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

, an ancient Italian scholar and physician, was born of a noble family at Arezzo, in 1626. He studied at Padua, where he took the degree of doctor in philosophy and physic: and very soon afterwards rendered himself so conspicuous by his talents and acquirements in these sciences, that he was appointed first physician to the grand dukes Ferdinand II. and Cosmo III. At this time the academy del Cimento was occupied in a series of philosophical experiments which gave full scope and employment to Redi’s genius; and at the desire of his noble patron, he undertook the investigation of the salts which are obtainable from different vegetables. With what success these experiments were conducted, may be seen by referring to his works. His principal attention, however, was directed to two more important subjects: viz. the prison of the viper, and the generation and properties of insects. In the first of these inquiries he shewed the surprising difference there is between swallowing the viperine poison, and having it applied to the surface of the body by a wound. He also proved that, contrary to the assertion of Charas, the virulence of the poison does not depend upon the rage or exasperation of the animal, since the poison collected from a viper killed without being previously irritated, and dropped into a wound produces the same fatal effects, as that which is infused into a wound made by the animal when purposely teazed until it bites. On the subject of insects, he refuted the doctrine, maintained by all the ancients and by many moderns, of putrefaction being the cause of their generation; a doctrine which had, indeed, been attacked some years before by an Italian author named Aromatari, but not with that weight of facts and force of argument which are so conspicuous in this treatise and the rest of Redi’s writings. His observations on various natural productions brought from the Indies, and on animals that live within other living animals, “osservazioni intorno agli animali viventi che si trovano negli animali viventi,” exhibit many curious experiments and discoveries. But while he was thus engaged in philosophical pursuits, he did not neglect the duties of his profession, as a physician. His letters contain numerous histories of diseases and of their treatment; for he kept a register of all remarkable cases and consultations. He was particularly diligent in noticing the operation of remedies, and in many disorders enjoined a very abstemious diet. Kedi’s merits, however, were not confined to philosophy and medicine. He was also an excellent philologist and an elegant poet. His “Bacco in Toscana” has lately been edited by Mr. Mathias. All his writings possess the attraction of a pure and polished style; and the Academy della Crusca justly regarded him as one of the best authorities, in the composition of their celebrated Dictionary. This indefatigable philosopher and amiable man died at Pisa in 1698, having previously suffered much from epileptic attacks. After his death, a medal was struck in honour of his name, by order of Cosmo III. His works have gone through various editions; but that which was printed at Naples in 7 vols. 4to, is esteemed the best.

Dodd says that, as to Dr. Redman’s religion, “though” he was no friend to the doctrine of the reformers, yet he was very complaisant to them, in point of discipline, and went so far away wiih them, as to be an assistant in compiling the book of Common Prayer. In a word, he divided himself between both religions.“We have better authority, however, for asserting that if he did so divide himself, the reformed religion had the larger share. That he was at first attached to the religion in which he had been educated, appears by his letter to Latimer reproving that reformer for his innovations; but he soon found reason to change his opinion. He had applied his maturer judgment and learning, with equal piety and patience, for the space of twenty years, to the study of the Scriptures and the early writers of the church, intending to compose a work on the subject of transubstantiation; but the result of his studies was, that there was no foundation for that absurd dogma, either in Scripture, or in the primitive fathers. He therefore relinquished this, and other errors of the Romish creed, and” with constant judgment and unfeigned conscience descended into that manner of belief,“which he held, when he assisted in compiling the first liturgy of Edward VI. published in 1549*. We have still more proof of his relinquishing his old creed, in Mr. archdeacon Churton’s” Life of Newell.“Nowell waited upon Redman in his last illness, desirous to know what was his opinion and belief concerning the” troublous controversies of those days,“professing himself willing to” receive and approve his words as oracles sent from heaven.“The dying confessor, possessing a” quiet mind and perfect remembrance,“took a day or two to consider of the matters propounded to him by Nowell; and then sent for him, declaring himself ready to converse with him on those points, and to answer truly as he thought, to whatever question should be asked him, as in the presence of God. These articles were fourteen in number, the sum of which was, that purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, and tran­*” Afterwards I conferred with Dr. Prayer was an holy book, and agreeRedman, in whom I reposed much able to the Gospel." Bernard Gilpin’s

Notwithstanding a due attention to business, Mr. Reed found leisure to amuse himself and the world with many miscellanies in prose and verse of very considerable merit. The late Mr. Ritson, who had for Mr. Reed, what he extended to very few, a high respect, intended to have edited some of these miscellanies, in a volume or volumes, of which the following were to have been the contents: 1. “Madrigal and Trulletta, a mock tragedy,” 1758. 2. “The Register Office,” 1761, a farce, or rather a dramatic satire. 3. The same; the second edition. 4. “Tom Jones,” a comic opera, 1769. 5. “Dido,” a tragedy, 1767, printed for the first time by Messrs. Nichols in 1808, but the whole impression having been destroyed by the fire which consumed their premises in February of that year, it has not been reprinted. 6. The “Retort Courteous,” to the manager of the theatre. 7. An “Epitaph on the Earl of Chatham.” 8. “St. Peter’s Lodge,” a serio-comic legendary tale. 9. “A Rope’s end for Hempen monopolists.” Besides the above articles, Mr, Reed was the author of, 10. “A Poem, in imitation of the Scottish dialect, on the death of Mr. Pope,” printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1744. 11. “The Superannuated Gallant,” a farce, Newcastle, 1745, 12mo. 12. “A British Philippic, inscribed to the right hon. the earl of Granville,” London, 1756, 4to. 13. “A Sop in the Pan for a physical critic, in a letter to Dr. Smollett, occasioned by a criticism (in the Critical Review) on Madrigal and Trulletta/' 1759. 14.” A humorous account of his own Life,“printed in the Universal Museum for 1764. 15.” The Tradesman’s Companion, or Tables of Averdupois weight, &c.“London, 1762, 12mo. 16.” The Impostors, or a Cure for Credulity,“a farce, acted for the benefit of Mr. Woodward, March 19, 1776, with an excellent prologue, not printed. To these may be added, several tragedies, comedies, and farces, never acted or printed; a few unpublished poems; and some numbers of the” Monitor,“a political paper published in the administration of the earl of Bute, and” Letters“under the signature Benedict, in defence of Mr. Garrick, on the publication of Kenrick’s” Love in the Suds," printed originally in the Morning Chronicle, and afterwards added to the fifth edition of that poem.

As he had the utmost aversion to the appearance of his name on a title-page, it is not easy to enumerate all the publications of which he was editor, but we are told that the following list may be considered as tolerably accurate. In 1768, he collected into one volume the poetical works of lady Mary Wortley Montagu. In 1778, he printed a few copies of Middleton’s unpublished play, called “The Witch, a tragi-comedie,” which were circulated privately among his friends. In the same year he collected materials for a sixth volume of Dr. Young’s Works, small 8vo. In 1773, he collected and published the Cambridge Seatonian prize poems, from their institution in 1750. From 1773 to about 1780, he was, if not editor, a constant contributor to the “Westminster Magazine,” and particularly of the biographical articles; but about 1782 or 1783 transferred his services to the “European Magazine,” of which he was from that time editor, and one of the proprietors. He was also an occasional contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine. In 1775 he furnished the biographical notes to Pearch’s collection of poems, 4 vols. and rendered the same important service to a new edition of Dodsley’s collection in 1782, 6 vols. One of the lives of Dr. Dodd, published in 1777, has been ascribed to Mr. Reed, and he certainly conveyed it to his then booksellers, Messrs. Fielding and Walker, but there are doubts whether he was the sole author. There are none, however, respecting the “Biographia Dramatica,” 2 vols. 8vo, which was his favourite work. It was first published by him in

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

, an English physician and philologist, was born at Llanvaethly in the isle of Anglesea, in 1534. After residing two or three years at Oxford, he was elected student of Christ church, but inclining to the study of medicine, went abroad, and took the degree of doctor in that faculty at Sienna in Tuscany. He acquired so perfect a knowledge of the Italian language, that he was appointed public moderator of the school of Pistoia in Tuscany, and wrote books in that tongue, which were much esteemed by the Italians themselves. On his return, with a high reputation for medical and critical learning of all kinds, he retired to Brecknock, where he passed the greater part of his life in literary pursuits and the practice of his profession, and where he died about 1609. Wood says he died a Roman catholic; and Dodd, upon that authority, has included him among his worthies of that religion, but there seems some reason to doubt this. One of Rhese’s publications was a Welsh grammar, “CambroBritannicae, Cymeraecaeve, linguse Institutiones et Rudimenta, &c. ad intelligend. Biblia Sacra iiuper in CambroBritannicum sermonem eleganter versa,” Lond. 1592, folio. Prefixed to this is a preface by Humphrey Prichard, in which he informs us that the author made this book purposely for the better understanding of that excellent translation of the Bible into Welsh, and principally for the sake of the clergy, and to make the scriptures more intelligible to them and to the people; a measure which a Roman catholic in those days would scarcely have adopted. Prichard also says that he was “sincere religionis propaganda avidissimus;” and as Prichard was a protestant, and a minister of the church of England, he must surely mean the protestant religion. Rhese’s other works are, “Rules for obtaining the Latin Tongue,” written in the Tuscan language, and printed at Venice; and “De Italicae linguae pronunciatione,” in Latin, printed at Padua. There was likewise in Jesus college library a ms compendium of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the Welsh language by our author, in which he asserts, what every ancient Briton will agree to, that this tongue is as copious and proper for the expression of philosophical terms, as the Greek or any other language. Several other valuable tracts, which are entirely lost, were written by Dr. Rhese, who was accounted one of the great luminaries of ancient British literature. By Stradling in his epigrams, he is styled “novum antiques linguae lumen;” and by Camden, “clarissimus et eruditissimus vir Joannes David,” for he was sometimes called John David, or Davis.

, an English divine, was born in 1668, and educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1688, and M. A. in 1692, and obtained a fellowship. In 1694, earl Berkley gave him the rectory of Cranford in Middlesex, and he obtained the vicarage of St. Mary, Reading, in 1711. He was also chaplain to queen Anne. He died March 26, 1726, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, and was buried near the altar in St. Mary’s church. He published several occasional sermons; and after his death a collection of fourteen were printed in 1729, from his ms. which he had prepared for the press. These sermons have a peculiar cast of originality; and the author was considered as an able and spirited preacher. The first sermon in the volume, “The fatal consequences of Bribery, exemplified in Judas, Matt, xxvii. 3, 4.” was first preached during the time of an election, and printed at a low price, to be given away: and it is said that many, on hearing, or reading it, returned the bribes which they had taken, and voted another way. He published also a valuable work, “The Apologies of the Fathers, with a dissertation on the right use of the Fathers,” Loud. 1709, 2 vols.

, or Le Roi, a name he thought proper to change, as it was liable to be applied in ridicule, was a learned Reformer of the 16th century, and born at Langenargen, or Arga Longa, in the territories of the counts of Mountfort. Having received a very liberal education, first at the school of Lindau, and afterwards at that of Fribourg, where he lived with Zasius, a celebrated civilian who encouraged his diligence, and admired him for his extraordinary proficiency and amiable manners, he went to Basil for farther improvement, but was soon attracted to Ingoldstadt, at that time a very famous university, and under the direction of the no less famous John Eckius. Here Regius read lectures, but unfortunately was induced to superintend the education of some youths of noble families, and provide them with books and other necessaries, which their parents neglecting to pay, he was obliged to give up what little property he had for the benefit of his creditors, and in despair of assistance to carry on his studies, enlisted as a common soldier. In this plight, however, he happened to be discovered by Eckius, who procured his discharge, and prevailed on the parents of his pupils to discharge all arrears due to him.

, one of the best French comic writers after Moliere, was born at Paris in 1647. He had scarcely finished his studies, when he was seized with a passion for travelling, and an ardent desire to see the different countries of Europe. He went to Italy first, but was unfortunate in his return thence; for, the English vessel bound for Marseilles, on which he embarked at Genoa, was taken in the sea of Provence by the Barbary Corsairs; and he was carried a slave to Algiers. Having some acquaintance with the art of French cookery, he procured an office in his master’s kitchen. His amiable manners and pleasant humour made him a favourite with all about him, and not a little so with the women; but being detected in an intrigue with one of them, his master insisted upon his submitting to the law of the country, which obliged a Christian, convicted of such an offence, either to turn Mahometan, or to suffer death by fire. Regnard, however, was saved from either punishment, by the intervention of the French consul, who having just received a large sum for his redemption, sent him home, about 1681.

, a satirical French poet, was the son of a citizen of Chartres, by a sister of the abbe Desportes, a famous poet also, and was born there in 1573. He was brought up to the church, and no man more unfit or unworthy, for such were his debaucheries, that as we learn from himself, he had at thirty all the infirmities of old age. Yet this did not prevent his obtaining the patronage of cardinal Joyeuse, and the ambassador Philip de Bethune, with whom he was twice at Rome, in 1593 and 1601. In 1604, by their influence, he obtained a canonry in the church of Chartres; and had other benefices, and also a pension of 2000 livres, which Henry IV. settled on him in 1606, all which he spent on his licentious pleasures. He died at Rouen in 1613, at the age of forty, completely debilitated and worn out.

, or Des-Marais (Francis Seraphin), a French writer, was born at Paris in 1632 and, at fifteen, distinguished himself by translating the “Batrachomyomachia” into burlesque verse. At thirty, he went to Rome as secretary to an embassy. An Italian ode of his writing procured him a place in the academy de la Crusca in 1667; and, in 1670, he was elected a member of the French academy. In 1684, he was made perpetual secretary, after the death of Mezeray; and it was he who drew up all those papers, in the name of the academy, against Furetiere. In 1668, the king gave him the priory of Grammont, which determined him to the ecclesiastical function: and, in 1675, he had an abbey. His works are, an Italian translation of Anacreon’s odes, which he dedicated to the academy de la Crusca in 1692; a French grammar and two volumes of poems, in French, Latin, Italian, and Spanish. He translated, into French, Tully “De Divinatione, & de Finibus” and Rodrigue’s “Treatise of Christian perfection,” from the Spanish. He died in 17 Is, aged 82. “He has done great service to language,” says Voltaire, “and is the author of some poetry in French and Italian. He contrived to make one of his Italian pieces pass for Petrarch’s but he could not have made his French verses pass for those of any great French poet.”

, a Scotch divine, whose life, however barren of incidents, fixes an aera in the history of modern philosophy, was born April 26, J7 10, at Strachen in Kincardineshire, a country parish, situated about twenty miles from Aberdeen, on the north side of the Grampian mountains. His father, the rev. Lewis Reid, was minister of that parish for fifty years. His mother was Margaret Gregory, one of the twenty-nine children of David Gregory of Kinnardie, and sister to James Gregory, the inventor of the reflecting telescope, and to David Gregory, Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. After two years spent at the parish school at Kincardine, our author was sent to Aberdeen, where he had the advantage of prosecuting his classical studies under an able and diligent teacher; so that about the age of twelve or thirteen he was entered a student in Marischal College, under Dr. George Turnbull. The sessions of the college were at that time very short, and the education, according to Dr. Reid’s own account, slight and superficial.

While he was thus enjoying an old age, happy in some respects beyond the usual lot of humanity, his domestic comfort suffered a deep and incurable wound by the death of Mrs. Reid. He had had the misfortune too of surviving, for many years, a numerous family of promising children; four of whom (two sons and two daughters) died after they had attained to maturity. One only was left to him, Mrs. Carmichael, then the wife, now the widow, of Patrick Carmichael, M. D. His situation at this period cannot be better described than by himself. “By the loss,” says he, “of my bosom friend, with whom I lived fifty-two years, I am brought into a new world at a time of life when old habits are not easily forgot, or new ones acquired. But every world is God’s world, and I am thankful for the comforts he has left me. Mrs. Carmichael has now the care of two old deaf men, and does every thing in her power to plcse them; and both are very sensible of her goodness. I have more health than at my time of life I had any reason to expect. I walk about; entertain myself with reading what I soon forget; can converse with one person, if he articulates distinctly, and is within tea inches of my left ear; go to church without hearing one word that is said. You know I never had any pretensions to vivacity; but I am still free from languor and ennui”

The most prominent features of Dr. Reid’s character were intrepid and inflexible rectitude, a pure and devoted attachment to truth, and an entire command over his passions. In private life, no man ever maintained more eminently or more uniformly, the dignity of philosophy; combining with the most amiable modesty and gentleness, the noblest spirit of independence. As a public teacher, he was distinguished by unwearied assiduity in inculcating principles, which he conceived to be of essential importance to human happiness. In his elocution and mode of instruction, there was nothing peculiarly attractive. Such, however, were the simplicity and perspicuity of his style; such the gravity and authority of his character, that he was always listened to with profound respect, and, in his latter years, with a veneration, which age added to great wisdom always inspires.

3. That by an unnecessary multiplication of original or instinctive principles, he has brought the science of mind into a state more perplexed and unsatisfactory than that in which it was left by Locke and his successors. 4. That his philosophy, by sanctioning an appeal from the decisions of the learned to the voice of the multitude, is unfavourable to a spirit of free inquiry, and lends additional stability to popular errors. In his reply to these objections, Mr. Stewart has not only set the merit of the writings which he defends in a clearer light, but has taken occasion to add various illustrations, which will not a little facilitate the study of these writings to those who for the first time undertake it.

He wrote a piece or two upon subjects of his own profession; but the greatest part of his works relate to philology and criticism, among which are “Variarum Lectionum libri tres,” in 4to. Bayle says, he was one of those philologers who know more than their books can teach them; whose penetration enables them to draw many consequences, and suggests conjectures which lead them to the discovery of hidden treasures; who dart a light into the gloomy places of literature, and extend the limits of ancient knowledge. By his printed letters, it would appear that he was consulted as an oracle; that he answered very learnedly whatever questions were brought to him; and that he was extremely skilled in the families of ancient Rome, and in the study of inscriptions. A great eulogium is given of his merit, as well as of his learned and political works, by Graevius, in the dedication of the second edition of Casaubon’s epistles, dated Amsterdam, August 31, 1655, and by Haller and Saxius. He partook of the liberality which Lewis XIV. shewed to the most celebrated scholars of Europe, and received with the present a very obliging letter from Colbert; which favour he returned, by dedicating to him his “Observations on the Fragment of Petronius,” in 1666. The religion of Reinesius was suspected to be of the philosophical kind.

, an eminent astronomer and mathematician, was born at Salfeldt in Thuringia, a province in Upper Saxony, the llth of October, 1511. H^ studied mathematics under James Milichi at Wittemberg, in which university he afterwards became professor of those sciences, which he taught with great applause. After writing a number of useful and learned works, he died February 19, 1553, at 42 years of age only. His writings are chiefly the following: 1. “Theorize novae Planetarum G. Purbachii,” augmented and illustrated with diagrams and Scholia in 8vo, 1542; and again in 1580. In this work, among other things worthy of notice, he teaches (p. 75 and 76) that the centre of the lunar epicycle describes an ovalfgure in each monthly period, and that the or hit of Mercury is also of the same oval figure. 2. “Ptolomy’s Almagest,” the first book, in Greek, with a Latin version, and Scholia, explaining the more obscure passages, 1549, 8vo. At the end of p. 123 he promises an edition of Theon’s Commentaries, which are wry useful for understanding Ptolomy’s meaning; but his immature death prevented Reinhold from giving this and other works which he had projected. 3. “Prutenicse Tabulae Ccelestiurn Motuum,” 1551, 4to; again in 1571; and also iii 1585. Reinhold spent seven years labour upon this work, in which he was assisted by the munificence of Albert, duke of Prussia, from whence the tables had their name. Reinhold compared the observations of Copernicus with those of Ptolomy and Hipparchus, from whence he constructed these new tables, the uses of which he has fully explained in a great number of precepts and canons, forming a complete introduction to practical astronomy. 4. “Primus liber Tabularum Directionum” to which are added, the “Canon Fcecundus,” or Table of Tangents, to every minute of the quadrant and New Tables of Climates, Parallels, and Shadows, with an Appendix containing the second Book of the Canon of Directions; 1554, 4to. Reinhold here supplies what was omitted by Regiomontanus in his Table of Directions, &c.; shewing the finding of the sines, and the construction of the tangents, the sines being found to every minute of the quadrant, to the radius 10,000,000; and he produced the Oblique Ascensions from 60 degrees to the end of the quadrant. He teaches also the use of these tables in the solution of spherical problems.

Reinhold prepared likewise an edition of many other works, which are enumerated in the Emperor’s Privileg;e, prefixed to the Prutenic Tables; such as, Ephemerides for several years to come, computed from the new tables; Tables of the rising and setting of several Fixed Stars, for many different climates and times; the illustration and establishment of Chronology, by the eclipses of the luminaries, and the great conjunctions of the planets, and by the appearance of comets, &c. the Ecclesiastical Calendar; the History of Years, or Astronomical Calendar; “Isagoge Spherica,” or Elements of the doctrine of the Primum Mobile “Hypotyposes Orbium Ccelestium,” or the Theory of Planets Construction of a New Quadrant; the doctrine of Plane and Spherical Triangles Commentaries on the work of Copernicus also Commentaries on the 15 books of Euclid, on Ptolomy’s Geography, and on the Optics of Alhazen the Arabian. Reinhold also made Astronomical Observations, but with a wooden quadrant, which observations were seen by Tycho Brahe when he passed through Wittemberg in 1575, who wondered that so great a cultivator of astronomy was not furnished with better instruments.

Two things determined him to leave Holland, the one was that he had offended Schultens by some remarks on the study of Arabic; the other, that in the thesis which he wrote for his medical degree, he incurred the suspicion of materialism; but having got this degree June 10, 1746, he bade adieu to Holland. After a long apostrophe in admiration of Holland, which, he says, he wishes he had never seen, or never left, he informs us that while with Dorville, he translated into Latin, some small French tracts, which that author inserted in his “Miscellanea Critica;” made collections for him from Mss. or other literary curiosities; translated his “Charito” into Latin, and collated the copy which Dorville had received from Cocchi at Florence. They quarrelled, however, because Dorville not only altered some parts of this translation, but obliged Reiske to do the same himself before his face.

, an eminent orientalist, was born at Ryp, a village in North-Holland, July 17, 1676. His father was minister of that village, but afterwards removed to Alkmaar, and then to Amsterdam, in which last city Reland was educated with great care; and at eleven years of age, having passed through the usual courses at school, was placed in the college under Surenhusius. During three years of study under this professor, he made a great progress in the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic languages; and at his leisure hours applied himself to poetry, in which he was thought to succeed. At fourteen, he was sent to Utrecht; where he studied under Grrevius and Leusden, acquired a more perfect knowledge of the Latin and oriental tongues, and applied himself aiso to philosophy, in which he afterwards took the degree of doctor. At seventeen, he entered upon divinity under the direction of Herman Witsius and others; but did not abandon the oriental languages, which were always his favourite study. After he had resided six years at Utrecht, his father sent him to Leyden, to continue his theological studies under Frederic Spanheim and others; where he soon received the offer of a professorship at Linden, either in philosophy or the oriental languages. This he would have accepted, though only two and twenty; but his father’s ill state of health would not allow him to remove so far from Amsterdam. In 1699, he was elected professor of philosophy at Harderwick, but did not continue there long; for, king William having recommended him to the magistrates of Utrecht, he was offered in 1701 the professorship of oriental languages and ecclesiastical history, which he readily accepted. In 1703, he took a wife, by whom he had three children. In 1713, a society for the advancement of Christian knowledge was established in England, as was that for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts the year after; of both which Reland became a member. He died of the small-pox, at Utrecht, Feb. 5, 1718, in his forty-second year. He was a man of an excellent disposition, and of great humanity and modesty, of great learning, and had a correspondence with the most eminent scholars of his time.

Rembrandt was first brought into notice by having taken a picture to the Hague, and Coffered it for sale to an able connoisseur; who, conscious of his merit, treated him with kindness, and gave him a hundred florins for it. By this incident both himself and the public were made acquainted with his worth; and hence arose the reputation and success he afterwards enjoyed. Incessant occupation soon crowded upon him, and many pupils applied for admission into his school, with each of whom he received 100 florins a year; and whose copies of his pictures he not unfrcquently sold as originals, after bestowing a short time upon them himself. By these means, aided by incessant industry, and the sale of etchings, which he produced with great facility and skill, he accumulated considerable wealth: his income, according to Sandrart, being, for a. length of time, at least 2500 florins yearly. His place of residence, during this successful display of his talents, was Amsterdam, where his peculiarities procured him the character of a humourist, whilst his abilities astonished and delighted his contemporaries, and he produced those works which still gratify succeeding ages. The peculiarities of his mind are as much observable in the manner of producing his effects, as in the choice of the materials. The execution of his earlier works was in a style highly laboured, with great neatness, and patient completion of the figures; such is that of the picture of the woman taken in adultery at Mr. Angerstein’s. As he advanced in art, he took liberties with the pencil, wrought with all the broad fulness of the brush, and left the touch undisturbed: he even employed the stick, the pallet-knife, or his fingers, accordingly as they were most capable of producing the effect he desired when seen at a proper distance, disregarding the appearance of the work upon a closer inspection.

In his pictures is exhibited a total inattention to the taste of the antique; he is even said to have made it a subject of ridicule, and to have jocosely denominated a collection of old armour and rich dresses, which he had collected and employed to study and paint from, “his antiques.” These he evidently used as his models, though frequently in most heterogeneous combination; but by an innate power of seizing the most striking effects produced by light and shade, superadded to the most perfect mastery over the materials of the pallet, he always excited an interest, either by ori-r ginality or beauty.

It is not, however, the approval of his power in the technical part of the art, which can or ought to satisfy the observer of the works of Rembrandt. He was, says Fuseli, a meteor in art. Disdaining to acknowledge the usual laws of admission to the Temple of Fame, he boldly forged his own keys, and entered and took possession of a most conspicuous place by his own power. He was undoubtedly a genius of the first class in whatever is not immediately related to form or taste. In spite of the most portentous deformity, and without considering the spell of his chiaroscuro, such were his powers of nature, such the grandeur, pathos, or simplicity, of his composition, from the most elevated or extensive arrangement to the meanest or most homely, that the most untutored and the best cultivated eye, plain common sense and the most refined sensibility, dwell on them equally enthralled. Shakspeare alone excepted, no one combined with such transcendant excel* lence, so many, in all other men, unpardonable faults, and reconciled us to them. He possessed the full empire of light and shade, and the tints that float between them. He tinged his pencil with equal success in the cool of dawn, in the noon-tide ray, in the vivid flash, in evanescent twilight, and rendered darkness visible. Though made to bend a steadfast eye on the bolder phenomena of nature, yet he knew how to follow her into her calmest abodes, gave interest to insipidity or baldness, and plucked a flower in every desert. Few like Rembrandt knew how to improve an accident into a beauty, or give importance to a trifle. If ever he had a master, he had no followers. Holland was not made to comprehend his power: the succeeding school consisted of colourists, content to tip the cottage, the hamlet, the boor, the ale-pot, the shambles, and the haze of winter, with orient hues, or the glow of setting summer suns.

His prints, which are partly etchings, and partly engravings, performed with the point of the graver in a singular manner, have all that freedom of touch, spirit, and greatness of effect, discoverable in his paintings, supposing them to be assisted by the variety of colours. Considering the great quantity of etchings which he made, we cannot suppose they should be all equally well executed, or equal in value. Mr. Gilpin, who has resolved the excellence of Rembrandt as a painter into colouring only, observes that his prints, deprived of this palliative, have only his inferior qualifications to recommend them. These, he states, are, expression and skill in the management of light, execution, and sometimes composition. His expression has most force in the character of age. He marks as strongly as the hand of time itself. He possesses too, in a great degree, that inferior kind of expression, which gives its proper and characteristic touch to drapery, fur, metal, and every object he represents. His management of light consists chiefly in making a very strong contrast, which has often a good effect; and yet in many of his prints there is no effect at all; which gives us reason to think, he either had no principles, or published such prints before his principles were ascertained. His execution is peculiar to himself. It is rough, or neat, as he meant a sketch, or a finished piece; but always free and masterly. It produces its effect by strokes intersected in every direction; and comes nearer the idea of painting, than the execution of any other master.

There is perhaps no branch of collectorship that exhibits more caprice than that of prints in general, or of Rembrandt’s prints in particular, which appears by the different estimation in which the same subject is held, merely on account of a slight alteration in some unimportant part. Mr. Daulby instances this in the Juno without the crown, the Coppenol with the white back-ground, the Joseph with the face unshaded, and the good Samaritan with the horse’s tail white, which are regarded as inestimable; whilst the same subjects, without these distinctions, are considered as of little comparative value. Strutt mentions that, in consequence of a commission from an eminent coin lector, he gave forty-six guineas for the Coppenol with the white back-ground, i. e. before it was finished; when, the same evening, at the same sale, he bought a most beautiful impression of the same print finished, distinguished by having a black back-ground, &c. which had an address to Rembrandt at the bottom, written by Coppenol himself (for he was a writing-master of Amsterdam, and this print is his portrait), for fourteen guineas and a half. In the second instance, he adds, that he exceeded his commission by the half guinea; but in the first did not reach it by nearly twenty guineas. Mr. Daulby seems to be of opinion that Rembrandt, who loved money, availed himself of this humour in collectors. The facility with which he could change the effect of his etchings, by altering, obliterating, or working on them again, enabled him to provide sufficient amusement for his admirers; and hence varieties frequently occur which are not easily explicable. He is even said to have frequently suffered himself to be solicited before he would consent to dispose of them; and it is a well-attested fact, that the print of “Christ healing the sick,” usually denominated the “Hundred Guelder,” was so called because he refused to sell an impression of it under that price. Of this print we may remark that it is generally esteemed the chef d'aeuvre of Rembrandt, being highly finished, the characters full of expression, and the effect of the chiaroscuro very fine. Gilpin mentions twenty guineas, as the price of a good impression of this print; Mr. Daulby thirty, to which twenty more, we are assured, must now be added. Captain Baillie purchased the plate in Holland, and retouched it for publication, in 1776, at four guineas to subscribers, and five to non-subscribers. It has since been cut up, but there are impressions of the two groups from the left extremity, one above the other. Rembrandt’s rarest and most expensive portraits are those of Wtenbogardus, called in Holland, “the Goldweigher,” and in France “the Banker;” Van Tol, the advocate, sold as high as fifty-guineas; and the burgomaster Six, of equal value. This burgomaster was Rembrandt’s particular friend and patron, and had the largest collection of his prints that ever was formed in his life-time. Strutt gives 340 as the number of Rembrandt’s prints; but the largest collection known, that of M. De Burgy, at the Hague, collected between the years 1728 and 1755, consisted in the whole, including the varieties, of 655 prints. This great artist died at Amsterdam in 1688, or, according to some, in 1674. The little known of his personal character is not favourable. He was extremely fond of money, and not very scrupulous in his mode of procuring it. He is also represented as being fond of low company; a degrading taste, which seldom fails to affect a man’s profession, whatever it may be.

, a celebrated archbishop of Lyons in the ninth century, and grand almoner to the emperor Lotharius, succeeded Amolo, in the above see, about the year 853 or 854. There being other prelates of this name, we find some confusion as to their actions and writings; but it is supposed to be this St. Remigius, who, in the name of the church of Lyons, wrote an answer to the three letters of Hincmar of Rheims, and others, in which he defends St. Augustine’s doctrine on grace and predestination, which he apprehended to have been at“tacked by the condemnation of Godescalc. This answer may be found in the” Vindiciae Predestinationis et Gratis,“1650, 2 vols. 4to, and in the Library of the Fathers; as also a translation by the same author,” On the condemnation of all men in Adam, and the deliverance of some by Jesus Christ.“He presided at the council of Valence in the year 855, and others of the same kind; and, after founding some pious institutions died Oct. 28, in the year 875. Others of his works are in the” Library of the Fathers."

, an able naval architect, was born in 1652, in Beurn, descended from the ancient house of Elisagaray in Navarre. The count de Vermandois, admiral of France, engaged his services in 1679, by a pension of a thousand crowns; and his opinion concerning the construction of ships was preferred to that of M. Duguesne, even by that gentleman himself. In consequence of this, Renau received orders to visit Brest and the other ports, that he might instruct the ship-builders, whose sons of fifteen or twenty years old he taught to build the largest ships, which had till then required the experience of twenty or thirty years. Having advised the bombardment of Algiers in 1680, he invented bomb-boats for that expedition, and the undertaking succeeded. After the admiral’s decease, M. Vauban placed M. Renau in a situation to conduct the sieges of Cadaquiers in Catalonia, of Philipsburg, Manheim, and Frankendal. In the midst of this tumultuous life he wrote his “Theorie de la manoeuvre des Vaisseaux,” which was published 1689, 8vo. The king, as a reward for M. Renau’s services, made him captain of a ship, with orders that he should have free access to, and a deliberative voice in the councils of the generals, an unlimited inspection of the navy, and authority to teach the officers any new methods of his invention; to which was added a pension of 12,000 livres. The grand master of Malta requested his assistance to defend that island against the Turks, who were expected to besiege it; but the siege not taking place, M. Renau went back to France, and on his return was appointed counsellor to the navy, and grand croix of St. Louis. He died Sept. 30, 1719. He had been admitted an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences in 1699. He has left several Letters, in answer to the objections raised by Huygens and Bernouilli against his Theory abovementioned. He was a man of reflection, read little, but thought much; and, what appears a greater singularity, he meditated more deeply when in the midst of company, where he was frequently found, than in solitude, to which he seldom retired. He was very short, almost a dwarf, but adroit, lively, witty, brave, and the best engineer which France has produced, except M. de Vauban.

