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

The particulars which remain, of the life of Pherecydes, are few and imperfect. Marvellous circumstances have been related of him, which only deserve to be mentioned, in order to shew that what has been deemed supernatural by ignorant spectators, may be easily conceived to have happened from natural causes. A ship in full sail was at a distance, approaching its harbour: Pherecydes predicted that it would never come into the haven, and it happened accordingly; for a storm arose, which sunk the vessel. After drinking water from a well, he predicted an earthquake, which happened three days afterwards. It is easy to suppose, that these predictions might have been the result of a careful observation of those phenomena which commonly precede storms or earthquakes, in a climate where they frequently happen. This is the more probable, as it is well known to have been a usual practice with the ancients, and particularly with Pythagoras, the pupil of Pherecydes, to impose upon the ignorant multitude, by pretending to powers which they did not possess, and particularly by applying their knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. Pherecydes is said to have been the first among the Grecians who wrote concerning the nature of the gods; but this can only mean, that he was the first who ventured to write upon these subjects in prose; for, before his time, Orpheus, Musaeus, and others, had written theogonies in verse. Pherecydes was much esteeiru-d at Lacedsemon, on account of his poetry inculcating the maxims of Lycurgus. He died at the age of eighty-five. It is not easy to ascertain the nature of the doctrines which he taught: he probably believed in an eternal first cause of all things, and in the immortality of the soul. According to Cicero, he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doc-trine appeared. He is said to have taught the bdief of the transjnigration of the soul: this is probably true; it being a tt iei commonly received among the Egyptians, and afttrvvards taught by Pythagoras, who was, as before observed, a pupil of Pherecydes.

, a learned Italian, was born in 1398, at Tolentino, in the march of Ancona. He studied at Padua, where he made such progress, that at eighteen he became professor of eloquence. The fame of his talents having gained him an invitation to Venice, he was honoured with the rank of citizen, and was sent by the republic as secretary to their embassy at Constantinople in 1419, and he took advantage of this employment to make himself master of Greek. He there married Theodora, daughter of the learned Emmanuel Chrysoloras, about 1419. Becoming at length known to the emperor John Palaeologus, he was sept on an embassy to Sigismund emperor of Germany, to implore his aid against the Turks. After this he taught at Venice, Florence, Siena, Bologna, and Milan, with astonishing success. He was not, however, without his defects. He wished to reign alone in the republic of letters, and could not bear contradiction without being extremely irritated. He would dispute on the most trivial points; and once wagered 100 crowns, on some minute question of grammar, against the beard of a Greek philosopher named Timotheus. Having won, no solicitation could prevail upon him to remit the fine, and he most unmercifully shaved his antagonist, in spite of very ample offers. To this presumptuous turn he joined a prodigality and a restlessness, which filled his life with uneasiness. Menage has accused him of destroying a copy of Cicero “De Gloria,” the only one then existing, after having transfused the greater part of it into a treatise of his own; but it does not appear that this accusation was just. Other learned men have been also suspected; but all that is certain is, that the work was extant in the time of Petrarch, who mentions having a copy of it, which has since been utterly lost. Philelphus died at Florence July 31, 1481, being then 83. His works consist of odes, dialogues, orations, &c. of which the following editions are in most request: 1. “Orationes et nonnulla alia opera, Plutarchi apophthegmata, ab eodem e Graeco in Latinum con versa,” 4to. This is a very rare edition, and contains a letter from Philelphus to Maria Sforza, dated from Milan, 1481. There are reprints at Venice in 1482, 1491, 1492, &c. but of little value. 2. “Odae,” Brix. 1497, 4to. 3. “Satyrarum Hecatosticon prima decas (decades decem),” Milan, 1476, small folio, of uncommon rarity. 4. “Satyrarum decades deceni,” Venice, 1502, 4to. 5. “Satyrae centum distinctae decem decadibus Catholicis passim refertoe sententiis: praemissa authoris vita ab Egid. Perrino Campano, &c.” Paris, 1508. De Bure says, that the life announced in the title of this edition is not to be found in such copies as he has seen. 6. “Epistolarum familiarum libri triginta septem,” Venice, 1502, folio. 7. “Fabulae,” Venice, 1480, 4to. In his letters are innumerable proofs of his arrogant and suspicious temper. His works, collected, were published at Basle in 1739.

, of Crotona, was a celebrated philosopher of the ancients, who flourished about 375 B. C. He was of the school of Pythagoras, to whom that philosopher’s Golden Verses have been ascribed. He made the heavens his chief object of contemplation; and has been said to be the author of that true system of the world which Copernicus afterwards revived; but erroneously, because there is undoubted evidence that Pythagoras learned that system in Egypt. On that erroneous supposition however it was, that Bulliald placed the name of Philolaus at the head of two works, written to illustrate and confirm that system.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

, of Mirandula, considered as a prodigy of learning in his day, was the youngest child of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula and Concordia, by Julia, of the noble house of Boirado; and was born Feb. 24, 1463. His father dying early, his mother took great care of his education; and the progress he made in letters was so extremely rapid, that his friends are said to have seen with astonishment a mere boy become one of the first poets and orators of his age. What contributed to this progress, besides intense application, was great vigour of intellect, and a memory so tenacious, as to let nothing be lost which he had ever read or heard. At fourteen years of age, being designed for the church, he was sent to Bologna to study canon law; and though he was soon disgusted with a study so lirtle suited to his talents and fertile imagination, he acquired a knowledge of it sufficient to enable him to compose an abbreviated digest, or manual, of the pontifical letters, termed Decretals, in a manner that would have done credit to the most accomplished professor. Having afforded this proof of early capacity, on a subject so ungenial, he left Bologna, and visiting successively all the most celebrated schools and colleges of Italy and France, he profited so well by what was taught there, or by what he learned in discussions with the eminent scholars and professors, that, before he had attained to manhood, he was universally recognized as a most consummate philosopher and divine.

, usually styled the prince of Lyric poets, was a contemporary of Æschylus, and born somewhat above forty years before the expedition of Xerxes, against the Greeks, and more than 500 B. C. His birth-place was Thebes, the capital of Bceotia; a country, the air of which was esteemed gross, and the stupidity of its inhabitants proverbial. We find the poet, in his sixth Olympic, confessing the disadvantage of his climate, yet resolving to exempt himself from the general censure. His parents are supposed to have been of low condition, so that he was more indebted for his attainments to his genius than to any advantages of education. We hrtve, however, few particulars of his life, amidst the numerous panegyrics to be found in ancient writers. He was highly courted and respected by most of the princes and states of Greece, and even allowed a share with the gods in their gifts and offerings, by the command of the oracle itself. For the priestess at Delphi ordered the people to give a part of thrir (irstfruits, which they brought thither, as a present to Pindar: and he had an iron stool set on purpose for him in that temple, on which he used to sit and sing verses in honour of Apollo. His countrymen, the Thebans, were irritated at his commending their enemies, the men of Athens; and fined him, for this affront to the state. Out of spleen too, they determined a poetical prize against him, in favour of a woman, the ingenious and beautiful Corinna. In the mean time, the Athenians made him a present of double the value of his fine; and erected a noble statue in honour of him. His greatest patron was Hiero king of Syracuse, whom he has celebrated in his poems, and it is supposed he left Thebes to attend the court of that prince. He is thought to have passed his whole time in the ease and tranquillity commonly allowed to men of his profession, without intermeddling in affairs of state: for we find him, in his “Isthmics,” defending this way of life. His death is said to have been an answer to his wishes: for, having prayed the gods to send him the greatest happiness of which a mortal is capable, he expired immediately after in the public theatre, in his fifty-fifth year. His relations were highly respected after his decease, and such was the veneration for his memory, that the Lacedemonians, at the taking of Thebes, saved his house; a mark of respect which was afterwards repeated by Alexander the Great. The ruins of this house were to be seen in the time of Pausanias, who lived under the reign of Antoninus the philosopher.

, a protestant German divine, was born at Strasburgh in 1546. In his early studies he acquired the character of an able philosopher, but was most approved as a commentator on the scriptures. He inclined at first to the Lutheran opinions, but afterwards embraced those of Calvin, and lastly endeavoured to give an Arminian modification of some of the Calvinistic opinions respecting original sin, grace, and predestination, which, as usual, pleased neither party. He was for some time professor of divinity in the newly-established university of Herborn, where he died in 1626, in the eightieth year of his age. Besides a translation of the Bible into German, he wrote commentaries, in Latin, on the Bible, first printed in 8vo, afterwards in 4 vols. fol. 1643, &c. and many controversial treatises.

The principal outlines of lord Chatham’s character, sagacity, promptitude, and energy, will be perceived in the foregoing narrative. The peculiar powers of his eloquence have been characterized since his death in language which will convey a forcible idea of it to every reader. “They who have been witnesses to the wonders of his eloquence, who have listened to the music of his voice, or trembled at its majesty; who have seen the persuasive gracefulness of his action, or have felt its force; they who have caught the flame of eloquence from his eye, who have rejoiced in the glories of his countenance, or shrunk from his frowns, will remember the resistless power with which he impressed conviction. But to those who have never seen or heard this accomplished orator, the utmost effort of imagination will be necessary, to form a just idea of that combination of excellence, which gave perfection to his eloquence. His elevated aspect, commanding the awe and mute attention of all who beheld him, while a certain grace in his manner, arising from a consciousness of the dignity of his situation, of the solemn scene in which he acted, as well as of his own exalted character, seemed to acknowledge and repay the respect which he received.—This extraordinary personal dignity, supported on the basis of his well-earned fame, at once acquired to his opinions an assent, which is slowly given to the arguments of other men. His assertions rose into proof, his foresight became prophecy.—No clue was necessary to the labyrinth illuminated by his genius. Truth came forth at his bidding, and realised the wish of the philosopher: she was seen, and beloved.”—We have omitted some parts of this spirited character because not written with equal judgment: but the result of the whole is, that while he sought, with indefatigable diligence, the best and purest sources of political information, he had a mind which threw new lights upon every topic, and directed him with more certainty than any adventitious aid. Another account of his extraordinary powers, more concise, but drawn with wonderful spirit, is attributed to the pen of Mr. Wilkes. “He was born an orator, and from nature possessed every outward requisite to bespeak respect, and even awe. A manly figure, with the eagle eye of the famous Condé, fixed your attention, and almost commanded reverence the moment he appeared; and the keen lightnings of his eye spoke the high spirit of his soul, before his lips had pronounced a syllable. There was a kind of fascination in his look when he eyed any one askance. Nothing could withstand the force of that contagion. The fluent Murray has faultered, and even Fox (afterwards lord Holland) shrunk back appalled, from an adversary, ‘ fraught with fire unquenchable,’ if I may borrow the expression of our great Milton. He had not the correctness of language so striking in the great Roman orator (we may add, and in his son), but he had the verba ardentia, the bold glowing words.”—Lord Chesterfield has given a more general picture of his character, in the following words: “Mr. Pitt owed his rise to the most considerable post and power in this kingdom, singly to his own abilities. In him they supplied the want of birth and fortune, which latter, in others too often supply the want of the former. He was a younger brother, of a very new family, and his fortune was only an annuity of one hundred pounds a-year. The army was his original destination, and a cornetcy of horse his first and only commission in it. Thus unassisted by favour or fortune, he had no powerful protector to introduce him into business, and (if I may use that expression) to do the honours of his parts; but their own strength was fully sufficient. His constitution refused him the usual pleasures, and his genius forbid him the idle dissipations of youth; for so early as at the age of sixteen he was the martyr of an hereditary gout. He therefore employed the leisure which that tedious and painful distemper either procured or allowed him, in acquiring a great fund of premature and useful knowledge. Thus by the unaccountable relation of causes and effects, what seemed the greatest misfortune of his life, was perhaps the principal cause of its splendor. His private life was stained by no vice, nor sullied by any meanness. All his sentiments were liberal and elevated. His ruling passion was an unbounded ambition, which, when supported by great abilities, and crowned with great success, makes what the world calls a great man. He was haughty, imperious, impatient of contradiction, and overbearing; qualities which too often accompany, but always clog great ones. He had manners and address, but one might discover through them too great a consciousness of his own superior talents. He was a most agreeable and lively companion in social life, and had such a versatility of wit, that he would adapt it to all sorts of conversation. He had also a most happy turn to poetry, but he seldom indulged, and seldom avowed it. He came young into parliament, and upon that theatre he soon equalled the oldest and the ablest actors. His eloquence was of every kind, and he excelled in the argumentative, as well as in the declamatory way. But his invectives were terrible, and uttered with such energy of diction, and such dignity of action and countenance, that he intimidated those who were the most willing and best able to encounter him. Their arms fell out of their hands, and they shrunk under the ascendant which his genius gained over theirs.” As a proof of this wonderful power, it is related that sir Robert Walpole scarcely heard the sound of his voice in the House of Commons, when he was alarmed and thunder-struck. He told his friends, that he would be glad at any rate, “to muzzle that terrible cornet of horse.” That minister would have promoted his rise in the army, if he would have given up his seat in the house.

, the most illustrious of the Greek philosophers, and whose sect outlived every other, was by descent an Athenian, but born in the island of Ægina, then subject to Athens. His origin is traced back, on his father Aristo’s side, to Codrus; and on that of his mother Pericthiohe, through five generations, to Solon. The time of his birth is commonly placed in the first year of the eighty-eighth olympiad, or B.C. 428; but Brucker thinks, it may perhaps be more accurately fixed in the third year of the eighty-seventh olympiad, or B. C. 430. He gave early indications of an extensive and original genius, and was instructed in the rudiments of letters by the grammarian Dionysius, and trained in athletic exercises by Aristo of Argos. He applied also with great diligence to the arts of painting and poetry, and produced an epic poem, which he had the wisdom afterwards, upon comparing it with Homer, to commit to the flames. At the age of twenty years, he composed a dramatic piece, which was about to be performed on the theatre, but the day before the intended exhibition, he happened to hear a discourse of Socrates, which induced him to withdraw the piece, and relinquish the muses for the study of philosophy. Accordingly he became a regular pupil of Socrates for eight years, and although he sometimes mixed foreign tenets with those of his master, always preserved a strong attachment to him, and attended him at his trial. During the imprisonment also of that celebrated philosopher, Plato had an opportunity of hearing his sentiments on the immortality of the soul, the substance of which he inserted in his beautiful dialogue entitled “Phajdo,” along with some of his own peculiar opinions. On the death of Socrates, he retired, with other friends of Socrates, to Megara, where they were hospitably entertained by Euclid, who taught Plato the art of reasoning, and probably increased his fondness for disputation.

Returning home richly stored with knowledge of various kinds, he settled in Athens, and formed his celebrated school of philosophy. The place which he made choice of for this purpose was a public grove, called the Academy, from Hecademus, who left it to the citizens for the puiv pose of gymnastic exercises. Adorned with statues, temples, and sepulchres, planted with lofty plane-trees, and intersected by a gentle stream, it afforded a delightful retreat for philosophy and the muses. Within this inclosure he possessed, as a part of his humble patrimony, purchased at the price of three thousand drachmas, a small garden, in which he opened a school, and to shew the value he placed on mathematical studies, and how necessary a preparation be thought them for higher speculations, he placed an inscription over the door, the meaning of which is, “Let no one, who is unacquainted with geometry, enter here.” He soon became ranked among the most eminent philosophers, and his travels into distant countries, where learning and wisdom flourished, gave him celebrity among his brethren, none of whom had ventured to institute a school in Athens, except Aristippus, the freedom of whose manners had brought him into discredit. Plato alone inherited the popularity of Socrates, and besides a crowd of young scholars, persons of the first distinction frequented the academy, females not excepted, whose curiosity induced them to put on the male apparel for this purpose. Such reputation could not escape envy and jealousy. Diogenes the Cynic ridiculed Plato’s doctrine of ideas and other abstract speculations; nor was he himself without a tinge of jealousy, for he and Xenophon, who had been fellow pupils of Socrates, studiously avoided mentioning each other. Amidst all this, however, Plato’s fame increased; and such an opinion was formed of his political wisdom, that several states solicited his assistance in new modelling their respective forms of government. But while he gave his advice in the affairs of Elis, and other Grecian states, and furnished a code of laws for Syracuse, he rejected the applications of the Arcadians and Thebans, because they refused to adopt the plan of his republic, which prescribed an equal distribution of property. He was also in high esteem with several princes, particularly Archelaus, king of Maoedon, and Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily. At three different periods he visited the court of this latter prince, and made several bold, but unsuccessful attempts to subdue his haughty and tyrannical spirit. A brief relation of the particulars of these visits to Sicily, may serve to cast some light upon the character of our philosopher

The professed object of Plato’s first visit to Sicily, which happened in the fortieth year of his age, during the reign of the elder Dionysius, the son of Hermocrates, was, to take a survey of the island, and particularly to observe the wonders of Mount Etna. Whilst he was resident at Syracuse, he was employed in the instruction of Dion, the king’s brother-in-law, who possessed excellent abilities, but had not escaped the general depravity of the court. Such, however, was the influence of Plato’s instructions, that he became an ardent lover of wisdom, and hoping that philosophy might produce the same effect upon Dionysius, he procured an interview between Plato and the tyrant. This had like to have proved fatal, for Donysius, perceiving that the philosopher levelled his discourse against the vices and cruelties of his reign, dismissed him with high displeasure from his presence, and conceived a design against his life. And although he did not accomplish this barbarous intention, he procured him to be sold as a slave in the island of Ægina, the inhabitants of which were then at war with the Athenians. Plato, however, could not long remain unnoticed: Anicerris, a Cyrenaic philosopher, who happened to be at that time in the island, discovered him, and purchasing his freedom, sent him home to Athens, and afterwards refused the repayment of the purchase-money, that, as he said, Plato’s friends might not monopolize the honour of serving so illustrious a philosopher.

After a short interval, Dionysius, repenting of his unjust resentment, wrote to Plato, inviting him to return to Syracuse, to which Plato answered, with some contempt, that philosophy would not allow him leisure to think of Dionysius. He was induced, however, to return by another expedient. Plato had made Dion a determined votary of virtue, and he naturally wished to extend this advantage to the younger Dionysius, who also expressed a most earnest desire to become acquainted with Plato< Letters were then dispatched to him, from the tyrant, from Dion and several followers of Pythagoras, importuning him to return to Syracuse, and take upon him the education of the young prince. After considerable hesitation, he consented, and is said to have had some kind of promise on the part of Dionysius that he would adopt the Platonic form of government. In the mean time the enemies of Dion prevailed upon Dionysius to recall from exile Philistus, a man of tyrannical principles and spirit, who, they hoped f would oppose the doctrines and measures of Plato. The philosopher in the mean time was conducted to Syracuse with public honours; the king himself received him into his chariot, and sacrifices were offered in congratulation of his arrival. New regulations were immediately introduced; the licentiousness of the court was restrained; moderation reigned in all public festivals; the king assumed an air of benignity; philosophy was studied by his courtiers; and every good man assured himself of a happy revolution in the state of public manners. It was now that Philistus and his adherents found means to rekindle the jealousy of the tyrant, and through their intrigues, Dion became so obnoxious to Dionysius, that he ordered him to be imprisoned, and afterwards banished him into Italy. With Plato, however, he continued to keep up some appearance of friendship, and under that pretence allotted Plato an apartment in his palace, but at the same time placed a secret guard about him, that no one might visit him without his knowledge. At length, upon the commencement of a war, Dionysius sent Plato back into his own country, with a promise, that he would recal both him and Dion upon the return of peace. Part of this promise he was soon inclined to keep, by recalling Plato but the philosopher received his solicitations with coolness, pleaded in excuse his advanced age, and reminded the tyrant of the violation of his promise respecting Dion nor was it until the request of Dionysius was seconded by the intreaties of the wife and sister of Dion, and by the importunities of Archytas of Tarentum, and other Pythagorean philosophers, to whom the tyrant had pledged himself for the performance of his promises, that he could be prevailed upon to return.

It is from the writings of Plato, chiefly, that we are to form a judgment of his merit as a philosopher, and of the service which he rendered to science. No one can be conversant with these without perceiving, that his diction always retained a strong tincture of that poetical spirit which he discovered in his first productions. This is the principal ground of those lofty encomiums, which both autient and modern critics have passed upon his language, and, particularly, of the high estimation in which it was held by Cicero, who, treating on the subject of language, says, that “if Jupiter were to speak in the Greek tongue, he would borrow the style of Plato.” The accurate Stagyrite describes it, as “a middle species of diction, between verse and prose.” Some of his dialogues are elevated by such sublime and glowing conceptions, are enriched with such copious and splendid diction, and flow in so harmonious a rythmus, that they may truly be pronouncedhighly poetical. Most of them are justly admired for their liter rary merit the introductions are pertinent and amusing the course of the debate, or conversation, is clearly marked; the characters are accurately supported every speaker has his proper place, language, and manners the scenery of the conference is painted in lively colouring and the whole is, with admirable art, adorned and enlivened by those minute embellishments, which render the colloquial mode of writing so peculiarly pleasing. Even upon abstract subjects, whether moral, metaphysical, or mathematical, the language of Plato is often clear as the running stream, and in simplicity and sweetness vies with the humble violet which perfumes the vale. In these beautiful parts of his works, it has been conjectured, not without probability, that Socrates and Lysias were his models. At other times, however, we find him swelling into the turgid style, a tincture of which he seems to have retained from his juvenile studies, and involving himself in obscurities, which were the offspring of a lofty fancy, or were borrowed from the Italic school. Several ancient critics have noticed these blemishes in the writings of Plato. Dionysius Halicarnassensis particularly censures Plato for the harshness of his metaphors, and his bold innovations in the use of terms, and quotes from his Phædrus examples of the bombast, the puerile, and the frigid style. The same inequality, which is so apparent in the style of Plato, may also be observed in his conceptions. Whilst he adheres to the school of Socrates, and discourses upon moral topics, he is much more pleasing than when he loses himself, with Pythagoras, in abstruse speculations.

On the philosophy of Plato it is not our intention to enter. The most moderate account we have seen would exceed our limits; and as treated by modern writers it forms the history, not only of a sect, but of the various controversies which have arisen out of it in the Christian world, Our readers may be referred, with confidence, to Brucker, whom we have principally followed in the preceding part, and to an elaborate article in the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” In the seventeenth century, Gale, Cudworth, and More, perplexed themselves with the doctrines of Plato, which, however, are now less studied and less respected. In such a wonderful maze of words, says Brucker, does Plato involve his notions, that none of his disciples, not even the sagacious Stagyrite, could unfold them and yet we receive them as sacred mysteries, and, if we do nctf perfectly comprehend them, imagine that our intellects are too feeble to penetrate the conceptions of this divine philosopher, and that our eyes are blinded by that resplendent blaze of truth, upon which his eagle sight could gaze without injury.

, a celebrated Platonic philosopher, was born at Lycopolis, in Egypt, in the year 205, but concerning his family or education, nothing is known. About the age of twenty, he first studied philosophy at the different schools of Alexandria, but attached himself particularly to Ammonius, in whom he found a disposition to superstition and fanaticism like his own. On the death of this preceptor, haying in his school frequently heard the Oriental philosophy commended, and expecting to find in it that kind of doctrine concerning divine natures which he was most desirous of studying, he determined to travel into Persia and India, to learn wisdom of the Magi and Gymnosophists and as the emperor Gordian was at this time undertaking an expedition against the Parthians, Plotinus seized the occasion, and in the year 243 joined the emperor’s army; but the emperor being killed, Plotinus fled to Antioch, and thence came to Rome, where Philip was now emperor.

Although Plotinus’s plan was new, it was obscure, and he had but few disciples. He was not the less assiduous, however, in teaching, and studied very hard, preparing himself by watching and fasting. He was so respected for wisdom and integrity, that many private quarrels were referred to his arbitration, and parents on their death-beds were very desirous of consigning their children to his care. During his residence of twenty-six years at Rome, he became a favourite with Galienus, and would have persuaded that emperor to re-build a city in Campania, and people it with philosophers, to be governed by the laws of Plato but this was not effected. Although skilled in the medical art, he had such a contempt for the body, that he would never take any medicines when indisposed; nor for the same reason would he suffer his birth-day to be celebrated, or any portrait to be taken of his person. His pupil Amelius, however, procured one by stealth, painted while he was lecturing. Such abstinence, and neglect of health, brought him into a state of disease and infirmity, which rendered the latter part of his life exceedingly painful. When he found his end approaching, he said to Eustochius, “The divine principle within me is now hastening to unite itself with that divine being which animates the universe” herein expressing a leading principle of his philosophy, that the human soul is an emanation from the divine nature, and will return to the source whence it proceeded. Plotinus died in the year 270, aged sixty-six years. Porphyry represents him as having been possessed of miraculous powers, but there is more reason to conclude from his life and writings, that he belonged to the class of fanatics. His natural temper, his education, his system, all inclined him to fanaticism. Suffering himself to be led astray by a volatile imagination, from the plain path of good sense, he poured forth crude and confused conceptions, in obscure and incoherent language. Sometimes he soared in extatic flights into the regions of mysticism. Porphyry relates, that he ascended through all the Platonic steps of divine contemplation, to the actual vision of the deity himself, and was admitted to such intercourse with him, as no other philosopher ever enjoyed. They who are well acquainted with human nature, will easily perceive in these flights, unequivocal proofs of a feeble or disordered mind, and will not wonder that the system of Plotinus was mystical, and his writings obscure. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have become, in a great degree, the preceptor of the world, and should, by means of his disciples, have every where disseminated a species of false philosophy, which was compounded of superstition, enthusiasm, and imposture. The muddy waters sent forth from this polluted spring, were spread through the most celebrated seats of learning, and were even permitted to mingle with the pure stream of Christian doctrine.

, a great philosopher and historian of antiquity, who lived from the reign of Claudius to that of Adrian, was born at Chaeronea, a small city of Bceotia, in Greece, which had also been the birth-place of Pindar, but was far from partaking of the proverbial dulness of his country. Plutarch’s family was ancient in Chaeronea: his grandfather Lamprias was a man eminent for his learning, and a philosopher; and is often mentioned by Plutarch in his writings, as is also his father. Plutarch was initiated early in study, to which he was naturally inclined; and was placed under Ammonius an Egyptian, who, having taught philosophy with reputation at Alexandria, thence travelled into Greece, and settled at Athens. Under this master he made great advances in knowledge, but being more intent on things than words, he neglected the languages. The Roman language at that time was not only the language of 'Rome, but of Greece also; and much more used there than the French is now in England. Yet he was so far from regarding it then, that, as we learn from himself, he did not become conversant in it till the decline of life; and, though he is supposed to have resided in Rome near forty years, at different times, he never seems to have acquired a competent skill in it.

His works have been divided, and they admit of a tolerably equal division, into “Lives” and “Morals:” the former of which, in his own estimation, were to be preferred, as more noble than the latter. As a biographer he has great merit, and to him we stand indebted for much of the knowledge we possess, concerning several of the most eminent personages of antiquity. His style perhaps may be justly censured for harshness and obscurity, and he has also been criticized for some mistakes in Roman antiquities, and for a. little partiality to the Greeks. On the other hand, he has been justly praised, for sense, learning, integrity, and a certain air of goodness, which appears in all he wrote. Some have affirmed his works to be a kind of library, and collection of all that was wisely said and done among the ancient Greeks and Romans: and if so, the saying of Theodorus Gaza was not extravagant. This learned man, and great preceptor of the Greek tongue at the revival of literature, being asked by a friend “If learning must suffer a general shipwreck, and he have only his choice of one author to be preserved, who that author should be?” answered, “Plutarch.” But although it is unquestionable that in extent and variety of learning Plutarch had few equals, he does not appear to have excelled as much in depth and solidity of judgment. Where he expresses his own conceptions and opinions, he often supports them by feeble and slender arguments: where he reports, and attempts to elucidate, the opinions of others, he frequently falls into mistakes, or is chargeable with misrepresentations. In proof of this assertion, Brucker mentions what he has advanced concerning Plato’s notion of the soul of the world, and concerning the Epicurean philosophy. Brucker adds, that Plutarch is often inaccurate in method, and sometimes betrays a degree of credulity unworthy of a philosopher.

, a most ingenious and learned Italian, was born July 14, 1454, at Monte Pulciano in Tuscany and from the name of this town, in Latin Mons Politianus, he derived the surname of Politian. His father was a doctor of the civil law. His name, according to M. Baillet, was Benedictus de Cinis, or, de Ambroginis, for he considers the former as a corruption of the latter. Politian, who gave early proofs of an extraordinary genius; had the advantage of Christophero Landino’s instructions in the Latin language. His preceptors in the Greek were Andronicus of Thessalonica and John Argyropylus. His abilities, at a very early period of his life, attracted the notice of Lorenzo and Julius de Medici. An Italian poem, the production of his juvenile pen, in which he celebrated an equestrian spectacle, or Giostra, wherein the latter bore away the prize, greatly contributed to establish his reputation. He was thence honoured with the peculiar patronage of the Medicean family; and, among other persons remarkable for genius and learning, whom the munificence of Lorenzo attracted to Florence, Politian was seen to shinq as a star of the first magnitude. Lorenzo confided to him the education of his own children and in this honourable employment he passed a great part of his life, favoured with the peculiar friendship of his patron, and the society and correspondence of men of letters. Among the more intimate associates of Poiitian, was Picus of Mi ran ­dula, and between these eminent scholars there was a strict attachment, and a friendly communication of studies. The Platonic philosopher, Marsilius Ficinus, completed this literary triumvirate.

, marquis of, a French nobleman, still more distinguished by his talents in poetry than by his rank, was born at Montauban in 1709. He was educated for the magistracy, and became advocategeneral, and first president of the court of aids at Montauban. His inclination for poetry, however, could not be repressed, and at the age of twenty-five he produced his tragedy of “Dido,” in which he approved himself not only one of the most successful imitators of Racine, but an able and elegant poet. After this success at Paris, he returned to his duties at Montauban, which he fulfilled in the most upright manner; but having suffered a short exile, on account of some step which displeased the court, he became digusted with the office of a magistrate. As he had now also increased his fortune by an advantageous marriage, he determined to remove to Paris, where at first he was received as his virtues and his talents deserved. His sincere attachment to Christianity brought upon him a persecution from the philosophists, which, after a time, drove him back to the country. Voltaire and his associates had nowinundated France with their deistical tracts the materialism of Helvetius in his book de TEsprit, had just been brought forward in the most triumphant manner the enemies of Christianity had filled the Encyclopedic with the poison of their opinions, and had by their intrigues formed a powerful party in the French academy, when the marquis of Pompignan was admitted as an academician, in 1760. He had the courage, at his admission, to pronounce a discourse, the object of which was to prove that the man of virtue and religion is the only true philosopher. From this moment he was the object of perpetual persecution. Voltaire and his associates were indefatigable in pouring out satires against him: his religion was called hypocrisy, and his public declaration in its favour an attempt to gain the patronage of certain leading men. These accusations, as unjust as they were illiberal, mingled with every species of sarcastic wit, had the effect of digusting the worthy marquis with Paris. He retired to his estate of Pompignan, where he passed the remainder of his<laysin the practice of a true philosophy, accompanied by sincere piety and died of an apoplexy in 1784, at the age of seventy-five, most deeply regretted by his neighbours and dependents. The shameful treatment of this excellent man, by the sect which then reigned in the academy, is a strong illustration of that conspiracy against religion, so ably detailed by M. Barruel, in the first volume of his Memoirs of Jacobinism. When once he had declared himself a zealous Christian no merit was allowed him, nor any effort spared to overwhelm him with disgrace and mortification. His compositions nevertheless were, and are, esteemed by impartial judges. His “Sacred Odes,” notwithstanding the sarcasm of Voltaire, “sacred they are, for no one touches them,” abound in poetical spirit, and lyric beauties though it is confessed also that they have their inequalities. His “Discourses imitated from the books of Solomon,” contain important moral truths, delivered with elegance, and frequently with energy. His imitation of the Georgics of Virgil, though inferior to that of the abbe De Lille (whose versification is the richest and most energetic of modern French writers), has yet considerable merit and his “Voyage de Languedoc,” though not equal, in easy and lively negligence to that of Chapelle, is superior in elegance, correctness, and variety. He wrote also some operas which were not acted and a comedy in verse, in one act, called “Les Adieux de Mars,” which was represented with success at the Italian comic theatre in Paris. The marquis of Pompignan was distinguished also as a writer in prose. His “Eulogium on the Duke of Burgundy,” is written with an affecting simplicity. His “Dissertations,” his “Letter to the younger Racine,” and his “Academical Discourses,” all prove a sound judgment, a correct taste, and a genius improved by careful study of the classic models. He produced also a “Translation of some dialogues of Lucian,” and some “Tragedies of Æschylus,” which are very generally esteemed. He was allowed to be a man of vast literature, and almost universal knowledge in the fine arts. Yet such a man was to be ill-treated, and crushed if possible, because he had the virtue to declare himself a partizan of religion. Even his enemies, and the most inflexible of them, Voltaire, were unable to deny the merit of some of his poetical compositions. The following stanza in particular, in “An- Ode on the Death of Rousseau,” obtained a triumph for him in defiance of prejudice. The intention seems to be to illustrate the vanity of those who speak against religion:

, a philosopher of great name among the ancients, was born A. D. 233, in the reign of Alexander Severus. He was of Tyre, and had the name of Malchus, in common with his father, who was a Syrophcenician. St. Jerome and St. Augustin' have called him Bataneotes whence Fabricius suspects, that the real place of his nativity was Batanea, a town of Syria and that he was carried thence with a colony to Tyre. His father very early introduced him to the study of literature and philosophy under the Christian preceptor Origen, probably while he was teaching at Caesarea in Palestine. He then went to Athens, where he had the famous Longinus for his master in rhetoric, who changed his Syrian name Malchus, as not very pleasing to Grecian ears, into that of Porphyrius, which answers to it in Greek. It is in a great measure owing to this able teacher, that we find so many proofs of erudition, and so much elegance of style, in the writings of PorphyFrom this time, we have little information concerning him until he proceeded to Rome, where, at thirty years of age, he heard Plo'tinus, whose life he has written, and inserted in it many particulars concerning himself*. Five years after, he went to reside at Lilybseum in Sicily, on which account he is sometimes called Siculus and here, as Eusebius and Jerome relate, he composed those famous books against the Christians, which, for the name and authority of the man, and for the acuteness and learning with, which they were written, were afterwards thought so considerable, as to be suppressed by particular edicts, under the reigns of Constantine and Theodosius. Some have surmised, that these books are still extant, and secretly preserved in the Duke of Tuscany’s library; but there is little doubt that they were destroyed by the mistaken zeal of the Christians. The circumstances of Porphyrius’s life, after his arrival in Sicily, are little known except that he died at Rome, towards the end of Dioclesiari’s reign, about the year 304. Some have imagined that he was. in the early part of his life a Christian, but afterwards, through some disgust or other, deserted that profession, and became its decided enemy; while others have hinted, that he embraced Christianity when he was old, and after he had written with great acrimony against it; but for neither of these opinions is there any good authority.

phyrius addicted himself,concurred with lity of his mind.“Brucker. his natural propensity towards melanwould have reaped any great benefit from these, since neither his judgment nor his integrity was equal to his learning; and neither the splendour of his diction, nor the variety of his reading, can atone for the credulity or the dishonesty, which fill the narrative parts of his works with so many extravagant tales; or interest the judicious reader in the abstruse subtleties, and mystical flights of his philosophical writings. Of his works which remain, the four following,” De abstinentia ab esu animalium“” De vita Pythagone“” Sententite ad intelligibilia ducentes“” De Antro Nymphorum“with a fragment” De Styge,“preserved by Stobaeus, were printed at Cambridge in 1655, 8vo, with a Latin version, and the Life of Porphyry subjoined, by Lucas Holstenius. The” Life of Pythagoras,“which, however, is but a fragment, has since been published by Kusterus, at Amsterdam, 1707, in 4to, in conjunction with that written by Jamblichus, who was a disciple of this philosopher. It should have been observed, that the above pieces of Pythagoras, printed at Cambridge, were published jointly with Epictetus and Arrian’s Commentary, and the Tabula Cebetis. His treatise” De Antro Nymphorum“was reprinted in Greek and Latin, with notes, by R. M. Van Goens, at Utrecht in 1765, 419; anc1jac.de Rhoer published a new edition of the treatise” De Abstinentia" at the same place in 1767.

