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

, a modern Latin poet, was born of illustrious parents, in 1595, in the duchy of Masovia, in Poland. He entered among the Jesuits in 1612, and was sent to continue his theological studies at Rome, where he devoted himself to the pursuit of antiquities, and indulged his taste for poetry. Some Latin “Odes,” which he presented to Urban Vijl gained him that pontiff’s esteem, and the honour of being chosen to correct the bymns, intended for a new breviary, then composing by Urban‘ s orders. When Sarbiewski returned to Poland, he taught etb’ics, philosophy, and divinity, successively at Wilna. Such was the esteem in which he was held, that when admitted to a doctor’s degree there, Ladislaus V. king of Poland, who was present, drew the ring from his finger, and put it on that of Sarbiewski; and this ring is still preserved in the university at Wilna, and made use of in the inauguration of doctors. Ladislaus also chose him for his preacher, an office in which he gained great applause; and he was frequently his majesty’s companion in his journeys, especially when he went to the baths of Baden. Sarbiewski was so enthusiastic in his admiration of the Latin poets, that he is said to have read Virgil over sixty times, and other poetical classics more than thirty times. He died April 2, 1640, aged forty-five. His Latin poems contain great beauties, mingled with some defects. An enlarged and very elegant edition of them was published at Paris, by Barbou, 1759, 12 mo. They consist of Latin odes, in four books a book of epodes one of dithyrambic verses another of miscellaneous poems and a fourth of epigrams. His lyric verses are the most admired their style is elevated, but they are sometimes deficient in elegance and perspicuity.

, a secular priest, who was sometimes called Smith, and sometimes Holland, was born at Barrow in Lincolnshire, about 1621, and admitted of St. John’s college in Cambridge April 12, 1639, by the masters and seniors of which he was recommended to be secretary to Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of Durham. While in this employment he entered on a course of reading, which ended in his embracing the popish religion. He then went over to the English college of secular priests at Lisbon in 1642; and, after studying there some time, he returned to England in 1652, and was elected secretary of the secular clergy, and employed in propagating his religion, and writing books in defence of it, particularly against Dr. Hammond, Dr. Bramhall, Dr. Thomas Pierce, Dr. Tillotson, Casaubon, Taylor, Tenison, Stillingfleet, Whitby, &c. In the course of his controversies he wrote about forty volumes or pamphlets, the titles of which may be seen in Dodd. He had also a controversy with the superiors of his own communion, of which Dodd gives a long, but now very uninteresting account. He died, as his biographer says, with the pen in his hand, in 1707, in the eighty-sixth year of his age.

, usually called in England, Father Paul, in Italian, Fra Paolo, a very illustrious writer, was born at Venice Aug. 14, 1552, and was the son of Francis Sarpi, a merchant, whose ancestors came from Friuli, and of Isabella Morelli, a native of Venice. He was baptized by the name of Peter, which he afterwards, upon entering into his order, changed for Paul. His father followed merchandize, but with so little success, that at his death, he left his family very ill provided for, but under the care of a mother whose wise conduct supplied the want of fortune by advantages of greater value. Happily for young Sarpi, she had a brother, Ambrosio Morelli, priest of the collegiate church of St. Hermagoras, who took him under his care. Ambrosio was well skilled in polite literature, which he taught to several children of the noble Venetians: and he took particular care of the education of his nephew, whose abilities were extraordinary, though his constitution was very delicate. Paul had a great memory, and much strength of judgment; so that he made uncommon advance* in every branch of education. He studied philosophy and divinity under Capella, a father belonging to the monastery of the Servites in Venice; and when only in his tender years, made great progress in the mathematics, and the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Capelia, though a celebrated master, confessed in a little time that he could give his pupil no farther instructions, and with this opinion of his talents, prevailed with him to assume the religious habit of the Servites, notwithstanding his mother and uncle represented to him the hardships and austerities of that kind of life, and advised him with great zeal against it. But he was steady in his resolutions, and on Nov. 24, 1566, took the habit, and two years after made his tacit profession, which he solemnly renewed May 10, 1572.

At this time he was in his twentieth year, and defended in a public assembly at Mantua, several difficult propositions in natural philosophy and divinity, with such uncommon genius and learning, that the duke of Mantua, a great patron of letters, appointed him his chaplain, at the same time that the bishop of that city made him reader of canon law and divinity in his cathedral. These employments animated him to improve himself in Hebrew; and he applied also with much vigour to the study of history, in which he was afterwards to shine. During his stay at Mantua he became acquainted with many eminent persons; and his patron, the duke, obliged him to dispute with persons of all professions, and on all subjects. Paul had a profound knowledge in the mathematics, but the utmost contempt for judicial astrology: “We cannot, 17 he used to say,” either find out, or we cannot avoid, what will happen hereafter." Fulgentio, his biographer, relates a ludicrous story, in which his patron appears to have been a chief actor. The duke, who loved to soften the cares of government with sallies of humour, having a mare ready to foal a mule, engaged Paul to take the horoscope of the animal’s nativity. This being done, and the scheme settled, the duke sent it to all the famous astrologers in Europe, informing them, that under such an aspect a bastard was born in the duke’s palace. The astrologers returned very different judgments; some asserting that this bastard would be a cardinal, others a great warrior, others a bishop, and others a pope, and these wise conjectures tended not a little to abate the credulity of the times.

Sarpi, however, finding a court life unsuitable to his inclination, left Mantua in about two years* and returned to his convent at Venice. By this time he had made a surprising progress in the canon and civil law, in all parts of physic, and in the Chaldee language; and, as usually happens, his great reputation had exposed him to much envy. For, before he left Mantua, one Claudio, who was jealous of his superior talents, accused him to the inquisition of heresy, for having denied that the doctrine of the Trinity conld be proved from, the first chapter of Genesis: but Paul, appealing to Rome, was honourably acquitted, and the inquisitor reprimanded for presuming to determine upon things written in a language he did not understand. At twenty-two he was ordained priest; and afterwards, when he bad taken the degree of doctor in divinity, and was admitted a member of the college of Padua, was chosen provincial of his order for the province of Venice, though he was then but twenty- six an instance which had never happened before among the Servites. He acquitted himself in this post, as he did in every other, with the strictest integrity, honour, and piety; insomuch that, in 1579, in a general chapter held at Parma, he was appointed, with two others, much his seniors, to draw up new regulations and statutes for his order. This employment made it necessary for him to reside at Rome, where his exalted talents recommended him to the notice of cardinal Alexander Farnese, and other great personages.

His tranquillity was now interrupted by other causes. Upon leaving Venice to go to Rome, he had left his friends under the direction of Gabriel Collissoni, with whom he had formerly joined in redressing certain grievances. But this man did not answer Paul’s expectation, being guilty of great exactions: and, when Paul intended to return to Venice, dissuaded him from it, well knowing that his return would put an end to his impositions. He therefore artfully represented, that, by staying at Rome, he would be sure to make his fortune: to which Paul, with more honesty than policy, returned an answer in cypher, that “there was no advancing himself at the court of Rome, but by scandalous means; and that, far from valuing the dignities there, he held them in the utmost abomination.” After this he returned to Venice; and, coming to an irreconcileable rupture with Collissoni, on account of his corrupt practices, the latter shewed his letter in cypher to cardinal Santa Severina, who was then at the head of the inquisition. The cardinal did not think it convenient to attack Paul himself, although he shewed his disaffection to him by persecuting his friends; but when Paul opposed Collissoni’s being elected general of the order, the latter accused him to the inquisition at Rome of holding a correspondence with the Jews; and, to aggravate the charge, produced the letter in cypher just mentioned. The inquisitors still did not think proper to institute a prosecution, yet Paul was ever after considered as an inveterate enemy to the court of Rome. He was charged also with shewing too great respect to heretics, who, on account of his reputation, came to see him from all parts; and this prevented pope Clement VIII. from nominating him, when he was solicited, to the see of Noia. He was also accused of being an intimate friend of Mornay, of Diodati, and several eminent Protestants; and, that when a motion was*made at Rome to bestow on him a cardinal’s hat, what appeared the chief obstacle to his advancement was, his having more correspondence with heretics than with Catholics. “Diodati informed me,” says Ancillon, in his “Melange de Literature,” that, “observing in his conversations with Paul, how in many opinions he agreed with the Protestants, he said, he was extremely rejoiced to find him not far from the kingdom of heaven; and therefore strongly exhorted him to profess the Protestant religion publicly. But the father answered, that it was better for him, like St. Paul, to be anathema for his brethren; and that he did more service to the Protestant religion in wearing that habit, than he could do by laying it aside. The elder Daille told me, that in going to and coming from Rome with de Villarnoud, grandson to Mornay, whose preceptor he was, he had passed by Venice, and visited Paul, to whom Mornay had recommended him by letters; that, having delivered them to the father, he discovered the highest esteem for the illustrious Mr. Da Plessis Mornay; that he gave the kindest reception to Mr. de Villarnoud his grandson, and even to Mr. Daille; that afterwards Mr. Daille” became very intimate with father Paul," &c. All this is confirmed by father Paul’s letters, which on every occasion express the highest regard for the Protestants.

About 1602, he was diverted from his private studies, which he had now indulged, though amidst numerous vexations, for many years, by the state of public affairs. A dispute arose between the republic of Venice and the court of Rome, relating to ecclesiastical immunities; and, as both divinity and Taw were concerned in it, father Paul was appointed divine and canonist for the republic of Venice, to act in concert with the iaw-consultors. The dispute had commenced, and been carried on, under ClementVIII.; but when Paul V. came to the popedom, he required absolute obedience without disputes. At length, when he found his commands slighted, the pope excommunicated the duke, the whole senate, and all their dominions, in April 1606, and the Venetians in return recalled their ambassador at Rome, suspended the inquisition by order of state, and published by sound of trumpet a proclamation to this eilect, viz. “That whosoever hath received from Rome any copy of a papal edict, published there, as well against the law of God, as against the honour of this nation, shall immediately bring it to the council of ten upon pain of death.” But as the minds, not only of the common burghers, but also of some noble personages belonging to the state, were alarmed at this papal interdict, Paul endeavoured to relieve their fears, by a piece entitled “Consolation of mind, to quiet the consciences of those who live well, against the terrors of the interdict by Paul V.” As this was written for the sole use of the government under which he was born, it was deposited in the archives of Venice; till at length, from a copy clandestinely taken, it was first published at the Hague, both in the Italian and French languages, and the same year in English, under this title, “The Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, argued from the civil, canon, and common law, under the several heads of Excommunications, Interdicts, Persecution, Councils, Appeals, Infallibility, describing the boundaries of that power which is claimed throughout Christendom by the Crown and the Mitre; and of the privileges which appertain to the subjects, both clergy and laity, according to the laws of God and Man.” Paul wrote, or assisted in writing and publishing, several other pieces in this controversy between the two states; and had the Inquisition, cardinal Bellarmine, and other great personages, for his antagonists. Paul and his brother writers, whatever might be the abilities of their adversaries, were at least superior to them in the justice of their cause. The propositions maintained on the side of Rome were these; that the pope is invested with all the authority of heaven and earth that all princes are his vassals, and that he may annul their laws at pleasure that kings may appeal to him, as he is temporal monarch of the whole earth; that he can discharge subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and make it their duty to take up arms against their sovereign that he may depose kings without any fault committed by them, if the good of the church requires it that the clergy are exempt from all tribute to kings, and are not accountable to them even in cases of high treason; that the pope cannot err; that his decisions are to be received and obeyed on pain of sin, though all the world should judge them to be false; that the pope is God upon earth, and that to call his power in question, is to call in question the power of God; maxims equally shocking, weak, pernicious, and absurd, which did not require the abilities or learning of father Paul, to demonstrate their falsehood, and destructive tendency. The court of Rome, however, was now so exasperated against him, as to cite him by a decree, Oct. 30, 1606, under pain of absolute excommunication, to appear in person at Rome, to answer the charges of heresies against him. Instead cf appearing, he published a manifesto, shewing the invalidity of the summons; yet offered to dispute with any of the pope’s advocates, in a place of safety, on the articles laid to his charge.

In April 1607, the division between Rome and the republic was healed by the interposition of France; and Fulgentio relates, that the affair was transacted at Rome by cardinal Perron, according to the order of the king his master. But some English writers are of opinion, that this accommodation between the Venetians and the pope was owing to the misconduct of king James I., who, if he had heartily supported the Venetians, would certainly have disunited them from the see of Rome. Isaac Walton observes, that during the dispute it was reported abroad, “that the Venetians were all turned Protestants, which was believed by many: for it was observed, that the English ambassador (Wotton) was often in conference with the senate and his chaplain, Mr. Bedel, more often with father Paul, whom the people did not take to be his friend and also, for that the republic of Venice was known to give commission to Gregory Justiniano, then their ambassador in England, to make all these proceedings known to the king of England, and to crave a promise of his assistance, if need should require,” c. Burnet tells us, “That the breach between the pope and the republic was brought very wear a crisis, so that it was expected a total separation not only from the court, but the church of Rome, was like td follow upon it. It was set on by father Paul and the seven divines with much zeal, and was very prudently conducted by them. In order to the advancing of it, king James ordered his ambassador to offer all possible assistance to them, and to accuse the pope and the papacy as the chief authors of all the mischiefs of Christendom. Father Paul and the seven divines pressed Mr. Bedel to move the ambassador to present king James’s premonition to all Christian princes and states, then put in Latin, to the senate; and they were confident it would produce a great effect. But the ambassador could not be prevailed on to do it at that time; and pretended, that since St. James’s day was not far off, it would be more proper to do it on that day. Before St. James’s day came, the difference was made up, and that happy opportunity was lost; so that when he had his audience on that day in which he presented the book, all the answer he got was, that they thanked the king of England for his good will, but they were now reconciled to the pope; and that therefore they were resolved not to admit any change in their religion, according to their agreement with the court of Rome.” Welwood relates the same story, and imputes the miscarriage of that important affair to “the conceit of presenting king James’s book on St. James’s day.” But JDr. Hickes attempts to confute this account, by observing, that the pope and the Venetians were reconciled in 1607, and that the king’s premonition came not out till 1609, which indeed appears to be true; so that, if the premonition was really presented, it must have been only in manu* Script.

The defenders of the Venetian rights were, though comprehended in the treaty of April 1607, excluded by the Romans from the benefit of it; some, upon different pretences, were imprisoned, some sent to the gallies, and all debarred from preferment. But then their malice was chiefly aimed against father Paul, who soon found the effects of it; for, on Oct. 5, 1607, he was attacked, on his return 19 his convent, by five assassins, who gave him fifteen wounds, and left him for dead. Three of these wounds only did execution: he received two in the necki^ the third was made by the stiletto’s entering his right ear* a,)d coming out between the nose and right cheek; and so violent was the stab, that the assassin was obliged to leave his weapon in the wound. Being come to himself, and having had his wounds dressed, he told those about him, that the first two he had received seemed like two flashes of fire, which shot upon him at the same instant; and that at the third he thought himself loaded as it were with a prodigious weight, which stunned and quite confounded his senses. The assassins retired to the palace of the pope’s nuncio at Venice, whence they escaped that evening either to Ravenna or Ferrara. These circumstances discovered who were at the bottom of the attempt; and Paul himself once, when his friend Aquapendente was dressing his wounds, could not forbear saying pleasantly, that “they were made Stilo Romans Curia.” The person who drew the stiletto out of his head, was desirous of having it; but, as father’s Paul’s escape seemed somewhat miraculous, it was thought right to preserve the bloody instrument as a public monument: and^therefore it was hung at the feet of a crucifix in the church of the Servites, with the inscription, “Deo Filio Liberatori,” “To God the Son the Deliverer.” The senate of Venice, to shew the high regard they had for Paul, and their detestation of this horrid attempt, broke up immediately on the news; came to the monastery of the Servites that night in great numbers; ordered the physicians to bring constant accounts of him to the senate; and afterwards knighted and richly rewarded Aquapendente for his great care of him.

How scandalous soever this design against his life was, it was attempted again more than once, even by monks of his own order: but the senate took all imaginable precautions for his security, and he himself determined to live more privately. In his recess, he applied himself to write his “History of the Council of Trent,” for which he had begun to collect materials long before. Walton tells us, that the contests between the court of Rome and the senate of Venice “were the occasion of father Paul’s knowledge and interest with king James, for whose sake principally he compiled that eminent history of the remarkable council of Trent; which history was, as fast as it was written, sent in several sheets in letters by sir Henry Wotton, Mr. Bedell, and others, unto king James, and the then bishop of Canterbury, into England.” Wotton relates, that James himself “had a hand in it; for the benefit,” he adds, “of the Christian world.” This history was first published by sir Nath. Brent (See Brent), at London, in 1619, in folio, under the feigned name of Pietro Soave Polano, which is an anagram of Paolo Sarpi Venetiano, and dedicated to James I. by Antony de Dominis, archbishop of Spalatro. It was afterwards translated into Latin, English, French, and other languages; and a new translation of it into French by Dr. le Courayer, with notes critical, historical, and theological, was published at London, 1736, 2 rols. folio. Burnet’s account of this work may serve to shew the opinion which Protestants of all communities have ever entertained of it: “The style and way of writing,” says he, “is so natural and masculine, the intrigues were so fully opened, with so many judicious reflections in all the parts of it, that as it was read with great pleasure, so it was generally looked on as the rarest piece of history which the world ever saw. The author was soon guessed, and that raised the esteem of the work: for as he was accounted one of the wisest men in the world, so he had great opportunities to gather exact informations. He had free access to all the archives of the republic of Venice, which lias been now looked on for several ages as very exact, both in getting good intelligence, and in a most careful way of preserving it: so that among their records he must have found the dispatches of the ambassadors and prelates of that republic, who were at Trent; which being so near them, and the council being of such high consequence, it is not to be doubted, but there were frequent and particular informations, both of more public and secreter transactions transmitted thither. He had also contracted a close friendship with Camillus Oliva, that was secretary to one of the legates, from whom he had many discoveries of the practices of the legates, and of their correspondence with Rome: besides many other materials and notes of some prelates who were at Trent, which he had gathered together. His work came out within fifty years of the conclusion of the council, when several, who had been present there, were still alive; and the thing was so recent in men’s memories, that few thought a man of so great prudence as he was would have exposed his reputation, by writing in such a nice manner things which he could not justify. Never was there a man more hated by the court of Rome than he was; and now he was at their mercy, if he had abused the world by such falsehoods in matter of fact, as have been since charged on his work; but none appeared against him for fifty years.”

Father Fulgentio, his friend and companion, who was a man of great abilities and integrity, and is allowed on all hands to have drawn up Paul’s life with great judgment and impartiality, observes, that, notwithstanding the animosity of the court of Rome against him, the most eminent prelates of it always expressed the highest regard for him; and Protestants of all communities have justly supposed him one of the wisest and best men that ever lived. ther Paul,“says sir Henry Wotton,” was one of the humblest things that could be seen within the bounds of humanity; the very pattern of that precept, quanta doctior, tanto submissior, and enough alone to demonstrate, that knowledge well digested non wflat. Excellent in positive, excellent in scholastical and polemical, divinity: a rare mathematician, even in the most abstruse parts thereof, as in algebra and the theoriques; and yet withal so expert in the history of plants, as if he had never perused any book but nature. Lastly, a great canonist, which was the title of his ordinary service with the state; and certainly, in the time of the pope’s interdict, they had their principal light from him. When he was either reading or writing alone, his manner was to sit fenced with a castle of paper about his chair and over his head; for he was of our lord St. Alban’s opinion, that all air is predatory, and especially hurtful, when the spirits are most employed. He was of a quiet and settled temper, which made him prompt in his counsels and answers; and the same in consultation which Themistocles was in action, ayro-xE&aÆiv ivavoTarogj as will appear unto you in a passage between him and the prince of Conde. The said prince, in a voluntary journey to Home, came by Venice, where, to give some vent to his own humours, he would often divest himself of his greatness; and after other less laudable curiosities, not long before his departure, a desire took him to visit the famous obscure Servite. To whose cloyster coming twice, he was the first time denied to be within; and at the second it was intimated, that, by reason of his daily admission to their deliberations in the palace, he could not receive the visit of so illustrious a personage, without leave from the senate, which he would seek to procure. This set a greater edge upon the prince, when he saw he should confer with one participant of more than monkish speculations. So, after Jeave gotten, he came the third time; and then, besides other voluntary discourse, desired to be told by him, who was the true unmasked author of the late Tridentine History? To whom father Paul said, that he understood he was going to Rome, where he might learn at ease, who was the author of that book."

Cardinal Perron gave his opinion of father Paul in these terms “I see nothing eminent in that man he is a man of judgment and good sense, but has no great learning I observe his qualifications to be mere common -ones, and little superior to an ordinary monk’s.” But the learned Morhoff has justly remarked, that “this judgment of Perron is absurd and malignant, and directly contrary to the clearest evidence; since those who are acquainted with the great things done by father Paul, and with the vast extent of his learning, will allow him to be superior, not only to monks, but cardinals, and even to Perron himself.” Courayer, his French translator, says, that “in imitation of Erasmus, Cassander, Thuanus, and other great men, Paul was a Catholic in general, and sometimes a Protestant in particulars. He observed every thing in the Roman religion, which could be practised without superstition; and, in points which he scrupled, took great care not to scandalize the weak. In short, he was equally averse to all extremes: if he disapproved the abuses of the Catholics, he condemned also the too great heat of the reformed; and used to’say to those who urged him to declare himself in favour of the latter, that God had not given him the spirit of Luther.” Courayer likewise observes, that Paul wished for a reformation of the Papacy, and not the destruction of it; and was an enemy to the abuses and pretences of the popes, not their place.“We see by several of Paul’s letters, that he wished well to the progress of the reformation, though in a gentler manner than that which had been taken to procure it; and, if he himself had been silent on this head, we might have collected his inclinations this way, from circumstances relating to Fulgentio, the most intimate of his friends, and who was best acquainted with his sentiments. Burnet informs us, that Fulgentio preaching upon Pilate’s question,” What is Truth“told the audience, that at last, after many searches, he had found it out and holding forth a New Testament, said, it was there in his hand but, adds he, putting it again in his pocket,” the book is prohibited."

, in Latin Sarravius, a learned French lawyer, was born towards the close of the sixteenth century, of a noble family, and educated by his father, who was a man of letters, with the greatest care. To the study of the law, he joined a taste for polite literature, philosophy, and criticism, wrote elegantly in Latin, and was an excellent Greek scholar. He had perused the classics with great attention; and some Latin and French verses which he wrote, show that he had formed his taste on the best models. He practised at the bar at Rouen, but was an enemy to litigious suits, and always endeavoured to prevent his clients from corning into court, while reconciliation was possible. He lived in intimacy and correspondence with the most learned men of his time, particularly Salmasius, Grotius, and our archbishop Usher. It is not much praise to add after this, that he had Christina queen of Sweden for a correspondent. He was of the protestant religion, and appears to have been displeased with some symptoms of what he thought lukewarm ness in his friend Grotius, and wished him to be more decided. Sarrau died May 30, 1651, advanced in years, and was lamented in poems and eloges by many learned contemporaries. He published the collection of Grotius’s correspondence entitled “Grotii epistolsc ad Gallos,” and his own Latin letters were published in 1654, 8vo, and reprinted at Utrecht with the letters of Marquard Gudius, in 1697, 4to, and again at Leyden by Peter Burman in 1711, who has inserted some of them in his valuable “Sylloge.” They contain many particulars of the literary history of the times. He appears to have been an exceeding admirer of Salmasius.

, or Vannucchi, a famous Italian painter, was the son of a tailor, whence he had the name of Sarto, and was born at Florence in 1471. He was apprenticed to a goldsmith, with whom he lived some time; but was then placed with John Basile, an ordinary painter, who taught him the rudiments of his art; and afterwards with Peter Cosimo, and while with him, studied the cartoons of Michael Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci; and by these means arrived at a mastery in his art. Being at last dissatisfied with his master, he associated with Francis Bigio, and they painted various pieces in conjunction, at Florence and about it, for the monasteries. At length some of Sarto’s pieces falling under the notice of Francis I. that monarch was so pleased with them, that he invited Sarto into France, and treated him with great liberality. He executed many pictures for the king and the nobiiity; but, while employed upon a St. Jerome for the queenxnother, he received letters from his wife, with whom he was infatuated, which made him resolve to return thither. He pretended domestic affairs, yet promised the king not only to return, but also to bring with him a good collection of pictures and sculptures. In this, however, he was overruled by his wife, and, never returning, gave Francis, who liad trusted him with a considerable sum of money, so bad an opinion of Florentine painters, that he would not look favourably on them for some years after. Sarto afterwards gave himself up wholly to pleasure, and became at length very poor. He was naturally mild and diffident, and set but very little value upon his own performances: yet the Florentines had so great an esteem for his works, that, during the fury of the popular factions among them, they preserved them from the flames. Sarto died of the plague in 1520, when only 42. Sarto’s works, in Mr. Fuseli’s opinion seem to have obtained their full share of justice. As a Tuscan, the suavity of his tone and facility of practice contrast more strikingly with the general austerity and elaborate pedantry of that school, and gain him greater praise than they would, had he been a Bolognese or Lombard. It cannot, however, be denied that his sweetness sometimes borders on insipidity: the modesty or rather pusillanimity of his character checked the full exertion of his powers; his faults are of the negative kind, and defects rather than blemishes. He had no notions of nature beyond the model, and concentrated all female beauty in his wife, Lucretia; and if it be true that he sacrificed his fortune and Francis I. to her charms, she must at least have equalled in form and feature his celebrated Madonna del Sacca: hence it was not unnatural that the proportions of Albert Durer should attract him more than those of Michaelagnolo. His design and his conceptions, which seldom rose above the sphere of common or domestic life, kept pace with each other; here his observation was acute, and his ear open to every whisper of social intercourse or emotion. The great peculiarity, perhaps the great prerogative, of Andrea appears to me that parallelism of composition, which distinguishes the best of his historic works, seemingly as natural, obvious and easy, as inimitable. In solemn effects, in alternate balance of action and repose, he excels all the moderns; and if he was often unable to conceive the actors themselves, he gives them probability and importance by place and posture. Of costume he was ignorant, but none ever excelled and few approached him in breadth, form, and style of that drapery which ought to distinguish solemn, grave, or religious subjects.

