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

, the celebrated mathematician, according to the account of Pappus and Proclus, was born at Alexandria, in Egypt, where he flourished and taught mathematics, with great applause, under the reign of Ptolemy Lagos, about 280 years before Christ. And here, from his time till the conquest of Alexandria by the Saracens, all the eminent mathematicians were either born, or studied; and it is to Euclid, and his scholars, we are beholden for Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Apollonius, Ptolemy, Theon, &c. &c. He reduced into regularity and order all the fundamental principles of pure mathematics, which had been delivered down by Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, and other mathematicians before him, and added many others of his own discovering: on which account it is said he was the first who reduced arithmetic and geometry into the form of a science. He likewise applied himself to the study of mixed mathematics, particularly to astronomy and optics. His works, as we learn from Pappus and Proclus, are the Elements, Data, Introduction to Harmony, Phenomena, Optics, Catoptrics, a Treatise of the Division of Superficies, Porisms, Loci ad Superficiem, Fallacies, and four books of Conies. The most celebrated of these, is the Elements of Geometry, first published at Basil, 1533, by Simon Grynaeus, of which there have been numberless editions, in all languages; and a fine edition of all his works was printed in 1703, by Dr. David Gregory, SaTilian professor of astronomy at Oxford, which is the most complete, and is illustrated by the notes of sir Henry Savile, and dissertations and discussions on the authenticity of the several pieces attributed to Euclid.

Euclid, as a writer on music, has ever been held in the highest estimation by all men of science who have treated of harmonics, or the philosophy of sound. As Pythagoras was allowed by the Greeks to have been the first who found out musical ratios, by the division of a monochord, or single string, a discovery which tradition only had preserved, Euclid was the first who wrote upon the subject, and reduced these divisions to mathematical demonstration. His “Introduction to Harmonics,” which in some Mss. was attributed to Cleonidas, is in the Vatican copy given to Pappus; Meibomius, however, accounts for this, by supposing those copies to have been only two different ms editions of Euclid’s work, which had been revised, corrected, and restored from the corruptions incident to frequent transcription by Cleonidas and Pappus, whose names were, on that account, prefixed. It first appeared in print with a Latin version, in 1498, at Venice, under the title of “Cleonidae Harmonicum Introductorium:” who Cleonidas was, neither the editor, George Valla, nor any one else pretends to know. It was John Pena, a mathematician in the service of the king of France, who first published this work at Paris, under the name of Euclid, 1557. After this, it went through several editions with his other works.

His “Section of the Canon,” follows his “Introduction;” it went through the same hands and the same editions, and is me-ntioned by Porphyry, in his Commentary on Ptolemy, as the work of Euclid. This tract chiefly contains short and clear definitions of the several parts of Greek music, in which it is easy to see that mere melody was concerned; as he begins by telling us, that the science of harmonics considers the nature and use of melody, and consists of seven parts: sounds, intervals, genera, systems, keys, mutations, and melopceia; all which have been severally considered in the dissertation. Of all the writings upon ancient music, that are come down to us, this seems to be the most correct and compressed the rest are generally loose and diffused the authors either twisting and distorting every thing to a favourite system, or filling their books with metaphysical jargon, with Pythagoric dreams, and Platonic fancies, wholly foreign to music. But Euclid, in this little treatise, is like himself, close and clear; yet so mathematically short and dry, that he bestows not a syllable more upon the subject than is absolutely necessary. His object seems to have been the compressing into a scientific and elementary abridgment, the more diffused and speculative treatises of Aristoxenus.

History is silent as to the time of Euclid’s death, or his age. He is represented as a person of a courteous and agreeable behaviour, and in great esteem and familiarity with king Ptolemy; who once asking him, whether there was any shorter way of coming at geometry than by his Elements, Euclid, as Proclus testifies, made answer, that there was no royal way or path to geometry.

, a learned Jesuit, was a native of Crete, and supposed to be descended from the imperial family of the Palseologi. He went to Rome in pursuit of knowledge, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesus. He was afterwards professor of philosophy, and then of theology in the university of Padua, rector of the Greek college in Rome, and censor of the inquisition. He was honoured with the esteem and friendship of pope Urban VIII. who appointed him chaplain to his nephew cardinal Francis Barberini, when he was sent papal legate into France. He died at Rome Dec. 24, 1625. He was suspected to be the author of a work entitled “Admonitio ad Regem Ludovicum XIII.” which attacked the authority of the kings of France, in matters of an ecclesiastical nature. This treatise brought the Jesuits into general disrepute; it was likewise censured by the faculty of the Sorbonne, and the assembly of the clergy at Paris in 1626, and condemned by the parliament. He merits notice here, however, chiefly for having frequently entered the lists of controversy with many eminent English divines, who wrote against popery about the beginning of the seventeenth century, particularly Burhill, Prideaux, Abbot, and Collins, but the titles of his works may now be spared.

, brother of the celebrated historian Mezerai, was born at Rye in the diocese of Ses in 1601, and was educated, and studied for eighteen years in the congregation of the oratory, under the eyes of the cardinal de Berulle. This he quitted in 1643, to institute the congregation of the Eudists, or as it was called, “The congregation of Jesus and Mary.” His former brethren opposing the establishment of this society, Eudes concealed a part of his project, and confined his views to a house at Caen, for the purpose of bringing up priests, “but without any design,” said he, “to form anew institution,” and his scheme succeeded by means of this pious fraud. Eudes was reckoned a good preacher in his time, when the eloquence of the pulpit was in its ruder state; and, being followed on account of this talent, his congregation increased, principally in Normandy and Bretany. Eudes died at Caen, Aug. 19th, 1680, in the 79th year of his age; leaving behind him several works of the popish mystical kind, the principal of which are, 1. “Traite de la devotion et de l'office du coeur de la Vierge,” 1650, 12mo. 2. “LeContrat de Phomme avec Dieu,” 12mo. The congregation of the Eudists had had eight superior-generals at the time of the revolution.

, a Roman empress (wife to Theodosius the younger), whose proper name was Athenais, was the daughter of Leontius, an Athenian philosopher, and born about the year 400. Her father took such care of her education, that she became at length so accomplished in learning, that, at his death, he left his whole estate to his two sons, except an hundred pieces of gold, which he bequeathed to his daughter, with this declaration, that “her own good fortune would be sufficient for her.” This compliment, however, did not satisfy her, and having gone to law with her brothers, without success, she carried her cause to Constantinople, where she was recommended to Pulcheria, sister of the emperor Theodosius the younger, and became her favourite. In the year 421 she embraced Christianity, and changed her name from Athenais to Eudocia 3 and the same year was married to the emperor, through the powerful recommendation of his sister; by which event her father’s prophecy appeared to be fulfilled. Amidst all the grandeurof her new situation, she still continued to lead a very studious and philosophic life, spending much of her time in reading and writing; and lived very happily till the year 445, when an apparently trifling accident exposed her to the emperor’s jealousy. The emperor, it is said, having sent her an apple of an extraordinary size, she sent it to Paulinus, whom she respected on ac­"count of his learning. Paulinus, not knowing from whom it came, presented it to the emperor who, soon after seeing the empress, asked her what she had done with it. She, being apprehensive of raising suspicions in her husband, if she should tell him that she had given it to Paulinus, very unwisely declared that she had eaten it, which excited a suspicion of her intimacy with Paulinus, that seemed to be confirmed by her confusion on his producing the apple. He also put Paulinus to death. Upon this she went to Jerusalem, where she spent many years in building and adorning churches, and in relieving the poor. It is said that even when here, the jealousy of Theodosius pursued her, and that hearing she visited the priest Severus and the deacon John, he sent Saturninus with orders to put them both to death. Eudocia was so irritated at this barbarous persecution, that she for once stained the purity of her own life, by procuring Saturninus to be murdered. Dupin says, she did not return while the emperor lived; but Cave tells us, that she was reconciled to him, returned to Constantinople, and continued with him till his death; after which, she went again to Palestine, where she spent the remainder of her life in pious works. She died about A. D. 460; and, as Cave says, upon her death-bed, took a solemn oath, by which she declared herself entirely free from any stains of unchastity.

She wrote several pieces in prose and verse of the latter sort, 1 An heroic poem, mentioned by Socrates, upon the victory gained by her husband Theodosius over the Persians. 2. A paraphrase of the eight first books of the Bible and, 3. A history of the martyrs Cyprian and Justina, in heroic metre likewise of the former kind, 4. A paraphrase upon the prophecies of Daniel and Zecharias, which, according to Photius, must rather be deemed a translation, and a strict one; for he says, that she adheres closely to the sacred text, without adding, diminishing, or changing any thing. Cave tells us also, that she finished and digested the Centones Homerici, or the life of Jesus Christ, in heroic verses, taken from Homer, which were begun by Pelagius, a patrician. This was printed under the title “Homerici centones, Virgiliani centones, Nonni paraphrasis evangelii Joannis,” Gr. & Lat. H. Stephanus, Io78, 16mo. It is also in the Bibl. Patrum.

, the founder of a sect of heretics in the fourth century, was a native of Arabissus in Armenia Minor, and patriarch of Antioch, to which he was advanced in the year 356, and of Constantinople, to which he was promoted in the year 359, and which he retained till his death in the year 370. He was a great defender of the Arian doctrine, though represented as somewhat fluctuating and unsteady in his principles, and was a bitter persecutor of the catholics. Of his works no remains are extant, except some fragments of a treatise “De Incarnatione Dei verbi;” to which Cave has referred. The Eudoxians adhered to the errors of the Arians and Eunomians, maintaining that the Son was created out of nothing that he had a will distinct and different from that of the Father, &c.

, a Pythagorean philosopher, of Cnidus, a city of Caria in Asia Minor, flourished about 370 years before Christ. He learned geometry from Archytas, and afterwards travelled into Egypt to learn astronomy and other sciences. There he and Plato studied together, as Laertius informs us, for the space of thirteen years; and afterwards came to Athens, fraught with all sorts of knowledge, which they had imbibed from the priests. Here Eudoxus opened a school, which he supported with so much glory and renown, that even Plato, though his friend, is said to have envied him; he also composed elements of geometry, from whence Euclid liberally borrowed, as mentioned by Proclus. Cicero calls Eudoxus the greatest astronomer that had ever lived: and Petronius says, he spent the latter part of his life upon the top of a very high mountain, that he might contemplate the stars and the heavens with more convenience and less interruption: and we learn from Strabo, that there were some remains of hisi observatory at Cnidus, to be seen even in his time. None of his works are extant, but he is said by Fabricius (Bibl. GriEC. lib. hi. c. 5.) to have written upon music, and he gathers from Theon of Smyrna, p. 94, that Eudoxus was the first who expressed the ratios of concords by numbers, and who discovered that grave and acute sounds depend on the slow or quick vibrations of the sounding body. He died in the fifty-third year of his age.

, prince of Savoy, an illustrious general, was born in 1663, and descended from Carignan, one of the three branches of the house of Savoy. His father was Eugene Maurice, general of the Swiss and Grisons, governor of Champaigne in France, and earl of Soissons; his mother donna Olympia Mancini, neice to cardinal Mazarin. In 1670 he was committed to the tuition of a doctor of the Sorbonne; but his father dying before he was ten years of age, after the French king had given him the grant of an abbey as a step to a cardinal’s hat, and the government of Champaigne being given out of his family, occasioned an alteration in his intended profession; which was indeed by no means suitable to his genius, although he gave great and early hopes of proficiency in the belles lettres, and is said to have been particularly fond of Curtius and Cæsar. He was a youth of great spirit, and so jealous of the honour of his family, that when his mother was banished by the king’s order from the French court to the Low Countries, soon after her husband’s decease, he protested against the injustice of her banishment, and vowed eternal enmity to the authors and contrivers of it. After being for a time trained to the service of the church, for which he had no relish, he desired the king, who maintained him according to his quality, to give him some military employment. This, however, was denied him, sometimes on account of the weakness of his constitution, sometimes for want of a vacancy, or a war to employ the troops in. Apprehending from hence that he was not likely to be considered so much as he thought he deserved in France, and perceiving that he was involved in the disgrace of his mother, he resolved to retire to Vienna with one of his brothers, prince Philip, to whom the emperor’s ambassador had, in his master’s name, promised a regiment of horse. They were kindly received by the emperor; and Eugene presently became a very great favourite with his imperial majesty. He had in the mean time many flattering promises and invitations to return to France; but his fidelity to the emperor was unshaken, and he resolved to think no more of France, but to look on himself as a German, and to spend his life in the service of the house of Austria.

When these two brothers arrived in Germany, the Turks were descending upon the Imperialists, in order to make an irruption into the hereditary country. There prince Philip received his death’s wound by the fall of his horse, after he had gallantly behaved himself in a skirmish with the Turks, and left his command to his brother Eugene. This prince, in 1683, signalized himself at the raising of the siege of Vienna, where he made a great slaughter of the Turks, in the presence of John III. king of Poland, the elector of Bavaria, John George III. elector of Saxony, Charles V. duke of Lorrain, Frederic prince of Waldeck, Lewis William margrave of Baden, and many other great men, of whom he learned the art of war. After raising the siege of Vienna, it was resolved not to give the Turks time to recollect themselves. The project was laid to reduce the most important fortresses in Hungary: and the next year, 1684, he again distinguished himself at the sieges of Newhausel and Buda. He behaved so gallantly at the siege of Buda, that the duke of Lorrain wrote a letter in his commendation to the emperor. He was constantly in the trenches, and one of the first who entered the town sword in hand: and at their return to Vienna, when Newhausel was taken, the duke presented him to the emperor in these words, “May it please your majesty, this young Savoyard will some time or other be the greatest captain of the age:” which prophecy, it is universally agreed, was afterwards fulfilled. His imperial majesty caressed him upon all occasions, and had that firm and wellgrounded confidence in his merit, that when Buda was taken, and the army gone into winter quarters, he invested him with the chief command of his troops, during the absence of the supreme officers. Thus he rose daily in the favour of the court of Vienna; and every campaign was only a new step in his advancement to the first military offices.

In 1688 Belgrade was besieged and taken; where Eugene, who was always among the foremost in any onset, received a cut through his helmet by a sabre, but repaid the blow by laying the Turk who gave it him dead at his feet. Lewis XIV. had now invaded the empire with a powerful army, and declared war against the emperor; which caused a great alteration in the affairs of Vienna, and forced that court to form a new plan for the campaign of 1689. As the emperor was more concerned to defend himself against the French than the Turks, the dukes of Lorrain and Bavaria were appointed to command upon the Rhine, and prince Lewis of Baden in Hungary. The duke of Savoy having informed the court of Vienna of the danger he was in by the approach of French troops, the imperial ministers promised themselves great advantages from the war in Italy, on the account of the powerful diversion that his royal highness might be able to make there in favour of the empire. Eugene was intrusted by the court of Vienna to manage this expedition; and was thought the most proper person, not only because he was related to the duke of Savoy, but because of the vast reputation he had lately acquired in Hungary, which rendered him yet more acceptable to his royal highness, who received him with all the marks of sincere friendship. Accordingly, he took upon him the command of the emperor’s forces in Italy, and blocked up Mantua, which had received a French garrison, of whom he killed above 500 in several sallies: so that during 1691 and 1692 they never durst attempt the least excursion. In 1692, at his return from Vienna, whither he had been to give the emperor an account of the last campaign, he entered Dauphiny. The inhabitants of Gap brought him the keys of the town, and all the neighbouring country submitted to contribution: but the great designs he had formed soon vanished; for the Spaniards would stay no longer in the army, nor keep the post of Guillestre, though Eugene, whom they very much esteemed, endeavoured to make them change their resolution. This miscarriage is also partly attributed to the sickness of the duke of Savoy, who was persuaded to make a will at this time, wherein he declared Eugene administrator, or regent, during the minority of his successor.

In 1696, after the separate peace between France and Savoy, at which Eugene was extremely dissatisfied, the French king made very large offers to draw him over to his interest. He offered him particularly his father’s government of Champaigne, the dignity of a marshal of France, and an annual pension of 2000 pistoles: but nothing was capable of shaking his fidelity to the emperor, who afterwards made him commander of his army in Hungary, preferably to many older generals. In 1697, being commander in chief of the imperial army in Hungary, he gave the Turks the greatest blow they had ever received in the whole war, and gained a complete victory over them at Zenta, not far from Peterwaradin. The grand seignior came to command his armies in person, and lay encamped on both sides [of] the Thiesse, having laid a bridge over the river. Eugene marched up to him, and attacked his camp on the west side of the river; and, after a short dispute, broke in, made himself master of it, and forced all who lay on that side over the river, whither he followed them, and gave them a total defeat. In this action the Germans had no more than 430 men killed, and 1583 wounded: but of the Turks 22,000 were killed in the field, among whom were the grand visier, and the aga of the janisaries; 10 or 12,000 were drowned in the Thiesse, and 6000 wounded and taken prisoners, among whom were 27 pashas, and several agas. The Imperialists took 9000 laden waggons, after 3000 had been thrown into the river; the grand seignior’s tent, valued at 40,000 livres, with all the rest belonging to his army; 17,000 oxen, 6000 camels, all heavy laden; 7000 horses, 100 heavy cannon, and 70 field-pieces, besides 500 drums, and as many colours, 707 horses tails, 83 other standards, a scymitar of inestimable value, the sultan’s great seal, his coach drawn by eight horses, wherein were ten of the women of his seraglio; 74 pair of silver kettle-drums, all the grand seignior’s papers, and all the money that was to pay the army, which came to above 3,000,000 livres; and it is said, that the whole booty amounted to several millions of pounds sterling.

In 1699 the peace of Carlowitch was concluded, and an end put at length to the war, which had lasted fifteen years: and it was a great satisfaction to Eugene to have contributed so much to the finishing of it by this famous victory at Zenta. He had passed the first years of his youth in the wars of Hungary; was in almost all the battles, where he had eminently distinguished himself; and it seemed now, that he had nothing to do but to enjoy at Vienna that tranquillity which is sometimes, although not always, relished by men who have spent their lives amidst the noise of arms and dangers. But this repose was not to last long. The king of Spain’s death, and the dreaded union of that monarchy with France which followed, kindled a new war, which called him to Italy to command the emperor’s army there. His Imperial majesty published a manifesto, setting forth his title to the crown of Spain, when Eugene was upon the point of entering Italy. The progress of his arms under this general made the French king resolve to send marshal Villeroy into Italy, in the room of marshal Catinat, who had not given satisfaction. But Eugene soon let him see that numbers alone, in which the French were greatly superior, could not gain a victory; for he foiled him in every skirmish and engagement, and at length took him prisoner by a contrivance conducted with so much secrecy, that the French had not the least suspicion of it. Eugene went to put himself at the head of a body he brought from the Oglio, and ordered another to come from the Parmezan at the same time to force the bridge. He marched with all secrecy to Cremona; and sent in, through the ruins of an old aqueduct, men who got through and forced one of the gates; so that he was within the town before Villeroy had any apprehension of an army being near him. Awakened on a sudden with the noise, he got out to the street, and there was taken prisoner. At the instant that one of the German officers laid hold on him he whispered him, and said, “I am marshal de Villeroy: I will give you ten thousand pistoles, and promise you a regiment, if you will carry me to the castle.” But the officer answered him, “I have a long time faithfully served the emperor my master, and will not now betray him.” So he was sent to the place where Eugene was; who sent him to one more secure, under a strong guard. But, notwithstanding this, the other body neglecting to come up at the time appointed, an Irish regiment secured the bridge; and the design of capturing the garrison failed, although it was so well contrived and so happily executed on one part. Eugene had but four thousand men with him, and the other body not being able to join him, he was forced to march back, which he did without any considerable loss, carrying marshal Villeroy and some other prisoners with him. In this attempt, though he had not an entire success, yet he gained all the glory to which the ambition of a military man could aspire, and was considered as the greatest and happiest general of the age.

The queen of England now concerted measures with the emperor for declaring and carrying on a war with France. Her Britannic majesty highly resented the indignity offered to herself, and the wrong done the house of Austria, by the duke of Anjou’s usurping the crown of Spain. She acted, therefore, to preserve the liberty and balance of Europe, to pull down the exorbitant power of France, and at the same time to revenge the affront offered her, by the king of France’s owning the pretended prince of Wales for king of her dominions. Eugene was made president of the council of war by the emperor, and all the world approved his choice; as indeed they well might, since this prince no sooner entered on the execution of his office than affairs took quite a new turn. The nature and limits of our plan will not suffer us to enlarge upon the many memorable actions which were performed by this great statesman and soldier during the course of this war, which proved so fatal to the glory of Louis XIV. The battles of Schellenburg, Blenheim, Turin, &c. are so particularly related in almost every history, that we shall not insist upon them here. In 1710 the enemies of Eugene, who had vowed his destruction, sent him a letter, with a paper inclosed, which was poisoned to such a degree, that it made his highness, with two or three more who did but handle it, ready to swoon; and killed a dog immediately, upon his swallowing it after it was greased. The next year, 1711, in April, the emperor Joseph died of the small-pox; when Eugene marched into Germany, to secure the election of his brother to the throne. The same year, the grand visier sent one of his agas in embassy to his highness, who gave him a very splendid audience at Vienna, and received from him a letter written with the grand visier’s own hand, wherein he styles his highness “the great pattern of Christian princes, president of the Aulic council of war to the emperor of the Romans, the most renowned and most excellent among the Christian princes, first peer among all the nations that believe in Christ, and best beloved visier of the emperor of the Romans.”

In 1712, after having treated with the States General upon the proposals of peace then made by the court of France, he came over to England, to try if it were possible to engage our court to go on with the war, for it met with great obstructions here: but was surprised to find, the day before his arrival, which was on Jan. 5, that his good friend the duke of Marlborough was turned out of all his places. However, he concealed his uneasiness, and made a visit to the lord president of the council, and to the lord treasurer; and having had an audience of the queen, the day after his arrival, he paid his compliments to the foreign ministers, and the new ministry, especially the duke of Ormond, whose friendship he courted for the good of the common cause. But, above all, he did not neglect his fast friend and companion in military labours, the discarded general; but passed his time chiefly with him. He was entertained by most of the nobility, and magnificently feasted in the city of London by those merchants who had formerly contributed to the Silesian loan. But the courtiers, though they caressed him for his own worth, were not forward to bring his negotiations to an happy issue; nor did the queen, though she used him civilly, treat him with that distinction which was due to his high merit. She made him a present of a sword set with diamonds, worth about 5000l. which he wore on her birth-day; and had the honour at night to lead her to and from the opera performed on this occasion at court. After he had been told that his master’s affairs should be treated of at Utrecht, he had his audience of leave March the 13th, and the 17th set out to open the campaign in Flanders, where he experienced both good and ill fortune at Quesnoy and Landrecy.

In 1713, though forced to act only defensively on the Rhine against the French, who now threatened to overrun the empire, he nevertheless so signalized himself by his vigilance and conduct, that he obliged them to spend one whole summer in taking Landau and Friburg. March 6, 1714, he concluded with marshal Villars, at Rastadt, preliminary articles of a general peace between the empire and France; which were signed by him, as his imperial majesty’s plenipotentiary, Sept. the 27th following, in a solemn treaty of peace, at Baden in Ergau: in which treaty he is entitled “The most high prince and lord Eugene, prince of Savoy and Piedmont, knight of the golden fleece, counsellor of state to his sacred imperial majesty, president of the council of war, lieutenant-general and marshal of the holy Roman empire.” Upon his return to Vienna, he was received with the loudest acclamations of joy by the people, and with the most cordial affection by the emperor, who presented him with a fine sword richly adorned with diamonds. He now seemed to have some respite from the fatigues of war but neither was this to last long: for, though peace was concluded with France, yet war broke out on the side of the Turks, who in 1716 began to make extraordinary preparations. Eugene was sent with the command of the imperial army into Hungary, attacked the Turks in their camp, and obtained a complete victory over them. He took the important fortress of Temeswaer, after the Turks bad been in possession of it 164 years; and next invested Belgrade, which he also took.

After making peace with the Turks, he had a long suspension from those glories which constantly attended his rictorious sword: for, in the war which ensued between the emperor and the king of Spain, count Merci had the command of the army in Italy, and Eugene had no share in it, any farther than in council; and at the conclusion of it, when he was appointed the emperor’s first plenipotentiary in the treaty of Vienna, in 1725. We next find him engaged in a new scene of action, in the war between the emperor his master and the kings of France, Spain, and Sardinia, in which, from 1733 to 1735, he experienced various success. This illustrious hero died at Vienna, April 10, 1736, in his seventy-third year. He was found dead in his bed, though he had been very gay the night before with company, whom he had entertained at supper, without making the least complaint; and it was supposed that he was choaked by an immoderate defluxion of rheum, with which, it seems, he was sometimes troubled.

Among the valuable effects left by prince Eugene, were found a rich crucifix, embellished with diamonds, with which he was presented by the emperor, upon his last campaign into Hungary; six gold-hilted swords, set with diamonds; one presented by his late imperial majesty, another by queen Anne, a third by the king of Prussia, a fourth by George I, before his accession to the crown, a fifth by the republic of Holland, and a sixth by the state of Venice; an exceeding rich string of diamonds for a hat, with a buckle of the same; twenty gold watches, set with diamonds; besides a prodigious quantity of silver plate, jewels, &c. to an immense value. He likewise left a large and curious library of books; among which were several rare manuscripts, besides a fine cabinet of medals, and other curiosities.

As to a general character of prince Eugene, it may easily be collected from what has already been said of him. He was always remarkable for his liberality; one instance of which he shewed, while he was here in England, to Mrs. Centlivre, the poetess; who, having addressed to him a trifling poem on his visiting England, received from him a gold snuff-box, valued at about 35 pistoles. He was also a man of great and unaffected modesty, so that he could scarcely bear, with any tolerable grace, the just acknowledgments that were paid him by all the world. Burnet, who was admitted several times to much discourse with him, says, that “he descended to an easy equality with those who conversed with him, and seemed to assume nothing to himself, while he reasoned with others.” He said jokingly one day, when the duke of Marlborough talking of his attachment to his queen, Regina pecunia, “Money is his queen.” This great general was a man of letters; he was intended for the church, and was known at the court of France by the name of the abbé de Savrie. Having made too free in a letter with some of old Louis the Fourteenth’s gallantries, he fled out of France, and served as a volunteer in the emperor’s service in Hungary against the Turks, where he soon distinguished himself by his talents for the military art. He was presented by the emperor with a regiment, and a few years afterwards made commander in chief of his armies. Louvois, the insolent war-minister of the insolent Louis XIV. had written to him to tell him, that he must never think of returning to his country: his reply was, “Eugene entrera un jour en France en dépit de Louvois & de Louis.” In all his military expeditions, he carried with him Thomas a Kempis “de Imitatione.” He seemed to be of the opinion of the great Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, “that a good Christian always made a good soldier.” Being constantly busy, he held the passion of love very cheap, as a mere amusement, that served only to enlarge the power of women, and to abridge that of men. He used to say, “Les amoureux sont dans la société ce que les fanatiques sont en religion.” His amusement was war, and in the Memoirs written by himself, and lately published, he speaks of some of its horrors with too little feeling. It is said that he was observed to be one day very pensive, and was asked by his favourite aid-de-camp on what he was meditating so deeply? “My good friend,” replied he, “I am thinking, that if Alexander the Great had been obliged to wait for the approbation of the deputies of Holland before he attacked the enemy, how impossible it would have been for him to have made half the conquests that he did!” This illustrious conqueror lived to a great age, and being tam Mercurio quam Marte, “as much a scholar as a captain,” amused himself with making a fine collection of books, pictures, and prints, which are now in the emperor’s collection at Vienna. The celebrated cardinal Passionei, then nuncio at Vienna, preached his funeral sermon, from the following text of apocryphal Scripture: “Alexander, son, of Philip the Macedonian, made many wars, took many strong holds, went through the ends of the earth, took spoils of many nations: the earth was quiet before him. After these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.”—Maccabees.

, catholic bishop of Carthage, was elected to that see in the year 480 or 481, in the reign of Hunneric, and at the request of the emperor Zeno, and for some time presided over that diocese without disturbance. In the year 483, however, Hunneric issued a proclamation, ordering all the bishops who believed in the trinitarian doctrine, to appear at Carthage, and hold a conference with the Arian bishops. The catholics at first remonstrated against obeying this order without the approbation of the transmarine bishops. The meeting, however, having taken place, the first debates were respecting the title of Catholics, by which Eugenius and his party were distinguished, and the title of Patriarch assumed by Cyrita, the head of the Arian bishops. Eugenics then presented a confession of faith, or statement of his principles, and offered to defend them in argument with the Arians; but Hunneric, who was himself an Arian, not only refused to hear him, but banished all the catholic bishops, and among them Eugenius, who was sentenced to the desarts in the province of Tripoly, where he remained until the death of Hunneric in the year 484. During the reign of Gondebald, he continued on his diocese in peace; but Thrasamund, the next king, banished him again, into that part of Gaul where Alaricus, king of the Visigoths, then reigned. Eugenius retired to Albi, where he was unmolested during the remainder of his life. He died at Viance in that territory, Sept. 6, in the year 505. There are some small discourses of his extant, in defence of the catholic faith, as, “Expositio fidei Catholici;” “Apologeticus pro fide;” “Altercatio cum Arianis,” &c.

, archbishop of Toledo in the seventh century, and called the Younger, to distinguish him from his immediate predecessor of the same name, was at first clerk of the church of Toledo, and when chosen archbishop on the death of the elder Eugenius, retired to Saragossa with, a view to spend his days in the retirement of a monastery. Being however discovered, he was brought back to Toledo by order of his sovereign, and appointed archbishop in the year 646, an office which he filled for nine years. He presided at the councils held at Toledo in the years 653, 655, and 656. He was the author of several works, particularly a treatise on the Trinity, two books of miscellanies, and one in prose and verse, which were published by father Sirmond at Paris in 1619, 8vo, along with the poetical pieces of Dracontius. His style is not remarkable for elegance, but his thoughts are often just and pious. He died in the year 657.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born at Basil, on the 14th of April, 1707: he was the son of Paul Euler and of Margaret Brucker (of a family illustrious in literature), and spent the first year of his life at the village of Richen, of which place his father was protestant minister. Being intended for the church, his father, who had himself studied under James Bernoulli!, taught him mathematics, as a ground-work of his other studies, or at least a noble and useful secondary occupation. But Euler, assisted and perhaps secretly encouraged by John Bernoulli, who easily discovered that he would be the greatest scholar he should ever educate, soon declared his intention of devoting his life to that pursuit. This intention the wise father did not thwart, but the son did not so blindly adhere to it, as not to connect with it a more than common improvement in every other kind of useful learn-, ing, insomuch that in his latter days men often wondered how with such a superiority in one branch, he could have been so near to eminence in all the rest. Upon the foundation of the academy of sciences at St. Petersburgh, in, 1723, by Catherine I. the two younger Bernouillis, NichoJas and Daniel, had gone thither, promising, when they set out, to endeavour to procure Euler a place in it: they accordingly wrote to him soon after, to apply his mathetics to physiology, which he did, and studied under the best naturalists at Basil, but at the same time, i. e. in 1727, published a dissertation on the nature and propagation of sound; and an answer to the question on the masting of ships, which the academy of sciences at Paris judged worthy of the accessit. Soon after this, he was called to St. Petersburgh, and declared adjutant to the mathematical class in the academy, a class, in which, from the circumstances of the times (Newton, Leibnitz, and so many other eminent scholars being just dead), no easy laurels were to be gathered. Nature, however, who had organized so many mathematical heads at one time, was not yet tired of her miracles and she added Euler to the number. He indeed was much wanted the science of the calculus integralis, hardly come out of the hands of its creators, was still too near the stage of its infancy not to want to be made more perfect. Mechanics, dynamics, and especially hydrodynamics, and the science of the motion of the heavenly bodies, felt the imperfection. The application of the differential calculus, to them, had been sufficiently successful; but there were difficulties whenever it was necessary to go from the fluxional quantity to the fluent. With regard to the nature and properties of numbers, the writings of Fermat (who had been so successful in them), and together with these all his profound researches, were lost. Engineering and navigation were reduced to vague principles, and were founded on a heap of often contradictory observations, rather than a regular theory. The irregularities in the motions of the celestial bodies, and especially the complication of forces whitfh influence that of the moon, were still the disgrace of geometers. Practical astronomy had jet to wrestle with the imperfection of telescopes, insomuch, that it could hardly be said that any rule for making them existed. Euler turned his eyes to all these objects he perfected the calculus integralis he was the inventor of a new kind of calculus, that of sines he simplified analytical operations and, aided by these powerful help-mates, and the astonishing facility with which he knew how to subdue expressions the most intractable, he threw a new light on all the branches of the mathematics. But at Catherine’s death the academy was threatened with extinction, by men who knew not the connection which arts and sciences have with the happiness of a people. Euler was offered and accepted a lieutenancy on board one of the empress’s ships, with the promise of speedy advancement. Luckily things changed, and the learned captain again found his own element, and was named Professor of Natural Philosophy in 1733, in the room of his friend John Bernouilli. The number of memoirs which Euler produced, prior to this period, is astonishing, but what he did in 1735 is almost incredible, An important calculation was to be made, without loss of time; the other academicians had demanded some months to do it. Euler asked three days—in three days he did it; but the fatigne threw him into a fever, and the fever left him not without the loss of an eye, an admonition which would have made an ordinary man more sparing of the other. The great revolution, produced by the discovery of fluxions, had entirely changed the face of mechanics; still, however, there was no complete work on the science of motion, two or three only excepted, of which Euler felt the insufficiency. He saw, with pain, that the best works on the subject, viz. “Newton’s Principia,” and “Herman’s Phoronomia,” concealed the method by which these great men had come at so many wonderful discoveries, under a synthetic veil. In order to lift this up, Euler employed all the resources of that analysis which had served him so well on so many other occasions; and thus uniting his own discoveries to those of other geometers, had them published by the academy in 1736. To say that clearness, precision, and order, are the characters of this work, would be barely to say, that it is, what without these qualities no work can be, classical of its kind. It placed Euler in the rank of the first geometricians then existing, and this at a time when John Bernouilli was still living. Such labours demanded some relaxation; the only one which Euler admitted was music, but even to this he could not go without the spirit of geometry with him. They produced together the essay on a new theory of music, which was published in 1739, but not very well received, probably, because it contains too much geometry for a musician, and too much music for a geometrician. Independently, however, of the theory, which is built on Pythagorean principles, there are many things in it which may be of service, both to composers, and to makers of instruments. The doctrine, likewise, of the genera and the modes of music is here cleared up with all the clearness and precision which mark the works of Euler. Dr. Burney remarks, that upon the whole, Euler seems not to have invented much in this treatise; and to have done little more than arrange and methodize former discoveries in a scientific and geometric manner. He may, indeed, not have known what antecedent writers had discovered before; and though not the first, yet to have imagined himself an inventor. In 1740, his genius was again called forth by the academy of Paris (who, in 1738, had adjudged the prize to his paper on the nature and properties of fire) to discuss the nature of the tides, an important question, which demanded a prodigious extent of calculations, aud an entire new system of the world. This prize Euler did not gain alone; but he divided it with Maclaurin and D. Bernouilli, forming with them a triumvirate of candidates, which the realms of science had not often beheld. The agreement of the several memoirs of Euler and Bernouilli, on this occasion, is very remarkable. Though the one philosopher had set out on the principle of admitting vortices, which the other rejected, they not only arrived at the same end of the journey, but met several times on the road; for instance, in the determination of the tides under the frozen zone. Philosophy, indeed, led these two great men by different paths; Bernouilli, who had more patience than his friend, sanctioned every physical hypothesis he was obliged to make, by painful and laborious experiment. These Euler’s impetuous genius scorned; and, though his natural sagacity did not always supply the loss, he made amends by his superiority in analysis, as often as there was any occasion to simplify expressions, to adapt them to practice, and to recognize, by final formulae, the nature of the result. In 1741, Euler received some very advantageous propositions from Frederic the Second (who had just ascended the Prussian throne), to go and assist him in forming an academy of sciences, out of the wrecks of the Royal Society founded by Leibnitz. With these offers the tottering state of the St. Petersburgh academy, under the regency, made it necessary for the philosopher to comply. He accordingly illumined the last volume of the “Melanges de Berlin,” with five essays, which are, perhaps, the best things in it, and contributed largely to the academical volumes, the first of which was published in 1744. No part of his multifarious labours is, perhaps, a more wonderful proof of the extensiveness and facility of his genius, than what he executed at Berlin, at a time when he contrived also that the Petersburgh acts should not suffer from the loss of him. In 1744, Euler published a complete treatise of isoperimetrical curves. The same year beheld the theory of the motions of tb.e planets and comets; the well-known theory of magnetism, which gained the Paris prize; and the much-amended translation of Robins’ s “Treatise on Gunnery.” In 1746, his “Theory of Light and Colours” overturned Newton’s “System of Emanations;” as did another work, at that time triumphant, the “Monads of Wolfe and Leibnitz.” Navigation was now the only branch of useful knowledge, for which the labours of analysis and geometry had done nothing. The hydrographical part alone, and that which relates to the direction of the course of ships, had been treated by geometricians conjointly with nautical astronomy. Euler was the first who conceived and executed the project of making this a complete science. A memoir on the motion of floating bodies, communicated to the academy of St. Petersburgh, in 1735, by M. le Croix, first gave him this idea. His researches on the equilibrium of ships furnished him with the means of bringing the stability to a determined measure. His success encouraged him to go on, and produced the great work which the academy published in 1749, in which we find, in systematic order, the most sublime notions on the theory of the equilibrium and mo. tion of floating bodies, and on the resistance of fluids. This was followed by a second part, which left nothing to be desired on the subject, except the turning it into a language easy of access, and divesting it of the calculations which prevented its being of general use. Accordingly in 1773, from a conversation with admiral Knowles, and other assistance, out of the “Scientia Navalis,” 2 vols. 4to, was produced, the “Theorie complette de la Construction et de la Manoeuvre des Vaisseaux.” This work was instantly translated into all languages, and the author received a present of 6000 livres from the French king: he had before had 300l. from the English parliament, for the theorems, by the assistance of which Meyer made his lunar tables . And now it was time to collect into one systematical and continued work, all the important discoveries on the infinitesimal analysis, which Euler had been making for thirty years, and which lay dispersed in the memoirs of the different academies. This, accordingly, the professor undertook; but he prepared the way by an elementary work, containing all the previous requisites for this study. This is called “An Introduction to the analysis of Infinitesimals,” and is a work in which the author has exhausted all the doctrine of fractions, whether algebraical or transcendental, by shewing their transformation, their resolution, and their developernent. This introduction was soon, followed by the author’s several lessons on the “calculus integralis, and differentialis.” Having engaged himself to count Orlow, to furnish the academy with papers sufficient to fill their volumes for twenty years after his death, the philosopher is likely to keep his word, having presented seventy papers, through Mr. Golofkin, in the course of his life, and left two hundred and fifty more behind him; nor is there one of these that does not contain a discovery, or something that may lead to one. The most ancient of these memoirs form the collection then published, under the title of “Opuscula Analytica.” Such were Euler’s labours, and these his titles to immortality His memory shall endure till science herself is no more! Few men of letters have written so much as Euler no geometrician, has ever embraced so many objects at one time or has equalled him, either in the variety or magnitude of his discoveries. When we reflect on the good such men do their fellow-creatures, we cannot help indulging a wish (vain, alas as it is) for their illustrious course to be prolonged beyond the term allotted to mankind. Euler’s, though it has had an end, was very long and very honourable; and it affords us some consolation for his loss, to think that he enjoyed it exempt from the ordinary consequences of extraordinary application, and that his last labours abounded in proofs of that vigour of understanding which marked his early days, and which he preserved to his end. Some swimmings in the head, which seized him on the first days of September, 1783, did not prevent his laying hold of a few facts, which reached him through the channel of the public papers, to calculate the motions of the aerostatical globes; and he even compassed a very difficult integration, in which the calculation had engaged him . But the decree was gone forth: on the 7th of September he talked with Mr. Lexell, who had come to dine with him, of the new planet, and discoursed with him upon other subjects, with his usual penetration. He was playing with one of his grand-children at tea-time, when he was seized with an apoplectic fit. “I am dying,” said he, before he lost his senses; and he ended his glorious life a few hours after, aged seventy-six years, five months, and three days. His latter days were tranquil and serene. A few infirmities excepted, which are the inevitable lot of an advanced age, he enjoyed a share of health which allowed him to give little time to repose. Euler possessed to a great degree what is commonly called erudition he had read all the Latin classics was perfect master of ancient mathematical literature and had the history of all ages, and all nations, even to the minutest facts, ever present to his mind. Besides this, he knew much more of physic, botany, and chemistry, than could be expected from any man who had not made these sciences his peculiar occupation. “I have seen,” says his biographer, Mr. Fuss, “strangers go from him with a kind of surprise mixed with admiration; they could not conceive how a man, who for half a century had seemed taken up in making and publishing discoveries in natural philosophy and mathematics, could have found means to preserve so much knowledge that seemed useless to himself, and foreign to the studies in which he was engaged. This was the effect of a happy memory, that lost nothing of what had ever been entrusted to it nor was it a wonder that the man who was able to repeat the whole Æneis, and to point out to his hearers the first and last verses of every page of his own edition of it, should not have lost what he had learned, at an age when the impressions made upon us are the strongest. Nothing can equal the ease with which, without expressing the least degree of ill-humour, he could quit his abstruse meditations, and give himself up to the general amusements of society. The art of not appearing wise above one’s fellows, of descending to the level of those with whom one lives, is too rare in these days not to make it a merit in Euler to have possessed it. A temper ever equal, a natural and easy chearfulness, a species of satirical wit, tempered with urbane humanity, the art of telling a story archly, and with simplicity, made his conversation generally sought. The great fund of vivacity which he had at all times possessed, and without which, indeed, the activity we have just been admiring could not have existed, carried him sometimes away, and he was apt to grow warm, but his anger left him as quickly as it came on, and there never has existed a man to whom he bore malice. He possessed a precious fund of rectitude and probity. The sworn enemy of injustice, whenever or by whomsoever committed, he used to censure and attack it, without the least attention to the rank or riches of the offender. Recent examples of this are in the recollection of all who hear me.” As he was filled with respect for religion, his piety was sincere, and his devotion full of fervour. He went through all his Christian duties with the greatest attention. Euler loved all mankind, and if he ever felt a motion of indignation, it was against the enemy of religion, particularly against the declared apostles of infidelity. He was of a very religious turn of mind. He published a New Demonstration of the Existence of God, and of the Spirituality of the Soul, which last has been admitted into several divinity schools as a standard book. With scrupulous exactness he adhered to the religion of his country, that of Calvinism, and, fortified by its principles, he was a good husband, a good father, a good friend, a good citizen, a good member of private society.