, or, as Wood says, commonly called Rhanger, a learned divine and Latin poet, was born in Hampshire, in 1529, and educated at Magdalen college, Oxford. Here he took his bachelor’s degree, in March 1545; was chosen fellow in 1547, and afterwards completed his master’s degree. In king Edward’s reign, he was much esteemed as a pious preacher, and learned man; but as he had embraced the reformed religion, he was obliged to leave the kingdom on the accession of queen Mary, and lived mostly with some other English exiles at Strasburgh. When queen Elizabeth came to the throne, he was made one of her chaplains, and proved a zealous champion for the reformation. Wood says he refused several preferments, accepting only a prebend in the church of Winchester, and about the same time the rectory of Crawley near that city. In 1567 he was installed precentor and prebendary of Empingham in the church of Lincoln. In 1573, he took his degrees in divinity, and in 1575 was made archdeacon of Winchester. In 1583, he had the prebend of Reculverland, in the church of St. Paul, London, bestowed on him. He died Aug. 26, 1609, aged eighty-nine, and was buried in the church of Crawley, under the communion table.

His works are, 1. “Carolina in mortem duonim fratrum Suffolciensium, Henrici et Caroli Brandon,” Lond. 1552, 4to. A specimen from this rare volume is given in Mr. Bliss’s edition of the “Athense,” from a copy in the Bodleian. 2. “De Pii V. et Gregorii XIII. furoribus contra Elizabetham Reginam Angliae,” ibid. 1582, 8vo. 3. “An Exhortation to true love, loyalty, and fidelity to her majesty,” ibid. 1587, 8vo, to which is added a treatise against Treasons; and 4. “Syntagma hortationum ad Jacobuui Regem Anglise,” ibid. 1604, 8vo. He also translated from Latin into English, bishop Poynet’s “Apology or Defence of Priests’ marriages.” Bale, who gives Dr. Renniger a high character, attributes other works to him, but without specifying whether in ms. or print; and there are, if we mistake not, some of his Mss. in Bene't college library.

, ar celebrated cardinal, was born in 1613. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, and afterwards coadjutor to his uncle the archbishop of Paris; and at length, after many intrigues, in which his restless and unbounded ambition engaged him, became a cardinal. This extraordinary man has drawn his own character in his Memoirs,- which are written in a very unequal manner, but are generally bold, free, animating, and pleasing, and give us a very lively representation of his conduct. He was a man who, from the greatest degree of debauchery, and still languishing under its consequences, preached to the people, and made himself adored by them. He breathed nothing but the spirit of faction and sedition. At the age of twenty-three, he had been at the head of a conspiracy against the life of cardinal Richelieu, It has been said that he was the first bishop who carried on a war without the mask of religion; but his schemes were so unsuccessful, that he was obliged to quit France. He then went into Spain and Italy, and assisted at the conclave at Rome, which raised Alexander VII. to the pontificate; but this pontiff not making good his promises to the cardinal, he left Italy, and went into Germany, Holland, and England. After having spent the life of an exile for five or six years, he obtained leave upon certain terms to return to his own country; which was the more safe, as his friend cardinal Mazarine died in 1661. He was afterwards at Rome, and assisted in the conclave which chose Clement IX.; but, upon his return to France, gave up all thoughts of public affairs, and died at Paris, Aug. 24, 1679. The latter part of his life is said to have been tranquil and exemplary. At this period he wrote his Memoirs, in which there is a considerable air of impartiality. In order to judge of this, however, the reader is advised to compare them with those of Claude Joli, his private secretary. Both works have been published in English, the former in 1774, 4 vols. the latter in 1775, 3 vols., 12fno. Some friends, nith whom the cardinal entrusted the original ms. fixed a mark on those passages, where they thought he had dishonoured himself, in order to have them omitted, as they were in the first edition; but they have since been restored. The best French editions of these Memoirs are those of Amsterdam, 1719, 7 vols. 12mo, and 1731, 4 vols. small 8vo. This cardinal was the author of other pieces; but these, being of a temporary kind, written as party pamphlets to serve particular purposes, are forgotten.

, or Revius, a learned Dutch divine, the son of a burgomaster of Deventer, was born in 1586, and educated at Amsterdam, Leyden, and Franeker. In 1610 he travelled into France for farther improvement, and resided two years at Saumur, Rochelle, and Orleans. Having taken orders, he was, in 1641, chosen principal and first professor of the theological college of the states of Holland and West Friesland at Leyden. He died at Leyden in 1658, at the age of 72. His works are very numerous; the principal are, “Belgicarum Ecclesiasticarum Doctrina et Ordo,” &c.; “Historia Pontificum Romanorum contracta, et ad Annum 1632 continuata;” “Daventriae illustrate, sive Historiae Urbis Daventriensis,” Lib. vi. 1651, 4to. He also published an improved edition of “The Book of Psalms,” in Dutch verse, by Peter Dathsenus, and he was concerned in revising the Dutch yersion of the Old Testament, which was printed at Leyden in 1637.

With great judgment, and at a considerable expence, he collected a library most rich in scarce, valuable, and beautiful books, and obtained such fame in this department of literature, as to be ranked with the Vallieres, Pinellis, and Lomenies of the day. Of this excellent library, he printed a descriptive catalogue under the title of “Bibliotheca Grseca et Latina, complectens auctores fere omnes Grteciae et Latii veteris, &c. cum delectu editionum turn primariarum, principum, et rarissimarum, quum etiam optima rum, splendidissimarum, atque nitidissimarum, quas usui mei paravi Periergus Deltophilus,” Berlin, 1784, 1794, 8vo. To some of these catalogues were prefixed a letter to M. L. A. D. i. e. Denina, and a preface. Three supplements to this catalogue were afterwards published by him, which are not easily procurable. Although the superlatives in the title smack a little of the dealer, rather than the private gentleman, the count has not exceeded the bounds of truth, and perhaps few men were better qualified to form a collection deserving of such praise. With the boundless zeal, he had also the extensive knowledge of a collector, and understood and spoke readily the principal ancient and modern languages. His frequent removes made him acquainted with every public and private library on the continent; and he never missed an opportunity to add to his collection whatever was most curious and valuable at sales, or booksellers’ shops. This library is now in England, and in the possession of a nobleman who knows its value, and whose own library at present exceeds that of any subject in Europe. When count Revickzky came to London, he made an offer to earl Spenser to dispose of the whole collection to his lordship. What the terms were is variously reported. It seems agreed, however, that it was for a sum of money to be paid immediately, and an annuity, which last the count did not live long to enjoy. The count was himself an author, and published the “Odes of Hafez,” known here by Richardson’s translation; a treatise on Turkish tactics; and an edition of Petronius, Berlin, 1785, 8vo, formed on the editions of Burman and Antonius.

In this occupation Father Reyneau, not content with making himself master of every thing worth knowing, which the modern analysis, so fruitful in sublime speculations and ingenious discoveries, had already produced, undertook to reduce into one body, for the use of his scholars, the principal theories scattered here and there in Newton, Descartes, Leibnitz, Bernoulli, the Leipsic Acts, the Memoirs of the Paris Academy, and in other works; treasures which by being so widely dispersed, proved much less useful than they otherwise might have been. The fruit of this undertaking, was his “Analyse Demontree,” or Analysis Demonstrated, which he published in 1708, 2 vols. 4to. He gave it the name of “Analysis Demonstrated,” because he demonstrates in it several methods which had not been handled by the authors of them, with sufficient perspicuity and exactness. The book was so well approved, that it soon became a maxim, at least in France, that to follow him was the best, if not the only way, to make any extraordinary progress in the mathematics; and he was considered as the first master, as the Euclid of the sublime geometry.

Dr. Reynolds assisted at the Savoy conference, and on the first day, according to Neal, spoke much for abatements and moderation, but afterwards sitting among the bishops, he only spoke now and then a qualifying word, but was heartily grieved for the fruitless issue of the conference.“The same author says that he was” prevailed with to accept a bishopric on the terms of the king’s declaration, which never took place.“But another of his biographers says,” His education gave him no prejudice to monarchy or episcopacy; and when a man can advance himself with a good conscience, why may he not leave what interest only had engaged him in? Let them that blame his last turn, justify him, if they can, in the former. He was now submitting to authority, however he had opposed it. Their standing out, and keeping up a schism, when they were put upon nothing but what they owned indifferent, has a worse look than returning from wrong to right," &c. Dr. Reynolds, however, after the government was completely re-established, became a constant resident in his diocese, and mixed no more with affairs of state. He died at the episcopal palace at Norwich Jan. 16, 1676, aged seventy-six. He was buried at the upper end of the chapel (built by himself in 1662) joining to the bishop’s palace in Norwich. Over his grave, soon after his death, was fastened to the wall a marble table, on which his epitaph in Latin was engraven.

His works are, “The Vanity of the Creature,” on Eccies. i. 14. “Sinfulness of Sin,” on Rom. vii. 9, and on vi. 12. “Use of the Law,” on Horn. vii. 13. “Life of Christ,” on 1 John, v. 12. “An Explication of the ex Psalm.” “Meditations on the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s last Supper.” “Explication of the 14 Chapter of Hosea, in seven Humiliation Sermons.” “A Treatise of the Passions and Faculties of the Soul of Man;” all or most of which having been printed several times in 4to, were collected in one large folio at London in 1658, with the author’s portrait, and went by the name of “Bishop Reynolds’s Works.” They were much bought up, read and recommended by men of several persuasions; and are written in a style superior to the generality of works of divinity in that age. “Thirty Sermons” preached on several occasions, between 1634, and his death, some of which had been printed several times, were reprinted in the second edition of his works, at London, 1679, folio. Among them is his Latin Sermon preached at Oxon. 1649, entitled “Animalis Homo,” on 1 Cor. ii. 14. He also wrote the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” on Ecclesiastes, which were so much admired that many learne'd men of [the presbyterian persuasion, wished that the rest had been all wrote parifilo K. eruditione. He also was the author of the “Epistolary Preface to William Barlee’s Correptory Correction,” c. of some notes of Thomas Pierce concerning God’s decrees, especially of reprobation; which book, with the Epistolary preface, a second of Thomas Whitfield, and a third of Daniel Cawdrey, sometime of Cambridge, were printed at London, 1656, 4to. He is also said to be the author of “The humble Proposals of sundry learned, pious Divines within this Kingdom, concerning the engagement intended to be imposed on them for their subscriptions,” London, 1650, 4to. One sheet was published in December 1649. John Ducy published an answer, entitled “Just Re-proposals to humble Proposals or, an impartial consideration of,” &c. London, 1650, 4to, four sheets. And it is probable that he wrote several other things besides those above-mentioned; particularly his “Meditations on the Fall of Peter,” a short tvrelves, never inserted in any of the folio editions.

In 1746, by the friendship of captain (afterwards lord) Keppel, he had an opportunity to visit the shores of the Mediterranean, and to pass some time at Rome. The sketch he wrote of his feelings when he first contemplated the works of Raphael in the Vatican, so honourable to his modesty and candour, has been presented to the public by Mr. Malone, and is a present on which every artist must set a high value. He returned to London in 1752, and soon rose to the head of his profession; an honour which did not depend so much on those he eclipsed, as on his retaining that situation for the whole of a long life, by powers unrivalled in his own or any other country. Soon, after his return from Italy, his acquaintance with Dr. Johnson commenced. Mr. Boswell has furnished us with abundant proofs of their mutual esteem and congenial spirit, and Mr. Malone has added the more deliberate opinion of sir Joshua respecting Dr. Johnson, which may be introduced here without impropriety. It reflects indeed as much honour on the writer as on the subject, and was to have formed part of a discourse to the academy, which, from the specimen Mr. Malone has given, it is much to be regretted he did not live to finish.

Speaking of his own discourses, our great artist says, “Whatever merit they have, must be imputed, in a great measure, to the education which I may be said to have had under Dr. Johnson. I do not mean to say, though it certainly would be to the credit of these discourses if I could say it with truth, that he contributed even a single sentiment to them but he qualified my mind to think justly. No man had, like him, the faculty of teaching inferior minds the art of thinking. Perhaps other men might havg equal knowledge, but few were so communicative. His great pleasure was to talk to those who looked up to him. It was here he exhibited his wonderful powers. In mixed company, and frequently in company that ought to have looked up to him, many, thinking they had a character for learning to support, considered it as beneath them to enlist in the train of his auditors and to such persons he certainly did not appear to advantage, being often i tuous and overbearing. The desire of shining in conversation was in him indeed a predominant passion; and if it must be attributed to vanity, let it at the same time be recollected, that it produced that loquaciousness from which his more intimate friends derived considerable advantage. The observations which he made on poetry, on life, and on every thing about us, I applied to our art, with what success others must judge.” This short extract is not unconnected with a conjecture which many entertained, that sir Joshua did not compose his lectures himself. In addition to his own declaration here, as far as respects Dr. Johnson, who was chiefly suspected as having a hand in these lectures, Mr. Northcote, who lived some years in his house, says, in his memoirs, “At the period when it was expected he should have composed them, I have heard him walking at intervals in his room till one or two o'clock in the mjorning, and I have on the following day, at an early hour, seen the papers on the subject of his art which had been written the preceding night. I have had the rude manuscript from himself, in his own hand-writing, in order to make a fair copy from it for him to read in public: I have seen the manuscript also after it had been revised by Dr. Johnson, who has’ sometimes altered it to a wrong meaning, from his total ignorance of the subject and of art; but never, to my knowledge, saw the marks of Burke’s pen in any of the manuscripts. The bishop of Rochester, also, who examined the writings of Mr. Burke since his death, and lately edited a part of them, informed a friend that he could discover no reason to think that Mr. Burke had the least hand in the discourses of Reynolds.” And Burke himself, in a letter to Mr. Malone, after the publication of sir Joshua’s life and works, Says, “I have read over some part of the discourses with an unusual sort of pleasure, partly because being faded a little in my memory, they have a sort of appearance of novelty; partly by reviving recollections mixed with melancholy and satisfaction. The Flemish journal I had never seen before. You trace in that, every where, the spirit of the discourses, supported by new examples. He is always the same man; the same philosophical, the same artist-like critic, the same sagacious observer, with the same minuteness, without the smallest degree of trifling.” We may safely say, this is dot the language of one who had himself contributed much to those discourses. And if neither Johnson nor Burke wrote for Reynolds, to whom else among his contemporaries shall the praise due to those invaluable compositions be given, if Reynolds is to be deprived of it!

For a very long period he had enjoyed an almost uninterrupted state of good health, except that in 1782 he was for a short time afflicted with a paralytic stroke. A fewweeks, however, perfectly restored him, and he suffered no inconvenience from it afterwards. But in July 1789, whilst he was painting the portrait of lady Beauchamp, he found his sight so much affected, that it was with difficulty he could proceed with his work; and notwithstanding every assistance that could be procured, he was in a few months totally deprived of the use of his left eye. After some struggles, he determined, lest his remaining eye should also suffer, to paint no more: and though he was thus deprived of a constant employment and amusement, he retained his usual spirits, and partook of the society of his friends with apparently the same pleasure to which he had been accustomed; and was amused by reading, or hearing others read to him. In October 1791, however, his spirits began to fail him, and he became dejected, from an apprehension that an inflamed tumour, which took place over *he eye that had perished, might occasion the destruction of the other also. Meanwhile he laboured under a more dangerous disease, which deprived him both of his spirits and his appetite. During this period of great affliction to all his friends, his malady was by many supposed to be imaginary, and it was erroneously conceived, that by exertion he might shake it off; for he was wholly unable to explain to the physicians the nature or seat of his disorder. Jt was only about a fortnight before his death that it was found to be in the liver; the inordinate growth of which, as it afterwards appeared, had incommoded all the functions of life. Of this disease, which he bore with great fortitude and patience, he died, after a confinement of three months, at his house in Leicester-square, on Thursday evening, February 23, 1792, at the age of sixty-nine.

In many respects, both as a man and a painter, sir Joshua Reynolds cannot be too much studied, praised, and imitated by every one who wishes to attain the like eminence. His incessant industry was never wearied into despondency by miscarriage, nor elated into neglect by success. Either in his painting-room, or wherever else he passed his time, his mind was devoted to the charms of his profession. All nature, and all art, was his academj r and his reflection was ever on the wing, comprehensive, vigorous, discriminating, and retentive. With taste to perceive all* the varieties of the picturesque, judgment to select, and skill to combine what would serve his purpose, few have ever been empowered by nature to do more from the fund of their own genius: and none ever endeavoured more to take advantage of the labours of others. He made a splendid and useful collection, in which no expence wa? spared. His house was filled, to the remotest corners, with casts from the antique statues, pictures, drawings, and prints, by various masters of all the different schools. Those he looked upon as his library, at once objects of amusement, of study, and competition. After his death they were sold by auction, with his unclaimed and unfinished works, and, together, produced the sum of 16,947l. 7s. 6d. The substance of his whole property, accumulated entirely by his pencil, and left behind after a life in which he freely parted with his wealth, amounted to about 80,000l.

His early education was not strictly academic, as he himself regrets; nor to any extent did he ever cultivate the elementary principles of design, but, as portraits were to shape his fortune, facility of composition, or laborious application to the refinements of an outline, were less necessary. Whether he would have been as eminent in historical painting as he was in that department which it was his lot to pursue, would be now an inquiry as useless as unsatisfactory. That his powers were great in whatever way they were employed, will be readily acknowledged; his taste was too refined, and his judgment too correct, to tolerate defects which were not counterbalanced by some advantages; but as his early practice was exclusively devoted to portraits, and as it was the chief employment of his whole life, it cannot remain a subject of choice to what branch of his profession a fair analysis of his merit ought to be referred.

From the first examples of sir Joshua, as well as from his own confession, on seeing the works of Raphael in the Vatican, it would seem evident that the ornamental parts of the art had absorbed his previous studies, and made the deepest impression on his mind. Little, therefore, could be wanting to induce him to pursue that plan of study, which at the same time that it was the most congenial to his feelings, was in the highest degree important to give interest to individual representation. In pursuing his studies when abroad, he embraced the whole field before him: but his time was not spent in collecting or making servile copies, but in contemplating the principles of the great masters, that he might the more effectually do what he has recommended to others, follow them in the road without treading in their steps; and no man ever appropriated to himself with more admirable skill their extensive and varied powers.

The style of portrait-painting by Hudson and Ramsay, who were the only persons of any practice when sir Joshua returned from abroad, was uniformly dry and hard, without any feeling for chiar-oscura, and with little diversity of attitude and expression; the full dress, which the custom of the day prescribed, prescribed also limits to their imaginations, and they never gave themselves the trouble to discriminate between the character of nature, and the character of fashion. Sir Joshua, with a more comprehensive view of his art, shewed how portrait might be generalized, so as to identify the individual man with the dignity of his thinking powers. In dress, he selected and adopted what was most conformable to the character of his subject, without implicitly following the fashion or offending the prejudice which it begets.

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

Rhazes lived to the age of eighty, and lost his sight: he died in the year 932. His works that have come down to us through the medium of translations in Latin are, I. A sort of common-place book, entitled “Continens,” or “Libri Continentes.” 2. A much more perfect work, the “Libri Decem, ad Almansorem,” published at Venice, 1*10. 3. Six books of aphorisms, published under the title of “Liber de Secretis, qui Aphorismorum appellatur,” Bononiae, 1489. 4. A tract on the small-pox, often translated, and printed with the title of “De Pestilential” the best translation is by Channing, London, 1766.

, a celebrated German astronomer and mathematician, was born at Feldkirk in Tyrol, February 15, 1514. After imbibing the elements of the mathematics at Zurick with Oswald Mycone, he went to Wittemberg, where he diligently cultivated that science, and was made master of philosophy in 1535, and professor in 1537. He quitted this situation, however, two years after, and went to Fruenburg to profit by the instructions of the celebrated Copernicus, who had then acquired great fame. Rheticus assisted this astronomer for some years, and constantly exhorted him to perfect his work “De Revolutionibus,” which he published after the death of Copernicus, viz. in 1543, folio, atNorimberg, together with an illustration of the same, dedicated to Schoner. Here too, to render astronomical calculations more accurate, he began his very elaborate canon of sines, tangents and secants, to 15 places of figures, and to every 10 seconds of the quadrant, a design which he did not live quite to complete. The canon of sines however to that radius, for every 10 seconds, and for every single second in the first and last degree of the quadrant, computed by him, was published in folio at Francfort, 1613, by Pitiscus, who himself added a few of the first sines computed to 22 places of figures. But the larger work, or canon of sines, tangents, and secants, to every 10 seconds, was perfected and published after his death, viz. in 1596, by his disciple Valentine Otho, mathematician to the electoral prince palatine; a particular account and analysis of which work may be seen in the Historical Introduction to Dr. Button’s Logarithms.

After the death of Copernicus, Rheticus returned to Wittemberg, viz. in 1541 or 1542, and was again admitted to his office of professor of mathematics. The same year, by the recommendation of Melancthon, he went to Norimberg, where he found certain manuscripts of Werner and Regiomontanus. He afterwards taught mathematics at Leipsic. From Saxony he departed a second time, for what reason is not known, and went to Poland; and from thence to Cassovia in Hungary, where he died December 4, 1576, near sixty-three years of age.

, a celebrated Spanish Jesuit, was born at Toledo, in 1527, and was enrolled by St. Ignatius among his favourite disciples in 1540, before the society of the Jesuits had received the papal sanction. In 1542 he studied at Paris, and afterwards at Padua, where he was sent to Palermo to teach rhetoric. After many,' and long travels for the propagation of the interests of the society in various parts of Europe, he died at Madrid, Oct. 1, 1611. One of his visits was with the duke of Feria to England, in 1558, and his inquiries here, or what he made subsequently, encouraged him to publish a treatise “On the English schism,” 1594, 8vo, in which, it is said, there is less rancour and acrimony than might have been expected, and some curious anecdotes respecting the personal character of queen Mary. He is, however, chiefly known for his Lives of various Saints and Jesuits, and as the founder of that biography of the Jesuits which Alegambe and others afterwards improved into a work of some importance. One of his principal lives, published separately, is that of the founder, St. Ignatius de Loyola. Of this work there have been several editions, the first in 1572, and the second with additions in 1587, in neither of which he ascribes any miracles to his master, and is so far from supposing any, that he enters into an inquiry, whence it could happen that so holy a man had not the gift of miracles bestowed upon him, and really assigns very sensible reasons. But notwithstanding all this, in an abridged edition of his life of Ignatius, published at Ipres in 1612, miracles are ascribed to Ignatius, and Ribadeneira is made to assign, as his reason for not inserting such accounts before, that though he heard of them in 1572, they were not sufficiently authenticated. Bishop Douglas, who is inclined to blame Ribadeneira for this insufficient apology, has omitted to notice that this Ipres edition of the life was published a year after Ribadeneira’s death, and therefore it is barely possible that the miracles, and all that is said about them, might have been supplied by some zealous brother of the order. His “Lives of the Saints” were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English traveller, was the tenth son of sir Peter Ricaut, probably a mer* chant in London, and the author of some useful works, who was one of the persons excepted in the “Propositions of the Lords and Commons,” assembled in parliament, “for a safe and well-grounded peace, July 11, 1646, sent to Charles I. at Newcastle.” He also paid o.1500 for his composition, and taking part with his unhappy sovereign. His son Paul was born in London, and admitted scholar of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1647, where he took his bachelor’s degree^ in 1650. After this he travelled many years, not only in Europe, but also in Asia and Africa; and was employed in some public services. In 1661, when the earl of Winchelsea was sent ambassador extraordinary to the Ottoman Porte, he went as his secretary; and while he continued in that station, which was eight years, he wrote “The present State of the Ottoman Empire, in three books; containing the Maxims of the Turkish Politic, their Religion, and Military Discipline,” illustrated with figures, and printed at London, 1670, in folio, and 1675 in 8vo, and translated into French by Bespier, with notes, and anittoadversions on some mistakes. During the same time, he had occasion to take two voyages from Constantinople to London; one of them was by land, through Hungary, where he remained some time in the Turkish camp with the famous vizier, Kuperlee, on business relating to England. In 1663 he published the “Capitulations, articles of peace,” &C; concluded between England and the Porte^ which were very much to our mercantile advantage, one article being that English ships should be free from search or visit under pretence of foreign goods, a point never secured in any former treaty. After having meritoriously discharged his office of secretary to lord Winchelsea, he was made consul for the English nation at Smyrna; and during his residence there, at the command of Charles II. composed “The present State of the Greek and Armenian Churchesjanno Christi 1678,” which, upon his return to England, he presented with his own hands to his majesty; and it was published in 1679, 8vo. Having acquitted himself, for the space of eleven years, to the entire satisfaction of the Turkey company, he obtained leave to return to England, where he lived in honour and good esteem; The earl of Clarendon > being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1685, made him his principal secretary for the provinces of Leinster and Connaught; and James II. knighted him, constituted him one of the privy council for Ireland, and judge of the high court of admiralty* which he enjoyed till the revolution in 1688, Soon after this, he was employed by king William as his resident with the Hanse-towns in Lower Saxony, namely, Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen; where he continued for ten years, and gave the utmost satisfaction. At length, worn out with age and infirmities, he had leave in 1700 to return to England, where he died, Dec. 16 of that year. He was fellow of the Royal Society for many years before his decease; and a paper of his, upon the “Sable Mice,” or “Mures Norwegici,” is published in the Philosophical Transactions. He understood perfectly the Greek, both ancient and modern, the Turkish, Latin, Italian, and French languages.

, a learned Italian ecclesiastic, was born at Rome in 1619. He was created a cardinal in 1681, but did not long enjoy that dignity, as he died in 1633, at the age of sixty-four. He was well skilled in the pure mathematical sciences, and published at Rome, in 4to, “Exercitatio Geometrica,” a small tract, which was reprinted at London, and annexed to Mercator’s “Logarithmotechnia,” chiefly on account of the excellency of the argument “de maximis et minimis,” or the doctrine of limits; where the author shows a deep judgment in exhibiting the means of reducing that lately discovered doctrine to pure geometry.

Ricci was one of the few, comparatively speaking, who enjoy during their lives the utmost extent of their fame. In his history, that portion of renown which attaches to him died with him, or nearly so. In fact, he w*s a machinist, one who, being conversant in the rules of art, and skilful in the application of the means, dazzled where he could not instruct, anJ deluded by ingenuity without judgment, and art without expression. His works are to be found in many of our great houses, as well as those of his nephew. At Chelsea, where he painted the altar-piece, and at the British Museum, there are considerable pictures of his painting, but they do not rise in esteem by continued observation; and yet, unfortunately, they had sufficient influence in their day to lead the artists astray from the contemplation and imitation of the works of Raphael, and the greater masters of the Italian school. Walpole informs us that Sebastian excelled particularly in imitations of Paul Veronese, many of which he sold for originals; and once deceived even La Fosse. When the latter was convinced of the imposition, he gave this severe but just reprimand to Sebastian: “For the future take my advice; paint nothing but Paul Veroneses, and no more Riccis.” Lord Orford adds that Ricci left England on finding it determined “that sir James Thqrnhill should paint the cupola, of St. Paul’s.”

He projected a large work, to be divided into three parts, and to contain a complete system of philosophical, mathematical, and astronomical, knowledge. The first of these parts, which regards astronomy, came out at Bologna in 1651, 2 vols. folio, with this title, “J. B. Riccioli Almagestum Novum, Astronomiam veterem novamque compleotens, observationibus aliorum et propriis, novisque theorematibus, problematibus ac tabulis promotam.” Riccioli imitated Ptolemy in this work, by collecting and digesting into proper order, with observations, every thing ancient and modern, which related to his subject; so that Gassendus very justly called his work, “Promptuarium et thesaurum ingentem Astronomiae.” In the first volume of this work, he treats of the sphere of the world, of the sun and moon, with their eclipses; of the fixed stars, of the planets, of the comets, and new stars., of the several mundane systems, and six sections of general problems serving to astronomy, &c. In the second volume, he treats of trigonometry, or the doctrine of plane and spherical triangles; proposes to give a treatise of astronomical instruments, and the optical part of astronomy (which part was never published); treats of geography, hydrography, with an epitome of chronology. The third comprehends observations of the sun, moon, eclipses, fixed stars, and planets, with precepts and tables of the primary and secondary motions, and other astronomical tables. Riccioli printed also, two other works, in folio, at Bologna, viz. 2. “Astronomia Reformata,” 1665; the design of which was, that of considering the various hypotheses of several astronomers, and the difficulty thence arising of concluding any thing certain, by comparing together all the best observations, and examining what is most certain in them, thence to reform the principles of astronomy. 3. “Chronologia Reformata,” 1665. Riccioli died in 1671, at seventy-three years of age.

, archbishop of Armagh in the fourteenth century, called sometimes Armaciianus, and sometimes Fitz Ralph, which was his family name, is supposed to have been born in Devonshire, or, according to Harris, at Dunda'k, in the county of Louth. He was educated partly at University, and partly at Balliol, college, Oxford, under the tuition of John Baconthorp, whom we have already noticed as an eminent scholar of that age. He made great progress in philosophy, divinity, and civil law, and became so great a philosopher and logician, “and in both sorts of theology so famed, that the whole university ran to his lectures as bees to their hive.” He commenced doctor of divinity at Oxford, and in 1333 was commissary-general of that university, whence some authors have called him chancellor; but, according to Collier, the office he held was only somewhat superior to that of vice-chancellor. His first church promotion was to the chancellorship of the church of Lincoln, in July 1334; he was next made archdeacon of Chester in 1336, and dean of Lichfield in April 1337. These, or some f them, he owed to the favour of Edward III. to whom he was recommended as well deserving his patronage.

While at Oxford he had distinguished himself by his opposition to the mendicant friars, whose affectation of poverty, and other superstitions and irregularities, he exposed in his lectures. They were therefore not a little alarmed when, in 1347, he was advanced to the archbishopric of Armagh; and with some reason; for, when about ten years afterwards, he returned to England, and found the contest very warm concerning preaching, hearing confessions, and other points, in which the friars encroached on the jurisdiction of the parochial priests, he preached several sermons, the substance of which was; that in cai>es of confession the parish church is to be preferred to the church of the friars; that for confession the parishioners ought rather to apply to the parson or curate than to a friar; that notwithstanding our Lord Jesus Christ was poor, when he conversed on earth, yet it does not appear that he affected poverty; that he did never beg, nor make profession of voluntary poverty; that he never taught people to make a choice and profession of beggary; that on the contrary, he held that men ought not to beg by inclination, nor without being forced to it by necessity; that there is neither sense nor religion in vowing voluntary and perpetual beggary; that it is not agreeable to the rule of Observant or Friars Minorites, to be under engagements of voluntary poverty, &c. &c. The friars were so enraged at these propositions, which certainly shew considerable freedom of sentiment, that they procured him to be cited before pope Innocent VI. at Avignon, where he defended his opinions with great firmness, and maintained them, although with no little danger from the malice of his opponents, to the end of his life. The age, honwer, was not prepared to listen to him, and the pope decided in favour of the friars.

, an English historian, so named from his birth-place, flourished in the fourteenth century. No (races of his family or connections can be discovered, but they appear to have been such as to afford him a liberal education. In 13 50 “he entered into the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and his name occurs in various documents of that establishment in 1387, 1397, and 1399. He devoted his leisure hours to the study of British and Anglo-Saxon history and antiquities, in which he made such proficiency, that he is said to have been honoured with the name of the Historiographer. Pits informs us, without specifying his authority, that Richard visited different libraries and ecclesiastical establishments in England, in order to collect materials. It is at least certain that he obtained a licence to visit Rome, from his abbot, William of Colchester, in 1391, and there can be little doubt that a man of his curiosity would improve his knowledge on such an occasion. He is supposed to Have performed this journey in the interval between 1391 and 1397, for he appears to have been confined in the abbey infirmary in 1401, and died in that or the following year. His works are,” Historia ab Hengista ad ann. 1348,“in two parts. The first contains the period from the coming of the Saxons to the death of Harold, and is preserved in the public library of Cambridge. Whitaker, the historian of Manchester, speaks of this as evincing very little knowledge or judgment; the second part is probably a ms. in the library of the Royal Society, p. 137, with the title of” Britonum Anglorum et Saxonurn Historia.“In the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, is” Epitome Chronic. Ric. Cor. West. Lib. I.“Other works of our author are supposed to be preserved in the Lambeth library, and at Oxford. His theological writings were,” Tractatus super Symbolum Majus et Minus,“and” Liber de Officiis Ecclesiasticis,“in the Peterborough library. But the treatise to which he owes his celebrity, is that on the ancient state of Great Britain,” De situ Britanniae,“first discovered by Charles Julius Bertram, professor of the English language in the royal marine academy at Copenhagen, who transmitted to Dr. Stukeley a transcript of the whole in letters, together with a copy of the map. From this transcript Stukeley published an analysis of the work, with the itinerary, first in a thin quarto, 1757, and afterwards in the second volume of his ” Itinerarium Curiosum.“In the same year the original itself was published by professor Bertram at Copenhagen, in a small octavo volume, with the remains of Gildas and Nennius, under the title” Britannicarum gentium Historiae Antiquæ scriptores tres, Ricardns Corinensis, Gildas Badonicus, Nennius Banchorensis, &c.“This work has long been scarce, and in very few libraries; but in 1809, a new edition, with an English translation, &c. was published at London. To this the editor, Mr. Hatchard, has prefixed an account of Richard’s life, from which we have extracted the above particulars, and an able defence of his merit and fidelity as a historian, against the objections of certain writers. Among these we observe that Gibbon cannot be reckoned, for he says that Richard of Cirencester” shews a genuine knowledge of antiquity, very extraordinary for a monk of the fourteenth century.“This useful and accurate republication is entitled” The Description of Britain, translated from Richard of Cirencester; with the original treatise de situ Britanniæ; and a commentary on the Itinerary; illustrated with maps," 8vo.

