accuracy was not worth the pains it would cost."

In 1649, he was admitted a member of the French academy, in the room of Voiture; and, in 1675, chosen perpetual secretary of that academy. Besides the works abovementioned, he wrote a “Continuation of the general history of the Turks,” in which he is thought not to have succeeded “L'Origine des Francois,” printed at Amsterdam, in 1682 “Les Vanites de la Cour,” translated from the Latin of Johannes Sarisburiensis, in 1640; andaFrench translation of “Grotius de Veritate Christianse Religionis,” in 1644. He died July 10, 1633, aged seventy-three. He was, according to Larroque, a man who was subject to strange humours. He was extremely negligent in his person, and so careless in his dress, that he had more the appearance of a beggar than a gentleman. He was actually seized one morning by the archers des pauvres, or parish officers; with which mistake he was highly diverted, and told them, that “he was not able to walk on foot, but that, as soon as a new wheel was put to his chariot, he would attend them wherever they thought proper.” He used to study and write by candle-light, even at noon-day in summer; and always waited upon his company to the door with a candle in his hand. He had a brother, father Eudes, a man of great simplicity and piety, whom he insidiously drew in to treat of very delicate points before the queen ­mother, regent of the kingdom, who was of the Medici family; and to lay down some things relating to government and the finances, which could not fail of displeasing that princess; and must have occasioned great trouble to father Eudes, if the goodness of the queen had not excused the indiscretion of the preacher. But of all his humours, none lessened him more in the opinion of the public, than the unaccountable fondness he conceived for a man who kept a public house at Chapellein, called Le Faucheur. He was so taken with this man’s frankness and pleasantry, that he used to spend whole days with him, notwithstanding the admonition of his friends to the contrary; and not only kept up an intimate friendship with him during his life, but made him sole legatee at his death. With regard to religion, he affected Pyrrhonism; which, however, was not, it seems, so much in his heart as in his mouth. This appeared from his last sickness; for, having sent for those friends who had been the most usual witnesses of his licentious talk about religion, he made a sort of recantation, which he concluded by desiring them “to forget what he might formerly have said-upon the subject of religion, and to remember, that Mezerai dying, was a better believer than Mezerai in health.” These particulars are to be found in his life by M. Larroque: but the abbe Olivet tells us, that he “was surprised, upon reading this life, to find Mezerai’s character drawn in such disadvantageous colours.” Mezerai was certainly a man of many singularities, and though agreeable when he pleased in his conversation, yejfc full of whim, and not without ill-nature. It was a constant way with him, when candidates offered themselves for vacant places in the academy, to throw in a black ball instead of a white one: and when his friends asked him the reason of this unkind procedure, he answered, “that it was to leave to posterity a monument of the liberty of the elections in the academy.” As an historian, he is valued very highly and deservedly for his integrity and faithfulness, in relating facts as he found them; but for this solely: for as to his style, it is neither accurate nor elegant, although he had been a member of the French academy long before he wrote his “Abridgment.”

, a celebrated biblical critic, and professor of divinity and the oriental languages, was born at Halle, in Lower Saxony, in 1717. His first education was private, but in 1729 he was sent to the public school of the orphan-house, where he studied diviniiy and philosophy, and at the same time he occasionally attended the lectures of his father, who was professor of divinity and the oriental languages. During the latter part of his time at school, he acquired a great facility in speaking Latin, and in thinking systematically, from the practice of disputation, in which one of the masters frequently exercised him. In 1733, he entered into the university of Halle, where he applied himself to the study of mathematics, metaphysics, theology, and the oriental languages. He also prepared himself for pulpit services, and preached with great approbation at Halle and other places. In 1739 he took a degree in philosophy, and soon after was appointed assistant lecturer under his father, having shewn how well qualified he was for that situation, by publishing a small treatise “De Antiquitate Punctorum Vocalium.” In 1741 he left his own country with a view of visiting England, and passing through Holland, became acquainted with the celebrated Schultens, from whom he received many marks of the most friendly attention. Upon his arrival in England, he engaged to officiate for the German, chaplain to the court, who was at that time in an infirm state of health, and continued to preach at the palace-chapel nearly a year and a half. During this period he visited the university of Oxford, greatly increased his knowledge of the oriental languages, and formed an intimacy with some of the first literary characters of that age, particularly with Dr. Lowth, afterwards bishop of London, on some of whose lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum” he attended. Upon his return to Halle, he resumed his labours as assistant to his father, and delivered lectures on the historical books of the Old Testament, the Syriac and Chaldee languages, and also upon natural history, and the Roman classics; but seeing no prospect of a fixed establishment, he left Halle in 1745, and went to Gottingen, in the capacity of private tutor. In the following year he was made professor extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Gottingen, and, in 1750, professor in ordinary in the same faculty. In 1751 he was appointed secretary to the newly instituted Royal Society of Gottingen, of which he afterwards became director, and about the same time was made aulic counsellor by the court of Hanover. During 1750, he gained the prize in the Royal Academy of Berlin, by a memoir “On the Influence of Opinions on Language, and Language on Opinions.” While the seven years’ war lasted, Michaelis met with but little interruption in his studies, being exempted,in common with the other professors, from military employment; and when the new regulations introduced by the French in 1760, deprived them of that privilege, by the command of marshal Broglio it was particularly extended to M. Michaelis. Soon after this, he obtained from Paris, by means of the marquis de Lostange, the manuscript of Abulfeda’s geography, from, which he afterwards edited his account of the Egyptians; and by the influence of the same nobleman, he was chosen correspondent of the “Academy of Inscriptions at Paris,” in 1764, and elected one of the eight foreign members of that institution. In 1760, the professor gave great offence to the orthodox clergy, by publishing his “Compendium of dogmatic Theology,” consisting of doctrinal lectures which he had delivered by special licence from the government. Shortly after this, Michaelis shewed his zeal for the interests of science and literature, by the part which he took in the project of sending a mission of learned men into Egypt and Arabia, for the purpose of obtaining such information concerning the actual state of those countries, as might serve to throw light on geography, natural history, philology, and biblical learning. He first conceived the idea of such a mission, which he communicated by letter to the privy counsellor Bernstorf, who laid it before his sovereign Frederic V. king of Denmark. That sovereign was so well satisfied of the benefits which might result from the undertaking, that he determined to support theexpence of it, and he even committed to Michaelis the management of the design, together with the nomination of proper travellers, and the care of drawing up their instructions. Upow the death of Gesner in 1761, Michaelis succeeded in the office of librarian to the Royal Society, which he held about a year, and was then nominated to the place of director, with the salary for life of the post, which he then resigned. Two years afterwards he was invited by the king of Prussia to remove to Berlin, but his attachment to Gottingen led him to decline the advantages which were held out to him as resulting from the change. In 1766 he was visited at Gottingen by sir John Pringle, whom he had known in England, and Dr. Franklin. With the first he afterwards corresponded on the subject of the leprosy, spoken of in the books of Moses, and on that of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks. The latter subject was disscussed in the letters which passed between them during 1771, and was particularly examined by the professor. This correspondence was printed by sir John Pringle in 1773, under the title of “Joan. Dav. Michaelis de Epistolse, &c. LXX. Hebdomadibus Danielis, ad D. Joan. Pringle, Baronettum; primo privatim missse, nunc vero utriusque consensu publice editae.” In 1770, some differences having arisen between Michaelis and his colleagues in the Royal Society, he resigned his directorship. In 1775 his well-established reputation had so far removed the prejudices which had formerly been conceived against him in Sweden, that the count Hbpkin, who some years before had prohibited the use of his writings at Upsal, now prevailed upon the king to confer upon him the order of the polar star. He was accordingly decorated with the ensignia of that order, on which occasion he chose as a motto to his arms, “libera veritas.” In 1782 his health began to decline, which he never completely recovered; in 1786 he was raised to the rank of privy counsellor of justice by the court of Hanover; in the following year the academy of inscriptions at Paris elected him a foreign member of that body; and in 178S he received his last literary honour by being elected a member of the Royal Society of London. He continued his exertions almost to the very close of life, and a few weeks before his death, he shewed a friend several sheets in ms. of annotations which he had lately written on the New Testament. He died on the 22d of August, 1791, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. He was a man of very extensive and profound erudition, as well as of extraordinary talents, which were not less brilliant than solid, as is evident from the honours which were paid to his merits, and the testimony of his acquaintance and contemporaries. His application and industry were unwearied, and his perseverance in such pursuits as he conceived would prove useful to the world, terminated only with the declension of his powers. His writings are distinguished not only by various and solid learning, but by a profusion of ideas, extent of knowledge, brilliancy of expression, and a frequent vein of pleasantry. In the latter part of his life he was regarded not only as a literary character, but as a man of business, and was employed in affairs of considerable importance by the courts of England, Denmark, and Prussia. His works are very numerous, and chiefly upon the subjects of divinity and oriental languages. A part of them are written in Latin, but by far the greater number in German. Of the Conner class there are these 1. “Commentatio de Battologia, ad Matth. vi. 7.” Bremen, 1753, 4to. 2. “Paralipomena contra Polygamiam,” ibid. 1758, 4to. 3. “Syntagma commentationum,” Goett. 1759 1767, 4to. 4. “Curse in versionem Syriacam Actuurn Apostolorum,” Goett, 1755, 4to. 5. “Compendium Theologize dogmatics?,” ib. 1760, 8 vo. 6. “Commentationes resize soc. Scientiarum Goettingerrsis, per annos 1758 1762,” Bremen, 1775, 4to. 7. “Vol. II. Ejusdem, 1769.” 8. “Spicilegium Geographies Hebrseorum exterae, post Bochartum,” Goett. 1769 1780, 2 torn. 4to. 9. “Grammatica Chaldaica,” ib. 1771, 8vo. 10. “Supplementa ad Lexicon Hebraicum,” 1784 1792, 6 torn. 4to. 11. “Grammatica Syriaca,” Halae, 1784, 4to. The following are in German: 12. “Hebrew Grammar,” Halle, 1778, 8vo.13. “Elements of Hebrew accentuation,” ib. 1741, 8vo. 14. “Treatise on the Law of Marriage, according to Moses,” Goett. 1768, 4to. 15. “Paraphrase and Remarks on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus, Timothy, and Philemon,” Bremen, 1769, 4to. 16. “Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament,” Bremen, 1750, 8vo. 17. “Prophetical plan of the preacher Solomon,” ib. 1762, 8vo.18. “Thoughts on the Doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin,” Hamb. 1752, 8vo. 19. “Plan of typical Divinity,” Brem. 1763, 8vo. 20. “Criticism of the means employed to understand the Hebrew language.” 21. “Critical Lectures on the principal Psalms which treat of Christ,” Frankf. 1759, 8vo. 22. “Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Frankf. 1784, 2 vols. 4to, 2$. “Questions proposed to a society of learned Men, who went to Arabia by order of the king of Denmark,” ib. 1762, 8vo. 24. “Introduction to the New Testament,' 7 a second edition, Goett. 1788, 2 vols. 4to. 25.” Miscellaneous Writings,“two parts, Frankf. 1766 8, 8vo. 26.” Programma concerning the seventy-two translators,“Goett. 1767, 8vo. 27.” Dissertation on the Syriac language, and its use,“Goett. 1768, 8vo. 28.” Strictures concerning the Protestant Universities in Germany,“Frankf. 1775, 8vo. 29.” Translation of the Old Testament,“Goett. 1769 83, 13 parts. 30.” Fundamental Interpretation of the Mosaic Law,“Frankf. 1770-5, 6 parts, with additions, 8vo. 31.” Of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel,“Goett. 1772, 8vo. 32.” Arabic Grammar and Chrestomathy,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 33.” Oriental and exegetical Library,“Frankf. 1771—89, 24 parts, and two supplements, 8vo. 34.” New Oriental and exegetical Library,“Goett. 1786 91, 9 parts. 35.” Of the Taste of the Arabians in their Writings,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 36.” Dissertation on the Syriac Language and its uses, together with a Chrestomathy,“ib. 1786, 8vo. 37.” On the Duty of Men to speak Truth,“Kiel, 1773, 8vo. 38.” Commentary on the Maccabees,“Frankfort, 1777, 4to. 39.” History of Horses, and of the breeding of Horses in Palestine,“&c. ib. 1776, 8vo. 40.” Thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin and Satisfaction,“Bremen, 1779, 8vo. 41.” Illustration of the History of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ,“Halle, 1783, 8vo. 42.” Supplement, or the fifth Fragment of Lessing’s Collections,“Halle, 1785, 8vo. 43.” German Dogmatic Divinity,“Goett. 1784, 8vo. 44.” Introduction to the Writings of the Old Testament,“Hamb. 1787, 1st vol. 1st part, 4to: 45.” Translation of the Old Testament, without remarks,“Goett. 1789, 2 vols. 4to. 46.” Translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790, 2 vols. 4to 47.” Remarks for the unlearned, relative to his translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790 92, 4 parts, 4to. 48.” Additions to the third edition of the Introduction to the New Testament,“ibid. 1789, 4to. 49.” Ethics," a posthumous work, published by C. F. Steudlin, Goett. 1792, 2 parts, 8vo.