, an illustrious professor of the mathematics in the university of Cambridge, and fellow of the Royal Society, was born in 1682, at Thurlston in Yorkshire; where his father, besides a small estate, enjoyed a place in the Excise. When he was a year old, he was deprived, by the small-pox, not only of his sight, but of his eye-balls, which were dissolved by abscesses; so that he retained no more idea of light and colours than if he had been born blind. He was sent early to a freeschool at Penniston, and there laid the foundation of that knowledge of the Greek and Roman languages, which he afterwards improved so far, by his own application to the' classic authors, as to hear the works of Euclid, Archimedes, and Diophantus, read in their original Greek. When he had passed some time at this school, his father, whose occupation led him to be conversant in numbers, began to instruct him in the common rules of arithmetic. Here it was that his genius first appeared: for he very soon became able to work the common questions, to make long calculations by the strength of his memory, and to form new rules to himself for the more ready solving of such problems as are often proposed to learners, as trials of skill. At eighteen, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Richard West of Underbank, esq. a gentleman of fortune and a lover of the mathematics, who, observing his uncommon capacity, took the pains to instruct him in the principles of algebra and geometry, and gave him every encouragement in the prosecution of these studies. Soon after, he became acquainted with Dr. Nettleton, who took the same pains with him; and it was to these gentlemen that he owed his first institution in the mathematical sciences. They furnished him with books, and often read and expounded them to him; but he soon surpassed his masters, and became fitter to teach than learn any thing from them. His passion for learning growing up with him, his father sent him to a private academy at Attercliff near Sheffield. But logic and metaphysics being the principal learning of this school, were neither of them agreeable to the genius of our author; and therefore he made but a short stay. He remained some time after in the country, prosecuting his studies in his own way, without any other assistant than a good author, and some person that could read it to him; being able, by the strength of his own abilities, to surmount all difficulties that might occur. His education had hitherto been at the expence of his father, who, having a numerous family, found it difficult to continue it; and his friends therefore began to think of fixing him in some way of business, by which he might support himself. His own inclination led him strongly to Cambridge; and, after much consideration, it was resolved he should make his appearance there in a way very uncommon; not as a scholar, but a master; for, his friends, observing in him a peculiar felicity in conveying his ideas to others, hoped that he might teach the mathematics with credit and advantage, even in the university; or, if this design should miscarry, they promised themselves success in opening a school for him in London. Accordingly, in 1707, being now twenty-five, he was brought to Cambridge by Mr. Joshua Dunn, then a fellowcommoner of Christ’s college; where he resided with that friend, but was not admitted a member of the college. The society, however, much pleased with so extraordinary a guest, allotted him a chamber, the use of their library, and indulged him in every privilege that could be of advantage to him. But still many difficulties obstructed his design: he was placed here without friends, without fortune, a young man, untaught himself, to be a teacher of philosophy in an university, where it then flourished in the greatest perfection. Whiston was at this time mathematical professor, and read lectures in the manner proposed by Saunderson; so that an attempt of the same kind by the latter looked like an encroachment on the privileges of his office; but, as a good-natured man, and an encourager of learning, Whiston readily consented to the application of friends, made in behalf of so uncommon a person. Mr. Dunn had been very assiduous in making known his character his fame in a short time had filled the university men of learning and curiosity grew ambitious and fond of his acquaintance, so that his lecture, as soon as opened, was frequented by many, and in a short time very much crowded. “The Principia Mathematica, Optics, and Arithmetica Universalis, of sir Isaac Newton,” were the foundation of his lecture; and they afforded a noble field to display his genius in. It was indeed an object of the greatest curiosity that a blind youth should read lectures in optics, discourse on the nature of light and colours, explain the theory of vision, the effect of glasses, the phenomena of the rainbow, and other objects of sight: nor was the surprize of his auditors much lessened by reflecting, that as this science is altogether to be explained by lines, and is subject to the rules of geometry, he might be a master of these subjects, even under the loss of sight.

As he was instructing the academical youth in the principles of the Newtonian philosophy, it was not long before he became acquainted with the incomparable author, although he had left the university several years; and enjoyed his frequent conversation concerning the more difficult parts of his works. He lived in friendship also with the most eminent mathematicians of the age? with Halley, Cotes, De Moivre, &c. Upon the removal of Whiston from his professorship, Saunderson’s mathematical merit was universally allowed so much superior to that of any competitor, that an extraordinary step was taken in his favour, to qualify him with a degree, which the statutes require. Upon application made by the heads of colleges to the duke of Somerset, their chancellor, a mandate was readily granted by the queen for conferring on him the degree of master of arts: upon which he was chosen Lucasian professor of the mathematics, Nov. 1711, sir Isaac Newton all the while interesting himself very much in the affair. His first performance, after he was seated in the chair, was an inauguration-speech made in very elegant Latin, and a style truly Ciceronian; for he was well versed in the writings of Tully, who was his favourite in prose, as Virgil and Horace were in verse. From this time he applied himself closely to the reading of lectures, and gave up his whole frime to his pupils. He continued among the gentlemen of Christ’s college till 1723; when he took a house in Cambridge, and soon after married a daughter of the rev. Mr. Dickens, rector of Boxworth in Cambridgeshire, by whom he had a son and a daughter. In 1728, when George II. visited the university, he was pleased to signify his desire of seeing so remarkable a person; and accordingly the professor waited upon his majesty in the senatehouse, and was there created doctor of laws by royal favour. Saunderson was naturally of a strong healthy constitution; but being too sedentary, and constantly confining himself to the house, he became at length a valetudinarian. For some years he frequently complained of a numbness in his limbs, which, in the spring of 1739, ended in an incurable mortification of his foot. He died April 19, aged fifty-seven, and was buried, according to his request, in the chancel at Boxworth. He was a man rather to be admired than loved. He had much wit and vivacity in conversation, and many reckoned him a good companion. He had also a great regard to truth, but was one of those who think it their duty to express their sentiments on men and opinions, without reserve or restraint, or any of the courtesies of conversation, which created him many enemies; nor was he less offensive by a habit of profane swearing, and the obtrusion of infidel opinions, which last he held, notwithstanding the kindness of providence towards him throughout his extraordinary life*. He is said, however, to have received the notice of his approaching death with great calmness and serenity; and after a short silence, resuming life and spirit, talked with as much composure as usual, and at length, we are told, appointed to receive the sacrament the evening before his death, which a delirium that never went off prevented him from doing.

A blind man moving in the sphere of a mathematician, seems a phenomenon difficult to be accounted for, and has excited the admiration of every age in which it has appeared. Tuliy mentions it as a thing scarce credible in his own master in philosophy, Diodotus, that “he exercised himself in that science with more assiduity after he became blind; and, what he thought almost impossible to be done without sight, that he described his geometrical diagrams so expressly to his scholars, that they could draw every line in its proper direction.” Jerome relates a more remarkable instance in Didymus of Alexandria, who, “though blind from his infancy, and therefore ignorant of the very letters, appeared so great a miracle to the world, as not only to learn logic, but geometry also, to perfection, which seems the most of any thing to require the help of sight.” But, if we consider that the ideas of extended quantity, which are the chief objects of mathematics, may as well be acquired from the sense of feeling, as that of sight; that a fixed and steady attention is the principal qualification for this study; and that the blind are by necessity more abstracted than others, for which reason Democritus is said to have put out his eyes, that he might think more intensely; we shall perhaps be of opinion, that there is no other branch of science better adapted to their circumstances.

It was by the sense of feeling, that Saunderson acquired most of his ideas at first; and this he enjoyed in great acuteness and perfection, as it commonly happens to the blind, whether by the gift of nature, or, as is more probable, by the necessity of application. Yet he could not, as some have imagined, and as Mr. Boyle was made to believe of a blind man at Maestricht, distinguish colours by that sense; and, having'made repeated trials, he used to say, it was pretending to impossibilities. But he could with great nicety and exactness discern the least difference of rough and smooth in a surface, or the least defect of polish. Thus he distinguished in a set of Roman medals the genuine from the false, though they had been counterfeited with such exactness as to deceive a connoisseur who had iudged by the eye. His sense of feeling was very accurate also in distinguishing the least variation in the atmosphere; and he has been seen in a garden, when observations have been making on the sun, to take notice of every cloud, that interrupted the observation, almost as justly as they who could see it. He could tell when any object was held near his face, or when he passed by a tree at no great distance, provided there was a calm air, and little or no wind: these he did by the different pulse of the air upon his face.

An exact and refined ear is what such are commonly blessed with who are deprived of their eyes; and our professor was perhaps inferior to none in the excellence of his. He could readily distinguish to the fifth part of a note; and, by his performance on the flute, which he had learned as an amusement in his younger years, discovered such a genius for music, as, if he had cultivated the art, would have probably appeared as wonderful as his skill in the mathematics. By his quickness in this sense he not only distinguished persons with whom he had ever once conversed so long as to fix in his memory the sound of their voice, but in some measure places also. He could judge of the size of a room, into which he was introduced, of the distance he was from the wall; and if ever he had walked over a pavement in courts, piazzas, &c. which reflected a sound, and was afterwards conducted thither again, he could exactly tell whereabouts in the walk he was placed, merely by the note it sounded.

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

, a protestant divine, was born August 28, 1639, at Usseaux, in the valley of Pragelas on the frontiers of Daupliiny, where his father officiated as minister. He was himself appointed minister of Venterole in 1661, of Embrun in 1662, and would have been shortly chosen professor of divinity at Die, but meeting accidentally with a priest who was carrying the host to a sick person, he would not take off his hat. This trifle, as might be expected in a popish country, was so much resented, that Saurin found it necessary to retire into Holland, where he arrived in June 1664, was appointed minister of the Walloon church at Delft the following year, and had a great share in deposing the famous Labadie. In 1671, he was invited to be minister of the Walloon church at Utrecht, where he became very celebrated by his works, and had some Tery warm disputes with Jurieu, which were the subject of much conversation; but he is said to have satisfactorily answered the charge of heresy which that author brought against him. Saurin died unmarried at Utrecht, April 8, 1703, aged sixty-four, leaving the following works: an “Examination of M. Jurieu’s Theology,” 2 vols. 8vo, in which he treats of several important questions in divinity; “Reflections on the Rights of Conscience,” against Jurieu, and Bayle’s Philosophical Commentary; a treatise on “the Love of God,” in which he supports the doctrine of disinterested love; and another on the “Love of our Neighbours,” &c.

, a very celebrated preacher, was the son of an eminent protestant lawyer, and was born at Nismes in 1677. His father retired, after the repeal of the edict of Nantz, to Geneva, at which place he died. Saurin made no small progress in his studies, but abandoned them for some time, that he might follow arms. In 1694, he made a campaign as a cadet in lord Galloway’s company, and soon afterwards procured a pair of colours. But as soon as the duke of Savoy had concluded a peace with France, Saurin quitted a profession for which he never was designed; and, on his return to Geneva again, applied himself to philosophy and divinity, under Turretin and other professors. In 1700, he visited both Holland and England. In this last country he remained five years, and preached among the French refugees in London. Here also he married in 1703, and returned to the Hague in 1705. Soon after he became pastor to the church of French refugees, who were permitted to assemble in the chapel belonging to the palace of the princes of Orange at the Hague, in which he officiated during the remainder of his life. When the princess of Wales, afterwards queen Caroline, passed through Holland on her way to England, Saurin had the honour of paying his respects to her, and she, upon her return, desired Dr. Boulter, the preceptor to prince Frederic, the father of the present king, to write to Saurin, to draw up a treatise “on the education of princes.” The work was done, but never printed, and the author received a handsome present from the princess, and afterwards a pension from George II. to whom he dedicated a volume of his sermons. Saurin died Dec. 30, 1730. He possessed great talents, with a fine address, and a strong, clear, and harmonious voice, while his style was pure, unaffected, and eloquent. His principles were what are called moderate Calvinism. Five volumes of his sermons have made their appearance at different times; the first in 1708, the second in 1712, the third some years after, the fourth in 1722, and the fifth in 1725. Since his death, the sermons relating to the passion of Jesus Christ, and other subjects, were published in two volumes. In 1727 he published “The State of Christianity in France.”

But his most considerable work was, “Discourses historical, critical, and moral, on the most memorable Events of the Old and New Testament.” His first intention was to have published a set of prints, with titles and explanations; but, as that had been before executed by Fontaine amongst the Roman catholics, and by Basnage amongst the protestants, it became necessary to adopt a newer plan. This gave rise to the work above mentioned, which the author left imperfect. Two volumes made their appearance in folio, and the work was afterwards reprinted in four in 8vo. Six other discourses form a part of a fifth volume in 8vo, published by Mr. Roques, who undertook a continuation of the work. It is replete with learning. The Christian and the heathen authors, philosophers, poets, historians, and critics, are cited with the utmost profusion, and it forms a compilation of all their sentiments on every subject discussed throughout the work. The author shews himself to be a warm advocate for toleration; and, though the catholics are more frequently censured than commended, yet his principles are very moderate. “A Dissertation on the Expediency of sometimes disguising the Truth” raised a clamour against the author, the fury of which he had riot power to appease. As an historian, he believed that he was permitted to produce the chief arguments of those that maintain, that in certain cases truth may be disguised; and the reasons which they gave who have asserted the contrary. Without deciding the question, it is easy to perceive that he is a favourer of the former. His principal antagonist was Arrnand de la Chapelle; to whom Francis Michael Ganicon replied with great spirit, in a work, entitled “Lettres serieuses & jocoses.” The three first of the lettres, in the second volume, are in favour of Saurin. He was answered by La Chapelle with great violence. Saurin imagined, that he should be able to terminate this dispute by reprinting the dissertation separately, with a preface in defence of his assertions: but he was deceived; for La Chapelle published a very long and scurrilous reply. It was Saurin’s intention entirely to have neglected this production; but he found a new champion in Francis Bruys. This dispute was at length brought before the synod of Campen; who, in May 1730, ordered the churches of Utrecht, Leyden, and Amsterdam, to make their examinations, and report the result of them to the synod of the Hague, which was to sit in the September following. Commissaries were appointed for this purpose. The synod of Campen gave its opinion, and that of the Hague confirmed it: but, having made no mention of the instructions sent to the Walloon church at Utrecht, that assembly complained, and ordered Mr. Bonvoust, one of its ministers, to justify his proceedings and his doctrine. This he did in a large octavo volume, printed at Utrecht in 1731, after the death of Saurin, entitled “The Triumph of the Truth and Peace; or, Reflections on the most important Events attending the last Synod assembled to determine in the case of Messieurs Saurin and Maty.” Saurin had contributed to this peace, by giving such a declaration of his sentiments as satisfied the protestant churches; and he repeated that declaration, when he foresaw that the new lights, which Mr. Bruys had thrown upon this subject, were going to raise a storm that might perhaps have been severer than the last. Saurin’s sermons are now well known in this country by the selections translated into English, and published in 1775 1784, by the rev, Robert Robinson, 5 vols. 8vo, to which Dr. Henry Hunter added a sixth volume in 1796.

Saurin’s mathematical and philosophical papers printed in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, which are numerous, are to be found in the volumes for the years following; viz. 1709, 1710, 1713, 1716, 1718, 1720, 1722, 1723, 1725, 1727. He left a son, who acquired some reputation as a dramatic writer and lyric poet.

, doctor of law and divinity, curate of St. Leu, at Paris, official and grand vicar in the same city, and afterwards bishop of Toul, was born about 1595, at Paris. He was preacher in ordinary to Louis XIII. who had a great esteem for him, and by whose order he wrote the “Marty rologiu in Gallicanum,” 1638, 2 vols. fol. M. du Saussay succeeded Paul de Fiesque in the diocese of Toul, 1649, and discovered great zeal in the government of his church, and died September 9, 1675, at Toul, aged eighty. He left many works besides that above mentioned, which contain great learning, but shew very little critical knowledge.

, an eminent naturalist, was born at Geneva in 1740. His father, an enlightened agriculturist, to whom we are indebted for some essays on rural economy, resided at Couches, on the banks of the Arve, about half a league from Geneva. Botany was his first study, and this made him acquainted with Haller, whom he visited in 1764, during his retreat at Bex. He was further excited to study the vegetable kingdom in consequence of his Connection with C. Bonnet, who married his aunt, and who soon discovered the talents of his nephew. Bonnet was then engaged in examining the leaves of plants; Saussure also turned his attention to these vegetable organs, and published “Observations on the Skin of Leaves” about the year 1760.

At this time the professorship of philosophy at Geneva became vacant, and Saussure, who was then only twentyone, obtained the chair. While in this office, he commenced his journeys among the mountains, to examine the substances of which the elevated ridges of our globe are composed, and during the first fifteen or twenty years of his professorship, he was alternately employed in fulfilling the duties which his situation imposed, and in traversing the different mountains in the neighbourhood of Geneva. He even extended his excursions on one side to the Rhine, and on the other to Piedmont. About this time, too, he travelled to Auvergne, for the purpose of examining some extinguished volcanos; and soon after he undertook a tour to Paris, Holland, England, Italy, and Sicily. In these journeys his constant object was the study of nature. He always carried with him the instruments necessary for observations, and never set out without having formed for himself a regular plan of experiments.

, the inventor of modern nosology, was born at Alais, in Lower Languedoc, May 12, 1706. He appears to have owed little to his first tutors, but his own talents enabled him to make a rapid progress in literature and philosophy. With a view to study physic, he went to Montpellier in 1722, and received the degree of doctor in 1726. The thesis which he clefended on this occasion was on a singular subject, “Si l'amour peut etre gueri par les remedes tire’s des plantes?” To determine whether love can be cured by herbs seems rather a trial of skill, than a serious discussion. It procured him, however, the name of the love-doctor, and it is said that he wrote some poems on the same subject. In 1730, he went to Paris with a view to farther improvement in his profession, and afterwards returned to Montpellier, where he obtained a professorship in 1734. His reputation for ingenuity of speculation and extensive reading for some time retarded his practice, but these speculations were not allowed much weight in the treatment of his patients. In 1740, he was appointed demonstrator of the plants in the botanic garden, and in 1752 he was made professor of botany. He married in 1748, and had two sons and four daughters, who^ survived him. A serious disease, which continued nearly t'wo years, proved fatal in the midst of his useful and honourable career, in the month of February, 1767, in the sixty- first year of his age.

Sauveur was of an obliging disposition, and of a good temper; humble in his deportment, and of simple manners. He was twice married. The first time he took a precaution more like a mathematician than a lover; for he would not meet the lady till he had been with a notary to have the conditions he intended to insist on, reduced into a written form for fear the sight of her should not leave him enough master of himself. He had children by both his wives anJ by the latter a son, who, like himself, was dumb for the first seven years of his life.

An extraordinary part of Sauveur’s character is, that though he had neither a musical voice nor ear, yet he studied no science more than music, of which he composed an entire new system. It was he also who first invented the monochordand the echometer. He pursued his researches even to the music of the ancient Greeks and Romans, to the Arabs, and to the very Turks and Persians themselves; and was the inventor of the term Acoustics, now generally adopted to signify the theory of sounds and their properties. But Dr. Burney does not speak very highly of some of his musical theories.

the only clergyman belonging to it. In lain, and a well-stored wine-cellar clergyman ever admitted into it, was a member of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, and was D. D. of both universities. He was rector, first of Bygrave, then of Clottiall, Herts, and lecturer of St. George, Hanover-square, London. In his younger days he had travelled with James, fifth earl of Salisbury, who gave him the great living of Clothall, where Dr. Savage rebuilt the rectory-house. In his more advanced years he was so lively, pleasant, and facetious, that he was called the “Aristippus” of the age. One day, at the levee, George I. asked him, “How long he had stayed at Rome with lord Salisbury” Upon his answering how long, “Why,” said the king, “you stayed long enough, why did you not convert the Pope” “Because, sir,” replied he, “I had nothing better to offer him.” Having been bred at Westminster, he had always Jl great fondness for the school, attended at all their plays and elections, assisted in all their public exercises, grew young again, and, among boys, was a great boy himself. He used to attend the schools, to furnish the lads with extempore epigrams at the elections. He died March 24, 1747, by a fall down the stairs belonging to the scaffolding for lord Lovat’s trial; and the king’s scholars had so great a regard for him, that, after his decease, they made a collection among themselves, and, at their own charge, erected a small tablet of white marble to his memory in the East cloister, with a Latin inscription. Besides a visitation and an assize sermon, Mr. Cole attributes the following works to him: 1. “The Turkish History by Mr. Knolles and sir Paul Rycaut abridged,” 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. This was shewn to sir Paul, who approved of it so much, that he designed to have written a preface to it, had not death prevented him. 2. “A Collection of Letters of the Ancients, whereby is discovered the morality, gallantry, wit, humour, manner of arguing, and in a word the genius of the Greeks and Romans,” 1703, 8vo.

This offer he seemed to accept with great joy, and set out on his journey with fifteen guineas in his purse. His friends and benefactors, the principal of whom was Pope, expected now to hear of his arrival in Wales; but, on the 14th day after his departure, they were surprised with a letter from him, acquainting them that he was yet upon the road and without money, and could not proceed withfcut a remittance. The money was sent, by which he was enabled to reach Bristol; whence he was to go to Swansea by water. He could not immediately obtain a passage, and therefore was obliged to stay some time at Bristol; where, with his usual facility, he made an acquaintance with the principal people, and was treated with all kinds of civility. At last he reached the place proposed for his residence; where he stayed a year, and completed a tragedy, which he had begun in London. He was now desirous of coming to town to bring it on the stage: but his friends, and particularly Pope, who was his chief benefactor, opposed the design very strongly; and advised him to put it into the hands of Thomson and Mallet, to fit it for the stage, and to allow his friends to receive the profits, out of which an annual pension should be paid him. The proposal he rejected, quitted Swansea, and set off for London; but, at Bristol, a repetition of the kindness he had formerly found, invited him to stay. He stayed so long, that by his imprudence and misconduct he weaned out all his. friends. His wit had lost its novelty; and his irregular behaviour, and late hours, grew very troublesome to men of business. His money was spent, his cloaths worn out, and his shabby appearance made it difficult for him to obtain a dinner. Here, however, he stayed, in the midst of poverty, hunger, and contempt, till the mistress of a coffeehouse, to whom he owed about Si. arrested him for the debt. He could find no bail, and was therefore lodged in prison. During his confinement, he began, and almost finished, a satire, entitled “London and Bristol delineated;” in order to be revenged on those who had no more generosity than to suffer a man, for whom they professed a regard, to languish in a gaol for so small a sum.

, seigneur de Breves, a learned Frenchman who had the merit of introducing oriental printing into his country about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the French ambassador at Constantinople for twenty-two years. On his return, about 1611, Henry IV. sent him to Rome as ambassador in the pontificate of Paul V. where, in 1613, he appears to have established a printing-office; for in the title of a translation of Bellarmin’s conclusion, and a Psalter into Arabic, they are said tp come tx typographia Savariana. Savary is said to have cast the types, and employed on these two works, as correctors, Scialac and Sionita, two Maronites from mount Lebanon. In 1615, Savary returned to Paris, bringing with him Sionita and the printer Paulin, who, in the same year, printed in small quarto, in Turkish and French, the “Treaty of 1604, between Henry the Great, king of France, and the sultan Amurath,” &c. The following year appeared an Arabic Grammar, edited by Sionita and Hesronita. It appears that Savary had the liberality to lend his types to those who were desirous of printing works in the oriental languages. He died in 1627, when, we are told, the English and Dutch made offers for the purchase of his types, and the oriental manuscripts which he had collected in the Levant; but the king of France bought them, and soon after a new establishment appeared at Paris for oriental printing, all the credit of which was given to the cardinal Richelieu, while the name of Savary was not once mentioned. Sic vos non vobis, &c. These types are said to be still extant in the royal printing office. Savary published an account of his travels, from which we learn, that he projected certain conquests in the Levant, for the extension of the commerce of his country, and the propagation of Christianity. The number of oriental Mss. which he brought from the Levant amounted to ninety-seven.

In 1675 he opposed with vigour the non-resisting testbill; and was removed from the council-board the year following by the interest of the earl of Dauby, the treasurer. He had provoked this lord by one of those witticisms in which he dealt so largely. In the examination before the council concerning the revenue of Ireland, lord Widrington confessed that he had made an offer of a considerable sum to the lord treasurer, and that his lordship had rejected it very mildly, and in such a mariner as not to discourage a second attempt. Lord Halifax observed upon this, that “it would be somewhat strange if a man should ask the use of another man’s wife, and the other should indeed refuse it, but with great civility.” His removal was very agreeable to the duke of York, who at that time had a more violent aversion to him than even to Shaftesbury himself, because he had spoken with great firmness and spirit in the House of Lords against the declaration for a toleration. However, upon a change of the ministry in 1679, his lordship was made a member of the new council. The same year, during the agitation of the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York, he seemed averse to it; but proposed such limitations of the duke’s authority when the crown should devolve upon him, as should disable him from doing any harm either in church or state; such as the taking out of his hands all power in ecclesiastical matters^ the disposal of the public money, and the power of peace or war, and lodging these in the two Houses of Parliament; and that the parliament in being at the king’s death should continue without a new summons, and assume the administration; but his lordship’s arguing so much against the danger of turning the monarchy, by the bill of exclusion, into an elective government, was thought the more extraordinary, because he made an hereditary king the subject of his mirth, and had often said “Who takes a coachman to drive him, because his father was a good coachman” Yet he was now jealous of a small slip in the succession; though he at the same time studied to infuse into some persons a zeal for a commonwealth; and to these he pretended, that he preferred limitations to an exclusion, because the one kept up the monarchy still, only passing over one person; whereas the other really introduced a commonwealth, as soon as there was a popish king on the throne. And it was said by some of his friends, that the limitations proposed were so advantageous to public liberty, that a man might be tempted to wish for a popish king, in order to obtain them. Upon this great difference of opinion, a faction was quickly formed in the new council; lord Halifax, with the earls of Essex and Sunderland, declaring for limitations, and against the exclusion, while the earl of Shaftesbury was equally zealous for the latter; and when the bill for it was brought into the House of Lords, lord Halifax appeared with great resolution at the head of the debates against it. This so highly exasperated the House of Commons, that they addressed the king to remove him from his councils and presence for ever: but he prevailed with his majesty soon after to dissolve that parliament, and was created an earl. However, upon his majesty’s deferring to call a new parliament, according to his promise to his lordship, his vexation is said to have been so great as to affect his health, and he expostulated severely with those who were sent to him on that affair, refusing the post both of secretary of state and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. A parliament being called in 1680, he still opposed the exclusion-bill, and gained great reputation by his management of the debate, though it occasioned a new address from the House of Commons to remove him. However, after rejecting that bill in the House of Lords, his lordship pressed them, though without*success, to proceed to limitations; and began with moving that the duke might be obliged to live five hundred miles out of England during the king’s life. In August 1682, he was created a marquis, and soon after made privy-seal, and, upon king James’s accession, president of the council. But on refusing his consent to the repeal of the tests, he was told by that monarch, that, though he could never forget his past services, yet, since he would not comply in that point, he was resolved to have unanimity in his councils, and, therefore, dismissed him from all public employments. He was afterwards consulted by Mr. Sidney, whether he would advise the prince of Orange’s coming over; but, this matter being only hinted, he did not encourage a farther explanation, looking upon the attempt as impracticable, since it depended on so many accidents. Upon the arrival of that prince, he was sent by the king, with the earls of Kochester and Godolphin, to treat with him, then at Hungerford.