, Jonathan, a painter, and a writer on the art of painting, was born about 1665. He was intended by his father-in-law, apprentice to a scrivener, with whom he lived six years, but by the death of his master, was enabled to follow the bent of his inclination for painting. He then became the disciple of Riley, with whom he lived four years, and finally connected himself by marrying his niece. The degree of skill which he attained, by no means corresponded with the ideas he entertained of the art, which were certainly of a just and elevated kind. There are, however, great strength, roundness, and boldness in the colouring of his heads, which are drawn and marked in the manner of Kneller, with freedom and firmness; though the attitudes in which they and his figures are placed, the draperies which clothe the latter, and the back-grounds from which they are relieved, are insipid and tasteless. It is certainly a very curious circumstance, that, when he wrote with so much fire and judgment, dived so deep into the inexhaustible stores of Raphael, and was so smitten with the native lustre of Vandyke, he should so ill apply to his own practice the sagacious rules and hints he gave to others. Full of theory, profound in reflections on the art, and possessed of a numerous and excellent collection of drawings, he appears to have possessed no portion of invention, as applicable to the painter’s art, and drew nothing well below the head; plainly manifesting the peculiarity of taste or feeling which leads to excellence in that profession.

Besides the works published in conjunction with his father, there was published in 1776, five years after the son’s death, “Richarclsoniana; or, occasional Reflections on the Moral Nature of Man; suggested by various authors, an* cient and modern, and exemplified from those authors, with several anecdotes interspersed, by the late Jonathan Richardson, jun. esq. Vol.1.” an amusing work, although there are some opinions in it which are not altogether free from censure. He did not love to contemplate the bright side of human nature and actions. Besides this work, there appeared about the same time an 8vo volume of “Poems” by Jonathan Richardson, senior, with notes by his son, They are chiefly moral and religious meditations, but not greatly inspired by the Muse. The son, it remains to be added, never painted otherwise than for his amusement. He died in 1771, aged seventy-seven.

, a celebrated writer of novels, or, as his have been called, moral romance’s, was born in 1689, in Derbyshire, but in what part of that county has not been ascertained. His father descended of a family of middling note in the county of Surrey, and his business was that of a joiner. He intended his son Samuel for the church, but from losses in business-, was unable to support the expence of a learned education, and all our author received was at the grammar school. It appears from his own statement that he had a love for letter-writing, that he was a general favourite of the ladies, and fond of their company, and that when no more than thirteen, three young women, unknown to each other, revealed to him their love secrets, in order to induce him to give them copies to write after, or correct, for answers to their lovers* letters. In this employment some readers may think they can trace the future inventor of the love secrets of Pamela and Clarissa, and letter-writing certainly grew into a habit with him.

By many family misfortunes, and his own writings, which in a manner realized every feigned distress, his nerves naturally weak, or, as Pope expresses it, “tremblingly alive all o'er,” were so unhinged, that for many years before his death his hand shook, he had frequent vertigoes, and would sometimes have fallen, had he not supported himself by his cane under his coat. His paralytic disorder affected his nerves to such a degree, for a considerable time before his death, that he could not lift a glass of wine to his mouth without assistance. This disorder at length terminating in an apoplexy, deprived the world of this amiable man, and truly original genius, on July 4, 1761, at the age of seventy-two. He was buried, by his own direction, with his first wife, in the middle aile, near the pulpit of St. Bride’s church. His picture was painted by Mr. High more, whence a mezzotinto has been taken.

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

, a learned French divine, was born September 30, 1560, at Chaource, in the diocese of Langres. He had been at first drawn into the party and sentiments of the Leaguers, and even ventured to defend James Clement, but soon hastened to acknowledge his legitimate sovereign, after having taken his doctor’s degree, 1590. Richer became grand master of the college of Le Moine, then syndic of the faculty of divinity at Paris, January 2, 1603, in which office he strenuously defended the ancient maxims of the doctors of this faculty, and opposed the thesis of a Dominican in 1611, who maintained the pope’s infallibility, and his superiority over the council. He published a small tract the same year, “On the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power,” 8vo, to establish the principles on which he asserted that the doctrine of the French church, and the Sorhonne, respecting papal authority, and the authority of the general council, were founded. This little book made much noise, and raised its author enemies in the Nuncio, and some doctors undertook to have him deposed from the syndicate, and his work condemned by the faculty of theology; but the parliament prohibited the faculty from interfering in that affair. In the mean time cardinal du Perron, archbishop of Sens, assembled eight bishops of his province at Paris, and made them censure Richer’s book, March 9, 1612. Richer entered an appeal (Comme tfabus) from this censure, to the parliament, and was admitted as an appellant; but the matter rested there. His book was also censured by the archbishop of Aix, and three bishops of his province, May 24, the same year, and he was proscribed and condemned at Rome. A profusion or pamphlets now appeared to refute him, and he received an express order from court, not to write in his defence. The animosity against Richer rose at length to such a height that his enemies obtained from the king and the queen regent letters, ordering the faculty to elect another syndic. Richer made his protestations, read a paper in his defence, and retired. A new syndic was chosen in 1612, and they have ever since been elected once in two years, although before that time their office was perpetual. Richer afterwards ceased to attend the meetings of the faculty, and confined himself to solitude, being wholly employed in study; but his enemies having involved him in several fresh troubles, he was seized, sent to the prisons of St. Victor, and would even have been delivered up to the pope, had no,t the parliament and chancellor of France prevented it, on complaints made by the university. He refused to attend the censure passed on the books of Anthony de Dominis in 1617, and published a declaration in 1620, at the solicitation of the court of Rome, protesting that he was ready to give an account of the propositions in his book “on the Ecclesiatical and Civil Power,” and explain them in an orthodox sense; and farther, that he submitted his work to the judgment of the Holy See, and of the Catholic church. He even published a second declaration; but all being insufficient to satisfy his adversaries, he was obliged to reprint his book in 1629, with the proofs of the propositions advanced in it, and the two declarations, to which cardinal Richelieu is said to have forced him to add a third. He died Nov. 28, 1631, in his seventy-second year. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where a mass used to be said annually for the repose of his soul. Besides his treatise on “Ecclesiastical Power,” reprinted with additions at Cologii in 1701, 2 vols. 4to, he was the author of a “History of general Councils,” 4 vols. 4to a “History of his Syndicate,” 8vo, and some other works, in which learning and great powers of reasoning are obvious. Baillet published a life of him in 12mo.

, an ingenious French botanist, was born in 1558, at Chalons in Champagne, and studied medicine. The humane and skilful services he rendered to the people of Pezenas, during an epidemic disorder, recommended him to the patronage of the constable de Montmorency, by whose interest he was appointed professor of botany and anatomy in the university of Montpellier, and Henry IV. committed to him the care of establishing a public garden in that university. This design was executed in the most skilful and splendid manner. Belleval published a catalogue of the garden in 1598, and a French treatise, in 1605, recommending an inquiry into the native plants of Languedoc. This last was accompanied by five plates, intended as a specimen of a future work, for which he subsequently prepared a number of engravings, rude and stiff in execution, but exhibiting many rare species. He never lived to publish these, and the plates remained neglected in the hands of his family, till Gouan recovered them, and sent impressions to Linnaeus. At length Gillibert obtained the plates, and published them in 1796. The two pamphlets above mentioned were republished in 1785, by the celebrated and unfortunate Broussonet; along with a treatise on the white mulberry, by Olivier de Serres, originally printed in 1603. Richer de Belleval lived to see his garden destroyed by the fury of civil war, and was beginning to restore it, when he died in 1623. His nephew accomplished the re-establishment of the garden, on a more extensive scale. M. Dorthes of Montpellier published, in 1786, “Recherches sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de Pierre Richer de Belleval,” in which every thing that could be collected on the subject is recorded. Some writers erroneously mention Belleval as the first botanist who gave copper-plate figures of plants. This honour is due to Fabius Columns, whose “Phytobasanos” appeared in 1592. We must not omit to mention, that Scopoli has named a genus BeUcvalio t a name, or something like it, which Belleval himself was fond of giving to the lily of the valley. 1

The greatest part of 1545 Dr. Ridley spent in retirement at Herne. He had, as we have noticed, been hitherto a believer in transubstantiation, influenced by the decrees of popes and councils, the rhetorical expressions of the fathers, and the letter of scripture; but it is supposed that a perusal of the controversy between Luther and the Zuinglians, with the writings of Ratramnus or Bertram, which had fallen into his hands, induced him to examine more closely into the scriptures, and opinions of the fathers; the result of which was, that this doctrine had no foundation. Cranmer also, to whom he communicated his discoveries, joined with him in the same opinion, as did Latimer. In the close of 1545, Cranmer gave him the eighth stall in St. Peter’s, Westminster. When Edward ascended the throne in 1547, Dr. Ridley was considered as a celebrated preacher, and in his sermons before the king, as well as on other occasions, exposed, with boldness and argument, the errors of popery. About this time, the fellows of Pembroke-hall presented him to the living of Soharo, in the diocese of Norwich; but the presentation being disputed by the bishop, Ridley was admitted to the living by command of the king. On Sept. 4 following, he was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, vacant by the translation of Dr. Holbeach to the bishopric of Lincoln. He was consecrated Sept. 25, in the chapel belonging to Dr. May, dean of St. Paul’s, in the usual form, by chrism, or holy unction, and imposition of hands; and after an ath renouncing the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, was vested, according to the ancient rites, with the robes and insignia appropriated to his dignity. Yet Dr. Brookes, in the subsequent reign, would not allow Ridley to have been a bishop, and only degraded him from his priest’s orders, which is not easy to be accounted for; because if the pretence was that his abjuration of the pope invalidated his consecration, the same objection might be made to Bonner, Tonstall, Gardiner, &c.

Our prelate filled this high station with great dignity, and was a pattern of piety, temperance, and regularity, to all around him. He spent much of his time in prayer and contemplation; and took great pains in the instruction and improvement of his family. His mode of life was, as soon as he had risen and dressed himself, to continue in private prayer half an hour; then, if no other business interrupted him, he retired to his study, where he continued until ten o'clock, at which hour he went to prayers with his family. He also daily read a lecture to them, beginning at the Acts of the Apostles, and so going regularly through St. Paul’s epistles, giving to every one that could read, a New Testament, and encouraging them to learn by heart some chosen chapters. After prayers he went to dinner, where he was not very forward to begin discourse; but when he did, he entered into it with great wisdom and discretion, and sometimes with facetiousness. This conversation he would indulge for an hour after dinner, or otherwise amuse himself during that time with playing at chess. The hour for unbending being expired, he returned to his study, where he continued till five, except suitors, or business abroad, required otherwise. He then went to prayers with his family as in the morning, after which he supped; then diverting himself for another hour after supper, as he did after dinner, he went back to his study, and continued there till eleven at night, when he retired to private prayer, and then went to bed.

Soon after his promotion to the see of London, he was the person thought the fittest to reconcile Dr. Hooper, the bishop elect of Gloucester, to the vestments, against which the latter had conceived very strong prejudices. In June 1550 bishop Ridley visited his diocese, and directed that the altars should be taken down in the churches, and tables substituted in their room, for the celebration of the Lord’s supper; hi order to take away the false persuasion which the people had, of sacrifices to be offered upon altars. In 1551 the sweating sickness prevailed in London, and in the space of a few days carried off eight or nine hundred persons; but in the midst of the alarm which this necessarily occasioned, Ridley administered in the duties of his office, trusting himself entirely to the good providence of God for safety, in the danger to which he was every moment exposed; and he endeavoured, with all the zeal of an exemplary spiritual pastor, to improve the public calamity to the reformation of the manners of the people. To promote more generally a reformation in the doctrine of the church, the council, this year, appointed Cranmer and Ridley to prepare a book of articles of faith. With this view they drew up forty-two articles, and sent copies of them to the other bishops and learned divines, for their corrections and amendments; after which the archbishop reviewed them a second time, and then presented them to the council, where they received the royal sanction, and were published by the king’s authority.

When the parliament assembled in 1553, the kins:, who was languishing under the decline which soon put an end to his life, ordered the two houses to attend him at Whitehall, where bishop Ridley preached before him, recommending with such energy the duties of beneficence and charity, that his majesty sent for him, to inquire how he could best put in practice the duties which he had so welt and so strongly enforced; and the result of this sermon and conference was a determination in the king to found, or incorporate anew, and endow with ample revenues, those noble institutions, Christ’s, Bartholomew’s, Bridewell, and St. Thomas’s hospitals.

The 15th of October being the day appointed by the court for his execution, he met the trial with calmness and fortitude. He called it his marriage-day, and supped on the preceding evening with the utmost cheerfulness, having invited some friends on the occasion. When they rose to depart, one of them offered to sit up with him throughthe night, which he would not permit, saying, he meant to go to bed, and, by God’s will, to sleep as quietly that night as he ever had done in his life. On the following morning, having dressed himself in his episcopal habit, he walked to the place of execution, between the mayor and one of the aldermen of Oxford; and seeing Latimer approach, from whom he had been separated since their condemnation, he ran to meet him, and with a cheerful countenance embraced him, and exclaimed, “Be of good heart, brother, for God will either assuage the fury of the flames, or else give us strength to endure them.” Then walking to the stake, he knelt down, and kissing it, prayed earnestly, as Latimer did also, and both suffered the cruellest death with the greatest courage.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

, an eminent civilian, descended of a family of that name in Northumberland, was born in the city of Ely, and became master of Eton school, afterwards one of the masters in chancery, chancellor to the bishop of Winchester, and vicar-general to archbishop Abbot. He also received the honour of knighthood. He died Jan. 22 or 23, 1629, and was buried in the parish church of St. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf, London. He was a general schoJar, and published “A view of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law,” which was much admired by king James, and was afterwards reprinted by the learned, but unfortunate Gregory, chaplain to bishop Duppa. This work, says Dr. Coote, while it established the reputation of the author, contributed to revive the declining credit of that jurisdiction.

, who, from a low and despicable situation, raised himself to sovereign authority in Rome, in the 14th century, assuming the title of tribune, and proposing to restore the ancient free republic, was born at Rome, and was the son of no greater a personage than a mean vintner, or, as others say, a miller, named Lawrence Gabrini, and Magdalen, a laundress. However, Nicolas Rienzi, by which appellation he was commonly distinguished, did not form his sentiments from the meanness of his birth. To a good natural understanding he joined an uncommon assiduity, and made a great proficiency in ancient literature. Every thing he read he compared with similar passages that occurred within his own observation; whence he made reflections, by which he regulated his conduct. To this he added a great knowledge in the laws and customs of nations. He had a vast memory: he retained much of Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Livy, the two Senecas, and Cassar’s Commentaries especially, which he read continually, and often quoted and applied to the events of his own times. This fund of learning proved the foundation of his rise: the desire he had to distinguish himself in the knowledge of monumental history, drew him to another sort of science, then little understood. He passed whole days among the inscriptions which are to be found at Rome, and acquired soon the reputation of a great antiquary. Having hence formed within himself the most exalted notions of the justice, liberty, and ancient grandeur of the old Romans, words he was perpetually repeating to the people, he at length persuaded not only himself, but the giddy mob his followers, that he should one day become the restorer of the Roman republic. His advantageous stature, his countenance, and that air of importance which he well knew how to assume, deeply imprinted all he said in the minds of his audience: nor was it only by the populace that he was admired; he also found means to insinuate himself into the favour of those who partook of the administration. Rienzi’s talents procured him to be nominated one of the deputies, sent by the Romans to pope Clement VI. who resided at Avignon. The intention of this deputation was to make his holiness sensible, how prejudicial his absence was, as well to himself as to the interest of Rome. At his first audience, our hero charmed the court of Avignon by his eloquence, and the sprightliness of his conversation. Encouraged by success, he one day took the liberty to tell the pope, that the grandees of Rome were avowed robbers, public thieves, infamous adulterers, and illustrious profligates; who by their example authorized the most horrid crimes. To them he attributed the desolation of Rome, of which he drew so lively a picture, that the holy father was moved, and exceedingly incensed against the Roman nobility. Cardinal Colonna, in other respects a lover of real merit, could not help considering these reproaches as reflecting upon some of his family; and therefore found means of disgracing Rienzi, so that he fell into extreme misery, vexation, and sickness, which, joined, with indigence, brought him to an hospital. Nevertheless, the same hand that threw him down, raised him up again. The cardinal, who was all compassion, caused him to appear before the pope, in assurance of his being a good man, and a great partizan for justice and equity. The pope approved of him more than ever and, as proofs of his esteem and confidence, made him apostolicnotary, and sent him back loaded with favours. Yet his subsequent behaviour shewed, that resentment had a greater ascendancy over him than gratitude. Being returned to Rome, he began ta execute the functions of his office, and by affability, candour, assiduity, and impartiality, in the administration of justice, he arrived at a superior degree of popularity; which he still improved by continued invectives against the vices of the great, whom he strove to render as odious as possible; till at last, for some ill-timed freedoms of speech, he was not only severely reprimanded, but displaced. His dismission did not make him desist from inveighing against the debauched, though he conducted himself with more prudence. From this time it was his constant endeavour to inspire the people with a fondness for their ancient liberties; to which purpose, he caused to be hung up in the most public places emblematic pictures, expressive of the former splendour and present decline of Rome. To these he added frequent harangues and predictions upon the same subject, in this manner he proceeded till one party looked on him only as a madman, while others caressed him as their protector. Thus he infatuated the minds of the people, and many of the nobility began to come into his views, while the senate in no wise mistrusted a man, whom they judged to have neither interest nor ability. At length he ventured to disclose his designs to such as he believed mal-contents, first separately, but afterwards, when he thought he had firmly attached a sufficient number to his interest, he assembled them together, and represented to them the deplorable state of the city, over-run with debaucheries, and the incapacities of their governors to correct or amend them. As a necessary foundation for the enterprize, he gave them a statement of the immense revenues of the apostolic chamber; demonstrating that the pope could, only at the rate of four-pence, raise a hundred thousand florins by firing, as much by salt, and as much more by the customs and other duties. “As for the rest,” said he, “I would not have you imagine, that it is without the pope’s consent I lay hands on the revenues. Alas! how many others in this city plunder the effects of the church contrary to his will 1”

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

, an English artist of very considerable merit, was born at London, in 1646, and, instructed in the art of painting by Fuller and Zoust. Lord Orford asserts, that he was one of the best native painters that had flourished in England; and that there are draperies and hands painted by him that would do honour either to Lely or Kneller; the portrait of the lord-keeper North, at Wroxton, being in every respect a capital performance. After the death of sir Peter Lely, he advanced in the esteem of the public, and had the honour to paint the portraits of king Charles II. king James and his queen, and was appointed state painter. He made nature his principal study, without adopting the manner of any master, and as far as he thought it prudent he improved or embellished it in his pictures; and, like many other men of parts, he seems to be more respected by posterity, than by the age in which he flourished. He was, in truth, humble, modest, and of an amiable character. He had the greatest diffidence of himself, and was easily disgusted with his own works, the source probably, says lord Orford, of the objections made to him. With a quarter of Kneller’s vanity, he might have persuaded the world he was as great a master. The gout put an end to his progress, for he died in 1691, at the age of forty-five, and was buried in Bishopsgate church, in which parish he was born. One Thomas Riley was an actor, and has a copy of verses in Randolph’s Poems. This, lord Orford thinks, might be the painter’s father. In the same place are some Latin verses by Riley, whom the same biographer takes to be our painter himself. Richardson married a near relation of Riley, and inherited about SOOl. in pictures, drawings, and effects.

, an excellent Swiss artist, wa born at Zuric, January 27th, 1575, but of his master, his travels, or the progress of his younger years, his biographer has not informed us. He must have enjoyed some celebrity, as he was chosen by the magistracy of Berne to decorate with paintings of large dimensions the senate-house and minster of that metropolis, and had the freedom of their city conferred on him. These pictures, which represented facts relative to the foundations of Berne, or allegories alluding to the peculiarities of its situation and customs, were equally distinguished by picturesque con* ception, boldness of style, and correct execution. In the senate-house especially, the third picture, whose subject was the building of the town, shewed great intelligence of foreshortening, and of what is by the Italians termed “di sotto in su.” For the public library of Zuric he painted the arms of the state and of its dependencies, supported by Religion and Liberty; Death lies at the feet of Religion, but to the usual allegoric implements in her hands he added a bridle, to distinguish her from Fanaticism and Superstition.

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

, an Italian poet of Florence, who went into France in the suite of Mary of Medicis, queen to Henry IV. is the reputed inventor of the musical drama or opera, that is, of the manner of writing, or representing comedies or tragedies in music, to which the first recitative was applied. Others give this invention to a Roman gentleman of the name of Emilio del Cavaliere, who was more properly the inventor of the sacred drama or oratorio, in a similar species of music or recitative, so nearly at the same time that it is difficult to determine which was first: both had their beginning in 1600. Rinucciui was author of three lyric pieces, “Daphne,” “Euridice,” and “Ariadne,” which all Italy applauded. Euridice, written for the nuptials of Mary of Medicis, was first performed with great splendor and magnificence at Florence, at the court and expence of the grand duke. The poetry is truly lyrical, smooth, polished, and mellifluous. He died in 1621, at Florence; and a collection, or rather selection, of his works were published in 1622, in the same city, in 4*o, by his son, Pietro Francesco Rinuccini, and another entitled “Drammi Musicale,” in 1802, 8vo, at Leghorn. The family is noble, and was subsisting in 1770. More of Ottavio may be seen in the appendix to Walker’s “Life of Tassoni,” just published, 1816.

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

, an English topographer, was the son of Thomas Risdon, bencher of the Inner Temple, afterwards treasurer of that society, and lastly, recorder of Totness, who published some law “Readings,” and died in 1641. His son was educated at Great Torrington, Devonshire, previous to his studying at Exeter college, Oxford, which he left without a degree, in consequence, as Prince supposes, of his coming to some family property which required his presence, and rendered him independent. On this, which was an estate at Winscot, be appears to have lived in retirement, and died in 1640. He drew up an account of Devonshire, which remained in ms. of which there were several copies, until 1714, when it was printed, under the title of “The Chorographical Description or Survey of the County of Devon, &c.” William Chappie, of Exeter, intended a new edition of this work, and actually issued proposals; but dying in 1781, his design was not completed, although in 1785 a portion of it, printed at Exeter, appeared in 4to, with many notes and additions. There is a “continuation” of Risdon’s Survey, which is paged on from the first part, and very rarely to be met with, but there are copies in the Bodleian and in the library of St. John’s, given by Dr. Rawlinson.

, a young man of very considerable literary talents, was a native of Emont- bridge, near Penritb, and was born in 1761. At the age of sixteen, he began to teach school with credit to himself, and advantage to his pupils. After superintending a school for about four years, he relinquished the employment, and repaired to Edinburgh, where he studied medicine; and he maintained himself by writing medical theses for such of his fellow students as were too indolent, or too illiterate, to write for themselves. From Edinburgh he went to London, where he attended on the hospitals, and on lectures, and where he also supported himself by his literary exertions. In London he took a few private pupils, and was engaged for some time in writing the medical articles in the Monthly Review. Like Chatterton, however, whom in many particulars Ritson greatly resembled, he had to lament the neglect of the world, and after a short and irregular life in London, he died of a few weeks illness, at Islington, in 1789, and in the twenty-seventh year of his age.

, a native of Forcheim, in the bishopric of Bamberg, is said by some writers to have been born a Jew; but others assert that he was first a Roman Catholic, then a Jew, and lastly, a Lutheran. This, however, is certain, that he published several books containing Judaical learning, was professor of Oriental languages in the academy of Konigsburg, and died about 1652. His works are, a Commentary on the book “Jezirah, or, the Creation,” attributed to Abraham, Amsterdam, 1642, 4to; a treatise “De veritate Religionis Christianas,” Franeker, 1699; “Libra veritatis,” 1698, in which he asserts that the Chaldee paraphrase furnishes arguments against the Jews and Anti-Trinitarians; “Letters;” a German translation of the Prayers used by the Jews in their synagogues, on the first day of each year; and other works. Rittangelius maintained this paradox, that the New Testament “contains nothing hut what was taken from the Jewish antiquities.”

, a learned French writer, was born at Laval, in the province of Perche, about 1571. He wa* brought up in the family of the count de Laval, and for. some time followed the military profession, serving in Italy and in Holland. In 1603, Henry IV. appointed him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber. In 1605 he entered into tSie service of the emperor against the Turks: but ori his return he devoted himself to literary and scientific studies and in 1611 he was appointed preceptor to the young king, Lewis XIII. with a pension of 3000 livres, and the title of counsellor of state. An insult he received from his royal pupil obliged him to quit his office for some time. The king had a favourite dog, who was perpetually jumping on Rivault during his giving lessons, and Rivault one day gave him a kick. The king was so incensed as to strike Riv'lult, who retired; but it appears they were soon reconciled, and by the king’s orders Rivault accompanied ma* dame Elizabeth of France as far as Bayonne, on her way to be married to the king of Spain. On his return from that voyage he died at Tours, Jan. 1616, about the age of forty-five. He is spoken of with high esteem by several of the most celebrated writers of his time, particularly by Casaubon, Scaliger, Vossius, Erpenius, and Menage. His works consist of, 1. “Les Etats,” or “The States, or a discourse concerning the privileges of the prince, the nobles, and the Third Estate, &c.” 2. “Les Elemens d'Artillerie,” Paris, 1608, 8vo, a curious and very scarce work. 3. “Archimedis Opera quae extant, Gr. et Lat. novis detnonstrationibus illdstrata,” &c. Paris, 1615, folio; and ether pieces on education, &c.

, a celebrated French protestant divine, was born at St. Maxeut, in Poitou, Aug. I, 1572, and after some school education near home, was sent to Rochelle in 1585, where he studied the learned languages and philosophy. In 1590 he was removed to the college at Beam, where he took his master’s degree, and began the study of divinity. Having finished that course, he was in 1595 appointed minister of the church of Thoars, and chaplain to the duke of Thoars, who admitted him into his confidence, and frequently employed him in matters of importance. While in this situation he married the daughter of a divine at Thoars. He was frequently the representative of the protestant churches in national conventions and synods, and in some of these filled the chair of president, particularly in that of Vitry, in 1617. In 1620 he was appointed professor of divinity at Leyden, but about the same time had the misfortune to lose his wife. In 1621 he visiteci England, and going to Oxford was incorporated doctor in divinity, which degree had been conferred on him at Leyden just before. He gave, on this occasion, several books to the Bodleian library. While in England he married, as his second wife, Maria, the sister of Peter du Moulin, and widow of Anthony de Guyot, upon whose death in the civil wars in France, she took refuge in England. What served to introduce him at Oxford was his previous acquaintance wiih John Russe, or Rouse, who had lodged some time with him at Thoars, and was now in the situation of librarian of the Bodleian. After his return to Leyden he resumed his professorship, and passed the rest of his days in teaching and writing. He died in 1647, aged seventy-five. His works, consisting of commentaries on the scriptures, sermons, and controversial pieces, were very numerous, but it is unnecessary to specify them separately, as they were collected in 3 vols. fol. and printed at Rotterdam in 1651. His brother William, who was likewise in the church, published on “Justification,” and on “Ecclesiastical liberty.” We have in English,“A relation of the last hours of Dr. Andrew Rivet,” 12mo, translated and published by Nehemiah Coxe, by which it appears that Dr. Rivet was not more a man of great learning than of great piety.

The botanical system of Rivinus is founded on the roost elegant and attractive, if not the most solid and important, parts of plants. His classes are marked by the number, the regularity, or irregularity, of the petals. He could not proceed far in this path without perceiving that he made most unnatural, and, as Haller justly terms them, paradoxical, combinations. He therefore asserted, and doubtless believed, the inutility and impracticability of 4 really natural classification. This principle brought him to one right conclusion, which even the philosophical Ray did not attain, or was afraid to admit, that the old primary distribution of vegetables into trees, shrubs^ and herbs, is unscientific and erroneous.

Rivinus published, at his own expence, in 1690, his splendid illustration of the first class of his system, comprising such plants as have a monopetabus irregular 6ower. This part consists of one hundred and twenty-five plates; bub the catalogue of species is imperfect, A learned “Introductio generalis in rem hdtfbariam” is prefixed and this introductory part was, at different times, republished in a smaller form. The second part of this sumptuous work came forth in 1691, and consists of two hundred and twentyone plates, of plants with four irregular petals; into which class, by means of some contrivance, and many grains of allowance, are admitted all the papilionaceous tribe, the cruciform genus Iberis, the Euphorbia, and a few things besides. In 1699 the third part, containing flowers with five irregular petals, was given to the world. Even more liberty is taken in the assemblage of genera here than in the former class. It consists of one hundred and thirtynine plates. A fourth part, the hexapetalse irregulares, consisting of the Orchideae, was finished, but not published, before the author’s death; nor indeed have any more than a very few copies of this ever got abroad into the world, so that it constitutes one of the greatest bibliothecal rarities. With respect to utility or beauty, those who are possessed of the transcendant engravings of this favourite tribe in Haller’s History of Swiss Plants, may dispense with the figures of Rivinus. The author had prepared several supplementary plates to his work, which never came forth, and of which perhaps the only specimens are to be seen in sir Joseph Banks’s fine copy of the whole work, except two duplicate plates presented by the learned baronet to the president of the Linnaean society. There is every reason to believe that the copy in question belonged to the author himself, or to his son, as may be gathered from its manuscript additions and corrections. A complete copy, of even the three first parts of Rivinus’s book is, indeed, difficult to be met with; for several of the plates having from time to time received additions of seed-vessels, or of entire plants; the earlier impressions of such plates are consequently imperfect. The best copies are required, by fastidious collectors, to have every plate with and without the additions.

As a medical writer, Rivinus has the merit of faithful observation and description, in his treatise “de Peste Lipsiensi,” published in 1680. He wrote also on dyspepsia, on intermittent fevers, and various other subjects. He did not scruple to attack whatever practice or opinion he found established on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. In this respect his “Censura Medicamentorum officinalium” ranks very high. His commendable aim, in this work, was to clear the materiamedica of its various disgraceful incumbrances; so many of which originated in error, imposition, or superstition. His attempts have been followed up by various men of ability and authority; and it is to the united labour and good sense of such that the world is indebted for the purified and improved state of our modern pharmacopeias.

Though not a great practical anatomist, or dissector, Rivinus is said to have discovered a new salivary duct. He Jeft a son, John Augustus Rivinus, who succeeded him as professor, and under whose presidency was published a dissertation, in 1723, on “Medicinal Earths.” This gentleman died in 1725, aged thirty-three, having survived his father but two years. His premature death seems to have prevented the publication of the fourth part of his father’s great botanical work, at least for some time. Haller says, Ludwig afterwards edited the plates of the Orchidece, without any letter-press; but this publication has never come under our inspection.

, a musician of the sixteenth century, whose misconduct or misfortunes have obtained him a place in the history of Scotland, was born at Turin, but brought up in France. His father was a musician and dancing-master, and the son probably possessed those talents which served to amuse a courtly circle. He appears to have come to Scotland about 1564, when, according to most accounts, he was neither young nor handsome. The count de Merezzo brought him hither in his suite, as ambassador from Savoy to the court of the unfortunate queen Mary. Sir James Melvil, in his “Memoirs,” tells us that “the queen had three valets of her chamber who sung in three parts, and wanted a base to sing the fourth part; therefore, telling her majesty of this man, Rizzio, as one fit to make the fourth in concert, he was drawn in sometimes to sing with the rest.” He quickly, however, crept into the queen’s favour; and her French secretary happening at that time to return to his own country, Rizzio was preferred by her majesty to that office. He began to make a figure at court, and to appear as a man of weight and consequence. Nor was he careful to abate that envy which always attends such an extraordinary and rapid change of fortune. On the contrary, he seems to have done every thing to increase it; yet it was not his exorbitant power alone which exasperated the Scots; they considered him as a dangerous enemy to the protestant religion, and believed that he held for this purpose a constant correspondence with the court of Rome. His prevalence, however, was very short-lived; for, in 1566, certain nobles, with lord Darnly at their head, conspired against him, and dispatched him in the queen’s presence with fifty-six wounds. The consequences of this murder to the queen and to the nation are amply detailed in Scotch history, and have been the subject of a very fertile controversy.

As a musician, Rizzio’s instrument was the lute, which was at that time the general favourite all over Europe; and an opinion has long prevailed that he was the great improver of Scotch music, and that he composed most of the Scotch tunes which have been heard with so much pleasure for two centuries past, and are in their style to be distinguished from all other national airs. This matter, however, has been investigated both by sir John Hawkins, from records, and by Dr. Barney, from personal inquiry at Turin; and the result is, that the opinion has no foundation. Some part of Dr. Burney’s sentiments on the subject xve have already given in our account of king James I. of Scotland. It does riot, in fact, appear that Rizzio was a compeser at all; and his stay in this country not exceeding two years, with the variety of business in which he was, 'fatally for himself and his royal mistress, engaged, could have left him little leisure for study, or for undertaking the improvement of the national music.

, an ingenious young writer and medallist, the third child and second son of Edward Roberts, esq. deputy-clerk of the pells of the exchequer, was born March 13, 1789, in St. Stephen’s court, Westminster. His frame and constitution were delicate, which probably created an aversion to the usual exercises of youth, and his early pursuits evinced vivacity without levity. They were of a nature to exercise, but not to weary the faculties; and, springing from a desire for knowledge, afforded to him a perpetual variety of objects. The first radiments of education, as far as it related to habits, he acquired himself, or perhaps he imbibed them from the situation in which he was placed. In his father’s house at Ealing, the well-ordered ceconomy of time which prevails in a regular family, taught him to appreciate and to profit by the means of tranquillity thus placed within his reach. The salubrity of the air, and the extent of the grounds, which allowed him as much exercise as he wished for, contributed to the health of his body; and he had the advantage of a well-chosen collection of books, which afforded him the opportunity of indulging his taste for reading.