Of those with which the English scholar has been brought acquainted, one of the principal is the “Introduction to the New Testament,” translated into English from the first edition, and published in 1761, in a quarto volume. In 1788, the fourth edition was published in two volumes quarto. The object of this work, which is purely critical and historical, is to explain the Greek Testament, with the same impartiality, and the same unbiassed love of truth, with which a critic in profane literature would examine the writings of Homer, Virgil, &c. The first volume contains an examination of the authenticity, inspiration, and language of the New Testament. The second volume contains a particular introduction to each individual book of the New Testament. An English translation of it has been published by the rev. Herbert Marsh, in six volumes, royal 8vo. To this we may add another very important translation of his “Mosaisches Recht,” or “Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,” by Alexander Smith, D. D. minister of the Chapel of Garioch, Aberdeenshire, 1814, 4 vols. 8vo. This, says the learned translator, has always been esteemed the chef d* cewvre of Michaelis, but although a work of very great importance, demands the application of somewhat of that precautionary chastening, which Dr. Marsh has so judiciously applied in the “Introduction to the New Testament.” From Dr. Smith, also, the public have reason to expect a memoir of the life and writings of Michaelis, more ample than has yet appeared in this country.

, an ingenious poet, was the son of the rev. Alexander Mickle or Meikle, who exchanging the profession of physic for that of divinity, was admitted, at an age more advanced than usual, into the ministry of the church of Scotland. From that country he removed to London, where he preached for some time in various dissenting meetings, particularly that of the celebrated Dr. Watts. He was also employed by the booksellers in correcting the translation of Bayle’s Dictionary, to which he is said to have contributed the greater part of the additional notes. In 1716 he returned to Scotland, on being presented to the living of Langholm in the county of Dumfries; and in 1727, he married Julia, daughter of Mr. Thomas Henderson, of Ploughlands near Edinburgh, and first cousin to the late sir William Johnstone, bart. of Westerhall. By this lady, who appears to have died before him, he had ten children.

Our poet, his fourth, or as some say, his third, son, was born Sunday Sept. 29, 1734, and educated at the grammar school of Langholm, where he acquired that early taste for works of genius which frequently ends, in spite of all obstacles, in a life devoted to literary pursuits. He even attempted, when at school, a few devotional pieces in rhyme, which, however, were not superior to the common run of puerile compositions. About his thirteenth year, he accidentally met with Spenser’s “Faerie Queene,” which fixed a lasting impression on his mind, and made him desirous of being enrolled among the imitators of that poet. To this he joined the reading of Homer and Virgil, during his education at the high school of Edinburgh, in which city his father obtained permission to reside in consideration of his advanced age and infirmities, and to enable him to give a proper education to his children.

About two years after the rev. Mr. Mickle came to reside in Edinburgh, upon the death of a brother-in-law, a brewer in the neighbourhood of that city, he embarked a great part of his fortune in the purchase of the brewery, and continued the business in the name of his eldest son. Our poet was then taken from school, employed as a clerk under his father, and upon coming of age in 1755, took upon him the whole charge and property of the business, on condition of granting his father a share of the profits during his life, and paying a certain sum to his brothers and sisters at, stated periods, after his father’s decease, which happened in 1758. Young Mickle is said to have entered into these engagements more from a sense of filial duty, and the peculiar situation of his family, than from any inclination to business. He had already contracted the habits of literary life; he had begun to feel the enthusiasm of a son of the Muses, and while he was storing his mind with the productions of former poets, and cultivating those branches of elegant literature not usually taught at schools at that time, he felt the employment too delightful to admit of much interruption from the concerns of trade. In 1761, he contributed, but without his name, two charming compositions, entitled “Knowledge, an Ode,” and a “Night Piece,” to a collection of poetry published by Donaldson, a bookseller of Edinburgh; and about the same time published some observations on that impious tract “The History of the Man after God’s own heart,” but whether separately, or in any literary journal, is not now known. He had also finished a dramatic poem of considerable length, entitled “The Death of Socrates,” and had begun a poem on “Providence,” when his studies were interrupted by the importunities of his creditors.