By his first wife, daughter of Henry Spencer, earl of Sunderland, he had a son William, who succeeded him; and by a second wife, the daughter of William Pierrepoint, second son of Robert earl of Kingston, he had a daughter Gertrude, who was married to Philip Stanhope, third earl of Chesterfield, and was mother to the celebrated earl, who, says Maty, may be perhaps justly compared to his grandfather in extent of capacity, fertility of genius, and brilliancy of wit. They both, adds he, distinguished themselves in parliament by their eloquence; at court, by their knowledge of the world; in company, by their art of pleasing. They were both very useful to their sovereigns, though not much attached either to the prerogative or to the person of any king. They both knew, humoured, and despised the different parties. The Epicurean philosophy was their common study. William, the second marquis of Halitax, died in 1699, when the dignity became extinct in his family, but was revived in 1700 in the person of Charles Montague. The -marquis William left three daughters Anne, married to Charles Bruce, earl of Aylesbury Dorothy, to Richard Boyle, the last earl of Burlington; and Mary, to Sackville Tuftou, earl of Thanet. George,: marquis of Halifax, was the author of some tracts, written with considerable spirit and elegance. Besides his “Character of a Trimmer,” he wrote “Advice to a Daughter;” “The Anatomy of an Equivalent;” “A Letter to a Dissenter, upon his Majesty’s laie Glorious Declaration of Indulgences;” “A rough Draught of a new Model at Sea, in 1694;” “Maxims of State.” Ah which were printed together after his death; and the third edition came out in 1717, 8vo. Since these, /there was alsa published under his name, “The Character of king Charles the Second to which is subjoined, Maxims of State, &c,” 1750, 8vo. “Character of Bishop Burnet,” printed at the end of his “History of his own Times;” “Historical Observations upon the Reigns of Edward I. II. III. and Richard II. with Remarks upon their faithful Counsellors and false Favourites,” 1689. He also left memoirs of his own times* from a journal which he kept every day of all the conversations which he had with Charles II. and the most distinguished men of his time. Of these memoirs two fair copies were made, one of which fell into the hands of Daniel earl, of Nottingham, and was destroyed by him. The other devolved on the marquis’s grand-daughter, lady Burlington, in whose possession it long remained; but Pope, as the late lord Orford informed Mr. Mai one, finding, on a perusal of these memoirs, that the papists of those days were represented in an unfavourable light, prevailed on her to burn them; and thus the public have been deprived of probably a curious and valuable work.

, a most learned man, and a great benefactor to the learning of his country, was the son of Henry Savile of Bradley, in the township of Stainland, in the parish of Halifax, Yorkshire, by Ellen, daughter of Robert Ramsden. He was born at Bradley, Nov. 30, 1549, and first entered of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, whence he was elected to Merton-college in 1561, where he took the degrees in arts, and was chosen fellow. When he proceeded master of arts in 1570, he read for that degree on the Almagest of Ptolemy, which procured him the reputation of a man wonderfully skilled in mathematics and the Greek language; in the former of which, he voluntarily read a public lecture in the university for some time. Having now great interest, he was elected proctor for two years together, 1575 and 1576, an honour not very common, for as the proctors were then chosen out of the whole body of the university, by the doctors and masters, and the election was not, as now, confined to particular colleges, none but men of learning, and such as had considerable interest, durst aspire to that honour. In 1578 he visited the continent, became acquainted with various learned foreigners, and obtained many valuable Mss. or copies of them. He is said to have returned a man of high accomplishment*, and was made tutor in the Greek tongue to queen Elizabeth, or, as it is otherwise expressed, he read Greek and mathematics with her majesty, who had a great esteem for him. In 1585 he was made warden of Mertoncollege, which he governed six and thirty years with great credit, and greatly raised its reputation for learning, by a judicious patronage of students most distinguished for talents and industry. In 1596, he was chosen provost of Eton-college, of which society also he increased the fame by rilling it with the most learned men, among whom was the ever-memorable John Hales. It is said, however, that he incurred some odium among the younger scholars by his severity, and his dislike of those who were thought sprightly wi s. He used to say, “Give me the plodding student. If I would look for wits, I would go to Newgate, there be the wits.” John Earte, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, was the only scholar he ever accepted on the recommendation of being a wit. James 1. upon his accession to the crown of England, expressed a particular regard for him, and would have preferred him either in church or state; but sir Henry declined it, and only accepted the honour of knighthood from his majesty at Windsor on Sept. 21, 1604. His only son dying about that time, he devoted his fortune entirely to the promoting of learning. In 1619 he founded two lectures, or professorships, one in geometry, the other in astronomy, in the university of Oxford; which he endowed each with a salary of 160l. a year, besides a legacy of 600l. for purchasing more lands for the same use. In the preamble of the deed, by which a salary was annexed to these two professorships, it is expressly said that “geometry was almost totally unknown and abandoned in England.” Briggs was his first professor of geometry; but Aubrey says, on the authority of bishop Ward, that he first sent for Gunter for that purpose, who, coming with his sector and quadrant, “fell to resolving of triangles and doing a great many fine things. Said the grave knight, ‘ Do you call this reading of Geometric This is shewing of tricks, man,’ and so dismissed him with scorne, and sent for Brings.” Sir Henry also furnished a library with mathematical hooks near the mathematical school, for the use of his professors; and gave 100l. to the mathematical chest of his own appointing; adding afterwards a legacy of 4C/. a year to the same chest, to the university and to his professors jointly. He likewise gave 120l. towards the new-building of the schools; several rare manuscripts and printed books to the Bodleian library; and a good quantity of matrices and Greek types to the printingpress at Oxford. Part of the endowment of the professorships was the manor of Little Hays in Essex. He died, at Eton -college, Feb. 19, 1621-2, and was buried in the chapel there, on the south side of the communion table, near the body of his son Henry, with an inscription on a black marble stone. The university of Oxford paid him the greatest honours, by having a public speech and verses made in his praise, which were published soon after in 4to, under the title of “Ultima Linea Savilii,” and a sumptuous honorary monument was erected to his memory on the south wall, at the upper end of the choir of Merton- college chapel. Sir Henry Savile, by universal consent, ranks among the most learned men of his time, and the most liberal patrons of learning; and with great justice the highest encomiums are bestowed on him by all the learned of his time: by Isaac Casaubon, Mercerus, Meibomius, Joseph Scaliger, and especially the learned bishop Montagu; who, in his “Diatribes” upon Selden’s “History of Tithes,” styles him “that magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honourable amongst not only the learned, but the righteous for ever.”

We have already mentioned several noble instances of his munificence to the republic of letters: and his works exhibit equal zeal for the promotion of literature. In 1581, he published an English version of, 1. “Four Books of the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus, and the Life of Agricola; with notes upon them,” folio, dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The notes were esteemed so valuable as to be translated into Latin by Isaac Gruter, and published at Amsterdam, 1649, in 12mo, to which Gruter subjoined a treatise of our author, published ia 1598, under the title, 2. “A View of certain Military Matters, or commentaries concerning Roman Warfare;” which, soon after its first appearance, was translated into Latin by Marquardus Freherus, and printed at Heidelberg in 1601, but having become exceeding scarce, was reprinted by Gruter. In 1596, he published a collection of the best ancient writers of our English history, entitled, 3. “Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedain praecipui, ex vetustissimis codicibus nunc primum in lucem editi:” to which he added chronological tables at the end, from Julius Caesar to the coming in of William the Conqueror. This was reprinted at Francfort in 1601, which edition has a complete index to it. The collection contains William of Malmsbury’s history of the kings of England, and the lives of the English bishops; the histories of Henry of Huntingdon the annals of Roger de Hoveden the chronicle of Ethelvverd, and the history of Ingulphus with a dedication to queen Elizabeth, &c. Wharton, in the preface to his “Anglia Sacra,” objects only to Malmsbury’s history, which he says was printed from an incorrect ms. 4. He undertook and finished an edition, most beautifully printed, of “St. Chrysostom’s Works” in Greek, printed in 1613, 8 vols. folio. In the preface, he says, “that, having himself visited, about twelve years before, all the public and private libraries in Britain, and copied out thence whatever he thought useful to his design, he then sent some learned men into France, Germany, Italy, and the East; to transcribe such parts as he had not already, and to collate the others with the best manuscripts.” At the same time, he makes his acknowledgment to several great men for their assistance; as Thuanus, Velserus, Schottus, Isaac Casaubon, Fronto Duca3us, Janus Gruterus, Hoeschelius, &c. In the eighth volume are inserted sir Henry Savile’s own notes, with those of the learned John Bois, Thomas Allen, Andrew Downes, and other learned men. The whole charge of this edition, including the several sums paid to learned men, at home and abroad, employed in finding out, transcribing, and collating, the best manuscripts, is said to have amounted to no less than 8000l.; but, as soon as it was finished, the bishops and clergy of France employed, somewhat unfairly, as has been said, Fronton Due, or Fronto Ducaeus, who was a learned Jesuit, to reprint it at Paris, in 10 vols. folio, with a Latin translation, which lessened the price of sir Henry’s edition; yet we are told, that the thousand copies which he printed were all sold*. In 1618, he published a Latin work, written by Thomas Bradwarclin, abp. of Canterbury, against Pelagius, entitled, 5. “De Causa Dei contra Pelagium, et de virtute causarum;” to which he prefixed the life of Bradwardin. This book was printed from six Mss. carefully collated. 6. “Nazianzen’s Steliteutics,” 1610. Towards this, says Oldys, he was favoured with the ms epistles of Nazianzen out of the Bod* leian library, “which was a singular courtesy, and done because of his affection to the storing and preserving of the library,” as if any thing could have been refused to such a benefactor. 7. “Xenophon’s Institution of Cyrus,” Gr. 1613, 4to. In 1621, he published a collection of his own mathematical lectures. 8. <: Praelectiones Tredecim in principium Elementorum Euclidis Oxoniae habitae,“4to. 9.” Oratio coram Elizabetha Regina Oxonice hahita, anno 1592,“Oxon. 1658, 4to; published by Dr. Barlow from the original in the Bodleian library, and by Dr. Lamphire, in the second edition of *' Monarchia Britannica,” Oxford, 1681, 8vo. 10. He translated into Latin king James’s 46 Apology for the Oath of Allegiance.“Six letters of his, written to Hugo Blotius, and Sebastian Tenguagelius, keepers of the imperial library, were published in Lambecius’s” Bibliotheca,“vol. III.; four are printed among” Camdeni fcpistolae,“and others are in the Cotton and, Harleian Mss. He was also concerned in the new translation of the Bible, executed by command of James I. being one of the eight persons at Oxford who undertook to translate the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. He left behind him several Mss. some of which are now in the Bodleian library, such as 1.” Orations.“2.” Tract of the original of Monasteries.“3.” Tract concerning the Union of England and Scotland, written at the command of king James I.' 1 He wrote notes likewise upon the margin of many books in his library, particularly of Eusebius’s

He had a younger brother, Thomas Savile, who was admitted probationer-fellow of Merton college, Oxford, in 1580; afterwards travelled abroad into several countries; upon his return, was chosen fellow of Eton college; and died at London in 1592-3, whence his body was removed to Oxford, and interred with great solemnity in the choir of Merton college chapel. He was a man of great learning, and an intimate friend of Camden; among whose letters there are fifteen of Mr. Savile' s to him.

There was another Henry Savile, related to the above family, and familiarly called Long Harry Savile, who entered a student of Merton college in 1587, during the wardenship of sir Henry, and was soon after made one of the portionists, commonly called postmasters. After taking the degree of B. A. he left Merton college, and removed to St. Alban-hall, where in 1595, he took the degree of M. A. Under the inspection of his learned kinsman, he became an eminent scholar, especially in the mathematics, physic (in which faculty he was admitted by the university to practise), chemistry, painting, heraldry, and antiquities. Afterwards, in order to extend his knowledge, he travelled into Italy, France, and Germany, where he greatly improved, himself He is said to have written several things, but non$ have been published. He gave Camden the ancient copy of ^sser Menevensis, which he published in 1602, and which contains the legendary story of the discord between the new scholars which Grimbald brought with him to Oxford, at the restoration of the university by king Alfred, &c. This Henry Savile lived some years after his return from the continent, in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, London, and dying there April 29, 1617, aged forty-nine, was buried in the chancel belonging to the parish church, where was a monument to his memory. Among the Cotton Mss. is a letter from him to Camden, “concerning antiquities near Otley in Yorkshire.”

There still remains one of this family to be noticed, sir John Savile, elder brother to sir Henry, who was born at Bradley in 1545, and entered a commoner of Brasenose college about 1561, whence, without taking a degree, he went to the Middle Temple for the study of the law. Being called to the bar, he became autumn reader of that house in 1586, steward of the lordship of Waken“eld, serjeant at law in 1594, one of the barons of the exchequer in 1598, and at the same time one of the justices of assize. In July 1603, a little before his coronation, king James conferred the honour of knighthood on him, being one of the judges who were to attend that solemnity. He died at London, Feb. 2, 1606, aged sixty-one, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church, Fleet-street, but his heart was buried in Methley church, Yorkshire, where is a monument to his memory, erected by his son. Camden acknowledges the assistance he received from sir John Savile in his historical labours. He left at his death several pieces fit for publication, but none have appeared, except” Reports of divers cases in the courts of common pleas and exchequer, from 22 to 3 6Elizabeth," a thin folio, printed first in 1675, and again in 1688.

, a celebrated Italian monk, was born at Ferrara in 1452. In 1466 he became a Dominican at Bologna, and afterwards preached at Florence, but with very little success, and left the place. In 1489 he was invited by Lorenzo de Medici to return to Florence, where he became a very popular preacher. By pretensions to superior sanctity, and by a fervid eloquence, he hurried away the feelings of his hearers, and gained an ascendancy over their minds by his prophecies, which were directed both against church and state. Having by these means acquired a powerful influence, he began to despise the patronage of Lorenzo, and avoided his presence. After the death of Lorenzo, he placed himself at the head of a popular party in Florence, who aimed at the establishment of a free constitution. Savonarola seems to have promised them something between a republic and a theocracy. By such means his party became very formidable; and to flatter them yet more, he denounced terrible judgments to the court of Rome, and to the rest of the Italian states. In 1498 many complaints having been carried to Rome, in which he was accused of having reproached, in his sermons, the conduct of that court and the vices of the clergy, he was publicly excommunicated, which at first he regarded so far as to abstain from preaching, but finding that silence was considered as submission, and would ruin his cause, he resumed his function, and renewed his invectives against the pope and the court of Rome. But when the pope Alexander threatened to interdict the city, the magistrates commanded him to desist from preaching. At length he procured the assistance of a friar of his own convent, named Fra. Domenico da Pescia, who proposed to confirm his master’s doctrines by the ordeal of xvalking through the flames, provided any one of their adversaries would do the same. The challenge was accepted by a Franciscan friar, and a day was appointed for the trial. Savonarola, finding that the adverse party were not to be intimidated, proposed that Domenico should be allowed to carry the host with him into the fire. This was exclaimed against by the whole assembly as an impious and sacrilegious proposal. It was, however, insisted upon by Domenico, who thereby eluded the ordeal. But the result was fatal to the credit of Savonarola, who was deserted by the populace, apprehended and dragged to prison, and condemned to be first strangled and then burnt, which sentence was put into execution on the 23d of May, 1498.

Various opinions have been entertained of this man’s real character. Some of the friends of liberty and protestantism have considered him as a man who had elevated views and good intentions, though perverted by a spirit of fanaticism; and there seems no reason to doubt that he was really a friend to the liberty of Florence, and felt an honest indignation at the profligacy of the court of Rome, and the corruption of the catholic church. For these last reasons, some have even admitted him among the reformers and martyrs. But his title to this honour seems very questionable, and the character of a leader of a party is as discernible in his conduct as that of a reformer. There are a great number of his sermons remaining, and other works in Latin and Italian, most of them on religious subjects. His life, inserted in Bates’ s “Vitse Selectorum,” was written in Latin by John Francis Picus de Mirandola, prince of Concordia. Queti published an edition of it, to which he added notes, with the Latin translation of some of Savonarola’s works, and a list of them.

, an eminent lawyer in the seventeenth century, was a member of Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M.A. in 1655,. and was the same year admitted ad eundem at Oxford. He was afterwards a benefactor to the library of his college. After studying law at the Inner Temple, he was admitted to the bar, and had a large share of practice fit London, and on the Oxford circuit. In 1661 he was knighted, and in Feb. 1680, was appointedattorney-general, As a lawyer he formed himself after the lord chief justice Hale, under whom he practised, and of whom he was a just admirer. Like that excellent person, he was a man of general learning, and, according to Granger, of an integrity that nothing could corrupt; but bishop Burnet represents him as a dull hot man, and forward to serve all the designs of the court. Had this been always the case, however, king James would not have dismissed him from the office of attorney general, which he did in 1687, because he perceived that sir Robert could not have been prevailed upon to njould the laws to such purposes as were never intended by the legislatureOn the other hand, Granger allows that he was justly censured for his harsh treatment of lord Russel on his trial, and it is certain that he supported some of king James’s arbitrary measures, being the manager in depriving the city of London of its charter. At the time of the revolution, he sat as member of parliament for the university of Cambridge, and was expelled the house for being concerned, as attorney-general, in the prosecution of sir Thomas Armstrong, who was executed for being one of the conspirators in the Rye-house plot. In the next sessions he was re-chosen, and appears to have sat quietly for the remainder of his life. He died in 1692, at Highclear in Hampshire, where he had an estate, and rebuilt the parish church. His only daughter married the earl of Pembroke, and died in 1706. Under his name, and those of Heneage Finch, sir George Treby, and Henry Pollexfen, were published in 1690, folio, “Pleadings and arguments with other proceedings in the court of king’s bench upon the Quo Warranto, touching the charter of the city of London, with the judgment entered thereupon.”

, a celebrated commander, was born October 19, 1696, at Dresden, and was the natural son of Frederick Augustus If. king of Poland, and Aurora, countess of Konigsinarc. He gave evident proofs of his taste for military affairs from his childhood; was taught to read and write with the utmost difficulty; nor could he ever be prevailed upon to study a few ho irs in the morning, otherwise than by a promise that he should ride on horseback in the afternoon. He liked to have Frenchmen about him, for which reason their language was the only foreign one which he willingly learnt grammatically. He attended the elector in all his military expeditions; was at the siege of Lisle in 1708, when only twelve years old, and mounted the trenches several times both at the city and at the fortress, in sight of the king, his father, who admired his intrepidity. Nor did he discover less courage at the siege of Tournay, the year following, where he twice narrowly escaped death; and at the buttle of Malplaquet, far from being shocked by the dreadful carnage which attended the engagement, he declared in the evening, “that he was well pleased with the day.” In 1711, he followed the king of Poland to Stralsund, where he swam over the river, in sight of the enemy, with his pistol in his hand, during which time he saw, /vithout any seeming emotion, three officers and above twenty soldiers fall by his side. When he retired to Dresden, the king, who had been witness to his courage and abilities, raised a company of horse for him. Count Saxe spent the whole winter in teaching his regiment some new evolutions, which he had invented, and marched them against the Swedes the year following. This regiment suffered much st the battle of Gadelbusli, where he made them return three times to the attack. This campaign being ended, mad. de Konigsmarc married him to the young countess de Loben, a rich and amiable lady, whose name Avas Victoria, which name, count Saxe afterwards said, contributed as much to fix his choice on the countess, as her beauty and largtr fortune. This lady brought him a son, who died young, and the count having at length a disagreement with her, procured his marriage to be dissolved in 1721, but promised the countess never to marry again, and kept his word. She married a Saxon officer soon after, by whom she had three children, and they lived in harmony together. It was with, great reluctance that the countess had consented to her Carriage being dissolved, for she loved count Saxe; and the latter frequently repented afterwards of having taken such a step. He continued to signalize himself in the war against Sweden, was at the siege of Stralsund in December 1715, when Charles XII. was blocked up, and had the satisfaction of seeing him in the midst of his grenadiers“. The behaviour of this celebrated warrior inspired count Saxe with a high degree of veneration, which he ever retained for his memory. He served against the Turks in Hungary in 1717, and on his return to Poland in 1718, received the order of the white eagle from the king. In 1720, he visited France, and the duke of Orleans, then regent, gave him a brevet of marechal de camp. Count Saxe afterwards obtained leave from his Polish majesty to serve in France, where he purchased a German regiment in 1722, which afterwards bore his name. He changed the ancient exercise of this regiment for one of his own invention; and the chevalier Folard, on seeing this exercise, foretold immediately, in his Commentary on Polybius, torn. III. b. ii. chap. 14, that count Saxe would be a great general. During his residence in France, he learnt mathematics and the art of fortification with astonishing facility, till 1725, when prince Ferdinand, duke of Courland, falling dangerously ill in the month of December, he turned his thoughts to obtaining the sovereignty of Courland. With this view, he set out for Mittau, and arrived there, May 18, 1726. He was received with open arms by the states, and had several private interviews with the duchess dowager of Courland, who had resided there since her husband’s decease. This lady was Anne Iwanaw, second daughter of the czar I wan Alexiowitz, brother of Peter the Great. Count Saxe, having communicated his design to her, soon engaged her in his interests; and she acted with such indefatigable ardour, and conducted affairs so well, that he was unanimously elected duke of Courland, July 5, 1726. Thia choice being; opposed by Poland and Russia, the duchess supported count Saxe with all her interest, and even went to Riga and Petersburg, where she redoubled her solicitations in favour of the late election. There seems indeed to be no doubt, but that, if the count had returned her passion, he would not only have maintained his ground in Courland, but shared the throne of Russia, which this princess afterwards ascended; but, during his stay at Mittau, an affair of gallantry between him and one of her ladies broke off the marriage, and induced the duchess to abandon him. From that moment the count’s affairs took an unhappy turn, and he was forced to go back to Paris in 1729. The following remarkable circumstance occurred during the course of his enterprise: Having written from Ccmrlandto France for a supply of men and money, mademoiselle le Couvreur, a celebrated actress, who was at that time attached to him, pawned her jewels and plate, and sent him 40,000 livres. When count Saxe returned to Paris, he applied himself to obtain a complete knowledge of the mathematics, and acquired a taste for mechanics. He refused the command of the Polish army offered him by the king, his brother, in 1733, and distinguished himself on the Rhine under marechal Berwick, particularly at the lines of Etlingen, and the siege of Philipsburg, after which he was made lieutenant-general August 1, 1734. Hostilities having recommenced on the death of the emperor Charles VI. count Saxc took Prague by assault, Nov. 26, 1741, then Egra and Ellebogen, raised a regiment of Hullans, and brought back marechal de Broglio’s army upon the Rhine, where, he fixed various posts, and seized the trenches of Lanterburg. He was appointed marechal of France, March 26, 1744, and commanded the main bocly of the army in Flanders, where he so exactly observed the motions of the enemies, who were superior in, number, and made use of such excellent manoeuvres, that he reduced them to remain inactive, for they were afraid to undertake any thing. This campaign in Fianders did count Saxe great honour, and was considered as a chefd'ceuvre of the military art. He won the famous battle of Fonterioi, under the king’s command, May 11, 1745, where, though sick and weak, he gave his orders with such presence of mind, vigilance, courage, and judgment, as made him the admiration of the whole army. This victory was followed by the capture of Tournay, which the French be^ sieged; of Ghent, Bruges, Oudenarde, Ostend, Ath, &c. and at the time that the campaign was supposed to be finished, he took Brussels, February 28, 1746. Nor was the next campaign less honourable to count Saxe. He won the battle of Kauconx, Oct. I 1, the same year, 1746; and his majesty, to reward such a constant series of glorious services, dtrlurod him marechal general of his camps and armies, Jan. 12, 1747. Marechal Saxe carried troops into Zealand, gained the battle of Lanfeldt, July 2 following-, approved the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, of which M. de Loewen made himself master, and took Maestrecht, May 7, 1748. In consequence of these victories a peace was concluded at Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct. 18, the same year. Marechai Saxe went afterwards to Chambord, which the king had given him, ordered his regiment of Hullans thither, and kept a stud of wild horses, more proper for light cavalry than those used by the French. He visited Berlin some time after, and was magnificently entertained by his Prussian majesty. On his return to Paris, he formed a plan for the establishment of a colony in the island of Tobago; but gave it up, when he found that England and Holland opposed it. Count Saxe died, after a nine days 7 illness, at Chambord, Nov. 30, 1750, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. He wrote a book on the art of war, called” Mes Reveries/ 1 of which a very splendid edition, with his life, was published in 1757, 2 vols. 4to. There is also an English translation of it. His “Life” was printed in 1752 > vols. 12mo, reprinted often.

Count Saxe was a man of ordinary stature, of a robust constitution, and extraordinary strength. To an aspect, noble, warlike, and mild, he joined many excellent qualities of disposition. Affable in his manners, and disposed to sympathize with the unfortunate, his generosity sometimes carried him beyond the limits of his fortune. He was remarkably careful of the lives of his men. One day a general officer was pointing out to him a post which would have been of great use “It will only cost you,” said he, “a dozen grenadiers:” “That would do very well,” replied the marshal, “were it only a dozen lieutenant-generals.” He had been educated and died in the Lutheran religion. “It is a pity (said the queen of France, when she heard of his death) that we cannot say a single De-profundis for a man who has made as sing so many Te Dennis” Religion had not much influence on his general conduct, but on his death-bed he is said to have reviewed his errors with remorse, and expressed much penitence.

, a very learned philologer and literary historian, was born at Eppendorff, a village between Chemnitz and Freyberg, in Saxony, where his father was a clergyman, Jan. 13, 1714. His proper name was Christopher Gottlob Sach, which, when he commenced author, he Latinized into Sachsius, and afterwards into Saxius, dropping the Gottlob altogether. His father first gave him some, instructions in the teamed languages, which he afterwards improved at the school of Chemnitz, but more effectually at the electoral school of Misnia, where he also studied classical antiquities, history, and rhetoric, and in 1735 went to Leipsic with the strongest recommendations for industry and proficiency. Here he studied philosophy under the celebrated Wolff, but as he had already perused the writings both of the ancient and modern philosophers with profound attention, he is said to have had the courage to differ from the current opinions. Philosophy, however, as then taught, was less to his taste than the study of antiquities, classical knowledge, and literary history, to which he determined to devote his days; and the instructions of professor Christ, and his living in the house with Menkenius, who had an excellent library, were circumstances which very powerfully confirmed this resolution. He had not been here above a year, when two young noblemen were confided to his care, and this induced him to cultivate the modern languages most in use. His first disputation had for its subject, “Vindiciae secundum libertatem pro Maronis jEneide, cui manum Jo. Harduinus nuper assertor injecerat,” Leipsic, 1737. Among other learned men who highly applauded this dissertation was the second Peter Burmann, in the preface to his Virgil, but who afterwards, in his character as a critic, committed some singular mistakes in condemning Saxius, while he applauded Sachsius, not knowing that they were one and the same. In 1738 Saxius took his master’s degree, and commenced his literary career by writing a number of critical articles in the “Nova acta eruditorum,” and other literary journals, from this year to 1747. Tiiis employment involved him sometimes in controversies with his learned brethren, particularly with Peter Burmann, or with foreign authors with whose works he had taken liberties. In 1745 he visited the most considerable parts of Germany, and was at Franckfort on the Maine during the coronation of the Emperor. In 1752 he was appointed professor of history, antiquities, and rhetoric at Utrecht, and on entering on his office pronounced an oration on the science of antiquity, which was printed in 1753, 4to. After this his life seems to have been devoted entirely to the duties of his professorship, and the composition of a great many works on subjects of philology and criticism, some in German, but principally in Latin. The most considerable of these, the only one much known in this country, is his “Onomasticon Literarium,” or Literary Dictionary, consisting of a series of biographical and critical notices or references respecting the most eminent writers of every age or nation, and in every branch of literature, in chronological order. The first volume of this appeared in 1775, 8vo, and it continued to be published until seven volumes were completed, with a general Index, in 1790. To this, in 1793, he added an eighth or supplementary volume, from which we have extracted some particulars of his life, as given by himself. This is a work almost indispensable to biographers, and as the work of one man, must have been the production of many years* labour and attention. Some names, however, are omitted, which we might have expected to find in it; and the English series, as in every foreign undertaking of the kind, is very imperfect. We have seen no account of his latter days. He lived to a very advanced age, dying at Utrecht. May 3, 1806, in his ninety-second year.

