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

, called Old Francis Miens, one of the most remarkable disciples of Gerard Dow, was born at Leyden, in 1635. He imitated his. master with great diligence, and has been thought in some respects to surpass him. Minute accuracy, in copying common objects on a small scale, was the excellence of this artist, with the same sweetness of colouring, and transparence that marks the paintings of Dow. In design he has been thought more comprehensive and delicate than his master, his touch more animated, with greater freshness and force in his pictures. His manner of painting silks, velvets, stuffs, or carpets, was so studiously exact, that the differences of their construction are clearly visible in his representations. His pictures are scarce, and generally bear a very high price. His own valuation of his time was a ducat an hour: and for one picture of a lady fainting, with a physician attending her, and applying remedies, he was paid at that ratio, so large a sum as fifteen hundred florins. The grand duke of Tuscany is said to have offered 3000 for it, but was refused. One of the most beautiful of the works of Francis Mieris, in this country, where they are not very common, is in the possession of Mr. P. H. Hope, and is known by the appellation of the “Shrimp Man.” Mieris died in 1681, at the age of forty-six. He left two sons, John and William, who were both eminent painters. John, however, died young; William is the subject of the ensuing article.

, called the Young Mieris, was born at Leyden in 1662, and during the life of his father made a remarkable progress under his instructions. When he lost this aid, which was at the age of nineteen, he turned his attention to nature, and attained still higher excellence by an exact imitation of his models. He painted history occasionally, and sometimes animals, and even landscapes; and modelled in clay and wax with so much skill, as to deserve the name of an excellent sculptor. In the delicate finishing of his works he copied his father, and also in the lustre, harmony, and truth of his paintings; altogether, however, they are not quite equal to those of the elder Mieris. He died in 1747, at the age of eighty-five. He left a son named Francis, who is called the Young Francis Mieris, to distinguish him from his grandfather. He painted jn the same style, but was inferior to his father and grandfather; yet there is no doubt that his pictures are often sold in collections under the name of one of the former.

Louis XIV. hearing of his fame and abilities, sent for him to Paris, and is said to have sat to him for his portrait ten times. Almost all the illustrious nobles of the French court followed the example of their sovereign, and were painted by Mignard. His style of execution in these portraits is wrought up with all the false taste and pompous parade which distinguished that vicious period of the French nation; in his pictures every thing seems in motion; even. when the scene is laid in a close room, the draperies are flying about as in a high wind. With these and other defective points in his character as an artist, Mignard must be allowed to be the best portrait-painter of the French school. The king ennobled him; and, after Le Brun’s death, appointed him his principal painter, and the director of the manufactories of Seve and the Gobelins. He lived to the age of eighty-five, dying in 1695. He had an elder brother, whose name was Nicholas, a skilful painter, but who never rose to equality with him.

, a learned French canonist, was born at Paris, March 17, 1698. In his younger years he went through a complete course of education, and even then gave proofs of those talents in theology and general literature which constituted the reputation of his future life. After studying with care and success the Oriental languages, the holy Scriptures, the fathers, church history, and the canon law, he received his degree of doctor of divinity in April 1722. After this his attention was particularly directed to the history and antiquities of the laws and customs of his country, which made him often be consulted by political and professional men, and procured him the esteem and confidence, among others, of the celebrated chancellor D'Aguesseau. Mignot, however, amidst these advantages, which opened an easy way to promotion, indulged his predilection for a retired life, and was so little desirous of public notice that he seldom, if ever, put his name to his works; but he was not allowed to remain in obscurity, and, although somewhat late in life, he was elected a member of the academy of inscriptions, to whose memoirs he furnished some excellent papers on topics of ancient history. He died July 25, 1771, in the seventythird year of his age, leaving the following works, which were all much esteemed in France: 1. “Trait 6 des prets de commerce,” Paris, 1759, 4 vols. 12mo. To this he added a 5th vol. in 1767, that he might answer the abbé, La Porte, who had opposed his opinions respecting usurious interest. 2. “Les Droits de l'etat et du prince sur les biens du clerge,” 1755, 6 vols. 12mo. 3. “Histoire des demeles de Henry II, avec St. Thomas de Cantorbery,” 1756, 12mo, a work, if well executed, of some importance in English history. 4. “Histoire de la reception du Concile de Trente dans les etats catholiques,” Amst. 1756, 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Paraphrase sur les Psaumes,” and some paraphrases on other parts of the Bible. He published also a few religious works, a Memoir on the liberties of the Gallican church, and “La Verite de l'Histoire de PEglise de St. Omer,” 1754, 4to, a work improperly attributed to the abbe de Bonnaire. There was another abbe* Mignot, who died in 1790, the nephew of Voltaire, and who, fearing that the remains of his uncle would not be allowed Christian burial, had him interred in his abbey of Selliere. He wrote a history of the Ottoman empire, and a translation of Quintus Curtius.

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

Of this edition of the Greek Testament, Michaelis remarks, that “the infancy of criticism ends with the edition of Gregory, and the age of manhood commences with that of Mill.” This work is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent publications that ever appeared, and ranks next to that of Wetstein, in importance and utility. It was published only fourteen days before his death, and had been the labour of thirty years. He undertook it by the advice of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford; and the impression was begun at his lordship’s charge, in his printing-house near the theatre. But after the bishop’s death his executors were not willing to proceed; and therefore Dr. Mill, perhaps hurt at this refusal, and willing to shew his superior liberality, refunded the sums which trie bishop had paid, and finished the impression at his own expence. The expectations of the learned, foreigners as well as English, were raised very high in consequence of Dr. Mill’s character, and were not disappointed. It was, however, atacked at length by the learned Dr. Daniel Whitby, in his “Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Milli, S. T. P. &c. in 1710, or, an examination of the various readings of Dr. John Mill upon the New Testament; in which it is shewn, I. That the foundations of these various readings are altogether uncertain, and unfit to subvert the present reading of the text. II. That those various readings, which are of any moment, and alter the sense of the text, are very few; and that in all these cases the reading of the text may be defended. III. That the various readings of lesser moment, which are considered at large, are such as will not warrant us to recede from the vulgarly received reading. IV. That Dr. Mill, in collecting these various readings, hath often acted disingenuously; that he abounds in false citations, and frequently contradicts himself.” The various readings which Mill had collected, amounted, as it was supposed, to above 30,000; and this alarmed Dr. Whitby, who thought that the text was thus made precarious, and a handle given to the free-thinkers; and it is certain that Collins, in his “Discourse upon Free-thinking,” urges a passage out of this book of Whitby’s, to shew that Mill’s various readings of the New Testament must render the text itself doubtful. But to this objection Bentley, in his Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, has given a full and decisive answer, the substance of which will bear transcription “The 30,000 various lections then,” says Bentley, “are allowed and confessed and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what is the inference from this? why one Gregory, here quoted, infers, that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time, as the New Testament has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false, and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common, and in equal proportion, in all classics whatever, I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If,” says he, “there had been but one ms. of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable: besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, to have more anchors than one; and another ms. to join with the first, would give more authority, as well as security. Now chuse that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable that, by a joint and mutual help, all the faults may be mended some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you: every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is a fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. It is a good providence, and a great blessing,” continues he, “that so many Mss. of the New Testament are still among us; some procured from Egypt, otheri from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of the places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering or interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors, as they are called, whereof one ms. only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. It is plain, therefore, to me, that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all, what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several Mss. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful, and, generally speaking, accurate edition, has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text, in your doctor’s notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes, by the various readings, rendered uncertain; nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writer does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any single ms. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst ms. now extant: nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; chuse as aukwardly as you can, chuse the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions, the very words of the writer must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular ms. or edition; but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged wherever they are met with. Not frighted therefore with the present 30,000, I for my part, and, as I believe, many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched, 10,000 more were faithfully collected; some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact; though of no consequence to the main of religion, nay, perhaps, wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, t and quite insensible in any modern version,” p. 88, &c.

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

, a political and dramatic writer, the son of a clergyman who possessed two livings of considerable value in Dorsetshire, was born in 1703, and received his education at Wadham college, in Oxford. His natural genius and turn for satire led him, by way of relaxation from his more serious studies, to apply some portion of his time to the Muses; and, during his residence at the university, he composed great part of a comedy, called the “Humours of Oxford;” some of the characters in which being either designed for, or bearing a strong resemblance to, persons resident in Oxford, gave considerable umbrage, created the author many enemies, and probably laid the foundation of the greatest part of his misfortunes through life. On quitting the university, he entered into holy orders, and obtained immediately the lectureship of Trinity Chapel in Conduit-street, and was appointed preacher at the private chapel at Roehampton in Surrey.

The emoluments of his preferment, however, being not very considerable, he was encouraged, by the success of his first play, above mentioned, to have recourse to dramatic writing. This step being thought inconsistent with his profession, produced some warm remonstrances from a prelate on whom he relied for preferment, and who, finding him resolute, withdrew his patronage. Our author greatly aggravated his offence afterwards by publishing a ridiculous character, in a poem, which was universally considered as intended for the bishop. He then proceeded with his dramatic productions, and was very successful, until he happened to offend certain play-house critics, who from that time regularly attended the theatre to oppose any production known to be his, and finally drove him from the stage. About this time he had strong temptations to employ his pen in the whig interest; but, being in principle a high church-man, he withstood these, although the calls of a family were particularly urgent, and all hopes of advancement in the church at an end. At length, however, the valuable living of Upcerne was given him by Mr. Carey of Dorsetshire, and his prospects otherwise began to brighten, when he died April 23, 1744, at his lodgings in Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, before he had received a twelvemonth’s revenue from his new benefice, or had it in his power to make any provision for his family. As a dramatic writer, Baker thinks he has a right to stand in a very estimable light; yet the plays he enumerates are now entirelyforgotten. Besides these, he wrote several political pamphlets, particularly one called “Are these things so” which was much noticed. He was author also of a poem called “Harlequin Horace,” a satire, occasioned by some ill treatment he had received from Mr. Rich, the manager of Covent- Garden theatre; and was likewise concerned, together with Mr. Henry Baker, F. R. S. in a complete translation of the comedies of Moliere, primed together with the original French, and published by Mr. Watts. After his death was published by subscription a volume of his “Sermons,” the profits of which his widow applied to the satisfaction of his creditors, and the payment of his debts; an act of juctice by which t>he left herself and family almost destitute of the common necessaries of life.

In 1755 our author began to publish, in folio numbers, his “Figures of Plants,” adapted to his dictionary. These extended to three hundred coloured plates, mating, with descriptions and remarks, two folio volumes, and were completed in 1760. They comprehend many rare and beautiful species, there exhibited for the first time. The commendable design of the writer was to give one or more of the species of each known genus, all from living plants; which as far as possible he accomplished. His plates have more botanical dissections than any that had previously appeared in this country. Miller was a fellow of the Royal Society, and enriched its Transactions with several papers. The most numerous of these were catalogues of the annual collections of fifty plants, which were required to be sent to that learned body, from Chelsea garden, by the rules of its foundation. These collections are preserved in the British Museum, and are occasionally resorted to for critical inquiries in botany. He wrote also on the poison ash, or Toxicodendrum, of America, which he believed to be the Japanese varnish tre of Koempfer; a position controverted by Mr. Ellis, who appears to have been in the right, and this may account for a certain degree of ill humour betrayed by Mr. Miller in the course of the dispute.

Miller continued to attend to his duties and his favourite pursuits to an advanced age, but was obliged at length, by his infirmities, to resign the charge of the garden. He died soon after, at Chelsea, December 18, 1771, in his eighty-first year, and was interred in the burying-ground in the King’s road, with his wife, by whom he had, if we mistake not, several children. One of them, Mr. Charles Miller, who spent some time in the East Indies, where he acquired a handsome fortune, made some experiments on the cultivation of wheat, an account of which was given by Dr. Watson to the Royal Society. They were intended to shew the wonderful produce to be obtained by division and transplantation, and have often been repeated. An account of the island of Sumatra, by Mr. C. Miller, is printed in vol. LXVIII. of the Philosophical Transactions. The sister of Philip Miller married Ehret, and left one son. In the course of his residence at Chelsea, Miller collected, principally from the garden, an ample herbarium, which was purchased by sir Joseph Banks.

, a very worthy and intelligent bookseller, and well known to men of literary curiosity for upwards of half a century, at his residence at Bungay in Suffolk, was born at Norwich, Aug. 14, 1732. He was apprenticed to a grocer, but his fondness for reading induced him, on commencing business for himself, to apportion part of his shop for the bookselling business, which at length engrossed the whole of his attention, time, and capital; and for many years he enlarged his stock so as to make it an object of importance with collectors in all parts of the kingdom, who were not more pleased with his judicious selection of copies, than the integrity with which he transacted business. About 1782 he published a catalogue of his collection of books, engraved portraits, and coins, which for interest and value exceeded at that time any other country collection? except, perhaps, that of the late Mr. Edwards of Halifax. Mr. Miller was a great reader, and possessing an excellent memory, he acquired that fund of general knowledge, particularly of literary history, which not only rendered him an instructive and entertaining companion, but gave a considerable value to his opinions of books, when consulted by his learned customers. At a period of life, when unfortunately he was too far advanced for such an undertaking, he projected a history of his native county, Suffolk, and circulated a well-written prospectus of his plan. His habits of industrious research, and natural fondness for investigating topographical antiquities, would have enabled him to render this a valuable contribution to our stock of county histories; but, independent of his age, his eye-sight failed him soon after he had made his design known, and he was obliged to relinquish it. In 1799 he became quite blind, but continued in business until his death, July 25, 1804. There is a very fine private portrait of Mr, Miller, engraved at the expence of his affectionate son, the very eminent bookseller in Albemarle-street, who lately retired from business, carrying with him the high esteem and respect of his numerous friends and brethren. In 1795, when it became a fashion among tradesmen in the country to circulate provincial half-pennies, Mr. Miller sen. had a die cast; but an accident happening to one of the blocks, when only twentythree pieces were struck off, he, like a true antiquary, declined having a fresh one made. This coin (which is very finely engraved, and bears a strong profile likeness of himself) is known to collectors by the name of “The Miller half-penny.” He was extremely careful into whose hands the impressions went; and they are now become so rare as to produce at sales from three to five guineas.

The latter years of his life were clouded by domestic calamities. He had a promising family of three daughters, who all died of consumptive complaints when they attained the age of maturity; of his two sons, one was lost by shipwreck on board the Halsewell Indiaman. His only surviving son is a popular preacher among the methodists, with whom his talents, zeal,- piety, and charity, have made him deservedly beloved. Dr. Miller died at Doncaster, Sept. 12, 1807.

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

, a late French historian, was born at Besanc,on, in March 1726, and belonged, for some time, to the order of Jesuits. He was one of those who were appointed to preach, and continued so to do after he had quitted that society. But the weakness of his voice, his timidity, and the embarrassed manner of his delivery, obliged him to relinquish that duty. The marquis of Felino, minister of the duke of Parma, founded a professorship of history, and Millot, through the interest ef the duke of Nivernois, was appointed to it. A revolt having arisen among the people of Parma, while he was there, in consequence of some innovations of the minister, Millot very honourably refused to quit him. It was represented that by so doing he risked his place. “My place,” he replied, “is to attend a virtuous man who is my benefactor, and that office I am determined not to lose.” After having held this professorship, with great reputation for some time, he returned into France, and was appointed preceptor to the duke D‘Enghien. He was still employed in this duty in 1785, when he was removed by death, at the age of fifty-nine. Millot was not a man who shone in conversation; his manner was dry and reserved, but his remarks were generally able and judicious. D’Alembert said of him, that he never knew a man of so few prejudices, and so few pretensions. His works are carefully drawn up, in a pure, natural, and elegant style. They are these: 1. “Elements of the History of France, from Clovis to Louis XV.” 3 vols. 12mo; an abridgment made with remarkable judgment in the selection of facts, and great clearness in the divisions and order. 2. “Elements of the History of England, from the time of the Romans to George II.” This work has the same characteristic merits as the former. 3. “Elements of Universal History,” 9 vols. 12mo. It has been unjustly said, that this is pirated from the general history of Voltaire. The accusation is without foundation; the ancient part is perfectly original, and the modern is equally remarkable for the selection of facts, and the judicious and impartial manner in which they are related. 4. “History of the Troubadours,” 3 vols. 12mo. This work was drawn up from a vast collection of materials made by M. de St. Palaye, and, notwithstanding the talents of the selector, has still been considered as uninteresting. 5. “Political and military Memoirs towards the History of Louis XIV. and XV. composed of original documents collected by Adrian Maurice, duke of Noailles, mareschal of France,” 6 vols. 12mo There are extant also, by Millot, “Discourses on Academical Subjects,” and, “Translations of some select ancient Orations, from the Latin Historians.” All these are written in French. Notwithstanding a few objections that have been made to him, as being occasionally declamatory, there is no doubt that Millot is a valuable historian, and his elements of French and English history have been well received in this country in their translations.

, a learned English divine, the second son of John Milner of Skircoat, near Halifax in Yorkshire, was born probably in Feb. 1627-8, as he was baptised on the 10th of that month. After being educated at the grammar-school of Halifax, he was sent at fourteen years of age to Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degrees of B. A. and M. A. at the regular periods. He was first curate of Midleton in Lancashire, but was forced thence, on sir George Booth’s unsuccessful attempt to restore king Charles II. a little before the fight at Worcester. After this he retired to the place of his nativity, where he lived till 1661, when Dr. Lake, then vicar of Leeds, and his brother-in-law, gave him the curacy of Beeston, in his parish. In 1662 he took the degree of B. D, and the same year was made minister of St. John’s in Leeds. He was elected vicar of Leeds in 1673, and in 1681 was chosen prebendary of Ripon. In 1688, not being satisfied about the revolution, he removed from his vicarage, and was deprived of all his preferments; on which he retired to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he spent the remainder of his days, continuing a nonjuror till his death, which happened in St. John’s college, Feb. 16, 1702, in his seventy- fifth year. He left an only son, Thomas Milner, M. A. vicar of Bexhili in Sussex, who proved a great benefactor to Magdalen college, Cambridge. Dr. Gower, lady Margaret’s professor at Cambridge, gave the following character of Mr. John Milner to Mr. Thoresby “Great learning and piety made him really a great man he was eminent in both, and nothing but his humility and modesty kept him from being more noted for being so. I had the happiness of much of his conversation, but still desired more. He was a blessing to the whole society, by the example he gave in every thing good. He died beloved, and much lamented here, and his memory is honourable and precious among us, and will long continue so.”

About the age of thirteen, there were few of young Milner’s years equally skilled in Latin and Greek, and none who were to be compared to him in the accurate and extensive knowledge of ancient history. His love of the study of history shewed itself as soon as ever he could read, and he employed his leisure hours in reading, as a weakly constitution, and early disposition to asthma, rendered him utterly incapable of mixing with his schoolfellows in their plays and diversions. This passion for the study of history continued strong for many years, and was his favourite amusement and relaxation to the last. With such acquirements, at so early an age, it cannot be thought wonderful if while among his poorer and more ignorant neighbours, he went by the name of the “learned lad,” his schoolmaster should feel some degree of vanity in producing such a scholar; but his regard for him was more sincere than mere vanity could have produced, and Mr. Moore now meditated in what way he could be able to send his pupil to the university, where talents like his might have a wider range, and lead to the honours he merited. In this benevolent plan he seemed at first to be obstructed by the death of Mr. Milner’s father, who had been unsuccessful in business, and htd little to spare from the necessary demands of his family*; but this event seemed rather to quicken Mr. Moore’s zeal in favour of his pupil, and as the latter had begun to teach grown-up children of both sexes, in some opulent families in Leeds, &c. there seemed a general disposition to forward the plan of sending him to the university. At the moment when the purses of the wealthy were ready to be opened in favour of this scheme, the tutor of Catherine hall, Cambridge, an old acquaintance of Mr. Moore, wrote to him to the following effect “The office of Chapel-clerk with us will soon be vacant and if you have any clever lad, who is not very rich, and whom you would wish to assist, send him to us.” Mr. Moore instantly communicated this proposal to several of the liberal gentlemen above alluded to, who all cheerfully concurred in it, and young Milner was thus enabled to go to Catherinehall in 1762, in his eighteenth year.

evening, I surprised my wife, by send- send both" Life by Dr. Milner. ing hom.e a Greek book for my son JoLaw, the late bishop of Elphin, and to Joseph Milner. Several members of the university are still alive, who well remember the general surprise caused by the success of the latter; and how his humorous and spirited translations of Terence and Plutarch, shown by the examiners to their friends, were handed about through the colleges, and excited general admiration.

He would have now gladly remained at the university, and increased his literary reputation, so happily begun, but there was no opportunity of electing him fellow at Catherine-hall, and he was already somewhat in debt. During his first year’s residence at Cambridge, he had lost by a premature death, his affectionate schoolmaster, Mr. Moore; and the management of his slender finances was transferred from the hands of Mr. Moore to those of a careless and dissipated person. Mr. Milner was not old enough for deacon’s orders, and it became absolutely necessary that he should look out for some employment. He accordingly became assistant in a school, and afterwards in the cure of his church, to the rev. Mr. Atkinson of Thorp-Arch, near Tadcaster. Here, we are told, he completed an epic poem, begun at Catherine-hall, entitled “Davideis,” or Satan’s various attempts to defeat the purpose of the Almighty, who had promised that a Saviour of the world should spring from king David. The ms. is still in existence. His biographer pronounces it “a fine monument of the author’s learning, taste, genius, and exuberant imagination.” He submitted it to Dr. Hurd, who sent him a very complimentary letter; but he laid the poem aside, and it has not been thought proper to publish it.

Mr. Milner’s labours as a preacher were not confined to the town of Hull. He was curate for upwards of seventeen years, of North Ferriby, about nine miles from Hull, and afterwards vicar of the place. At both he became a highly popular and successful preacher, but for some years, met with considerable opposition from the upper classes, for his supposed tendency towards methodism. His sentiments and mode of preaching had in fact undergone a change, which produced this suspicion, for the causes and consequences of which we must refer to his biographer. It may be sufficient here to notice, that he at length regained his credit by a steady, upright, preseveriog, and disinterested conduct, and just before his death, the mayor and corporation of Hull, almost unanimously, chose him vicar of the Holy Trinity church, on the decease of the rev. T. Clarke. Mr. Milner died Nov. 15, 1797, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and perhaps the loss of no man in that place has ever been lamented with more general or unfeigned regret. His scholars, almost without exception, loved and revered him. Several gentlemen, who had been his pupils many years before, shewed a sincere regard for their instructor, by erecting at their own expence, an elegant monument (by Bacon) to his memory in the high church of Hull. Mr. Milner’s principal publications are, 1. “Some passages in the Life of William Howard,” which has gone through several editions; 2. An Answer to Gibbon’s Attack on Christianity;“3.” Essays on the Influence of the Holy Spirit.“But his principal work is his ecclesiastical history, under the title of a” History of the Church of Christ,“of which he lived to complete three volumes, which reach to the thirteenth century. A fourth volume, in two parts, has since been edited from his Mss. by his brother Dr. Isaac Milner, reaching to the sixteenth century, and a farther continuation may be expected from the same pen. Since his death also, two volumes of his practical sermons have been published, with a life of the author by his brother, from which we have selected the above particulars. To his” History of the Church," we have often referred in these volumes, as it appears to us of more authority in many respects than that of Mosheim; and whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the view Mr. Milner takes of the progress of religion, he appears to have read more and penetrated deeper into the history, principles, and writings of the fathers and reformers, than any preceding English historian.

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

During these seven years of college residence, his genius appeared in various attempts not unworthy of the future author of “Comus” and “Paradise Lost.” He was a poet when he was only ten years old, and his translation of the 136th psalm evinces his progress in poetic expression at the early age of fifteen. He renounced his original purpose of entering the church, for which he assigns as a reason, “that coming to some maturity of years, he had perceived what tyranny had pervaded it, and that he who would take orders, must subscribe slave, and take an oath withal, which, unless h^ took with a conscience that could retch, he must either strain, perforce, or split his faith; I thought it better to prefer a blameless silence before the office of speaking, bought and begun with servitude and forswearing.” These expressions have been supposed to allude to the articles of the church; but, as far as we know of Milton’s theology, there was none of those articles to which he had any objection. It seems more reasonable therefore to conclude, that he considered subscription as involving an approbation of the form of church government, which, we know, was his abhorrence.

He spent five years at his father’s house at Horton, and during this time exhibited some of the finest specimens of his genius. The “Comus,” in 1634, and the “Lycidas,” in 1637, were written at Horton; and there is strong internal proof that the “L'AIlegro” and “II Penseroso” were also composed here. The Mask of Comus was acted before the earl of Bridgwater, the president of Wales, in 1634, at Ludlow-castle: and the characters of the lady and her two brothers were represented by the lady Alice Egerton, then about thirteen years of age, and her two brothers, lord Brackley and Thomas Egerton, who were still younger. The story of this piece is said to have been suggested by the circumstance of the lady Alice having been separated from her company in the night, and havincr wandered for some time by herself in the forest of Haywood, as she was returning from a distant visit to meet her father. This admirable drama was set to music by Lawes, and first published by him in 1637, and, in the dedication to lord Brackley, he speaks of the work as not openly acknowledged by the author. The author surely had little to fear; it would be difficult to discover an age barbarous enough to refuse the highest honours to the author of a work so truly poetical. The “Lycidas” was written, as there is reason to believe, at the solicitation of the author’s old college, to commemorate the death of Mr. Edward King, one of its fellows, a man of great learning, piety, and talents, who was shipwrecked in his passage from Chester to Ireland. It formed part of a collection of poems, published on this melancholy occasion, in 1638, at the university press; and its being thus printed in a collection, may perhaps diminish the wonder expressed by one of Milton’s biographers, that a poem, breathing such hostility to the clergy of the Church of England, and menacing their leader with the axe, should be permitted to issue from the university press. There is no other way of accounting for this than by supposing that it had not been read before it went to press. “Lycidas” has been severely criticised by Dr. Johnson, and but feebly supported by Milton’s other biographers.

In 1638, on the death of his mother, he obtained his father’s leave to travel, and about the same time a letter of instructions from sir Henry Wotton, then provost of Eton, but who had resided at Venice as ambassador from James I. He went first tp Paris, where, by the favour of lord Scudainore, he had an opportunity of visiting Grotius, at that time residing at the French court as ambassador from Christina of Sweden. From Paris he passed into Italy, of which he had with particular diligence studied the language and literature; and, though he seems to have intended a very quick perambulation of the country, he staid two months at Florence, where he was introduced to the academies, and received with every mark of esteem. Among other testimonies may be mentioned the verses addressed to him by Carlo Dati> Erancini, and others, whicfe, prove that they considered a visit from Milton as no common honour. From Florence he went to Sienna, and from Sienna to Rome, where he was again received with kindness by the learned and the great. Holstenius, the keeper of the Vatican library, who had resided three years at Oxford, introduced him to cardinal Barberini; and he, on one occasion, at a musical entertainment, waited for him at the door, and led him by the hand into the assembly. Here it is conjectured that Milton heard the accomplished and enchanting Leonora Baroni sing, a lady whom he has honoured with three excellent Latin epigrams. She is also supposed to have been celebrated by Milton in her own language, and to have been the object of his love in his Italian sonnets. While at Rome, Selvaggi praised Milton in a distich, and Salsilfl in a tetrastic, on which he put some value by printing them before his poems. The Italians, says Dr. Johnson, were gainers by this literary commerce; for the encomiums with which Milton repaid Salsilli, though not secure against a stern grammarian, turn the balance indisputably in Milton’s favour.

From Rome, after a residence of two months, he went to Naples, in company with a hermit, who introduced him to Menso, marquis of Villa, who had been before the patron of Tasso, and who showed every mack of attention to Milton, until the latter displeased him by certain sentiments on the subject of religion. In return, however, for a few verses addressed to him by the marquis, in which he commends him for every thing but his religion, Milton sent him a Latin poem, which must have raised a high opinion of English elegance and literature. It ought indeed never to be forgot, that in the whole course of this tour, Milton procured respect for the English wherever he went; nor does it appear to be less memorable that he rarely found his superior among the learned men of the continent, who considered his country as only just emerging from barbarism.

The time, however, was now come when, as Johnson says, he was to lend “his breath to blow the flames of contention.” In 1641 he published a treatise of “Reformation,” in two books, against the established church; and soon after one, “Of Prelatical Episcopacy,” Against the learned Usher, who had written a confutation of “Smectymnuus,” which was intended as an answer to bishop Hall’s “Humble Remonstrance,” in defence of Episcopacy. His next work was “The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy,” 1642. In this book, says Johnson, he discovers, not with ostentatious exultation, but with calm confidence, his high opinion of his own powers; and promises to undertake something, he yet knows not what, that may be of use and honour to his country. “This,” says Milton, “is not to be obtained but by devout prayer to the eternal Spirit that can enrich with all utterance and knowledge, and sends out his Seraphim with the hallowed fire of his altar, to touch and purify the lips of whom he pleases. To this must be added, industrious and select reading, steady observation, and insight into all seemly and generous arts and affairs; till which in some measure be compast, I refuse not to sustain this expectation.” From a promise like this, adds Johnson, at once fervid, pious, and rational, might be expected the “Paradise Lost.” He published the same year two more pamphlets on the same question, with which the controversy appears to have ended, and episcopacy was 'soon afterwards overwhelmed by the violent meanj for which the press had long prepared.

About the time that the town of Reading was taken by the earl of Essex, Milton’s father came to reside in his house, and his school increased. In 1643, his domestic comfort was disturbed by an incident which he had hoped would have rather promoted it. This was his marriage to Mary, the daughter of Richard Powell, esq. a magistrate in Oxfordshire, and a loyalist. The lady was brought to London, but did not remain above a month with her husband, when under pretence of a visit to her relations, she wholly absented herself, and resisted his utmost and repeated importunities to return. His biographers inform us that the lady had been accustomed to the jovial hospitality of the loyalists at her father’s house, and that after a month’s experience of her new life, she began to sigh for the gaieties she had left, &c. Whether this will sufficiently account for her conduct, our readers may consider. Milton, however, appears to have felt the indignity, and determined to repudiate her for disobedience; and finding no court of law able to assist him, published some treatises to justify his intentions; such as “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce;” “The Judgment of Martin Bucer, concerning Divorce,” &c. In these he argued the point with great ingenuity, but made few converts, and the principal notice taken of these writings came in a very unfortunate shape. The Westminster assembly of divines procured that the author should be called before the House of Lords, who did not, however, institute any process on the matter; but in consequence of this attack, the presbyterian party forfeited his favour, and he ever after treated them with contempt.

As in these writings on divorce, he had convinced himself of the rectitude of his principles, his next step was to carry them into practice, by courting a young woman of great accomplishments, the daughter of one Dr. Davis, or Davies. This alarmed the parents of his wife, who had now another reason for wishing a reconciliation, namely, the interest of Milton with the predominant powers, to whom they had become obnoxious by their loyalty. It was contrived, therefore, that his wife should be at a house where he was expected to visit, and should surprize him with her presence and her penitence. All this was successfully arranged: the lady played her part to admiration, 1 and Milton not only received her with his wonted affection, but extended his protection to her family in the most generous manner. He was now obliged to take a larger mansion, and removed to Barbican. In 1644, he published his ^ Tractate on Education,“explaining the plan already mentioned, which he had attempted to carry into execution in his school. His next publication was his” Areopagitica, or a speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing;" a treatise which at least served to expose the hypocrisy of the usurping powers, during whose reign the liberty of the press was as much restrained as in any period of the monarchy, nor perhaps at any time was Milton’s unbounded liberty less relished.

Though his controversial, and other engagements, had for some time suspended the exertion of his poetical talents, yet he did not suffer his character as a poet to sink into oblivion, and in 1645, he published his juvenile poems in Latin and English, including, for the first time, the “Allegro” and “Penseroso.” in 1646, Milton’s wife produced her first child, and in the following year, in which his father died, the family of the Powells returned to their own mansion, and his house was resigned once more to literature. In this house, in which his second daughter Mary was born, he did not continue long, but exchanged it for one of smaller cKmensions in High Holborn. He is not known to have published any thing afterwards till the king’s death, when finding that measure condemned by the Presbyterians, he wrote a treatise to justify it. Of all Milton’s political works this reflects least credit on his talents, or his principles. Even those who have been most disposed to vindicate him against all censure, and to represent him invulnerable both as a politician and a poet, seem to shrink from the task of defending him in this instance, and candidly tell us, that they meet with an insuperable difficulty in the very title of the book “TheTenure of Kings and Magistrates proving, that it is lawful, and hath been held so through all ages, for any who have the power, to call to account a tyrant or wicked king: and after due conviction, to depose and put him to death, if the ordinary magistrate have neglected or denied to do it.” Here, therefore, the right to punish kings belongs to any who have the power, and their having the power makes it lawful, a doctrine so monstrous as to be given up by his most zealous advocates, as “a fearful opening for mischief:” but it was, in truth, at that time, what Milton intended it to be, a justification, not of the people of England, for they had no hand in the king’s murder, but of the army under Ireton and Cromwell. That Milton was also at this time under the strong influence of party-spirit, appears from his attack on the Presbyterians in this work, the avowed ground of which is their inconsistency. When, however, we examine their inconsistency, as he has been pleased to state it, it amounts to only this, that they contributed in common with the Independents and other sectaries and parties, to dethrone the king; but r wished to stop short of his murder. Every species of opposition to what they considered as tyranny in the king, they could exert, but they thought it sufficient to deprive him of power, without depriving him of life.

The immediate cause, however, of the interruption given to his “History,” was his being appointed Latin secretary to the new council of state, which was to supply all the offices of royalty. He had scarcely accepted this appointment, when his employers called upon him to answer the famous book entitled “Icon Basihk^, or the portraiture of his cacred majesty in his solitudes and sufferings.” This was then understood to be the production of Charles I. and was published unquestionably with the view to exhibit him to the people in a more favourable light than he had been represented by those who brought him to the block. It probably too was -beginning to produce that effect, as the government thought it necessary to employ the talents of Milton to answer it, which he did in a work entitled “Iconoclastes,” or Image-breaker, In this he follows the common opinion, that the king was the writer, although he sometimes seems to admit of doubts, and makes his answer a. sort of review and vindication of all the proceedings against the court. This has been praised as one of the ablest of all Milton’s political tracts, while it is at the same time confessed that it did not in the least diminish the popularity of the “Icon,” of which 48,500 are said to have been sold, and whether it was the production of the king or of bishop Gauden, it must have harmonized with the feelings and sentiments of a great proportion of the public. The story of Milton’s inserting a prayer taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” and imputing the use of it to the king as a crime, appears to have no foundation; but we know not how to vindicate this and other petty objections to the king’s character, from the charge of personal animosity.

Milton’s next employment was to answer the celebrated Salmasius, who, at the instigation of the exiled Charles II. had written a defence* of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius was an antagonist worthy of Milton, as a general scholar, but scarcely his equal in that species of political talent which rendered Milton’s services so important to the new government. Salmasius’s work was entitled “Defensio Kegia,” and Milton’s “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” which greatly increased Milton’s reputation abroad, and at home we may be certain would procure him no small share of additional favour. That his work includes a very great portion of controversial bitterness, may be attributed either to the temper of the times, or of the writer, as the reader pleases; but the former was entirely in his favour, and his triumph was therefore complete. Of Salmasius’s work, the highest praise has been reserved to our own times, in which the last biographer of Milton has compared it to Mr. Burke’s celebrated book on the French revolution.

Milton’s eye-sight, which had been some time declining, was now totally gone; but, greatly felt as this privation must have been to a man of studious habits, his intellectual powers suffered no diminution. About this time (1652), he was involved in another controversy respecting the “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” in consequence of a work published at the Hague, entitled “Regii sanguinis. clamor ad coelum adversus parricidas Anglicanos,” written by Peter du Moulin, but published by, and under the name of, Alexander Morus, or More. This produced from Milton, his “Defensio secunda pro populo Anglicano,” and a few replies to the answers of his antagonists. In this second “Defensio,” written in the same spirit as thq preceding, is introduced a high panegyric upon Cromwell, who had now usurped the supreme power with the title of Protector. It seems acknowledged that his biographers have found it very difficult to justify this part of his conduct. They have, therefore, had recourse to those conjectural reasons which shew their own ingenuity, but perhaps never existed in the mind of Milton, Their soundest defence would have been to suppose Milton placed in a choice of evils, a situation which always admits of apology. It is evident, however, that he had now reconciled himself to the protector-king, and went on with his business as secretary, and, among other things, is supposed to have written the declaration of the reasons for a war with Spain. About this time (1652) his first wife died in childbed, leaving him three daughters. He married again, not long after, Catherine, the daughter of a captain Woodcock, of Hacktiey, who died within a year in child-birth, and was lamented by him in a sonnet, which Johnson terms “poor,” but others “pleasing and pathetic.” To divert his grief he is said now to have resumed his “History of England,” and to have made some progress in a Latin dictionary. This last appears to have engaged his attention occasionally for many years after, for he left three folios of collections, that were probably used by subsequent lexicographers, but could not of themselves have formed a publication.

