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

Rousseau. “My dear—It was always my earnest desire that it would please God to take me out of the world before you—my prayer has been heard—and my wish will soon have its accomplishment. Look at that sun, whose smiling aspect seems to call me hence! There is my God—God himself—who opens to me the bosom of his paternal goodness, and invites me to taste and enjoy, at last, that eternal and unalterable tranquillity, which I have so long and so ardently panted after. My dear spouse —do not weep—you have always desired to see me happy. I am now going to be truly so! Do not leave me: I will have none but you to remain with me—you, alone, shall close my eyes.” Mrs. Rousseau. “My dear—my good friend—banish those apprehensions and let me give you something—I hope that this indisposition will not be of a long continuance!”

It becomes necessary now to recur to some particulars of Rousseau’s more public and literary life, which was in many respects as censurable as his private. The commencement of his literary career was in 1750. The academy of Dijon had proposed the question, “Whether the revival of the arts and sciences has contributed to the refinement of manners.” Rousseau, it is said, at first inclined to the affirmative side of the question; but Diderot told him it was a kind of pons asinorum, and advised him to support the negative, and he would answer for his success. Nor was he disappointed, for this paradoxical discourse was allowed to be admirably written, and replete with the deepest reasoning, and was publicly crowned with the approbation of the academicians. Several answers appeared Against it, one of which was written by Stanislaus, king of Poland, who was, however, so much an admirer of Rousseau, that when the latter was ridiculed on the stage of Nancy, by Palissot, in his “Comedie des Philosophes,” the king, then duke of Lorraine, deprived Palissot of his place at the academy of Nancy. On this occasion Rousseau, with far more sense, interceded for him, and obtained his restoration. In 1752 Rousseau wrote a comedy entitled “Narcisse, ou PAmant de lui-meme.” He also composed a musical entertainment of “Le Devin du Village,” which was represented with the greatest success at Paris. His next piece was “Lettre sur la Musique Franchise,” which was to prove that the French had no such thing as vocal music, and that, from the defects in their language, they could not have it. This able work so excited the resentment of the French, that he is said to have been burnt in effigy. In 1754- he returned to Geneva, where he abjured the catholic faith, and was restored to the rights of citizenship. He now wrote his e< Discours sur les Causes de l'inegalite parmi les Hommes, et sur TOrigine des Societes.“This endeavour to prove that all mankind are equal has (in the opinion of a modern critic, by no means partial to Rousseau’s character) been much misunderstood by critics, and misrepresented by wits. Even by the author’s confession, it is rather ajeu d'esprit than a philosophical inquiry; for he owns that the natural state, such as he represents it, did probably never take place, and probably never will; and if it had taken place, he seems to think it impossible that mankind should ever have emerged from it without some very extraordinary alteration in the course of nature. He also says that this natural state is not the most advantageous for man; for that the most delightful sentiments of the human mind could not exert themselves till man had relinquished his brutal and solitary nature, and become a domestic animal. At this period, and previous to the establishment of property, he places the age most favourable to human happiness; which is precisely what the poets have done before him, in their descriptions of the golden age. After publishing this rhapsody, Rousseau did not remain long at Geneva, but returned to France, and lived some time at Paris, after which he retired to Montuiorency, and published, in 1758, his” Lettre“to M. D‘Alembert on the design of establishing a theatre at Geneva, which he proved could not be necessary in a place circumstanced as Geneva was. D’Alembert and Marmontel, however, replied, and Voltaire appears from this time to have begun his hatred for Rousseau, with whom he and the rest of the philosophers had hitherto cordially co-operated against the Christian religion. Rousseau wanted that uniform hatred to revealed religion which the others called consistency, and his fancy was apt to ramble bevond the limits they had set. In 1760 he published his 'celebrated novel entitled” Lettres de clt ux A mans,“c. bui generally known by the title of” Julie, ou la Nnuvelie Heloise.“This epistolary romance, of which the plofc is ill-managed, and the arrangement bad, like all other works of genius, has its beauties as well as its defects. Some of the letters are, indeed, admirable, both for style and sentiment, but none of the personages are reaily interesting. The character of St. Preux is weak, and often forced. Julia is an assemblage of tenderness and pity, of elevation af soul, and of coquetry, of natural parts and pedancry. Wolmar is a violent man, and almost beyond the limits of nature. In fine, when he wishes to change his style, and adopt that of the speaker, he does not long support it, and every attempt embarrasses the author and cools the reader. In this novel, however, Rousseau’s talent of rendering every thing problematical, appears very conspicuous, as, in his arguments in favour of, and against, duelling, which afford an apology for suicide, and a just condemnation of it; of his facility in palliating the crime of adultery, aud his strong reasons to make it abhorred; on the one hand, in declamations against social happiness, on the other in transports in favour of humanity; here in violent rhapsodies against philosophers; there by a rage for adopting their opinions; the existence of God is attacked by sophistry, and atheists confuted by the most irrefragable arguments; the Christian religion combated by the most specious objections, and celebrated by the most sublime eulogies. Yet in the preface to this work the author attempts to justify his consistency; he says public spectacles are necessary for great cities, and romances for a corrupted people.” I have,“he adds,” viewed the manners of my age, and have published these letters. Why did I not live at a time when I ought to have thrown them into the fire?“He affects also to say that they were not intended for an extensive circulation, and that they will suit but few readers. With regard to their effects on the female sex, he pretends to satisfy his conscience with saying” No chaste young woman ever reads romance^; and I have given this book a decisive title, that on opening it a reader may know what to expect. She who, notwithstanding, shall dare to read a single page, is undone; but let her not impute her ruin to me the mischief was done before.“Such is the impudence of this man, who had made his work as seductive as possible, and would have been greatly mortified if it had not produced its effect. Whoever, indeed, reads his” Confessions“will see that sensuality was, first and last, his predominant vice, and that moral corruption became early familiar to him. The only wonder is, that he should ever have been considered as a moral teacher, because, in order to introduce his depraved sophistry with more effect, he mixed with it some moral lessons. Yet there was a time when this was a favourite work even in our country, and it is to be feared, has been the pattern of many others, which, although written with less ability, have been encouraged in the same circles which once gave a fashion to Rousseau. His next attempt was to recommend republicanism in a work entitled” Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du Droit Politiqtie,“in which he bore his part, along with the Encyclopaedists, in exciting those awful delusions which produced the French revolution and all its disastrous consequences. It was, however, less cautious than some of his former productions, and was immediately prohibited in France and Switzerland; and hence his lasting enmity to all existing establishments, civil and religious, which brought on what he and his friends were pleased to consider as persecution. This appeared particularly in his” Emilie, ou de l'Education,“which was published in 1762. In this work, with many remarks that may be useful, there are others so mischievous and impious, that whenever it produces an effect, it must be of the worst kind. It was not, however, his dogmas on education only, which excited the public hostility to this work, so much as his insolent declamation against all which the world had agreed to hold sacred, mixed, as in his former novel, with an affected admiration of the morals of the gospel, and the character of its founder; and it is remarkable that, in this last condescension, he so much displeased his former colleagues, Voltaire, D'Alembert, &c. that they joined the public voice, although from different and concealed motives. In truth, they thought, like others, that there was too much of an insane inconsistency about Rousseau, and that no party could rank him among its supporters. In the mean time, as soon as published, the French parliament condemned this book, and entered into a criminal prosecution against the author, which forced him to a precipitate retreat. He directed his steps to his native country, but Geneva shut her gates against him, and both at Paris and Geneva, the” Emile“was burnt by the common hangman. At length he was for a time allowed to take shelter in Switzerland, where he published a letter to the archbishop of Paris, in answer to his tnandement for the burning of the” Emile;“and also his” JLettres de la Montagne,“in which occurs the following almost blasphemous paragraph:” How,“says he,” can I enter into a justification of this work? I, who think that I have effaced by it the faults of my whole life; I, who place the evils it has drawn upon me as a balance to those which I have committed; I who, filled with confidence, hope one day to say to the supreme Arbiter, ‘ Deign in thy clemency to judge a weak mortal:’ I have, it is true, done much ill upon earth, but I have published this writing.“In these letters too, he continued his hostility to revealed religion, in a manner that excited against him great indignation among the clergy of Neufchatel; and in September 1765, the populace attacked his house and his person, and with much difficulty he reached Strasburg in a very destitute condition, where he waited till the weather permitted, and then set out for Paris, and appeared in the habit of an Armenian. The celebrated Hume at this time resided in Paris, and being applied to in favour of Rousseau, undertook to find him an asylum in England, to which he accordingly conducted him in the beginning of the year 1766, and provided him with an agreeable situation. But Rousseau, whose vanity and perverse temper were ungovernable, and who thought he was not received in this country with the respect due to the first personage in Europe, which he conceived himself to be, took it in his head that Hume was in league with the French philosophers to injure his lame, and after abusing his benefactor in a letter, in the most gross manner, and even refusing a pension from the crown, left England in 1767, and went to France. At this period he published his” Dictionnaire de Musique.“Of this work Dr. Burney, after pointing out some defects, says, that” more good taste, intelligence, and extensive views are to be found in his original articles, not only than in any former musical dictionary, but in all the books on the subject of music which the literature of France can boast. And his ` Lettre sur la Musique Frangois,' may be safely pronounced the best piece of musical criticism that has ever been produced in any modern language. It must, however, be confessed, that his treatment of French music is very sarcastic, not to say contemptuous; but the music, the national character avantageux, and exclusive admiration of their own music, required strong Ian* guage. It had been proved long since, that they were not to be laughed out of their bad taste in any one of the fine arts: the national architecture, painting, and sculpture, were, in general, bad, and not what a traveller returning from Italy could bear to look at: though there have been now and then individual French artists of every kind, who have travelled and studied antiquity as well as the great masters of the Italian school; and it is now said, that at the Institute they are trying seriously to correct their errors, and to establish a classical taste throughout the empire."

, a voluminous French writer, was born at Laon, in Picardy, Aug. 26, 1686. His father and mother were of good families, both protestants, and sutrerers for their religion. His mother’s body was ordered to be drawn upon a hurdle, because she died in the protestant faith, and his father was condemned to be hanged for endeavouring to escape into Holland, but was saved at the intercession of the chancellor Voisin, who prevailed on the Jesuit La Chaise to obtain his pardon. His son was educated first at the college of Laon, and afterwards in that of Du Plessis at Paris, Having finished his philosophical studies, some family discontents, owing to the introduction of a step- mother, determined him to go to Holland, where he entered into the company of the French cadets attached to the regiment of guards belonging to the States-general. He served with reputation until after the battle of Malplaquet, when he returned to his studies, and married. In order to maintain himself and family, he commenced the business of teaching for fourteen or fifteen years at the Hague, and educated in that time above fifty young men of family, who afterwards rose to offices of distinction in the republic. This employment, however, he relinquished in 1723, in order to devote his time to the study of politics and history, and became editor or contributor to various literary and political journals, in which he was assisted by some Frenchmen of talents, who, like himself, had taken refuge in Holland. Political writers are not always safe, even in republics; and Rousset, in 1747, having written some pamphlets against the magistrates, and in favour of the prince of Orange, was arrested at Amsterdam, and confined for some weeks there or at the Hague; but when the prince was made Stadtholder, by the name of William IV. he not only released Rousset, but soon after conferred on him the title of counsellor extraordinary, and appointed him his historiographer. Returning now to Amsterdam, he plunged farther into politics by becoming one of the chiefs of the party known in that country by the name of Doelisten, from Doele, the name of a hotel where they assembled. This party obtained what they demanded, but the stadtholder wishing to unite all parties in the common cause, and the Doelisten having become obnoxious to the public, he dismissed Rousset, in 1749, from the places he had conferred on him, and forbid the publication of a work he had written against the French court. Rousset being at the same time informed that he was in danger of being taken up, went to Brussels, where his pen was his chief resource, and there he died in 1762.

, an English lady, celebrated for personal accomplishments, and her elegant writings both inverse and prose, was the daughter of Mr. Waiter Singer, a dissenting minister, and born at Ilchester in Somersetshire, Sept. 11, 1674. Her father was possessed of a competent estate near Frome in that county, whhere he lived; but, being imprisoned at Ilchester for nonconformity, married and settled in that town. The daughter, whose talents in other respects appeared very early, began to write verses at twelve years of age. She was also fond of the sister-arts, music and painting; and her father was at the expence of a master, to instruct her in the latter. She was also early accustomed to devout exercises, in which her mind was sincere, ardent, and unconstrained: and this habit, which grew naturally from constitution, was also powerfully confirmed by education and example. She was early acquainted with the pious bishop Ken, who had a very high opinion of her: and, at his request, wrote her paraphrase on the 38th chapter of Job. In 1696, the 22d of her age, a collection of her poems was published: they were entitled “Poems on several occasions, by Philomela,” her name being concealed, but they contributed to introduce her to the public with great advantage.

She understood the French and Italian tongues well; for which, however, she had no other tutor than the hon. Mr. Thynne, son to lord Weymouth, who kindly took upon him the task of teaching her. Her uncommon merit, and the charms of her person and conversation, procured her many admirers; and, among others, it is said that Prior the poet made his addresses to her. There was certainly much of friendship, if not of love, between them; and Prior’s answer to Mrs, Roue’s, then Mrs. Singer’s, pastoral on those subjects, gives room to suspect that there was something more than friendship on his side. In the mean time, Mr. Thomas Rowe, the son of a dissenting clergyman, a gentleman of uncommon parts and learning, and also of some talents for poetry, was the successful suitor. She was advanced to the age of thirty-six, before their interview at Bath in 1709, and he was ten or twelve years younger. It appears, however, to have been a match of affection on both sides. Some considerable time after his marriage, he wrote to her under the name of Delia a very tender ode, full of the warmest sentiments of connubial friendship and affection: five years constituted the short period of their happiness. Mr. Rowe died of a consumption in May 1715, aged twenty-eight years, and was unfeignedly lamented by his amiable partner. The elegy she composed upon his death is one of her best poems. It was only out of a regard to Mr. Rowe, that she had hitherto endured London in the winter-season, and therefore, on his decease, she retired to Frome, where her property chiefly lay, and where she wrote the greatest part of her works, Her “Friendship in Death, in twenty letters from the dead to the living,” was published in 1728; and her “Letters Moral and Entertaining” were printed, the first part in 1729, the second in 1731, and the third in 1733, 8vo, both written with the pious intention of exciting the careless and dissipated part of the world to an attention to their best interests, and written in a style considerably elegant, and perhaps at that time new, striking, copious, and luxuriant. In 1736, she published “The History of Joseph,” a poem, which she had written in her younger years. She did not long survive this publication; for she died of an apoplexy, as was supposed, Feb. 20, 1736-7, in the sixty-third year of her age. In her cabinet were found letters to several of her friends, which she had ordered to be delivered immediately after her decease, that the advice they contained might be the more impressive. The rev. Dr. Isaac Watts, agreeably to her request, revised and published her devotions in 1737, under the title of “Devout Exercises of the heart in Meditation and Soliloquy, Praise, and Prayer;” and, in 1739, her “Miscellaneous Works in prose and verse” were published in 2 vols. 8vo, with an account of her life and writings prefixed. These have often been reprinted, and still retain a considerable share of popularity. Her person is thus described: Although she was not a regular beauty, she possessed a large share of the charms of her sex. She was of a moderate stature, her hair of a fine colour, her eyes of a darkish grey inclining to blue, and full of fire. Her complexion was very fair, and a natural blush glowed in her cheeks. She spoke gracefully, her voice was exceedingly sweet and harmonious; and she had a softness in her aspect, which inspired love, yet not without some mixture of that awe and veneration which distinguished sense and virtue, apparent in the countenance, are wont to create.

, an eminent dramatic poet, was the son of John Rowe, esq. serjeant at law, and born at Little Berkford in Bedfordshire in 1673. His family had long possessed a considerable estate, with a good house, at Lambertoun in Devonshire. His ancestor from whom he descended in a direct line, received the arms borne by his descendants for his bravery in the holy war. His father, John Rowe, who was the first that quitted his paternal acres to practise any part of profit, professed the law, and published Benlow’s and Dallison’s Reports in the reign of James the Second, when, in opposition to the notions then diligently propagated, of dispensing power, he ventured to remark how low his authors rated the prerogative. He was made a serjeant, and died April 30, 1692. He was buried in the Temple church.

Rowe is chiefly to be considered (Dr. Johnson observes) in the light of a tragic writer and a translator. In his attempt at comedy he failed so much, that he wisely gave up the pursuit of the comic muse, and his “Biter” is not inserted in his works; and his occasional poems and short compositions are rarely worthy of either praise or censure; for they seem the casual sports of a mind seeking rather to amuse its leisure than to exercise its powers. In the construction of his dramas there is not much art; he is not a nice observer of the unities. He extends time, and varies place, as his convenience requires. To vary the place is not (in the opinion of the learned critic from whom these observations are borrowed) any violation of nature, if the change be made between the acts for it is no less easy for the spectator to suppose himself at Athens in the second act, than at Thebes in the first but to change the scene as is done by Rowe in the middle of an act, is to add more acts to the play, since an act is so much of the business as is transacted without interruption. Rowe, by this licence, easily extricates himself from difficulties; as in “Lady Jane Gray,” when we have been terrified with all the dreadful pomp of public execution, and are wondering how the heroine or poet will proceed, no sooner has Jane pronounced some prophetic rhimes, than pass and be gone the scene closes, and Pembroke and Gardiner are turned out upon the stage. “I know not,” says Dr. Johnson, “that there can be found in his plays any deep search into nature, any accurate discriminations of kindred qualities, or nice display of passion in its progress all is general and undefined. Nor does he much interest or affect the auditor, except in” Jane Shore,“who is always seen and heard with pity. Alicia is a character of empty noise, with no resemblance to real sorrow or to natural madness.” It is concluded, therefore, that Rowe’s reputation arises principally from the reasonableness and propriety of some of his scenes, from the elegance of his diction, and the suavity of his verse. He seldom moves either pity or terror, but he often elevates the sentiments; he seldom pierces the breast, but he always delights the ear, and often improves the understanding. Being a great admirer of Shakspeare, he gave the public an edition of his plays; to which he prefixed an account of that great man’s life. But the most considerable of Mr. Rowe’s performances was a translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” which he just lived to finish, but not to publish; for it did not appear in print till 1728, ten years after his death. It is said he had another talent, not usual with dramatic authors. Mrs. Oldfield affirmed, that the best school she had ever known was, hearing Rowe read her part in his tragedies.

In the mean time, the love of poetry and books did not make him unfit for business; for nobody applied closer to it when occasion required. The duke of Queensbernf, when secretary of state, made him secretary of public affairs. After the duke’s death, all avenues were stopped to his preferment; and, during the rest of queen Anne’s reign, he passed his time in study. A story, indeed, is told, rather an improbable one, which shews that he had some acquaintance with ministers. It is suid, that he went one day to pay his court to the lord treasurer Oxford, who asked him, “if he understood Spanish well?” He answered, “No:” but, thinking that his lordship might intend to send him into Spain on some honourable commission, he presently added, “that he did not doubt but he could shortly be able both to understand and to speak it.” The earl approving what he said, Rowe took his leave; and, retiring a few weeks to learn the language, waited again on the earl to acquaint him with it. His lordship asking him, “if he was sure he understood it thoroughly,” and Rowe affirming that he did, “How happy are you, Mr. Rowe,” said the earl, “that you can have the pleasure of reading and understanding the history of Don Quixote in the original!” On the accession of George I. he was made poet laureat, and one of the land-surveyors of the customs in the port of London. The prince of Wales conferred on him the clerkship of his council; and the lord chancellor Parker made him his secretary for the presentations. He did not enjoy these promotions long, for he died Dec. 6, 1718, in his 45th year.

Dr. Rowley wrote a great many medical pamphlets on various subjects, arising from the practice or peculiar diseases of his day, the titles of which it is unnecessary to specify, as in 1794, he re-published the whole, with corrections and additions, in 4 vols. 8vo. under the title of “The rational practice of Physick of William Rowley.” He appears to have been a man of extensive reading; and his practice, if not his theory, was in general conformable to that of his brethren, who did not, however, hold him in the highest regard, as in most of his works he seemed less ambitious of professional fame, than of popularity. When the Cow-pock was introduced, Dr. Rowley joined his learned friend Dr. Moseley, in direct hostility to the plan, and thus added a few more enemies to those he had created by his former attacks on some of the most eminent physicians of his time, Fothergill, Huxham, Pringle, Fordyce, Wall, Gregory, Cullen, &c. In 1793 he published a work under the title of “Schola medicinse universalis nova,” 2 vols. 4to, and afterwards a sort of translation of it in one volume 4to. This appears to have excited very little attention, although he was at great expence in engraving anatomical, &c. plates, and referred to it in many of his’ subsequent pamphlets on “Injections,” “The Hydrocephalus,” “The Plague,” &c. Dr. Rowley had much caste for music, and some for poetry. We are told he wrote light verses, and songs of a humorous cast, with great facility.

, in Latin Regius, a learned professor, was born at Constance, in Normandy, about the beginning of the 16th century. In the course of his studies he not only became a good Greek and Latin scholar, but particularly cultivated his native language, the French, which he endeavoured to polish and refine. After passing several years in Italy and at court, he settled at Paris, where, in 1570, he was appointed to the professorship of Greek. After this he studied the law four years at Toulouse; and frequented the bar at the parliament of Paris, in which he exercised some kind of magistracy; but his inattention to domestic affairs reduced him at last to depend upon the liberality of others for his daily subsistence, a misery almost insupportable in him who was naturally of a haughty temper, would never admit of a superior, and treated many of his learned contemporaries with great disdain. He died July 2, 1577. One of his best performances was an elegantly written life of the learned Budieus. His others were good translations into French of part of the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthenes, which he enriched with learned commentaries, and proved his intimate acquaintance with the original language.

, an architect and antiquary, was born at Paris in 1728, and was son of Julian le Roy, a celebrated mechanist, who so excelled in the art of watchmaking, that his time-pieces acquired the same celebrity in France as those of Graham in England. He died at Paris in 1759, at the age of 74, leaving four sons; of whom Julian became an eminent architect, and greatly improved the French style of architecture. He wrote, 1. “Ruines des plus beaux Monumens de la Grece,” which obtained for the author admission into the Academy of Inscriptions. This first appeared in 1758, but many errors having been pointed out by our Athenian Stuart, he published a more correct edition in 1770. 2. “Histoire de la disposition et tiesformes differentes des Temples des Chretiens;” 3. “Observations sur les Edifices des anciens Peuples. 4.” De la Marine des anciens Peuples.“5.” Les Navires des Anciens,“1783, 8vo, and in 1785, another on the same subject; which was followed, in 1796, by a memoir on cutting masts in the Pyrenees. This ingenious man died at Paris in the year 1803, at the age of seventy-five. His brother Peter was watch-maker to the king, and published memoirs for the clock-makers of Paris,” Etrennes Chronometriques,“” Treatise on the Labours of Harrison and le Roy for the Discovery of Longitude at Sea." He died in 1785. The English, on account of their numerous discoveries in this art, had enjoyed such a reputation for the excellence of their clocks and watches, that they found every where a market, in preference to any others, and tbr French themselves were obliged to come to England for their time-pieces, until Julian le Roy, the father, had the honour of removing, in part, this pre-eminence, and of transferring it to the French. He made many discoveries in the construction of repeating-clocks and watchc- in second and horizontal watches he invented an universal compass with a sight an extremely useful ar.d simple contrivance for drawing a meridional line, and finding the declination of the needle; and a new universal horizontal dial. It is to him we are indebted for the method of compensating for the effects of heat and cold in the balances of chronometers, by the unequal expansion of different metals, a discovery which has been brought by our English artists to a state of great perfection, although it had been thrown aside by the inventor’s son, Peter.

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

, an eminent agricultural writer, was born at Lyons, Jan. 24, 1734. His father, who was engaged in commerce, dying while he was young, and without property, he entered into the ecclesiastical order; but he had scarce ended his studies, when the soil, cultivation, &c. of the beautiful country near Lyons, began to occupy his attention, and Columella, Varro, and Olivier de Serres, became his favourite authors. In the study of botany he took La Tourette for his guide, who was his countryman and friend. With him, after being appointed director of the school at Lyons, which he soon left, he published, in 1766, “Elementary Demonstrations of Botany,” a work that passed through many editions. In 1771 he went to Paris, where he began to publish the “Journal de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle,” which was conducted with greater reputation than in the hands of his predecessor Gauthier d‘Agoty. In this work he gave clear and interesting accounts of all new discoveries in physics, chemistry, and natural history. ’ Having been, by the recommendation of the king of Poland, presented to a valuable priory, he had leisure to turn his attention to his favourite project of a complete body, or “Cours d' Agriculture.” As Paris was not the place for an object of this kind, he purchased an estate at Beziers, where his studies and observations enabled him to complete his “Cours,” in 10 vols. 4to, except the last, which did not appear till after the author’s death. In 1788 he went to Lyons, and was admitted a member of the academy, and the government gave him the direction of the public nursery ground. On the revolution Rozier was one of its earliest partizaris, and one of its victims; for in September 1793, during the siege of Lyons, a bomb falling upon his bed, buried his body in the ruins of his house. He was author of several treatises on the method of making wines, and distilling brandy, on the culture of turnip and cole-seed, on oil-mills, and other machinery.

After continuing about four years with Venius, the latter, who admired his progress, candidly told him that he could no farther advance it, and that he must visit Italy. This was Rubens’s secret wish, but the means by which he accomplished it have been variously represented. Sandrart, who was intimately acquainted with him, and accompanied him when he travelled through Holland, tells us that the archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, conceived so high an opinion of Rubens, from the accounts he had received of his superior talents, that he engaged him in his service, employed him to paint several fine designs for his own palace, and recommended him in the most honourable manner to the duke of Mantua, in whose court he might have access constantly to an admirable collection of paintings and antique statues, and have an opportunity of improving himself by studying as well as copying the former, and designing after the latter. On his arrival at Mantua he was received with a degree of distinction worthy of his merit; and while he continued there, he added considerably to his knowledge, though he attached himself in a more particular manner to the style of colouring peculiar to the Venetian school. From Mantua he visited Rome, Venice, and other cities of Italy, and studied the works of the greatest painters, from the time of Raphael to his own, and accomplished himself in colouring, by the accurate observations he made on the style of Titian and Paolo Veronese. It has been objected, however, that he neglected to refine his taste as much as he ought by the antique, though most of the memorable artists in painting had sublimed their own ideas of grace, expression, elegant simplicity, beautiful proportion, and nature, principally by their making those antiques their perpetual studies and models.

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

In 1620 he received a commission from Mary de Medici, to adorn the gallery of the palace of the Luxembourg, for which he executed a vvellfknown series of paintings, exhibiting the principal events of the life of that princess. The whole were completed in three years, an astonishing instance both of art and labour. It was at this period he became known to the duke of Buckingham, who was then on a tour with prince Charles. He afterwards became the purchaser of Rubens’s rich museum of works of art, for which he is said to have given 10,000l. sterling.

He left a son Albert Rubens, who was born at Antwerp in 1614, and succeeded his father in his post as secretary to the council, devoting his leisure to literary pursuits. He died in 1657, leaving behind him many works, as monuments of his great learning and sound judgment, of which the following may be mentioned. “Regum et Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata,” which is a commentary on the medals of the duke of Arscbot: “De Re Vestiaria Veterum:” “Dissertatio de Gemma Tiberiana et Augustea de Urbibus Neocoris de natali Die Caesaris Augusti,” which were published by Graevius in the “Thesaurus Antiq. Roman.”

Lord Orford has observed that “one cannot write the life of Rubens, without transcribing twenty authors;” and certainly twice twenty critics may be quoted who have dilated on his merits as an artist, with more or less discrimination. In concluding his article, however, we shall confine ourselves to the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds, from its acknowledged superiority.

"Besides the excellency of Rubens in these general powers, he possessed the true art of imitating. He saw the objects of nature with a painter’s eye; he saw at once the predominant feature by which every object is known and Distinguished; and as soon as seen, it was executed with a facility that is astonishing: and let me add, this facility is to a painter, when he closely examines a picture, a source of great pleasure. How far this excellence may be perceived or felt by those who are not painters, I know not to themcertainly it is not enough that objects be truly representedtliey must likewise be represented with grace which means here, that the work is done with facility, and without effort. Rubens was, perhaps, the greatest master in the mechanical part of the art, the best workman with his tools that ever exercised a pencil. This part of the art, though it does not hold a rank with the powers of invention, of giving character and expression, has yet in it what may be called genius. It is certainly something that cannot be taught by words, though it may be learned by a frequent examination of those pictures which possess this excellence. It is felt by very few painters; and it is as rare at this time among the living painters, as any of the higher excellencies of the art.

"This power, which Rubens possessed in the highest degree, enabled him to represent whatever he undertook better than any other painter. His animals, particularly lions and horses, are so admirable, that it may be said they were never properly represented but by him. His portraits rank with the best works of the painters who have made that branch of the art the sole business of their lives; and of those he has left a great variety of specimens. The same may be said of his landscapes; and though Claude Lorrain finished more minutely, as becomes a professor in any particular branch, yet there is such an airiness and facility in the landscapes of Rubens, that a painter would as soon wish to be the author of them, as those of Claude, or any other artist whatever.

"It would be a curious and a profitable study for a painter, to examine the difference, and the cause of that difference of effect in the works of Corregio and Rubens, both excellent in different ways. The preference probably would be given according to the different habits of the connoisseur: those who had received their first impressions from the works of Rubens, would censure Corregio as heavy; and the admirers of Corregio would say Rubens wanted solidity of effect. There is lightness, airiness, and facility in Rubens, his advocates will urge, and comparatively a laborious heaviness in Corregio; whose admirers will complain of Rubens’s manner being careless and unfinished, whilst the works of Corregio are wrought to the highest degree of delicacy; and what may be advanced in favour of Corregio' s breadth of light, will, by his censurers, be called affected and pedantic. It must be observed, that we are speaking solely of the manner, the effect of the picture; and we may conclude, according to the custom in pastoral poetry, by bestowing on each of these illustrious painters a garland, without attributing superiority to either.

“To conclude, I will venture to repeat in favour of Rubens, what I have before said in regard to the Dutch school that those who Qannot see the extraordinary merit of this great painter, either have a narrow conception of the variety of art, or are led away by the affectation of approving nothing but what comes from the Italian school.”

, in Latin Oricellarius, a learned writer of the fifteenth century, was born in 1449. His mother was daughter of the celebrated Pallas Strozzi, one of the most powerful and opulent citizens of Florence, a great patron of literature, and who in his collections of books and antiquities, was the rival of Niccoli, and even of the Medicis themselves. To this last mentioned illustrious family Bernard became allied, in his seventeenth year, by his marriage with the sister of Lorenzo, which joyful occasion his father John Ruccellai is said to have celebrated with princely magnificence, at the expence of 37,000 florins. Bernard after his marriage pursued his studies with the same avidity as before; and after Lorenzo de Medici’s death, the Platonic academy found in him a very generous protector. He built a magnificent palace, with gardens and groves convenient for the philosophic conferences held by the academicians, and ornamented it with the most valuable specimens of the antique, collected at an immense expence.

Ruccellai’s principal work “De Urbe Roma,” contains an accurate account of what the ancient writers have handed down respecting the magnificent edifices of that city, and Was in all respects the best work of the kind that had then appeared. It was first published in the collection entitled “Rerum Ital. Scriptores Florentini.” He left also a history of the war of Pisa, and another of the descent of Charles VIII. into Italy, “De Bello Pisano,” and “De Jtello Jtajico;” the latter of which is said to have been first printed at London by Brindley in 1724, and both by Bowyer in 1733; but this last edition we do not find mention.ed in Mr. Nichols’s very accurate and elaborate list of the productions of Bowyer’s press. In 1752 was published at JLeipsic a treatise on the Roman magistracy, “De magistratibus Romanis,” written by Ruccellai, and sent to the editor by the learned antiquary Gori, who discovered it at Florence. Ruccellai was also a poet, and appears in the “Canti Carnascialeschi” as the author of the “Trionfo della calunnia.” In poetry, however, he was eclipsed by his son, the subject of our next article.

, fourth son to the preceding, was born at Florence, Oct. 20, 1475, at a time when his family was in the plenitude of its power. By what masters he was educated we have not been told, but it maybe presumed, from his father’s character, that he procured him the best which Florence could afford; and it is said that he became very accomplished in the Greek and Latin languages, as well as in his own. In 1505 he was sent as ambassador from Florence to Venice. In the tumult raised by the younger citizens of Florence on the return of the Medici in 1512, and which contributed so greatly to facilitate that event, he and his brother Pallas took a principal part, apparently in opposition to the wishes of their father, who was on the popular side. On the elevation of Leo X. and the appointment of his nephew Lorenzo to the government of Naples, Ruccellai is supposed to have accompanied the latter to Rome, when he went to assume the insignia of captain-general of the church. In 1515 he attended Leo on his visit to Florence, on which occasion the pontiff was entertained in the gardens of the Ruccellai with the representation of the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” written by our author in Italian blank verse. As Ruccellai entered into the ecclesiastical order, it has appeared surprising that Leo did not raise him to the purple; but political reasons, and not any want of esteem, seem to have prevented this, fop he sent him, at a very important crisis, as his legate to Francis I. in which station he continued until Leo’s death. After this event he returned to Florence, and was deputed, lyith five other principal citizens, to congratulate the net* pope Adrian VI. which he performed in an oration yet extant. The succeeding pope Clement VII. appointed Ruccellai keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, whence he obtained the name of IL Gastellano. He died in 1526. His fame rests chiefly on his poem of the “Api,” or Bees, which was published in 1539, and will secure to its author a high rank among the writers of didactic poetry. “His diction,” says Mr. Roscoe, “is pure without being insipid, and simple without becoming vulgar; and in the course of his work he has given decisive proofs of his scientific acquirements, particularly on subjects of natural history.” Besides the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” already noticed, he wrote another, V Oreste,“which remained in manuscript until published by Scipio Maffei in his” Teatro Italiano,“who consider it as superior to his” Rosmunda.“They are both imitations of Euripides. An edition of all his works was printed at Padua in 1772, 8vo, and his poem of the” Bees" was translated into French by Pingeron, in 1770.

It is uncertain at what period of his life Rudbeck first conceived the vast project of his “Campi Elysii,” in which all the plants in the world, as far as they had been discovered, were to be represented by wooden cuts, in twelve folio volumes, disposed according to Bauhin’s “Pinax.” For this stupendous work he is said to have prepared ten or eleven thousand figures, and the first and second volumes were already printed, when a dreadful fire reduced almost the whole town of Upsal to ashes, in 1702. Three copies only of the first volume escaped the fire, two of which remain in Sweden, and the third is preserved in the Sherardian library at Oxford. A few leaves, wanting in this last copy, are supplied in manuscript. A number of the blocks of this very volume, which consists of grasses and their allies, came into England with the Linncean collection; and having been compared with the Oxford copy, an impression of them was given to the public in 1789, by sir James Edward Smith, president of the Linntean society, under the title of “Reliquiae Rudbeckiancc,” the appropriate letterpress of each figure, and the Linnaean names, being subjoined. An historical preface is prefixed to this edition, as well as a dedication to Dr. John Gustavus Acrel, professor of medicine at Upsal, who was entrusted with the sale of the l.innaean museum and library.

In 1720 Rudbeck, in conjunction with Benzelius, after* wards archbishop of Upsal, founded the Swedish academy of sciences, as it was then called, though subsequently, when other similar establishments arose at Stockholm, Lund, &c. the original one was entitled the Royal Academy of Upsal. This institution still flourishes, and ha* produced several volumes of Transactions in Latin. In the first, printed in 1720, is a catalogue of plants, observed by lludbeck in Lapland. He published several curious dissertations from time to time, which evince his deep erudition, though he betrays, like his father, somewhat of a paradoxical turn. He was particularly skilled in oriental literature, and was hence led to undertake the explanation of some of the most obscure subjects of natural history hi the sacred scriptures. He contends that Borith, mentioned by some of the prophets, is neither an herb, nor any kind of soap, but a purple dye. He also undertook to demonstrate that the Dudaim were raspberries. The two dissertations which contain these opinions appeared in 1733, in 4to, but the author had previously given to the world three others, the inaugural essays of some of his pupils, on Hedera, in 1707, 4to on Mandragora, in 1702; and on the Rubus arcticus of Linnæus, in 1716, both in 8vo, with good cuts. His most elaborate and eccentric performance of all, perhaps, is a dissertation on the bird Sclav, which our translation of the Bible renders a quail. Some have thought it a locust, but Rudbeck will have it a flying-fish. He intended to publish a great philological work entitled “Lexicon Harmonicum,” when death arrested his career, March 23, 1740. In his latter days, finding himself unable to leave home and lecture as usual, he fixed his choice, as an assistant, on Linnæus, then in his twenty-third year, who first supplied Rudbeck' s place in 1730, with much approbation.

, bishop of St. David’s in the fifteenth century, was, according to Fuller, a native of Hertfordshire, and took his name from Rudborne, a village near St. Alban’s; but Wood says he was born at Rodburne in Wiltshire. He studied at Merton college, Oxford, and became one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, and an able architect. He built the gateway and fine tower of Merton college, and probably the chapel, for that seems improperly given to bishop Rede. He was so much esteemed, that Henry V. who became acquainted with him when a student at Queen’s college, afterwards appointed him his chaplain, on his going to Franc previous to the battle of Agincourt. He received some ecclesiastical preferments, as the prebend of Horton in the church of Salisbury, the living of East Deping in Lincolnshire, and the archdeaconry of Sudbury. He served the office of proctor in the university, and was elected chancellor, but Wood thinks that if he accepted this office, he did not retain it long. In 1426 he was admitted warden of Merton college, which he appears to have resigned the following year. In 1433 he was promoted to the see of St. David’s, from which the king, Henry VI. would have translated him to Ely; but Wood says, “could not effect it.” He died about 1442. The tower and chapel of Merton will long remain monuments of his skill and taste. He was also a benefactor to the first public library in Oxford. Like the majority in his day, he was an opponent of the first attempts at reformation in religion, and in 1411 was one of the commissioners for suppressing Wickliff’s doctrines and writings. He wrote, according to Bale, a “Chronicle,” and some epistles “ad Thomam Waldenem et alios.” He must be distinguished from the Thomas Rudborne, whose “Historia Major Wintoniensis” is printed by Wharton in vol. I. of his “Anglia Sacra,” who was, however, a monk of Winchester about the middle of the same century, but survived bishop Rudborne.