Among other schemes w hich he hoped might eventually succeed in relieving his embarrassments, he appears to have now had some intentions of going to Jamaica, but in what capacity, or with what prospects, he perhaps did not himself know. There was, however, no immediate plan soeabily practicable, by which he could expect at some distant period to satisfy his creditors, and the consciousness of this most painful of all obligations was felt by him in a manner which can be conceived only by minds of the nicest honour and most scrupulous integrity. While in this perplexity, he was cheered by a letter from lord Lyttelton, in which his lordship assured him that he thought his genius in poetry deserved to be cultivated, but would not advise the republication of his poem without considerable alterations. He declined the offer of a dedication, as a tiling likely to be of no use to the poet, “as nobody minded dedications;” but suggested that it might be of some use if he were to come and read the poem with his lordship, when they might discourse together upon what he thought its beauties and faults. In the mean time he exhorted Mickle to endeavour to acquire greater harmony of versification; and to take care that his diction did not loiter into prose ^ or become hard by new phrases, or words unauthorized by the usage of good authors. In answer to this condescending and friendly letter, Mickle informed his lordship of his real name, and inclosed the elegy of “Pollio” for his lordship’s advice. This was followed by another kind letter from lord Lyttelton, in which he gave his opinion, that the correction of a few lines would make it as perfect as any thing of that kind in our language, and promised to point out its faults when he had the pleasure of seeing the author. An interview accordingly took place in the month of February 1764, when his lordship, after receiving him with the utmost politeness and affability, begged him not to be discouraged at such difficulties as a young author must naturally expect, but to cultivate his very promising poetical powers; and, with his usual condescension, added, that he would become his schoolmaster. Other interviews followed this very flattering introduction, at which Mickle read with him the poem on “Providence,” and communicated his plan for treating more fully a subject of so much intricacy, intimating that he had found it necessary to discard the philosophy of Pope’s ethics. But, as in order to render his talents as soon productive as possible, he had now a wish to publish a volume of poems, he sent to his noble friend that on “Providence,” “Pollio,” and an “Elegy on Mary Queen of Scots.” This produced a long letter from his lordship, in which after much praise of the two former, he declined criticising any part of the elegy on Mary, because he wholly disapproved of the subject. He added, with justice, that poetry should not consecrate what history must condemn; and in the view his lordship had taken of the history of Mary, he thought her entitled to pity, but not to praise. In this opinion Mickle acquiesced, from convenience, if not from conviction, and again sent his lordship a copy of “Providence,” with further improvements, hoping probably that they might be the last; but he had the mortification to receive it back from the noble critic so much marked and blotted, that he began to despair of completing it to his satisfaction. He remitted, therefore, a new performance, the “Ode on May Day,” begging his lordship’s opimion “if it could be made proper to appear this spring (1765) along with the one already approved.”

Whether any answer was returned to this application, we are not told. It is certain no volume of poems appeared, and our author began to feel how difficult it would be to justify such tardy proceedings to those who expected that he should do something to provide for himself. He had now been nearly two years in London, without any other subsistence than what he received from his brothers, or procured by contributing to some of the periodical publications, particularly the British and St. James’s Magazines. All this was scanty and precarious, and his hopes of greater advantages from his poetical efforts were considerably damped by the fastidious opinions of the noble critic who had voluntarily undertaken to be his tutor. It now occurred to Mickle to try whether his lordship might not serve him more essentially as a patron; and having still some intention of going to Jamaica, he took the liberty to request his lordship’s recommendation to his brother William Henry Lyttelton, esq. who was then governor of that island. This produced an interview, in which lord Lyttelton intimated that a recommendation to his brother would be of no real use, as the governor’s patronage was generally bespoke long before vacancies take place; he promised, however, to recommend Mickle to the merchants, and to one of them then in London, whom he expected to see very soon. He also hinted that a clerkship at home would be desireable, as England was the place for Mickle, but repressed all hopes from this scheme, by adding, that as he (lord Lyttelton) was in opposition, he could ask no favours. He then mentioned the East Indies, as a place where perhaps he could be of service; and after much conversation on these various schemes, concluded with a promise, which probably appeared to his client as a kind of anti-climax, that he would aid the sale of his “Odes” with his good opinion when they should be published.

This was the last interview Mickle had with his lordship. He afterwards renewed the subject in the way of correspondence, but received so little encouragement, that he was at length compelled, although much against the fond opinion he had formed of his lordship’s zeal in his cause, to give up all thoughts of succeeding by his means. It cannot be doubted that he felt this disappointment very acutely, but whether he thought, upon more mature reflection, that he had not sufficient claims on lord Lyttelton’s patronage, that his lordship could not be expected to provide for every one who 'solicited his opinion, or that he was really unable to befriend him according to his honest professions, it is certain that he betrayed no coarse resentment, and always spoke, respectfully of the advantages he had derived from his critical opinions. The conclusion of their correspondence, indeed, was in some respect owing to Mickle himself. Lord Lyttelton so far kept his word as to write to his brother in his favour at the time when Mickle was bent on going to Jamaica, but the latter had, in the mean time, “in order to avoid the dangers attending an uncertainty,” accepted the offer of going as a merchant’s clerk to Carolina, a scheme which, being delayed by some accident, he gave up for a situation more agreeable to his taste, that of corrector of the Clarendon press at Oxford.

To whom he owed this appointment we are not told. As it is a situation, however, of moderate emolument, and dependant on the printer employed, it required no extraordinary interference of friends. He was already known to the Wartons, and it is not improbable that their mentioning him to Jackson, the printer, would be sufficient. He removed to Oxford in 1765; and in 1767, published “The Concubine,” in the manner of Spenser, which brought him into more notice than any thing he had yet written, and was attributed to some of the highest names on the list of living poets, while he concealed his being the author. It may here be noticed, that when he published a second edition in 1778, he changed the name to “Sir Martyn,” as “The Concubine” conveyed a very improper idea both of the subject and spirit of the poem. Living now in a society from which some of the ablest defenders of Christianity have risen, he was induced to take up his pen in its defence, by attacking a “Translation of the New Testament” published by the late Dr. Harwood. Mickle’s pamphlet was entitled “A Letter to Dr. Harwood, wherein some of his evasive glosses, false translations, and blundering criticisms, in support of the Arian heresy, contained in his liberal translation of the New Testament, are pointed out and confuted.” Harwood had laid himself so open to ridicule as well as confutation by his foolish translation, that perhaps there was no great merit in exposing what it was scarcely possible to read with gravity; but our author, while he employed rather more severity than was necessary on this part of his subject, engaged in the vindication of the doctrine of the Triraity with the acuteness of a man who had carefully studied the controversy, and considered the established opinion as a matter of essential importance. This was followed by another attempt to vindicate revealed religion from the hostility of the deists, entitled “Voltaire in the Shades, or Dialogues on the Deistical Controversy.”

He died after a short illness at Forrest-hill, on the 28th of October, 1788, and was buried in the church-yard of that parish. His character, as drawn by Mr. Isaac Reed and Mr. John Ireland, who knew him well, may be adopted with safety. “He was in every point of view a man of the utmost integrity, warm in his friendship, and indignant only against vice, irreligion, or meanness. The compliment paid by lord Lyttelton to Thomson, might be applied to him with the strictest truth; not a line is to be found in his works, which, dying, he would wish to blot During the greatest part of his lire, he endured the pressures of a narrow fortune, without repining, never relaxing in his industry to acquire, by honest exertions, that independence which at length he enjoyed. He did not shine in conversation; nor would any person, from his appearance, have been able to form a favourable judgment of his talents. In every situation in which fortune placed him, he displayed an independent spirit, undebased by any meanness; and when his pecuniary circumstances made him, on one occasion, feel a disappointment with some force, he even then seemed more ashamed at his want of discernment of character, than concerned for his loss. He seemed to entertain with reluctance an opinion, that high birth could be united with a sordidmind. He had, however, the satisfaction of reflecting, that no extravagant panegyric had disgraced his pen. Contempt certainly came to his aid, though not soon: he wished to forget his credulity, and never after conversed on the subject by choice. To conclude, his foibles were but few, and those inoffensive: his virtues were many; and his genius was very considerable. He lived without reproach, and his memory will always be cherished by those who were acquainted with him.”

To this Mr. Ireland adds, “His manners were not of that obtrusive kind by which many men of the second or third order force themselves into notice. A very close observer might have passed many hours in Mr. Mickle’s company, without suspecting that he had ever written a line of poetry. A common physiognomist would have said that he had an unmasked face. Lavater would have said otherwise; but neither his countenance nor manners were such as attract the multitude. When his name was announced, he has been more than once asked if the translator of Camoens was any relation to him. To this he usually answered, with a good-natured smile, that they were of the same family. Simplicity, unaffected simplicity, was the leading feature in his character. The philosophy of Voltaire and David Hume was his detestation. He could not hear their names with temper. For the Bible he had the highest reverence, and never sat silent when the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel were cither ridiculed or of with contempt.” In 1794, an edition of his poems was published by subscription, with an account of his life by Mr. Ireland. A more full and correct collection of his poems appeared in 1807, with a life by the rev. John Sim, who was his intimate friend when at Oxford, and has done ample justice to his memory; and his principal poems were added to the late continuation of Johnson’s collection.

