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

, a statesman of some note, was the only son of William Hamilton, esq. an advocate of the court of session in Scotland, who after the union came to London, and was admitted to the English bar. His son was born in Lincoln’s-inn Jan. 28, 1728-9, and was educated at Winchester school, and at Oriel college, Oxford, where he was admitted a gentleman commoner, March 1, 1744-5. During his residence at Oxford, it is supposed he wrote those poems which were printed in 1750, 4to> for private distribution only, but have lately been published by Mr. Malone. On leaving Oxford, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to study the law; but on his father’s death in 1754, he betook hifnself to a political life, and in the same year was chosen, member of parliament for Petersfield in Hampshire. His first effort at parliamentary eloquence was made Nov. 13, 1755, when, to use the words of Waller respecting Denham, “he broke out, like the Irish rebellion, threescore thousand strong-, when nobody was aware, or in the least suspected it.” Certainly no first speech in parliament ever produced such an effect, or acquired such eulogies, both within and without the house of commons. Of this speech, however, no copy remains. For many years it was supposed to have been his only attempt, and hence the familiar name of Single-speech was fixed upon him; but he spoke a second time, Feb. 1756, and such was the admiration which followed this display of his talents, that Mr, P\>jc, then one of the principal secretaries of state, procured him to be appointed, in April of the same year, one of the lords of trade. At this board he sat five years without ever exerting his oratorical talents; and in 1761 accepted the office of principal secretary to George earl of Halifax, then appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland. In the Irish parliament, as he filled an office of responsibility, it was necessary for him to support the measures of administration; and accordingly in 1761 and 1762, he made five speeches on various occasions, which fully gratified the expectations of his auditors. Mr. Hamilton continued secretary to the succeeding lord lieutenant, Hugh earl of Northumberland, in 1763, but it is believed his exertions in that session were less splendid and less frequent; and before it concluded, on some disgust he resigned his office. On his return to England, and for a long time afterwards, he meditated taking an active part in the political warfare of the house of commons, but he never again addressed the chair, though he was chosen into every new parliament that was summoned from that time till May 1796, a little before his death. In this period, the only office hg filled was that of chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, which he held from Sept. 1763 to April 1784. During this interval he was one of those on whom common rumour bestowed the authorship of Junius’s letters, and perhaps never was any rumour so completely devoid of a probable foundation. He died at his house in Upper Brook-street, July 16, 1796, and was buried in the chancel vault of the church of St. Martin in the Fields. In 1803, Mr. Malona published his works under the title of “Parliamentary Logic; to which are subjoined two Speeches delivered in the House of Commons in Ireland, and other pieces,” 8vo f with a life of the author prefixed. These speeches give us but a faint idea of the splendid abilities which once so enraptured his hearers, nor does his poetry entitle him to rank above the elegant versifiers of his time. His Parliamentary Logic“is a performance of a more singular cast. It consists of a string of maxims, or rules, for managing a debate in parliament, in which the author appears serious, else we should have supposed parliamentary logic” to imply a ridicule on the language of that house. These maxims, however, seem admirably qualified to make a partizan; although we much doubt whether they have a tendency to make that more valuable character, an honest man.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born March 1, 1595, at Blaxen in the county of Oldenburg, into which county, and Delmenhorst, his ancestors had introduced Lutheranism. He was professor of morality, afterwards of divinity and oriental languages at Marpurg, and, lastly^ superintendant of the churches of Lubec, where he died February 17, 1671. His principal works are, “Scutum Catholic veritatis,” against the Jesuit Thomas Henrici an “Examination of the Jesuit Becan’s Manual” a “Hebrew Grammar” “Expositio Epistolse Pauli ad Ephesios,” Marpurg, 1631, 4to “Synopsis Theologiae” “Irenicum Catholico Evangelicum” “De Justificatione Hominis,” &c. His son, Philip Lewis Hanneken, who died professor of divinity at Wittemberg, June 16, 1706, has also left several works on the Scriptures.

He had a rich vein of humour; and his English muse, though never inelegant, had a peculiar turn for it. His “Denhill Iliad,” a poem occasioned by the hounds running through lady Gray’s gardens at Denhill, in East Kent, is very much in the manner of Pope; and his “Dialogue in the Senate-house of Cambridge,” written in 1750, was much admired for its poetry and humour: the former of these is in Mr. Nichols’s “Select Collection of Poems,” the latter in the “Poetical Calendar,” vol. IX. In 1780, his son, the present George Hardinge, esq. solicitor-general to the queen, printed for private distribution, an octavo volume of his Latin verses, with a corrected copy of the ode in Mr. Nichols’s collection. The Latin poems are of various dates; some of them school exercises at Eton in 1717 and 1718, and are remarkable specimens of classical taste at so early a period of life.

Bishop Hare, about the time of his death, was preparing an edition of Plautus. He died at his house at Chalfont St. Giles’s, Bucks, where he had bought an* estate and resided very much, April 26, 1740, and was buried in that parish church. He was twice married. His son, the rev. Robert Hare of Hurstmonceaux place, in Sussex, prebendary of Winchester, died in March 1797. He was the father of James Hare, esq. late member of parliament for Knaresborough.

Hewas a great encourager of learning, and the greatest collector in his time of all curious books in print and manuscript, especially those concerning the history of his own country, which were preserved and much augmented by the earl his son, and afterwards purchased for the British Museum. The dispersion, however, of his printed books must ever be regretted. He was also a man of taste and letters himself; and under this character we find a proposal addressed to him by Dr. Swift, “for correcting, improving, and ascertaining the English tongue.” He wrote also “An Essay upon Public Credit,” 1710, inserted in Somers’s Tracts; where are also “An Essay upon Loans,” and “A Vindication of the Rights of the Commons of England,” said to be by him, but signed Humphrey Mackworth. Various letters by him are preserved among the Harleian Mss.; and a few jocular verses in the correspondence between Swift and his friends.

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

, an English civilian, chancellor of the dioceses of Durham, Hereford, and Llandaff, and commissary of Essex, Herts, and Surrey, was the son of Dr. John Harris, bishop of Llandaff, who died in 1738. The time of his son’s birth we have not been able to ascertain. He was, however, a member of Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his degree of bachelor of laws in May 1745, and that of doctor in the same faculty in May 1750, in which last year he was admitted into the college of advocates. Here he proved himself an eminent pleader, although not a masterly orator, and enriched himself by very extensive practice. He died at his house in Doctors’ Commons, April 19, 1796, leaving his very extensive property mostly to charitable uses. Among the very munificent items in his will, were 40,000l. to St. George’s hospital; 20,000l. to Hetherington’s charity for the blind; 15,000l. to the Westminster lying-in hospital, and 5000l. to the Hereford infirmary. He also was in his life-time a benefactor to the funds of the society of advocates. In 1752 he published a pamphlet, entitled “Observations upon the English Language, in a letter to a friend,” 8vo, relating to the common mistakes in spelling, pronunciation, and accent. This was anonymous; but he afterwards published with his name, “D. Justiniani Institutionum, Libri quatuor; and a translation of them into English, with notes,” 1756, 4to, a work which did him great credit, and was thought peculiarly adapted for the improvement of young law students. A second edition appeared in 176 1.

In 1801 his son, lord Malmsbury, published a magnificent edition of the works before mentioned in two volumes quarto, with two fine portraits and other plates. Prefixed is an affectionate biographical sketch, from which the present article has been taken. This is concluded by the noble author with the following general view of Mr. Harris’s character, which, from every information, we have reason to think is just and impartial.

, a most accurate mechanic, the celebrated inventor of the famous time-keeper for ascertaining the longitude at sea, and also of the compound or gridiron-pendulum; was born at Foulby, near Pontefract in Yorkshire, in 1693. His father was a carpenter, in which profession the son assisted; occasionally also, according to the miscellaneous practice of country artists, surveying land, and repairing clocks and watches; and young Harrison always was, from his early childhood, greatly attached to any machinery moving by wheels. In 1700 he removed with his father to Barrow, in Lincolnshire; where, though his opportunities of acquiring knowledge were very few, he eagerly improved every incident from which he might collect information frequently employing all or great part of his nights in writing or drawing and he always acknowledged his obligations to a clergyman who came every Sunday to officiate in the neighbourhood, who lent him a ms copy of professor Sanderson’s lectures; which he carefully and neatly transcribed, with all the diagrams. His native genius exerted itself superior to these solitary disadvantages; for, in 1726, he had constructed two clocks, mostly of wood, in which he applied the escapement and compound pendulum of his own invention: these surpassed every thing then made, scarcely erring a second in a month. In 1728 he came up to London with the drawings of a machine for determining the longitude at sea, in expectation of being enabled to execute one by the board of longitude. Upon application to Dr. Halley, the astronomer royal, he referred him to Mr. George Graham, who advised him to make his machine before applying to that board. He accordingly returned home to perform his task; and in 1735 came to London, again with his first machine, with which he was sent to Lisbon the next year to make trial of it. In this short voyage he corrected the dead reckoning about a degree and a half; a success which procured him both public and private encouragement. About 17 '69 he completed his second machine, of a construction much more simple than the former, and which answered much better: this, though not sent to sea, recommended Mr. Harrison yet stronger to the patronage of his friends and the public. His third machine, which he produced in 1749, was still less complicated than the second, and more accurate, as erring only 3 or 4 seconds in a week. This he conceived to be the ne plus ultra of his attempts; but, by endeavouring to improve pocket-watches, he found the principles he applied to surpass his expectations so much, as to encourage him to make his fourth time-keeper, which is in the form of a pocket-watch, about six inches diameter. With this time-keeper his son made two voyages, the one to Jamaica, and the other to Barbadoes in which experiments it corrected the longitude within the nearest limits required by the act of the 12th of queen Anne; and the inventor had, therefore, at different times, more than the proposed reward, receiving from the board of longitude at different times almost 24,000l. besides a few hundreds from the East India company, &c. These four machines were given up to the board of longitude. The three former were not of any use, as all the advantages gained by making them, were comprehended in the last: being worthy however of preservation, as mechanical curiosities, they are deposited in the royal observatory at Greenwich. The fourth machine, emphatically distinguished by the name of The Time-keeper, was copied by the ingenious Mr. Kendal; and that duplicate, during a three years circumnavigation of the globe in the southern hemisphere by captain Cook, answered as well as the original.

, an English poet and divine, was the son of a father of both his names, who was fellow of Pembroke college, Oxford, prebendary of Wales, canon, of Bristol, and vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton, Somersetshire. Refusing to take the oaths after that revolution which placed a new family on the throne, he relinquished *all his preferments, in 1691, and retired to Kentbury in Buckinghamshire, where he died Feb. 10, 1736, aged eighty-five. His son informs us, that when judge Jeffries came to Taunton -assizes in 1685, to execute his commission upon the unfortunate persons concerned in Monmouth’s rebellion, Mr. Harte, then minister of St. Mary Magdalen’s, waited on him in private, and remonstrated much against iiis severities. The judge listened to him calmly, and with some attention, and though he had never seen him before, advanced him in a few months to a prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Bristol. Old Mr. Harte was so much respected for his piety and learning, that the prelates Kidder, Hooper, and Wynne, who successively filled the see of Bath and Wells, contrived that he should receive the profits of his prebend of Wells as long as he lived; and Mr. Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, offered him a bishopric in queen Anne’s time, which he declined with grateful acknowledgments. According to his son’s account, he was a most laborious student, employing ten or twelve hours a day, without any interruption, but that of casual sickness, for fifty years successively. His principal business was in referring every difficult part of Scripture to those particular passages in the fathers and eminent modern divines who had explained them expressly or occasionally.

Dr. Maty expresses his wonder, that lord Chesterfield should not have chosen a tutor who understood a little better the external decorations which his lordship prized so highly. “Harte,” says this biographer, “had none of the amiable connecting qualifications, which the earl wished in his son.” “It was impossible he should succeed in finishing the polish of his education in the manner lord Chesterfield wished; and it is a matter of astonishment that the earl should not have perceived how much the tutor’s example must have defeated his precepts. The three principal articles he recommended to his son, were his appearance, his elocution, and his style. Mr. Harte, long accustomed to a college life, was too aukward both in his person and address to be able to familiarize the graces with his young pupil. An unhappy impediment in his speech, joined to his total want of ear, rendered him equally unfit to perceive as to correct any defects of pronunciation, a careful attention to which was so strongly recommended in all lord Chesterfield’s letters, as absolutely necessary for an orator.”

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

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

, an able naval commander, was born at Plymouth about 1520. Being the son of a seaman, captain William Hawkins, he imbibed a love for the profession, and when a youth made several voyages to Spain, Portugal, and the Canaries. In the spring of 1562 he formed the design of his first famous voyage, the consequence of which was very important to his country, as he then began that traffic in slaves, which after two centuries and a half we have seen abolished. At that time, however, this trade was accounted honourable and useful, and sir John bore the badge of his exploits in a crest of arms granted him by patent, consisting of a “demi-moor in his proper colour, bound with a cord,” not unlike a device which we have seen employed to excite an abhorrence of the slave-trade when its abolition was first agitated. In returning from a third expedition of this kind he was attacked and defeated by a Spanish fleet. After undergoing many hardships, he reached home in Jair. 1568; and it is said that his ill-success in this instance damped his ardour for maritime enterprise. In 1573 he was appointed treasurer of the navy, and in a few months he had nearly lost his life by a wound from an enthusiastic assassin, who mistook him for another person. He was now consulted on every important occasion, and in 1588; was appointed rear-admiral on-board the Victory, to confront the famous armada. His conduct on this occasion obtained for him the high commendations of his illustrious queen, the honour of knighthood, and other important commands in the navy. He died in 1595, it is said of vexation, on account of an unsuccessful attempt on the enemies possessions in the West Indies, and in the Canaries. He was a good mathematician, and understood every thing that related to his profession as a seaman. He possessed much personal courage, and had a presence of mind that set him above fear, and which enabled him frequently to deliver himself and others out of the reach of the most imminent dangers; he had great sagacity, and formed his plans so judiciously, and executed the orders committed to him with so much punctuality and accuracy, that he ever obtained the applause of his superiors. He was submissive to those above him, and courteous to his inferiors, extremely affable to his seamen, and much beloved by them. He sat twice in parliament as burgess for Plymouth, and once for some other borough. He erected an hospital at Chatham for the relief of disabled and diseased seamen, and is highly applauded by his contemporaries and by historians, who lived after him. His son, sir Richard Hawkins, was brought up to a maritime life, and in 1582, when very young, he had the command of a vessel in an expedition under his uncle to the West Indies; he also commanded a ship in the action against the Spanish armada, in which he was greatly distinguished. About 1593, he sailed with three ships, his own property, to the coast of Brazil, at the commencement of a much longer voyage; but he was obliged to burn one of his little squadron, another deserted their commander, so that he was under the necessity of sailing alone through the straits of Magellan. To satisfy the desires of his men, he made prizes of some vessels, which drew upon him the whole force of a Spanish squadron, to which he was compelled to yield. After a confinement of two years in Peru and the adjacent provinces, he was sent back to Europe. He died in 1622, as he was attending, on business, the privycouncil. He left behind him a work of considerable value, which was printed and ready for publication it is entitled “The Observations of sir Richard Hawkins, knight, into the South-sea, A.D. 1593.” From this piece, which the author dedicated to prince Charles, afterwards king Charles I., it appears that the issue of his voyage to the South-seas, his long confinement, and the disasters which naturally attended it, brought him into great distress. His nautical observations, his description of the passage through the straits of Magellan, and his remarks on the sea-scurvy, and on the best methods of preserving his men in health, were considered at that period of very great importance. He intended to have published a second part of his observations, in which he meant to have given an account of what happened to him and his companions during their stay in Peru, and in Terra Firma, but which death prevented him from accomplishing.

, an eminent musical composer, was born at llhorau, in Lower Austria, in 1733. His father, a wheelwright by trade, played upon the harp without the least knowledge of music, which, however, excited the attention of his son, and first gave birth to his passion for music. In his early childhood he used to sing to his father’s harp the simple tunes which he was able to play, and being sent to a small school in the neighbourhood, he there began to learn music regularly; after which he was placed under Reuter, maestro di capella of the cathedral at Vienna; and having a voice of great compass, was received into the choir, where he was well taught, not only to sing, but to play on the harpsichord and violin. At the age of eighteen, on the breaking of his voice, he was dismissed from the cathedral. After this, he supported himself during eight years as well as he could by his talents; and began to study more seriously than ever. He read the works of Matthcson, lieinichen, and others, on the theory of music; and for the practice, studied with particular attention the pieces of Emanuel Bach, whom he made his model in writing for keyed instruments. At length, he met with Porpora, who was at this time in Vienna; and during five months was so happy as to receive his counsel and instructions in singing and the composition of vocal music.

Dr. Hayes died July 27, 1777, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Peter’s in the east, in Oxford. His son Philip was regularly educated by his father in the same art. When grown up, after he had lost his treble voice, which dropped into a tolerable tenor, he was admitted one of the gentlemen of the king’s chapel, and resided chiefly in London, till the decease of his worthy father; who having established a family interest in the university, he succeeded to all his honours and appointments. He took his degree of B. M. in May 1763, and proceeded doctor of music Nov. 6, 1777, when he succeeded his father in the professorship. He also became organist of Magdalen, New college, and St, John’s. He succeeded in the same style of composition as his father, and was a considerable benefactor to the music-school and orchestra, and gave many valuable portraits both to that room and to some of the colleges. Dr. Philip Hayes was perhaps the most corpulent man in the kingdom, and his friends were long in apprehension of a sudden death, which at last took place when he was on his annual visit to London, about the time of the anniversary of the new musical fund. He dropped down dead, after he had dressed himself, in the morning of March 19, 1797, in his fifty -eighth year. His remains were interred in St. Paul’s cathedral with due respect.

, a strenuous advocate for Socinianism, was born in 1672, and became assay-master of the mint, and principal tally-writer of the exchequer. In defence of the independence and prerogatives of his office, he printed and privately dispersed a tract entitled “A hriel enquiry relating to the right of his majesty’s Chapel Royal, and the privileges of his servants within the Tower, in a Memorial addressed to the rignt hon. the lord viscount Lonsdale, constable of his majesty’s Tower of London,” 1728, folio. His principal effort in favour of Socicianism was entitled “The Scripture account of the attributes and worship of God, and of the character and offices of Jesus Christ, by a candid Enquirer after Truth.” This he left for the press, and it was accordingly printed by his son, in obedience to his father’s injunctions, but probably against his own inclinations, nor was it generally known as a publication until reprinted in 1790 by the late rev. Theophilus Lindsey. Mr. Haynesdied November 19, 1749. His son Samuel Haynes was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B in 1723, A. M. 1727, and D. D. in 1748. He was tutor to the earl of Salisbury, with whom he travelled, and who, in 1737, presented him to the valuable rectory of Hatfield in Hertfordshire. In March 1743, he succeeded to a canonry of Windsor; and in May 1747, he was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Clothal, which he held by dispensation with Hatfield. He died June 9, 1752. He published “A Collection of State-papers, relating to affairs in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary and Elizabeth, from 1542 to 1570,” transcribed from the Cecil Mss. in Hatfield-house, 1740, fol.

His patron, Mr. Cherry, pleased with the happy effects of his care, determined to take our young antiquary into his house, and maintain him as his son. In this it is said he partly followed the advice of the learned Mr. Dodwell, who then lived in the neighbourhood, and had probably watched the progress of Hearne’s education. He was accordingly taken into Mr. Cherry’s house about Easter 1695, and his studies in classical learning promoted by this gentleman, or by Mr. Dodwell, both taking that trouble with him, which, from his diligence and apt memory, they foresaw would not be lost. With the same benevolent views, Mr. Cherry sent him to Oxford, where, in Michaelmas term of the above year, he was entered of Edmundhall, but returned immediately after his matriculation, and pursued his studies both at Mr. Cherry’s, and at the school of Bray.

Dr. Heberden married, Jan. 19, 1760, Mary, eldest daughter of William Woilastou, esq. by whom he had five sons and three daughters, who all died before him, except Dr. William Heberden, one of his majesty’s puysiciuns, and Mary, the eldest daughter, married to the rev. George Jenyns, prebendary of Ely. His son published in 1802, a Latin and English edition of his father’s last work, entitled “Gulielmi Heberden Commentarii de Morborum Historia et Curatione,” in 8vo. These faithful records of experience are related with perfect candour, and without any admixture of hypothesis: the powers of medicine, however, are estimated with that moderation which arises from the scepticism of long life and practice, and which some have thought carried a little too far in this work; yet a work, like this, formed on the most accurate observation, cannot be too often referred to by medical practitioners and medical writers, both, as a source of instruction and as a model.

The literary fame of Hedwig, und his medical practice, were now every day increasing. He was made physician to the town guards, and professor of physic and of botany at Leipsic. The latter appointment, in which he succeeded Dr. Pohl removed to Dresden in 1789, was accompanied with a house, and the superintendance of the public garden. In 1791 the senate appointed him physician to the school of St. Thomas. The duties of all these various stations might be supposed to have fully occupied his time, yet he still found leisure ta attend to new communications from his friends. Many nondescript mosses were sent him from Pennsylvania by the rev. Dr. Muhienberg, and many West-Indian ones by Dr. Swartz. A fine collection of new or rare ferns, in full fructification, was forwarded to him by sir Joseph Banks, at the suggestion of Dr. Smith, in hopes that he might be induced to take up their examination; it not being then known in this country, that he was already intent on the subject, and preparing his essay for the Petersburgh academy. The fruits of these communications were not given to the world in his life-time. But the former ones contributed, with other matter, to a posthumous work, pablished by his able pupil Dr. Schwaegrichen, entitled “Species Muscorum,” in 4to, with 77 coloured plates; and the latter to some subsequent works of his son; but his great work is his “Cryptogamia” 1787—1797, 4 Vols. fol. the figures in which are given with a fidelity rarely to be seen. Hedwig died Feb. 17, 1799. As an observer and faithful describer, he cannot be ranked too high; as a vegetable physiologist, if not always infallible, he stands in the first order; and his knowledge was enhanced by modesty, candour, affability, the strictest probity, and the most elevated piety. His scientific character in other respects is well delineated in our authority.

The learned have all joined in their praises of Heinsius. Gerard Vossius says that he was a very great man; and calls him the ornament of the muses and the graces. Casaubon admires him equally for his parts and learning. Pareus calls him the Varro of his age. Barthius ranks him with the first writers. Bochart pronounces him a truly great and learned man and Selden speaks of him as “tarn severiorum quam amceniorum literarum sol” a light to guide us in our gay as well as severe pursuits in letters. Some, however, have thought that, he was not so well formed for criticism; and Le Clerc, in his account of the Amsterdam edition of Bentley’s “Horace,” says that though doubtless a learned man, who had spent his life in the study of criticism, yet if we may judge by his Horace, he was by no means happy in his conjectures; but he speaks much more advantageously of his son Nicolas Heinsius; and agreed, with the rest of the world, that though not so learned a man as his father, he had a better taste for criticism. Daniel Heinsius was, however, highly honoured abroad as well as at home; and received uncommon marks of respect from foreign potentates. Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, gave him a place among his counsellors of state: the republic of Venice made him a knight of their order of St. Mark: and pope Urban VIII. was such an admirer of his fine talents and consummate learning, that he made him great offers if he would come to Rome; “to rescue that city from barbarism,” as the pontiff is said to have expressed himself.

His first work was entitled <( De Magnetica Vulnerum Naturali et Legitima Curatione, contra Johannem Roberti Soc. Jesu Theologum,“Paris, 1621, 8vo. His next publication was relative to the waters of the Spa,” De Spadanis Fontibus,“Liege, 1624, 8vo. Next followed, after a long interval,” Febrium Doctrina inaudita,“Antwerp, 1642, 12mo and” Opuscula Medica inaudita, l.De Lithiasi; 2. De Febribus; a. De Humoribus Galeni 4. De Peste,“Cologne, 1644, 8vo. On his death he requested his son to collect his papers, as well the incomplete as the finished ones, and to publish them in the way which he thought the best. They were sent to the printer, without correction, and without any regard to connection or arrangement, and published at Amsterdam in 1648, in 4to, under the title of” Ortus Medicinae, id est, initia PhysiciB inaudita, progressus Medicinal Novus in Morborum ultionem ad Vitam longam.“Under the title of” Opera omnia," these works have been reprinted at various times and places, and in various languages the most correct edition is that of Amsterdam, in 1652, by Elzevir. They are now consulted only as curiosities; but he certainly anticipated, in obscure glimpses, as it were, several of the important discoveries, as well as the hypotheses of later times his Arch&us is now the vis medico,­trix nature of Hoffmann and Cullen; his doctrine of ferments was adopted by Silvius and his followers; and he greatly cleared the way to chemical discoveries.

, a physician, was born of a noble family in the principality of Atihalt,about 1625. He obtained at an early age a considerable reputation for his knowledge of medicine and chemistry; and having settled in Holland about 1649, he practised at the Hague with so much success, that he was appointed first physician to the States-general, and to the prince of Orange, he died August 20, 1709. His works serve, however, rather to prove his devotion to the absurdities of the alchemists, physiognomists, and such visionaries of his time, than his advancement in true science; and therefore it may be sufficient to refer for their titles to our authorities His son Adrian [Helveticus], who was born in 1656, journeyed to Paris, without any design of fixing there, and only to see that new world, and sell some medicines, but accident detained him very unexpectedly. The dysentery then prevailed in that city-, and all who applied to him are said to have been infallibly cured. His success was celebrated; and Louis XIV. ordered him to publish the remedy which produced such certain and surprising effects. He declared it to be Ipecacuanha, and received 1000 louis-d'ors for the discovery. He settled in Paris, became physician to the duke of Orleans, and was also made inspector-general of the military hospitals. He died in 1721, leaving some works behind him, of little value; the principal of which is, “Traité des Maladies de plus frequentes, & des Remedies specifiques pour les guerir,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English gentleman of parts and learning, was the son of sir R ->bert Henley, of the Grange in Hampshire, descended from the Henleys of Henley in Somersetshire; of whom sir Andrew Henley was created a baronet in 1660. This sir Andrew had a son of the same name, famous for his frolics and profusion. His seat, called Bramesley, near Hartley-row, in the county of Southampton, was very large and magnifirent. He had a great estate in that and the other western counties, which was reduced by him to a very small one, or to nothing. Sir Robert Henley of the Grange, his uncle, was a man of good sense and osconomy. He held the master’s place of the King’s-bench court, on the pleas side, many years; and by the profits of it, and good management, left his son, Anthony Henley, of the Grange, of whom we now treat, possessed of a very fine fortune, above 3000l. a-year, part of which arose from the ground-rents of LincolnVinnfields. Anthony Henley was bred at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by an early relish for polite learning. He made a great proficiency in the study of the classics, and particularly the ancient poets, by which he formed a good taste for poetry, and wrote verses with success. Upon his coming to London, he was presently received into the friendship and familiarity of persons of the first rank for quality and wit, particularly the earls of Dorset and Sunclerland. The latter had especially a great esteem and affection for him; and as every one knew what a secret influence he had on affairs in king William’s court, it was thought strange that Mr. Henley, who had a genius for any thing great, as well as any thing gay, did not rise in the state, where he would have shone as a politician, no Jess than he did at Will’s and Tom’s as a wit. But the Muses and pleasure had engaged him. He had something of the character of Tibullus, and, except his extravagance, was possessed of all his other qualities; his indolence, his gallantry, his wit, his humanity, his. generosity, his learning, his taste for letters. There was hardly a contemporary author, who did not experience his bounty. They soon found him out, and attacked him with their dedications; which, though he knew how to value as they deserved, were always received as well as the addressers could wish; and his returns were made so handsomely, that the manner was as grateful as the present.

Upon the whole, his character seems to have been highly exemplary and praiseworthy; and it may be asked, as Dr. Busby asked him, “What made him a nonconformist” The reason which he principally insisted on was, that he could *not submit to be re-ordained, which was required of those who had been ordained only according to the presbyterian form. When named in the commission of the peace, it was as Philip Henry, esq. He was, however, so well satisfied with his call to the ministry, and solemn ordination to it, by the laying on the hands of the presbytery, that he durst not do that which looked like a renunciation of it as null and sinful, and would at least be a tacit invalidating and condemning of all his administrations. Despairing to see an accommodation, he kept a meeting at Broad-oak, and preached to a congregation in a barn. He died June 24, 1696. His “Life” was written by his son, the subject of our next article, and published in 1699. The piety, Christian moderation, and good sense, which pervade the whole, render it one of the most interesting pieces of biography of the seventeenth century, and induced Dr. Wordsworth to reprint the whole in his “Ecclesiastical Biography,” with some useful notes

His most useful work, the “History of the Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” was published in 1649, a year after his death, and has always been much admired. Nicolson says, that lord Herbert “acquitted himself in this history with the like reputation, as the lord chancellor Bacon gained by that of Henry Vllth. For in the public and martial part this honourable author has been admirably particular and exact from the best records that were extant; though as to the ecclesiastical, he seems to have looked upon it as a thing out of his province, and an undertaking more proper for men of another profession.” Although it has been considered as a very valuable piece of history, there is not, perhaps, so much candour displayed in every part as could be wished. In 1663, appeared his book “De Religione Gentilium, errorumque apud eos causis.” The first part was printed at London, in 1645; and that year he sent the ms. of it to Gerard Vossius, as appears from a letter of his lordship’s, and Vossius’s answer. An English translation of this work was published in 1705, under this title: “The ancient Religion of the Gentiles, and causes of their errors considered. The mistakes and failures of the Heathen Priests and wise men, in their notions of the Deity and matters of Divine Worship, are examined with regard to their being destitute of Divine Revelation.” Lord Herbert wrote also in 1630, “Expeditio Buckingham! ducis in Ream insulam,” which was published in 1656; and “Occasional Verses,” published in 1665, by his son Henry Herbert, and dedicated to Edward lord Herbert, his grandson; hut they form no claim to the poetical character. Christian Kortholt, on account of his book “De Veritate,” has ranked him with Hobbes and Spinosa, in his dissertation entitled “De tribus impostoribus magnis, Edvardo Herbert, Thoma Hobbes, & Benedicto Spinosa, Liber,” printed at Kilon m 1680. Granger has very aptly described him as a man who was at once wise and capricious: who redressed wrongs, and quarrelled for punctilios; hated bigotry in religion, and was himself a bigot to philosophy; exposed himself to suoh dangers as other men of courage would have carefully declined and called in question the fundamentals of religion, which none had the hardiness to dispute besides himself. The life of lord Herbert, written by himself, was recovered by the family, after having been long missing, and printed at Strawberry -hill, by lord OrItbrd, in 1764, for private distribution; but was reprinted for sale by Dodsley in 1770, 4to. Lord Orford observes, that it is, perhaps, the most extraordinary account that ever was seriously given by a wise man of himself.

, professor of botany and the materia medica at Strasburgh, was born Dec. 21, 1738, at Barr, near Strasbnrgh. His father, a protestant clergyman at that place, devoted his leisure hours to physical experiments, and imparted to his son a tasce for the study of natural history and the science of nature, who made at the same time an extraordinary progress in rhetoric, philology, history, philosophy, mathematics, and hiedicine, In 1765, he took the degree of doctor of medicine, and made a -journey to Paris, where he enlarged his knowledge, enriched his cabinet of natural history, and acquired the friendship of the most eminent French literati. In the twenty-sixth year of his age he commenced at Strasburgh, lectures on natural history, which he continued until his death. In 1768 he was appointed professor extraordinary of medicine; ten years afterwards he obtained the chair of philosophy, and in 1782 that of pathology. At the death of professor Spielmann, in 1784, he was promoted to the professorship of botany, chemistry, and materia medica. On the reform of the system of literary education in France he was appointed professor of bot^in^ and the materia medica, at the medical academy established in Strasburgh in 1795, and professor of natural history at the central school. He was also admitted a fellow of the national institute of France, and successively chosen a member of the royal academy of sciences, of Berlin, of the Linnaean society, and of several other academies and literary societies. Among his numerous correspondents were Buffon, Cuvier, Fortis, Hany, Millin, La Peyrouse, Schreber, Zimmer*­mann, c, Hesacrificed all his property to form one of the finest and richest cabinets of natural history in Europe, and without having edited any large work on natural science, he has enriched it with many interesting discoveries and ingenious observations, published in his numerous dissertations, and in several literary journals, both Gerjnan and French. He died of a pulmouic disease, Oct. 4, 1800.

, so called rather from his power and talents than his goodness, was a native of Ascalon in Judea, and thence sometimes called the Ascalonite. He was born seventy years before the Christian osra, the son of Antipater an Idumean, who appointed him to the government of Galilee. He at first embraced the party of Brutus and Cassius, but, after their death, that of Antony. By him he was named tetrarch, and afterwards, by his interest, king of Judea in the year 40 A. C. After the battle of Actium, he so successfully paid his court to Augustus, that he was by him confirmed in his kingdom. On all occasions he proved himself an able politician and a good soldier. But he was far from being master of his passions, and his rage very frequently was. directed against his own family. Aristobiilus, brother to his beloved wife Mariamne, her venerable grandfather Hyrcanus, and finally she herself, fell victims to his jealousy and fury. His keen remorse fojp her death rendered him afterwards yet more cruel. He put to death her mother Alexandra, and many others of his family. His own sons Alexander and Aristobulus having excited his suspicions, he destroyed them also, which made Augustus say, that it was better to be Herod’s hog than his son. Among his good actions svas *he rebuilding qf the temple at Jernsalenj, which be performed in nine years, with great magnificence; and in the time of a famine he sold many valuable and curious articles he had collected, to relieve the sufferers. To Augustus he paid the utmost adulation, and even divine honours. At the birth of our Saviour, his jealousy was so much excited by the prophetic intimations of his greatness, that he slaughtered all the infants in Bethlehem, in hopes of destroying him among the number. But his tyranny was now nearly at an end, and two or three years after the birth of Christ he died of a miserable disease at the age of more than seventy. He had nine or ten wives, of which number Mariamiie was the second. A little before his death, soured yet more by his acute sufferings, he attempted a greater act of cruelty than any he had performed in his former life. He sent for all the most considerable persons in Judea, and ordered that as soon as he was dead, they should all be massacred, that every great family in the country might weep for him. But this savage order was not executed. Some have supposed that he assumed the character of the Messiah, and that the persons who admitted that claim were those called in the gospel Herodians. But this is by no means certain. Herod was the first who shook the foundations of the Jewish government. He appointed the high-priests, and removed them at his pleasure, without regard to the laws of succession; and he destroyed the authority of the national council. But by his credit with Augustus, by his power, and the very magnificent buildings he erected, he gave a temporary splendour to that nation. His son, Herod Antipas, (by his fifth wife Cleopatra) was tetrarch of Galilee after his death.

, a distinguished English prelate, was born in the year 1691, at Walsoken in Norfolk. His father, John Herring, was then rector of that place; and Dr. John Carter, afterwards fellow of Eton, having at that time the care of the school of Wisbeach, in the Isle of Ely, Mr. Herring placed his son under his care. Here our young student continued till June 21, 1710, when he was admitted into Jesus college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Richard Warren, afterwards D. D. rector of Cavendish, and archdeacon of Suffolk. In this college he took the degree of bachelor of arts; but there being no prospect of his succeeding to a fellowship, he removed in July 1714, to Corpus Christ! college, and was made a fellow of that seat of learning on the resignation of Mr. Peane in April 1716. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following commenced master of arts, and took upon him the charge of pupils.

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

Upon the death of the father, an estate was left, which ought to have been equally divided between the two brothers Hesiod and Perses; but Perses defrauded him in the division, by corrupting the judges. Hesiod was so far from resenting this injustice, that he expresses a concern for those poor mistaken mortals who place their happiness in riches only, even at the expence of their virtue. He lets us know, that he was not only above want, but capable of assisting his brother in time of need; which he often did, though he had been so ill used by him. The last circumstance he mentions relating to himself, is his conquest in a poetical contention. Archidamas, king of Eubosa, had instituted funeral games in honour of his own memory, which his sons afterwards took care to have performed. Here Hesiod was a competitor for the prize in poetry, and won a tripod, which he consecrated to the Muses. Plutarch, in his “Banquet of the Seven Wise Men,” makes Periander give an account of the poetical contention at Chalcis, in which Hesiod and Homer are made antagonists. Hesiod was the conqueror, and dedicated the tripod, which he received for his victory, to the Muses. We are told, that Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander had a dispute on this subject. The prince declared in favour of Homer; his father told him, “that the prize had been given to Hesiod;” and asked him, whether “be had never seen the verses Hesiod had inscribed upon the tripus, and dedicated to the. Muses on mount Helicon?” Alexander allowed it; but said, that Hesiod “might well get the better, when kings were not the judges, but ignorant ploughmen and rustics.” The authority of these relations is, however, questioned by learned men; especially by such as will not allow these two poets to have been contemporaries, but make Hesiod between thirty and forty years the older of the two, which agrees nearly with the chronology of the Arundelian marbles.