, a very ingenious but visionary man, was by birth a Norman, of a small hamlet called Dolerie where he was born in 1510. Never did genius struggle with more vigour against the extremes of indigence. At eight years old, he was deprived of both his parents by the plague when only fourteen, unable to subsist in his native place, he removed to another near Pontoise, and undertook to keep a school. Having thus obtained a little money, he went to Paris, to continue his studies but there was plundered and suffered so much from cold, that he languished for two years in an hospital. When he recovered, he again collected a little money by gleaning irv the country, and returned to Paris, where he subsisted by waiting on some of the students in the college of St. Barbe; but made, at the same time, so rapid a progress in knowledge, that he became almost an universal scholar. His acquirements were so extraordinary, that they became known to the king, Francis I. who, touched with so much merit, under such singular disadvantages, sent him to the East to collect manuscripts. This commission he executed so well, that on his return, he was appointed royal professor of mathematics and languages, with a considerable salary. Thus he might appear to be settled for life; but this was not his destiny. He was, unfortunately for himself, attached to the chancellor Poyet, who fell under the displeasure of the queen of Navarre and Postel, for no other fault, was deprived of his appointments, and obliged to quit France. He now became a wanderer, and a visionary. From Vienna, from Rome, from the order of Jesuits, into which he had entered, he was successively banished for strange and singular opinions; for which also he was imprisoned at Rome and at Venice. Being released, as a madman, he returned 10 Paris, whence the same causes again drove him into Germany. At Vienna he was once more received, and obtained a professorship; but, having made his peace at home, was again recalled to Paris, and re-established in his places. He had previously recanted his errors, but relapsing into them, was banished to a monastery, where he performed acts of penitence, and died Sept. 6, 1581, at the age of seventy-one. Postel pretended to be much older than he was, and maintained that he had died and risen again which farce he supported by many tricks, such as- colouring his beard and hair, and even painting his face. For the same reason, in most of his works, he styles himself, “Postellus restitntus.” Notwithstanding his strange extravagances, he was one of the greatest geniuses of his time; had a surprising quickness and memory, with so extensive a knowledge of languages, that he boasted he could travel round the world without an interpreter. Francis I. regarded him as the wonder of his age Charles IX. called him his philosopher; and when he lectured at Paris, the crowd of auditors was sometimes so great, that they could only assemble in the open court of the college, while he taught them from a window. But by applying himself very earnestly to the study of the Rabbins, and of the stars, he turned his head, and gave way to the most extravagant chimeras. Among these, were the notions that women at a certain period are to have universal dominion over men that all the mysteries of Christianity are demonstrable by reason that the soul of Adam had entered into his body that the angel Raziel had revealed to him the secrets of heaven and that his writings were dictated by Jesus Christ himself. His notion of the universal dominion of women, arose from his attachment to an old maid at Venice, in consequence of which he published a strange and now very rare and high-priced book, entitled “Les tres-marveilieuseS victoires des Femmes du Nouveau Monde, et comme elles doivent par raison a tout le monde commander, et me' me a; eeux qui auront la monarchic du Monde viel,” Paris, 1553, 16mo. At the same time, he maintained, that the extraordinary age to which he pretended ttf have lived, was occasioned hy his total abstinence from all commerce with that sex. His works are as numerous as, they are strange and some of them are very scarce, hut very little deserve to be collected. One of the most important is entitled “De orbis concordia,” Bale, 1544, folio. In this the author endeavours to bring all the world to the Christian faith under two masters, the pope, in spiritual affairs, and the king of France in temporal. It is divided into four books; in the first of which he gives the proofs of Christianity; the second contains a refutation of the Koran; the third treats of the origin of idolatry, and all false religions and the fourth, on the mode of converting Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, Of his other works, amounting to twenty-six articles, which are enumerated in the “Dictionnaire Historique,” and most of them by Brunet as rarities with the French collectors, many display in their very titles the extravagance of their contents; such as, “Clavis absconditorum a, constitutione ixmndi,” Paris, 1547, 16mo; “De Ultimo judicio;” “Proto-evangelium,” &c. Some are on subjects of more real utility. But the fullest account of the whole may be found in a book published at Liege in 1773, entitled “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur 3a Vie et les ouvrages de Guillaume Postel,” by father des Billons. The infamous book, “De tribus impostoribus,” has been very unjustly attributed to Postel, for, notwithstanding all his wildness, he was a believer.

, an eminent French professor of philosophy, was born at Poilly, a village in the diocese of Sens, in the year 1651, and studied at the university of Paris, where he distinguished himself by his talents and great diligence, and in 1673 he was admitted to the degree of M. A. In the year 1677 he was appointed professor of philosophy in his own college, whither his reputation soon attracted a multitude of students and at the opening of the “College des Quatre Nations,' 7 he was appointed to fill the philosophical chair in that seminary. Mr. Pourchot soon became dissatisfied with the Aristotelian philosophy, and embraced the principles of Des Cartes, applying mathematical principles and reasonings to the discovery of physical and moral truths. He now drew up a system of philosophy, which he published under the title of” Institutiones Philosophies,“which was very generally applauded, and met with an astonishing sale. His reputation as a philosopher, at this time, stood so high, that his lectures were always attended by a numerous concourse of students. His acquaintance was eagerly courted by the most celebrated literary characters of his time Racine, Despreaux, Mabillon, Dupin, Baillet, Montfaucon, and Santeul, were his intimate associates. He was honoured with the esteem of M. Bossuet and M. de Fenelon. The latter would have procured for him the appointment of tutor to the younger branches of the royal family, but he preferred to employ his talents in the service of the university; and was seven times chosen to fill the post of rector of that body, and was syndic for the long space of forty years. At a very advanced age he began to apply himself to the study of the Hebrew language, with a degree of ardour which soon enabled him to deliver a course of lectures upon it at the college of St. Barbe. In the midst of his numerous engagements, he found leisure to improve his” Philosophical Institutions,“of which he was preparing the fourth edition for the press, when he lost his eyesight. He died at Paris in 1734, in the 83d year of his age. Besides his” Institutions,“he was author of numerous” Discourses,“which were given to the public in the” Acts of the University,“and various” Memoirs.“He assisted the learned Masclef in greatly improving the second edition of his” Grammatica Hebraica," and he aided him in drawing up the Chaldee, Syriac, and Samaritan grammars, which are combined in that edition.

, principal of Jesus college, Oxford, was born at Lansawell in Carmarthenshire, in 1561, and entered a commoner of Jesus college in 1581, and after taking his degrees, and obtaining a fellowship, was chosen principal in 1613 being then, says Wood, “accounted by all a most noted philosopher, or subtle disputant, and one that acted and drudged much as a tutor, moderator and adviser in studies among the juniors.” He died June 28, 1620, and was buried in St. Michael’s church. By will he left all his estate, amounting to between six and seven hundred pounds, to the college, with which a fellowship was founded. He wrote “Analysis Analyticorum posteriorum, seu librorum Aristotelis de Demonstratione, cum scholiis,” Oxon. 1594, 8vo,and “Analysis libri Aristotelis deSophisticis Elenchis,” ibid. 1594, reprinted 1598 and 1664. Concerning these two works, a wit of the day made the following lines:

, a dissenting divine, but more justly eminent as a philosopher, was born March 18, 1733, at Field-head, near Leeds. His father, a clothier, was a dissenter of the Calviriistic persuasion. In his youth he was adopted by an aunt, who provided for his education in several schools, in which he acquired some knowledge of the learned languages, particularly Hebrew. Being intended for the ministry, he went, in 1752, to Dr. Ash worth’s dissenting academy, at Daventry, whore he spent three years, and came out from it an adherent to the Arian system. Here too he became acquainted with Hartley’s Works, to whose opinions he was afterwards very partial. He first settled as a minister at Needham-market, in Suffolk and, after three years’ residence, removed' to Namptwich in Cheshire. Here he also kept a school, and, to the more common objects of instruction, added experiments in natural philosophy, to which he had already become attached. His first publication was, an “English Grammar,” printed in 1761, in which he pointed out errors in Hume’s language, which that author had the candour to rectify in his future editions of his celebrated history.

After a residence at Leeds for six years, Dr. Priestley accepted the offer of the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, to reside with his lordship in the nominal capacity of librarian, but really as his literary companion. The terms were 2501. per annum, with a house for his family to live in, and an annuity for life of 150l. in the event of their being separated by his lordship’s dying, or changing his mind. He accordingly fixed his family in a house at Calne, in Wiltshire, near his lordship’s seat; and during seven years attended upon the noble earl in his winter’s residences at London, and occasionally in his excursions, one of which, in 1774, was a tour to the continent. This situation was useful, as affording Dr. Priestley advantages in improving his knowledge of the world, and in pursuing his scientific researches; and as he was perfectly free from restraint, this was the period of some of those exertions which increased his reputation as a philosopher, and some of those which brought the greatest obloquy upon him as a divine. In 1775, he published his “Examination of the doctrine of Common Sense, as held by Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald,” in which he treated those gentlemen with a contemptuous arrogance, of which, we are told, he was afterwards ashamed. In his manner of treating his opponents, he always exhibited a striking contrast to the mild and placid temper of his friend Dr. Price. After this he became the illustrator of the Hartleian theory of the human mind. He had, previously to this, declared himself a believer in the doctrine of philosophical necessity and in a dissertation prefixed to his edition of Hartley, he expressed some doubts of the immateriality of the soul. The charge which these induced against him of infidelity and atheism, seems only to have provoked him to a more open avowal of the same obnoxious sentiments; and in 1777 he published “Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit,” in which he gave a history of the doctrines concerning the soul, and openly supported the system which, upon due investigation, he had adopted. It was followed by “A Defence of Unitarianism, or the simple Humanity of Christ, in opposition to his Pre-existence and of the Doctrine of Necessity.” It seems not improbable that these works produced a coolness in the behaviour of his noble patron, which about this time he began to remark, and which terminated in a separation, after a connection of seven years, without any alledged complaint. That the marquis of Lansdowne had changed his sentiments of Dr. Priestley appears from the evidence of the latter, who informs us, that when he came to London, he proposed to call on the noble lord; but the latter declined receiving his visits. Dr. Priestley adds, that during his connection with his lordship, he never once aided him in his political views, nor ever wrote a single political paragraph. The friends of both parties seem to think that there was no bond of union between them, and his lordship’s attention became gradually so much engaged by politics, that every other object of study lost its hold. According, however, to the articles of agreement, Dr. Priestley retained his annuity for life of 150l. which was honourably paid to the last; and it has been said, that when the bond securing to him this annuity was burnt at the riots of Birmingham, his lordship in the handsomest manner presented him with another.

There are many circumstances in this account which the reader will consider with profound attention. It is unnecessary to point them out, or to attempt a lengthened character of Dr. Priestley. It has been said with truth that of his abilities, none can hesitate to pronounce that they are of first-rate excellence. His philosophical inquiries and publications claim the greatest distinction, and have materially contributed to the advancement of science. As an experimental philosopher, he was among the first of his age. As a divine, had he proved as diligent in propagating truth as in disseminating error, in establishing the gospel in the minds of men, instead of shaking their belief in the doctrines of revelation, perhaps few characters of the last century would have ranked higher as learned men, or have been held in greater estimation. Such, however, was not the character of his theological writings, which, as Dr. Johnson said, were calculated to unsettle every thing, but to settle nothing. All this accords with the sentiments of the great majority of the nation, with respect to Dr. Priestley as a divine, although we are aware that the epithet of bigot will be applied to him who records the fact. On the other hand, in dwelling on Dr. Priestley’s character as a philosopher, his friends may take the most effectual method of reconciling all parties, and handing down his fame undiminished to the latest posterity. We have enumerated his principal works in the preceding sketch, but the whole amount to about 70 volumes, or tracts, in 8vo. An analysis of them is given in the “Life,” to which we are principally indebted for the above particulars.

But though Dr. Pringle was thus deprived of the immediate protection of a nobleman who knew and esteemed his worth, his conduct in the duties of his station procured him effectual support. He attended the army in Flanders, through the campaign of 1744, and so powerfully recommended himself to the duke of Cumberland, that, in the spring following, March 11, he had a commission from his royal highness, appointing him physician general to his majesty’s forces in the Low Countries, and parts beyond the seas; and on the next day he received a second commission from the duke, by which he was constituted physician to the royal hospitals in the same countries. On March 5, he resigned his professorship in consequence of these promotions. In 1745 he was with the army in Flanders, but was recalled from that country in the latter end of the year, to attend the forces which were to be sent against the rebels in Scotland. At this time he had the honour of being chosen F. R. S. Dr. Pringle, at the beginning of 1746, in his official capacity, accompanied the duke of Cumberland in his expedition against the rebels, and remained with the forces, after the battle of Culloden, till their return to England, in the middle of August. We do not find that he was in Flanders during any part of that year. In 1747 and 1748, he again attended the army abroad and in the autumn of 1748 he embarked with the forces for England, upon the conclusion of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. From that time he principally resided in London, where, from his known skill and experience, and the reputation he had acquired, he might reasonably expect to succeed as a physician. In April 1749, Drt Pringle was appointed physician in ordinary to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. In 1750 he published, in a letter to Dr. Mead, “Observations on the Gaol or Hospital Fever.” This work, which passed through two editions, and was occasioned by the gaol-distemper that broke out at that time in the city of London, was well received by the medical world, though he himself afterwards considered it as having been hastily written. After supplying some things that were omitted, and rectifying a few mistakes that were made in it, he included it in his grand work on the “Diseases of the Army,” where it constitutes the seventh chapter of the third part of that treatise. It was in the same year that Dr. Pringle began to communicate to the Royal Society his famous “Experiments upon Septic and Antiseptic substances, with remarks relating to their use in the theory of Medicine” These experiments, which comprehended several papers, were read at different meetings of the society the first in June, and the two next in the November following three more in the course of 1751 and the last in Feb. 1752. Only the three first numbers were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” as Dr. Pringle had subjoined the whole, by way of appendix, to his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” These experiments upon septic and antiseptic substances, which have accompanied every subsequent edition of the treatise just mentioned, procured for him the honour of sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal. Besides this, they gained him a high and just reputation, as an experimental philosopher. In February 1753, he presented to the Royal Society “An Account of several Persons seized with the Gaol Fever by working in Newgate and of the manner by which the Infection was communicated to one entire family.” This is a very curious paper and was deemed of such importance by the excellent Dr. Stephen Hales, that he requested the author’s permission to have it published, for the common good of the kingdom, in the “Gentleman’s Magazine;” where it was accordingly printed, previous to its appearance in the Transactions. Dr. Pringle’s next communication was, “A remarkable Case of Fragility, Flexibility, and Dissolution of the Bones.” In the 49th volume of the “Transactions,” we meet with accounts which he had given of an earthquake felt at Brussels; of another at Glasgow and Dunbarton and of the agitation of the waters, Nov. 1, 1756, in Scotland and at Hamburgh. The 50th volume contains, Observations by him on the case of lord Walpole, of Woolterton; and a relation of the virtues of Soap in dissolving the Stone, as experienced by the reverend Mr. Matthew Simson. The next volume is enriched with two of the doctor’s articles, of considerable length, as well as value. In the first, he has collected, digested, and related the different accounts that had been given of a very extraordinary fiery meteor, which appeared on Sunday the 26th of November, 1758, between eight and nine at night; and, in the second, he has made a variety of remarks upon the whole, in which no small degree of philosophical sagacity is displayed. It would be tedious to mention the various papers, which, both before and after he became president of the Royal Society, were transmitted through his hands. Besides his communications in the Philosophical Transactions, he wrote, in the Edinburgh Medical Essays, volume the fifth, an “Account of the success of the Vitrum ceratum Antimonii.”

In his private character Prior was licentious, and descended to keep low company. In his “Tales” we find much indecency, and his works, collectively, are not a suitable present from a decent giver. Whatever his opinions, there seems no evidence to contradict the charge brought against him, that his life was irregular, negligent, and sensual. For the merit of his poems we may refer to Dr. Johnson’s criticism, which some have thought rather severe. As it becomes more attentively considered, however, it seems to harmonize with more recent opinions. Ease and humour are the principal characteristics of Prior’s poetry. Invention he had very little; but, although his stories, and even his points may be traced, he certainly had the happy art of telling an old story so as to convey new delight. He appears to have rested his reputation on his “Solomon,” which he wrote with great labour. Johnson, who objects to it chiefly its tediousness, allows that the reader will be able to mark many passages to which he may recur for instruction and delight, many from which the poet may learn to write, and the philosopher to reason: and Cowper says, that in his opinion, Solomon is the best poem, whether we consider the subject of it, or the execution, that Prior ever wrote.

, an eminent philosopher among the later Platonists, was born at Constantinople in the year 410, of parents who were both able and willing to provide for his instruction in all the various branches of learning and knowledge. He was first sent to Xanthus, a city of Lycia, to learn grammar; thence to Alexandria, where he was under the best masters in rhetoric, philosophy, and mathematics; and from Alexandria he removed to Athens, where he heard Plutarch, the son of Nestorius, and Syrianus, both of them celebrated philosophers. He succeeded the last in the rectorship of the Platonic school at Athens, where he died in the year 485. Marinus of Naples, who was his successor in the school, wrote his life and the first perfect copy of it was published, with a Latin version and notes, by Fabricius, Hamburgh, 1700, 4to, and afterwards subjoined to his “Bibiiotheca Latina, 1703,” 8vo.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Abdera, is said by some to have been the son of a rich Thracian, but by others to have been of low birth, and to have followed the trade of a porter. He was instructed in philosophy by Democritns, and, though his genius was rather subtle than solid, taught at Athens with great reputation but was at length driven from thence on account of his impiety, for he questioned the existence of a deity, and had begun one of his books with the following impious expressions “I cannot tell whether there are any Gods, or not many circumstances concur to prevent my knowing it, as the uncertainty of the thing in itself, and the shortness of human life.” This book, which was publicly burnt, having occasioned his banishment from Athens, he then visited the islands of the Mediterranean, and lived many years in Epirus. Protagoras is said to have been the first philosopher who received money for teaching. He flourished about 6 19 B. C. and died at a very advanced age, as he was going into Sicily. His usual method of reasoning was by Dilemmas, leaving the mind in suspense concerning all the questions which he proposed on which subject the following story is told of a rich young man named Evathlus. This youth, having been received as his disciple, for a large sum, half of which he paid at first, and was to pay the remainder when he had gained his first cause, remained a long time in our philosopher’s school, without troubling himself either about pleadiig or paying, which induced Protagoras to commence a law-suit for his money. When they came before the judges, the young man defended himself by saying, that he had not yet gained any cause upon which Protagoras proposed this dilemma: “If I gain my cause, thou wilt be sentenced to pay me, and if thou gainest it, tbou art in my debt, according to our agreement.” But, Evathlus, well instructed by his master, retorted the dilemma upon him thus “If the judges release me I owe thee nothing, and if they order me to pay the money, then I owe thee nothing, according to our agreement, for I shall not have gained my cause.” The judges, it is added, were so embarrassed by these quibbles, that they left the matter undecided. This story has the appearance of a fiction, but Protagoras certainly made it his business to furnish subtle arguments to dazzle and blind the judges, nor was he ashamed to profess himself ready to teach the means of making the worse cause appear the better.

Other works of Ptolenty, though less considerable than these two, are still extant. As, “Libri quatuor de Judiciis Astrorum,” upon the first two books of which Cardan wrote a commentary. “Fructus Librorum suorum” a kind of supplement to the former work. “Recensio Chronologica Regum” this, with another work of Ptolemy, “De Hypothesibus Planetarum,” was published in 1620, 4to, by John Bainbridge, the Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford and Scaliger, Petavius, Dodwell, and the other chronological writers, have made great use of it. <e ApparenticE Stellarum Inerrantium“this was published at Paris by Petavius, with a Latin version, 1630, folio but from a mutilated copy, the defects of which have since been supplied from a perfect one, which sir Henry Saville had communicated to archbishop Usher, by Fabricius, in the 3d volume of his” Bibliotheca Grseca.“” Elementorum Harmonicorum libri tres" published in Greek and Latin, with a commentary by Porphyry the philosopher, by Dr. Wallis at Oxforcl, in 1682, 4to and afterwards reprinted there, and inserted in the 3d volume of Wallis’s works, in 1699, folio. Of this work Dr. Burney has such an opinion as to say, that Ptolemy ranks as high amongst the great writers of antiquity for his Harmonics, or theory of sound, as for his Almagest and Geography.

, a learned English divine, and compiler of a valuable collection of voyages, was born at Thaxstead in Essex in 1577, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1600, and afterwards that of bachelor of divinity. Ill 1604 he was instituted to the vicarage of Eastwood in Essex; but, leaving the cure of it to his brother, went and lived in London, the better to carry on the great work he had undertaken. He published the first volume in 1613, and the fifth in 1625, under this title, “Purchas his Pil^ grimage, or Relations of the World, and the Religions observed in all ages and places discovered from the Creation unto this present.” In 1615, he was incorporated at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge, bachelor of divinity; and a little before, had been collated to the rectory of St. Martin’s Ltidgate, in London. He was chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and had also the promise of a deanery from Charles I. which he did not live to enjoy. His pilgrimages, and the learned Hackluyt’s Voyages, led the way to all other collections of that kind; and have been, justly valued and esteemed. Boissard, a learned foreigner, has given a great character of Purchas; he styles him “a man exquisitely skilled in languages, and all arts divine and human; a very great philosopher, historian, and divine; a faithful presbyter of the church of England; very famous for many excellent writings, and especially for his vast volumes of the East and West Indies, written in his native tongue.” His other works are, “Purchas his Pilgrim or Microcosmos, or The Historie of Man,” 1627, 8vo, a series of meditations upon man at all ages and in all stations, founded on Psalm xxxix. 5. In the address to the reader are a few particulars of himself and family, which we have extracted. He published also “The King’s Tower and Triumphal Arch of London,” 1623, 8vo; and “A Funeral Sermon on Psalm xxx. 5.” is attributed to him, if.it be not mistaken for the Microcosmos. His son, Samuel, published “A Theatre to Political flying Insects,” 1657, 4to. His Voyages now sell at a vast price.

After having remained twenty-five years in Egypt, he went to Babylon, afterwards to Crete, and thence to Sparta, to instruct himself in the laws of Minos and Lycurgus. Then he returned to Samos, which, finding under the tyranny of Polycrates, he quitted again, and visited the countries of Greece. Going through Peloponnesus, he stopped at Phlius, where Leo then reigned and, in his conversation with this prince, spoke with so much eloquence and wisdom, that Leo was at once delighted and surprised. He asked him at length, “what profession he followed?” Pythagoras answered “None, but that he was a philosopher.” For, displeased with the lofty title of sages and wise men, which his profession had hitherto assumed, he changed it into one more modest and humble, calling himself a philosopher, that is, a lover of wisdom. Leo asked him “what it was to be a philosopher and the difference there was between a philosopher and other men?” Pythagoras answered, that “life might well be compared to the Olympic games for, as in that vast assembly, some come in search of glory, others in search of gain, and a third sort, more noble than the two former, neither for fame nor profit, but only to enjoy the wonderful spectacle, and to see and know what passes in it; so we, in like manner, come into the world as into a place of public meeting, where some toil after glory, others after gain, and a few, contemning riches and vanity, apply themselves to the study of nature. These last,” said he, “are they whom T call philosophers.” And he thought them by far the noblest of the human kind, and the only part which spent their lives suitably to their nature for he was wont to say that “man was created to know and to contemplate.”

In astronomy his inventions were many and great. It is reported he discovered, or maintained the true system of the world, which places the sun in the centre, and makes all the planets revolve about him; from him it is to this day called the old or Pythagorean system; and is the same as that revived by Copernicus. He first discovered that Lucifer and Hesperus were but one and the same, being the planet Venus, though formerly thought to be two different stars. The invention of the obliquity of the zodiac is likewise ascribed tt> him. He first gave to the world the name Kocr/xoj, Kosmos, from the order and beauty of all things comprehended in it asserting that it was made according to musical proportion for as he held that the sun, by him and his followers termed the fiery globe of unity, was seated in the midst of the universe, and planets moving around him, so he held that the seven planets had an harmonious motion, and their distances from the sun corresponded to the musical intervals or divisions of the monochord. We may also add, that among the works that are cited of him, there are not only books of physic, and books of morality, like that contained in what are called his “Golden VersesJ” but treatises of politics and theology. Ah these works are lost but the vastness of his mind, and the greatness of his talents, appear from the wonderful things he performed. He delivered, as antiquity relates, several cities of Italy and of Sicily from the yoke of slavery he appeased seditions in others and he softened the manners, and brought to temper the most savage and unruly humours, of several people and several tyrants. Phalaris, the tyrant of Sicily, is said to have been the only one who could withstand the remonstrances of Pythagoras and he, it seems, was so enraged at his lectures, that he ordered him to he put to death. But though the reasonings ol the philosopher could make no impression on the tyrant, yet they were sufficient to revive the spirit of the Agrigentines, and Phalaris was killed the very same day that he had fixed for the death of Pythagoras.

Pythagoras was persecuted in the last years of his life, and died a tragical death. There was at Croton a young man called Cylon, whom a noble birth and opulence had so puffed up with pride, that he thought he should do honour to Pythagoras in offering to be his disciple. The philosopher did not measure the merit of men by these exterior things; and therefore, finding in him much corruption and wickedness, refused to admit him. This extremely enraged Cylon, who sought nothing but revenge and, having rendered many persons disaffected to Pythagoras, came one day accompanied by a crowd of profligates, and surrounding the house where he was teaching, set it on fire. Pythagoras had the luck to escape, and flying, took the way to Locrisj but the Locrians, fearing the enmity of Cylon, who was a man of power, deputed their chief magistrates to meet him, and to request him to retire elsewhere. He went to Tarentum, where a new persecution soon obliged him to retire to Metapontum. But the sedition of Croton proved as it were the signal of a general insurrection against the Pythagoreans the flame had gained all the cities of Greece the schools of Pythagoras were destroyed, and he himself, at the age of above eighty, killed at the tumult of Metapontum, or, as others say, was starved to death in the temple of the Muses, whither he was fled for refuge.

The sect of Pythagoras subsisted till towards the end of the reign of Alexander the Great. About that time the Academy and the Lyceum united to obscure and swallow up the Italic sect, which till then had held up its head with so much glory, that Isocrates writes: “We more admire, at this day, a Pythagorean when he is silent, than others, even the most eloquent, when they speak.” However, in after-ages, there were here and there some disciples of Pythagoras hut they were only particular persons, who never made any society nor had the Pythagoreans any more a public school. Notwithstanding the high encomiums bestowed upon this philosopher, Brucker, who has a very elaborate article on the subject, is of opinion that Pythagoras owed much of his celebrity and authority to imposture. Why did he so studiously court the society of Egyptian priests, so famous in antient times for their arts of deception; why did he take so much pains to be initiated in religious mysteries; why did he retire into a subterraneous cavern in Crete; why did he assume the character of Apollo, at the Olympic games why did he boast that his soul had lived in former bodies, and that he had been first Æthalides the son of Mercury, then Euphorbus, then Pyrrhus of Delos, and at last Pythagoras, but that he might the more easily impose upon the credulity of an ignorant and superstitious people His whole manner of life, as far as it is known, confirms this opinion. Clothed in a long white robe, with a flowing beard, and, as some relate, with a golden crown on his head, he preserved among the people, and in the presence of his disciples, a commanding gravity and majesty of aspect. He made use of music to promote the tranquillity of his mind frequently singing, for this purpose, hymns of Thales, Hesiod, and Homer. He had such an entire command of himself, that he was never seen to express, in his countenance, grief, or joy, or anger. He refrained from animal food, and confined himself to a frugal vegetable diet, excluding from his simple bill of fare, for sundry mystical reasons, pulse or beans. By this artificial demeanour, Pythagoras passed himself upon the vulgar as a being of an order superior to the common condition of humanity, and persuaded them that he had received his doctrine from heaven. We find still extant a letter of Pythagoras to Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse; but this letter is certainly supposititious, Pythagoras having been dead before Hiero was born. “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras,” the real author of which is unknown, have been frequently published, with the f< Commentary of Hierocles,“and a Latin version and notes. Mr. Dacier translated them into French, with notes, and- added the” Lives of Pythagoras and Hierocles“and this work was published in English, the” Golden Verses" being translated from the Greek by N. Rowe, esq. in 1707, 8vo.

For a year or more before this period, Lincoln’s Innfields theatre had, by the assistance of some pantomimes, as the “Necromancer,” “Harlequin Sorcerer,” “Apollo and Daphne,” &c. been more frequented than at any time since it was opened. In the year 1728, was offered to the public a piece which was so eminently successful, as since to have introduced a new species of drama, the comic opera, and therefore deserves particular notice. This was “The Beggar’s Opera,” first acted on the 29th of January, 1728. Quin, whose knowledge of the public taste cannot be questioned, was so doubtful of its success before it was acted, that he refused the part of Macheath, which was therefore given to Walker. Two years afterwards, 19th of March, 1730, Mr. Quin had the “Beggar’s Opera” for his benefit, and performed the part of Macheath himself, and received the sum of 2061. 9s. 6d. which was several pounds more than any one night at the common prices had produced at that theatre. His benefit the preceding year brought him only 102l. 185. Od. and the succeeding only 129l. 35. Od. The season of 1728 had been so occupied by “The Beggar’s Opera,” that no new piece was exhibited in which Quin performed. In that of 1728-29 he performed in Barford’s “Virgin Queen,” in Madden’s Themistocles,“and in Mrs. Heywood’s” Frederic duke of Brunswick.“In 1729-30 there was no new play in which he performed. In 1730-31 he assisted in Tracey’s” Periander,“in Frowde’s” Philotas,“in Jeffreys’” Merope,“and in Theobald’s” Orestes;“and in the next season, 1731-2, in Kelly’s” Married Philosopher."

, justly celebrated for his philanthropy, was born July 25, 1733, at Frasersburgh, a small town in the county of Aberdeen, North Britain. From his earliest years he discovered a serious disposition, and a strong thirst for knowledge, and after his grammatical education, was inclined to pursue the studies necessary for a. clergyman; but the narrowness of his circumstances prevented his going to Oxford or Cambridge, where he might be qualified to enter the English church, in the principles of which he had been educated. Yielding therefore to necessity, he resolved to study surgery and pharmacy, and was with this view bound apprentice to Dr. Findlay, a medical practitioner in Frasersburgh. In the mean time, with the approbation of his master, he entered, in 1750, of King’s college, Aberdeen, and having obtained one of the highest bursaries or exhibitions belonging to that seminary, he was enabled to prosecute his studies with comfort, and for three years had Dr. Reid, then one of the professors^ for his preceptor. To that great and amiable philosopher he so recommended himself by his talents, his industry, and his virtues, that he was honoured with his friendship to the day of his death.

, or La Ramme'E, a celebrated French mathematician and philosopher, was born in 1515, in a village of Vermandois, in Picardy, of a family so greatly reduced by the ravages of war, that his grandfather, having lost all his possessions, was obliged to turn collier for a livelihood. His father followed husbandry, but appears to have been unable to give any education to this son, whose 4 arly years were spent in mean occupations. At length he obtained the place of servant in the college of Navarre, at Paris, where he picked up the rudiments of learning, and became acquainted with the logic of Aristotle. All his leisure time he devoted to study, so that what is related in the first Scaligerana of his living to nineteen without learning to read, and of his being very dull and stupid, is totally inconsistent with the truth. On the contrary, his talents and perseverance at last procured him to be regularly educated in the college, and having finished classical learning and rhetoric, he went through a course of philosophy, which took him up three years and a half. The thesis which he made for his master’s degree denied the authority of Aristotle, and this he maintained with great ability, and very ingeniously replied to the objections of the professors. This success inclined him to examine the doctrine of Aristotle more closely, and to combat it vigorously: but he confined himself principally to his logic. All this, however, was little less than heresy; and the two first books he published, the one entitled “Institutiones Dialecticae,” the other “Aristotelicse Animadversiones,” so irritated the professors of the university of Paris, that, besides many effusions of spleen and calumny, they prosecuted this anti- peripatetic before the civil magistrate, as a man who was at war with religion and learning. The cause was then carried before the parliament of Paris, but his enemies dreading either the delay or the fairness of a trial there, brought it before the king, Francis I. who ordered that Ramus, and Antony Govea, who was his principal adversary, should chuse two judges each, to pronounce on the controversy after they should have ended their disputation; while he himself appointed an umpire. Ramus, in obedience to the king’s orders, appeared before the five judges, though three of them were his declared enemies. The dispute lasted two days; and Govea had all the advantage he could desire, Ramus’s books being prohibited in all parts of the kingdom, and their author sentenced not to write or teach philosophy any longer. This sentence, which elated his enemies beyond all bounds of moderation, was published in Latin and French in all the streets of Paris, and in all parts of Europe, whither it could be sent. Plays were acted with great pomp, in which Ramus was ridiculed in various ways amidst the applauses and acclamations of the Aristotelians. This happened in 1543. The year after, the plague made great havoc in Paris, and forced most of the students to quit the university, and cut off several of the professors. On their return, Ramus, being prevailed upon to teach in it, soon drew together a great number of auditors, and through the patronage and protection of the cardinal of Lorrain he obtained in 1547 from Henry II. the liberty of speaking and writing, and the royal professorship of philosophy aad eloquence in 1551. The parliament of Paris had, before this, maintained him in the liberty of joining philosophical lectures to those of eloquence; and this arret or decree had put an end to several prosecutions, which Ramus and his pupils had suffered. As soon as he was made regius professor, he was fired with new zeal for improving the sciences; and was extremely laborious and active on this occasion, notwithstanding the machinations of his enemies. He bore at that time a part in a very singular aflair, which deserves to be mentioned. About 1550 the royal professors corrected, among other abuses, that which had crept into the pronunciation of the Latin tongue. Some of the clergy followed this regulation; but the Sorbonnists were much offended at it as an innovation, and defended the old pronunciation with great zeal. Things at length were carried so far, that a clergyman who had a good living was ejected from his benefice for having pronounced qm’squis, quanquaw, according to the new way, instead of kiskis, kankam, according to the old. The clergyman applied to the parliament; and the royal professors, with Ramus among them, fearing he would fall a victim to the credit and authority of the faculty of divines, for presuming to pronounce the Latin tongue according to their regulations, thought it incumbent on them to assist him. Accordingly they went to the court of justice, and represented in such strong terms the indignity of the prosecution, that the person accused was acquitted, and the pronunciation of Latin recovered its liberty.