, a celebrated English divine, was the son of William Middleton, rector of Hinderwell near Whitby in Yorkshire, and born at York Dec. 27, or, as Mr. Cole says, Aug. 2, 1633. His father, who possessed an easy fortune, gave him a liberal education; and at seventeen he was admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge, and two years after was chosen a scholar upon the foundation. After taking his degree of A. B. in 1702, he took orders, and officiated as curate of Trumpington, near Cambridge. In 1706 he was elected a fellow of his college, and next year commenced master of arts. Two years after he joined with other fellows of his college in a petition to Dr. John More, then bishop of Ely, as their visitor, against Dr. Bentley their master. But he had no sooner done this, than he withdrew himself from Bentiey’s jurisdiction, by marrying Mrs, Drake, daughter of Mr. Morris, of Oak-Morris in Kent, and widow of counsellor Drake of Cambridge, a lady of ample fortune. After his marriage, he took a small rectory in the Isle of Ely, which was in the gift of his wife; but resigned it in little more than a year, on account of its unhealthy situation.

Middleton’s animosity to Bentley did not end here. The latter having in 1720 published “Proposals for a new edition of the Greek Testament, and Latin Version,” Middleton, the following year, published, 5. “Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon the Proposals, &c.” and at setting out, “only desires his readers to believe, that they were not drawn from him by personal spleen or envy to the author of them, but by a serious conviction, that he had neither talents nor materials proper for the work he had undertaken.” Middleton might believe himself sincere in all this, but no such conclusion can be drawn from the pamphlet, which carries every proof of malignant arrogance. The very motto which he borrowed from one of Burmairs orations, “Doctus criticus & adsuetus urere, secare, inclementer omnis generis librns tractare, apices, syllabas,” &c. implies the utmost personal animosity, and could have been thought “happily chosen,” only at a time when Bentley’s temper was better known than his learning. Bentley defended his “Proposals” against these “Remarks,” which, however, he dkl not ascribe to Middleton, but to Dr. Colbatch, a learned fellow of his college, and casuistical professor of divinity in the university. It has been said that he very well knew the true author, but was resolved to dissemble it, for the double pleasure it would give him, of abusing Colbatch, and shewing his contempt of Middleton. His treatment of Colbatch, however, being as unjustifiable as that which he had received from Dr. Middleton, provoked the vice-chancellor and heads of the university, at a meeting in Feb. 1721, to pronounce his book a most scandalous and malicious libel, and they resolved to inflict a proper censure upon the author, as soon as he should be discovered: for no names had yet appeared in the controversy. Middleton then published, with his name, an 'answer to Bentley’s Defence, entitled,

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

About the beginning of 1730, was published Tindal’s famous book called “Christianity as old as the Creation:” the design of which was to destroy revelation, and to establish natural religion in its stead. Many writers entered into controversy againsMt, and, among the rest, the wellknown Waterland, who published a “Vindication of Scripture,” &c. Middleton, not lik.ng his manner of vindicating Scripture, addressed, 11. “A letter to him, containing some remarks on it, together with the sketch, or plan, of another answer to TindaPs book,” 1731. Two things, we are told, contributed to make this performance obnoxious to the clergy; first, the popular character of Waterland, who was then at the head of the champions for orthodoxy, yet whom Middleton, instead of reverencing, had ventured to treat with the utmost contempt and severity; secondly, the very free things that himself had asserted, and especially his manner of saying them. His name was not put to the tract, n'or was it known for some time who was the author of it. While Waterland continued to publish more parts of “Scripture vindicated,” &c. Pearce, bishop of Rochester, took up the contest in his behalf; which drew from Middleton, 12. “A Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland against the false and frivolous Cavils of the Author of the Reply,” 1731. Pearce replied to this “Defence,” and treated him, as he had done before, as an infidel, or enemy to Christianity in disguise; who, under the pretext of defence, meant nothing less than subversion. Middleton was now known to be the author of the letter; and he was very near being stripped of his degrees, and of all his connections with the university. But this was deferred, upon a promise that he would make all reasonable satisfaction, and explain himself in such a manner, as, if possible, to remove every objection. This he* attempted to do in, 13. “Some Remarks on Dr. Pearce’s second Reply, &c. wherein the author’s sentiments, as to all the principal points in dispute, are fully and clearly explained in the manner that had been promised,” 1732: and he at least effected so much by this piece, that he was suffered to be quiet, and to remain in statu quo; though his character as a divine ever after lay under suspicion, and he was reproached by some of the more zealous clergy, by Venn in particular, with downright apostacy. There was also published, in 1733, an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, “Observations addressed to the author of the Letter, to Dr. Waterland” which was written by Dr. Williams, public orator of the university and to which Middleton replied in, 14. “Some remarks,” &c. The purpose of Williams was to prove Middleton an infidel that his letter ought to be burnt, and himself banished and he then presses him to confess and recant in form.“But,” says Middleton, “I have nothing to recant on the occasion nothing to confess, but the same four articles that I have already confessed first, that the Jews borrowed some of their customs from Egypt secondly, that the Egyptians were possessed of arts and learning in Moses’s time; thirdly, that the primitive writers, in vindicating Scripture, found it necessary sometimes to recur to allegory; fourthly, that the Scriptures are not of absolute and universal inspiration. These are the only crimes that I have been guilty of against religion: and by reducing the controversy to these four heads, and declaring my whole meaning to be comprised in diem, I did in reality recant every thing else, that through heat or inadvertency had dropped from me; every thing that could be construed to a sense hurtful to Christianity.”

During this controversy, he was appointed, in Dec. 1731, Woodwardian professor; a foundation to which he had in some degree contributed, and was, therefore, appointed by Woodward’s executors to be the first professor. In July 1732, he published his inauguration speech, with this title, 15. “Oratio de novo physiologies explicandos munere, ex celeberrimi Woodwardi testamento instituto: habita Cantabrigias in scholis publicis.” It is easy to suppose, that the reading of lectures upon fossils was not an employment suited either to Middleton’s taste, or to the turn of his studies; and therefore we cannot wonder that he should resign it in 1734, when made principal librarian. Soon after this, he married a second time, Mary, the daughter of the rev. Conyers Place, of Dorchester; and upon her death, which happened but a few years before his own, a third, who was Anne, the daughter of John Powglf, esq. of Boughroya, Radnorshire, in North Wales. In 1735 he published, 16. “A Dissertation concerning the Origin of Printing in England: shewing, that it was first introduced and practised by our countryman William Caxton, at Westminster, and not, as is commonly believed, by a foreign printer at Oxford” an hypothesis that has been since ably controverted in Bowyer and Nichols’s “Origin of Printing,” 1776.

Before Middleton thought proper to take notice of any of his antagonists, he surprised the public with, 24. “An Examination of the lord bishop of London’s Discourses concerning the use and intent of Prophecy: with some cursory animadversions on his late Appendix, or additional dissertation, containing a farther enquiry into the Mosaic account of the Fall, 1750.” He tells his reader in the beginning of this “Examination,” that though these discourses of Dr. Sherlock had been “published many years, and since corrected and enlarged by him in several successive editions, yet he had in truth never read them till very lately; or otherwise these animadversions might have made their appearance probably much earlier.” To this assertion, from a man so devoted to study, it is not easy to give credit; especially when it is remembered also that Midclleton and Sherlock had been formerly in habits of intimacy and friendship; were ofthe same university, and nearly of the same standing and that, however severely and maliciously Middleton treated his antagonist in the present Examination, there certainly was a time when he triumphed in him as “the principal champion and ornament of church and university.” Different principles and different interests separated them afterwards: but it is not easy to conceive that Middleton, who published his Examination in 1750, should never have read these very famous discourses, which were published in 1725*. There is too great reason, therefore, to suppose, that this publication was drawn from him by spleen and personal enmity, which he now entertained against every writer who appeared in defence of the belief and doctrines of the church. What other provocation he might have is unknown. Whether the bishop preferred, had not been sufficiently mindful of the doctor unpreferred, or whether the bishop had been an abettor and encourager of those who opposed the doctor’s principles, cannot be ascertained; some think that both causes concurred in creating an enmity between the doctor and the bishop f. This “Examination” was refuted by Dr. Rutherforth, divinity professor at Cambridge: but Middleton, having gratified his animosity against Sherlock, pursued the argument no further. He was, however, meditating a general answer to all the objections made against the “Free Inquiry;” when being seized with illness, and imagining he might not be able to go through it, he singledout Church and Dodwell, as the two most considerable of his adversaries, and employed himself in preparing a particular answer to them. This, however, he did not live to finish, but died of a slow hectic fever and disorder in his liver, on the 28th of July, 175O, in his sixty-seventh 1 year, at Hildersham. He was buried in the parish of St.