Julius Scaliger has spoken with great contempt of Hesychius, and calls him a frivolous author, who has nothing that is good in him: “but, 7 ' says Baillet,” I believe this critic is very singular in his opinion. His son Joseph on the contrary declares that Hesychius is a very good author, though we have nothing left of him but an epitome, and though his citations are lost beyond recovery. Meric Casaubon also esteems him a most excellent grammarian; and Menage calls him the most learned of all the makers of dictionaries.",

He was a very voluminous writer, and although few of his works can be recommended to general perusal, there are none perhaps of the whole series which may not be consulted with advantage, by those who have leisure and inclination to study the history of parties, in the distracted period in which he lived. Many of his lesser pieces were published together in 1681, in a folio volume, with a life of the author by the rev. George Vernon, which having given offence to his relations, a new life was published by his son-in-law Dr. Barnard, 1682, 12mo. It is from a comparison of both (Vernon’s has since been published in 12mo) that a proper judgment can be formed of Dr. Heylin. His other works of most note are, 1. “An Help to English History,” &c. 1641, 8vo, published under the name of Robert Hall, gent, republished with the additions of Christopher Wilkinson a bookseller, but with Heylin’s name in 1670, 8vo. It was again republished, and brought down to 1709 and in 1773 an improved edition was published by Paul Wright, D. D. in 1773, a lar^e 8vo. Capt. Beatson’s “Political Index” may be considered as a continuation of this work. 2. “History of the Sabbath,” 3636, 4to, intended to reconcile the public to that dreadful error in the conduct of the court, the “Book of Sports,” which did incalculable injury to the royal cause. 3. “Theologia Veterum; the Sum of the Christian Theology contained in the creed, according to the Greeks and Latins, &c. Lond. 1654, fol. reprinted 1673. 4. Ecclesia Vindicata; or the Church of England justified, 1. In the way and manner of her Reformation, &c. 2. In officiating by a public Liturgy. 3. In prescribing a set form of Prayer to be used by preachers before their sermons. 4. In her right and patrimony of tithes. 5. In retaining the episcopal government, and therewithal the canonical ordination of priests and deacons,” London 1657, in 4to, dedicated to Mr. Edward Davys, vicar of Shilton in Berkshire, formerly his master in the free-school of Burford in Oxfordshire. 5. “Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (the second monarch of Great Britain) from his birth to his burial,” London, 1658, in 8vo. This Life Wood supposes to be the same with that which was printed with and prefixed to “Reliquiae sacrae Carolina,” printed at the Hague, 1649, in 8vo. 6. “Examen Historicum or a discovery and examination of the mistakes and defects in some modern histories, viz. 1. In the Church History of Britain, by Tho. Fuller. To which is added, an Apology of Dr. Jo. Cosin, dean of Peterborough, in answer to some passages in the Church History of Britain, in which he finds himself concerned. 2. In the History of Mary Queen of Scots, and of her son King James VI,; the History of King James I. of Great Britain; and the History of King Charles I. from his cradle to his grave, by Will. Sanderson, esq. London, 1658, in a large 8vo. To this is ndded, An Appendix in an answer to some passages in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Post-haste Reply, &c. by Will. Sanderson, esq.” Soon after Dr. Thomas Fuller published a thin folio, entitled “The Appeal for injured Innocence,” which was commonly bound up with the remaining copies of his Church History in quires; and Mr. Sanderson wrote. a pamphlet, entitled “Peter pursued; or Dr. Heylin overtaken, arrested, and arraigned upon his three Appendixes: 1. Respondet Petrus. 2. Answer to Post-Haste Reply. 3. Advertisements on three Histories. viz. of Mary Queen of Scots, King James, and King Charles,” 1658, in 8 sheets in 4to. 7. “Historia QuinquArticularis: or a declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. Collected in the way of an Historicall Narration out of the public acts and monuments, and most approved authors of those scverall churches,” London, 1660, in 4to. This involved him in a controversy with some able writers. 8. “History of the Reformation of the Church of England from the first preparations to it made by King Henry VIII. until the legal settling and establishing of it underQueen Elizabeth,*' &c. London, 1661, 1670, and 1674, in folio. 9.” Cyprianus Anglicus r or the History of the Life and Death of William (Laud) Archbishop of Canterbury,“&c. London, 1668 and 1671, fol. 10.” Aerius Redivivus: or the History of the Presbyterians. Containing the beginning, progress, and successes of that sect. Their oppositions to monarchical and episcopal government. Their innovations in the church; and their inbroylments of the kingdoms and estates of Christendom in the pursuit of their designes. From the year 1536 to the year 1647," London, 1670 and 1672, in folio.

, a man of learning of the sixteenth century, was born in 1566, atTredington, in Worcestershire, and in 1579 entered of St. Mary hall, Oxford, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, and appears to have lived the life of a country gentleman, relieving his agricultural pursuits by study. His favourite object was the Greek language. He died while on a visit to a relation at Sutton, in Gloucestershire, Jan. 9, 1630. His translation of “Lucian” was published by his son Thomas Hicks, A. M. chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford, in Ifc34, 4to, who also presented to the library of that college manuscript translations by his father of “Thucydides” and “Herodian.” The Life of Lucian and the notes were written by this son, who died young, in 1634, and had been, as Wood says, esteemed a good poet and an excellent limner.

, an English divine and writer, was, the son of Roger Hieron, a learned clergyman, vicar of Epping, in Essex, who died in 1592. His son, who was born in 1572, received his early education from his father, who afterwards sent him to Eton school, whence he was elected by the free choice of provost Goade, into a scholarship of King’s college, Cambridge. On the death of his father, who probably left no great provision behind him, he was much assisted in the prosecution of his studies in the university by sir Francis Barrington, of Barringtonhall, in Essex, knt. While at Cambridge he studied divinity under Lawrence Chaderton, master of Emanuel college, and made such progress that at his first preaching at King’s, he was heard with the utmost approbation, seeming, as his biographer says, “rather a bachelor in divinity than a bachelor in arts, and rather a divine of forty, than only twenty-four years of age.” On his appearance as a preacher in London, he immediately became so popular that many congregations, together with the inns of court, desired to have him settled as their minister. But being offered the living of Moclbury, in Devonshire, in the gift of Eton college, he preferred that, and preached with great success, both there and at other places, particularly Plympton, where, by the means of sir Ferdinand Gorges, and other gentlemen of the neighbourhood, a lecture was established, of which he became one of the preachers. His public and private character procured him the reverence both of the poor and rich, and it appears by the dedications of his works that he had many friends of high rank. He inclined to puritan principles, but with a strict adherence to the church of England; and was particularly zealous against popery. He was long afflicted with a chronical distemper, but continued his public services and private studies notwithstanding the apparent incapacity of his weak body. This disorder, however, put an end to his useful life in the forty-fifth year of his age, in 1617. He was interred in Modbury church. His works, consisting principally of sermons and commentaries, printed often separately, in 4to and 8vo, were collected by him and published in 1614 in fol. and reprinted at London in 1620, with an additional volume edited by Robert Hill, D. D. rector of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. To this Dr. Hill prefixed a life, from which the above particulars are taken.

In 1728, Mr. Hawkins Browne, then of LincolnVinn, who had always a just sense of Highmore’s talents and abilities, addressed to him a poetical epistle “Ou Design and Beauty;” and, some years after, an elegant Latin ode, both now collected in his poems. In the summer of 1732, Mr. Highmore visited the continent, in company with Dr. Pemberton, Mr. Benj. Robins, and two other friends, chiefly with a view of seeing the gallery of pictures belonging to the elector palatine at Dusseldorp, collected by Rubens, and supposed to be the best in Europe. At Antwerp also he had peculiar pleasure in contemplating the works of his favourite master. In their return they visited the principal towns in Holland. In 1734, he made a like excursion, but alone, to Paris, where he received great civilities from some of his countrymen, particularly the duke of Kingston, Dr, Hickman (his tutor), Robert Knight, esq. (the late cashier), &c. Here he had the satisfaction of being shewn, by cardinal de Polignac, his famous group of antique statues, the court of Lycomedes, then just brought from Rome, and since purchased by the king of Prussia, and destroyed at Charlottenbourg, in 1760, by the Russians. In 1742, he had the honour to paint Frederic prince and the princess of Wales, for the duke of Saxe Gotha; as he did some years after, the queen of Denmark, for that court. The publication of Pamela, ia 1744, gave rise to a set of paintings by Mr. Highmore, which were engraved by two French engravers, and published by subscription, in 1745. In the same year ha painted the only original of the late general Wolfe, then about 18. His Pamela introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of the excellent author, whose picture he drew, and for whom he painted the only original of Dr. Young. In 1750 he had the great misfortune to lose his excellent wife. On the first institution of the Academy of Painting, Sculpture, &c. in 1753, he was elected one of the professors; an honour, which, on account of his many avocations, he desired to decline. In 1754 he published, “A critical examination of those two Paintings [by Rubens] on the cieling of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, in which architecture is introduced, so far as relates to perspective together with the discussion of a question which has been the subject of debate among painters” printed in 4to, for Nourse. In the solution of this question he proved that Rubens, and several other great painters, were mistaken in the practice, and Mr. Kirby, and several other authors, in the theory and practice: and in the eighteenth volume of the “Monthly Review,” he animadverted (anonymously) on Mr. Kirby’s unwarrantable treatment of Mr. Ware, and detected and exposed his errors, even where he exults in his own superior science. Of the many portraits which Mr. Highmore painted, in an extensive practice of 46 years, (of which several have been engraved), it is impossible and useless to discuss particulars. His principal historical pictures were “Hin;ar and Ishmael,” a present to the Foundling-hospital “The Good Samaritan,” painted for Mr. Shepherd of Cainpsey Ash “The fin ding of Moses,” purchasedathis sale by gen. Lister: “The Harlowe Family,” as described in “Cianssn,” in the possession of Tiiomas Watkinson Payler, esq. at Heden in Kent: “Clarissa,” the portrait mentioned in that work “The Graces unveiling Nature,” drawn by memory from Rubens “The Clementina of Grandison,” and “the ^iueen-mother of Edward IV. with her younger son, &c. in Westminster-abbey:” the three last in the possession of his son.

In 1761, on the marriage of his daughter to the Rev. Mr. Buncombe, son to one of his oldest friends, he took a resolution of retiring from business, and disposing of his collection of pictures, which he did by auction, in March 1762; and soon after removed to the house of his son-inlaw at Canterbury, where he passed the remainder of his life, without ever re-visiting the metropolis. But though he had laid down the pencil, he never wanted employment: so active; and vigorous was his mind, that, with a constitutional flow of spirits, and a relish for instructive society, he was “never less alone than when alone;” and, besides his professional pursuits (abovementioned), to philosophy, both natural and moral, and also divinity, he laudably dedicated his time and attention. No man lud more clearness and precision of ideas, or a more ardent desire to know the truth; and, when known, conscientiously to pursue it. With strong passions, ever guided by the strictest virtue, he had a tender, susceptible heart, always open to the distresses of his fellow-creatures, and always ready to relieve them. His capital work of the literary kind was his “Practice of Perspective, 9” the Principles of Dr. Brook

Mr. Hildersham was born at Stechworth in Cambridgeshire, Oct. 6, 1563, and educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge. His parents were zealous papists, but during his abode at the university, he embraced the doctrines of the reformed church with a cordiality and decision which nothing could shake, and when his father found him so resolute, he disinherited him. He soon, however, obtained a liberal patron in his relation Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the north, who sent him to the university, which he had been obliged to leave, and generously supported him. Being disappointed of a fellowship of Christ’s college, owing to the partiality of Dr. Barwell, the master, for another candidate, he was nearly about the same time, in 1586, chosen fellow of Trinity-hall, by the influence of lord Burleigh, chancellor of the university. This fellowship, however, he did not hold above two years, and having unguardedly began to preach without being admitted into orders, he received a check from archbishop Whitgift, although this irregularity was not in those days very uncommon. In 1593, however, every obstacle of this kind being removed, the earl of Huntingdon presented him to the living of Ashby-de-la Zoncb in Leicestershire, where he remained the whole of his life. Being dissatisfied with some points of ecclesiastical discipline, snch as wearing the surplice, baptizing with the cross, and kneeling at the sacrament, he often incurred the penalties of the law, and more than once was suspended from his functions; but always restored by the intervention of some friend, or the prevalence of his own excellent character. The wonder is that a man of his learning, piety, and good sense, should have adhered with such pertinacity to matters of comparatively little consequence, when he found the law and the general sentiments of his brethren against him, and when, what was of more importance to him, those labours were interrupted in which he delighted, and in which he was eminently successful. With these interruptions, however, he continued in the exercise of his ministry at Ashby until his death, March 4, 1631. He was interred in the southside of the chancel of Ashby church, with an inscription which, after adverting to his noble descent, says that he was “more honoured for his sweet 'and ingenuous disposition, his singular wisdom in settling peace, advising in secular affairs, and satisfying doubts; his abundant charity, and especially his extraordinary knowledge and judgment in the Holy Scriptures, his painful and zealous preaching, &c.” This character is amply illustrated by his biographers, and may in part be confirmed by his works, which in point of style and matter are equal, if not superior to those of his contemporaries* Those which are best known are his “Lectures on John iv.” 1623, fol. and his “CLII Lectures on Psalm 51,” 1635, fol. In all these his steady adherence to the doctrines of the church is visible, and his aversion to sectarianism and popery. He was particularly an opponent of the Brownists, or first independents. Echardjusily says he was “a great and shining light of the puritan party, and celebrated for his singular learning and piety.” Ke was the author also of “Lectures on Psalm 34,” 1632, 4to; and “A Treatise on the Lord’s Supper,” which we have never seen. He left in ms. a paraphrase on the whole Bible, from which was extracted a paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, printed, 1672, in 12mo. His son, Samuel, was ejected, for nonconformity, from the living of West Felton in Shropshire, and died in 1674. He was editor of his father’s Lectures.

, is recorded as a celebrated abbot of St. Denys in France, in the ninth century, in the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire, and Lothaire his son. He became despicable by his attachment to the latter, and by frequently violating the oath of fidelity which he swore to the emperor Louis, whenever he was reconciled to his children. As a writer he was the first who confounded St. Denys, or Dionysius, bishop of Paris, with Dionysius the Areopagite, in his life of St. Dionysius entitled " Areopagitica, n Paris, 1565, 8vo, which is replete with fabulous absurdities.

, usually called the father of physic, was born in the island of Cos, about 460 B. C. He is said to have descended from Æsculapius, through a line of physicians who had all promoted the fame of the Coan school, and by his mother’s side he was the eighteenth lineal descendant from Hercules. He appears to have devoted himself to the medical art that he might perpetuate the honours of his family, and he has eclipsed them. Besides the empirical practice which was hereditary among them, he studied under Herodicus, who had invented the gymnastic medicine, and was instructed in philosophy and eloquence by Gorgias, a celebrated sophist and brother of Herodicus. He is also said to have been a pupil of Democritus, which appears improbable, and a follower of the doctrines of Heraclitus. In whatever study, however, he engaged, he appears to have pursued a rational plan, upon actual expedience, discarding the theories of those who never had practised the art, and hence is said to have been the first who separated the science of medicine from philosophy, or rather from mere speculation, which then assumed that name. Of the events of his life little is known with cer T tainty. He spent a great part of his time in travelling: during which he resided for a considerable period, at varipus places, in which he was occupied in the practise of his art. His chief abode was in the provinces of Thessaly and Thrace, especially at Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, where he composed several books. According to Soranus, he spent some time at the court of Macedon, where he signalized himself, in consultation with Kuryphon, a senior physician, by detecting the origin of the malady of the young Perdiccas. His observation of the emotion of the prince on the appearance of Phila, a mistress of his father, led him to pronounce that love alone was capable of curing the disease which it had occasioned. His fame caused him to receive invitations from diiFerent cities of Greece. He is said to have been requested by the inhabitants of Abciera to go and cure their celebrated fellowcitizen, Democritus, of the madness under which they supposed him to labour, whom he pronounced not mad; but, the wisest man in their city. In a speech ascribed to his son Thessalus, still extant, we are told that Illyria and Paeonia being ravaged by the plague, the inhabitants of those countries offered large sums of money to induce Hippocrates to come to their relief; but forseeing that the pestilence was likely to penetrate into Greece, he refused to quit his own country, but sent his two sons, and his sonin-law, through the diiFerent provinces, to convey the proper instructions for avoiding the infection; he himself went to Thessaly, and thence to Athens, where he conferred such eminent services on the citizens, that they issued a decree honouring him with a crown of gold, and initiating him and his family in the sacred mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine. Hippocrates is likewise reported to have refused an invitation from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, accompanied by a promise of every reward and honour which he might desire, to repair to his dominions during a season of pestilence, which he refused; and that when the enraged king ordered the inhabitants of Cos to deliver up Hippocrates, they declared their resolution to defend the life and liberty of their valued countryman at all hazards, and nothing was attempted by the Persian. Most of these stories, however, are deemed fictitious by the most intelligent critics. The cure of the young Perdiccas probably originated from the report of a similar cure ascribed to Erasistratus; and the interview with Deraocntus is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The relation of the services of Hippocrates, during the plague at Atbeps, is altogether irreconcileable with the accounts of Galen and of Thucydides: besides, that plague commenced during the Peioponnesiin war, in the second year of the 87th olympiad, at which time Hippocrates was about thirty" years old, and therefore could not have had two sons or a son-in-law in a condition to practise. Dr. Ackerman justly conjectures, that these fables were all invented after the death of Hippocrates, and ascribed to him by the followers of the dogmatic sect, of which he was regarded as the founder. The letters and other pieces, which are preserved with the works of Hippocrates, and on the authority of which these anecdotes are related, are generally deemed spurious.

A complete edition of his works in 3 vols. folio, was published by his son, Dr. John Hoadly, in 1773, with a short life of the author, originally printed in the Biographia Britannica. The appendix contains some parts of his lordship’s correspondence with lady Sundon, formerly Mrs. Clayton, bed-chamber woman to queen Caroline; to this lady he appears to have been not a little indebted, at various periods, for his influence at court.

, an eminent English philosopher and miscellaneous writer, was born at Malmsbury in Wiltshire, April 5, 1588, his father being minister of that town. The Spanish Armada was then upon the coast of England; and his mother is said to have been so alarmed on that occasion, that she was brought to bed of him before her time. After having made a considerable progress in the learned languages at school, he was sent, in 1603, to Magdalen hall, Oxford; and, in 1608, by the recommendation of the principal, taken into the family of the right honourable William Cavendish lord Hardwicke, soon after created earl of Devonshire, as tutor to his son William lord Cavendish. Hobbes ingratiated himself so effectually with this young nobleman, and with the peer his father, that he was sent abroad with him on his travels in 16:0, and made the tour of France and Italy. Upon his return with lord Cavendish, he became known to persons of the highest rank, and eminently distinguished for their abilities and learning. The chancellor Bacon admitted him to a great degree of familiarity, and is said to have made use of his pen for translating some of his works into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had such an esteem for him, that he revised the first work which he published, viz. his “English Translation of the History of Thucyciides.” This Hobbes undertook, as he tells us himself, “with an honest view of preventing, if possible, those disturbances in which he was apprehensive his country would be involved, by shewing, in the history of the Peloponnesian war, the fatal consequences of intestine troubles.” This has always been esteemed one of the best translations that we have of any Greek writer, and the author himself superintended the maps and indexes. But while he meditated this design, his patron, the earl of Devonshire, died in 1626; and in 1628, the year his work was published, his son died also. This loss affected him to such a degree, that he very willingly accepted an offer of going abroad a second time with the son of sir Gervase Clifton, whom he accordingly accompanied into France, and staid there some time. But while he continued there he was solicited to return to England, and to resume his concern for the hopes of that family, to which he had attached himself so early, and owed many and great obligations.

In 1689, he wrote the “Prolegomena” to John Malela’s “Chronicle,” printed at Oxford; and the year after was made chaplain to Stillingfieet bishop of Worcester, being tutor to his son at Wadham college. The deprivation of the bishops, who had refused the oaths to king William and queen Mary, engaged him in a controversy with Dodwell, who had till now been his friend, and had spoken handsomely and affectionately of him, in his “Dissertations upon Irenams,” printed in 1689. The pieces Hody published on this occasion were, in 1691, “The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the new bishops: or, a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, shewing, that although a bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the church ever made a separation, if the successor was not an heretic. Translated out of an ancient manuscript in the public library at Oxford,” one of the Baroccian Mss. He translated it afterwards into Latin, and prefixed to it some pieces out of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the same subject. Dodwell publishing an answer to it, entitled “A Vindication of the deprived bishops,” &c. in 1692, Hody replied, in a treatise which he styled “The Case of Sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation stated; in answer to a piece intituled, A Vindication of the deprived Bishops, &c. Together with the several pamphlets published as answers to the Baroccian Treatise, 1693.” The part he acted in this controversy recommended him so powerfully to Tillotson, who had succeeded Sancroft in the see of Canterbury, that he made him his domestic chaplain in May 1694. Here he drew up his dissertation “concerning the Resurrection of the same body,” which he dedicated to Stillingfleet, whose chaplain he had been from 1690. Tillotson dying November following, he was continued chaplain by Tenison his successor; who soon after gave him the rectory of Chart near Canterbury, vacant by the death of Wharton. This, before he was collated, he exchanged for the united parishes of St. Michael’s Royal and St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, being instituted to these in August 1695. In 1696, at the command of Tenison, he wrote “Animadversions on two pamphlets lately published by Mr. Collier, &c.” Whesi sir William Perkins and sir John Friend were executed that year for the assassination-plot, Collier, Cook, and Snatt, three nonjuring clergymen, formally pronounced upon them the absolution of the church, as it stands in the office for the visitation of the sick, and accompanied this ceremony with a solemn imposition of hands. For this imprudent action they were not only indicted, but also the archbishops and bishops published “A Declaration of their sense concerning those irregular and scandalous proceedings.” Snatt and Cook were cast into prison. Collier absconded, and from his privacy published two pamphlets to vindicate his own, and his brethren’s conduct; the one called, “A Defence of the Absolution given to sir William Perkins at the place of execution;” the other, “A Vindication thereof, occasioned by a paper, intituled, A Declaration of the sense of the archbishops and bishops, &c.”; in answer to which Hody published the “Animadversions” above-mentioned.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer and translator, was born in Orange-court, Leicesterfields, Dec. 22, 1744. His father was in the humble occupation of a shoe-maker, and does not appear to have given his son any education. The first employment mentioned, in which the latter was concerned, was as servant to the hon. Mr. Vernon, of whose race-horses he had the care, and became very expert in the art of horsemanship. He is said also to have worked for many years at his father’s trade. He possessed, however, good natural abilities, and a thirst for knowledge, of which he accumulated a considerable fund, and learned with facility and success the French, German, and Italian languages. When about his twenty-fifth year, he conceived a passion for the stage, and his first performance was in Ireland. He had afterwards an engagement of the same kind in London, but never attained any eminence as an actor, although he always might be seen to understand his part better than those to whom nature was more liberal. He quitted the stage in 1781, after the performance of his first play, “Duplicity,” which was successful enough to encourage his perseverance as a dramatic writer. From this time he contributed upwards of thirty pieces, which were either acted on the London stages, or printed without having been performed. Scarcely any of them, however, have obtained a permanent situation on the boards. He published also the following novels “Alwyn,” 1780; “Anna St. Ives,” 1792; “Hugh Trevor,” 1794; and “Brian Perdue,” 1807. His translations were, “The private Life of Voltaire,” 12mo; “Memoirs of Baron Trenck,” 3 vols. 12mo; Mirabeau f $ “Secret History of the Court of Berlin,” 2 vols. 8vo; madame de Genlis’s “Tales of the Castle,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The posthumous Works of Frederick II. of Prussia,” 13 vols. 8vo; “An abridgment of Lavater’s Physiognomy,” 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Holcroft having imbibed the revolutionary principles of France, had joined some societies in this country, which brought him under suspicion of being concerned with Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall, who were tried for high treason in 1794, but they being acquitted, Mr. Holcroft was discharged without being put upon his trial. His last work was his “Travels,” in Germany and France, 2 vols. 4to, which, like some other of his speculations, was less advantageous to his bookseller than to himself. Iri 1782 he published a poem called “Huntan happiness, or the Sceptic,” which attracted little notice on the score of poetical merit, but contained many of those loose sentiments on religion, which he was accustomed to deliver with more dogmatism than became a man so little acquainted with the subject. In these, however, he persisted almost to the last, when, on his death-bed, he is said to have acknowledged his error. He died March 23, 1809.

, a learned English gentleman, well known in the history of British India, was the son of Zephaniah Holwell, timber-merchant and citizen of London, and grandson of John Holwell, a mathematical writer of much fame in the seventeenth century. The father and grandfather of this John Holwell both fell in support of the royal cause during the usurpation, and the family estate of Holwell-hall, in Devonshire, was lost to their descendants for ever; for although Mr. Holwell applied to king Charles at the restoration, the only recompense he obtained was to be appointed royal astronomer and surveyor of the crown lands, and the advancement of his wife to a place of some honour, but of little emolument, about the person of the queen. Some years after he was appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Monmouth, for whom he conceived a warm attachment, and, believing him to be the legitimate sou of the king, was induced to take a very active and imprudent part against the succession of the duke of York, which in the end proved his ruin. Having published in 1683 a small Latin tract called “Catastrophe Mundi,” which was soon after translated, and is a severe attack on the popish party, he was marked for destruction as soon as the duke of York came to the throne. Accordingly, in 1685, it was contrived that, in quality of surveyor to the crown, he should be sent to America, to survey and lay down a chart of the town of New York; and at the same time secret orders were sent to the government agents there, to take some effectual means to prevent his return. In consequence of this, it is said, that he had no sooner executed his commission, than he died suddenly, and his death was attributed, at the time and on the spot, to the application of poison administered to him in a dish of coffee. His son was father to the subject of the present article.

, a very celebrated Dutch philologer, was born at Leyden, in the latter end of January 1712. His parents were poor, but of great probity; and, had it not been for a very laudable ambition in his father to make his son a scholar, the obscurity of a mechanical trade would probably have concealed his powers through life. At ten years of age he was sent to school, but for a considerable time gave not the slightest proof of talents for literature, so completely depressed was he by the wanton tyranny of a severe master. When at length he was removed into another class, and was under a milder teacher, his powers began to expand, and he took the lead among those of his standing, instead of holding an inferior place. So early as at fifteen he began the task of teaching others, to alleviate the expences of his parents, being now highly qualified for such an undertaking. He was employed in teaching the inferior classes of the school to which he still belonged. While he was yet employed in his studies, he lost his father; but this misfortune rather redoubled his efforts than subdued his spirit. In 1732, before he had exceeded his twentieth year, he obtained the appointment of co-rector (or under-master) at Gorcum. Within nine months the magistrates of the city of Woerden gave him an appointment there, which induced him to think of matrimony. He married in March 1733, and began the care of this school in May, the same year. By this wife, who died in 1738, he had three sons and two daughters. In the same year he was solicited by the magistrates of Culembourg to undertake the care of their school, to which, with much reluctance in leaving his former situation, he at length consented. Here he took a second wife, who produced him eight children; and here, notwithstanding solicitations from other places, he continued for several years. At length, much fatigued by incessant attention to a great number of scholars, he went in 1745 to Breda, on a more liberal appointment. The very next year, Breda being harassed by a French invasion, Hoogeveen was obliged to send his collection of books to Leyden, and literary pursuits were at a stand. He remained, however, sixteen years at Breda, and had determined there to end his days, but Providence decided otherwise. The malice and turbulence of a person who had taken up some unreasonable cause of offence against him, inclined him to leave Breda. His intention being known, he was liberally invited to Dort, whither he transferred his residence in 1761. From this place, after living there three years, he was in a manner forced away by the importunity and liberality of the city of Delft. On his first arrival there, he encountered some difficulties from calumny and malice, but he weathered the storm, and remained there the remainder of his life in peace and honour. He died about Nov. 1, 1794, leaving some surviving children by both his marriages.

, an eminent English divine, and author of an excellent work, entitled “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books,” was born at Heavytree near Exeter, about the end of March 1554. His parents, not being rich, intended him for a trade; but his schoolmaster at Exeter prevailed with them to continue him at school, assuring them, that his natural endowments and learning were both so remarkable, that he must of necessity be taken notice of, and that God would provide him some patron who would free them from any future care or charge about him. Accordingly his uncle John Hooker, the subject of the preceding article, who was then chamberlain of the town, began to notice him; and being known to Jewell, made a visit to that prelate at Salisbury soon after, and “besought him for charity’s sake to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar; bill the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning; and that the bishop therefore would become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for he was a boy of remarkable hopes.” The bishop examining into his merits, found him to be what the uncle had represented him, and took him immediately under his protection. He got him admitted, in 1567, one of the clerks of Corpus-Christi college in Oxford, and settled a pension on him; which, with the contributions of his uncle, afforded him a very comfortable subsistence. In 1571, Hooker had the misfortune to lose his patron, together with his pension. Providence, however, raised him up two other patrons, in Dr. Cole, then president of the college, and Dr. Edwyn Sandys, bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of York. To the latter of these Jewell had recommended him so effectually before his death, that though of Cambridge himself, he immediately resolved to send his son Edwyn to Oxford, to be pupil to Hooker, who yet was not much older; for, said he, “I will have a tutor for my son, that shall teach him learning by instruction, and virtue by example.” Hooker had also another considerable pupil, namely, George Cranmer, grand nephew to Cranmer the archbishop and martyr; with whom, as well as with Sandys, he cultivated a strict and lasting friendship. In 1573, he was chosen scholar of Corpus, and in 1577, having taken his master’s degree, was elected fellow of his college; and about two years after, being well skilled in the Oriental languages, was appointed deputy-professor of Hebrew, in the room of Kingsmill, who was disordered in his senses. In 1581, he entered into orders; and soon after, being appointed to preach at St. Paul’s-cross in London, was so unhappy as to be drawn into a most unfortunate marriage; of which, as it is one of the most memorable circumstances of his life, we shall give the particulars as they are related by Walton. There was then belonging to the church of St. Paul’s, a house called the Shunamites house, set apart for the reception and entertainment of the preachers at St. Paul’s cross, two days before, and one day after the sermon. That house was then kept by Mr. John Churchman, formerly a substantial draper in Watluig-sti'eet, but now reduced to poverty. Walton says, that Churchman was a person of virtue, but that he cannot say quite so much of his wife. To this house Hooker came from Oxford so wet and weary, that he was afraid he should not be able to perform his duty the Sunday following: Mrs. Churchman, however, nursed him so well, mat he presently recovered from the ill effects of his journey. For this he was very thankful; so much indeed that, as Walton expresses it, be thought himself bound in conscience to believe all she said; so the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he had a very tender constitution; and that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such a one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such a one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” Hooker, not considering “that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light,” and fearing no guile, because he meant none, gave her a power to choose a wife for him; promising, upon a fair summons, to return to London, and accept of her choice, which he did in that or the year following. Now, says Walton, the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s which Solomon compares to a dripping-house; that is, says Wood, she was “a clownish silly woman, and withal a mere Xantippe.”

But whatever value Hooker himself might put upon his books of “Ecclesiastical JPolity,” he could not in that respect exceed the estimate which has been formed by the general judgment of mankind, with the exception only of the enemies of our church establishment. This work has ever been admired for soundness of reasoning, and prodigious extent of learning; and the author has universally acquired from it the honourable titles of “the judicious,” and “the learned.” When James I. ascended the throne of England, he is said to have asked Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker, from whose books of “Ecclesiastical Polity” he had so much profited; and being informed by the archbishop that he died a year before the queen, he expressed the greatest disappointment, and the deepest concern. Charles I. it is well known, earnestly recommended the reading of Hooker’s books to his son; and they have ever since been held in the highest veneration and esteem by all. An anecdote is preserved by the writer of his life, which, if true, shews that his fame was by no means confined to his own country, but reached even the ears of the pope himself. Cardinal ALen and Dr. Stapleton, though both in Italy when his books were published, were yet so affected with the fame of them, that they contrived to have them sent for; and after reading them, are said to have told the pope, then Clement VIII. that “though his holiness had not yet met with an English book, as he was pleased to say, whose writer deserved the name of an author, yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and so they did not doubt it would appear to his holiness, if it was in Latin; which was, that ‘a pure obscure English priest had written four such books of law and church polity, in so majestic a style, and with such clear demonstrations of reason,’ that in all their readings they had not met with any thing that exceeded him.” This begetting in the pope a desire tq know the contents, Stapleton read to him the first book in Latin upon which the pope said, “there is no learning that this man hath not searched into nothing too hard for his understanding. This man indeed deserves the name of an author. His books will get reverence by age; for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning;” all which, whether the pope said it or no, we take to be strictly true.

, a dramatic poet and translator, was the son of Samuel Hoole, of London, watch-maker, by Sarah his wife, the daughter of James Drury, a clockmaker, whose family came from Warwickshire. He was born in. Moorfields, in December 1727, and received part of his early instruction from his uncle, a taylor, who lived in Grub-street. He was afterwards sent to a private boarding-school in Hertfordshire, kept by Mr. James Bennet, the publisher of Roger Ascham’s works, where he acquired an accurate knowledge of the Latin and French languages, and a small portion of the Greek. His father, who had carried on the business of watch-making to considerable advantage, in consequence of some newly-invented machinery of his own construction, wished to have his son brought up to his own trade, but his being extremely near-sighted proved an insuperable objection, and therefore, at the age of seventeen, he was placed as a clerk in the East- India-house, in the accountant’s office. At this time, as he often accompanied his father to the theatre, who had access behind the scenes, and assisted in constructing some of the pantomime scenery, he contracted a fondness for this amusement which might have been fatal to him, for he had no qualifications for the stage, had not his father prevented him. He employed his leisure hours, therefore, more profitably, in improving himself in the Latin, and especially the Italian tongue, which last he studied with a view to be able to read in the original his favourite Ariosto, of whom, when a boy, he became enamoured by reading the “Orlando Furioso” in sir John Harrington’s old translation.

, a Scotch lawyer, was the son of Henry Hope, a merchant of Edinburgh, who had many commercial transactions with Holland, where he afterwards resided, and where he married Jacque or Jacqueline de Tott. His son Thomas soon distinguished himself at the bar; and was made king’s advocate in 1627, when he was also created a baronet by Charles I. He however attached himself to the covenanters, and was consulted by them in all difficult points. The king nevertheless, perhaps either to render him suspected to that party, or with a view to win him over, appointed sir Thomas commissioner to the general assembly in August 1643.

, another son of the bishop of Londonderry, who deviated likewise from his father’s character, was born January 1, 1675. Like his elder brother, his poetry turned principally on’subjects of love; like him too, his prospects in lite appear to have terminated unfortunately. He published, in 1693, “The Triumphs of Peace, or the Glories of Nassau; a Pindaric poem occasioned by the conclusion of the peace between the Confederacy and France; written at the time of his grace the duke of Ormond’s entrance into Dublin.” “The design of this poem,” the author says in his preface, “begins, after the method of Pindar, to one great man, and rises to another; first touches the duke, then celebrates the actions of the king, and so returns to the praises of the duke again.” In the same year he published “The Victory of Death; or the Fall of Beauty; a visionary Pindaric poem, occasioned by the ever to-be-deplored death of the right honourable the lady Cutts,” 8vo. But the principal performance of J. Hopkins was “Amasia, or the works of the Muses, a collection of Poems,” 1700, in 3 vols. Each of these little volumes is divided into three books, and each book is inscribed to some beautiful patroness, among whom the tKichess of Grafton stands foremost. The last Ijook is inscribed “To the memory of Amasia,” whom he addresses throughout these volumes in the character of Sylvius. There is a vein of seriousness, if not of poetry, runs through the whole performance. Many of Ovid’s stories are very decently imitated “most of them,” he says, “have been very well performed by my brother, and published some years since mine were written in another kingdom before I knew of his.” In one of his dedications he tells the lady Olympia Robartes, “Your ladyship’s father, the late earl of Radnor, when governor of Ireland, was the kind patron to mine: he raised him to the first steps by which v he afterwards ascended to the dignities he bore; to those, which rendered his labours more conspicuous, and set in a more advantageous light those living merits, which now make his memory beloved. These, and yet greater temporal honours, your family heaped on him, by making even me in some sort related and allied to you, by his inter-marriage with your sister the lady Araminta. How imprudent a vanity is it in me to boast a father so meritorious! how may 1 be ashamed to prove myself his son, by poetry, the only qualification he so much excelled in, but yet esteemed no excellence. I bring but a bad proof of birth, laying my claim in that only thing he would not own. These are, however, madam, but the products of immature years; and riper age, may, I hope, bring forth more solid works.” We have never seen any other of his writings: nor hare been able to collect any farther particulars of his life: but there is a portrait of him, under his poetical name of Sylvius.