He had praised Cromwell as the only person who could allay the contentions of parties, and the time was now come when the nation was to lose this protecting genius. Another Cromwell was not to be found, and general anarchy seemed approaching. Milton, somewhat alarmed, but not wholly dispirited with this state of things, took up his pen to give advice on certain urgent topics, and having as much dread of presbyterianism as of royalty, he published two treatises, one, “Of the civil power in ecclesiastical causes,” and the other, “Considerations touching the likeliest means to remove hirelings out of the church.” In both these he shewed his sentiments to be unaltered on the subjects of civil and ecclesiastical government; and he urged them yet farther in “The present means and brief delineation of a free Commonwealth,” and “The ready and easy way to establish a free Commonwealth.” In this last his inconsistencies have been justly exposed by one of his recent biographers. “With the strongest prepossession of a party-zealot, he deserts his general principle for the attainment of his particular object: and thinks that his own opinions ought to be enforced in opposition to those of the majority of the nation. Aware also that a frequent change of the governing body might be attended with inconvenience and possible danger, he decides against frequent parliaments, and in favour of a permanent council. Into such inconsistencies was he betrayed by his animosity to monarchy, and his bigoted attachment to whatever carried the name of a republic.” These pamphlets were answered both in a sportive and serious way, but neither probably gave him much uneasiness. His last effort in the cause of republicanism was entitled “Brief notes” on a loyal sermon preached by Dr. Matthew Griffith, one of the late king’s chaplains: and with this terminated his political controversies.

Charles II. was now 'advancing, with the acclamations of the people, to the throne, and Milton, it was natural to snppose, might expect his resentment: for sometime, therefore, he secreted himself, but on the issuing of the act of oblivion, his name was not found among the exceptions, and he appeared again in public. Various reasons have been assigned for this lenity, but the most probable was the interest of his friends Andrew Marvel 1, sir Thomas Clarges, and especially sir William Davenant, whom Milton had once rescued from a similar danger. The only notice taken of him was by the House of Commons, who ordered his “Iconoclastes” and “Defence of the people of England” to be burnt by the hands of the hangman; and it appears that he was once, and for a short time, in custody, but on what pretext is not known.

In 1662 he resided in Jewin-street, and from this he removed to a small house in the Artillery-walk, adjoining Bunhill-fields, where he continued during the remaining part of his life. While living in Jewin-street, he married his third wife, Elizabeth Minshull, the daughter of a gentleman of Cheshire. He was now employed on “Paradise Lost,” to which alone, of all his works, he owes his fame. Whence he drew the original design has been variously conjectured, but nothing very satisfactory has been produced. It was at a very early period that he meditated an epic poem, but then thought of taking his subject from the heroic part of English history. At length “after long choosing, and beginning late,” he fixed upon “Paradise Lost:” a design so comprehensive, that it could, says Dr. Johnson, be justified only by success. We may refer to that eminent critic, and his other biographers, for a regular examination of the beauties and detects of this immortal poem, as well as for many particulars relative to the times and mode in which he composed. These it would have been delightful to trace, had our information been as accurate as it is various; but, unhappily, every step in Milton’s progress has been made the subject of angry controversy, and they who can take any pleasure in the effusions of critical irritation, may be amply gratified in the more recent lives of Milton.

In 1671, Milton published his “Paradise Regained,” written on the suggestion of Elwood, the quaker, who had been one of his amanuenses. Elwood, after reading the “Paradise Lost,” happened to say, “Thou hast said much here on Paradise Lost, but what hast thou to say of Paradise Found” This poem was probably regarded by the author as the theological completion of the plan commenced in “Paradise Lost,” and he is said to have viewed it with strong preference; but in this last opinion few have been found to coincide. Its inferiority in point of grandeur and invention is very generally acknowledged, although it is not by any means unworthy of his genius. About the same time appeared his “Samson Agonistes,” a drama, composed upon the ancient model, and abounding in moral and descriptive beauties, but never intended or calculated for the stage.

Of the three daughters of Milton, Anne, the eldest, married a master-builder, and died with her first child in her lying-in. Mary, the second, died in a single state: and Deborah, the youngest, married Abraham Clarke, a weaver in Spitalfields. She had seven sons and three daughters; but of these she left, at her decease, only Caleb, who, marrying in the East Indies, had two sons, whose history cannot be traced; and Elizabeth, who married Thomas Foster, of the same business with her father, and had by him three sons and four daughters, who all died young and without issue.Mrs. Foster died in poverty and distress, on the ninth of May, 1754. This was the lady for whose benefit “Comus” was played in 1750, and she had so little acquaintance with diversion or gaiety, that she did not know what was intended when a benefit was offered her. The profits of the night were only 130l.; yet this, as Dr. Johnson remarks, was the greatest benefaction that “Paradise Lost” ever procured the author’s descendants.

, an ancient Greek poet, was born either at Colophon, according to Strabo, or according to others at Smyrna, some time in the sixth century B. C. Strabo informs us that he was a musician, as well as a writer of elegies, which was his chief pursuit: and Nanno, the lady who passes for his mistress, is recorded to have got her livelihood by the same profession. There are but few fragments of his poems remaining, yet enough to shew him an accomplished master in his own style. His temper seems to have been as truly poetical as his writings, wholly bent on love and pleasure, and averse to the cares of common business. He appears to have valued life only as it could afford the means of pleasure. By some he is said to have been the inventor of the pentameter, but various specimens of that verse of older date are still extant. Mimnermus’s fragments are printed by Brunck, in his “Analecta,” and in the “Gnomici Poetae.”

, an ancient English poet, who flourished in the fourteenth century, but appears to have been unknown to Leland, Bale, Pits, and Tanner, was lately discovered by Tyrwhitt, and edited by Mr. Ritson in 1794, 8vo. The discovery was owing to a remarkable circumstance. Some former possessor of the manuscript in which his poems are contained had written his name, Richard Chawser, on one of the supernumerary leaves. The compiler of the Cotton catalogue, printed at Oxford in 1696, converted this signature into Geoffrey Chaucer, and therefore described the volume in these words, “Chaucer. Exemplar emendate scriptum.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, whilst he was preparing his edition of the Canterbury Tales, consulted this manuscript, and thus discovered the poems of Laurence Minot. The versification of this poet is uncommonly easy and harmonious for the period in which he lived, and an alliteration, as studied as that of Pierce Plowman, runs through all his varieties of metre. He has not the dull prolixity of many early authors; nor do we find in his remains those pictures of ancient times and manners, from whica early writers derive their greatest value. In the easy flow of his language he certainly equals Chaucer but here the merit of Laurence Minot ends, although Mr. Ritson endeavours to carry it much farther.

, a learned man, who held the place of perpetual secretary to the French academy, was born in Provence in 1674, and lived to the age of eighty-six. He is chiefly known, as an author, by 1. “A translation of Tasso’s Jerusalem delivered,” which has gone through several editions, but has since been superseded by a better, written by M. le Brun. Mirabauu took upon him, rather too boldly, to retrench or alter what he thought unpleasing in his author, 2. “A translation of the Orlando Furioso,” which has the same faults. He wrote also a little tract entitled “Alphabet de la Fee Gracieuse,” 1734, 12mo. His eulogium at the academy was drawn up by M. de Buffon, and is full of high encomiums.

, a learned German, was born at Brussels in 1573; and was first almoner and librarian of Albert, archduke of Austria. He was an ecclesiastic, and laboured all his life for the good of the church and of his country. He died in 1640. His works are, 1.“Elogiaillustrium Belgii scriptorum,” 1609, 4to. 2. “Opera Historica et Diplomatica.” This is a collection of charters and diplomas, relating to the Low Countries. The best edition is that of 1724, 4 vols. in folio, by Foppens, who has made notes, corrections, and additions to it. 3. “Rerum Belgicarum Chronicon;” useful for the history of the Low Countries. 4. “De rebus Bohemicis,” 12mo. 5. “Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica.” 6. “Vita Justi Lipsii,” &c. Penetration, and exactness in facts and citations, are usually esteemed the characteristics of this writer.

, knight of the bath, and a distinguished ambassador at the court of Berlin, was the only child of the rev. William Mitchell, formerly of Aberdeen, but then one of the ministers of St. Giles’s, commonly called the high church of Edinburgh. The time of his birth is not specified, but he is said to have been married in 1715, when very young, to a lady who died four years after in child-birth, and whose loss he felt with so much acuteness, as to be obliged to discontinue the study of the law, for which his father had designed him, and divert his grief by travelling, amusements, &c. This mode of life is said to have been the original cause of an extensive acquaintance with the principal noblemen and gentlemen in North Britain, by whom he was esteemed for sense, spirit, and intelligent conversation. Though his progress in the sciences was but small, yet no person had a greater regard for men of learning, and he particularly cultivated the acquaintance of the clergy, and professors of the university of Edinburgh. About 1736 he appears to have paid considerable attention to mathematics under the direction of the celebrated Maclaurin; and soon after began, his political career, as secretary to the marquis of Tweedale, who Wc-s appointed minister for the affuirs of Scotland in 1741. He became also acquainted with the earl of Stair, and it was owing to his application to that nobleman that Dr. (afterwards sir John) Pringle, was in 1742 appointed physician to the British ambassador at the Hague.

From a very recent writer, we have some account of his mode of living and general conduct while at Berlin, which was highly honourable to his sense and spirit. When he first arrived at Berlin, he had occasioned some perplexity to those who invited him to their houses, for he played no game of chance, so that his hosts constantly said to each other, “What shall we do with this Englishman, who never plays at cards” In a short time, however, the contest was, who should leave the card -table to enjoy the conversation of sir Andrew Mitchell, whose understanding, they discovered, was no less admirable than the virtues of his character. His bon-mots came into circulation, and were long retailed. Thiebault has recorded a few which, as he says, explain rather his principles than his understanding. On one occasion that three English mails were due, the king said to him, at the levee, “Have you not the spleen, Mr. Mitchell, when the mail is thus delayed r” “No, Sire, not when it is delayed, but often enough when it arrives duly.” This alludes to his being frequently dissatisfied with his own court. During the seven years’ war, in which, as we have already noticed, he constantly served immediately under Frederic, the English government had promised Frederic to send a fleet to the Baltic, for the protection of commerce, and to keep off the Swedes and Russians; but as this fleet never made its appearance, the Swedes were enabled to transport their army without interruption to Pomerania, together with all the necessaries for its support, and the Russians conveyed provisions for their troops by sea, and laid siege to Colberg, &c. All this could not fail to give umbrage to Frederic, and he incessantly complained to sir Andrew, who found himself embarrassed what reply to make. At length the ambassador, who had before been daily invited to dine with the king, received no longer this mark of attention; the generals, meeting him about the king’s hour of dinner, said to him, < It is dinner-time, M. Mitchell.“” Ah gentlemen,“replied he,” no fleet, no dinner“This was repeated to Frederic, and the invitations were renewed. Frederic in his fits of ill-humour was known to exercise his wit even at the expence of his allies; and the English minister at home expressed to sir Andrew Mitchell a wish that he would include some of these splenetic effusions in his official dispatches. Sir Andrew, however, in reply, stated the distinction between such kind of intelligence, and that which properly belonged to his office; and the application was not repeated, by which he was saved from the disgrace, for such he considered it, of descending to the littlenesses of a mere gossip and tale-bearer. We shall only add one more repartee of sir Andrew Mitchell, because, if we mistake not, it has been repeated as the property of other wits. After the affair of Port Mahon, the king of Prussia said to him,” You have made a bad beginning, M. Mitchell. What! your fleet beaten, and Port Mahon taken in your first campaign The trial in which you are proceeding against your admiral Byng is a bad plaister for the malady. You have made a pitiful campaign of it; this is certain.“” Sire, we hope, with God’s assistance, to make a better next year.“” With GocVs assistance, say you, Sir I did not know you had such an ally.“” We rely much upon him, though he costs us less than our other allies."

, was the son of a stone-cutter in North-Britain, and was born about 1684. Cibber tells us that he received an university education while he remained in that kingdom, but does not specify where. He quitted his own country, however, and repaired to London, with a view of improving his fortune. Here he got into favour with the earl of Stair and sir Robert Walpole; on the latter of whom he was for great part of his life almost entirely dependent. He received, indeed, so many obligations from that open-handed statesman, and, from a sense of gratitude which seems to have been strongly characteristic of his disposition, was so zealous in his interest, that he was distinguished by the title of “Sir Robert Walpole’s poet.” Notwithstanding this valuable patronage, his natural dissipation of temper, his fondness for pleasure, and eagerness in the gratification of every irregular appetite, threw him into perpetual distresses, and all those uneasy situations which are the inevitable consequences of extravagance. Nor does it appear that, after having experienced, more than once, the fatal effects of those dangerous follies, he thought of correcting his conduct at a time he had it in his power: for when, by the death of his wife’s uncle, several thousand pounds devolved to him, instead of discharging those debts which he had already contracted, he lavished the whole away, in the repetition of his former follies. As to the particulars of his history, there are not many on record, for his eminence in public character not rising to such an height as to make the transactions of his life important to strangers, and the follies of his private behaviour inducing those who were intimate with him, rather to conceal than publish his actions, there is a cloud of obscurity hanging over them, which is neither easy, nor indeed much worth while, to withdraw from them. His genius was of the third or fourth rate, yet he lived in good correspondence with most of the eminent wits of his time , particularly with Aaron Hill, who on a particular occasion finding himself unable to relieve him by pecuniary assistance, presented him with the profits and reputation also of a successful dramatic piece, in one act, entitled “The Fatal Extravagance.” It was acted and printed in Mitchell’s name; but he was ingenuous enough to undeceive the world with regard to its true author, and on every occasion acknowledged the obligations he lay under to Hill. The dramatic pieces, which appear under this gentleman’s name are, 1. “The Fatal Extravagance, a tragedy,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “The Fatal Extravagance, a tragedy, enlarged,” 1725, 12mo. 3. “The Highland Fair, ballad opera,” 1731, 8vo. The latter of these is really Mitchell’s, and is notwithout merit. This author died Feb. 6, 1738 and Gibber gives the following character of him “He seems to have been a poet of the third rate he has seldom reached the sublime his humour, in which he more succeeded, is not strong enough to last his versification holds a statd of mediocrity he possessed but little invention and if he was not a bad rhimester, he cannot be denominated a fine poet, for there are but few marks of genius in his writings.” His poems were printed 1729, in 2 vols. 8vo.

, a French poet, born at Chaumon in Bassigny in 1602, was admitted into the society and confidence of the Jesuits, and is said to have been the first Jesuit of France who acquired any fame by writing poetry in his native language. He was not, however, a poet of the first order; he was rather & college student, possessed of an ardent imagination, but devoid of taste; who, instead of restraining the hyperbolical flights of his genius, indulged them to the utmost. His greatest work was “Saint Louis, ou la Couronne reconquise sur les Infidelles,” an epic poem, in eighteen books. Boileau being asked his opinion of him, answered, “that he was too wrong-headed to be much commended, and too much of a poet to be strongly condemned.” He wrote many other poems of a smaller kind, and several works in prose, on divinity, and other subjects. He died at Paris, the 22d of Aug. 1672.

, warden of All Souls college, Oxford, was born in 1578 in Dorsetshire, and educated first at Brasenose college, whence in 1599 he was elected a fellow of All Souls, befng then four years standing in the degree of B. A. Afterwards he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. He hecame domestic chaplain to archbishop Abbot, and in Dec. 1610 was instituted to the rectory of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, which he resigned in December following. In 1611 he was made rector of St. Michael, Crooked-lane, but resigned it in June 1614, in consequence of having been in April preceding, elected warden of All Souls, on which occasion he took his degree of D. D. He held afterwards the rectory of Monks Risborow, in the county of Buckingham, and of Newington, near Dorchester, in Oxfordshire. He was one of the king' commissioners in ecclesiastical affairs, and died July 5, 1618, in the fortieth year of his age. Wood seems to insinuate that his death was hastened by the treatment his work received. This was a folio published at London in 1616, containing a Latin translation of the Liturgy, Catechisms, 39 articles, ordination book, and doctrinal points extracted from the homilies, to which he added, also in Latin, a treatise “de politia ecclesiae Anglicanac.” The design of this publication was to recommend the formularies and doctrines of the Church of England to foreign nations; but, according to Wood, there was such a leaning towards “Calvin’s Platform,” that the work was not only called in, but ordered to be publicly burnt. Heylin, who speaks highly of the author’s character and good intentions, thinks that the true cause of this work being so disgraced was, that in translating the 20th article, he omitted the first clause concerning the power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies, &c. His treatise “De Politia” was reprinted at London in 1683, 8vo, but the former edition we conceive is of rare occurrence, as we do not find it in the Bodleian or Museum catalogues.

, an eminent painter, was, according to some, born at Coldra, and to others, at Lugano, 1609. He was at first the disciple of Gesari d'Arpino, but formed a style of his own, selected from the principles of Albani and Guercino. He never indeed arrived at the grace of the former, but he excelled him in vigour of tint, in variety of invention, in spirited and resolute execution. He had studied colour with intense application at Venice, and excelled in fresco and in oil. Of the many pictures with which he enriched the churches and palaces of Rome, that of Joseph recognised by his brothers, on the Quirinal, is considered as the most eminent. If Mola possessed a considerable talent for history, he was a genius in landscape: his landscape every where exhibits in the most varied combination, and with the most vigorous touch, the sublime scenery of the territory in which he Was born. His predilection for landscape was such, that in his historic subjects it may often be doubted which is the principal, the actors or the scene; a fault which may be sometimes imputed to Titian himself. In many of Mola’s gallery-pictures, the figures have been ascribed to Albano. He reared three disciples, Antonio Gherardi of Rieti, who after his death entered the school of Cortona, and distinguished himself more by facility than elegance of execution Gia. Batista Boncuore of Rome, a painter at all times of great effect, though often somewhat heavy and Giovanni Bonati of Ferrara, called Giovannino del Pio, from the protection of that cardinal, who painted three altar-pieces of consideration at Rome, but died young. Mola died in 1665, aged fifty-six. He had a brother, John Baptist, who was born in 1620, and also learned the art of painting in the school of Albani. He proved a very good painter in history, as well as in landscape; but was far inferior to his brother, in style, dignity, taste, and colouring. In his manner he had more resemblance to the style of Albani, than to that of his brother; yet his figures are rather hard and dry, and want the mellowness of the master. However, there are four of his pictures in the Palazzo Salviati, at Rome, which are universally taken for the hand of Albani.

, viscount Molesworth of Swordes in Ireland, an eminent statesman and polite writer, was descended from a family, anciently seated in the counties of Northampton and Bedford in England; but his father having served in the civil wars in Ireland, settled afterwards in Dublin, where he became an eminent merchant, and died in 1656, leaving his wife pregnant with this only child, who raised his family to the honours they now enjoy. He was born in Dec. at Dublin, and bred in the college there; and engaged early in a marriage with a sister of Richard earl of Bellamont, who brought him a daughter in 1677. When the prince of Orange entered England in 1688, he distinguished himself by an early and zealous appearance for the revolution, which rendered him so obnoxious to king James, that he was attainted, and his estate sequestered by that king’s parliament, May 2, 1689. But when king William was settled on the throne, he called this sufferer, for whom he had a particular esteem, into his privy council; and, in 1692, sent him envoy extraordinary to the court of Denmark. Here he resided above three years, till, some particulars in his conduct disobliging his Danish majesty, he was forbidden the court. Pretending business in Flanders, he retired thither without any audience of leave, and came from thence home: where he was no sooner arrived, than he drew up “An Account of Denmark;” in which he represented the government of that country as arbitrary and tyrannical. This piece was greatly resented by prince George of Denmark, consort to the princess, afterwards queen Anne; and Scheel, the Danish envoy, first presented a memorial to king William, complaining of it, and then furnished materials for an answer, which was executed by Dr. William King. From King’s account it appears, that Molesworth’s offence in Denmark was, his boldly pretending to some privileges, which, by the custom of the country, are denied to every body but the king; as travelling the king’s road, and hunting the king’s game: which being done, as is represented, in defiance of opposition, occasioned the rupture between the envoy and that count. If this allegation have any truth, the fault lay certainly altogether on the side "of Molesworth whose disregard of the customs: of the country to which he was sent, cannot be defended.

In the mean time his book was well received by the public, reprinted thrice (and as lately as 1758), and translated into several languages. The spirit of it was particularly approved by the earl of Shaftesbury, author of the “Characteristics;” who from thence conceived a great esteem for him, which afterwards ripened into a close friendship. Molesworth’s view in writing the “Account of Denmark,” is clearly intimated in the preface, where he plainly give us his political, as well as his religious creed. He censures very severely the clergy in general, for defending the revolution upon any other principles than those of resistance, and the original contract, which he maintains to be the true and natural basis of the constitution; and that all other foundations are false, nonsensical, rotten, derogatory to the then present government, and absolutely destructive to the legal liberties of the English nation. As the preservation of these depends so much upon the right education of youth in the universities, he urges, also, in the strongest terms, the absolute necessity of purging and reforming those, by a royal visitation: so that the youth may not be trained up there, as he says they were, in the< slavish principles of passive obedience and jus divinum, but may be instituted after the manner of the Greeks and Romans, who in their academies recommended the duty to their country, the preservation of the law and public liberty: subservient to which they preached up moral virtues, such as fortitude, temperance, justice, a contempt of death, &c. sometimes making use of pious cheats, as Elysian fields, and an assurance of future happiness, if they died in the cause of their country; whereby they even deceived their hearers into greatness. This insinuation, that religion is nothing more than a pious cheat, and an useful state-engine, together with his pressing morality as the one thing necessary, without once mentioning the Christian religion, could not but be very agreeable to the author of the “Characteristics.” In reality, it made a remarkably strong impression on him, as we find him many years after declaring, in a letter to our author, in these terms: “You have long had my heart, even before I knew you, personally. For the holy and truly pious man, who revealed the greatest of mysteries: he who, with a truly generous love to mankind and his country, pointed out the state of Denmark to other states, and prophesied of things highly important to the growing age: he, I say, had already gained me as his sworn friend, before he was so kind as to make friendship reciprocal, by his acquaintance and expressed esteem. So that you may believe it no extraordinary transition in me, from making you in truth my oracle in public affairs, to make you a thorough confident in my private.” This private affair was a treaty of marriage with a relation of our author; and though the design miscarried, yet the whole tenor of the letters testifies the most intimate friendship between the writers.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

His last comedy was “Le malade imaginaire,” or The Hypochondriac and it was acted for the fourth time, Feb. 17, 1673. Upon this very day Moliere died and the manner of his death, as it was first reported, must have been extraordinary, if true. The chief person represented in “Le ma'iade imaginaire,” is a sick man, who, upon a certain occasion, pretends to be dead. Moliere represented that person, and consequently was obliged, in one of his scenes, to act the part of a dead man. The report, therefore, was that beexpired in that part of the play, and the poets took hold of this incident to show their wit, in a ^variety of jeux d'esprit, as if it had been a legitimate subject for jesting. The only decent lines on this occasion were the following, evidently written by some person of a graver character:

was permitted to have a long run. ridiculed; but Moliere, in the Tar‘­When Lows XIV. expressed to the tuftV,’ has attacked even the priests.“required the players also to bring their children to the rehearsals, that he might form his opinion of different passages from the natural expressions of their emotions. Moliere, who diverted himself on the theatre by laughing at the follies of mankind, could not guard against the effects of his own weakness. Seduced by a violent passion for the daughter of La Bejart, the actress, he married her, and was soon exposed to all the ridicule with which he had treated the husbands who were jealous of their wives. Happier in the society of his friends, he was beloved by his equals, and courted by the great. Marshal de Vivonne, the great Conde*, and even Lewis XIV. treated him with that familiarity which considers merit as on a level with birth. These flattering distinctions neither corrupted his understanding nor his heart. A poor man having returned him a piece of gold which he had given him by mistake,” In what a humble abode,“he exclaimed,” does Virtue dwell Here, my friend, take another.“When Baron informed him of one of his old theatrical companions whom extreme poverty prevented from appearing, Moliere sent for him, embraced him, and to words of consolation added a present of twenty pistoles and a rich theatrical dress.” When he was in the height of his reputation, Racine, who was just then come from Languedoc, and was scarcely known in Paris, went to see him, under pretence of consulting him about an ode which he had just finished. Moliere expressed such a favourable opinion of the ode, that Racine ventured to shew him his first tragedy, founded on the martyrdom of Theagenes and Chariclea, as he had read it in the Greek romance. Moliere, who had an honest consciousness of superiority, which exalted him above envy, was not sparing either of praise or of counsel. His liberality carried him still farther: he knew that Racine was not in easy circumstances, and therefore lent him a hundred louis-d'ors; thinking it a sufficient recompence to have the honour of producing a genius to the public, which, he foresaw, would one day be the glory of the stage. The French have very justly placed Moliere at the head of all their comic authors. There is, indeed, no author, in all the fruitful and distinguished age of Lewis XIV. who has attained a higher reputation, or who has more nearly reached the summit of perfection in his own art, according to the judgment of all the French critics. Voltaire boldly pronounces him to be the most eminent comic poet of any age or country nor, perhaps, is this the decision of mere partiality for, upon the whole, who deserves to be preferred to him When Louis XIV. insisted upon Boileau’s telling him who was the most original writer of his time, he answered, MoHere Moliere is always the satirist only of vice or folly. He has selected a great variety of ridiculous characters peculiar to the times in which he lived, and he has generally placed the ridicule justly. He possessed strong comic powers he is full of mirth and pleasantry and his pleasantry is always innocent. His comedies in verse, such as his “Misanthrope” and Tartuffe,“are a kind of dignified comedy, in which vice is exposed, in the style of elegant and polished satire. His verses have all the flow and freedom of conversation, yet he is said to have passed whole days’ in fixing upon a proper epithet or rhime. In his prose comedies, though there is abundance of ridicule, yet there is never any thing to offend a modest ear, or to throw contempt on sobriety and virtue. Together with those high qualities, Moliere has also some defects, which Voltaire, though his professed panegyrist, candidly admits. He is acknowledged not to be happy in the unravelling of his plots. Attentive more to the strong exhibition of characters, than to the conduct of the intrigue, his unravelling is frequently brought on with too little preparation, and in an improbable manner. In his verse comedies, he is sometimes not sufficiently interesting, and too full of long speeches; and in his risible pieces in prose, he is censured for being too farcical. Few writers, however, if any, ever possessed the spirit, or attained the true end of comedy, so perfectly, upon the whole, as Moliere. His” Tartuffe,“in the style of grave comedy, and his” Avare," in the gay, are accounted his two capital productions.

, born of a noble family at Cuenca, entered the Jesuits’ order, 1553, at the age of eighteen, and taught theology with reputation during twenty years in the university of Ebora. He died October 12, 1660, at Madrid, aged sixty-five. His principal works are, Commentaries on the first part of the Summary of St. Thomas, in Latin, a large treatise “De Justitia et Jure,” a book on “The Concordance of Grace and Free-will,” printed at Lisbon, 1588, 4to, in Latin, which ought to have at the end an appendix, printed in 1589. It is an apology from Molina against those who called some propositions in his book heretical, and this last work was what divided the Dominicans and the Jesuits into Thomists, and Molinists, and raised the famous disputes about grace and predestination. Molina’s object was to shew that the operations of divine grace were entirely consistent with the freedom of human will; and he introduced a new kind of hypothesis to remove the difficulties attending the doctrines of predestination and liberty, and to reconcile the jarring opinions of Augustinians, Thomists, Semi- Pelagians, and other contentious divines. Molina affirmed, that the decree of predestination to eternal glory was founded upon a previous knowledge and consideration of the merits of the elect; that the grace from whose operation these merits are derived, is not efficacious by its own intrinsic power only, but also by the consent of our own will, and because it is administered in those circumstances, in which the Deity, by that branch of his knowledge which is called scientia media, foresees that it will be efficacious. The kind of prescience, denominated in the schools scientia media, is that foreknowledge of future contingents, that arises from an acquaintance with the nature and faculties of rational beings, of the circumstances in which they shall be placed, of the objects that shall be presented to them, and of the influence which these circumstances and objects must have on their actions.

In order to put an end to these ‘contentions, pope Clement VIII. instituted the celebrated congregation ’De Auxiliis, in 1597; but after several assemblies of counsellors and cardinals, in which the Dominicans and Jesuits disputed contradictorily during nine years before the pope and the court of Rome, the affair was still undecided. Pope Paul V. under whom these disputes had been continued, at length published a decree, Aug. 31, 1607, forbidding the parties to defame or censure each other, and enjoining the superiors of both orders to punish those severely who should disregard this prohibition.

, descended from a very good family in the kingdom of Ireland, was born in the city of Dublin, and received part of his education at Trinity college there, of which he afterwards became a fellow. At his first coming to England he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and was supposed to have had a very considerable hand in the writing of a periodical paper, called “Fog’s Journal,” and afterwards to have been the principal writer of another well-known paper, entitled “Common Sense.” All these papers give testimony of strong' abilities, great depth of understanding, and clearness of reasoning. Dr. King was a considerable writer in the latter, as were lords Chesterfield and Lyttelton. Our author had large offers made him to write in defence of sir Robert Walpole, but these he rejected: notwithstanding which, at the great change in the ministry in 1742, he was entirely neglected, as well as his fellow-labourer Amherst, who conducted “The Craftsman.” Mr. Molloy, however, having married a lady of fortune, was in circumstances which enabled him to treat the ingratitude of his patriotic friends with the contempt it deserved. He lived many years after this period, dying so lately as July 16, 1767. He was buried at Edmonton, July 20. He also wrote three dramatic pieces, 1. “Perplexed Couple,” 1715, 12mo. 2. “The Coquet,” 1718, 8vo. 3. “Half-pay Officers,” 1720, 12mo. None of which met with any very extraordinary success.

Harris, in his edition of Ware’s “Writers of Ireland,” mentions another Charles Molloy, a native of the King’s County, and a lawyer pf the Inner Temple, who wrote “De Jure Maritime et Naval i, or a Treatise of Affairs Maritime, and of Commerce,” first published at London in 1676, and still known by many republications, the last of which was in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. He died under fifty years of age, in 1690, at his house in Cranes-court, Fleet-street. Harris gives some account also of a Francis Molloy, of King’s County, professor of divinity in the college of St. Isidore at Home, who wrote “Sacra Theologia,” Rome, 1666, 8vo “Grammatica Latino-Hibernica compendiata,” ibid. 1677, 12mo. Edward Lluyd, who has made an abn stract of this in his “Archeeologia Britannica,” says that it was the most complete Irish grammar then extant, although imperfect as to syntax, &c. He says also, what is less credible, that Molloy was not the author of it; although the latter puts his name to it, and speaks of it in the preface as his own work. Molloy’s other work is entitled “Lucerna Fidelium,” Rome, 1676, 8vo, which although the title is in Latin, is written in Irish, and contains an explanation of the Christian religion according to the faith of the church of Rome.

Pieces." It was printed on copper- was published, plates, and collected from a larger well as by the strength of his parts; and, having made a remarkable progress in academical learning, and particularly in the new philosophy, as it was then called, he proceeded at the regular time to his bachelor of arts degree. After four years spent in this university, he came to London, and was admitted into the Middle Temple in June 1675. He staid there three years, and applied himself to the study of the laws of his country, as much as was necessary for one who was not designed for the profession of the law; but the bent of his genius, as well as inclination, lying strongly to philosophy and mathematics, he spent the greatest part of his time in these inquiries, which, from the extraordinary advances newly made by the Royal Society, were then chiefly in vogue.

Thus accomplished, hfc returned to Ireland in June 1678, and shortly after married Lucy, daughter of sir William Domvile, the king’s attorney-general. Being master of an easy fortune, he continued to indulge himself in prosecuting such branches of moral and experimental philosophy as were most agreeable to his fancy; and astronomy having the greatest share, he began, about 1681, a literary correspondence with Flamsteed, the king’s astronomer, which he kept up for several years. In 1683, he formed a design of erecting a philosophical society at Dublin, in imitation of the royal society at London; and, by the countenance and encouragement of sir William Petty, who accepted the office of president, they began a weekly meeting that year, when our author was appointed their first secretary. The reputation of his parts and learning, which by means of this society became more known, recommended him, in 1684, to the notice and favour of the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant of Ireland; by whose influence he was appointed that year, jointly with sir William Robinson, surveyor-general of his majesty’s buildings and works, and chief engineer. In 1685, he was chosen fellow of the royal society at London; and that year, for the sake of improving himself in the art of engineering, he procured an appointment from the Irish government, to view the most considerable fortresses in Flanders. Accordingly he travelled through that country and Holland, and some part of Germany and France; and carrying with him letters of recommendation from Flamsteed to Cassini, he was introduced to him, and other eminent astronomers, in the several places through which he passed. Soon after his return from abroad, he printed at Dublin, in 1686, his “Sciothericum telescopium,” containing a description of the structure and use of a telescopic dial invented by him: another edition of which was published at London in 1700, 4to. On the publication of sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia” the following year, 1687, our author was struck with the same astonishment as the rest of the world; but declared also, that he was not qualified to examine the particulars. Halley, with whom he constantly corresponded, had sent him the several parts of this inestimable treasure, as they came from the press, before the whole was finished, assuring him, that he looked upon it as the utmost effort of human genius.

In 1688, the philosophic society at Dublin was broken up and dispersed by the confusion of the times. Mr. Molyneux had distinguished himself, as a member of it, from the beginning, by several discourses upon curious subjects; some of which were transmitted to the royal society at London, and afterwards printed in the “Philosophical Transactions.” In 1689, among great numbers of other Protestants, he withdrew from the disturbances in Ireland, occasioned by the severities of Tyrconnel’s government; and, after a short stay in London, fixed himself with his family at Chester. In this retirement he employed himself in putting together the materials he had some time before prepared for his “Dioptrics,” in which he was much assisted by Flamsteed; and, in August 1690, went to London to put it to the press, where the sheets were revised by Halley, who, at our author’s request, gave leave for printing, in the appendix, his celebrated theorem for finding the foci of optic glasses. Accordingly the book came out, 1692, in 4to, under the title of “Dioptrica nova: a Treatise of Dioptrics, in two parts; wherein the various Effects and Appearances of Spherical Glasses, both Convex and Concave, single and combined, in Telescopes and Microscopes, together with their usefulness in many concerns of Human Life, are explained.” He gave it the title of “Dioptrica nova,” not only because it was almost wholly new, very little being borrowed from other writers, but because it was the first book that appeared in English upon the subject. This work contains several of the most generally useful propositions for practice demonstrated in a clear and easy manner, for which reason it was many years much used by the artificers: and the second part it very entertaining, especially in his history which he gives of the several optical instruments, and of the discoveries made by them. The dedication of the “Dioptrics” being addressed to the royal society, he takes notice, among other improvements in philosophy, by building it upon experience, of the advances that had been lately made in logic by the celebrated John Locke.