, a Danish historian, is supposed to have been a native of Denmark, but this has been a disputed point. As to his name Sachse, it is evident from many monuments of Danish antiquity, that it is of no obscure or late origin in the history of Denmark. Saxo himself calls the Danes his countrymen, Denmark his country; and speaking of the kings, he terms them our kings. Some attribute his origin to Ambria, others with more reason to Sialandia, a Danish island. The name Scalandicus is also added to that of Saxo, in some editions of his works. He has been called Longus, which has induced some to attribute his descent to the noble family of the Langii. Others have rather chosen to ascribe this name to the height of his stature. Saxo, in his preface, speaks of his ancestors as having been distinguished in war, which indicates that they were of no ignoble race. His name of Grammaticus was titular, and expressive of his attainments in literature. There are different opinions concerning the year of his birth. It is, however, certain that he flourished in the twelfth century. Carpzovius endeavoured, by some acute and subtile reasonings, to ascertain the date. The education of Saxo is equally involved in uncertainty. Pontoppidan supposes that he studied at Paris,and there acquired the eleg.ance of style for which he afterwards was distinguished. It is certain, that in the 12th century the Cimbri and the Danes frequently went to France for education. It may, however, be doubted, whether in the rage for trifle which then prevailed at Paris, Saxo could have procured a master who was capable of instructing him. We must be rather inclined to suppose that he owed his attainments to his own industry and talents. It appears that he applied to theology, for we find him appointed capitular in the bishopric of Lundens, and afterwards a prefect in the cathedral of Roschiid. While he 'filled this office he was sent, in 1161, by Absalon, the bishop of Roschiid, to Paris, with a view of inviting some monks from St. Genevieve, who might correct^the depraved morals of those which belonged to Eskilsco. William Abbas accepted the invitation of Saxo, and three brothers followed him. These monks introduced into Denmark the monastic discipline which had been prescribed by St. Augustine. Various opinions have been offered about the date of Saxo’s death. Pontanus supposes it to have been in the year 1208. Some conjecture the time to have been 1190, others in 1201. But, when we reflect that in his preface he speaks of Waldemar II. who ascended the throne of Denmark in 1203, and that Andrew Suno, to whom the history is dedicated, succeeded Absalon in the bishopric in 1202, we cannot agree with those who have adopted the earlier dates. Though some others have fixed the date in 1204, and others in 1206, the general opinion is, that he died in 1208, aged upwards of seventy. He was buried in the cathedral of Roschild. Three centuries afterwards, an inscription was’ added to his tomb by Lago Urne, bishop of Scalandre. Though more elegant verses might have been invented, says Klotzius, none could have been more true.

Absalon, bishop of Roschild, first instigated Saxo to undertake the history of Denmark, and assisted him with his advice and with books. Saxo employed twenty years in accomplishing his undertaking, and at last rendered it worthy the expectations of Absalon who, however, died be* fore the history was completed, which Saxo inscribed to Andrew Suno, who was the successor to the see. After remaining in ms. for three hundred years, Christianus Petra3us undertook the publication, having received the manuscript accurately written from Bergeius the archbishop of Lundens. It was delivered to be printed to Jodocus Radius Ascensius, and was published at Paris in 1514, and re-published at Basil, in 1534, by Oporinus. A third edition appeared at Francfort on the Maine, in 1576. At last, Stephanus Johannes Stephanius, historian to the king, and professor of eloquence and history in the university of Sora, with the aid of some Danish nobles, and the liberal contribution of the king, was enabled to publish an edition of Saxo, in folio, printed at Sora, 1644. A second part of the volume appeared in the following year, containing the “Prolegomena,” and copious notes. There is a later edition by Christ. Adolphus Klotz, printed at Leipsic in 1771, 4to, and there are several Danish translations. The credibility of Saxo is somewhat doubtful, but his style is good, and much praised by critics of authority.

, a dissenting minister of considerable talents, was born in 1675, and was the second son of the Rev. Giles Say, who had been ejected from the vicarage of St. Michael’s in Southampton by the Bartholomew-act in 1662; and, after king James the second’s liberty of conscience, was chosen pastor of a dissenting congregation at Guestwick in Norfolk, where he continued till his death, April 7, 1692. Some years after, the subject of this article being at Southwark, where he had been at school, and conversing with some of the dissenters of that place, met with a woman of great reputation for piety, who told him, with joy, that a sermon on Ps. cxix. 130, preached by his father thirty years before, was the means of her conversion. Being strongly inclined to the ministry, Mr. Say entered as a pupil in the academy of the Rev. Mr. Thomas Rowe at London about 1G92, where he had for his fellow-students Mr (afterwards Dr.) Isaac Watts, Hughes the poet, and Mr. Josiah Hort, afterwards archbishop of Tuam. When he had finished his studies, he became chaplain to Thomas Scott, esq. of Lyrninge in Kent, in whose family he continued three years. Thence he removed to Andover in Hampshire, then to Yarmouth in Norfolk, and soon after to Lowestoffin Suffolk, where he continued labouring in word and doctrine eighteen years. He was afterwards copastor with the Rev. Mr. Samuel Baxter at Ipswich nine years; and lastly was called, in 1734, to succeed Dr. Edmund Caiamy in Westminster, where he died at his house in James-street, April 12, 1743, of a mortification in his bowels, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

In his funeral sermon, preached by Dr. Obadiah Hughes, and afterwards printed, a due elogium is paid to his ministerial abilities; and, soon after his death, a thin quarto volume of his poems, with two essays in prose, “On the Harmony, Variety, and Power of Numbers,” written at the request of Mr. Richardson the painter, were published for the benefit of his daughter, who married the Rev. Mr. Toms, of Hadleigh in Suffolk. The essays have been much admired by persons of taste and judgment. And the Gentleman’s Magazine, for 1780, p. 568, has rescued from oblivion some remarks, by the same judicious hand, from the margin of a copy of Mr. Auditor Benson’s “Prefatory Discourse to his Edition of Johnston’s Psalms, and the Conclusion of that Discourse, 1741.”

, an Italian, eminent as a statesman and man of letters, when letters were just reviving in Europe, was born about 1424, some say 1430. He was only the son of a miller but, going early to Florence, he fell under the notice of Cosmo de Medici who, observing uncommon parts in him and a turn for letters, took him under his protection, and gave him an education. He studied the law; and, taking a doctor’s degree in that faculty, frequented the bar. After the death of Cosmo in 1464, Peter de Medici shewed the same regard for him; and Scala, through his means, was trusted by the republic in the most important negociations. In 1471, the freedom of the city was conferred on him and his Descendants; and the year after he obtained letters of nobility; he was then secretary or chancellor of the republic. In 1484, the Florentines sent a solemn embassy to Innocent VIII, to congratulate him on his being raised to the pontificate; when Scala, one of the embassy, delivered a speech so very pleasing to the pope, that he was made by him a knight of the golden spur, and senator of Rome. In 1436, he was made holy-standard-bearer to the republic. He died at Florence in 1497; and left, among other children, a daughter, named Alexandra, who afterwards became famous for her learning and skill in the Greek and Latin tongues.

, a very learned and eminent critic, was born, according to his son’s account, April 23, 1484, at Ripa, a castle in the territory of Verona, and was the son of Benedict Scaliger, who, for seventeen years, commanded the troops of Matthias, king of Hungary, to whom he was related. His mother was Berenice Lodronia, daughter of count Paris. From the same authority we learn, that Scaliger was a descendant from the ancient princes of Verona; but while other particulars of the birth and family ol Scaliger are called in question, this seems to be refuted by the patent of naturalization which Francis I. granted him in 1528, in which such an honourable descent would unquestionably have been noticed, whereas in this instrument he is called only “Julius Caesar della Scala de Bordons, doctor of physic, a native of Verona.” When therefore, his critical asperities had raised him enemies, they did not fail to strip him of his royal origin, and instead of it, asserted that he was the son of a school-master (some say an illuminator) of Verona, one Benedict Borden, who, removing to Venice, took the name of Scaliger, either because he had a scale for his sign, or lived in a street called from that instrument; and although Thuanus seems inclined to consider this story as the fabrication of Augustine Niphus, out of pique to Scaliger, it is certain that the royal origin of the Scaligers has always appeared doubtful, and we have now no means to remove the uncertainty.

He was taught Latin at home, and, according to his son, had for his preceptor John Jocundus of Verona, whom he himself in various parts of his works mentions as his master; but even this circumstance his opponents are not disposed to credit, and tell us, that as he was the descendant of princes, it was necessary to provide him with a preceptor like Jocundus, who was a man not only of high character, but a gentleman by birth. They also add some circumstances which certainly make it doubtful whether Scaliger really was taught by Jocundus, because it was neither by his knowledge of Latin, nor by philosophy or theology, that Jocundus acquired his reputation, but by his skill in the fine arts. (See Jocundus,) It appears, however, less questionable, that at the age of twelve Scaliger was presented to the emperor Maximilian, who made him one of his pages, and that he served that emperor seventeen years, and gave proofs of his valour and dexterity in several expeditions, in which he attended his master. He was at the battle of Ravenna in 1512, in which he lost his father and brother Titus, whose bodies he conveyed to Ferrara, where his mother resided, who some time after died wkj> grief. His father dying in narrow circumstances, Scaliger found himself almost without a maintenance, and therefore resolved to enter into the Franciscan order, for which purpose he went to Bologna, and applied himself vigorously to study, especially to logic and Scotus’s divinity; but changing his views of the ecclesiastical profession, he agaiiv entered into the army, and served some time in Piedmont. A physician, whom he knew at Turin, persuaded him to study physic and accordingly he prosecuted it at his leisure hours, while he was in the army he likewise learned the Greek language, of which he had been entirely ignorant till then. At length, frequent attacks of the gout determined him, at forty years of age, to abandon a military life, and devote himself entirely to the profession of physic. In this he had already acquired both skill and fame, and the bishop of Agen, being indisposed, and apprehending some need of a physician in his journey to his diocese, requested Scaliger to attend him. Scaliger consented upon condition that he should not stay at Ageu above eight days: there, however, he conceived an attachment for a young lady, said to be not more than thirteen years of age, and remained at Agen waiting for her parents’ consent. That obtained, he married her in 1529, lived with her twenty-nine years, and had fifteen children by her, seven of whom survived him. Whatever his origin, he must have been now a man of some consideration, for this lady was of a noble and opulent family.

His son Joseph has described him as a man with many excellent qualities both of body and mind; tall, well-made, of a noble and venerable air, and very strong and active even to old age of such sagacity, that he could divine the characters of men from their looks of a prodigious memory; singularly averse to every departure from truth, and so charitable that his house was a kind of hospital to the indigent and distressed. With these good qualities, however, he had an insupportable pride and vanity, and a fastidious and petulant temper, which was excited to fury by every difference from his opinions, and every, the least contradiction, or fancied mark of disrespect. This appeared particularly in his treatment of Erasmus, who, in his “Ciceronianus, sive de optimo dicendi genere,” had ridiculed certain of the learned in Italy, who would allow no expressions to be pure latinity but what were to be found in Cicero; and had even criticised the style of Cicero himself, for whom, nevertheless, he had the profoundest veneration. This provoked Scaliger to publish two orations in his defence; in which he treated his antagonist with the utmost virulence of contempt. The death of Erasmus, however, which happened while the second oration was printing, appears to have softened Scaliger' s heart, and he wrote a poem, in which he expressed great grief at his dying before they were reconciled, and shewed a willingness to acknowledge his great virtues and merit.

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

, son of the preceding, and heir to his talents and temper, was born at Agen in 1540; and, at eleven years of age, was sent with two of his brothers to the college of Bordeaux, where he was taught Latin. Three years after, on the appearance of the plague, he was obliged to return home to his father, who then superintended his education. He required of him everyday a short exercise or theme upon some historical subject, and made him transcribe some poems, which he himself had composed. This last task is supposed to have inspired him with a taste for poetry, and so eager was he to show his proficiency, that he wrote a tragedy upon the story of Oedipus before he was seventeen. His father dying in 1558, he went to Paris the year following to study Greek, and attended the lectures of Turnebus for two months. But finding the usual course too dilatory, he resolved to study it by himself, and with the assistance of some knowledge of the conjugations, attempted to read Homer with a translation, in which he succeeded very soon, and at the same time formed to himself a kind of grammar, with which he was enabled to proceed to the other Greek poets, and next to the historians and orators, and by persevering in this course, he gained in the space of two years a perfect knowledge of the language. He afterwards turned his thoughts to the Hebrew, which he learned by himself in the same manner. All are agreed indeed, that he had an extraordinary capacity for learning languages, and is said to have been well skilled in no less than thirteen. He made the same progress in the sciences, and in every branch of literature; and he at length obtained the reputation of being the most learned man of his age, and his biographers have handed down to us little else than the progress of his studies and the chronology of his publications. In 1503 he was invited to the university of Leyden, to be honorary professor of Belles Lettres, on which occasion, if we may believe the “Menagiana,” Henry IV, of France treated him with great coldness and neglect. Scaliger had determined to accept the offer; and, waiting upon the king to acquaint him with his journey, and the occasion of it, “Well, Mr. Scaliger,” said his majesty, “the Dutch want to have you with them, and to allow you. a good stipend I am glad of it,” adding some other remarks of a grosser kind. Henry was no patron of learning or learned men: but some have supposed that he wished to mortify Scaliger, who had already shewn too much of his father’s vanity and arrogant spirit. He now went to Leyden, where he spent the remainder of his life; and died there of a dropsy, Jan. 21, 1609, without having ever been married. He was a man of perfect sobriety of manners, and whose whole time was well spent in study. He had as great parts as his father, and far greater learning, having been trained to it from his infancy, which his father had not. He had a profound veneration for his father, and unfortunately extended it to an imitation of his irritable temper, and disrespect for his learned contemporaries. But he was often a discerner and encourager of merit. While at Leyden he was so struck with the early appearance of talent in Grotius, that he undertook to direct his studies. Grotius repaid his care by the utmost respect, and Scaliger' s counsels were commands to him. The elder Scaliger lived and died in the church of Rome: but the son embraced the principles of Luther, and relates that his father also had intentions of doing so.

The works of Joseph Scaliger are very numerous and various: but his “Opus de Emendatione Temporum,” printed at Paris 1583 in folio, is his greatest performance, in which he has collected every thing which might serve to establish the principles of chronology, and was the first who undertook to form a complete system. He has in this work rendered his name memorable to posterity, by the invention of the Julian period, which consists of 7980 years, being the continued product of the three cycles, of the sun 28, the moon 19, and Roman indiction 15. This pe*­riod had its beginning fixed to the 764th year before the creation, and is not yet completed, and comprehends all other cycles, periods, and epochas, with the times of all memorable actions and histories. Scaliger has, therefore, been styled the father of chronology; and his “Thesaurus Temporum, complectens Eusebii Pamphili Chronicon cum Isagogicis Chronologiae Canonibus,” in which he has cor* reeled and reformed many things in his “Opus cle Emerrdatiorte Temporum,” seems to give him a sufficient claim to the title. The best edition of “De Emendatione Temporurn” is that of Geneva, 1609, folio; of the “Thesaurus Temporum” that of Amsterdam, 1658, in 2 vols. folio.

He wrote notes and animadversions upon almost all the Greek and Latin authors: those upon Varro “de Lingua Latlrra” were written by him at twenty years of age; but scarcely any of his editions of the classics are now held in esteem. Gerard Vossius observes, that his conjectures are too'boki, and quotes Peter Victorias, who said, that Scaliger was born to corrupt the ancients rather than to correct ttiehh -It is certain, at least, that he dealt too much in cdhjeettiral criticism, although he ofteif shows a great degree of ingenuity, even in the most fanciful of the freedoms he take’s’ with his author’s meaning, and always leaves the reader impressed with his extensive learning.

He wrote some dissertations upon subjects of antiquity; and gave specimens of his skill in all branches of literature. He made a Latin translation to two centuries of Arabian proverbs, which were published at Leyden, 1623, with the notes of Erpenius, at the request of Isaac Casaubon, who tells us, that he employed less time in translating it than others who understood Arabic would have done in reading it. He was also obliged to write some controversial pieces: and his controversy with Scioppius, concerning the biography of his family in his work, entitled “De vetustate & splendore gentis Scaligeranaj,” is a wretched example of literary rancour and personal obloquy. His “Poemata,” in which there is not much poetical spirit, were published at Leyden, 1615, 8vo; his “Epistolse,” which are learned, and contain many interesting particulars of literary history, were edited by Daniel Heinsius, at the same place, 1637, 8vo. ??? 4

, the reputed author of a Greek Lexicon, studied first at Lausanne, but has his name recorded in the annals of literature, neither on account of his talents and learning, nor for his virtuous industry, but for a gross act of disingenuity and fraud which he committed against an eminent literary character of the sixteenth century. Being employed by Henry Stephens, the celebrated printer, as a corrector to his press, while he was publishing his “Thesaurus Linguee Groecoe,” Scapula extracted those words and explications which he reckoned most useful, comprised them in one volume, and published them as an original work, with his own name. The compilation and printing of the Thesaurus had cost Stephens immense labour and expence; but it was so much admired by the learned men to whom he had shown it, and seemed to be of such essential importance to the acquisition of the Greek language, that he reasonably hoped his labour would be crowned with honour, and that the money he had expended would be repaid by a rapid and extensive sale. Before, however, his work came abroad, Scapula’s abridgment appeared; which, from its size, price, and obvious utility, was quickly purchased, while the Thesaurus itself lay neglected in the author’s hands. The consequence was a bankruptcy on the part of Stephens, while he who had occasioned it was enjoying the fruits of his treachery. Scapula’s Lexicon was first published in 15SO, in 4to. It was afterward enlarged, and published in folio. It has gone through several editions, the best of which is the Elzevir of 1652, some copies of which have the following imprint, “Londini, impeusis Josuae Kirkton et Samuelis Thompson;” but it is the genuine Elzevir edition, the names of Kirkton and Thompson being appended only to the copies they purchased from the Leyden proprietors. Stephens charges the author with omitting a great many important articles, and with misunderstanding and perverting his meaning, and tracing out absurd and trifling etymologies, which he himself had been careful to avoid. Dr. Busby, so much celebrated for his knowledge of the Greek language, and his success in teaching it, would never permit his scholars in Westminster-school to make use of Scapula.

Upon leaving Oxford, and taking the degree of doctor of physic, Dr. Scarborough settled in the metropolis, where he practised with great reputation. In the College of Physicians, of which he was a fellow, he was particularly respected as a man of uncommon talents; and, in 1658, by the special appointment of the president, he introduced, with an elegant Latin speech, the marquis of Dorchester for his admission into the college that year. In the mean time Dr. Scarborough began to read his highly celebrated anatomical lectures at Surgeons’ Hall, which he continued for sixteen or seventeen years, and was the first who introduced geometrical and mechanical reasonings upon the muscles.

Such extraordinary merit did not escape the notice of king Charles II., who conferred on him the order of knighthood in 1669, and at the same time appointed him his principal physician. He was nominated to the same honourable office by his majesty’s brother, which he held both before and after his accession to the throne; and he also served king William in the same capacity. He was likewise appointed physician to the Tower of London, and held that office till his death, which occurred about 1696. Sir Charles Scarborough was married and left a son, who was created doctor of civil law at Oxford, in August 1702. In 1705, this gentleman printed in folio, from his father’s manuscript, “An English Translation of Euclid’s Elements, with excellent explanatory notes.” Sir Charles also wrote <c A Treatise upon Trigonometry;“”A Compendium of Lily’s Grammar;“and” An Elegy on Mr. Abraham. Cowley."

, an eminent burlesque French writer, was the son of Paul Scarron, a counsellor in parliament, and born at Pari’s in 1610. Although deformed, and of very irregular manners, his lather designed him for an ecclesiastic, and he went to Italy for that purpose, in his twenty-fourth year, whence he returned equally unfit for his intended profession, and continued his irregularities until he lost the use of his limbs, and could only use his hands and tongue. This happened in his twenty-seventh year but, melancholy as his condition was, his burlesque humour never forsook him he was continually talking and writing in this strain and his house became the rendezvous of all the men of wit. Afterwards, a fresh misfortune overtook him: his father, who had hitherto supplied his wants, incurred the displeasure of cardinal Richelieu, and was banished, and although Scarron presented an humble request to Richelieu, which from its humour pleased that minister, no answer appears to have been returned, and both Richelieu and his father died soon after. Scarron at length, helpless, and deformed as he was, conceived thoughts of marriage; and, in 1651, was actually married to mademoiselle d'Aubigne, afterwards the celebrated madam de Maintenon, who lodged near him, and was about sixteen years of age. Unequal as this match was, she, had influence enough to produce some salutary change in his manners and habits, and her wit and beauty served to increase the good company which frequented his house. Scarron died in 1660, and within a few minutes of his death, when his acquaintance were about him all in tears, “Ah! my good friends, 7 ' said he,” you will never cry for me so much as I have made you laugh."

, an ingenious painter, was born at Dort, in 1643. His father placed him first with Solomon Van Hoogstraten, and afterwards with Gerard Dow, from whom he caught a great delicacy of finishing; but his chief practice was to paint candle-lights. He placed the object and a candle in a dark room; and looking through a small hole, painted by day-light what he saw in the dark chamber. Sometimes he drew portraits, and came with that view to England, but found the business too much engrossed by Kneller, Closterman, and others. Yet he once drew king William; but, as the piece was to be by candle-light, he gave his majesty the candle to hold, till the tallow ran down upon his fingers. As if to justify this ill-breeding, he drew his own picture in the same situation. Delicacy was no part of his character: having drawn a lady who was marked with the small-pox, but had handsome hands, she asked him, when the face was finished, if she must not sit for her hands “No,” replied Schalken, “1 always draw them from my house-maid.” After carrying on his business for some time in England, he settled at the Hague, where he died in 1706. Some additional anecdotes of him may be found in our authority.

, a learned German, was born at Strasburg in 1621, and probably educated there. He applied himself principally to the study of Greek and Latin antiquities, and of history; and made himself a tolerable verbal critic upon Latin and Greek authors. He was driven out of his own country by the wars; and, as Christina of Sweden was at that time the general patroness of all men of letters, he withdrew into her kingdom in 1648. He was made, the same year, professor of eloquence and politics at Upsal afterwards, honorary professor, royal of the law of nature -and nations, andassessor of the royal college of antiquities; and, at length, librarian of the university of Upsal. He died in 1679, after havingpublished a great number of works. Many of his pieces relate to Qreek and Roman antiquities, and are to be found in. the collection of Qrseyius and Gronovius. He wrote notes uppn many ancient authors upon Ælian, Phaedrus, “Arrianl Tactica,” of which last he made also a Latin version Petronius, Hyginus, Julius Obsequens, Justin, &c. He was one of those who stoutly defended the authenticity of that fragment of Petronius, pretended to have been fou.nd at Trau which, however, is generally judged to be a forgery, and accordingly rejected by Burman and other critics.

Scheiner was chiefly remarkable for being one of the first who observed the spots in the sun with the telescope, though not the very first for his observations of those spots were first made, at Ingolstadt, in the latter part of 1611, whereas Galileo and Harriot both observed them in the latter part of the year before, or 1610. Scheiner continued his observations on the solar phenomena for many years afterwards at Rome, with great assiduity and accuracy, constantly making drawings of them on paper, describing their places, figures, magnitude, revolutions, and periods, so that Riccioli delivered it as his opinion that there was little reason to hope for any better observations of those spots. Des Cartes and Hevelius also say, that in their judgment, nothing can be expected of that kind more satisfactory. These observations were published in 1630, in one volume folio, under the title of “Rosa Ursina,” &c. Almost every page is adorned with an image of the. sun with spots. He wrote also several smaller pieces relating to mathematics and philosophy, the principal of which are, 1. “Ocultis, sive Fundamentnm Opticum,” &c, which was reprinted at London, in 1652, in 4to. 2. 4< Sol Eclipticus, Disquisitiones Mathematicse.“3.” De Controversiis ct NovttacihiM Astronomicis."

, an eminent physician and naturalist, was the son of a very learned physician of the same mimes at Zurich, where he was born, August 2, 1672. His father dying in the prime of life, he appears to have been left to the care of his mother, and his maternal grandfather. He was educated at Zurich under the ablest professors, of whom he has left us a list, but Says that he might with great propriety add his own name to the on cber, as he went through the greater part of his studies with no other guide than his own judgment. In 1692 he commenced his travels, and remained some time at \ltdorf, attending the lectures of Wagenseil, Hoffman^ father and son, Sturm, &c. In 1693 he went to Utrecht, where he took his degree of doctor of physic in Jan. 1694, and Pi 1695 returned to Nuremberg and Altdorf to study mathematics under Sturm and Eimmart. To Sturm he addressed a learned letter on the generation of fossil shells, which iie attempted to explain on mathematical principles; but, discovering the fallacy of this, he adopted the theory of our Dr. Woodward, whose work on the subject of the natural history of the earth he translated into Latin, and published at Zurich in 1704. Returning to Zurich, before this period, he was appoint-, ed first physician of the city, with the reversion of the professorship of mathematics. He now began to write various dissertations on subjects of natural history, particularly that of Swisserland, and wrote a system of natural history in German, which he published in parts in the years 1705, 6, and 7, the whole forming three small 4to volumes. He published afterwards three more in 1716, 1717, and 1718, which complete the natural history of Swisserland, with the exception of the plants, of which he had formed an herbal of eighteen vast volumes in folio. His “Nova litteraria Helvetica” began in 1702, and were continued to 1715. In 1694 he began his tours on the Alps, which he repeated for many years, the result of which was published under the title of “Itinera Alpina,” one volume of which was published at London in 1708, 4to, and four at Leyden in 1713. In the course of these journeys, he improved the geography of his country, by a small map of Toggenbourg, and by his map of Swisserland in four large sheets. Amidst all these pursuits, his official duties, and his extensive literary correspondence, he found leisure to gratify his taste for medallic history, and translated Jobert’s work on that subject, which does not, however, appear to have been printed. In 1712, Leibnitz, being acquainted with his learning and fame, procured him an invitation from the czar, Peter the Great, to become his majesty’s physician, but the council of Zurich induced him to decline the offer, by an additional salary. Some time afterward, he obtained a canonry; but, according to Meister, his colleagues had no very profound respect for him, of which he gives the following ludicrous proof: A favourite crane belonging to Dr. Scheuchzer one day made her escape, and the doctor was obliged to climb the roof of the house to recover her, which he did at no small risk. The canons are said to have declared on this occasion, that they would have given a pension to the crane, if the doctor had broke his neck. It appears that this disrespect was mutual. They considered Scheuchzer as an intruder, and he despised their ignorance in condemning the Copernican system, and the theory of Swammerdam, as profane and pernicious. He appears to have had a considerable hand in the political and ecclesiastical affairs of Zurich, and had at one time a sharp controversy on religion with a Jesuit of Lucerne, whom Meister describes as the Don Quixote of the Romish church. In 1731 appeared his great work, “Physica sacra,” in 4 vols. folio, which was immediately republished in French at Amsterdam, in both instances enriched with a profusion of fine plates illustrative of the natural history of the Bible. This had been preceded by some lesser works on the same subject, which were now incorporated. He did not long survive this learned publication, dying at Zurich about the end of June 1733. He was a member of many learned societies, of our Royal Society, and of those of Berlin, Vienna, &c. and carried on a most extensive correspondence with the principal literati of Europe. He left a well-chosen and numerous library, a rich museum of natural history, and a collection of medals. Besides the works we have incidentally noticed, he published, 1. “Herbarium Diluvianum,” Zurich, 1709, reprinted and enlarged, at Leyden, 1723, folio. 2. “Piscium querelse et vindicise,” Zurich, 1708, 4to. 3. “Oratio cle Matheseos su in Theologia,” ibid. 1711, 4to. 4. “Museum Diluvianum,” ibid. 1716, 8vo.5. “Homo diluvii testis,” ibid. 1726, 4to. G. “De Helvetii aeribus, aquis, locis, specimen,” ibid. 1728, 4to. He also wrote in German, a treatise on the mineral waters of Swisserland, Zurich, 1732, 4to. In 1740, Klein published “.Sciagraphia lithologica curiosa, seu lapidum figuratorum nomenclator, olim a Jo. Jac. Scheuchzero conscriptus, auctus et illustratus,” 4to. Of his “Physica Sacra,” we have noticed the first edition published at Augsburgh, 1731—1735, four vols. folio, or rather eight volumes in four, the text of which is in German; this edition is valued on account of its having the first impressions of the plates. The Amsterdam edition, 1732 38, 8 vols. has, however, the advantage of being in French, a language more generally understood, and has the same plates. Scheuchzer had a brother, professor of natural philosophy at Zurich, who died in 1737, and is known to all botanists by his laborious and learned “Agrostographia,” so valuable for its minute descriptions of grasses. He had a son with whom we seem more interested, John Gaspak Scheuchzer, who was born at Zurich in 1702, and after studying at home came over to England, and received the degree of' M. D. at Cambridge, during the royal visit of George I. in 1728, and died at London April 13, 1729, only twenty-seven years old. He had much of the genius and learning of his family, and was a good antiquary, medallist, and natural historian. He translated into English Koempfec’s history of Japan, 1727, 2 vols. folio, and had begun a translation 1 of Koempfer’s travels in Muscovy, Persia, &c. but did not live to complete it. He wrote also a treatise on inoculation. Some part of the correspondence of this learned family is in the British Museum.