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Evesham, in Worcestershire, in August 1647, and was the son of the rev. George Hopkins, whom Hickes terms a pious and learned divine, and who was ejected for non- conformity. At school his son was so great a proficient, that at twelve years of age he translated an English poem into Latin verse, which was printed some time before the restoration. At thirteen he was admitted commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford, under the learned Mr. Stratford, afterwards bishop of Chester. He proceeded M. A. in 1668, sometime before which he removed from Trinity-college to St. Mary-hall. He was much noticed by Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, who, it is supposed, recommended him to the Hon. Henry Coventry, as his chaplain and companion in his embassy to Sweden; on which he set out in Sept. 1671. While in Sweden, Mr. Hopkins applied himself to the study of northern antiquities, having previously studied the Saxon. After his return in 1675, by Mr. Coventry’s recommendation, he was preferred to a prebend in Worcester cathedral; and from his installation, began to collect materials for a history of this church, some of which fell afterwards into the hands of Wharton and other antiquaries. In June 1678 he was made curate of Mortlake in Surrey, and about 1680 was chosen Sunday lecturer of the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, and in 1686 was preferred to the vicarage of Lindridge in Worcestershire. In 1697 he was chosen master of St. Oswald’s hospital in “Worcester, of the profits of which he made a fund for the use of the hospital, and the benefit of his poor brethren there. He had proceeded D. D. at Oxford in 1692. He died of a violent fever May 18, 1700, and was interred in Worcester cathedral. Hickes, who prefixed his Life to a volume of his Sermons, published in 1708, 8vo, gives him a high character for piety, learning, and benevolence. He was a great benefactor to the library of Worcester cathedral. Although a man of extensive reading and study, he published only, 1.” Bertram or Ratram, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, &c. wherein M. Boileau’s version and notes upon Bertram are considered, and his unfair dealings in both detected.“Of this a second edition appeared in 1688. 2.” Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian, in three letters to a country friend;“and a Latin translation, with notes, of a small tract, written in the Saxon tongue, on the burialplaces of the Saxon saints, which Dr. Hickes published in his” Septentrional Grammar,“Oxford, 1705. Dr. Hopkins also assisted Gibson in correcting his Latin version of the Saxon Chronicle; and made a new translation, with notes and additions, of the article” Worcestershire" in Camden’s Britannia, published by Gibson.

, an ancient Roman poet, and the. most popular of all the classical writers, flourished in the age of Augustus, and was born at Venusium, a town of Apulia, or of Lucania, Dec. 8, U. C; 68y, i.e. 65 B. C. His father, the son of a freedman, and a tax-gatherer, being a man of good sense, knew the necessity of instructing his son by setting before him the examples of all sorts of persons, and shewing him what behaviour. he should imitate, and what he should avoid spur? ring him on all the while to this imitation, by pointing out the good effects ofvirtue, and the ill effects of vice. With this view he removed him to Rome when about ten years of age, where he had the advantage of an education under the best masters and when, he was about eighteen, was sent to Athens, where he acquired all the accomplishments that polite learning and education could bestow.

, an English divine, was born at Baccharack, a town in the Lower Palatinate, in 1641. His father was recorder or secretary of that town, a strict protestant; and the doctor was brought up in the same manner, though some, we find, asserted that he was originally a papist. He was designed for the sacred ministry from his birth, and first sent to Heidelberg, where he studied divinity under Spanheim, afterwards professor at Leyden. When he was nineteen he came over to England, and was entered of Queen’s college, in Oxford, Dec. 1663; of which, by the interest of Barlow, the provost of that college, and afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was made chaplain soon after his admission. He was incorporated M. A. from the university of Wittemberg, Dec. 1663; and not long after made vicar of All Saints, in Oxford, a living in the gift of Lincoln-college. Here he < ontinued two years, and was then taken into the family of the duke of Albemarle, in quality of tutor to his son lord Torrington. The duke presented him to the rectory of Doulton, in Devonshire, aud procured him also a prebend in the church of Exeter. In 1669, before he married, he went over into Germany to see his friends, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was entertained with great respect at the court of the elector Palatine. At his return in 1671, he was chosen preacher in the Savoyj where he continued to officiate till he died . This, however, was but poor maintenance, the salary being small as well as precarious, and be continued in mean circumstances for some years, after the revolution; till, as his. biographer, bishop Kidder, says, it pleased God to raise up a friend who concerned himself on his behalf, namely, the lord admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. Before he went to sea, lord Russel waited on the queen to take leave and when he was with her, begged of her that she “would be pleased to bestow some preferment on Dr. Horneck.” The queen told him, that she “could not at present think of any way of preferring the doctor” and with this answer the admiral was dismissed. Some time after, the queen related what had passed to archbishop Tillotson; and added, that she “was anxious lest the ad-, miral should think her too unconcerned on the doctor’s behalf.” Consulting with him therefore what was to be done, Tillotson advised her to promise him the next prebend of Westminster that should happen to become void. This the queen did, and lived to make good her word in 1693. In 1681 he had commenced D. D. at Cambridge, and was afterwards made chaplain to king William and queen Mary. His prebend at Exeter lying at a great distance from him, he resigned it; and in Sept. 1694 was admitted to a prebend in the church of Wells, to which he was presented by his friend Dr. Kidder, bishop of Bath and Wells. It was no very profitable thing; and if it had been, he would have enjoyed but little of it, since he died so soon after as Jan. 1696, in his fifty-sixth year. His body being opened, it appeared that both his ureters were stopped; the one by a stone that entered the top of the ureter with a sharp end; the upper part of which was thick, and much too large to enter any farther; the other by stones of much less firmness and consistence. He was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument, with an handsome inscription upon it, was erected to his memory. He was, says Kidder, a man of very good learning, and had goou skill in the languages. He had applied himself to the Arabic from his youth, and retained it to his death. He had great skill in the Hebrew likewise nor was his skilllimited to the Biblical Hebrew only, but he was also a great master in the Rabbinical. He was a most diligent and indefatigable reader of the Scriptures in the original languages: “Sacras literas tractavit indefesso studio,” says his tutor Spanheiui of him: and adds, that he was then of an elevated wit, of which he gave a specimen in 1655, by publicly defending “A Dissertation upon the Vow of Jephthah concerning the sacrifice of his daughter.” He had great skill in ecclesiastical history, in controversial and casuistical divinity; and it is said, that few men were so frequently consulted in cases of conscience as Dr. Horneck. As to his pastoral care in all its branches, he is set forth as one of the greatest examples that ever lived. “He had the zeal, the spirit, the courage, of John the Baptist,” says Kidder, “and durst reprove a great man; and perhaps that man lived not, that was more conscientious in this matter. I very well knew a great man,” says the bishop, “and peer of the realm, from whom ne had just expectations of preferment; but this was so far from stopping his mouth, that he reproved him to his face, upon a very critical affair. He missed of his preferment, indeed, but saved his own soul. This freedom,” continues the bishop, “made his acquaintance and friendship very desirable by every good man, that would be better. He would in him be very sure of a friend, that would not suffer sin upon him. I may say of him what Pliny says of Corellius Rufus, whose death he laments, “amisi meæ vitæ testem,' &c. ‘I have lost a faithful witness of my life;’ and may add what he said upon that occasion to his friend Calvisius, ‘vereor ne negligentius vivam,’ ‘I am afraid lest for the time to come I should live more carelessly.’” His original works are, 1.” The great Law of Consideration: or, a discourse wherein the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life, are laid open,“London, 1676, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted with additions and corrections. 2.” A letter to a lady revolted to the Romish church,“London, 1678, 12mo. 3.” The happy Ascetick: or the best Exercise,“London, 1681, 8vo. To this is subjoined,” A letter to a person of quality concerning the holy lives of the primitive Christians.“4.” Delight and Judgment: or a prospect of the great day of Judgment, and its power to damp and imbitter sensual delights, sports, and recreations,“London, 1683, 12mo. 5.” The Fire of the Altar: or certain directions how to raise the soul into holy flames, before, at, and after the receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with suitable prayers and devotions,“London, 1683, 12mo. To this is prefixed,” A Dialogue between a Christian and his own Conscience, touching the true nature of the Christian Religion.“6.” The Exercise of Prayer; or a help to devotion; being a supplement to the Happy Ascetick, or best exercise, containing prayers and devotions suitable to the respective exercises, with additional prayers for several occasions,“London, 1685, 8vo. 7.” The first fruits of Reason: or, a discouse shewing the necessity of applying ourselves betimes to the serious practice of Religion,“London, 1685, 8vo. 8.” The Crucified Jesus: or a full account of the nature, end, design, and benefit of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with necessary dU rections, prayers, praises, and meditations, to be used by persons who come to the holy communion,“London, 1686, 8vo. 9.” Questions and Answers concerning the two Religions; viz. that of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome.“10.” An Answer to the Soldier’s Question: What shall we do?“11, Several single Sermons. 12.” Fifteen Sermons upon the fifth chapter of St. Matthew," London, 1698, 8vo.

Bishop Horsley’s works not yet mentioned, were, besides various occasional Sermons and Charges, 1. “On the properties of the Greek and Latin languages,” 1796, 8vo, without his name. 2. “On the acronychal rising of the Pleiades,” a dissertation appended to his friend Dr. Vincent’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” 1797. 3. “A circular Letter to the diocese of Rochester, on the Scarcity of Corn,” 1796. 4. Another circular Letter to that diocese, on “the Defence of the Kingdom,” 1798. 5. Critical Disquisitions on the 18th chapter of Isaiah: in a letter to Edward King, esq. F. R. S. &c.“1799, 4to. Towards the close of this discussion, in which he applies the words of Isaiah to the aspect of the times, he says, with almost a prophetic spirit,” I see nothing in the progress of the French arms which any nation fearing God, and worshipping the Son, should fear to resist: I see every thing that should rouse all Christendom to a vigorous confederate resistance. I see every thing that should excite this country in particular to resist, and to take the lead in a confederacy of resistance, by all measures which policy can suggest, and the valour and opulence of a great nation can supply.“6.” Hosea, translated from the Hebrew; with notes explanatory and critical,“1801, 4to. Archbishop Newcome, in his” Improved Version of the Minor Prophets,“had preceded bishop Horsley in translating Hosea; but our prelate has thought proper in so many instances to reject his emendations, that bishop Horsley’s labours will probably be thought indispensable to a just illustration of the sacred text. This was reprinted with large additions in 1804. 7.” Elementary treatises on the fundamental principles of practical Mathematics; for the use of students,“1801, 8vo. These tracts were at first composed, without any design of publication, for the use of his son, then a student of Christ-church; and the work was to be considered, although then first published, as the third and last in the order of the subject, of three volumes of elementary geometry, to be issued one after another from the university press of Oxford, The first accordingly appeared in 1802, under the title of” Euclidig Elementorum Libri priores XII. ex Commandini et Gregorii versionibus Latinis,“Oxon, 8vo; and the second in J 804,” Euclidis datorum liber, cum additamento, necnon tractatus alii ad geometriam pertinentes," ibid. 8vo.

, in Latin Hototnanus, a learned French civilian, was born in 1524, at Paris, where his family, originally of Breslau in Silesia, had flourished for some time. He made so; rapid a progress in the belles lettres, that at the age of fifteen, he was sent to Orleans to study the civil law, and in three years was received doctor to that faculty. His father, a counsellor in parliament, had already designed him for that employment; and therer fore sent for him home, and placed him at the bar. But Hotman was soon displeased with the chicanery of the court, and applied himself vigorously to the study of the Roman law and polite literature. At the age of twentythree, he was chosen to read public lectures in the schools pf Paris: but, relishing the opinions of Luther, on account of which many persons were put to death in France, and finding that he could not profess them at Paris, he Went to Lyons in 1548. Having now nothing to expect“from his father, who was greatly irritated at the change of his religion, he left France, and retired to Geneva; where he lived some time in Calvin’s house. From hence he went to Lausanne,' where the magistrates of Bern gave him the place of professor of polite literature. He published there some books, which, however, young as he was, were not his first publications; and married a French gentlewoman, who had also retired thither on account of religion. His merit was so universally known, that the magistrates of Strasburg offered him a professorship of civil law; which he accepted, and held till 1561, and during this period, received invitations from the duke of Prussia, the landgrave of Hesse, the dukes of Saxony, and even from queen Elizabeth of England; but did not accept them. He did not refuse, however, to go to the court of the king of Navarre, at the begining of the troubles; and he went twice into Germany, to desire assistance of Ferdinand, in the name of the princes of the blood, and even in the name of the queen-mother. The speech he made at the diet of Francfort is published. Upon his return to Strasburg, he was prevailed upon to teach civil law at Valence; which he did with such success, that he raised the reputation of that university. Three years after, he went to be professor at Bourges, by the invitation of Margaret of France, sister of Henry II. but left that city in about five months, and retired to Orleans to the heads of the party, who made great use of his advice. The peace which was made a month after, did not prevent him from apprehending the return of the storm: upon which account he retired to Sancerre, and there wrote an excellent book,” De Consolatione,“which his son published after his death. He returned afterwards to his professorship at Bourges, where he very narrowly escaped the massacre of 1572: which induced him to leave France, with a full resolution never to return. He then went to Geneva, where he read lectures upon the civil law. Some time after, he went to Basil, and taught civil law, and was so pleased with this situation, that he refused great offers from the prince of Orange and the States-general, who would have draxvn him to Leyden. The plague having obliged him to leave Basil, he retired to Montbeliard, where he lost his wife; and went afterwards to live with her sisters at Geneva. He returned once more to Basil, and there died in 1590, of a dropsy, which had kept him constantly in a state of indisposition for six years before. During this, he revised and digested his works for a new edition, which appeared at Geneva in 1599, in 3 vols. folio, with his life prefixed by Neveletus Doschius> The first two contain treatises upon the civil law; the third, pieces relating to the government of France, and the right of succession; five books of Roman antiquities; commentaries upon Tally’s” Orations and Epistles;“notes upon Caesar’s” Commentaries,“&c. His” Franco-Gallia,“or,” Account of the free state of France,“has been translated into English by lord Molesworth, author of” The Account of Denmark." He published also several other articles without his name; but, being of the controversial kind, they were probably not thought of consequence enough to be revived in the collection of his works.

These works are valuable for containing materials of a curious nature, and which were before only accessible to persons skilled in oriental languages. A catalogue of his other works may be seen in the “Bibliotheca Tigurina;” or the Latin life of Hottinger, published by Heidegger at Zurich, 1667: in either of which they are all drawn up and digested into regular order. — John James Hottinger his son, was also a learned protestant divine, succeeded Heidegger in the divinity chair at Zurich, and died Dec. 18, 1735, leaving a great number of works, chiefly “Theological Dissertations,” on important subjects.

His son Jacob was born December 25, 1698. By what master he was instructed in the art of engraving, we are not informed, but he was probably initiated in the art by his father; and Mr. Strutt supposes that he studied the neatest portraits of Edelink very attentively, especially that of Le Brun, which is usually prefixed to the engravings of Girard Audran, from his battles of Alexander. He worked, however, for some time with little profit, and with less celebrity; and he had arrived at the meridian of life before he engaged in that work by which he is best known; a work, which, notwithstanding some well-founded objections, will reflect honour on the several persons engaged in it. It seems to have been a plan of the accurate and industrious George Vertue, who proposed to give sets or classes of eminent men; but his design was adopted by others, and at length taken out of his hands, who, as lord Or ford observes, was best furnished with materials for such a work.

His earliest biographer says, that *' his heavenly temper of mind, his contempt of the world, and his indifference to life, were most visible in the latter period of his own; his firm faith in the promises of the gospel exerted itself most remarkably in his declining years, as well in conversation with some of his friends about his hopes of a better state, and even in his own private thoughts on the nature of that state, as in several letters to others about the gradual decay of his body, the just sense he had of his approaching dissolution, and his entire resignation to the will of God. As he had on many occasions expressed his well-grounded hopes of immortality, so they gradually grew stronger on him, and seemed to be more vigorous in proportion to the decays of his body. Indeed, even the temper of his mind bore so just a proportion to his well-tempered constitution of body, as by an happy result of both, to extend his age to the beginning of his ninety-third year, and almost to the completion of the fifty-third year of his episcopate. But he cast only a cursory eye upon the minute distinctions of human life, as the whole is at best of a short duration. Bishop Hough’s lamp of life burnt clear,- if not bright, to the last^ and though his body was weak, he had no pain or sickness, as he himself acknowledged on several occasions, not only at a considerable distance from his death, but even a few minutes before he expired.“A little before his death, he wrote a letter to his friend lord Digby, where we find the following remarkable words” I am weak and forgetful In other respects 1 have ease to a degree beyond what I durst have thought on, when years began to multiply upon me. I wait contentedly for a deliverance out of this life into a better, in humble confidence, that by the mercy of God, through the merits of his Son, I shall stand at the resurrection on his right hand. And when you, my lord, have ended those days which are to come, which I pray may be many and comfortable, as innocently and as exemplary as those which are passed, I doubt not of our meeting in that state where the joys are unspeakable, and will always endure." He died March 8, 1743, and was buried in Worcester cathedral near his wife, where his memory is preserved by an elegant monument.

, earl of Surrey, and duke of Norfolk, an eminent commander in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in 1473, and brought up to arms, and soon after the accession of Henry was decorated with the knighthood of the garter. He served with his brother sir Edward, against sir Andrew Barton, a Scotch free-booter, or pirate, who perished in the action. Wuen his brother, sir Edward, was killed in an action near Brest, in 1513, he was appointed to the office in his stead, and in the capacity of high admiral he effectually cleared the channel of French cruisers. The victory of Flodden-field, in which the king of Scotland was slain, was chiefly owing to his valour and good conduct. For this his father was restored to the title of duke of Norfolk, and the title of earl of Surrey was conferred on him. In 1521 he was sent to Ireland as lordlieutenant, chiefly for the purpose, it was thought, of having him out of the way during the proceedings against his father-in-law, the duke of Buckingham. Here he was very instrumental in suppressing the rebellion, and having served there two years he returned, and had the command of the fleet against France. By the death of his father he succeeded to the title and estates as duke of Norfolk. Notwithstanding his great services, Henry, at the close of his tyrannical life and reign, caused the duke to be sent to the Tower on a charge of high treason, and his son to be beheaded in his presence. The death of the king saved the duke’s life. He was, however, detained prisoner during the whole of the reign of Edward VI. but one of the first acts of Mary, after her accession to the throne, was to liberate him. He was, after this, the principal instrument in suppressing the rebellion excited by sir Thomas Wyatt. He died in August 1554, having passed his eightieth year. He was father to the illustrious subject of our next article.

Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, was the eldest son of Thomas, the third duke of Norfolk, lord high treasurer of England in the reign of Henry VIII. by Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham. He was born either at his father’s seat at Framlingham, in Suffolk, or in the city of Westminster, and being a child of great hopes, all imaginable care was taken of his education. When he was very young he was companion, at Windsor castle, with Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, natural son to Henry VIII. and afterwards student in Cardinal college, now Christ Church, Oxford. In 1532 he was with the duke of Richmond at Paris, and continued there for some time in the prosecution of his studies, and learning the French language; and upon the death of that duke in July 1536, travelled into Germany, where he resided some time at the emperor’s court, and thence went to Florence, where he fell in love with the fair Geraldine, the great object of his poetical addresses, and in the grand duke’s court published a challenge against all who should dispute her beauty; which challenge being accepted, he came oft victorious. For this approved valour, the duke of Florence made him large offers to stay with him; but he refused them because he intended to defend the honour of his Geraldine in all the chief cities of Italy. But this design of his was diverted by letters sent to him by king Henry VIII. recalling him to England. He left Italy, therefore, where he had cultivated his poetical genius by the reading of the greatest writers of that country, and returned to his own country, where he was considered a one of the first of the English nobility, who adorned his high birth with the advantages of a polite taste and extensive literature. On the first of May, 1540, he was one of the chief of those who justed at Westminster, as a defendant, against sir John Dudley, sir Thomas Seymour, and other challengers, where he behaved himself with admirable courage, and great skill in the use of his arms, and, in 1542, served in the army, of which his father was lieutenant-genera!, and which, in October that year, entered Scotland, and burnt divers villages. In February or March following, he was confined to Windsor castle for eating flesh in Lent, contrary to the king’s proclamation of the 9th of February 1542. In 1544, upon the expedition to Boulogne, in France, he was field-marshal of the English army; and after taking that town, being then knight of the garter, he was in the beginning of September 1545, constituted the king’s lieutenant and captain-general of all his army within the town and country of Boulogne. During his command there in 1546, hearing that a convoy of provisions of the enemy was coming to the fort at Oultreau, he resolved to intercept it; but the Rhingrave, with' four thdusand Lanskinets, together with a considerable number of French under the marshal de Blez, making an obstinate defence, the Englisii were routed, anil sir Edward Poynings, with divers other gentlemen, killed, and the earl of Surrey himself obliged to fly; though it appears by a letter of his to the king, dated January 8, 1545-6, that this advantage cost the enemy a great number of men. But the king was so highly displeased with this ill success, that, from that time he contracted a prejudice against the earl, and, soon after, removed him from his command, appointing the earl of Hertford to succeed him. On this sir William Paget wrote to the earl of Surrey to advise him to procure some eminent post under the earl of Hertford, that he might not be unprovided in the town and field. The earl being desirous, in the mean time, to regain his former favour with the king, skirmished against the French, and routed them; but, soon after, writing over to the king’s council, that as the enemy had cast much larger cannon than had been yet seen, with which they imagined they should soon demolish Boulogne, it deserved consideration, whether the lower town should stand, as not being defensible, the council ordered him to return to England, in order to represent his sentiments more fully upon those points, and the earl of Hertford was immediately sent over in his room. This exasperating the earl of Surrey, occasioned him to let fall some expressions which savoured of revenge, and a dislike of the king, and an hatred of his counsellors; and was, probably, one great cause of his ruin soon after. His father, the duke of Norfolk, had endeavoured to ally himaelf to the earl of Hertford, and to his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, perceiving how much they were in the king’s favour, and how great an interest they were likely to have under the succeeding prince; and therefore he would have engaged his son, being then a widower (having lost his wife Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford), to marry the earl of Hertford’s daughter, and pressed his daughter, the duchess of Richmond, widow of the king’s natural son, to marry sir Thomas Seymour. But though the earl of Surrey advised his sister to the marriage projected for her, yet he would nol consent to that designed for himself; nor did the proposition about himself take effect. The Seymours could not but perceive the enmity which the earl bore them; and they might well be jealous of the greatness of the Howard family, which was not only too considerable for subjects, of itself, but was raised so high by the dependence of th whole popish party, both at home and abroad, that they were likely to be very dangerous competitors for the chief government of affairs, if the king should die, whose disease was now growing so fast upon him that he could not live many weeks. Nor is it improbable, that they persuaded the king, that, if the earl of Surrey should marry the princess Mary, it might embroil his son’s government, and, perhaps, ruin him. And it was suggested that he had some such high project in his thoughts, both by his continuing unmarried, and by his using the arms of Edward the Confessor, which, of late, he had given in his coat without a diminution. To complete the duke of Norfolk’s and his son’s ruin, his duchess, who had complained of his using her ill, and had been separated from him about four years, turned informer against him. And the earl and his sister, the duchess dowager of Richmond, being upon ill terms together, she discovered all she knew against him; as likewise did one Mrs. Holland, for whom the duke was believed to have had an unlawful affection. But all these discoveries amounted only to some passionate expressions of the son, and some complaints of the father, who thought he was not beloved by the king and his counsellors, and that he was ill used in not being trusted with the secret of affairs. However, all persons being encouraged to bring informations against them, sir Richard Southwel charged the earl of Surrey in some points of an higher nature; which the earl denied, and desired to be admitted, according to the martial law, to fight, in his shirt, with sir Richard. But, that not being granted, he and his father were committed prisoners to the Tower on the 12th of December 1546; and the earl, being a commoner, was brought to his trial in Guildhall, on the 13th of January following, Jbefore the lord chancellor, the lord mayor, and other commissioners; where he defended himself with great skill and address, sometimes denying the accusations, and weakening the credit of the witnesses against him, and sometimes interpreting the words objected to him in a far different sense from what had been represented. For the point of bearing the arms of Edward the Confessor, he justified himself by the authority of the heralds. And when a witness was produced, who pretended to repeat some high words of his lordship’s, by way of discourse, which concerned him nearly, and provoked the witness to return him a braving answer; the qarl left it to the jury to judge whether it was probable that this man should speak thus to him, and he not strike him again. In conclusion, he insisted upon his innocence, but was found guilty, and had sentence of death passed upon him. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 19th of January 1546-7; and his body interred in the church of All Hallows Barking, and afterwards removed to Framlingham, in Suffolk.

, a learned non-conformist divine in the seventeenth century, was a minister’s son, and nephew to Mr. Obadiah Howe, vicar of Boston in Lincolnshire. He was born May 17, 1630, at Loughborough in Leicestershire, of which town his father was minister, being settled there by archbishop Laud, though afterwards ejected by that prelate on account of his adherence to the Puritans; upon which he went with his son to Ireland, where they continued till the Irish Rebellion broke out, when they returned to England, and settled in Lancashire, where our author was educated in the first rudiments of learning and the knowledge of the tongues. He was sent pretty early to Christ college in Cambridge, where he continued till he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, and then removed to Oxford, and became bible-clerk of Brazen-nose college in Michaelmas term 1648, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Jan. 18, 1649. He was made a demy of Magdalen college by the parliament visitors, and afterwards fellow; and July 9, 1652, took the degree of master of arts. Soon after this he became a preacher, and was ordained by Mr. Charles Herle at his church of Winwick in Lancashire, and not long after became minister of Great Torrington in Devonshire. His labours here were characteristic of the times. He informed Dr. Calamy, that on the public fasts it was his common way to begin about nine in the morning with a prayer for about a quarter of an hour, in which he begged a blessing on the work of the day; and afterwards read and expounded a chapter or psalm, in which he spent about three quarters; then prayed for about an hour, preached for another hour, and prayed for about half an hour. After this he retired, and took some little refreshment for about a quarter of an hour or more (the people singing all the while), and then came again into the pulpit, and prayed for another hour, and gave them another sermon of about an hour’s length, and so concluded the service of the day, about four o'clock in the evening, with half an hour or more in prayer.

Upon the death of Oliver Cromwell, his son Richard succeeding him as protector, Mr. Howe stood in the same relation to him of chaplain as he had done to the father; and was in his judgment very much averse tp Richard’s parting with his parliament, which he foresaw would prove his ruin. When the army had set Richard aside, Mr. Howe returned to his people at Great Torrington, among whom he continued till the act of uniformity took place August 24, 1662, after which he preached for some time in private houses in Devonshire. In April 1671 he went to Ireland, where he lived as chaplain to the lord Massarene in the parish of Antrim, and had leave from the bishop of the diocese and the metropolitan to preach in the public church of that town every Sunday in the afternoon, without submitting to any terms of conformity. In 1675, upon the death of Dr. Lazarus Seaman, he was chosen minister of his congregation, upon which he returned to England and settled at London, where he was highly respected, not only by his brethren in the ministry among the dissenters, but also by several eminent divines of the church of England, as Dr. Whichcot, Dr. Kidder, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Lucas, and others. In August 1685 he travelled beyond sea with the lord Wharton, and the year following settled at Utrecht, and took his turn in preaching at the English church in that city. In 1687, upon king James’s publishing his “Declaration for liberty of conscience,” Mr. Howe returned to London, where he died April 2, 1705, and was interred in the parish church of Allhallows Bread-street.

He was, first, bishop of Oxford, and Sept. 28, 1628, translated to Durham, which he held only two years, dying Feb. 6, 1631, aged seventy-five, and was interred in St. Paul’s church, London, leaving behind him, as Wood says, (t the character of a very learned man, and one plentifully endowed with all those virtues which were most proper for a bishop.“ Hozier (Peter D'), a man famous in his time, and even celebrated by Boileau, for his skill in genealogies, was born of a good family at Marseilles, in 1592, and bred to military service; but very early applied himself with great zeal to that study for which he became so eminent. By his probity as well as talents, he obtained the confidence of Louis XIII. and XIV. and enjoyed the benefit of their favour in several lucrative and honourable posts. After rising through several appointments, such as judge of arms in 1641, and certifier of titles in 1643, he was admitted in, 1654 to the council of state. He died at Paris in 1660. Hozier was author of a History of Britany, in folio, and of many genealogical tables. His son, Charles, was born Feb. 24, 1640, at Paris. His father had given him some instructions in genealogy, which he made use of to draw up, under the direction of M. de Caumartin,” the Peerage of Champagne,“Chalons, 1673, folio, in form of an Atlas. He received the cross of St. Maurice from the duke of Savoy in 1631, and had also the office of judge of the arms of the French nobility, and was rewarded with a pension of 4000 livres. He died in 1732. This gentleman’s nephew succeeded him in his office, and died in 1767. He compiled the” L'Armorial, ou Registres de la Noblesse de France," 10 vols. folio. Such works, of late years, have been of very little use in France.

Not disheartened by his former unsuccessful voyages, he undertook again, in 1609, a third voyage to the same parts, for further discoveries; and was fitted out by the Dutch East India company. He sailed from Amsterdam with twenty men English and Dutch, March 25; and on April 25, doubled the North Cape of Finmark, in Norway. He kept along the coasts of Lapland towards Nova Zembla, but found the sea so full of ice that he could not proceed. Then turning about, he went towards America, and arrived at the coast of New France on July 18. He sailed from place to place, without any hopes of succeeding in their grand scheme; and the ship’s crew disagreeing, and being in danger of mutinying, he pursued his way homewards, and arrived Nov. 7, at Dartmouth, in Devonshire; of which he gave advice to his directors in Holland, sending them also a journal of his voyage. In 1610, he was again fitted out by some gentlemen, with a commission to try, if through any of those American inlets which captain Davis saw, but durst not enter, on the western side of Davis’s Streights, any passage might be found to the South Sea. They sailed from St. Catharine’s April 17, and on June 4, came within sight of Greenland. On the 9th they were off Forbisher’s Streights, and on the 15th came in sight of Cape Desolation. Thence they proceeded north-westward, among great quantities of ice, until they came to the mouth of the Streights that bear Hudson’s name. They advanced in those Streights westerly, as the land and ice would permit, till they got into the bay, which has ever since been called by the bold discoverer’s name, “Hudson’s Bay.” He gave names to places as he %vent along; and called the country itself “Nova Britan^­nia,” or New Britain. He sailed above 100 leagues south into this bay, being confident that he had found the desired passage; but perceiving at last that it was only a bay, he resolved to winter in the most southern point of it, with, an intention of pursuing his discoveries the following spring. Upon this he was so intent, that he did not consider how unprovided he was with necessaries to support himself during a severe winter in that desolate place. On Nov. 3, however, they drew their ship into a small creek, where they would all infallibly have, perished, if they had not been unexpectedly and providentially supplied with uncommon flights of wild fowl, which served them for provision. In the spring, when the ice began to waste, Hudson, in order to complete his discovery, made several efforts of various kinds; but notwithstanding all his endeavours, he found it necessary to abandon his enterprise, and to make the best of his way home; and therefore distributed to his men, with tears in his eyes, all the bread be had left, which was only a pound to each: though it is said other provisions were afterwards found in the ship. In his despair and uneasiness, he had let fall some threatening words, of setting some of his men on shore; upon which, a few of the sturdiest, who had before been very mutinous, entered his cabin in the night, tied his arms behind him, and exposed him in his own shallop at the west end of the streights, with his son, John Hudson, and seven of the most sick and infirm of his men. There they turned them adrift, and it is supposed that they all perished, being never heard of more. The crew proceeded with the ship for England; but going on shore near the streight’s mouth, four of them were killed by savages. The rest, after enduring the greatest hardships, and ready to die for want, arrived at Plymouth Sept. 1611.

, of a different family from the former, was born in 1682, and became a fellow of Jesus college, Cambridge. He was called by bishop Atterbury “a learned hand,” and is known to the republic of letters as editor of St Chrysostom’s treatise “On the Priesthood.” Two letters of his to Mr. Bonwicke are printed in “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” in one of which he says, “I have at last been prevailed on to undertake an edition of St. Chrysostom’s tsefi itfaxrvws, and I would beg the favour of you to send me your octavo edition. I want a small volume to lay by me; and the Latin version may be of some service to me, if I cancel the interpretation of Fronto Ducaeus.” A second edition of this treatise was printed at Cambridge in Greek and Latin, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation against the pretended “Rights of the Church,” &c. in 1712. A good English translation of St. Chrysostom “On the Priesthood,” a posthumous work by the Rev. John Bunce, M. A. was published by his son (vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury) in 1760. Mr. Hughes died Nov. 18, 1710, and was buried in the church of St. Nicholas, Deptford, where there is a long Latin inscription to his memory.

Mr. Hunter set out for Edinburgh in Nov. 1740, and continued there till the following spring, attending the lectures of the medical professors, and amongst others those of the late Dr. Alexander Monro. He arrived in London in the summer of 1741, and took up his residence at Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Smellie’s, who was at that time an apothecary in Pall-mall. He brought with him a letter of recommendation to his countryman Dr. James Douglas, from Mr. Foulis, printer at Glasgow, who had been useful to the doctor in collecting for him different editions of Horace. Dr. Douglas was then intent on a great anatomical work on the bones, which he did not live to complete, and was looking out for a young man of abilities and industry whom he might employ as a dissecter. This induced him to pay particular attention to Mr. Hunter; and finding him acute and sensible, he after a short time invited him into his family, to assist in his dissections, and to superintend the education of his son. Mr. Hunter having communicated this offer to his father and Dr. Cullen, the latter readily and heartily gave his concurrence to it; but his father, who was very old and infirm, and expected his return with impatience, consented with reluctance. His father did not long survive, dying Oct. 30 following, aged 78.

, a distinguished artist, was the sixth, but only surviving son and heir of John Hussey of Marnhull, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and was born at Marnhull (in Dorsetshire), Feb. 10, 1710. At seven years of age he was sent by his father, who was a Roman catholic, to Doway for his education, where he continued two years. He then was removed to St. Osier’s, where he pursued his studies for three years more. His father, though willing to afford him some education, yet designed him for trade; to which, perhaps, he was the more inclined, as a near relation, in the commercial world, offered to take him under his protection and care. Thought from a sense of parental authority, and filial obedience, Mr. Hussey did not at first openly oppose this design, yet it was so repugnant to his natural turn and bent, that he found his mind greatly embarrassed and perplexed; but after some opposition, his father very wisely yielded to his son’s request, to be permitted to follow the direction of his genius; and for that end he placed him under the care and tuition of Mr. Richardson, the painter; with whom he continued scarcely a month; revolting at the idea and proposal of being kept in the bondage of apprenticeship for seven years. He then commenced pupil at large under one Damini, a Venetian artist, esteemed one of the best painters at that time in England, with whom he continued nearly four years. During this time he was principally employed in copying pictures, and finishing those of his master, whom he assisted in painting the ornaments of the cathedral of Lincoln. During their work, on a scaffold nearly twenty feet high, as Mr. Hussey was drawing back to see the effects of his pencil, he would have fallen, had not his master saved him as ingeniously as affectionately, and at some risque to himself. Mr. Hussey entertained such a sense of his master’s humanity and kindness, that he could not bear the thought of being separated from him, and therefore requested permission of his father for Damini to attend him whilst pursuing his studies in Italy. This he obtained; and under the care and direction of the Venetian, our young and inexperienced pupil set out for the seat of science and genius; bending first his course for Bologna. But, soon after their arrival, the poor unsuspecting pupil found that one act of friendship is by no means a sure pledge of another; Damini having in a few days decamped, taking with him all his pupil’s money and the best of his apparel. Mr. Hussey was, however, kindly relieved from this state of distress by signor Gislonzoni, who had been ambassador from the States of Venice to the court of London, and now became his friend and protector.

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

, an English autnor, whose writings have been much discussed, and who is considered as the founder of a party, if not of a sect, was born at Spenny thorn in Yorkshire in 1674. His father was possessed of about 40l. per ann. and determined to qualify his son for a stewardship to some gentleman or nobleman. He had given him such school- learning as the place afforded-, and the remaining part of his education was finished by a gentleman that boarded with his father. This friend is said to have instructed him, not only in such parts of the mathematics as were more immediately connected with his destined employment, but in every branch of that science, and at the same time to have furnished him with a competent knowledge of the writings of antiquity. At the age of nineteen, he went to be steward to Mr. Rathurst of Skutterskelf in Yorkshire, and from thence to the earl of Scarborough, who would gladly have engaged him in his service; but his ambition to serve the duke of Somerset would not suffer him to continue there, and accordingly he removed soon after into this nobleman’s service. About 1700 he was called to London, to manage a law-suit of consequence between the duke and another nobleman; and during his attendance in town, contracted an acquaintance with Dr. Woodward, who was physician to the duke his master. Between 1702 and 1706, his business carried him into several parts of England and Wales, where he made many observations, which he published in a little pamphlet, entitled, “Observations made by J. H. mostly in the year 1706.”