In the earliest periods of his life he seemed to be fully impressed with the importance and value of time, no moment of which he suffered to be unemployed. Whatever was cnrious in literature attracted his attention, but subjects of antiquity were those which he most delighted to investigate. In these his patience and perseverance were very remarkable; and though he read with eagerness and rapidity, he never neglected to note down particular circumstances, or to mark for subsequent reference such things as he could not at once completely embrace. To a natural quickness of observation was added a retentive memory, and the exercise of these was matured into an habit of attention and arrangement.^ Fortunately for Barre these endowments did not escape the eye of him who was most interested by affection and consanguinity in his welfare. His father early discovered and cultivated them. Barre, when at home, was his constant companion, and, soon after the years of infancy were passed, became his most intimate friend. Indeed it is not possible to imagine a greater degree of confidence between two persons, even of similar ages, than that which existed between this youth and his parent; and so well was it supported and understood, that Barre never for a moment lost sight of his relative situation, nor transgressed the limits of respect which filial love, even had there been no other motive, would have taught him to observe. The clearness of his perceptions, and the correctness of his understanding, secured him from anv overrated idea of his own talents, and rather added than detracted from the docility of his disposition: a docility not in him the result of feebleness, or indolence, nor tending to the obliteration of his natural character, but derived from a comparison of his own inexperience with the matured judgment of advanced life, and a just estimate and conviction of his father’s love. Barre, in this free and confidential intercourse, imbibed all the advantages which a system of perfect intimacy with one so much his superior in age and worldly experience could produce, divested as it was, by the discriminating hand of a parent, of all the evils which attend on the formation of an artificial character. It would have been of the highest gratification to his father to have retained constantly under his own eye a son so much fhe object of his care and affection, and who seemed to court all the instruction which could be bestowed on him,; but as this would have demanded leisure, and qualifications which fall to the lot of but few persons, Barre was sent in May 1797, to Dr. Home’s school at Chiswick, and in June 1799, was placed under the care of the Rev. William Goodenough, at Ealing, between whose family and that of his pupil a long intimacy and friendship had subsisted. Here he remained six years, and acquired a competent knowledge of the classics, and some share of mathematics, history, and antiquities, the study of which last had been previously familiar to him while enjoying his father’s library at home.

, a puritan divine, the son of Henry Roberts of Aslake, in Yorkshire, was born there or in that county in 1609, and entered a student of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1625. In 1632 he completed his degrees in arts, and was ordained. Where he first officiated does not appear but on the breaking out of the rebellion he went to London, took the covenant, and wns appointed minister of St. Augustine’s, Watlirtg-street, in room of Ephraim Udal, ejected for his loyalty. In 1649 he was presented to the rectory of WriiHTton in Somersetshire by his patron Arthur lord Capel, son of the beheaded lord Capel. While on this living he was appointed one of the commissioners for the “ejectment of those” who were called “ignorant and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” At the restoration, however^ he conformed, tired out, as many other’s were, by the distractions of the contending parties, and disappointed in every hope which the encouragers of rebellion had held forth. It does not appear whether he had any additional preferment, except that of chaplain to his patron lord Capel whenhe became earl of Essex; and when thrit nobleman was lord-lieutenant, of Ireland in 1672, it is suppose. i he procured him the degree of D. D. from the university of Dublin. He died at Wriugton about the end of 1675, and most probably wasi interred in that church. He published some single sermons: “The Believer’s evidence for Eternal Life,” &c, 1649, 1655, 8vo, and the “Communicant instructed,” 1651, 8vo, often reprinted; but his principal work is entitled “Chivis Bibliorum, the Key of the Bible,” in eluding the order, names, times, penmen, occasion, scope, and principal matter of the Old and New Testament. This was first printed at London and Edinburgh, 1649, in 2 vols, 8vo, and afterwards in 4to; and the fourth edition, 1675, in folio. Wood mentions another work, “Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum, or the Mystery and Marrow of the Bible,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. as he says, but this is doubtful, and “The True way to the Tree of Life,” 1673, 8vo.

In 1775 a remarkable incident happened, which excited the public attention. A Miss Butterfield was accused of poisoning Mr. Wm. Scawen, of Wooclcote lodge in Surrey. Mr. Robertson thought her very cruelly treated, and took an active part in her defence. On this occasion, he published a letter to Mr. Sanxay, a surgeon, on whose testimony Miss Butterfield had been committed to prison; in which he very severely animadverts on the conduct and evidence of that gentleman. After she had been honourably acquitted at the assizes at Croydon, he published a second pamphlet, containing “Observations on the case of Miss Butterfield,” shewing the hardships she had sustained, and the necessity of prosecuting her right in a court of justice: that is, her claim to a considerable legacy, which Mr. Scawen had bequeathed her by a will, executed with great formality, two or three years before his death. The cause was accordingly tried in Doctors 1 Commons. But, though it was universally agreed, that this unfortunate young woman had been unjustly accused, and that Mr. Scawen had been induced, by false suggestions, to sign another testamentary paper, in which her name was not mentioned, yet no redress could be obtained, as the judge observed, “that it was the business of the court to determine the cause, according to what the testator had done; not according to what he ought to have done.”

In 1785 he published an“Essay on Punctuation,” in 12mo. In this treatise he has illustrated a dry and unpromising subject, with a variety of elegant and entertaining examples; a fourth edition of this essay was printed in 1796. In 1788 appeared “The Parian Chronicle, or the Chronicle of the Arundelian Marbles, with a Dissertation concerning its authenticity.” The tendency of this work is to shew, that the authenticity of this famous inscription, is extremely questionable; but although we may praise the ingenuity, acuteness, and learning, of the author, we may be permitted to doubt whether he has fully established his point.

, an eminent grammarian, was, according to Bale, “Eboracensis urbis alumnus” which may mean that he was educated at York; but Wood says, he was born at or near Wakefield in that county. He was originally of Queen’s college, Oxford, but afterwards a semi -commoner of Magdalen, and succeeded the famous John Stanbridge as master of the school adjoining to that college. He took his degree of M. A. in 1525, and was elected a fellow of Magdalen. In 1532 he was collated to the prebend of Welton-Westball in the cathedral of Lincoln; in the year following to that of Sleford, and in 1534, to that of Gretton, in the same church. It seems probable, but Wood does not mention it as certain, that he took his degree of U. D. in 1539, at which time he says, Robertson was esteemed the “fas et decus Oxonite” and was treasurer of the church of Salisbury. He held also the archdeaconry of Leicester and vicarage of Wakefield, to which Brownie Willis adds the rectory of St. Laud’s, at Sherrington, Bucks.

In 1549 he was associated with other divines, ordered by Edward VIth’s council to form the new liturgy or common prayer; and thus far, as Dodd remarks, he complied with the reformers; but it does not appear that he advanced much further. In queen Mary’s reign, 1557, he was made dean of Durham, and refused a bishopric. This dignity he might have retained when Elizabeth came to the throne, or have obtained an equivalent; but he refused to take the oath of supremacy. Nothing more is known with certainty of his history, unless that he died about 1560. Among the records collected at the end of Burnet’s History of the Reformation, are, of Robertson’s, “Resolutions of some questions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of Questions relating to Bishops and Priests.” His grammatical tracts, entitled “Annotationes in Lib. Gulielmi Lilii.de Lat. Norn, generibus,” &c. were printed together at Basil, 1542, 4to. His reputation as a correct grammarian and successful teacher was very great. Strype says, that after refusing the oath of supremacy, he began to propagate his opinions against the reformation, and was overlooked; but Willis thinks he was taken into custody.

, a very learned divine, was born in Dublin, Oct. 16, 1705. His father was a native of Scotland, who carried on the linen-manufacture there; and his mother, Diana Allen, was of a very reputable family in the bishopric of Durham, and married to his father in England. From his childhood he was of a very tender and delicate constitution, with great weakness in his eyes till he was twelve years of age, at which period he was sent to school. He had his grammar-education under the celebrated Dr. Francis Hutcheson, who then taught in Dublin, but was afterwards professor of philosophy in the university of Glasgow. He went from Dr. Hutcheson to that university in 1722, where he remained till 1725, and took the degree of M. A. He had for his tutor Mr. John Lowdon, professor of philosophy; and attended the lectures of Mr Ross, professor of humanity; of Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek; of Mr. Morthland, professor of the Oriental languages; of Mr. Simpson, professor of mathematics; and of Dr. John Simpson, professor of divinity. In the last-mentioned year, a dispute was revived, which had been often agitated before, between Mr. John Sterling the principal, and the students, about a right to chuse a rector, whose office and power is somewhat like that of the vice-chancellor of Oxford or Cambridge. Mr. Robertson took part with his fellow- students, and was appointed by them, together with William Campbell, esq. son of Campbell of Mamore, whose family has since succeeded to the estates and titles of Argyle, to wait upon the principal with a petition signed by more than threescore matriculated students, praying that he would, on the 1st day of March, according to the statutes, summon an university-meeting for the election of a rector; which petition he rejected with contempt. On this Mr. Campbell, in his own name and in the name of all the petitioners, protested against the principal’s refusal, and all the petitioners went to the house of Hugh Montgomery, esq. the unlawful rector, where Mr. Robertson read aloud the protest against him and his- authority. Mr. Robertson, by these proceedings, became the immediate and indeed the only object of prosecution. He was cited before the faculty, i. e. the principal and the professors of the university, of wbotn the principal was sure of a majority, and, after a trial which lasted several clays, had the sentence of expulsion pronounced against him; of which sentence he demanded a copy, and was so fully persuaded of the justice of his cause, and the propriety of his proceedings, that he openly and strenuously acknowledged and adhered to what he had done. Upon this, Mr. Lowdon, his tutor, and Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek, wrote letters to Mr. Robertson’s father, acquainting him of what had happened, and assuring him that his son had been expelled, not for any crime or immorality, but for appearing very zealous in a dispute about a matter of right between the principal and the students. These letters Mr. Robertson sent inclosed hi 'one from himself, relating his proceedings and suffer! ngs in the cause of what he thought justice and right. Upon this his father desired him to take every step he might think proper, to assert and maintain his own and his fellowstudents claims; and accordingly Mr. Robertson went up to London, and presented a memorial to John duke of Argyle, containing the claims of the students of the university of Glasgow, their proceedings in the vindication of them, and his own particular sufferings in the cause. The duke received him very graciously, but said, that “he was little acquainted with things of this sort;” and advised him “to apply to his brother Archibald earl of Hay, who was better versed in such matters than he.” He then waited on lord Hay, who, upon reading the representation of the case, said “he would consider of it.” And, upon consideration of it, he was so affected, that he applied to the king for a commission to visit the university of Glasgow, with full power to examine into and rectify all abuses therein. In the summer of 1726, the earl of Hay with the other visitors repaired to Glasgow, and, upon a full examination into the several injuries and abuses complained of, they restored to the students the right of electing their rector; recovered the right of the university to send two gentlemen, upon plentiful exhibitions, to Baliol college in Oxford; took off the expulsion of Mr. Robertson, and ordered that particularly to be recorded in the proceedings of the commission; annulled the election uf the rector who had been named by the principal; and assembled the students, who immediately chose the master of Ross, son of lord Ross, to be their rector, &c. These things so affected Mr* Sterling, that he died soon after; but the university revived, and has since continued in a most flourishing condition.

Lord Hay had introduced Mn Robertson to bishop Hoadly, who mentioned him to archbishop Wake, and he was entertained with much civility by those great prelates. As he was then too young to be admitted into orders, he employed his time in London in visiting the public libraries, attending lectures, and improving himself as opportunities offered. He had the honour to be introduced to lord-chancellor King, by a very kind letter from Dr. Hort, bishop of Kilmore, and was often with his lordship. In 1727 Dr. John Hoadly, brother to the bishop of Salisbury, was nominated to the united bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin in Ireland. Mr. Robertson was introduced to him by his brother; and, from a love of the natale solum, was desirous to go thither with him. Mr. Robertson then informed the archbishop of Canterbury of his design; and his Grace gave him a letter of recommendation to Dr. Goodwin, archbishop of Cashel, who received him in a most friendly manner, but died soon after. The first person whom Dr. Hoadly ordained, after he was consecrated bishop of Ferns, was Mr. Robertson, whose letters of deacon’s orders bear date January 14, 1727; and in February the bishop nominated him to the cure of Tullow in the county of Carlow: and here he continued till he was of age sufficient to be ordained a priest, which was done November 10, 1729; and the next day he was presented by lord Carteret, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the rectory of Ravilly in the county of Carlow, and to the rectory of Kilravelo in the county of Widow; and soon after was collated to the vicarages of the said parishes by the bishop of Ferns. These were the only preferments he had till 1738, when Dr. Synge, bishop of Ferns, collated him to the vicarages of Rathmore and Straboe, and the perpetual cure of Rahil, all in the county of Carlow. These together produced art income of about 200l. a-year. But, as almost the whole lands of these parishes were employed in pasture, the tithes would have amounted to more than twice that sum if the herbage had been paid for black cattle, which was certainly due by law. Several of the clergy of Ireland had,, before him, sued for this herbage in the Court of Exchequer, and obtained decrees in their favour. Mr. Robertson, encouraged by the exhortations and examples of his brethren, commenced some suits in the Exchequer for this herbage, and succeeded in every one of them. But when he had, by this means, doubled the value of his benefices, the House of Commons in Ireland passed several severe resolutions against the clergy who had sued, or would sue, for this “nexv demand,” as they called it, which encouraged the graziers to oppose it so obstinately as to put a period to that demand. This proceeding of the Commons provoked Dean Swift to write “The Legion- Club.” Mr. Robertson soon after published a pamphlet, entitled “A Scheme for utterly abolishing the present heavy and vexatious Tax of Tithe;” the purport of which was, to pay the clergy and impropriators a tax upon the land in lieu of all tithes. This went through several editions: but nothing farther was done in it.

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

While the “History of Scotland” was in the press, Dr. Robertson removed, with his family, from Gladsmuir to Edinburgh, in consequence of a presentation which he had received to one of the churches of that city. His preferments now multiplied rapidly. In 1759, he was appointed chaplain of Stirling castle; in 1761, one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary for Scotland; and in 1762 he was chosen principal of the university of Edinburgh. Two years afterward, the office of king’s historiographer for Scotland (with a salary of 200l. a year) was revived in his favour. About this time, likewise, it appears that he was solicited to become a member of the church of England, by friends who considered that establishment as more likely to reward his merit than the highest emoluments his own church could afford. He resisted this temptation, however, with a decision which prevented its being farther urged, although it appears at the same time, from his correspondence, that he would not have been sorry to accept any situation which might have relieved him from the duties of his pastoral office, and afford him the power of applying himself wholly to his studies. His refusal, therefore, as his biographer justly observes, “became the consistency and dignity of his character,” and it is greatly to his honour, that whatever offices or wealth he acquired throughout life, were the fair reward of his own exertions. He was, however, about this time, desirous of profiting by the indulgence the public had shewn him, and consulted his friends relative to the choice of another historical subject. A history of England was strongly recommended, and encouragement promised from the most exalted source of honour. His majesty was pleased to express a wish to see a history of England from his pen, and the earl of Bute promised him every assistance that could be derived from the records in possession of government, and held out the most flattering views of encouragement in other respects. At first Dr. Robertson was averse to this scheme, as interfering with the plan of Hume, with whom, notwithstanding the contrariety of their sentiments, both in religion and politics, he lived in the greatest friendship; but afterwards, wben the royal patronage was so liberally tendered, appears to have inclined to the undertaking. This perhaps cannot be better expressed than in his own words. “The case, I now think, is entirely changed. His (Hume’s) history will have been published several years before any work of mine on the same subject can appear: its first run will not be marred by any jostling with me, and it will have taken that station in the literary system which belongs to it. This objection, therefore, which I thought, and still think, so weighty at that time, makes no impression on me at present, and I can now justify my undertaking the English history, to myself, to the world, and to him. Besides, our manner of viewing the same subject is so different or peculiar, that (as was the case in our last books) both may maintain their own rank, have their own partizans, and possess their own merit, without hurting each other.”

What “station in the literary system” Hume’s history might have occupied, if Dr. Robertson had executed his intention, it is impossible to conjecture. It is certain, however, that after a lapse of nearly half a century no work has appeared which can be at all compared to Hume’s, in jrespect to popularity, or rather that commanding influence which a work of established reputation attains, notwithstanding any defects which criticism or superior opportunities of knowledge may point out. The contest between two such writers would have been a noble object of curiosity; and to have been so near it, as the world once was, may yet be felt as a severe disappointment.

After an interval of eight years, Dr. Robertson produced his “History of America,” 1777, 2 vols. 4to, in undertaking which his original intention was only to complete his account of the great events connected with the reign of Charles V.; but perceiving, as he advanced, that a history of America, confined solely to the operations and concerns of the Spaniards, would not be likely to excite a very general interest, he resolved to include in his plan the transactions of all the European nations in the New World. The origin and progress of the British empire there, however, he destined for the subject of one entire volume, but afterwards abandoned, or rather suspended the execution of this part of his design, as he was of opinion that during a civil war between Great Britain and her colonies, inquiries and speculations concerning ancient forms of policy and laws, which no longer existed, could not be interesting. It would be superfluous to say how much this work enlarged his fame, unless, indeed, which is no hyperbole, we consider the fame arising from his former works as incapable of enlargement. He treated a subject here, which demanded all his abilities, and afforded a full scope for his genius, and he proved how eminently he could excel in splendid, romantic, and poetical delineations, with the originals of which he could not be supposed to have much interest. This work, however, laid him more open to censure than any of his former. The world had become more critical, and from having enjoyed the excellence of his histories of Scotland and of Charles V. more fastidious; and perhaps the dread of his acknowledged name had in some degree been abated by time. Besides, it was impossible by any force of argument to vindicate the disposition he shews to palliate or to veil the enormities of the Spaniards in their American conquests. This was the more unaccountable in an author whose writings in general are most friendly to the interests of humanity, and who in his previous researches and inquiries after information, lay under no extraordinary obligaiions to the Spanish court. This blemish in his history was soon followed by a compliment which shews too evidently the light in which it was viewed in Spain. He Was elected a member of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid, “in testimony of their approbation of the industry and care wiih which he has applied to the study of Spanish history, and as a recompense for his. merit in baling contributed so much to illustrate and spread the knowledge of it in foreign countries.” The academy at the same time appointed one of its members to translate the History of America into Spanish, but the government put a stop to the undertaking. It may here be introduced, that as these volumes did not complete Dr. Robertson’s original design, he announced in his preface his intention to resume the subject at a future period. A fragment of this intended work, entitled “Two additional chapters of the History of America,” 4to, was published after his death.

In consequence of the interruption of Dr. Robertson’s plans, which was produced by the American revolution, he was led to think of some other subject which might, in the mean time, give employment to his studious leisure. Many of his friends suggested the history of Great Britain from the Revolution to the accession of the house of Hanover; and he appears to have entertained some thoughts of acceding to their wishes. Mr. Gibbon, with whom he was in the habit of intimate correspondence, recommended to him to write a history of the Protestants in France. What answer he returned to this is not known; nor have we learned what the circumstances were which induced him to lay aside his plan with respect to the history of England. For some time, however, he seems to have relinquished all thoughts of writing any more for the publick. His circumstances were now independent, he was approaching to the age of sixty, with a constitution considerably impaired by a sedentary life. He retired from the business of the General Assembly about the year 1780; and, for seven or eight years, divided the hours which he could spare from his professional duties between the luxury of reading and the conversation of his friends. To this literary leisure the public is indebted for a valuable performance, of which the materials seem almost insensibly to have swelled to a volume, long after his most intimate friends imagined that he had renounced all tt ughts of the press. The “Historical Disquisition concerning the knowledge which the Ancients had of India, and the Progress of Trade with that country prior to the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope,” 1791, 4to, took its rise, as he himself informs us, from the perusal of major Rennet’s excellent memoir for illustrating his map of Hindostan. This suggested to his mind the idea of examining, more fully than he had done in his History of America, into the knowledge which the ancients had of India: and of considering what is certain, what is obscure, and what is fabulous in their accounts of that remote country. It is divided into four sections. He published this work in his sixty-eighth year; and it appears to have been written in about twelve months. Although less amusing to common readers than his former works, and become less interesting wpon the whole, in consequence of the discoveries since brought to light in Asia, it is not inferior in diligence of research, soundness of judgment, or perspicuity of method.

With this publication his historical labours closed labours which, for extent and variety, have not been equalled by any writer in our times. All the essential merits of a historian were his; fidelity, the skill of narrative, the combination of philosophy with detail, so seldom attempted, and generally so unsuccessfully executed, and the power of giving an uncommon interest to his personages and events in the mind of the reader. His style has been iSo justly characterized by his biographer, that we may, without hesitation, recommend it as a decision from which it will not be easy to appeal. “The general strain of his composition,” says professor Stewart, “is flowing, equal, and majestic; harmonious beyond that of most English writers, yet seldom deviating, in quest of harmony, into inversion, redundancy, or affectation. If, in some passages, it may be thought that the effect might have been heightened by somewhat more of variety in the structure and cadence of his periods, it must be recollected, that this criticism involves an encomium on the beauty of his style; for it is only when the ear is habitually gratified, that the rhythm of composition becomes an object of the reader’s attention. The same judicious critic has re* marked, that,” perhaps, on the whole, it will be found that of all his performances Charles V. is that which unites the various requisites of good writing in the greatest degree. The style is more natural and flowing than that of the History of Scotland: while, at the same time, idiomatical phrases are introduced with so sparing and timid a hand, that it is easy to perceive the author’s attention to correctness was not sensibly diminished. In the History of America, although it contains many passages equal, if not superior, to anything else in his writings, the composition does not seem to me to be so uniformly polished as that of his former works; nor does it always possess, in the same degree, the recommendations of conciseness and simplicity."

In his own country, Dr. Robertson’s reputation was considerably enhanced by his conduct as a leading member of the General Assembly of the church of Scotland, the proceedings of which he regulated, in difficult times and trying emergencies, with great political skill, address, and elo* quence, for nearly thirty years. In his pastoral office he was also very assiduous, preaching once every Sunday until a short time before his death. Of his sermons, one only has been printed; but their general merit may be understood from the character given by his colleague, the late Dr. Erskine: “They were so plain,” says this candid and venerable man, “that the most illiterate might easily understand them, and yet so correct and elegant that they could not incur their censure whose taste was more refined. For several years before his death, he seldom wrote his sermons fully, or exactly committed his older sermons to memory though, ha>l I not learned this from hi;p.self, I should not have suspected it; such was the variety and fitness of his illustrations, the accuracy > of his method, and the propriety of his style.” To his other merits may likewise be added, the diligence, address, and ability, with which he studied and promoted the interests of the university, as Principal, which will be long remembered to his honGtir. In all his public characters he had the happy talent of gaining influence without the appearance of effort, and of conciliating differences without departing from consistency, or endangering friendship, Ah his pursuits were those of a great, a steady, and a persevering mind. His private and social virtues, which are also highly spoken of, no doubt contribute to the commanding celebrity of his public character.

, an eminent French mathematician, was born in 1602, at Roberval, a parish in the diocese of Beauvais. He was first professor of mathematics at the college of Maitre-Gervais, and afterwards at the college-royal. A similarity of taste connected him with Gassendi andMorin; the latter of whom he succeeded in the mathematical chair at the royal college? without quitting, however, that of Ramus. Roberval made experiments on the Torricellian vacuum: he invented two new kinds of balance, one of which was proper for weighing air; and made many other curious experiments. He was one of the first members of the ancient academy of sciences of 1666; but died in 1675, at seventy-thre years of age. His principal works are, 1. “A treatise on Mechanics.” 2. A work entitled “Aristarchus Samos.” Several memoirs inserted in the volumes ofl the academy of sciences of 1666; viz. 1. Experiments concerning the pressure of the air. 2. Observations on the composition of motion, and on the tangents of curve lines. 3. The recognition of equations. 4. The geometrical resolution of plane and cubic equations. 5. Treatise on indivisibles. 6. On the Trochoicl, or Cycloid. 7. A letter to father Mersenne. 8. Two letters from Torricelli. 9. A new kind of balance. Robervallian Lines were his, for the transformation of figures. They bound spaces that are infinitely extended in length, which are nevertheless equal to other spaces that are terminated on all sides. The abbot Gallois, in the Memoirs of the Royal Academy, anno 1693, observes, that the method of transforming figures, explained at the latter end of RobervaPs treatise of indivisibles, was the same with that afterwards published by James Gregory, in his Geometria Ujiiversalis, and also by Barrow in his LectiotteV Geometric^; and that, by a letter of Torricelli, it appears, that Roberval was the inventor of this manner of transforming figures, by means of certain lines, which Torricelli therefore called Robervaliian Lines. He adds, that it is highly probable, that J. Gregory first learned the method in the journey he made to Padua in 1668, the method itself having been known in Italy from 164-6, though the book was not published till 1692. This account David Gregory has endeavoured to refute, in vindication of his uncle James. His answer is inserted in the Philos. Trans, of 1694, and the abbot rejoined in the French Memoirs of the Academy of 1703.

, the most ferocious of those tyrants which the French revolution produced, was born at Arras in 1759, where his father was a lawyer, a man of character and knowledge in his profession, but so improvident as to die insolvent, and leave his two sons, of whom Maximilian was the eldest, in poverty. They soon, however, found a generous patron in De Conzie, bishop of Arras, who in a manner adopted them, but honoured Maximilian with his particular care, and after providing him with school education, sent him to Paris, and procured him an exhibition in the college of Louis Le Grand. The manner in which Robespierre conducted himself here, answered the expectation of his protector. He was assiduous and successful in his studies, and obtained many of the yearly prizes. There was nothing, however, about him, which indicated his future destiny. Being an apt scholar, it might be thought that he would make a figure in the world; but we are told that even this was not the case, and that his instructors discovered neither in his conversation nor his actions any trace of that propensity, which could lead them to conjecture that his glory would exceed the bounds of the college. When he had, however, attained the age of sixteen or seventeen, he was advised to study the law; and this he pursued, under the auspices of a Mons. Ferrieres, but displayed no extraordinary enthusiasm for the profession. He had neither perseverance, address, nor eloquence, and, according to one of his biographers, his consciousness of inferiority to those who were making a great figure at the bar, gave him an air of gloominess and dissatisfaction. It was at first determined, that he should practise before the parliament of Paris, but this scheme was never carried into execution, for he returned to his native province, and was admitted an advocate in the supreme council of Artois. About this time he is said to have published, in 1783, a treatise on electricity, in order to remove the vulgar prejudices against conductors. In this piece he introduced a laboured eloge on the character of Louis XVI.; but the subject of his next literary performance was yet more remarkable; it was against death as a punishment, and in this he reproaches all modern governments for permitting such a punishment to remain on their codes, and even doubts the right claimed by society to cut off the life of an individual!

Such were the sentiments and situation of this man, when the revolution took place, and raised him, and hundreds equally obscure, and perhaps more contemptible, into some degree of consequence. Robespierre, however inferior hitherto in fame, was conscious that he had many of the materials about him that were wanted at this time. Either he actually had good qualities, which is scarcely credible, or by the most consummate hypocrisy, he persuaded the people that he was a steady and upright man. He was elected a representative to the states general, but although he attached himself by turns to the faction that seemed uppermost, he remained long in a state of obscurity. He was considered as a passionate hot-headed young man, whose chief merit consisted in his being warm in the cause of liberty. He had, we are told, another merit, that of bringing the term aristocrat into common use, which afterwards became the watchword of his proscriptions. He tried, too, a journal called “L'Union, ou Journal de la Liberté,” which was conducted with extreme violence. But it was suited to the people who read it, and Robespierre obtained the surname of the Incorruptible, from an affectation of independence, and continually declaiming against courtly corruption.

The Jacobin club, however, raised Robespierre to power and celebrity; they even proclaimed “that the national assembly had ruined France, and Robespierre alone could save it.” It was during the national convention that he attained the summit of his ambition, if indeed he knew what that was. In the first legislature, he joined the patriots, as they were called; in the second he declared for the republicans, and in both the party to which he attached himself proved victorious. In the third, the national convention, he carried all before him; the commune of Paris, the Jacobin club, and even the convention itself, were filled with his creatures, and became obedient to his commands. A scene of blood followed, which exceeded the proscriptions of Sylla and Marius. Men and women of all ranks perished indiscriminately. Suspected persons, that is, those either dreaded or hated by this monster and his accomplices, were arrested; domiciliary visits awakened the sleeping victims of persecution to misery and destruction while revolutionary tribunals, as they were called, condemned them by scores, unpitied and even unheard. The laws were no longer maintained; the idea of a constitution became intolerable; all power was concentrated in a junto, called the Committee of Public Safety, which regulated every thing, absolved or tried, spoiled or enriched, murdered or saved; and this committee was entirely reguJated by the will of Robespierre, who governed it by means of his creatures, St. Just and Couthon. In the short space of two years, nearly 3000 persons perished by the guillotine in Paris only. Even the revolutionary forms were thought too dilatory; the execution of four or five in a day did not satiate Robespierre’s vengeance; the murder of thirty or forty was demanded, and obtained; the streets became deluged with blood; canals were necessary to convey it to the Seine; and experiments were actually made at one of the prisons with an instrument for cutting off half a score heads at a single motion. Among the victims of this tyrant, it ought not to be forgot, that the greater part of those men perished, who had been the means of revolutionizing the people, and so deluding them with the pretences of liberty, that they could calmly exchange the mild government of a Louis XVI. for that of a Robespierre. In this retributive justice was guided by a superior hand.

At length Robespierre began to be dreaded even by his own accomplices, while the nation at large, roused from its infatuation, looked eagerly forward to the destruction of this monster. In this, however, the nation at large had no share. It was the work of his accomplices; it was still one faction destroying another, and although a second Robespierre did not immediately rise, the way remained open to one whose tyrannical ambition was not satisfied with France as his victim. The first storm against Robespierre burst in the convention; and after exercising its violence as all preceding storms of that kind had, Robespierre was arrested on July 9, 1794, and next day was led to execution, amidst the execrations of the people. His fall, it has been well observed, was the triumph of fear rather than of justice; and the satisfaction with which it must be contemplated, was incomplete, because a few monsters even worse than himself were among the foremost in sending him to the scaffold. His punishment, however, was as signal as his crimes. His under jaw was shattered with a pistol shot, either by himself in an ineffectual attempt at suicide, or by a gendarme in the struggle; it was bound up with a slight dressing as he lay in the lobby of the convention, he wished to wipe away the blood which filled his mouth, they gave him a bloody cloth, and as he pushed it from him, they paid to him “It is blood it is what thou likest!” There he lay on one of the benches, and, in his agony of mind and body, clenched one of his thighs through his torn clothes with such force that his nails entered his own flesh, and were rimmed round with blood. He was carried to the same dungeon which Hebert, and Chaumette, and Danton, had successively occupied the gaoler knocked him about without ceremony, and when he made signs to one of them (for he could not speak) to bring him pen and ink, the man made answer—“What dost thou want with it? is it to write to thy Maker? thou wilt see him presently!” He was placed in a cart between Henriot and Couthon; the shops, and the windows, and the house-tops were crowded with rejoicing spectators to see him pass, and as the cart proceeded, shouts of exultation went before it, and surrounded it, and followed its way. His head was wrapt in a bloody cloth which bound up his shattered jaw, so that his pale and livid countenance was but half seen. The horsemen who escorted him shewed him to the spectators with the point of their sabres. The mob stopt him before the house in which he lived; some women danced before the cart, and one of them cried out to him, “Descend to hell with the curses of all wives and of all mothers” The executioner, when preparing for the performance of his office, roughly tore off the bandage from his wound; Robespierre then uttered a dreadful cry, his under jaw fell from the upper, and the head while he was yet living exhibited as ghastly a spectacle as when a few minutes afterwards Sampson, the executioner, holding it by the hair, exhibited it to the multitude.

On his return home from one of these excursions, he found the learned here amused with Dr. Berkeley’s treatise, printed in 1734, entitled “The Analyst;” in which an examination was made in the grounds of the fluxionary method, and occasion taken thus to explode that method. Robins therefore was advised to clear up this affair, by giving a full and distinct account of sir Isaac Newton’s doctrines in such a manner as to obviate all the objections, without naming them, which had been advanced -by the author of “The Analyst;” and accordingly he published, in 1735, “A Discourse concerning the nature and certainty of sir Isaac Newton’s method of Fluxions, and of prime and ultimate ratios.” Some even of those who had written against “The Analyst,” taking exception at Robins’s manner of defending sir Isaac Newton’s doctrine, he afterwards wrote two or three additional discourses. In 1738, he defended sir Isaac Newton against an objection, contained in a note at the end of a Latin piece, called “Matho, sive Cosmotheoria puerilis,” written by Baxter, author of the “Inquiry into the Nature of the human Soul;” and, the year after, printed “Remarks” on Euler’s “Treatise of Motion,” on Smith’s “System of Optics,” and on Jurin’s “Discourse of distinct and indistinct Vision,” annexed to Dr. Smith’s work. In the mean time Robins’s performances were not confined to mathematical subjects: for, in 1739, there came out three pamphlets upon political affairs, which did him great honour. The first was entitled “Observations on the present Convention with Spain;” the second, “A Narrative of what passed in the Common Hall of the citizens of London, assembled for the election of a lord mayor;” the third, “An Address to the Electors and other free subjects of Great Britain, occasioned by the late Succession; in which is contained a particular account of all our negotiations with Spain, and their treatment of us for above ten years past.” These were all published without his name; and the first and last were so universally esteemed, that they were generally reputed to have been the production of Mr. Pulteney, who was at the head of the opposition to sir Robert Walpole. They proved of such consequence to Mr. Robins as to occasion his being employed in a very honourable post; for, the opposition having defeated sir Robert, and a committee of the House of Commons being appointed to" examine into his past conduct, Robins was chosen their secretary. But after a committee had presented two reports of their proceedings, a sudden stop was put to their farther progress, by a compromise between the contending parties.

