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

Morland’s own sentiments we shall copy nearly literally: he concludes his account of the plot, with saying, that the horror of this and such like designs, to support an usurped government, and “fearing to have the king’s blood laid another day, inforo divino, to his charge (there being no person but myself, and the contrivers, and the chief of those who were to act it, privy to it), and calling to remembrance Hushai’s behaviour towards Absalom, which I found not at all blamed in holy writ (and yet his was a larger step than mine, I having never taken any kind of oath, or made any formal promise that I ever remember to any of those governments). As likewise seriously reflecting upon those oaths of supremacy and allegiance, which I had taken during the reign of Charles I. at Winchester college, I took at last a firm resolution, to do my native prince and the rightful heir of the crown, all the service that lay in my power.” To this he adds, that avarice could not be his object, as he was at this time living in greater

* In a short letter he wrote to arch- Henry’s which might have been probishop Tenison, intended as a post- duced against him.“It is necessary script to that which contains the ac- to add here, that Harris, in his life of count of his life, he tells his grace that Charles II. speaks of the above plot as” when he discovered the conspiracy to undeserving of credit.and triumphant!; Charles II. it was upon a solemn agree- produces a letter from sir Samuel to ment that he should not be required to sir Richard Willis, dated March 1, be an evidence against auy of them 1660, denying the whole. Where Mr. who should be tried after the restora- Harris got his letter, he does not say. tkm and that when required to ap- We have the direct testimony of sir pear against sir Henry Vane, he claim- Samuel, at a late period of life; and ed the promise made to him, would not the reader may compare the evidence, appear, and burned some papers of sir with that of Clarendon, &c. plenty than ever he did after the restoration, “having a house well furnished, an establishment of servants, a coach, &c. and 1000l. a year to support all this, with several hundred pounds of ready money, and a beautiful young woman to his wife for a companion.” All this, he adds, he must hazard in serving the king; but he preferred his duty and conscience, and accordingly gave such information as saved the king’s life, and promoted the restoration. For this purpose he at last went to Breda, and made his discoveries to his majesty, who acknowledged the value of his services, with many liberal promises of future preferment*.

* “We think fit to relate here, as a part of the intricate plots of the interthing most remarkable, that on this reign, and likewise the perfidiousness 3^ of May, Mr. Moreland, chief com- of some who owM him, no doubt, the missioner under Mr. Thurloe, who was greatest fidelity in the world. The secretary of state unto Oliver Crom- kingreceiv'd him perfectly well, made well, his chief and most confident mi- him knight, and rendered him this nister of his tyranny, arrived at Breda, public testimony, that he had received where he brought divers letters and most considerable services frfm him. notes of very great importance, foras- for some years past.” Kennel’s Remuch as the king discovered there a gister, p. 135. time when he wrote an account of his life to archbishop Tenison. Two years before the death of Charles II. that sovereign sent him to France, “about the king’s waterworks;” but here too he appears to have lost more than he gained. On his return, king James restored to him his pensions, which had been, for whatever reason, withdrawn, and likewise granted him the arrears, but not without deducting the expences of the engine which sir Samuel constructed to supply Windsor castle with water. Water-engines of various sorts employed much of his attention and capital; and as far back as 1674, we iind in the “Journals of the House of Commons,” a notice of a bill to enable him to enjoy the sole benefit of certain pumps and waterengines invented by him.

Sk Samuel was twice married to his first wife, during the usurpation but at what precise time, does not appear. In her naturalization-bill, introduced into the House of Commons in 1662, she is called Susanne de Milleville, daughter of Daniel de Milleville, baron of Boessey, and of thq lady Katherine his wife, of Boessey in France. It is probable he married her when abroad. After her death, he was entrapped into a second marriage* with a woman who pretended to be an heiress of 20,000l. This, he says, proved his ruin. She was a woman of abandoned conduct, and probably impaired his property by extravagance; and although he was divorced from her, for adultery, in 1688, the rest of his history is but a melancholy detail of his various disappointments and distresses. In 1689, he wrote a long letter to archbishop Tenison, giving an account of his life, from which we have extracted many of the above particulars, and concluding with a declaration that his only wish was to retire and spend his life “in Christian solitude,” for which he begs the archbishop’s “helping hand to have his condition truly represented to his majesty.” Tenison probably did something for him, for we find a letter of thanks for “favours and acts of charity,” contained

buried two wives; one Carola, who Samuel. If these be the wives of our

although the name be different from divorced from one in 168$. in it, dated March 5, 1695. He died Jan. 1696, probably in a weak condition, as he was unable to sign the will, by which he disinherited his only son, or the same name, who was the second and last baronet of the family, and bequeathed his property to Mrs. Zenobia Hough. According to the representation he made of his affairs to archbishop Tenison, this could not have been much. The reason of his disinheriting his son, appears from a passage in his letter to the archbishop, in which he is confessing the sins of iiis past life. “I have been, in my youthful days, very undutiful to my parents, for which God has given me a son, altogether void of filial respect or natural affection.” The errors of sir Samuel’s life were probably considerable, as he speaks of having* been at one time excommunicated, but some of his writings shew that he was a sincere penitent, particularly his “Urim of Conscience,” which he published a little before his death, written, as the titlfc says, “in blindness and retirement.” It consists of a rhapsody of meditations on the fall of man, the wonderful structure and powers of the human body, with allusions to his machines, cautions to those who are in quest of the perpetual motion, or the philosopher’s stone, and pious advice to men of all ranks and professions.

As a machinist, however, sir Samuel Morland deserves more respect than has hitherto been paid to him. Granger refers to the account of his life in a letter to archbishop Tenison, but had never seen it, else he could not have divided him into two persons, sir Samuel, who wrote the history of the churches of Piedmont, and a son who was master of mechanics to Charles II. yet in this he is followed in our Cyclopædias. They allow, however, that he invented the speaking-trumpet, although Kircher laid claim to it; the fire engine a capstan, to heave up anchors; and two arithmetical machines, of which he published a description, under the title of “The description and use of two Arithmetic Instruments together with a short Treatise, explaining the ordinary operations of Arithmetic, &c. presented to his most excellent majesty, Charles II. by S. Morland, in 1662.” This work, which is exceedingly rare, but of which there is a copy in the Bodleian, which bears date, 1673, 8vo, is illustrated with twelve plates, in which the different parts of the machine are exhibited; and whence it appears that the four fundamental rules in arithmetic are very readily worked, and, to use the author’s own words, “without charging the memory, disturbing the mind, or exposing the operations to any uncertainty.” That these machines were at the time brought into practice, there seems no reason to doubt, as by an advertisement prefixed to the work, it appears that they were manufactured for sale by Humphry Adanson, who lived with Jonas Moore, esq. in the Tower of London.

But there appears very good reason to give him the merit of an invention of much greater importance, that of the steam-engine; a contrivance which, assisted by modern improvements, is now performing what a century ago would have seemed miraculous or impossible. Yet it appears that he has been hitherto entirely unknown to the world at large. In 1699, captain Savery obtained a paten for this invention; aud he has consequently occupied al the honour of the discovery. But in that noble assemblage of Mss. the Harleian collection, now in the British Museum, the strongest testimony appears that the real inventor was Samuel Morland. That the first hint of the idnd was thrown out by the marquis of Worcester, in his “Century of Inventions,” is allowed; but obscurely, like the rest of his hints. But Morland wrote a book upon the subject; in which he not only shewed the practicability of the plan, but went so far as to calculate the power of different cylinders. This book is now extant in manuscript, in the above collection. It was presented to the French king in 1683, at which time experiments were actually shewn at St. Germain’s. The author dates his invention in 1682; consequently seventeen years prior to Savery’s patent. It seems, however, to have remained obscure both in France and England, till 1699, when Savery, who probably knew more of Morland’s invention than he owned, obtained a patent; and in the very same year, M. Amontons proposed something similar to the French academy, probably as his own.

The manuscript, in which Morland explains his invention, No. 5771 of the Harleian collection, hitherto seems to have been as little noticed as Morland himself. But if he was the real inventor, as these circumstances seem to render almost certain, it is highly proper that his name should in future be recorded, with all the honour which an invention of such utility demands. It is thus described by the learned gentleman who assisted in the improved catalogue of that valuable collection of Mss.

How far all this may be conclusive in sir Samuel Morland’s favour, as the inventor of the steam-engine, we must leave to be determined by those who have made the history of inventions their study. It only remains that we notice the titles of such of his works as have not been mentioned already. These are, 1. “The Count of Pagan’s Method of delineating all manner of Fortifications from the exterior Polygon, reduced to English measure, and converted into Hercotectonick lines,” Lond. 1672. 2. te A new and most useful Instrument for Addition and Subtraction, &c. with a perpetual Almanack,“ibid. 1672, 8vo. This appears to have preceded his description of the two arithmetical instruments mentioned above. 3.” The Doctrine of Interest, both simple and compound, explained,“&c. ibid. 1679, 8vo. 4.” Description of the Tuba Stentorophonica,“or speaking trumpet, ibid. 1671, folio. 5.” Hydrostatics, or Instructions concerning Water-works," 1697, 12mo. This appears to have been a posthumous work. By one of his letters, dated July 28, 1688, it appears that he had an intention of publishing the first six books of Euclid, for the use of public schools.

We learn from Mr. Lysons, that in 1675, sir Samuel Morland obtained a lease of Vauxhall house (now a distillery), made it his residence, and considerably improved the premises, every part of which shewed the invention of the owner; the side-table in the dining-room was supplied with a large fountain, and the glasses stood under little streams of water. His coach had a moveable kitchen, with clockwork machinery, with which he could make soup, broil steaks, or roast a joint of meat. About 1684 he purchased a house at Hammersmith, near the water-side; and all the letters we have seen in the Lambeth library or Museum, are dated from this place. He gave a pump and well, adjoining to his house, for the use of the public, which benefaction was thus recorded upon a tablet fixed in the wall “Sir Samuel Morland’s well, the use of which he freely gives to all persons hoping that none who shall come after him, will adventure to incur God’s displeasure by denying a cup of cold water (provided at another’s cost and not their own) to either neighbour, stranger, passenger, or poor thirsty beggar. July 8, 1695.” This pump has been removed; but the stone tablet is preserved in tha garden belonging to the house, which is now an academy, and known by the name of Walbrough-house, in the tenure of Messrs. Aiken and Bathie.

, a learned English bishop, first of Worcester and afterwards of Winchester, was sou of Francis Morley, esq. by a sister of sir John Denham, one of the barons of the Exchequer, and born in Cheapside, London, Feb. 27, 1597. He lost his parents when very young, and also his patrimony, by his father being engaged for other people’s debts. However, at fourteen, he was elected a king’s scholar at Westminster-school, and became a student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1615; where he took the first degree in arts in 1618, and that of M. A. in 1621. After a residence of seven years in this college, he was invited to be chaplain to Robert earl of Carnarvon and his lady, with whom he lived till 1640, without seeking any preferment in the church. At the end of that time, and in his forty-third year, he was presented to the rectory of Hartfield in Sussex, which being a sinecure, he exchanged for the rectory of Mildenhall in Wiltshire; but, before this exchange, Charles I. to whom he was chaplain in ordinary, had given him a canonry of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1641, the only preferment he ever desired; and of which he gave the first year’s profit to his majesty, towards the charge of the war, then begun. In 1642 he took his degree of D. D. and preached one of the first solemn sermons before the House of Commons; but so little to their liking, that he was not commanded to print it, as all the preachers had been. Yet he was nominated one or the assembly of divines, but never appeared among them, as he preferred to remain with the king, and promote his majesty’s interest. Among other services the king employed him to engage the university of Oxford not to submit to the parliamentary visitation; and such was his success, that the convocation had the spirit to pass an act for that purpose, with only one dissenting voice, although they were then under the power of the enemy. Afterwards he was appointed by the university, with other assistants named by himself, to negociate the surrender of the Oxford garrison to the parliamentary forces, which he managed with great address. Such a decided part, however, could not fail to render him obnoxious; and accordingly in 1647, the committee for reforming the university voted his cauonry vacant. He was offered at the same time to hold it and what else he had, if he would give his word not to appear openly against them and their proceedings; but he preferred suffering with his celebrated colleagues Fell, Sanderson, Hammond, &c. Accordingly in 1648 he was deprived of all his preferments, and imprisoned for some little time. Some months before, he ha been permitted to attend upon the king at Newmarket, a one of his chaplains, and he was one of the divines who as sisted the king at the treaty of Newport in the Isle of Wight. In March 1648-9, he prepared the brave lord Capel for death, and accompanied him to the scaffold on Tower-hill. In 1649 he left England, and waited upon king Charles II. at the Hague, who received him very graciously, and carried him first into France, and afterwards to Breda, with him. But, the king not being permitted to take his own divines with him, when he set out upon his expedition to Scotland, in June 1650, Morley withdrew to the Hague; and, after a short stay there, went and lived with his friend Dr. John Earle at Antwerp, in the house of sir Charles Cotterel. After they had thus continued about a year together, sir Charles being invited to be steward to the queen of Bohemia, and Dr. Earle to attend upon James duke of York in France, Morley then removed into the family of the lady Frances Hyde, wife of sir Edward Hyde, in the same city of Antwerp; and during his residence there, which was three or four years, he read the service of the Church of England twice every day, catechised once a week, and administered the communion once a month, to all the English in that city who would attend; as he did afterwards at Breda, for four years together, in the same family. But, betwixt his going from Antwerp and his coming to Breda, he officiated at the Hague about two years, as chaplain to the queen of Bohemia, without expecting or receiving any reward. As he had been happy at home in the acquaintance and friendship of many eminent men, such as lord Falkland, sir Edward Hyde, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sanderson, Mr. Chillingworth, Dr. Sheldon, Waller, with whom he had resided at Beaconsfield, &c. so he was also abroad, in that of Bochart, Salmasius, Daniel Heinsius, Rivet, &c.

When all things were preparing for the king’s restoration, Morley was sent over by chancellor Hyde, two months before, to help to pave the way for that great event. In this undertaking he had some trouble in repressing the intemperance of the royalists, who accustomed themselves to inveigh against the republicans in a manner calculated to irritate those who had as yet a considerable share of power in their hands. He conversed also with the heads of the presbyterian party, without entering too deeply into particulars, but avowed himself a Calvinist, because he knew that they entertained the most favourable opinion of such churchmen as were of that persuasion. His chief business, however, in this kind of embassy, was to confute the report that Charles II. was a papist. In this he was probably more successful than correct. Upon the king’s return, he was not only restored to his canonry, but also promoted to the deanry of Christ-church. He was installed, July 1660, and nominated to the bishopric of Worcester, October following. In 1661, he was a principal manager at the conference between the episcopal and presbyterian divines, commissioned under the great seal to review the liturgy; and, according to Baxter, was the most fluent and chief speaker of all the bishops. Some time after, he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel; and, in 1662, upon the death of Dr. Duppa, was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; when the king, it is said, told him, “he would be never the richer for it.” He was, in truth, a great benefactor to this see; for, besides the repairing of the palace at Winchester, he spent above 8000l. in repairing Farnham-castle, and above 4000l. in purchasing Winchester-house at Chelsea, to annex to this see. Many other benefactions of his are recorded. He gave 300/ per ann. to Christ-church in Oxford, for the public use of that college: he founded five scholarships of lOl. per annum each, in Pembroke-college, three for the Isie of Jersey, and two for Guernsey he gave, at several times, upwards of 1800l. to the church of St. Paul, London and he bequeathed in his will 1000l. to purchase lands for the augmenting of some small vicarages. By temperance and exercise he reached a very old age, and died at Farnhamcastle, Oct. 29, 1684, and was’buried in Winchester cathedral.

, lord of Plessis Marly, an illustrious French protestunt, privy-counsellor of Henry IV. and governor of Saumur, was born at Buhi or Bishuy, in the French Vexin, in 1549. He was descended from an ancient and noble family, which had, in course of time, divided itself into several brandies, and produced many great aiKi eminent men. His father, James de Morn ay, had done great services to the royal family in the wars; but in the time of peace led a very retired life, and was much attacnecl to the religion of his country He designed Philip for the church, as he was a younger son, with a view to succeed his uncle Bertin de Mornay, who was dean of Beauvais and abbe of Saumur, and who had promised to resign those preferments to him; but this plan was rendered abortive by the death of the uncle. In the mean time his mother, who was the daughter of Charles du Bee Cre^pin, vice-admiral of France, and chamberlain to Francis II. was secretly a protestant, and had taken care to inspire her son insensibly with her own principles. His father died when he was not more than ten years of age; and his mother, making open profession of the protestant religion in 1561, set up a lecture in her own house, xvhich confirmed hirn in it. His literary education was all the while carrying on with the utmost care and circumspection he had masters provided for him in all languages and sciences and the progress he made in all was what might be expected from his very uncommon parts and application.

In 1567, he was obliged to retire from Paris, where he was pursuing his studies, on account of the commotions which were breaking out, and soon after took up arms, and served a campaign or two. But, having the misfortune to break one of his legs, he quitted the profession of a soldier, and began to entertain thoughts of travelling into foreign countries, for the improvement of his mind, and for the sake of some baths, which he hoped would restore to him the free use of his leg. He arrived at Geneva in 1568, not without the greatest danger and peril to himself; for, all places were so full of soldiers, and the passages so guarded, that it was difficult for one of his religion to pass with safety. He made but a short stay at Geneva, on account of the plague which was there; but, taking his way through Switzerland, went to Heidelberg in Germany. Here he became acquainted with Tremellius, and other learned men, and entered upon the study of the civil law. In 1569 he went to Francfort, where he was affectionately received by the celebrated Languet, who gave him instructions for his future travels, and recommendatory letters to several great men. He stayed some time afterwards at Padua, for the farther prosecution of the study of civil law, and then proceeded to Venice. He had a great desire to make the tour of the East; but, as the Venetians and Turks were then at war about the Isle of Cyprus, it was impossible for him to pass the coasts of Istria and Dalmatia with any degree of safety. From Venice, in 1571, he went to Rome, where his religion had like to have brought him into danger. He had experienced something of this sort at Venice, owing to the zeal of an officer of the inquisition, but he escaped in both places, and from Rome he returned to Venice, from Venice to Vienna; and thence, after taking a round through Hungary, Bohemia, Misnia, Saxony, Hesse, Franconia, to Francfort, where he arrived in Sept. 1551. Though he was very young when he set out upon his travels, yet he never suffered the man of pleasure to get the better of the philosopher; but made that profitable use of them, which a wise man will always make. He examined every thing that was curious in every place; and, that nothing might escape him, attentively perused not only the general history of the countries, but also the histories of each particular town and province through which he passed. Nor was he only attentive to their antiquities, but remarked also whatever was worth notice in the manners, customs, policy, and constitution, of each.

In 1572 he went into Flanders, to survey the situation, the strength, the fortifications, and garrisons, of that country, and afterwards passed, over to England, where he was graciously received by queen Elizabeth; for, his parts, his knowledge, his uncommon capacity for the management of great affairs, had spread his name far and wide, and made him courted, especially by the great. In 1575 he married, and published the same year a treatise “Concerning Life and Death;” for, though often employed in civil affairs, and oftener solicited to engage in them, yet he passed much of his time in reading and writing. Previously to his marriage he had engaged in an unsuccessful contest with part of the king’s troops; was wounded and taken prisoner; but after the confinement of a few days, and by assuming a false name, he was allowed to ransom himself on easy terms. In 1576, he again took arms, and now his adherents were so powerful, that the king’s partydeemed it expedient to propose a negociation, which was accepted. After this, he went to the court of the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France, who received him very graciously, gave him one of the first places in his council, and, upon all occasions, paid great deference to his judgment. Du Plessis, on his part, did the king great services. He went into England to solicit the assistance of Elizabeth for him in 1577, into Flanders in 1578, and to the diet of Augsburg in 1579. In 1578 he published a treatise “Concerning the Church;” in which he explained his motives for leaving the popish, and embracing the protestant religion; and, in 1579, began his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion.” But, before he had made any progress in this, he was seized with an illness, which was thought to be the efiect of some poison that had been given him at Antwerp the year before, with a view of destroying him. He recovered, though dangeronsly ill, and continued to do service to the king of Navarre and the protestant religion. From 1585, when the league commenced, he was more intimately connected with the affairs of the king; and, in 1590, was made his counsellor of state, after having been invested with the government of Sauinur the year before. In 1592, the king appointed him to confer with M. de Villeroy upon the subject of the king’s religion; but the extravagant demands of De Villeroy rendered their conference of no effect. Du Piessis, however, opposed the king’s embracing the popish religion, as long as he could and, when he could prevent it no longer, withdrew himself gradually from court, and resumed his studies.

In 1596 he published a piece entitled “The just Procedures of those of the Reformed Religion;” in which he removes the imputation of the present troubles and dissentions from the protestants, and throws the blame on those who injuriously denied them that liberty, which their great services had deserved. In 1598 he published his treatise “upon the Eucharist;” which occasioned the conference at Fontainbleau in 1600, between Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and M. du Plessis; and raised his reputation and credit among the protestants to so great a height, that he was called by man)* “the Protestant Pope.” In 1607 he published a work entitled “The Mystery of Iniquity, or the History of the Papacy;” which was written, as most of his other works were, first in French, and then translated into Latin. Here he shews by what gradual progress the popes have risen to that ecclesiastical tyranny, which was foretold by the apostles; and what opposition from time to time all nations have given them. This seems to have been a work of prodigious labour; yet it is said, that he was not above nine months in composing it. About this time, also, he published “An Exhortation to the Jews concerning the Messiah,” in which he applies a great deal of Hebrew learning very judiciously; and for this he was complimented by the elder Buxtorf. There are several other lesser pieces of his writing; but his capital work, and for which he has been most distinguished, is his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion;” in which he employs the weapons of reason and learning with great force and skill against Atheists, Epicureans, Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and other Infidels, as he tells us in his title. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. while he was king of Navarre only, in 1582; and, the year after, was translated by himself into Latin. “As a Frenchman,” says he, in his preface tp the reader, “I have endeavoured to serve my own country first; and, as a Christian, the universal kingdom of Christ next.” Baillet observes, with justness, that “the Protestants of France had great reason to be proud of having such a man as Mornay du Plessis of their party; a gentleman, who, besides the nobleness of his birth, was distinguished by many fine qualities both natural and acquired.”

In 1621, when Lewis XIII. made war upon the protestants, he took away the government of Sauinur from Du Plessis, who then retired to his barony of La Forest in Poictou, where he died in, 1623, at the age of seventyfour, deeply regretted by -the protestants, and esteemed by the catholics as a man of talents and integrity.

, an English artist, at one time of considerable fame, was born at Eastbourne in the county of Sussex, in November 1739. His father, who was a collector of the customs at that port, was descended from Mortimer earl of March, and a man of most respectable character. His uncle was an itinerant painter, of merit much above mediocrity; from frequently seeing his productions, the nephew imbibed an early fondness for that art, which he afterwards practised with considerable success. His taste for the terrific he is said to have acquired from the scenery of the place, and the tribe of ferocious smugglers, whom it was his father’s duty to watch, whose countenances, unsoftened by social intercourse, were marked with that savage hardihood, which he afterwards so much admired, and sometimes imitated, in the banditti of Salvator Rosa.

His parents placed him with Mr. Hudson, the most eminent painter of that day, with whom he continued three years, the fellow-pupil of Wright of Derby. He was afterwards twelve months with sir Joshua Reynolds, who had left Hudson about a year before Mortimer became his pupil; but the great school of his improvement was the duke of Richmond’s gallery, which he long attended with great assiduity, and to so good a purpose, that Cipriani and Mr. Moser recommended him to the peculiar attention of that nobleman, who was very desirous of retaining him in his house, but the offer was rejected.

He had hitherto been a member of the society of artists of Great Britain, who exhibited at the room now called the Lyceum in the Strand, but, in the year 1779, without expectation or solicitation, he was, by the especial grant of his majesty, created a royal academician, but did not live to see the diploma for, on the 4th of February 1779, deeply regretted by all who had the honour and happiness of his friendship, after an illness of only twelve days, he died at his house in Norfolk-street. His fame has been thought to rest on his picture of king John granting Magna Charta to the Barons, Battle of Agincourt, Vortigern and Rowena, the Incantation, the Series of the Progress of Vice, and the Sir Arthegull from' Spenser. His favourite subjects were of the grotesque or horrible kind; incantations, monsters, or representations of banditti and soldiers in violent actions. The attempts at real character which he made (and of which he has left us etchings) from some of Shakspeare’s most celebrated heroes, are weak and untrue; they leave us nothing to regret in his not having indulged himself in more of the like kind, except for the freedom, with which they are executed. They were very highly extolled in his time, but the improvement in art and taste which the country has since experienced, has given us more accurate ideas of art, and more just discrimination between character and caricature.

, a learned physician and antiquary, was a native of Westmoreland, where he was born in 1716, and practised physic with considerable reputation at Kendal about 1745. At what time he removed to London we have not been able to discover, as very few particulars of his life have been recorded, but it was probably about 1751, when he was admitted a licentiate of the College of Physicians. In 1752 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society; and on the first establishment of the British Museum, in 1756, he was appointed under-librarian of the manuscripts and medal department. In 1760 he was elected one of the secretaries to the Royal Society, which situation he held till 1774; and in 1776, on the death of Dr. Maty, he was appointed principal librarian of the British Museum. He was also a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and of the Imperial Academy of Petersburgh. He died Feb. 10, 1799, aged eighty-three, and was buried in the cemetery near the London road, Twickenham. In 1744 he married Miss Mary Berkeley, a niece of Lady Betty Germaine, by whom he had an only daughter, Elizabeth, married to James Dansie, esq. of Herefordshire. He married, secondly, in 1772, Lady Savile (mother of the amiable Sir George Savile), who died Feb. 10, 1791: in which year he married to his third wife Elizabeth Pratt, a near relation of Lady Savile. Dr. Morton was a man of great uprightness and integrity, and much admired as a scholar.

In 1473 he was appointed master of the rolls, and in 1474 archdeacon of Winchester; in both which offices he was succeeded by his nephew Robert Morton, afterwards bishop of Worcester. In May of the same year, 1474, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Chester, and not to that of Chichester, as Browne Willis has inadvertently said. In March 1475 he was installed by proxy archdeacon of Huntingdon; and the same year collated to the prebend of St. Decuman in the cathedral of Weils. In April 1476 he was installed prebendary of South Newbald in the metropolitan church of York, which he resigned the same year, in which he was also further promoted to the archdeaconry of Berkshire; and in January 1477 to that of Leicester. This list of promotions, in various quarters of the kingdom, and from various patrons, may serve to shevr the high esteem in which he was held. His eminent abilities, as a civilian, during his practice as an advocate in the Court of Arches, recommended him to the notice of cardinal Bourchier, who, besides conferring many of the above preferments on him, introduced him to Henry VI. who made him one of his privy council. To this unfortunate prince he adhered with so much fidelity, while others deserted him, that even his successor Edward IV. could not but admire and reward his attachment; took him into his council, and was much guided by his advice. He also, ' in the same year, 1478, made him both bishop of Ely and lord chancellor of England; and at his death appointed him one of his executors.

On this account, however, he was considered in no very favourable light by the protector, afterwards Richard III. who had no hopes of alluring him to his interests. When bishop Morton and others were assembled in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to consult about the coronation of Edward V. the protector came among them, and after some general discourse turned to the bishop of Ely, and said, “My lord, you have very good strawberries in your garden at Holborn, I require you let me have a mess of them.” “Gladly, my lord,” the bishop answered; “I wish I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that.” Yet, notwithstanding this apparent civility, Morton, with archbishop Rotheram, lord Stanley, and others, were the same day taken into custody, as known enemies to the measures then in agitation. As soon as this was known, the university of Oxford, to which Morton had been a benefactor, sent a petition in Latin to Richard, pleading for his liberty; whether with effect does not appear; but it is certain that for this or some other reason he was soon released from prison, and given in ward to the duke of Buckingham, then a warm partizan of Richard, but completely brought over to the other side by conversation with the bishop. He was sent to th.e duke’s castle at Brecknock, whence he escaped to the isle of Ely, and soon after, disguising himself, went to the Continent to Henry earl of Richmond; and it was agreed among the friends of the late king’s family and the well-wishers to the peace and harmony of the kingdom, that king Edward’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth, should be pnited to Henry by marriage; and thus, by joining the interests of the white and red rose in one, a coalition might be formed between the jarring parties of York and Lancaster. All this is said to have been the plan recommended by Morton, and he lived to see it happily accomplished. It is indeed that transactiou of his life which gives him a very honourable place in English history. Horace Walpole only, in his “Historic Doubts,” has obliquely accused him. of violating his allegiance to Richard III.; but to Richard III. no allegiance was either due, or paid. As Morton was imprisoned before Richard was crowned, and never set at liberty until he made his escape, it seems highly probable that no oath of allegiance was ever tendered to him. by the usurper.

He had before this, in the time of Edward IV. been employed in many important affairs of state; and so early as 1473 had the custody of the great seal committed to his care for a time, in the same year that he was constituted master of the rolls, which last office was renewed to him in May 1476. In 1474 he was sent ambassador to the emperor of Germany and to the king of Hungary, to concert a league with them against Lewis of France: and in, the next year he attended the king, who was in France with his army. At this time Lewis sent him proposals of a truce, which was agreed on; and soon after Morton, with Sir Thomas Howard and two others, were appointed commissioners in a negociation for peace, which they concluded on terms very honourable and advantageous for England.

Among the public-spirited schemes which his liberality induced him to execute, was the famous cut or drain from Peterborough to Wisbeche, a track of upwards of twelve miles across a fenny country, which proved of great benefit to his diocese and to the public, and was completed entirely at his expence. This still is known by the name of Morton’s Leame, As soon as Henry VII. was seated on the throne, after the death of Richard III. he sent for Morton, who was still abroad, and immediately on his arrival made him one of his privy council; and on the death of cardinal Bourchier, in 1486, he was, probably on the king’s recommendation, elected by the prior and convent of Canterbury to be archbishop. In the mean time the king granted him. the whole profits of the see, until the pope’s confirmation could be obtained, and the disposal of all the preferments annexed to it; and having received the pope’s bull, dated Oct. 6, 1436, he was, by the king, admitted to the temporalities on Dec. 6 following In August 1487 he was constituted lord chancellor of England, which office he retained to his death. In a ms. in the British Museum, (Mss. Harl. 6100. fol. 54.) he is said to have been made chancellor in 1485, which was the first year of Henry VII.; and we have already mentioned, from another authority, that he filled that office while bishop of Ely. In 1493 he was creiited a cardinal by pope Alexander VI. by the title of St. Anastasia. In Hall’s Chronicle this promotion is placed in 1489, which is a mistake.

Leland informs us, that, while archbishop, he employed his fortune in building and repairing his houses at Canterbury, Lambeth, Maidstone, Allington park, and Charing; and at Ford he almost built the whole house. At Oxford, too, it is said that he repaired the canon- law school, completed the building of the divinity school, and the rebuilding of St. Mary’s church; in all which places his arms were formerly to be seen, as they are at this day on the stone tower of Wisbeche church, five or six times, either because he built it, which is not improbable, or because he was a benefactor to the tower which thus commemorated his services. In February 1494 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; in which year Fuller says he greatly promoted the re-building of Rochester bridge. One of the last acts of his life was to procure the canonization of Anselm archbishop of Canterbury; and he also endeavoured, but without effect, to procure the same honour for his old master Henry VI. He died, according to the Canterbury obituary, Tuesday 16 kal. Oct.; but, according to the register of Ely, Sept. 15, 1500, and in his ninetieth year. As he had provided for his relations in his life-time, he bequeathed all his remaining wealth to pious uses, or to be distributed among such of his servants as had not yet tasted of his bounty. He founded a chauntry at Bere, his native place, with a chaplain, who was to officiate for twenty years; and for th'e same space of time he bequeathed exhibitions for poor scholars at both the universities, twenty for Oxford and ten for Cambridge. He was interred in Canterbury cathedral, where a heavy but sumptuous monument was erected to his memory. His remains were afterwards disturbed by the falling-in of the pavement upon his coffin, and some of them, wrapt up in cerecloths, were carried away; and the head being almost the only part remaining, it was begged of archbishop Sheldon in 1670, by Ralph Sheldon of Beolie in Worcestershire, esq. who, after preserving it with great reverence till his death, bequeathed it to his niece, Mrs. Frances Sheldon, one of the maids of honour to Catherine of Portugal, wife to king Charles II. What became of this relic afterwards is not known.

Archbishop Morton’s character is highly spoken of by his contemporaries and successors, as a statesman of great talents and a man of learning, probity, liberality, and spirit. His life was written by Dr. John Budden in 1607, 8vo; but the eulogium that confers most honour upon him is that which occurs in sir Thomas More’s “Utopia,” and in some of the lives of that illustrious man, who, as we have noticed in our account, was educated by Morton. Parker may also be consulted in his “Antiq. Ecclesiast.” Although he derived much unpopularity from the high favour he enjoyed with king Henry VII. yet it was owing to his advice and interference that the exactions made by that monarch were not far more severe; and he had at all times the courage to give the king his fair and honest opinion on such measures. The life of Richard III. attribated to Sir Thomas More, is said to have been written by our prelate.

, a learned English bishop in the seventeenth century, was of the same family with cardinal Morton, and was the sixth son of nineteen children of Mr. Richard Morton, an eminent mercer and alderman of York, by Elizabeth Leedale his wife. He was born at York, March 20, 1564, and was 6rst educated there under Mr. Pullen, and afterwards at Halifax under Mr. Maud. In 1582 he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge, and placed under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Higgon, afterwards dean of Rippon, who left him to the care of Mr. Henry Nelson, afterwards rector of Hougham ia Lincolnshire, who lived to see his pupil bishop of Durham, and many years after. In the beginning of November 1584, he was chosen to a scholarship of Constable’s foundation, peculiar to his native county of York; and in 1586 took the degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1590 that of master, having performed the exercises requisite to each degree with great applause. He continued his studies at his father’s charge until March 17, 1592, when he was admitted fellow, of the foundation of Dr. Keyson, merely on account of his merit, against eight competitors for the place. About the same time he was chosen logic lecturer of the university, which, office he discharged with ^reat skill and diligence, as appeared from his lectures found among his papers. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following priest by Richard Rowland, bishop of Peterborough. He continued five years after this in the college, pursuing his private studies, and instructing pupils. In 1598 he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and ahout the same year was presented to the rectory of Long Marston four miles from York. He was afterwards made chaplain to the earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North, who selected him for his zeal and acuteness in disputing with the Romish recusants. It was queen Elizabeth’s command to his lordship, to prefer arguments to force with these people: and this she expressed, as the earl used to say, in the words of scripture, “Nolo mortem peccatoris.” Afterwards, when lord Huntingdon was dead, and lord Sheffield was appointed lord president, Morton held a public conference before his lordship and the council, at the manor-, house at York, with two popish recusants, then prisoners in the castle. In 1602, when the plague raged in that city, he behaved with the greatest charity and resolution. The year following, the lord Eure being appointed ambassador-extraordinary to the emperor of Germany, and king of Denmark, Morton attended him as chaplain, along with Mr. Richard Crakenthorp, and took this opportunity to make a valuable collection of books, as well as to visit the universities of Germany. At his return he became chapJain to Roger earl of Rutland, and was afterwards presented by archbishop Matthews to a prebend in the cathedral of York. In 1606 he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and about the same time was sworn chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and preferred to the deanery of Gloucester, June 22, 1607. While he was dean there, the lord Eure above mentioned, then lord president of Wales, appointed him one of his majesty’s council for the marches. In 1609, he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and while there, the bishop (Bilson) collated him to the rectory of Alesford. In the same year, Dr. Sutcliff, dean of Exeter, founding a college at Chelsea, for divines to be employed in defending the protestant religion against the papists, he was appointed one of the fellows. About this time, he became acquainted with Isaac Casaubon. In 1615, he was advanced to the see of Chester and, in 1618, to that of Lichfield and Coventry about which time he became acquainted with Antonio de Dominis, abp. of Spalato, whom he endeavoured to dissuade from returning to Rome. The archbishop’s pretence for going thither was, to attempt an unity between the church of Rome and that of England, upon those terms which he had laid down in his book entitled “De Repnblica Christiana.”

While Morton sat in the see of Coventry and Lichfield, which was above fourteen years, he educated, ordained, and presented to a living, a youth of excellent talents and memory, who was born blind . He also acquired no little reputation by detecting the imposture of the famous boy of Bilson in Staffordshire, who pretended to be possessed with a devil; but who, in reality, was only suborned by some Romish priests, to assume the appearance of possession, according to the common notions of it, for the sake of promoting their own private purposes. In 1632, he was translated to the bishopric of Durham, which he held with great reputation till the opening of the Long-parliament, when he met with great insults from the common people, and was once in extreme hazard of his life at Westminster, some crying, “Pirll him out of his coach” others, “Nay, he is a good man” others, “But for all that he is a bishop.” He used often to say that he believed he should not have escaped alive, if a ringleader among the rabble had not cried out, “let him go and hang himself.” He was then committed to the custody of the usher of the black rod; and, as Whitlocke tells us, “April 1645, was brought before the Commons for christening a child in the old way, and signing it with the sign of the cross, contrary to the directory; and, because he refused to deliver up the seal of the county-palatine of Durham, he was committed to the Tower.” Here he continued six months, and then returned to his lodgings at Durham-house; the parliament, upon the dissolution of the bishoprics, voted him an annuity. Whitlocke informs us, that, in May 1649, an ordinance passed for 800l. per annum to bishop Morton; but Barwick observes, that, while he^vas able to subsist without it, he never troubled himself with looking after it; and, at last, when he had no alternative but to claim this, or be burthcnsome to his friends, he determined upon the former, and procured a copy of the vote, but found it to contain no more than that such a sum should be paid, but no mention either by whom or whence. And before he could obtain an explanation of the order to make the pension payable out of the revenues of his own bishopric, all the lands and revenues of it were sold or divided among members of parliament themselves. Only by the importunity of his friends he procured an order to have a thousand pounds out of their treasury at Goldsmitbs’-hall, with which he paid his debts, and purchased to himself an annuity of 200l. per annum, during life; which annuity was

out of the Old and New Testament, he over to him. He died at about twentycotnmitted them perfectly to memory, six years of a$e, iipon his uncle’s twice reading them granted at first by the lady Saville, in the minority of her son sir George, and afterwards confirmed by himself when he came to be of age. At last he was obliged to quit Durham-yard, by the soldiers who came to garrison it, a little before the death of Charles I.; and then went to Exeter-house in the Strand, at the invitation of the earl of Rutland, where he continued but a short time. After several removals, he took up his abode with sir Henry Yelverton, at Easton Mauduit in Northamptonshire, where he died Sept. 22, 1659, in his ninety-fifth year. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. John Barwick, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and printed at London, in 1660, under this title, “Ιερονικησ: or, The Fight, Victory, and Triumph, of St. Paul, accommodated to the Right Rev. Father in God, Thomas, late Lord Bishop of Duresme.”