“Euler was twice married, and had thirteen children, four of whom only have survived him. The eldest son was for some time his father’s assistant and successor the second, physician to the empress and the third a lieutenantcolonel of artillery, and director of the armory at Sesterbeck. The daughter married major Bell. From these children he had thirty-eight grand-children, twenty-six of whom are still alive. Never have I been present at a more touching sight than that exhibited by this venerable old man, surrounded, like a patriarch, by his numerous offspring, all attentive to make his old age agreeable, and enliven the remainder of his days, by every species of kind solicitude and care.”

, archbishop of Toledo in the ninth century, was of an ancient Christian family of Cordova. In his youth he joined the community of ecclesiastics of St. Zoilus, then in the monastery of Cutelar, where he became intimate with Alvarus. In the year 844 he travelled into Navarre, and after his return to Cordova, in the year 850, he was imprisoned, under the reign of Abderamus, with some other Christians, on account of his religion. From this, however, he appears to have been released, and continued to exhort the Christians to maintain their faith at the risk of their lives. Having concealed a young Christian female named Leocritia, whom her Mahometan parents would have forced to apostatize, he was apprehended with her, and both were condemned to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 859. This was soon after his appointment to the archbishopric of Toledo, to which, however, he was never consecrated. He wrote “Memoriale Sanctorum,” an account of the martyrdom of the Christians who had suffered before him in Cordova and afterwards he wrote an apology or defence of the same martyrs. These and his other writings are inserted in the Bibl. Patrum, vol. XV. and were printed separately by Morales in 1554, and by Poncius Leo in 1574.

, a celebrated orator of the fourth century, was a Greek by family, as his name imports, but was born at Autun, as he himself informs us in the fine panegyrie which he spoke at Treves in the year 309, in the presence of Constantine the Great. In the year 311 he again delivered an oration before that prince at Treves, as spokesman for the inhabitants of Autun, whom Constantine had honoured with a visit, and on whose city he had bestowed marks of liberality and favour. Eumenius long taught rhetoric in that city, and was highly esteemed by Constantine, as he had before been by Constantius Chlorus, the emperor’s father, who died in the year 306. Eumenius appeared to most advantage in the oration which he delivered before Rictiovarus, or Riccius Varus, the prefect of Lyons, in favour of the public schools for the young Gauls, of which he himself had the care. They had been destroyed by the incursions of some rebels, and Eumenius, in order to their re-establishment, offered the whole of his salary, which is said to have amounted to 600,000 sesterces, or more than 3000l. of our money; but this appears to have included his salary as imperial secretary, an office which he also held. All that remain of his works are printed in the “Panegyrici veteres.” His style indicates the declension of pure Latinity.

, a native of Sardis in Lydia, flourished in the fourth century, under the emperors Valentinian, Valeas, and Gratian. He was a celebrated sophist, a physician and historian. He was brought up by Chrysanthius, a sophist of noble birth, who was related to him by marriage; at whose request he wrote his book “Of. the Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists,” in which he frequently shews himself an enemy to Christianity. Brucker calls it a mass of extravagant tales, discovering a feeble understanding, and an imagination prone to superstition. He wrote a history of the Caesars, which he deduced from the reign of Claudius, where Herodian left off, down to that of Arcadius and Honorius. Photius speaks with approbation of this history; but complains, that he all along treats the Christian emperors very injuriously, while he is so partial to the heathen, as even to prefer Julian to Constantine the Great. He inveighs also severely against the monks, whom he charged with pride and insolence, under the mask of austerity and ridicules with great profaneness the relics of the martyrs. This history is lost but the substance of it is in Zosimus, who is supposed to have done little more than copy it. We have no other remains of Eunapius, but his “Lives of the Sophists,” 1596, 8vo, except a small fragment of his history, which is printed at the end of some editions of the lives; though Fabricius is of opinion that this fragment belongs to another Eunapius, who lived somewhat earlier.

, an Arian heretic of the fourth century, was born at Dacora, a town of Cappadocia and was the son of a peasant but not relishing a country life, he went to Constantinople, and afterwards to Alexandria, where he became the disciple and secretary of Ætius, but was abundantly more subtle than his master, as well as more bold in propagating the doctrines of his sect, who have since been called Eunomians. He then returned to Antioch, where he was ordained a deacon by Eudoxius, bishop of that place; but being sent to defend Eudoxius against Basil of Ancyra, before the emperor Constantius, he was seized upon the road by the partisans of Basil, and banished to Mida, a town, of Phrygia. He returned to Constantinople, and in the year 360 was made bishop of Cyzicum, by his protector Eudoxius, who advised him to conceal his doctrines: but Eunomius was incapable of following this advice, and gave so much disturbance to the church by the intemperance of his zeal, that Eudoxius himself, by the order of Constantius, was obliged to depose him from his bishopric, and he was that year banished again. He retired to a house "which he had in Chalcedonia, where he concealed the tyrant Procopius in the year 365, and being accused by the emperor Valens of having afforded shelter to his enemy, was by him banished a third time to Mauritania. Valens, bishop of Mursa, got him recalled; and he was next banished to the isle of Naxos, for disturbing the peace of the church. He again returned to Chalcedonia; but Theodosius the elder obliged him to quit that place, and sent him first to Halmyris, a desert of Mossia, near the Danube, and afterwards to Caesarea of Cappadocia; where, however, the inhabitants would not suffer him to continue, because he had formerly written against Basil, their bishop. Tired, at length, with being thus tossed about, he petitioned to retreat to the place of his birth; where he died very old, about the year 394, after having experienced great variety of sufferings.

, the son of Polymnestus of Chalcis in Fubcca, a Greek poet and historian, was born, according to Suidas, in the 26th olympiad, at the time when Pyrrhns was defeated by the Romans, which was in the third year of that olympiad, or B. C. 274. Although his person was not captivating, he is said to have been beloved by Nicia, the wife of Alexander the king of his country. Towards the latter end of his life, he grew rich, and became librarian to Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, at the time of whose accession he was above fifty years of age. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote in heroic verse, some few fragments of which are still extant. Cicero speaks of his compositions as obscure: but he was highly esteemed by the emperor Tiberius, who imitated his style, and placed statues of him in the libraries of Rome. There was also another Euphphoron, a son of Æschylus, who gained prizes at Athens for some posthumous tragedies of his father’s; and wrote a few himself; and a third, author of some Greek epigrams in the Authologia, who flourished in the 126th olympiad.

, an excellent sculptor and painter of Athens, was the disciple of Aristides, and flourished about 362 years before Christ. He wrote several volumes on the art of colouring, and on symmetry, which are lost. His conceptions were noble and elevated, his style masculine and bold; and he was, according to Pliny, the first who signalized himself by representing the majesty of heroes. Among his most celebrated paintings were the twelve Gods, the battle of Mantinea, and Theseus. The refinements of expression were certainly carried very far by Euphranor, if we may form our judgment from the Theseus, which he opposed to that of Parrhasius > and the bronze figure of Alexander Paris, in whom, says Pliny, the umpire of the goddesses^ the lover of Helen, and yet the murderer of Achilles, might be traced. He made the character of Paris so pregnant, that those who knew his history might trace in it the origin of all his future feats, though first impressed by the expression allotted to the predominant quality and moment. Such appears to be the expression of the sitting Paris, formerly in the cortile of the palace Altheims at Rome, a work of the highest style, and worthy of Euphranor, “though,” says Mr. Fuseli, “I shall not venture to call it a repetition in marble of his bronze.”

, a stoic philosopher, who flourished in the second century, was a friend of Dio and of Apollonius Tyanseus, who introduced him to Vespasian. Although a violent quarrel arose between the latter philosopher and Euphrates, in consequence of which Philostratus, the panegyrist of the former, inveighs with great severity against the latter, it appears from the testimony of Epictetus, Pliny the younger, and Eusebius, that Euphrates was v universally esteemed for his talents and virtues, and that the censures of Philostratus deserve only contempt. Pliny’s character of him is highly interesting. “If ever,” says he, " polite learning flourished at Rome, it certainly does at present. Of this I could give you many instances; but I will content myself with naming only Euphrates the philosopher. When in my youth I served in the army in Syria, I had an opportunity of conversing familiarly with this excellent man, and took some pains to gain his affection, though that indeed - was not difficult for he is exceedingly open to access, and full of that gentleness of manner which he teaches. Euphrates is possessed of shining talents, which cannot fail to interest even the unlearned. He discourses with great accuracy, dignity, and elegance; and frequently rises into the sublimity and luxuriance of Plato himself. His style is copious and diversified, and so wonderfully sweet as to captivate even the most reluctant auditor. Add to all this, his graceful form, comely aspect, long hair, and large white beard; circumstances which, though they may probably be thought trifling and accidental, contribute, however, to procure him much reverence. There is no disgusting negligence in his dress; his countenance is grave, but not austere; his approach commands respect, without exciting awe. With the strictest sanctity, he unites the most perfect politeness of manner. He inveighs against vice, not against men; and, without chastising, reclaims the offender. You listen with 6xed attention to his exhortations, and even when convinced, still hang with eagerness upon his lips. In conformity to the principles of the stoic philosophy, Euphrates, when he found his strength worn out by disease and old age, voluntarily put a period to his life by drinking hemlock, having first, for some unknown reason, obtained permission from the emperor Adrian.

, a heretic of the second century, was the founder of the sect of Ophites or Serpentarians, one of whose dogmas was, “that the serpent by which our first parents were deceived, was either Christ himself or Sophia (wisdom) concealed under that form,” for which reason they paid a kind of divine honours to certain serpents kept for that purpose. In most points he adhered to the Oriental or Gnostic philosophy, of two opposite principles with the Æons, and other dreams of those sects. Origen did not consider the disciples of Euphrates as Christians, but as calumniators of Jesus Christ; but Dr. Lardner, in their defence, has proved that they believed in Jesus, as an excellent man, and the true Messiah.

, was an Athenian comic poet, who flourished about the year 435 before Christ, in the time of the old comedy. (See Cratinus). His play of “Numeniae” was acted in this year, and his “Flatterers,” about the year 420. Many others of his pieces are known by name, of which only fragments now remain. Of his death various accounts are given. Some say that he was thrown into the sea, by order of Alcibiades, for writing the “Baptae” against him; others, that he was shipwrecked in a military expedition in the Hellespont, which produced, says Suidas, a decree, that no poet should perform military service. He obtained seven prizes in the theatres of Athens. His first drama was produced at the age of seventeen. There are some remarks on this poet in Cumberland’s “Observer,” but which are now known to have been Bentley’s.

, a celebrated tragic poet, the contemporary and rival of Sophocles, was born of a creditable Athenian family; especially on his mother Clito’s side, whom Suidas reports to have been nobly descended, though Aristophanes in jest calls her a cabbage-seller, and Valerius Maximus has recorded it in earnest. He was born in the island Salamis, whither his father and mother had fled, with a great many other eminent families of Athens, upon the formidable invasion of Greece by Xerxes: and his birth is supposed to have happened in the first year of the 75th olympiad, 480 years before Christ. His name is supposed to have been formed from the Euripus, or narrow sea, in which the battle of Salamis was fought, and the Persians defeated. It is said, that while his mother was with child, her husband Mnesarchus consulted the oracle of Apollo, to know what he might hope for; and that he received in answer, that the child who should be born to him would reach the summit of glory, and gain the honour of the sacred garland. Mnesarchus merely interpreting this promise of the oracle, that his son should win the prize in the Olympic games, took care to educate him in the same manner with those whom the Greeks designed for athletae or wrestlers: but Euripides, though he made so good a progress in these feats of the body, as to gain the crown at the Athenian sports in honour of Ceres and Theseus, had always a more laudable ambition: and therefore, while his father was labouring to have him perfect in the paltcstra, became a constant auditor of Anaxagoras in philosophy, and Prodicus in rhetoric; and diverted his leisure hours by studying painting, which some will have to have been at first his profession. It is not probable, that Euripides learnt morality of Socrates, as Gellius reports: Socrates was ten or twelve years younger than Euripides, and therefore is more likely to have profited by him; but it is certain that fchey were friends, and Socrates is thought to have been consulted by him in the composition of his dramas. Socrates very rarely frequented the theatre, except when the pieces of Euripides were represented. In the character of Palamedes, Euripides is supposed to have delineated that of his friend, and some verses are quoted addressing the Greeks as having slain the best and wisest of thir nation, which the audience are said to have applied to the fate of Socrates, and to have burst into tears at the recollection of their crime. This, however, seems rather to savour of conjecture, and if the Athenians were ever thus affected, it must have been at some representation of the play subsequent to the death of Socrates, who survived Euripides some years, and therefore, in the character of Palamedes could have only alluded to his death, as the probable result of the jealousy and rashness of the Athenians.

The occasion of his applying himself to dramatic poetry was the extreme danger his master Anaxagoras had incurred by his philosophy: who, under the accusation of despising the public gods, was banished from Athens by the fury of the mob, and narrowly escaped with his life. Euripides was then eighteen; but his works will evidently shew, that he did not afterwards lay aside the study of morality and physics. He wrote a great number of tragedies, which were highly esteemed both in his life-time and after his death: and Quintilian, among many others, doubted whether he was not the best of the tragic poets. “Sophocles and Euripides,” says he, “have far excelled Æschylus in tragedy. Many people question, which of these two poets in their different manner deserves the preference but, as thisbears no relation to what I am now writing upon, I shall leave it undetermined. However, there, is np one but must own, that Euripides will be of much more use to those who are intended to plead: for his diction, which is censured by such as think there is more sublimity in the grave, majestic, and sonorous style of Sophocles, comes nearer to that of an orator. He likewise abounds with moral reflections; and is almost equal to the sages, when he treats on the same subject with them. In his manner of reasoning and replying, he may be compared to the most renowned orators at the bar. He charms all, when he attempts to raise the passions; and, when he would raise pity, he is inimitable.” Quintilian has here specified three of the most prominent characteristics of Euripides, his disposition to philosophize, the rhetorical cast of his style, and the power of touching the passions, which, notwithstanding frequent insipidity, he sometimes exercises in a high degree. The philosophy of his master Anaxagoras may be often traced in his writings, as has been proved by Valckenaer in his learned diatribe on the fragments of Euripides, some chapters of which are devoted to the illustration of this subject.

It has been wondered, that the Roman poets should celebrate Sophocles, Æschylus, and Thespis, as Virgil, Propertius, and Horace have done, yet should make no mention of Euripides: but the reason assigned for this omission is, that the syllables which compose his name were not suited to hexameter verse, and not that they thought him inferior, at least to Æschylus and Thespis. Varro relates, that out of the seventy- five tragedies written by him, five only gained the victory yet observes, that most of those who conquered him were wretched poetasters. He was probably defeated by that private interest and intrigue, which frequently pronounces the fate of compositions; and the basest arts, we are told, were employed, in order to procure the favour of the judges. In the mean time, his pieces were prodigiously applauded; and nothing can better demonstrate the high esteem they were in, than the service they did to the Athenians in Sicily. The Athenian army under the command of Nicias suffered all the calamities of unsuccessful war, and the victors made a most cruel advantage of their victories; but although they treated the Athenian soldiers with so much inhumanity, yet they are said to have spared such as could repeat any verses of Euripides. “We are told,” says Plutarch, “that many, who returned safe to their country, kindly saluted Euripides, declaring that they had been restored to their liberty, for teaching their victors such verses of his as they remembered; and that others, who roamed up and down, had meat and drink given them, in return for singing his verses.”

It was almost impossible for two great poets, such as Sophocles and Euripides, who were contemporary, and aspired to the same glory, to love one another, or to continue long in friendship; and Athenseus relates several particulars of their enmity, which are no way honourable to them. Yet Sophocles discovered a great esteem for Euripides, when he heard of his death, and caused a tragedy to be represented, in which he himself appeared in a mourning habit, and made his actors take off their crowns. Aristophanes took great pleasure in ridiculing Euripides in his comedies, which perhaps might give him more uneasiness than his quarrel with Sophocles.

About a year after the Sicilian defeat, Euripides left Athens, and went to the Macedonian court, to which king Archelaus, who was fond of learned men, invited them by acts of munificence, gave them a gracious reception, and often raised them to very high honours. Euripides, if Solinus may be credited, he made his prime minister. Kpthing can, be a more express proof of the high esteem, Archelaus had for him, than his resenting some personal insults of one Decamnichus offered to Euripides. Our poet was seventy-two years of age when he went to that court, and had passed but few years there, when an unhappy accident concluded his life. He was walking in a wood, and, according to his usual manner, in deep meditation; when unfortunately meeting with Archelaus’s hounds, he was by them torn to pieces. Every account gives him the same end, though it differs from the rest in some minute circumstances. Some indeed relate that he was pulled to pieces by women, to revenge the honour of their sex; but this is a fable, copied from that of Orpheus, who is said to have been destroyed by Bacchanals. It is not certain, whether his death happened by chance, or through envy of some of the courtiers. The anthor of an epigram in the Anthology denies all these accounts, and ascribes his death to a decay of nature. Archelaus, however, buried him with great magnificence; and not contented with solemnizing his funeral obsequies, he also cut his hair, and assumed all the marks of grief. The Athenians were so moved with his death, that the whole city went into mourning; and one of his friends, named Philemon, declared that, could he be persuaded that the dead enjoy a sense of things, he would hang himself, in order to be with Euripides. The Athenians also sent ambassadors to Macedonia, to request of Archelaus that his body might be removed to his native country; but the king refused their demand, and erected in memory of the poet a noble monument in the vicinity of Pella, his chief city. Disappointed of this, the Athenians testified their respect for Euripides by a cenotaph on the road leading from the city to the Pirjcus. Thucydides the historian is said to have written an epitaph on him, to this purpose “All Greece is the monument of Euripides the Macedonian land possesses his bones, for there he reached the boundary of his life. His country is Athens, the Greece of Greece. Having afforded general delight by his muse, he enjoys the recompense of general praise.” That he was the friend of Socrates, may be thought a circumstance which strongly testifies the virtues of his private character. He seems not to have possessed the social qualities which distinguished his rival Sophocles. Both Euripides and his fellow-disciple Pericles are said to have imitated the austere manners of their master Auaxagoras. An ancient noet, Alexander Ætolus, quoted by Gellius, says of him, that he was morose in social intercourse, averse from laughter, and even during the festivity of the banquet, ignorant how to promote hilarity; but that whatever he wrote he tempered with the sweetness of honey, and the charms of the Sirens. He has been charged with a professed antipathy to the fair sex. This should seem to be contradicted by his having been twice married; but it appears that he was unhappily married in both instances, and may from his own experience have contracted some degree of prejudice against the sex in general. Yet although he seems eager to take every opportunity of uttering a bitter or malignant sentiment against women, Sophocles is said to have observed, that the hatred which he expressed against them was confined to the stage. And even there our countryman, Barnes, observes that if he has described some females with all the vices incident to human nature, yet he has delineated many others with all the virtues that can adorn their sex. He was near seventy-five years old when he died; and, notwithstanding some aspersions recorded by Athenaeus, he was, according to the best accounts, a man of great gravity and severity in his conduct, and regardless of pleasures.

He is, of all writers, the most remarkable for having interspersed moral reflections and philosophical aphorisms in his dramatic pieces; and, it is generally thought, he has done it too frequently. Though he had the fate of Anaxagoras before his eyes, yet he was not always so well guarded in his maxims as he should have been. He Hazarded one, relating to the sanctity of an oath, in his Hippolytus, which brought him in danger: “My tongue has sworn, but still my mind is free.” For this verse he was impeached of impiety, as teaching and defending perjury; but it does not appear that he was punished for it. The answer he made to the accuser is left on record by Aristotle: “that it was a very unreasonable thing to bring a cause into a court of judicature, which belonged only to the cognizance of a theatre, and the liberty of a public festival; that, when these words were spoken on the stage, there went along with them some reason to justify them, and that he was ready to justify them, whenever the bill should be preferred in the right place.” Another time, Seneca informs us, he incensed the audience highly, by making Bellerophon dogmatize too gravely in favour of avarice; Kg highly, that they would have driven the actor from the stage, if Euripides himself had not appeared, and besought them to have a little patience, by assuring them, that they would soon see the unhappy end of the miser, whose maxims had so strongly disgusted the audience. Plutarch relates, that at another time such offence was taken at the two first verses of his Menaiippus, which seemed to doubt the existence of Jupiter himself, that he was forced to change them: and others have concluded him to be an atheist, from impious speeches uttered in his plays. His error seems to have been his giving a turn, more offensive than necessary, to those impious sentiments which he was obliged to put into the mouths of his vicious characters. His editor Barnes observes, that, to support the character of Sisyphus, ha was obliged to make him reason as an atheist; and that therefore Plutarch had no just cause to suspect there the artifices of an author, of giving vent to his own thoughts under another man’s name. “I wonder very much,” says Barnes, “what it was could make so great a man believe, that Euripides had delivered his sentiments craftily in the person of Sisyphus; and that this should be our tragic poet’s opinion, since no man ever had a deeper sense of religion than Euripides, as is manifest from numberless passages in his works; and it very justly suited the character of Sisyphus to speak impiously, as I observed on Bellerophon.” He used to shut himself up in a gloomy cave, and there compose his works. This cave was in the isle of Salamis, and Aulus Gellius had the curiosity to go into it. He composed his verses with great difficulty. He one day complained to the poet Alcestis, that in the three last days he had been able to write but three verses, though he had laboured with all his might. Alcestis observed, with an air of high vanity, that he had written an hundred with the utmost ease. “Ay, but,” says Euripides, “you don't consider the difference: your verses are made to live no longer than these three days, whereas mine are to continue for ever.” The works of Euripides, as well as Sophocles, were transmitted to king Ptolemy, when he was founding the Alexandrian library, a circumstance thus related by Galen: “King Ptolemy,”, says he, “sent to the Athenians to borrow the original manuscripts of Sophocles, Æschylus, and Euripides, in order to transcribe them for his library; laying down in their hands fifteen talents of silver, by way of security. Upon receipt of the books, he look care to have them written out on the fairest parchment, and set off with the richest ornaments: and then, keeping the originals, he sent the copies to Athens, with this message, viz. that the king had desired the city to accept of those books, and of the fifteen talents which he had left in their hands: that they had no reason to be angry, since, if he had neither sent them the originals nor the copies, he had done them no injury, inasmuch as they themselves, by taking a security, supposed it a sufficient reparation for the loss.”

There are now extant but nineteen of his tragedies, and part pf a twentieth though according to Suidas he composed ninety-two according to others, seventy-five only; but Barnes found the titles of eighty-four. It seems to be generally agreed, that in the construction of his plots, and the delineation of his characters, Euripides is inferior to Sophocles his introductory prologues are inartificial, and too much impair the interest of the catastrophe his incidents are frequently improbable, and he sometimes throws parts of his subject into long and tedious narratives; but yet his beauties are more striking than his faults, and he was in the highest sense a poet, and by the ancients was placed at the head of the tragic writers. Besides his plays, five letters are ascribed to Euripides, three of which are addressed to king Archelaus, and the two others to Sophocles and Cephisophon; but these are consigned by Bentley to the same condemnation with the epistles of Phalaris, and other forgeries of the ancient sophists.

The earliest edition of any part of the works of Euripides was printed at Florence, about the end of the fifteenth century. It is a small volume in 4to, printed in capital Jetters, and containing only the Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, and Andromache. This was followed by the princeps or Aldine edition, Venice, 1503, 8vo, containing eighteen tragedies, but not taken from very good manuscripts. Three editions, printed at Basil by Hervagius, 1537, 1544, and 1551, 8vo, were chiefly taken from the Aldine copy. To the last is annexed the Electra, first published by P. Victorius, at Florence, 1545. The edition of Oporinus, Basil, 1562, fol. contains the nineteen tragedies, with the Latin version of Stiblinus, and the notes of Brodaeus on several of the tragedies. A small edition was published by Canter, at Antwerp, 1571, 12mo, the Qreek only, which is correct, and was the basis of several of the subsequent editions. This edition was reprinted at Heidelberg, 1497, 2 vols. 8vo, with a Latin version, and the commencement of the imperfect play (the Danae) found in a ms. of the Palatine library. The notes of Æmilias Portus, printed separately, are frequently annexed to it. Joshua Barnes’s magnificent edition appeared at Cambridge, 1694, and still maintains considerable estimation; but there is no editor to whom Euripides is more indebted than to Dr. Musgrave, whose edition was printed at Oxford, 1778, 4 vota 4to. Beck’s edition, Leipsic, 1778 1788, 3 vols. 4to, contains a reprint of that of Barnes, with a collation of Musgrave’s edition, and his notes. An account of the editions of the separate plays may be seen in our authorities. By the laudable labours of Mr. Wodhull and Mr. Potter, the English language can now boast of two good poetical translations of Euripides.

, an English poet, descended from a good family in Ireland, was son of Dr. Eusden, rector of Spotsworth in Yorkshire, and was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge; after which he went into orders, and was for some time chaplain to Richard lord Willoughby de Broke. His first patron was the celebrated lord Halifax, whose poem “On the Battle of the Boyne,” Eusden translated into Latin. He was also esteemed by the duke of Newcastle, on whose marriage with lady Henrietta Godolphin he wrote an Epithalamium, for which, upon the death of Rowe, he was by his grace (who was then lord chamberlain, and considered the verses as an elegant compliment) preferred in 1718 to the laureatship. He had several enemies; and, among others, Pope, who put him into his Dunciad; though we do not know what provocation he gave to any of them, unless by being raised to the dignity of the laurel. Cooke, in his “Battle of the Poets,” speaks thus of him:

And Oldmixon, in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” p. 413, is not sparing of his reflexions on the poet and his patron. His censures, however, are plainly those of a disappointed competitor, and perhaps great part of the ridicule, which has been thrown on Eusden, may arise from his succeeding so ingenious a poet as Rowe. That he was no inconsiderable versifier, the poems he has left will evince; and, as his moral character appears to have been respectable, the duke acted a generous part in providing for a man who had conferred an obligation on him. The first-rate poets were either of principles very different from the government, or thought themselves too distinguished to undergo the drudgery of an annual ode. Eusden, however, seems to have been but little known before his preferment, if we judge by the manner in whieh he is mentioned in the duke of Buckingham’s “Session of the Poets:”

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian, surnamed Pamphilus, from his friendship with Pamphilus the Martyr, was born in Palestine, about A. D. 267. Cave thinks it probable, that he was born at Coesarea; but we have no account of his parents, or his masters. He tells us himself, that he was educated in Palestine, and saw Constantine there, while he travelled through that country in the retinue of Diocletian. He was ordained priest by Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, where he contracted an intimacy with Pamphilus, an eminent presbyter of that church. During the persecution under Diocletian, he exhorted the Christians to suffer resolutely for the faith of Christ; and particularly assisted his friend Pamphilus, who suffered martyrdom in the year 309, after two years imprisonment. In the time of the same persecution he went to Tyre, where he was ah eye-witness of the glorious combats of the five Egyptian martyrs. He was likewise in Egypt and at Thebais, where he saw the admirable constancy of many martyrs of both sexes, and was himself imprisoned. He has been reproached with having offered incense to idols in this persecution, in order to free himself from prison. This imputation was fixed upon him by Potomon, bishop of Heraclea, at the council of Tyre. Epiphanius informs us that Potomon, seeing Eusebius sitting in the council, cried out, “Is it fit, Eusebius, that you should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judged by you Who can bear such things as these Tell me, were not you in prison with me during the time of the persecution I lost an eye in defence of the truth but you are maimed in no part of your body, nor did you suffer martyrdom, but are whole and alive. By what means did you escape out of prison, unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the detestable thing, and perhaps have done it” Epiphanius adds, that Eusebius, hearing this, rose and broke the assembly, saying, “If, when you are out of your own country, you say such things against us, it is certain that your accusers must be in the right: for, if you exercise your tyranny here, you will do it with much more assurance in your own country.” Valesius observes, from the above-cited passage of Epiphanius, that those persons are mistaken, who relate that Eusebius had sacrificed to idols, and that it was openly objected to him in the council of Tyre; since Potomon did not charge him with it, but only grounded a suspicion on his being dismissed safe and whole. Besides, as Cave very properly remarks, had he really sacrificed, the discipline of the church was then so rigid, that he would have been degraded from his orders; at least, would never have been advanced to the episcopal dignity. Dr. Lardner has also brought various authorities to prove this accusation unfounded.

When the persecution was over, and peace restored to the church, Eusebius was elected bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, in the room of Agapius, who was dead; and this was about the year 3 13 or 315. He had afterwards a considerable share in the contest relating to Arius, priest of Alexandria; whose cause he, as well as other bishops of Palestine, defended at first, upon a persuasion that Arius had been unjustly persecuted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. He not only wrote to that bishop in favour of Arius, but likewise, not being able to procure his restoration, permitted him and his followers to preserve their rank, and to hold in their churches the ordinary assemblies of the faithful, on condition that they should submit to their bishop, and intreat him to restore them to communion. He assisted at the council of Nice, held in the year 325, and made a speech to the emperor Constantine, at whose right hand he was placed, when he came to the council. He at first refused to admit of the term Consubstantial; and the long and formal opposition which he made to it occasioned a suspicion for which there seems to be very good ground, that he was not altogether sincere, when he subscribed, as he did at length, to the Nicene creed. About the year 330 he was present at the council of Antioch, in which Eustathius. bishop of that city, was deposed, but though he consented to his deposition, and was elected to the see of Antioch in his room, he absolutely refused it; and when the bishops wrote to Constantine to desire him to oblige Eusebius to consent to the election, he wrote also to the emperor, to request him that he would not urge him to accept of it; which Constantine readily granted, and at the same time commended his moderation. Eusebius assisted at the council of Tyre held in the year 335 against Athanasius; and at the assembly of bishops at Jerusalem, when the church was dedicated there. He was sent by those bishops to Constantine, to defend what they had done against Athanasius; and it was then that he pronounced his panegyric upon that emperor, during the pubHe rejoicings in the 30th year of his reign, which was the last of his life. He was honoured with very particular marks of Constantine’s esteem: he frequently received letters from him, several of which are inserted in his books; and he was often invited to the emperor’s table, and admitted into private discourse with him. When Constantine wanted copies of the scriptures for the use of those churches which he had built at Constantinople, he conn mitted the care of transcribing them to Eusebius, whom he knew to be well skilled in those affairs; and when Eusebius dedicated to him his book “concerning Easter,” he ordered it immediately to be translated into Latin, and desired our author to communicate as soon as possible the other works of that nature which he had then in hand.

Eusebius did not long survive Constantine, for he. died about the year 33 o, according to Dupin; or the year 340, according to Valesius. He wrote several great and important works, of which among those that are extant we have, 1. “Chronicon” divided into two parts, and carried down to A. D. 325 in which, not long before the council of Nice, Cave supposes this work to have been finished. The first part, which is at present extremely mutilated, contains an history of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Jews, Egyptians, &c. from the creation of the world. In the second part, which is called “Canon Chronicus,” he digests the history of the several nations according to the order of time. St. Jerom translated both parts into Latin: but we have remaining of the version of the first part, only some extracts, containing the names of the kings, printed with the translation of the second part. It was printed at Basil, and afterwards published more accurately by Arnauld de Pontac, bishop of Baras, at Bourdeaux in 1604. But no person ever undertook to collect the Greek fragments of the original, till Joseph Scaliger published them at Leyden, 1606, in folio, under the following title: “Thesaurus temporum, complectens Eusebii Pamphili chronicon Latine, S. Hieronymo interprete, cum ipsius chronici fragmentis Graecis antehac non editis, et auctores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio continuantes. Edente Josepho Justo Scaligero, qui notas et castigationes in Eusebium, nee non Isagogicorum Chronologix canonum libros tres adjecit.” There, was another edition, much enlarged, printed at Amsterdam in 1658, in 2 vols. fol. under the care of Alexander Morus. Dupin says, that “this work of Eusebius displays a prodigious extent of reading, and consummate erudition. It is necessary to have read an infinite number of books and ancient monuments, in order to compile an universal history; and to have been master of a very clear understanding at the same time, in order to collect such a multitude of facts, and dispose them in their proper order. This is an immense labour, which is a strong proof of the vast reading and prodigious memory of Eusebius. It must be owned, indeed, that Africanus’s Chronicle was of great service to him, and that he has copied that author throughout his work. However, he has corrected several of Africanus’s mistakes, though he has fallen into others himself. But it is almost impossible not to err in a work of such vast extent and difficulty as an universal chronicle. Mistakes are excusable in a performance of this kind; nor can they hinder it from being deservedly considered as one of the molt useful works of antiquity.” His next work is, 2. “Prseparationis Evangelicae, Hbri XV.” Valesius tells us that this book, as well as his treatise “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” was written before the Nicene council, since they are expressly cited in his “Ecclesiastical History,” which Valesius affirms to have been written also before it; but Cave is of opinion that the book “De Prseparatione Evangelica” was written after that council, undoubtedly after his “Chrdnicon,” since his “Canones Chronici” are expressly cited in it. 3. “De Demonstratione Evangelical” We have of this work only ten books extant, though Eusebius wrote twenty. A beautiful edition of this and the former book was printed in Greek by Robert Stephens in 1544 and 1545, in 2 vols. fol. They were reprinted at Paris, 1628, in 2 vols. fol. with a new version of the book “De Praeparatione,” by the Jesuit Francis Vigerus, and with Donatus’s translation! of the book “De Demonstratione.” 4. “Historic Ecclesiasticae, libri V.” containing the history of the church from the beginning to the death of Licinius the elder, which includes a period of 324 years. Valesius observes, that he wrote this after almost all his other works; and Cave says, that it was written after the Nicene council, since he mentions in it not only his “Chronicon,” but likewise his treatise “De Demonstratione.” At the end of the eighth book we find a small treatise “Of the Martyrs of Palestine;” in which he describes the martyrdom of those who suffered for the faith of Christ iri that province. This has been erroneously confounded with the 8th book of the history; whereas it is a separate tract, which serves for a supplement to that book. The Ecclesiastical History has been often translated and printed: but the best edition is that of Henry Valesius^ who, having remarked the defects of all the former translations, undertook a new one, which he has joined to the Greek text revised by four manuscripts, and has added notes full of erudition. Valesius’s edition was printed at Paris in 1659 and 1671, and at Francfort in 1672, with the rest of the ecclesiastical historians. It was printed again at Cambridge in 1720, in three vols. folio, by William Reading, who has joined to the notes of Valesius such observations of modern authors as he could collect; but, in Le Clerc’s opinion, somewhat too harsh, “they might as well have been placed at the end of the book, since they are much interior to those of Valesius, both for style and matter; and appear with the same disadvantage as an ordinary painting placed by the work of an eminent master.”