, an eminent English natural philosopher, was the son of a blacksmith at Black Notley, near Braintree, in Essex, and was born there Nov. 29th, 1628. He was bred a scholar at Braintree school; and sent thence, in 1644, to Catharine-hall in Cambridge. Here he continued about two years, and then removed, for some reason orother, to Trinity-college with which, says Derham, he was afterwards much pleased, because in Catharine-hall they chiefly addicted themselves to disputations, while in Trinity the politer arts and sciences were principally cultivated. In Sept. 1649 he was chosen a minor fellow along with his ingenious friend Isaac Barrow, and was chosen major fellow, when he had completed his master’s degree. The learned Duport, famous for his skill in Greek, who had been his tutor, used to say, that the chief of all his pupils, and to whom he esteemed none of the rest comparable, were Mr. Ray and Dr. Barrow. In 1651, Mr. Ray was chosen the Greek lecturer of the college; in 1653, the mathematical lecturer; in 1655, humanity-reader; which three appointments shew the reputation he had acquired, in that early period of his life, for his skill in languages, polite literature, and the sciences. After he had been of greater standing, he was chosen into the respective offices of the college, as praelector primarius, in 1657; junior dean in 1658; and twice college-steward, in 1659 and 1660.

The first fruit of our author’s leisure and retirement here, was his “Met hod us Plantarum Nova,” published in 1682, making au octavo volume. His principles of arrangement are chiefly derived from the fruit. The regularity and irregularity of flowers, which take the lead in the system of Rivinus, make no part of that of Ray. It is remarkable that he adopts the ancient primary division of plants, into trees, shrubs, and herbs, and that he blamed Rivious for abolishing it, though his own prefatory remarks tend to overset that principle, as a vulgar and casual one, unworthy of a philosopher. That his system was not merely a commodious artificial aid to practical botany, but a philosophical clue to the labyrinth of Nature, he probably, like his fellow-labourers, for many years, in this department, believed; yet he was too modest, and too learned, to think he had brought this new and arduous design to perfection; for whatever he has incidentally or deliberately thrown out, respecting the value of his labours, is often marked with more diffidence on the subject of classification, than any other. He first applied his system to practical use in a general “Historia Plantarum,” of which the first volume, a thick folio, was published in 1686, and the second in 1687. The third volume of the same work, which is supplementary, came out in 1704. This vast and critical compilation is still in use as a book of reference, being particularly valuable as an epitome of the contents of various rare and expensive works, which ordinary libraries cannot possess, such as the “Hortus Malabaricus.” The description of species is faithful and instructive; the remarks original, bounded only by the whole circuit of the botanical learning of that day nor are generic character! neglected, however vaguely they are assumed. Specific differences do not enter regularly into the author’s plan, nor has he followed any uniform rules of nomenclature. So ample a transcript of the practical knowledge of such a botanist, cannot but be a treasure; yet it is now njucli neglected, few persons being learned enough to use it with facility, for want of figures, and a popular nomenclature; and those who are, seldom requiring its assistance. A mere catalogue or index, like the works of Tournefort and Caspar Bauhin, which teach nothing of themselves, are of readier use. The Species Plantarum of Linnseus unites the advantages of the clearest most concise specific definition, and, by the help of Bauhin, of an universal index. Nor was Mr. Ray less mindful of Mr. Willoughby’s collections, where there were noble, though rude and indigested, materials; but spent much time and pains in reducing them to order, and fitting them for the press. He had published his “ObserTations upon Birds” in 1678; and, in 1685, he published his “History of Fishes:” and, though these works were then the completest in their kinds, yet they lost much of their perfection by the miscarriage of Mr. Willoughby’s and Mr. Ray’s papers in their travels. They had very accurately described all the birds, fishes, &c. which they saw as they passed through Germany, especially those in and upon the Danube and the Rhine; but lost their accounts in their return home. This loss Mr. Ray laments in the philosophical letters above cited.

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

, a French philosopher, and great propagator of Cartesianism, was born in Agenois, in 1632. He cultivated the languages and philosophy under the Jesuits at Cahors, and afterwards divinity in the university of that town, being designed for the church. He made so uncommon a progress, that at the end of four years he was offered a doctor’s degree without the usual charges; but he did not think it became him to accept of it till he had studied also in the Sorbonne at Paris. He went thither, but was soon disgusted with theology; and, as the philosophy of Des Cartes was at that time drawing public attention, through the lectures of Rohault, he became attached to it, and went to Toulouse in 1665, where he read lectures on the subject. Having a clear and fluent manner, and a facility in making himself understood, he was honoured, as his auditors, by the magistrates, the learned, the ecclesiastics, and even the ladies, who all affected to abjure the ancient philosophy. In 1680, he returned to Paris; where the concourse about him was such, that the Aristotelians applied to the archbishop of Paris, who thought it expedient, in the name of the king, to put a stop to the lectures; and they were accordingly discontinued for several months. The whole life of Regis, however, was spent in propagating the new philosophy. In 1690, he published a formal system of it, containing logic, metaphysics, physics, and morals, in 3 vols. 4to, and written in French. It was reprinted, the year after, at Amsterdam, with the addition of a discourse upon ancient and modern philosophy. He wrote afterwards several pieces in defence of his system in which he had disputes with M. Huet, Du Hamel, Malebranche, and others. His works, though abounding with ingenuity and learning, have been disregarded in consequence of the great discoveries and advancement in philosophic knowledge that have been since made. He died in 1707. He had been chosen member of the academy of sciences in 1699.

All that is valuable in this sketch has been taken from Mr. Dugald Stewart’s life of Dr. Reid, the most elaborate part of which is the view of the spirit and scope of Dr. Reid’s philosophy. We have long regretted, says another able critic, that the writings of this philosopher, the first who in the science of Mind deserves the title of interpreter of nature, should be so little known, especially in the southern part of this kingdom; and we fondly hope that the illustration afforded by Mr. Stewart of their high merits, and the exposure of the prejudices which have been raised against them by bold censurers, who never took the pains to understand them, will pave the way to a more general diffusion among our countrymen of the advantages which a careful study of them cannot fail to produce.

The merit of the writings of Reid, with regard to the future labours of the philosopher, and the progress of the science of mind, by illustrating the true mode of philosophising, and setting the first example of the practice, is the chief point which Mr. Stewart has endeavoured to illustrate. But there is another species of utility possessed by these writings whi x ch deserves to be pointed out; their unrivalled efficacy in leading a young mind to think. By the perspicuity of expression which Reid employs, and the uncommon clearness of his conceptions, he excites the reflection of his readers upon their own mental operations so skilfully, that they are scarcely sensible of the exertion. And unquestionably the finest school for this most important and difficult of all acquirements, the powe.r of reflecting on the operations of our own minds, is the writings of Dr. Reid.

, a learned French writer, was bora at Toulouse, March 25, 1741, and entered into the congregation of the Christian doctrine, and became a distinguished professor in it. He quitted the society after some years, and took up his residence at Paris, where he employed himself in instructing youth, and in literary pursuits. He was celebrated for his deep knowledge in the Greek language, and engaged in the great task of translating the whole works of Plutarch. Between the years 1783 and 1795 he published his version of that philosopher’s moral works, in 17 vols. 12mo; of the Lives he only published 4 vols. 12mo. He published likewise a poem, entitled <c La Sphere," in eight cantos, 1796, 8vo, which contains a system of astronomy and geography, enriched with notes, and notices of Greek, Latin, and French poems, treating on astronomical subjects. Ricard died in 1803, lamented as a man of most friendly and benevolent disposition.

, a learned Italian astronomer, philosopher, and mathematician, was born in 1598, at Ferrara, a city in Italy, in the dominions of the pope. At sixteen years of age he was admitted into the society of the Jesuits, and the progress he made in every branch of literature and science was surprising. He was first appointed to teach rhetoric, poetry, philosophy, and scholastic divinity, in the Jesuits’ colleges at Parma and Bologna; yet applied himself in the mean time to making observations in geography, chronology, and astronomy. This was his natural bent, and at length he obtained leave from his superiors to quit all other employment, that he might devote himself entirely to those sciences.

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

, in German Sterck, an eminent Flemish philosopher and mathematician, was born at Antwerp, and first studied in the emperor Maximilian the First’s palace, and afterwards at the university of Lou vain, where he acquired the learned languages, philosophy, and the mathematical sciences. He became a public professor in that university, and taught various sciences; and in 1528 went into Germany, and taught the mathematical sciences and the Greek tongue in various seminaries of that country, and afterwards at Parig, Orleans, and Bourdeaux, and other places. He died about 1536. Among his most esteemed works were, “De Ratione Studii,” Antwerp, 1529, in which are many particulars of his own studies; various treatises on grammar; Dialectica, et Tabulae Dialectics,“Ley den, 1547;” De conscribendis Epistolis Lib.“” Rhetoricae, et quat ad earn spectant“” Sententiae“” Sphiera, sive Institutionum Astronomicarum, Lib. III.,“Basil, 1528, 8vo;” Cosmographia“” Optica“” Chaos Mathematicum“”Arithraetica" all which were collected and published at Leyden, in 1531.

, an American philosopher and mathematician, was born in Pennsylvania in 1732. By the dint of genius and application, he was enabled to mingle the pursuits of science with the active employments of a farmer and watch-maker. The latter of these occupations he filled with unrivalled eminence among his countrymen. In 17t9 he was with others invited by the American Philosophical Society to observe the transit of Venus, when he particularly distinguished himself by his observations and calculations. He afterwards constructed an observatory, where he made such valuable discoveries, as tended to the general diffusion of science. After the American war, as he was a strenuous advocate for independence, he successively filled the offices of treasurer of the state of Pennsylvania, and director of the national mint; in the first of which he manifested incorruptible integrity, and in the last, the rare talent of combining theories in such a way as to produce correct practical effects. He succeeded Dr. Franklin in the office of president of the American Philosophical Society; but towards the close of his days he withdrew from public life, and spent his time in retirement. After a very severe illness, but of no long continuance, he died July 10, 1796, about the age of 64. He had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him. To the “Transactions” of the American Philosophical Society he contributed several excellent papers, chiefly on astronomical subjects.

After more deliberation, however, Dr. Robertson determined to relinquish this scheme, and to undertake the “History of Charles V.” which, indeed, he had begun before the other plan was so strongly recommended. His character as a historian now stood so high that this new production was expected with the utmost impatience, nor was that expectation disappointed. The preliminary dissertation, under the unassuming title of an “Introduction to the History of Charles V.” is particularly valuable as an introduction to the history of modern Europe, and suggests in every page matter of speculation to the politician and the philosopher. The whole appeared under the title of “The History of the reign of the Emperor Charles V. with a View of the Progress of Society in Europe, from the subversion of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the sixteenth century,” 1769, 3 vols. 4-to.

, an eminent natural philosopher and mathematician, was born at Boghall, in the county of Stirling, in Scotland, in 1739. His father, a merchant in Glasgow, having, by a course of successful industry, acquired considerable property, employed it in the purchase of an estate to which he retired during the latter part of his life. His son was educated at Glasgow, and before entering on his nineteenth year had completed his course of study at that university, but had manifested a peculiar predilection for the mathematics. Though he went deep into algebra and fluxions, yet he derived frm the celebrated Simson, and always retained, a disposition to prefer the more accurate though less comprehensive system of ancient geometry. The first thing which is said to have obtained him the notice of that eminent professor, was his having produced a geometrical solution of a problem which had been given out to the class in an algebraic form.

, a celebrated protestant divine, and theological professor, was born in 1653 at Doelberg, in Westphalia. He received, at Unna, an excellent education in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, and in 1670 maintained with great ability a thesis “de studio mathematico philosophic prsemittendo.” In the same year he went to Utrecht, where he received lectures from the celebrated Francis Burmann on the scriptures; but on the war with France, was obliged to go to Gottingen, where he studied under James Alting: this place also becoming unsafe, he returned to Germany, and studied for some time at Marpurg, and after that at Heidelberg. From thence he went to Basil and Zurich; and in 1676 he once more visited the United Provinces, and spent two years at the universities of Utrecht and Leyden. No sooner had he returned to his native country than he received an invitation to become pastor of the protcstant church at Cologne, which he declined, owing to ill-health; and he undertook the chaplainship to Elizabeth, abbess of Hervorden, and daughter of Frederic, king of Bohemia; which post he retained till the death of the princess, in 1680. After this he was appointed preacher to Albertine, princess of Orange, and widow of William of Nassau; and in 1686, was elected professor of divinity at the university of Franeker. In June 1704 he was appointed, on very honourable and advantageous terms, professor of divinity at Utrecht, a post which he retained with great reputation till his death, July 12, 1718, in the 66th year of his age. Barman says, he was without dispute a first-rate philosopher and divine; but leaves it to his brethren to determine whether he was not somewhat heretical in his singular opinions on the generation of the son of God, and on the temporal death of believers. These were expressed in his “Theses Theologicos de generatione filii, et morte fidelium temporali,” Francfort, 1689, 4to, and were answered by Vitringa and others. His principal works are, 1. “Commentarius in principinm epistolae Pauli ad Epht’sos,” Utrecht, 1715, 4to. 2. A continuation of the same, with an exegesis on the Colossians, ibid. 1731, 4to. 3. “Explicatio Catecheseos Heidelbergensis,” ibid. 1728. 4. “Exegesis in Psalmum Ixxxix.” Duisburg, 1728, 8vo. 5. “Gulichii Analysis et compendium hbrorum propheticorum antiqui et novi fcederis,” Amst. 1683, 4to. 6. “Oratio inauguralis de religione rationali,” afterwards, and often reprinted under the title of a “Dissertntio,” which Heumann calls a very learned and elegant work,

, a French philosopher, was the son of a rich merchant at Amiens, and born there in 1620. He cultivated the languages and belles lettres in his own country, and then was sent to Paris to study philosophy. He seems to have been a lover of truth, and to have sought it with much impartiality. He read the ancient and modern philosophers; but was most struck with Des Cartes, of whom he became a zealous follower, and drew up an abridgment and explanation of his philosophy with great clearness and method. In the preface to his “Physics,” for so his work is entitled, he makes no scruple to say, that “the abilities and accomplishments of this philosopher must oblige the whole world to confess, that France is at least as capable of producing and raising men versed in all arts and branches of knowledge as ancient Greece.” Clerselier, well known for his translation of many pieces of Des Cartes, conceived such an affection for Rohault, on account of his attachment to this philosopher, that he gave him his daughter in marriage, against all the remonstrances of his family.

Rohault’s physics were written in French, but have been translated into Latin by Dr. John Clarke, with his brother Dr. Samuel Clarke’s notes, in which the Cartesian errors are corrected upon the Newtonian system. The fourth and best edition of “Rohaulti Physica,” by Clarke, is that of 1718, 8vo. He wrote also “Elémens de Mathématiques,” a “Traité de Méchanique,” and “Entretiens sur ]a Philosophic:” but these dialogues are founded and carried on upon the principles of the Cartesian philosophy, which has now no other merit than that of having corrected the errors of the ancients. Rohault died in 1675, and left behind him the character of an amiable and learned man, and an able philosopher.

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

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

, a learned barrister, and a very amiable man, was born June 20, 1767, at Chiswick in Middlesex, where his father Dr. William Rose, a native of Scotland, conducted an academy during many years, with considerable emolument and unblemished reputation. Dr. Rose was known in the literary world as one of the earliest writers in the Monthly Review, and as the author of a very elegant translation of Sallust. He had originally been an assistant to Dr. Doddridge at Northampton, and married a daughter of Dr. Samuel Clark, of St. Alban’s, a divine of talents and eminence among the dissenters. She bore him many children; but Samuel was his only surviving son, and after a successful education under his father, was sent in 1784 to the university of Glasgow. There he resided in the house of the late professor Richardson, a philosopher and poet, between whom and his pupil, a friendship and correspondence commenced which terminated only with the life of the latter. Mr. Rose also gained the esteem of several other learned men in Scotland, with whom he afterwards maintained a correspondence. Nor was this wonderful, for his manners were uncommonly amiable and attractive, and his studies amply justified the respect paid to him. He gained every prize, except one, for which he. contended as a student of the university.

After passing three winters at Glasgow, he attended thecourts of law in Edinburgh, and here obtained an introduction to the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, who was so highly pleased with him, that as long as he resided in Edinburgh,, Mr. Rose was constantly invited to the literary circle of that eminent philosopher. His subsequent intimacy with Cowper appears in Mr. Hayley’s interesting volumes, and perhaps Cowper’s visit to Mr. Rose in Chancery-lane is one of the most affecting incidents in the eventful history of that poet. Mr. Rose had the misfortune to lose his ex* cellent father, while he was pursuing his studies in the North; but a loss so unseasonable did not induce him to shrink from the first irksome labours of an arduous profes^ sion. Having entered his name at LincolnVInn, Nov. 6, 3786, he devoted himself to the law, for which he seemed equally prepared by nature and education. With a mind acute and powerful, with a fund of classical learning, and of general knowledge, with an early command of language, and with manners, as we have already noticed, peculiarly conciliating, he had every thing to hope. Though his spirit was naturally ardent, he submitted to the most tire-r some process of early discipline in his profession, placing himself under a special pleader in 1787, and attending him three years. Being called to the bar in 1796, he attached himself to the home circuit, and to the sessions of Sussex. His first opportunity of displaying professional ability occurred in Chichester, where, having a clergyman for his client, he conciliated the esteem of his audience byexpatiating with propriety, eloquence, and success, on the character of a divine. He was still more admired for the rare talent of examining a witness with a becoming ture of acuteness and humanity; and upon the whole his friends were persuaded, from this first display of his talents^ that he was destined to rise l>y sure, though slow degrees, to the highest honours of his profession.

An account of the last moments of this celebrated man may be an acceptable addition to his life. He rose in perfect health, to all appearance, on Thursday morning at five o'clock (his usual hour in summer), and walked with a young pupil, son to the marquis de Girardin, lord of Ermenonville in Fiance. About seven he returned to his house alone, and asked his wife if breakfast was ready. Finding it was not, he told her he would go for some moments into the wood, and desired her to call him when breakfast was on the table. He was accordingly called, returned home, drank a dish of coffee, went out again, and came back a few minutes after. About eight, his wife went down stairs to pay the account of a smith; but scarcely had she been a moment below, when she heard him complain. She returned immediately, and found him sitting on a chair, with a ghastly countenance, his head reclining on his hand, and his elbow sustained by a desk. “What is the matter, my dear friend,” said she, “are you indisposed” “I feel,” answered he, “a painful anxiety, and the keen pains of a cholic.” Upon this Mrs. Rousseau left the room, as if she intended to look for something, and sent to the castle an account of her husband’s illness. The marchioness, on this alarming news, ran with the utmost expedition to the cottage of the philosopher; and, that she might not alarm him, she said she came to inquire whether the music that had been performed during the night in the open air before the castle, had not disturbed him and Mrs. Rousseau. The philosopher replied, with the utmost tranquillity of tone and aspect, “Madam, I know very well that it is not any thing relative to music that brings you here: I am very sensible of your goodness: but I am much out of order, and I beg it as a favour that you will leave me alone with my wife, to whom I haw a great many things to say at this instant.” Madam de Girardin immediately withdrew. Upon this, Rousseau desired his wife to shut the door, to lock it on the inside, and to come and sit by him. “I shall do so, my dear friend,” said she; “I am now sitting beside you—how do you find yourself?”

, an ingenious English mathematician and philosopher, was fellow of Magdalen college, Cambridge, and afterwards rector of Anderby in Lincolnshire, in the gift of that society. He was a constant attendant at the meetings of the Spalding Society, and was a man of a philosophical turn of mind, though of a cheerful and companionable disposition. He had a good genius for mechanical contrivances in particular. In 1738 he printed at Cambridge, in 8vo, “A Compendious System of Natural Philosophy,” in 2 vols. 8vo; a very ingenious work, which has gone through several editions. He had also two pieces inserted in the Philosophical Transactions, viz. I. “A Description of a Barometer wherein the Scale of Variation may be increased at pleasure;” vol. 38, p. 39. And 2. “Directions for making a Machine for finding the Roots of Kquations universally, with the manner of using it;” vol. 60, p. 240. Mr. Rowning died at his lodgings in Carey -street, near Lincoln’s-Inn Fields, the latter end of November 1771, at the age of seventy-two. Though a very ingenious and pleasant man, he had but an unpromising and forbidding appearance: he was tall, stooping in the shoulders, and of a sallow down-looking countenance*.

His amazing success very naturally created enemies, and among others Abraham Janssens defied him to a trial of strength. Rubens answered, that he would contend with him when he had shewn himself to be a competitor worthy of him. Others more secretly endeavoured to injure him by attributing the best parts of his pictures to his pupils, and Schut and Rombouts abused him for lack of invention; this he answered by relieving their necessities and procuring them employment, while by engaging in those varieties of art, landscapes, lion and crocodile-hunting, and other miscellaneous subjects, he decidedly established his claim to the title of an universal painter, and covered his calumniators with shame and confusion. Amidst so much hostility, from the envy of contemporaries, one friendly offer must not be forgot. A visionary chemist, who had been labouring to produce the philosopher’s stone, offered our artist a share of the laboratory and its advantages. Rubens took him to his painting-room, and told him that twenty years before he had discovered the art of making gold by his palette and pencils.

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

, an ingenious philosopher and divine, the son of the rev. Thomas Rutherforth, rector of Papworth Everard, in the county of Cambridge, who had made large collections for an history of that county, was born October 13, 1712. He was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, about 1725, and took his degrees of A. B. 1729, and A.M. 1733. He was then chosen fellow, and proceeded bachelor of divinity in 1740. Two years after he was chosen fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1745, on being appointed professor of divinity, took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales. In the church, he was promoted to be rector of Barrow in Suffolk, of Shenfield in Essex, and of Barley in Hertfordshire, and archdeacon of Essex. He communicated to the Gentleman’s Society at Spalding a curious correction of Plutarch’s description of the instrument used to renew the vestal fire, as relating to the triangle with which the instrument was formed. It was nothing but a concave speculum, whose principal focus which collected the rays is not in the centre of concavity, but at the distance of half a diameter from its surface: but some of the ancients thought otherwise, as appears from Prop. 31 of Euclid’s il Catoptrics;“and, though this piece has been thought spurious, and this error a proof of it, the sophist and Plutarch might easily know as little of mathematics. He published” An Essay on the nature and oblirgations of Virtue,“1744, 8vo, which Mr. Maurice Johnson, of Spalding, in a letter to Dr. Birch, calls” an useful, ingenious, and learned piece, wherein the noble author of the Characteristics, and all other authors ancient and modern, are, as to their notions and dogmata, duly, candidly, and in a gentleman-like manner, considered, and fully, to my satisfaction, answered as becomes a Christian divine. If you have not yet read that amiable work, I must (notwithstanding, as we have been told by some, whom he answers in his Xlth and last chapters, do not so much approve it) not forbear recommending it to your perusal.“”Two Sermons preached at Cambridge,“1747, 8vo.” A System of Natural Philosophy, Cambridge,“1748, 2 vols. 4to.” A Letter to Dr. Middleton in defence of bishop Sherlock on Prophecy,“1750, 8vo.” A Discourse on Miracles,“1751, 8vo.” “Institutes of Natural Law,” 1754, 2 vols. 8vo. “A Charge to the Clergy of Essex,” 1753, 4to, reprinted with three others in 1763, 8vo. “Two Letters to Dr. Kennicott,” 1761 and 1762. “A Vindication of the Right of Protestant Churches to require the Clergy to subscribe to an established Confession of Faith and Doctrines, in a Charge delivered at a Visitation, July 1766,” Cambridge, 1766, 8vo. A second, the same year. “A Letter to Archdeacon Blackburn,” 1767, 8vo, on the same subject. He died Oct. 5, 1771, aged fifty-nine, having married a sister of the late sir Anthony Thomas Abdy, bart of Albins, in Essex, by whom he had two sons, one of whom survived him. Dr. llutherforth was interred in the church at Barley, where, on his monument, it is said, that “he was no less eminent for his piety and integrity than his extensive learning; and filled every public station in which he was placed with general approbation. In private life, his behaviour was truly amiable. He was esteemed, beloved, and honoured by his family and friends; a,nd his death was sincerely lamented by all who ever heard of his well-deserved character.”

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

His employment as provincial being ended, he retired for three years, which he said was the only repose he had ever enjoyed; and applied himself to the study of natural philosophy and anatomy. Among other experiments, he employed himself in the transmutation of metals; but not with any view of discovering the philosopher’s stone, which he always ridiculed as impossible. In the course of his experiments, he made some discoveries, the honour of which, it is said, has been appropriated by others. He likewise studied anatomy, especially that part of it which relates to the eye; on which he made so many curious observations, that the celebrated Fabricius ab Aquapendente did not scruple to employ, in terms of the highest applause, the authority of Paul on that subject, both in his lectures and writings. Fulgentio expresses his surprise at Aquapendente, for not acknowledging, in his “Treatise of the Eye,” the singular obligations he had to Paul, whom he declares to have merited all the honour of it. He asserts likewise, that Paul discovered the valves which serve for the circulation of the blood, and this seems to be allowed; but not that he discovered the circulation itself, as Walaeus, Morhoff, and others have contended, against the claim of our countryman Harvey, to whom that discovery has been usually, and indeed justly, ascribed.

Saunderson entertained the most profound veneration for sir Isaac Newton. If he ever differed in sentiment from any thing in sir Isaac’s mathematical and philosophical writings, upon more mature consideration, he said, he always found the mistake to be his own. The more he read his works, and observed upon nature, the more reason he found to admire the justness and care as well as happiness of expression, of that incomparable philosopher. Saunderson left many other writings, though none perhaps prepared for the press. Among these were some valuable comments on the “Principia,” which not only explain the more difficult parts, but often improve upon the doctrines; these are published, in Latin, at the end of his posthumous “Treatise on Fluxions,” a valuable work, which appeared in 1756, 8vo. His manuscript lectures too on most parts of natural philosophy, might, in the opinion of Dr. Button, who has perused them, form a considerable volume, and prove an acceptable present to the public.

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

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

, a very learned chemist, was born in 1742, at Stralsund in the capital of Swedish Pomerania, where his father was a tradesman. Having shown an inclination to learn pharmacy, he was bound apprentice to an apothecary at Gottenburg, with whom he lived eight years, and at his leisure hours contrived to make himself master of the science of chemistry, reading the best authors, and making such experiments as his confined means would permit. From Gottenburg, he went to Malmo, and two years after to Stockholm. In 1773 he went to Upsal, and resided for some time in the house of Mr. Loock. Here Bergman first found him, saw his merit and encouraged it, adopted his opinions, defended him with zeal, and took upon him the charge of publishing his treatises. Under this liberal patronage (for Bergman procured him also a salary from the Swedish academy), Scheele produced a series of discoveries which at once astonished and delighted the world. He ascertained the nature of manganese discovered the existence and singular properties of oxymuriatic acid and gave a theory of the composition of muriatic acid, which promises fair to be the true one. He discovered a new earth which was afterwards called barytes; and he determined the constituents of the volatile alkali. All these discoveries are related in one paper published about 1772. He discovered and ascertained the properties of many acids, the nature of plumbago and molybdena; analyzed fluor spar, which had eluded the searches of all preceding chemists; and determined the constituents of tungstate of lime. His two essays on the prussic acid are particularly interesting, and display the resources of his mind, and his patient industry, in a very remarkable point of view. His different papers on animal substances are particularly interesting, and replete with valuable and accurate information. On one occasion, in his treatise on fire, Scheele attempted the very difficult and general subject of combustion; but his attempt was not crowned with success. The acuteness, however, with which he treated it deserves our admiration; and the vast number of new and important facts, which he brought forward in support of his hypothesis, is truly astonishing, and perhaps could not have been brought together by any other man than Scheele. He discovered oxygen gas, and ascertained the composition of the atmosphere, without any knowledge of what had been previously done by Dr. Priestley. His views respecting the nature of atmospheric air were much more correct than those of Priestley; and his experiments on vegetation and respiration, founded on those views, were possessed of considerable value. These and other discoveries which stamp the character of Scheele as a philosopher, are to be found generally in the transactions of the Royal Society of Stockholm. Dr. Beddoes published an English translation of mo t of his dissertations, with useful and ingenious notes. There is also an English translation of his dissertation on air and fire, with notes by Richard Kirwan, esq.

, a celebrated German physician and philosopher, was born March 3, 1649, at Jena,.;ui was son of Christopher Schelhamm T, a it an- lessor of anatomy and surgery in that city, and fir where he was also physician to the duke of Holstei“uthier died January 11, 1716, in his sixtyseventieth year leaving” Introductio in artem medicam," Hali. 1726, 4to, and a great number of valuable and learned wor > physu;, of which it is to be wished that a complete co: v'Jtion was published. He published also some botanical dissertations, and first described the peculiar change wliici during germination, takes place in the cotyledon of palms. The Schelhammera, in botany, was so called in honour of him. His life, by Scheffelius, in Latin, Visnr*r, 17 % 8vo, is prefixed to the letters written to him by several of the literati.

, a noted German philosopher and mathematician, was born at Carolostadt in 1477, and died in 1547, aged seventy. From his uncommon acquirements, he was chosen mathematical professor at Nuremberg when he was but a young man. He wrote a great many works, and was particularly famous for his astronomical tables, which he published after the manner of those of Regiomontanus, and to which he gave the title of Resolute, on account of their clearness. But, notwithstanding his great knowledge, he was, after the fashion of the times, much addicted to judicial astrology, which he took great pains to improve. The list of his writings is chiefly as follows: I. “Three Books of Judicial Astrology.” 2. “The astronomical tables named Resolutoj.” 3. “De Usu Globi Stelliferi; De Compositione Giobi Ccelestis De Usu Globi Terrestris, et de Compositione ejusdem.” 4. “Æquatorium Astronomicum.” 5. “Libeilus de Distantiis Locorum per Instrumenturn et Numeros investigandis.” 6. “De Compositione Torqueti.” 7. “In Constructionem et Usum Rectangnli sive Radii Astronomic! Annotationes.” S. “Horarii Cylindri Canones.” 9. “Planisphserium, sen Meteoriscopium.” 10. “Organum Uranicum.” 11.“Instrumentum Impedimentorum Luna3.” All printed at Nuremberg, in 1551, folio. Of these, the large treatise of dialling rendered him more known in the learned world than all his other works besides, in which he discovers a surprising genius and fund of learning of that kind; but some have attributed this to his son.

, of Balwirie, a learned Scotch author of the fifteenth century, made the tour of France and Germany, and was received with some distinction at the court of the emperor Frederick II. Having travelled enough to gratify his curiosity, he returned to Scotland, and gave himself up to study and contemplation. He was skilled in languages; and, considering the age in which he lived, was no mean proficient in philosophy, mathematics, and medicine. He translated into Latin from the Arabic, the history of animals by the celebrated physician Avicenna. He published the whole works of Aristotle, with notes, and affected much to reason on the principles of that great philosopher. He wrote a book concerning “The Secrets of Nature,” and a tract on “The nature of the Sun and Moon,” in which he shews his belief in the philosopher’s stone. He likewise published what he called “Mensa Philosophica,” a treatise replete with astrology and chiromancy. He was much admired in his day, and was even suspected of magic, and had Roger Bacon and Cornelius Agrippa for his panegyrists.

, an eminent Stoic philosopher, was born at Corduba in Spain, the year before the beginning of the Christian sera, of an equestrian family, which had probably been transplanted thither in a colony from Rome. He was the second son of Marcus Annseus Seneca, commonly called the rhetorician, whose remains are printed under the title of “Stiasorise & Controversise, cum Declainationum Excerptis;” and his youngest brother Annæus Mela (for there were three of them) was memorable for being the father of the poet Lucan. He was re* jnoved to Rome, while he was yet in his infancy, by his aunt, who accompanied him on account of the delicacy of his health. There he was educated in the most liberal manner, and under the best masters. He learned his eloquence from his father; but preferring philosophy to the declamations of the rhetoricians, he put himself under the stoics Attalus, Sotion, and Papirius Fabianus, of whom he has made honourable mention in his writings. It is probable too, that he travelled when he was young, since we find in several parts of his works, particularly in hij “Quæstiones Naturales,” some correct and curious observations on Egypt and the Nile. But these pursuits did not at all correspond with that scheme of life which his father designed; and to please him, Seneca engaged in the business of the courts, with considerable success, although he was rather an argumentative than an eloquent pleader. As soon as he arrived at manhood, he aspired to the honours of the state, and became questor, praetor, and, as Lipsius will have it, even consul, but the particulars of his public life are not preserved.

In the first year of Claudius, when Julia, the daughter of Germanicus, was accused of adultery by Messalina (a woman very unworthy of credit), and banished, Seneca was involved both in the charge and the punishment, and exiled to Corsica, where he lived eight years; happy, as he told his mother, in the midst of those things which usually make other people miserable. Here he wrote his books “Of Consolation,” addressed to his mother Helvia, and to his friend Polybius. But, as Brucker remarks, it may be questioned whether stoic ostentation had not some share in all this, for we find him, in another place, expressing much distress on account of his misfortune, and courting the emperor in a strain of servile adulation, little worthy of so eminent a philosopher. When Agrippina was married to Claudius, upon the death of Messalina, she prevailed with the emperor to recall Seneca from banishment; and afterwards procured him to be tutor to her son Nero, and Afranius Burrhus, a praetorian praefect, was joined with him iii this important charge. These two preceptors executed their trust with perfect harmony, and with some degree of success Burrhus instructing his pupil in the military art, and inuring him to wholesome discipline and Seneca furnishing him with the principles of philosophy, and the precepts of wisdom and eloquence; and both endeavouring to confine their pupil within the limits of decorum and virtue. While these preceptors united their authority, Nero was restrained from indulging his natural propensities; but after the death of Burrhus, the influence of Seneca declined, and the young prince began to disclose that depravity which afterwards stained his character with eternal infamy. Still, however, Seneca enjoyed the favour of his prince, and after Nero was advanced to the empire, he long continued to load his preceptor with honours and riches. Seneca’s houses and walks were the most magnificent in Rome, and he had immense sums of money placed out at interest in almost every part of the world. Suilius, one of his enemies, says, that during four years of imperial favour, he amassed the immense sum of 300,000 seslertiae, or 2,42 1,87 5l. of our money.