Bishop Morton was of low stature, but of an excellent constitution, which he preserved to the last. Dr. Barwick represents him as a man of extensive learning, great piety, hospitality, and charity, and of great temperance and moderation in matters of controversy. He carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and was himself distinguished for his liberal patronage of such. He was particularly the friend and patron of the celebrated Dr. Donne. On one occasion he gave Donne a sum of money, saying, “Here Mr. Donne, take this, gold is restorative:” Donne replied, “Sir, I doubt I shall never restore it back again.” Bishop Morton! s greatest blemish seems to have been his acceding to, or, in truth, in some measure drawing up, king James’s declaration, usually called the "Book of Sports/' allowing and enjoining public amusements on Sunday, by way of counteracting the endeavours of the popish party, who countenanced such amusements in order to draw the people from the church, By this declaration, the appearing at church was made a qualification for the sports, an absurdity so gross, as to be equalled only by the injustice of compelling clergymen to proclaim it in the pulpit. The readers will find this curious law in the note*, and we are sorry to add, on the

pons should be carried or used in the declaration (taking it as it is still, and said times of recreation." Dr. Bar- ever was restrained by these limitawick, who shews as much want of tions and conditions), are grounded up.

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

, a statesman of great learning, prudence, and integrity, is supposed by some to have been born in Essex, and by others in Oxfordshire; but the visitations of Hertfordshire inform us that he was the son of Thomas Morysin of that county (descended from a Yorkshire family), by a daughter of Thomas Merrey of Hatfield. Wood having supposed him born in Oxfordshire, asserts that he spent several years at Oxford university, in “Log;cals and philosophical,” and took a degree in arts. But Mr. Lodge says that he was educated at Eton, and in the university of Cambridge, from whence he went, with the reputation of an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, to the inns of court, where he became a proficient in the common and civil law. According, however, to Wood and others, he had previously to this, travelled to Italy, with an intention to improve his knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages. Padua, in particular, was one of the places he visited, and he remained there until 1537, and soon after his return was made prebendary of Yatminster Secunda in the church of Salisbury, which dignity he kept until 1539. About 1541, Henry VI 11. is said to have given him the library belonging to the Carmelites in London. The same sovereign sent him ambassador to the emperor Charles V. and he had acquired by long habit, so thorough a knowledge of the various factions which distracted the empire, that the ministers of king Edward VI. found it necessary to continue him in that court much against his inclination. In 1549 he was joined with the earl of Warwick, viscount Lisle, sir William Paget, sir William Petre, bishops Holbeach and Hethe, and other personages, in a commission to hold visitation at Oxford, in order to promote the reformation, and their commission also extended to the chapel of Windsor and Winchester college. The celebrated Peter Martyr preached before them, on their entering on business, and was much noticed and patronized by Morysin. From Edward VI. he received the honour of knighthood, and appears to have gone again abroad, as Mr. Lodge gives us a long letter from him relating to the affairs of the imperial court, dated Brussels, Feb. 20, 1553. He returned not long before that prince’s death, and was employed in building a superb mansion at Cashiobury, in Hertfordshire, a manor which had been granted to him by Henry VIIL when queen Mary’s violent measures against the protestants compelled him to quit England, and after residing a short time in Italy, he returned to Strasburgh, and died there, March 17, 1556. He married Bridget, daughter of John lord Hussey, and left a son and three daughters sir Charles, who settled at Cashiobury Elizabeth, married, first, to William Norreys, son and heir to Henry lordNorreys; secondly, to Henry Clinton, earl of Lincoln Mary, to Bartholomew Hales, of Chesterfield in Derbyshire and Jane, to Edward lord Russel, eldest son of the earl of Bedford, and afterwards to Arthur lord Grey of Wilton. The family of Morysin ended in an heiress, Mary (great grand-daughter of sir Richard), who married Arthur lord Capel of Hadham, an ancestor of the present earl of Essex.

Moschus and Bion, for they have usually been joined together, were two Grecian poets of antiquity, who flourished about 200 years B. C. and were contemporaries of Theocritus. The prodigious credit of Theocritus as a pastoral poet enabled him to engross not only the fame of his rivals, but their works too. In the time of the latter Grecians, all the ancient idyliiums were heaped together into one collection, and Theocritus’s name prefixed to the whole volume; but learned men having adjudged some of the pieces to their proper owners, the claims of Moschus and Bion have been admitted to a few little pieces, sufficient to make us inquisitive about their character and story. Yet all that can be known of them must be collected from their own small remains for Moschus, by composing his exquisite “Elegy on Bion,” has given the best memorials of Bion’s life, as well as the most perfect composition of its kind. We learn from it, that Bion was of Smyrna, that he was a pastoral poet, and that he unhappily perished by poison, and, as it should seem, not accidentally, but by the command of some great person. Moschus and Theocritus have by some critics been supposed the same person; but there are irrefragable testimonies against it. Moschus, in the “Elegy on Bion,” introduces Theocritus bewailing the same misfortune in another country and Servius says that Virgil chose to imitate Theocritus preferably to Moschus, and others who had written pastorals. Some will have it that Moschus, as well as Bion, lived later than Theocritus, upon the authority of Suidas, who affirms Moschus to have been the scholar of Aristarchus, in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor; while others suppose him to have been the scholar of Bion, and probably his successor in governing the poetic school. The latter supposition is collected from the elegy of Moschus, and does not seem improbable. The few but inimitable remains of these two poets are to be found in all editions of the “Poetas Minores,” and of separate editions there are some very valuable ones, particularly the rare and curious one of Mekerchus, printed at Bruges, 1565, 4to; and those of Schwebelius, Venice, 1746, 8vo; of Heskin, Oxford, 1748, 8vo, and of Gilbert Wake field, 1795, 8vo.

, an artist of much reputation and amiable character, was born at Shafhausen, in Switzerland, in 1705. When young, he visited a distant Canton, where he met with one of his townsmen, and being inclined to travel, was soon persuaded to make a tour to England, and followed the profession of a chaser in gold, in which art he was always considered as holding the first rank. But his skill was not confined to this alone; he possessed an universal knowledge in all branches of painting and sculpture, which perfectly qualified him for the place of Keeper, to which he was appointed when the Royal Academy was first instituted in 1768, the business of which principally consists in superintending and instructing the students, who draw or model from the antique figures. He may be truly said to have been the father of the present race of artists; for long before the royal academy was established, he presided over the little societies which met. first in Salisbury court, and afterwards in St. Martin’s-lane, where they drew from living models. Perhaps nothing that can be said will more strongly imply his amiable disposition, than that all the different societies with which he was connected, always turned their eyes upon him for their treasurer and chief manager; when, perhaps, they would not have contentedly submitted to any other authority. His early society was composed of men whose names are well known in the world; such as Hogarth, Rysbrach, Roubiliac, Wills, Ellis, Vanderbank, &c.; and though he outlived all the companions of his youth, he might to the last have boasted of a succession equally numerous; for all that knew him were his friends.

Mr. Moser died at his apartments in Somerset-place, Jan. 24, 1783, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, leaving one daughter, who has distinguished herself by the admirable manner in which she paints and composes pieces of flowers, of which many samples have been seen in the exhibitions. She has had the honour of being much employed in this way by their Majesties, and for her extraordinary merit has been received into the royal academy. She married a gentleman some years ago of the name of Lloyd, but is now a widow.

, a celebrated Armenian archbishop, who flourished about the year 462, was esteemed one of the most learned men of his nation, having studied Greek at Athens, from which language he made many versions into the Armenian. His principal work is “A History of Armenia,” from the deluge to the middle of the fifth century, first published in Armenian in 1695, by Thomas Vanandensis, an Armenian bishop, from one single manuscript, and that f a very faulty one. It was reprinted with a Latin version, in 1736, by William and George, the sons of the famous William Whiston, with a preface concerning the literature of the Armenians, and their version of the Bible; and an appendix containing two epistles, the one of the Corinthians to Paul the Apostle, the other of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, entire, from a ms. 4to. Of Moses, Messrs. Whiston say that he appears to have been a man of probity, simplicity, and sincerity, but of moderate learning, and rather too credulous. They think it was written in the latter end of the fifth century. They speak also of “An Abridgment of Geography,” published at Amsterdam in 1668; and some “Sacred Canticles,” to be sung in the Armenian language on the anniversary of Christ’s presentation at the temple. His history was the first book published in England in the Armenian language, at a time when no person here understood that language, and but two on the continent, La Croze, librarian to the king of Prussia, and Schroder, professor of the Oriental languages at Marpurg in Germany. It is a work now of rare occurrence.

, a learned English clergyman, the eldest son of Robert Moss, of Posswick, in Norfolk, was born at Gillingham in that county, in or about 1666. His father had an estate which enabled him to provide handsomely for his four sons; Robert, the subject of this article, Samuel, who was brought up- as a merchant William, who died possessed of his father’s estate at Posswick and Charles Moss, M. D. Robert, after being educated at the public school at Norwich, was entered as a sizar of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, in 1682, and distinguished himself so much in his academical studies, that, after having taken his bachelor’s degree, he was chosen to a Norfolk fellowship, and became eminent also as a successful tutor. H’e received deacon’s orders in 1688, and priest’s in 1690. In 1693 he was appointed one of the twelve university preachers. His sermons at St. Mary’s were always attended by a full audience, as well as his disputations in the schools, in which he shewed a clear and distinguishing head, reasoned justly and closely in defending a question, and urged his objections with great acuteness when he bore the part of the opponent, always expressing himself with great ease and fluency, and in elegant Latin. After he had kept a divinity-act in the schools, in 1696, for the degree of B. D. there being a public commencement that year, he voluntarily undertook another on that occasion in St. Mary’s, where the commencement was held before the erection of the new regent-house, and acquitted himself in both to the general satisfaction; particularly, in maintaining the necessity of believing our Saviour as the true God, against the doctrine of Episcopius.

His first remove from the university was in consequence of his being appointed preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s. Inn, July 11, 1698, which preferment he enjoyed till 1714. In the following year, January 1699, he was named preacher-assistant of St. James’s, Westminster, by the rector, Dr. Wake, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In April 1701 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to king William, and continued in the same office in the following reign. He was one of the chaplains in waiting, when queen Anne, in April 1705, visited the university of Cambridge, and he was on that occasion created D. D. In 1708 he was chosen, by the parish, Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence’s Jewry, near Guildhall, in the room of Dr. Stanhope, who then resigned it, and supported the credit and character of that lecture with great approbation until 1727, when his growing infirmities induced him to resign it. In 1708-9 he was involved in a dispute with Dr. Thomas Greene, afterwards bishop of Norwich, but then master of Bene't college, who expected Dr. Moss to resign his fellowship on account of his non-residence and preferments in town. The debate was carried on by letter, and with too much warmth on both sides; but it appears, without ultimately creating any breach of friendship. On the death of Dr. Roderick, in 1712, Dr. Moss was appointed by her majesty to the deanery of Ely, and on this occasion quitted his fellowship in the college, and about 1714- resigned the preachership of Gray’s Inn, and at the same time was collated by Dr. Robinson, bishop of London, to the living of Gilston, alias Geddleston, a small rectory on the Eastern side of Hertfordshire, which, though of no great value, was of great service to him when incapacitated from taking long journeys, being a convenient distance between London and Ely, and an agreeable retirement.

By his widow, a Mrs. Hinton, of Cambridge, he had no issue; but left her a comfortable provision, and after some legacies, bequeathed the bulk of his fortune to his third brother’s son, Mr. Charles Moss, who, as his biographer says, “was a promising youth, and student of Caius college, Cambridge.”

Having thus failed in obtaining the first situation in which a man of letters could be placed, he succeeded, in 1647, in being appointed to what might be considered as the second, that of preceptor to Philip, then duke of Anjou, and afterwards duke of Orleans, the king’s brother. He had also conferred on him the titles of historiographer of France and counsellor of state. By his first wife he had an only son, who died in 1664, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. His wife also being dead long before, he is said to have been so much afflicted at the loss of his son, as to determine to marry again, which he did the same year, 1664, at the age of seventy-six He died in 1672, aged eightyfour. He was a voluminous writer, and upon all subjects, ancient, modern, sacred and profane. We cannot, perhaps, to some of our readers, give a better idea of his works, than by comparing them to those of Bayle. We find in them the same scepticism and the same indecencies; and on this account Bayle expatiates on his character with congenial pleasure. In his private character, he was somewhat of a humourist, but his moral conduct was more correct than might have been expected from his writings. He is mentioned hy Guy Patin as a Stoic, who would neither praise nor be praised, and who followed his own fancies and caprices without any regard to the opinions of the world, and his dress and usual demeanour distinguished him from other men. In the court he lived like a philosopher, immersed in books, simple and regular in his manner of living, and void of ambition and avarice. His treatise which we have mentioned, “On the Virtue of Pagans/' was answered by Arnauld. La Mothers bookseller complaining that his book did not sell,” I know a secret,“said the author,” to quicken the sale:" he procured an order from government for its suppression, which was the means of selling the whole edition. His works were collected in two volumes folio; and there was an edition, we believe the last, printed at Dresden, in 1756, in 14 vols. 8vo, so lowpriced, in the French catalogues, that there seems now little value placed on them.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 17, 1672. He was educated in a seminary of Jesuits, and afterwards entered on the study of the law, which he quitted for the stage, as in his opinion affording the more brilliant prospect. His first attempt, however, a comedy, miscarried, and he felt the disgrace so acutely as to throw himself into the celebrated monastery of La Trappe, where he fancied he could comply with its austerities; but after a few months he returned to the world, and produced some operas and pastorals, which had considerable success. His lyric efforts were particularly applauded, and he now published a volume of odes; but in these, says D'Alembert, “the images are scanty, the colouring feeble, and the harmony often neglected.” Dr. Warton had pronounced, long before, that these odes, although highly praised by Sanadon, and by Fontenelle, were fuller of delicate sentiment, and philosophical reflection, than of imagery, figures, and poetry. There are particular stanzas eminently good, but not one entire ode. So far the French and English critics seem to agree. We learn also, from D'Alembert, that La Motte’s odes were soon effaced by those of the celebrated Rousseau, who, with less wit, perhaps, than La Motte, had superior qualifications for the higher poetry. Yet, when these rivals became competitors for a seat in the academy in 1710, La Motte was preferred, from his having friends who loved him, while Rousseau, from his repulsive temper, did not possess one. La Motte succeeded Corneille in the academy, and, like him, was at this time nearly blind. He very ingeniously made use of this calamity, in his discourse at his reception, to interest his auditors. After having spoken of the merit of his predecessor, he proceeded “You have beheld him faithful to your duties till extreme old age, infirm as he was, and already deprived of sight. The mention of this circumstance makes rne feel the condition to which I am myself reduced. What age ravished from my predecessor, I have lost from my youth. I must, however, confess, that this privation of which I complain, will no longer serve me as an excuse for ignorance you, gentlemen, have restored me my sight you, by associating me with yourselves, have laid all books open to me; and, since I am able to hear you, I no longer envy the happiness of those who can read.” La Motte soon after became totally deprived of sight. He next ventured to appear on a theatre more worthy of a poet’s ambition, and produced the tragedy of the “Maccabees,” concealing his name. The critics found a great deal of merit in it while this concealment lasted and some went so far as to conceive it a posthumous work of Racine but when he discovered himself, they withdrew their praises, or changed them into censures; and the tragedy, being really of the mediocre kind, disappeared from the stage. It was followed by others, of which “Ines de Castro” obtained a permanent place on the stage, notwithstanding many attacks from wit, malice, and arrogance; all which he bore with good-humour. He was one day in a coffee-house, in the midst of a swarm of literary drones, who were abusing his work without knowing the author. He patiently heard them a long time in silence, and then called out to a friend who accompanied him, “Let us go and yawn at the fiftieth representation of this unfortunate piece.” At another time, when told of the numerous criticisms made on his tragedy, “It is true,” said he, “it has been much criticised, but with tears.”

Such was the versatility of la Motte’s genius, that he wrote charges for bishops; and though the secret was kept by both parties, his touch and manner betrayed him. He was also the author of several other writings, which his enemies would have treated with severity had they known the real father, but for which the supposed father received their profound homage. But while some prelates employed the pen of la Motte in the service of religion, by composing their charges, others accused him of being an unbeliever. Among his works has been printed “A Plan of Evidence for Religion,” which D'Alembert mentions with praise, and which was praised by much better judges of the subject. Satire only was the kind of composition in which la Motte did not exercise himself: and this his eulogist attributes to the mildness and honour of his character. It certainly was not from want of ability; and he was so frequently the object of satire, as to have sufficient provocation. This forbearance, however, and the general sweetness of his temper, gained him many partisans. No one more sincerely than he applauded the success even of his rivals; no one encouraged rising talents with more zeal and interest no one praised good works with more genuine satisfaction if he pointed out faults in them, it was not to enjoy the easy glory of mortifying another’s vanity it was with the feeling to which critics are strangers, and which common readers rarely entertain, that of being really concerned to find a blot It was therefore said of him, that “justice and justness” was his motto. Of both these qualities he exhibited a distinguished proof when he gave, as censor, his approbation to Voltaire’s first tragedy; for he did not hesitate to add to it, “that this work gave promise of a worthy successor on the theatre to Corneille and Racine.” Such candour and mildness were all he opposed, not only to literary insults, but to personal affronts. A young 1 man, upon whose foot he once happened to tread in a crowd, gave him a blow on the face. “Sir,” said la Motte to him, “you will be very sorry for what you have done: I am blind.” With the same patience he endured the painful infirmities under which he laboured, and which terminated his life on December 26, 1731. In 1754, a complete edition of all his works was published in eleven large volumes, 8vo, but such is the declension of his popularity that no edition has since been called for. La Harpe (in his “Lyceum”) says, that when he first entered life, la Motte had already descended into the class of authors who are never read but by men of letters, who must read everything. Some passages in his operas, a few strophes of his odes, and occasionally one of his fables, were quoted: and his tragedy of “Ines,” though held in no great value, retained its place on the stage. The harshness of his versification was admitted on all hands, and his paradoxes were never mentioned but in order to be ridiculed.

, a celebrated French lady, was born in Normandy about 1615. She was the daughter of a gentleman who belonged to the court; and her wit and amiable manners recommended her to Anne of Austria, who kept her constantly near her. Cardinal Richelieu, who was always jealous of the favourites of this princess, having disgraced her, she retired, with her mother, to Normandy, where she married Nicolas Langlois, lord of Motteviile, an old man, who died in about two years. After the death of Richelieu, Anne of Austria, having been declared regent, recalled her to court. Here gratitude induced her to write the history of this princess, which has been printed several times under the title of “Memoires pour servir a I‘Histoire d’Anne d' Austriche” in 5 and 6 volumes, 12mo. These Memoirs describe the minority of Lewis XIV. and are written in a natural, unaffected style; and, says Gibbon, it is a proof of the author’s sincerity, that though she had a very high opinion of her mistress, the candour with which she relates facts, shews us Anne of Austria as she really was. Madame de Motteviile died at Paris, Dec. 29, 1689, aged seventyfive. There was a very great confidence and even intimacy between Henrietta, the widow of our Charles I. and madame de Motteviile.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of colonel Mottley, who was a great favourite with king James II. and followed the fortunes of that prince into France. James, not being able himself to provide for him so well as he desired, procured for him, by his interest, the command of a regiment in the service of Louis XIV. at the head of which he lost his life in the battle of Turin, in 1706. The colonel married a daughter of John Guise, esq. of Abload’s Court, in Gloucestershire, with whom, by the death of a brother, who left her his whole estate, he had a very considerable fortune. The family of the Guises, however, being of principles diametrically opposite to those of the colonel, and zealous friends to the revolution, Mrs. Mottley, notwithstanding the tenderest affection for her husband, and repeated invitations from the king and queen, then at St. Germains, preferred living at home on the scanty remains of what he had left behind. The colonel was sent over to England three or four years after the revolution, on a secret commission from king James; and during his stay our author was born, in 1692. Mr. Mottley received the first rudiments of his education at St. Martin’s library-school, founded by archbishop Tenison; but was placed in the excise-office at sixteen years of age, under the comptroller, lord viscount Howe, whose brother and sister were both related by marriage to his mother. This situation he retained till 1720, when, in consequence of an unhappy contract he had made, probably in pursuit of some of the bubbles of that infatuated year, he was obliged to resign it. Soon after the accession of George I. Mr. Mottley had been promised by the lord Halifax, at that time first lord of the treasury, the place of one of the commissioners of the wine-licence office; but when the day came that his name should have been inserted in the patent, a more powerful interest, to his great surprize, had stepped in between him and the preferment, of which he had so positive a promise. This, however, was not the only disappointment of that kind which this gentleman met with; for, at the period above mentioned, when he parted with his place in the excise, he had one in the exchequer absolutely given to him by sir Robert Walpole, to whom he lay under many other obligations; but in this case as well as the preceding, he found that the minister had made a prior promise of it to another, and he was obliged to relinquish it. Other domestic embarrassments induced him to employ his pen, which had hitherto been only his amusement, for the means of immediate support; and he wrote his first play, “The Imperial Captives,” which met witU tolerable success. From that time he depended chiefly on his literary abilities for a maintenance, and wrote five dramatic pieces, with various success. He had also a hand in the composition of that many-fathered piece, “The Devil to Pay.” He published in 1739 a “Life of the great Czar Peter,” 3 vols. 8vo, by subscription, in which he met with the I sanction of some of the royal family, and great numbers of the nobility and gentry; and, on occasion of one of his benefits, which happened Nov. 3, queen Caroline, on the 30th of the preceding month (being the prince of Wales’s birth-day), did the author the singular honour of disposing of a great number of his tickets, with her own hand, in the drawing-room, most of which were paid for in gold, into the hands of colonel Schutz, his royal highness’s privypurse, from whom Mr. Mottley received it, with the addition of a very liberal present from the prince himself. Jn 1744 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “The History of the Life and Reign of the empress Catherine of Russia.” Both this and the preceding are compilations from the journals and annals of the day, but are now valuable from the scarcity of those authorities. He died Oct. 30, 1750. It has been surmised, with some appearance of reason, that Mr. Mottley was the compiler of the lives of the dramatic writers, published at the end of Whincop’s “Scanderbeg.” It is certain that the life of Mr. Mottley, in that work, is rendered one of the most important in it, and is particularized by such a number of various incidents, as it seems improbable should be known by any but either himself or some one nearly related to him. Among others he relates the following humourous anecdote. When colonel Mottley, our author’s father, came over, as has been before related, on a secret commission from the abdicated monarch, the government, who had by some means intelligence of it, were very diligent in their endeavours to have him seized. The colonel, however, was happy enough to elude their search; but several other persons were, at different times, seized through mistake for him. Among the rest, it being very well known that he frequently supped at the Blue Posts tavern, in the Hay-Market, with one Mr. Tredenhatn, a Cornish gentleman, particular directions were given for searching that house. Colonel Mottley, however, happening not to be there, the messengers found Mr. Tredenham alone, and with a heap of papers before him, which being a suspicious circumstance, they immediately seized, and carried him before the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state. His lordship, who, however, could not avoid knowing him, as he was a member of the House of Commons, and nephew to the famous sir Edward Seymour, asked him what all those papers contained. Mr. Tredenham made answer, that they were only the several scenes of a play, which he had been scribbling for the amusement of a few leisure-hours. Lord Nottingham then only desired leave just to look over them, which having done for some little time, he returned them again to the author, assuring him that he was perfectly satisfied; “for, upon my word,” said he, “I can find no plot in them,”

Dr. Moufet appears to have been among the first physicians who introduced chemical medicines into practice in England. He published in 1584, at Francfort, an apology for the chemical seer, which was then beginning to prevail in Germany, though much opposed by the adherents of the school of the ancients: it was entitled “De jure et praestantia Chemicorum Medicamentorum, Dialogus Apologeticus.” The work, which displays a good deal of learning and skill in argumentation, was republished in the “Theatrum Chemicum,” in 1602, with the addition of “Epistolae quinque Medicinales, ab eodem Auctore conscript,” which are all dated from London in 1582, 3, and 4. These epistles contain a farther defence of the chemical doctrines, some keen remarks on the fanciful reasonings of the Galenists, and many sensible observations against absolute submission to the authority of great names. The last of these letters treats of the benefits of foreign travel to a physician, and describes Padua as the best medical school. His liberality, as well as his learning, was evinced in the publication of another work, “Nosomantica Hippocratica, sive Hippocratis Prognostica cuncta, ex omnibus ipsius scriptis, methodice digesta, Libri ix.” Franc. 1588; for the writings of the father of physic were treated with contempt by Paracelsus, and the majority of the chemical sect. The last medical work of Moufet’s is entitled “Health’s Improvement; or, rules comprising and discovering the nature, method, and manner of preparing all sorts of food used in this nation.” A corrected and enlarged edition of this book was printed by Christopher Bennet at London, 1655, 4to. It is a curious and entertaining performance, on account of the information which it contains respecting the diet used in this country at that time. He was, however, most particularly distinguished as a naturalist; and he enlarged and finished, with great labour and expence, a work entitled “Insectorum, sive minimorum Animalium Theatrum; olina ab Edw. Wottono, Conrado Gesnero, Thomaque Pennio inchoatum.” It was left in manuscript, and published in London, in 1634, by sir Theodore Mayerne, who complains of the difficulty he found in getting a printer to undertake it. An English translation of it was published in 1658. Though not free from the imperfections of an infant science, this was really. a respectable and valuable work; and Haller does not scruple to place the author above all other entomologists previous to Swammerdam.

, in Latin Molinæus, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Paris in 1500. His family was noble, and Papyrius mentions “that those of the family of Moulin were related to Elizabeth queen of England;” which she acknowledged herself in 1572, when conversing with Francis duke of Montmorency, marshal of France and ambassador to England. This relation probably came by Thomas Bullen, or Boleyn, viscount of Rochefort, the queen’s grandfather by the mother’s side; for Sanderus and others say, “that this Rochefort being ambassador to France, gave his daughter Anne of Bulloigne to a gentleman of Brie, a friend and relation of his, to take care of her education; and this gentleman is supposed to be the lord of Fontenay in Brie, of the family of du Moulin.” This branch came from Denys du Moulin, lord of Fontenay in Brie, archbishop of Thoulouse, patriarch of Antioch, and bishop of Paris, where he died in 1447. The subject of our memoir was at first educated at the university of Paris, and afterwards studied law at Poitiers and Orleans, at the latter of which cities he gave lectures on the subject in 1521. In the following year he was received as an advocate of parliament; but, owing to a defect in his speech, was obliged to give up pleading, and confine himself to chamber practice, and the composition of those works which gained him so much reputation. He was an indefatigable student, and set such a value on time, that, contrary to the custom of his age, he had his beard close shaven, that he might not lose any precious moments in dressing it; but in his latter days he permitted it again to grow. From the same love of study, he refused some valuable employments, and even took the resolution never to marry; and that he might be equally free from every other incumbrance, he gave the whole of his property to <rn elder brother, reserving only for his maintenance the profits of his studies. It was not long, however, before he had cause to repent of this uncommon liberality, as his brother behaved to him in a brutal and unnatural way. To revenge himself, he had recourse to an expedient suggested by his professional knowledge. He married, and having children, he resumed, according to the law, the possession of that property with which he had parted so freely when a bachelor. It was in 1538 that he married Louise de Beldon, daughter of the king’s secretary, a lady of a most amiable and affectionate temper, who, instead of being an incumbrance, as he once foolishly thought, proved the great comfort of his life, and in some respect, the promoter of his studies, by her prudent care of those domestic affairs of which literary men are generally very bad managers. She was also his consolation in the many difficulties in which he soon became embroiled. He was a man of an ardent mind and warm temper, totally incapable of concealing his sentiments, particularly in the cause of truth and justice, or regard to his country. Like many other eminent men of that age, he embraced the principles of the reformed religion, first according to the system of Calvin, but afterwards he adopted that of Luther, as contained in the Augsburgh confession. On this account it is said that the Calvinists endeavoured to make him feel their resentment, and even suspended their animosity against the Roman catholics, that they might join with the latter in attacking Du Moulin.

It was in 1552 that he first began to be involved in troubles, which lasted more or less during his whole life. Some years before, Henry II. had issued an edict to repress the frauds and abuses practised at Rome by the conveyancers of benefices, to the great detriment of the ecclesiastical order; and this having occasioned a dispute between his majesty and pope Julius II. he published a new edict forbidding money to be sent to Rome on any pretence. This gave great offence to the pope, who insisted that kings had no right to pass edicts which interfered with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the authority of the holy see was injured by such proceedings. Yet, says Thuanus, our kings always had such a right, and now Du Moulin maintained it with all the force of his profound legal knowledge, and produced not only arguments, but precedents for it; and in treating of the spiritual power of the pope, he traced it to foundations which were by no means of the most honourable kind. This was, in that age, a very bold attempt, and in fact so disconcerted the pope, as to make him willing to listen to the pacific overtures made by the king. It was on this occasion that the marshal de Montmorency (afterwards constable of France) introduced Du Moulin to the king, with these words, “Sire, what your majesty has not been able to do with 300,000 men, has been effected by this little man (Du Moulin was of short stature) with his little book.” The court of Rome, however, never forgot the injury: Clement VIII. ordered his works to be burnt, and they were placed in the “Index expurgatorius,” in the first class of prohibited books. In the permissions which used to be given to read certain works in the Index, those of Machiavel and the impious Du Moulin“were always excepted. Those, however, who in the countries where the Index of prohibited books was respected, were unwilling to be thus totally deprived of the benefit arising from Du Moulin’s able writings on jurisprudence, contrived to have them reprinted under the fictitious name of Gaspar Caballinus de Cingulo; and it was under that name that they used to be quoted for many years. But it was not only at Rome where Du Moulin had to encounter the prejudices of the times; even in France, although his” Observa-f tionssur TEdit du Roi Henry II." (for such was the title of the work) was dedicated to the king, and printed with the royal privilege, it did not fail to render him very obnoxious to such of his countrymen as preferred the interests of Rome to the independent rights of the kingdom; and the authority of parliament was scarcely sufficient to protect him from their vengeance, which proceeded to such acts of violence, that after the mob had pillaged his house, and attempted his life, he was obliged to seek an asylum in Germany, where he was very kindly received. After residing for some time at Tubingen, where people flocked from all quarters for the benefit of his advice, he was encouraged to return to Paris, but had scarcely resumed his accustomed pursuits, when the religious commotions which broke out in that city, obliged him again to leave it, after seeing his house a second time pillaged. He now retired to Orleans, and afterwards to Lyons, where his enemies procured him to be imprisoned. On being released, he returned to Paris, where new troubles awaited him. He first became obnoxious to the Jesuits, whose society was now rising into consequence, and who wanted to be permitted to establish a college for education. This was opposed by the university oY Paris, and Du Moulin supported their opposition. The Jesuits, however, backed by the ciL.nceilor Hospital, gained their point, as the parliament was induced to believe that the mode of education among the Jesuits would be an effectual check to the introduction of the new errors, i. e. the principles of the reformation.

The next opportunity which Du Moulin had to give his advice, was attended with more serious consequences to him. The council of Trent had just broken up, anrl the question was, whether its proceedings should be recognized in France. The papal ambassadors, and those of the most powerful princes in Europe, were for this measure but it was opposed by the leading members of the French king’s administration, who were of opinion that it would render those civil dissentions which had been in some degree quieted, and that the council of Trent had made certain regulations contrary to the liberties and royal privileges of France, which they could by no means approve. In a council held at Fontainbleau, Feb. 27, 1564-, this subject occasioned a very warm altercation between the chancellor Hospital and the cardinal of Lorraine; and chiefly by the persuasive influence of the former, it was determined that the proceedings of the council of Trent should not be published in France. Du Moulin, being solicited for his advice on this occasion, published his “Conseil sur le fait du, Concile de Trente,” Lyons, 1564, 8vo, in which he takes a very enlarged view of all the decrees of that memorable council, and shews them to be at variance with the opinions of the fathers of the church, and hostile to the liberties of France. The warmth of his temper leading him to use the plainest expressions, as was the custom with the writers of the age, he afforded ample ground for a fresh persecution by his enemies. They now accused him of exciting sedition, and disturbing the public tranquillity, and were so successful in these misrepresentations, that some of those who were the first to advise him to publish the above work, now gave him up, and even the parliament with all the esteem which most of the members entertained for him, was obliged to issue an order to imprison him, nor did he recover his liberty but upon condition that he should print nothing without the king’s permission. Scarcely had he escaped from this danger, when he was attacked by the protestant party, who forgetting his services in the common cause against the see of Rome, could never forgive him for having deserted the profession he once made of being an adherent of Calvin, and ordered his works to be burnt at Geneva. He had indeed about this time given them more reason than they ever had before, by representing their ministers as coming into France for no other purpose than to introduce a spirit of discord and insubordination, and under pretence of an imaginary liberty, to reduce the constitution of the kingdom to a republican form.

, a very celebrated French protestant minister, and of the same family with Charles da Moulin, was born at Vexin Oct. 18, 1568. He imbibed the rudiments of literature at Sedan; and, when he arrived at twenty years of age, was sent to finish his education in England, where he became a member of Christ college in Cambridge. After a residence of four years in England, he went to Holland in the retinue of the duke of Wirtemberg, but was shipwrecked in his passage, and lost all his books and baggage. This occasioned his elegant poem entitled “Votiva Tabula,” which did him great credit, and procured him many friends. The French ambassador became one of his patrons (for Henry IV. at that time sent protestant ambassadors into protestant countries), and recommended him to the queen- mother, by whose interest he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Leyden, then vacant. This he held for five or six years; and among other disciples, who afterwards became celebrated, be had Hugo Grotius. He read lectures upon Aristotle, and disciplined his scholars in the art of disputing; of which he made himself so great a master, that he was enabled to enter with great spirit and success into the controversies with the catholics. Scaliger was very much his patron; and when Du Moulin published his Logic at Ley. den in 1596, said of the epistle prefatory, “haec epistola non est hujus sevi.” He taught Greek also in the divinity schools, in which he was extremely well skilled, as appears from his book entitled “Novitas Papismi,” where he exposes cardinal Perron’s ignorance of that language.

In 1599 he went to Paris, to be minister at Charenton, and chaplain to Catharine of Bourbon, the king’s sister, who was then married to Henry of Lorraine, duke of Bar, and continued a determined protestant in spite of all attempts to convert her. The pope applied to Henry IV. concerning the conversion of his sister, and Henry employed his divines to argue with her; but Du Moulin strengthened her sentiments against all their artifices. Perron and Cotton were the men chiefly employed, with whom Du Moulin had frequent conflicts; and when Henry begged her only to hear his chaplains preach, she consented to hear father Cotton, who was immediately ordered to preach before the king and his sister in the very place where Du Moulin had preached before. On this occasion, to secure herself the better against the wiles of this Jesuit, she contrived to have Du Moulin so placed that he might hear all that Cotton said.

Though Henry IV. did not much relish Du Moulin’s endeavours to convert his sister, yet he had always a great regard for him, of which Du Moulin retained a very grateful remembrance; and after the death of Henry, in 1610, he publicly charged the murder of that monarch upon Cotton and the whole order of Jesuits. It had been said that Ravillac was excited to that desperate act by some opinions derived from the writings of the Jesuits, of Mariana in particular, touching the persons and authority of kings: upon which account father Cotton published an “Apologetical Piece,” to shew that the doctrine of the Jesuits was exactly conformable to the decrees of the council of Trent. This was answered by Du Moulin in a book entitled “Anticotton or, a Refutation of Father Cotton” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Jesuits were the real authors of that execrable parricide though some indeed have doubted whether he was the author of that book. In 1615, James I. who had long corresponded with Du Moulin by letters, invited him to England; but this invitation his church at Paris would not suffer him to accept till he had given a solemn promise, in the face of his congregation, that he would return to them at the end of three months. The king received him with great affection took him to Cambridge at the time of the commencement, where he was honoured with a doctor’s degree and, at his departure from England, presented him with a prebend in the church of Canterbury. Du Moulin had afterwards innumerable disputes with the Jesuits, who, when they found him deaf to their promises of great rewards, attempted more than once his life, so that he was obliged at length always to have a guard. In 1617, when the United Provinces desired the reformed churches of England, France, and Germany to send some of their ministers to the synod of Dort, Du Moulin and three others were deputed by the Gallican church, hut were forbidden to go by the king upon pain of death. In 1618 he had an invitation from Leyden to fill their divinity chair, which was vacant, but refused to accept of it. In 1620, when he was preparing to go to the national synod of the Gallican church, lord Herbert of Cherbury, then ambassador from Britain at the court of France, asked him to write to king James, and to urge him, if possible, to undertake the defence of his son-in-law the king of Bohemia, who then stood in need of it. Du Moulin at first declined the office; but the ambassador, knowing his interest with James, would not admit of any excuse. This brought him into trouble; for it was soon after decreed by an order of parliament, that he should be seized and imprisoned, for having solicited a foreign prince to take up arms for the protestant churches. Apprised of this, he secretly betook himself to the ambassador lord Herbert, who suspected that his letters to the king were intercepted; and who advised him to fly, as the only means of providing for his safety. He went to Sedan, where he accepted the divinity-professorship and the ministry of the church; both which he held to the time of his death, which happened March 10, 1658, in his ninetieth year. He took a journey into England in 1623, when cardinal Perron’s book was published against king James; and, at that king’s instigation, undertook to answer it. This answer was published at Sedan, after the death of James, under the title of “Novitas Papismi, sive Perronii confutatio, regisque Jacobi, sed magis sacrae veritatis de-< fensio.” He was the author of many other learned works, of whiph the principal are, “The Anatomy of Arminianism;” “A Treatise on the Keys of the Church” “The Capuchin, or History of the Monks” “A Defence of the Reformed Churches,” &c. &c.