, a gentleman of Franconia, of uncommon parts and learning, was born in 1488 at Steckenburg, the seat of his family; was sent to the abbey of Fulde at eleven years of age; and took the degree of M. A. in 1506 at Francfort on the Oder, being the first promotion made in that newly-opened university. In 1509, he was at the siege of Padua, in the emperor Maximilian’s army; and he owned that it was want of money, which forced him to make that campaign. His father, not having the least taste or esteem for polite literature, thought it unworthy to be pursued by persons of exalted birth; and therefore would not afford his son the necessary supplies for a life of study. He wished him to apply himself to the civil law, which might raise him in the world; but Hutten had no inclination for that kind of study. Finding, however, that there was no other way of being upon good terms with his father, he went to Pavia in 1511, where he stayed but a little time; that city being besieged and plundered by the Swiss, and himself taken prisoner. He returned afterwards to Germany, and there, contrary to his father’s inclinations, began to apply himself again to literature. Having a genius for poetry, he began his career as an author in that line, and published several compositions, which were much admired, and gained him credit. He travelled to various places, among the rest to Bohemia and Moravia; and waiting on the bishop of Olmutz in a very poor condition, that prelate, who was a great Maecenas, received him graciously, presented him with a horse, and gave him money to pursue his journey. The correspondence also he held with Erasmus was of great advantage to him, and procured him respect from all the literati in Italy, and especially at Venice.

Dr. Huxham' s writings display a most intimate acquaintance with the writings of the ancients, and a great veneration for those of Hippocrates in particular; and he quotes the ancient languages, and writes the Latin, with great fluency and familiarity. He appears to have spent his life ;at Plymouth in the active exercise of his profession for he kept a register of the state of health and reigning diseases at that place, together with an account of the variety of the seasons, for nearly thirty years, (namely, from 1724 to 1752 inclusive); which were published in Latin, under the title of“Gbservationes de Acre et Morbis Epidemicis,” tc. in 3 vols. 8vo. The first of these volumes commences with an account of the year 1728 but in the dedication to sir Hans Sloane, he refers to an account of the constitution and diseases of the seasons from 1724 to 1727, already published. The third volume was edited in 1770, after the death of the author, by his son J. Cor. Huxham, A. M. F. R. S.; who, it is to be regretted, did not insert any memoirs of his father’s life.

In 1658 he went to Oxford, and was admitted of Queen’s college, where he was soon after made Hebrew rea ler. The year after, Richard Cromwell, then chancellor of that university, directed his letters to the delegates, signifying, that “Mr. Hyde was of full standing, since his admission, into the university of Cambridge, for the degree of master of arts, and that he had given public testimony of his more than ordinary abilities and learning in the Oriental languages;” on which they made an order that he should accumulate that degree by reading only a lecture in one of the Oriental languages in the schools; and having ac-. cordingly read upon the Persian tongue, he was created M. A. in April 1659. Soon after he was made underkeeper of the Bodleian library, upon the ejection of Mr,. Henry Stubbe; and behaved himself so well in this employment, that, when the office of head -keeper became vacant, he was elected into it with the unanimous approbation of the university. In 1665 he published a Latin translation from the Persian of Uiugh Beig’s “Observations concerning the Longitude and Latitude of the fixed Stars,” with notes. This Ulugh Beig was a great Tartajr monarch, the son of Shahrokn, and the grandson of Timur Beig, or, as he is usually called, Tamerlane. In the pre/ace he informs us, “that the great occupations of government hindered him from performing in person, so much as he would have done towards the completing this useful work: but that he relied chiefly on his minister Salaheddin, and t.iat he dying before the work was finished, his colleague Gaiatheddin Giamshed and his son Ali al Cousin were afterwards employed, who put the last hand to it.” It was written originally in the Arabic tongue, but afterwards translated twice into the Persian.

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Little Waldingfield in Suffolk in 1593; his father, who was a Spanish merchant in London, died when he was young. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he appears to have taken his degrees in arts, and in 1617 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford. While at college he commenced the habit of rising every morning at three or four o'clock, both summer and winter, and studied from fourteen to sixteen hours every day. He continued at Cambridge until his marriage in 1519, soon after which.he was chosen by the inhabitants of St. Michael, Wood-street, London, to be their lecturer, and on the death of Mr. Brogden, their pastor. During the plague in 1624, he was one of those who remained at his post, and administered such aid to the sick and dying as he could, and was in other respects scrupulously diligent in preaching, catechizing, &c. When the reading of the “Book of Sports” was enjoined, he refused that foolish and imprudent mandate; yet such was his character, that when complained of to archbishop Laud for this omission, that prelate said, “Mr. Jackson is a quiet and peaceable man, and therefore I will not have him meddled with.” He was not less respected by archbishop Sheldon, notwithstanding his very different opinion on church-government and ceremonies. He afterwards accepted the living of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s, whence he was ejected in 1662. He was no friend to the tyranny of Cromwell, and was imprisoned above four months for refusing to give evidence against Mr. Love, before what was called the high court of justice, and was also fined 500l. On the restoration, when Charles II. made his entry into London, Mr. Jackson was appointed by the London clergy to present to him a Bible, as his majesty passed through St. Paul’s churchyard. After his ejection, he employed his leisure in pursuing his annotations on the Bible, during the short remainder of his life. He died Aug. 5, 1666. His “Annotations on the Bible,” as far as the book of Isaiah, were published in 4 vols. 4to, the last by his son, who prefixed ta it some memoirs of the author.

, a professor of physic and philosophy at Copenhagen, was born in July 1650-1, at Arhusen in the peninsula of Jutland, where his father was bishop, who took all possible care of his son’s education; but dying in 1671, he was sent by his mother, the famous Caspar Bartholin’s daughter, to the university of Copenhagen, where he took the usual degrees, and then travelled to France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, England, and the Netherlands, with a view to improve himself in his profession. On his return home in 1679, he received letters from his prince, appointing him professor of physic and philosophy in the capital of his kingdom. He entered upon the discharge of this post in 1680, and performed the functions of it with the highest reputation; so that, besides the honour conferred on him by the university, Christian V. king of Denmark, committed to him the charge of augmenting and putting into order that celebrated cabinet of curiosities which his predecessors bad begun; and Frederic IV. in 1698, made him a counsellor in his court of justice. Thus loaded with honours, as well as beloved and respected by his compatriots, he passed his days in tranquillity, till the loss of his wife, Anne Marguerete, daughter of Thomas Bartholin, who, after seventeen years of marriage, died in 1698, leaving him father of six boys. This threw him into a melancholy, which at length proved fatal. In vain he sought for a remedy, by the advice of his friends, in a second marriage with Anne Tistorph: his melancholy increased; and, after languishing under it near three years, he died, in 1701, at the age of fifty-one.

king of Scotland, of the house of Stuart, was born in 1394. In 1405 his father Robert III. sent him to France, in order that he might escape the dangers to which he was exposed from his uncle the duke of Albany, but being taken by an English squadron, he and his whole suite were carried prisoners to the Tower of London. Here the young prince received an excellent education, to which Henry IV. of England was remarkably attentive, thereby making some atonement for his injustice in detaining him. Sir John Pelham, a man of worth and learning was appointed his governor, under whose tuition he made so rapid a progress, that he soon became a prodigy of talents and accomplishments. Robert died in the following year, and James was proclaimed king, but during the remainder of the reign of Henry IV. and the whole of that of Henry V. he was kept in confinement, with a view of preventing the strength of Scotland from being united to that of France against the English arms. At length, under the regency of the duke of Bedford, James was restored to his kingdom, having been full eighteen years a prisoner in this country. James was now thirty years of age, well furnished with learning, and a proficient in the elegant accomplishments of life, and dextrous in the manly exercises, which at that period were in high estimation. He married Joanna Beaufort, daughter of the duchess of Clarence, a lady of distinguished beauty, descended from the royal family of England; and on his return to Scotland, finding that the dujte of Albany and his son had alienated many of the most valuable possessions of the crown, instantly caused the whole of that family and their adherents to be arrested. The latter were chiefly discharged; but the late regent, his two sons, and his father-in-law, he caused to be convicted, executed, and their estates to be confiscated to the crown. Whatever other objections were made to James’s conduct, he procured the enactment of many good laws in his parliaments, which had a tendency to improve the state of society; but at the same time his desire of improving the revenues of the crown led him to many acts of tyranny, which rendered him odious to his nobility. In 1436 he gave his daughter Margaret in marriage to the dauphin of France, and sent with her a splendid train and a vast body of troops. The English, who had in vain attempted to prevent this union by negociation, now endeavoured to intercept the Scotch fleet in its passage, but they missed their object, and the princess arrived in safety at Rochelle. James, exasperated at this act of hostility, declared war against England, and summoned the whole array of his kingdom to assist in the siege of Roxburgh; which, however, he abandoned upon an intimation of a conspiracy being formed against himself by his own people. He now retired to the Carthusian monastery of Perth, which he had himself founded, where he lived in privacy, but this, instead of preventing, facilitated the suecess of the plot formed against his life. The chief actors in this tragedy were Robert Graham, and Walter earl of Athol, the king’s uncle. The former was actuated by revenge for the sufferings of some of his family, the latter by the hope of obtaining the crown for himself. The assassins obtained by bribery admission into the king’s apartments; the alarm was raised, and the ladies attempted to secure the chamber-door; one of them, Catharine Douglas, thrust her arm through a staple, making therewith a sort of bar, in which state she remained till it was dreadfully broken by the force of the assailants. The instant they got admission, they dragged the king from his concealment, and put him to death with a thousand wounds on Feb. 20, 1437, in the forty-fourth year of his age. He is introduced in this work chiefly on account of his literary reputation, for he was a poet as well as a sovereign, and his works, descriptive of the manners and pastimes of the age, were once extremely popular, and are still read with delight by those who can relish the northern dialect. He is said by all the British historians to have been a skilful musician; and it is asserted, that he not only performed admirably on the lute and harp, but was the inventor of many of the most ancient and favourite Scottish melodies, but this Dr. Burney is inclined to doubt. Where this prince acquired his knowledge in music is not ascertained; but it is probable that it was in France, in his passage home from which country he was taken prisoner by the English. Before the reformation we hear of no music being cultivated in Scotland but plain-song, or chanting in the church; nor afterwards, for a long time, except psalmody.

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

When the prince of Orange came, and all was in confusion, the lord chancellor, being very obnoxious to the people, disguised himself in order to go abroad. He was in a seaman’s dress, and drinking a pot in a cellar. The scritener, whom he had so severely handled, happening tocome into the cellar after some of his clients, his eye caught that face which made him start; when the chancellor seeing himself observed, feigned a cough, and turned to the wall with his pot in his hand. But the scrivener went out, and gave notice that he was there; and the mob immediately rushed in, seized him, and carried him to the lord-mayor. Thence, under a strong guard, he was set to the lords of the council, who committed him to the Tower, where he died April 18, 1689, of a broken heart, aided by intemperance. He was first interred in the church belonging to the Tower, and afterwards was removed to that of St. Mary Aldermanbury, and deposited near the body of his son. His father survived him, and died in 1690. Pennant records an instance of insult on this once great man during his imprisonment. He received, as he thought, a present of Colchester oysters, and expressed great satisfaction at the thought of having some friend yet left; but on takiiig off the top of the barrel, instead of the usual contents appeared an halter.

, a learned English divine, son of Thomas Jenkin, gent, of Minster in the Isle of Thanet, was born Jan. 1656, and bred at the King’s school at Canterbury. He entered as sizar at St. John’s college, Cambridge, March 12, 1674, under the tuition of Mr. Francis Roper; became a fellow of that society March 30, 1680; decessit 1691 became master in April 1711; and held also the office of lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. Dr. Lake being translated from the see of Bristol to that of Chichester, in 1685, made him his chaplain, and collated him to the precentorship of that church, 1688. Refusing to take the oaths at the revolution, he quitted that preferment, and retired to his fellowship, which was not subject then to those conditions, unless the bishop of Ely, the visitor, insisted on it; and the bishop was, by the college statutes, not to visit unless called in by a majority of the fellows. By these means he and many others kept their fellowships. Retiring to the college, he prosecuted his studies without interruption, the fruits of which he gave to the public in several treatises which were much esteemed. Upon the accession of George I. an act was passed, obliging all who held any post of 5l. a-year to take the oaths, by which Dr. Jenkin was obliged to eject those fellows who would not comply, which gave him no small uneasiness and he sunk by degrees into imbecility. In this condition he removed to his elder brother’s house at South Rungton, in Norfolk, where he died April 7, 1727, in his seventieth year; and was buried, with his wife Susannah, (daughter of William Hatfield, esq. alderman and merchant of Lynne, who died 1713, aged forty-six), his son Henry, and daughter Sarah, who both died young in 1727, in Holme chapel, in that parish, of which his brother was rector. Another daughter, Sarah, survived him. A small mural monument was erected to his memory.

, an eminent nonconformist divine, was born at Sudbury, in 1612, where his father was minister, and died when this his son was very young. His mother was grand- daughter to John Rogers, the protomartyr in queen Mary’s persecution. He was sent to Cambridge in 1626, and placed under Mr. Anthony Burgess. Here he pursued his studies with great success, and although a young man of a sprightly turn, and much courted by the wits of the university, was distinguished for a circumspect and pious behaviour. After he had completed his degrees in arts, he was ordained; and doming to London, was chosen lecturer of St. Nicholas Aeons, $n'd thence was invited to Hithe, near Colchester, in, Essex^ 5 but the air of the place disagreeing with him, he obeyed the solicitations of his friends, and returned to London in 1641, where he was chosen minister of Christ-church, Newgate- street, and some months after, lecturer of St. Anne’s Blackfriars. He continued to fill up this double station with great usefulness, until, upon the destruction of monarchy, he peremptorily refused to observe the public thanksgivings appointed by the parliament, for which he was suspended from his ministry, and had his benefice of Christ-church sequestered, and afterwards was imprisoned in the Tower on suspicion of being concerned in what was called Love’s plot. (See Love.) On petition-, the parliament granted him a pardoft, and he was afterwards re-elected by the governors of St. Bartholomew’s hospital to the living of Christ-church. On the restoration, as he did not conform, he was of coarse ejected from this, and retired to a house he had at Langley, in Hertfordshire, where he occasionally preached, as he did afterwards in London, until 1684, when he was apprehended for preaching, and committed to Newgate. Here he was treated with the utmost rigour, and his death precipitated by the noxious air of the place. He died before he had been imprisoned four months, on Jan. 19, 1685. The inveteracy of Charles II. against this man seems unaccountable. He had been a great sufferer for loyalty to Charles I. and was one of those who not only resisted the decrees of the parliament, but was even implicated in Love’s plot, the object of which was the restoration of the king. When, however, Charles II. was petitioned for his release, with the attestation of his physicians, that Mr. Jenkin’s life was in danger from his close imprisonment, no other answer could be obtained than that “Jenkin shall be a prisoner as long as he lives.” Calamy informs us that a nobleman having heard of his death, said to the king, “May it please your majesty, Jenkin has got his liberty.” Upon which he asked with eagerness, “Aye, who gave it him?” The Nobleman replied, “A greater than your majesty, the king of kings!” with which the king seemed greatly struck, and remained silent. Mr. Jenkin was buried with great pomp in Bunhill-fields, and in 1715 a monument was erected to his memory in that place, with a Latin inscription. He published some controversial pieces and a few sermons.Baxter calls him a “sententious elegant preacher,” a character which may be justly applied to his principal work, “An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude,” 2 vols. 4to and fol. a book yet in high request.

Mr. Johnson in the latter part of his life was attacked with a vertiginous disorder in his head, which frequently interrupted his studies, and at last put a period to his life, Feb. 6, 1755. He acquired a general esteem from the frankness and benevolence of his character, which displayed itself not less in social life than in the communication of his literary researches. Strangers who applied to him for information, though without any introduction except what arose from a genuine thirst for knowledge congenial with his own, failed not to experience the hospitality of his board. While their spirit of curiosity was feasted by the liberal conversation of the man of letters, their social powers were at the same time gratified by the hospitable frankness of the benevolent Englishman. The following eulogium on him by Dr. Stukeley, is transcribed from the original in the “Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries:” “Maurice Johnson, esq. of Spalding in Lincolnshire, counsellor at law, a fluent orator, and of eminence in his profession one of the last of the founders of the Society of Antiquaries, 1717, except Br. Willis and W. Stukeley founder of the literary society at Spaldfog, Nov. 3, 1712, which, by his unwearied endeavours, interest, and application in every kind, infinite labours in writing, collecting, methodizing, has now [1755] subsisted forty years in great reputation, and excited a great spirit of learning and curiosity in South Holland [in Lincolnshire]. They have a public library, and all conveniences for their weekly meeting. Mr. Johnson was a great lover of gardening, and had a fine collection of plants, and an excellent cabinet of medals. He collected large memoirs for the ‘ History of Carausius,’ all which, with his coins of that prince, be sent to me, particularly a brass one which he supposed his son, resembling those of young Tetricus. A good radiated Caes Spfa. Rev. a woman holds a cornucopiæ, resting her right hand on a pillar or rudder, Locis or Cislo. In general the antiquities of the great mitred priory of Spalding, and of this part of Lincolnshire, are for ever obliged to the care and diligence of Maurice Johnson, who has rescued them from oblivion.”

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

, one of the most eminent and highly-distinguished writers of the eighteenth century, was born on the 18th of September, 1709, at Lichfield in Staffordshire, where his father, Michael Johnson, a native of Derbyshire, of obscure extraction, was at that time a bookseller and stationer. His mother, Sarah Ford, was a native of Warwickshire, and sister to Dr. Ford, physician, who was father to Cornelius Ford, a clergyman of loose character, whom Hogarth has satirized in the print of Modern Midnight Conversation. Our author was the eldest of two sons. Nathaniel, the youngest, died in 1737 in his twenty-fifth year. The father was a man of robust body and active mind, yet occasionally depressed by melancholy, which Samuel inherited, and, with the aid of a stronger mind, was not always able to shake off. He was also a steady high-churchman, and an adherent of the house of Stuart, a prejudice which his son outlived in the nation at large, without entirely conquering in himself. Mrs. Johnson was a woman of good natural understanding, unimproved by education; and our author acknowledged with gratitude, that she endeavoured to instil sentiments of piety as soon as his mind was capable of any instruction. There is little else in his family history worthy of notice, nor had he much pleasure in tracing his pedigree. He venerated others, however, who could produce a recorded ancestry, and used to say, that in him this was disinterested, for he could scarcely teil who was his grandfather. That he was remarkable in his early years has been supposed, but many proofs have not been advanced by his biographers. He had, indeed, a retentive memory, and soon discovered symptoms of an impetuous temper; but these circumstances are not enough to distinguish him from hundreds of children who never attain eminence. In his infancy he was afflicted with the scrophula, which injured his sight, and he was carried to London to receive the royal touch from the hand of queen Anne, the last of our sovereigns who encouraged that popular superstition. He was first taught to read English by a woman who kept a school for young children at Lichfield; and afterwards by one Brown. Latin he learned at Lichfield school, under Mr. Hunter, a man of severe discipline, but an attentive teacher. Johnson owned that he needed correction, and that his master did not spare him; but this, instead of being the cause of unpleasant recollections in his advanced life, served only to convince him that severity in school-education is necessary; and in all his conversations on the subject, he persisted in pleading for a liberal use of the rod. At this school his superiority was soon acknowledged by his companions, who could not refuse submission to the ascendancy which he acquired. His proficiency, however, as in every part of his life, exceeded his apparent diligence. He could learn more than others in the same allotted time: and he was learning when he seemed to be idle. He betrayed an early aversion to stated tasks, but, if roused, he could recover the time he appeared to have lost with great facility. Yet he seems afterwards to have been conscious that much depends on regularity of study, and we find him often prescribing to himself stated portions of reading, and recommending the same to others. No man perhaps was ever more sensible of his failings, or avowed them with more candour; nor, indeed, would many of them have been known, if he had not exhibited them as warnings. His memory was uncommonly tenacious, and to his last days he prided himself on it, considering a defect of memory as the prelude of total decay. Perhaps be carried this doctrine rather too far when he asserted, that the occasional failure of memory in a man of seventy must imply something radically wrong; but it may be in. general allowed, that the memory is a pretty accurate standard of mental strength. Although his weak sight prevented him from joining in the amusements of his schoolfellows, for which he was otherwise well qualified by personal courage and an ambition to excel, he found an equivalent pleasure in sauntering in the fields, or reading such books as came in his way, particularly old romances. For these he retained a fondness throughout life; but was wise and candid enough to attribute to them, in some degree, that unsettled turn of mind which prevented his fixing in any profession.

Mr. Johnston’s other publications, of the same kind, delineating in caricature the striking outlines of popular characters and public vices, were, “The Reverie; or a Flight to the Paradise of Fools,” 1762, 2 vols. 12mo; “The History of Arbases, prince of Betlis,” 1774, 2 vols. “The Pilgrim, or a Picture of Life,” 1775, 2 vols.; and “The History of John Juniper, esq. alias Juniper Jack,” 1781, 3 vols. None of these, however, attracted the attention of the public in any considerable degree. In 1782, he had some prospect of passing his days in comfort, if not in opulence, in India, and accordingly embarked for Bengal, with capt. Charles Mears, in the Brilliant, which was wrecked off Johanna, an island situated between Madagascar and the continent of Africa; but capt. Mears, with his son and daughter, and Mr. Johnston, and some others, were saved, and ultimately reached India. Here he employed his talents in writing essays for the Bengal newspapers, under the signature of “Oneiropolos,” and at length became a joint proprietor of a paper, and by this and some other speculations, acquired considerable property. He died there about 1800. These memoirs of a man, certainly deserving of some notice, have been derived from various anonymous authorities, and are therefore given with diffidence.

, a celebrated English architect, was born about 1572, in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s, London, where his father, Mr. Ignatius Jones, was a clothworker. At a proper age, it is said, he put his son apprentice to a joiner, a business that requires some skill in drawing; and in that respect suited well with our architect’s inclination, which naturally led him to the art of designing. It is not probable, however, that he attended long to the mechanical part of his business; for we are told that he distinguished himself early by the extraordinary progress he made with his pencil, and was particularly noticed for his skill in landscape-painting, of which there is a specimen at Chiswick-house. These talents recommended him to the earl of Arundel, or, as some say, to William earl of Pembroke. It is certain, however, that at the. expence of one or other of these lords he travelled over Italy, and the politer parts of Europe; saw whatever was recommended by its antiquity or value; and from these plans formed his own observations, which, upon his return home, he perfected by study. He was no sooner at Rome, says Wai ­pole, than he found himself in his sphere, and acquired so much reputation that Christian IV. king of Denmark sent for him from Venice, which was the chief place of his residence, and where he had studied the works of Palladio, and made him his architect, but on what buildings he was employed in that country we are yet to learn. He had been some time possessed of this honourable post when that prince, whose sister Anne had married James I. made a visit to England in 1606; and our architect, being desirous to return to his native country, took that opportunity of coming home in the train of his Danish majesty. The magnificence of James’s reign, in dress, buildings, &c. furnished Jones with an opportunity of exercising his talents, which ultimately proved an honour to his country. Mr. Seward says, we know not upon what authority, that the first work he executed after his return from Italy, was the decoration of the inside of the church of St. Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street. We know, however, that the queen appointed him her architect, presently after his arrival; and he was soon taken, in the same character, into the service of prince Henry, under Whom he discharged his trust with so much fidelity and judgment, that the king gave him the reversion of the place of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works.

, or Johnson, for so he, as well as some of his friends, wrote his name, was born in Hartshorn-lane near Charing-cross, Westminster, June 11, 1574, about a month after the death of his father. Dr. Bathurst, whose life was written by Mr. Warton, informed Aubrey that Jonson was born in Warwickshire, but all other accounts fix his birth in Westminster. Fuller says, that “with all his industry 'he could not find him in his cradle, but that he could fetch him from his long coats: when a little child, he lived in Hartshorne-lane near Charing-cross.” Mr. Malone examined the register of St. Margaret’s Westminster, and St. Martin’s in the Fields, but without being able to discover the time of his baptism. His family was originally of Annandale in Scotland, whence his grandfather removed to Carlisle in the time of Henry VIII. under whom he held some office. But his son being deprived both of his estate and liberty in the reign of queen Mary, went afterwards in holy orders, and, leaving Carlisle, settled in Westminster.

Besides his principal works, which have already been mentioned, there are some other things of a smaller nature; as, “Remarks upon Spenser’s Poems,” 1734, 8vo, at the end of which are some “Remarks upon Milton;” “Remarks on Seneca,” printed in the “Present State of the Republic of Letters,” for Aug. 1734; “A Sermon preached at the Consecration of Pearce bishop of Bangor,” 1747 a few “Remarks on Tillotson’s Sermons,” given to his friend Dr. Birch, and printed in the appendix to Birch’s Life of that prelate, 1752; “Letter to Mr. Avison, concerning the Music of the Ancients,” subjoined to a second edition of Avison’s “Essay on Musical Expression,” 1753, and a few “Remarks on Phillips’s Life of Cardinal Pole,” printed in an appendix to “Neve’s Animadversions” upon that History, 1766. In 1771, the year after his death, 4 volumes of his “Sermons,” in 8vo, were inscribed by his son Rogers Jortin, esq. to his parishioners of St. Dunstan’s, at whose request they were published; and these, being well received by the public, were reprinted in 1772, with the addition of 3 volumes more. At the end of the 7th vol. a*e “Jour Charges, delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of London.” His whole Works have lately been reprinted, including his Life of Erasmus, by Messrs. White and Cochrane, in an uniform edition.

, one of the principal writers of the Centuries of Magdeburg, was born Sept. 21, 1528, at Tippolswald, in Misnia. His inclination to literature induced his father to send him to study at Dresden: but the college of Wittenberg being more to his mind, he removed thither, and afterwards was driven, by necessity, to Magdeburg. Here he supported himself by being tutor in the family of a lawyer, who sent him with his son to Wittenberg, in 1546. This gave him an opportunity of completing his own studies; and he obtained the degree of M. A. in this university, 1548. He then returned to Magdeburg, and taught the second form there for some years; and in 1554, was chosen minister of St. Ulric’s church.

, a Roman emperor, commonly, although perfcaps not very justly, styled the Apostate, was the younger son of Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great. He was the first fruit of a second marriage of his father with Basilina, after the birth of Gallus, whom he had by Galla his first consort. He was born Nov. 6, in the year 331, at Constantinople; and, according to the medals of him, named Fiavius Claudius Julianus. During the life of Constantine, he received the first rudiments of his education at the court of Constantinople; but, upon the death of this emperor, all his relations being suspected of criminal actions, Julian’s father was obliged to seek his safety by flight; and his son Julian’s escape was entirely owing to Marc, bishop of Arethusa, without whose care he had inevitably perished in the persecution of his family. As soon as the storm was over, and Constantius, the son of Constantine, quietly seated on the imperial throne, he sent young Julian to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was related to him by his mother’s side, and who educated him in the Christian faith; but at the same time employed an eunuch called Mardonius, who was a pagan, to teach him grammar, while Eulolius, a Christian of doubtful character, was his master in rhetoric. Julian made a very quick progress in learning; and, being sent afterwards to Athens to complete his education, he became the darling of that nursery of polite literature, and particularly commenced an acquaintance with St. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen. This last, however, observed something in him which rendered his sincerity in the Christian faith suspected: and it is certain, that, notwithstanding all the care of his preceptor Eusebius, this young prince was entirely perverted by Maximus, an Ephesian philosopher and magician. His cousin Constantius the emperor was advertised of his conduct; and Julian, to prevent the effects, and save his life, professed himself a monk, and took the habit, but, under this character in public, he secretly embraced paganism. Some time before, his brother Gallus and he had taken orders, and executed the office of reader in the church; but the religious sentiments of the two brothers were widely different.

On his resignation, he retired to his palace at Fulham, where he continued for some time, not only undisturbed, but. sometimes visited by the greatest persons of the opposite party, although he remained firm in his loyalty to the king, who consulted him upon many occasions. Sir Philip Warwick, being employed on one of those occasions, desired he might bring the bishop himself to his majesty, for fear of a mistake in the message, or lest the bishop should not speak freely to him. To which the king replied, “Go as I bid you if he will speak freely to any body, he will speak freely to you. This I will say of him I never got his opinion freely in my life, but, when I had it, I was ever the better for it.” Bishop Juxon also attended upon his majesty at the treaty in the Isle of Wight in 1643, by the consent of the parliament; and by the king’s particular desire, waited upon him at Cotton-house in Westminster on Jan. 21 following, the day after the commencement of his trial. During the whole of this trial, he attended the king, who declared that he was the greatest support and comfort to him on that occasion. He followed his royal master also to the scaffold, and when he was preparing himself for the block, Juxon said to him, “There is, sir, but one stage more, which, though turbulent and troublesome, is yet a very short one. Consider, it will soon carry you a great way; it will carry you from earth to heaven; and there you shall find, to your great joy, the prize to which you hasten, a crown of glory.” “I go,” said the king, “from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown, where no disturbance can be.” “, You are exchanged,” replied the bishop, “from a temporal to an eternal crown; a good exchange.” It was remarked by the regicides, that the king, the moment before he stretched out his neck to the executioner, said to J uxon, with a very earnest accent, the single word Remember. Great mysteries were consequently supposed to be concealed under that expression; and the generals vehemently insisted with the prelate, that he should inform them of the king’s meaning. Juxon told them, that the king having frequently charged him to inculcate on his son the forgiveness of his murderers, had taken this opportunity, in the last moment of his life, when his commands, he supposed, would be regarded, as sacred and inviolable, to reiterate that desire; and that his mild spirit thus terminated its present course, by an act of benevolence towards his greatest enemies. Dr. Uuxon was also one of those who accompanied the king’s body to "Windsor, but was not permitted to read the funeral service.

, a lady celebrated for her skill in calligraphy, in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s time, appears to have lived single until the age of forty, when she became the wife of one Bartholomew Keilo, a native of Scotland, by whom she had a son, Samuel Kello, who was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. All we know besides of her is, that she was a correspondent of bishop Hall, when he was dean of Worcester in 1617. Various specimens of her delicate and beautiful writing are in our public repositories, and some in Edinburgh-castle. In the library of Christchurch, Oxford, are the Psalrns of David, written in French by Mrs. Inglis, who presented them in person to queen Elizabeth, by whom they were given to the library. Two manuscripts, written by her, were also preserved with care in the Bodleian library: one of them is entitled “Le six vingt et six Quatrains de Guy de Tour, sieur de Pybrac, escrits par Esther Inglis, pour son dernier adieu, ce 21e jour de Juin, 1617.” The following address is, in the second leaf, written in capital letters: “To the right worshipful my very singular friende, Joseph Hall, doctor of divinity, and dean of Winchester, Esther Inglis wisheth all increase of true happiness. Junii xxi. 1617.” In the third leaf is pasted the head of the writer, painted upon a card. The other manuscript is entitled “Les Proverbes de Salomon; escrites en diverses sortes de lettres, par Esther Anglois, en Francoise. A Lislehourge en Escosse,” 1599. Every chapter of this curious performance is written in a different hand, as is also the dedication. The manuscript contains near forty different characters of writing. The beginnings and endings of the chapters are adorned with beautiful head and tail-pieces, and the margins, in imitation of the old manuscripts, curiously decorated with the pen. The book is dedicated to the earl of Essex. On one of the first pages are his arms neatly drawn, with all their quarterings. In the fifth leaf, drawn with a pen, is the picture of Esther Inglis, in the habit of the times: her right hand holds a pen, the left rests upon an open book, on one of the leaves of which is written, “DC l'Eternel Je biert, de moi le mal, ou rien.” A music-book lies open before her. Under the picture is a Latin epigram by Andrew Melvin, and on the following page a second by the same author, in praise of Mrs. Inglis. In the royal library, D. xvi. are “Esther Inglis’s fifty Emblems,” finely drawn and written: “A Lislebourg en Escosse, Panne 1624.”

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, a native of Ireland, was born on the banks of the lake of Killarney, in 1739. His father was a gentleman of good family in that country, whose fortune being reduced by a series of misfortunes, he was obliged to repair to Dublin, in order to endeavour to support himself by his personal industry. He gave our author, however, some school education; but the narrowness of his finances would not permit him to indulge his son’s natural propensity to study, by placing him in the higher schools of Dublin. He was therefore bound apprentice to 3j stay-maker, an employment but ill suited to his inclination; yet continued with his master till the expiration of his apprenticeship, and then set out for London, in 1760, in order to procure a livelihood by his business. This, however, he found very difficult, and was soon reduced to the utmost distress for the means of subsistence. In this forlorn situation, a stranger, and friendless, he used sometimes to endeavour to forget his misfortunes, and passed some of his heavy hours at a public-house in Russel-street, Covent-garden, much resorted to by the younger players. Having an uncommon share of good-humour, and being lively, cheerful, and engaging in his behaviour, he soon attracted the notice, not only of these minor wits, but of a set of honest tradesmen who frequented that house every evening, and who were much entertained with his conversation. In a little time Mr. Kelly became so well acquainted with the characters of the club, that he was enabled to give a humorous description of them in one of the daily papers; and the likenesses were so well executed as to draw their attention, and excite their curiosity to discover the author. Their suspicions soon fixed on Mr. Kelly, and from that time he became distinguished among them as a man of parts and consideration.

In 1776, Mr. Kelly received an invitation from the Episcopal congregation at Air, in North Britain, to become their pastor. On this title he was ordained by the bishop of Carlisle, before whom he preached the ordination sermon. From that time lip continued to reside at Air till 1779, when he was engaged by his grace the duke of Gordon as tutor to his son the marquis of Huntley. The studies of this gallant young nobleman Mr. K. continued to direct at Eton and Cambridge; and afterwards accompanied him on a tour to the Continent. After his return, in 1791, by the interest of his noble patron, Mr. K. obtained from the chancellor the presentation to the vicarage of Ardl< igh near Colchester, which preferment he continued to hold till 1807. Being presented by the chancellor to the more valuable rectory of Copford in the same neighbourhood, Dr. Kelly had the satisfaction of being enabled to resign his vicarage of Ardleigh in favour of his friend and brother-in-law the rev. Henry Bishop.

, the greatest astronomer perhaps that any age has produced, was born at Wiel in the dutchy of Wirtemberg, Dec. 27, 1571. His father, Henry Kepler, was descended from a family which had raised themselves under the emperors by their military services, and was himself an officer of rank in the army; but afterwards, experiencing ill fortune, was obliged to sell all he had, and support himself and his family by keeping a public-house. He died in 1590, and' left his son John without provision. His education had be^n therefore neglected, but, by the favour of his prince, he was enabled to enter upon his studies in philosophy at Tubingen, immediately upon his father’s death, and, two years after, pursued the mathematics in the same university, under the famous Michael Maestlinus, an astronomer of eminence, and of the Copernican school, but at this time Kepler informs us he had. no particular predilection for astronomy. His passion was rather for studies more fluttering to the ambition of a youthful mind; and when his prince selected him, in 1591, to fill the vacant astronomical chair, it was purely from deference to his authority, and the persuasions of Masstlinu, who had high expectations from his talents, that he reluctantly accepted of the office. He appears to have thought it unsuitable to his pretensions; and the state of astronomy was besides so low, uncertain, and in many respects visionary, that he had no hope of attaining to eminence in it. But what he undertook with reluctance, and as a temporary provision conferred on a dependant by his prince, soon engaged his ardour, and engrossed almost his whole attention. The first fruit? of his application to astronomical studies appeared in his “Mysterium Cosmographicum,” published about two years after his settlement in Gratz; and hasty and juvenile as this production was, it displayed so many marks of genius, and such indefatigable patience in the toil of calculation, that on presenting it to Tycho Brahe, it procured him the esteem of that illustrious astronomer, and even excited his anxiety for the proper direction of talents go uncommon. Accordingly, not contented with exhorting Kepler to prefer the road of observation to the more uncertain one of theory, Tycho added an invitation to live with him at Uraniburg, where his whole observations should be open to Kepler’s perusal, and those advantages provided for making others, which his situation at Gratz denied. This after some time was accepted. In 1597, Kepler entered into the married state, which at first created him great uneasiness, from a dispute which arose about his wife’s fortune; and, the year after, he was banished from Gratz on account of his religion, but afterwards recalled, and restored to his former dignity. However, the growing troubles and confusions of that place inclined him to think of a residence elsewhere; and he now determined to accept T. Brahe’s invitation, and accordingly left the university of Gratz, and removed into Bohemia with his family in 1600. In his journey he was seized with a quartan ague, which continued seven or eight months; and prevented his profiting by Tycho’s kindness, and, what was worse, some petty differences interrupted their connection. Kepler was offended at Tycho, for refusing some services to his family, which he had occasion for: he was also dissatisfied with his reserved ness; for, Tycho did not communicate to him all that he knew; and, as he died in 1601, he did not give Kepler time to be very useful to him, or to receive any considerable advantages from him. Before his death, however, he introduced him to the emperor Rodolphus at Prague (for, it was upon this condition that Kepler had consented to leave Gratz), who received him very kindly, and made him his mathematician, upon condition that he should serve Tycho as an arithmetician. From that time Kepler enjoyed the title of mathematician to the emperor all his life, and gained more and more reputation every year by his works. Rodolphus ordered him to finish the tables begun by Tycho, which were to be called the “Rodolphine Tables” and he applied himself very vigorously to this work but such difficulties arose in a short time, partly from the nature of it, and partly from the delay of the treasurers, that the tables were not finished and published till 1627. He complained, that, from 1602 and 1603, he. was looked upon by the treasurers with a very invidious eye; and when, in 1609, he had published a noble specimen o/ the work, and the emperor had given orders that, besides the expence of the edition, he should immediately be paid the arrears of his pension, which, he said, amounted to 2000 crowns, and likewise 2000 more; yet, that it was not till two years after, that the generous orders of Rodolphus, in his favour, were put in execution. He met with no less discouragement from the financiers under the emperoc Matthias, than under Rodolphus; and therefore, after struggling with poverty for ten years at Prague, began to think of quitting his quarters again. He was then fixed at Lints by the emperor Matthias, who appointed him a salary from the states of Upper Austria, which was paid for sixteen years. In 1613 he went to the assembly at Ratisbon, to assist in the reformation of the calendar; but returned to Lints, where he continued to 1626. In November of that year, he went to Ulm, in order to publish the “Rodolphine Tables;” and afterwards, in 1629, with the emperor’s leave, settled at Sagan in Silesia, where he published the second part of his “Ephemerides;” fot the first had been published at Lints in 1617. In 1630, he went to Ratisbon, to solicit the payment of the arrears of his pension; but, being seized with a fever, which, it is said, was brought upon him by too hard riding, he died there in November, in his 59th year.