Before he left Chester, he lost his lady, who died soon after she had brought him a son. Illness had deprived her of her eye-sight twelve years before, that is, soon after she was married; from which time she had been very sickly, and afflicted with extreme pains of the head. As soon as the public tranquillity was settled in his native country, he returned home; and, upon the convening of a new parliament in 1692, was chosen one of the representatives for the city of Dublin. In the next parliament, in 1695, he was chosen to represent the university there, and continued to do so to the end of his life; that learned body having, before the end of the first session of the former, conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws. He was likewise nominated, by the lord-lieutenant, one of the commissioners for the forfeited estates, to which employment was annexed a salary of five hundred pounds a-year; but looking upon it as an invidious office, and not being a lover of money, he declined it. In 1698, he published “The Case of Ireland stated, in relation to its being bound by Acts of Parliament made imEngland” in which he is supposed to have delivered all, or most, that can be said upon this subject, with great clearness and strength of reasoning. This piece (a second edition of which, with additions and emendations, was printed in 1720, 8vo,) was answered by John Gary, merchant of Bristol, in a book called, “A Vindication of the Parliament of England, &c.” dedicated to the lord-chancellor Somers, and by Atwood, a lawyer. Of these Nicolson remarks that “the merchant argues like a counsellor at law, and the barrister strings his small wares together like a shop-keeper.” What occasioned Molyneux to write the above tract, was his conceiving the Irish woollen manufactory to be oppressed by the English government; on which account he could not forbear asserting his country’s independency. He had given Mr. Locke a hint of his thoughts upon this subject, before it was quite ready for the press, and desired his sentiments upon the fundamental principle on which his argument was grounded; in answer to which that gentleman, intimating that the business was of too large an extent for the subject of a letter, proposed to talk the matter over with him in England. This, together with a purpose which Molyneux had long formed, of paying that great man , whom he had never yet seen, a visit, prevailed with him to cross the water once more, although he was in a very infirm state of health, in July this year, 1698; and he remained in England till the middle of September. But the pleasure of this long-wished-for interview, which he intended to have repeated the following spring, seems to have been purchased at the expence of his life; for, shortly after, he was seized with a severe fit of his constitutional distemper, the stone, which occasioned such retchings as broke a blood-vessel, and two days after put a period to his life. He died October 11, 1698, and was buried at Sr. Audoen’s church, Dublin, where there is a monument and Latin inscription to his memory. Besides the “Sciotbericum telescopicum,” and the “Dioptrica nova,” already mentioned, he published the following pieces in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 1. “Why four convexglasses in a telescope shew objects erect,” No. 53. 2. “Description of Lough Neagh, in Ireland,” No. 158. 3. “On the Connaught worm,” No. 168. -4. “Description of a new hygrometer,” No. 172. 5. “On the cause of winds and the change of weather, c.” No. 177. 6. “Why bodies dissolved swim in menstrua specifically lighter than themselves,” No. 181. 7. “On the Tides,” No. 184. 8. “Observations of Eclipses.” No. 164 185. 9. “Why celestial objects appear greatest near the horizon.” No. 187. 10. “On the errors of Surveyors, arising from the variation of the Magnetic-needle,” No. 230.

, son of the above, was born at Chester in July 1689, and educated with great care by his father, according to the plan laid down by Locke upon that subject. When his father died, he was committed to the care of his uncle Dr. Thomas Molyneux, an excellent scholar and physician at Dublin, and also an intimate friend of Mr. Locke;“who executed his trust so well, that Mr. Molyneux became afterwards a most polite and accomplished gentleman, and was made secretary to his late majesty George II. when he was prince of Wales. Astronomy and optics being his favourite study, as they had been his father’s, he projected many schemes for the advancement of them, and was particularly employed, in the years 1723, 1724, and 1725, in perfecting the method of making telescopes; one of which, of his own making, he had presented to John V. king of Portugal. In the midst of these thoughts, being appointed a commissioner of the admiralty, he became so engaged in public affairs, that he had not leisure to pursue these inquiries any farther; and gave his papers, to Dr. Robert Smith, professor of astronomy at Cambridge, whom he invited to make use of his house and apparatus of instruments, in order to finish what he had left imperfect. Mr. Molyneux dying soon after, in the flower of his age, Dr. Smith lost the opportunity; yet, supplying what was wanting from Mr. Huygens and others, he published the whole in his” Complete Treatise of Optics."

, The preceding William Molyneux had also a brother, Thomas, who was born in Dublin, and educated partly in the university there, and partly at Leyden and Paris. Returning home, he became professor of physic in the university of Dublin, fellow of the college of physicians, physician to the state, and physician- general to the army. He had also great practice, and in 1730 was created a baronet. He died Oct. 19, 1733. He had been a fellow of the royal society of London, and several of his pieces are published in the Transactions. He published, separately, “Some Letters to Mr. Locke,” Lond. 1708, 8vo.

, a native of Milan, who flourished in the fifteenth century, obtained considerable reputation for some Latin poems, particularly one on “The Passion,” but his most celebrated work was a collection of the “Lives of the Saints,” not a confused and credulous compilation, but which exceeded all preceding works of the kind, by the pains he took to distinguish truth from fable. This he was enabled to do by a judicious examination of all the existing authorities, and by availing himself of many Mss. which he discovered in public libraries, and carefully collated. In some instances he has admitted supposed for real facts, but in such a vast collection, a few mistakes of this kind are pardonable, especially as he brought to light much information not before made public. This work, which is of uncommon rarity and great price, is entitled “Sanctuarium, sive vitje Sanctorum,” 2 vols. fol. without date or place, but supposed to have been printed at Milan about 1479. Some copies want the last leaf of signature Nnnn, but even with that defect bear a very high price.

, was the son of sir Francis Monckton, knt. of Cavil Hall, and of Newbold, both in the East-riding of Yorkshire, and descended from an ancient family in that county, who possessed the lordship of Monckton before the place was made a nunnery, which was in the 20th Edward II. (1326). Sir Philip was born at Heck, near Howden, in Yorkshire, and was high sheriff for that county in the 21st Charles II. (1669). He served for some time in parliament for Scarborough, and had been knighted in 1643. His loyalty to Charles I. brought him under the cognizance of the usurpers, and for his loyal services he underwent two banishments, and several imprisonments during the course of the civil war; his grandfather, father, and himself, being all at one time sequestered by Cromwell. In consideration of these services and sufferings, king Charles II. in 1653, wrote a letter to him in his own hand (which was delivered by major Waters) promising that if it pleased God to restore him, he should share with him in his prosperity, as he had been content to do in his adversity; but he afterwards experienced the same ingratitude as many of his father’s friends, for when he waited on the lord chancellor Clarendon with a recommendation from the earl of Albemarle for some compensation for his services, he was treated with the utmost insolence, and dismissed with marked contempt. Sir Philip had been a prisoner in Belvoir castle, and was released on col. Rossiter’s letter to the lord general Fairfax in his favour. He fought at the several battles of Hessey Moor, Marston Moor, Aderton Moor, and at Rowton Heath, near Chester, where he was wounded in his right arm, and was forced to manage his horse with his teeth whilst he fought with his left, when he was again wounded and taken prisoner. He was likewise at the siege of Pontefract castle, and at York. He married miss Eyre, of an ancient family, of Hassop, in Derbyshire. His manuscripts are now in. the possession of his descendant, the lord viscount Galway.

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

, duke of Albemarle, memorable for having been the principal instrument in the restoration of Charles II. to his crown and kingdoms, was descended from a very ancient family, and born at Potheridge, in Devonshire, Dec. 6, 1608. He was a younger son; and, n provision being expected from his father, sir Thomas Monk, whose fortune was reduced, he dedicated himself to arms from his youth. He entered in 1625, when not quite seventeen, as a volunteer under sir Richard Grenville, then, at Plymouth, and just setting out under lord Wimbledon on the expedition against Spain. The year after he obtained a pair of colours, in the expedition to the isle of Rhee; whence returning in 1628, he served the following year as ensign in the Low Countries, where he was promoted to the rank of captain. In this station he was present in several sieges and battles; and having, in ten years service, made himself absolute master of the military art, he returned to his native country on the breaking out of the war between Charles I. and his Scotish subjects. His reputation, supported by proper recommendations, procured him the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in which post he served in both the king’s northern expeditions; and was afterwards a colonel, when the Irish rebellion took place. In the suppression of this he did such considerable service, that the lords justices appointed him governor of Dublin but the parliament intervening, that authority was vested in another. Soon after, on his signing a truce with the rebels, by the king’s order, September 1643, he returned with his regiment to England; but, on his arrival at Bristol, was met by orders both from Ireland and Oxford, directing the governor of that place to secure him. The governor, however, believing the suspicions conceived against him groundless, suffered him to proceed to Oxford on his bare parole; and there he so fully justified himself to lord Digby, then secretary of state, that he was by that nobleman introduced to the king; but his regiment was given to colonel Warren, who had been his major. As some amends for this, the king made him major-general in the Irish brigade, then employed in the siege of Nantwich, in Cheshire; at which place he arrived just soon enough to share in the unfortunate surprisal of that whole brigade by sir Thomas Fairfax. He was sent to Hull, and thence conveyed in a short time to the Tower of London, where he remained in close confinement till Nov. 13, 1646; and then, as the only means to be set at liberty, he took the covenant, engaged with the parliament, and agreed to accept a command under them in the Irish service. Some have charged him with ingratitude for thus deserting the king, who had been very kind to him during his confinement, and in particular had sent him from Oxford 100l. which was a great sum for his majesty, then much distressed. It has, however, been pleaded in his favour, that he never listened to any terms made him by the parliamentarians while the king had an army on foot. Whatever strength may he in this apology, it is certain that when his majesty was in the hands of his enemies, he readily accepted of a colonel’s commission; and, as he had been engaged against the Irish rebels before, he thought it consistent with the duty he owed, and which he had hitherto inviolably maintained to the king, to oppose them again. He set out for Ireland, Jan. 28, 1646-7, but returned in April on account of some impediments. Soon after, he had the command in chief of all the parliament’s forces in the north of Ireland conferred upon him; upon which he went again, and for the following two years performed several exploits worthy of an able and experienced soldier. Then he was called to account for having treated with the Irish rebels; and summoned to appear before the parliament, who, after hearing him at the bar of the house, passed this vote, Aug. 10, 1649, “That they did disapprove of what major-general Monk had done, in concluding a peace with the grand and bloody Irish rebel, Owen Roe O'Neal, and did abhor the having any thing to do with him therein; yet are easily persuaded, that the making the same by the said major-general was, in his judgment, most for the advantage of the English interest in that nation; and, that he shall not be further questioned for the same in time to come.” This vote highly offended the major-general, though not so much as some passages in the House, reflecting on his honour and fidelity. He was, perhaps, the more offended at this treatment, as he was not employed in the reduction of Ireland under Oliver Cromwell; who, all accounts agree, received considerable advantage from this very treaty with O‘Neal. Monk’s friends endeavoured to clear his reputation his reasons for agreeing with O’Neal were also printed yet nothing could wipe off the stain of treating with Irish rebels, till it was forgotten in his future fortune.

About this time his elder brother died without issue male; and the family estate by entail devolving upon him, he repaired it from the ruinous condition in which his father and brother had left it. He had scarce settled his private affairs, when he was called to serve against the Scots (who had proclaimed Charles II.) under Oliver Cromwell; by whom he was made lieutenant-general of the artillery, and had a regiment given him. His services were now so important, that Cromwell left him commander in chief in Scotland, when he returned to England to pursue Charles II. In 1652, he was seized with a violent fit of illness, which obliged him to go to Bath for the recovery of his health: after which, he set out again for Scotland, was one of the commissioners for uniting that kingdom with the new-erected commonwealth, and, having successfully concluded it, returned to London. The Dutch war having now been carried on for some months, lieutenant-general Monk was joined with the admirals Blake and Dean in the command at sea; in which service, June 2, 1653, he contributed greatly by his courage and conduct to the defeat of the Dutch fleet. Monk and Dean were on board the same ship; and, Dean being killed the first broadside, Monk threw his cloak over the body, and gave orders for continuing the fight, without suffering the enemy to know that we had lost one of our admirals. Cromwell, in the mean time, was paving his way to the supreme command, which, Dec. 16, 1653, he obtained, under the title of protector; and, in this capacity, soon concluded a peace with the Dutch. Monk remonstrated warmly against the terms of this peace; and his remonstrances were well received by Oliver’s own parliament. Monk also, on his return home, was treated so respectfully by them, that Oliver is said to have grown jealous of him, as if he had been inclined to another interest, but, receiving satisfaction from the general on that head, he not only took him into favour, but, on the breaking out of fresh troubles in Scotland, sent him there as commander in chief. He set out in April 1654, and finished the war by August; when he returned from the Highlands, and fixed his abode at Dalkeith, a seat belonging to the countess of Buccleugh, within five miles of Edinburgh: and here he resided during the remaining time that he stayed in Scotland, which was five years, amusing himself with rural pleasures, and beloved by the people, though his government was more arbitrary than any they had experienced. He exercised this government as one of the protector’s council of state in Scotland, whose commission bore date in June 1655. Cromwell, however, could not help distrusting him at times, on account of his popularity; nor was this distrust entirely without the appearance of foundation. It is certain the fcing entertained good hopes of him, and to that purpose sent to him the following letter from Colen, Aug. 12, 1655.

"One, who believes he knows your nature and inclinations very well, assures me, that, notwithstanding all ill accidents and misfortunes, you retain still your old affection to me, and resolve to express it upon the first seasonable opportunity; which is as much as I look for from you. We must all patiently wait for that opportunity, which may be offered sooner than we expect when it is, let it find you ready and, in the mean time, have a care to keep yourself out of their hands, who know the hurt you can do them in a good conjuncture, and can never but suspect your affection to be, as I am confident it is, towards

However, Monk made no scruple of discovering every step taken by the cavaliers which came to his knowledge, even to the sending the protector this letter; and joined in promoting addresses to him from the army, one of which was received by the protector March 19, 1657, in which year Monk received a summons to Oliver’s house of lords. Upon the death of Oliver, Monk joined in an address to the new protector Richard, whose power, nevertheless, he foresaw would be but short-lived; it having been his opinion, that Oliver, had he lived much longer, would scarce have been able to preserve himself in his station. And indeed Cromwell himself began to be apprehensive of that great alteration which happened after his death, and fearful that the general was deeply engaged in those measures which procured it; if we may judge from a letter written by him to general Monk a little before, to which was added the following remarkable postscript: “There be that tell me, that there is a certain cunning fellow in Scotland, called George Monk, who is said to lie in wait there to introduce Charles Stuart; I pray you, use your diligence to apprehend him, and send him up to me.” It belongs to history to relate all the steps which led to the restoration of Charles II. and which were ably conducted by Monk. Immediately after that event, he was loaded with pensions and honours; was made knight of the garter, one of the privycouncil, master of the horse, a gentleman of the bedehamber, first lord-commissioner of the treasury; and soon after created a peer, being made baron Monk of Potheridge, Beauchamp, and Tees, earl of Torrington, and duke of Albemarle, with a grant of 7000Z. per annum, estate of inheritance, besides other pensions. He received a very peculiar acknowledgment of regard on being thus called to the peerage; almost the whole house of commons attending him to the very door of the house of lords, while he behaved with great moderation, silence, and humility. This behaviour was really to be admired in a man, who, by his personal merit, had raised himself within the reach of a crown, which he had the prudence, or the virtue, to wave: yet he preserved it to the end of his life: insomuch, that the king, who used to call him his political father, said, very highly to his honour, “the duke of Albemarle demeaned himself in such a manner to the prince he had obliged, as never to seem to overvalue the services of general Monk.*‘ During tRe remainder of his life he was consulted and employed upon all great occasions by the king, and a.t the same time appears to have been esteemed and beloved by his fellow-subjects. In 1664, on the breaking out of the first Dutch war, he was, by the duke of York, who commanded the fleet, intrusted with the care of the admiralty: and, the plague breaking out the same year in London, he was intrusted likewise, with the care of the city by the king, who retired to Oxford. He was, at the latter end of the year, appointed joint-admiral of the fleet with prince Rupert, and distinguished himself with great bravery against the Dutch. In September 1666, the fire of London occasioned the Duke of Albemarle to be recalled from the fleet, to assist in quieting the minds of the people; who expressed their affection and esteem for him, by crying out publicly, as he passed through the ruine’d streets, that,” if his grace had been there, the city had not been burned." The many hardships and fatigues he had undergone in a military life began to shake his constitution somewhat early; so that about his 60th year he was attacked with a dropsy; which, being too much neglected, perhaps on account of his having been hitherto remarkably healthy, advanced very rapidly, and put a period to his life, Jan. 3, 1669-7O, when he was entering his 62d year. He died in the esteem of his sovereign, and his brother the duke of York, as appears not only from the high posts he enjoyed, and. the great trust reposed in him by both, but also from the tender concern shewn by them, in a constant inquiry after his state during his last illness, and the public' and princely paid to his memory after his decease; for, his funeral was honoured with all imaginable pomp and solemnity, and his ashes admitted to mingle with those of the royal blood; he being interred, April 4, 1670, in Henry the Vllth’s chapel at Westminster, after his corpse had lain in state many weeks at Somerset-house.

The duke of Albemarle’s character has been variously represented, and some parts of it cannot, perhaps, be defended without an appeal to those principles of policy which are frequently at variance with morality. Hume, however, thinks it a singular proof of the strange power of faction, that any malignity (alluding to such writers as Burnet, Harris, &c.) should pursue the memory of a nobleman, the tenour of whose iife^was so unexceptionable, and who, by restoring the ancient and legal and free government to three kingdoms plunged in the most destructive anarchy, may safely be said to be the subject in these islands, w4io, since the beginning of time, rendered the most durable and most essential services to his native country. The means also, by which he atchieved his great undertakings, were almost entirely unexceptionable. “His temporary dissimulation,” continues Hume, “being absolutely necessary, could scarcely be blameable. He had received no trust from that mongrel, pretended, usurping parliament whom he dethroned therefore could betray none he even refused to carry his dissimulation so far as to take the oath of abjuration against the king.” Yet Hume allows that in his letter to Sir Arthur Hazelrig (in the Clarendon papers) he is to be blamed for his false protestations of zeal for a commonwealth.

, daughter of Lord Molesworth, and wife to George Monk, esq. was celebrated for her poetical talents. She acquired by her own application a perfect knowledge of the Latin, Italian, and Spanish languages; and, from a study of the best authors, a decided taste for poetical composition. She appears to have written for her own amusement, rather than with any view to publication. Her poems were not printed till after her death, when they were published under the title of “Marinda; Poems and Translations upon several Occasions,” London, 1716, 8vo. A dedication'to Caroline, princess of Wales, was prefixed to them by lord Molesworth, the father of Mrs. Monk, who speaks of the poems as the production * c of the leisure hours of a young woman, who, in a remote country retirement, without other assistance than that of a good library, and without omitting the daily care due to a large family, not only acquired the several languages here made use of, but the good morals and principles contained in those books, so as to put them in practice, as well during her life and languishing sickness, as at the hour of her death; dying not only like a Christian, but a Roman lady, and becoming at once the grief and the comfort of her relations.“She died in 1715, at B^t 1. On her deathbed she wrote some very affecting verses to her husband, which are not printed in her works, but may be found in vol. II. of the” Poems of Eminent Ladies,“and in” Cibber’s Lives."

During his long career he was considered among his friends as the soul of astronomy, and made numerous proselytes to this study by his advice, example, and instructions. It is to him we chiefly owe the early progress of two celebrated astronomers, Lalande and Pingre. Le Monnier died in 1799, in the 84th year of his age. He had a brother, Lewis William, a very able experimental philosopher, but who is not to be confounded with an abbe of that name who translated Terence and Persius into French, and who was the author of fables, tales, and epistles. The latter died in 1796.

, a learned French poet, was born in Dijon, the capital of Burgundy, June 15, 1641, He was a man of parts and learning, had a decided taste for poetry; and, in 1671, had a fair opportunity of displaying his talents. The subject of the prize of poetry, founded by the members of the French academy at this time, was, “The Suppressing of Duelling by Lewis XIV.” As this was the first contest of the kind, the candidates were numerous and eager; but la Monnoye succeeded, and had the honour of being the first who won the prize Founded by the French academy; by which he gained a reputation that increased ever after. In 1673, he was a candidate for the new prize, the subject of which was, “The protection with which his Gallic majesty honoured the French academy;” but his poem came too late. He won the prize in 1675, on “The glory of arms and learning under Lewis XIV;” and that also of 1677, on “The Education of the Dauphin.” On this occasion, the highest compliment was made him by the abbe* Regnier; who said, that “it would be proper for the French academy to elect Mr. de la Monnoye upon the first vacancy, because, as he would thereby be disqualified from writing any more, such as should then be candidates would be encouraged to write.” It was indeed said, that he discontinued to write for these prizes at the solicitation of the academy; a circumstance which, if true, reflects higher honour on him than a thousand prizes. He wrote many other successful pieces, and was no less applauded in Latin poetry than in the French. Menage and Bayle have both bestowed the highest encomiums on his Latin poetry. His Greek and Italian poems are likewise much commended by the French critics.

But poetry was not la Monnoye’s only province: to a perfect skill in poetry, he joined a very accurate and extensive knowledge of the languages. He was also an acute critic: and no man applied himself with greater assiduity to the study of history, ancient and modern. He was perfectly acquainted with all the scarce books, that had anything curious in them, and was well versed in literary history. He wrote “Remarks on the Menagiana:” in the last edition of which, printed in 1715, in 4 vols. 12mo, are included several pieces of his poetry, and a curious dissertation on the famous book “De tribus Impostoribus.” His “Dissertation on Pomponius Laetus,” at least an extract of it, is inserted in the new edition of Baillet’s “Jugemens des Sgavans,” published in 1722, with a great nnmber of remarks and corrections by la Monnoye. He also embellished the “Anti-Baillet of Menage;” with corrections and notes. He was a great benefactor to literature, by his own productions, and the assistance which he communicatd very freely, upon all occasions, to other authors. Among others, he favoured Bayle with a great number of curious particulars for his “Dictionary,” which was liberally acknowledged. He died at Paris, Oct. 15, 1728, in his 88th year. Mr. de Sallingre published at the Hague “A Collection of Poems by la Monnoye,” with his eulogium, to which we owe many of the particulars given above. He also left behind him “A Collection of Letters,” mostly critical several curious “Dissertations” three hundred “Select Epigrams from Martial, and other Poets-, ancient and modern, in French verse;” and several other works in prose and verse, in French, Latin, and Greek, ready for the press. A collection of his works in 3 vols. 8vo, was published in 1769. He deserved that the French academy should admit into their list a person on whom they had so often bestowed their laurels, and he might, doubtless, have obtained that honour sooner, had he sued for it: but, as he declined sueh solicitation, he was not elected till 1713, on the death of abbe Regner des Marias. He married Claude Henriot, whom he survived, after living many years with her in the strictest amity; as appears from a copy of his verses, and also from the epitaph he wrote for himself and his wife. He had accumulated a very curious and valuable library, but was obliged, by the failure of the Missisippi scheme, to propose selling it, in order to support his family. This the duke de Villeroi hearing, settled an annual pension of 6000 livres upon him; for which he expressed his gratitude, in a poem addressed to that nobleman. It is said, however, that the duke did it only upon condition, that himself should inherit the library after the death of la Monnoye, who accepted the terms.

Dr. Monro, who was indefatigable in the labours of his office, soon made himself known to the professional world by a variety of ingenious and valuable publications. His first and principal publication was his “Osteology, or Treatise on the Anatomy of the Bones,” which appeared in 1726, and passed through eight editions during his life, and was translated into most of the languages of Europe. To the later editions of this work he subjoined a concise neurology, or description of the nerves, and a very accurate account of the lacteal system and thoracic duct.

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

Dr. Monro defines madness to be a “vitiated judgment;” though he declares, at the same time, he “cannot take upon him to say, that even this definition is absolute and perfect.” His little work contains the most judicious and accurate remarks on this unhappy disorder; and the character which, in the course of it, he draws of his father, is so spirited, and so full of the warmth of filial affection, as to merit being selected. “To say he understood this distemper beyond any of his contemporaries is very little praise; the person who is most conversant in such cases, provided he has but common sense enough to avoid metaphysical subtilties, will be enabled, by his extensive knowledge and experience, to excel all those who have not the same opportunities of receiving information. He was a man of admirable discernment, and treated this disease with an address that will not soon be equalled; he knew very well, that the management requisite for it was never to be learned but from observation; he was honest and sincere, and though no man was more communicative upon points of real use, he never thought of reading lectures on a subject that can be understood no otherwise than by personal observation: physic he honoured as a profession, but he despised it as a trade; however partial I may be to his memory, his friends acknowledge this to be true, and his enemies will not venture to deny it.”

In 1753, Dr. Monro married Miss Elizabeth Smith, second daughter of Mr. Thomas Smith, merchant, of London, by whom he had six children. The eldest of these, John, was designed for the profession of physic, and had made a considerable progress in his studies, but died, after a short illness, at St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1779, in the 25th year of his age. The loss of his eldest son was severely felt by Dr. Monro, to whom he was endeared by his many amiable qualities and promising abilities; and this loss was aggravated by that of his only daughter, Charlotte, who was carried off in the 22d year of her age, by a rapid consumption, within four years afterwards. She was a young lady, who, to a native elegance of manners, added excellent sense, and an uncommon sweetness of disposition. It is not wonderful, therefore, that her loss should prove a severe blow to a father who loved her with the most lively affection. He was now in his 63th year, and had hitherto enjoyed an uncommon share of good health; but the constant anxiety he was under during his daughter’s illness, preyed upon his mind, and brought on a paralytic stroke in January 1783. The strength of his constitution, however, enabled him to overcome the first effects of this disorder, and to resume the exercise of his profession; but his vigour, both of mind and body, began from this time to decline. In 1787, his youngest son, Dr. Thomas Monro (who, on the death of his eldest brother, had applied himself to the study of physic,) was appointed his assistant at Bethlem hospital; and he thenceforward gradually withdrew himself from business, till the beginning of 1791, when he retired altogether to the village of Hadley, near Barnet; and in this retirement he continued till his death, which happened, after a few days illness, on the 27th of December, in the same year, and in the 77th year of his age.

Dr. Monro was tall and handsome in his person, and of a robust constitution of body. Though naturally of a grave cast of mind, no man enjoyed the pleasures of society with a greater relish. To great warmth of temper he added a nice sense of honour; and, though avowedly at the head of that branch of his profession to which he confined his practice, yet his behaviour was gentle and modest, and his manners refined and elegant in an eminent degree. He possessed an excellent understanding, and great humanity <>t disposition but the leading features of his character were disinterestedness and generosity; as he has said of his father, so may it, with equal truth, be said of himself “physic he honoured as a profession, but he despised it as a trade” Never did he aggravate the misery of those who were in want, by accepting what could ill be spared; whilst he frequently contributed as much by his bounty as his professional skill to alleviate the distress he was forced to witness. It was the remark of a, man of acute observation, who knew him intimately, “that he had met with many persons who affected to hold money in contempt, but Dr. Monro was the only man he had found who really did despise it.”

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

In March 1691, Mr. Montague first displayed his abilities in the debates upon the bill for regulating trials in cases of high treason; the design of this bill, among other things, was to allow counsel to prisoners charged w4th that offence, while the trial was depending. Montague rose up to speak for it, but after uttering a few sentences, was struck so suddenly with surprise, that, for a while, he was not able to go on. Recovering himself, he took occasion, from this circumstance, “to enforce the necessity of allowing counsel to prisoners, who were to appear before their judges; since he, who was not only innocent, and unaccused, but one of their own members, was so dashed when he was to speak before that wise and illustrious assembly.”

As he was a patron of poets, his own works did not miss of celebration. Addison began to praise him early, and was followed or accompanied by other poets; perhaps by almost all, except Swift and Pope, who forbore to flatter him in his life, because he had disappointed their hopes; and after his death spoke of him, Swift with slight censure, and Pope in the character of Bufo with acrimonious contempt*.

He appears, however, about this time, to have conceived a dislike against his employers for which two reasons are assigned the one, that previous to his sailing, the parliament had tied him down to act only in conjunction with their commissioners, one of whom was Algernon Sidney; and the other, that they had given away his regiment of horse. While thus employed, and with these feelings, Charles II. sent him two letters, one from himself, and the other from chancellor Hyde, the purpose of which was to induce him to withdraw from the service of parliament, and, as a necessary step, to return with the fleet to England, where it might be ready to act in conjunction with sir George Booth and others, who were already disposed to promote the restoration. He accordingly set sail for England, but had the mortification to find that sir George Booth was in the Tower, the parliament in full authority, and a charge against himself brought by Algernon Sidney. He set out, however, for London, and defended his conduct to parliament with so much plausibility, that the only consequence was his being dismissed from his command.

His retirement was not of long duration; and upon the nearer approach of the restoration, general Monk having procured him to be replaced in his former rank in the navy, he convoyed the king to England, who made him a knight of the garter, and soon afterwards created him baron Montague of St. Neots in Huntingdonshire, viscount Hinchinbroke in the same county, and earl of Sandwich in Kent, He was likewise sworn a member of the privy council, made master of the king’s wardrobe, admiral of the narrow seas, and lieutenant admiral to the duke of York, as lord high admiral of England. When the Dutch war 'began in 1664, the duke of York took upon him the command of the fleet as high admiral, and the earl of Sandwich commanded the blue squadron; and by his well-timed efforts, a great number of the enemy’s ships were taken. In the great battle, JuneS, 1665, when the Dutch lost their admiral Opdam, and had eighteen men of war taken, and fourteen destroyed, a large share of the honour of the victory was justly assigned to the earl of Sandwich, who also on Sept. 4, of the same year, took eight Dutch men of war, two of their best East India ships, and twenty sail of their merchantmen.

The character of this nobleman may be inferred from the above particulars. Of his bravery and skill both as a commander and statesman, there cannot be any difference of opinion; but there are the strongest inconsistencies in his political career, and perhaps greater inconsistencies in the dispensation of courf-favours after the restoration. He had contributed to dethrone the father, and had offered the son’s crown to the usurper; yet for his slow services at the very eve of the restoration, Charles II. heaped rewards and honours upon him, while he neglected thousands who had, at the risk of life and property, adhered to the royal cause through all its vicissitudes.

Lord Orford, who has given this nobleman a place iri his “Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors,” mentions of his writing, “A Letter to Secretary Thurloe,” in the first volume of “Thurloe’s State-papers;” -“Several Letters during his Embassy to Spain,” published with “Arlington’s Letters;” and “Original Letters and Negotiations of Sir Richard Fanshaw, the Earl of Sandwich, the Earl of Sunderland, and Sir William Godolphin, wherein divers matters between the three Crowns of England, Spain, and Portugal, from 1603 to 1678, are set in a clear light,” in 2 vols. 8vo. He was also the author of a singular translation, called “The Art of Metals, in which is declared, the manner of their Generation, and the Concomitants of them, in two books, written in Spanish by Albaro Alonzo Barba, M. A. curate of St. Bernard’s parish, in the imperial city of Potosi, in the kingdom of Peru, in the West Indies, in. 1640; translated in 1669, by the right honourable Edward earl of Sandwich,” 1674, a small 8vo. A short preface of the editor says “The original was regarded in Spain and the West Indies as an inestimable jewel but that, falling int the earl’s hands, he enriched our language with it, being content that all our lord the king’s people should be philosophers.” There are also some astronomical observations of his in No. 21 of the Philosophical Transactions.

, fourth earl of Sandwich, son of Edward Richard Montague, lord viscount Hinchinbroke, and Elizabeth only daughter of Alexander Popham, esq. of Littlecote in the county of Wilts, was born in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, Westminster, Nov. 15, 1718. He was sent at an early age to Eton school, where, under the tuition of 'Dr. George, he made a considerable proficiency in the classics. In 1735, he was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, and during his residence there, he and the late lord Halifax were particularly distinguished for their college exercises; and were the first noblemen who declaimed publicly in the college chapel. After spending about two years at Cambridge, he set out on a voyage round the Mediterranean, his account of which has recently been published. Mr. Ponsonby, late earl of Besborough, Mr. Nelthorpe, and Mr. Mackye, accompanied his lordship (for he was now earl of Sandwich) on this agreeable tour, with Liotard the painter, as we have noticed in his article (vol. XX.) On his lordship’s return to England, he brought with him, as appears by a letter written by him to the rev. Dr. Dampier, “two mummies and eight embalmed ibis’s from the catacombs of Memphis a large quantity of the famous Egyptian papyrus fifteen intaglios five hundred medals, most of them easier to be read than that which has the inscription TAMttlN a marble vase from Athens, and a very long inscription as yet nndecyphered, on both sides of a piece of marble of about two feet in height.” This marble was afterwards presented to Trinity college, and the inscription was explained by the late learned Dr. Taylor, in 1743, by the title of Marmor Sandvicense.

“The earl of Sandwich,” says his biographer, “was rather to be considered as an able and intelligent speaker, then a brilliant and eloquent orator. In his early parliamentary career, he displayed uncommon knowledge of the sort of composition adapted to make an impression on a popular assembly; and from a happy choice of words, and a judicious arrangement of his argument, he seldom spoke without producing a sensible effect on the mind of every impartial auditor. In the latter part of his political life, and especially during the American war, his harangues were less remarkable for their grace and ornament, than for sound sense, and the valuable and appropriate information which they communicated. His speeches, therefore, were regarded as the lessons of experience and wisdom. He was never ambitious of obtruding himself upon the house. He had a peculiar delicacy of forbearance, arising from a sense of propriety; which, if more generally practised, would tend very much to expedite the public business by compressing the debates, now usually drawn out to an immeasurable and tiresome length, within more reasonable bounds. If, after having prepared himself on any important question, when he rose in the house any other lord first caught the chancellor’s eye, he sat down with the most accommodating patience; and, if the lord, who spoke before him, anticipated the sentiments which he meant to offer, he either did not speak at all, or only spoke to such points as had not been adverted to by the preceding speaker. Whenever, therefore, he rose, the House was assured that he had something material to communicate: he was accordingly listened to with attention, and seldom sat down without furnishing their lordships with facts at once important and interesting; of which no other peer was so perfectly master as himself. During the period of the American war he was frequently attacked in both houses for his official conduct or imputed malversation. When any such attempts were made in the House of Peers, he heard his accusers with patience, and with equal temper as firmness refuted their allegations, exposing their fallacy or their falsehood. On all such occasions, he met his opponents fairly and openly, in some instances concurring in their motions for papers, which his adversaries imagined would prove him a negligent minister; in others resisting their object, by shewing the inexpediency or the impolicy of complying with their requests. In the parliamentary contest, to which the unfortunate events of the American war gave rise, he is to be found more than once rising in reply to the late earl of Chatham; whose extraordinary powers of eloquence inspired sufficient awe to silence and intimidate even lords of acknowledged ability. Lord Sandwich never in such cases suffered himself to he dazzled by the splendor of oratorical talents; or ever spoke without affording proof that his reply was necessary and adequate. In fact, his lordship never rose without first satisfying himself, that the speaker he meant to reply to was in error; and that a plain statement of the facts in question would dissipate the delusion, and afford conviction to the house. By this judicious conduct his lordship secured the respect of those whom he addressed, and commanded at all times an attentive hearing.”

In 1716, Mr. Wortley resigned his situation as a lord of the treasury, on being appointed ambassador to the Porte, in order to negociate peace between the Turks and Imperialists. Lady Mary determined to accompany him in this difficult and, during war, dangerous journey, and while travelling, and after her arrival in the Levant, amused herself and delighted her friends by a regular correspondence, chiefly directed to her sister the countess of Mar, lady Rich, and Mrs. Thistlethwaite, both ladies of the court, and to Mr. Pope. Previously to her arrival at the capital of the Ottoman empire, the embassy rested about two months at Adrianople, to which city the Sultan, Achmed the third, had removed his court. It was here that she first was enabled to become acquainted with the customs of the Turks, and to give so lively and so just a picture of their domestic manners and usages of ceremony. Her admission into the interior of the seraglio was one of her most remarkable adventures, and most singular privileges, and gave rise to many strange conjectures, which it is not now necessary to revive. It is more important to record that, during her residence at Constantinople, she was enabled to confer on Europe a benefit of the greatest consequence; namely, inoculation for the small-pox, which was at that time universal in the Turkish dominions. This practice she examined with such attention as to become perfectly satisfied with its efficacy, and gave the most intrepid and convincing proof of her belief, in 1717, by inoculating her son, who was then about three years old. Mr. Maitland, who had attended the embassy in a medical character, first endeavoured to establish the practice in London, and was encouraged by lady Mary’s patronage. In 1721 the experiment was successfully tried on some criminals. With so much ardour did lady Mary, on her return, enforce this salutary innovation among mothers of her own rank, that, as we find in her letters, much of her time was necessarily dedicated to various consultations, and to the superintendence of the success of her plan. In 1722, she had a daughter of six years old, inoculated, who was afterwards countess of Bute and in a short time the children of the royal family, that had not had the small- pox, underwent the same operation with success then followed some of the nobility, and the practice gradually prevailed among all ranks, although it had to encounter very strong prejudices; and was soon extended, by Mr. Maitland to Scotland, and by other operators to most parts of Europe.