He was soon after engaged as a tutor in a gentleman’s family, which situation he quitted in about a year for that of schoolmaster in the parish of Lawrence-Kirk. After passing three years and a half in this employment, he had a favourable opportunity of removing to advantage, owing to an accidental introduction to the celebrated Dr. Pitcairne. This gentleman happening to pass through Lawrence-Kirk, was detained by a vidlent storm, and wanting amusement, inquired of his hostess whether she could procure him any agreeable companion at dinner. She replied, that the parish schoolmaster, though young, was said to be learned, and, though modest, she was sure could talk. Pitcairne was delighted with the conversation and learning of his new companion, and invited him to Edinburgh, with a promise of his patronage. Ruddiman accordingly quitted Lawrence-Kirk, and soon after his arrival at Edinburgh was appointed assistant- keeper of the advocates’ library. The emoluments of this place were trifling, but it made him known and made him learned; and after the regular hours of attendance at the library (from 10 to 3) he occupied his leisure hours as a private tutor in the Latin language to various young gentlemen. As his merits became better known, his assistance was anxiously solicited by those who were engaged in literary publications. His first employment of this kind was as editor to sir Robert Sibbald’s “Introductio ad historiam rerum a Romanis gestarum in ea Borealis Britannise parte quse ultra murum Picticum est,” and he likewise contributed his aid to Sir Robert Spottiswood’s “Practiques of the Laws of Scotland.” So little was literary labour rewarded at that time, that for the former of these works he received only 3l. and for the latter 5l. Such poor encouragement obliged him, in 1707, to commence auctioneer. The same year he published an edition of “Voluseni de Animi Tranquillitate Dialogus,” to which he prefixed a life of Volusenus, or Wilson, a learned countryman, who had been patronized by cardinal Wolsey. In 1709, h published “Johnstoni Cantici Solomonis Paraphrasis Poetica,” and “Johnstoni Cantica,” with notes, which he dedicated to his i'riend and patron Dr. Pitcairne. The edition consisted of two hundred copies, which he sold at one shilling each. The expence of printing amounted to 51. 10s. He was next employed by Freebairne, the bookseller, on a new edition of Gawin Douglas’s “Virgil’s yneid,” which he corrected throughout, added the glossary, and probably the forty-two general rules for understanding the language, for all which he received the sum of Sl 6s. Sd.

His next publication was the Works of Buchanan, in two volumes 1715, fol. His account of his life, and opinion of that history, so different from that (till then) entertained by his countrymen, drew on him many enemies. A counter edition of Buchanan’s works was set about by a society who formed themselves for that purpose, and, after promising their aid to Burman as their editor, disappointed him, and left him to publish it in 1725, with Ruddiman’s preface and notes, and a few of his own. Ruddiman’s edition opens with a preface pretendedly of Freebairn, which had plainly been written by Ruddiman. He gave also an elaborate statement of the various editions of Buchanan’s separate works, exposed the chronological errors and spirit of the History, and laid open the sources whence he drew the documents which enabled him to rectify both. He acknowledged, with the warmest thankfulness, the obligations he owed to several men of learning for their able assistance in this difficult task. Sir David Dalrymple, the lord- advocate of Scotland, contributed his intelligent help with the kindness of a friend. Fletcher of Saltoun, the “Cato of the age,” promoted the design with the usual ardour of his spirit and Pitcairne gave his continual aid while he lived. He mentions also John Drummond, M. D. Laurence Dundas, professor of languages in the college at Edinburgh, John Macdonald, James Anderson, a whig, and John Gillan, a Jacobite, as two antiquaries who were forward to assist his labours. This preface naturally led on to the life of Buchanan, said to have been written by himself two years before his death; of which assertion Ruddiman expressed his doubts in a note, without perceiving, what appears to have been the fact, that sir Peter Young was the real author of it.

After having been so long accustomed to superintend the press, Ruddiman was led to form the plan of erecting a printing-office himself. Accordingly, in 1715, be commenced printer, in partnership with his brother Walter, who had been regularly bred to the business; and some years after he was appointed printer to the university along with James Davidson, a bookseller. In 1718, he became one of the founders of the first literary society in Scotland. In 1725, he published the first part of his “Grammatical Latinae Institutiones,” which treats of etymology; and the second part, which explains the nature and principles of syntax, appeared in 1732. He also wrote a third part on prosody, which is said to be more copious and correct than any other publication on the subject, but, for want of encouragement, he published only an abridgment of it. He next engaged in the management of a newspaper, “The Caledonian Mercury,” from which he derived more profit than fame, it being a mere dry record of occurrences. This paper continued in his family until 1772, when it was sold to Mr. Robertson, and still exists.

After the death of the principal keeper of the advocates’ library, Mr. Ruddiman was appointed his successor, but without any increase of salary. He was, however, now acquiring by his other employments a competence according to his moderate desires, and independent spirit. In 173^, he published what is known by the name of Anderson’s “Diplomata Scotiae,” from having been begun by Anderson, but was finished by Ruddiman, who wrote the admirable preface, which displays a greater extent of knowledge than any of his other productions. During the rebellion in 1745, although Ruddiman was firmly attached to the house of Stuart, he took no active part, but employed himself in writing critical observations on Burman’s commentary on Lucan.

During the last fourteen years of his life, he was almost incessantly engaged in controversy, first, with auditor Benson, on the comparative merit of Buchanan and Johnston as poets. His next antagonist was Logan, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. Of Benson we have already taken some notice. The subject of Ruddiman‘ s controversy with Logan was, whether the crown of Scotland was strictly hereditary, and whether the birth of Robert III. was legitim.iiL’? Ruddiman maintained the affirmative in both points. He was soon after called upon to repel the attacks of Mr. Love, a schoolmaster at Dalkeith, who wrote in defence of Buchanan’s character.

, a French orator and poet, was born at Paris in 1643, and educated in the Jesuits’ college, where he afterwards became professor of humanity and rhetoric. In 1667, when only twenty-four, he wrote a Latin poem, upon the conquests of Lewis XIV. which was thought so excellent, that Peter Corneille translated it into French, and presented it to the king; apologizing, at the same time, for not being able to convey to his majesty the beauties of the original. No introduction could be more favourable, and the king shewed him singular respect ever after. He was one of those who had the care of the Delphine editions of the classics; and Virgil was allotted to him, which he published with good notes, and a,correct life of the author, in 1675, 4to. He published also panegyrics, funeral orations, and sermons, which shew him to have been a very great orator: but his master-piece is a funeral oration for the prince of Luxembourg. There are also tragedies of his writing in Latin and French, which had the approbation of Corneille, and therefore cannot be without merit; but he would not suffer them to be performed. A collection of his Latin poems was published at Paris, in 1680, in 12mo, and at Antwerp in 1693. He died at Paris May 27, 1725, in his eighty-second year.

, was a Benedictine monk, born in 1685, who became so learned in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in divinity, that Montfaucon too|i him into his friendship, and made him an associate with him in his studies. Montfaucon had published, in 1713, the remains of “Origen’s Hexapla;” and was very desirous, that a correct and complete edition should be given of the whole works of this illustrious father. His own engagements not permitting him, he prevailed with de la Rue, whose abilities and learning he knew to be sufficient for the work, to undertake it: and accordingly two volumes were published by him, in 1733, folio, with proper prefaces and useful notes. A third volume was ready for the press, when de la Rue died in 1739; and though it was published afterwards by his nephew, yet the edition of Origen not being quite completed, some remaining pieces, together with the “Origeniana” of Huetius, were published in 1759, as a fourth volume, and the whole reprinted in 1780 by Oberthur, at W-iselburg, in 15 vols, 8vo.

, the historian of Marseilles, was born there in 1607, and bred to the law. Being appointed counsellor to the seneschalcy of his native place, he practised in that court for some years, and with a scrupulous integrity rather uncommon; for we are told that on one occasion when, by his own neglect, a client had lost his cause, he sent him a sum of money equivalent to that loss. He was a man of learning, and a good antiquary, and employed much of his time in collecting materials for his “History of Marseilles,” which he published in 1642. In. 1654 he was made a counsellor of state, and next year published a life of Gaspard de Simiane, known by the name of the chevalier de la Coste, and about the same time a history of the counts of Provence from 934 to 1480. He died April 3, 1689, aged eighty-two. His son Louis Anthony, who followed similar pursuits, added to his father’s History of Marseilles a second volume, in an edition published in 1696, and illustrated with plates of seals, coins, &c. He was author, likewise, of “Dissertations Historiques et Critiques sur POrigine des Comtes des Provence, de Venaissin, de Forcalquier, et des Vicomtes de Marseille” and in 1716 he published “Une Dissertation. Historique, Chronologique, et Critique sur les Evéques de Marseille.” Both these were intended as preludes to more elaborate works on the subject, which he was prevented from completing by his death, March 26, 1724, in the sixty-sixth year of his age.

, orRUFINUS, a very celebrated priest of Aquileia, called by some Toranius, was born about the middle of the fourth century, at Concordia, a small city in Italy. He retired to a monastery in Aquileia, and devoted himself wholly to reading and meditating on the sacred scriptures and the writings of the holy fathers. St. Jerome passing that way became much attached to him, and vowed an indissoluble friendship. When St. Jerome retired into the east some years after, Ruffinus, inconsolable for their separation, resolved to quit Aquileia in search of his friend. He accordingly embarked for Egypt, visited the hermits who inhabited the deserts, and having been told much of the chamy of St. Melania the elder, had the satisfaction of seeing ner at Alexandria, where he went to hear the celebrated Didymus. The piety which Melania observed in Ruffinus induced her to make him her confident, which he continued to be while they remained iti the East, which was about thirty years. But the Arians, who ruled in the reign of Valens, raised a cruel persecution against Ruffinus, cast him into a dungeon, and loaded him with chains, where he suffered the torments of hunger and thirst, and they afterwards banished him to the most desolate part of Palestine. Melania ransomed him, with several other exiles, and returned to Palestine with him. It was at this period, that St. Jerome, supposing Ruffinus would go directly to Jerusalem, wrote to a friend in that city to congratulate him on the occasion, in the following terms: “You will see the marks of holiness shine in the person of Ruffinus, whereas I am but his dust. It is enough for my weak eyes to support the lustre of his virtues. He has lately been further purified in the crucible of persecution, and is now whiter than snow, while I am defiled with all manner of sins.” Ruffinus built a monastery on mount Olivet, converted numbers of sinners, re-united to the church above 400 solitaries, who had engaged in the schism of Antioch, and persuaded several Macedonians and Arians to renounce their errors. He, at the same time, translated such Greek books as appeared to him the most interesting; but his translations of Origen’s works, particularly “the Book of principles,” occasioned that rupture between him and St. Jerome, which made so much noise in the church, and so deeply afflicted St. Augustine, and all the great men of their time. Ruffinus was cited to Rome by pope Anastatius, who is said to have condemned his translation of “the Book of principles.” Being accused of heresy, he published some very orthodox apologies, which discover great ingenuity. His chief plea was, “That he meant to be merely a translator, without undertaking to support or defend any thing reprehensible in Origen’s works.” He went afterwards into 'Sicily, and died there about the year 410. He translated from Greek into Latin, “Josephus;” “The Ecclesiastical History,” by Eusebius, to which he added, two books; several of Origen’s writings, with his “Apology” by St. Pamphilius; ten of St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Discourses, and eight of St. Basil’s, in all which he has been accused of taking great liberties, and in some of them acknowledges it. He has also left a Tract in defence of Origen; two “Apologies” against St. Jerome; “Commentaries” on Jacob’s Benedictions, on Hosea, Joel, and Amos; several “Lives of the Fathers of the desert,” and “An Exposition of the Creed,” which has always been valued. His works were printed at Paris, 1580, fol.; but the “Commentary on the Psalms,” which bears his name, was not written by him. The abbe“Gervase has published a” Life of Ruffinus," 2 vols. 12mo.

, a law and miscellaneous writer, was born about 1723 in Piccadilly, where his father was his majesty’s baker, and having bought a lottery ticket for Owen, when in his infancy, which was drawn a prize of 500l. he determined to expend it upon his education for the profession of the law. He was accordingly entered of the Middle Temple, and by studying here, as well as at school, with great diligence, became a good general scholar, and an acute barrister, although he never arrived at great eminence in his profession. He endeavoured, however, to form some political connexions; and when, in 1757, Murphy wrote a periodical paper, in favour of Mr. Henry Fox, afterwards lord Holland, called “The Test,” Ruffhead setup another, in opposition, called “The ConTest.” Dr. Johnson, who then conducted ths “Literary Magazine,” after giving a few of both these papers, adds, “Of these papers of the Test and Con-test, we have given a very copious specimen, and hope that we shall give no more. The debate seems merely personal, no one topic of general import having been yet attempted. Of the motives of the author of the Test, whoever he be, I believe, every man who speaks honestly, speaks with abhorrence. Of the Con-test, which, being defensive, is less blameable, I have yet heard no great commendation. The language is that of a man struggling after elegance, and catching finery in its stead; the author of the Con-test is more knowing of wit neither can boast in the Test it is frequently attempted, but always by mean and despicable imitations, without the least glimmer of intrinsic light, without a single effort of original thought.” Ruffhead wrote other pamphlets on temporary political subjects, the last of which was a defence of the conduct of administration in the affair of Wilkes, entitled “The case of the late Election for the county of Middlesex considered,” in answer to sir William Meredith’s pamphlet on the same subject. Of his law writings, the first was a continuation of Cay’s “Statutes” to the 13 George III. 9 vols. fol. and the second an edition of the Statutes, which goes under his own name, which he did not live to publish, as it appeared in 1771, but which has been since regularly continued, making 13 vols. 4to. For this, or his political services, he was about to have been promoted to the place of one of the secretaries of the Treasury, when he died Oct. 25, 1769, in his forty-sixth year.

Some time before his death, bishop Warburton, who probably thought the task might involve himself in inquiries not very suitable to the dignity of his order, employed Ruffhead to write the “Life of Pope,” but himself revised the sheets, and occasionally contributed a paragraph, although neither was sufficiently attentive to accuracy of dates, which, in Pope’s history, are matters of no small importance, nor was the work in general creditable to the subject, for Ruffhead had no taste for poetry or criticism. The public, however, knowing to whom he must be indebted for most of his materials, read the book with some avidity, and it was twice reprinted, but has since been superseded by more able pens. The university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of LL. D on Ruffhead, in 1766, which, we believe, he never assumed, although in Northouck’s dictionary he is called Dr. Ruffhead. Among his other literary engagements, Sir John Hawkins informs us that he was employed as reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine, until employed on Cay’s Statutes: and some time before his death the proprietors of Chambers’s Cyclopædia engaged him to superintend a new edition of that work: he was paid a considerable sum on account, but, having done nothing, the booksellers recovered the money of his heirs. He left one son, Thomas Ruffhead, who died curate of Prittlewell, in Essex, in 1798.

, the Ephesian, a physician and anatomist in the reign of the emperor Trajan, obtained great reputation by his extensive knowledge and experience. Galen esteemed him one of the most able of the physicians who had preceded bin:-. Rufus appears to have cultivated anatomy, by dissecting brutes, with great zeal and success. He traced the origin of the nerves in the brain, and considered some of them as contributing to motion, and others to sensation. He even observed the capsule of the crystalline lens in the eye. He considered the heart as the seat of life, and of the animal heat, and as the origin of the pulse, which he ascribed to the spirit of its left ventricle and of the arteries; and he remarked the difference in the capacity and thickness of the two ventricles. He deemed the spleen to be a very useless viscus, and his successors have never discovered its use. He examined very fully the organs of generation, and the kidnies and bladder; he has left, indeed, a very good treatise on the diseases of the urinary organs, and the methods of cure. He also wrote a work on purgative medicines, mentioning their different qualities, the countries from which they were obtained; and a little treatise on the names given by the Greeks to the different parts of the body. Galen affirms also that Rufus was the author of an essay on the tnateria medica, written in verse; and Suidas mentions a treatise of his on the ' atra bilis, with some other essays; but these are lost. What remains of his works are to be found in the “Artis medicse principes” of Stephens, and printed separately at London, Gr. and Lat. 4to, by W. Clinch, 172G.

, a Scotch painter, was born at Edinburgh in 1736, where his father, who was an architect, probably taught him some of the principles of his art. Mr. Fuseli says he served an apprenticeship to a coachpainter, and “acquired a practice of brush, a facility of penciling, and much mechanic knowledge of colour, be^ fore he had attained any correct notions of design.” The Scotch account, on the other hand, says he was placed as an apprentice to John and Robert Norries, the former of whom was a celebrated landscape painter (no-where upon record, however,) and under his instructions Runciman made rapid improvement in the art. From 1755 he painted landscapes on his own account, and in 1760 attempted historical works. About 1766 he accompanied or soon followed his younger brother John, who had excited much livelier expectations of his abilities as an artist, to Rome; where John, who was of a delicate and consumptive habit, soon fell a victim to the climate, and his obstinate exertions in art. Alexander continued his studies under the patronage and with the support of sir James Clerk, a Scottish baronet, and gave a specimen of his abilities before his departure, in a picture of considerable size, representing Ulysses surprising Nausica at play with her maids: it exhibited, with the defects and manner of Giulio Romano in style, design, and expression, a tone, a juice, and breadth of colour, resembling Tintoretto. At his return to Scotland in 1771, Runciman was employed by his patron to decorate the hall at Pennecuik, with a series of subjects from Ossian; in the course of some years he was made master of a public institution for promoting design, and died Oct. 21, 1785. Jacob More, the landscape-painter, who died at Rome, was his pupil; and John Brown, celebrated for design, his friend. One of his capital pictures is the Ascension, an altar-piece in the episcopal chapel, Edinburgh; another a Lear, which, with his Andromeda and “Agrippina landing with the ashes of Germanicus,” are highly praised by his countrymen. Edwards mentions having seen two etchings by this artist, the one “Sigismunda weeping over the heart of Tancred;” the other riew of Edinburgh, which is executed with great spirit and taste.

, LL. D. an English divine, and bishop of Derry in Ireland, was born in the parish of Milton-Abbot, near Tavistock, in Devonshire, about 1686, of what family is not known. He was educated at the freeschool of Exeter, under the care of Mr. John Reynolds, uncle to the celebrated painter sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1702 he was removed to Exeter college, Oxford, and about this time his friend and fellow collegian, Joseph Taylor, esq. (father of Thomas Taylor, of Denbury, esq.) introduced him to Mr. Edward Talbot, of Oriel college, the second son of Dr. William Talbot, at that time bishop of Oxford. This event was of great importance in his future life, as it secured him the friendship and patronage of the Talbot family, to whom he owed all his promotion. Recommenced bachelor of civil laws in July 1710, and two years afterwards became acquainted with the celebrated Whiston, and was inclined to adopt his notions as to reviving what he called primitive Christianity. Mr. Whiston, who has given us many particulars respecting bishop Rundie in his “Memoirs of his own Life,” says that Mr. Rundie, before he entered into holy orders, became so disgusted at the corrupt state of the church, and at the tyranny of the ecclesiastical laws, that he sometimes declared against obeying them, even where they were in themselves not unlawful, which, adds Whiston, “was farther than 1 could go with him.” The truth seems to have been, as stated by bishop Rundle’s late biegrapher, that the singular character of Whiston, his profound erudition, and disinterested attachment to the doctrines of Arius, supported by an ostensible love of truth, were likely to attract the notice of young men who, in the ardour of free inquiry, did not immediately perceive the pernicious tendency of their new opinions.

Soon after Mr. Rundle’s acquaintance with bishop Talbot became an intimacy, he was ordained by him in 1718, and published a discourse on Acts x. 34, 35. In 1720 he was promoted by that prelate, on his removal to Salisbury, to the archdeaconry of Wilts; and upon the demise of Mr. Edward Talbot, in the same year, was constituted treasurer of the church of Sarum. These were the first bounties of his munificent patron, who retained him from this time-as his domestic chaplain, and particularly delighted in his elegant manners and brilliant conversation. When bishop Talbot was translated to Durham, he continued Mr. Rundle of his household, and on Jan. 23, 1721, collated him to the first stall in that cathedral but on Nov. 12, in the following year, he was removed to the twelfth prebend He bad likewise the valuable mastership of Sherborne hospital, an appointment incompatible with the cure of souls, but which, it will appear from the foregoing list of preferments, he had never undertaken. If any period of his life afforded him more than ordinary satisfaction, it was this. He was esteemed, in a degree far beyond what is usually to be attained in friendships between persons of unequal rank, by the great and good family who patronised him. He had opportunities of gratifying his literary propensities, by frequent conversations with the first in almost every branch of science, and by the most select epistolary correspondences. He became particularly known at this time to the republic of letters by the liberal support he gave to Thomson, upon his publishing his “Winter,” whose acquaintance he instantly sought; and whom, having recommended to lord chancellor Talbot as a proper person to superintend his son’s education during the grand tour, Thomson found himself on his return rewarded by a lucrative appointment. On July 5, 1723, he had proceeded LL. D. as necessary to the dignities he enjoyed, and was associated with Dr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, as resident chaplain at the palace at Durham.

When bishop Talbot died, in 1730, his son, the lord chancellor, particularly distinguished Dr. Rundle as his friend, and entertained him on the same terms as his father had done. The first effort, however, which his lordship made for his advancement was attended with very extraordinary consequences, and formed the basis of a controversy of considerable warmth, although not of long duration. In Dec. 1733, the see of Gloucester becoming vacant by the death of Dr. Sydall, the lord chancellor solicited that preferment for his friend Dr. Rundle, but was refused. Dr. Edmund Gibson, bishop of London, had at this time the greatest weight in ecclesiastical appointments, and had lon4 entertained doubts of the soundness of Dr. Rundle’s principles. This could not have arisen from his former intimacy with Whiston, and his forbearance of Chubb, the professed foes of modern episcopacy, but is said to have proceeded from information given him by Mr. Venn, minister of St. Antholin’s, who reported an improper conversation held by Dr. Rundle in his presence, which Dr. Rundle afterwards declared he never had held, and that the obnoxious words must have been used by some other person in company. Dr. Gibson, however, peremptorily declared against the admission of a suspected deist to the sacred bench, and lord Talbot, we are told, after ably asserting the injustice of the charge, and detecting the sinister means that were made use of to support it, withdrew his petition with disdain.

All this could not be [known without exciting considerable interest in the public mind. In a few weeks a pamphlet appeared, entitled “Reasons alledged against Dr. Rundle’s promotion to the see of Gloucester,” &c. This was written by Dr. Sykes, and followed by several other pamphlets, of which Dr. Disney, in his “Life of Sykes,” has given a list of ten. Even Whiston vindicated his old friend in a very candid manner. Perhaps his best vindication is in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, originally published in “Hughes’ s Correspondence,” which Dr, Rundle wrote in the confidence of friendship, and in which he appears to use no disguise. As to Dr. Sykes’s pamphlets, they evidently are written more with a view to raise a clamour against Dr. Gibson, than to serve the interest of Dr. Run-? die. Dr. Gibson, in his causes for rejecting Dr. Rundle, might have been misinformed, and we trust he was so; but they who accuse him of excessive bigotry, would do well to recollect, that he was the promoter of Dr. Hoadly to the bishopric of Winchester.

The issue of this matter, however, was, that the bishop of London proposed Dr. Benson, the friend of Dr. Rundle, for the vacant see of Gloucester, and Dr, Rundle was soon after promoted to the. lucrative bishopric of Derry in Ireland, to which he was consecrated February 1734-5. The aspersions thrown on his character in England had by this time reached Ireland, and created great discontent at the appointment; but a residence of a few years, and repeated acts of public munificence and private generosity, gradually endeared him to the people of Ireland. He died at his palace in. Dublin April 14, 1743, scarcely sixty years of age. Having survived the nearer connections of his own family, he left his property, amounting to 20,000^, principally to the hon. John Talbot, second son to the chancellor. His person is said to have been slender, and not inelegantly formed. As to his character as a man, he appears to have been distinguished by many virtues, and by some weaknesses. His biographer says, he was precipitate in forming friendships, and as ready to relinquish them; a character by no means amiable; but for which, perhaps, some excuse might be formed, if we were made acquainted with the nature of his friendships. Unsuspicious men often contract friendships which, upon a closer inspection, they find unworthy and untenable; and this may happen before years have accumulated experience, if not without blame, at least with some excuse; and perhaps Dr. Rundle did not always suffer himself to be deceived. His character as a divine, we see, once laboured under suspicion, and if we except his own declaration, it was principally vindicated by those who were not very friendly to the church. The attestations of Pope and Swift can add little to his reputation. There was nothing, however, in his public conduct subsequent to the clamour raised against him, which could be censured; and the last letter he appears to have written, a little before his death, to archdeacon S. breathes the language of genuine piety.

, third son of the king of Bohemia, by the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of James I. of England, was born 1619, and educated, like most German princes, for the army and those who have been least inclined to favour him, admit that he was well adapted, both by natural abilities and acquired endowments, to form a great commander. On the commencement of the rebellion, which happened when he was scarcely of age, he offered his services to Charles I. and throughout the whole war behaved with great intrepidity. But his courage was of that kind which is better calculated for attack than defence, and is less adapted to the land service than that of the sea, where precipitate valour, Granger observes, is in its element. He seldom engaged but he gained the advantage, which he generally lost by pushing it too far. He was better qualified to storm a citadel, or even mount a breach, than patiently to sustain a siege, and would have been an excellent assistant to a general of a cooler head. In consideration of his services, for which we refer to the general histories of the times, and on account of his affinity to him, king Charles made him a knight of the garter, and a free denizen, and advanced him to the dignity of a peer of England, by the title of earl of Holdernesse and duke of Cumberland.

When the civil war was over, he went abroad with a pass from the parliament; but when the fleet revolted to the prince of Wales, he readily went on board, and distinguished himself by the vigour of his counsels. His advice, however, was not followed, but on the return of the fleet to Holland, as the command of it was left to him, he sailed to Ireland, where he endeavoured to support the declining royal cause. He was quickly pursued by the superior fleet of the parliament, under Popham and Blake, who, in the winter of 1649, blocked him up in the haven of Kinsale, whence he escaped, by making a bold effort, and pushing through their fleet.

Such was the invention of mezzotinto, according to lord Orford, Mr. Evelyn, and Mr. Vertue; but the baron Heinnekin affirms that “it was not prince Rupert who invented the art of engraving in mezzotinto, as Vertue and several other authors pretend to say; but it was the lieutenant colonel de Siegen, an officer in the service of the landgrave of Hesse, who first engraved in this manner; and the print which he produced was a portrait of the princess Amelia Elizabeth of Hesse, engraved as early as the year 1643. Prince Rupert, he adds, learned the secret from this gentleman, and brought it into England when he came over the second time with Charles II.” Mr. Strutt, who makes this quotation, says, that he has not seen the print thus spoken of by the baron: and the precise date of prince Rupert’s discovery is no where mentioned. But if a mezzotinto engraving dated seventeen years before the restoration can be produced, and the date be genuine, it certainly goes far toward proving Heinnekin’s assertion. Vertue acknowledges to have seen an oval head of Leopold William, archduke of Austria, in mezzotinto, that was dated in 1656, which he esteems the earliest. It is inscribed “Theodorus Casparus a Furstenburgh canonicus ad vivum pinxit et fecit” but this argues little against prince Rupert’s discovery, since it is quite within probability that Casparus might have learned the art from the prince or Vaillant during their residence in the Low Countries.

The earliest of Rupert’s engravings in mezzotinto, that is now extant, is dated in 1658. It is an half length figure from Spagnoletto: the subject, an executioner holding a sword in one hand, and in the other a head, which is probably intended for that of John the Baptist, and upon the sword are the initials R. P. F. surmounted with a coronet. It is further distinguished by the following inscription on a tablet beneath, “Sp in Rvp. P. fecit. Francofurti. anno 1658 M. A. P. M.” Prince Rupert died at his house in Spring Gardens, Nov, 29, 1682, and was interred in Henry the Vllth’s chapel, regretted as one whose aim in all his actions and all his accomplishments was the public good. He was a great promoter of the trade to Africa, and a principal protector of the Royal African Company; as a proof of which, before the first Dutch war in this reign, he offered his majesty to sail with a squadron to the coast of Guinea, in order to vindicate the honour of the crown, assert the just rights of the company, and redress the injuries done to the nation; but the king, unwilling to hazard his person at such a distance, and in so sickly a climate, though he received the motion kindly, would not consent to it, but contented himself with taking an officer of his recommendation (captain Holmes), under whom the squadron was sent. He was an active member of the council of trade. It was owing to his solicitations, after being at great expence, not only in the inquiry into the value, but in sending ships thither, that the Hudson’s Bay Company was erected, of which he was the first governor appointed by the charter. In memory of him, a considerable opening on the east side of that bay, in Terra de Labrador, is called Rupert’s river. In general, his highness was a great friend to seamen, and to all learned, ingenious, and public-spirited persons, and assisted them with his purse, as well as afforded them his countenance. He was concerned in the patent for annealed cannon, in a glass-house, and other undertakings for acquiring or improving manufactures. Strict justice has been done to his highness’s many virtues, and amiable qualities, in that excellent character of him by bishop Sprat. In respect to his private life, he was so just, so beneficent, so courteous, that his memory remained dear to all who knew him. “This,” observes Campbell, “I say of my own knowledge; having often heard old people in Berkshire speak in raptures of prince Rupert.”

After his death his collection of pictures was sold by auction; but his jewels, which were appraised by three jewellers at 20,000l. were disposed of by way of lottery, as appears by the Gazette 1683, Nos. 1864, 1873, &c. The tickets were 5l. each, and the largest prize a great pearl necklace valued at 8000l. The lowest prizes were valued at IQQl. The advertisement states that this lottery was to be “drawn in his majesty’s presence, who is pleased to declare that he himself will see all the prizes put in among the blanks, and that the whole shall be managed with all equity and fairness, nothing being intended but the sale of the jewels at a moderate value.”

Prince Rupert, who never was married, left a natural son, usually called Dudley Rupert, by a daughter of Henry Bard viscount Beilemont, though styled in his father’s last will and testament Dudley Bard. He was educated at Eton school, and afterwards placed under the care of that celebrated mathematician sir Jonas Moore at the Tower. Here he continued till the demise of the prince, when he made a tour into Germany to take possession of a considerable fortune which had been bequeathed to him. He was very kindly received by the Palatine family, to whom he had the honour of being so nearly allied. In 1686 he made a campaign in Hungary, and distinguished himself at the siege of Buda, where he had the misfortune to lose his life, in the month of July or August, in a desperate attempt made by some English gentlemen upon the fortifications of that city, in the twentieth year of his age; and, though so young, he had signalized his courage in such an extraordinary manner, that his death was exceedingly regretted.

, an eminent American physician, was born near Bristol, in the state of Pennsylvania, Jan. 5, 1745. His ancestors, quakers, were of the number of those who followed the celebrated William Penn to Pennsylvania, in 1683, His father dying while Benjamin was yet young, his education devolved upon his mother, who placed him, at an early age, under the direction of the late rev. Samuel Finley, at West Nottingham, in Chester county, Pennsylvania, by whom he was taught the rudiments of classical knowledge. From this academy he was removed to the college of Princeton, where he finished his classical education, and was admitted to the degree of A. B. in 1760, when he had not yet completed his sixteenth year. He was now left to choose a profession, and having given the preference to the science and practice of medicine, he placed himself under the care of the late Dr. John Redman, of Philadelphia, a gentleman who had deservedly obtained an extensive share of professional business, and who was justly considered an excellent practitioner. With Dr. Redman young Rush continued some time, zealously engaged in the acquisition of the several branches of medicine; but as no institution for the purpose of medical instruction was then established in Philadelphia, he came over to Edinburgh, and there took his doctor’s degree in 1768, after having performed the usual collegiate duties with much honour, and published his inaugural dissertation “De Concoctione Ciborum in Ventriculo.” In this performance he candidly acknowledged himself indebted, for many of the opinions which he advanced, to his distinguished teacher Dr. Cullen.

About the period of Dr. Rush’s return to his native country, the first attempt was made in Philadelphia for the organization of a medical school. Lectures on anatomy and surgery had indeed been delivered, in that city, in 1763 and 1764-, to a small class of pupils, by the late Dr. William Shippen, who, two years previous, had returned from Europe, where he had completed his education under the direction of the celebrated Dr. William Hunter; and, in 1765, Dr. John Morgan, also, gave instruction on the institutes of medicine and the practice of physic. Three years after this, the venerable Dr. Kuhn, who had been a pupil of the illustrious Linnseus, and had preceded Dr. Rush in his medical honours only one year, was made professor of botany and the materia medica, and Dr. Rush became professor of chemistry immediately upon his arrival from England in 1769, a situation which he filled in such a manner as did great credit to his talents, and contributed much to the prosperity of the new school. When the dispute between the mother-country and the colonies took place, Dr. Rush sided with his countrymen; in 1776 was chosen a member of the congress for the state of Pennsylvania; and in 1777 was appointed surgeon-general of the military hospital in the middle department, but in the same year he exchanged this for the office of physiciangeneral, which, owing to some misunderstanding among the managers of the hospital stores, he resigned in February following. He still, however, continued to take an active part in the politics of the state to which he belonged, and contributed to the formation of a new government, that which prevailed before in Pennsylvania appearing to him and others very defective.

While thus assiduously engaged in enriching medical science with the valuable fruits of his long and extensive experience, and in the active discharge of the practical duties of his profession, he was, on the evening of the 13th of April, 1813, seized with symptoms of general febrile irritation, which were soon accompanied with considerable pain in his chest. His constitution was naturally delicate, and he had acquired from previous illness, a predisposition to an affection of his lungs. He lost a moderate quantity of blood, by which he felt himself considerably relieved. But his strength was not sufficient to overcome the severity of his complaint; the beneficial effects resulting from the most skilful treatment were but of temporary duration. His disease rapidly assumed a typhus character, attended with great stupor, and a disinclination to conversation. In other respects, however, he retained his faculties, and the perfect consciousness of his approaching dissolution. On Monday evening ensuing, after a short illness of five days, and in the sixty-ninth year of his age, he ended his truly valuable and exemplary life. His death was the subject of universal lamentation, and he was followed to the grave by thousands, who assembled to bear testimony to his excellence.

It were no easy task to do adequate justice to the great talents, the useful labours, and the exemplary character of Dr. Rush. From the preceding sketch, it is presumed, some idea may be formed of his incessant devotedness to the improvement of that profession of which he was so bright an ornament- and many additional particulars may be seen in our authority, which we must necessarily omit. In private life, his disposition and deportment were in the highest degree exemplary and amiable. His writings are highly estimable, both on account of their extent and their variety. Instead of being a mere collator of the opinions of others, he was constantly making discoveries and improvements of his own; and from the results of his individual experience and observation, added more facts to the science of medicine, than all who had preceded him in his native country. His description of diseases, for minuteness and accuracy of detail cannot be exceeded, and may safely be regarded as models of their kind. In the treatment of gout, dropsy, consumption of the lungs, and the diseases of old age, he enlarged our views of the animal economy, and threw more light upon the peculiar character of these afflicting disorders than is to be derived from the investigations of any other writer. His volume on the diseases of the mind, in as far as it exhibits the infinitely varied forms which those diseases exhibit, is a storehouse of instruction. Had his labours been limited to these subjects alone, his character would deservedly have been cherished by future ages. His reputation, however, will permanently depend upon his several histories of the epidemics of the United States, which have rendered his name familiar wherever medical science is cultivated. The respect and consideration which his publications procured for him among his contemporaries was such, that the highest honours were accumulated upon him in different parts of Europe, as well as in his own country, and he was admitted a member of many of the 'most distinguished literary and philosophical associations.

In 1640 he was chosen an assistant to Henry Elsynge, esq. clerk of the house of commons; and this furnished him with another desirable opportunity of gratifying his curiosity, by "becoming acquainted with the debates in the house, and being privy to their proceedings. The house likewise reposed such confidence in him that they entrusted him with their weightiest affairs; particularly in conveying messages and addresses to the king while at York; between which place and London he is said to have rode frequently in twenty-four hours. For these services he was rewarded with presents, and recommended to a place in the excise, which, however, it does not appear that he ever received. In 1643 he took the covenant; and when sir Thomas Fairfax, who was his near relation, was appointed general of the parliament forces, he was made his secretary, in which office he did great services to his master, and has been commended for not making a large fortune, as he safely might, in this office. During the siege of Oxford in 1646 he was very serviceable to Fairfax, and while the treaty of surrender was pending, acted as courier between the army and the government at London. In 1649, being in Fairfax’s suite at Oxford, he was created M. A. as a member of Queen’s college, and at the same time was made one of the delegates to take into consideration the affairs depending between the citizens of Oxford and the members of that university. Upon Fairfax’s laying down his commission of general, Rushworth went and resided for some time in Lincoln’s Inn, and, being in much esteem with the prevailing powers, was appointed one of the committee, in Jan. 1651-2, to consult about the reformation of the common law. In 1658 he was chosen one of the burgesses for Berwick-uponTweed, to serve in the protector Richard’s parliament; and was again chosen for the same place in what was called the healing parliament, which met April 25, 1660.

His “Historical Collections of private passages in State, weighty matters in Law, and remarkable proceedings in Parliament/' were published at different times, in folio. The first part, from 1618 to 1629, was published in 1659. The copy had been presented to Oliver Cromwell when he was protector; but he, having no leisure to peruse it, recommended it to Whitelock, who running it over made some alterations and additions. The second part appeared in 1680; the third in 1692; and the fourth and last, which extends to 1648, in 1701. All the seven volumes were reprinted together in 1721, with the trial of the earl of Strafford, published in 1680, which makes the whole eight volumes. This work has been highly extolled by some, and as much condemned by others. Alt who have been averse to Charles I. and his measures, have highly extolled it; all who have been favourers of that king and his cause, have represented it as extremely partial, and discredited it as much as possible. But the person who professedly set himself to oppose it, and to ruin its credit, was Dr. John Nalson, of Cambridge, who published, by the special command of Charles II.” An impartial collection of the great affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639 to the murder of king Charles I. wherein the first occasions and whole series of the late troubles in England, Scotland, and Ireland, are faithfully represented. Taken from authentic records, and methodically digested.“The title promises to bring the history down to the murder of Charles I. but Nalson lived only to put out two vols. in folio, 1682 and 1683, which bring it no lower than Jan. 1641-2. He professes, in the introduction to this work, to make it appear that” Mr. Rushvvorth hath concealed truth, endeavoured to vindicate the prevailing detractions of the late times, as well as their barbarous actions, and, with a kind of a rebound, to libel the government at second-hand:“and so far it is certain, that his aim and design was to decry the conduct of the court, and to favour the cause of the parliament; for which reason it is easy to conceive that he would be more forward to admit into his collections what made for, than against that purpose. The authors of the” Parliamentary Chronicle" have also proved that Rushworth suppressed much which an impartial collector would have inserted, nor can we suppose that he could be very impartial in the early part of the work, which was submitted to Cromwell or his adherents. His Collections, however, cannot be without great use, if it be only to present us with one side of the question.

, a Roman catholic writer, was born in Lancashire, and after being instructed in the classics at school, was admitted of Brazenose college, Oxford, about 1568, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1572. Next year, being a Roman catholic, he left the university, and joined his countrymen of that persuasion at Doway, where he pursued his studies, and took his degrees in divinity. In 1577, he was sent to Rome, and ordained priest, and appointed to go to England as a missionary. Here, however, he was taken up and sentenced to die, but after four years imprisonment, this was commuted for banishment, in 1585. He then went abroad, and was about to receive his academical honours at Lovaine, when he died there of the plague in 1586. He was the first publisher of Sanders’s book, “De schismate Anglicano,” 1585, 8vo, to which he added a third part; and a fourth, by way of appendix, appeared in 1628, which contained from his pen a list of those who suffered for popery in Henry the VHIth’s time. He also published “Synopsis rerurn ecclesiasticarum ad annum Christi 1577,” for the use of the students at Doway, ecclesiastical history being much his study and a “Profession of Faith.”