All this wealth, however, together with the luxury and effeminacy of a court, are said not to have produced any improper effect upon the temper and disposition of Seneca. He continued abstemious, correct in his manners, and, above all, free from flattery and ambition. “I had rather,” said he to Nero, “offend you by speaking the truth, than please you by lying and flattery.” It is certain that while he had any influence, that is, during the first five years of Nero’s reign, that period had always been considered as a pattern of good government. But when Poppgea and Tigellinus had insinuated themselves into the confidence of the emperor, and hurried him into the most extravagant and abominable vices, he naturally grew weary of his master, whose life must indeed have been a constant rebuke to him. When Seneca perceived that his favour declined at court 3 and that he had many accusers about the prince, who were perpetually whispering in his ears his great riches, his magnificent houses, his fine gardens, and his dangerous popularity, he offered to return all his opulence and favours to the tyrant, who, however, refused to accept them, and assured him of the continuance of his esteem; but the philosopher knew his disposition too well to re l y on his promises, and as Tacitus relates, “kept no more levees, declined the usual civilities which had been paid to him, and, tinder a pretence of indisposition or engagement, avoided as much as possible to appear in public.” It was not long before Seneca was convinced that he had made a just estimate of the sincerity of Nero, who now attempted, by means of Cleonicus, a freedman of Seneca, to take him olF by poison; but this did not succeed. In the mean time Antonius Natalis, who had been concerned in the conspiracy of Piso, upon his examination, in order to court the favour of Nero, or perhaps even at his instigation, mentioned Seneca among the number of the conspirators, and to give some colour to the accusation, pretended, that hehad been sent by Piso to visit Seneca whilst he was sick, und to complain of his having refused to see Piso, who as a friend might have expected free access to him upon all occasions; and that Seneca, in reply, had said, that frequent conversations could be of no service to either party, bufc that he considered his own safety as involved in that of Piso. Granius Syivanus, tribune of the praetorian cohort, was sent to ask Seneca, whether he recollected what had passed between himself and Natalis. Seneca, whether by accident 0r design is uncertain, had that day left Cajnpania, and was at his country-seat, about four miles from the city. In the evening, while he was at supper with his wife Paullina and two friends, the tribune, with a military band, came to the house, and delivered the emperor’s message, Seneca’s answer was, that he had received no complaint from Piso, of his having refused to see him; and that the State of his health, which required repose, had been his apology. He added, that he saw no reason why he should prefer the safety of any other individual to his own; and that no one was better acquainted than Nero, with his independent spirit.

The character, the system, and the writings of this philosopher have been subjects of much dispute among the learned. Concerning his character, a candid judge, who considers the virtuous sentiments with which his writings abound, the temperate and abstemious plan of life which he pursued in the midst of a luxurious court, and the fortitude with which he met his fate, will not hastily pronounce him to have been guilty of adultery, upon the evidence of the infamous Messalina; or conclude his wealth to have been the reward of a servile compliance with the base passions of his prince. It has been questioned whether Seneca ought to be ranked among the stoic or the eclectic philosophers; and the freedom of judgment which he expressly claims, together with the respect which he pays to philosophers of different sects, clearly prove, that he did not implicitly addict himself to the system of Zeno; nor can the contrary be inferred from his speaking of our Chrysippus, and our Cleanthes; for he speaks also of our Demetrius, and our Epicurus. It is evident, however, from the general tenor and spirit of his writings, that he adhered, if) the main, to the stoic system. With respect to his writings, he is justly censured by Quintilian, and other critics, as among the Romans the first corrupter of style; yet his works are exceedingly valuable, on account of the great number of just and beautiful moral sentiments which they contain, the extensive erudition which they discover, and the happy mixture of freedom and urbanity, with which they censure vice, and inculcate good morals. The writings of Seneca, except his books of “Physical Questions,” are chiefly of the moral kind: they consist of one hundred and twenty-four “Epistles,” and distinct treatises, ' On Anger; Consolation; Providence; Tranquillity of Mind y Constancy; Clemency; the Shortness of Life; a Happy Life; Retirement; Benefits."

From the -excellence of many of his precepts, some have imagined, that he was a Christian, and it has been reported that he held a correspondence with St. Paul by letters; but although he must have heard of Christ and his doctrine, and Ms curiosity plight lead him tp make some inquiry 3.bout them, the letters published under the names of the Philosopher and Apostle, have long been declared spurious by the critics, and perfectly unworthy of either of them. A number of tragedies are extant under the name of Seneca, written in a bad style, but it is uncertain whether the whole or any of them were by this Seneca. Of his acknowledged works Justus Lipsius published the first good edition, which was succeeded by the Variorum, 1672, 3 vols. 8vo, and others. Of the tragedies, the best are those of Scriverius, 1621, the Variorum, 1651, &c. and Schroeder’s, 1728, 4to.

Sennertus was a voluminous writer, and has been characterized, by some critics, as a mere compiler from the works of the ancients. It is true that his writings contain an epitome, but, it must be added, a most comprehensive, clear, and judicious epitome, of the learning of the Greeks and Arabians, which renders them, eyen at this day, of considerable value as books of reference, and is highly creditable, considering the age in which they were composed, to his learning and discrimination. It must not be forgot that he also attained some fame as a philosopher, and was the first restorer of the Epicurean system among the moderns. In a distinct chapter of his “Hypomnemata Physica,” or “Heads of Physics,” trrating of atoms and mixture, he embraces the atomic system, which- he derives from Mochus the Phoenician. He supposes that the primary corpuscles not' only unite in the formation of bodies, but that in their mutual action and passion they undergo such modifications, that they cease to be what they were before their union; and maintains, that by their combination all material forms are produced. Sennertus, however, confounded the corpuscles of the more ancient philosophers with the atoms of Democritus and Epictetus, and held that each element has primary particles peculiar to itself. His works have often been printed in France and Italy. The last edition is that of Lyons, 1676, in 6 vols. folio, to which his life is prefixed.

, a Pythagorean philosopher, who flourished in the time of Augustus, seemed formed to rise in the republic, but he shrunk from civil honours, and declined accepting the rank of senator when it was offered him by Julius Caesar, that he might have time to apply to philosophy. It appears that he wished to establish a school at Rome, and that his tenets, though chiefly drawn from the doctrines of Pythagoras, in some particulars resembled those of the Stoics. He soon found himself involved in many difficulties. His laws were remarkably severe, and in an early period of his establishment, he found his mind so harassed, and the harshness of the doctrines which he wished to establish so repulsive to his feelings, that he had nearly worked himself up to such an height of desperation as to resolve on putting a period to his existence. Of the school of Sextius were Fabianus, Sotion, Flavianus, Crassitius, and Celsus. Of his works only a few fragments remain; and whether any of them formed a part of the work which Seneca admired so much, cannot now be determined. Some of his maxims are valuable. He recommended an examination of the actions of the day to his scholars when they retired to rest; he taught that the road to heaven (ad astra) was by frugality, temperance, and fortitude. He used to recommend holding a looking-glass before persons disordered with passion. He enjoined his scholars to abstain from animal food. Brucker seems to doubt, however, whether the “Sententise Sexti Pythagorei,” so often printed by Gale and others, be the genuine work of this moralist.

, an ancient Greek author, and most acute defender of the Pyrrhonian or sceptical philosophy, was a physician, and seems to have flourished under the reign of Cornmodus, or perhaps a little later. He was, against what has usually been imagined, a different person from Sextus, a Stoic philosopher of Cseronea, and nephew of Plutarch: but no particular circumstances of his life are recorded. Of a great many, that have perished, two works of his are still extant: three books of “Institutes of Pyrrhonism,” and ten books against the “Mathematics,” by whom he means all kinds of dogmatists. His works discover great erudition, and an extensive acquaintance with the ancient systems of philosophy; and, on this account chiefly, Brucker says, merit an attentive perusal. Henry Stephens first made, and then printed in 1592, 8vo, a Latin version from the Greek of the former of these works; and a version of the latter, by Hervetus, had been printed by Plantin in 1569. Both these versions were printed again with the Greek; which first appeared at Geneva in 1621, folio, but the best edition of Sextus Empiricus is that of John Albert Fabricius, in Greek and Latin, Leipsic, 1718, folio.

, surnamed Metaphrasfes, from his having written the lives of the saints in a diffuse manner, was born of noble parents at Constantinople, in the tenth century, and was well educated, and raised himself by his merit to very high trust under the reigns of Leo, the philosopher, and Constantine Pruphyrogenitus his son. It is said, that when sent on a certain occasion by the emperor to the island of Crete, which the Saracens were about to surprize, a contrary wind carried his ship to the isle of Pharos. There he nut with an anchorite, who advised him to write tho life of Theoctista, a female saint of Lesbos. With this he complied, and we may presume, found some pleasure in the undertaking, as be gradually extended his researches to the lives of an hundred and twenty other saints, which, with respect to style, are not disgraceful to a scholar, but, cardinal Bellarmin says, he describes his saints rather as what they ought to be, than as what they were. There are Latin translations of this work by Lipotian, Surius, and others, but no edition of the original Gveek; and iiis translators are accused of having added much of a fabulous nature. Some other religious tracts of Metaphrastes are extant, and some “Annals.” He died in 976 or 977.

, a Grecian poet, wit, and somewhat of a philosopher, uas born in the 35th olympiad, or 558 B.C. and is said to have died in his ninetieth year. He was a native of Ceos, one of the Cyclades, in the neighbourhood of Attica, and became the preceptor of Pindar. Both Plato and Cicero speak of him, not only as a good poet ana musician, but also as a man of wisdom and virtue. His lengthened life gave him an opportunity of knowing a great number of the first characters in antiquity, with whom he was in some measure connected. Fabncius informs us that he was contemporary, and in friendship with Pittacus of Mitylene, Hipparchus, tyrant of Athens, Pausanias, king of Sparta; Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse also with Themistocles, and with Alcuudes, king of Thessaly. X uophon, in his dialogue upon tyranny, makes him one of the interlocutors. His famous answer to Hiero. as recorded by Cicero, has been often quoted as a proof, not only of his wisdom, hut his piety. When Hiero asked of him a definition of God, he requested a day to consider of it; when this was expired, he doubled the time, and thus he did repeatedly, till the monarch desired to know his reason for this proceeding “It is,” said he,“because the longer I reflect on the question, the more difficult it appears to be.”

, an ancient philosopher of the sixth century, was a native of Cihcia, a disciple of Ammonias, the peripatetic, and endeavoured to unite the Platonic and Stoic doctrines with the peripatetic. Distrusting his situation under the emperor Justinian, he went to Cosroes king of the Persians: but returned to Athens, after it had been stipulated in a truce between the Persians and the Romans, A. D. 549, that he and his friends should live quietly and securely upon what was their own, and not be compelled by the Christians to depart from the religion of their ancestors. From his wish to unite discordant sects, he is called by a modern (Peter Petit) “omnium veterum philosophorurn coagulum.” He wrote commentaries upon several of Aristotle’s works, once thought to be valuable in themselves, but now consulted only for some curious fragments of ancient philosophers preserved in them. Of these there are three Aldine editions, 152b and 1527. But, of all his productions, some of which are lost, at least unpublished, his “Commentary upon Epictetus” has obtained most reputation. Fabricius is of opinion, that there is nothing in Pagan antiquity better calculated to form the manners, or to give juster ideas of a Divine Providence. It has been several times printed in Greek and Latin, particularly at Ley den, 1639, in 4to, and at London, in 1670, in 8vo. Dacier published a French translation of it at Paris, 1715, 12mo; and Dr. George Stanhope an English one at London, 1704, 8vo.

After he returned to his curacy, he was offered a school xvorth 500l. a year, arising from the benefit of the scholars, but refused it as interfering with the plan of literary improvement and labour which he had marked out for himself; and when told that he might employ ushers, he said he could not in conscience take the money, without giving up his whole time and attention to his scholars. In 1744, he published “The Candid Reader, addressed to his terraqueous majesty, the WorUl.” The objects of his ridicule in this are Hill, the mathematician, who proposed making verses by an arithmetical table, lord Shaftesbury, and Johnson, the author of a play called “Hurlothrumbo,” with a parallel between Hurlothrumbo and the rhapsody of Shaftesbury. In the same year he also published “A Letter to the authors of Divine Analogy and the Minute Philosopher, from an old officer,” a plain, sensible letter, advising the two polemics to turn their arms from one another against the common enemies of the Christian faith. During the rebellion in 1745, he published a very seasonable and shrewd pamphlet, entitled the “Chevalier’s hopes.” On the death of Dr. Sterne, the see of Clogher was filled by Dr. Clayton, author of the “Essay on Spirit,” a decided Arian; and between him and Skelton there could consequently be no coincidence of opinion, or mutuality of respect. In 1748, Mr. Skelton having prepared for the press his valuable work entitled “Deism revealed,” he conceived it too important to be published in Ireland, and therefore determined to go to London, and dispose of it there. On his arrival, he submitted his manuscript to Andrew Millar, the bookseller, to know if he would purchase it, and have it printed at his own expence. The bookseller desired him, as is usual, to leave it with him for a day or two, until he could get a certain gentleman of great abilities to examine it. Hume is said to have come in accidentally into the shop, and Millar shewed him the ms. Hume took it into a room adjoining the shop, examined it here and there for about an hour, and then said to Andrew, print. By this work Skelton made about 200l. The bookseller allowed him for the manuscript a great many copies, which he disposed of among the citizens of London, with whom, on account of his preaching, he was a great favourite. He always spake with high approbation of the kindness with which he was received by many eminent merchants. When in London he spent a great part of his time in going through the city, purchasing books at a cheap rate, with the greater part of the money he got by his “Deism revealed,” and formed a good library. This work was published in 1749, in two volumes, large octavo, and a second edition was called for in 1751, which waacomprized in two volumes 12mo. It has ever been considered as a masterly answer to the cavils of deists; but the style in this, as in some other of his works, is not uniform, and his attempts at wit are rather too frequent, and certainly not very successful. A few months after its publication the bishop of Clogher, Dr. Clayton, was asked by Sherlock, bishop of London, if he knew the author. “O yes, he has been a curate in my diocese near these twenty years.” “More shame for your lordship,” answered Sherlock, “to let a man of his merit continue so long a curate in your diocese.”

It now became necessary to exert her faculties again as a means of support; and she translated a little novel of abbe Prevost; and made a selection of extraordinary stories from “Les Causes Celebres” of the French, which she entitled “The Romance of Real Life.” Soon after this she was once more left to herself by a second flight of her husband abroad; and she removed with her children to a small cottage in another part of Sussex, whence she published a new edition of her “Sonnets,” with many additions, which afforded her a temporary relief. In this retirement, stimulated by necessity, she ventured to try her powers of original composition in a novel called “Emmeline, or the Orphan of the Castle,” 1788. This, says her biographer, *' displayed such a simple energy of language, such an accurate and lively delineation of character, such a purity of sentiment, and such exquisite scenery of a picturesque and rich, yet most unaffected imagination, as gave it a hold upon all readers of true taste, of a new and captivating kind “The success of this novel encouraged her to produce others for some successive years,” with equal felicity, with an imagination still unexhausted, and a command of language, and a variety of character, which have not yet received their due commendation.“” Ethelinde“appeared in 178!;” Celestina“in 1791;” Desmond“in 1792; and” r \ ht- Old Manor House“in 1793. To these succeeded” The Wanderings of Warwick“the” Banished Man;“”Momalbert;“”Marchmont;“” The young Philosopher,“and the” Solitary Wanderer," making in all 38 volumes. They weie not, however, all equally successful. She was led by indignant feelings to intersperse much of her private history and her law-suits; and this again involved her sometimes in a train of political sentiment, which was by no means popular, and had it been just, was out of place in a moral fiction.

, bishop of Down and Connor, a learned divine and philosopher, was born at Lisburn in the county of Antrim, in 1665, and was educated in the university of Dublin, of which he was elected a fellow in 1684, in the nineteenth year of his age. He afterwards took his degree of doctor of divinity. During the troublesome times in 1689, he retired for safety to England, where he was recommended to the Smyrna company, and made chaplain to their factories at Constantinople and Smyrna. Here he remained four years, and, probably by engaging in trade, very much advanced his private fortune. In 16U3 he returned to England, and was made chaplain to king William III. whom he attended four years in Flanders, and became a great favourite with his majesty. His first promotion was to the deanery of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, in 1695, whence he was advanced to the bishopric of Down and Connor in 1699, and was soon after admitted into the privy. council. He died at Bath in October 1720, leaving large property to his family. He printed four sermons, one preached at London before the Turkey company, the others at Dublin, upon public occasions. While at the university, he was a member of the philosophical society of Dublin, and for some time their secretary. In 1695 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London, and contributed to the “Philosophical Transactions,” papers on the follow subjects: “Answers to Queries about LoughNeagh;” “A relation of an extraordinary effect of the power of imagination;” “Account of soap earth near Smyrna;” “Of Rusma, a black earth;” and of “The Use of Opium among the Turks.”

, a Dutch philosopher, was born at Oudewarde in 1547, and in his youth studied the learned languages and medicine at various seminaries, at Cologne, Heidelberg, Marpurg, Pisa, and Rome. He afterwards taught mathematics at Leyden for thirty-four years, and had entered about a year on the professorship of Hebrew, when he died in 1613. ix. His works are, 1. “Commentarius in dialecticam Petri Rami.; 2.” De praxi logica,“1595, 4to. 3.” Ethica methodo Ramea conscripta,“1597, 8vo. 4.” Rameae philosophise syntagma,“1596, 8vo. 5.” Explicationes in arithmeticam Rami,“1596, 8vo. 6.” Prelectiones in geometriam Ran“8vo. 7.” Apollonius Batavus, seu resuscitata Apoilonii Pergei geometria,“Leyden, 1597, 4to. 8. Commentarius in rhetoricam Talsei,” 1617, 8vo. 9. “Annotationes in ethicam, physicam, sphaeram Cornelii Valerii,” 1596, 8vo.

, the most celebrated of the ancient philosophers, was born at Alopece, a small village of Attica, in the fourth year of the seventy-seventh olympiad, or about 469 years B. C. His parents were far from illustrious, Sophroniscns iiis father being a statuary of no great note, and Phtenareta his mother a midwife; who yet is represented by Plato as a woman of a bold and generous spirit, and Socrates often took occasion to mention both his parents with respect. Sophroniscus brought him up to his own trade, which, on his father’s death, he was obliged to continue for subsistence, and was not unsuccessful. He is said to have made statues of the habited graces, which were allowed a place in the citadel of Athens. But, as he was naturally averse to this profession, he only followed it while necessity compelled him and employed his leisure hours in the study of philosophy and this being observed by Crito, a rich philosopher of Athens, he took him under his patronage, and entrusted him with the instruction of his children and having now opportunities- of hearing the lectures of the most eminent philosophers, Socrates entirely relinquished the business of a statuary.

His first masters were Anaxagoras, and Archelaus: by which last he was much beloved, and travelled with him to Samos, to Pytho, and to the Isthmus. He was scholar likewise of Damo, whom Plato calls a most pleasing teacher of music, and of all other things that he himself would teach to young men. He heard also Prochcus the sophist, to whom must he added Diorima and Aspasia, women of great renown for learning. By listening to all these, he became master of every kind of knowledge which the age in which he lived could afford. With these uncommon endowments Socrates appeared in Athens, under the character of a good citizen, and a true philosopher. Being called upon by his country to take arms in the long and severe struggle between Athens and Sparta, he signalized himself at the siege of Potidaea, both by his valour, and by the hardiness with which he endured fatigue. During the severity of a Thracian winter, whilst others were clad in furs, he wore only his usual clothing, and walked barefoot upon the ice. In an engagement in which he saw Alcibiades (a young man of noble rank whom he accompanied during this expedition) falling down wounded, he advanced to defend him, and saved both him and his arms; and though the prize of valour was, on this occasion, unquestionably due to Socrates, he generously gave his vote that it might be bestowed upon Alcibiades, to encourage his rising merit. Several years afterwards, Socrates voluntarily entered upon a military expedition against the Bo3otians, during which, in an unsuccessful engagement at Delium, he retired with great coolness from the field; when, observing Xenophon lying wounded upon the ground, he took him upon his shoulders, and bore him out of the reach of the enemy. Soon afterwards he went out a third time in a military capacity, in the expedition for the purpose of reducing Amphipolis; but this proving unsuccessful, he returned to Athens, and remained there till his death.

It was not till Socrates was upwards of sixty years of age that he undertook to serve his country in any civil office. At that age he was chosen to represent his own district, in the senate of five hundred. In this office, though he at first exposed himself to some degree of ridicule from want of experience in the forms of business, he soon convinced his colleagues that he was superior to them all in wisdom and integrity. Whilst they, intimidated by the clamours of the populace, passed an unjust sentence of condemnation upon the commanders, who, after the engagement at the Arginusian islands, had been prevented by a storm from paying funeral honours to the dead, Socrates stood forth singly in their defence, and, to the last, refused to give his suffrage against them, declaring that no force should compel him to act contrary to justice and the laws. Under the subsequent tyranny he never ceased to condemn the oppressive and cruel proceedings of the thirty tyrants; and when his boldness provoked their resentment, he still continued to support, with undaunted firmness, the rights of his fellow-citizens. The tyrants, probably that they might create some new ground of complaint against Socrates, sent an oruer to him, with several other persons, to apprehend a wealthy citizen of Salarnis: the rest executed the com mission; but Socrates refused, sayijig, that he would rather himself suffer death than be instrumental in inflicting it unjustly upon another. But whatever character he thus established as a good citizen, it is as a philosopher and moral teacher that he is chiefly renowned, and that by the concurring evidence of all antiquity.

In the days of this philosopher, the Sophists were the great and leading men the masters of languages, as Cicero calls them, who arrogantly pretended to teach every thing, and persuaded the youth to resort only to them. With these Socrates carried on perpetual warfare: he attacked them constantly with his usual interrogatories; and, by his skill and subtilty in disputation, exposed their sophistry, and refuted their principles. He took all opportunities’of proving that they had gained a much greater portion of esteem than they had a right to claim; that they were only vain affecters of words; that they had no knowledge of the things they professed to teach; and that, instead of taking money of others for teaching, they should themselves give money to be taught. The Athenians were pleased to see the Sophists thus checked; were brought at length to deride them; and, at the instigation of Socrates, withdrew their children from them, and excited them to the study of solid virtue under better masters.

Socrates left behind him nothing in writing; but his illustrious pupils, Xenophon and Plato, have, in some measure, supplied this defect. The “Memoirs of Socrates,” however, written by Xenophon, afford a much more accurate idea of the opinions of Socrates, and of his manner of teaching, than the Dialogues of Plato, who every where mixes his own conceptions and diction, and those of other philosophers, with the ideas and language of his master. It is related, that when Socrates heard Plato recite his “Lysis,” he said, “How much does this young man make me say which I never conceived!” Xenophon denies that Socrates ever taught natural philosophy, or any mathematical science, and charges with misrepresentation and falsehood those who had ascribed to him dissertations of this kind; probably referring to Plato, in whose works Socrates is introduced as discoursing upon these subjects. The truth appears to be, that the distinguishing character of Socrates was, that of a moral philosopher.

In the mean time, it is supposed that Sorbiere’s connections would have advanced him higher in the church, if he had been sound in his principles; but he was more of a philosopher than a divine. He revered the memory of such writers as Rabelais, whom he made his constant study: Montaione and Charron were heroes with him, nor would he suffer them to be ill spoken of in his presence: and he had a known attachment to the principles and person of Gassendi, whose life, prefixed to his works, was written by Sorbiere. These connections and attachments made him suspected of scepticism, and this suspicion was probably some check to his promotion: for, otherwise, he was a man of learning, and not destitute of good qualities. He was very well skilled in languages and polite literature, and had some knowledge in many sciences. He died of a dropsy, the 9th of April, 1670.

Though his name is so well known in the literary world, yet it is not owing to any productions of his own, but rather to the connections he sought, and the correspondences he held with men of learning. He was not the author of any considerable work, although there are more than twenty publications of his of the smaller kind. Some have been mentioned in the course of this memoir, and there are others as, “Lettres & Discours sur diverses matieres curieuses,” Paris, 1660, 4to; “Discours sur la Comete,” written upon Gassendi’s principles against comets being portents, 1665; “Discours sur la transfusion de sang d‘un animal clans le corps d’un homme,” written at Rome; “Discours sceptiqne sur le passage dn chyle, & sur le mouvement du cceur,” a production of Gassendi, but published by Sorbiere in his own name. He published in 1669 at Paris, “Epistolueillustrintn & eruditorum virorum;” among which are some of Clement IXth’s letters to him, while that pope was vet cardinal. This publication was thought improper, and imputed to vanity. He translated some of our English authors into French: as More’s Utopia, some of Hobbes’s works, and part of Camden’s Britannia. He corresponded with Hobbes; and a story has been circulated of his management in this correspondence, which is not much to his credit. Hobbes used to write to Sorbiere on philosophical subjects; and, those letters being sent by him to Gassendi, seemed so worthy of notice to that great man, that he set himself to write proper answers to them. Gassendi’s answers were sent by Sorbiere as his own to Hobbes, who thought himself happy in the correspondence of so profound a philosopher: but at length the artifice being discovered, Sorbiere was disgraced. Other minute performances of Sorbiere are omitted as being of no consequence at all. There is a “Sorberiana,” which is as good as many other of the “Ana;”' that is, good for very little.

These numerous works did not, however, contain all the series of Spallanzani’s labours. He had been occupied a considerable time upon the phenomena of respiration; their resemblances and differences i:i a great number of species of animals; and he was busily employed in reducing to order his researches upon this subject. He left a large collection of experiments, and new observations upon animal reproductions, upon sponges, the nature of which he determines, and upon many interesting phenomena, which he knew how to draw out of obscurity. He had almost finished his voyage to Constantinople, and had amassed considerable materials for a history of the sea, France, Germany, and England, were all eager to avail themselves of his works by means of translations, tie was admitted into the academies and learned societies of London, Stockholm, Gottingen, Holland, Lyons, Bologna, Turin, Padua, Mantua, and Geneva. He was a correspondent of the academy of sciences of Paris and of Montpelier: and received from the great Frederick himself the diploma of member of the academy of Berlin, holding even often a direct correspondence with him. This eminent philosopher died Feb. 17, 1798, not less admired for his private very amiable character, than for the extensive reputation which his lectures, his experiments, and his publications had established. Highly, however, as his experiments have been commended, we must enter our protest against the cruelty with which they were mostly accompanied, and cannot think that the value of the object to be attained, or indeed any object, can justify the destruction of so many living creatures by the most painful and lingering torments.

, an atheistical philosopher, was the son of a merchant, who was originally a Portuguese; and was born at Amsterdam about 1633. He learned Latin of a physician, who taught it at Amsterdam; and who is supposed to have been but loose in the principles of religion. He also studied divinity for many years; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to philosophy. He was a Jew by birth; but soon began to dislike the doctrine of the Rabbins; and discovered this dislike to the synagogue. It is said that the Jews offered to tolerate him, provided he would comply outwardly with their ceremonies, and even promised him a yearly pension, being unwilling to lose a man who was capable of doing such credit to their profession; but he could not comply, and by degrees left their synagogue; and was excommunicated. Afterwards he professed to be a Christian, and not only went himself to the churches of the Calvin i>t., or Lutherans, but likewise frequently exhorted others to go, and greatly recommended some particular preachers. His tirst apostacy was to Mennonism, on embracing which, he exchanged his original name, Baruch, for that of Benedict. He removed from Amsterdam, whither he had gone to avoid the Jews, to the Hague, where he subsisted as an optical-instrument-maker, and led a frugal and retired life, the leisure of which he devoted to study. While known only as a deserter from Judaism, he was invited by the elector Palatine to fill the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg; but from an apprehension that his liberty would, in that situation, be abridged, he declined the proposal. He lived in retirement, with great sobriety and decency of manners, till a consumption brought him to an early end, in 1677.

nock,“expressive of gr it tudc- *.> hi; Adv.mc'd and snr.e,” fee. friendly patron. < >: p i'qiiiic, Squire published the following pieces: l. “An enquiry into the nature of the English Constitution; or, an historical essay on the Anglo-Saxon Government, both in Germany and England.” 2. “The ancient History of the Hebrews vindicated; or, remarks on the third volume of the Moral Philosopher,” under the name of F'iu-opiia.ies Cantabrigiensis, Cambridge, 1741. This, Leland says, contains many solid and ingenious remarks 3. “Two Assays, I. A defence of the ancient Greek Chronology; II. An enquiry into the origin of the Greek Language,” Cambridge, 1741. 4. “Plutarchi de Iside et Osirid, 1 liber, Graece et Anglice; Grseca recensuit, emendavit, Com.Tieni-ariis auxit, Versionem novam Anglicanam adjecit Samuel Squire, A.M. Archidiaconus Bathoniensis; acces.serunt Xylandri, Baxteri, Bentleii, Marklandi, Conjecturae et Emendationes,” Cantab. 1744. 5. “An Essay on the Balance of Civil Power in England,” 174, 8vo, which was added to the second edition of the Enquiry, &c. in 1753. 6. “Indifference for Religion inexcusable, or, a serious, impartial, and practical review of the certainty, importance, and harmony of natural and revealed Religion,” London, 1748, again in 1759, 12mo. 7. “Remarks upon Mr. Carte’s specimen of the General History of England, very proper to be read by all such as are contributors to that great work,” 1748, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of Religion made easy to young persons, in a short and familiar Catechism. Dedicated to the late Prince Frederick,” London, 1763. 9. “A Letter to the right hon. the earl of Halifax on the Peace,” 1763, 8vo, by Dr. Dodd, received great assistance from bishop Squire. He also left in ms. a Saxon Grammar compiled by himself. A just and welldrawn character of archbishop Herring, one of his early patrons, was prefixed by bishop Squire to the archbishop’s “Seven Sermons.”

Richard had some classical education at Dublin, under Peter White, a celebrated school-master, whence he was sent to Oxford in 1563, and admitted of University-college. After taking one degree in arts, he left Oxford, and undertook the study of the law with diligence, first at FurnivaPsnn, and then at Lincoln’s-inn, where he resided for some time. He then returned to Ireland, married, and turned Roman Catholic. Removing afterwards to the continent, he is said by A. Wood to have become famous for his learning in France, and the Low Countries. Losing his wife, while he was abroad, he entered into orders, and was made chaplain, at Brussels, to Albert archduke of Austria, who was then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. At this place he died in 1618, being universally esteemed as an excellent scholar in the learned languages, a good divine, philosopher, historian, and poet. He kept up a constant correspondence with Usher, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, who was his sister’s son. They were allied, says Dodd, “in their studies as well as blood; being both very curious in searching after the writings of the primitive ages. But their reading had not the same effect. The uncle became a catholic, and took no small pains to bring over the nephew.” Stanyhurst published several works, tke first of which was written when he had been only two years at Oxford, and published about five years after. Ic was a learned commentary on Porphyry, and raised the greatest expectations of his powers, being mentioned with particular praise, as the work of so young a man, by Edmund Campion, the Jesuit, then a siudent of St. John’seollege. It is entitled “Harmonia, seu catena dialectics in Porphyrium,” Lond. 1570, folio. 2. “De rebus in Hibernia gestis, lib, iv.” Antwerp, 1584, 4to. According t*v Keating, this work abounds, not only in errors, but misrepresentations, which Stanyhurst afterwards acknowledged. 3. “Descriptio Hiberniac,” inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle. 4. “De vita S. Patricii, Hiberniae Apostoli, lib. ii.” Antw. 1587, 12mo. 5. “Hebdotnada Mariana,” Antw. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Hebdomacla Euclmristiea,” Douay, 1614, 8vo. 7. “Brevis prsemonitio pro futura concertatione cum Jacobo Usserio,” Douay, 1615, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of the Catholic Religion.” 9. “The four first books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English Hexameters,” 1583, small 8vo, black letter. To these are subjoined the four first Psalms the first in English Iambics, though he confesses, that “the lambical quantitie relisheth somwhat unsavorly in our language, being, in truth, not al togeather the toothsomest in the Latine.” The second is in elegiac verse, or English hexameter or pentameter. The third is a short specimen of the asclepiac verse; thus “Lord, my dirye foes, why do they multiply.” The fourth is in sapphics, with a prayer to the Trinity in the same measure. Then follow, “certayne poetical conceites,” in Latin and English: and after these some epitaphs. The English throughout is in Roman measures. The preface, in which he assigns his reasons for translating after Phaer, is a curious specimen of quaintness and pedantry. Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, seems not to have attended to these reasons, such as they are; but thus speaks of the attempt of Stanyhurst: “After the associated labours of Phaier end Twyne, it is hard to say what could induce Robert [Richard] Stanyhurst, a native of Dublin, to translate the four first books of the Æneid into English hexameters, which he printed at London, in 15S3, and dedicated to his brother Peter Plunket, the learned baron of Dusanay [Dunsanye], in Ireland. Stanyhurst was at that time living at Leyden, having left England for some time, on account of the [his] change of religion. In the choice of his measure he is more unfortunate than his predecessors, and in other respects succeeded worse. Thomas Naishe, in his Apology of Pierce Pennilesse, printed in 1593, observes, that * jltany hurst, the otherwise learned, trod a foul, lumbring, boistrcus, wallowing measure, in his translation of Virgil. He had never been praised by Gabriel Harvey for his labour, it therein he had not been so famously absurd.' Harvey, Spenser’s friend, was one of the chief patrons, if not the inventor of the English hexameter here used by Stanyhurst.” His translation, opens thus:

, an eminent musical composer, was born in 1655, as the German authorities say, at Leipsic, but Handel and the Italians make him a native of Castello Franco, in the Venetian state. In his youth he was a chorister of St. Mark’s, where his voice was so much admired by a German nobleman, that, obtaining his dismission, he took him to Munich in Bavaria, and had him educated, not only in music under the celebrated Bernabei, but in literature and theology sufficient, as was there thought, for priest’s orders; in consequence of which, after ordination, he was distinguished by the title of abate, or abbot, which he retained until late in life, when he was elected bishop of Spiga. In 1671, at the age of nineteen, he published his “Psalms,” in ei^ht parts. He likewise published “Sonate a quattroStromenti,” but his chamber duets are the most celebrated of his works, and indeed, of that species of writing. In his little tract, “Delia certezza Dei principii della Musica,” he has treated the subject of musical imitation and expression, according to Martini, like a philosopher, and agreeable to mathematical principles. This work was so admired in Germany, that it was translated into the language of that country, and reprinted eight times. He composed several operas likewise between the years 1695 and 1699, for the court of Hanover, where he resided many years as maestro di capella, and these were afterwards translated into German, and performed to his music at Hamburgh. About 1724, after he had quitted the court of Hanover, where he is s;dd to have resigned his office in favour of Handel, he was elected president of the academy of ancient music at London. In 1729, he went into Italy to see his native country and relations, but returned next year to Hanover; and soon after having occasion to go to Francfort, he was seized with an indisposition, of which he died there in a few days, aged near eighty. There are, perhaps, no compositions more correct, or fugues in which the subjects are more pleasing, or answers and imitations more artful, than are to be found in the duets of StefFani, which, in a collection made for queen Caroline, and now in the possession of his majesty, amount to near one hundred.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Megara, who flourished about 306 B. C. was so eloquent, and insinuated himself so easily into the favour of his auditors, that all the young philosophers quitted their masters to hear him. It is said, that Stilpo, having reproached the courtezan Glycera with corrupting youth, she replied, “What does it signify whether they are corrupted by a courtezan or by a sophist!” which answer induced Stilpo to reform the school of Megara, banishing from it all sophisms, useless subtilties, general propositions, captious arguments, and that parade of senseless words, which had so long debased the schools. When Demetrius, son of Antigonus, took Megara, he forbade any one to touch our philosopher’s house, and if any thing was taken from him in the hurry of plunder, to restore it. When Demetrius asked him if he lost any thing by the capture of the city, “No,” replied Stilpo, “for war can neither rob us of virtue, learning, nor eloqaence.” He at the same time gave that prince some instructions in writing, calculated to inspire him with humanity, and a noble zeal for doing good to mankind, with which Demetrius was so affected that he ever after followed his advice. Stilpo is said to have entertained very equivocal notions respecting the deity; but he was nevertheless considered as one of the chiefs of the Stoic sect. Several Grecian republics had recourse to his wisdom, and submitted to his decisions. Cicero observes, that this philosopher was naturally inclined to drunkenness and debauchery, but had so entirely conquered those propensities by reason and philosophy, that no one ever saw him intoxicated, nor perceived in him the least vestige of intemperance.