Eusebius wrote, 5. “Contra Hieroclem liber.” Hierocles had written a book under the name of Philalethes, against the Christian religion; in which, to> render it ridiculous, he had compared Apollonius Tyanseus with Christ, affirming that the former had worked miracles as well as the latter, and was ascended to heaven as well as he. Against this work of Hierocles, Ewsebius’s book was written; and it is printed at the eml of the “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” and at the end of Philostratus “De vita Apollonii.” 6. “Contra Marcellum, libri II.” and “De Ecclcsiastica Tbeologia, libri III.” This work was designed to confute Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who was condemned for Sabellianism in the synod at Constantinople in the year 336; and was written at the desire of that synod. It is subjoined also to the book “De Demonstratione.” 7. “Epistola ad Cicsarienses de fide Nicajna.” Socrates and Theodoret have preserved this in their ecclesiastical histories. 8. “De locis Hebraicis,” containing a geographical description of all the countries, cities, and places, mentioned in the Old Testament. It was translated into Latin, and at the same time enlarged and corrected by St. Jerom. The original, with that translation, and a new version, with learned notes, was published by James Bonfrerius at Paris in 1631 and 1659. 9. “Oratio de laudibus Constantini,” mentioned above, which is printed at the end of the Ecclesiastical History. 10. “De vita Constantini, libri IV.” This is rather a panegyric than a life, being written in a florid and oratorical style. Some have denied this to be Eusebius’ s; but Cave thinks their arguments so inconsiderable, as not to deserve a particular answer. It is subjoined to the Ecclesiastical History. 11. “Expositio in Canticum Canticorum.” This was not written entirely by Eusebius, but compiled partly out of his writings, and partly out of those of Athanasius, Didymus, St. Gregory of Nyssen, and others. It was published in Greek with Polychronius and Psellus by Meursius at Leyden, 1617, 4to. 12. “Vitae prophetarum,” ascribed to Eusebius in an ancient manuscript, and published with the Commentaries of Procopius on Isaiah, in Greek and Latin, by Curterius, at Paris, 1580, in folio. 13. “Cajioues sacrorum evangeliorum X.” The translation of these by St. Jerom js published among that father’s works, and in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” 14. “Apologise pro Origene liber primus,” translated by Ruffinus, is published in St. Jerom’s works. St. Jerom tells us that Eusebius was the sole author of the “Six Books of the Apology for Origen,” ascribed to his friend Pamphilus: but it is evident from the testimony of Eusebius himself and from that of Photius, that he wrote the first five books in conjunction with Pamphilus, and added the sixth after the death of that martyr. The Latin translation of the first book of this work is all that we have remaining of it. 15. “Sermo in illud, Sero sabbatorum. Item, De Angelis ad monumentum visis.” These two sermons were published in Greek and Latin by Combefisius. Besides these works of Eusebius, there are several extant in ms. which have not yet been published; and the titles of several, which are not extant. Of the latter kind, the thirty books “against Porphyry,” (though Cave makes but twenty-five) “are,” says Le Clerc, “in all probability the greatest loss which we have sustained with respect to the writings of Eusebius; for we might have learned from' them the objections of the most learned philosopher of his time, and the answers of the most learned bishop also of his time.”

Photius has said of Eusebius, that he was a man of extensive learning, but that his style is neither agreeable nor polite. Dupin observes, that he was one of the most learned men of antiquity, as his friends and enemies have equally acknowledged and that there was none among the Greek writers who had read so much but remarks, that he never applied himself to the polishing his works, and is very negligent in his style. Dr. Jortin styles Eusebius “the most learned bishop of his age, and the father of ecclesiastical history. Like the illustrious Origen,” says he, “of whom he was very fond, he hath had warm friends and inveterate enemies; and the world hath ever been divided in judging of his theological sentiments. The Arians and Unitarians have always laid claim to him and in truth any party might be glad to have him. He scrupled at first to admit the word Consubstantial, because it was nnscriptural; but afterwards, for the sake of peace and quiet, he complied with it in a sense which he gave to it. He seems to have been neither an Arian nor an Athanasian, but one who endeavoured to steer a middle course, yet inclining more to the Arians than the Athanasians.” Le Clerc had a dispute with Cave about the orthodoxy of Eusebius; who, as Cave said, was a Consubstantialist, but, according to Le Clerc, an Arian, which last opinion appears to us most probable, as he associated with Arius, and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. Brucker, speaking of his “Preparatio et Demonstrate Evangelica,” says, that had this celebrated work been more free from prejudice; had he taken more care not to be imposed upon by spurious authorities; had he more clearly understood, from the leading principles of each sect, its peculiar language; had he distinguished the pure doctrine of Plato from that of the later Platonists; had he more accurately marked the points of difference between the tenets of the sectarian philosophers and the doctrine of Christ, his works would have been much more valuable.

. Of the bishops of this name who lived in the fourth or fifth centuries, the following only seem deterving of brief notice. They were in general polemics, and their lives were spent in contrdversy, for or against the Arian doctrines. Of these, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus and Nicometftfl in the fourth century, adopted the errors of Arius, persecuted St. Athanasius, was assiduous about the emperor Constantino till his death, and gained Constantius and all the imperial family to his party. Eusebius usurped the see of Constantinople, after procuring the banishment of Paul, the legal bishop, and died in the year 342.

, so called from his being bishop of Emessa, was among the disciples of Eusebius of Cesarea, and died about the year 359. Several works are ascribed to him, which appear to belong to more modern authors i they are in the library of the fathers.

, bishop of Verceli, in the fourth century, was a warm defender of 8t. Athanasius, whose firmness on that occasion offending the emperor Constantius, he was sent into exile. At his return he opposed Auxentius, the Arian bishop of Milan. He died about the year 370. A Latin version of the four Evangelists is attributed to him, which was published at Milan by John Andrew Trici, 1748, 4to; and whether this version was really by St. Eusebius or not, it is said to be very valuable. Two of his letters are in the library of the fathers.

, bishop of Samosata, in the fourth century, at first joined the Arian party. The see of Antioch being vacant, they agreed with the orthodox to choose Meletus bishop, and entrusted Eusebiiis with the decree of this election; but St. Meletus declaring immediately for the catholic faith, the Ariana, supported by the emperor Valens, resolved to depose him. Eusebius, informed of their mischievous design, retired to his dioeese, with the writings which had been entrusted to him. On this messengers were dispatched after him, and the emperor’s en-> voy threatened to cut off his right hand, if he did not deliver up the act of election; but Eusebius presenting his two handi, said he would suffer them both to be cut pff, rather than part with this act, unless in presence of all those who had entrusted him with it. In the year 353 hp subscribed to the Nicene faith in the council of AntiocU, and went to Caesarea in Cappadocia in the year 371, at the request of St. Gregory the elder, of Nazianzen, to elect St. Basil bishop of that city. His zeal for the faith caused him to be banished by Valeus in the year 373, during which exile he went disguised as a soldier, to comfort the orthodox under their persecutions. After the death of Valens, St. Eusebius assisted at the council of Antioch in, the year 378, and was employed by the members, of it, tq visit some eastern churches, which he did with good success in Mesopotamia, and part of Syria; but baying pr-t dained Maris, bishop of the little city of Doliche in Syria, on his entering the city to put him in possession of his church, a woman of the Arian party threw a tile upon his head, which wounded him mortally. In his last moments he sought and obtained a promise from those who attended him, that the woman should not be prosecuted; which, was done nevertheless, but the catholics procured her pardon. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, and St. Basil, wroe sen veral letters to St. Eusebius.

, one of the most celebrated anatomists of the sixteenth century, was a native of San Severino, a village in Italy. He was educated at Rome, where he first conceived a bias in favour of medicine, and especially of anatomy, and cultivated the latter with such success, that he was appointed to the professor’s chair in that college. His life probably passed in the quiet pursuit of his studies and exercise of his profession, as no other events are on record concerning him. He died at Home in 1574. Eustachius was the author of several works, the greater part of which are lost. His treatise “De Controversiis Anatomicorum,” which was one of the most considerable of his productions, is much regretted. His opuscula which remain appeared under the following titles, “Opuscula Anatomica, nempe de Renum structura, officio, et administratione de auditus organo ossium examen de mom capitis de vena quae azygos dicitur, et de alia, quae in flexn brachii communem profundam producit de dentibus,” Venet. 1563, and again in 1674, with the notes of Pinus. An edition was also published at Leyden, in 1707, under the superintendance of Boerhaave. He has the merit of several discoveries in anatomy; being the tirst who described the renal capsules, the thoracic duct, and the passage leading from the throat to the internal ear, which is still called from him the Eustachian tube. A series of figures engraved on copper were mentioned in his “Opuscula” as nearly finished; but they were not discovered until 1714, when they were published at Rome by Lancisi, physician to pope Clement XL in one volume, folio. These plates were again published, but not well printed, at Geneva in 1717. The edition of Rome in 1728 is excellent; but the one published at the same city in 1740, by Petrioli, is less valuable. The same work was twice published at Leyden, under the direction of Albinus, viz. in 1744 and 1762. Eustachius edited the lexicon of Erotran at Venice in 1666, under the title of “Erotiani, Graeci scriptoris vetustissimi, vocum, quae apud Hippocratem sunt, collectio, cum annotatiombus Eustachii,” in quarto.

, a pious and learned bishop of Berea, was born at Sida in Pamphilia, and translated to the see of Antioch in the year 323. He assisted at the council of Nice in the year 325, and zealously defended the orthodox faith against the Arians, who accused him of infamous crimes, deposed him, and procured his banishment, by Constantine, to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died, about the year 337. He wrote several works, of which we have none remaining but his “Treatise on the Pythoness;” which Leo Allatius published in 1689, 4to, with another treatise on the “Exaemeron,” which is also attributed to St. Eustathius, but probably written by a more modern author. It is in the library of the fathers, and was published separately at Lyons, 1624, 4to.

, a learned critic of the twelfth century, was born at Constantinople. He was at first master of the rhetoricians (rhetorum magister), and afterwards deacon of the great church, under the patriarchate of Lucas Chrysobergus, who arrived at that dignity in 1155, and appears to have conferred many favours on Eustatius. Having been, elected bishop of Myra in Lycia, he had accepted the office, and was about to be consecrated, when the emperor Emanuel Comnenus sent a cong6 d'eLre to the synod, enjoining them to choose him archbishop of Thessalonica. In this he displayed great prudence, knowledge of business, and extensive learning, as appears by his works. In 1180 he was one of the prelates who remonstrated against the order of Emanuel Comnenus to erase from the Greek catechism, a censure of what is said of God by Mahomet in the Alcoran. Five years after, we find Eusebius displaying his spirit and regard for his flock in a remarkable manner. Andronicus Comnenus, cousin-german of the emperor Emanuel, had usurped the throne, fey causing Alexis, the son and successor of Emanuel, to be strangled in 1183. This act of barbarity procured Andronicus many enemies, and among the rest Alexis Comnenus, the nephew of Emanuel, to whom he had been cup-bearer, and who was afterwards banished to Scythia by him. Alexis went then to Sicily, to the court of William II. surnamed the Good, and excited him to declare war against the empire of Constantinople. The king of Sicily, who appears to have wanted little persuasion on this occasion, raised an army, passed the straights, and took the city of Duras. He then went by sea to Thessalonica, which he besieged both by sea and land. Eustatkius would not for a moment quit his flock amidst so many dangers, but shut himself up in the city, endured the hardships ofthe siege, with the greatest fortitude, and exhorted his people to bear with Christian patience the chastisements of the Almighty. The city was at last taken by the cowardice of the governor, and was pillaged, the churches themselves not being spared, and the inhabitants were treated with the utmost cruelty by the conquerors. Eustathius, not fearing their power, addressed himself with so much spirit and eloquence to the Sicilian commanders, as to obtain a considerable alleviation of the sufferings of the inhabitants, from which they were entirely delivered the following year. Nicetas attributes this in a great measure to the prayers of their archbishop. The time of his death is unknown, but he appears to have been alive in 1194.

The learned works for which he is chiefly memorable are his “Commentaries upon Homer and Dionysius Periegetes.” His “Commentaries upon Homer” were first published with that poet at Rome in 1550, under the pontificate of Julius Hi. to whom they were dedicated; and were reprinted by Frobenius at Basil ten years after. They are very copious, and frequently illustrate the text; but are principally valued by grammarians, for the great assistance they afford, in understanding the Greek language. The learned Duport, in his f< Gnomologia Homerica,“wonders that Eustathius, who was a Christian and an archbishop, should never mention Holy Scripture, and very seldom the ecclesiastical writers, throughout his Commentaries, though he had so many opportunities of introducing both. Fabricius, however, imputes this silence to his having collected the materials of them from the more ancient commentators upon Homer, who knew nothing of the sacred books, which is not improbable. Eustatliius’s” Commentaries upon the Periegesis of Dionysius,“were first published at Paris in 1577, but very imperfectly; they were afterwards greatly augmented by Fabricius, who supplied a hiatus between verses 889 and 917; and this addition was inserted in its proper place by Hudson, in his edition at Oxford, 1697, 8vo. From the similarity of the name, the” Loves of Ismenias and Ismene“have very unjustly been attributed to him.” Eustathii Comment, in Hexaemeron,“Leyden, 1629, has also by some been attributed to him, but the real author and the time he lived are unknown. Among the Mss. in the library of the Escurial, are two discourses attributed to him; the one,” Oratio ad eos qui in templo erant Sancti Myroblytæ, id est Demetrii, in principio indictionis, anno mundi 670.2 (A. C. 1194);“the other,” Oratio ad Michaelem Stathmitem, Saccularium et Chartophylacem, quod saepe cum melodiis celebrare debeaut inemoriam Sancti martyris Demetrii.“Oudin, who informs us of these manuscripts, adds, that among the Mss. upon paper in the library of Basil, theVe is a very beautiful oije in Greek, of the quarto size, whii'h is titled” The Homilies of Eustathius the metropolitan of Thessalo.iica,“and in the Bodleian are some Mss. attributed to him, as, an” Oratio in Imperatorem Em. Comnenuin;“” Supplicatio,“as it appears to be,” ad eundem Imperatorem, nomine civitatis cum siccitate laboiMvit,“&” Lamentatio in obitu fratris." In the same collection also, are two funeral orations delivered on the death of Eustathius, one of which, Fabricius assures us was by Michael Chonita Acominat, archbishop of Athens; the other bears the name of Euthymius, who, according to Fabricius and Oudin, was Eutbynius Zigubeaus, or Zigadenus, who flourished under Alexis Camnenus, but this is doubtful. Du Cange notices a correspondence between Eustathius and Michael Psellus in the French king’s library, and in that of Vienna is a commentary by him on John of Damascus’s hymn for the day of Pentecost. In Aldus’s collection of Greek grammarians is a treatise by him on the dialects used by Homer. The manuscript copies of his Commentary on Homer are not scarce in France, and there are some in Italy, of which Polito availed himself when he began his new edition of Eustathius in 1730, &c. but he finished only the first five books of the Iliad. The only complete editions are those mentioned above.

, bishop of Nice, flourished in the beginning of the twelfth century, and was celebrated for his polemic writings in divinity, and his philosophical works. Anna Comnena says of him, that “he was a man wise in divine knowledge; and, in the profane disputations of the schools, superior to the best ornaments of the academy, and the porch.” His Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s latter analytics, and on his ethics, are still extant; the former published at Venice in 1534, the latter at the same place in 1536, and at Paris in 1543. A work against Chrysolanus on the Holy Ghost is said also to be extant in manuscript.

There was another Eustratius, a priest of Constantinople, whose time is not exactly known, but conjectured to be the sixth century. Photius has given a character of his writings, and an account of a work by him on the state of the dead, and a life of the patriarch Eutychius.

a Greek monk of Constantinople, was in favour with the emperor Alexis Comnenus, whom he survived, the emperor dying in 1118. At the command of Alexis, he composed his great work, entitled “Panoplia dogmatica Orthodoxos fidei,” or, the whole armour of the doctrine of the orthodox faith, against heretics of all kinds; which has lately been rendered famous by being cited in the dispute concerning 1 John v. 7. It was printed at Leyden, 1556, 8vo, and reprinted at Tergovist in Wallnchia, 1710. He wrote besides nine other works on various theological subjects, which are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Biblioth. Graec. \. v. c. 11 the principal are a commentary on the four Gospels and the Psalms, and on Solomon’s Song these commentaries are literal, moral, and allegorical but in the use of allegory, he is more rational than most of the authors of the thirteenth century. In some of his works he very highly praises Alexis for his theological knowledge and excellence in disputation It is not known at what time he died. We have mentioned him above as the supposed author of a funeral oration on the Greek commentator Eustathius. There is also a Georgius Zigabenus mentioned by Fabricius.

, of Ascalon in Palestine, a Greek mathematician of the sixth century, was one of the most intelligent of those who lived in the decline of Greek literature. He wrote Commentaries on the Conies of Apollonius, which were addressed to Anthcmius, and are inserted in Halley’s edition of that author, published at Oxford in 1710; and on the most important works of Archimedes, which lately appeared with every advantage of elegance and correctness, in the folio edition of Archimedes, jssued from the Clarendon press in 1792, which was prepared for publication by Torelli of Verona. Eutocius has some of the best qualities of a commentator. He very seldom passes over a difficult passage in his author without explaining it, or a chasm in the reasoning without supplying the defect. His remarks are usually full; and so anxious is he to render th text perspicuous, that sometimes he undertakes to elucidate where his author may be thought sufficiently clear. Writers have differed about his age; Saxius, one of the latest, and generally most accurate, authorities, places him in the fifth century; but Eutocius addresses Anthemius; and we find from his own writings, that Isidorus was his preceptor, both of whom were, according to Procopius, the architects of the church of St. Sophia, built at Constantinople, about the year 532; consequently, Eutocius must have flourished in the middle of the sixth century.

, an Italian sophist, according to Snidas, but probably a Greek by birth, wrote a compendious history of Roman affairs, divided into ten books, from the foundation of the city to the reign of Valens, to whom it was dedicated: that is, to A. D. 364. He was secretary to Constantine the Great, and afterwards served as a soldier under Julian the Apostate, whom he attended in his unfortunate expedition against the Persians. It appears, too, that he bore the offices of Proconsul, and Praetorian Praefect. There have been two opinions about his religion, some supposing him to have been a Christian, others a heathen. The former ground their opinion chiefly upon a passage, where he speaks of Julian as a persecutor of Christians: “Nimius Religionis Christianas insectator, perinde tamen ut cruore abstineret;” a persecutor of the Christian religion, yet abstaining from sanguinary methods. But it is more probable that he was an heathen, not only from his situation and character under Julian, but from the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras, who declares him to have been “of the same age and sect” with that emperor. Vossius thinks that he might be neither Christian nor heathen; and seems inclined to rank him with many ethers of his times, who hesitated between the two religions, without embracing either. A passage in some editions of his history, in which he speaks of Jesus Christ as our God and Lord, is acknowledged to be spurious. The best editions of Eutropius, are those of Havercarnp, 1729, and ofVerheyk, published at Leyden in 1762, in 8vo, with every useful illustration. At the end of the tenth book, he promises another historical work, or rather a continuation of this; and he tells us, that he “must raise his style, and double his diligence, when he enters upon the reign of such respectable and illustrious princes as Valens and VaJentian:” but death, probably, prevented the execution of his purpose. There are two Greek versions of this short history of Eutropius, one by Capito Lycius, and another by Paeanias, both ancient. There is a French translation by the abbé Lezeau but no good one in English. Eutropius has long been one of our most common school-books but as his style is not of the first purity, some eminent teachers have lately discontinued the use of his history.

, originally a monk of the fifth century, and for his piety elected abbot of the convent near Constantinople to which he belonged, is said to have lived to an advanced age before he distinguished himself by any peculiar opinions. Then, through a violent desire to oppose the Nestorian heresy, which was supposed to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, he became the leader of a new heresy, by absorbing the human nature of Christ entirely in the divine, and maintaining that the human body of Christ was only apparent. His doctrines were first noticed in a council assembled at Constantinople by Fluvianus, in the year 448, where they were condemned, and himself deposed from his dignity of abbot. Eutyches, however, had interest enough with the emperor Theodosius to procure another council at Ephesus, in the year 449, in which the former acts were reversed, Flavian and other bishops who had opposed Eutyches deposed, and every thing carried with such violence, that this council is generally named woJoj xwrrpun), the convention of robbers. A third council was necessary to settle these differences; and pope Leo the First, (called St. Leo, or Leo the Great) prevailed on Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to cull one at Chalcedon, which met in the year 451, and was reckoned the fourth recumenical or general council. Six hundred and thirty bishops were present. Here Kutyches was condemned, though absent, and the following doctrine laid down in opposition to his heresy: “That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.” Yet even after this decision, violent disputes and divisions subsisted for a considerable time. It is uncertain what became of Eutyches after the council of Ephesus; Leo certainly applied ta Marcian and to Pulcheria to have him deposed; but whether he succeeded or not, is unknown. Two supplications to Theodosius, one confession, and a fragment of another by Eutyches, are still extant.

or Eutychus, a grammarian of the sixth century, was a disciple of Priscian, and wrote a treatise “De aspiratione.” which is noticed by Cassiodorus, in the ninth chapter of his work on Orthography. He left also two books, " De discernendis conjugationibus, which Joachim Camerarius printed along with some pieces by Victorinus and Servius, at Tubingen, in 1537, 4to; but Eutyches’ s work is said to be printed more completely in the edition of the ancient grammarians by Putchius, at Hanover, 1605, 4to. Simler says that the commentary of one Sedulius, on Eutyches’s work, is in the library at Zurich.

, a Christian author, of the sect of the Melchites, was born at Cairo, in Egypt, in the year 876, and became eminent in the knowledge of physic; which he practised with so much success and reputation, that even the Mahometans reckoned him one of the best physicians in his time. Towards the latter part of his life, he applied himself to divinity; and was chosen in the year 935, patriarch of Alexandria. He then took the name of Eutychius; for his Arabic name was Said Ebn Batrick; Said, meaning happy, in Arabic, as Eutychius does in, Greek. He had the misfortune not to be very acceptable to his people; for there were continual jars between them, from his first accession to the see, to the time of his death, which happened in the year 950, or, according to SaxiuSj in the year 940. He wrote annals from the beginning of the world to the year 900; in which may be found many things which occur no where else; but certainly many which were collected from legends, and are entirely fabulous. An extract from these Annals, under the title of “Annals of the Church of Alexandria,” was published by Selden, in Arabic and Latin, London, 1642, 4td and the Annals entire were published by Pocock, in Arabic and Latin, in 1659, Oxford, 2 vols. 4to, with a preface and notes by Selden. Besides these, Eutycbius wrote a book “De rebus Siciliac,” after Sicily was conquered by the Saracens the manuscript of which is now in the public library at Cambridge, subjoined to the Annals; also “A disputation between the heterodox and the Christians,” together with some small medical performances.

, a Greek writer of the fifth century, composed a book under the title of “Altercatio Symonis Judaei & Theophili Christiani,” which may be seen in Martenne’s­“Thesaurus Anecdotorum.” The authors of the “Histoire literaire de la France,” torn. II. have shewn that the author of this writing mentioned by Gennadius was not a Greek, but a French priest, who had been the disciple of St. Martin. They place him accordingly in the former half of the fifth century, and ascribe to him likewise the “Consultationes seu deliberationes Zachan Christiani & Apollonii philosophi,” which Luke d'Acheri has printed in his “Spicilegium,” tom. X.

, a monk at the latter end of the fourth century, surnamed Ponticus from the place of his nativity, not far from the Pontus Euxinus, was at first lecturer of the congregation at Caesarea, afterwards deacon, and lastly made archdeacon of Constantinople, by Gregory Nazianzen, by whom he had been instructed in the Scriptures; but was obliged to fly that country in the year 385, on account of some suspicions thrown out against him by a person of consequence concerning his wife; upon this, he devoted himself to the monastic life at Jerusalem, and afterwards in Syria, where be espoused the tenets of Origen, and propagated others which afterwards led to the Pelagian heresy. He wrote, 1. “Orationes, sive preces centum.” 2. “Gnosticus, sive de iis, qui cognitionis munere donati sunt, in anachoretarum usnm, sive elementarium, lib. ii.” 3. “Περὶ διαφόρον λογισμῶν,” which tractate is usually ascribed to Evagrius Scholasticus, but without foundation. 4. “Monachus, sive de vita activa.” 5. “Anthirrticus adversus tentantes daeniones,” &c. All these are found in the “Bibl. Patrum,” and in Cotelerius’s “Monum. Eccl. Gnjec.” He died A.D. 399.

, an ancient ecclesiastical historian, was born at Epiphania, a city of Syria, about the year 536. He was sent to a grammar school at four years, of age; and two years after, was seized with the plague, as he himself informs us. He says, that this pestilence raged two and fifty years, and in a manner desolated the earth; and that he afterwards lost, during the several stages of it, many of his children, his wife, and several of his relations and servants. Quitting the. grammar-school, he applied himself to rhetoric; and making a great progress in that art, was registered among the advocates, whence he obtained the name of Scholas­Ticus, a term signifying a lawyer. He practised Jaw at Antioch, where he gained the friendship of George the patriarch of that city, and was made his counsellor and assessor. His authority appears to have been great in that city for, in the year v>92, when deprived of his wife and children, he married again, an holiday was kept, and a public marriage festival celebrated in pompous shows. In jthe reign of Tiberias Constantinus, he had the dignity of qusestor conferred upon him; and not long after, when he had made an oration in praise of Mauricius Augustus, upon, the birth of Theodosius, he was appointed prefect by Mauricius. In the year 589 he attended Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, to Constantinople, in quality of counsellor, when he appealed to the emperor and synod upon an accusation of incest, brought against him by a silversmith. After this he published “Six Books of Ecclesiastical History,” beginning with the year 431, where Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen, conclude, and ending with the year 594. It is not certain when he died. Phocius tells us, that his style is not unpleasant, though sometimes too redundant; but that, of all the Greek historians, he has most strictly adhered to the orthodox faith. Valesius observes, that he has been less diligent in collecting the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity than those of profane history; and indeed almost his whole sixth book is spent in giving an account of the Persian war. Cave remarks of him, that he is too credulous in relating upon all occasions, fabulous stories of miracles said to be performed by the cross and relics of saints. His ecclesiastical history was published in Greek, by Robert Stephens, Paris, 1544; at Geneva, in Greek and Latin, in 1612 at Paris in 167.'}, with a new version and notes by Henry Valesius and afterwards re-published at Cambridge, 1720, by William Reading, with additional notes of various authors; all of them in folio. Besides this history, there were “Letters, relations, decrees, orations, and disputations,” written chiefly in the name of Gregory of Antioch; but these are now lost; as is likewise his “Panegyric to the emperor Mauricius, upon the birth of Theodosius.”

, though a man of genius, the friend of the first poets of the times, and applauded by them, is now hardly known. He was a man of remarkable wit and vivacity, and many of his repartees were long remembered and repeated at Oxford. He is generally styled Dr. Evans the epigrammatist, and was one of the Oxford wits enumerated in the following distich (wretchedly imitated in the Additions to Pope, vol. I. p. 163).

He is likewise mentioned in the Dunciad, book ii. ver. 116, in company with Dr. Young and dean Swift, as one of the authors whose works had been claimed by James More Smith. Dr. Evans was of St. John’s college, Oxford, and took the degree of M. A. March 23, 1699; that of B. D. April 26, 1705, and D. D. May 16, 1711. He was bursar to his college; vicar of St. Gyles’s, Oxford; and appears to have been intimate with Mr. Pope, to whom there are two letters by him in print, in one of which the initial letter W. (intended for his Christian name) is by mistake put instead of that by which he used to sign himself. The time of his death we have not been able to ascertain. A good specimen of his poems may be seen in Nichols’s Select Collection; particularly “The Apparition, occasioned by the publication of Tindal’s Rights of the Christian Church,” an admirable satire on that infidel. “Vertumnus, an epistle to Mr. Jacob Bobart, 1713,” and some of his best epigrams.

, was a Welch conjuror, of whom Wood has extracted the following account from a manuscript life of the famous William Lilly, astrologer, written by himself, and preserved in Ashmole’s museum. Evans is said to have applied his mind to astrology, after he had continued some time in the university of Oxford, where he was brought up. Then, entering into orders, he obtained a cure in Staffordshire; but was forced to fly from it some years after, not only on account of debaucheries, for which he was infamous, but for “giving judgment upon things lost, which,” as Lilly saith, “-is the only shame of astrology.” He is described as the most saturnine person that ever was beheld; of a middle stature, broad forehead, beetle-browed, thickshouldered, flat-nosed, full-lipped, down-looked, of black curling stiff hair, and splay-footed. But, says Wood, to give him his due, he had a most piercing judgment, naturally, upon a figure of theft, and many other questions; though for money he would at any time give contrary judgment. He was addicted to drinking, we are told, as well as to women; and in his liquor was so very quarrelsome and abusive, that he was seldom without a black eye, or a bruise of some kind or other. He made a great many antimonial cups, upon the sale of which he principally subsisted. After he was forced from Enfield, he retired with his family to London; where Lilly found him in 1632, and received from him instructions in astrology. Wood relates, that he had done some acts above and beyond astrology, having been well versed in the nature of spirits; and had many times used the circular way of invocating, of which he produces the following instance: In 1630 he was desired by lord Bothwell and sir Kenelm Digby to shew them a spirit; which he promised to do. When they were all in the body of the circle which he had made, Evans upon, a sudden, after some time of invocation, was taken out of the room, carried into the field, and flung down near Battersea Causey, close to the Thames. Next morning -a countryman going by to his labour, and espying a man in black clothes, came to him; and awakening him, for it seems he was asleep, asked him how he came there. Evans by this understood his condition; and, when Lilly inquired afterwards of him upon what account the spirits carried him away, he answered, that “he did not at the time of invocation make any suffumigation; at which the spirits were vexed.” If the reader should be in pain about what became in the mean time of lord Bothwell and sir Kenelm Digby, we are able to make him easy upon that head. They both got home without any harm. During the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. these ridiculous impostures were the fashionable credulity of the times; and the greatest men were often the dupes of these pretenders to occult science. Ben Jonson, in his excellent comedy of the Alchemist, for a time gave almost as fatal a blow to the black art, as Cervantes did in Spain to chivalry; but since avarice and curiosity are passions most difficult to conquer, it rose again with fresh vigour, and maintained its ground till the restoration.

Absurd as this man appears to be, the strong-minded Warburton wrote “An account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans,” 1751. Dr. Jortin having mentioned Evans’s name in his “Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,” Warburton, who happened to have some of Evans’s prophecies, published under the title of an “Echo from Heaven,” sent Jortin an extract, with a large commentary upon it, which the doctor inserted in the Appendix to the first book of his “Remarks.” Warburton speaks here of Evans as a prophet, and mentions one of his visions as a prediction, which, he says, “astonishes all who carefully consider it.” This exposed the bishop to some ridicule, particularly in a pamphlet entitled “Confusion worse confounded Rout on Rout or the bishop of Gloucester’s Commentary upon Rice or Arise Evans’s Echo from Heaven, examined and exposed. By Indignatio,” 1772, 8vo. Indignatio, who employs learning, wit, and argument, in this pamphlet, was the rev. Henry Taylor, rector of Crawley, and vicar of Portsmouth, and one of the writers against Gibbon.

, D. D. a dissenting minister of the baptist persuasion at Bristol, was the son, and successor in the ministry, of the rev. Hugh Evans, M. A. pastor of a congregation at Broadmead, in that city, where he was born, in 1737. Having gone through the usual course of studies at the dissenting academy^ Mile-end, London, he was admitted a preacher, and for some time exercised his function in the metropolis, but afterwards became assistant to his father in the congregation at Broadmead, Bristol. On his father’s death he succeeded him, and remained in that office for about thirty-two years, admired and beloved by his people, and not less esteemed as the superintendant of a seminary for the education of young men who were designed for the ministry. He was likewise a man of unwearied benevolence, and liberally promoted the establishment of schools for the instruction and clothing of destitute children at Broadmead, Downend, Mangotfield, &c. and himself set a bright example of personal charity and contributions, while he stirred up others to the performance of a similar duty. His publications having procured him considerable reputation as a divine and scholar, he received in 1789, the degree of D. D. from King’s-college, Aberdeen. He died of a paralytic affection, Aug. 9, 1791. Dr. Evans was twice married; first, in 1762, to miss Sarah Jeffries, the only daughter of the rev. Joseph Jeffries, of Taunton, in Somersetshire, by whom he had five children, one of whom, Joseph Jeffries Evans, esq. a merchant of London, died very lately. Mrs. Evans died in 1771; and in 1774, Dr. Evans married miss Sarah Hazle, of Bristol, who survived him. His publications are,1. “Sermons on the Scripture doctrine of the Son and Holy Spirit,” 1766, 12mo, in answer to a petulant attack on the doctrine of the Trinity by one Williams, who was, or pretended to be, a livery-servant. 2. “A collection of Hymns, adapted to public Worship,” 1769, 12mo. 3. “An address to the serious and candid professors of Christianity,” 1772, 12mo, 5th edit. 4. “Christ crucified; or the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement, in four discourses,” 1789, 12mo. 5. Seventeen occasional Sermons, and a few tracts on fugitive subjects.

, a Welch divine and poet, was born at Cynhavvdrew, in Cardiganshire, about 1730, and was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, about the beginning of 1751, where he probably took a bachelor’s degree, but left college after taking orders, and officiated as curate in several places, particularly Newick in Kent, Llanvair Talhaiarn in Denbighshire, and Towyn in Merion. He was at the same time an assiduous student of Welch literature, employing all his leisure hours in transcribing an cient manuscripts, of which labour he left behind him about an hundred volumes of various sizes. Having passed a great part of his life in such pursuits, without being able to procure the smallest promotion in the church, his fortitude deserted him, and, to chase away his vexations, he fell into that which increased them, a habit of drinking, which at times produced symptoms of derangement, and precluded his chance of obtaining any new friends. He inherited a small freehold in Cardiganshire, which he conveyed over to a younger brother to raise money to support himself at the university. Such a sacrifice to the laudable ambition of learning ought not to have gone unrewarded. Mr. Evans died at his birth-place in 1790. lu 1764 he published a 4to vol. “Dissertatio de Bardis,” or “Some Specimens of the Poetry of the ancient Welch Bards. Translated into English, with explanatory notes on the historical passages, and a short account of the men and places mentioned by the Bards; in order to give the curious some idea of the taste and sentiments of our ancestors, and their manner of writing,” 4to. Although these specimens appeared to considerable disadvantage in a translation, yet Mr. Evans’s Latin Dissertation proved his very intimate acquaintance with the subject, and that his researches into the history of his poetical countrymen had been profound and successful. His other works were an English poem called “The Love of our Country, with historical notes,” 1772, 4to, in which, with some not inelegant versification, there is rather too much of prejudice and personal complaint; several Welch compositions, printed in the “Diddanwch Tenluaidd,” and two volumes of Sermons by Tillotson and others, translated into Welch. All the manuscripts that Mr. Evans possessed at his death became the property of Paul Pan ton, esq. of Plas Gwyn, in Mona, in consideration of an annuity of twenty pounds, which that gentleman settled upon him.

, a dissenting divine of Wales, was born, in 1680, at Wrexham, in Denbighshire, descended from a race of clergymen of the establishment until his father, who was ejected for non-conformity from the living of Oswestry, in Shropshire, in 1662, and became the minister to an independent congregation at Wrexham. The son was educated with great care, and inducted to the different branches’ of literature necessary to qualify him for the office of the ministry, which he afterwards exercised in London, first as an assistant, and afterwards as successor to Dr. Daniel Williams. He was also one of the lecturers at tSalter’s hall meeting and belonged to what is called “The Merchant’s lecture.” Tn youth he was remarkably studious, and not only read over all the Christian writers of the first three centuries, but also the whole of Pool’s Synopsis, in five large folio volumes. He married a lady of family, and had a daughter supposed to be a considerable fortune; but he had been tempted to embark his property in the South-sea scheme, and the loss is supposed to have contributed to shorten his days. He died in 1730, in the fifty-first year of his age, highly esteemed by all who knew him. He had ever been eminent for piety, integrity, and public spirit; in his principles he was orthodox, but disposed to think well of and to honour those who differed from him, without any regard to the sentiments which they might hold. He received a diploma of D. D. from the universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen. His “Practical Discourses concerning the Christian Temper,” are still in considerable estimation. The celebrated Dr. Watts characterized them as “the most complete summary of those duties which make up the Christian life,” and Dr. Doddridge, as the best practical pieces in our language. His other works are, “Sermons upon various subjects, preached to young people,” 1725, 12mo; “A Letter to Mr. Gumming, concerning the regard which ought to be had to Scripture consequences;” “A Second Letter,” in defence of the former, and about twenty occasional Sermons, printed separately. He was the editor also of the “Life of the rev. James Owen,” 1711, 12mo.

, a bookseller of London, and deserving notice not only for spirit and integrity in business, but for considerable literary taste and talents, was born in. 1742, and served his apprenticeship with Mr. Charles Marsh, a bookseller of reputation in Round-court, Strand, and at Charing-cross. Mr. Evans soon after his apprenticeship had terminated, set up in business, and by his acquaintance with English literature, which he had assiduously cultivated, was enabled to strike out many of those schemes of publication which do credit to the discernment of the trade, and as far as his own fortune permitted to embark alone in many republications which shewed the correctness of his judgment and his regard for the literary character of his country. Among these we may enumerate new editions of, 1. “Shakspeare’s Poems,” 1774. 2. “Buckingham’s Works,” 1775. 3. “Nicolson’s Historical Library,” 1776. 4. “Four volumes of Old Ballads, with notes,” l?7l 1784. Of this his son has lately published an improved edition. 5. “Cardinal de Retz’s Memoirs.” 6. “Savage’s Works,” 1777. 7. “Goldsmith’s Works,” 1777. 8. “Prior’s Works,” 1779. 9. “Rabelais’s Works.” 10. “History of Wales.” 11. “Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa,” 1779, in an advertisement to which he announced an intention of re-printing the “Notitia Monastica” of bishop Tanner, which has since been accomplished by Dr. Nasmith. To all these works Mr. Evans prefixed Dedications written with neatness and elegance, addressed to his literary patrons, Garrick, sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Sheridan, &c. He died in the prime of life, April 30, 1784, leaving a widow and son, the latter now a bookseller in Pall-mall, and the well-known and successful vendor of the most curious and valuable library ever sold in this, or perhaps, in some respects, in any other country, that of the late duke of Roxburgh.