, physician to the English factory at Aleppo, was born at Edinburgh, and by his father devoted, at an early period, to medicine. After studying grammar, he spent two) ears in the university, and was then>laced under the care of his uncle, an eminent practitioner in physic. In 1732, 3, and 4, he continued his studies under the professors of Edinburgh, till the time of his coming to London, from which place he embarked for Turkey in 1740, and settled at Aleppo. Here he assiduously applied himself to acquire a knowledge of the language, and to form an intimate acquaintance with the most experienced practitioners; but he soon attained a superior distinction, and was consulted by all ranks and professions, Franks, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and even Turks themselves. The Pascha of Aleppo particularly admitted him to his familiarity and confidence, which enabled Dr. Russel to render the most important services to the factory; the Pascha, indeed, die] not fail to consult him in every act of importance, and many of the criminals who were natives owed their lives to Dr. Russet’s interposition. The Pascha carried his esteem for him so far, that he sent some valuable presents to his aged father, saying to him, “I am obliged for your friendship and assistance.” His valuable “History of Aleppo” was first published in 1755; and has been translated into different European languages, and a new edition was more recently published, on a very enlarged scale, by his brother Dr. Patrick Russel. It is not necessary here to expatiate in praise of this publication, but the remarks on the plague have been found of utility to every European nation; and, possibly, have tended to check the progress of that dreadful scourge. On his return to England, he chose the metropolis for his residence, and in 1759 was elected physician of St. Thomas’s Hospital, in which situation he continued to the time of his death, which happened in 1770. The Royal Society are obliged to Dr. Russel for many valuable communications, and the Medical Society were under obligations to him for many important papers. His character was that of a constant, sensible, and upright friend, a physician of great skill and experience, a pleasing companion, and a benevolent man.

His brother, Dr. Patrick Russel, who died July 2, 1805, in his seventy-ninth year, succeeded him as physician to the English factory at Aleppo. He published a copious “Treatise on the Plague,” in 1791, 4to, having had ample opportunities of treating that pestilential disease during the years 1760, 1761, and 1762. In this work, bcbides a journal of the progress, and a medical history of the plague, Dr. Russel inserted a full discussion of the subjects of quarantine, lazarettoes, and of the police, to be adopted in times of pestilence. He likewise published “Descriptions and figures of two hundred Fishes collected on the coast of Coromandel,” 1803, 2 vols. fol. and prevjousiy to this, in 1794, a new edition of his brothers “Natural History of Aleppo,” upon a very enlarged scale. He was a man of learning and wit: spoke the Arabic, which he acquired during his residence at Aleppo, with the fluency of his mother-tongue: and was, like his brother, of a friendly and benevolent disposition.

In 1780 his studies met with a temporary interruption: he embarked for Jamaica in order to recover some money due to him as the heir of his brother James, who had died in that island. In 1783 he published “The Tragic Muse,” a very just compliment to the transcendant abilities of Mrs. Siddons. In 1784 he completed his “History of Modern Europe,” by the addition of three volumes. He remained for some time in London, without any particular engagement of the literary kind, from which, being now in easy circumstances, he appears to have meditated a retreat. In 1787 he went to Scotland, married Miss Scott, a very amiable woman, and settled at a place called Knottyholm, a small distance from the town of Langholm in Scotland. In 1792 he obtained from the university of St. Andrew’s, the honorary degree of doctor of laws, with which he wished to adorn the title-page of his “History of Ancient Europe,” an undertaking which he had now begun, and completed two volumes in 1793; but this, neither as to plan or execution, was so highly valued as his former work. He was in truth less fit for the task than he had been, and being engaged in disputes with his booksellers, his mind became hurt and irritated. Some letters we have seen from him at this period shew that it was not quite sound; and that the strong sense of injury which he felt was in a great measure without foundation. While in this state a stroke of palsy terminated his life, Jan. 1, 1794, in the fortyseventh year of his age.

, was eldest son of Francis fourth earl of Bedford, by Catharine, sole daughter and heir of Giles Bridges, lord Chandois, and was born in 1614. He was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, and was made knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles I. He was a member of the Long-parliament, which met at Westminster, November 3, 1640; and May 9 following, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in his honours and estate. In July 1642, having avowed his sentiments against the measures pursued by the court, he was appointed by the parliament general of the horse, in the army raised in their defence against the king; and the marquis of Hertford being sent by his majesty into the West to levy forces, iti order to relieve Portsmouth, the earl of Bedford inid the command of seven thousand foot, and eight full troops of horse, to prevent his success in those parts; and marched with such expedition, that he forced the marquis out of Somersetshire, where his power and interest were believed unquestionable, and thus destroyed all hopes of forming an army for the king in the West. He afterwards joined the eari of Essex, and in the battle of Edgehill commanded the reserve of horse, which saved the whole army, when the horse of both wings had been defeated, and, after doing great execution on the king’s infantry, brought off their own foot; so that it became doubtful who had the victory, this reserve being the only body of forces that stood their ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had so much influence in the House of Lords, that, on the 5th of August the same year, that House desired a conference with the Commons, and declared to them their resolution of senclHig propositions for peace to the king, and hoped they would join with him. But by the artin'ce of Pennington, lord mayor of London, who procured a petition from the common-council of that city against the peace, such tumults were raised to terrify these lords, that they left the town, the Commons refusing to agree to their propositions. The earls of Bedford and Holland resolved therefore to go to Oxford; but their purpose being discovered or suspected, they with some difficulty got into the king’s garrison at Wallingford, from whence the governor sent an account of their arrival to the council at Oxford. The king was then at the siege of Gloucester, and the council divided in their opinions, in what manner to receive them; but his majesty upon his return determined on a middle way, by allowing them to come to Oxford, and every person to treat them there as they thought fit, while himself would regard them according to their future behaviour. Accordingly the two earls came, and, together with the earl of Clare, entered into the king’s service in Gloucestershire, waited upon his majesty throughout his march, charged in the royal regiment of horse at the battle of Newbury with great bravery, and in all respects behaved themselves well. Upon the king’s return to Oxford, he spoke to them on all occasions very graciously; but they were not treated in the same manner by others of the court, so that the earl of Holland going away first, the earls of Bedford and Clare followed, and came to the earl of Essex at St. Alban’s on Christmas-day, 1643. Soon after this, by order of parliament, the earl of Bedford was taken into custody by the black rod, and his estate sequestered, as was likewise the earl of Clare’s, tili the parliament, pleased with their successes against % the king in 1644, ordered their sequestrations to be taken off, and on the 17th of April the year following, the earl of Bedford, with the earls of Leicester and Ciare, and the lords Paget, Rich, and Convvay, who had left Oxford, and joined the parliament at London, took the covenant before the commissioners of the great-seal. He did not, however, interpose in any public affairs, till the House of Peers met in 1660, when the earl of Manchester, their speaker, was ordered by them to write to him to take his place among them; which he accordingly did, being assured of their design to restore the king and on the 27th of April that year, he was appointed one of the managers of the conference with the House of Commons, “to consider of some ways and means to make up the breaches and distractions of the kingdom” and on the 5th of May was one of the committee of peers “for viewing and considering, what ordinances had been made since the House of Lords were voted useless, which now passed as acts of parliament, and to draw up and prepare an act of parliament to be presented to the House to repeal what they should think fit.”

This duke, in 1695, having made the settlements previous to his grandson’s marrying Elizabeth, only daughter and heir of John Howlancl, of Stretham, esq. who was one of the greatest fortunes of that time, it was thought convenient, for the honour of this alliance, to make him baron Howland, of Stretham in Surrey, on June 13 the same year. His grace died in the eighty-seventh year of his age, September 7, 1700, and was buried with his ancestors at Cheneys, where a most noble monument is erected for him and his countess (who died on May 10, 16S1-, aged sixty-four), their two figures being exhibited under a canopy, supported by two pillars of the Corinthian order.

, the third son of the preceding, and for whose sake indeed some account was thought necessary of his father, was born about 16H. Hi? was bred up in those principles of liberty for which his father had fought, but in his youth partook freely of the dissipations of the court of Charles II. until his marriage in 1667 reclaimed him, and he became afterwards a sedate and unblemished character, as to morals. He represented the county of Bedford in four parliaments, and was considered as one of the heads of the whig party. The first affair, however, in which he co-operated with this party, has thrown some obscurity on his character. When Charles II. exasperated against the court of France for withdrawing the pension he had been mean enough hitherto to receive, wished to join the continental confederacy against Louis XIV. the whigs, who dreaded the giving Charles an army that might as likely be employed against their own country as against France, raised an opposition to the measure; and this being acceptable to the French king, an intrigue commenced between some of the vvhigs and Barillon, the French ambassador, the consequence of which was their receiving bribes from him to thwart the measures of the court. Sir John Dalrymple has given a list of the members who thus accepted money from the enemy of their country; and although lord Russel is said positively to have refused to act so meanly, there seems little reason to doubt that he was concerned in the intrigue. The defence set up for him on this occasion amounts tolittle more than that in certain cases the means may be justified by the end.

In 1679, when the king found it expedient to ingratiate himself with the whigs, lord William Russel was appointed one of his new council; but this could not last long, for in the following year he promoted the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York from the throne, the debate upon which was opened by him on the 26th of October, with a declaration of his opinion, that the life of his majesty, the safety of the nation, and the protestant religion, were in great danger from popery; and that either that parliament must suppress the growth and power thereof, or else popery would soon destroy, not only parliaments, but all that was dear and valuable to them, for which reason he moved, that they might in the first place take into consideration, how to suppress popery, and prevent a popish successor. The bill being accordingly passed in the House of Commons, his lordship, on the J5th of November, carried it up to the peers; who rejecting it, the Commons were exasperated at this, and lord Russel in particular said, that if ever there should happen in this nation any such change, as that he should not have the liberty to live a protestant, he was resolved to die one; and therefore would not willingly have the hands of their enemies strengthened. But these, and similar speeches from other members, having disgusted the court, the parliament was prorogued on the 10th of January, 1680-1. However, the necessity of the king’s affairs requiring the meeting of another parliament, his majesty called one, which assembled at Oxford on the 21st o March following; in which lord Russel served again as knight of the shire for the county of Bedford. But another bill of exclusion being moved for by sir Robert Clayr ton, who was seconded -.hy. his lordship, that parliament was soon after dissolved, and no other called during the reign of king Charles II. who now seemed determined to govern without one.

As he drew near to the close of life, conjugal affection was the feeling that clung closest to his heart; and when he had taken his last farewell of his wife, he said, “The bitterness of death is now over.” He suffered the sentence of his judges with resignation and composure. Some of his expressions imply an unusual degree of indifference in this last extremity. The day before his execution he was seized, with a bleeding at the nose: “I shall not now let blood to divert this distemper,” said he to bishop Burnet, who was present; “that will be done to-morrow.” A little before the sheriffs conducted him to his carriage, that was to convey him to the scaffold, he wound up his watch, “Now I have done,” said he, “with time, and henceforth must think solely of eternity.”

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

, an able critic and negociator, was born of an ancient family at Dordrecht or Dort, Aug. 28, 1589. He received a part of his early education at home, and was afterwards placed under the instructions of Gerard Vossius. In 1605 he was sent to Leyden, where he studied under Baud-ins, with whom he also resided, Scaliger, and Heinsius. After remaining here six years, he travelled in 1611 into France, resided two years at Paris, and took the degree of licentiate in law at Orleans; less from inclination than to please his parents. He returned to Dort, September 13, 1613, the day after his mother died, and soon after went to the Hague, where he was admitted to the bar; but remaining averse to this profession, and uncertain what to adopt in its place, the Swedish ambassador, who had been desired by his royal master to send him a person from Holland qualified for the post of counsellor, proposed it to Rutgers, and he having accepted the offer, they departed for Stockholm in May 1614. Finding, on their arrival, that the king was in Livonia, on account of the war with Muscovy, they took that route, and when they arrived at Nerva, the king received Rutgers with so great kindness, that the latter, although he had taken this journey without any determined purpose, or the hopes of a fixed settlement, now resolved ta attach himself to his majesty’s service. He was after this employed three times as envoy from that prince to Holland upon very important affairs, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of his majesty, who ennobled him in 1619. He visited Bohemia, Denmark, and several German courts, in the same quality; and lastly he resided at the Hague, as minister from Gustavus to that republic, where he died Oct. 26, 1625, at the early age of thirty-six. His works are, 1. “Notae in Horatium,” added to an edition of that poet by Robert Stephens, in 1613, and reprinted in 1699 and 1713. 2. “Variarum lectionum libri tres, quibus utriusque linguae scriptores, qua emendantur, qua illustrantur,” Leyden, 1618. This is justly esteemed as a very learned work, and, what was not so common then, a very judicious Specimen of criticism. 3. “Notse in Martialem,” added to Scriverius’s excellent and scarce edition of 1619, 12mo. 4. “Spicilegium in Apuleiurrt,” printed in Elmenhorst’s edition of 1621, 8vo. 5. “Emendationes in Q. Curtium,” given in the Leyden edition of 1625, 12mo. 6. “Poemata,” printed with Nicolas Heinsius’ s poems, Leyden, 1653, and Amst. 1669, 8vo. This Heinsius, the son of Daniel Heinsius, was Rutgers’s nephew. 7. “Lectiones Venusinae,” added to Peter Bui-man’s Horace, 1699, 12mo. 8. “VitaJani Rutgersii,” &c. written by himself, and published by another nephew, William Goes, Leyden, 1646, 4to, of 14 pages, but republished with his poems, and elsewhere. Rutgers bequeathed his library to Daniel Heinsius, his brother-in-law, who printed a catalogue of it in 1630.

In 1721, he settled as a physician at Edinburgh, and soon afterwards Drs. Rutherford, Sinclair, Plummer, and Innes, purchased a laboratory, where they prepared compound medicines, an art then little known in Scotland; but, having higher views than the mere profits of such a speculation, they demonstrated, as far as they were the* known, the operations of chemistry, to a numerous audience: and soon afterwards, by the advice of their old tnaster Boerhaave, they extended their lectures to other branches of physic. In 1725, they were appointed joint professors in the university: where, we believe, each, for some time, read lectures in every department of medical science, anatomy exempted, and carried forward their classes in rotation. The anatomical lectures were read by the elder Monro, who had been settled a 3*ear or two before them in Edinburgh. But on the death of Dr. Innes, a particular branch of medical science was allotted to each of the other three professors. Dr. Plummer was appointed professor of chemistry and materia medica, Dr. Sinclair of the institutes of physic, and Dr. Rutherford of the practice; and thus they had the honour to establish the medical school of Edinburgh. The lectures on the institutes and practice of physic were then, and for many years afterwards, delivered in Latin, of which Dr. Rutherford had a great command, and talked the language more fluently than that of his country. This practice, we believe, was afterwards discontinued by the successors of these founders; but Dr. Rutherford lectured in Latin as long as he filled the practical chair.

About 1748, he introduced a very great improvement in the course of medical education. Sensible that abstract lessons on the symptoms and the mode of treating various diseases, of which the student knew little but the names, could scarcely be of any benefit, he had for some time encouraged his pupils to bring patients to him on Saturday, when he inquired into the nature of their diseases, and prescribed for them in the presence of the class. This gave rise to a course of clinical lectures, the utility of which was so obvious, that it was enacted, by a decree of the senate of the university, that no man should be admitted to an examination for his doctor’s degree, who had not attended those lectures, to which an excellent hospital, then lately erected, gave the professors every opportunity of doing ample justice. He resigned his professorship in 1765, after having taught medicine in different departments for upwards of forty years, and was succeeded, by Dr. John Gregory. Dr. Rutherford lived, after this period, highly respected by many eminent physicians who had been his pupils, till 1779, when he died at Edinburgh, in the eighty-fourth year of his age.

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

, a Latin poet, who was advanced to high employments at the Roman court, was a military tribune, and about 414- A. D. was prefect of Rome> and in order to succour his native country, then over-run by the Visigoths, took a journey to Gaul, of which he wrote a description in elegiac verse. It consisted of two books, of which the latter is lost. The work gives a favourable impression of the writer, as a Pagan, though it has been greatly censured by Christian writers, on account of some remarks he makes on the conduct and manners of the Christians. This “Itinerarium” was discovered in 1494 at a monastery, and has been several times printed. The best editions are those of 1582 and 1687. It is inserted in Burmann’s “Poetac Minores,” and in Matlaire’s " Corpus Poetarn m.' 12

In 1733, he began his “History of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers in Ireland, from 1653 to 1750,” which was printed at Dublin in 1751, 4to. It was peculiar to Dr. Rutty that all his publications were the result of careful industry and observation long continued. Of this work, not having seen it, or any account of it, we are unable to speak with precision. He tells us, however, that he did not undertake it for reward, but from zeal, “and a cordial love to the exercise of Christian discipline among them, extended not to a few external particulars only, as dress and address, but also to the inordinate pursuit of riches, to lukewarmness, and to profaneness, and all immorality.” In 1737, he published an “Essay on Women’s preaching,” with a rebuke to false prophets, who had long given him offence: some censure, he adds, ensued from this. From L740 to 1745, he was engaged on the “Natural History of the county of Dublin.” This, however, was Dot published until 1772. He tells us, that now “he was led a long dance on birds, fishes, and fossils, and in compotations for information, and was greatly hurt in his spirituals by this means,” &c. In truth, these compotations appear throughout the greater part of his life, to have been an almost constant source of uneasiness, and self-condemnation. In every page of his “Spiritual Diary,” he laments over his doses of whiskey and the ill-humour they produced, although his friends assure us that, both as to temper and temperance, his conduct was rather exemplary than blameable. Yet he had acquired a habit of magnifying the least infirmities into crimes, and this pervades the whole of the volumes which he filled with his Diary.

The first publication by which he was known, in his professional character, in this country, was a very elaborate work, entitled, “A Methodical Synopsis of Mineral Waters, comprehending the most celebrated Medicinal waters, both cold and hot, of Great Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, and Italy, and several other parts of the world, wherein their several impregnating minerals being previously described, and their characteristics investigated, each water is reduced to its proper genus; and besides the particular analysis, the virtues, uses, and abuses of the water are described, in a method entirely new. Interspersed with tables, tending to throw a light upon this intricate subject; and abstracts of the principal authors who have treated of mineral waters; and the accounts dispersed in the acts of most of the learned societies in Europe, are collected and properly digested,” 1756, 4to. In the preface he informs us that his original intention was only to do justice to his own country, by giving a history of the mineral waters of Ireland, which appeared to him to be as considerable, both in number and variety, as those of any part of Europe of equal extent; but this inquiry obliging him to institute a comparison between the Irish waters, and those of other countries, he extended his plan at last to a general history of mineral waters. This, however, appears to have been unfortunate for the reputation of the work, by obliging him to give accounts, at second hand, of many mineral waters, particularly some remarkable ones in England, which he had no opportunity of examining and analyzing; and hence there are many inaccuracies in a work, otherwise valuable, and evidently the result of much study and extensive inquiry. Dr. Rutty informs us that this work engaged him in a controversy for three years. With this we are unacquainted, having seen only a scurrilous pamphlet by one Lucas, an apothecary, and of some note as a mob-patriot, but which was spoken of in the literary journals of the day with the contempt which it appears to have amply deserved, and could scarcely have been worthy of Dr. Rutty’s notice.

Dr. Rutty died April 27, 1775; and after his death were published “Observations on the London and Edinburgh Dispensatories, with an account of the various subjects of the Materia Medica, not contained in either of those works,” 1776, 12mo. In this Dr. Rutty contends, but with no great force of argument, or proof from their efficacy, that several medicines were improperly omitted in the above dispensatories. “Materia Medica Antiqua et Nova, repurgata et illustrata; sive de Medicamentorum simplicium officinalium facultatibus tractatus,” 4to. On this compilation he had bestowed forty years, and calls it “the principal work of his life,” but it has not acquired the same estimation with the faculty. Besides being unnecessarily prolix, there are many symptoms of credulity in the efficacy of certain medicines, which does no honour to the regular practitioner. The last of this author’s works which appeared, was his “Spiritual Diary and Soliloquies,” 1776, 2 vols. 8vo, one of the most extraordinary of those books which have been published under the title of “Confessions.” It is scarcely possible, however, to read it or characterize it with gravity, being a series of pious meditations perpetually interrupted with records of too much whiskey, piggish or swinish eating, and ill temper. Had his friends been left to their own judgment, this strange farrago had never appeared; but by a clause in his will, his executors were obliged to publish it. Nor, after all, does it exhibit a real character of the man; who, we are assured by his friends (in the preface), was correct and temperute in his conduct and mode of living, a man of great benevolence, and a very useful, as he certainly was a very learned physician.

, a celebrated anatomist and physician, was born at the Hague, in the month of March 1638, where his father was commissary of the States-general. Being sent to the university of Leyden, he devoted himself to the study of anatomy, botany, and chemistry, especially to the practical investigation of these sciences, having conceived an early bias to the profession of medicine. He repaired also to Franeker, for the farther pursuit of his studies; but received the degree of doctor at Leyden, in 1664. Even during his pupilage at Leyden, he was applied to by Sylvius and Van Home, to assist them in combating the vanity of Bilsius, who came thither to exhibit his boasted method of preserving dead bodies.

Ruysch was appointed professor of physic in 1685, a post which he filled with honour and reputation until 1728, when he unhappily broke his thigh by a fall in his chamber. He was also nominated superintendant of the mid wives at Amsterdam, in the exercise of which office he introduced some improvements. He was a member of the royal society of London, and of the academy of sciences of Paris, having succeeded sir Isaa Newton in the latter body in 1727. In the same year he had the misfortune to lose his son, Henry Ruysch, also doctor of physic, who, like himself, was an able practitioner, well skilled in anatomy and botany, and was supposed to have materially assisted him in his publications, inventions, and experiments. This loss deprived him of his best assistance in completing the second collection of rarities, which he was occupied in making. His youngest daughter, however, who was still unmarried, and had been initiated into all the mysteries of his anatomical experiments, was fully qualified to assist him, and he proceeded with his new museum, retaining his general health until the commencement of 1731, when he was carried off by a fever, in the ninety-third year of his age.

He had a brother, Solomon Ruysdaal, who was born at Haerlem in 1616, and was also a painter of landscapes, but in every respect far inferior to Jacob. The best commendation given him by the writers on this subject is, that he was a cold imitator of Schoeft and Van Goyen, and although his pictures have somewhat that is plausible, sufficient to engage the attention of those who are prejudiced in favour of the name of Ruysdaal, yet, to persons of true judgment and taste, they are in no great estimation; and the eye is disgusted with too predominant a tint of yellow, which is diffused through the whole. He rendered himself, however, considerable, by having discovered the art of imitating variegated marbles with surprising exactness; and he gave to his compositions an appearance so curiously similar to the real marble, that it was scarce possible to discern any difference, either in the weight, the colour, or the lustre of the polish. He died in 1670.

, a celebrated Dutch admiral, was born at Flushing in 1607, and entered into the naval service of his country very early. Much of the early part of his life was spent in the service in the West Indies, to which he is said to have made eight voyages, and two to Brasil. Jn 1641 he was sent to the assistance of the Portuguese, who had thrown off the yoke of Spain, and on this occasion he was raised to the rank of rear-admiral. He afterwards rendered some important services on the Barbary coast, entering the road of Sallee in a single ship, although five Algerine corsairs disputed the passage. When war broke out, in 1652, between the English and Dutch, Van Tromp having been disgraced, De Ruyter was appointed to the command of a separate squadron, for the purpose of convoying home a rich fleet of merchantmen. He fell in with the English admiral Ayscough, with whom he had an engagement off Plymouth, in the month of August, which lasted two days, and terminated so far to the advantage of the Dutch, that he brought his convoy safe into port. In the following October De Ruyter aud De Witte had an action with Blake and Ayscough on the Flemish coast, which was severely contested; but De Ruyter, being deserted by some of his captains, found it advisable to retreat to his own coast, the loss having been Dearly equal on both sides. Van Tromp was now restored to the chief command, and De Ruyter had a squadron under him in the battle of December, offFolkstone, in which Blake was obliged to take shelter in the Thames. De Ruyter likewise distinguished himself in the terrible battle of three days, fought in February 1653, between Tromp and Blake, near the mouth of the Channel. In the month of June, Tromp and De Ruyter engaged Monk and Dean off Nieuport; and after a battle of two days, in which the two Dutch admirals successively rescued each other from imminent danger, the Dutch confessed their inferiority by retiring behind their own sand-banks, where having received a reinforcement, they were enabled to attack the English under Monk and Lawson, near Scheveling. In the final battle between the two fleets Tromp was killed, and De Ruyter compelled to withdraw his shattered ships to the Meuse. After the peace, which was concluded the following year, De Ruyter was sent to cruize in the Mediterranean, to reinforce Opdam; and this service being effected, he returned to his station, and put an end to the predatory warfare carried on by the French privateers. The Dutch having quarrelled with Portugal, De Ruyter exhibited his vigilance, taking several Portuguese ships at the mouth of the Tagus, and made several prizes from the Brazil fleet, till a want of provisions obliged him to return to Holland. War having recommenced between the Swedes and Danes in 1658, De Ruyter, who was sent with a fleet to the assistance of the latter, made a descent on the island of Funen, defeated the Swedes, and forced them to surrender at discretion in Nyborg, whither they had retired. He then wintered at Copenhagen, where the king of Denmark ennobled him for his services. In 1662 he was sent with a strong squadron to curb the insolence of the Barbary states, who had exercised their piracy upon the Dutch shipping, and succeeded entirely to the satisfaction of his employers. At the commencement of the disputes between Charles II. and the United Provinces, De Ruyter had a command on the coast of Africa, where he recovered the forts which had been taken from the Dutch by the English, and made prizes of some merchant ships. After the defeat of the fleet of Opdam by the duke of York in 1665, D Ruyter returned, and was raised to the rank of lieutenant-admiralgeneral of the Dutch navy. The first service of De Ruyter was to convoy home a fleet of merchantmen; and in June 1666, the great fleets of the two maritime powers met in the Downs; the Dutch commanded by De lluyter and Tromp, the English by prince Rupert, and Monk, now the duke of Albemarle. In the three days’ fight which ensued, the Dutch had the advantage, though the valour of the English rendered the contest very severe; and on the fourth, the English, who had been the greatest sufferers, withdrew to their harbours.

In the following August the duke of Albemarle and prince Rupert fell in, near the coast of Essex, with De Ruyter and Tromp, and in the ensuing action, Tromp, eagerly pursuing a defeated division of the English fleet, left De Ruyter alone to contend with the main body of the enemy, who, after a long and most severe contest, was obliged to retreat, exclaiming, how wretched he was that not one bullet of so many thousands would free him from the disgrace. The year 1667 was memorable for the disgrace which the reign of Charles II. incurred by the triumphant entrance of the Dutch into the Thames. Negociations for peace had been carrying on at Breda, which De Witte had protracted, while he hastened the naval preparations; which being completed, the Dutch fleet appeared in the Thames, under the command of De Ruyter, and took Sheerness, and burnt several English men of war. The peace which soon followed gave some repose to De Ruyter, till the alliance between Charles II. and Louis XIV. against the Dutch, rendered his services again necessary. In June 1672, with a fleet of ninety-one sail, he attacked the combined fleets of one hundred and thirty sail, under the command of the duke of York, lord Sandwich, and count d'Estrees, in Solebay; an obstinate engagement took place, which was in some measure undecided, as night parted them, but De Ruyter kept the sea, and safely convoyed home a fleet of merchantmen. In 1673 he was again sent to sea with a strong fleet in quest of the combined English and French, who were on the Dutch coast. Three engagements took place, which were obstinately fought, but both parties claimed the victory. De Ruyter’s other actions against the French were of little comparative importance. In the last, however, fought near Messina, against the French fleet, April 21, 1676, he was mortally wounded by a cannon-shot, and died a week after in the port of Syracuse, deeply regretted by his country. He was interred at Amsterdam, at the public expense, and a superb monument erected to his* Hiemory.

, a learned critic, of the seventeenth century, was professor of history at Leyden. He was born in 1640, and after studying, probably at that university, he visited England, France, and Italy, and was every Tvhere esteemed for his talents and address. On his return to Holland he followed the profession of the law for some time at the Hague, but having little inclination for either the study or practice of it, he accepted the professorship of history at Leyden, and became an honour to the university. His lectures were much crowded, and he added to the reputation they procured him by his publications, particularly his edition of Tacitus, which Dr. Harwood pronounces “a very correct and excellent one.” It consists of 2 vols. 12mo, printed at Leyden in 1687, the first containing the text of Tacitus, the second Rycke’s notes, which are very valuable, and illustrate many passages that had escaped the notice or sagacity of his predecessors. He published also a curious dissertation “De primis Italian coionis, et de adventu JEneze in Italiam,” the subject of which was to refute the opinion of Bochart, who maintained that/neas had never seen Italy. He wrote another dissertation on giants, in which he collected all that had been written on those remarkable beings; an “Oratio de Palingenesia literarum in terris nostris,” published by Krieghius, at Jena in 1703; and published some other critical works. He died in 1690. Many of his letters are in the posthumous works of Francius.

, historiographer to the king, and one of the forty members of the French academy, was born 1605, at Paris, and was the son of Isaac Ryer, who died about 1631, and has left some “Pastoral Poems.” Peter Ryer gained some reputation by his translations, though they were not exact, his urgent engagements with the booksellers preventing him from reviewing and correcting them properly. He obtained the place of king’s secretary in 1616, but having married imprudently, sold it in 1633, was afterwards secretary to Caesar duke de Vendome, and had a brevet of historiographer of France, with a pension from the crown. He died November 6, 1658, at Paris, aged fifty-three, leaving French translations of numerous works. Du Ryer’s style is pure and smooth; he wrote with great ease, both in verse and prose, and could doubtless have furnished the publick with very excellent works, had not the necessity of providing for his family, deprived him of leisure to polish and bring them to perfection. He also wrote nineteen tragedies, among which “Alcyonee,” “Saul,” and “Scevole,” are still remembered.

, an eminent engraver, was born in London in the year 1732. His genius for the fine arts manifested itself at an early period of his life, and he was accordingly placed under Ravenet. At the expiration of his engagement he was patronized by his godfather sir Watkin Williams Wynne, and went to Paris, where, for five years, under the guidance of Boucher, who at that time led the fashion in art, he applied with great assiduity to the study of drawing, but did not neglect to improve himself also in the practical part of engraving. From the designs of this principal misleader of the taste of France, Ryland engraved several plates, of which the principal and probably the best engraving he ever performed, is rather a large work, of which the subject is “Jupiter and Leda.” In this he has displayed great power as an engraver in lines. The print has a fine transparent tone; he has tempered the flimsy touchiness of the French taste with a portion of Ravenet’s solidity; the soft firmness of flesh is ably characterized in the figure of Leda, and the delicacy of the swan, and various textures of the surrounding objects, are rendered with much feeling and judicious subserviency to the principal parts. Such other proofs did he give of his abilities, as to obtain an honorary gold medal, which entitled him to pursue his studies at the academy in Rome, which he afterwards did with great success. From Boucher, however, he acquired a false taste, which diverted his talents from the mark at which he was evidently and successfully aiming when he produced his “Jupiter and Leda;” and this error was heightened by the fashion of stippling which he learned in France, and introduced, with his own modifications, into England. Ryland employed stippling, so as rather to imitate such drawings as are stumped than such as are hatched with chalk, by which means he softened down all energy of style, and has left posterity to regret the voluntary emasculation of the powers he had manifested in his “Jupiter and Leda.”

It was in king William’s councils that it was first determined to print, by authority, the public conventions of Great Britain with other powers; and Mr. Rymer being selected as the editor, a warrant, empowering him to search the public repositories for this great design, was granted Aug. 26, 1693. Mr. Rymer then undertook the work, which he entitled “Fœdera;” the first volume was published in 1704, and in 1707, Mr. Robert Sanderson was appointed his assistant, the warrant being renewed for that purpose. Mr. Rymer lived to publish fifteen folio volumes of this work and from his collections a sixteenth was published by Sanderson, who, by a warrant dated Feb. 15, 1717, was continued the sole conductor of this laborious undertaking, and completed it in twenty volumes, the last of which appeared in 1735. This Sanderson, who was usher of the court of chancery, clerk of the chapel of the rolls, and fellow of the society of antiquaries, died Dec. 25, 1741.

Mr. Rysbrach, who had by no means raised a fortune equal to his deserts, before his death made a public sale of his remaining works and models, to which he added a Jarge collection of his own historic drawings, conceived and executed in the true taste of the great Italian masters. Another sale followed his death, which happened Jan. 8, 1770. He had two brothers, Peter Andreas, and G. Rysl>rach, who painted fish, dead fowls, and landscape, with Considerable merit, particularly the elder, who was born it Paris in 1690, and died in England of a consumption in 1743. He must be distinguished from another landscape painter of the seventeenth century of the same name, who was a native of Antwerp.

, related to sir Thomas Ryves, mentioned in the next article, a loyal divine and celebrated preacher, was born in Dorsetshire, and educated at New college, Oxford, of which he became one of the clerks in 1610, and was afterwards, in 1616, appointed one of the chaplains of Magdalen college. Having taken his degrees in arts, he attained great reputation as a preacher, and was made vicar of Stanwell, in Middlesex, rector of St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, chaplain to king Charles I. and in 1639, doctor in divinity. When the rebellion broke out, he was sequestered and plundered. At the restoration of king Charles II. he had the deanry of Windsor conferred on him, with the rectory of Acton, in Middlesex, and was made secretary to the garter. He died July 13, 1677. His works are, “Mercurius Rusticus; or, the Country’s Complaint, recounting the sad events of this unparalleled War,” &c. These Mercuries begin August 22, 1642. “Mercurius Rusticus, the 2d part, giving an account of Sacrileges, in and upon Cathedrals,” &c. When the war was ended, all these Mercuries were reprinted in 8vo, in 1646 and 1647, with an addition of the papers following: 1. “A general Bill of Mortality of the Clergy of London, &c. or a brief Martyrology and Catalogue of the learned and religious Ministers of the City of London, who have been imprisoned, plundered,” &c. 2. “Q,uerela Cantabrigiensis or, a Remonstrance by way of Apology for the banished Members of the flourishing University of Cambridge.” 3. “Micro-Chronicon or, a brief Chronology of the Time and Place of the Battles, Sieges, Conflicts, and other remarkable passages, which have happened betwixt his Majesty and the Parliament,” &c. 4. “A Catalogue of all, or most part of the Lords, Knights, Commanders, and Persons of Quality, slain or executed by Law Martial, from the beginning of this unnatural War to March 25, 1647.” And here we may observe, that the edition of 1647 has more in it than that of 1646. Dr. Ryves has likewise printed several occasional sermons, and is said to have assisted in the celebrated Polyglot Bible.

, a Spanish political and moral writer, was born May 6, 1584, at Algezares, in the kingdom of Murcia, and studied at Salamanca. In 1606, he went to Rome as secretary to the cardinal Gaspar de Borgia, who was appointed Spanish ambassador to the pope, and assisted in the conclaves of 1621 and 1623, held for the election of the popes Gregory XV. and Urban VIII. For these services Saavedra was rewarded with a canonry in the church of St. James, although he had never taken priest’s orders. Some time after he was appointed agent from the court of Spain at Rome, and his conduct in this office acquired him general esteem. In 1636, he assisted at the electoral congress held there, in which Ferdinand III. was chosen king of the Romans. He afterwards was present at eight diets held in Swisserland, and lastly at the general diet of the empire at Ratisbonne, where he appeared in quality of plenipotentiary of the circle and of the house of Burgundy. After being employed in some other diplomatic affairs, he returned to Madrid in 1646, and was appointed master of ceremonies in the introduction of ambassadors; but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died Aug. 24, 1648. In his public character he rendered the state very important services, and, as a writer, is ranked among those who have contributed to polish and enrich the Spanish language. The Spanish critics, who place him among their classics, say he wrote Spanish as Tacitus wrote Latin. He has long been known, even in this country, by his “Emblems,” which were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in the early part of the last century. These politico-moral instructions for a Christian prince, were first printed in 1640, 4to, under the title of “Idea de un Principe Politico* Christiano representada en cien empress,” and reprinted at Milan in 1642; they were afterwards translated into Latin, and published under the title of “Symbola Christiano-Politica,” and have often been reprinted in various sizes in France, Italy, and Holland. He wrote also “Corona Gotica, Castellana, y Austriaca politicamente illustrada,” 1646, 4to, which was to have consisted of three parts, but he lived to complete one only: the rest was by Nunez de Castro; and “Respublica Literaria,” published in 1670, 8vo. Of this work an English translation was published by I. E. in 1727. It is a kind of vision, giving a satirical account of the republic of letters, not unlike the manner of Swift. The French have a translation of it, so late as 1770.

, a very eminent French surgeon, was born at Paris in October 1732, and after studying there, acquired the first rank in his profession, and in every situation which he filled, his knowledge, skill, and success, were equally conspicuous. He became censor-royal of the academy of sciences, professor and demonstrator of the surgical schools, secretary of correspondence, surgeon-major of the hospital of invalids, and a member of the institute. His education had been more liberal and comprehensive than usual. He not only was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, but was well acquainted with the English, Italian, and German languages. Besides his public courses of lectures on anatomy and surgery, he instructed many private pupils, not only of his own country, but those of foreign nations who were attracted to Paris by his fame as a teacher, and were delighted with his unaffected politeness and candour. In his latter days Bonaparte appointed him one of his consulting surgeons, and he was one of the first on whom he bestowed the cross of the legion of honour. Sabatier died at Paris July 21, 1811. He retained his faculties to the last, but we are told became ashamed of his bodily weakness. “Hide me,” he said to his wife and son, “from the world, that you may be the only witnesses of this decay to which I must submit.” A little before his death he said to his son, “Contemplate the state into which I am fallen, and learn to die.” His humane attention to his patients was a distinguished feature in his character. During any painful operation he used to say, “Weep! weep! the more you express a sense of your sufferings, the more anxious I shall be to shorten them.”

, a learned French writer, was born at Condom, Oct. 31, 1735, and after making great proficiency in his studies among the fathers of the oratory in that city, went to Orleans, where he was employed as a private tutor. In 1762, he was invited to the college of Chalons-sur-Marne, where he taught the third and fourth classes for sixteen years, which gave him a title to the pension of an emeritus. His literary reputation took its rise principally from his essay on the temporal power of the popes, which gained the prize of the academy of Prussia. He was then about twenty-eight years old; but had before this addressed a curious paper on the limits of the empire of Charlemagne to the academy of Belles Lettres at Paris. He was the principal means of founding the academy of Chalons, procured a charter for it, and acted as secretary for thirty years. Such was his reputation that he had the honour to correspond with some of the royal personages of Europe, and was in particular much esteemed by the kings of Prussia and Sweden; nor was he less in favour with Choiseul, the French minister, who encouraged his taste for study. It does not appear, however, that his riches increased with his reputation, and this occasioned his projecting a paper-manufactory in Holland, which ended like some of the schemes of ingenious men; Sabbathier was ruined, and his successors made a fortune. He died in a village near Chalon, March 11, 1807, in his seventysecond year.