, an English mathematician, was born in Staffordshire about the close of the 15th century, as he was entered a student at Oxford in 1516, and was in 1620 elected a fellow of All Souls college, where he took his degrees in arts, and was ordained. But the bent of his genius lay to the sciences, and he soon made such a progress, says Wood, in “the pleasant studies of mathematics and astrology, that he became the ablest person in his time for those studies, not excepted his friend Record, whose learning was more general. At length, taking the degree of B. D. in 1531, he was the year following made by king Henry the VIIIth (to whom he was chaplain) one of the canons of his college in Oxon, and in December 1543, canon of Windsor, and in fine chaplain to queen Mary, who had him in great veneration for his learning. Among several things that he hath written relating to astrology (or astronomy) I find these following: `De culminatione Fixarum Stellarum,‘ &c.; `De ortu et occasu Stellarum Fixarum,’ &c.; ‘Annotationes Astrologicæ,’ &c. lib. 3;‘ `Annotationes Edwardo VI.;’ `Tractatus de prognosticatione per Eclipsin.‘ All which books, that are in ms. were some time in the choice library of Mr. Thomas Allen of Glocester Hall. After his death, coming into the hands of Sir Kenelm Digby, they were by him given to the Bodleian library, where they yet remain. It is also said, that he the said Robyns hath written a book entitled `De Portentosis Cometis;’ but such a thing I have not yet seen, nor do I know any thing else of the author, only that paying his last debt to nature the 25th of August 1558, he was buried in the chapel of St. George, at Windsore.” This treatise “De Portentosis Cometis,” which Wood had not seen, is in the royal library (12 B. xv.); and in the British museum (Ayscough’s Cat.) are other works by Robins; and one “De sterilitatem generantibus,” in the Ashmolean museum.

No primate ever sat in the see of Armagh, who watchedmore carefully over the legal rights of the church of Ireland, as the statute-book evinces. The act of the 11th and 12th of his present majesty, which secures to bishops and eccle^­siastical persons repayment by their successors of expenditures in purchasing glebes and houses, or building new houses, originated from him, and must ever endear his name to the clergy. The other acts for repairing churches, and facilitating the recovery of ecclesiastical dues, were among the many happy exertions of this primate.

But it was at Armagh, the ancient seat of the primacy, that he displayed a princely munificence. A very elegant palace, 90 feet by 60, and 40 high, adorns that town; it is light and pleasing, without the addition of wings or lesser parts; which too frequently, wanting a sufficient uniformity with the body of the edifice, are unconnected with it in effect, and divide the attention. Large and ample offices are conveniently placed behrnd a plantation at a small distance. Around the palace is a large lawn, which spreads on every side over the hills, skirted by young plantations, in one of which is a terrace, which commands a most beautiful view of cultivated hill and dale. This view from the palace is much improved by the barracks, the school,, and a new church at a distance all which are so placed as to be exceedingly ornamental to the whole country. The barracks were erected under the primate’s direction, and form a large and handsome edifice. The school is a building of considerable extent, and admirably adapted for the purpose; a more beautiful, or one better contrived, is no where to be seen; there are apartments for a master; a schoolroom 56 feet by 28, a large dining-room and spacious airy dormitories, with every other necessary, and a spacious play-ground, walled in; the whole forming a handsome front: and attention being paid to the residence of the master (the salary is 400l. a year) the school flourishes, and must prove one of the greatest advantages to the country. This edifice was built entirely at the primate’s expence. The church is erected of white stone, and having a tall spire, makes a very agreeable object, in a country where churches and spires do not abound. The primate built three other churches, and made considerable reparations in the cathedral: he was also the means of erecting a public infirmary, contributing amply to it himself. He likewise constructed a public library at his own cost, endowed it, and gave it a large collection of books. The roorh is 45 feet by 25, and 20 high, with a gallery; and apartments for the librarian. The town he ornamented with a markethouse and shambles, and was the direct means, by giving leases upon that condition, of almost new building the whole place He found it a nest of mud-cabins, and he left it a well-built city of stone and slate. Nor was he forgetful of the place of his education. On the new gate, built by Wyat, for Christ-church, Oxford, the primate is commemorated as one of the principal contributors to the expence of building that gate and repairing Canterbury quadrangle. In these noble and spirited works, the primate expended upwards of 30,000l. The celebrated Mrs. Montagu was cousin to this prelate; and her brother, the late eccentric lord Rokeby, his successor in that title, on which, however, he set no value.

In the year 1782, Mr, Robinson published “A Political Catechism,” intended to convey, in a familiar manner, what he conceived to be just ideas of good civil government, and the British constitution. In 1786, he published “Sixteen Discourses on several Texts of Scripture, addressed to Christian Assemblies, in villages near Cambridge; to which are added, Six Morning Exercises.” Such of these as touch on doctrinal subjects were written in a manner which gave his friends reason to think that he was now beginning to depart from the principles he had hitherto held so strenuously; and they were not mistaken. With his congregation at Cambridge, however, he still continued his ministerial labours; and remained high in their esteem, although, as a public instructor, he must, among so many changes, have become either useless or dangerous.

During the latter years of his life the intense application he had bestowed on his work on Baptism undermined the strength of his constitution, and brought on a gradual decay, attended with a great depression of spirits. In these circumstances, it was hoped by his family that a journey to Birmingham, and an interview with Dr. Priestley, which he had long wished for, might prove beneficial to him. Having arrived at that town, he ventured to preach twice on the same Sunday, for the benefit of the charity schools. His friends perceived that he was ill, but none of them suspected his end was so near; he spent the evening of the following Tuesday in the cheerful society of his friends, but next morning, June 8, 1790, he was found dead in his bed. Some time before this he had become a complete convert to the doctrines of the modern Socinians; a change which they seem willing to attribute to the writings of Dr. Priestley. This divine, we are told, charmed as he was with Mr. Robinson’s conversation, confessed himself much disappointed with his preaching, and characterized it in these words: “His discourse was unconnected and desultory: and his manner of treating the Trinity savoured rather of burlesque than serious reasoning. He attacked orthodoxy more pointedly and sarcastically than ever I did in my life.” Few of our readers will require any other character of Mr. Robinson’s attacks on those principles which he once held sacred. His largest work, “The History of Baptism,” &c. appeared after his death in a quartovolume, with another connected with the subject, but entitled, “Ecclesiastical Researches;” both written with considerable ability, but less finished than if he had lived to prepare them for the press. The latter, in particular, exhibits striking proofs of his rooted inveteracy to the established church, as well as of his glaring inconsistency. He appears, indeed, in none of his works, as a man who had attained that truth, or those positions, which he sought to establish; what was wanting in argument he aimed to supply by a kind of buffoonery peculiar to himself; and yet, while thus versatile and unsteady in all his opinions, no man was more intolerant towards those who rested in the belief of what they had been taught, and were desirous to propagate.

In 1788, when a general stir was made by the dissenters, throughout the kingdom, to obtain the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, and when the Midland counties were made to feel the more intense flame which burned pretty widely, through the adjacent influence of Dr. Priestley, a large central meeting, for the purpose of promoting the common object, was held at Leicester, to which Mr. Robinson was earnestly invited, but be peremptorily refused, and that in language which could not be agreeable; for, among other things, he told the applicants that it was “money and power” which they wanted, and “not the means of serving God more acceptably, or of preaching his gospel more extensively.” Strong attachment to government; deference to the powers that be; an high sense of the importance and utility of a dignified hierarchy, together with cordial approbation of the forms and discipline of the church of England, not less than of her doctrines; were a sort of primary element in his mind. On the same principles, one of his last public acts was to unite with a large body of his brother clergymen, in petitioning parliament against the repeal of the remaining restrictions upon popery.

The seventh of March 1813 was the thirty-ninth anniversary of Mr. Robinson’s connection, as a preacher, with the town of Leicester. He had been vicar of St. Mary’s during thirty-four years, and by his zeal and ability in performing his pastoral duties, as well as by his pious and benevolent character in private life, had overcome all opposition and all prejudice, when he was seized with a fit of apoplexy on the 24th of the month before-mentioned, and expired within a few hours, in his sixty-fourth year. For many minutiae of character, many illustrative anecdotes, and much discussion on his character and writings, we must refer to our authority. Besides his “Scripture Characters,” already noticed, he was the author of “A serious exhortation to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, with reference to the approaching Fast,” 1795; “An address to the Loyal Leicester Volunteer Infantry,” 1795; “The Christian System unfolded, or Essays on the Doctrines and Duties of Christianity,” 3 vols. 8vo, intended as a popular body of divinity, but drawn out in the form of Essays, instead of Sermons, in winch the subjects had been formerly discussed from the pulpit “The Parochial Minister’s address to his Parishioners” a tract “On Confirmation” “Address on the Peace of 1802;” “The Serious Call;” one or two occasional sermons, and “Prophecies on the Messiah.”

In 1770, sir Charles Knowles having gone to Russia, on the invitation of the empress Catherine, then intent on the improvement of her. marine, he invited Mr. Robison to accompany him as his official secretary, with a salary of 250l. a-year. As he was still attached to the navy and to his former patron, and as, though lecturing on chemistry, he did not enjoy the rank of professor, Mr. Robison made no hesitation in accepting the proposal. His conduct at St. Petersburgh, and the knowledge which he had there occasion to display, -seems to have powerfully recommended him to the board of admiralty; for in 1772 he was appointed inspector-general of the corps of marine cadets, an academy consisting of upwards of four hundred young gentlemen and scholars under the tuition of about forty teachers. As the person who fills this office has the rank of lieutenant-colonel, it became necessary, by the customs of Russia, that Mr. Robison should prove himself a gentleman, or what is there called a dvoranin, and the proof required was entered on record. In this office his employment consisted in visiting daily every class of the academy; in receiving weekly reports from each master, stating the diligence and progress of every person in his class; and twice a year, in advancing the young gentlemen into the higher classes, according to their respective merits. Of these he was considered as the sole judge, and from his sentence there lay no appeal. He lived in terms of the utmost harmony with general Kutusoff, who was military head of the academy, and held the third place in the admiralty college. By him all Mr. Robison' s measures were supported, and he was even introduced to the notice of the grand duke, as an admirer of the Russian language, which his imperial highness patronized.

Of his lectures, in his new professorship, high expectations were formed and were not disappointed. If there was any defect, it was that he was sometimes abstruse, and did not lower himself sufficiently to the comprehension of his youthful auditors. This, however, appears to have been owing, not to any want of order or perspicuity, but to his expecting to find in them a more complete acquaintance with pure mathematics than many of them had attained. Unfortunately, he was prevented for many years from teaching, by a languishing state of health, accompanied with peculiar depression of spirits, a not unfrequent attendant on too entire a devotion to mathematical studies, and of the recluse and pensive habits which they tend to generate. By the judicious choice, however, which he made of substitutes, the want of his personal instructions was less severely felt. For a year or two before his death he Ibegan again to lecture, having only engaged the rev. Thomas Macknight to afford him occasional assistance; an office which was performed by that gentleman with acknowledged ability. When the Royal Society of Edinburgh was incorporated by charter in 1783, he was chosen by that learned body to be their general secretary, and discharged that office to their entire satisfaction, as long as his health permitted, on the decline of which he resigned it. To their Transactions he contributed several interesting papers.

A few years after, on the death of Dr. Black, Mr. Robison published the lectures of that great chemical discoverer, with notes, which are universally allowed to add greatly to their value. In consequence of Mr. Robison’s connexion with the court of Russia, a copy of this publication was sent to the reigning emperor, and the editor received, in return, the present of a box set in diamonds, accompanied by a letter strongly impressive of the regard in which his character and talents were held by that virtuous and enlightened monarch. The last work on which Mr. Robison’s attention and care was bestowed, was his “Elements of Mechanical Philosophy,” intended to comprize the substance of his lectures on that subject, and to consist of four or five volumes. The first appeared accordingly in 1804, and fully answered the expectations which the scientific world had entertained; and although his death prevented the completion of the plan, he is said to have left materials for a continuation, which are intended for the press. On Monday, Jan. 28, 1805. he delivered a lecture, as usual to his class, and went afterwards to take his accustomed walk. Being, however, exposed to a greater degree of cold than usual, he was seized soon after his return with un extreme degree of debility, which terminated in his death, Wednesday morning the 30th. This seems to have been less the consequence of any particular illness, than of a frame worn out by long-continued illness and suffering.

, a learned Italian, was a native of Rocca Contrata, a town in the marche of Ancona, and horn in 1545. When young he was sent to Camerino, where, in 1552, he took the habit among the hermits of St. Augustine, and remained so long here that some have given him the surname of Camero. He afterwards continued his studies at Rome, Venice, Perusia, and Padua. He received the degree of doctor of divinity at the university of Padua, in Sept. 1577, and acquired much celebrity as a preacher at Venice, and as a teacher of the belles lettres to the juniors of his order. In 1579 Fivizani, the vicargeneral of the Augustines, invited him to Rome to be iiis secretary, and pope Sixtus V. placed him in the Vatican in 1585, and confided to his superintendance those editions of the Bible, the councils, and the fathers, which issued from the apostolical press during his pontificate. In 1595, pope Clement VIII. made him apostolical sacristan in the room of Fivizani, now deceased, and titular bishop of Tagaste in Numidia. He collected a very large and excellent library, which he presented in his life-time, by a deed of gift, dated Oct. 23, 1614, to the Augustinian monastery at Rome; but upon the express condition, that it should be always open for the benefit of the public. Rocca died April 8, 1620, at the age of seventy-five. Rocca had read much, but was either deficient in, or seldom exercised his judgment, as appears by the most of his works. Among these may be mentioned his “Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,” which Fabricius calls a very trifling work “Bibliotheca Theologica et Scripturalis” “Notae in Novum Testamentum;” “De Patientia” “De Cometis” “Observationes in VI Libros Elegantiarum Laur. Valise;” “Observationes de Lingua Latina” and other pieces which were collected together, and printed in 1719, 2 vols. folio. From his manuscripts was aiso published, in 1745, a very curious collection, entitled “Thesaurus Pontificiarum Antiquitatum, necnon Rituurn ac Ceremoniarum,” in 2 vols. folio.

, a modern French writer, was born in 1731, at Lyons. He had an employ ment in the finances at Cette in Languedoc, which he held for ten years; but having more turn for literature than calculations, he went to Paris, and composed three tragedies upon the Greek models, but had no more success than others who have made similar experiments on the public taste. In prose he published a “Refutation du Systeme de la Nature;” a “Critical History of the opinions of the Ancients concerning Happiness, 1778,” 8vo; and a “Complete Translation of the Plays of Sophocles.” The last-named work gained him much credit by the elegance and fidelity of the version, and the judicious notes annexed to it. He undertook also a complete translation of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, of which the preliminary discourses and the notes obtained more applause than the version itself, which, however, he had splendidly printed at the royal press in 1781, in 4to. He was a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, to which he contributed several learned memoirs. He died in 1788, highly esteemed for a temper in which there was nothing unsocial or selfish. He was always, we are told, fonder of talking of other people’s works than of his own, a case, it is added, of some singularity in literary company.

, a celebrated naval commander, was the second son of Henry Rodney, esq. of Walton on Thames, and Mary, eldest daughter and coheir to sir Henry Newton, knight, envoy- extraordinary to Genoa, LL. D. judge of the high-court of admiralty, and chancellor of the diocese of London. His father, as a naval officer, commanded the yacht in which king George I. attended by the duke of Chandos, used to embark in going to or coming from Hanover, and in consequence, asked leave that his son might be called George Brydges. He was born in Dec. 1717. At the desire, or by the command, of his royal and noble god-fathers, he entered early into the navy, and in 1742 he was lieutenant in the Namur, commanded by admiral Matthews. In November of the same year, he was promoted by the admiral to the command of ili Plymouth, of shrty gtttts; on returning home he was removed into the Sheerness, a small frigate; and in 174i he was npp.iinied to the command of the Lucliowcastle, of furty-iour guns. In this ship he does not appear to have continued long, for in May 1746, he was captain of the Eagle, a new ship of sixty guns, then employed as a cruiser on the Irish station. While here he captured two large privateers. He continued in the Eagle during the remainder of the war, and was one of the commanders under the orders of rear-admiral Hawke, when in 1747 he defeated L'Etendiere’s squadron. On this occasion capt. Rodney behaved with much spirit, and may be said to have then laid the foundation of that popularity he afterwards in so high a degree possessed. On the conclusion of the war he was, in March 1749, appointed to the Rainbow, a fourth rate, and in May following was nominated governor and commander-in-chief in and over the island of Newfoundland. Immediately afterwards he proceeded thither with the small squadron annually sent there in time of peace, for the protection of the fishery. Some time after his return in 1753 he married Miss Compton, daughter of Charles Compton, esq. and sister to Spencer, then earl of Northampton. In 1757 he was engaged, under the command of admirals Hawke and Boscawen, to attempt a descent on the coast of France, near Rochefort; and in 1759 he was advanced rear-admiral of the blue. In this same year he was sent to bombard Havre de Grace, where a large force was collected for the purpose of attempting an invasion of this country. He executed the trust committed to him so completely, that the town itself was several times on fire, and the magazines of stores and ammunition burnt with fury upwards of six hours, notwithstanding the exertions used to extinguish it. Thus had admiral Rodney the happiness of totally frustrating the design of the French court; and so completely did he destroy their preparations, that the fort itself, as a naval arsenal, was no longer during the war in a state to annoy Great Britain. In 1761 admiral Rodney was very instrumental in the capture of the islands of St Pierre, Granada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent, when the whole Caribbees came into the possession of the English. For his skill and bravery in the war, he was, after the conclusion of it, raised to the dignity of a baronet. In 1768, after an expensive, and to sir George Rodney a ruinous, contest with Mr. Howe, he was elected member of parliament for Northampton. In the month of October 1770 he was progressively advanced to be vice-admiral of the white and red squadrons, and in the month of August 1771, to be rear-admiral of Great Britain. In the very arly part of this year he resigned the mastership of Greenwich hospital, to which he had been appointed in 1765, and was immediately after made commander-in-chief on the Jamaica station, whither he repaired, having his flag on board the Princess Amelia of 80 guns. The appointment of this ship to that service was intended as a particular and pointed compliment, it being extremely unusual to send a three-decked ship on that station, except in time of actual war. It is said the command in India was offered to him, which he declined, entertaining hopes of being appointed governor of Jamaica in case of the death of sir William Trelawney; but in this he was disappointed. After his return to England at the expiration of the time allotted for the continuance of his command, he retired to France, where he lived some years in obscurity, hoping to retrieve the losses he had suffered at the Northampton election. It is said that the French king wished to take advantage of his pecuniary embarrassments, and through the duke de Biron made him the most unbounded offers if he would quit the English for the French service. In reply to this proposal he said,“My distresses, sir, it is true, have driven me from the bosom of my country, but no temptation can estrange me from her service. Had this offer been voluntary on your part, I should have deemed it an insult, but I am glad to learn it proceeds from a source that can do no wrong.” The duke was so struck with the patriotism of the admiral, that he became attached to him as a friend, and is said to have advanced him a sum of money to revisit England, and solicit a command.

It has been observed that the victory of the 12th of April was gained by putting in practice an entirely new system of naval tactics, the adoption of which formed an era in our naval history, and may be regarded as the cause of the glorious victories by which the fame of British seamen has been raised to such a pitch of glory; and the maritime power of our enemies in the late war, has not only been crippled, but absolutely annihilated. It has been said, in order to derogate from the honour of the admiral, that, in the instance of the 12th of April, it was the effect of chance, and not effected by the foresight of sir George Rodney. This idea has been satisfactorily exposed and refuted. The only question on the subject is, whether the honour of the plan is due to admiral Rodney or Mr. Clerk, the author of a treatise on “Naval Tactics;” but on this our limits will not permit us to enter.

, a celebrated French professor of philosophy in the seventeenth century, was born, according to Bayle, in Duuphiny, but more probably at Orange, where, as well as at Die, Nismes, and Geneva, he taught philosophy, and was accounted the greatest master of dialectics in his time. The story of aut Erasmus aut diabolus has been told of him; a stranger to his person, when puzzled by his arguments, having exclaimed es diabolus aut Dtrodo. In physics he adhered to the principles of Gassendus. He had been educated in the protestant religion, but embraced that of popery in 1630, and published his reasons in a volume entitled “Quatre raisons pour lesquelles on doit quitter la religion pretendue reformee,” Paris, 1631, 12mo. Bayle had never seen this, and makes him to have been educated a papist. But whatever satisfaction his “quatre raisons” might have afforded to the catholics, they were not of permanent influence on his own mind, for he afterwards became again an adherent to the reformed religion, in which he died. In 1645 he published in 8vo, his “Disputatio de supposito,” at Francfort (Orange), in which, Bayle tells us, he declared for Nestorius against St. Cyril, not in admitting two persons, but in maintaining that Nestorius does not admit them, and that St. Cyril confounds the two natures of Jesus Christ. This was the opinion of Giles Gaillard, a gentleman of Provence, and an intimate friend of Rodon’s, whom he often quotes, but without naming. The work was condemned to be burnt by the parliament of Toulouse, and the copies are therefore now very rare. Bayle had not been able to procure one, and is misled by Sorbiere in thinking that Gaillard wrote a book with the same title as Rodon’s. But the work of Rodon which made the most noise was his “Tombeau de la Messe,” or downfall of the mass, published at Geneva in 1654, 8vo, 1662, Amst. 1682. For this he was banished from France, by an arret of Jan. 29, 1663, on which he took refuge in Geneva, where he died in 1664. Saurin, who saw him in that city about the time of his death, says he appeared to him to be perfectly orthodox. His character is amply discussed in Saurin’s controversy with Jurieu, “Examen de la Theologie de M. Jurieu, &c.” and Jurieu’s answers.

Senebier, in his literary history of Geneva, gives the following list of Rodon’s other works: 1. “Dispute de TEucharistie,” 1655, 8vo. 2. “Metaphysica,” Orange, 1659, 8vo. 3. “Logica restituta,” Geneva, 1659, 4to. 4. “De existentia Dei,” 1661, 4to. 5. “De Atomis,” Geneva, 1662, 8vo. This is probably his “Disputatio de libertate et atomis,” which he printed at Nismes the same year. 6. “Disputatio realis de ente reali,” Nismes, 1662. 7. “Disputes de la Messe,” or a discourse on these words, “This is my body,” Nismes,“1662, 8vo. 8.” Discours centre I'Astrologie judiciare,“1663, 8vo. 9.” Opera philosophica,“Geneva, 1664, 4to. 10.” Philosophia con^ tracta,“1664, 4to. 11.” La Lumiere de la raison opposee aux tenebres de I'lmpiete*,“Geneva, 1665. 12.” Les Inconstants,“Geneva, 1672, 8vo. To these from Senebier, we may add his” Compendium Logicæ,“1663, 8vo, and” L'Atheisme convaincu,“in 1649, 8vo. Some authors ascribe to him a treatise entitled” Messe trouvee dans L'Ecriture," 1647, 8vo, written when he was a catholic, but there is more reason to attribute this to Lucas Jansen.

, an able statesman and ambassador, was born at Low-Layton in Essex, about 1580, and admitted into Magdalen college, Oxford, in 1593. He was taken from the university in a year or two; and, after spending some time in one of the inns of court, and in France, was made esquire of the body to queen Elizabeth. In 1604, he was knighted by king James; and soon after sent, by Henry prince of Wales, to make discoveries in America. In 1614, he was sent ambassador to the great mogul, at whose court he continued till 1618. During his residence there, he employed himself zealously in the service of the East India merchants, but gave a singular offence to the grand mogul. This monarch, happy in his pride and ignorance, fancied his dominions to be the greater part of the habitable world. But his mortification was great when, in Mercator’s maps, presented to him by sir Thomas Roe, he found that he possessed but a small part of it; and he was so chagrined, that he ordered the maps to be given to sir Thomas again.

In 1620, he was elected a burgess for Cirencester in Gloucestershire; and, the year following, sent ambassador to the grand stignor; in which station he continued under the sultans Osman, Mustapha, and Amurath IV. In his passage to Constantinople, he wrote a letter to Villiers duke of Buckingham, then lord high admiral, complaining of the great increase of pirates in the Mediterranean sea; and, during his embassy, sent “A true and faithful relation to his majesty and the prince of what hath lately happened in Constantinople, concerning the death of sultan Osman, and the setting up of Mustapha his uncle,” which was printed at London in 1622, 4to. He kept a very curious account of his negociations at the Porte, which remained in manuscript till 1740, when it was published, by the society for promoting learning, under this title “The Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, in his Embassy to the Ottoman Porte, from the year 1621 to 1628 inclusive; containing a great variety of curious and important matters, relating not only to the affairs of the Turkish empire, but also to those of the other states of Europe in that period: his correspondences with the most illustrious persons, for dignity or character, as, with the queen of Bohemia, Bethlem Gabor prince of Transylvania, and other potentates of different nations, &c. and many useful and instructive particulars, as well in relation to trade and commerce as to subjects of literature; as, ancient manuscripts, coins, inscriptions, and other antiquities,” folio.

, an eminent physician and great benefactor to Scotland, was born at Sheffield in Yorkshire, in 1718. His father Whs a considerable manufacturer and exporter of Sheffield goods, and intended this his son for the same business, but perceiving his inclination to learning, determined to give him a liberal education, or such as was attainable among the dissenters, of which he was one of the strict sort. After sone school education, therefore, at Sheffield, he sent him to the academy kept by the celebrated Dr. Doddridge at Northampton, where thd young man laid the foundation of that classical taste and knowledge for which he was afterwards much distinguished. From Northampton he was sent to the university of Edinburgh, where he studied medicine, and particularly chemistry. After the usual course of these studies here, he pursued the same at Leyden, then considered as the first medical school in Europe, and took his doctor’s degree in February 1743.

It would be painful to mention the unhappy consequences of this ruinous adventure to his family and to himself. It cut off for ever the flattering prospect which they had of an independent fortune, suited to their education and rank in life. It made many cruel encroachments upon the time and occupations of a man whose mind was equally fitted to enjoy the high attainments of science, and the elegant amusements of taste. As the price of so many sacrifices, he was only enabled to draw from his colliery, and that by the indulgence of his creditors, a moderate annual maintenance for himself and his family during his life. At his death, his widow was left without any proVision whatever for her immediate or future support, and without the smallest advantage from the extraordinary exertions and meritorious industry of her husband.

, or Rømer (Olaus), a Danish astronomer and mathematician, was born at Arhusen in Jutland in 1644; and, at eighteen, was sent to the university of Copenhagen. He applied himself assiduously to the study of mathematics and astronomy, and became such an adept in those sciences, that, when Picard was sent by Lewis XIV. in 1671, to make observations in the North, he was so pleased with him, that he engaged him to return with him to France, and had him presented to the king, who ordered him to teach the dauphin mathematics, and settled a pension on him. He was joined with Picard and Cassini, in making astronomical observations; and, in 1672, was admitted a member of the academy of sciences. During the ten years he resided at Paris, he gained a prodigious reputation by his discoveries; yet is said. to have complained afterwards that his coadjutors ran away with the honour of many things which belonged to him. In 1681, Christian V. king of Denmark called him back to his own country, and made him professor of astronomy at Copenhagen. He employed him also in reforming the coin and the architecture, in regulating the weights and measures, and in measuring the high roads throughout the kingdom. Frederic IV. the successor of Christian, shewed the same favour to Roemer, and conferred new dignities on him. He was preparing to publish the result of his observations, when he died Sept. 19, 1710, aged 66; but some of his observations, with his manner of making those observations, were published in 1735, under the title of “Basis Astronomise,” by his scholar Peter Horrebow, then professor of astronomy at Copenhagen. Roemer was the first who found out the velocity with which light moves, by means of the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites. He had observed for many years that, when Jupiter was at his greatest distance from the earth, where he could be observed, the emersions of his first satellite happened constantly 15 or J 6 minutes later than the calculation gave them. Hence he concluded that the light reflected by Jupiter took up this time in running over the excess of distance, and consequently that it took up 16 or 18 minutes in running over the diameter of the earth’s orbit, and 8 or in coming from the sun to us, provided its velocity was nearly uniform. This discovery had at first many opposers but it was afterwards confirmed by Dr. Bradley in the most ingenious and beautiful manner.

, or rather Richard Of Hexham, an ancient historian, was brought up in the convent of Hexham, in Northumberland, where he embraced the monastic life, and was elected prior some time at least befqre 1138, for he saw the Scottish army march into Yorkshire, under their king David I. previous to the battle of the Standard, which was fought in September that year. He wrote the history of that campaign, wherein he points out, in the most declamatory style, the ravages committed by the Scottish army. But such was his ignorance, that he calls the Highlanders, and Galovidians, who composed part of king David’s army, P-icti, or Picts, as if they had painted their bodies in the same manner as in ancient times; whereas those people only wore party-coloured garments, which the Highlanders call Tartans.

, doctor of music, and an ecclesiastical composer, whose works are still contained in our cathedral service, and for whose fame Anthony Wood has manifested great zeal, was born at Windsor, and brought up in that college under Dr. Nath. Giles; being employed there, first as a singing boy, and afterwards in the capacity of lay clerk or singing man. Thence he went to Ireland, and was appointed organist of Christ-church ia Dublin, where he continued till the breaking out of the rebellion, in 1641; at which time, being forced to quit his station, he returned to Windsor, where he was again reinstated as choirman; but being soon after silenced in consequence of the civil wars, he procured a subsistence by teaching in the neighbourhood. And during this time, according to his friend Anthony Wood, having addicted himself much to study, he acquired great credit as a composer, and produced several sets of airs in four parts for violins and an organ, which being then imagined the best that could be composed of that kind, were sent as great rarities to the archduke Leopold, afterwards emperor, and himself a great musician; and, upon their being performed by his band, they were very much admired.

“His compositions for instruments,” says Ant. Wood, “whether in two, three, or four parts, have been highly valued, and were thirty years ago always first called for, taken out and played as well in the public music schools, as in private chambers: and Dr. Wilson, the professor, (the greatest and most curious judge of music that ever was), usually wept when he heard them well performed, as being wrapt up in an ecstacy or, if you will, melted down while others smiled, or had their hands and eyes lifted up, at the excellence of them.” “It is to be feared,” says Dr. Burney, “that instead of weeping, the wicked lovers of modern music would now laugh, if they were to hear the quaint and starched strains, and see on paper the ruffs and roll-ups of honest Ben. Rogers at the Operahouse, or professional concert, Hanover-square. Bin, alas! what is the secular music, that thirty years have not wrinkled, withered, and rendered superannuated!”

, a man of considerable ability in the court of queen Elizabeth, and who in some of his writings calls himself Albimontan us, was the son of John Rogers of Derytend in the parish of Aston in Warwickshire, where he was born about 1540. His father, who had emtxraced the reformed religion, being obliged to quit his country, at the accession of queen Mary, took his son abroad with him, where, at Wittemberg, he was educated under the celebrated Melancthon. When the death of qneen Mary had put an end to persecution for religion’s sake, Mr. Rogers, senior, returned with his family, and placed his son at Oxford, where he appears to have taken his degrees, although Wood has not been able to specify when, or in what college he studied. Afterwards he obtained an introduction to court, where his talents recommended him to the place of one of the clerks of the council, and he had the farther honour of being often employed by queen Elizabeth in embassies to the Netherlands and other parts, in 1575, 1577, and 1588. During these embassies he appears to have acted with wisdom, diligence, and caution, and to have been of the greatest utility to Cecil from the correct information he procured of the proceedings of foreign governments. Strype, who had seen a volume of his political notes and letters, formed during his residence abroad, has preserved one of his communications to secretary Cecil, in the appendix to his “Annals,” No. 48. It contains some important intelligence on political subjects, and is evidently the production of a sensible man accustomed to view the world and its inhabitants with an eye of penetration and sagacity. Many of his letters and instructions are among the Cotton Mss. in the British Museum. He died Feb. 11, 1590, and was buried in Sunbury church, Middlesex.

Wood adds, that he was “a very good man, excellently well learned, a good Latin poet, and one that was especially beloved by the famous antiquary and historian William Camden, for whose sake he had laid the foundation of ‘ A Discourse concerning the acts of the Britains, the form of their Commonwealth, and the order and laws by which they lived’.” This was intended for Camden’s “Britannia,” but he did not live to finish it. He wrote, 1. “Odae, Epigrammata, Kpitaphia,” &c. in laudem et mortem Johannis Juelli Episc. Sarisbur, at the end of Humphrey’s Life of Jewell. 2. “A memorial or oration of Dr. Dan. Rogers on the death of Frederic II. and the accession of Christian IV.” (probably addressed to the senate of Denmark, Copenhagen, July 19, 1588). 3. “Dr. Rogers” Search,“being a repertory of various transactions relating to Commerce the two preceding are among the Cotton Mss. 4.” Dan, Rogersii Albimontii Angli, ad Stephani Malescoti Catechesin ^oo-pawicnf, carmine Latino,“Basil, 1567, 8vo. 5.” Elegia ad Gulielmum Cecilium baronem Burleigh,“among the” lllust. et clar. virorum Epist. select.“Leyden, 1617, 8vo. 6.” Epistolae tres ad Buchananum,“among the” Epist. Buchanani,“Lond. 1711, 8vo. 7.” Epistola Adriano Vander Mylen,“among the above Leydeu epistles. Among the Harleian Mss. is his” Letter to Abraham Ortelius at Antwerp,“complimenting him on the glory he will reap from posterity by his geographical works, and concluding with the mention of his own commentary upon the laws and manners of the ancient Britons. Wood also mentions an epigram of his printed with Ralph Aggas’s description of Oxford in 1578. Wood notices another Daniel Rogers, and his works,” David’s Cost“” A practical Catechism“” Lectures upon the history of Naaman," &c. This, however, was a puritan divine born in 1573, and educated at Cambridge. He was son to Richard Rogers, and brother to Ezekiel Rogers, both puritan divines, and men of note in their day, but we do not find in their memoirs much to recommend a distinct article on either. It remains to be noticed, that Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, conjectures the above Daniel Rogers, the ambassador, to be son to John Rogers the proto-martyr; but this is inconsistent with the above account, and seems founded on no authority, as the martyr Rogers never left the kingdom on the accession of queen Mary, but remained to be the first sacrifice to her infernal bigotry.