Mr. Evans was much beloved, respected, and esteemed by his numerous acquaintance, friends, and relations by the latter, for his affectionate regard by his friends, for his readiness and activity in their service and by his acquaintance, for the pleasantness of his conversation, and his entertaining manner of displaying his wit and humour, of both of which he possessed a more than ordinary portion. Few persons in the middling rank of life had their company more courted, and few have been more successful in the exertion of social qualities; and there are not many to whom the public have been more obliged for a right use of professional powers.

, one of the most determined opponents of revealed religion in modern times, was born at Warrington, Lancashire, April, 1731, and at first educated by an uncle, who sent him to Emanuel college, Cambridge, when in his fourteenth year. Here he took the degree of Ib. A. in 1749, and that of M. A. in 1753. At a proper age he was ordained, and for several years officiated as curate to his uncle, who had the living of Mitcham in Surrey. In 1768 he obtained the vicarage of South Mirnms, near Barnet, and resided in the vicarage house about two years, when, by the interest of John Dodd, esq. M. P. for Reading, lord Camden, then lord chancellor, presented him to the rectory of Tewkesbury. In conjunction with this, Mr. Evanson held the vicarage of Longton, a village in Worcestershire, about five miles from Tewkesbury, for which he exchanged that of South Mimms. While settled at Tewkesbury, he seems first to have inclined to those deviations from the opinions of his church, which by degrees led him much farther than he could find any to follow him, even among those who had hitherto been most distinguished for their hostility to orthodoxy. We are told that almost as soon as he began to entertain doubts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, stating the rise of his first scruples, with the grounds of them, and requesting of his grace to favour him, by means of his secretary, with such information as might assist in removing those doubts, and enable him conscientiously to remain in his office as a minister of the Gospel, &c. At what precise time, or to what archbishop this letter was written, we have not been informed, but no answer was returned, or could indeed have been reasonably expected. Perhaps, however, it was about the same time that Mr. Evanson began to take such liberties in reading the Liturgy as suited his new opinions; and for this, and some of those opinions delivered in the pulpit, particularly in a sermon preached in 1771, on the doctrine of the resurrection, a prosecution was commenced against him, which, after a considerable expence incurred on both sides, on account of some irregularity in the proceedings of the prosecutors, ended in a nonsuit. Seven years after this Mr. Evanson published the sermon, with an affidavit to its literal authenticity. To this he appears to have been obliged by the publication, on the part of his opponents, of “A narrative of the origin and progress of the prosecution against the rev. Edward Evanson.” This last was followed by “A word at parting; being a few observations on a mutilated sermon, and an epistle dedicatory to the worthy inhabitants of Tewkesbury, lately published by Edward Evanson, M. A.: to which are added, the arguraents of counsel in the court of delegates touching Mr. Evanson’s prosecution.” Both these were published by the late Neast Havard, esq. town clerk of Tewkesbury, who had been principally active in instituting the prosecution. In favour of Mr. Evanson, however, we are told that it was only “a small party” who found fault with his doctrines, and that the principal inhabitants of Tewkesbury supported him by subscribing a very large sum to defray his expences. The inhabitants of Longdon were still more partial, for it is said that “they would willingly have kept him among them, permitting him to make, as he had been accustomed, any alterations in the church service that his own views of the subject might have dictated:” Mr. Evanson, however, does not appear to have set a very great value on a licence of this description, and acted a more fair and wise part in resigning both his livings. He then (in 3778) returned to Mitcham, and undertook the education of a few pupils, the father of one of whom, col. EvelynJames Stuart, settled an annuity upon him, which was regularly paid until his death.

His next publication was “A Letter to Dr. Hurd, bishop of Worcester, wherein the importance of the prophecies of the New Testament, and the nature of the grand apostacy predicted in them, are particularly and impartially considered,” 1777. The object of this pamphlet was to prove that either the Christian revelation is not true, or the religion of every orthodox church in Europe is fabulous and false, and as the church of England was in his opinion one of those false and fabulous orthodox churches, this pamphlet was followed by the author’s resignation of his livings, in obedience, as he says, to the “heavenly admonition” in Rev. xviii. 4. “Come out of her my people, &c.”

His next attempt was to prove that we have no authority from scripture to keep the Sabbath holy, which appeared in some papers in the “Theological Repository,” vol. V. His arguments on this subject were answered by Dr. Priestley and others, but without producing any effect on the mind of the author, who collected the whole controversy, and published it in 1792, with an additional letter to Dr. Priestley. Yet, lest it should be thought that he was a man devoid of all religion, and one who rejected the worship of the Deity as of no account, we are told that he had worship in his family on the Sunday, making use of Dr. Clarke’s reformed Liturgy, but not so reformed as that he did not think it necessary to introduce some alterations of his own. He even did more. When he had visitors, he administered the Lord’s supper, which he considered as the sole Christian rite, and always to be administered when a number of the professors of the religion of Jesus met for social worship. He appears at this time to have taken a hint from the Theophilanthropists of France, and would have gladly assisted in forming a society of Christophilanthropists, “meeting, like the Christians of the second and third centuries, merely to hear the authentic scriptures read, and rationally explained; and to commemorate the death of our Lord and Master, according to the mode ordained by himself.”

What Mr. Evanson meant by the authentic scriptures, he explained very freely in a volume published in 1792, which amply justifies our classing him among the most determined enemies of revealed religion, nor are we ashamed to class ourselves among “the superficial readers” (if that epithet must be applied) who “on the appearance of this publication, concluded that the author himself was an unbeliever, and that he was taking this method to undermine the principles of Christianity.” This work was entitled “The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, and the evidence of their authenticity examined.” In this work the author undertakes to shew that a considerable part of the New Testament is a forgery, and has no claims whatever to the title of inspired writing. He therefore discards, as destitute of all authority, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Hebrews the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and in the Book of Revelation, the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia. His very moderate desires are satisfied with one Gospel, and part of the Epistles, and he maintains that St. Luke’s history implies that neither Matthew nor any other apostle could have published any history previously to his own. But even St. Luke’s gospel is not entirely to his taste, for in it, as well as in the Acts, he is persuaded that there are manifest interpolations. This strange performance involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley, although of no long duration, and brought, we are told, “a considerable share of obloquy and persecution from persons of all parties.” Two instances, however, are all that are specified of this persecution first, he was expelled from a book-club in Suffolk, for which there was no remedy and secondly, he was pestered by anonymous letters, from the expence of which the post-office relieved him; and what is of more importance, we are told that “notwithstanding the apparent liberties this gentleman took with the scriptures, no man living was a firmer believer in the divine mission of Christ”

Mr. Evanson’s work, in its superstructure, after having been effectually attacked by opponents in agreement with him upon other points, has been undermined in its foundation principles very recently, and with more consistency, by the rev. Thomas Falconer, A. M. of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in his course of Bampton lectures preached in 1810, and published in 1811. Mr. Evanson’s other publications are, “Reflections upon the State of Religion in Christendom, &c. at the commencement of the nineteenth century of the Christian sera,” 1802; and “Second Thoughts on the Trinity,” in a letter addressed to the bishop of Gloucester, 1805. Soon after this he was afflicted with a serious complaint, which was partly relieved by a surgical operation, but a paralytic attack following, proved fatal Sept. 25, 1805. His personal character is thus given by his biographer “Those who have watched his conduct through every period of his existence, bear witness to the strictest integrity, honour, and benevolence of his character. The relative duties of a son, a husband, and a brother, he performed with the greatest attention. From his neighbours, wherever he resided, he received the sincerest testimony of respect and esteem. His manners were highly conciliating and engaging, and by his particular friends no man was more beloved. In his death the needy have lost a friend that will not easily be replaced.”

, a king of the Arabs, is said to have lived in the first century, and to have applied himself with great industry to the study of medicine. Pliny mentions that he wrote a book “De simplicium effectibus,” which he dedicated to Nero. But it is proved, both by Salmasius and Hardouin, that this account is not found in the best manuscripts of Pliny for which reason the former delivers it as his opinion, that by an error of transcribers, from Cratevas, who in some copies is also named Cratevax, this Evax has arisen. A manuscript is still found in several libraries “On the properties and effects of precious stones,” which is attributed to a certain Evax but Salmasius has remarked, that this piece was first cited by Marbodee, a French poet of the eleventh century, and therefore spurious in regard to its pretended antiquity. It was published by Henry llantzovius at Leipsic in 1585, 4to. under the title “De Gemmis scriptum, olim a poeta quodam non infeliciter carmine redditum, et mine primuin in lucem editum.”

, an ingenious canon, and grand vicar of Angers, under Messrs. Fouquet, Miron, de Reuil, and Arnaud, was born at Angers in 1572, or 1582, and obtained his preferments in consequence of his superior knowledge of ecclesiastical laws and customs. He was the author of an excellent treatise “des Excommunications, et des Monitoires,” 1672, 4to, and other valuable works. Eveillon also wrote “De Processionibus Ecclesiasticis,” 8vo “De recta psallendi ratione,” 4 to, &c. So great was his charity to the poor, that he denied himself almost every convenience of life for their sakes. Being blamed one day for having no hangings to his room, he replied, “When I come into my house in winter, I do not hear the walls complain of cold; but the poor, who are shivering at my door, tell me they want clothing.” He died at Angers in 1651.

, celebrated as a philosopher, patriot, and learned writer of the seventeenth century, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, a branch of which, at the time of his birth, was settled in the county of Surrey, though it flourished originally in the county of Salop, at a place which is still called Evelyn. George Evelyn, esq. purchased the family estate at Wotton in Surrey, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and had, by two wives, sixteen sons and eight daughters. He died May 30, 1603, in the seventy-third year of his age, leaving his estate at Wotton to Richard Evelyn, esq. his youngest and only surviving son by his second wife. This Richard Evelyn, esq. married Eleanor, or Ellen, daughter and heiress of John Stansficld, of die Cliff" near Lewes, esq. and had by her three sons, George, John, and Richard.

Of John Evelyn, the second of these sons, and the subject of this article, it is to be regretted that no good account has yet been given. That in the first edition of the “Biographia Britannica,” written by Dr. Campbell, is valuable chiefly for an accurate catalogue and analysis of his works, which we shall in part adopt, but it is deficient in facts, and totally erroneous in Mr. Evelyn’s early history. In,the second edition of the Biographia, the narrative, with all its mistakes, was literally copied, and the principal additions are some captious remarks on Dr. Campbell’s notes. The family are in possession of a life of Mr. Evelyn, written by himself, which we hope will soon be presented to the public. In the mean time we have been favoured with some extracts from it and other original papers, with the assistance of which we hope at least to correct the errors of our predecessors.

Mr. Evelyn was born at his father’s seat at Wotton, a few miles from Dorking, on Oct. 31, 1620, and was educated at the school of Lewes, under the care of his grandmother Stansfield, where he acknowledges in his own memoirs, that he was too much indulged, and did not make so good use of his time as he ought to have done but for this he made ample amends by his future diligence, and perhaps his neglect here appeared in a more unfavourable light to him in his advanced years than it deserved, for he was only ten when sent to this school. In April 1673 he was entered of the Middle Temple, though then at school; but in the following month, May 9, was admitted fellow commoner of Baliol college, Oxford, where his tutor was a Mr. Bradshaw (which he calls nomen invisum, alluding to serjeant Bradshaw, who presided on the trial of Charles I.) This Bradshaw was a relation of the regicide, and sou of the rector of Ockham. While at college, Mr. Evelyn informs us, that Nathaniel Canopius came thither out of Greece, being sent by the celebrated patriarch Cyrill, and had a pension from archbishop Laud. On the rebellion breaking out, Canopius returned to Constantinople, was made bishop of Smyrna, and, as Mr. Evelyn thinks, patriarch of Alexandria. Having already a turn, for objects of that kind, Mr. Evelyn records in this part of his diary, that Canopius was the first he ever saw or heard of, that drank coffee. Mr. Evelyn’s brother Richard was also -of Baliol college, but his brother George was of Trinity, where he is mentioned by Wood among the benefactors to that house.

In December 1640, he entered the Middle Temple, and at this time his father died of the dropsyin his fiftythird year. The ominous appearance of public affairs in 1641 inclined him to pass some time abroad, and accordingly he set out for Holland, after having witnessed the trial of the earl of Stratford. Having viewed what was most remarkable in the principal towns of Holland, with Brussels, Bruges, &c. and paid a visit to the prince of Orange’s camp before Genap, he returned to Dover by the way of Dunkirk in October. In 1642 he went to Brentford to offer his services to his majesty Charles I. and was assigned to ride volunteer in prince Rupert’s troop; but the king marching to Gloucester, and by that step leaving Surrey and Sussex, where Mr. Evelyn’s estate lay, exposed to the rebels, he was advised to travel, and having obtained his majesty’s leave, went in July 1643 to France, and thence to Italy, in which he spe^t above a year. A thirst of knowledge of every kind was his ruling passion; his mind too at this early period of life, was not unfurnished with science, and he could now contemplate, with consequent improvement, the antiquities, arts, religion, laws, and learning and customs of the countries through which he passed. He has, accordingly, left a large and minute account of what he thought worthy of observation, and nothing seems to have escaped him. At Padua he purchased the rare tables of veins and nerves of Dr. John Athelsteinus Leonaenas; and caused him to prepare a third of the lungs, liver, and nervi sextipar with the gastric veins, which he sent into England, being the first that had been seen here, and which he afterwards presented to the royal society. Another instance of his diligence and curiosity Mr. Boyle has recorded in his works (vol. II. p. 206), who received from Mr. Evelyn, whom he consulted on the occasion, a valuable and minute account of the method by which magazines of snow are preserved in Italy, for the use of the tables of the luxurious. During his stay at Rome, Mr. Evelyn informs us of his having an opportunity of learning the true sentiments of the popish party, on the execution of archbishop Laud, so frequently accused in this country of an inclination towards popery. “I was at Rome,” says he, “in the company of divers of the English fathers, when the news of archbishop Laud’s sufferings, and a copy of his sermon, came thither. They read the sermon, and commented upon it, with no small satisfaction and contempt; and looked on him, as one that was a great enemy to them, and stood in their way, whilst one of the blackest crimes imputed to him was, his being popishly affected.”

Mr. Evelyn’s tour is thus chronicled by himself: “July 26, 1643, he went to France, and having passed the remainder of the year, with the winter and next spring, at Paris, ia which time he made an excursion into Normandy, and saw Rouen, April 25, 1644, he set out for Orleans, and after visiting Blois, Tours, Anjou, and all the fine places on the Loire, together with the town and palace built by the great cardinal Richelieu, and called by his name, he arrived Sept. 2 at Lyons, and went from thence by Avignon to Marseilles, and so along the coast to a little town called Canes, where (in Oct.) he embarked and arrived at Genoa, the curiosities of which having viewed, he proceeded to Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, Sienna, and so came (Nov. 4) to Rome, where he spent the winter in seeing all the antiquities and curiosities of that famous city, making an excursion (Jan. 27, 1644-5) to Naples, and returning Feb. 7. May 18 he left Rome, and passing through Bologna and Ferrara, came (in June) to Venice, where he spent the remaining part of the year, and sometimes going to Padua, where the earl of Arundel was, the great collector of pictures, statues, &c. whom he was acquainted with, and who, at his taking leave of him, gave him directions written with his own hand, what curiosities to inquire after in his travels. March 20, 1646, he left Venice in company with Mr. Waller the poet, and went to Milan, taking Vincenza and Verona in his way; from hence he passed the Alps, and came to Geneva. In July he departed from Geneva, and in October got to Paris again by the way of Orleans.”

Being now recommended to sir Richard Brown, bart. the king’s minister there, he made his addresses to his only daughter Mary, whom he married June 27, 1647, and in her right became possessed of Sayes-court near Deptford, in Kent, where he resided after his return to England, which was in October of that year. Soon after his arrival he went to Hampton court, where he had the honour to kiss his majesty’s hand, and gave him an account of several things he had in charge. On Jan. 21, 1648-9, he published his tract on liberty and servitude, for which he wasseverely threatened, and probably on this account he went again to France in July 1649, and in November of that year he attended his father-in-law sir Richard Brown, when he had his first audience at the French court, after the death of Charles I. and delivered his credentials from Charles II. In July 1650 he went again to England, but returned to Paris in the following month. In Jan. 1651-2 he left France, and returning to England, settled at Sayescourt near Deptford, and in May was joined by his wife from France. In all he appears to have spent about seven years in his travels, and with a mind highly improved by what he had seen and read, he silently pursued his studies at this retirement (for such it then was), and wrote and published some of those works which afterwards gave him a distinguished name in the learned world. It was here also that he first shewed his skill in planting and gardening, both then very little understood in England, and rendered this place the wonder and admiration of the most judicious men of his time. The situation, indeed, of public affairs induced him to consider privacy as a very great blessing; and so fond was he of his rural retreat, that he very rarely quitted it, though but a young man, with a considerable fortune, and extremely admired and courted by all his acquaintance. This studious disposition, together with his disgust of the world, occasioned by that strange scene of violence and confusion that was then acted upon the public stage, was so strong, that he actually proposed to the honourable Mr. Robert Boyle, the raising of a kind of college for the reception of persons of the same turn of mind, where they might enjoy the pleasure of agreeable society, and at the same time pass their days without care or interruption. His plan was thus formed: “I propose the purchasing of thirty or forty acres of land, in some healthy place, not above twenty-five miles from London, of which a good part should be tall wood, and the rest upland pastures, or downs sweetly irrigated. If there were not already an house which might be converted, &c. we wonld erect, upon the most convenient site of this near the wood, our building, viz. one handsome pavillion, containing a refectory, library, withdrawing-room, and a closet this the first story for, we suppose the kitchen, larders, cellars, and offices, to be contrived in the half-story under ground. In the second should be a fair lodging-chamber, a palletroom, gallery, and a closet, all which should be well and very nobly furnished, for any worthy person that might desire to stay any time, and for the reputation of the college. The half-story above, for servants, wardrobes, and like conveniences. To the entry fore-front of this court, and at the other back-front, a plot walled in, of a competent square for the common seraglio, disposed into a garden, or it might be only carpet, kept curiously, and to serve for bowls, walking, or other recreations, &c. if the company please. Opposite to the house, towards the wood, should be erected a pretty chapel, and, at equal distances, even within the flanking walls of the square, six apartments or cells for the members of the society, and not contiguous to the pavillion, each whereof should contain a small bed-chamber, an outward room, a closet, and a private garden, somewhat after the manner of the Carthusians. There should likewise be an elaboratory, with a repository for rarities and things of nature; aviary, dovehouse, physic-garden, kitchen-garden, and a plantation of orchard-fruit, &c. all uniform buildings, but of single stories, or a little elevated. At a convenient distance, towards the olitory garden, should be a stable for two or three horses, and a lodging for a servant or two. Lastly, a garden-house and conservatory for tender plants. The estimate amounts thus the pavillion 400l. the chapel, 150. apartments, walls, and out-housing, 600l. the purchase of a fee for thirty acres, at fifteen pounds 1600/, will be the utmost. Three of the cells, or apartments, that is, one moiety with the appurtenances, shall be at the disposal of one of the founders, and the other half at the others. If, I and my wife take up two apartments (for we are to be decently asunder, however, I stipulate, and her inclination will greatly suit with it, that shall be no impediment to the society, but a considerable advantage to the ceeonomicpart), a third shall be for some, worthy person; and, to facilitate the rest, I offer to furnish the whole pavillion completely to the value of 500l. in goods and moveables, if need be for seven years, till there shall be a public stock, &c. There shall be maintained, at the public charge, only a chaplain, well qualified, an ancient woman to dress the meat, wash, and do all such offices; a man to buy provision, keep the garden, horses, &c. a boy to assist him and serve within. At one meal a day, of two dishes only, unless some little, extraordinary upon particular days or occasions (then never exceeding three) of plain and wholesome meat a small refection at night wine, beer, sugar, spice, bread, fish, fowl, candle, soap, oats, hay, fuel, &c. at four pounds per week, 200l. per annum; wages, fifteen pounds; keeping the gardens, twenty pounds; the chaplain, twenty pounds per annum. Laid up in the treasury 145l. to be employed for books, instruments, drugs, trials, &c. The. total, 400l. a year, comprehending the keeping of two horses for the chariot, or the saddle, and two kine; so that 200l. per annum will be the utmost that the founders shall be at to maintain the whole society, consisting of nine persons (the servants included), though there should no others join capable to alleviate the expence. But, if any of those who desire to be of the society be so well qualified as to support their own particulars, and allow for their proportion, it will yet much diminish the charge; and of such there cannot want some at all times, as the apartments are empty. If either of the founders thinks expedient to alter his condition, or that any thing do humanitus contingere, he may resign to another, or sell to his colleague, and dispose of it as he pleases, yet so as it still continue the institution. Orders. At six, in summer, prayers in the chapel. To study till half an hour after eleven. Dinner in the refectory till one. Retire till four. Then called to conversation (if the weather invite) abroad, else in the refectory. This never omitted but in case of sickness. Prayers at seven. To bed at nine. In the winter the same, with some abatements for the hours, because the nights are tedious, and the evening’s conversation more agreeable. This in the refectory. All play interdicted, sans bowls, chess, &c. Every one to cultivate his own garden. One month in spring a course in the claboratory on vegetables, &c. In the winter a month on other experiments. Every man to have a key of the elaboratory, pavillion, library, repository, &c. Weekly fast. Communion once every fortnight, or month at least. No stranger easily admitted to visit any of the society, but upon certain days weekly, and that only after dinner. Any of the society may have his commons to his apartment, if he will not meet in the refectory, so it be not above twice a week. Every Thursday shall be a music-meeting at conversation hours. Every person of the society shall render some public account of his studies weekly, if thought fit, and especially shall be recommended the promotion of experimental knowledge, as the principal end of the institution. There shall be a decent habit and uniform used in the college. One month in the year may be spent in London, or any of the universities, or in a perambulation for the public befiefit, &c. with what other orders shall be thought convenient.”

This scheme, which is characteristic of the state of Mr. Evelyn’s mind, at a time when good men sickened at the contemplation of successful rebellion, would, in all likelihood, have gradually departed from its principles, and is perhaps too romantic to have stood the collision of human passions and human events. But, when a prospect appeared of better times, it occasioned some change in his sentiments; and, upon an attempt being made to damp the desires of the people for the king’s return, he drew his pen in that critical season in defence of his majesty’s character, which, at such a juncture, was both an acceptable and a very important service. The conduct of Mr. Evelyn in this critical year, 1659, which was in truth the most active in his whole life, is hardly taken notice of by any of those who have undertaken to preserve his memoirs. After the death of Oliver and the deposition of Richard Cromwell, there were many of the commanders in the army that shewed an inclination to reconcile themselves to the king; which disposition of theirs was very much encouraged by such as had his majesty’s interest truly at heart. Amongst these, Mr. Evelyn had a particular eye upon colonel Herbert Morley, an old experienced officer in the parliament army, who had two stout regiments entirely at his devotion, was very much esteemed by his party, and had the general reputation of being a person of probity and honour. It was a very dangerous step, as things then stood, to make any advances to one in his situation; yet Mr. Evelyn, considering how much it might be in that gentleman’s power to facilitate the king’s return, fairly ventured his life, by advising the colonel freely to make his peace with, and enter into the service of, the king. The colonel, as might well be expected, acted coldly and cautiously at first, but at last accepted Mr. Evelyn’s offer, and desired him to make use of his interest to procure a pardon for himself, and some of his relations and friends whom he named, promising in return to give all the assistance in his power to the royal cause. At the same time that Mr. Evelyn carried on this dangerous intercourse with colonel Morley, he formed a resolution of publishing something that might take off the edge of that inveteracy, expressed by those who had been deepest in the parliament’s interest, against such as had always adhered to the king and with this view he wrote a small treatise, which had the desired effect, and was so generally well received, that it ran through three impressions that year. The title of this piece was, “An Apology for the Royal Party, written in a letter to a person of the late council of state; with a touch at the pretended plea of the army,” Lond. 1659, in two sheets in 4to. But while Mr. Evelyn and other gentlemen of his sentiments were thus employed, those of the contrary party were not idle; and, amongst these, Marchamont Needham, who first wrote with great bitterness for the king against the parliament, and afterwards with equal acrimony for the parliament against the king, was induced to write a pamphlet, which was deservedly reckoned one of the most artful and dangerous contrivances for impeding that healing spirit that began now to spread itself through the nation, and with that view was handed to the press by Praisegod Barebones, one of the fiercest zealots in those times, the title of which, at large, runs thus: “News from Brussels, in a letter from a near attendant on his majesty’s person, to a person of honour here, dated March 10th, 1659.” The design of this pretended letter was to represent the character of king Charles II. in as bad a light as possible, in order to destroy the favourable impressions that many had received of his natural inclination to mildness and clemency. All the king’s friends were extremely alarmed at this attempt, and saw plainly that it would be attended with most pernicious consequences; but Mr. Evelyn, who had as quick a foresight as any of them, resolved to lose no time in furnishing an antidote against this poison, and with great diligence and dexterity sent abroad in a week’s time a complete answer, which bore the following title: “The late news or message from Brussels unmasked,” London, I 659, 4to. This very seasonable and very important service, for his own safety, our author managed with such secrecy, that hardly any body knew from whom this pamphlet came. But how much soever he had reason to be pleased with the success of his pen upon this occasion, he could not help being extremely mortified at the change he perceived in his friend colonel Morley’s behaviour, who on a sudden grew very silent and reserved, and at length plainly avoided any private conversation with Mr. Evelyn. In this situation our author had the courage to write him an expostulatory letter, which was in effect putting his life into his hands, and yet even this failed of procuring him the satisfaction he expected. However, he felt no inconvenience from it; for this alteration in colonel Motley’s countenance towards him was not the effect of any change in his disposition, but arose from his having entered into new engagements for the king’s service with sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and general Monk, who had tied him down to such absolute secrecy that he was not able at that juncture to give Mr. Evelyn any hint that might make him easy; but the latter soon saw plainly enough, from the colonel’s public behaviour, that he had no reason to apprehend any mischief from the confidence he had reposed in him.

Immediately after the king’s return, Mr. Evelyn was introduced, on June 5, 1660, to the king by the duke of York, and very graciously received; nor was it long before be experienced the king’s esteem and confidence, in a remarkable instance. There had been many disputes between the ambassadors of the crowns of France and Spain, for precedence in the courts of foreign princes, and amongst these there was none more remarkable than that upon Tower-hill, on the landing of an ambassador from Sweden, September 30, 1660, which was so premeditated a business on both sides, that the king, foreseeing it would come to a quarrel, and being willing to carry himself with indifference towards both, which could not be otherwise done than leaving them at liberty to adjust their respective pretences, yet for the sake of public tranquillity, orders were given that a strict guard should be kept upon the place, and all his majesty’s subjects were enjoined not to intermeddle, or take part with either side; and the king was farther pleased to command, that Mr. Evelyn should, after diligent inquiry made, draw up and present him a distinct narrative of the whole affair, which he accordingly did, and it is a very curious and remarkable piece. It is inserted in Baker’s Chronicle, Our author began now to enter into the active scenes of life, but yet without bidding adieu entirely to his studies. On the contrary, he published, in the space of a few months, several learned treatises upon different subjects, which met with great applause; the rather because the author expressed in some of. them his intention to prosecute more largely several philosophical subjects, in a manner that might render them conducive to the benefit of society; and of his capacity for performing these promises, some of these pieces were instances sufficient to satisfy every intelligent reader, as well as to justify the character he had already acquired, of being at once an able and agreeable writer. It is certain that very few authors of his time deserve this character so well as Mr. Evelyn, who, though he was acquainted wkh most sciences, and wrote upon many different subjects, yet was tar from being a superficial writer. He had genius, taste, and learning, and he knew how to give all these a proper place in his works, so as never to pass for a pedant, even with such as were least in love with literature, and to be justly esteemed a polite author by those who knew it best.

About the close of 1662, when his majesty was pleased, by his letters patent, to erect and establish the royal society for the improvement of natural knowledge, John Evelyn, esq. was appointed one of the first fellows and council, on June 20. He had given a proof the same year how well he deserved that distinction, by his “Sculptura.” Upon the first appearance of the nation’s being obliged to engage in a war with the Dutch, the king thought proper to appoint commissioners, in November 1664, to take care of the sick and wounded, and Mr. Evelyn was one of the number, having all the ports between Dover and Portsmouth in his district; and sir Thomas Clifford, who was afterwards a peer, and lord high treasurer of England, was another. We find these particulars in a letter from our author to Mr. Boyle, in which he expresses how great a satisfaction it would have been to have had that worthy and charitable person for his colleague. Notwithstanding the plague which raged in London in 1665, he frequently went thither on the business of this office, having at one time no less than 3000 Dutch prisoners under his care. In January 1665-6, he waited on his majesty at Hamptoncourt, who was newly returned from Oxford, where he had resided during the plague, and his majesty took this opportunity to thank him for his zeal and fidelity in his service at A time of such danger, when every one was desirous of quitting London, and kindly told him he had often been alarmed for his safety.

Mr. Evelyn’s literary labours now began to accumulate, from his ardent wish to support the credit of the royal society, and to convince the world that philosophy was not barely an amusement, to take up the time of melancholy and contemplative persons, but a high and useful science, worthy the attention of men of the greatest parts, and capable of contributing in a supreme degree to the welfare of the nation. He eserted his talents also in the defence, and for the improvement, of the public taste in architecture and painting, with equal vigour and with equal applause.

and cultivated minds to cherish an affectionate remembrance of the academies where they first pursued their studies, Mr. Evelyn gave a noble testimony of his high respect for his alma mater, Oxford, by using his utmost interest with the lord Henry Howard, in order to prevail upon him to bestow the Arundeliao marbles, then in the garden of Arundel-house in the Strand, upon the university, in which he happily succeeded, and obtained the thanks of that learned body, delivered by Dr. Barlow, and other delegates specially appointed for the purpose. Nor was this the last favour conferred by lord Arundel, at the request of Mr. Evelyn, whom he honoured with his closest friendship, after he arrived at the title of Duke of Norfolk. Of this interest Mr. Evtlyn made no other advantage than giving a right direction to the natural generosity of that excellent person, whence flowed some particular marks of kindness to the royal society, which were very gratefully accepted; and something farther would have been procured, if the duke’s sudden and unexpected death had not frustrated the schemes formed by our author for the service of that learned society, to which, from its very foundation, he was attached with unabated zeal. Mr. Evelyn spent his time, at this juncture, in a manner as pleasing as he could wish. He had great credit at court, and great reputation in the world; was one of the commissioners for rebuilding St. Paul’s, attended the meetings of the royal society with great regularity, undertook readily whatever tasks were assigned him to support that reputation, which, from their first institution, they had acquired, and which, by degrees, triumphed over that envy which it raised. He was punctual in the discharge of his office as a commissioner of the sick and wounded; and when he had leisure retired to his seat at Sayes-court, where the improvement of his garden was his favourite ambition. Yet in the midst of his employments, both public and private, and notwithstanding the continual pains that he bestowed in augmenting and improving the books he hud already published, he found leisure sufficient to undertake fresli labours oi the same kind, without any diminution of the high character he had obtained by his former writings. He made a journey to Oxford in the summer of 1669, where, on the 15th of July, at the opening of the theatre, he was honoured with the degree of doctor of the civil law; at the same time this honour was conferred on the duke of Ormond, their chancellor, and on the earl of Chesterfield. After king Charles II. had tried, with very little effect, to promote trade, according to the advice of persons engaged in it, he thought proper to constitute a particular board for that purpo.se, in Sept. 1672, and named several persons of great rank to be members of that council, and amongst them Mr. Evelyn, who had previously (Feb. 1671) been nominated one of the council of foreign plantations. These preferments were so welcome to a person of his disinterested temper and true public spirit, that he thought he could not express his gratitude better than by digesting, in a short and plain discourse, the chief heads of the history of trade and navigation, dedicated to the king, which was very graciously received, and is allowed to contain as much matter in as small a compass as any that was ever written uprm the topic. Notwithstanding these late auditions to his employments, when the royal society found it requisite to demand the assistance of some of its principal members, and to exact from them the tribute of certain dissertations upon weighty and philosophical subjects, he produced his share with his usual vigour and promptitude, as appears by their TVmisactions. We have now named all the preferments ronferred on him in that reign; and though they were none of them very considerable in respect of profit, yet he was jo easy in his own circumstances, so good an oeconomist, and so true a patriot, that while he daily saw fresh improvements made in every county throughout the kingdom, and the commerce of the nation continually extended, he thought himself amply recompensed, and never failed to express his sentiments in that respect with great cordiality. The severe winter of 1683 gave some interruption to his domestic enjoyments, the frost committing dreadful depredations in his fine gardens at Sayes-court, of which he sent a full and very curious account to the royal society in the beginning of the succeeding spring. After the accession of king James, we find him, in December 1685, appointed with the lord viscount Tiviot of the kingdom of Scotland, and colonel Robert Philips, one of the commissioners for executing the great office of lord privy-seal, in the absence of Henry earl of Clarendon, lord lieutenant of Ireland, which he held till March 11, 1686, when the king was pleased to make Henry baron Arundel of Wardour lord privy seal. While in this office he refused to put the seal to Dr. Obadiah Walker’s licence to print popish books. On May 5, 1695, he was appointed treasurer of Greenwich hospital, and although now much advanced in years, continued his literary labours, with his accustomed zeal, at his leisure hours.

In 1696, we find that he lett his seat at Sayes-court to admiral Benbow for three years. In June of that year he was present at laying the first stone of the hospital at Greenwich. In 1698 when Peter the Great came over to England to learn ship- building, he took a fancy, as Mr. Evelyn tells us, to his house at Sayes-court, because it was near the king’s yard at Deptford, and insisted on turning out admiral Benbow. What stay the czar made does not appear, but he did no little mischief to the house and gardens, and for this damage paid Mr. Evelyn 150l. In Oct. 1699, Mr. Evelyn’s elder brother George died, in his eighty-third year, and having no issue male, the paternal estate at Wotton came to our author. In Jan. 1700 he paid his first visit to it as possessor, and in May removed his family and goods thither from Sayes-court. He was here during the great storm of 1703, when above a thousand trees were blown down in sight of his house. His last visit was paid to Wotton in July 1705, and the last memorandum made in his Journal was of Feb. 3, 1706.

During his latter days there was no relaxation of his endeavours to be useful. As his collections were very great, so he was ever ready to communicate them for the benefit of others. He furnished Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, with those additional remarks on the county of Surrey, which are published in his English edition of the "Britannia. 11 He contributed largely to Mr. Houghton’s valuable work on husbandry and trade, and to Burnet’s History of the Reformation; and Mr. Aubrey has testified how often he was indebted to him for his friendly assistance in many of his undertakings. In respect to the royal society, he was equally assiduous in his attendance, and careful in his intelligence. Whatever fell within the compass of his own extensive inquiries, he never failed to transmit to that body, nor was he less active in procuring them proper correspondents both at home and abroad, of which copious testimonies are to be met with in their registers, and in their printed Transactions. He might, therefore, justly style himself, as he did, a pioneer in their service; an expression which marked at once how humble and how indefatigatible he was in whatever might contribute to the advancement of that noble design, which was the basis of their institution. He was a true lover of freedom of thought in philosophical inquiries, which he practised upon all occasions himself, and very readily indulged to others; and though nobody was freer from prejudices, or spoke more discreetly than he did, of books that it was impossible for him to commend, yet he never resented any attack made upon his own, but bore the contradiction of his opinion with all imaginable temper, being persuaded that truth and reason would always triumph in the end, and that it was better to leave things to the decision of the public than to embark in endless controversies, though in the defence of sentiments ever so well founded. When we consider the number of the books he published, and the variety of the subjects upon which he employed his time, our admiration of his industry and application is greatly heightened when we reflect how careful he was in reviewing, correcting, and augmenting, all his original works. Whatever subject appeared weighty enough to attract his attention, never lost its place in his thoughts, but was often revolved, and reaped the continual benefit of the new lights he received.

This learned person’s life and labours terminated together; for, in a short time after he had prepared the fourth edition of his “Sylva” for the press, he departed this life in the eighty-sixth year of his age, Feb. 27, 1705-6, and was interred at Wotton. His tomb is about three feet high, of free-stone, shaped like a coffin, with an inscription upon a white marble stone, expressing, according to his own intention, “That living in an age of extraordinary events and revolutions, he had learned from thence this truth, which he desired might be thus communicated to posterity, That all is vanity which is not honest, and that there is no solid wisdom but in real piety.” By his wife, Mary, daughter of sir Richard Brown, who was the companion of his fortunes, and in some measure also of his studies, for almost threescore years, he had five sons and three daughters. Of the former, all died young except one, of whom we shall speak in the next article; of the latter, only one survived him, Susannah, married to William Draper, of Adscomb, in the county of Surrey, esq. His excellent widow did not outlive him quite three years, but, dying Feb. 9, 1709, was, according to her own desire, deposited in a stone coffin, near the corpse of her husband. Upon the stone coffin, in which the leaden one lies that holds her body, a white marble stone is placed of the same shape, with a very short inscription, which informs us, that, at the time of her demise she was in the seventy- fourth year of her age, and that she was esteemed, admired, beloved, and regretted, by all who knew her.

Mr. Evelyn’s personal character was truly amiable. In the relative duties of father, husband, and friend, few could exceed him in affection and constancy; and his correspondence, of which a large portion still exists in ms. affords many proofs of a kind heart, and a placid, humble temper. He was greatly beloved by all who knew him, and his acquaintance was most extensive. Titles he never appears to have courted; but it is rather singular, that a monarch like Charles II. by no means a niggard in what cost him nothing, should not have tendered the rank of baronet to a man who was one of the ornaments of his reign. With James, we apprehend, he was not very cordial, and after the revolution, it is probable that he thought the addition of title very insignificant at his time of life.