, named Medula, an eminent artist, was born in 1522, at Sebenico, in Dalimtia. His parents, who were poor, placed him with a house-painter at Venice, where, at his leisure hours, he acquired a superior taste, by studying the etchings and compositions of Parmigiano and the works of Giorgione and Titian in the public buildings of the city. At length, Titian, being informed of his unfortunate situation and promising talents, took him under his care, and soon afterwards employed him in the library of St. Marco, where Schiavoni is said to have painted three entire cielings. Feeling. his strength, he ventured to paint, in competition with Tintoretto, a picture for the church of the Santa Croce, representing the visitation of the Virgin to Elizabeth; and though he did not equal his antagonist, yet he received a considerable share of applause. Schiavoni was accounted one of the finest colourists of the Venetian school, and to colouring sacrificed almost every other attribute of the art; yet his compositions are managed with great dexterity, and executed with astonishing freedom. Two of his most admired works are in the church of the Padri Teatini at Rimini, representing the Nativity and the Assumption of the Virgin, and his “Perseus and Andromeda,” and the “Apostles at the Sepulchre,” are in the royal collection at Windsor. He died at Venice in 1582, at the age of sixty.

, a very ingenious artist, was born at Bassano, in the Venetian territory, April 1, 1765. His father was a stationer, who was enabled to give him a useful, but limited education. From his infancy he had a peculiar taste for drawing; and attained such proficiency, that an able painter, Julius Golini, to whom some of his productions were shewn, undertook to instruct him in that art. At the age of thirteen Lewis was put under his care, and the high opinion he had formed of the hoy’s genius was confirmed by the rapid progress he made, while his amiahle disposition endeared him so much, that he loved him as his own son* After three years of useful instruction, he had the misfortune to lose this master, who expired in his arms. Left to pursue his own course, he turned his views to Count Remaudini, whose extensive typographical and chalcographical concern is rendered more famous by the giving employment to Bartolozzi and Volpato; and the works of those artists gave fresh impulse to the youth’s ardour for improvement. About this time he became acquainted with one Lorio, an indifferent engraver, with whom he worked about twelve months, when, finding he bad exhausted his fund of instructions, he resolved to alter his situation. A copy of a holy family in the line manner, from Bartolozzi, after Carlo Maratta, gained him immediate employment from Count Remaudini, and attracted the notice of Mr. Suntach, an engraver and printseller in opposition to Remaudini. About this time came to Bassano a wretched engraver of architecture, but a man of consummate craft ancf address. He became acquainted with Schiavonetti at Mr. Sumach’s, and was ultimately the means of bringing him to England, where he became acquainted with Bartolozzi, and lived in his house until he established himself on his own foundation; after which Schiavonetti cultivated his genius with a success; that answered the expectations which vtere first formed' of it, and conducted all his affairs with an uprightness and integrity that will cause his memory to be equally revered as a gentleman and an artist. He died at Bromptoiv June 7, 1810, in the forty-fourth year of his age; and on the -14-th was buried in Paddington church-yard, with a solemnity worthy of his talents and character.

In his person, Mr. Schiavonetti was rather ' tall, and well made, and his amiable modesty, equability of temper, ancj promptness to oblige, won the good will of all who saw and conversed with him. Many acts of his private life showed the excellence of his character; among others, as soon as he began to derive profit from his profession, he devoted a portion of it to the support of his relatives in Italy; and constantly remitted to his aged parent a stipend sufficient to ensure him comfort. suo

, or rather Schedone (Bartolomeo), was born at Modena in 1560. He is said to have acquired the principles of the art of painting in the school of the Caracci, but must have remained there a very short time, as it is difficult to meet with any traces of their style in his works. He afterwards studied, and with the greatest success, the works and manner of Corregio. When his early works came to be admired, Ranuccio, duke of Parma, took him into his service, and for this patron he painted several pictures, which were among the principal ornaments of the collection of the king of Naples, who was heir to the Farnese family. Sir Robert Strange counted in that palace and the city of Naples near fourscore pictures by this artist. There are but few in the other collections. In the cathedral of Modena there is an admirable picture of his, of S. Geminiano restoring a dead child to life; there are also a few at Parma, but in general they are seldom to be met with to purchase. In all he is the imitator of Corregio, and between their works some connoisseurs have found it difficult to distinguish, nor has any artist so successfully imitated him, either in the harmony of his colouring, his knowledge of light and shadow, or the graces he has diffused throughout many of his compositions. Schidoni is said to have been addicted to gaming, which wasted his substance, and disturbed his mind; and at last to have fallen a sacrifice to it, not being able to overcome the mortification of having one night lost more than he was able to pay. He died at the age of fifty-six, in 1616.

, a German writer, principally known in this country as a dramatist, was born Nov. 10, 1759, at Marbach, in the duchy jf Wurtemberg, where his father was lieutenant in the service of the duke. While a boy, he was distinguished by uncommon ardour of imagination, which he never sought to limit or controul. When young, he was placed in the military school at Stuttgard, but disliked the necessary subordination. He was intended for the profession of surgery, and which he studied for some time; but from the freedom of his opinions, he was obliged to withdraw himself through apprehension of the consequences, and it is said that, at this time, he produced his first play, “The Robbers.” This tragedy, though full of faults and pernicious extravagancies, was the admiration of all the youth of enthusiastic sentiments in Germany, and several students at Leipsic deserted their college, with the avowed purpose of forming a troop of banditti in the forests of Bohemia; but their first disorders brought on them a summary punishment, which restored them to their senses, and Schiller’s biographer gravely tells us, that this circumstance added to his reputation. The tragedy certainly was quite adapted to the taste of Germany, was soon translated into several foreign languages, and the author appointed to the office of dramatic composer to the theatre of Mauheim. For this he now wrote his ' Cabal and Love,“the” Conspiracy of Fiesco,“and” Don Carlos,“and published a volume of poems, which procured him a wife of good family and fortune. This lady fell in love with him from reading his works, and is said to have roused him from those habits of dissipation in which he had in* dulged, and to which he was in great danger of falling a victim. He was now patronized by the duke of Saxe- Weimar, who conferred on him the title of aulic counsellor, and nominated him to the professorship of history and philosophy at the university of Jena. He had previously written an account of the” Revolt of the Netherlands from the Spanish government,“and he now set about composing his 4< History of the thirty Years’ War in Germany,” a work which has been much admired in his own country. At length he removed to Weimar, where the pension, as honorary professor from the duke, was continued to him; and produced the “History of the most memorable Conspira cies,” and the “Ghost-Seer,” which displayed the peculiar turn of his mind, and were much read. In the latter part of his life he conducted a monthly work published at Tubingen, and an annual poetical almanac, and composed a tragedy entitled “The Maid of Orleans.” He was the author of other dramatic pieces, some of which are known, though imperfectly, in this country, through the medium of translation. He died at Weimar, May 9, 1805, and he was interred with great funeral solemnity. In his private character Schiller was friendly, candid, and sincere. In his youth he affected eccentricity in his manners and appearance, and a degree of singularity seems always to have adhered to him. In his works, brilliant strokes of genius are unquestionably to be found, but more instances of extravagant representation of passion, and violation of truth and nature. They enjoyed some degree of popularity here, during the rage for translating and adapting German plays for our theatres; and although this be abated, they have contributed to the degeneracy of dramatic taste, and have not produced the happiest effects on our poetry.

, a learned Lutheran divine, was born at Worms, in 1652. In his twenty-seventh year, he hurt his right arm with a fall so much, that he could never recover the use of it: he learned to write, however, so well with the left, as to be able to compose near a hundred publications, without the help of an amanuensis, but they are chiefly theses upon subjects of ecclesiastical history. One of his pieces is entitled “Arcana dominationis in rebus gestis Oliverii Cromwelli;” another is against a book, supposed to be Le Clerc’s, with this title, “Liberii de sancto amore Epistolse Theoiogicse*” He translated Pardie’s “Elements of Geometry” out of French into Latin. He died in 1726; and his funeral oration was made by John Laurence Mosheim, who speaks very highly in his praise.

, was son of a native of Zurich, in Switzerland, lieutenant in the Dutch army at the memorable siege of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1747; when, after a gallant resistance of two months, it was, as generally believed, surprised by the French under marshal Lowendal. Upon quitting the service Mr. Schnebbelie came over to England, and settled in the business of a confectioner, in which capacity he had frequently the honour of attending on king George II. He afterwards opened a shop at Rochester, where one of his sons still resides; and the same profession his son Jacob (who was born Aug. 30, 1760, in Duke’s Court, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields) followed for some time, first at Canterbury, and afterwards at Hammersmith till, nature pointing out to him the proper road to fame and credit, he quitted his shop and commenced self-taught teacher, at Westminster and other public schools, of the art of drawing, in which he made a proficiency which introduced him to the notice of many among the learned and the great. To the earl of Leicester’s notice he was first introduced by accidentally sketching a view in his park near Hertford, and was employed by him in taking some of the most picturesque landscapes about Tunbridge Wells, with a view to their publication for his benefit. At their noble president’s express recommendation he was appointed draughtsman of the society of antiquaries; and filled that office with equal credit to himself and his patron. The merits of his pencil are too generally known and acknowledged to require any exaggerated eulogium, Happy in a quick eye and a discriminating taste, he caught the most beautiful objects in the happiest points of view; and for fidelity and elegance of delineation, may be ranked high among the list of firstrate artists. The works put forth on his own account are not numerous. In 1781 he intended to publish six views of St. Augustine’s Monastery, to be engraved by Mr. Rogers, &c. five of which. were completed, and one small view of that religious house was etched by himself. In 1787 he etched a plate representing the Serpentine River, part of Hyde Park, with the house of earl Bathurst, a distant view of Westminster Abbey, &c. now the property and in the possession of Mr. Jukes, intended to be aquatinted for publication, Mr. Jukes purchased also from him several views of Canterbury cathedral, St. Augustine’s monastery, &c. In March 1788 he published four views of St. Alban’s town and abbey, drawn and etched by himself; which in the November following were published, aquatinted by F. Jukes. About the same time that he set on foot the “Antiquaries Museum,' he became an associate with the late James Moore, esq. F. S. A. and Mr, Parkyns, in the f< Monastic Remains*;” which, after five numbers had appeared, he relinquished to his coadjutors. The assistance he occasionally gave to “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” the smallest part of his merit, it will be needless to particularize; his masterly hand being visible on whatever it was exerted. It is of more consequence to his fame to point out the beauties of many of the plates in the second and third volumes of the “Vetusta Monumenta” of the Society of Antiquaries and in the second volume of the “Sepulchral Monuments of Great Britain ,” the far greater part of the numerous plates in which are after him; or in the very many drawings he had finished, and the sketches he had designed, for Mr. Nichols’s “History of Leicestershire.” He had completed also some views of King’s college chapel at Cambridge, in a style worthy that most beautiful and most perfect of all our gothic buildings, and in a manner which had so far recommended him to royal notice, that, had his life been spared, there is no doubt but he would have been properly distinguished.

Thus much for his professional abilities. But he had qualities of still greater worth, the virtues of an excellent heart. Those only who knew him intimately, and more especially those who at any time have travelled with him when he has been employed as a draughtsman, can judge of the alacrity of zeal with which he has dispatched his labour, of the cheerful pleasantry with which he has relieved its toil, and of the ingenuous frankness of his natural disposition. On all these accounts his loss will not be easily made up to his friends; and to his family it is irreparable.

The very small portion of time which elapsed after the talents of Mr. Schnebbelie became universally acknowledged, did not enable him to lay by much store for his surviving family, who received a handsome relief from the Society to which he was draughtsman.

In 1733, he narrowly escaped from a dangerous illness, He had long meditated one of those works, which alone, by their importance, extent, and difficulty, might immortalise a society, a “History of Alsace.” To collect materials for this, he travelled into the Low Countries and Germany in 1738, and into Switzerland 1744. At Prague he found that the fragment of St. Mark’s Gospel, so carefully kept there, is a continuation of that at Venice. The chancellor D'Aguesseau sent for him to Paris, 1746, with the same view. His plan was to write the History of Alsace, and to illustrate its geography and policy before and under the Romans, under the Franks, Germans, and its present governors; and, in 1751, he presented it to the king of France, who had before honoured him with the title of “Historiographer Royal and Counsellor,” and then gave him an appointment of 2000 livres, and a copy of the catalogue of the royal library. He availed himself of this opportunity to plead the privileges of the Protestant university of Strasbourg, and obtained a confirmation of them. His second volume appeared in 1761; and he had prepared, as four supplements, a collection of charters and records, an ecclesiastical history, a literary history, and a list of authors who had treated of Alsace: the publication of these he recommended to Mr. Koch, his assistant and successor in his chair. Between these two volumes he published his ^Vindiciae Celticse,“in which he examines the origin, revolution, and language of the Celts. The” History of Baden“was his last considerable work, a duty which he thought he owed his country. He completed this history in seven volumes in four years; the first appeared in 176 3, the last in 1766. Having by this history illustrated his country, he prevailed upon the marquis of Baden to build a room, in which all its ancient monuments were deposited in 1763. He engaged with the elector palatine to found the academy of Manheim. He pronounced the inaugural discourse, and furnished the electoral treasury with antiques. He opened the public meetings of this academy, which are held twice a year, by a discourse as honorary president. He proved in two of these discourses, that no electoral house, no court in Germany, had produced a greater number of learned princes than the electoral house. In 1766, he presented to the elector the first volume of the” Memoirs of a Rising Academy," and promised one every two years.

He was censured by some for not making a bold attempt; and such complaints were sent of this to king William, that his majesty wrote twice to him, pressing him on the subject. But the duke saw that the enemy was well posted and well provided, and had several good officers among them; and knew that, if he met with a check, his whole army, and consequently all Ireland, had been lost, since he could not have made a regular retreat. The surest method was to preserve hi’s army; which would save Ulster, and although his conduct exposed him to the reproaches of some persons, better judges thought, that his management of this campaign was one of the greatest actions of his life. At the battle of the Boyne, July 1, 1690, he passed the river in his station, and immediately rallied and encouraged the French Protestants, who had been left exposed by the death of their commander, with this short harangue; “Aliens, messieurs, voila vos persecuteurs,” pointing to the French Papists in the enemy’s army. But these words were scarcely uttered, when a few of king James’s guards, who returned full speed to their main body, after the slaughter of their companions, and whom the French refugees suffered to pass, thinking them to 1 be of their own party, fell furiously upon the duke, and gave him two wounds over the head, which, however, were not mortal. Upon this, the French regiment acknowledged their error by committing a greater; for, firing rashly on the enemy, they shot him through the neck, of which wound he instantly died. He was buried in St. Patrick’s cathedral, where the dean and chapter erected a small monument to his honour, at their own expence, with an elegant inscription by Dr. Swift, which is printed in the Dean’s works.

Burnet tells us, that he was “a calm man, of great application and conduct, and thought much better than he spoke; of true judgment, of exact probity, and of an humble and obliging temper.” And another writer observes, that he had a thorough experience of the world; knew men and things better than any man of his profession evet clicl; and was as great in council as at the head of an army. He appeared courteous and affable to every person, and yet had an air of grandeur that commanded respect from all. In king William’s cabinet are the dispatches of the duke of Schomberg in Ireland to king William, which sir John Dalrymple has printed in the second volume of his memoirs “because,” he remarks, " they paint in lively colours the state of the army in that country clear Schoinberg of inactivity, which has been unjustly thrown upon him; and do honour to the talents of a man, who wrote with the elegant simplicity of Caesar, and to whose reputation and conduct, next to those of king William, the English nation owes the revolution.

After Dr. Schomberg had practised some years as a physician in London, he received a notice from the college of their intention to examine him in the usual form, and to admit him a licentiate. This notice he was thought to have treated with contempt; for, instead of submitting tothe examination, he objected to the names of some persons vyho were to be examined at the same time, and behaved, it is said, with some haughtiness to those of the college who, he complained, had used him ill, in ordering him to be examined in such company. The college considering themselves the sole judges of what persons they should upon, refused to attend to the doctor’s objection, but examined the persons against whom he seemed most to except; but this not tending to make up the dispute, they proceeded to interdict the doctor from practice until he had given such satisfaction as his conduct required. In the mean time the doctor submitted to be examined, and in 1750 procured the degree of doctor of physic to be conferred on him by the university of Cambridge; and, thus supported, demanded his admittance a second time, not as a licenciate, but one of the body. This demand was refused to be complied with, and it was objected, that the doctor, though naturalized, could not hold the office of censor of the college, which was an office of trust; and this refusal brought the determination of the business to the decision of the lawyers. A petition was presented to the king, praying him, in the person of the lord chancellor, to exercise his visitatorial power over the college, and restore the licenciates to their rights, which, by their arbitrary proceedings, the president and fellows had for a succession of ages deprived them of. This petition came on to be heard at Lincoln’s Inn hall, before the lord chief justice Willis, baron Smythe, and judge Wilmot, lords commissioners of the great seal; but the allegations therein contained not being established, the same was dismissed. This attack on the college was the most formidable it erer sustained.

From this period Dr. Schomberg took his station in the medical profession, with credit and approbation, though without the success that inferior talents sometimes experienced. On the last illness of David Garrick, he was fcalled in, and hailed, by his dying friend, in the affectionate terms of “though last not least in'our dear love.” He survived Garrick but a short time, dying at his house in Conduit-street, the 4th of March, 1780; and the following character was given of him by one who seems to have known him well:

"His great talents and knowledge in his profession, were universally acknowledged by the gentlemen of the faculty; and his tenderness and humanity recommended him to the friendship and esteem, as well as veneration, of his patients. He was endued with uncommon quickness and sagacity in discovering the sources, and tracing the progress of a disorder; and though in general a friend to prudent regimen, rather than medicine, yet, in emergent cases, he prescribed with a correct and happy boldness equal to the occasiom He was so averse from that sordid avarice generally charged, perhaps often with great injus* tice, on the faculty, that many of his friends in affluent cii> cumstances found it impossible to force on him that reward for his services which he had so fairly earned, and which his attendance so well merited. As a man he was sincere and just in his principles, frank and amiable in his temper, instructive and lively in conversation; his many singulari* ties endearing him still further to his acquaintance, as they proceeded from an honest plainness of manner, and visibly flowed from a benevolent simplicity of heart. He was, for many days, sensible of his approaching end, which he encountered with a calmness and resignation, not easily to be imitated by those who now regret the loss of so good a man, so valuable a friend, and so skilful a physician/'

Dr. Schomberg had a younger brother, Ralph Schomberg, M. D. who first settled at Yarmouth as a physician^ and published some works on professional subjects that indicated ability, and others from which he derived little reputation. Of the former kind are, 1. “Aphorismi practici, sive observationes medicse,” for the use of students, and in alphabetical order, 1750, 8vo. 2. “Prosperi Martiani Annotationes in csecas praenotationes synopsis,” 175 1 * 3. “Van Swieten’s Commentaries” abridged. 4. “A Treatise of the Colica Pictonum, or Dry Belly-ache,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Duport de signis morborum libri quatuor,” 1766. Of the latter, are some dramatic pieces of very little value, and 6. “An Ode on the present rebellion,” 1746. 7. “An Account of the present rebellion,” 1746. 8. “The Life of Maecenas,” 1767, 12mo, taken without acknowledgment from Meibomius. 9. “A critical Dissertation on the characters and Writings of Pindar and Horace, in a letter to the right hon. the earl of B” also a shame* ful instance of plagiarism from Blondell’s “Comparison de Pindare et D' Horace.” It would have been well if his pilferings had only been from books; but after he had removed to Bath, and practised there some years with considerable success, he tried his skill upon the funds of a public charity, and, detection following, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat from Bath, and from public practice. He appears to have hid himself first at Pangbourn in Berkshire, and afterwards at Heading, where he died June 29, 1792. In the obituary he is called “Ralph Schornberg, Esq.”

, a learned and very laborious writer, was born April 1, 1614, at Utrecht, and was successively professor of languages, rhetoric, history, natural philosophy, logic, and experimental philosophy in that city, at Deventer, Groningen, and lastly, at Francfort upon Oder, where he died in 1665, aged fifty-one. Schoockius delighted in singular subjects, and has left a prodigious number of works. Burman says he never knew a man who published so much and acquired so little fame in the learned world. Some of his works are critical, others on philosophy, divinity, history, and literature, chiefly ia 12 mo or 8vo, &c. The most known are, tracts on turfs, “De Turffis, seu de cespitibus Bituminosis” “On Butter;” “On Antipathy to Cheese” “On Eggs and Chickens;” “On Inundations” “De Harengis, seu Halecibus” “De Signaturis foetus” “De Ciconiis” “De Nihilo” “De Sternutatione” “De figmento legis Regies” “De Bonis Ecclesiasticis et Canouicis,” 4toj “De Statu Reipublicse faederati Belgii,” &c. c. He wrote also against Des Cartes, at the request of the famous Voetius, with whom he was much connected. Some other pieces on singular subjects are in his “Exercitationes variae,” 1663, 4to, reprinted under the title of “Martini Themidis exercitationes,” 1688, 4to, &C.

, a learned Jesuit, was born in 1608, in the diocese of Wurtzburg. His favourite studies were philosophy and mathematics, which he taught till his death. He passed several years at Palermo, whence he removed to Rome, where he contracted an intimacy with the celebrated Kircher, who communicated to him several of his observations on the arts and sciences. Schott was author of several works, of which the most remarkable are, 1, “Physica curiosa; sive Mirabilia Naturae et artis,” 1667, 4to. 2. “Magia naturalis et artificialis,” 1657 59, 4 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1677. 3. “Technica curiosa,” Norimberg, 1664, 4to, in which is found the first idea of the airpump. 4. “Anatomia Physico-hydrostatica Fontium et Fluminum.” 5. “Organum Mathematicum.” In the various writings of this Jesuit are to be met with the germs of the greater part of modern experiments in physics. Complete sets of them should consist of 20 vols., but they are not easily procured, as they were almost entirely forgotten, till brought to notice in 1785 by the abbé Mercier, in his “Notice des ouvrages de Caspar Schott.”

, a Dutch commentator, was the son of Theodore Schrevelius, first rector of the school at Haerlem, the history of which city he published, and afterwards rector of that of Leyden. He was born probably at the former place, and removed to Leyden with his father in 1625, who being then advanced in years resigned his office in favour of Cornelius in 1642. Cornelius appears before this to have studied and took his degrees in medicine, but his promotion to the school turned his attention to classical pursuits, in the course of which he pub­]ished editions variorum of Hesiod, Homer, Claudian, Virgil, Lucan, Martial, Juvenal and Persius, Erasmus’s colloquies, &c. none of which have been so fortunate as to obtain the approbation of modern critics. He applied, however, to lexicography with more success, and besides a good edition of the Greek part of Hesychius’s Lexicon, published himself a Greek and Latin Dictionary, which has been found so useful to beginners, that perhaps few works of the kind have gone through so many editions. Those of this country, where it still continues to be printed, have been enlarged and improved by Hill, Bowyer, and others. Schrevelius died in 1667.

, a German divine, was bora at Groningen, where he studied till 1706, and greatly distinguished himself by taste and skill in Arabic learning. He became a minister of Wassenar, and professor of the oriental tongues at Franeker. At length he was invited to Leyden, where he taught Hebrew and the oriental languages with reputation till his death, which happened in 1750. There are many works of Schultens, which shew profound learning and just criticism as, “Commentaries upon Job and the Proverbs” a book, entitled “Vet us et regia via Hebraizandi” “A Treatise of Hebrew Roots,” &c. He had a son John Jacob Schultens, who was professor of divinity and oriental languages at Leyden, in his room. This John Jacob was father to the subject of the following article.

, was born Feb. 15, 1749, at Herborn (where his father was at that time divinityprofessor), and was educated at the university at Leyden, where he applied himself with great diligence to the Arabic, under his father’s instructions, and those of Scheidius, who then lodged in his house. By his father’s advice, he commenced his study of the eastern languages by learning the Arabic, to which he applied during two years, before he began the Hebrew. This, among other reasons, may account for the preference which he always gave to the Arabic literature, and which was so great that he was often heard to wish that the duties of his station would allow him to devote the whole of his time to it. He, however, studied the Greek and Latin classics with the utmost diligence under Hemsterhuis, Rhunkenius, and Valkenaar. He also cultivated an acquaintance with the best modem writers, among whom he in general gave the preference to the English; he was remarkably fond of Pope; and of Shakspeare he was an enthusiastic admirer.

In 1772, when only in his twenty-third year, he published a work entitled “Anthologia Sententiarum Arabicarum,” with a Latin translation and notes, of which sir William Jones testified his approbation. Soon after this Schultens went to England, in order to examine the Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian library, and resided for some time at Oxford, as a gentleman commoner of Wadham college. Here in less than three months during the short winter days, he transcribed Pocock’s “Meidanius” with his translation and notes, a work which took up no less than 646 folio pages. The late professor White, in a letter to the father of Schultens, says of him: “It is impossible for any one to be more generally respected in this place, or indeed to be more deserving of it. His abilities, his amiable disposition, and his polite behaviour, recommend him strongly to all those among us who know him only by reputation, and endear him to all who are personally acquainted with him.” The university testified its sense of his extraordinary merit, by conferring on him (in May 1773) the degree of M. A. by diploma. He also visited Cambridge, where he spent a fortnight; during which time he corrected several errors in the catalogue of Arabic manuscripts, and made several additions to it. In London he published a specimen of Pocock’s “Meidanius.” Dr. Morton offered to make him his assistant at the British Museum, and to secure to him the reversion of his own place but the ambition of Schultens was to be a professor of Eastern languages and as there was no probability of this appointment in England, he determined to return to Holland. Sir William Jones, whose friendship he assiduously cultivated, advised him to study the Persian, which he did with great diligence but he complained that this pursuit was often interrupted by other avocations, and that he was not able to devote so much time to it as he wished.