, known likewise by the name of Andrea da Salerno, is the first artist that deserves notice, of the Neapolitan school. He is supposed to have been born about 1480. Enamoured of the style of Pietro Perugino, who had painted an Assumption of the Virgin in the dome of Naples, he set out for Perugia to become his pupil; but hearing at an inn on the road some painters extol the works of Raphael in the Vatican, he altered his mine!, went to Rome, and entered that master’s school. His stay there was short, for the death of his father obliged him to return home against his will in 1513; he returned, however, a new man. It is said that he painted with Raphael at the Pace, and in the Vatican, and that he copied Jiis pictures well: he certainly emulated his manner with success. Compared with his fellow-scholars, if he falls short of Julio, he soars above Raphael del Colle and the rest of that sphere. He had correctness and selection of attitude and features, depth of shade, perhaps too much sharpness in the marking of the muscles, a broad style of folding in his draperies, and a colour which even now maintains its freshness. Of his numerous works at Naples mentioned in the catalogue of his pictures, the altarpieces at S. Maria delle Grazie deserve perhaps preference; for his fn scoes there and elsewhere, extolled by the writers as miracles of art, are now, the greater part, destroyed. He painted likewise at Salerno, Gaeta, and other places of the kingdom, for churches and private collections, where his Madonnas often rival those of Raphael. This distinguished artist died in 1545.

, called Lorenzin di Bologna, was one of the most genteel and most delicate painters of his age. He has been often mistaken for a scholar of Raphael, from the resemblance of his Holy Families in style of design and colour to those of that master, though the colour be always weaker. He likewise painted Madonnas and angels in cabinet- pictures, which seem of Parmigiano nor are his altar-pieces different the most celebrated is that of S. Michele at S. Giacomo, engraved by Agostino Caracci, and recommended to his school as a model of graceful elegance. He excelled in fresco; correct in design, copious in invention, equal to every subject, and yet, what surprises, rapid. Such were the talents that procured him employ, not only in many patrician families of his own province, but a call to Rome under the pontificate of Gregorio XIII. where, according to Baglioni, he pleased much, especially in his naked figures, a branch he had not much cultivated at Bologna. The stories of St. Paul in the Capella Paolina, Faith triumphant over Infidelity in the Sala regia, and various other subjects in the galleries and loggie of the Vatican, are the works of Sabbatini, always done in competition with the best masters, and always with applause: hence among the great concourse of masters who at that time thronged for precedence in Rome, he was selected to superintend the different departments of the Vatican in which office he died in the vigour of life, 1577.

, whose family name was Schalter, one of the best Latin poets of his time, was born in the electorate of Brandenburg in 1508; and, at fifteen, sent to Wittemberg, where he was privately instructed by Melancthon, in whose house he lived. He had a great ambitioft: to excel and an enthusiastic regard for what was excellent, especially in Latin poetry and although the specimens ht^ studied made him somewhat diffident of his powers, he ventured to submit to the public, in his twenty-second year, a poem, entitled “Res Gestse Csesarum Germanorum,” which spread his reputation all over Germany, and made all the princes, who had any regard for polite literature, his friends and patrons. Afterwards he travelled into Italy, where he contracted an acquaintance with Bembus and other learned men; and, on his return visited Erasmus at Friburg, when that great man was in the last stage of life. In 1536, he married Melancthon’s eldest daughter, at Wittemberg, to whom he was engaged before his journey into Italy. She was only fourteen, but very handsome, and understood Latin well and Sabinus always lived happily with her but he had several altercations with Melancthon, because he wanted to raise himself to civil employments; and did not relish the humility of Melancthon, who confined himself to literary pursuits, and would be at no trouble to advance his children. This misunderstanding occasioned Sabinus to remove into Prussia in 1543, with his wife, who afterwards died at Konigsberg in 1547. He settled, for some little time, at Francfort upon the Oder, and was made professor of the belles lettres by the appointment of the elector of Brandenburg; and was afterwards promoted to be rector of the new university of Konigsberg, which was opened in 1544. His eloquence and learning brought him to the knowledge of Charles V. who ennobled him, and he was also employed on some embassies, particularly by the elector of Brandenburg into Italy, where he seems to have contracted an illness, of which he died in 1560, the same year in which Melancthon died. His Latin poems were published at Leipsic in 1558 and 1597, the latter with additions and letters. He published some other works, less known, which are enumerated by Niceron.

, an Italian poet, but better known as a writer of novels, was born at Florence about 1335, of an ancient family, some branches of which had held employments of great trust and dignity in the republic. While young he composed some amatory verses, in imitation of Petrarch, but with a turn of thought and style peculiar to himself, and he was frequently employed in drawing up poetical inscriptions for public monuments, &c. in which sentiments of morality and a love of liberty were expected to be introduced. Some of these are still extant, but are perhaps more to be praised for the subject than the style. Sacchetti, when more advanced in life, filled several offices of the magistracy both at Florence and different parts of Tuscany, and formed an acquaintance with the most eminent men of his time, by whom he was highly respected. He suffered much, however, during the civil contests of his country. He is supposed to have died about the beginning of the fifteenth century. Very little of his poetry has been published. He is principally known by his “Novels,” an excellent edition of which was published at Florence in 1724, 2 vols. 8vo, by Bottari, who has prefixed an account of his life. These tales are in the manner of Boccaccio, but shorter, more lively, and in general more decent.

, D. D. a man whose history affords a very striking example of the folly of party spirit, was the son of Joshua Sacheverell of Marlborough, clerk, who died rector of St. Peter’s church in Marlborough, leaving a numerous family in very low circumstances. By a letter to him from his uncle, in 1711, it appears that he had a brother named Thomas, and a sister Susannah. Henry was put to school at Marlborough, at the charge of Mr. Edward Hearst, an apothecary, who, being his godfather, adopted him as his son. Hearst’s widow put him afterwards to^Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he became demy in 1687, at the age of 15. Here he soon distinguished himself by a regular observation of the duties of the house, by his compositions, good manners, and genteel behaviour; qualifications which recommended him to that society, of which he became fellow, and, as public tutor, had the care of the education of most of the young gentlemen of quality and fortune that were admitted of the college. In this station he had the care of the education of a great many persons eminent for their learning and abilities; and was contemporary and chamberfellow with Addison, and one of his chief intimates till the time of his famous trial. Mr. Addison’s “Account of the greatest English' Poets,” dated April 4, 1694, in a farewell-poem to the Muses on his intending to enter into holy orders, was inscribed <c to Mr. Henry Sacheverell,“his then dearest friend and colleague. Much has been said by Sacheverell’s enemies of his ingratitude to his relations, and of his turbulent behaviour at Oxford; but these appear to have been groundless calumnies, circulated only by the spirit of party. In his younger years he wrote some excellent Latin poems, besides several in the second and third volumes of the” Mus as Anglicanae,“ascribed to his pupils; and there is a good one of some length in the second volume, under his own name (transcribed from the Oxford collection, on queen Mary’s death, 1695). He took the degree of M. A. May 16, 1696; B. D. Feb. 4, 1707; D. D. July 1, 1708. His first preferment was Cannock, or Cank, in the county of Stafford. He was appointed preacher of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1705; and while in this station preached his famous sermons (at Derby, Aug. 14, 1709; and at St. Paul’s, Nov. 9, in the same year) and in one of them was supposed to point at lord Godolphin, under the name of Volpone. It has been suggested, that to this circumstance, as much as to the doctrines contained in his sermons, he was indebted for his prosecution, and eventually for his preferment. Being impeached by the House of Commons, his trial began Feb. 27, 1709-10; and continued until the 23d of March: when he was sentenced to a suspension from preaching for three years, and his two sermons ordered to be burnt. This prosecution, however, overthrew the ministry, and laid the foundation of his fortune. To sir Simon Harcourt, who was counsel for him, he presented a silver bason gilt, with an elegant inscription, written probably by his friend Dr. Alterbury. Dr. Sacheverell, during his suspension, made a kind of triumphal progress through various parts of the kingdom; during which period he was collated to a living near Shrewsbury; and, in the same month that his suspension ended, had the valuable rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, given him by the queen, April 13, 1713. At that time his reputation was so high, that he was enabled to sell the first sermon preached after his sentence expired (on Palm Sunday) for the sum of 100l.; and upwards of 40,000 copies, it is said, were soon sold. We find by Swift’s Journal to Stella, Jan. 22, 1711-12, that he had also interest enough with the ministry to provide very amply for one of his brothers; yet, as the dean had said before, Aug. 24, 1711,” they hated and affected to despise him.“A considerable estate at Callow in Derbyshire was soon after left to him by his kinsman George Sacheverell, esq. In 1716, he prefixed a dedication to” Fifteen Discourses, occasionally delivered before the university of Oxford, by W. Adams, M. A. late student of Christ-church, and rector of Staunton upon Wye, in Oxfordshire.“After this publication, we hear little of him, except by quarrels with his parishioners. He died June 5, 1724; and, by his will, bequeathed to Bp. Atterbury, then in exile, who was supposed to have penned for him the defence he made before the House of Peers , the sum of 500l. The duchess of Maryborough describes Sacheverell as” an ignorant impudent incendiary; a man who was the scorn even of those who made use of him as a tool.“And Bp. Burnet says,” He was a bold insolent man, wiih a very small measure of religion, virtue, learning, or good sense; but he resolved to force himself into popularity and preferment, by the most petulant railings at dissenters and low-church men, in several sermons and libels, written without either chasteness of style or liveliness of expression." Whatever his character, it is evident that he owed every thing to an injudicious prosecution, which defeated the purposes of those who instituted it, and for many years continued those prejudices in the public mind, which a wiser administration w r ould have been anxious to dispel.

, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, an eminent statesman and poet, was born at Withyam in Sussex, in 1527. He was the son of sir Richard Sackville, who died in 1566, by Winifred Brydges (afterwards marchioness of Winchester), and grandson of John Sackville, esq. who died in 1557, by Anne Boleyne, sister of sir Thomas Boleyne, earl of Wiltshire and great grandson of Richard Sackviiie, esq. who died in 1524, by Isabel, daughter of John Digges, of Digues 1 s place in Barham, Kent, of a family which for many succeeding generations produced men of learning and genius. He was first of the university of Oxford, and, as it is supposed, of Hart-hall, now Hertford-college; but taking no degree there, he removed to Cambridge, where he commenced master of arts, and afterwards was a student of the Inner Temple. At both universities he became celebrated both as a Latin and English poet, and carried the same taste and talents to the Temple, where he wrote his tragedy of “Gorboduc,” which was exhibited in the great hall by the students of that society, as part of a Christmas entertainment, and afterwards before queen Elizabeth at Whitehall^ Jan. 18, 1561. It was surreptitiously printed in 1563, under the title of “The Tragedy of Gorboduc,” 4to; but a correct edition under the inspection of the authors (for he was assisted by Thomas Norton), appeared in 1571, entitled “The Tragedie of Ferrex and Porrex.” Another edition appeared in 1569, notwithstanding which, for many years it had so feompletely disappeared, that Dryden and Oldham, in the reign of Charles II. do not appear to have seen it, though they pretended to criticise it; and even Wood knew just as little of it, as is plain from his telling us that it was written in old English rhyme. Pope took a fancy to retrieve this play from oblivion, and Spence being employed to set it off with all possible advantage, it was printed pompously in 1736, 8vo, with a preface by the editor. Spence, speaking of his lordship as a poet, declares, that “the dawn of our English poetry was in Chaucer’s time, but that it shone out in him too bright all at once to last long. The succeeding age was dark and overcast. There was indeed some glimmerings of genius again in Henry VIII's time but our poetry had never what could be called a fair settled day-light till towards the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. It was between these two periods, that lord Buckhurst wrote; after the earl of Surrey, and before Spenser.” Warton’s opinion of this tragedy is not very favourable. He thinks it never was a favourite with our ancestors, and fell into oblivion on account of the nakedness anil uninteresting nature of the plot, the tedious length of the speeches, the want of discrimination of character, and almost a total absence of pathetic or critical situations. Yet he allows that the language of “Gorboduc” has great merit and perspicuity, and that it is entirely free from the tumid phraseology of a subsequent age of play-writing.

, sixth earl of Dorset and Middlesex, a celebrated wit and poet, was descended in a direct line from Thomas lord Buckhurst, and born Jan. 24, 1637. He had his education under a private tutor; after which, making the tour of Italy, he returned to England a little before the Restoration. He was chosen in the first parliament that was called after that event for East Grinstead in Sussex, made a great figure as a speaker, and was caressed by Charles II.; but, having as yet no turn to business, declined all public employment. He was, in truth, like Villiers, Rochester, Sedley, &c. one of the wits or libertines of Charles’s court; and thought of nothing so much as feats of gallantry, which sometimes carried him to inexcusable excesses . He went a volunteer in the first Dutch war in 1665; and, the night before the engagement, composed the celebrated song “To all you Ladies now at land,” which is generally esteemed the happiest of his productions; but there is reason to think it was not originally composed, but only revised on this occasion. Soon after he was made a gentleman of the bed-chamber; and, on account of his distinguished politeness, sent by the king upon several short embassies of compliment into France. Upon the death of his uncle James Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, in 1674, that estate devolved on him; and he succeeded likewise to the title by creation in 1675. His father dying two years after, he succeeded him in his estate and honours. He utterly disliked, and openly discountenanced, the violent measures of James II's reign; and early engaged for the prince of Orange, by whom he was made lord chamberlain of the household, and taken into the privy-council. In 1692, he attended king William to the congress at the Hague, and was near losing his life in the passage. They went on board Jan. 10, in a very severe season; and, when they were a few leagues off Goree, having by bad weather been four days at sea, the king was so impatient to go on shore, that he took a boat; when, a thick fog arising soon after, they were so closely surrounded with ice, as not to be able either to make the shore, or get back to the ship. In this condition they remained twenty-two hours, almost despairing of life; and the cold was so bitter, that they could hardly speak or stand at their landing; and lord Dorset contracted a lameness, which continued for some time. In 1698, his health insensibly declining, he retired from public affairs; only now and then appearing at the council-board. He died at Bun Jan. 19, 1705-6, after having married two wives; by the latter of whom be had a daughter, and an only son, Lionel CranfieKl Sackvilie, who was created a duke in 1720, and died Oct. 9, 1765.

Lord Dorset wrote several little poems, which, however, are not numerous enough to make a volume of themselves, but are included in Johnson’s collection of the “English Poets.” He was a great patron of poets and men of wit, who have not failed in their turn to transmit his with lustre to posterity. Prior, Dryden, Congreve, Addisou, and many more, have all exerted themselves in their several paiu-gyrics upon this patron; Prior more particularly, whose exquisitely-wrought character of him, in the dedication of his poe.ns to his son, the first duke of Dorset, is to this day admired as a master-piece. He says, “The brightness of his parts, the solidity of his judgment, and the candour, and generosity of his temper, distinguished him in an age of great politeness, and at a court abounding with men of the finest sense and learning. The most eminent masters in their several ways appealed to his determination: Waller thought it an honour to consult him in the softness and harmony of his verse and Dr. Sprat, in the delicacy and turn of his prose Dryden determines by him, under the character of Eugenius, as to the laws of dramatic poetry Butler owed it to him, that the court tasted his ‘ Hudibras:’ Wycherley, that the town liked his ‘Plain Dealer; and the late duke of Buckingham deferred to publish his * Rehearsal’ till he was sure, as he expressed it, that my lord Dorset would not rehearse upon him again. If we wanted foreign testimdny, La Fontaine and St. Evremond have acknowledged that he was a perfect master of the beauty and fineness of their language, and of all they call * les belles lettres.' Nor was this nicety of his judgment confined only to books and literature: he was the same in statuary, painting, and other parts of art. Bernini would have taken his opinion upon the beauty and attitude of a figure; and king Charles did not agree with Lely, that my lady Cleveland’s picture was finished, till it had the approbation of my lord Bnckhursu”

“He was a man,” says Dr. Johnson, “whose elegance and judgment were universally confessed, and whose bounty to the learned and witty was generally known. To the indulgent affection of the public, lord Rochester bore ample testimony in this remark: ‘ I know not how it is, but lord Buckhurst may do what he will, yet is never in the wrong.’ If such a man attempted poetry, we cannot wonder that his works were praised. Dryden, whom, if Prior tells truth, he distinguished by his beneficence, and who lavished his blandishments on those who are not known to have so well deserved them, undertaking to produce authors of our own country superior to those of antiquity, says, c I would instance your Lordship in satire, and Shakspeare in tragedy.' Would it be imagined thai, of this rival to antiquity, all the satires were little personal invectives, and that his longest composition was a song of eleven stanzas The blame, however, of this exaggerated praise falls on the encomiast, not upon the author; whose performances are, what they pretend to be, the effusions of a man of wit; gay, vigorous, and airy. His verses to Howard shew great fertility of mind; and his Dorinda” has been imitated by Pope.

, one of the promoters of the reformation, was born in 1534, at the castle of Chabot in the Maconais, and was descended of a noble and ancient family of the Forez. His father dying when he was very young, the care of his education devolved on his mother, who sent him to Paris, where he first was initiated in the principles of the Protestant religion. These he afterwards became better acquainted with at Thoulouse and Geneva, when introduced to Calvin and Beza. On the death of an uncle he was recalled home, and again sent to Paris, in consequence of a contest respecting the will of that uncle, who had left considerable property. While here, becoming more attached to the cause of the reformation, he was induced to study divinity, instead of law, for which he had been originally intended; and such was his progress and the promising appearance of his talents and zeal, that at the age of twenty, he was invited to preach to the congregation of the reformed at Paris. Their assembling, however, was attended with great danger; and, in 1557, when they met to celebrate the sacrament, about 150 were apprehended and thrown into prison, their pastors only escaping. The priests having circulated various scandalous reports of this meeting, which the judges found to be false, Sadeel was employed by his brethren in drawing up a vindication of them. Next year he was himself taken up, and imprisoned, but the king of Navarre, who had often been one of his hearers, immediately sent to the officers to release him, as being one of his own suite, and when they refused, went in person to the prison, complained of the affront, and released Sadeel. It nor, how^ ever, being thought safe for him to remain at this crisis in Paris, he retired for some time to Orleans, and when the danger seemed to be over, returned again, and drew up a Confession of Faith, first proposed in a synod of the reformed clergy of France, held at Paris, which was presented to the king by the famous admiral Coligni. The king dying soon after, and the queen and the family of Guise renewing with more fury than ever the persecution of the reformed, Sadeel was obliged again to leave the metropolis, which, however, he continued occasionally to visit when it could be done without danger.

In 1562, he presided at a national synod at Orleans, and then went to Berne, and finally to Geneva, where he was associated with the ministers of that place. Henry IV. who had a great respect for him, gave him an invitation to his court, which, after some hesitation, from his aversion to public life, he accepted, and was chaplain at the battle of Courtray, and had the charge of a mission to the pro^ testant princes of Germany; but unable at length to bear the fatigues of a military life, which he was obliged to pass with his royal benefactor, he retired to Geneva in 1589, and resumed his functions as a preacher, and undertook the professorship of Hebrew until his death, Feb. 23, 1591, Besides his sermons, which were highly popular and persuasive, he aided the cause of reformation by taking an active part in the controversies which arose out of it, and by writings of the practical kind. One French biographef tells us that Sadeel was an assumed name, but in all other authorities, we find him called by that name only with the addition of Chandæus, which alluded to his ancestors, who were barons of Chandieu. Accordingly his works are entitled “Antonii Sadeelis Chandaei, nobilissimi viri, opera theologica,” Geneva, 1592, folio; reprinted 1593, 4to; and 1599 and 1615, folio. They consist, among others, of the following treatises published sepa-r rately, “De verbo Dei scripto,” Gen, 1592. “De vera peccatorum remissione,” ibid. 1591. “De unico Christi sacerdotio et sacrincio,” ibid. 1692. “De spirituali et sacramentali manducatione Corporis Christi;” two treatises, ibid. 1596. “Posnaniensium assertionum refutatio,” ibid. 1596. “Refutatio libelli Claudii de Sainctes, intitulati, Examen doctrinae Calvinianae et Bezanae de ccena Domini,” ibid. 1592. He wrote also, in French, “Histoire des persecutions et des martyrs de Peglise de Paris, depuis Fan 1557, jusqu'au regne de Charles IX.” printed at Lyons, in 1563, 8vo, under the name of Zamariel. He wrote also “Metamorphose de Ronsard en pretre,” in verse, part of a controversy he had with that writer, who in his work on the troubles during the minority of Charles IX. had attributed them to the reformers. His life, by James Lectius, was prefixed to his works, and published separately at Geneva in 1593, 8vo. The substance of it is given in our first authority.

, or Sadee, a celebrated Persian poet and moralist, was born in 1175, at Sheeraz, or Schiraz, the capiai of Persia, and was educated at Damascus, but quitted his country when it was desolated by the Turks, and commenced his travels. He was afterwards taken prisoner, and condemned to work at the fortifications of Tripoli. While in this deplorable state, he was redeemed by a merchant of Aleppo, who had so much regard for him as to give him his daughter in marriage, with a dowry of one hundred sequins. This lady, however, being an intolerable scold, proved the plague of his life, and gave him that unfavourable opinion of the sex which appears occasionally in his works. During one of their altercations she reproached him with the favours her family had conferred: “Are not you the man my father bought for \en pieces of gold?” “Yes,” answered Sadi, “and he sold me again for an hundred sequins?”

, an English writer, descended of an ancient family in Shropshire, was born in 1615, and admitted pensioner of Emanuel college, in Cambridge, Nov. I 3, 1630, where he became eminent for his knowledge in the Hebrew and Oriental languages. After having taken his degrees at the usual periods, that of M. A. in 1638, in x which year he was chosen fellow of his college, he removed to Lincoln’s-Inn; where he made a considerable progress in the study of the law, and was admitted one of the masters in ordinary in the court of chancery, June 1, 1644, and was likewise one of the two masters of requests. In 1649, he was chosen town-clerk of London, and published in the same year in 4to, a work with this title, “Rights of the Kingdom: or, Customs of our Ancestors, touching the duty, power, election, or succession, of our kings and parliaments, our true liberty, due allegiance, three estates, their legislative power, original, judicial, and executive, the militia; freely discussed through the British, Saxon, Norman, laws and histories.” It was reprinted in 1682, and has always been valued by lawyers and others. He was greatly esteemed by Oliver Cromwell; who, by a letter from Cork, of Dec. 1, 1649, offered him the place of chief justice of Munster in Ireland, with a salary of 1000l. per annum; but this he excused himself from accepting. In August 1650, he was made master of Magdalen college, in Cambridge, upon the removal of Dr. Rainbow, who again succeeded Sadler after the restoration. In 1653, he was chosen member of parliament for Cambridge. In 1655, by warrant of Cromwell, pursuant to an ordinance for better regulating and limiting the jurisdiction of the high court of chancery, he was continued a master in chancery, when their number was reduced to six only. It was by his interest, that the Jews obtained the privilege of building a synagogue in 'London. In 1658, he was, chosen member of parliament for Yarmouth; and in December of the year following, appointed first commissioner, under the great seal, with Taylor, Whitelock, and others, for the probate of wills. In 1660, he published in 4-to, his “Olbia The New Island lately discovered. With its religion, rites of worship, laws, customs, government, characters, and language with education of their children in their sciences, arts, and manufactures with other things remarkable by a Christian pilgrim driven by tempest from Civita Vecchia, or some other parts about ftome, through the straights into the Atlantic ocean. The first part.” Of this work, which appears to be a kind of fiction, Dr. John Worthiugton, in a letter to Mr. Samuel Hartlib, dated April i, 1661, says, “Is the second part of Olbu like to come out shortly? Jt is said to treat of the religion, worship, laws, customs, manner of education, &c. of that place. The design promiseth much variety.”

Soon after the restoration, he lost all his employments, by virtue of an act of parliament 13 Caroli II, “for the well-governing and regulating of corporations:” his conscience not permitting him to take or subscribe the oath and declaration there required, in which it was declared, that “it was not lawful, upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the king;” an obedience so absolute, that he thought it not due to any earthly power, though he had never engaged, or in any manner acied, against the late king. In the fire of London, 1666, his house in Salisbury-court, which he built at the expense of 5000l. and several other of his houses in London were destroyed; and, soon after, his mansion-house in Shropshire had the same fate. He was also now deprived of Vauxhall on the river Thames, and other estates which he had purchase,!, being crown lands, and of a considerable estate in the Fens in Bedford Level, without any recompence. These misfortunes and several others coming upon him, he retired to his manor and seat of Warmwell in Dorsetshire, which he had obtained with his wife; where he lived in a private manner, and died in April 1674, aged fifty-nine, Thomas Sadler, esq. deputy to lord Walpole, clerk of the pells, who contributed the above account to the editors of the General Dictionary, and Daniel Sadler, chief clerk in the Old Annuity office, were his grandsons. Walker says he was informed that Mr. Sadler was a very insignificant man, and Calamy tells us that a clergyman of the church of England gave him this character, “We accounted him, not only a general scholar, and an accomplished gentleman, but also a person of great piety; though it must be owned he was not always right in his head.”

, an eminent English statesman, was born in 1507, at Hackney, in Middlesex. He was the son of Henry Sadler, who, though a gentleman by birth, and possessed of a fair inheritance, seems to have been steward or surveyor to the proprietor of the manor of Gillney, near Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII. who took him into his service, but at what time is not very clear. He was employed in the great work of dissolving the religious houses, and had his full share of the spoil. In 1537, he commenced a long course of diplomatic services, byan embassy to Scotland, whose monarch was then absent in France. The objects of his mission were to greet the queen dowager, to strengthen the English interests in the councils of regency which then governed Scotland, and to discover the probable consequences of the intimate union of Scotland with France. Having collected such information as he could procure on these topics, he returned in the beginning of the following year, but went again to Scotland soon after, ostensibly to maintain a good correspondence between the two crowns, but really, as appears from his state-papers, to detach the king of Scotland from the councils of cardinal Beaton, who was at the head of the party most in the interest of France. He was instructed also to direct the king’s attention to the overgrown possessions of the church as a source of revenue, and to persuade him to imitate his uncle Henry VHIth’s conduct to the see of Rome, and to make common cause with England against France. In all this, however, he appears to have failed, or at least to have left Scotland without having materially succeeded in any part of his. mission.

In the same year, 1540, he lost his patron Cromwell, who was beheaded; but he retained his favour with Henry, and in 1541 was again sent to Scotland, to detach the king from the pope and the. popish clergy, and to press upon him the propriety of a personal meeting with Henry. This however the king of Scotland appears to have evaded with considerable address, and died the following year of a broken heart, in consequence of hearing of the fatal battle of Solway. The crown was now left to James V.'s infant daughter Mary; and sir Ralph Sadler’s next employment was to lend his aid to the match, projected by Henry VIII. between his son Edward and the young queen. But this ended so unsuccessfully, that Sadler was obliged to return to England in Dee 1543, and Henry declared war against Scotland. In the mean time he was so satisfied with Sadler’s services, even in this last negociation, that he included him, by the title of sir Ralph Sad ley r, knight, among the twelve persons whom he named as a privy-council to the sixteen nobles to whom, in his will, he bequeathed the care of his son, and of the kingdom. When this will was set aside by the protector duke of Somerset, and it became necessary to reconcile the king’s executors and privy-counsellors, by wealth and honours, sir Ralph Sadler received a confirmation of all the church-lands formerly assigned to him by Henry, with splendid additions.

When the war with Scotland was renewed, sir Ralph so distinguished himself at the battle of Pinkie, that he was on the field raised to the degree of knight banneret; but we hear nothing more of him during the reign of Edward VI. except that in a grant, dated the 4th of that king’s reign, he is termed master of the great wardrobe. In Mary’s reigo, although he appears to have been in her favour, he retired to his estate at Hackney, and resigned the office of knight of the hamper,;-.nich had been conferred on him by Henry VIII. On the accession of Elizab^th, he again appeared at court, was called to the privy council, and retained to his death a great portion of the esteem of that princess. He was a member of her first parliament, as one of the knights of the shire for the county of Hertford, and continued to be a representative of the people during the greater part, if not the whole, of her reign. When queen Elizabeth thought proper to favour the cause of the reformation in Scotland, and to support the nobility who were for it against Mary, sir Ralph Sadler was her principal agent, and so negotiated as to prepare the way for Elizabeth’s great influence in the affairs of Scotland. He was also concerned in the subsequent measures which led to the death of queen Mary, and was appointed her keeper in the castle of Tutbury; but such was Elizabeth’s jealousy of this unfortunate princess, that even Sadler’s watchfulness became liable to her suspicions, and on one occasion, a very heavy complaint was made against him, that he had permitted Mary to accompany him to some distance from the castle of Tutbury, to enjoy the sport of hawking. Sir Ralph had been hitherto so subservient to his royal mistress, in all her measures, and perhaps in some which he could not altogether approve, that this complaint gave him great uneasiness, and he answered it rather by an expostulation than an apology. He admitted that he had sent for his hawks and falconers to divert " the miserable life'- which he passed at Tutbury, and that he had been unable to resist the solicitation of the prisoner, to permit her to see a sport in which she greatly delighted. But he adds; that this was under the strictest precautions for security of her person; and he declares to the secretary Cecil, that rather than continue a charge which subjected him to such misconstruction, were it not more for fear of offending the queen than dread of the punishment, he would abandon his present charge on coitdition of surrendering himself prisoner to the Tower for all the days of his life, and concludes that he is so weary of this life, that death itself would make him more happy. Elizabeth so far complied with his intimation as to commit Mary to a new keeper, but she did not withdraw her confidence from sir Ralph in other matters, and after the execution of Mary, employed him to go to the court of James VI. to dissuade him from entertaining thoughts of a war with England on his mother’s account, to which there was reason to think he might have been excited. In this sir Ralph had little difficulty in succeeding, partly from James’s love of ease, and partly from the prospect he had of succeeding peaceably to the throne of England. This was the last time sir Ralph Sadler was employed in the public service, for soon after his return from Scotland, he died at his lordship of Standon, March 30, 1587, in the eightieth year of his age, and was buried in the church of Standon, where his monument was decorated with the king of Scotland’s standard, which he took in the battle of Musselburgh. He left behind him twenty-two manors, several parsonages, and other great portions of land, in the several counties of Hertford, Gloucester, Warwick, Buckingham, and Worcester. He married Margaret Mitchell, a laundress in the family of his first patron, Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, in the life-time, though in the absence, of her husband, Matthew Barre, a tradesman in London, presumed to be dead at that time, and he afterwards procured an act of parliament, 37 Henry VIII. for the legitimation of the children by her, who were three sons, and four daughters; Anne, married to sir George Horsey of Digswell, knight; Mary, to Thomas Bollys aliter Bowles Wallington, esq. Jane, toEdward Baesh, of Stanstead, esq. (which three gentlemen appear to have been sheriffs of the county of Hertford, 14, 18, and 13 Eliz.); and Dorothy, to Edward EIryngton of Berstall, in the county of Bucks, esq. The sons were, Thomas, Edward, and Henry. Thomas succeeded to Standon, was sheriff of the county 29 and 37 Eliz. was knighted, and entertained king James there two nights on his way to Scotland. He had issue, Ralph and Gertrude married to Walter the first lord Aston of the kingdom of Scotland; Ralph, his son, dying without issue, was succeeded in his lordship of Standon and other estates in the county of Hertford, by Walter, the second lord Aston, eldest surviving son of his sister Gertrude lady Aston. The burying-place of the family is in tire chancel of the church at Standon. Against the south wall is a monument for sir Ralph Sadler, with the effigies of himself in armour, and of his three sons and four daughters,' and three inscriptions, in Latin verse, in English verse, and in English prose against the north wall i& another for sir Thomas, with the effigies of himself in armour, his lady, son and daughter, and an epitaph in Ertglish prose. There are also several inscriptions for various persons of the Aston family.

, the first of a family of distinguished engravers, the son of a founder and chaser, was born at Brussels in 1550. He applied early in life to drawing and engraving, and published some prints at Antwerp, which did him great honour. Encouraged by this success, he travelled over Holland that he might work under the inspection of the best masters, and found a generous benefactor in the duke of Bavaria. He went afterwards into Italy, and presented some of his prints to pope Clement VIII. but receiving only empty compliments fram that pontiff, retired to Venice, where he died 1600, in his fiftieth year, leaving a son named Juste or Justin, by whom also we have some good prints. Raphael Sadeler, John’s brother, and pupil, was born in 1555, and distinguished himself as an engraver, by the correctness of his drawings and the natural expression of his figures. He accompanied John to Rome and to Venice, and died in the latter city. Raphael engraved some plates for a work entitled “de opificio mundi,” 1617, 8vo, which is seldom found perfect. The works executed by him and John in conjunction, are, “Solitudo, sive vitas patrum eremicolarum,” 4to “Sylvse sacrae,,” “Trophaeum vitae solitaries” “ Oraculum anacboreticum,” “Solitude sive vitae feminarura anachoreticarum;” “Recueil d‘Estampes, d’apres Raphael, Titien, Carrache,” &c. amounting to more than 500 prints, in 2 vols. fol. Giles Sadeler was nephew and pupil of John and Raphael, but excelled them in correct drawing, and in the taste and neatness of his engraving. After having remained some time in Italy, he was invited into Germany by the emperor Rodolphus II. who settled a pension upon him; and Matthias and Ferdinand, this emperor’s successors, continued also to esteem and honour him. He died at Prague in 1629, aged fifty-nine, being born at Antwerp in 1570, leaving “Vestigi dell' antichita di Roma,” Rome, 1660, fol. obi. These engravers employed their talents chiefly on scripture subjects. Mark Sadeler, related to the three above mentioned, seems to have been merely the editor of th^ir works.

, a polite and learned Italian, was born at Modena in 1477, and was the son of an eminent civilian, who, afterwards becoming a professor at Ferrara, took him along with him, and educated him with great care. He acquired a masterly knowledge in the Latin and Greek early, and then applied himself to philosophy and eloquence; taking Aristotle and Cicero for his guides, whom he considered as the first masters in these branches. He also cultivated Latin poetry, in which he displayed a very high degree of classical purity. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Alexander VI. when he was about twentytwo, he was taken into the family of cardinal Caraffa, who loved men of letters; and, upon the death of this cardinal in 1511, passed into that of Frederic Fregosa, archbishop of Salerno, where he found Peter Bembus, and contracted an intimacy with him. When Leo X. ascended the papal throne in 1513, he chose Bembus and Sadolet for his secretaries men extremely qualified for the office, as both of them wrote with great elegance and facility and soon after made Sadolet bishop of Carpentras, near Avignon. Upon the death of Leo, in 1521, he went to his diocese, and resided there during the pontificate of Adrian VI.; but Clement VII. was no sooner seated in the chair, in 1523, than he recalled him to Rome. Sadolet submitted to his boliness, but oh condition that he should return to his diocese at the end of three years. Paul III. who succeeded Clement VII. in 1534, called him to Rome again; made him a cardinal in 1536, and employed him in many important embassies and negotiations. Sadolet, at length, grown too old to perform the duties of his bishopric, went no more from Rome; but spent the remainder of his days there in repose and study. He died in 1547, not without poison, as some have imagined; because he corresponded too familiarly with the Protestants, and testified much regard for some of their doctors. It is true, he had written in 1539 a Latin letter to the senate and people of Geneva, with a view of reducing them to an obedience to the pope; and had addressed himself to the Calvinists, with the affectionate appellation of “Charissimi in Christo Fratres;” but this proceeded entirely from his moderate and peaceable temper and courteous disposition. He was a sincere adherent to the Romish church, but without bigotry. The liberality of sentiment he displayed in his commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans incurred the censure of the Roman court.

Sadolet in his younger days was somewhat gay, but reformed his manners very strictly afterwards, and became a man of great virtue and goodness. He was, like other scholars of his time, a close imitator of Cicero in his prose works, and of Virgil in his poetry. In the best of his Latin poems, his “Curtius,” he is allowed to have adorned a dignified subject with numbers equally chaste, spirited, and harmonious. His works consist of epistles, dissertations, orations, poems, and commentaries upon some parts of holy writ. They have been printed oftentimes separately and were first collected and published together, in a large 8vo volume, at Mentz, in 1607 but a more complete and excellent edition was published at Verona, in 1737, 4 vols. 4to. All his contemporaries have spoken of him in the highest terms; Erasmus particularly, who calls him “eximium setatis suse decus.”

, a celebrated Icelandic writer, was the son of a priest named Sigfus, and was born about the middle of the eleventh century, between 1050 and 1060. He travelled at a very early period into Italy and Germany, in order to improve himself in knowledge, and for a considerable time his countrymen were not at all aware ipf what had become of him. At length Jonas, the son of Ogmund, who was afterwards a bishop, found him at Paris, and carried him back to Iceland. Here he took the order of priesthood, and succeeded his father as priest of Odda, He also established a school, and contributed with others to induce the Icelanders to pay tithes, and took a considerable part with regard to the formation of the ecclesiastical code of laws. He died in 1133 or 1135, being about eighty years of age. At the age of seventy he wrote a History of Norway, from the time of Harold Haarfager to that of Magnus the Good. He is generally allowed the merit of having collected the poetical Edda, by which means he preserved these curious and valuable remains of the ancient Scandinavian mythology, poetry, and morality, from being lost. They were printed at Copenhagen, 1787, 4to, with a Latin translation, the editors of which, in their preface, give a full account of the supposed authors, and the claim of Saemund to be considered as the principal collector.

He had several children, the eldest of whom was long a distinguished actor on the French stage, under the name of Montmenil, and amidst all the temptations of a theatrical life, was a man of irreproachable character. He died suddenly while partaking of the pleasures of the chase, Sept. 8, 1743, and his death was a loss to the public, and particularly to his father, who was now grown old, and had been poorly rewarded by the age which he contributed so often to entertain. He was likewise at this time very deaf, and obliged to have recourse to an ear-trumpet, which he used in a manner that bespoke the old humourist. It was his practice to take it out of his pocket when he had reason to think that his company was composed of men of genius, but he very gravely replaced it, when he found that they were of an inferior stamp.

His character is said to have been truly amiable, and his conduct strictly moral and correct, free from ambition, and one who courted fortune no farther than was necessary to enjoy the pleasures and quiet of a literary life.

The popularity of this novel, which equals that of almost any of our own most favourite productions, may afford a lesson to the writers of fiction, who are ambitious that their works may live. Had Le Sage drawn those extravagant and distorted characters which are so common in the novels published within the last twenty years, he could not have expected that they would outlive the novelty of a first perusal; but, depicting nature, and nature only, as he found her in men of all ranks and stations, he knew that what would please now would please for ever, and that he was speaking a language that would be understood in every spot of the globe. The artifices of refined and highly polished society may introduce variations and disguises which give an air of novelty to the actions of men; but original manners and caprices, such as Le Sage has described, will perhaps at all times be acknowledged to be just, natural, and faithful, whether we apply the test of selfexamination, or have recourse to the more easy practice of remarking the conduct of those with whom we associate.

