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

He was soon after engaged as a tutor in a gentleman’s family, which situation he quitted in about a year for that of schoolmaster in the parish of Lawrence-Kirk. After passing three years and a half in this employment, he had a favourable opportunity of removing to advantage, owing to an accidental introduction to the celebrated Dr. Pitcairne. This gentleman happening to pass through Lawrence-Kirk, was detained by a vidlent storm, and wanting amusement, inquired of his hostess whether she could procure him any agreeable companion at dinner. She replied, that the parish schoolmaster, though young, was said to be learned, and, though modest, she was sure could talk. Pitcairne was delighted with the conversation and learning of his new companion, and invited him to Edinburgh, with a promise of his patronage. Ruddiman accordingly quitted Lawrence-Kirk, and soon after his arrival at Edinburgh was appointed assistant- keeper of the advocates’ library. The emoluments of this place were trifling, but it made him known and made him learned; and after the regular hours of attendance at the library (from 10 to 3) he occupied his leisure hours as a private tutor in the Latin language to various young gentlemen. As his merits became better known, his assistance was anxiously solicited by those who were engaged in literary publications. His first employment of this kind was as editor to sir Robert Sibbald’s “Introductio ad historiam rerum a Romanis gestarum in ea Borealis Britannise parte quse ultra murum Picticum est,” and he likewise contributed his aid to Sir Robert Spottiswood’s “Practiques of the Laws of Scotland.” So little was literary labour rewarded at that time, that for the former of these works he received only 3l. and for the latter 5l. Such poor encouragement obliged him, in 1707, to commence auctioneer. The same year he published an edition of “Voluseni de Animi Tranquillitate Dialogus,” to which he prefixed a life of Volusenus, or Wilson, a learned countryman, who had been patronized by cardinal Wolsey. In 1709, h published “Johnstoni Cantici Solomonis Paraphrasis Poetica,” and “Johnstoni Cantica,” with notes, which he dedicated to his i'riend and patron Dr. Pitcairne. The edition consisted of two hundred copies, which he sold at one shilling each. The expence of printing amounted to 51. 10s. He was next employed by Freebairne, the bookseller, on a new edition of Gawin Douglas’s “Virgil’s yneid,” which he corrected throughout, added the glossary, and probably the forty-two general rules for understanding the language, for all which he received the sum of Sl 6s. Sd.

, orRUFINUS, a very celebrated priest of Aquileia, called by some Toranius, was born about the middle of the fourth century, at Concordia, a small city in Italy. He retired to a monastery in Aquileia, and devoted himself wholly to reading and meditating on the sacred scriptures and the writings of the holy fathers. St. Jerome passing that way became much attached to him, and vowed an indissoluble friendship. When St. Jerome retired into the east some years after, Ruffinus, inconsolable for their separation, resolved to quit Aquileia in search of his friend. He accordingly embarked for Egypt, visited the hermits who inhabited the deserts, and having been told much of the chamy of St. Melania the elder, had the satisfaction of seeing ner at Alexandria, where he went to hear the celebrated Didymus. The piety which Melania observed in Ruffinus induced her to make him her confident, which he continued to be while they remained iti the East, which was about thirty years. But the Arians, who ruled in the reign of Valens, raised a cruel persecution against Ruffinus, cast him into a dungeon, and loaded him with chains, where he suffered the torments of hunger and thirst, and they afterwards banished him to the most desolate part of Palestine. Melania ransomed him, with several other exiles, and returned to Palestine with him. It was at this period, that St. Jerome, supposing Ruffinus would go directly to Jerusalem, wrote to a friend in that city to congratulate him on the occasion, in the following terms: “You will see the marks of holiness shine in the person of Ruffinus, whereas I am but his dust. It is enough for my weak eyes to support the lustre of his virtues. He has lately been further purified in the crucible of persecution, and is now whiter than snow, while I am defiled with all manner of sins.” Ruffinus built a monastery on mount Olivet, converted numbers of sinners, re-united to the church above 400 solitaries, who had engaged in the schism of Antioch, and persuaded several Macedonians and Arians to renounce their errors. He, at the same time, translated such Greek books as appeared to him the most interesting; but his translations of Origen’s works, particularly “the Book of principles,” occasioned that rupture between him and St. Jerome, which made so much noise in the church, and so deeply afflicted St. Augustine, and all the great men of their time. Ruffinus was cited to Rome by pope Anastatius, who is said to have condemned his translation of “the Book of principles.” Being accused of heresy, he published some very orthodox apologies, which discover great ingenuity. His chief plea was, “That he meant to be merely a translator, without undertaking to support or defend any thing reprehensible in Origen’s works.” He went afterwards into 'Sicily, and died there about the year 410. He translated from Greek into Latin, “Josephus;” “The Ecclesiastical History,” by Eusebius, to which he added, two books; several of Origen’s writings, with his “Apology” by St. Pamphilius; ten of St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Discourses, and eight of St. Basil’s, in all which he has been accused of taking great liberties, and in some of them acknowledges it. He has also left a Tract in defence of Origen; two “Apologies” against St. Jerome; “Commentaries” on Jacob’s Benedictions, on Hosea, Joel, and Amos; several “Lives of the Fathers of the desert,” and “An Exposition of the Creed,” which has always been valued. His works were printed at Paris, 1580, fol.; but the “Commentary on the Psalms,” which bears his name, was not written by him. The abbe“Gervase has published a” Life of Ruffinus," 2 vols. 12mo.

, a law and miscellaneous writer, was born about 1723 in Piccadilly, where his father was his majesty’s baker, and having bought a lottery ticket for Owen, when in his infancy, which was drawn a prize of 500l. he determined to expend it upon his education for the profession of the law. He was accordingly entered of the Middle Temple, and by studying here, as well as at school, with great diligence, became a good general scholar, and an acute barrister, although he never arrived at great eminence in his profession. He endeavoured, however, to form some political connexions; and when, in 1757, Murphy wrote a periodical paper, in favour of Mr. Henry Fox, afterwards lord Holland, called “The Test,” Ruffhead setup another, in opposition, called “The ConTest.” Dr. Johnson, who then conducted ths “Literary Magazine,” after giving a few of both these papers, adds, “Of these papers of the Test and Con-test, we have given a very copious specimen, and hope that we shall give no more. The debate seems merely personal, no one topic of general import having been yet attempted. Of the motives of the author of the Test, whoever he be, I believe, every man who speaks honestly, speaks with abhorrence. Of the Con-test, which, being defensive, is less blameable, I have yet heard no great commendation. The language is that of a man struggling after elegance, and catching finery in its stead; the author of the Con-test is more knowing of wit neither can boast in the Test it is frequently attempted, but always by mean and despicable imitations, without the least glimmer of intrinsic light, without a single effort of original thought.” Ruffhead wrote other pamphlets on temporary political subjects, the last of which was a defence of the conduct of administration in the affair of Wilkes, entitled “The case of the late Election for the county of Middlesex considered,” in answer to sir William Meredith’s pamphlet on the same subject. Of his law writings, the first was a continuation of Cay’s “Statutes” to the 13 George III. 9 vols. fol. and the second an edition of the Statutes, which goes under his own name, which he did not live to publish, as it appeared in 1771, but which has been since regularly continued, making 13 vols. 4to. For this, or his political services, he was about to have been promoted to the place of one of the secretaries of the Treasury, when he died Oct. 25, 1769, in his forty-sixth year.

Some time before his death, bishop Warburton, who probably thought the task might involve himself in inquiries not very suitable to the dignity of his order, employed Ruffhead to write the “Life of Pope,” but himself revised the sheets, and occasionally contributed a paragraph, although neither was sufficiently attentive to accuracy of dates, which, in Pope’s history, are matters of no small importance, nor was the work in general creditable to the subject, for Ruffhead had no taste for poetry or criticism. The public, however, knowing to whom he must be indebted for most of his materials, read the book with some avidity, and it was twice reprinted, but has since been superseded by more able pens. The university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of LL. D on Ruffhead, in 1766, which, we believe, he never assumed, although in Northouck’s dictionary he is called Dr. Ruffhead. Among his other literary engagements, Sir John Hawkins informs us that he was employed as reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine, until employed on Cay’s Statutes: and some time before his death the proprietors of Chambers’s Cyclopædia engaged him to superintend a new edition of that work: he was paid a considerable sum on account, but, having done nothing, the booksellers recovered the money of his heirs. He left one son, Thomas Ruffhead, who died curate of Prittlewell, in Essex, in 1798.

Having a taste for polite literature, he studied to acquire a familiar knowledge of the French and Italian languages; but particularly of the Greek and Latin poets, historians, and orators. Among the Italian writers, the productions of John Baptist Porta, were his favourites. This author’s comedies, in our account of him, are erroneously said not to be extant, instead of esteemed. An edition of them was published in 1726, 4to, but there were old editions of them all in Ruggle’s time, and he evidently caught their spirit. Hjy “Ignoramus?' owes much to Porta’s” Trappolana.“In the mean time, Ruggle’s reputation for learning became an inducement with many parents and guardians to place their sons at Clare-hall, uiider his tuition. In 1604, he was appointed one of the two taxers in the university. This seems the only distinction he obtained, except that in the following year, when king James visited Oxford, he was admitted M. A. It is said to have been in consequence of a litigious dispute carried on, in 1611, between the university, and the mayor and corporation of Cambridge, that he conceived an unfavourable opinion of the gentlemen of the law, and thought some of their practices a fair subject for ridicule. With this view he completed his comedy called” Ignoramus,“which was acted at the university before James I. both in March and May 1614, and is said to have highly delighted his majesty; the pleasure, indeed, which it gave him is rather oddly expressed.” Spectando et ridendo rex tantum non cacatus!“The lawyers are said to have felt the force of the ridicule, and to have expressed the warmest resentment against the poet and his performance. A very correct edition of this comedy, with a life of the author, was published in 1787, by Mr. John Sidney Hawkins, 8vo. Two other plays are ascribed to Ruggle,” Club Law,“and” Revera, or Verity,“but neither have been printed. Mr. lluggle resigned his fellowship in 1620, probably on succeeding to an estate, and died between Sept. 6, 1621, and Nov. 3, 1622, the former being the date of his will, the latter the day when it was proved. Mr. Hawkins’s opinion of the famed” Ignoramus" is, we are afraid higher than modern taste and humour can allow.

, a doctor of physic in the university of Hanau, and a member of the academy of naturalists, was born at Hanau in 1637. He went to Amboyna, and became consul and senior merchant there, which did not prevent his employing his leisure moments in collecting the plants of that country; being so fond of botany as to acquire great skill in it without any instruction. Although he lost his sight at the age of forty-three, he could discover the nature and shape of a plant by his taste and feeling. He comprised all the plants which he had collected in the country where he settled, in twelve books, and dedicated them to the governor and council of the India company in 1690. They were not, however, printed then; but John Burman published them from 1740 to 1750, 7 vols. fol. which have commonly the date of 1751, under the title of “Herbarium Amboinense,” 1755. Burman has added an Auctuarium, with the table usually bound at the end of torn. VI. This work has some of the faults, or rather misfortunes, of a posthumous publication; and the reader must always keep in mind that the figures, far inferior to those of the “Hortus Malabaricus,” are generally not more than half the size of nature. The original drawings still in existence are said to be very fine. Rumph also left, “Imagines piscium testaceorum,” Leyden, 1711, foL reprinted 1739; the former is much valued for the plates. He wrote, besides, “The political History of Amboyna,” which has never been printed, but a copy is deposited in the India company’s chest at Amsterdam, and another at Amboyna.

, a Scotch painter, was born at Edinburgh in 1736, where his father, who was an architect, probably taught him some of the principles of his art. Mr. Fuseli says he served an apprenticeship to a coachpainter, and “acquired a practice of brush, a facility of penciling, and much mechanic knowledge of colour, be^ fore he had attained any correct notions of design.” The Scotch account, on the other hand, says he was placed as an apprentice to John and Robert Norries, the former of whom was a celebrated landscape painter (no-where upon record, however,) and under his instructions Runciman made rapid improvement in the art. From 1755 he painted landscapes on his own account, and in 1760 attempted historical works. About 1766 he accompanied or soon followed his younger brother John, who had excited much livelier expectations of his abilities as an artist, to Rome; where John, who was of a delicate and consumptive habit, soon fell a victim to the climate, and his obstinate exertions in art. Alexander continued his studies under the patronage and with the support of sir James Clerk, a Scottish baronet, and gave a specimen of his abilities before his departure, in a picture of considerable size, representing Ulysses surprising Nausica at play with her maids: it exhibited, with the defects and manner of Giulio Romano in style, design, and expression, a tone, a juice, and breadth of colour, resembling Tintoretto. At his return to Scotland in 1771, Runciman was employed by his patron to decorate the hall at Pennecuik, with a series of subjects from Ossian; in the course of some years he was made master of a public institution for promoting design, and died Oct. 21, 1785. Jacob More, the landscape-painter, who died at Rome, was his pupil; and John Brown, celebrated for design, his friend. One of his capital pictures is the Ascension, an altar-piece in the episcopal chapel, Edinburgh; another a Lear, which, with his Andromeda and “Agrippina landing with the ashes of Germanicus,” are highly praised by his countrymen. Edwards mentions having seen two etchings by this artist, the one “Sigismunda weeping over the heart of Tancred;” the other riew of Edinburgh, which is executed with great spirit and taste.

, third son of the king of Bohemia, by the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of James I. of England, was born 1619, and educated, like most German princes, for the army and those who have been least inclined to favour him, admit that he was well adapted, both by natural abilities and acquired endowments, to form a great commander. On the commencement of the rebellion, which happened when he was scarcely of age, he offered his services to Charles I. and throughout the whole war behaved with great intrepidity. But his courage was of that kind which is better calculated for attack than defence, and is less adapted to the land service than that of the sea, where precipitate valour, Granger observes, is in its element. He seldom engaged but he gained the advantage, which he generally lost by pushing it too far. He was better qualified to storm a citadel, or even mount a breach, than patiently to sustain a siege, and would have been an excellent assistant to a general of a cooler head. In consideration of his services, for which we refer to the general histories of the times, and on account of his affinity to him, king Charles made him a knight of the garter, and a free denizen, and advanced him to the dignity of a peer of England, by the title of earl of Holdernesse and duke of Cumberland.

After the Restoration, he was invited to return to England, and had several offices conferred upon him. In April 1662, he was sworn a member of the privy-council; and in December following, was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1666, the king appointed him, in conjunction with the duke of Albemarle, to command the fleet, and he now exhibited all the qualities that are necessary to constitute a great admiral. By his return to the fleet on June 3d, he wrested from the Dutch the only victory they had the appearance of gaining; and on the 24th of the same month, he beat them effectually, pursued them to their own coast, and blocked up their harbour. The great intrepidity which he displayed, in this naval war, was highly and justly celebrated; and in the last Dutch war of that reign he seemed to retain all the activity and fire of his youtb, and defeated the enemy in several engagements. From this time prince Rupert led a retired life, mostly at Windsor-castle, of which he was governor, and spent a great part of his time in the prosecution of chemical and philosophical experiments, as well as the practice of mechanic arts. He delighted in making locks for fire-arms, and was the inventor of a composition called, from him, Prince’s metal. He communicated to the Royal Society his improvements upon gunpowder, by refining the several ingredients, and making it more carefully, which augmented its force, in comparison of ordinary powder, in the proportion often to one. He also acquainted them with an engine he had contrived for raising water, and sent them an instrument for casting any platform into perspective, and for which they deputed a select committee of their members to return him their thanks. He was the inventor of a gun for discharging several bullets with the utmost speed, facility, and safety; and the Royal Society received from his highness the intimation of a certain method of blowing up rocks in mines, and other subterraneous places. Dr. Hooke has preserved another invention of his for making hail-shot of all sizes. He devised a particular kind of screw, by the means of which, observations taken by a quadrant at sea were secured from receiving any alteration by the unsteadiness of the observer’s hand, or through the motion of the ship. It was said that he had also, among other secrets, that of melting or running black lead, like a metal, into a mould, and reducing it again into its original form.

But there is one invention of which he has the credit, which requires more particular notice. Besides being mentioned by foreign authors with applause for his skill in painting, he was considered as the inventor of mezzotinto, owing, as it is said, to the following casual occurrence. Going out early one morning during his retirement at Brussels, he observed the centinel at some distance from his post, very busy doing something to his piece. The prince asked the soldier what he was about? he replied, the dew had fallen in the night, and made his fusil rusty, and that he was scraping and cleaning it. The prince looking at it, was struck with something like a figure eaten into the barrel, with innumerable little holes closed together like friezed work on gold or silver, part of which the fellow had scraped away. The prince immediately conceived that some contrivance might be found to cover a brass plate with such a grained ground of fine pressed holes, which would undoubtedly give an impression all black; and that by scraping away proper parts, the smooth superficies would leave the rest of the paper white. Communicating his idea to Wallerant Vaillant, a reputable painter then in the neighbourhood of Brussels, they made several experiments, and at last invented a steel roller with projecting points or teeth like a file, which effectually produced the black ground, and which being scraped away, or diminished at pleasure, left the gradations of light.

Such was the invention of mezzotinto, according to lord Orford, Mr. Evelyn, and Mr. Vertue; but the baron Heinnekin affirms that “it was not prince Rupert who invented the art of engraving in mezzotinto, as Vertue and several other authors pretend to say; but it was the lieutenant colonel de Siegen, an officer in the service of the landgrave of Hesse, who first engraved in this manner; and the print which he produced was a portrait of the princess Amelia Elizabeth of Hesse, engraved as early as the year 1643. Prince Rupert, he adds, learned the secret from this gentleman, and brought it into England when he came over the second time with Charles II.” Mr. Strutt, who makes this quotation, says, that he has not seen the print thus spoken of by the baron: and the precise date of prince Rupert’s discovery is no where mentioned. But if a mezzotinto engraving dated seventeen years before the restoration can be produced, and the date be genuine, it certainly goes far toward proving Heinnekin’s assertion. Vertue acknowledges to have seen an oval head of Leopold William, archduke of Austria, in mezzotinto, that was dated in 1656, which he esteems the earliest. It is inscribed “Theodorus Casparus a Furstenburgh canonicus ad vivum pinxit et fecit” but this argues little against prince Rupert’s discovery, since it is quite within probability that Casparus might have learned the art from the prince or Vaillant during their residence in the Low Countries.

The earliest of Rupert’s engravings in mezzotinto, that is now extant, is dated in 1658. It is an half length figure from Spagnoletto: the subject, an executioner holding a sword in one hand, and in the other a head, which is probably intended for that of John the Baptist, and upon the sword are the initials R. P. F. surmounted with a coronet. It is further distinguished by the following inscription on a tablet beneath, “Sp in Rvp. P. fecit. Francofurti. anno 1658 M. A. P. M.” Prince Rupert died at his house in Spring Gardens, Nov, 29, 1682, and was interred in Henry the Vllth’s chapel, regretted as one whose aim in all his actions and all his accomplishments was the public good. He was a great promoter of the trade to Africa, and a principal protector of the Royal African Company; as a proof of which, before the first Dutch war in this reign, he offered his majesty to sail with a squadron to the coast of Guinea, in order to vindicate the honour of the crown, assert the just rights of the company, and redress the injuries done to the nation; but the king, unwilling to hazard his person at such a distance, and in so sickly a climate, though he received the motion kindly, would not consent to it, but contented himself with taking an officer of his recommendation (captain Holmes), under whom the squadron was sent. He was an active member of the council of trade. It was owing to his solicitations, after being at great expence, not only in the inquiry into the value, but in sending ships thither, that the Hudson’s Bay Company was erected, of which he was the first governor appointed by the charter. In memory of him, a considerable opening on the east side of that bay, in Terra de Labrador, is called Rupert’s river. In general, his highness was a great friend to seamen, and to all learned, ingenious, and public-spirited persons, and assisted them with his purse, as well as afforded them his countenance. He was concerned in the patent for annealed cannon, in a glass-house, and other undertakings for acquiring or improving manufactures. Strict justice has been done to his highness’s many virtues, and amiable qualities, in that excellent character of him by bishop Sprat. In respect to his private life, he was so just, so beneficent, so courteous, that his memory remained dear to all who knew him. “This,” observes Campbell, “I say of my own knowledge; having often heard old people in Berkshire speak in raptures of prince Rupert.”

Prince Rupert, who never was married, left a natural son, usually called Dudley Rupert, by a daughter of Henry Bard viscount Beilemont, though styled in his father’s last will and testament Dudley Bard. He was educated at Eton school, and afterwards placed under the care of that celebrated mathematician sir Jonas Moore at the Tower. Here he continued till the demise of the prince, when he made a tour into Germany to take possession of a considerable fortune which had been bequeathed to him. He was very kindly received by the Palatine family, to whom he had the honour of being so nearly allied. In 1686 he made a campaign in Hungary, and distinguished himself at the siege of Buda, where he had the misfortune to lose his life, in the month of July or August, in a desperate attempt made by some English gentlemen upon the fortifications of that city, in the twentieth year of his age; and, though so young, he had signalized his courage in such an extraordinary manner, that his death was exceedingly regretted.

Soon after, he formed the resolution of retiring from, political life, and from this time may be considered as exclusively occupied in duties pertaining to his profession. As an author he first wrote, in 1770, an account of the effects of the stramonium, or thorn apple, which was published in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. I. The same year he addressed a letter, on the usefulness of wort in ill-conditioned ulcers, to his friend Dr. Huck, of London, which was published in the Medical Observations and Inquiries of London, vol. IV. In 1774 he read, before the Philosophical Society, his interesting “Inquiry into the Natural History of Medicine among the Indians of North America,” which formed the subject of an anniversary oration. He this year again addressed another letter to Dr. Huck, containing some remarks on bilious fevers, which was printed in the London Medical Observations and Inquiries, vol. V. To this succeeded his “Account of the Influence of the Military and Political Events of the American Revolution upon the Human Body, and Observations upon the Diseases of the Military Hospitals of the United States,” which his situation in the army eminently qualified him to make. In 1785 he offered to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia an “Inquiry into the cause of the increase of Bilious and Intermitting Fevers in Pennsylvania,” published in their Transactions, vol. II.; and soon after, in quick succession, appeared “Observations on Tetanus,” an “Inquiry into the Influence of Physical Causes upon the Moral Faculty,” “Remarks on the Effects of ardent Spirits upon the body and mind,” and his “Inquiry into the Causes and Cure of the Pulmonary Consumption.” About this time also appeared his paper entitled “Information to Europeans disposed to migrate to the United States,” in a letter to a friend in Great Britain; a subject which had already occupied the attention of Dr. Franklin, but which Dr. Rush considered still further deserving notice, on account of the important changes which the United States had lately undergone. To this paper followed his “Observations on the Population of Pennsylvania,” “Observations on Tobacco,” and his “Essay on the Study of the Latin and Greek Languages,” which was first published in the American Museum of Philadelphia. This last mentioned paper, which has been the fertile topic of much animadversion, was, with several other essays of Dr. Rush, and his eulogiums on Dr. Cullen and the illustrious Rittenhouse, the former delivered in 1790, the latter in 1796, embodied in an octavo volume, entitled “Essays, literary, moral, and philosophical,” published in 1798. In 1791, the medical colleges of Philadelphia, which, on account of certain legislative proceedings, had existed as two distinct establishments since 1788, became united under the name of the university of Pennsylvania; and Dr. Rush was appointed to the chair of the professorship of the institutes of medicine and clinical practice. He now gave to the public his “Lectures upon the cause of Animal Life.” The same year he presented to the Philosophical Society his “Account of the Sugar Maple Tree of the United States,” which was published in their Transactions, vol. III.; and in 1792, “Observations, intended to favour a supposition that the black colour of the negro is derived from leprosy,” published in their Transactions, vol. IV.

After the Restoration he presented to the king several of the privy-council’s books, which he had preserved frpm ruin during the late distractions; but does not appear to have received any other reward than thanks, which was given him by the clerk of the council in his majesty’s name. Sir Orlando Bridgman, lord-keeper of the great seal, appointed him his secretary in 1677, atid continued him in that office as long as he kept the seals. In 1678 he was a third time elected burgess for Berwick, as he was in the succeeding parliament in 1679, and afterwards for the Oxford parliament. Upon the dissolution of this, he lived in the utmost retirement and obscurity in Westminster. He had many opportunities of enriching himself, at least of obtaining a comfortable subsistence; but, either through carelessness or extravagance, he never became master of any considerable possessions. He had a small annual pension of 8l. or lOl. from the government of Massachusetts Bay, for procuring them papers from the public offices, but this was withdrawn when he became incapable of supplying them. At length, being arrested for debt, he was committed to the King’s Bench prison in Southwark, where he dragged on the last six years of his life in a miserable condition, having greatly lost the use of his understanding and memory, partly by age, and partly by drinking strong liquors to keep up his spirits. There he died May 12, 1690, about eighty-three years of age, and was buried behind the pulpit in St. George’s church, Southwark. He had several daughters, one of whom was married to sir Francis Vane.

His “Historical Collections of private passages in State, weighty matters in Law, and remarkable proceedings in Parliament/' were published at different times, in folio. The first part, from 1618 to 1629, was published in 1659. The copy had been presented to Oliver Cromwell when he was protector; but he, having no leisure to peruse it, recommended it to Whitelock, who running it over made some alterations and additions. The second part appeared in 1680; the third in 1692; and the fourth and last, which extends to 1648, in 1701. All the seven volumes were reprinted together in 1721, with the trial of the earl of Strafford, published in 1680, which makes the whole eight volumes. This work has been highly extolled by some, and as much condemned by others. Alt who have been averse to Charles I. and his measures, have highly extolled it; all who have been favourers of that king and his cause, have represented it as extremely partial, and discredited it as much as possible. But the person who professedly set himself to oppose it, and to ruin its credit, was Dr. John Nalson, of Cambridge, who published, by the special command of Charles II.” An impartial collection of the great affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639 to the murder of king Charles I. wherein the first occasions and whole series of the late troubles in England, Scotland, and Ireland, are faithfully represented. Taken from authentic records, and methodically digested.“The title promises to bring the history down to the murder of Charles I. but Nalson lived only to put out two vols. in folio, 1682 and 1683, which bring it no lower than Jan. 1641-2. He professes, in the introduction to this work, to make it appear that” Mr. Rushvvorth hath concealed truth, endeavoured to vindicate the prevailing detractions of the late times, as well as their barbarous actions, and, with a kind of a rebound, to libel the government at second-hand:“and so far it is certain, that his aim and design was to decry the conduct of the court, and to favour the cause of the parliament; for which reason it is easy to conceive that he would be more forward to admit into his collections what made for, than against that purpose. The authors of the” Parliamentary Chronicle" have also proved that Rushworth suppressed much which an impartial collector would have inserted, nor can we suppose that he could be very impartial in the early part of the work, which was submitted to Cromwell or his adherents. His Collections, however, cannot be without great use, if it be only to present us with one side of the question.

It is said that Rushworth supplied himself plentifully from the grand collection of pamphlets made by Tomlinson the bookseller, which commenced from the latter end of 1640, and was carried down to the Restoration. They were uniformly bound in upwards of two thousand volumes of different sizes, and consisted of about thirty thousand tracts. Tomlinson is said to have refused four thousand pounds for this collection. William Prynne had by far the greatest hand in these pamphlets, having written above 160 of them himself. Near an hundred were written by and concerning John Lilburne. The catalogue, which was taken by Marmaduke Foster, the auctioneer, consists of tsvelve folio volumes. So scarce were many of these tracts, even at their first publication, that king Charles I. is reported to have given ten pounds for only reading one of them over, which he could no where else procure, at the owner’s house in St. Paul’s Church-yard. The author from whom we have borrowed these particulars, says that Mr. Rushworth “did, most plentifully, supply himself from these fountains, how abundantly soever he represents the facts therein corrupted with fiction; how fondly soever he seems to magnify his own sagacity, in the distinguishment of one from the other; and how suspiciously soever he discountenances all farther examination into them, than that wherewith he hath been pleased to present us; where he expresses himself thus slightingly of these very authorities, which have yet so liberally contributed to such of the massy tomes, passing under his name, whereof he was the real compiler. ‘Posterity,’ says he (i. e. Rushworth), should know, that some durst write the truth, whilst other men’s fancies were more busy than their hands; forging relations; building, and battering castles in the air; publishing speeches, as spoken in parliament, which were never spoken there; printing declarations, which were never passed; relating battles which were never fought; and victories which were never obtained; dispersing letters which were never writ by the authors; together with many such contrivances to abet a party or interest Pudet h<ec opprobria. Such practices, and the experience I had thereof, and the impossibility for any man, in after-ages, to ground a true history, by relying on the printed pamphlets of our days which passed the press while it was without controul, obliged me to all the pains and charge I have been at for many years together, to make a great collection; and, whilst such things were fresh in memory, to separate truth from falsehood, things real from things fictitious, or imaginary.'”

, a man of learning and ingenuity, the son of Christopher Russel, esq. of Minorca, was born in 1728. He was bred at Westminster-school, and in 1746 was admitted a member of St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. He commenced a poet in 1744, or before; for in his collection are verses on seeing lady Elizabeth Boyle dance at Marston on her father’s birth-day in that year. In April 1750 he was admitted bachelor of arts, but. did not determine or complete his decree until 1752. About 1753 he obtained the rectory of Skull, in the diocese of Cork, in Ireland, by r the patronage of John, fifth earl of Oork and Orrery. With that nobleman he appears to have lived in intimacy, as well as with his second son, Hamilton Boyle, and frequently visited Marston. He died in 1767; and two years after, were published, in 2 vols. 8vo, “The Works^of the late Rev. George Russel, Rector of Skull, in the diocese of Cork.” From the few specimens Mr. Malone has given, he seems justified in saying that these work?, though little known, owing probably to their having been published only in Ireland, have very considerable merit.

In 1780 his studies met with a temporary interruption: he embarked for Jamaica in order to recover some money due to him as the heir of his brother James, who had died in that island. In 1783 he published “The Tragic Muse,” a very just compliment to the transcendant abilities of Mrs. Siddons. In 1784 he completed his “History of Modern Europe,” by the addition of three volumes. He remained for some time in London, without any particular engagement of the literary kind, from which, being now in easy circumstances, he appears to have meditated a retreat. In 1787 he went to Scotland, married Miss Scott, a very amiable woman, and settled at a place called Knottyholm, a small distance from the town of Langholm in Scotland. In 1792 he obtained from the university of St. Andrew’s, the honorary degree of doctor of laws, with which he wished to adorn the title-page of his “History of Ancient Europe,” an undertaking which he had now begun, and completed two volumes in 1793; but this, neither as to plan or execution, was so highly valued as his former work. He was in truth less fit for the task than he had been, and being engaged in disputes with his booksellers, his mind became hurt and irritated. Some letters we have seen from him at this period shew that it was not quite sound; and that the strong sense of injury which he felt was in a great measure without foundation. While in this state a stroke of palsy terminated his life, Jan. 1, 1794, in the fortyseventh year of his age.

, was eldest son of Francis fourth earl of Bedford, by Catharine, sole daughter and heir of Giles Bridges, lord Chandois, and was born in 1614. He was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, and was made knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles I. He was a member of the Long-parliament, which met at Westminster, November 3, 1640; and May 9 following, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in his honours and estate. In July 1642, having avowed his sentiments against the measures pursued by the court, he was appointed by the parliament general of the horse, in the army raised in their defence against the king; and the marquis of Hertford being sent by his majesty into the West to levy forces, iti order to relieve Portsmouth, the earl of Bedford inid the command of seven thousand foot, and eight full troops of horse, to prevent his success in those parts; and marched with such expedition, that he forced the marquis out of Somersetshire, where his power and interest were believed unquestionable, and thus destroyed all hopes of forming an army for the king in the West. He afterwards joined the eari of Essex, and in the battle of Edgehill commanded the reserve of horse, which saved the whole army, when the horse of both wings had been defeated, and, after doing great execution on the king’s infantry, brought off their own foot; so that it became doubtful who had the victory, this reserve being the only body of forces that stood their ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had so much influence in the House of Lords, that, on the 5th of August the same year, that House desired a conference with the Commons, and declared to them their resolution of senclHig propositions for peace to the king, and hoped they would join with him. But by the artin'ce of Pennington, lord mayor of London, who procured a petition from the common-council of that city against the peace, such tumults were raised to terrify these lords, that they left the town, the Commons refusing to agree to their propositions. The earls of Bedford and Holland resolved therefore to go to Oxford; but their purpose being discovered or suspected, they with some difficulty got into the king’s garrison at Wallingford, from whence the governor sent an account of their arrival to the council at Oxford. The king was then at the siege of Gloucester, and the council divided in their opinions, in what manner to receive them; but his majesty upon his return determined on a middle way, by allowing them to come to Oxford, and every person to treat them there as they thought fit, while himself would regard them according to their future behaviour. Accordingly the two earls came, and, together with the earl of Clare, entered into the king’s service in Gloucestershire, waited upon his majesty throughout his march, charged in the royal regiment of horse at the battle of Newbury with great bravery, and in all respects behaved themselves well. Upon the king’s return to Oxford, he spoke to them on all occasions very graciously; but they were not treated in the same manner by others of the court, so that the earl of Holland going away first, the earls of Bedford and Clare followed, and came to the earl of Essex at St. Alban’s on Christmas-day, 1643. Soon after this, by order of parliament, the earl of Bedford was taken into custody by the black rod, and his estate sequestered, as was likewise the earl of Clare’s, tili the parliament, pleased with their successes against % the king in 1644, ordered their sequestrations to be taken off, and on the 17th of April the year following, the earl of Bedford, with the earls of Leicester and Ciare, and the lords Paget, Rich, and Convvay, who had left Oxford, and joined the parliament at London, took the covenant before the commissioners of the great-seal. He did not, however, interpose in any public affairs, till the House of Peers met in 1660, when the earl of Manchester, their speaker, was ordered by them to write to him to take his place among them; which he accordingly did, being assured of their design to restore the king and on the 27th of April that year, he was appointed one of the managers of the conference with the House of Commons, “to consider of some ways and means to make up the breaches and distractions of the kingdom” and on the 5th of May was one of the committee of peers “for viewing and considering, what ordinances had been made since the House of Lords were voted useless, which now passed as acts of parliament, and to draw up and prepare an act of parliament to be presented to the House to repeal what they should think fit.”

After the restoration of king Charles II. the earl of Bedford, notwithstanding his past conduct, was so far in his favour, that at the solemnity of his coronation, on April 23, 1661, he had the honour to carry St. Edward’s scepter; and, on May 29, 1672, was elected a knight of the most noble order of the garter. When the prince and princess of Orange came to the throne, he was sworn one of their privy council and at their coronation, on April 11, 1689, carried the queen’s scepter with the dove. They constituted his lordship, on May 10, 1689, lord lieutenant of the counties of Bedford and Cambridge; and, on March 1, 1691, lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum for the county of Middlesex, and the liberties of Westminster. He sought for no other honours or employments; but their majesties, on May 11, 1694, created him marquis of Tavistock and duke of Bedford, and, in enumerating his merits in the patent it is expressed, “That this was not the least, that he was father to the lord Russel, the ornament of his age, whose great merits it was not enough to transmit by history to posterity; but they were willing to record them in their royal patent, to remain in the family, as a monument consecrated to his consummate virtue; whose name could never be forgot, so long as men preserved any esteem for sanctity of manners, greatness of mind, and a love to their country, constant even to death. Therefore to solace his excellent father for so great a loss, to celebrate the memory of so noble a son, and to excite his worthy grandson, the heir of such mighty hopes, more cheerfully to emulate and follow the example of his illustrious father, they intailed this high dignity upon the earl and his posterity.”

In 1679, when the king found it expedient to ingratiate himself with the whigs, lord William Russel was appointed one of his new council; but this could not last long, for in the following year he promoted the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York from the throne, the debate upon which was opened by him on the 26th of October, with a declaration of his opinion, that the life of his majesty, the safety of the nation, and the protestant religion, were in great danger from popery; and that either that parliament must suppress the growth and power thereof, or else popery would soon destroy, not only parliaments, but all that was dear and valuable to them, for which reason he moved, that they might in the first place take into consideration, how to suppress popery, and prevent a popish successor. The bill being accordingly passed in the House of Commons, his lordship, on the J5th of November, carried it up to the peers; who rejecting it, the Commons were exasperated at this, and lord Russel in particular said, that if ever there should happen in this nation any such change, as that he should not have the liberty to live a protestant, he was resolved to die one; and therefore would not willingly have the hands of their enemies strengthened. But these, and similar speeches from other members, having disgusted the court, the parliament was prorogued on the 10th of January, 1680-1. However, the necessity of the king’s affairs requiring the meeting of another parliament, his majesty called one, which assembled at Oxford on the 21st o March following; in which lord Russel served again as knight of the shire for the county of Bedford. But another bill of exclusion being moved for by sir Robert Clayr ton, who was seconded -.hy. his lordship, that parliament was soon after dissolved, and no other called during the reign of king Charles II. who now seemed determined to govern without one.

This state of affairs led to a conspiracy, in which the duke of Monmouth, lord llussel, and others, were concerned, to act in concert with the duke of Argyle and the Scotch. The leaders of this party had different views; but lord William Russel is said to have wished for nothing more than the exclusion of the duke of York, and a redress of grievances. While this was in meditation, another plot was laid by other conspirators to assassinate the king on his return from Newmarket, at a farm called the Kye-house, from which this plot has taken its name. Both conspiracies having been discovered, lord William Russel was apprehended and brought to trial at the Old Bailey July 13, 1683. In the indictment, the noble lord was charged with the treasonable purpose of killing the king, which was made an inference from his being engaged in a plan of insurrection. “On the whole,” says Hume, after describing the nature of the evidence produced on the trial, “it was undoubtedly proved, that the insurrection had been deliberated on by the prisoner, and fully resolved; the surprisal of the guards deliberated on, but not fully resolved, and that an assassination had not been once mentioned or imagined by him. So far the matter of fact seems certain: but still, with regard to the law, there remained a difficulty, and that an important one. The English laws of treason, both in the manner of defining that crime, and in the proof required, are the mildest and most indulgent, and consequently the most equitable, that are any where to be found. The two chief species of treason contained in the statute of Edw. III. are the compassing and intending of the king’s death, and the actually levying of war against him; and by the law of Mary, the crime must be proved by the concurring testimony of two witnesses, to some overt act, tending to these purposes. But the lawyers, partly desirous of paying court to the sovereign, partly convinced of the ill consequences which might attend such narrow limitations, had introduced a greater latitude, both in the proof and definition of the crime; and the jury, after a very short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, and sentence of death was passed upon him. As he refused to adopt some means which were very likely to have enabled him to escape, it has been imputed, by his admirers, to the pressing solicitations of his friends, that he wrote a very meanly supplicatory letter to the duke of York, in which he declared,” that what he had done in opposition to his royal highness, did not proceed from any personal ill-will or animosity to him, hut merely from opinion, that it was the best way for preserving the religion established by law; in which if he was mistaken, yet he had acted sincerely, without any ill end in it. And as for any base design against the duke’s person, he hoped he would be so just to him, as not to think him capable of so vile a thought. But that he was now resolved, and did faithfully engage himself, that if it should please the king to pardon him, and if his royal highness would interpose in it, he would in no sort meddle any more in the least opposition to his highness, but would be readily determined to live in any part of the world, which the king should prescribe, and would wholly withdraw himself from the affairs of England, unless called by his majesty’s orders to serve him; which he should never be wanting to do to the uttermost of his power. And that if his royal highness would be so gracious to him, as to move on his account, as ijt would be an engagement upon him beyond what he could in reason expect, so it would make the deepest impression on him possible; for no fear of death could work so much upon him, as so great an obligation would for ever do.“A few days after he wrote a letter to the king, to be delivered after his death, as it was by his uncle col. Russel; in which he observed,” that his chief business was humbly to ask his majesty’s pardon for any thing he had either said or done, which might look like want of respect to him, or of duty to his government; in which, though he did to the last moment acquit himself of all designs against his person, or of altering the government, and protested he knew of no design then on foot against either, yet he did not deny, but he had heard many things, and said some things, contrary to his duty; for which he had asked God’s pardon," &c. &c.

The execution was performed July 21, not on Towerhill, the common place of execution for men of high rank, but in Lincoln’s-inn-fields; and as he passed on in his coach, the multitude imagined they beheld virtue and liberty sitting by his side. He was the most popular among his own party, and perhaps the least obnoxious to the opposite faction; and his melancholy fate united every heart in a tender compassion for him. Without the least change of countenance, he laid his head on the block, and at two strokes it was severed from his body. He was, at the time of his death, only forty-two years of age. Burnet says, “he was a man of great candour and of a general reputation, universally beloved and trusted of a generous and obliging temper. He had given such proofs of an undaunted courage and of an unshaken firmness, that no man of that time had so entire a credit in the nation as he had. He quickly got out of some of the disorders, into which the court had drawn him, and ever after that his life was unblemished in all respects. He had from his first education an inclination to favour the non-conformists; and wished the laws could have been made easier to them, or they more pliant to the law. He was a slow man, of little discourse; but he had a tree judgment, when he considered things at his own leisure. His understanding was not defective, but his virtues were so eminent, that they would more than balance real defects, if any had been found in the other.”