As considerable light is thrown on the history and merits of Mr. Evelyn from the account given of his works, little apology need be made for the length of the article, taken principally from the Biographia Britannica. These were, 1. His treatise “Of Liberty and Servitude,” 1649, 12mo. This was a translation, and in all probability the first essay of our author’s pen. 2. “A Character of England, as it was lately presented in a letter to a nobleman of France, with reflections upon Callus Castratus,” 1651, 16to. The third edition of this book appeared in 1659; at present it is very scarce. 3. “The State of France,” London, 1652, 8vo. 4. “An Essay on the First Book of Titus Lucretius Carus, de renim natura, interpreted, and made into English verse, by J. Evelyn, esq.” London, 1656, 8vo. The frontispiece to this book was designed by his lady, Mary Evelyn. There is a copy of verses by F.dmun.l Waller, esq. of Beaconsfield, prefixed and directed to his worthy friend Mr. Evelyn, perhaps too extravagant. As there are many faults, however, in this work which do not belong to the author, we shall subjoin the transcript of a ms note in his own hand-writing in the copy at Wotton: “Never was book so abominably misused by printer; never copy so negligently surveied by one who undertooke to looke over the proofe-sheetes with all exactnesse and care, naqely Dr. Triplet, well knowne for his abiilitie, and who pretended, to oblige me in Hiv absence, and so readily offer'd himselfe. This good yet I received by it, that publishing it vaiiu-ly, its ill succese at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest.” 5. “The French Gardener, instructing how to cultivate all sorts of fruit-trees and herbs for the garden, together with directions to dry and conserve them in their natural,” &c. Lond. 1658, in 12mo, and several times after. In most of the editions is added, “The English Vineyard vindicated, by John Rose, gardener to his majesty king Charles II. with a' tract of the making and ordering of wines in France.” The third edition of this French Gardener, which came out in 1676, was illustrated with sculptures. 6. “The golden book of St. Oh ry sos torn, concerning the Education of Children.” Lond. 1659, 12mo, in the preface to which is a very interesting account of his son Richard, an amiable and promising child, who died in infancy, Jan. 27, 1657. This little narrative, as Mr. Evelyn’s work is scarce, may be seen in decade first of Barksdale’s Memorials, which, however, is almost as scarce. 7. “An Apology for the Royal Party, c.” 1659, 4to, mentioned above. 8. “The late News or Message from Brussels unmasked,” 1659, 4 to, also mentioned above. 9. A Panegyric at his, majesty king Charles II. his Coronation,' 1 Loncl. 1661, fol. 10. “Instructions concerning the erecting of a Library, written by Gabriel Naude”, published in English, with some improvements,“Lond. 1661, 8vo. ll.” Fumifugium or the inconveniences of the air and the smoke of London dissipated together with some remedies humbly proposed,“London, 1661, 4to, in five sheets, addressed to the king and parliament, and published by hisma jesty’s express command. Of this there was a late edition in 1772. 12.” Tyrannies or the Mode in a discourse of sumptuary laws“Lond. 1661, 8vo. 13.” Sculptnra; or the history a-id art of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper, with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works; to which is annexed, a new manner of engraving, or mezzo-tinto,. communicated by his highness prince Rupert to the author of this treatise,“Lond. 1662, 8vo. In the dedication to Mr. Robert Boyle, dated: at Sayes-court, April 5th, 1662, he observes, that he wrote this treatise at the reiterated instance of that gentleman. The first chapter treats of sculpture, howderived and distinguished, with the styles and instruments belonging to it. The second, of the original of sculpture in general. la this chapter our author observes, that letters, and consequently sculpture, were lon.g before the flood, Suidas ascribing both letters and all the rest of the sciences to Adam. After the flood, as he supposes, there were but few who make any considerable question, that it might not be propagated by Noah to his posterity, though some admit of none before Moses. The third chapter treats of the reputation and progress of sculpture among the Greeks and Romans down to the middle ages, with a discussion of some pretensions to the invention of copper cuts and their impressions. The fourth, of the invention and progress of chalcography in particular, together with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works. The fifth, of drawing and design previous to the art of chalcography, and of the use of pictures in order to theeducation of children. In this chapter, our author, in honour of the art upon which he writes, discourses thus:” It was in the former chapter that we made rehearsal of the most renowned gravers and their works, not that we had no more to add to that number, but because we would not mingle these illustrious names and qualities there, which we purposely reserved for the crown of this discourse. We did, therefore, forbear to mention what his highness prince Rupert’s own hands have contributed to the dignity of that art, performing things in graving, of which some enrich our collection, comparable to the greatest masters; such a spirit and address there appears in all that he touches, and especially in that of the mezzotinto, of which we shall speak hereafter more at large, having first enumerated those incomparable gravings of that his new and inimitable style, in both the great and little decollations of St. John the Baptist, the soldier holding a spear and leaning his hand on a shield, the two Mary Magdalens, the old man’s head, that of Titian, &c. after the same Titian, Georgion, and others. We have also seen a plate etched by the present French king, and other great persons; the right honourable the earl of Sandwich, sometimes, as we are told, diverting himself with the burine, and herein imitating those ancient and renowned heroes, whose names are loud in the trumpet of fame for their skill and particular affection to these arts. For such of old were Lucius Manilius, and Fabius, noble Romans, Pacuvius, the tragic poet, nephew to Ennius. Socrates, the wisest of men, and Plato himself, Metrodorus and Pyrrhus the philosopher, did both desigii and paint and so did Valentinian, Adrian, and Severus, emperors so as the great Paulus ^milius esteemed it of such high importance, that he would needs have his son to be instructed in it, as in one of the most worthy and excellent accomplishments belonging to a prince. For the art of graving, Quintilian likewise celebrates Euphranor, a polite and rarely endowed person; and Pliny, in that chapter where he treats of the same art, observes that there was never any one famous in it, but who was by birth or education a gentleman. Therefore he and Galen in their recension of the liberal arts, mention that of graving in particular, amongst the most permanent; and in the same catalogue, number it with rhetoric, geometry, logic, astronomy, yea, r grammar itself, because there is in these arts, say they, more of fancy and invention, than strength of hand, more of the spirit than of the body. Hence Aristotle informs us, that the Grecians did universally institute their children in the art of painting and drawing, for an oeconomique reason there signified, as well as to produce proportions in the mind. Varro makes it part of the ladies 1 education, that they might have the better skill in the works of embroidery, &c. and for this cause is his daughter Martia celebrated among those of her fair sex. We have already mentioned the learned Anna Schurman; but the princess Louisa has done wonders of this kind, and is famous throughout Europe for the many pieces which enrich our cabinets, examples sufficient to vindicate its dignity, and the value that has been set upon it, since both emperors, kings, and philosophers, the great and the wise, have not disdained to cultivate and cherish this honourable quality of old, so nobly reputed, that amongst the Greeks a slave might not be taught it. How passionately does Pereskius, that admirable and universal genius, deplore his want of dexterity in this art Baptista Alberti, Aldus Pomponius, Guaricus Durer, and Rubens, were politely learned and knowing men, and it is hardly to be imagined of how great use and conducible a competent address in this art of drawing and designing is to the several advantages which occur, and especially to the more noble mathematical sciences, as we have already instanced in the lunary works of Hevelius, and are no less obliged to celebrate some of ur own countrymen famous for their dexterity in this incomparable art. Such was that Blagrave, who himself cut those diagrams in his Mathematical Jewel; and such at present is that rare and early prodigy of universal science, Dr. Chr. Wren, our worthy and accomplished friend. For, if the study of eloquence and rhetoric were cultivated by the greatest geniuses and heroic persons which the world has produced, and that, by the suffrage of the most knowing, to be a perfect orator a man ought to be universally instructed, a quality so becoming and useful should never be neglected.“In the sixth chapter he discourses of the new way of engraving or mezzotinto, invented and communicated by prince Rupert and he therein observes,” that his highness did indulge him the liberty of publishing the whole manner and address of this new way of engraving; but when I had well considered it, says he (so much having been already expressed, which may suffice to give the hint to all ingenious persons how it is to be performed), I did not think it necessary that an art so curious, and as yet so little vulgar, and which indeed does not succeed where the workman is not an accomplished designer, and has a competent talent in painting likewise, was to be prostituted at so cheap a rate as the more naked describing of it here would too soon have exposed it to. Upon these considerations then, it is, that vvg leave it thus enigmatical; and yet that this may appear no disingenuous rhodomontade in me, or invidious excuse, I profess myself to be always most ready sub sigillo, and by his highness’s permission, to gratify any curious and worthy person with as full and perfect a demonstration of the entire art as my talent and address will reach to, if what I am now preparing to be reserved in the archives of the royal society concerning it be not sufficiently instructive.“There came, however, into the hands of the communicative and learned Richard Micldleton Massey, M. D. and F. 11. S. the original manuscript, written by Mr. Evelyn, and designed for the royal society, entitled” Prince Rupert’s new way of engraving, communicated by his highness to Mr. Evelyn;“in the margin of which is this note:” This I prepared to be registered in the royal society, but I have not yet given it in, so as it still continues a secret.“In this manuscript he first describes the two instruments employed in this new manner of engraving, viz. the hatcher and the style, and then proceeds to explain the method of using them. He concludes with the following words:” This invention, or new manner of chalcography, was the result of chance, and improved by a German soldier, who, espying some scrape on the barrel of his musket, and being of an ingenious spirit, refined upon it, till it produced the effects you have seen, and which indeed is, for the delicacy thereof, much superior to anyinvention extant of this art, for the imitation of those masterly drawings, and, as the Italians call it, that morhidezza expressed in the best of their designs. I have had the honour to be the first of the English to whom it has been yet communicated, and by a special indulgence of his highness, who with his own hands was pleased to direct me with permission to publish it to the world; but I have esteemed it a thing so curious, that I thought it would be to profane it, before I had first offered it to this illustrious society. There is another way of engraving, by rowelling a plate with an instrument made like that which our scriveners and clerks use to direct their rulers by on parchment, only the points are thicker set into the rowel. And when the plate is sufficiently freckled with the frequent reciprocation of it, upon the polished surface, so as to render the ground dark enough, it is to be abated with the style, and treated as we have already described. Of this sort I have seen a head of the queen Christina, graved, if I mistake not, as big as the life, but not comparable to the mezzotinto of prince Rupert, so deservedly celebrated by J. Evelyn."

A second edition of the Sculptura was published in 1755, containing some corrections and additions taken from the margin of the author’s printed copy; an etching of his head by Mr. Worlidge; an exact copy of the mezzotinto done by prince Rupert, by Mr. Houston a translation of all the Greek and Latin passages and memoirs of Mr. Evelyn’s life, from which we have borrowed a few particulars. The work had become very scarce; being chiefly confined to the libraries of the most curious among the learned. Mr. Walpole has spoken of it in terms of high respect, as well as of its author.

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

On his advancement to the board of trade, he published, 22. “A short and plain discourse, the chief heads of the history of trade and navigation,” which he dedicated to the king, and which was very graciously rereirecl, and thought then to contain as much matter in as small a compass as any that was ever written upon a topic so copious as well as so important. 23. “Terra: a philosophical discourse of earth, relating to the culture and improvement of it for vegetation, and the propagation of plants, &c. as it was presented to the royal society, April 29th, 1675,” London, 1675, folio and 8vo. Of this, also, Dr. Hunter published an improved edition in 1778. 24. “Mundus Muliebris; or, the ladies dressing-room unlocked, and her toilette spread. In burlesque. Together with the Fop- Dictionary, compiled for the use of the fairsex,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 25. “Monsieur de la Quintinye’s treatise of Orange-Trees, with the raising of Melons, omitted in the French editions; made English by John Evelyn, esq.” Lond. 1693. 26. “Numismata; a discourse of medals, ancient and modern; together with some account of heads and effigies of illustrious and famous persons, in sculps and taille douce, of whom we have no medals extant, and of the uses to be derived from them. To which is added, a digression concerning physiognomy,” Lond. 1697, folio.

Before concluding our article, it may be necessary to advert to some particulars of Mr. Evelyn’s history, which are interspersed in his “Sylva,” and could not well be incorporated in our sketch. From that work we learn, that the true signification of his surname, Evelyn, written anciently Avelan or Evelin, was filberd, or rather hazel, which gives him occasion to remark, that these trees are commonly produced where quarries of free-stone lie underneath, as at Hazelbury in Wiltshire, Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire, and Haslemere in Surrey. He more than once remarks, that his grandfather was a great planter and preserver of timber, as it seems were the ancient possessors of the place where he lived, whence it acquired its name of Wotton (i. e.) Woodtown, from the groves and plantations that were about it. He farther remarks, that there was an oak felled by his grandfather’s order, out of which there was a table made, measured by himself more than once, of five feet in breadth, nine and a half in length, and six inches thick, all entire and clear. It was set up in brick-work for a pastry-board; and, to fit it for that use, it was shortened by a foot, being originally ten feet and a half, as appeared from an inscription cut in one of its sides, whence it appeared to have lain there above one hundred years, when pur author wrote this description. When his grandfather’s woods were cut down, which consisted entirely of cak, they sprang up again, not oaks but beeches; and when these too in their turn felt the axe, there arose spontaneously a third plantation, not of oak or beech, but of birch, which he does not set down as a thing singular in itself, but because it happened under his own eye. He is a declared enemy to iron works, on account of their destroying woods; yet he observes, from the prudential maxims prevailing in his own family, they had quite a contrary effect, as being one principal cause of their making such large plantations, and taking so much pains about them. It was a relation of his that sold Richmond new park to kiug Charles I. after planting many fine trees there. Our author carried this disposition with him to Sayes-court, where he must have shewn it very early, since be assures us that the marquis of Argyle presented him with the cones of a peculiar kind of fir, which he takes to be the Spanish pinaster, or wild pine, and gives a very particular account of the manner in which they grew in the marquis’s county in Scotland. He informs us, that it was the lord chancellor Bacon who introduced the true plane tree, which he planted originally about Verulam, whence he had his title. Mr. Evelyn takes to himself the honour of having propagated the alaternus from Cheshire to Cumberland, which was before reputed an inhabitant only of the green-house, but is found very capable not only of living without doors, but of standing unhurt by the rigour of our severest winters. He mentions a most glorious and impenetrable holly-hedge which he had at Sayes-court^ four hundred feet in length, nine feet high, and five in diameter, which occasions his dropping a hint, that the fine gardens he had raised there were wholly ruined by the tzar of Muscovy, who it seems lived there for the sake of being near the yard. He recommended Mr. Gibbons, the carver, to king Charles II. by whom some exquisite works were performed in St. Paul’s cathedral. He was likewise consulted by the Bedford family about preserving their fine trees, so long as the gardens were kept up about Bedford-house, which, before the last edition of his book, were demolished, to make way for the new buildings about Bloomsbury. He takes notice of an admirable remedy for a dysentery, which had been otherwise, in all probability, buried in oblivion; and this is the fungous substance separated from the lobes of walnut kernels, powdered and given in a glass of wine, which, he affirms, relieved the English soldiers in the famous Dundalk campaign in Ireland, soon after the revolution, when all other remedies failed. He was acquainted with the conde Mellor, a Portuguese nobleman, who resided some time at the court of king Charles II. when an exile from his own, by whom he was informed, that his father, when prime-minister, as himself had likewise been, received in a case a collection of plants of china oranges, of which only one escaped, and was with difficulty recovered; and yet from this plant came all the china oranges that ever were seen in Europe, which, our author observes, is a most noble and wonderful instance of what industry may do from the slightest and least promising beginnings. One instance of the vast advantages derived from woods we shall borrow, because the facts are notorious and indisputable. “Upon the estate of George Pitt, esq. of Stratfield-Say, in the county of Southampton, a survey of timber being taken in 1659, it came to ten thousand three hundred pounds, besides near ten thousand samplers not valued, and growing up naturally. Since this there hath been made by several sales, five thousand six hundred pounds, and there has been felled for repairs, building, and necessary uses, to the value, at the least, of twelve hundred pounds; so as the whole falls of timber amount to six thousand eight hundred pounds. The timber upon the same ground being again surveyed anno 1677, appears to be worth above twenty-one thousand pounds, besides eight or nine thousand samplers and young trees to be left standing, and not reckoned in the survey. But, what is yet to be observed, most of this timber abovementioned being oak, grows in hedge-rows, and so as that the standing of it does very little prejudice to the plough or pasture.” To conclude: this worthy person, who was born in a town famous for wood, who derived from his ancestors an affection for plantations, who wrote the most correct treatise of forest-trees extant in our own, or perhaps in any language, and who was himself a most eminent planter, had a strong desire, after the example of sir William Temple, who directed his heart to be deposited in his garden, to have his corpse also interred in the like manner; but very probably he was prevailed upon to alter his mind afterwards, notwithstanding what he had expressed upon that subject in his book; which shews how warm and lasting that passion for improvement was in his own breast, which, with so much learning, eloquence, and success, he laboured to excite in the bosoms of his countrymen.

A discussion having occurred at the royal society on the eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, he procured the following extract of a letter from Mr. Henry Robinson, to whom it was written by captain William Baddily, and at the same time produced some of the ashes which are mentioned therein which letter, and which ashes, had been preserved for upwards of thirty years

“The sixth of December, 1631, being in the gulph of Volo riding at anchor about ten of the clock that night, it began to rain sand or ashes, and continued till two of the clock the next morning. It was about two inches thick on the deck, so that we cast it overboard with shovels, as we did snow the day before: the quantity of a bushel we brought home, and presented to several friends, especially to the masters of Trinity-house. There were in our company capt. John Wilds, commander of the Dragon, and capt. Anthony Watts, commander of the Elizabeth and Dorcas. There was no wind stirring when these ashes fell: it did not fall only in the places where we were, but likewise in other parts, as ships were coming from St. John d'Acre to our port, they being at that time an hundred leagues from us. We compared the ashes together, and found them both one. If you desire to see the ashes, let me know.” In the spring of 1670, our author communicated in a letter to the lord viscount Brouncker, a large and circumstantial account of a very singular and extraordinary invention by a person of rank, called the Spanish Sembrador, or new engine for ploughing and equal sowing all sorts of grain, and harrowing at once: by which a great quantity of seed-corn is saved, and a rich increase yearly gained; together with a description of the contrivance and uses of this engine. The description of this machine, translated from the Spanish into English, is of a considerable length, and therefore we refer the reader to it in the Transactions, No. 21. The chief reason for mentioning it here was, to shew how vigilant our author was in his inquiries, and how diligent in the prosecution of them; and yet not with any view of concealing the discoveries he made, but quite the contrary, that the royal society might have the honour, and the British nation the benefit, of them. In this respect, no doubt, be reaped abundant since it was declared, over and over again in the Transactions, that his Sylva had raised whole forests, and his Pomona produced numberless orchards: yet that he affected not praise out of any degree of vanity, but was really pleased with being the instrument of good to others, appears very plainly from that warmth, as well as readiness, tvith which he recommended other men’s works to the favour of the public, even upon subjects on which he had employed his own pen, particularly in the case of Mr. Smith, which is printed in the Transactions.

He was also very assiduous in procuring, as early as possible, from abroad, all new books upon curious and useful subjects; as also such as, from their universal high character, were become scarce and dear; some of which he communicated to the secretary of the society, and of others he made large and curious extracts himself; and, as is very justly observed, his translations were doubly valuable, on account of that clearness and fidelity with which he expressed the author’s sense, and the improvements that he added from his own observations, as he rendered no treatises into English, without being perfectly versed in the subject upon which, as well as the language in which, they were written. He likewise, in testimony of his respect and duty to the society, bestowed upon them those curious tables of veins and arteries, which he brought with him from Padua, and consequently deserved to be honourably mentioned in their registers, and to have his picture, as it is, hung up in their apartments. He might, therefore, justly style himself, as we have already noticed, a pioneer in the service of the society. Amongst other advantages that attended the institution of the royal society, one was its giving birth to, and the highest encouragement for, free and open inquiries; nor was it any wonder that, amongst these, some turned upon those learned persons who first exerted themselves in favour of this method of improving knowledge. Amongst, these, Mr. John Houghton, though with great decency and good manners, censured our author’s great performance, on account of its crossing a notion he had advanced, “that it would be highly advantageous for the nation, if all the timber within twelve miles of a navigable river were destroyed.” It is but fair that he should speak for himself: his words then are these: Collections on husbandry and trade, vol. IV. p. 273. “I question not but you eagerly expect to hear what may be said, in answer to Mr. Evelyn’s Sylva. There he seems to be quite of another opinion, and to give many instances of profits from woods, so great that few other parts of husbandry can equal them. 1 must confess Mr. Evelyn is a great man, one that I have the honour to be acquainted with, and happy is he that is so he is a gentleman of great piety, modesty, and. complacency and also endowed with such an universality of useful learning, that he may very well be esteemed a darling of mankind. But he is particularly well versed in the affairs of the woodman; and his Sylva is so good a book, that I have not heard of any thing written on the subject like it. To answer it, I will not pretend; to gainsay what he affirms I cannot, for I believe he loves veracity more than life. I will only make some observations, and, if my sentiments differ from his, I know he will pardon me, he being well inclined to allow freedom of thought, and also well versed in a motto, Aw­Ihis in verba, which is that of the royal society. Now, I first observe the reason why this Sylva, or discourse of forest-trees, was delivered to the royal society. It was, as I am told in the title-page, upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly, by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy. What these queries were, does not altogether appear; but, by the discourse, one of them seems to be hour timber might be propagated in his majesty’s dominions. An answer to this our ingenious author hath bravely given. But my considerations are not how, or how not, to propagate timber; but a query, `Whether it is best, within certain limits, to propagate it or no?' a thing quite beside his design. Indeed, in his introduction, he, like a very good Englishman, laments the notorious decay of our wooden walls, which he thought likely to follow, when our then present navy should be worn out or impaired; and I must confess, when he considered the great destruction of our wood that had been made in the foregoing twenty years, by some through necessity, and others through ill ends and purposes; together with our not being used to fetch much timber from abroad, and a general cry that none could furnish us with any for shipping, especially so good as our own; with the addition of what amounted to a complaint from the honourable commissioners of his majesty’s navy: when he considered all this, I say, every good man will rather commend than blame his zeal. But now since that destruction of our timber hath forced us to look out for a more convenient supply to London, and some other places, and our having greater experiences of sea-fights than ever we had before, other things are known; and it is believed, to my certain knowledge, by some of the commissioners of the navy, and others that have been, greatly concerned in building of ships, that there is some other timber in the world that will build ships as well as ours: for instance, the French Ruby that we took from France, when he joined with Denmark and Holland against tis, had such good timber in it, that, as I have been told, England never had better. The bullets that entered this French ship made only round holes without splinters, the thing our timber is valued for and it was so hard, that the carpenters with their tools could hardly cut it it was like a piece of iron. I fancy it some of that oak Mr. Evelyn speaks of in his fore-cited Sylva, chap. iii. p. 25. ‘ There is,’ saith he, `a kind of it so tough, and so extremely compact, that our sharpest tools will hardly enter it, and scarcely the very fire itself, in which it consumes but slowly, as seeming to partake of a ferruginous and metal0 line shining nature, proper for sundry robust uses.' These last thirty ships that were built have a great deal of foreign timber in them; and, although there is some decay in them already, yet I am told that the fault is not attributed to the foreign timber, but rather to the hasty building; the king having not a stock before-hand, the timber had not time enough for a seasoning. For these reasons, and what I said before about the increase of seamen, persuades me to believe, that such means will never lessen our strength; and I question not but that, for our money, we may be furnished sufficiently from abroad.”

This paper was published November the 6th, 1683; and October the 31st, 1701, the same gentleman published another paper, in which he maintained his former opinion, and undertakes to refute Mr. Evelyn’s observations, as to; the profit made by planting, complaining that what he had before written was never answered; intimating at the same time, that the reason was, because it was unanswerable. His words are these: “Mr. Evelyn tells us of one Mr. Edward Salter, who planted an ash, and before his death sold it for forty shillings. I will not reckon the ground this ash grew on to be worth any thing; but suppose the ash when planted was worth but one shilling, and had the man lived but eighty-four years after, the shilling would have amounted to six pounds eight shillings, which is far better than forty shillings. Again: three acres of barren land sown with acorns, in sixty years became a yery thriving wood, and was worth three hundred pounds. Being it was barren land, I will suppose it worth but three shillings the acre, nine shillings the three acres; which for sixty years was worth, in present money, fifteen pounds, nine shillings, and seven pence; which, doubled every twelve years, makes four hundred ninety-five pounds, six shillings, and eight-pence. Suppose that the tillage, acorns, and setting, came but to the third part of fifteen pounds; which together makes above six hundred pounds, for the three hundred pounds.”

We may, says the editor of the Biog. Britannica, from the large works which Mr. Evelyn has published, from the complete plan which he has given us of a large work he intended to publish, and from various circumstances that occur in his letters, form a pretty sure judgment of the method pursued by him, in composing the many and valuable treatises that fell from his pen. His way was, when he had made choice of a subject, to resolve it into its proper parts, and to entitle these, according to the bulk of the volume he proposed, either books or chapters, that he might digest his materials under their proper titles. He then set down his own thoughts in a free succinct manner under every head, to which he added what occurred to him, useful or memorable, in his reading; and when he had finished this, he digested his own thoughts regularly, supporting them by proper testimonies from ancient and modern authors, or, if that were the case, shewing the reasons for which he dissented from them. This made his collections very large, in comparison of the books he published, into which there entered nothing but the quintessence of the authors he had perused. The first great work which occupied his thoughts was one of which he formed the plan in his travels, and which he intended to have entitled “A general history of all Trades.” We have an account of this in one of his own letters to Mr. Boyle, dated from Sayes-court, August the 9th, 1659, which begins thus:

“I am perfectly ashamed at the remissness of this recognition for your late favours from Oxon, where, though had you resided, it should have interrupted you before this time. It was by our common and good friend Mr. Hartlib, that I came now to know you are retired from thence, but not from the muses, and the pursuit of your worthy designs, the result whereof we thirst after with all impatience, and how fortunate should I esteem myself, if it were in my power to contribute in the least to that which I augur of so great and universal a benefit! But so it is, that nty late inactivity has made so small a progress, that, in the” History of Trades,“I am not advanced a step, finding, to my infinite grief, my great imperfections for the attempt, and the many subjections which I cannot support, of conversing with mechanical capricious persons, and several other discouragements; so that, giving over a design of that magnitude, I am ready to acknowledge my fault, if, from any expression of mine, there was any room to hope for such a production further than by a short collection of some heads and materials, atrd a continual propensity of endeavouring, in some particular, to encourage so noble a work as far as I am able; a specimen whereof I have transmitted to Mr. Hartlib, concerning the ornaments of gardens, which I have requested him to communicate to you, as one from wlrom I hope to receive my best and most considerable furniture, which favour I doagain and again humbly supplicate, and especially touching the first chapter of the third book, the eleventh and twelfth of the first, and indeed on every particular of the whole.” Whoever would be better acquainted with the whole extent of our author’s project, may consult his extract of the life of signor Giacomo Favi, who had the like, and intended to have travelled over the whole world, in order to collect proper materials; in which design having made some progress, he died of a fever at Paris Of this gentleman Mr. Evelyn speaks in raptures, from the similitude between their tempers; but it seems he had not altogether the patience of that Italian virtuoso, who could accommodate himself to the humours of the lowest of the people, as well as make himself acceptable even to the greatest monarclis of Europe. But, though our author desisted from the original plan, yet it was not till he had finished several parts of it, particularly his Chalcography, which Mr. Boyle prevailed upon him to publish, and the following pieces which he never published: “Fire Treatises, containing a full view of the several arts of painting in oil, painting in miniature, annealing in glass, enamelling, and making marble- paper.” We may form a judgment, fronv the piece he published, of the great loss the world had from his not altering his resolution with respect to these, which no doubt were as thoroughly finished and as perfect in their kind as that. We may collect from the letter before mentioned, that a system of gardening made a part of his great design, which, however, there are some grounds to believe, he detached thence, and considered as a whole or distinct system of itself, to the completing of which he applied himself with great spirit and labour, and intended to have given it the following title, under which he shewed part of his collection to his friends: “Elysium Brhannicum.” We cannot positively affirm, but there are very probable grounds to believe, that this was the very same work, of which he has given a plan before his “Acetaria,” about which he intimates, in his preface to that treatise, he had spent upwards of forty years, and his collections for which had in that time filled several thousand pages. The title of this vast work, as it is there expressed, is this “The Plan of a royal Garden describing and shewing the amplitude of that part of Georgicks which belongs to Horticulture.” He proposed to divide this into three books, the first of which was to consist of six chapters, wherein he meant to discourse of the principles of things, the four reputed elements, the celestial influences, the seasons, the natural soil of a garden, and all the artificial improvements that could be made therein. The second book was to contain twenty-four chapters, and of these it is sufficient to say, that the twentieth chapter seems to have been executed in his discourse of sallads, and that the last chapter of this book was no other than his Gardener’s Kalendar. The third book was to be divided into twelve chapters, and to comprehend all the accessaries, so as to leave nothing which had so much as any relation to this favourite subject unexhausted. The cause of his leaving this work also unfinished, he very freely and plainly tells us, was his perceiving that it exceeded his whole power of execution, that is, to come up to the scheme formed in his own mind, notwithstanding his glorious spirit, his easy fortune, and indefatigable diligence. This we may very easily credit, when we consider that his treatise of sallads could not be above a fortieth, perhaps not above a fiftieth part of his intended performance. To these his unpublished works we must add another, mentioned only by Mr. Wood, who gives us nothing concerning it but the following title: “A treatise of the Dignity of Man.”

, third son of the former, was born at his father’s house at Sayes-court, near Deptford, January 14, 1654-5, and was there very tenderly educated in his infancy, being considered (after the death of his brother Richard Evelyn, January 27, 1657, who, though but five years of age, was esteemed a kind of prodigy) as the heir of the family. He was likewise universally admired for the pregnancy of his parts, of which he gave a pleasing proof in a Latin letter written to his father in Dec. 1665, and which induced his father to send him in 1666 to Oxford, where he remained in the house of the ingenious and learned Dr. Ralph Bathurst, then president of Trinity-college, before he was admitted a gentleman-commoner, which was in Easter term 1663. It is not clear at what time he left Oxford; but Mr. Wood seems to be positive that he took no degree there, but returned to his father’s house, where he prosecuted his studies under the directions of that great man. There is, however, good reason to believe that it was during his residence in Trinity-college, and when he was not above fifteen years of age, that he wrote that elegant Greek poem which is prefixed to the second edition of the Sylva, and is a noble proof of the strength of his genius, and wonderful progress in learning in the early part of his life. In Nov. 1675, he set out for Paris with lord Berkley, ambassador to the French court; and in May 1676, returned to England. He discovered his proficiency soon afterwards, both in the learned and modern languages, by his elegant translations, as well as his intimate acquaintance with the muses, in some original poems which were very justly admired. If we consider the father’s turn of mind, we need not wonder that he should employ his pen first upon gardening, especially in the easy way of translation, and from a book so justly as well as generally admired as the French Jesuit’s has ever been. The title of our author’s little treatise was, 1. “Of gardens, four books, first written in Latin verse, by Renatus Rapinus; and now made English by John Evelyn, esq.” 1673, 8vo. His father annexed the second book of this translation to his “Sylva,” and it must be allowed that the sense is very faithfully rendered, and the poetry is more easy and harmonious than could have been expected from a youth of his age. 2. “The life of Alexander the great,” translated from the Greek of Plutarch, printed in the fourth volume of Plutarch’s lives by several hands. 3. “The history of the grand visiers, Mahomet and Achmet Coprogli; of the three last grand signiors, their sultanas, and chief favourites; with the most secret intrigues of the seraglio,” &c. Lond. 1677, 8vo. This was a translation from the French, and has been esteemed an entertaining and instructive history. Our author wrote also several poems occasionally, of which two are printed in Dryden’s Miscellanies, and more are in Nichols’s Collection of Poems. The one entitled “On virtue,” has been esteemed excellent in its kind by the best judges and the other, styled “The remedy of love,” has been also much admired. On Feb. 24, 1679-80, he married Martha, daughter and coheiress of Richard Spenser, esq. Turkey merchant, whose widow married sir John Stonehouse, of Radley, in Berks, bart. Mr. Evelyn, who had a turn for business as well as study, and had been introduced to the prince of Orange in 1688, was in 1690 made one of the chief clerks of the treasury, and quitting that situation in 1691, became one of the commissioners of the revenue in Ireland, which country he visited in 1692. He would probably have been advanced to higher employments if he had not been cut off in thd flower of his age, dying at his house in Berkeleystreet, London, March 24, 1698, in the forty-fifth year of his age. He had by his wife two sons and three daughters. His eldest son, Richard, -died an infant at Sayes-court, as did his eldest daughter Martha Mary. His second daughter, Elizabeth, married Simon Harcourt, esq. eldest son and heir of Simon lord viscount Harcourt, lord high chancellor of Great Britain, by whom she became mother to the first earl Harcourt. Jane, his third daughter, died an infant at his house in the parish of St. Martin’s in the fields, and was interred at Kensington. John Evelyn, his second and only surviving son, born at Sayes-court, March 2, 1681, succeeded to his grandfather’s estate. He was married at Lambeth chapel, September 18,- 1705, to Anne, daughter of Edward Boscawen, of Worthivil, co. Cornwall, esq. He was by letters-patent bearing date July 30, 1713, created a baronet. This worthy gentleman, who inherited the virtue and learning as well as the patrimony of his ancestors, made several alterations and additions to the family-seat at Wotton, in 1717, one of which was the erecting a beautiful library, forty-five feet long, fourteen feet broad, and as many high, for the reception of that large ajtd curious collection of books made by his grandfather, his father, and himself, and where they still remain. He was long one of the commissioners of the customs, a fellow of the royal society, and was succeeded by his eldest son, John, who dying in 1767, was succeeded by sir Frederick Evelyn, on whose death, in 1812, the title descended to Mr. John Evelyn, the grandson of Charles, a younger son of the first baronet of the Wotton branch.

, a very eminent lawyer, and upright magistrate, was born at Gripskerque, in the island of Walcheren, in 1462, and studied law at Louvain under Arnold de Bek, and Peter de Themis, whose praises for profound knowledge he has celebrated in his “Topica juris.” In 1493 he took his doctor’s degree, and acquired so much reputation that Erasmus, in a letter to Bernard Buchon, pronounces him a man born for the good and service of his country. Everard’s first public situation was at Brussels, where he was appointed judge in ecclesiastical causes under Henry de Berg, bishop and prince of Cambray: he was then, although not in any of the ecclesiastical orders, presented to the deanry of the collegiate church of St. Peter of Anderlechten, in that city. In 1505 being invited to Mechlin, he was first appointed assessor of the grand Belgic council, and afterwards left that place to become president of the supreme council of Holland and Zealand. During the eighteen years that he executed this important trust, his whole conduct was so marked by profound knowledge, and upright decision, that in 1528, the emperor Charles V. recalled him to Mechlin to exercise the same functions. All who speak of him represent him as a man totally uninfluenced by any interest, or motives of favour, who admitted no solicitations from power or friendship, and administered strict justice without ever giving the laws an inclination that they did not fairly bear, whether the party concerned was poor or rich. He died at Mechlin, Aug. 9, 1532, in his seventieth year. His works were, 1. “Topica juris, sive loci argumentorum legales,” of which he printed the first part or century, at Louvain, in 1516, fol. This he afterwards reviewed and enlarged, and it was published by his sons in 1552, at Louvain, and reprinted in 1568 and 1579, at Lyons, and in 1591 at Francfort. It was afterwards abridged by Abraham Marconet, and published in that form at Magdeburgh, 1655, 12mo. 2. “Consilia, sive responsa juris,” Louvain, 1554, fol. and at Antwerp, 1577, enlarged and corrected by Molengrave. There are also other editions of 1643, &c. By his wife Elissa Bladelle of Mechlin, he left three daughters, one of whom, Isabella, whq became a nun, was celebrated for her learning and knowledge of the Latin language, and five sons, all of considerable eminence in the literary world; Peter Jerome, a religious of the order of the Premonstratenses, a doctor of the civil and canon law at Louvain, and afterwards abbot of St. Mary of Middlebourgh; Nicolas, first, president of the supreme council of Friesland, and afterwards successor to his father in the office of president of the grand council of Mechlin Nicolas Grudius Adrian Marius, and John Secundus. Of these last three, some notice will be taken here, as more suitable to the family connection than under the articles Grudius and Secundus, where they have hitherto been placed.

, the third son of the preceding, was born at Louvain, whence he got the name of Grudius, that city having, according to some authors, been the residence of the ancient Grudius’s. His own merit and the reputation of his father soon raised him to preferment. He was treasurer of the states of Brabant, knight and secretary of the golden fleece, counsellor to the emperor Charles V. and Philip II. king of Spain. Like his father, he had talents for business, and was equally upright and disinterested, making no other use of his influence than to patronize the deserving, especially men of learning. He was much connected with the eminent scholars of his time, with some of whom he appears to have studied at Bologna, in 1533, and these, as well as other learned contemporaries, are mentioned in his poems. Mr. Roscoe notices him as a foreign associate of the Neapolitan academy, but mistakes in stating him to be the father, instead of the brother of Joannes Secundus. He died at Venice, where he happened to be on some affairs concerning the republic, in 1571. His only works are Latin poems, many of which are elegant, although Nicerou seems disposed to undervalue them. They are, 1. “Epigrammata arcuum triumphalium, Valentianis Carolo V. in ejus adventu exhibitorum,” Louvain, 1540. 2. “Apotheosis jjn obitum Maximiliani ab Egmonda, comitis Burani,” ibid 1549. 3. “Negotia, sen poematum piorum libri duo,” Antwerp, 1566, 8vo, and other pieces, a collection of which was printed at Leyden, 1612, 12mo. This contains three books of elegies, three of epigrams, epitaphs, elegies, &c. among the latter are two on the death of his two wives, and elegies on that of Joannes Secundus, his brothers, his father, and other friends.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Mechlin, and arrived to the rank of chancellor of Gtielderland. Like his father and brothers, he studied jurisprudence, and like the latter cultivated Latin poetry. He died at Brussels March 20, 1568. His Latin verses were published with those of his brother Nicholas Grudius, in the Leyden edition of 1612, and consist of two books of elegies, a book of epigrams, one of epistles, a satire, a piece on the death of his brother Joannes Secundus, and sonic detached epigrams. It is also said that he translated into Latin verse some of Lucian’s dialogues, and into prose his treatise on calomny.