As a teacher, professor Schultens had the happy talent of rendering the driest subjects plain and interesting to his pupils. This was particularly the case with the principles of the Hebrew grammar, an intimate and accurate knowledge of which he recommended as indispensably necessary to all who wished to understand the Old Testament in the original language. In translating and explaining the Bible, he preserved a judicious medium between those who^ thought the Hebrew text too sacred to be the subject of criticism; and those who, like Houbigant, without a sufficient acquaintance with the genius of the language, ventured on needless alterations. Hence he was. much displeased with a work by professor Kocherus of Berne, entitled “Vindiciue sacri textus Hebraei Esaiae vatis, adversus 11. Lowthi criticam;” concerning which he said, in a letter to Dr. Findlay, of Glasgow, “It violates the bounds of moderation and decency by the assertion that the text of Isaiah could not gain any thing by Dr. Lowth’s conjectures. I am of a very different opinion. When at Oxford and London, I was intimately acquainted with bishop Lowth, had an opportunity of knowing his excellent disposition, and am therefore much vexed that Kocherus, from his fiery zeal against innovation, should have been induced to treat him with seventy, as if the bishop had been a rash and petulant critic.” Schultens’s sentiments on this subject are more fully expressed in some articles which he wrote for the “Bihliotheca Critica,” published by Wyttenbach, particularly in the review of Kennicoi’s Bible. These judicious sentiments, together with his extensive abilities and knowledge of the subject, his eulogist observes, rendered him admirably qualified to have given a new version of the Old Testament. This at one time he designed, and nearly finished a translation of the book of Job, which was published after his death by Herman Muntinge, 1794, 8vo, but his sentiments of this portion of sacred writ are so much at variance with those of the most able and popular commentators, that we question if it will meet with general approbation.

Professor Schultens, though a very industrious student, published little besides the “Anthologia” already mentioned, and the following, “Pars versionis Arabics: libri Colaili Wa Dimriah, sive Fabularum Bilpai;” a supplement to D'Herbelot’s “Bibliotheque Orientale;” a Dutch translation of Eichorn on the literary merits of Michael is; and three Latin orations. He at one time resumed his intended edition of Meidanius, the care of which he left to professor Schroeder, who published a volume 4to, under the title “Meidani proverbiorum Arabicorurn pars. Latine vertit et notis illustravit H. A. Scultens. Opus posthumum,” 1795. It ought to consist of two more volumes, but we know not that they have appeared.

, a most learned German lady, was the daughter of parents who were both descended from noble Protestant families, and was born at Cologne, in 1607. She discovered from her infancy an uncommon facility in acquiring various accomplishments, as cutting with her scissors upon paper all sorts of figures, without any model, designing flowers, embroidery, music vocal and instrumental, painting-, sculpture, and engraving; and is said to have succeeded equally in all these arts. Mr. Evelyn, in his “History of Chalcography,” has observed, that “the very knowing Anna Maria a Schurman is skilled in this art with innumerable others, even to a prodigy of her sex.” Her hand-xvriting in all languages was inimitable; and some curious persons have preserved specimens of it in their cabinets. M. Joby, in his journey to Minister, relates, that he was an eye-witness to the beauty of her writing, in French, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic; and of her skill in drawing in miniature, and making portraits upon glass with the point of a diamond. She painted her own picture by means of a looking-glass; and made artificial pearls so like natural ones, that they could not be distinguished but by pricking them with a needle.

Her father, who had settled at Utrecht while she was an infant, and afterwards removed to Franeker for the more convenient education of his children, died there in 1623. His widow then returned to Utrecht, where Anna Maria continued her studies very intensely; which probably prevented her from marrying, as she might have done advantageously v.ith Mr. Cats, pensionary of Holland, and a celebrated poet, who wrote verses in her praise when she was only fourteen. Her modesty, which was as great as her knowledge, would have kept her in obscurity, if Rivetus, Spanheim, and Vossius, had not made her merit known. Salmasius also, Beverovicius, and Huygens, maintained a literary correspondence with her; and, by shewing her letters, spread her fame into foreign countries. This procured her a correspondence with Balzac, Gassendi, Mersennus, Bo chart, Conrart, and other eminent men; persons of the first rank paid her visits, and cardinal Richelieu likewise shewed her marks of his esteem. About 1650, a great alteration took place in her religious system. She performed her devotions in private, without frequenting any church, upon which it was reported that she was inclined to popery; but she attached herself to the famous mystic Labadie, and embracing his principles and practice, lived some time with him at Altena, in Holstein, and attended him at his death there in 1674. She afterwards retired to Wiewart, in Friseland, where the famous Penn, the Quaker, visited her in 1677; she died at this place in 1678. She took for her device these words of St. Ignatius: “Amor meus crucifixus est.”

, who passes for being the discoverer of that fatal composition so well known by the name of gun-powder, was born at Friburg in Germany in the thirteenth century, and is said to have discovered this dangerous secret in prison, as he was making some chemical experiments. Albertus Magnus speaks of him as a Cordelier, and says that he invented some sorts of firearms. The discovery of this fatal secret has been attributed by some to the Chinese, and by others to our countryman, Roger Bacon: however, the use of artillery was introduced about the time of the battle of Crecy, 1346, and made an absolute change in the whole art of war; whether a beneficial one, has not yet been decided.

, a learned German writer, and one of the most arrogant and contentious critics of his time, was born about 1576; and studied first at Amberg, then at Heidelberg, afterwards at Altdorf, at the charges of the elector palatine. Having made a considerable stay at Ingolstadt, he returned to Altdorff, where he began to publish some of his works. Ottavia Ferrari, a celebrated professor at Padua, says, that he “published books when he was but sixteen, which deserved to be admired by old men;” some, however, of his early productions do not deserve this encomium. He took a journey into Italy; and, after he had been some time at Verona, returned into Germany, whence he went again into Italy, and published at Ferrara a panegyric upon the king of Spain and pope Clement VIII. Iti 1599, he embraced the Roman catholic religion, but had an extraordinary antipathy to the Jesuits; against whom, Baillet tells us, he wrote about thirty treatises under fictitious names. Nor was he more lenient to the Protestants, and solicited the princes to extirpate them by the most bloody means, in a book which he published at Pavia in 1619, under the title of “Gasp. Scioppii Consiliarii Regii Classieum belli sa'cri, sive, Heldus Redivivus.” The following is the title of another, printed at Mentz in 1612, against Philip Mornay du Plessis; and which, as he tells us in the title-page, he sent to James I. of England, by way of new-year’s gift: “Alexipharmacum Regium felli clraconum et veneno aspidum sub Philippi Mornaei de Piessis nuper Papatus historia abdito appositum, et sereniss. Jacobo Magnae Britanniae Regi strenae Januariae loco muneri missum.” He had before attacked the king of England, by publishing in 1611, two books with these titles; “Ec­clesiasticus auctoritati Sereniss. D. Jacob), &c. oppositus,” and “Collyrium Regium Britanniae Regi graviter ex oculis laboranti muneri missum;” that is, “An Eye-salve for the use of his Britannic majesty.” In the first of these pieces he ventured to attack Henry IV. of France in a most violent manner which occasioned his book to be burnt at Paris. He gloried, however, in this disgrace and, according to his own account, had the farther honour of being hanged in effigy in a farce, which was acted before the king of England. He did not, however, always escape with impunity; for, in 1614, the servants of the English ambassador are said to have beaten him with great severity at Madrid. Of the wounds he received in this conflict, he, as usual, made his boasts, as he also did of having been the principal contriver of the Catholic league, which proved so ruinous to the Protestants in Germany. In his way through Venice in 1607, he had a conference with father Paul, whom he endeavoured by promises and threats to bring over to the pope’s party; which, perhaps, with other circumstances, occasioned his being imprisoned there three or four days. After he had spent many years in literary contests, he applied himself to the prophecies of holy scripture, and flattered himself that he had discovered the true key to them. He sent some of these prophetical discoveries to cardinal Mazarine, who paid no attention to them. It has been said that he had thoughts at last of going back to the communion of Protestants; but this, resting upon the single testimony of Hornius, has not been generally believed. He died in 1649.

He was indisputably a very learned man; and, had his moderation and probity been equal to his learning, might justly have been accounted an ornament to the republic of letters: his application to study, his memory, the multitude of his books, and his quickness of parts, are surprising. Ferrarius tells us that he studied day and night; that, during the last fourteen years of his life, he kept himself shut tip in a little room, and that his conversation with those who went to visit him ran only upon learning; that, like another Ezra, he might have restored the holy scripture, if it had been lost, for that he could repeat it almost by heart; and that the number of his books exceeded the number of his years. He left behind him also several manuscripts, which, as Morhoff tells us, “remained in the hands of Picruccius, professor at Padua, and are not yet published, to the no small indignation of the learned world.” He was nevertheless a man of a malignant and contentious spirit, and lived in continual hostility with the learned of his time, nor did he spare the best writers of ancient Rome, even Cicero himself, whose language he censured for improprieties and barbarisms. Niceron enumerates upwards of an hundred different publications by Scioppius, all of which are now fallen into oblivion, or only occasionally consulted. They are mostly polemical, on subjects of criticism, religious opinions, the Jesuits, Protestants, &c. many of them under the fictitious names of Nicodemus Macer, Oporinus Grubinius, Aspasius Crosippus, Holofernes Krigsoederus, and other barbarous assumptions.

, an eminent naturalist, was born in 1725, at Cavalese, in the bishopric of Trent. He studied at Inspruck, and at twenty years old obtained the degree of licentiate in medicine, and afterwards was intrusted with the care of the hospitals of Trent, and of hi* native town Cavalese; but as this stage was too small for his ambition, he requested that his parents would permit him to go to Venice. In that city, under the auspices of Lo taria Lotti, he extended his knowledge of medicine, and added to it a more intimate acquaintance with pharmacy, botany, and natural history. On his return he traversed the mountains of Tirol and Carniola, where he laid the foundation of his “Flora” and “Entomologia Carniolica.” In 1754- he accompanied count de Firmian, prince bishop, and afterwards cardinal, to Gratz, from whence he went to Vienna to obtain a diploma to practice in the Austrian dominions. His examination is said to have been rigorous, and his thesis on a new method of classing plants to have been received with great regard. The friendship of Van Swieten, if in this instance it can be called friendship, procured him the office of first physician to the Austrian miners of Tirol. In this banishment he continued more than ten years; for it was only in 1766, after repeated solicitations, that he obtained the post of counsellor in the mining department, and professor of mineralogy at Schemnitz; but in this interval he produced his “Anni tres Historico-naturales,” 1769 to 1771, 8vo. In this new office he was indefatigable in teaching, exploring new mines, composing different works on fossils, and improving the method of treating minerals; but after ten years’ labour, he was not able to obtain the newly-established chair of natural history at Vienna; yet soon after his attempt, about the end of 1776, he was appointed professor of chemistry and botany at Pavia. In this situation he published some pharmaceutical essays, translated and greatly augmented Macquer’s Dictionary, and explained the contents of the cabinet of natural history belonging to the university, under the title of " Deliciae Florae et Faunae Insubricee,' 7 the last part of which he did not live to complete. The president of the Linnsean society, who dedicated the Scopolia to his memory, informs us that, after some domestic chagrin, and much public persecution, he died at Pavia, May 8, 1788. He had been concerned with all the most eminent men of that university, Volta, Fontana, and others, in detecting the misconduct of their colleague, the celebrated Spallanzani, who had robbed the public museum. But the emperor, loth to dismiss so able a professor, contented himself with a personal rebuke at Vienna to the culprit, and his accusers were silenced, in a manner which was supposed to have caused the death of Scopoli. The survivors told their story, as explicitly as they durst, in a circular letter to the learned of Europe.

His father, by his first wife, had a son, Thomas Scott, a dissenting minister at Norwich, who published several occasional sermons, and died in 1746, leaving two sons, one Thomas Scott, a dissenting minister at Ipswich, author of a poetical version of the Book of Job, a second edition of which was printed in 1774. This has been thought more valuable as a commentary than as a translation. His other son was Dr. Joseph Nicol Scott, who was first a dissenting minister, and published 2 vols. of sermons “preached in defence of all religion, whether natural or revealed.” He was a strenuous opponent of the doctrine of eternal punishments. He afterwards practised physic in London, and died about 1774.

, a learned member of the royal society, and of the board of longitude, was the eldest son of Mr. Scott, of Bristow, in Scotland, who married Miss Stewart, daughter of sir James Stewart, lord advocate of Scotland in the reigns of William III. and queen Anne. That lady was also his cousin-german, their mothers being sisters, and both daughters of Mr. Robert Trail, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, of the same family as the rev. Dr. William Trail, the learned author of the “Life of Dr. Robert Simson, professor of mathematics at Glasgow.”

Mr. Scott, the father, with his family, lived many years abroad, in a public character; and he had three sons born while residing at the court of Hanover. The eldest of these was our author, George Lewis, named, in both these names, after his god-father, the elector, who was afterwards George I. George Lewis Scott was a gentleman of considerable talents and general learning; he was well-skilled also in the mathematical sciences , for which he manifested at times a critical taste, as may be particularly seen in some letters which, in 1764, passed between him and and Dr. Simson, of Glasgow, and are inserted in Dr. Trail’s account of “The Life and Writings of Dr. Simson.” Mr. Scott was also the author of the “Supplement to Chambers’s Dictionary,” in 2 large folio volumes, which was much esteemed, and for which he received 1,500l. from the booksellers, a considerable price at the time of that publication. Mr. Scott was sub-preceptor, for the Latin language, to his present majesty when prince of Wales. After that he was appointed a commissioner of excise; a situation which his friends considered as not adequate to his past deserts, and interior to what he probably would have had, but for the freedom of his political opinions. From some correspondence with Gibbon, to whom, in particular, he wrote an excellent letter of directions for mathematical studies, we may infer that he did not differ much from that gentleman in matters of religious belief. Mr. Scott died. Dec. 1730. He was elected F. S. A. in 1736, and F. R. 8. in 1737.

Mrs. Scott, his widow, survived him about fifteen years, and died at Catton, near Norwich, in Nov. 1795. She was sister to the late celebrated Mrs. Montagu, of Portmansquare. From the pen of a very intelligent and equally candid writer, we have the following account of this lady “She was an excellent historian, of great acquirements, extraordinary memory, and strong sense; and constantly employed in literary labours; yet careless of fame, and tree from vanity and ostentation. Owing to a disagreement of tempers, she soon separated from her husband; but in every other relation of life she was, with some peculiarities, a woman of exemplary conduct, of sound principles, enlivened by the warmest sense of religion, and of a charity so unbounded, so totally regardless of - herself, as to be almost excessive and indiscriminate. Her talents were not so brilliant, nor her genius so predominant, as those of her sister, Mrs. Montagu: but in some departments of literature she was by no means her inferior. When she left her husband she united her income with that of her intimate friend, lady Bab Montagu, the sister of lord Halifax, and they continued to live together to the death of the latter. From that period Mrs. Scott continually changed her habitation, for restlessness was one of her foibles. Her intercourse with the world was various and extensive; and there were few literary people of her day with whom she had not either an acquaintance or a correspondence. Yet when she died, not one of her contemporaries who knew her literary habits came forward to preserve the slightest memorial of her; and she went to her grave as unnoticed as the most obscure of those who have done nothing worthy of remembrance. Under these circumstances, the writer of this article trusts to a candid reception of this imperfect memoir, while he laments that Mrs. Scott herself shut out some of the best materials, by ordering all her papers and voluminous correspondence, which came into the hands of her executrix, to be burnt; an order much to be lamented, because there is reason to believe, from the fragments which remain in other hands, that her letters abounded with literary anecdote, and acute observations on character and life. Her style was easy, unaffected, and perspicuous; her remarks sound, and her sagacity striking. Though her fancy was not sufficiently powerful to give the highest attraction to a novel, she excelled in ethical remarks, and the annals of the actual scenes of human nature. In dramatic effect, in high-wrought passion, and splendid imagery, perhaps she was deficient.”

, a learned English divine, was son of Mr. Thomas Scott, a substantial grazier, and was born in the parish of Chippingham, in Wiltshire, in 1638. Not being intended for a literary profession, he served an apprenticeship in London, much against his will,- for about three years but, having an inclination as well as talents for learning, he quitted his trade and went to Oxford. “He was admitted a commoner of New Inn in 1657, and made a great progress in logic and philosophy; but left the university without taking a degree, and being ordained., came to London, where he officiated in the perpetual curacy of Trinity in the Minories, and as minister of St. Thomas’s in Southwark. In 1677 he was presented to the rectory of St. Peter Le Poor; and was collated to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral in 1684. In 1685 he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity, having before taken no degree in any other faculty. In 1691 he succeeded Sharp, afterwards archbishop of York, in the rectory of St. Giles in the Fields; and the same year was made canon of Windsor. Wood says that*; he might soon have been a bishop, had not some scruples hindered him;‘.’ and Hickes lias told us that he refused the bishopric of Chester, because he could not take the oath of homage; and afterwards another bishopric, the deanery of Worcester, and a prebend of the church of Windsor, because they were all places of deprived men. This, however, Dr. Isham attributes entirely to his growing infirmities. He died in 1694, and was buried in St. Giles’s church: his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Isham, and afterwards printed in 1695. In this sermon we are told that” he had many virtues in him of no ordinary growth piety towards God kindness, friendship, affability, sincerity, towards men zeal and constancy in the discharge of the pastoral office and, in a word, all those graces and virtues which make the good Christian and the good man.“When popery was encroaching under Charles II. and James II. he was one of those champions who opposed it with great warmth and courage, particularly in the dedication of a sermon 'preached at Guildhall chapel, Nov. 5, 1683, to sir William Hooker, lord-mayor of London, where he declares that” Domitian and Dioclesian were but puny persecutors and bunglers in cruelty, compared with the infallible cut-throats of the apostolical chair."

, a poet of considerable genius, and a very amiable man, was the youngest son of Samuel and Martha Scott, and was born January 9, 1730, in the GrangeWalk, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey. His father was a draper and citizen of London, a man of plain and irreproachable manners, and one of the society of the people called quakers, in which persuasion our poet was educated, and continued during the whole of his life, although not with the strictest attention to all the peculiarities of that sect. In the seventh year of his age he was put under the tuition of one John Clarke, a native of Scotland, who kept a school in Bermondsey-street, attended young Scott at his father’s house, and instructed him in the rudiments of the Latin tongue. In his tenth year his father retired with his family, consisting of Mrs. Scott and two sons, to the village of Amwell in Hertfordshire, where, for some time, he carried on the malting trade. Here our poet was sent to a private day-school, in which he is said to have had few opportunities of polite literature, and those few were declined by his father from a dread of the smallpox, which neither he nor his son had yet caught* This terror, perpetually recurring as the disorder made its appearance in one quarter or another, occasioned such frequent removals as prevented his son from the advantages of regular education. The youth, however, did not neglect to cultivate his mind by such means as were in his power. About the age of seventeen he discovered an inclination to the study of poetry, with which he combined a delight in viewing the appearances of rural nature. At this time he derived much assistance from the conversation and opinions of one Charles Frogley, a person in the humble station of a bricklayer, but who had improved a natural taste for poetry, and arrived at a considerable degree of critical discernment. This Mr. Scott thankfully acknowledged when he had himself attained a rank among the writers of his age, and could return with interest the praise by which Frogley had cheered his youthful attempts. The only other adviser of his studies, in this sequestered spot, was a Mr. John Turner, afterwards a dissenting preacher. To him he was introduced in 1753 or 1754, and, on the removal of Mr. Turner to London, and afterwards to Colleton in Devonshire, they carried on a friendly correspondence on matters of general taste.

Mr. Scott’s first poetical essays were published in the Gentleman’s Magazine, “.the great receptacle for the ebullitions of youthful genius.” Mr. Hoole, his biographer, has not been able to discover all the pieces inserted by him in that work, but has reprinted three of them, which are added to his works in the late edition of the English poets. With the taste of the public during his retirement at Arnwell he could have little acquaintance. He had lived here about twenty years, at a distance from any literary society or information. His reading was chiefly confined to books of taste and criticism; but the latter at that time were not many nor very valuable. In the ancient or modern languages it does not appear that he made any progress. Mr. Hoole thinks he knew very little of Latin, and had no knowledge of either French or Italian. Those who know of what importance it is to improve genius by study, will regret that such a man was left, in the pliable days of youth, without any acquaintance with the noble models on which English poets have been formed. They will yet more regret, that the cause of this distance from literary society, the source of all generous and useful emulation, was a superstitious dread of the small-pox, already mentioned as obstructing his early studies, and which continued to prevail with his parents to such a der gree, that although at the distance of only twenty miles, their son had been permitted to visit London but once in twenty years. His chief occupation, when not in a humour to study, was in cultivating a garden, for which he had a particular fondness, and at length rendered one of trie most attractive objects to the visitors of Amwell.

About the year 1760, he began to make occasional; though cautious and short visits to London; and in the spring of this year, published his “Four Elegies, Descriptive and Moral,” epithets which may be applied to almost all his poetry. These were very favourably received, and not only praised by the public critics, but received the valuable commendations of Dr. Young, Mrs. Talbot, and Mrs. Carter, who loved poetry, and loved it most when in conjunction with piety. But for many years he abstained from farther publication, determined to put in no claims that were not strengthened by the utmost industry and frequent and careful revisal. This, probably, in some cases checked nis enthusiasm, and gave to his longer poems an appearance of labour.

In 1767, he married Sarah Frogley, the~daughter of his early friend and adviser Charles Frogley. The bride was, previous to her nuptials, admitted a member of the society of quakers. For her father he ever preserved the highest respect, and seems to have written his Eleventh Ode with a view to relieve the mind of that worthy man from the Apprehension of being neglected by bim. The connection he had formed in his family, however, was not of long duration. His wife died in childbed in 1768, and the same year he lost his father and his infant-child. For some time he was inconsolable, and removed from Amwell, where so many objects excited the bitter remembrance of all he held dear, to the house of a friend at Upton. Here, when time and reflection had mellowed his grief, he honoured the memory of his wife by an elegy in which tenderness and love are expressed in the genuine language of nature. As he did not wish to make a parade of his private feelings, a few copies only of this elegy were given to his friends, nor would he ever suffer it to be published for sale. It procured him the praise of Dr. Hawkesworth, and the friendship of Dr. Langhorne, who, about this time, had been visited by a similar calamity. His mother, it ought to have been mentioned, died in 1766; and, in 1769, he lost his friend and correspondent Mr. Turner.

In November 1770, he married his second wife, Mary de Home, daughter of the late Abraham de Home: “a lady whose amiable qualities promised him many years of uninterrupted happiness.” During his visit in London, he increased his literary circle of friends by an introduction to Mrs. Montagu’s parties. Among those who principally noticed him with respect, were lord Lyttelton, sir William Jones, Mr. Potter, Mr. Mickle, and Dr. Beattie, who paid him a cordial visit at Amwell in 1773, and again in 1781, and became one of his correspondents.

Although we have hitherto contemplated our author as a student and occasional poet, he rendered himself more conspicuous as one of those reflectors on public affairs who employ much of their time in endeavouring to be useful. Among other subjects, his attention had often been called to that glaring defect in human polity, the state of the poor; and having revolved the subject in his mind, with the assistance of many personal inquiries, he published in 1773 “Observations on the present state of the parochial and vagrant Poor.” It is needless to add, that his advice in this matter was rather approved than followed. Some of his propositions, indeed, were incorporated in Mr. Gilbert’s Bill, in 1782; but the whole was lost for want of parliamentary support.

At, such intervals as our author could spare, he wrote various anonymous pamphlets and essays, on miscellaneous subjects, and is said to have appeared among the enemies of the measures of government who answered Dr. Johnson’s “Patriot,” “False Alarm,” and “Taxation no Tyranny.” On the commencement of the llowleian controversy, he took the part of Chatterton, and was among the first who questioned the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Rowley. This he discussed in some letters inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine. Of course he was led to admire the wonderful powers ~of the young impostor, and in his XXIst ode pays a poetical tribute to his memory, in which, with others of his brethren at that time, he censures the unfeeling rich for depriving their country of a new Shakspeare or Milton.

the Society, His own opinion was, Review, yol. VII. N. S. p. 257. answering Dr. Johnson’s pamphlets, it has been allowed that he made use of expressions which would better become those who did not know the worth of that excellent character.

His “Critical Essays” were published in 1785 by Mr, Hoole, who prefixed a life written with much affection, yet with impartiality. As a poet, Mr. Scott seems to rank among those who possess genius in a moderate degree, who please by short efforts and limited inspirations, but whose talents are better displayed in moral reflection and pathetic sentiment than flights of fancy. His “Elegies,” as they were the first, are among the best of his performances. Simplicity appears to have been his general aim, and he was of opinion that it was too little studied by modern writers. In the “Mexican prophecy,” however, and in “Serim,” there is a fire and spirit worthy of the highest school. His “Amwell” will ever deserve a distinguished place among descriptive poems, but it is liable to all the objections attached to descriptive poetry. His feeblest effort is the “Essay on Painting,” a hasty sketch, in which he professed himself, and that not in very humble terms, to be the rival of Hayley. Upon the whole, however, the vein of pious and moral reflection, and the benevolence and philanthropy which pervade all his poems, will continue to make them acceptable to those who read to be improved, and are of opinion that pleasure is not the sole end of poetry.

, one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, was born at Dundee in Scotland, in 1506, and after making great progress in the Greek and Latin languages at the grammar school of that place, studied philosophy at St. Andrew’s university with equal success* He afterwards studied civil law at Paris and Bourges. At this latter city he became acquainted with the Greek professor, James Amiot, who recommended him to be tutor to two young gentlemen; and this served also to introduce him to Bernard Bornetel, bishop of Rennes, a celebrated political character, who invited Mr. Scrimzeor to accompany him to Italy. There he became acquainted with the most distinguished scholars of the country. The death of the noted Francis Spira * happened during his visit at Padua, and as the character and conduct of this remarkable person at that time engaged the attention of the world, Mr. Scrimzeor is said to have collected memoirs of him, which, however, does not appear in the catalogue of his works.