, a celebrated Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian, was born at Amasia, and was descended from a family settled at Gnossus in Crete. He was the disciple of Xenarchus, a Peripatetic philosopher, was well read in the history and tenets of the Grecian sects, but at length attached himself to the Stoics, and followed their dogmas. He contracted a strict friendship with Cornelius Gallus, governor of Egypt; and travelled into several countries, to observe the situation of places, and the customs of nations.

Strabo flourished under Augustus; and died under Tiberius, about the year 25, in a very advanced age. He composed several works all of which are lost, except his “Geography,” in seventeen books, vv'hich are justly esteemed very precious remains of antiquity. The first two books are employed in showing, that the study of geography is not only worthy of a philosopher, but even necessary to him; the third describes Spain; the fourth, Gaul and the Britannic isles; the fifth and sixth, Italy and the adjacent isles; the seventh, which is imperfect at the nd, Germany, the countries of the Getac and Illyrii, Taurica, Chersonesus, and Epirus; the eighth, ninth, and tenth, Greece with the neighbouring isles; the four following, Asia within Mount Taurus; the fifteenth and sixteenth, Asia without Taurus, India, Persia, Syria, Arabia; and the seventeenth, Egypt, Ethiopia, Carthage, and other parts of Africa.

, a learned divine and promoter of the reformation, was born at Kaufbeir, Dec. 26th 1524. He lost his father in the year 1527, and was sent to Fribourg in Brisgaw in 1538; where he went through a course of philosophy under John Zinckius, and removed from thence in 1542 to the university of Wittemberg, and attended the lectures of Luther and Melancthon. Having taken the degree of master of philosophy in 1544, he applied himself to the reading of private lectures, which gained him great reputation, and he continued them until the war obliged him to leave Witteuoberg, and go to Magdeburg, and afterwards to Erfurt. The war being concluded, he went to Jena in 1548. In 1556, he was present at the conference of Eisenach, and disputed amicably with Menius upon a question relating to the necessity of good works. He reduced this controversy to seven propositions, on which the whole dispute turned, and which Menius owned to be agreeable to the word of God. Strigelius afterwards drew up, by order of the elector of Saxony, a form of confession, to which all the divines subscribed. The year following he was attacked by Flacciuslllyricus, and disputed with him viva voce at Weimar. The acts of that conference were published, but not faithfully, and he complained that something was retrenched. In 1559, he was imprisoned with two others, owing to certain theological disputes with the divines of Weimar, but by the influence of the emperor Maximilian recovered his liberty at the end of three years, and resumed the usual course of his lectures. As, however, he found that he was not in a safe situation, he retired from Jena, and paid no regard to the remonstrances that university wrote to him to engage him to return. Removing to Leipsic, he published there notes on the psalter. He obtained of the elector the liberty of teaching, either in the university of Wittemberg, or in that of Leipsic, which last he preferred, and beginning his lectures there in March 1563, explained not only divinity, but likewise logic and ethics. He had carried his commonplaces as far as the article of the eucharist, and was to enter upon that in February 1567; but a fresh opposition being raised against him, in which the elector would not interfere, he retired into the Palatinate, and soon after was invited to Heidelberg to be professor of ethics, which office he discharged with great reputation till his death, June 26th, 1569. He had the reputation of an able philosopher and divine, and had an incomparable talent in instructing youth. His principal works are, 1 “Epitome doctrinse de primo motu,” Wittem. 1565, 8vo. 2. “Argumenta et scholia in Nov. Test.” 3 “Tres partes locorum communium.” 4. “Enchiridion locorum Theologicorum.” 5. Scholiæ Historicæ, a condito mundo ad natum Christum, &c."

, father and son, were two poets of Ferrara, who both wrote in Latin. Their poems were printed together at Venice, 1513, 8vo, and consist of elegies and other compositions, in a pure and pleasing style. Titus died about 1502, at the age of eighty. Hercules, his son, was killed by a rival in 1508. Strozzi was also an illustrious name at Florence, which migrated with the Medici’s into France, and there rose to the highest military honours, as they had in their own country attained the greatest commercial rank. There have been several other writers of the name, of whom we shall notice only one, as most remarkable, Cyriac Strozzi, who was a profound student in the works of Aristotle, and therefore considered as a peripatetic philosopher. He was born at Florence in 1504. He travelled over a great part of the world, and pursued his studies wherever he went. He was a professor of Greek and of philosophy at Florence, Bologna, and Pisa, in all which places he was highly esteemed. He died in 1565, at the age of sixty-one. He added a ninth and a tenth book to the eight books of Aristotle’s politics, and wrote them both in Greek and Latin. He had so completely made himself master of the style and sentiments of his great model, that he has been thought, in some instances, to rival him. He had a sister, Laurentia, who wrote Latin poems. Considerable information may be found respecting the Strozzi in our authorities.

, one of the many sons of the preceding, was born at Weimar, May 26, 1671. His father, who soon perceived his turn for study, sent him to Zeitz, to profit by the instructions of the learned Cellarius, who then lived in that place, and he afterwards pursued his studies under the ablest masters at Jena, Helmstadt, Francfort, and Halle. In the latter city he went to the bar, but did not follow that profession long, devoting his attention chiefly to history and public law, which were his favourite pursuits. He paid some visits to Holland and Sweden, whence he returned to Wetzlar, accompanied by his brother, who had dissipated his fortune in search of the philosopher’s stone. This misfortune affected our author, who, after the death of his brother, spent almost his whole property in paying his debts, and he fell into a melancholy state, which lasted for two years; but having then recovered his health and spirits, he was appointed librarian at Jena in 1697, and took his degree of doctor of philosophy and law at Halle. In 1704, he was made professor of history in that university, and in 1712 professor extraordinary of law, counsellor and historiographer to the dukes of Saxony; and at length in 1730, counsellor of the court, and ordinary professor of public and feudal law. He died at Jena, March 25, 1738, leaving many distinguished proofs of learned research, particularly in law and literary history. One of his first publications was his “Bibliotheca numismatum antiquiorum,” 12mo, which appeared at Jena in 1693. 2. “Epistolaad Cellarium, de Bibliothecis,” Jena, 1696, 12mo. 3. “Atuiquitatum Romanorum Syntagma,” Jena, 1701, 4to, This is the first part of a larger work, and chiefly respects the religion of the Romans, but is valuable. 4. “Tractatus Juridicus de Balneis et Balneatoribus” 4to, the same year, at Jena; all his works indeed appear to have been published there. 5. “Acta Literaria,” vol.1. 1703, 8vo; vol.11. 1720. 6. “Bibliotheca Philosophica,” 1704, 8vo, and again, 1728. 7. “Bibliotheca Historica,” 1705, 8vo. This, like several other works of this author, has undergone several editions, and been much augmented b) other editors. The title to the latest edition of this book is “Bibliotheca Historica, instructa a Burcardo Gotthelf Siruvio, aucta a Christi. Gottlieb Budero, nunc vero a Joanne Georgio Meuselio ita digesta, amplificata, et emendata, ut pcene novum opus videri possit.” This account of it is literally true, for, from a single volume, it is now extended to twenty-two vols. 8vo, usually bound in eleven, 1782 1804. It forms a complete index to the histories of all nations. 8. “Bibliotheca Librorum rariorum,” 1719, 4to. 9. “Introductio ad Notitiam Rei Literariee, et usum Bibliothecarum.” The fifth edition of this work, a very thick volume, small 8vo, with the supplements of Christopher Coler, and the notes of Michael Lilienthal, was printed at Leipsic in 1729; but the best is that of 1754 by John Christian Fischer, 2 vols. 8vo. 10. A life of his father, entitled, “De Vita et Scriptis Geo. Adam Struvii,” 1705, 8vo. He published also several works in German, and some others in Latin, all of which are mentioned in H- insius’s Biicher Lexicon, published at Leipsic in 1793, which is indeed a very excellent index to the works of German authors in particular.

He had the misfortune to lose his patron in 1749 on whose death he published some verses, with others on his entertainment at Boughton, and a “Philosophic Hymn on Christmas-day.” Two papers by the doctor, upon the earthquakes in 1750, read at the Royal Society, and a sermon preached at his own parish-church on that alarming occasion, were published in 1750, 8vo, under the title of “The Philosophy of Earthquakes, natural and religious;” of which a second part was printed with a second edition of his sermon on “the Healing of Diseases as a Character of the Messiah, preached before the College of Physicians Sept. 20, 1750.” In 1751 (in “Palaeographia Britannica, No. III.”) he gave an account of Oriuna the wife of Carausius; in Phil. Trans, vol. XLVIII. art. 33, an account of the Eclipse predicted by Thales; and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 1754, p. 407, is the substance of a paper read at the Royal Society in 1752, to prove that the coral-tree is a sea-vegetable. On Wednesday the 27th of February, 1765, Dr. Stukeley was seized with a stroke of the palsy, which was brought on by attending a full vestry, at which he was accompanied by serjeant Eyre, on a contested election for a lecturer. The room being hot, on their return through Dr. Stukeley’s garden, they both caught their deaths; for the serjeant never was abroad again, and the doctor’s illness came on that night. Soon after this accident his faculties failed him; but he continued quiet and composed until Sunday following, March 3, 1765, when he departed in his seventy eighth year, which he attained by remarkable temperance and regularity. By his own particular directions, his corpse was conveyed in a private manner to East- Ham in Essex, and was buried in the church-yard, just beyond the east end of the church, the turf being laid smoothly over it, without any monument. This spot he particularly fixed on, in a visit he paid some time before to the vicar of that parish, when walking with him one day in the church-yard. Thus ended a valuable life, daily spent in throwing light on the dark remains of antiquity. His great learning and profound skill in those researches enabled him to publish many elaborate and curious works, and to leave many ready for the press. In his medical capacity, his “Dissertation on the Spleen” was well received. His “Itinerariutn Curiosum,” the first-fruits of his juvenile excursions, presaged what might be expected from his riper age, when he had acquired more experience. The curious in these studies were not disappointed; for, with a sagacity peculiar to his great genius, with unwearied pains and industry, and some years spent in actual surveys, he investigated and published an account of those stupendous works of the remotest antiquity, Stonehenge and Abury, in 1743, and has given the most probable and rational account of their origin and use, ascertaining also their dimensions with the greatest accuracy. So great was his proficiency in Druidical history, that his familiar friends used to call him “the arch-druid of this age.” His works abound with particulars that shew his knowledge of this celebrated British priesthood; and in his Itinerary he announced a “History of the Ancient Celts, particularly the first inhabitants of Great Britain,” for the most part finished, to have consisted of four vplumes, folio, with above 300 copper-plates, many of which were engraved. Great part of this work was incorporated into his Stonehenge and Abury. In his “History of Carausius,” 1757, 1751), in two vols. 4to, he has shewn much learning and ingenuity in settling the principal events of that emperor’s government in Britain. To his interest and application we are indebted for recovering from obscurity Richard of Cirencester’s Itinerary of Roman Britain, which has been mentioned before. His discourses, or sermons, under the title of “Palaeographia Sacra, 1763, on the vegetable creation,” bespeak him a botanist, philosopher, and divine, replete with antient learning, and excellent observations; but a little too much transported by a lively fancy and invention. He closed the last scenes of his life with completing a long and laborious work on ancient British coins, in particular of Cunobelin; and felicitated himself on having from them discovered many remarkable, curious, and new anecdotes, relating to the reigns of that and other British kings. The twenty-three plates of this work were published after his decease; but the ms. (left ready for publishing) remained in the hands of his daughter Mrs. Fleming, relict of Richard Fleming, esq. an eminent solicitor, who was the doctor’s executor, and died in 1774. By his fii^t wife Dr. Stukeley had three daughters; of whom one died young; the other two survived him; the one, Mrs. Fleming already mentioned; the other, wife to the Rev. Thomas Fairchild, rector of Pitsey, in Essex. They both died in 1782. By his second wife, Dr. Stukeley had no child. To the great names already mentioned among his friends and patrons, may be added those of Mr. Folkes, Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne (with whom he corresponded on the subject of Tar* water), Dr. Pocock bishop of Meath, and many others of the first rank of literature at home: and amou. the eminent foreigners with whom he corresponded wete Dr. Heigertahl, Mr. Keysler, and the learned father Montfaucon, who inserted some of his designs (sent him by archbishop Wake) in his “Antiquity explained.” A good account of Dr. Stukeley was, with his own permission, printed in 1725, by Mr. Masters, in the second part of his History of Corpus Christi college; and very soon after his death a short but just character of him was given in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1765, by his friend Peter Collinson. Of both these, Mr. Nichols availed himself; and was favoured with several additional particulars from Dr. Ducarel and Mr. Gough. After his decease, a medal of him was cast and repaired by Gaub; on one side, the head adorned with oak leaves, inscribed Rev. Gvl. Stvkeley, M.D.S. R. & A. s. Exergue, act. 54. Reverse, a view of Stonehenge, Ob. Mar. 4, 1765, Æt. 84; [but this is a mistake, for he was in fact but 78]. There is a portrait of him, after Kneller, in mezzotino, by;J". Smith in 172 i, before he took orders, with his arms, viz. Argent, a spread-eagle double-headed Sable. Mrs. Fleming had another portrait of him in his robes, by Wills; and Mrs. Parsons (relict of Dr. James Parsons) had a fine miniature, which was esteemed a good likeness.

, a noted German mathematician and philosopher, was born at Hippo! stein in 1635. He was a professor of philosophy and mathematics at Altdorf, and died there Dec. 26, 1703. In 1670, he published, 1. A German translation of the works of Archimedes; and afterwards produced many other books of his own. 2. “Collegium experimental curiosum,” Nuremberg, 1676, 4to; reprinted in 1701, 4to, a very curious work, containing a multitude of interesting experiments, neatly illustrated by copper-plate figures printed upon almost every page, by the side of the letter-press. Of these, the 10th experiment is an improvement on father Lana’s project for navigating a small vessel suspended in the atmosphere by several globes exhausted of air. '6. “Physica electiva, et Hypothetica,” Nuremberg, 1675, 2 vols. 4to; reprinted at Altdorf, 1730. 4.“Scientia Cosmica,” Altdorf, 1670, folio. 5. “Architecture militaris Tyrocinia,” at the same place, 1682, folio. 6. “Epistola de veritate proposiiionum Borellide motu animalium,” 4to, Nuremb. 1684. 7. “Physicae conciliatricis Conamina,” Altdorf, 1684, 8vo. 8. “Mathesis enucleata,” Nuremb. 1695, 8vo. 9. “Mathesis Juvenilis,” Nureiwb. 1699, 2 vols. 8vo, 10. “Physicae modernae compendium,” Nuremb. 1704, 8vo. 11. “Tyrocinia mathematica,” Leipsic, 1707, folio. 12. “Praelectiones Academics,” 1722, 4to. 13. “Praelectiones Academics,” Strasburg, 12mo. The works of this author are still more numerous, but the most important of them are here enumerated.

, a very eminent German, or rather Swiss, philosopher, was born at Wmterthour, in the canton of Zurich, October 16, 1720, and is said to have been the youngest of twenty-five children. Both his parents died on the same day in 1734, and left him barely enough to defray the expence of his education. His taJents did not develope themselves early; and, at sixteen, jhe had not even acquired a taste for study. Wolfe’s Metaphyiics was the first book that awakened in him a love of philosophy; and the counsels and example of the celebrated Gesner soon after incited him to apply himself eagerly to mathematics and general science, and to resume the study of Grecian and Oriental literature. In 1739, he became an ecclesiastic; and a favourable situation for examining the beauties of nature, made him an enthusiast in that branch of knowledge. He published, therefore, at twenty- one, “Moral contemplations of the works of Nature” and, in the same year, 1741, “A Description of the most remarkable Antiquities in the Lordship of Knonau,” written in German. The year after, he published an account of a journey which he took in the Alps; in which he displayed, not only his sensibility of the beauties of nature, but his profound sense of the infinite power and goodness of its author. Becoming a tutor at Magdeburg, he obtained the acquaintance of Maupertuis, Euler, and Sack; in consequence of which his merits became more known, and he obtained, in 1747, the appointment of mathematical professor in the royal college at Berlin and became a member of the Royal Academy there in 1760.

Among other reports respecting this great man, it has also been said that he composed his works in English, but was obliged to have recourse to Dr. Mapletoft to translate them into Latin. This has been asserted by Ward in his Lives of the Gresham professors, but without bringing any proof*; and it is observable that his “Processus Integri,” published after his death, discovers alone more skill in the Latin language than is commonly ascribed to him. It is likewise asserted by sir Hans Sloane, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, that Dr. Sydenham was particularly versed in the writings of the great Roman orator and philosopher; and there is evidently such a luxuriance in his style, as may discover the author who gave him most pleasure, and most engaged his imitation.

“I should be exceedingly to blame if I did not return most hearty thanks to the inhabitants of Ptolemais, for thinking me worthy of such honours, as I own I do not think myself worthy of: yet it is highly incumbent on me to consider, not only the great things they offer, but how far it may be prudent in me to accept them. Now, the more I reflect upon it, the more I am convinced of my own inability to sustain the office and dignity of a bishop; and I will frankly tell you my thoughts upon this occasion. While I had nothing to support but the character of a philosopher, I acquitted myself, I may say, with tolerable credit; and this nas made some imagine that I am fit to be a bishop. But they have riot considered, with what difficulty the mind acquires a new bent; that is, adapts itself to a province it has hitherto been a stranger to. I for my part am afraid, that by quitting the philosopher, and putting on the bishop, I should spoil both characters, that my new honours should make me arrogant and assuming, destroying at once the modesty of the philosopher; and yet that I should not be able to support them with a becoming dignity. For only consider my way of life hitherto. My time has always been divided between books and sports. In the hours of study nothing can be more retired, but in our sports every body sees us; and you know very well, that no man is fonder of all kinds of recreations than myself. You know also, that I have an aversion to civil employments, as indeed my education, and the whole bent of my studies, have been quite foreign to them. But a bishop ought to be, as it were, a man of God, averse to pleasures and amusements, severe in his manners, and for ever employed in the concerns of his flock. It requires a happy complication of qualities to do all this as it should be done; to sustain such a weight of care and business; to be perpetually conversant with the affairs of men; and yet to keep himself unspotted from the world. It is true, I see this done- by some men, and I highly admire and revere them lor it; but I am myself incapable of doing it; and I will not burthen my conscience with undertaking what I know I cannot perform. But I have still farther reasons for declining this charge, which I will here produce; for though I am writing to you, yet I beg this letter may be made public: so that, whatever may be the result of this affair, or which way soever I may be disposed of, I may, at least, stand clear with God and man, and especially with Theophilus, when I shall have dealt thus openly and fairly. I say then, that God, the laws of the land, and the holy hands of Theophilus, have given me a wife: but I declare to all men, that I will neither suffer myself to be separated from her, nor consent to live like an adulterer in a clandestine manner: the one I think impious, the other unlawful. I declare further, that it will always be my earnest desire and prayer, to lywe as many children by her as possible. Again, let it be considered how difficult, or rather how absolutely impossible it is, to pluck up those doctrines, which by the means of knowledge are rooted in the soul to a demonstration. But you know, that philosophy is diametrically opposite to the doctrines of Christianity; nor shall I ever be able to persuade myself, for instance, that the soul had no existence before its union with the body, that the world and all its parts will perish together, and that the trite and thread-bare doctrine of the resurrection, whatever mystery be couched under it, can have any truth in it, as it is professed by the vulgar. A philosopher, indeed, who is admitted to the intuition of truth, will easily see the necessity of lying to the people; for Jight is to the eye, what truth is to the people. The eye cannot bear too much light; nay, if it is under the least indisposition, it is actually relieved by darkness: in like manner fable and falsehood may be useful to the people, while unvdling the truth may do them hurt. If, therefore, this method be consistent with the duties of the episcopal dignity; if I may freely philosophize at hyme, while I preach tales abroad; and neither teach nor unteach, but suffer people to retain the prejudices in which they were educated, I may indeed be consecrated; but if they shall say, that a bishop ought to go farther, and not only speak, but think like the people, I must declare off, &c.”

, styled by Dr. Burney, “the admirable,” was born in April 1692, at Pirano in the province of Istria. His father having been a great benefactor to the cathedral at Parenzo, was ennobled for his piety. Joseph was intended for the law, but taking up the study of music, among his other pursuits, it prevailed over all the rest in gaining his attachment. In 1710, he was sent to the university of Padua, to study as a civilian; but, before he was twenty, having married without the consent of his parents, they wholly abandoned him. After wandering for some time in search of an asylum, he was received in a convent at Assissi, by a monk to whom he was related. Here he amused himself by practising the violin, till being accidentally discovered by a Paduan acquaintance, family differences were accommodated, and he settled with his wife at Venice. While he remained there, he heard, ia 1714, the celebrated Veracini, whose performance, excelling every thing he had then heard, excited in his mind a wonderful emulation. He retired the very next day to Ancona, to study the use of the bow with more tranquillity, and attain, if possible, those powers of energy and expression which he had so greatly admired. By diligent study and practice, he acquired such skill and reputation, that iti 1721, he was invited to the place of first violin, and master of the band, in the famous church of St. Antony of Padua. He had also frequent invitations, which he declined, to visit Paris and London By 17i38, he had made many excellent scholars, and formed a school, or method of practice, that was celebrated all over Europe, and increased in fame to the end of his life. In 1744, he is said to have changed his style, from extremely difficult execution, to graceful and expressive; and Pasqualino Bini, one of his besfc scholars, having heard of the change, placed himself afresh under his tuition. This admirable musician, and worthy mail, for such he is represented, died Feb. 26, 1770, to the great regret of the inhabitants of Padua, where he had resided near fifty years; and where he was not only regarded as its chief and most attractive ornament, but as a philosopher, and even a saint, having devoted himself to the service of his patron St Antony of Padua.

, surnamed Firmanus, because he was a native of Firmum, a town in Italy, flourished at the same time with Cicero, and was one of his friends. He was a mathematical philosopher, and therefore was thought to have great skill in judicial astrology. He was particularly famous by two horoscopes which he drew, the one the horoscope of Romulus, and the other of Rome. Plutarch says, “Varro, who was the most learned of the Romans in history, had a particular friend named Tarrantius, who, out curiosity, applied himself to draw horoscopes, by means of astronomical tables, and was esteemed the most eminent in his time.” Historians controvert some particular circumstances of his calculations but all agree in conferring on him the honorary title Prince of astrologers.

He then went to Mantua, where he found duke Guglielmo in a decrepid age, and little disposed to protect him against the duke of Ferrara: the prince Vincentio Gonzaga received him indeed with great caresses, but was too young to take him under his protection. From thence he went to Padua and Venice, but carrying with him in every part his fears of the duke of Ferrara, he at last had recourse to the duke of Urbino, who shewed him great kindness, but perhaps was very little inclined to embroil himself with his brother-in-law, on such an account: he advised Tasso rather to return to P'errara, which counsel he took, resolv ing once more to try his fortune with the duke. Alphonso, it may be, exasperated at Tasso’s flight, and pretending to believe that application to study had entirely disordered his understanding, and that a strict regimen was necessary to restore him to his former state, caused him to be strictly confined in the hospital of St. Anne. Tasso tried every method to soften the duke and obtain his liberty; but the duke coldly answered those who applied to him, “that instead of concerning themselves with the complaints of a person in his condition, who was very little capable of judging for his own good, they ought rather to exhort him patiently to submit to such remedies as were judged proper for his circumstances.” This confifiement threw Tasso into the deepest despair; he abandoned himself to his misfortunes, and the methods that were made use of for the cure of his pretended madness had nearly thrown him into an absolute delirium. His imagination was so disturbed that he believed the cau&e of his distemper was not natural; he sometimes fancied himself haunted by a spirit, that continually disordered his books and papers; and these strange notions were perhaps strengthened by the tricks that were played him by his keeper. This second confinement of Tasso was much longer than the first; but after seven years confinement, his release was procured by Vincentio Gonzaga, prince of Mantua, who took him with him to Mantua. It is said that the young prince, who was naturally gay, being desirous to authorize his pleasures by the example of a philosopher, introduced one day into Tasso’s company three sisters, to sing and play upon instruments: these ladies were all very handsome, but not of the most rigid virtue. After some short discourse, he told Tasso, that he should take two of them away, and would leave one behind, and bade him take his choice. Tasso answered “that it cost Paris very dear to give the preference to one of the goddesses, and, therefore, with his permission, he designed to retain the three.” The prince took him at his word, and departed; when Tasso, after a little conversation, dismissed them all handsomely with presents.

, a writer of the primitive church, was a Syrian by birth, and flourished about the year 170. He was a sophist by profession, very profound in all branches of literature, and acquired great reputation by teaching rhetoric. Being converted to Christianity, he became the scholar of Justin Martyr, whom he attended to Rome, and partook with him of the hatred of the philosopher Crescens: for he tells us himself, that Crescens laid wait for his life, as well as for Justin’s. While Justin lived he continued steady in the orthodox belief, but after his death became the author of a new set of fanciful opinions, which, after propagating them for some time at Rome, he carried into the east, and opened a school in Mesopotamia, and other places. Nothing is certainly known concerning his death.

, of Beryta, who flourished under the reign of Antoninus Pius, is mentioned as a Platonist of some note. Among his pupils was Aulus Gellius, who has preserved several specimens of his preceptor’s method of philosophising. He examined all sects, but preferred the Platonic: in which he had at least the merit of avoiding the infection of that spirit of confusion, which at this period seized almost the whole body of the philosophers, especially those of the Platonic school. In a work which he wrote concerning the differences in opinion among the Platonists, Aristotelians, and Stoics, he strenuously opposed the attempts of the Alexandrian philosophers, and others, to combine the tenets of these sects into one system. He wrote several pieces, chiefly to illustrate the Platonic philosophy. He lived at Athens, and taught, not in the schools, but at his table. A. Gellius, who was frequently one of his guests, gives the following account, in his “Noctes Atticae,” of the manner in which they were conducted “Taurus, the philosopher, commonly invited a select number of his friends to a frugal supper, consisting of lentils, and a gourd, cut into small pieces upon an earthen dish; and during the repast, philosophical conversation, upon various topics, was introduced. His constant disciples, whom he called his family, were expected to contribute their share towards the small expence which attended these simple repasts, in which interesting conversation supplied the place of luxurious provision. Every one came furnished with some new subject of inquiry, which he was allowed in his<turn to propose, and which, during a limited time, was debated. The subjects of discussion, in these conversations, were not of the more serious and important kind, but such elegant questions as might afford an agreeable exercise of the faculties in the moments of convivial enjoyment; and these Taurus afterwards frequently illustrated more at large with sound erudition.”

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Edmonton in Middlesex, Aug. 28, 1685. His grandfather, Nathaniel Taylor, was one of the Puritans whom Cromwell elected by later, June 14, 1653, to represent the county of Bedford in parliament. His father, John Taylor, esq. of Bifrons in Kent, is said to have still retained some of the austerity of the puritanic character, but was sensible of the power of music; in consequence of which, his son Brook studied that science early, and became a proficient in it, as he did also in drawing. He studied the classics and mathematics with a private tutor at home, and made so successful a progress, that at fifteen he was thought to be qualified for the university. In 1701 he went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, in the rank of a fellow-commoner, and immediately applied himself with zeal to the study of mathematical science, which alone could gain distinction there. It was not long before he became an author in that science, for, in 1708, he wro e his “Treatise on the Centre of Oscillation,” though it was not published till it appeared some years after in the Philosophical Transactions. In 1709, he took the degree of bachelor of laws; and about the same time commenced a correspondence with professor Keil, on subjects of the most abstruse mathematical disquisition. In 1712 he was elected into the Royal Society, to which in that year he presented three papers, one, “On the Ascent of Water betwetMi two Glass Planes.” 2. “On the Centre of Oscillation.” 3. “On the Motion of a stretched String.” He presented also, in 1713, a paper on his favourite science of music; but this, though mentioned in his correspondence with iteil, does not appear in the Transactions.

In the autumn of 1661, bishop Taylor, foreseeing a vacancy in the deanery of Connor, wrote to Cambridge for some able person, who might fill that dignity, and the proposition being made to Dr. George Rust, he was preferred as soon as the vacancy took place (See Rust); and thus a friendship commenced between these two great men, which continued with mutual warmth and admiration till it was interrupted by death. Dr. Rust was the survivor, and succeeded bishop Taylor in the see of Dromore, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1662-3, bishop Taylor published “Three Sermons” which he had preached at Christ’s church, Dublin “Eleven Sermons,” preached since the restoration and his “Discourse on Confirmation” In July 1663, he preached the funeral sermon of Dr. John Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, from whose hands he had received confirmation. This was published, and contains a well-drawn character of the primate. In the same year, at the request of the bishops of Ireland, he published “A Dissuasive from Popery, addressed to the people of Ireland.” This work went through several editions, and some answers being published by the popish party, he wrote a second part of his “Dissuasive,” which however, did not appear until after his death. He had also began a discourse on the beatitudes, when he was attacked by a fever, which proved fatal in ten days. He died at Lisburn, August 13, 1667, and was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore. Dr. Rust, as we have already observed, preached his funeral sermon, and entered largely into his character. He was indisputably, as Dr. Rust represents him, a man of the acutest penetration and sagacity, the richest and most lively imagination, the solidest judgment, and the profoundest learning. He was perfectly versed in all the Greek and Roman writers, and was not unacquainted with the refined wits of later ages, whether French or Italian. His skill was great, both in civil and canon law, in casuistical divinity, in fathers, and ecclesiastical writers ancient and modern. He was a man of the greatest humility and piety: it is believed, says Dr. Rust, that he spent the greatest part of his time in heaven, and that his solemn hours of prayer took up a considerable portion of his life. He was indeed a great devotee, and had in him much of natural enthusiasm. Dr. Rust concludes his character with observing, that “he had the goodhumour of *a gentleman, the eloquence of an orator, the fancy of a poet, the aruter.ess of H schoolman, the profoundness of a philosopher, the wisdom of a chancellor, the sagacity of a prophet, the rrnson of an angel, and the piety of a saint. He had devotion enough for a cloister, learning enough for an university, and wit enough for a college of virtuosi; and had his parts and endowments been parcelled out among his clergy that he left In-hind him, it would, perhaps, have made one of the otst dioceses in the world.” Yet amidst the blaze of this panegyric, we must not forget that dispassionate criticism will assign as bishop Taylor’s highest excellence, his powers of moral suasion. He is always seen to most advantage as a moral writer, and his genius is every where inspired and invigorated by a love of what is good. Nor must it be forgot that he was one of the refiners of our language. His biographer has justly said that “English prose was in his time in a progressive state. It had been advanced very far by the genius of Sidney and the wisdom of Hooker; but the pedantry of the reign of James had done much to eclipse its lustre. In Taylor it broke out from its obscurity with energy and brightness. His polemical discourses exhibit a specimen of English composition superior to any that had gone before.”

, a modern philosopher, was born at Naples in 1508, and received the first part of his education at Milan, where he acquired a perfect knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages. After passing two years at Rome, where he made great proficiency in polite learning, he removed to Padua, and applied with indefatigable assiduity to the study of mathematics and philosophy. He very judiciously employed mathematical learning in explaining and establishing the laws of physics, and was particularly successful in investigating truths before unknown in the doctrine of optics. Accustomed to mathematical accuracy, he grew dissatisfied with the conjectural explanation of natural appearances given by Aristotle, and expressed great surprise that this philosopher should have been, for so many ages, followed in his numerous errors by so many learned men, by whole nations, and almost by the whole human race. He pursued his researches with great ingenuity as well as freedom, and wrote two books “On Nature,” in which he attempted to overturn the physical doctrine of the Peripatetic school, and to explain the phenomena of the material world upon new principles. When this treatise was first published at Rome, it obtained great and unexpected applause, and Telesius was prevailed upon by the importunity of his friends at Naples, to open a school of philosophy in that city. The Telesian school soon became famous, not only for the number of its pupils, but for the abilities of its professors, who distinguished themselves by their bold opposition to the doctrines of Aristotle, and by the judicious manner in which they distributed their labours, in order to enlarge the boundaries of natural knowledge. The founder of the school was highly esteemed by all who were desirous of studying nature rather than dialectics; and he was patronized by several great men, particularly by Ferdinand duke of Nuceri. But his popularity soon awakened the jealousy and envy of the monks, who loaded him and his school with calumny, for no other offence than that he ventured to call in question the authority of Aristotle. The vexations which he suffered from this quarter brought on a bilious disorder, which, in 1588, terminated in his death.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, and the first of the seven wise men of Greece, was born at Miletus about 640 years B. C. After acquiring the usual learning of his own country, he travelled into Egypt and several parts of Asia, to learn astronomy, geometry, mystical divinity, natural knowledge, or philosophy, &c. In Egypt he met for some time great favour from the king, Arnasis; but he lost it again by the freedom of his remarks on the conduct of kings, which, it is said, occasioned his return to his own country, where he communicated the knowledge he had acquired to many disciples, among the principal of whom were Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Pythagoras, and was the author of the Ionian sect of philosophers. He always, however, lived very retired, and refused the proffered favours of many great men. He was often visited by Solon; and it is said he took great pleasure in the conversation of Thrasybulus, whose excellent wit made him forget that he was Tyrant of Miletus.

, an ancient Gretik orator and philosopher, whose eloquence procured him the name of Euphrades, was of Paphlagonia, and flourished in the fourth century His father, Eugenius, was a man of noble birth, and educated his son under his own care. After teaching philosophy twenty years at Constantinople, and acquiring a great reputation, he went to Rome, where the emperor offered any conditions if he would fix himself in that city; but he returned soon, and settled at Constantinople, where he married, and had children. Themistius was a peripatetic, and tells us in one of his orations that he had chosen Aristotle for the arbiter of his opinions, and the guide of his life; yet he was not so bigotted to this master, but that he was well versed in Plato, and was particularly studious of the diction and manner of this philosopher, as appears from his works. He had a great opinion of the necessity of sacrificing to the graces; and he says in another oration, “I often converse with the divine Plato, I live with Aristotle, and I am very unwillingly separated from Homer.”

Sic auiniae laqueo sit via clausa tux. But it does not appear, that by the Syracusan poet, Ovid means Theocritus; more probably, as some commentators on the passage have supposed, Empedocles, who was a poet and philosopher of Sicily, is the person pointed at: others mink that Ovid by a small mistake or slip of his memory might confound Theocritus the rhetorician of Chios, who was executed by order of king Aritigonus, with Theocritus the poet of Syracuse.