, one of the learned divines who was contemporary with Cudworth, Whichcot, Tillotson, and Worth ington, at the university of Cambridge, was a native of that town, and educated at Christ’s college, of which he became fellow, and probably took his degrees at the usual periods, though we do not find his name in the list of graduates published some years ago. Mr. Joseph Glanvil, in his preface to Dr. Rust’s “Discourse of Truth,” tells us that, when at the university, he “lived in great esteem and reputation for his eminent learning and virtues, and was one of the first in the university who overcame the prejudices of the education of the times before the restoration, and was very instrumental to enlarge others. He had too great a soul for the trifles of that age, and saw early the nakedness of phrases and fancies. He out-grew the pretended orthodoxy of those days, and addicted himself to the primitive learning and theology, in which he even then became a great master.” In 1651 he delivered in his own. chapel a discourse upon Proverbs xx. 27, which in 1655 he preached again at St. Mary’s in Cambridge. This piece was first published by Mr. Joseph Glanvil at London in 1682, in 8vo, under the title of “A Discourse of Truth,” in a volume entitled “Two choice and useful Treatises; the one Lux Orientalis: or an inquiry into the opinion of the Eastern sages concerning the pre-existence of souls: being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of Providence in relation to man’s sin and misery.” The other, “A Discourse of Truth, by the late reverend Dr. Rust, lord bishop of Drornore in Ireland. With annotations on them both.” The annotations are supposed to be written by Dr. Henry More, to who-e school Dr. Rust appears to have belonged. On the restoration, bishop Jeremy Taylor, foreseeing the vacancy in the deanery of Connor in Ireland, sent to Cambridge for some learned and ingenious man, who might be fit for that dignity. The choice tell upon Dr. Rust, which corresponding with the great inclination he had to be conversant with that eminent prelate, he gladly accepted of it, hastened to Ireland, and landed at Dublin about August 1661. He was received with great kindness and respect by bishop Taylor, and preferred to the deanery of Connor as soon as it was void, which was shortly after, and in 1662 to the rectory of the island of Magee in the same diocese. Upon the bishop’s death, August 13, 1667, he preached his funeral sermon, which was printed. The bishoprics were now divided; Dr. Boyle, dean of Cork, was nominated bishop of Down and Connor, and Dr. Rust, bishop of Dromore, in which he continued till his death, which was occasioned by a fever in Dec. 1670. He was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore in a va'ult made for his predecessor bishop Taylor, whose body was deposited there. Mr. Glanvil, who was very particularly acquainted with him, tells us “that he was a man of a clear mind, a deep judgment, and searching wit, greatly learned in all the best sorts of knowledge, old and new, a thoughtfql and diligent inquirer^ of a free understanding and vast capacity, joined with singular modesty and unusual sweetness of temper, which made him the darling of all that knew him. He was a person of great piety and generosity, a hearty lover of God and man, an 'excellent preacher, a wise governor, a profound philosopher, a close reasoner, and above all, a true and exemplary Christian. In short, he was one, who had all the qualifications of a primitive bishop, and of an extraordinary man.” Dr. Rust’s other works were, “A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the chief of his opinions,” Lond. 1661, 4to; two sermons, one at the funeral of the earl of Mount-Alexander, the other on the death of bishop Taylor; and “Remains,” published by Henry Hallywell, Lond. 1686, 4to.

, an able critic and negociator, was born of an ancient family at Dordrecht or Dort, Aug. 28, 1589. He received a part of his early education at home, and was afterwards placed under the instructions of Gerard Vossius. In 1605 he was sent to Leyden, where he studied under Baud-ins, with whom he also resided, Scaliger, and Heinsius. After remaining here six years, he travelled in 1611 into France, resided two years at Paris, and took the degree of licentiate in law at Orleans; less from inclination than to please his parents. He returned to Dort, September 13, 1613, the day after his mother died, and soon after went to the Hague, where he was admitted to the bar; but remaining averse to this profession, and uncertain what to adopt in its place, the Swedish ambassador, who had been desired by his royal master to send him a person from Holland qualified for the post of counsellor, proposed it to Rutgers, and he having accepted the offer, they departed for Stockholm in May 1614. Finding, on their arrival, that the king was in Livonia, on account of the war with Muscovy, they took that route, and when they arrived at Nerva, the king received Rutgers with so great kindness, that the latter, although he had taken this journey without any determined purpose, or the hopes of a fixed settlement, now resolved ta attach himself to his majesty’s service. He was after this employed three times as envoy from that prince to Holland upon very important affairs, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of his majesty, who ennobled him in 1619. He visited Bohemia, Denmark, and several German courts, in the same quality; and lastly he resided at the Hague, as minister from Gustavus to that republic, where he died Oct. 26, 1625, at the early age of thirty-six. His works are, 1. “Notae in Horatium,” added to an edition of that poet by Robert Stephens, in 1613, and reprinted in 1699 and 1713. 2. “Variarum lectionum libri tres, quibus utriusque linguae scriptores, qua emendantur, qua illustrantur,” Leyden, 1618. This is justly esteemed as a very learned work, and, what was not so common then, a very judicious Specimen of criticism. 3. “Notse in Martialem,” added to Scriverius’s excellent and scarce edition of 1619, 12mo. 4. “Spicilegium in Apuleiurrt,” printed in Elmenhorst’s edition of 1621, 8vo. 5. “Emendationes in Q. Curtium,” given in the Leyden edition of 1625, 12mo. 6. “Poemata,” printed with Nicolas Heinsius’ s poems, Leyden, 1653, and Amst. 1669, 8vo. This Heinsius, the son of Daniel Heinsius, was Rutgers’s nephew. 7. “Lectiones Venusinae,” added to Peter Bui-man’s Horace, 1699, 12mo. 8. “VitaJani Rutgersii,” &c. written by himself, and published by another nephew, William Goes, Leyden, 1646, 4to, of 14 pages, but republished with his poems, and elsewhere. Rutgers bequeathed his library to Daniel Heinsius, his brother-in-law, who printed a catalogue of it in 1630.

, a learned physician, and one of the founders of the medical school of Edinburgh, was the son of the rev. Rutherford, minister of Yarrow, in the county of Selkirk, Scotland, and was born Aug. 1, 1695. He received his school-education at Selkirk, where there is every reason to believe he made a rapid progress in the knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages. In 1708, or 1710, he went to the university of Edinburgh, and after the regular course of classical studies, mathe^ matics, and natural philosophy, engaged himself as apprentice to Mr. Alexander Nesbit, at that time an eminent surgeon, with whom he remained until 1716, when he went to London. There he attended some of the hospitals, and the lectures read on anatomy by Dr. Douglas, on surgery by Andre, and on materia medica by Strother. He next proceeded to Leyden, which, from the lectures of Boerhaave, was then the most celebrated medical school in Europe. In 1719, he went to France, and about the end of July of that year was admitted to the degree of M. D. in the university of Rheims. He passed the following winter in Paris, chiefly for the sake of Window’s private demonstrations in anatomy, and in 1720 returned to Britain.

In 1721, he settled as a physician at Edinburgh, and soon afterwards Drs. Rutherford, Sinclair, Plummer, and Innes, purchased a laboratory, where they prepared compound medicines, an art then little known in Scotland; but, having higher views than the mere profits of such a speculation, they demonstrated, as far as they were the* known, the operations of chemistry, to a numerous audience: and soon afterwards, by the advice of their old tnaster Boerhaave, they extended their lectures to other branches of physic. In 1725, they were appointed joint professors in the university: where, we believe, each, for some time, read lectures in every department of medical science, anatomy exempted, and carried forward their classes in rotation. The anatomical lectures were read by the elder Monro, who had been settled a 3*ear or two before them in Edinburgh. But on the death of Dr. Innes, a particular branch of medical science was allotted to each of the other three professors. Dr. Plummer was appointed professor of chemistry and materia medica, Dr. Sinclair of the institutes of physic, and Dr. Rutherford of the practice; and thus they had the honour to establish the medical school of Edinburgh. The lectures on the institutes and practice of physic were then, and for many years afterwards, delivered in Latin, of which Dr. Rutherford had a great command, and talked the language more fluently than that of his country. This practice, we believe, was afterwards discontinued by the successors of these founders; but Dr. Rutherford lectured in Latin as long as he filled the practical chair.

In 1733, he began his “History of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers in Ireland, from 1653 to 1750,” which was printed at Dublin in 1751, 4to. It was peculiar to Dr. Rutty that all his publications were the result of careful industry and observation long continued. Of this work, not having seen it, or any account of it, we are unable to speak with precision. He tells us, however, that he did not undertake it for reward, but from zeal, “and a cordial love to the exercise of Christian discipline among them, extended not to a few external particulars only, as dress and address, but also to the inordinate pursuit of riches, to lukewarmness, and to profaneness, and all immorality.” In 1737, he published an “Essay on Women’s preaching,” with a rebuke to false prophets, who had long given him offence: some censure, he adds, ensued from this. From L740 to 1745, he was engaged on the “Natural History of the county of Dublin.” This, however, was Dot published until 1772. He tells us, that now “he was led a long dance on birds, fishes, and fossils, and in compotations for information, and was greatly hurt in his spirituals by this means,” &c. In truth, these compotations appear throughout the greater part of his life, to have been an almost constant source of uneasiness, and self-condemnation. In every page of his “Spiritual Diary,” he laments over his doses of whiskey and the ill-humour they produced, although his friends assure us that, both as to temper and temperance, his conduct was rather exemplary than blameable. Yet he had acquired a habit of magnifying the least infirmities into crimes, and this pervades the whole of the volumes which he filled with his Diary.

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

, a celebrated landscape-painter of Holland, was born at Haerlem in 1636; and, though it is not known by what artist he was instructed, yet it is affirmed that some of his productions, when he was only twelve years of age, surprised the best painters. Nature was his principal instructor as well as his guide; for he studied her incessantly. The trees, skies, waters, and grounds, of which his subjects were composed, were all sketched upon the spot, just as they allured his eye, or delighted his imagination. His general subjects were, views of the banks of rivers hilly ground, with natural cascades; a country, interspersed with cottages and huts solemn scenes of woods and groves, with roads through them windmills and watermills but he rarely painted any subject without a river, brook, or pool of water, which he expressed with all possible truth and transparency. He likewise particularly excelled in representing torrents, and impetuous falls of water; in which subjects the foam on one part, and the pellucid appearance of the water in another, were described with wonderful force and grandeur. Sir Joshua Reynolds says there is a clearness in his landscapes scarce seen in those of any other painter. Most of the collections in England are adorned with some of the works of this master. He died in 1681, aged forty-five.

He had a brother, Solomon Ruysdaal, who was born at Haerlem in 1616, and was also a painter of landscapes, but in every respect far inferior to Jacob. The best commendation given him by the writers on this subject is, that he was a cold imitator of Schoeft and Van Goyen, and although his pictures have somewhat that is plausible, sufficient to engage the attention of those who are prejudiced in favour of the name of Ruysdaal, yet, to persons of true judgment and taste, they are in no great estimation; and the eye is disgusted with too predominant a tint of yellow, which is diffused through the whole. He rendered himself, however, considerable, by having discovered the art of imitating variegated marbles with surprising exactness; and he gave to his compositions an appearance so curiously similar to the real marble, that it was scarce possible to discern any difference, either in the weight, the colour, or the lustre of the polish. He died in 1670.

, a learned critic, of the seventeenth century, was professor of history at Leyden. He was born in 1640, and after studying, probably at that university, he visited England, France, and Italy, and was every Tvhere esteemed for his talents and address. On his return to Holland he followed the profession of the law for some time at the Hague, but having little inclination for either the study or practice of it, he accepted the professorship of history at Leyden, and became an honour to the university. His lectures were much crowded, and he added to the reputation they procured him by his publications, particularly his edition of Tacitus, which Dr. Harwood pronounces “a very correct and excellent one.” It consists of 2 vols. 12mo, printed at Leyden in 1687, the first containing the text of Tacitus, the second Rycke’s notes, which are very valuable, and illustrate many passages that had escaped the notice or sagacity of his predecessors. He published also a curious dissertation “De primis Italian coionis, et de adventu JEneze in Italiam,” the subject of which was to refute the opinion of Bochart, who maintained that/neas had never seen Italy. He wrote another dissertation on giants, in which he collected all that had been written on those remarkable beings; an “Oratio de Palingenesia literarum in terris nostris,” published by Krieghius, at Jena in 1703; and published some other critical works. He died in 1690. Many of his letters are in the posthumous works of Francius.

, sieur de Malesais, a native of Marcigny, in JViaconois, was gentleman in ordinary of the king’s bedchamber, and knight of the holy sepulchre, in the 17th century. He resided a long time at Constantinople in his majesty’s service, was French consul in Egypt, learnt the Turkish and Arabic languages, and died soon after his return to France. His works are, “A Turkish Grammar,” in Latin, Paris, 1630, 4to; A French “Translation of the Koran,” 1649, 12mo, reprinted at Amsterdam, 1770, 2 vols. 12mo, but this work is not esteemed, the author having injudiciously blended the reveries of the Mahometan commentators with the text of Mahomet; A French translation of “Gulistan, or the empire of the Roses,” written by Sadi, chief of the Persian poets, Paris, 1634, 8vo. Gentius has translated the same book into Latin, under the title of “Rosarium poeticum.”

Soon after his return to England, he, however, engraved in lines a portrait of the queen, after Coates, and that portrait of his majesty, after Allan Ramsay, which Strange, from a misunderstanding, either with the earl of Bute or Ramsay, had declined, but they possess neither the vigour nor taste of his “Jupiter and Leda.” From this time he was appointed engraver to the king, and received an annual salary.

Ryland’s engravings in the novel manner were, for the most part, printed in red, and this manner of engraving soon obtained the name of “the red chalk manner,” and was run after with avidity by the public. With so much heedless anxiety was it pursued, that people never stopped to consider whether even red chalk or stumped drawings themselves, of which these prints were professed imitations, were so good representations of nature, or afforded a means so happy and efficient of transfusing the soul of painting, as the art which previously existed of engraving in lines, and which was then exercised in high perfection by Bartolozzi, Strange, Vivares, and Woollet it was enough that it was new and red Ryland and novelty led the way, and fashion and the print-sellers followed.

, an antiquary and critic, was born in the North of England, and educated at the grammar-school of Northallerton, whence he was admitted a scholar at Sidney college, Cambridge. On quitting the university, he became a member of Gray’s-inn; and in 1692 succeeded Mr. Shadwell as historiographer to king William III. He rendered himself known first as a writer for the stage, by his production of “Edgar,” a tragedy, in 1673, which excited little approbation or inquiry until he became the author of “A View of the Tragedies of the last age,” which occasioned those admirable remarks by Dryden, preserved in the preface to Mr. Colman’s edition of “Beaumont and Fletcher,” and since by Dr. Johnson in his “Life of Dryden.” Rymer was a man of considerable learning, and a lover of poetry; but had few requisites for the character of a critic; and was indeed almost totally disqualified for it, by want of candour and the liberties he took with Shakspeare, in his “View of the Tragedies of the last age,” drew upon him the severity of every admirer of that poet. His own talents for dramatic poetry were extremely inferior to those of the persons whose writings he has with so much rigour attacked, as appears very evidently by his tragedy of “Edgar.” But, although we cannot subscribe either to his fame or his judgment as a poet or critic, it cannot be denied that he was a very useful compiler of records, and his “Fœdera” will ever entitle his memory to respect. While collecting this great work, he employed himself, like a royal historiographer, as one of his biographers says, in detecting the falsehood, and ascertaining the truth of history. In 1702, he published his first letter to bishop Nicolson, in which he endeavours to free king Robert III. of Scotland, beyond all dispute, from the imputation of bastardy. He soon after published his second letter to bishop Nicolson, “containing an historical deduction of the alliances between France and Scotland; whereby the pretended old league with Charlemagne is disproved, and the true old league is ascertained.”

Among his works may be enumerated, the monuments of sir Isaac Newton and of the duke of Marlborough at Blenheim, and the equestrian statue in bronze of king William at Bristol, in 1733, for which he received 1800l.; a great many busts, and most of them very like, as of Pope, Gibbs, sir Robert Walpole, the duke and duchess of Argyle, the duchess of Marlborough, lord Bolingbroke, Wootton, Ben Jonson, Butler, Milton, Cromwell, and himself; the statues of George I. and II. at the Royal Exchange; the heads in the hermitage at Richmond, and those of the English worthies at Stowe. The competition of Scheemaker and Roubiliac hurt the business, if not the reputation of Rysbrach, for some time, and induced him to produce his three statues of Palladio, Liigo Jones, and Fiarningo, and at last his chef d'ceuvre, his Hercules; an exquisite summary of his knowledge, skill, and judgment. This athletic statue, for which he borrowed the head of the Farnesian god, was compiled from various parts and limbs of seven or eight of the strongest and best made men in London, chiefly the bruisers and boxers of the then flourishing amphitheatre for boxing: the sculptor selecting the parts which were the most truly formed in each. The arms were Broughton’s, the breasts a celebrated coachman’s, a bruiser, and the legs were those of Ellis the painter, a great frequenter of that gymnasium. As the games of that Olympic academy frequently terminated at the gallows, it was soon after suppressed by act of parliament; so that in reality Rysbrach’s Hercules is the monument of those gladiators. It was purchased by Mr. Hoare, and is the principal ornament of the noble temple at Stourhead, that beautiful assemblage of art, taste, and landscapes.

, related to sir Thomas Ryves, mentioned in the next article, a loyal divine and celebrated preacher, was born in Dorsetshire, and educated at New college, Oxford, of which he became one of the clerks in 1610, and was afterwards, in 1616, appointed one of the chaplains of Magdalen college. Having taken his degrees in arts, he attained great reputation as a preacher, and was made vicar of Stanwell, in Middlesex, rector of St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, chaplain to king Charles I. and in 1639, doctor in divinity. When the rebellion broke out, he was sequestered and plundered. At the restoration of king Charles II. he had the deanry of Windsor conferred on him, with the rectory of Acton, in Middlesex, and was made secretary to the garter. He died July 13, 1677. His works are, “Mercurius Rusticus; or, the Country’s Complaint, recounting the sad events of this unparalleled War,” &c. These Mercuries begin August 22, 1642. “Mercurius Rusticus, the 2d part, giving an account of Sacrileges, in and upon Cathedrals,” &c. When the war was ended, all these Mercuries were reprinted in 8vo, in 1646 and 1647, with an addition of the papers following: 1. “A general Bill of Mortality of the Clergy of London, &c. or a brief Martyrology and Catalogue of the learned and religious Ministers of the City of London, who have been imprisoned, plundered,” &c. 2. “Q,uerela Cantabrigiensis or, a Remonstrance by way of Apology for the banished Members of the flourishing University of Cambridge.” 3. “Micro-Chronicon or, a brief Chronology of the Time and Place of the Battles, Sieges, Conflicts, and other remarkable passages, which have happened betwixt his Majesty and the Parliament,” &c. 4. “A Catalogue of all, or most part of the Lords, Knights, Commanders, and Persons of Quality, slain or executed by Law Martial, from the beginning of this unnatural War to March 25, 1647.” And here we may observe, that the edition of 1647 has more in it than that of 1646. Dr. Ryves has likewise printed several occasional sermons, and is said to have assisted in the celebrated Polyglot Bible.

, son of John Ryves of Damery Court, or, as Fuller says, of Little Langton, in Dorsetshire, was born in the latter end of the XVIth century, ' and was educated at Winchester-school, whence he was admitted of New college, Oxford, in 1596, became fellow in 1598, and applying himself to the study of the civil law, commenced doctor in that faculty in 1610. He was a celebrated, civilian in doctors’ commons and the court of admiralty, and when he had established his fame in England, was, in 1618, preferred to be one of the masters in chancery, and judge of the faculties and prerogative court in Ireland, where he was held in equal esteem for his knowledge in the laws. Upon king Charles I. coming to the crown, he was made his advocate, and knighted: and, when the rebellion broke out, he was very firm to the royal cause, and although advanced in life, engaged in several battles, and received several wounds in his majesty’s service. He was one of the assistants to the king at the treaty of peace in the Isle of Wight. Sir Thomas Ryves was not only a very eminent civilian, and a good common lawyer, but likewise very accomplished in polite learning; and, particularly, wrote in Latin with unusual delicacy and correctness. He died in 1651, and was buried in St. Clement Danes, near Temple Bar, London. His works are, 1. “The Vicar’s Plea; or, a competency of Means due to Vicars out of the several parishes, notwithstanding their impropriations.” This book is written with a great deal of learning and strength of argument. 2. “iiegiminis Anglicani in Hibernia Defensio, adversus Analecien, lib. 3,” London, 1624, 4to. This was the answer to a book called “Analecta Sacra,” supposed to be written by David Roth, titular bishop of Ossory, a good antiquary, according to Usher, but a bigoted Roman catholic, if the author of this work. Sir Thomas Ryves’s object is, to vindicate the conduct of the Irish government as far as respects the Roman catholics, and his book includes much curious information respecting the state of opinions at that time. 3. “Jmperatoris Justiniani defensio adversus Alemannum,” Lond. 1626, 12mo. Alemanni had taken great liberties with the character of Justinian in his edition of Procopius, which our civilian thought it his duty to censure. 4. “Historia Navalis,” Lond. 162!), 12mo, enlarged afterwards into two publications, “Historiae Navalis antiquae libri quatuor,” ibid. 1633, 8vo, and “Historian Navalis mediae libri tres,” ibid. 1640, 8vo.

, a learned Portuguese Jesuit, was born in 1530, at Conde, in the province of Douro, and entered the society in 1545. After the usual course of studies, he taught at Coimbra, Rome, and other places, and was considered as an excellent preacher and interpreter of the scriptures, on which last account he was employed, by pope Pius V. on a new edition of the Bible. He died at Arona, in the Milanese, Dec 30, 1596, in the sixty-sixth year of his age. His chief works are “Scholia in quatuor Evangelia,” Antwerp and Cologn, 1596, 4to; and “Notationes in totam s cram Scripturam,” &c. Antwerp, 1598, 4to reprinted, with other scholi or notes, by Mariana and Tirini. Dupin says, that of all the Commentaries upon the scriptures there is nothing more concise and useful than the notes of our author, whose sole object, he adds, is to give the literalest use in a few words and in an intelligible manner. De Sa was the author of another work, which, although a very small volume, is said to have employed him for forty years: it is entitled “Aphorismi Confessariorum,” printed first at Venice, 1595, 12mo, and afterwards frequently reprinted in various places. Dupin calls it a moral work it seems rather a set of rules for confessors in cases of conscience and Lavocat tells us it contains some dangerous positions respecting both morals and the authority of kings. It underwent so many corrections and emendations before the pope would license it, that it did not appea- until the year before the author died. The French translations of it have many castrations.

, or Saadias the Excellent, a learned rabbi, the chief of the academy of the Jews, was born at Pithom in Egypt, about the year 892. In the year 927, he was invited by David Ben- Chair, the prince of the captivity, to preside over the academy at Sora, near Babylon, where one of his first objects was to explode the doctrine ofthe transmigration of souls, which was very prevalent, even among the Jews. But having refused to subscribe to a new regulation, which appeared to him to be repugnant to the Jewish laws, a breach arose between David and Saadias, which after some years was made up, and Saadias was restored to his professorship, in which he continued with great reputation till his death, in the year 942. His principal works are, “Sepher Haemunah,” or a treatise concerning the Jewish articles of faith, in ten chapters; but we have only a translation of it from the original Arabic into Hebrew, which was printed at Constantinople in 1647, and often reprinted. “A Commentary on the Book Jezira,” printed, with other Commentaries on that book, at Mantua, in 1592; “An Arabic translation of the whole Old Testament,” of whjch the Pentateuch is inserted in Jay’s and Walton’s Polyglotts, accompanied with the Latin version of Gabriel Sionita; “A Commentary on the Song of Songs,” in Hebrew, printed at Prague in 1609, 4to “A Commentary on Daniel,” likewise in Hebrew, inserted in the great rabbinical bibles of Venice and Basil “A Commentary on Job,” in Arabic, the ms. of which is in the Bodleian library at Oxford and a commentary on illicit alliances, mentioned by Aben Efra.

, whose proper name was Marcus Antonius Coccius, or vernacularly Marcantonio Coccio, an Italian historian and critic, was born in 1436, in the campagna of Rome, on the confines of the ancient country of the Sabines, from which circumstance he took the name of Sabellicus. He was a scholar of Pomponius Letus’s, and in 1475, was appointed professor of eloquence at Udino, to which office he was likewise appointed at Venice, in 1484-. Some time after, when the plague obliged him to retire to Verona, he composed, within the space of fifteen months, his Latin history of Venice, in thirty- three books, whiqh were published in 1487, entitled “Rerum Venetiarum ab urbe condita,” folio, a most beautiful specimen of early printing, of which there was a copy on vellum, in the Pinelli library. The republic of Venice was so pleased with this work as to decree the author a pension of 200 sequins; and Sabellicus, out of gratitude, added four books to his history, which, however, remain in manuscript. He published also “A Description of Venice,” in three books a “Dialogue on the Venetian Magistrates” and two poems in honour of the republic. The most considerable of his other works is his rhapsody of histories: “Rhapsodiae Historiarum Enneades,” in ten Euneads, each containing nine books, and comprizing a general history from the creation to the year 1503. The first edition published at Venice in 1498, folio, contained only seven Enneads; but the second, in Io04, had the addition of three more, bringing the history down to the above date. Although there is little, either in matter or manner, to recommend tins work, or many others of its kind, to a modern reader, it brought the author both reward and reputation. His other works are discourses, moral, philosophical, and historical, with many Latin poems; the whole printed in four volumes, folio, at Basil in 1560. There is a scarce edition of his “Epistolæ familiares, necnon Orationes et Poemata,” Venice, 1502, folio. Sabellicus likewise wrote commentaries on Pimy the naturalist, Valerius Maximus, Livy, Horace, Justin, Florus, and some other classics, whi< h are to be found in Gruter’s “Thesaurus.” He died at Venice in 1506. Whatever reputation he might gain by his history of Venice, he allows himself that he too often made use of authors on whom not much reliance was to be placed; and it is certain that he did not at all consult, or seem to know the existence of, the annals of the doge Andrew Dandolo, which furnish the most authentic, as well as ancient, account of the early times of the republic.

, a Lybian, known in ecclesiastical history as the head of the sect called Sabellians, lived in the third century, and was born at Ptolemais, and was a disciple of Noetus. He reduced the three persons in the Trinity to three states, or relations, or rather reduced the whole Trinity to the one person of the Father; making the Word and Holy Spirit to be the only emanations or functions thereof. Epiphanius tells us, that the God of the Sabellians, whom they called the Father, resembled the Son, and was a mere subtraction, whereof the Son was the illuminative virtue or quality, and the Holy Ghost the warming virtue. This sect had many followers in Mesopotamia and Rome; but their doctrines are so obscurely -expressed, as to create doubts as to what they really were. It is certain, however, that they were condemned by the Trinitarians, and therefore Lardner, and his followers, seem pleased to add Sabellius to the scanty list of Unitarians of the early ages

, an illustrious Italian painter, the son of a painter, was born at Rome in 1601, or as some writers say, in 1594. He learned the principles of his art under his father, but became afterwards the disciple of Francesco Albano, and made such advances, that, under twelve years of age, he carried the prize, in the academy of St. Luke, from all his much older competitors. With this badge of honour, they gave him the nickname of Andreuccio, to denote the diminutive figure he then made, being a boy; and which he long retained. His application to the works of Polidoro da Caravaggio and Raphael, and the antique marbles, together with his studies under Albano, and his copying after Correggio, and others, the best Lombard masters, were the several steps by which he raised himself to extraordinary perfection in historical composition The three first gave him his correctness and elegance of design; and the last made him the best colourist of all the Roman school. His works are not very numerous, o ving io the infirmities which attended his latter years; and especially the gout, which occasioned frequent and long interruptions to his labours. He was likewise slow and fastididus, and wished to rest his fame more upon the quality than quantity of his performances. His first patrons were the cardinals Antonio Barberini and del Morte, the protector of the academy of painting. He became afterwards a great favourite of Urban VIII. and drew an admirable portrait of him. Several of the public edifices at Rome are ^embellished with his works, some of which have been ranked among the most admired productions of art in that capital. Such are his celebrated picture of the Death of St. Anne, in the church of S. Carlo a Catinari; the Angel appearing to St. Joseph, the principal altar-piece in S. Giuseppe a Capo le Case; and his St. Andrea, in the Quirinal. But his most distinguished performance is his famous picture of S/Romualdo, formerly in the church dedicated to that saint, now in the gallery of the Louvre. This admirable production was considered one of the four finest pictures at Rome, where Sacchi died in 1668.

All Sacchini’s operas are replete with elegant airs, beautiful accompanied recitatives, and orchestral effects, without the least appearance of labour or study. It was seemingly by small means that he produced the greatest effects. He interested the audience more by a happy, graceful, and touching melody, than by a laboured and extraneous modulation. His accompaniments always brilliant and ingenious, without being loaded and confused, assist the expression of the vocal part, and are often picturesque. Each of the dramas he composed in this country was so entire, so masterly, yet so new and natural, that there was nothing left for criticism to censure, though innumerable beauties to point out and admire. He had a taste so exquisite, and so totally free from pedantry, that he was frequently new without effort; never thinking of himself or his fame for any particular excellence, but totally occupied with the ideas of the poet, and the propriety, consistency, and effect of the whole drama. His accompaniments, though always rich and ingenious, never call off attention from the voice, but by a constant transparency, the principal melody is rendered distinguishable through all the contrivance of imitative and picturesque design in the instruments.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born in 1570, in the diocese of Perugia. He was professor of rhetoric at Rome during several years, and secretary to his general, Vitelleschi, seven years. He died December 26, 1625, aged 55. His principal works are, “A Continuation of the History of the Jesuits* Society,” begun by Orlandino. Of this Sacchini wrote the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th parts or volumes, fol. 1620 1661. An addition to the fifth part was made by Jouvency, and the whole completed by Julius Cordara. Perfect copies are very rarely to be met with. Sacchini was also the author of a small book judiciously written and much esteemed, entitled “De ratione Libros cum profectu legendi,” 12mo, at the end of which is a discourse, “De vitanda Librorum moribus noxiorum lectione,” which father Sacchini delivered at Rome in his rhetorical school in 1603.

, D. D. a man whose history affords a very striking example of the folly of party spirit, was the son of Joshua Sacheverell of Marlborough, clerk, who died rector of St. Peter’s church in Marlborough, leaving a numerous family in very low circumstances. By a letter to him from his uncle, in 1711, it appears that he had a brother named Thomas, and a sister Susannah. Henry was put to school at Marlborough, at the charge of Mr. Edward Hearst, an apothecary, who, being his godfather, adopted him as his son. Hearst’s widow put him afterwards to^Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he became demy in 1687, at the age of 15. Here he soon distinguished himself by a regular observation of the duties of the house, by his compositions, good manners, and genteel behaviour; qualifications which recommended him to that society, of which he became fellow, and, as public tutor, had the care of the education of most of the young gentlemen of quality and fortune that were admitted of the college. In this station he had the care of the education of a great many persons eminent for their learning and abilities; and was contemporary and chamberfellow with Addison, and one of his chief intimates till the time of his famous trial. Mr. Addison’s “Account of the greatest English' Poets,” dated April 4, 1694, in a farewell-poem to the Muses on his intending to enter into holy orders, was inscribed <c to Mr. Henry Sacheverell,“his then dearest friend and colleague. Much has been said by Sacheverell’s enemies of his ingratitude to his relations, and of his turbulent behaviour at Oxford; but these appear to have been groundless calumnies, circulated only by the spirit of party. In his younger years he wrote some excellent Latin poems, besides several in the second and third volumes of the” Mus as Anglicanae,“ascribed to his pupils; and there is a good one of some length in the second volume, under his own name (transcribed from the Oxford collection, on queen Mary’s death, 1695). He took the degree of M. A. May 16, 1696; B. D. Feb. 4, 1707; D. D. July 1, 1708. His first preferment was Cannock, or Cank, in the county of Stafford. He was appointed preacher of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1705; and while in this station preached his famous sermons (at Derby, Aug. 14, 1709; and at St. Paul’s, Nov. 9, in the same year) and in one of them was supposed to point at lord Godolphin, under the name of Volpone. It has been suggested, that to this circumstance, as much as to the doctrines contained in his sermons, he was indebted for his prosecution, and eventually for his preferment. Being impeached by the House of Commons, his trial began Feb. 27, 1709-10; and continued until the 23d of March: when he was sentenced to a suspension from preaching for three years, and his two sermons ordered to be burnt. This prosecution, however, overthrew the ministry, and laid the foundation of his fortune. To sir Simon Harcourt, who was counsel for him, he presented a silver bason gilt, with an elegant inscription, written probably by his friend Dr. Alterbury. Dr. Sacheverell, during his suspension, made a kind of triumphal progress through various parts of the kingdom; during which period he was collated to a living near Shrewsbury; and, in the same month that his suspension ended, had the valuable rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, given him by the queen, April 13, 1713. At that time his reputation was so high, that he was enabled to sell the first sermon preached after his sentence expired (on Palm Sunday) for the sum of 100l.; and upwards of 40,000 copies, it is said, were soon sold. We find by Swift’s Journal to Stella, Jan. 22, 1711-12, that he had also interest enough with the ministry to provide very amply for one of his brothers; yet, as the dean had said before, Aug. 24, 1711,” they hated and affected to despise him.“A considerable estate at Callow in Derbyshire was soon after left to him by his kinsman George Sacheverell, esq. In 1716, he prefixed a dedication to” Fifteen Discourses, occasionally delivered before the university of Oxford, by W. Adams, M. A. late student of Christ-church, and rector of Staunton upon Wye, in Oxfordshire.“After this publication, we hear little of him, except by quarrels with his parishioners. He died June 5, 1724; and, by his will, bequeathed to Bp. Atterbury, then in exile, who was supposed to have penned for him the defence he made before the House of Peers , the sum of 500l. The duchess of Maryborough describes Sacheverell as” an ignorant impudent incendiary; a man who was the scorn even of those who made use of him as a tool.“And Bp. Burnet says,” He was a bold insolent man, wiih a very small measure of religion, virtue, learning, or good sense; but he resolved to force himself into popularity and preferment, by the most petulant railings at dissenters and low-church men, in several sermons and libels, written without either chasteness of style or liveliness of expression." Whatever his character, it is evident that he owed every thing to an injudicious prosecution, which defeated the purposes of those who instituted it, and for many years continued those prejudices in the public mind, which a wiser administration w r ould have been anxious to dispel.

, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, an eminent statesman and poet, was born at Withyam in Sussex, in 1527. He was the son of sir Richard Sackville, who died in 1566, by Winifred Brydges (afterwards marchioness of Winchester), and grandson of John Sackville, esq. who died in 1557, by Anne Boleyne, sister of sir Thomas Boleyne, earl of Wiltshire and great grandson of Richard Sackviiie, esq. who died in 1524, by Isabel, daughter of John Digges, of Digues 1 s place in Barham, Kent, of a family which for many succeeding generations produced men of learning and genius. He was first of the university of Oxford, and, as it is supposed, of Hart-hall, now Hertford-college; but taking no degree there, he removed to Cambridge, where he commenced master of arts, and afterwards was a student of the Inner Temple. At both universities he became celebrated both as a Latin and English poet, and carried the same taste and talents to the Temple, where he wrote his tragedy of “Gorboduc,” which was exhibited in the great hall by the students of that society, as part of a Christmas entertainment, and afterwards before queen Elizabeth at Whitehall^ Jan. 18, 1561. It was surreptitiously printed in 1563, under the title of “The Tragedy of Gorboduc,” 4to; but a correct edition under the inspection of the authors (for he was assisted by Thomas Norton), appeared in 1571, entitled “The Tragedie of Ferrex and Porrex.” Another edition appeared in 1569, notwithstanding which, for many years it had so feompletely disappeared, that Dryden and Oldham, in the reign of Charles II. do not appear to have seen it, though they pretended to criticise it; and even Wood knew just as little of it, as is plain from his telling us that it was written in old English rhyme. Pope took a fancy to retrieve this play from oblivion, and Spence being employed to set it off with all possible advantage, it was printed pompously in 1736, 8vo, with a preface by the editor. Spence, speaking of his lordship as a poet, declares, that “the dawn of our English poetry was in Chaucer’s time, but that it shone out in him too bright all at once to last long. The succeeding age was dark and overcast. There was indeed some glimmerings of genius again in Henry VIII's time but our poetry had never what could be called a fair settled day-light till towards the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. It was between these two periods, that lord Buckhurst wrote; after the earl of Surrey, and before Spenser.” Warton’s opinion of this tragedy is not very favourable. He thinks it never was a favourite with our ancestors, and fell into oblivion on account of the nakedness anil uninteresting nature of the plot, the tedious length of the speeches, the want of discrimination of character, and almost a total absence of pathetic or critical situations. Yet he allows that the language of “Gorboduc” has great merit and perspicuity, and that it is entirely free from the tumid phraseology of a subsequent age of play-writing.

Having by these productions established the reputation of being the best poet in his time, he laid down his pen, and assumed the character of the statesman, in which he also became very eminent. He found leisure, however, to make the tour of France and Italy; and was on some account or other in prison at Rome, when the news arrived of his father sir Richard Sackville’s death in 1566. Upon this, he obtained his release,‘ returned home, ente’red into the possession of a vast inheritance, and soon after was promoted to the peerage by the title of lord Buckhurst. He enjoyed this accession of honour and fortune too liberally for a while, but soon saw his error. Some attribute his being reclaimed to' the queen,- but others say, that the indignity of being kept in waiting by an alderman, of whom he had occasion to 1 borrow money, made so deep an impression oft him,“ibat he resolved from that moment to be an eeconomisi. By the queen he was received into particalar favour, and employed in many very important affairs- In 1587 he was sent ambassador to the United Provinces’,” upon 1 their complaints against the earl of Leicester 'j and y though he discharged that nice and hazardous trust with- great integrity, yet the favourite prevailed with his mistress to call him home, and confine him to his house for nine Or ten months; which command lord Buckhurst is said to have submitted to so obsequiously, than in all the time he never would endure, openly or secretly, by day or by night, to see either wife or child. His enemy, however, dying, her majesty’s favour returned to him more strongly than ever. He was made knight of the garter in 1590; and chancellor of Oxford in 1591, by the queen’s special interposition. In 1589 he was joined with the treasurer Burleigh in negotiating a peace with Spain; and, upon the death of Burleigh the same year, succeeded him in his office; by virtue of which he became in a manner prime minister, and as such exerted himself vigorously for the public good and her majesty’s safety.

, sixth earl of Dorset and Middlesex, a celebrated wit and poet, was descended in a direct line from Thomas lord Buckhurst, and born Jan. 24, 1637. He had his education under a private tutor; after which, making the tour of Italy, he returned to England a little before the Restoration. He was chosen in the first parliament that was called after that event for East Grinstead in Sussex, made a great figure as a speaker, and was caressed by Charles II.; but, having as yet no turn to business, declined all public employment. He was, in truth, like Villiers, Rochester, Sedley, &c. one of the wits or libertines of Charles’s court; and thought of nothing so much as feats of gallantry, which sometimes carried him to inexcusable excesses . He went a volunteer in the first Dutch war in 1665; and, the night before the engagement, composed the celebrated song “To all you Ladies now at land,” which is generally esteemed the happiest of his productions; but there is reason to think it was not originally composed, but only revised on this occasion. Soon after he was made a gentleman of the bed-chamber; and, on account of his distinguished politeness, sent by the king upon several short embassies of compliment into France. Upon the death of his uncle James Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, in 1674, that estate devolved on him; and he succeeded likewise to the title by creation in 1675. His father dying two years after, he succeeded him in his estate and honours. He utterly disliked, and openly discountenanced, the violent measures of James II's reign; and early engaged for the prince of Orange, by whom he was made lord chamberlain of the household, and taken into the privy-council. In 1692, he attended king William to the congress at the Hague, and was near losing his life in the passage. They went on board Jan. 10, in a very severe season; and, when they were a few leagues off Goree, having by bad weather been four days at sea, the king was so impatient to go on shore, that he took a boat; when, a thick fog arising soon after, they were so closely surrounded with ice, as not to be able either to make the shore, or get back to the ship. In this condition they remained twenty-two hours, almost despairing of life; and the cold was so bitter, that they could hardly speak or stand at their landing; and lord Dorset contracted a lameness, which continued for some time. In 1698, his health insensibly declining, he retired from public affairs; only now and then appearing at the council-board. He died at Bun Jan. 19, 1705-6, after having married two wives; by the latter of whom be had a daughter, and an only son, Lionel CranfieKl Sackvilie, who was created a duke in 1720, and died Oct. 9, 1765.

, or Sadee, a celebrated Persian poet and moralist, was born in 1175, at Sheeraz, or Schiraz, the capiai of Persia, and was educated at Damascus, but quitted his country when it was desolated by the Turks, and commenced his travels. He was afterwards taken prisoner, and condemned to work at the fortifications of Tripoli. While in this deplorable state, he was redeemed by a merchant of Aleppo, who had so much regard for him as to give him his daughter in marriage, with a dowry of one hundred sequins. This lady, however, being an intolerable scold, proved the plague of his life, and gave him that unfavourable opinion of the sex which appears occasionally in his works. During one of their altercations she reproached him with the favours her family had conferred: “Are not you the man my father bought for \en pieces of gold?” “Yes,” answered Sadi, “and he sold me again for an hundred sequins?”

We find few other particulars of his life, during which he appears to have been admired for his wise sayings and his wit. He is said to have lived an hundred and twenty years, that is, to the year 1295, but different dates are assigned, some making him born in 1193, and die in 1312. He composed such a variety of works in prose and verse, Arabic and Persian, as to fill two large folio volumes, which were printed at Calcutta, in 1795. It was not, however, merely as a poet, that he acquired fame, but as a philosopher and a moralist. His works are quoted by the Persians on the daily and hourly occurrences of life; and his tomb, adjoining the city where he was born, is still visited with veneration. “Yet,” says sir William Ouseley, speaking of this author’s works, “I shall not here suppress that there is attributed to Sadi a short collection of poetical compositions, inculcating lessons of the grossest sensuality;” and even his most moral work, called “Gulistan,” or “Garden of Flowers,” is by no means immaculate. Mr. Gladwin also, to whom we owe an excellent translation of it, published at Calcutta, 1806, in 4to, with the original Persian, has been obliged to omit or disguise a few passages, which, he says, “although not offensive to the coarse ideas of native readers, could not possibly be translated without transgressing the bounds of decency.”

This work has been long known in Europe by the edition and translation published by the learned Gentius, under the title of “Rosarium politicum, sive amoenum sortis humanae Theatrum, Per4ce et Lat.” Amst. 1651, fol. There was also a French traii&Jation by P. du Ryer, 1634, 8vo, and another by d'Alegre, in 1704, 12mo, since which the abbe Gaudin gave a preferable translation, first in 1789, under the title of “Essai historique sur la legislation de la Perse,” and afterwards by the more appropriate title of “Gulistan, ou l'empire des roses,” 1791, 8vo. The English public was in some degree made acquainted with this work by a publication by Stephen Sullivan, esq. entitled “Select Fables from Gulistan, or the Bed of Roses, translated from the original Persian of Sadi,” 1774, 12 mo. These are chiefly of a political tendency, recommending justice and humanity to princes. Mr. Qiadwjn’s includes the whole, and is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of Persian manners and morals. Sadi’s other works are entitled “Bostan, or the Garden of Flowers,” which is in verse, and “Molamaat;” in Arabic, sparks, rays, or specimens. We may add, that Olearius published the “GuJistan,” in German, with plates, in 1634, fol. under the title of “Persianischer Rosenthal.”