, a learned English bishop, was great nephew of Robert King, the first bishop of Oxford, and son of Philip King of Wormenhale or Wornall, near Brill in Buckinghamshire, by Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Conquest of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire. He was born at Wornall about 1559, educated in Westminster-­school, and sent to Christ church, Oxford, in 1576; where he took, in due time, his degrees in arts. He was afterwards chaplain to queen Elizabeth; archdeacon of Nottingham in 1590; doctor of divinity in 1601; dean of Christ church in 1605; and bishop of London in 1611. Besides his “Lectures upon Jonah,” printed in 1594, h published several sermons. James I. used to style him “the king of preachers;” and lord chief justice Coke often declared, that “he was the best speaker in the star-chamber in his time,” He was so constant in preaching, after he was a bishop, that he never missed a Sunday, when his health permitted. He died March 30, 1621, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral. Soon after, the papists reported, that he died a member of their church, in a pamphlet entitled “The Bishop of London his Legacy;” but the falsity of this story was sufficiently exposed by his son Henry, in a sermon at St. Paul’s cross, Nov. 25, 1621, and by bishop Godwin, in the appendix to his “Commentarius de Prsesulibus Angliae.”

, chancellor of England, and famous for his ecclesiastical learning, as well as his knowledge in the law, was born in 1669 at Exeter, Devonshire, where his father, an eminent grocer and salter in that city, though a man of considerable substance, and descended from a good family, determined to bring up his son to his own trade. With this view, he took him into his business and kept him at his shop for some years however, the son’s inclination being strongly bent to learning, he took all opportunities of gratifying his passion, laying out all the money he could spare in books, and devoting every moment of his leisure hours to study; so that he became a scholar of very great accomplishments, which were hid under the appearance of an attention to the business of the shop. This, however, was discovered by the celebrated Locke, who was his uncle by his mother’s side, and who, after some discourse, being greatly surprised and pleased with the prodigious advances his nephew had made in literature, advised him to commence a regular course of study at Leyden: and it is said to have been by his advice, that Mr. King afterwards entered himself a student at the Inner-Temple, and applied himself to the law; in which profession his talents and industry soon rendered him celebrated.

On Aug. 3, 1710, appeared the first number of “The Examiner,” the ablest vindication of the measures of the queen and her new ministry. Swift be^an with No. 13, and ended by writing part of No. 45 when Mrs.Mauley took it up, and finished the first volume it was afterwards resumed by Mr. Oldisworth, who completed four volumes more, and published nineteen numbers of a sixth volume, when the queen’s death put an end to the work. The original institntors of that paper seem to have employed Dr. King as their publisher, or ostensible author, before they prevailed on their great champion to undertake that task. It is not clear which part of the first ten numbers were Dr. King’s; but he appears pretty evidently the writer of No. H, Oct. 12 No. 12, Oct. 19 and No. 13, Oct. 26 and this agrees with the account given by the publisher of his posthumous works, who says he undertook that paper about the 10th of October. On the 26th of October, no Examiner at all appeared; and the next number, which was published Nov. 2, was written by Dr. Swift. Our author’s warm zeal for the church, and his contempt for the whigs (“his eyes,” says Dr. Johnson, “were open to all the operations of whiggism”), carried him naturally on the side of Sacheverell; and he had a hand, in his dry sarcastic way, in many political essays of that period. He published, with this view, “A friendly Letter from honest Tom Boggy, to the Rev. Mr. Goddard, canon of Windsor, occasioned by a sermon preached at St. George’s chapel, dedicated to her grace the duchess of Marlborough,” 1710; and “A second Letter to Mr. Goddard, occasioned by the late Panegyric given him by the Review, Thursday, July 13, 1710.” These were succeeded by “A Vindication of the Rev. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous, and malicious aspersions, cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet entitled ‘The Modern Fanatic;’ intended chiefly to expose the iniquity of the faction in general, without taking any particular notice of their poor mad fool, Bisset, in particular in a dialogue between a tory and a whig.” This masterly composition had scarcely appeared in the world before it was followed by “Mr. Bisset’s Recantation in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Sacheverell” a singular banter on that enthusiast, whom our author once more thought proper to lash, in “An Answer to a second scandalous book that Mr. Bisset is now writing, to be published as soon as possible.” Dr. White Kennel’s celebrated sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, occasioned, amongst many other publications, a jeu d'esprit of Dr. King-, under the title of “An Answer to Clemens Alexandrinus’s Sermon upon * Quis Dives salvetur?‘ ’ What rich man can be saved' proving it easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle.” In 1711, Dr. King very diligently employed his pen in publishing that very useful book for schools, his “Historical account of the Heathen Gods and Heroes, necessary for the understanding of the ancient Poets;” a work still in great esteem, and of which there have been several editions. About the same time he translated “Political considerations upon Refined Politics, and the Master-strokes of State, as practised by the Ancients and Moderns, written by Gabriel Naude, and inscribed to the cardinal Bagni.” At the same period also he employed himself on “Rufinus, or an historical essay on the Favourite Ministry under Theodosius and his son Arcadius with a poem annexed, called ' Rufinus, or the Favourite.” These were written early in 1711, but not printed till the end of that year. They were levelled against the duke of Marlborough and his adherents and were written with much asperity. Towards the close of 1711 his circumstances began to reassume a favourable aspect and he was recommended by his firm friend Swift to an office under government. “I have settled Dr. King,” says that great writer, “in the Gazette; it will be worth two hundred pounds a year to him. To-morrow I am to carry him to dine with the secretary.” And in another letter, he tells the archbishop of Dublin, “I have got poor Dr. King, who was some time in Ireland, to be gazetteer; which will be worth two hundred and fifty pounds per annum to him, if he be diligent and sober, for which I am engaged. I mention this because I think he was under your grace’s protection in Ireland.” From what Swift te,lls the archbishop, and a hint which he has in another place dropped, it should seem, that our author’s finances were in such a state as to render the salary of gazetteer no contemptible object to him. The office, however, was bestowed on Dr. King in a manner the most agreeable to his natural temper; as he had not even the labour of soliciting for it. On the last day of December, 1711, Dr. Swift, Dr. Freind, Mr. Prior, and some other of Mr. secretary St. John’s friends, came to visit him; and brought with them the key of the Gazetteer’s office, and another key for the use of the paper-office, which had just before been made the receptacle of a curious collection of mummery, far different from the other contents of that invaluable repository. On the first of January our author had the honour of dining with the secretary; and of thanking him for his remembrance of him at a time when he had almost forgotten himself. He entered on his office the same day; but the extraordinary trouble he met with in discharging its duties proved greater than he could long endure. Mr. Barber, who printed the gazette, obliged him to attend till three or four o'clock, on the mornings when that paper was published, to correct the errors of the press; a confinement which his versatility would never have brooked, if his health would have allowed it, which at this time began gradually to decline. And this, joined to his natural indisposition to the fatigue of any kind of business, furnished a sufficient pretence for resigning his office about Midsummer 1712. On quitting his employment he retired to the house of a friend, in the garden-grounds between Lambeth and Vauxhall, where he enjoyed himself principally in his library; or, amidst select parties, in a sometimes too liberal indulgence of the bottle. He still continued, however, to visit his friends in the metropolis, particularly his relation the earl of Clarendon, who resided in Somerset-house.

, a learned German, was born in 1575, at Lubeck, where his father was a merchant. He studied in his native place till he was eighteen years of age, and then went to Francfort on the Oder, where he continued four years, in a constant attendance upon lectures, and close application to his books. He afterwards studied in the university of Jena, and then in that of Strasburg; and some time after, a burgo-master of Luneburg, who had received a great character of him, chose him to accompany his son as trasrelling tutor, into France and Italy. He returned to Germany in 1602; and, stopping at Rostock, acquired so much reputation, that the next year he was appointed professor of poetry. The work which he published in 1604, “De funeribus Romanorum,” added not a little to his fame. He afterwards published another work, “De annulis,” which was also much esteemed, as a correct illustration of those antiquities. He was much employed in education, and a great many scholars were sent to him from the other cities of Germany. At length the magistrates of Lubeck, wanting a new principal or rector for their college, desired him to take that office upon him; and he was accordingly installed into it in 1613. He performed the functions of it the remainder of his days with the greatest care, and it is unjustly that some have attributed the decline of the college, which happened in his time, to his negligence. He died, March 20, 1643; and the 4th of May, his funeral oration was pronounced at Lubeck, by James Stolterfhot, who had married his eldest daughter.

, the chief instrument and promoter of the reformation in Scotland, was descended of an ancient and honourable family, and born 1505, at Gifford, in the county of East Lothian, Scotland. His parents gave him a liberal education, which in that age was far from being common. He was first placed at the grammar-school of Haddington, and after acquiring the principles of the Latin tongue, was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s under professor John Major, the same who was Buchanan’s tutor, a very acute schoolman, and deep in theology. Knox, however, examining the works of Jerom and Austin, began to dis-relish this subtilizing method, altered his taste, and applied himself to plain and solid divinity. At his entrance upon this new course of study, he attended the preaching of Thomas Guillaume, or Williams, a friar of eminence, whose sermons were of extraordinary service to him; and he acquired still more knowledge of the truth from the martyr, George Wishart, so much celebrated in, the history of this time, who came from England in 1554, with commissioners from king Henry VIII. Knox, being of an inquisitive nature, learned from him the principles of the reformation; with which he was so well pleased, that he renounced the Romish religion, and having now relinquished all thoughts of officiating in that church, which had invested him with clerical orders, he entered as tutor into the family of Hugh Douglas of Long Niddrie, a gentleman in East Lothian, who had embraced the reformed doctrines. Another gentleman, in the neighbourhood, also put his son under his tuition, and these two youths were instructed by him in the principles of religion, as well as of the learned languages, and he taught the former in such a way as to allow the rest of the family, and the people of the neighbourhood, to reap advantage from it. He catechised them publicly in a chapel at Long Niddrie, in which be also read to them at stated times, a chapter of the Bible, accompanied with explanatory remarks. The memory of this has been preserved by tradition; and the chapel, the ruins of which are still apparent, is popularly called “John Knox’s kirk.” It was not, however, to be expected, that he would long be suffered to continue in this employment, under a government entirely at the devotion of cardinal Beaton (see Beaton); and although he was, in the midst of his tyranny, cut off by a conspiracy in 1546, Hamilton, successor to the vacant bishopric, sought Knox’s life with as much eagerness as his predecessor. Hence Knox resolved to retire to Germany, where the reformation was gaining ground; knowing that, in England, though the pope’s authority was suppressed, yet the greater part of his doctrine remained in full vigour. He was, however, diverted from his purpose, and prevailed on to return to St. Andrew’s, January 1547; where he soon after accepted a preacher’s place, though sorely against his will.

, or Lucius Cælius, or Cæcilius (Firmianus), an eminent father of the church, was, as some say, an African, or, according to others, a native of Fermo, a town in the marche of Ancdna, whence Le is supposed to have taken his surname. Arnobius was his preceptor. He studied rhetoric in Africa, and with so great reputation, that Constantine the Roman emperor appointed him preceptor to his son Crispus. This brought him to court; but he was so far from giving into the pleasures or corruptions incident to that station, that, amidst very great opportunities of amassing riches, he lived so poor as even frequently to want necessaries. He is account^d the most eloquent of all the ecclesiastical Latin authors. He formed himself upon Cicero, and wrote in such a pure, smooth, and natural, style, and so much in the taste and manner of the lloman orator, that he is generally distinguished by the title of “The Christian Cicero.” We have several pieces of his, the principal of which is his “Institutiones Divinae,” in seven books, composed about the year 320, in defence of Christianity, against all its opposers. Of this treatise he made an abridgment, of which we have only a part, and added it to another tract, “De Ira Divina.” In 1777 the late sir David Dalrymple lord Hailes, published with notes a correct edition of the fifth book “De Justitia,” Edin. 12mo. Lactantius had before written a book “De Operibus Dei,” in which he proves the creation of man, and the divine providence. St. Jerome mentions other works of our author, as “Two Books to Æsclepiades;” “Eight Books of Letters;” a book entitled “The Festin,” composed before he went to Nicomedia; a poem in hexameter verse, containing a description of his journey thither; a treatise entitled “The Grammarian;” and another, “De Persecutione.” Concerning this last tract, there are various opinions. Dr. Lardner, after stating the evidence on both sides, seems inclined to deny that it was written by LaCtantius. He allows, however, that it is a very valuable work, containing; a short account of the sufferings of Christians under several of the Roman emperors, from the death and resurrection of Christ to Dioclesian; and then a particular history of the persecution excited by that emperor, with the causes and springs of it; as well as the miserable deaths of its chief instruments. The learned judge above mentioned, who published a translation of this work in 1782, Edin. 12mo, has also examined the opinions of those who have treated of its authenticity, with far more acuteness than Lardner, and concludes with Baluze, Mosheim, and other eminent critics, that the treatise “De Mortibus Persecutorum” was written by Lactantius. Lord Hailes’s preface is a master-piece of critical inquiry, nor are his notes and illustrations, which occupy one half of the volume, of less merit or utility.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Cyrene, the disciple of Arcesilaus, and his successor in the academy, devoted himself early to study, and, in spite of poTerty, became a very skilful philosopher, and very pleasing in his discourses, teaching in a garden which was given him by Attalus, king of Pergamus. This prince also invited him to court, but Lacydes replied, that the portraits of kings should be viewed at a distance. In some things, however, like the rest of his brethren, he descended from philosophy to the littlenesses of common men. He had a goose who attended him every where, and when she died he buried her as magnificently as if she had been his son or brother and his death, which happened in the year 212 B. C. is attributed to excess in drinking. Lacydes followed the doctrines of Arcesilaus, and affirmed that we ought not to decide on any thing, but always suspend our judgment. His servants frequently took advantage of this maxim to rob him, and, when he complained of it, maintained that he was mistaken; nor could he, on his own principles, make any reply but, growing weary at last of being plundered, and they still urging that he ought to suspend his judgment, he said to them, “Children, we have one method of disputing in the schools, and another of living in our families.”

, a painter of histories on ceilings, staircases, halls, &c. and an assistant and imitator of Verrio, was born in France; and his father being master of the menagerie at Versailles, he had Louis XIV. for his godfather, and after him he was named. At first he was intended for the church, and was placed in the Jesuits’ college for education; but, having a hesitation in his speech, and having exhibited some taste in drawing, the king recommended to his parents to bring him up to the profession of painting. He then studied in the school of Le Brun, and in the royal academy of Paris; and made so much progress, that, in 1683, at the age of twenty, he came to England, and was immediately employed by Verrio upon the large work at St. Bartholomew’s hospital; in which he succeeded so well, that he soon obtained considerable employment on his own account, and executed a great number of ceilings, halls, and staircases, in the houses of the principal nobility of the country, particularly at lord Exeter’s at Burleigh, at Devonshire house, Piccadilly, Petworth, and Blenheim. King William gave him lodgings at Hampton Court, where he painted the “Labours of Hercules,” and repaired the large pictures called “The Triumphs of Caesar,” by Andrea Mantegna. His talents were not of a cast to demand very high respect, but they were fully equal to the mode in which they were employed, which requiring a certain portion of ingenuity, is a certain waste of talents of a superior class. In a few years, it is probable, his name will repose for perpetuity on the records of history, and the unlucky satire of Pope, “where sprawl the saints of Verrio and Laguerre.' He died in 1721, and in a place very seldom disturbed by such an event, viz. in the theatre of Drury-lane. He had gone there to see the” Island Princess" acted for the benefit of his son, who was newly entered upon the stage as a singer; but, before the play began, he was seized by an apoplexy, and carried away senseless.

, an eminent Flemish painter, was born at Liege, in 1640. His father, who was a tolerable painter, put his son first to study the belles lettres, poetry, and music, to the last of which Gerard dedicated a day in every week: but at length taught him design, and made him copy the best pictures, particularly those of Bertholet Flaraael, a canon of that city. At the age of fifteen, Gerard began to paint portraits, and some historical pieces, for the electors of Cologne and Brandenburgh, which contributed-to make him known, and gave him great reputation. The ease, however, with which he got his money tempted him to part with it as easily, and run into expence. He was fond of dress, and making a figure in the world; he had also an ambition to please the ladies, and fancied that the liveliness of his wit would compensate in some degree for the deformity of his person. But one of his mistresses, whom he had turned off, having out of revenge wounded him dangerously with a knife, he abandoned such promiscuous gallantry, and married. While settled at Utrecht, and poor, he was seized with a contagious distemper; and, his wife lying-in at the same time, he was reduced to offer a picture to sale for present support, which, in three days’ time, was bought by Vytenburgh, a picture-merchant at Amsterdam, who engaged him to go to that city. Accordingly Lairesse settled there; and his reputation rose to so high a pitch, that the Hollanders esteem him the best history-painter of their country, and commonly call him their second Raphael; Hemskirk is their first. Yet his style of painting was but a compound of those of Poussin and the old French school. While he aimed at imitating the best Italian masters, he never avoided those false airs of the head and limbs, which seem rather taken from the stage than from nature; so that his works do not rise to the level of true merit. At length, borne down with infirmities, aggravated by the loss of his eye-sight, he finished his days at Amsterdam, in 1711, at the age of seventy-one.

, of Cremona, a celebrated Latin poet in the sixteenth century, followed John Lascaris to Rome, and there taught Greek and Latin. After the death of pope Leo X. in 1521, he went to Padua, where he also instructed youth, more for the profit than the reputation of that employment, in which, however, he was eminently successful. He was then invited to Mantua by Frederic Gonzaga, who appointed him tutor to his son, and there he is said to have died in 1540, or a few years after. Lampridius, we are told, was of so timid a nature, that his friends could never prevail on him to speak in public. We have epigrams and lyric verses of this author, both in Greek and Latin, which were printed separately, and also among the “Deliciae” of the Italian poets. In his odes he aimed to imitate Pindar; but he wanted the force of that unrivalled poet.

About this time his son informs us that he engaged with Mr. Griffiths as a writer in the Monthly Review; and that this engagement, with scarcely any intermission, continued to his death. We suspect there is some mistake in this account, although the secresy which very properly prevails in the management of a Review, will not allow us to rectify it. That Mr. Langhorne was a writer in the MonthlyReview has been repeated from so many quarters, that there seems no reason to doubt it; but a dispute relating to a work hereafter mentioned, which took place between Mr. Langhorne and the editor of the Review, affords some ground to think that his connexion with it had ceased about 1769.

The translation of “Plutarch” by the brothers appeared in 1770, and soon became a very popular book. In 1771, Dr. Langhorne gave another proof of the variety on which he exercised his fancy in a favourite little volume, entitled the “Fables of Flora.” In this, although he claimed too hastily the merit of combining for the first time imagery, description, and sentiment, yet he has certainly enlarged the province of fable, and given proof of a wide range of imagination. It cannot, however, be denied that the moral is not always sufficiently pointed, that the style is too much ornamented, and the general cast of sentiment too obscure for the persons into whose hands Fables are usually placed. In answer to the objection made to the language of flowers, his son very justly remarks that “ inipersonation may certainly be applied with as much reason to the vegetable as to the animal creation, if the characteristic attributes of each plant or flower are faithfully marked, and the unity of the fable is maintained.”

In 1804, his son published an edition of his poems, in two elegant volumes 12mo, with memoirs of fhe author, To these we are indebted for the principal part of this sketch. If we may judge from his writings, Dr. Langhorne was a man of an amiable disposition, a friend to religion and morals, and, though a wit, he never descends to grossness or indelicacy. His, memory has not been followed by any worse objection than that he was of a social turn, and during the latter part of his life more addicted to convivial indulgences than is consistent with health. This, however, is a serious objection, and not much lessened by the supposition that he was driven to this unhappy species of relief by having twice lost the chief source of domestic happiness. Ease, elegance, and tenderness, are the most striking features of his poetry: nor is he deficient in invention; an attentive perusal will discover many original sentiments, and spirited flights, which the critics of his day pointed out with high praise. He is very seldom a copyist; his style, as well as his sentiments, whatever their merit, are his own. His prose works are various enough to convince us that he was either a laborious writer, or possessed of great fertility of imagination; and the latter will probably be the safest conjecture. But, although a scholar of high attainments, he has rarely brought learning to his aid. His mind was stored with remarks on men and manners, which he expressed in various and desultory modes, so as to give an air of novelty to every thing he wrote. But we find nothing very profound. He appeared so frequently before the public as to secure a considerable degree of fame: what he announced was expected with eagerness, and what he published was read with pleasure; but as his abilities were confined to the lighter provinces of literature, there are few of his productions which will be honoured by permanent popularity.

, a mathematician, was born in Zealand, in 1561, and was a preacher at Antwerp, in 1586, and afterwards for several years; Vossius mentions that he was minister at Goese in Zealand, twenty-nine years; and being then discharged of his functions, on account of his old age, he retired to Middleburgh, where he died in 1632. His works were principally the following: 1. “Six Books of sacred Chronology,” printed in 1626. 2. “Essays on the Restitution of Astronomy,” printed at Middleburgh, 1629. 3. “Four Books of Geometrical Triangles,” printed in 1631. 4. “Of Measuring the Heavens,” in three books, in the same year. 5. “An Account of the diurnal and annual Motion of the Earth and of the true Situation of the visible celestial Bodies.” In this work he declares himself openly for Copernicus’s System, and even pretends to improve it. He composed this work in Dutch, and it was translated into Latin by M-minus Hortensius, and printed at Middleburgh, 1630. Fromond, a doctor of Louvain, wrote an answer to it, and endeavoured to prove the earth stood still; and his son published an answer not only to Fromond, but to Morin, regius professor at Paris, and to Peter Bartholinus, which is entitled “A Defence of the Account,” &c. This occasioned a controversy, but of no long duration.

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

His principal works are, a “Histoire de l'Eucharistie,” Elzevir, 1669, 4to, and 1671, 8vo; An answer to M. Bossuet’s treatise “De la Communion sous les deux espèces;” “An Answer to the motives of the minister Martin’s Conversion;” “An Answer to the office of the Holy Sacrament of Port Royal;” two Latin dissertations, “De Photino et Liberio” “Considerations servant de repnnse a ce que M. David a ecrit contre la dissertation de Photin,” 4to “Observations,” in Latin, in support of Daillés opinion, that the epistles of St. Ignatius are spurious, against Pearson and Beveridge; “Conformity de EglUes reformers de France avec les anciens;” “Considerations sur la nature de l'Eglise, etsur quelques-unes de ses propriétés” 12mo; a treatise in French on the Regal and Sacred Observations, in Latin, with “A Dissertation on the Thundering Legion.” These two last works were published by his son.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was son of William Laud, a clothier of Heading, in Berkshire, by Lucy his wife, widow of John Robinson, of the same place, and sister to sir William Webbe, afterwards lord-mayor of London, in 1591. His father died in 1594, leaving his son, after his mother’s decease, the house which he inhabited in Broad-street, and two others in Swallowfield; 1200l. in money, and the stock in trade. The widow was to have the interest of half the estate during her life. She died in 1600. These circumstances, although in themselves of little importance, it is necessary to mention as a contradiction to the assertion of Prynne, that he was of poor and obscure parents, which was repeated by lord Say, in the house of peers. He was born at Reading, Oct. 7, 1573, and educated at the free-school there, till July 1589; when, removing to St. John’s college, in Oxford, he became a scholar of the house in 1590, and fellow in 1593. He took the degree of A. B. in 1594, and that of master in 1598. He was this year chosen grammarlecturer; and being ordained priest in 1601, read, the following year, a divinity-lecture in his college, which was then supported by Mrs. Maye. In some of these chapel exercises he maintained against the puritans, the perpetual visibility of the church of Rome till the reformation; by which he incurred the displeasure of Dr. Abbot, then vice-chancellor of the university, who maintained that the visibility of the church of Christ might be deduced through other channels to. the time of that reformation. In 1603, Laud was one of the proctors; and the same year became- chaplain to Charles Blonnt, earl of Devonshire, whom he inconsiderately married, Dec. 26, 1605, to Penelope, then wife of Robert lord Rich; an affair that exposed him afterwards to much censure, and created him great uneasiness; in reality, it made so deep an impression upon him, that he ever after kept that day as a day of fasting and humiliation.

On Tuesday, March 12, 1643-4, the trial was opened in form; the original and additional articles of impeachment were read, and, after that, the archbishop’s answer, plea, and demurrer to them. He requested that the charge and evidence to all the articles might be given together; and the articles of misdemeanour separated from those of treason; to which the celebrated lawyer, Maynard, answered, that, in the earl of Strafford’s trial, he was put to answer every day the particular evidence given that day; that they were now only to try matters of fact, not of law, and that all the articles collectively, not any one separately, made up the charge of treason. Serjeant Wilde then made a long speech, upon the charge of high treason, insisting chiefly upon the archbishop’s attachment to popery, and his intention to introduce it into England; concluding with these words, that “Naaman was a great man, but he was a leper,” and that the archbishop’s leprosy had so infected all, “as there remained no other cure but the sword of justice.” The archbishop replied to the several charges, and mentioned various persons whom he had brought back from the Romish religion, particularly sir William Webbe, his kinsman, and two of his daughters; his son lui took from him; and, his father being utterly decayed, bred him at his own charge, and educated him in the protestant religion. The trial lasted above twenty days, and on Sept. 2, 1644, the archbishop made a recapitulation of the whole cause; but, as soon as he came into the House, he saw every lord present with a new thin book in folio, in a blue cover; which was his “Diary,” which Prynne, as already mentioned, had robbed him of, and printed with notes of his own, to disgrace the archbishop. On Sept. 11, Mr. Brown delivered, in the House of Lords, a summary of the whole charge, with a few observations on the archbishop’s answer. The queries of his counsel on the law of treason was referred to a committee which ordered his counsel to be heard on Oct. 11, when Mr. Herne delivered his argument with great firmness and resolution. The lord chancellor Finch told archbishop Sancroft that the argument was sir Matthew Hale’s, afterwards lord chief justice; and that being then a young lawyer, he, Mr. Finch, stood behind Mr. Herne, at the bar of the house, and took notes of it, which he intended to publish in his reports. With this argument, the substance of which may be seen in our authorities, the trial ended for that day; but, after this, a petition was sent about London, “for bringing delinquents to justice;” and many of the preachers exhorted the people to sign it; so that with a multitude of hands, it was delivered to the House of Commons, on Oct. 8. The archbishop was summoned on Nov. 2, to the House of Commons, to hear the whole charges, and to make his defence, which he did at large, Nov. 11. On the following Wednesday Mr. Brown replied and after the archbishop was dismissed, the House called for the ordinance, and without hearing his counsel, voted him guilty of high treason. After various delays, the Lords had a conference with the Commons, on Dec. 24, in which they declared, “that they had diligently weighed all things charged against the archbishop, but could not, by any one of them, or all, find him guilty of treason.” The judges had unanimously made the same declaration. At the second conference, on Jan. 2, 1644-5, the reasons of the Commons for the attainder of the archbishop were communicated to the Lords, who in a very thin house, passed the ordinance that he should suffer death by hanging, which was fixed for Friday the 10th. He pleaded the king’s pardon, under the great seal, which was over-ruled, and rejected, without being read, and the only favour granted, and that after delay and with reluctance, was, that his sentence should be changed to beheading.

, master-gunner of England, was born at Harwich, in 1629, and being bred to the sea-service, distinguished himself by his skill and bravery in many actions. At the restoration he was made master-gunner of the Princess, a frigate of fifty guns; and in the first Dutch war exhibited his skill and bravery in two very extraordinary actions, in one against fifteen sail of Dutch men of war, and another in 1667, against two Danish ships in the Baltic, in which, the principal officers being killed, the command devolved on him, though only master-gunner. In 1669 he was promoted to be gunner of the Royal Prince, a first-rate man of war. In 1673 he was engaged with his two sons Henry and John, against Van Trump. His ship was the Royal Prince, a first-rate man of war, all the masts of which were shot away, four hundred of her men killed or disabled, and most of her upper tier of guns dismounted. Whilst she was thus a wreck, a large Dutch ship of war came down upon her, with two fire-ships, meaning to burn or carry her off. Captain, afterwards sir George Rooke, thinking her condition hopeless, ordered the men to save their lives, and strike the colours. Mr. Leake, hearing this, ordered the lieutenant off the quarter-deck, and took the command upon himself, saying, “the Royal Prince shall never be given up while I am alive to defend her.” The chief- gunner’s gallantry communicated itself to all around the crew returned with spirit to their guns, and, under the direction of Mr. Leake and his two sons, compelled the Dutchman to sheer off, and sunk both the fireships. Leake afterwards brought the Royal Prince safe to Chatham; but the joy of his victory was damped by the loss of his son Henry, who was killed by his side. He was afterwards made master-gunner of England, and storekeeper of the ordnance at Woolwich. He had a particular genius for every thing which related to the management of artillery, and was the first who contrived to fire otf a mortar by the blast of a piece, which has been used ever since. He was also very skilful in the composition of fire-works, which he often and successfully exhibited for the amusement of the king, and his brother, the duke of York. He died in 1686, leaving a son, who is the subject of our next article.

Having brought the campaign to so happy a conclusion, he returned home; where, during his absence, he had been appointed one of the council to the lord-high-admiral, and was likewise elected member of parliament both for Harwich and Rochester, for the latter of which he made his choice. In December the same year, he was made a second time admiral of the fleet. In May 1709, he was constituted rear-admiral of Great -Britain, and appointed one of the lords of the admiralty in December. Upon the change of the ministry in 1710, lord Orford resigning the place of first commissioner of the admiralty, sir John Leake was appointed to succeed him; but he declined that post, as too hazardous, on account of the divisions at that juncture. In 1710, he was chosen a second time member of parliament for Rochester, and made admiral of the fleet the third time in 1711, and again in 1712, when he conducted the English forces to take possession of Dunkirk. Before the expiration of the year, the commission of admiral of the fleet was given to him a fifth time. He was also chosen for Rochester a third time. Upon her majesty’s decease, 'Aug. l, 1714, his post of rear-admiral was determined; and he was superseded as admiral of the fleet by Matthew Aylmer, esq. Nov. 5. In the universal change that was made in every public department, upon the accession of George I. admiral Leake could not expect to be excepted. After this he lived privately; and, building a little box at Greenwich, spent part of his time there, retreating sometimes to a country-house he had at Beddington in Surrey. When a young man, be had married a daughter of captain Richard Hill of Yarmouth; by whom he had one son, an only child, whose misconduct had given him a great deal of uneasiness. In Aug. 1719, he was seized with an apoplectic disorder; but it went off without any visible ill consequence. Upon the death of his son, which happened in March following, after a lingering incurable disorder, he discovered more than ordinary affliction; nor was he himself ever well after; for he died in his house at Greenwich, Aug. 1, 1720, in his sixty-fifth year. By his will, he devised his estate to trustees for the use of his son during life: and upon his death without issue, to captain Martin, who married his wife’s sister, and his heirs.

In 1726, he published his “Nummi Britan. Historia, or Historical Account of English Money.” A new edition, with large additions, was printed in 1745, dedicated to the duke of Suffolk. It is much to Mr. Leake’s honour, that he was the first writer upon the English coinage. From affectionate gratitude to admiral sir John Leake, and at the particular desire of his father, he had written a history of the life of that admiral, prepared from a great collection of books and papers relating to the subject which were in his possession. This he published in 1750, in large octavo. Fifty copies only were printed, to be given to his friends: this book is therefore very scarce and difficult to be obtained. Bowyer, in 1766, printed for him fifty copies of the Statutes of the Order of St. George, to enable him to supply each knight at his installation with one, as he was required to do officially. Ever attentive to promote science, he was constantly adding to the knowledge of arms, decents, honors, precedency, the history of the college, and of the several persons who had been officers of arms, and every other subject in any manner connected with his office. He also wrote several original essays on some of those subjects. These multifarious collections are contained in upward of fifty volumes, all in his own handwriting; which ms., with many others, he bequeathed to his son, John-Martin Leake, esq. He married Ann, youngest daughter, and at length sole- heiress of Fletcher Pervall, esq. of Downton, in the parish and county of Radnor, by Ann his wife, daughter of Samuel Hoole of London, by whom he had nine children, six sons and three daughters; all of whom survived him. He died at his seat at Mile-end at Middlesex, March 24, 1773, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Thorpe Soken church in Essex, of which parish he was long impropriator, and owner of the seat of Thorpe-hall, and the estate belonging to it, inheriting them from his father.

On this event he came over, accompanied by many of his brethren, to England, and wajs so fortunate as to bring with him the greater part of his valuable library, and property enough to enable him to relieve many of his suffering companions. He might probably have received some church-preferment in this country, had he not objected to re-ordination. He died at London, in 1703. He wrote some controversial pieces, but the chief object of his labours was to make a good translation of the Bible, which was published by his son at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. fol. It contains some valuable preliminary dissertations. He had in 1696 announced his intention in a volume entitled “Projet d'une nouvelle version Francois de la Bible,” from which a high opinion was formed of his undertaking. This projet was published in English, under the title of " An Essay for a new translation of the Bible/' and so well received, that a second edition appeared in 1717. The translation itself, however, although ably executed, did not answer the expectation of the public, which was principally owing to the author’s introducing certain whims and fancies of his own, and taking unnecessary liberties with the text.

, a learned Protestant divine, was born in 1594, at Ville Seiche, in the valley of St. Martin in Piedmont. Going to Constantinople as chaplain to the ambassador from the States-general, he formed a friendship in that city with the famous Cyrillus Lucar, and obtained from him a confession of the faith of the Greek and Eastern churches. On his return to the Vallies he was appointed minister there; but being condemned to death by the duke of Savoy, took refuge in Geneva, where he was made professor of divinity, and died in 1661. He left an edition of the New Testament in the original Greek, and vulgar Greek, 2 vols. 4to. His son, Anthony Leger, born 1652, at Geneva, was a celebrated preacher, and five volumes of his sermons have been published since his death, which happened at Geneva, in 1719.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born at Leipsic, July 4, 1646. His father, Frederic Leibnitz, was professor of moral philosophy, and secretary to that university; but did not survive the birth of his son above six years. His mother put him under messieurs Homschucius and Bachuchius, to teach him Greek and Latin; and he made so quick a progress as to surpass the expectations of his master; and not content with their tasks, when at home, where there was a well-chosen library left by his father, he read with attention the ancient authors, and “especially Livy. The poets also had a share in his studies, particularly Virgil, many of whose verses he could repeat in his old age, with fluency and accuracy. He had himself also a talent for versifying, and is said to have composed in one day’s time, a poem of three hundred lines, without an elision. This early and assiduous attention to classical learning laid the foundation of that correct and elegant taste which appears in all his writings. At the age of fifteen, he became a student in the university of Leipsic, and to polite literature joining philosophy and the mathematics, he studied the former under James Thomasius, and the latter under John Kuhnius, at Leipsic. He afterwards went to Jena, where he heard the lectures of professor Bohnius upon polite learning and history, and those of Falcknerius in the law. At his return to Leipsic, in 1663, he maintained, under Thomasius, a thesis,” De Principiis Individuationis.“In 1664, he was admitted M. A.; and observing how useful philosophy might be in illustrating the law, he maintained several philosophical questions taken out of the” Corpus Juris." At the same time he applied himself particularly to the study of the Greek philosophers, and engaged in the task of reconciling Plato with Aristotle; as he afterwards attempted a like reconciliation between Aristotle and Des Cartes. He was so intent on these studies, that he spent whole days in meditating upon them, in a forest near Leipsic.