Mr. Wortley’s negociations at the Porte having failed, owing to the high demands of the Imperialists, he received letters of recall, Oct. 28, 1717, but did not commence his journey till June 1718; in October of the same year he arrived in England. Soon after, lady Mary was solicited by Mr. Pope to fix her summer residence at Twickenham, with which she complied, and mutual admiration seemed to knit these kindred geniuses in indissoluble bonds. A short time, however, proved that their friendship was not superhuman. Jealousy of her talents, and a difference in political sentiments, appear to have been the primary causes of that dislike which soon manifested itself without ceremony and without delicacy. Lady Mary was attached to the Walpole administration and principles. Pope hated the whigs, and was at no pains to conceal his aversion in conversation or writing. What was worse, lady Mary had for some time omitted to consult him upon any new poetical production, and even when he had been formerly very free with his emendations, was wont to say, “Come, no touching, Pope, for what is good, the world will give to you, and leave the bad for me;” and she was well aware that he disingenuously encouraged that idea. But the more immediate cause of their implacability, was a satire in the form of a pastoral, entitled “Town Eclogues.” These were some of lady Mary’s earliest poetical attempts, and had been written previously to her leaving England. After her return, they were communicated to a favoured few, and no doubt highly relished from their supposed, or real personal allusions. Both Pope and Gay suggested many additions and alterations, which were certainly not adopted by lady Mary; and as copies, including their corrections, were found among the papers of these poets, their editors have attributed three out of six to them. “The Basset Table,” and The Drawing Room,“are given to Pope and the” Toilet“to Gay. The publication, however, of these poems, in the name of Pope, by Curl, a bookseller who hesitated at nothing mean or infamous, appears to have put a final stop to all intercourse between Pope and lady Mary.” Irritated,“says her late biographer,” by Pope’s ceaseless petulance, and disgusted by his subterfuge, she now retired totally from his society, and certainly did not abstain from sarcastic observations, which were always repeated to him.“The angry bard retaliated in the most gross and public manner against her and her friend lord Hervey. Of this controversy, which is admirably detailed by Mr. Dallaway, we shall only add, that Dr. Warton and Dr. Johnson agree in condemning the prevarication with which Pope evaded every direct charge of his ungrateful behaviour to those whose patronage he had once servilely solicited; and even his panegyrical commentator, Dr. Warburton, confesses that there were allegations against him, which” he was not quite clear of."

The year following her death, appeared “Letters of Lady M y W y M” in 3 vols. 12mo, of which publication Mr. Dallaway has given a very curious history. By this it appears that after lady Mary had collected copies of the letters which she had written during Mr. Wortley’s embassy, she transcribed them in two small quarto volumes, and upon her return to England in 1761, gave them to Mr. Sowden, a clergyman at Rotterdam, to be disposed of as he thought proper. After her death, the late earl of Bute purchased them of Mr. Sowden, but they were scarcely landed in England when the above mentioned edition was published. On farther application to Mr. Sowden, it could only be gathered that two English gentlemen once called on him to see the letters, and contrived, during his being called away, to go off with them, although they returned them next morning with many apologies. Whoever will look at the three 12mo volumes, may perceive that with the help of a few amanuenses, there was sufficient time to transcribe them during this interval. Cleland was the editor of the publication, and probably one of the “gentlemen” concerned in the trick of obtaining the copies. The appearance of these letters, however, excited universal attention, nor on a re-perusal of them at this improved period of female literature, can any thing be deducted from Dr. Smollett’s opinion in the “Critical Review,” of which he was then conductor. “The publication of these letters will be an immortal monument to the memory of lady M. W. M. and will shew, as long as the English language endures, the sprightliness of her wit, the solidity of her judgment, the elegance of her taste, and the excellence of her real character. These letters are so bewitchingly entertaining, that we defy the most phlegmatic man on earth to read one without going through with them, or after finishing the third volume, not to wish there were twenty more of them.” Other critics were not so enraptured, and seemed to doubt their authenticity, which, however, is now placed beyond all question by the following- publication, “The Works of the right hon. lady M. W. M. including her correspondence, poems, and essays, published by permission (of the Earl of Bute) from her genuine papers,” London, 1803, 5 vols. 12mo, with Memoirs of her Life by Mr. Dallaway, drawn up with much taste and delicacy, and to which we are indebted for the preceding sketch. This edition, besides her poems, and a few miscellaneous essays, contains a great number of letters never before printed, perhaps of equal importance with those which have long been before the world, as they appear not to have been intended for publication, which the others certainly were, and we have in these new letters a more exact delineation of her character in advanced life. This if it be not always pleasing, will afford many instructive lessons. Her poetry, without being of the superior kind, is yet entitled to high praise, and had she cultivated the acquaintance of the muses with more earnestness, and had not disdained the scrupulous labour by which some of her contemporaries acquired fame, it is probable she might have attained a higher rank. She certainly was a woman of extraordinary talents, and acquired the honours of literary reputation at a time when they were not bestowed on the undeserving. It is, however, incumbent upon us to add, that the moral tendency of her letters may be justly questioned; many of the descriptions of Eastern luxuries and beauty are such as cannot be tolerated in an age of decency, and a prudent guardian will hesitate long before he can admit the letters from Constantinople among books fit for the perusal of the young. Her amiable relative, the late Mrs. Montague, represents Lady Mary as one who “neither thinks, speaks, acts, or dresses like any body;” and many traits qf her moral conduct were also, it is to be hoped, exclusively her own.

, only son of the preceding lady Mary, was born in October 1713, and in the early part of his life seems to have been the object of his mother’s tenderest regard, though he afterwards lost her favour. In 1716, he was taken by her on his father’s embassy to Constantinople, and while there, was, as we have noticed in her life, the first English child on whom the practice of inoculation was tried. Returning to England with his parents in 1719, he was placed at Westminsterschool, where he gave an* early sample of his wayward disposition, by running away, and eluding every possible search, until about a year after he was accidentally discovered at Blackwall, near London, in the character of a vender offish, a basket of which he had then on his head. He had bound himself, by regular indenture, to a poor fisherman, who said he had served him faithfully, making his bargains shrewdly, and paying his master the purchasemoney honestly. He was now again placed at Westminster-school, but in a short time escaped a second time, and bound himself to the master of a vessel which sailed for Oporto, who, supposing him a deserted friendless boy, treated him with great kindness and humanity. This treatment, however, produced no corresponding feelings; for the moment they landed at Oporto, Montague ran away up the country, and contrived to get employment for two or three years in the vintage. Here at length he was discovered, brought home, and pardoned but with no better effect than before. He ran away a third time after which, his father procured him a tutor, who made him so far regular that he had an appointment in one of the public offices and, in 1747, he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Huntingdon but in his senatorial capacity he does not appear to have any way distinguished himself; nor did he long retain his seat, his expences so far exceeding his income, that he found it prudent once more to leave England, about the latter end of 1751. His first excursion was to Paris, where, in a short time, he was imprisoned in the Chatelet, for a fraudulent gambling transaction: how he escaped is not very clear, but he published a defence of himself, under the title of “Memorial of E. W. Montague, esq. written by himself, in French, and published lately at Paris, against Abraham Payba, a Jew by birth, who assumed the fictitious name of James Roberts. Translated into English from an authentick copy sent from Paris,” 1752, 8vo.

She had early a love for society, and it was her lot to be introduced to the best. In 1742, she was married to Edward Montague, esq. of Denton-hall in Northumberland and Sandleford priory in Berkshire, grandson of the first earl of Sandwich, and member of several successive parliaments for the borough of Huntingdon. By his connections and her own she obtained an extensive lange of acquaintance, but selected as her especial friends and favourites persons distinguished for taste and talents. By Mr. Montague, who died without issue in 1775, she was left in great opulence, and maintained her establishment in the learned and fashionable world for many years with great eclat, living in a style of most splendid hospitality. She died in her eightieth year, at her house in Portman-square, Aug. 25, 1800.

She had early distinguished herself as an author first by “Three Dialogues of the Dead,” published along with lord Lyttelton’s afterwards by her classical and elegant “Essay on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” ia which she amply vindicated our great poet from the gross, illiberal, and ignorant abuse, thrown out against him by Voltaire. This is indeed a wonderful performance, as all, who will examine it impartially, must admit. It is a ridiculous supposition that she was assisted by her husband, whose talent lay in mathematical pursuits, which indeed absorbed the whole of his attention. Many years after she bad received the approbation of all persons of critical taste on this performance, it fell into the hands of Cowper the poet, who, on reading it, says to his correspondent, “I no longer wonder that Mrs. Montague stands at the head of all that is called learned, and that every critic veils his bonnet to her superior judgment:” “The learning, the good sense, the sound judgment, and the wit displayed in it, fully justify, not only my compliment, but all compliments that either have been already paid to her talents, or shall be paid hereafter.”

Few persons had seen more of life than Mrs. Montague, and of that part of mankind, who were eminent either for their genius or their rank; and for many years her splendid house in Portman-square was open to the literary world. She had lived at the table of the second lord Oxford, the resort of Pope, and his contemporaries she was the intimate friend of Pulteney and Lyttelton and she survived to entertain Johnson and Goldsmith, and Burke and Reynolds, till their respective deaths*. Dr. Beattie was frequently her inmate, and for many years her correspondent; and Mrs. Carter was, from their youth, her intimate friend, correspondent, and visitor. For the most learned of these she was a suitable correspondent and companion, as is evident from her letters, and was acknowledged by all who heard her conversation. It was, however, her defect that she had too great a regard to the manners and habits of the world, and damped her transcendant talents by a sacrifice to the cold dictates of worldly wisdom. Her understanding was as sound as her fancy was lively her taste was correct and severe and she penetrated the human character with an almost unerring sagacity but her love of popularity, and her ambition of politeness, controuled her expressions, and concealed her real sentiments from superficial observers. Since her death four volumes of her epistolary correspondence have been published by her nephew and executor, Matthew Montague, esq.; and when the series shall be completed, a just idea may be formed of Mrs. Montague’s genius and character, and the result, we may venture to predict, will be highly favourable.

, an eminent French, writer, was born at the castle of Montaigne, in the Perigord, Feb. 8, 1533. His father, seigneur of Montaigne, and mayor of Bourdeaux, bestowed particular attention on his education, perceiving in him early proofs of talents that would one day reward his care. His mode of teaching him languages is mentioned as somewhat singular at that time, although it has since been frequently practised. He provided him with a German attendant, who did not know French, and who was enjoined to speak to him in Latin, and in consequence young Montaigne is said to have been a master of that language at the age of six years. He was taught Greek also as a sort of diversion, and because his father had heard that the brains of children may be injured by being roused too suddenly out of sleep, he caused him to be awakened every morning by soft music. All this care he repaid by the most tender veneration for the memory of his father. Filial piety, indeed, is said to have been one of the most remarkable traits of his character, and he sometimes displayed it rather in a singular manner. When on horseback he constantly wore a cloak which had belonged to his father, not, as he said, for convenience, but for the pleasure it gave him. “II me semble m'envelopper de lui,” “I seem to be wrapped up in my father;” and this, which from any other wit would have been called the personification of a pun, was considered in Montaigne as a sublime expression of filial piety.

Returning afterwards to his family residence, he devoted himself to study, from which be suffered some disturbance during the civil wars. On one occasion a stranger presented himself at the entrance of his house, pretending that while travelling with his friends, a troop of soldiers had attacked their party, taken away their baggage, killed all who made resistance, and dispersed the rest. Mon< taigne, unsuspectingly, admitted this man, who was the chief of a gang, and wanted admittance only to plunder the house. In a few minutes two or three more arrived, whom the first declared to be his friends that had made their escape, and Montaigne compassionately made them welcome. Soon after, however, he perceived the court of his chateau filled with more of the party, whose behaviour left him in no doubt as to their intentions. Montaigne preserved his countenance unaltered, and ordered them every refreshment the place afforded, and presented this with so nauch* kindness and politeness, that the captain of the troop had not the courage to give the signal for pillage.

His reputation is founded on his “Essays,” which were at one time extremely popular, and which are still read with pleasure by a numerous class of persons. La Harpe says of him, “As a writer, he has impressed on our language (the French) an energy which it did not before possess, and which has not become antiquated, because it is that of sentiments and ideas. As a philosopher he has painted man as he is; he praises without compliment, and blames without misanthropy.” In 1774 was published at Rome (Paris), “Memoirs of a Journey into Italy,” &c. by Montaigne, the editor of which has given us a few less known particulars of the author. He says that “with a large share of natural vivacity, passion, and spirit, Montaigne’s life was far from being that of a sedentary contemplatist, as those may be inclined to think, who view him only in the sphere of his library and in the composition of his essays. His early years by no means passed in the arms of leisure. The troubles and commotions whereof he had been an eye-witness during five reigns, which he had seen pass successively before that of Henry IV. had not in any degree contributed to relax that natural activity and restlessness of spirit. They had been sufficient to call it forth even from indolence itself. He had travelled a good deal in France, and what frequently answers a better purpose than any kind of travel, he was well acquainted with the metropolis, and knew the court. We see his attachment to Paris in the third book of his Essays. Thuanus likewise observes, that Montaigne was equally successful in making his court to the famous duke of Guise, Henry of Lorraine, and to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. king of France. He adds, that he was at his estate at Blois when the duke of Guise was assassinated, 1558. Montaigne foresaw, says he, that the troubles of the nation would only end with the life of that prince, or of the king of Navarre; and this instance we have of his political sagacity. He was so well acquainted with the character and disposition of those princes, so well read in their hearts and sentiments, that he told his friend Thuanus, the king of Navarre would certainly have returned to the religion of his ancestors (that of the Romish communion) if he had not been apprehensive of being abandoned by his party. Montaigne, in short, had talents for public business and negociation, but his philosophy kept him at a distance from political disturbances; and he had the address to conduct himself without offence to the contending parties, in the worst of times.”

More recently, in 1799, his memory has been revived in France by an extravagant eloge from the pen of a French lady, Henrietta Bourdic-viot, who assures us that it was in the works of Montaigne that she acquired the knowledge of her duties.“But we rather incline to the more judicious character given of this author by Dr. Joseph Warton.” That Montaigne,“says this excellent critic,” abounds in native wit, in quick penetration, in perfect knowledge of the human heart, and the various vanities and vices that lurk in it, cannot justly be denied. But a man who undertakes to transmit his thoughts on life and manners to posterity, with the hope of entertaining and amending future ages, must be either exceedingly vain or exceedingly careless, if he expects either of these effects can be produced by wanton sallies of the imagination, by useless and impertinent digressions, by never forming or following any regular plan, never classing or confining his thoughts, never changing or rejecting any sentiment that occurs to him. Yet this appears to have been the conduct of our celebrated essayist; and it has produced many awkward imitators, who, under the notion of writing with the fire and freedom of this lively old Gascon, have fallen into confused rhapsodies and uninteresting egotisms. But these blemishes of Montaigne are trifling and unimportant, compared with his vanity, his indecency, and his scepticism. That man must totally have suppressed the natural love of honest reputation, which is so powerfully felt by the truly wise and good, who can calmly sit down to give a catalogue of his private vices, publish his most secret infirmities, with the pretence of exhibiting a faithful picture of himself, and of exactly pourtraying the minutest features of his mind. Surely he deserves the censure Quintilian bestows on Demetrius, a celebrated Grecian statuary, that he was nimius in veritate, ct similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior; more studious of likeness than of beauty."

, senior member of the academy of sciences of France, was born July 16, 1714, at Angouleme. His family had been a long time rendered illustrious in arms by An. re* De Montalembert, count d'Esse“, lieutenant-general to the king, commander of his armies in Scotland, governor of Terouane near St. Omers, and who died on the breach, the 12th of June 1553. In 1732 the young Montalembert entered into the army, and distinguished himself at the sieges of Kehl and Philipsburg in 1736. He was afterwards captain of the guards to the prince of Conti. In peace he studied the mathematics and natural philosophy: he read a memoir to the academy of sciences, upon the evaporation of the water in the salt works at Turcheim, in the palatinate, which he had examined, and was made a member in 1747. There are in the volumes in the academy some memoirs from him upon the rotation of bullets, upon the substitution of stoves for fire-places, and upon a pool, in which were found pike purblind, and others wholly without sight. From 1750 to 1755 he established the forges at Angoumoisand Perigord. and there founded cannon for the navy. In 1777 three volumes were printed of the correspondence which he held with the generals and ministers, whilst he was employed by his country in the Swedish and Russian armies during the campaigns of 1757 and 1761, and afterwards in Britanny and the isle of Oleron, when fortifying it. He fortified also Stralsund, in Pomerania, against the Prussian troops, and gave an account to his court of the military operations in which it was concerned; and this in a manner which renders it an interesting part of the History of the Seven-years War. In 1776 he printed the first volume of an immense work upon Perpendicular Fortification, and the art of Defence; demonstrating the inconveniences of the old system, for which he substitutes that of casemates, which admit of such a kind of firing, that a place fortified after his manner appears to be impregnable. His system has been, however, uot always approved or adopted. His treatise was extended to ten volumes in quarto, with a great number of plates; the last volume was published in 1792, and will doubtless carry his name to posterity as an author as well as a general. He married, in 1770, Marie de Comarieu, who was an actress, and the owner of a theatre, for whom the general sometimes composed a dramatic piece. In 1784 and 1786 he printed three operatical pieces, set to music by Cambini and Tomeoni: they were,” La Statue,“” La Bergere qualite,“and” La Bohemienne." Alarmed at the progress of the revolution, he repaired to England in 1789 or 1790, and leaving his wife there, procured a divorce, and afterwards married Rosalie Louise Cadet, to whom he was under great obligation during the Robespierrian terror, and by whom he had a daughter born in July 1796. In his memoir published in 1790, it may be seen that he had been arbitrarily dispossessed of his iron forges, and that having a claim for six millions of livres clue to him, he was reduced to a pension, but ill paid, and was at last obliged to sell his estate at Maumer, in Angoumois, for which he was paid in assignats, and which were insufficient to take him out of that distress which accompanied him throughout his life. He was sometimes almost disposed to put an end to his existence, but had the courage to resume his former studies, and engaged a person to assist him in compleating some new models. His last public appearance was in the institute, where he read a new memoir upon the mountings (affect) of ship-guns. On this occasion he was received with veneration by the society, and attended to with religious silence: a man of eighty-six years of age had never been heard to read with so strong a voice. His memoir was thought of so much importance, that the institute wrote to the minister of marine, who sent orders to Brest for the adoption of the suggested change. He was upon the list for a place in the institute, and was even proposed as the first member for the section of mechanics, but learning that Bonaparte was spoken of for the institute, he wrote a letter, in which he expressed his desire to see the young conqueror of Italy honoured with this new crown. His strength of mind he possessed to the last, for not above a month before his death he wrote reflections upon the siege of St. John d'Acre, which contained further proofs of the solidity of his defensive system, but at last he fell ill of a catarrh, which degenerated into a dropsy, and carried him off March 22, 1802.

, an ancient heresiarch. among the Christians, founded a new sect in the second century of the church, which were called Montanists. They had also the name of Phrygians and Cataphrygians, because Montanus was either born, or at least first known, at Ardaba, a village of Mysia, which was situated upon the borders of Phrygia. Here he set up for a prophet, although it seems he had but lately embraced Christianity: but it is said that he had an immoderate desire to obtain a first place in the church, and that he thought this the most likely means of raising himself. In this assumed character he affected to appear inspired with the Holy Spirit, and to be seized and agitated with divine ecstacies; and, under these disguises he uttered prophecies, in which he laid down doctrines, and established rites and ceremonies, entirely new. This wild behaviour was attended with its natural consequences and effects upon the multitude some affirming him to be a true prophet others, that he was possessed with an evil spirit. To carry on his delusion the better, Montanus associated to himself Priscilla and Maximiila, two wealthy ladies, who acted the part “of prophetesses” and, it> by the power of whose geld,“as Jerome tells us,” he first seduced many churches, and then corrupted them with his abominable errors." He seems to have made Pepuza, a tawn in Phrygia, the place of his first residence; and he artfully called it Jerusalem, because he knew the charm there was in that name, and what a powerful temptation it would be in drawing from all parts the weaker and more credulous Christians. Here he employed himself in delivering obscure and enigmatical sayings, under the name of prophecies; and made no small advantage of his followers, who brought great sums of money and valuable presents, by way of offerings. Some of these prophecies of Montanus and his women are preserved by Epiphanius, in which they affected to consider themselves only as mere machines and organs, through which God spake unto his people.

The peculiarities of this sect of Christians are explicitly set forth by St. Jerome. They are said to have been very heterodox in regard to the Trinity; inclining to Sabellianism, “by crowding,” as Jerome expresses it, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into the narrow limits of one person.” Epiphanius, however, contradicts this, and affirms them to have agreed with the church in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Montanists held all second marriages to be unlawful, asserting that although the apostle Paul permitted them, it was because he “only knew in part, and prophesied in part;” but tnat, since the Holy Spirit had been poured upon Montanus and his prophetesses, they were not to be permitted any longer. But the capital doctiines of the Montanists are these “God,” they say, “was first pleased to save the world, under the Old Testament, from eternal damnation by Moses and the prophets. When these agents proved ineffectual, he assumed flesb. and blood of the Virgin Mary, and died for us in Christ, under the person of the Son. When the salvation of the world was not effected yet, he descended lastly upon Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, into whom he infused that fulness of his Holy Spirit*, which had not been vouchsafed to the apostle Paul; for, Paul only knew in part, and prophesied in part.” These doctrines gained ground very fast;, and Montanus soon found himself surrounded with a tribe of people, who would probably have been ready to acknowledge his pretensions, if they had been higher. To add to his influence over their minds, he observed a wonderful strictness and severity of discipline, was a man of mortification, and of an apparently most sanctified spirit. He disclaimed all innovations in the grand articles of faith; and only pretended to perfect what was left unfinished by the saints. By these means he supported for a long time the character of a most holy, mortified, and divine person, and the world became much interested in the visions and prophecies of him and his two damsels Priscilla and Maximilla; and thus the face of severity and saintship consecrated their reveries, and made real possession pass for inspiration. Several good men immediately embraced the delusion, particularly Tertullian, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, who, however, did not wholly approve of Montanus’s extravagancies; but the churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other churches, grew divided upon the account of these new revelations; and, for some time, even the bishop of Rome cherished the imposture. Of the time or manner of Montanus’s death we have no certain account. It has been asserted, but without proof, that he and his coadjutress Maximilla were suicides.

, a very celebrated Austrian general, was born in 1608, of a distinguished family in the Modenese. Ernest Montecuculi, his uncle, who was general of artillery in the imperial troops, made him pass through aJl the military ranks, before he was raised to that of commander. The young man’s first exploit was in 1634, when at the head of 2000 horse, he surprised 10,000 Swedes who were besieging Nemeslaw, in Silesia, and took their baggage and artillery; but he was shortly after defeated and made prisoner by general Bannier. Having obtained his liberty at the end of two years, he joined his forces to those of J. de Wert, in Bohemia, and conquered general Wrangel, who was killed in the battle. In 1627, the emperor appointed Montecuculi marechal de camp general, and sent him to assist John Casimir, king of Poland. He defeated Razolzi, prince of Transylvania, drove out the Swedes, and distinguished himself greatly against the Turks in Transylvania, and in Hungary, by gaining the battle of St. Gothard, in 1664. Montecuculi commanded the imperial forces against France in 1673, and acquired great honour from the capture of Bonn, which was preceded by a march, conducted with many stratagems to deceive M. Turenne. The command of this army was nevertheless taken from him the year following, but he received it again in 1675, that he might oppose the great Turenne, on the Rhine. Montecuculi had soon to bewail the death of this formidable enemy, on whom he bestowed the highest encomiums: “I lament,” said he, “and I can never too much lament, the loss of a man who appeared more than man; one who did honour to human nature.” The great prince of Cond6 was the only person who ould contest with Montecuculi, the superiority which M. de Turenne’s death gave him. That prince was therefore sent to the Rhine, and stopped the imperial general’s progress, who nevertheless considered this last campaign as his most glorious one; not because he was a conqueror, but because he was not conquered by two such opponents as Turenne and Conde. He spent the remainder of his life at the emperor’s court, devoting himself to the belles lettres; and the academy of naturalists owes its establishment to him. He died October 16, 1680, at Linez, aged seventy-two. This great general left some very excellent “Memoires” on the military art; the best French edition of which is that of Strasburg, 1735; to which that of Paris, 1746, 12mo, is similar.

, a very celebrated French writer, was descended of an ancient and noble family of Guienne, and born at the castle of Brede near Bourdeaux, Jan. 18, 1639. The greatest care was taken of his education; and, at the age of twenty, he had actually prepared materials for his “Spirit of Laws,” by a well-digested extract from those immense volumes which compose the body of the civil law; and which he had studied both as a civilian and a philosopher. Maupertuis informs us that he studied this science almost from his infancy, and that the first product of his early genius was a work, in which he undertook to prove, that the idolatry of most part of the pagans did not deserve eternal punishment, but this he thought fit to suppress. In Feb. 1714, he became a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, and was received president amortier, July 13, 1716, in the room of an uncle, who left him his fortune and his office. He was admitted, April 3, 1716, into the academy of Bourdeaux, which was then only in its infancy. A taste for music, and for works of entertainment, had, at first, assembled the members who composed it; but the societies for belles lettres being grown, in his opinion, too numerous, he proposed to have physics for their chief object; and the duke de la Force, having, by a prize just founded at Bourdeaux, seconded this just and rational proposal, Bourdeaux acquired an academy of sciences.

A place in the French academy becoming vacant by the death of monsieur de Sacy, in 1728, Montesquieu, by the advice of his friends, and supported also by the voice of the public, offered himself for it. Upon this, the minister, cardinal Fleury, wrote a letter to the academy, informing them, that his majesty would never agree to the election of the author of the “Persian Letters” that he had not himself read the book but that persons in whom he placed confidence, had informed him of its dangerous tendency. Montesquieu, thinking it prudent immediately to encounter this opposition, waited on the minister, and declared to him, that, for particular reasons, he had not owned the “Persian Letters,” but that he would be still farther from, disowning a work, for which he believed he had no reason to blush; and that he ought to be judged after a reading, and not upon information. At last, the minister did what he ought to have begun with; he read the book, loved the author, and learned to place his confidence better. The French academy, says D'Alembert, was not deprived of one of its greatest ornaments, nor France of a subject, of which superstition or calumny was ready to deprive her; for Montesquieu, it seems, had frankly declared to the government, that he could not think of continuing in France after the affront they were about to offer, but should seek among foreigners for that safety, repose, and honour, which he might have hoped in his own country. He was received into the academy, Jan. 24, 1728; and his discourse upon that occasion, which was reckoned a very fine one, is printed among his works. As before his admission into the academy, he had giveatip his civil employments, and devoted himself entirely to his genius and taste, he resolved to travel, and went first, in company with lord Waldegrave our ambassador, to Vienna, where he often saw prince Eugene; in whom he thought he could discover some remains of affection for his native country. He left Vienna to visit Hungary; and, passing thence through Venice, went to Rome. There he applied himself chiefly to examine the works of Raphael, of Titian, and of Michael Angelo, although he had not made the fine arts a particular study. After having travelled over Italy, he came to Switzerland, and carefully examined 1 those vast countries which are watered by the Rhine. He stopped afterwards some time in the United Provinces; and, at last, went to England, where he stayed three years, and contracted intimate friendships with many of the most distinguished characters of the day. He in particular received many marks of attention from queen Caroline. In the portrait of Montesquieu, written by himself, and published lately among some posthumous pieces, he gives the following proof of his gallantry in reply “Dining in England with the duke of Richmond, the French envoy there La Boine, who was at table, and was ill qualified for his situation, contended that England was not larger than the province of Guienne. I opposed the envoy. In the evening, the queen said to me, `I am informed, sir, that you undertook our defence against M. de la Boine.‘ `Madam,’ I replied, `I cannot persuade myself that a country over which you reign, is not a great kingdom.'”

After his return, he retired for two years to his estate at Brede, and there finished his work “On the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans,” which appeared in 1734, and in which he has rendered a common topic highly interesting. By seizing only the most fruitful branches of his subject, he has contrived to present within G small compass a great variety of objects. But whatever reputation he acquired by this work, it was but preparatory to the more extensive fame of his “Spirit of Laws,” of which he had, as already noticed, long formed the design. Yet scarcely was it published, in 1748, when it was attacked by the same adversaries who had objected to the “Persian Letters,” who at first treated it with levity, and even the title of it was made a-subject of ridicule; but the more serious objections made to it on the score of religion alarmed the author, who therefore drew up “A Defence* of the Spirit of Laws;” in which, while he could not pretend that it was without faults, he endeavoured to prove that it had not all the faults ascribed to it. It is said that when the “Spirit of Laws” made its appearance, the Sorbonne found in it several propositions contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church. These doctors entered into a critical investigation of the work, which they generally censured; but as among the propositions condemned, there were found some concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction which were attended with many difficulties, and as Montesquieu had promised to give a new edition, in which he would correct any passages that had appeared against religion, this censure of the Sorbonne did not appear.

About this time, among other marks of esteem bestowed on Montesquieu, Dassier, who was celebrated for cutting of medals, and particularly the English coin, went from London to Paris, to engrave that of the author of the Spirit of Laws; but Montesquieu modestly declined it. The artist said to him one day, “Do not you think there is as much pride in refusing my proposal, as if you accepted it?” Disarmed by this pleasantry, he yielded to Dassier’s request.

Montesquieu was peaceably enjoying that esteem which his merits had procured him, when he fell sick at Paris in 1755. His health, naturally delicate, had begun to decay for some time, partly by the slow but sure effect of deep study, and partly by the way of life he was obliged to lead at Paris. He was oppressed with cruel pains soon after he fell sick, nor had he his family, or any relations, near him; yet he preserved to his last moments great firmness and tranquillity of mind. “In short,” says his elogist, " after having performed every duty which decency required, he died with the ease and well-grounded assurance of a man who had never employed his talents but in the cause of virtue and humanity.' 7 His last hours are said to have been disturbed by the Jesuits, who wished him to retract some of his opinions on religion; and some say he made a formal disavowal of these. He died February 10, 1755, aged 66.

To the personal character of Montesquieu, as given by his eulogists and biographers, we have never heard any objection. He was not less amiable, say they, for the qualities of his heart, than those of his mind. He ever appeared in the commerce of the world with good humour, cheerfulness, and gaiety. His conversation was easy, agreeable, and instructive, from the great number of men he had lived with, and the variety of manners he had studied. It was poignant like his style, full of salt and pleasant sallies, free from invective and satire. No one could relate a narration with more vivacity, readiness, grace, and propriety. He knew that the close of a pleasing story is always the chief object; he therefore hastened to reach it, and always produced a happy effect, without creating too great an expectation. His frequent flights were very entertaining; and he constantly recovered himself by some unexpected stroke, which revived a conversation when it was drooping; but they were neither theatrically played off, forced, or impertinent. The fire of his wit gave them birth; but his judgment suppressed them in the course of a serious conversation: the wish of pleasing always made him suit himself to his company, without affectation or the desire of being clever. The agreeableness of his company was not only owing to his disposition and genius, but also to the peculiar method he observed in his studies. Though capable of the deepest and most intricate meditations, he never exhausted his powers, but always quitted his lucubrations before he felt the impulse of fatigue. He had a sense of glory; but he was not desirous of obtaining without meriting it. He never attempted to increase his reputation by those obscure and shameful means which dishonour the man, without increasing the fame of the author. Worthy of the highest distinction and the greatest rewards, he required nothing, and was not astonished at being forgotten: but he dared, even in the most critical circumstances, to protect, at Court, men of letters who were persecuted, celebrated, and unhappy, and obtained them favour. Although he lived with the great, as well from his rank as a taste for society, their company was not essential to his happiness. He sequestered himself, whenever he could, in his villa: there with joy, he embraced philosophy, erudition, and ease. Surrounded in his leisure hours with rustics, after having studied man in the commerce of the world and the history of nations, he studied him even in those simple beings, whose sole instructor was nature, and in them he found information. He cheerfully conversed with them: like Socrates he traced their genius, and he was as much pleased with their unadorned narrations as with the polished harangues of the great, particularly when he terminated their differences, and alleviated their grievances by his benefactions. He was in general very kind to his servants: nevertheless, he was compelled one day to reprove them; when turning towards a visitor, he said with a smile, “These are clocks that must be occasionally wound up.” Nothing does greater honour to his memory than the ceconomy with which he lived; it has "indeed been deemed excessive in an avaricious and fastidious world, little formed to judge of the motive of his conduct, and still less to feel it. Beneficent and just, Montesquieu would not injure his family by the succours with which he aided the distressed, nor the extraordinary expence occasioned by his travels, the weakness of his sight, and the printing of his works. He transmitted to his children, without diminution or increase, the inheritance he received from his ancestors: he added nothing to it but his fame, and the example of his life.

Montesquieu married, in 1715, Jeanne de Lartigue, daughter to Peter de Lartigue, lieutenant-colonel of the regiment of Maulevrier. By this lady he had two daughters and a son, John. Baptista de Secondat, counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, who died in that city in 1796, at the age of seventy-nine. He was author of many works; particularly of “Observations de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle sur les Eaux Minerales de Pyrenees,” 1750; “Considerations sur la Commerce et la Navigation de la Grande Bretagne,” 1740; “Considerations sur la Marine Militaire de France,” 1756. He resided a considerable time in London, and was elected a member of the Royal Society.

, a Scotch historian, was born at Salmonet, between Airth and Grange, on the suuch-side of the Firth-of-Forth, whence he was called abroad Salmonettus Scoto-Britannus. Of his life we fcave been able to discover very few particulars. The tradition is, that he was obliged to leave Scotland upon his being suspected of adultery with the wife of sir James Hamilton of Preston-field. Monteith appears to have been a chaplain of cardinal de Retz, who also made him a canon of Notre Dame, and encouraged him in writing his history. See Joli, Memoires, torn. Ij. page 86, where he is called “homme scavant & de merite.” Cardinal de Retz also mentions him, vol. III. p. 323. His brother was lieutenant-colonel of Douglas’s regiment (the royal), and killed in Alsace. In the privilege for printing Monteith’s History, granted the 13th of September 1660, to Jaques St. Clair. de Roselin, he is styled “le defunct St. Montet” In the title-page he is called Messire. This work embraces the period of Scotch history from the coronation of Charles I. to the conclusion of the rebellion. In his preface he professes the utmost impartiality, and as far as we have been able to look into the work, he appears to have treated the history of those tumultuous times with much candour. His leaning is of course to the regal side of the question. In 17.35 a translation of this work, which was originally published in French, and was become very rare, was executed at London in one vol. fol. by J. Ogilvie, under the title of a “History of the Troubles of Great Britain.” The author was held in high esteem by Menage, who wrote two Latin epigrams in his praise. The time of his death we have not been able to discover. He must be distinguished from a Robert Monteith, the compiler of a scarce and valuable collection of all the epitaphs of Scotland, published in 1704, 8vo, under the title of “An Theater of Mortality.”

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, and one of the most learned antiquaries France has produced, was born Jan. 17, 1655, at Soulage in Langnedoc, whither his parents had removed on some business; and was educated at the castle of Roquetaillade in the diocese of Alet, where they ordinarily resided. His family was originally of Gascony, and of the ancient lords of Montfaucon-le-Vieux, first barons of the comte de Comminges. The pedigree of a man of learning is not of much importance, but Montfaucon was an antiquary, and has given us his genealogy in his “Bibl. Bibliothecarum manuscriptorum,” and it must not, therefore, be forgotten, that besides his honourable ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he was the son of Timoleon de Montfaucon, lord of Roquetaillacle and Conillac in the diocrse of Alet, by Flora de Maignan, daughter of the baron d'Albieres. He was the second of four brothers. From his early studies in his father’s house he was removed to Limoux, where he continued them under the fathers of the Christian doctrine, and it is said that the reading of Plutarch’s Lives inspired him first with a love for history and criticism. A literary profession, however, was not his original destination, for we find that he set out with being a cadet in the regiment of Perpignan, and served one or two campaigns in Germany in the army of marshal Turenne. He also gave a proof of his courage by accepting a challenge from a brother bfficer who wished to put it to the tfcst. About two years after entering the army, the death of his parents, and of an officer of distinction under whom he served, with other circumstances that occurred about the same time, appear to have given him a dislike to the military life, and induced him to enter the congregation of St. Maur in 1675 at the age of twenty. In this learned society, for such it was for many years, he had every opportunity to improve his early education, and follow the literary pursuits most agreeable to him. The first fruits of his application appeared in a kind of supplement to Cottelerius, entitled “Analecta Graeca sive vuria opuscula, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 4to, 1688, with notes by him, Antony Pouget and James Lopin. In 1690 he published a small volume 12mo, entitled “La verite de l'Histoire de Judith,” in which he attempts to vindicate the authenticity of that apocryphal book, and throws considerable light on the history of the Medes and Assyrians. His next publication of much importance was a new edition in Gr. & Lat. of the works of St. Athanasius, which came out in 1698, 3 vols. fol. This, which is generally known by the name of the Benedictine edition, gave the world the first favourable impression of Montfaucon’s extensive learning and judgment. He had some assistance in it from father Lopin, before-mentioned, who, however, died before the publication.