* Francis Spira was a lawyer of great plied. Shortly after he fell into * reputation at Cittadella in the Venetian deep melancholy, lost his health, and State, at the beginning of the sixteenth was removed to Padua for the adcentury. He had imbibed the prin- vice of physicians and divines but ciples of 'he Reformation, and was ac- his disorders augmented. The recused before John de la Casa, arch- cantation, which he said he had made bishop of Benevento, the pope’s nun- from cowardice and interest, filled his cio at Venice. He made some con- mind with continual horror and remorse, cessions, and asked pardon of the pa- and no means being found to restore pal minister for hi* errors. But the either his health or peace of mind, be nuncio insisted upon a public recanta- fell a victim to his miserable situation tion. Spira was exceedingly averse to in 1548. Collier’s Diet. art. Spira. this measure but at the pressing in- There have been many editions of a stances of his wife and his friends, who “Life of Spira” published in England represented to him, that tie must lose and Scotland, as a “warning to aposhis practice and ruin his affairs by tales.” persisting against it, he at last comchair; but after he had taught for some time at Geneva, a fire broke out in his neighbourhood, by. which his house was consumed, and he himself reduced to great distress. At this time flourished at Augsburg that famous mercantile family, the. Fuggers. Ulric Fugger, its then representative, a man possessed of prodigious wealth, and a munificent patron of learned men, having heard of the misfortune which had befallen Mr. Scrimzeor, immediately sent him a pressing invitation to accept an asylum beneath his roof till his affairs could be re-established. Mr. Scrimzeor, gladly availing himself of such a hospitable kindness, lost no time in going to Germany.

Immediately on his arrival at Geneva, 1563, he was earnestly solicited by the magistrates to resume the chair of philosophy. With this he complied, and notwithstanding the dedication of much of his time to the study of physics, he, two years afterwards, instituted a course of lectures in the civil law,and had the honour of being its first professor at Geneva. Being now settled here, he intended to have printed his various works, but a suspicion which Henry Stephens entertained, that it was his intention to set up a rival press at Geneva, occasioned great dissentions between them. The result of the dispute was, that almost all Scrimzeor’s publications were posthumous-. Among them are critical and explanatory notes upon Athenaeus’s “Deipnosophists,” published by Isaac Casaubon at Leyden in 1600, but without distinguishing his own notes from those of Scrimzeor; also a commentary and emendations of Strabo, which were published in Casaubon’s edition of that geographer, 1620, but likewise without acknowledging the assistance he derived from Scrimzeor. Scrimzeor collated different manuscripts of all the works of Plutarch, probably with a view to an edition of that author, and also the ten books of Piogenes Laertius on the lives of the philosophers. His corrected text of this author, with notes full of erudition, came into Casaubon’s possession, and is supposed to have contributed much to the value of his edition of Laertius, printed at Paris in 1593. The works of Phornutus and Palsephatus were also among the collations of Mr. Scrimzeor. To the latter of these authors he made such considerable additions that the work became partly his own. Tht: manuscripts of both these were for some time preserved in the library of sir Peter Young, after that of his uncle Scrimzeor, which was brought into Scot-, laud in 1573, had been added to it. What became of this valuable bequest at the death of the former, is not known. Our learned philologer left also behind him, in manuscript, the orations of Demosthenes, Æschines, and Cicero, and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, all carefully collated; and among his literary remains was a collection of his Latin epistles. But of the many performances which had exercised his pen, it does not appear that any were published by himself but his translation of “Justinian’s Novels” into Greek. This was printed at Paris in 1558, and again with Holoander’s Latin version at Antwerp in 1575. This work has been highly extolled both for the purity of its language and the accuracy of its execution. He wrote also a Latin translation of “The Basilica,” or Basilics, a collection of Roman Laws, which the Eastern emperors Basil and Leo, who reigned in the fifth century, commanded to be translated into Greek, and which preserved their authority till the dissolution of the Eastern empire.

, a French writer of eminence in his day, was descended from an ancient and noble family of Apt in Provence, and born at Havre-de-Grace in 1603. He spent part of his youth at Apt, and afterwards came and settled at Paris, where at first he subsisted by the efforts of his pen, particularly in poetry, and dramatic pieces, none of which are now in any estimation, and we may, therefore, be spared the trouble of giving their titles. In 1627 he published observations upon the “Cid” of Corneille, with a view of making his court to cardinal Richelieu, who was absurdly envious of that great poet, and did every thing he could to oppose the vast reputation and success of the “Cid:” and by his influence alone enabled even such a man as Scuderi “to balance,” as Voltaire says, “for some time, the reputation of Corneille.” Scuderi was received a member of the academy in 1650. He had before been made governor of the castle of Notre-Dame de la Garde, in Provence; and although this was a situation of very little profit, Scuderi, who was still more vain than indigent, gave a pompous description of it in a poem, which drew upon him the raillery of Chapelle and Bachaumont. Scuderi died at Paris, May 14, 1667, leaving a name now better known than his works.

, sister of the preceding, and his superior in talents, was born at Havre-de-Grace in 1607, and became very eminent for her wit and her writings. She went earty to Paris, where she gained admission into the assemblies of learning and fashion. Having recourse, like her brother, to the pen, she gratified the taste of the age for romances, by various productions of that kind, which were very eagerly read, and even procured her literary honours. The celebrated academy of the Ricovrati at Padua complimented her with a place in their society; and some great personages showed their regard by presents, and other marks of esteem. The prince of Paderborn, bishop of Munster, sent her his works and a medal; and Christina of Sweden often wrote to her, settled on her a pension, and sent her her picture. Cardinal Mazarin left her an annuity by his will: and Lewis XIV. in 1683, at the solicitation of M. de Maintenon, settled a good pension upon her, which was punctually paid. His majesty also appointed her a special audience to receive her acknowledgments, and paid her some very flattering compliments. She had an extensive correspondence with men of learning and wit: and her house at Paris was the rendezvous of all who would be thought to patronize genius. She died in 1701, aged 94; and two churches contended for the honour of possessing her remains, which was thought a point of so much consequence, that nothing less than the authority of the cardinal de Noailles, to whom the affair was referred, *was sufficient to decide it. She was a very voluminous writer as well as her brother, but of more merit; and it is remarkable of this lady, that she obtained the first prize of eloquence founded by the academy. There is much common-place panegyric upon her in the “Menagiana,” from the personal regard Menage had for her but her merits are better settled by Boileau, in the “Discours” prefixed to his dialogue entitled “Les Hero des Roman.” Her principal works are, “Artamene, ou le Grand Cyrus,” 1650, 10 vols. 8 vo; “Clelie,” 1660, 10 vols. 8vo; “Celanire, ou la Promenade de Versailles,” 1693, 12mo; “Ibrahim, ou l'Illustre Bassa,” 1641, 4 vols. 8vo “Almahide, ou PEsclave Reine,” 1660, 8 vols. 8vo Celine,“1661, 8vo” Mathilde d'Aguiiar,“1667, 8vo;” Conversations et Entretiens," 10 vols. c. These last conversations are thought the best of Mad Scuderi’s wo^ks, but there was a time when English translations of her prolix romances were read. What recommended them to the French public was the traits of living characters which she occasionally introduced.

, an eminent protestant divine, was born at Grumberg in Silesia, Aug. i?4, 1556, and after having studied there till 1582, was sent to BresUw to continue his progress in the sciences He was recalled soon after, his father, who had lost all his fortune in the fire of Grunberg, being no longer able to maintain him at the college, and therefore intending to bring him up to some trade. The young man was not at all pleased with such a proposal; and looked out for the place of a tutor, which he found in the family of a burgomaster of Freistad, and this gave him an opportunity of hearing the sermons of Melancthon and of Abraham Bucholtzer. In 1584 he took a journey into Poland, and went to Gorlitz in Lusatia the year following, and resided there above two years, constantly attending the public lectures, and reading private lectures to others. He employed himself in the same manner in the university of Wittemberg in 1588 and 1589, and afterwards in that of Heidelberg till he was admitted into the church in 1594. He officiated in a village of the palatinate for some months; after which he was sent for by the elector palatine to be one of his preachers. In 1598 he was appointed pastor of the church of St. Francis at Heidelberg, and two years after was made a member of the ecclesiastical senate. He was employed several times in visiting the churches and schools of the palatinate, and among these avocations wrote some works, which required great labour. He attended the prince of Anhalt to the war at Juliers in 1610, and applied himself with great prudence and vigilance to the re-settlement of the affairs of the reformed church in those parts. He attended Frederic V. prince palatine into England in 1612, and contracted an acquaintance with the most learned men of that kingdom, but Wood speaks of his having resided some time at Oxford in 1598. He took a journey to Brandenburg in 1614, the elector John Sigismond, who was about renouncing Lutheranism, being desirous of concerting measures with him with respect to that change; and on his return to Heidelberg he accepted the place of courtpreacher, which he relinquished when appointed professor of divinity in 1618. He was deputed soon after to the synod of Dort, where he endeavoured at first to procure a reconciliation of the contending parties; but finding nothing of that kind was to be expected, he opposed vigorously the doctrines of the Arminians. He preached at Francfort the year following during the electoral diet held there, his master having appointed him preacher to the deputies whom he sent thither. He also attended that prince in his journey into Bohemia; and retiring into Silesia after the fatal battle of Prague, resolved to return to Heidelberg in order to discharge the functions of his professorship there; but the fury of the war having dispersed the students, he went to Bretten, and afterwards to Schorndorf in the country of Wirtemberg, whence he removed to Embden in August 1622. The king of Bohemia his master had consented that the city of Embden should offer Scultetus the place of preacher, but he did not enjoy it very long; for he died October the 24th, 1625.

The principal works of this learned divine, who, as Freher says, was reckoned another Chrysostom, are, 1. “Confutatio disputationis Baronii de baptismo Constantini,” Neost. 1607, 4to. 2. “Annales Evangelii per Europara 15 Seculi renovati, Decad. 1 et 2,” Heidelberg, 1618, 8vo. In these annals of the reformation he has shown himself a very candid and credible historian. 3. “Axiomata concionancii,” Han. 1619, 8vo. 4. “Observationes in Pauli Epistolas ad Timotheum, Titum, et Philernonem.” 5. “Medulla Patrum,” 1634, 4to. So indefatigable was his application, that he wrote the following lines over his study door:

, an ancient mathematician and geographer, was a native of Caryanda, in Caria, and is noticed by Herodotus, and by Suidas, who, however, has evidently confounded different persons of the same name. There is a Periplus which still remains, bearing the name of Scylax, and which is a brief survey of the countries along the shores of the Mediterranean and Euxine seas, together with part of the western coast of Africa surveyed by Hanno; but it seems doubtful to what Scylax it belongs. This Periplus has come down to us in a corrupted state: it was first published from a palatine ms by Hoeschelius and others in 1600. It was afterwards edited by Isaac Vossius in 1639, by Hudson in 1698, and by Gronovius in 1700.

, an apothecary of Amsterdam, who died in 1736, prepared a splendid description, with plates, of his own museum, in four large folio volumes, which came out between 1-734 and 1765. His three lattervolumes were posthumous publications. Many Cape plants are here engraved, and amongst them one of the genus Sebea, so called, in honour of him. Yet Seba does not deserve to rank as a scientific botanist; nor did Linna3us, who knew him, an4 by whose recommendation he employed Artedi to arrange his fishes, ever think him worthy to be commemorated in a genus. If, however, we compare him with numbers who have been so commemorated, he will not appear to so much disadvantage; for as a collector he stands rather high.

, a very learned German, was descended from ancient and noble families; and born at Aurach, a town of Franconia, Dec. 20, 1626. He made good use of a liberal education, and was not only a master of the French, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, but had also some skill in mathematics and the sciences, The great progress he made in his youth coming to the ears of Ernest the pious, duke of Saxe-Goth'a, this prince sent for him from Cobourg, where he then was, to be educated with his children. After remaining two years at Gotha, he went, in 1642, to Strasbnrg; but returned to Gotha in. 1646, and was made honorary librarian to the duke. In 1651, he was made an lie and ecclesiastical counsellor; and, in 1663, a counsellor of state, first minister, and sovereign director of the consistory. The year after, he went into the service of Maurice, duke of Saxe-Zeist, as counsellor of state and chancellor; and was no less regarded by this new master than he had been by the duke of SaxeGotha. He continued with him till his death, which happened in 1681; and then preferred a life of retirement, during which he composed a great many works; but Frederic III. elector of Brandenburg, again brought him into public life, and made him^. counsellor of state and chancellor of the university of Halle, dignities which he did not enjoy long, for he died at Halle Dec. 18, 1692, in the sixty-sixth year of his age. He was twice married, but had only one son, who survived him. Besides his knowledge of languages, he was learned in law, history, divinity; and is also said to have been a tolerable painter and engraver. Of his numerous writings, that in most estimation for its utility, was published at Francfort, 1692, 2 vols. folio, usually bound up in one, with the title, “Commentarius Historicus & Apologeticus de Lutheranisrno, sive de lleformatione Religionis ductu D. Martini Lutberi in magna Germania, aliisque regionibus, & speciatim in Saxonia, recepta & stabilita,” &c. This work, which is very valuable on many accounts, and particularly curious for several singular pieces and extracts that are to be found in it, still holds its repu^ tation, and is referred to by all writers on the reformation.

, an eminent English prelate, was born in 1693, at asmail village called Sibthorpe, in the vale of Belvoir, Nottinghamshire. His father was a Protestant dissenter, a pious, virtuous, and sensible man, who, having a small paternal fortune, followed no profession. His mother was the daughter of Mr. George Brough, of Shelton, in the county of Nottingham, a substantial gentleman farmer He received his education at several private schools in the country, being obliged by various accidents to change his masters frequently; yet at the age of nineteen he had not only made a considerable progress in Greek and Latin, and read the best and most difficult writers in both languages, but had acquired a knowledge of French, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, had learned geography, logic, algebra, geometry, conic sections, and gone through a course of lectures on Jewish antiquities, and other points preparatory to the study of the Bible. At the same time, in one or other of theseacademies, he had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with several persons of great abilities. Among the rest, in the academy of Mr. Jones at Tewkesbury, he laid the foundation of a strict friendship with Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham.

Mr, Seeker had been designed by his father for orders among the dissenters. With this view, his studies were directed chiefly, and very assiduously, to divinity, but not being able to decide upon certain doctrines, or determine absolutely what communion he should embrace, he resolved to pursue some profession, which should leave him at liberty to weigh these things more maturely in his thoughts, and therefore, about the end of 1716, he applied himself to the study of physic, both at London and Paris. During his stay at Paris, he kept up a constant correspondence with Mr. Butler, who was now preacher at the Rolls. Mr. Butler took occasion to mention his friend Mr. Seeker, without his knowledge, to Mr. Edward Talbot, who promised, in case he chose to take orders in the church of England, to engage the bishop, his father, to provide for him. This was communicated to Mr. Seeker, in a letter, about the beginning of May 1720. He had not at that time come to any resolution of quitting the study of physic, but he began to foresee many obstacles to his pursuing that profession: and having never discontinued his application to theology, his former difficulties, both with regard to conformity, and some other doubtful points, had gradually lessened, as his judgment became stronger, and his reading and knowledge more extensive. It appears also from two of his letters from Paris, both of them prior to the date of Mr. Butler’s communication above mentioned, that he was greatly dissatisfied with the divisions and disturbances which at that particular period prevailed among the dissenters. In this state of mind Mr. Butler’s unexpected proposal found him, and after deliberating carefully on the subject of such a change for upwards of two month*, he resolved to embrace the offer, and for that purpose quitted France about July 1720.

At Houghton Mr. Seeker applied himself with alacrity to all the duties of a country clergyman, omitting nothing which he thought could be of use to his Bock. He brought clown his conversation and his sermons to the level of their understandings; visited them in private, catechised the young and ignorant, received his country neighbours and tenants kindly and hospitably, and was of great service to the poorer sort by his skill in physic, which was the only use he ever made of it. Though this place was in a very remote part of the world, yet the solitude of it perfectly suited his studious disposition, and the income arising from it bounded his ambition. Here he would have been content to live and die here, as he has often been heard to declare, he spent some of the happiest hours of his life and it was no thought or choice of his own that removed "him to a higher and more public sphere. But Mrs. Seeker’s health, which was thought to have been injured by the dampness of the situation, obliged him to think of exchanging it for a more healthy one. On this account he procured an exchange of Houghton for a prebend of Durham, and the rectory of Ryton, in 1727; and for the two following years he lived chiefly at Durham, going over every week to officiate at Ryton, and spending there two or three months together in the summer. In July 1732, the duke of Grafton, then lord chamberlain, appointed him chaplain to the king. For this favour he was indebted to bishop Sherlock, who having heard him preach at Bath, thought his abilities worthy of being brought forward into public notice. From that time an intimacy commenced betwixt them, and he received from that prelate many solid proofs of esteem and friendship. This preferment produced him also the honour of a conversation with queen Caroline. Mr. Seeker’s character was now so well established, that on the resignation of Dr. Tyrwhit, he was instituted to the rectory of St. James’s, May 18, 1733, and in the beginning of July went to Oxford to take his degree of doctor of laws, not being of sufficient standing for that of divinity. On this occasion he preached his celebrated Act sermon, on the advantages and duties of academical education, which was printed at the desire of the heads of houses, and quickly passed through several editions. The queen, in a subsequent interview, expressed her high opinion of this sermon, which was also thought to have contributed not a little to his promotion to the bishopric of Bristol, to which he was consecrated Jan. 19, 1735.

On the translation of Dr. Potter to the archbishopric of Canterbury, Dr. Seeker was translated to the bishopric of Oxford, in May 1737. When the unfortunate breach happened between the late king and the prince of Wales, his highness having removed to Norfolk-house, in the parish of St. James’s, attended divine service constantly at that church. Two stories are told of this matter, which, although without much foundation, served to amuse the public for a while. The one was, that the first time the prince made his appearance at church, the clerk in orders, Mr. Bonney, began the service with the sentence, “I will arise and go to my father,” &c- The other, that Dr. Seeker preached from the text, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” &c. Dr. Seeker had the honour of baptizing all his highness’s children except two, and though he did not attend his court, which was forbidden to those who went to the king’s, yet on every proper occasion he behaved with all the submission and respect due to his illustrious rank. In consequence of this, his influence with the prince being supposed much greater than it really was, he was sent, by the king’s direction, with a message to his royal highness; which not producing the effects expected from it, he had the misfortune to incur his majesty’s displeasure, who had been unhappily persuaded to think that he might have done more with the prince than he did, though indeed he could not For this reason, and because he sometimes acted with those who opposed the court, the king did not speak to him for a great number of years. The whole of Dr, Seeker’s parliamentary conduct appears to have been loyalj manly, and independent. His circular letter to his clergy, and his sermon on the subject of the rebellion in 1745, rank among the best and most efficacious documents of the kind which that melancholy event produced. In the spring of 1748 his wife died, to whom he had now been married upwards of twenty years.

During the whole time that he was dean of St. Paul’s, he attended divine service constantly in that cathedral twice every day, whether in residence or not and in concert with the three other residentiaries, established the custom of always- preaching their own turns in the afternoon, or exchanging with each other only, which, excepting the case of illness, or extraordinary accidents, was very punctually observed. He also introduced many salutary regulations in the financial concerns of the church, the keeping of the registers, &c. &c. In the summer months he resided constantly at his episcopal house at Ctiddesden, the vicinity of which to Oxford rendered it very pleasing to a man of his literary turn. His house was the resort of those who were most distinguished for academical merit, and his conversation such as was worthy of his guests, who always left him with a high esteem of his understanding and learning. And though in the warm contest in 1754, for representatives of the county (in which it was scarce possible for any person of eminence to remain neuter), he openly espoused that side 'which was thought most favourable to the principles of the revolution; yet it was without bitterness or vehemence, without ever departing from the decency of his profession, the dignity of his station, or the charity prescribed by his religion.

In little more than two years after his grace’s promotion to the see of Canterbury, died the late George II. Of what passed on that occasion, and of the form observed in proclaiming our present sovereign (in which the archbishop of course took the lead), his grace has left an account in writing. He did the same with regard to the subsequent ceremonials of marrying and crowning their present majesties, which in consequence of his station he had the honour to solemnize, and in which he found a great want of proper precedents and directions. He had before, when rector of St. James’s, baptized the new king (who was born in Norfolk-house, in that parish) and he was afterwards called upon to perform the same office for the greatest part of his majesty’s children a remarkable, and perhaps unexampled concurrence of such incidents in the life of one man.

All designs and institutions that tended to advance good morals and true religion he patronized with zeal and generosity. He contributed largely to the maintenance of schools for the poor, to rebuilding or repairing parsonagehouses and places of worship, and gave at one time no less than 500l. towards erecting a chapel in the parish of Lambeth, to which he afterwards added near 100l. more. To the society for promoting Christian knowledge he was a liberal benefactor; and to that for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, of which he was the president, he paid much attention, was constant at the meetings of its members, and superintended their deliberations with consummate prudence and temper. He was sincerely desirous to improve to the utmost that excellent institution, and to diffuse the knowledge and belief of Christianity as wide as the revenues of the society, and the extreme difficulty of establishing schools and missions amongst the Indians, and of making any effectual and durable impressions of religion on their uncivilized minds, would admit. But Dr. Mayhew, of Boston in New England, having in an angry pamphlet accused the society of not sufficiently answering these good purposes, and of departing widely from the spirit of their charter, with many injurious reflections interspersed on the church of England, and the design of appointing bishops in America, his grace on all these accounts thought himself called upon to confute his invectives, which he did in a short anonymous piece, entitled “An Answer to Dr. Mayhew’s Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society for propagating the Gospel,” London, 1764, reprinted in America. The strength of argument, as well as fairness and good temper, with which this answer was written, had a considerable effect on all impartial men; and even on the doctor himself, who plainly perceived that he had no common adversary to deal with; and could not help acknowledging him to be “a person of excellent sense, and of a happy talent at writing; apparently free from the sordid illiberal spirit of bigotry; one of a cool temper, who often shewed much candour, was well acquainted with the affairs of the society, and in general a fair reasoner.” He was therefore so far wrought upon by his “worthy answerer,” as to abate much in his reply of his former warmth and acrimony. But as he still would not allow himself to be “wrong in any material point,” nor forbear giving way too much to reproachful language and ludicrous misrepresentations, he was again animadverted upon by the late Mr. Apthorpe, in a sensible tract, entitled, “A Review of Dr. Mayhew’s Remarks,” &c. 1765. This put an end to the dispute. The doctor, on reading it, declared he should not answer it, and the following year he died.

Whenever any publications came to the archbishop’s knowledge that were manifestly calculated to corrupt good morals, or subvert the foundations of Christianity, he did his utmost to stop the circulation of them yet the wretched authors themselves he was so far from wishing to treat withany undue rigour, that he has more than once extended his bounty to them in distress. And when their writing* could not properly be suppressed (as was too often the case) by lawful authority, he engaged men of abilities to answer them, and rewarded them for their trouble. His attention was everywhere. Even the falsehoods and misrepresentations of writers in the newspapers, on religious or ecclesiastical subjects, he generally took care to have contradicted: and when they seemed likely to injure, in any material degree, the cause of virtue and religion, or the reputation of eminent and worthy men, he would sometimes take the trouble of answering them himselfOne instance of this kind, which does him honour, and deserves mention, was his defence of Bishop Butler, who, in a pamphlet, published in 1767, was accused of having died a papist.

The conduct which he observed towards the several ditisions and denominations of Christians in this kingdom, was such as shewed his way of thinking to be truly liberal and catholic. The dangerous spirit of popery, indeed, he thought should always be kept under proper legal resiraints, on account of its natural opposition, not only to the religious, but the civil rights of mankind. He therefore observed its movements with care, and exhorted his clergy to do the same, especially those who were situated in the midst of Roman catholic families: against whose influence they were charged to be upon their guard, and were furnished with proper books or instructions for the purpose. He took all opportunities of combating the errors of the church of Rome, in his own writings; and the best answers that were published to some bold apologiesfor popery were written at his instance, and under his direction.

The life prefixed to his works was written by Dr. Porteus, the late very amiable and much admired bishop of London, and reprinted separately by his lordship in 1797, in consequence of bishop Kurd’s having, in his life of Warburton, “judged it expedient to introduce into his life of bishop Warburton, such observations on the talents, learning, and writings of archbishop Seeker, as appeared, both to Dr. Porteus and to many other of his grace’s friends extremely injurious to his literary character, and the credit of his numerous and useful publications; and therefore highly deserving of some notice from those who loved him in life, and revered him after death.” These observations are indeed fully refuted in this excellent piece of biography, as well as the other slanders which the steady and upright conduct of archbishop Seeker drew upon him from persons notoriously disaffected to religion and the church; and time, which never fails to do ample justice to such characters as his, has almost effaced the remembrance of them. Yet, as some have lately attempted to revive the calumny, and suppress the refutation, we have given some references in the note on this subject, not without confidence that archbishop Seeker’s character will suffer little while he has a Porteus for his defender, and a Hollis, a Walpole, a Blackburn, and a Wakefield for his accusers.

, a French historian, was born January 8, 1691, at Paris. He began to study the law in obedience to his father’s desire, who was an able advocate; but losing both his parents shortly after, he quitted the bar, for which he had not the least taste, and devoted himself wholly to the belles lettres, and French history. His unwearied application to books, which no other passion interrupted, soon made him known among the learned; and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions in 1723, and chosen by chancellor d'Aguesseau five years after, to continue the great collection of statutes, made by the French kings, which M. de Laurier had begun. As Secousse possessed every talent necessary for such an important undertaking, the voiumes which he published were received with universal approbation. He died at Paris, March 15, 1754, aged sixty-three, leaving a library, the largest and most curious, in French history, that any private person had hitherto possessed. His works are, the continuation of the collection of statutes before mentioned, to the ninth volume inclusively, which was printed under the inspection of M. de Villevault, counsellor to the court of aids, who succeeded M. Secousse, and published a table, forming a tenth volume, and since, an eleventh and twelfth. Secousse also wrote many dissertations in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions editions of several works, and of several curious pieces “Memoirs for the History of Charles the Bad,” 2 vols. 4to,

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, in 1600, and educated first at Queen’s college, and then at Magdalen-hall, Oxford. After taking his degrees in arts, he was ordained, and became chaplain to lord Horatio Vere, whom he accompanied into the Netherlands. After his return, he went again to Oxford, and was admitted to the reading of the sentences in 1629. Going then to London he preached at St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, until interrupted by the bishop, and in 1639 became vicar of Coggeshall in Essex, where he continued three or four years. The commencement of the rebellion allowing men of his sentiments unconstrained liberty, he returned to London, and preached frequently before the parliament, inveighing with extreme violence against the church and state: to the overthrow of both, his biographers cannot deny that he contributed his full share, in the various characters of one of the assembly of divines, a chaplain in the army, one of the triers, and pne of the ejectors of those who were called “ignorant and scandalous ministers.” In 1646 he became preacher at St. Paul’s, Covent-garden, where he appears to have continued until the decay of his health, when he retired to Marl borough, and died there in January 1658. As a divine, he was much admired in his day, and his printed works had considerable popularity. The principal of them are, “The Fountain opened,” 1657; “An exposition of Psalm xxiii.” 1658, 4to; “The Anatomy of Secret Sins,” 1660; “The Parable of the Prodigal,” 1660; “Synopsis of Christianity,” &c. &c. He had a brother, John, an ad*, herent to the "parliamentary cause, and a preacher, but of less note; and another brother Joseph, who became batler in Magdalen college in 1634, and B.A. in 1637, and then went to Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree, and, was elected fellow of Christ’s college. After the restora-^ tion he conformed, and was beneficed in the church; in 1675 he was made prebendary of Lincoln, and was also rector of Fisherton, where he died Sept. 22, 1702, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, leaving a son John Sedgwick, who succeeded him in the prebend, and was vicar of Burton Pedvvardine in Lincolnshire, where he died in 1717.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of sir John Sedley, of Aylesford in Kent, by a daughter of sir Henry Savile, and was born about 1639. At seventeen, he became a fellowcommoner of Wadham college in Oxford; but, taking no degree, retired to his own country, without either traveling, or going to the inns of court. At the restoration he came to London, and commenced wit, courtier, poet, and man of gallantry. As a critic, he was so much admired, tfiat he became a kind of oracle among the poets; and no performance was approved or condemned, till sir Charles Sedley had given judgment. This made king Charles jestingly say to him, that Nature had given him a patent to be Apollo’s viceroy; and lord Rochester placed him in the first rank of poetical critics. With these accomplishments, he impaired his estate by profligate pleasures, and was one of that party of debauchees whom we have already mentioned in our account of Sackville lord Buckhurst, who having insulted public decency, were indicted for a riot, and all severely fined; sir Charles in 500l. The day for payment being appointed, sir Charles desired Mr. Henry Killigrew and another gentleman, both his friends, to apply to the king to get it remitted; which they undertook to do; but at the same time varied the application so far as to beg it for themselves, and they made Sedley pay the full sum.