, son of the preceding, and a clergyman of the church of England, was born at Paris, about 1600. He studied at Leyden, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity. He afterwards came to England, and was incorporated in the same degree at the university of Cambridge. He was patronized by Richard, earl of Cork, who appointed him governor to his sons, whom he afterwards accompanied to Oxford. Here Du Moulin remained two years or more, and preached frequently in the church of St. Peter in the East. After the restoration of Charles II. he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, and a prebendary of Canterbury, in which city he spent the remainder of his life. He died in 1684, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. He was author of several works, of which we may mention, 1. “The Peace of the Soul;” a translation of which was published by Dr. John Scrope, in 1765, 2 vols. 2. “A Defence of the, Protestant Religion.” Of this book the reader may see a curious account in Gent. Mag. vol. XLIII. p. 369. He was author of the famous work entitled “Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Coelum,” which was published at the Hague, in 1652, by M. Alexander More. Anthony Wood gives him the character of an honest, zealous Calvinist. He had a younger brother, Lewis Du Moulin, who settled also in England, where he long distinguished himself by his violent and illiberal writings against the church of England, the titles of which are given by Wood; but he retracted many of his opinions in the presence of Dr. Burnet, at the time of his death, Oct. 20, 1683.

, a learned English divine, born in 1578, at Dorney in Buckinghamshire, was the son of the rev. Lawrence Mountague, vicar of that place. He was educated at Eton school, on the foundation, and was elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1594, where he obtained a fellowship. After taking his bachelor’s degree in 1598, and that of M. A. in 1602, he entered into orders, and obtained the living of Wotton-Courtney in the diocese of Wells, and also a prebend of that church. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, says that his next promotion was to a fellowship of Eton college, where he assisted sir Henry Savile in preparing his celebrated edition of St. Chrysostom’s works; and in 1610, he published there, in 4to, “The two Invectives of Gregory Nazianzen against Julian,” with the notes of Nonnus; but although the latter part of this may be true, he was not chosen fellow of Eton until April 29, 1613, in which year also (May 14) he was inducted into the rectory of Stamford Rivers in Essex, then in the gift of Eton college. On the death of Isaac Casaubon, he was requested by the king to write some animadversions on the Annals of Baronius, for which he was well qualified, having made ecclesiastical history very much his study from his earliest years. He had in fact begun to make notes on Baronius for his private use, which coming to the ears of the king, James I., himself no contemptible theologian, he intimated his pleasure on the subject to Mr. Mountagu, who began to prepare for the press in 1615. He was at this time chaplain to his majesty, and the following year was promoted to the deanery of Hereford, which he resigned soon after for the archdeaconry, and was admitted into that office Sept. 15, 1617. In July 1620, he proceeded bachelor of divinity, and with his fellowship of Eton held, by dispensation, a canonry of Windsor.

In 1621, he preached a sermon before the king at Windsor, upon Ps. 1. 15, in which there were some expressions supposed by some of his hearers to favour the Romish doctrine of invocation of saints; and this obliged him to publish his sentiments more fully in a treatise On the Invocation of Saints,“which, although he fancied it a complete defence, certainly gave rise to those suspicions which his enemies afterwards urged more fully against him. The same year, he published his” iatribae upon the first part of Mr. Selden’s History of Tythes.“In this work he endeavours, and certainly not unsuccessfully, to convict Selden of many errors, and of obligations to other authors which he has neglected to acknowledge. The king, at least, was so much pleased with it, as to order Selden to desist from the dispute. It appears by this work that Mr. Mountagu availed himself of many manuscripts which he had been at the expence of procuring from abroad, and it is said that there were a great many of these in his library when he died, but that they were taken away by Millicent, his chaplain, who became a Jesuit. In 1622 he published his animadversions on the annals of Baronius, under the title of” Analecta Ecclesiasticarum Exercitationum," fol.

In 1624 he became involved in those controversies and imputations on his character as a divine, which, more or less, disturbed the tranquillity of the whole of his life. They were occasioned by the following circumstance:?. Some popish priests and Jesuits were executing their mission at Stamford -Rivers, in Essex, of which he was then rector; and to secure his flock against their attempts, he ]eft some propositions at the place of their meeting, with an intimation that, if any of those missionaries could give a satisfactory answer to the queries he had put, he would immediately become their proselyte. In these, he required of the papists to prove, that the present Roman church is either the catholic church, or a sound member of the catholic church that the present church of England is not a true member of the catholic church and that all those points, or any one of those points which the church of Rome maintains against the church of England, were, or was, the perpetual doctrine of the catholic church, the decided doctrine of the representative church in any general council, or national approved by a general council, or the dogmatical resolution of any one father for 500 years after Cnrist. On their proving all this in the affirmative, he promised to subscribe to their faith. Instead, however, of returning any answer, a small pamphlet was left at last for him, entitled “A new Gag for the old Gospel.” To this he replied, in “An Answer to the late Gagger of the Protestants,” 1624, 4to, which gave great offence to the Calvinists, at that time a very numerous and powerful party in the church, and thus drew upon him enemies from a quarter he did not expect: and their indignation against him ran so high, that Ward and Yates, two lecturers at Ipswich, collected out of his book some points, which they conceived to savour of popery and Arminianism, in order to have, them presented to the next parliament. Mountagu, having procured a copy of the information against him, applied to the king for protection, who gave him leave to appeal to himself, and to print his defence. Upon this, he wrote his book entitled “Appello Ccesarem a just Appeal against two unjust Informers” which, having the approbation of Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, whom king James ordered to read, and give his sense of it, was published in 1625, 4to, but addressed to Charles I. James dying before the book was printed off.

The controversy, however, was not to be left to divines, who may be supposed judges of the subject. The parliament which met June 18, 1625, thought proper to take up the subject, and Mr. Mountagu was ordered to appear before the House of Commons, and being brought to the bar July 17, the speaker told him, that it was the pleasure of the House, that the censure of his books hould be postponed for some time; but that in the interim he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. He was afterwards obliged to give the security of 2000l. for his appearance. The king, however, was displeased with the parliament’s proceedings against our author and bishop Laud applied to the duke of Buckingham in his favour Mr. Mountagu also wrote a letter to that duke, entreating him to represent his case to his majesty; and this application was seconded some few days after by a letter of the bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and St. David’s, to the duke. In the next parliament, in 1626, our author’s Appello Ca3sarem“was referred to the consideration of the committee for religion, from whom Mr. Pym brought a report on the 18th of April concerning several erroneous opinions contained in it. Upon this it was resolved by the House of Commons, 1.” That Mr. Mountagu had disturbed the peace of the church, by publishing doctrines, contrary to the articles of the church of England, and the book of homilies. 2. That there are clivers passages in his book, especially against those he calleth puritans, apt to move sedition betwixt the king and his subjects, and between subject and subject. 3. That the whole frame and scope of his books is to discourage the well-affected in religion from the true religion established in the church, and to incline them, and, as much as in him lay, to reconcile them to popery." And accordingly articles were exhibited against him; but it does not appear, that this impeachment was laid before the House of Lords, or in what manner the Commons intended to prosecute their charge, or how far they proceeded. Rush worth, after much inquiry, could not find that Mr. Mountagu was brought to his defence, or that he returned any answer to the articles.

This prosecution from the parliament seems to have recommended him more strongly to the court, for, in 1628, he was advanced to the bishopric of Chichester, on the death of one of his opponents, Dr. Carleton. On August 22, 1628, the day appointed for his confirmation, a singular scene took place. On such occasions it is usual to give a formal notice, that if any person can object either against the party elected, or the legality of the election, they are to come and offer their exceptions at the day prefixed. This intimation being given, one Mr. Humphreys, and William Jones, a stationer of London, excepted against Mountagu as a person unqualified for the episcopal function, charging him with popery, Arrninianism, and other heterodoxies, for which his books had been censured in the former parliament. Fuller tells us, “that exception was taken at Jones’s exceptions (which the record calls 4 prætensos Articulos)' as defective in some legal formalities. I have been informed,” continues he, “it was alledged against him for bringing in his objections viva vocc, and not by a proctor, that court adjudging all private persons effectually dumb, who speak not by one admitted to plead therein. Jones returned, that he could not get any proctor, though pressing them importunately,” and profering them their fee to present his exceptions, and therefore was necessitated ore tenus there to alledge them against Mr. Mountagu. The register mentioneth no particular defects in his exceptions; but Dr. Rives, substitute at that time for the vicar- general, declined to take any notice of and concludeth Jones amongst the contumacious, e quod nullo modo legitime comparuit, nee aliquid in hac partejuxta Juris exigentiam diceret, exciperet, vel opponeret.' Yet this good Jones did bishop Mountagu, that he caused his addresses to the king to procure a pardon, which was granted unto him, in form like those given at the coronation, save that some particulars were inserted therein, for the pardoning of all errors heretofore committed either in speaking, writing, or publishing, whereby he might hereafter be questioned."

, an English dramatic writer, but in much greater eminence as an actor, was born in 1659, in Staffordshire. It is probable, that he went early upon the stage, as it is certain that he died young; and Jacob informs us, that, after his attaining a degree of excellence in his profession, he was entertained for some time in the family of the lord-chancellor JerTeries, “who,” says sir John Reresby, “at an entertainment of the lordmayor and court of aldermen, in the year 1685, called for Mr. Mountfort to divert the company (as his lordship was pleased to term it): he being an excellent mimic, my lord made him plead before him in a feigned cause, in which he aped all the great lawyers of the age in their tone of voice, and in their action and gesture of body, to the very great ridicule not only of the lawyers, but of the law itself; which, to me (says the historian) did not seem altogether prudent in a man of his lofty station in the law: diverting it certainly was; but prudent in the lord high-chancellor I shall never think it. 7 ' After the fall of Jefferies, our author again returned to the stage, in which profession he continued till his death, in 1,692. Gibber, in his” Apology,“says that he was tall, well made, fair, and of an agreeable aspect; his voice clear, full, and melodious; a most affecting lover in tragedy, and in comedy gave the truest life to the real character of a fine gentleman. In scenes of gaiety, he never broke into that respect that was due to the presence of equal or superior characters, though inferior actors played them, nor sought to acquire any advantage over other performers by finesse, or stage-tricks, but only by surpassing them in true and masterly touches of nature. He might perhaps have attained a higher degree of excellence and fame, had he not been untimely cut off, by the hands of an assassin, in the thirty-third year of his age. His death is tlius related. Lord Mohun, a man of loose morals, and of a turbulent and rancorous spirit, had, from a kind of sympathy of disposition, contracted the closest, intimacy with one captain Hill, a still more worthless character, who had long entertained a passion for that celebrated actress Mrs. Bracegirdle. This lady, however, had rejected him, with the contemptuous disdain which his character justly deserved; and this treatment, Hill’s vanity would not suffer him to attribute to any other cause than a pre-engagement in favour of some other lover. Mountfort’s agreeable person, his frequently performing the counter-parts in love scenes with Mrs. Bracegirdle, and the respect which he used always to pay her, induced captain Hill to fix on him, though a married man, as the supposed bar to his own success. Grown desperate then of succeeding by fair means, he determined to attempt force: and, communicating his design to lord Mohun, whose attachment to him was so great as to render him the accomplice in all his schemes, and the promoter even of his most criminal pleasures, they determined on a plan for carrying her away from the play-house; but, not finding her there, they got intelligence where she was to sup, and, having hired a number of soldiers and a coach for the purpose, waited near the door for her coming out; and, on her so doing, the ruffians actually seized her, and were going to force her into the coach; but her mother, and the gentleman whose house she came out of, interposing till farther assistance could come up, she was rescued from them, and safely escorted to her own house. Lord Mohun and captain Hill, however, enraged at their disappointment in this attempt, immediately resolved on one of another kind, and, with violent imprecations, openly vowed revenge on Mr. Mountfort. Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother, and a gentleman, who were earwitnesses to their threats, immediately sent to inform Mrs. Mountfort of her husband’s danger, with their opinion that she should warn him of it, and advise him not to come home that night; but, unfortunately, no messenger Mrs. Mountfort sent was able to find him. In the mean time, his lordship and the captain paraded the streets with their swords drawn, till about midnight, when Mr. Mountfort, on his return home, was met and saluted in a friendly manner by lord Mohun; but, while that scandal to the rank and title which he bore was treacherously holding him in a conversation, the assassin Hill, being at his back, first gave him a desperate blow on the head with his left hand, and immediately afterwards, before Mr Mountfort had time to draw and stand on his defence, he, with the sword he held ready in his right, ran him through the body. This last circumstance Mr. Mountfort declared, as a dying man, to Mr. Bancroft, the surgeon who attended him. Hill immediately made his escape; but lord Mohun was seized, and stood his trial: but as it did not appear that he immediately assisted Hill in the perpetrating this assassination, and that, although lord Mohun had joined with the captain in his threats of revenge, yet the actual mention of murder could not be proved, his lordship was acquitted by his peers. He afterwards, however, himself lost his life in a duel with duke Hamilton, in which it has been hinted that some of the same kind of treachery, which he had been an abettor of in the above-mentioned affair, was put in practice against himself. Mr. Mountfort’s death happened in Norfolk-street in the Strand, in the winter of 1692. His body was interred in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes. He left behind him six dramatic pieces, which are enumerated in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, an ingenious and learned English writer, was son of sir Walter Moyle, and born in Cornwall in 1672. After he had made a considerable progress in school-learning, he was sent to Oxford; and thence removed to the Temple, where he applied himself chiefly to such parts of the law as led to the knowledge of our constitution and government; “for there was a drudgery,” says Mr. Hammond, “in what he called law-lucrative, which he could never submit to.” He came into the world with a firm zeal for the protestant settlement, and a great contempt of those who imagined that the liberty of our constitution and the reformation could subsist under a popish king; nor did he ever vary from these sentiments. From the Temple he removed to Covent- Garden, in order to be nearer the polite and entertaining part or the town and here it was, as Dryden observes in his “Life of Lucian,” that “the learning and judgment above his age, which every one discovered in Mr. Moyle, were proofs of those abilities he has shewn in his country’s service, when he was chosen to serve it in the senate, as his father sir Walter had done.”

He afterwards retired to his seat at Bake in Cornwall, where, it is said, he read all the original authors, both Greek and Latin, that is, those who wrote before the birth of Christ, and about 440 years after. From the year 440 to 1440 was a long, but dark period of time; and he aimed only to preserve a thread of the history of that middle age. The schoolmen and scholastic divinity which flourished then, be neglected; but it appears, that, in the latter part of his life, he extended his researches to ecclesiastical history. It was his custom frequently to make a review of the best systems in all sciences, being used to say, that 41 it was necessary for every man who applies himself to matters of learning, to have a general knowledge of the elements of them;" and hence he was incessantly collecting fundamental maxims, and forming divisions in all parts of learning. Early in life he contrived a scheme of so disposing books in his library, that they might give him, even by their disposition, a regular and useful view of all the several walks of learning and knowledge. In order to this, a distribution was made of them into four grand divisions; the first containing theology, the second law, the third arts and sciences, and the fourth history. He penetrated deep into all the authors he read; and he was very nice in the choice of them. An exactness of reasoning was his peculiar talent, to which was joined an uncommon vivacity of expression. He used often to regret the not having the advantage of travelling abroad; but, to make amends for this, he read the best accounts he could get of all the parts of the world, and made his reflections upon them.

, an eminent musician, was the son of Leopold Mozart, vice-chapel-master to the prince archbishop of Salzburg. This Leopold, who was born at Augsburg in 1719, became early in life a musician and composer; and in 1757 published a treatise on the art of playing the violin; but what, according to Dr. Burney, did him most honour was his being father of such an incomparable son as Wolfgang, and educating him with such care. His son was born at Salzburg, Jan. 17, 1756, and at seven years old went with his father and sister to Paris, and the year following to London. In 1769 he went to Italy; and in 1770 he was at Bologna, in which city Dr. Burney first saw him, and to which city he had returned from Rome and Naples, where he had astonished all the great professors by his premature knowledge and talents. At Rome he was honoured by the pope with the order of Speron d'Oro. From Bologna he went to Milan, where he was engaged to compose an opera for the marriage of the princess of Modena with one of the archdukes. Two other composers were employed on this occasion, each of them to set an opera; but that of the little Mozart, young as he was, was most applauded.

, an eminent mechanist, was born at Exeter, September 1715. He was the second son of the rev. Zachariah Mudge, prebendary of Exeter, and vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, who died April 3, 1769, and was honoured by Dr. Johnson with a very elegant testimony of respect, which was inserted in the London Chronicle at that time, and may be seen in Mr. Boswell’s Life of the doctor. Mr. Z. Mudge had three other sons besides the subject of this article. The eldest, Zachariah, was a surgeon and apothecary at Taunton, and afterwards surgeon on board an East Indiaman; he died in 1753 on ship-board, in the river Canton in China. The third, the rev. Richard Mudge, was officiating minister of a chapel of ease at Birmingham, and had a small living presented to him by the earl of Aylesford. He was not only greatly distinguished by his learning, but by his genius for music. He excelled as a composer for the harpsichord; and as a performer on that instrument is said to have been highly complimented by Handel himself. The fourth son, John, was originally a surgeon and apothecary at Plymouth, but during the latter part of his life practised as a physician with great success. Like his brother Thomas, he had great mechanical talents; and, until prevented by the enlargement of his practice, he found time to prosecute improvements in rectifying telescopes. In 1777 the Royal Society adjudged to him Sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal, for a paper which he presented to that learned body on the best methods of grinding the specula of reflecting telescopes. He also considerably improved the inhaler, an ingenious contrivance for the curing of coughs, by inhaling steam. In 1777 he published “A Dissertation on the inoculated Small-pox;” which was followed, some years after, by “A Treatise on the Catarrhous Cough and Vis Vitae.” He died in 1792. It was to this gentleman, Mr. Boswell informs us, that Dr. Johnson, during his last illness, addressed many letters on his case.

Soon after the birth of Thomas, his father was appointed master of the free grammar-school at Biddeford, in the north of Devonshire, whither he removed with his family; and here, under his own immediate care, his son Thomas received his education. At a very early period of life he gave strong indications of that mechanical genius by which he has since been so eminently distinguished; for, while he was yet a school-boy, he could with ease take to pieces a watch, and put it together again, without any previous instruction. At the age of fourteen he was bound apprentice to Mr. George Graham, watch-maker, a distinguished philosopher, and the most celebrated mechanic of his time. He soon attracted the particular attention of his master, who so highly estimated his mechanical powers, that, upon all occasions, he assigned to him the nicest and most difficult work; and once, in particular, having been applied to by one of his friends to construct a machine new in its mechanical operation, his friend, some time after it had been sent home, complained that it did not perform its office. Mr. Graham answered, that he was very certain the complaint could not be well founded, the work having been executed “by his apprentice, Thomas;” and, indeed, it appeared, upon examination, that Mr. Graham was fully justified in this implicit confidence in his apprentice, the work having been executed in a very masterly manner, and the supposed defect arising entirely from the unskilful management of the owner.

On the expiration of his apprenticeship, Mr. Mudge took lodgings, and continued to work privately for some years. About 1757 he married Miss Hopkins, the daughter of a gentleman at Oxford. The circumstance which first rescued him, as it were, from obscurity, is very remarkable: Mr. Ellicot, who was one of the most distin ­guished watch-makers of his time, and who had been often employed by Ferdinand VI. king of Spain, was desired by that prince to make him an equation watch. Mr. Ellicot, not being able to accomplish the undertaking, applied to Mr. Shovel, an ingenious workman, to assist him; but he also being unequal to the task, mentioned it to Mr. Mudge, with whom he was very intimate, and who readily undertook to make such a watch. He not only succeeded to his own satisfaction, but to the admiration of all who had the opportunity of inspecting it. This watch having been made for Mr. Ellicot, his name was affixed to it (as is always customary in such cases), and he assumed the whole merit of its construction. An unfortunate accident, however, did justice to the real inventor: Mr. Ellicot being engaged, one day, in explaining his watch to some men of science, it happened to receive an injury, by which its action was entirely destroyed; and he had also the mortification to find, upon inspecting the watch, that he himself could not repair the mischief. This compelled him to acknowledge that Mr. Mudge was the real inventor of the watch, and that to him it must be sent to be repaired.

This transaction having by some means come to the knowledge of his Catholic majesty, who was passionately fond of all mechanical productions, and particularly of watches, that monarch immediately employed his agents in England to engage Mr. Mudge to work for him; and such was his approbation of his new artist’s performances, that he honoured him with an unlimited commission to make for him at his own price, whatever he might judge most worthy of attention. Accordingly, among the several productions of Mr. Madge’s genius which thus became the property of the king of Spain, was an equation watch, which not only shewed the sun’s time, and mean time, but was also a striking watch and a repeater; and what was very singular, and had hitherto been unattempted, it struck and repeated by solar, or apparent time. As a repeater, moreover, it struck the hours, quarters, and minutes. From a whim of the king’s this watch was made in the crutch end of a cane, in the sides of which were glasses covered with sliders, on the removal of which the work might be seen at any time; and his majesty being very fond of observing the motion of the wheels at the time the watch struck, it was his practice as he walked, to stop for that purpose. Those who have seen him on these occasions, observed that he ever showed signs of the most lively satisfaction. The price of this watch was 480 guineas, which, from the expensive materials and nature of the work, afforded Mr. Mudge but a moderate profit for his ingenuity; and he was strongly urged by several of his friends to charge 500 guineas for it, which the king would have readily paid. To this Mr. Mudge answered, that, “as 480 guineas gave him the profit to which he was fairly entitled, as an honest man, he could riot think of increasing it, and he saw no reason why a king should be charged more than a private gentleman.” Indeed the king of Spain had such a high opinion of his integrity, that he not only used to speak of him as by far the most ingenious watchmaker he had ever employed, but excelling also in his sense of honour and justice. Mr. Townsend, then secretary to the embassy at Madrid, once told Mr. Mudge that his Catholic majesty had often expressed to him his great admiration of his character, and would frequently ask his assistance to enable him to express the name of Mudge.

In 1750, Mr. Mudge entered into partnership with Mr. William Dutton, who had also been an apprentice of Mr. Graham’s, and took a house in Fleet-street, opposite Water-lane. In 1760, an event happened which he ever considered as one of the most fortunate in his life. This was his introduction to the count de Bruhl, who first came to England that year, as envoy extraordinary from the court of Saxony. This nobleman, who to many other valuable qualities united great knowledge of mechanical operations, ever after treated Mr. Mudge with the most generous and condescending friendship; evincing on every occasion the most ardent zeal for his fame and fortune, by the most active services. About this period Mr. Mudge appears to have first turned his thoughts to the improvement of time-keepers; for, in 1765 he published a small tract entitled “Thoughts on the Means of improving Watches, and particularly those for the use of the Sea.” In 1771 he quitted business, and retired to Plymouth, that he might devote his whole time and attention to the improvement and perfection of the important subject of this pamphlet. Having some years afterwards completed one time-keeper, he put it into the hands of Dr Hornsby, Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. After this gentleman had tried it for four months, during which time it went with great accuracy, it was committed to the care of Dr. Maskelyne, to be tried at Greenwich. After it had been, under his care a considerable time, the Board of longitude, by way of encouraging Mr. Mudge to make another, so as properly to become a candidate for the rewards promised in the act of parliament, thought proper to give him 500l. it being expressly required by the act, that two time-keepers should be made upon the same principles, and both tried at the same time, that if each should go with the required degree of exactness, it might with the more certainty appear to result from the perfection of the principles upon which they were constructed, and not from accident.

Two anecdotes deserve to be recorded, as striking proofs of Mr. Mudge’s great mental powers: count Bruhl, when he first came to England in his diplomatic capacity, brought an ingenious watch from Paris, made by the celebrated Bertoud, intending it as a present to his majesty. This watch, however, not performing its offices, was sent back to the inventor, in or$|er to be rectified. After its return, it still continued imperfect; and, on further applications to M. Bertoud, that artist acknowledged, with great candour, that, although he thought the principles on which his watch was constructed were good, he was himself unable to carry them into effect. The count then applied to Mr. Mudge, requesting him to undertake the task but, deeming it an indelicate circumstance to interfere with the inventions of another artist, Mr. Mudge expressed the greatest reluctance on the occasion. The importunity of the 'count, however, added to the gratitude which he feit for the distinguishing marks of esteem he had already received, induced Mr. Mudge, at last, to wave his objections; and he had the satisfaction to be completely successful. The other anecdote relates to a large and complicated watch belonging to his majesty, which had long gone so ill that it had been repeatedly put into the hands of the most distinguished watchmakers, to be repaired; all of whom, though confident in their abilities to give it the requisite perfection, had been obliged to abandon the watch as incapable of amendment. It was then put into the hands of Mr. Mudge, who happily succeeded. This circumstance gave his majesty a very high opinion of his superiority over every other watch maker. In 1777, he appointed him his watchmaker, and often honoured him with conferences on mechanical subjects. Her majesty likewise expressed a great esteem, not only for his talents as an artist, but for his character as a man. At one time, she presented him with fifty guineas for only cleaning a watch; and it was through her recommendation to the lord chancellor, that his second son obtained the living of Bramford Speke, as he did afterward that of Lustleigh through count BruhPs interest with the hon. Percy Charles Wyndham, brother to the earl of Egremont.

We shall close these memoirs in the words of his excellency the count de Bruhl: Mr. Mudge “was a man whose superior genius as an artist, united with the liberality of a mind replete with candour, simplicity, modesty, and integrity, deserve the highest admiration and respect; whose name will he handed down to the remotest posterity, with the same veneration which attends the names of his predecessors in the same line, Tompion, Graham, and Harrison, who, while living, were admired by their contemporaries, and whose fame adds to the splendour and glory of this great nation.”

Of his private character few particulars have been preserved: his temper was warm, but not hasty; and though. Fuller has accused him of using his scholars too harshly, we may make some allowance when we find he was educated under the same master with Ascham, Dr. Nicholas Udall, whose severity he perhaps imbibed. Like Ascham, he was fond of archery, a science once of national concern, and was a member of a society of archers, called Prince Arthur’s Knights, from that prince (brother of Henry VIII.), who was so fond of this amusement that his name became the proverbial appellation of an expert bowman. Mulcaster was an adherent of the reformed religion, a man of piety, and “a priest in his own house, as well as in the temple.” As a scholar he ranks high. His English productions boast an exuberance of expression not often found in the writers of his day; and his Latin works, not inelegant, were celebrated in their times. He enjoyed, likewise, very high reputation as a Greek and Oriental scholar, and on this last account was much esteemed by the celebrated Hugh Broughton.

He appears to have been early addicted to dramatic composition, and occurs among those who assisted in the plays performed before queen Elizabeth in 1572 and 1576. Whether he was a student of the classic drama, or still adhered to the Gothic spectacles, is a desideratum; but it is highly probable that he united both. In 1575, when Elizabeth was on one of her progresses at Kenelworth, Mulcaster produced some Latin verses which were spoken before her, and have been printed in Gascoyne’s “Princely Pleasures at Kenelworth,” and in Mr. Nichols’s “Progresses of queen Elizabeth.” They are short and easy, but, as was usual with the court productions of the time, completely mythological. In 1580, he prefixed some commendatory verses to Ocland’s “Anglorum proelia,” and others, two years afterwards, to his “Eifwaf%ia” More, perhaps, may be found in the works of his contemporaries: but we must not omit to notice his verses to queen Elizabeth on her skill in music, printed in Tallis and Bird’s tf Discantus Cantiones," &c. 1575, 4to, and inserted by Bailard in his memoirs of queen Elizabeth.

His separate works were his “Positions, wherein those primitive circumstances be examined which are necessarie for the training up of children, either for skill in theire book, or health in their bodie,” Lond. 1581, 1587, 4to. To this a second part was promised, which seems to have been completed in 1582, by the publication of “the first part of the Elementarie, which entreateth chefely of the right writing of the English Tung.” These contain some peculiarities of spelling, and innumerable quaintnesses of writing, joined to many judicious crsticisms on the English language. By the spelling he seems frequently anxious to fix the pronounciation of his words, and in some parts we may be inclined to think he was desirous that his words should be written as they are spoken. In 1601, he published his “Catechismus Paulinus, in usum scholas Paulinae conscriptus, ad formam parvi illius Anglici catechismi qui pueris in comruuni precum Anglicarum libro ediscendus proponitur,” 8vo. This is in long and short verse, sometimes closely, and at others diffusely, translated; and, though now forgotten, was once in high esteem. Among the letters at Penshurst, is one from Mulcaster to sir Philip Sidney, in Latin, dated Nov. 3, 1575, the year sir Philip went upon his travels. In the Harleian Mss No. 6996, is a letter from Edward Heyborn to the lord-keeper, in behalf of Richard Mulcaster, who begged his interest to secure to him the prebend of Gatesbury, which, we have already noticed, he received. And in ms. Smith, in the Bodleian library, No. Ixxvii. p. 397, is one from Mulcaster to Peter Junius, in Latin, dated May 13, 1604.

, a celebrated German traveller and writer, was born in 1705, in Herforden, in Westphalia, and was educated at the age of seventeen at llinteln and Leipsic, at which last place he so distinguished himself, that professor Mencke obtained for him the place of adjunct in the historical class of the academy founded at Petersburgh by Peter the Great. In tbat city he was some time employed in teaching Latin, geography, and history, and as assistant secretary to the institution. In 1728, he was made under-keeper of the imperial library, and in 1730 he was chosen professor of history. He now applied for leave of absence, in order to gratify his wish of seeing foreign countries. In the year 1731 he visited London, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and after his return to Petersburgh he was appointed to accompany Gmelin and De l'Isle de la Croyere on their travels through Siberia, which occupied ten years, during which they travelled 4480 German miles, or more than three times that number of English miles. An account of their travels was published by Gmelin, in four volumes, 8vo. After this, Mullef, who was not rewarded in any degree equal to the labours and sufferings which he had undergone, undertook, at the desire of prince Jusupof, “A Dissertation on the Trade of Siberia,” which, though written, or at least begun, in 1744, was not published till 1750, and then only the first part. In 1747, he was appointed historiographer of the Russian empire, and in 1754 he was nominated by the president to be the secretary of the Academy of Sciences, and was employed in superintending the publication of their transactions, and in other literary undertakings. In 1763, he was appointed director ^of the school for foundlings, established by Catherine at Moseow, and in 1766, he was appointed keeper of the archives in that city, with an additional salary of 1000 roubles. From this period till his death, which took place in 1783, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuits of literature, having been previously raised to the rank of counsellor of state, and invested with the order of Wladimir. Mr. Coxe, in his Travels, vol. I. in speaking of Muller, who was then living, says, “He collected during his travels the most ample materials for the history and geography of this extensive empire, which was scarcely known to the Russians themselves before his valuable researches were given to the world in various publications. His principal work is” A Collection of Russian Histories,“in nine volumes octavo, printed at different intervals at the press of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The first part came out in 1732, and the last in 1764. This storehouse of information pnd literature in regard to the antiquities, history, geography, and commerce of Russia, and many of the neighbouring countries, conveys the most indisputable proofs of the author’s learning, diligence, and fidelity. To this work the accurate and indefatigable author has successively added many other valuable performances upon similar subjects, both in the German and Russian languages, which elucidate various parts in the history of this empire.” Mr. Coxe adds, that he spoke and wrote the German, Russian, French, and Latin tongues, with surprizing fluency; and read the English, Dutch, Swedish, Danisn, and Greek, with great facility His memory was surprising; and his accurate acquaintance with the minutest incidents of the Russian annals almost surpassed belief. His collection of state papers and manuscripts were all arranged in the exactest order, and classed into several volumes, distinguished by the names of those illustrious personages to whom they principally relate; such as Peter L, Catherine I. Menzikof, Osterman, &c."

, commonly called Regiomontanus, from his native place, Mons Regius, or Koningsberg, a town in Franconia, was born in 1436, and became the greatest astronomer and mathematician of his time. He was indeed a very prodigy for genius and learning. Having first acquired grammatical learning in his own country, he was admitted, while yet a boy, into the academy at Leipsic, where he formed a strong attachment to the mathematical sciences, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, &c. But not finding proper assistance in these studies at this place, he removed, at only fifteen years of age, to Vienna, to study under the famous Purbacb, the professor there, who read lectures in those sciences with the highest reputation. A strong and affectionate friendship soon took place between these two, and our author made such rapid improvement in the sciences, that he was able to be assisting to his master, and to become his companion in all his labours. In this manner they spent about ten years together, elucidating obscurities, observing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and comparing and correcting the tables of them, particularly those of Mars, which they found to disagree with the motions, sometimes as much as two degrees.

About this time the cardinal Bessarion arrived at Vienna, to negociate some affairs for the pope, and being a lover of astronomy, soon formed an acquaintance with Purbich and Regiomontanus. He had begun to form a Latin version of Ptolomy’s Almagest, or an Epitome of it; but not having time to go on with it himself, he requested Purbach to complete the work, and for that purpose to return with him into Italy, to make himself master of the Greek tongue, which he was as yet unacquainted with. To these proposals Purbach only assented, on condition that Regiomontanus would accompany him, and share in all the labours, which were, however, soon interrupted by the death of Purbach, which happened in 1461. The whole task then devolved upon Regiomontanus, who finished the work at Rome, to which city he accompanied the cardinal Bessarion, and applied himself diligently to the study of the Greek language; not neglecting, however, to make astronomical observations, and compose various works in that science, as his <f Dialogue against the Theories of Cremonensis.“The cardinal going to Greece soon after, Regiomontanus went to Ferrara, where he continued the study of the Greek language under Theodore Gaza; who explained to him the text of Ptolomy, with the commentaries of Theon; till at length he could compose verses in Greek, and read it critically. In 1463 he went to Padua, where he became a member of the university; and, at the request of the students, explained Alfraganus, an Arabian philosopher. In 1464 he removed to Venice, to meet and attend his patron Bessarion. Here he wrote, with great accuracy, his” Treatise of Triangles,“and a” Refutation of the Quadrature of the Circle," which Cardinal Cusan pretended he had demonstrated. The same year he returned with Bessarion to Rome where he made some stay, to procure the most curious books those he could not purchase, he took the pains to transcribe, for he wrote with great facility and elegance; and others he got copied at a great expence. For as he was certain that none of these books could be had in Germany, he intended, on his return thither, to translate and publish some of the best of them. During this time too he had a warm contest with George Trapezonde, whom he had greatly offended by animadverting on some passages in his translation of Theon’s Commentary.

Having now procured a great number of manuscripts, which was one great object of his travels, he returned to Vienna, and for some time read lectures; after which he went to Buda, on the invitation of Matthias king of Hungary, who was a patron of learned men, and had founded a rich and noble library there, from the purchase of the Greek books found on the sacking of Constantinople, and others brought from Athens, or wherever else they could be met with through the whole Turkish dominions. But a war breaking out in this country, he retired to Nuremberg, which he preferred, because the artists there were dextrous in fabricating his astronomical machines, and he could from thence easily transmit his letters by the merchants into foreign countries. Being now well versed in all parts of learning, and made the utmost proficiency in mathematics, he determined to occupy himself in publishing the best of the ancient authors, as well as his own lucubrations. For this purpose he set up a printing-house, and formed a nomenclature of the books he intended to publish, which still remains.

Here Bernard Walther, one of the principal citizens, who was well skilled in the sciences, especially astronomy, cultivated an intimacy with Regiomontanus; and as soon as he understood those laudable designs of his, he took upon himself the expence of constructing the astronomical instruments, and of erecting a printing-house. And first he ordered astronomical rules to be made of tin, for observing the altitudes of the sun, moon, and planets. He next constructed a rectangular, or astronomical radius, for taking the distances of those luminaries. Then an armillary astrolabe, such as was used by Ptolomy and Hipparchus, for observing the places and motions of the stars. Lastly, he made other smaller instruments, as the torquet, and Ptolomy’s meteoroscope, with some others which had more of curiosity than utility in them. From this apparatus it evidently appears, that Regiomontanus was a most diligent observer of the laws and motions of the celestial bodies, if there were not still stronger evidences of it in the accounts of the observations themselves which he made with them.

In 1474, pope Sixtus the 4th conceived a design of reforming the calendar; and sent for Regiomontanus to Rome, as the most proper person to accomplish his purpose, who, although much engaged in his studies, and printing, at length consented to go. He arrived at Rome in 1475, but died there the year after, at only forty years of age; not without a suspicion of being poisoned by the sons of George Trapezonde, or Trapezuntius, whose father is said to have been killed by the criticisms of Regiomontanus on his translation of Ptolomy’s Almagest.

Purbach was the first who reduced the trigonometrical table of sines, from the old sexagesimal division of the radius, to the decimal scale; but Regiomontanus brought this to a much greater degree of perfection. He also introduced the tangents into trigonometry, and enriched that science with so many theorems and precepts, that if we except the use of logarithms, the trigonometry of Regiomontanus is but little inferior to that of our own time. His treatise, both on “Plane and Spherical Trigonometry,” in 5 books, was written about 1464, and printed at Nuremberg in 1533, folio. In the fifth book are various problems concerning rectilinear triangles, some of which are resolved by means of algebra; a proof that this science was not wholly unknown in Europe, before the treatise of Lucas de Burgo.

Regiomontanus was the author of some other works besides those before mentioned. Peter Ramus, in -the account he gives of him, tells us, that in his work-shop at Nuremberg-, was an automaton in perpetual motion; that he made an artificial fly, which taking its flight from his hand, would fly round the room, and at last, as if weary, would return to his master’s hand; that he fabricated an eagle, which, on the emperor’s approach to the city, he sent out, hi< r h in the air, a great way to meet him, and that it kept him company to the gate of the city. “Let us no more wonder,” adds Ramus, “at the dove of Archytas, since Nuremberg can shew a fly, and an eagle, armed with geometrical wings. Therefore, those famous artificers, who were formerly in Greece, and Egypt, are no longer of any account, since Nuremberg can boast of her Regiomontanuses. For the senate and people of this city did all in their power to have a continual succession of RegiomontaDuses. For Wernerus first, and then the Schoneri, father and son, afterwards revived the spirit of Regiomontanus.”