After being confined six months in his own house he was removed to Newgate, where his confinement was aggravated by every species of severity and in January 1555, was examined before Gardiner, bishop of Winchester the purport of his examination, as written by himself, isgiven at considerable length by Fox, but is not capable of abridgment. The issue was that Mr. Rogers was condemned to be burnt on Feb. 4, which sentence he bore with the greatest constancy and patience. On the day of his execution he was awakened with some difficulty out of a sound sleep, and only requested of Bonner, who came to perform the office of degrading him from holy orders, that he might see his family; but this was denied him. On his way, however, to Smithfield, his wife and ten children, with one at the breast, contrived to meet him. When he came to the stake, although not permitted to say much, he exhorted the people to remain steady in the faith and doctrine which had been taught them, and for which he was now willingto resign his life. As he was the first who had suffered in this reign, and one well known for his piety and usefulness, his death made no slight impression on the multitude who witnessed it, many of whom were afterwards emboldened by such scenes as this wretched reign presented, either to suffer in the same cause, or to preserve the tenour and spirit of the reformation until the accession of Elizabeth restored them to their riberty.

, an English divine, was born in 1679, at Ensham in Oxfordshire, where his father was vicar and rector of Wick-Rissington, in Gloucestershire. He was educated at New college school, in Oxford; and, in 1693, elected scholar of Corpus Christi college. After taking the degrees in arts, and entering into orders, he waited a long time for a fellowship, by reason of the slowsuccession in the college; but at length succeeded Mr, Edmund Chishull, in 1706, but in the mean time had becti presented to the vicarage of Buchland, in Berkshire, about ten miles from Oxford, in which he continued about five or six years, dividing his’ time usefully between his cure and the university. At the former he became so popular, that the inhabitants entered into a handsome subscription for an afternoon sermon by him, which was discontinued after he left them. Jn 1710, be took a bachelor of divinity’s degree; and, two years after, went to London, to be lecturer of St. Clement’s Danes. He afterwards became lecturer of the united parishes of Christ-church, and St. Leonard’s Foster-lane. In 1716, he was presented to the rectory of Wrington, in Somersetshire; and, the same year, resigning his fellowship, married the hon. Mrs. Lydia Hare, sister to the lord Colerane, who was his pupil in the university. Some time after, he was elected canon residentiary of the church of Wells; in which he also bore the office of sub-dean. In 1719, he engaged in the Bangorian controversy, and published, upon that occasion, “A Discourse of the visible and invisible Church of Christ: in which it is shewn, that the powers, claimed by the officers of the visible church, are not inconsistent with the supremacy of Christ as head, or with the rights and liberties of Christians, as members of the invisible church,” 8vo. The Rev. Dr. Sykes having published an “Answer to this Discourse,” our author replied to him in “A Review of the Discourse of the visible and invisible Church of Christ.”

He gained much credit by these performances, even those who were against his argument allowing him to have good parts and an excellent pen; and the university of Oxford made a public acknowledgment of their opinion of his merit, by conferring on him, in 1721, without his knowledge, and by diploma, the 'degree of doctor in divinity. In 1726, he was made chaplain to George II. then prince of Wales and about the same time appeared in defence of Christianity, against the attacks of Collins in his “Scheme of Literal Prophecy.” Rogers did not at, first professedly write against the “Scheme;” but, publiihing, in 1727, a volume of sermons, entitled “The necessity of Divine Revelation, and the truth of the Christian Religion, asserted,” he prefixed to them “A Preface with Remarks on the Scheme of Literal Prophecy.” This preface, however, in the opinion of his friends, seemed Kable to some exception, or at least to demand a more full and distinct explication: and he received a letter upon it the same year from his friend Dr. Nath. Marshall. He endeavoured to give satisfaction to all; and therefore, Collins having written “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Rogers, on occasion of his eight Sermons concerning the necessity of Divine Revelation, and the Preface prefixed to them,” our author published “A Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion, wherein some positions of Mr. Chandler, the author of the l Literal Scheme, 7 &c. and an aiionymo-us Letter on that subject, are occasionally considered. With an Appendix, containing a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Marshall, and an Answer to the same,” 1723, 8vo.

, whom Wood styles “a most admirable theologist, an excellent preacher, and well deserving every way of the sacred function,” was a native of Cheshire, and entered a student of Christ church in 1568. He took orders very early, and became a constant preacher; was M. A. in 1576, chaplain to 'Bancroft, bishop of London; and at last, in 1581, rector of Horninger, near Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, where he lived in great esteem, and died Feb. 22, 1616. These are all the particulars Wood has given of this Mr. Rogers, who appears to have been a voluminous author and translator. Among his original works are, 1. “A Philosophical Discourse, entitled, The Anatomy of the Mind,” Lond. 1576, 8vo, with some encomiastic verses by his fellow student, afterwards the celebrated Camden. 2. “Of the End of the World, and Second Coming of Christ,” ibid. Lond. 1577, 4to, reprinted 1582 and 1583, in 8vo. 3. “The English Creed, wherein is contained in tables an exposition on the articles which every man is to subscribe unto,” &c. ibid. 1579 and 1585, fol. This appears also to have been reprinted twice under a somewhat different title; the last edition, in 1586 and 1621, is called “An Exposition of the 39 articles of the Church of England,” 4to. This work, according to Wood, was not at first received so well as it deserved, and some things in it he says gave offence, not only to papists and schismatics, but even to “many protestants of a middle temper.” Wood has expressed their objections rather obscurely, but it may be conjectured that Mr. Rogers interpreted the articles in their literal sense, and did not admit, as Wood adds, of “the charitable latitude formerly allowed in those articles.” 4. “A golden chain taken out of the rich treasurehouse of the Psalms of David,” ibid. 1579 and 1587, 12mo. 5. “Historical Dialoguetouchingantichristand popery,” &c. ibid. 1589, 8vo. 6. “Sermons on Romans xii. v. 6, 7, 8,” ibid. 1590. 7. “Miles Christian us, or, a Defence of all necessary writings and writers, written against an Epistle prefixed to a Catechism by Miles Moses,” ibid. 1590, 4to. 8. “Table of the lawful use of an Oath, and the cursed state of vain swearers,” ibid. 9. “Two Dialogues,” or Conferences concerning kneeling at the Sacrament, ibid. 1608. Wood enumerates about thirteen volumes of translations from various foreign divines, among whom are St. Augustine, Thomas a Kempis, &c. &C.

, another English divine, of a somewhat different stamp, was the son and grandson of two successive rectors of Bishops Hampton, in Warwickshire, where he was horn, Dec. 27, 1660, and educated at the free-school there. In Lent-term 1675, he entered of Trinity college, Oxford, but soon after removed to Hart hall, where he took his degrees in arts, and went into holy orders. Wood celebrates him as a man of extraordinary memory, and independent of the common helps to that faculty, either in the pulpit or in conversation. The latter he enlivened by quotations of uncommon accuracy, particularly from the classics, and would even give the page, &c. if required* His sermons he carefully studied, yet delivered them fluently without notes, and, as Wood says, in elegant and correct language. In July 1689, he was inducted to the small rectory of Slapton, near Towcester, in Northamptonshire. He died of the small-pox, while on a visit at London, June 8, 1694, and was buried in St. Saviour’s, Southwark. Wood speaks of him as a true son of the church of England, in opposition to all extremes, and his writings shew him a friend to the revolution. These writings are mostly poetical, published without his name. As we have not seen any of them, we can only deduce from some expressions used by Wood, that they were not all becoming the character of a divine; their titles are, 1. “Lux occidentalis or Providence displayed in the coronation of king William and queen Mary,” Lond. 1689. 2. “The Loyal and Impartial Satyrist, containing eight miscellany poems,” ibid. 1693, 4to. These seem mostly levelled at the Jesuits and Jacobites. 3. “A Poesy for Lovers,” &c. ibid. 1693, 4to. 4. “The conspiracy of guts and brains; or an answer to the Turn-shams,” ibid. 1693. In prose, he wrote “A true Protestant Bridle; or some cursory remarks upon a Sermon preached (by William Stephens, rector of Sutton) before the Lord Mayor, &c. Jan. 30, 1693,” ibid. 1694, 4to; and the “Commonwealthsman unmasked,” a rebuke, as he calls it, to the “Account of Denmark,” by Molesworth. This he dedicated, and had the honour to present to king William, who received it very graciously.

, wife of one of the republican ministers of France, who signed the order for the execution of the king, was born at Paris in 1754. She was the daughter of an engraver, and acquired some skill in music and painting, and a general taste for the fine arts. In 1780 she married Roland, and in 1787 visited Switzerland and England, and in these countries is said to have acquired that ardent attachment to the principles of liberty, which was in general so little understood by her countrymen. M. Roland having been appointed inspector of the manufactories at Lyons, was deputed to the constituent assembly, to obtain from it succours necessary for the payment of the debt of that town. Madame Roland at this period settled with her husband in the capital, and took delight in making her house the rendezvous of the Brissotine party, and among them acquired such superiority, that her biographers would have us believe that, for a time, she was the secret power that directed the whole government of France; perhaps one reason why it was so ill directed. Jn Marcji 1792, when the king endea r voured to allay the public discontents, by appointing 3, popular administration, Roland was chosen minister or the interior, and what kind of minister he was may be conjectured from a speech of Danton’s. When Roland resigned, and was urgently pressed by the assembly to resume his functions, Dan ton exclaimed, “if we give an invitation to Roland, we must give one to his wife too. I know all the virtues of the minister, but we want men who see otherwise than by their wives.” Indeed this lady, who had a remarkably good opinion of herself, informs us in her memoirs that she was in fact the minister without the name; and revised, or perhaps dictated, the letter which Roland addressed to the king on going out of office; “if he had written sermons,” said she, “I should have done the same.” On the 7th of December, 1792, having appeared at the bar of the national convention, to repel a denunciation made against her, she spoke with ease and eloquence, and was afterwards admitted to the honours of a sitting. She presented herself there again, when the decree was passed against her husband; but then, her eloquence having lost its charms, she was refused a hearing, and was herself sent to the Abbaye. From this prison she wrote to the assembly, and to the minister of the interior; her section also demanded her liberty, but it was in vain; and on the 24th of June, 1793, she was sent to the convent of St. Pelagic, which had been converted into a prison, where she passed her time in consoling her fellow prisoners, and composing an account of her own life, which has since been published. At length she was called before the revolutionary tribunal, and on Nov. 8, was condemned to death for having conspired against the unity and indivisibility of the republic. Her execution immediately followed. On passing the statue of liberty, in the Place de la Revolution, she bent her head towards it, exclaiming, “O Liberty, how many crimes are perpetrated in thy name.” She left one daughter, whose only provision was her mother’s writings, which are as follows: “Opuscules,” on moral topics, which treat of the soul, melancholy, morality, old age, friendship, love, retirement, &c. “Voyage en Angleterre et en Suisse;” and when in prison she composed what she entitled “Appel a Timpartiale Posterite”,“containing her own private memoirs, a strange mixture of modern philosophy and the current politics of the revolution, with rhapsodies of romance, and every thing that can shew the dangers of a <* little learning.” Although this work was written when. she was in hourly expectation of death, its principal characteristics are levity and vanity. She was unquestionably a woman of considerable abilities, and might have been, what we are told she was very ambitious of, a second Macauley, without exciting the envy of the amiable part of her sex; but she would be the head of a political party that was to guide the affairs of a distracted nation, and she fell a sacrifice to the confusion of principle in which she had assisted.

, a French writer of very great abilities, was the second son of a master-cutler at Paris and born there Jan. 30, 1661. He was intended, as well as his elder brother, for his father’s profession; when a Benedictine, perceiving in him a peculiar turn for letters, communicated this to his mother, and pressed her to give him a liberal education. The proposal was flattering, but as she had been left a widow, and had nothing to depend upon but the continuation of her late husband’s business, and was incapable of providing for his education, she was reluctant to lose the advantages of her son’s skill. The good Benedictine, however, removed part of her fears, by procuring the youth a pension in the college of Du Plessis, and Roliin was now suffered to pursue the natural bent of his inclination. He distinguished himself immediately by parts and application, and easily obtained the first rank among his felloe-students. Many stories are told to his advantage in this respect, and how he became known and esteemed by the minister Pelletier, whose two eldest sons were of Rollin’s class. He studied rhetoric in the college of Du Plessis under Mr. Hersan, whose custom it was to create emulation among his scholars, by bestowing on them epithets, each according to his merit; and is said to have declared in public, that he knew not sufficiently to distinguish the young Roliin otherwise than by giving hirn. the title of “Divine:” and when Hersan was asked for any piece in verse or prose, he used to refer them to Roliin, “who,” he said, “would do it better than he could.” Hersan intended Roliin for his successor, therefore first took him as an assistant in 1683, and afterwards, in. 1687, gave up the chair to him. The year after, Hersan, with the king’s leave and approbation, declined the professorship of eloquence in the royal college in favour of his beloved disciple Roliin, who was admitted into it. No man ever exercised the functions of it with greater eclat: he often made Latin orations, to celebrate the memorable events of the times; and frequently accompanied them with poems, which wer^ generally read and esteemed. In 1694, he was chosen rector of the university, and continued in that office two years, which was then a great mark of distinction. By virtue of his office, he spoke the annual panegyric upon Louis XIV. He made many useful regulations in the university, and particularly revived the study of the Greek language, which was then growing into neglect. He was a man of indefatigable attention, and trained innumerable persons, who did honour to the church, the state, and the army. The first president Portail was pleased one day to reproach Roilin in a jocular strain, as if he exceeded even himself in doing business: to whom Roilin replied, with that plainness and sincerity which was natural to him, “It becomes you well, Sir, to reproach me with this: it is this habit of labour in me, which has distinguished you in the place of advocate general, which has raised you to that of first president: you owe the greatness of your fortune to me,” Upon the expiration of the rectorship, cardinal Noailles engaged him to superintend the studies of his nephews, who were in the college of Laon; and in this office he was agreeably employed, when, in 1699, he was with great reluctance made coadjutor to the principal of the college of Beauvais. This college was then a kind of a desert, inhabited by very few students, and without any manner of discipline: but Rollings great reputation and industry soon made it a most flourishing society. In this situation he remained till 1712; when, the contests between the Jesuits and the Jansenists drawing towards a crisis, he fell a sacrifice to the prevalence of the former. F. Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, and bigoted agent of the Jesuits, infused into his master prejudices against Rollin, whose connections with cardinal de Noailles would alone have sufficed to have made him a Jansenist; and on this account he lost his share in the principality of Beauvais. No man, however, could have lost less in this than Rollin, who had every thing left him that was necessary to make him happy; retirement, books, and a decent competence. He now began to employ himself upon Quintilian; an author he justly valued, and not without uneasiness saw neglected. He retrenched in him whatever he thought rather curious than useful for the instruction of youth: he placed summaries or contents at the head of each chapter; and he accompanied the text with short select notes. His edition appeared in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo, with an elegant preface, setting forth his method and views.

Encouraged by the great success of this work, and the happy reception it met with, he undertook another of equal use and entertainment; his “Histoire Ancienne,” &c. or “Ancient History of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Macedonians and Greeks,” which he finished in 13 vols. 8vo, and published between 1730 and 1738. Voltaire, after having observed that Rollin was “the first member of the university of Paris who wrote French with dignity and correctness,” says of this work, that “though the last volumes, which were written in too great a hurry, are not equal to the first, it is nevertheless the best compilation that has yet appeared in any language; because it is seldom that compilers are eloquent, and Rollin was remarkably so.” While the last volumes of his “Ancient History” were printing, he published the first of his “Roman History;” which he lived to carry on, through the eighth and into part of the ninth, to the war against the Cimbri, about seventy years before the battle of Actium. Crevier, the worthy disciple of Rollin, continued the history to the battle of Actium, which closes the tenth volume; and has since completed the original plan of Rollin, in 16 vols. 12mo, which was to bring it down from the foundation of the city to the reign of Constantine the Great. All these works of Rollin have met with universal approbation, been translated into several languages, and in English have long been popular, although strict criticism may find much to object, as to inaccuracies, and want of purity of style. What, however, forms an honourable distinction in all his works, is his regard for the interests of religion and virtue.

This excellent person died Sept. 14, 1741. He had been named by the king a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres in 1701: but, as he had not then brought the college of Beauvais into repute, and found he had more business upon his hands than was consistent with a decent attendance upon the functions of an academician, he begged the privileges of a veteran, which were honourably granted him. Yet he maintained his connexions with the academy, attended their assemblies as often as he could, laid the plan of his “Ancient History” before them, and demanded an academician for his censor. He was a man of many excellent qualities, very ingenious, consummate in polite learning, of rigid morals, and great piety; which last has given some of his countrymen, and their imitators here, an opportunity to remark that he wanted nothing but a mixture of the philosophic in his nature to make him a very complete person. When he was discharged from the rectorship in 1720, the words of the lettre de cachet were, as we have seen, that the university should choose a rector of more moderation: but that was hardly possible; for, nothing could be more benign, more pacific, or more moderate, than Rollings temper. He shewed, it must be owned, some zeal for the cause of Jansenism: he had a very great veneration for the memory of abbe Paris, and had been seen with others to visit his tomb in the church-yard of St. Medard, at Paris, and to pay his devotions to him as a saint: he revised and retouched the life of this abbe, which was printed in 1730: he translated into Latin, at the request of father Quesnel, the protestation of this saint, and was assisting in other works designed to support Jansenism; and, oh these accounts, he became obnoxious to the Jesuits and the court. It is related, that, when he was one day introduced to cardinal Fleury, in order to present him with a volume of his “Roman History,” the minister, very uncivilly, said to a head-officer of the guards, “Sir, you should endeavour to convert this man:” to whom Rollin very well, and yet not disrespectfully, replied, “Oh, my lord, the gentleman would lose his time; I am an unconvertible man.” Rollin was, however, a very estimable character. We find in his works generous and exalted sentiments, a zeal for the good of society, a love of virtue, a veneration for Providence, and in short every thing, though on profane subjects, sanctified with a spirit truly religious. So says even Voltaire, and we may add the similar testimony of the poet Rousseau, who conceived such a veneration for Rollin that he came out of banishment incognito to Paris, on purpose to visit and pay his respects to him. He looked upon his histories, not only as the best models of the historic kind, but as a complete system of politics ana 1 morals, and a most instrucfive school for princes as well as subjects to learn all their duties in.

, the first principal of the college of Edinburgh, was the son of David Rollock, of Poohouse, or, as it is now written, Powis, in the neighbourhood of Sterling, in Scotland. He was born in 1555, and learned the rudiments of the Latin language from Mr. Thomas Buchanan, who kept, says archbishop Spotswood, a famous school at that time, at Sterling, as we learn from Melchior Adam, who appears to have copied from the Latin life of Rollock. From school he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s, and admitted a student in St. Salvator’s college. His progress in the sciences, which were then taught, was so great and so rapid, that he had no sooner taken his master’s degree than he was chosen a professor of philosophy, and immediately began to read lectures in St. Salvator’s college. This must have been at a very early period of life, for he quitted St. Andrew’s in 1583, when, according to Mackenzie, he had taught philosophy for some time. Not long before this period, the magistrates of Edinburgh having petitioned the king to erect a university in that city, he granted them a charter under the great seal, allowing them all the privileges of a university and the college being built in 1582, they made choice of Mr. Rollock to be their principal and professor of divinity.

At what time he was ordained, or whether ordained at all, has been the subject of some controversy, but it is certain that he became famous in the university, and among his countrymen in general, for his lectures in theology, and for the persuasive power of his preaching for Calderwood assures us that in 1589, he and Mr. Robert Bruce, another popular preacher, made the earl of Bothwell so sensible of his vicious courses, that, upon Nov. 9, his lordship humbled himself upon his knees in the east church in the forenoon, and in the high church in the afternoon, confessing before the people, with tears in his eyes, his dissolute and licentious life, and promising to prove for the future, another man.

, an English historical and miscella* neous writer, was born in 1724 or 1725, it is thought at Shrewsbury, but descended from a family of that name in Bedfordshire. He was first placed under an officer of the excise in the North of England, but having, in 1745, joined the rebel army, he was dismissed from his situation. He then went over to Dublin to visit Ambrose Philips the poet, who was his relation, but, owing to Philips’s death soon after, failed of procuring any establishment in that country. While in Ireland he is said to have published Akenside’s “Pleasures of the Imagination,” as his own, but his biographer has refuted this story. He probably, by more honourable means, recommended himself to persons of distinction, as his poem, entitled “Cambria” was, when first written, intended to have been patronized by sir Watkin Williams Wynne, and when corrected and prepared for the press, as it now stands, was shewn to Frederic prince of Wales, by general Oglethorpe and lord Middlesex; by whose interest he had permission to dedicate it to prince George, his present majesty, when it was printed, in 1749, in 4to. On the 25th of September of the same year, sir Watkin Williams Wynne was killed by a fall from his horse; and in the following month Roft published a poem to his memory, which was highly admired, and very popular among his countrymen.

But Rolt’s chief supplies were by writing cantatas, songs, &c. for the theatres, Vauxhall, Sadler’s-wells, and other places of public resort. Of these he composed above an Jiundred, supplying, at the shortest notice, the demands of musical composers for those diurnal entertainments during many years. He also produced two dramatic pieces, viz. “Eliza,” an English opera, in three acts, 1754, an4 “Almena,” an English opera, in three acts, 1764. For Ihe former of these the music wa? composed by Dr. Arue, and for the latter by his son; and they were both performed with good success at Drury-lane theatre. In the “Biographia Dramatica” is ascribed to him another opera, “The Royal Shepherd,” 1763; but as he omitted it in a list of his works, which he drew up to accompany proposals for a subscription in October 1769, it is doubted whether that omission must be ascribed to his not being the author, or to its having been ill received by the public, as is related in “Biographia Dramatica.”

, an English divine and writer of great popularity, was born at Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Sept. 25, 1714. His father, one of the French protestants who took refuge in England upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz, resided at Hartlepool as a merchant, and particularly as a dealer in corn. He had two sons and three daughters, whom he educated in the strict doctrines and discipline of the church of England, and lived to see well settled in the world before be left it in 1757. His second son, William, gave indication, at a very early age, of considerable talents, and a laudable eagerness to improve them. This induced his father to send him to the grammar-school, at Houghton-le-Spring, a village in the road from Durham to Sunderland. This school was founded by the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, rector of that parish at the memorable acra of the reformation. At this seminary Mr. Romaine remained seven years, and in 1730 or 1731 was sent to Oxford, where he was entered first at Hertford-college, and thence removed to Christchurch. He resided principally at Oxford till he took his degree of master of arts, Oct. 15, 1737, having been ordained a deacon at Hereford, a year before, by Dr. Egerton, bishop of that diocese.

Mr. Romaine had been engaged in superintending for the press a new edition of “Calasio’s Hebrew Concordance and Lexicon,” in four volumes folio, a work which employed him seven years, and in 1747 he published the first volume. The original of this work was the concordance of Rabbi Nathan, a Jew, entitled “Meir Nethib,” published at Venice in 1523, fol. with great faults and de- 1 fects. A second edition was published at Basil by Froben, much more correct, in 1581, fol. The third edition is this of Calasio, which he swelled into four large volumes by adding, l. A Latin translation of Rab.' Nathan’s explanation of the several roots, with the author’s own enlargements. 2. The Rabbinical, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic words, derived from, or agreeing with the Hebrew root in signification. 3. A literal version of the Hebrew text. 4. The variations of the Vulgate and Septuagint 5. The proper names of men, rivers, mountains. Mr. Romaine’s work is a very splendid and useful book, improved from that of Calasio, but in point of usefulness thought greatly inferior to Dr. Taylor’s Hebrew concordance. The hon. and rev. Mr. Cadogan, in the life of Mr. Romaine, censures him for having omitted his author’s account of the word which is usually rendered God, and having substituted his own in the body of the work; a liberty which no editor is entitled to take, although he may be justified in adding, by way of note, to what his author has advanced.

The theological sentiments of Mr. Romaine were not so common in his early days as they are now, and therefore rendered him more conspicuous. As a clergyman of the church of England he adhered to the most rigid interpretation of the thirty-nine articles. The grand point which he laboured in the pulpit, and in all his writings, was the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He was also a zealous disciple of the celebrated Hutchinson, at a time when he had not many followers in this kingdom. From some dissatisfaction, however, or want of success in his ministry, he appears to have formed an intention of leaving England, and settling in the country of his ancestors. He was prevented from executing this design, by what he piously deemed a providential interposition. He had actually made the necessary preparations, and wa going to the water-side, in order to secure his passage^ when he was met by a gentleman, a total stranger to him, who asked him if his name was not Romaine. He answered that it was. The gentleman had formerly been acquainted with his father, and, observing a strong resemblance tot him in his son, was induced to make the inquiry. After some introductory conversation, he told him, that the lectureship for the united parishes of St. George’s Botolphlane and St. Botolph’s Billingsgate was then vacant; and that, having some interest in those parishes, he would exert it in his behalf, if he would become a candidate for the lectureship. Mr. Romaine consented, provided he should not be obliged to canvass in person; a customwhich he always thought inconsistent with the character of a clergyman, and against which he openly protested many years afterwards, when he was candidate for the living of Blackfriars. He was chosen lecturer of St. Botolph’s in 1748, and the year following lecturer of St. Dunstan’s in the West. In the person of his predecessor in the latter (Dr.Terrick), two lectureships were united: the onefounded by Dr. White, for the use of the benchers of the Temple; the other a common parish lectureship. Mr. Romaine wai elected to both, and continued some years in the quiet exercise of his office, until an opposition arose which ended in a law-suit that deprived him of the parish-lectureship^ but confirmed him in that founded by Dr. White, and endowed with a salary of eighteen pounds a-year. Lest this should be removed from the parish, the use of the church was granted to him, but as lord Mansfield’s decision was, that seven o'clock in the evening was a convenient time to preach the lecture, the church-wardens refused to open the church till that hour, and to light it when there was occasion. His predecessor, however, Dr. Terrick, then become bishop of London, interposed so effectually, and gave such a character of Mr. Romaine, that this ungenerous opposition ceased, every proper accommodation was allowed to his congregation, and he continued quietly to exercise his ministry here to the end of his life.

His useful labours at length terminated on Sunday, July 26, 1795. During his illness, which lasted seven weeks, his 'zeal, his faith, his animated views of immortality, accorded with the uniform example of his life, and evinced, in the gradual approaches of death, the hope, and consolation, and triumph of a Christian. His character throughout life was uniform and regular: his surviving friends have dwelt on it with pleasure, and it certainly was as free from frailty as the imperfect state of human nature can admit. The only prominent objection was a degree of hastiness of temper, or occasional irritability, but even that he had conquered, in a great measure, many years before his death. By trfem to whom his preaching was acceptable, and to whom his memory is yet dear, his printed works are held in high estimation, and have gone through various editions. Besides the single Sermons, Calasio’s Concordance, and a Comment on the 107th Psalm, Mr. Romaine published, in the course of his life, 1. “Twelve Sermons upon Solomon’s Song,” 1759. 2. “Twelve Discourses upon the Law and Gospel,” 1760. 3. “The Life of Faith,” 1763. 4. “The Scripture Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 1765. 5. “The Walk of Faith,” 1771, 2 vols. 6. “An Essay on Psalmody,” 1775. 7. “The Triumph of Faith.”

He was happily endowed with an inquisitive mind, that delighted in science, and pursued it warmly, with the best means he had; and he possessed a versatility of genius, which is exemplified by the variety of subjects he chose for representation. Both the comic and serious impressions of the mind had charms for him. Early in life he painted two pictures from Tristram Shandy; one, of the arrival of Dr. Slop at Shandy-hall, after the unlucky catastrophe he met with on the road; which afforded scope fur sentimental comic humour; the other from the affecting story of the death of Le Fevre; both of them were highly approved for truth and propriety of feeling and expression, though differing so widely in their effects upon the mind. His journey to Italy expanded his view of art; new scenes, and new sources of information, were presented to him, of which he did not neglect to avail himself. The works of fancy he produced after his return home exemplify the use he made of the two years he spent among the unrivalled productions of art he there met with. The purity and perfection of ancient sculpture appear to have made the deepest impression upon his mind; and he afterwards assiduously cherished the taste he then imbibed, by procuring a collection of cast; from the best models of ancient stathes, groups, basso-relievos, &c. which he would sit by the hour to contemplate; examining their appearances under all changes of sun-shine, and common day-light; and with lamps, prepared on purpose, he would try their effects in various modes of illumination, with rapturous delight. Hence, grandeur and simplicity became the principal objects of his ambition; he perceived these qualities distinctly, and employed them judiciously; even whilst imitating nature in his most usual occupation, portrait painting. To present his figure, or tell his story, with simple undisturbed effect, rejecting all unnecessary minutiae, wa the point he aimed at and obtained.

On his return from the continent his zeal for historical painting revived, or rather became strengthened. In several epistles to Mr. Hayley, he laments his confinement to portraits: in one he says, “this cursed portrait painting, how I am shackled with it! I am determined to live frugally, and cut it short as soon as I can.” In another, he^ mentions his “wish to be retired, in order to compose with: more effect and propriety.” And whenever he returned ttf London from Eastham, the hospitable retreat of his admiring correspondent and friend, whose play fulness of fancy was’ a constant and useful stimulus to Romney’s dejected and desponding mind, he felt it a weight of drudgery again to fall into the trammels of portraiture; yet from the enjoyment he by nature found in the practice of his profession^ a short time inured him afresh to it, and still he felt pleasure in tracing the features of each new face that presented itself; till again his exhausted frame required the exhilaration of retirement, and the refreshment afforded by pure uncontaminated air, free from the gross vapours of a great and populous city. It is not a little surprising that amidst his continual labours in that branch of the art he more immediately professed, he should have found time to produce so great a number of fancy pictures as he left behind him. He also frequently spent his evenings in making large cartoons in charcoal, of subjects which suited his fancy; ge^ nerally of a sublime cast. Amongst these was one of the dream of Attossa, from the Persian of TEschylus, which was conducted with the taste and feeling of the ancient Greek artists.

He was in general fortunate in the choice of his historical subjects; and certainly, in this respect, had far the advantage of his great rival, sir Joshua Reynolds; and no less so in the power of expression, which he scarcely ever failed to obtain; whilst the latter, in his historical pictures, has rarely been so happy. Reynolds gave beauty and grace to his figures: Romney imparted soul. The former delights the eye with the harmony and richness of colour, and beauty of effect; the latter thrills and gratifies the heart with truth and force of expression, in action and countenance; wrought with more simplicity, but with less art. His picture of Ophelia seated upon a branch of a tree, the breaking of which threatens her destruction in the stream below, whilst the melancholy distraction visible in her lovely face accounts for her apparent insensibility to danger, is a sufficient proof of this assertion. His composition also of “Titania and her Indian Votaress,” in the possession of Mr. Beckford; “Titania, Puck, and the Changeling,” at sir John Leicester’s, and others of his works of the like playful and interesting kind, might be brought forward to support it. In portraiture, however, the justly exalted president of the royal academy stood alone, and Romney was not able to cope with him. In the composition of his figures, our artist exhibited the taste he had acquired by the study of the antique; and he admirably varied the characters of his heads. The arrangement of drapery which he adopted, partook largely of the same style; and being well understood, was painted with great dexterity; though it must be confessed, that in form, it was not unfrequently better adapted to sculpture than to painting. His style of colouring was simple and broad. In that of his flesh he was very successful; exhibiting a great variety of complexion, with much warmth and richness. It was not always, however, that his pictures were complete in the general tone; but crude discordant colours were sometimes introduced in the back-grounds, which not being blended or broken into unison with the hue of the principal figures, interrupted the harmony of the whole. The executive part of his works was free, learned, and precise, without being trifling or minute, possessing great simplicity, and exhibiting a purity of feeling consonant with the style of his compositions. He aimed at the best of all principles in the imitation of nature, viz. to generalize its effects; he even carried it so far as to subject himself to the charge of negligence in the completion of his forms: but the truth of his imitation is sufficiently perfect to satisfy the minds of those who regard nature systematically, and hot individually, or too minutely. In a word, adds the critic whom we have principally followed in this character, every lover of art who knows how to appreciate truly what is most valuable in painting, will hold the name of llomney in increasing estimation, the more frequently and impartially he examines his productions.

II. Charles IX. and Henry III. had a particular esteem for him, and became his liberal patrons. In 1562 he put himself at the head of some soldiers in Vendomois, and fought against the protestants, which occasioned the publication of some very satirical pieces against him at Orleans, in which he was represented as a priest: but he defended himself in verse, and denied his being an ecclesiastic. He had, however, some benefices in commendam; and, among others, the priory of St. Cosmas near Tours, where he died in 1585. Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, made his funeral oration; and a noble monument was erected there to his memory some years after. He was much afflicted with the gout, which, it is said, was owing to his debauched way of life. His poems consist of odes, hymns, elegies, sonnets, epigrams, and pieces of amatory poetry, not of the most chaste description. He was considered in his day as possessing great talents for poetry; but these are not so visible to the eye of modern criticism. His style is extremely harsh and obscure, which, it is said^ would have been more excusable, had he not been preceded by Marot. What learning he had appears in a pedantic affectation of allusions, examples, and words, drawn from Greek and Latin, which increase the obscurity of his style. Boileau justly says “It is the approbation of posterity alone which must establish the true merit of works. Whatever eclat a writer may make during his life, whatever eloges he may receive, we cannot conclude infallibly from this, that his works are excellent. False beauties, novelty of style, and a particular taste or manner of judging, which happens to prevail at that time, may raise a writer into high credit and esteem; and, in the next age, when the eyes of men are opened, that which was the object of admiration, shall be the object of contempt. We have a fine example of this in Ronsard, and his imitators, Du Bellay, Du Bartas, Desportes, who in the last age were admired by all the world, in this are read by nobody.” The best editions of Ronsard’s works are those by Binet, Paris, 1587, or 1604, 5 vols. 12mo, and by Richelet, 1623, 2 vols. fol.