In the same year, Montfaucon, who had turned his thoughts to more extensive collections of antiquities than had ever yet appeared, determined to visit Italy for the sake of the libraries, and employed three years in consulting their manuscript treasures. After his return, he published in 1702, an account of his journey and researches, under the title of “Diarium Italicum, sive monumentum veterum, bibliothecarum, musitorum, &c. notitias singulares, itinerario Itaiico collects; additis schematibus et figuris,” Paris, 4to. Of this an English translation was published in 1725, folio, by as great a curiosity as any that father Montfaticon had met with in his travels, the famous orator Henley, who had not, however, at that time disgraced his character and profession. In 1709, Ficorini published a criticism on the “Diarium” which Montfaucon answered in the “Journal des Scavans,” and some time after he met with a defender in a work entitled “Apologia del diario Itaiico,” by father Busbaldi, of Mont-Cassin. During Montfau con’s residence at Rome, he exercised the function of procurator-general of his congregation at that court; and it was also while there, in 1699, that he had occasion to take up his pen in defence of an edition of the works of St. Augustine published by some able men of his order, but which had been attacked, as he thought, very illiberally. His vindication was a 12mo volume, entitled “Vindiciae editionis sancti Augustiui a Benedictis adornata, adversus epistolam abbatis Germani autore D. B. de Hiviere.” The edition referred to is that very complete one by the Benedictions, begun to be published in 1679, at Antwerp, and completed in 1700,11 vols. folio.

Montfaucon enjoyed during his long life the esteem of the learned world, and was not more regarded for the extensive learning than the amiable qualities of his private character. He was modest, polite, affable, and always ready to communicate the information with which his indefatigable studies and copious reading supplied him. Foreigners who sought to be introduced to him, returned from his conversation, equally delighted with his manners, and astonished at his stores of learning. The popes Benedict XIII. and Clement XL and the emperor Charles VI. honoured him with particular marks of their regard; but honours or praise, in no shape, appeared to affect the humility and simplicity of his manners.

, the inventor of air-balloons, was born at Aunonay, and was originally a paper-maker, and the first who made what is called vellumpaper. Whence he took the hint of the aerostatic balloons seems uncertain, but in 1782 he made his first experiment at Avignon, and after other trials, exhibited before the royal family on Sept. 19, 1783, a grand balloon, near sixty feet high and forty-three in diameter, which ascended with a cage containing a sheep, a cock, and a duck, and conveyed them through the air in safety to the distance of about 10,000 feet. This was followed by another machine of Montgolfier’s construction, with which a M. Pilatre de Rozier ascended. This daring adventurer lost his life afterwards along with his companion Romain, by the balloon catching fire, an event which did not prevent balloons from being introduced into this and other countries. After repeated trials, however, the utility of these expensive and hazardous machines seems doubtful, and for some years they have been of little use, except to fill the pockets of needy adventurers. Montgolfier was rewarded for the discovery by admission into the academy of sciences, the ribbon of St. Michael, and a pension. He died in 1799.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in the year 1678, and intended for the profession of the law, to enable him to qualify for a place in the magistracy. From dislike of this destination, he withdrew into England, whence he passed over into the Low Countries, and travelled into Germany, where he resided with a near relation, M. Chambois, the plenipotentiary of France at the diet of Ratisbon. He returned to France in 1699, and after the death of his father, who left him an ample fortune, devoted his talents to the study of philosophy and the mathematics, under the direction of the celebrated Malehranche, to whom he had, some years before, felt greatly indebted for the conviction of the truth of Christianity, by perusing his work on “The Search after Truth.” In 1700 he went a second time to England, and on his return, assumed the ecclesiastical habit, and was made a canon in the church of Notre-Dame, at Paris. About this time he edited, at his own expence, the works of M. Guisnee on “The Application of Algebra to Geometry,” and that of Newton on the “Quadrature of Curves.” In 1703 he published his “Analytical Essay on Games of Chance,” and an improved edition in 1714. This was most favourably received by men of science in all countries. In 1715 he paid a third visit to England, for the purpose of observing a solar eclipse, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, to which learned body he soon afterwards transmitted an important treatise on “Infinite Series,'” which was inserted in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1717. He was elected an associate of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris in 1716, and died at the early age of forty-one, of the small-pox. He sustained all the relations of Hie in the most honourable manner, and though subject to fits’ of passion, yet his anger soon subsided, and he was ever ashamed of the irritability of his temper. Such was his steady attention that he could resolve the most difficult problems in company, and among the noise of playful children. He was employed several years in writing “A History of Geometry,” but he did not live to complete it.

, a very learned divine of the Roman catholic persuasion, was born in Dublin in 164O. After being taught at a grammar-school for some time, he was sent to France, and had his first academical learning at the college of Nantz, whence he removed to Paris, and completed his studies in philosophy and divinity, in both which he attained great reputation, as he did likewise for his critical skill in the Greek language. He taught philosophy and rhetoric in the Grassin college for some years: but at length returning to Ireland, was, with considerable reluctance, prevailed upon to take priest’s orders, and had some preferment while the popish bishops had any influence. When James II. came to Ireland, Dr. Moor was recommended to him, often preached before him, and had influence enough to prevent his majesty from conferring Trinity-college, Dublin, on the Jesuits, to which he had been advised by his confessor father Peters. Dr. Moor being made provost of this college, by the recommendation of the Roman catholic bishops, was the means of preserving the valuable library, at a time when the college was a popish garrison, the chapel a magazine, and many of the chambers were employed as prisons for the protestants. But the Jesuits could not forgive him for preventing their gaining the entire property of the college, and took advantage to ruin him with the king, from a sermon he preached before James II. at Christ Church, His text was, Matt, xv, 14. “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” In this discourse Dr. Moor had the boldness to impute the failure of the king’s affairs to his following too closely the councils of the Jesuits, and insinuated that they would be his utter ruin. Father Peters, who had a defect in his eyes, persuaded the king that the text was levelled at his majesty through his confessor, and urged that Moor was a dangerous subject, who endeavoured to stir tip sedition among the people. James was so weak as to believe all this, and ordered Dr. Moor immediately to quit his dominions. Moor complied, as became an obedient subject, but hinted at his departure, “that he only went as the king’s precursor, who would soon be obliged to follow him.” Moor accordingly went to Paris, where the reputation of his learning procured him a favourable reception; and king James, after the battle of the Boyne, followed him, as he had predicted. But here it appears that the king had influence enough to oblige Moor to leave France as he had done Ireland, probably by misrepresenting his conduct to the Jesuits.

Moor now went to Rome, where his learning procured him very high distinction. He was first made censor of booksj and then invited to Montefiascone, and appointed rector of a seminary newly founded by cardinal Mark Antony Barbarigo, and also professor of philosophy and Greek. Pope Innocent XII. was so much satisfied with his conduct in the government of this seminary, that he contributed the sum of two thousand Roman crowns yearly towards its maintenance; and Clement XI. had such a high opinion of Moor that he would have placed his nephew under his tuition, had he not been prevented, as was supposed, by the persuasions of the Jesuits. On the death of James II. Dr. Moor was invited to France, and such was his reputation there, that he was made twice rector of the university of Paris, and principal of the college of Navarre, and was appointed regius professor of philosophy, Greek, and Hebrew. He died, in his eighty-fifth year, at his apartments in the college of Navarre, Aug. 22, 1726. It is evident he could have been no common character, who attained so many honours in a foreign land. His writings, however, are perhaps not much known. One of them, “DeExistentiaDei, et humanae mentis immortalitaie,” &c. published at Paris, 1692, 8vo, is said by Harris to have been translated into English by Mr. Blackmore, perhaps sir Richard, but we have not been able to find this work in any of our public libraries. Dr. Moor also published “Hortatio ad studium lingua; Graecae et Hebraicae,” Montefiascone, 1700, 12mo; and “Vera sciendi Methodus,” Paris, 1716, 8vo, against the philosophy of Des Cartes.

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, was the grandson of the rev. John Moore of Devonshire, one of the ejected non-conformists, who died Aug. 23, 1717, leaving two sons in the dissenting ministry. Of these, Thomas, the father of our poet, removed to Abingdon Hi Berkshire, where he died in 1721, and where Edward was born March 22,. 1711-12, and for some time brought up under the care of his uncle. He was afterwards placed at the school of East Orchard in Dorsetshire, where he probably received no higher education than would qualify him for trade. For some years he followed the business of a linen-draper, both in London and in Ireland, but with so little success that he became disgusted with his occupation, and, as he informs us in his preface, “more from necessity than inclination,” began to encounter the vicissitudes of a literary life. His first attempts were of the poetical kind, which still preserve his name among the minor poets of his country. In 174-4, he published his “Fables for the Female Sex,” which were so favourably received as tointroducehim into the society of some learned and some opulent contemporaries. The hon. Mr. Pelham was one of his early patrons; and, by his “Trial of Selim,” he gained the friendship of lord Lyttelton, who felt himself flattered by a compliment turned with much ingenuity, and decorated by wit and spirit. But as, for some time, Moore derived no substantial advantage from patronage, his chief dependance was on the stage, to which, within five years, he supplied three pieces of considerable, although unequal, merit. “The Foundling,” a comedy, which was first acted in 1748, was decried from a fancied resemblance to the “Conscious Lovers.” His “Gil Bias,” which appeared in 1751, met with a more severe fate, and, notwithstanding the sprightliness of the dialogue, not altogether unjustly. “The Gamester,” a tragedy, first acted Feb. 7, 1753, was our author’s most successful attempt, and is still a favourite. In this piece, however, he deviated from the custom of the modern stage, as Lilio had in his “George Barnwell,” by discarding blank verse; and perbaps nothing short of the power by which the catastrophe engages the feelings, could have reconciled the audience to this innovation. But hisobject was the misery of the life and death of a gamester, to which it would have been difficult to give a heroic colouring; and his language became what would be most impressive, that of truth and nature. Davies, in his Life of Garrick, seems inclined to share the reputation of the “Gamester” between Moore and Garrick. Moore acknowledges, in his preface, that he was indebted to that inimitable actor for “many popular passages,” and Davies believes that the scene between Lewson and Stukely, in the fourth act, was almost entirely his, because he expressed, during the time of action, uncommon pleasure at the applause given to it. Whatever may be in this conjecture, the play, after having been acted to crowded houses for eleven nights, was suddenly withdrawn. The report of the day attributed this to the intervention of the leading members of some gaming clubs. Davies thinks this a mere report “to give more consequence to those assemblies than they could really boast.” From a letter, in our possession, written by Moore to Dr. Warton, it appears that Garrick suffered so much from, the fatigue of acting the principal character as to require some repose. Yet this will not account for the total neglect, for some years afterwards, of a play, not only popular, but so obviously calculated to give the alarm to reclaimable gamesters, and perhaps bring the whole gang into discredit. The author mentions, in his letter to Dr. Warton, that he expected to clear about four hundred pounds by his tragedy, exclusive of the profits by the sale of the copy. It is asserted by Dr. Johnson, in his life of lord Lyttelton, that, in return for Moore’s elegant compliment, “The Trial of Selim,” his lordship paid him with “kind words, which, as is common, raised great hopes, that at last were disappointed.” It is possible, however, that these hopes were of another kind than it was in his lordship’s power to gratify*; and it is certain that he substituted a method of serving Moore, which was not only successful for a considerable time, but must have been agreeable to the feelings of a delicate and independent mind. Abouttheyears 175 1-2, periodical writing began to revive in its most pleasing form, but had hitherto been executed by men of learning only. Lord Lyttelton projected a paper, in concert with Dodsiey, which should unite the talents of certain men of rank, and receive such a tone and consequence from that circumstance, as mere scholars can seldom hope to command or attain. Such was the origin of the “World,” for every paper of which Dodsiey stipulated to pay Moore three guineas, whether the papers were written by him, or by the volunteer contributors. Lord Lyttelton, to render this bargain more productive to the editor, solicited and obtained the assistance of the earls of Chesterfield, Bath, and Corke, and of Messrs. Walpole, Cambridge, Jenyns, and other men of rank and taste, who gave their assistance, some with great regularity, and all so effectually as to render the “World” far more popular than any of its contemporaries.

In 1750, he married Miss Hamilton, daughter of Mr. Charles Hamilton, table-decker to the princesses; a lady who had herself a poetical turn. By this lady, who in 1758 obtained the place of necessary-woman to the queen’s apartments, and who still survives, he had a son Edward, who died in the naval service in 1773. Moore’s personal character appears to have been unexceptionable, and his pleasing manners and humble demeanour rendered his society acceptable to a very numerous class of friends. His productions were those of a genius somewhat above the common order, unassisted by learning. His professed exclusion of Greek and Latin mottoes from the papers of the World (although they were not rejected when sent), induces us to think that he had little acquaintance with the classics, and there is indeed nothing in any of Ins works that indicates the study of a particular branch of science. When he projected the Magazine above mentioned, he told the Wartons, “in confidence, that he wanted a dull plodding fellow of one of the universities, who understood Latin and Greek.”

This divine was, after his advancement to the episcopal dignity, one of the most eminent patrons of learning and learned men in his time; and his name will be carried down to posterity, not only by his sermons published by Dr. Samuel Clarke, his chaplain (1715, 2 vols. 8vo), but by the curious and magnificent library collected by him, and purchased after his death by George I. who presented it to the university of Cambridge. Burnet ranks him among those who were an honour to the church and the age in which they lived. He assisted him (as he did many learned men) from his valuable library, when writing his History of the Reformation. He contributed also to Clark’s Caesar, and to Wilkins’s “Ecclesiastes,” by pointing out a multitude of celebrated authors who deserved notice in that useful, but now much-neglected work. His sermons were held in such estimation as to be translated into Dutch, and published at Delft in 1700. His library, consisting of 30,000 volumes, fills upthe rooms on the north and west sides of the court over the philosophy and divinity schools, and is arranged in 26 classes. It ought not to be omitted that his present majesty gave 2000l. towards fitting up this library.

, a medical and miscellaneous writer, was the son of the rev. Charles Moore, a minister of the English church at Stirling, in Scotland, where this, his only surviving son, was born in 1730. His lather dying in 1735, his mother, who was a native of Glasgow, and had some property there, removed to that city, and carefully superintended the early years of her son while at school and college. Being destined for the profession of medicine, he was placed under Mr. Gordon, a practitioner of pharmacy and surgery, and at the same time attended such medical lectures as the college of Glasgow at that time afforded, which were principally the anatomical lectures of Dr. Hamilton, and those on the practice of physic by Dr. Cullen, afterwards the great ornament of the medical school of Edinburgh. Mr. Moore’s application to his studies must have been more than ordinarily successful, as we find that in 1747, when only in his seventeenth year, he went to the continent, under the protection of the duke of Argyle, and was employed as a mate in one of the military hospitals at Maestricht, in Brabant, and afterwards at Flushing. Hence he was promoted to be assistant to the surgeon of the Coldstream regiment of foot guards, comman-ded by general Braddock, and after remaining during the winter of 1748 with this regiment at Breda, came to England at the conclusion of the peace. At London he resumed his medical studies under Dr. Hunter, and soon after set out for Paris, where he obtained the patronage of the earl of Albemarle, whom he had known in Flanders, and who was now English ambassador at the court of France, and immediately appointed Mr. Moore surgeon to his household. In this situation, although he had an opportunity of being with the ambassador, he preferred to lodge nearer the hospitals, and other sources of instruction, xvith which a more distant part of the capital abounded, and visited lord Albemarle’s family only when his assistance was required. After residing two years in Paris, it was proposed by Mr. Gordon, who was not insensible to the assiduity and improvements of his former pupil, that he should return to Glasgow, and enter into partnership with him. Mr. Moore, by the advice of his friends, accepted the invitation, but deemed it proper to take London in his way, and while there, went through a course under Dr. Smellie, then a celebrated accoucheur. On his return to Glasgow, he practised there during the space of two years, but when a diploma was granted by the university of that city to his partner, now Dr. Gordon, who chose to prescribe as a physician alone, Mr. Moore still continued to act as a surgeon; and, as a partner appeared to be necessary, he chose Mr. Hamilton, professor of anatomy, as his associate. Mr. Moore remained for a considerable period at Glasgow; but when he had attained his fortieth year, an incident occurred that gave a new turn to his ideas, and opeqed new pursuits and situations to a mind naturally active and inquisitive. James George, duke of Hamilton, a young nobleman of great promise, being affected with a consumptive disorder, in 1769, he was attended by Mr. Moore, who has always spoken of this youth in terms of the highest admiration; but, as his malady baffled all the efforts of medicine, he yielded to its pressure, after a lingering illness, in the fifteenth year of his age. This event, which Mr. Moore recorded, together with the extraordinary endowments of his patient, on his tomb in the buryingplace at Hamilton, led to a more intimate connection with this noble family. The late duke of Hamilton, being, like his brother, of a sickly constitution, his mother, the duchess f Argyle, determined that he should travel in company with some gentleman, who to a knowledge of medicine added an acquaintance with the continent. Both these qualities were united in the person of Dr. Moore, who by this time had obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow. They accordingly set out together, and spent a period of no less than five years abroad, during which they visited France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. On their return, in 1778, Dr. Moore brought his family from Glasgow to London; and in the course of the next year appeared the fruits of his travels, in “A View of Society and Manners in France', Switzerland, and Germany,” in 2 vols. 8vo. Two years after, in 1781, he published a continuation of the same work, in two additional volumes, entitled “A View of Society and Manners in Italy.” Having spent s6 large a portion of his time either in Scotland or on the continent, he could not expect suddenly to attain an extensive practice in the capital; nor indeed was he much consulted, unless by his particular friends. With a view, however, to practice, he published in 1785, his “Medical Sketches,” a work which was favourably received, but made no great alteration in his engagements; and the next work he published was “Zeluco,” a novel, which abounds with many interesting events, arising from uncontrouled passion on the part of a darling son, and unconditional compliance on that of a fond mother. While enjoying the success of this novel, which was very considerable, the French revolution began to occupy the minds and writings of the literary world. Dr. Moore happened to reside in France in 1792, and witnessed many of the important scenes of that eventful year, but the massacres of September tending to render a residence in Paris highly disagreeable, he returned to England; and soon after his arrival, began to arrange his materials, and in 1795, published “A View of the Causes and Progress of the French Revolution,” in 2 vols. 8vo, dedicated to the Duke of Devonshire. He begins with the reign of Henry IV. and ends with the execution of the royal family. In 1796 appeared another novel, “Edward: various Views of Human Nature, taken from Life and Manners chiefly in England.” In 1800, Dr. Moore published his “Mordaunt,” being “Sketches of Life, Characters, and Manners in various Countries including the Memoirs of a French Lady of Quality,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This chiefly consists of a series of letters, written by “the honourable John Mordaunt,” while confined to his couch at Vevay, in Switzerland, giving an account of what he had seen in Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, &c. The work itself comes under no precise head, being neither a romance, nor a novel, nor travels: the most proper title would perhaps be that of “Recollections.” Dr. Moore was one of the first to notice the talents of his countryman the unfortunate Robert Burns, who, at his request, drew up an account of his life, and submitted it to his inspection.

, a gallant English officer, was one of the sons of the preceding, and born at Glasgow, Nov. 13, 1761, and was educated principally on the continent, while his father travelled with the duke of Hamilton, who in 1776 obtained for him an ensigncy in the 51st regiment of foot, then quartered at Minorca. He afterwards obtained a lieutenancy in the 82d, in which he served in America during the war, and in 1783, at the peace, was reduced with his regiment. He was soon after brought into parliament for the boroughs of Lanerk, &c. by the interest of the duke of Hamilton. In 1787 or 1788 he obtained the majority of the 4th battalion of the 60th regiment, then quartered at Chatham, and very soon after negociated an exchange into his old regiment, the 51st. In 1790 he succeeded, by purchase, to the lieutenant-colonelcy, and went the following year with his regiment to Gibraltar. After some other movements he was sent to Corsica, where general Charles Stuart having succeeded to the command of the army in 1794, appointed colonel Moore to command the reserve. Here he particularly distinguished himself at the siege of Calvi, and received his first wound in storming the Mozzello fort. These operations made Moore’s character known to general Stuart, and a friendship commenced, which continued during the general’s life; and the situation of adjutant-general in the army in Corsica becoming vacant at this time, he bestowed it on his friend Moore, and ever after showed him every mark of confidence and esteem.

In consequence of a disagreement with the viceroy, who had occasioned the recall of general Stuart, colonel Moore arrived in England in Nov. 1795, and was immediately appointed a brigadier-general in the West Indies, and attached to a brigade of foreign corps, which consisted of Choiseul’s hussars, and two corps of emigrants. On Feb. 25, 1796, he received an order to take charge of, and embark with general Perryn’s brigade, going out with the expedition to the West Indies, under sir Ralph Abercrombie; that officer having unexpectedly sailed in the Vengeance, 74, and left his brigade behind. General Moore, although he had no previous intimation that he was to embark, hurried to Portsmouth, and having time only to prepare a few necessaries, sailed for the West Indies with the fleet at day-light on the 28th, with no other baggage than a small portmanteau, and not one regiment of his own brigade was in the fleet. On his arrival at Barbadoes, on the 13th of April, 1796, having had an opportunity of waiting on the commander-in-chief, sir Ralph Abercrombie, that sagacious and attentive observer very soon distinguished him, and in the course of the operations against St. LuciCj wjiich immediately followed, employed him in very arduous and difficult service which occurred. He had, in particular, opportunities, during the siege of Morne Fortunée at St. Lucie, which lasted from the 26th of April to the same day in May, of eminently distinguishing himself; and his conduct, as sir Ralph expressed in his public orders, was the admiration of the whole army. Sir Ralph, immediately on the capitulation, bestowed the command and government of the island on general Moore, who did all he could to induce sir Ralph to keep him with the army, and employ him in the reduction of the other islands, but without effect. Sir Ralph, in a manner, forced this important command upon him, at the same time giving him the most flattering reasons for wishing him to accept of it. The admiral and general sailed from St. Lucie on the 3d of June, leaving brigadier-general Moore in a situation which required, from what remained to be done in such a climate, perhaps more military talent, and a greater degree of exertion and personal risk, than even there had been occasion for during the reduction of the island; for, although the French commanding officer, and the principal post in the island, had surrendered, numerous bands of armed negroes remained in the woods; yet he at length succeeded in completely reducing these. Having, however, had two narrow escapes from violent attacks of yellovr fever, the last rendered it necessary that he should be relieved from the command of the island, and he returned to England in the month of July or August 1797. In Nov. following, sir Ralph Abercrombie having been appointed commander of the forces in Ireland, desired that brigadier-­general Moore might be put upon the staff in that country, which was done, and he accompanied sir Ralph to Dublin on the 2ddayof December 1797. During the period immediately preceding the rebellion in 1798, Moore had an important command in the south of Ireland, which was very disaffected, and was also the quarter where the enemy were expected to make a landing. His head-quarters were at Bandon, and his troops, amounting to 3000 men, were considered as the advanced corps of the south. When the rebellion broke out, he was employed first under major-general Johnstone, at New Ross, where the insurgents suffered much, and immediately afterwards was detached towards Wexford, at that time in the hands of the rebels. He had on this occasion only the 60th yagers, or sharp shooters, 900 light infantry, 50 of Hompesch’s cavalry, and six pieces of artillery. With these he had not marched above a mile before a large body of rebels appeared on the road, marching to attack him. He had examined the ground, as well as the short time would allow, in the morning, and thus was able to form his men to advantage. The rebels attacked with great spirit, but, after an obstinate contest, were driven from the field, and pursued with great loss. They amounted to about 6000 men, and were commanded by general Roche, a priest. After the action, the two regiments under lord Dalhousie arrived from Duncannon fort. It then being too late to proceed toTaghmone, which was his intention, the brigadier took post for the night on the ground where the action began. Next day on his march he was met by two men from Wexford with proposals from the rebels to lay down their arms, on certain conditions. As general Moore had no power to treat, he made no answer, but proceeded on to Wexford, which he delivered from the power of the rebels, who had piked or shot forty of their prisoners the day before, and intended to have murdered the rest if they had not been thus prevented.

Brigadier-general Moore continued to serve in Ireland, where he succeeded to the rank of major-general, and had a regiment given him, until the latter end of June 1799, when he was ordered to return to England to be employed in the expedition under sir Ralph Abercrombie, which sailed August 13, and was destined to rescue Holland from the tyranny of the French' government. The general result, owing to circumstances which could not be foreseen, was unfavourable; but the English troops had an opportunity of displaying the greatest valour, and none were more distinguished than those under the more immediate command of general Moore, who, after being twice wounded, in the hand, and in the thigh, received a musket-ball through his face, by which he was disabled, and was brought from the ground with some difficulty. He was now carried back to his quarters, a distance of ten miles, and as soon, as he could be moved, he was taken to the Helder, where he embarked on board the Amethyst frigate, and arrived at the Nore on the 24th; from thence he proceeded to London. Soon after his return to England from the Helder, a second battalion was added to the 52d regiment, of which the command was bestowed oa him by the king, in the most gracious manner. Being of an excellent constitution, and temperate habits, his wounds closed in the course of five or six weeks. He joined his brigade at Chelmsford on the 24th of December, 1799. In the early part of 1800 it had been intended to send a body of troops to the Mediterranean under sir Charles Stuart; he wrote to general Moore, and proposed to him to serve under him, which was accepted with the greatest pleasure. It was at first intended that sir Charles should take out of England 15,000 men, but it was afterwards found that the regiments allotted for this service, and which had been part of the expedition to Holland, were insufficient, and only amounted to 10,000 effective. About the middle of March, the first division, amounting to 5000 men, embarked under major-general Pigot. At this time a change took place in the plan of the expedition; sir Charles had some disagreement with ministers, and resigned his situation. Sir Ralph Ahercrombie was appointed to the command, and majorgeneral Moore was named as one of his major-generals, with Hutchinson and Pigot, who sailed about the end of April* with the 5000 men. There was little opportunity during this expedition, the success of which was prevented by various unforeseen occurrences, for any exertions in which general Moore could distinguish himself, until, the armies being ordered to separate, his troops were ordered to go to Egypt under sir Ralph Abercrombie. Having arrived at Malta, major-general Moore was sent to Jaffa to visit the Turkish army, and form a judgment as to what aid was to be expected from it; but the result being unfavourable, sir Ralph determined to land in the bay of Aboukir, and march immediately upon Alexandria. Any satisfactory detail of this memorable expedition would extend this article too far we shall therefore confine oui selves to that part in which major-general Moore was more particularly concerned. As soon as the landing was begun, he, at the head of the grenadiers and light infantry of th< 40th, with the 23d and 28th regiments in line, ascencle< the sand-hill. They did not fire a shot until they gained the summit, when they charged the enemy, drove ther and took four pieces of cannon, with part of their hor& The French retreated to the border of a plain, where g< neral Moore halted, as upon the left a heavy fire of mus quetry was kept up. Brigadier-general Oakes, with tl left of the reserve, consisting of the 42d Highlanders, tin 58th regiment, and the Corsican rangers, landed to th< left of the sand-hill, and were attacked by both infantn and cavalry, which they repulsed and followed into thi plain, taking three pieces of artillery. The guards an< part of general Coote’s brigade landed to the left of tl reserve; they were vigorously opposed, but repulsed tt tenerhy, and followed them into the plain. The want ol cavalry and artillery (for it was some time before the gui that were landed could be dragged through the sand) saved the enemy from being destroyed. This was one of the most splendid instances of British intrepidity that perhaps ever happened. The enemy had eight days to assemble and prepare, and the ground was extremely favourable to them. The loss of the enemy was considerable, that of the British amounted to 600 killed and wounded, of which the reserve lost 400. In the course of the afternoon the rest of the army landed, and the whole moved forward a couple of miles, where they took post for the night.

General Hutchinson had a considerable circuit to make to get to the ground where he was to make his attack, and the attack of the reserve was to be regulated by his. When he got to his ground, the position of the French was found to be so strongly defended by a numerous artillery, and covered besides by the guns on the fortified heights near Alexandria, that the attempt was given up, and as the army were in their present position exposed to the enemy’s cannon without being able to retaliate, a position on the height in the rear was marked out, to which the army fell back as the evening advanced. This severe action cost the British army 1300 in killed and wounded. The situation of the British army at this period was certainly a very critical one, as it was quite evident that government had been deceived in their estimate of the French forces. Sir Raiph, therefore, was well aware of the difficult task he had to perform. The camp of the British was about four or five miles from Alexandria. In front of the reserve, which, formed the right of the army, was a very extensive ancient ruin, which the French called Caesar’s camp; it was twenty or thirty yards retired from the right flank of the redoubt, and commanded the space between the redoubt and the sea. In this redoubt and ruin major-general Moore had posted the 28th and 58th regiments. On the 21st the attack was made by the French, who were driven back by his troops, but he received a shot in the leg. The result, however, was, that every attack the French made was repulsed with great slaughter. In the early part of the action, and in the dark, some confusion was unavoidable, but wherever the French appeared, the British went boldly up to them, even the cavalry breaking in had not in the least dismayed them. As the day broke, the foreign brU gaJe, under brigadier-general, afterwards sir John Stuart, who fought the battle of Maida, came to the second line to the support of the reserve, shared in the action, and behaved with great spirit. Day-light enabled major-general Moore to get the reserve into order, but there was a great want of ammunition. The guns could not be fired for a very considerable time, otherwise the French must have suffered much more severely, while retreating from their different unsuccessful attacks, than they did. The enemy’s artillery continued to gall the British severely with shot and shells, after the infantry and cavalry had been repulsed. The British could not return a shot. Had the French attacked again, the British had nothing but their bayonets, which they unquestionably would have used, as never was an army more determined to do their duty. But the enemy laad suffered so severely, that the men could not be got to make another attempt. They continued in front at a distant musket-shot, until the ammunition for the English guns was brought up to enable them to fire, when theyvery soon retreated. While the attacks were made on the British right, a column attacked the guards on the left of the reserve, but were repulsed with loss. The French general, Menou, had concentrated the greatest part of the force in Egypt for this attack; the prisoners stated his force in the field at about 13,000 men, of whom between three and four thousand were killed or wounded. The British army lost about 1300 men, of which upwards of 500 belonged to the reserve. This battle commenced at half past four in the morning, and terminated about nine. The French made three different attacks, with superior numbers, the advantage of cavalry, and a numerous and well-served artillery. The British infantry here gave a decided proof of their superior firmness and hardihood. Sir Ralph, who always exposed his person very much, in this last battle carried the practice perhaps farther than he bad e?er done before. Major-general Moore met hjnv early in the anion, close in the rear of the 42d, without any of the officeFS of his family; and afterwards, when the French cavalry charged the second time, and penetrated the 42d, major-general Moore saw him again and waved to him to retire, but he was instantly surrounded by the hussars; he received a cut from a sabre ou the breast, which penetrated his clothes and just grazed the flesh. He received a shot in the thigh, but remained in the field until the battle was over, when he was conveyed on board the Foudroyant. Major-general Moore, at the close of the action, had the horse killed under him that major Honeyroan had lent him. Wnen the battle was over, the wound in his leg became so stiff and painful, that as soon as he could get a hurse, he gave the command of the reserve to coloi ei Spencer, and retired with brigadier-general Oakes, who commanded the reserve under him, and who was wounded in the leg also, to their tents in the rear. Brigadier-general Oakes was wounded nearly at the same time, and in the same part of the leg that major-general Moore was, but they both continued to head the reserve until the battle was over. When the surgeon had dressed their wounds, finding that they must be some time incapable of action, they returned to the Diadem troop-ship. Sir Ralph Abercrombie died of his wound on board the Foudroyant on the 28th day of March, and the command devolved on major-general Hutchinson. It is unnecessary here to detail the operations in Egypt that followed the battle of the 2 1st, as major-general Moore was confined on hoard the Diadem with his wound until the I Oth of May, when he was removed to Rosetta for the benefit of a change of air. He suffered very severely the ball had passed between the two bones of his leg he endured a long confinement and much torment, from inflammation and surgical operations. When at length he could move on crutches, and was removed to Rosetta, where he got a house on the banks of the Nile, agreeably situated, he began to recover rapidly, and afterwards continued to serve in the army of Egypt until after the surrender of Alexandria, when he returned to England, where he received the honour of knighthood, and the order of the bath. On the renewal of the war, the talents and services of sir John Moore pointed him out as deserving of the most important command. It was not, however, until 1808 that he was appointed to the chief command of an army to be employed in Spain, and Gallicia or the borders of Leon were fixed upon as the place for assembling the troops. Sir John was ordered to send the cavalry by land, but it was left to his own discretion to transport the infantry and artillery either by sea or land. He was also assured, that 15,000 men were ordered to Corunna, and he was directed to give such orders to sir David Baird, their commander, as would most readily effect a junction of the whole force. Both, however, soon discovered that little reliance could be placed on the Spaniards; and they had not got far into the country before their hopes were completely disappointed. Sir John Moore soon began to anticipate the result which followed. In the mean time the French army had advanced, and taken possession of the city of Valladolid, which is but twenty leagues from Salamanca. Sir John had been positively informed that his entry into Spain would be covered by 60 or 70,000 men; and that Burgos was the city intended for the point of union for the different divisions of the British army. But already not only Burgos, but Valladolid, was in possession of the enemy; and he found himself with an advanced corps in an open town, at three marches distance only from the French army, without even a Spanish piquet to cover his front He had at this time only three brigades of infantry, without a gun, in Salamanca. The remainder, it is true, vyere moving up in succession, but the whole could not arrive in less than ten days. At this critical time the Spanish main armies, instead of being united either among themselves, or with the British, were divided from each other almost by the whole breadth of the peninsula. The fatal consequences of this want of union were but too soon made apparent; Blake was defeated, and a report reached sir David Baird that the French were advancing upon his division in two different directions, so as to threaten to surround him. He, consequently, prepared to retreat upon Corunna; but sir John Moore, having ascertained that the report was unfounded, ordered sir David to advance, in order, if possible, to form a junction with him. On the 28th of November he received information that there was now no army remaining, against which the whole French force might be directed, except the British; and it was in vain to expect that they, even if they had been united, could have resisted or checked the enemy. Sir John Moore, therefore, determined to fall back on Portugal, to hasten the junction of general Hope, who had gone towards Madrid, and he ordered sir David Baird to regain Corunna as expeditiously as possible; and when he had thus determined upon a retreat, he communicated his design to the general officers, who, with the exception of general Hope, seemed to doubt the wisdom of his decision; he would, however, have carried it into execution, if he had not been induced, by pressing solicitations, and representations of encouragement, to advance to Madrid, which he was told not only held out, but was capable of opposing the French for a considerable length of time. Sir John, therefore, anxious to meet the wishes of his troops, by leading them against the enemy, determined to attack Soult, the French general, who was posted at Saldanha, by which he thought he should draw off the French armies to the north of Spain, and thus afford an opportunity for the Spanish armies to rally and re-unite. Soult was probably posted in that spot with so small a body of men for the purpose of enticing the British army farther into Spain, while Bonaparte, in person, with his whole disposable force, endeavoured to place himself between the British army and the sea. At length the two armies met; and the superiority of the British cavalry was eminently displayed in a most brilliant and successful skirmish, in which 600 of the imperial guards of Bonaparte were driven off the field by half the number of British, Reaving 55 killed and wounded, and 70 prisoners, among whom was general Le Febre, the commander of the imperial guard.