, a celebrated German enthusiast, called sometimes Moncerus and Monetardus, was born at Stollberg in the Hartz, towards the end of the fifteenth century. His father is said to have been executed for some crime, and on this account the son was thought desirous of taking his revenge on the government of Stollberg. He studied probably at Wirtemberg, and acquired that knowledge in divinity which Melancthon praises, and which appears in his writings. By his own account he taught, in early life, in the schools of Aschersleben and Halle in Saxony; and most probably he was then in orders. It is certain, however, that he soon became attached to the mystics, and entertained the wildest notions of fanaticism, which pleased the lower classes of the people, while he preached at Stollberg and Zwickau, where he was settled as a preacher in 1520. Here, while he was violent against popery, he was as little contented with the progress of Luther’s reformation; the church, he maintained, was but half reformed, and a new and pure church of the true sons of God remained to be established. About this time he connected himself with Nicholas Storck, a leader among the baptists, who pretended to have communications with the Almighty, and to hold greater purity of doctrine than the r^st of the party. Muncer was a convert to his notions, and became ardent in making proselytes. He maintained that for men to avoid vice, they must practise perpetual mortification. They must put on a grave countenance, speak but little, wear a plain garb, and be serious in their whole deportment. Such as prepared their hearts in this manner, might expect that the Supreme Being would direct all their steps, and by visible signs discover his will to them; if that illumination be at any time withheld, he says we may expostulate with the Almighty, and remind him of his promises. This expostulation will be acceptable to God, and will at last prevail on him to guide us with the same unerring hand which conducted the patriarchs of old. He also maintained, that all men were equal in the sight of God, and that, therefore, they ought to have all things in common, and should on no account exhibit any marks of subordination or pre-eminence. With these sentiments he endeavoured to establish in Alstadt a new kingdom upon earth, or a society of pious, holy, and awakened people. With these people he was accused, in 1524, of having plundered a church in a neighbouring village, burnt a chapel, and committed many other outrages; and as the affair made a great noise, he was cited to answer to the charges at Weimar; but finding that the utmost severity was to be used against him, he remained at Alstadt, where his companions were so riotous, that he was under the necessity of removing to a distance. After some little time he settled at Nuremberg, where he published a vehement censure upon Luther, which, with some irregularities, occasioned his expulsion by the government. Taking then a journey into Swabia, he found every where numerous and attentive hearers. His stay in Swabia gave rise to the report that he was the author of the famous twelve articles of the peasants; but his biographer endeavours to prove that he had no part in the insurrection which broke out in that part of the country. In the beginning of 1525, he returned back into Saxony, and was received with great favour by the citizens of Muhlhausen, and, against the consent of their council, appointed their preacher. Here his influence soon became predominant: the old council was entirely set aside, and a new one chosen: the monks were driven away, and their estates sequestered. Muncer himself was elected into the council, and proposed an equal communication of property, and similar reforms, agreeable to the taste of the people. The tumults in Swabia and Franconia were the signal ta Muncer to attempt the same in Thuringia. Churches, monasteries, castles, were plundered and the success attending these first attempts increased the popular fury and the monks, the nuns, and the nooility, were the particular objects of their resentment. It is unnecessary to repeat here the history of these troubles; suffice it, that Muncer was at last overpowered in 1526, and put to death. At his execution he is said to have shewn signs of penitence.

“Munday was first a stage-player, after an apprentise, which tyme he wel served with deceaving of his master, then wandring towardes Italy, by his own report became a cosener in his journey. Comming to Rome, in his short abode there, was charitably relieved, but never admitted in the seminary, as he pleseth to lye in the title of his booke, and being wery of well doing returned home to his first vomite, and was hist from his stage for his folly. Being therby discouraged he set forth a balet against plays, though (o constant youth) he afterwards began again to ruffle upon the stage. I omit (continues this author) among other places his behaviour in Barbican with his good mistress and mother. Two things, however, must not be passed over of this boy’s infelicitie, two several ways of late notorious. First he writing upon the death of Everard Haunse, was immediately controled and disproved by one of his owne batche, and shortly after setting forth the apprehension of M. Campion was disproved by George (I was about to say Judas) Eliot, who writing against him, proved that those things he did were for lukers sake only, and not for the truthe thogh he himself be a person of the same predicament, of whom I muste say that if felony be honesty, then he may for his behaviore be taken for a lawful witness against so good men.”

, or Mondino, a physician deservedly celebrated in the dark ages, was born at Milan, according to Freind and Douglas, and flourished early in the fourteenth century. He held the professorship of medicine at Bologna in 1316, and enjoyed an extensive reputation throughout Italy, principally for his anatomical pursuits, in which, however, Eloy thinks he shewed more zeal than success, although he was the first among the moderns who dissected human bodies. He was the author of a work, entitled “Anatomia omnium humani Corporis interiorum Membrorum,” first printed at Pavia in 1478, in fol. reprinted at least fourteen times, the last in 1638, 12mo, with various commentaries. It is a methodical treatise, very copious upon the subject of the viscera, in the description of which he introduced many original observations, but passes lightly over the subject of the nerves and blood-vessels. With all its errors, which are very copious, it conferred a real benefit on the infant science, and the statutes of Padua, and some other medical schools of Italy, prohibited the use of every other work, as a text-book for the students of anatomy. Mundinus died at Bologna, Aug. 30, 1318, and was buried in the church of St. Vital.

, a celebrated military officer, was born at New Huntorf, in the county of Oldenburgh, in 1683. He was the son of a Danish officer, and received an excellent education. When only seventeen he entered into the service of the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt. He was present at the siege of Landau, and learned the art of war under the duke of Marlborough and prince Eugene. He was always remarkable for his braveryj for which, at the battle of Malplaquet, he was made a lieutenant-colonel. In 1716 he quitted the Hessian, and entered into the Polish service; but, in 1721, on some disgust, he went into Russia, and was honourably received by Peter I. After many offices of trust in the army and state, he was made a marshal by the empress Anne, and placed at the head of the war-department; and, in 1737-8, served with great success against the Turks. Soon after the death of the empress, not being appointed generalissimo as he expected, he resigned his employments, but remained in Russia, though strongly invited to the court of Prussia. In 1741 he was arrested, by order of Elizabeth, and, when examined, was so disgusted by the questions proposed to him, that he desired his judges, who appeared resolved to convict him, to put down the answers they wished him to make, and he would sign them. He was thus, after a mock trial, condemned to lose his life; but Elizabeth changed this into perpetual imprisonment, which he suffered for twenty years at Pelim in Siberia. At the accession of Peter III. an order arrived for his release, which so affected him that he fainted away. Departing for Petersburgh, he appeared there in the same sheep-skin dress he had worn during. his captivity. The emperor received him with kindness, and restored him to his former rank. He enjoyed the favour of Peter and Catharine till the time of his death, which happened in October 1767, at the age of eighty -five. He was a man of great talents, and possessed many and distinguished virtues, but he was not without his defects. His faults, however, scarcely injured any but himself, but his excellencies were of vast benefit to Russia. He favoured literature, and frequented the company of learned men. He was acquainted with the arts, for which he had a considerable taste, but he distinguished himself most as a general, and by his knowledge of tactics: he has, however, been accused of exercising too much severity to those who were under his command. It is said that a system of fortifications, and some other writings of count Munich’s have been published, but we have not met with them in this country, nor with a life of him published in German at Oldenburgh in 1803.

, an eminent German divine and mathematician, was born at Inghelheim in 1489; and, at fourteen commenced his studies at Heidelberg. Two years after, he entered the convent of the Cordeliers, where he laboured assiduously; yet did not content him self with the studies relating to his profession, but applied himself also to mathematics and cosmography. He was the first who published a “Chaldee Grammar and Lexicon;” and gave the world, a short time after, a “Talmudic Dictionary.” He went afterwards to Basil, and succeeded Pelicanus, of whom he had learned Hebrew, in the professorship of that language. He was one of the first who attached himself to Luther, but meddled little in the controversies of the age, employing his time and attention chiefly to the study of the Hebrew and other Oriental languages, mathematics, and natural philosophy. He published a great number^ of works on these subjects, of which the principal is a Latin version from the Hebrew of all the books of the Old Testament, with learned notes, printed at Basil in 1534 and 1546. This is thought more faithful than the versions of Pagninus and Arias Montanus; and his notes are generally approved, though he dwells a little too long upon the explications of the rabbins. For this version he was called the German Esdras, as he was the German Strabo for an “Universal Cosmography,” in six books, which he printed at Basil in 1550. He published also a treatise on dialling, in fol. 1536, in which is the foundation of the modern art of dialling a translation of Josephus into Latin “Tabulae novae ad geog. Ptolemaei,” “Rudimenta mathematica,” &c. He was a pacific, studious, retired man, and, Dupin allows, one of the most able men that embraced the reformed religion. For this reason Beza and Verheiden have placed him among the heroes of the reformation, although he wrote nothing expressly on the subject. He died at Basil, of the plague, May 23, 1552.

, a learned Italian antiquary, and one of the most voluminous writers of his age and country, was born at Vignola in the duchy of Modena, Oct. 21, 1672. He was educated at Modena, and his inclination leading him to the church, as a profession, he went through the regular courses of philosophy and divinity, but without neglecting polite literature, to which he was early attached. Bacchiiri recommended the ecclesiastical writers to his attention, and he at length became so devoted to general reading, as to pay little attention to his destined profession. In 1695, the knowledge of books which he had accumulated, procured him the place of one of the librarians of the celebrated Ambrosian collection at Milan; and although he had by this time received his doctor’s degree and been admitted into orders, it was now that he entered upon that course of study and research which distinguished him in future life. His first publication was vols. I and II. of his “Anecdota Latina,” printed at Milan in 1697 and 1698, 4to. In 1700 he went to Modena to take possession of the office of keeper of the archives of the house of Este, and that of librarian to the duke of Modena, his patron. Here he remained for some years, with the exception of an interruption occasioned by the war in 1702, when the French took possession of Modena. The same year that he came here he was editor of “Vita et Rime di Carlo M. Maggi,” printed at Milan, 5 vols. and in 1703 published his “Primi disegni della Republica Letteraria d'ltalia;” this was followed by “Prolegomena, &c. in librum, cui titulus, Elucidatio Augustiniange de divina gratia doctrinae,” Cologn, 1705; “Lettere ai generosi e cortesi Letterati d'ltalia,” Venice, 1705; “Delia Perfetta Poesia Italiana, &c.” 2 vols. a very ingenious dissertation on Italian poetry, which occasioned a prolonged controversy, now no longer interesting. Two editions, however, were afterwards published, with critical notes by Salvini, the one in 1724, 2 vols. 4to. and the other, which is esteemed the best, in 1748. He published also at Bologna in 1707, “Lettera in disesa del March. G. G. Orsi;” and “Introduzione alle paci private,” Modena, 1708. In the same year he first began to write tinder the assumed name of Lamindo Pritanio, “Riflessioni SDpra il buon gusto, &c.” of which a second part appeared at Naples in 1715. After this appeared, under his proper name, “Osservazioni sopra una lettera intitolata, II dominio temporale della sede Apostolica sopra la citta di Comacchio,” &c. Modena, 1708; and “Epistola ad Jo. Albert. Fabricium,” 1709. In this last year he published another of his valuable collections under the title of “Anecdota Grseca,” Gr. & Lat. 4to, which, as well as his “Anecdota Latina,” (completed in 4 vols. at Padua, 1713) were taken from Mss. in the Ambrosian library. He published also before 1715 some other works of lesser value, which, however, showed how intense his labours were, for he had accepted of some preferments in the church, the duties of which he performed with great assiduity, and wai particularly distinguished for his humane care of the poor, who indeed shared the greater part of the profits of his benefices, and the rest went to the repairs or furniture of the churches under his care.

, a very ingenious and learned critic, was descended from a good family, and born at Muret, a village near Limoges, in France, April 11, 1526. We know not who were his masters, nor what the place of his education; but it was probably Limoges. JJencius, in his funeral oration on him, and Bullart say that be spent his youth at Agen, where he had Julius Caesar Scaliger for his preceptor; but Joseph Scaliger, his son, denies this, and affirms that Muretus was eighteen when he first came to Agen, to see his father. He adds, that he passed on thence to Auch, where he began to teach in the archiepiscopal college, and to read lectures upon Cicero and Terence. After some stay in this place, he went to Villeneuve; where he was employed by a rich merchant in the education of his children, and at the same time taught Latin in a public school. Two years after his settling here, he went to Agen, to pay a visit to Scaliger, who had the highest opinion and affection for him, and who ever kept up a most intimate correspondence with him. He removed from Villeneuve to Paris, from Paris to Poictiers, from Poictiers to Bourdeaux in 1547, and from Bourdeaux to Paris again in 1552. This year he recited in the church of the Bernardins, his first oration, “De dignitate ac praestantia studii theologici;” and this year also he printed his poems, entitled “Juvenilia;” from the dedication of which we learn, that he taught at that time philosophy and civil law.

It seems to have been the year after, that he was accused of a detestable crime, and thrown into prison. Shame, and the fear of punishment, affected him so, that he resolved to starve himself to death; but he was deterred from this by his friends, who laboured to procure his release, and after much pains, effected it. He could not, however, continue any longer at Paris, and therefore withdrew to Thoulouse, where he read lectures in civil law. But here he was exposed to fresh suspicions; and the accusation brought against him at Paris being renewed, he again fled in 1554, and was condemned to be burned in effigy.

He now retired to Italy, and falling sick at a town in Lombardy, he applied to a physician, who, not understanding his case, called a consultation. As they did not know Muretus, and fancied him too ignorant to understand Latin, they consulted a long time in that language, upon the application of some medicine which was not in the way of regular practice; and agreed at last to try it upon Muretus, saying, “Faciamus periculum in corpore vili;” ;t Let us make an experiment upon this mean subject.“This threat is said to have so far effected a cure, that he paid his host, and set forwards on his journey, as soon as they were withdrawn. This story is told somewhat differently in the first volume of the” Menagiana.“He spent several years at Padua and Venice, and taught the youth in those cities. Joseph Scaliger says that the charge above-mentioned was renewed at Venice, but others caution us against Scaliger’s reports, who had a private pique against Muretus on the following account. Muretus had composed for his amusement some verses entitled” Attius et Trabeas;“which Scaliger supposing to be ancient, cited under the name of” Trabeas,“in his notes upon” Varro de Re Rustica;“but, finding afterwards that he had been imposed on, he removed them from the second edition of his” Varro;" and, to be revenged on Muretus, substituted in their place the following distich against him

Muretus was thirty-four, when the cardinal Hippolite d'Est called him to Rome, at the recommendation of the cardinal Francis de Tournon, and took him into his service: and from that time his conduct was such as to procure him universal regard. In 1562 he attended his patron, who was going to France in quality of a legate a latere; but did not return with him to Rome, being prevailed on to read public lectures at Paris upon Aristotle’s “Ethics;” which he did with singular applause to 1567. After that, he taught the civil law for four years, with a precision and elegance not common with the lawyers of his time. Joseph Scaliger assures us that he had taken the degrees in this faculty at Ascoli. It is related as a particularity in the life of Muretus, that when he first began to read law lectures at Thoulouse, he was so very indifferently qualified for the province he had undertaken, as to provoke the contempt and ridicule of his pupils, which be afterwards changed into admiration, by a very consummate knowledge in his profession. He spent the remainder of his life in teaching the belles-lettres, and explaining the Latin authors. In 1576 he entered into orders, was ordained priest, and devoted himself with zeal to all the exercises of piety. James Thomasius, in a preface to some works of Muretus, printed at Leipsic, says, that this learned man was a Jesuit at the latter end of his life; but for this there seems to be no foundation. He died at Paris, June 4, 1585, aged fifty-nine. He was made a citizen of Rome, (which title he has placed at the head of some of his pieces) probably by pope Gregory XIIL who esteemed him very highly, and conferred many favours on him.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Clooniquin, in the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, Dec. 27, 1727. His father, Richard Murphy, who was a merchant, perished in 1729, in one of his own trading-vessels for Philadelphia, probably in a violent storm, but no intelligence of the ship, or any of its passengers or crew, ever transpired. From this time the care of the subject of the present article devolved upon his mother, who, in 1735, removed, with her children, to London but Arthur was sent, at the age of ten, to the English college at St. Omer’s, where he remained six years and made very extraordinary proficiency in Greek and Latin, a love for which he retained all his life, and particularly improved his acquaintance with the Latin classics. On his return to England, in 1744, he resided with his mother till August 1747, when he was sent to Cork, to an uncle Jeffery French, in whose counting-house he was employed till April 1749. After this his uncle destined him to go to Jamaica to overlook a large estate which he possessed in that island; but his inclination was averse to business of every kind, and he returned to his mother in London, in 1751. Here he either first contracted, or began at least to indulge, his predominant passion for the theatre, although placed in the counting-house of Ironside and Belchier, bankers. In October 1752, he published the first number of “The Gray’s-Inn Journal,” a weekly paper, which he continued for two years, and which served to connect him much with dramatic performers and writers, as well as to make him known to the public as a wit and a critic. On the death of his uncle, he was much disappointed in not finding his name mentioned in his will, and the more so as he had contracted debts, in faith of a good legacy, to the amount of three hundred pounds. In this embarrassed state, by the advice of the celebrated Foote, he went on the stage, and appeared for the first time in the character of Othello. Jn one season, by the help of strict economy, he paid off his debts, and had at the end of the year four hundred pounds in his pocket. With this sum he determined to quit the stage, on which, as a performer, notwithstanding the advantages of a fine person, and good judgment, he made no very distinguished figure, and never used to be more offended than when reminded of this part of his career.

He now determined to study the law; but on his first application to the society of the Middle-Temple, he had the mortification to be refused admission, on the ground of his having acted on the stage; but was soon after, in 1757, received as a member of Lincoln’s-Inn. In this year he was engaged in a weekly paper, called “The Test,” undertaken chiefly in favour of Mr. Fox, afterwards lord Holland, which ceased on the overthrow of the administration to which his lordship was attached. This paper was answered by Owen Ruffhead, in the “Contest.” During his study of the law, the stage was, either from inclination or necessity, his resource; and in the beginning of 1758, he produced the farce of “The Upholsterer,” which was very successful; and before the end of the same year he finished “The Orphan of China,” which is founded on a dramatic piece, translated from this Chinese language, in Du Halde’s “History of China.” The muse, as he says, “still keeping possession of him,” he produced, in 1760 the “Desert Island,” a dramatic poem; and his “Way to keep Him,” a comedy of three acts, afterwards enlarged to five acts, the most popular of all his dramatic compositions. This was followed by the comedy of “All in the Wrong,” “The Citizen,” and “The Old Maid;” all of which were successful, and still retain their rank among acting-pieces. Having finished his preparatory law-studies, he was called to the bar in Trinity-Term, 1762. About this time, he engaged again in political controversy, by writing “The Auditor,” a periodical paper, intended to counteract the influence of Wilkes’s “North-Briton;” but in this he was peculiarly unfortunate, neither pleasing the public, nor deriving much support from those on whose behalf he wrote. Wilkes and Churchill, who were associated in politics, contrived to throw a degree of ridicule on Murphy’s labours, which was fatal. Murphy appearing to his antagonists to meddle with subjects which he did not understand, they laid a trap to make him discover his want of geographical knowledge, by sending him a letter signed “Viator,” boasting of the vast acquisition, by lord Bute’s treaty of peace, of Florida to this country, and representing that country as peculiarly rich in fuel for domestic uses, &c. This Arthur accordingly inserted, with a remark that “he gave it exactly as he received it, in order to throw all the lights in his power upon the solid value of the advantages procured by the late negociation.” Wilkes immediately reprinted this letter in his “North Britain;” and the “Auditor” found it impossible to bear up against the satires levelled at him from all quarters.

, a clergyman of Scotland, was born at Dunkeld in that country, in 1702, and educated in the Marishal college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and was licensed as a probationer in the ministry. Being of a romantic turn of mind, although an excellent classical scholar, he refused a living in Scotland, and came to London, where, it is said, but we know not upon what authority, he was made choice of as an assistant-preacher to the congregation in Swallow-street, Westminster. But his pulpit-oratory did not acquire him popularity, and his sentiments were rather disgustful to his hearers. This induced him to solicit the protection of James late duke of Athol, who took him into his family, where he wrote a work, entitled “Aletheia, or a System of Moral Truths,” which has been published in the form of letters, in 2 vols. 12mo. He died in London in 1758, aged fifty-five.

, an eminent English lawyer, was fourth son of David, earl of Stormont, and was born March 2, 1705, at Perth, in Scotland. He was brought to England at the age of three years, for his education, which accounts for his always being free from the accent so peculiar in the natives of that country. He was educated at Westminster-school, being admitted a king’s scholar at the age of fourteen years. During the time of his being at school, he afforded proofs of his ability, not so much in poetry, as in declamation, and other exercises, which gave promise of the eloquence that grew up to such perfection when at the bar, and in parliament. At the election in May 1723, he stood first on the list of those scholars who were to go to Oxford, and was entered of Christ church June 18 of that year, where in 1727, he appears to have taken the degree of bachelor of arts; and, on the death of king George I. he was amongst those who contributed their poetical compositions, in Latin, on that event.

On June 26, 1730, he took the degree of master of ar,ts, and soon after made a tour on the continent. On his return, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn; and, in due time, was called to the bar. Mr. Murray is among those rare instances of persons who very 'early attained to reputation and practice in the profession. His talent was for public speaking, which gave him a superiority that enabled him to rival and excel those who were far beyond him in knowledge and experience. A reputation early attained gives a character which it is very difficult for time to change or eradicate. Mr. Murray’s premature success created an early impression that he was more of a speaker than a lawyer; and, while he was readily acknowledged to excel both old and young, in the one qualification, the world were long unwilling to allow him an ascendancy in the other. His attachment to the belles lettres, and society with Mr. Pope and other wits of his time, gave countenance to the idea, that little time was left for Coke, Plowden, and the Year-hooks. But time and experience, as they improved Mr. Murray, gradually convinced the world, that his mind was equally made for jurisprudence or oratory.

We find him employed, so early as 1736, as an advocate against th bill of pains and penalties, which afterwards passed into a law, against the lord-provost and city of Edinburgh, for the riotous murder of captain Porteus. On Nov. 20, 1738, he married lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the earl of Winchelsea and, in November 1742, he was appointed solicitor- general in the room of sir John Strange, who resigned. He was also chosen representative of the town of Boroughbridge; and was afterwards returned for the same place in 1747 and 1754. In March 1746, he? was appointed one of the managers for the impeachment of lord Lovat by the House of Commons. It was his part to observe upon the evidence in reply to the prisoner; in this he displayed so much candour, as well as so much ability, that he was complimented by the prisoner no less than by the lord-chancellor Talbot, who presided at the trial.

In 1753, a most injurious attack was made upon Mr. Murray’s character on the following occasion: It had been said, that Dr. Johnson, a person then thought of for considerable preferment, and afterwards bishop of Worcester, a very intimate friend of Mr. Murray, was of Jacobitical principles, and had even drank the pretender’s health in a company near twenty years before. This story was thought of sufficient importance to induce Mr. Pelham, then minister, to write down to Newcastle to Mr. Fawcett, the recorder, who was the author of the story, to learn the truth. Mr. Fawcett answered this inquiry in an evasive manner; but, in a subsequent conversation with lord Ravensworth, added, that Mr. Murray and Mr. Stone had done the same several times. Lord Ravensworth thought, that, Mr. Stone holding an office about the prince, such a suggestion as to his loyalty and principles ought not to be slighted; and he made it so much a matter of conversation, that the ministry advised the king to have the whole information examined; and a proceeding was had in the council, and afterwards in, the House of Lords, for that purpose. When Mr. Murray heard of the committee being appointed to examine this idle affair, he sent a message to the king, humbly to acquaint him, that, if he should be called before such a tribunal on so scandalous and injurious account, he would resign his office, and would refuse to answer. It came, however, before the House of Lords, on the motion of the duke of Bedford, on Jan. 22, 1753, who divided the house upon it, but the house was not told; and thus ended a transaction, which, according to lord Melcombe, was “the worst judged, the worst executed, and the worst supported point, he ever saw of such expectation.”

In Jan. 1770 he was offered the great seal, which he declined; and it was put into commission again. In Hilary term, 1771, he declined the same offer, and it was delivered to Mr. Justice Bathurst. In 1770 an attack was made on this noble judicial character, both in the House of Lords and Commons. His direction to the jury, in the case of Woodfall, the printer, who was prosecuted for a libel, was called in question; but his lordship’s opinion, and that of the whole court, stood its ground. On Oct. 19, 1776, he was made an earl of Great Britain, by the title of earl of Mansfield, to him and his issue male; with remainder to Louisa viscountess Stormont, and to her heirs-male by David viscount Stormont, her husband.

From this time, it seemed, as if popular odium had spent its fury, and had no longer any malice to direct against this noble person. Party rage seemed to be softened by this last act of mischief; and, during the remainder of his days, lord Mansfield seemed to unite all parties in one uniform sentiment of approbation and reverence for a tried and ancient servant of the public. The increase of years did not bring on such infirmities as to disable him from, discharging the duties of his station till about 1787: these, at length, bore so much upon him that he came to the resolution to resign his office, which he did in the month of June, 1788. Upon that occasion the gentlemen who practised at the bar of the court where he had so long presided, addressed to his lordship a letter, in which they lamented their loss, but remembered, with peculiar satisfaction, that his lordship was not cut off from them by the sudden stroke of painful distemper, or the more distressing of those extraordinary faculties which had so long disv tinguished him among men; but, that it had pleased God to allow to the evening of a useful and illustrious life the purest enjoyment that nature had ever allotted to it. The unclouded reflections of a superior and unfading wind over its varied events, and the happy consciousness that it had been faithfully and eminently devoted to the highest duties of human society, in the most distinguished nation upon, earth. They expressed a wish that the season of this high satisfaction might bear its proportion to the lengthened days of his rctivity and strength. This letter had many signatures, and was, atthe desire of Mr. Bearcroft, the senior counsel in that court, transmitted to the venerable peer by Mr. (now lord) Erskine. Lord Mansfield instantly returned an answer, in which he said, that, if he had given any satisfaction, it was owing to the learning and candour of the bar; the liberality and integrity of their practice freed the judicial investigation of truth and justice from difficulties. The memory of the assistance he had received from them, and the deep impression which the extraordinary mark they had no v given him of their approbation and affection, had made upon his mind, would be a source of perpetual consolation in his decline of life, under the pressure of bodily infirmities, which made it his duty to retire.

His health continued to decline; but his mental faculties remained to the last very little impaired; he was glad to receive visitors, and talk upon the events of the time. Of the French revolution he is reported to have said, that it was an extraordinary event and, as it was without example, so it was without a prognostic no conjectures could be formed of its consequences. He lived to March 20, 1793, and departed this life in the eightyninth year of his age. He left no children; and the earldom, which was granted again by a new patent, in 1792, descended on his nephew, lord Stormont, together with his immense fortune. His will was dated April 17, 1782; it was written in his own hand, upon little more than a half sheet of paper. It begins thus: “When it shall please Almighty God to call me to that state, to which, of all I now enjoy, I can carry only the satisfaction of my own conscience, and a full reliance on his mercy, through Jesus Christ: I desire that my body may be interred as privately as may be; and, out of respect for the place of my early education, I should wish it to be in Westminster abbey.” He was buried, about nine o'clock in the morning of March 28, in the same vault with his countess, who died April 10, 1784, in Westminster-abbey, between the late earl of Chatham and lord Robert Manners.

, an eminent physician at Rome, acquired such reputation as to be appointed physician to the emperor Augustus, about 21 B. C. He is said to have been the first who prescribed the use of the cold bath; but whatever may be in this, he advised cold bathing and a cool regimen in the case of his imperial master, which effected the cure of many disorders with which Augustus had been previously afflicted, and made him a great favourite both with the emperor and the people. Little is Known of his history besides, and none of his writings have descended to posterity. The tract, printed among others on the materia medica at Basil in 1528 and 1549, “Libellus de Botanica,” and attributed to Musa, is thought to have been the production of a later pen. Bishop Atterbury, in a letter to Dr. Freind, endeavours to prove that the lapis mentioned by Virgil (Eneid XII. 391) was our Musa; but Dr. Templeman and others have differed from him in this opinion, for reasons which cannot easily be rejected.

, celebrated by ancient writers as a philosopher, astronomer, and poet, was, according to Plato and Diodorus Siculus, an Athenian, the son of Orpheus, and chief of the Eleusinian mysteries, instituted at Athens in honour of Ceres; or, according to others, he was only the disciple of Orpheus. He is allowed to have been one of the first poets who versified the oracles. He is placed in the Arundelian marbles, Epoch 15, 1426 B.C. at which time his hymns are there said to have been received in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. Laertius tells us, that Musæus not only composed a theogony, but formed the first sphere but he was probably misled by the title of a poem said to have been written by Mnsaeus, “de Sphaera.” The doctrine which he taught was, that all things are produced fiom one, and shall be resolved into the same; an Orphic doctrine, which is the first principle of the system of emanation, and the foundation of all the ancient theogonies. He is celebrated by Virgil in the character of Hierophant, or priest of Ceres, among the most illustrious mortals who have merited a place in Elysium, and is made the conductor of Æneus to the recess, where he meets the shade of his fatber Anchises.

A hill near the citadel of Athens was called Musæum, according to Pausamas, from Musæus, who used to retire thither to meditate, and compose his religious hymns, and at which place he was afterwards buried. The works which went under his name, like those of Orpheus, were by many attributed to Onomacritus. Nothing remains of this poet now, nor were any of his writings exta-nt in the time of Pansanias, except a hymn to Ceres, which he made for theLycomedes. There is another Musæus, called the grammarian, author of a Greek poem on “The Loves of Hero and Leander.” He is supposed to have lived as late as the fourth century, since he is not referred to by any of the older scholiasts, and some of his verses appear borrowed from the Dionysiacs of Nonnius. Nothing is known of him personally, yet his work is in a pure and elegant style, with much delicacy of sentiment. It has been frequently reprinted, both in collections and separately, and has been translated into various languages.

, a celebrated German divine and reformer, was the son of a cooper, and born at Dieuze, upon Lorrain Sept. 8, 1497. His father being unable to furnish him with education, Musculus was obliged to provide for his own subsistence, as was the case with poor scholars at that time, by singing from door to door; and his talents having attracted the notice of a convent of Benedictines, they offered him the habit of their order, which he accepted, applied himself to study, and became a good preacher. He embraced Luther’s principles, and so strenuously supported them upon all occasions, as to induce many of his brethren to forsake the order. When this, as may be expected, raised him enemies, he made an open profession of Lutheranism, fled to Strasburgin i 527, and the same year married. Having now no provision whatever, he was reduced to the necessity of sending his wife to service in a clergyman’s family, and of binding himself apprentice to a weaver, who dismissed him in two months for discovering part of that zeal which had already induced him to make so many sacrifices. He then resolved to earn his bread by working at the fortifications of Strasburg; but, the evening before he was to begin this drudgery, he was informed that the magistrates had appointed him to preach every Sunday in the village of Dorlisheim. Having complied with this offer, he lodged during the rest of the week at Strasburg with Martin Bucer, and increased

his poor pittance by transcribing the works of that reformer for the press. Some months after, when this resource failed, he was obliged to reside at Dorlisheim, where he continued to suffer the rigours of poverty with great constancy. His only moveable was the little bed he brought from the convent; which, however, was soon occupied by his wife, who was ready to lie-in. At this t me he lay on the ground upon a little straw, and must have perished through want, if the magistrates of Strasburg had not at length assigned him a sum out of the public treasury. He was then invited again to Strasburg, as officiating deacon in the principal church, and, after he had acquitted himself in this character for about two years, he went to preach at Augsburg in 1531. Here, after sustaining many controversies with the papists, he by degrees prevailed upon the magistrates to banish popery entirely, which was finally accomplished in 1537. Musculus served the church of Augsburg till 1548; when Charles V. having entered the city, and re-established popery in the church of Notre Dame, he found it necessary for his safety to retire to Switzerland, his wife and children following soon after; and was invited by the magistrates of Bern in 1549 to the professorship of divinity. Here he was so successful in his ministry and teaching, and so kindly treated, that he never would accept of any other situation, though several were offered him elsewhere, He died at Bern, Aug. 30, 1563. His talents occasioned him to be employed in some very important ecclesiastical concerns: he was deputed by the senate of Augsburg m 1536, to the synod at Eynach, for the re- union of the protestants upon the doctrine of the supper he was deputed to assist a*the conferences which were held between the protestant and Roman catholic divines, during the diet of Worms, and that of Ratisbon, in 1540 and 1541 he was one of the secretaries of the conference at Ratisbon, between Melancthon and Eccius, and drew up the acts of it: and he was sent to the inhabitants of Donawert, who embraced the reformation in 1544, to promote that design.

Being a man of very extensive learning, he composed, at his leisure-hours, several curious works, as, 1. “De Arthritide symptomatica Dissertatio, 1703,” 8vo. 2. “De Arthritide^anomala sive interna Dissertatio, 1707,” 8vo. Of these two books, one upon the regular, the other upon the irregular or inward gout, he gave an account in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 3. “Julii Vitalis Epitaphitim: cum Commentario, 1711,” 8vo, a work much praised by Mr. Moyle. 4. “De Legionibus Epistola.” This letter concerning the Roman legions was addressed to sir Hans Sloane. 5. “De Aquilis Romania Epistola, 1713,” 8vo, addressed to Gisbert Cuper, consul of Deventer, who had affirmed that the Roman eagles were of massy gold or silver; while Musgrave maintained, that they were only plated over, in which opinion he was joined by Moyle. 6. “Inscriptio Terraconensis; cum Commentario.” 7. “Geta Britannicus. Accedit Domus Severianae Synopsis chronologica; et de Icuncula quondam M. Regis jElfridi Dissertatio, 1715,” 8vo. That is, “Observations upon a fragment of an equestrian stone Statue, found near Bath, which Musgrave believes to have been set up in honour of Geta, after his arrival in Britain; together with a chronological Synopsis of the family of Severus; and a dissertation upon a piece of Saxon antiquity found at Athelney in Somersetshire, being king Alfred the Great’s Amulet.” 8. “Belgium Britannicum;” or, “An account of that part of South Britain which was anciently inhabited by a people called Belgae, and now comprehends Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire,” 1719, 8vo. To this work is prefixed a dissertation, in which he endeavours to prove that Britain was formerly a peninsula, and joined to France about Calais. All the above tracts on antiquities were published together at Exeter, in 1720, 4 vols. 8vo. In 1776 a posthumous dissertation of his on the gout was published under the title of “De Arthritide primogenia et regulari,” 8vo. He had left the manuscript to his son William Musgrave, M. B. by whom it was committed to the press, but he dying when the work was nearly completed, the sheets remained in the warehouse of the Clarendon press until the above-mentioned period, when it was published by the author’s grandson, the late Dr. Samuel Musgrave, of Exeter, a gentleman once noted (about 1761) for his pretended political discoveries respecting the private history of the peace, and afterwards as a Greek scholar and critic. He studied at Leyden, where in 1762 he published “Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo,” 8vo, and when he took his degree, “Apologia pro medicina Empirica,” 1763, 4to. After his return he practised physic at Exeter, and bestowed much time on collating various Mss. of Euripides, which collations, with his notes, were incorporated in an edition of that classic printed at Oxford in 1778, 4 vols. 8vo. Dr. Harwood gives a very unfavourable opinion of this edition, nor has it been in general much prized by foreign critics. Dr. Musgrave died July 3, 1782, greatly reduced in circumstances, and after his death was edited by Mr. Tyrwhitt, for the benefit of his family, “Two Dissertations,” on the Grecian mythology, and the chronology of the Olympiads.

, an Italian historian and poet, was born at Padua in 1261. When young he lost his father, and was left with a numerous family of brothers and sisters, whom he at first endeavoured to maintain by copying books for the scholars of the university. He was also permitted to attend the lectures there, and made very considerable progress in belles lettres and the law. Theiatterhe chose as the profession most likely to enable him to maintain his family, nor was he disappointed; and the very great ability he displayed at other times occasioned his being employed in political affairs. His talents in this respect were first called forth when Henry VII. made a descent on Italy; on which event he was five times se nt by the Paduans to that prince, who conceived a very high opinion of him. In his history we find the speeches he ma ie to Henry, and those he addressed to the senate of Padua. He also distinguished himself in the war which the Paduans carried on against Can Grande de la Scala, and when wounded and taken prisoner in 1314, Can Grande paid him the attention due to his merit, and restored him to liberty. The war raging more furiously, Mussato went first to Tuscany to negociate an alliance with the Tuscans and Paduans against Can Grande, but not succeeding, went next to Austria and Carint*hia, where he partially achieved his purpose, and at last, in 1324, had the honour of concluding a peace between Can Grande and his country.

The services, however, which he performed to Padua, were not always sufficient to protect him against the intrigues of his countrymen, who, living under a popular government, were always exposed to commotions excited by the artful and ambitious; and in 1314, particularly, the mob rushed to his house, intending to murder him. He had the good fortune to escape, and when the commotion was ended and the ringleaders put to death, the senate and people recalled him, and, ashamed of the treatment he had received, bestowed many honours upon him. He was again, however, exposed to danger by the ingratitude of his fellow citizens, and banished to Chiozzo in 1325. Here he passed the rest of his life, in hopes of better fortune, which it was not his lot to experience. He died May 29, 1330.