He died Jan. 24, 1708-9, in his fifty-eighth year, and was buried in Canterbury cathedral, where a monument is erected to his memory. In his private life he was a good husband, and a kind master, lived hospitably towards his neighbours, and left behind him a moderate fortune; so moderate, that when he came to make his will it surprized those who were present; but sir George assigned the reason in a few words, “I do not leave much,” said he, i( but what I leave was honestly gotten it never cost a sailor a tear, or the nation a farthing." 1 Rooke (Lawrence), an English astronomer and geometrician, was born at Deptford, in Kent, 1623, and educated at Eton school, whence he removed to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1639. After taking the degree of M. A. in 1647, he retired for some time into the country, but in 1650 went to Oxford, and settled in Wadham college, that he might associate with Dr. Wilkins, and Mr. Seth Ward the astronomy professor; and also accompany Mr. Boyle in his chemical operations. After the death of Mr. Foster he was chosen astronomy professor in Gresham college, London, in 1652. He made some observations upon the comet at Oxford, which appeared in the month of December that year; which were printed by Mr. Seth Ward the year following. And, in 1655, Dr. Wallis publishing his treatise on conic sections, he dedicated that work to those two gentlemen. In 1657 Mr. Rooke was permitted to exchange the astronomy professorship for that of geometry. This step might seem strange, as astronomy still continued to be his favourite study; but it was thought to have been from the convenience of the lodgings, which opened behind the reading hall, and therefore were proper for the reception of those gentlemen after the lectures, who, in 1660, laid the foundation of the royal society. Most of those learned men who had been accustomed to assemble with him at Oxford, coining to London, joined with other philosophical gentlemen, and usually met at Gresham college to hear Mr. Rooke’s iectwes, and afterwards withdrew into his apartment; till their meetings were interrupted by the quartering of soldiers in the college in 1658. And after the royal society came to be formed into a regular body, Mr. Rooke was very zealous and serviceable in promoting that great and useful institution; though he did not live till it received its establishment by the royal charter.

Few persons have left behind them a more agreeable character than Mr. Rooke, from every person that was acquainted with him, or with his qualifications; and in nothing more than for his veracity: for what he asserted positively, might be fully relied on: but if his opinion was asked concerning any thing that was dubious, his usual answer was, “I have no opinion.” Mr. Hook has given this copious, though concise character of him: “I never was acquainted with any person who knew more, and spoke less, being indeed eminent for the knowledge and improvement of astronomy.” Dr. Wren and Dr. Seth Ward describe him as a man of profound judgment, a vast comprehension, prodigious memory, and solid experience. His skill in the mathematics was reverenced by all the lovers of those studies, and his perfection in many other sorts of learning deserves no less admiration; but above all, as another writer characterizes him, his extensive knowledge had a right influence on the temper of his mind, which had all the humility, calmness, strength, and sincerity of a sound philosopher. For more particulars of his character we may refer to Dr. Isaac Barrow’s oration at Gresham college. The only pieces which were published from his papers consist of “Observationes in Cometam, qui mense Decembri anno 1652 apparuit” printed by Dr. Seth Ward in his “Lectures on Comets,” 1653, 4to. “Directions for Seamen going to the East and West Indies,” which were drawn up at the appointment of the Royal Society, and inserted in their Transactions for 1665; “A Method for observing the Eclipses of the Moon,” in the Philos. Trans, for Feb. 1666. “A Discourse concerning the Observations of the Eclipses of the Satellites of Jupiter,” in the History of the Royal Society, p. 183; and “An Account of an Experiment made with Oil in a long Tube,” read to the Royal Society, April 23, 1662. By this experiment it was found, that the oil sunk when the sun shone out, and rose when he was clouded; the proportions of which are set down in the account.

, or Michael Angelo, an honorary name given him by Paul Sandby, was the son of Edward Rooker, an engraver, who died in 1774, and whose excellence lay in engraving architecture, particularly the section of St. Paul’s cathedral, from a drawing by Wale, which is his finest, and a very wonderful performance. Michael, who was born in 1743, after being taught the use of the graver by his father, was placed under the care of his father’s friend, Paul Sandby, to be instructed in drawing and painting landscape. He appeared first as an engraver, in which capacity he gave early proofs of ability, which were confirmed by his mature productions, excellent specimens of which may be seen in a view of Wolterton hall, Nottinghamshire, and in many other prints which he engraved. But his talents were not confined to the graver, for he also employed the pencil, and in 1772 exhibited a view of Temple Bar, as it then stood, which had considerable merit. He was for many years employed as principal scenerpainter for the little theatre in the Hay-market; and in the summer season generally visited some part of the country, where he selected views, of which he afterwards made finished drawings; so that at his death he possessed a very numerous collection of topographical drawings of great merit. It is, however, on his powers as an engraver that his fame principally depends. He was for many years engaged to engrave the head-pieces to the Oxford almanacks, for which he received 50l. each, a large sum in those days,, although not unsuitable to his merit, or the liberality of his employers. But this engagement he relinquished a fevr years before his death, because he took a dislike to the practice of engraving. The Oxford views were executed from his own drawings, and exhibit some of the best and most accurate that ever were taken of that beautiful city.

After his return from Florence he fixed at Rome, where for a long time he would sell none of his paintings but at an extravagant price. He did not, however, like to be called a landscape painter, his ambition being for the character of an able history painter. He paiuted several pieces for the churches, which are indisputable proofs of his capacity for history: but his business was frequently interrupted by his turn for poetic satire, which he often interspersed with songs, and took a pleasure in reciting them. The philosopher appeared in his manner of living; and he endeavoured to shew it also in his paintings, always conveying in them some moral. Such was his iove of liberty, that he declined entering into the service of any prince, though often invited. He was much of an humourist, and loved a practical joke. When the painters of Rome had refused to receive him into the academy of St. Luke, on a holiday, when he knew they were to meet, and several paintings were exposed in the diurch of that saint, he caused one of his own to be carried thither, in which he had concealed his manner; and shewing it, told them that it was done by a surgeon to whom hey had judged very ill in refusing a place in their academy, having the greatest need of one to set the limbs which they daily dislocated or distorted. Another time, finding a harpsichord on which he had sat down to play, good for nothing, “I'll make,” says he, “this harpsichord worth at least 100 crowns.” He painted on the lid a piece which immediately fetched that money. A gentleman desirous of having the pictures of his friends in his gallery, desired Salvator to draw them. He did it, but made all the portraits caricatures, in which he excelled: but as he drew himself, among the rest, in the same manner, none could be offended.

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

, Ruzelin, or Rucelin, a canon of Compeigne, who flourished about the end of the eleventh century, was born in Bretagne. He was a man well versed in the learning of the times, a profound dialectician, and the most eminent doctor of the sect called Nominalists, and by applying some of their tenets to the subject of the Trinity excited a warm controversy in France about 1089. He held it inconceivable and impossible that the son of God should assume the human nature alone, i. e. without the Father and the Holy Ghost becoming incarnate also, unless by the three persons in the Godhead were meant three distinct objects, or natures existing separately (such as three angels or three distinct spirits), though endued with one will and acting by one power. When it was insinuated to Roscellinus, that this manner of reasoning led directly to Tritheism, or the doctrine of three Gods, he answered boldly, that the existence of three Gods might be asserted with truth, were not the expression harsh, and contrary to the phraseology generally received. He was, however, obliged to retract this error in a council held at Soissons, in 1092; but he resumed it when the council was dismissed and the danger apparently over. He was, however, assaulted on account of his doctrine, and therefore took refuge in England, where he excited a controversy of another kind, by maintaining, among other things, that persons born out of lawful wedlock ought to be deemed incapable of admission to holy orders. Some even of the prelates being in this condition, Roscellinus made very powerful enemies, and among others Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, and was finally obliged to quit England. He then returned to France, and by propagating his doctrine concerning the Trinity, occasioned such contests as made him glad to retire to Aquitaine, where he passed the rest of his days unmolested. He is supposed to have died about 1106, Such is the account given of his doctrines by John, his accuser, in a letter to Anselm, published by Baluzius in his “Miscellanea,” and by others who, however, as the annotator on Mosheim remarks, were the inveterate enemies of Roscellinus, and perhaps comprehended his meaning imperfectly, or perverted it wilfully. But as none of the writings of this metaphysical ecclesiastic are extant, we cannot form any other notion of the controversy than appears from the testimony of his enemies.

, Quintius, a Roman actor, was born at Lanuvium, and became so celebrated on the stage that every actor of superior eminence to his contemporaries has been since called a Roscius. It is said that he was not without some personal defects; particularly his eyes were so distorted that he always appeared on the stage with a mask; but the Romans frequently obliged him to take it off, and overlooked the deformities of his face, that they might the better hear his elegant pronunciation. In private life he was so much esteemed as to be raised to the rank of senator. When falsely accused, Cicero, who had been one of his pupils, undertook his defence, and cleared him of the malevolent aspersions of his enemies, in an elegant oration extant in his works. Roscius wrote a treatise, which, however, has not descended to our times, comparing with great success and learning, the profession of the orator with that of the comedian. He died about 61 before Christ. His daily pay for acting is said to have been 1000 denarii, or 32l. 6s. of our money, though Cicero makes his yearly income amount to the enormous sum of 48,434l. 10s.

Dr. Burney observes, that there are several passages in Cicero concerning Roscius, which, if the ancient actors, Romans as well as Greeks, did not declaim in musical notes, would be wholly unintelligible. He tells us (de Orat), that Roscius had always said, when age should diminish his force, he would not abandon the stage, but would proportion his performance to his powers, and make music conform to the weakness of his voice; which really happened: for the same author informs us (de Leg.), that in his old age he sung in a lower pitch of voice, and made the tibicines play slower. As there were combats, or contests, established by the ancients for the voice, as well as for other parts of the Gymnastice those who taught the management of the voice were called φονασχοι, phonasci; and under their instructions were put all those who were destined to be orators, singers, and comedians. Roscius had an academy for declamation, at which he taught several persons, preparatory to their speaking in public, or going on the stage. These are proofs sufficient of the dramatic declamation of the ancients being uttered in mumusical tones, agreeing with those of the musical instruments by which they were accompanied.

, a painter and entomologist, the descendant of a decayed noble family, was born in 1705 near Arnstadt, and settled at Nuremberg as a miniature-painter, but particularly distinguished himself as one of the greatest insect-painters. The works which he published from his coloured designs will not only, whilst they last, interest the classic entomologist, but every one whose taste for form and colour in animal nature is not confined to men, quadrupeds, or birds. He treated objects which required the minuteness of Denner, with equal truth and better judgment, in a style of energy and animated grandeur which approaches to history. As a writer he is as authentic and faithful as tiresome and prolix; but though he lived in the infancy of the science, the simple and constant characteristics by which he distinguished the classes of the genera he represented and described, have not yet been superseded by the complex and involved systems Of his successors. He died in 1759.

, a voluminous author of the seventeenth century, was born in 1590 in Scotland, and became a divine, but left that country in Charles I.'s reign, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplainsj and master of the free-school at Southampton. He died in 1654, leaving a handsome bequest to the above school, from which it is said he had retired for some time before his death, and passed the remainder of his days in the family of the Henleys of Hampshire, to whom he left a large library and a considerable sum of money, part of which was concealed among his books. Echard says “he was a busy, various, and voluminous writer, who by his pen and ether ways made a considerable noise and figure in these* times, and who so managed his affairs, that in the midst of these storms, he died very rich, as appears from the several benefactions he made.” We have a list before us of thirty pieces by this author, but whether published separately, each forming a volume, we know not. Most of them occur very seldom. Among them are some whose dates we have recovered, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the list. 1. “Comment, de Terrae motu refutatum/' Lond. 1634, 4to. 2.” The new Planet no Planet^ or, the earth no wandering star,“ibid. 1640, 4to, reprinted in 1646. 3.” Virgilius Evangelizans;“ibid. 1634, 8vo. This is a cento on the life of Christ, collected entirely from Virgil. Granger says it is ingenious, and was deservedly admired. 4.” Medicus medicatus, or, the physician’s religion cured,“ibid. 1645, 8vo. Th;s was one of the pieces in which he attacked the reputation of sir Thomas Browne in his” ReJigio Medici.“We find him returning to the charge afterwards in a work entitled, 5.” Refutation of Dr. Browne’s Vulgar Errors,“ibid. 1652, 8vo. 6.” Observations upon sir Kenelm Digby’s Discourse on the nature of Bodies,“ibid. 1645, 4to. 7.” The picture of the Conscience,“ibid. 1646, 12mo. 8.” The Muses’ Interpreter,“ibid. 1646, 8vo. 9.” Arcana Microcosmi,“ibid. 1651 and 1652, 12mo and 8vo. 10.” Observations upon Hobbes’s Leviathan,“ibid. 1653, 12mo. 11.” Observations upon sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World,“ibid. 12mo. After this he published” A Continuation“of that history, which Granger calls his” great work;“but adds, that it is like a piece of bad Gothic tacked to a magnificent pile of Roman architecture, which serves to heighten the effect of it, while it exposes its own deficiency in strength and beauty. 12.” An Epitome“of the same history. 13.” A View of all Religions,“the work for which he is best known, and which has passed through variotfs editions, the sixth in 1683. It had the merit of being the first compilation of the kind in our language, and attained a great degree of popularity. 14.” Abridgment and translation of John Wollebius’s Christian divinity,“ibid. 1657, 8vo. 15*” Three Decades of Divine Meditations,“no date. This is one of his poetical works, and valued in the” Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica“at Si. tis. 16.” Mel Helreonium, or, Poetical Honey gathered out of the weeds of Parnassus, &c.“ibid. 1642, 8vo. This, of which an account is given by Mr. Park in the” Censura Literaria,“is an attempt to spiritualize the Greek and Roman mythology. In moral and metre it resembles Quarles. Of the following works we have no dates:” De rebus Judaicis, libri quatuor,“in hexameter verse;” Rasura tonsoris,“prose;” Chymera Pythagoria;“”Meditations upon Predestination;“” Questions upon Genesis;“” Melissomachia;“”Four books of Epigrams,“in Latin elegiacs” Mystagogus poeticus“”ColloquiaPlantina;“” Chronology,“in English” Christiados poematis libri tredecim," with others, which seem of doubtful authority.

At length, in 1608, when he was in his thirty-first year, the cardinal Andrew Peretti took him into his service, as secretary, and with him he lived near twenty years, that is, until the cardinal’s death, in 1628. Rossi tells us in one of his letters that he accepted this situation much against his will, and remained in it only because he could obtain no other; and complain* of the little care the cardinal took to promote his dependents, and his general want of liberality towards them. His residence here, however, appears to have cured him of all his ambition, and he resolved for the future to devote himself to study only. From this time accordingly, he was employed in perusing the scriptures and the fathers, and in the composition of his various works; and that he might be enabled to enjoy all this in quiet, he went to a retired part of Rome, where he afterwards built a small church dedicated to St. Mary. In some of his works he styles himself a Roman citizen, and a commissary of the water of Marana; but, according to one of his letters to Fabio Chjgi, afterwards pope Alexander VIL, he neither knew what the duty of that office was, what this water of Marana was, where it came from, whither it flowed, or what benefit the people of Rome derived from it, except that he had been told it turned some mills. There was, however, an annual salary annexed, which he found not inconvenient. He died Nov. 15, 1647, and was interred in the church which he built for the use of the hermits of the congregation of Peter of Pisa, whom also he made his heirs. His first publication is entitled< Eudemiae libri Decem/* Cologne (Leyden), 1645. To this, which is a bitter satire on the corrupt manners of the Romans, he prefixed his assumed name of Janus Nicius Erythraeus. His other works consist of “Dialogues,” religious tracts, orations, and letters; but that for which he is most known is his “Pinacotheca imaginum illustrjum doctrinse vcl ingenii laude virorum, qui uuctore superstite diem suum ohierunt,” in three parts, Cologn, 1643—1648, reprinted at Leipsic in 1692, and in 1729. As containing many particulars of contemporary history, this is a work necessary to be consulted, but it contains more opinions than facts, and his criticisms are often injudicious.

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

, usually called the antiquary of Warwick, was born in that town, and educated there until fit for the university. He then went to Oxford, and studied at Baliol college, where he took his master’s degree in arts, and became soon afterwards a canon of Osney. English antiquities became early his favourite pursuit, and he had all the zeal, if not all the judgment of a true antiquary. Besides examining closely into the written records in both universities, he travelled over the greater part of the kingdom to acquire information on the spot where memorable events occurred, or any memorials were preserved. He then took np his residence at Guy-ClifTe in Warwickshire, when* he had a possession granted him either by the earls of Warwick or by Edward IV, and died Jan. 14, 1491. He wrote much on the civil and ecclesiastical antiquities of Warwick, and a history of our kings, which is extant in the Cotton library, and that of Bene't college, Cambridge, and was published by Hearne in 1716. In this are many collections relative to the antiquities of our universities. There is a noble ms. of his history of the earls of Warwick in the Bodleian library, with drawings of the several earls, their coats of arms, &c.

, a celebrated French poet, was born at Paris in 1669: he was the son of a shoe-maker, who, however, being a man of substance, gave him a good education; and Rousseau soon shewed himself worthy of it. He discovered early a turn for poetry; and, at twenty, was distinguished for some little productions, full of elegance, taste, and spirit. In 1688 he attended M. de Bonrepos as page in his embassy to the court of Denmark; and passed thence to England with marshal Tallard in quality of secretary. Yet, he had so little of avarice and ambition in his nature, that he never conceived the notion of n^aking a fortune; and actually refused some places which his friends had procured for him. In 1701 he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. He had now obtained the reputation of a poet of the first rank, expected a place in the French academy, and was in hopes of obtaining Boileau’s pension, which was about to ba vacant, when an affair broke out which obliged him to quit his country, and embittered his whole life afterwards. Some verses full of reflections, and of a very exceptionable nature, were produced as Rousseau’s. Rousseau denied that they were his, and maintained them to be forgeries, contrived for his ruin by those who envied and hated him. He was tried in form; and, by an arrest of parliament in 1712, banished the kingdom for ever. Voltaire, who certainly has not shewn himself well affected to this poet, yet expresses himself thus upon the affair of his banishment “Those couplets, which were the cause of his banishment, and are like several which he owned, must either be imputed to him, or the two tribunals, which pronounced sentence upon him, must be dishonoured. Not that two tribunals, and even more numerous bodies, may not unanimously commit very great acts of injustice when a spirit of party prevails. There was a violent party against Rousseau.” The truth, however, is, that Rousseau was the author, although he denied it, and the probability is, that the tribunal before which he was tried had proof of this; such at least seems to be the opinion of most French writers. He now withdrew to Switzerland, where he found a lector in the count de Luc, the French ambassador to the* Helvetic body; who carried him to Baden, and introduced him to prince Eugene, who was there. He continued with the prince till the conclusion of the peace at Baden; and then accompanying him to Vienna, was introduced by hiril to the emperor’s court. He continued here three years, at the end of which he might have returned to his own country, some powerful friends offering to procure letters of grace for recalling him; but he answered, “that it did not become a man, unjustly oppressed, to seal an ignominious sentence by accepting such terms; and that letters of gracd might do well enough for those that wanted them, but certainly not for him who only desired justice.” He was afterwards at Brussels, and in 1721 went over to London, where he printed, in a very elegant manner, a collection of his poems, in 2 vols. 4to. The profits hence arising put his finances into good condition; but, placing his money with the emperor’s company at Ostend, which failed soon after, he was reduced to the necessity of relying upon private benefactions. The duke of Aremberg gave him the privilege of his table at Brussels; and, when this nobleman was obliged to go to the army in Germany in 1733, he settled on him a handsome pension, and assigned him an. apartment in his castle of Euguien near Brussels. Rousseau, losing afterwards the good graces of the duke of Aremberg, as he had before lost those of prince Eugene, for he does not seem to have been happily formed for dependence, listened at length to proposals of returning to France, and for that purpose went incognito to Paris in 1739. He stayed there some little time; but, finding his affairs in no promising train, set out for Brussels. He continued some time at the Hague, where he was seized with an apoplexy; but recovered so far as to be removed to Brussels, where he finished his unfortunate life, March 17, 1741. He now declared upon his death-bed, as he had declared to Rollin at Paris a little before, that he was not the author of the verses which occasioned his banishment.

, an eccentric genius of our own times, has enabled us to give an account of him by a publication which himself left behind him, under the title of “Les Confessions de J. J. Rousseau, suivies des Reveries du Promeneur Solitaire,” Geneve, 1783, 2 volumes, 8vo. He was born at Geneva in 1711; his parents were, Isaac Rousseau, an ingenious watch-maker, and Susannah Bernard, the daughter of a clergyman, who was more rich than her husband (he having fifteen brothers and sisters). She had also wisdom and beauty, so that she was no easy prize; but a love, which commenced in their childhood, at length, after many difficulties, produced a happy marriage. And at the same time his mother’s brother, Gabriel, an engineer, married one of his father’s sisters. After the birth of one son, his father went to Constantinople, and was watch-maker to the seraglio; and ten months after his return our author was born, infirm and sickly, and cost his mother her life. The sensibility which was all that his parents left him, constituted (he says) their happiness, but occasioned all his misfortunes. He was “born almost dying,” but was preserved and reared by the tenderness of an aunt (his father’s sister). He remembers not how he learned to read, but only recollects that his first studies were some romances left by his mother, which engaged his father, as well as himself, whole nights, and gave him a very early knowledge of the passions, and also wild and romantic notions of human life. The romances ended with the summer of 1719. Better books succeeded, furnished by the library of his mother’s father, viz. “Le Sueur’s History of the Church and the Empire;” “Bossuet’s Discourses on Universal History;” “Plutarch’s Lives;” ' Nani’s History of Venice;“”Ovid’s Metamorphoses;“”La Bruyere;“ ”Fontenelle’s Worlds, and Dialogues of the Dead“and some volumes of” Moliere.“Of these” Plutarch“were his favourite; and he soon preferred Agesilaus, Brutus, and Aristides, to Oroondates, Artamenes, aud Juba; and to these lives, and the conversations that they occasioned with his father, he imputes that free and republican spirit, that fierce and intractable character, which ever after was his torment. His brother, who was seven years older, and followed his father’s business, being neglected in his education, behaved so ill, and was so incorrigible, that he fled into Germany, and was never heard of afterwards. On the contrary, the utmost attention was bestowed on John James, and he was almost idolized by all. Yet he had (he owns) all the faults of his age he was a prater, a glutton, and sometimes a liar; he stole fruit, sweetmeats, and victuals but he never delighted in being mischievous or wasteful, hi accusing others, or in tormenting poor animals. He re^ Jates, however, an indelicate trick he played one Madame Clot while she was at prayers, which still, he says, diverts him, because” she was the most fretful old woman he ever knew.“His” taste, or rather passion, for music“he owed to his aunt Susan, who sang most sweetly; and he paints her in most pleasing colours. A dispute, which his father had with a French captain obliging him to quit Geneva, our author was left under the care of his uncle Bernard, then employed on the fortifications, who having a son of the same age, these cousins were boarded together at Bossey, at M. Lambercier’s, a clergyman, to learn Latin, and other branches of education. In this village he passed two happy years, and formed an affectionate friendship with his cousin Bernard. A slight offence, the breaking the teeth of a comb, with which he was charged, but denied it, and of which now, fifty years after, he avows his innocence, bub for which he was severely punished, and a like chastisement, which, for a like offence, was also unjustly inflicted on his cousin, gave both at last a distaste for this paradise, and great pleasure in being removed from it. This incident made a deep and lasting impression upon him, as did another about planting a willow and a walnut tree, for which we must refer to his own account. At his return to Geneva he continued two or three years wiih his uncle, losing his time, it not being determined whether he should be a watch-maker, an attorney, or a minister. To the last he was most inclined, but that the small remains of his mother’s fortune would not admit. In the mean time he learned to draw, for which he had a taste, and read” Euclid’s Elements“withes Cousin. Thus they led an idle, but not a vicious life, making cages, flutes, shuttle-cocks, drums, houses, cross-bows, and puppets, imitating Punch, acting plays, and at last makiog sermons. He often visited his father, wlxo was then settled at Nion, a small town in the country of Vaud, and there he recounts two amours (as he calls them) that he had, at the age of eleven, with two grown misses, whom he archly describes. At last he was placed with M. Massiron, register of the city, to learn his business; but, being by him soon dismissed for his stupidity, he was bound apprentice, not, however, to a watch-maker, but to an engraver, a brutal wretch, who not only treated him most inhumanly, but taught him to lie, to be idle, and to steal. Of the latter he gives some instances. In his sixteenth year, having twice on a Sunday been locked out of the city-gates, and being severely threatened by his master if he stayed out a third time, by an unlucky circumstance this event happening, he swore never to return again, sending word privately to his cousin Bernard of what he proposed, and where he might once more see him; which he did, not to dissuade him, but to make him some presents. They then parted with tears, but never met or corresponded more,” which was a pity, as they were made to love each other.“After making some reflections on what would have been his fate if he had fallen into the hands of a better master, he informs us that at Consignon, in Savoy, two leagues from Geneva, he had the curiosity to see the rector, M. de Pontverre, a name famous in their history, and accordingly went to visit him, and was well received, and regaled with such a good dinner as prevented hisreplyingto his host’s arguments in favour of holy mother Church, and against the heresy of Geneva. Instead of sending him back to his family, this devout priest endeavoured to convert him, and recommended him to mad. de Warens, a good charitable lady, lately converted, at Annecy, who had quitted her husband, her family, her country, and her religion, for a pension of 1500 Piedmontese livres, allowed her by the King of Sardinia. He arrived at Annecy on Palm- Sunday, 1728 and saw madam de Warens. This epoch of his life determined his character. He was then in the middle of his 16th year; though not handsome, he was well made, had black hair, and small sparkling eyes, &c. charms, of which, unluckily, he was not unconscious. The lady too, who was then 28, he describes as being highly agreeable and engaging, and having many personal charms, although her size was small, and her stature short. Being told she was just gone to the Cordeliers church, he overtook her at the door, was struck with her appearance, so different from that of the old crabbed devotee which he had imagined, and was instantly proselyted to her religion. He gave her a letter from M. de Pontverre, to which he added one of his own. She glanced at the former, but read the latter, and would have read it again, if her servant had not reminded her of its being church-time. She then bade John James go to her house, ask for some breakfast, and wait her return from mass. Her accomplishments he paints in brilliant colours; considers her as a good Catholic; and, in short, at first sight, was inspired by her with the strongest attachment, and the utmost confidence. She kept him to dinner, and then inquiring his circumstances, urged him to go to Turin, where, in a seminary for the instruction of catechumens, he might be maintained till his conversion was accomplished; and engaged also to prevail on M. de Bernet, the titular bishop of Geneva, to contribute largely to the expence of his journey. This promise she performed. He gave his consent, being desirous of seeing the capital, and of climbing the Alps. She also reinforced his purse, gave him privately ample instructions; and, entrusting him to the care of a countryman and his wife, they parted on AshWednesday. The day after, his father” came in quest of him, accompanied by his friend M. Rixal, a watch-maker, like himself, and a good poet. They visited madam de Warens, but only lamented with her, instead of pursuing and overtaking him, which they might, they being on horseback, and he on foot. His brother had been lost by a like negligence. Having some independent fortune from their mother, it seemed as if their father connived at their flight in order to secure it to himself, an idea which gave our author great uneasiness. After a pleasantjourney with his two companions, he arrived at Turin, but without money, cloaths, or linen. His letters of recommendation admitted him into the seminary; a course of life, and a mode of instruction, with which he was soon disgusted. In two months, however, he made his abjuration, was baptized Ht the cathedral, absolved of h f eresy by the inquisitor^ and then dismissed, with about 20 livres in his pocket; thus, at once, made an apostate and a dupe, with all his hopes in an instant annulled. After traversing the streets, and viewing the buildings, he took at night a mean lodging, where he continued some days. To the king’s chapel, in particular, he was frequently allured by his taste for music, which then began to discover itself. His purse, at last, being almost exhausted, he looked out for employment, and at last found it, as an engraver of plate, by means of a young woman, madame Basile, whose husband, a goldsmith, was abroad, and had left her under the care of a clerk, or an jEgisthus, as Rousseau styles him. Nothing, he declares, but what was innocent, passed betwixt him and this lady, though her charms made great impression on him; and soon after, her husband returning, and finding him at dinner with her confessor, the clerk, &c. immediately dismissed him the house. His landlady, a soldier’s wife, after this procured him the place of footman to the countess dowager of Vercullis, whose livery he wore; but his business was to write the letters which she dictated, a cancer in her breast preventing her writing them herself; letters, he says, equal to those of madam de Sevigne. This service terminated, in three months, with his lady’s death, who left him nothing, though she had great curiosity to know his history, and to read his letters to madam de Warens. He saw her expire with many tears her life having been that of a woman of wit and sense, her death being that of a sage. Her heir and nephew, the count de la Roque, gave him 30 livres and his new cloaths; but, on leaving this service, he committed, he owns, a diabolical action, by falsely accusing Marion, the cook, of giving him a rosecoloured silver ribbon belonging to one of the chambermaids, which was found upon him, and which he himself had stolen. This crime, which was an insupportable load on his conscience, he says, all his life after, and which he never avowed before, not even to Madam de Warens, was one principal inducement to his writing his “Confessions,” and he hopes, “has been expiated by his subsequent misfortunes, and by forty years of rectitude and honour in the most difficult situations.” On leaving this service, he returned to his lodgings, and, among other acquaintances that he had made, often visited M. Gaime, a Savoyard abbé, the original of the “Savoyard Vicar,” to whose virtuous and religious instructions, he professes the highest obligations. The count de la Roque, though he neglected to call upon him, procured him, however, a place with the count de Gouvon, an equerry to the queen, where he lived much at his ease, and out of livery. Though happy in this family, being favoured by all, frequently waiting on the count’s beautiful grand -daughter, honoured with lessons by the abbe“, his younger son, and having reason to expect an establishment in the train of his eldest son, ambassador to Venice, he absurdly relinquished all this by obliging the count to dismiss him for his attachment to one of his countrymen, named Bacle, who inveigled him to accompany him in his way back to Geneva; and an artificial fountain, which the abbe* de Gouvon had given him, helped, as their purse was light, to maintain them till it broke. At Annecy he parted with his companion, and hastened to madam de Warens, who, instead of reproaching, lodged him in her best chamber, and” Little One“(Petit) was his name, and” Mama“hers. There he lived most happily and innocently, he declares, till a relation of” Mama,“a M. d'Aubonne, suggested that John-James was fit for nothing but the priesthood, but first advised his completing his education by learning Latin. To this the bishop not only consented, but gave him a pension. Reluctantly he obeyed, carrying to the seminary of St. Lazarus no book but Clerambault’s cantatas, learning nothing there but one of his airs, and therefore being soon dismissed for his insufficiency. Yet madam de Warens did not abandon him. His taste for music then made them think of his being a musician, and boarding for that purpose with M. le Maitre, the organist of the cathedral, who lived near” Mama,“and presided at her weekly concerts. There he continued for a year, but his passion for her prevented his learning even music. Le Maitre, disgusted with the Chapter, and determined to leave them, was accompanied in his flight, as far as Lyons, by John-James; but, being subject to fits, and attacked by one of them in the streets, he was deserted in distress by his faithless friend, who turned the corner, and left him. This is his third painful” Confession.“He instantly returned to Annecy and” Mama; but she, alas! was gone to Paris. After this, he informs us of the many girls that were enamoured of him: of his journey with one of them, on foot, to Fribourg; of his visiting his father, in his way, at Nion; and of his great distress at Lausanne, which reduced him to the expedient of teaching music, which he knew not, saying he was of Paris, where he had never been, and changing his name to Voussore, the anagram of Rousseau. But here his ignorance and his imprudence exposed him to public shame, by his attempting what he could not execute. Being thus discomfited, and unable to subsist at Lausanne, he removed to Neufchatel, where he passed the winter. There he succeeded better, and, at length, by teaching music, insensibly learned it.