, and more generally known by these last names, was born at the Hague in 1511, and received the first impressions of virtue and knowledge from his father. On what account our author, as he was not the second son, was called Secundus, is not known. Perhaps the name was not given him till he became eminent, and was in poetry nemini sccundus. Poetry, however, was not the profession which his father wished him to follow. He intended him for the law, and when he could no longer direct his studies himself, placed him under the care of Jacobus Valcardus, or Volcardus. This gentleman, the author of a treatise “de usu eloquentix in obeundis muncribus publicis,” is said to hare been every way qualified to discharge the important trust that was committed to him; and he certainly gained the affection of his pupil, who, in one of his poems, mentions his death with every appearance of unfeigned sorrow. Another tutor, Stenemola of Mechlin, was soon provided, but it does not appear that Secundus devoted much of his time to legal pursuits. Poetry, and the sister arts of painting and sculpture, had engaged his mind at a very early period. He is said to have written verses when but ten years old; and from the vast quantity which he left behind him, we have reason to conclude that such writing was his principal employment.

Secundus having nearly attained the age of twenty-one, and being determined, as it would seem; to comply as far as possible with the wishes of his father, quitted Mechlin, and went to France, where at Bourges, a city in the Orleanois, he studied the civil law under the celebrated Andreas Alciatus, who was particularly endeared to our author by his general acquaintance with polite literature, and especially by his taste in poetry. Having studied a year tinder this eminent civilian, and taken his degrees, he returned to Mechlin, where he remained only a very few months. In 1533 he went into Spain with warm recommendations to the count of Nassau and other persons of high rank; and soon afterwards became secretary to the cardinal archbishop of Toledo, in a department of business which required no other qualifications than what he possessed in a very eminent degree, a facility in writing with elegance the Latin language. It was during his residence with this cardinal that he wrote his “Basia,” a series of amatory poems, of which the fitih, seventh, and ninth carmina of Catullus seem to have given the hint. Secundus was not, however, a servile imitator of Catullus. His expressions seem to be borrowed rather from Tibullus and Propertius; and in the warmth of his descriptions he has the disgrace to exceed all former writers.

In 1535 he accompanied the emperor Charles V. to the siege of Tunis, but gained no laurels as a soldier. The hardships which were endured at that memorable siege were but little suited to the soft disposition of a votary of Venus and the Muses; and upon an enterprise which might have furnished ample matter for an epic poem, it is remarkable that Secundus wrote nothing which has been deemed worthy of preservation. Having returned from his martial expedition, he was sent by the cardinal to Rome to congratulate the pope upon the success of the emperor’s arms; but was taken so ill on the road, that he was not able to complete his journey. But being advised to seek without a moment’s delay, the benefit of his native air, he soon recovered. Having now quitted the service of the archbishop of Toledo, he was employed in the same office of secretary to the bishop of Utrecht; and so much had he jhitherto distinguished himself by the classical elegance of his compositions, that he was soon called upon to fill the important post of private Latin secretary to the emperor, who was then in Italy. This was the most honourable office to which our author was ever appointed; but before he could enter upon it, death put a stop to his labours. Having arrived at St. Arnaud, in the district of Tournay, in order to meet, upon business, with the bishop of Utrecht, he was on Oct. 8, 1536, cut off by a violent fever, in the very flower of his age, not having quite completed his twenty-fifth year. He was interred in the church of the Benedictines, and his relations erected to his memory a marble monument, with a plain Latin inscription.

The works of Secundus have gone through several editions, of which the most copious is that of Scriverius, published at Leyden, 1631. It consists of the “Basia,” and of epigrams, elegies, &c. &c. A French critic who maintains that the genius of Secundus never p'roduced anything that was not excellent in its kind, adds with too much truth, “Mais sa muse est un peu trop lascive.” His “Basia” were first translated into English by Mr. Stanley,- author of the “Lives of the Philosophers,” but he omitted the 8th, loth, llth, 12th, and 14th. In 1731, a translation of the whole was published by an anonymous writer, who adopted a poetical version of the first and second by Elijah l‘enton, and of the I’th and iNsth by Mr. Ward. This translation is accompanied with the original Latin, and embellished with the cuts of Secundus and Julia from the Scriverian edition, for Secundus appears to have been somewhat of an engraver, and the cut of his mistress Julia is said to have been executed by him. A superior translation appeared at London in 1775, with a life of the author, of which we have availed ourselves. Secundus excelled his brothers in the elegance and classical purity of his Latin poetry, as much as he fell short of them in respect for decency.

, a painter of histories, portraits, and landscapes, was born at Alkmaer in 1606, and studied under Van Bronkhorst, who soon observed and encouraged talents which he found superior to those of the rest of his disciples. He had a lively invention, and painted with freedom and firmness, and a good force of colouring. Many of his pictures are spoken of in terms of praise; but the one selected as his principal performance is the representation of the victory of David over Goliath, executed in 1648. It was painted on the folding doors of the organ in the great church at Alkmaer and the sketch of it was preserved in the council chamber of that city. Everdingen died in 1679, aged 73.

, the nephew of the former, was born in Alkmaer, in 1621. Having first attended to the instructions of Roland Savery, he afterwards greatly improved by those of Peter Molyn, whom at last he surpassed in skill. He delighted most in the grand scenes of nature, or rather her more romantic features, such as rocks, torrents, and cataracts, which he executed with great freedom and variety of touch. In his time he had no superior; but Jacob Ruysdael followed him immediately, was indeed partly contemporary with him, and in his own style left him far behind in the brilliancy and force of his colours and execution, and the choice of his forms. However, Everdingen is highly deserving of great praise for the care which he took to make himself acquainted with the effects of nature, and the truth with which he marked them. He made a voyage up the Baltic, and was much gratified by and made much use of the scenery, which the romantic coasts of that sea, and of Norway, (which he also visited) afforded him. He died in 1675, and left behind him a great number of drawings, both of real views and compositions, which are very freely wrought. He was thought not to succeed so well in large works as in smaller ones, those coming more within the management of the neatness of pencilling, which characterizes his style of execution. The latter are very highly and very deservedly valued in Flanders and Holland.

, a writer, who distinguished himself by his talents and productions in polite literature, and who was many years resident in England,. was born at St. Denis le Guast, in Lower Normandy, April 1, 1613. He was the third son of Charles de St. Denis, castellan or baron of St. Denis le Guast; and took the name of St. Evremond from a manor which was part of the estate of his father, and of which he was sometimes styled lord. He was intended, by his father, for the profession of the law; and, when he was nine years of age, he was sent to Paris to be bred a scholar. He was entered in the second form in the college of Ciermont; and continued there four years, during which he went through a course of grammar learning and rhetoric. He was next sent to the university of C;ien, in order to study philosophy but he continued there one year only, and then returned to Paris, where he pursued the same study a year longer in the college of Harcourt. He distinguished himself not only by his application to literature, but by other accomplishments; and he particularly excelled in fencing, so that “St. Evremond’s pass” was famous among those who were skilled in that art. When he had passed through a course of philosophy, be began to study the law: but whether his relations had then other views for him, or that his inclination led him to a military life, he quitted that study after he had prosecuted it somewhat more than a jear, and was made an ensign before he hud quite attained to the age of sixteen. After he had served two or three campaigns, he obtained a lieutenant’s commission; and, after the siege of Laiidvecy, in 1637, he had the command of a company of foot.

M. de St. Evremond distinguished himself in the army by his politeness and wit, as well as by his bravery; and his accomplishments procured him the esteem of the mareschals d'Etrées and Grammont, of viscount Turenne, of the count de Moissens, afterwards mareschal de Albret, of count Palluau, afterwards marescUal de Clerembaut, and of the marquis de Crequi, who also became a mareschal of France. He had a share in the confidence of these distinguished noblemen, and they always testified their friendship towards him. In 1640, M. de St. Evremond was at the siege of Arras; and, in the ensuing year, he obtained a post in the horse, which gave him fresh opportunities of signalizing himself. Soon after the duke of Enguien, afterwards prince of Condé, became so much pleased with his conversation, that he made him lieutenant of his guards, that he might have him constantly near him. He often read with him and sometimes communicated to him his most secret projects, and entrusted him with affairs of the greatest moment. After the campaign of Rocroy, in 1643, M. de St. Evremond wrote a kind of satire against the French academy, which was published in 1650, and entitled, “The Comedy of the Academicians for reforming the French tongue .”

In 1644 he made the campaign of Fribourg; and the following year he received a dangerous wound at the battle of Notlingen. Being ordered to head a squadron, and to post himself below an eminence which was possessed by the enemy, he was there exposed, for three hours together, to all the fire of their small shot, and a battery of four field-pieces; so that he lost there most of his men, and was himself wounded in the left knee. His wound was so dangerous, that for six weeks he was supposed to be past recovery; but, by the skill of his surgeons, and the excellency of his constitution, his cure was at length effected. Thirty years after, however, his wound opened afresh in, London; but, being properly treated, he felt no inconvenience from it, excepting that his left leg was somewhat weaker than the other. After the taking of Fumes, in 1646, the duke of Enguien appointed M. de St. Evremond to carry the news of it to court; and having, at the same time, opened to him his design of besieging Dunkirk, charged him to propose it to cardinal Mazarin, and to settle with him every thing which was necessary for the execution of that undertaking. M. de St. Evremond managed this business with so much dexterity, that he prevailed on the prime minister to agree to every thing which was required by the duke of Enguien. But, in 1648, he lost the post which he had near that nobleman, now, by the death of his father, become prince of Conde. This prince took great delight in discovering what was ridiculous in the characters of his acquaintance; and often indulged himself in laughing at their foibles in private, in company with the count de Moissens and M. de St. Evremond. But the prince of Conde, who took great pleasure in ridiculing others, was not fond of being ridiculed himself. He was informed, that St. Evremond and the count had found out, that there was somewhat ridiculous even in him; that his extreme solicitude to discover the foibles of others was in itself a species of the ridiculous; and that they sometimes amused themselves with laughing at his highness. This excited in him so much resentment, that he took from M. de St. Evremond the lieutenancy of his guards, and would have no farther correspondence with the count de Moissens. It is, however, supposed, that a reconciliation would have been effected, if they had not been separated by the civil war, which about this time took place in France. When the prince of Conde" returned into France, after the Pyre nean treaty, M. de St. Evremond went to wait upon him, and was very favourably received. The prince offered him his protection; and afterwards, on several occasions, gave him assurances of his affection and esteem.

In 1649 M. de St. Evremond went into Normandy, to visit his relations. About this time the parliament of Paris had declared against cardinal Mazarin; and the duke of Beaufort, the prince of Conti, and the duke of Longueville, following their example, the latter retired to his government of Normandy, where he assembled the nobility, and very earnestly endeavoured to prevail on St. Evremond to engage in his party. With this view he was offered the command of the artillery; but this office he declined; and has given a facetious account of his refusal in a satirical piece written by him about this time, entitled, “The duke of Longueville’s Retreat to his Government of Normandy.” He says, “They had a mind to bestow the command of the ordnance on St. Evremond; and, to speak the truth, considering his affection for St Germain’s (where the king then was), he would have been glad to have served the court, by accepting a considerable employment, of the business of which he knew nothing. But, having promised count de Harcourt to take no employment, he kept his word, not only from a principle of honour, but that he might not be like the Normans, most of whom had broken their promise. From these considerations, he was induced generously to refuse the money that was offered to him, but which would never have been paid him.”

When the civil war broke out, the French king, being acquainted with St. Evremond’s merit and bravery, and knowing that he had constantly refused to join with those who were in opposition to the court, made him a mareschal de. camp, or major-general. His commission was dated Sept. 6, 1652; and the next day he received a warrant for a pension of three thousand livres a year. He served afterwards in the war of Guienne, under the duke of Candale; but, after the reduction of Guienne, he was committed to the Bastile, where he ivas confined as a prisoner two or three months. Some jests that had been thrown out relative to cardinal Mazarin, in a company wherein St. Evremond was present, but in which he had no greater share than the rest, were the pretence for his confinement. But the true reason of it was supposed to be, a suspicion that he had given some advice to the duke of Candale, which was inconsistent with the cardinal’s views. However, when St. Evremond obtained his liberty, he went to return thanks to the cardinal for his enlai?gement. Mazarin told him on this occasion, that “he was persuaded of his innocence, but that a man in his station was obliged to hearken to so many reports, that it was very difficult for him to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and not sbmetimes to do injustice to an honest man.”

In 1654, M. de St. Evremond served in Flanders; and about three years after fought a duel with the marquis de Fore. He continued in the service in Flanders till the suspension of arms, which was agreed upon between France and Spain in 1659. The following year, he came over into England with count de Soissons, who was sent on an embassy to congratulate Charles II. on the restoration; and, when cardinal Mazarin set out from Paris with a great retinue, in order to negociate a treaty with the first minister of the king of Spain, St. Evremond was one of those who accompanied him. He afterwards sent a letter concerning the conferences to the marquis de Crequi, in which he informed him, that the cardinal had sacrificed the honour and interests of France to his own private views. In one part of this letter he said, “It is the cardinal’s maxim, that a minister does not so much belong to the state as the state to the minister; and, for this reason, if God grant bim but a few years, he will get all the estates in the kingdom into his own hands.” This letter of St. Evremond, concerning the Pyreneau treaty, became the occasion of his banishment from France. After the death of the cardinal, a copy of the letter fell into the hands of some of the courtiers who had been connected with him. They represented to his majesty the danger of allowing private men to judge of state affairs, and to censure the conduct of ministers. Their representations made such an impression on the mind of Lewis, that he immediately ordered M. de St. Evremond to be committed to the Bastile. But St. Evremoud had no inclination to pay a second visit to that fortress; and, therefore, having received private information of the design, found means to make his escape out of France, and arrived in Holland about the end of the year 1661.

He did not continue long in Holland, but went over to England in 1662, and was well received at the British court. He particularly numbered among his friends the dukes of Buckingham and Ormond, the earls of St. Alban‘a and Arlington, lord D’Aubigny and lord Crofts. He also cultivated the acquaintance of those persons in England who were the most eminent for literature; and often conversed with Hobbes, sir Kenehn Digby, Cowley, and Waller. In England he wrote many literary pieces, which were afterwards printed. In 1665 he was seized with a disorder, which threw him into a kind of melancholy, and greatly weakened him. His physicians told him, that nothing but a change of air could cure him; and that, if he could not go to Montpelier, be would at least do well to cross the sea, ^nd make some stay in Holland. He complied with this, advice; and liked his situation in Holland so well, that he thought of spending the remainder of his life in that country. In a letter written about this time to the marquis de Crequi, he says, “After having lived in the constraint of courts, I console myself with the hope of ending my days, in the freedom of a republic, where, if nothing is to be hoped for, there is at least nothing to be feared. It would be disgraceful to a young man not to enter the world with a design of making his fortune: but, when we are upon the decline, nature calls us back to ourselves; and, the sentiments of ambition yielding to the love of our repose, we find it agreeable to live in a country, where the laws guard us against any subjection to the will of others; and where, to be secure of all, we need only be secure of ourselves. To this blessing we may add, that the magistrates have great authority in their offices for the interests of the public, but are little distinguished in their persons by any particular privileges or advantages. You see here none of those odious distinctions, which are so offensive to men of real good breeding no useless dignities, or inconvenient degrees of rank none of that cumbrous greatness, which restrains liberty, without advancing one’s fortune. Here the magistrates procure our repose, without expecting any acknowledgment, or even any expressions of respect for the services that they render to us. They are rigorous in the execution of the orders of the state firm and unaccommodating in the management of the interest of their country with foreign nations mild and tractable with their fellow-citizens and easy with all sorts of private persons. The foundation of equality remains, notwithstanding the exercise of authority; and, therefore, credit never makes a man insolent, nor do the governors ever bear hard on those that are governed.”

During his stay in Holland, St. Evremond became acquainted with most of the foreign ministers and persons of distinction there and also visited several eminent literary men, who happened then to be at the Hague particularly Heinsius, Vossius, and Spinoza. Of the latter he gave the following account to Mr. Des Maizeaux: lt He was,“said he,” of a middle stature, and pleasing countenance. His learning, modesty, and disinterestedness, made him esteemed by all the ingenious persons then at the Hague. It did not appear, from his ordinary conversation, that he had those sentiments which were afterwards found in his posthumous works." About 1667, some applications were made to the French king, by means of M. de St. Evremond’s friends, particularly of the marquis de Lionne, to induce that monarch to permit him to return to his own country but these applications were not successful. In 1668, the prince of Tuscany arrived in Holland and, as he designed to make some stay at the Hague, he hired a house there: but it happened, that, in the house which was taken for him, M. de St. Evremond had an apartment, as had also some other persons of distinction. They were, therefore, obliged to seek for other lodgings; but, when St. Evremond was preparing to remove like the rest, the prince not only desired him to stay, but likewise to use his table whilst he continued at the Hague. He also ever afterwards testified his esteem for him, and sent him every year a present of some of the best Italian wines.

St. Evremond now thought of passing the remainder of his days in Holland but, in 1670, sir William Temple delivered to him letters from the earl of Arlington, by which he was informed, that king Charles -II. desired his return to England. This induced him to change his intentions; and, on his arrival in England, the king conferred on him a pension o:' three hundred pounds a-year. In 1675, the duchess of Mazarin arrived in England; and we are told, that “her house was the usual rendezvous of the politest persons in England; and in these assemblies the people of fashion found an agreeable amusement, and the learned an excellent pattern of politeness.” It is added, that, in her house, “all manner of subjects were discoursed upon, as philosophy, religion, history, pieces of wit and gallantry, plays, and authors ancient and modern.” St. Evremond spent much of his time at the house of the duchess of Mazarin, and appears to have had a great friendship for her. He was also on very friendly terms with the celebrated Ninon de PEnclos, with whom he often corresponded. He sometimes passed the summer season with the court at Windsor, where he conversed much with Isaac Vossius, who had been made one of the prebendaries of Windsor by king Charles II. By the death of that prince, St. Evremond lost his pension; but, in 1686, the earl of Sunderland proposed to king James II. to create for him an office of secretary of the cabinet, whose province should be to write the king’s private letters to foreign princes. The king agreed to the proposal, but St. Evremond declined accepting the office. He made his acknowledgments to lord Sunderland, and to the king; and said, “he should account himself very happy to be able to serve his majesty; but that a man of his age ought to think of nothing, but how to husband the little time he had to live, and to spend it in ease and tranquillity.” After the Revolution, he was so well treated in England by king William, that he declined returning again to his own country, though the French king now gave him permission, and even promised him a favourable reception. Yet king William’s characteristic address to him, when first introduced at court, could not be very acceptable to a man who valued himself on his literary reputation “I think you was a major-general in the French service” About 1693, the abbot de Chaulieu sent a poem to the duchess of Mazarin, accompanied with a letter in verse, which contained a high compliment to St. Evremond, whom he compared to Ovid. St. Evremond made some remarks on the abbot’s poetical epistle, in which he objected to the comparison between himself and the Roman poet. “Ovid,” said he, “was the most witty and the most unfortunate man of his time. I am not like him, either as to wit or misfortunes. He was exiled among barbarians, where he made fine verses; but so doleful and melancholy, that they excite as much contempt for his weakness as compassion for his disgrace. Where I am, I daily see the duchess of Mazarin. I lire among sociable people, who have a great deal of merit and a great deal of wit. I make very indifferent verses; but so gay, that they make my humour to be envied, while they make my poetry to be laughed at. I have too little money but I love to be in a country where there is enough besides, the nse of it ends with our lives and the consideration of a greater evil is a sort of remedy against a lesser. Thus you see I have several advantages over Ovid. It is true, that he was more fortunate at Rome with Julia than I have been at London with Hortensia: but the favours of Julia were the occasion of his misfortune; and the rigours of Hortensia do not make a man of my age uneasy.”

St. Evremond was a kind of epicurean philosopher; but though his speculative morality was too lax, yet in his general conduct he appears to have acted like a man of probity. He preserved his health and his chearfulness to a very great age. In one of his letters to Ninon de TEnclos he says, “At eighty-eight years of age, I eat oysters every morning. I dine heartily, and sup tolerably. Heroes are celebrated for less merit than mine.” He was at length afflicted with a strangury, which was attended with great pain, and by which he was much weakened. Bayle tells us, in one of his letters, that it was publicly known, that St. Evremond used no assistance of minister or priest to prepare him for death; and that it was said, that the envoy from the court of Florence sent to him an ecclesiastic, who, asking him whether he would be reconciled, received for answer, “With all my heart: I would fain be reconciled to my stomach, which no longer performs in usual functions.” Bayle also says, “I have seen verses, which he wrote fifteen days before his death; and his only regret was, that he was reduced to boiled meats, and could no longer digest partridges and pheasants.” He died on the 9th of Sept. 1703, aged ninety years, five months, and twenty days. Des Maizeaux says, “He preserved, to the very last, a lively imagination, a solid judgment, and a happy memory. The great and acute pains, which he felt during his sickness, never disturbed his tranquillity. He bore them with a courage and constancy that may be envied by philosophers of the first rate.” The same writer gives the following description of his person: “M. de St. Evremond had blue, lively, and sparkling eyes, a large forehead, thick eye-brows, a handsome mouth, and a sneering physiognomy. Twenty years before his death, a wen grew between his eye-brows, which in time increased to a considerable bigness. He once designed to have it cut oft; but, as it was no ways troublesome to him, and he little regarded that kind of deformity, Dr. Le Fevre advised him to let it alone, lest such an operation should be attended with dangerous symptoms in a man of his age. He would often make merry with himself on account of his wen, his great leather cap, and grey hair, which he chose to wear rather than a periwig .” Des Maizeaux afterwards adds, “His behaviour was civil and engaging, his conversation lively and pleasant, his repartees quick and happy. We find very few that know how to read well. M. de St. Evre-p mond told me one day, that he had not known three in his whole life that could read justly. He had this art in perfection; and, what is altogether as uncommon, he had a very happy way of telling a story.” “His humour was ever gay and merry; which was so far from declining towards the latter end of his life, that it seemed rather to gather fresh strength.” “He was extremely fond of the company of young people, and delighted to hear the stories of their adventures.” “Although he did not pretend to over-rigid morals, yet he had all the qualities of a man of honour. He was just, generous, and grateful; and full of goodness and humanity.”

St. Evremond also, drew his own character, in a letter to the count de Grammont. It is as follows: “He was a philosopher equally removed from superstition and from impiety a voluptuary, who had no less aversion from debauchery than inclination for pleasure a man who had never felt the pressure of indigence, and who had never been in possession of affluence. He lived in a condition despised by those who have every thing, envied by those who have nothing, and relished by those who make their reason the foundation of their happiness. When he was young, he hated profusion, being persuaded that some degree of wealth was necessary for the conveniences of a long life. When he was old, he could hardly endure ceconomy; being of opinion, that want is little to be dreaded when a man has but little time left to be miserable. He was well pleased with nature, and did not complain of fortune. He hated vice, was indulgent to frailties, and lamented misfortunes. He sought not after the failings of men with a design to expose them; he only found what was ridiculous in them for his own amusement. He had a secret pleasure in discovering this himself; and would, indeed, have had a still greater in discovering this to others^ had he not been checked by discretion. Life, in his opinion, was too short to read all sorts of books, and to burden one’s memory with a multitude of things at the expence of one’s judgment. He did not apply himself to the most learned writings, in order to acquire knowledge; but to the most rational, to fortify his reason. He sometimes chose the most delicate, to give delicacy to his own taste; and sometimes the most agreeable, to give the same turn to his own genius. It remains that he should be described such as he was in friendship and in religion. In friendship he was more constant than a philosopher, and more sincere than a young man of good nature without experience. With regard to religion, his piety consisted more in justice and charity than in penance or mortification. He placed his confidence in God, trusting in his goodness, and hoping, that in the bosom of his providence, he should find his repose and his felicity.” He was interred in Westminster- abbey, in the nave of the church near the cloister, where a monument was erected to his memory by his friends, with an inscription, in which he is highly praised. It is said to have been written by Dr. Garth. Dr. Atterbury, who looked on St. Evreniond as an infidel, appears to have had objections to his being buried in the abbey, for which he is reflected upon, with petulant malignity, by one of the editors of the last edition of the Biographia Brttannica.

By his wiil, St. Evremond, who died worth about 800l. left 20l. to the poor French refugees; and the same sura to “the poor Roman catholics, or of any other religion.” His manuscripts he left to Dr. Sylvestre. The earl of Galway was his executor.

The works of St. Evremond consist of a variety of essays and letters, containing many ingenious and acute remarks on polite literature, and on life and manners, but very unequally written, together with some insipid poems, and several dramatic pieces. He possessed a considerable degree of wit and humour, and great knowledge of the world. He appears to have had a very intimate acquaintance with Roman literature; but acknowledged that he did not understand the Greek language. His works in French have passed through many editions, and been printed in different sizes. One edition is in two volumes, 4to,and some of the editions are in seven volumes, 12mo. An English translation of 'some of his works was published in two volumes, in 1700, 8vo; and a translation of some other of his pieces in 1705, in one volume, 8vo, under the title of “The posthumous Works of M. de St. Evremond, containing variety of elegant essays, letters, poems, and other miscellaneous pieces on several curious subjects.” Another translation, in two volumes, 8vo, was published by Mr. Des Maizeaux, in 1714, with a dedication to lord Halifax. But the best edition was published by the same editor, with the life of the author prefixed, in 1728, in three volumes, 8vo. This translation, however, does not cqntain our author’s poems, nor his dramatic pieces. There is also a collection of his anecdotes and opinions among the “Ana.” His reputation has sunk considerably among his own coun-r trymen, nor has there been any edition of his works printed in Franco for more than half a century. They consider none of his writings as worthy of perusal, except what he wrote on the genius of the Greeks and Romans, on manners, on the peace of the Pyrenees, on the duke of LongueviHe, and the conversation of the marshal Hocquincourt with father Canaye. In his comedies they find neither wit nor interest, and assert that his verses have more vivacity than genuine poetry; but they bestow higher praise on his prose, and except only to his frequent affectation of antithesis and point. La Harpe, in a well-written character of his works, ascribes his reputation more to fashion and artful management, than to real merit. As to his personal character, enough has been said in the preceding sketch to exhibit its most striking features, those of the wit, the courtier, and the voluptuary.

, a Danish poet of considerable reputation in his own country, was born at Copenhagen in 1743, and had to contend with adversity during the greater part of his life. For some years he was a common soldier in the Prussian and Austrian service, and lived in a state of comparative indigence until his death, which happened at Copenhagen March 17, 1781. He acquired his first reputatation by a work in prose, entitled “The Temple of Goodness,” and afterwards wrote some dramas, as his countrymen say, in the style of Ossian and Shakspeare. His works were printed at Copenhagen, 1781 1791, 4 vols. 8vo, with engravings by Chodowicki, but are not known in this country.

, a Spanish ex-jesuit, was born at Balbastro, in the kingdom of Arragon, in 1732, and at the age of ten, went to Salamanca, where he began his studies with great ardour, and made extraordinary proficiency in mathematics and physics. In 1764- he was appointed to teach mathematics and engineering in the royal military school founded at Segovia. On entering into this office, he delivered a speech, shewing the necessity of cultivating the art of war upon fixed principles; and with a view to exhibit examples as well as precepts to his scholars, he published the lives of all the eminent Spanish heroes, under the title of “The Spanish military History,” Segovia, 1769, 4to; and as a supplement, he added, in 1772, “The Engineer’s Manual,” 8vo. Both these works were much admired, the first particularly, for the elegance of the language, and the impartiality of the narrative. At what time he entered the order of the Jesuits is not known, but after their expulsion, he lived at Rome, and devoted his attention chiefly to music, of which, from his infancy, he was passionately fond. After six years’ labour and study, he produced a work on the subject, which contributed, although without much reason, to his reputation in the musical world. This appeared at Rome in 1774, and was entitled “Dell' Origine e della regole della Musica, &c.” 4to, in which, says Dr. Burney, too confident of his own powers, he imagined himself capable, with four years’ study only, intuitively to frame a better system of counterpoint than that upon which so many great musicians had been formed. Possessed of eloquence, fire, and a lively imagination, his book has been called in Italy, “a whimsical romance upon the art of music, in which is discovered a rage for pulling down, without the power of rebuilding.” The author has certainly, with shrewdness and accuracy, started several difficulties, and pointed out imperfections in the theory and practice of music, as well as in the particular systems of Tartini and Rameau; but his own resources and experience are totally insufficient to the task of correcting the errors of the old system, or forming a new one that is more perfect. He has more eloquence of language than science in music. His reasoning is ingenious and specious, even when his data are false; but his examples of composition are below contempt; and yet they are courageously given as models for students, superior to those of the old great masters of harmony.

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

, a French writer, and canontreasurer of the chapter of St. Marine at Tarascon, was born at St, llemy in Provence, of an obscure family, in 1719. He was educated for the church, but his course of studies was general, and he early manifested a taste for voyages and works of geography, and expended all he was worth in gratifying this inclination, by travelling over part of Europe and the coasts of Africa to verify the relative situations of places, and correct the errors of former geographers. On his return, he employed himself in arranging and methodizing the observations and information he had collected on the climate, manners, population, and 1 political interests of the different countries he had visited. These labours appeared so meritorious, that he was elected a member of the academies of Madrid, Stockholm, and Berlin. He died about the commencement of the French revolution, after having passed his life in successful study, and established an excellent character for benevolence. He published, as the result of his travels, 1. “Cosrnographie,” 1749, folio. 2. “Delia casa Milano,” 1753, 4to. 3. “Polychorographie,” Avignon, 1755, 8vo, an abridged account of astronomy, chronology, history, geography, hydrography, &c. but too short to be useful, and altogether the worst of Expilli’s works. 4. “Topographic de TUnivers,” 1758, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Description de l‘Angleterre, de l’Ecosse, et de Irelande,” 1759, 12mo, executed with great truth and impartiality, and illustrated with many judicious reflections; the narrative is entertaining, but the author’s inattention to his authorities has betrayed him into some blunders, although they do not affect the general merit of the performance. 6. “De la population de la France,” 1765, folio, one of the best statistical accounts of the produce of French industry and cultivation, and very superior' to all that had preceded. 7. “Dictionnaire geographique des Gaules et de la France,” 1762 1770, 6 vols. folio. This work was left incomplete, but as far as it goes, appears to have given general satisfaction. 8. “Manuel geographe,” 1782, a small volume for the use of schools, and well written.

, a celebrated rhetorician, of the fourth century, who has frequently been confounded with a bishop of Toulouse, and with another bishop of Cahors of the same name, was a native of Bourdeaux, and taught eloquence at Toulouse and Narbonne. In this last mentioned city he was entrusted with the education of the two princes Dalmatius and Hannibal, nephews of the reigning emperor Constantine. Before this Exuperius had been obliged to leave Toulouse, where the inhabitants set little value on his talents, but at Narbonne he was received with the respect due to him; and when the two princes, his pupils, were advanced to the throne, the one as emperor in the year 335, and the other as king of Pontus and Armenia, they conferred upon him the government of a province in Spain. Here he is said to have amassed great riches, and after holding the situation for many years, returned to his native country, and settled at Cahors, where he died, but at what time is not known. Ausonius bestows high praises on his general character and eloquence.

, bishop of Toulouse, in the latter end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, who died in exile for the orthodox faith, is recorded as a model of true Christian charity. During a great famine, after selling the whole of his own property, he disposed of all the rich gold and silver plate belonging to the church, in order to feed the poor; he exerted his charity likewise towards the religious of Palestine and Egypt. St. Jerome speaks much of his bountiful disposition, and compares him to the widovr of Sarepta, whose oil failed not. St. Jerome also dedicated to him his book on the prophet Zecharias. Exuperius changed the temple of Minerva at Toulouse into a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary, now the Dorade, and was the means of freeing the people of that city from their fears of the Vandals. We have no farther account of his history, except that he is supposed to have died in the year 417. He certainly was at Home in the year 409, when it was taken by the Goths.

, an eminent lawyer, descended from an ancient and noble family in East Friesland, was bora at Norden, Nov. 20, 1629. He had the misfortune to lose his father, when he was in his sixth year, but by the care of his mother and relations, he was sent to college, where he made great progress in the earlier classical studies. He then went to Rintelin, and began a course of law. In 1651 he removed to Marpurg, about the time when the academy in that city was restored, and here he recounts among the most fortunate circumstances of his life that he had au opportunity of studying under Justus Siriold, or Schutz, and John Helvicus his son, the former of whom was chancellor of the academy, and the latter was counsellor to the landgrave of Hesse, and afterwards a member of the imperial aulic council. Under their instructions he acquired a perfect knowledge of the state of the empire, and took his doctor’s degree in 1655. Soon after he was appointed by George II. landgrave of Hesse, to be professor of law, and his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students from every part of Germany. In 1669 he was invited by the dukes of Brunswick and Lunenburgh to Helmstadt, where he filled the offices of counsellor and assessor with great reputation. He was also appointed by the circle of Lower Saxony a judge of the imperial chamber of Spire, and in 1678 was received among the number of its assessors. The emperor Leopold, hearing of his eminent character and talents, engaged him to come to his court in the rank of aulic counsellor, and to reward his services, restored the rank of nobility which had been in his family. Eyben died July 25, 1699. His works were collected into a folio volume, and printed at Strasburgh in 1708. They are all on subjects of law. His son, Christian William, who was born in 1663, and died in 1727, was also a lawyer and classical antiquary. He published at Strasburgh, in 1684, “Dissertatio de ordine equestri veterum Romanorum,” folio, which was afterwards inserted in Sallengre’s “Thesaurus.”

, a painter, born at Maaseyk in 1366, is regarded as the founder of the Flemish school of painting, the Giotto of Flanders; and exhibited, for that early period of art, great genius and skill. In concert with his brother John, he was celebrated for many extraordinary and curious works, executed in oil, after the latter had made his discovery of that mode of painting., He painted well also in distemper, but gave that up after he adopted the other. One work of his, painted in conjunction with John, was in a chapel of the cathedral of Ghent. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who saw it there, says of it, “it represents the adoration of the lamb taken from the Apocalypse: it contains a great number of figures in a hard manner, but there is great character of truth and nature in the heads, and the landscape is well coloured.” It is now among the spoils of the French in the gallery of the Louvre; but whileat Ghent it was held in such estimation as to be shut up from public view, except on festivals; and at other times was only shewn to ambassadors or princes themselves who desired to see it. Philip I. of Spain wished to purchase it; but that not being practicable, he employed Michael Coxis to copy it, who spent two whole years about it, and received four thousand florins for his labour from the king, who placed it in the Escurial. This artist died in 1426, aged sixty.

, younger brother to the preceding, and the supposed inventor of oil-painting, was borii at Maaseyk in 1370, and studied with his brother, whom he afterwards excelled. His great discovery is said to have been made in 1410, in the following manner: He had painted a picture in the usual way (in distemper), and having varnished it, set it to dry in the sun’s rays, as was customary; but either from the wood being ill seasoned and ill put together, or from the extreme violence of the heat, the picture was cracked and quite spoiled. He therefore deliberated how he should in future best prevent accidents of this nature happening to his works, and endeavoured to make a varnish which would dry in the shade, without the necessity of exposing it to the sun. After many experiments, he found at last that oil of linseed and of nuts, were more siccative than any others he had tried. These, when boiled with other ingredients, made the varnish so much wished for by him and other painters. He afterwards discovered that mixing these oils with his colours gave them a hardness, and in drying not only equalled the water colour, but gave them more brilliancy and force and that, without the necessity of varnishing afterwards and he was surprised to find also, that they united far better in oil than in water.

The fame of this discovery soon spread over Flanders and into Italy; and when he grew old, but not till then, he imparted his secret to several painters, both Flemish and Italian. And it must be confessed the art of painting is very highly indebted to him for this foundation of the wonderful success with which succeeding ages have profited by this very useful discovery. As a painter he possessed very good talents, considering the early period of the art. He copied his heads generally from rtature; his figures are seldom well composed or drawn. But his power of producing richness of positive colours is surprising, and their durability no less so. He paid great attention evidently to nature, but saw her in an inferior style. He la-> boured his pictures very highly, particularly in the ornaments, which he bestowed with a lavish hand, but with alf the Gothic taste of the time and country in which he lived. In the gallery of the Louvre is a picture of the “Divine Being,” as he chose to call it, represented by an aged man with a long beard, crowned with the pope’s tiara, seated in a chair with golden circles of Latin inscriptions round his head, but without the least dignity of character, or evident action or intention. It is the very bathos of the art. At the earl of Pembroke’s, at Wilton house, is a small picture which does him more credit. -It represents the nativity of our Saviour, with the adoration of the shepherds, and the composition consists of four figures, besides the Saviour and four angels, and has in the back ground the anomaly of the angels at the sa.me time appearing to the shepherds. It is in oil, and the colours are most of them very pure, except those of the flesh. The garment of Joseph is very rich, being glazed thick with red lake, which is as fresh as if it were new. Almost all the draperies are Sg glazed with different colours, and are still very clear, except the virgin’s, which, instead of maintaining its blue colour, is become a blackish green. There is a want of harmony in the work, but it is more the effect of bad arrangement of the colours than the tones of them. The glory surrounding the heads of the virgin and child is of gold. We have been the more particular in stating these circumstances of this picture, because our readers will naturally be curious to know how far the original inventor of oil painting succeeded in his process, and they will see by this account that he went very far indeed, in what relates to the perfection of the vehicle he used, which, if he had happily been able to employ as well as he understood, the world would not have seen many better painters. He lived to practise his discovery for thirty-one years, dying in 1441, at the advanced age of seventy-one. Although in the preceding sketch we have principally followed the first authority in our references^ it must not remain unnoticed that the learned antiquary, Mr. Raspe, has proved, in the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds beyond all contradiction, that the art of painting in oil was invented and practised many ages betbre Van Eyck was born.

, or Eykens, called the Olp, was born at Antwerp in 1599, and became eminent for his historical paintings. His compositions are full of spirit; his figures have some degree of elegance; his draperies are broad, and the hack-grounds of his pictures are enriched with architecture and landscape in a good taste. As he always studied and copied nature, his colouring was warm, agreeable, and natural; and to his carnations he always gave a great deal of delicacy, particularly to the carnations of hrs nymphs and boys. He painted subjects in one colour, such as basso-relievos and vases of marble, extremely well; and was frequently employed to insert figures in the landscapes of other masters, as he designed them correctly, and adapted them to the different scenes with propriety and judgment. The principalpaintings mentioned as his productions are, a “Last Supper,” in St. Andrew’s church at Antwerp; “St. John preaching in the Desert,” in another church; “St. Catherine,” in the cathedral of Antwerp, &c. The time of his death is not known. Descamps has strangely divided him into two persons, in both which the dates are erroneous.