, an English writer, descended of an ancient family in Shropshire, was born in 1615, and admitted pensioner of Emanuel college, in Cambridge, Nov. I 3, 1630, where he became eminent for his knowledge in the Hebrew and Oriental languages. After having taken his degrees at the usual periods, that of M. A. in 1638, in x which year he was chosen fellow of his college, he removed to Lincoln’s-Inn; where he made a considerable progress in the study of the law, and was admitted one of the masters in ordinary in the court of chancery, June 1, 1644, and was likewise one of the two masters of requests. In 1649, he was chosen town-clerk of London, and published in the same year in 4to, a work with this title, “Rights of the Kingdom: or, Customs of our Ancestors, touching the duty, power, election, or succession, of our kings and parliaments, our true liberty, due allegiance, three estates, their legislative power, original, judicial, and executive, the militia; freely discussed through the British, Saxon, Norman, laws and histories.” It was reprinted in 1682, and has always been valued by lawyers and others. He was greatly esteemed by Oliver Cromwell; who, by a letter from Cork, of Dec. 1, 1649, offered him the place of chief justice of Munster in Ireland, with a salary of 1000l. per annum; but this he excused himself from accepting. In August 1650, he was made master of Magdalen college, in Cambridge, upon the removal of Dr. Rainbow, who again succeeded Sadler after the restoration. In 1653, he was chosen member of parliament for Cambridge. In 1655, by warrant of Cromwell, pursuant to an ordinance for better regulating and limiting the jurisdiction of the high court of chancery, he was continued a master in chancery, when their number was reduced to six only. It was by his interest, that the Jews obtained the privilege of building a synagogue in 'London. In 1658, he was, chosen member of parliament for Yarmouth; and in December of the year following, appointed first commissioner, under the great seal, with Taylor, Whitelock, and others, for the probate of wills. In 1660, he published in 4-to, his “Olbia The New Island lately discovered. With its religion, rites of worship, laws, customs, government, characters, and language with education of their children in their sciences, arts, and manufactures with other things remarkable by a Christian pilgrim driven by tempest from Civita Vecchia, or some other parts about ftome, through the straights into the Atlantic ocean. The first part.” Of this work, which appears to be a kind of fiction, Dr. John Worthiugton, in a letter to Mr. Samuel Hartlib, dated April i, 1661, says, “Is the second part of Olbu like to come out shortly? Jt is said to treat of the religion, worship, laws, customs, manner of education, &c. of that place. The design promiseth much variety.”

Soon after the restoration, he lost all his employments, by virtue of an act of parliament 13 Caroli II, “for the well-governing and regulating of corporations:” his conscience not permitting him to take or subscribe the oath and declaration there required, in which it was declared, that “it was not lawful, upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the king;” an obedience so absolute, that he thought it not due to any earthly power, though he had never engaged, or in any manner acied, against the late king. In the fire of London, 1666, his house in Salisbury-court, which he built at the expense of 5000l. and several other of his houses in London were destroyed; and, soon after, his mansion-house in Shropshire had the same fate. He was also now deprived of Vauxhall on the river Thames, and other estates which he had purchase,!, being crown lands, and of a considerable estate in the Fens in Bedford Level, without any recompence. These misfortunes and several others coming upon him, he retired to his manor and seat of Warmwell in Dorsetshire, which he had obtained with his wife; where he lived in a private manner, and died in April 1674, aged fifty-nine, Thomas Sadler, esq. deputy to lord Walpole, clerk of the pells, who contributed the above account to the editors of the General Dictionary, and Daniel Sadler, chief clerk in the Old Annuity office, were his grandsons. Walker says he was informed that Mr. Sadler was a very insignificant man, and Calamy tells us that a clergyman of the church of England gave him this character, “We accounted him, not only a general scholar, and an accomplished gentleman, but also a person of great piety; though it must be owned he was not always right in his head.”

, an eminent English statesman, was born in 1507, at Hackney, in Middlesex. He was the son of Henry Sadler, who, though a gentleman by birth, and possessed of a fair inheritance, seems to have been steward or surveyor to the proprietor of the manor of Gillney, near Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII. who took him into his service, but at what time is not very clear. He was employed in the great work of dissolving the religious houses, and had his full share of the spoil. In 1537, he commenced a long course of diplomatic services, byan embassy to Scotland, whose monarch was then absent in France. The objects of his mission were to greet the queen dowager, to strengthen the English interests in the councils of regency which then governed Scotland, and to discover the probable consequences of the intimate union of Scotland with France. Having collected such information as he could procure on these topics, he returned in the beginning of the following year, but went again to Scotland soon after, ostensibly to maintain a good correspondence between the two crowns, but really, as appears from his state-papers, to detach the king of Scotland from the councils of cardinal Beaton, who was at the head of the party most in the interest of France. He was instructed also to direct the king’s attention to the overgrown possessions of the church as a source of revenue, and to persuade him to imitate his uncle Henry VHIth’s conduct to the see of Rome, and to make common cause with England against France. In all this, however, he appears to have failed, or at least to have left Scotland without having materially succeeded in any part of his. mission.

, the first of a family of distinguished engravers, the son of a founder and chaser, was born at Brussels in 1550. He applied early in life to drawing and engraving, and published some prints at Antwerp, which did him great honour. Encouraged by this success, he travelled over Holland that he might work under the inspection of the best masters, and found a generous benefactor in the duke of Bavaria. He went afterwards into Italy, and presented some of his prints to pope Clement VIII. but receiving only empty compliments fram that pontiff, retired to Venice, where he died 1600, in his fiftieth year, leaving a son named Juste or Justin, by whom also we have some good prints. Raphael Sadeler, John’s brother, and pupil, was born in 1555, and distinguished himself as an engraver, by the correctness of his drawings and the natural expression of his figures. He accompanied John to Rome and to Venice, and died in the latter city. Raphael engraved some plates for a work entitled “de opificio mundi,” 1617, 8vo, which is seldom found perfect. The works executed by him and John in conjunction, are, “Solitudo, sive vitas patrum eremicolarum,” 4to “Sylvse sacrae,,” “Trophaeum vitae solitaries” “ Oraculum anacboreticum,” “Solitude sive vitae feminarura anachoreticarum;” “Recueil d‘Estampes, d’apres Raphael, Titien, Carrache,” &c. amounting to more than 500 prints, in 2 vols. fol. Giles Sadeler was nephew and pupil of John and Raphael, but excelled them in correct drawing, and in the taste and neatness of his engraving. After having remained some time in Italy, he was invited into Germany by the emperor Rodolphus II. who settled a pension upon him; and Matthias and Ferdinand, this emperor’s successors, continued also to esteem and honour him. He died at Prague in 1629, aged fifty-nine, being born at Antwerp in 1570, leaving “Vestigi dell' antichita di Roma,” Rome, 1660, fol. obi. These engravers employed their talents chiefly on scripture subjects. Mark Sadeler, related to the three above mentioned, seems to have been merely the editor of th^ir works.

, a celebrated Icelandic writer, was the son of a priest named Sigfus, and was born about the middle of the eleventh century, between 1050 and 1060. He travelled at a very early period into Italy and Germany, in order to improve himself in knowledge, and for a considerable time his countrymen were not at all aware ipf what had become of him. At length Jonas, the son of Ogmund, who was afterwards a bishop, found him at Paris, and carried him back to Iceland. Here he took the order of priesthood, and succeeded his father as priest of Odda, He also established a school, and contributed with others to induce the Icelanders to pay tithes, and took a considerable part with regard to the formation of the ecclesiastical code of laws. He died in 1133 or 1135, being about eighty years of age. At the age of seventy he wrote a History of Norway, from the time of Harold Haarfager to that of Magnus the Good. He is generally allowed the merit of having collected the poetical Edda, by which means he preserved these curious and valuable remains of the ancient Scandinavian mythology, poetry, and morality, from being lost. They were printed at Copenhagen, 1787, 4to, with a Latin translation, the editors of which, in their preface, give a full account of the supposed authors, and the claim of Saemund to be considered as the principal collector.

, the first of French novelists, was born, according to one of his biographers, in 1677, at Ruys, in Britanny; or, according to another, in 1668, at Vannes. At the age of twenty-five he came to Paris, with a view to study philosophy. His talents, although they did not display themselves very early, proved to be equally brilliant and solid. He made himself first known by a paraphrastic translation of the “Letters of Aristsenetus,” which he published in two small volumes. He then travelled through Spain, and applied to the study of the Spanish language, customs, and writers, from whom he adopted plots and fables, and transfused them into his native tongue with great facility and success. His works of this kind are, “Guzman D'Alfarache” the “Bachelor of Salamanca;” “Gil Bias;” “New Adventures of Don Quixote,” originally written by Avellaneda; “The Devil on two Sticks,” as it is called in our translation, in French “Le Diable boiteux,” and some others of less note. Of the “Devil on two Sticks,” we are told that the first edition had amazing success, and the second sold with still greater rapidity. Two noblemen coming to the bookseller’s, found only one single copy remaining, which each was for purchasing: and the dispute grew so warm, that they were going to decide it by the sword, had not the bookseller interposed. He was also distinguished for some dramatic pieces, of which “Crispin,” and “Turcaret,” both comedies, were the most successful, and allowed to fall very little short of the genius of Moliere. “Turcaret,” which was first played in 1709, has been praised by the French critics, as comprehending a dialogue just and natural, characters drawn with peculiar fidelity, and a well-conducted plot. He composed also many pieces for the comic opera, which, if somewhat deficient in invention, were in general sprightly, and enriched with borrowed fancies very happily adapted to the genius of the French theatre.

The popularity of this novel, which equals that of almost any of our own most favourite productions, may afford a lesson to the writers of fiction, who are ambitious that their works may live. Had Le Sage drawn those extravagant and distorted characters which are so common in the novels published within the last twenty years, he could not have expected that they would outlive the novelty of a first perusal; but, depicting nature, and nature only, as he found her in men of all ranks and stations, he knew that what would please now would please for ever, and that he was speaking a language that would be understood in every spot of the globe. The artifices of refined and highly polished society may introduce variations and disguises which give an air of novelty to the actions of men; but original manners and caprices, such as Le Sage has described, will perhaps at all times be acknowledged to be just, natural, and faithful, whether we apply the test of selfexamination, or have recourse to the more easy practice of remarking the conduct of those with whom we associate.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, historian to the duke of Saxony, and professor of history at Halle, was born Sept. 23, 1643, at Lunenburg. He studied in, or visited the greatest part of the German universities, where he was much esteemed for his extensive knowledge of history and antiquities. He died March 9, 1694, leaving nearly 70 volumes of dissertations, principally on historical subjects on oracles on the gates of the ancients “The succession of the Princes of Orange,” 4to “History of the City of Herderwich” a life of St. Norbert, 1683 “Tractatus varii da historia legenda,” 4to “Historia antiqua Noribergse,” 4to “Origin of the Dukes of Brunswick” “History of Lubec” “Antiquities of the kingdom of Thuringia” “History of the Marquises and Electors of Brandenburg,” and many others, enumerated by Niceron. His life was written by Schmid, and published in 1713, 8vo.

, a French poet, was born at Roan in Normandy in 1594. In the epistle dedicatory to the third part of his works, he tells us, that his father commanded a squadron of ships in the service of Elizabeth queen of England for twenty-two years, and that he was for three years prisoner in the Black Tower at Constantinople. He mentions also, that two brothers of his had been killed in an engagement against the Turks. His own life was spent in a continual succession of travels, which were of no advantage to his fortune. There are miscellaneous poems of this author, the greatest part of which are of the comic or burlesque, and the amatory kind. The first volume was printed at Paris in 1627, the second in 1643, and the third in 1649, and they have been reprinted several times. “Solitude, an ode,” which is one of the first of them, is his best piece in the opinion of Mr. Boileau. In 1650 he published “Stances sur la grossesse de la reine de Pologne et de Suede.” In 1654 he printed his “Moise sauve”, idylle heroique,“Leyden which had at first many admirers: Chapelain called it a speaking picture but it has not preserved its reputation. St. A main wrote also a very devout piece, entitled” Stances a M. Corneille, sur son imitation de Jesus Christ," Paris, 1656. Mr. Brossette says that he wrote also a poem upon the moon, in which he introduced a compliment to Lewis XIV. upon his skill in swimming, an amusement he often took when young in the river Seine; but the king’s dislike to this poem is said to have affected the author to such a degree, that he did not survive it long. He died in 1661, aged sixty-seven. He was admitted a member of the French academy, when first founded by cardinal Richelieu, in 1633; and Mr. Pelisson informs us, that, in 1637, at his own desire, he was excused from the obligation of making a speech in his turn, on condition that he would compile the comic part of the dictionary which the academy had undertaken, and collect the burlesque terms. This was a task well suited to him; for it appears by his writings that he was extremely conversant in these terms, of which he seems to have made a complete collection from the markets and other places where the lower people resort.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and one of the greatest ornaments of Christianity which appeared in the Romish communion in the thirteenth century, had his name from St. Amour in Franche Compte, where he was born about the commencement of that century. The zeal which he showed against the new institution of mendicant friars, both in his sermons, and as theological professor, induced the university of Paris to make choice of him to defend their interests against the Dominicans and Franciscans, who wished to engross the power and influence of the university to themselves. In 1255, the debate was brought before the pope Alexander IV. who, with intolerable arrogance, ordered the university not only to restore the Dominicans to their former station, but also to grant them as many professorships as they should require. The magistrates of Paris, at first, were disposed to protect the university; but the terror of the papal edicts reduced them at length to silence; and not only the Dominicans, but also the Franciscans, assumed whatever power they pleased in that famous seminary, and knew no other restrictions than what the pope imposed upon them. St. Amour, however, wrote several treatises against the mendicant orders, and particularly, in 1255, or 1256, his famous book, “Perils des derniers temps,” concerning the “perils of the latter days,” in which he maintained that St. Paul’s prophecy of the latter times (2 Tim. iii. 1.) was fulfilling in the abominations of the* friars, and laid down thirty-nine marks of false teachers.

, an anatomist, well known in this country on account of the imposture of the Rabbit-woman, and for various eccentricities of conduct, was a native of Switzerland, but, on coming over to England, was placed by some friends under a surgeon of eminence, in which profession he became skilful. He, for a time, read public lectures on anatomy, and obtained considerable reputation; which was ruined by the part he took in the affair of Mary Tofts, as well as by many other irregularities of character. He died in 1776, after having been for many years the subject of more curiosity and conversation than any of his contemporaries, though without any extraordinary talents, or claims to distinction. They who are curious to know more of his character may have their curiosity gratified in the “Anecdotes of Hogarth” by Nichols.

, an English lawyer and law-writer of the sixteenth century, is supposed to have been born at Skilton, near Coventry, in Warwickshire, and educated for some time at Oxford, whence he removed to the Inner Temple for the study of the law. After being admitted to the bar, he became an eminent counsellor, and we should suppose a very popular one, as he frequently refused or returned his fees. What he got by honourable practice and some paternal estate, he expended in the purchase of books, and gathered a very fine library, which was all the property he left to his heirs. Besides his legal knowledge, he was conversant in philosophy and the divinity of the times, and wrote on the latter subject with so much freedom as to render his sentiments suspected, for which reason Bale has given him a very advantageous character. He is commended too for his piety, and pious ordering of his family, to whom he read every night a chapter in the Bible, and expounded it. He died Sept. 28, 1540, and not 1539, as Bale states. He was buried in the church of St. Alphage, within CrL'pp legate, London. It appears by his will that he was a considerable benefactor to Skiiton church, where his father sir Henry St. German, knt. and his mother lie buried, and to that of Laleford. St. German has immortalized his name by his valuable and well-known work, which bears the title of “The Doctor and Student, or Dialogues between a doctor of divinity, and a student in the laws of England, concerning the grounds of those laws,” first printed by Rastell, in Latin, 1523, 12mo, and reprinted in 1528. Mr. Bridgman enumerates above twenty editions which followed, the last in 1787, 8vo, with questions and cases concerning the equity of the law, corrected and improved by William Muchall, or Murchall. On the subject of this celebrated work, Mr. Hargrave (in his Law Tracts, 32 I), has published from a ms. in the Cotton library, “A Replication of a Serjaunte at the Laws of England, to certayne pointes alleaged by a student of the said lawes of England, in a Dialogue in Englishe, between a doctor of divinity and the said student;” and a little “Treatise concerning writs of Subpoena.” Two other tracts are attributed by Ames to St. German, though they bear the name of Thomas Godfrey, viz. “A Treatise concerning the power of the Clergy and of the lawes of the Realme,” 12mo, no date and “A Treatise concernynge divers of the Constitucyons provyncyall and legantines,” 12mo, no date. Tanner attributes to him “A Treatise concerning the division between the Spiritualitie and the Temporaltie,” printed by Redman without date; and this seems to be the same work as “The Pacyfyer of the division between the Spiritualitie aod Temporaltie,” printed by Berthelet, which being remarkable for impartiality and temperate language, was pointed out to sir Thomas More, as an example for him to follow in his controversial writings. This incited sir Thomas to publish “An Apologye made by him, anno 1533, after he had gevhi over th' office of lord chancellor of Englande,” printed by Rastell, 1533, 12mo. St. German was also probably the author of “Newe addicions treating most specially of the power of the Parlyament concernynge the Spiritualitie and the Spiritual Jurisdiction,” 1531, 12mo, now reprinted in all the modern editions of the “Doctor and Student.” He had a controversy with sir Thomas More, which produced “Salem and Bizance, being a dialogue between two Englishmen, one called Salem, and the other Bizance,” 1533, 8vo. This was written in answer to More’s “Apologye” above mentioned and sir Thomas replied in the “Debellation of Salem and Bizance,” by Rastell, in 1533, 8vo.

, lord viscount Bolingbroke, an eminent statesman and writer, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born, as all his biographers say, in 1672, but it appears by the register of Battersea parish that he was baptised Oct. 10, 1678. His father, sir Henry St. John, son of sir Walter St. John, died at Battersea, his family-seat, July 3, 1708, in his eighty- seventh year his mother was lady Mary, second daughter and coheiress of Robert Rich, earl of Warwick. He was bred up, with great care, under the inspection of his grandfather, as well as his father, who neglected no means to cultivate his mind. It was once noticed in parliament that he was educated in dissenting principles, and it is very certain that the first director of his studies was the famous Daniel Burgess, who, with all his oddities (See Burgess) was frequently employed as tutor to the sons of men of rank. Goldsmith seems desirous to impute Bolingbroke’s infidelity to this divine, and to his being obliged to read Manton’s Sermons on the 119th Psalm but such an opinion is as dangerous as it is absurd. From Burgess or Manton, he could have imbibed only a higher reverence for religion than was to be expected from a lively youth; and as to the disgust he felt, to which his biographer seems inclined to trace his infidelity, it is probable that a boy would not have entertained much less dislike to a voluminous history of England, if obliged to read it when he wished to be idle. But, whatever instruction he might receive from his first tutors, it is very certain, that he had a regular and liberal education. He was sent to Eton, where he had for his companion and rival sir Robert Waipole. “The parts of Mr. St. John,” says Coxe, “were more lively and brilliant, those of Walpole more steady and solid. Walpole was industrious and diligent, because his talents required application; St. John was negligent, because his quickness of apprehension rendered labour less necessary.” These characteristics prevailed in both throughout life. From Eton Mr. St. John was removed to Christ-church, Oxford, where he made a shining figure as a polite scholar, and when he left the university, he was considered as a youth highly accomplished for public life. His person was agreeable, and he had a dignity mixed with sweetness in his looks, and a manner very prepossessing, and, as some of his contemporaries said, irresistible. He had much acuteness, great judgment, and a prodigious memory. Whatever he read he retained so as to make it entirely his own; but in youth, he was not in general much given either to reading or reflection. With great parts, he had, as it usually happens, great passions which hurried him into those indiscretions and follies that distinguish the libertine. He does not, however, appear to have been without his serious moments, nor always unwilling to listen to the voice of conscience. “There has been something always,” says he, “ready to whisper in my ear, while I ran the course of pleasure and of business, * Solve senescentem mature sanus equum;‘ < and while ’tis well, release thy aged horse.' But my genius, unlike the demon of Socrates, whispered so softly, that very often I heard him not, in the hurry of those passions with which I was transported. Some calmer hours there were in them I hearkened to him. Reflection had often its turn and the love of study and the desire of knowledge have never quite abandoned me. I am not, therefore, entirely unprepared for the life I will lead; and it is not without reason that I promise myself more satisfaction in the latter part of it than I ever knew in the former.”

Persevering steadily in the same tory-connections, to which he adhered against the whig principles of his family, his father and grandfather being both of that party, he gained such an influence in the house, that on April 10, 1704, he was appointed secretary of war, and of the marines. As this post required a constant correspondence with the duke of Marlborough, it appears to have been the principal foundation of the rumours raised many years after, that he was in a particular manner attached to the duke. It is certain, that he knew his worth, and was a sincere admirer of him but he always denied any particular connection nor was he ever charged by the duke or duchess with ingratitude or breach of engagement to them. In all political measures, Mr. St. John acted with Mr. Harley: and, therefore, when this minister was removed from the seals in 1707, Mr. St. John chose to follow his fortune, and the next day resigned his place. He was not returned in the subsequent parliament; but, upon the dissolution of it in 1710, Harley being made chancellor and tinder-treasurer of the Exchequer, the post of secretary of state was given to St. John. About the same time he wrote the famous “Letter to the Examiner,” to be found among the first of those papers: it was then universally ascribed to him, and gave no inconsiderable proofs of his abilities as a writer; for in this single shost paper are comprehended the outlines of that design on which Swift employed himself for near a twelvemonth.

Upon his arrival at Paris, he received an invitation from the Pretender, then at Barr, to engage in his service: which he at first absolutely refused, and thought it wiser to make the best application, that his present circumstances would admit, to prevent the progress of his prosecution in England. While this was in doubt, he retired into Dauphine“, where he continued till the beginning of July; and then, upon receiving unfavourable news from some of iiis party in England, he complied with a second invitation from the Pretender; and, taking the seals of the secretary’s office at Commercy, set out with them for Paris, and arrived thither the latter end of the same month, in order to procure from that court the necessary succours for his new master’s intended invasion of England. The vote for impeaching him of high treason had passed in the House of Commons the June preceding; and six articles were brought into the house, and read by Walpole, August 4, 1715, which were in substance as follows: 1.” That whereas he had assured the ministers of the States General, by order from her majesty in 1711, that she would make no peace but in concert with them; yet he sent Mr. Prior to France, that same year, with proposals for a treaty of peace with that monarch, without the consent of the allies.“2.” That he advised and promoted the making of a separate treaty or convention, with France, which was signed in September.“3.” That he disclosed to M. Mesnager, the French minister at London, this convention, which was the preliminary instruction to her majesty’s plenipotentiaries at Utrecht, in October.“4.” That her majesty’s final instructions to her said plenipotentiaries were disclosed by him to the abbot Gualtier, an emissary of France.“5.” That he disclosed to the French the manner how Tournay in Flanders might be gained by them.“6.” That he advised and promoted the yielding up of Spain and the West-Indies to the duke of Anjou, then an enemy to her majesty." These articles were sent up to the Lords in August; in consequence of which, he stood attainted of high-treason, September the 10th of the same year.

His lordship’s estate and honours descended to his nephew; the care and profits of his manuscripts he left to Mallet, who published them, together with his works already printed, in 1754, 5 vls. 4to. They may be divided into, political anil philosophical w-jrks: the former of which have been mentioned already, and consist of “Letters upon History,” “Letter to Wyndham,” “Letters on Patriotism,” and papers in the “Craiisman;” which had been separately printed in 3 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Dissertation upon Parties,” “Remarks on the History of England,” and “Political Tracts.” His philosophical works consist of, “The substance of some letters written originally in French about 1720 to Mr. de Pouilly letter occasioned by one of abp. Tillotson’s sermons and letters or essays addressed to Alexander Pope, esq.” As Mallet had published an 8vo edition of the “Letters on History,” and the “Letter to Wyndham,” before the 4to edition of the works came out, he afterwards published separately the philosophical writings, 5 vols. 8vo. These essays, addressed to Pope, on philosophy and religion, contain many things which deny or ridicule the great truths of revelation; and, on this account, not only exposed the deceased author to the just animadversions of several writers, but occasioned also a presentment of his works by the grand jury of Westminster; but the saie of them was very slow, and of late years they are perhaps still less consulted. An edition, however, was published in 1809, in 8 vols. 8vo, with many additions, from subsequent authorities, to the life of Bolingbroke, which was written by Dr. Goldsmith. Some time before this, a valuable collection of lord Bolingbroke’s political correspondence was published in 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo, by the rev. Gilbert Parke, which contains much information respecting the memorable peace of Utrecht. His character has been drawn by various able pens, by Chesterfield, Mrs. Cot.kburn, Ruffhead (under the guidance of Warburton), lord Walpole, Horace Walpole, lord Orrery, &c. c. and although they differ in some points, coincide in proving that lord Bolingbroke was considered by all as a politician of an important class; that those who have been at most pains to dt fame him as an enemy, would have been very desirous to secure him as a friend, and that they uiay be credited in every thing sooner than in their affecting to undervalue his talents. Ambition and immorality constitute the great objections to his public and private character. His infidt- 1 principles were not much known before his death, except to his friends. Like Chesterfield and Hume, he left something behind him worse than he had produced in his life-time, and subjected himself to accusations to which he could no longer reply. In his character since, he has suffered equally by the just resentment of piety, and by the unforgiving prejudices of party; and an impartial history of his Conduct and opinions is perhaps yet a desideratum.

, formerly a member of the French academy, was born in Nancy, Dec. 16, 1717, of a family of Lorrain. He was educated among the Jesuits at the college of Pont-a-Mousson, but in early life entered into the army, which he quitted at the peace of Aix-ia-Chapelle in 1748, and joined the gay party assembled by Stanislaus, king of Poland, at Luneville. There he became an admirer of Madame de Chatelet, who returned his attachment. He was afterwards intimate with, and the egregious flatterer of Voltaire, It is not said what part he took in the revolution, but he escaped its dangers, and died ai Pans Feb 9, 1805. He was a man of genius, but his steps in the literary career were rather slow, and incommensurate with the activity of his genius; for his first poetical nork, “Les Fe>es de l‘Amour et de l’Hymen,” a theatrical performance, was published about 1760, when he was already turned, of forty years of age. His poem entitled “Lt-s quaires parties du jour” appeared in 1764, and soon ranked him among the greatest poets of his age. The composition was acknowledged to possess novelty in the descriptions, interest in the details, and elegance in the style; although, on the other side, it was charged with coldness, w,nu or unity, and monotonous episodes. The same year he published his “Essai sur le luxe,” 8vo. His next, and justly celebrated, poetical performance, “Les Saisons,” which was published in 1769, raised him to the highest decree of reputation. It was generally admitted that he exhibited here a large share of ingenuity and invention, by introducing pastoral poetry into a composition of a different sort, making it still preserve its native simplicity, and yet associate naturally with more elevated subjects. An additional merit was discovered, with regard to this elegant wurk, in the motive of the author as his professed design was to inspire the great proprietors of land with an inclination to live on tneir manors, and contribute to the happiness of the cultivators.

In 1772, he published his “Fables Orientales,” which did little either to increase or to diminish his poetical fame: and many years after he;*roduced his “Consolation de la Vieiliesse,” a proof that his talents had suffered no diminution from age or infirmity. The last publication -of Saint Lambert is a philosophical work in prose. It appeared in 1798, in 3 vols. bvo, under the title of “Catechisme Universel.” It was intended to exhibit a system of morals grounded on human nature; and the favourite object of the author was to confute the doctrine of a moral sense, which has been supported by many eminent metaphysician*, ever since the writings of Shaftesbury and of Hutcheson. This work was justly denominated by some French critics, alluding to the age of the author, Le soir d'un beau jour (the evening of a beautiful day) He wrote also some articles for the Encyclopedic, and many fugitive pieces in the literary journals.

, in Latin Sammartbanus, is the name of a family in France, which produced many men of letters. The first, Gaucher de Sainte-Marthe, had a son Charles, born in 1512, who became physician to Francis II. and was remarkable for his eloquence. Queen Margaret of Navarre and the duchess of Vendome honoured him with their particular esteem; and when they died in 1550, he testified his grief by a funeral oration upon each, published the same year. That upon the queen was in Latin, the o.ther in French. There is also some Latin and French poetry of his in being. He died in 1555. Scevole, or Sclevola, the nephew of Charles, was born at Lou dun in 1536, and became very distinguished both in learning and business. He loved letters from his infancy, attained an intimate acquaintance with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues and became an orator, a lawyer, a poet, and an historian he is also represented as a good friend, zealous for his country, and of inviolable fidelity to his prince. He had, in the reigns of Henry III. and Henry IV. several considerable employments, which he filled with great reputation. In 1579, he was governor of Poitiers, and afterwards treasurer of France for this district. In 1593 and 1594, he exercised the office of intendant of the finances, in the army of Breta^ne, commanded by the duke de Montpensier: and, in the latter of these years, he reduced Poitiers to the subjection of Henry IV, Some time after, he conceived thoughts of retiring to his own country, and devoting the remainder of his life to contemplation: but was again made governor of Poitiers, in so honourable a manner that he could not decline it. Upon the expiration of this office, he went to Paris, and thence to Loudun, where he passed the rest of his days “in otio cum dignitate.” This town had been often protected from ruin in the civil wars merely by his credit, and therefore regarded hiui as its protector. He died there in 1623, universally regretted; and his funeral oration was pronounced by the famous Urban Graudier. He was the author of “La louange de la ville de Poitiers,” 1573; “Opera Poetica,” consisting of odes, elegies, epigrams, and sacred poems, in French and Luiin, 1575; “Gallorum doctrina illustrium elogia,” 1598:“hut ins chief work, and that which keeps his lame still alive in the republic of letters, is his work called” Paedotrophia, seu de puerorum eciucatione,“printed in 1584, and dedicated to Henry III. This poem^vent through ten editions in the author’s life time, and hath gone through, as many since. It was neatly printed at London in 1708, in 12mo, together with the” Calliurfdia“of Quillet. It is also printed with a complete edition of his and his son Abel’s works, under the title” Sammarthanorum patris et lilii opera Latina et Gallica, turn soluta oratione, turn versa scnpta,“Paris, 16:33, 4to. Scevole left several sons; of whom Abel, the eldest, born at Loudun in 1570, applied himself, like his father, to literature. He cultivated French and Latin poetry; the latter were printed with those of his father in the edition just mentioned, but are inferior to them. Lewis XIII. settled on him a pension, for the services he had -lone him, and made him a counsellor of state. In 1627, he was made librarian to the king at Fontainebleau; and had after that other commissions of importance. He died at Poitiers in 1652, where his” Opuscula Varia“were printed in 1645, 8vo. This Abe) had a son of his own name, born in 1630, and afterwards distinguished by his learning. He succeeded his father as librarian at Fontainebleau, and in that quality presented to Lewis XIV. in 1668,” Un Discours pour le r6tablissement de cette Bibliorheque." He died in 1706.

, a French moral and political writer, was born in 1658, of a noble family, at Saint-Pierre in Normandy. He studied at the college of Caen, and was brought up to the church, and obtained some preferment; but was more distinguished for his political knowledge. Previous to his appearing in political life, he wrote some observations on philosophical grammar, in consequence of which he was admitted a member of the academy in 1695. His political fame induced the cardinal Polignac to take him with him to the conferences for the peace of Utrecht; and here he appears to have announced one of his favourite projects, the establishment of a kind of European diet, in order to secure a perpetual peace, which cardinal Fleury received with good humour, but saw at once its practical difficulties. Such indeed was the case with most of the schemes he published in his works, which are now nearly forgotten. He certainly, however, had the merit of discovering the defects of the government of Louis XIV. and pleaded the cause of a more free constitution with much boldness. One of his best works was “A Memorial on the establishment of a proportional Taille,” which is said to have meliorated the state of taxation in France. He d,ied in 1743, aged eightyfive. After the death of Louis XIV. he published some of his spirited sentiments of that monarch in a pamphlet entitled “La Polysvnodie,” or the plurality of councils, for which he was excelled the French academy, Fontenelle only giving a vote in his favour. An edition of his works was published in H-.li md, 1744. 18 vols. 12mo.

, a polite French writer, was the son of a counsellor to the senate of Chamberri in Savoy, where he was born, but it is not mentioned in what year. He came very young to France, was some time a disciple of Jvi. de Varillas, and afterwards distinguished himself at Paris by several ingenious productions. In 1675, he returned to Chamrberri, and went thence to England with the duchess of Mazarin; but soon after came back to Paris, where he lived a long time, without title or dignity, intent upon literary pursuits. He returned a second time to Charnberri in 1692, and died there the same year, advanced in years, but not in the best circumstances. He was a man of great parts and penetration, a lover of the sciences, and particularly fond of history, which he wished to have studied, not as a bare recital of facts and speeches, but as a picture of human nature philosophically contemplated. He wrote a piece, with this view, “De l‘Usage de l’Histoire,” Paris, 1672, 12mo, which is full of sensible and judicious reflections. In 1674, he published “Conjuration des Espagnols contre la Republique de Venise en 1618,” 12mo, in a style which Voltaire compares to that of Sallust; but what he gained in reputation by this, he is said to have lost by his “La Vie de Jésus Christ,” published four years after. He wrote many other things: some to illustrate the Roman history, which he had made his particular study some upon subjects of philosophy, politics, and morals and notes upon the first two books of Tully’s “Letters to Atticus,” of which he made a French translation. A neat edition of his works was published at the Hague in 1722, in 5 vols. 12mo, without the letters to Atticus; which, however, were printed in the edition of Paris, 1745, in 3 vols. 4to, and six 12ino.

, a French writer of memoirs, was the son of a duke of the same title, born June 16, 1675, and was introduced at the court of Louis XIV. in his fifteenth year, but had been educated in virtuous principles, and never departed from them, either at court or in the army, in which he served till 1697. In 1721 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of Spain, for the purpose of soliciting the infanta in marriage for Louis XV. After being for some time confidential adviser to the regent, duke of Orleans, he retired to his estate, and passed most of his time in his library, where he read incessantly and forgot nothing. The marshal de Belle-Isle used to say that he was the most interesting and agreeable dictionary he had ever consulted. At fourscore he enjoyed all his faculties as perfect as at forty: the precise time of his death is not mentioned, but it appears to have taken place about 1757. He composed “Memoirs of the reign of Louis XIV. and the Regency,” which consist of a variety of anecdotes relative to the courts of Louis XIV. and XV. which are told in an elegant style, but his manner is often sarcastic, although his justice has never been called in question. M. Anquetil has made this nobleman’s memoirs the basis of his history of “Louis XIV. his Court and the Regent.” Some of the editions of these Memoirs have been mutilated, but the most complete was printed at Strasburg, in 1791, iS vols. 8vo.

, a learned Englishman, who died at London in 1736, was a man who did much service to the republic of letters, but of his private history we have no account. He had a hand in the “Universal History,” and executed the cosmogony and a part of the history following. He was also engaged in other publications; but his capital work is “The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of Mohammed, translated into English immediately from the original Arabic; with explanatory notes taken from the most approved commentators. To which is prefixed, a preliminary Discourse,” 1734, 4to. The preliminary discourse consists of 186 pages, and is divided into eight sections, which treat of the following particulars: Sect. 1. “Of the Arabs before Mohammed, or, as they express it, in the * time of ignorance' their history, religion, learning, and customs.” Sect. 2. “Of the state of Christianity, particularly of the Eastern Churches, and of Judaism, at the time of Mohamrrved’s appearance; and of the methods taken by him for establishing his religion, and the circumstances which concurred thereto.” Sect. 3. “Of the Koran itself, the peculiarities of that book, the manner of its being written and published, and the general design of it.” &ect. 4. “Of the doctrines and positive precepts of the Koran, which relate to faith and religious duties.” Sect. 5, “Or certain negative precepts in the Koran.” Sect. 6. “Of the institutions of the Koran in civil affairs.” Sect. 7. “Of the months commanded by the Koran to be kept sacred, and of the setting apart of Friday for the especial service of God.” Sect. 8. “Of the principal sects among the Mohammedans; and of those who have pretended to prophesy among the Arabs in or since the time of Mohammed.” This preliminary discourse, as should seem, might deserve to be published separately from the Koran. Mr. Sale was also one of the members of the society for the encouragement of learning, begun in 1736, but as he died in that year, could not have enjoyed the promised advantages of it. He was one of the authors of the “General Dictionary,” to which we so often refer, which includes a translation of Bayle, 10 vols. folio. Mr. Sale left a son, who was fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1756. He was afterwards a fellow of Winchester college, in 1765, and died a short time after.

, one of the greatest ornaments of the twelfth century, was born at Old Sarum, whence he derived the name of Sarisburiensis, about 1116. After he had gone through a course of education in England, he went to the university of Paris in 1136, and attended upon the lectures of Abelard and other masters, with such industry and success, that he acquired an uncommon share of knowledge both in philosophy and letters. At an early period of life, his poverty obliged him to undertake the office of preceptor; yet amidst engagements of this kind, he found leisure to acquire a competent knowledge of dialectics, physics, and morals, as well as an acquaintance with the Greek, and (what was at that time a rare accomplishment) with the Hebrew, languages. He may justly be ranked among the first scholars of his age. After many years had elapsed, he resolved to revisit the companions of his early studies on Mount St. Genevieve, in order to confer with them on the topics on which they had formerlydisputed. His account of this visit affords a striking picture of the philosophical character of this age. “I found them,” says he, “the same men, and in the same place; nor had they advanced a single step towards resolving our antient questions, nor added a single proposition, however small, to their stock of knowledge. Whence I inferred, what indeed it was easy to collect, that dialectic studies, however useful they may be when connected with other branches of learning, are in themselves barren and useless.” Speaking in another place of the philosophers of his time, he complains, that they collected auditors solely for the ostentation of science, and designedly rendered their discourses obscure, that they might appear loaded with the mysteries of wisdom; and that though all professed to follow Aristotle, they were so ignorant of his true doctrine, that in attempting to explain his meaning, they often advanced a Platonic notion, or some erroneous tenet equally distant from the true system of Aristotle and of Plato. From these observations, and from many similar passages to be found in his writings, it appears, that John of Salisbury was aware of the trifling character both of the philosophy and the philosophers of his age; owing, probably, to the uncommon share of good sense which he possessed, as well as to the unusual extent and variety of his learning. Throughout his writings there are evident traces of a fruitful genius, of sound understanding, of various erudition, and, with due allowance for the age in which he lived, of correct taste.

At his return into England, after his first visit to Paris, he studied the civil law under Vacarius, who taught with, great applause at Oxford in 1149. Embracing the monastic life at Canterbury, he became the chief confidant of two successive archbishops of that see, Theobald and Thomas a Becket. To the last of these he dedicated his celebrated work “Polycraticon, or De nugis curialium, et vestigiis philosophorum,” a very curious and valuable monument of the literature of his times. Although he did not approve some part of the conduct of Becket, he submitted to Henry the Second’s sentence of banishment, and remained in exile for seven years, rather than give up the party of the archbishop, which was the condition on which he might have been permitted to return. In negotiating Becket' s affairs, he performed no less than ten journeys into Italy. In one of these journeys, he obtained familiar intercourse with pope Adrian IV. his countryman, who having asked him what the world said of him and of the Roman church, John returned such an answer as might have been expected from the boldest of the reformers in the sixteenth century, telling his holiness, among other things, that the world said, “the pope himself was a burthen to Christendom which is scarcely to be borne.” The whole of this curious dialogue may be seen in the work above mentioned.

, a French writer, the first projector of literary journals, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born at Paris in 1626. During his education, he gave no proofs of precocious talent, and afforded little hope of much progress in letters or science. But this seems to have been the effect rather of indolence than incapacity, for he afterwards became an accomplished Greek and Latin scholar, and maintained public theses in philosophy with the greatest a'pplause. He then studied the law, and was admitted a counsellor in the parliament of Paris in 1652. This, however, did not seem so much to his taste as general inquiries into literary history and knowledge, and desultory reading. It is said that he occasionally perused all kinds of books, made curious researches, and kept a person always near him to take down his reflections, and to make abstracts. In 1664, he formed the project of the “Journal des Scavans;” and, the year following, began to publish it under the name of Sieur de Hedouviile, which was that of his valet de chambre; but the severity of his censures gave offence to many who were able to make reprisals. Menage’s “Amcenitates Juris Civilis” was one of the first of those works which fell under Sallo’s cognizance, and his mode of treating it provoked Menage to return his abuse with equal severity in his preface to the works of Malherbe, printed in 1666. Charles Patin’s “Introduction a la connoissance des M^dailles” was another work with which he made free, and incurred a severe retaliation. This warfare soon proved too much for his courage; and therefore, after having published his third journal, he turned the work over to the Abbé Gallois, who dropped all criticism, and merely gave titles and extracts. The plan, however, in one shape or other, was soon adopted in most parts of Europe, and continues until this day, whether with real advantage to literature, has never been fully discussed. Voltaire, after mentioning Sallo as the inventor of this kind of writing, says, with a justice applicable in our own days, that Sallo’s attempt “was afterwards dishonoured by other journals, which were published at the desire of avaricious booksellers, and written by obscure men. who filled them with erroneous extracts, follies, and lies. Things,” he adds, “are come to that pass, that praise and censure are all made a public traffic, especially in periodical papers; and letters have fallen into disgrace by the management and conduct of these infamous scribblers.” On the other hand, the advantages arising from such journals, when under the management of men of candour and independence, will scarcely admit of a doubt. Sallo died in 1669; and, although he published a piece or two of his own, yet is now remembered only for his plan of a literary journal, or review.