During his exile he employed his time in writing his history, which was printed at Venice, 1636, fol. under the title “Historia Augusta Henrici VII. Imp. et alia quse extant opera, cum notis Laur. Pignorii, &c. additis aliis rerum Tarvisianarum et Patavinarum scriptoribus.” This history is written in Latin, and with much judgment and regard to truth. Had his style been equal, he would have deserved the appellation which some bestowed upon him, that of being the second Livy of Padua. Of this history there are three books written in heroic verse, on the subject of the siege of Padua. His prose style, although, as we have just hinted, not unexceptionable on. the score of purity, was yet the best that had appeared since the decline of letters; and Scipio Maffei goes so far as to say that the restoration of the purity of the Latin language was not so much owing to Petrarch, which is the general opinion, as to Mussato, who died thirty-five years before Petrarch. Mussato’s poetical works consist of eclogues, elegies, epistles in verse, and an Ovidian Cento. He also wrote two tragedies in Latin, the first that had appeared in Italy, the one entitled “Eccerinis,” the other “Achilles.” Jn these he imitates the manner of Seneca, and with success, but some critics object to the model. They are, with his other works, reprinted in the “Thesaurus Histor. Ital.” vol. VI. part II. Muratori, in his “Script. Rer. Ital.” vol. X. has given only his historical writings, and the tragedy of “Eccerinis.” Scardonius, in his “Antiquities of Padua,” p. 130, relates that Mussato was so highly honoured, that the bishop of Padua gave him a laurel crown, and issued an edict, that on every Christmas Day, the doctors, regents, and professors of the two colleges in that city, should go to his house in solemn procession with wax tapers in their hands, and offer him a triple crown honours which he appears to have well merited, both as a scholar and patriot.

, one of the revivers of literature, was a. native of Candia, and came to Italy about the beginning of the sixteenth century, where he understood that encouragement would be given to men of ability in the languages and grammatical studies. After exhibiting proofs of his talents at Venice, the senate appointed him to teach publicly at Padua in 1503, and a great concourse of scholars gathered around him, until his labours were interrupted by the war. He had been the disciple of Lascaris, who recommended him to the notice of Leo X.; and that pontiff addressed a letter to him when he was at Venice in 1513, requesting that he would invite from Greece ten young men, of education and virtuous disposition, who might instruct the Italians in the proper use and knowledge of the Greek language. This establishment accordingly was formed, and Lascaris was placed at the head of it. At this time Musurus was finishing the first edition of the works of Plato, in Greek, which was printed by Aldus in 1513. To this edition Musurus prefixed some Greek verses that have been much admired, and published separately, by Muncker, Amsterdam, 1676, 4to, by our Foster, in his ingenious work on the Greek accents (see Foster), and more recently at Cambridge, by Samuel Butler, A. B. 1797. It is also reprinted in Mr. Rescue’s “Leo X.” with an elegant English translation.

, an eminent architect, to whose memory Black Friars Bridge will be a lasting monument, was born at Edinburgh, Jan. 4, 1734. His father, Thomas Mylne, was an architect, and a magistrate of that city; and his family, it has been ascertained, held th office of master-masons to the kings of Scotland for five hundred year’s, till the union of the crowns of England and Scotland. Mr. Mylne was educated at Edinburgh, and travelled early in life for improvement in h;s hereditary science. At Rome he resided five years, and in September 1758, gained the first prize in the first class of architecture, adjudged by the academy of St. Luke, and was also unanimously elected a member of that body. On this occasion prince Altieri, distinguished for his knowledge of the fine arts, obtained from the pope the necessary dispensation, Mr. Mylne being a protestant. He was also elected a member of the academies of Florence and Bologna. He visited Naples, and viewed the interior of Sicily with an accuracy never before employed; and from his skill in his profession, and his classical knowledge, was enabled to illustrate several very obscure passages in Vitruvius. His fine collection of drawings, with his account of this tour, which he began to arrange for publication in 1774, but was interrupted by his numerous professional engagements, are still in the possession of his son, and will, it is hoped, at no very distant period, be given to the public. He was often heard to remark in his latter days, that in most of his observations and drawings, he had neither been anticipated by those who traversed the ground before him, nor followed by those who came after him.

After making a complete tour of Europe, which he began by going through France, and finished by returning through Switzerland and Holland, he arrived in London, with every possible testimonial of his talents, but without a friend or patron. At this time plans were requested by the city of London for constructing a bridge at Black Friars, and Mr. Mylne, among twenty others, became a candidate. It was well known that one of his rivals was befriended by lord Bute, who had then great influence, but Mr. Mylne succeeded by the impartial verdict of the judges appointed to examine the respective plans; and the first stone was laid in 1761, with a pomp becoming the vast undertaking. A writer of no common talents, in the supplement to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” after a very close examination of the details of this structure, pronounces it to be the most perfect of any that is upon record, and at large points out the great superiority of the centering employed by Mr. Mylne. The learned author seerns, however, to suppose that this ingenious architect made a secret of his mode of centering; but few men had a more liberal spirit, or more aversion to professional quackery of every kind, and therefore, he deposited in the British Museum, an exact model of the centering employed at Blackfriars bridge, which gives a most precise and satisfactory idea of the work. When the bridge was first proposed, Mr. Mylne engaged in a short controversy with Dr. Johnson, on the form of the arch; but they were afterwards intimate friends, and in conversation agreed in a certain sturdy independence of mind which perhaps cemented that friendship. It is much to the honour of Mr. Mylne’s accuracy, as well as integrity, that Blackfriars-bridge was completed in 1765, for the exact sum specified in his estimate, namely, one hundred and fifty-three thousand pounds. On his proposals being accepted, the city committee, in February 1760, voted him an annual salary of three hundred pounds; and his farther remuneration was to be five per cent, on the money laid out on the bridge. To obtain this, however, he hud a long struggle with the city, which he maintained with his characteristic firmness and spirit; and, in answer to a question several times put to him, with no great delicacy, uniformly declared, that what he claimed, he claimed as a matter of right, and not of favour. At length, but not until 1776, his claims were allowed; on which occasion he sent to the corporation a letter of thanks.

Mr. Mylne was a man of most extensive professional knowledge, and while his Blackfriars bridge, and many other structures shewed him an excellent practical builder, he was no less acute and eloquent on the theory of his art. His conversation, always entertaining and edifying, assumed a higher tone, when he was invited to speak on architectural subjects, the history of the Grecian or Gothic styles, or any disputed point respecting the origin of the art. On such, almost to the latest hour of his life, we have heard him dilate with a precision and copious flow of reasoning, that would have been astonishing in the ablest men in the prime of life. His personal character is said to have had some peculiarities. Such as we have observed seemed to arise from a consciousness of superior talent, and a lofty independent e of spirit. Placed often at the head of a tribe of inferior workmen, of contending interests and passions, his orders were peremptory, and were to be obeyed without a murmur; while he could vet listen with patience, if an objection was started on reasonable grounds. What he most disliked was that adherence to custom and practice which made every improvement be considered as a dangerous, impracticable, or inconvenient innovation. Against this he bent the whole force of his authority, and always endeavoured to introduce a more liberal spirit. The common workmen, who looked up to him with some degree of terror, and whom he certainly did not always address in the gentlest terms, were amply recompensed by the care he took that, whoever were his employers, these humble artisans should be paid their wages with the utmost punctuality. Dearly as he loved his profession, he was not avaricious of its emoluments, and after all his distinguished employments, he did not die rich.

, of Campania, an ancient Latin poet, was bred a soldier, but quitted the profession of arms, in order to apply himself with more leisure to poetry. Accordingly, he prosecuted that art with great diligence, and gave the first specimen of a heroic poem in Latin, in a description of the first Punic war, and the Iliad of Cyprus, mentioned by Cicero. He wrote also some tragedies, a few fragments of which are extant with Livius Andronicus, and somje comedies, the first of which appeared in the year 235 B.C., but this, it is said, when played at Rome, so highly incensed Metellus by the satirical strokes in it, that this nobleman, who wus then very powerful, procured him to be banished from the city. In this condition, he retired to Utica in Africa, where he died in the year 203 B. C. We have only some fragments of his works; unless his epitaph, which is said to have been composed by himself, may be ranked among them. Of these fragments there is an edition by Henry Stephens, Paris, 1569, 8vo.

, so called from the village of Nancel, his native place, between Noyon and Soissons, was born in 1539. He studied at the college de Presles at Paris, and was employed to teach Greek and Latin there when scarcely eighteen years of age, probably by the interest of Peter Ramus, principal of the college, who conceived very highly of his talents. He was afterwards proKssor in the university of Douay, where he made two pei.:ches “On the excellence and importance of the Greek Language.” Being invited to return to Paris, he was again professor in the college de Presles, and took a doctor’s degree in physic. He went afterwards to practise at Soissons; but principally at Tours, which he found an eligible situation. He was lastly appointed physician to the abbey of Fontevrauld, in 1587; and died there in 1610, leaving a son, who wrote some sacred tragedies. His principal works are, 1. “Stichologia Grseca Latinaque informanda et reformanda,” 8vo. In this work he endeavours to subject the French poetry to the rules of the Greek and Latin, for the purpose, as he says, of rendering it more difficult and less common; a whimsical project, which, it may be supposed, did not succeed. 2. A treatise “On the Plague,” 8vo. 3. “Tr. de Deo, de immortalitate animse contra Galenum, et de sede anima? in corpore,” 8vo. 4. “Declamationuin Liber, eas complectens orationes quas vel ipse juvenis habuit ad populum, vel per discipulos recitavit,” &c. 8vo. 5. “Petri Kami vita,” 8vo. This Life is curious and interesting, and the best of Nancel’s works.

, a French historian, who flourished in the fourteenth century, was a Benedictine monk of the abbey of St. Denis, and supposed to have taken his name from the place where he was born. He wrote the lives of St. Lewis, and of Philip le Hardi, and two chronicles; the first from the creation to 1300, the second a chronicle generally of the kings of France. The lives were printed, for the first time, in Pithou’s collection in 1596, and the chronicle from 1113, in the “Spicilegium” of D. Luc d' Archery. The life of St. Lewis was again reprinted along with Joinville’s history of the same prince, with a glossary, &c. by J. B. Mellot, Ch. Sallier, and J. Capperonier, at Paris in 1761, fol.

, a noble Venetian, and proctor of St. Mark, was the son of John Nani, once possessed of the same post, and born Aug. 30, 1616. He studied polite learning under Peter Renzoli of Arezzo, a secular priest; and went through his course of philosophy among the Dominicans of St. Paul and St. John at Venice. His brother, Augustine Nani, being made commandant of Vicenza, he followed him to that city, and continued his studies there. Upon his return to his own country, in 1637, he was one of the thirty who are drawn every year by lot, to assist at the election of magistrates. His father, who was a person of good abilities, formed his son for business himself; and, in that view, carried him to Rome, where he went ambassador from the republic of Venice to Urban VI I L That pontiff, a man of discernment, predicted, that John Baptist Nani would make an extraordinary person: and his holiness’s prediction was verified. He was admitted into the college of senators in 1641; and not long after went ambassador to France, which character he sustained at Paris for the space of five years, with great reputation. Mazarine, who then was prime minister there, had frequent conferences with him, and received some excellent advice from him, upon the affairs discussed in the treaty of Munster, which was concluded in 1648; in which year Nani returned home, having obtained from France considerable succours both of men and money, for carrying on the war against the Turks in Candia. His merit raised him soon after to be a member of the grand council of the republic, in which he was appointed superintendant of the marine and the finances. In 1654 he was sent ambassador to the imperial court of Germany; did the republic considerable services; and made a second journey to that court^ upon the election of the emperor Leopold. While he was here, he received orders to go again to France, in 1660. He was there at the marriage of Lewis XIV. after the Pyrenean treaty, and obtained fresh succours for the war of Candia. The Venetian senate were greatly satisfied with his conduct, and appointed him proctor of St. Mark. Not long after, in 1663, the great council nominated him captain-general of the marine; but, the air of the sea not at all agreeing with his constitution, it was resolved not to expose a life so valuable, and even necessary to the republic, to such imminent danger; and the nomination was withdrawn.

, or Nannius, or in his native language, Nanningh (Peter), a very learned philologer, and general scholar, was born at Alcmaer, in Holland, in 1500; he studied at Louvain, and then was employed in the private education of some young men until the death of Conrad Goclenius, when the university unanimously appointed him to pronounce a funeral oration on that eminent teacher, and to succeed him as Latin professor. In this office he gave such satisfaction, that all his scholars, who were exceedingly numerous, ever preserved the highest respect for him, and acknowledged that the care he took was the foundation of their future advancement and fame. He was also much esteemed by the cardinal de Granvelle, and by Nicholas Everard, president of the great council of Mechlin. The cardinal preferred him to a canonry in his church of ArraS, and the president placed his children under his care, and rewarded him munificently. With the patronage of these two personages, he was so satisfied as to refuse many liberal offers to remove to Italy, and remained the whole of his life at Louvain. He was a most industrious writer, as well as teacher, and in the numerous list given by Foppen of his publications, we find commentaries on Cicero, on Virgil, and Horace’s Art of Poetry; paraphrases on the Song of Solomon, and on the Proverbs; annotations on civil law, of which he acquired a profound knowledge; translations of some part of Demosthenes, Synesius, Apollonius, Plutarch, St. Athanasius, St. N Basil, Chrysostom; prefaces introductory and illustrative of Homer, and Demosthenes, &c. He also translated the Psalms into Latin verse, and, in the opinion of his contemporaries, with equal elegance and fidelity. Among his separate publications his “Miscellaoeorum decas,” a collection of critical remarks on ancient authors, and his “Dialogismi Heroinarum,” were much esteemed. This eminent scholar died at Louvain, July 21, 1557, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, where one of his scholars, Sigismond Frederic Fugger, placed a monument to his memory. He is mentioned in terms of the highest praise by Miræus, Thuanus, Melchior Adam, Gyraldus, Huet, and many other learned men.

, a celebrated engraver, was born in 1630, at Rheims, where his father kept a petty shop, suitable to his fortune, which was small, but sufficient to enable him to give his son a liberal education. Accordingly, Robert was put to the grammar-school at a proper age; and, as soon as he had made the necessary progress in classical learning, went through a course of philosophy. He had, from his childhood, a strong inclination to drawing; and he applied to it with such success, that being to maintain, according to custom, his philosophical thesis at the end of two years, he drew and engraved it himself. As he continued to cultivate his genius, his productions became the delight of the town. But finding more fame than profit at Rheims, and having married while young, he was under the necessity of seeking a situation where his talents might be more amply rewarded. With this view he left his wife and repaired to Paris, probably without introduction to any friends, as we are told he had no better way to make himself known, than the following device Seeing several young abbes standing at the door of a victualling-house, near the Sorbonne, he asked the mistress if there was not an ecclesiastic of Rheims there? telling her that he had unfortunately forgot his name, but that she might easily know him by the picture that he had of him, shewing her at the same time a portrait, well drawn, and which had the air of being an exact likeness. This drew the attention of some of the abbes, who were profuse in their praises of the portrait. “If you please, messieurs,” said Nantueil, “I will draw all your pictures for a trifle, as highly finished as this is.” The price which he asked was so moderate, that all the abbes sat to him one after another; and then bringing their friends, customers came in so fast, that he took courage to raise his price: and having in a short time acquired a considerable sum, he returned to Rheims, disposed of his little property there, and brought his wife to Paris, where his character soon became established. He applied himself particularly to drawing portraits in crayons, which he afterwards engraved for the use of the academical theses; and succeeded beyond all his predecessors in that branch. He never failed to catch the likeness; and even pretended that he had certain rules which ascertained it. His portrait of the king, as large as life, which he afterwards engraved, so pleased his majesty that he rewarded him with a present of a hundred louis d'ors, and made him designer and engraver to his cabinet, with a salary of 1000 livres per annum. Nantueil afterwards did the portrait of the queen-mother in the same manner, as also that of cardinal Mazarine, the duke of Orleans, marshal Turenne, and others. The grand duke of Tuscany hearing of his fame, requested to have Nantueil’s own portrait by himself, in crayons, in order to place it in his gallery. His works consist of 240 prints, including the portraits of almost all the persons of the first rank in France. Of his filial affection we have the following anecdote. As soon as he had made an easy fortune, his first object was to invite his father to share it; and the manner in which he received him, which happened to be before many witnesses, drew tears of joy from all. From this time the son’s greatest happiness was to comfort the declining years, and supply the wants, of his father. Nantueil died at Paris, Dec. 18, 1678, aged forty-eight.

The following passage, from the life of Lilly the astrologer, contains a curious account of the meeting of those two illustrious men. “I will acquaint you,” says Lilly, “with one memorable story related unto me by John Marr, an excellent mathematician and geometrician, whom I conceive you remember. He was, servant to king James and Charles the First. At first when the lord Napier, or Marchiston, made public his logarithms, Mr. Briggs, then reader of the astronomy lectures at Gresham college in London, was so surprised with admiration of them, that he could have no quietness in himself until he had seen that noble person the lord Marchiston, whose only invention they were: he acquaints John Marr herewith, who went into Scotland before Mr. Briggs, purposely to be there when these two so learned persons should meet. Mr. Briggs appoints a certain day when to meet at Edinburgh; but failing thereof, the lord Napier was doubtful he would not come. It happened one day as John Marr and the lord Napier were speaking of Mr. Briggs; `Ah, John,‘ said Marchiston, `Mr. Briggs will not now come.’ At the very instant one knocks at the gate; John Marr hasted down, and it proved Mr. Briggs, to his great contentment. He brings Mr. Briggs up into my lord’s chamber, where almost one quarter of an hour was spent, each beholding other almost with admiration before one word was spoke. At last Mr. Briggs began: ‘My lord, I have undertaken this long journey purposely to see your person, and to know by what engine of wit or ingenuity you came first to think of this most excellent help into astronomy, viz. the logarithms; but, my lord, being by you found out, I wonder no body else found it out before, when now known it is so easy.’ He was nobly entertained by the lord Napier; and every summer after that, during the lord’s being alive, this venerable man Mr. Briggs went purposely into Scotland to visit him.”

, doctor of music, an eminent composer and teacher in that science, under whom some of the first musicians of the present day received the whole or part of their education, was tfce son of Mr. Nares, who was, for many years, steward to Montague and Willoughby, earl* of Abingdon. He was born, as well as his brother, the late Mr. Justice Nares, at Stanwell in Middlesex; the former in 1715, the latter in 1716. His musical education he commenced under Mr. Gates, then master of the royal choristers; and completed it under the celebrated Dr. Pepusch. Thus prepared, he officiated, for some time, as deputy to Mr. Pigott, organist of Windsor; but, on the resignation of Mr. Salisbury, organist of York, in 1734, was chosen to succeed him, being then only nineteen. It is related, on undoubted authority, that, when the old musician first saw his intended successor, he said, rather angrily, “What! is that child to succeed me?” which being mentioned to the organist-elect, he took an early opportunity, on a difficult service being appointed, to play it throughout half a note below the pitch, which brought it into a key with seven sharps; and went through it without the slightest error. Being asked why he did so, he said, that “he only wished to shew Mr. Salisbury what a child could do.” His knowledge in all branches of his profession was equal to his practical skill in this instance; and, during his residence at York, where he was abundantly employed as a teacher, and where he married, Mr. Nares, by his good conduct, as well as professional merit, obtained many powerful friends. Among the foremost of these was Dr. Fontayne, the late venerable dean of York; who, when Dr. Green died, towards the latter end of 1755, exerted his interest so successfully, that he obtained for him the united places of organist and composer to his majesty. He removed, therefore, to London in the beginning of 1756; and, about the same time, was created doctor in music at Cambridge.

On the resignation of Mr. Gates, in 1757, Dr. Nares obtained also the place of master of the choristers; which having been, for a long time, without increase, notwithstanding the increase of expences attending it, was, by royal favour, augmented about 1775, first with the salary of the violist, and, on the revival of that place for Mr. Crosdill, in 1777, with that of lutanist, which was annexed to it for ever. It was in this situation, that Dr. Nares superintended the education of many pupils, who have since become famous particularly Dr. Arnold, who, though with him only for a short time, was highly distinguished by him for talents and application. The anthems and services which Dr. Nares produced, as composer to the royal chapel, were very numerous; many of them have since been printed, and many which exist only in ms. still continue to be performed in the choirs with much effect. Having been originally a musician rather by accident than choice, with very strong talents and propensities also for literature, Dr. Nares was particularly attentive to express the sense of the words he undertook to set; and was the first who attempted to compose the Te Deum, for the choir- service, in such a manner as to set off the sentiments it contains to advantage. Before his lime, it had been set rather to a regular strain of chaunt than to any expressive melodies. The merits of Dr. Nares were not overlooked by his royal patrons, whom he had occasionally the honour to attend in private, though not a part of his regular duty. To manifest his respect and gratitude for them, he composed his dramatic ode, entitled “The Royal Pastoral,” the words of which were written by Mr. Bellamy, author of a book entitled “Ethic Amusements.” In July 1780, Dr. Nares was obliged, by declining health, to resign the care of the choristers, in which place he was succeeded by Dr. Ayrton, his pupil and valued friend. In his sixty-eighth year, a constitution, never robust, gave way, and he died on Feb. 10, 1783, deeply regretted by his affectionate family, of which the present representative, the rev. Robert Nares, archdeacon of Stafford, is well known in the literary world, and not more known than respected. Testimony has been borne to the merits of Dr. Nares by several writers, but more particularly by Mr. Mason, in his preface to a book of anthems, printed for the use of York-cathedral; and, in his late Essays on Church Music, p. 138. The late lord Mornington, so well known for musical talents, frequently consulted him; and sir John Hawkins derived advantage from his acquaintance, in the progress of his “History of Music.” Throughout life, he was not less respected as a man than admired as a musician; he had a vivacity that rendered his society always pleasing; and a generous contempt for every thing base, that manifested itself on all proper occasions, and very justly commanded esteem.

, an Irish Roman catholic divine, of great learning, was born in the county of Kildare in 1660, and educated at Naas, in that county. In 1684 he received priest’s orders in the town of Kilkenny, and the year following went to Paris to pursue his studies in the Irish college, of which he was made afterwards provisor for about seven years. He took the degree of LL. D. in 1694, in the college of Cambray, and returning to London two years after, was appointed tutor to the earl of Antrim. He was afterwards made parish priest of St. Michan’s in Dublin, in which station he continued till his death, March 3, 1738. His principal works, rather numerous, were of the controversial kind, in defence of popery against Mr. Clayton and others, who acknowledged his learning as well as the politeness of his style and moderation of his sentiments. It was this quality which enabled him to have his works printed both at Dublin and London without molestation. Those that are not strictly of the controversial kind were, 1 “The New Testament translated into English from the Latin, with marginal notes,” Lond. 1705, 1718, 8vo. 2. “A new History of the World; containing an historical and chronological account of the times and transactions from the creation to the birth of Christ, according to the computation of the Septuagint,” &c. Dublin, 1720, fol.

a very extraordinary personage, was born at Swansea, in Glamorganshire, Oct. 18, 1674. His father was a gentleman, whose principal income arose from a partnership in a glass-house: his mother was niece to colonel Poyer, who was killed by Oliver Cromwell, for defending Pembroke-castle against the rebels. He was educated at Carmarthen-school, and thence sent to Jesus college, Oxford, in order to prepare him for the study of the law. His father had strained his little income to give his son such an education; and from the boy’s natural vivacity, he hoped a recompence from his future preferment. In college, however, he soon shewed, that, though much might be expected from his genius, nothing could be hoped from his industry. The first method Nash took to distinguish himself at college was not by application to study, but by assiduity in intrigue. Our hero was quickly caught, and went through all the mazes and adventures of a college intrigue, before he was seventeen he offered marriage, the offer was accepted but, the affair coming to the knowledge of his tutors, his happiness, or perhaps misery, was prevented, and he was sent home from college, with necessary advice to him, and proper instructions to his father. He now purchased a pair of colours, commenced a professed admirer of the sex, and dressed to the very edge of his finances; but soon becoming disgusted with the life of a soldier, quitted the army, entered his name as a student in the Temple-books, and here went to the very summit of second-rate luxury. He spent some years about town, till at last, his genteel appearance, his constant civility, and still more his assiduity, gained him the acquaintance of several persons qualified to lead the fashion both by birth and fortune. He brought a person genteelly dressed to every assembly; he always made one of those who are called good company; and assurance gave him an air of elegance and ease.

But though Nash acquired no riches by his late office, he gained many friends; or, what is more easily obtained, many acquaintances, who often answer the end as well, and, besides his assurance, he had in reality some merit and some virtues. He was, if not a brilliant, at least an agreeable companion. He never forgot good manners, even in the highest warmth of familiarity, and, as we hinted before, never went in a dirty shirt, to disgrace the table of his patron or his friend. “These qualifications,” says his biographer, “might make the furniture of his head; but, for his heart, that seemed an assemblage of the virtues which display an honest benevolent mind; with the vices which spring from too much goocl nature.” He had pity for every creature’s distress, but wanted pru­dence in the application of his benefits. He had generosity for the wretched in the highest degree, at a time when his creditors complained of his justice*. An instance of his humanity is told us in the “Spectator,” though his name is not mentioned. When he was to give in his accounts to the masters of the Temple, among other articles, he charged, "For making one man happy, Jo/. Being questioned about the meaning of so strange an item, he frankly declared, that, happening to over-hear a poor man declare to his wife and a large family of children, that lOl. would make him happy, he could not avoid trying the experiment. He added, that, if they did not -chuse to acquiesce in his charge, he was ready to refund the money. The masters, struck with such an uncommon instance of good nature, publicly thanked him for his benevolence, and desired that the sum might be doubled, as a proof of their satisfaction.

In this situation things were when Nash first came into the city; and, hearing the threat of this physician, he humourously assured the people, that if they would give him leave, he would charm away the poison of the doctor’s toad, as they usually charmed the venom of the tarantula, by music. He therefore was immediately empowered to set up a band of music against the doctor’s reptile; the company very sensibly increased, Nash triumphed, and the sovereignty of the city was decreed to him by every rank of people. None could possibly conceive a person more fit to fill this employment than Nash: he had some wit, but it was of that sort which is rather happy than permanent. He was charitable himself, and generally shamed his betters into a similitude of sentiment, if they were not naturally so before. His first care, when made master of the ceremonies, or king of Bath, as it is called, was to promote a music subscription, of one guinea each, for a band, which was to consist of six performers, who were to receive a guinea a week each for their trouble. He allowed also two guineas a week for lighting and sweeping the rooms, for which he accounted to the subscribers by receipt. By his direction, one Thomas Harrison erected a handsome assembly-house for these purposes. A better band of music was also procured, and the former subscription of one guinea was raised to two. Harrison had three guineas a week for the room and candles, and the music two guineas a man. The money Nash received and accounted for with the utmost exactness and punctuality. The balls, by his direction, were to begin at six, and to end at eleven. Nor would he suffer them to continue a moment longer, lest invalids might commit irregularities, to counteract the benefit of the waters. The city of Bath, by such assiduity, soon became the theatre of summer amusements for all people of fashion; and the manner of spending the day there must amuse any but such as disease or spleen had made uneasy to themselves. In this manner every amusement soon improved under Nash’s administration. The magistrates of the city found that it was necessary and useful, and took every opportunity of paying the same respect to his fictitious royalty, that is generally extorted by real power. His equipage was sumptuous, and he used to travel to Tunbridge in a postchariot and six greys, with out-riders, footmen, French horns, and every other appendage of expensive parade. He always wore a white hat; and, to apologize for this singularity, said he did it purely to secure it from being stolen; his dress was tawdry, and not perfectly genteel; he might be considered as a beau of several generations; and, in his appearance, he, in some measure, mixed the fashions of a former age with those of his own. He perfectly understood elegant expence, and generally passed his time in the very best company, if persons of the first distinction deserve that title.

But perhaps the reader may demand, what finances were to support all this finery, or where the treasures that gave him such frequent opportunities of displaying his benevolence, or his vanity? To answer this, we must now enter upon another part of his character, his talents as a gamester; for, by gaming alone, at the period of which we speak, he kept up so very genteel an appearance. Wherever' people of fashion came, needy adventurers were generally found in waiting. With such Bath swarmed, and, among this class, Nash was certainly to be numbered in the beginning; only with this difference, that he wanted the corrupt heart, too commonly attending a life of expedients; for he was generous, humane, and honourable, even though by profession a gamester. But, whatever skill Nash might have acquired by long practice in play, he was never formed by nature for a successful gamester. He was constitutionally passionate and generous. While others made considerable fortunes at the gaming-table, he was ever in the power of chance; nor did even the intimacy with which he was received by the great, place him in a state of independence. The considerable inconveniences that were found to result from a permission of gaming, at length attracted the attention of the legislature; and, in the twelfth year of his late majesty, the most prevalent games at that time were declared fraudulent and unlawful. The Eo was at first set up at Tunbridge, and was reckoned extremely profitable to the bank, as it gained two and a half per cent, on all that was lost or won. As all gaming was suppressed but this, Nash was now utterly destitute of any resource from superior skill and long experience in the art. The money to be gained in private gaming is at best but trifling, and the opportunity precarious. The minds of the generality of mankind shrink with their circumstances and Nash, upon the immediate prospect of poverty, was now mean enough to enter into a base confederacy to evade the law, and to share the plunder. Nash had hitherto enjoyed a fluctuating fortune; and, had he taken the advantage of the present opportunity, he might have been for the future not only above want, but even in circumstances of opulence. In the mean time, as the Eo table thus succeeded at Tunbridge, he was resolved to introduce it at Bath; and previously asked the opinion of several lawyers, who declared it no way illegal. The legislature thought proper to suppress these seminaries of vice. It was enacted, that, after the 24th of June 1745, none should be permitted to keep a house, room, or place for playing, upon pain of such forfeitures as were declared in former acts instituted for that purpose.

By this wise and just act, all Nash’s future hopes of succeeding by the tables were blown up. From that time, we find him involved in continual disputes, every day calumniated with some new slander, and continually endeavouring to obviate its effects. Nature had by no means formed him for a beau garq on: his person was clumsy, too large, and awkward, and his features harsh, strong, and peculiarly irregular; yet even with those disadvantages he made love, became an universal admirer of the sex, and was universally admired. He was possessed, at least, of some requisites of a lover. He had assiduity, flattery, fine clothes, and as much wit as the ladies he addressed. Wit, flattery, and fine clothes, he used to say, were enough to debauch a nunnery. He did not long continue an universal gallant but,in the earlier years of his reign, entirely gave up his endeavours to deceive the sex, in order to become the honest protector of their innocence, the guardian of their reputation, and a friend to their virtue. This was a character he bore for many years, and supported it with integrity, assiduity, and success; and he not only took care, during his administration, to protect the ladies from the insults of our sex, but to guard them from the slanders of each other. He, in the first place, prevented any animosities that might arise from place and precedence, by being previously acquainted with the rank and quality of almost every family in the British dominions. He endeavoured to render scandal odious, by marking it as the result of envy and folly united. Whatever might have been his other excellences, there was one in which few exceeded him, his extensive humanity. None felt pity more strongly, and none made greater efforts to relieve distress. “If we were,” says his biographer, “to name any reigning and fashionable virtue in the present age, it should be charity. We know not whether it may not be spreading the influence of Nash too widely, to say, that he was one of the principal causes of introducing this noble v emulation among the rich; but certain it is, no private man ever relieved the distresses of so many as he.” Before gaming was suppressed, and in the meridian of his life and fortune, his benefactions were generally found to equal his other expences. The money he got without pain, he gave away without reluctance; and, when unable to relieve a wretch who sued for assistance, he has been often seen to shed tears. A gentleman of broken fortune, one day standing behind his chair, as he was playing a game of piquet for 200l. and observing with what indifference he won the money, could not avoid whispering these words to another who stood by, “Heavens! how happy would all that money make me!” Nash, overhearing him, clapped the money into his hand, and cried, “Go, and be happy.” In the severe winter of 1739, his charity was great, useful, and extensive. He frequently, at that season of calamity, entered the houses of the poor, whom he thought too proud to beg, and generously relieved them. But of all the instances of Nash’s bounty, none does him more real honour, than the pains he took in establishing an hospital at Bath; in which benefaction, however, Dr. Oliver had a great share. This was one of those wellguided charities, dictated by reason, and supported by prudence, chiefly by the means of Dr. Oliver and Mr. Nash; but not without the assistance of Mr. Allen, who gave them the stones for building, and other benefactions. As Nash grew old, he grew insolent, and seemed not aware of the pain his attempts to be a wit gave others. He grew peevish and fretful; and they, who only saw the remnant of a man, severely returned that laughter upon him, which he had once lavished upon others. Poor Nash was no longer the gay, thoughtless, idly industrious creature he once was; he now forgot how to supply new modes of entertainment, and became too rigid to wind with ease through the vicissitudes of fashion. The evening of his life began to grow cloudy. His fortune was gone, and nothing but poverty lay in prospect. He now began to want that charity, which he had never refused to any; and to find, that a life of dissipation and gaiety is ever terminated by misery and regret. He was now past the power of giving or receiving pleasure, for he was poor, old, and peevish; yet still he was incapable of turning from his former manner of life to pursue happiness. An old man thus striving after pleasure is indeed an object of pity; but a man at once old and poor, running on in this pursuit, might excite astonishment.

In domestic life, among his servants and dependants, where no gloss was required to colour his sentiments and disposition, nor any ma^k necessary to conceal his foibles, he was ever fond of promoting the interests of his servants and dependants, and making them happy. In his own house, no man was perhaps more regular, cheerful, and beneficent. His table was always free to those who sought his friendship, or wanted a dinner. As his thoughts were entirely employed in the affairs of his government, he was seldom at home but at the time of eating or of rest. His table was well served, but his entertainment consisted principally of plain dishes. He generally arose early in the morning, being seldom in bed after five; and, to avoid disturbing the family, and depriving his servants of their rest, he had the fire laid after he was in bed, and, in the morning, lighted it himself, and sat down to read some of his few, but well-chosen books. His generosity and charity in private life, though not so conspicuous, was as great as that in public, and indeed far more considerable than his little income would admit of. Such is nearly the account given of this singular character in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, the omission of which might perhaps be felt by some of our readers, while others may justly doubt if the life of such a man has fair claims on our attention. It contains, however, some portion of amusement, and some of moral tendency. Our account is a very brief abridgment of the Life of Nash, published by Goldsmith, who, it has been observed, tortured his genius to give substance to inanity, and strained to describe the gaudy hue of a butterfly, the glittering tinsel of a beau, the sentiments of a man devoid of all reflection, and the principles of an idler, whose walk of life never transgressed the eternal circle of gallantry, gambling, and the insipid round of fashionable dissipation. This account, however, is perhaps not more a satire on Nash, than on the age in which he lived.

, a dramatic poet and satirist of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was born at the sea-port town of Leostoff, in Suffolk, probably about 1564, and was descended from a family whose residence was in Hertfordshire. He received his education at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585. If we may judge from his pamphlet, entitled “Pierce Penniless,” which, though written with a considerable spirit, seems to breathe the sentiments of a man in the height of despair and rage against the world, it appears probable that he had met with many disappointments and much distress, which, from the character of his companion Robert Greene (see Greene), it is most likely arose from his own indiscretions; his “Pierce Penniless” might be no less a picture of himself, than the recantation pieces we have noticed in our account of Greene. It appears from a very scarce pamphlet, entitled “The Trimming of Tho. Nashe, gentleman, by the high tituled patron Don Richardo de Medico Campo, Barber Chirurgeon to Trinity college in Cambridge,” 1597, 4to, that Nash was, that year, in confinement on account of his having written a play, called, “The Isle of Dogs;” that while he was at Cambridge, he wrote part of a show, called “Terminus et noji Terminus,” for which the person, who was concerned with him in that composition, was expelled; that Nash left his college when he was seven years standing, and before he had taken his master’s degree, about 1587; and that after his arrival in London, he was often confined in different gaols.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was born in 1740, at Norwich, of reputable parents. His father, who was of a Scotch family, had his son’s grammatical education completed at Amsterdam. Thence he was removed to Bene't college, Cambridge, where his ingenuous and open temper gained him the love and esteem of the whole society, who elected him a fellow, after he had taken his degree of B. A. in 1764. In 1767 he took the degree of M. A. and was frequently honoured for his application and proficiency in every branch of academic studies. Having entered into holy orders, he served the sequestration of Hinxton in Cambridgeshire for some years, to which he was presented by bishop Mavvson, and was junior proctor of the university in 1771. He was afterwards elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and became one of his majesty’s justices of peace for the county of Cambridge. In this situation he was eminently conspicuous for his correct knowledge and mild administration of the laws; and he filled the office of chairman at the sessions of Cambridge and Ely with moderation, justice, and impartiality, at once distinguishing himself as the gentleman, the lawyer, and the divine.

, a learned rabbi, who flourished in the fifteenth century, was the first Jew who compiled a Hebrew concordance to the bible, principally, as he allowed, from Latin concordances. It was entitled “Light to the Path,” or “Meir Netib,” and was first printed at Venice in 1524, reprinted afterwards in a more correct state, with a Talmudical index, at Basil, in 1581, and at Rome, by Calasio, in 1622, in four volumes folio. Buxtorf the elder published at Basil in 1632 another, and the best edition; after which it was edited by Mr. Romaine and his coadjutors, as we have noticed in our account of Calasio. When Nathan died is not specified. He was employed on his concordance from 1438 to 1448.

, an Italian lawyer, who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, was born of a noble family, at Asti, and studied law at Pavia. He made so great progress in literature, as to receive the academical honours of his profession before he had reached his twenty-fourth year, and was at the same time advanced to be senator at Casal. Pavia offered him the professorship of civil law, but he preferred his studious retirement at Genoa, where he probably died. His principal works are “De Pulchro” “De Deo,” in fifteen books“”De immortalitateAnimi“”De Passione Domini." Each of these makes a folio, printed 1553 1587.

According to Niceron, he went in 1626 to study at Padua; but others think this was in 1624, and that on his return he printed one of his most curious works, his “Apologie pour les grands hommes soupgonnes de magie.” 1625, 8vo. Although we cannot agree with Voltaire, that this is the only one of his works which continues to be read, it is perhaps the most generally known, and shews that he had risen considerably above tire prejudices of his times. The eminent characters accused of dealing in magic, whom he defends in this work, are, Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Numa Pompilius, Democritus, Empedocles, Apollonius, Socrates, Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Chicus, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Cardanus, Alchindus, Geber, Artephius, Thebit, Anselmus Parmensis, Raymond Lully, Arnaldus Villanovanus, Peter ab Apono, Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, Merlin, Savonarola, Nostradamus, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Bungey, Michael Scotus, Joannes Picus, Trithemius, Robertus Lincolniensis, Albertus Magnus, pope Sylvester II. pope Gregory VII. Joseph, Solomon, the wise men of the East who came to worship Jesus Christ, and Virgil.