, called Tripolites, or of Tripoli, was a celebrated mathematician, who flourished, as Saxius seems inclined to think, in the first century. He is mentioned by Suidas, as probably the same with Theodosius, the philosopher of Bythinia, who, Strabo says, excelled in mathematics. He appears to have cultivated chiefly that part of geometry which relates to the doctrine of the sphere, on which he wrote three books containing fifty-nine propositions, all demonstrated in the pure geometrical manner of the ancients, and of which Ptolomy as well as all succeeding writers made great use. These three books were translated by the Arabians out of the Greek into their own language, and from the Arabic the work was again translated into Latin, and printed at Venice. But the Arabic rersion being very defective, a more complete edition was published in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1558, by John Pena (See Pena) professor of astronomy. Theodosius’s works were also commented upon by others, and lastly by De Chales, in his “Cursus Mathematicus.” But that edition of Theodosius’ s spherics which is now most in use, was translated and published by our countryman the learned Dr. Barrow, in 1675, illustrated and demonstrated in anew and concise method. By this author’s’ account, Theodosius appears not only to he a great master in this more difficult part of geometry, but the first considerable author of antiquity who has written on thai subject. Theodosius also wrote concerning the celestial houses; and of dnys and nights; copies of which, in Greek, are in the king’s library at Paris, and of which there was a Latin edition, published by Peter Dasypody in 1572.

, of Alexandria, a celebrated Greek philosopher and mathematician, flourished in the fourth century, about the year 380, in the time of Theodosius the Great; but the time and manner of his death are unknown. His genius and disposition for the study of philosophy were very early improved by a close application to study; so that he acquired such a proficiency in the sciences as to render his name venerable in history; and to procure him the honour of being president of the famous Alexandrian school. One of his pupils was the celebrated Hypatia, his daughter, who succeeded him in the presidency of the school; a trust, which, like, himself, she discharged with the greatest honour and usefulness. (See Hypatia.)

, a celebrated philosopher, was a native of Kresium, a maritime town in Lesbos, aud was born in the second year of the 102 olympiad, or B.C. 371. After some education under Alcippus in his own country, he was sent to Athens, and there became a disciple of Plato, and after his death, of Aristotle, under both whom he made great progress both in philosophy and eloquence. It was on account of his high attainments in the latter, that instead of Tyrtamus, which was his original name, he was called Theophrastus. During his having charge of the Peripatetic school, he had about two thousand scholars; among whom were, Nicomachus, 1 the son of Aristotle, Erasistratus, a celebrated physician; and Demetrius Phalereus. His erudition and eloquence, united with engaging manners, recommended him to the notice of Cassander and Ptolemy, who invited him to visit Egypt. So great a favourite was he among the Athenians, that when one of his enemies accused him of teaching impious doctrines, the accuser himself escaped with difficulty the punishment which he endeavoured to bring upon Theophrastus.

Under the archonship of Xenippus, Sophocles, the son of Amphiclides, obtained a decree (upon what grounds we are not informed) making it a capital offence for any philosopher to open a public school without an express licence from the senate; on which all the philosophers left the city; but the next year, this illiberal legislator was himself fined five talents, and the philosophers returned to their schools, and Theophrastus, among the rest, now continued his debates and instructions in the Lyceum.

Theophrastns is highly celebrated for his industry, learning, and eloquence and for his generosity and public spirit. He is said to have twice freed his country from the oppression of tyrants. He contributed liberally towards defraying the expence attending the public meetings of philosophers, which were held, not for the sake of show, but for learned and ingenious conversation. In the public schools, he commonly appeared, as Aristotle had done, in an elegant dress, and was very attentive to the graces of elocution. He lived to the advanced age of eighty -five; towards the close of his life, he grew exceedingly infirm, and v\us carried to the school on a conch. He expressed great regret on account of the shortness of life, and com* plained that nature had given long life to certain animals, to whom it is of little value, as stags and crows, and had denied it to man, who, in a longer duration, might have been able to attain the summit of science, but now, as soon as he arrives within sight of it, it is taken away. His last advice to his disciples was, that since it is the lot of man to die as soon as he begins to live, they would take more pains to enjoy life as it passes, than to acquire posthumous fame. These reflections, and this advice, do not appear to correspond with the character usually bestowed on this philosopher.

, a modern philosopher, was born at Leipsic, in 1655, and was well educated, first under his father, and afterwards in the Leipsic university. At first, he acquiesced in the established doctrines of the schools; but, upon reading PuffendorPs “Apology for rejecting the Scholastic Principles of Morals and Law,” he determined to renounce all implicit deference to ancient dogmas. He read lectures upon the subject of natural law, first from the text of Grotius, and afterwards from that of Puffendorf, freely exercising his own judgment, and boldly advancing new opinions. Whilst his father was living, paternal prudence and moderation restrained the natural vehemence and acrimony of the young man’s temper, which was too apt to break out, even in his public lectures. But when he was left to himself, the boldness with which he advanced unpopular tenets, and the severity with which he dealt out his satirical censures, soon brought upon him the violent resentment of theologians and professors.

Brncker gives the following brief specimen of the more peculiar tenets of this bold, eccentric, and inconsistent philosopher. "Thought arises from images impressed upon the brain; and the action of thinking is performed in the whole brain. Brutes are destitute of sensation. Man is a corporeal substance, capable of thinking and moving, or endued with intellect and will. Man does not always think. Truth is the agreement of thought with the nature of things. The senses are not deceitful, but all fallacy is the effect of precipitation and prejudice. From perceptions arise ideas, and their relations; and from these, reasonings. It is impossible to discover truth by the syllogistic art. No other rule is necessary in reasoning, than that of following the natural order of investigation; beginning from those things which are best known, and proceeding, by easy steps, to those which are more difficult.

, Count Rumford, an ingenious philosopher, was born in 1753, in North America. His family, of English origin, had long been settled in New Hampshire, at the place formerly called Rumford, and now Concord; and possessed there some land previous to the war of the revolution. From his infancy his attention appears to have been directed towards objects of science. The father of one of his early companions, a clergyman, of the name of Bernard, took a liking to him, and taught him algebra, geometry, astronomy, and even the transcendental part of mathematics. Before the age of fourteen, he had made sufficient progress in this branch of study to be able, without assistance, to calculate and to trace graphically the phases of an eclipse of the sun. He had been destined to business; but from the period of this little event his passion for learning became irresistible, and he could apply himself to nothing but to his favourite objects of study. He attended the lessons of Dr. Williams; afterwards those of Dr. Winthorp, at the college of Havard; and under that able master he made considerable progress.

On quitting England in the month of September 1783, he landed at Boulogne, along wiih the celebrated Gibbon, who describes him by three epithets which shew how quickly he had been able to appreciate him. He calls him “the soldier, philosopher, statesman, Thompson.” He afterwards arrived at Strasburg, where the prince Maximilian de Deux- Fonts, now elector of Bavaria, then mareschal du camp in the service of France, was in garrison. That prince, commanding the parade, discovered among the spectators an officer in a foreign uniform, mounted on a fine English horse, and accosted him; Thompson informed him that he had just been employed in the American war; the prince, pointing out to him several officers who surrounded him, ' These gentlemen,“said he,” served in the same war, but against you. They belonged to the royal regiment Deux-ponts, sent to America under the command of the count de Rochambeau."

Count Rumford quitted England for the last time in the month of May 1802, for Paris. He went that summer to Munich, and returned to Paris in the winter. In the summer of 1803, he made a tour of part of Switzerland and Bararia with the widow of the celebrated Lavoisier, a woman of highly cultivated mind and capacious understanding; whom shortly after their return to Paris he married; but their union proved unhappy, and they at length separated, the count retiring to a house at Auteuil, about four miles from Paris, where he passed the rest of his days in philosophical pursuits and experiments, almost secluded from the world; for after the death of his worthy friend, the illustrious Lagrange, he saw only his next-door neighbour, the senator Lecoutejux Caneleux, Mr. Underwood, the member of the royal institution, who assisted him in the experiments, and an old friend, Mr. Parker, a learned American. He ceased to attend the sittings of the National Institute; but for the perpetual secretary Cuvier, he always preserved the highest admiration and esteem. One object of his latter occupations was a work not finished, “On the Nature and Effects of Order;” which would probably have been a valuable present to domestic society. No man in all his habits had more the spirit of order: every thing was classed; no object was ever allowed to remain an instant out of its place the moment he had done with it; and he was never beyond his time in an appointment a single instant. He was also latterly employed on a series of experiments on the propagation of heat in solids. He had by him several unpublished works, particularly one of considerable interest on Meteorolites, in which he demonstrated that they came from regions beyond the atmosphere of the earth. This very ingenious philosopher died August 21, 1814, when on the eve of retiring to England. The literary productions of count Kumford have obtained a wide circulation, having been translated into various languages. His papers in the “Philosophical Transactions,” chiefly on matters connected with the object of his beneficent investigations, were rather distinguished for the useful application of which they were susceptible, than for their number. Among them are, 1. “Experiments on Gun-powder, with. a method of determining the velocity of projectiles, and the force of gun-powder.” 2. “Experiments on Heat; by which it is proved to pass more slowly through the Torricellian vacuum, than through the air.” 3. “Experiments on the production of dephlogisticated air (oxygen gas) by different substances, exposed under water to the action of light.” 4. “Experiments on the relative and absolute quantities of moisture absorbed by different substances employed as garments.” 5. “Experiments on the communication of heat in air.” This memoir procured to the author the gold medal of the royal society. 6. “The description of a photometer, and experiments on the relative quantity of light furnished by different combustible substances, and their relative prices.” 7. “Experiments on coloured shades, and the optical illusions produced by the contrast of colours actually present.” 8. “Experiments on the force of Gunpowder, by which it is proved that this force is at least 50,000 times greater than the mean weight of the atmosphere, and that it is probable that the force of gun-powder depends chiefly on the elasticity of the vapour of water.” 9. “A letter to sir Joseph Banks, president of the Royal Society, offering a capital of 1000l. sterling destined for a fund to furnish a premium every two years to the author of the most useful discovery made in Europe with regard to light or heat.” 10. “Inquiries into the cause of heat excited by friction, &c. &c.”

, a modern German philosopher of considerable eminence, was born Aprils, 1748, at Bremervorde, in the duchy of Bremen, of which place his father was a burgomaster. His father intended him for the study of divinity, but he devoted the principal part of his early years to the study of the classics, and soon made great progress in the learned languages. As he became more acquainted with French and German literature and philosophy, he gave up all thoughts of studying divinity with a view to the church, imbibing by degrees the fashionable infidelity of his contemporaries. In 1772 he published at Riga his “Essay on the Origin of Languages,” and in 1776, his “System of the Stoic Philosophy,” a work that has been much praised abroad, and in which he was encouraged by the celebrated Heyne, who about the same time procured for him the professorship of the Greek and Latin languages in the Collegium Carolinum at Cassel. He was now, we are told, inclined to materialism, but cured by the essays and conversation of the learned Tetens. In 1778 he published his “Investigation of Man, 3 vols.; in 1780,” The first Philosophers of Greece,“and commenced his” Spirit of Speculative Philosophy."

, the Locrian, was a philosopher of the Italic school, during the time of Plato, who was indebted to him, among other Pythagoreans, for his acquaintance with the doctrine of Pythagoras, and who wrote his dialogue, entitled “Timaeus,” on the ground of his book, “On the Nature of Things.” A small piece, which he wrote concerning the “Soul of the World,” is preserved by Proclus, and is in some editions prefixed to Plato’s “Timseus.” In this treatise, though generally following Pythagoras, he departs from him in two particulars; the first, that instead of one whole, or monad, he supposes two independent causes of nature, God, or mind, the fountain of intelligent nature, and necessity, or matter, the source of bodies; the second, that he explains the cause of the formation of the world, from the external action of God upon matter, after the pattern or ideas existing in his own mind. From comparing this piece with Plato’s dialogue, it will be found that the Athenian philosopher has obscured the simple doctrine of the Locrian with fancies drawn from his own imagination, or from the Ægyptian schools.

Titian left behind him two sons and a brother, of whom Pomponio, the eldest, obtained preferment in the church. Horatio, the youngest, painted several portraits, which might stand in competition with those of his father. He was celebrated also for many history pieces, which he painted at Venice, in concurrence with Paul Veronese and Tintoret. But bewitched at last with chemistry, and the hopes of finding the philosopher’s stone, he laid aside the pencil; and having reduced what he got by his father to nothing, died of the plague in the same year with him. Francesco Vecelli, Titian’s brother, was trained to arms in the Italian wars; but peace being restored, applied himself afterwards to painting. He became so great a proficient in it, that Titian grew jealous of him; and fearing, lest in time he should eclipse his reputation, sent him upon pretended business to Ferdinand king of the Romans. Afterwards he followed another profession, and made cabinets of ebony adorned with figures; which, however, did not hinder him from painting now and then a portrait far a friend.

, a physician and very learned man, was a native of Ingra, in the territory of Utrecht; and taught the belles lettres in his own country with great reputation and profit for some time. In 1684, the marquis of Brandenburg appointed him professor of eloquence and the Greek tongue. He made several journeys into different parts of Germany, Hungary, and Italy; of which he has given some account in a posthumous work, published under the title of “Epistolae Itinerant, by Henninius, at Amsterdam, 1700, in 4to. It is said there are some useful and curious things in these epistles. Tollius was the editor of two ancient authors, of” Ausonius, cum notis variorum, 1671,“8vo; and of” Longinus, 1694,“4to, with a Latin version in the same page, and Boileau’s French version in the opposite. On reading this excellent edition Gibbon pronounced Tollius to be,” though a commentator, a man of taste and genius.“Much, however, cannot be said for his judgment, as the title of the following work may shew:” Fortuita sacra, in quibus prseter critica nonnulla tola fabularis historia Grasca, Phoenicia, Ægyptiaca, ad chymiam pertinere asseritur, 1687," 8vo. He pushed this extravagant notion so far as to seek for the secrets of chymistry and the philosopher’s stone in the fables of Paganism. This does not shew a very sound judgment; yet there is a great deal of learning, and some curious things, in his book. He died in 1696.

, a celebrated philosopher, was born at Rome in 1710, of a family originally of Genoa, and studied in the Clementine college at Rome. He became afterwards professor of philosophy and mathematics at the college of Ciudad, in the Frioul. Thence he went to Naples, and taught these sciences in the archiepiscopal seminary. Charles of Bourbon, king of Naples, appointed him in 1754 to be his librarian, superintendant of the royal printing-office, and keeper of the museum, which enabled him to devote his time to his favourite pursuits, one of which was the improvement of microscopes, which he brought to a very great degree of perfection, by inventing the highest magnifiers that had ever been known, four of which he sent in 1765 to our royal society. An account of them may be seen in the Philosophical Transactions, vols, LV. and LVI. This ingenious author was a member of the principal academies of Italy, and a corresponding member of those of Paris, London, and Berlin. He died March 7, 1782, not more rt gretted as a man of genius, than as a man of private worth and amiable manners. His principal works are, “On Natural Philosophy,” Naples, 174-9, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Elementa Physicae,” ibid. 1767, 8 vols. 3. “History and phenomena oi Vesuvius,” 1755, 4to. 4. “Microscopical Observations,” 1766, &c. ]

an illustrious mathematician and philosopher of Italy, was born at Faenza, in 1608, and was trained in Greek and Latin literature by an uncle who was a monk, Natural inclination led him to cultivate mathematical knowledge, which he pursued some time without a master; but, at about twenty years of age, he went to Rome, where he continued the pursuit of it under father Benedict Castelli. Castelli had been a scholar of the great Galilei, and had been called by pope Urban VIII. to be a professor of mathematics at Rome. Torricelli made so extraordinary a progress under this master, that, having read Galilei’s “Dialogues,” he composed a “Treatise concerning Motion” upon his principles. Castelli, astonished at the performance, carried it and read it to Galilei, who heard it with much pleasure, and conceived a high esteem and friendship for the author. Upon this Castelli proposed to Galilei, that Torricelli should come and live with him; recommending him as the most proper person he could have, since he was the most capable of comprehending those sublime speculations which his own great age, infirmities, and, above all, want of sight, prevented him from giving to the world. Galilei accepted the proposal, and Torricelli the employment, as things of all others the most advantageous to each. Galilei was at Florence, whither Torricelli arrived in 1641, and began to take down what Galilei dictated, to regulate his papers, and to act in every respect according to his directions. But he did not enjoy the advantages of this situation long, for at the end of three months Galilei died. Torricelli was then about returning to Rome. But the grand duke Ferdinand II. engaged him to continue at Florence, making him his own mathematician for the present, and promising him the chair as soon as it should be vacant. Here he applied himself intensely to the study of mathematics, physics, and astronomy, making many improvements and some discoveries. Among others, he greatly improved the art of making microscopes and telescopes; and it is generally acknowledged that he first found out the method of ascertaining the weight of the atmosphere by a proportionate column of quicksilver, the barometer being called from him the Torricellian tube, and Torricellian experiment. In short, great things were expected from him, and great things would probably have been farther performed by him if he had lived; but he died, after a few days illness, in 1647, when he was but just entered the fortieth year of his age.

, an accomplished scholar and connoisseur, was the eldest son of William Townley, of Townley, esq. and Cecilia his wife, sole heiress of Ralph Standish, of Standish in Lancashire, esq. by lady Philippa Howard, daughter of Henry duke of Norfolk. His paternal grandmother was heiress of the house of Widdrington. He was born in the house of his ancestors October 1, 1737; and succeeded to the family estate, by the premature death of his father, in 1742. This event, united with religious considerations, sent him in early childhood to France for education; to which, however, much more attention was paid than is usual in the seminaries of that couutry. At a tetter period he was committed to the care of Turbervile Needham, a man of considerable reputation at that time upon the Continent as a natural philosopher. His own native taste and activity of mind carried him far beyond his companions in classical attainments; and a graceful person easily adapted itself to all the forms of polished address, which are systematically taught in France. Thus accomplished he came out into the world, and was eagerly received into the first circles of gaiety and fashion, from the dissipations of which it would be vain to say that he wholly escaped. These habits of life, however, in which imbecility grows old without the power, and vanity without the will, to change, after having tried them for a few years, his vigorous and independent mind shook off at once; and by one of those decisive efforts of which it was always capable, he withdrew to the Continent, resumed his literary pursuits, studied with critical exactness the works and principles of ancient art, and gradually became one of the first connoisseurs in Europe. During this period of his life he principally resided at Rome; from whence, ki different excursions, he visited the remotest parts of Magna Graecia and Sicily. He has been heard to relate, that on arriving at Syracuse, after a long and fatiguing journey, he could take neither rest nor refreshment till he had visited the fountain of Arethusa. This, though a trifling, is a characteristic circumstance; for he never spared himself, nor ever desisted from any pursuit, till he had either obtained his object or completely exhausted his strength^

As his numerous publications form a sort of diary of his employments, we shall give a chronological list of them, which seems to have been drawn up with great care, omitting only some of his occasional sermons, as we believe they were afterwards collected. His earliest production was, 1. “Fraus nummi Anglicani,” in the “Musae Anglicanse,” 1699; 2. “A poem on Badminton -house, Gloucestershire.” 1700; 3. “Verses on the death of the duke of Gloucester,” Oxon. 1700; 4. “On the deaths of king William, prince George, and queen Anne,” 1702, &c. 5. “Verses on baron Spanheim,” 1706; 6. “Miscellany verses,” in vol. VI. of Dry den’s Miscellany, 1709; 7. “Odes on the Oxford Act,” 1713; 8.“Preservative against unsettled notions,” vol. I. 1715, vol.11. 1722; 9. A controversial “Sermon” against bishop Hoadly, from John xviii. 36, 1717; 10. “Virgil translated into blank verse,” 1717, 2 vols. 4to 11. “Prelectiones Poeticae, 1718, 3 vols. 8vo 12.” Treatise on Popery truly stated and briefly confuted,“1727; 13.” Answer to England’s conversion,“1727; 14.” Sermons on Righteousness overmuch, four in one,“Ecclesiastes vii. 16, ‘Be not righteous over-much, neither m.-.’ke thyself over-wise; why shouldst thou destroy thyself;' 15.” Sermon at Oxford Assizes,“‘ But it is good to be zealously affected always. in a good thing,’ 1739; 16.” Answer to the Seven Pamphlets against the said Sermon,“1740; 17.” Reply to Mr. Law’s answer to Righteousness over-much,“1740; 18.” Miltoni Paradisus Amissus, 2 vols.; 19. “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem Sion Coll. Matt. x. Coram. 16,” 1743; 20. “Sermons, No. III. from Matt. xvi. 22, 23, ‘Now all this was done,’ &c. Malachi iii. 1, ‘ Behold I will send my messenger/ &c. and from Matt. xvi. 27, 28, * For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of the Father,’ &c. prefixed to Explanatory Notes on the first of the Four Gospels,” 1747 21. “Continuation of Explanatory Notes on the Four Gospels,” finished and published by Mr. Trapp, his son, 1752 22. “Sermons on Moral and Practical subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo, published by Mr. Trapp, and printed at Reading, in 1752, His Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lecture were published in 1731, 8vo. Besides the above he published, without his name, 23. “A Prologue to the University of Oxford,” 1703; 24. “Abramule,” a Tragedy, 1703; 25. “An ordinary Journey no Progress,” in defence of Dr. Sacheverell, 1710; 26. “The true genuine Whig and Tory Address,” in answer to a Libel of Dr. B. Hoadly, 1710; 27. < Examiners“in Vol. I. Nos. 8, 9, 26, 33, 45, 46, 48, 50, 1711; Vol. II. Nos. 6, 12, 26, 27, 37,45, 5O, 1712; Vol. III. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 13, 20, 21, 26, 29, 34, 1713; 28. The Age of Riddles,” 1710; 29. “Character and principles of the present set of Whigs,” 1711; 30. “Most Faults^on one Side,” against a sly Whig pamphlet, entitled, * Faults on both Sides,' 1710; 31. “Verses on Garth’s Verses to Godolphin,” 1710; 32. “Votes without Doors, occasioned by Votes within Doors,” 1710; 33. “Preface to an Answer to Priestcraft,” 1710; 34. “Verses on Harley’s being stabbed by Guiscard,” 1711—35. “Poem to the duke of Ormond,” 1711—36. “Character of a certain Whig,” 1711—37. “Her Majesty’s prerogative in Ireland,” 1711; 38. “Peace,” a poem, 1713 39. “A short answer to the bishop of Bangor’s great book against the Committee,” 1717 40. “The Case of the Rector of St. Andrew, Holborn,” 1722; 41. “Several Pieces in the Grub-street Journal,” viz. upon Impudence, upon Henley’s Grammars, Answering, and not answering, Books, 1726; 42. “On Budgel’s Philosopher’s Prayer,” 1726 43. “Prologue and Epilogue for Mr.Hemmings’s Scholars at Thistleworth,” 1728 44. “Grubstreet verses, Bowman,” 1731; 45. “Anacreon translated into Elegiacs,” 1732 46. “Four last Things,” a poem, 1734 47. “Bribery and Perjury;” 48. “Letter about the Quakers Tithe Bill,” 1736.

, a very learned nonconformist divine, was descended from German ancestors, of whom his grandfather is said to have been the first who settled in England. He was born about 1575. His father, who was a clothier at Newbury in Berkshire, perceiving this his sou to be weil qualified for a learned education, sent him to Winchester-school, whence he was in 1596 elected probationer fellow of New-college, Oxford, and two years after became actual fellow. According to Wood, he studied divinity for sixteen years together. In 1604 he proceeded in arts, and about that time taking orders, was a frequent and diligent preacher, “noted to the academicians for his subtile wit, exact judgment, exemplary life and conversation, and for the endowment of such qualities that were befitting men of his function.” He was not less esteemed as a logician and philosopher, and his learning appeared not only in his public lectures and disputations, but in the accuracy with which he corrected the works of the celebrated Bradwardine, published by sir Henry Savile. Besides his catechistical lectures, which he read every Thursday in term-time in the college chapel, he preached every Sunday at St. Aldate’s church; and at length his fame reaching the court, king James appointed him chaplain to his daughter Elizabeth, afterwards the unfortunate queen of Bohemia, who was then about to leave her native country and go to the Palatinate. On this he was admitted to his degree of D. D.

, a celebrated grammarian in the time of Pompey, was of Amisa in the kingdom of Pontus, and was a disciple of Dionysius of Thrace, at Rhodes. In the year 70 B. C. he fell into the hands of Lucullus, when that general of the Roman army defeated Mithridates, and seized his dominions; but his captivity was no disadvantage to him, since it procured him.an opportunity of becoming illustrious at Rome, and raising a fortune. This he partly expended in collecting a library of above 30,000 volumes; and it is probably owing to his care in collecting books that the writings of Aristotle have not perished together with innumerable other monuments of antiquity. The fate of that great philosopher’s works, as it is related by Strabo, is very remarkable. He left them, with his school and his other books, to his scholar Theophrastus; and Theophrastus left his library to Neleus, who had been his as well as Aristotle’s scholar. Neleus conveyed his library to Scepsis, a city of Troas, and in his country; and left it to his heirs, who, being illiterate persons, took no other care of it than to keep it shut up close: and when they were informed of the diligence with which the kings of Pergamus, whose subjects they were, sought out for books, they buried those of Neleus under ground. A considerable time after, their descendants took them out of their prison, much damaged, and sold those of Aristotle and Theophrastus to one Apellicon, who caused them to be copied, but with an infinite number of errors. After the death of Apellicon, his library was conveyed from Athens to Rome by Sylla, whose library-keeper permitted Tyrannio, a great admirer of Aristotle, to take the writings of that philosopher; and from him they came into the possession of the public.

Those who make him a native of Erfurt tell us likewise that he was a Benedictine monk, and that after making some experiments on the stibium of the ancients, he threw a quantity of it to the hogs, whom it first purged and afterwards fattened. This suggested to him that it might be useful in order to give a little of the embonpoint to his brother monks, who had become lean by fasting and mortification. He accordingly prescribed it, and they all died, whence the medicine was afterwards known by the name of antimony, quasi anti-monk. It is added that his works were not known for a long time after his death, until on opening one of the pillars of the church of Erfurt, they were miraculously discovered. But unfortunately for these stories, Boerhaave has proved that there never was a monastery of Benedictines at Erfurt, and we have already proved that the books published under the name of Basil Valentine could not have been written in the beginning of the fifteenth century. It appears, however, whatever their date, that they were originally written in Dutch, and that a part only have been translated into Latin, and probably have received additions from other hands. All that have been published are still in considerable request, and are become scarce. Among them are; 1. “De microcosmo, deque magno mundi ministerio et medicina hominis,” Marpurg, 1609, 8vo. 2. “Azoth, sive Aureliae philosophorum,” Francfort, 1613, 4to. 3. “Practice, una cum duodecim clavibus et appendice,” ibid. 1618, 4to. 4. “Apocalypsis chymica,” Erfurt, 1624, 8vo. 5. “Manifestatio artificiorum,” Erfurt, 1624, 4to. 6. “Currus triumphalis antimonii,” Leip. 1624, 8vo, reprinted at Amsterdam, 1671, 12mo, “cum commentariis Theod. Kerkringii.” 7. “Tractatus chimicophilosophus de rebus naturalibus et praeternaftiralibus metallorum et mineralium,” Francfort, 1676, 8vo. 8. “HaKographia, de praeparatione, usu, ac virtutibus omnium salium mineralium, animalium, ac vegetabiliuni, ex manuscriptis Basilii Valentini collecta ab Ant. Salimncio,” Bologna, 1644, 8vo. There are editions of these in Dutch, and translations into French, English, and other languages of most of them. Whoever Basil was, his experiments are always to be depended on, and his style is clear and precise, unless where he talks of his arcana and the philosopher’s stone, on which he is as obscure as any of his brethren. After every preparation, he gives its medicinal uses, and it has been said that Van Helmont, Lemery, the father, and other moderns, are under greater obligations to his works than they have thought proper to acknowledge. He was the first who recommended the internal use of antimony, and he has enriched the pharmacopoeia with various preparations of that metal, particularly the empyreumatic carbonate of antimony, of which Sylvius Deleboe claimed the discovery.

According to Walpole, Vandyck’s prices were 40l. for a half, and 60l. for a whole length; but from some documents communicated by Mr. Malone, it appears that he painted, for the royal family at least, at the rate of 251. each portrait, and sometimes less. From the number of his works he must have been indefatigable; for though he was not above forty-two when he died, they are not exceeded by those of Rubens. He lived sumptuously, kept a great table, and often detained the persons who sat to him, to dinner, for an opportunity of studying their -countenances, and of retouching their pictures again in the afternoon. In summer he lived at Eltham in Kent. He was not only luxurious in his living, but in his pleasures; and this, with a sedentary life, brought on the gout, and hurt his fortune. He sought to repair it by the silly pursuit of the philosopher’s stone, in which probably he was encouraged by the example or advice of his friend sir Kenelm Digby. Towards the end of his life, the king bestowed on him for a wife, Mary, the daughter of the unfortunate lord Gowry, and soon after his marriage he set out for Paris, in hopes of being employed in the Louvre; but disappointed in this, he returned to England, and proposed to the king, by sir Kenelm Digby, to paint the walls of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, of which the ceiling was already adorned by Rubens -, and Vandyck’s subject was to have been the history and procession of the order of the garter. The proposal struck the king’s taste, and, in Walpole’s opinion, was accepted; though, he adds, that “some say it was rejected, on the extravagant price demanded by Vandyck I would not specify the sum, it is so improbable, if I did not find it repeated in Fenton’s notes on Waller; it was fourscore thousand pounds!” But the sum being expressed in figures, this was probably a typographical error of 80,000l. for 8000l. The rebellion, however, prevented further thoughts of the scheme, as the death of Vandyck would have interrupted the execution, at least the completion of it. He died in Blackfriars Dec. 9, 1641, and was buried in St. Paul’s near the tomb of John of Gaunt.

It has been remarked that we have very few dates in the biography of Vanini. We can only therefore say generally that, after he had commenced his travels, he went through part of Germany and the Low Countries, to Geneva, and thence to Lyons; whence, having presumed to vent his irreligious notions, under the pretext of teaching philosophy, he was obliged to fly. He passed over into England, and in 1614 was at London, where he was imprisoned for nine and forty days, “well prepared,” says he, with that air of devotion which runs through all his writings, “to receive the crown of martyrdom, which he longed for with all the ardour imaginable.” Being set at liberty, he repassed the sea, and took the road to Italy. He first stopped at Genoa, and undertook to teach youth; but, it being discovered that he had infused pernicious notions into their minds, he was forced to abandon that city. He then returned to Lyons, where he endeavoured to gain the favour of the ecclesiastics by a pretended confutation of Cardan and other atheistical writers, in which he artfully contrived, by the weakness of his arguments, to give his opponents the advantage. This work was printed at Lyons, in 1615, 8vo, under the title of “Amphitheatrum eeternae Providentiae Divino-Magicum, Christiano-Physicum, necnon Astrologo-Catholicum, adversus veteres Philosophos Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos, & Stoicos. Autore Julio Ceesare Vanino, Philosopho, Theologo, ac Juris utriusque Doctore;” dedicated to the count de Castro, the protector of his family and his benefactor; and it so far imposed orVtbe licensers of books, as to receive their approbation. But Vanini being apprehensive that his artifice might be detected, went again into Italy; where being accused of reriving and propagating his former impieties, he returned to France, and became a monk in the convent of Guienne, a/nd from this he is said to have been banished for immorality. He then retired to Paris, where he endeavoured to introduce himself to Robert Ubaldini, the pope’s nuncio; and, in order to make his court to him and the clergy in general, undertook to write an apology for the council of Trent. He procured likewise several friends, and had access to the mareschal de Bassompierre, who made him his chaplain, and gave him a pension of two hundred crowns. Upon this account, he dedicated to him his “Dialogues,” which were printed at Paris in 1616, 8vo, with this title, “Julii Caesaris Vanini, Neapolitani, Theologi, Philosophi, & Juris utriusque Doctoris, de admirandis Naturae Reginae Deaeque Mortalium arcanis, libri quatuor.” This work likewise was printed with the king’s privilege, and the approbation of three learned doctors, either from carelessness or ignorance. In his “Amphitheatrum” he had taken some pains to disguise his irreligion; but in these “Dialogues,” his sentiments are too obvious, and notwithstanding their having escaped the censors of the press, the faculty of the Sorbonne soon discovered their tendency, and condemned them to the flames. Finding himself now become generally obnoxious, and in consequence reduced to poverty, he is said to have written to the pope, that, “If he had not a good benefice soon bestowed upon him, he would in three months’ time overturn the whole Christian religion;” but although it is not impossible that Vanini might have written such a letter for the amusement of his friends, it is scarcely credible that he should have sent it to Rome. Whatevermay be in this, it is certain that he quitted Paris in 1617, and returned to Toulouse; where he soon infused his impious notions into the minds of his scholars, in the course of his lectures on physic, philosophy, and divinity. This being discovered, he was prosecuted, and condemned to be burnt to death, which sentence was executed Feb. 19, 1619. Gramond, president of the parliament of Toulouse, gives us the following account of his death. “About the same time, Feb. 1619, by order of the parliament of Toulouse, was condemned to death Lucilio Vanini, who was esteemed an arch-heretic with many persons, but whom I always looked upon as an atheist. This wretch pretended to be a physician, but in reality was no other than a seducer of youth. He laughed at every thing sacred: he abominated the incarnation of our Saviour, and denied the being of a God, ascribing all things to chance. He adored nature, as the cause of all beings: this was his principal error, whence all the rest were derived; and he had the boldness to teach it with great obstinacy at Toulouse. He gained many followers among the younger sort, whose foible it is to be taken with any thing that appears extraordinary and daring. Being cast into prison, he pretended at first to be a catholic; and by that means deferred his punishment. He was even just going to be set at liberty, for want of sufficient proofs against him, when Franconi, a man of birth and probity, deposed, that Vanini had often, in his presence, denied the existence of God, and scoffed at the mysteries of the Christian religion. Vanini, being brought before the senate, and asked what his thoughts were concerning the existence of a Gpd answered, that < he adored with the church a God in three persons,‘ and that * Nature evidently demonstrated the being of a deity:’ and, seeing by chance a straw on the ground, he took it up, and stretching it forth, said to the judges, ‘ This straw obliges me to confess that there is a God;’ and he proved afterwards very amply, that God was the author and creator of all things, nature being incapable of creating any thing. But all this he said through vanity or fear, rather than an inward conviction; and, as the proofs against him were convincing, he was by sentence of parliament condemned to die, after they had spent six months in preparing things for a hearing. I saw him in the dung-cart, continues Gramond, when he was carried to execution, making sport with a friar, who was allowed him in order to reclaim him from his obstinacy. Vanini refused the assistance of the friar, and insulted even our Saviour in these words, ‘ He sweated with weakness and fear in going to suffer death, and I die undaunted.* This profligate wretch had no reason to say that he died undaunted: I saw him entirely dejected, and making a very ill use of that philosophy of which he so much boasted. At the time when he was going to be executed he had a horrible and wild aspect; his mind was uneasy, and he discovered in all his expressions the utmost anxiety; though from time to time he cried out that he ’ died like a philosopher.' Before the fire was applied to the wood-pile, he was ordered to put out his tongue, that it might be cut off; which he refused to do; nor could the executioner take hold of it but with pincers. There never was heard a more dreadful shriek than he then gave; it was like the bellowing of an ox. His body was consumed in the flames, and his ashes thrown into the air. I saw him in prison, and at his execution; and likewise knew him before he was arrested. He had always abandoned himself to the gratification of his passions, and lived in a very irregular manner. When his goods were seized there was found a great toad alive in a large crystal bottle full of water. Whereupon he was accused of witchcraft; but he answered, that that animal being burned, was a sure antidote against all mortal and pestilential diseases. While he was in prison he pretended to be a catholic, and went often to the sacrament, but, when he found there were no hopes of escaping, he threw off the mask, and died as he had lived.”

an eminent publicist, was the son of a clergyman of Neufchatel, where he was born April 25, 1714. After completing his studies, he went to Berlin, where he became acquainted with some of the literati of that city, and thence to Dresden, and was introduced to the king of Poland and the elector of Saxony, who received him with great kindness, and some years after he was appointed privy- councillor to the elector. He was residing at Dresden in 1765 when his health began to decline, which obliged him to try the air of his native country; but this proved ineffectual, and he died at Neufehatel in 1767, in the fifty-third year of his age. He owed his literary reputation first to some publications, which, we believe, are not much known in this country, as a “Defence of Leibnitz’s philosophy against M. de Crousaz,” published in 1741, and dedicated to Frederick the Great, king of Prussia; and “Pieces diverses de morale et d'amusement,” published at Paris in 1746. But he became known to all Europe by his “Droit des gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle,” published at Neufchatel in 1758, and translated into most European languages, and often reprinted. We have at least two editions of it in English, under the title of “The Law of Nations; or, principles of the Law of Nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns,” 1760, 4to, and 1793, 8vo. What particularlyrecommended this work to the favour of the English, was their finding the opinions of their countrymen generally adopted, and England brought as a proof of a wise and happy constitution. The opinions of Milton and Harrington are frequently confirmed, while the maxims of Puffendorf and Grotius, who often adapted their opinions to the states in which they lived, are refuted with strength and perspicuity. In general Vattel takes Wolff, the celebrated Saxon philosopher, for his guide; but in many places be differs totally from him, and this produced a controversy between them. The points on which they differ may be seen in a publication by Vattel, which appeared in 1762, entitled “Questions sur le Droit Naturel: et Observations sur le Traite du Droit de la Nature de M. le Baron de Wolff.” In the mean time Vattel’s “Law of Nations” became more and more the favourite of men who study such subjects, and has for many years been quoted as a work of high authority, and as in many respects preferable to Grotius and Puffendorf, being more methodical, more comprehensive, and more simple than either.