, an eminent Roman historian, was born at Amiternum in 86 B. C. The rank of his ancestors is uncertain, but from some circumstances. in his writings, it is not improbable that his family was plebeian. Having passed his more early years at his native town, he was removed to Rome, where he had the advantage of profiting by the lessons of Atticus Praetextatus, surnarned Philologus, a grammarian and rhetorician of great celebrity. Under this teacher he applied -to learning with diligence, and made uncommon progress. It appears, that he had turned his thoughts in his younger days to the writing of history, for which he had unquestionably great talents; but, as he himself intimates in his preface to the history of Catiline’s conspiracy, he was diverted from this pursuit by the workings of ambition. His early lift; too, appears to have been stained by vice, which the gross enormities of his more advanced years render highly probable. In this respect he has found an able advocate in his late learned translator and commentator; but although Dr. Steuart’s researches have removed some part of the reproaches of ancient authors, enough remains to shew that Sallust partook largely of the corruption of the age in which he lived, and added to it by his own example. The story of his having been detected in an adulterous intercourse with the wife of Milo, who, after a severe whipping, made him pay a handsome sum of money, may rest upon little authority, or may be altogether discarded as a fiction, but the general conduct of Sallust shows that the noble sentiments in his works had no influence on his conduct.

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

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

With an insatiable thirst for knowledge, Salmasius had an early and stro'ng passion for fame. He commenced author when between sixteen and seventeen years of age, by publishing an edition of “Nili, archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, de primatu papae llomani, libri duo, item Barlaam monachus, cum interpretatione Latina: Cl. Salmasii opera et studio, cum ejusdemin utrumque notis,” Hanover, 1608, and Heidelberg, 1608 and 1612, 8vo. By this publication against the authority of the pope, he seemed determined to make a more publit avowal of his sentiments than he had yet done, and to shew his zeal for the protestants, by consecrating his first labours as an author to their service. In 1609 appeared his edition of “Florus,” printed at Paris, 8vo, and dedicated to Gruter, whose notes are given along with those of Sahnasius. This was reprinted in 1636, and in 1638, to which last he added “Lucii Ampelii libellus inemorialis ad Macrinum,” which had never before appeared. In 1610, he returned home and was admitted an advocate, but had no intention to follow that profession, and preferred literature an 1 criticism as the sole employment of his life, and derived the highest reputation that erudition can confer. Such was his reputation, that he began to be courted by foreign princes and universities. The Venetians thought his residence among them would be such an honour, that they offered him a prodigious stipend; and with this condition, that he should not be obliged to read lectures above three times a year. We are told, that our university of Oxford made some attempts to get him over into England; and it is certain, that the pope made similar overtures, though Salmasius had not only deserted his religion, and renounced his authority, but had actually written against the papacy itself. He withstood, however, all these solicitations; but at last, in 1632, complied with an invitation from Holland, 'and went with his wife, whom he had married in 1621, to Leyden. He did not go there to be professor, or honorary professor; but, as Vorstius in his “Funeral Oration” expresses it, tc to honour the university by his name, his writings, and his presence."

Upon the death of his father, in 1640, he returned for a time into France; and, on going to Paris, was much caressed by cardinal Richelieu, who used all possible means to detain him, and even offered him his own terms; but could not prevail. The obligation he had to the States of Holland, the love of freedom and independence, and the necessity of a privileged place, in order to publish such things as he was then meditating, were the reasons which enabled him to withstand the cardinal. Salmasius also refused the large pension, which the cardinal offered him, to write his history, because in such a work he thought he must either give offence, or advance many things contrary to his own principles, and to truth, While he was in Burgundy to settle family affairs, the cardinal died, and was succeeded by Mazarin, who, upon our author’s return to Paris, honoured him with the same solicitations as his predecessor had done. Salmasius, however, declined his offers, and after about three years absence, returned to Holland: whence, though attempts were afterwards made to draw him back to France, it does not appear that he ever entertained the least thought of removing. In the summer of 1650, he went to Sweden, to pay queen Christina a visit, with whom he continued till the summer following. The reception and treatment he met with, as it is described by the writer of his life, is very characteristic of that extraordinary patroness of learned men. “She performed for him all offices,” says he, “which could have been expected even from an equal. She ordered him to choose apartments in her palace, for the sake of having him with her, * ut lateri adhaereret,' whenever she would But Sal^ masius was almost always ill while he stayed in Sweden, the climate being more than his constitution could bear: at which seasons the queen would come to the side of his bed, hold long discourses with him upon subjects of the highest concern, and, without any soul present, but with the doors all shut, would mend his fire, and do other necessary offices for him.” She soon, however, changed her mind with regard to Salmasius, and praised his antagonist Milton, with whom his celebrated controversy had now begun. After the murder of Charles I Charles II., now in Holland, employed Salmasius to write a defence of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius, says Johnson, was at this time a man of skill in languages, knowledge of antiquity, and sagacity of emendatory criticism, almost exceeding all hope of human attainment; and having, by excessive praises, been confirmed in great confidence of himself, though he probably had not much considered the principles of society or the rights of government, undertook the employment without distrust of his own qualifications, and, as his expedition in writing was wonderful, produced in 1649 his “Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Serenissimum Magnae Britannise Regem Carolum II. filium natu majorem, hseredem et successorem legitimum. Sumptibus Regiis, anno 1649.” Milton, as we have noticed in his life, was employed, by the Powers then prevailing, to answer this book of Salmasius, and to obviate the prejudices which the reputation of his great abilities and learning might raise against their cause; and he accordingly published in 1651, a Latin work, entitled “Defensio pro Populo Anglicano contra Claudii Salmasii Defensionem Regiam.” Of these two works Hobbes declared himself unable to decide whose language was best, or whose arguments were worst, he might have added, or who was most to blame for scurrility and personal abuse. Dr. Johnson remarks, that Salmasius had been so long not only the monarch, but the tyrant of literature, that almost all mankind were delighted to find him defied and insulted by a new name, not yet considered as any one’s rival. There is no proof, however, that Salrnasius’s general reputation suffered much from a contest in which he had not employed the powers which he was acknowledged to possess. His misfortune was to treat of subjects which he had not much studied, and any repulse to a man so accustomed to admiration, must have been very galling. He therefore prepared reply to Milton, but did not live to finish' it, nor did it appear until published by his son in the year of the restoration, when the subject, in England at least, was no longer fit for discussion. He died at the Spa, Sept. 3, 1653, in consequence of an imprudent use of the waters; but as he had reproached Milton with losing his eyes in their contest, Milton delighted himself with the belief that he had shortened Salmasius’s life. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, if any credit is to be given to the account which Salmasius’s biographer, Clement, gives of his feeble constitution, and long illness.

, a learned doctor and librarian of the house and society of the Sorbonne, was born of an opulent family at Paris, in 1677. He was well acquainted with the learned languages, particularly Hebrew, possessed great literary knowledge, and discovered much affection for young persons who were fond of study, encouraging them by his example and advice, and taking pleasure in lending them his books. He died suddenly at his country house, at Chaillot, near Paris, Sept. 9, 1736, aged fiftynine. He published a very useful work illustrative of a part of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Traite de Petude des Conciles,” with an account of the principal authors and works, best editions, &c. upon the subject of councils, Paris, 1724, 4to. This has been translated into German, and printed at Leipsic, in 1729. He intended also to have given a supplement to “Father Labbe’s Collection of Councils,” and an “Index Sorbonicus,” or alphabetical library, in which was to be given, under the names of the respective authors, their acts, lives, chronicles, histories, books, treatises, bulls, &c. but did not live to complete either.

Mr. Salmon died April 2, 1742, leaving three daughters. His elder brother, Thomas, honoured with the name of the historiographer, is said to have died in 1743, but must have been living some years after this, when he published his account of Cambridge, &c. Mr. Cole says, “he was brought up to no learned profession, yet had no small turn for writing, as his many productions shew, most of which were written when he resided at Cambridge, where at last he kept a coffee-house, but not having sufficient custom, removed to London.” He told Mr. Cole that he had been much at sea, and had resided in both Indies for some time. His best known publication, and that is not much known now, is his “Modern History, or Present State of all Nations,” published in many volumes, 8vo, about 1731, &c. and re-published, if we mistake not,' in 3 vols. folio, from which it was afterwards abridged in 2 vols. and long continued to be published under various fictitious names. He wrote also “Considerations on the bill for a general naturalization, as it may conduce to the improvement of our manufactures and traffic, and to the strengthening or endangering of the constitution, exemplified in the revolutions that have happened in this kingdom, by inviting over foreigners to settle among us. With an Inquiry into the nature of the British constitution, and the freedom or servitude of the lower class of people, in the several changes it has undergone,” Lond. 1748, 8vo. “The Foreigner’s Companion through the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the adjacent counties, describing the several colleges and other public buildings, with an account of their respective founders, benefactors, bishops, and other eminent men educated in them,” ibid. 1748, 8vo. This title we give from Cole, as we have not seen the work. Previously to this, Mr. Salmon intended to write “The present state of the Universities, and of the five adjacent counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford, Bucks, and Oxford,” but published only the first volume, 1744, 8vo, which contains the history of Oxford, county and university. To this are added some shrewd remarks on university education, and a college life, with the expences attending it. In the preface he speaks of a “General Description of England, and particularly of London the metropolis,” in 2 Vols. which he had published. His name is also to a “Geographical Grammar,” an “Examination of Burnet’s History of his own Times,” and other works. The “New Historic cal account of St. George for England, and the original of this order,” Lond. 1704, is ascribed by Mr. Gough to Mr. Thomas Salmon, the father, who, it may now be mentioned, was distinguished as a musical theorist, and wrote “An Essay to the Advancement of Music, by casting away the Perplexity of different Cliffs; and uniting all sorts of Music, Lute, Viols, Violins, Organ, Harpsichord, Voice, &c. in one universal Character, by Thomas Salmon, A. IVL of Trinity College, Oxfo/d,” London, 1672. This book, says Dr. Burney, “is well written, and, though very illiberally treated by Lock, Play ford, and some Other professors, contains nothing that is either absurd or impracticable; iior could we discover any solid objection to its doctrines being adopted, besides the effect it would have upon ol*d music, by soon rendering it unintelligible. At present the tenor clef alone is thought an insuperable difficulty in our country, by dilettanti performers on the harpsichord; but if Salmon’s simple and easy musical alphabet were chiefly in use, the bass clef would likewise be soon rendered as obsolete and difficult as the tenor; so that two parts or clefs out of three, in present use, would become unintelligible.”

, a learned English divine, was the eldest son of Dr. Samuel Salter, prebendary of Norwich, and archdeacon of Norfolk, by Anne-Penelope, the daughter of Dr. John Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich. He was educated for some time in the free-school of that city, whence he removed to that of the Charter-house, and was admitted of Bene't-college, Cambridge, June 30, 1730, under the tuition of Mr. Charles Skottowe. Soon after his taking the degree of B. A. in 1733, he was chosen into a fellowship, and took his master’s degree in 1737. His natural and acquired abilities recommended him to sir Philip Yorke, then lord-chief-jqstice of the King’s-bench, and afterwards earl of Hardwicke, for the instruction of his eldest son the second earl, who, with three of his brothers, in compliment to abp. Herring, was educated at that college. As soon as that eminent lawyer was made Jordehancellor, he appointed Mr. Salter his domestic chaplain, and gave him a prebend in the church of Gloucester, which he afterwards exchanged for one in that of Norwich. About the time of his quitting Cambridge, he was one of the writers in the “Athenian Letters.” Soon after the chancellor gave Mr. Salter the rectory of Burton Goggles, in the county of Lincoln, in 1740; where he went to reside soon after, and, marrying Miss Seeker, a relation of the then bishop of Oxford, continued there till 1750, when he was nominated minister of Great Yarmouth by the dean and chapter of Norwich. Here he performed the duties of that large parish with great diligence, till his promotion to the preachership at the Charter-house in January 1754, some time before which (in July, 1751), abp. Herring had honoured him with the degree of D. D. at Lambeth. In 1756, he was presented by the lord-chancellor to the rectory of St. Bartholomew near the Royal Exchange, which was the last ecclesiastical preferment he obtained; but in Nov. 1761, he succeeded Dr. Bearcroft as master of the Charter-house, who had been his predecessor in the preachership. While he was a member of Bene't college, he printed Greek Pindaric odes on the nuptials of the princes of Orange and Wales, and a copy of Latin verses on the death of queen Caroline. Besides a sermon preached on occasion of a music-meeting at Gloucester, another before the lord-mayor, Sept. 2, 1740, on the anniversary of the fire of London, a third before the sons of the clergy, 1755, which was much noticed at the time, and underwent several alterations before it was printed; and one before the House of Commons, Jan. 30, 1762; he published “A complete Collection of Sermons and Tracts” of his grandfather Dr. Jeffery, 1751, in 2 vols. 8vo, with his life prefixed, and a new edition of “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” by Dr. Whichcote, with large additions of some letters that passed between him and Dr. Tuckney, “concerning the Use of Reason in Religion,” &c. and a biograpiiical preface, 1751, 8vo. To these may be added, “Some Queries relative to the Jews, occasioned by a late sermon,” with some other papers occasioned by the “Queries,” published the same year. In 1773 jmd 1774, he revised through the press seven of the celebrated “Letters of Ben Mordecai;” written by the rev. Henry Taylor, of Crawley in Hants. In 1776, Dr. Salter printed for private use, “The first 106 lines of the First Book of the Iliad; nearly as written in Homer’s Time and Country;” and printed also in that year, “Extract from the Statutes of the House, and Orders of the Governors, respecting the Pensioners or poor Brethren” (of the Charterhouse), a large single sheet in folio; in 1777, he corrected the proof-sheets of Bentley’s “Dissertation on Phalaris;” and not long before his death, which happened May 2, 1773, he printed also an inscription to the memory of his parents, an account of all which may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” Dr. Salter was buried, by his own express direction, in the most private manner, in the common burial-ground belonging to the brethren of the Charter-house.

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth he returned home, not only confirmed in his aversion to the habits, but with a dislike, it would appear, to the whole of the hierarchy, and refused the bishopric of Norwich because dissatisfied with the nature of the office. He continued, however, to preach, particularly at Paul’s cross, where his wonderful memory and eloquence were very much admired; and in September 1560 he was made a prebendary of Durham. In Michaelmas-term 1561, he was instalied clean of Christ-church, Oxford. On this occasion some members of that society, who recommended him for the situation, said, that “it was very doubtful, whether there was a better man, a greater linguist, a more complete scholar, or a more profound divine;” and it is certain that for some years he and Dr. Lawrence Humphrey were the only protestant preachers at Oxford of any celebrity. In 1562, he resigned his prebend of Durham, and became so open and zealous in his invectives against the habits, that after considerable forbearance, he was cited, with Dr. Humphrey, before the high commission court at Lambeth, and Sampson was Deprived of his deanery, and for some time imprisoned. Notwithstanding his nonconformity, however, he was presented, in 1568, to the mastership of Wigston-hospitaJ, at Leicester, and had likewise, according to Wood, a prebend in St. Paul’s. He went to reside at Leicester, and continued there until his death, April 9, 1589. He mar-? ried bishop Latimer’s niece, by whom he had two sons, John and Nathaniel, who erected a monument to his memory, with a Latin inscription, in the chapel of the hospital at Leicester, where he was buried. His works are tew 1. “Letter to the professors of Christ’s Gospel, in the parish of Allhallows in Breadstreet,” Strasburgb, 1554, 8vo, which is reprinted in the appendix to Strype’s “Ecclesiastical Memorials,” vol. III. 2. “A Warning to take heed pf ‘Fowler’s Psalter’,” Loud. 1576 and 1578, 8vo. This was a popish psalter published by John Fowler, once a Fellow of New-college, Oxford, but who went abroad, turned printer, and printed the popish controversial works for some years. 3, ' Brief Collection of the Church and Ceremonies thereof,“Lond. 1581, 8vo. 4.” Prayers and Meditations Apostolike; gathered and framed out of the Epistles of the Apostles,“&c. ibid. 1592, J6mo. He was also editor of two sermons of his friend John Bradford, on repentance and the Lord’s-supper, Lond. 1574, 1581, and, 1589, 8vo. Baker ascribes to him, a translation of” a Sermon of John Chrysostome, of Pacience, of the end of the world, and the last judgment,“1550, 8vo; and of” An Homelye of the Resurrection of Christ," by John Brentius, 1550, 8vo. Other works, or papers in which he was concerned, may be seen in pur authorities.

, a learned physician, was born March 7, 1766, at Penna-Macor, in Portugal. His father, who was an opulent merchant, and iritended him for the bar, gave him a liberal education; but, being displeased at finding him, at the age of eighteen, obstinately bent on the profession of physic, withdrew his protection, and he was indebted to Dr. Nunés Ribeiro, his mother’s brother, who was a physician of considerable repute at Lisbon, for the means of prosecuting his medical studies, which he did, first at Coimbra, and afterwards at Salamanca, where he took the degree of M. D. in 1724; and the year following procured the appointment of phvsician to the town of Benevente in Portugal; for which, as is the custom of that country, he had a small pension, His stay at this place, however, was hut short. He was desirous of seeing more of the world, and of improving himself in his profession. With this view he came and passed two years in London, and had even an intention of fixing there; but a bad state of health, which he attributed to the climate, induced him to return to the continent. Soon after, we find him prosecuting his medical studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Boerhaavc; and it will be a sufficient proof of his diligence and merit to observe, that in 1731, when the Empress of Russia (Anne) requested Boerhaave to recommend -to her three physicians, the professor immediately fixed upon Dr. Sanches to be one of the number. Just as he was setting out for Russia, he was informed that his father was lately dead; and that his mother, in an unsuccessful law-suit with the Portuguese admiralty, had lost the greater part of her fortune. He immediately assigned over his own little claims and expectations in Portugal for her support. Soon after his arrival at St. Petersburg, Dr. Bidloo (son of the famous physician of that name), who was at that time first physician to the empress, -ave him an appointment in the hospital at Moscow, where he remained till 1734, when he was employed as physician to the army, in which capacity he was present at the siege of Asoph, where he was attacked with a dangerous fever, and, when he began to recover, found himself in a tent, abandoned by hjs attendants, and plundered of his papers and effects. In 1740, he was appointed one of the physicians to the court, and consulted by the empress, who had for eight years been labouring under a disease, the cause of which had never been satisfactorily ascertained Dr. Sanches, jn a conversation with the prime minister, gave it us his opinion, that the complaint originated from a stone in one of the kidneys, and admitted only of palliation. At the end of six: months the empress died, and the truth of his opinion was confirmed by dissection. Soon after the death of the empress, Dr. Sanche*s was advanced by the regent to the office of first physician; but the revolution of 1742, which placed Elizabeth Petrowna on the throne, deprived him of all his appointments. Hardly a day passed that he did not hear of some of his friends perishing on the scaffold; and it was not without much difficulty that he obtained leave to retire from Russia. His library, which had cost him 1200 pounds sterling, he disposed of to the academy of St. Petersburg, of which he was an honorary member; and, in return, they agreed to give him a pension of forty pounds per annum. During his residence in Russia, he had availed himself of his situation at court, to establish a correspondence with the Jesuits in China, who, in return for books of astronomy and other presents, sent him seeds or plants, together with other articles of natural history. It was from Dr. Sanche*s that the late Mr. Peter Cqllinson first received the seeds of the true rhubarb, but the plants were destroyed by some accident; and it was not till several years afterwards that rhubarb was cultivated with success in this country, from seeds sent over by the late Dr. Mounsey. In 1747, he went to reside at Paris, where he remained till his death. He enjoyed the friendship of the celebrated physicians and philosophers of that capital, and, at the institution of a Royal Medical Society, he was chosen a foreign associate. He was likewise a member of the royal academy of Lisbon, to the establishment of which his advice had probably contributed, as he drew up, at the desire of the court of Portugal, several memorials on the plans necessary to be adopted for the encouragement of science. Some of these papers, relative to the establishment of an university, were printed during his lifetime in Portuguese, and the rest have been found among. his manuscripts. His services in Russia remained for sixteen years unnoticed but, when the late empress Catherine ascended the throne, Dr. Sanches was not forgotten. He had attended her in a dangerous illness when she was very young; and she now rewarded him with a pension of a thousand roubles, which was punctually paid till his death. He likewise received a, pension from the court of Portugal, and another from prince Gallitzin. A great part of this income he employed in acts of benevolence. Of the liberality with with he administered to the wants of his rela T tions and friends, several striking instances, which our limits will not permit us to insert, have been related by Mr. de Magellan. He was naturally of an infirm habit of body, and, during the last thirty years of his life, frequently voided small stones with his urine. The disposition to this disease increased as he advanced in years, and for a considerable time before his death, he was confined to his apartments. The last visit he mad was, in 1782, to the grand duke of Russia, who was then at Paris. In September 1783, he perceived that his end was approaching, and he died on the 14th of October following. His library, which was considerable, he bequeathed to his brother, Dr. Marcello Sanches, who was likewise a pupil of Boerhaave", and who resided at Naples. His manuscripts (amorig which, besides a considerable number of papers on medical subjects, are letters written by him to Boerhaave. Van Swiften, Gaubius, Halter, Werlhof, Pringle, Fothergill, and other learned men) are in. the possession of Dr. An dry. His printed works, on the origin of the venereal disease and other subjects, are well known to medical readers; but his knowledge, it seems, was not confined to his own profession; he possessed a fund of general learning, and is said to have been profoundly versed in politics.

, or Sanctius Brocensis, an eminent classical scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Las Brocas, in the province of Estremaduras in Spain, in 1523. His principal residence appears to have been at Salamanca, where he was professor of rhetoric, and taught Greek and Latin with the highest reputation, derived from the originality of his criticisms and remarks on the classics. Justus Lipsius, Scioppius, and others, seem at a loss for language to express their admiration of his talents and learning. Lipsius bestows the epithets “divine” and “admirable;” and Scioppius says he ought to be considered as “com munis literatorum omnium pater et doctor.” Sanchez died in 1600, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. He published a great many works on subjects of classical criticism, and was the editor of Persius, Pomponius Mela, Politian’s “Sylvan,” Alciat’s emblems, Virgil’s Bucolics, and Horace’s Art of Poetry, He published also two Greek grammars, and some other pieces on grammar and rhetoric; but the work which has perpetuated his reputation is his “Minerva, de causis linguae Latinse,” Salamanca, 1587, 8vo, which was often reprinted. In more modem times, an edition was published at Amsterdam, in 1754, or 1761, 8vo, with a supplement by Scioppius, and notes by Perizonjus. This was reprinted with farther improvements by Scheidius, at Utrecht, in 1795, 8vo and again by Bauer, at Leipsic, in 1804, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Spanish prelate, admired for his writings in the fifteenth century, was born at Santa Maria de Nieva, in the diocese of Segovia, in 1404. After being instructed in classical learning, and having studied the canon law for ten years at Salamanca, he was honoured with the degree of doctor in that faculty; but afterwards embraced the eqclesiasUca! profession, received priest’s orders, and was made successively archdeacon of Trevino in the diocese of largos, dean of Leon and dean of Seville. The first preferment he held twenty years, the second seven, and the third two years. Ahout 1440, John II. king of Castille, appointed him envoy to the emperor Frederick III. and he was also afterwards employed in similar commissions or embassies to other crowned heads. When Calixtus III. became pope, Henry IV. king of Castille, sent him to congratulate his holiness, which occasioned him to take up his residence at Rome. In all his embassies, he made harangues to the different princes to whom he was sent, which are still preserved in ms. in the Vatican library. On the accession of pope Paul II. he made Sanchez governor of the castle of St. Angelo, and keeper of the jewels and treasures of the Roman church, and afterwards promoted him to the bishoprics of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. These last appointments, however, were little more than sinecures, as he never quitted Rome, and employed what time he could spare from his official duties in that city in composing a great many works, of which a list of twenty-nine may be seen in our authorities. He died at Rome Oct. 4, 1470$ and was interred in the church of St. James of Spain. Although so voluminous a writer, by far the greater part of his works remain in ms. in the Vatican and other libraries ) we know of three only which were published, 1. his history of Spain, “Historiae Hispanise partes quatuor.” This Marchand seems to think was published separately, but it was added to the “Hispania Illustrata” of Bel and Schott, published at Francfort in 1579, and again in 1603. 2. “Speculum vitse humaoce, in quo de omnibus omnium vitte ordinum ac conditionum commodis ac incommodis tractatur,' r Rome, 1468, folio, which, with three subsequent editions, is accurately described in the” Bibliotheca Speuceriana.“This work contains so many severe reflections on the clergy of the author’s time, that some protestant writers have been disposed to consider him as a brother in disguise. It is certainly singular that he could hazard so much pointed censure in such an age. 3.” Epistola de expugnatione Nigroponti>,“folio, without date, but probably before the author’s death. A copy of this likewise occurs in the” Bibl. Spenceriana." Those who are desirous of farther information respecting Sanchez or his works may be amply gratified in Marchand, who has a prolix article on the subject.

, a learned Spaniard, and librarian to the king, was born in 1730, and distinguished himself by his researches into the literary history pf his country, and by some editions of its ablest authors, which he illustrated with very valuable notes. Our authority, however, conveys very little information respecting his personal history or his works, and does not even mention the concern he had in the new and much improved edition of Antonio’s “Bibl. Hispana.” He died at Madrid in 1798. His most celebrated work is his “Collection of Castiliian poetry anterior to the fifteenth century, to which are prefixed memoirs of the first marquis of Santillane, and a letter addressed to the constable of Portugal, on the origin of Spanish poetry,” Madrid, 1779 1782, 5 vols. 8vo. This history is now preferred to that of father Sarmiento, which formerly enjoyed such reputation. Sanchez also wrote “An Apology for Cervantes,” in answer to a letter published in the Madrid Courier; and “A Letter to Don Joseph Berni, on his defence of Peter the Cruel,” ibid. 1778, 8vo.

* The first edition was patronized originally written with a view to pubiiby a subscription not known since the cation. She declared, therefore, “that days of the Spectator. The work was no such idea was ever expressed by published for the benefit of the author’s Mr. Sancho; and that not a single letfamily, by Miss Crewe, an amiable ter was printed from any duplicate young lady, to whom many of the let- preserved by himself, but all were co!­ter< are addressed, and who is since lected from the various friends 10 whom married to John Phillips, esq. surgeon they were addressed.” Her reasons of the household to the Prince of Wales, for publishing them were “the desire From the profits of the first edition, and of shewing that an untutored African a sum paid by the booksellers for li- may possess abilities equal to an Euberty to print a second edition, Mrs. ropean and the still superior motive Sancho, we are well assured, received of wishing to serve his worthy family, more than 500l. The editor did not And she was happy,” she declared, venture to give them to the public till “in publicly acknowledging phe had she had obviated an objection which not found the world inattentive to the had been suggested, that they were voice of obscure merit.” and of great reputation for diligence and faithfulness. He is said to have collected out of the most authentic records he could procure, the “Antiquities of Phoenicia,” with the help of some memoirs which came from Hierombaal, [Hierobaal, or Gideon,] a priest of the God Jeuo or Jao. He wrote several things also relating to the Jews. These “Antiquities of the Phoenicians,” Philo-Byblius, in the same Phoenicia, in the days of Adrian, translated into Greek; and Athenseus soon afterward reckoned him among the Phoenician writers. A large and noble fragment of this workj Eusebius has given us, verbatim, in his first book of “Evangelical Preparation,” cap. ix. x. and has produced the strong attestation of Porphyry, the most learned heathen of that age, to its authenticity. Upon these authorities, many learned men have concluded that the genuine writings of Sanchoniathon were translated by Philo-Byblius, and that Sanchoniathon derived a great part of his information from the books of Moses, nay, some have supposed that Thoth, called by the Greeks, Hermes, and by the Romans, Mercury, was only another name for Moses; but the inconsistencies, chiefly chronological* which the learned have detected in these accounts, and especially the silence of the ancients concerning this historian, who, if he had deserved the character given him by Porphyry > could not have been entirely over-looked, create a just ground of suspicion, either against Porphyry or PhiloByblius. It seems most probable, that Philo-Byblius fabricated the work from the ancient cosmogonies, pretending to have translated it from the Phoenician, in order to provide the Gentiles with an account of the origin of the world, which might be set in opposition to that of Moses. Eusebius and Theodoret, indeed, who, like the rest of the fathers, were too credulous in matters of this kind, and after them some eminent modern writers, have imagined, that they have discovered a resemblance between Sanchoniathon’s account of the formation of the world and that of Moses. But an accurate examination of the doctrine of Sanchoniathon, as it appears in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, will convince the unprejudiced reader, that the Phoenician philosophy, if indeed it be Phoenician, is directly opposite to the Mosaic. Sanchoniathon teaches, that, from the necessary energy of an eternal principle, active but without intelligence, upon an eternal passive chsiptic mass, or Mot, arose the visible world; a doctrine, of which there are some appearances in the ancient cosmogonies, and which was not without its patrons among the Greeks. It is therefore not unreasonable to conjecture, that the work was forged in opposition to the Jewish cosmogony, and that this was the circumstance which rendered it so acceptable to Porphyry. Such is the opinion of Brucker on this history; and Dodwell and Dupin, the former in an express treatise, have also endeavoured to invalidate its authenticity.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Fresingfield, in Suffolk, Jan. 30, 1616, and educated in grammar-learning at St. Edmund’s Bury, where he was equally remarkable for diligent application to his studies, and a pious disposition . In July 1634, he was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he became very accomplished in all branches of literature, took his degree of B. A. in 1637, and that of M. A. in 1641, and was in 1642 chosen fellow of his college. His favourite studies were theology, criticism, history, and poetry , but in all his acquirements he was humble and unostentatious. In 1648 he took the degree of B. D. It is supposed he never subscribed the covenant^ and that this was connived at, because he continued unmolested in his fellowship till 1649; at which time, refusing the engagement, he was ejected. Upon this he went abroad, and became acquainted with the most considerable of the loyal English exiles; and, it is said, he was at Rome when Charles II. was restored. He immediately returned to England, and was made chaplain to Cosin, bishop of Durham, who collated him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, and to the ninth prebend of Durham in March 1661. In the same year he assisted in reviewing the Liturgy, particularly in rectifying the Kalendar and Rubric. In 1662 he was created, by mandamus, D. D. at Cambridge, and elected master of Emanuel college, which he governed with great prudence. In 1664 he was promoted to the deanery of York, which although he held but a few months, he expended on the buildings about 200l. more than he had received. Upon the death of Dr. John Barwick he was removed to the deanery of St. Paul’s; soon after which, he resigned the mastership of Emanuel college, and the rectory of Houghton. On his coming to St. Paul’s he set himself most diligently to repair that cathedral, which had suffered greatly from the savage zeal of the republican fanatics in the civil wars, till the dreadful fire in 1666 suggested the more noble undertaking of rebuilding it. Towards this he gave 1400l. besides what he procured by his interest and solicitations among his private friends, and in parliament, where he obtained the act for laying a duty on coals for the rebuilding of the cathedral. He also rebuilt the deanery, and improved the revenues of it. In Oct. 1668, he was admitted archdeacon of Canterbury, on the king’s presentation, which he resigned in 1670. He was also prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; and was in that station when Charles II. in 1677, advanced him, contrary to his knowledge or inclination, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. In 1678 he published some useful directions concerning letters testimonial to candidates for holy orders. He was himself very conscientious in the admission to orders or the disposal of livings, always preferring men of approved abilities, great learning, and exemplary life. He attended king Charles upon his death-bed, and made a very weighty exhortation to him, in which he is said to have used a good deal of freedom. In 1686 he was named the first in James I I.'s commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but be refused to act in it. About the same time he suspended Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, for residing out of and neglecting his diocese. As one of the governors of the Charter-house, he refused to admit as pensioner in that hospital Andrew Popham, a papist, although he came with a nomination from the court. In June 1688, he joined with six of his brethren the bishops in the famous petition to king James, in which they gave their reasons why they could not cause his declaration for liberty of conscience to be read in churches. For this petition, which the court called a libel, they were committed to the Tower; and, being tried for a misdemeanor on the 29th, were acquitted, to the great joy of the nation. This year the archbishop projected the vain expedient of a comprehension with the protestant dissenters. We have the following account of this in the speech of Dr. W. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, in the house of lords, March 17, 1710, at the opening of the second article of the impeachment against Dr. Sacheverell. “The person,” says he, “who 6rst concerted this design was the late most reverend Dr. Sancroft, then archbishop of Canterbury. The time was towards the end of that unhappy reign of king James II. Then, when we were in the height of our labours, defending the Church of England against the assaults of popery, and thought of nothing else, that wise prelate foreseeing some such revolution as soon after was happily brought about, began to consider how utterly unprepared they had been at the restoration of king Charles II. to settle many things to the advantage of the Church, and what happy opportunity had been lost for want of such a previous care, as he was therefore desirous should now be taken, for the better and more perfect establishment of it. It was visible to all the nation, that the more moderate dissenters were generally so well satisfied with that stand which our divines had made agaiust popery, and the many unanswerable treatises they had published in confutation of it, as to express an unusual readiness to come in to us. And it was therefore thought worth the while, when they were deliberating about those other matters, to consider at the same time what might be done to gain them without doing any prejudice to ourselves. The scheme was laid out, and the several parts of it were committed, not only with the approbation, but by the direction of that great prelate, to such of our divines, as were thought the most proper to he intrusted with it. His grace took one part to himself; another was committed to a then pious and reverend dean (Dr. Patrick), afterwards a bishop of our church. The reviewing of the daily service of our Liturgy, and the Communion Book, was referred to a select number of excellent persons, two of which (archbishop Sharp, and Dr. Moore) are at this time upon our bench and I am sure will bear witness to the truth of my relation. The design was in short this: to improve, and, if possible, to inforce our discipline to review and enlarge our Liturgy, by correcting of some things, by adding of others and if it should be thought adviseable by authority, when this matter should come to be legally considered, first in convocation, then in parliament, by leaving some few ceremonies, confessed to be indifferent in their natures as indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed by those who made a scruple of them, till they should be able to overcome either their weaknesses or prejudices, and be willing to comply with them.” In October, accompanied with eight of his- brethren the bishops, Sancroft waited upon the king, who had desired the assistance of their counsels; and advised him, among other things, to annul the ecclesiastical commission, to desist from the exercise of a dispensing power, and to call a free and regular parliament. A few days after, though earnestly pressed by his majesty, he refused to sign a declaration of abhorrence of the prince of Orange’s invasion. In December, on king James’s withdrawing himself, he is said to have signed, and concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal, in a declaration to the prince of Orange, for a free parliament, security of our laws, liberties, properties, and of the church of England in particular, with a due indulgence to protestant dissenters. But in a declaration signed by him Nov. 3, 1688, he says that “he never gave the prince any invitation by word, writing, or otherwise;” it must therefore have been in consequence of the abdication that he joined with the lords in the above declaration. Yet when the prince came to St. James’s, the archbishop neither went to wait on him, though he had once agreed to it, nor did he even send any message. He absented himself likewise from the convention, for which he is severely censured by Burnet, who calls him “a poor-spirited and fearful man, that acted a very mean part in all this great transaction. He resolved,” says he, “neither to act for, nor against, the king’s interest; which, considering his higli post, was thought very unbecoming. For, if he thought, as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it was a strange thing to see one who was at the head of the church to sit silent all the while that this was in debate, and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking, voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly be.came his character.”

, or Santorius, an ingenious physician, was born in 1561, at Capo dTstria, a town on the borders of the gulf of Trieste. He studied medicine and took his degree at Padua, and then settled at Venice as a practitioner, where he had considerable success. In 1611 he was recalled to Padua, and appointed professor of the theory of medicine in that university; an office which he held with great credit for the space of thirteen years, until his reputation occasioning his being frequently sent for to Venice by the people of distinction in that city, he resigned his chair in order to dedicate all his time to medical practice. His resignation was accepted, but the salary continued; and with this testimony of the public esteem, he removed and settled finally at Venice, where he died in 1636, aged seventy-five. He was buried in the cloisters, and a statue of marble raised to his memory.

Sanctorius was the first who directed the attention of physicians to the importance of insensible perspiration in the animal ceconomy, concerning which he had gone through a long course of experiments upon himself. For these he constructed a kind of statical chair; by means of which, after weighing the aliments he took in, and the sensible secretions and discharges, he was enabled to determine with wonderful exactness the weight or quantity of insensible perspiration, as well as what kind of food or drink increased and diminished it. On these experiments he erected a curious system, which was long admired by the faculty. It was divulged first at Venice in 1614, under the title of “Ars de Statica Medicina,” comprehended in seven sections of aphorisms; and was often reprinted at different places, with corrections and additions by the author. It was translated into French, and published at Paris 1722; and we had next an English version of it, with large explanations, by Dr. Quincy; to the third edition of which in 1723, and perhaps to the former, is added, “Dr. James Keil’s Medicina Statica Britannica. with comparative remarks and explanations; as also physico-medical essays on agues, fevers, on elastic fibre, the gout, the leprosy, king’s-­evil, venereal diseases, by Dr. Quincy.”

, an ingenious artist, descended from a branch of the family of Saunby, of Babworth in Nottinghamshire, was born at Nottingham in 1732. In 1746 he came to London, and having an early predilection for the arts, procured admission to the drawing room in the Tower, where he first studied. In 1748, William duke of Cumberland, wishing to have a survey of the Highlands of Scotland, which was the scene of his memorable campaign in 1745-6, Mr. Sandby was appointed draughtsman, under the inspection of general David Watson, with whom he travelled through the North and Western parts of that most romantic country, and made many sketches. During his stay at Edinburgh he made a number of small etchings from these designs; which on his return to London were published in a folio volume. But drawing of plans abounding in straight lines being neither congenial to his taste nor worthy of his talents, he in 1752 quitted the service of the survey, and resided with his brother, Mr. Thomas Sandby, at Windsor, and during his continuance there took more than seventy views of Windsor and Eton. The accuracy, taste, and spirit with which they were in an eminent degree marked, so forcibly struck sir Joseph Banks, that he purchased them all, and at a very liberal price. Mr. Sandby had soon afterwards the honour of being one of this gentleman’s party in a tour through North and South Walesj and made a great number of sketches from remarkable scenes, castles, seats, &c. Under the patronage of the late sir Watkin Williams Wynne, he afterwards took many more views from scenes in the same country, which with those before mentioned he transferred to copper-plates, and made several sets of prints in imitation of drawings, in bister or Indian ink. The first hint of the process by which this effect is given to an engraving, Mr. Sandby is said to have received from the hon. Charles Greville, a gentleman of acknowledged taste and judgment in every branch of polite art. Profiting by this hint, Mr. Sandby so far improved upon it as to bring the captivating art of Aquatinta to a degree of perfection never before known in this country.

About 1753 Mr. Sandby, and several members of an academy who met at what had previously been Roubilliac’s workshop, in St. Martin’s-lane, wishing to extend their plan, and establish a society on a broader basis, held several meetings for the purpose of making new regulations, &c. Concerning these regulations it may naturally be supposed there were variety of opinions, but Hogarth, who was one of the members, and who deservedly held a very high rank in the arts, disapproved of the whole scheme, and wished the society to remain as it then was. He thought that enlarging the number of students would induce a crowd of young men to quit more profitable pursuits, neglect what might be more suitable to their talents, and introduce to the practice of the arts more professors than the arts would support. This naturally involved him in many disputes with his brother artists, and as these disputes were not always conducted with philosophic calmness, the satirist sometimes said things that his opponents deemed rather too severe for the occasion. On the publication of his “Analysis of Beauty” they recriminated, with interest. Among the prints which were then published to ridicule his system, line of beauty, &c. are six or eight, that from the manner in which they are conceived, and the uncommon spirit with which they are etched, carry more than probable marks of the burin of Mr. Sandby, who was then a very young man, but afterwards declared, that if he had been more intimately acquainted with Mr. Hogarth’s merit, he would on no account have drawn a line which might tend to his dispraise.

, from whom a religious sect is generally named, was born at Perth in Scotland in 1723. Being intended for one of the learned professions, he studied for two years at the university of Edinburgh, but at the expiration of that time married, and his fortune being- small, entered into the linen trade at Perth, whence he removed to Dundee, and afterwards to Edinburgh. The lady he married was the daughter of the rev. John Glass (See Glass), who founded the sect, at that time called from him Gtassitcs; and Mr. Sandeman, who was now an elder in one of Glass’s churches, or congregations, and had imbibed all his opinions, published a series of letters addressed to Mr. Hervey, occasioned by that author’s “Therou and Aspasio,” in which he endeavours to shew that his notion of faith is contradictory to the scripture account of it, and could only serve to lead men, professedly holding the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, to establish their own righteousness upon their frames, inward feelings, and various acts of faith. In these letters Mr. Sandeman attempts to prove, that faith is neither more nor less than a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, recorded in the New Testament; and he maintains, that the word faith, or belief, is constantlyused by the apostles to signify what is denoted by it in common discourse, viz. a persuasion of the truth of any proposition, and that there is no difference between believing any common testimony, and believing the apostolic testimony, except that which results from the nature of the testimony itself. This led the way to a controversy, among Calvin ists in Scotland, concerning the nature of justifying faith and those who adopted Mr. Sandeman’s; notion of it, and who took the denomination of Sandemanians, formed themselves into church order, in strict fellowship with the church of Scotland, but holding no kind of communion with other churches. The chief opinions and practices in which this sect differs from others, are, their weekly administration of the Lord’s Supper; their lovefeasts, of which every member is not only allowed but required to partake, and which consist of their dining together at each other’s houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon service: their kiss of charity used on this occasion, at the admission of a new member, and at other times, when they deem it to be necessary or proper; their weekly collection before the Lord’s Supper for the support of the poor, and defraying other expences mutual exhortation abstinence from blood and things strangled washing each other’s feet, the precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understand literally community of goods so far as that every one is to consider all that he has in his possession and power as liable to the calls of the poor and church, and the unlawfulness of laying up treasures on earth, by setting them apart for any distant, future, and uncertain use. They allow of public and private diversions so far as they are not connected with circumstances really sinful; but apprehending a lot to be sacred, disapprove of playing at cards, dice, &c They maintain a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops, in each church, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of discipline, and at the administration of the Lord’s Supper. In the choice of these elders, want of learning, and engagements in trade, &c. are no sufficient objection; but second marriages disqualify for the office; and they are ordained by prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship. In their discipline they are strict and severe, and think themselves obliged to separate from the communion and worship of all such religious societies as appear to them not to profess the simple truth for their only ground of hope, and who do not walk in obedience to it. We shall only add, that in every church transaction, they esteem unanimity to be absolutely necessary.