His views being at this time chiefly fixed upon the law, he commenced bachelor in that faculty in 1665, and the year after supplicated for his doctor’s degree; but was denied, as not being of sufficient standing, that is, not quite twenty; but the real cause of the demur was his rejecting the principles of Aristotle and the schoolmen, against the received doctrine of that time. Resenting the affront, he went to Altorf, where he maintained a thesis, “De Casibus perplexis,” with so much reputation, that he not only obtained his doctor’s degree, but had an offer of being made professor of law extraordinary. This, however, was declined; and he went from Altorf to Nuremberg, to visit the learned in that university. He had heard of some literati there who were engaged in the pursuit of the philosopher’s stone; and his curiosity was raised to be initiated into their mysteries. For this purpose he drew up a letter full of abstruse terms, extracted out of books of chemistry; and, unintelligible as it was to himself, addressed it to the director of that society, desiring to be admitted a member. They were satisfied of his merit, from the proofs given in his letter; and not only admitted him into their laboratory, but even requested him to accept the secretaryship, with a stipend. His office was, to register their processes and experiments, and to extract from the books of the best chemists such things as might be of use to them in their pursuits. About this time, baron Boinebourg, first minister of the elector of Mentz, passing through Nuremberg, met Leibnitz at a common entertainment; and conceived so great an opinion of his parts and learning from his conversation, that he advised him to apply himself wholly to law and history; giving him at the same time the strongest assurances, that he would engage the elector, John Philip of Schonborn, to send for him to his court. Leibnitz accepted the kindness, promising to do his utmost to render himself worthy of such a patronage; and, to be more within the reach of its happy effects, he repaired to Francfort upon the Maine, in the neighbourhood of Mentz. In 1668, John Casimir, king of Poland, resigning his crown, the elector palatine, among others, became a competitor for that dignity; and, while baron Boinebourg went into Poland to manage the elector’s interests, Leibnitz wrote a treatise to shew that the Polonnois could not make choice of a better person for their king. With this piece the elector palatine was extremely pleased, and invited our author to his court. But baron Boinebourg, resolving to provide for him at the court of Mentz, would not suffer him to accept this last offer from the palatine; and immediately obtained for him the post of counsellor of the chamber of review to the elector of Mentz. Baron Boinebourg had some connexions at the French court; and as his son, who was at Paris, was not of years to be trusted with the management of his affairs, he begged Mr. Leibnitz to undertake that charge.

"He read all books without exception the more odd and whimsical the title was, the more curious he was to examine the contents. He found a romance written in German by Mr. Eckard: this romance contained the history of a father, who having consulted an astrologer about the future destiny of his son, learnt that to preserve him from death, there was no other method than to make him pass for the son of a hangman. Leibnitz found this romance so excellent that he read it through at one sitting.

, a learned theological writer of the seventeenth century, the son of Henry Leigh, esq. was born at Shawell in Leicestershire, March 24, 1602-3. He had his grammatical learning under a Mr. Lee of Waishall in Staffordshire; and when removed td Oxford, became a commoner of Magdalen-hall, in 1616, under Mr. William Pemble, a very celebrated tutor of that society. After completing his degrees in arts in 1623, he removed to the Middle Temple for the study of the law. During the violence of the plague in 1625, he took that opportunity to visit France; and on his return to the Temple, added to his law studies those of divinity and history, in both which he attained a great stock of knowledge. He was in fact a sort of lay divine, and superior to many of the profession. About 1636, we find him representing the borough of Stafford in parliament, when some of the members of that, which was called the Long parliament, had withdrawn to the king at Oxford. Mr. Leigh’s sentiments inclining him to remain and to support the measures of the party in opposition to the court, he was afterwards appointed to a seat in the assembly of divines, and certainly sat with no little propriety in one respect, being as ably skilled in matters of divinity and ecclesiastical history as most of them. He was also a colonel of a regiment in the parliamentary service, and custos rotulorum for the county of Stafford. He was not, however, prepared to approve of all the proceedings of the parliament and army; and having, in Dec. 1648, voted that his majesty’s concessions were satisfactory, he and some others, who held the same opinion, were turned out of parliament. From that time he appears to have retired from public life, and to have employed his time in study. He died June 2, 1671, at Rushall Hall in Staffordshire, and was buried in the chancel of that church. His works, which afford abundant proofs of his learning and industry, are, 1. “Select and choice Observations concerning the first twelve Cssars,” Oxon, 1635, 8vo. Additions were made to this work both by himself and his son Henry, who published an enlarged edition in 1657, 8vo, with the title of “Analecta Ccesarum Romanorum.” Two other editions, with farther improvements and plates of coins, &c. appeared in 1664 and 1670, 8vo. 2. “Treatise of Divine promises,” Lond. 1633, often reprinted, and was the model of Clarke’s “Scripture Promises,” and other collections of the same kind. 3. “Critica Sacra, or the Hebrew words of the Old, and of the Greek of the New Testament,” Lond. 1639, and 1646, 4to, afterwards enlarged with a supplement, to 2 vols. folio. This was one of the books on which the late learned Mr. Bowyer bestowed great pains, and had filled it with critical notes. 4. “A Treatise of Divinity,” ibid. 1648, 1651, 8vo. 5. “The Saint’s encouragement in evil times or observations concerning the martyrs in general,” ibid. 1648, 8vo. 6. “Annotations on all the New Testament,” ibid. 1650, folio. 7. “A philological Commentary; or, an illustration of the most obvious and useful words in the Law, &c.” ibid. 1652, &c. 8. “A System or Body of Divinity,” 1654, and 1662, folio. 9. “Treatise of Religion and Learning,” ibid. 1656, folio, which not succeeding, was republished in 1663, with only the new title of “Fcelix consortium, or a fit conjuncture of Religion and Learning.” H). “Choice French Proverbs,” ibid. 1657, 1664, 8vo. 11. “Annotations on the five poetical books of the Old Testament, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,” ibid. 1657, folio. 12. “Second considerations of the high court of Chancery,” 1658, 4to. 13. “England described,” 1659, 8vo, mostly from Caraden*. 14. “Choice observations on all the kings of England, from the Saxons to the death of Charles I.” 1661, 8vo. 15. “Three Diatribes, or Discourses, of travel, money, and measuring, &c.” 1671, 8vo; in another edition it is called the “Gentleman’s Guide.” 16. “Two Sermons,” on the magistrate’s authority, by Christ. Cartwright, B. D. To these sir Edward prefixed a preface in vindication of his own character for appearing in the assembly of divines. This gentleman is by some writers called Sir Edward Leigh, but not so by Wood, nor can we find any information respecting his being knighted. In all his works, that we have seen, he is styled Edward Leigh, Esq.

, peer, marechal, and constable of France, governor of Dauphiny, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born April 1, 1543, at St. Bonnet de Chamsaut, in Dauphiny, of a noble and ancient family. He was among the chiefs of the protestants, for whom he took several places, and when Henry IV. ascended the throne, received fresh marks of his esteem, being appointed lieutenant-general of his forces in Piedmont, Savoy, and Dauphiny. Lesdiguieres defeated the duke of Savoy at the battle of Esparon, April 15, 1591, and in several other engagements; and when the king blamed him for having suffered that prince to build Fort Barreaux, he replied, “Let the duke of Savoy be at that expence; your majesty wants a fortress opposite to Montmelian, and when it is built and stored, we will take it.” He kept his word, and conquered Savoy. This brave man received the marechal’s staff in 1607, and his estate of Lesdiguieres was made a dukedom, as a reward for his services. At length he abjured protestantism at Grenoble, and was afterwards presented by his son-in-law, the maredial de Crequi, with letters, in which the king appointed him constable, July 24, 1622. He commanded the troops in Italy in 1625, and died at Valence in Dauphiny, Sept. 28, 1626, aged eighty-four. His secretary, Lewis Videl, has written his life, or rather his eulogy, 1638, folio. There were, however, many defects in his moral character, and his apostacy is said to have been founded in avarice.

, a distinguished German writer, was born at Kamenz, in Pomerania, in 1729. His father, who was a man of talents and learning, had destined himself to an academical life, but was called to take charge of a congregation at Kamenz, the place of his nativity. Here he was in correspondence with the most famous preachers of his time, published some works of his own, and translated several treatises of AbjJ. Tillotson. He also left behind him a manuscript refutation of some prejudices against the reformation. There can be no doubt but the example and cares of so learned and thoughtful a father had no inconsiderable influence on the early turn which Lessing shewed for literature. When, in his sixth year, his father chose to have his picture drawn, in which he was to be represented sitting under a tree playing with a bird, young Lessing shewed his utter dislike to the plan, and said, “if I am to be painted, let me be drawn with a great heap of books about me, otherwise I had rather not be painted at all;” which was accordingly done. He passed five entire years at the high-school at Meissen, to which, by his own account, he was indebted for whatever learning and solidity of thinking he possessed. Though the Latin poetry belongs to the officiis perfectis of a scholar in this academy, and the German poetry to the imperfectis, yet he pursued the latter much more than the former, and celebrated the battle of Kesseldorf in German verse, at the request of his father. Professor Klemm particularly encouraged him to the-study of mathematics and philosophy while Grabner, the rector of the academy, wrote to his father concerning them “He is a colt that requires a double allowance of provender. The lessons that are found too difficult for others, are but child’s play to him. We shall hardly be sufficient for him much longer.” Being removed to Leipsic, he soon displayed his inclination to write for the stage, and likewise made great proficiency in the bodily exercises of horsemanship, fencing, dancing, and leaping. Mr. Weisse was his first and principal friend at this place; and their friendship was only dissolved by death. Lessing frequented the college-exercises but little, and that irregularly: none of the professors gave him satisfaction, excepting Ernesti, whose lectures he sometimes attended; but he was himself an extensive reader, and was especially partial to the writings of Wolff in German. He kept up a great intimacy with Naumann, the author of “Nimrod,” on account of his possessing many singular qualities, which were always more agreeable to Lessing, than the common dull monotony of character, even though mingled with some weaknesses and defects. Under Kastner he exercised himself in disputation; and here began his close connection with Mylius, whose works he after-, wards published. His intercourse with this free-thinker, and with the company of comedians, however, gave great uneasiness to his parents. His first literary productions appeared in a Hamburgh newspaper. In company with M. Weisse, he translated “Hannibal,” the only tragedy of Marivaux, into rhyming Alexandrines. His comedy of the “Young Scholar,” which he had begun while a schoolboy, was finished at Leipsic, from an actual event that happened to a young scholar disappointed in his hopes of the prize from the academy at Berlin. His father about this time thought proper to recall him home for a time, in order to wean him from the bad company he was thought to frequent. In this interval, he composed a number of Anacreontics on love and wine. One day, his pious sister coming into his room, in his absence, saw these sonnets, read them over, and, not a little angry that her brother could so employ his time, threw them into the fire. A trifling burst of resentment was all he felt on the occasion. He took a handful of snow, and threw it into her bosom, in order to cool her zeal. He now went back to Leipzig; which place he soon after quitted, going by Wittenberg to Berlin. This gave his father fresh uneasiness; and produced those justificatory letters of his son, which at least display the frankness of his character. At Berlin, in conjunction with Mylius, he compiled the celebrated “Sketch of the History and Progress of the Drama.” The father of a writer who had been sharply criticised in this work, made complaint of it to Lessing’s father. To this person he wrote in answer: “The critique is mine, and I only lament that I did not make it more severe. Should Gr. complain of the injustice of my judgment, I give him full liberty to retaliate, as he pleases on my works.” One of his first acquaintances in Berlin was a certain Richier de Louvain, who, in 1750, from a French teacher, was become secretary to Voltaire, with whom he brought our author acquainted. From Berlin he went to Wittenberg, where he plied his studies with great diligence, and took the degree of master, but remained only one year, and then returned to Berlin. At Berlin he undertook the literary article for the periodical publication of Voss, in which employment he both wrote and translated a great variety of pieces, and formed several plans which were never executed. Among others, he agreed with Mendelsohn to write a journal, under the title of “The best from bad Books:” with the motto taken from St. Ambrose, “Legimus aliqua ne legantur.” “We read some books to save others the trouble.” Jn 1755, he went back to Leipzic, and thence set out upon a journey, in company with a young man of the name of Winkler: but this was soon interrupted, and brought op a law-suit, in which Lessing came off conqueror. He now, in order to please his sister, translated “Law’s serious Call,” which was finished and published by Mr. Weisse. At the beginning of 1759, Lessing went again to Berlin, where he very much addicted himself to gaming. This has been attributed to his situation at Breslaw, where he was in the seven years war for some time in quality of secretary to general Tauenzien. Even the care for his health was conducive to it. “Were I able to play calmly,” said he, “I would not play at all; but it is not without reason that I play with eagerness. The vehement agitation sets my clogged machine in motion, by forcing the fluids into circulation; it frees me from a bodily torment, to which I am often subject.” His intimate friends among the learned at Breslaw were Arletius and Klose. Here he was attacked by a violent fever. Though he suffered much from the disease, yet be declared that his greatest torment arose from the conversations of his physician, old Dr. Morganbesser, which he could scarcely endure when he was well. When the fever was at its height, he lay perfectly quiet, with great significance in his looks. This so much struck his friend standing by- the bed, that he familiarly asked him what he was thinking of? “I am curious to know what will pass in my mind when I am in the act of dying.” Being told that was impossible, he abruptly replied: “You want to cheat me.” On the day of his reception into the order of free-masons at Hamburgh, one of his friends, a zealous free-mason, took him aside into an adjoining room, and asked him, “Is it not true, now, that you find nothing among us against the government, religion, or morals” “Yes,” answered Lessmg, with great vivacity, “would to heaven I had I should then at least have found something” The extent of his genius must be gathered from his numerous writings. Mendelsohn said of him in a letter to his brother, shortly after his death, that he was advanced at least a century before the age in which he lived.

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

, a distinguished botanist* was born at Newent, in the forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, Dec. 9, 1735. His father, Stephen Lightfoot, was a reputable yeoman or gentleman farmer, who died in 1769, with a very amiable character, expressed on a small marble monument in the parish church of Newent His son was educated at St. Crypt’s school,Jat Gloucester; from whence he became an exhibitioner in Pembroke-college, Oxford; where he continued his studies with much reputation, and took his master’s degree in July 1766. He was first appointed curate at Colnbrook, and afterwards at Uxbridgef which he retained to his dying day.

Wood characterizes him as a person “from his youth much addicted to contention, novelties, opposition of government, and to violent and bitter expressions;” “the idol of the factious people;” “naturally a great troubleworld in all the variety of governments, a hodge-podge of religion, the chief ring-leader of the levellers, a great proposal-maker, and a modeller of state, and publisher of several seditious pamphlets, and of so quarrelsome a disposition, that it was appositely said of him (by judge Jenkins), * that, if there was none living but he, John would be against Lilburne, and Ltlburne against John.‘ ’ Lord Clarendon instances him” as an evidence of the temper of the nation; and how far the spirits at that time (in 1653) were from paying a submission to that power, when nobody had the courage to lift up their hands against it.“Hume says that he was” the most turbulent, but the most upright and courageous of human kind;“and more recent biographers have given him credit for the consistency of his principles. We doubt, however, whether this consistency will bear a very close examination: it is true that he uniformly inveighed against tyranny, whether that of a king, a protector, or a parliament; but such was his selfish love of liberty, that he included under the name of tyranny, every species of tribunal which did not acquit men. of his turbulent disposition, and it would not be easy from his writings to make out any regular form of government, or system of political principles, likely to prove either permanent or beneficial. In these, however, may be found the models of all those wild schemes which men of similartempers have from time to time obtruded upon public attention. As matters of curiosity, therefore, we shall add a list of his principal publications: i.” A.Salva Libertate.“2.” The Outcry of the young men and the apprentices of London; or an inquisition after the loss of the fundamental Laws and Liberties of England,“&c. London, 1645, August 1, in 4to. 3.” Preparation to an Hue and Cry after sir Arthur Haselrig.“4.” A Letter to a Friend,“dated the 20th of July, 1645, in 4to. 5.” A Letter to William Prynne, esq.“dated the 7th of January, 1645. This was written upon occasion of Mr. Prynne’s” Truth triumphing over Falshood, Antiquity over Novelty.“6.” London’s Liberty in Chains discovered,“&c. London, 1646, in 4to. 7.” The free man’s freedom vindicated; or a true relation of the cause and manner of Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne’s present Imprisonment in Newgate,“&c. London, 1646. 8.” Charters of London, or the second part of London’s Liberty in Chains discovered,“&c. London, 1646, 28 Decemb. 9.” Two Letters from the Tower of London to Colonel Henry Martin, a member of the House of Commons, upon the 13th and 15th of September 1647.“10.” Other Letters of great concern,“London, 1647. 11.” The resolved man’s resolution to maintain with the last drop of his blood his civil liberties and freedoms granted unto him by the great, just, and truest declared Laws of England,“&c. London, 1647, in 4to. 12.” His grand plea against the present tyrannical House of Lords, which he delivered before an open Committee of the House of Commons, 20 Octob. 1647,“printed in 1647, in 4to. 13.” His additional Plea directed to Mr. John Maynard, Chairman of the Committee,“1647, in 4to. 14.” The Outcries of oppressed Commons, directed to all the rational and understanding in the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales,“&c. Febr. 1647, in 4to. Richard Overton, another Leveller, then in Newgate, had an hand in this pamphlet. 15.” Jonah’s Cry out of the Whale’s Belly, in certain Epistles unto Lieutenant General Cromwell and Mr. John Goodwin, complaining of the tyranny of the Houses of Lords and Commons at Westminster,“&c. 16.” An Impeachment of High Treason against Oliver Cromwell and his son-in-law Henry Ireton, esquires, late Members of the forcibly dissolved House of Commons, presented to publick view by Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne, close prisoner in the Tower of London, for his zeal, true and zealous affection to the liberties of this nation,“London, 1649, in 4to. 17.” The legal fundamental Liberties of the People of England revived, asserted, and vindicated,“&c. London, 1649. 18.” Two Petitions presented to the supreme authority of the nation from thousands of the lords, owners, and commoners of Lincolnshire,“&c. London, 1650, in 4to. In a paper which he delivered to the House of Commons, Feb. 26, 1648-9, with the hands of many levellers to it, in the name of” Addresses to the Supreme Authority of England,“and in” The Agreement of the people," published May 1, 1649, and written by him and his associates Walwyn, Prince, and Overton, are their proposals for a democratic form of government.

Lilly, a little before his death, adopted one Henry Coley, a tailor, for his son, by the name of Merlin Junior, and made him a present of the copyright, or good-will of his almanack, which had been printed six and thirty years successively; and Coley carried it on for some time. Lilly bequeathed his estate at Hersham to one of the sons of his friend and patron Bulstrode Whitelock; and his magical utensils came all into the hands of Dr. Case, his successor, of facetious memory.

, one of the most eminent physicians and scholars of his age, descended from the Linacres of Li nacre-hall in the parish of Chesterfield, Derbyshire, was born at Canterbury about 1460. Having completed his school-education, under William de Sellingj a very eminent master, in his native city, he entered at Oxford, and was chosen fellow of All Souls’ college in 1484. Being desirous of farther advancement in learning, he accompanied De Selling into Italy, whither the latter was sent on an embassy to the court of Rome by Henry VII. De Selling left him at Bologna, with strong recommendations to Politian, one of the most elegant Latinists in Europe; and removing thence to Florence, Linacre acquired the favour of that munificent patron of literature, Lorenzo de Medicis, who granted him the privilege of attending the same preceptors with his own sons; an opportunity, by which he knew how to profit; and under Demetrius Chalcondylas, who had fled from Constantinople when it was taken by the Turks, he acquired a perfect knowledge of the Greek language. He then went to Rome, and studied medicine and natural philosophy under Hermolaus Barbaras. He applied particularly to the works of Aristotle and Galen, and is said to have been the first Englishman who made himself master of those writers by perusing them in the original Greek. He also translated and published several of Galen’s tracts into most elegant Latin, and along with Grocyn and William Latimer, undertook a translation of Aristotle, which, however, they left imperfect. On his return to England, he was incorporated M. D. at Oxford, which degree he had taken at Padua, gave temporary lectures on physic, and taught the Greek language in that university. His reputation soon became so high, that king Henry VII. called him to court, and entrusted him with the care both of the health and education of his son, prince Arthur. He is said also to have instructed princess Catherine in the Italian language. He was made successively physician to the kings Henry VII., Henry VIII., and Edward VI., and to the princess Mary.

, a French advocate and political writer, was born at Rheims, July 14, 1736. His father was one of the professors of the college of Beauvais, at Paris, and had his son educated under him, v who made such proficiency in his studies as to gain the three chief prizes of the college in 1751. This early celebrity was noticed by the duke de Deux-Pont, then at Paris, who took him with him to the country; but Linguet soon left this nobleman for the service of the prince de Beavau, who employed him as his aide-de-camp in the war in Portugal, on account of his skill in mathematics. During his residence in that country, Linguet learned the language so far as to be able to translate some Portuguese dramas into French. Returning to France in 1762, he was admitted to the bar, where his character was very various; but amongst the reports both of enemies and friends, it appears that of an hundred and thirty causes, he lost only nine, and was allowed to shine both in oiatory and compo*­sidon. He had the art, however, of making enemies by the occasional liberties he took with characters; and at one time twenty-four of his brethren at the bar, whether from jealousy or a better reason, determined that they would take no brief in any cause in which he was concerned, and the parliament of Paris approved this so far as to interdict him from pleading. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case to be able to form an opinion on the justice of this harsh measure. It appears, however, to have thrown Linguet out of his profession, and he then began to employ his pen on his numerous political writings but these, while they added to his reputation as a lively writer, added likewise to the number of his enemies. The most pointed satire levelled at him was the “Theory of Paradox,” generally attributed to the abbe Morellet, who collected all the absurd paradoxes to be found in Linguet’s productions, which it must be allowed are sufficiently numerous, and deserve the castigation he received. Linguet endeavoured to reply, but the laugh was against him, and all the wits of Paris enjoyed his mortification. His “Journal,” likewise, in which most of his effusions appeared, was suppressed by the minister of state, Maurepas; and Linguet, thinking his personal liberty was now in danger, came to London; but the English not receiving him as he expected, he went to Brussels, and in consequence of an application to the count de Vergeunes, was allowed to return to France. He had not been here long, before, fresh complaints having been made of his conduct, he was, Sept. 27, 1780, sent to the Bastille, where he remained twenty months. Of his imprisonment and the causes he published a very interesting account, which was translated into English, and printed here in 1783. He was, after being released, exiled to Rethel, but in a short time returned to England. He had been exiled on two other occasions, once to Chartres, and the other to Nogent-le-Kotrou. At this last place, he seduced a madame But, the wife of a manufacturer, who accompanied him to England. From England he went again to Brussels, and resumed his journal, or “Annales politiques,” in which he endeavoured to pay his court to the emperor Joseph, who was so much pleased with a paper he had written on his favourite project of opening the Scheldt, that he invited him to Vienna, and made him a present of 1000 ducats. Linguet, however, soon forfeited the emperor’s favour, by taking part with Varider Noot and the other insurgents of Brabant. Obliged, therefore, to quit the Netherlands, he came to Paris in 1791, and appeared at the bar of the constituent assembly as advocate for the colonial assembly of St. Domingo and the cause of the blacks. In February 1792, he appeared in the legislative assembly to denounce Bertrand de Moleville, the minister of the marine; but his manner was so absurd, that notwithstanding the unpopularity of that statesman, the assembly treated it with contempt, and Linguet indignantly tore in pieces his memorial, which he had been desired to leave on the table. During the reign of terror, he withdrew into the country, but was discovered and brought before the revolutionary tribunal, and condemned to death June 27, 1794, for having in his works paid court to the despots of Vienna and London. At the age of fifty-seven he went with serenity and courage to meet his fate. It is not very easy to form an opinion of Linguet’s real character. His being interrupted in his profession seems to have thrown him upon the public, whose prejudices he alternately opposed and flattered. His works abound in contradictions, but upon the whole it may be inferred that he was a lover of liberty, and no inconsiderable promoter of those opinions which precipitated the revolution. That he was not one of the ferocious sect, appears from his escape, and his death. His works are very numerous. The principal are, 1. “Voyage au labyrinthe du jardin du roi,” Hague, (Paris,) 1755, 12mo. 2. “Histoire du siecle d'Alexandre,” Paris, 1762, 12mo. 3. “Projet d‘un canal et d’un pont sur les cotes de Picardie,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Le Fanatisme de Philosophes,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Necessit6 d‘une reforme dans l’administration de la justice et des lois civiles de France,” Amst. 1764, 8vo. 6. “La Dime royale,” 1764, reprinted in 1787. 7. “Histoire des Revolutions de l'empire Remain,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. This is one of his paradoxical works, in which tyranny and slavery are represented in the most favourable light. 8. “Theorie des Lois,” 1767, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774. 9. “Histoire impartiale des Jesuites,” 1768, 8vo. 10. “Hardion’s Universal History,” vols. 19th and 20th. 11. “Theatre Espagnole,” 1770, 4 vols. 12mo. 12. “Theorie du Libelle,” Amst. (Paris), 1775, 12mo, an a,nswer to the abbe Morellet. 13. “Du plusheureux gouvernment,” &c. 1774, 2 vols. 12mo. 14. “Essai philosophique sur le Monachisme,” 1777, 8vo. Besides these he wrote several pieces on the revolution in Brabant, and a collection of law cases.

, an eminent mnsic professor and organist, long resident at Bath, where he had served an apprenticeship under Chilcot, the organist of that city, was a studious man, equally versed in the theory and practice of his art. Having a large family of children, in whom he found the seeds of genius had been planted by nature, and the gift of voice, in order to cultivate this, he pointed his studies to singing, and became the best singing-master of his time, if we may judge by the specimens of “his success in his own family. He was not only a masterly player on the organ and harpsichord, but a good composer, as his elegies and several compositions for Drury-lane theatre evinced. His son Thomas, who was placed under Nardini at Florence, the celebrated disciple of Tartini, was a fine performer on the violin, with a talent for composition, which, if he had lived to develope, would have given longevity to his fame. Being at Grimsthorpe, in Lincolnshire, at the seat of the duke of Ancaster, where he often amused himself in rowing, fishing, and sailing in a boat on a piece of water, in a squall of wind, or by some accident, the boat was overset, and this amiable and promising youth was drowned at an early age, to the great affliction of his family and friends, particularly his matchless sister, Mrs. Sheridan, whom this calamity rendered miserable for a long time; during which, her affection and grief appeared in verses of the most sweet and affecting kind on the sorrowful event. The beauty, talents, and mental endowments of this” Sancta Caecilia rediviva," will be remembered to the last hour of all who heard, or even saw and conversed with her. The tone of her voice and expressive manner of singing were as enchanting as her countenance and conversation. In her singing, with a mellifluous-toned voice, a perfect shake and intonation, she was possessed of the double power of delighting an audience equally in pathetic strains and songs of brilliant execution, which is allowed to very tew singers. When she had heard the Agujari and the Danzi, afterwards madame le Brun, she astonished all hearers by performing their bravura airs, extending the natural compass of her voice a fourth above the highest note of the harpsichord, before additional keys were in fashion. Mrs. Sheridan died at Bristol in 1792.

, afterwards Von Linne', the most eminent of modern naturalists, was born at Rashult, in the province of Smaland, in Sweden, May 13th, 1707. His father, Nicholas Linnæus, was assistant minister of the parish of Stenbrohult, to which the hamlet of Rashult belongs, and became in process of time its pastor or rector; having married Christina Broderson, the daughter of his predecessor. The subject of our memoir was their first-born child. The family of Linnæus had been peasants, but some of them, early in the seventeenth century, had followed literary pursuits. In the beginning of that century regular and hereditary surnames were first adopted in Sweden, on which occasion literary men often chose one of Latin or Greek derivation and structure, retaining the termination proper to the learned languages. A remarkable Lindentree, Tilia Europæa, growing near the place of their residence, is reported to have given origin to the names of Lindelius and Tiliander, in some branches of this family but the above-mentioned Nicholas, is said to have first taken that of Linnæus, by which his son became so exlen--“sively known. Of the taste which laid the foundation of his happiness, as well as his celebrity, this worthy father was the primary cause. Residing in a delightful spot, on the banks of a fine lake, surrounded by hills and valleys, woods and cultivated ground, his garden and his fields yielded him both amusement and profit, and his infant son imbibed, under his auspices, that pure and ardent love of nature for its own sake, with that habitual exercise of the mind in observation and activity, which ever after marked his character, and which were enhanced by a rectitude of principle, an elevation of devotional taste, a warmth of feeling, and an amiableness of manners, rarely united in those who so transcendantly excel in any branch of philosophy or science, because the cultivation of the heart does by no means so constantly as it ought keep pace with that of the understanding. The maternal uncle of Nicholas Linnæus, Sueno Tiliander, who had educated him with his own children, was also fond of plants and of gardening, so that these tastes were in some measure hereditary. From his tutor he learned to avoid the error of the desultory speculators of nature; and his memory, like his powers of perception, was naturally good, and his sight was always remarkably acute. He does not appear, however, to have been very happy under this tutor, and at seven years of age grammar had but an unequal contest with botany, in the mind of the young student. Nor was he much more fortunate when removed, in 1717, to the grammar-school of Wexio, the master of which, as his disgusted pupil relates,” preferred stripes and punishments to admonitions and encouragements.“In 1722 he was admitted to a higher form in the school, and his drier studies were now allowed to be intermixed and sweetened with the recreations of botany. In 1724, being seventeen years of age, he was removed to the superior seminary or Gymnasium, and his destination was fixed for the church; but, having no taste for Greek or Hebrew, ethics, metaphysics, or theology, he devoted himself with success to mathematics, natural philosophy,and a scientific pursuit of his darling botany. The” Chloris Gothica“of Bromelius, and” Hortus Upsaliensis" of Rudbeck, which made a part of his little library, were calculated rather to fire than to satisfy his curiosity; while his Palmberg and Tillands might make him sensible how much still remained to be done. His own copies of these books, used with the utmost care and neatness, are now in sir James Smith’s library. Linnæus’ s literary reputation, therefore, made so little progress, that his tutors havino pronounced him a dunce, he would probably have been put to some handicraft trade, had not Dr. Hothmann, the lecturer on natural philosophy, taken him into his own house, with a view to the studv of physic, and given him a private course of instruction in physiology. He first suggested to Linnæus the true principles upon which botany ought to be studied, founded on the parts of fructification, and put the system of Tournefort into his hands, in the knowledge of which he made a rapid progress.

About this period the queen of Sweden, Louisa Ulrica, having a taste for natural history, which her- royal consort, king Adolphus Frederick, also patronized, shewed much favour to Linnæus. He was employed in arranging her collection of insects and shells, in the country palace of Drotningholm, or Ulricksdahl, and was frequently honoured with the company and conversation of their majesties, during his attendance there. The queen interested herself in the education of his son, and promised to send him to travel through Europe at her own expence. She also listened very graciously to any recommendation or petition, of Linnæus, in the service of science. Linnæus devoted some of his leisure time in winter, to the arragement of his friend count Tessin’s collection of fossils, at Stockholm, of which an account in Latin and Swedish, making a small folio, with plates, came out in 1753. The result of his labours at Drotningholm was not given to the public [until] 1764, when his “Museum Reginse” appeared, in 8Vo, be-, ing a sort of Prodromus of an intended more splendid work, that was never executed. His most magnificent publication appeared in 1754, being a large folio, entitled “Museum Regis Adolphi Frederici,” comprehending descripr: tions of the rarer quadrupeds, birds, serpents, fishes, &c. of the king’s museum, in Latin and Swedish, with plates, and an excellent preface, which was translated by Dr. (now; sir James) Smith, and first printed in 1786; appearing, again, in a volume of “Tracts relating to Natural History,” in 1798. In the mean time, Linnæus was preparing a lasting monument of his own talents and application, the “Species Plantarum,” of which the first editiqn was primed in 1753, the second in 1762, each in two volumes S.vo. The work is too well known to need any description, and must ever be memorable for the adaptation of specific,­<5>ras they were at first called, trivial, names. This coa-, trivance, which Linnæus first used in his “Pan Sueciciw,” a dissertation printed in 1749, extended to minerals in his “Museum Tessinianum,” and subsequently to all the departments of zoology, has perhaps rendered his works more popular than any one of their merits besides. His specific differences were intended to be used as names; but their unavoidable length rendering this impracticable, and the application of numeral figures to each species, in Haller’s manner, being still more burthensome to the memory, all natural science would have been ruined for want of a common language, were it not for this simple and happy invention. By this means we speak of every natural production in two words, its generic and its specific name. No ambiguous comparisons or references are wanted, no presupposition of any thing already known. The philosophical tribe of naturalists, for so they are called by themselves and their admirers, do not therefore depreciate Linnæus, when they call him a nomenclator. Whatever may have been thought of the Linnæun trivial names at their first appearance, they are now in universal use, and their principle has been, with the greatest advantage, extended to chemistry, of which the celebrated Bergman, the friend of Linnæus, originally set the example.

In 1763, he was permitted to avail himself of the assistance of his son, now twenty-one years of age, in the botanical professorship, and the young man was thus trained up for his future successor. In 1764, the sixth edition, by far the most complete, of the “Genera Plantarum,” was published, and he never prepared another. It was intended as a companion to the “Species Plantarum,” but wai greatly superseded by the more concise and commodious short characters of genera, given in the vegetable part of the “Systema Naturae,” published with the title of “Systema Vegetabilium,” edition 13th, in 1774, and reprinted with additions in 1784.

The appellation of Limuean Society was, with the more propriety, chosen by this British institution, on account of the museum of Linnæus having fallen into the hands of sir James Smith, its original projector, and hitherto only president. This treasure, comprehending the library, herbarium, insects, shells, and all other natural curiosities, with all the manuscripts and whole correspondence of the illustrious Swede, were obtained by private purchase from his widow, after the death of his son in 1783. The authority which such an acquisition gave to the labours of the infant society, as well as to all botanical and zoological publications, the authors of which have ever been allowed freely to consult it, will readily be perceived. Nothing perhaps could have more contributed to raise up, or to improve, a taste for natural science, in any country.

His progress would probably have been happy, if not brilliant, but for the conduct of his unnatural mother, who, not content with dishonouring her husband’s bed, and making his home as uncomfortable as she could, by the meanest parsimony and disgusting petty tyranny, conceived a hatred for her only son, which she displayed by every affront and persecution that her situation gave her the means of inflicting on his susceptible and naturally amiable mind. According to Fabricius, she forced her husband, who by such a concession surely partook largely of her guilt and meanness, to procure the nomination of his pupil Solander to be his future successor, in preference to his own son; and it was a part of her plan that he should marry her eldest daughter. Solander, however, disdained both the usurpation and the bait, refusing to leave England; and the misguided father recovered his senses and authority, causing his son, as we have said above, to receive this truly honourable distinction. The mind and spirit of the young man nevertheless still drooped; and even when he had attained his thirtieth year, he would gladly have escaped from his miseries and his hopes together. The authority of the king was obliged to be exerted, at his father’s solicitation, to prevent his going into the army. This measure of the parent was happily followed up by kindness and encouragement in his botanical pursuits, to which treatment the son was ever sensible, and he revived from his despondency before his father’s death, which happened when he was thirty-seven years of age. Though obliged by his mother to purchase, at her own price, the library, manuscripts, herbarium, &c. which he ought by every title to have inherited, he rose above every impediment, and betook himself to the useful application of the means now in his hands, for his own reputation and advancement. His father had already prepared great part of a third botanical appendix, or “Mantissa;” from the communications of Mutis, Kcenig, Sparmann, Forster, Pallas, and others. Hence originated the “Supplementum Plantarum,” printed at Brunswick, under the care of Ehrhart in 1781. The ingenious editor inserted his own new characters of some genera of mosses; which Hedwig has since confirmed, except that some of the names have been justly rejected. This sheet was, in an evil hour, suppressed by the mandate of Linnæus from London, where, at that period, the subject of generic characters of mosses was neither studied nor understood, whatever superior knowledge was displayed concerning their species. The plants of the “Supplementum” are admitted into the fourteenth edition of the “Systema Vegetabilium” by Murray, and figures of some of the most curious have been published by sir J. Smith, in his “Plantarum Icones ex Herbario Linnæano.” Three botanical dissertations also appeared under the presidency of the younger Linnæus, on grasses, on lavandula, and the celebrated Methodus muscorum, which last was the work, and the inaugural thesis, of the present professor Swartz of Stockholm. These form a sequel to the 186 similar essays, which most of them compose the seven volumes of the Amcenitates Academicae, the rest being published by Schreber in three additional ones.