, a bishop of the old episcopal church of Scotland, a man of great learning and worth, and an able controversial writer in defence of the church to which he belonged, was born in 1652. He was the son of captain Sage, a gentleman of Fifeshire in Scotland, and an officer of merit in lord Duffus’s regiment, who fought on the side of the royalists when Monk stormed Dundee in 1651. Although, like many other royalists, he was scantily rewarded for his services, he was able to give his son a liberal education at school, and at the university of St. Andrew’s, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1672. He passed some years afterwards as schoolmaster of the parishes of Bingry in Fifeshire, and of Tippermoor in Perthshire, and as private tutor to the sons of a gentleman of fortune, whom he attended at school, and accompanied to the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1684, when his pupils left him, he removed from St. Andrew’s, and when uncertain what course to pursue, was recommended to archbishop Rose, who gave him priest’s orders, and advised him to officiate at Glasgow. Here he continued to display his talents till the revolution in 1688, when the presbyterian form of church government was established, and then went to Edinburgh. He preached in this city a while, but refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, was obliged to desist, and found an asylum in the house of sir William Bruce, the sheriff of Kinross, who approved his principles, and admired his virtues. Returning to Edinburgh in 1695, where he appears to have written some defences of the church to which he belonged, he was observed, and obliged again to retire. At length he found a safe retreat with the countess of Callendar, who employed him as chaplain, and tutor to her sons, and afterwards he lived with sir John Steuart of Garntully as chaplain, until Jan. 25, 1705, when he was consecrated a bishop. In the following year his health began to decay, and after trying the waters of Bath, in 1709, and change of air in other places, without much benefit, he died at Edinburgh June 7, 1711.

Bishop Sage was a man profoundly skilled in all the ancient languages, which gave him an eminent advantage over his adversaries, the most distinguished of whom was Mr. Gilbert Rule, principal of the college of Edinburgh, who, with much zeal, and no mean abilities, was overmatched by the superior learning and historical knowledge of his antagonist. Sage wrote the second and third letters, concerning the persecution of the episcopal clergy in Scotland, which were printed at London, in 1689, the rev. Thomas Morer having written the first, and professor Monro the fourth. 2. “An account of the late establishment of Presbyterian Government by the parliament of Scotland in 1690,” Lond. 1693. 3. “The fundamental charter of Presbytery,' 7 ibid. 1695. 4.” The principles of the Cyprianic age with regard to episcopal power and jurisdiction,“ibid. 1695. 5.” A Vindication“of the preceding, ibid. 1701. 6.” Some remarks on a Letter from a gentleman in the city, to a minister in the country, on Mr. David Williamson’s sermon before the General Assembly,“Edin. 1703. 7.” A brief examination of some things in Mr. Meldrum’s sermon, preached May 16, 1703, against a toleration to those of the episcopal persuasion,“ibid. 1703. 8.” The reasonableness of a toleration of those of the Episcopal persuasion inquired into purely on church principles,“ibid. 1704. 9.” The Life of Gawin Douglas,“bishop of Dunkeld, prefixed to Ruddiman’s edition of” Douglas’s Virgil,“1710. 10.” An Introduction to Drummond’s History of the Five James’s," Edin. 1711, with notes by Ruddiman, who always spoke highly of Sage as a scholar and companion.

, in Latin Sanctesius, was born in 1525, at Perche. He entered as a regular canon in the abbey de St. Cheron, near Chartres; at the age of fifteen was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne, 1555, and resided afterwards in the house of cardinal de Lorraine, who employed him at the conference of Poissy, in 1561, and persuaded king Charles IX. to send him to the council of Trent, with eleven other doctors. In 1566 De Sainctes, with Simon Vigor, afterwards archbishop of Narbonne, disputed against two protestant ministers, at the house of the duke de Nevers, and published the records of this conference two years after, and had also a controversy with Sadeel, as we have recently noticed in his article. He became so celebrated for his writings, sermons, and zeal against the protestants, as to be promoted to the bishopric of Evreux in 1575. The following year he attended the states of Blois, and in 1581, the council of Rouen; but having afterwards joined the most violent among the Leaguers, was seized at Louviers by Henry IVth’s party, who found a writing among his papers, in which he pretended to justify the assassination of Henry III. and declared that the present king deserved the same treatment. Being carried as a prisoner to Caen, he would there have received the punishment due to his attempt, had not cardinal de Bourbon, and some other prelates, interceded that his punishment should be perpetual imprisonment. He was accordingly confined in the castle de Crev^cceur, in the diocese of Lisieux, where he died in 1591, De Sainctes left many learned works, the largest and most scarce among which is a “Treatise on the Eucharist,” in Latin, folio, an edition of St. James’s, St. Basil’s, and St. Chrysostom’s “Liturgies,” Antwerp, 1560, 8vo, afterwards reprinted, but this is the only edition that is valued.

, a classical scholar and critic, was probably the descendant of a French family, but we find no mention of him in any French biographical work, and are unable to say much of his early history. In 1705, he was a student at Lincoln college, Oxford, but made no long stay there. His passion for Greek literature, but particularly for acquiring materials towards a new edition of Theocritus, led him to Italy, where, though young, for he was scarce twenty, he obtained a distinguished reputation for learning, and became acquainted with men of the first erudition, among whom were Gravina, Fontanini, and others. By their acquaintance he was easily introduced into the best libraries; and at Florence in particular, he was favoured with the friendship of the learned professor Salvini, who furnished him with several materials relating to Theocritus from the Laurentian library and St. Mary’s monastery of Benedictines. The patronage and friendship of Mr. Newton too, the English ambassador at the grand duke’s court, were of signal service to him. After spending some time with these and other learned men, in a mutual exchange of literary treasures and observations, he returned to England by way of Geneva and Paris, and died, not about 1750, as Mr. Warton says, but Sept. 5, 1754, at his house in Red-lion-square, leaving the valuable collection of books and Mss. he had made abroad to the Bodleian library, and the duplicates of his books to Lincoln college. Of the Mss. Mr. Warton availed himself in his edition of Theocritus. Mr. St. Amand left also 8000l. to Christ’s hospital, and other legacies, which shew that he was a man of considerable opulence.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and one of the greatest ornaments of Christianity which appeared in the Romish communion in the thirteenth century, had his name from St. Amour in Franche Compte, where he was born about the commencement of that century. The zeal which he showed against the new institution of mendicant friars, both in his sermons, and as theological professor, induced the university of Paris to make choice of him to defend their interests against the Dominicans and Franciscans, who wished to engross the power and influence of the university to themselves. In 1255, the debate was brought before the pope Alexander IV. who, with intolerable arrogance, ordered the university not only to restore the Dominicans to their former station, but also to grant them as many professorships as they should require. The magistrates of Paris, at first, were disposed to protect the university; but the terror of the papal edicts reduced them at length to silence; and not only the Dominicans, but also the Franciscans, assumed whatever power they pleased in that famous seminary, and knew no other restrictions than what the pope imposed upon them. St. Amour, however, wrote several treatises against the mendicant orders, and particularly, in 1255, or 1256, his famous book, “Perils des derniers temps,” concerning the “perils of the latter days,” in which he maintained that St. Paul’s prophecy of the latter times (2 Tim. iii. 1.) was fulfilling in the abominations of the* friars, and laid down thirty-nine marks of false teachers.

Some years before the pope had decided in favour of the mendicants, a fanatical book under the title of an “Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel” was published by a Franciscan, who exalted St. Francis above Jesus Christ, and arrogated to his order the glory of reforming mankind by a new gospel. The universal ferment, excited by this impious book, obliged Alexander IV. to suppress it, but he ordered it to be burnt in secret, being willing to spare the reputation of the mendicants. The university of Paris, however, insisted upon a public condemnation of the book; and Alexander, great as he was in power, was obliged to submit. He then took revenge by condemning St. Amour’s work to be burnt, and the author to be banished from France. St. Amour retired to his native place, and was not permitted to return to Paris until the pontificate of Clement IV. He died at Paris in 1272. His works were published there in 1632, 4to. He was a man of learning and correct manners, of great zeal, and, in the opinion of a late writer, wanted only a more favourable soil, in which he might bring to maturity the fruits of those protestant principles, the seeds of which he nourished in his breast.

, an anatomist, well known in this country on account of the imposture of the Rabbit-woman, and for various eccentricities of conduct, was a native of Switzerland, but, on coming over to England, was placed by some friends under a surgeon of eminence, in which profession he became skilful. He, for a time, read public lectures on anatomy, and obtained considerable reputation; which was ruined by the part he took in the affair of Mary Tofts, as well as by many other irregularities of character. He died in 1776, after having been for many years the subject of more curiosity and conversation than any of his contemporaries, though without any extraordinary talents, or claims to distinction. They who are curious to know more of his character may have their curiosity gratified in the “Anecdotes of Hogarth” by Nichols.

, lord viscount Bolingbroke, an eminent statesman and writer, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born, as all his biographers say, in 1672, but it appears by the register of Battersea parish that he was baptised Oct. 10, 1678. His father, sir Henry St. John, son of sir Walter St. John, died at Battersea, his family-seat, July 3, 1708, in his eighty- seventh year his mother was lady Mary, second daughter and coheiress of Robert Rich, earl of Warwick. He was bred up, with great care, under the inspection of his grandfather, as well as his father, who neglected no means to cultivate his mind. It was once noticed in parliament that he was educated in dissenting principles, and it is very certain that the first director of his studies was the famous Daniel Burgess, who, with all his oddities (See Burgess) was frequently employed as tutor to the sons of men of rank. Goldsmith seems desirous to impute Bolingbroke’s infidelity to this divine, and to his being obliged to read Manton’s Sermons on the 119th Psalm but such an opinion is as dangerous as it is absurd. From Burgess or Manton, he could have imbibed only a higher reverence for religion than was to be expected from a lively youth; and as to the disgust he felt, to which his biographer seems inclined to trace his infidelity, it is probable that a boy would not have entertained much less dislike to a voluminous history of England, if obliged to read it when he wished to be idle. But, whatever instruction he might receive from his first tutors, it is very certain, that he had a regular and liberal education. He was sent to Eton, where he had for his companion and rival sir Robert Waipole. “The parts of Mr. St. John,” says Coxe, “were more lively and brilliant, those of Walpole more steady and solid. Walpole was industrious and diligent, because his talents required application; St. John was negligent, because his quickness of apprehension rendered labour less necessary.” These characteristics prevailed in both throughout life. From Eton Mr. St. John was removed to Christ-church, Oxford, where he made a shining figure as a polite scholar, and when he left the university, he was considered as a youth highly accomplished for public life. His person was agreeable, and he had a dignity mixed with sweetness in his looks, and a manner very prepossessing, and, as some of his contemporaries said, irresistible. He had much acuteness, great judgment, and a prodigious memory. Whatever he read he retained so as to make it entirely his own; but in youth, he was not in general much given either to reading or reflection. With great parts, he had, as it usually happens, great passions which hurried him into those indiscretions and follies that distinguish the libertine. He does not, however, appear to have been without his serious moments, nor always unwilling to listen to the voice of conscience. “There has been something always,” says he, “ready to whisper in my ear, while I ran the course of pleasure and of business, * Solve senescentem mature sanus equum;‘ < and while ’tis well, release thy aged horse.' But my genius, unlike the demon of Socrates, whispered so softly, that very often I heard him not, in the hurry of those passions with which I was transported. Some calmer hours there were in them I hearkened to him. Reflection had often its turn and the love of study and the desire of knowledge have never quite abandoned me. I am not, therefore, entirely unprepared for the life I will lead; and it is not without reason that I promise myself more satisfaction in the latter part of it than I ever knew in the former.”

As these youthful extravagances involved him in discredit, his parents were very desirous to reclaim him. With this view, when in his twenty-second year, they married him to the daughter and coheiress of sir Henry Winchecomb of Bucklebury, in the county of Berks, bart.; and upon this marriage a large settlement was made, which proved very serviceable to him in his old age, though a great part of what his lady brought was taken from him, in consequence of his attainder. The union in other respects was not much to his liking. The same year he was elected for the borough of Wotton-Basset, and sat in the fifth parliament of king William, which met Feb. 10, 1700; and in which Robert Harley, esq. afterwards earl of Oxford, was chosen for the first time speaker. Of this short parliament, which ended June 24, 1701, the business was the impeachment of the king’s ministers, who were concerned in the conclusion of the two partition-treaties; and, Mr. St. John siding with the majority, who were then considered as tories, ought to be looked upon as commencing his political career in that character. He sat also in the next, which was the last parliament in the reign of William, and the first in that of Anne. He was charged, so early as 1710, with having voted this year against the succession in the House of Hanover; but this he has peremptorily denied, because in 1701 a bill was brought into parliament, by sir Charles Hedges and himself, entitled tt A Bill ibr the farther security of his majesty’s person, and the succession of the crown in the Protestant line, and extinguishing the hopes of the pretended prince of Wales, and all other pretenders, and their open and secret abettors." In July 1702, upon the dissolution of the second parliament, the queen making a tour from Windsor to Bath, by way of Oxford, Mr. St. John attended her; and, at that university, with several persons of the highest distinction, had the degree of doctor of laws conferred upon him.

Upon the calling of a new parliament in November, he was chosen knight of the shire for the county of Berks, and also burgess for Wotton-Basset; but made his election for the former. He appeared now upon a scene of action, which called forth all his abilities. He sustained almost the whole weight of the business of the peace of Utrecht, which however he was not supposed to negotiate to the advantage of his country: and therefore had an ample share of the censure bestowed on that treaty ever since. The real state of the case is, that “the two parties,” as he himself owns, “were become factions in the strict sense of the word.” He was of that which prevailed for peace, against those who delighted in war for this was the language of the times and, a peace being resolved on by the English ministers at all risks, it is no wonder if it was made with less advantage to the nation. He owns this, yet justifies the peace in general: “Though it was a duty,” says he, “that we owed to our country, to deliver her from the necessity of bearing any longer so unequal a part in so unnecessary a war, yet was there some degree of merit in performing it. I think so strongly in this manner, I am so incorrigible, that, if I could be placed in the same circumstances again, I woflld take the same resolution, and act the same part. Age and experience might enable me to act with more ability and greater skill; but all I have suffered since the death of the queen should not hinder me from acting. Notwithstanding this, I shall not be surprised if you think that the peace of Utrecht was not answerable to the success of the war, nor to the efforts made in it. I think so myself; and have always owned, even when it was making and made, that I thought so. Since we had committed a successful folly, we ought to have reaped more advantage from it than we did.”

In July 1712, he was created baron St. John of LediardTregoze in Wiltshire, and viscount Bolingbroke; and was also, the same year, appointed lord-lieutenant of the county of Essex. But these honours not coming up to the measure of his ambition, he meditated supplanting Harley, flow earl of Oxford, who had offended him, even in the matter of the peerage. Paulet St. John, the last earl of Bolingbroke, died the 5th of October preceding his creation and the earldom became extinct by his decease, and this honour had been promised to him but, his presence in the House of Commons being so necessary at that time, Harley prevailed upon him to remain ther<5 during that session; with an assurance, that his rank should be preserved for him. But, when he expected the old title should have been renewed in his favour, he received only that of viscount; which he resented as an intended affront on the part of Harley, who had got an earldom for himself. “I continued,” says Bolingbroke, “in the House of Commons during that important session which preceded the peace; and which, by the spirit shewn through the whole course of it, and by the resolutions taken in it, rendered the conclusion of the treaties practicable. After this, I was dragged into the House of Lords in such a manner as to make my promotion a punishment, not a reward; and was there left to defend the treaties alone. It would not have been hard,” continues he, “to have forced the earl of Oxford to use me better. His good intentions began to be very much doubted of: the truth is, no opinion of his sincerity had ever taken root in the party; and, which was worse for a man in his station, the opinion of his capacity began to fall apace. 1 began in my heart to renounce the friendship which, till that time, 1 had preserved inviolable for Oxford. I was not aware of all his treachery, nor of the base and little means which he employed then, and continued to employ afterwards, to ruin me in the opinion of the queen, and every where else. I saw, however, that he had nofriencUhip for any body; and that, with respect to me, instead of having the ability to render that merit, which I endeavoured to acquire, an addition of strength to himself, it became the object of his jealousy, and a reason for undermining me.” There was also another transaction, which passed not long after lord Bolingbroke’s being raised to the peerage, and which aggravated his animosity to that minister. In a few weeks after his return from France, her majesty bestowed the vacant ribbons of the order of the garter upon the dukes Hamilton, Beaufort, and Kent, and the earls Powlet, Oxford, and Strafford. Bolingbroke thought himself here again ill used, having an ambition, as the minister well knew, to receive such an instance as this was of his mistress’s grace and favour. Indignant at all these circumstances, we are told that Bolingbroke, when the treasurer’s staff was taken from Oxford, expressed his joy by entertaining that very day, July 7, 1714, at dinner, the generals Stanhope, Cadogan, and Palmer, sir William Wyndham. Mr. Craggs, and other gentlemen. Oxford said upon his going out, that “some of them would smart for it;” and Bolingbroke was far from being insensible of the danger to which he stood exposed yet he was not without hopes still of securing himself, by making his court to the whigs and it is certain, that a little before this he had proposed to bring iri a bill to the House of Lords, to make it treason to enlist soldiers for the Pretender, which was passed into an act. Soon, however, after the accession of king George I. in

1714, the seals were taken from him, and all the papers in his office secured. During the short session of parliament at this juncture, he applied himself with his usual industry and vigour to keep up the spirits of the friends to the late administration, without omitting any proper occasion of testifying his respect and duty to his majesty, by assisting in settling the civil list, and other necessary points. But, when after the meeting of the new parliament, his danger became more imminent, he withdrew privately to France, in March 1715. It is said, by the continuator of Rapin’s history, that his heart began to fail him as soon as he heard that Prior was landed at Dover, aud had promised to reveal all he knew. Accordingly that evening his lordship, who had the night before appeared at the play-house in Drury-lane, and bespoke another play for the next night, and subscribed to a new opera that was to be acted some time after, went off to Dover in disguise, as a servant to Le Vigne, one of the French king’s messengers. His lordship, however, ahiays affirmed that he took this step upon certain and repeated informations, that a resolution was taken, by the men in power, not only to prosecute, but to pursue him to the scaffold.

In the mean time, his new engagements with the Pretender were so unsuccessful as to bring on him a similar disgrace; for the year 1715 was scarcely expired, when the seals and papers of his new secretary’s office were demanded, and given up; and this was soon followed by an accusation branched into seven articles, in which he was impeached of treachery, incapacity, and neglect. Thus discarded, he turned his thoughts once more to a reconciliation with his country, and in a short time, by that characteristic activity with which he prosecuted all his designs, he procured, through the mediation of the earl of Stair, then the British ambassador at the French court, a promise of pardon, upon certain conditions, from the king, who, in July 1716, created his father baron of Battersea and viscount St. John. In the mean time these vicissitudes had thrown him into a state of reflection; and this produced, by way of relief, a “Consolatio Philosophica,” which he wrote the same year, under the title of “Reflections upon Exile.” In this piece he has drawn the picture of his own exile; which, being represented as a violence, proceeding solely from the malice of his persecutors, to one who had served his country with ability and integrity, is by the magic of his pen converted not only into a tolerable, but what appears to be an honourable, station. He had also this year written several letters, in answer to the charge brought against him by the Pretender and his adherents, which were printed at London in 1735, 8vo, together with answers to them by Mr. James Murray, afterwards made earl of Dunbar by the Pretender; but, being then immediately suppressed, are reprinted in “Tindal’s Continuation of Rapin’s History of England” The following year, he drew up a vindication of his whole conduct with respect to the tories, in the form of a letter to sir William Wyndham, which was printed in 1753, 8vo. It is written with the utmost elegance and address, and abounds with interesting and entertaining anecdote’s.

Having carried on his part of the siege against the minister with inimitable spirit for ten years, he laid down his pen, owing to a disagreement with his principal coadjutors; and, in 1735, retired to France, with a full resolution never to engage more in public business. Swift, who knew that this retreat was the effect of disdain, vexation, and disappointment, that his lordship’s passions ran high, and that his attainder' unreversed still tingled in his veins, concluded him certainly gone once more to the Pretender, as his enemies gave out; but he was rebuked for this by Pope, who assured him, that it was absolutely untrue in every circumstance, that he had fixed in a very agreeable retirement near Fontainbleau, and made it his whole business vacare liter is. He had now passed the 60th year of his age; and through a greater variety of scenes, both of pleasure and business, than any of his contemporaries. He had gone as far towards reinstating himself in the full possession of his former honours as great parts and great application could go; and seemed at last to think, that the door was finally shut against him. He had not been long in his retreat, when he began p a course of “Letters on the study and use of History,” for the use of lord Cornbury, to whom they are addressed. They were published in 1752; and, though they are drawn up, as all his works are, in an elegant and masterly style, and abound with just reflections, yet, on account of some freedoms taken with ecclesiastical history, they exposed him to much censure. Subjoined to these letters are, his piece “upon Exile,” and a letter to lord Bathurst “on the true use of study and Retirement.”

Upon the death of his father, who lived to be extremely old, he settled at Battersea, the ancient seat of the family, where he passed the remainder of his life. His age, his genius, perfected by long experience and much reflection, gave him a superiority over most of his contemporaries, which his works have not altogether preserved. Pope and Swift, however, were among his most ardent admirers; and it is well known, that the former received from him the materials for his “Essay on Man.” Yet, even in this retirement, he did not neglect the consideration of public affairs; for, after the conclusion of the war in 1747, upon measures being taken which did not agree with his notions of political prudence, he began “Some Reflections on the present state of the nation, principally with regard to her taxes and debts, and on the causes and consequences of them:” but he did not finish them. In 1749, came out his “Letters on the spirit of Patriotism, on the idea of a Patriot King, and on the state of parties at the accession of king George I:” with a preface in which Pope’s conduct, with regard to that piece, is represented as an inexcusable act of treachery to him. Of this subject we have already taken sufficient notice in our accounts of Mallet and Pope, Bolingbroke was now approaching his end. For some time a cancerous humour in his face had made considerable progress, and he was persuaded to apply an empirical remedy, which exposed him to the most excruciating tortures. Lord Chesterfield saw him, for the last time, the day before these tortures be^an. Bolingbroke, when they parted, embraced his old friend with tenderness, and said “God, who placed me here, will do what he pleases with me hereafter, and he knows best what to do. May he bless you” About a fortnight after he died, at his house at Battersea, Nov. 15, 1751, nearU eighty years old, if the date usually assigned to his birth be correct. His corpse was interred with tiiose of his ancestors in that church, where there is a marble monument erected to his memory.

His lordship’s estate and honours descended to his nephew; the care and profits of his manuscripts he left to Mallet, who published them, together with his works already printed, in 1754, 5 vls. 4to. They may be divided into, political anil philosophical w-jrks: the former of which have been mentioned already, and consist of “Letters upon History,” “Letter to Wyndham,” “Letters on Patriotism,” and papers in the “Craiisman;” which had been separately printed in 3 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Dissertation upon Parties,” “Remarks on the History of England,” and “Political Tracts.” His philosophical works consist of, “The substance of some letters written originally in French about 1720 to Mr. de Pouilly letter occasioned by one of abp. Tillotson’s sermons and letters or essays addressed to Alexander Pope, esq.” As Mallet had published an 8vo edition of the “Letters on History,” and the “Letter to Wyndham,” before the 4to edition of the works came out, he afterwards published separately the philosophical writings, 5 vols. 8vo. These essays, addressed to Pope, on philosophy and religion, contain many things which deny or ridicule the great truths of revelation; and, on this account, not only exposed the deceased author to the just animadversions of several writers, but occasioned also a presentment of his works by the grand jury of Westminster; but the saie of them was very slow, and of late years they are perhaps still less consulted. An edition, however, was published in 1809, in 8 vols. 8vo, with many additions, from subsequent authorities, to the life of Bolingbroke, which was written by Dr. Goldsmith. Some time before this, a valuable collection of lord Bolingbroke’s political correspondence was published in 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo, by the rev. Gilbert Parke, which contains much information respecting the memorable peace of Utrecht. His character has been drawn by various able pens, by Chesterfield, Mrs. Cot.kburn, Ruffhead (under the guidance of Warburton), lord Walpole, Horace Walpole, lord Orrery, &c. c. and although they differ in some points, coincide in proving that lord Bolingbroke was considered by all as a politician of an important class; that those who have been at most pains to dt fame him as an enemy, would have been very desirous to secure him as a friend, and that they uiay be credited in every thing sooner than in their affecting to undervalue his talents. Ambition and immorality constitute the great objections to his public and private character. His infidt- 1 principles were not much known before his death, except to his friends. Like Chesterfield and Hume, he left something behind him worse than he had produced in his life-time, and subjected himself to accusations to which he could no longer reply. In his character since, he has suffered equally by the just resentment of piety, and by the unforgiving prejudices of party; and an impartial history of his Conduct and opinions is perhaps yet a desideratum.

, formerly a member of the French academy, was born in Nancy, Dec. 16, 1717, of a family of Lorrain. He was educated among the Jesuits at the college of Pont-a-Mousson, but in early life entered into the army, which he quitted at the peace of Aix-ia-Chapelle in 1748, and joined the gay party assembled by Stanislaus, king of Poland, at Luneville. There he became an admirer of Madame de Chatelet, who returned his attachment. He was afterwards intimate with, and the egregious flatterer of Voltaire, It is not said what part he took in the revolution, but he escaped its dangers, and died ai Pans Feb 9, 1805. He was a man of genius, but his steps in the literary career were rather slow, and incommensurate with the activity of his genius; for his first poetical nork, “Les Fe>es de l‘Amour et de l’Hymen,” a theatrical performance, was published about 1760, when he was already turned, of forty years of age. His poem entitled “Lt-s quaires parties du jour” appeared in 1764, and soon ranked him among the greatest poets of his age. The composition was acknowledged to possess novelty in the descriptions, interest in the details, and elegance in the style; although, on the other side, it was charged with coldness, w,nu or unity, and monotonous episodes. The same year he published his “Essai sur le luxe,” 8vo. His next, and justly celebrated, poetical performance, “Les Saisons,” which was published in 1769, raised him to the highest decree of reputation. It was generally admitted that he exhibited here a large share of ingenuity and invention, by introducing pastoral poetry into a composition of a different sort, making it still preserve its native simplicity, and yet associate naturally with more elevated subjects. An additional merit was discovered, with regard to this elegant wurk, in the motive of the author as his professed design was to inspire the great proprietors of land with an inclination to live on tneir manors, and contribute to the happiness of the cultivators.

, in Latin Sammartbanus, is the name of a family in France, which produced many men of letters. The first, Gaucher de Sainte-Marthe, had a son Charles, born in 1512, who became physician to Francis II. and was remarkable for his eloquence. Queen Margaret of Navarre and the duchess of Vendome honoured him with their particular esteem; and when they died in 1550, he testified his grief by a funeral oration upon each, published the same year. That upon the queen was in Latin, the o.ther in French. There is also some Latin and French poetry of his in being. He died in 1555. Scevole, or Sclevola, the nephew of Charles, was born at Lou dun in 1536, and became very distinguished both in learning and business. He loved letters from his infancy, attained an intimate acquaintance with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues and became an orator, a lawyer, a poet, and an historian he is also represented as a good friend, zealous for his country, and of inviolable fidelity to his prince. He had, in the reigns of Henry III. and Henry IV. several considerable employments, which he filled with great reputation. In 1579, he was governor of Poitiers, and afterwards treasurer of France for this district. In 1593 and 1594, he exercised the office of intendant of the finances, in the army of Breta^ne, commanded by the duke de Montpensier: and, in the latter of these years, he reduced Poitiers to the subjection of Henry IV, Some time after, he conceived thoughts of retiring to his own country, and devoting the remainder of his life to contemplation: but was again made governor of Poitiers, in so honourable a manner that he could not decline it. Upon the expiration of this office, he went to Paris, and thence to Loudun, where he passed the rest of his days “in otio cum dignitate.” This town had been often protected from ruin in the civil wars merely by his credit, and therefore regarded hiui as its protector. He died there in 1623, universally regretted; and his funeral oration was pronounced by the famous Urban Graudier. He was the author of “La louange de la ville de Poitiers,” 1573; “Opera Poetica,” consisting of odes, elegies, epigrams, and sacred poems, in French and Luiin, 1575; “Gallorum doctrina illustrium elogia,” 1598:“hut ins chief work, and that which keeps his lame still alive in the republic of letters, is his work called” Paedotrophia, seu de puerorum eciucatione,“printed in 1584, and dedicated to Henry III. This poem^vent through ten editions in the author’s life time, and hath gone through, as many since. It was neatly printed at London in 1708, in 12mo, together with the” Calliurfdia“of Quillet. It is also printed with a complete edition of his and his son Abel’s works, under the title” Sammarthanorum patris et lilii opera Latina et Gallica, turn soluta oratione, turn versa scnpta,“Paris, 16:33, 4to. Scevole left several sons; of whom Abel, the eldest, born at Loudun in 1570, applied himself, like his father, to literature. He cultivated French and Latin poetry; the latter were printed with those of his father in the edition just mentioned, but are inferior to them. Lewis XIII. settled on him a pension, for the services he had -lone him, and made him a counsellor of state. In 1627, he was made librarian to the king at Fontainebleau; and had after that other commissions of importance. He died at Poitiers in 1652, where his” Opuscula Varia“were printed in 1645, 8vo. This Abe) had a son of his own name, born in 1630, and afterwards distinguished by his learning. He succeeded his father as librarian at Fontainebleau, and in that quality presented to Lewis XIV. in 1668,” Un Discours pour le r6tablissement de cette Bibliorheque." He died in 1706.

Scevole’s second and third sons, Scevole and Lewis, were born in 1571. They were twin-brothers, of the same temper, genius, and studies; with this difference only, that Scevole continued a layman, and married, wuile Lewis embraced the ecclesiastical state. They spent their lives together in perfect union, and were occupied in the same labours. They were both counsellors to the king, and historiographers of France. They were both interred at St. Severin in Paris, in the same grave though Scevole died in 1650, and Lewis did not die till 1656. They distinguished themselves by their knowledge, and in conjunction composed the “Galiia Christiana, seu series omnium Episc. &c. Francis,” of which there is an edition in 13 vols. folio, 17 15 1786, but three more volumes are yet necessary to complete it. Besides these, there were Denis, Peter Scevole, Abel Lewis, and Claude, de Sainte-Marthe, all men of learning, and who distinguished themselves by various publications; but their works are not of a nature to make a particular enumeration of them necessary here.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Auxerre in 1697. The only information we have of his earlv life is restricted to a notice of the affection which subsisted between him and his twin-brother M. de la Curne. It appears that he devoted himself to researches into the language and antiquities of his country, and was admitted a member of the French academy, and that of inscriptions. In all his labours he was assisted by his brother, who lived with him, and was his inseparable associate in his studies, and even in his amusements. St. Palaye died in 1781. La Harpe has published some spirited verses which he addressed in his eightieth year to a lady who had embroidered a waistcoat for him; but he is chiefly known as an author by “Memoires sur PAncienne Chevalerie,” 3 vols. 12mo, in which he paints in very lively colours the manners and customs of that institution. Mrs. Dobson published an English translation of this in 1784. After his decease the abbe Millot drew up, from his papers, “L'Histoire des Troubadours,” in 3 vols. 12mo. St. Palaye had meditated on an “Universal French Glossary,” which was to be more copious than that of Du Cange, and left two works in manuscript, one a history of the variations that have taken place in the French language, the other a Dictionary of French antiquities.

, a French poet of the seventeenth century, was born at Paris, and studied with a view to the ecclesiastical profession, but his private attachment was wholly to the belles lettres and poetry, which he diligently cultivated. He spent the greatest part of his life at Livri, of which he was abbot, though no credit to the order, for he lived in a voluptuous, indolent style, circulating and practising the pernicious maxims he had learnt from his master, the poet Theophile, and to which he was so strongly attached, that Boileau in his first satire places St. Pavin’s conversion among things morally impossible. The story of his having been converted by hearing a terrible voice at the time Theophile died, in 1625, is entirely without foundation, for his conversion preceded his own death but a very short time. He died in 1670, leaving several poems not inelegantly written, which form part of vol. IV. of Barbin’s collection; and a collection of his works was published in 1759, 12mo, with Charleval, Lalane, and MontplaUir. He was related to Claudius Sanguin, steward of the household to the king and the duke of Orleans, who published “Les He-ires” in French verse, Paris, 1660, 4to, in which the whole Psalter is translated.

, a learned Englishman, who died at London in 1736, was a man who did much service to the republic of letters, but of his private history we have no account. He had a hand in the “Universal History,” and executed the cosmogony and a part of the history following. He was also engaged in other publications; but his capital work is “The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of Mohammed, translated into English immediately from the original Arabic; with explanatory notes taken from the most approved commentators. To which is prefixed, a preliminary Discourse,” 1734, 4to. The preliminary discourse consists of 186 pages, and is divided into eight sections, which treat of the following particulars: Sect. 1. “Of the Arabs before Mohammed, or, as they express it, in the * time of ignorance' their history, religion, learning, and customs.” Sect. 2. “Of the state of Christianity, particularly of the Eastern Churches, and of Judaism, at the time of Mohamrrved’s appearance; and of the methods taken by him for establishing his religion, and the circumstances which concurred thereto.” Sect. 3. “Of the Koran itself, the peculiarities of that book, the manner of its being written and published, and the general design of it.” &ect. 4. “Of the doctrines and positive precepts of the Koran, which relate to faith and religious duties.” Sect. 5, “Or certain negative precepts in the Koran.” Sect. 6. “Of the institutions of the Koran in civil affairs.” Sect. 7. “Of the months commanded by the Koran to be kept sacred, and of the setting apart of Friday for the especial service of God.” Sect. 8. “Of the principal sects among the Mohammedans; and of those who have pretended to prophesy among the Arabs in or since the time of Mohammed.” This preliminary discourse, as should seem, might deserve to be published separately from the Koran. Mr. Sale was also one of the members of the society for the encouragement of learning, begun in 1736, but as he died in that year, could not have enjoyed the promised advantages of it. He was one of the authors of the “General Dictionary,” to which we so often refer, which includes a translation of Bayle, 10 vols. folio. Mr. Sale left a son, who was fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1756. He was afterwards a fellow of Winchester college, in 1765, and died a short time after.

At his return into England, after his first visit to Paris, he studied the civil law under Vacarius, who taught with, great applause at Oxford in 1149. Embracing the monastic life at Canterbury, he became the chief confidant of two successive archbishops of that see, Theobald and Thomas a Becket. To the last of these he dedicated his celebrated work “Polycraticon, or De nugis curialium, et vestigiis philosophorum,” a very curious and valuable monument of the literature of his times. Although he did not approve some part of the conduct of Becket, he submitted to Henry the Second’s sentence of banishment, and remained in exile for seven years, rather than give up the party of the archbishop, which was the condition on which he might have been permitted to return. In negotiating Becket' s affairs, he performed no less than ten journeys into Italy. In one of these journeys, he obtained familiar intercourse with pope Adrian IV. his countryman, who having asked him what the world said of him and of the Roman church, John returned such an answer as might have been expected from the boldest of the reformers in the sixteenth century, telling his holiness, among other things, that the world said, “the pope himself was a burthen to Christendom which is scarcely to be borne.” The whole of this curious dialogue may be seen in the work above mentioned.

, a French writer, the first projector of literary journals, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born at Paris in 1626. During his education, he gave no proofs of precocious talent, and afforded little hope of much progress in letters or science. But this seems to have been the effect rather of indolence than incapacity, for he afterwards became an accomplished Greek and Latin scholar, and maintained public theses in philosophy with the greatest a'pplause. He then studied the law, and was admitted a counsellor in the parliament of Paris in 1652. This, however, did not seem so much to his taste as general inquiries into literary history and knowledge, and desultory reading. It is said that he occasionally perused all kinds of books, made curious researches, and kept a person always near him to take down his reflections, and to make abstracts. In 1664, he formed the project of the “Journal des Scavans;” and, the year following, began to publish it under the name of Sieur de Hedouviile, which was that of his valet de chambre; but the severity of his censures gave offence to many who were able to make reprisals. Menage’s “Amcenitates Juris Civilis” was one of the first of those works which fell under Sallo’s cognizance, and his mode of treating it provoked Menage to return his abuse with equal severity in his preface to the works of Malherbe, printed in 1666. Charles Patin’s “Introduction a la connoissance des M^dailles” was another work with which he made free, and incurred a severe retaliation. This warfare soon proved too much for his courage; and therefore, after having published his third journal, he turned the work over to the Abbé Gallois, who dropped all criticism, and merely gave titles and extracts. The plan, however, in one shape or other, was soon adopted in most parts of Europe, and continues until this day, whether with real advantage to literature, has never been fully discussed. Voltaire, after mentioning Sallo as the inventor of this kind of writing, says, with a justice applicable in our own days, that Sallo’s attempt “was afterwards dishonoured by other journals, which were published at the desire of avaricious booksellers, and written by obscure men. who filled them with erroneous extracts, follies, and lies. Things,” he adds, “are come to that pass, that praise and censure are all made a public traffic, especially in periodical papers; and letters have fallen into disgrace by the management and conduct of these infamous scribblers.” On the other hand, the advantages arising from such journals, when under the management of men of candour and independence, will scarcely admit of a doubt. Sallo died in 1669; and, although he published a piece or two of his own, yet is now remembered only for his plan of a literary journal, or review.

, an eminent Roman historian, was born at Amiternum in 86 B. C. The rank of his ancestors is uncertain, but from some circumstances. in his writings, it is not improbable that his family was plebeian. Having passed his more early years at his native town, he was removed to Rome, where he had the advantage of profiting by the lessons of Atticus Praetextatus, surnarned Philologus, a grammarian and rhetorician of great celebrity. Under this teacher he applied -to learning with diligence, and made uncommon progress. It appears, that he had turned his thoughts in his younger days to the writing of history, for which he had unquestionably great talents; but, as he himself intimates in his preface to the history of Catiline’s conspiracy, he was diverted from this pursuit by the workings of ambition. His early lift; too, appears to have been stained by vice, which the gross enormities of his more advanced years render highly probable. In this respect he has found an able advocate in his late learned translator and commentator; but although Dr. Steuart’s researches have removed some part of the reproaches of ancient authors, enough remains to shew that Sallust partook largely of the corruption of the age in which he lived, and added to it by his own example. The story of his having been detected in an adulterous intercourse with the wife of Milo, who, after a severe whipping, made him pay a handsome sum of money, may rest upon little authority, or may be altogether discarded as a fiction, but the general conduct of Sallust shows that the noble sentiments in his works had no influence on his conduct.