, a Roman catholic writer of considerable fame, and one of the principal champions of popery in the sixteenth century, was born about 1527, at Charlewood in Surrey, and educated at Winchester school, whence he removed to New college, Oxford. Here he studied chiefly canon law, and was made fellow of his college in 1548, and in 1550, or 1551, took the degree of bachelor of laws. When queen Mary came to the throne, he had the offer of being Latin secretary to her majesty, which he declined for the sake of a studious, academical life, and remained at Oxford during the whole of her reign. In 1557 he was one of the professors of canon law, and read what were called the “shaggling lectures,” i. e. lectures not endowed, until the accession of queen Elizabeth, when his principles induced him to quit England. He arrived at Rome about the latter end of 1560, and studying divinity, became doctor in that faculty, and was ordained priest by Dr. Thomas Goldwell, bishop of St. Asaph, who at that time resided in the English hospital at Rome. Soon after, cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent, hearing of his abilities, took him into his family, and made use of him, as his theologal, in the council. When the council broke up, Dr. Sanders accompanied the cardinal to Poland, Prussia, and Lithuania, where he was instrumental in settling the discipline of the Romish church; but his zeal disposing him to think most of his native country, he returned to Flanders, and was kindly entertained by sir Francis Englefield, formerly privy-counsellor to queen Mary, and then in great favour with the court of Spain; through whose hands a great part of those charitable collections passed, which his catholic majesty ordered for the subsistence of the English popish exiles. Sanders was appointed his assistant, and being settled at Louvaine, together with his mother and sister, he lived there twelve years, and performed many charitable offices to his indigent countrymen. Much of this time he employed in writing in defence of popery against Jewell, Nowell, and other eminent protestant divines.

Some years after, having received an invitation from the pope, he took a journey to Rome, whence he was sent as nuncio to the popish bishops and clergy in Ireland, and landed there in 1579. At this time Gerald Fitzgerald, earl of Desmond, was in arms, as he pretended, in defence of the liberties and religion of his country; but in 1583 his party was routed and himself killed. The part Sanders took in this rebellion is variously represented. Camden says that he was sent over purposely to encourage Desmond, and that several companies of Spanish soldiers went over with him, and that when their army was routed, he fled to the woods, and died of hunger. All that the catholics deuy in this account, is, that Sanders was sent purposely i but this they deny very feebly. With regard to the manner of Sanders’s death, Dodd seems inclined to prefer Wood’s account, who says that he died of a dysentery, and Dodd likewise adopts the report of Rushton and Pits, who say that he died at the latter end of 1580, or the beginning of 1581, because this was long before Desmond’s defeat, and consequently dissolves in some measure the supposed connection between him and Sanders. Dodd, however, who is generally impartial, allows that several catholics, his contemporaries, were of opinion that he was engaged in the Spanish interest against queen Elizabeth; and his writings prove that he maintained a deposing power both in the church and people, where religion was in danger. He was, according to all accounts, a man of abilities, and was considered as the most acute adversary for the re-establishment of popery in England, which his party could boast of. He had, however, to contend with men of equal ability, who exposed his want of veracity as well as of argument, and few of his works have survived the times in which they were written. Among them are, 1. “The Supper of our Lord, &c.” a defence of the real presence, being what he calls “A confutation of Jewel’s Apology, as also of Alexander Newel’s challenge,” Louvain, in 1566, 1567, 4to. 2. “Treatise of the Images of Christ and his Saints; being a confutation of Mr. Jewel’s reply upon that subject,” ibid. 1567, 8vo.- 3. “The Rock of the Church/ 1 eoncerning the primacy of St. Peter, ibid. 1566, 1567, St. Omer’s, 1624, 8vo.' 4.” A brief treatise on Usury,“ibid. 1566. 5.” De Visibili monarchia Ecclesia,“ibid. 1571, folio, Antwerp, 1581, Wiceburg, 1592. 6.” De origine et progressu Schismatis Anglicani,“Colon. 1585, 8vo, reprinted at other places in 1586, 1588, and 1590, and translated into French in 1673, with some tracts on the tenets of his church, which seem not of the controversial kind. Mo’st of the former were answered by English divines of eminence, particularly his large volume” De visibili monarchia ecclesise," by Dering, Clerk, and others, of whose answers an account may J>e seen in Strype’s Life of Parker. That on the English schism is refuted, as to his more important assertions, in the appendix to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. II.

, an English writer, whose history may not be unuseful, was a native of Scotland, and born in, or near, Breadalbane, about 1727. He was by business a comb-maker; but not being successful in trade, and having some talents, some education, and a good memory, he commenced a hackney writer, and in that capacity produced some works which have been relished by the lower class of readers. When he came to London is uncertain; but, having travelled over most of the northern parts of these kingdoms, he compiled, from his own survey and the information of books, an itinerary, entitled “The Complete English Traveller,” folio. It was published in numbers, with the fictitious name of Spencer, professedly on the plan of Fuller’s Worthies, with biographical notices of the most eminent men of each county. As the dealers in this kind of publications thought it too good a thing to be lost, it has been republished, depriving Mr. Spencer of his rights, and giving them to three fictitious gentlemen, Mr. Burlington for England, Mr. Murray for Scotland, and Mr. Llewellyn for Wales. He also compiled, about 1764, a work in 5 or 6 vols. 8vo, with cuts, entitled “The Newgate Calendar, or Memoirs of those unfortunate culprits who fall a sacrifice to the injured laws of their country, and thereby make their exit at Tyburn.” He was some time engaged with lord Lyttelton, in assisting his lordship to compile his “History of Henry II.;” and Dr. Johnson, in his life of that poetical nobleman, introduces this circumstance in no very honourable manner. “When time,” says he, “brought the history to a third edition, Reid (the former corrector) was either dead or discharged; and the superintendence of typography and punctuation was committed to a man originally a conjb-maker, but then known by the style of Doctor Sanders. Something uncommon was probably expected, and something uncommon was at last done; for to the doctor’s edition is appended, what the world had hardly seen before, a list of errors of nineteen pages. 7 ' His most considerable work was his” Gaffer Greybeard,“an illiberal piece, in 4 vols. 12mo, in which the characters of the most eminent dissenting divines, his contemporaries, are very freely handled. He had, perhaps suffered either by the contempt or the reproof of some of that persuasion, and therefore endeavoured to revenge himself on the whole, ridiculing, in particular, Dr. Gill under the name of Dr. Half-pint, and Dr. Gibbons under that of Dr. Hymn-maker. He was also the author of the notes to a Bible published weekly under the name of the rev. Henry Southwell: for this he received about twentyfive or twenty-six shillings per week, while Dr. Southwell, the pseudo-commentator, received one hundred guineas for the use of his name, he having no other recommendation to the public, by which he might merit a posthumous memory, than his livings. Dr. Sanders also compiled” Letter-writers,“” Histories of England,“and other works of the paste and scissors kind but his” Roman History," written in a series of letters from a nobleman to his son, in 2 vols. 12mo, has some merit. Towards the latter end of his days he projected a general chronology of all nations, and had already printed some sheets of the work, under the patronage of lord Hawke, when a disorder upon his lungs put a period to his existence, March 19, 1783. He was much indebted to the munificence of Mr. Granville Sharp. More particulars of this man’s history and of the secrets of Bible-making may be seen in our authority.

, an eminent English bishop, was descended from an ancient family, and was the youngest son of Robert Sanderson, of Gilthwaite-hall, Yorkshire, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Richard Carr, of Butterthwaite-hall, in the parish of Ecclesfield. He was born at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, Sept. 19, 1587, and educated in the grammar-school there, where he made so uncommon a progress in the languages, that, at thirteen, he was sent to Lincoln college in Oxford. Soon after taking his degree of B. A. his tutor told Dr. Kilbie, the rector, that his “pupil Sanderson had a metaphysical brain, and a matchless memory, and that he thought he had improved or made the last so by an art of his own invention.” While at college, he generally spent eleven hours a day in study, chiefly of philosophy and the classics. In 1606 he was chosen fellow, and in July 1608, completed his degree of M. A. In November of the same year, he was elected logic reader, and re-elected in Nov. 1609. His lectures on this subject were published in 1615, and ran through several editions. In 1613, 1614, and 1616, he served the office of sub-rector, and in the latter of those years, that of proctor. In 1611, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. King, bishop of London, and took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1617. In 1618, he was presented by his cousin sir Nicolas Sanderson, lord viscount Castleton, to the rectory of Wybberton, near Boston, in Lincolnshire, but resigned it the year following on account of the unhealthiness of its situation; and about the same time was collated to the rectory of Boothby-Paniiell, or Paynel, in the same county, which he enjoyed above forty years. Having now quitted his fellowship, he married Anne, the daughter of Henry Nelson, B. D. rector of Haugham in the county of Lincoln; and soon after was made a prebendary of Southwell, as he was also of Lincoln in 1629. He continued to attend to his parochial duties in a very exemplary manner, and particularly laboured much to reconcile differences, and prevent law-suits both in his parish, and in the neighbourhood. He also often visited sick and disconsolate families, giving advice and often pecuniary assistance, or obtaining the latter by applications to persons of opulence. He was often called upon to preach at assizes and visitations; but his practice of reading his sermons, as it was then not very common, raised some prejudice against him. Walton observes, that notwithstanding he had an extraordinary memory, he had such an innate bashfulness and sense of fear, as to render it of little use in the delivery of his sermons. It was remarked, when his sermons were printed in 1632, that “the best sermons that were ever read, were never preached.” At the beginning of the reign of Charles I. he was chosen one of the clerks in convocation for the diocese of Lincoln; and Laud, then bishop of London, having recommended him to that king as a man excellently skilled in casuistical learning, he was appointed chaplain to his majesty in 1631. When he became known to the king, his majesty put many cases of conscience to him, and received from him solutions which gave him so great satisfaction, that at the end of his month’s attendance, which was in November, the king told him, that “he should long for next November; for he resolved to have more inward acquaintance with him, when the month and he returned.” The king indeed was never absent from his sermons, and used to say, that “he carried his ears to hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson.” In 1633 he obtained, through the earl of Rutland’s interest, the rectory of Muston, in Leicestershire, which he held eight years. In Aug. 1636, when the court was entertained at Oxford, he was,‘ among others, created D. D. In 1642, he was proposed by both Houses of parliament to king Charles, who was then at Oxford, to be one of their trustees for the settling of church affairs, and approved by the king: but that treaty came to nothing. The same year, his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford, with the canonry of Christ church annexed: but the national calamities hindered him from entering on it till 1646, and then he did not hold it undisturbed much more than a year. In 1643, he was nominated by the parliament one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them neither did he take the covenant or engagement, so that his living was sequestered but, so great was his reputation for piety and learning, that he was not deprived of it. He had the’ chief hand in drawing up “The Reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn League and Covenant, the Negative Oath, and the Ordinances concerning Discipline and Worship:” and, when the parliament had sent proposals to the king for a peace in church and state, his majesty desired, that Dr. Sanderson, with the doctors Hammond, Sheldon, and Morley, should attend him, and advise him how far he might with a good conscience comply with those proposals. This request was rejected by the presbyterian party; but, it being complied with afterwards by the independents, when his majesty was at Hampton-court, and in the isle of Wight, in 1647 and 1648, those divines attended him there. Dr. Sanderson often preached before him, and had many public and private conferences with him, to his majesty’s great satisfaction. The king also desired him, at Hampton-court, since the parliament had proposed the abolishing of episcopal government as inconsistent with monarchy, that he would consider of it, and declare his judgment; and what he wrote upon that subject was afterwards printed in 1661, 8vo, under this title, “Episcopacy, as established by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal power.” At Sanderson’s taking leave of his majesty in this his last attendance on him, the king requested him to apply himself to the writing of “Cases of Conscience;” to which his answer was, that “he was now grown old, and unfit to write cases of conscience.” But the king told him plainly, “it was the simplest thing he ever heard from him; for, no young man was fit to be a judge, or write cases of conscience.” Upon this occasion, Walton relates the following anecdote: that in one of these conferences the king told Sanderson, or one of them that then waited with him, that “the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the earl of Stafford’s death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that, if God ever restored him to the peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and a voluntary penance, by walking barefoot from the Tower of London, or Whitehall, to St. Paul’s church, and would desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon.” In 1643, Dr. Sanderson was ejected from his professorship and canonry in Oxford by the parliamentary visitors, and retired to his living of Boothby-Pannel. Soon after, he was taken prisoner, and carried to Lincoln, to be exchanged for one Clarke, a puritan divine, and minister of Alington, who had been made prisoner by the king’s party. He was, however, soon released upon articles, one of which was, that the sequestration of his living should be recalled; by which means he enjoyed a moderate subsistence for himself, wife, and children, till the restoration. But, though the articles imported also, that he should live undisturbed, yet he was far from bein^r either quiet or safe, being once wounded, and several times plundered; and the outrage of the soldiers was such, that they not only came into his church, and disturbed him when reading prayers, but even forced the common prayer book from him, and tore it to pieces. During this retirement, he received a visit from Dr. Hammond, who wanted to discourse with him upon some points disputed between the Caivinists and Arminians; and he was often applied to for resolution in cases of conscience, several letters upon which subjects were afterwards printed*. In 1658, the hon, Robert Boyle sent him a present of 50l.; his circumstances, as of most of the royalists at that time, being very low. Boyle had read his lectures “De juramenti obligatione,” published the preceding year, with great satisfaction; and asked Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, if he thought Sanderson could be induced to write cases of conscience, provided he had an honorary pension allowed, to supply him with books and an amanuensis But Sanderson told Barlow, “that, if any future tract of his could bring any benefit to mankind, he would readily set about it without a pension.” Upon this, Boyle sent the above present by the hands of Barlow; and Sanderson presently revised, finished, and published, his book “De obligatione conscientiae,” which, as well as

We shall now give some account of his writings, which, for good sense, clear reasoning, and manly style, have always been much esteemed. In 1615, he published, 1. “Logicse Artis Compendium,” as we have already mentioned. In 1671 appeared, as a posthumous work, his “Physicae scientiss compendium,” printed at Oxford. 2. “Sermons,” preached and printed at different times, amounting to the number of thirty-six, 1681, folio; with the author’s life by Walton prefixed. 3. “Nine Cases of Conscience resolved;” published at different times, but first collected in 1678, 8vo. The last of these nine cases is “Of the use of the Liturgy,” the very same tract which was published by Walton in his Life of Sanderson, 1678, under the title of “Bishop Sanderson’s judgment concerning submission to Usurpers.” In this tract is given a full account of the manner in which Dr. Sanderson conducted himself, in performing the service of the church, in the times of the usurpation. 4. “De Juramenti Obligatione,” 1647, 8vo; reprinted several times since, with, 5. “De Obligatione Conscientiae.” This last was first printed, as we have said, at the request of Mr. Boyle, and dedicated to him; tfye former, viz. “De Juramenti Obligatione,” was translated into English by Charles I., during his confinement in the Isle of Wight, and printed at London in 1655, 8vo; and of both there is an English translation, entitled “Prelections on the Nature and Obligation of promissory oaths and of conscience,” London, 1722, 3 vols. 8vo, 6, “Censure of Mr. Antony Ascham his book of the Confusions and Revolutions of Government,” 1649, 8vo. This Ascham was the rump parliament’s agent at Madrid, and was murdered there by some English royalists. 7. “Episcopacy, as established by Law in England, not prejudicial to the Regal Power,' 7 1661, mentioned before. 8.” Pax Ecciesiae about Predestination, or theFive Points;“printed at the end of his Life by Walton, 8vo. Our bishop seems at first to have been a strict Calvinist in those points: for in 1632, when twelve of hissermons were printed together, the reader may observe in the margin some accusations of Arminius for false doctrine; but in consequence of his conferences with Dr. Hammond, he relaxed from the rigid sense, as appears by some letters that passed between them, and which are printed in Hammond’s works. 9.” Discourse concerning the Church in these particulars: first, concerning the visibility of the true Church; secondly, concerning the Church of Rome,“&c. 1688 published by Dr. William Asheton, from a ms copy, which he had from Mr. Pullen, the bishop’s domestic chaplain. 10. A large preface to a book of Usher’s, written at the special command of Charles I. and entitled,” The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the Obedience required of the Subject,“&c. 1661, 4to, and 1633, 8vo. 11. A prefatory Discourse, in defence of Usher and his writings, prefixed to a collection of learned treatises, entitled,” Clavi Trabales; or, nails fastened by some great masters of atsemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subjects’ duty, and church government by bishops,“1661, 4to. 12.” Prophecies concerning the return of Popery,“inserted in a book entitled” Fair Warning, the second part,“London, 1663. This volume contains also several extracts from the writings of Whitgift and Hooker, and was published with a view to oppose the sectaries, who were said to be opening a door at which popery would certainly enter. 13.” The preface to the Book of Common Prayer,“beginning with these words,” It hath been the wisdom of the church.“14.” Ectvo/X^, seu Explanatio Juramenti,“&c. inserted in the” Excerpta e corpore statutorum Univ. Oxon.“p. 194. It was written to explain the oath of obligation to observe the penal statutes. 15.” Articles of Visitation and Inquiry concerning matters ecclesiastical,“&c. Lotid. 1662, 4to. Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Hammond were jointly concerned in a work entitled” A pacific discourse of God’s grace and decrees,“and published by the latter in 1660. In the preface to the Polygiott, Dr. Bryan Walton has classed Dr. Sanderson among those of his much honoured friends who assisted him in that noble work. Peck, in the second volume of his” Desiderata Curiosa,“has published the” History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin St. Mary at Lincoln: containing an exact copy of all the ancient monumental inscriptions there, in number 163, as they stood in 1641, most of which were soon after torn up, or otherways defaced. Collected by Robert Sanderson, S.T. P. afterwards lord bishop of that church, and compared with and corrected by sir William DugdaleVMS survey."

, an eminent topographer and antiquary, was born at Antwerp, in Sept. 1586. He was first taught Latin at Oudenarde, and pursued his classical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Ghent. He then studied philosophy at Douay, and in 1609 obtained the degree of master of arts. After some stay in his native country, he entered on a course of theology at Louvain, which he completed at Douay, and in 1619, or 1621, took the degree of doctor in that faculty. Being ordained priest, he officiated for several years in various churches in the diocese of Ghent, was remarkably zealous in the conversion of heretics, i. e. protestants, and particularly contended much with the anabaptists, who were numerous in that quarter. Having, however, rendered himself obnoxious to the Hollanders, by some services in which he was employed by the king of Spain, their resentment made him glad to enter into the service of cardinal Aiphonso de la Cueva, who was then in the Netherlands, and made him his almoner and secretary. Some time after, by the cardinal’s interest, he was made canon of Ipres (not of Tournay, as father Labbe asserts) and finally theologal of Terouanne. He died in 1664, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, at Afflingham, an abbey of Brabant in the diocese of Mechlin, and was interred there, with a pious inscription over his grave, written by himself.

The long list of his works shews that his life was not spent in indolence. Some of these of the religious kind we shall omit. The principal, which respected literature, or the biography and history of the Netherlands, were, 1. “Dissertatio parsenetica pro instituto bibliothecae publics Gandavensis,” Ghent, 1619, 4to. 2. “Poematum libri tres,” ibid. 1621, 8vo. 3. “Panegyricus in laudem B. Thomse de Villanova,” ibid. 1623, 4to. 4. “Encomium S. Isidori,” Antwerp, 1623, 8vo. 5. “De Scriptoribus Flandrise, libri tres,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 6. “De Gandavensibus eruditionis fama claris,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 7. “De Brugensibus eruditionis fama claris,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 8. “Hagiologium Flandrise,” &c. ibid. 1625, 4to, and with additions, at Lisle, 1639. 9. “Elogia Cardinalium sanctitate, doctrina, et armis illustrium,” Louvain, 1625, 4to. 10. “Gandavium, sive rerum Gandavensium libri sex,” Brussels, 1627, 4to. 11. “De claris sanctitate et eruditione Antoniis,” Louvain, 1627, 4to. 12. “Bibliotheca Belgica manuscripta,” 2 parts or volumes, Lisle, 1641 and

, a herald and heraldic writer, descended from a very ancient and respectable family, still seated at Sandford, in the county of Salop, was the third son of Francis Sandford, *of that place, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Calcot Chambre, of Williamscot in Oxfordshire, and of Carnow in Wicklow in Ireland. He was born in 1630, in the castle of Carnow in the province of Wicklow, part of the half barony of Shelelak, purchased of James I., by his maternal grandfather, Chalcot Chambre. He partook in an eminent degree the miseries of the period which marked his youth. At eleven years of age he sought an asylum in Sandford, being driven by the rebellion from Ireland. No sooner had his pitying relatives determined to educate him to some profession, than they were proscribed for adhering to the cause of their sovereign; he received, therefore, only that learning which a grammar school could give. As some recompence for the hardships he and his family had experienced, he was admitted, at the restoration, as pursuivant in the college of arms; but conscientiously attached to James II., he obtained leave to resign his tabard to Mr. King, rougedragon, who paid him 220l. for his office. He retired to Bloomsbury, or its vicinity, where he died, January 16, 1693, and was buried in St. Bride’s upper church yard. The last days of this valuable man corresponded too unhappily with the first, for he died “advanced in years, neglected, and poor.' 7 He married Margaret, daughter of William Jokes, of Bottington, in the county of Montgomery, relict of William Kerry, by whom he had issue. His literary works are, 1.” A genealogical History of the Kings of Portugal,“&c. London, 1664, fol. partly a translation, published in compliment to Catherine of Braganza, consort to Charles II. It is become scarce. 2.” The Order and Ceremonies used at the Funeral of his Grace, George Duke of Albemarle,“Savoy, 1670. This is a thin folio, the whole represented in engraving. 3.” A genealogical History of the Kings of England, and Monarchs of Great Britain, from the Norman Conquest, Anno 1066, to the year 1677, in seven Parts or Books, containing a Discourse of their several Lives, Marriages, and Issues, Times of Birth, Death, Places of Burial, and monumental Inscriptions, with their Effigies, Seals, Tombs, Cenotaphs, Devices, Arms,“&c. Savoy, 1677, fol. dedicated to Charles II., by whose command the work was undertaken. It is his best and most estimable performance. The plan is excellent, the fineness of the numerous engravings greatly enrich and adorn it: many are by Hollar, others by the best artists of that period, inferior to him, but not contemptible, even when seen at this age of improvement in graphic art. The original notes are not the least valuable part of the work, conveying great information, relative to the heraldic history of our monarchs, princes, and nobility. Mr. Stebbing, Somerset herald, reprinted it in 1707, continuing it until that year, giving some additional information to the original works; but the plates being worn out, or ill touched, this edition is far inferior to the first.” The Coronation of K. James II. and Q. Mary," &c. illustrated with sculptures, Savoy, 1687, a most superb work. When James declared he would have the account of his coronation printed, Mr. Sandford and Mr. King, then rouge-dragon, obtained the earl marshal’s consent to execute it; the latter says, the greatest part passed through his hands, as well as the whole management and economy of it, though he declined having his name appear in the title-page, contenting himself with one third part of the property, leaving the honour, and two remaining shares of it, to Mr. Sandford well foreseeing, he says, that they would be maligned for it by others of their office and he was not mistaken, for Sandford, with all the honour, had all the malice, for having opposed the earl marshal’sappointing Mr. Burghill to be receiver of fees of honour for the heralds, and endeavouring to vest it in the king; so that the affair was taken and argued at the council table. The earl marshal, at the insinuation of some of the heraids, suspended him, under pretence that he had not finished the history of the coronation; but he submitting, the suspension was soon taken off. The book at last was not successful, for the publication being delayed until 1687, and the revolution following, which threw a damp on such an undertaking, Messrs. Sandford and King gained no more than their expences, amounting to 600l.

, or, Van Den Sand, a Socinian writer, was born at Konigsburg in the year 1644. After becoming an ecclesiastic, he went to Amsterdam, where he died in 1680, aged only thirty-six. He published various works, among which are, 1. “Nucleus Historiae Ecclesiasticae,” 1669, in 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Cologne, in 1676: and in London in 1681. 2. “Tractatus de Origine Animae, 167 1.” 3. “Notae et Observationes in G. J. Vossium de Historicis Latinis,” 1677, a work of considerable learning. 4. “Centuria Epigrammatum” 5. “Interpretation es paracloxae IV. Evangeliorum” 6. “Confessio Fidei de Deo Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Saricto, secunduia Scripturam;” “Scriptura Sacrac Trinitatis Revelatrix.” But the only work now much known, which was publibhed after his death, is his “Bibliotheca Anti-Trinitariorum,” Freistadt, 1684, 12mo, containing an account of the lives and writings of Socinian authors, and some tracts giving many particulars of the history of the Polish Socinians.

, a very eminent English prelate, the third son of William Sandys, esq. and Margaret his wife, descended from the ancient barons of Kendal, was born near Hawkshead, in Furness Fells, Lancashire, in 1519. The same neighbourhood, and almost the same year, gave birth to two other luminaries of the reformation, Edmund Grindal and Bernard Gilpin. Mr. Sandys’s late biographer conjectures, that he was educated at the school of Furness Abbey, whence he was removed to St. John’s-college, Cambridge, in 1532 or 1533, where he had for his contemporaries Redmayn and Lever, both great lights of the reformation, beside others of inferior name, who continued in the hour of trial so true to their principles, that, according to Mr. Baker, the learned historian of that house, “probably more fellows were, in queen Mary’s reign, ejected from St. John’s than from any other society in either university.” Several years now elapsed of Sandys’s life, during which in matters of religion men knew not how to act or what to believe; but, though the nation was at this time under severe restraints with respect to external conduct, inquiry was still at work jin secret: the corruptions of the old religion became better understood, the Scriptures were universally studied, and every impediment being removed with the capricious tyranny of Henry VIII., protestantism, with little variation from its present establishment in England, became the religion of the state.

During this interval Sandys, who, from the independence of his fortune, or some other cause, had never been scholar or fellow of his college, though he had served the office of proctor for the university, was in 1547 elected master of Catherine-hall. He was probably at this time vicar of Haversham, in Bucks> his first considerable preferment, to which, in 1548, was added a prebend of Peterborough, and in 1552, the second stall at Carlisle. Without the last of these preferments he was enabled to marry, and chose a lady of his own name, the daughter of a branch unnoticed by the genealogists, a beautiful and pious wo^ man. The next year, which was that of his vice-chancellorship, rendered him unhappily conspicuous by his yielding to the command or request of Dudley, duke of Northumberland, and preaching a sermon in support of lady Jane Gray’s pretensions to the crown, after the death of Edward VI. The designs of Dudley’s party having been almost immediately defeated, Sandys was marked out for vengeance; and the popish party in the university, as the first step towards regaining an ascendant, resolved to depose the vice-chancellor, which was performed in a manner very characteristic of the tumultuous spirit of the times. From this time, in July 1553, he ceased to reside in college, or to take any part in the administration of its concerns.

Here they continued until their apartments being wanted for the persons concerned in Wyat’s conspiracy, they were removed to the Marshalsea. On their way there they found the people’s minds greatly changed. Popery, unmasked and triumphant, had already shewn its nature again, and general disgust had followed the short burst of joy which had attended the queen’s accession. Sandys walked along the streets attended by his keeper: and as he was generally known, the people prayed that God would comfort him, and strengthen him in the truth. Struck with these appearances of popularity, the keeper of the Marshalsea said, “These vain people would set you forward to the fire: but you are as vain as they, if you, being a young man, will prefer your own conceit before the judgment of so many worthy prelates, and so many grave and learned men as are in this realm. If you persist, you shall find me as strict a keeper, as one that utterly misliketh your religion.” Dr. Sandys nobly replied, “My years, indeed, are few, and my learning is small but it is enough to know Christ crucified and who seeth not the blasphemies of popery hath learned nothing. T have read in Scripture of godly and courteous keepers, God make you like one of them; if not, I trust he will give me strength and patience to bear your hard dealing with* me.” The keeper then asked, “Are you resolved to stand to your religion” “Yes,” said Dr. Sandys, “by God’s grace.” “1 love you the better, therefore,” said the keeper, " I did but tempt you: every favour which I can show, you shall be sure of: nay, if you die at a stake, I shall be happy to die with you.' 7 And from that day such was the confidence which this good man reposed in Sandys, that many times he permitted him to walk alone in the fields; nor would he ever suffer him to be fettered, like the other prisoners. He lodged him also in the best chamber of the house, and often permitted his wife to visit him. Great resort was here made to Dr. Sandys for his edifying discourses, and much money was offered him, but he would accept of none. Here too the communion was celebrated three or four times by himself and his companions, of whom Saunders, afterwards the martyr, was one, to many communicants.

After nine weeks confinement in the Marshalsea, he was set at liberty, by the intercession of sir Thomas Holcroft, knight-marshal. This, however, was not accomplished without much difficulty, and so intent was Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, on bringing Sandys to the stake, that it required some management on the part of sir Thomas before he could succeed; and no sooner was Sandys liberated than Gardiner, being told that he had set at liberty one of the greatest heretics in the kingdom, procured orders to be issued to all the constables of London to search for, and apprehend him. In Sandys* s final escape, as related by his late biographer, the hand of Providence was strikingly visible. While he was in the Tower, wanting a pair of new hose, a tailor was sent for, who, not being permitted to measure him, had made them too long, and While he was now concealed at the house of one Hurleston, a skinner in Cornhill, he sent them, as Hurleston’s own, to a tailor to be shortened. This happened to be honest Benjamin the maker, a good protestant, who immediately recognized his own handy work, and required to be shown, to the house where Dr. Sandys was, that he might speak with him for his good. At midnight he was admitted, and informed Dr. Sandys, that all the constables of the city, of whom he himself was one, were employed to apprehend him, thai it was well known that his servant had provided two geldings, and that he meant to ride out at Aldgate tomorrow. “But,” said he, “follow my advice, and, by God’s grace, you shall escape. Let your man walk all the day to-morrow in the street where your horses are stabled, booted and prepared for a journey. The servant of the man of the house shall take the horses to Bethnalgreen. The man himself shall follow, and be booted as if he meant to ride. About eight in the morning I will be with you, and here we will break our fast. It is both term and parliament time, and the street by that hour will be full of people; we will then go forth look wildly, and, if you meet your own brother in the street, do not shun, but outface him, and assure him that you know him not.” Dr. Sand3's accordingly complied, and came out at the appointed hour, clothed in all respects as a layman and a gentleman. Benjamin carried him through bye-lanes to Moorgate, where the horses were ready, and Hurleston as his man. That night he rode to his father-in-law’s house, but had not been there two hours, when intelligence was brought, that two of, the guard had been dispatched to apprehend him, and would be there that night. He was then immediately conducted to the house of a farmer near the sea-side, where he remained two days and two nights in a solitary chamber. Afterwards he removed to the house of one James Mower, a ship-master, near Milton-shore, where was a fleet of merchant-men awaiting a wind for Flanders. While he was there, Mower gathered a congregation of forty or fifty seamen, to whom he gave an exhortation, with which they were so much delighted, that they promised to defend him at the expence of their lives. On Sunday May 6, he embarked in the. same vessel with Dr. Coxe, afterwards bishop of Ely, and the ship was yet in sight, when two of the guard arrived on the shore to apprehend Dr. Sandys.

His danger was not even yet entirely over, for on hi arrival at Antwerp, he received intelligence that king Philip of Spain had sent to apprehend him, on which he escaped to the territory of Cleve, from thence to Augsburgh, where he remained fourteen days, and then removed to Strasburgh. Here he took up his abode for the present, and here unquestionably spent the most gloomy portion of his life. His own health was at this time deeply, injured; he fell sick of a flux (the usual concomitant of hardships and afflictions), which continued without abatement for nine months; his only child died of the plague; and his beloved wife, who had found means to follow him about a year after his flight from England, expired of a consumption, in his arms. In addition to his sorrows, the disputes concerning church discipline broke out among the English exiles, on which several of his friends left the place. After his wife’s death, he went to Zurich, where he was entertained by Peter Martyr, but, his biographer thinks, the time did not permit him to receive any deep tincture either as to doctrine or discipline from Geneva or its neighbours. Within rive weeks the news of queen Mary’s death arrived; and after being joyfully feasted by Bullinger, and the other ministers of the Swiss churches, he returned to Strasburgh, where he preached; after which Grindal and he set out for their native country together, and arrived in London on the day of queen Elizabeth’s coronation.

Of the decline of archbishop Sandys’ s age, and of the particular disorder which brought him to his grave, no circumstances are recorded. He died at Southwell, July 10, 1588, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the collegiate church of that place. He was the first English bishop who, by his prudence or parsimony, laid the foundation of a fortune in his family, which has justified their subsequent advancement to a peerage. With his father’s savings, the manor of Ombersley, in Worcestershire, was purchased by sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son, whose descendants, since ennobled by the family name, still remain in possession of that fair and ample domain. There also the archbishop’s portrait, together with that of Cicely his second wife, is still preserved. She survived to 1610, and has a monument at Woodham Ferrers, in Essex, where she died.

Dr. Whitaker, whose late life of archbishop Sandys we have irs general followed, as the result of much research and reflection, observes that after all the deductions which truth and impartiality require, it will still remain incontestable, that Sandys was a man of a clear and vigorous understanding, of a taste, in comparison, above that of the former age or the next, and, what is more, of his own: that he was a sincere Christian, a patient sufferer, an indefatigable preacher, an intrepid and active ecclesiastical magistrate. W r hat was his deportment in private life, we are no where told. On the other hand, it cannot be denied, that the man who after his advancement to the episcopal order, in three successive stations, either, kindled the flames of discord, or never extinguished them, who quarrelled alike with protestants and papists, with his successor in one see (Aylmer) and with his dean in another, who in his first two dioceses treated the clergy with a harshness which called for the interposition of the metropolitan, and who drew upon himself from two gentlemen of the country, the extremity of violence and outrage, must have been lamentably defective in Christian meekness and forbearance *. In every instance, indeed, he had met with great provocation, and in the last the treatment he received was atrocious; but such wounds are never gratuitously in-, flicted, and rarely till after a series of irritations on both sides. In doctrinal points his biographer attempts, by various extracts from his sermons, to prove archbishop Sandys less inclined to Calvinism than some of his contem­* We know not if Mr. Lodge has be. easy elegance of a courtier trith as

, second son of the preceding, was born in Worcestershire about 1561, and admitted of Corpus-Christi-college, Oxford, at sixteen, under the celebrated Hooker. After taking his degree of B. A. he was made probationer-fellow in 1579, and was collated in 15S1 to a prebend in the church of York. He then completed his degree of M. A. and travelled into foreign countries, and at his return was esteemed for learning, virtue, and prudence. He appears afterwards to have studied the law. While he was at Paris, he drew up a tract, under the title of “Europae Speculum,” which he finished in 15b>9; an imperfect copy of which was published without the author’s name or consent, in 1605, and was soon followed by another impression. But the author, after he had used all means to suppress these erroneous copies, and to punish the printers of them, at length caused a true copy to be published, a little before his death, in 1629, 4to, under this title “Europae Speculum or a- view or survey of the state of religion in the western parts of the world. Wherein the Romane religion, and the pregnant policies of the church of Rome to support the same, are notably displayed; with some other memorable discoveries and memorations. Never before till now published according to the author’s original copie. Muituin diuque desideratum.” Hagae Comitis, 1629. To this edition was a preface, which has been omitted in the latter editions though some passages of it were printed in that of 1637, 4to. It was also reprinted in 1673, and translated both into Italian and French,

In May 1602, he resigned his prebend, and in May 1603, received the honour of knighthood from James I.; who afterwards employed him in several affairs of great trust and importance. Fuller tells us, that he was dextrous in the management of such things, constant in par^ liament as the speaker himself, and esteemed by all as an. excellent patriot, “faithful to his country,” says Wood, 66 without any falseness to his prince.“It appears, -however, that for some opposition to the court in the parliament of 1621, he was committed with Selden to the custody of the sheriff of London in June that year, and detained above a month which was highly resented by the House of Commons, as a breach of their privileges but, sir George Calvert, secretary of state, declaring, that neither Sandys nor Selden had been imprisoned for any parliamentary matter, a stop was put to the dispute. Sir Edwin was treasurer to the undertakers of the western plantations. He died in October 1629, and was interred at Northborne in Kent; where be had a seat and estate, granted him by James I. for some services done at that king’s accession to the throne. A monument, now in a mutilated state, was jerected to his memory, but without any inscription. He bequeathed 1500l. to the university of Oxford, for the endowment of a metaphysical lecture. He left five sons, all of whom, except one, adhered to the parliament during the civil wars. Henry, the eldest, died without issue. Edwin, the second, was the well known parliamentary colonel, of whose outrages much may be read in the publications of the times, and who, receiving a mortal wound at the battle of Worcester, in 1642, retired to Northborne to die, leaving the estate to his son sir Richard, who was killed by the accidental explosion of his fowling-piece in 1663. His son, sir Richard, was created a baronet in 1684, and dying in 1726, without male issue, was the last of the family who lived at Northborne, where the mansion remained many years deserted, and at length was pulled down. There was one sir Edwin Sandys, who published, as Wood informs us,” Sacred Hymns, consisting of fifty select Psalms of David," set to be sung in five parts by Rot bert Taylor, and printed at London, 1615, in 4to; but whether this version was done By our author, or by another, of botii his names, of Ladmers in Buckinghamshire, is uncertain.

, brother of the preceding, was the seventh and youngest son of the archbishop of York, and was born at the archiepiscopal pala.ce of Bishopthorp in 1577. In 1588 he was sent to Oxford, and matriculated of St. Mary Hall. Wood is of opinion, that he afterwards removed to Corpus-Christi-coilege. How iang he resided in the university, or whether he took a degree, does not appear. In August 16 10, remarkable for the murder of king Henry IV“. of France, Mr. Sandys set out on his travels, and, in the course of. two years, made an extensive tour, having visited several parts of Europe, and many cities and countries of the East, as Constantinople, Greece, Egypt, and the Holy Land; after which, taking a view of the remote parts of Italy, he went to Rome and Venice, and, on his return, after properly digesting the observations he had made, published, in 1615, his well-known folio, the title of the 7th edition of which, in 1673, is,” Sandys* Travels, containing an history of the original and present state of the Turkish empire; their laws, government, policy, military force, courts of justice, and commerce. The Ma-^ hometan religion and ceremonies. A description of Constantinople, the grand signior’s seraglio, and his manner of living: also of Greece, with the religion and customs of the Grecians. Of Egypt; the antiquity, hieroglyphics, rites, customs, discipline, and religion, of the Egyptians, A voyage on the river Nilus. Of Armenia, Grand Cairo, Rhodes, the Pyramides, Colossus: the former flourishing and present state of Alexandria. A description of the Holy Land, of the Jews, and several sects of Christians Jiving there; of Jerusalem, Sepulchre of Christ, Temple of Solomon, and what else, either of antiquity orworth observation. Lastly, Italy described, and the islands adjoining; as Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Sicilia, the Eolian islands; of Rome, Venice, Naples, Syracusa, Mesena, jEtna, Scylla, and Charybdis; and other places of note. Illustrated with fifty maps and figures.“Most of the plates, especially those relating to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, are copied from the” Devotissimo Viaggio di Zualiardo, Roma,“1587, 4to. Of these travels there have been eight or ten editions published, and it still bears its reputation, his accounts having been verified by subsequent travellers. Mr. Markland has a copy of this work, edit. 1637, with a ms copy of verses by the author, which may be seen in the *' Censura Literaria,” but was first published at the end of his “Psalms,” 1640, 8vo.

Sandys distinguished himself also as a poet; and his productions in that way were greatly admired in the times they were written. In 1632 he published “Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished, mythologized, and represented in figures,” Oxford, in folio. Francis Cleyn was the inventor of the figures, and Solomon Savary the engraver. He had before published part of this translation; and, in the preface to this second edition, he tells us, that he has attempted to collect out of sundry authors the philosophical sense of the fables of Ovid. To this work, which is dedicated to Charles I. is subjoined “An Essay to the translation of the jEneis.” It was reprinted in 1640. In 1636, he published, in 8vo, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms of David, and upon the Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testament,” 1636, 8vo, reprinted in 1638, folio; with a title somewhat varied, This was a book which, Wood tells us, Charles I. delighted to read, when a prisoner in Carisbrooke castle. There was an edition of J 640, with the Psalms set to music, by Lawes. In this last year he published, in 12rno, a sacred drama, written originally by Grotius, under the title of “Christus Patiens,” and which Mr. Sandys, in his translation, has called “Christ’s Passion,” on which, and “Adamus Exul,” and Masenius, is founded Lauder’s impudent charge of plagiarism against Milton. This translation was reprinted, with cuts, in 1688, $vo. The subject of it was treated before in Greek by Apollinarius bishop of Hierapolis, and after him by Gregory Nazianzen; but, according to Sandys, Grotius excelled all others. Langbaine tells us, with regard to Sandys’ translation, that “he will be allowed an excellent artist in it by learned judges; and he has followed Horace’s advice of avoiding a servile translation, * nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres’ so he comes so near the sense of his author, that nothing is lost; no spirits evaporate in the decanting of it into English; and, if there be any sediment, it is left behind.” He published also a metrical paraphrase of “The Song of Solomon,” London, 1641, 4to, dedicated to the King, and reprinted in 1648 with his “Psalms.” There are but few incidents known concerning our author. All who mention him agree in bestowing on him the character, not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety. For the most part of his latter days he lived with sir Francis Wenman, of Caswell, near Witney in Oxfordshire, to whom his sister was married; probably chusing that situation in some measure on account of its proximity to Burford, the retirement of his intimate acquaintance and valuable friend Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who addressed some elegant poems to him, preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” with several by Mr. Sandys, who diejl at the house of his nephew, sir Francis Wyat, at Boxley in Kent, in 1643; and was interred in the* chancel of that parish-church, without any inscription but in the parish register is this entry “Georgius Sandys poetarum Anglorum sui sseculi facile princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7, Stilo Angliae, ann. Dom. 164$.” His memory has also been handed down by various writers, with the respect thought due to his great worth and abilities. Mr. Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age, but objects to his “Ovid,” as too close and literal; and Mr. Pope declared, in his notes to the Iliad, that English poetry owed much of its present beauty to his translations. Dr. Warton thinks that Sandys did more to polish and tune the English versification than Den ham or Waller, who are usually applauded on this subject; yet his poems are not now much read. The late biographer of his father observes, that “the expressive energy of his prose will entitle him to a place among English classics, when his verses, some of which arebeautiful, shall be forgotten. Of the excellence of his style, the dedication of his travels to prince Henry, will afford a short and very conspicuous example.”