, an eminent historical painter, was born at Florence, probably about the beginning of the fifteenth century, as he was a scholar of, and of course nearly contemporary with, Massaccio. At the age of sixteen, being entered a noviciate in the convent of Carmelites at Florence, he had there an opportunity of seeing that extraordinary artist at work upon the astonishing frescoes with which he adorned the chapel of Brancacci, in the church there; and being eager to embrace the art, such was his success, that after the death of his master, it was said by common consent, that the soul of Massaccio still abode with Fra. Filippo. He now forsook the habit of his convent, and devoted himself entirely to painting; but his studies were for a time disturbed by his being unfortunately taken, while out on a party of pleasure, by some Moors, and carried prisoner to Barbary; where he remained in slavery eighteen months. But having drawn, with a piece of charcoal, the portrait of his master upon a wall, the latter was so affected by the novelty of the performance, and its exact resemblance, that, after exacting a few more specimens of his art, he generously restored him to his liberty. On his return home he painted some works for Alphonso, king of Calabria. He employed himself also in Padua; but it was in his native city of Florence that his principal works were performed. He was employed by the grand duke Cosmo di Medici, who presented his pictures to his friends; and one to pope Eugenius IV. He was also employed to adorn the palaces of the republic, the churches, and many of the houses of the principal citizens; among whom his talents were held in high estimation. He was the first of the Florentine painters who attempted to design figures as large as life, and the first who remarkably diversified the draperies, and who gave his figures the air of antiques. It is to be lamented that such a man should at last perish by the consequences of a guilty amour he indulged in at Spoleto; where he was employed at the cathedral to paint the chapel of the blessed virgin. This is differently told by different writers, some saying that he seduced a nun who sat to him for a model of the virgin, and others that the object of his passion was a married woman. In either case, it is certain that he was poisoned by the relations of the lady whose favours he was supposed to enjoy. Lorenzo di Medici erected a marble tomb in the cathedral to his memory, which Politian adorned with a Latin epitaph. His son Lippi Filippo, was renowned for excellent imitations of architectural ornaments. He died in 1505, at the age of forty-five. There was also a Florentine painter, Lorenzo Lippi, born in 1606, and likewise a great musician and a poet. In the latter character he published “II Malmantile racquistato,” which is considered as a classical work in the Tuscan language. He died in 1664.

* Coleman at that time wrote to the those that require it, on conditions pope’s internuncio thus: “There is prejudicial to the authority of the pope, but one thing to be feared (whereof! and so to persecute the rest of them with have a great apprehension) that ran more appearance of justice, and ruin hinder the success of our designs; which the one half of them more easily than is, a division among the catholics them- the whole body at once.” And carselves; by propositions to the parlia- dinal Howard delivered it as their ment to accord their conjunction to judgment at Rome. ' Division of CaAll suspicion, however, of his principles vanished in James IPs reign, when the nation saw him one of the six prelates, who, with archbishop Sancroft, were committed to the Tower in June 1688, for resisting his majesty’s order to distribute and publish in all their churches the royal declaration for liberty of conscience; and about the end of the same year, having concurred heartily in therevolution, he was made lord almoner to king William III. In 1692 he was translated to the see of Litchfield and Coventry, and thence to Worcester in 1699. He continued in the office of lord almoner till 1702, when, together with his son, having too warmly interested himself in the election for the county of Worcester, a complaint was made to the House of Commons, and a resolution passed of addressing the queen “to remove William lord bishop of Worcester from being lord almoner to her majesty; and that Mr. Attorney General do prosecute Mr. Lloyd, the lord bishop of Worcester’s son, for his said offence, after his privilege as a member of the lower house of convocation is out.” In consequence of this vote, an address Was presented to the queen, with which her majesty complied, and dismissed the bishop from his office.

Bishop Lloyd lived to the age of ninety-one; but in the latter part of his life seems to have fallen into some imbecility of mind; as appears from the account given by Swift of the good old prelate’s going to queen Anne, “to prove to her majesty, out of Daniel, and the Revelations, that four years hence there would be a war of religion, that the king of France would be a protestant, and that the popedom should be destroyed.” He died at Hartlebury- castle, August 30, 1717, and was buried in the church of Fladbury, near Kvesham, in Worcestershire, of which his son was rector; where a monument is erected to his memory with a long inscription, setting him forth " as an excellent pattern of virtue and learning, of quick invention, firm memory, exquisite judgment, great candour, piety, and gravity; a faithful historian, accurate chronologer, and skilled in the holy scriptures to a miracle; very charitable, and diligent in a careful discharge of his episcopal

virulent satire upon him on this ucea- Commons. office.“Bishop Burnet speaks of our author with the greatest warmth of friendship, and in the highest style of panegyric. In reality he was indebted to Dr. Lloyd for a great part of his own fame, having undertaken his” History of the Reformation“by his persuasion, and being furnished by him with a large share of the materials; he likewise revised every sheet of the whole work during the printing. The world is likewise indebted to Lloyd for that stupendous work, Pool’s” Synopsis,“which was undertaken by his advice, as appears by a letter of that prelate addressed to Mr. Henry Dodwell, and communicated to Mr. Granger by his son, the late Dr. Dodwell, archdeacon of Berks. Bishop VVilkins, in his preface to” An Essay towards a real character and a philosophical language,“acknowledges himself obliged to” the continual assistance of his most learned and worthy friend Dr. William Lloyd,“and expresses the highest opinion of his” great industry, and accurate judgment in philological and philosophical matters." But no written authority seems to represent bishop Lloyd’s temper and character in a more amiable light than the interesting account of his conduct towards the dissenters of his diocese, as given in the life of the Rev. Philip Henry, to which, from its length, we must refer. It occurs in p. 118 of the edition 1712.

Besides the “Considerations,” &c. mentioned above, he wrote, 1. “The late Apology in behalf of Papists, reprinted and answered, in behalf of the Royalists,” 1667, 4to. 2. “A seasonable Discourse, shewing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Popery,” 1672, 4to, which passed through five editions in the following year. 3. “A reasonable Defence of the Seasonable Discourse,” &c. 1673, 4to, in answer to the earl of Castlemain’s observations on the preceding article. 4. “The difference between the Church and the Court of Rome considered,” 1673, 4to. All the preceding were published without the author’s name, nor were they at first acknowledged by, though generally attributed to him. They were reprinted in 1689, 4to. 5. “An Alarm for Sinners,” 1679, 4to. This was published by our author when dean of Bangor, from an original copy containing the confession, prayers, letters, and last words of Robert Foulks, vicar of Stanton-Lucy, in Shropshire, who was executed at Tyburn, in 1678, for the murder of a natural child; and whom Dr. Lloyd and Dr. Buraet attended during his imprisonment. 6. Various occasional Sermons, printed separately. 7. “An historical account of Church Government,” 1684, 8vo. 8. “A Letter to Dr. William Sherlock, in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, which gives an account of Jaddua the high priest’s submitting to Alexander the Great,” 1691, 4to. 9. “A Discourse of God’s ways of disposing Kingdoms,” 1691, 4to. 10. “The Pretences of the French Invasion examined,” &c. 1692, 4to. 11. “A Dissertation upon Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” the substance of which is inserted in the chronology of sir Isaac Newton. 12. An exposition of the same subject, left printed imperfect, and not published. 13. *‘ A Letter upon the same subject, printed in the ’ Life of Dr. Humphrey Prideaux,' p. 288, edit. 1758,“8vo. 14.” A System of Chronology,“left imperfect, but out of it his chaplain, Benjamin Marshall, composed his” Chronological Tables,“printed at Oxford, 1712, 1713. 15.” A Harmony of the Gospels,“partly printed in 4to, but left imperfect. 16.” A Chronological account of the Life of Pythagoras,“&c. 1699. 17. He is supposed to have had a hand in a book published by his son at Oxford, 1700, in folio, entitled” Series Chronologica Olympiadum,“&c. He wrote also some” Explications of some of the Prophecies in the Revelations,“and added the chronological dates at the head of the several columns, with an index to the Bible, and many of the references and parallel places, first printed in the fine edition of the Bible published in folio, under the direction of archbishop Tenison, in 1701. He left a Bible interlined with notes in short hand, which was in the possession of Mr. Marshall, his chaplain, who married a relation, and would have published these notes had he met with encouragement, as Whiston informs us, who always, even in his index, calls Dr. Lloyd” the great bishop,“and in speaking of Wasse says,” one more learned than any bishop in England since bishop Lloyd."

, a very learned oriental scholar, was the second son of sir Adam Loftus, and great grandson of Dr. Adam Loftus, who was archbishop of Armagh, then of Dublin, and one of the lords justices, and lord chancellor of Ireland. He was born in 1618, at Rathfarnam, near Dublin, a stately castle built by his ancestor the archbishop, and was educated in Trinity college, where he was admitted fellow- commoner in 1635. About the time he took his first degree in arts, the extraordinary proficiency he had made in languages attracted the notice of arciibishop Usher, who earnestly advised his father to send him to Oxford, where he might improve his oriental learning, a matter which that worthy prelate considered as highly important in the investigation of the history and principles of the Christian religion. Mr. Loftus was accordingly sent by his father to Oxford, and entered of University college, where he was incorporated B. A. in November 1639, About this time he commenced the study of the law, with a view to take his bachelor’s degree in that faculty, but at the persuasion of his friends in University college, took his degree of master of arts in 1641, and then returned to Ireland at the moment the rebellion broke out. His father, who was at that time vice-treasurer, and one of the privy council, procured a garrison to be placed in his castle of Rathfarnam, and gave the command of it to his son Dudley, who displayed his skill and courage, by defending the city from the incursions of the Irish inhabiting the neighbouring mountains. He was afterwards made one of the masters in chancery, vicargeneral of Ireland, and judge of the prerogative court and faculties, all which offices he held to the time of his death. He was also a doctor of the civil law, and esteemed the most learned of any of his countrymen in that faculty. Towards the latter part of his life, his talents and memory were very much impaired, and when about seventy-six years of age, he married a second wife, but died the year following, in June 1695, and was buried in St. Patrick’s church, Dublin.

, author of a valuable History of Jamaica, was the fourth son of Samuel Long, esq. of Longville, in the island of Jamaica, and Tredudwell in the county of Cornwall, by his wife Mary, second daughter of Bartholomew Tate, of Delapre in the county of Northampton, esq. He was born Aug. 23, 1734, at Rosilian, in the parish of St. Blaize, in Cornwall. He was placed first at Bury school, under Dr. Kinnesman, and was removed thence about 1746, probably on account of his father’s residence in the country, to a school at Liskeard, in Cornwall, under the management of the Rev. Mr. Haydon. In 1752 he left this place, and after two years private instruction in London, he was entered at Gray’s Inn, and fixed with Mr. Wflmot. His father dying, in 1757, in Jamaica, he resolved to embark for that Island; but, not having completed his terms, he obtained an ex gratia call to the bar before he sailed. On his arrival in Jamaica, he at first filled the post of private secretary to his brother-in-law, sir Henry Moore, bart. then lieutenant-governor of the island; and was afterwards appointed judge of the vice-admiralty court. On Aug. 12, 1758, he married Mary, second daughter, and at length sole heiress, of Thomas Beckford, esq. Mr. Long’s ill health compelled him to leave the island in 1769; and he never returned to it, but passed the remainder of his life in retirement, devoting his leisure to literary pursuits, and particularly to the com 7 pletion of his “History of Jamaica,” which was published in 1774, 3 vols. 4to. His high station in the island afforded him every opportunity of procuring authentic materials, which he digested with ingenuity and candour, although perhaps a little too hastily. He saw its imperfections, however, and had been making preparations for a new edition at the time of his death. In 1797 he resigned his office of judge of the vice-admiralty court; and died March 13, 1813, at the house of his son-in-law, Henry Howard Molyneux, esq. M. P. of Arundel Park, Sussex, and was buried in the chancel of Slindon church in that county. Besides his “History of Jamaica,” Mr. Long contributed to public information or amusement by a variety of lesser productions. Early in life he wrote some essays in “The Prater, by Nicholas Babble, esq.” 1756. 2. “The Antigallican, or the History and Adventures of Harry Cobham, esq.” 1757, 12mo. 3. “The Trial of farmer Carter’s Dog Porter, for murder,” 1771, 8vo. 4. “Reflections on the Negro Cause,” 1772, 8vo. 5. “The Sentimental Exhibition, or Portraits and Sketches of the Times,” 1774, 8vo. 6. “Letters on the Colonies,” 1775, 8vo. 7. “English Humanity no Paradox,” 1778, 8vo. 8. A pamphlet on “The Sugar Trade, 1782, 8vo. He was likewise editor of” Memoirs of the Reign of Bossa Ahaclee, king of Dahomy, with a short account of the African slave trade, by Robert Norris," 1789, v 8vo.

, a French poet, was born in 1642, of a respectable family at Toulouse. He was originally secretary of the embassy to M. de St. Remain, ambassador in Switzerland, and went to Siam, 1687, as envoy extraordinary from the French king. On his return to France, he was entrusted with a secret commission in SpaVi and Portugal, s-trpposed to have had for its object the detachment of those two courts from the alliance which had produced the revolution in England; but his design transpiring, he was arrested at Madrid, and with difficulty obtained his liberty. M. dela Loubere attached himself afterwards to the chancellor de Pontchartrain, and travelled with his son. He was admitted into the French academy in 1693, and that of the belles lettres in 1694; and retired at last to Toulouse, where he married at sixty, established the Floral Games, and died March 26, 1729, aged eightyseven. His works are, Songs, Vaudevilles, Madrigals, Sonnets, Odes, and other poetical pieces; an account of his voyage to Siam, 2 vols. 12rno, and a treatise “de la Resolution des Equations,” 1729, 4 to. &c. Of his voyage to Siam, there is an English translation, published in 1693, folio. It is the only one of his productions now in request. There is reason to think he was not much admired by some of the academicians. It being by means of M. de Pontchartrain that he was admitted into the French academy, Fontaine said,

, a presbyterian divine of considerable tame in the time of Cromw< II, was born at Cardiff in Glamorganshire, in 1618. In his earlier days he was of a dissipated turn; and his religious education, at least, must have been neglected by his parents, if what his biographer says be true, that he was fifteen years of age before he ever heard a sermon. The effect of this sermon, however, preached by Mr. Erbery, was such that he became not only reformed, but so strict and precise in his religious duties, as to give offence to his father, who at length placed him as an apprentice in London. His son, who was averse to this measure, earnestly intreated that he might be sent to the university; to which having obtained a very reluctant consent, he became a servitor of New Inn, Oxford, in 1635. Here, however, as his father denied him a proper support, he subsisted by the help of the above-mentioned Mr. Erbery, and such supplies as his mother could afford. After taking a bachelor’s degree in arts, he went into holy orders, and preached frequently at St. Peter in the Bayley, but his principles were so unacceptable, that after he had taken his master’s degree, and had refused to subscribe the canons enjoined by archbishop Laud, relative to the prelates and the Book of Common Prayer, he was expelled the congregation of masters.

, an English clergyman, was born iir Northamptonshire about 1630, and is supposed to have been the son of Simon Lowth, a native of Thurcaston in Leicestershire, who was rector of Dingley in that county in 1631, and was afterwards ejected by the usurping powers. This, his son, was educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where be took his master’s degree in 1660. He was afterwards rector of St. Michael Harbledown in 1670, and vicar of St. Co.Miius and Damian on the Blean in 1679, both in, Kent. On Nov. 12, 1688, king James nominated him, and he was instituted by bishop Sprat, to the deanery of Rochester, on the death of Dr. Castillon, but never obtained possession, owing to the following circumstances. The mandate of installation bad issued in course, the bishop not having allowed himself time to examine whether the king’s presentee was legally qualified; which happened not to be the case, Mr. Lowth being only a master of arts, and the statute requiring that the dean should be at least a bachelor of divinity. The bishop in a day or two discovering that he had been too precipitate, dispatched letters to the chapter clerk, and one of the prebendaries, earnestly soliciting that Mr. Lowth might not be installed; and afterwards in form revoked the institution till he should have taken the proper degree. On Nov. 27 Mr. Lowth attended the chapter, and produced his instruments, but the prebendaries present refused to obey them. He was admitted to the degree of D.D.Jan. 18 following, and on March 19 again claimed instalment, but did not obtain possession, for which, in August of this year, another reason appeared, viz. his refusing to take the oaths of allegiance; in consequence of which he was first suspended from his function, and afterwards deprived of both his livings in Kent. He lived very long after this, probably in London, as his death is recorded to have happened there on July 3, 1720, when he was buried in the new cemetery belonging to the parish of St. George the Martyr, Queen Square. He published, 1. “Letters between Dr. Gilbert Burnet and Mr. Simon. Lowth,” 1684, 4to, respecting some opinions of the former in his “History of the Reformation.” 2. “The subject of Church Power, in whom it resides,” &c. 1685, 8vo. 3. “A Letter to Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. in answer to the Dedicatory Epistle before, his ordination-sermon, preached at St. Peter’s Cornhill, March 15, 1684, with reflections. on some of Dr. Burnet’s letters on the same subject,” 1687, 4to, and 8vo. This was answered by Dr. Stillingfleet in a short letter to the bishop of London, “an honour,” bishop Nicolson says, “which he (Lowth) had no right to expect;” Lowth had submitted this letter both to Stillingfleet and Tillotson, who was then dean of Canterbury, but, according to Birch, “the latter did not think proper to take the least public notice of so confused and unintelligible a writer.” Dr. Hickes, however, a suffering nonjuror like himself, calls Lowfeh “a very orthodox and learned divine,” and his book an excellent one. His only other publication, was “Historical Collections concerning Deposing of Bishops,” 1696, 4to. From the sameness of name we should suppose him related to the subjects of the two preceding articles, but have not discovered any authority for more, than a conjecture on the subject.

, one of the chiefs of the republican party during the civil wars, was descended of an ancient and good family, originally of Shropshire, and thence removed into Wiltshire, in which county he wag born, at Maiden- Bradley, about 1620. After a proper foundation in grammar, he was sent to Trinity-college in Oxford, where he took the degree of batchelor of arts in 1636, but removed to the Temple, to study the law, as a qualification for serving his country in parliament, his ancestors having frequently represented the county of Wiltshire. His father, sir Henry Ludlow, who was a member of the long parliament and an enemy to the measures of the court, encouraged his son to engage as a volunteer in the earl of Essex’s life-guard. In this station he appeared against the king, at the battle of Edge-hill, in '1642; and, having raised a troop of horse the next summer, 1643, he joined sir Edward Hungerford in besieging Wardour-castle. This being taken, he was made governor of it; but being retaken the following year, 1644, by the king’s forces, he was carried prisoner to Oxford. After remaining here some time, he was released by exchange, went to London, and was appointed high-sheriff of Wiltshire by the parliament. He then appears to have declined a command under the earl of Essex, but accepted the post of major in sir Arthur Haslerig’s regiment of horse, in the army of sir William Waller, and marched to form the blockade of Oxford. From Oxford, however, he was immediately sent, with a commission from sir William, to raise and command a regiment of horse, and was so successful as to be able to join Waller with about five hundred horse, and was engaged in the second battle fought at Newbury. Upon new modelling the army, he was dismissed with Waller, and was not employed again in any post, civil or military, till 1645, when he was chosen in parliament for Wiltshire in the room of his father, who died in 1643.

, a very celebrated general and mareschal of France, was a posthumous son of the famous Bouteville, who was beheaded under Louis XIII. for fighting a duel. He was born in 1628, and in 1643 was present at the battle of Rocroi, under the great Conde, whose pupil he was, and whom he followed in all his fortunes. He also resembled that great man in many of his eminent qualities, in acuteness of perception, thirst for knowledge, promptness in action, and ardour of genius. These qualities he displayed in the conquest of Franche-Comte in 1668, where he served as lieutenant-general. He served also in the Dutch campaign of 1672, took many towns, and gained some trophies in the field. He closed this expedition by a retreat more famous than his victories, which he accomplished with an awny of 20,000 men, against the opposition, of 70,000. After distinguishing himself in another expedition in Franche-Comte, he was advanced in 1675, to the dignity of mareschal of France. He fought, during the remainder of that war, with various success. In the second war of Louis XIV. against the allied powers in 1690, he gained the battle of Fleurus, and it was generally allowed that he prevailed in it chiefly by the superiority of his genius to that of his antagonist the prince of Waldeck. In the ensuing year, 1691,“he gained the battles of Leufen and Steinkirk; and, continuing to be opposed to king William of England, he was again successful, in the bloody battle of Nerwinde, where there fell on the two sides near 20,000 men. It was said in France that on this occasion they should not sing Te Deum, but De profundis, the mass for the dead. The duke of Luxembourg is said to have had an ordinary countenance and a deformed figure, in consequence of which William III. whose constant antagonist he was, is reported to have said once with some impatience,” What! shall I never beat this hump-backed fellow?“This speech being repeated to the duke,” How should he know,“said he,” the shape of my back? I am sure he never saw me turn it to him.“The last great action of the duke’s life was a second famous retreat, in the presence of superior forces, through a considerable extent of country, to Tournay. This was in 1694, and he died the following year, Jan. 4, at the age of sixty-seven. Notwithstanding the disadvantages of his person, Luxembourg is said to have been much involved in intrigues of gallantry. He had some powerful enemies, particularly the minister Louvois, who once had him confined very unjustly in the Bastille. Among other frivolous calumnies on which he was then interrogated, he was asked whether he had not made a league with the devil, to marry His son to the daughter of the marquis de Louvois. His answer was replete with the high spirit of French nobility.” When Matthew of Montmorenci,“said he,” married a queen of France, he addressed himself, not to the devil, but to the states-general; and the declaration of the states was, that in order to gain the support of the house of Montmorenci for the young king in his minority, it would be right to conclude that marriage." Idle as the accusations against him were, they cost him a confinement of fourteen months, and he had no subsequent redress.

He was succeeded by his son Thomas, second lord Lyttelton, of whom the following too just character is on record: “With great abilities generally very ill applied; with a strong sense of religion, which he never suffered to influence his conduct, his days were mostly passed in splendid misery; and in the painful change of the most extravagant gaiety, and the deepest despair. The delight, when he pleased, of the first and most select societies, he chose to pass his time, for the nio,st part, with the most profligate and abandoned of both iexes. Solitude was to fiim the most insupportable torment; and to banish refleo tion, he flew to Company whom he despised and ridiculed. His conduct was a subject of bitter regret both to his father and all his friends.” He closed this unhappy life, Nov. 27, 1779. Two volumes of “Letters” published in 1780 and 1782, though attributed to him, are known to have been the production of an ingenious writer yet living; and a quarto volume of “Poems,” published in 1780, was, as well as the “Letters,” publicly disowned by his executors, but as to the “Poems,” they added, “great part whereof are undoubtedly spurious.”

From 1728 to 1732 he was employed in publishing, “Marmorum Arundellianorum, Seldenianorum, aliorumque Academies Oxoniensi donatorum, una cum Commentariis & Indice, editio secunda,” folio to which an “Appendix” was printed in 1733. “Epistola D. Mich. Maittaire ad D. P. Des Maizeaux, in qua Indicis in Annales Typographicos methodus explicatur,” &c. is printed in “The Present State of the Republic of Letters,” in August 1733, p. 142. The life of Robert Stephens, in Latin, revised and corrected by the author, with a new and complete list of his works, is prefixed to the improved edition of R. Stephens’s Thesaurus, 4 vols. in folio, in 1734. In 1736 appeared, “Antiques Inscriptiones cluae,” folio; being a commentary on two large copper tables discovered near Heraclea, in the bay of Tarentum. In 1738 were printed at the Hague, “Graecse Linguae Dialecti in Scholse Regias Westmonasterrensis usum recogniti opera Mich. Maittaire. Prosfationem & Appendicem ex Apollonii Discoli fragmento inedito addidit J. F. Reitzius.” Maittaire prefixed a dedication of this volume to the marquis of Granby, and the lords Robert and George Manners, his brothers; and a new preface, dated 3 Cal. Octob. 1737. This was again printed at London in 1742. In 1739, he addressed to the empress of Russia a small Latin poem, under the title of “Carmen Epinicium Augustissimae Russorum Imperatrici sacrum.” His name not having been printed in the titlepage, it is not so generally known that he was editor of Plutarch’s “Apophthegmata,” 1741, 4to. The last publication of Mr. Maittaire was a volume of poems in 4to, 1742, under the title of “Senilia, sive Poetica aliquot in argumentis varii generis tentamina.” It may be worth mentioning, that Baxter’s dedication to his “Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum,” was much altered by Maittaire; who died August 7, 1747, aged seventy-nine. There is a good mezzotinto print of him by Faber, from a painting by B. Dandridge, inscribed, “Michael Maittaire, A. M. Amicorum jussu.” His valuable library, which he had been collecting fifty years, was sold by auction, by Messrs. Cock and Langford, at the close of the same year, and the beginning of the following, taking up in all forty-four nights. Mr. Cock, in his prefatory advertisement, tells us, “In exhibiting thus to the public the entire library of Mr. Maittaire, I comply with the will of my deceased friend; and in printing the catalogue from his own copy just as he left it (though, by so doing, it is the more voluminous), I had an opportunity not only of doing the justice I owe to his memory, but also of gratifying the curious.” Maittaire, it may be added, was patronized by the first earl of Oxford, both before and after that gentleman’s elevation to the peerage, and continued a favourite with his son the second earl. He was also Latin tutor to Mr. Stanhope, the earl of Chesterfield’s favourite son, and was esteemed by so many persons of eminence that we cannot wonder at his portrait being engraven jussu amicorum. He possessed many amiable qualities; in religion was orthodox and zealous ; in temper modest and unassuming despising the pride of learning, yet fond of friendly intercourse.

, a Lutheran divine, was born Feb. 5, 1653, at Pfortzheim, in the marquisate of Baden-Dourlach. He was profoundly skilled in Hebrew literature, and taught the oriental languages in several universities, with great reputation. His last employments of this kind were at Giessen, where he was pastor, and where he died Sept. 3, 1719. He was well acquainted with antiquities, sacred and profane, but his works are less known in other parts of Europe than in Germany. The following are some of them: 1. “Historiaanimaliuin Scripturae sacrse,” 8vo. 2. “Vita Johannis Reuchlini,” 1687, 8vo. 3. “Examen historiae criticse Ricardi Simonis,” 4to. 4. “Synopsis Theologiae symbolical,” 4to. 5. “Synopsis Moralis,” 4to. 6. “Synopsis Judaica,” 4to. 7. “Introductio ad studium Philologicum, criticum, et exegeticum,” 4to. 8. “Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Hebraeos,” 4to. 9. “Theologia Evangelica,” 1701, and 1719, 4 parts 4to. 10. “Animadversiones et Supplementa ad Coccei Lexicon Hebraeum,” 1703, fol. 11. “CEconomia temporum veteris et Novi Test. 4to. 12.” Synopsis Theologian Christiana?,“4to. 13.” Theologia Lutheri,“4to. 14.” Theologia Prophetica,“4to. 15.” Harmonia Evangelica,“4to. 16.” Historia Reformationis Lutheri,*' 4to. 17. “Dissertationes philologies et exegetica;,” Francfort, 1711, 2 vols. 4to, &c. He also published a very good edition of the Hebrew Bible, 4to. His son, of the same name, was eminent for his knowledge of Greek and the oriental languages.

In 1771, when the government had dissolved the whole legal constitution, and banished the parliaments, Malesherbes was banished to his country-seat by a “lettre de cachet,” and the duke de Richelieu, at the head of an armed force, abolished the court of aids. During his retirement, Malesherbes’s time was occupied with his family and his books, and the cultivation of his grounds. His expenditure in public objects was large: he drained marshes, cut canals, constructed roads, built bridges, planted walks, and carried his attention to the comfort of the lower classes so far as to raise sheds on the sides of the river for the shelter of the women at their domestic labours. He was thus benevolently and usefully employed when the accession of Lewis XVI. recalled him to a public station, and in 1774 Malesherbes received an order to resume the presidentship of the court of aids, on which occasion he pronounced a very affecting and patriotic harangue, and afterwards addressed the king in an eloquent speech of thanks. His majesty was so well pleased with him, and with the freedom of his sentiments, that he appointed him minister of state in June 1775, an office which gave Malesherbes an opportunity of extending his sphere of usefulness. One of his first concerns was to visit the prisons, and restore to liberty the innocent victims of former tyranny, and his praises were carried throughout France by persons of all descriptions returning to the bosoms of their families from the gloom of dungeons. Although he failed in his attempt to abolish the arbitrary power of issuing lettres de cachet, he procured the appointment of a commission, composed of upright and enlightened magistrates, to which every application for such letters should be submitted, and whose unanimous decision should be requisite for their validity. Malesherbes was also a great encourager of commerce and agriculture, in which he bad the cordial co-operation of the illustrious Turgot, at that period the comptroller of the revenue; but, owing to the rejection of some important measures which his zeal for the public good led him to propose, Malesberbes resigned in the month of May 1776. To obtain an accurate view of the manners and policy of other countries and foreign states, he set out on his travels, and visited Switzerland and Holland, and in the course of his journey he noted down every occurrence worthy of observation, and that might, hereafter, possibly be useful to himself, and promote the melioration of his country. On his return, at the end of a few years, he found his native country so much advanced in what he thought philosophical principles, that he was encouraged to present to the king two elaborate memoirs, one on the condition of the protestants, the other in favour of the principles of civil liberty, an4 toleration in general. Difficulties, however, were now accumulating in the management of the government, and the king, in 1786, called Malesherbes to his councils, but without appointing him to any particular post in the administration. He soon found it impossible to act with the men already possessed of the powers of government, and expressed his opinion in two energetic memoirs “On the Calamities of France, and the means of repairing them;” but it does not appear that these ever reached his majesty, nor could Malesherbes obtain a private interview; he therefore took his final leave of the court, and retreated to his country residence, determined to consult the best means of serving his country by agricultural pursuits, in 1790 he published “An Essay on the means of accelerating the progress of Rural Economy in France,” in which he proposed an establishment to facilitate the national improvement in this important point. In this tranquil state he was passing the evening of his days when the horrors of the revolution brought him again to Paris. During the whole of its progress, he had his eyes constantly fixed on his unhappy sovereign; and, subduing his natural fondness for retirement, went regularly to court every Sunday, to give him proofs of his respect and attachment. He imposed it as a duty on himself to give the ministers regular information of the designs of the regicide faction; and when it was determined to bring the king to trial, he voluntarily offered to be the defender of his master, in his memorable letter of Dec. 11, 1792, that eternal monument of his loyalty and affection. Three counsel had already been appointed, but one having from prudential motives, declined the office, the king, who wept at this proof of attachment from his old servant, immediately nominated Malesherbes in his stead. Their interview was extremely affecting, and his majesty, during the short interval before his death, shewed every mark of affection for, and confidence in, his generous advocate. Malesherbes was the person who announced to him his cruel doom, and was one of the last who took leave of him previously to his execution. After that catastrophe he again withdrew to his retreat, and with a deeply-wounded heart, refused to hear any thing of what was acting among the blood-thirsty Parisians. As he was one morning working in his garden, he observed four savage-looking wretches directing their course to his house, and hastening home, he found them to be officers from the revolutionary tribunal come to arrest his daughter and her husband, who had formerly been president of the parliament of Paris. The separation of these persons from his family was deeply afflicting to his heart, and it is probable that his own arrest shortly after was a relief to his feelings. He had long been esteemed as father of the village in which he lived, and the rustic inhabitants crowded round to take leave of their ancient benefactor with tears and benedictions. Four of the municipality accompanied him to Paris, that he might not be escorted by soldiers like a criminal. He was shut tip in prison with his unfortunate family and in a lew days the guillotine separated his son-in-law Lepelletier from his wife and the accusation of Malesherbes with his daughter and grand-daughter, “for a conspiracy against the liberties of the people,” was followed, as a matter of course, by a sentence of death. The real crime, as it was basely denominated, of this excellent man and worthy patriot, and which the convention never pardoned, was his defence of the king, an act in which he gloried to the latest hour of his existence. He probably thought it an honour to die by the same ruffian hands that had spilt the blood of his master. The condemnation of the females almost overcame the manly fortitude which he displayed in every personal suffering; his courage, however, returned at the prison, and they prepared for the death which was the last and only important event that they had to encounter. His daughter had exhibited the noble spirit with which she was inspired, for upon taking leave of mademoiselle Sombreuil, who had saved her father’s life on the second of September, she said to her, “You have had the happiness to preserve your father, I shall have the consolation of dying with mine” On the fatal day Malesherbes left the prison with a serene countenance, and happening to stumble against a stone, he said with much pleasantry, “a Roman would have thought this an unlucky omen, and walked back again.” Thus perished the venerable Malesherbes in April 1794, when he had attained to the age of seventy-two years four months and fifteen days. His character may be in part deduced from the preceding narrative, but is more fully displayed in his life translated by Mr. Mangin. The subsequent government has since made some reparation for the injustice done him, by ordering his bust to be placed among those of the great men who have reflected honour upon their country.

Manes now began to think of founding his system. He made what use he could of the writings of Scythianus; he selected from the heathen philosophy whatever was for his purpose, and he wrought it all up together with some institutes of Christianity; which made Socrates call his heresy a motley mixture of Christianity and Paganism. Although Manes wrote a great many pieces himself, we have nothing remaining, except a few fragments preserved in the writings of Epiphanius. Manes became famous all over Persia, engaged the attention of the court, and as he pretended to the gift of working miracles, he was called by king Sapor to cure his son, who was dangerously ill. This he undertook at the hazard of his life, and the undertaking in the end proved fatal to him. This bold impostor was no sooner called than he dismissed all the physicians who were about the young prince; and promised the king that he would recover him presently by the help of a few medicines, accompanied with his prayers: but the child dying in his arms, the king, enraged to the last degree, caused him to be thrown into prison; whence by the force of bribes he made his escape, and fled into Mesopotamia. There he was taken again by persons sent in quest of him, and carried to Sapor, who caused him to be flead alive, and after that his body to be given to the dogs, and his skin to be stuffed with chaff, and hung before the city gates, where, Epiphanius tells us, it was remaining to his time. His death is supposed to have happened about the year 278.

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

, one of the most learned and eminent nonconformists of the seventeenth century, was born at Lawrence Lydiard, in Somersetshire, in 1620. His father and grandfather were both clergymen, but of them we have no account, except that his father was settled at Whimpole in Devonshire, and sent his son to the freeschool at Tiverton. Here his progress was such that he was thought qualified to begin his academical studies at the age of fourteen, and about a year after, in 1635, he was entered of Wadham college, Oxford. From thence, in 1639, he removed to Hart-hall, where he took his bachelor’s degree in arts. Wood says, he was accounted in his college, “a hot-headed person,” a character very remote from that which he sustained throughout life, and when all eyes were upon him. After studying divinity, he was admitted to deacon’s orders by the celebrated Dr. Hall, bishop of Exeter, and although this was sooner than Mr. Man ton approved upon maturer thought, bishop Hall appears to have thought him duly qualified, and predicted that “he would prove an extraordinary person.” As he came into public life when principles of disaffection to the church were generally prevalent, it appears that he entered so far into the spirit of the times, as to be content with deacon’s orders, and to deny the necessity of those of the priest

Much of his life appears to have been embittered by sickness, and in September 1573 his health began to decline very rapidly. Three months after, he thought himself better, but he had still an extreme weakness in his loins, with frequent and severe head-aches, and he received no benefit from medicines. On the 6th of April, 1574, he expired in the arms of his son, who had just arrived from Venice to attend him in his sickness. He had lived in general esteem; and his death was universally regretted. He left a variety of writings, which distinguish him as one of the most judicious critics, and one of the most elegant Latin writers that modern times have produced. Of these, the principal are his letters in Latin and Italian, his Commentaries on the works of his favourite Cicero, and his treatise “De Curia Rornana.” The productions of his presses are all of the highest value, for both accuracy and beauty.