In 1752, were collected all the above-mentioned works, except “The Life of Cicero,” and printed in four volumes, 4to, under the title of “Miscellaneous Works;” among which were inserted these following pieces, never before published, viz. 26. “A 'Preface to an intended Answer to all the objections made against the Free enquiry.” 27. “Some cursory reflections on the dispute, or dissention, which happened at Antioch, between the Apostles Peter and Paul.” 28. “Reflections on the variations, or inconsistencies, which are found among the four Evangelists, in their different accounts of the same facts.” 29. “An Essay on the gift of Tongues, tending to explain the proper notion and nature of it, as it is described and delivered to us in the sacred Scriptures, and it appears also to have been understood by the learned both of ancient and modern times.” 30. “Some short Remarks on a Story told by the Ancients concerning St. John the Evangelist, and Cerinthus the Heretic; and on the use which is made of it by the Moderns, to enforce the duty of shunning Heretics.” 31. “An Essay on the allegorical and* literal interpretation of the creation and fall of Man.” 32. “De Latinaruiri literarum pronunciatione dissertatio.” 33. “Some Letters of Dr. Middleton to his Friends.” A second edition of these “Miscellaneous Works” was afterwards published in

* The living was Hascomb, in Surrey, which I wholly dislike, yet while I amOneof Dr.Middleton’s biographers, and content to acquiesce in the ill, I should the most furious in railing at the cleri- be glad to taste a little of the good, and cat bigots who opposed his sentiments, to have so'me amends for the ugly ashas been so blinded by the doctor’s sent and consent which no man of sense virtues, as to inform us that his sub- can approve.“If Dr. Middleton had scription to the thirty-nine article?, his bigoted opponents, the present when he accepted of this living, was anecdote may surely be quoted as a purely political and gives the follow- proof that he had very impartial deing confirmation of the fact, from a fenders! British Biography, by foir­ms letter of Dr.Middleton’s:” Though ers, vol. IX. p, 337. there are many things in the churcU 5 vols. 8vo, but for many years there has been little or no demand for any of his works, except the “Life of Cicero.”

Dr. Middleton’s reputation as a man of great learning and splendid talents may still be supported by his writings, but in his personal character, little will be found that is amiable, dignified, or independent. His religion was justly suspected, and it is certain that his philosophy did not teach him candour. He had been opposed, without respect, by many of the clergy, and in revenge, he attacked the church, to which he professed to belong, and in which he would have been glad to rise, if he could.

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

, a public-spirited man, and a great benefactor to the city of London, by bringing in thither the New River, was a native of Denbigh in North Wales, and a citizen tind goldsmith of London. This city not being sufficiently supplied with water, three acts of parliament were obtained for that purpose; one in queen Elizabeth’s, and two in king James the First’s reign; granting the citizens of London full power to bring a river from any part of Middlesex and Hertfordshire. The project, after much calculation, w r as laid aside as impracticable, till sir Hugh Middleton undertook it: in consideration of which, the city conferred on him and his heirs, April 1, 1606, the full right and power of the act of parliament; granted unto them in that behalf. Having therefore taken an exact survey of all springs and rivers in Middlesex and Hertfordshire, he made choice of two springs, one in the parish of Am well near Hertford, the other near Ware, both about twenty miles from London; and, having united their streams, conveyed them to the city with very great labour and expence. The work was begun Feb. 20, 1608, and carried on through various soils, some oozy and muddy, others extremely hard and rocky. Many bridges in the mean time were built over his New River; and many drains were made to carry off land-springs and commonsewers, sometimes over and sometimes under it. Besides these necessary difficulties, he had, as may easily be imagined, many others to struggle with; as the malice and derision of the vulgar and envious, the many hindrances and complaints of persons through whose grounds the channel was to be cut, &c. When he had brought the water into the neighbourhood of Enfield, almost his whole fortune was spent upon which he applied to the lord mayor and commonalty of London but they refusing to interest themselves in the affair, he applied next to king James. The king, willing to encourage that noble work, did, by indenture under the great seal, dated May 2, 1612, between him and Mr. Middleton, covenant to pay half the expence of the whole work, past and to come; and thus the design was happily effected, and the water brought into the cistern at Islington on Michaelmas-day, 1613. Like all other projectors, sir Hugh greatly impaired his fortune by this stupendous work: for though king James had borne so great a part of the expence, and did afterwards, in 1619, grant his letters-patent to sir Hugh Middleton, and others, incorporating them by the name of “The Governors and Company of ttfe New River, brought from Chadwell and Am well to London” impowering them to choose a governor, deputy-governor, and treasurer, to grant leases, &c. yet the profit it brought in at first was very inconsiderable. There was no dividend made among the proprietors till the year 1633, when III. 195. Id. was divided upon ea^h share. The second dividend amounted only to 3l. 4s. 2d. and instead of a third dividend, a call being expected, king Charles I. who was in possession of the royal moiety aforesaid, re-conveyed it again to sir Hugh, by a deed under the great seal, Nov. 18, 1636; in consideration of sir Hugh’s securing to his majesty and his successors a fee-farm rent of 500l. per annum, out of the profits of the company, clear of all reprises. Sir Hugh charged that sum upon the holders of the king’s shares. He was at last under the necessity of engaging in the business of a surveyor, or what is now denominated a civil engineer, and in that capacity rendered essential services to his country, by various schemes of mining, draining, &c. In 1622 he was created a baronet, and he died in the year 1631; since which, the value of the shares in this New River, as it is still called, advanced so much as to create large fortunes to thje heirs of the original holders. A hundred pounds share, some years since, sold as high as fifteen thousand pounds. Of late, however, there have been several acts of parliament passed in favour of other projects, which have reduced the value of the New River shares full one half. It is the fashion now to decry the company as extravagant in their charges for supplies of water; but it should be remembered, that the shares of this corporation, like those of other commercial companies, are perpetually changing their masters; and it is probable that the majority of share-holders, when their value was even at the highest, had paid their full price, so as to gain only a maderate interest upon their purchase money.

, a celebrated Flemish painter of history, hunting and conversation pieces, was born in Flanders in 1599, and was first a disciple of Gerard Segers, in whose school his talents were much distinguished; but went to complete his studies in Italy, where he was distinguished by the name of Giovanrti delle Vite. He particularly studied and copied the works of the Caracci and Correggio, and was admitted into the academy of Andrea Sacchi, who would have employed him as an assistant to himself in some great works, had he not unfortunately preferred the familiar stvle of Bamboccio, to the elevated conceptions of Sacchi. His general subjects for his easel pictures, which are the finest of his performances, were of the familiar kind; but he also painted history, in a large size, in fresco, and in oil. His pictures of huntings are particularly admired; the figures and animals of every species being designed with uncommon spirit, nature, and truth. The transparence of his colouring, and the clear tints.of his skies, enliven his compositions; nor are his paintings in any degree inferior to those of Bamboccio, either in their force or lustre. His large works are not so much to be commended for the goodness of the design, as for the expression and colouring; but it is in his small pieces that the pencil of Miel appears in its greatest delicacy and beauty. His singular merit recommended him to Charles Emanuel duke of Savoy, who appointed him his principal painter, and afterwards honoured him with the cross of St. Mauriiius. He died in 1664, aged sixty-five.

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

,or Minion (Abraham), a painter of Frankfort, was born in 1639, and celebrated for his delicate and accurate touch in painting flowers, insects, fruit, and still life. The insects introduced by him are exquisitely painted, and the drops of dew upon the fruits and flowers, have all the transparency of real water, and he would have been esteemed the first painter in this style had not Van Huysum appeared. Mignon died in 1679.

, a poetical writer of no very honourable reputation, was the son of a nonconformist minister, of both his names, a native of Loughborough in Leicestershire, who was ejected from the living of Wroxhal in Warwickshire. He died in 1667. Of his son, little seems to be known unless that he was educated at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken his master’s degree, but we do not find him in the list of graduates of either university. Mr. Malone thinks he was beneficed at Yarmouth, from whence he dates his correspondence about 1690. We are more certain that he was instituted to the living of St. Ethelburga within Bishopsgate, London, in 1704, and long before that, in 1688, was chosen lecturer of Shoreditch. Dryden, whom he was weak enough to think he rivalled, says in the preface to his “Fables,” that Milbourne was turned out of his benefice for writing libels on his parishioners. This must have been his Yarmouth benefice, if he had one, for he retained the rectory of St. Ethelburga, and the lectureship of Shoreditch, to his death, which happened April 15, 1720. As an author he was known by a “Poetical Translation of Psalms,” 1698, of a volume called “Notes on Dryden’s Virgil,” 1698 of “Tom of Bedlam’s Answer to Hoadly,” &c. He is frequently coupled with Blackmore, by Dryden, in his poems, and by Pope in “The Art of Criticism;” and is mentioned in “The Dunciad.” He published thirtyone single “Sermons,” between 1692 and 1720; a book against the Socinians, 1692, 12mo; and “A Vindication of the Church of England,” 1726, 2 vols. 8vo. A whimsical copy of Latin verses, by Luke Milbourne, B, A. is in the “Lacrymse Cantabrigienses, 1670,” on the death of Henrietta duchess of Orleans. Dr. Johnson, in the Life of Dryden, speaking of that poet’s translation of Virgil, says, “Milbourne, indeed, a clergyman, attacked it (Dryden’s Virgil), but his outrages seem to be the ebullitions of a mind agitated by stronger resentment than bad poetry can excite, and previously resolved not to be pleased. His criticism extends only to the preface, pasturals, and georgtcks; and, as he professes to give this antagonist an opportunity of reprisal, he has added his own version of the first and fourth pastorals, and the first georgic.” Malone conjectures that Melbourne’s enmity to Dryden originally arose from Dryden’s having taken his work out of his hands as he once projected a translation of Virgil, and published a version of the first Æneid. As he had Dryden and his friends, and Pope and his friends against him, we cannot expect a very favourable account either of his talents or morals. Once only we find him respectfully mentioned, by Dr. Walker, who thanks him for several valuable communications relative to the sequestered divines.