His principal Latin poem, “De Partu Virginia,” took up his attention, in composition, revisals, and corrections, about twenty years; obtained him the highest compliments from the learned of his age, and two honorary briefs from two popes; and certainly contains many brilliant and highly finished passages, but it brought his religion into some suspicion. In a poem on the miraculous conception, that great mystery of the Christian church, we find the agency of the Dryads and Nereids employed; the books of the Sybils, substituted for those of the prophets, and every agent, name, or term, banished, that is not strictly classical, as if he meant to throw an air of romance on the subject; nor is the sincerity of his respect for the holy see less suspicious than his religion, for in such editions of his works as have not been mutilated, are several caustic epigrams on the vices and follies of the popes. Sannazarius’s elegies are, in point of tenderness and delicacy, thought eqnal to those of Tibullus; but his “Piscatory eclogues” once contributed most to his poetical reputation. He is said to have been the inventor of this species of eclogue, but modern critics seem to doubt whether such an invention be an improvement. The changing the scene of pastoral, from the woods to the sea, and from the life of shepherds to that of fishermen, has been thought very unhappy, and Dr. Johnson (Rambler, No. 36) has pointed out the defects of the plan with great acuteness. He thinks that Sannazarius was hindered from perceiving his error, by writing in a learned language to readers generally acquainted with the works of nature; and that if he had made his attempt in any vulgar tongue, he would soon have discovered how vainly he had endeavoured to make that loved which was not understood. These eclogues, however, are written with great classical elegance and purity. Nor was Sannazarius less celebrated for his Italian compositions; particularly his “Arcadia,” which was long read with admiration. This, however, has now subsided, and modern critics complain of a portion of languor in the perusal of it, arising from its length, the mixture of prose and verse, and a want of interest in the plan and subject. All his works have gone through many editions, of which we may mention, “De Partu Virginis,” with the eclogues, &c. Naples, 1526, small folio the same, with other poems and the poems of other authors, Venice, 1528, 8vo and with “Petri Bembi Benacus,” ibid. 1527, 8vo “Opera omnia Latina,” Venice, 1535, 8vo, more complete than any of the preceding, another edition by Broukhusius, Amst. 1728, 8vo, and by Vulpius, with his life, Padua, 1719 or 1731, 4to of the “Arcadia,” sixty editions were printed before 16OO. The best of the more recent ones are those of 1723, 4to, and 1752, 8vo.

, a celebrated French geographer, was born at Abbeville in Picardy, Dec. 20, 1600, Afte* he had finished his juvenile studies at the Jesuits’ college of Amiens, he betook himself to merchandise; but, sustaining considerable losses, quitted that calling, and applied himself to geography, a turn for which he had acquired under his father, who had published several maps. When only eighteen or nineteen, he drew a map of Ancient Gaul on four sheets, but did not publish it till 1627, lest, as we are told, it should, on account of his youth, be thought his father’s; or, which is rather more probable, lest it should not be sufficiently correct for publication. This, however, was so favourably received, as to encourage him to proceed with confidence and vigour, and in the course of his life he executed nearly three hundred large maps, ancient and modern, and caused an hundred methodical tables to be engraven concerning the divisions of the dominions of Christian princes. He also wrote several works to explain and illustrate his maps as> “Remarks upon the Ancient Gauls;” “Treatises of the four parts of the World;” “Two Tables of the Cities and Places, which occur in the maps of the Rhine and Italy;” “A Description of the Roman Empire, of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the British Isles, together with the ancient Itineraries:” all which are very necessary illustrations of the maps, which they are intended to accompany. He wrote also an account of the “Antiquities of Abbeville,” which engaged him in a contest with several learned men; with father Labbe, the Jesuit, in particular. He made also a “Sacred Geography,” divided into two tables; and a “Geographical Index of the Holy Land.” He was preparing other works, and had collected materials for an atlas of his own maps; but his incessant labours brought on an illness, of which, after languishing for near two years, he died at Paris, July 7, 1667, in the sixty-eighth year of his life, leaving two sons, William and Adrian, who were likewise geographers of considerable merit. Their father had received particular marks of esteem and kindness from the cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin; and was geographer and engineer to the king. His atlas was at last published at Paris, in 1693, 2 vols. folio.

Vossius is of opinion that none of the Greek poets excelled Sappho in sweetness of verse; and that she made Archilochus the model of her style, but at the same time took great care to soften and temper the severity of his expression. Hoffman, in his Lexicon, says, “Some authors are of opinion, that the elegy which Ovid made under the name of Sappho, and which is infinitely superior to his other elegies, was all, or at least the most beautiful part of it, stolen from the poems of the elegant Sappho.” She was the inventress of that kind of verse which (from her name) is called the Sapphic. She wrote nine books of odes, besides elegies, epigrams, iambics, monodies, and other pieces; of which we have nothing remaining entire but an hymn to Venus, an ode preserved by Longinus (which, however, the learned acknowledge to be imperfect), two epigrams, and some other little fragments, which have been generally published in the editions of Anacreon. Addison has given an elegant character of this poetess in the Spectator (No. 223 and 229), with a translation of two of her fragments, and is supposed to have assisted Philips in his translation.

, a secular priest, who was sometimes called Smith, and sometimes Holland, was born at Barrow in Lincolnshire, about 1621, and admitted of St. John’s college in Cambridge April 12, 1639, by the masters and seniors of which he was recommended to be secretary to Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of Durham. While in this employment he entered on a course of reading, which ended in his embracing the popish religion. He then went over to the English college of secular priests at Lisbon in 1642; and, after studying there some time, he returned to England in 1652, and was elected secretary of the secular clergy, and employed in propagating his religion, and writing books in defence of it, particularly against Dr. Hammond, Dr. Bramhall, Dr. Thomas Pierce, Dr. Tillotson, Casaubon, Taylor, Tenison, Stillingfleet, Whitby, &c. In the course of his controversies he wrote about forty volumes or pamphlets, the titles of which may be seen in Dodd. He had also a controversy with the superiors of his own communion, of which Dodd gives a long, but now very uninteresting account. He died, as his biographer says, with the pen in his hand, in 1707, in the eighty-sixth year of his age.

At this time he was in his twentieth year, and defended in a public assembly at Mantua, several difficult propositions in natural philosophy and divinity, with such uncommon genius and learning, that the duke of Mantua, a great patron of letters, appointed him his chaplain, at the same time that the bishop of that city made him reader of canon law and divinity in his cathedral. These employments animated him to improve himself in Hebrew; and he applied also with much vigour to the study of history, in which he was afterwards to shine. During his stay at Mantua he became acquainted with many eminent persons; and his patron, the duke, obliged him to dispute with persons of all professions, and on all subjects. Paul had a profound knowledge in the mathematics, but the utmost contempt for judicial astrology: “We cannot, 17 he used to say,” either find out, or we cannot avoid, what will happen hereafter." Fulgentio, his biographer, relates a ludicrous story, in which his patron appears to have been a chief actor. The duke, who loved to soften the cares of government with sallies of humour, having a mare ready to foal a mule, engaged Paul to take the horoscope of the animal’s nativity. This being done, and the scheme settled, the duke sent it to all the famous astrologers in Europe, informing them, that under such an aspect a bastard was born in the duke’s palace. The astrologers returned very different judgments; some asserting that this bastard would be a cardinal, others a great warrior, others a bishop, and others a pope, and these wise conjectures tended not a little to abate the credulity of the times.

Father Paul’s great fame would not suffer him any longer to enjoy his retreat: for he was now appointed procuratorgeneral of his order; and during three years at Rome, where he was on that account obliged to reside, he discovered such extraordinary talents, that he was called by the pope’s command to assist in congregations where matters of the highest importance were debated. He was very much esteemed by Sixtus V. by cardinal Beliarmine, and by cardinal Castegna, afterwards Urban VII. Upon his return to Venice, he resumed his studies, beginning them before sun-rise, and continuing them all the morning. The afternoons he spent in philosophical experiments, or in conversation with his learned friends. He was now obliged to remit a little from his usual application: for, by too intense study, he had already contracted infirmities, with which he was troubled till old age. These made it necessary for him to drink a little wine, from which he had abstained till he was thirty years old; and he used to say, that one of the things of which he most repented was, that he had been persuaded to drink wine. He ate scarce any thing but bread and fruits, and used a very small quantity of food, because the least fulness rendered him liable to violent pains of the head.

About 1602, he was diverted from his private studies, which he had now indulged, though amidst numerous vexations, for many years, by the state of public affairs. A dispute arose between the republic of Venice and the court of Rome, relating to ecclesiastical immunities; and, as both divinity and Taw were concerned in it, father Paul was appointed divine and canonist for the republic of Venice, to act in concert with the iaw-consultors. The dispute had commenced, and been carried on, under ClementVIII.; but when Paul V. came to the popedom, he required absolute obedience without disputes. At length, when he found his commands slighted, the pope excommunicated the duke, the whole senate, and all their dominions, in April 1606, and the Venetians in return recalled their ambassador at Rome, suspended the inquisition by order of state, and published by sound of trumpet a proclamation to this eilect, viz. “That whosoever hath received from Rome any copy of a papal edict, published there, as well against the law of God, as against the honour of this nation, shall immediately bring it to the council of ten upon pain of death.” But as the minds, not only of the common burghers, but also of some noble personages belonging to the state, were alarmed at this papal interdict, Paul endeavoured to relieve their fears, by a piece entitled “Consolation of mind, to quiet the consciences of those who live well, against the terrors of the interdict by Paul V.” As this was written for the sole use of the government under which he was born, it was deposited in the archives of Venice; till at length, from a copy clandestinely taken, it was first published at the Hague, both in the Italian and French languages, and the same year in English, under this title, “The Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, argued from the civil, canon, and common law, under the several heads of Excommunications, Interdicts, Persecution, Councils, Appeals, Infallibility, describing the boundaries of that power which is claimed throughout Christendom by the Crown and the Mitre; and of the privileges which appertain to the subjects, both clergy and laity, according to the laws of God and Man.” Paul wrote, or assisted in writing and publishing, several other pieces in this controversy between the two states; and had the Inquisition, cardinal Bellarmine, and other great personages, for his antagonists. Paul and his brother writers, whatever might be the abilities of their adversaries, were at least superior to them in the justice of their cause. The propositions maintained on the side of Rome were these; that the pope is invested with all the authority of heaven and earth that all princes are his vassals, and that he may annul their laws at pleasure that kings may appeal to him, as he is temporal monarch of the whole earth; that he can discharge subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and make it their duty to take up arms against their sovereign that he may depose kings without any fault committed by them, if the good of the church requires it that the clergy are exempt from all tribute to kings, and are not accountable to them even in cases of high treason; that the pope cannot err; that his decisions are to be received and obeyed on pain of sin, though all the world should judge them to be false; that the pope is God upon earth, and that to call his power in question, is to call in question the power of God; maxims equally shocking, weak, pernicious, and absurd, which did not require the abilities or learning of father Paul, to demonstrate their falsehood, and destructive tendency. The court of Rome, however, was now so exasperated against him, as to cite him by a decree, Oct. 30, 1606, under pain of absolute excommunication, to appear in person at Rome, to answer the charges of heresies against him. Instead cf appearing, he published a manifesto, shewing the invalidity of the summons; yet offered to dispute with any of the pope’s advocates, in a place of safety, on the articles laid to his charge.

The defenders of the Venetian rights were, though comprehended in the treaty of April 1607, excluded by the Romans from the benefit of it; some, upon different pretences, were imprisoned, some sent to the gallies, and all debarred from preferment. But then their malice was chiefly aimed against father Paul, who soon found the effects of it; for, on Oct. 5, 1607, he was attacked, on his return 19 his convent, by five assassins, who gave him fifteen wounds, and left him for dead. Three of these wounds only did execution: he received two in the necki^ the third was made by the stiletto’s entering his right ear* a,)d coming out between the nose and right cheek; and so violent was the stab, that the assassin was obliged to leave his weapon in the wound. Being come to himself, and having had his wounds dressed, he told those about him, that the first two he had received seemed like two flashes of fire, which shot upon him at the same instant; and that at the third he thought himself loaded as it were with a prodigious weight, which stunned and quite confounded his senses. The assassins retired to the palace of the pope’s nuncio at Venice, whence they escaped that evening either to Ravenna or Ferrara. These circumstances discovered who were at the bottom of the attempt; and Paul himself once, when his friend Aquapendente was dressing his wounds, could not forbear saying pleasantly, that “they were made Stilo Romans Curia.” The person who drew the stiletto out of his head, was desirous of having it; but, as father’s Paul’s escape seemed somewhat miraculous, it was thought right to preserve the bloody instrument as a public monument: and^therefore it was hung at the feet of a crucifix in the church of the Servites, with the inscription, “Deo Filio Liberatori,” “To God the Son the Deliverer.” The senate of Venice, to shew the high regard they had for Paul, and their detestation of this horrid attempt, broke up immediately on the news; came to the monastery of the Servites that night in great numbers; ordered the physicians to bring constant accounts of him to the senate; and afterwards knighted and richly rewarded Aquapendente for his great care of him.

Father Fulgentio, his friend and companion, who was a man of great abilities and integrity, and is allowed on all hands to have drawn up Paul’s life with great judgment and impartiality, observes, that, notwithstanding the animosity of the court of Rome against him, the most eminent prelates of it always expressed the highest regard for him; and Protestants of all communities have justly supposed him one of the wisest and best men that ever lived. ther Paul,“says sir Henry Wotton,” was one of the humblest things that could be seen within the bounds of humanity; the very pattern of that precept, quanta doctior, tanto submissior, and enough alone to demonstrate, that knowledge well digested non wflat. Excellent in positive, excellent in scholastical and polemical, divinity: a rare mathematician, even in the most abstruse parts thereof, as in algebra and the theoriques; and yet withal so expert in the history of plants, as if he had never perused any book but nature. Lastly, a great canonist, which was the title of his ordinary service with the state; and certainly, in the time of the pope’s interdict, they had their principal light from him. When he was either reading or writing alone, his manner was to sit fenced with a castle of paper about his chair and over his head; for he was of our lord St. Alban’s opinion, that all air is predatory, and especially hurtful, when the spirits are most employed. He was of a quiet and settled temper, which made him prompt in his counsels and answers; and the same in consultation which Themistocles was in action, ayro-xE&aÆiv ivavoTarogj as will appear unto you in a passage between him and the prince of Conde. The said prince, in a voluntary journey to Home, came by Venice, where, to give some vent to his own humours, he would often divest himself of his greatness; and after other less laudable curiosities, not long before his departure, a desire took him to visit the famous obscure Servite. To whose cloyster coming twice, he was the first time denied to be within; and at the second it was intimated, that, by reason of his daily admission to their deliberations in the palace, he could not receive the visit of so illustrious a personage, without leave from the senate, which he would seek to procure. This set a greater edge upon the prince, when he saw he should confer with one participant of more than monkish speculations. So, after Jeave gotten, he came the third time; and then, besides other voluntary discourse, desired to be told by him, who was the true unmasked author of the late Tridentine History? To whom father Paul said, that he understood he was going to Rome, where he might learn at ease, who was the author of that book."

At the end of 1784 he again steered northward, having been engaged in the service of the empress of Russia for three years. In 1785 He established a concert spiritnel at Petersburg, for which he composed, in the choral style, a psalm in the Russian language, which was performed by 66 voices and 100 instruments, among which there were wind instruments of every kind. In 1788 he composed a Te Deum for the victory over the Turks at Ockzakow. He was appointed director the same year of a conservatorio, for the establishment of which the empress expended 3500 rubles, and allowed 1500 in annual salaries and other incidental expences: and in order to engage Sard to remain in Russia, her imperial majesty gave him an estate, with woods and seats upon it of considerable value, which induced him to spend the chief part of his remaining days in cultivating his lands more than music. His opera of “Armida,” in 1786, had pleased the empress so much, that she gave him a golden vase or bowl, and a ring of great value. In 1790, at sixty years of age, he died in his way back to his o.vn country for the recovery of his health, which had been much impaired by the severity of the climate. His works, which are composed in so elegant, natural, and pleasing a style, as is not likely to be soon out cf fashion, are for the church, 1. A miserere, accompanied only by a tenor and violoncello in solo parts, and ripieno violini in the choruses. 2. A motet, conjitebor tibi, a 6. Soprano and contralto in the solo verses. 3. A gloria, in nine parts, for the Russian or Greek church. For the theatre, twenty-six operas. Chamber music printed. Symphonies in nine parts at Leipsig, 1758. Three sonatas for the harpsichord, with a flute accompaniment, Amsterdam. Three sonatas, in London, 1769. “Giulio Sabino characteristica,” Vienna, 1787.

, or Vannucchi, a famous Italian painter, was the son of a tailor, whence he had the name of Sarto, and was born at Florence in 1471. He was apprenticed to a goldsmith, with whom he lived some time; but was then placed with John Basile, an ordinary painter, who taught him the rudiments of his art; and afterwards with Peter Cosimo, and while with him, studied the cartoons of Michael Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci; and by these means arrived at a mastery in his art. Being at last dissatisfied with his master, he associated with Francis Bigio, and they painted various pieces in conjunction, at Florence and about it, for the monasteries. At length some of Sarto’s pieces falling under the notice of Francis I. that monarch was so pleased with them, that he invited Sarto into France, and treated him with great liberality. He executed many pictures for the king and the nobiiity; but, while employed upon a St. Jerome for the queenxnother, he received letters from his wife, with whom he was infatuated, which made him resolve to return thither. He pretended domestic affairs, yet promised the king not only to return, but also to bring with him a good collection of pictures and sculptures. In this, however, he was overruled by his wife, and, never returning, gave Francis, who liad trusted him with a considerable sum of money, so bad an opinion of Florentine painters, that he would not look favourably on them for some years after. Sarto afterwards gave himself up wholly to pleasure, and became at length very poor. He was naturally mild and diffident, and set but very little value upon his own performances: yet the Florentines had so great an esteem for his works, that, during the fury of the popular factions among them, they preserved them from the flames. Sarto died of the plague in 1520, when only 42. Sarto’s works, in Mr. Fuseli’s opinion seem to have obtained their full share of justice. As a Tuscan, the suavity of his tone and facility of practice contrast more strikingly with the general austerity and elaborate pedantry of that school, and gain him greater praise than they would, had he been a Bolognese or Lombard. It cannot, however, be denied that his sweetness sometimes borders on insipidity: the modesty or rather pusillanimity of his character checked the full exertion of his powers; his faults are of the negative kind, and defects rather than blemishes. He had no notions of nature beyond the model, and concentrated all female beauty in his wife, Lucretia; and if it be true that he sacrificed his fortune and Francis I. to her charms, she must at least have equalled in form and feature his celebrated Madonna del Sacca: hence it was not unnatural that the proportions of Albert Durer should attract him more than those of Michaelagnolo. His design and his conceptions, which seldom rose above the sphere of common or domestic life, kept pace with each other; here his observation was acute, and his ear open to every whisper of social intercourse or emotion. The great peculiarity, perhaps the great prerogative, of Andrea appears to me that parallelism of composition, which distinguishes the best of his historic works, seemingly as natural, obvious and easy, as inimitable. In solemn effects, in alternate balance of action and repose, he excels all the moderns; and if he was often unable to conceive the actors themselves, he gives them probability and importance by place and posture. Of costume he was ignorant, but none ever excelled and few approached him in breadth, form, and style of that drapery which ought to distinguish solemn, grave, or religious subjects.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench towards the close of the seventeenth century, seems entitled to some notice on account of his “Reports,” although his character in other respects may as well be consigned to oblivion. He was originally a strolling beggar about the streets, without known parents or relations. He came often to beg scraps at Clement’s Inn, where his sprightliness and diligence made the society desirous to extricate him from his miserable situation. As he appeared desirous to learn to write, one of the attornies fixed a board up at a window on the top of a stair-case, which served him as a desk, and there he sat and wrote after copies of court and other hands, in which at length he acquired such expertness, as in some measure to set up for himself, and earn a pittance by hackney- writing. He also took all opportunities of improving himself by reading such books as he borrowed of his friends, and in the course of a few years, became an able attorney and a very eminent counsel, his practice in the King’s-bench being exceeded by none. All this would have redounded to his honour, had his progress in integrity kept pace with other accomplishments, but he appears to have brought into his profession the low habits of his early life, and became as much a disgrace as an ornament to the bar. His art and cunning were equal to his knowledge, and he carried many a cause by sinister means, and when detected, he never was out of countenance, but evaded the matter with a jest, which he had always at hand. He was much employed by the king against the city of London, in the business of the quo warranto, and was a very fit tool in the hands of the court, and prompted the attorney- general Sawyer, to overthrow the city charter. It was when this affair was to be brought to a decision, that Saunders was knighted and made lord chief justice Jan. 23, 1682-3. But just as sentence was about to be given, he was seized with an apoplexy and died. In our authority, a disgusting description is given of his person, which seems to have corresponded with his mind.

, an illustrious professor of the mathematics in the university of Cambridge, and fellow of the Royal Society, was born in 1682, at Thurlston in Yorkshire; where his father, besides a small estate, enjoyed a place in the Excise. When he was a year old, he was deprived, by the small-pox, not only of his sight, but of his eye-balls, which were dissolved by abscesses; so that he retained no more idea of light and colours than if he had been born blind. He was sent early to a freeschool at Penniston, and there laid the foundation of that knowledge of the Greek and Roman languages, which he afterwards improved so far, by his own application to the' classic authors, as to hear the works of Euclid, Archimedes, and Diophantus, read in their original Greek. When he had passed some time at this school, his father, whose occupation led him to be conversant in numbers, began to instruct him in the common rules of arithmetic. Here it was that his genius first appeared: for he very soon became able to work the common questions, to make long calculations by the strength of his memory, and to form new rules to himself for the more ready solving of such problems as are often proposed to learners, as trials of skill. At eighteen, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Richard West of Underbank, esq. a gentleman of fortune and a lover of the mathematics, who, observing his uncommon capacity, took the pains to instruct him in the principles of algebra and geometry, and gave him every encouragement in the prosecution of these studies. Soon after, he became acquainted with Dr. Nettleton, who took the same pains with him; and it was to these gentlemen that he owed his first institution in the mathematical sciences. They furnished him with books, and often read and expounded them to him; but he soon surpassed his masters, and became fitter to teach than learn any thing from them. His passion for learning growing up with him, his father sent him to a private academy at Attercliff near Sheffield. But logic and metaphysics being the principal learning of this school, were neither of them agreeable to the genius of our author; and therefore he made but a short stay. He remained some time after in the country, prosecuting his studies in his own way, without any other assistant than a good author, and some person that could read it to him; being able, by the strength of his own abilities, to surmount all difficulties that might occur. His education had hitherto been at the expence of his father, who, having a numerous family, found it difficult to continue it; and his friends therefore began to think of fixing him in some way of business, by which he might support himself. His own inclination led him strongly to Cambridge; and, after much consideration, it was resolved he should make his appearance there in a way very uncommon; not as a scholar, but a master; for, his friends, observing in him a peculiar felicity in conveying his ideas to others, hoped that he might teach the mathematics with credit and advantage, even in the university; or, if this design should miscarry, they promised themselves success in opening a school for him in London. Accordingly, in 1707, being now twenty-five, he was brought to Cambridge by Mr. Joshua Dunn, then a fellowcommoner of Christ’s college; where he resided with that friend, but was not admitted a member of the college. The society, however, much pleased with so extraordinary a guest, allotted him a chamber, the use of their library, and indulged him in every privilege that could be of advantage to him. But still many difficulties obstructed his design: he was placed here without friends, without fortune, a young man, untaught himself, to be a teacher of philosophy in an university, where it then flourished in the greatest perfection. Whiston was at this time mathematical professor, and read lectures in the manner proposed by Saunderson; so that an attempt of the same kind by the latter looked like an encroachment on the privileges of his office; but, as a good-natured man, and an encourager of learning, Whiston readily consented to the application of friends, made in behalf of so uncommon a person. Mr. Dunn had been very assiduous in making known his character his fame in a short time had filled the university men of learning and curiosity grew ambitious and fond of his acquaintance, so that his lecture, as soon as opened, was frequented by many, and in a short time very much crowded. “The Principia Mathematica, Optics, and Arithmetica Universalis, of sir Isaac Newton,” were the foundation of his lecture; and they afforded a noble field to display his genius in. It was indeed an object of the greatest curiosity that a blind youth should read lectures in optics, discourse on the nature of light and colours, explain the theory of vision, the effect of glasses, the phenomena of the rainbow, and other objects of sight: nor was the surprize of his auditors much lessened by reflecting, that as this science is altogether to be explained by lines, and is subject to the rules of geometry, he might be a master of these subjects, even under the loss of sight.

As he was instructing the academical youth in the principles of the Newtonian philosophy, it was not long before he became acquainted with the incomparable author, although he had left the university several years; and enjoyed his frequent conversation concerning the more difficult parts of his works. He lived in friendship also with the most eminent mathematicians of the age? with Halley, Cotes, De Moivre, &c. Upon the removal of Whiston from his professorship, Saunderson’s mathematical merit was universally allowed so much superior to that of any competitor, that an extraordinary step was taken in his favour, to qualify him with a degree, which the statutes require. Upon application made by the heads of colleges to the duke of Somerset, their chancellor, a mandate was readily granted by the queen for conferring on him the degree of master of arts: upon which he was chosen Lucasian professor of the mathematics, Nov. 1711, sir Isaac Newton all the while interesting himself very much in the affair. His first performance, after he was seated in the chair, was an inauguration-speech made in very elegant Latin, and a style truly Ciceronian; for he was well versed in the writings of Tully, who was his favourite in prose, as Virgil and Horace were in verse. From this time he applied himself closely to the reading of lectures, and gave up his whole frime to his pupils. He continued among the gentlemen of Christ’s college till 1723; when he took a house in Cambridge, and soon after married a daughter of the rev. Mr. Dickens, rector of Boxworth in Cambridgeshire, by whom he had a son and a daughter. In 1728, when George II. visited the university, he was pleased to signify his desire of seeing so remarkable a person; and accordingly the professor waited upon his majesty in the senatehouse, and was there created doctor of laws by royal favour. Saunderson was naturally of a strong healthy constitution; but being too sedentary, and constantly confining himself to the house, he became at length a valetudinarian. For some years he frequently complained of a numbness in his limbs, which, in the spring of 1739, ended in an incurable mortification of his foot. He died April 19, aged fifty-seven, and was buried, according to his request, in the chancel at Boxworth. He was a man rather to be admired than loved. He had much wit and vivacity in conversation, and many reckoned him a good companion. He had also a great regard to truth, but was one of those who think it their duty to express their sentiments on men and opinions, without reserve or restraint, or any of the courtesies of conversation, which created him many enemies; nor was he less offensive by a habit of profane swearing, and the obtrusion of infidel opinions, which last he held, notwithstanding the kindness of providence towards him throughout his extraordinary life*. He is said, however, to have received the notice of his approaching death with great calmness and serenity; and after a short silence, resuming life and spirit, talked with as much composure as usual, and at length, we are told, appointed to receive the sacrament the evening before his death, which a delirium that never went off prevented him from doing.

It was by the sense of feeling, that Saunderson acquired most of his ideas at first; and this he enjoyed in great acuteness and perfection, as it commonly happens to the blind, whether by the gift of nature, or, as is more probable, by the necessity of application. Yet he could not, as some have imagined, and as Mr. Boyle was made to believe of a blind man at Maestricht, distinguish colours by that sense; and, having'made repeated trials, he used to say, it was pretending to impossibilities. But he could with great nicety and exactness discern the least difference of rough and smooth in a surface, or the least defect of polish. Thus he distinguished in a set of Roman medals the genuine from the false, though they had been counterfeited with such exactness as to deceive a connoisseur who had iudged by the eye. His sense of feeling was very accurate also in distinguishing the least variation in the atmosphere; and he has been seen in a garden, when observations have been making on the sun, to take notice of every cloud, that interrupted the observation, almost as justly as they who could see it. He could tell when any object was held near his face, or when he passed by a tree at no great distance, provided there was a calm air, and little or no wind: these he did by the different pulse of the air upon his face.

But his most considerable work was, “Discourses historical, critical, and moral, on the most memorable Events of the Old and New Testament.” His first intention was to have published a set of prints, with titles and explanations; but, as that had been before executed by Fontaine amongst the Roman catholics, and by Basnage amongst the protestants, it became necessary to adopt a newer plan. This gave rise to the work above mentioned, which the author left imperfect. Two volumes made their appearance in folio, and the work was afterwards reprinted in four in 8vo. Six other discourses form a part of a fifth volume in 8vo, published by Mr. Roques, who undertook a continuation of the work. It is replete with learning. The Christian and the heathen authors, philosophers, poets, historians, and critics, are cited with the utmost profusion, and it forms a compilation of all their sentiments on every subject discussed throughout the work. The author shews himself to be a warm advocate for toleration; and, though the catholics are more frequently censured than commended, yet his principles are very moderate. “A Dissertation on the Expediency of sometimes disguising the Truth” raised a clamour against the author, the fury of which he had riot power to appease. As an historian, he believed that he was permitted to produce the chief arguments of those that maintain, that in certain cases truth may be disguised; and the reasons which they gave who have asserted the contrary. Without deciding the question, it is easy to perceive that he is a favourer of the former. His principal antagonist was Arrnand de la Chapelle; to whom Francis Michael Ganicon replied with great spirit, in a work, entitled “Lettres serieuses & jocoses.” The three first of the lettres, in the second volume, are in favour of Saurin. He was answered by La Chapelle with great violence. Saurin imagined, that he should be able to terminate this dispute by reprinting the dissertation separately, with a preface in defence of his assertions: but he was deceived; for La Chapelle published a very long and scurrilous reply. It was Saurin’s intention entirely to have neglected this production; but he found a new champion in Francis Bruys. This dispute was at length brought before the synod of Campen; who, in May 1730, ordered the churches of Utrecht, Leyden, and Amsterdam, to make their examinations, and report the result of them to the synod of the Hague, which was to sit in the September following. Commissaries were appointed for this purpose. The synod of Campen gave its opinion, and that of the Hague confirmed it: but, having made no mention of the instructions sent to the Walloon church at Utrecht, that assembly complained, and ordered Mr. Bonvoust, one of its ministers, to justify his proceedings and his doctrine. This he did in a large octavo volume, printed at Utrecht in 1731, after the death of Saurin, entitled “The Triumph of the Truth and Peace; or, Reflections on the most important Events attending the last Synod assembled to determine in the case of Messieurs Saurin and Maty.” Saurin had contributed to this peace, by giving such a declaration of his sentiments as satisfied the protestant churches; and he repeated that declaration, when he foresaw that the new lights, which Mr. Bruys had thrown upon this subject, were going to raise a storm that might perhaps have been severer than the last. Saurin’s sermons are now well known in this country by the selections translated into English, and published in 1775 1784, by the rev, Robert Robinson, 5 vols. 8vo, to which Dr. Henry Hunter added a sixth volume in 1796.

, a French mathematician, was born in 165S* at Courtuson, in the principality of Orange. He was educated by his father, and was at a very early age made a minister at Eure in Dauphiny. But he was compelled to retire to Geneva in 1633, in consecpence of having given offence in a sermon, which he afterwards heightened at Berne by preaching against some of the established doctrines of the church. He then withdrew to Holland, but was so ill received by his brethren, that he determined to turn Roman catholic; with this design, in 1690 he went to Paris, and made an abjuration of his supposed errors under the famous Bossuet, rather, it is believed, to have an opportunity of pursuing his studies unmolested at Paris than from any motives of conscience or mental conviction. After this he had a pension from the king, and was admitted a member of the academy of sciences in 1707, as a geometrician. The decline of Saurin’s life was spent in the peaceable prosecution of his mathematical studies, occasionally interrupted by literary controversies with Rousseau and others. He was a man of a daring and impetuous spirit, and of a lofty and independent mind. Saurin died at Paris in 1737. Voltaire undertook the vindication of his memory, but has not been sufficiently successful to clear it from every unfavourable impression. It was even said he had been guilty of crimes, by his own confession, that ought to have been punished with death.

At this time the professorship of philosophy at Geneva became vacant, and Saussure, who was then only twentyone, obtained the chair. While in this office, he commenced his journeys among the mountains, to examine the substances of which the elevated ridges of our globe are composed, and during the first fifteen or twenty years of his professorship, he was alternately employed in fulfilling the duties which his situation imposed, and in traversing the different mountains in the neighbourhood of Geneva. He even extended his excursions on one side to the Rhine, and on the other to Piedmont. About this time, too, he travelled to Auvergne, for the purpose of examining some extinguished volcanos; and soon after he undertook a tour to Paris, Holland, England, Italy, and Sicily. In these journeys his constant object was the study of nature. He always carried with him the instruments necessary for observations, and never set out without having formed for himself a regular plan of experiments.

Dr. Savage had a controversy with John Tombes, on infant baptism, and with Dr. Cornelius Burges on churchreformations, which produced some pamphlets of little consequence now; his principal work was his history of Balliol college, entitled “Balliofergus, or a commentary upon the foundation, founders, and affairs of Balliol college,” 1668, 4to. Wood says, he had no natural geny for a work of this kind, and has committed many blunders; and it may be added, that his style is uncommonly vague, diffusive, and pedantic. His aim was to appear great in little things, and the gravity with which he discusses the origin, derivation, &c. of the name Katherine, whether it should be spelt with a K or a C, at what time the letter k was introduced, and the double / in Balliol, is truly wonderful. By his wife, lady Mary Sandys, he left issue Henry, Edwin, John, Katherine, and Thomas, and had buried two daughters in 1670 and 1671, in St. Mary Magdalen’s church, Oxford. His widow died in an obscure house in St. Ebbe’s parish, between the church and Westgate, May J5, 1683, and was buried in St. Mary Magdalen’s church.

The first effort of his uncultivated genius was a poem against Hoadly, bishop of Bangor; of which the author was afterwards ashamed. He then attempted to write for the stage, but with little success: yet this attempt was attended with some advantage, as it introduced him to the acquaintance of sir Richard Sieele and Mr. Wilks. Whilst he was in dependence on these gentlemen, he was an assiduous frequenter of the theatres, and never absent from a play in several years. In 1723 he brought a tragedy on the stage, in which himself performed a part, the subject of which was “Sir Thomas Overbury.” If we consider the circumstances under which it was written, it will afford at once an uncommon proof of strength of genius, and an evenness of mind not to be ruffled. Whilst he was employed upon this work, he was without a lodging, and often without food nor had he any other conveniences for study than the fields or the street and, when he had formed a speech, he would step into a shop, and beg the use of pen, ink, and paper. The profits of thjs play amounted to about 200l.; and it procured him the notice and esteem of many persons of distinction, some rays of genius glimmering through all the clouds of poverty and oppression. But, when the world was beginning to behold him with a more favourable eye, a misfortune befel him, by which not only his reputation, but his life, was in danger. In a night-ramble he fell into a coffee-house of ill-fame, near Charing-Cross; when a quarrel happened, and one Mr. Sinclair was killed in the fray. Savage, with his companion, was taken into custody, tried for murder, and capitally convicted of the offence. His mother was so inhuman, at this critical juncture, as to use all means to prejudice the queen against him, and to intercept all the hopes he had of life from the royal mercy; but at last the countess of Hertford, out of compassion, laid a true account of the extraordinary story and sufferings of poor Savage before her majesty; and obtained his pardon.

His poverty still increasing, he only dined by accident, when he was invited to the tables of his acquaintance, from which the meanness of his dress often excluded him. Having no lodgings, he passed the night often in mean houses, which are set open for any casual wanderers, sometimes in cellars, amongst the riot and filth of the meanest and most profligate of the rabble; and sometimes, when he was totally without money, walked about the streets till he was weary, and lay down in the summer upon a bulk, and, in the winter, with his associates in poverty, among the ashes of a glass-house. His distresses, however afflictive, never dejected him. In his lowest sphere, his pride kept up his spirits, and set him on a level with those of the highest rank. He never admitted any gross familiarity, or submitted to be treated otherwise than as an equal. This wretched life was rendered more unhappy, in 1738, by the death of the queen, and the loss of his pension. His distress was now publicly known, and his friends, therefore, thought proper to concert some measures for procuring him a permanent relief. It was proposed that he should retire into Wales, with an allowance of 50l. per annum, to be raised by subscription, on which he was to live privately in a cheap place, and lay aside all his aspiring thoughts.

When he had been six months in prison, he received a letter from Pope, on whom his chief dependance now rested, containing a charge of very atrocious ingratitude. Savage returned a very solemn protestation of his innocence; and he appeared much disturbed at the accusation. In a few days after, he was seized with a disorder, which at first was not suspected to be dangerous; but, growing daily more languid and dejected, at last, a fever seizing him, he expired, August 1, 1743, in his forty-sixth year, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Peter, at the expence of the gaoler. Thus lived, and thus died, Richard Savage, leaving behind him a character strangely chequered with vices and good qualities. He was, however, undoubtedly a man of excellent parts; and, had he received the full benefits of a liberal education, and had his natural talents been cultivated to the best advantage, he might have made a respectable figure in. life. He was happy in. an agreeable temper, and a lively flow of wit, which made his company much coveted nor was his judgment, both of writings and of men, inferior to his wit but he was too much a slave to his passions, and his passions were too easily excited. He was warm in his friendships, but implacable in his enmity; and his greatest fault, which is indeed the greatest of all faults, was ingratitude. He seemed to think every thing due to his merit, and that he was little obliged to any one for those favours which he thought it their duty to confer on him: it is therefore the less to be wondered at, that he never rightly estimated the kindness of his many friends and benefactors, or preserved a grateful and due sense of their generosity towards him.

In 1675 he opposed with vigour the non-resisting testbill; and was removed from the council-board the year following by the interest of the earl of Dauby, the treasurer. He had provoked this lord by one of those witticisms in which he dealt so largely. In the examination before the council concerning the revenue of Ireland, lord Widrington confessed that he had made an offer of a considerable sum to the lord treasurer, and that his lordship had rejected it very mildly, and in such a mariner as not to discourage a second attempt. Lord Halifax observed upon this, that “it would be somewhat strange if a man should ask the use of another man’s wife, and the other should indeed refuse it, but with great civility.” His removal was very agreeable to the duke of York, who at that time had a more violent aversion to him than even to Shaftesbury himself, because he had spoken with great firmness and spirit in the House of Lords against the declaration for a toleration. However, upon a change of the ministry in 1679, his lordship was made a member of the new council. The same year, during the agitation of the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York, he seemed averse to it; but proposed such limitations of the duke’s authority when the crown should devolve upon him, as should disable him from doing any harm either in church or state; such as the taking out of his hands all power in ecclesiastical matters^ the disposal of the public money, and the power of peace or war, and lodging these in the two Houses of Parliament; and that the parliament in being at the king’s death should continue without a new summons, and assume the administration; but his lordship’s arguing so much against the danger of turning the monarchy, by the bill of exclusion, into an elective government, was thought the more extraordinary, because he made an hereditary king the subject of his mirth, and had often said “Who takes a coachman to drive him, because his father was a good coachman” Yet he was now jealous of a small slip in the succession; though he at the same time studied to infuse into some persons a zeal for a commonwealth; and to these he pretended, that he preferred limitations to an exclusion, because the one kept up the monarchy still, only passing over one person; whereas the other really introduced a commonwealth, as soon as there was a popish king on the throne. And it was said by some of his friends, that the limitations proposed were so advantageous to public liberty, that a man might be tempted to wish for a popish king, in order to obtain them. Upon this great difference of opinion, a faction was quickly formed in the new council; lord Halifax, with the earls of Essex and Sunderland, declaring for limitations, and against the exclusion, while the earl of Shaftesbury was equally zealous for the latter; and when the bill for it was brought into the House of Lords, lord Halifax appeared with great resolution at the head of the debates against it. This so highly exasperated the House of Commons, that they addressed the king to remove him from his councils and presence for ever: but he prevailed with his majesty soon after to dissolve that parliament, and was created an earl. However, upon his majesty’s deferring to call a new parliament, according to his promise to his lordship, his vexation is said to have been so great as to affect his health, and he expostulated severely with those who were sent to him on that affair, refusing the post both of secretary of state and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. A parliament being called in 1680, he still opposed the exclusion-bill, and gained great reputation by his management of the debate, though it occasioned a new address from the House of Commons to remove him. However, after rejecting that bill in the House of Lords, his lordship pressed them, though without*success, to proceed to limitations; and began with moving that the duke might be obliged to live five hundred miles out of England during the king’s life. In August 1682, he was created a marquis, and soon after made privy-seal, and, upon king James’s accession, president of the council. But on refusing his consent to the repeal of the tests, he was told by that monarch, that, though he could never forget his past services, yet, since he would not comply in that point, he was resolved to have unanimity in his councils, and, therefore, dismissed him from all public employments. He was afterwards consulted by Mr. Sidney, whether he would advise the prince of Orange’s coming over; but, this matter being only hinted, he did not encourage a farther explanation, looking upon the attempt as impracticable, since it depended on so many accidents. Upon the arrival of that prince, he was sent by the king, with the earls of Kochester and Godolphin, to treat with him, then at Hungerford.