Da Vinci now set up for himself; and executed many pictures at Florence of great credit, and the universality of his genius soon appeared. He had a perfect knowledge of the theory of his art. He was, by far, the best anatomist and physiologist of his time, the first who raised a spirit for anatomical study, and gave it credit, and certainly the first man we know of who introduced the practice of making anatomical drawings. His first attempt, according to Vasari, was a book of the anatomy of a horse; he afterwards applied with more diligence to the human anatomy, in which study he reciprocally received and communicated assistance to Marc. Antonio della Torra, an excellent philosopher, who then read lectures in Pavia, and wrote upon this subject. For him Da Vinci made a book of studies, drawn with red chalk, and touched with a pen, with great diligence, of such subjects as he had himself dissected: where he made all the bones, and to those he joined, in their order, all the nerves, and covered them with the muscles. And concerning those, from part to part, he wrote remarks in letters of an ugly form, which are written by the left hand, backwards, and not to be understood but by those who know the method of reading them. These very drawings and writings are now in his majesty’s collection of drawings. After inspecting them some years ago, Dr. Hunter expressed his full persuasion that Da Vinci was the best anatomist, at that time, in the world , Lionardo was also well skilled in optics and geometry, almost every branch of literature, and the arts. He was a good architect, an able carver, and extremely well versed in the mechanics: he had a fine voice, and understood music, and both played and sang with taste and skill. Having also the advantage of a well-formed person, he excelled in all the manly exercises. He understood the management of a horse, and took delight in appearing well mounted: and he was very dextrous in the use of arms’. His behaviour also was polite, and his conversation so engaging, that no man ever partook of it without pleasure, or left it without regret.

Lionardo da Vinci broke forth with a splendour which eclipsed all his predecessors: made up of all the elements of genius, favoured by form, education, and circumstances, all ear, all eye, all grasp painter, poet, sculptor, anatomist, architect, engineer,chemist, machinist, musician, philosopher, and sometimes empiric he laid hold of every beauty in the enchanted circle, but, without exclusive attachment to one, dismissed in her turn each. Fitter to scatter hints than to teach by example, he wasted life insatiate in experiment. To a capacity which at once penetrated the principle and real aim of the art, he joined an inequality of fancy that at one moment lent him wings for the pursuit of beauty, and the next flung him on the ground to crawl after deformity. We owe to him chiaroscuro with all its magic, but character was his favourite study; character he has often raised from an individual to a species, and as often depressed to a monster from an individual. His notion of the most elaborate finish, and his want of perseverance, were at least equal. Want of perseverance alone could make him abandon his cartoon designed for the great council-chamber at Florence, of which the celebrated contest of horsemen was but one group; for to him who could organize that composition, Michael Angelo himself might be an object of emulation, but could not be one of fear. His line was free from meagreness, and his forms presented beauties; but he appears not to have been very much acquainted with the antique. The strength of his conception lay in the delineation of male heads; those of his females owe nearly all their charms to chiaroscuro; they are seldom more discriminated than the children they follow; they are sisters of one family.

the most excellent of all the ancient Roman poets, was born Oct. 15, U. C. 684, B. C. 70, in the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, at a village called Andes, not far from Mantua. His father was undoubtedly a man of low birth and mean circumstances; but by his industry so much recommended himself to his master, that he gave him his daughter, named Maia, in marriage, as a reward of his fidelity. Our poet, discovering early marks of a very fine genius, was sent at twelve years old to study at Cremona, where he continued till his seventeenth year. He was then removed to Milan, and from thence to Naples, then the residence of several teachers in philosophy and polite learning; and applied himself heartily to the study of the best Greek and Roman writers. But physic and mathematics were his favourite sciences, which he cultivated with much care; and to this early tincture of geometrical learning were owing probably that regularity of thought, propriety of expression, and exactness in conducting all subjects, for which he is so remarkable. He learned the Epicurean philosophy under the celebrated Syro, of whom Cicero speaks twice with the greatest encomiums both of his learning and virtue: his acquaintance with Varus, his first patron, commenced by his being fellow-student with him under this philosopher. After Virgil had completed his studies at Naples, Donatus affirms, that he made a journey to Rome; and relates some marvellous circumstances concerning his being made known to Augustus, which, like many other particulars in his account of this poet, breathe very much the air of fable. The truth is, we have no certain knowledge of the time and occasion of Virgil’s going to Rome, how his connexions with the wits and men of quality began, nor how he was introduced to the court of Augustus.

Vives was one of the most learned men of his age; and with Budaeus and Erasmus, formed a triumvirate which did honour to the republic of letters. Their admirers have ascribed to each those peculiar qualities in which they supposed him to exceed the other; as, wit to Budaeus, eloquence to Erasmus, judgment to Vives, and learning to them all. Dupin’s opinion is somewhat different: Erasmus, he says, was doubtless a man of finer wit, more extensive learning, and of a more solid judgment than Vives; Budaeus had more skill in the languages and in profane learning than either of them; and Vives excelled in grammar, in rhetoric, and in logic. But although Dupin may seecn to degrade Vives, in comparison with Erasmus and Buda?us, yet he has not been backward in doing justice to his merit. “Vives,” says he, “was not only excellent in polite letters, a judicious critic, and an eminent philosopher; but he applied himself also to divinity, and was successful in it. If the critics admire his books ‘ de causiscorruptarum artium,’ and * de tradendis disciplinis,‘ on account of the profane learning that appears in them, and the solidity of his judgment in those matters; the divines ought no less to esteem his books * de Veritate Eidei Christiana;,’ and his commentary upon St. Augustin f de Civitate Dei,' in which he shews, that he understood his religion thoroughly.”

But the king returned him the key and the ribbon. Things assumed a different aspect when he took shelter with the duchess of Saxe Gotha. Maupertuis, as Voltaire himself related, took the advantage of misrepresenting him in his absence; and he was detained by the king’s order, at Francfort on the Maine, till he had given up a volume of“Royal Verses.” Having regained his liberty, be endeavoured to negociate a return to Paris; but this he was not able to accomplish, since one of his poems, the “Pucelle D' Orleans,” which was both impious and obscene, had begun to make a noise. He was resident for about a year at Colwar, whence retiring to Geneva, he purchased a beautiful villa near that city, where he enjoyed the homages of the Genevans, and of occasional travellers; and for a short time was charmed with his agreeable retirement, which the quarrels that agitated the little republic of Geneva compelled him soon to quit. He was accused of privately fomenting the disputes, of leaning towards the prevailing party, and laughing at both. Compelled to abandon Les Delices (which was the name of his countryhouse), he fixed himself in France, within a league of Geneva, in Le Pays de Gex, an almost savage desert, which he had the satisfaction of fertilizing. The village of Ferney, which contained not above 50 inhabitants, became by his means a colony of 1200 persons, successfully employed for themselves and for the state. Numbers of artists, particularly watchmakers, established their manufactures under the auspices of Voltaire, and exported their wares to Russia, Spain, Germany, Holland, and Italy. He rendered his solitude still more illustrious by inviting thither the great niece of the famous Corneille, and by preserving from ignominy and oppression Sirven and the family of Calas, whose memory he caused to be restored. In this retirement Voltaire erected a tribunal, at which he arraigned almost all the human race. Men in power, dreading the force of his pen, endeavoured to secure his esteem. Aretin, in the sixteenth century, received as many insults as rewards. Voltaire, with far more wit and address, obtained implicit homage. This homage, and some generous actions, which he himself occasionally took care to proclaim, either with a view that they should reach posterity, or to please the curious, contributed as much to extend his reputation as the marks of esteem and bounty he had received from sovereign princes. The king of Prussia, with whom he still maintained an uninterrupted correspondence, had his statue made in porcelain, and sent to him, with the word Immortali engraven on its base. The empress of Russia sent him a present of some magnificent furs, and a. box turned by her own hands, and adorned with hi& portrait and 20 diamonds. These distinctions did not prevent his sighs for Paris. Overloaded with glory and wealth, he was not happy, because he never could content himself with what he possessed. At length, in the beginning of 1778, he determined to exchange the tranquillity of Ferney for the incense and bustle of the capital, where he met with the most flattering reception. Such honours were decreed him by the academies as till then had been unknown; he was crowned in a full theatre, and distinguished by the public with the strongest enthusiasm. But the philosopher of fourscore soon fell a victim to thi* indiscreet officiousness: the fatigue of visits and attendance at theatrical representations, the change of regimen and mode of living, inflamed his blood, already too much disordered. On his arrival, he had a violent haemorrhage, which greatly impaired him. Some days before his last illness, the idea of approaching death tormented him. Sitting at table with the marchioness de Villette, at whose house he had taken up his abode, after a solemn reverie, he said, “You are like the kings of Egypt, who, when they were at meat, had a death’s head beTore them.” On his arrival at Paris, he said, “he was come to seek glory and death;” and to an artist, who presented him the picture of his triumph, replied, “A tomb would be fitter for me than a triumph.” At last, not being able to obtain sleep, he took a large dose of opium, which deprived him of his senses. He died May 30, 1778; and was buried at Sellices, a Benedictine abbey between Nogent and Troyes; Many accounts have been published respecting his behaviour when in the nearer view of death. Some of these are so contradictory, that it is difficult to attain the exact truth. His infidel friends, Diderot, D'Alembert, and others, took every pains to represent that he died as he had lived, a hardened infidel, and a blasphemer; but they have not been credited, and it is more generally believed that he was visited on this awful occasion with the remorse of a man, whose whole life had been a continued attempt to erect vice and immorality on the ruins of revealed religion. The mareschal cle Richelieu is said to have fled from the bed-side, declaring it to be a sight too terrible to be sustained; andTronchin, the physician, asserted that the furies of Orestes could give but*a faint idea of those of Voltaire.

While he had the vomiting of blood, he confessed himself, and even made a sort of profession of faith: this was supposed to be policy and illusion, and served only to shew the suppleness of this singular man; who was a freethinker at London, a Cartesian at Versailles, a Christian at Nancy, and an infidel at Berlin. In society, he was alternately an Aristippus and a Diogenes. He made pleasure the object of his researches: he enjoyed it, and made it the object of his praise; he grew weary of it, and turned it into ridicule. By the natural progress of such a character, he passed from a moralist to a buffoon, from a philosopher to an enthusiast, from mildness to passion, from flattery to satire, from the love of money to the love of luxury, from the modesty of a wise man to the vanity of an impious wit. It has been said, that by his familiarity with the great, he indemnified himself for the constraint he was sometimes under among his equals; that he had sensibility without affection; that he was voluptuous without passions, open without sincerity, and liberal without generosity. It has been said, that, with persons who were jealous of his acquaintance, he began by politeness, went on with coldness, and usually ended by disgust, unless perchance they were writers who had acquired reputation, or men in power, whom he had adroitness enough to attach to his interests. It has been said that he was steadfast to nothing by choice, but to every thing by irregular starts of fancy. “These singular contrasts,” says M. Pelisson, “are not less evident in his physical than in his moral character. It has been remarkable, that his physiognomy partook of those of an eagle and an ape: and who can say that this contrast was not the principle of his predominant taste for antithesis? What an uncommon and perpetual change from greatness to meanness, from glory to contempt! How frequently has he combined the gravity of Plato with the legerdemain of Harlequin!” Hence the name of Micromegas, the title of one of his own crudities, which was given him by La Beaumelle, has been confirmed by the public voice. This is the portrait of an extraordinary personage; and such was Voltaire, who, like all other extraordinary men, has occasioned some strong enthusiasts and eccentric critics. Leader of a new sect, having survived many of his rivals, and eclipsed, towards the end of his career, the poets his contemporaries; he possessed the most unbounded influence, and has brought about a melancholy revolution in wit and morals. Though he has often availed himself of his amazing talents to promote the cause of reason and humanity, to inspire princes with toleration, and with a horror for war; yet he was more delighted, more in his element, and we are sorry to add more successful, when he exerted himself in extending the principles of irreligion and anarchy. The lively sensibility which animates his writings pervaded his whole conduct; and it was seldom that he resisted the impressions of his ready and overflowing wit, or the first feelings of his heart. Voltaire stands at the head of those writers who in France are called Beaux Esprits; and for brilliancy of imagination, for astonishing ease, exquisite taste, versatility of talents, and extent of knowledge, he had no superior, scarcely an equal among his countrymen. But, if genius be restricted to invention, Voltaire was deficient. His most original pieces are, his “Candide,” a tissue of ridiculous extravagancies, which may be traced to Swift; and his infamous poem, the “Pucelle,” for which he was indebted to Chapelain and Ariosto. His “Henriade” is the finest epic poem the French have; but it wants the sublimity of Homeric or Miltonic invention. The subject, indeed, could not admit supernatural machinery. It is, as lord Chesterfield said (who did not mean to depreciate it) “all good sense from beginning to end.” It is an excellent history in verse, and the versification is as harmonious as French versification can be, and some of his portraits are admirably touched; but as a whole, as an epic, it sinks before the epics of Greece and Rome, of Italy and England.

In 1757 he published "A Letter from Xo-Ho, a Chinese philosopher at London, to his friend Lien-Chi at Pekin: a spirited and elegant performance, chiefly on the politics of the day. It went through five editions in a fortnight.

In the same year he published, 1. “A Letter from an author to a member of parliament, concerning Literary Property,” 8vo. 2. “Preface to Mrs. Cockburn’s remarks upon the principles and reasonings of Dr. Rutherforth’s Essay on the nature and obligations of Virtue,” &c. 8vo. 3. “Preface to a critical enquiry into the opinions and practice of the Ancient Philosophers, concerning the nature of a Future State, and their method of teaching by double Doctrine,” (by Mr. Towne), 1747, 8vo, 2d edition. In 1748 a third edition of “The Alliance between Church and State corrected and enlarged.” In 1749, a very extraordinary attack was made on the moral character of Mr. Pope from a quarter whence it could be the least expected. His “Guide, Philosopher, and Friend,” lord Bolingbroke, published a book which he had formerly lent Mr. Pope in ms. The preface to this work, written by Mr. Mallet, contained an accusation of Mr. Pope’s having clandestinely printed an edition of his lordship’s performance without his leave or knowledge. (See Pope.) A defence of the poet soon after made its appearance, which was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and was afterwards owned by him. It was called “'A Letter to the editor of Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism, the Idea of a patriot King, and the State of Parties, occasioned by the editor’s advertisement;” which soon afterwards produced an abusive pamphlet under the title of “A familiar epistle to the most Impudent Man living,” &c. a performance, as has been truly observed, couched in Janguage bad enough to disgrace even gaols and garrets. About this time the publication of Dr. Middleton’s “Enquiry concerning the Miraculous Powers,” gave rise to a controversy, which was managed with great warmth and asperity on both sides. On this occasion Mr. Warburton puolished an excellent performance, written with a degree of candour and temper which, it is to be lamented, he did not always exercise. The title of it was “Julian or, a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which defeated the emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, 1750,” 8vo. A second edition of this discourse, <c with Additions,“appeared in 1751. The critic above quoted has some remarks on this work too important to be omitted.” The gravest, the least eccentric, the most convincing of Warburton’s works, is the ' Julian, or a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption, which defeated that emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, in which the reality of a Divine interposition is shewn, and the objections to it ar are answered/ The selection of this subject was peculiarly happy, inasmuch as this astonishing fact, buried in the ponderous volumes of the original reporters, was either little considered by an Uninquisitive age, or confounded with the crude mass of false, ridiculous, or ill-attested miracles, which “with no friendly voice” had been recently exposed by Middleton. But in this instance the occasion was important: the honour of the Deity was concerned; his power had been defied, and his word insulted. For the avowed purpose of defeating a well-known prophecy, and of giving to the world a practical demonstration that the Christian scriptures contained a lying prediction, the emperor Julian undertook to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem; when, to the astonishment and confusion of the builders, terrible flames bursting from the foundations, scorched and repelled the workmen 'till they found themselves compelled to desist. Now this phenomenon was not, the casual eruption of a volcano, for it had none of the concomitants of those awful visitations: it may even be doubted whether it were accompanied by an earthquake; but the marks of intention and specific direction were incontrovertible. The workmen desisted, the flames retired, they returned to the work, when the flames again burst forth, and that as often as the experiment was repeated.

Bishop Warner is said to have been an accurate logician, philosopher, and well versed in the fathers and schoolmen. He was a man of a decided character, equally cheerful and undaunted. In his manner he had less of the courtier than of the kind friend, always performing more than he professed. Of his religious principles the only evidence we have is in a letter addressed to bishop Jeremy Taylor, in defence of the doctrine of original sin, which that prelate had endeavoured to explain away in a manner totally inconsistent with the tenets of the church, as laid down in her liturgy, articles, and homilies. Warner was of the school of Abbot, and less likely to adopt Arminianism, although he was personally attached to its great fnenc. archbishop Laud.

It ought also to be remembered, that Mr. Watson conducted some other experiments, with so much Sagacity and address, relating^ to the impracticability of transmitting odours, and the power of purgatives, through glass; and those relating to the exhibition of what was called the “glory round the head,” or the “beatification,” boasted to have been done by some philosophers on the continent; that he procured, at length, an acknowledgment from Mr. Bose, of what he called “an embellishment,” in conducting the experiments; a procedure totally incompatible with the true spirit of a philosopher!

In this retreat, he wrote the whole or nearly the whole of those works which have immortalized his name as a divine, poet, and philosopher. He occasionally preached, and in the pulpit, says Dr. Johnson, though his low stature, which very little exceeded five feet, graced him with no advantages of appearance, yet the gravity and propriety of his utterance made his discourses very efficacious. Such was his flow of thoughts, and such his promptitude of language, that in the latter part of his life he did not precompose his cursory sermons; but having adjusted the heads, and sketched out some particulars, trusted for success to his extemporary powers.

, an eminent protestant divine, was the grandson of John James Werenfels, a clergyman at Basil, who died November 17, 1655, leaving ' Sermons“in German, and” Homilies on Ecclesiastes“in Latin. He was the son of Peter Werenfels, likewise an eminent protestant divine, born 1627, at Leichtal; wtio, after having been pastor of different churches, was appointed archdeacon of Basil in 1654, where he gave striking proofs of his piety and zeal during the pestilence which desolated the city of Basil in 1667 and 1668. His sermons, preached at that time from Psalm xci. have been printed. He was appointed professor of divinity in 1675, and died May 23, 1703, aged seventy-six, leaving a great number of valuable ”Dissertations,“some” Sermons,“and other works. His son, the immediate subject of the present article, was born March I, 1657, at Basil. He obtained a professorship of logic in 1684, and of Greek in the year following, and soon after set out on a literary journey through Holland and Germany, and then into France, with Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, and Frederick Battier. At his return to Basil he was appointed professor of rhetoric, and filled the different divinity chairs successively. He died in that city, June 1, 1740. His works have all been collected and printed in 2 vols. 4to; the most complete edition of them is that of Geneva and of Lausanne, 1739. They treat of philology, philosophy, and divinity, and are universally esteemed, particularly the tract” De Logomachiis Eruditorum.“In the same collection are several poems, which show the author to have been a good poet as well as an able philosopher and learned divine. We have also a vol. 8vo, of his” Sermons," which are much admired.

, one of the most learned men of the fifteenth century, was born at Groningen about 1419, and having lost his friends in his infancy, was sent by a benevolent lady, along with her only son, to be educated at a college at Swoll, which at that time happened to be in greater estimation than that of Groningen. This college was superintended by a community of monks, and Wesselus had at one time an inclination to have embraced the order, but was disgusted by some superstitious practices. After having studied here with great diligence, he removed to Cologne, where he was much admired for his proficiency, but already betrayed a dislike to the sentiments of the schoolmen. Being invited to teach theology at Heidelberg, it was objected that he had not received his doctor’s degree; and when he offered to be examined for that degree, he was told that the canons did not permit that it should be bestowed on a layman. Having therefore a repugnance to take orders, he confined his services to the reading of some lectures in philosophy; after which he returned to Cologne; and afterwards visited Louvain and Paris. The philosophical disputes being carried on then with great warmth between the realists, the formalists, and the nominalists, he endeavoured to bring over the principal champions of the formalists to the sect of the realists, but at lasthimself sided with the nominalists. He appears, however, to have set little value on any of the sects into which philosophy was at that time divided; and to a young man who consulted him concerning the best method of prosecuting his studies, he said, “You, young man, will live to see the day when the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and other modern disputants of the same stamp, will be exploded by all true Christian ditines, and when the irrefragable doctors themselves will be little regarded.” A prediction, says Brucker, which discovers so much good sense and liberality, that Wessel ought to be immortalized under the appellation of the Wise Doctor. Brucker admits him in his History of Philosophy, from the penetration which, in the midst of the scholastic phrenzy of his age, enabled him to discover the futility of the controversies which agitated the followers of Thomas, Scotus, and Occam. Some say that Wesseltis travelled into Greece, to acquire a more perfect acquaintance with the Greek and Hebrew languages than was then to be found in Europe. It is certain that he gained the esteem and patronage of Francis della Rovera, afterwards pope Sixtus IV. who, in an interview at Rome, offered him preferment. Wesselus desired only a copy of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek; and when the pope asked why he did not solicit for a bishopric, our philosopher replied, “Because I do not want one,” On his return he taught philosophy and philology at Groningen with great approbation, and died here Oct. 4, 1489. On his death-bed he was perplexed with doubts, which were soon relieved. His biographer says, that, “Being visited, in the sickness which brought him to his end, by a friend, who inquired after his health, he replied, that ‘he was pretty well, considering his advanced age, and the nature of his indisposition but that one thing made him very uneasy, viz. that being greatly perplexed with various thoughts and arguments, he began to entertain some little doubts with respect to the truth of the Christian religion.’ His friend was much surprised, and immediately exhorted him to direct all his thoughts to Christ the only Saviour; but, finding that such an admonition was displeasing, he went away deeply afflicted. But an hour or two after, Wesselus seeing his friend come back to him, he said, with an air of as much satisfaction and joy as one in his weak condition cpuld discover, < God be praised all those vain doubts are fled and now, all I know is Jesus Christ, and Rim crucified' after which confession he resigned his soul to God.” It appears that his religious sentiments were in many respects contrary to those of the Romish church, and some even called him the forerunner of Luther. Many of his Mss. were burnrd after his death by the contrivance of the monks, but what his friends saved were published at Groningen in 1614, consisting of “Tractatus de Oratione -r- de cohibendis cogitationibus de causis incarnationis de sacramento euchanstiae Farrago rerum Theologicarum epistolsp,” &c. Foppens, however, mentions an edition prior to this, published by Luther in 1525, and another at Marpurg in 1617, 4to.

, an eminent puritan divine, was born at Banbury in Oxfordshire, in May 1583, where his father, Thomas Whately, was justice of the peace, and had been several times mayor. He was educated at Christ’scollege, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Potman, a man of learning and piety, and was a constant hearer of Dr. Chaderton, Perkins, and other preachers of the Puritan-stamp. It does not appear that he was originally destined for the church, as it was not until after his marriage with the daughter of the Rev. George Hunt that he was persuaded to study for that purpose, at Edmund -hall, Oxford. Here he was incorporated bachelor of arts, and, according to Wood, with the foundation of logic, philosophy, and oratory, that he had brought with him from Cambridge, he became a noted disputant and a ready orator. In 1604, he took his degree of M. A. as a member of Edmund-hall, “being then esteemed a good philosopher and a tolerable mathematician.” He afterwards entered into holy orders, and was chosen lecturer of Banbury, his native place. In 1610, he was presented by king James to the vicarage of Banbury, which he enjoyed until his death. He also, with some of his brethren, delivered a lecture, alternately at Stratford-upon-Avon. In his whole conduct, Mr. Leigh says, he “was blameless, sober, just, holy, temperate, of good behaviour, given to hospitality”,&c. Fuller calls him “a good linguist, philosopher, mathematician, and divine;” and adds, that he “was free from faction?' Wood, who allows that he possessed excellent parts, was a noted disputant, an excellent preacher, a good orator, and well versed in the original text, both Greek and Hebrew, objects, nevertheless, that,” being a zealous Calvinist, a noted puritan, and much frequented by the precise party, for his too frequent preaching, he laid such a foundation of faction at Banbury, as will not easily be removed.“Granger, who seems to have considered all these characters with some attention, says, that” his piety was of a very extraordinary strain; and his reputation as a preacher so great, that numbers of different persuasions went from Oxford, and other distant places, to hear him. As he ever appeared to speak from his heart, his sermons were felt as well as heard, and were attended with suitable effects.“In the life of Mede, we have aa anecdote of him, which gives a very favourable idea of his character. Having, in a sermon, warmly recommended his hearers to put in a purse by itself a certain portion from every pound of the profits of their worldly trades, for works of piety, he observed, that instead of secret grudging, when objects of charity were presented, they would look out for them, and rejoice to find them. A neighbouring clergyman hearing him, and being deeply affected with what he so forcibly recommended, consulted him as to what proportion of his income he ought to give.” As to that,“said Whately,” lam not to prescribe to others; but I will tell you what hath been my own practice. You know, sir, some years ago, I was often beholden to you for the loan of ten pounds at a time; the truth is, I could not bring the year about, though my receipts were not despicable, and I was not at all conscious of any unnecessary expenses. At length, I inquired of my family what relief was given to the poor; and not being satisfied, I instantly resolved to lay aside every tenth shilling of all my receipts for charitable uses; and the Lord has made me so to thrive since I adopted this method, that now, if you have occasion, I can lend you ten times as much as I have formerly been forced to borrow."

The fate of his “Sermons,*' which have been so much admired, was somewhat singular. They were first ushered into the world by one who could not be supposed very eager to propagate the doctrines of Christianity, the celebrated earl of Shaftesbury, author of the” Characteristics,' 7 &c. In 1698 his lordship published “Select Sermons of Dr. Whichcote, in two parts,” 8vo. He employed on this occasion the rev. William Stephens, rector of Sutton, in Surrey, to revise, and probably superintend the press; but the long preface is unquestionably from his lordship. In addition to every other proof we may add the evidence of the late Mr. Harris of Salisbury, who informed a friend that his mother, lady Betty Harris, (who was sister to the earl of Shaftesbury) mentioned her having written the preface from her brother’s dictation, he being at that time too ill to write himself. That his lordship should become the voluntary editor and recommender of the sermons of any divine, has been accounted for by one of Dr. Whichcote’s biographers in this way: that his lordship found in these sermons some countenance given to his own peculiar sentiments concerning religion, as sufficiently practicable by our natural strength or goodness, exclusive of future rewards or punishments. To this purpose lord Shaftesbury has selected some passages of the sermons, and adds, “Thus speaks our excellent divine and truly Christian philosopher, whom for his appearing thus in defence of natural goodness, we may call the preacher of good nature. This is what he insists on everywhere, and to, make this evident is in a manner the scope of all his discourses. And in conclusion it is hoped, that what has been here suggested, may be sufficient to justify the printing of these sermons.” Whatever may be in this, it is rather singular that the same collection was republished at Edinburgh in 1742, 12mo, with a recommendatory epistle by a presby* terian divine, the rev. Dr. William Wish art, principal of the college of Edinburgh.

, an English philosopher, and Roman catholic priest, who obtained considerable celebrity abroad, where he was usually called Thomas Anglus, or Thomas Albius, was the son of Richard White, esq. of Hatton, in the county of Essex, by Mary, his wife, daughter of Edmund Plowden, the celebrated lawyer in queen Elizabeth’s reign. His parents being Roman catholics, he was educated, probably abroad, in the strictest principles of that profession, and at length became a secular priest, in which character he resided very much abroad. He was principal of the college at Lisbon, and sub-principal of that at Douay; but his longest stay was at Rome and Paris. For a considerable time he lived in the house of sir Kenelm Digby; and he shewed his attachment to that gentleman’s philosophy by various publications. His first work of this kind was printed at Lyons, in 1646. It is entitled “Institutionum Peripateticarum ad mentem summi clarissimique Philosophi Kenelmi Equitis Digbaei.” “Institutions of the Peripatetic Philosophy, according to the hypothesis of the great and celebrated philosopher sir Kenelm Digby.” Mr. White was not contented with paying homage to sir Kenelm on account of his philosophical opinions, but raised him also to the character of a divine. A proof of this is afforded in a book published by him, the title of which is “Quaestio Theologica, quomodo secundum principia Peripatetices DigbsEanae, sive secundum rationem, et abstrahendo, quantum materia patitur, ab authoritate, human! Arbitrii Libertas sit explicanda, et cum Gratia efficaci concilianda.” “A Theological question, in what manner, according to the principles of sir Kenelm Digby’s Peripatetic Philosophy, or according to reason, abstracting, as much as the subject will admit, from authority, the freedom of a man’s will is to be explained and reconciled with efficacious grace.” Another publication to the same purpose, which appeared in 1652, was entitled “Institutiones Theologicae super fundamentis in Peripatetica Digbacana jactis exstructae.” “Institutions of Divinity, built upon the foundations laid down in sir K. Digby’s Peripatetic Philosophy.” By his friend sir Kenelm Mr. White was introduced, with large commendations, to the acquaintance of Des Cartes, who hoped to make a proselyte of him, but without success. White was too much devoted to Aristotle’s philosophy to admit of the truth of any other system. In his application of that philosophy to theological doctrines, he embarrassed himself in so many nice distinctions, and gave such a free scope to his own thoughts, that he pleased neither the Molinists nor the Jansenists. Indeed, though he had a genius very penetrating and extensive, he had no talent at distinguishing the ideas which should have served as the rule and foundation of his reasonings, nor at clearing the points which he was engaged to defend. His answer to those who accused him of obscurity may serve to display the peculiarity of his disposition. “I value myself,” says he, “upon such a brevity and conciseness, as is suitable for the teachers of the sciences. The Divines are the causg that my writings continue obscure; for they refuse to give me any occasion of explaining myself. In short, either the learned understand me, or they do not. If they do understand me, and find me in an error, it is easy for them to refute me; if they do not understand me, it is very unreasonable for them to exclaim against my doctrines.” This, observes Bayle, shews the temper of a man who seeks only to be talked of, and is vexed at not having antagonists enough to draw the regard and attention of the public upon him. Considering the speculative turn of Mr. White’s mind, it is not surprising that some of his books’ were condemned at Rome by the congregation of the “Index Expurgatorius,” and that they were disapproved of by certain universities. The treatises which found their way into the “Index Expurgatorius” were, “Institutiones Peripatetica?;” “Appendix Theologica de Origine Mundi” “Tabula suffragialis de terminandis Fidei Litibus ab Ecclesia Catholica Fixa;” and “Tessera3 Romanae Evulgatio.” In opposition to the doctors of Douay, who had censured two-and-twenty propositions extracted from his “Sacred Institutions,” he published a pieoe entitled “Supplicatio postulativa Justitiae,” in which he complains that they had given a vague uncertain censure of him, attended only with a respective, without taxing any proposiiion in particular; and he shews them that this is acting like prevaricating divines. Another of his works was the “Sonitus Buccina?,” in which he maintained that the church had no power to determine, but only to give her testimony to tradition. This likewise was censured. Mr. White had a very particular notion concerning the state of souls separated from the body, which involved him in a dispute with the bishop of Chalcedon. Two tracts were written by him upon this subject, of which a large and elaborate account is given in archdeacon Blackburne’s Historical View of the controversy 'concerning an intermediate state. The conclusion drawn by the archdeacon is, that Mr. White entered into the questibn with more precision and greater abilities than any man of his time; and that it is very clear, from the inconsistencies he ran into to save the reputation of his orthodoxy, that if the word purgatory had been out of his way, he would have found no difficulty to dispose of the separate soul in a state of absolute unconscious rest.

, an ingenious English philosopher, was born at Congleton in the county of Cheshire, the 10t.h of April 1713, being the son of a clock and watchmaker there. Of the early part of his life but little is known, he who dies at an advanced age leaving few behind him to communicate anecdotes of his youth. On his quitting school, where it seems the education he received was very defective, he was bred by his father to his own profession, in which he soon gave hopes of his future eminence.

Mr. Whitehurst had been at times subject to slight attacks of the gout; and he had for several years felt himself gradually declining. By an attack of that disease in his stomach, after a struggle of two or three months, it put an end to his laborious and useful life, on the 18th of February 1788, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, at his house in Bolt-court, Fleet-street, being the same house where another eminent self-taught philosopher, Mr. James Ferguson, had immediately before him lived and died. He was interred in St. Andrew’s burying- ground in Gray’s-inn-lahe, where Mrs. Whitehurst had been interredin Nov. 1784. In Jan. 1745 he married this lady, Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. George Gretton, rector of Trusley and Daubery, in Derbyshire; a woman ever mentioned with pleasure by those who knew her best, as among the first of female characters. Her talents and education were very respectable; which enabled her to be useful in correcting some parts of his writings. He had only one child by her, and that died dn the birth.