, a Dutch Latin poet and historian, was born at Delft in Holland, of a family of men of the sword. He embraced the same profession himself, and was a captain of cuirassiers in the Dutch service. With no less zeal he courted the muses, and acquired considerable reputation, both as a soldier and poet. In 1611 a quarto volume of his Latin poems was printed at Leyden, containing “Nugarum liber unus: Belli Flandrici libri duo; Senatus convivalis, Mars exul, &c.” He also wrote a treatise “De Saltationibusveterum,” which he dedicated to Joseph Scaliger. Eyndius died at his castle at Helmstede, in the isle of Schowen in Zeland, Sept. 11, 1614. After his death the states of Zeland ordered his “Chronicon Zelandiae” to be published at Middleburgh, 1634, 4to. This chronicle extends to 1296. The abbé Lenglet mentions another work not noticed in the. Bibi. Belg. “Jacobus Eyndius de pace a Batavis anno 1609 oblata,” Leyden, 1611, 4to.

, a Roman catholic gentleman of Warkworth castle in Northamptonshire, who died in London, Oct. 7, 1804, was the author of some controversial pamphlets; 1. “A few Remarks on the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman empire, relative chiefly to the two last chapters. By a gentleman.” London, 1778, 8vo. 2. “A short Appeal to the Public. By th,e gentleman who is particularly addressed in the Postscript of the Vindication of some passages in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the Decline and Fail of the Roman Empire,” London, 1799, 8vo. “A short Essay on the Christian Religion, &c. the whole proposed as a preservative against the pernicious doctrines which have overwhelmed France with misery and desolation. By a sincere friend of mankind, London,” 1795, 8vo. On Mr. Churton, rector of Middleton-Cheney, to which parish that of Warkworth adjoins, addressing to his parishioners, at his first coming among them, “A Defence of the Church of England,” Mr. Eyre, feeling the strength of his arguments against the religion of the church of Rome, which he professed, published, 4. “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Ralph Churton, &c. from Francis Eyre, of Warkworth, esq.” London, 1795. This was answered by Mr. Churton; and Mr. Eyre published, 5. “A Reply to the Rev. Ralph Churton, &c.” London, 1798; which occasioned a short postscript by Mr. Churton, and there the controversy ended.

, lord chief justice of the court of common pleas, a native of Wiltshire, was born in 1734, and educated, if we mistake not, at Winchester, and afterwards at Merton college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1739, but before that had begun to study Jaw in London. His first professional appearance was as one of the four common pleaders belonging to the city of London, who purchase their situations, and are usually called the city counsel. He is said to have been at this time decent in his manners, grave in his appearance, and regular in his attendance, but was not known beyond the practice of the lord mayor’s and sheriff’s courts, and had displayed no particular tokens of future eminence. An accidental event, however, brought him forward into unexpected notice, and subsequent circumstances led him to distinction. At this period sir William Morton was recorder of London. He had quitted the practice of the bar, and confined himself to the duties of that station. He had been brought into parliament by the influence of the duke of Bedford, and had looked with a natural expectation to a seat in one of the courts of law; but at length, disappointed, and growing old, he applied to the court of aldermen for leave to appoint a deputy to assist him in his official duties.

The common serjeant, the second law-officer in the corporation of London, had an evident claim to such an appointment. Mr. iNugent, an amiable and excellent man, though of no great professional name, and fully equal to any employment connected with the city of London, in whose service he had spent the greater part of his life, now filled that situation. These gentlemen, however, having differed in some points of legal discussion, that had been officially proposed to their consideration, such a coolness had taken place between them, that Mr. Eyre, who had gained the favour of sir William Morton, was proposed by him to be deputy recorder, and his influence in the court of aldermen being superior to that of Mr. Nugent, be obtained the appointment. It soon appeared that he possessed knowledge and abilities fully adequate to his station, and as the recorder’s duty now devolved, in a great measure, upon Mr. Eyre, he had an opportunity of proving his qualifications in such a manner, that on the death of sir William Morton in 176'2, he was elected by the court of aldermen to succeed him. As recorder of London he now enjoyed an office of great honour, as well as emolument, and it also gave him the distinction of a silk gown in Westminster-hall, and precedency after the Serjeants at law.

He had not, however, proceeded long in the calm exercise of his duties, when he was called upon to encounter difficulties, and to be involved in circumstances, which had. not encumbered any of his predecessors. We allude to the period when the wild delusion of “Wilkes and Liberty” had in some degree influenced the whole kingdom; and whose epidemic rage had, in a peculiar manner, infected the metropolis. A very large majority of the livery espoused every measure that was brought forward in opposition to government. The lower classes, too fond of uproar, supported the same principle; and the corporation itself became at length subject to the predominating influence. The sheriffs were selected from among those citizens who were the most violent in support of opposition measures; and men totally unconnected by their situations and characters with the city, purchased their freedom, and took up their livery, in order to take upon themselves these troublesome and expensive offices. The ordinary rotation of the court of aldermen was infringed, to elect such of its members to the chief magistracy as were the partizans and supporters of Mr. Wilkes and his cause.

In this state of civil discord, the recorder gave his opinion with firmness and understanding; but he could only give his counsel, and passively submit tto the majority of the corporation. At length, a remonstrance to the throne was proposed and carried in a court of common council, which contained such opinions, that the recorder peremptorily refused to exercise his official functions on the occasion. He represented it as enforcing doctrines which he should ever oppose, and expressed in a language unfit for the sovereign to hear. He was therefore determined not to be the organ by which his majesty should receive such an insult. Sir James Hodges, the town clerk, supplied the place of the recorder on this occasion. He was a sensible conceited man, who had been a bookseller on London Bridge, and whose oratory in the common council had raised him to his situation. The office gratified his vanity, and has secured to him a renown, Which few booksellers have derived from works not published by themselves: it has caused his name to be recorded in the Letters of Junius.

The resolution of the recorder was, however, attended with considerable mortification and some danger. He was summoned to justify his conduct before the common council, and his speech on that occasion was not calculated to avert the vote of censure which followed it. He was not only treated with great acrimony, but it was in the view of the powerful party to deprive him of his office. They, however, contented themselves with holding him forth, not only in their speeches, but in publications and caricatures, as an offensive character, and a city mob at that time was a very unpleasant enemy. In the temper and disposition of administration at this period, such conduct was certain of a reward; and the recorder was, in 1772, appointed a baron of his majesty’s exchequer. In a short time subsequent to his possession of the ermine, on a question proposed to the twelve judges by the house of lords, baron Eyre was distinguished by his argument on that occasion. That he conducted himself with honour and ability in his judicial station, appears from his successive advancements. In 1787 he succeeded that able lawyer and excellent man sir John Skynner, as chief baron of his own court. On the resignation of lord Thurlow in 1792; he was appointed first commissioner of the great seal; and on the removal of lord Loughborough, in the succeeding year, to the chancery bench, he succeeded that noble judge as chief justice of the common pleas, in which situation he continued until his death, at his seat, Ruscombe, in Berkshire, July 6, 1799, in the sixty-fifth year of his age.

As his judicial life was one sober series of official employment, in which no extraordinary events called forth an extraordinary application of mind or knowledge, his reputation is confined to the regular scene of public duty. It may, perhaps, be thought that his appointment to preside at the state trials in London in 1794 is an exception to the foregoing observation. It was indeed a very important charge; nor do we mean to disparage his useful qualities or acknowledged integrity, by expressing our opinion concerning it. Whether it arose from his superior view of the case, an harassed mind, or what he conceived to be a discreet accommodation to the circumstances of the moment, we do not pretend to determine; but it appeared to us that he did not resist the bold irregularities of Home Tooke as sir Michael Foster would have resisted them.

In private life, lord chief justice Eyre displayed the qualities which rendered him estimable among his friends, nor was he less respected by his brethren in public life. In him was exhibited a rare union of judicial qualities; and his talents and disposition were such as peculiarly adapted him to the bench. To great sagacity he added great candour. Though he soon discerned the merits, and foresaw the issue of a cause, he never betrayed any impatience, nor relaxed in his attention during its progress; and in this as in other respects, resembled the venerable Hale; it was scarcely possible to discover the opinion which he had formed before the moment when he was called upon to deliver it publicly. He was not only impartial in the ordinary sense of the word, but anxious to prevent his judgment in the case before him from being biassed by his indignation at any illiberal or dishonest conduct. Such indeed was the temper and ability with which he sifted every question, as commonly to extort an acknowledgment even from the unsuccessful party, that his case had been fairly, fully, and dispassionately heard and determined.

His knowledge of the law consisted in a familiar acquaintance with those principles which extensive reading and long experience had impressed upon his mind, rather than in a ready recollection of decided cases. But his application of principles was seldom erroneous; for, as his apprehension was clear, and his judgment strong, he embraced the most complicated variety of facts, and discerned the bearings of the most intricate question. As he comprehended with precision, he explained Vith perspicuity; and, perhaps, no man ever performed the delicate and arduous task of commenting upon evidence to ajury, more usefully to the jury themselves, more satisfactorily to the parties concerned, or more to the advancement of the ends of justice. From his own opinions he was ever ready to recede, when convinced by mature reflection, or the arguments of counsel, that they were ill-founded; and in doing so, he willingly avowed the error he had committed. His judgments displayed great learning, employed by a vigorous understanding; the reasoning cogent, the illustration apposite, the language manly, and not unfrequently eloquent. Perhaps, in no purt of his public duty was he more eminent, though none was more repugnant to his feelings, than in the administration of criminal justice. In this department, though the mildness of his disposition inclined him to mercy, he yielded not to indiscriminate lenity, because he remembered that he was the guardian of the public safety. He was convinced that the observance of solemnity in the courts of justice contributed to excite veneration for their proceedings. His judicial deportment, therefore, was calculated to convey un impression of awe and respect But though his manner was grave and punctilious, it was marked witU great courtesy, for it was not dictated by pride, but by a conscientious regard for the dignity of the court. That this was the case, those who had the happiness to know him in private life could testify, where it seemed as much his aim to draw closer round him by social ease and unaffected pleasantry the circle of his friends, as it was in public to maintain the distance that his situation required. Nor, amidst the amiable qualities which distinguished his private life, should be unrecorded his warm and affectionate attachment to his relations and friends, his prompt and active zeal to promote the welfare of many who were little known to him but by their want of his assistance, his affability and tenderness towards all his dependants and domestics, and the support given to his elevated station by an hospitable and liberal establishment.

, a physician and medical writer, was born at Erfurt in 1652, and first educated in the college of that place, and afterwards studied medicine both there and at Jena. He took his doctor’s degree at Erfurt in 1680, and removing soon after into Westphalia, was made physician to the city of Bockem; but on the plague disappearing, which had broke out there, he returned in 1685 to Erfurt, and two years after was appointed professor extraordinary of medicine. In 1693 he was promoted to be professor in ordinary, and obtained at the same time a place in the faculty. In 1694 he exchanged his professorship of pathology for that of anatomy and surgery, to which botany was afterwards united. In 1713 he was presented with the degree of master of arts, and in 1715 admitted a member of the academy of the “Curieux de la Nature.” He died June 80,1717, leaving the following works: 1. “Enchyridion de formulis prescribendis, secundum method um Gaspari Crameri,” Erfurc, 1698, 8vo. 2. “Compendium Anatomicum,” ibid. 1698, 8vo, 1710, 4to. 3. “Compendium Physiologicum,” ibid. 1699, 8vo. 4. “Compendium Chirurgicurn,” ibid. 1714, 8vo. These, with his other works, theses, &c. were collected and published in fol. 1.7 Is, under the title of " Opera Medica et Chirurgica.

, a Jew, was a Greek poet, who wrote tragedies on subjects of the sacred history. Large fragments of a tragedy by him, on the departure of Israel from Egypt, have been preserved by Clemens of Alexandria, and Eusebius. Various opinions are held concerning the time in which he lived. Eusebius introduces a Demetrius as quoting him; and if that was (as an eminent writer of the present day supposes) Demetrius Phalereus, he must have lived near 300 years before the birth of our Saviour. Others bring him down to a century after that period. He must, at all events, have been prior to Clemens, who quotes him; and certain it is, that there are some remarkable expressions concerning the divine Logos in his fragments. 3

, an eminent Lutheran divine, was born in 1520, at Soraw in Lusatia, on the confines of Silesia. He was bred to letters, and successively became a teacher in the schools at Nordhausen, Tennstadt, and Quedlinburg, and lastly, rector of the Augustinian college of Erfurt. He was a zealous Lutheran, and translated into German, the remarks of Luther on Genesis. He published also observations on Cicero, and other learned works, and was concerned in the Magdeburgh Centuries; but the 'chief foundation of his fame was his “Thesaurus Eruditionis Scholasticse,” an undertaking which required the labour of many able men to render it complete. It was first published in 1571. After his death it was augmented and improved by Buchner, Thomasius, the great Christopher Cellarius, and the Grarvius’s, father and son. The edition published at the Hague in 1735, in 2 vols. folio, was long esteemed the best, but that by John Henry Leich, published at Francfort in 1749, 2 vols. fol. is thought superior.

, sirnamed from one of his works, the Hammer of Heretics, “Malleus Hereticorum,” was born in Suabia in 1479, and distinguished himself in the universities of Germany in the sixteenth century. In 1519 he was appointed vicar-general to the bishop of Constance; in 1526, Ferdinand king of the Romans, afterwards emperor, named him as his confessor, and in 1531, advanced him to the see of Vienna. He died in 1542, at the age of sixty-three. His works are comprised in three volumes folio, printed at Cologne in 1537—1541; but that for which he was most celebrated was entitled “Malleus Haereticorum,” in which he discusses many controversial points with considerable warmth, and was considered by those of his persuasion as a formidable enemy to the reformers. Luther having been one of his opponents, Erasmus said, when he was advanced to the episcopacy, “that Luther, poor as he was, found means to enrich his enemies.” He was impetuous in argument, and his enemies attributed to him many indiscreet expressions, the consequence of the anger he felt in being conquered in debate. There was another divine of the same names, and who lived about the same time, and distinguished himself by many controversial writings against the reformed religion, which are no longer remembered.

, is the name of two engravers whose works are held in some estimation among portrait-collectors. The elder was born in Holland, where he learned the art of mezzotinto-scraping, and also drew portraits from the life, on vellum, with a pen. What time he came into England does not appear, but he resided here a considerable time, in Fountain court in the Strand, London. He died at Bristol in May 1721. He drew many of the portraits which he engraved from nature, but they are not remarkable either for taste or execution. His most esteemed works were, a collection of the founders of the colleges of Oxford, half sheet prints, the heads of the philosophers from Rubens, and a portrait of Dr. Wallis the mathematician, from Kneller. The other John Faber, the younger, was his son, and lived in London, at the Golden Head in Bloomsbury-square, where Strutt thinks he died in 1756. Like his father, he confined himself to the engraving of portraits in mezzotinto; but he excelled him in every requisite of the art. The most esteemed works are the portraits of the Kit-Cat club, and the Beauties of Hampton Court. Some of his portraits are bold, free, and beautiful.

, an eminent French officer, was the son of a bookseller at Mentz (author of “Notes sur la Couturhe de Lorraine,” 1657, fol.) He was educated with the duke d'Epernon, and saved the royal army at the famous retreat of Mentz; which has been compared by some authors to that of Xenophon’s 10,000. Being wounded in the thigh by a musket at the siege of Turin, M. de Turenne, and cardinal de la Valette, to whom he was aid de camp, intreated him to submit to an amputation, which was the advice of all the surgeons but he replied, “I must not die by piece-meal death shall have me intire, or not at all.” Having, however, recovered from this wound, he was afterwards made governor of Sedan; where he erected strong fortifications, and with so much ceconomy, that his majesty never had any places better secured at so little expence. In 1654 he took Stenay, and was appointed marechal of France in 1658. His merit, integrity, and modesty, gained him the esteem both of his sovereign and the grandees. He refused the collar of the king’s orders, saying it should never be worn but by the ancient nobility; and it happened, that though his family had been ennobled by Henry IV. he could not produce the qualifications necessary for that dignity, and “would not,” asi he said, “have his cloke decorated with a cross, and his soul disgraced by an imposture.” Louis XIV. himself answered his letter of thanks in the following terms: “No person to whom I shall give this collar, will ever receive more honour from it in the world, than you have gained in my opinion, by your noble refusal, proceeding from so generous a principle.” Marechal Fabert died at Sedan, May 17, 1662, aged sixty-three. His Life, by father Barre, regular canon of St. Genevieve, was published at Paris, 1752, 2 vols. 12mo. There is one older, in one thin vol. 12ino.

, was a celebrated Roman, who was five times consul, three times dictator, and triumphed twice or more, yet was always distinguished by his modesty and equanimity. The first public office in which we trace him, is that of curule aedile, which he bore in the year before Christ 330. In the year 324, he was named master of the horse by the dictator L. Papirius Cursor, in the war against the Samrates; and, having given battle to the enemy in the absence of the dictator, contrary to his express order, though completely victorious, was capitally condemned; and through the strictness of Roman discipline, and the inflexible severity of the dictator, would have been executed bad be not been first rescued by the army, and then strongly interceded for by the senate and people of Rome. His first consulship was three years after, in the year 321 B. C. It was not till the year 303 B. C. when he bore the office of censor, that he acquired the sirname of Maximus, which afterwards was continued in his family, and was given him in consequence of his replacing the low and turbulent mob of Rome in the four urban tribes, and thereby diminishing their authority, which, when they were scattered in the various tribes, had been considerable on account of their numbers. His last consulship was in the year 294 B. C. and it is not likely that he lived many years after that period. We find him, however, three years after, attending the triumph of his son the proconsul, a very old man, and celebrated by the historians for his modest demeanour, and respectful acknowledgment of his son’s public dignity.

, a noble Roman, was the fourth in decent from the preceding, and in a very similar career of honours, obtained yet more glory than his ancestor. He also was consul five times, in the years 233 Ant. Chr. 228, C 15, 214, and 210; and dictator in the years 221 and 217. His life is among those written by Plutarch. In his first consulship, he obtained the honour of a triumph for a signal victory over the Ligurians. His second consulship produced no remarkable event, nor, indeed, his first dictatorship, which seems to have been only a kind of civil appointment, for the sake of holding comitia, and was frustrated by some defect in the omens. But in the consternation which followed the defeat at Thrasymene, his country had recourse to him as the person most able to retrieve affairs, and he was created dictator a second time. In this arduous situation he achieved immortal fame, by his prudence in perceiving that the method of wearing out an invader was to protract the war, and avoid a general engagement, and his steady perseverance in preserving that system. By this conduct he finally attained the honourable title of Cunctator, or protector. But before he could obtain the praise he merited, he had to contend not only with the wiles and abilities of Hannibal, but with the impatience and imprudence of his countrymen. The former he was able to baffle, the latter nearly proved fatal to Rome. “If Fabius,” said Hannibal, “is so great a commander as he is reported to be, let him come forth and give me battle.” “If Hannibal,” said Fabius in reply, “is so great a commander as he thinks himself, let him compel me to it.” A battle in Apulia, however, was brought on by the rashness of his master of the horse, Minucius, and it required all the ability of Fabius to prevent an entire defeat. His moderation towards Minucius afterwards, was equal to his exertions in the contest. After he had laid down his office, the consul Paulus jEmilius endeavoured to tread in his steps; but rashness again prevailed over wisdom, and the defeat at Cannae ensued in the year 215, and then the Romans began to do full justice to the prudence of Fabius. He was called the ^ield, as MarcelU is the sword of the republic; and, by an honour almost unprecedented, was continued in the consulship for two successive years. He recovered Tarentum before Hannibal could relieve it, and continued to oppose that general with great and successful skill. It has been laid to his charge that when Scipio proposed to carry the war into Africa, he opposed that measure through envy; and Plutarch allows that though he was probably led at first to disapprove, from the cautious nature of his temper, he afterwards became envious of the rising glory of Scipio. It is, however, possible, that he might think it more glo rious to drive the enemy by force out of Italy, than to draw" him away by a diversion. Whether this were the case or not, he did not live to see the full result of the measure, for he died in the year 203, at a very advanced age, being, according to some authors, near a hundred. This was the very year preceding the decisive battle of Zama, winch concluded the second Punic war. The highest encomiums are bestowed by Cicero upon Fabius, under the person of Cato, who just remembered him, and had treasured many of his sayings.

, a Roman historian, the first prose writer on the subject of Roman history, was the son of C. Fabius Pictor, who was consul with Ogulnius Callus in the year 271 B. C. and grandson of the Fabius who painted the temple of health, from whom this branch of the family obtained the name of Pictor. He was nearly related to the preceding Fabius, and after the battle of Cannae was sent to the Delphic oracle to inquire by what supplications the gods might be appeased. He wrote the history of this war with Hannibal, and is cited by Livy as authority in it. The fragments of his annals that remain in the works of the ancients, whether in Greek or Latin, for he wrote in both, relate chiefly to the antiquities of Italy, the beginnings of Rome, or the acts of the Romans. He is censured by Polybius, as too partial to the Romans, and not even just to the Carthaginians. His style was doubtless that of his age, unformed, and imperfect. An history, circulated as his, consisting of two books, one on the golden age, the other on the origin of Rome, is now known to have been a forgery of Annius of Viterbo,

, -an Italian physician, was born at Ferrara in 1655. His father was a surgeon of much reputation, and recommended the medical profession to this son, who after the usual course of studies, took his degree of doctor at Ferrara, where he became afterwards first professor of medicine. He died May 5, 1723, after having published various dissertations on medical subjects and cases, which were collected in a quarto volume, and published at Ferrara in 1712 under the title “Dissertationes Physico-medicae.” Haller speaks rather slightingly of this author’s works.

, one of the agents in the French revolution, was born at Carcassane, Dec. 28, 1755, and was educated in polite literature and natural philosophy by his parents, whom he quitted in his youth, and became by turns a painter, musician, engraver, poet, and actor. He performed on the stages of Versailles, Brussels, and Lyons, but with no great success. As a writer for the stage, however, he was allowed considerable merit, and obtained, on one occasion, at the Floral ia, the prize of the Eglantine, the name of which he added to his own. In 1786 he published in a French periodical work, “Les Etrennes du Parnasse,” a little poem called “Chalons sur Marne,” in which he drew a very charming picture of the moral pleasures that were to be found in that place and its neighbourhood. This piece, however, fell very short of the celebrity to which he afterwards attained. In 1789 and 1790 he published two comedies, “Le Philinte,” and “L'Intrigue Epistolaire,” the former of which was reckoned one of the best French pieces of the last century.

He was soon, however, called to perform a more important part on the revolutionary stage, being chosen, in 1792, a deputy to the national convention. For this office he had all the negative qualities that were necessary, no regard for religion or Civil subordination; and accordingly took a very active part in the insurrection of Aug. 10, and the prison massacres of the September following; the latter are called “measures which would save France.” After this, it was in character to vote for the death of the king. It was generally supposed that he contributed with Danton and Robespierre to the massacre of May 31, 1793, when the Girondine faction was overthrown by a popular insurrection. What gives the appearance of authenticity to this supposition is, that Fabre himself, some days afterwards, observed to a friend, that the domineering spirit of the Girondines, who had engrossed all power and office, had induced him and his colleagues, in order to shake off the yoke, to throw themselves into the hands of the sans culoterie; but that he could not help, however, foreboding dangerous consequences from that day, May 31st, as the same mob which they had taught to despise the legislature, might, at the instigation of another faction, overthrow him in his turn.

On the overthrow of the Girondine party, and the establishment in power of the sansculoterie, Fabre began to render himself more conspicuous. As a member of the committee of public safety, he demanded of the jacobins “a manifesto furnished with 300,000 signatures, for the formation of a faction, or holy league of public safety,” and was one of the instigators of the decree that ordained that all the English and Hanoverian prisoners should be shot, which, however, we believe, was never carried into execution. He was also appointed a member of the committee of public instruction, and in August 1793 gave his vote for suppressing all academies and literary corporations, which, from their privileges and aristocratic spirit, were considered as unfriendly to a truly republican government. In October 1793, he submitted to the national convention the plan of a new calendar, which was afterwards adopted; but which, absurd as we find it, is said not to have been of his own composition.

In the winter of 1793, the Sansculoterie became divided into two parts or factions, the jacobins and cordeliers, or, in other words, the Robespierrists, and the Dantonists. Fabre was of the faction of Danton, and was confined with Danton’s adherents in the prison of the Luxemburgh. After a month’s imprisonment, Fabre was, with many others, dragged to the scaffold in April 1794, where he was executed in the thirty-fifth year of his age. Mercier, who was his colleague, speaks of him thus in his “Tableau de Paris:” “He was a promoter and panegyrist of the revolutionary system, the friend, the companion, the adviser of the pro-consuls, who carried throughout France, fire and sword, devastation and death.” In 1802 a collection of his works was published in 2 vols. 8vo, containing some posthumous pieces.

, a voluminous French writer, or rather compiler, was born April 25, 1668, at Paris, the son of an eminent surgeon. He was subdeacon, and bachelor of the Sorbonne, and had been second teacher at St. Quintin, when he entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris. He rose to be successively professor of philosophy at Itumilly in Savoy, at Toulon, Riom, Mans, and Nantes; afterwards taught theology three years at Riom, and during three more at the seminary of the congregation at Lyons. While he lived in the last named city, he published a small dictionary, Latin and French, 8vo, compiled from the best classical authors, which has passed through several editions; and he also published at Lyons, in 1709, a new edition of Richelet’s dictionary, 2 vols. folio, under the title of Amsterdam, which edition was suppressed on account of several theological articles respecting the affairs of the times; and because in his list of authors, he bestowed great encomiums on Messrs, of Port Royal, but none on their adversaries. This obliged him to quit the oratory, and retire to Clermont in Auvergne, where, being destitute of a maintenance, he undertook the education of some children, and had recourse to father Tellier, a Jesuit, the king’s confessor, who twice supplied him with money. In the latter end of 171 Fabre again entered the congregation of the oratory, and was sent to Douay, where he wrote a small pamphlet, entitled “Entretigns de Christine^ et de Pelagie, sur la lecture de PEcriture-Sainte” which is still in request. Having afterwards preached the Sunday sermons of the oratory of Tragany with great credit (for he had also talents for preaching), he went to reside at Montmorency, towards the end of 1723, and there began his “Continuation de l'Histoire Ecclesiastique, de feu M. TAbbe Fleury;” and published 16 vols. 4to or 12mb, which induced his superiors to invite him again to their houses, Rue St. Honore*, at Paris, where he died, October 22, 1755, aged eighty-five, much lamented by his brethren and friends, for his mildness, candour, modesty, and virtue. The discourse “Sur le renouvellement des etudes ecclesiastiques,” &c. at the beginning of the thirteenth volume of the Continuation, is by the abbe Goujet. This Continuation discovers great learning, and facility in writing, but has neither the wit, penetration, character, style, nor accuracy of judgment possessed by the abbe Fleury. Fabre would have carried it on much farther, but was forbidden to print any new volumes. He made the index to M, de Thou’s history translated into French, 4to, and had begun one to the “Journal des Sgavans,” but soon gave up his undertaking to the abbe* de Claustre, to whom the public owes that useful work, 10 vols. 4to. Fabre also left a moderate translation of Virgil, 4 vols. 12mo, and a translation of the Fables of Phaedrus, Paris, 1728, 12mo, with notes.

, a very learned antiquary of Italy, was born at Urbino, of a noble family, in 1619. After he had passed through his first studies at Cagli, he returned to Urbino to finish himself in the law, in which he was admitted doctor at eighteen. Having an elder brother at Rome, who was an eminent advocate, he also went thither, and applied himself to the bar; where he soon distinguished himself to such advantage, that he was likely to advance his fortune. Cardinal Imperiali entertained so great an esteem for him, that he sent him into Spain, to negociate several important and difficult affairs; which he did with such success, that the office of the procurator fiscal of that kingdom falling vacant, the cardinal procured it for him. Fabretti continued thirteen years in Spain, where he was for some time auditor general of the Nunciature. These employments, however, did not engage him so much, but that he found time to read the ancients, and apply himself to polite literature. He returned to Rome with cardinal Bonelli, who had been nuncio in Spain; and from his domestic became his most intimate friend. He was appointed judge of the appeals to the Capitol; which post he afterwards quitted for that of auditor of the legation of Urbino, under the cardinal legate Cerri. His residence in his own country gave him an opportunity of settling his own private affairs, which had been greatly disordered during his absence. He continued there three years, which appeared very long to him, because his inclination to study and antiquities made him wish to settle at Rome, where he might easily gratify those desires to the utmost. He readily accepted, therefore, the invitation of cardinal Corpegna, the pope’s vicar, who employed him in drawing up the apostolical briefs, and other dispatches belonging to his office, and gave him the inspection of the reliques found at Rome and parts adjacent. Alexander VIII. whom Fabretti had served as auditor when cardinal, made him secretary of the memorials, when he was advanced to the pontificate; and had so great a value and affection for him, that he would certainly have raised him to higher dignities, if he had lived a little longer.

Upon the death of Alexander, Fabretti retired from business, and devoted himself entirely to his favourite amusement. He went to search antiquities in the country about Home, without any other companion than his horse, and without any regard to the heat or inclemency of the weather. As he always made use of the same horse, his friends gave that animal, by way of jest, the name of Marco Polo, the famous traveller; and said, that this horse used to discover ancient monuments by the smell, and to stop of himself immediately when he came to any ruins of an old building. Fabretti was so well pleased with the name given to his horse, that he used it to write a letter to one of his friends in an ironical strain, yet full of learning, upon the study of antiquity: but this letter was never printed. Innocent XII. obliged him to quit his retirement, and made him keeper of the archives of the castle of St. Angelo; a post, which is never given but to men of the most approved integrity, since he who enjoys that place is master of all the secrets of the pope’s temporal estate. All these different employments never interrupted his researches into antiquity; and he collected enough to adorn his paternal house at Urbino, as well as that which he had built at Rome after the death of Alexander VIII. Neither could old age divert him from his studies, nor hinder him from labouring at the edition of his works, which he printed at his own house. He died Jan. 7, 1700. He was a member of the academy of the Assorditi at Urbino, and the Arcadi at Rome.

He was the author of the following works 1 <c De Aquis & Aquae-ductibus Veteris Romae Dissertationes tres,“Romae, 1680, 4to. This book may serve to illustrate Frontinus, who has treated of the aqueducts of Rome, as they were in his time under the emperor Trajan. It is inserted in the fourth volume of Graevius’s” Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum.“. 2.” De Columna Trajana Syntagma. Accesseruntexplicatio Veteris Tabellae Anaglyphae Homeri Iliadem, atque ex Stesichoro, Arctino, et Lesche Ilii excidium continentis, et emissarii lacus Fucini descriptio,“Romae, 1683, folio. 3.” Jasithei ad Grunnovium Apologema, in ej usque Titivilitia, sive de Tito Livio somnia, animadversiones,“Neapol. 1686, 4tp. This work is an answer to James Gronovius’ s” Responsio ad Cavillationes R. Fabretti,“printed at Leyden, 1685. Fabretti had given, occasion to this dispute, by censuring, in his book” De Aquae-ductibus,“some corrections of Gronovius; and thus had drawn upon himself an adversary, who treated him witk very little ceremony. Fabretti replied to him here, under the name Jasitheus, and treated him with equal coarseness. Gronovius called him Faber fiusticus, which he retorted by styling his antagonist Grunnovius. 4.” Inscriptionum Antiquaruni, quae in aedibus paternis asservantur, explicatio et additamentum,“Romae, 1699, folio. Fabretti had an admirable talent in decyphering the most difficult inscriptions, and discovered a method of making something out of those which seemed entirely disfigured through age, and the letters of which were effaced in such a manner as not to be discernible. He cleaned the surface of the stone, without touching those places where the letters had been, engraven. He then laid upon it a piece of thick paper well moistened, and pressed it with a spunge, or wooden pin covered with linen; by which means the paper entered into the cavity of the letters, and, taking up the dust there, Discovered the traces of the letters. M. Baudelot, in his book” De FUtilitc* des Voyages,“informs us of a secret very like this, in order to read upon medals those letters which are difficult to be deciphered. 5.” A Letter to the abb Nicaise,“containing an inscription remarkable for the elegance of its style, inserted in the” Journal des Seavans“of Dec. 1691. He left unfinished” Latium vetus illustratum." Fabretti discovers in his writings a lively genius, a clear and easy conception, and a great deal of learning.

, an industrious and learned Jesuit, was born in the diocese of Bellay in 1606 or 1607. He for a long time held the chair of professor of philosophy in the college de la Trinit at Lyons; but in consequence of his profound knowledge of theology, he was called to Home, where he was made a penitentiary. He died in that city on the 9th of March, 1688. He was a man of most extensive and universal knowledge, and studied medicine and anatomy with considerable ardour. He assumed the credit of the discovery of the circulation of the blood, and father Regnault, and other credulous persons, have supported his assumption, on the grounds that he had main*­tained the fact of the circulation in a discussion in 1638: but Harvey had published his discovery in 1623. The medical works of this Jesuit consist of an apology for the Peruvian bark, in answer to Plempius, which he published at Rome in 1655, under the title of “Pulvis Peruvianus Febrii'ugus vindicatus;” and two other essays, one, “De Plantis, et Generatione Animalium,” the other, “De Homine,” published at Paris in 1666, and at Nuremberg in 1677. His theological works are mostly controversial, and now held in little estimation.

, a famous painter, in the early stage of the art after its restoration, was born at Verona in 1332, and was a disciple of Giovanni da Fiesole. His most conspicuous work was a picture in the great council chamber of the state of Venice, executed by order of the doge and senate, who regarded the work in so extraordinary a degree of esteem, that they granted him a pension for life, and conferred upon him the privilege of wearing the habit of a noble Venetian; the highest honour in the power of the state to bestow. Many of his pictures adorn the pope’s palace of St. Giovanni Laterano, and the churches in Florence, Urbino, Perugia, Sienna, and Rome. One of them in the church of Santa Maria Nuova, placed over the tomb of cardinal Adimari, representing the Virgin and child, with St. Joseph and St. Benedict, was highly commended by Michael Angelo; whom Vasari represents as being accustomed to say that in painting the hand of Gentile was correspondent with his name. He died in 1412, 80 years old.

, a learned popish divine in the sixteenth century, was born at a village in the country of Liege, and studied philosophy and divinity under his brother Geoffry; such was his progress that he was soon preferred to teach those sciences at Louvain. While here Otho, cardinal of Augsburgh, engaged him in his service, and sent him to Rome where he. remained his agent for about six years under the pontificate of Pius V. On his return he was promoted to be counsellor to the dukes of Bavaria, and by their interest was farther advanced to the provostship of Ottingen, where probably he died, in 1581. His principal work was “Harmonia confessionis Augustinianae,” Cologn, 1573 and 1587, folio. He wrote also a “Catechism,” with notes and illustrations, Antwerp, 1600, 8vo and three “Latin tragedies,” which are said to be written in elegant language: 1. “Jeroboam rebellens,” Tngoldstadt, 1585. 2. “Religio patiens,” Cologn, 1566; and “Samson,” ibid. 1569. The two former, it must be observed, are ingeniously contrived to assimilate the heretics, that is those of the reformed religion, with the rebellious Israelites.

, sirnamed Luscinus, an illustrious Roman, was much and justly celebrated for his inflexible integrity, and contempt of riches. He was twice consul, first in the year before Christ 282, when he obtained a triumph for his victories over the Samnites, Lucani, and Bruttii. Two years after this, Pyrrhus invaded Italy; and, after the defeat of the Romans near Tarentum, Fabricius was sent to that monarch to treat of the ransom and exchange of prisoners, on which occasion he manifested a, noble contempt of every endeavour that could be made, in any shape, to shake his fidelity, and excited the admiration of Pyrrhus. His second consulship was in the year 273, when, his refined generosity yet further secured the esteem of the royal enemy, whom he informed of the treacherous design of his physician to give him poison. According to some authors, he again triumphed this year over the allies of Pyrrhus. It was remarked, that when the comitia were held for the ensuing consuls, Cornelius Rufinus, a man of notorious avarice, and detested by Fabricius for that vice, but an excellent general, obtained the consulship chiefly by his interest. Being asked the reason of this unexpected proceeding, he said, “In times of danger it is better that the public purse should be plundered, than the state betrayed to the enemy.” But when he became censor in the year 275, he proved his fixed dislike to that man’s character, by removing him from the senate, for possessing an unlawful amount of silver plate. The war with Pyrrhus was then concluded. St. Evremond, with the contemptible sneer of a man who has no conception of disinterested virtue, insinuates that his poverty was ambitious, and his severity envious; but it is not for a French Epicurean to judge the motives of a Fabricius. His frugality and poverty became almost proverbial; and Virgil has characterized him in very few words:

, professor of divinity in the university of Leipsic, was born at Amsterdam April 10, 1663. His father was a divine and pastor of the church of Meurs, but he had the misfortune to lose both parents when he was only five years old. His education then devolved upon his maternal grandfather, Francis Felbier, who appears to have done ample justice to him, and particularly introduced him to that intimate acquaintance with the French language for which he was afterwards distinguished. He began to be taught Latin in the public school of Amsterdam in 1673; “but in less than three months his grandfather died, and on his death-bed advised him to devote himself to the study of divinity, which was the wish and intention both of himself and of his parents. He accordingly pursued his classical studies with great assiduity; and in 1679, when in his sixteenth year, was much applauded for a discourse he pronounced, according to the custom of the school. His subject was that” justice elevates a nation.' 7 After this he remained two more years at Amsterdam, and studied philosophy and rhetoric under the ablest professors; and at his leisure hours David Sarphati Pina, a physician and rabbi, gave him lessons in the Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac languages, and enabled him to read the works of the Jewish doctors. In Sept. 1681 he removed to Leyden, where for two years he studied philosophy, Greek and Roman antiquities, and ecclesiastical history and geography, under the celebrated masters of that day, De Voider, Theodore Ryckius, James Gronovius, and Frederic Spanheim; and went on also improving himself in the Oriental languages. Such was his proficiency in this last pursuit, that he already was able to carry on a correspondence with his master at Amsterdam, the above-mentioned Pina, in the Hebrew language, and he translated the gospels of St. Matthew and Mark into that language.