In that assembly of the lords which met after king James’s withdrawing himself the first time from Whitehall, the marquis was chosen their president; and, upon the king’s return from Feversham, he was sent, together with the earl of Shrewsbury and lord Delamere, from the prince of Orange, ordering his majesty to quit his palace at Whitehall, and retire to Hull. In the convention-parliament, he was chosen speaker of the House of Lords; and strenuously supported the motion for the vacancy of the throne, and the conjunctive sovereignty of the prince and princess, upon whose accession he was again made privy-seal. But, in the session of 1689, upon the inquiry into the authors of the prosecutions against lord Russell, Algernon Sidney, &c. the marquis, having concurred in these councils in 1683, now quitted the court, and became a zealous opposer of the measures of the government till his death, which happened in April 1695, and was occasioned by a gangrene in a rupture he had long neglected. There seems little in his conduct that is steady, or in his character that is amiable. Towards his end he showed some signs of repentance, which, according to Burnet, were transient. “He was,” says that writer, “a man of great and ready wit, full of life and very pleasant, much turned to satire be let his wit turn upon matters of religion so that he passed for a bold and determined atheist, though he often protested to me, that he was not one, and said, he believed there was not one in the world. He confessed he could not swallow down all that divines imposed on the world; he was a Christian in submission; he believed as much as he could; and hoped, that God would not lay it to his charge, if he could not digest iron as an ostrich did, nor take into his belief things that must burst him. If he had any scruples, they were not sought for nor cherished by him; for he never read an atheistical book in his life. In sickness, I knew him very much affected with a sense of religion I was then often with him, he seemed full of good purposes, but they went off with his sickness he was continually talking of morality and friendship. He was punctual in his payments, and just in all private dealings; but, with relation to the public, he went backward and forward and changed sides so often, that in the conclusion no side trusted him; he seemed full of commonwealth notions, yet he went into the worst part of king Charles’s reign. The liveliness of his imagination was always too hard for his judgment. His severe jest was preferred by him to all arguments whatever; and he was endless in council; for, when after much discourse a point was settled, if he could find a new jest, whereby he could make that which was digested by himself seem ridiculous, he could not hold, but would study to raise the credit of his wit, though it made others call his judgment in question. When he talked to me, as a philosopher, of the contempt of the world, I asked him what he meant by getting so many new titles, which I callecl the hanging himself about with bells and tinsel; he had no other excuse for it but this, that, if the world were such fools as to value those matters, a man must be a fool for company he considered them but as rattles, yet rattles please children so these might be of use to his family.”

By his first wife, daughter of Henry Spencer, earl of Sunderland, he had a son William, who succeeded him; and by a second wife, the daughter of William Pierrepoint, second son of Robert earl of Kingston, he had a daughter Gertrude, who was married to Philip Stanhope, third earl of Chesterfield, and was mother to the celebrated earl, who, says Maty, may be perhaps justly compared to his grandfather in extent of capacity, fertility of genius, and brilliancy of wit. They both, adds he, distinguished themselves in parliament by their eloquence; at court, by their knowledge of the world; in company, by their art of pleasing. They were both very useful to their sovereigns, though not much attached either to the prerogative or to the person of any king. They both knew, humoured, and despised the different parties. The Epicurean philosophy was their common study. William, the second marquis of Halitax, died in 1699, when the dignity became extinct in his family, but was revived in 1700 in the person of Charles Montague. The -marquis William left three daughters Anne, married to Charles Bruce, earl of Aylesbury Dorothy, to Richard Boyle, the last earl of Burlington; and Mary, to Sackville Tuftou, earl of Thanet. George,: marquis of Halifax, was the author of some tracts, written with considerable spirit and elegance. Besides his “Character of a Trimmer,” he wrote “Advice to a Daughter;” “The Anatomy of an Equivalent;” “A Letter to a Dissenter, upon his Majesty’s laie Glorious Declaration of Indulgences;” “A rough Draught of a new Model at Sea, in 1694;” “Maxims of State.” Ah which were printed together after his death; and the third edition came out in 1717, 8vo. Since these, /there was alsa published under his name, “The Character of king Charles the Second to which is subjoined, Maxims of State, &c,” 1750, 8vo. “Character of Bishop Burnet,” printed at the end of his “History of his own Times;” “Historical Observations upon the Reigns of Edward I. II. III. and Richard II. with Remarks upon their faithful Counsellors and false Favourites,” 1689. He also left memoirs of his own times* from a journal which he kept every day of all the conversations which he had with Charles II. and the most distinguished men of his time. Of these memoirs two fair copies were made, one of which fell into the hands of Daniel earl, of Nottingham, and was destroyed by him. The other devolved on the marquis’s grand-daughter, lady Burlington, in whose possession it long remained; but Pope, as the late lord Orford informed Mr. Mai one, finding, on a perusal of these memoirs, that the papists of those days were represented in an unfavourable light, prevailed on her to burn them; and thus the public have been deprived of probably a curious and valuable work.

, a most learned man, and a great benefactor to the learning of his country, was the son of Henry Savile of Bradley, in the township of Stainland, in the parish of Halifax, Yorkshire, by Ellen, daughter of Robert Ramsden. He was born at Bradley, Nov. 30, 1549, and first entered of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, whence he was elected to Merton-college in 1561, where he took the degrees in arts, and was chosen fellow. When he proceeded master of arts in 1570, he read for that degree on the Almagest of Ptolemy, which procured him the reputation of a man wonderfully skilled in mathematics and the Greek language; in the former of which, he voluntarily read a public lecture in the university for some time. Having now great interest, he was elected proctor for two years together, 1575 and 1576, an honour not very common, for as the proctors were then chosen out of the whole body of the university, by the doctors and masters, and the election was not, as now, confined to particular colleges, none but men of learning, and such as had considerable interest, durst aspire to that honour. In 1578 he visited the continent, became acquainted with various learned foreigners, and obtained many valuable Mss. or copies of them. He is said to have returned a man of high accomplishment*, and was made tutor in the Greek tongue to queen Elizabeth, or, as it is otherwise expressed, he read Greek and mathematics with her majesty, who had a great esteem for him. In 1585 he was made warden of Mertoncollege, which he governed six and thirty years with great credit, and greatly raised its reputation for learning, by a judicious patronage of students most distinguished for talents and industry. In 1596, he was chosen provost of Eton-college, of which society also he increased the fame by rilling it with the most learned men, among whom was the ever-memorable John Hales. It is said, however, that he incurred some odium among the younger scholars by his severity, and his dislike of those who were thought sprightly wi s. He used to say, “Give me the plodding student. If I would look for wits, I would go to Newgate, there be the wits.” John Earte, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, was the only scholar he ever accepted on the recommendation of being a wit. James 1. upon his accession to the crown of England, expressed a particular regard for him, and would have preferred him either in church or state; but sir Henry declined it, and only accepted the honour of knighthood from his majesty at Windsor on Sept. 21, 1604. His only son dying about that time, he devoted his fortune entirely to the promoting of learning. In 1619 he founded two lectures, or professorships, one in geometry, the other in astronomy, in the university of Oxford; which he endowed each with a salary of 160l. a year, besides a legacy of 600l. for purchasing more lands for the same use. In the preamble of the deed, by which a salary was annexed to these two professorships, it is expressly said that “geometry was almost totally unknown and abandoned in England.” Briggs was his first professor of geometry; but Aubrey says, on the authority of bishop Ward, that he first sent for Gunter for that purpose, who, coming with his sector and quadrant, “fell to resolving of triangles and doing a great many fine things. Said the grave knight, ‘ Do you call this reading of Geometric This is shewing of tricks, man,’ and so dismissed him with scorne, and sent for Brings.” Sir Henry also furnished a library with mathematical hooks near the mathematical school, for the use of his professors; and gave 100l. to the mathematical chest of his own appointing; adding afterwards a legacy of 4C/. a year to the same chest, to the university and to his professors jointly. He likewise gave 120l. towards the new-building of the schools; several rare manuscripts and printed books to the Bodleian library; and a good quantity of matrices and Greek types to the printingpress at Oxford. Part of the endowment of the professorships was the manor of Little Hays in Essex. He died, at Eton -college, Feb. 19, 1621-2, and was buried in the chapel there, on the south side of the communion table, near the body of his son Henry, with an inscription on a black marble stone. The university of Oxford paid him the greatest honours, by having a public speech and verses made in his praise, which were published soon after in 4to, under the title of “Ultima Linea Savilii,” and a sumptuous honorary monument was erected to his memory on the south wall, at the upper end of the choir of Merton- college chapel. Sir Henry Savile, by universal consent, ranks among the most learned men of his time, and the most liberal patrons of learning; and with great justice the highest encomiums are bestowed on him by all the learned of his time: by Isaac Casaubon, Mercerus, Meibomius, Joseph Scaliger, and especially the learned bishop Montagu; who, in his “Diatribes” upon Selden’s “History of Tithes,” styles him “that magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honourable amongst not only the learned, but the righteous for ever.”

We have already mentioned several noble instances of his munificence to the republic of letters: and his works exhibit equal zeal for the promotion of literature. In 1581, he published an English version of, 1. “Four Books of the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus, and the Life of Agricola; with notes upon them,” folio, dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The notes were esteemed so valuable as to be translated into Latin by Isaac Gruter, and published at Amsterdam, 1649, in 12mo, to which Gruter subjoined a treatise of our author, published ia 1598, under the title, 2. “A View of certain Military Matters, or commentaries concerning Roman Warfare;” which, soon after its first appearance, was translated into Latin by Marquardus Freherus, and printed at Heidelberg in 1601, but having become exceeding scarce, was reprinted by Gruter. In 1596, he published a collection of the best ancient writers of our English history, entitled, 3. “Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedain praecipui, ex vetustissimis codicibus nunc primum in lucem editi:” to which he added chronological tables at the end, from Julius Caesar to the coming in of William the Conqueror. This was reprinted at Francfort in 1601, which edition has a complete index to it. The collection contains William of Malmsbury’s history of the kings of England, and the lives of the English bishops; the histories of Henry of Huntingdon the annals of Roger de Hoveden the chronicle of Ethelvverd, and the history of Ingulphus with a dedication to queen Elizabeth, &c. Wharton, in the preface to his “Anglia Sacra,” objects only to Malmsbury’s history, which he says was printed from an incorrect ms. 4. He undertook and finished an edition, most beautifully printed, of “St. Chrysostom’s Works” in Greek, printed in 1613, 8 vols. folio. In the preface, he says, “that, having himself visited, about twelve years before, all the public and private libraries in Britain, and copied out thence whatever he thought useful to his design, he then sent some learned men into France, Germany, Italy, and the East; to transcribe such parts as he had not already, and to collate the others with the best manuscripts.” At the same time, he makes his acknowledgment to several great men for their assistance; as Thuanus, Velserus, Schottus, Isaac Casaubon, Fronto Duca3us, Janus Gruterus, Hoeschelius, &c. In the eighth volume are inserted sir Henry Savile’s own notes, with those of the learned John Bois, Thomas Allen, Andrew Downes, and other learned men. The whole charge of this edition, including the several sums paid to learned men, at home and abroad, employed in finding out, transcribing, and collating, the best manuscripts, is said to have amounted to no less than 8000l.; but, as soon as it was finished, the bishops and clergy of France employed, somewhat unfairly, as has been said, Fronton Due, or Fronto Ducaeus, who was a learned Jesuit, to reprint it at Paris, in 10 vols. folio, with a Latin translation, which lessened the price of sir Henry’s edition; yet we are told, that the thousand copies which he printed were all sold*. In 1618, he published a Latin work, written by Thomas Bradwarclin, abp. of Canterbury, against Pelagius, entitled, 5. “De Causa Dei contra Pelagium, et de virtute causarum;” to which he prefixed the life of Bradwardin. This book was printed from six Mss. carefully collated. 6. “Nazianzen’s Steliteutics,” 1610. Towards this, says Oldys, he was favoured with the ms epistles of Nazianzen out of the Bod* leian library, “which was a singular courtesy, and done because of his affection to the storing and preserving of the library,” as if any thing could have been refused to such a benefactor. 7. “Xenophon’s Institution of Cyrus,” Gr. 1613, 4to. In 1621, he published a collection of his own mathematical lectures. 8. <: Praelectiones Tredecim in principium Elementorum Euclidis Oxoniae habitae,“4to. 9.” Oratio coram Elizabetha Regina Oxonice hahita, anno 1592,“Oxon. 1658, 4to; published by Dr. Barlow from the original in the Bodleian library, and by Dr. Lamphire, in the second edition of *' Monarchia Britannica,” Oxford, 1681, 8vo. 10. He translated into Latin king James’s 46 Apology for the Oath of Allegiance.“Six letters of his, written to Hugo Blotius, and Sebastian Tenguagelius, keepers of the imperial library, were published in Lambecius’s” Bibliotheca,“vol. III.; four are printed among” Camdeni fcpistolae,“and others are in the Cotton and, Harleian Mss. He was also concerned in the new translation of the Bible, executed by command of James I. being one of the eight persons at Oxford who undertook to translate the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. He left behind him several Mss. some of which are now in the Bodleian library, such as 1.” Orations.“2.” Tract of the original of Monasteries.“3.” Tract concerning the Union of England and Scotland, written at the command of king James I.' 1 He wrote notes likewise upon the margin of many books in his library, particularly of Eusebius’s

, or Sassi [Joseph Anthony), an ecclesiastical historian, was born at Milan in 1673. He for some time taught the belles lettres in his native city, and afterwards was employed as a missionary. In 1703 he was admitted a doctor of the Ambrosian college at Milan, and eight years afterwards was appointed director of that college, and keeper fits fine library. He died about 1756. He was author of many theological, historical, and chronological works, among which are, 1. “Epistola ad Card. Quirium de Literatura Mediolanensium,” 4to. 2. “De Studiis Mediolanensium Antiquis et Novis,” Milan, 1729. 3. “Archiepiscoporum Mediolanensium Series critico-chronologica,” ibid. 1756, 4to. 4- “St. Caroli Borromei Homilise, prefatione et notis,” 1747, &c. 5 vols. fol. Some of the works of Saxi have been inserted in the collection “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores” by Muratori.

, a very learned philologer and literary historian, was born at Eppendorff, a village between Chemnitz and Freyberg, in Saxony, where his father was a clergyman, Jan. 13, 1714. His proper name was Christopher Gottlob Sach, which, when he commenced author, he Latinized into Sachsius, and afterwards into Saxius, dropping the Gottlob altogether. His father first gave him some, instructions in the teamed languages, which he afterwards improved at the school of Chemnitz, but more effectually at the electoral school of Misnia, where he also studied classical antiquities, history, and rhetoric, and in 1735 went to Leipsic with the strongest recommendations for industry and proficiency. Here he studied philosophy under the celebrated Wolff, but as he had already perused the writings both of the ancient and modern philosophers with profound attention, he is said to have had the courage to differ from the current opinions. Philosophy, however, as then taught, was less to his taste than the study of antiquities, classical knowledge, and literary history, to which he determined to devote his days; and the instructions of professor Christ, and his living in the house with Menkenius, who had an excellent library, were circumstances which very powerfully confirmed this resolution. He had not been here above a year, when two young noblemen were confided to his care, and this induced him to cultivate the modern languages most in use. His first disputation had for its subject, “Vindiciae secundum libertatem pro Maronis jEneide, cui manum Jo. Harduinus nuper assertor injecerat,” Leipsic, 1737. Among other learned men who highly applauded this dissertation was the second Peter Burmann, in the preface to his Virgil, but who afterwards, in his character as a critic, committed some singular mistakes in condemning Saxius, while he applauded Sachsius, not knowing that they were one and the same. In 1738 Saxius took his master’s degree, and commenced his literary career by writing a number of critical articles in the “Nova acta eruditorum,” and other literary journals, from this year to 1747. Tiiis employment involved him sometimes in controversies with his learned brethren, particularly with Peter Burmann, or with foreign authors with whose works he had taken liberties. In 1745 he visited the most considerable parts of Germany, and was at Franckfort on the Maine during the coronation of the Emperor. In 1752 he was appointed professor of history, antiquities, and rhetoric at Utrecht, and on entering on his office pronounced an oration on the science of antiquity, which was printed in 1753, 4to. After this his life seems to have been devoted entirely to the duties of his professorship, and the composition of a great many works on subjects of philology and criticism, some in German, but principally in Latin. The most considerable of these, the only one much known in this country, is his “Onomasticon Literarium,” or Literary Dictionary, consisting of a series of biographical and critical notices or references respecting the most eminent writers of every age or nation, and in every branch of literature, in chronological order. The first volume of this appeared in 1775, 8vo, and it continued to be published until seven volumes were completed, with a general Index, in 1790. To this, in 1793, he added an eighth or supplementary volume, from which we have extracted some particulars of his life, as given by himself. This is a work almost indispensable to biographers, and as the work of one man, must have been the production of many years* labour and attention. Some names, however, are omitted, which we might have expected to find in it; and the English series, as in every foreign undertaking of the kind, is very imperfect. We have seen no account of his latter days. He lived to a very advanced age, dying at Utrecht. May 3, 1806, in his ninety-second year.

, a Danish historian, is supposed to have been a native of Denmark, but this has been a disputed point. As to his name Sachse, it is evident from many monuments of Danish antiquity, that it is of no obscure or late origin in the history of Denmark. Saxo himself calls the Danes his countrymen, Denmark his country; and speaking of the kings, he terms them our kings. Some attribute his origin to Ambria, others with more reason to Sialandia, a Danish island. The name Scalandicus is also added to that of Saxo, in some editions of his works. He has been called Longus, which has induced some to attribute his descent to the noble family of the Langii. Others have rather chosen to ascribe this name to the height of his stature. Saxo, in his preface, speaks of his ancestors as having been distinguished in war, which indicates that they were of no ignoble race. His name of Grammaticus was titular, and expressive of his attainments in literature. There are different opinions concerning the year of his birth. It is, however, certain that he flourished in the twelfth century. Carpzovius endeavoured, by some acute and subtile reasonings, to ascertain the date. The education of Saxo is equally involved in uncertainty. Pontoppidan supposes that he studied at Paris,and there acquired the eleg.ance of style for which he afterwards was distinguished. It is certain, that in the 12th century the Cimbri and the Danes frequently went to France for education. It may, however, be doubted, whether in the rage for trifle which then prevailed at Paris, Saxo could have procured a master who was capable of instructing him. We must be rather inclined to suppose that he owed his attainments to his own industry and talents. It appears that he applied to theology, for we find him appointed capitular in the bishopric of Lundens, and afterwards a prefect in the cathedral of Roschiid. While he 'filled this office he was sent, in 1161, by Absalon, the bishop of Roschiid, to Paris, with a view of inviting some monks from St. Genevieve, who might correct^the depraved morals of those which belonged to Eskilsco. William Abbas accepted the invitation of Saxo, and three brothers followed him. These monks introduced into Denmark the monastic discipline which had been prescribed by St. Augustine. Various opinions have been offered about the date of Saxo’s death. Pontanus supposes it to have been in the year 1208. Some conjecture the time to have been 1190, others in 1201. But, when we reflect that in his preface he speaks of Waldemar II. who ascended the throne of Denmark in 1203, and that Andrew Suno, to whom the history is dedicated, succeeded Absalon in the bishopric in 1202, we cannot agree with those who have adopted the earlier dates. Though some others have fixed the date in 1204, and others in 1206, the general opinion is, that he died in 1208, aged upwards of seventy. He was buried in the cathedral of Roschild. Three centuries afterwards, an inscription was’ added to his tomb by Lago Urne, bishop of Scalandre. Though more elegant verses might have been invented, says Klotzius, none could have been more true.

In the preface to his works, we are told that Mr. Say te was a tender husband, an indulgent father, and of a most benevolent, communicative disposition, ever ready to do good, and to distribute. He was well versed in astronomy and natural philosophy; had a taste for music and poetry, was a good critic, and a master of the classics. Yet so great was his modesty, that he was known only to a few select friends, and never published above two or three sermons, which were in a manner extorted from him.“Among the modern Latin poets Broukhusius was his favourite; among the English, Milton, whose head, etched by Mr. Richardson, is prefixed to his second essay, A letter. from Mr. Say to Mr. Hughes, and two from Mr. Say to Mr. Duncombe, with a Latin translation of the beginning of” Pa* radise Lost,“are printed among the” Letters of Eminent Persons deceased,“vol. J. and vol. II. His characters of Mrs. Bridget Bendysh, grand-daughter of Oliver Cromwell, in the appendix to vol. II. first appeared (without a name) jn Gent. Mag. 1765, p. 357. In the same volume, p. 423,” The Resurrection illustrated by the Changes of the Silkworm“is by the same hand. And some of his poetical pieces are in Nichols’s” Select Collection, vol. VI.

, an Italian, eminent as a statesman and man of letters, when letters were just reviving in Europe, was born about 1424, some say 1430. He was only the son of a miller but, going early to Florence, he fell under the notice of Cosmo de Medici who, observing uncommon parts in him and a turn for letters, took him under his protection, and gave him an education. He studied the law; and, taking a doctor’s degree in that faculty, frequented the bar. After the death of Cosmo in 1464, Peter de Medici shewed the same regard for him; and Scala, through his means, was trusted by the republic in the most important negociations. In 1471, the freedom of the city was conferred on him and his Descendants; and the year after he obtained letters of nobility; he was then secretary or chancellor of the republic. In 1484, the Florentines sent a solemn embassy to Innocent VIII, to congratulate him on his being raised to the pontificate; when Scala, one of the embassy, delivered a speech so very pleasing to the pope, that he was made by him a knight of the golden spur, and senator of Rome. In 1436, he was made holy-standard-bearer to the republic. He died at Florence in 1497; and left, among other children, a daughter, named Alexandra, who afterwards became famous for her learning and skill in the Greek and Latin tongues.

, a very learned and eminent critic, was born, according to his son’s account, April 23, 1484, at Ripa, a castle in the territory of Verona, and was the son of Benedict Scaliger, who, for seventeen years, commanded the troops of Matthias, king of Hungary, to whom he was related. His mother was Berenice Lodronia, daughter of count Paris. From the same authority we learn, that Scaliger was a descendant from the ancient princes of Verona; but while other particulars of the birth and family ol Scaliger are called in question, this seems to be refuted by the patent of naturalization which Francis I. granted him in 1528, in which such an honourable descent would unquestionably have been noticed, whereas in this instrument he is called only “Julius Caesar della Scala de Bordons, doctor of physic, a native of Verona.” When therefore, his critical asperities had raised him enemies, they did not fail to strip him of his royal origin, and instead of it, asserted that he was the son of a school-master (some say an illuminator) of Verona, one Benedict Borden, who, removing to Venice, took the name of Scaliger, either because he had a scale for his sign, or lived in a street called from that instrument; and although Thuanus seems inclined to consider this story as the fabrication of Augustine Niphus, out of pique to Scaliger, it is certain that the royal origin of the Scaligers has always appeared doubtful, and we have now no means to remove the uncertainty.

He was taught Latin at home, and, according to his son, had for his preceptor John Jocundus of Verona, whom he himself in various parts of his works mentions as his master; but even this circumstance his opponents are not disposed to credit, and tell us, that as he was the descendant of princes, it was necessary to provide him with a preceptor like Jocundus, who was a man not only of high character, but a gentleman by birth. They also add some circumstances which certainly make it doubtful whether Scaliger really was taught by Jocundus, because it was neither by his knowledge of Latin, nor by philosophy or theology, that Jocundus acquired his reputation, but by his skill in the fine arts. (See Jocundus,) It appears, however, less questionable, that at the age of twelve Scaliger was presented to the emperor Maximilian, who made him one of his pages, and that he served that emperor seventeen years, and gave proofs of his valour and dexterity in several expeditions, in which he attended his master. He was at the battle of Ravenna in 1512, in which he lost his father and brother Titus, whose bodies he conveyed to Ferrara, where his mother resided, who some time after died wkj> grief. His father dying in narrow circumstances, Scaliger found himself almost without a maintenance, and therefore resolved to enter into the Franciscan order, for which purpose he went to Bologna, and applied himself vigorously to study, especially to logic and Scotus’s divinity; but changing his views of the ecclesiastical profession, he agaiiv entered into the army, and served some time in Piedmont. A physician, whom he knew at Turin, persuaded him to study physic and accordingly he prosecuted it at his leisure hours, while he was in the army he likewise learned the Greek language, of which he had been entirely ignorant till then. At length, frequent attacks of the gout determined him, at forty years of age, to abandon a military life, and devote himself entirely to the profession of physic. In this he had already acquired both skill and fame, and the bishop of Agen, being indisposed, and apprehending some need of a physician in his journey to his diocese, requested Scaliger to attend him. Scaliger consented upon condition that he should not stay at Ageu above eight days: there, however, he conceived an attachment for a young lady, said to be not more than thirteen years of age, and remained at Agen waiting for her parents’ consent. That obtained, he married her in 1529, lived with her twenty-nine years, and had fifteen children by her, seven of whom survived him. Whatever his origin, he must have been now a man of some consideration, for this lady was of a noble and opulent family.

His son Joseph has described him as a man with many excellent qualities both of body and mind; tall, well-made, of a noble and venerable air, and very strong and active even to old age of such sagacity, that he could divine the characters of men from their looks of a prodigious memory; singularly averse to every departure from truth, and so charitable that his house was a kind of hospital to the indigent and distressed. With these good qualities, however, he had an insupportable pride and vanity, and a fastidious and petulant temper, which was excited to fury by every difference from his opinions, and every, the least contradiction, or fancied mark of disrespect. This appeared particularly in his treatment of Erasmus, who, in his “Ciceronianus, sive de optimo dicendi genere,” had ridiculed certain of the learned in Italy, who would allow no expressions to be pure latinity but what were to be found in Cicero; and had even criticised the style of Cicero himself, for whom, nevertheless, he had the profoundest veneration. This provoked Scaliger to publish two orations in his defence; in which he treated his antagonist with the utmost virulence of contempt. The death of Erasmus, however, which happened while the second oration was printing, appears to have softened Scaliger' s heart, and he wrote a poem, in which he expressed great grief at his dying before they were reconciled, and shewed a willingness to acknowledge his great virtues and merit.

Julius Caesar Scaliger was certainly a man of extraordinary capacity, and of great talents both natural and acquired; but those who were his contemporaries, or who lived nearest to his times, have spoken of him in language' too nearly approaching to extravagance. Colerus does not scruple to say, that he was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, the greatest poet since Virgil, and the greatest physician since Hippocrates. Lipsius goes a little farther, and not only gives us Homer, Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Scaliger, as the four greatest men that ever appeared, but adds, that he prefers Scaliger to the three others. The elder Vossius ascribes to him a sort of human divinity; and Huet thinks he was expressly formed by nature as a consolation for our degeneracy in these latter days. From these, and other encomiums, which might be multiplied by a reference to the works of his contemporaries and im> mediate successors, it is evident that his reputation was great and extensive; and if he began to study and to write so late in life as has been reported, it is easy to believe that his endowments and application must have been of the most extraordinary kind. A list of his principal works, therefore, seems necessary to illustrate his character. 1. “Exotericarum exercitationum liber quintus decimus de subtilitate ad Hieronymum Cardanum,” Paris, 1557, 4to, often reprinted in 8vo. He calls this attack on Cardan the fifteenth book, because he had written fourteen others under the same title of “Exercitationes,” which had no relation to Cardan. These, however, never were published. 2. “In Theophrasti libros sex de causis plantarum commentarii,” Geneva, 1566, folio. 3. “Commentarii in Aristoteli adscriptos libros duos de plantis,” ibid. 1566, folio. 4. “Aristotelis Hist. Animalium liber decimus, ac versione et commentario,” Lyons, 1584, 8vo. This was a prelude to the entire work published by Maussac at Toulouse, in 1619, fol. “Aristotelis Hist. Animalium, Gr. & Lat. ex versione et cum commentaries J. C. Scaligeri.” 5. “Animadversiones in Theophrasti historias plantarum,” Lyons, 1584, 8vo. 6. “Commentarii in Hippocratis librum de Insomniis,” Gr. & Lat. Lyons, 1538, 8vo, reprinted several times after. 7. “De causis lingua? Latinos libri XIII.” Lyons, 1540, 4to, &c. This is esteemed one of his most valuable works. 8. “J. C. Scaligeri adversus Desiderium Erasmum orationes duae eioquentiae Romance vindices, cum ejusdem epistolis opusculis,” Toulouse, 1621, 4to. The first of these orations, which we have already noticed, was printed at Paris in 1531, 8vo, and seems, therefore, to have been the first of our author’s publications, an earnest of what the world might expect both from his genius and temper. 9. “Epistolse,” Leyden, 1600, 8vo. 10. “Epistolce nonnullee ex manuscripto Bibliothecre Z. C. ab Uffenbach,” printed in the sixth and eighth volumes of the “Arncenitates Litterarise,” by Schelhorn. They all relate to his orations against Erasmus. 11. “De Analogia sermonis Latini,” subjoined to Henry Stephen’s “Appendix ad Terentii Varronis assertiones analogies sermonis Latini,” 1591, 8vo. 12. “Poetices Libri Septem,” 1561, fol. and several times reprinted; this is his greatest critical work, in which, however, many mistakes and many untenable opinions have been discovered by more recent critics, 13, “Heroes,” or epigrams on various personages of antiquity, Lyons, 1539, 4to. 14. “Epidorpides, seu carmen de sapientia et beatitudine,” ibid, 1573, 8vo. 15. “Poemata in duas partes divisa,” 1.574 and 1600, 8vo. 16. “De comicis dimensionibus,” prefixed to an edition of Terence printed at Paris, 1552, fol.

, son of the preceding, and heir to his talents and temper, was born at Agen in 1540; and, at eleven years of age, was sent with two of his brothers to the college of Bordeaux, where he was taught Latin. Three years after, on the appearance of the plague, he was obliged to return home to his father, who then superintended his education. He required of him everyday a short exercise or theme upon some historical subject, and made him transcribe some poems, which he himself had composed. This last task is supposed to have inspired him with a taste for poetry, and so eager was he to show his proficiency, that he wrote a tragedy upon the story of Oedipus before he was seventeen. His father dying in 1558, he went to Paris the year following to study Greek, and attended the lectures of Turnebus for two months. But finding the usual course too dilatory, he resolved to study it by himself, and with the assistance of some knowledge of the conjugations, attempted to read Homer with a translation, in which he succeeded very soon, and at the same time formed to himself a kind of grammar, with which he was enabled to proceed to the other Greek poets, and next to the historians and orators, and by persevering in this course, he gained in the space of two years a perfect knowledge of the language. He afterwards turned his thoughts to the Hebrew, which he learned by himself in the same manner. All are agreed indeed, that he had an extraordinary capacity for learning languages, and is said to have been well skilled in no less than thirteen. He made the same progress in the sciences, and in every branch of literature; and he at length obtained the reputation of being the most learned man of his age, and his biographers have handed down to us little else than the progress of his studies and the chronology of his publications. In 1503 he was invited to the university of Leyden, to be honorary professor of Belles Lettres, on which occasion, if we may believe the “Menagiana,” Henry IV, of France treated him with great coldness and neglect. Scaliger had determined to accept the offer; and, waiting upon the king to acquaint him with his journey, and the occasion of it, “Well, Mr. Scaliger,” said his majesty, “the Dutch want to have you with them, and to allow you. a good stipend I am glad of it,” adding some other remarks of a grosser kind. Henry was no patron of learning or learned men: but some have supposed that he wished to mortify Scaliger, who had already shewn too much of his father’s vanity and arrogant spirit. He now went to Leyden, where he spent the remainder of his life; and died there of a dropsy, Jan. 21, 1609, without having ever been married. He was a man of perfect sobriety of manners, and whose whole time was well spent in study. He had as great parts as his father, and far greater learning, having been trained to it from his infancy, which his father had not. He had a profound veneration for his father, and unfortunately extended it to an imitation of his irritable temper, and disrespect for his learned contemporaries. But he was often a discerner and encourager of merit. While at Leyden he was so struck with the early appearance of talent in Grotius, that he undertook to direct his studies. Grotius repaid his care by the utmost respect, and Scaliger' s counsels were commands to him. The elder Scaliger lived and died in the church of Rome: but the son embraced the principles of Luther, and relates that his father also had intentions of doing so.

There are two “Scaligerana;” one printed at the Hague in 1666; the other at Groningen 1669, and for some reason or other called “Scaligerana Prima.” Desmaizeaux published a neat edition of them, together with the “Thuana,” “Perronana,” “Pithtcaria,” and “Colomesiana,” at Amsterdam, 1740, in 2 vols. 12mo.

Upon leaving Oxford, and taking the degree of doctor of physic, Dr. Scarborough settled in the metropolis, where he practised with great reputation. In the College of Physicians, of which he was a fellow, he was particularly respected as a man of uncommon talents; and, in 1658, by the special appointment of the president, he introduced, with an elegant Latin speech, the marquis of Dorchester for his admission into the college that year. In the mean time Dr. Scarborough began to read his highly celebrated anatomical lectures at Surgeons’ Hall, which he continued for sixteen or seventeen years, and was the first who introduced geometrical and mechanical reasonings upon the muscles.

he had a considerable fund of wit, but could never prevem'it from running into buffoonery, which pervades his works to such a degree, that few men of taste or delicacy have been able to peruse them. They sunk into oblivion in the refined age of Louis XVI. and have never been effectually revived since. Yet his “Virgil Travestie” and his “Comical Romance” are occasionally read. The whole of his works were printed at Paris, in 1685, and at Amsterdam in 1737 and 1752, 10 vols. 12mo.

Scheiner was chiefly remarkable for being one of the first who observed the spots in the sun with the telescope, though not the very first for his observations of those spots were first made, at Ingolstadt, in the latter part of 1611, whereas Galileo and Harriot both observed them in the latter part of the year before, or 1610. Scheiner continued his observations on the solar phenomena for many years afterwards at Rome, with great assiduity and accuracy, constantly making drawings of them on paper, describing their places, figures, magnitude, revolutions, and periods, so that Riccioli delivered it as his opinion that there was little reason to hope for any better observations of those spots. Des Cartes and Hevelius also say, that in their judgment, nothing can be expected of that kind more satisfactory. These observations were published in 1630, in one volume folio, under the title of “Rosa Ursina,” &c. Almost every page is adorned with an image of the. sun with spots. He wrote also several smaller pieces relating to mathematics and philosophy, the principal of which are, 1. “Ocultis, sive Fundamentnm Opticum,” &c, which was reprinted at London, in 1652, in 4to. 2. 4< Sol Eclipticus, Disquisitiones Mathematicse.“3.” De Controversiis ct NovttacihiM Astronomicis."

, an eminent physician and naturalist, was the son of a very learned physician of the same mimes at Zurich, where he was born, August 2, 1672. His father dying in the prime of life, he appears to have been left to the care of his mother, and his maternal grandfather. He was educated at Zurich under the ablest professors, of whom he has left us a list, but Says that he might with great propriety add his own name to the on cber, as he went through the greater part of his studies with no other guide than his own judgment. In 1692 he commenced his travels, and remained some time at \ltdorf, attending the lectures of Wagenseil, Hoffman^ father and son, Sturm, &c. In 1693 he went to Utrecht, where he took his degree of doctor of physic in Jan. 1694, and Pi 1695 returned to Nuremberg and Altdorf to study mathematics under Sturm and Eimmart. To Sturm he addressed a learned letter on the generation of fossil shells, which iie attempted to explain on mathematical principles; but, discovering the fallacy of this, he adopted the theory of our Dr. Woodward, whose work on the subject of the natural history of the earth he translated into Latin, and published at Zurich in 1704. Returning to Zurich, before this period, he was appoint-, ed first physician of the city, with the reversion of the professorship of mathematics. He now began to write various dissertations on subjects of natural history, particularly that of Swisserland, and wrote a system of natural history in German, which he published in parts in the years 1705, 6, and 7, the whole forming three small 4to volumes. He published afterwards three more in 1716, 1717, and 1718, which complete the natural history of Swisserland, with the exception of the plants, of which he had formed an herbal of eighteen vast volumes in folio. His “Nova litteraria Helvetica” began in 1702, and were continued to 1715. In 1694 he began his tours on the Alps, which he repeated for many years, the result of which was published under the title of “Itinera Alpina,” one volume of which was published at London in 1708, 4to, and four at Leyden in 1713. In the course of these journeys, he improved the geography of his country, by a small map of Toggenbourg, and by his map of Swisserland in four large sheets. Amidst all these pursuits, his official duties, and his extensive literary correspondence, he found leisure to gratify his taste for medallic history, and translated Jobert’s work on that subject, which does not, however, appear to have been printed. In 1712, Leibnitz, being acquainted with his learning and fame, procured him an invitation from the czar, Peter the Great, to become his majesty’s physician, but the council of Zurich induced him to decline the offer, by an additional salary. Some time afterward, he obtained a canonry; but, according to Meister, his colleagues had no very profound respect for him, of which he gives the following ludicrous proof: A favourite crane belonging to Dr. Scheuchzer one day made her escape, and the doctor was obliged to climb the roof of the house to recover her, which he did at no small risk. The canons are said to have declared on this occasion, that they would have given a pension to the crane, if the doctor had broke his neck. It appears that this disrespect was mutual. They considered Scheuchzer as an intruder, and he despised their ignorance in condemning the Copernican system, and the theory of Swammerdam, as profane and pernicious. He appears to have had a considerable hand in the political and ecclesiastical affairs of Zurich, and had at one time a sharp controversy on religion with a Jesuit of Lucerne, whom Meister describes as the Don Quixote of the Romish church. In 1731 appeared his great work, “Physica sacra,” in 4 vols. folio, which was immediately republished in French at Amsterdam, in both instances enriched with a profusion of fine plates illustrative of the natural history of the Bible. This had been preceded by some lesser works on the same subject, which were now incorporated. He did not long survive this learned publication, dying at Zurich about the end of June 1733. He was a member of many learned societies, of our Royal Society, and of those of Berlin, Vienna, &c. and carried on a most extensive correspondence with the principal literati of Europe. He left a well-chosen and numerous library, a rich museum of natural history, and a collection of medals. Besides the works we have incidentally noticed, he published, 1. “Herbarium Diluvianum,” Zurich, 1709, reprinted and enlarged, at Leyden, 1723, folio. 2. “Piscium querelse et vindicise,” Zurich, 1708, 4to. 3. “Oratio cle Matheseos su in Theologia,” ibid. 1711, 4to. 4. “Museum Diluvianum,” ibid. 1716, 8vo.5. “Homo diluvii testis,” ibid. 1726, 4to. G. “De Helvetii aeribus, aquis, locis, specimen,” ibid. 1728, 4to. He also wrote in German, a treatise on the mineral waters of Swisserland, Zurich, 1732, 4to. In 1740, Klein published “.Sciagraphia lithologica curiosa, seu lapidum figuratorum nomenclator, olim a Jo. Jac. Scheuchzero conscriptus, auctus et illustratus,” 4to. Of his “Physica Sacra,” we have noticed the first edition published at Augsburgh, 1731—1735, four vols. folio, or rather eight volumes in four, the text of which is in German; this edition is valued on account of its having the first impressions of the plates. The Amsterdam edition, 1732 38, 8 vols. has, however, the advantage of being in French, a language more generally understood, and has the same plates. Scheuchzer had a brother, professor of natural philosophy at Zurich, who died in 1737, and is known to all botanists by his laborious and learned “Agrostographia,” so valuable for its minute descriptions of grasses. He had a son with whom we seem more interested, John Gaspak Scheuchzer, who was born at Zurich in 1702, and after studying at home came over to England, and received the degree of' M. D. at Cambridge, during the royal visit of George I. in 1728, and died at London April 13, 1729, only twenty-seven years old. He had much of the genius and learning of his family, and was a good antiquary, medallist, and natural historian. He translated into English Koempfec’s history of Japan, 1727, 2 vols. folio, and had begun a translation 1 of Koempfer’s travels in Muscovy, Persia, &c. but did not live to complete it. He wrote also a treatise on inoculation. Some part of the correspondence of this learned family is in the British Museum.

Some of his principal performances are, the “Madre Dolorosa,” after Vandyke the Portrait of that Master in the character of Paris Michael Angelo’s celebrated Cartoon of the Surprize of the Soldiers on the Banks of the Arno a series of Etchings, from designs by Blake, illustrative of Blair’s Grave: the Portrait of Mr. Blake, after Phillips, for the same work: the Landing of the British Troops in Egypt, from Loutherbourg; and the Etching of the Pilgrimage, from Stotbard’s esteemed picture. There is no circumstance which more forcibly shews Mr. Schiavonetti’s power of delineation, than his print from the Cartoon, considering the disadvantages under which he produced it. He had neither the benefit of an original, or an authentic copy, but engraved after a copy painted by H. Howard, II. A. from Sangallo’s copy of his own study of Michael Angelo’s Cartoon. The work of the “Canterbury Pilgrims” being no farther advanced than the etched state, is another and still more striking example of his powers as a draughtsman; every line is expressive of the object it aims to represent. This is the last great work of Mr, Schiavonetti’s hand. From his own avowal in conversation at various times since he undertook it, and even during his last illness, it was a performance on which he meant to concentrate all his powers, and to build his reputation. He had, however, others in view, particularly a portrait of the president of the Royal Society, from a picture by Mr. Phillips, and the splendid representation of the Stag Hunt, by Mr. West, in which Alexander III. king of Scotland was rescued from the fury of a stag by Colin Fitzgerald. Schiavonetti, in the opinion of his biographer, classes with Gerard Audran, with Edelinck, Strange, and Woollett. He not only possessed the powers of delineation, the harmony of lines, the union in tones and in a general effect, which severally distinguish these eminent men; but he added a brilliancy and playful movement to his productions, approaching more nearly to the free pencilling of the painter, than any thing that can be found in the performances of those artists.

, or rather Schedone (Bartolomeo), was born at Modena in 1560. He is said to have acquired the principles of the art of painting in the school of the Caracci, but must have remained there a very short time, as it is difficult to meet with any traces of their style in his works. He afterwards studied, and with the greatest success, the works and manner of Corregio. When his early works came to be admired, Ranuccio, duke of Parma, took him into his service, and for this patron he painted several pictures, which were among the principal ornaments of the collection of the king of Naples, who was heir to the Farnese family. Sir Robert Strange counted in that palace and the city of Naples near fourscore pictures by this artist. There are but few in the other collections. In the cathedral of Modena there is an admirable picture of his, of S. Geminiano restoring a dead child to life; there are also a few at Parma, but in general they are seldom to be met with to purchase. In all he is the imitator of Corregio, and between their works some connoisseurs have found it difficult to distinguish, nor has any artist so successfully imitated him, either in the harmony of his colouring, his knowledge of light and shadow, or the graces he has diffused throughout many of his compositions. Schidoni is said to have been addicted to gaming, which wasted his substance, and disturbed his mind; and at last to have fallen a sacrifice to it, not being able to overcome the mortification of having one night lost more than he was able to pay. He died at the age of fifty-six, in 1616.