He appears to have been advanced to the office of quaestor in the year of Rome 693, and in 701 was made tribune of the people. It was now that he employed all the arts of faction to inflame the minds of the people against Milo, the murderer of Clodius; and those biographers who admit the fact of his being disgraced by Milo, as we have above related, impute to him motives of revenge only; and he was equally industrious in raising a clamour against Cicero, in order to deter him from pleading Milo’s cause. In 703 he was expelled the senate by the then censors, Appius Claudius and Calphurnius Piso, on account of his profligacy, but restored in the following year by Julius Caesar, and was likewise made quaestor, an office which he employed in accumulating riches by every corrupt measure. During Caesar’s second dictatorship he was made praetor, and when Caesar went into Africa with part of his army, he took Sallust with him, who performed some important services, in return for which Caesar made him governor of Numidia. It is here that his public character appears most atrocious and indefensible. He seems to have considered this province as a fund destined to the improvement of his private fortune, and plundered it in the most iRhuman manner. In vain did the oppressed Numidians exclaim against his rapacity, and commence a prosecution against him. His wealth was a sufficient guard against the arm of justice, and by sharing with Csesar a part of the spoils, he easily baffled all inquiry into his provincial administration. On his return, laden with this wealth, he purchased a country house at Tivoli, and one of the noblest dwellings in Rome on the Quirinal mount, with beautiful gardens, which to this day are called the gardens of Sallust. In this situation it is supposed that he wrote his account of “Catiline’s conspiracy,” and the “Jugurthine war,” and that larger history, the loss of which there is so much reason to deplore. He died at the age of fifty-one, B. C. 35. Having no children of his owfl, his ample possessions passed to the grandson of his sister; and the family flourished, with undiminished splendour, to a late sera of the Roman empire.

Whatever objections may be made to Sallust’s character as a man, he has ever been justly admired as a historian. He is equally perspicuous and instructive: his style is clear and nervous, his descriptions, reflections, speeches, and characters, all shew the hand of a master. But his partiality may he hlamed with equal justice, and even some of his most virtuous sentiments and bitter invectives against corruption in public men may be traced rather to party spirit, than to a genuine abhorrence of corruption, which, indeed, in one who had practised it so extensively, could not be expected, unless the result of a penitence we no where read of. His attachment to Caesar, and his disrespect for Cicero, are two glaring defects in his merit as a faithful historian.

Of Sallust there are many excellent editions. His works were first printed at Venice, in 1470, and reprinted thirty times before the conclusion of that century, but these editions are of great rarity. The best of the more modern are the Aldus of 1521, 8vo, the Variorum of 1690, 8vo, Wasse’s excellent edition, printed at Cambridge in 1710, 4to; Cortius’s edition, 1724, 4to; Havercamp’s, 1742, 2 vols. 4to; the prize edition of Edinburgh, 1755, 12mo; the Bipont, 1779, 8vo that very accurate one by Mr. Homer, Lond. 1789, 8vo and one by Harles, 1799, 8vo. The late Dr. Rose of Chiswick, published a very correct translation of Sallust in 1751, 8vo, with Cicero’s Four Orations against Catiline; and more recently Sallust has found a translator, and an acute and learned commentator and advocate, in Heury Steuart, LL.D. F.R. S. and S. A.E. who published in 1806, in 2 vols. 4to, “The Works of Sallust. To which are prefixed, two Essays on the Life, literary character, and writings of the historian with notes historical, biographical, and critical.”

, one of the most learned men of the seventeenth century, and whom Baillet has with great propriety classed among his “Enfant celebres par les etudes,” was born at Semur-en-Auxois, in Burgundy. His family was ancient and noble, and his father, an eminent lawyer, and a member of the parliament of Burgundy, wasa man of worth and learning. Respecting the time of his birth, all his biographers differ. Peter Burman, who has compared their differences, justly thinks it very strange that so many persons who were his contemporaries and knew him intimately, should not have ascertained the exact dates either of his birth or death. The former, however, we presume may be fixed either in 1593 or 1594. He was educated at first solely by his father, who taught him Latin and Greek with astonishing success. At the age of ten he was able to translate Pindar very correctly, and wrote Greek and Latin verses. At the age of eleven, his father wished to send him for farther education to the Jesuits’ college at Dijon, not to board there, but to attend lessons twice a day, and improve them at his lodgings. In this scheme, however, he was disappointed. His mother, who was a protestant, had not only inspired Claude with a hatred of the Jesuits, but encouraged him to write satires against the order, which he did both in Greek and Latin, and entertained indeed throughout life the same aversion to them. Having refused therefore to comply with his father’s request m this respect, his mothef proposed to send him to Paris, where her secret wish was that he should be confirmed in her religion. This being complied with, he soon formed an acquaintance with Casaubon and some other learned men in that metropolis, who were astonished to find such talents and erudition in a mere boy. During his residence here he conversed much with the clergy of the reformed church, and being at length determined to make an open avowal of his attachment to protestantism, he asked leave of his father to go to Heidelberg, partly that he might apply to the study of the law, but principally that he might be more at his freedom in religious matters. Baillet calls this a trick of his new preceptors, who wished to persuade Salmasius’s father that Paris, with respect to the study of the law, was not equal to Heidelberg, where was the celebrated Denis Godefroi, and an excellent library.

Salmasius’s father hesitated long about this proposition. As yet he did not know that his son was so far gone in a change of religion, but still did not choose that he should be sent to a place which swarmed with protestants. He therefore wished his son would prefer Toulouse, where were at that time some eminent law professors; but“Claude refused, and some unpleasant correspondence took place between the father and the son, as appears by the words in which the former at last granted his permission” Go then, I wish to show how much more I am of an indulgent father than you are of an obedient son." The son indeed in this manifested a little of that conceit and arrogarice which appeared in many instances in his future life, and unmoved by the kindness he had just received, refused to travel by the way of Dijon, as his fatter desired, but joined some merchants who were going to Francfort fair, and arrived at Heidelberg in Oct. 1606, or rather 1607, when he was only in his fourteenth year. Whatever may be thought of his temper, we need no other proof that he was one of the most extraordinary youths of this age that the world ever knew, than the letters addressed to him at this time by Jungerman and others on topics of philology. They afford an idea of his erudition, says Burman, which could only be heightened by the production of his answers.

Upon the death of his father, in 1640, he returned for a time into France; and, on going to Paris, was much caressed by cardinal Richelieu, who used all possible means to detain him, and even offered him his own terms; but could not prevail. The obligation he had to the States of Holland, the love of freedom and independence, and the necessity of a privileged place, in order to publish such things as he was then meditating, were the reasons which enabled him to withstand the cardinal. Salmasius also refused the large pension, which the cardinal offered him, to write his history, because in such a work he thought he must either give offence, or advance many things contrary to his own principles, and to truth, While he was in Burgundy to settle family affairs, the cardinal died, and was succeeded by Mazarin, who, upon our author’s return to Paris, honoured him with the same solicitations as his predecessor had done. Salmasius, however, declined his offers, and after about three years absence, returned to Holland: whence, though attempts were afterwards made to draw him back to France, it does not appear that he ever entertained the least thought of removing. In the summer of 1650, he went to Sweden, to pay queen Christina a visit, with whom he continued till the summer following. The reception and treatment he met with, as it is described by the writer of his life, is very characteristic of that extraordinary patroness of learned men. “She performed for him all offices,” says he, “which could have been expected even from an equal. She ordered him to choose apartments in her palace, for the sake of having him with her, * ut lateri adhaereret,' whenever she would But Sal^ masius was almost always ill while he stayed in Sweden, the climate being more than his constitution could bear: at which seasons the queen would come to the side of his bed, hold long discourses with him upon subjects of the highest concern, and, without any soul present, but with the doors all shut, would mend his fire, and do other necessary offices for him.” She soon, however, changed her mind with regard to Salmasius, and praised his antagonist Milton, with whom his celebrated controversy had now begun. After the murder of Charles I Charles II., now in Holland, employed Salmasius to write a defence of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius, says Johnson, was at this time a man of skill in languages, knowledge of antiquity, and sagacity of emendatory criticism, almost exceeding all hope of human attainment; and having, by excessive praises, been confirmed in great confidence of himself, though he probably had not much considered the principles of society or the rights of government, undertook the employment without distrust of his own qualifications, and, as his expedition in writing was wonderful, produced in 1649 his “Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Serenissimum Magnae Britannise Regem Carolum II. filium natu majorem, hseredem et successorem legitimum. Sumptibus Regiis, anno 1649.” Milton, as we have noticed in his life, was employed, by the Powers then prevailing, to answer this book of Salmasius, and to obviate the prejudices which the reputation of his great abilities and learning might raise against their cause; and he accordingly published in 1651, a Latin work, entitled “Defensio pro Populo Anglicano contra Claudii Salmasii Defensionem Regiam.” Of these two works Hobbes declared himself unable to decide whose language was best, or whose arguments were worst, he might have added, or who was most to blame for scurrility and personal abuse. Dr. Johnson remarks, that Salmasius had been so long not only the monarch, but the tyrant of literature, that almost all mankind were delighted to find him defied and insulted by a new name, not yet considered as any one’s rival. There is no proof, however, that Salrnasius’s general reputation suffered much from a contest in which he had not employed the powers which he was acknowledged to possess. His misfortune was to treat of subjects which he had not much studied, and any repulse to a man so accustomed to admiration, must have been very galling. He therefore prepared reply to Milton, but did not live to finish' it, nor did it appear until published by his son in the year of the restoration, when the subject, in England at least, was no longer fit for discussion. He died at the Spa, Sept. 3, 1653, in consequence of an imprudent use of the waters; but as he had reproached Milton with losing his eyes in their contest, Milton delighted himself with the belief that he had shortened Salmasius’s life. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, if any credit is to be given to the account which Salmasius’s biographer, Clement, gives of his feeble constitution, and long illness.

Salmasius, Dr. Johnson has observed, was not only the monarch, but the tyrant of literature, and it must be allowed that although he had few, if any equals, in extent of erudition, and therefore little cause of jealousy, he was impatient of contradiction, and arrogant and supercilious to those who differed from him in opinion. But he must have had qualities to balance these imperfections, before he could have attained the very high character given by the most learned men of his age, by Casaubon, by Huetius, by Gronovius, by Scioppius, by our Selden, by Grotius, Gruter, Balzac, Menage, Sarravius, Vorstius, &c. &c. &c. Those who have critically examined his writings attribute the imperfections occasionally to be found in them to the hasty manner in which he wrote; and a certain hurry and impetuosity of temper when he took up any subject which engaged his attention. Gronovius seems to think that he was sometimes overwhelmed with the vastness of his erudition, and knew not how to restrain his pen. Hence, Gronovius adds, we find so many contradictions in his works, for he employed no amanuensis, and was averse to the task of revision.

, a learned doctor and librarian of the house and society of the Sorbonne, was born of an opulent family at Paris, in 1677. He was well acquainted with the learned languages, particularly Hebrew, possessed great literary knowledge, and discovered much affection for young persons who were fond of study, encouraging them by his example and advice, and taking pleasure in lending them his books. He died suddenly at his country house, at Chaillot, near Paris, Sept. 9, 1736, aged fiftynine. He published a very useful work illustrative of a part of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Traite de Petude des Conciles,” with an account of the principal authors and works, best editions, &c. upon the subject of councils, Paris, 1724, 4to. This has been translated into German, and printed at Leipsic, in 1729. He intended also to have given a supplement to “Father Labbe’s Collection of Councils,” and an “Index Sorbonicus,” or alphabetical library, in which was to be given, under the names of the respective authors, their acts, lives, chronicles, histories, books, treatises, bulls, &c. but did not live to complete either.

Mr. Salmon died April 2, 1742, leaving three daughters. His elder brother, Thomas, honoured with the name of the historiographer, is said to have died in 1743, but must have been living some years after this, when he published his account of Cambridge, &c. Mr. Cole says, “he was brought up to no learned profession, yet had no small turn for writing, as his many productions shew, most of which were written when he resided at Cambridge, where at last he kept a coffee-house, but not having sufficient custom, removed to London.” He told Mr. Cole that he had been much at sea, and had resided in both Indies for some time. His best known publication, and that is not much known now, is his “Modern History, or Present State of all Nations,” published in many volumes, 8vo, about 1731, &c. and re-published, if we mistake not,' in 3 vols. folio, from which it was afterwards abridged in 2 vols. and long continued to be published under various fictitious names. He wrote also “Considerations on the bill for a general naturalization, as it may conduce to the improvement of our manufactures and traffic, and to the strengthening or endangering of the constitution, exemplified in the revolutions that have happened in this kingdom, by inviting over foreigners to settle among us. With an Inquiry into the nature of the British constitution, and the freedom or servitude of the lower class of people, in the several changes it has undergone,” Lond. 1748, 8vo. “The Foreigner’s Companion through the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the adjacent counties, describing the several colleges and other public buildings, with an account of their respective founders, benefactors, bishops, and other eminent men educated in them,” ibid. 1748, 8vo. This title we give from Cole, as we have not seen the work. Previously to this, Mr. Salmon intended to write “The present state of the Universities, and of the five adjacent counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford, Bucks, and Oxford,” but published only the first volume, 1744, 8vo, which contains the history of Oxford, county and university. To this are added some shrewd remarks on university education, and a college life, with the expences attending it. In the preface he speaks of a “General Description of England, and particularly of London the metropolis,” in 2 Vols. which he had published. His name is also to a “Geographical Grammar,” an “Examination of Burnet’s History of his own Times,” and other works. The “New Historic cal account of St. George for England, and the original of this order,” Lond. 1704, is ascribed by Mr. Gough to Mr. Thomas Salmon, the father, who, it may now be mentioned, was distinguished as a musical theorist, and wrote “An Essay to the Advancement of Music, by casting away the Perplexity of different Cliffs; and uniting all sorts of Music, Lute, Viols, Violins, Organ, Harpsichord, Voice, &c. in one universal Character, by Thomas Salmon, A. IVL of Trinity College, Oxfo/d,” London, 1672. This book, says Dr. Burney, “is well written, and, though very illiberally treated by Lock, Play ford, and some Other professors, contains nothing that is either absurd or impracticable; iior could we discover any solid objection to its doctrines being adopted, besides the effect it would have upon ol*d music, by soon rendering it unintelligible. At present the tenor clef alone is thought an insuperable difficulty in our country, by dilettanti performers on the harpsichord; but if Salmon’s simple and easy musical alphabet were chiefly in use, the bass clef would likewise be soon rendered as obsolete and difficult as the tenor; so that two parts or clefs out of three, in present use, would become unintelligible.”

, a learned English divine, was the eldest son of Dr. Samuel Salter, prebendary of Norwich, and archdeacon of Norfolk, by Anne-Penelope, the daughter of Dr. John Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich. He was educated for some time in the free-school of that city, whence he removed to that of the Charter-house, and was admitted of Bene't-college, Cambridge, June 30, 1730, under the tuition of Mr. Charles Skottowe. Soon after his taking the degree of B. A. in 1733, he was chosen into a fellowship, and took his master’s degree in 1737. His natural and acquired abilities recommended him to sir Philip Yorke, then lord-chief-jqstice of the King’s-bench, and afterwards earl of Hardwicke, for the instruction of his eldest son the second earl, who, with three of his brothers, in compliment to abp. Herring, was educated at that college. As soon as that eminent lawyer was made Jordehancellor, he appointed Mr. Salter his domestic chaplain, and gave him a prebend in the church of Gloucester, which he afterwards exchanged for one in that of Norwich. About the time of his quitting Cambridge, he was one of the writers in the “Athenian Letters.” Soon after the chancellor gave Mr. Salter the rectory of Burton Goggles, in the county of Lincoln, in 1740; where he went to reside soon after, and, marrying Miss Seeker, a relation of the then bishop of Oxford, continued there till 1750, when he was nominated minister of Great Yarmouth by the dean and chapter of Norwich. Here he performed the duties of that large parish with great diligence, till his promotion to the preachership at the Charter-house in January 1754, some time before which (in July, 1751), abp. Herring had honoured him with the degree of D. D. at Lambeth. In 1756, he was presented by the lord-chancellor to the rectory of St. Bartholomew near the Royal Exchange, which was the last ecclesiastical preferment he obtained; but in Nov. 1761, he succeeded Dr. Bearcroft as master of the Charter-house, who had been his predecessor in the preachership. While he was a member of Bene't college, he printed Greek Pindaric odes on the nuptials of the princes of Orange and Wales, and a copy of Latin verses on the death of queen Caroline. Besides a sermon preached on occasion of a music-meeting at Gloucester, another before the lord-mayor, Sept. 2, 1740, on the anniversary of the fire of London, a third before the sons of the clergy, 1755, which was much noticed at the time, and underwent several alterations before it was printed; and one before the House of Commons, Jan. 30, 1762; he published “A complete Collection of Sermons and Tracts” of his grandfather Dr. Jeffery, 1751, in 2 vols. 8vo, with his life prefixed, and a new edition of “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” by Dr. Whichcote, with large additions of some letters that passed between him and Dr. Tuckney, “concerning the Use of Reason in Religion,” &c. and a biograpiiical preface, 1751, 8vo. To these may be added, “Some Queries relative to the Jews, occasioned by a late sermon,” with some other papers occasioned by the “Queries,” published the same year. In 1773 jmd 1774, he revised through the press seven of the celebrated “Letters of Ben Mordecai;” written by the rev. Henry Taylor, of Crawley in Hants. In 1776, Dr. Salter printed for private use, “The first 106 lines of the First Book of the Iliad; nearly as written in Homer’s Time and Country;” and printed also in that year, “Extract from the Statutes of the House, and Orders of the Governors, respecting the Pensioners or poor Brethren” (of the Charterhouse), a large single sheet in folio; in 1777, he corrected the proof-sheets of Bentley’s “Dissertation on Phalaris;” and not long before his death, which happened May 2, 1773, he printed also an inscription to the memory of his parents, an account of all which may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” Dr. Salter was buried, by his own express direction, in the most private manner, in the common burial-ground belonging to the brethren of the Charter-house.

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

, called Tl Salviati, from the favour and patronage of the cardinal Salviati, was the on of Michelangiolo Rossi, and was born at Florence in 1510. He was first placed as a pupil under Andrea del Sarto, and afterwards, with far more advantage, with Baccio Bandinelii. Here he had for his fellow pupil, Vasari, who afterwards pronounced him the greatest painter then in Rome. His employment kept pace with his reputation,­and, among other beneficial orders, he was engaged by his patron, the cardinal, to adorn his chapel with a series of frescoes, the subjects being taken from the life of St. John Baptist. He produced a set of cartoons of the history of Alexander, as patterns for tapestries; and, in conjunction with Vasari, ornamented the apartments of the Cancellaria with paintings in fresco. From Rome he went to Venice, where he painted many pictures, both for public edih'ces and private collections, particularly the history of Psyche for the Palazzo Grimaldi. He afterwards travelled through Lombardy, aid made some stay at Mantua, studying with much delight the works of Julio Romano. At Florence, he was employed by the grand-duke to adorn the Palazzo Vecchio: in one of the saloons he represented the victory and triumph of Furius Camillus, a work greatly admired for the truth and taste of the imitation, and the vigour and spirit of the composition.

, a learned Italian, was born at Florence in 1654, where he afterwards became professor, of Greek, which he understood critically. He has the credit of having contributed much to the promotion of good taste in Italy, chiefly by his translations, which comprize the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer; Hesiod Theocritus; Anacreon and many of the minor poets and epigrammatists: the Clouds and Plutus of Aristophanes parts of Horace and Ovid; Persius part of the Book of Job and the Lamentations; Boileau’s“Art Poetique;” Addison’s “Cato” and “Letters from Italy,” and other pieces. All these are literally translated, which obliged him to introduce into the Tuscan language a multitude of new compound terms. He wrote also “Sonnets and other original Poems,” 4to; “Tuscan prose,” 1715, 2 vols. 4to “A hundred Academical Discourses” “A funeral Oration for Antonio Magliabecchi,” and other works. Jie died in 1729. The Salvinia, in botany, was so named in compliment to him, but of his botanical talents we have no information. Salvini also belonged to the academy of De la Crusca, and was particularly instrumental in the completion of that cer lebrated Dictionary. He had a younger brother, a canon of Florence, who died at an advanced age in 1751. He was also a distinguished man of letters, and published a work, entitled “Fasti cqnsolari delfe' Academia Fiorentina,” and the Lives of Magalotti and Migliorucci.

, an eminent puritan divine, was, according to Strype, born at Playford in Suffolk, and was a fellow of Pembroke hall, Cambridge. Wood says he was born in 1517, without specifying where; but adds, that he was educated ac Oxford, which seems most probable, as that university was the scene of much of his future life; He appears to have imbibed the principles of the reformation at a very early period, and became such an acute reasoner that Wood informs us he was the means of converting John Bradford, the famous martyr. He began likewise very early to entertain those prejudices against the hahits which occasioned so much mischief in the church, and which were confirmed in him, and many others, by. associating with the Geneva reformers during their exile in the time of queen Mary. He was ordained by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, who, at his request, dispensed with the habits, to which now, and ever after, he attached the idea of idolatry. He was chaplain in the army of lord Russel in his expedition against the Scots. In 1551, he was preferred to the rectory of Allhallows, Bread-street, London, which he resigned in 1553, and the year following to the deanery of Chichester. During the reign of Edward VI. he was accounted one of the* ablrst and most useful preachers in confirming the people in the doctrines of the reformation. On the accession of queen Mary he concealed himself for some time; but having been active in collecting money for the support of poor scholars in the two universities, narrowly escaped beingapprehended, and was obliged to go abroad, where he resided chiefly at Strasburgh, with the other English exiles, and had some hand in the Geneva translation of the Bible.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth he returned home, not only confirmed in his aversion to the habits, but with a dislike, it would appear, to the whole of the hierarchy, and refused the bishopric of Norwich because dissatisfied with the nature of the office. He continued, however, to preach, particularly at Paul’s cross, where his wonderful memory and eloquence were very much admired; and in September 1560 he was made a prebendary of Durham. In Michaelmas-term 1561, he was instalied clean of Christ-church, Oxford. On this occasion some members of that society, who recommended him for the situation, said, that “it was very doubtful, whether there was a better man, a greater linguist, a more complete scholar, or a more profound divine;” and it is certain that for some years he and Dr. Lawrence Humphrey were the only protestant preachers at Oxford of any celebrity. In 1562, he resigned his prebend of Durham, and became so open and zealous in his invectives against the habits, that after considerable forbearance, he was cited, with Dr. Humphrey, before the high commission court at Lambeth, and Sampson was Deprived of his deanery, and for some time imprisoned. Notwithstanding his nonconformity, however, he was presented, in 1568, to the mastership of Wigston-hospitaJ, at Leicester, and had likewise, according to Wood, a prebend in St. Paul’s. He went to reside at Leicester, and continued there until his death, April 9, 1589. He mar-? ried bishop Latimer’s niece, by whom he had two sons, John and Nathaniel, who erected a monument to his memory, with a Latin inscription, in the chapel of the hospital at Leicester, where he was buried. His works are tew 1. “Letter to the professors of Christ’s Gospel, in the parish of Allhallows in Breadstreet,” Strasburgb, 1554, 8vo, which is reprinted in the appendix to Strype’s “Ecclesiastical Memorials,” vol. III. 2. “A Warning to take heed pf ‘Fowler’s Psalter’,” Loud. 1576 and 1578, 8vo. This was a popish psalter published by John Fowler, once a Fellow of New-college, Oxford, but who went abroad, turned printer, and printed the popish controversial works for some years. 3, ' Brief Collection of the Church and Ceremonies thereof,“Lond. 1581, 8vo. 4.” Prayers and Meditations Apostolike; gathered and framed out of the Epistles of the Apostles,“&c. ibid. 1592, J6mo. He was also editor of two sermons of his friend John Bradford, on repentance and the Lord’s-supper, Lond. 1574, 1581, and, 1589, 8vo. Baker ascribes to him, a translation of” a Sermon of John Chrysostome, of Pacience, of the end of the world, and the last judgment,“1550, 8vo; and of” An Homelye of the Resurrection of Christ," by John Brentius, 1550, 8vo. Other works, or papers in which he was concerned, may be seen in pur authorities.

, a learned physician, was born March 7, 1766, at Penna-Macor, in Portugal. His father, who was an opulent merchant, and iritended him for the bar, gave him a liberal education; but, being displeased at finding him, at the age of eighteen, obstinately bent on the profession of physic, withdrew his protection, and he was indebted to Dr. Nunés Ribeiro, his mother’s brother, who was a physician of considerable repute at Lisbon, for the means of prosecuting his medical studies, which he did, first at Coimbra, and afterwards at Salamanca, where he took the degree of M. D. in 1724; and the year following procured the appointment of phvsician to the town of Benevente in Portugal; for which, as is the custom of that country, he had a small pension, His stay at this place, however, was hut short. He was desirous of seeing more of the world, and of improving himself in his profession. With this view he came and passed two years in London, and had even an intention of fixing there; but a bad state of health, which he attributed to the climate, induced him to return to the continent. Soon after, we find him prosecuting his medical studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Boerhaavc; and it will be a sufficient proof of his diligence and merit to observe, that in 1731, when the Empress of Russia (Anne) requested Boerhaave to recommend -to her three physicians, the professor immediately fixed upon Dr. Sanches to be one of the number. Just as he was setting out for Russia, he was informed that his father was lately dead; and that his mother, in an unsuccessful law-suit with the Portuguese admiralty, had lost the greater part of her fortune. He immediately assigned over his own little claims and expectations in Portugal for her support. Soon after his arrival at St. Petersburg, Dr. Bidloo (son of the famous physician of that name), who was at that time first physician to the empress, -ave him an appointment in the hospital at Moscow, where he remained till 1734, when he was employed as physician to the army, in which capacity he was present at the siege of Asoph, where he was attacked with a dangerous fever, and, when he began to recover, found himself in a tent, abandoned by hjs attendants, and plundered of his papers and effects. In 1740, he was appointed one of the physicians to the court, and consulted by the empress, who had for eight years been labouring under a disease, the cause of which had never been satisfactorily ascertained Dr. Sanches, jn a conversation with the prime minister, gave it us his opinion, that the complaint originated from a stone in one of the kidneys, and admitted only of palliation. At the end of six: months the empress died, and the truth of his opinion was confirmed by dissection. Soon after the death of the empress, Dr. Sanche*s was advanced by the regent to the office of first physician; but the revolution of 1742, which placed Elizabeth Petrowna on the throne, deprived him of all his appointments. Hardly a day passed that he did not hear of some of his friends perishing on the scaffold; and it was not without much difficulty that he obtained leave to retire from Russia. His library, which had cost him 1200 pounds sterling, he disposed of to the academy of St. Petersburg, of which he was an honorary member; and, in return, they agreed to give him a pension of forty pounds per annum. During his residence in Russia, he had availed himself of his situation at court, to establish a correspondence with the Jesuits in China, who, in return for books of astronomy and other presents, sent him seeds or plants, together with other articles of natural history. It was from Dr. Sanche*s that the late Mr. Peter Cqllinson first received the seeds of the true rhubarb, but the plants were destroyed by some accident; and it was not till several years afterwards that rhubarb was cultivated with success in this country, from seeds sent over by the late Dr. Mounsey. In 1747, he went to reside at Paris, where he remained till his death. He enjoyed the friendship of the celebrated physicians and philosophers of that capital, and, at the institution of a Royal Medical Society, he was chosen a foreign associate. He was likewise a member of the royal academy of Lisbon, to the establishment of which his advice had probably contributed, as he drew up, at the desire of the court of Portugal, several memorials on the plans necessary to be adopted for the encouragement of science. Some of these papers, relative to the establishment of an university, were printed during his lifetime in Portuguese, and the rest have been found among. his manuscripts. His services in Russia remained for sixteen years unnoticed but, when the late empress Catherine ascended the throne, Dr. Sanches was not forgotten. He had attended her in a dangerous illness when she was very young; and she now rewarded him with a pension of a thousand roubles, which was punctually paid till his death. He likewise received a, pension from the court of Portugal, and another from prince Gallitzin. A great part of this income he employed in acts of benevolence. Of the liberality with with he administered to the wants of his rela T tions and friends, several striking instances, which our limits will not permit us to insert, have been related by Mr. de Magellan. He was naturally of an infirm habit of body, and, during the last thirty years of his life, frequently voided small stones with his urine. The disposition to this disease increased as he advanced in years, and for a considerable time before his death, he was confined to his apartments. The last visit he mad was, in 1782, to the grand duke of Russia, who was then at Paris. In September 1783, he perceived that his end was approaching, and he died on the 14th of October following. His library, which was considerable, he bequeathed to his brother, Dr. Marcello Sanches, who was likewise a pupil of Boerhaave", and who resided at Naples. His manuscripts (amorig which, besides a considerable number of papers on medical subjects, are letters written by him to Boerhaave. Van Swiften, Gaubius, Halter, Werlhof, Pringle, Fothergill, and other learned men) are in. the possession of Dr. An dry. His printed works, on the origin of the venereal disease and other subjects, are well known to medical readers; but his knowledge, it seems, was not confined to his own profession; he possessed a fund of general learning, and is said to have been profoundly versed in politics.

, a learned Spanish ecclesiastic, was born at Vigo in Gallicia in 1740. After the preparatory studies of divinity, &c. he entered into the church, and obtained a canonry in the cathedral of St. James, and was likewise appointed professor of divinity in that city. His fame procured him admission into many learned societies, and he became one of the most celebrated preachers of the last century, nor was he less admired for his benevolence. He obtained the honourable title of the father of the unfortunate, among whom he spent the whole profits of his canonry, and at his death in 1806, left no more than was barely sufficient to defray the expences of his funeral. The leisure he could spare from his professional duties was employed in the study of the ecclesiastical history of his country, which produced several works that are highly esteemed in Spain. Some of them were written in Latin, and some probably in Spanish, but our authority does not specify which. Among them are, 1. “Summa theologize sacrse,” Madrid, 1789, 4 jrols. 4to. 2. “Annales sacri,” ibid. 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. ^History of the church of Africa,“ibid. 1784, 8vo, a work abounding in learned research. 4.” A treatise on Toleration in matters of Religion,“ibid. 1783, 3 vols. 4to, rather a singular subject for a Spanish divine. 5.” An essay on the eloquence of the pulpit in Spain,“ibid. 1778, 8vo. This is a history of sacred oratory in that country in various ages, with the names of those who were the best models of it. The restoration of a true taste in this species of eloquence he attributes to his countrymen becoming acquainted with the works of those eminent French preachers Bossuet, Massillon, Bourdaloue, &c. 6.” A collection of his Sermons,“ibid. 3 vols. 4to. These were much admired in Spain, and were the same year translated into Italian, and printed at Venice in 4 vols. 4to. 7.” A paper read in the Patriotic Society of Madrid in 1782, on the means of encouraging industry in Gallicia," ibid. 1782, 8vo. This being his native country, Dr. Sanchez had long laboured to introduce habits of industry, and had influence enough to procure a repeal of some oppressive laws which retarded an object of so much importance.

, a Spanish prelate, admired for his writings in the fifteenth century, was born at Santa Maria de Nieva, in the diocese of Segovia, in 1404. After being instructed in classical learning, and having studied the canon law for ten years at Salamanca, he was honoured with the degree of doctor in that faculty; but afterwards embraced the eqclesiasUca! profession, received priest’s orders, and was made successively archdeacon of Trevino in the diocese of largos, dean of Leon and dean of Seville. The first preferment he held twenty years, the second seven, and the third two years. Ahout 1440, John II. king of Castille, appointed him envoy to the emperor Frederick III. and he was also afterwards employed in similar commissions or embassies to other crowned heads. When Calixtus III. became pope, Henry IV. king of Castille, sent him to congratulate his holiness, which occasioned him to take up his residence at Rome. In all his embassies, he made harangues to the different princes to whom he was sent, which are still preserved in ms. in the Vatican library. On the accession of pope Paul II. he made Sanchez governor of the castle of St. Angelo, and keeper of the jewels and treasures of the Roman church, and afterwards promoted him to the bishoprics of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. These last appointments, however, were little more than sinecures, as he never quitted Rome, and employed what time he could spare from his official duties in that city in composing a great many works, of which a list of twenty-nine may be seen in our authorities. He died at Rome Oct. 4, 1470$ and was interred in the church of St. James of Spain. Although so voluminous a writer, by far the greater part of his works remain in ms. in the Vatican and other libraries ) we know of three only which were published, 1. his history of Spain, “Historiae Hispanise partes quatuor.” This Marchand seems to think was published separately, but it was added to the “Hispania Illustrata” of Bel and Schott, published at Francfort in 1579, and again in 1603. 2. “Speculum vitse humaoce, in quo de omnibus omnium vitte ordinum ac conditionum commodis ac incommodis tractatur,' r Rome, 1468, folio, which, with three subsequent editions, is accurately described in the” Bibliotheca Speuceriana.“This work contains so many severe reflections on the clergy of the author’s time, that some protestant writers have been disposed to consider him as a brother in disguise. It is certainly singular that he could hazard so much pointed censure in such an age. 3.” Epistola de expugnatione Nigroponti>,“folio, without date, but probably before the author’s death. A copy of this likewise occurs in the” Bibl. Spenceriana." Those who are desirous of farther information respecting Sanchez or his works may be amply gratified in Marchand, who has a prolix article on the subject.

, an extraordinary Negro, was born in 1729, on board a ship in the slave-trade, a few days after it had quitted the coast of Guinea for the Spanish West Indies; and at Carthagena, received baptism from the hand of the bishop, and the name of Ignatius. He lost his parents in his infancy, a disease of the new climate having put an early period to his mother’s existence; while his father defeated the miseries of slavery by an act of suicide. At little more than two years old, his master brought him to England, and gave him to three maiden sisters, resident at Greenwich; who thought, agreeable to prejudices not uncommon at that time, that ignorance was the only security for his obedience, and that to enlarge his mind would go near to emancipate his person. By them he was surnamed Sancho, from a fancied resemblance to the 'Squire of Don Quixote. While in this situation, the duke of Montagu, who lived on Blackheath, accidentally saw, and admired in him a native frankness of manner, as yet unbroken in servitude, and unrefined by education; brought him frequently home to the duchess; indulged his turn for reading with presents of books, and strongly recommended to his mistresses the duty of cultivating a genius of such apparent fertility. His mistresses, however, were inflexible^ and even threatened on angry occasions to return Sancho to his African slavery. The love of freedom had increased with years, and began to beat high in his bosom. Indignation, and the dread of constant reproach arising from the detection of an amour, finally determined him to abandon the family, and as his noble patron was recently dead, he flew to the duchess for protection, who dismissed him with reproof. She at length, however, consented to admit him into her household, where he remained as butler till her death, when he found himself by her grace’s bequest and his own ceconomy, possessed of seventy pounds in money^ and an annuity of thirty. Freedom, riches, and leisure, naturally led a disposition of African texture into indulgences; and that which dissipated the mind of Ignatius completely drained the purse. Cards had formerly seduced him; but an unsuccessful contest at cribbage with a Jew, who won his clothes, had determined him to abjure the propensity which appears to be innate among his countrymen. Ignatius loved the theatre^ and had been even induced to consider it as a resource in fhe hour of adversity, and his complexion suggested aa offer to the manager of attempting Othello and Oroonoko; but a defective and incorrigible articulation rendered this abortive. He turned his mind once more to service, and was retained a few months by the chaplain at Montaguhouse. That roof had been ever auspicious to him; and the last duke soon placed him about his person, where habitual regularity of life led him to think of a matrimonial connexion, and he formed one accordingly with a very deserving young woman of West India origin. Towards the close of 1773, repeated attacks of the gout and a constitutional corpulence rendered him incapable of farther attendance in the duke’s family. At this crisis, the munificence which had protected him through various vicissitudes did not fail to exert itself; with the result of his own frugality, it enabled him and his wife to settle themselves in a shop of grocery, where mutual and rigid industry decently maintained a numerous family of children, and where a life of domestic virtue engaged private patronage, and merited public imitation. He died Dec. 15, 1780, of a series of complicated disorders. Mr. Jekyll remarks that, of a negro, a butler, and a grocer, there are but slender anecdotes to animate the page of the biographer, yet it has been held necessary to give some sketch of the very singular man, whose letters, with all their imperfections on their head, have given such general satisfaction to the public*. The display which those writings exhibit of epistolary talent, rapid and just conception, of mild patriotism, and of universal philanthropy, attracted the protection of the great, and the friendship of the learned. A commerce with the Muses was supported amid the trivial and momentary interruptions of a shop; the poets were studied, and even imitated with some success; two pieces were constructed for the stage; the theory of music was discussed, published, and dedicated to the Princess royal; and painting was so much within the circle of Ignatius Sancho’s judgment and criticism, that several artists paid great deference to his opinion.

Such was the man whose species philosophers and anatomists have endeavoured to degrade as a deterioration of the human; and such was the man whom Fuller, with a benevolence and quaintness of phrase peculiarly his own, accounted “God’s image, though cut in ebony.” To the harsh definition of the naturalist, oppressions political and legislative were once added, but the abolition of the slave trade has now swept away every engine of that tyranny. Sancho left a widow, who is, we believe, since dead; and a son, who carried on the business of a bookseller for some years, and died very lately.