While at Padua he lost his father, which obliged him to return to Paris to settle his affairs. In 1628, the faculty of medicine chose him to make the ordinary harangues at the admission of licentiates, which he performed entirely to their satisfaction. One of these, in Latin, on the origin and dignity of the medical school at Paris, was printed there in 1628, in octavo. He was then recommended by one of his friends to cardinal Bagni, who appointed him his librarian and Latin secretary. He took him also to Rome in 1631, and Naud had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with the celebrated Peiresc, as the cardinal travelled by the way of Beaugensier, on purpose to see his old friend, who complimented him very warmly on having acquired for a librarian a young man of Naude’s extensive knowledge of books. While on this journey, Naude went to Padua, where, in 1633, he received the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine, in order to support the character of physician to Louis XIII. with which he had been honoured. On the death of cardinal Bagni, in 1640, he intended to return to France, but had so many liberal offers to remain in Italy, that he changed his mincl, and determined to attach himself to cardinal Barberini. There is much difference of dates amongst his biographers respecting his return from Paris. All we can decide is, that he acted there as librarian to cardinal Mazarine, and that he collected for him a library of 40,OO0 volumes, the greatest that had then appeared in France. But the cardinal died in 1642, and he consequently could not have long been in his service. Perhaps he was employed to make purchases for this library when in Italy, &c. The cardinal appears not to have rewarded him with much liberality, and in 1648 we find him complaining of being neglected. He had, however, a greater mortification to undergo in 1652, when this fine collection was sold by order of the parliament. He is said to have been greatly irritated on this occasion, and bought all the medical books it contained for 3500 livres Isaac Vossius now recommended him to Christina queen of Sweden, with whom he resided a few months as librarian, or rather to fill up that station in the absence of Vossius, who was at this time in disgrace. Isiaude, however, neither liked the employment nor the people, and took an early opportunity to give in his resignation; on which occasion the queen, and some other persons of rank, testified their regard for him by various presents. The fatigue of his journey on returning brought on a fever, which obliged him to stop at Abbeville, where he died July 29, 1653. Naude was a man of great learning, and in his private conduct, correct, prudent, and friendly. His sentiments, as we have noticed, were on some subjects, very liberal, but on others he deserves less praise. While he played the freethinker so far as to despise some parts of the belief of his church, he could gravely vindicate the massacres of St. Bartholomew, as a measure of political expedience. His works are very numerous. To the few already mentioned we may add, 1. “Le Marfore, ou Discours contre les libelles.” Paris, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Instruction & la France sur la verit de l'histoire des freres de la Rose-croix,” ibid. 1623, 8vo. The Rosecrucians he considers as impostors. 3. “Addition a Thistoire de Louis XI.” ibid. 1630. 4. “Consideration politique sur les coups d'Etat, par G. N. P.” Rome, (i. e. Paris), 1639, 4to. It is in this work he vindicates the massacre of St. Bartholomew; but he appears to have published it with great caution, and it is said that this first edition consisted of only twelve copies. It was, however, reprinted in 1667, 1673, and in 1752, 3 vols. 12mo, with notes and reflections by Louis du May. 5. “Bibliographia Politica,” Leyden, 1642, 16mo, a learned work, but not very correct. 6. “Hieronymi Cardani vita,” Paris, 1643, 8vo. 6. “Jugement de tout ce qui a ete imprim6 contre le cardinal Mazarin depuis Jan. 6, jusqu'au 1 Avril, 1649,” Paris, 1641, 4to. This curious work, which is of great rarity, is sometimes called “Mascurat,” and consists of a dialogue between St. Ange, a librarian, L e. Naude, and Mascurat, a printer, i. e. Camusat. 7. “Avis a Nosseigneurs du pariement sur la vente de la Bibliotheque du cardinal Mazarin,” 1G52, 4to. 8. “Nundaeana et Patiniana,” Paris, 1701, in which are many of his sentiments, and some particulars of his history.

, an able mathematician, was born in 1654, of poor parents, at Metz. He retired to Berlin after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and there forming a friendship with Langerfield, mathematician to the court, who taught the pages, succeeded him in 1696, was admitted into the society of sciences at Berlin in 1701, and into the academy of the princes, as professor of mathematics, in 1704. He died in 1729, at Berlin. His particular study 'as divinity, on which he has written much more than on mathematics; his only work on that science being a system of geometry, in German, 4to, and some other small pieces in the “Miscellanea,” of the society at Berlin. His theological works are, “Meditationes Saintes,” 12mo, “Morale Evangelique,” 2 vols. 8vo. “La souveraine perfection de Dieu dans ses divins attributs, et la parfaite intégrité de l'Ecriture prise au sens des anciens reformes,” 2 vols. 8vo, against Bayle; “Examen de deux Traités de M. de la Placette,” 2 vols. 12mo. His eldest son distinguished himself as his successor, and died 1745. He was a skilful mathematician, member of the societies of Berlin and London; and several memoirs of his may be found in the “Miscellanea Berolinensia,”

, a statesman in the reign of James I. was of an ancient family in Suffolk, and educated a fellow-commoner of Trinity-college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Trinity -hall, and was chosen a fellow. When his uncle, William Asriby, esq. was sent ambassador from queen Elizabeth into Scotland in 1589, he accompanied him, probably in the office of secretary; and was sometimes sent by him on affairs of trust and importance to the court of England, where we find him in July of that year, discontented with his unsuccessful dependance on courtiers, and resolved to hasten back to his uncle, to whom he returned in the beginning of the month following, and continued with him till January 1589, when Mr. Ashby was succeeded in his embassy by Robert Bowes, esq. Mr. Naunton was in France in 15.96 and 1597, whence he corresponded frequently with the earl of Essex, who does not appear to have had interest enough to advance him to any civil post; for which reason it is probable that, after his lordship’s disgrace, Mr. Naunton returned to college, and, in 1601, was elected public orator of the university. Lloyd observes, that his speeches, “both while proctor and orator of Cambridge, discovered him more inclined to public accomplishments than private studies.” A speech which he had to deliver before James I. at Hinchinbroke, is said to have pleased the king very much, and paved the way to his obtaining employment at court. Accordingly he was first made master of the requests, then surveyor of the court of wards, by the interest of sir Thomas Overbury and sir George Villiers, and, in January 1618, was advanced to be secretary of state. He was lastly promoted to be master of the court of wards, which office he resigned in March 1635, and died in the same month. He was buried in the church of Letheringham in Suffolk.

, a remarkable person of the society called Quakers, was born at Ardsley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire, about 1616. His father was a husbandman, who had some estate of his own, and gave to his son such an education as enabled him to express himself with facility in his native tongue. James married and settled in Wakefield parish about 1638; and, in 1641, became a private soldier in the parliament army, in which he was afterwards made a quarter-master under major-general Lambert, but quitted it, on account of sickness, in 1649. Being convinced of the doctrines of the people called Quakers, by the means of George Fox, in 1651, the next year he believed himself divinely required to. quit his relations and go into the West, not knowing what he was to do there; but when he came there he had it given him what to declare; and thus he continued, not knowing one day what he was to do the next; but relying on that divine aid which he believed himself to receive.

He was a man of excellent natural parts, and acquitted himself so well, both in word and writing, that many joined the society through his ministry. He came to London towards the beginning of 1655, in which city a meeting of Quakers had been established by the ministry of Edward Burrough and Francis Howgill, two eminent Quakers from Westmorland. Here Nayler preached with so much applause, that the distinction which he acquired occasioned his fall; for, some inconsiderate women setting him up in their esteem above Howgill and Burrough, went so far as to disturb them in their public preaching. These men giving to the women a deserved reproof, two of them complained of it to Nayler, who, although at the first he was backward to pass censure on his brethren, yet, at length, suffering himself to be wrought upon by the reiterated and passionate complaints of one Martha Simmons (the chief engine of the mischief), he became estranged from them, and gave ear to the flatteries of his unadvised adherents. In 1656, he suffered imprisonment at Exeter and about this time several deluded persons addressed him by letter in terms of great extravagance. He was called “the everlasting Son of Righteousness, Prince of Peace, the only begotten Son of God, the Fairest of Ten Thousand;” and during his confinement in Exeter gaol some women knelt before him and kissed his feet. About this time George Fox returning out of the West, where he had himself suffered a rigorous imprisonment, called on James Nayler in the prison at Exeter, and gave him some reproof for his defection and extravagance. This Nayler slighted, but nevertheless would have saluted Fox with a kiss; but George rejected his salutation, alleging that “he had turned against the power of God.”

There are a few things observable in the treatment of this case. One is, that Nayler was declared to be guilty of horrid blasphemy, when it does not appear that he himself uttered any words in that transaction for which he was apprehended. Another is, the great severity of the sentence, viz. excessive whipping, two pilloryings of two hours each, boring the tongue with an hot iron, and branding the forehead; at Bristol a second whipping; and, finally, a solitary confinement with hard labour, sine die. But a third thing to be observed is, that the active persons in the business, the ranting women, received no share of the punishment, except some confinement. From these circumstances it would seem that the object of the parliament was to bring the Quakers into discredit, by letting the weight of their censure fall on Nayler, who had been so eminent among them; although letters found on him at Bristol from some of them, shewed that they disclaimed fellowship with his disorderly proceedings.

Notwithstanding the prohibition of implements of writing, Nayler found means to procure them in his confinement, and wrote many things condemning his past conduct. The following^ addressed to his friends, the Quakers, is an extract of one of them: “Dear brethren, my heart is broken this day for the offence that I have occasioned to God’s truth and people, and especially to you, who in dear love followed me, seeking me in faithfulness to God, which I rejected, being bound wherein I could not come forth, till God’s hand brought me, to whose love I now confess. And, I beseech you, forgive wherein I evil requited your love in that day. 'God knows my sorrow for it, since I see it, that ever I should offend that of God in any, or reject his counsel and I greatly fear farther to offend, or do amiss, whereby the innocent truth, or people of God, should suffer, or that I should disobey therein.”

He was confined about two years; and after he was set at liberty he went to Bristol, where, in a public meeting, he made confession of his offence and fall, so as to draw tears from most of those who were present: and, restoration to humility of mind and soundness of judgment being apparent in him, he was restored to the esteem and fellowship of his friends. He quitted London finally in 1660, intending to return to his wife and children at Wakefield; but was found by a countryman one evening in a field near Holm and King’s Rippon, in Huntingdonshire, having been (as was said) robbed, and left bound. He was taken to Holm, and his cloaths shifted, on which he said, “You have refreshed my body; the Lord refresh your souls:” not long after which he died in peace, and his remains were interred inn King’s Rippon, in a burying-ground belonging to Thomas Parnel, a physician there. About two hours before his close, he spoke these words: “There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thoughts to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it; for, its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love, unfeigned; and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, f though none else regard it, or can own its life. It’s conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it: nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for, with the world’s joy, it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken: I have fellowship therein with them, who lived in dens and desolate places, in the earth; who through death obtained this resurrection, and eternal holy life.” Nayler’s writings were collected into an octavo volume, printed in 1716, which may still occasionally be found.

From this time he published only five occasional sermons, till 1732, when the first volume of his “History of the Puritans” appeared; and continued to be published, the second volume in 1733, the third in 1736, and the fourth in 1738, in 8vo. Of the impartiality of this work various opinions were then and are still entertained. We have had repeated occasions to examine it, and we think it exhibits as much impartiality as could have been expected from a writer whose object was to elevate the character of the puritans and non-conformists, at the expence of the members of the established church. And when it was discovered that he represented the church of England as almost uniformly a persecuting church, it was not surprizing he should meet with answers from those who, in surveying the history of the puritans, when they became known by the name of non-conformists, considered that the ejected were at one time the ejectors; the right of the usurping powers in Cromwell’s time to throw down the whole edifice of the church, being the main principle on which the controversy hinges. Mr. Neal’s representation of that event, and of the sufferings of his brethren, first called forth the abilities of Dr. Maddox, bishop of St. Asaph, who published “A Vindication of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church of England, as established in the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the injurious reflections of Mr. Neal’s first volume,” &c. 8vo. To this Mr. Neal replied in “A Review of the Principal Facts objected to in the first volume of the History of the Puritans.” The subject was then taken up by Dr. Zachary Grey, in “An Impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans. In which the reflections of that author, upon king James I. and king Charles I. are proved to be groundless; his misrepresentations of the conduct of the prelates of those times, fully detected; and his numerous mistakes in history, and unfair way of quoting his authorities, exposed to public view,” 1736, 8vo. In 1737 and 1739, Dr. Grey published two more volumes, containing the same kind of examination of the third and fourth volumes of Neal’s History. Although Mr. Neal lived seven years after the appearance of Dr. Grey’s first volume in 1736, we are told that it was his declining state of health which prevented him from publishing a vindication. This task has been since attempted by Dr. Joshua Toulmin of Birmingham, in a new edition of Neal begun in 1793, and completed in 1797, 5 vols. 8vo; but we may repeat the opinion given in our account of Dr. Grey, that his and bishop Maddux’s volumes are still absolutely necessary to an impartial consideration of the subject.

, an Oxford divine, was born at Yeate, in Gloucestershire, in 1519, and was educated under the care of his uncle Alexander Belsire, who was afterwards first president of St. John’s college, at Winchester school. From this he was removed to New college, Oxford, in 1538, and admitted fellow in 1540. He also took his degree of M. A. and six years afterwards was admitted into holy orders. He was reckoned an able divine, but was most noted for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, on which account sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John’s college, encouraged him by a yearly pension often pounds. His adherence to the popish religion induced him to go to the university of Paris, during king Edward the Sixth’s reign, where he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. On his return during Mary’s reign, he held the rectory of Thenford in Northamptonshire, and became chaplain to bishop Bonner but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, according to Dodd, he suffered himself to be deprived of his spiritualities, retired to Oxford, and entered himself a commoner in Hart-hall. He had not been long here before he professed conformity to the newly-established religion, and in 1559 was appointed Hebrew professor of the foundation of Henry VIII. in which office he remained until 1569. When first appointed he built lodgings opposite Hart-hall, joining to the westend of New college cloister, which were for some time known by the name of Neal’s lodgings. During queen Elizabeth’s visit to the university in 1566, he presented to her majesty, a ms. now in the British Museum, entitled “Rabbi Davidis Kimhi commentarii super Hoseam, Joellem, Amos, Abdiam, Jonam, Micheam, Nahum, Habacuc, et Sophonian; Latine redditi per Thomam Nelum, Heb. linguae profess. Oxonii; et R, Elizabethse inscripti.” He presented also to her majesty a little book of Latin verses, containing the description of the colleges, halls, &c.; and a few days after exhibited a map of Oxford, with small views very neatly drawn with a pen by Bereblock. These views, with the verses, were published by Hearne at the end of “Dodwell de parma equestri.” The verses are in the form of a dialogue between the queen and the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the university, and are not wanting in that species of pedantic flattery so frequently offered to her majesty. Neal, however, was never a conformist irr his heart, and in 1569 either resigned, or being known to be a Roman catholic, was ejected from his professorship, and then retired to the village of Cassington near Oxford, where he lived a private and studious life. Wood can trace him no further, but Dodd says that he was frequently disturbed while at Cassington on account of his religion, and being often obliged to conceal, or absent himself, went abroad. The records of Doway mention that one Thomas Neal, an ancient clergyman, who had suffered much in prison in England, arrived there June 1, 1578, and returned again to England January 7, 1580. How long he lived afterwards is uncertain. He was certainly alive in 1590, as appears by an inscription he wrote for himself to be put upon his tomb-stone in Cassington church, which also states that he was then seventy-one years old. In the British Museum, among the royal Mss. is another ms. of his, entitled “Rabbinicae qusedam Observationes ex praedictis commentariis.” Wood speaks of one of his names, of Yeate in Gloucestershire, who dying in 1590, his widow had letters of administration granted, and adds, “whether it be meant of our author I cannot justly say, because I could never learn that he was married.” But nothing can be more improbable than the marriage of -a man who had suffered so much for a religion that prohibits the marriage of the clergy, and who was so inveterate against the reformed religion, that we are told the fable of the Nag’s-head ordination was first propagated by him.

, one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, was born at Soraw, a town in Lower Silesia, in 1525, where his father was a merchant. He received his early education under Henry Theodore, who was superintendant of the churches of the duchy of Lignitz. He then studied principally at Wittemberg, where, among other able men, he was instructed by Melanchthon, and became conspicuous for his critical acquaintance with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and his knowledge of the eminent authors in these respective languages. In 1549, he was invited to Northusen, an imperial town of Thuringia; and being appointed regent of the school, acquired the esteem of the senate. He was of the reformed religion, and Thomas Stangius, the last abbot of Isfeld, who was of the same sentiments, havfng, by the advice of Luther and Melanchthon, turned his abbey into a college, Neander was appointed regent, and taught there with great reputation for forty-five years, producing many able scholars. He died at Isfeld, May 6, 1595, in the seventieth year of his age.

From his works he appears to have deserved the high character he enjoyed during his life-time, and which some critics of modern times have revived. He was one of the very few in those days who turned their thoughts to the history of literature. His first publication was “Erotema Grascae Linguae, cum proefatione Philippi Melanchthonis de utilitate Grsecae linguse,” Basil, 1553, and 1565, 8vo. In a subsequent edition Neander gives a list of the works he had published, or which he had projected, and among the latter was an universal history of authors, “Pandectae variorum auctorum et scriptorum.” From the sketch he had given of the proposed contents of this work, there is great reason to regret that he did not complete it; in the second edition of his “Erotemata” he has given a specimen of what he could have done, in a dissertation on ancient libraries, on books that are lost, and on the libraries of his own time which contained the most valuable Mss. and an account of the principal Greek and Latin authors, whose works have been published, with a minuteness of description which would have reflected credit on a modern bibliographer. The last edition of his “Erotemata” was edited at Leipsic in 1589, 8vo, by his disciple, John Volland. Neander’s other works are, 2. “Graecae Linguae Tabulae,” Basil, 1564, and Wittemberg, 1581, 8vo. 3. “Linguae Hebreae Erotemata, cum veterurn Rabbinorurn testimoniis de Christo, apophthegmatibus veterum Hebreeorum et notitia de Talmude, Cabbala, &c.” Basil, 1556, 8vo, often reprinted. The preface to this work is on the same plan with that to the “Erotemata Graecae Linguae,” containing notices of the most eminent Oriental scholars, the writings of the rabbins, the editions of the Bible, &c. 4. “Aristologia Pindarica Graeco-Latina, et Sententiae novem Lyricorum,” Basil, 1556, 8vo, with prolegomena on the life of Pindar, the Greek games, &c. 5. “Aristologia GraecoLatina Euripidis; argumenta quoque singulis tragcediis praemissa sunt,” ibid. 1559, 4to. 6. “Anthologicum Graeco-Latinum,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. This is a collection of sentences from Hesiod, Theognes, and other ancient poets, with three books of similar extracts from Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, &c. but is by no means, as some bibliographers have called it, a new edition of the Greek Anthology. 7. “Gnomonologia Graeco-Latina, sive insigniores sententiae philosophorum, poetarum, oratorum, et historicorum, ex magno Anthologio Joannis Stobaei excerptae, et in locos supra bis centum digests,” ibid. 1558, 8vo. 8. “Opus aureum et Scholasticum,” Leipsic, 1577, or, according to Fabricius, 1575, a collection somewhat like the former, but with some entire pieces, as the poem of Comthus on the rape of Helen, that of Tryphiodorus on the destruction of Troy, and three books of Quintus Calaber, which last are translated into Latin prose by Lawrence Rhodoman, one of Neander’s pupils. 9. “Sententiae Theologicae selectiores, Græco-Latinæ,” Basil, 1557, 8vo. 10. “Catechesis parva Martini Lutheri Graeco-Latina,” &c. ibid. 1564­and 1567, 8vo. 11. “Loci communes Philosophic! Graeci,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo, a work by Volland, above-mentioned, with notes by Neander. 12. “Gnomonologia Latina ex omnibus Latinis vetustis ac probatis autoribus, recentioribus etiam aliquot, in locos communes digesta,” Leipsic, 1581, and 1590, 8vo. 13. “Phraseologia Isocratis GraecoLatina,” Basil, 1558, 8vo. 14. “Joannis Vollandi de re Poetica Graecorum libri quatuor, e noutionibus et bibliotheca Mich. Neandri collecti,” Leipsic, 1582, 1592, ancl 1613, 8vo. 15. “Argonautica, Thebaica, Troica, Ilias parva; poematia Graeca anonymi (Laur. Rhodomani) primum edita cum argumentis a Mich. Neandro,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo. Some other works have been attributed to Neander, on less certain authority, which are mentioned by Fabricius and Baillet; and more ample information respecting him may probably be found in a work which we have not seen, a life of him by Volborth, in German, published at Gottingen in 1777. There flourished about the same time with our author, a physician of the same names, who was born in 1529, and died in 1581, whose forgotten works, however, cannot easily be mistaken for those of the learned Greek professor.

, who flourished in the twelfth century, was probably born, and certainly educated at St. Alban’s abbey, of which period of his life he speaks with pleasing recollection in his poem “De Laude sapientiae Divinae.” He completed his education at Paris, and took the order of St. Augustine. He became the friend, associate, and correspondent of Peter of Blois, or Petrus Blesensis, and was afterwards abbot of Cirencester, in which office he died in 1217. He was much attached to the studious repose of the monastic life, yet he frequently travelled into Italy. His compositions are various, and, as Mr. Warton observes, crowd the department of Mss. in our public libraries. He has left numerous treatises of divinity, philosophy, and morality, and was also a poet, a philologist, and a grammarian. He wrote a tract on the mythology of the ancient poets, Esopian fables, and a system of 'grammar and rhetoric. Mr. Warton, who examined his elegiac poem “De vita motiastica,” says it contains some finished lines; but gives the highest praise to the poem already mentioned, “De divina sapientia.”

, a celebrated statesman and financier of France, brother to the preceding Louis Necker, was born at Geneva in 1732. After such an education as might qualify him for business, he was in his fifteenth year sent to Paris, where he was employed, first in the bankinghouse of Vernet, and then in that of Thelluson, of which last he became first cashier, and afterwards a partner. Upon the death of Thelluson he established a bank of his own, in partnership with Girardot and Haller, in which, we have just noticed, his brother had a concern. In 1776, when the French finances were in a disordered state, he was appointed director, and soon after comptroller-general of that department. Besides his reputation for financial knowledge and probity, which was now at its height, he had in the reign of Louis XV. adjusted some differences subsisting between the East India company and the crown in such a manner as to obtain, what rarely occurs in such cases, the approbation of both parties. His appointment to the comptrollership of the finances was hailed as an instance of enlargement of mind and liberality of sentiment, and as honourable to the reign of Lewis XVI.; Necker being the first protestant since the revocation of the edict of Nantes, who had held any important place in the French administration. Of the wisdom of his plans, in this critical situation, various opinions have been entertained, which this is not the place to examine, but it seems generally agreed that his intentions were pure, and his conduct disinterested. He refused all emolument for his services, and advanced a large sum to government from his private property, which he never drew from the public funds. His administration was generally popular, but he had enemies at court, and alter having filled the office of minister of finance for five years, he resigned. Previously to this he had published his “Compte Rendu,” in explanation of his financial system, which was followed by a work entitled “De P Administration des Finances.” This was read and circulated with great avidity, and unhappily scattered opinions on matters of government, by which the people knew not how to profit. M. Calonne, who was his successor, made an attack, before the assembly of notables, upon the veracity of his statements. Necker drew up a reply, which he transmitted to the king, who intimated that if he would forbear making it public, he should shortly be restored to his place. This he refused, and appealed to the nation by publishing his defence, which was so displeasing to the court, that he was exiled to his country-seat at St. Ouen, at the distance of 120 miles from the capital. During his retreat he wrote his work entitled “De l'Importance des Opinions R6ligieuses,” in which he speaks of religion like one who felt its power operating on his own mind, and who was fully convinced of its importance both to individuals and society. Calonne, however, and Brienne, another minister, finding it impossible to lessen the deficiencies of the revenue, thev resigned in their turn; and in August 1788, Necker was reinstated in his former post, to the apparent satisfaction of the court, as well as to the joy of the people; but the acclamations of the latter could not banish from his mind the difficulties with which he had to struggle. He was aware that de Calonne and the archbishop of Sens had both sunk under the public distress, and the impracticability of raising the necessary supplies; and he well knew that the evil was not diminished, and unless some expedient could be hit on to re-establish public credit, he foresaw his own fate must be similar to that of his predecessors. first intentions were to recal the banished members of the parliament of Paris, and to restore that body to its functions; to replenish the treasury, which he found almost empty; and to relieve the scarcity of corn under which the kingdom, and the capital in particular, then laboured. His next plan was the convocation of the states-general, which had been already promised by the king, and which, in fact, proved the immediate fore-runner of the revolution. Necker was particularly blamed for having consented that the number of members of the tiers etat should be equal to that of the nobles and clergy united, as the nobility and clergy would very naturally insist on voting by orders, while the tiers etat would contend with equal obstinacy for a plurality of voices. The consequences were therefore exactly such as had been foreseen. When the assembly of the states opened, Necker addressed them in a studied speech that pleased no party; even the tiers etat, already taught the sentiments of democracy, resented his saying that the meeting was the effect of royal favour, instead of a right. Nor was he more successful in the plan of government which he drew up, and which the king was to recommend in a speech, for this underwent so many alterations that he absented himself when it was delivered. At this time the prevalence of the democratic party was such as to induce the king to assemble troops around Paris, which measure Necker opposed, and on July 11, 1789, was therefore ordered to quit the kingdom within twenty ­four hours. This he immediately obeyed, and went to Brussels. As soon as his absence was known, the populace assembled, destroyed the Bastille, and proceeded to such other outrages, that the king thought it necessary to recal Necker to appease their fury. He accordingly returned in triumph, but his triumph was short. The populace was no longer to be flattered with declamations on their rights, nor was Necker prepared to adopt the sentiments of the democratic leaders, while it became now his duty to propose financial expedients that were obnoxious to the people. He that had just before been hailed as the friend of the people, was now considered as an aristocrat, and his personal safety was endangered. In this dilemma he desired to resign, offering to leave, as pledges for his integrity, the money which he had advanced to government, viz. about 80,000l. sterling, and his house and furniture. His resignation being accepted, he left Paris, and in his retreat he was more than once insulted by the very people whu, but a few months before, had considered him as their saviour. Gibbon, who passed four days with him at this period, says, “I could have wished to have exhibited him as a warning to any aspiring youth possessed with the demon of ambition. With all the means of private happiness in his power, he is the most miserable of human beings; the past, the present, and the future, are equally odious to him. When I suggested some domestic amusements, he answered, with a deep tone of despair, * in the state in which I am, I can feel nothing but the blast which has overthrown me.'” Shortly after this, his mind was diverted from public disappointment by the more poignant grief of domestic calamity; his wife died, after a long illness, in which he had attended her with the most affectionate assiduity. He now had recourse to hia favourite occupation of writing, and several works of different kinds were the product of his solitary hours. His principal pieces are entitled “Sur I' Administration de M. Necker, par lui-meme;” “Reflections,” &c. which were intended to benefit the king during his captivity and trial; “Du Pouvoir Exécutif,” being an essay that contained his own ideas on the executive part of government; “Dernieres Vue’s de Politiques, et de Finance,” of which the chief object was to discuss what was the best form of government France was capable of receiving. Besides these, he published a “Course of Religious Morality,” and a novel, written at the suggestion of his daughter, entitled “The fatal Consequences of a single Fault.” Though deprived of three- fourths of his fortune, he had sufficient for all his wants, and also to indulge his benevolent disposition. He had been placed on the list of emigrants, but the directory unanimously erased his name, and when the French army entered Swisserland, he was treated by the generals with every mark of respect. His talents and conduct have been alike the subject of dispute, and perhaps the time is not yet come when the latter can. be fully understood. It is well known that all who suffered by the revolution blamed Necker as a principal cause of that event; but it may be questioned whether any talents, guided by the utmost probity and wisdom, could have averted the evils that had been prepared by so long a course of infatuation. Necker passed the latter years of his life in the rational pursuits of a philosopher and a man of sound judgment and true taste, His only daughter, who married the baron de Stael, ambassador from Sweden to France, and who has made herself known to the literary world by several publications, published some “Memoirs of the Character and Private Life of her Father,” written in a high style of panegyric.

Having now rendered himself obnoxious to the popular party, he found it necessary to leave London, and for a time lay concealed at the house of Dr. Peter Heylin, at Minster-Lovel, near Burford; till, at length being discovered, he was imprisoned in Newgate, and would probably have been executed, had not iLenthal, the speaker of the house of commons, who knew him and his relations well, and Bradshaw, president of the high court of justice,' obtained his pardon. Thinking his talents useful, and caring* little whom they employed, they made such promises as easily induced him to write on the side of the independents. Needham had no scruples as to principle, and after accepting their offers, immediately published a third weekly paper, called “Mercurius Politicus,” which came out every Wednesday, in two sheets, 4to, commencing with the 9th of June 1649, and ending with 6th of June 1650, which being Thursday, he began again with Number I. from Thursday, June 6, to Thursday, June 13, 1650, beginning, “Why should not the commonwealth have a fool, as well as the king had,” &c. This paper, which contained many discourses against monarchy, and in behalf of a free state, at least, before Cromwell was made protector, was carried on without any interruption till about the middle of April 1660, when it was prohibited by an order of the council of state, and Needham fled the kingdorn, justly dreading what never was inflicted on him; for after the restoration, by means of a hired courtier of as little principle as himself, he obtained his pardon under the great seal. After this he practised physic, chiefly among the dissenters, and contrived to support himself, and keep up his fame for scurrility by some controversies with the faculty, until his death, which happened suddenly in 1678. Needham’s character may be gathered from the preceding short account. He had natural parts, not much improved by education, and wrote in that coarse and vulgar style of obloquy, which was suited to his readers, and, as we have seen in our own times, will find readers enough to reward the grossest prostitution of talents. Besides the “Mercuries 7 ' already mentioned, he published a great number of other things, the titles of which are worth transcribing, as a specimen of the style in which political controversy was then carried on 1.” A Check to the Checker of Britannicus,“&c. 1624 2, A sharp libel against his Majesty’s late message for Peace, anno 1645 in answer to which was published” The Refusers of Peace inexcusable, by his Majesty’s command,“1645; one sheet 4to. 3.” A Hue and Cry after the King, written after the King’s Defeat at Naseby, in 1645.“4.” The Case of the Kingdom, stated according to the proper interests of the several parties engaged,“&e. 'the third edition in 1647. 5.” The Levellers levelled or the Independents’ Conspiracy to root out Monarchy, an interlude,“1647. 6.” A Plea for the King and Kingdom, by way of answer to a late Remonstrance of the Army,“1648. 7.” Digitus Dei; or God’s justice upon treachery and treason, exemplified in the Life and Death of the late James duke of Hamilton,“&c. 1649. 8. The year before came out a book entitled” The manifold Practices and Attempts of the Hamiltons, &c. to get the Crown of Scotland,“1648, probably written by Needham, as the whole of it is contained in the” Digitus Dei.“9.” The Public Intelligencer,“&c. these came out weekly on Monday, but contained mostly the same matter that was in the” Political Mercuries.“10.” The Case of the Commonwealth of England stated,“&c. 1649. 11.” Discourse of the excellency of a Free State above Kingly Government,“1650, published with the former, and reprinted in 1768, by Richard Baron, a politician of the republican stamp. 12.” An Appendix added out of Claudius Salmasius’s Defensio Regis, and Mr. Hobbes’s de corpore politico.“13.” Trial of Mr. John Goodwin, at the bar of religion and right reason,“&c. 1657. In reply to this, Goodwin took occasion, in a piece entitled” The Triumviri,“to characterize our author as having a foul mouth, which Satan hath opened, '&c. 1658. 15.” Interest will not lye, &c. in refutation of c The Interest of England stated,“1659. 14.” The moderate Informer, &c. communicating the most remarkable transactions, both civil and military, in the Commonwealth of England,“&c. It commences with the 12th of May 1659, but was not carried on above two or three weeks. Needham, it seems, was dismissed from his place of writing the weekly news, in the time of Richard, by the influence of the Presbyteriaus, and John Can put in his room; yet, in spite of opposition, he carried on the writing of his” Mercuries.“16.” News from Brussels, &c. in a Letter dated 10 March, 1659;“but said to be written by our author against Charles II. and his court, and conveyed to the press by Praise-God Barebones. It was answered about a week after, in” The late News, or Message from Brussels unmasked.“17.” A short History of the English Rebellion completed, inverse,“1661; a collection of all such verses as he had printed before each of his” Mercurii Pragmatici.“To it he prefixed” The true Character of a rigid Presbyter;“and added the coat of arms of sir John Presbyter: but the * character was pot of his writing. It was reprinted in 1680, 4to. 18.” Discourse concerning Schools and School-masters,“1663. 19.” MedelaMedicinae,“&c. 1665 answered by two doctors of that faculty, fellows of the college of physicians, viz. John Twisden, in his” Medicina veterum vindtcata,“&c. and Robert Sprackling, in his” Medela Ignorantiæ.“20.” An epistolary Discourse“before” Medicina Instaurata, &c. by Edward Bolnest, M. D.“1665. 21.” A Pacquet of Advices tfnd Animadversions, &c. occasioned by a Letter from a person of quality to his friend in the country, written* By lord Shaftesbury,“1676. 22.” A second Palcquet of Advices, &c. in answer to some Considerations upon the Question whether the Parliament b& dissolved by Hs Prorogation for Fifteen Months?“and another, entitled” The Long Parliament dissolved,“written by Denzil lord Holies, but owned by his chaplain, a nonconformist, named Carey, or Carew, who was comAvitted prisoner to the Tower of London in the beginning of February, 1676. 23.” A Letter frona a person newly chosen to sit in this Parliament, to a Bencher in the Temple,“&c. 24.” A Narrative of the cause and manner of the Imprisonment of the Lords now close prisoners in the Tower of London.“Needham is said to have been encouraged to write these two Pacquets by lord Danby. 25.” Christianissimus Christianandus or Reasons for the Reduction of France to d more Christian state in Europe,“1678. 26.” A Preface to `A new idea of the Practice of Physic, written by Francis de la Boe Sylvius,'" 1675.

, a celebrated painter of architecture, was born, as is supposed, at Antwerp, in 1570, and was a disciple of Henry Stenwyck. His favourite objects were views of the interior of churches, convents, splendid halls, &c. Of these he described the rich decorations, and every member of the architecture, with uncommon neatness of pencilling, but with such attention to the most minute parts, as must have required a vast deal of patience, and has indeed in some cases made them objects of wonder rather than of imitation. The columns, capitals, or the ornamental paiatings of the churches he represents, are all marked with the utmost precision, and finished with an exquisite touch, and a light clean pencil. It is said, however, that he sometimes took liberties with the originals by introducing objects that he thought improved them to the eye. Tins was making a pleasing picture, but was a violation of truth. As he designed figures but indifferently, other artists assisted him in these, particularly Velvet Breughel and Tenters. He died in 1651, aged eighty-one, leaving a son, called The Young, who painted the same subjects, but with inferior skill.

, a landscape painter, was born at Amsterdam in 1619, and is well known to the connoisseurs in painting, by a peculiarity of style, and also by the handling and transparence of his landscapes. His subjects are views of villages, or the huts of fishermen, oiv the banks of rivers and canals, by moon -light, generally finished 2 with a remarkable neatness of pencilling. His touch rsextremely light, free, and clean, and his imitation of nature true; particularly in the lustre of his skies about the moon, and the reflection of the beams of that luminary on the surface of the waller. His figures are usually well designed, and their actions and attitudes are well adapted to their employments and occupations. In all parts of Europe his pictures are still in good esteem, but are seldom found uninjured, owing to the simplicity of his manner, and his painting very thin. This artist died in 1683, leaving a son, Eglon Hendrick Vender Neer, who was born at Amsterdam in 1643. He was at first a pupil to his father, and afterwards of Jacob Vanloo. He had an extensive talent, and executed subjects drawn from various branches of the art, with an equal degree of merit. His portraits, in large and small, are well coloured, and touched with spirit and delicacy; in history he designed with correctness, and composed with ingenuity; his conversations have the manner, the breadth, and the finish, of Terburg; his landscape is varied and well chosen, but too much loaded, and too anxiously discriminated in the fore-grounds. The portrait of this artist, painted by himself, and inscribed “Eglon Hendric Vander Neer f. 1696,” has a place in the gallery of Florence. He died in 1703, aged sixty.

On the 8th of April 1777, he passed the usual examination before the board for the rank of lieutenant; and on the subsequent day received his commission as second of the Lowestoffe, of 32 guns. In this vessel he cruised against the Americans, and happening to capture a letter of marque belonging to the Colonies, then in a state of insurrection, the first lieutenant proved unable to take possession of her, in consequence of a most tremendous sea, that seemed to interdict all approach. The captain, piqued at this circumstance, and desirous of effecting the object of his wishes, inquired “Whether he had not an officer capable of boarding the prize?” On hearing this, lieutenant Nelson immediately jumped into the boat, and told the master, who wished to have anticipated him, “That if he came back without success it would be his turn.”