, many years principal engineer to the New river company, a man to whom the city of London and its environs have had many and great obligations, was the son of a gentleman, and nearly related to a baronet of that name. He was born in London, in or near Red Lion square, Holborn, soon after 1680. He had a liberal education, was for some time at one of the universities, and at a very early period of life displayed his skill in mechanics. Though we are unable to fix either his age, or the time, yet it is certain that he was very young when the New-river company engaged him as their principal engineer; in which station he continued, with the highest esteem, till his death. During this period they placed implicit confidence in him, and with the utmost reason; for through his skill and labours, their credit, their power, and their capital, were continually increasing. Mr. Mill also, among other undertakings of the kind, supplied the town of Northampton with water, for which he was presented with the freedom of that corporation; and provided an ample supply of water to the noble seat of sir llobert v Walpole, at Houghton, in Norfolk, which was before so deficient in that respect, that Gibber one day, being in the gardens, exclaimed, “Sir Robert, sir Robert, here is a crow will drink up all your canal” Mr. Mill, through age, becoming infirm, particularly from a paralytic stroke, an assistant was taken into the company’s service (Mr. Mylne, the late engineer), but without derogation to him; on the contrary, though he ceased to take an active part, he constantly attended on the board-days, his advice was asked, and his salary continued to his death. Mr. Mill was of a pleasing amiable disposition; his manners were mild and gentle, and his temper cheerful. He was a man of great simplicity of life and manners: in a word, it seemed to be his care to “have a conscience void of offence.” He was suddenly seized with a fit, Dec. 25, 1770, and died before the next morning. His surviving sister, Mrs. Hubert, erected a monument to his memory in the parish-church of Breemoore, near Salisbury.

, the learned editor of the Greek Testament, was the son of Thomas Mil!, of Banton or Bampton, near the town of Snap in Westmoreland, and was born at Shap about 1645. Of his early history our accounts are very scanty; and as his reputation chiefly rests on his Greek Testament, which occupied the greater part of his life, and as he meddled little in affairs unconnected with his studies, we are restricted to a very few particulars. His father being in indifferent circumstances, he was, in 1661, entered as a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, where we may suppose his application soon procured him respect. Bishop Kennet tells us, that in his opinion, he “talked and wrote the best Latin of any man in the university, and was the most airy and facetious in conversation — in all respects a bright man.” At this college he took the degree of B. A. in May 1666, and while bachelor, was selected to pronounce an “Oratio panegyrica” at the opening of the Sheldon theatre in 1669. In November of the same year he took his master’s degree, was chosen fellow, and became an eminent tutor. He then entered into holy orders, and was, according to Kennet, a “ready extempore preacher.” In 1676 his countryman and fellowcollegian, Dr. Thomas Lamplugh, being made bishop of Exeter, he appointed Mr. Mill to be one of his chaplains, and gave him a minor prebend in the church of Exeter. In July 1680 he took his degree of B. D.; in August 1681 he was presented by his college to the rectory of Blechingdon, in Oxfordshire; and in December of that year he proceeded D. D. about which time he became chaplain in ordinary to Charles II. by the interest of the father of one of his pupils. On May 5, 1685, he was elected and admitted principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, a station particularly convenient for his studies. By succeeding Dr. Crossthwaite in this office, bishop Kennet says he had the advantage of shining the brighter; but “he was so much taken up with the one thing, ‘his Testament,’ that he had not leisure to attend to the discipline of the house, which rose and fell according to his different vice-principals.” In 1704 archbishop Sharp obtained for him from queen Anne, a prebend of Canterbury, in which he succeeded Dr. Beveridge, then promoted to the see of St. Asaph. He had completed his great undertaking, the new editiuu of the Greek Testament, when he died of an apop'ectie fit, June 23, 1707, and was buried in the chancel of Blechingdon church, where, in a short inscription on his monument, he is celebrated for what critics have thought the most valuable part of his labours on the New Testament, his “prolegomena marmore perenniora.”

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

, professor of law in the university of Glasgow, was born in 1735, in the parish of Shotts, in Lanerkshire. He received his grammar-education at the school of Hamilton, whence he was removed, at the age of eleven, to the university of Glasgow. He was designed for the church, but having early conceived a dislike to that profession, and turned his attention to the study of the law, he was invited by lord Kames to reside in his family, and to superintend, in the quality of preceptor, the education of his son, Mr. George Drummond Home. Lord Kames found in young Millar a congenial ardour of intellect, a mind turned to philosophical speculation, a considerable fund of reading, and what above all things he delighted in, a talent for supporting a metaphysical argument in conversation, with much ingenuity and vivacity. The tutor of the son, therefore, became the companion of the father: and the two years before Millar was called to the bar, were spent, with great improvement on his part, in acquiring those enlarged views of the union of law with philosophy, which he afterwards displayed with uncommon ability in his academical lectures on jurisprudence. At this period he contracted an acquaintance with David Hume, to whose metaphysical opinions he became a convert, though he materially differed from him upon political topics. In 1760 Mr. Millar began to practise at the bar, and was regarded as a rising young lawyer, when he thought proper to become a candidate for the vacant professorship of law at Glasgow, and supported by the recommendation of lord Kames and Dr. Adam Smith, he was appointed in 1761, and immediately began to execute its duties. The reputation of the university, as a school of jurisprudence, rose from that acquisition, and although, says lord Woodhouselee, the republican prejudices of Mr. Millar gave his lectures on politics and government a character justly considered as repugnant to the well-attempered frame and equal balance of our improved constitution; there were few who attended those lectures without at least an increase of knowledge. He lectured in English, and spoke fluently with the assistance of mere notes only. By this method his lectures were rendered full of variety and animation, and at the conclusion of each he was accustomed to explain the difficulties and objections that had presented themselves to his pupils, in a free and familiar conversation. In 1771, he published a treatise on “The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks, 17 in which he shews himself a disciple of the school of Montesquieu, and deals much in that sort of speculation which Mr. Dugald Stewart, in his Life of Smith, called theoretical or conjectural history. This work however was well received by the public, and has gone through several editions. His inquiries into the English government, which made an important part of his lectures, together with a zealous attachment to what he thought the genuine principles of liberty, produced in 1787 the first volume of an” Historical View of the English Government," in which he traces the progressive changes in the property, the state of the people, and the government of England, from the settlement of the Saxons to the accession of the house of Stuart. In this work we observe the same spirit of system, and the same partiality to hypothetical reasoning, as in the former: though resting, as may be supposed, on a more solid foundation of facts: and the less dangerous in its tendency, as being every where capable of scrutiny from actual history. It is impossible, however, to peruse this, or his other works, without meeting with much valuable information, and facts placed in those new lights which excite inquiry, and ultimately promote truth. Mr. Millar’s researches were by no means confined to politics, law, or metaphysics. His acquaintance with the works of imagination, both ancient and modern, was also very extensive, and his criticisms were at once ingenious and solid, resulting from an acute understanding and a correct taste. He died May 30, 1801, at the age of sixty-nine, leaving behind him several manuscripts, from which, in 1803, were printed, in two volumes, his posthumous works, consisting of an historical view of the English government from the accession of the house of Stuart, and some separate dissertations connected with the subject.

, a political and dramatic writer, the son of a clergyman who possessed two livings of considerable value in Dorsetshire, was born in 1703, and received his education at Wadham college, in Oxford. His natural genius and turn for satire led him, by way of relaxation from his more serious studies, to apply some portion of his time to the Muses; and, during his residence at the university, he composed great part of a comedy, called the “Humours of Oxford;” some of the characters in which being either designed for, or bearing a strong resemblance to, persons resident in Oxford, gave considerable umbrage, created the author many enemies, and probably laid the foundation of the greatest part of his misfortunes through life. On quitting the university, he entered into holy orders, and obtained immediately the lectureship of Trinity Chapel in Conduit-street, and was appointed preacher at the private chapel at Roehampton in Surrey.