Yet, notwithstanding this and other advantages gained over the enemy, a retreat was become indispensably necessary: sir John’s troops did not amount to more than 27,000, while the French on the lowest calculation were 70,000, and so closely did this army, under Bonaparte, pursue the English, that the distance between them was scarcely thirty miles, while sir John was rather incommoded than benefited by the Spanish troops, and the Spanish peasantry offered no assistance to his troops, harassed by fatigue, and in want of every necessary. The difficulties and anxieties of the British commander were also increased by the relaxation which took place in the discipline of the army, arising from various causes, which compelled him to issue such orders as might unequivocally point out his knowledge of the extent to which the want of discipline Lad proceeded, the persons to whom he principally attributed it, and his positive and unalterable determination to punish it in the most severe and exemplary manner. At Lugo sir John Moore was anxious to engage the enemy; and he was satisfied that the general orders he had now given, had produced such an effect in his army, as to give an earnest of victory. A slight skirmish ensued, in which, the British rushed forward with charged bayonets, and drove the enemy’s column down the hill with considerable slaughter. After this, marshal Soult, having experienced the talents of the general, and the intrepidity of the troops he had to encounter, did not venture to renew the attack; from this it was concluded that his intention was to harass the British as much as possible during their march, and to defer his attack till the embarkation. Under these circumstances, the general quitted his ground in the night, leaving fires burning to deceive the enemy. The French did not discover their retreat till long after day-light, so that the British army got the start of them considerably. On the llth of January the whole of the British reached Corunna, the port where they hoped to embark, not, however, without the probability of a battle; and notwithstanding they were disappointed in not finding the transports at Corunna, the British army rejoiced that before they quitted the shores of Spain they should have an opportunity to front their enemies. The enemy gave no particular indipations of attack till about noon of the 16th of January: at this time sir John Moore was giving directions for the embarkation; but the moment intelligence was brought that the enemy’s line were getting under arms, he struck spurs to his horse, and flew to the field. The advanced piquets were already beginning to fire at the enemy’s light troops, who were pouring rapidly down the hill on the right wing of the British. Early in the action, sir David Baird, leading on his division, had his arm shattered with a grape-shot, and was forced to leave the field. At this instant the French artillery plunged from the heights, and the two hostile lines of infantry mutually advanced beneath a shower of balls. They were still separated from each other by stone-walls and hedges. A sudden and very able movement of the British gave the utmost satisfaction to sir John Moore, who had been watching the manoeuvre, and he cried out, “That is exactly what I wished to be done.” He then rode up to the 50th regiment, commanded by majors Napier and Charles Banks Stanhope, who had got over an inclosure in their front, and were charging most valiantly. The general, delighted with the gallantry of the two majors, who had been recommended by himself to the military rank they held, exclaimed, “Well done the 50th! Well done my majors!” The plaudits of their general and beloved friend excited them to new efforts, and they drove the enemy out of the village of Elvina with great slaughter. In the conflict, major Napier, advancing too far, was severely wounded and taken prisoner, and major Stanhope received a ball through his heart, which instantly put an end to a most valuable life. So instantaneous must have been the death of major Stanhope, that a sense of pain had not torn from his countenance the smile which the bravery of his soldiers and the applause of his commander had excited.

Sir John Moore proceeded to the 42d, and addressed them in these words, a Highlanders, remember Egypt.“They rushed on, driving the French before them. He sent captain Hardinge to order up a battalion of guards to the left flank of the Highlanders, upon which the oflicer commanding the light company, conceiving that, as their ammunition was nearly expended, they were to be relieved by the guards, began to fall back; but sir John, discovering the mistake, said,” My brave 42d, join your comrades, ammunition is coming, and you have your bayonets." They instantly obeyed, and moved forward. While the general was speaking, a cannon ball struck him to the ground. He raised himself, and sat up with an unaltered countenance, looking most intently at the Highlanders, who were warmly engaged; captain Hardinge assured him the 42d were advancing, upon which his countenance immediately brightened. The general was carried from the field, and on the way he ordered captain Hardinge to report his wound to general Hope, who assumed the command. Many of the soldiers knew that their two generals were carried off the field, yet they continued the fight till they had achieved a decisive and hrilliant victory, over a very superior force.

The account of this disaster was brought to sir David Baird while the surgeons were dressing his shattered arm. He ordered them instantly to desist, and run to attend on sir John Moore. When they arrived, he said to them, “you can be of no service to me, go to the soldiers, to whom you may be useful.” As the soldiers were carrying him slowly along in a blanket, he made them turn him round frequently to view the field of battle, and to listen to the firing, and was pleased when the sound grew fainter. On his arrival at his lodgings he was in much pain, and could speak but little, but at intervals he said to colonel Anderson, who for one-and-twenty years had been his friend and companion in arms “Anderson, you know that I always wished to die in this way.” He frequently asked “are the French beaten” and at length, when he was told they were defeated in every point, he said, te It is a great satisfaction for me to know we have beaten the French.“” I hope the people of England will be satisfied, I hope my country will do me justice." Having mentioned the name of his venerable mother, and the names of some other friends for whose welfare he seemed anxious to offer his last prayers, the power of utterance was lost, and he died in a few minutes without a struggle.

, a very respectable mathematician, fellow of the royal society, and surveyor-general of the ordnance, was born at Whitlee, or Whitle, in Lancashire, Feb. 8, 1617. After enjoying the advantages of a liberal education, he bent his studies principally to the mathematics, to which he had always a strong inclination, and in the early part of his life taught that science in London for his support. In the expedition of king Charles the First into the northern parts of England, our author was introduced to him, as a person studious and learned in those sciences; and the king expressed much approbation of him, and promised him encouragement; which indeed laid the foundation of his fortune. He was afterwards, when the king was at Holdenby-house, in 1647, appointed mathematical master to the king’s second son James, to instruct him in arithmetic, geography, the use of the globes, &c. During Cromwell’s government he appears to have followed the profession of a public teacher of mathematics; for he is styled, in the title-page of some of his publications, “professor of the mathematics;” but his loyalty was a considerable prejudice to his fortune. In his greatest necessity, he was assisted by colonel Giles Strangeways, then a prisoner in the Tower of London, who likewise recommended him to the other eminent persons, his fellow- prisoners, and prosecuted his interest so far as to procure him to be chosen surveyor in the work of draining the great level of the fens’. Having observed in his survey that the sea made a curve line on the beach, he thence took the hint to keep it effectually out of Norfolk. This added much to his reputation. Aubrey informs us, that he made a model of a citadel for Oliver Cromwell “to bridle the city of London,” which was in the possession of Mr. Wild, one of the friends who procured him the surveyorship of the Fens. Aubrey adds, what we do not very clearly understand, that this citadel was to have been the crossbuilding of St. Paul’s church.

After the return of Charles II. he found great favour and promotion, becoming at length surveyor-general of the king’s ordnance, and receiving the honour of knighthood. He was a great favourite both with the king and the duke of York, who often consulted him, and were advised by him upon many occasions; and he often employed his interest with the court to the advancement of learning and the encouragement of merit. Thus he got Flamsteed house built in 1675, as a public observatory, recommended Mr. Flamsteed to be the king’s astronomer, to make the observations there: and being surveyor-general of the ordnance himself, this was the reason why the salary of the astronomer royal was made payable out of the office of ordnance. Being a governor of Christ’s hospital, it was by his interest that the king founded the mathematical school there, allowing a handsome salary for a master to instruct a certain number of the boys in mathematics and navigation, to qualify them for the sea-service. Foreseeing the great benefit the nation might receive from a mathematical school, if rightly conducted, he made it his utmost care to promote the improvement of it. The school was settled; but there still wanted a methodical institution from which the youths might receive such necessary helps as their studies required: a laborious work, from which his other great and assiduous employments might very well have exempted him, had not a predominant regard to a more general usefulness engaged him to devote al the leisure hours of his declining years to the improvement of so useful and important a seminary of learning.

, rector of Kirkbride, and chaplnin of Douglas in the Isle of Mann, a gentleman well known in the literary world, by his correspondence with men of genius in several parts of it, and by them eminently distinguished as the divine and scholar, was born in 1705. In the earlier part of a life industriously employed in promoting the present and future happiness of mankind, he served as chaplain to the right reverend Dr. Wilson, the venerable bishop of Mann, whose friend and companion he was for many years: at his funeral he was appointed to preach his sermon, which is affixed to the discourses of that prelate, in the edition of his works printed at Bath, 1781, in two volumes, quarto, and that in folio. At the request of the society for promoting Christian knowledge, he undertook the revision of the translation into Manks of the Holy Scriptures, the book of Common Prayer, bishop Wilson on the Sacrament, and other religious pieces, printed for the use of the diocese of Mann; and, during the execution of the first of these works, he was honoured with the advice of the tw*o greatest Hebrseans of the age, bishop Lowth and Dr. Kennicott. In the more private walks of life, he was not less beloved and admired; in his duty as a clergyman, he was active and exemplary, and pursued a conduct (as far as human nature is capable) “void of offence towards God and towards man.” His conversation, prompted by an uncommon quickness of parts, and refined by study, was at once lively, instructive, and entertaining; and his friendly correspondence (which was very extensive) breathes perhaps as much original humour as can, be met with in any writer who has appeared in public, Sterne not excepted, to whom he did not yield even in that vivid philanthropy, which the fictitious Sterne could so often assume. All the clergy in the island at the time of his death, had been (except four) educated by him, and by them he was always distinguished with peculiar respect and affection. His conduct operated in the same degree amongst all ranks of people, and it is hard to say, whether he won more by his doctrine or example; in both, religion appeared most amiable, and addressed herself to the judgments of men, clothed in that cheerfulness which is the result of firm conviction and a pure intention. It is unnecessary to add, that though his death, which happened at Douglas, Jan. 22, 1783, in his 78th year, was gentle, yet a retrospect of so useful and amiable a life made it deeply regretted. His remains were interred with great solemnity in Kirk Braddon church, attended by all the clergy of the island, and a great number of the most respectable inhabitants. In 1785, a monument was erected to his memory, at the expence of the rev. Dr. Thomas Wilson, son of the bishop, and prebendary of Westminster, &c.

, a pious and learned Spanish priest, born in 1513 at Cordova, was one of those who greatly contributed to restore a taste for the belles lettres in Spain. He taught with reputation in the university of Alcala, was appointed historiographer to Philip II. king of Spain, and died 1590, at Alcala, aged 77, leaving several works relative to Spanish antiquities besides other valuable books. The principal are, “The general Chronicle of Spain,” which had been begun by Florian Ocampo, 1574, and 1588, 2 vols. folio, in Spanish. “The Antiquities of Spain,” folio, in the same language, a curious and very valuable work “Scholia,” in Latin, on the works of Eulogius the “Genealogy of St. Dominick,” &c. He was originally a Dominican, but obliged to quit that order in consequence of having been induced, by a mistaken piety, to follow Origen’s example. He was unquestionably a man of learning, and had many of the best qualities of a historian, but he scarcely rose above the grossest superstitions of his age and religion. A complete edition of his works was published at Madrid in 1791—92.

, M. A. and F. S. A. a learned and indefatigable antiquary and biographer, the son of Stephen Morant, was born at St. Saviour’s in the isle of Jersey, Oct. 6, 1700; and, after finishing his education at Abingdon-school, was entered Dec. 16, 1717, of Pembrokecollege, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. June 10, 1721, and continued till Midsummer 1722; when he was preferred to the office of preacher of the English church at Amsterdam, but never went to take possession. He took the degree of M. A. in 1724, and was presented to the rectory of Shellow Bowells, April 20, 1733; to the vicarage of Bromfield, Jan. 17, 1733-4; to the rectory of Chicknal Smeley, Sept. 19, 1735; to that of St. Mary’s, Colchester, March 9, 1737; to that of Wickham Bishops, Jan. 21, 1742-3; and to that of Aldham, Sept. 14, 1745. All these benefices are in the county of Essex. In 1748 he published his “History of Colchester,” of which only 200 copies were printed at the joint expence of Mr. Bowyer and himself. In 1751, Mr. Morant was elected F. S. A. In February 1768, he was appointed, by the lords subcommittees of the House of Peers, to succeed Mr. Blyke, in preparing for the press a copy of the rolls of parliament; a service to which he diligently attended to his death, which happened Nov. 25, 1770, in consequence of a cold, caught in returning by water from the Temple to Vauxhall, in his way to South Lambeth, where he resided for the convenience of attending to his parliamentary labours; for which, as a native of Jersey, and excellently skilled in the old Norman French, he was particularly well qualified. This work, after his death, devolved on Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. Ss. who had married his only daughter, and who communicated to Mr. Nichols the following exact account of Mr. Morant’s writings, from a list of them drawn up by himself. 1. “An Introduction to the Reading of the New Testament, being a translation of that of Mess, de Beausobre and Lenfant, prefixed to their edition of the New Testament,” 1725, 1726, 4to. 2. “The Translation of the Notes of Mess, de Beausobre and Lenfant on St. Matthew’s Gospel,” 1727, 4to. N. Tindal translated the text printed therewith. 3. “The Cruelties and Persecutions of the Romish Church displayed, &c.” 1728, 8vo, translated into Welsh by Thomas Richards, curate of Coy church in Glamorganshire, 1746, with the approbation of Dr. Gilbert, the bishop of Landaff. 4. “1 epitomised those Speeches, Declarations, &c. which Rapin had contracted out of Rushworth in the Life of King James I. King Charles I. &c.” 1729, 1730. 5. “Remarks on the 19th Chapter of the Second Book of Mr. Selden’s Mare Clausum.” Printed at the end of Mr. Fallens “Account of Jersey,” 1731. 6. “1 compared Rapin’s History with the 20 volumes of Rymer’s Fcedera, and Acta Publica, and all the ancient and modern Historians, and added most of the notes that were in the folio edition,” 1728, 1734. This is acknowledged at the end of the preface in the first volume of Rapin’s History. 7. “Translation of the Notes in the Second Part of the Othman History, by Prince Cantemir,” 1735, fulio. 8. Revised and correeled “The History of England, by way of Question and Answer,” for Thomas Astley, 1737, 12mo. 9. Revised and corrected “Hearne’s Ductor Historicus,” and made large additions thereto, for J. Knapton. 10. “Account of the Spanish Invasion in 1588, by way of illustration to the Tapestry Hangings in the House of Lords and in the King’s Wardrobe. Engraved and published by J. Pine,” 1739, folio. 11. “Geographia Antiqua & Nova; taken partly from Dufresnoy’s ‘ Methode pour etudier la Geographic;’ with Ceilarius’s Maps,” 1742, 4to. 12. “A Summary of the History of England,” folio, and “Lists at the end of Mr. TindaPs Continuation of Rapin’s History, in vol. III. being 55 sheets. Reprinted in three volumes,” 8vo. 13. “The History and Antiquities of Colchester,” 1748, folio; second edition, 1768. 14. “All the Lives in the Biographia Britannica marked C. 1739, 1760, 7 vols. folio. I also composed Stiliingfleet, which hath no mark at the end.” 15. “The History of P:ssex,” 1760, 1768, 2 vols. folio. 16. “I prepared the Rolls of Parliament for the Press” (as far as the 16 Henry IV.) Other works in ms.: 17. “An Answer to the first Part of the Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, in a Letter to a Friend, 1724. Presented in ms. to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London.” Never printed. This was the beginning of Mr. Morant’s acquaintance with the bishop, whom he acknowledged as his only patron, and who gave him several livings in the county of Essex. 18. “The Life of King Edward the Confessor.” 19. About 150 Sermons.

, a learned Italian lady, was born at Ferrara, in 1526. Her father taught the belles lettres in several cities of Italy: and his reputation as a teacher advanced him to be preceptor to the young princes of Ferrara, sons of Alphonsus I. The uncommon parts and turn for literature which he discovered in his daughter, induced him to cultivate them; and she soon made a very extraordinary progress. The princess of Ferrara was at that time studying polite literature, and a companion in the same pursuit being thought expedient, Morata was called to court; where she was heard, by the astonished Italians, to declaim in Latin, to speak Greek, to explain the paradoxes of Cicero, and to answer any questions that were put to her. Her father dying, and her mother being an invalid, she was obliged to return home, in order to tuke upon her the administration of the family affairs, and the education of three sisters and a brother, all which sho conducted with judgment and success. But some have said that the immediate cause of her removal from court, was a dislike which the duchess of Ferrara had conceived against her, by the misrepresentations of some of the courtiers. In the mean time, a young Oerman, named Grunthlcrus, who had studied physic, and taken his doctor’s degree at Ferrara, fell in love with her, and married her. Upon this she went with her hushand to Germany, and took her little brother with her, whom she carefully instructed in the Latin and Greek languages. They arrived at Augsburg in 1548; and, after a short stay there, went to Schweinfurt in Franconia, but had not been long there, before Schweinfurt was besieged and burnt. They escaped, however, with their lives, but remained in great distress until the elector Palatine invited Grunthler to be professor of physic at Heidelburg. He entered upon this new office in 1554, and be'gan to enjoy some degree of repose; when illness, occasioned by the hardships they had undergone, seized upon Morata, and proved fatal Oct. 26, 1555, before she was quite twenty-nine years old. She died in the Protestant religion, which she embraced upon her coming to Germany, and to which she resolutely adhered. Her husband and brother did not long survive her, and were interred in the same grave in the church of St. Peter, where is a Latin epitaph to their memory.

, one of the founders of the Royal Society, was descended of an ancient and noble family in the Highlands of Scotland, and had his education partly in the university of St. Andrews, and partly in France. In this last country he entered into the army, in the service of Lewis XIII, and became such a favourite with cardinal Richlieu, that few foreigners were held in equal esteem by that great statesman. According to Anthony Wood, sir Robert Moray was general of the ordnance in Scotland, against king Charles 1, when the presbyterians of that kingdom first set up and maintained their covenant. But if this be true, which we apprehend to be very doubtful, he certainly returned to France, and was raised to the rank of colonel, from which country he came over to England for recruits, at the time that king Charles was with the Scotch army at Newcastle. Here he grew into much favour with his majesty, and, about December 1646, formed a design for his escape, which was to have been executed in the following manner: Mr. William Moray, afterwards earl of Dysert, had provided a vessel near Tinmouth, and sir Robert Moray was to have conducted the king thither in a disguise. The matter proceeded so far, that his majesty put himself in the disguise, and went down the back-stairs with sir Robert. But, apprehending that it was scarcely possible to pass all the guards without being discovered, and judging it highly indecent to be taken in such a condition, he changed his resolution, and returned back. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. sir Robert Moray was appointed a privycounsellor for Scotland. Wood says, that, though sir Robert was presbyterianly affected, he had the king’s ear as much as any other person. He was, undoubtedly, in no small degree of esteem with his majesty but this was probably more upon a philosophical than apolitical account for he was employed by Charles the Second in his chymical processes, and was, indeed, the conducter of his laboratory. When the design was formed, in 1661, of restoring episcopacy in Scotland, sir Robert was one, among others, who was for delaying the making of any such change, till the king should be better satisfied concerning the inclinations of the nation. In the next year, sir Robert Moray was included in an act, passed in Scotland, which incapacitated certain persons from holding any place of trust under the government. This act, which was carried by the management of a faction, and to which the lord commissioner (the earl of Middleton) gave the royal assent, without acquainting his majesty with the whole purport of it, was very displeasing to the king, who, when it was delivered to him, declared, that it should never be opened by him. In 1667, sir Robert Moray was considerably entrusted in the management of public affairs in Scotland, and they were then conducted with much greater moderation than they had been for some time before. It is a circumstance highly to his honour, that though the earl of Lauderdale, at the instigation of lady Dysert, had used him very unworthily, yet that nobleman had such an opinion of his virtue and candour, that, whilst he was in Scotland, in 1669, as his majesty’s high commissioner, he trusted all his concerns in the English court to sir Robert’s care. Sir Robert Moray had been formerly the chief friend and main support of the earl of Lauderdale, and had always been his faithful adviser and reprover. Anthony Wood says, that sir Robert was a single man; but this is a mistake; for he had married a sister of lord Balcarras. He died suddenly, in liis pavilion, in the garden of Whitehall, on the 4th of July, 1673, and was interred, at the king’s expence, in Westminster-abbey, near the monument of Sfir William Davenant.

* The members, of whom it was academy at Paris, and dated 2 1 2 Julii, originally composed, held their first 1661, sir Robert Moray styled himself meeting, for the purpose of forming “Societatis at) tempus Praises.” From themselves into a regular philosophical all the circumstances we have been society, on the I 28ih of November, able to collect, sir Robert sheens to 1660. In the next week (Dec. 5.), sir have been the sole president of the soRobert Moray brought word from the ciety, till it was incorporated, exemptcourt, that the king had been acquaint- ing for one month, from May 14th, ed with the design of the meeting; that 1662, to June the 11th, during which, he well approved of it; and that he would time Dr. Wilkins possessed that hobe ready to give it encouragement. "nour. It is certain that sir Robert On the 6ih of March, 1660-61, sir Moray was again appointed to the ofRobert was chosen president of the so- fice, when Dr. Wilkins’s month was ciety, for a month only, as it appears out, and that he continued in it till the for, on the 10th of April, 1661, he was charter took place. T 1 ^ above acagain elected for another mon'.h. In count will reconcile the apparent conthis office he likewise continued by tradiction of our historians, who, when subsequent elections, though the time they speak of the Royal Society, sumeof making them is not particularly limes represent sir Robert Moray, and mentioned. In a Latin letter, addiessed sometimes lord Brouncker, as having to Mons, de Montmor, president of the been the first president. He had a very considerable share in obtaining its charters; was concerned in framing its statutes and regulations; and was indefatigably zealous in whatever regarded its interests. In both the charters of the Royal Society, he is first mentioned in the list of the council he was always afterward chosen of the council and his name sometimes occurs as vice-president.

, earl of Peterborough, was the son of John lord Mordaunt, of Reygate, in Surrey, and lord viscount Avalon, in the county of Somerset, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Carey, second son of Robert, earl of Monmouth. He was born about 1658; and, in 1675, succeeded his father in honours and estate. In his youth he served under the admirals Torrington and Narborough in the Mediterranean, during the war with the state of Algiers; and, in June 1680, embarked for Africa with the earl of Plymouth, and distinguished himself at Tangier, when it was besieged by the Moors. In the reign of James II. he was one of those lords who manifested their zeal against the repeal of the test-act; and, disliking the measures and designs of the court, obtained leave to go over into Holland, to accept the command of a Dutch squadron in the West-Indies. On his arrival, he pressed the prince of Orange to undertake an expedition into England, representing the matter as extremely easy; but, his scheme appearing too romantic, his highness only promised him in general, that he should have an eye on the affairs of England, and endeavour to put those of Holland in so good a posture as to be ready to act when it should be necessary: assuring him at the same time, that if the king should proceed to change the established religion, or to wrong the princess in her right, or to raise forged plots to destroy his friends, he would try what could possibly be done. The reason why the prince would not seem to enter too hastily into lord MordauntV ideas seems to have been, because, as Burnet* observes, his lordship was “a man of much heat, many notions, and full of discourse; and, tjiough brave and generous, had not true judgment, his thoughts being crude and indigested, and his secrets soon known.” However, he was one of those whom the prince chiefly trusted, and on whose advice he governed all his motions.

For his services abroad his lordship was declared general in Spain by Charles III. afterwards emperor of Germany; and, the war being thought likely to be concluded, he was appointed by queen Anne ambassador extraordinary, with power and instructions for treating and adjusting all matters of state and traffic between the two kingdoms. The king of Spain, however, having transmitted some charges against him, his conduct was examined by parliament, and cleared up to their entire satisfaction. The House of Lords, in particular, who were pleased with his justification, resolved, Jan. 12, 1710-11, “that his lordship, during the time he commanded the army in that kingdom, had performed many great and eminent services; and that, if the opinion, which he had given to the council of war at Valencia, had been followed, it might very probably have prevented the misfortunes that had since happened in Spain:” and upon this foundatiorrthey voted thanks to his lordship in the most solemn manner. In 1710 and 1711, Jie was employed in embassies to Vienna, Turin, and several of the courts in Italy. On his return to England, he was made colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and being general of the marines, and lord-lieutenant of the county of Northampton, was, on August 4, 1713, installed at Windsor a knight of the garter. Soon after which he was sent ambassador extraordinary to the king of Sicily, and to negociate affairs with other Italian princes; and in March 1713-14, was made governor of the island of Minorca. In the reign of George I. he was general of all the marine forces in Great Britain, in which post he was liker wise continued by George II. He died in his passage to Lisbon, whither he was going for thp recovery of his health, Oct. 25, 1735, aged seventy-seven. A very interesting account of his last illness, which was excruciating, js given in vol. X. of Bowles’s edition of Pope’s Works.

Lord Peterborough was a man of great courage and skill as a commander, and was successful in almost all his undertakings. As a politician, he appears also to much, advantage, being open, honest, and patriotic in the genuine sense. Lord Or ford has characterized him well in other respects, as “one of those men of careless wit and negligent grace, who scatter a thousand bon-mots and idle verses, which (such) painful compilers (as lord Orford) gather and hoard, till the owners stare to find themselves authors. Such was this lord of an advantageous figure, and enterprizing spirit as gallant as Amadis, and as brave, but a little more expeditious in his journeys; for he is said to have seen more kings and more postillions than any man in Europe.” He was indeed so active a traveller, according to Dean Swift, that queen Anne’s ministers used to say, they wrote at him, and not to him . What lord Peterborough wrote, however, seems scarcely worth notice, unless in such a publication as the “Royal and Noble Authors,” where the freedom of that illustrious company is bestowed on the smallest contributors to literary amusement. He is said to have produced “La Muse de Cavalier; or, an apology for such gentlemen as make poetry their diversion, and not their business,” in a letter inserted in the “Public Register,” a periodical work by Dodsley, 1741, 4to “A copy of verses on the duchess of Marl-' borough” <c Song, by a person of quality,“beginning” I said to my heart, between sleeping and waking, &c.“inserted in Swift’s Works.” Remarks on a pamphlet,“respecting the creation of peers, 1719, 8vo; but even for some of these trifles, the authority is doubtful. His correspondence with Pope is no little credit to that collection. He was the steady friend and correspondent of Pope, Swift, and other learned men of their time, as he had been of Pryden, who acknowledges his kindness and partiality. The” Account of the Earl of Peterborough’s conduct in Spain,“taken from his original letters and papers, was drawn up by Dr. Freind, and published in 1707, 8vo. Dr. Jf reind says, that” he never ordered off a detachment of a hundred men, without going with them himself.“Of his own courage his lordship used to say, that it proceeded from his not knowing his danger; agreeing in opinion with. Turenne, that a coward had only one of the three faculties of the mind apprehension. Of his liberality, we have this instance, that the remittances expected from England, not coming to his troops when he commanded in Spain, he is said to have supplied them for some time with money from his own pocket. In this he differed considerably from his great contemporary the duke of Marlborough, and the difference is stated in one of his best bon-mots. Being once taken by the mob for the duke, who was then in disgrace with them, he would probably have been roughly treated by these friends to summary justice, had he not addressed them in these words:” Gentlemen, I can convince you by two reasons that I am not the duke. In the first place, I have only five guineas in my pocket; and in the second, they are heartily at your service." So throwing his purse among them, he pursued his way amid loud acclamations. Many other witticisms may be seen in our authorities, which are less characteristic.

His lordship married Carey, daughter to sir Alexander Fraser, of Dotes, in the shire of Mearns, in Scotland, and by her (who died May 13, 1709) he had two sons, John and Henry, who both died before him, and a daughter, Henrietta, married to Alexander second duke of Gordon. He was succeeded in titles and estate by a grandson, Charles. He married as his second wife Mrs. Anastasia Robinson, a celebrated singer, of whom Dr. Burney has given a very particular account in vol. IV. of his “History of Music.” To this lady he was ardently attached, and behaved to her with great delicacy and propriety, but his pride revolted at the match, and he kept it secret until a very short period before his death. Of the lady herself he had, according to every account, no reason to be ashamed; but a connection of this kind had not then become so common as we have of late witnessed. How long he was married to her does not appear. She survived him fifteen years, residing in an exalted station, and visited by persons of the first rank, partly at Bevis Mount, his lordship’s seat near Southampton, and partly at Fulham, or perhaps at Peterborough-house at Parson’s green. Lord Peterborough had written his “Own Memoirs,” which this lady destroyed, from a regard to his reputation. Tradition says, that in these memoirs he confessed his having committed three capital crimes before he was twenty years of age. This we hope has been exaggerated; but it seems allowed that his morals were loose, and that he was a freethinker.

, a preacher of some celebrity among the French protestants, was the son of a Scotchman, who was principal of the college at Castres in Languedoc, and born there in 1616. When he was about twenty, he was sent to Geneva to study divinity; and finding, upon his arrival, that the chair of the Greek professor was vacant, he became a candidate for it. and gained it against competitors greatly beyond himself in years. Having exercised this office for about three years, he succeeded Spanheim, who was called away to Leyden, in the functions of divinity-professor and minister of Geneva. As he was a favourite preacher, and a man of great learning, he appears to have excited the jealousy of a party which was formed against him at Geneva. He had, however, secured the good opinion of Salmasius, who procured him the divinity-professor’s place at Middlebourg, together with the parish-church, which occasioned him to depart from Geneva in 1649. The gentlemen of Amsterdam, at his arrival in Holland, offered him the professorship of history, which was become vacant by the death of Vossius; but, not being able to detach him from his engagements to the city of Middlebourg, they gave it to David Blondel, yet, upon a second offer, he accepted it about three years after. In 1654, he left his professorship of history for some time to take a journey into Italy; where it is said he was greatly noticed by the duke of Tuscany. During his stay in Italy, he wrote a beautiful poem upon the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the Venetians, and was honoured with a chain of gold by the republic of Venice. He returned to his charge; and, after some contests with the Walloon synods, went into France, to be ordained minister of the church of Paris. But here he met with many opponents, his character, as is said, being somewhat ambiguous both in regard to faith and morals. He succeeded, however, in being received minister of the church of Paris, although his reputation continued to be attacked by people of merit and consequence, who presented him again to the from whose censures he escaped with great difficulty, and had again to encounter in 1661. About this time he went to England, and on his return six months afterwards, the complaints against him were immediately renewed. He died at Paris, in the duchess of Rohan’s house, in September 1670.

, an eminent artist of the sixteenth century, was born at Utrecht in 1519, and was the scholar of John Schorel, but seems to have studied the manner of Holbein, to which he approached nearer than to the freedom of design in the works of the great masters that he saw at Rome. Like Holbein he was a close imitator of nature, but did not arrive at his extreme delicacy of finishing; on the contrary, Antonio sometimes struck into a bold and masculine style, with a good knowledge of chiaro-scuro. Among other portraits he drew Philip II. and was recommended by cardinal Granvelle to Charles V. who sent him to Portugal, where he painted John III. the king, Catharine of Austria, his queen, and the infanta Mary, first wife of Philip. For these three pictures he received six hundred ducats, besides a gold chain of a thousand florins, and other presents. He had one hundred ducats for his common portraits. But still ampler rewards were bestowed on him when sent into England to draw the picture of queen Mary, the intended bride of Philip. They gave him one hundred pounds a quarter as painter to their majesties. He made various portraits of the queen one was sent by cardinal Granvelle to the emperor, who ordered two hundred florins to Antonio. He remained in England during the reign of Mary, and was much employed; but having neglected, as is frequent, to write the names on the portraits he drew, most of them have lost part of their value, by our ignorance of the persons represented. Though portraits was the branch in which More chiefly excelled, he was not without talent for history. In this he had something of the Italian style in his design, and his colouring resembled that of Titian. A very fine work of his, representing the Ascension of our Saviour, is in the gallery of the Louvre at Paris. The style of the composition, which consists of Jesus Christ ascending, crowned by two angels, and accompanied by the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, is of the severe and grand cast employed by Fra. Bartolomeo; the colouring is exceedingly fine, and correspondent to the style of design; he has been least successful in the expression of the principal figure; if that had been more just and grand, this picture would alone place More among the very first class of artists. On the death of the queen, he followed Philip into Spain, where he was indulged in so much familiarity, that one day the king slapping him pretty roughly on the shoulder, More returned the sport with his handstick. A strange liberty t& be taken with a Spanish monarch, and with such a monarch His biographer gives but an awkward account of the sequel, and, says Mr. Walpole, “1 repeat it as I find it. A grandee interposed for his pardon, and he was permitted to retire to the Netherlands, but on the promise of returning again to Spain. I should rather suppose that he was promised to have leave to return hither after a temporary banishment; and this supposition is the more likely, as Philip for once forgetting majesty in his love of the arts, dispatched a messenger to recal him before he had finished his journey. But the painter, sensible of the danger he had escaped, modestly excused himself. And yet, says the story, the king bestowed noble presents and places on his children.” At Utrecht, Antonio found the duke of Alva, and was employed by him to paint some of his mistresses, and was made receiver of the revenues of West Flanders, a preferment with which they say he was so elated, that he burned his easel, and gave away his painting-tools. He was a man of a stately and handsome figure; and often went to Brussels, where he lived magnificently. He died at Antwerp, in 1575, in the fifty-sixth year of his age.

, an eminent English divine and philosopher, was the second son of Alexander More, esq. and born at Grantham in Lincolnshire, Oct. 12, 1614. His parents, being zealous Calvinists, took especial care to breed up their son in Calvinistic principles; and, with this design, provided him with a private master of their own persuasion, under whose direction he continued till he was fourteen years of age. Then, at the instigation of his uncle, who discerned in him very uncommon talents, he was sent to Eton-school, in order to be perfected in the Greek and Latin tongues; carrying with him, a strict charge not to recede from the principles in which he had been so carefully trained. Here, however, he abandoned his Calvinistic opinions, as far as regarded predestination; and, although his uncle not only chid him severely, but even threatened him with correction, for his immature philosophizing in such matters; yet he persisted in his opinion. In 1631, after he had spent three years at Eton, he was admitted of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and, at his own earnest solicitations, under a tutor that was not a Calvinist. Here, as he informs us, “he plunged himself immediately over head and ears in philosophy, and applied himself to the works of Aristotle, Cardan, Julius Scaliger, and other eminent philosophers;” all which he read over before he took his bachelor of arts’ degree, which was in 1635. But these did not answer his expectations; their manner of philosophising did not fall in with his peculiar turn of mind; nor did he feel any of that high delight, which he had promised himself from these studies. This disappointment, therefore, induced him to search for what he wanted in the Platonic writers and mystic divines, such as Marsilius Ficinus, Plotinus, Trismegistus, &c. where his enthusiasm appears to have been highly gratified. Among all the writings of this kind, there was none which so much affected him as the “Theologia Germanica,” once a favourite book with Luther. This was written by one John Taulerus, a Dominican monk, in the fourteenth century; and who, being supposed by the credulity of that age to be favoured with revelations from heaven, was styled the “illuminated divine.” He preached chiefly at Cologne and Strasburg, and died in 1631. His book, written in German, was translated into Latin, first by Surius, and afterwards by Sebastian Castalio; and it went through a great number of editions from 1518 to 1700, when it was printed in French at Amsterdam.

The pretensions, which such authors as we have just mentioned, make of arriving at extraordinary degrees of illumination by their institutes, entirely captivated More’s fancy who pursued their method with great seriousness and intense application and, in three or four years, had reduced himself to so thin a state of body, and began to talk in such a manner of experiences and communications, as brought him into a suspicion of being touched with enthusiasm. Ib 1640, he composed his “Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the Soul;” which, with an addition of other poems, he republished in 1647, 8vo, under the title of “Philosophical Poems,” and dedicated to his father. He takes notice, in his dedication, that his father used to read to his children on winter nights “Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” with which our author was highly delighted, and which, he says in the dedication, “first turned his ears to poetry.” In 1639, he had taken his master of arts’ degree; and, being chosen fellow of his college, became tutor to several persons of great quality. One of these was sir John Finch, whose sister lady Con way was an enthusiast of his own stamp, and became at length a quaker, although he laboured for many years to reclaim her. He still, however, had a great esteem for her and drew up some of his “Treatises” at her particular request and she, in return, left him a legacy of 400l. He composed others of his works at Ragley, the seat of her lord in Warwickshire, where, at intervals, he spent a considerable part of his time. He met here with two extraordinary persons, the famous Van Helmont, and the no less famous Valentine Greatrakes; for, it seems, lady Conway was frequently afflicted with violent pains in her head, and these two persons were called in, at different times, to try their powers upon her; and, at last, Van Helmont lived in the family. There was once a design of printing some remains of this lady after her death; and the preface was actually written by our author under the person of Van Helmont; in which disguise he draws her character with so much address, that we are told the most rigid quaker would see every thing he could wish in it, and yet the soberest Christian be entirely satisfied with it. It is printed at large in his life.