In 1778 he was appointed to the Bristol, and rose by seniority to be first lieutenant. In the course of the succeeding year, (June 11, 1779,) he obtained the rank of post- captain, on which occasion he was appointed to the command of the Hinchinbroke. Having sailed in this vessel for the West Indies, he repaired to Port Royal in the island of Jamaica; and an attack upon that island being expected, on the part of count D'Estaing’s fleet and army, Nelson was intrusted, both by the admiral and general, with the command of the batteries at Port-Royal, the most; important post in the whole island. A plan was next formed for taking fort San Juan, on the river St. John, in the gulf of Mexico; and captain Nelson was appointed to the command of the naval department. His business was to have ended when he had convoyed the forces, about 500 men, from Jamaica to the Spanish main; but it was found, that not a man of the whole party had ever been up the rjver: he therefore, with his usual intrepidity, quitted his ship, and superintended the transporting of the troops, in boats, 100 miles up a river which, since the time of the Buccaneers, none but Spaniards had ever navigated. Of all the services in which he had been engaged, this was the most perilous. It was the latter end of the dry season: the river was low, full of shoals, and sandy beaches; and the men were often obliged to quit the boats, and drag them through shallow channels, in which the natives went before to explore. This labour, and that of forcing the rapids, w,ere chiefly sustained by the sailors, who, for seven or eight hours during the day, were exposed to a burning sun, and at night to heavy dews. On the 9th of April they arrived at a small island, called St. Bartholomew, which commanded the river in a rapid and difficult part, and was defended by a battery mounting nine or ten swivelsNelson, putting himself at the head of a few sailors, leaped on the beach, and captain Despard, since executed for high treason, having gallantly supported him, they defeated the Spaniards with their own guns. Two days afterwards, having come in, sight of the castle of San Juan, they began to besiege it on the 13th, and it surrendered on the 24th. But all that this victory procured them was a cessation from toil: no supplies were found, and the castle itself was worse than a prison. The hovels, which were used as an hospital, were surrounded with putrid hides; and when orders were obtained from the commander in chief to build one, the sickness arising from the climate had become so general, that there were no hands to work at it. The rains continued, with few intervals, from April to October, when they abandoned their conquest; and it was then reckoned that of 1800 who were sent to different posts upon this scheme, only 380 returned. Nelson narrowly escaped. His advice had been to carry the castle by assault; instead of which, eleven days were spent in the formalities of a siege. He returned before its surrender, exhausted with fatigue, and suffering under a dysentery, by which his health became visibly impaired; but he fortunately received an appointment to the Janus of 44 guns, in which he reached Jamaica in such a state of sickness, that although much was done to remove it, he was soon compelled to return to England, in the Lion, commanded by the hon. William Cornwallis, through whose attention a complete recovery was effected.

In August 1781, captain Nelson was appointed to the command of the Albemarle of 28 guns, and sent into the North seas. During this voyage he gained a considerable knowledge of the Danish coast, and its soundings, which afterwards proved of great importance to his country. On his return he was ordered to Quebec with a convoy, under the command of captain Thomas Pringle. From Quebec he sailed with a convoy to New York, in October 1782, where he joined the fleet under sir Samuel Hood, and became acquainted with prince William-Henry, now duke of Clarence, who was at that time serving as a midshipman in the Barfleur. His highness, after a description, rather ludicrous, of his dress and manner, said, that even at this time there was something irresistibly pleasing in his address and conversation, and an enthusiasm, when speaking on professional subjects, which shewed that he was no common being. In November, captain Nelson sailed with sir Samuel Hood to the West Indies, where he continued actively employed till the peace.

On the commencement of the late eventful war, he was delighted with the appointment to the Agamemnon of 64 guns, bestowed on him in Jan. 1793, and was very soon after placed under the orders of lord Hood, then appointed to command in the Mediterranean, who always placed such confidence in captain Nelson, as manifested the high opinion which he entertained not only of his courage, but of his talents and ability to execute the arduous services with which he was entrusted. If batteries were to be attacked, if ships were to be cut out of their harbours, if the hazardous landing of troops was to be effected, or difficult passages to be explored, we invariably find Nelson foremost on the occasion, with his brave officers, and the gallant crew of the Agamemnon. During the time that Nelson had the command of the Agamemnon, and previously ta the commencement of hostilities with Spain, he put into Cadiz to water; and on beholding the Spanish fleet, exclaimed, “These ships are certainly the finest in the world. Thank God! the Spaniards cannot build men, as they do ships!” It was observed in the Mediterranean, that before captain Nelson quitted his old ship, he had not only fairly worn her out, there not being a mast, yard, sail, nor any part of the rigging, but was obliged to be repaired, the whole being cut to pieces with shot, but had exhausted himself and his ship’s company. At Toulon, and the celebrated victories achieved at Bastia and Calvi, lord Hood bore ample testimony to the skill and unremitting exertions of captain Nelson, “which,” said his lordship, “I cannot sufficiently applaud.” During the memorable siege of Bastia, he superintended the disembarkation of the troops and stores, and commanded a brigade of seamen, who served on shore at the batteries. Lord Hood had submitted to general Dundas, and afterwards to his successor D‘Aubert, a plan for the reduction of Bastia; but he could obtain only a few artillery-men, and began the siege with less than 1200 soldiers, artillery-men, and marines, and 250 sailors. With these, which Nelson said were ’“few, but of the right sort,” a landing was effected on the 4th of April, under colonel Villetes and Nelson, who had obtained from the army the title of brigadier. The sailors dragged the guns up the heights, which was a work that could probably have been accomplished only by British seamen, and the soldiers behaved with the same spirit. The siege continued nearly seven weeks, and on the 19th of May a treaty of capitulation was begun; and 1000 regulars, 1500 national guards, and a large body of national troops, laid down their arms to 1000 soldiers and marines, and 200 seamen. The siege of Calvi was carried on by general Stuart, and Nelson had less responsibility here than at Bastia, but the business was equally arduous; “I trust,” said he to lord Hood, “it will not be forgotten, that twenty-five pieces of cannon have been dragged to the different batteries, and mounted, and all, but three, fought by seamen.” It was at this siege of Calvi, that he lost an eye, and yet his name did not appear, in the Gazette, among the wounded. Of this neglect he could not help complaining, and on one occasion said, “they have not done me justice but never mind: I'll have a Gazette of my own;” and on another occasion, with a more direct attempt to prophesy, he wrote to Mrs. Nelson, “One day or other I will have a long Gazette to myself. I feel that such an opportunity will be given me. I cannot, if I am in the field of glory, be kept out of sight.”

In Feb. 1797, he fell in with the Spanish fleet, but was enabled to escape from them and join admiral sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent, on the 13th of that month, in time to communicate intelligence relative to the state and force of the Spanish fleet, and to shift his pendant on board his former ship, the Captain, 74 guns. Before sunset, the signal was made to prepare for action. At daybreak, the enemy were in sight The British force consisted of two ships of 100 guns each, two of 98, two of 90, eight of 74, and one of 64, with four frigates, a sloop, and a cutter. The Spaniards had one ship of 136 guns, six of 112 guns each, two of 84, and-eighteen of 74 guns, with ten frigates. The disproportion was very great, but sir John Jervis, following the new system of naval tactics, determined to break the line of the enemy; and before the Spanish admiral could form a regular order of battle, of which he seemed very desirous, sir John, by carrying a press of sail, caine up with them, passed through the fleet, then tacked, and thus cut off nine of their ships from the main body. These, in their turn, attempted to form on their larboard trick, either with a design of passing through the British line, or to the leeward of it, and thus rejoining their friends. One of the nine only succeeded; the others were so warmly received, that they took to flight, and did not appear in action till the close. The admiral was now enabled to direct his whole attention to the enemy’s main body, still superior to his whole fleet. He made signal to tack in succession. Nelson, whose station was in the rear of the British line, perceiving that the Spanish fleet was bearing up before the wind, with an intention of forming their line, joining their separated ships, or flying; determined to prevent either of these schemes from taking effect, and accordingly, without a moment’s hesitation, disobeyed the signal, and ordered his ship to be wore. This at once brought him into action with seven of the largest ships of the enemy’s fleet, among which were the Santissima of 136 guns, and two others of 112. Captain Trowbridge, in tihe Culloden, nobly supported him; and the Blenheim, captain Frederick, came to their assistance. The Salvador del Mundo and the San Isidore dropped astern, and were fired into by the Excellent, captain Collingwood, to whom the latter struck. “But Collingwood,” says Nelson, “disdaining the parade of taking possession of beaten enemies, most gallantly pushed up with every sail set, to save his old friend and mess-mate, who was to all appearance in a very critical situation.” The Captain was at this moment fired upon by three first rates, and the San Nicholas and a 74 were within pistol-shot. The Blenheim was a -head, and the Culloden crippled a-stern. Collingwood ranged, passed within ten feet of the San Nicholas, and giving her a most tremendous broadside, pushed on for the Santissima Trinidad. At this time the Captain had lost her fore-topmast, had not a sail, shroud, or rope left, her wheel was shot away, and thus left incapable of farther service in the line or the chase; her noble commander, Nelson, instantly resolved on a bold and decisive measure, and determined, whatever might be the event, to attempt Jhis opponent sword in hand; and directed captain Miller to put the helm a-star-board, and the boarders were summoned, This gentleman, the commodore’s captain, (who was afterwards in the battle of the Nile, where he gained great honour, and was slain in the Theseus, under sir Sidney Smith), so judiciously directed the course of his ship, that he laid her aboard the star-board quarter of the Spanish 84; her spritsail-yard passing over the enemy’s poop, and hooking in her mizen shrouds: when the word to board being given, the officers and seamen, destined for this perilous duty, headed by lieutenant (now sir Edward) Berry (who was afterwards lord Nelson’s captain in the Vanguard, in the battle of the Nile), together with the detachment of the 69th regiment, commanded by lieutenant Pearson, then doing duty on board the Captain, passed with rapidity on board the enemy’s ship, and in a short time the San Nicholas was in possession of her intrepid assailants. The commodore’s ardour would not permit him to remain an inactive spectator of this scene. He was aware that the attempt was hazardous, and he thought his presence might animate his brave companions, and contribute to the success of this bold enterprise. He^ therefore, as if by tnagic impulse, accompanied the party in this attack; passing from the fore-chains of his own ship into the enemy’s quarter-gallery, and thence through the cabin to the quarter-deck, where he arrived in time to receive the sword of the dying commander, who had been mortally wounded by the boarders. The English were at this time in possession of every part of the ship, and a fire of musketry opened upon them from the stern-gallery of the San Josef. Two alternatives now presented themselves, to quit the prize, or instantly to board the three-decker; and, confident in the bravery of his seamen, he determined on the latter. Directing, therefore, an additional number of men to be sent from the Captain on board the San Nicholas, Nelson headed himself the assailants in this new attack, exclaiming, “Westminster-abbey, or a glorious victory” Success in a few minutes, and with little loss, crowned the enterprise. For a moment, commodore Nelson could scarcely persuade himself of this second instance of good fortune; he, therefore, ordered the Spanish commandant, who had the rank of brigadier, to assemble the officers on the quarter-deck, and means to be taken instantly for communicating to the crew the surrender of the ship. All the officers immediately appeared, and the commodore had the surrender of the San Josef duly confirmed, by each of them delivering his sword. On this occasion Nelson had received only a few bruises. The Spaniards had still eighteen or twenty ships, which had suffered little or no injury; but they did not think right to renew the battle. As soon as the action was discontinued, Nelson went on board the admiral’s ship, who received him on the quarterdeck, took him in his arms, and said he could not sufficiently thank him. Before the news of the action had arrived in England, Nelson had been advanced to the rank of rear-admiral; and now for his gallantry, on the 14th of February, he received the insignia of the Bath, and the gold medal from his sovereign. He was also presented with the freedom of the city of London in a gold box.

In April 1797, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag as rear admiral of the blue, and was detached to bring down the garrison of Porto-Ferraio, and on May 28 he shifted his flag from the Captain to the Theseus, and was appointed to the command of the inner squadron at the blockade of Cadiz. During this service, his personal courage was, if possible, more conspicuous than at any other period of his former history. In the attack on the Spanish gun-boats, July 3, 1797, he was boarded in his barge, with only its usual complement of ten men and the coxswain, accompanied by captain Freemantle. The commander of the Spanish gun-boats, Don Miguel Tregovia, in a barge rowed by 26 oars, having 3O men, including officers, made a most desperate effort tooverpower sir Horatio Nelson and his brave companions; but after a long and doubtful conflict, the whole of the Spaniards were either killed or wounded, and Nelson brought off the launch. On the 15th of July, he was detached with a small squadron to make an attack on the town of Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, where it was imagined a Manilla ship had landed an immense treasure. The rear-admiral, on his arrival before the town, lost no time in directing 1000 men, including marines, to be prepared for landing from the ships, under the direction of captains Trowbridge, Hood, Thomson, Freemantle, Bowen, Miller, and Waller, who volunteered their services. The boats of the squadron being manned, the landing was effected in the night, and th party were in full possession of Santa Cruz in about seven hours; but, finding it impracticable to storm the citadel, they prepared for their retreat, which was allowed by the Spaniards unmolested, agreeably to the stipulations made with captain Trowbridge. It was on this occasion that our gallant hero, in stepping out of the boat, received a shot through the right elbow, which rendered amputation necessary.

In April 1798, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag in the Vanguard, and as soon as he had rejoined earl St. Vincent, he was dispatched to the Mediterranean, that he might ascertain the object of the great expedition fitting out at Toulon. He sailed with a small squadron from Gibraltar, on the 9th of May, to watch this armament. On the 22 d, a sudden storm in the gulph of Lyons carried away all the top-masts of the Vanguard; the fore-mast went into three pieces, and the bow-sprit was sprung. Captain (afterwards sir Alexander) Ball took the ship in tow, to carry her into St. Pietros, Sardinia. Nelson, apprehensive that this attempt might endanger both vessels, ordered him to cast off; but that excellent officer, possessing a spirit very like that of his commander, replied that he was confident he could save the Vanguard, and by God’s help he would do it. Previously to this, there had been a coolness between these brave seamen but from that moment, Nelson became fully sensibje of the extraordinary merit of captain Ball, and a sincere friendship subsisted between them during the remainder of their lives. Being compelled to refit, the delay enabled him to secure his junction with the reinforcement which lord St. Vincent had sent to join him, under commodore Trowbridge. That officer brought with him no instructions to Nelson, as to the course he was to steer, nor any positive account of the enemy’s destination every thing was left to his own judgment. The first news was, that they had surprised Malta. He formed a plan for attacking them while at Gozo; but on the 22d, intelligence reached him that they had left that island on the 16th, the day after their arrival. He then pursued them to Egypt, but he could not learn any thing of them during his voyage; and when he reached Alexandria, the enemy were not there. He then shaped his course for the coast of Caramania, and steered from thence along the southern side of Candia, carrying a press of sail both night and day, with a contrary wind. Irritated that they should have eluded his vigilance, the tediousness of the night made him impatient, and the officer of the watch was repeatedly called upon to declare the hour, and convince his admiral, who measured time by his own eagerness, that it was not yet break of day. “It would have been my delight,” said he, “to have tried Bonaparte on a wind.” Baffled in his pursuit, Nelson returned to Sicily, took in stores at Syracuse, and then made for the Morea. There, on the 28th of July, he learnt that the French had been seen about a month before, steering to the south-east from Candia. He resolved to return, and immediately, with every sail set, stood again for the coast of Egypt. On the 1st of August, they came in sight of Alexandria; and at four in the afternoon, captain Hood, in the Zealous, made signal for the French fleet. For several preceding days, the admiral had scarcely taken either food or sleep: he now ordered his dinner to be served, while preparations were making for battle; and when his officers rose from, table, and went to their separate stations, he said to them, “Before this time to-morrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster- abbey.” It has never been explained, why Bonaparte, having effected his landing, should not have ordered the fleet to return. It is, however, certain, that it was detained by his express command; though after the death of Brueys, he accused 4iim of having lingered there, contrary to his received orders. That admiral, not being able to enter the port of Alexandria, had moored his fleet in Aboukir bay, in a strong and compact line of battle; the headmost vessel being as close as possible to a shoal on the north-west, and the rest of the fleet forming a kind of curve along the line of deep water, so as not to be turned by any means on the south-west. The French admiral had the advantage of numbers in ships, in guns, and in men: he had thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, carrying 1196 guns, and 11,230 men; whereas the English had the same number of ships of the line, and one 50 gun ship, carrying 1012 guns, and 8068 men. They had, however, Nelson for chief-in-command, who, in all cases, was a mighty host in himself. During the whole cruize, it had been Nelson’s practice, whenever circumstances would admit of it, to have his captains on board the Vanguard, and fully explain to them his own ideas of the best modes of attack, whatever might be the situation of the enemy. His officers, therefore, were well acquainted with his principles of tactics and such was his confidence in their abilities and zeal, that the only plan arranged, in case they should find the French at anchor, was for the ships to form as most convenient for their mutual support, and to anchor by the stern. When he had fully explained his intended plan, captain Berry exclaimed with transport, “If we succeed, what will the world say” “There is no if.” replied the admiral “that we shall succeed is most certain: who may live to tell the story is a very different question.”

The position of the enemy presented the most formidable obstacles, but the admiral viewed these with the eye of a seaman determined on an attack; and it instantly struck him, that where there was room for an enemy’s ship to swing, there was room for one of ours to anchor. No further signal was necessary than those which had already been made. The admiral’s designs were as fully known to his whole squadron, as was his determination to conquer or perish in the attempt. The action commenced at sunset, at half past 6 o'clock, with an ardour that cannot be described. The Goliath, captain Foley, and the Zealous, captain Hood, received the first fire from the enemy. It was received with silence. On board every one of the British ships, the crew were employed aloft in furling sails, and below in tending the braces, and making ready for anchoring; a wretched sight for the French, who, with all their advantages, were on that element upon which escape was impossible. Their admiral, Brueys, was a brate and able man, yet he had, in a private letter, boasted that the English had* missed him, “because, not rinding themselves superior in numbers, they did not think it prudent to try their strength with him.” The moment was now come in which he was to be fatally undeceived. The shores of the bay of Aboukir were soon lined with spectators, who beheld the approach of the English, and the awful conflict of the hostile fleets, in silent astonishment. The two first ships of the French line were dismasted within a quarter of an hour after the action, and the others suffered so severely, that victory was even now regarded as certain. The third, the fourth, and the fifth, were taken possession^ of at half past eight. In the mean time, Nelson had received a severe wound on the head from a piece of iron, called a langridge shot; the skin of his forehead, being cut with it at right angles, hung down over his face. A great effusion of blood followed; but, as the surgeon pronounced there was no immediate danger, Nelson, who had retired to the cabin and was beginning to write his dispatches, appeared again on the quarter-deck, and the French ship the Orient being on fire, gave orders that boats should be sent to the relief of her men. Her commander Brueys was dead of his wounds, and the ship soon after blew up. The firing recommenced with the ships to the lee-ward of the centre, and continued until three in the morning. At day-break, the two rear-ships of the enemy were the only ships of the line that had their colours flying, and immediately stood out to sea, with two frigates The Zealous pursued, but as there was no other ship in a condition to support her, she was recalled. These, however, were all that escaped; and the victory was the most complete and glorious in the annals of naval history, uniting indeed, as was said in the House of Commons, all those qualities by which other victories had been most distinguished.

He went on however in his career, and it is to be deeply regretted that the proceeding which immediately followed, has been thought to detract from the glories of his former life. He now set sail for Sicily, and on his arrival at Naples, was received as a deliverer by their majesties and the whole kingdom. But soon after the subjects of that monarch, discontented at his conduct, and supported by the French, drove him from his capital, after which they established, or rather proclaimed, “The Parthenopean Republic.” The zeal of cardinal Ruffo, however, who successfully mingled the character of a soldier with that of a priest, proved signally efficacious towards the restoration of the exiled monarch. Having marched to Naples at the head of a body of Calabrians, he obliged “the patriots,” as they were termed, who were in possession of all the forts, to capitulate; and to this treaty the English, Turkish, and Russian commanders acceded. On the appearance of lord Nelson, however, Ferdinand publicly disavowed “the authority of cardinal Ruffo to treat with subjects in rebellion,” and the capitulation was accordingly violated, with the exception of the prisoners in Castella Mare alone, which had surrendered to the English squadron under commodore Foote. For this part of lord Nelson’s conduct much has been pleaded, but the general opinion was that it could not be justified.

After the appointment of lord Keith to the command of the Mediterranean fleet, lord Nelson made preparations to return, and proceeding in company with sir William and lady Hamilton, to Trieste, he travelled through Germany to Hamburgh, every where received with distinguished honours. He embarked at Cuxhaven, and landed at Yarmouth on the sixth of November 1800, after an absence from his native country of three years. In the following January he received orders to embark again, and it was during this short interval that he formally separated from lady Nelson. Some of his last words to her were, “I call God to witness, that there is nothing in you, or your conduct, that I wish otherwise.” He was now raised to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue, and soon after hoisted his flag on board the San Josef of 112 guns, his own prize at the battle of cape St. Vincent. About this time the emperor Paul of Russia had renewed the northern confederacy, the express and avowed object of which was to set limits to the naval supremacy of England. A resolution being taken by the English cabinet to attempt its dissolution, a formidable fleet was fitted out for the North Seas, under sir Hyde Parker, in which lord Nelson consented to go second in command. Having shifted his flag to the St. George of 98 guns, he sailed with the fleet in the month of March, and on the 30th of that same month he led the way through the Sound, which was passed without any loss. But the battle of Copenhagen gave occasion for an equal display of lord Nelson’s talents as that of the Nile. The Danes were well prepared for defence. Upwards of two hundred pieces of cannon were mounted upon the crown batteries at the entrance of the harbour, and a line of twenty-five two-deckers, frigates, and floating batteries, was moored across its mouth. An attack being determined upon, the conduct of it was entrusted to lord Nelson; the action was fought on the second of April; Nelson had with him twelve ships of the line, with all the frigates and small craft, the remainder of the fleet was with the commander in chief, about four miles off. The combat which succeeded was one of the most terrible on record. Nelson himself said, that of all the engagements in which he had borne a part, it was the most terrible. It began at ten in the morning, and at one victory had not declared itself. A shot through the main-mast knocked a few splinters about the admiral “It is warm work,” said he, “and this may be the last day to any of us in a moment; but, mark you, I would not be elsewhere for thousands.” Just at this moment sir Hyde Parker made signal for the action to cease. It was reported to him, but he continued pacing the deck, and appeared to take no notice of it. The signal-lieutenant asked if he should repeat it. “No,” replied Nelson, “acknowledge it.” Presently he called to know if the signal for close action was still hoisted, and being answered in the affirmative, he said, “Mind you keep it so.” About two o'clock, great part of the Danish line had ceased to fire, and the victory was complete, yet it was difficult to take possession of the vanquished ships, on account of the fire from the shore, which was still kept up. At this critical period, with great presence of mind, he sent the following note to the crown prince of Denmark “Lord Nelson has directions to spare Denmark when no longer resisting but, if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, lord Nelson must be obliged to set on fire all the floating-batteries he has taken, without having the power of saving the brave Danes who had defended them.” This immediately produced a treaty, which ended the dispute, and annihilated the northern confederacy. For this service lord Nelson was raised to the rank of a viscount. His last effort, in this war, was an attack on the preparations making at Boulogne, for the invasion of England; but, after the loss of many brave men on our side, the enterprize proved unsuccessful, from the situation of the harbour.

During the peace which followed, he retired to an estate lately purchased by himself, at Merton in Surrey; but no sooner was this short peace dissolved, than his lordship was called upon to take the command of the ships in the Mediterranean. He accordingly repaired thither, on board the Victory, May 20, 1303, and formed the blockade of Toulon with a powerful squadron. Notwithstanding all the vigilance employed, a fleet escaped out of this port on the 30th of March, 1805, and shortly after formed a junction with the Cadiz-squadron, sir John Orde being obliged to retire before such a superiority in point of numbers. The gallant Nelson no sooner received intelligence of this event, than he followed the enemy to the West-Indies; and such was the terror of his name, that they returned without effecting any thing worthy of mention, and got into port after running the gauntlet through sir Robert Calder’s squadron. The enemy having thus again eluded his pursuit, he returned almost inconsolable to England; and hearing that the French had joined the fleet from Ferrol, and had got safe to Cadiz, he again offered his services, which were readily accepted by the first lord of the admiralty, who gave him a list of the navy, and bade him choose his own officers. He accordingly reached Portsmouth, after an absence of only twenty-five days; and such was his impatience to be at the scene of action, that, although a strong wind blew against him, he worked down channel, and, after a rough passage, arrived off Cadiz, on his birth-day, Sept. 29, on which day the French admiral, Villeneuve, received orders to put to sea the first opportunity. In point of preparation the two fleets were supposed to be on an equality; but in respect to force, the French were the stronger in the proportion of nearly three to two, they having thirty-four ships of the line of 74 guns, and under lord Nelson there were but twenty-four of the same rank: in frigates they out-numbered him in a similar proportion. Early in the month of October, lord Nelson received information which led him to imagine the enemy would soon put to sea. He had already arranged a plan, according to which he determined to fight. He was aware of the mischief of too many signals, and was resolved never to distract the attention of his fleet on the day of action by a great number of them. On the 4th of October he assembled the admirals and captains of the fleet into the cabin of his ship, the Victory, and laid before them a new and simple mode of attack. Every man comprehended his method in a moment, and felt certain that it must succeed. It proved irresistible.

Lord Nelson did not remain directly off Cadiz with his fleet, or even within sight of the port. His object was to induce the enemy to come out; with this view he stationed his fleet in the following manner. TheEuryalus frigate was within half a mile of the mouth of the harbour to watch the enemy’s movements, and to give the earliest intelligence. At a still greater distance he had seven or eight sail of the line. He himself remained off Cape St. Mary with the rest of the fleet, and a line of frigates extended and communicated between him and the seven or eight sail off Cadiz. The advantage of this plan was, that he could receive ample supplies and reinforcements off Cape St. Mary, without the enemy being informed of it, and thus they always remained ignorant of the real force under his command: Villeneuve had also been misled by an American, who declared that Nelson could not possibly be with the fleet, as he had seen him in London but a few days before. Relying on this, the highest compliment they could pay Nelson, and on their own superiority, they put to sea on the 19th, and on the 21st lord Nelson intercepted them off Cape Trafalgar, about sixty miles east of Cadiz. When his lordship found, that by his manoeuvres, he had placed the enemy in such a situation that they could not avoid an engagement, he displayed much animation, and his usual confidence of victory. “Now,” said he, “they cannot escape us; I think we may make sure of twenty of them; I shall probably lose a leg, but that will be purchasing a victory cheaply.” He appears, however, to have had more gloomy presages, for on this morning he wrote a prayer in his journal, and solemnly bequeathed lady Hamilton, as a legacy, to his king and country. He left also to the beneficence of his country his adopted daughter, desiring that in future she would use his name only. “These,” said he, “are the only favours I ask of my king and country at this moment, when I am going to fight their battle.” He had put on the coat which he always wore in action, and kept for that purpose with a degree of veneration: it bore the insignia of all his orders. “In honour,” said he, “Igained them, and in honour I will die with them.” The last order which his lordship gave, previously to action, was short, but comprehensive, “England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty,” which was received with a shout of applause throughout the whole fleet. “Now,” said the admiral, “I can do no more we must trust to the great Disposer of all events, and the justice of our cause. I thank God for this opportunity of doing my duty.” It had been represented to him so strongly, both by captain Blackwood, and his own captain, Hardy, how advantageous it would be for him to keep out of the action as long as possible, that he consented that the Temeraire, which was then sailing abreast of the Victory, should be ordered to pass a-head, and the Leviathan also. They could not possibly do this if the Victory continued to carry all her sail; and yet so far was Nelson from shortening sail, that he seemed to take pleasure in baffling the advice to which he could not but assent. He had determined himself to fight the Santissima Trinidada; and it is worthy of remark, that he gained the highest honour in grappling with this ship in the action off Cape St. Vincent. She was the largest ship in the world, carried 136 guns, and had four decks. The Victory did not fire a single shot till she was close along-side the Trinidada, and had already lost 50 men in killed and wounded. Lord Nelson ordered his ship to be lashed to his rival, and in this labour the commander of the Trinidada ordered his men also to assist. For four hours the conflict which ensued was tremendous. The Victory ran on board the Redoubtable, which, firing her broad-sides into the English flag-ship, instantly let down her lower deck ports, for fear of being boarded through them. Captain Harvey, in the Temeraire, fell on board the Redoubtable on the other side; another ship, in like manner, was on board the Temeraire, so that these four ships, in the heat of battle, formed as compact a tier as if they had been moored together, their heads lying all the same way. The lieutenants of the Victory immediately depressed their guns, and fired with a diminished charge, lest the shot should pass through and injure the Temeraire: and because there was danger that the enemy’s ship might take fire from the guns of the lower-deck, whose muzzles touched her side when they were run out, the fireman of each gun stood ready with a bucket of water, which, as soon as the gun was discharged, he dashed at the hole made in her sides by the shot. In the prayer to which we have already alluded, and which Nelson wrote before the action, he desires that humanity, after victory, might distinguish the British fleet. Setting an example himself, he twice gave orders to cease firing upon the Redoubtable, supposing she had struck, because her great guns were silent; and as she carried no flag, there were no means of ascertaining the fact. From this ship, whose destruction was twice delayed by his wish to spare the vanquished, he received his dealt. Captain Hardy, on perceiving frequent showers of musket-balls fired on the Victory’s quarter-deck, requested lord Nelson to take off the insignia by which he was exposed, as a mark, to the sharp shooters placed in the main-round-top of the enemy’s ships. He answered, he would when he had time but paid no farther attention to his safety. In a minute afterwards, his secretary, Mr. Scott, who stood near him, was killed. A musket-ball entered his head, and he fell dead instantly. Captain Adair of the marines endeavoured to remove the mangled body, but it had attracted the notice of the admiral, who said, “Is that poor Scott who is gone?” Afterwards, whilst he was conversing with captain Hardy, on the quarter-deck, during the shower of musket-balls and raking fire that was kept up by the enemy, a doubleheaded shot came across the poop and killed eight of the marines. In a few minutes, a shot struck the fore-bracebits on the quarter-deck, and passing between lord Nelson and captain Hardy, drove some splinters from the bits about them, and bruised captain Hardy’s foot. They mutually looked at each other, when Nelson, whom no danger could affect, smiled and said, “It is too warm work, Hardy, to last.” The Redoubtable had, for some time, commenced a heavy fire of musketry from her tops, which, like those of the enemy’s other ships, were filled with riflemen. The Victory, however, became enveloped in smoke, except at intervals, when it partially dispersed, and, owing to the want of wind, was surrounded with the enemy’s ships.

Some of the crew immediately bore the admiral to the cock-pit, and on his observing that the tiller ropes, which were shot away early in the action, had not been replaced, he calmly desired a midshipman to remind capt. Hardy of it, and to request that new ones might be immediately rove. He then covered his face and stars with his handkerchief, that he might be less observed by his men. Being placed on a pallet in the midshipman’s birth on the larboard side, Mr. Beatty, the surgeon, was called, and his lordship’s cloaths were taken off, that the direction of the ball might be the better ascertained. “You can be of no use to me, Beatty,” said lord Nelson, “go and attend those whose lives can be preserved.” When the surgeon had executed his melancholy office, had expressed the general feeling that prevailed on the occasion, and had again been urged by the admiral to go and attend to his duty, he reluctantly obeyed, but continued to return at intervals. As the blood flowed internally from the wound, the lower cavity of the body gradually filled: lord Nelson therefore constantly desired Mr. Burke to raise him, and complaining of an excessive thirst, was supplied by Mr. Scott (the chaplain) with lemonade. In this state of suffering, with nothing but havoc and death and misery around him, his mind continued intent on the great object that was always before him, his duty to his country: he therefore anxiously inquired for capt. Hardy, to know whether the annihilation of the enemy might be depended on; and it being upwards of an hour before that officer could leave the deck, lord Nelson suspected he was dead, and could not easily be persuaded that it was otherwise. The crew of the Victory were now heard to cheer, when lieutenant Pasco, who lay wounded near him, said that one of their opponents had struck. A gleam of joy lighted up the countenance of Nelson; and as the crew repeated their cheers, and marked the progress of his victory, his satisfaction visibly increased. Mr. Bulkley, the captain’s aid de camp, then came below, and in a low voice communicated to the surgeon the particular circumstances which had detained capt. Hardy. The excessive heat of the cockpit, from the numbers of the dead and wounded, increased the faintness of the dying admiral, and his sight became dim “Who brought the message?” said he feebly. “Bulkley, my lord.” “It is his voice,” said Nelson, “remember me, Bulkley, to your father.” Capt. Hardy soon afterwards came down from the deck, and anxiously strove to conceal the feelings with which he had been struggling. “How goes the day with us, Hardy?” “Ten ships, my lord, have struck.” “But none of ours, I hope.” “There is no fear, my dear lord, of that. Five of their van have tacked, and shewn an intention of bearing down upon us; but I have called some of our fresh ships round the Victory, and have no doubt of your complete success.” Captain Hardy then found himself unable any longer to suppress the yearnings of a brave and affectionate heart, and hurried away for a time to conceal the bitterness of his sorrow.

When the firing from the Victory had in some measure ceased, and the glorious result of the day was accomplished, capt. Hardy immediately visited the dying chief, and reported the entire number that had struck: “God be praised, Hardy I bring the fleet to an anchor.” Capt. Hardy was returning to the deck, when the admiral called him back, and begged him to come near. Lord Nelson then delivered his last injunctions, and desired that his body might be carried home to be buried, unless his sovereign should otherwise desire it, by the bones of his father and mother. He then took capt. Hardy by the hand, and observing, that he would most probably not see him again alive, the dying hero desired his brave associate to kiss him, that he might seal their long friendship with that affection which pledged sincerity in death. Capt. Hardy stood for a few minutes over the body of him he so truly regarded, in silent agony, and then kneeling down again, kissed his forehead. “Who is that?” said Nelson. “It is Hardy, my lord.” “God bless you, Hardy,” replied Nelson, feebly; and afterwards added, “I wish I had not left the deck, I shall soon be gone:” his voice then gradually became inarticulate, with an evident increase of pain; when, after a feeble struggle, these last words were distinctly heard, “I have done my duty, I praise God for it.” Having said this, he turned his face towards Mr. Burke, on whose arm he had been supported, and expired without a groan, Oct. 21, 1805, in the forty-seventh year of his age.

, a learned and pious English gentleman, was born June 22, 1656, at London. He was the son of Mr. John Nelson, a considerable Turkey merchant of that city, by Delicia his wife, sister of sir Gabriel Roberts, also a London merchant. His father dying when he was but two years old, he was committed to the care of his mother, and her brother sir Gabriel, who was appointed his guardian. His first education was at St. Paul’s school, London; but, after some time, his mother wishing to have him more under her eye, took him home to her house at Dryfield, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, and procured the learned Dr. George Bull, then rector of Suddington in that neighbourhood, to be his tutor. As soon as he was fit for the university, he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge, first as pensioner, and afterwards was admitted a fellow commoner. It is not improbable, that Dr. (afterwards archbishop) Tillotson was consulted on this occasion, as he was intimately acquainted with the guardian, sir Gabriel Roberts: however, it is certain that Mr. Nelson was early known to that eminent divine, and very much esteemed by him.

In 1680 he was chosen F. R. S. probably by the introduction of his friend and school-fellow, Dr. Halley, for whom he had a particular regard, and in whose company he set out on his travels the same year. In the road to Paris they saw the remarkable comet which gave rise to the cometical astronomy of sir Isaac Newton; and our author, apparently by the advantage of his fellow-traveller’s instructions, sent dean Tillotson a description of it. Before he left Paris he received a letter from a friend in the English court, suggesting to him to purchase a place there, and promising his assistance in it. But although Nelson had a great affection for king Charles and the duke of York, and was at first pleased with the thoughts of aU taching himself to the court, on which, however, at that time, he was more likely to confer honour, than to derive any from it, yet he could not resolve upon an affair of such consequence without the approbation of his mother and uncle. He first, therefore, applied to Tillotson to obtain their opinion, with assurances of determining himself by their and the dean’s advice; but, finding no encouragement from either of the parties, he relinquished his intention, and pursued his journey with his fellow-traveller to Rome. Here he became acquainted with a lady considerably older than himself, the lady Theophila Lucy, widow of sir Kingsmili Lucy, of Broxburne, Herts, bare, and second daughter of George earl of Berkeley, who soon discovered a strong passion for him, which concluded in a marriage, after his arrival in England, in 1682. His disappointment was, however, very great, when he found that she had deceived him in one very essential point, that of her having been won over to the popish religion while on this tour; and it was some time before she confessed this change, which was owing to her acquaintance with Bossuet, and conversations at Rome with cardinal Philip Howard, who was grandson of the earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundelian marbles, &c. and had been raised to the purple by Clement X. in May 1675. Nor was this important alteration of her religious sentiments confined to her own mind, but involved in it her daughter by her first husband, whom she drew over to her new religion; and her zeal for it prompted her even to become a writer in one of the controversies so common at that time. She is the supposed authoress of a piece printed in 1686, 4to, under the title of “A Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversy in matters of Religion, shewing the necessity of such a judge.”

This misfortune touched her husband very nearly, and he employed not only his own pen, but those of his friends Tillotson and Hickes, to recover her. Tillotson addressed a, long letter to her on the subject; and Hickes, on her account, published le A Collection of his Letters," which passed between him and a popish priest in 1675, 8vo; in which is inserted, p. 328, a letter to an English priest of the Romish communion at Rome, written by Mr. Nelson for his lady’s use. But all proved ineffectual, and she continued in the communion of the church of Rome till her death, in 1705. She was a person of considerable talents and sense. Dr. Tillotson particularly laments her case on that account; and even seems not to be entirely free from all apprehensions of the influence she might have upon her husband in this important affair. But Nelson’s religion was too much the result of his learning and reason to be shaken by his love, which was equally steady and inviolable. Her change of religion made no change in his affections for her; and, when she relapsed into such a bad state of health as required her to go to drink the waters at Aix, he attended her thither in 1688; and being dissatisfied with the prospect of the revolution, and the removal of James II. from the crown, he proceeded to Italy a second time with his lady, and her son and daughter by her former husband. He returned through Germany to the Hague, where he stayed some time with lord Dursley, who was married to his wife’s sister.