The emoluments of his preferment, however, being not very considerable, he was encouraged, by the success of his first play, above mentioned, to have recourse to dramatic writing. This step being thought inconsistent with his profession, produced some warm remonstrances from a prelate on whom he relied for preferment, and who, finding him resolute, withdrew his patronage. Our author greatly aggravated his offence afterwards by publishing a ridiculous character, in a poem, which was universally considered as intended for the bishop. He then proceeded with his dramatic productions, and was very successful, until he happened to offend certain play-house critics, who from that time regularly attended the theatre to oppose any production known to be his, and finally drove him from the stage. About this time he had strong temptations to employ his pen in the whig interest; but, being in principle a high church-man, he withstood these, although the calls of a family were particularly urgent, and all hopes of advancement in the church at an end. At length, however, the valuable living of Upcerne was given him by Mr. Carey of Dorsetshire, and his prospects otherwise began to brighten, when he died April 23, 1744, at his lodgings in Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, before he had received a twelvemonth’s revenue from his new benefice, or had it in his power to make any provision for his family. As a dramatic writer, Baker thinks he has a right to stand in a very estimable light; yet the plays he enumerates are now entirelyforgotten. Besides these, he wrote several political pamphlets, particularly one called “Are these things so” which was much noticed. He was author also of a poem called “Harlequin Horace,” a satire, occasioned by some ill treatment he had received from Mr. Rich, the manager of Covent- Garden theatre; and was likewise concerned, together with Mr. Henry Baker, F. R. S. in a complete translation of the comedies of Moliere, primed together with the original French, and published by Mr. Watts. After his death was published by subscription a volume of his “Sermons,” the profits of which his widow applied to the satisfaction of his creditors, and the payment of his debts; an act of juctice by which t>he left herself and family almost destitute of the common necessaries of life.

In 1755 our author began to publish, in folio numbers, his “Figures of Plants,” adapted to his dictionary. These extended to three hundred coloured plates, mating, with descriptions and remarks, two folio volumes, and were completed in 1760. They comprehend many rare and beautiful species, there exhibited for the first time. The commendable design of the writer was to give one or more of the species of each known genus, all from living plants; which as far as possible he accomplished. His plates have more botanical dissections than any that had previously appeared in this country. Miller was a fellow of the Royal Society, and enriched its Transactions with several papers. The most numerous of these were catalogues of the annual collections of fifty plants, which were required to be sent to that learned body, from Chelsea garden, by the rules of its foundation. These collections are preserved in the British Museum, and are occasionally resorted to for critical inquiries in botany. He wrote also on the poison ash, or Toxicodendrum, of America, which he believed to be the Japanese varnish tre of Koempfer; a position controverted by Mr. Ellis, who appears to have been in the right, and this may account for a certain degree of ill humour betrayed by Mr. Miller in the course of the dispute.

Bishop Milles left his fortune to his nephew, Jeremiah, who was born in 1714, and educated at Eton school, when he entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, and took his degrees of M. A. in 1735, and B. and D. D. in 1747, on which occasion he went out grand compounder. He was collated by his uncle to a prebend in the cathedral of Waterford, and to a living near that city, which he held but a short time, choosing to reside in England. Here he married Edith, a daughter of archbishop Potter, by whose interest he obtained the united rectories of St. Edmund the King and St. Nicholas Aeon in Lombard-street, with that of Merstham, Surrey, and the sinecure rectory of West Terring, in Sussex. To Merstham he was inducted in 1745. From the chantorship of Exeter he was promoted to the deanery of that cathedral, in 1762, on the advancement of Dr. Lyttelton to the see of Carlisle, whom he also succeeded as president of the society of antiquaries in 176.5. He had been chosen a fellow of this society in 1741, and of the Royal Society in 1742. His speech, on taking upon him the office of president of the Society of Antiquaries, was prefixed to the first volume of the Archoeologia. In other volumes of that work are some papers communicated by him, one of which, “Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the year 1483, wherein are contained the deliveries made for the coronation of king Richard III. and some other particulars relative to the history,” was answered by Mr. Walpole, afterwards lord Orford, in a paper or essay, very characteristic of his lordship’s ingenuity and haughty petulance. In the early part of his life, Dr. Milles had made ample collections for a history of Devonshire, v*hich are noticed by Mr. Gough in his Topography. Ha was also engaged in illustrating the Da ish coinage, and the Domesday Survey, on both which subjects, it is thought, he left much valuable matter. His worst attempt was to vindicate the authenticity of Rowley’s poems, in an edition which he printed in 1782, 4to. After what Tyrwhitt and Warton had advanced on this subject, a grave answer to this was not necessary; but it was the writer’s misiortune to draw upon himself the wicked wit of the author of “An Archaeological Epistle,” and the more wicked irony of George Steevens in the St. James’s Chronicle. The dean died Feb. 13, 1784, and was buried in the church of St. Edmund, which, as well as his other preferments, he retained until his death, with the exception of the rectory of West Terring, which he resigned to his son Richard. His character is very justly recorded on his monument, as one conspicuous for the variety and extent of his knowledge, and for un remitted zeal and activity in those stations to which his merit had raised him; nor was he in private life less distinguished for sweetness of disposition, piety, and integrity.

, a pious and learned divine and ecclesiastical historian, was born in the neighbourhood of Leeds in Yorkshire, Jan. 2, 1744, and was educated at the grammar school of his native place, where he made great proficiency in Greek and Latin, in which he was assisted by a memory of such uncommon powers, that his biographer, the present dean of Carlisle, says that he never saw his equal, among the numerous persons of science and literature with whom he has been acquainted. This faculty which Mr. Milner possessed, without any visible decay, during the whole of his life, gained him no little reputation at school, where his master, the rev. Mr. Moore, often availed himself of his memory in cases of history and mythology, and used to say, “Milner is more easily consulted than the Dictionaries or the Pantheon, and he is quite as much to be relied on.” Moore, indeed, told so many and almost incredible stories of his memory, that the rev. Mr. Murgatroyd, a very respectable clergyman, at that time minister of St. John’s church in Leeds, expressed some suspicion of exaggeration. Mr. Moore was a man of the strictest veracity, but of a warm temper. He instantly offered to give satisfactory proof of his assertions. “Milner,” said he, “shall go to church next Sunday, and without taking a single note at the time, shall write down your sermon afterward. Will you permit us to compare what he writes with what you preach” Mr. Murgatroyd accepted the proposal with pleasure, and was often heard to express his astonishment at the event of this trial of memory. The lad,“said he,” has not omitted a single thought or sentiment in the whole sermon; and frequently he has got the very words for a long way together."

He would have now gladly remained at the university, and increased his literary reputation, so happily begun, but there was no opportunity of electing him fellow at Catherine-hall, and he was already somewhat in debt. During his first year’s residence at Cambridge, he had lost by a premature death, his affectionate schoolmaster, Mr. Moore; and the management of his slender finances was transferred from the hands of Mr. Moore to those of a careless and dissipated person. Mr. Milner was not old enough for deacon’s orders, and it became absolutely necessary that he should look out for some employment. He accordingly became assistant in a school, and afterwards in the cure of his church, to the rev. Mr. Atkinson of Thorp-Arch, near Tadcaster. Here, we are told, he completed an epic poem, begun at Catherine-hall, entitled “Davideis,” or Satan’s various attempts to defeat the purpose of the Almighty, who had promised that a Saviour of the world should spring from king David. The ms. is still in existence. His biographer pronounces it “a fine monument of the author’s learning, taste, genius, and exuberant imagination.” He submitted it to Dr. Hurd, who sent him a very complimentary letter; but he laid the poem aside, and it has not been thought proper to publish it.

Mr. Milner’s labours as a preacher were not confined to the town of Hull. He was curate for upwards of seventeen years, of North Ferriby, about nine miles from Hull, and afterwards vicar of the place. At both he became a highly popular and successful preacher, but for some years, met with considerable opposition from the upper classes, for his supposed tendency towards methodism. His sentiments and mode of preaching had in fact undergone a change, which produced this suspicion, for the causes and consequences of which we must refer to his biographer. It may be sufficient here to notice, that he at length regained his credit by a steady, upright, preseveriog, and disinterested conduct, and just before his death, the mayor and corporation of Hull, almost unanimously, chose him vicar of the Holy Trinity church, on the decease of the rev. T. Clarke. Mr. Milner died Nov. 15, 1797, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and perhaps the loss of no man in that place has ever been lamented with more general or unfeigned regret. His scholars, almost without exception, loved and revered him. Several gentlemen, who had been his pupils many years before, shewed a sincere regard for their instructor, by erecting at their own expence, an elegant monument (by Bacon) to his memory in the high church of Hull. Mr. Milner’s principal publications are, 1. “Some passages in the Life of William Howard,” which has gone through several editions; 2. An Answer to Gibbon’s Attack on Christianity;“3.” Essays on the Influence of the Holy Spirit.“But his principal work is his ecclesiastical history, under the title of a” History of the Church of Christ,“of which he lived to complete three volumes, which reach to the thirteenth century. A fourth volume, in two parts, has since been edited from his Mss. by his brother Dr. Isaac Milner, reaching to the sixteenth century, and a farther continuation may be expected from the same pen. Since his death also, two volumes of his practical sermons have been published, with a life of the author by his brother, from which we have selected the above particulars. To his” History of the Church," we have often referred in these volumes, as it appears to us of more authority in many respects than that of Mosheim; and whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the view Mr. Milner takes of the progress of religion, he appears to have read more and penetrated deeper into the history, principles, and writings of the fathers and reformers, than any preceding English historian.