At Boudry, accidentally meeting a Greek bishop, Archimandrite of Jerusalem, who was making a collection in Europe to repair the holy sepulchre, our adventurer was prevailed upon to accompany him as his secretary and interpreter and, in consequence, travelled, alms’-gathering, through Switzerland; harangued the senate of Berne, &c. but at Soleure, the French ambassador, the marquis de Bonac, having made him discover who he was, detained him in his service, without allowing him even to take leave of his “poor Archimandrite,” and sent him (as he desired) to Paris, to travel with the nephew of M. Goddard, a Swiss colonel in the French service. This fortnight’s journey was the happiest time of his life. In his ideas of the magnificence of Paris, Versailles, &c. he greatly mistook. He was also much flattered, and little served. Colonel Goddard’s proposals being very inadequate to his expectations, he was advised to decline accepting them. Hearing that his dear “Mama” had been gone two months to Savoy, Turin, or Switzerland, he determined to follow her; and, on the road, sent by the post a paper of satirical verses, to the old avaricious colonel, the only satire that he ever wrote. At Lyons he visited mademoiselle du Chatelet, a friend of madam de Warens; but whether that lady was gone to Savoy or Piedmont, she could not inform him. She urged him, however, to stay at Lyons, till she wrote and had an answer, an offer which he accepted, although his purse was almost exhausted, and he was often reduced to lie in the streets, yet without concern or apprehension, choosing rather to pay for bread than a lodging. At length, M. Rolichon, an Antonian, accidentally hearing him sing in the street a cantata of Batistin, employed him some days in copying music, fed him well, and gave him a crown, which, he owns, he little deserved, his transcripts were so incorrect and faulty. And, soon after, he heard news of “Mama,” who was at Chambery, and received money to enable him to join her. He found her constant and affectionate, ana 1 she immediately introduced him to the intendant, who had provided him the place of a secretary to the commissioners appointed by the king to make a general survey of the country, a place which, though not very lucrative, afforded him an honourable maintenance for the first time in his life. This happened in 1732, he being then near 21. He lodged with “Mama,” in whose affection, however, he had a formidable rival in her steward, Claude Anetj yet they all lived together on the best terms. The succeeding eight or nine years, viz. till 1741, when he set out for Paris, had few or no events. His taste for music made him resign his employment for that of teaching that science; and several of his young female scholars (all charming) he describes and introduces to his readers. To alienate him from other seducers, at length his “Mama” (he says) proposed to him being his mistress, and became so; yet sadness and sorrow embittered his delights, and, from the maternal light in which he had been accustomed to view this philosophical lady, who sinned, he adds, more through error than from passion, he deemed himself incestuous. And let it be remembered that she had a husband, and had had many other gallants. Such is his “good-hearted” heroine, the Aspasia of his Socrates, as he calls tier, and such was he. This is another of his “Confessions.” Thus madam de Warens, Rousseau, and Anet, lived together in the most perfect union, till a pleurisy deprived him of the latter. In consequence of the loss of this good manager, all her affairs were soon in the utmost disorder, though JohnJames succeeded to the stewardship, and though he pawned his own credit to support hers. Determining now to compose, and for that purpose, first to learn, music, he applied to the abbe Ulancnard, organist of the cathedral of Besanc,on. But, just as they were going to begin, he heard that his portmanteau, with all his cloaths, was seized at Rousses, a French custom-house on the borders of Switzerland, because he had accidentally, in a new waistcoat-pocket, a Jansenist parody of the first scene of Racine’s “Mithridates,” of which he had not read ten lines. This loss made him return to Chambery, totally disappointed, and resolved, in future, to attach himself solely to “Mama,” who, by degrees, reinstated his wardrobe. And still cotitin, ing to study Rameau, he succeeded, at last, in some compositions, which were much approved by good judges, and thus did not lose his scholars. From this aera he dates his connexion with his old friend Gauffeconrt, an amiable man. since dead, and M. d Conzie, a Savoyard gentleman, then living. The extra* ityatn-e of his mistr* ss, in spite of all his remonstrances, made? uim absent himself from her, which increased their ex pe ices, but at the same time procured him many respectable friends, whom he name.-. His uncle Bernard was now dead in Carolina, whither he went in oruer to build Charles-tow1, as na* his cousin, in the service of tue king of Prussia. His health at this time visibly, but unaccountably, declined. “The sword cut the scabbard.” Besides his disorderly passions, his illness was partly occasioned by the tury vv:tn union he studied chess, shutting hunself up, for that purpose, whole days and nights, till he looked like a corpse, and partly by his concern and anxiety for madam de Warens, who by her maternal care and attention saved his life. Being ordered by her to drink milk in the country, he prevailed on her to accompany him, and, aoout the end of the summer of 1736, they settled at Charmett- j s, near the gate of Chambery, but solitary and retired, in a house whose situation he describes with rapture. “Moments dear and regretted.” However, not being able to bear milk, having recourse to water, which almost killed him, and leaving off wine, he lost his appetite, and had a violent nervous affection, which, at the end of some weeks, left him with a beating of his arteries, and tingling in his ears, which have lasted from that time to the present, 30 years after; and, from being a good sleeper, he became sleepless, and constantly short-breathed. “This accident, which might have destroyed his body, only destroyed his passions, and produced a happy effect on his soul.” “Mama” too, he says, was religious; yet, though she believed in purgatory, she did not believe in hell. The summer passed amidst their garden, their pigeons, their cows, &c. theauiumn in their vintage and their fruit-gathering; and in the winter they returned, as from exile, to town. Not thinking that he should live till spring, he did not stir out, nor see any one but madam de Warens and M. Salomon, their physician, an honest man, and a great Cartesian, whose conversation was better than all his prescriptions. In short, John-James studied hard, recovered, went abroad, saw all his acquaintance again, and, to his great surprise and joy, beheld the buds of the spring, and went with his mistress again to Charmettes. There, being soon fatigued with digging in the garden, he divided his time between the pigeon-house (so taming those timid birds as to induce them to perch on his arms and head), bee-hives, and books of science, beginning with philosophy, and proceeding to elementary geometry, Latin (to him, who had no memory, the most difficult), history, geography, and astronomy. One night, as he was observing the stars in his garden, with a planisphere, a candle secured in a pai), a telescope, &c. dressed in a flapped hat, and a wadded pet-en-V air of “Mama’s,” he was taken by some peasants for a conjurer. In future, he observed without a light, and consulted his planisphere at home. The writings of Port-royal and of the Oratory had now made him half a Jansenist. But his confessor and another Jesuit set his mind at ease, and he had recourse to several ridiculous expedients to know whether he was in a state of salvation. In the mean time, their rural felicity continued, and, contrary to his advice, madam de Warens became by degrees a great farmer, of which he foresaw ruin must be the consequence.

In the ensuing winter he received some music from Italy, and, being now of age, it was agreed that he should go in the spring to Geneva, to demand the remains of his mother’s fortune. He went accordingly, and his father came also to Geneva, undisturbed, his affair being now buried in oblivion. No difficulty was occasioned by our author’s change of religion; his brother’s death not being legally proved, he could not claim his share, and therefore readily left it to contribute towards the maintenance of his father, who enjoyed it as long as be lived. At length he received his money, turned part of it into livres, and flew with the rest to “Mama,*' who received it without affectation, and employed most of it for his use. His health, however, decayed visibly, and he was again horribly oppressed with the vapours. At length his researches into anatomy made him suspect that his disorder was a polypus in the heart. Salomon seemed struck with the same idea. And having heard that M Fizes, of Montpellier, had cured such a polypus, he went immediately to consult him, assisted by the supply from Geneva. But two ladies, whom he met at Moirans, especially the elder, Mad. N. at once banished his fever, his vapours, his polypus, and all his palpitations, except those which she herself had excited, and would not cure. Without knowing a word of English, he here thought proper to pass for an Englishman and a Jacobite, and called himself Mr Budding. Leaving the other lady at Romans, with madam N. and an old sick marquis, he travelled slowly and agreeably to Saint Marcellin, Valence, Montelimar (before which the marquis left them), and at length, after having agreed to pass the winter together, these lovers (for such they became) parted with mutual regret. Filled with the ideas of madam N. and her daughter, whom she idolised, he mused from Pont St. Esprit to Remoulin. He visited Pont-du Card, the first work of the Romans that he had seen, and the Arena of Nimes, a work still more magnificent; in all these journeys forgetting that he was ill till he arrived at Montpellier. From abundant precaution he boarded with an Irish physician, named Fitz- Moris, and consulted M. Fizes, as madam N, had advised him. Finding that the doctors Jcnew nothing of his disorder, and only endeavoured to amuse him and make him” swallow his own money,“he left Montpellier at the end of November, after six weeks or two months stay, leaving twelve louis there for no purpose, save for a course of anatomy, just begun under M. Fitz-Moris, but which the horrible stench of dissected bodies rendered insupportable. Whether he should return to” Mama,“or go (as he had promised) to madam N. was now the question. Reason, however, here turned the scale. At Pont St. Esprit he burnt his direction, and took the road to Chambery,” for the first time in his life indebted to his studies, preferring his duty to pleasure, and deserving his own esteem.“At his return to madam de Warens, he found his place supplied by a young man of the Pays de Vaud, named Vintzenried, a journeyman barber, whom he paints in the most disgusting colours. This name not being noble enough, he changed it for that of M. de Courtilles, by which he was afterwards known at Chambery, and in Maurienne, where he married. He being every thing in the house, and Rousseau nothing, all his pleasures vanished like a dream, and at length he determined to quit this abode, once so dear, to which his” Mama" readily consented. And being invited to educate the children of M. de Maiby, grand provost of Lyons, he set out for that city, without regretting a separation of which the sole idea would formerly have been painful as death to them both. Unqualified for a preceptor, both by temper and manners, and much disgusted with his treatment by the provost, he quitted his family in about a year; and sighing for madam de Warens, flew once more to throw himself at her feet. She received him with good nature, but he could not recover the past. His former happiness, he found, was dead for ever. He continued there, however, still foreseeing her approaching ruin, and the seizure of her person; and to retrieve her affairs, forming castles in the air, and having made an improvement (as he thought) in musical notes, from which he had great expectations, he sold nis books, and set out for Paris, to communicate his scheme to tht academy.

“Such (he concludes) have been the errors and the faults of my youth. I have given a history of them with a fidelity with which my heart is satisfied. If, in the sequel, I have honoured my mature age with some virtues, I should have told them as frankly, and such was my design—But I must stop here. Time may undraw the curtain. If my memoir reaches posterity, one day or other it will perhaps learn what I had to say. Then it will know why I am silent.”

Rousseau. “I feel in my breast something like sharp pins, which occasions violent pains—My dear—if I have ever given you any uneasiness and trouble, or exposed you, by our conjugal union, to misfortunes, which you would otherwise have avoided, I hope you will forgive me.”

Mrs. Rousseau. “Alas! my dear friend, it is rather my duty to ask your pardon for any uneasy moments you may have suffered on my account, or through my means.”

Rousseau. “Ah! my dear, how happy a thing is it to die, when one has no reason for remorse or self-reproach! —Eternal Being! the soul that I am now going to give thee back, is as pure, at this moment, as it was when it proceeded from thee: render it partaker of thy felicity! My dear—I have found in the marquis of Girardin and his lady the marks of even parental tenderness and affection: tell them that I revere their virtues, and that I thank them, with my dying breath, for all the proofs I have received of their goodness and friendship: I desire that you may have my body opened immediately after my death, and that you will order an exact account to be drawn up of the state of its various parts: tell monsieur and madame de Girardin, that I hope they will allow me to be buried in their gardens, in any part of them that they may think proper.”

In 1768, he resumed his botanical pursuits, which he conducted with equal taste and judgment, by collecting and studying the plants on the mountains of Dauphine. During the year 1770, he appeared at a coffee-house in Paris in his ordinary dress, and took much pleasure in the admiration of the surrounding crowd. This seems always to be his ambition, and he was never content unless when occupying the public attention, even while he seemed conscious he could not draw the public respect. The conclusion of his life we have given before. The influence of his opinions was once most extensive in France, and reached even this country in a greater degree than could have been wished. One reason might be, that in England, for many years we were accustomed to contemplate Rousseau only as a man persecuted for freedom of opinion, and this excited a sympathy which tolerated more than mature reflection could justify. Rousseau was naturally a man of great talents, and might have been one of the first of philosophers, if his genius had not been perverted in early life. He does not appear to have been a man of learning: his education, we have seen, was neglected, and irregular: but imagination was his forte; and this, under the guidance of a sensual appetite, which never forsook him, led him to be the great master of seduction in morals, while his early association with Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Diderot, tempted him to rival them in impiety; and even when he quarrelled with them, as he did with all his contemj-or ies, he still pursued the object by himself; and his s -phistries, perhaps more than the wit and argument of his former colleagues, powerfully contributed to that delusion which afflicted the continent with so much misery.—Although Kousseau’s works are less read now, he must ever be considered by the French as one of their first writers: and they continue to print very splendid editions of his works, the last and finest of which is that printed by Dulot, 1796—1801, 25 vols. royal eighteens, of which only 100 copies were struck off.

, a voluminous French writer, was born at Laon, in Picardy, Aug. 26, 1686. His father and mother were of good families, both protestants, and sutrerers for their religion. His mother’s body was ordered to be drawn upon a hurdle, because she died in the protestant faith, and his father was condemned to be hanged for endeavouring to escape into Holland, but was saved at the intercession of the chancellor Voisin, who prevailed on the Jesuit La Chaise to obtain his pardon. His son was educated first at the college of Laon, and afterwards in that of Du Plessis at Paris, Having finished his philosophical studies, some family discontents, owing to the introduction of a step- mother, determined him to go to Holland, where he entered into the company of the French cadets attached to the regiment of guards belonging to the States-general. He served with reputation until after the battle of Malplaquet, when he returned to his studies, and married. In order to maintain himself and family, he commenced the business of teaching for fourteen or fifteen years at the Hague, and educated in that time above fifty young men of family, who afterwards rose to offices of distinction in the republic. This employment, however, he relinquished in 1723, in order to devote his time to the study of politics and history, and became editor or contributor to various literary and political journals, in which he was assisted by some Frenchmen of talents, who, like himself, had taken refuge in Holland. Political writers are not always safe, even in republics; and Rousset, in 1747, having written some pamphlets against the magistrates, and in favour of the prince of Orange, was arrested at Amsterdam, and confined for some weeks there or at the Hague; but when the prince was made Stadtholder, by the name of William IV. he not only released Rousset, but soon after conferred on him the title of counsellor extraordinary, and appointed him his historiographer. Returning now to Amsterdam, he plunged farther into politics by becoming one of the chiefs of the party known in that country by the name of Doelisten, from Doele, the name of a hotel where they assembled. This party obtained what they demanded, but the stadtholder wishing to unite all parties in the common cause, and the Doelisten having become obnoxious to the public, he dismissed Rousset, in 1749, from the places he had conferred on him, and forbid the publication of a work he had written against the French court. Rousset being at the same time informed that he was in danger of being taken up, went to Brussels, where his pen was his chief resource, and there he died in 1762.

She understood the French and Italian tongues well; for which, however, she had no other tutor than the hon. Mr. Thynne, son to lord Weymouth, who kindly took upon him the task of teaching her. Her uncommon merit, and the charms of her person and conversation, procured her many admirers; and, among others, it is said that Prior the poet made his addresses to her. There was certainly much of friendship, if not of love, between them; and Prior’s answer to Mrs, Roue’s, then Mrs. Singer’s, pastoral on those subjects, gives room to suspect that there was something more than friendship on his side. In the mean time, Mr. Thomas Rowe, the son of a dissenting clergyman, a gentleman of uncommon parts and learning, and also of some talents for poetry, was the successful suitor. She was advanced to the age of thirty-six, before their interview at Bath in 1709, and he was ten or twelve years younger. It appears, however, to have been a match of affection on both sides. Some considerable time after his marriage, he wrote to her under the name of Delia a very tender ode, full of the warmest sentiments of connubial friendship and affection: five years constituted the short period of their happiness. Mr. Rowe died of a consumption in May 1715, aged twenty-eight years, and was unfeignedly lamented by his amiable partner. The elegy she composed upon his death is one of her best poems. It was only out of a regard to Mr. Rowe, that she had hitherto endured London in the winter-season, and therefore, on his decease, she retired to Frome, where her property chiefly lay, and where she wrote the greatest part of her works, Her “Friendship in Death, in twenty letters from the dead to the living,” was published in 1728; and her “Letters Moral and Entertaining” were printed, the first part in 1729, the second in 1731, and the third in 1733, 8vo, both written with the pious intention of exciting the careless and dissipated part of the world to an attention to their best interests, and written in a style considerably elegant, and perhaps at that time new, striking, copious, and luxuriant. In 1736, she published “The History of Joseph,” a poem, which she had written in her younger years. She did not long survive this publication; for she died of an apoplexy, as was supposed, Feb. 20, 1736-7, in the sixty-third year of her age. In her cabinet were found letters to several of her friends, which she had ordered to be delivered immediately after her decease, that the advice they contained might be the more impressive. The rev. Dr. Isaac Watts, agreeably to her request, revised and published her devotions in 1737, under the title of “Devout Exercises of the heart in Meditation and Soliloquy, Praise, and Prayer;” and, in 1739, her “Miscellaneous Works in prose and verse” were published in 2 vols. 8vo, with an account of her life and writings prefixed. These have often been reprinted, and still retain a considerable share of popularity. Her person is thus described: Although she was not a regular beauty, she possessed a large share of the charms of her sex. She was of a moderate stature, her hair of a fine colour, her eyes of a darkish grey inclining to blue, and full of fire. Her complexion was very fair, and a natural blush glowed in her cheeks. She spoke gracefully, her voice was exceedingly sweet and harmonious; and she had a softness in her aspect, which inspired love, yet not without some mixture of that awe and veneration which distinguished sense and virtue, apparent in the countenance, are wont to create.

Rowe is chiefly to be considered (Dr. Johnson observes) in the light of a tragic writer and a translator. In his attempt at comedy he failed so much, that he wisely gave up the pursuit of the comic muse, and his “Biter” is not inserted in his works; and his occasional poems and short compositions are rarely worthy of either praise or censure; for they seem the casual sports of a mind seeking rather to amuse its leisure than to exercise its powers. In the construction of his dramas there is not much art; he is not a nice observer of the unities. He extends time, and varies place, as his convenience requires. To vary the place is not (in the opinion of the learned critic from whom these observations are borrowed) any violation of nature, if the change be made between the acts for it is no less easy for the spectator to suppose himself at Athens in the second act, than at Thebes in the first but to change the scene as is done by Rowe in the middle of an act, is to add more acts to the play, since an act is so much of the business as is transacted without interruption. Rowe, by this licence, easily extricates himself from difficulties; as in “Lady Jane Gray,” when we have been terrified with all the dreadful pomp of public execution, and are wondering how the heroine or poet will proceed, no sooner has Jane pronounced some prophetic rhimes, than pass and be gone the scene closes, and Pembroke and Gardiner are turned out upon the stage. “I know not,” says Dr. Johnson, “that there can be found in his plays any deep search into nature, any accurate discriminations of kindred qualities, or nice display of passion in its progress all is general and undefined. Nor does he much interest or affect the auditor, except in” Jane Shore,“who is always seen and heard with pity. Alicia is a character of empty noise, with no resemblance to real sorrow or to natural madness.” It is concluded, therefore, that Rowe’s reputation arises principally from the reasonableness and propriety of some of his scenes, from the elegance of his diction, and the suavity of his verse. He seldom moves either pity or terror, but he often elevates the sentiments; he seldom pierces the breast, but he always delights the ear, and often improves the understanding. Being a great admirer of Shakspeare, he gave the public an edition of his plays; to which he prefixed an account of that great man’s life. But the most considerable of Mr. Rowe’s performances was a translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” which he just lived to finish, but not to publish; for it did not appear in print till 1728, ten years after his death. It is said he had another talent, not usual with dramatic authors. Mrs. Oldfield affirmed, that the best school she had ever known was, hearing Rowe read her part in his tragedies.

Dr. Rowley wrote a great many medical pamphlets on various subjects, arising from the practice or peculiar diseases of his day, the titles of which it is unnecessary to specify, as in 1794, he re-published the whole, with corrections and additions, in 4 vols. 8vo. under the title of “The rational practice of Physick of William Rowley.” He appears to have been a man of extensive reading; and his practice, if not his theory, was in general conformable to that of his brethren, who did not, however, hold him in the highest regard, as in most of his works he seemed less ambitious of professional fame, than of popularity. When the Cow-pock was introduced, Dr. Rowley joined his learned friend Dr. Moseley, in direct hostility to the plan, and thus added a few more enemies to those he had created by his former attacks on some of the most eminent physicians of his time, Fothergill, Huxham, Pringle, Fordyce, Wall, Gregory, Cullen, &c. In 1793 he published a work under the title of “Schola medicinse universalis nova,” 2 vols. 4to, and afterwards a sort of translation of it in one volume 4to. This appears to have excited very little attention, although he was at great expence in engraving anatomical, &c. plates, and referred to it in many of his’ subsequent pamphlets on “Injections,” “The Hydrocephalus,” “The Plague,” &c. Dr. Rowley had much caste for music, and some for poetry. We are told he wrote light verses, and songs of a humorous cast, with great facility.

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

, an eminent agricultural writer, was born at Lyons, Jan. 24, 1734. His father, who was engaged in commerce, dying while he was young, and without property, he entered into the ecclesiastical order; but he had scarce ended his studies, when the soil, cultivation, &c. of the beautiful country near Lyons, began to occupy his attention, and Columella, Varro, and Olivier de Serres, became his favourite authors. In the study of botany he took La Tourette for his guide, who was his countryman and friend. With him, after being appointed director of the school at Lyons, which he soon left, he published, in 1766, “Elementary Demonstrations of Botany,” a work that passed through many editions. In 1771 he went to Paris, where he began to publish the “Journal de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle,” which was conducted with greater reputation than in the hands of his predecessor Gauthier d‘Agoty. In this work he gave clear and interesting accounts of all new discoveries in physics, chemistry, and natural history. ’ Having been, by the recommendation of the king of Poland, presented to a valuable priory, he had leisure to turn his attention to his favourite project of a complete body, or “Cours d' Agriculture.” As Paris was not the place for an object of this kind, he purchased an estate at Beziers, where his studies and observations enabled him to complete his “Cours,” in 10 vols. 4to, except the last, which did not appear till after the author’s death. In 1788 he went to Lyons, and was admitted a member of the academy, and the government gave him the direction of the public nursery ground. On the revolution Rozier was one of its earliest partizaris, and one of its victims; for in September 1793, during the siege of Lyons, a bomb falling upon his bed, buried his body in the ruins of his house. He was author of several treatises on the method of making wines, and distilling brandy, on the culture of turnip and cole-seed, on oil-mills, and other machinery.

Lord Orford has observed that “one cannot write the life of Rubens, without transcribing twenty authors;” and certainly twice twenty critics may be quoted who have dilated on his merits as an artist, with more or less discrimination. In concluding his article, however, we shall confine ourselves to the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds, from its acknowledged superiority.

“The elevated situation,” says our great artist, " or> which Rubens stands in the esteem of the world, is alone a sufficient reason for some examination of his pretensions. His tame is extended over a great part of the Continent, without a rival; and it may be justly said, that he has enriched his country, not in a figurative sense only, by the great examples of art which he left, but by what some would think a more solid advantage, the wealth arising from the concourse of strangers whom his works continually invite to Antwerp, which would otherwise have little to reward the visit of a connoisseur. To the city of Dueseldorp he has been an equal benefactor. The gallery of that city is considered as containing one of the greatest collections of pictures in the world; but if the works of Rubens were taken from it, I will venture to assert, that this great repository would be reduced to at least half its value. To extend his glory still farther, he gives to Paris one of its most striking features, the Luxembourg gallery; and if to these we add the many towns, churches, and private cabinets, where a single picture of Rubens confers eminence, we cannot hesitate to place him in the first rank of illustrious painters.

"Though I still entertain the same general opinion both in regard to his excellencies and his defects, yet having now seen his greatest compositions, where he has more means of displaying those parts of his art in which he particularly excelled, my estimation of his genius is of course raised. It is only in large compositions that his powers seem to have room to expand themselves. They really increase in proportion to the size of the canvas on which they are to be displayed. His superiority is not seen in easel pictures, nor even in detached parts of his greater works; which are seldom eminently beautiful. It does not lie in an attitude, or in any peculiar expression, but in the general effect, in the genius which pervades and illuminates the whole.

"I remember to have observed in a picture of Diatreci, which I saw in a private cabinet at Brussels, the contrary effect. In that performance there appeared to be a total absence of this pervading genius; though every individual figure was correctly drawn, and to the action of each as careful an attention was paid, as if it were a set academy figure. Here seemed to be nothing left to chance; all the nymphs (the subject was the Bath of Diana) were what the ladies call in attitudes; yet, without being able to censure it for incorrectness, or any other defect, I thought it one of the coldest and most insipid pictures I ever beheld.

"Besides the excellency of Rubens in these general powers, he possessed the true art of imitating. He saw the objects of nature with a painter’s eye; he saw at once the predominant feature by which every object is known and Distinguished; and as soon as seen, it was executed with a facility that is astonishing: and let me add, this facility is to a painter, when he closely examines a picture, a source of great pleasure. How far this excellence may be perceived or felt by those who are not painters, I know not to themcertainly it is not enough that objects be truly representedtliey must likewise be represented with grace which means here, that the work is done with facility, and without effort. Rubens was, perhaps, the greatest master in the mechanical part of the art, the best workman with his tools that ever exercised a pencil. This part of the art, though it does not hold a rank with the powers of invention, of giving character and expression, has yet in it what may be called genius. It is certainly something that cannot be taught by words, though it may be learned by a frequent examination of those pictures which possess this excellence. It is felt by very few painters; and it is as rare at this time among the living painters, as any of the higher excellencies of the art.

"This power, which Rubens possessed in the highest degree, enabled him to represent whatever he undertook better than any other painter. His animals, particularly lions and horses, are so admirable, that it may be said they were never properly represented but by him. His portraits rank with the best works of the painters who have made that branch of the art the sole business of their lives; and of those he has left a great variety of specimens. The same may be said of his landscapes; and though Claude Lorrain finished more minutely, as becomes a professor in any particular branch, yet there is such an airiness and facility in the landscapes of Rubens, that a painter would as soon wish to be the author of them, as those of Claude, or any other artist whatever.

"However, it must be acknowledged, that he wanted many excellencies, which would have perfectly united with his style. Among those we may reckon beauty in his fe-? male characters: sometimes, indeed, they make approaches to it; they are healthy and comely women, but seldom, if ever, possess any degree of elegance: the same may be said of his young men and children: his old men have that sort of dignity which a bushy beard will confer; but he never possessed a poetical conception of character. In his representations of the highest characters in the Christian or the fabulous world, instead of something above humanity, which might fill the idea which is conceived of such beings, the spectator finds little more than mere mortals, such as he meets with every day.

"The incorrectness of Rubens, in regard to his outline, oftener proceeds from haste and carelessness, than from inability: there are in his great works, to which he seems to have paid more particular attention, naked figures as eminent for their drawing as for their colouring. He appears to have entertained a great abhorrence of the meagre dry manner of his predecessors, the old German and Flemish painters; to avoid which, he kept his outline large and flowing: this, carried to an extreme, produced that heaviness which is so frequently found in his figures. Another defect of this great painter is, his inattention to the foldings of his drapery, especially that of his women: it is scarcely ever cast with any choice or skill.

"The difference of the manner of Rubens from that of any other painter before him, is in nothing more distinguishable than in his colouring, which is totally different from that of Titian, Corregio, or any of the great colourists. The effect of his pictures may be not improperly compared to clusters of flowers; all his colours appear as clear and as beautiful: at the same time he has avoided that tawdry effect which one would expect such gay colours to produce; in this respect resembling Barocci more than any other painter. What was said of an ancient painter may be applied to those two artists that their figures look as if they fed upon roses.

“To conclude, I will venture to repeat in favour of Rubens, what I have before said in regard to the Dutch school that those who Qannot see the extraordinary merit of this great painter, either have a narrow conception of the variety of art, or are led away by the affectation of approving nothing but what comes from the Italian school.”

Like many other scholars of that day, he added political skill to his literary accomplishments, and held some offices of trust and importance. In 1480 he was chosen gonfalonier of justice and four years after, the republic appointed him ambassador to the state of Genoa, which was folloxved by three other embassies, one to Ferdinand king of Naples, and two to Charles VIII. king of France. During the revolutions which took place at Naples about the end of the fifteenth century, Ruccellai took a part, for which some Florentine historians censure him but whether his Conduct was patriotic or factious, is not very clear, although the former is most probable. He died in 1514, and was interred in the church of St. Maria Novella, the fagade of which, begun by his father, he finished with great magnificence.

, fourth son to the preceding, was born at Florence, Oct. 20, 1475, at a time when his family was in the plenitude of its power. By what masters he was educated we have not been told, but it maybe presumed, from his father’s character, that he procured him the best which Florence could afford; and it is said that he became very accomplished in the Greek and Latin languages, as well as in his own. In 1505 he was sent as ambassador from Florence to Venice. In the tumult raised by the younger citizens of Florence on the return of the Medici in 1512, and which contributed so greatly to facilitate that event, he and his brother Pallas took a principal part, apparently in opposition to the wishes of their father, who was on the popular side. On the elevation of Leo X. and the appointment of his nephew Lorenzo to the government of Naples, Ruccellai is supposed to have accompanied the latter to Rome, when he went to assume the insignia of captain-general of the church. In 1515 he attended Leo on his visit to Florence, on which occasion the pontiff was entertained in the gardens of the Ruccellai with the representation of the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” written by our author in Italian blank verse. As Ruccellai entered into the ecclesiastical order, it has appeared surprising that Leo did not raise him to the purple; but political reasons, and not any want of esteem, seem to have prevented this, fop he sent him, at a very important crisis, as his legate to Francis I. in which station he continued until Leo’s death. After this event he returned to Florence, and was deputed, lyith five other principal citizens, to congratulate the net* pope Adrian VI. which he performed in an oration yet extant. The succeeding pope Clement VII. appointed Ruccellai keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, whence he obtained the name of IL Gastellano. He died in 1526. His fame rests chiefly on his poem of the “Api,” or Bees, which was published in 1539, and will secure to its author a high rank among the writers of didactic poetry. “His diction,” says Mr. Roscoe, “is pure without being insipid, and simple without becoming vulgar; and in the course of his work he has given decisive proofs of his scientific acquirements, particularly on subjects of natural history.” Besides the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” already noticed, he wrote another, V Oreste,“which remained in manuscript until published by Scipio Maffei in his” Teatro Italiano,“who consider it as superior to his” Rosmunda.“They are both imitations of Euripides. An edition of all his works was printed at Padua in 1772, 8vo, and his poem of the” Bees" was translated into French by Pingeron, in 1770.

, one of the earliest cultivators of natural science in Sweden, was the son of John Rudbeck, bishop of Vesteras, a considerable patron of letters, and by whose exertions the Swedish Bible was published in 1618. He was born in 1630, and educated at Upsal. Anatomy was his early study, and he prosecuted it with such success, that at the age of nineteen or twenty he made the important discovery of the lymphatic vessels in the liver, and soon afterwards, of those of other parts of the body. In Bartholine he had a rival in this discovery, which indeed both appear to have made independent of each other; but Haller gives the priority, in point of time, to Rudbeck. Rudbeck, having also made botany a part of his pursuits, contributed, out of his own means, to the advancement of that science, by founding a garden, which he afterwards gave to the university of Upsal. After a visit to Holland in 1653, he devoted himself to medicine, and to the instruction of his pupils in anatomy. In 1658 he was appointed professor of medicine, and was fixed at Upsal for the remainder of his life. Besides the attention which he gave to the above-mentioned pursuits, he very early addicted himself to the study of languages, history, antiquities, architecture, and music, as well as the practical art of drawing, and was so much regarded as a man of taste, that the public festivals and decorations, at the coronation of the young king Charles XL in 1660, were put entirely under his direction.

It is uncertain at what period of his life Rudbeck first conceived the vast project of his “Campi Elysii,” in which all the plants in the world, as far as they had been discovered, were to be represented by wooden cuts, in twelve folio volumes, disposed according to Bauhin’s “Pinax.” For this stupendous work he is said to have prepared ten or eleven thousand figures, and the first and second volumes were already printed, when a dreadful fire reduced almost the whole town of Upsal to ashes, in 1702. Three copies only of the first volume escaped the fire, two of which remain in Sweden, and the third is preserved in the Sherardian library at Oxford. A few leaves, wanting in this last copy, are supplied in manuscript. A number of the blocks of this very volume, which consists of grasses and their allies, came into England with the Linncean collection; and having been compared with the Oxford copy, an impression of them was given to the public in 1789, by sir James Edward Smith, president of the Linntean society, under the title of “Reliquiae Rudbeckiancc,” the appropriate letterpress of each figure, and the Linnaean names, being subjoined. An historical preface is prefixed to this edition, as well as a dedication to Dr. John Gustavus Acrel, professor of medicine at Upsal, who was entrusted with the sale of the l.innaean museum and library.

The second volume of the “Campi Elysii” came from the press a little before the former; so that several copies having got abroad, escaped the destruction of the rest. Even this, however, is a very rare book, the price of which can hardly be estimated. A copy was bought by professor Jacquin in Germany, many years ago, for about 30 guineas. This volume is in the Linnrcan, Banksian, and Sherardian libraries. Containing liliaceous plants, and the Orchis tribe, it is much more splendid than the first. The figures are copied from all quarters, though several are original, and amount to about 600 in all, many of them executed with great correctness and elegance. The preface attributes the anticipated publication of this volume to the greater popularity and attraction of its contents; and speaks of many of the intended figures of the whole work, as to be executed from drawings made by the author liinn* self, after original specimens, either preserved in Burser’s fine Swiss herbarium, or obtained from other quarters. The author speaks of his son and nephew, each of the same name with himself, as his coadjutors, and the destined continuators of this laborious undertaking. The destruction of his materials is extremely to be regretted; for such a repository of the botanical knowledge of the time would have been highly valuable to succeeding writers; particularly as illustrating the plants of Bauhin, so many of which are to be determined from Burser’s herbarium only.

The author’s other work, as scarce as the preceding, having shared the same fate, is entitled “Atlantica, sive Manheim vera Japheti posterorum sedes ac patria, &c.” l6L>8-^1702j 4 vols. folio. This work was written in the Swedish language, but is accompanied by a Latin translation. The fourth volume was put to press in 1702, and the printer was in the second alphabet, when the fire above mentioned took place, and consumed this volume as well as the others, with all the author’s copy, except two or three sets of the printed sheets, which have, if we mistake not, been supplied by manuscript in the few copies extant The president of the Linnaean society has one of the preceding volumes, composed of wooden cuts; but the whole work, which Brunet has accurately described, has copperplate frontispieces and other finished engravings, maps, &c. The aim of this singular performance was to prove that Sweden had been the terrestrial paradise of our first parents, the Atlantis of Plato, the place whence the Germans, French, English, Danes, Greeks, and Romans, and a,li nations came, and the source of all learning, ancient mythology, arts and sciences; but all that the author has realty proved is, how much profound learning may be brought to bear upon a wild and untenable hypothesis.

, a very eminent grammarian and critic, was born in October 1674, at Raggel, in the parish of Boyndie and county of Banff, Scotland. His father, James Ruddiman, was a farmer, and so strongly attached to the house of Stuart, as to shed tears on the death of Charles If. His son was educated in Latin grammar at the parish-school of Boyndie, and quickly surpassed his class-fellows in vigour of application. At the age of sixteen he was desirous of going to the university, and when his father opposed this inclination, because he thought him too young, he set out, without his knowledge, to King’s college, Aberdeen, and obtained by his skill in Latin, the first exhibition, or bursary, as it is there called, of that year. After studying at this college for four years, he obtained the degree of master of arts. Though he was only twenty years of age when he left Aberdeen, it appears from a book entitled, “Rhetoricorum Libri tres,” composed before this period, but never published, that he had then read the Roman classics with uncommon attention and advantage.