* The first edition was patronized originally written with a view to pubiiby a subscription not known since the cation. She declared, therefore, “that days of the Spectator. The work was no such idea was ever expressed by published for the benefit of the author’s Mr. Sancho; and that not a single letfamily, by Miss Crewe, an amiable ter was printed from any duplicate young lady, to whom many of the let- preserved by himself, but all were co!­ter< are addressed, and who is since lected from the various friends 10 whom married to John Phillips, esq. surgeon they were addressed.” Her reasons of the household to the Prince of Wales, for publishing them were “the desire From the profits of the first edition, and of shewing that an untutored African a sum paid by the booksellers for li- may possess abilities equal to an Euberty to print a second edition, Mrs. ropean and the still superior motive Sancho, we are well assured, received of wishing to serve his worthy family, more than 500l. The editor did not And she was happy,” she declared, venture to give them to the public till “in publicly acknowledging phe had she had obviated an objection which not found the world inattentive to the had been suggested, that they were voice of obscure merit.” and of great reputation for diligence and faithfulness. He is said to have collected out of the most authentic records he could procure, the “Antiquities of Phoenicia,” with the help of some memoirs which came from Hierombaal, [Hierobaal, or Gideon,] a priest of the God Jeuo or Jao. He wrote several things also relating to the Jews. These “Antiquities of the Phoenicians,” Philo-Byblius, in the same Phoenicia, in the days of Adrian, translated into Greek; and Athenseus soon afterward reckoned him among the Phoenician writers. A large and noble fragment of this workj Eusebius has given us, verbatim, in his first book of “Evangelical Preparation,” cap. ix. x. and has produced the strong attestation of Porphyry, the most learned heathen of that age, to its authenticity. Upon these authorities, many learned men have concluded that the genuine writings of Sanchoniathon were translated by Philo-Byblius, and that Sanchoniathon derived a great part of his information from the books of Moses, nay, some have supposed that Thoth, called by the Greeks, Hermes, and by the Romans, Mercury, was only another name for Moses; but the inconsistencies, chiefly chronological* which the learned have detected in these accounts, and especially the silence of the ancients concerning this historian, who, if he had deserved the character given him by Porphyry > could not have been entirely over-looked, create a just ground of suspicion, either against Porphyry or PhiloByblius. It seems most probable, that Philo-Byblius fabricated the work from the ancient cosmogonies, pretending to have translated it from the Phoenician, in order to provide the Gentiles with an account of the origin of the world, which might be set in opposition to that of Moses. Eusebius and Theodoret, indeed, who, like the rest of the fathers, were too credulous in matters of this kind, and after them some eminent modern writers, have imagined, that they have discovered a resemblance between Sanchoniathon’s account of the formation of the world and that of Moses. But an accurate examination of the doctrine of Sanchoniathon, as it appears in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, will convince the unprejudiced reader, that the Phoenician philosophy, if indeed it be Phoenician, is directly opposite to the Mosaic. Sanchoniathon teaches, that, from the necessary energy of an eternal principle, active but without intelligence, upon an eternal passive chsiptic mass, or Mot, arose the visible world; a doctrine, of which there are some appearances in the ancient cosmogonies, and which was not without its patrons among the Greeks. It is therefore not unreasonable to conjecture, that the work was forged in opposition to the Jewish cosmogony, and that this was the circumstance which rendered it so acceptable to Porphyry. Such is the opinion of Brucker on this history; and Dodwell and Dupin, the former in an express treatise, have also endeavoured to invalidate its authenticity.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Fresingfield, in Suffolk, Jan. 30, 1616, and educated in grammar-learning at St. Edmund’s Bury, where he was equally remarkable for diligent application to his studies, and a pious disposition . In July 1634, he was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he became very accomplished in all branches of literature, took his degree of B. A. in 1637, and that of M. A. in 1641, and was in 1642 chosen fellow of his college. His favourite studies were theology, criticism, history, and poetry , but in all his acquirements he was humble and unostentatious. In 1648 he took the degree of B. D. It is supposed he never subscribed the covenant^ and that this was connived at, because he continued unmolested in his fellowship till 1649; at which time, refusing the engagement, he was ejected. Upon this he went abroad, and became acquainted with the most considerable of the loyal English exiles; and, it is said, he was at Rome when Charles II. was restored. He immediately returned to England, and was made chaplain to Cosin, bishop of Durham, who collated him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, and to the ninth prebend of Durham in March 1661. In the same year he assisted in reviewing the Liturgy, particularly in rectifying the Kalendar and Rubric. In 1662 he was created, by mandamus, D. D. at Cambridge, and elected master of Emanuel college, which he governed with great prudence. In 1664 he was promoted to the deanery of York, which although he held but a few months, he expended on the buildings about 200l. more than he had received. Upon the death of Dr. John Barwick he was removed to the deanery of St. Paul’s; soon after which, he resigned the mastership of Emanuel college, and the rectory of Houghton. On his coming to St. Paul’s he set himself most diligently to repair that cathedral, which had suffered greatly from the savage zeal of the republican fanatics in the civil wars, till the dreadful fire in 1666 suggested the more noble undertaking of rebuilding it. Towards this he gave 1400l. besides what he procured by his interest and solicitations among his private friends, and in parliament, where he obtained the act for laying a duty on coals for the rebuilding of the cathedral. He also rebuilt the deanery, and improved the revenues of it. In Oct. 1668, he was admitted archdeacon of Canterbury, on the king’s presentation, which he resigned in 1670. He was also prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; and was in that station when Charles II. in 1677, advanced him, contrary to his knowledge or inclination, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. In 1678 he published some useful directions concerning letters testimonial to candidates for holy orders. He was himself very conscientious in the admission to orders or the disposal of livings, always preferring men of approved abilities, great learning, and exemplary life. He attended king Charles upon his death-bed, and made a very weighty exhortation to him, in which he is said to have used a good deal of freedom. In 1686 he was named the first in James I I.'s commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but be refused to act in it. About the same time he suspended Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, for residing out of and neglecting his diocese. As one of the governors of the Charter-house, he refused to admit as pensioner in that hospital Andrew Popham, a papist, although he came with a nomination from the court. In June 1688, he joined with six of his brethren the bishops in the famous petition to king James, in which they gave their reasons why they could not cause his declaration for liberty of conscience to be read in churches. For this petition, which the court called a libel, they were committed to the Tower; and, being tried for a misdemeanor on the 29th, were acquitted, to the great joy of the nation. This year the archbishop projected the vain expedient of a comprehension with the protestant dissenters. We have the following account of this in the speech of Dr. W. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, in the house of lords, March 17, 1710, at the opening of the second article of the impeachment against Dr. Sacheverell. “The person,” says he, “who 6rst concerted this design was the late most reverend Dr. Sancroft, then archbishop of Canterbury. The time was towards the end of that unhappy reign of king James II. Then, when we were in the height of our labours, defending the Church of England against the assaults of popery, and thought of nothing else, that wise prelate foreseeing some such revolution as soon after was happily brought about, began to consider how utterly unprepared they had been at the restoration of king Charles II. to settle many things to the advantage of the Church, and what happy opportunity had been lost for want of such a previous care, as he was therefore desirous should now be taken, for the better and more perfect establishment of it. It was visible to all the nation, that the more moderate dissenters were generally so well satisfied with that stand which our divines had made agaiust popery, and the many unanswerable treatises they had published in confutation of it, as to express an unusual readiness to come in to us. And it was therefore thought worth the while, when they were deliberating about those other matters, to consider at the same time what might be done to gain them without doing any prejudice to ourselves. The scheme was laid out, and the several parts of it were committed, not only with the approbation, but by the direction of that great prelate, to such of our divines, as were thought the most proper to he intrusted with it. His grace took one part to himself; another was committed to a then pious and reverend dean (Dr. Patrick), afterwards a bishop of our church. The reviewing of the daily service of our Liturgy, and the Communion Book, was referred to a select number of excellent persons, two of which (archbishop Sharp, and Dr. Moore) are at this time upon our bench and I am sure will bear witness to the truth of my relation. The design was in short this: to improve, and, if possible, to inforce our discipline to review and enlarge our Liturgy, by correcting of some things, by adding of others and if it should be thought adviseable by authority, when this matter should come to be legally considered, first in convocation, then in parliament, by leaving some few ceremonies, confessed to be indifferent in their natures as indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed by those who made a scruple of them, till they should be able to overcome either their weaknesses or prejudices, and be willing to comply with them.” In October, accompanied with eight of his- brethren the bishops, Sancroft waited upon the king, who had desired the assistance of their counsels; and advised him, among other things, to annul the ecclesiastical commission, to desist from the exercise of a dispensing power, and to call a free and regular parliament. A few days after, though earnestly pressed by his majesty, he refused to sign a declaration of abhorrence of the prince of Orange’s invasion. In December, on king James’s withdrawing himself, he is said to have signed, and concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal, in a declaration to the prince of Orange, for a free parliament, security of our laws, liberties, properties, and of the church of England in particular, with a due indulgence to protestant dissenters. But in a declaration signed by him Nov. 3, 1688, he says that “he never gave the prince any invitation by word, writing, or otherwise;” it must therefore have been in consequence of the abdication that he joined with the lords in the above declaration. Yet when the prince came to St. James’s, the archbishop neither went to wait on him, though he had once agreed to it, nor did he even send any message. He absented himself likewise from the convention, for which he is severely censured by Burnet, who calls him “a poor-spirited and fearful man, that acted a very mean part in all this great transaction. He resolved,” says he, “neither to act for, nor against, the king’s interest; which, considering his higli post, was thought very unbecoming. For, if he thought, as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it was a strange thing to see one who was at the head of the church to sit silent all the while that this was in debate, and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking, voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly be.came his character.”

After William and Mary were settled on the throne, he and seven other bishops refused to own the established government, from a conscientious regard to the allegiance they had sworn to king James. Refusing likewise to take the oaths appointed by act of parliament, he and they were suspended Aug. 1, 1689, and deprived the 1st of Feb. following. On the nomination of Dr. Tillotson to this see, April 23, 1691, our archbishop received an order, from the then queen Mary, May 20, to leave Lambethhouse within ten days. But he, resolving not to stir till ejected by law, was cited to appear before the barons of the exchequer on the first day of Trinity-term, June 12, 1691, to answer a writ of intrusion; when he appeared by his attorney; but, avoiding to put in any plea, as the case stood, judgment passed against him, in the form of law, June 23, and the same evening he took boat in Lambethbridge, and went to a private house in Palsgrave-headcourt, near the Temple. Thence, on Aug. 5, 1691, he retired to Fresingfield (the place of his birth, and the estate [50l. a year] and residence of his ancestors above three hundred years), where he lived in a very private manner, till, being seized with an intermitting fever, Aug. 26, 1693, he died on Friday morning, Nov. 24, and was buried very privately, as he himself had ordered, in Fresingfield churchyard. Soon after, a tomb was erected over his grave, with an inscription composed by himself; on the right side of which there is an account of his age and dying-day in Latin; on the left, the following English: “William Sancroft, born in this parish, afterwards by the providence of God archbishop of Canterbury, at last deprived of all, which he could not keep with a good conscience, returned hither to end his life, and professeth here at the foot of his tomb, that, as naked he came forth, so naked he must return: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away (as the Lord pleases, so things come to pass), blessed be the name of the Lord.” The character Burnet has given of him is not an amiable one, nor in some respects a true one , yet he allows, what none could deny, that archbishop Sancroft was a good man. He bestowed great sums of money in charity and endowments, and was particularly bountiful to Emanuel college in Cambridge: and he certainly gave the strongest instance possible of sincerity, in sacrificing the highest dignity to what he thought truth and honesty; and although his opposition both to James II. and William III. may appear rather irreconcileable, we have the testimony of those who knew him best, that he did every thing in the integrity of his heart .

Though of considerable abilities and uncommon learning, he published but very little. The first thing was a Latin dialogue, composed jointly by himself and some of his friends, between a preacher and a thief condemned to the gallows; and is entitled, 1. “Fur Prædestinatus sive, dialogismus inter quendam Ordinis proedicantium Calvinistam etFurem ad laqueum damnatum habitus,” &c. 1651, 12mo. It was levelled at the then-prevailing doctrine of predestination. An edition was published in 18 13; and a translation in the following year, by the rev. Robert Boucher Nickolls, dean of Middleham, with an application to the case of R. Kendall executed at Northampton Aug. 13, 1813. 2. “Modern Politics, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other modern authors, by an eye-witness,” 3652, 12mo. 3. “Three Sermons,” afterwards re-printed together in 1694, 8vo. 4. He published bishop Andrews’s “Defence of the vulgar Translation of the Bible,” with a preface of his own. 5. He drew up some offices for Jan. 3O, and May 29. 6. “Nineteen familiar Letters of his to Mr. (afterwards sir Henry) North, of Mildenhall, bart. both before, but principally after, his deprivation, for refusing to take the oaths to king William III. and his retirement to the place of his nativity in Suffolk, found among the papers of the said sir Henry North, never before published,” were printed in 1757, 8vo. In this small collection of the archbishop’s “Familiar Letters,” none of which were probably ever designed to be made public, his talents for epistolary writing appear to great advantage. He left behind him a multitude of' papers and coUections in ms. which upon his decease came into his nephew’s hands; after whose death they were purchased by bishop Tanner for eighty guineas, who gave them, with the rest of his manuscripts, to the Bodleian library. From these the Rev. John Gutch, of Oxford, published in 1781, 2 vols. 8vo, various “Miscellaneous Tracts relating to the History and Antiquities of England and Ireland,” &c.

Sanctorius was the first who directed the attention of physicians to the importance of insensible perspiration in the animal ceconomy, concerning which he had gone through a long course of experiments upon himself. For these he constructed a kind of statical chair; by means of which, after weighing the aliments he took in, and the sensible secretions and discharges, he was enabled to determine with wonderful exactness the weight or quantity of insensible perspiration, as well as what kind of food or drink increased and diminished it. On these experiments he erected a curious system, which was long admired by the faculty. It was divulged first at Venice in 1614, under the title of “Ars de Statica Medicina,” comprehended in seven sections of aphorisms; and was often reprinted at different places, with corrections and additions by the author. It was translated into French, and published at Paris 1722; and we had next an English version of it, with large explanations, by Dr. Quincy; to the third edition of which in 1723, and perhaps to the former, is added, “Dr. James Keil’s Medicina Statica Britannica. with comparative remarks and explanations; as also physico-medical essays on agues, fevers, on elastic fibre, the gout, the leprosy, king’s-­evil, venereal diseases, by Dr. Quincy.”

Sanctorius unquestionably conferred a benefit on medical science, by directing the observation of medical men to the functions of the skin but unfortunately, the doctrines were extended much too far and, coinciding with the mechanical principles, which were coming into vogue after the discovery of the circulation, as well as with the chemical notions, which were not yet exploded, they contributed to complete the establishment of the humoral pathology, under the shackles of which the practice of medicine continued almost to our own times. Sanctorius was also the author of several inventions. Besides his statical chair, he invented an instrument for measuring the force of the pulse; and several new instruments of surgery. He was the first physician who attempted to measure the heat of the skin by a thermometer, in different diseases, and at different periods of thesanie disease; and it is to his credit that he was an avowed enemy to empirics and empirical nostrums, as well as to all occult remedies.

About 1753 Mr. Sandby, and several members of an academy who met at what had previously been Roubilliac’s workshop, in St. Martin’s-lane, wishing to extend their plan, and establish a society on a broader basis, held several meetings for the purpose of making new regulations, &c. Concerning these regulations it may naturally be supposed there were variety of opinions, but Hogarth, who was one of the members, and who deservedly held a very high rank in the arts, disapproved of the whole scheme, and wished the society to remain as it then was. He thought that enlarging the number of students would induce a crowd of young men to quit more profitable pursuits, neglect what might be more suitable to their talents, and introduce to the practice of the arts more professors than the arts would support. This naturally involved him in many disputes with his brother artists, and as these disputes were not always conducted with philosophic calmness, the satirist sometimes said things that his opponents deemed rather too severe for the occasion. On the publication of his “Analysis of Beauty” they recriminated, with interest. Among the prints which were then published to ridicule his system, line of beauty, &c. are six or eight, that from the manner in which they are conceived, and the uncommon spirit with which they are etched, carry more than probable marks of the burin of Mr. Sandby, who was then a very young man, but afterwards declared, that if he had been more intimately acquainted with Mr. Hogarth’s merit, he would on no account have drawn a line which might tend to his dispraise.

, from whom a religious sect is generally named, was born at Perth in Scotland in 1723. Being intended for one of the learned professions, he studied for two years at the university of Edinburgh, but at the expiration of that time married, and his fortune being- small, entered into the linen trade at Perth, whence he removed to Dundee, and afterwards to Edinburgh. The lady he married was the daughter of the rev. John Glass (See Glass), who founded the sect, at that time called from him Gtassitcs; and Mr. Sandeman, who was now an elder in one of Glass’s churches, or congregations, and had imbibed all his opinions, published a series of letters addressed to Mr. Hervey, occasioned by that author’s “Therou and Aspasio,” in which he endeavours to shew that his notion of faith is contradictory to the scripture account of it, and could only serve to lead men, professedly holding the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, to establish their own righteousness upon their frames, inward feelings, and various acts of faith. In these letters Mr. Sandeman attempts to prove, that faith is neither more nor less than a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, recorded in the New Testament; and he maintains, that the word faith, or belief, is constantlyused by the apostles to signify what is denoted by it in common discourse, viz. a persuasion of the truth of any proposition, and that there is no difference between believing any common testimony, and believing the apostolic testimony, except that which results from the nature of the testimony itself. This led the way to a controversy, among Calvin ists in Scotland, concerning the nature of justifying faith and those who adopted Mr. Sandeman’s; notion of it, and who took the denomination of Sandemanians, formed themselves into church order, in strict fellowship with the church of Scotland, but holding no kind of communion with other churches. The chief opinions and practices in which this sect differs from others, are, their weekly administration of the Lord’s Supper; their lovefeasts, of which every member is not only allowed but required to partake, and which consist of their dining together at each other’s houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon service: their kiss of charity used on this occasion, at the admission of a new member, and at other times, when they deem it to be necessary or proper; their weekly collection before the Lord’s Supper for the support of the poor, and defraying other expences mutual exhortation abstinence from blood and things strangled washing each other’s feet, the precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understand literally community of goods so far as that every one is to consider all that he has in his possession and power as liable to the calls of the poor and church, and the unlawfulness of laying up treasures on earth, by setting them apart for any distant, future, and uncertain use. They allow of public and private diversions so far as they are not connected with circumstances really sinful; but apprehending a lot to be sacred, disapprove of playing at cards, dice, &c They maintain a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops, in each church, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of discipline, and at the administration of the Lord’s Supper. In the choice of these elders, want of learning, and engagements in trade, &c. are no sufficient objection; but second marriages disqualify for the office; and they are ordained by prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship. In their discipline they are strict and severe, and think themselves obliged to separate from the communion and worship of all such religious societies as appear to them not to profess the simple truth for their only ground of hope, and who do not walk in obedience to it. We shall only add, that in every church transaction, they esteem unanimity to be absolutely necessary.

, a Roman catholic writer of considerable fame, and one of the principal champions of popery in the sixteenth century, was born about 1527, at Charlewood in Surrey, and educated at Winchester school, whence he removed to New college, Oxford. Here he studied chiefly canon law, and was made fellow of his college in 1548, and in 1550, or 1551, took the degree of bachelor of laws. When queen Mary came to the throne, he had the offer of being Latin secretary to her majesty, which he declined for the sake of a studious, academical life, and remained at Oxford during the whole of her reign. In 1557 he was one of the professors of canon law, and read what were called the “shaggling lectures,” i. e. lectures not endowed, until the accession of queen Elizabeth, when his principles induced him to quit England. He arrived at Rome about the latter end of 1560, and studying divinity, became doctor in that faculty, and was ordained priest by Dr. Thomas Goldwell, bishop of St. Asaph, who at that time resided in the English hospital at Rome. Soon after, cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent, hearing of his abilities, took him into his family, and made use of him, as his theologal, in the council. When the council broke up, Dr. Sanders accompanied the cardinal to Poland, Prussia, and Lithuania, where he was instrumental in settling the discipline of the Romish church; but his zeal disposing him to think most of his native country, he returned to Flanders, and was kindly entertained by sir Francis Englefield, formerly privy-counsellor to queen Mary, and then in great favour with the court of Spain; through whose hands a great part of those charitable collections passed, which his catholic majesty ordered for the subsistence of the English popish exiles. Sanders was appointed his assistant, and being settled at Louvaine, together with his mother and sister, he lived there twelve years, and performed many charitable offices to his indigent countrymen. Much of this time he employed in writing in defence of popery against Jewell, Nowell, and other eminent protestant divines.

Some years after, having received an invitation from the pope, he took a journey to Rome, whence he was sent as nuncio to the popish bishops and clergy in Ireland, and landed there in 1579. At this time Gerald Fitzgerald, earl of Desmond, was in arms, as he pretended, in defence of the liberties and religion of his country; but in 1583 his party was routed and himself killed. The part Sanders took in this rebellion is variously represented. Camden says that he was sent over purposely to encourage Desmond, and that several companies of Spanish soldiers went over with him, and that when their army was routed, he fled to the woods, and died of hunger. All that the catholics deuy in this account, is, that Sanders was sent purposely i but this they deny very feebly. With regard to the manner of Sanders’s death, Dodd seems inclined to prefer Wood’s account, who says that he died of a dysentery, and Dodd likewise adopts the report of Rushton and Pits, who say that he died at the latter end of 1580, or the beginning of 1581, because this was long before Desmond’s defeat, and consequently dissolves in some measure the supposed connection between him and Sanders. Dodd, however, who is generally impartial, allows that several catholics, his contemporaries, were of opinion that he was engaged in the Spanish interest against queen Elizabeth; and his writings prove that he maintained a deposing power both in the church and people, where religion was in danger. He was, according to all accounts, a man of abilities, and was considered as the most acute adversary for the re-establishment of popery in England, which his party could boast of. He had, however, to contend with men of equal ability, who exposed his want of veracity as well as of argument, and few of his works have survived the times in which they were written. Among them are, 1. “The Supper of our Lord, &c.” a defence of the real presence, being what he calls “A confutation of Jewel’s Apology, as also of Alexander Newel’s challenge,” Louvain, in 1566, 1567, 4to. 2. “Treatise of the Images of Christ and his Saints; being a confutation of Mr. Jewel’s reply upon that subject,” ibid. 1567, 8vo.- 3. “The Rock of the Church/ 1 eoncerning the primacy of St. Peter, ibid. 1566, 1567, St. Omer’s, 1624, 8vo.' 4.” A brief treatise on Usury,“ibid. 1566. 5.” De Visibili monarchia Ecclesia,“ibid. 1571, folio, Antwerp, 1581, Wiceburg, 1592. 6.” De origine et progressu Schismatis Anglicani,“Colon. 1585, 8vo, reprinted at other places in 1586, 1588, and 1590, and translated into French in 1673, with some tracts on the tenets of his church, which seem not of the controversial kind. Mo’st of the former were answered by English divines of eminence, particularly his large volume” De visibili monarchia ecclesise," by Dering, Clerk, and others, of whose answers an account may J>e seen in Strype’s Life of Parker. That on the English schism is refuted, as to his more important assertions, in the appendix to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. II.

, an English writer, whose history may not be unuseful, was a native of Scotland, and born in, or near, Breadalbane, about 1727. He was by business a comb-maker; but not being successful in trade, and having some talents, some education, and a good memory, he commenced a hackney writer, and in that capacity produced some works which have been relished by the lower class of readers. When he came to London is uncertain; but, having travelled over most of the northern parts of these kingdoms, he compiled, from his own survey and the information of books, an itinerary, entitled “The Complete English Traveller,” folio. It was published in numbers, with the fictitious name of Spencer, professedly on the plan of Fuller’s Worthies, with biographical notices of the most eminent men of each county. As the dealers in this kind of publications thought it too good a thing to be lost, it has been republished, depriving Mr. Spencer of his rights, and giving them to three fictitious gentlemen, Mr. Burlington for England, Mr. Murray for Scotland, and Mr. Llewellyn for Wales. He also compiled, about 1764, a work in 5 or 6 vols. 8vo, with cuts, entitled “The Newgate Calendar, or Memoirs of those unfortunate culprits who fall a sacrifice to the injured laws of their country, and thereby make their exit at Tyburn.” He was some time engaged with lord Lyttelton, in assisting his lordship to compile his “History of Henry II.;” and Dr. Johnson, in his life of that poetical nobleman, introduces this circumstance in no very honourable manner. “When time,” says he, “brought the history to a third edition, Reid (the former corrector) was either dead or discharged; and the superintendence of typography and punctuation was committed to a man originally a conjb-maker, but then known by the style of Doctor Sanders. Something uncommon was probably expected, and something uncommon was at last done; for to the doctor’s edition is appended, what the world had hardly seen before, a list of errors of nineteen pages. 7 ' His most considerable work was his” Gaffer Greybeard,“an illiberal piece, in 4 vols. 12mo, in which the characters of the most eminent dissenting divines, his contemporaries, are very freely handled. He had, perhaps suffered either by the contempt or the reproof of some of that persuasion, and therefore endeavoured to revenge himself on the whole, ridiculing, in particular, Dr. Gill under the name of Dr. Half-pint, and Dr. Gibbons under that of Dr. Hymn-maker. He was also the author of the notes to a Bible published weekly under the name of the rev. Henry Southwell: for this he received about twentyfive or twenty-six shillings per week, while Dr. Southwell, the pseudo-commentator, received one hundred guineas for the use of his name, he having no other recommendation to the public, by which he might merit a posthumous memory, than his livings. Dr. Sanders also compiled” Letter-writers,“” Histories of England,“and other works of the paste and scissors kind but his” Roman History," written in a series of letters from a nobleman to his son, in 2 vols. 12mo, has some merit. Towards the latter end of his days he projected a general chronology of all nations, and had already printed some sheets of the work, under the patronage of lord Hawke, when a disorder upon his lungs put a period to his existence, March 19, 1783. He was much indebted to the munificence of Mr. Granville Sharp. More particulars of this man’s history and of the secrets of Bible-making may be seen in our authority.

, an eminent English bishop, was descended from an ancient family, and was the youngest son of Robert Sanderson, of Gilthwaite-hall, Yorkshire, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Richard Carr, of Butterthwaite-hall, in the parish of Ecclesfield. He was born at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, Sept. 19, 1587, and educated in the grammar-school there, where he made so uncommon a progress in the languages, that, at thirteen, he was sent to Lincoln college in Oxford. Soon after taking his degree of B. A. his tutor told Dr. Kilbie, the rector, that his “pupil Sanderson had a metaphysical brain, and a matchless memory, and that he thought he had improved or made the last so by an art of his own invention.” While at college, he generally spent eleven hours a day in study, chiefly of philosophy and the classics. In 1606 he was chosen fellow, and in July 1608, completed his degree of M. A. In November of the same year, he was elected logic reader, and re-elected in Nov. 1609. His lectures on this subject were published in 1615, and ran through several editions. In 1613, 1614, and 1616, he served the office of sub-rector, and in the latter of those years, that of proctor. In 1611, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. King, bishop of London, and took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1617. In 1618, he was presented by his cousin sir Nicolas Sanderson, lord viscount Castleton, to the rectory of Wybberton, near Boston, in Lincolnshire, but resigned it the year following on account of the unhealthiness of its situation; and about the same time was collated to the rectory of Boothby-Paniiell, or Paynel, in the same county, which he enjoyed above forty years. Having now quitted his fellowship, he married Anne, the daughter of Henry Nelson, B. D. rector of Haugham in the county of Lincoln; and soon after was made a prebendary of Southwell, as he was also of Lincoln in 1629. He continued to attend to his parochial duties in a very exemplary manner, and particularly laboured much to reconcile differences, and prevent law-suits both in his parish, and in the neighbourhood. He also often visited sick and disconsolate families, giving advice and often pecuniary assistance, or obtaining the latter by applications to persons of opulence. He was often called upon to preach at assizes and visitations; but his practice of reading his sermons, as it was then not very common, raised some prejudice against him. Walton observes, that notwithstanding he had an extraordinary memory, he had such an innate bashfulness and sense of fear, as to render it of little use in the delivery of his sermons. It was remarked, when his sermons were printed in 1632, that “the best sermons that were ever read, were never preached.” At the beginning of the reign of Charles I. he was chosen one of the clerks in convocation for the diocese of Lincoln; and Laud, then bishop of London, having recommended him to that king as a man excellently skilled in casuistical learning, he was appointed chaplain to his majesty in 1631. When he became known to the king, his majesty put many cases of conscience to him, and received from him solutions which gave him so great satisfaction, that at the end of his month’s attendance, which was in November, the king told him, that “he should long for next November; for he resolved to have more inward acquaintance with him, when the month and he returned.” The king indeed was never absent from his sermons, and used to say, that “he carried his ears to hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson.” In 1633 he obtained, through the earl of Rutland’s interest, the rectory of Muston, in Leicestershire, which he held eight years. In Aug. 1636, when the court was entertained at Oxford, he was,‘ among others, created D. D. In 1642, he was proposed by both Houses of parliament to king Charles, who was then at Oxford, to be one of their trustees for the settling of church affairs, and approved by the king: but that treaty came to nothing. The same year, his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford, with the canonry of Christ church annexed: but the national calamities hindered him from entering on it till 1646, and then he did not hold it undisturbed much more than a year. In 1643, he was nominated by the parliament one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them neither did he take the covenant or engagement, so that his living was sequestered but, so great was his reputation for piety and learning, that he was not deprived of it. He had the’ chief hand in drawing up “The Reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn League and Covenant, the Negative Oath, and the Ordinances concerning Discipline and Worship:” and, when the parliament had sent proposals to the king for a peace in church and state, his majesty desired, that Dr. Sanderson, with the doctors Hammond, Sheldon, and Morley, should attend him, and advise him how far he might with a good conscience comply with those proposals. This request was rejected by the presbyterian party; but, it being complied with afterwards by the independents, when his majesty was at Hampton-court, and in the isle of Wight, in 1647 and 1648, those divines attended him there. Dr. Sanderson often preached before him, and had many public and private conferences with him, to his majesty’s great satisfaction. The king also desired him, at Hampton-court, since the parliament had proposed the abolishing of episcopal government as inconsistent with monarchy, that he would consider of it, and declare his judgment; and what he wrote upon that subject was afterwards printed in 1661, 8vo, under this title, “Episcopacy, as established by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal power.” At Sanderson’s taking leave of his majesty in this his last attendance on him, the king requested him to apply himself to the writing of “Cases of Conscience;” to which his answer was, that “he was now grown old, and unfit to write cases of conscience.” But the king told him plainly, “it was the simplest thing he ever heard from him; for, no young man was fit to be a judge, or write cases of conscience.” Upon this occasion, Walton relates the following anecdote: that in one of these conferences the king told Sanderson, or one of them that then waited with him, that “the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the earl of Stafford’s death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that, if God ever restored him to the peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and a voluntary penance, by walking barefoot from the Tower of London, or Whitehall, to St. Paul’s church, and would desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon.” In 1643, Dr. Sanderson was ejected from his professorship and canonry in Oxford by the parliamentary visitors, and retired to his living of Boothby-Pannel. Soon after, he was taken prisoner, and carried to Lincoln, to be exchanged for one Clarke, a puritan divine, and minister of Alington, who had been made prisoner by the king’s party. He was, however, soon released upon articles, one of which was, that the sequestration of his living should be recalled; by which means he enjoyed a moderate subsistence for himself, wife, and children, till the restoration. But, though the articles imported also, that he should live undisturbed, yet he was far from bein^r either quiet or safe, being once wounded, and several times plundered; and the outrage of the soldiers was such, that they not only came into his church, and disturbed him when reading prayers, but even forced the common prayer book from him, and tore it to pieces. During this retirement, he received a visit from Dr. Hammond, who wanted to discourse with him upon some points disputed between the Caivinists and Arminians; and he was often applied to for resolution in cases of conscience, several letters upon which subjects were afterwards printed*. In 1658, the hon, Robert Boyle sent him a present of 50l.; his circumstances, as of most of the royalists at that time, being very low. Boyle had read his lectures “De juramenti obligatione,” published the preceding year, with great satisfaction; and asked Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, if he thought Sanderson could be induced to write cases of conscience, provided he had an honorary pension allowed, to supply him with books and an amanuensis But Sanderson told Barlow, “that, if any future tract of his could bring any benefit to mankind, he would readily set about it without a pension.” Upon this, Boyle sent the above present by the hands of Barlow; and Sanderson presently revised, finished, and published, his book “De obligatione conscientiae,” which, as well as

In Aug. 1660, upon the restoration, he was restored to his professorship and canonry; and soon after, at the recommendation of Sheldon, raised to the bishopric of Lincoln, and consecrated Oct. 28. He enjoyed his new dignity but about two years and a quarter: during which time he did all the good in his power, by repairing the palace at Bugden, augmenting poor vicarages, &c. notwithstanding he was old, and had a family; and when his friends suggested a little more attention to them, he replied, that he left them to God, yet hoped he should be able at his death to give them a competency. He died Jan. 29, 1662-3, in his seventy-sixth year; and was buried in the chancel at Bugden, in the plainest and least expensive manner, according to his own directions. Dr. Sanderson was in his person moderately tall, of a healthy constitution, of a mild, cheerful, and even temper, and very abstemious. In his behaviour, he was affable, civil, and obliging, but not ceremonious. He was a man of great piety, modesty, learning and abilities, but not of such universal reading as might be supposed. Being asked by a friend, what books he studied most, when he laid the foundation of his great learning, he answered, that “he declined to read many books, but what he did read were well chosen, and read often; and added, that they were chiefly three, Aristotle’s ‘ Rhetoric,’ Aquinas’s ‘ Secunda Secunclse/ and Tully, but especially his ’ Offices,' which he had not read over less than twenty times, and could even in his old age recite without book.” He told him also, the learned civilian Dr. Zoucb had written “Elementa Jurisprudentioe,” which he thought he could also say without book, and that no wise man could read it too often. Besides his great knowledge in the fathers, schoolmen, and casuistical and controversial divinity, he was exactly versed in ancient and modern history, was a good antiquary, and indefatigable searcher into records, and well acquainted with heraldry and genealogies; of which last subject he left 20 vols. in ms. now in the library of sir Joseph Banks. The worthiest and most learned of his contemporaries speak of him in the most respectful terms: “That staid and well-weighed man Dr. Sanderson,” says Hammond, “conceives all things deliberately, dwells upon them discretely, discerns things that differ exactly, passeth his judgment rationally, and expresses it aptly, clearly, and honestly.” The moral character of this great and good man, Mr. Granger observes, has lately been rashly and feebly attacked by the author of the “Confessional,” and as ably defended by the author of “A Dialogue between Isaac Walton and Homologistes,” 1768. Every enemy to church government has been, for the same reason, an enemy to bishop Sanderson and every other prelate; but the uprightness and integrity of his heart, as a casuist, was never before called in question by any man who was not an entire stranger to his character. He saw and deplored, and did his utmost, honestly and rationally, to remedy the complicated ills of anarchy in church and state; when il every man projected and reformed, and did what was right in his own eyes. No image can better express such a condition, than that of a dead animal in a state of putrefaction, when, instead of one noble creature, as it was, when life held it together, there are ten thousand little nauseous reptiles growing out of it, every one crawling in a path of its own."

We shall now give some account of his writings, which, for good sense, clear reasoning, and manly style, have always been much esteemed. In 1615, he published, 1. “Logicse Artis Compendium,” as we have already mentioned. In 1671 appeared, as a posthumous work, his “Physicae scientiss compendium,” printed at Oxford. 2. “Sermons,” preached and printed at different times, amounting to the number of thirty-six, 1681, folio; with the author’s life by Walton prefixed. 3. “Nine Cases of Conscience resolved;” published at different times, but first collected in 1678, 8vo. The last of these nine cases is “Of the use of the Liturgy,” the very same tract which was published by Walton in his Life of Sanderson, 1678, under the title of “Bishop Sanderson’s judgment concerning submission to Usurpers.” In this tract is given a full account of the manner in which Dr. Sanderson conducted himself, in performing the service of the church, in the times of the usurpation. 4. “De Juramenti Obligatione,” 1647, 8vo; reprinted several times since, with, 5. “De Obligatione Conscientiae.” This last was first printed, as we have said, at the request of Mr. Boyle, and dedicated to him; tfye former, viz. “De Juramenti Obligatione,” was translated into English by Charles I., during his confinement in the Isle of Wight, and printed at London in 1655, 8vo; and of both there is an English translation, entitled “Prelections on the Nature and Obligation of promissory oaths and of conscience,” London, 1722, 3 vols. 8vo, 6, “Censure of Mr. Antony Ascham his book of the Confusions and Revolutions of Government,” 1649, 8vo. This Ascham was the rump parliament’s agent at Madrid, and was murdered there by some English royalists. 7. “Episcopacy, as established by Law in England, not prejudicial to the Regal Power,' 7 1661, mentioned before. 8.” Pax Ecciesiae about Predestination, or theFive Points;“printed at the end of his Life by Walton, 8vo. Our bishop seems at first to have been a strict Calvinist in those points: for in 1632, when twelve of hissermons were printed together, the reader may observe in the margin some accusations of Arminius for false doctrine; but in consequence of his conferences with Dr. Hammond, he relaxed from the rigid sense, as appears by some letters that passed between them, and which are printed in Hammond’s works. 9.” Discourse concerning the Church in these particulars: first, concerning the visibility of the true Church; secondly, concerning the Church of Rome,“&c. 1688 published by Dr. William Asheton, from a ms copy, which he had from Mr. Pullen, the bishop’s domestic chaplain. 10. A large preface to a book of Usher’s, written at the special command of Charles I. and entitled,” The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the Obedience required of the Subject,“&c. 1661, 4to, and 1633, 8vo. 11. A prefatory Discourse, in defence of Usher and his writings, prefixed to a collection of learned treatises, entitled,” Clavi Trabales; or, nails fastened by some great masters of atsemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subjects’ duty, and church government by bishops,“1661, 4to. 12.” Prophecies concerning the return of Popery,“inserted in a book entitled” Fair Warning, the second part,“London, 1663. This volume contains also several extracts from the writings of Whitgift and Hooker, and was published with a view to oppose the sectaries, who were said to be opening a door at which popery would certainly enter. 13.” The preface to the Book of Common Prayer,“beginning with these words,” It hath been the wisdom of the church.“14.” Ectvo/X^, seu Explanatio Juramenti,“&c. inserted in the” Excerpta e corpore statutorum Univ. Oxon.“p. 194. It was written to explain the oath of obligation to observe the penal statutes. 15.” Articles of Visitation and Inquiry concerning matters ecclesiastical,“&c. Lotid. 1662, 4to. Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Hammond were jointly concerned in a work entitled” A pacific discourse of God’s grace and decrees,“and published by the latter in 1660. In the preface to the Polygiott, Dr. Bryan Walton has classed Dr. Sanderson among those of his much honoured friends who assisted him in that noble work. Peck, in the second volume of his” Desiderata Curiosa,“has published the” History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin St. Mary at Lincoln: containing an exact copy of all the ancient monumental inscriptions there, in number 163, as they stood in 1641, most of which were soon after torn up, or otherways defaced. Collected by Robert Sanderson, S.T. P. afterwards lord bishop of that church, and compared with and corrected by sir William DugdaleVMS survey."

, an antiquary of considerable note, was a younger son of Christopher Sanderson, a justice of the peace for the county palatine of Durham, who had suffered for his attachment to the Stuart family during the civil war. He was born July 27, 1660, at Egglestonhall, in that county, and entered a student of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Baker, April 7, 1683. He remained in the university several years, and was contemporary with the celebrated Matthew Prior. Removing to London, he afterwards turned his attention to the law, and was appointed clerk of the rolls, in the Rolls chapel. He contributed largely to the compilation of Rymer’s Fcedera, and was exclusively concerned in arranging the three concluding volumes, from 18 to 20, which he successively dedicated to kings George I. and II. (See Rymer.)

, an eminent topographer and antiquary, was born at Antwerp, in Sept. 1586. He was first taught Latin at Oudenarde, and pursued his classical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Ghent. He then studied philosophy at Douay, and in 1609 obtained the degree of master of arts. After some stay in his native country, he entered on a course of theology at Louvain, which he completed at Douay, and in 1619, or 1621, took the degree of doctor in that faculty. Being ordained priest, he officiated for several years in various churches in the diocese of Ghent, was remarkably zealous in the conversion of heretics, i. e. protestants, and particularly contended much with the anabaptists, who were numerous in that quarter. Having, however, rendered himself obnoxious to the Hollanders, by some services in which he was employed by the king of Spain, their resentment made him glad to enter into the service of cardinal Aiphonso de la Cueva, who was then in the Netherlands, and made him his almoner and secretary. Some time after, by the cardinal’s interest, he was made canon of Ipres (not of Tournay, as father Labbe asserts) and finally theologal of Terouanne. He died in 1664, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, at Afflingham, an abbey of Brabant in the diocese of Mechlin, and was interred there, with a pious inscription over his grave, written by himself.