In 1675, he accepted a prebend in the church of Gloucester, being collated to it by lady Conway’s brother, lord Finch, who was then chancellor of England, and afterwards earl of Nottingham; but soon resigned it to Dr. Edward Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, on whom it was conferred at his request. It was thought to be with this view that Dr. More accepted of this preferment, it being the only one he could ever be induced to accept, after he liad devoted himself to a college life, which he did very early for, in 1642, he resigned the rectory of Ingoldsby in Lincolnshire, soon after he had been presented to it by his father, who had bought the perpetual advowson of it for him. Here he made himself a paradise, as he expresses it; and he was so fearful of hurting it by any change in his present situation, that he even declined the mastership of his own college, into which, it is said, he might have been elected in 1654, in preference to Dr. Cudworth. After this, we cannot be surprised that he withstood various solicitations, particularly to accept the deanery of Christ church in Dublin, and the provostship of Trinity college, as well as the deanery of St. Patrick’s; but these he persisted in refusing, although he was assured they were designed only to pave the way to something higher, there being two bishoprics in view offered to his choice, one of which was valued at 1500l. per annum. This attempt to draw him into Ireland proving insufficient, a very good bishopric was procured for him in England; and his friends got him as far as Whitehall, in order to kiss his majesty’s hand for it; but as soon as he understood the business, which had hitherto been concealed from him, he could not be prevailed on to stir a step farther.

During the rebellion he was suffered to enjoy the studious retirement he had chosen, although he had made himself obnoxious, by constantly refusing to take the covenant. He saw and lamented the miseries of his country; but, in general, Archimedes like, he was so busy in his chamber as to mind very little what was doing without. He had a great esteem for Des Cartes, with whom he held a correspondence upon several points of his philosophy. He devoted his whole life to the writing of books; and it is certain, that his parts and learning were universally admired. On this account he was called into the Royal Society, with a view of giving reputation to it, before its establishment by the royal charter; for which purpose he was proposed as a candidate by Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Cudworth, June 4, 1661, and elected fellow soon after. His writings became so popular, that Mr. Chishull, an eminent bookseller, declared, that, for twenty years together, after the return of Charles II. the “Mystery of Godliness,” and Dr. More’s other works, ruled all the booksellers in Lon-. don; and a very remarkable testimony of their esteem was given by John Cockshuit of the Inner Temple, esq. who, I by his last will, left 300l. to have three of his principal I pieces translated into Latin. These were his “Mystery of Godliness,” “Mystery of Iniquity,” and his “Philosophical Collections.” This legacy induced our author to translate, together with these, the rest of his English works which he thought worth printing, into that language; and the whole collection was published in 1679, in three large volumes, folio. In undertaking the translation himself, his design was to appropriate Mr. Cock’shuitY legacy to the ifounding of three scholarships in Christ’s college; but as they could not be printed and published without consuming the greatest part of it, he made up this loss by other donations in his life-time, and by the perpetuity of the rectory of lngoldsby, which he left to the college by will. He died Sept. 1, 1687, in his seventy-third year and was buried in the chapel of his college, where lie also Mr. Mede and Dr. Cudworth, two other contemporary ornaments of that foundation.

With these opinions, he was accounted a man of the most ardent piety, and of an irreproachable life. Dr. Outram said “that he looked upon Dr. More as the holiest person upon the face of the earth.” His temper was naturally grave and thoughtful, but at some times, he could relax into gay conversation and pleasantry. After finishing some of his writings, which had occasioned much fatigue, he said, “Now, for these three months, I will neither thiuk a wise thought, nor speak a wise word, nor do any ill thing.” He was subject to fits of extacy, during which he seemed so entirely swallowed up in joy and happiness, that Mr. Norris styles him the “intellectual Epicure.” He was meek and humble, liberal to the poor, and of a very kind and benevolent spirit. He once said to a friend, “that he was thought by some to have a soft head, but he thanked God he had a soft heart,” and gave at that time the sum of 50l. to a clergyman’s widow. Bishop Burnet calls him “an open-hearted and sincere Christian philosopher, who studied to establish men in the great principles of religion against atheism, which was then beginning to gain ground, chiefly by reason of the hypocrisy of some, and the fantastical conceits of the more sincere enthusiasts.” His writings have not of late years been in much request, although all of them were read and admired in his day. Addison styles his “Enchiridion Ethicum” an admirable system of ethics but none of his works appear to have been more relished than his “Divine Dialogues” concerning the attributes and providence of God. Dr. Blair says of this work, that though Dr. More’s style be now in some measure obsolete, and his speakers marked with the academic stiffness of those times, yet the dialogue is animated by a variety of character, and a sprightlmess of conversation, beyond what are* commonly met with in writings of this kind.

, was the son of Arthur More, esq. one of the lords-commissioners of trade in the reign of queen Anne; and his mother was the daughter of Mr. Smyth, who left this, his grandson, an handsome estate, upon which account he obtained an act of parliament to change his name from More to Smyth; and, besides this estate, at the death of his grandfather, he had his place of pay-master to the band of gentlemen-pensioners, with his younger brother Arthur More, esq. He was bred at Worcester college, Oxford; and, while he was there, wrote a comedy, called “The Rival Modes.” This play was condemned in the acting, but he printed it in 1727, with the following motto, which the commentator on the Dunciad, by way of irony, calls modest: “Hie csestus artemque repono.” Being of a gay disposition, he insinuated himself into the favour of the duke of Wharton; and being also, like him, destitute of prudence, he joined with that nobleman in writing a paper, called “The Inquisitor;” which breathed so much the spirit of Jacobitism, that the publisher thought proper to sacrifice his profit to his safety, and discontinue it. By using too much freedom with Pope, he occasioned that poet to stigmatize him in his Dunciad:

The whole is a clear, energetic, and lively description, and, as Dr. Young, who was well acquainted with More, told Dr. Warton, the portrait is not over-charged. Some have thought that Pope’s character of Macer was intended also for More, but the leanness there alluded to cannot apply to More, if the above description be just. The pastoral Philips is more probably Macer.

The cause of the quarrel between More and Pope was this In a letter published in the Daily Journal, March 18, 1728, written by the former, there are the following words: “Upon reading the third volume of Pope’s Miscellanies, I found five lines, which I thought excellent and, happening to praise them, a gentleman produced a modern comedy, * The Rival Modes,' where were the same verses to a tittle. These gentlemen are undoubtedly the first plagiaries, who pretend to make a reputation by stealing from a man’s works in his own life-time, and out of a public print.” But it appears, from the notes to the Dunciad, that More himself borrowed the lines from Pope; for, in a letter to Pope, dated Jan. 27, 1726, he observes, that “these verses, which he had before given him leave to insert in ‘ The Rival Modes,’ would be known for his, some copies being got abroad. He desires nevertheless, that, since the lines in his comedy have been read to several, Pope would not deprive it of them.” As proofs of this circumstance, are brought the testimonies of lord Bolingbroke, and the lady of Hugh Bethel, esq. to whom the verses were originally addressed, who knew them to be Pope’s long before “The Rival Modes” was written. This gentleman died in 1734, at Whister, near Isleworth in Middlesex, for which county he was a justice of peace. Notwithstanding his quarrel with Pope, he was certainly a man of parts and politeness, or the poet would never have introduced him, as he did, to the earl of Peterborough’s acquaintance; but his misfortune was, as the commentator on the Dunciad observes, too inordinate a passion to be thought a wit.

At the age of twenty-one, he had a seat in parliament, and shewed great independence of spirit, in 1503, by opposing a subsidy demanded by Henry VII. with such strength of argument, that it was actually refused by the parliament: on this Mr. Tyler, one of the king’s privycouncil, went presently from the house, and told his majesty, that a beardless boy had defeated his intention. The king resented the matter so highly, that he would not be satisfied, till he had some way revenged it: but as the son, who had nothing, could lose nothing, he devised a causeless quarrel against the father; and, sending him to the Tower, kept him there till he had forced a fine of 100l. from him, for his pretended offence. It happened soon after, that More, coming on a suit to Fox, bishop of Winchester, one of the king’s privy-council, the bishop called him aside, and with much apparent kindness, promised, that if he would be ruled by him, he would not fail to restore him to the king’s favour. It was conjectured, perhaps unjustly, that Fox’s object was to draw from him some confession of his offence, so that the king might have an opportunity of gratifying his displeasure against him. More, however, if this really was the case, had too much prudence to be entrapped, and desired some time to consider the matter. This being granted, he obtained a conference with Mr. Whitford, his familiar friend, then chaplain to the bishop, and afterwards a monk of Sion, and related what the bishop proposed. Whitford dissuaded him from listening to the bishop’s motion: “for,” says he, “my lord and master, to serve the king’s turn, will not stick to consent to the death of his own father.” After receiving this opinion, which Fox does not seem to have deserved, More became so alarmed, as to have some thoughts of visiting the continent. With this view he studied the French tongue, and cultivated most of the liberal sciences, as music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and history; but the death of Henry VII. rendered the precaution unnecessary, and he again resumed his profession.

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

In the mean time, he found leisure to exercise his talents in polite literature; and, in the height of this hurry of business, wrote his “Utopia.” He finished it in 1516, and after two editions of uncertain date, the first with a date was published at Basil, in 1518. In this short but extraordinary work, he gave his mind full scope, and considered mankind and religion with a freedom which became a true philosopher. It is, however, impossible to reconcile the liberality of his religious sentiments in this work, with that superstition and intolerance which shaded his future conduct. In this, he feigns “Utopia” to be one*of those countries then lately discovered in America, and the account of it to be given him by one Hythlodaeus, a Portuguese, who sailed in company with Americus Vespucius, the first discoverer of that part of the world: under which character he delivers his own opinions and sentiments. It is said too, that about the same time, he began the “ History of Richard III.” which is inserted in Rennet’s “Complete History of England,” and in the continuation of Harding’s Chronicle; but the late editor of that Chronicle, Mr. Ellis, has proved that this was not written by More.

More cultivated an acquaintance and friendship with the most learned men of that age, and particularly with Erasmus, who, of all the foreigners, deservedly held the first place in his affections. After they had long carried on a correspondence by letters, Erasmus came to England, on purpose to see his friend; on which occasion it was contrived, that they should meet at the lord mayor’s table in London, before they were introduced to each other. At dinner, a dispute arose between them, in which Erasmus, for the sake of argument, took the wrong side of the question, but so sensibly felt 'the peculiar sharpness of his antagonist’s wit, that he could not help exclaiming, “You are either More, or nobody” to which More readily replied, “You are either Erasmus or the devil” which last coarse expression he is said to have used because Erasmus’s arguments had a tincture of irreligion. No two men, however, could be more attached to each other’s company, and after Erasmus returned home, a long correspondence took place between them. Both were wits, but Erasmus’s freedom from bigotry, gave him opportunities of displaying his humour, which More could not have embraced. We are told that when Erasmus was about to leave England, More lent him a horse to carry him to the sea-side; but, instead of returning it, he took it to Holland, and sent More the following epigram, alluding to some conversation they had had concerning the doctrine of the real presence in the sacrament

Before More entered into the service of Henry VIII. he had been twice employed, with his majesty’s consent, at the suit of the English merchants, as their agent in some considerable disputes between them and the merchants of the Steel-yard; and, about 1516, he went to Flanders with Tonstal, bishop of Durham, and Dr. Knight, commissioners for renewing the treaty of alliance between Henry VIII. and Charles V. then only archduke of Austria. While at Bruges, a conceited scholar issued a challenge, that he would answer any question which could be proposed to him in any art whatsoever: upon which More caused this to be put up, “An averia capta in withernamia sint irreplegiabiliar” adding, that there was one of the English ambassador’s retinue, who was ready to dispute with him upon it. But the challenger, not understanding those terms of our common law, knew not what to answer, and so was made a laughing-stock to the whole city.

The fame of More’s learning, ability in the law, and dexterity in the management of business, having reached the ears of Henry VI II. he ordered cardinal Wolsey to engage him in the service of the court. With this view the cardinal ottered him a pension, which sir Thomas then refused, as not thinking it equivalent to his present advantages: but the king soon after insisted upon his entering into his service, and, for want of a better vacancy, obliged him, for the present, to accept the place of master of the requests. Within a month after, he was knighted, and appointed one of the privy council. In 1520, he was made treasurer of the exchequer; and soon after this bought a house by the river-side at Chelsea , where he settled with his family, having buried his first wife, and married a second, who was a widow and somewhat in years. With all his excellent endowments for public business, sir Thomas had far less relish for the bustle of a court, than for the calmer and more substantial pleasures of the domestic circle. He thought it therefore rather a misfortune tiiat the king at this time took an extraordinary liking to his company, and began to engross all his leisure time. The moment he had finished his devotions on holidays, he used to send for sir Thomas into his closet, and there confer with him, sometimes about astronomy, geometry, divinity, and other parts of learning, as well as about his own affairs. He would frequently in the night carry him up to his leads on the top of his house, and discourse with him about the motions of the planets; and, because sir Thomas was of a very pleasant disposition, the king and queen used to send for him after supper, or in supper-time, to be merry with them. Sir Thomas perceiving, by this fondness, that he could not once a month get leave to go home to his wife and children, or be absent from court two days together, without being sent for, is said to have had recourse to a singular expedient, suppressing his accustomed facetiousness, and assuming a dullness and gravity, which is said to have put an end to his invitations. It is, however, not improbable that he really felt the uneasiness which he displayed.

In 1523, he was chosen speaker of the House of Commons; and, soon after, shewed great intrepidity in frustrating a motion for an oppressive subsidy, promoted by cardinal Wolsey, who came to the house thinking that his presence would intimidate the members. On the contrary, the members refused to speak in his presence, and sir Thomas as speaker, gave him such an evasive answer as made him leave the house in a violent passion. This behaviour, the cardinal afterwards, in the gallery at Whitehall, complained of to him, and said, “Would to God you had been at Rome, Mr. More, when I made you speaker.” To which sir Thomas answered, “Your grace not offended, so would I too.” There was at this time no great cordiality between Wolsey and More, which has been attributed to the cardinal’s being jealous of More’s favour with the king. More, however, does not appear to have been afraid of him, and made him, on a remarkable occasion, the subject of one of his keenest witticisms. During a dispute in the privycouncil, Wolsey so far forgot himself as to call sir Thomas a fool, to which he immediately answered, “Thanks be to God, that the king’s majesty has but one fool in his right honourable council.” At length, to get rid of this rival, -in the gentlest way he could, and even under the mask of honouring his political talents, the cardinal persuaded the king to send him on the embassy into Spain in 1526: but against this sir Thomas pleaded the unfavourable climate of Spain, and the actual state of his health, which his majesty accepted as a sufficient plea, saying, “It is not our meaning, Mr. More, to do you any hurt, but to do you good; we will think of some other, and employ your service otherwise.” The following year he was joined, with several other officers of state, to cardinal Wolsey, in a splendid embassy to France. After his return he was appointed chancellor of the dutchy of Lancaster, and in July 1529, he and his friend bishop Tonstal were appointed ambassadors, to negociate a peace between the emperor, king Henry, and the king of France, which was accordingly concluded at Cambray. Sir Thomas acquitted himself in this negociation, in a manner which procured him the approbation of the king. It was sir Thomas’s custom, when in the course of these embassies he came to any foreign university, to desire to be present at their readings and disputations’, and he would sometimes dispute among them himself, and with so much readiness and learning, as to excite the admiration of the auditors; and when the king visited our own universities, where he was received with learned speeches, sir Thomas More was always appointed to make an extempore answer for the king, as the man of all his court the best qualified for the undertaking.

Before sir Thomas went on his last embassy, the king sounded him upon the subject of his divorce from Catharine of Arragon, as he did again after his return; but did not receive, either time, an answer agreeable to his inclinations. Yet, his majesty’s fixed resolution in that point did not hinder him, upon the disgrace of cardinal Wolsey, from intrusting the great seal with sir Thomas, which was delivered to him Oct. 25, 1530. His biographers have said that this favour was the more extraordinary, as he was the first layman who enjoyed it; but this is a mistake. There are at least four instances of laymen being chancellors before his time. Some have thought that the honour was conferred with a view of engaging him to approve the intended divorce. Accordingly, he entered upon it with just apprehensions of the danger to which it would expose him on that account, but determined to execute the duties of the office in a manner that might give dignity to it; and perhaps no chancellor has ever displayed more uprightness and integrity. His predecessor Wolsey was a man of unquestionable abilities, and incorrupt in his decisions: but he is said to have been proud and repulsive to the poorer suitors. Sir Thomas, on the contrary, made no distinctions; was nowise dazzled by superior rank and station, and considered the poor as especially entitled to his protection. He always spoke kindly to such, and heard them patiently. It was his general custom to sit every afternoon in his open hall, and if any person had a suit to prefer, he might state the case to him, without the aid of bills, solicitors, or petitions. And such was his impartiality, that he gave a decree against one of his sons-inlaw, Mr. Heron, whom he in vain urged to refer the matter to arbitration, and who presumed upon his relationship. So indefatigable was he also, that although he found the office filled with causes, some of which had been pending for twenty years, he dispatched the whole within two years, and calling for the next, was told that there was not one left, which circumstance he ordered to be entered on record.

Amidst so much that is honourable to himself, honourable to his profession, and to the age in which he lived, we have yet to lament that the force of popish bigotry induced him to become a persecutor of the heretics, as they were called. One Frith had written against the corporeal presence: and on his not retracting, after More had answered him, he caused him to be burned. “James Bainton,” says Burnet, “a gentleman of the Temple, was taken to the lord chancellor’s house, where much pains was taken to persuade him to discover those who favoured the new opinions. But fair means not prevailing, More had him whipped in his presence, and after that sent to the Tower, where he looked on, and saw him put to the rack. He was burned in Smithfield.” Luther being asked whether sir Thomas More was executed for the gospel’s sake answered, “By no means, for he was a very notable tyrant. He was the king’s chiefest counsellor, a very learned and a very wise man. He shed the blood of many innocent Christians that confessed the gospel, and plagued and tormented them like an executioner.” Yet how discordant does More’s practice seem to be to his opinions. In his celebrated “Utopia” he lays it down as a maxim, that no one ought to be punished for his religion, and that every person might be of what religion he pleased .

During his chancellorship, the king often importuned him to re-consider the subject of the divorce; and when he found him persisting in his unfavourable opinion of that measure, affected to be satisfied with his answers, and promised to molest his conscience no more on the subject. Sir Thomas, however, was not a man to be deceived in a point on which he knew Henry would not long bear any opposition, and determined to avoid having an official concern in the divorce, by resigning his place, which he had held about three years. Henry professed to accept his resignation with great reluctance, bestowed many thanks and much praise on him for his faithful discharge of the duties of that important trust, and made him the most liberal promises. But sir Thomas was too disinterested to claim these, and never asked a penny for himself or any of his family, in any part of his life. That he was perfectly satisfied in his own mind with the sacrifice he had made, appears from the jocular manner in which he announced his resignation to his lady. The morning after he returned the great seal, he went to Chelsea-church with his lady and family, where, during divine service, he sat, as was usual with him, in the quire, wearing a surplice , and because it had been a custom, after mass was done, for one of his gentlemen to go to his lady’s pew and say, “My lord is gone before;” he came now himself, and making a long bow, said, “Madam, my lord is gone.” She, thinking it to be no more than his usual humour, took no notice of it; but, in the way home, he unriddled the jest, by acquainting her with what he had done the preceding day. This, however, was no jest to lady More, who was of a worldly avaricious spirit, and by no means remarkable for pliability of temper, or submission to his will. She therefore discharged some of her vulgar eloquence on him: — “Tilly Vally, what will you do, Mr. More will you sit and make goslings in the ashes? Would to God, I were a man, and you should quickly see what I would do. What! why, go forward with the best for, as my mother was wont to say, It is ever better to rule, than to be ruled and, therefore, I would not be so foolish as to be ruled, where I might rule.” Sir Thomas contented himself with replying: “By my faith, wife, I dare say you speak truth; for I never found you willing to be ruled yet.”

He now resigned himself to that plan of retirement, study, and devotion, which had always been most agreeable to him; but he could no longer expect to enjoy this without interruption. He knew the capricious and arbitrary temper of his royal master, who had already divorced queen Catherine, married Anne Boleyn, and expected that what he had done should be approved with more than silent acquiescence. The coronation of the new queen being fixed for May 31, 1533, sir Thomas received an invitation to attend the ceremony; but this he declined, as he still retained his former opinions on the unlawfulness of the divorce. This, which Henry would naturally construe into an insult, provoked him extremely, conscious as he was that the opinions of sir Thomas would have great weight with the people. Various means were therefore tried to gain him over, and when these proved ineffectual, a more ^harsh, but in those days, not a very extraordinary proceeding took place. In the ensuing parliament a bill was : brought into the House of Lords, attainting sir Thomas, bishop Fisher, and some others, of misprision of treason, for countenancing and encouraging Elizabeth Barton, tlje maid of Kent (See Eliz. Barton, vol. IV.) in her treasonable practices. When this bill came to be read a third time, the House of Lords addressed the king to know his pleasure, whether sir Thomas might not be suffered to speak in his own defence; but Henry would not consent to this, nor when he desired to be admitted into the House of Commons, to defend himself there, would the king permit him: but he assigned a committee of the privycouncil to hear his justification. The affair of Barton, however, was a mere pretence, the object of this committee being to draw from him, either by fair words or threatenings, an assent to the divorce and the second marriage. When the commissioners, who were Cranmer, now archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Audley, the duke of Norfolk, and secretary Cromwell, found that their persuasions were of no avail, they told him, that their instructions were to charge him with ingratitude, and “to inform him, that his majesty thought there never was a servant so villainous, or a subject so traitorous to his prince, as he was;” and, ft in support of this heavy charge against him, they were to allege his subtle and sinister devices, in procuring his majesty to set forth a book to his great dishonour throughout all Christendom: by which he had put a sword into the pope’s hand to fight against himself."

The commissioners were probably conscious that these assertions were true; at least they could make no reply, and therefore dismissed sir Thomas, who feeling a considerable elation of mind on his return home, his son-in-law Roper asked him if his hi^h spirits were owing to his having succeeded in procuring his name to be struck out of the bill of attainder Sir Thomas’s answer showed that he had been more tenacious of his consistency than of his life: “In troth, son, I had forgotten that but if thou wouldst know why I am so joyful, in good faith it is this I rejoice that I have given the devil so foul a fall for I have gone so far with these lords, that without great shame I can never go back.” He had indeed gone so far as to exasperate the king beyond all hopes of forgiveness; and that monarch, who could forget friendship and attachment as hastily as he conferred them, irritated at having his former sentiments respecting the pope so unseasonably recalled, declared that the bill of attainder should proceed against him. And when the duke of Norfolk and secretary Cromwell hinted that the upper house would not pass the bill without hearing sir Thomas in his own defence, the king declared that he should be present himself, and he presumed that the house would not in that case dare to reject it. He was at length, however, diverted from this purpose on its being suggested that some better opportunity might be found to proceed against sir Thomas, and on being persuaded by his counsellors that, as to the present accusations, the public would think him more worthy of praise than blame. Sir Thomas’s name was accordingly struck out of the bill and although, taking advantage of the king’s displeasure, his enemies endeavoured to bring against him accusations of improper conduct in his office of judge, these served, only to demonstrate the strict integrity which guided all his decisions, and that when gifts were sometimes tendered to him by the clients of the court, he always refused, or returned them, and often with his characteristic^humouiv One lady, in whose favour he had given a decree, presented him, as a new year’s gift, with a pair of gloves, and in them forty pounds. He immediately returned the money, saying, “Since it would be contrary to good manners to refuse a new year’s gift from a lady, I am content to take your gloves; but as for the lining, I utterly refuse it.”

The king, however, had soon an opportunity of gratifying his resentment in its full extent In 1534 an act was passed declaring the king’s marriage with Catherine of Arragon to be void, and contrary to the law of God, and confirming his marriage with Anne Boleyn, and entailing the crown upon the issue of the latter. The act also obliged persons of all ranks to take an oath, the form of which was prescribed to them, and by which they swore to maintain the contents of this act of succession; and whosoever refused to take the oath, was to be adjudged guilty of misprison of treason, and punished accordingly. Soon after, a committee of the council met at Lambeth, where sir Thomas More, the only layman, and several ecclesiastics, were cited to take the oath. Sir Thomas, after perusing the act, said “he would blame neither those who made the act, nor those who had taken the oath; but, for his own part, though he was willing to swear to the succession in a form of his own drawing up, yet the oath which was offered to him was so worded, that his conscience revolted against it, and he could not take it with safety to his soul.”

Every persuasion to make him take the oath of succession being ineffectual, he was committed to the custody of the abbot of Westminster for four days, in which time it was debated by the king and council -what course it was best to take with him. Archbishop Cranmer, who highly esteemed his virtues and integrity, and did much to preserve him, urged that sir Thomas’s proposal of swearing to the succession, without confining him to the terms of the prescribed oath, might be accepted; but to this the king would not agree, and sir Thomas again refusing, was committed to the Tower. Here his characteristic humour did not forsake him, for when the lieutenant, who had been under some obligations to him, apologized for not being able to entertain him as he could wish, without incurring the king’s displeasure, he said, “Master lieutenant, whenever 1 find fault with the entertainment which you provide for me, do you turn me out of doors.” During the first month of his confinement ne had to resist the importunities of his wife, who urged his submission to the king upon worldly considerations, and told her he would not risk the loss of eternity for the enjoyment of a life that might not last a year, and would not be an equivalent, if it were to last a thousand.

After a year’s imprisonment, he was by the king’s command brought to his trial at the king’s bench in Westminster, upon an indictment for high treason, in denying the king’s supremacy. His long confinement had much impaired his health, yet he defended himself with great eloquence, and with the utmost cheerfulness and presence of mind. The jury, however, found him guilty, and he received sentence as a traitor. He then addressed the court, concluding with these words: “I have nothing further to say, my lords, but that as the blessed apostle St. Paul was present and consented to the death of Stephen, and kept their clothes who stoned him to death, and yet they are now both holy saints in heaven, and shall there continue friends for ever; so I verily trust, and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now been judges on earth to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter all meet together in heaven to our everlasting salvation; and so I pray God preserve you all, and especially my sovereign lord the king, and send him faithful counsellors.”

As they were conducting him from Westminster-hall to the Tower, with the axe carried before him, according to the usual manner, a very affecting scene took place between sir Thomas and his favourite daughter, Margaret, wife of Mr. Roper, who eagerly pressed through the guards to see him. She could, however, only articulate “My father Oh my father!” when sir Thomas, more affected by this than by all that had happened, recommended her to submit to the will of God. She was then reluctantly separated from him, but thinking this might be the last time, she again broke through the crowd, and embraced him in speechless agony. The numerous spectators, and even the guards, sympathized in the sufferings of these illustrious persons; and it was with difficulty that they were parted, never to meet again.

At this trying moment,* he not only retained his fortitude and cheerfulness, but to the last gave proofs of that facetious turn, which it would appear he could not suppress under any circumstances. When Pope appeared to be very melancholy at the consideration of his friend’s approaching death, sir Thomas More, inspecting his own water in the urinal, put on the grave airs of a quack, and said archly, “I see no danger but that this man might live longer, if it had pleased the king.” Their parting at last was more serious, sir Thomas endeavouring to comfort his friend with the prospect of eternal felicity, in which, he hoped, they should have a happy meeting. As soon as Pope was gone he dressed himself in the best cloaths he had, and when the lieutenant suggested that these were too good for the executioner’s perquisite, “If they were cloth of gold,” said sir Thomas, “I should think them well bestowed on him who was to do me so singular a benefit.” He was prevailed on, however, to exchange them for a gown of frieze; and out of the little money which he had left, he sent an angel of gold to the executioner.

Thus died sir Thomas More, who, for learning, integrity, and magnanimity, was one of the most illustrious men of the age, and who would have exceeded all his contemporaries, had his mind been accessible to the light that was then breaking in upon the darkness of superstition. He was of a middle stature, and weli-proportioned his complexion fair, with a slight tincture of red his hair of a dark chesnut colour; his beard thin; his eyes grey; his countenance cheerful and pleasant, and expressive of the temper of his mind; his voice neither strong nor shrill, but clear and distinct. In walking, his right shoulder appeared higher than the other; but this was the effect of habit, and not any defect in his form. He was generally negligent in his dress, unless where his place required more splendour. His diet was simple and abstemious; and he seldom tasted wine but when he pledged those who drank to him.

Piety, as then understood to consist in a variety of periodical observances, was a constant feature in his character. It was his custom, besides his private prayers, to read the Psalms and Litany with his wife and children in the morning; and every night to go with his whole family into the chapel, and there devoutly read the Psahns and Collects with them. We have already noticed his attendance at Chelsea church; but he had also a private chapel attached to his house, where he performed many of his devotions, particularly on Fridays, when he remained the whole day so employed. In his hours of relaxation, he had recourse to music; and had always a person to read whilst he was at table, in order to prevent all improper conversation before his children and servants; and at the end of the reading, it was his custom to ask those who were at dinner, whether they understood what had been read. He also made remarks himself on any striking passage, which, it may easily be conceived, were entertaining and edifying.

As to his family, by his first wife he had four children, who all survived him; three daughters and one son, named John, after his grandfather. Sir Thomas had the three daughters first, and his wife very much desired a boy: at last she brought him this son, who appearing weak in his intellects, sir Thomas said to his lady, “Thou hast prayed so long for a boy, that thou hast one now who will be a boy as long as he lives.” By a liberal education, however, his natural parts seem to have been much improved. Among Erasmus’s letters, there is one written to him, in which that great scholar calls him “Optimae Spei Adolescens.” Erasmus also inscribed to him the “Nux of Ovid,” and “An Account of Aristotle’s Works.” After the death of his father he was committed to the Tower for refusing the same oath of supremacy, and condemned, but afterwards pardoned, and set at liberty, which favour he did not long survive. He was married very young to a Yorkshire heiress, by whom he had five sons. His eldest son Thomas had a son of the same name, who, being a zealous Roman catholic, gave the family estate to his younger brother, and took orders at Rome; whence, by the pope’s command, he came a missionary into England. He afterwards lived at Rome; where, and in Spain, he negociated the affairs of the English clergy at his own expence. He died, aged fifty-nine years, in April 1625; and, two years after, was printed in 4to, with a dedication to Henrietta Maria, king Charles I.'s queen, his “Life of sir Thomas More,” his great grandfather. The learned author of the “Life of Erasmus” says, that “this Mr. More was a narrow-minded zealot, and a very fanatic;” and afterwards adds, very justly, that “there is no relying on such authors as these, unless they cite chapter and verse.”

As for sir Thomas’s daughters, the eldest of them, Margaret, was married to William Roper, esq. of Well-hall, in the parish of Eltham, in Kent; who wrote the “Life” of his father-in-law, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, in 1716, 8vo. She was a woman of great talents and amiable manners, and seems to have been to More what Tullia was to her father Cicero, his delight and comfort. The greatest care was taken of her education; and she became learned not only in the Greek and Latin tongues, but in music, arithmetic, and other sciences. She wrote two “Declamations” in English, which her father and she turned into Latin; and both so elegantly, that it was hard to determine which was best. She wrote also a treatise of the “Four last Things;” and, by her sagacity, corrected a corrupt place in “St. Cyprian,” reading “nervos sinceritatis,” for “nisi vos sinceritatis.” Erasmus wrote a letter to her, as to a woman famous not only for virtue and piety, but also for true and solid learning. Cardinal Pole was so affected with the elegance of her Latin style, that he could not at first believe what he read to be penned by a woman. This deservedly-illustrious lady died in 1544, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church in Canterbury, with her father’s head in her arms, according to her desire; for she had found means to procure his head, after it had remained upon London-bridge fourteen days, and had carefully preserved it in a leaden box, till there was an opportunity of conveying it to Canterbury, to the burying-place of the Ropers in the church above mentioned. Of five children which she brought, there was a daughter Mary, as famous for parts and learning almost as herself. This Mary was one of the gentlewomen, as they were then called, of queen Mary’s privy chamber. She translated into English part of her grandfather’s “Exposition of the Passion of our Saviour;” and also “Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History” from the Greek into Latin; but this latter translation was never published, being anticipated by Christopherson’s Version.

Sir Thomas had no children by his second wife, who was a widow, named Alice Middleton, and who surviving him was obliged to quit the house at Chelsea, his esiate being seized as a forfeiture by the crown; but the king allowed her an annuity of 20l. for her life. His last male descendant is said to have been the rev. Thomas More, who died at Bath in 1795. The present lady Ellenborough is said to be a female descendant.

is the name of a family well known among the eminent French printers, although we are not sure that they were all closely related. The first, William, an excellent scholar in the early part of the sixteenth century, was corrector of the press of Louis Tilletan, and then succeeded Turnebus as director of the royal printing-office, in 1555. He employed his attention principally on Greek authors, and his editions are much esteemed. He also wrote critical commentaries on “Cicero de finibus,” Paris, 1545, 4to; and compiled a Greek- Latin- and French dictionary. He died in 1564. He appears to have injured his property by the expences of his undertakings, as we find Turnebus addressing a letter to Charles IX. king of France, recommending his widow and children to his majesty’s bounty. The next we meet with, Frederic the elder, a native of Champagne, was king’s printer at Paris, and interpreter to his majesty for the Greek and Latin languages; he composed several works, and died at Paris in 1583, at about the age of 60, leaving a son, known as Frederic Morel the younger, the most celebrated of the family, who succeeded his father, in 1581, as -king’s printer in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and French tongues. He was well versed in these languages, and translated from the Greek, and published, from the manuscripts in the king’s library, a number of authors, particularly the fathers, with annotations of his own. He sacrificed every thing to study, and being informed that his wife was in the act of expiring, he refused to quit his pen till he had finished what he was about, and by that time news was brought him that she was dead; to which he coolly replied, “I am sorry for it she was a good woman.” He died in 1638, at the age of 78. He had a brother Claude, who was nominated king’s printer in 1602, and published valuable editions of several Greek fathers, and other authors, to which he prefixed learned prefaces of his own composition. He died in 1626, while he was engaged in an edition of St. Athanasius and Libanius, which was completed by his son Claude, who succeeded to the business. Charles, another son of Frederic, exercised the same office with credit, which he resigned, in 1639, to his brother Giles. The latter printed an edition of Aristotle, Greek and Latin, in four volumes folio, and the great Bibliotheca Patrum, in 17 volumes.

, an eminent antiquary, was born at Bern in Switzerland, it does not appear in what year. He had so strong a passion for the study of medals, that he was firmly persuaded of its being natural to him. He travelled through several countries, and made large collections. In 1673 he became acquainted at Basil with Charles Patin, who communicated to him many very curious and rare medals, and also several other things which related to the science. At Paris he had access to the king’s cabinet, and was permitted to design from it whatever he pleased. He was exhorted by Ezekiel Spanheim, and others of his learned acquaintance, to prepare his collections for the public; and, in 1683, he published at Paris, in 8vo, “Specimen universae rei nummariae antiquae.” The great work, of which this was a specimen, was to be a complete collection of all ancient medals, of which he had at that time 20,000 exactly designed. At Leipsic, 1695, in 8vo, was published a second edition of this “Specimen,” corrected, altered, and augmented; to which were added some letters of Spanheim, upon the subject of medals.

Soon after this Essay appeared, Louis XIV. gave him a place in his cabinet of antiques; which, though it brought him great honour, and some profit for the present, yet cost him very dear in the end: for, whether he spoke too freely of Mr. de Louvois, on account of his salary, which, it seems, was not very well paid, or for some private reason, of which we are ignorant, he was, by order of that minister, committed to the Bastile, where he lay for three years. He was released at the death of Louvois, which happened in 1691, but not till the canton of Bern solicited in his favour. He then returned to Switzerland, and resumed his grand design; and afterwards, in 1694, went to Arnstad in Germany, upon an invitation from the count of Schwartzburg, with whom he lived in quality of his antiquary. The count had a fine collection of medals, and furnished him with every thing necessary for carrying on his great work. Spanheim, who returned from France to Berlin in 1689, had a desire to see him again, and gave him also all the assistance and encouragement he could; yet some unforeseen accidents prevented him from completing it. He died of an apoplexy at Arnstad, April 10, 1703.