, a German writer, principally known in this country as a dramatist, was born Nov. 10, 1759, at Marbach, in the duchy jf Wurtemberg, where his father was lieutenant in the service of the duke. While a boy, he was distinguished by uncommon ardour of imagination, which he never sought to limit or controul. When young, he was placed in the military school at Stuttgard, but disliked the necessary subordination. He was intended for the profession of surgery, and which he studied for some time; but from the freedom of his opinions, he was obliged to withdraw himself through apprehension of the consequences, and it is said that, at this time, he produced his first play, “The Robbers.” This tragedy, though full of faults and pernicious extravagancies, was the admiration of all the youth of enthusiastic sentiments in Germany, and several students at Leipsic deserted their college, with the avowed purpose of forming a troop of banditti in the forests of Bohemia; but their first disorders brought on them a summary punishment, which restored them to their senses, and Schiller’s biographer gravely tells us, that this circumstance added to his reputation. The tragedy certainly was quite adapted to the taste of Germany, was soon translated into several foreign languages, and the author appointed to the office of dramatic composer to the theatre of Mauheim. For this he now wrote his ' Cabal and Love,“the” Conspiracy of Fiesco,“and” Don Carlos,“and published a volume of poems, which procured him a wife of good family and fortune. This lady fell in love with him from reading his works, and is said to have roused him from those habits of dissipation in which he had in* dulged, and to which he was in great danger of falling a victim. He was now patronized by the duke of Saxe- Weimar, who conferred on him the title of aulic counsellor, and nominated him to the professorship of history and philosophy at the university of Jena. He had previously written an account of the” Revolt of the Netherlands from the Spanish government,“and he now set about composing his 4< History of the thirty Years’ War in Germany,” a work which has been much admired in his own country. At length he removed to Weimar, where the pension, as honorary professor from the duke, was continued to him; and produced the “History of the most memorable Conspira cies,” and the “Ghost-Seer,” which displayed the peculiar turn of his mind, and were much read. In the latter part of his life he conducted a monthly work published at Tubingen, and an annual poetical almanac, and composed a tragedy entitled “The Maid of Orleans.” He was the author of other dramatic pieces, some of which are known, though imperfectly, in this country, through the medium of translation. He died at Weimar, May 9, 1805, and he was interred with great funeral solemnity. In his private character Schiller was friendly, candid, and sincere. In his youth he affected eccentricity in his manners and appearance, and a degree of singularity seems always to have adhered to him. In his works, brilliant strokes of genius are unquestionably to be found, but more instances of extravagant representation of passion, and violation of truth and nature. They enjoyed some degree of popularity here, during the rage for translating and adapting German plays for our theatres; and although this be abated, they have contributed to the degeneracy of dramatic taste, and have not produced the happiest effects on our poetry.

, an eminent jurist, was born at Pegaw in Misnia, Aug. 29, 1632, and studied at Leipsic and Naumberg, where in 1651, he removed for two years to Jena, and then completed his course at Leipsic. In 1655 he took the degree of doctor in philosophy, as he did the same in the faculty of law at Strasburgh some years after. He practised for gome time as an advocate at Naumberg, where prince Maurice of Saxe made him keeper of his archives, and intendant or director of the territory of Sul in the county of Henneberg. About 1686 he accepted an invitation to Strasburgh, where he was appointed counsellor and advocate of the state, and honorary professor of the academy. He died there, May 14, 1705, in the seventythird year of his age. He wrote a great many volumes on subjects connected with antiquities and with his profession, the principal of which are, 1. “Codex juris Alemannici feudalis,” 1696, 3 vols. 4to. 2. “Thesaurus antiquitatum Teutonicarum,” 1728, 3 vols. fol. a posthumous publication, eJited by Scherzius at Uhn. 3. “Institutiones Canonici,” 1721, 8vo, in which he endeavours to reconcile the canon law to that in use among the protestant churches. 4. “Institutiones juris publici,” 1696, 2 vols. 8vo, one of his first, and a very learned work.

, was son of a native of Zurich, in Switzerland, lieutenant in the Dutch army at the memorable siege of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1747; when, after a gallant resistance of two months, it was, as generally believed, surprised by the French under marshal Lowendal. Upon quitting the service Mr. Schnebbelie came over to England, and settled in the business of a confectioner, in which capacity he had frequently the honour of attending on king George II. He afterwards opened a shop at Rochester, where one of his sons still resides; and the same profession his son Jacob (who was born Aug. 30, 1760, in Duke’s Court, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields) followed for some time, first at Canterbury, and afterwards at Hammersmith till, nature pointing out to him the proper road to fame and credit, he quitted his shop and commenced self-taught teacher, at Westminster and other public schools, of the art of drawing, in which he made a proficiency which introduced him to the notice of many among the learned and the great. To the earl of Leicester’s notice he was first introduced by accidentally sketching a view in his park near Hertford, and was employed by him in taking some of the most picturesque landscapes about Tunbridge Wells, with a view to their publication for his benefit. At their noble president’s express recommendation he was appointed draughtsman of the society of antiquaries; and filled that office with equal credit to himself and his patron. The merits of his pencil are too generally known and acknowledged to require any exaggerated eulogium, Happy in a quick eye and a discriminating taste, he caught the most beautiful objects in the happiest points of view; and for fidelity and elegance of delineation, may be ranked high among the list of firstrate artists. The works put forth on his own account are not numerous. In 1781 he intended to publish six views of St. Augustine’s Monastery, to be engraved by Mr. Rogers, &c. five of which. were completed, and one small view of that religious house was etched by himself. In 1787 he etched a plate representing the Serpentine River, part of Hyde Park, with the house of earl Bathurst, a distant view of Westminster Abbey, &c. now the property and in the possession of Mr. Jukes, intended to be aquatinted for publication, Mr. Jukes purchased also from him several views of Canterbury cathedral, St. Augustine’s monastery, &c. In March 1788 he published four views of St. Alban’s town and abbey, drawn and etched by himself; which in the November following were published, aquatinted by F. Jukes. About the same time that he set on foot the “Antiquaries Museum,' he became an associate with the late James Moore, esq. F. S. A. and Mr, Parkyns, in the f< Monastic Remains*;” which, after five numbers had appeared, he relinquished to his coadjutors. The assistance he occasionally gave to “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” the smallest part of his merit, it will be needless to particularize; his masterly hand being visible on whatever it was exerted. It is of more consequence to his fame to point out the beauties of many of the plates in the second and third volumes of the “Vetusta Monumenta” of the Society of Antiquaries and in the second volume of the “Sepulchral Monuments of Great Britain ,” the far greater part of the numerous plates in which are after him; or in the very many drawings he had finished, and the sketches he had designed, for Mr. Nichols’s “History of Leicestershire.” He had completed also some views of King’s college chapel at Cambridge, in a style worthy that most beautiful and most perfect of all our gothic buildings, and in a manner which had so far recommended him to royal notice, that, had his life been spared, there is no doubt but he would have been properly distinguished.

When the prince of Orange was almost ready for his expedition into England, marshal Schomberg obtained leave of the elector of Brandenbourg to accompany his highness in that attempt; and, after their arrival at London, he is supposed to have been the author of that remarkable stratagem for trying the affections of the people, by raising an universal apprehension over the kingdom of the approach of the Irish with fire and sword. Upon the prince’s advancement to the throne of England, he was appointed master of the ordnance, and general of his majesty’s forces; in April 1689, knight of the garter, and the same month naturalized by act of parliament; and, in May, was created a baron, earl, marquis, and duke of this kingdom, by the name and title of baron Teys, earl of Brentford, marquis of Harwich, and duke of Schomberg. The House of Commons likewise voted to him 100,000l. for the services which he had done; but he received only a small part of that sum, the king after his death paying his son 5000l. a year for the remainder. In Aug. 1689 he sailed for Ireland, with an army, for the reduction of that kingdom; and, having mustered all his forces there, and finding them to be not above 14,000 men, among whom there were but 2000 horse, he marched to Dundalk, where he posted himself; king James being come to Ardee. within five or six miles of him, with above thrice his number. Schomberg, therefore, being disappointed of the supplies from England, which had been promised him, and his army being so greatly inferior to the Irish, resolved to keep himself on the defensive. He lay there six weeks in a rainy season; and his men, for want of due management, contracted such diseases that almost one half of them perished.

, one of a family of physicians of some note in their day, was the son of Dr. Meyer Schomberg, a native of Cologne, a Jew, and, as it was said, librarian to some person of distinction abroad, which occupation he left, and came and settled in London, where he professed himself to be a physician; and, by art and address, obtained a lucrative situation amidst the faculty. In 1740 he had outstripped all the city physicians, and was in the annual receipt of four thousand pounds. He died March 4, 1761. This, his son, was born abroad, and at the age of two or three years was brought to England, where he received a liberal education, and afterwards studied at Leyden. After his return to London he set up in practice, but had a dispute with the college of physicians, as, we are told, his father had before him. The particulars of this dispute are not uninteresting in the history of the college.

Dr. Schomberg had a younger brother, Ralph Schomberg, M. D. who first settled at Yarmouth as a physician^ and published some works on professional subjects that indicated ability, and others from which he derived little reputation. Of the former kind are, 1. “Aphorismi practici, sive observationes medicse,” for the use of students, and in alphabetical order, 1750, 8vo. 2. “Prosperi Martiani Annotationes in csecas praenotationes synopsis,” 175 1 * 3. “Van Swieten’s Commentaries” abridged. 4. “A Treatise of the Colica Pictonum, or Dry Belly-ache,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Duport de signis morborum libri quatuor,” 1766. Of the latter, are some dramatic pieces of very little value, and 6. “An Ode on the present rebellion,” 1746. 7. “An Account of the present rebellion,” 1746. 8. “The Life of Maecenas,” 1767, 12mo, taken without acknowledgment from Meibomius. 9. “A critical Dissertation on the characters and Writings of Pindar and Horace, in a letter to the right hon. the earl of B” also a shame* ful instance of plagiarism from Blondell’s “Comparison de Pindare et D' Horace.” It would have been well if his pilferings had only been from books; but after he had removed to Bath, and practised there some years with considerable success, he tried his skill upon the funds of a public charity, and, detection following, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat from Bath, and from public practice. He appears to have hid himself first at Pangbourn in Berkshire, and afterwards at Heading, where he died June 29, 1792. In the obituary he is called “Ralph Schornberg, Esq.”

, a learned and very laborious writer, was born April 1, 1614, at Utrecht, and was successively professor of languages, rhetoric, history, natural philosophy, logic, and experimental philosophy in that city, at Deventer, Groningen, and lastly, at Francfort upon Oder, where he died in 1665, aged fifty-one. Schoockius delighted in singular subjects, and has left a prodigious number of works. Burman says he never knew a man who published so much and acquired so little fame in the learned world. Some of his works are critical, others on philosophy, divinity, history, and literature, chiefly ia 12 mo or 8vo, &c. The most known are, tracts on turfs, “De Turffis, seu de cespitibus Bituminosis” “On Butter;” “On Antipathy to Cheese” “On Eggs and Chickens;” “On Inundations” “De Harengis, seu Halecibus” “De Signaturis foetus” “De Ciconiis” “De Nihilo” “De Sternutatione” “De figmento legis Regies” “De Bonis Ecclesiasticis et Canouicis,” 4toj “De Statu Reipublicse faederati Belgii,” &c. c. He wrote also against Des Cartes, at the request of the famous Voetius, with whom he was much connected. Some other pieces on singular subjects are in his “Exercitationes variae,” 1663, 4to, reprinted under the title of “Martini Themidis exercitationes,” 1688, 4to, &C.

, a very learned German, to whom the republic of letters has been considerably indebted, was born at Antwerp, Sept. 12, 1552; and educated at Louvain. Upon the taking and sacking of Antwerp in 1577, he retired to Douay; and, after some stay there, went to Paris, where Busbequius received him into his house, and made him partner of his studies. Two years after, he went into Spain, and was at first at Madrid; then he removed to Alcala, and then in 1580 to Toledo, where his great reputation procured him a Greek professorship. The cardinal Gaspar Quiroga, abp. of Toledo, conceived at the same time such an esteem for him, that he lodged him in his palace, and entertained him as long as he remained in that place. In 1584, he was invited to Saragossa, to teach rhetoric and the Greek language; and, two years after, entered into the society of Jesuits, and was called by the general of the order into Italy to teach rhetoric at Rome, He continued three years there., and then returned to his own country, where he spent the remainder of a long life in study and writing books. He was not only well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but had also in him a candour and generosity seldom to be found among the men of his order. He had an earnest desire to oblige all mankind, of what religion or country soever and would freely communicate even with heretics, if the cause of letters could her served: hence protestant writers every where mention him with respect. He died at Antwerp Jan. 23, 1629, after having published a great number of books. Besides works more immediately connected with and relating to his own profession, he gave editions of, and wrote notes upon, several of the classics; among which were Aurelius Victor, Pomponius Mela, Seneca Rhetor, Cornelius Nepos, Vale* rius Flaccus, &c. He wrote the life of Francis di Borgia, and “Hispania illustrata,” 4 vols. folio, hut there are reasons for doubting whether the “Bibliotheca Hispana,” $ vols. in one, 4to, was a publication of his own; it seems rather to have been compiled from his Mss. He published, however, an edition of Basil’s works, and is said to have translated Photius; but this has been thought to be so much below the abilities and learning of Schott, that some have questioned his having been the author of it.

In 1772, when only in his twenty-third year, he published a work entitled “Anthologia Sententiarum Arabicarum,” with a Latin translation and notes, of which sir William Jones testified his approbation. Soon after this Schultens went to England, in order to examine the Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian library, and resided for some time at Oxford, as a gentleman commoner of Wadham college. Here in less than three months during the short winter days, he transcribed Pocock’s “Meidanius” with his translation and notes, a work which took up no less than 646 folio pages. The late professor White, in a letter to the father of Schultens, says of him: “It is impossible for any one to be more generally respected in this place, or indeed to be more deserving of it. His abilities, his amiable disposition, and his polite behaviour, recommend him strongly to all those among us who know him only by reputation, and endear him to all who are personally acquainted with him.” The university testified its sense of his extraordinary merit, by conferring on him (in May 1773) the degree of M. A. by diploma. He also visited Cambridge, where he spent a fortnight; during which time he corrected several errors in the catalogue of Arabic manuscripts, and made several additions to it. In London he published a specimen of Pocock’s “Meidanius.” Dr. Morton offered to make him his assistant at the British Museum, and to secure to him the reversion of his own place but the ambition of Schultens was to be a professor of Eastern languages and as there was no probability of this appointment in England, he determined to return to Holland. Sir William Jones, whose friendship he assiduously cultivated, advised him to study the Persian, which he did with great diligence but he complained that this pursuit was often interrupted by other avocations, and that he was not able to devote so much time to it as he wished.

, a learned German, was born December 1641, at Corback, in the county of Waldeck. Having taken a doctor’s degree in philosophy at Wittemberg, in 1664, he returned to Corbac, where he taught during some time instead of his father, and then returning to Wittemberg, published a learned piece, entitled “Judicium de novissimis prudentise civilis scriptoribus,” &c. under the assumed name of “Eubulus Theodatus Sarckmasius.” Jn this little work, which consists but of a leaf and half, the author passes judgment very freely on fifteen German lawyers, or political writers, which raised him many enemies, and engaged him in a literary war, which produced a great number of pieces collected by Crusius, 8vo, under the title of “Acta Siirckmasiana,” and even occasioned his being struck out from the list of doctors by the university of Wittemberg. He was, however, not only restored to that title two years after, but appointed professor of history, then of poetry, and at length of Greek. In 1700, Schurtztieisch succeeded to the rhetorical chair, and became counsellor and librarian to the duke of Saxe-Weimar, and died July 7, 1708. He left a great number of learned works on history, poetry, criticism, literature, &c. the most celebrated of which are, “Disputationes historic^ civiles,” Leipsic, 1699,3 torn. 4to. Henry Leonard Schurtzfteisch, his brother, was also author of some works, among which is, “Historia Ensiferorum ordinis Teutonic!,” Wittemberg, 1701, 12mo.

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

He was indisputably a very learned man; and, had his moderation and probity been equal to his learning, might justly have been accounted an ornament to the republic of letters: his application to study, his memory, the multitude of his books, and his quickness of parts, are surprising. Ferrarius tells us that he studied day and night; that, during the last fourteen years of his life, he kept himself shut tip in a little room, and that his conversation with those who went to visit him ran only upon learning; that, like another Ezra, he might have restored the holy scripture, if it had been lost, for that he could repeat it almost by heart; and that the number of his books exceeded the number of his years. He left behind him also several manuscripts, which, as Morhoff tells us, “remained in the hands of Picruccius, professor at Padua, and are not yet published, to the no small indignation of the learned world.” He was nevertheless a man of a malignant and contentious spirit, and lived in continual hostility with the learned of his time, nor did he spare the best writers of ancient Rome, even Cicero himself, whose language he censured for improprieties and barbarisms. Niceron enumerates upwards of an hundred different publications by Scioppius, all of which are now fallen into oblivion, or only occasionally consulted. They are mostly polemical, on subjects of criticism, religious opinions, the Jesuits, Protestants, &c. many of them under the fictitious names of Nicodemus Macer, Oporinus Grubinius, Aspasius Crosippus, Holofernes Krigsoederus, and other barbarous assumptions.

, a dissenting minister, was the son of a merchant in London, and was educated with Butler and Seeker, afterwards eminent prelates in the church of England, under the learned Mr. Jones, at Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, from whose seminary he removed to Utrecht, in Holland, pursued his studies with indefatigable zeal, and took his degree of doctor of laws. While he was in this city, he changed his opinion concerning the mode of baptism, and became a baptist, but occasionally joined in communion with other denominations. On his return to England, he settled in London or Colchester, and devoted his time to various learned and useful treatises. In 1725 appeared his “Essay towards a Demonstration of the Scripture Trinity,” without his name, which was for some time ascribed to Mr. James Pierce, of Exeter. In 1738, a second edition, with some enlargements, was sent out from the press, and in both editions the author’s friends have laboured to prove that dishonourable methods were taken to prevent the spread of it. A new edition of this Essay, freed from the learned quotations with which it abounded, was printed, some years back, in 4to, and, without any dishonourable means, added very little to the Socinian cause. In 1741, he appeared to more advantage in “A New Version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, with Critical Notes and an Examination of Dr. Mill’s Various Readings” a very learned and accurate performance. At the persuasion of his dignified friends, Seeker and Butler, to whom he dedicated his work, he published, in 1745, in two volumes, folio, an “Appendix to H. Stephen’s Greek Lexicon;” a monument of his amazing diligence, critical skill, and precision. He lost several hundred pounds bj this publication, and, by his close application to it for many years, broke his health and spirits. He was never married, and died suddenly, in a retirement near London, March 29, 1759.

His father, by his first wife, had a son, Thomas Scott, a dissenting minister at Norwich, who published several occasional sermons, and died in 1746, leaving two sons, one Thomas Scott, a dissenting minister at Ipswich, author of a poetical version of the Book of Job, a second edition of which was printed in 1774. This has been thought more valuable as a commentary than as a translation. His other son was Dr. Joseph Nicol Scott, who was first a dissenting minister, and published 2 vols. of sermons “preached in defence of all religion, whether natural or revealed.” He was a strenuous opponent of the doctrine of eternal punishments. He afterwards practised physic in London, and died about 1774.

Mrs. Scott, his widow, survived him about fifteen years, and died at Catton, near Norwich, in Nov. 1795. She was sister to the late celebrated Mrs. Montagu, of Portmansquare. From the pen of a very intelligent and equally candid writer, we have the following account of this lady “She was an excellent historian, of great acquirements, extraordinary memory, and strong sense; and constantly employed in literary labours; yet careless of fame, and tree from vanity and ostentation. Owing to a disagreement of tempers, she soon separated from her husband; but in every other relation of life she was, with some peculiarities, a woman of exemplary conduct, of sound principles, enlivened by the warmest sense of religion, and of a charity so unbounded, so totally regardless of - herself, as to be almost excessive and indiscriminate. Her talents were not so brilliant, nor her genius so predominant, as those of her sister, Mrs. Montagu: but in some departments of literature she was by no means her inferior. When she left her husband she united her income with that of her intimate friend, lady Bab Montagu, the sister of lord Halifax, and they continued to live together to the death of the latter. From that period Mrs. Scott continually changed her habitation, for restlessness was one of her foibles. Her intercourse with the world was various and extensive; and there were few literary people of her day with whom she had not either an acquaintance or a correspondence. Yet when she died, not one of her contemporaries who knew her literary habits came forward to preserve the slightest memorial of her; and she went to her grave as unnoticed as the most obscure of those who have done nothing worthy of remembrance. Under these circumstances, the writer of this article trusts to a candid reception of this imperfect memoir, while he laments that Mrs. Scott herself shut out some of the best materials, by ordering all her papers and voluminous correspondence, which came into the hands of her executrix, to be burnt; an order much to be lamented, because there is reason to believe, from the fragments which remain in other hands, that her letters abounded with literary anecdote, and acute observations on character and life. Her style was easy, unaffected, and perspicuous; her remarks sound, and her sagacity striking. Though her fancy was not sufficiently powerful to give the highest attraction to a novel, she excelled in ethical remarks, and the annals of the actual scenes of human nature. In dramatic effect, in high-wrought passion, and splendid imagery, perhaps she was deficient.”

The following is given on the same authority, as an im<­perfect list of Mrs. Scott’s works, all published at London, without her name, and one with a fictitious name, 1. “The History of Cornelia/' a novel, 1750, 12mo. 2.” A Journey through every stage of Life,“1754, 2 vols. 12mo. 3.” Agreeable Ugliness or, the triumph of the graces,“&c. 1754, 12mo. 4.” The History of Gustavus Ericson, king of Sweden, with an introductory history of Sweden, from the middle of the twelfth century. By Henry Augustus Raymond, esq.“1761, 8vo. 5.” The History of Mecklenburgh,“1762, 8vo. 6.” A Description of Millenium Hall,“second edition, 1764, 12mo. 7.” The History of sir George Ellison,“1776, 2 vols. 12mo. 8.” The test of Filial Duty,“1772, 2 vols. 12mo. 9.” Life of Theodore Agrippa D'Aubigne," 1772, 8vo.

, a poet of considerable genius, and a very amiable man, was the youngest son of Samuel and Martha Scott, and was born January 9, 1730, in the GrangeWalk, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey. His father was a draper and citizen of London, a man of plain and irreproachable manners, and one of the society of the people called quakers, in which persuasion our poet was educated, and continued during the whole of his life, although not with the strictest attention to all the peculiarities of that sect. In the seventh year of his age he was put under the tuition of one John Clarke, a native of Scotland, who kept a school in Bermondsey-street, attended young Scott at his father’s house, and instructed him in the rudiments of the Latin tongue. In his tenth year his father retired with his family, consisting of Mrs. Scott and two sons, to the village of Amwell in Hertfordshire, where, for some time, he carried on the malting trade. Here our poet was sent to a private day-school, in which he is said to have had few opportunities of polite literature, and those few were declined by his father from a dread of the smallpox, which neither he nor his son had yet caught* This terror, perpetually recurring as the disorder made its appearance in one quarter or another, occasioned such frequent removals as prevented his son from the advantages of regular education. The youth, however, did not neglect to cultivate his mind by such means as were in his power. About the age of seventeen he discovered an inclination to the study of poetry, with which he combined a delight in viewing the appearances of rural nature. At this time he derived much assistance from the conversation and opinions of one Charles Frogley, a person in the humble station of a bricklayer, but who had improved a natural taste for poetry, and arrived at a considerable degree of critical discernment. This Mr. Scott thankfully acknowledged when he had himself attained a rank among the writers of his age, and could return with interest the praise by which Frogley had cheered his youthful attempts. The only other adviser of his studies, in this sequestered spot, was a Mr. John Turner, afterwards a dissenting preacher. To him he was introduced in 1753 or 1754, and, on the removal of Mr. Turner to London, and afterwards to Colleton in Devonshire, they carried on a friendly correspondence on matters of general taste.

Mr. Scott’s first poetical essays were published in the Gentleman’s Magazine, “.the great receptacle for the ebullitions of youthful genius.” Mr. Hoole, his biographer, has not been able to discover all the pieces inserted by him in that work, but has reprinted three of them, which are added to his works in the late edition of the English poets. With the taste of the public during his retirement at Arnwell he could have little acquaintance. He had lived here about twenty years, at a distance from any literary society or information. His reading was chiefly confined to books of taste and criticism; but the latter at that time were not many nor very valuable. In the ancient or modern languages it does not appear that he made any progress. Mr. Hoole thinks he knew very little of Latin, and had no knowledge of either French or Italian. Those who know of what importance it is to improve genius by study, will regret that such a man was left, in the pliable days of youth, without any acquaintance with the noble models on which English poets have been formed. They will yet more regret, that the cause of this distance from literary society, the source of all generous and useful emulation, was a superstitious dread of the small-pox, already mentioned as obstructing his early studies, and which continued to prevail with his parents to such a der gree, that although at the distance of only twenty miles, their son had been permitted to visit London but once in twenty years. His chief occupation, when not in a humour to study, was in cultivating a garden, for which he had a particular fondness, and at length rendered one of trie most attractive objects to the visitors of Amwell.

In 1776 he published his “Amwell,” a descriptive poem, which he had long been preparing, and in which he fondly hoped to immortalize his favourite village. His biographer, however, has amply demonstrated the impossibility of communicating local enthusiasm by any attempt of this kind. The reflections occasionally introduced, and the historical or encomiastic digressions, are generally selected as the most pleasing passages in descriptive poetry; but all that is really descriptive, all that would remove us from the closet to the scene, is a hopeless attempt to do that by thte pen which can only be done by the pencil.

At, such intervals as our author could spare, he wrote various anonymous pamphlets and essays, on miscellaneous subjects, and is said to have appeared among the enemies of the measures of government who answered Dr. Johnson’s “Patriot,” “False Alarm,” and “Taxation no Tyranny.” On the commencement of the llowleian controversy, he took the part of Chatterton, and was among the first who questioned the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Rowley. This he discussed in some letters inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine. Of course he was led to admire the wonderful powers ~of the young impostor, and in his XXIst ode pays a poetical tribute to his memory, in which, with others of his brethren at that time, he censures the unfeeling rich for depriving their country of a new Shakspeare or Milton.

These, however, were his amusements; the more valuable part of his time was devoted to such public business as is ever best conducted- by men of his pure and independent character. He gave regular attendance at turnpike-meetings, navigation trusts, and commissions of land tax*, and proposed and carried various schemes of local improvement, particularly the fine road between Ware and Hertford, and some useful alterations in the streets of Ware. Among his neighbours he frequently, by a judicious interference or arbitration, checked that spirit of litigation which destroys the felicity of a country life. During the meritorious employments of his public and political life, it can only be imputed to him that in his zeal for the principles he espoused, he sometimes betrayed too great warmth; and in

His public and private character appears to have been in every respect worthy of imitation, but what his religious opinions were, except that he cherished a general reverence for piety, is somewhat doubtful. Professedly, he was one of the society called Quakers, but the paper which that society, or some of his relations, thought it necessary to publish after his death, seems to intimate that in their opinion, and finally in his own, his practice had riot in all respects been consistent.

, a learned English gentleman, was a younger son of sir John Scot, of Scot’s-hall, near Smeeth in Kent, where he was probably born; and, at about seventeen, sent to Hart-hall, in Oxford. He retired to his native country without taking a degree, and settled at Smeetb; and, marrying soon after, gave himself up solely to reading, to the perusing of obscure authors, which had by the generality of scholars been neglected, and at times of leisure to husbandry and gardening. In 1576, he published a second edition, for we know nothing of the first, of “A perfect platform of a Hop-garden,” &c. in 4to and, in 1584, another work, which shewed the great depth of his researches, and the uncommon extent of his learning, entitled “The Discoverie of Witchcraft,” &c. reprinted in 1651, 4to, with this title: “Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft; proving the common opinion of witches contracting with devils, spirits, familiars, and their power to kill, torment, and consume, the bodies of men, women, and children, or other creatures, by diseases or otherwise, their flying in the air, &c. to be but imaginary erroneous conceptions and novelties. Wherein also the practices of witch. mongers, conjurors, inchanters, soothsayers, also the delusions of astrology, alchemy, legerdemain, and many other things, are opened, that have long lain hidden, though very necessary to be known for the undeceiving of judges, justices, and juries, and for the preservation of poor people, &c. With a treatise upon the nature of spirits and devils,” &c, In the preface to the reader he declares, that his design in this undertaking, was “first, that the glory of God be not so abridged and abased, as to be thrust into the hand or lip of a lewd old woman, whereby the work of the Creator should be attributed to the power of a creature secondly, that the religion of the gospel may be seen to stand without such peevish trumpery thirdly, that favour and Christian compassion be rather used, towards these poor souls, than rigour and extremity,” &c.

He was promoted to the see of Lincoln in 1471, and we learn from his preface to his body of statutes, that a visit through his diocese, in which Oxford then was, proved the occasion of his liberality to Lincoln college. On his arrival there, in 1474, John Tristroppe, the third rector of that society, preached the visitation sermon from Psalm Ixxx. 14, 15. “Behold and visit this vine, and the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, &c.” In this discourse, which, as usual, was delivered in Latin, the preacher addressed his particular requests to the bishop, exhorting him to complete his college, now imperfect and defective both in buildings and government. Rotheram is said to have been so well pleased with the application of the text and subject, that he stood up and declared that he would do what was desired. Accordingly, besides what he contributed to the buildings, he increased the number of fellows from seven to twelve, and gave them the livings of of Twyford in Buckinghamshire, and Long Combe in Oxfordshire. He formed also in 1479, a body of statutes, in which, after noticing with an apparent degree of displeasure, that although Oxford was in the diocese of Lincoln, no college had yet made provision for the natives of that diocese, he enjoined that the rector should be of the diocese of Lincoln or York, and the fellows or scholars should be persons born in the dioceses of Lincoln and York, and one of Wells, with a preference, as to those from the diocese of York, to his native parish of Rotheram. This prelate died in 1500 at Cawoud, and was buried in the Chapel of St. Mary, under a marble tomb which he had built.

* Francis Spira was a lawyer of great plied. Shortly after he fell into * reputation at Cittadella in the Venetian deep melancholy, lost his health, and State, at the beginning of the sixteenth was removed to Padua for the adcentury. He had imbibed the prin- vice of physicians and divines but ciples of 'he Reformation, and was ac- his disorders augmented. The recused before John de la Casa, arch- cantation, which he said he had made bishop of Benevento, the pope’s nun- from cowardice and interest, filled his cio at Venice. He made some con- mind with continual horror and remorse, cessions, and asked pardon of the pa- and no means being found to restore pal minister for hi* errors. But the either his health or peace of mind, be nuncio insisted upon a public recanta- fell a victim to his miserable situation tion. Spira was exceedingly averse to in 1548. Collier’s Diet. art. Spira. this measure but at the pressing in- There have been many editions of a stances of his wife and his friends, who “Life of Spira” published in England represented to him, that tie must lose and Scotland, as a “warning to aposhis practice and ruin his affairs by tales.” persisting against it, he at last comchair; but after he had taught for some time at Geneva, a fire broke out in his neighbourhood, by. which his house was consumed, and he himself reduced to great distress. At this time flourished at Augsburg that famous mercantile family, the. Fuggers. Ulric Fugger, its then representative, a man possessed of prodigious wealth, and a munificent patron of learned men, having heard of the misfortune which had befallen Mr. Scrimzeor, immediately sent him a pressing invitation to accept an asylum beneath his roof till his affairs could be re-established. Mr. Scrimzeor, gladly availing himself of such a hospitable kindness, lost no time in going to Germany.

Immediately on his arrival at Geneva, 1563, he was earnestly solicited by the magistrates to resume the chair of philosophy. With this he complied, and notwithstanding the dedication of much of his time to the study of physics, he, two years afterwards, instituted a course of lectures in the civil law,and had the honour of being its first professor at Geneva. Being now settled here, he intended to have printed his various works, but a suspicion which Henry Stephens entertained, that it was his intention to set up a rival press at Geneva, occasioned great dissentions between them. The result of the dispute was, that almost all Scrimzeor’s publications were posthumous-. Among them are critical and explanatory notes upon Athenaeus’s “Deipnosophists,” published by Isaac Casaubon at Leyden in 1600, but without distinguishing his own notes from those of Scrimzeor; also a commentary and emendations of Strabo, which were published in Casaubon’s edition of that geographer, 1620, but likewise without acknowledging the assistance he derived from Scrimzeor. Scrimzeor collated different manuscripts of all the works of Plutarch, probably with a view to an edition of that author, and also the ten books of Piogenes Laertius on the lives of the philosophers. His corrected text of this author, with notes full of erudition, came into Casaubon’s possession, and is supposed to have contributed much to the value of his edition of Laertius, printed at Paris in 1593. The works of Phornutus and Palsephatus were also among the collations of Mr. Scrimzeor. To the latter of these authors he made such considerable additions that the work became partly his own. Tht: manuscripts of both these were for some time preserved in the library of sir Peter Young, after that of his uncle Scrimzeor, which was brought into Scot-, laud in 1573, had been added to it. What became of this valuable bequest at the death of the former, is not known. Our learned philologer left also behind him, in manuscript, the orations of Demosthenes, Æschines, and Cicero, and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, all carefully collated; and among his literary remains was a collection of his Latin epistles. But of the many performances which had exercised his pen, it does not appear that any were published by himself but his translation of “Justinian’s Novels” into Greek. This was printed at Paris in 1558, and again with Holoander’s Latin version at Antwerp in 1575. This work has been highly extolled both for the purity of its language and the accuracy of its execution. He wrote also a Latin translation of “The Basilica,” or Basilics, a collection of Roman Laws, which the Eastern emperors Basil and Leo, who reigned in the fifth century, commanded to be translated into Greek, and which preserved their authority till the dissolution of the Eastern empire.

Almost the whole of his life, although he arrived at old age, was spent in his library. The time of his death is uncertain; but it appears most likely, from a comparison of different accounts, that it happened very near the expiration of 1571, or at the beginning of the succeeding year, about the sixty-sixth year of his age. He died in the city of Geneva.

, a considerable philologer and poet, was born at Harlem in 1576. He was educated at Harlem and at Leyden, where he read law in his early days, but devoted himself afterwards to a private and studious life, which ended April 30, 1660, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. His works are: “ Batavia illustrata.” “Batavise comitumq. omnium Historia.” “Miscellanea Philologica.” “Carmina Latina & Belgica.” “Populare Hollandise Chronicon.” “Collectanea Veterum Tragicorum.” He likewise corrected the copyof “Vegetius,” and enlarged and wrote notes upon Aquilius’s <c Chronicon Geldricum" and was the author or editor of various other works, classical and historical.

, called also Cu­Ropalates, from an office he held in the household of the emperor of that name, was a Greek historian, known for his abridgment of history from the death of Nicephorus Logothetes, in 811, to the deposition of Nicephorus Botoniates, in 1081. This history, from 1067, is the same as that of Cedrenus, which has raised a doubt whether Cedre-. nus or Scylitza was the original author. Scylitza is thought to have been a native of Lesser Asia, and a prefect of the guards before he attained the dignity of curopalates. A Latin translation of his history entire, was published at Venice in 1570; and the part concerning which there is no dispute was printed in Greek and Latin conjointly with that author, at Paris, in 1647.

, an eminent English prelate, was born in 1693, at asmail village called Sibthorpe, in the vale of Belvoir, Nottinghamshire. His father was a Protestant dissenter, a pious, virtuous, and sensible man, who, having a small paternal fortune, followed no profession. His mother was the daughter of Mr. George Brough, of Shelton, in the county of Nottingham, a substantial gentleman farmer He received his education at several private schools in the country, being obliged by various accidents to change his masters frequently; yet at the age of nineteen he had not only made a considerable progress in Greek and Latin, and read the best and most difficult writers in both languages, but had acquired a knowledge of French, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, had learned geography, logic, algebra, geometry, conic sections, and gone through a course of lectures on Jewish antiquities, and other points preparatory to the study of the Bible. At the same time, in one or other of theseacademies, he had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with several persons of great abilities. Among the rest, in the academy of Mr. Jones at Tewkesbury, he laid the foundation of a strict friendship with Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham.

Mr, Seeker had been designed by his father for orders among the dissenters. With this view, his studies were directed chiefly, and very assiduously, to divinity, but not being able to decide upon certain doctrines, or determine absolutely what communion he should embrace, he resolved to pursue some profession, which should leave him at liberty to weigh these things more maturely in his thoughts, and therefore, about the end of 1716, he applied himself to the study of physic, both at London and Paris. During his stay at Paris, he kept up a constant correspondence with Mr. Butler, who was now preacher at the Rolls. Mr. Butler took occasion to mention his friend Mr. Seeker, without his knowledge, to Mr. Edward Talbot, who promised, in case he chose to take orders in the church of England, to engage the bishop, his father, to provide for him. This was communicated to Mr. Seeker, in a letter, about the beginning of May 1720. He had not at that time come to any resolution of quitting the study of physic, but he began to foresee many obstacles to his pursuing that profession: and having never discontinued his application to theology, his former difficulties, both with regard to conformity, and some other doubtful points, had gradually lessened, as his judgment became stronger, and his reading and knowledge more extensive. It appears also from two of his letters from Paris, both of them prior to the date of Mr. Butler’s communication above mentioned, that he was greatly dissatisfied with the divisions and disturbances which at that particular period prevailed among the dissenters. In this state of mind Mr. Butler’s unexpected proposal found him, and after deliberating carefully on the subject of such a change for upwards of two month*, he resolved to embrace the offer, and for that purpose quitted France about July 1720.

At Houghton Mr. Seeker applied himself with alacrity to all the duties of a country clergyman, omitting nothing which he thought could be of use to his Bock. He brought clown his conversation and his sermons to the level of their understandings; visited them in private, catechised the young and ignorant, received his country neighbours and tenants kindly and hospitably, and was of great service to the poorer sort by his skill in physic, which was the only use he ever made of it. Though this place was in a very remote part of the world, yet the solitude of it perfectly suited his studious disposition, and the income arising from it bounded his ambition. Here he would have been content to live and die here, as he has often been heard to declare, he spent some of the happiest hours of his life and it was no thought or choice of his own that removed "him to a higher and more public sphere. But Mrs. Seeker’s health, which was thought to have been injured by the dampness of the situation, obliged him to think of exchanging it for a more healthy one. On this account he procured an exchange of Houghton for a prebend of Durham, and the rectory of Ryton, in 1727; and for the two following years he lived chiefly at Durham, going over every week to officiate at Ryton, and spending there two or three months together in the summer. In July 1732, the duke of Grafton, then lord chamberlain, appointed him chaplain to the king. For this favour he was indebted to bishop Sherlock, who having heard him preach at Bath, thought his abilities worthy of being brought forward into public notice. From that time an intimacy commenced betwixt them, and he received from that prelate many solid proofs of esteem and friendship. This preferment produced him also the honour of a conversation with queen Caroline. Mr. Seeker’s character was now so well established, that on the resignation of Dr. Tyrwhit, he was instituted to the rectory of St. James’s, May 18, 1733, and in the beginning of July went to Oxford to take his degree of doctor of laws, not being of sufficient standing for that of divinity. On this occasion he preached his celebrated Act sermon, on the advantages and duties of academical education, which was printed at the desire of the heads of houses, and quickly passed through several editions. The queen, in a subsequent interview, expressed her high opinion of this sermon, which was also thought to have contributed not a little to his promotion to the bishopric of Bristol, to which he was consecrated Jan. 19, 1735.

Dr. Seeker immediately set about the visitation of his dioeese, confirmed in a great many places, preached in several churches, sometimes, twice a day, and from the information received in his progress, laid the foundation of a parochial account of his diocese, for the benefit of his successors. Finding at the same time, the affairs of his parish of St. James’s in great disorder, he took the trouble, in concert with a few others, to put the accounts of the several officers into a regular method. He also drew up for the use of his parishioners that course of “Lectures on the Church Catechism,” which have since been so often reprinted. “The sermons,” says bishop Porteus, “which he set himself to compose were truly excellent and original. His faculties were now in their full vigour, and he had an audience to speak before that rendered the utmost exertion of them necessary. He did not, however, seek to gratify the higher part by amusing them with refined speculations or ingenious essays, unintelligible to the lower part, and unprofitable to both; but he laid before them all, with equal freedom and plainness, the great Christian duties belonging to their respective stations, and reproved the follies and vices of every rank amongst them without distinction or palliation.” He was certainly one of the most popular preachers of his time, and though, as his biographer observes, his sermons, may not now afford the same pleasure, or produce the same effects in the closet, as they did from the pulpit, accompanied as they then were with all the advantages of his delivery, yet it will plainly appear that the applause they met with was founded no less on the matter they contained, than the manner in which they were spoken.

During the whole time that he was dean of St. Paul’s, he attended divine service constantly in that cathedral twice every day, whether in residence or not and in concert with the three other residentiaries, established the custom of always- preaching their own turns in the afternoon, or exchanging with each other only, which, excepting the case of illness, or extraordinary accidents, was very punctually observed. He also introduced many salutary regulations in the financial concerns of the church, the keeping of the registers, &c. &c. In the summer months he resided constantly at his episcopal house at Ctiddesden, the vicinity of which to Oxford rendered it very pleasing to a man of his literary turn. His house was the resort of those who were most distinguished for academical merit, and his conversation such as was worthy of his guests, who always left him with a high esteem of his understanding and learning. And though in the warm contest in 1754, for representatives of the county (in which it was scarce possible for any person of eminence to remain neuter), he openly espoused that side 'which was thought most favourable to the principles of the revolution; yet it was without bitterness or vehemence, without ever departing from the decency of his profession, the dignity of his station, or the charity prescribed by his religion.

His conduct as a prelate was in the strictest sense of the word, exemplary. In his charges, he enjoined no duty, &nd imposed no burthen, on those under his jurisdiction, which he had not formerly undergone, or was not still ready, as far as became him, to undergo. He preached constantly in his church at Cuddesden every Sunday morning, and read a lecture on the catechism in the evening; (both which he continued to do in Lambeth chapel after he became archbishop) and in every other respect, within his own proper department, was himself that devout, discreet, disinterested, laborious, conscientious pastor, which he wished and exhorted every clergyman in his diocese to become. At length such distinguished merit prevailed over all the political obstacles to his advancement; and on the death of archbishop Hutton, he was appointed by the king to succeed him in the diocese of Canterbury, and was accordingly confirmed at Bow-church on April 21, 1758. The use he made of this dignity very clearly shewed that rank, and wealth, and power, had in no other light any charms for him, than as they enlarged the sphere of his active and industrious benevolence.