, a herald and heraldic writer, descended from a very ancient and respectable family, still seated at Sandford, in the county of Salop, was the third son of Francis Sandford, *of that place, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Calcot Chambre, of Williamscot in Oxfordshire, and of Carnow in Wicklow in Ireland. He was born in 1630, in the castle of Carnow in the province of Wicklow, part of the half barony of Shelelak, purchased of James I., by his maternal grandfather, Chalcot Chambre. He partook in an eminent degree the miseries of the period which marked his youth. At eleven years of age he sought an asylum in Sandford, being driven by the rebellion from Ireland. No sooner had his pitying relatives determined to educate him to some profession, than they were proscribed for adhering to the cause of their sovereign; he received, therefore, only that learning which a grammar school could give. As some recompence for the hardships he and his family had experienced, he was admitted, at the restoration, as pursuivant in the college of arms; but conscientiously attached to James II., he obtained leave to resign his tabard to Mr. King, rougedragon, who paid him 220l. for his office. He retired to Bloomsbury, or its vicinity, where he died, January 16, 1693, and was buried in St. Bride’s upper church yard. The last days of this valuable man corresponded too unhappily with the first, for he died “advanced in years, neglected, and poor.' 7 He married Margaret, daughter of William Jokes, of Bottington, in the county of Montgomery, relict of William Kerry, by whom he had issue. His literary works are, 1.” A genealogical History of the Kings of Portugal,“&c. London, 1664, fol. partly a translation, published in compliment to Catherine of Braganza, consort to Charles II. It is become scarce. 2.” The Order and Ceremonies used at the Funeral of his Grace, George Duke of Albemarle,“Savoy, 1670. This is a thin folio, the whole represented in engraving. 3.” A genealogical History of the Kings of England, and Monarchs of Great Britain, from the Norman Conquest, Anno 1066, to the year 1677, in seven Parts or Books, containing a Discourse of their several Lives, Marriages, and Issues, Times of Birth, Death, Places of Burial, and monumental Inscriptions, with their Effigies, Seals, Tombs, Cenotaphs, Devices, Arms,“&c. Savoy, 1677, fol. dedicated to Charles II., by whose command the work was undertaken. It is his best and most estimable performance. The plan is excellent, the fineness of the numerous engravings greatly enrich and adorn it: many are by Hollar, others by the best artists of that period, inferior to him, but not contemptible, even when seen at this age of improvement in graphic art. The original notes are not the least valuable part of the work, conveying great information, relative to the heraldic history of our monarchs, princes, and nobility. Mr. Stebbing, Somerset herald, reprinted it in 1707, continuing it until that year, giving some additional information to the original works; but the plates being worn out, or ill touched, this edition is far inferior to the first.” The Coronation of K. James II. and Q. Mary," &c. illustrated with sculptures, Savoy, 1687, a most superb work. When James declared he would have the account of his coronation printed, Mr. Sandford and Mr. King, then rouge-dragon, obtained the earl marshal’s consent to execute it; the latter says, the greatest part passed through his hands, as well as the whole management and economy of it, though he declined having his name appear in the title-page, contenting himself with one third part of the property, leaving the honour, and two remaining shares of it, to Mr. Sandford well foreseeing, he says, that they would be maligned for it by others of their office and he was not mistaken, for Sandford, with all the honour, had all the malice, for having opposed the earl marshal’sappointing Mr. Burghill to be receiver of fees of honour for the heralds, and endeavouring to vest it in the king; so that the affair was taken and argued at the council table. The earl marshal, at the insinuation of some of the heraids, suspended him, under pretence that he had not finished the history of the coronation; but he submitting, the suspension was soon taken off. The book at last was not successful, for the publication being delayed until 1687, and the revolution following, which threw a damp on such an undertaking, Messrs. Sandford and King gained no more than their expences, amounting to 600l.

, an Italian ecclesiastical historian, was born June 31, 1692, and became, by the interest of his bishop, cardinal Rezzonico, who was afterwards pope Clement XIII. librarian and professor of ecclesiastical history at Padua, where he died, Feb. 23, 1751, in the fiftynrnth year of his age. He is known principally by his “Vitae Pontificum Romanorum,” Ferrara, 174-8, reprinted under the title of “Basis Historic Ecclesiasticae.” He also wrote “Historic Familiae Sacne;”. “HistoriaS. S. Apostolorum;” “Disputationes XX ex Historia Ecclesiastica ad Vitas Pontificum Romanorum,” and “Dissertations,” in defence of the “Historic Familiie Sacrae,” which father Serry had attacked.

, a German painter, was born at Francfort in 1606. He was sent by his father to a grammar school; his inclination to engraving and designing . being irresistible, he was suffered to indulge it, and went on foot to Prague, where he put himself under Giles Sadeler, the famous engraver, who persuaded him to apply his genius to painting. He accordingly went to Utrecht, and was some time under Gerard lionthrost, who took him into England with him; where he stayed till 1627, the year in which the duke of Buckingham, who was the patron of painting and painters, was assassinated by Felton at Portsmouth. He went afterwards to Venice, where he copied the finest pictures of Titian and Paul Veronese; and from Venice to Rome, where he became one of the most considerable painters of his time. The king of Spain sending to Rome for twelve pictures of the most skilful hands then in that city, twelve painters were set to work, one of whom was Sandrart. After a long stay in Rome, he went to Naples, thence to Sicily and Malta, and at length returned through Lombardy to Francfort, where he married. A great famine happening about that time, he removed to Amsterdam; but returned to Francfort upon the cessation of that grievance. Not long after, he took possession of the manor of Stokau, in the duchy of Neuburg, which was fallen to him; and, finding it much in decay, sold all his pictures, designs, and other curiosities, in order to raise money for repairs’. He had but just completed these, when, the war breaking out between the Germans and the French, it was burned by the latter to the ground. He then rebuilt it in a better style; but, fearing a second invasion, sold it, and settled at Augsburgh, where he executed many fine pictures. His wife dying, he left Augsburgh, and went to Nuremberg, where he established an academy of painting. Here he published his “Academia artis pictoria?,” 1683, fol. being an abridgment of Vasari and Ridolfi for what concerns the Italian painters, and of Charles Van Manderfor the Flemings, of the seventeenth century. He died at Nuremberg, in 16S8. His work above mentioned, which some have called superficial, is but a part of a larger work, which he published before under the title of “Academia Todesca della architettura, scultura, e pittura, oderTeutsche academic der edlen banbild-rnahleren-kunste,” Nuremberg, 1675 79, 2 vols. fol. He published also, “Iconologia Deorum, qui ab antiquis colebantur (Germanice), ibid. 1680, fol.” Admiranda Sculptures veteris, sive delineatio vera perfectissrma statuarum,“ibid. 1680, fol.” Koiiiaj antiquse et novae theatrum,“1684, fol. ”Rotna-norum Fontinalia," ibid. 1685, fol. A German edition of all his works was published by Volkmann, at Nuremberg, in 1669 75, 8 vols. fol.

, a very eminent English prelate, the third son of William Sandys, esq. and Margaret his wife, descended from the ancient barons of Kendal, was born near Hawkshead, in Furness Fells, Lancashire, in 1519. The same neighbourhood, and almost the same year, gave birth to two other luminaries of the reformation, Edmund Grindal and Bernard Gilpin. Mr. Sandys’s late biographer conjectures, that he was educated at the school of Furness Abbey, whence he was removed to St. John’s-college, Cambridge, in 1532 or 1533, where he had for his contemporaries Redmayn and Lever, both great lights of the reformation, beside others of inferior name, who continued in the hour of trial so true to their principles, that, according to Mr. Baker, the learned historian of that house, “probably more fellows were, in queen Mary’s reign, ejected from St. John’s than from any other society in either university.” Several years now elapsed of Sandys’s life, during which in matters of religion men knew not how to act or what to believe; but, though the nation was at this time under severe restraints with respect to external conduct, inquiry was still at work jin secret: the corruptions of the old religion became better understood, the Scriptures were universally studied, and every impediment being removed with the capricious tyranny of Henry VIII., protestantism, with little variation from its present establishment in England, became the religion of the state.

During this interval Sandys, who, from the independence of his fortune, or some other cause, had never been scholar or fellow of his college, though he had served the office of proctor for the university, was in 1547 elected master of Catherine-hall. He was probably at this time vicar of Haversham, in Bucks> his first considerable preferment, to which, in 1548, was added a prebend of Peterborough, and in 1552, the second stall at Carlisle. Without the last of these preferments he was enabled to marry, and chose a lady of his own name, the daughter of a branch unnoticed by the genealogists, a beautiful and pious wo^ man. The next year, which was that of his vice-chancellorship, rendered him unhappily conspicuous by his yielding to the command or request of Dudley, duke of Northumberland, and preaching a sermon in support of lady Jane Gray’s pretensions to the crown, after the death of Edward VI. The designs of Dudley’s party having been almost immediately defeated, Sandys was marked out for vengeance; and the popish party in the university, as the first step towards regaining an ascendant, resolved to depose the vice-chancellor, which was performed in a manner very characteristic of the tumultuous spirit of the times. From this time, in July 1553, he ceased to reside in college, or to take any part in the administration of its concerns.

He then left the university, amidst the insults of his enemies, and the tears of his friends, who reasonably anticipated a worse fate than that which befel him. On his arrival in London, he was ordered to be confined in the Tower, where the yeomen of the guard took from him every thing which he had been permitted to bring from Cambridge; but his faithful servant, Quintin Swainton, brought after him a Bible, some shirts and other necessaries. The Bible being no prize for plunderers, was sent in, but every thing else was stolen by the warders. Here, after remaining three weeks, solitary and ill accommodated in a vile lodging, he was removed to a better apartment, called the Nun’s Bower (a name now forgotten in that gloomy mansion), where he had the comfort of Mr. John Bradford’s company. In this apartment they remained twenty-nine weeks, during which time the mildness yet earnestness of their persuasions wrought on their keeper, a bigoted catholic, till he became a sincere protestant, "a son begotten in bonds/' so that when mass was celebrated in the chapel of the Tower, instead of compelling his prisoners to attend, the converted gaoler frequently brought up a service-book of Edward VI. with bread and wine, and Sandys administered the sacrament in both kinds to himself and the other two.

Here they continued until their apartments being wanted for the persons concerned in Wyat’s conspiracy, they were removed to the Marshalsea. On their way there they found the people’s minds greatly changed. Popery, unmasked and triumphant, had already shewn its nature again, and general disgust had followed the short burst of joy which had attended the queen’s accession. Sandys walked along the streets attended by his keeper: and as he was generally known, the people prayed that God would comfort him, and strengthen him in the truth. Struck with these appearances of popularity, the keeper of the Marshalsea said, “These vain people would set you forward to the fire: but you are as vain as they, if you, being a young man, will prefer your own conceit before the judgment of so many worthy prelates, and so many grave and learned men as are in this realm. If you persist, you shall find me as strict a keeper, as one that utterly misliketh your religion.” Dr. Sandys nobly replied, “My years, indeed, are few, and my learning is small but it is enough to know Christ crucified and who seeth not the blasphemies of popery hath learned nothing. T have read in Scripture of godly and courteous keepers, God make you like one of them; if not, I trust he will give me strength and patience to bear your hard dealing with* me.” The keeper then asked, “Are you resolved to stand to your religion” “Yes,” said Dr. Sandys, “by God’s grace.” “1 love you the better, therefore,” said the keeper, " I did but tempt you: every favour which I can show, you shall be sure of: nay, if you die at a stake, I shall be happy to die with you.' 7 And from that day such was the confidence which this good man reposed in Sandys, that many times he permitted him to walk alone in the fields; nor would he ever suffer him to be fettered, like the other prisoners. He lodged him also in the best chamber of the house, and often permitted his wife to visit him. Great resort was here made to Dr. Sandys for his edifying discourses, and much money was offered him, but he would accept of none. Here too the communion was celebrated three or four times by himself and his companions, of whom Saunders, afterwards the martyr, was one, to many communicants.

After nine weeks confinement in the Marshalsea, he was set at liberty, by the intercession of sir Thomas Holcroft, knight-marshal. This, however, was not accomplished without much difficulty, and so intent was Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, on bringing Sandys to the stake, that it required some management on the part of sir Thomas before he could succeed; and no sooner was Sandys liberated than Gardiner, being told that he had set at liberty one of the greatest heretics in the kingdom, procured orders to be issued to all the constables of London to search for, and apprehend him. In Sandys* s final escape, as related by his late biographer, the hand of Providence was strikingly visible. While he was in the Tower, wanting a pair of new hose, a tailor was sent for, who, not being permitted to measure him, had made them too long, and While he was now concealed at the house of one Hurleston, a skinner in Cornhill, he sent them, as Hurleston’s own, to a tailor to be shortened. This happened to be honest Benjamin the maker, a good protestant, who immediately recognized his own handy work, and required to be shown, to the house where Dr. Sandys was, that he might speak with him for his good. At midnight he was admitted, and informed Dr. Sandys, that all the constables of the city, of whom he himself was one, were employed to apprehend him, thai it was well known that his servant had provided two geldings, and that he meant to ride out at Aldgate tomorrow. “But,” said he, “follow my advice, and, by God’s grace, you shall escape. Let your man walk all the day to-morrow in the street where your horses are stabled, booted and prepared for a journey. The servant of the man of the house shall take the horses to Bethnalgreen. The man himself shall follow, and be booted as if he meant to ride. About eight in the morning I will be with you, and here we will break our fast. It is both term and parliament time, and the street by that hour will be full of people; we will then go forth look wildly, and, if you meet your own brother in the street, do not shun, but outface him, and assure him that you know him not.” Dr. Sand3's accordingly complied, and came out at the appointed hour, clothed in all respects as a layman and a gentleman. Benjamin carried him through bye-lanes to Moorgate, where the horses were ready, and Hurleston as his man. That night he rode to his father-in-law’s house, but had not been there two hours, when intelligence was brought, that two of, the guard had been dispatched to apprehend him, and would be there that night. He was then immediately conducted to the house of a farmer near the sea-side, where he remained two days and two nights in a solitary chamber. Afterwards he removed to the house of one James Mower, a ship-master, near Milton-shore, where was a fleet of merchant-men awaiting a wind for Flanders. While he was there, Mower gathered a congregation of forty or fifty seamen, to whom he gave an exhortation, with which they were so much delighted, that they promised to defend him at the expence of their lives. On Sunday May 6, he embarked in the. same vessel with Dr. Coxe, afterwards bishop of Ely, and the ship was yet in sight, when two of the guard arrived on the shore to apprehend Dr. Sandys.

His danger was not even yet entirely over, for on hi arrival at Antwerp, he received intelligence that king Philip of Spain had sent to apprehend him, on which he escaped to the territory of Cleve, from thence to Augsburgh, where he remained fourteen days, and then removed to Strasburgh. Here he took up his abode for the present, and here unquestionably spent the most gloomy portion of his life. His own health was at this time deeply, injured; he fell sick of a flux (the usual concomitant of hardships and afflictions), which continued without abatement for nine months; his only child died of the plague; and his beloved wife, who had found means to follow him about a year after his flight from England, expired of a consumption, in his arms. In addition to his sorrows, the disputes concerning church discipline broke out among the English exiles, on which several of his friends left the place. After his wife’s death, he went to Zurich, where he was entertained by Peter Martyr, but, his biographer thinks, the time did not permit him to receive any deep tincture either as to doctrine or discipline from Geneva or its neighbours. Within rive weeks the news of queen Mary’s death arrived; and after being joyfully feasted by Bullinger, and the other ministers of the Swiss churches, he returned to Strasburgh, where he preached; after which Grindal and he set out for their native country together, and arrived in London on the day of queen Elizabeth’s coronation.

At Worcester began the inquietudes and vexations which pursued bishop Sandys through his latter days. The papists in his diocese hated him, and he was at no pains to conciliate them. At Hartlebury, in particular, it was his misfortune to have for his neighbour sir John Browne, a bigoted papist, who took every opportunity to insult the bishop, and to deride his wife (for he had by this time married Cecily, sister of sir Thomas Wilford), by calling her " My Lady‘,’ 7 a style which in the novelty of their situation, some of the bishop’s wives really pretended to; so that in conclusion a great affray took place between the bishop’s servants and those of the knight, in which several were wounded on both sides. At Worcester Dr. Sandys remained till 1570, when on the translation of his friend Grindal to York, he succeeded him in the see of London, a station for which he was eminently qualified by his talents as a preacher, and as a governor. During this period, he had interest to procure for his kinsman Gilpin, a nomination to the bishopric of Carlisle, but Gilpin refused it. At London, Dr. Sandys sat six years, when he was translated to York, on the removal of Grindal to Canterbury.

Years were now coming upon him, and a numerous family demanded a provision; but as it was a new and unpopular thing to see the prelates of the church abandoning their cathedrals and palaces, and retiring to obscure manor-houses on their estates, in order to accumulate fortunes for their children, an abundant portion of obloquy fell upon Sandys, who seldom lived at York, and not very magnificently at Southwell. Yet he visited his diocese regularly, and preached occasionally in his cathedral with great energy and effect. In 1577, during a metropolitical visitation, he came in his progress to Durham, the bishopric of which was then vacant, but was refused admittance by Whittingham, the puritan dean. The archbishop, however, with his wonted firmness proceeded to excommunication. The issue of this contest will come to be noticed in our account of Whittingham. In the month of May 1582, being once more in a progress through his dipcese, a diar bolical attempt was made to blast his character. He happened to lie at an inn in Doncaster; whertf, through the contrivance of sir Robert Stapleton, and other enemies, the inn-keeper’s wife was put to bed to him at midnight when he was asleep. On this, according to agreement, the inn-keeper rushed into the room, waked the archbishop with his noise, and offered a drawn dagger to his breast, pretending to avenge the injury. Immediately sir Robert Stapleton came in, as if called from his chamber by the inn-keeper; and putting on the appearance of a friend, as indeed he had formerly been, and as the archbishop then thought him, advised his grace to make the matter up, laying before him many perils and dangers to his name and the credit of religion that might ensue, if, being one against so many, he should offer to stir in such a cause; and persuading him, that, notwithstanding his innocency, which the archbishop earnestly protested, and Stapleton then acknowledged, it were better to stop the mouths of needy persons than to bring his name into doubtful question. With this advice, Sandys unwarily complied; but, afterwards discovering sir Robert’s malice and treacherous dissimulation, he ventured, in confidence of his own innocency, to be the means himself of bringing the whole cause to examination before the council in the star-chamber. The result of this was, that he was declared entirely innocent of the wicked slanders and imputations raised against him; and that sir Robert Stapleton and his accomplices were first imprisoned, and then fined in a most severe manner. This affair is related at large by sir John Harrington, a contemporary writer; and by Le Neve, who gives a fuller account of it, from an exemplification of the decree, made in the star-chamber, 8 May, 25 Eliz. preserved in the Harieian library.

The last act of the archbishop’s life seems to have been the resistance he made against the earl of Leicester, who wanted to wrest from the see a valuable estate. It is to be regretted that after having made this noble stand, our prelate should have granted a long lease of the manor of Scroby to his own family.

Of the decline of archbishop Sandys’ s age, and of the particular disorder which brought him to his grave, no circumstances are recorded. He died at Southwell, July 10, 1588, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the collegiate church of that place. He was the first English bishop who, by his prudence or parsimony, laid the foundation of a fortune in his family, which has justified their subsequent advancement to a peerage. With his father’s savings, the manor of Ombersley, in Worcestershire, was purchased by sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son, whose descendants, since ennobled by the family name, still remain in possession of that fair and ample domain. There also the archbishop’s portrait, together with that of Cicely his second wife, is still preserved. She survived to 1610, and has a monument at Woodham Ferrers, in Essex, where she died.

Dr. Whitaker, whose late life of archbishop Sandys we have irs general followed, as the result of much research and reflection, observes that after all the deductions which truth and impartiality require, it will still remain incontestable, that Sandys was a man of a clear and vigorous understanding, of a taste, in comparison, above that of the former age or the next, and, what is more, of his own: that he was a sincere Christian, a patient sufferer, an indefatigable preacher, an intrepid and active ecclesiastical magistrate. W r hat was his deportment in private life, we are no where told. On the other hand, it cannot be denied, that the man who after his advancement to the episcopal order, in three successive stations, either, kindled the flames of discord, or never extinguished them, who quarrelled alike with protestants and papists, with his successor in one see (Aylmer) and with his dean in another, who in his first two dioceses treated the clergy with a harshness which called for the interposition of the metropolitan, and who drew upon himself from two gentlemen of the country, the extremity of violence and outrage, must have been lamentably defective in Christian meekness and forbearance *. In every instance, indeed, he had met with great provocation, and in the last the treatment he received was atrocious; but such wounds are never gratuitously in-, flicted, and rarely till after a series of irritations on both sides. In doctrinal points his biographer attempts, by various extracts from his sermons, to prove archbishop Sandys less inclined to Calvinism than some of his contem­* We know not if Mr. Lodge has be. easy elegance of a courtier trith as

In May 1602, he resigned his prebend, and in May 1603, received the honour of knighthood from James I.; who afterwards employed him in several affairs of great trust and importance. Fuller tells us, that he was dextrous in the management of such things, constant in par^ liament as the speaker himself, and esteemed by all as an. excellent patriot, “faithful to his country,” says Wood, 66 without any falseness to his prince.“It appears, -however, that for some opposition to the court in the parliament of 1621, he was committed with Selden to the custody of the sheriff of London in June that year, and detained above a month which was highly resented by the House of Commons, as a breach of their privileges but, sir George Calvert, secretary of state, declaring, that neither Sandys nor Selden had been imprisoned for any parliamentary matter, a stop was put to the dispute. Sir Edwin was treasurer to the undertakers of the western plantations. He died in October 1629, and was interred at Northborne in Kent; where be had a seat and estate, granted him by James I. for some services done at that king’s accession to the throne. A monument, now in a mutilated state, was jerected to his memory, but without any inscription. He bequeathed 1500l. to the university of Oxford, for the endowment of a metaphysical lecture. He left five sons, all of whom, except one, adhered to the parliament during the civil wars. Henry, the eldest, died without issue. Edwin, the second, was the well known parliamentary colonel, of whose outrages much may be read in the publications of the times, and who, receiving a mortal wound at the battle of Worcester, in 1642, retired to Northborne to die, leaving the estate to his son sir Richard, who was killed by the accidental explosion of his fowling-piece in 1663. His son, sir Richard, was created a baronet in 1684, and dying in 1726, without male issue, was the last of the family who lived at Northborne, where the mansion remained many years deserted, and at length was pulled down. There was one sir Edwin Sandys, who published, as Wood informs us,” Sacred Hymns, consisting of fifty select Psalms of David," set to be sung in five parts by Rot bert Taylor, and printed at London, 1615, in 4to; but whether this version was done By our author, or by another, of botii his names, of Ladmers in Buckinghamshire, is uncertain.

Sandys distinguished himself also as a poet; and his productions in that way were greatly admired in the times they were written. In 1632 he published “Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished, mythologized, and represented in figures,” Oxford, in folio. Francis Cleyn was the inventor of the figures, and Solomon Savary the engraver. He had before published part of this translation; and, in the preface to this second edition, he tells us, that he has attempted to collect out of sundry authors the philosophical sense of the fables of Ovid. To this work, which is dedicated to Charles I. is subjoined “An Essay to the translation of the jEneis.” It was reprinted in 1640. In 1636, he published, in 8vo, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms of David, and upon the Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testament,” 1636, 8vo, reprinted in 1638, folio; with a title somewhat varied, This was a book which, Wood tells us, Charles I. delighted to read, when a prisoner in Carisbrooke castle. There was an edition of J 640, with the Psalms set to music, by Lawes. In this last year he published, in 12rno, a sacred drama, written originally by Grotius, under the title of “Christus Patiens,” and which Mr. Sandys, in his translation, has called “Christ’s Passion,” on which, and “Adamus Exul,” and Masenius, is founded Lauder’s impudent charge of plagiarism against Milton. This translation was reprinted, with cuts, in 1688, $vo. The subject of it was treated before in Greek by Apollinarius bishop of Hierapolis, and after him by Gregory Nazianzen; but, according to Sandys, Grotius excelled all others. Langbaine tells us, with regard to Sandys’ translation, that “he will be allowed an excellent artist in it by learned judges; and he has followed Horace’s advice of avoiding a servile translation, * nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres’ so he comes so near the sense of his author, that nothing is lost; no spirits evaporate in the decanting of it into English; and, if there be any sediment, it is left behind.” He published also a metrical paraphrase of “The Song of Solomon,” London, 1641, 4to, dedicated to the King, and reprinted in 1648 with his “Psalms.” There are but few incidents known concerning our author. All who mention him agree in bestowing on him the character, not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety. For the most part of his latter days he lived with sir Francis Wenman, of Caswell, near Witney in Oxfordshire, to whom his sister was married; probably chusing that situation in some measure on account of its proximity to Burford, the retirement of his intimate acquaintance and valuable friend Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who addressed some elegant poems to him, preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” with several by Mr. Sandys, who diejl at the house of his nephew, sir Francis Wyat, at Boxley in Kent, in 1643; and was interred in the* chancel of that parish-church, without any inscription but in the parish register is this entry “Georgius Sandys poetarum Anglorum sui sseculi facile princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7, Stilo Angliae, ann. Dom. 164$.” His memory has also been handed down by various writers, with the respect thought due to his great worth and abilities. Mr. Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age, but objects to his “Ovid,” as too close and literal; and Mr. Pope declared, in his notes to the Iliad, that English poetry owed much of its present beauty to his translations. Dr. Warton thinks that Sandys did more to polish and tune the English versification than Den ham or Waller, who are usually applauded on this subject; yet his poems are not now much read. The late biographer of his father observes, that “the expressive energy of his prose will entitle him to a place among English classics, when his verses, some of which arebeautiful, shall be forgotten. Of the excellence of his style, the dedication of his travels to prince Henry, will afford a short and very conspicuous example.”

, vernacularly Giacomo Sannazaro, a celebrated Italian and Latin poet, was born at Naples, July 28, 1458. His family is said to have been originally of Spanish extraction, but settled at an Dearly period at Santo Nazaro, a flourishing town situated between' the Tessino and the Poj where it was long conspicuous for nobility and opulence. Reduced at length by the calamities of war, the more immediate progenitors of our poet removed to Naples. His father dying while this son was very young, his mother, unable from her poverty, to keep up her former rank, retired with her family to Nocera di Pagani, in Umbria, where Sannazarius passed a considerable portion of his youth. He had previously to his removal from Naples acquired the elements of the Greek and Latin languages, under the tuition of Junianus Maius, who conceiving a high opinion of his talents, prevailed on his mother to return again to Naples, where he might continue his education. Here he was admitted a member of the Academia Pontana, and took the name of Actius Sync-ems. He had formed an early attachment of the most tender kind to Carmosina Bonifacia, a young Neapolitan lady, but not being a favoured lover, uttered his disappointment in many of those querulous sonnets and canzoni which are still extant. In compositions of this kind Sannazarius is considered as having surpassed every other poet from the days of Petrarch. To dissipate his uneasiness, he tried the effect of travelling; but on his return, his grief was heightened by the report of the death of his mistress. She is understood to be the lamented Phyllis of his Italian and Latin poems.

The increasing celebrity of Sannazarius, as a scholar and poet, having attracted the notice of Ferdinand king of Naples, that monarch’s younger son, Frederick, who was greatly attached to poetry, invited him to court, and became his patron; he also grew into favour with Alphonsus, duke of Calabria, the next heir to the crown, and under him embraced a military life, and served in the Etruscan war. During his campaigns, Sannazarius continued to cultivate his poetical talent, and when in consequence of the series of misfortunes and deaths in the royal family, his patron Frederick came to the crown, he conceived the hope of very high honours, but obtained only a moderate annual pension, and a suburban villa, called Mergillina, to which, although at first he was chagrined, he became reconciled, and this villa' was afterwards the delight of his muse. In about four years, Frederick was dethroned by the combined powers of France and Spain, and now experienced the disinterested fidelity of our poet, who sold his possessions to assist the fallen monarch, attended him to France, and continued firmly attached to him as long as he lived.

In 1503, he again returned to Naples, was replaced in his favourite villa, once more frequented the court, and obtained the favour of the reigning queen. Here he found another mistress in Cassandra Marchesia, one of the ladies of honour, whom he describes as very beautiful and very learned, but as he was now too far advanced in years for a passion such as he formerly felt, Cassandra is to be considered merely as his poetical mistress, and the chaste object of his Platonic attachment. The attachment, it is said, was mutual, and a confidential intercourse continued to subsist between them till the poet’s decease, nor does it appear that Cassandra ever formed any matrimonial connection. Sannazarius, however, has been numbered by some among the votaries of pleasure, and they tell us he affected the levity and gallantry of youth when in his old age. In his friendships he is said to have been uniformly ardent and sincere. In gratitude to the memory of Pontanus, who had given a powerful impulse to his youthful studies, he became the editor of his works. He is also commended for his probity, his love of justice, and abhorrence of litigation.

, a celebrated French geographer, was born at Abbeville in Picardy, Dec. 20, 1600, Afte* he had finished his juvenile studies at the Jesuits’ college of Amiens, he betook himself to merchandise; but, sustaining considerable losses, quitted that calling, and applied himself to geography, a turn for which he had acquired under his father, who had published several maps. When only eighteen or nineteen, he drew a map of Ancient Gaul on four sheets, but did not publish it till 1627, lest, as we are told, it should, on account of his youth, be thought his father’s; or, which is rather more probable, lest it should not be sufficiently correct for publication. This, however, was so favourably received, as to encourage him to proceed with confidence and vigour, and in the course of his life he executed nearly three hundred large maps, ancient and modern, and caused an hundred methodical tables to be engraven concerning the divisions of the dominions of Christian princes. He also wrote several works to explain and illustrate his maps as> “Remarks upon the Ancient Gauls;” “Treatises of the four parts of the World;” “Two Tables of the Cities and Places, which occur in the maps of the Rhine and Italy;” “A Description of the Roman Empire, of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the British Isles, together with the ancient Itineraries:” all which are very necessary illustrations of the maps, which they are intended to accompany. He wrote also an account of the “Antiquities of Abbeville,” which engaged him in a contest with several learned men; with father Labbe, the Jesuit, in particular. He made also a “Sacred Geography,” divided into two tables; and a “Geographical Index of the Holy Land.” He was preparing other works, and had collected materials for an atlas of his own maps; but his incessant labours brought on an illness, of which, after languishing for near two years, he died at Paris, July 7, 1667, in the sixty-eighth year of his life, leaving two sons, William and Adrian, who were likewise geographers of considerable merit. Their father had received particular marks of esteem and kindness from the cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin; and was geographer and engineer to the king. His atlas was at last published at Paris, in 1693, 2 vols. folio.

, in Latin Santolius, a celebrated modern Latin poet, was born at Paris May 12, 1630, of a good family. He studied the belles lettres at the college of St. Barbe, and in that of Louis le Grand, under the learned Pere Cossart, and entering soon after among the regular canons of St. Victor, devoted himself wholly to poetry, commencing his caree/ by celebrating some great men of that time. He also was employed to write many of those inscriptions which may be seen on the public fountains and monuments of Paris, and this he did in a style at once clear, easy, and dignified. When some new hymns were wanted for the Paris breviary, he was requested by his brother Claude, Pelisson, and Bossuet, to compose them, which he accomplished with the greatest success and applause, in an elevated, perspicuous, and majestic style, suited to the dignity of the subject. The reputation which he gained by these'induced the order of Clugny to request some for their breviary. With this he complied, and in return they granted him letters of filiation, and a pension. Santeul was much esteemed by the literati of his time, and by many persons of rank, among whom were the two princes of Coiide 1 father and son, whose bounty he frequently experienced 44ud Louis XIV. who settled a pension upon him. He greatly offended the Jesuits, however, by his epitaph in praise of their enemy Arnauld. While SanteuPs Latin poems were always much admired by his countrymen, he seems to have enjoyed fully as much reputation, during his life-time, for his wit, and odditjes of character. La Bruyere, under the name of T/ieodes, has described him as, in one moment, good-humoured, tractable, easy, and complaisant, in another, harsh, violent, choleric, and capricious; as at once simple, ingenuous, credulous, sportive, and volatile; in short, a child with grey hairs, and as speaking like a fool, and thinking like a sage. He utters, adds La Bruyere, truths in a ridiculous manner, and sensible things in a siliy way; and we are surprised to find so much intellect shining through the clouds of buffoonery, contortions, and grimaces. He had great credit for his witticisms, many of which may be seen in the “Santoliana.” When the duke of Bourbon went to hold the states of Burgundy at Dijon, Santeul attended him, and died there, August 5, 1697, aged sixty-seven, as he was on the point of returning to Pans. His death was attributed to an inconsiderate trick played upon him by some one whom his oddity of character had encouraged to take liberties, and who put some Spanish snuff into his wine-glass, which brought on a complaint of the bowels that proved fatal in fourteen hours. Besides his Latin hymns, 12mo, he left a considerable number of Latin “Poems,” 1739, 3 vols. 12 mo.

, brother of the preceding, born Feb. 3, 1628, also wrote some beautiful hymns in the Paris breviary, under the name of “Santolius Maglorianus,” a name given on account of his having resided a long time in the seminary of St. Magloire at Paris, as a secular ecclesiastic. Though the brother of Santeul, and a poet like him, he was of a totally different temper and disposition; mild, calm, and moderate, he had none of that heat and impetuosity, by which his brother was incessantly agitated. 'He was esteemed not only for his poetical talents, but his deep learning and exemplary piety. He died September 29, 1684, at Paris, aged fifty-seven. Besides his hymns on the particular festivals, which are very numerous and preserved by the family in ms. 2 vols. 4to; some of his poetry has been printed with his brother’s works. There was another Claude Santeul, related to the preceding, a merchant and sheriff of Paris, who died about 1729, leaving some “Hymns,” printed at Paris in 1723, 8vo.

, an eminent Greek poetess, was a native of Mitylene in the island of Lesbos. Who was her father is uncertain, there being no less than eight persons who have contended for that honour; but it is universally acknowledged that Cleis was her mother. She flourished, according to Suidas, in the 42d olympiad according to Eusebius, in the 44th olympiad, about 600 years B. C. Her love-affairs form the chief materials of her biography. Barnes has endeavoured to prove, from the testimonies of Chameleon and Hermesianax, that Anacreon was one of her lovers; but from the chronology of both, this has been generally considered as a poetical fiction. She married one Cercolas, a man of great wealth and power in the island of Andros, by whom she had a daughter named Cleis. He leaving her a widow very young, she renounced all thoughts of marriage, but not of love*; nor was she very scrupulous in her intrigues. Her chief favourite appears to have been the accomplished Phaon, a young man of Lesbos; who is said to have been a kind of ferry-man, and thence fabled to have carried Venus over the stream in his boat, and to have received from her, as a reward, the favour of becoming the most beautiful man in the world. Sappho fell desperately in love with him, and went into Sicily in pursuit of him, he having withdrawn himself thither on purpose to avoid her. It was in that island, and on this occasion, that she composed her hymn to Venus. This, however, was ineffectual. Phaon was still obdurate, and Sappho was so transported with the violence of her passion, that she had recourse to a promontory in Acarnania called Leucate, on the top of which was a temple dedicated to Apollo. In this temple it was usual for de­* “Sappho formed an academy of culpate her And might she not have females who excelled*!!) music; and it written the celebrated verses” Blest was doubtless this academy which drew as the immortal gods is he,“&c. for on her the hatred of the women of Mi- another Many of our poetical ladies tylene, who accused her of being too whom we could name, have written fond of her own sex; but will not her excellent impassioned songs of cornlove for Phaon, and the fatal termioa- plaint in a male character.” Dr. Bur* tioa of her existence, sufficiently ex- ney in Hist, of Music. spairing lovers to make their vows in secret, and afterwards to fling themselves from the top of the precipice into the sea, it being an established opinion, that all those who were taken up alive, would immediately be cured of their former passion. Sappho perished in the experiment. The original of this unaccountable humour is not known. Her genius, however, made her be lamented. The Romans erected a noble statue of porphyry to her memory; and the Mitylenians, to express their sense of her worth, paid her sovereign honours after her death, and coined money with her head for the impress. She was likewise honoured with the title of the tenth Muse.

, a French miscellaneous author, was born at Hermanville, in the neighbourhood of Caen, about 1604. It is said, in the “Segraisiana,” but we know not on what foundation, that he was the natural son of Mr. Fauconnier of Caen, a treasurer of France, by a woman of low rank, whom he afterwards married. Sarasin began his studies at Caen, and afterwards went to Paris, where he became eminent for wit and polite literature, though he was very defective in every thing that could be called learning. He then made the tour of Germany; and, upon his return to France, was appointed a kind of secretary to the prince of Conti. He was a man of a lively imagination and ready wit; and much caressed by those who thought themselves judges of that article. He was, however, so frequently invited on this account that he began to envy matter-of-fact men, from whom nothing of the kind is expected. He was also unfortunate in his marriage, his wife being a woman of a violent ungovernable temper. It is said that he persuaded the prince of Conti to marry the niece of cardinal Mazarin, and for this good office received a great sum; but this being discovered, the prince dismissed him from his service, with every mark of ignominy, as one who had sold himself to the cardinal. This treatment is supposed to have occasioned his death, which happened in 1654. Pelisson, passing through the town where Sarasin died, went to the grave of his old acquaintance, shed some tears, had a mass said over him, and founded an anniversary, though he himself was at that time a protestant.

, of Spanish extraction, but to be classed among English divines, was a native of Artois, where he was born in 1531. Of his early years we have no account. In 1582 he was invited to Leyden to be professor of divinity, and was preacher in the French church there. Having studied the controversy respecting church government, he inclined to that of episcopacy, and in 1587 came to England where he was well received hy some of thie prelates and divines of that day, particularly Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. He first settled at Jersey, where he taught a school, and preached to his countrymen, who were exiles there. He was appointed master of the tree grammar-school at Southampton, where Nicholas Fuller, the most renowned critic of his age, received his education principally under him, and he also educated sir Thomas Lake, secretary of state to James I. He was successively promoted to a prebend in the churches of Gloucester, Canterbury, and Westminster. He displayed great learning in defence of episcopacy against Beza, when that divine recommended the abolition of it in Scotland. He died in 1613, at the age of eighty-two, and was interred in Canterbury cathedral, where there is a monument to his memory. All his works were published in 1611, one v.oL folio. He must have acquired a very considerable knowledge of the English language, as we find his name in the first class of those whom king James I. employed in the new translation of the Bible. He lived in great intimacy with his fellow labourer in the cause of episcopacy, the celebrated Hooker. “These two persons,” says Walton, “began a holy friendship, increasing daily to so high and mutual affections, that their two wills seemed to be but one and the same.”