, an able classical scholar and editor, was born at Eton in Buckinghamshire, March 18, 1703. His father’s name was Thomas, and his mother, probably after the decease of her husband, kept a boardjng-house in the college. At the age of twelve he was admitted on the foundation at Eton-school, and was elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, Aug. 3, 1722. He took his first degree in 1726, became M. A. in 1730, and D. D. in 1743. In 1731 he was appointed to the curacy of Kew, in Surrey, and was some time also curate of Twickenham. In July 1733 he was admitted ad eundem at Oxford; and in 1737 became a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, having just been instituted, on the presentation of his college, to the rectory of Buckland in Hertfordshire, the only preferment he ever obtained. In 1775, indeed, we find him appointed chaplain to the garrison at Portsmouth, and he for several years preached Mr. Fairchild’s Botanical Sermon on Whit-Tuesday, at St. Leonard’s Shoreditch; but these scarcely deserve the name of preferments. As he rendered many important services to literature, it is rather singular that he never met with a patron who might have rendered him independent; but he knew little of the world, and found so much pleasure in his studies, as to neglect the common observances of polite life. He was probably contented; but he was always poor, and frequently in debt. He was warm in his attachments, and was a cheerful and entertaining companion. He was extremely fond of music, and in early life associated much with its professors. Mr. Cole thinks this did him no service, and informs us that at one time his chief dependance was on a Mons. Desnoyers, a dancing master, who had some interest with Frederick prince of Wales, but Desnoyers died before he could obtain any thing for him. Those who feel for the character of the age would not have been pleased to record that a divine and a scholar attained preferment through such a medium. He died Feb. 19, 1784, and was buried at Chiswick. In 1738 he married Anne, daughter of Henry Barker, esq. of Chiswick, by whom he had no issue.

The same year he was taken into the family of the bishop of Apt, in Provence, whom he attended the year following to Paris; and was soon introduced to the prelates, who held their assembly in St. Germain en Laye, and to the learned men in the metropolis. While he was engaged in the second edition of his “Dictionary,” his friends recommended him to M. de Pompone, secretary of state, who invited him to his house, in 1678. He might have expected great advantages from the patronage of that minister; but his intense application to his “Dictionary” injured his health in such a manner that he never recovered it. M. de Pompone having resigned his post in 1679, Moreri took the opportunity of retiring to his own house, in order to complete his work, but his health declining rapidly, he died July 10, 1680, aged 37. Besides the writings above mentioned, he put the “Lives of the Saints” into more elegant French, and added methodical tables for the use of preachers, with chronological tables; and, in 1671, be published at Lyons the following book, “Relations nouvelles du Levant, ou Traités de la Religion, du Gouvernment, & des Coutumes, des Parses, des Anneniens, & des Gaures, composés par le P. G. D. C. C. (P. Gabriel du Chinon, Capuchin), & donnés au public par le sieur L. M. P. D. E. T.” (that is, Louis Moreri, Pretre, Docteur en Theologie.)

The first edition of his “Dictionary” was comprized in one vol. folio, which he soon found very defective, and therefore applied himself with great vigour to enlarge it; which he did in two volumes, and the year after his death it was printed at Paris in 1681. The third edition, in 1683, is likewise in two volumes, and was copied from the second. The two following editions, of which the fourth was printed in 1687, and the fifth in 1683, were published at Lyons in two volumes, and were the same with that of 1683, except that some articles were added. It was afterwards thought proper to give a “Supplement or third Volume of the Historical Dictionary,” which was printed in 1689 in folio. The sixth edition, in which is inserted the Supplement in the same alphabetical order, corrected in a great number of places, and enlarged by many important articles and Remarks, was printed at Amsterdam in 1691 in four volumes in folio. Le Clerc had the care of this edition, in which the articles of the Supplement are incorporated, and made the additions, consisting either of new articles, or improvements of other articles. Three more editions followed, almost the same, in 1694, 1698, and 1699, all in 4 vols. folio. The tenth was printed from the edition revised by Le Clerc, at Amsterdam, 1702, in 4 vols. folio. The eleventh was published by Mons. Vaultier with new additions, at Paris, 1704, 4 vols. folio. It was preceded by a piece entitled “Projet pour la Correction du Dictionnaire Historique de M. Moreri, deja revu, corrigé, & angmenté dans le derniere Edition de Paris par M. Vaultier,” Paris, 1701, 4to. It was followed by a piece entitled “Remarques Critiques sur ia Nouvelle Edition du Dictionnaire Historique de Moreri, donneé en 1704.” The second edition of this piece, printed at Rotterdam in 1706, 12mo, is enlarged with a preface and a great many notes by another author, viz. Bayle, who published this edition. The twelfth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1707, 4 vols. folio, and the thirteenth in 1712, in 5 vols. folio. Dupin had a considerable share in it, as also in the following editions. In 1714, there was printed separately in that city a large Supplement, composed, as is said in the advertisements, of new articles, corrected in the last edition of 1712, to serve as a supplement to the preceding editions. This supplement was reprinted with great additions by Bernard at Amsterdam in 1716 in two volumes, folio. The fourteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Amsterdam in 1717, in six volumes, folio, with the Supplement, which is not incorporated in the body of the work. The fifteenth edition was printed at Parisj 1718, 5 vols. fol. The articles of the Supplement published in Holland are inserted in their proper places, with some additions. This edition has been greatly criticised. The authors of the “Europe Sçavante” have inserted in their fourth volume, p. 230, a memoir, in which is shewn, that in the single letter Z, which is one of the shortest, there are a great many faults, and several articles omitted. The abbé Le Clerc also published “Remarks upon different Articles,” in the three first volumes, printed in three volumes 8vo; the first in 1719, the second in 1720, and the third in 1721. Father Francis Meri, a Benedictine Monk, published likewise upon this subject a pamphlet, entitled “Discussion Critique & Theologique des Remarques de M. sur le Dictionnaire de Moreri de 1718,” 1720, 8vo. It is a defence of some passages of the Dictionary against the criticism of the abbé Le Clerc. The sixteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1724, in 6 vols. folio. Monsieur de la Barre had the care of it. What relates to genealogy was revised by Monsieur Vailly, an advocate; and the abbé Le Clerc furnished five or six thousand corrections, as he informs us in his “Bibliotheque de Richelet.” The seventeenth edition was printed at Basil in 1731; and the eighteenth at Paris, in 1732, 6 vols. folio, to which supplementary volumes were added. The last and best edition, in which all these were incorporated, is that of 1759, 10 vols. folio. This is still a work of great value and utility, particularly the biographical part, but much of the historical and geographical part has become almost obsolete, owing to the more correct information and improvements introduced in those branches.

, an English antiquary descended from an ancient family, which had been seated from the beginning of the sixteenth century at Great Coxwell, in the county of Berks, and allied by his grandmother to that of Rowe, which had been settled at Higham-Bensted in Waltbamstow, in the county of Essex, ever since the middle of the same century), was born Jan. 13, 1730, at Tunstall in Kent, where his father was rector for near 30 years. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school*; and admitted a commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, June 24, 1746. While he resided at Oxford, in 1746, he assisted in correcting an edition of “Calasio’s Concordance,” projected by Jacob Hive the printer, who afterwards associated with the rev. William Romaine, and published this “Concordance” in 1747, 4 vols. folio. Before he was twenty, Mr. Mores published at Oxford, in 1748, 4to, “Nomina & Insignia gentilitia Nobilium Equitumque sub Edvardo primo rege Militantium;” the oldest treasure, as he styles it, of our nobility after “Domesday” and the “Black Book of the Exchequer.” He had also printed, except notes and preface, a new edition in 8vo, of Dionysius Halicarnassensis “De claris Rhetoribus,” with vignettes engraved by Green, the few copies of which were sold after his death f. In 1752, he printed, in half a quarto sheet, some corrections made by Junius in his own copy of his edition of “Cadmon’s Saxon Paraphrase of Genesis, and other parts of the Old Testament,” Amst. 1655; and, in 1754, he engraved fifteen of the drawings from the ms. in the Bodleian library. The title of these plates is, “Figurae quaedam antiquse ex Caedmonis Monaclii Paraphraseos in Genesim exemplari pervetusto in Bibliotheca Bodleiana adservato delineatae ad Anglo- Sax­* Mr. Mores had made a few collec- tides there are several mutilations, lions for a history of this school, and Mr. Mores, in the interval from the lists of persons educated there. A first publication, had written to several view of it was engraved by Mynde. in learned men in different parts of Eu1756, for IVlaitland’stdition of” JStowe’s rope, in order to procure any informaSurvey,“1736, inscribed” Sdiolae tiun, which might be of service to him Mercatorum Scissorum Lond. facies in completing his edition, but met with orientalis. Negatam a Patronis D. no success. It is said that he intended Scholaris, Kdw. Rowe Mores, arm. to subjoin annotations, but nothing of A.M. S. A. S." A history of this --chool that nature was found among his pahas just been ably executed by the pers, except some remaiks on the marRev. H. B. Wilson, B. I>. 1812 1815, gin of a copy of Hudson’s edition, 2 vols. 4to. which was sold at the sale of his books,

f It was republished in 1781, 8vo, to Mr. Gough, who said that there

In 1752 he was elected F. S. A. and two years after was one of a committee for examining the minute-books of that society, with a view to selecting thence papers proper for publication*. Being intended for orders by his father, he took the degrees of B. A. May 12, 1750, and M. A.Jan. 15, 1753; before which time he had formed considerable collections relative to the antiquities, &c. of Oxford, and particularly to those of his own college, whose archives he arranged, and made large extracts from, with a view to its history. He was at the expence of three plates of the Black Prince’s apartments there, since pulled down, which were drawn and engraved by that very ingenious artist B. Green. Twenty-eight drawings at his expence, by the same hand, of ancient gates, halls, &c. since ruined or taken down, were purchased by Mr. Gough, as also some collections for a “History of Godstow Nunnery,” by Mr. Mores, for which a plate of its ruins was engraved, and another of Iffley church. His Mss. relative to his own college, with his collections about All Souls’ college, fell after his death into the hands of Mr. Astle, who presented the former to Mr. Price of the Bodleian library.

gered till 1770, when the first volume early minute-books, offices; but it does not appear that he received ordination from the bishop of London. Thus much, however, is certain-, that in the letters of administration granted to his son, on his dying intestate, he is styled “the Reverend Edward-Rowe Mores, doctor in divinity,” but, at what time, or by which of the bishops, he received ordination, we have not yet discovered. Mr. Nichols was assured by a very intimate friend of Mr. Mores, that he received the honorary title of D. D. in consequence of a literary favour which he had conferred on some foreign Roman catholic ecclesiastics, who wished to repay him by a pecuniary acknowledgment, which he politely declined accepting. Mr. Mores was as ambitious of singularity in religion as in other pursuits and if he could.be said to be a member of any particular church, it was that of Erasmus, whom he endeavoured to imitate. He thought the Latin language peculiarly adapted to devotion, and wished, for the sake of unity, that it was universally in use. He composed a creed in it, with a kind of mass on the death of his wife, of which he printed a few copies, in his own house, under the disguised title of“Ordinale Quotidianum, 1685. Ordo Tngintalis.” Of his daughter’s education he was particularly careful. From her earliest infancy he talked to her principally in Latin. She was sent to Rouen, for education, but without the least view to her being a Roman catholic: on the contrary, he was much displeased when he found she had been perverted. Two original letters to the superior of the house under whose care she was placed, which are printed in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” contain a sufficient refutation of the report of his being himself a member of the church of Rome.

On his return to 'London, Mr. Mores resided some years in the Heralds’ college, intending to have become a member of that society, for which he was extremely well qualified by his great knowledge and skill in heraldic matters; but, altering his plan, retired about 1760 to Low-Layton, in which village he had resided some time before, and, while he was churchwarden there, considerably improved the church. Here, on an estate left him by his father, he built a whimsical house, on a plan, it is said, of one in France. In 1759 he circulated queries for a parochial “History of Berkshire,” but made no considerable progress. His collections on that subject appeared in 1783, in the XVIth number of the “Bibliotheca Topographica.” The Equitable Society for assurance on lives and survivorship by annuities of 1 Oo/. increasing to the survivors, in six classes of ages from 1 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 3O to 40 40 to 50 50 to the extremity of life, owes its existence to Mr. Mores. It had been first suggested and recommended in lectures, in 1756, by Mr. James Dodson, mathematical master at Christ’s hospital, and author of the “Mathematical Repository,” who had been refused admission into the Amicable Society on account of his age; but he dying November 23, 1757, before his design was completed, except the plan of reimbursement to him and his fifty-four associates, Mr. Mores undertook to apply for a charter in 1761, but failing of success, he with sixteen more of the original subscribers, resolved to persevere in establishing their society by deed. It was hereby proTided that Mr. Mores should be perpetual director, with an annuity of 1GO/. He accordingly drew up and published, in 1765, “A short Account of the Society,” in 8vo (of which a seventh edition with additions, was printed in 1767), “The Plan and Substance of the Deed of Settlement,” “The Statutes, 11” Precedents of sundry Instruments relating to the Constitution and Practice of the Society,“London, 1766, 8vo. The” Deed of Settlement, and the Declaration of Trust,“1768,” A List of the Policies and other Instruments of the Society, as well general as special,“8vo; but, some disputes arising between Mr. Mores and the original members of this society, he separated from them that year. There were printed,” Papers relating to the Disputes with the Charter Fund Proprietors in the Equitable Society, by order of a general court held the 3d day of November, 1767, for the use of those assured on the lives of others, who shall apply for the same,“1769,” 8vo, This society still subsists, and their office is in Bridge-street, near Blackfriars bridge, to which it was removed from Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street, 1775. All Mr. Mores’s papers on this subject came into the hands of Mr. Astle. In the latter part of his life, Mr. Mores (who had long turned his thoughts to the subject of early printing) began to correct the useful publication of Mr. Ames. On the death of Mr. John James of Bartholomew-close (the last of the old race of letter-founders) in June 1772, Mr. Mores purchased all the curious parts of that immense collection of punches, matrices, and types, which had been accumulating from the days of Wynkyn de Worde to those of Mr. James. From these (which were sold by auction by Mr. Paterson) a large fund of entertainment would probably have been given to the curious, if the life of Mr. Mores had been prolonged. His intentions may be judged of from his valuable “Dissertation on Typographical Founders and Founderies.” As no more than 80 copies of it were printed, this must always be considered as a typographical curiosity. Mr. Nichols, who purchased the whole impression, subjoined a small appendix to it.

Mr. Mores was a most indefatigable collector, and pos sessed great application in the early part of his life, but, in the latter part, gave himself up to habits of negligence and dissipation, which brought him to his end by a mortification, in the forty-ninth year of his age, at his house at Low Layton, Nov. 28, 1778. His large collection of curious Mss. and valuable library of books, were sold by auction by Mr. Paterson, in August following. Of te former, his “History and Antiquities of Tuiistall in Kent” the only papers that were completed for the press, and for which he had engraved a set of plates out of the many drawings taken at his expence, was purchased at the site by Mr. Nichols, who gave it to the public as a specimen of parochial antiquities, which will shew the ideas of this industrious antiquary, and his endeavour to make even he minutest record subservient to the great plan of national history.

The progress of this work had extended his reputation thoughout Europe; and in 1715, his talents were rewarded by an appointment to the first anatomical professorship in the university of Padua; and henceforth to the close of a long life he ranked deservedly at the head of the anatomists of his time, and literary honours were accumulated upon him from every quarter of Europe. He was elected a member of the Academia Nature Curiosorum, in 1708; of the Royal Society of London, in 1724; of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, in 1731; of the Imperial Academy of Petersburgh, in 1735; and of the Academy of Berlin, in 1754; and he was one of the first associates of the Institute of Bologna. All the learned and great, who passed through Bologna, visited Morgagni; he was honoured by the particular esteem of three successive popes; and his native city of Forli placed his bust in their public hall during his life, with an honorary inscription. He married a lady of noble family at Forli, by whom he had fifteen children, eight of whom survived him. By his professional labours, and a life of frugality, he accumulated a large property, and died at the advanced age of ninety years, about the end of 1771, in the possession of his faculties.

Among his lesser performances is a work entitled “Princeps Medicus,” Roctock, 1665, 4to, a dissertation on the cure of the king’s evil by the kings of France and England, which he supports as miraculous. He was answered by Zeingrave, a divine of Strasburgh; and we ought not to be very severe on Morhof s credulity in this respect, when we consider that the royal touch was practised by our own sovereigns for more than half a century after the date of his work. We can however less excuse him for his treatise “De transmutationemetallorum,” Hamburgh, 1673, 8vo, although even in this case it may be said that he was not the only man of learning who at that time had not forsaken the absurdities of alchemy. He published afterwards in German a valuable dissertation on “German Poetry;” another on the style of Livy “De Patavinitate Liviana;” and after his death appeared one of his most elegant dissertations, “De pura dictione Latina,” edited by Mosheim, in 1725, 8vo.

, physician and regius professor of mathematics at Paris, was born at Villefranche in Beaujolois, Feb. 23, 1583. After studying philosophy at Aix in Provence, and physic at Avignon, of which he commenced doctor in 1613, he went to Paris, and lived with Claude Dormi, bishop of Boulogne, who sent him to examine the nature of metals in the mines of Hungary. This gave occasion to his “Mundi sublunaris Anatomia,” which was his first production, published in 1619. Upon his return to his patron the bishop, he took a fancy to judicial astrology, and began to inquire, by the rules of that art, into the events of 1617. Among these he found, that the bishop of Boulogne was threatened with the loss of either liberty or life, of which he forewarned him. The bishop laughed at Morin’s prediction; but, engaging in state-intrigues, and taking the unfortunate side, he was treated as a rebel, and actually imprisoned that very year. After the fall of his prelate, he lived with the abbe de la Bretonniere, in quality of his physician, for four years; and, in 1621, was taken into the family of the duke of Luxemburg, where he lived eight years more, Jn 1630, he was chosen professor royal of mathematics.

His abilities in his profession gave him access to the great, even to cardinal Richelieu; and, under the administration of cardinal Mazarin, he obtained a pension of 2000 livres. Richelieu is said at first to have admitted him to his most secret councils, and to have consulted him about matters of the greatest importance; but during the greater part of his life, he appears to have gained most fame by his astrological predictions, which, right or wrong, were suited to the credulity of the times. He died at Paris, Nov. 6, 1656. He wrote a great number of books, not forgotten; but did not live to publish his favourite performance, his “Astrologia Gallica,” which had cost him thirty years’ labour. It was printed, however, at the Hague, 1661, in folio, with two epistles dedicatory; the one from the author to Jesus Christ; the other addressed to Louisa Maria de Gonzaga, queen c~f Poland. That princess encouraged Morin to undertake this great work, and paid the charges of the impression. At the time when it was said that she was to be married to the prince, Morin affirmed, that that marriage should never take place, and that she was destined to the bed of a monarch; and it is thought that she the more readily engaged to bear the expences of a work whose author had flattered her with the hopes of a crown, which she afterwards wore. Of his “Astrologia Gallica,” Guy Patin says, “I understand, that the” Astrologia Gallica“of the sieur Morin is at last finished at the Hague. I am told, that it abuses the Parisian and other physicians, who give no credit to judicial astrology; and I do riot wonder, that the author should behave in this manner, for he was a fool. The book is printed in one volume, folio. The queen of Poland gave 2000 crowns to carry on the edition, at the recommendation of one of her secretaries, who is a lover of astrology. You see in what manner crowned heads are imposed upon. If it had been a book which might have been of use to the public, the author would not have found one, either to print it, or to bear the charges of the press.” Morin, however, received several testimonies of esteem from the great Des Cartes. He became acquainted with this philosopher in 1626, and, some time after, maole him a present of his book upon the longitude, which was acknowledged by a very obliging letter. He sent him also, in 1638, some objections to his “Theory of Light,” which Des Cartes thought worthy of his consideration.

, a learned ecclesiastic, was born at Blois, of protestant parents, in 1591. He was instructed in the belles lettres at Rochelle, and afterwards went to Leyden, where he attained a critical knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental tongues, and applied himself to philosophy, law, mathematics, and divinity. Returning to France, he went to settle at Paris, where he gained an acquaintance with cardinal du Perron, and was induced by him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Some time after, he entered into the congregation of the oratory, lately established, and began to make himself known by his learning and his works. In 1626 he published some “Exercita'ions upon the original of Patriarchs and Primates, and the ancient usage of ecclesiastical censures, dedicated to pope Urban VIII.” He undertook, in 1628, the edition of the “Septuagint Bible,” with the version made by Nobilius; and put a preface to it, in which he treats of the authority of the Septuagint; commends the edition of it that had been made at Rome by order of Sixtus V. in 1587, which he had followed; and maintains, that we ought to prefer this version to the present Hebrew text, because this has been, he says, corrupted by the Jews. Before this work was ready to appear, he gave the public, in 1629, a “History,” written in French, of the deliverance of the church by the emperor Constantine, and of the greatness and temporal sovereignty conferred on the Roman church by the kings of France; but this performance was not well received at Rome, and Morin was obliged to promise that he would alter and correct it. He published, soon after, “Exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch;” for the sake of establishing which, he attacks the integrity of the Hebrew text. The Polyglott being then printing at Paris, Morin took upon himself the care of the Samaritan Pentateuch; but his endeavours to exalt this, together with the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, at the expence of the Hebrew, made him very obnoxious to some learned men; and he was attacked by Hottinger and Buxtorf in particular. This, however, enhanced his merit at the court of Rome; and cardinal Barberini invited him thither, by order of the pope, who received him very graciously, and intended to employ him in the re-union of the Greek to the Roman church, which was then in agitation. He was greatly caressed at Rome, and intimate with Lucas Holstenius, LeoAllatius, and all the learned there. After having continued nine years at Rome, he was recalled, by order of cardinal Richelieu, to France, where he spent the remainder of his life in learned labours, and died of an apoplexy at Paris, Feb. 28, 1659.

, a French physician and botanist, of singular character, was born at Mans, July 11, 1635, of parents eminent for their piety, who, although he was one of a numerous family of sixteen children, omitted nothing in his education which their fortune could supply. Botany was the study that appeared to have taken possession of his inclinations, as soon as the bent of his genius could be discovered. A country person who supplied the apothecaries of the place, was his first master, and was paid by him for his instructions with the little money that he could procure, but he soon made himself master of all this man knew, and was obliged to enlarge his acquaintance with plants, by observing them himself in the neighbourhood of Mans. Having finished his grammatical studies, he travelled on foot to Paris, and after going through the usual course of philosophy, was determined, by his love of botany, to the profession of physic. From this time he engaged in a course of life, which was never exceeded either by the ostentation of*a philosopher, or the severity t)f an anchoret, for he confined himself to bread and water, and at most allowed himself no indulgence beyond fruits. This regimen, extraordinary as it was, had many advantages it preserved his health it gave him an authority to preach diet and abstinence to his patients and it made him rich without the assistance of fortune.

By this new advancement he was laid under the necessity of keeping a chariot, an equipage very unsuitable to lis temper; but while he complied with those exterior appearances which the public demanded, he' remitted nothing of his former austerity in his private life. In two years aad a half the princess fell sick, and was despaired of by Morin, who was a great master of prognostics. At the time when she thought herself in no danger, he pronounced her death inevitable; a declaration which was made more easy to him than to any other by his piety and artless simplicity. The princess, affected by his zeal, taking a ring from her finger, gave it him as the 'last pledge of her affection, and rewarded him still more to his satisfaction, by preparing for death with true Christian piety. She left him also by will a yearly pension of 2000 livres. On the princess’s death he laid down his chariot, and retired to St. Victor, without a servant, having, however, augmented his daily allowance with a little rice boiled in water.

, a learned French protestant, was the son of Isaac Morin, a merchant of Caen, and born in that city, Jan. 1, 1625. Losing his father at three years of age, his mother designed him for trade; but his taste for learning beginning to show itself very early, she determined to give him a liberal education. Accordingly he studied the classics and philosophy at Caeu, and then removed to Sedan, to study theology under Peter du Moulin, who conceived a great friendship for him. He afterwards pursued the same studies under Andrew Rivet, and made a great proficiency in the Oriental languages under Golius. Returning to his country in 164-9, he became a minister of two churches in the neighbourhood of Caen, where he was much distinguished by his uncommon parts and learning, and had several advantageous offers made him from other countries, but he preferred his own. In 1664, he was chosen minister of Caen; and his merits soon connected him in friendship with Huetius, Segrais, Bochart, and other learned townsmen. The revocation of the edict of Nantz, in 1685, obliging him to quit Caen, he retired with his wife and three children to Leyden, but soon after was called to Amsterdam, to be professor of the Oriental tongues in the university there; to which employment was joined, two years after, that of minister in ordinary. He died, after a long indisposition both of body and mind, May 5, 1700.

He was the author of several works; as, 1. “Dissertationes octo, in quibus multa sacra3 et profanae Antiquitatis Monumenra explicantur,” Genev. 1683, 8vo. A second edition, enlarged and corrected, was printed at Dort, 1700, in 8vo. 2. “Oratio inauguralis de Linguarum Orientalium ad intelligentiam Sacrse Scripture utilitate,” L. Bat. 1686. This was reprinted with, 3. “Explanationes sacrse et philologicae in aliquot V. et N. Testament! Loca,” L. Bat. 1698, 8vo. 4. “Exercitationes de Lingua primaeva cjusque Appendicibus,” Ultraj. 1694, 4to. 5. “Dissertatio de Paradiso terrestri;” printed in Bochart’s works, the third edition of which was published at Utrecht in 1692, with Bochart’s life by Morin prefixed. 6. “Epistolse duae seu Responsiones ad Ant. Van. Dale cle Pentateucho Samaritano;” printed with Van Dale’s “De Origine et Progressu Idololatrise,” Amst. 1696, 4to. 7. “Lettre sur l‘Origine de la Langue H^bra’ique,” with an answer of Huetius; printed in the first volume of “Dissertations sur diverses Matieres de Religion et de Philologie, recueillies par M. l'Abbe de Tilladet,” Paris, 1712, 12mo. Morin endeavours to prove in this letter, that the Hebrew language is as old as the creation, and that God himself inspired it into Adam. His great fondness for this language made him run into some extravagant notions about it, as Huetius tells him in his answer. Lastly, Morin prefixed a “Life of Jacobus Palmerius” to the “Graecse antiquae Decsriptio,” Leyden, 1678, 4ko. His son, Henry, who died at Caen in 1728, aged seventy-three, was a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris; and there are several dissertations of his in the “Memoirs of this Academy.”

, a distinguished botanist of the seventeenth century, was born at Aberdeen in 1620. Being designed for the church, he devoted himself to the study of mathematics in that university; but was diverted from such pursuits by a taste for physic, and especially botany, which, however, was interrupted, for a time at least, by his loyalty, which induced him to become a soldier in the service of king Charles. After receiving a dangerous wound in the head, in the battle near the bridge of Dee, about two miles from Aberdeen, which for a while disabled him, he retired, like many of his countrymen after the ruin of the royal cause, to Paris. Here he became tutor to a young man of some fortune, while he sedulously cultivated the studies necessary for his profession, and took the degree of doctor of physic at Angers, in 1648. Botany, however, was still his favourite pursuit; and by means of M. Robin, who had then the care of the royul garden at Paris, he acquired the patronage of Gaston, duke of Orleans, and was entrusted with the care of that prince’s garden at Blois, accompanied by a handsome salary. He held this charge from 1650 to 1660, when the duke dieil. During that period he devoted himself to the study of theoretical as well as practical botany. He began to plan a system, on the subject of which his royal patron is reported to have delighted to confer with him. He was also dispatched on several botanical expeditions, to various parts of France, for the purpose of enriching the garden. A catalogue of this garden was printed in 1653, by Abel Brunyer, physician to the duke; of which Morison afterwards published at London, in. 1669, a new and enlarged edition, accompanied by a regular and professed criticism of the works of “Caspar and John Bauhin, which Haller has blamed more than it deserves. Morison gives to these great men all the rank and honour which their eminent learning and industry deserve; and while he points out their mistakes or imperfections, he expresses a wish to have his own likewise pointed out. The” Hortus Blesensis" is disposed in alphabetical order, and accompanied by a double dedication, to king Charles II. and James duke of York, to whom its author had become known in France. On the restoration he refused the most liberal offers to settle in France, and on his arrival in London received the titles of king’s physician, and royal professor of botany, with a salary of 200l. a year, and a house, as superintendant of the royal gardens, He was also elected a fellow of the college of physicans.

In 1669 he received his doctor’s degree from the university of Oxford, and was, Dec. 16, appointed botanical professor, or more properly, keeper of the physic garden, in consequence of which he gave a course of lectures there for some years*. He had been for some time meditating a great universal work on botany, and published an excellent specimen in 1672, containing a methodical arrangement of umbelliferous plants, in folio, accompanied with palates. He takes the leading characters of these plants from the seeds, but admits under the same denomination a tribe totally different, which is surely as great an error as any he had detected in the Bauhins. In 1674, he edited at Oxford a thin 4to, from the Mss. of Boccone, describing a number of new plants from Sicily, Malta, France, and Italy, witji 52 plates, which are in general very ex­* Wood tells us that “he made his week for five weeks space, not xvithout entrance on this lecture in the medi- a considerable auditory.” He is, howcine school, Sept. 2, 1670, and the 5th ever, improperly styled professor, as of the same mouth translated himself the professorship was not founded unto the physic garden, where he read ia til Sherard’s time, who appointed Dil-. the middle of it, with a table before lenius first professor on his foundahim, ou herbs and plants, thrice a lion in 1728. pressive, and many of the plants are no where else represented. His great work, “Plantarum historia universalis Oxoniensis,” appeared in 1680, fol. comprizing five sections of herbaceous plants, with numerous plates. This was called the second part of the work, the first, consisting or trees and shrubs, having been postponed, as the most easily to be finished at any time; but it never appeared . In 1699, long after the author’s death, Jacob Bobart published a second volume, called the third part, which concludes the system, as far as regards herbaceous plants. The editor of the volume, in which there are many inaccuracies, claims for the author great honour as the inventor of a system. The outlines, however, of Morison’s system are evidently to be traced in the work of Csesalpinus, published in 1583, and in that of Conrad Gesner, and it is the opinion of sir J. E. Smith, whom we principally follow, that where he deviates from these writers, he has injured his own system. This great work could scarcely have been published at the expence of a private individual, had he not been liberally assisted by the contributions of his opulent Oxford friends, who took a patriotic interest in the performance. The original specimens, such at least as refer to Bobart’s share of the undertaking, are still preserved, and serve to remove every difficulty in case of an incomplete description or figure. Such assistance is very requisite, as to the cryptogamic part of the work, though authors have much commended those plates.

Of his particular merits in imitative art, it may be observed that he was the first (or at least, among our countrymen, by far the most eminent) of those who have given the true spirit and character of our great palladium the British Oak as well as the form and action of all our most familiar animals, in all their subtleties and varieties nor does he appear to have undertaken any subject that he did not treat with equal success. Among his other rare qualifications, he appears to have been thoroughly and impartially acquainted with the Complexion and bias of his own genius from his very boyhood; since, after that period, he is never found “out of his element.” No sooner had he described the scrawls and daubings of puerility, than, anticipating his future success, and conscious of his present powers, he retreated in silence to the free walks of Nature; contemplated deeply, reasoned accurately, and practised diligently. A few years brought him back to public notice, a finished painter of English scenery, nature, sentiments, and manners; an artist, who, having sagaciously prescribed the limits of his pursuits, and effected whatever, in knowledge or in practice, was essential to the purpose of filling up those limits, had now nothing more to learn. He shrunk from no difficulty, for his choice of subject left him no difficulty to encounter. He disdained nothing that was natural and picturesque, consistently with that decorum which he has inviolably observed in all his public works. He would never risk truth, but would rather give 20 guineas to have a cat stolen for him, than presume to paint one from an uncertain remembrance. He sometimes leaves the truth unfinished, but never violated. He affected none of those whimsies that are for ever setting amateurs by the ears on the subject of colouring, or light and shadow. His characters affect no graces nor anti-graces that do not belong to them. His lights and shadows are mild, moderate, and diffusive. The whole together rests easy upon the eye, and pleases a correct taste as much as it would had it surprised a vicious one more. His choice is always good; for he chuses that in which there is nothing essential to reject. He never gives us too much of a thing. The character of Morland, therefore, as a painter, appears to be remarkably equal and consistent. His pictures never make a mistake never insult by falsehood, disgust by affectation, disappoint by error, or teize by mystery. His early productions were landscapes, and he painted one or two small conversation-pieces; but his favourite subjects were animals, chiefly of the domestic kind horses, dogs, pigs, and other cattle, which he painted in a very masterly manner. At the Exhibition of the Royal Academy, in 1791, he produced a picture representing the inside of a stable, with horses and draymen, &c. larger than a half-length canvas an excellent performance, and perhaps his master-piece.

Edwafds observes, that “his low and vulgar propensities led him into society little calculated to improve either his mind or manners; that he readily stooped to an intimacy with any associates with whom he could gratify the despicable ambition of being at the head of his company.” “But,” says Fuseli, “it is surely one of the favourite paradoxes of the age, to wonder at the association of a man’s favourite objects of amusement with his favourite objects of study. It would be a disgusting idea, were it a possible one, to suppose, that the man who, with congenial satisfaction, spends the day in penciling, to a degree of deception, a sow amid her litter, could long for the recreation of elegant society in the evening: or can it be wondered at, if he, who chooses his subjects among the patrons of a pot-house or gin-shop, the inhabitants of a stable or a hovel, and the usual victims and furniture of a prison, should court the first, frequent the next, or paint and perhaps rot in a jail”

In the month of May, 1655, an account arrived in England of the barbarous cruelties inflicted on the protestants, or Waldenses, by the duke of Savoy; and, as Morland informs us, it no sooner came to the ears of Cromwell, than he “arose like a lion out of his place,” and by the most pathetic appeals to the protestant princes on the Continent endeavoured to excite their pity and interference. Milton was at this time Cromwell’s Latin secretary, and drew up these remonstrances and letters with uncommon spirit and elegance. Never indeed did Cromwell or his secretary appear in a more becoming light, as politicians. After appointing a day of fasting and prayer to mark the impression these massacres had made upon the public mind, Cromwell issued an account of the state and sufferings of the Waldenses, and solicited the contributions of the benevolent towards their immediate support. This he began with a subscription from himself of 2000l.; and in a very short time, the city of London taking the lead, the sum of 3l,241l. was collected, equivalent, if we consider the difference in the value of money, to the highest sum ever subscribed for any charitable purpose in our own days. But that more effectual measures might accompany this testimony of good will, Mr. Morland received immediate orders to set off with a message from the English government to the duke of Savoy, beseeching him to recall his murderous edicts, and restore his subjects to their homes and liberties; for it appears that all who had escaped being massacred had fled to the mountains, whence they sent agents to Cromwell for relief. This business Mr. Morland conducted with great address; and although he did not finally prevail in securing their freedom and the exercise of their religion to these poor people, a stop at least was put to the more outrageous acts of persecution. Mr. Morland remained for some time at Geneva, as the English resident, to manage the affairs of the Waldenses with other foreign ministers, to distribute the money contributed by the English nation, and also to prepare minutes, and to procure records, vouchers, and attestations, from which he might compile a correct history of the Waldenses. This was a suggestion of Thurloe’s.

Mr. Morland informs us that both before and after this publication, particularly from 164-1 to 1656, and some years after, he was admitted into the most intimate affairs of state, and had frequent opportunities of taking a clear view of the proceedings of Cromwell and his agents. Among other intrigues, he tells us that he was an eye and ear-witness of Dr. Hewit’s being trepanned to death by Thurloe and his agents. One Dr. Corker was sent by Thurloe to Dr. Hewit to advise him, and desire him, on behalf of the royalists, to send to Brussels for blank commissions from Charles II. and when the commissions arrived, was ordered to request that he might be employed to disperse part of them in several counties, and keep the rest by him. This done, Hewit was seized, and part of the commissions being found upon him, he was condemned and executed. But the most remarkable plot to which he was privy, was that usually called sir Richard Willis’s plot. The object of it was to entrap king Charles II. and his brothers to land somewhere in Sussex, under pretence of meeting with many supporters, and to put them to death the moment they landed. This plot is said to have formed the subject of a conversation between Cromwell, Thurloe, and Willis, at Thurloe’s office, and was overheard by Morland, who pretended to be asleep at his desk. In “Wel­* Note by Mr. Thomas Warton on Milton’s beautiful sonnet” On ths late Massacre in Piedmont.“Milton’s Poems, edit. 1785, p. 357. wood’s Memoirs,” it is said that when Cromwell discovered him, he drew his poinard, and would have dispatched him on the spot, if Thurloe had not, with great intreaties, prevailed on him to desist, assuring him that Morland had sat up two nights together, and was certainly asleep. Morland himself gives a somewhat different account of this plot than what appears in Echard, and is copied in the life of Thurloe in the Biog. Brit* but the chief circumstances are the same, and he was the means of discovering it to the king. It also appears to have alienated him from the party with which he had been connected, and from this time he endeavoured to promote the restoration by every means in his power, for which, in “Hollis’s Memoirs,” as may be expected in such a work, he is termed a “dextrous hypocrite*.”