, a physician, was professor of anatomy at Padua, where he was born, and where he continued to teach that art from 1652 until 1669, when he was allowed to resign his chair to his son Anthony. In 1661, he also obtained the appointment to the first professorship of surgery, which he held along with that of anatomy. His merit in both procured him the honour of knighthood of the order of St. Mark. At the age of eighty years, he retired altogether from the university; and, after having enjoyed a short period of repose, he died in April 1673. He left the following works: “Anatomia,” Venice, 1654, 4to. “Sylloge Observationnm Medico-chirurgicarum rariorum,” Padua, 1664, several times reprinted, and translated into German. It contained fiftythree cases of some interest, and three tracts on. ulcers, on fistulas of the urethra, and on spina ventosa. His two sons, Dominic and Anthony de Majrchetti, were likewise both professors in their native university of Padua. The former was author of a good compendium of anatomy, according to the judgment of Haller, which passed through several editions, under the title of “Anatomia, cui Responsiones ad Riolanum, Anatomicum Parisiensem, in ipsius animadversionibus contra Veslingium, additae sunt,” Padua, 1652, &c.

, a celebrated French writer of the drama and of romance, was born at Paris in 1688. His father was of a good family in Normandy; his fortune was considerable, and he spared nothing in the education of his son, who discovered uncommon talents, and a most amiable disposition. His first object was the theatre, where he met with the highest success in comic productions; and these, with the merit of his other works, procured him a place in the French academy. The great object of both his comedies and romances was, to convey an useful moral under the veil of wit and sentiment: “my only object,” says he, “is to make men more just and more humane;” and he was as amiable in his life and conversation as in his writings. He was compassionate and humane, and a strenuous advocate for morality and religion. To relieve the indigent, to console the unfortunate, and to succour the oppressed, were duties which he not only recommended by his writings, but by his own practice and example. He would frequently ridicule the excessive credulity of infidels in matters of trivial importance; and once said to lord Bolingbroke, who was of that character, “If you cannot believe, it is not for want of faith.”

, a French poet, was born near Caen, in Normandy, in 1463, with a strong inclination to the belles lettres and poetry, which he happily cultivated, although his education was much neglected. He was but in low circumstances, when his abilities and good behaviour recommended him to Anne of Bretagne, afterwards queen of France; a princess who greatly encouraged and patronized letters. She shewed a particular regard to Marot, by making him her poet; and by commanding him to attend Louis XII. to Genoa and Venice, that he might draw up a relation of those travels. He was afterwards in the service of Francis I. and died in 1523. He was a tolerable poet, but infinitely exceeded by his son Clement. His poems are to be found in the later editions of the works of Clement Marot.

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

, an English antiquary, was born at Thetford, in the school-house in St. Mary’s parish (the only remaining parish of that town in Suffolk), March 8, 1697. His grandfather, William, was rector of Stantori St. John, in Suffolk, where he was buried in 1677, His father William was rector of Great Livermere, and of St. Mary’s in Thetford, both in the same county. He married Elizabeth, only daughter of Mr. Thomas Eurrough, of Bury St. Edmonds, and aunt to the late sir James Burrough, master of Caius college, Cambridge: he died in 1721, aged seventy-one, and was buried in Livermere chancel, where his son Thomas, not long before his death, placed a monument for him, and his mother, and their children, who were then all dead except himself, “now by God’s permission residing at Palgrave.” Thomas was the seventh of nine children. His school education was probably at Thetford. In 1715 he had been some time clerk to his brother Robert, who practised as an attorney there; but it appears by some objections to that employment in his own hand-writing, in that year, that he was very uneasy and dissatisfied with that way of life. As these give us the state of his mind, and the bent of his inclination at that early period, and may perhaps account for his succeeding unsettled turn "and little application to his business, they may be worth preserving in his own words.

Nevertheless, our indefatigable botanist and scholar was not idle. The work on which his literary fame chiefly and firmly rests is his splendid quarto edition of Virgil’s Georgics, which appeared in 1741, dedicated to Dr. Mead. Here his abilities and his acquisitions had their full scope. The text was accompanied by an English translation, and ample notes in the same language. In these the editor was enabled, from his peculiar studies, to throw more light upon the natural history of his author, than any one before him had done, nor is it easy to improve upon his perfor<­mance. He was assisted in the astronomical part by his friend the celebrated Halley, to whose worth he has given a just and feeling tribute in the preface. In 1749 he published the Bucolics on the same plan, and intended to have gone through the whole of the Roman poet; but growing infirmities, and the loss of his wife, who died of a cancer in the breast this year, for a while damped his ardour. The labours of his profession, too, were becoming burthensome. He speedily indeed repaired his domestic loss, marrying, in July 1750, Mary-Anne, daughter of Claude Fonnereau, esq. of London, merchant. This lady bore him one son, and survived him. In the spring of 1752 he retired from practice, and took a farm in a most beautiful situation at Streatham, and, but for occasional attacks of the gout, enjoyed several years of learned leisure united with scientific experience, in attention to the business of his farm, and the care of his family. On the 30th of January, 1761, he resigned his professorship of botany in favour of his son the rev. Thomas Marty n, who was elected in his stead, and who has ever since filled that station with honour to himself and to his parent. In gratitude for this election, so consonant to his own wishes, Mr. Martyn, some time afterwards, gave his botanical library, of above 200 volumes, with his drawings, herbarium, and collections of seeds and materia mtdica, to the university, for which the thanks of that body were very handsomely returned him in 1765.

To the works already noticed, as published by Mr. Martyn, we may add a translation of Boerhaave’s treatise on the powers of medicine, 1740, 8vo, a translation and abridgment of the “Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris,” in conjunction with Chambers, the author of the Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Lond. 1742, 5 vols. 8vo; and a translation of Dr. Walter Harris’s “Treatise of the acute diseases of Infants,” ibid. 1742, 8vo. In 1743 he resumed his abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, and published the eighth, ninth, and tenth volumes, in 1747 and 1756. He left also a great many manuscripts on various branches of science and literature. In 1770, his son published “Dissertations and critical Remarks upon the ^neids of Virgil. By the late John Martyn, &c.” 12mo, with some account of the author and his writings, from which the preceding article has been taken.

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

, queen of Scots, celebrated for her beauty, her wit, her learning, and her misfortunes, was born Dec. 8, 1542, and was the daughter and sole heiress of James the Fifth king of Scots, by Mary of Lorrain, his second queen, and dowager of Longueville. She was not eight days old when her father died; and therefore, after great animosities among the nobility, it was agreed, that the earl of Arran, as being by proximity of blood the next heir to the crown in legitimate descent, and the first peer of Scotland, should be made governor of the kingdom, and guardian of the queen: who remained, in the mean time, with her mother, in the royal palace of Linlithgow. Urgent application being made by Henry VIII. in the behalf of his son Edward, for this princess in her childhood, it was at last agreed between the chief peers of both kingdoms, that she should be given in marriage to that prince; but this was afterwards refused by her governor. She was, according to the custom of the day taught the Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian tongues; in which she afterwards arrived at so great perfection, that few were found equal to her in any of them, and none superior in them all.

, a non-conformist divine, chiefly known for his excellent work entitled “Self-Knowledge,” was descended from ancestors who were for several generations beneficed clergymen of the established church. His grandfather was the rev. John Mason, rector of Water-Stratford in Buckinghamshire, whose “Select Remains” were published by his grandson, the subject of this article: “a little work,” we are told by his biographer, “highly esteemed and warmly recommended by Dr. Watts.” This little work we have not seen, but from two accounts of the author’s life, one published anonymously in 1694, 4to, and the other by the rev. H. Maurice, rector of Tyringham in Bucks, in 1695, 4to, we are justified in ranking him among those enthusiasts who have done much to bring religion into disgrace; and our readers will probably be of the same opinion, when we inform them, that after having discharged his pastoral duties for several years, as a pious and useful clergyman, he propagated the notion that Christ’s second appearance was to be at Water- Stratford, where all his faithful people were to be collected, and reign with him a thousand years. This brought a great many persons to reside at that place, in hopes of meeting the Saviour, who were for some time called Mr. Mason’s followers; nor was it until his death had disappointed their hopes, that this delusion gradually abated. One of the sons of this enthusiast, John, the father of our author, became a dissenter, and, while pastor of a congregation at Dunmow in Essex, his son was born there, in 1705-6. He was educated at a dissenting academy, and in 1730 accepted an invitation to the pastoral charge of a congregation at Dorking in Surrey, where he had a numerous auditory. His earliest production was a Sermon on “Subjection to the higher powers,” preached Nov. 5, 1740, and published at the request of the congregation.

, a divine and antiquary, probably a relative of the preceding, was the great-grandson of sir William Masters of Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. His father, William, was a clergyman, who among other livings, held that of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, London, where the subject of this article was born in 1713. He was admitted of Corpus-Christi college, Cambridge, in 1731, took his degree of B. A. in 1734, that of M. A. in 1738, and that of S. T. B. in 1746. He also obtained a fellowship of the college, and was tutor from 1747 to 1750. In 1752 he was chosen a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and was presented by Corpus college, in 1756, to the rectory of Landbeach in Cambridgeshire. He was also presented to the vicarage of Linton, which he resigned for that of Waterbeach in 1759; but this last he afterwards, by leave of the bishop of Ely, resigned tr his son. In 1797 he resigned, by consent of the respective colleges, the living of Landbeach to one of his sons-in-law, the rev. T. C. Burroughs, but continued to reside there. He was in the commission of the peace for the county of Cambridge. He died at Landbeach July 5, 1798, in his eightythird year.

, a French historian, was born at Porentrui, in the diocese of Basle, Dec. 10, 1583, and was first principal of the college of Verceil, and afterwards an advocate at Lyons. He was a zealous partizan of the league, and much attached to the Guises. When he went to Paris, he quitted poetry, which he had followed hitherto, for history, to which he attached himself from that time. He acquired the esteem of Henry IV. who manifested it by giving him the title of historiographer of France, and furnishing him with all the memoirs necessary to make him so effectually. He attended Louis Xiji. to the siege of Montauhan; but, falling sick, was removed to Toulouse, where he died October 12, 1621, at the age of fifty-eight. Matthieu was only a moderate author: he wrote easily, but in an undignified style. He produced, l.“A History of the memorable Events which happened in the reign of Henry the Great,” 1624, 8vo. This contains some curious anecdotes communicated to the author by Henry himself; but the flatness of the style destroys, in a great measure, the interest of the work. 2. “The History of the deplorable Death of Henry the Great,” 1611 folio; 1612, 8vo. 3, “The History of St. Louis,” 1618, 8vo. 4. “The History of Louis XI.” in folio. This work is esteemed. 5, “The History of France,” from Francis I. to Louis XIII. inclusive, Paris, 1631, 2 vols, folio, published by his son, who added the reign of Louis XIII. 6. “Quatrains on Life and Death;” very languid and fatiguing, but often printed after those of Pibrac. 7. “La Guisiade,” the Guisiad, a tragedy, was published at Lyons, 1589, in 8vo. He was also the writer of some other tragedies, published in the same year in 2 vols. 12mo and of some other historical pieees of less note than what we have mentioned.

, an eminent physician, and medical botanist, and the son of a physician, was born at Sienna, in Tuscany, in 1501; and educated first at Venice; and afterwards at Padua. The law was his original destination, which he exchanged for the study of medicine, and having obtained his degree at Padua, returned to Sienna, where he speedily acquired extensive practice. For some reasons, however, he varied his places of abode, and practised at Home, at Anania, and at Gorizia, where, as well as at Anania, he was extremely beloved, of which he had here a singular proof: a fire having consumed all his furniture, the people flocked to him the next day, with presents of goods and money, that made him richer than before, and the magistrates advanced him a year’s salary. After a residence of twelve years at Gorizia, he accepted an invitation from Ferdinand, king of the Romans, to take the office of physician to his son, the archduke Ferdinand. He was greatly honoured at the imperial court, and in 1562 was created aulic-counsellor to the emperor Ferdinand. Afterwards Maximilian II. prevailed upon his brother to part with him, and made him his first physician. Finding, however, the weight of age pressing upon him, Matthiolus took leave of the court, and retired to a life of repose at Trent, where he soon after died of the plague, in 1577.

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

, esq. an English poet and historian, was descended of an ancient, but somewhat declining family, in Sussex; and born at Mayfield in that county, as it is supposed, in 1594. His father purchased Mayfield in 1597, and was knighted at Whitehall, July 3, 1603. His son Thomas was instructed in classical literature in the neighbourhood, and Sept. 11, 1609, entered a fellow-commoner of Sidney college, in Cambridge, where, in 1612, he took a bachelor of arts degree, but never proceeded farther in academical advancement. He removed afterwards to London, and was admitted a member of Gray’s Inn, Aug. 6, 1615; but his genius leading him to pursue the belles-lettres, and especially the muses, he concerned himself very little with the law. In 1616 he succeeded to the estate of Mayfield, which he sold next year. He gained an acquaintance with several eminent courtiers and wits of those times, as sir Kenelm Digby, sir Richard Fanshaw, sir John Suckling, sir Ashton Cockaine, Thomas Carew, Endymion Porter, Ben Jonson, and others: and his reputation was such, that he obtained the countenance of Charles I. and his royal consort; at whose particular recommendation and desire he undertook and published several of his poetical works. In particular, while he resided at court, he wrote the five following plays 1 “The Heir, a comedy, acted in 1620,” and printed in 1633. 2. “Cleopatra, a tragedy,” acted in 1626, printed in 1639. 3. “Antigone, the Theban princess, a tragedy,” printed in 1631. 4. “Agrippina, empress of Rome, a tragedy,” printed in 1639. 5. “The Old Couple, a comedy,” 1651. The second and last of these are reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection. Two other plays have been ascribed to May, namely, “The old Wives Tale,” and “Orlando Furioso;” but Langbaine says he “never saw the first;” and for the latter he assures the reader, “it was. printed long before Mr. May was born, at least before he was able to guide a pen.”

, baron of Albone, first physician to their Britannic majesties James I. and Charles I. was the son of Louis de Mayerne, author of a “General History of Spain,” and of the “Monarchic aristo-democratique,” dedicated to the States-general. His mother was Louisa, the daughter of Antoine le Masson, treasurer of the army to Francis I. and Henry II. in Piedmont. Louis de Mayerne retired to Geneva about the end of 1572, after having had two houses at Lyons pulled down on account of his religion. On Sept. 28, 1573, his son Theodore was born, and had for his godfather Theodore Beza. He learnt polite literature in his own country, and he was thence sent to Heidelberg, where he stayed some years; after which, as he had made choice of physic for his profession, he went to Montpellier, and there he took the degree of bachelor in 1596, and of doctor in 1597. Thence he went to Paris, where, by way of introducing himself into practice, he gave lectures in anatomy to the young surgeons, and in pharmacy to the apothecaries. He acquired reputation by his prescriptions, and became known to Riverius, first physician to Henry IV. who recommended him so effectually to the king, that he made him one of his physicians in ordinary; and, in 1600, appointed him to attend Henry duke of Rohan, in his embassies from France to the princes of Germany and Italy. Upon his return, he acquitted himself in the exercise of his office very much to his credit, and was in high favour with the king, who promised to do great things for him, provided he would change his religion; and, it is said, notwithstanding that obstacle, would have appointed him his first physician, if the Jesuits, who were aware of it, had not prevented him by the means of queen Mary de Medicis. Of this circumstance and intended favour, Mayerne knew nothing till he learnt it, in 1642, in England, from Caesar duke of Vendosme, a natural son of France. In 1607, he had under his care an Englishman of quality, who after his recovery carried him into England, where he had a private conference with king James. He then returned to Paris, and remained there till after the assassination of Henry IV. in May 1610. In the following year, the king of England caused him to be invited by his ambassador, to serve in quality of first physician to himself and his queen, and gave him a patent, sealed with the great seal of England; in which office he served the whole royal family with great honour and approbation, till the day of his death. He was admitted to the degree of doctor in both universities, and into the college of physicians, and treated with the greatest respect by these learned bodies. He incurred some obloquy on account of the fatal sickness of Henry prince of Wales, in October 1612; in the treatment of which he differed in opinion from the other physicians, with respect to the use of blood-letting. But his conduct obtained the approbation of the king and council, of which certificates, couched in the most satisfactory terms, were given him. He received the honour of knighthood from James, in 1624; and on the accession of Charles I. he was appointed first physician to him and his queen, and rose to high favour, particularly with the latter. During the civil commotions he still adhered to the royal party, for he was appointed first physician to Charles II. after the death of his father, although the office was not merely nominal. Thus he enjoyed the extraordinary honour of serving four kings successively in his medical capacity; and during all this period he -was most extensively employed by persons of the first rank in this kingdom, by which he accumulated a large fortune. He made an exact collection of his prescriptions. He composed a very curious dispensatory of medicines, galenical and chemical but never published any of his works, except an “Apology” for himself, against the faculty of physic at Paris, who had attacked him for his application to the practice of chemistry, which was greatly cried down by the physicians of that place. Guy Patin has given an account of this dispute; in which he has shewn himself greatly prejudiced against Mayerne, and calls him a quack, on account of his pretensions to chemistry. He died March 15, 1655, at Chelsea, of the effects of bad wine, a slow, which, says Granger, the weakness of old age rendered a quick poison. He foretold the time of his death to his friends, with whom he had been moderately drinking at a tavern in the Strand; and it happened according to his prediction. He was buried at St. Martin’s-in-the-tields. He left behind him one only daughter, who brought her great fortune in marriage to the marquis de Montpouvillan, grandson of the marshal duke de la Force; but she died in childbed at the Hague, in 1661.

This was the last, and perhaps the most useful, of all his works, which have been since collected and published in 1762, 4to. He died on Feb. 16, 1754; and on the 23d he was buried in the Temple church, near his elder brother Samuel, whose property he had inherited, and to whose memory the doctor had caused an elegant monument to be placed, with his bust, and a suitable inscription, by Dr. Ward. To Dr. Mead there is no monument in the Temple; but an honorary one was placed by his son in the north aile of Westminster-abbey. Over the tomb is the doctor’s bust; at his right hand a wreathed serpent, darting its tongue, and on his left several books. Below the bust are his arms and crest. The inscription to this was also written by Dr. Ward.

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

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

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

, a very learned lawyer and pensionary of Rotterdam was born at Leyden in 1722; of his early history, pursuits, &c. our authorities give no account, nor have the bibliographers of this country, to whom he is so well known, supplied this deficiency. All we know is, that he died December 15, 1771, in the forty-ninth year of his age, after a life spent in learned research and labour, which produced the following works: 1. “De rebus mancipi et nee mancipi.” Leyden, 1741, 4to. 2. “Specimen calculi fluxionalis,” ibid. 1742, 4to. 3. “Specimen animadversionum in Cazi institutiones,” Mantuae Carpetunorum (i. e. Madrid), reprinted with additions by the author, at Paris, 1747, 8vo. 4. “Conspectus novi thesauri juris civilis et canonici,” Hague, 1751, 8vo. This conspectus was immediately followed by the work itself. 5. “Novus Thesaurus juris civilis,” &c. 1751—1753, 7 vols. folio; a book of high reputation, to which his son John added an eighth volume, in 1780. 6. “Conspectus OriginumTypographicarum proxime in lucem edendarum,” 1761, 8vo. This prospectus is very scarce, as the author printed but a very few copies: it is however in demand with collectors, as containing some things which he did not insert in the work itself. The abbé Gouget published a French translation, with some additions, in 1762. The entire work appeared in 1765, under the title of, 7. “Origines Typographic^,” Hague, 2 vols. 4to. An analysis of this valuable work was dratvn up by Mr.Bowyer, and printed in “The Origin of Printing, in tsvo Essays, 1. The substance of Dr. Middleton’s Dissertation on the origin of printing in England. 2. Mr. Meerman’s account of the first invention of the art,” 1774, 8vo. This volume was the joint composition of Messrs. Bowyer and Nichols. Meerman’s partiality to Haerlem, as the origin of printing, was attacked with much severity by Heinecken, who being a German, betrayed as much partiality to Mentz and Strasburgh. It seems, however, now to be agreed among t) pographical antiquaries, that Heinecken paid too little attention to the claims of Haerlem, and Meerman infinitely too much. The dissertation of the latter, however, has very recently been reprinted in France, by Mons. Jansen, with useful notes, and a catalogue of all the books published in the Low Countries during the fifteenth century.

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

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

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

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

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

, the most illustrious poet of modern Italy, whose true name was Trapassi, was born at Rome Jan. 6, 1698, the second son of Felice Trapassi of Assisi. Felice, though a free citizen of Assisi, was very poor, and settled at Rome in a small way of business. His son was very early distinguished for an extraordinary talent at speaking extemporary verses; and, at ten years old, used to attract a little audience in the street by the melody of his voice, and the sweetness of his unpremeditated poetry. The celebrated Gravina, among others, accidentally heard him, and was so charmed with his talents, that, with the consent of his parents, he undertook to give him an education; and changed his name from Trapassi to Metastasio, a kind of Italianized Greek translation of the former name: and so much was he pleased with his disposition and talents, that he finally adopted him, and made him his heir.

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

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

, an excellent miniature painter, was born at Tubingen, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in 1735, and came to England in 1749, with his father, who was portrait-painter to the duke of Wirtemberg, a painter, says Edwards, of small subjects, but of no great talent. His son studied two years (1757 and 1758), under Zink, the eminent painter in enamel, to whom he paid two hundred pounds for instruction, and two hundred pounds more for materials of his art; but Meyer soon surpassed his master, in the elegance and gusto of his portraits, a superiority which he acquired by his attention to the works of sir Joshua Reynolds, who, as well as himself, was at that time rising to fame. In 1761, the Society for the Encouragement of Arts offered a premium of twenty guineas for the best drawing of a profile of the king, for the purpose of having a die engraved from it; and Meyer obtained the prize. He was afterwards appointed miniature painter to the queen. In 1762, he was naturalized by act of parliament, and in the following year married a lady of considerable fortune and great accomplishments. In 1764, he was appointed painter in enamel to his majesty.

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

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

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

, the most illustrious of English poets, was by birth a gentleman, descended from the proprietors of Milton, near Thame in Oxfordshire, one of whom forfeited his estate in the contests between the houses of York and Lancaster. His grand-father was under-ranger of the forest of Shotover in Oxfordshire, and being a zealous Roman catholic, disinherited his son, of the same name, for becoming a protestant. This son, when thus deprived of the family property, was a student at Christchurch, Oxford, but was now obliged to quit his studies, and going to London became a scrivener. That he retained his classical knowledge appears from his son addressing him in one of his most elaborate Latin poems; he was also a great proficient in music, a voluminous composer, and, in the opinion of Dr. Burney, “equal in science, if not genius, to the best musicians of his age.” He married a lady of the name of Custon, of a Welsh family. By her he had two sons, John the poet, Christopher, and Anne. Anne became the wife of Mr. Edward Phillips, a native of Shrewsbury, who was secondary to the crown office in chancery. Christopher, applying himself to the study of the law, became a bencher of the Inner Temple, was knighted at a very advanced period of life, and raised by James II. first to be a baron of the Exchequer, and afterwards one of the judges of the Common-pleas. During the rebellion he adhered to the royal cause, and effected his composition with the republicans by the interest of his brother. In his old age he retired from the fatigues of business, and closed, in the country, a life of study and devotion.

learning. His father, Samuel, had an He died about two years before his son,

, an able mathematical and medical writer, was born at Rheims about 1536, of a family which possessed jthe estate of Monantheuil in the Vermandois, in Picardy. He was educated at Paris in the college de Presles, under Kamus, to whose philosophical opinions he constantly adhered. Having an equal inclination and made equal progress in mathematics and medicine, he was first chosen professor of medicine, and dean of that faculty, and afterwards royal professor of mathematics. While holding the latter office he had the celebrated De Thou and Peter Lamoignon among the number of his scholars. During the troubles of the League, he remained faithful to his king, and even endangered his personal safety by holding meetings in his house, under pretence of scientific conversations, but really to concert measures for restoring Paris to Henry IV. He died in 1606, in the seventieth year of his age. His works are, 1 “Oratio pro mathematicis artibus,” Paris, 1574, 4to. 2. “Admonitio ad Jacobum Peletarium de angulo contactus,” ibid. 1581, 4to. 3. “Oratio pro suo in Regiam cathedram ritu,” ibid. 1585, 8vo. 4. “Panegyricus dictus Henrico IV. statim a felicissima et auspicatissima urbis restitutione,” &c. ibid. 1594, translated into French in 1596. 5. “Oratio qua ostenditur quale esse debeat collegium professorum regiorum,” &c. ibid. 15&6, 8vo. 6.“Commentarius in librum Aristotelis Tt^I Tuv /x>i%avjv,” Gr. and Lat. ibid. 1599, 4to. 7. “Ludus latromathematicus,” &c. ibid. 1597, 8vo, and 1700. 8. “De puncto primo Geometriae principio liber, 7 ' Leyden, 1600, 4to. This was at one time improperly attributed to his son, Thierry. 9.” Problematis omnium quse & 1200 annis inventa sunt nobilissimi demonstratio," Paris, 1600. He left some other works, both ms. and printed, of less consequence.

, an ingenious and learned Frenchman, and one of the best writers of his time, was born at Paris in 1674. At sixteen he entered into the congregation of the fathers of the oratory, and was afterwards sent to Mans to learn philosophy. That of Aristotle then obtained in the schools, and was the only one which was permitted to be taught; nevertheless Mongault, with some of that original spirit which usually distinguishes men of uncommon abilities from the vulgar, ventured, in a public thesis, which he read at the end of the course of lectures, to oppose the opinions of Aristotle, and to maintain those of Des Cartes. Having studied theology with the same success, he quitted the oratory in 1699; and soon after went to Thoulouse, and lived with Colbert, archbishop of that place, who had procured him a priory in 1698. In 1710 the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, committed to him the education of his son, the duke of Chartres; which important office he discharged so well that he acquired universal esteem. In 1714, he had the abbey Chartreuve given him, and that of Vilieneuve in 1719. The duke of Chartres, becoming colonel-general of the French infantry, chose the abbe* Mongault to fill the place of secretary-general made him also secretary of the province of Dauphiny and, after the death of the regent, his father, raised him to other considerable employments. All this while he was as assiduous as his engagements would permit in cultivating polite literature; and, in 1714, published at Paris;, in 6 vols. 12mo, an edition of “Tully’s Letters to Atticus,” with an excellent French translation, and judicious comment upon them. This work has been often reprinted, and is justly reckoned admirable; for, as Middleton has observed, in the preface to his “Life of Cicero,” the abbe Mongault “did not content himself with the retailing the remarks of other commentators, or out of the rubbish of their volumes with selecting the best, but entered upon his task with the spirit of a true critic, and, by the force of his own genius, has happily illustrated many passages which all the interpreters before him had given tip as inexplicable.” He published also a very good translation of “Herodian,” from the Greek, the best edition of which is that of 1745, in 12mo. He died at Paris, Aug. 15, 1746, aged almost seventy-two.

, an eminent anatomist, and the father of the medical school of Edinburgh, was descended both by his paternal and maternal parents from distinguished families in the north of Scotland. He was born in London, in September 1697, where his father, then a surgeon in the army of king William in Flanders, resided upon leave of absence in the winter. On quitting the army, Mr. Monro settled in Edinburgh; and perceiving early indications of talent in Alexander, he gave him the best instruction which Edinburgh then afforded, and afterwards sent him to London, where he attended the anatomical courses of Cheselden, and while here, laid the foundation of his most important work on the bones. He then pursued his studies at Paris and Leyden, where his industry and promising talents recommended him to the particular notice of Boerhaave. On iiis return to Edinburgh, in the autumn of 1719, he was appointed professor and demonstrator of anatomy to the company of surgeons, the joint demonstrators having spontaneously resigned in his favour, and soon after began also to give public lectures on anatomy, aided by the preparations which he had made when abroad; and at the same time Dr. Alston, then a young man, united with him in the plan, and began a course of lectures on the materia medica and botany. These courses may be regarded as the opening of that medical school, which has since extended its fame, not only throughout Europe, but over the new world. Mr. Monro suggested this plan; and by the following circumstance, probably, contributed to lead his son into a mode of lecturing, which subsequently carried him to excellence. Without the young teacher’s knowledge, he invited the president and fellows of the College of Physicians, and the whole company of surgeons, to honour the first day’s lecture with their presence. This unexpected company threw the doctor into such confusion, that he forgot the words of the discourse, which he had written and committed to memory. Having left his papers at home, he was at a loss for a little time what to do: but, with much presence of mind, he immediately began to shew some of the anatomical preparations, in order to gain time for recollection; and very soon resolved not to attempt to repeat the discourse which he had prepared, but to express himself in such language as should occur to him from the subject, which he was confident that he understood. The experiment succeeded: he delivered himself well, and gained great applause as a good and ready speaker. Thus discovering his own strength, he resolved henceforth never to recite any written discourse in teaching, and acquired a free and elegant style of delivering lectures.

After the conclusion of this publication, the society was revived, at the suggestion of the celebrated mathematical professor, Colin Maclaurin, and was extended to the admission of literary and philosophical topics. Dr. Monro a<yain took an active part in its proceedings, as one of its vice-presidents, especially after the death of Maclaurin, when two volumes of its memoirs, entitled “Essays Physical and Literary,” were published, and some materials for a third collected, to which Dr. Monro contributed several useful papers. The third was not published during his life. His last publication was an “Account of the Success of Inoculation in Scotland,” written originally as an answer to some inquiries addressed to him from the committee of the faculty of physicians at Paris, appointed to investigate the merits of the practice. It was afterwards published at the request of some of his friends, and contributed to extend the practice in Scotland. Besides the works which he published, he left several Mss. written at different times, of which the following are the principal viz. A History of Anatomical Writers An Encheiresis Anatomica; Heads of many of his Lectures; A Treatise on Comparative Anatomy; A Treatise on Wounds and Tumours; and, An Oration de Cuticula. This last, as well as the short tract on comparative anatomy, has been printed in an edition of his whole works, in one volume quarto, published by his son, Dr. Alexander Monro, at Edinburgh, in 1781. This tract had been published surreptitiously in 1744, from notes taken at his lectures; but is here given in a more correct form.

In 1759, Dr. Monro resigned his anatomical chair, which he had so long occupied with the highest reputation, to his son, just mentioned; but he still continued to lecture as one of the clinical professors on the cases in the infirmary. His life was also a scene of continued activity in other affairs, as long as his health permitted. For he was not only a member, but a most assiduous attendant, of many societies and institutions for promoting literature, arts, sciences, and manufactures in Scotland; he was also a director of the bank of Scotland, a justice of the peace, a commissioner of high roads, &c. and was punctual in the discharge of all his duties. His character in private life was as amiable and exemplary as it was useful in public. To the literary honours, which he attained at home, were added those of a fellow of the royal society of London, and an honorary member of the royal academy of surgery, at Paris. Dr. Monro was a man of middle stature, muscular, and possessed of great strength and activity; but was subject for many years to a spitting of blood on catching the ieast cold, and through his life to frequent inflammatory levers. After an attack of the influenza, in 1762, he was afflicted with symptoms of a disease of a painful and tedious nature, which continued ever after, until it terminated his existence. This was a fungous ulcer of the bladder and rectum, the distress of which he bore with great fortitude and resignation, and died with perfect calmness, on the 10th of July, 1767, at the age of seventy.

Two of his sons became distinguished physicians: Dr. Alexander, his successor, and who has filled his chair since his death, is well known throughout Europe by his valuable publications. It was not until 1801 that to relieve himself from the fatigues of the professorship, he associated with himself, his son, the third Alexander Monro, who bids fair to perpetuate the literary honours of his family. Dr. Donald Monro, the other son of the first Alexander, settled as a physician in London, became a fellow of the royal college of physicians, and senior physician to the army. He wrote, besides several smaller medical treatises, “Observations on the Means of preserving the Health of Soldiers,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo; a treatise on medical and pharmaceutical chemistry, and the Materia Medica, 1788, 4 vols. 8vo and the life of his father, prefixed to the edition of his works published by his son, Alexander, 1781, 4to. He died in July 1802, aged seventy one. It is from this life of the first Dr. Monro, that the preceding account is taken.

Dr. Monro was buried in the church-yard of Hadley and, of his children, three only survived him James, who commanded the ship Houghton, in the service of the East India company; Charles; and Thomas, who succeeded him, and still is physician to Bethlem and Bridewell hospitals. Besides these, and his son and daughter, whose deaths are mentioned above, he had a younger son, Culling, who died an infant.

His father died in January 1761, at the advanced age of eighty, and by his will, made in 1755, bequeathed to his son an annuity of one thousand pounds a-year, to be paid to him during the joint lives of himself and his mother lady Mary; and after her death an annuity of two thousand pounds a-year, during the joint lives of himself and his sister lady Bute. By the same will he empowered Mr. Montague to make a settlement ou any woman he might marry, not exceeding eight hundred pounds a-year; and to any son of such marriage he devised a considerable estate in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was this last clause which gave rise to a story that he had advertised for a wife, promising to marry “any widow or single lady, of genteel birth and polished manners, and five, six, seven, or eight months in her pregnancy.” Such an advertisement certainly appeared, but not sooner than 1776, within a few months of his death, and when he was abroad; all which render the story rather improbable.

, chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. and one of the most illustrious characters of that period, was born in Milk-street, London, in 1480. He was the son of sir John More, knight, one of the judges of the king’s bench, and a man of great abilities and integrity. Sir John had also much of that pleasant wit, for which his son was afterwards so distinguished; and, as a specimen of it, Camden relates, that he would compare the danger in the choice of a wife to that of putting a man’s hand into a bag full of snakes, with only one eel in it; where he may, indeed, chance to light of the eel, but it is an hundred to one he is stung by a snake. It has been observed, however, that sir John ventured to put his hand three times into this bag, for he married three wives; nor was the sting so hurtful as to prevent his arriving at the age of ninety; and then he did not die of old age, but of a surfeit, occasioned by eating grapes. Sir Thomas was his son by his first wife, whose maiden name was Handcombe. He was educated in London, at a free-school of great repute at that time in Threadneedle-street, called St. Anthony’s, where archbishop Whitgift, and other eminent men, had been brought up; and here he made a progress in grammar-learning, suitable to his uncommon parts and application. He was afterwards placed in the family of cardinal Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of England: a method of education much practised in those times, but chiefly in the case of noblemen’s sons, with whom sir John More might be supposed to rank, from the high office he held. The cardinal was delighted with his ingenuous modesty, and with the vivacity and quickness of his wit, of which he gave surprising instances; one of which was, that while the players in Christmas holidays were acting there, he would sometimes suddenly step in among them, and, without any previous study, make a part of his own, to the great diversion of the audience. The cardinal indeed conceived so high an opinion of his favourite pupil, that he used frequently to say to those about him, that “More, whosoever should live to see it, would one day prove a marvellous man.”

When admitted to the bar, he had read a public lecture, in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, upon St. Austin’s treatise “De civitate Dei,” in which, without attempting to discuss any points of divinity, he explained the precepts of moral philosophy, and cleared up difficulties in history, and that with such skill, eloquence, and ability, as to attract a large number of hearers among persons of note and learning; and Grocyn himself, who had been his master in Greek, also became one of his auditors. The reputation of this lecture, which appears to have been gratuitous, made him be appointed law-reader at FurnivaPs-inn, which place he held above three years. Some time after, the superstition which we lament in this illustrious man’s character, led him to take lodgings near the Charter-house, where he went through all the spiritual exercises of that society. He disciplined himself every Friday, and on high fasting days; he used also much fasting and watching, and often lay either upon the bare ground, or upon some bench, with a log under his head, and allowed himself but four or five hours’ sleep in the night. He was also a diligent attendant on the public preaching of dean Colet, whom he chose for his spiritual father, and once had a strong inclination to enter into the order of the Franciscans, as well as to take the priesthood. But rinding that all his austerities were of little avail in procuring him the gift of continence, he took Dr. Colet’s advice, and resolved to marry. Having some acquaintance with John Colt, esq. of Newhall in Essex, he now accepted an invitation to visit him. Mr. Colt had three accomplished and agreeable daughters, the eldest of whom Mr. More chose for a wife, although his inclination rather led him to the second, but he considered it “would be a grief and some blemish to the eldest,” should he act otherwise. Bringing his wife to town he took a house in Bucklersbury, and attended the business of his profession at his chambers in Lincoln’s inn, where he continued till he was called to the bench, and had read there twice. This was a very honourable post at that time: and some of these readings are quoted by lord Coke as uncontested authorities in the law. In the mean time he was appointed, in 1508, judge of the sheriff’s court in the city of London; made a justice of the peace; and became so eminent in the practice of the law, that there was scarcely a cause of importance tried at the bar in which he was not concerned. Sir Thomas told his son-in-law Roper, that be earned by his business at this time, with a good conscience, above 400l. a year, which is equal to six times that sum now. He was, however, uncommonly scrupulous in the causes he undertook. It was his constant method, before he took any cause in hand, to investigate the justice and equity of it; and if he thought it unjust, he refused it, at the same time endeavouring to reconcile the parties, and persuading them not to litigate the matter in dispute. Where not successful in this advice, he would direct his clients how to proceed in the least expensive and troublesome course. It may, indeed, be seen in his “Utopia,” that he satirizes the profession, as if he did not belong to it.