At the age of twenty he began his theological studies, and in 1686 returned to Amsterdam, where he remained for a year, during which he had frequent disputes with his old Hebrew master on the subject of the Messiah. In 1687 he was ordained according to the forms of the Dutch church, and preached first at Velzen, where he was much admired, and here he married Anne van Teylingen, the daughter of a gentleman high in office in the Dutch East Indies. In 1696, the church of Leyden invited him to “become their pastor, which he accepted; and in 1705, on the death of James Trigland, he succeeded to the chair of divinity professor, of which he took possession Dec. 13, with an oration on the subject of” Jesus Christ the sole and perpetual foundation of the church.“Besides his professorship, he had, like his predecessor, the charge of the schools attached to the college. So much employment rendered it necessary for him to resign part of his pastoral charge, but he fulfilled his share of its duties until within four years of his death. In 1723 the curators of the university of Leyden founded a professorship of sacred eloquence, and appointed him to it, where his business was to teach the art of preaching. In 1726 the London society for the propagation of the gospel elected him a member. In 1737 he suffered very much by the consequences of a repelled gout, which at length proved fatal on July 27, 1738. Fabricius was four times rector magmficus of the university, in 1708, 1716, 1724, and 1736. On taking leave on this last occasion, he delivered a harangue very suitable to his age and character, on the duty of Christians in general, and divines in particular when they arrived at old age. The synod of South Holland had likewise chosen liim as one of their deputies. His works consist of five volumes of dissertations, the subjects of which he had treated, but not so fully, in his academical orations. 1” Chi istus unicum ac perpetuum fundamentum ec­'lesiae,“Leyden, 1717, 4to. 2.” De Sacerdotio Christ! juxta ordinemjlelchizedeci,“ibid. 1720, 4to. 2.” Christo* gia Noachica et Abrahamica,“ibid. 1727, 4to. This consists of twelve dissertations on several passages in the Old and New Testament, calculated to prove that Christ was the object of the faith of Noah and Abraham. At the end are some letters to the author. 4.” De Fide Christiana Patriarcharum & Prophetarum,“ibid. 4to. 5.” Orator Sacer," ibid. 1733, 4to. This contains the substance of his lectures on preaching, and is a complete treatise on the subject, although in some respects peculiarly adapted for the church of which he was a member. His sentiments, however, are so liberal, his view of the subject so comprehensive, and his historical illustrations so happy, that we are rather surprized this work has not found its way into ths country, by translation. Fabricius published also six sermons preached on public occasions.

, a learned German, and celebrated for a talent at Latin poetry, was born at Chemnitz in Misnia, a province of Upper Saxony, 1516. After a liberal education, he went to Italy and Rome, in quality of tutor to a nobleman; where he spent his time in a manner suitable to his parts and learning. He did not content himself with barely looking on, and blindly admiring; but he examined with great accuracy and minuteness, all the remains of antiquity, and compared them with the descriptions which the Latin writers have given of them. The result of these observations was his work entitled “Roma,” published in 1550, containing a description of that city. From Rome he returned to his native country, and was appointed master of the great school at Meissen, over which he presided twenty-six years, and died in that station, in 1571. He was the author of numerous Latin poems, and had the strongest passion for verse that can be conceived. His poems appeared at Bale in 1567, in two volumes 8vo; and, besides this collection, there are also hymns, odes against the Turks, the Art of Poetry, Comparisons of the Latin Poets, &c. He is said to have received the laurel from the emperor Maximilian, a short time before his. death.

His poems are written with great purity and elegance. He was particularly careful in the choice of his words; and he carried his scruples in this respect so far, that he would not on any account make use of a word in his “Sacred Poems” which favoured the least of Paganism. He condemned some liberties of this sort, which he had taken in his youth; and he exceedingly blamed those Christians who applied themselves for matter to the divinities of Parnassus, and the fables of the ancients. He wrote also in, prose, the “Roma,” already mentipned the “Annals of Messein,” in seven books “Origines Saxonies,” in two volumes, folio the same quantity on the affairs of Germany and Saxony, &c. His “Roma” has been greatly admired by some, by Barthius in particular: and there is, this singularity in it, that he has so adapted to his descriptions the language of the Latin writers who have described the same things, as to make some Germans fancy it an ancient work.

, an eminent physician, was born at Rostock, Aug. 28, 1577. Following the advice of Hippocrates, he joined the study of the mathematics with thai of medicine, and was a pupil of Tycho Brahe, as he had been before of the learned Chytraeus. His medical studies were not confined to his own country; for he travelled through England, Germany, and the Low Countries, in order to obtain the instructions of the most celebrated professors; and afterwards repaired to Jena, where he was distinguished by the extent of his acquirements, and obtained the degree of doctor at the age of twenty-six. He soon gained extensive employment in his profession, and, at length received several lucrative and honourable appointments. He filled the stations of professor of medicine and of the mathematics at Rostock during forty years, was first physician to the duke of Mecklenburgh, and afterwards retired to Copenhagen, where he was appointed chief physician to the kings of Norway and Denmark, Christian IV. and Frederick III. He died at Copenhagen on August 14, 1652, in the seventy-fifth year of his age and his remains were carried to Rostock for interment, by his sonsin-law and daughters, and a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. His works are entitled, 1. “Periciihim Medicum, seu Juvenilium Faeturae priores,” Halae, 1600. 2. “Uroscopia, seu de Urinis Tractatus,” Rostochii, 1605. 3. “De Cephalalgia Autumnali,” ibid. 1617. 4. “Institutio Medici practicam aggredientis,” ibid. 1619. 5. “Oratio Renunciationi novi Medicinse Doctoris prceinissa, de Causis Cruentantis cadaveris praesente Homicida,” ibid. 1620. 6. “Dissertatio de Novo-antiquo Capitis Morbo ac Dolore, cum aliis Disquisitionibus Medicis de diffic. nonnul. Materiis Practice,” ibid. 1640.

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Coslin, a town of Pomerania, in 15D3. In his youth, as his parents were poor, he contrived to defray the expences of his education by instructing a few pupils in what he had already learned, and having the charge of some of them to Rostock, he soon distinguished himself among the learned of that city. Having taken orders, he was chosen preacher at Coslin, and chaplain to the duke Bogislaus XI V. who five years after recommended him to a doctor’s degree at Gripswald. About this time the king of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, arriving in Germany, made him his confessor, and superintendant of his army; and after the battle of Lutzen, in which that prince lost his life, the duke Bogislaus recalled Fabricius, and made him superintendant of Upper Pomerania, in which office he was afterwards continued by queen Christina. He was also appointed minister of the principal church of Stettin, and professor of divinity. He died suddenly of an apoplectic stroke, Aug. 11, 165+. His principal writings are, 1. “Disputationes in Genesim, et in Kpistolam ad Romanes. 2.” Probatio visionum,“a work which involved him in disrepute with some of his brethren, and obliged him to publish in defence of it, 'J.” Invictir visionum probationes.“4.” JustaGustaviana." He published besides some pieces in German.

, more generally known by the name of Hieronymus Fabricius Ab Aquapendente, was born at Aquapendente, in the territory of Orvieto, in Italy, in 1537. His parents, although poor, found the means of procuring him a good education at Padua, where he acquired a knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages, and, after having gone through the usual course of philosophy, he began the study of anatomy and surgery under Gabriel Fallopius, one of the most intelligent professors of his time. His progress under this excellent tutor was such as to acquire for him a character not less distinguished than that of his master, whom he afterwards succeeded in the professor’s chair, in which he taught the same sciences for nearly half a century, in the university of Padua. During the whole of this long period he maintained an uniform character for eloquence and sound knowledge, and continued to excite great interest in his lectures. He died universally regretted in 1619, at the age of eighty-two years.

The kindness and disinterested generosity of Fabricius gained him the esteem of the principal families of Padua, and the republic of Venice built a spacious anatomical amphitheatre, on the front of which his name was inscribed; they also decreed him an annual stipend of a thousand crowns, and the honour of a statue, and created him a knight of St. Mark. But the celebrity which he obtained for the university of Padua by his talents, afforded him a gratification above that which accrued from all those flattering favours.

His attention was chiefly directed to anatomy and surgery, both of which his researches materially contributed to elucidate. He is said to have been the first to notice the valves of the veins, having demonstrated their structure in 1574. The honour of this discovery has also been given to Paul Sarpi; but Albinus and Morgagni are of opinion that he was anticipated by Fabricius. These anatomists, however, were ignorant of the use of this valvular apparatus; but Fabrieius has given excellent views of its structure in his engravings. He was exceedingly methodical in his writings, first describing the structure of each part of the body, and then its uses. Valuable as his anatomical writings were, however, his surgical works obtained for him a still higher reputation. The improvements which he introduced into the practice of his art, in consequence of his accurate anatomical knowledge, and the consistent form which he gave to it, have, in fact, gained him the appellation of the father of mo*dern surgery. His works are numerous: the first, entitled “Pentateuchus Chirurgicus,” publishedat Francfort in 1592, contains five dissertations on tumours, wounds, ulcers, fractures, and luxations. 2. “De Visione, Voce, et Auditu,” Venice, 1600. 3. “Tractatus de Oculo, visusque Orgauo,” Padua, 1601. 4. “DC Venarum Ostiolrs,” ibid. 1603. 5. “De Locutione, et ejus Instru mentis,” ibid. 1603. It is said that, in one day, all the Germans deserted the school of Fabricius, because, in explaining the mechanism of the muscles of speech, h had ridiculed their mode of pronunciation. 6. “Opeca Anatomica, quan continent de formato Fretu, de formation* Ovi et Pulli, de Locutione et ejus Instruments, de Brutorum loquela,” Padua, 1604. The essay on the language of brute animals, in this work, is curious, and worthy the attention of naturalists. 7. “De Musculi Artificio, et Osium Articulationibus,” Vicentia, 1614. 8. “De Respira/­tione et ejus Instrumentis, libri duo,” Padua, 1615. 9. “De Motu locali Animalium,” Padua, 1618. 10. “De Gula, Ventriculo, et Intestinis, Tractatus,” ibid. 1618. 11. “De Jntegumentis Corporis,” ibid. 1618. 12. “Opera Chinnvgica in duas Partes divisa,” ibid. 1617. This work, in which all the diseases of the body, which are curable by manual operation, are treated, passed through seventeen editions, In different languages. 13. “Opera omnia Physiologica et Anatomica,” Leipsic, 1687. 14. The whole of his works were also published at Leyden in 1723, and in 1737, in folio.

, one of the most eminenjt and laborious scholars of his time in Europe, was descended both by the father’s and mother’s side from a family originally of Holstein. His father, Werner Fabricius, a native of Itzhoa, in Holstein, was director of the music at St.Paul'p in Leipsic, organist of the church of St. Nicholas in that city, and a poet and a man of letters, as appears by a work be published in 1657, entitled “Delicias Harmonicas.” His mother was Martha Corthum, the daughter of John Corthum, a clergyman of Bergedorff, and the descendant of a series of protestant clergymen from the time of the reformation. He was born at Leipsic Nov. 11, 1668. His mother died in 1674, and his father in 1679; but the latter, while he lived, had begun to instruct him, and on hig death-bed recommended him to the care of Valentine Albert, an eminent divine and philosopher, who employed, as his first master, Wenceslau* Buhl, whom Mayer calls the common Msecenas of orphans; and he appears to have been taught by him for about five years. He also received instructions at the same time under Jo. Goth. Herrichius, rector of the Nicolaitan school at Leipsic, an able Greek and Latin scholar, whose services Fabricius amply acknowledges in the preface to Herrichius’s “Poemata Graeca et Latina,” which he published in 1718, out of regard to the memory of this tutor. In 1684, Valentine Albert sent him to Quedlinburgh to a very celebrated school, of which the learned Samuel Schmidt was at that time rector. It was here that he met with, in the library, a copy of Barthius’s “Adversaria,” and the first edition of Morhoff’s “Polyhistor,” which he himself informs us, gave the first direction to his mind as to that species of literary history and research which he afterwards carried beyond all his predecessors, and in which, if we regard the extent and accuracy of his labours, he has never had an equal. Schmidt had accidentally shown him Barthius^, and requested him to look into it; but it seemed to open to him such a wide field of instruction and pleasure, that he requested to take it to his room and study it at leisure, and from this he conceived the first thought, although, perhaps, at that timfe, indistinct, of his celebrated Bibliothecas. After his return, to Leipsic in 1686, he met with Morhoff, who, he says, gave his new-formed inclination an additional spur. He now was matriculated in the college of Leipsic, and was entirely under the care of his guardian Valentine Albert, one of the professors, with whom he lodged for seven years. During this time he attended the lectures of Carpzovius, Olearius, Feller, Rechenberg, Ittigius, Menckenius, &c. and other learned professors, and acknowledges hisobligations in particular to Ittigius, who introduced him to a knowledge of the Christian fathers, and of ecclesiastical history. It is perhaps unnecessary to add of one who has given such striking proofs of the fact, that his application to his various studies was incessant and successful. His reading was various and extensive, and, like most scholars of his class, he read with a pen in his hand.

Such proficiency could not escape the attention of his masters, nor go unrewarded, and accordingly we find that he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of philosophy, as it is styled in that college, Nov. 27, 1686, and on Jan 26, 1688, to that of master. In this last year, he produced his first publication, a dissertation “de numero septuagenario;” and in the same year published his “Scriptorum recentiorum decas,” a sort of criticism on ten eminent writers, George Morhoff, Christ. Cellarius, Henning Witte, Christian Thomasius, William Salden, Abraham Berkelius, Servatius Gallaeus, James Tollius, George Matthias Konig, and Christian William Eyben. This was published at Hamburgh, without his name, and having been attacked by an anonymous opponent, he replied in a “Defensio decadis adversus hominis malevoli maledicum judicium, justis de causis ab auctore suscepta.” He was a young man when he assumed such a decisive and disrespectful tone, of which his good sense soon made him ashamed, and he afterwards abstained from this opprobrium of controversial writing, and received every criticism or remark on his works with perfect submission and temper. It was peculiar to him that the more he knew, the more he learned how to excuse the imperfections of others, and to speak diffidently of his own acquisitions.

In 1689, he published his “Decas Decadum, sive plagiariorum et pseudonymorum Centuria,” in which he assumed the name of Faber. To this was added a dissertation on the GreeK Lexicons, which he enlarged afterwards, and inserted in the fourth volume of his “Bibl. Graeca.” This same year he edited a corrected and enlarged edition of Weller’s Greek grammar. In 1691 he published, in Greek and Latin, the books of the Apocrypha, with a preface and new translation of the book of Tob'it; and at the same time, a new edition of Lewis Cappel’s “Historia apostolica.” For his degree of doctor in philosophy, he supported two theses: one in March 1692, on the sophisms of the ancient philosophers, and particularly the stoics; and the other in 1693, on the Platonism of Philo.

Besides his studies in the belles lettres and philosophy, he had much inclination to that of medicine, and would probably have pursued it as a profession; but Berger, the medical professor, under whom he studied, being removed from Leipsic, he thenceforth devoted himself entirely to divinity. In April 1692 he had been admitted a preacher, and his four disputations on subjects of theology procured him the highest praises from his tutors. In 1693 he went to Hamburgh, without any immediate design, except that of visiting some relations, particularly his maternal uncle. but intended afterwards to travel, from which he was diverted by an unexpected event. His guardian Valentine Albert now wrote to him that his whole patrimony, amounting only to 1000 German crowns, had been expended in his education, and that he was indebted to him for a considerable sum advanced. Fabricius returned an answer to this letter, expressing his concern at the news, but full of gratitude to his guardian for the care he had taken of him and his property. He had, however, to seek for the means of subsistence, and might have been reduced to the greatest distress, had he not found a liberal patron in John Frederick Mayer. This gentleman was minister of the church of St. James at Hamburgh, ecclesiastic-counsellor to the king of Sweden, and honorary professor of divinity at Kiel. Being made acquainted with Fabricius’s situation, and probably no stranger to the fame he had acquired at Leipsic, he gave him an invitation to his house, and engaged him as his librarian, on which office Fabricius entered in June 1694, and during his residence here, which lasted five years, divided his time betwixt study and preaching, in the church of St. James, and other churches. In the month of August 1695, he sustained a disputation at Kiel on the irrational logic of the popes, in the presence of the dukes of Holstein and Brunswick. In 1697 he published the first edition of his “Bibliotheca Latina,” in a small volume, 8vo, and appears to have prepared some of his other works for the press; but a fuller list of these, with their dates, will be given at the conclusion of this article.

In 1696 he went into Sweden with M. Mayer, who introduced him to Charles XL; and after their return, Mayer endeavoured to procure for him the professorship of logic and metaphysics, vacant by the resignation of Gerard Ma'ier. Fabricius accordingly became a candidate, and sustained a public cjisputation, without a respondent, the subject of which was “Specimen elencticum historic logicte, &c.” After the other candidates had exhibited their talents, their number was reduced to Fabricius and another, Sebastian Edzard. The votes on the election happened to be equal, and the matter being therefore determined by casting lots, Edzard was chosen. Fabricius, however, was not long without a situation befitting his talents. In the same year, 1699, he was unanimously chosen to be professor of eloquence, in the room of Vincent Placcius, who died in April; and on June 29, Fabricius delivered his inaugural speech “on the eloquence of Epictetus,” and he now settled at Hamburgh for the remainder of his life, having a few months before taken his degree of doctor in divinity at Kiel. On this occasion he supported a thesis “De recordatione animae humame post fata superstitis.” In April 1700 he married Margaret Scultz, daughter of the rector of the lower school in that city, to which situation Falmcius was presented in 1708, in order to keep him at Hamburgh, for he had many tempting invitations from other universities, particularly in 1701, when his friend and patron Mayer left Hamburgh to settle at Grypswald, and procured Fabricius the offer of the divinity-professorship in that university, with a salary of 500 crowns. On entering on the duties of his new situation, as rector of the schools, he began, as usual, with an oration, on the causes of the contempt of public schools but after the deaih of M. Scultz, Fabricius resigned this office in 1711, as interfering too much with the duties of his professorship. In 1719, the landgrave of Hesse Cassel offered him the professorship of divinity at Giessen, and with it the place of superintendent of the churches of the confession of Augsburgh. Fabricius had some inclination to have accepted this offer; but the magistrates of Hamburgh, sensible of the value of his services, made a very considerable increase of his salary, the handsome manner of offering which, more than the value of the money, induced him to adhere to his resolution of never leaving Hamburgh; and in this city he died April 30, 1736. His last illness appears to, have been a complication of asthma and fever, attended with great pain and difficulty of breathing, which he bore with unexampled patience; and employed his last powers of speech in pious reflections and exhortations to his family and servants. His whole life had been spent in the practice of piety and the accumulation of learning, and his death was regretted as an irreparable loss to the university to which he belonged, and to the learned world at large. Few men, indeed, have laid scholars under greater obligations; and he has contributed, perhaps, more than any man ever did to abridge the labours of the student, and facilitate the researches of the most minute inquirer. He had a prodigious memory, and a great facility in writing; and both enabled him to accomplish labours, at the thought of which many a modern scholar would be appalled. Never, perhaps, was there such an instance of literary and professional industry. In the first six years of his professorship he devoted ten hours a day to his scholars; and afterwards seldom less than eight, unless when his last illness obliged him to reduce his hours to four or five. With such employment in public, it is, with all the explanation his biographers have given, difficult to comprehend how he could find time and health, not only for his numerous printed undertakings, but for that vast extent 'of correspondence which he carried on with the learned men of his time, and for the frequent visits of his friends, whom he received with kindness.

1. “Scriptorum recentiorum Decas,” Hamburgh, 1688, 4to, without his name. 2. “Defensio Decadis, &c.” 4to, without place or date. 3. tf Decas Decadum, sive plagiariorum et pseudonymorum centuria,“Leipsic, 1689, 4to. 4.” Grammatica Graeca Welleri,“ibid. 1689, 8vo, often reprinted, but Fabricius never put his name to it. 5.” Bibliotheca Latina, sive notitia auctorum veterum Latinorum, quorumcunque scripta ad nos pervenerunt,“Hamburgh, 1697, 8vo, afterwards enlarged in subsequent editions, the best of which is that of 1728, 2 vols. 4to. An edition of a part of this work has been more recently published by Ernesti, in 3 vols. 8vo, which is not free from errors. 6.” Vita Procli Philosophi Platonici scriptore Marino Neapolitano, quam alteraparte, de virtutibus Procli theoreticis ac theurgicis auctiorem et nunc demum integram primus edidit, &c.“Hamburgh, 1700, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Bentley. 7.” Codex Apocryphus N. T. collectus, castigatus, &c.“ibid. 1703, 8vo. 8.” Bibliotheca Graeca, sive Notitia Scriptorum Veterum Graecorum, quorumcunque Monumenta integra aut fragmenta edita extant: turn plerorumqtie ex Manuscripts ac Deperditis.“This consists of 14 vols. in 4to, and gives an exact account of the Greek authors, their different editions, and of all those who commented, or written notes upon them, and with the” Bibliotheca Latina,“exhibits a very complete history of Greek and Latin learning. Twelve volumes of a new edition of the” Bibliotheca Graeca“have been published by Hades, with great additions, and a new arrangement of the original matter. 9.” Centuria Fabriciorum scriptis clarorum, qui jam diem suum obierunt,“Hamburgh, 1700, 8vo, and” Fabriciorum centuria secunda,“ibid. 1727, 8vo. It was his intention to have added a third and fourth century, including the Fabri, Fabretti, Fabrotti, Le Fevre’s, &c. but a few names only were found after his death among his manuscripts. 10.” Memoriae Hamburgenses, sive Hamburgi et virorum de ecclesia, requepublica et scholastica Hamburgensi bene meritorum, elogia et vitae,“Hamburgh, 1710 1730, 7 vols. 11.” Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti,“as a companion to his preceding account of the apocryphal writers of the New Testament times; ibid. 1713, 8vo, reprinted with additions in 1722. 12.” Menologiunj, sive libellusde mensibus, centum circiter populornm menses recensens, atque inter se conferens, cum triplice indice, gentium, mensium et scriptorum,“ibid. 1712, 8vo. 13.” Bibliographia Antiquaria, sive introductio in notitiam scriptorum, qui antiquitates Hebraicas, Graccas, Romanas et Christianas scriptis illustrarunt. Accedit Mauricii Senonensis de S. Missae ritibus carmen, nunc primum editum,“1713, 4to, and an enlarged edition, in which Mauricius’s poem is omitted, 1710, 4to. 14.” Mathematische Remonstration, &c.“Hamburgh, 1714, 8vo, a work in German against Sturmius, on the institution of the Lord’s Supper. J 5.” S. Hippolyti Opera, non antea collecta, et pars nunc primum a Mss. in lucem edita, Gr. et Lat. &c.“ibid. 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. 16.” Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1718, fol. a very valuable collection of notices of ecclesiastical writers and their works from various biographers, beginning with Jerome, who goes to near the end of the fourth century, and concluding with Miraeus, who ends in 1650. 17.” Sexti Empirici Opera,“Gr. and, Lat. Leipsic, 1718, fol. 18.” Anselmi Bandurii Bibliotheca Nummaria,“Hamburgh, 1719, 4to. 19. S. Philastri de Hicresibus Liber, cum emendationibus et notis, additisque indicibus, ibid. 1721, 8vo. 20.” Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum, qui veritatem religionis Christianas adversus Atheos, Epiciireos, Deistas seu Naturalistas, Idolatras, Judaeos, et Mohammedanos lucubrat;onibus suis asseruerunt,“Hamb. 1725, 4to. This performance, very valuable in itself, is yet more so, on account of the Proemium and first chapters of Eusebius’s” Demonstratio Evangelica,“which are wanting in all the editions of that work, and were supposed to be lost; but which are here recovered by Fabricius, and prefixed to the” Delectus,“with a Latin translation by himself. 21.” Imp. Caes. Augusti temporum notatio, genus, et scriptorum fragmenta,“ibid. 1727, 4to. 22.” Centifolium Lutheranum, sive notitia literaria scriptorum omnis generis de B. D. Luthero, ej usque vita, scriptis et reformatione ecclesiae, &c. digesta,“ibid. 1728 and 1730, 2 parts or volumes, 8vo. 23. A German translation of Derham’s” Astro-theology,“and” Physico-theology,“1728, 1730, 8vo, by Weiner, to which Fabricius contributed notes, references, an analysis, preface, &c. 24.” Votum Davidicum (cor novum crea in me Deus) a centum quinquaginta amplius metaphrasibus expressum, carmine Hebraico, Graeco, Latino, Germanico, &c.“ibid. 1729, 4to. 25.” Conspectus Thesauri Literariae Italiae, premissam habens, praeter alia, notitiam diariorum Italiae literariorum, &c.“ibid, 1730, 8vo. Every Italian scholar acknowledges the utility of this volume. 26.” Hydrotheologise Sciagraphia,“in German, ibid, 1730, 4to. 27.” Salutaris Lux Evangelii, toti orbi per divinam gratiam exoriens: sive notitia historico-chronologica, literaria, et geographica, propagatorum per orbern totum Christianorum. Sacrorum,“Hamb. 1731, 4to. This work is very curious and interesting to the. historian as well as divine. It contains some epistles of the emperor Julian, never before published. 28.” Bibliotheca Mediae et infitnse Latinitatis,“printed in 5 vols. 8vo, 1734, reprinted at Padua, in 6 vols. 4to, 1754, a work equal, if not superior, to any of Fabricius’s great undertakings, and one of those, which, like his” Bibliotheca Graeca,“seems to set modern industry at defiance. 29.” Opusculorum Historico-critico-litterariorum sylloge quse sparsim viderant lucem, nunc recensita denuo et partim aucta," Hamburgh, 1738, 4to.

, an eminent protestant divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Schafhousen, July 29, 1639. He began his studies under the inspection of his father, who was rector of thq college; but in 1647 went to Cologne, where his brother Sebaldus lived, and there for about a year studied Greek and Latin. In 1643 he returned to Schafhousen, but left it for Heidelberg in the following year, where his brother had been appointed professor of history and Greek. In 1650 he went to Utrecht, and for about two years was employed in teaching. At the end of that time he visited Paris as tutor of the son of M. de la Lane, governor of Reez, and remained in tnis station for three years. Having returned to Heidelberg in 1656, he took his degree of master of arts, and the following year was admitted into holy orders, and appointed professor extraordinary of Greek, but was, not long after, requested by the elector to go again to Paris as tutor to the baron Rothenschild, and in 1659 he accompanied his pupil to the Hague, and afterwards into England. On their return to France they parted, and Fabricius went to Leyden, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity. Soon after he was appointed professor of divinity at Heidelr berg, superintendant of the studies of the electoral prince, inspector of the college of wisdom, and philosophy professor. In 1664 he was appointed ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector, who, in 1666, sent him to Schafhousen to explain to that canton the reasons for the war of Lorraine, which office Dr. Boeckelman had discharged in the other cantons. In 1674, when the French army advanced towards Heidelberg, Fabricius retired to Fredericksburgh, and to Cologne, but returned the same year. In 168O, although a Calvinist, he was commissioned with a Roman catholic to open the temple of concord at Manheim. In 1688, the French, who had taken possession of Heidelberg, showed so much respect for his character as to give him a passport, which carried him safely to Schafhousen; but the continuance of the war occasioned him again to shift his place of residence, and when at Francfort, he was employed by the king of England (William III.) and the States General to join the English envoy in Swisserland, and watch the interests of the States General. In the execution of this commission he acquitted himself with great ability, and was particularly successful in adjusting tjbe differences between the Vaudois and the duke of Savoy, and afterwards in accomplishing an alliance between the duke and the States General. We find him afterwards at Heidelberg, and Francfort, at which last he died in 1697. From these various employments it appears that he was a man of great abilities and political weight, and he derived likewise considerable reputation from his writings as a divine. Such was his abhorence of Socinianism that he opposed the settlement of the Socinian Poles when driven out of their own country in the Palatinate; in which, however, at that time he was not singular, as, according to Mosheim, none of the European nations could be persuaded to grant a public settlement to a sect whose members denied the divinity of Christ. The same historian informs us that he “was so mild and indulgent” as to maintain, that the difference between the Lutherans and Roman catholics was of so little consequence, that a Lutheran might safely embrace popery; an opinion, which, mild and indulgent as Mosheim thinks it, appears to us more in favour of popery than of Lutheranism. His works, on controversial topics, were collected and published in a quarto volume, by Heidegger with a life of the author, printed at Zurich in 1698.

, a man eminent for wit and learning, and for the civil employments with which he was honoured, was born at Hamburgh in 1613. He was a good poet, an able physician, a great orator, and a learned civilian. He gained the esteem of all the learned in Holland while he studied at Leyden; and they liked his Latin poems so well, that they advised him to print them. He was for some time counsellor to the bishop of Lubec, and afterwards syndic of the city of Dantzic. This city also honoured him with the dignity of burgomaster^ and sent him thirteen times deputy in Poland. He died at Warsaw, during the diet of the kingdom, in 1667. The first edition of his poems, in 1632, was printed upon the encouragement of Daniel Heinsius, at whose house he lodged. He published a second in 1638, with corrections and additions: to which he added a satire in prose, entitled “Pransus Paratus,” which he dedicated to Salmasius; and in which he keenly ridiculed the poets who spend their time in making anagrams, or licentious verses, as also those who affect to despise poets. The most complete edition of his poems is that of Leipsic, 1685, published under the direction of his son. It contains also Orations of our author, made to the kings of Poland; an Oration spoken at Leyden in 1632, concerning the siege and deliverance of that city and the Medical Theses, which were the subject of his public disputations at Leyden in 1634, &c.

, an eminent surgeon and physician, was known also by his surname of Hildanus, from Hilden, a village of Switzerland, where he was born, July 25 t 1560. Like his predecessor of the same name, Fabricius of Aquapendunte, he became one of the most eminent surgeons of his age, and contributed not a. little to the improvement of the art. He repaired to Lausanne in 1586, where he completed himself in the art of surgery, under the instruction of Griffon, an intelligent teacher in that city. Here he pursued his researches with indefatigable industry, and undertook the cure of many difficult cases, in which he was singularly successful. He combined aknowledge of medicine with that of his own art, and began to practise both at Payerne in 1605, where he remained ten years, and in 1615 settled himself at Berne, in consequence of an invitation from the senate, who granted him a pension. Here he enjoyed the universal esteem of the inhabitants. But in the latter period of his life he was prevented by severe and frequent attacks of the gout from rendering his services to his fellow-citizens with his accustomed assiduity. At length, liowever, this malady left him, and he was seized with an asthma, of which he died on the 14th of February, 1634, at the age of seventy-four. His works were written in the German language, but most of them have been translated into the Latin. He published five “Centuries of Observations,” which were collected after his death, and printed at Lyons in 1641, and at Strasburgh in 1713 and 1716. These “Observations” present a considerable number of curious facts, as well as descriptions of a great number of instruments of his invention. His collected treatises were published in Latin, at Francfort in 1646, and again in 1682, in folio, under the title of “Opera Omnia.” And a German edition appeared at Stutgard in 1652.

, known to the public by his letters relating to Charles XII. of Sweden, during his residence in the Ottoman empire, was sprung from a good family in Germany. His father was president of Zell for George I. as elector of Hanover, and he had a brother who held a considerable office in that prince’s service. The baron, of whom we are speaking, as soon as he had finished his studies, went into Holstein, and was early taken into the service of that court, where his talents were much admired. He was sent from thence, by the duke administrator, in a public character, to his Swedish majesty, while he continue at Bender. He was then in the flower of his youth, had a good person, pleasing address, great accomplishments, and no vanity. He soon stood very high in the good graces of that prince; accompanied him in his exercises, was frequently at his table, and spent hours alone with him in his closet. He it was that gave him a turn for reading; and it was out of his hand that monarch snatched the book, when he tore from it the 8th satire of Boileau, in which Alexander the Great is represented as a madman. He had but one enemy in the court, viz. general Daldorff, who was made prisoner by the Tartars, when they stormed the king’s camp at Bender. Fabricius took pains to find him out, released him, and supplied him with money; which so entirely vanquished the general, that he afterwards became a warm friend. This amiable man was likewise in favour with king Stanislaus, and with our own monarch George I. whom he accompanied in his last journey to Hanover, and who may be said to have died in his arms. "A translation of his genuine letters in English, containing the best accounts relating to the Northern Hero during his residence in Turkey, was published in one volume 8vo, Lond. 1761.

, a French Dominican, was born in 1726 at St. Maximin in Provence, and, in 1757, was appointed secretary to the library of la Casanati in Rome; and in 1771 French theologist to that establishment. He was also admitted a member of the Arcadi. He died Jan. 13, 1800. His principal works’ are, 1. “Recherches sur Tepoque de l‘equitation, et de i’usage des chars equestres, chez les anciens,” Rome, 1764, 1765, 2 vols. 8vo. 2 f “Memoire pour servir a Thistoire litteraire de la vie des deux P. P. Ansaldi, des P. P. Mamachi, Palnzzi, Richini, 6t Rubeis,” inserted in Richards’s “Diet. Univ. des Sciences Ecclesiastiques,” vol. V. and Vj. 3. “Des litres primitifs de la revelation, ou, considerations critiques sur la purete* et I‘integrit6 du texte original des livres saints de l’Ancien Testament,” Rome and Paris, 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, recommending a new translation of the Bible. 4. “Diatribe qua bibliographies antiquarise et sacrae critices capita aliquot illustrantur,” Rome, 1782, 8vo. He wrote also some papers in the literary journals.

, an eminent Italian scholar and biographer, was born Sept. 25, 1732, at Marradi in Tuscany, of a family once so opulent as to be able to assist the falling fortunes of the Medici. He was the youngest of the eleven children of Alexander and Hyacinth Fabroni. He was educated first at home under able masters, and afterwards went to Rome, in 1750, to the college founded by Bandinelli for the youth of Tuscany, who were also required to attend the public schools of the Jesuits. Here he studied rhetoric, logic, geometry, physics, and metaphysics. After he had been here three years, Peter Francis Foggini, who had acted as a second father to him (for his own died in 1750), introduced him to Bottari, as his assistant in the duties of a canonicate which he held in the church of St. Mary; and as Bottari was a great favourer of the Jansenists, Fabroni thought to please him by translating from the French of Quesnel, and publishing “La preparazione alia morte;” and “Principi e regale della vita Cristiana.” About the same time he published “Ler Massime della Marchesa di Sable,” also translated from the French, with notes. This, he informs us, was a work of little consequence, yet served to show that he was at this time tolerably versed in the reading of ancient authors.

From his earliest youth he cultivated a pure and ready Latin style, and as a specimen, he now, encouraged by Foggini, published the life of Clement XII. in that language. This however, he allows, was a severe task, and although he re-wrote it twice or thrice, and had the advice of his friend, he did not think it worthy of the illustrious subject. Cardinal Corsini, however, had a higher opinion of its merit, and not only defrayed the expence of printing, but made the author a handsome present.‘ Such liberality produced a suitable impression on Fabroni’ s mind, who became in gratitude attached to this patron, and when a female of the Corsini family married about this time, he, with learned gallantry, invited the most celebrated Italian poets to celebrate the joyous occasion. About this time having presented an oration, which he had delivered in. the pope’s chapel, on the ascension, to Benedict XIV. his holiness received him very graciously, and exhorted him to continue the studies he had begun so well. Among these we find that he had for some time made considerable progress in canon law, and had even defended some causes, but afterwards resigned all this for the more agreeable study of the belles lettres and classics. At the funeral of James III. of England, as he was styled, Fabroni was ordered by his college to compose an oration in praise of that prince, which he accordingly delivered in the presence of the cardinal duke of York, who expressed his sense of its merit not only by tears and kind words, but by a liberal present.

After this Fabroni appears to have employed himself in preparing his valuable lives of the eminent Italian literati of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the first volume of which he published at Rome in 1766, 8vo, and, as he informs us, soon had to encounter an host of Aristarchus’s. In 1767, a vacancy occurring of the office of prior of the church of St. Lorenzo at Florence, he was appointed to that preferment by the duke Peter Leopold, and here he remained for two years, during which he went on with his great work. At the end of this period, he obtained leave to return to Rome, and as he had considerable expectations from pope Ganganelli (Clement XIV.) would have probably attached himself to him, had he not thought that it would appear ungrateful to his patron the duke Peter Leopold, if he served any other master; but gratitude does not seem to have been his only motive, and he hints that implicit reliance' was not always to be placed in Ganganelli’s promises.

At Pisa, in 1771, he began a literary journal which extended to 102 parts or volumes; in this he had the occasional assistance of other writers, but often entire volumes were from his pen. At length the grand duke, who always had a high regard for Fabroni, furnished him liberally with the means of visiting the principal cities of Europe. ing this tour he informs us that he was introduced to, and lived familiarly with the most eminent characters in France, with D'Alembert, Conclorcet, La Lande, La Harpe, Mirabeau, Condilliac, Rousseau, Diderot, &c. and laments that he found them the great leaders of impiety. He then came to England, where he resided about four months, and became acquainted with Waring, Maskelyne, Priestley, and Dr. Franklin, who once invited him to go to America, which, he informs us, he foolishly refused. With what he found in England he appears to be little pleased, and could not be brought to think the universities of Oxford and Cambridge equal, for the instruction of youth, to those of Italy. In short he professes to relish neither English diet, manners, or climate; but perhaps our readers may dispute his taste, when at the same time he gives the preference to the manners, &c. of France. In 1773 he returned to Tuscany, and was desired by the grand duke to draw up a scheme of instruction for his sons, with which he insinuates that the duke was less pleased at last than at first, and adds that this change of opinion might arise from the malevolent whispers of literary rivals. He now went on to prosecute various literary undertakings, particularly his “Vitas Italorum,” and the life of pope Leo, &c. The greater part were completed before 1800, when the memoirs of his life written by himself end, and when his health began to be much affected by attacks of the gout. In 1801 he? desisted from his accustomed literary employments, and retired to a Carthusian monastery near Pisa, where he passed his time in meditation. Among other subjects, he reflected with regret on any expressions used in his works which might have given offence, and seemed to set more value on two small works he wrote of the pious kind at this time, than on all his past labours. When the incursions of the French army had put an end to the studies of the youth at Pisa, Fabroni removed to St. Cerbo, a solitary spot near Lucca, and resided for a short time with some Franciscans, but returned to Pisa, where an asthmatic disorder put an end to his life Sept. 22, 1803. He left the bulk of his property, amounting to about 1500 scudi, to the poor, or to public charitable institutions; and all the classics in his library, consisting of the best editions, to his nephew, Raphael Fabroni.