, a literary and religious projector of some note, was born at a village near Cardigan, in 1738, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was placed in a school or college at Carmarthen, preparatory to the dissenting ministry; which profession he entered upon in obedience to parental authority, but very contrary to his own inclination. His abilities and acquirements even then appeared of a superior order; but he has often in the latter part of his life stated to the writer of his memoirs, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, that he had long considered it &s a severe misfortune, that the most injurious impressions were made upon his youthful and ardent mind by the cold, austere, oppressive, and unarniable manner in which the doctrines and duties of religion were disguised in the stern and rigid habits of a severe puritanical master. From this college he took the office of teacher to a small congregation at Frome, in Somersetshire, and after a short residence was removed to a more weighty charge at Exeter. There the eminent abilities and engaging manners of the young preacher opened to him the seductive path of pleasure; when the reproof that some elder members of the society thought necessary, being administered in a manner to awaken resentment rather than contrition; and the eagle eye of anger discovering in his accusers imperfections of a different character indeed, but of tendency little suited to a public disclosure, the threatened recrimination suspended the proceedings, and an accommodation took place, by which Mr. Williams left Exeter, and was engaged to the superintendence of a dissenting congregation at Highgate. After a residence there of a year or two, he made his first appearance in 1770, as an author, by a “Letter to David Garrick,” a judicious and masterly critique on the actor, but a sarcastic personal attack qn the man, intended to rescue Mossop from the supposed unjust displeasure of the modern Roscius: this effect was produced, Mossop was liberated, and the letter withdrawn from the booksellers, Shortly after appeared “The Philosopher, in three Conversations,” which were much read, and attracted considerable notice. This was soon followed by “Essays on Public Worship, Patriotism, and Projects of Reformation;” written and published upon the occasion of the leading religious controversy of the day; but though they obtained considerable circulation, they appear not to have softened the asperities of either of the contending parties. The Appendix to these Essays gave a strong indication of that detestation of intolerance, bigotry, and hypocrisy which formed the leading character of his subsequent life, and which had been gradually taking possession of his mind from the conduct of softie of the circle of associates into which his profession had thrown him.

, an English prelate of great abilities and very distinguished character, was the youngest son of Edward Willjams, esq. of Aber-Conway, in Caernarvonshire, in Wales, where he was born March 25, 1582. He was educated at the public school at Rutbin, in 1598, and at sixteen years of age admitted at St. John’s college, in Cambridge. His natural parts were very uncommon, and his application still more so; for he was of so singular and happy a constitution, that from his youth upwards he never required more than three hou'rs sleep out of the twentyfour for the purposes of perfect health. He took the degree of A. B. in 1602, and was made fellow of his college; yet this first piece of preferment was obtained by a mandamus from James I. His manner of studying had something particular in it. He used to allot one month to a certain province, esteeming variety almost as refreshing as cessation from labour; at the end of which he would take up some other subject, and so on, till he came round to his former courses. This method he observed, especially in his theological studies; and he found his account in it. He was also an exact philosopher, as well as an able divine, and admirably versed in all branches of literature. In 1605, when he took his master’s degree, he entertained his friends at the commencement in a splendid manner, for he was naturally generous, and was liberally supplied with money by his friends and patrons. John lord Lumley often furnished him both with books and money; and Dr. Richard Vaughan, bishop of London, who was related to him, gave him an invitation to spend his time at his palace at vacation times. Being thus introduced into the best company, contributed greatly towards polishing his manners.

A Dutch physician, named Schelhammer, in a book “De Auditu,” printed at Leyden in 1684, took occasion to animadvert upon a passage in Dr. Willis’s book “de Anima Brutorum,” printed in 1672; and in such a manner as reflected not only upon his skill, but also upon his integrity. But Dr. Derham observes, “that this is a severe and unjust censure of our truly-famous countryman, a man of known probity, who hath manifested himself to have been as curious and sagacious an anatomist, as great a philosopher, and as learned and skilful a physician as any of his censurers; and his reputation for veracity and integrity was no less than any of theirs too.” It remains to be noticed, that his “Cerebri Anatome” had an elegant copy of verses written in it by Mr. Phillip Fell, and the drawings for the plates were done by his friend Dr. Christopher Wren, the celebrated architect.

In Oct. 1679, when he was slowly recovering from a severe disease, he was visited by Dr. Burnet, upon an intimation that such a visit would be very agreeable to him. With great freedom he laid open to that divine all his thoughts both of religion and morality, and gave him a full view of his past life: on which the doctor visited hick often, till he went from London in April following, and once or twice after. They canvassed at various times the principles of morality, natural and revealed religion, and Christianity in particular; the result of all which, as it is faithfully related by Dr. Burnet in a book, which, Dr. Johnson observes, “the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint-far its piety,” was, that this noble earl, though he had lived the life of an atheist and a libertine, yet died the death of a sincere penitent. The philosophers of the present age will naturally suppose, that his contrition and conviction were purely the effects of weakness and low spirits, which scarcely suffer a man to continue in his senses, and certainly not to be master of himself; but Dr. Burnet affirms him to have been “under no such decay as either darkened or weakened his understanding, nor troubled with the spleen or vapours, or under the power of melancholy.” The reader may judge for himself from the following, which is part of a letter from the earl to Dr. Burnet, dated “Woodstock-park, June 25, 1680, Oxfordshire.” There is nothing left out, but some personal compliments to the doctor.

From Philip Muller, and Frederic Beckman, he received his knowledge of theology: a treatise written by Tschirnhausen, entitled “Medicina Mentis & Corporis, 17 engaged him for some time; in consequence of which, in 1702, he had a conference with the author, to clear up some doubts concerning particular passages. The detail into which Tschirnhausen had the complaisance to enter with this’ young philosopher, enabled him to model the whole on a more extensive plan. Having finished that part of his education which he was destined to receive at Jena, he went to Leipsic in 1702; and, having obtained a permission to give lectures, he began his new employment, and, in 1703, opened with a dissertation called” Philosophia practica universalis, methodo mathematica conscripta;“which first attempt served greatly to enhance the reputation of his talents. Wolfe chose, for the foundation of his lessons, the method followed by Tschirnhausen, His philosophy bore as yet a very strong resemblance to that of Descartes, as may be seen in his dissertation” De loquela," which he published in 1703. Leibnitz, to whom he sent it, told him, that he plainly perceived, that his hypothesis concerning the union of the soul and body was not hitherto sufficiently just and explicit. These objections made him review the whole, which afterwards went through several material alterations.

In the midst of this prosperity he raised a storm against himself. He had, on the 12th of July, 1721, delivered a Latin oration, the subject of which was the morality of the Chinese: he loaded their philosophy with applause, an-d endeavoured to prove how similar its principles were to those which he, had advanced in. doctrines of his own. The divines at Hall were so exasperated at this attempt to undervalue their tenets, that on the day following every pulpit resounded with censures of Wolfe, and^the opposition to him continued till 1722, when the faculty of theology were determined strictly to examine each production of our extraordinary philosopher. Daniel Strathler, whose province was to scrutinize the “Essay on Metaphysics,” published a refutation of it. Wolfe made his complaints to the academic council, who issued out an order, that no one should presume to write against him: but the facultyhaving sent their representation to the court, which were all backed by the most strenuous assertions, that the doctrine which Wolfe taught, particularly on the subject of liberty and necessity, was dangerous to the last degree, an order at length arrived, Nov. 18, 1723, not only displacing Wolfe, but commanding him (under pain of being severely punished if he presumed to disobey) to leave Hall and the States in twenty-four hours at the farthest.

Of the ingenuity of this work as a composition no doubts have been entertained, but its tendency was soon thought liable to suspicion. Some objected that he had injured Christianity by laying too much stress upon the obligations of truth, reason, and virtue; and by making no mention of revealed religion, nor even so much as dropping the least and most distant hints in its favour. This made him pass for an unbeliever with some; and the late lord Bolingbroke supposes Dr. Clarke to have had him in his eye when he described his fourth sort of theists. Wollaston held and has asserted the being and attributes of God, natural and moral a providence, general and particular; the obligations to morality the immateriality and immortality of the soul a future state and Clarke’s fourth sort of theists held and asserted the same. But whether Wollaston, like those theists, rejected all above this in the system of revelation, cannot with any certainty be concluded, though at the same time the contrary perhaps may not appear; because, whatever might have been thought necessary to prevent offence from being taken, it was not essential to Wollaston’s design to meddle with revealed religion. In the mean time, lord Bolingbroke has treated “The Religion of Nature delineated,” as a system of theism; which it certainly is, whether Wollaston was a believer or not. His lordship calls it “strange theism, as dogmatical and absurd as artificial theology,” and has spent several pages to prove it so; yet allows the author of it to have been “a man of parts, of learning, a philosopher, and a geometrician.” The seventh edition of this work was printed in 1750 in 8vo, to which are added an account of the author, and also a translation of the notes into English. There is prefixed an advertisement by Dr. John Clarke, late dean of Salisbury, which informs us, that this work was in great esteem with her late majesty queen Caroline, who commanded him to translate the notes into English for her own use. Pope, who has taken some thoughts from it into his “Essay on Man,” informs Mr. Bethel in one of his letters how much this work was a favourite with the ladies, but accompanies his information with a sneer at the sex, which we dare not transcribe.

, an eminent natural philosopher, was descended from a good family, originally of Gloucestershire, and was born in Derbyshire, May 1, 1665. He received the first part of his education at a school in the country, where he made a considerable progress in the Latin and Greek languages; but his father designing him for trade, he was taken from school, before he was sixteen years old, and put apprentice, as is said, to a linen-draper jr> London. This way of life, however, was so contrary to his natural thirst for knowledge and love of books, that he quitted it in a few years, and devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. His studies were directed to philosophical objects, and the progress he made soon attracted the notice of some persons of eminence in the learned world. Amongst others he was honoured with the particular friendship of that distinguished scholar and physician Dr. Peter Barwick, who was so pleased with his ingenuity and industrious application, that he took him under his immediate tuition in his own family. In this advantageous situation he prosecuted his studies in philosophy, anatomy, and physic, with the utmost ardour.

, one of the most celebrated philosophers of ancient Greece, was born at Chalcedon, B. C. 400. He at first attached himself to Æschines, but afterwards became the disciple of Plato, and always retained a high degree of respect and attachment for that great man, whom he accompanied in a voyage to Sicily. When Dionysius the tyrant threatened Plato one day, saying, “that some person should behead him;” “Nobody shall do that,” said Xenocrates, “till they have first beheaded me.” This philosopher studied under Plato at the same time with Aristotle, but did not possess equal talents: for he had a slow genius and dull apprehension, while Aristotle’s genius was quick and penetrating, whence their master observed of them, “that one wanted a spur, and the other a bridle.” But however inferior Xenocrates might be to Aristotle in genius, he greatly excelled him in the practice of moral philosophy. He was grave, sober, austere, and of a disposition so serious, and so far removed from the Athenian politeness, that Plato frequently exhorted him to “sacrifice to the graces.” He always bore his master’s reproofs with great patience, and when persuaded to defend himself, replied, “He treats me thus only for my good.” Xenocrates is particularly celebrated for chastity, and is said to have acquired so great a command over his passions, that Phryne, the most beautiful courtezan of Greece, who had laid a wager that she would seduce him, could not effect her purpose. Being afterwards laughed at, and the wager demanded, she replied, “I have not lost it; for I undertook to seduce a man, and not a statue.” The conduct of Xenocrates exhibited an equal example of temperance in every other respect. He cared neither for pleasures, wealth, or fame; and was so moderate in his dietj that he often found it necessary to throw away his provisions because they were grown stale and mouldy; whence the proverb among the Grecians, of Xenocrates* s cheese, when they would describe any thing which lasted a long time. This philosopher succeeded Speusippus, who was Plato’s immediate successor in the' academy at Athens, in 339 B. C. He required his disciples to understand mathematics before they placed themselves under his care; and sent back a youth who was ignorant of that science, saying, “that he had not the key of philosophy.” So great was his reputation fqr sincerity and probity, that the magistrates accepted his testimony without an oath; a favour granted to him alone. Polemo, a rich young man, but so debauched, that his wife had begun a prosecution against him for his infamoqs conduct, rambling through the streets, one day, with his dissolute companions, after they had drank freely, entered our philosopher’s school, with an intention to ridicule and insult him. The audience were highly offended at this behaviour; but Xenocrates Continued perfectly calm, and immediately turning his discourse upon temperance, spoke of that virtue in terms so forcible, lofty, and elevated, that the young libertine made a sudden resolution to renounce his licentiousness, and devote himself to wisdom. From that moment, Polemo became the pupil of virtue, and a model of temperance, and at length succeeded Xenocrates in the philosophical chair. Hia conversion made much noise, and so increased the public veneration for Xenocrates, that when he appeared in the streets, no dissolute youths dared to remain there, but turned aside that they might avoid meeting him. The Athenians sent this philosopher on an embassy to Philip, king of Macedon, and, a considerable time after, to Antipater; neither of whom could corrupt him by their presents, which circumstance made him doubly honoured. Alexander the Great so highly esteemed Xenocrates, that he sent him fifty talents, a large sum then; and when his messengers arrived at Athens, Xenocrates invited them to eat with him, but gaVe them only his common farel Upon their inquiring, next morning, to whom they should pay the fifty talents, he replied, “Has not lak night’s supper convinced you that I want no money?” intimating that he was contented with a little, and that money was necessary to kings, not to philosophers. But at the earnest entreaties of Alexander’s messengers, he accepted a small part of the sum, lest he should appear deficient in respect to that great monarch. It is astonishing that ‘the Athenians should suffer a philosopher of such exalted merit to be so ill treated by the collectors and receivers of their taxes 5 for though they were once fined for attempting to imprison Xenocrates, because he had not paid a certain tax imposed on foreigners, yet it is certain that the same collectors and receivers sold him at another time, because he had not enough to pay them. But Demetrius Phalereus, detesting so base an action; purchased Xenocrates’, gave hirri his freedom immediately, and discharged his debt to the Athenians. This philosopher died about 314 B.C. aged eighty-two, in consequence ’of falling in the dark into a reservoir of water. He 1 wrote, at the request of Alexander, *a small tract on the Art of Reigning; six books on Nature; MX books oh Philosophy one on Riches, &c, but none of these have come down to us. There is a tract on Death, under his name, in 'the Jamblicus of Aldus, 1497, folio. Xenocrates used to say, “That we often repent of having spoken, b,ut never of having kept silence; that true philosophers are the only persons who do willingly, and by their own choice, what others are constrained to do by fear of the laws; that it is as great a crime to look into our neighbour’s house as to enter it privately J that there was more necessity for putting iron-plates over the ears of children, to defend and preserve them from hearing vicious discourse, than of gladiators, to guard them from blows,” c. As to his philosophical system, it was truly Platonic; but in his’ method of teaching he made use of the language of the Pythagoreans. He made Unity and Diversity principles in nature, or gods; the former of whom he represented as the father, and the latter as the mother, of the universe. He taught, that the heavens are divine, and the stars celestial gods; and that besides these divinities, there are terrestrial daemons, of a middle order between the gods and man, which partake of the nature both of mind and body, and are therefore, like human beings, capable of passions, and liable to diversity of character. After Plato, he probably conceived the superior divinities to be the Ideas, or intelligible forms, which immediately proceeded from the supreme Deity, and the inferior gods or daemons, to be derived from the soul of the world, and therefore, like that principle, to be compounded of a simple and a divisible substance, or of that which always remains the same, and that which is liable to change.

, an eminent philosopher, was author of the Eleatic sect, so cabled because three of its most celebrated members, Parmenides, Zeno, and Leucippus, were natives of Elea, or Velia, a town in Magna Graecia. Xenopharies was a native of Colophon, and born probably about 556 B.C. He early left his country, and went to Sicily, where he supported himself by reciting verses against the theogonies of Hesiod and Homer. Thence he passed over into Magna Graecia, where he took up the profession 6f philosophy, and became a celebrated preceptor in the Pythagorean school. Indulging, however, a greater freedom of thought than was usual among the disciples of Pythagoras, he ventured to introduce new opinions of his Own, and in many particulars to oppose the doctrines of Epimenides, Thales, and Pythagoras. This gave occasion to Timon, who was a severe satirist, to introduce him in ridicule as one of the characters in his dialogues, Xenophanes possessed the Pythagorean chair of philosophy about seventy years, and lived tp the extreme age of an hundred years, that is, according to Eusebius, till the eighty-first Olympiad, or B C. 456.

, an illustrious philosopher, soldier, and historian, was an Athenian, the son of Gryllus, a person of high rank, and was born in the third year of the eightysecond Olympiad, or B. C. 450. Few particulars of his early life are known. Laertius tells us, that meeting Socrates in a narrow lane, after he was pretty well grown up, he stopped the philosopher with his staff; and asked him, “Where all kinds of meats were to be sold ?” To which Socrates made a serious answer: and then demanded of him, “Where it was that men were made good and virtuous?” At which Xenophon pausing, “Follow me, then,” said Socrates, “and learn:” from which time he became the disciple of that father of ancient wisdom.

He was one of Socrates’s most eminent scholars; but he did not excel in philosophy only; he was also famous for arms and military achievements. In the Peloponnesian war, he was personally engaged in the fight before Delium, the first year of the 89th Olympiad; in which the Bœotians overcame the Athenians. Here Xenophon, in the precipitation of flight, was unhorsed and thrown down; when Socrates, who having lost his horse was fighting on foot, took him upon his shoulders, and carried him many furlongs, till the enemy gave over the pursuit. This was the first essay of his military profession: afterwards he became known to the younger Cyrus, by means of Proxenus the Boeotian, who was favoured by that prince, and resided with him at Sardis. Proxenus, then Xenophon’s friend, wrote to Athens, to invite him to come to Cyrus. Xenophon shewed his letters to Socrates, desiring -his advice. Socrates referred him to the oracle of Delphi, which Xenophon accordingly consulted: but, instead of asking whether he should go to Cyrus, he inquired how he should goto him; for which Socrates reprimanded him, yet advised him to go. Being arrived at the court of Cyrus, he acquired at least as great a share of his favour as Proxenus himself; and accompanied that prince in his expedition to Persia, when he took up arms against his brother Artaxerxes, who had succeeded his father Darius in the kingdom. Cyrus was killed: and Artaxerxes sent -the day after to the Grecians, that they should give up their arms. Xenophon answered Phalinus, who brought the order, “that they had nothing left but their arms and valour; that as long as they kept their arms they might use their valour; but, if they surrendered them, they should cease to be masters of themselves.” Phalinus replied, smiling, “Young man, you look and speak like a philosopher; but assure yourself, that your valour will not be a match for the king’s power.” Nevertheless, ten thousand of them determined to attempt a retreat, and actually effected it with Xenophon at their head, who brought them' from Persia to their own homes, remaining victorious over all who attempted to oppose his passage. The history of this expedition, which happened in the 4th year of the 94th Olympiad, was written by himself; and is still extant.

Many anecdotes are related of the peculiar temper and virtues of this celebrated cardinal, by his, biographers M. FJechier and M. Marsollier, each of whom published a life of him in 2 vols. 12mo, and there is a third by Gomez in folio. His family is generally represented to have been in a low situation; yet he is said, in the midst of his greatness, to have gone one summer to the village where he was born, to have visited his kindred, and to have treated them with all the marks of kindness and affection. His humility upon this head was very unaffected, and appeared sometimes very unexpectedly. He was present once when doctor Nicolas de Pax was explaining the philosophy of Raymund Lully; and, in speaking to the question, whether that famous man had the philosopher’s stone or not, he took notice of a passage in the Psalms which has been thought to look that way: “he raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill, that he may set him with the princes, even with the princes of his people.” That portion of scripture, said the cardinal, may be much more naturally interpreted, for instance, in my own case; and then ran out in a long detail of his own meanness, and the wonderful manner in which he had been exalted.

, the founder of the Stoic sect (a branch from the Cynic, ad a far as respected morals, differing from it in words more than in reality), was a native of Cittius, a maritime town of Cyprus, and as this place was originally peopled by a colony of Phenicians, he is sometimes called a Phenician. His father, a merchant, encouraged him in the study of philosophy, and bought for him several of the writings of v the most eminent Socratic philosophers, which he read with great avidity and when he was about thirty years of age, determined to take a voyage to Athens, which was so celebrated both as a mart of trade and of science. Whether this voyage was in part mercantile, or wholly undertaken for the sake of conversing with those philosophers whose writings Zeno had long admired, is uncertain. If it be true, as some writers relate, that he brought with him a valuable cargo of Phenician purple, which was lost by shipwreck upon the coast of Pira3us, this circumstance will account for the facility with which he at first attached himself to a sect whose leading principle was the contempt of riches. Upon his first arrival in Athens, going accidentally into the shop of a bookseller, he took up a volume of the Commentaries of Xenophon, and formed so high an idea of the author, that he asked the bookseller, where he might meet with such men. Crates, the Cynic philosopher, happening at that instant to be passing by, the bookseller pointed to him, and said, “Follow that man,” which he did, and was so well pleased with his doctrine, that he became one of his disciples. But though he highly admired the general principles and spirit of the Cynic school, he could not easily reconcile himself to their peculiar manners; nor would his inquisitive turn of mind allow him to adopt their indifference to scientific inquiry. He therefore attended upon other masters, who professed to instruct their disciples in the nature and causes of things, and when Crates, displeased at this, attempted to drag him by force out of the school of Stilpo, Zeno said to him, “You may seize my body, but Stilpo has laid hold of my mind.” After continuing to attend upon the lectures of Stilpo several years, he passed over to other schools, particularly those of Xenocrates and Diodorus Cronus. By the latter he was instructed in dialectics; and at last, after attending almost every other master, he offered himself as a disciple of Polemo, who suspected that his design was to collect materials for a new system: nor was he mistaken. The place which Zeno chose for his school was called 2/rea, or the Porch, and hence the name of Stoics. Zeno had advantages as the founder of a new sect; he excelled in that kind of subtle reasoning which was at that time popular, and while he taught a system of moral doctrine, his own morals were unexceptionable. He therefore soon became much followed, and on account of his integrity the Athenians deposited the keys of their citadel in his hands, and honoured him with a golden crown and a statue of brass. In his person Zeno was tall and slender; his aspect was severe, and his brow contracted. His constitution was feeble; but he preserved his health by great abstemiousness. The supplies of his table consisted of figs, bread, and honey; notwithstanding which, he was frequently honoured with the company of great men. It was a singular proof of, his moderation, mixed indeed with that high spirit of independence which afterwards distinguished his sect, that when Democharis, son of Laches, offered to procure him some gratuity from* Antigonus, he was so offended, that from that time he declined all intercourse with him. In public company, to avoid every appearance of an assuming temper, he commonly took the lowest place. Indeed, so great was his modesty, that he seldom chose to mingle with a crowd, or wished for the company of more than two or three friends at once. He paid more attention to neatness and decorum in external appearance, than the Cynic philosophers. In his dress indeed he was plain, and in all his expences frugal, which arose from a contempt of external magnificence. He showed as much respect to the poor as to the rich; and conversed freely with persons of the meanest occupations. He had only one servant, or, according to Seneca, none. Yet with all these virtues, several philosophers of great ability and eloquence employed their talents against him, and Arcesilaus and Carneades, the founders of the middle and new academy, were his professed opponents. Towards the latter end of his life he found another powerful adversary in Epicurus, whose temper and doctrines were alike inimical to the severe gravity and philosophical pride of the Stoic sect. Hence mutual invectives passed between the Stoics and other sects, to which little credit is due. At least it may be fairly presumed that Zeno, whose personal character was so exemplary, never countenanced gross immorality in his doctrine.

, called the Eleatic, to distinguish from the preceding, and 'from others, flourished about 463 B.C. He was a zealous friend of civil liberty, and is celebrated for his courageous and successful opposition to tyrants; but the inconsistency of the stories related by different writers concerning him, in a great measure destroys their credit. He chose to reside in his small native city of Elea, rather than at Athens, because it afforded freer scope to his independent and generous spirit, which could not easily submit to the restraints of authority. It is related that he vindicated the warmth with which he resented reproach, by saying, “If I were indifferent to censure, I should also be indifferent to praise.” The invention of the dialecticart has been improperly ascribed to Zeno; but there can be no doubt that this philosopher, and other metaphysical disputants in the Eleatic sect, employed much ingenuity and subtlety in exhibiting examples of most of the logical arts which were afterwards reduced to rule by Aristotle and others. According to Aristotle, Zeno of Elea taught that nothing fcan be produced either from that which is similar or dissimilar; that there is only one being, and that is God; that this being is eternal, homogeneous, and spherical, neither finite nor infinite, neither quiescent nor moveable; % that there are many worlds; that there is in nature no vacuum; that all bodies are composed of four elements, heat and moisture, cold and dryness; and that the body of man is from the earth, and his soul an equal mixture of these four elements. He argued with great subtlety against the possibility of motion. If Seneca’s account of this philosopher deserves credit, he reached the highest point of scepticism, and denied the real existence of external objects. The truth is, that after all that has been advanced by different writers, it is impossible to determine whether Zeno understood the term one, metaphysically, logically, or physically; or whether he admitted or denied a nature properly divine.

, a learned philosopher, mathematician, and divine, of the sixteenth century, was born at Landshut, in Bavaria. He taught at Vienna for a considerable time, and resided afterwards near the bishop of Passau in Bavaria, where he died in 1549, leaving several works; which are different in their spirit, according as they were written before or after he quitted the Romish church. Among these, his notes on some select passages of the Holy Scriptures, Basil, 151?, folio, and his “Description of the Holy Land,” Strasburg, 1536, folio, are particularly esteemed. There is an excellent life of Ziegler in Scbelhorn’s “Amoenitates.”

Dr. Zimmermann was unhappy in the fate of his children. His amiable daughter, whom he most tenderly loved, fell in,to a lingering malady soon after she left Lausanne: it continued five years, and then carried her off. His son, who, from his infancy, was troubled with an acrid humour, after various vicissitudes of nervous affections, settled in perfect idiotcy in which state he remained at his father’s death. To alleviate these distresses^ a second marriage properly occurred to the mind of his friends, and they chose for him a most suitable companion, in the daughter of Dr. de Berger, king’s physician at Lunenberg. This union took place in 1782, and proyed the greatest charm and support of all his remaining life. Jiis l.ady was thirty years youngerthan he;but s,he perfectly Accommodated herself to his taste, and induced him to cultivate society abroad and at home more than he had hitherto done. About this time he employed himself in completing his favourite work on “Solitude,” which, at the distance of thirty years from the publication of the first essay on the subject, appeared in its new form in the years 178^ and 1786, in four volumes. His ideas of solitude had probably been softened by so long an intercourse with the world and as he now defined it, “that state of the soul in which it abandons itself freely to its reflections,” it was not necessary to become either a monk or an anchorite, in orderto partake of its benefits. Had it not been presented under such an accommodating form, a philosopher might have smiled at the circumstance of a recommendation of solitude from a court physician becoming t.he favourite wojrk of one of the most splendid and ambitious of crowned jbeads. The empress of Russia sent her express thanks to the author for the pleasure which she had derived from the work, accompanied with a magnificent present, and commenced with hjrri a regular correspondence, which subsisted, with great freedom onher part, till 1792, when she suddenly dropped it. She also gave him an invitation to settle at Petersburgh as her first physician; and, on his declining the offer, she requested his recommendation of medical practitioners for her towns and armies, and conferred on him the order of Wladomir. One of the most distinguished incidents of Zimmermann’s life was the summons which he received to attend the great Frederic in his last illness, in 1786. It was at once evident that there was no room for the exercise of his medical skill; but he improved the opportunity which he thus enjoyed of confidential intercourse with that illustrious character, whose mental faculties were pre-eminent to the last; and 'he derived from it the materials of an interesting narrative which he afterwards published. The partiality of this prince in his favour naturally disposed him to a reciprocal good opinion of the monarch; and, in 17S8, he published “A Defence of Frederic the Great against the count de Mirabeau” which, in 1790, was followed by “Fragments on Frederic the Great,” in 3 vols. 12mo. All his publications relative to this king gave offence to many individuals, and subjected him to severe criticism; which he felt with more sensibility than was consistent with his peace of mind. His religious and political opinions, likewise, in his latter years, began to be in wide contradiction to the principles that were assiduously propagated all over Europe; and this added perpetual fuel to his irritability. The society of the Illuminated, coalesced with that of Free-masons, rose about this time in Germany, and excited the most violent commotions among men of letters and reflection. It was sup­'posed to have in view nothing less than the abolition of Christianity, and the subversion of all constituted authorities; and, while its partizans expected from it the most beneficial reforms of every kind, its opponents dreaded from it every mischief that could possibly happen to mankind. Zimmerrnann was among the first that took alarm at this formidable accusation. His regard for religion and social order, and, perhaps, his connexions with crowned heads, made him see in the most obnoxious light all the principles of the new philosophers. He attacked them with vigour, formed counter associations with other men of letters, and, at length, addressed to the emperor Leopold a memoir, painting in the strongest colouring the pernicious maxims of the sect, and suggesting the means of suppressing -it; means which are said to have depended on the decisive interference of civil authority. Leopold, who was well inclined to such measures, received his memoir very graciously, and sent him a letter and splendid present in return; but his death, soon after, deprived the cause of its most powerful protection. Ziminermann, however, in conjunction with M. Hoffman of Vienna, who had instituted a periodical work on the old principles, did not relax in his zeal. They attacked, and were attacked in turn; and Zimrnermann embroiled himself with the courts of law by a paper published in Hoffman’s Journal, entitled “The Baron de Knigge unmasked as an Illuminate, Democrat, and Seducer of the People.” As this charge was in part founded on a work not openly avowed by the baron, 3, prosecution was instituted against Zimmermann as a libeller, and he was unable to exculpate himself. This state of warfare may well be imagined to have been extremely unfriendly to an irritable system of nerves; and, the agitation of the doctor’s mind was further increased by his personal fears on the approach of the French towards the electorate of Hanover in 1794; and his mancer of expressing his fears announced the greatest depression. “I saw therein,” says Tissot, “a mind whose springs began to fail, and which dared no longer say, as it could have justly done, `I carry every thing with me.‘ I neglected nothing in order to raise his spirits, and entreated him. to come to me with his wife, to a country that was his own, where he would have remained in the most perfect security, and enjoyed all the sweets of peace and friendship. He answered me in December, and one part of his letter resembled those of other times; but melancholy was still more strongly marked, and the illness of his wife, which he unfortunately thought more serious than it really was, evidently oppressed him: he had been obliged to take three days to write me details which at another time would not have occupied him an hour, and he concluded his letter with, 1I conjure you, perhaps for the last time, &c.’ The idea that he should write no more to his friend (and unfortunately the event justified him), the difficulty of writing a few pages, the still fixed idea of being forced to leave Hanover,although the face of affairs had entirely changed all, all indicated the loss I was about to sustain.” From the month of November he had lost his sleep, his appetite, his strength, and became sensibly thinner; and this stated of decline continued to increase. In January he was still able to make a few visits in his carriage; but he frequently fainted on the stairs: it was painful for him to write a prescription: he sometimes complained of a confusion in his head, and he at length gave over all business. This was at first taken for an effect of hypochondria, but it was soon perceived, that his deep melancholy had destroyed the chain of his ideas. What has happened to so many men of genius, befell him. One strong idea masters every other, and subdues the mind that is no longer able either to drive it away, or to lose sight of it. Preserving all his presence of mind, all his perspicuity, and justness of thought on other subjects, but no longer desirous of occupying himself with them, no longer capable of any business, nor of giving advice, but with pain^he had unceasingly before his eyes the enemy plundering his house, as Pascal always saw a globe of fire near him, Bonnet his friend robbing him, and Spinello the devil opposite to him, In February he commenced taking medicines, which were either prescribed by himself or by the physicians whom he consulted; at the beginning of March he desired Tissot' s advice; but he was no longer able himself to describe his disorder, and his wife wrote Tissot the account of it. Tissot answered her immediately; but there could be no great utility in the directions of an absent physician in a disorder whose progress was rapid, and with an interim of near a month between the advice asked, and the directions received. His health decayed so fast, that M. Wichman, who attended him, thought a journey and change of air would now be the best remedy. Eutin, a place in the dutchy of Holstein, was fixed upon for his residence. Ingoing through Luneburgh on his way thither, M. Lentin, one of the physicians Jn whom he placed most confidence, was consulted; but Zimmermann, who, though so often uneasy on account of health, had, notwithstanding, the wisdom to take few medicines, and who did not like them, always had a crowd of objections to make against the b.est advice, and did nothing. Arrived at Eutin, an old acquaintance and his family lavished on him all the caresses of friendship. This reception highly pleased him, and he grew rather better. M. Hensler came from Kiel to see him, and gave him his advice, which was probably very good, but became useless, as it was very irregularly followed. At last, after a residence of three months, he desired to return to Hanover, where he entered his house with the same idea with which he had left it; he thought it plundered, and imagined himself totally ruined. Tissot wrote to intreat him to go to Carlsbad;but he was no longer capable of bearing the journey. Disgust, want of sleep, and weakness, increased rapidly; he took scarcely jftiy nourishment, either on account of insurmountable Aversion, or because it was painful to him; or perhaps, as M. Wichman believed, because he imagined he had not a farthing left. Intense application, the troubles of his mind, his pains, want of sleep, and of sufficient nourishment, had on him all the effects of time, and hastened old age: at sixty -six he was in a state of complete decrepitude, and his body was become a perfect skeleton. He clearly foresaw the issue of his disorder: and above six weeks before his death be said to jthis same physician, “I shall die slowly, but very pain fu)ly;” and fourteen hours before he expired, he said, “Leave me alone, I am dying.” He expired Oct. 7, 1795. Most of the works mentioned above have been translated into English, and that on solitude particularly has acquired a considerable degree of popularity.

was an eminent philosopher, whose history is involved in much obscurity, nor is it certain whether the name belongs to one or many. Some have maintained that there was but one Zoroaster, and that he was a Persian. Others have said that there were six eminent founders of philosophy of th'is name. Ham, the son of Noah, Moses, Osiris, Mithras, and others, both gods and men, have by different writers been asserted to have been the same with Zoroaster. Many different opinions have also been advanced, concerning the time in which he flourished. Aristotle and Pliny fix his date at so remote a period as 6000 years before the death of Plato; Hermippus says that he lived 5000 years before the Trojan war: idle tales, which are, doubtless, to be classed with the report of the Chaldeans concerning the antiquity of their astronomical observations. According to Laertius, he flourished 600 years before the Trojan war; according to Suidas, 500. In the midst of so much uncertainty, the probability may be, that there was a Zoroaster, a Perso- Median, who flourished about the time of Darius Hystaspes, and that besides him there was another Zoroaster, who lived in a much more remote period among the Babylonians, and taught them astronomy. The Greek and Arabian writers are agreed concerning the existence of the Persian Zoroaster; and the ancients unanimously ascribe to a philosopher, whom they call Zoroaster, the origin of the Chaldean astronomy, which is certainly of much earlier date than the time of Hystaspes: it seems, therefore, necessary to suppose a Chaldean Zoroaster distinct from the Persian. Concerning this Zoroaster, however, nothing more is known than that he flourished towards the beginning of the Babylonish empire, and was the father of the Chaldean astrology and magic, which was probably nothing more than the performance of certain religious ceremonies, by means of which good daemons were supposed to be prevailed upon to communicate supernatural properties and powers to herbs, stones, and other natural bodies, or to afford assistance, in other miraculous ways, to those who invoked them. In this art the kings of Chaldea and Persia were instructed, as one of the most useful instruments of government, among a people, whose ignorance and credulity rendered them proper subjects of imposture. The Chaldean magic was then a very different thing from a knowledge of the real properties of bodies; and it cannot be inferred, either from their magical or astrological arts, that the Chaldeans were eminent masters in any branch of natural science. All the writings which have been ascribed to the Chaldean Zoroaster, are unquestionably spurious.