John Miltcrti was born at his father’s house in Breadstreet, Cheapside, Dec. 9, 1608. From his earliest years his father appears to have discerned and with great anxiety cultivated his talents. He tells us himself that his father destined him when he was yet a child to the study of polite literature, and so eagerly did he apply, that from his twelfth year, he seldom quitted his studies till the middle of the night; this, however, he adds, proved the first cause of the ruin of his eyes, in addition to the natural weakness of which, he was afflicted with frequent headachs. Some part of his early education was committed to the care of Mr. Thomas Young, a puritan minister; and he was also placed for some time at St. Paul’s school, thea under the direction of Mr. Alexander Gill, with whose son, Alexander, Milton seems to have contracted a warm and lasting friendship. In February 1625, when in his seventeenth year, he was entered a pensioner at Christ’s-college, Cambridge, where he had for his tutor Mr. William Chappel, afterwards bishop of Cork and Ross. Of his conduct and the treatment which he experienced in his college, much has been made the subject of dispute. The most serious charge brought against him is, that he wasexpelledy for which there seems no reasonable foundation whatever. The register of the college proves that he regularly kept his terms, and as regularly took both his degrees. A charge of less consequence, that he had once received corporal punishment, seems scarcely worth the pains that have been bestowed in refuting it, if, according to the latest of his zealous apologists, no injury to his reputation would be the necessary result of its admission. It is allowed, however, to be probable that he might offend the governors of his college by the dislike, early instilled into his mind by his tutor Young, of the discipline of the church, or the plan of education then observed. Whateyer may be in this, he passed -seven years at the university, and after taking his master’s degree, retired to his father’s house, at Horton in Buckinghamshire.

During these seven years of college residence, his genius appeared in various attempts not unworthy of the future author of “Comus” and “Paradise Lost.” He was a poet when he was only ten years old, and his translation of the 136th psalm evinces his progress in poetic expression at the early age of fifteen. He renounced his original purpose of entering the church, for which he assigns as a reason, “that coming to some maturity of years, he had perceived what tyranny had pervaded it, and that he who would take orders, must subscribe slave, and take an oath withal, which, unless h^ took with a conscience that could retch, he must either strain, perforce, or split his faith; I thought it better to prefer a blameless silence before the office of speaking, bought and begun with servitude and forswearing.” These expressions have been supposed to allude to the articles of the church; but, as far as we know of Milton’s theology, there was none of those articles to which he had any objection. It seems more reasonable therefore to conclude, that he considered subscription as involving an approbation of the form of church government, which, we know, was his abhorrence.

For some time after his arrival, he employed himself in the business of education, a circumstance on which some have dilated with unnecessary prolixity, as if there had been any thing degrading in the character or employment of a schoolmaster. Dr. Johnson has observed that this is the period of his life from which all his biographers seem inclined to shrink. Milton himself says, that he hastened home (and his haste, after all, was not great) because he esteemed it dishonourable to be lingering abroad while his fellow-citizens were contending for their liberty. This seems to imply a promise of joining them in their endeavours; but as, instead of this, he sets up a school immediately on his arrival, his biographers are puzzled to account for his conduct, and yet desirous of defending it. What can be said in his favour has been better said by Johnson than by any of his apologists, and in fewer words; “His father was alive; his allowance was not ample; and he supplied its deficiencies by an honest and useful employment.” And we shall find that he very soon joined his fellow-citizens, and contributed his share to the controversies of the times.

As in these writings on divorce, he had convinced himself of the rectitude of his principles, his next step was to carry them into practice, by courting a young woman of great accomplishments, the daughter of one Dr. Davis, or Davies. This alarmed the parents of his wife, who had now another reason for wishing a reconciliation, namely, the interest of Milton with the predominant powers, to whom they had become obnoxious by their loyalty. It was contrived, therefore, that his wife should be at a house where he was expected to visit, and should surprize him with her presence and her penitence. All this was successfully arranged: the lady played her part to admiration, 1 and Milton not only received her with his wonted affection, but extended his protection to her family in the most generous manner. He was now obliged to take a larger mansion, and removed to Barbican. In 1644, he published his ^ Tractate on Education,“explaining the plan already mentioned, which he had attempted to carry into execution in his school. His next publication was his” Areopagitica, or a speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing;" a treatise which at least served to expose the hypocrisy of the usurping powers, during whose reign the liberty of the press was as much restrained as in any period of the monarchy, nor perhaps at any time was Milton’s unbounded liberty less relished.

Though his controversial, and other engagements, had for some time suspended the exertion of his poetical talents, yet he did not suffer his character as a poet to sink into oblivion, and in 1645, he published his juvenile poems in Latin and English, including, for the first time, the “Allegro” and “Penseroso.” in 1646, Milton’s wife produced her first child, and in the following year, in which his father died, the family of the Powells returned to their own mansion, and his house was resigned once more to literature. In this house, in which his second daughter Mary was born, he did not continue long, but exchanged it for one of smaller cKmensions in High Holborn. He is not known to have published any thing afterwards till the king’s death, when finding that measure condemned by the Presbyterians, he wrote a treatise to justify it. Of all Milton’s political works this reflects least credit on his talents, or his principles. Even those who have been most disposed to vindicate him against all censure, and to represent him invulnerable both as a politician and a poet, seem to shrink from the task of defending him in this instance, and candidly tell us, that they meet with an insuperable difficulty in the very title of the book “TheTenure of Kings and Magistrates proving, that it is lawful, and hath been held so through all ages, for any who have the power, to call to account a tyrant or wicked king: and after due conviction, to depose and put him to death, if the ordinary magistrate have neglected or denied to do it.” Here, therefore, the right to punish kings belongs to any who have the power, and their having the power makes it lawful, a doctrine so monstrous as to be given up by his most zealous advocates, as “a fearful opening for mischief:” but it was, in truth, at that time, what Milton intended it to be, a justification, not of the people of England, for they had no hand in the king’s murder, but of the army under Ireton and Cromwell. That Milton was also at this time under the strong influence of party-spirit, appears from his attack on the Presbyterians in this work, the avowed ground of which is their inconsistency. When, however, we examine their inconsistency, as he has been pleased to state it, it amounts to only this, that they contributed in common with the Independents and other sectaries and parties, to dethrone the king; but r wished to stop short of his murder. Every species of opposition to what they considered as tyranny in the king, they could exert, but they thought it sufficient to deprive him of power, without depriving him of life.

The immediate cause, however, of the interruption given to his “History,” was his being appointed Latin secretary to the new council of state, which was to supply all the offices of royalty. He had scarcely accepted this appointment, when his employers called upon him to answer the famous book entitled “Icon Basihk^, or the portraiture of his cacred majesty in his solitudes and sufferings.” This was then understood to be the production of Charles I. and was published unquestionably with the view to exhibit him to the people in a more favourable light than he had been represented by those who brought him to the block. It probably too was -beginning to produce that effect, as the government thought it necessary to employ the talents of Milton to answer it, which he did in a work entitled “Iconoclastes,” or Image-breaker, In this he follows the common opinion, that the king was the writer, although he sometimes seems to admit of doubts, and makes his answer a. sort of review and vindication of all the proceedings against the court. This has been praised as one of the ablest of all Milton’s political tracts, while it is at the same time confessed that it did not in the least diminish the popularity of the “Icon,” of which 48,500 are said to have been sold, and whether it was the production of the king or of bishop Gauden, it must have harmonized with the feelings and sentiments of a great proportion of the public. The story of Milton’s inserting a prayer taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” and imputing the use of it to the king as a crime, appears to have no foundation; but we know not how to vindicate this and other petty objections to the king’s character, from the charge of personal animosity.

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

Milton’s eye-sight, which had been some time declining, was now totally gone; but, greatly felt as this privation must have been to a man of studious habits, his intellectual powers suffered no diminution. About this time (1652), he was involved in another controversy respecting the “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” in consequence of a work published at the Hague, entitled “Regii sanguinis. clamor ad coelum adversus parricidas Anglicanos,” written by Peter du Moulin, but published by, and under the name of, Alexander Morus, or More. This produced from Milton, his “Defensio secunda pro populo Anglicano,” and a few replies to the answers of his antagonists. In this second “Defensio,” written in the same spirit as thq preceding, is introduced a high panegyric upon Cromwell, who had now usurped the supreme power with the title of Protector. It seems acknowledged that his biographers have found it very difficult to justify this part of his conduct. They have, therefore, had recourse to those conjectural reasons which shew their own ingenuity, but perhaps never existed in the mind of Milton, Their soundest defence would have been to suppose Milton placed in a choice of evils, a situation which always admits of apology. It is evident, however, that he had now reconciled himself to the protector-king, and went on with his business as secretary, and, among other things, is supposed to have written the declaration of the reasons for a war with Spain. About this time (1652) his first wife died in childbed, leaving him three daughters. He married again, not long after, Catherine, the daughter of a captain Woodcock, of Hacktiey, who died within a year in child-birth, and was lamented by him in a sonnet, which Johnson terms “poor,” but others “pleasing and pathetic.” To divert his grief he is said now to have resumed his “History of England,” and to have made some progress in a Latin dictionary. This last appears to have engaged his attention occasionally for many years after, for he left three folios of collections, that were probably used by subsequent lexicographers, but could not of themselves have formed a publication.