From the Hague he arrived in England in 1691, confirmed in his dislike of the change of government. He had, while abroad, shewn his regard for king James by holding a correspondence with the earl of Melfort, his majesty’s ambassador to the pope, after the revolution; and now declared himself a nonjuror, and left the communion of the church of England, although, we think, without being fully decided. He had, indeed, consulted Tillotson, and followed his opinion, who thought it no better than a trick, detestable in any thing, and especially in religion, to join in prayers where there was any petition which was held to be sinful. On this subject, however, we shall soon find that Nelson changed his opinion. The friendship between him and Tillotson remained the same; and the good archbishop expired in his friend’s arms in 1694, after which Nelson was very instrumental in procuring Mrs. Tillotson’s pension from the crown to be augmented from 400l. to 600l. per annum. Mr. Nelson’s new character unavoidably threw him into new connections, among whom was Mr. Kettlewel), who had resigned his living at Coleshill in Warwickshire, on account of the new oaths, and afterwards resided in London. This pious and learned divine was of his opinion as to leaving the communion of the established church; yet persuaded him to engage in the general service of piety and devotion; observing to him, that he was very able to compose excellent books of that kind, which too would be apt to do more good, as coming from a layman. This recomdation was highly agreeable to Mr. Nelson; and indeed it was their agreement in this, rather than in state-principles, that first made Kettleweli admire our author, who, in return, is said to have encouraged Kettleweli to proceed in that soft and gentle manner, in which he excelled, in managing the nonjurors’ controversy; and animated him besides to begin and prosecute some things for the public good, which otherwise would not have seen the light. Mr. Kettlewell died in 1695, and left Mr. Nelson his sole executor and trustee in consequence of which he published his posthumous piece entitled “An Office for Prisoners,” &c. in 1697. He also published five other of his friend’s posthumous pieces, and furnished the chief materials for the account of his life afterwards.

At th'e same time he engaged zealously in every public scheme for propagating the faith, and promoting the practice of true Christianity, both at home and abroad; and was eminently active in forwarding the building, repairing, and endowing churches, and establishing charity-schools, then a matter of very great importance in counteracting the seductions of the popish party. Nelson, we have remarked, was not fully decided in quitting the communion of the church of England; and upon the death of Dr. Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, in the end of 1709, he returned to it again. Dr. Lloyd was the last survivor of the deprived bishops, except Dr. Kenn, by whose advice Mr. Nelson was determined in this point. It had been a case in view some time, and had been warmly argued on both sides, whether the continuance of their separation from the church should be schismatical or no; and our author had some conferences upon it with Dr. Hickes, who was for perpetuating the nonjuring church, and charging the schism upon the church established .

Mr. Nelson’s tutor, Dr. George Bull, bishop of St. David’s, dying before the expiration of this year, he was easily prevailed upon, by that prelate’s son, to draw up an account of his father’s life and writings. He had maintained a long and intimate friendship with the bishop, which gave him an opportunity of being acquainted with his solid and substantial worth; had frequently sate at his feet, as he was a preacher, and as often felt the force of those distinguishing talents which enabled him to shine in the pulpit. But, above all, he had preserved a grateful remembrance of those advantages, which he had received, from him in his education and he spared no pains to embalm his memory. The life was published in 1713. He had, for some time, laboured under an asthma and dropsy in the breast; and the distemper grew to such a height soon after the publication of that work, that, for the benefit of the air, he retired at length to his cousin’s, Mrs. Wolf, daughter of sir Gabriel Roberts, a widow, who lived at Kensington, where he expired Jan. 16, 1714-15, aged fifty-nine .

He was interred in the cemetery of St. George’s chapel, now a parochial church, in Lamb’s-Conduit Fields, where a monument is erected to his memory, with a long and elegant Latin inscription, written by bishop Smalridge. He was the first person buried in this cemetery and being done to reconcile others to the place, who had taken an insurmountable prejudice against it, it had the desired effect. He published several works of piety, and left his whole estate to pious and charitable uses, particularly to charity-schools. A good portrait of him was given by Mr. Nichols, in 1779, to the Company of Stationers, and is placed in the parlour of their public hall. After the death of sir Berkeley Lucy, Mr. Nelson’s library was sold by auction in 1760, together with that of sir Berkeley, forming, united, a most extraordinary assemblage of devotion and infidelity. Several of Mr. Nelson’s original letters, highly characteristic of his benevolence, may be seen ia the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.”

, a Latin poet, was born at Carthage, and flourished about the year 281, under the emperor Carus, and his sons Carinus and Numerian; the last of whom was so fond of poetry, that he contested the glory with Nemesianus, who had written a poem upon fishing and maritime affairs. We have still remaining a poem of our author, but in an imperfect state, called “Cynegeticon,” and four eclogues; they were published by Paulus Manutius in 1538; by Berthelet in 1613, and at Leyden, in 1653, with the notes of Janus Vlitias. Giraldi hath preserved a fragment of Nemesianus, which was communicated to him by Sannazarius; to whom we are obliged for all our poet’s works: for, having found them written in Gothic characters, he procured them to be put into the Roman, and then sent them to Paulus Manutius. Although this poem has acquired some reputation, it is greatly inferior to those of Oppian and Gratian upon the same subject; yet Nemesianus’s style is natural, and not without some degree of elegance. Such was the reputation of this poem in the eighth century, that it was read among the classics in the public schools, particularly in the time of Charlemagne, as appears from a letter of the celebrated Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, to his nephew, of Laon. There was another poet of the same name and century, who wrote a piece termed “Ixeutica,” published in the “Poetse Rei Venaticae,” but of far inferior merit.

was a Greek philosopher, who embraced Christianity, and was made bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia, where he was born about the year 370. We have a piece by him, entitled “De Natura Hominis;” in which he refutes the fatality of the Stoics, and the errors of the Manichees, the Apollinarists, and the Eunomians: but he espouses the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls. Brucker calls this treatise one of the most elegant specimens, now extant, of the philosophy which prevailed among the ancient Christians. The writer relates and examines the opinions of the Greek philosophers on the subject of his dissertation with great perspicuity of thought, and correctness of language. But the treatise is chiefly curious, as it discovers a degree of acquaintance with physiology, not to be paralleled in any other writers of this period. Brucker adds, that he treats clearly concerning the use of the bile, the spleen, the kidneys, and other glands of the human body, and seems to have had some idea of the circulation of the blood. But Brucker was not aware that his knowledge of this last discovery has been shewn to be a mistake by Dr. Freind, in his “History of Physic.” This treatise was translated by Valla, and printed in 1535. Another version was afterwards made of it by Ellebodius, and printed in 1665; it is also inserted into the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” in Greek and Latin. The last and best edition was published at Oxford, in 1671, 8vo.

, an ancient British historian, abbot of Bangor, is generally said to have flourished about the year 620, and to have taken refuge at Chester, at the time of the massacre of the monks at that monastery. This, however, has been controverted by Lloyd, who says that he flourished about the beginning of the ninth century; and bishop Nicolson says, that from his own book he appears to have written in that century. He was author of several works, but the only one remaining is his “Historia Britonum,” or “Eulogium Britanniæ,” which has been printed in Gale’s Hist. Brit. Scrip. Oxon. 1691. Great part of this work is supposed to have been compiled, or perhaps transcribed, from the history of one Elborus or Elvodugus. There, is a ms. of it in the Cottonian library, in the British Museum.

All that we have left of his at present is, “The Lives of the illustrious Greek and Roman Captains” which were a long time ascribed to Æmilius Probus, who published them, as it is said, under his own name, to insinuate himself into the favour of the emperor Theodosius; but, in the course of time, the fraud was discovered. The first edition, under the name of JEmilius Probus, was that at Venice, 1471, fol. Since that the most valued editions are that of Aldus, 1522, 12mo; Longolius, 1543, 8vo Lambinus, 1569, 4to Bosius, 1657 and 1675, 8vo the Variorum, of 1675, 8vo at Oxford, 1697, 8vo of Staverenus, 1773, 8vo ofHeusinger, 1747, 8vo of Fischer, 1806, 8vo and of Oxford, 1803, 8vo.

, founder of the congregation of priests of the Oratory in Italy, was born July 23, 1515, of a noble family at Florence. His piety and zeal acquired him uncommon reputation. He died at Rome, 1595, aged eighty, and was canonized by pope Gregory XV. 1622. The congregation founded by St. Philip de Neri was confirmed, 1574, by pope Gregory XIII. and took the name of the Oratory, because the original assemblies, which gave rise to its establishment, were held in an oratory of St. Jerome’s church at Rome but it differs from the congregation of the Oratory founded by cardinal de Berulle, in France. Its members take no vows; their general governs but three years; their office is to deliver such instructions every day in their church as are suited to all capacities. Each institution has produced great numbers of men who have been celebrated for their learning, and services to the Romish church. It was at St. Philip de Neri’s solicitation that cardinal Baronius, who had entered his congregation, wrote his Ecclesiastical Annals.

We are informed, by Florentine historians, that this family had borne the highest posts of the state from the year 900, when it was raised, with five others, to the dignity of Famiglia Cavalleresca, by the famous Ugo, marquis of Tuscany. The education of Philip de Nerli was superintended by Benedetto, a disciple of Politian; and in his youth he formed an intimacy with the most distinguished scholars of Florence. In the beginning of duke Alexander’s government, in 1532, he was chosen among the first to be of the quarantotto, or forty-eight magistrates, who were afterwards called senators. He governed the chief cities of Tuscany, in quality of commissary, which title is bestowed only upon senators; and the opinion which Alexander entertained of his judgment, made him be always employed upon public affairs, and nothing important was transacted without his concurrence. From this intimacy with political events, we may suppose him enabled to transmit to posterity the secret springs which gave them birth. He was a great favourite, and nearly related to the family of Medicis, which created him some enemies. He died at Florence, Jan. 17, 1556. His “Commentari de Fatti Civili,” containing the affairs transacted in the city of Florence from 1215 to 1537, were printed in folio, at Augsburg, in 1728, by Settimanni. As the author every where betrays his partiality to the Medici, they may be advantageously compared with Nardi’s history of the same period, who was equally hostile to that family.

was born in 1056, at Bielzier; and, in his twenty-ninth year, assumed a monastic habit, and took the name of Nestor. At Kiof he made a considerable proficiency in the Greek language, but seems to have formed his style and manner rather from Byzantine historians, Cedrenus, Zona' as, and Syncellus, than from the ancient classics. The time of Nestor’s death is not ascertained; but he is supposed to have lived to an advanced age, and to have died about 1115. His great work is his “Chronicle;” to which he has prefixed an introduction, which, after a short sketch of the early state of the world, taken from the Byzantine writers, contains a geographical description of Russia and the adjacent countries; an account of the Sclavonian nations, their manners, their emigrations from the banks of the Danube, their dispersion, and settlement in several countries, in which their descendants are now established. He then enters upon a chronological series of the Russian annals, from the year 858 to about 1113. His style is simple and unadorned, such as suits a mere recorder of facts but his chronological exactness, though it renders his narrative dry and tedious, contributes to ascertain the aera and authenticity of the events which he relates. It is remarkable, that an author of such importance, whose name frequently occurs in the early Russian books, should have remained in obscurity above 600 years; and been scarcely known to his modern countrymen, the origin and actions of whose ancestors he records with such circumstantial exactness. A copy of his “Chronicle” was given, in 1668, by prince Radzivil, to the library of Konigsburgh, where it lay unnoticed until Peter the Great, in his passage through that town, ordered a transcript of it to be sent to Petersburg. But it still was not known as the performance of Nestor; for, when Muller, in 1732, published the first part of a German translation, he mentioned it as the work of the abbot Theodosius of Kiof; an error, which arose from the following circumstance: the ingenious editor, not being at that time sufficiently acquainted with the Sclavonian tongue, employed an interpreter, who, by mistaking a letter in the title, supposed it to have been written by a person whose name was Theodosius. This ridiculous blunder was soon circulated, and copied by many foreign writers, even long after it had been candidly acknowledged and corrected by Muller.

Nestor was successively followed by three annalists; the first was Sylvester, abbot of the convent of St. Michael at Kiof, and bishop of Perislaf, who died in 1123; he commences his “Chronicle” from 1115, only two years posterior to that of Nestor, and continues it to 1123; from which period a monk, whose name has not been delivered down to posterity, carries the history to 1157 and another, equally unknown, to 1203. With respect to these performances, Mr. Muller informs us, “the labours of Nestor, and his three continuators, have produced a connected series of the Russian history so complete, that no nation can boast a similar treasure for so long and unbroken a period.” We may add, likewise, from the same authority, that these annals record much fewer prodigies and monkish legends than others which have issued from the cloister in times so unenlightened.

, from whom the sect of the Nestorians derive their name, was born in Germanica, a city of Syria, in the fifth century. He was educated and baptized at Antioch, and soon after the latter ceremony withdrew himself to a monastery in the suburbs of that city. When he had received the order of priesthood, and began to preach, he acquired so much celebrity by his eloquence and unspotted life, that in the year 429 the emperor Theodosius appointed him to the bishopric of Constantinople, at that time the second see in the Christian church. He had not been long in this office before he began to manifest an extraordinary zeal for the extirpation of heretics, and not above five days after his consecration, attempted to demolish the church in which the Arians secretly held their assemblies. In this attempt he succeeded so far, that the Brians, grown desperate, set fire to the church themselves, and with it burnt some adjoining houses. This fire excited great commotions in the city, and Nestorius was ever afterwards called an incendiary. From the Arians he turned against the Novatians, but was interrupted in this attack by the emperor. He then began to persecute those Christians of Asia, Lydia, and Caria, who celebrated the feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moon; and for this unimportant deviation from the catholic practice, many of these people were murdered by his agents at Miletum and at Sardis. The time, however, was now come when he was to suffer by a similar spirit, for holding the opinion that “the virgin Mary cannot with propriety be called the mother of God.” The people being accustomed to hear this expression, were much inflamed against their bishop, as if his meaning had been that Jesus was a mere man. For this he was condemned in the council of Ephesus, deprived of his see, banished to Tarsus in the year 435, whence he led a wandering life, until death, in the year 439, released him from farther persecution. He appears to have been unjustly condemned, as he maintained in express terms, that the Word was united to the human nature in Jesus Christ in the most strict and intimate sense possible; that these two natures, in this state of union, make but one Christ, and one person; that the properties of the Divine and human natures may both be attributed to this person; and that Jesus Christ may be said to have been born of a virgin, to have suffered and died: but he never would admit that God could be said to have been born, to have suffered, or to have died. He was not, however, heard in his own defence, nor allowed to explain his doctrine. The zealous Cyril of Alexandria (see Cyril) was one of his greatest enemies, and Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis^ one of the chief promoters of his doctrines, and the co-founder of the sect. In the tenth century the Nestorians in Chaldsea, whence they are sometimes called Chaldaeans, extended their spiritual conquest beyond mount Imaus, and introduced the Christian religion into Tartary, properly so called, and especially into that country called Karit, and bordering on the northern part of China. The prince f that country, whom the Nestorians converted to the Christian faith, assumed, according to the vulgar tradition, the name of John, after his baptism, to which he added the surname of Presbyter, from a principle of modesty; whence it is said, his successors were each of them called Prester John, until the time of Jenghis Khan. But Mosheim observes, that the famous Prester John did not begin to reign in that part of Asia before the conclusion of the eleventh century. The Nestorians formed so considerable a body of Christians, that the missionaries of Rome were industrious in their endeavours to reduce them under the papal yoke. Innocent IV. in 1246, and Nicolas IV. in 1278, used their utmost efforts for this purpose, but without success. Till the time of pope Julius III. the Nestorians acknowledged but one patriarch, who resided first at Bagdat, and afterwards at Mousul; but a division arising among them in 1551, the patriarchate became divided, at least for a time, and a new patriarch was consecrated by that pope, whose successors fixed their residence in the city of Ormus, in the mountainous part of Persia, where they still continue distinguished by the name of Simeon; and so far down as the seventeenth century, these patriarchs persevered in their communion with the church of Rome, but seem at present to have withdrawn themselves from it. The great Nestorian pontiffs, who form the opposite party, and look with a hostile eye on this little patriarch, have, since 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and reside constantly in the city of Mousul. Their spiritual dominion is very extensive, takes in a great part of Asia, and comprehends also within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, and also the Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar. It is observed, to the honour of the Nestorians, that of all the Christian societies established in the East, they have been the most careful and successful in avoiding a multitude of superstitious opinions and practices that have infected the Greek and Latin churches* About the middle of the seventeenth century the Romish missionaries gained over to their communion a small number of Nestorians, whom they formed into a congregation or church, the patriarchs or bishops of which reside in the city of Amida, or Diarbekir, and all assume the denomination of Joseph. Nevertheless, the Nestorians in general persevere, to our own times, in their refusal to enter into the communion of the Romish church, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties and alluring offers that have been made by the pope’s legate to conquer their inflexible constancy.

, an eminent painter, was born in 1639, at Prague in Bohemia. His father dying in the Polish service, in which he was an engineer, his mother was constrained, on account of the catholic religion, which she professed, to depart suddenly from Prague with her three sons, of whom Gaspard was the youngest* At some leagues from the town she stopped at a castle, which wafc afterwards besieged; and Gaspard’s two brothers were famished to death. The mother, apprehensive of the same fate, found means to escape in the night-time out of the castle, and with her son in her amis reached Arnheim, ifo Guelderland, where she met with some relief to support herself and breed op her son. A physician, named Tutkens, a man of wealth and humanity, became the patron of Netscher, and put him to school, with the view of educating him to his own profession; but Netscher’s decided turn for the art he afterwards practised, induced his patron to place him with a glazier to learn to draw, this being the only person at Arnheim who could give him any instructions. As soon as tie had iearned all this man could teach, he went to Deventer, to a painter, whose name was Gerhard Terburg, an able artist, and burgomaster of the town, under whom he acquired a great command of his pencil and, going to Holland, worked there a long time for the picture-merchants, who, abusing his easiness, paid him very little for his pieces, which they sold at a good price.

, another son of Gaspard, who was born at the Hague in 1670, also practised the art of painting under the tuition of his father, whose works he carefully studied and though he never was able to equal them, yet he arrived at no mean degree of skill in his profession. His principal practice was in portraiture, in which he was much encouraged; but being of an infirm habit of constitution, he was much interrupted in his labours, and died in 1722, at the age of fifty-two.

, a physician and miscellaneous writer, the son of John Nettleton, was born in 1683, at Dewsbury, and settled at Halifax, in Yorkshire, where he practised physic for several years with great success, having taken the degree of M. D. at Utrecht. He and Mr. West, of Underbank, near Penniston, in Yorkshire, were the first who instructed professor Sanderson in the principles of mathematics; and Dr. Nettleton used to say, that the scholar soon became more knowing than his master. We find several communications from Dr. Nettleton in the Philosophical Transactions, as “An account of the height of the Barometer at different elevations above the surface of the earth;” and two papers on the small-pox. It appears that he had inoculated sixty-one persons, when the whole amount of persons inoculated by other practitioners was only one hundred and twenty-one. In 1729, he published a pamphlet, entitled “Some thoughts concerning virtue and happiness, in a letter to a clergyman,” 8vo, which he afterwards much enlarged. It was reprinted at London in 1736 and 1751, both in small octavo, but the former of these is the most valuable, because it had the author’s finishing hand. The design is to shew that happiness is the end of all our actions; but that it must be founded on virtue, which is not only the support and ornament of society, but yields the greatest pleasure, both in its immediate exercise, and in its consequence and effects. Dr. Nettleton married, in March 1708, Elizabeth Cotton, of Haigh-hall, by whom he had several children. He died Jan. 9, 1742, at Halifax, and was buried at Dewsbury, with a Latin epitaph on the south wall of the church. To the account of his publications, not noticed in our authority, we may add his thesis on taking his degree, “Disput. de Inflammatione,” Utrecht, 1706; and his “Account of the success of inoculating the Smallpox.” Lond. 1722, 4to; neither of which his biographer appears to have seen.

, an eminent chemist, the son of an apothecary, was born at Zullichau, in the duchy of Crossen, July 11, 1682. Caspar was educated under his father, and commenced practice at Unruhstadt, in Poland; but after a short residence there, he went to Berlin in 1705, and was employed several years as traveller for the pharmaceutic establishment of the king of Prussia. In consequence of the ability which he manifested in the performance of this duty, the king sent him to prosecute his studies at the university of Halle, and subsequently defrayed the expences of a journey, for the purpose of acquiring chemical information. He commenced this chemical tour in 1711 by visiting the mines of Germany and thence went to Holland, where he profited by the instructions of the celebrated Boerhaave. He then visited England, and while here had the misfortune to lose his royal patron, Frederick I., by death. His talents and character, however, soon afforded him relief from this temporary embarrassment for, on his return to the continent he was detained at Franeker by Cyprianus, who employed him in the execution of many chemical experiments; and he was at the same time invited to Berlin. At that time, however, he preferred accompanying George I., king of England, to Hanover, whither he went in 1716. He subsequently visited Berlin, for the purpose of settling some private affairs, where he obtained the friendship of Stahl, through whose influence at court he was again sent on a tour of chemical investigation, through England, France, and Italy, where he was introduced to all the celebrated chemists of the day. On his return to Berlin, he was appointed apothecary to the court and in 1723, when the king instituted the Royal College of Medicine and Surgery, he was nominated professor of practical chemistry, and was elected a member of that body in the following year. In 1725, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society of London; and in 1727, was honoured with the degree of M. D. by the university of Halle. In the course of the same year, he travelled through Silesia and Moravia to Vienna; and on his return through Bohemia he visited the baths of Tb'plitz, and examined the mines, in passing by the way of Dresden and Freyberg, with all the attention of a chemical philosopher.

Dr. Neve was an able divine and scholar, and had long filled his station with credit to himself and the university, of which he remained a member more than sixty years. In private life, the probity, integrity, and unaffected simplicity of his manners, endeared him to his family and friends, and rendered him sincerely regretted by all who knew him. He had accumulated a very considerable collection of books, particularly curious pamphlets, which were dispersed after his death. Most of them contain ms notes by him, which we have often found of great value. His publications were not numerous, but highly creditable to his talents. Among them was a sermon, on Act-Sunday, July 8, 1759, entitled “The Comparative Blessings of Christianity,” the text Ephes. iv. 8. “Animadversions on Philips’s Life of Cardinal Pole, Oxford, 1766,” 8vo. “Eight Sermons preached at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury,” 1781, 8vo and after his death appeared “Seventeen Sermons on various subjects,” 1798, 8vo, published by subscription for his family.

, an English poetical writer, was a native of Kent, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Nevil, was the son of Richard Nevil of the county of Nottingham, esq. by Anne Mantel, daughter of sir Walter Mantel, of Heyford in Northamptonshire, knight. He was born in 1544. If not educated at Cambridge, his name occurs as having received the degree of M. A. there, along with Robert earl of Essex, July 6, 1581. He was one of the learned men whom archbishop Parker retained in his family, and was his secretary at his grace’s death in 1575. It is no small testimony of his merit and virtues that he was retained in the same of-, fice by the succeeding archbishop, Grindal, to whom, as well as to archbishop Parker, he dedicated his Latin narrative of the Norfolk insurrection under Kett. To this he added a Latin account of Norwich, accompanied by an engraved map of the Saxon and British kings. These were both written in archbishop Parker’s time, who assisted Nevile in the latter. The title is, “Kettus, sive de furoribus Norfolciensium Ketto duce,” Lond. 1575, 4to. reprinted both in Latin and English the same year, in Latin in 1582, and in English in 1615 and 1623. Prefixed are some verses on the death of archbishop Parker, and the epistle dedicatory to Grindal, with a recommendatory Latin poem, by Thomas Drant, the first translator of Horace. His “Norvicus,” published with the preceding, is the first printed account of Norwich; the plates are by R. Lyne and Rem. Hogenbergius, both attached to the household of the learned and munificent Parker. There are copies of almost all the preceding editions in Mr. Cough’s library at Oxford. Strype has published, in the appendix to his Life of Parker, an elegant Latin letter from Nevile to Parker, which is prefixed to the “Kettus.” The first Latin edition, printed in 1575, is dedicated solely to -Parker: and the second, of the same year, which has the two dedications, has also a passage, not in the former, and probably struck out by Parker, which gave offence to the Welsh. It occurs at p. 132, “Sed enim Kettiani rati,” &c, to “Nam prosterquam quod,” &c. p. 133.

, dean of Canterbury, and an eminent benefactor to Trinity college, Cambridge, brother to the preceding, was born in Canterbury, to which city his father, who had spent his younger days at court, had, in his declining years, retired. He entered early at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which he was elected a fellow in November 1570. In 1580, he was senior proctor of the university, and in 1582 was presented to the mastership of Magdalen -college by the then patron of that office, Thomas lord Howard, first earl of Suffolk. In 1587, the queen, to whom he was chaplain, conferred on him the second prebend in the church of Ely, at which time he was also rector of Doddington cum Marchj in the isle of Ely. In 158S, he was elected vice-chancellor of the University, but relinquished the office, in the following year, to Dr. Preston, master of Trinity-hall. While he presided in this station, he took the degree of D. D. During his being vice-chancellor, it is only recorded, that he had occasion to repress the freedoms which two of the university preachers took when speaking in their sermons of the established church.

In 1590, Dr. Nevile was promoted by her majesty to the deanery of Peterborough. In 1592, he joined with the other deans and prebendaries of the late erected churches in a resolution to solicit an act of parliament for the confirmation of their rights. It was necessary, indeed, to check the designs of those who pretended that their revenues arose from concealed lands, and that, therefore, they belonged to the crown: and in resisting these vexations they were supported by archbishop Whitgift. In February 1593, Dr. Nevile quitted the mastership of Magdalen, in consequence of being promoted by her majesty to that of Trinity-college, and in March 1594, resigned the rectory of Doddington, on being presented to that of Teversham near Cambridge.

The character of Nevile was now held in such estimation by queen Elizabeth, that, on the death of Dr. Rogers, she promoted him to the deanery of Canterbury, in which he was installed June 28, 1597. On her majesty’s death, he was sent by archbishop Whitgift into Scotland to address her successor, in the name of all the clergy, with assurances of their loyalty and affection. He was also commissioned to inquire what commands his majesty had to enjoin as to causes ecclesiastical; and, at the same time, to recommend the church of England to his favour and protection. To this message James returned an answer, declaring, that he would maintain the government of the church as Elizabeth left it. The king afterwards, when on a visit to Cambridge, in 1615, was entertained at Trinity-college, by Dr. Nevile, who was then much enfeebled by the palsy, and did not long survive the royal visit. He died at Cambridge May 2, 1615, advanced in life, but his age we have not been able to ascertain.

By his munificence to Trinity-college, Dr. Nevile has secured to himself the gratitude and admiration of posterity. He expended more than 3000l. in rebuilding that fine quadrangle, which to this day retains the name of Nevil’s-eourt. He was also a contributor to the library of that college, and a benefactor to East-bridge hospital in his native city. He was not less a generous patron of many scholars who became the ornaments of the succeeding age. He was buried in Canterbury-cathedral, in the ancient chantry in the South aile, which he had fitted up as the burial-place of his family, and which was afterwards called NeviPs chapel. Here he placed a monument to the memory of his father, mother, and uncle; and another was erected to himself: but in 1787, when the cathedral was new paved, the chapel itself was removed, and the monuments, in taking down, almost entirely destroyed. The inscription to the dean only remains, and is placed between two mutilated figures of himself and his elder brother Alexander, in the chapel of the Virgin Mary.

After Dr. Young had published his celebrated satires, Mr. Newcomb, who was very intimate with him, printed, 1. “The Manners of the Times, in seven Satires.” 2. “An Ode to the Queen, on the happy accession of their Majesties to the Crown,” 1727. 3. “An Ode to the Right Honourable the Earl of Orford, on Retirement,” 1742. 4. “A Collection of Odes and Epigrams, &c. occasioned by the Success of the British and Confederate Arms in Germany,” 1743. 5. “An Ode inscribed to the Memory of the late Earl of Orford,” 1747. 6. Two Odes to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, on hjs return from Scotland, and on his Voyage to Holland,“1746. 7.” A Paraphrase on some Select Psalms.“8.” The Consummation, a Sacred Ode on the final Dissolution of the World, inscribed to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,“1752, 4to. 9.” A Miscellaneous Collection of Original Poems, Odes, Epistles, Translations, &c. written chiefly on political and moral subjects; to which are added, Occasional Letters and Essays, formerly published in defence of the present government and administration,“1756, a large volume in 4to. 10.” Vindicta Britannicn, an Ode on the Royal Navy, inscribed to the King,“1759, 4to, 11.” Novus Epigrammatum Delectus, or Original State Epigrams and Minor Odes, suited to the Times,“1760, 8vo. 12.” The Retired Penitent, being a poetical Version of one of the Rev. Dr. Young’s Moral Contemplations. Revised, approved, and published, with the Consent of that learned and eminent Writer,“1760, 12mo. 13.” A congratulatory Ode to the Queen, on her Voyage to England,“1761, 4to. 14.” On the Success of the British Arms;, A congratulatory Ode addressed to his Majesty,“1763, 4to. 15.” The Death of Abel, a Sacred Poem, written originally in the German language, attempted in the style of Milton,“1763, 12mo. 16. In 1757, he published” Versions of two of Hervey’s Meditations,“in blank verse. And, in 1764, the whole of them were printed in two volumes, 12mo, inscribed to the right hon. Arthur Onslow, sir Thomas Parker, and lady Juliana Penn. Mr. Nichols also supposes, that Dr. Newcomb was the author of” A Supplement to a late excellent poem, entitled Are these things so?“1740; and of” Preexistence and Transmigration, or the new Metamorphosis; a Philosophical Essay on the Nature and Progress of the Soul; a poem, something between a panegyric and a satire," 1743. Dr. Newcomb died probably about 1766^ in which year his library was sold, an4 when he must have been in his ninety-first year.

, an eminent prelate, descended from a non-conformist family, was born at Barton-le-Clay, in Bedfordshire, April 10, 1729, and educated at Abingdon school. In 1745 he entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, but removed some time after to Hertford college, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1753, and became a tutor of considerable eminence. Among other pupils who preserved a high respect for his memory, was the late hon. Charles James Fox. In 1765 he took his degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was appointed chaplain to the earl of Hertford, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, who conferred on him, withiti a year, the see of Dromore. In 1775, he was translated to Ossoryj and in 1778 produced his first workj “An Harmony of the Gospels,” which involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley respecting the duration of our Lord’s ministry, Dr. Priestley confining it to one year, while the bishop extended its duration to three years and a half. In 1779 Dr. Newcome was translated to the see of Waterford; and in 1782 published “Observations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his moral character.” This was followed, ia 1785, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” 4to, and in 1788, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the prophet Ezekiel,” 4to. He published also about the same time “A Review of the chief difficulties in the Gospel history respecting our Lord’s Resurrection,” 4to, the purpose of which was to correct some errors in his “Harmony.” In 1792 he published at Dublin one of his most useful works, “Art historical view of the English Biblical translations; the expediency of revising by authority our present translation; and the means of executing such a work,” 8vo. Concerning the latter part of this scheme there are many differences of opinion, and in the learned prelate’s zeal to effect a new translation, he is thought, both in this and his former publications, to have been too general in his strictures on the old. He lived, however, to witness Dr. Geddes’s abortive attempt towards a new translation, and the danger of such a work falling into improper hands. For the historical part, the bishop is chiefly indebted to Lewis, but his arrangement is better, and his list of editions more easily to be consulted, and therefore more useful. Except a very valuable Charge, this was the last of Dr. Newcorae’s publications which appeared in his life-time. In January 1795 he was translated to the archbishopric of Armagh. He died at his house in St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Jan. 11, 1800, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was interred in the new chapel of Trinity college. Soon after his death was published his “Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant of Jesus Christ,” &c. The writer of his life in the Cyclopaedia says that this work “has been made the basis of an” Improved Version of the New Testament, published by a Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, &c.“much to the mortification, as we have heard, of some of the archbishop’s relatives;” nor will our readers fail to sympathize with them, when they are told that this “Improved version” is that which has been so ably and justly censured and exposed by the Rev. Edward Nares, in his “Remarks on the Version of the New Testament lately edited by the Unitarians,” &c. 1810, 8vo. Archbishop Newcome’s interleaved Bible, in four volumes folio, is in the library at Lambeth-palace. He was, unquestionably, an excellent scholar, and well-qualified for biblical criticism; but either his zeal for a new version, or his views of liberality, led him to give too much encouragement to the attempts of those witb whom he never could have cordially agreed, and who seem to consider every deviation from what the majority hold sacred, as an improvement.

, author of that very valuable work the “Repertorium Londinense,” deserves some notice, although we have been able to recover very few particulars of him. We have, however, on his own authority, that he was one of the proctors general of the court of arches, from Trinity term 1668. He probably was the “Richard Newcourt, gent.” who assisted in publishing “An exact Delineation of London,” &c. in 1658, and if so, was of Somerton, in the county of Somerset. He was for twenty-seven years principal registrar of the diocese of Canterbury, and notary public, and generally resided in Doctors’ Commons, but died at Greenwich in February 1716, considerably advanced in life, if the preceding dates are correct. His “Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense,” was published in 2 vols. fol.; the first in 1708, and the second in 1710. It would be quite unnecessary to enlarge on the merits of this most useful work.

He married twice, first in 1743, Sophia, daughter of Edward Conyers, of Copt-hall, in Essex, esq. who died in 1774; and secondly, in 1776, Hester, daughter of Edward Mundy, of Shipley, in Derbyshire, esq.; but having no issue by either, the title became extinct.

To the university of Oxford he was a steady friend and frequent benefactor. The admired cast of the Florentine boar in Queen’s college library, the Florentine museum, and other books in the library of University college, Piranesi’s works in the Bodleian, and those exquisite spe r cimens of ancient sculpture, the Candelabra in the Radciiffe library (which cost 1800/,) were some of his donations. In 1755 he was honoured by the countess dowager of Pomfret (who was aunt to the first lady Newdigate) with a commission to intimate to the university her ladyship’s intention of presenting them with what are now called the Arundelian marbles. In 1805 sir Roger made an offer to the university of the sum of 2000l. for the purpose of removing them to the Radcliffe library, but some unexpected difficulties were started at that time, which prevented the plan from being executed, although it is to be hoped, it is not finally abandoned. He gave also 1000l. to be vested in the public funds, in the name of the vice-chancellor and the master of University college, for the time being, in trust, part of it to go for art annual prize for English verses on ancient sculpture, painting, and architecture, and the remainder to accumulate as a fund towards the amendment of the lodgings of the master of University college. His charitable benefactions in the neighbourhood of his estate were extensive, and have proved highly advantageous, in ameliorating the state of the poor, and furnishing them with education and the means of industry. But we must refer. to our authority for these and other interesting particulars of this worthy baronet.

, an English clergyman, whose extraordinary history has long been before the public, was born in London, July 24, 1725. His father was many years master of a ship in the Mediterranean trade, and in 1748 went out as governor of York Fort, in Hudson’s Bay, where he died in 1750. His mother, who died when he was only seven years old, had given him such religious instruction as suited his capacity, which was apt and good. By school education he profited little. He appears indeed to have been at a school at Stratford, in Essex, about two years, and acquired some knowledge of the L&tin, but his master’s method being too precipitate, he soon lost all he had learned. At the age of eleven he was taken to sea by his father, and before 1742 had made several voyages, at considerable intervals, which were chiefly spent in the country, excepting a few months in his fifteenth year, when he was placed with a very advantageous prospect at Alicant, where, as he says, “he might have done well, if he had behaved well.” For about two years something like religious reformation appeared in him, but he adds, “it was a poor religion, and only tended to make him gloomy, stupid, unsocial, and useless;” and from this he was seduced into the contrary extreme, by perusing some of the writings of Shaftesbury, which he found in a petty shop at Middleburgh, in Holland. In 1742, when his father proposed to leave off going to sea, he endeavoured to provide his son with a situation, and an eligible one occurred of his going to Jamaica; but happening to meet with the lady who became afterwards his wife, he abhorred the thought of living from her at such a distance as Jamaica, and that perhaps for four or five years, and therefore absented himself on a visit to Kent, until the ship sailed without him. His father, though highly displeased, became reconciled, and in a little time Mr. Newton sailed with a friend of his father’s to Venice. In this voyage, being a common sailor, and exposed to the company of some profligate comrades, he began to relax from the regularity which he had preserved in a certain degree, for more than two years; and in this and his subsequent voyages, represents himself as extremely thoughtless, vi-r cious, and abandoned. The consequences of this conduct led to those adventures which he has so interestingly de-r tailed in his life, published in 1764, and to which we must refer as to a work that does not admit of a satisfactory abridgment. If his vices were great, his sufferings seem also to have amounted to the extremes of misery and disgrace; but at length, about 1747, he was rescued by his father from this state of wretchedness, and in 1748, appears to have been for the first time awakened to a proper sense of his past life, which gradually improved into a real reformation. After this he was employed in ships concerned in the African slave-trade, and acquired that knowledge which many years afterwards enabled him to contribute, by his evidenoe before parliament, to the abo-i lition of that detestable traffic.

It is remarkable, that in all his miseries and wretchedness, and even when most profligate and apparently thoughtless in his conduct on board of ship, he preserved an anxiety to learn, and at his leisure hours, acquired a considerable knowledge of the mathematics. In his later voyages, he endeavoured to revive his acquaintance with the Latin language. How scanty his means were, appears from his own account. “He had seen an imitation of one of Horace’s odes in a magazine, and wished to be able to read that poet, but had no other help than an old English translation, with Castalio’s Latin Bible. He had the DeU phin edition of Horace, and by comparing the odes with the interpretation, and tracing such words as he understood from place to place by the index, together with what assistance he could get from the Latin Bible, he thus, by dint of hard industry, made some progress. He not only understood the sense of many odes, and some of the epistles, but” I began,“he says,” 4o relish the beauties of the composition; acquired a spice of what Mr. Law calls classical enthusiasm; and, indeed, by this means, I had Horace more ad unguem, than some who are masters of the Latin tongue. For my helps were so few, that I generally had the passage fixed in my memory before I could fully understand its meaning." In a future voyage, which he commenced from Liverpool in August 1750^ as commander, he made still greater progress in Latin; providing himself with a dictionary, and adding to Horace, Juvenal, Livy, Caesar, &c. His conduct in all respects was now become regular. He allotted about eight hours for sleep and meals, eight hours for exercise and devotion, and eight hours to his books. In a Guinea trader, such a life perhaps has no parallel.