After this affair, his mind took a more serious turn; and he began to apply himself to politics. He had been chosen to serve for Romney in Kent, in the parliament which begun May 8, 1661, and continued to sit for several parliaments after. He was extremely active for the revolution, which was at first thought extraordinary, as he had received favours from James II. but those were cancelled by that prince’s having taken his daughter into keeping, whom he created countess of Dorchester. This honour by no means satisfied sir Charles, who, libertine as he had been, considered his daughter’s disgrace as being thereby made more conspicuous. Still his wit prevailed over his resentment, at least in speaking on the subject; for, being asked, why he appeared so warm for the revolution, he is said to have answered, “From a principle of gratitude; for, since his majesty has made my daughter a countess, it is fit I should do all I can to make his daughter a queen.” He died Aug. 20, 1701.

, an English divine, who was born at Clifton, near Penrith, in Cumberland, of which place his father was rector, had his school-education at Lowther, and his academical at Queen’s college, in Oxford. Of this society he was chosen fellow in 1732. The greatest part of his life was spent at Twickenham, where he was assistant or curate to Dr. Waterland. In 1741, he was presented by his college to the living of Enham in Hampshire, at which place he died in 1747, without ever having obtained any higher preferment, which he amply deserved. He was exemplary in his morals, orthodox in his opinions, had an able head, and a most amiable heart. A late romantic writer against the Athanasian doctrines, whose testimony we choose to give, as it is truth extorted from an adversary, speaks of him in the following terms: “Notwithstanding this gentleman’s being a contender for the Trinity, yet he was a benevolent man, an upright Christian, and a beautiful writer; exclusive of his zeal for the Trinity, he was in every thing else an excellent clergyman, and an admirable scholar. 1 knew him well, and on account of his amiable qualities very highly honour his memory; though no two ever differed more in religious sentiments.” He published in his life-time, “Discourses on several important Subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo and his “Posthumous Works, consisting of sermons, letters, essays, &c.” in 2 vols. 8vo, were published from his original manuscripts by Jos. Hall, M. A. fellow of Queen’s college, Oxford, 1750. They are all very ingenious, and full of good matter, but abound too much in antithesis and point.

, an eminent painter, was born at Antwerp in 1.589. Under the instructions of Henry van Balen, and Abraham Janssens, he had made considerable progress in the art before he went to Italy. On his arrival at Rome, he became the disciple of Bartolommeo Manfredi; and from him adopted a taste for the vigorous style of Michael Angelo Caravaggio, to which he added somewhat of the tone and colour he had brought with him from his native country; producing the powerful effect of candle-light, though often falsely applied in subjects which appertain to the milder illumination of the day. He at length accepted the invitation of cardinal Zapara, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, to accompany him to Madjrid, where he was presented to the king, and was engaged in his service, with a considerable pension. After some years he returned to Flanders, and his fellow-citizens were impatient to possess some of his productions; but they who had been accustomed to the style of Rubens and Vandyke, were unable to yield him that praise to which he had been accustomed, and he was obliged to change his manner, which he appears to have done with facility and advantage, as many of his latter pictures bear evident testimony. His most esteemed productions are, the principal altar-piece in the church of the Carmelites at Antwerp, the subject of which is the marriage of the virgin; and the adoration of the magi, the altar-piece in the cathedral of Bruges. The former is much after the manner of Rubens. Vandyke painted his portrait among the eminent artists of his country, which is engraved by Pontius. He died in 1651, aged sixty-two. His son Daniel, who was born at Antwerp in 1590, was a painter of fruit and flowers, which he, being a Jesuit, executed at his convent at Rome. He appears, indeed, to have painted more for the benefit of the society to which he had attached himself, than for his private advantage: and when he had produced his most celebrated picture, at the command of the prince of Orange, it was presented to that monarch in the name of the society, which was munificently recompensed in return. He frequently painted garlands of flowers, as borders for pictures, which were filled up with historical subjects by the first painters. He died at Antwerp in 1660, aged seventy.

, a French poet, was born at Caen in 1624, and first studied in the college of the Jesuits there. As he grew up, he applied himself to French poetry, and was so successful as to be enabled to rescue himself, four brothers, and two sisters, from the unhappy circumstances in which the extravagance of a father had left them. In his twentieth year he met with a patron who introduced him to Mad. de Montpensier, and this lady appointed him her gentleman in ordinary, in which station he remained many years, until obliged to quit her service, for opposing her marriage with count de Lauzun. He immediately found a new patroness in Mad. de la Fayette, who admitted him into her house, and assigned him apartments. Her he assisted in her two romances, “The princess of Cleves” and “Zaida.” After seven years, he retired to his own country, with a resolution to spend the rest of his days in solitude; and there married his cousin, a rich heiress, about 1679. Mad. de Maintenon invited him to court, as tutor to the duke of Maine: buthedid notchooseto exchange theindependenceof a retired life for the precarious favours of a court, and therefore continued where he was. He was admitted of the French academy in 1662; and was the means of re-establishing that of Caen. He died at this place, of a dropsy, in 1701. He was very deaf in the last years of his life, bufe was much courted for the sake of his conversation, which was replete with such anecdotes as the polite world had furnished him with. A great number of these are to be found in the “Segraisiana;” which was published many years after his death, with a preface by Mr. de la Monnoye; the best edition of it is that of Amsterdam, 1723, 12mo.

In 1614 he published a work which has always been praised for utility, his “Titles of Honour,” Lond. 4to, with an encomiastic poem by his friend Ben Jonson. It was reprinted with additions in 1631, fol. and again in 1671, and translated into Latin by Simon John Arnold, Francfort, 1696, Nicolson remarks that a as to what concerns our nobility and gentry, all that come within either of those lists will allow, that Mr. Selden’s Titles of Honour ought first to be perused, for the gaining of a general notion of the distinction of a degree from an emperor down to a country gentleman.“In 1616 appeared his notes on sir John Fortescue’s work sc De laudibus legum Anglise,” and sir Ralph’s Hengham’s “Sums,” Lond. 8vo. In 1617 he drew up a dissertation upon the state of the Jews formerly living in England, for the use of Purchas, who printed it, although, as Selden complained, very defectively, in hi* “Pilgrimage.” In the same year he published his very learned work, “De Diis Syriis syntagmata duo.” This is not only a treatise on the idolatry of the ancient Syrians, but affords a commentary on all the passages in the Old Testament, where mention is made of any of the heathen deities. This first edition (Lond, 8vo.) being out of print, Ludovicus de Dieu printed an edition at Leyden in 1629, which was revised and enlarged by Selden. Andrew Beyer afterwards published two editions at Leipsic, in 1668 and 1672, with some additions, but, according to Le Clerc, of little importance. Le Clerc offers also some objections to the work itself, which, if just, imply that Selden had not always been judicious in his choice of his authorities, nor in the mode of treating the subject. It contributed, however, to enlarge the reputation which he already enjoyed both at home and abroad.

* In Trinity term, 1624, he was concerning him were respited until this chosen reader of Lyon’s-lnn, but re- term. Now this day being called agairt fused to perform that office. In the to the table, he doth absolutely refuse register of the Inner Temple is the fol- to read. The masters of the bench, lowing passage “Whereas an order taking into consideration his contempt was made at the Bench-Table this term, add offence, and for that it is without ince the last parliament, and entered precedent, that any man elect-d to into the buttery-book in these words; read in chancery has been discharged Jovtslldie Octobrls 1624. Memoran- in like case, much less has with such dum, that whereas John Selden, esq. wilfulness refused the same, have orone of the utter barristers of this house, dered, that he shall presently pay to *ras in Trinity term last, chosen reader the use of this house the sum of 20J. of Lyon’s-lnn by the gentlemen of the for his fine, and that he stand and be same house, according to the order of disabled ever to be called to the bench, their house, which he then refused to or to be a reader of this house. Now take upon him, and perform the same, at this parliament the said order is coriwithout some sufficient cause or good firmed; and it is further ordered, that reason, notwithstanding many ccwirte- if any of this house, which hereafter ous and fair persuasions and admoni- shall be chosen to read in chancery, tions by the masters of the bench made shall refuse to read, every such offender to him; forwhich cause he having been shall be fined, and be disabled to be twice convented before the masters of called to the bench, or to be a reader the bench, it was then ordered, that of this house.” However, in Michaelthere should be a nt reclpiatur entered mas term 1632, it was ordered, that upon his name, which was done accord- Mr. Seldea “shall stand enabled and ingly and in respect the beneh was be capable of any preferment in the not then full, the farther proceedings House, in such a manner as other drawing up articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham, and was afterwards appointed one of the managers for the House of Commons on his trial. In 1627 he opposed the loan which the king endeavoured to raise, and although he seldom made his appearance at the har, pleaded in the court of King’s Bench for Hampden, who had been imprisoned for refusing to pay his quota of that loan. After the third parliament of Charles I. in which he sat for Lancaster, had been prorogued, he retired to Wrest in Bedfordshire, a seat belonging to the earl of Kent, where he finished his edition of the” Marmora Arundelliana," Loud. 1621), 4to, reprinted by Prideaux, with additions at Oxford, in 1676, folio, and by Maittaire, at London, 1732, in folio.

During king James’s reign, Selden had been ordered by his majesty to make such collections as might shew the right of the crown of England to the dominion of the sea, and he had undertaken the work, but, in resentment for being imprisoned by James, declined the publication. An occasion offered now in which it might appear to advantage. In 1634, a dispute having arisen between the English and Dutch concerning the herring -fishery upon the British coast, to which the Dutch laid claim, and had their claims supported by Grotius, who, in his “Mare liberum” contended that fishing on the seas was a matter of common right, Selden now published his celebrated treatise of “Mare Clausum,” Lond. 1635, foL In this he effectually demonstrated, from the law of nature and nations, that a dominion over the sea may be acquired: and from the most authentic histories, that such a dominion has been claimed and enjoyed by several nations, and submitted to by others, for their common benefit; that this in fact was the case of the inhabitants of this island, who, at all times, and under every kind of government, had claimed, exercised, and constantly enjoyed such a dominion, which had been confessed by their neighbours frequently, and in the most solemn manner. This treatise, in the publication of which Selden is said to have been encouraged by archbishop Laud, greatly recommended him to the court, and was considered as so decisive on the question, that a copy of it was placed among the records of the crown, in the exchequer, and in the court of admiralty. This work was reprinted in 1636, 8vo. An edition also appeared in Holland, 12mo, with the title of London, but was prohibited by the king, because of some additions, and a preface by Boxhornius. It was jtranslated into English, by the noted Marchamont Needham, 1652, foL with some additional evidence and discourses, by special command, and a dedication of eighteen pages, addressed to “The supreme authoritie of the nation and parliament of the Commonwealth of England,” which is of course not prefixed to the translation by J. H. Gent published after the restoration in 1663. Nicolson observes, that when Selden wrote this book, he was not such an inveterate enemy to the prerogative doctrine of ship-money, as afterwards: for he professedly asserts, that in the defence of their sovereignty at sea, our kings constantly practised the levying great sums on their subjects without the concurrence of their parliaments. The work having been attacked by Peter Baptista Burgus, Selden published in 1653, 4to, a treatise in its defence, with rather a harsh title, “Vindicise secundum integritatem existimationis suae per eonvitium de scriptione Maris Clausi petulantissimum et mendacissimum Maris Liberi, &c.”

In this same year, 1640, Selden was chosen member for the university of Oxford, and that year and the following continued Jo oppose the measures of the court, but his. coneliiet may to some appear unsteady. In truth, he attempted what in those days was impossible, to steer a middle course. He supported the republican party in the measures preparatory to the sacrifice of the earl of Strafford, but was not one of their Committee for managing the impeachment, and his name was even inserted in a list of members, posted up in Old Palace Yard by some party zealots, and branded with the appellation of " enemies of justice.*' On the subject of church-government, although he seems to have entertained some predilection for the establishment, yet he made no effort to prevent its fall, at all commensurate to his knowledge and credit. In the debates on the question whether bishops sat in parliament as barons and peers of the realm, or as prelates, he gave it as his opinion that they sat as neither, but as representatives of the clergy; and this led to the expulsion of them from parliament. Afterwards we find him concurring with other members of the House of Commons in a protestation that they would maintain the protestant religion according to the doctrine of the church of England, and would defend the person and authority of the king, the privileges of parliament, and the rights of the subject. In the prosecution of archbishop Laud, Selden was among those who were appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against him, an office which must have produced a severe contest between his private feelings and his public duties.

Notwithstanding all this, the royalists were unwilling to believe that a man so learned and so well informed as Selden could be seriously hostile, and there were even some thoughts of taking the great seal from the lord keeper Littleton, and giving it to him. Clarendon tells us, that lord Falkland and himself, to whom his majesty referred the consideration of this measure, “did not doubt of Mr. Selden’s affection to the king; but withal they knew him so well, that they concluded he would absolutely refuse the place, if it were offered to him. He was in years, and of a tender constitution be had for many years enjoyed his ease, which he loved was rich, and would not have made a journey to York, or have lain out of his own bed, for any preferment, which he had never affected.” But in all probability his majesty’s advisers savy that his want of iirmness, and his love of safety, were the real impediments. When the king found him opposing in parliament the commission of array, he desired lord Falkhad to write to Selden on the subject, who vindicated his conduct on that point, but declared his intention to-be equally hostile to the ordinance for the militia, which was moved by the factious party, and which he justly declared to be without any shadow of law, or pretence of precedent, and most destructive to the government of the kingdom. Accordingly he performed his promise, but tins remarkable difference attended his efforts, that his opposition to the commission of array did the king great injury among many of his subjects, while the ordinance which armed the parliamentary leaders against the crown was carried: and, according to Whitelocke, Selden himself was made a deputy -lieutenant under it. There was an equally remarkable difference in the treatment he received for this double opposition. The king and his friends, convinced that he acted honestly, bore no resentment against him; but the popular leaders, most characteristically, inferred from this, that he must be hostile to their cause, and made vain endeavours to induce Waller to implicate him in the plot which he disclosed in 1643. Nor was his exculpation sufficient: for he was obliged, by an oath, to testify his hostility against the traitorous and horrible plot for the subversion of the parliament and state,

Selden continued to sit in Parliament after the murder of the king, and was the means of doing some good to learning, by his own reputation and influence in that reipect. He preserved archbishop Usher’s library from being sold, and rendered considerable services to the university of Oxford, taking all occasions, as in the cases of Pocock and Greaves, to moderate the tyranny of the parliamentary visitors, and often affording a generous protection to other eminent men who were about to be ejected for their adherence to the king. He also was instrumental in preserving the books and medals at St. James’s, by persuading his friend Whitelocke to accept the charge of them. Of his conduct while the death of the king was pending, we have no account at that critical period, he retired, it is said, as far as he could and it is certain that he refused to gratify Cromwell by writing an answer to the Eikoti Basilike. In 1650, he published his first book, “De Synedriis et prcefecturis Hebraeorum,” 4to; the second appeared in 1653, and the third after his death, in 1655. Many passages in this work have been animadverted upon by several eminent writers, especially what relates to excommunication. Dr. Hammond, in particular, has examined Selden’s notion concerning the power of binding and loosing, in his treatise concerning “The power of the Keys.” In 1652, he contributed a preface to the “Decem Scriptores Historic Anglicanae,” printed at London that year, in folio.

Selden was a man of extensive learning, and had as much skill in the Hebrew and Oriental languages as perhaps any man of his time, Pocock excepted. Grotius, over whom he triumphed in his “Mare clausum,” styles him “the glory of the English nation.” He was knowing in all laws, human and divine, yet did not greatly trouble himself with the practice of law: he seldom appeared at the bar, but sometimes gave counsel in his chamber. “His mind also,” says Whitelocke, “was as great as his learning; he was as hospitable and generous as any man, and as good company to those he liked.” Wilkins relates, that he was a man of uncommon gravity and greatness of soul, averse to flattery, liberal to scholars, charitable to the poor; and that, though he had a great latitude in his principles with regard to ecclesiastical power, yet he had a sincere regard for the church of England. Baxter remarks, that “he was a resolved se-> rious Christian, a great adversary, particularly, to Hobbes’s errors;” and that sir Matthew Hale affirmed, “how he had seen Selden openly oppose Hobbes so earnestly, as either to depart from him, or drive him out of the room.” But the noblest testimony in his favour is that of his intimate friend the earl of Clarendon, who thus describes him in all parts of his character: “Mr. Selden was a person,” says he, “whom no character can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his merit and virtue. He was of such stupendous learning in all kinds and in all languages, as may appear from his excellent and transcendant writings, that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among books, and had never spent an hour but in reading or writing; yet his humanity, courtesy, and affability, was such, that he would have been thought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good-nature, charity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew, exceeded that breeding. His style in all his writings seems harsh, and sometimes obscure; which is not wholly to be imputed to the abstruse subjects of which he commonly treated, out of the paths trod by other men, but to a little undervaluing the beauty of a style , and too much propensity to the language of antiquity: but in his conversation he was the most clear discourser, and had the best faculty in making hard things easy, and present to the understanding, of any man that hath been known.” His lordship also used to say, that *' he valued himself upon nothing more than upon having had Mr. Selden’s acquaintance, from the time he was very young; and held it with great delight as long as they were suffered to continue together in London: and he was very much troubled always when he heard him blamed, censured, and reproached for staving in London, and in the parliament, after they- were in rebellion, and in the worst times, which his age obliged him to do; and how wicked soever the actions were, which were every day done, he was confident he had not given his consent to them, but would have hindered them if he could with his own safety, to which he was always enough indulgent. If he had some infirmities with other men, they were weighed down with wonderful and prodigious abilities and excellences in the other scale.“The political part of Selden’s life, is that which the majority of readers will contemplate with least pleasure; but on this it is unnecessary to dwell. The same flexibility of spirit, which made him. crouch before the reprehension of James I. disfigured the rest of his life, and deprived him of that dignity and importance which would have resulted from his standing erect in any place he might have chosen. Clarendon seems to have hit the true cause of all, in that anxiety for his own safety to which, as he says,” he was always indulgent enough."

, whose adventures have given rise to the popular romance of Robinson Crusoe, was born at Largo, in Fifeshire, in Scotland, about 1676, and was bred a seaman. He left England in 1703, in the capacity of sailing-master of a small vessel, called the Cinque- PortsGalley, Charles Pickering captain and in the month of September, the same year, he sailed from Cork, in company with another ship of 26 guns and 120 men, called the St. George, commanded by captain William Dampier, intended to cruise against the Spaniards in the South sea. On the coast of Brasil, Pickering died, and was succeeded in the command by lieutenant Stradling. They proceeded round Cape Horn to the island of Juan Fernandez, whence they were driven by the appearance of two French ships of 36 guns each, and left five of Stradling’s men on shore, who were taken off by the French. Hence they sailed to the coast of America, where Dampier and Stradling quar^ relied, and separated by agreement. This was in the month of May 1704; and in the following September, Stradling came to the island of Juan Fernandez, where Selkirk and his captain having a quarrel, he determined to remain there alone. But when the ship was ready to sail, his resolution was shaken, and he desired to be taken on board; but now the captain refused his request, and he was left with hm clothes, bedding, a gun, and a small quantity of powder and ball, some trifling implements, and a few books, with certain mathematical and nautical instruments. Thus left sole monarch of the island, with plenty of the necessaries, of life, he found himself at first in a situation scarcely supportable; and such was his melancholy, that he frequently determined to put an end to his existence. It was full eighteen months, according to his own account, before he could reconcile himself to his lot. At length his mind became calm, and fully reconciled to his situation: he grew happy, employed his time in building and decorating his huts, chasing the goats, whom he soon equalled in speed, and scarcely ever failed of catching them. He also tamed young kids, and other animals, to be his companions. When his garments were worn out, he made others from the skins of the goats, whose flesh served him as food. His only liquor was water. He computed that he had caught, during his abode in the island, about 1000 goats, half of which he had suffered to go at large, having first marked them with a slit in the ear. Commodore Anson, who went there 30 years after, found the first goat which they shot, had been thus marked; and hence they concluded that it had been under the power of Selkirk. Though he constantly performed his devotions at stated hours, and read aloud, yet when he was taken from the island, his language, from disuse of conversation, had become scarcely intelligible. In this solitude he remained four years and four months, during which only two incidents occurred which he thought worthy of record. The first was, that pursuing a goat eagerly, he caught at the edge of a precipice, of which he was not aware, and he fell over to the bottom, where he lay some time senseless; but of the exact space of time in which he was bereaved of his active powers he could not ferm an accurate estimate. When, however, he came to himself, he found the goat lying under him dead. It was with difficulty that he could crawl to his habitation, and it was not till after a considerable time that he entirely recovered from his bruises. The other event was the arrival of a ship, which he at first supposed to be French, but, upon the crew’s landing, he found them to be Spaniards, of whom he had too great a dread to trust himself in their hands. They, however, had seen him, and he found it extremely difficult to make his escape. In this solitude Selkirk remained until the 2d of February, 1709, when he saw two ships come to the bay, and knew them to be English. He immediately lighted a fire as a signal, and he found, upon the landing of the men, that they were two privateers from Bristol, commanded by captains Rogers and Courtney. These, after a fortnight’s stay at Juan Fernandez, embarked, taking Selkirk with them, and returned byway of the East Indies to England, where they arrived on the 1st of October, 1711; Selkirk having been absent eight years. The public curiosity being much excited, he, after his return, drew up some account of what had occurred during his solitary exile, which he put into the hands of Defoe, vvho made it the foundation of his well-known work, entitled “Robinson Crusoe.” The time and place of Selkirk’s death are not on record. It is said, that so late as 1798, the chest and musket, which Selkirk had with him on the island, were in possession of a grand nephew, John Selkirk, a weaver in Largo, North Britain. Such are the particulars of this man’s history as recorded in “The Englishman,” No. 26, and elsewhere, but what credit is due to it, we do not pretend to say.

, an eloquent French divine, was born in 1601, at Paris, and was the son of Peter Senault, secretary to the council of the League. He entered young into the congregation of the oratory, then newly established by cardinal de Berulle, and was one of the most celebrated preachers and best directors of his time. He preached with uncommon reputation during forty years, at Paris, and in the principal cities of France, and wrote several books on pious and moral subjects, which were much esteemed by pious catholics. He appears to have been a disinterested man, for he refused some considerable pensions, and two bishoprics, but was elected general of the oratory in 1662. He died August 3, 1672, at Paris, aged seventy-one. His principal works are, “A Paraphrase on the Book oflob,” 8vo; “L' Usage des Passions,” 12mo; “L'Homme Chretien,” 4to; “L'Homme criminel,” 4to “Le Monarque, on les Devoirs du Souverain,” 12mo; “Panegyrics on the Saints,” 3 vols. 8vo; and the Lives of several persons illustrious for their piety, &c. It was this father, says L'Avocat, who banished from the pulpit that empty parade of profane learning, and that false taste, by which it was degraded, and who introduced a strong, sublime, and majestic eloquence, suited to the solemnity of our mysteries, and to the truths of our holy religion.

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

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

This reply kindled the emperor’s indignation, and learning from the messenger that Seneca betrayed no symptoms of terror or distress, sent him a peremptory command immediately to put himself to death. This too Seneca received with perfect composure, and asked permission of the officer who brought the conjmand, to alter his will; but that being refused, he requested of his friends, that since he was not allowed to leave them any other legacy, they would preserve the example of his life, and exhorted them to exercise that fortitude, which philosophy taught. After some farther conversation with these friends, he embraced his wife, and intreated her to console herself with the recollection of his virtues: but Paullina refused every consolation, except that of dying with her husband, and earnestly solicited the friendly hand of the executioner. Seneca, after expressing his admiration of his wife’s fortitude, proceeded to obey the emperor’s fatal mandate, by opening a vein in each arm but, through his advanced age, the vital stream flowed so reluctantly, that it was necessary also to open the veins of his legs. Still finding his strength exhausted without any prospect of a speedy release; in order to alleviate, if possible, the anguish of his wife, who was a spectator of the scene, and to save himself the torture of witnessing her distress, he persuaded her to withdraw to another chamber. In this situation, Seneca, with wonderful recollection and self-command, dictated many philosophical reflections to his secretary. After a long interval, his friend Statius Annaeus, to whom he complained of the tedious delay of death, gave him a strong dose of poison; but even this, through the feeble state of his vital powers, produced little effect. At last, he ordered the attendants to convey him into a warm bath; and, as he entered, he sprinkled those who stood near, saying, " I offer this libation to Jupiter the deliverer/ 1 Then, plunging into the bath, he was soon suffocated. His body was consumed, according to his own express order, in a will which he had made in the height of his prosperity, -without any funeral pomp.

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

, an eminent physician of Germany, was born at Breslaw, where his father was a shoemaker, Nov. 25, 1572. He was sent to the university of Wittemberg in 1593, and there made a great progress in philosophy and physic, after which he visited the universities of Leipsic, Jena, and Francfort upon the Oder; and went to Berlin in 1601, whence he returned to Wittemberg the same year, and was promoted to the degree of doctor in physic, and soon after to a professorship in the same faculty. He was the first who introduced the study of chemistry into that university. He gained great reputation by his writings and practice; patients came to him from all parts, among whom were persons of the first rank; his custom was to take what was offered him for his advice, but demanded nothing, and restored to the poor what they gave him. The plague was about seven times at Wittemberg while he was professor there but he never retired, nor refused to assist the sick: and the elector of Saxony, whom he had cured of a dangerous illness in 1638, though he had appointed him one of his physicians in ordinary, yet gave him leave to continue at Wittemberg. He probably fell a sacrifice to his humanity, for he died of the plague at Wittemberg, July 21, 1637.

, or John the son of Serapion, an Arabian physician, lived between the time of Mesne and Rhazes, and was probably the first writer on physic in the Arabic language. Haly Abbas, when giving an account of the works of his countrymen, describes the writings of Ser.ipion, as containing only an account of the cure of diseases, without any precepts concerning the preservation of health, or relating to surgery; and he makes many critical observations, which, Dr. Freind observes, are sufficient proofs of the genuine existence of the works ascribed to Serapion, from their truth and correctness. Rhazes also quotes them frequently in his “Continent.” Serapion must have lived towards the middle of the ninth century, and not in the reign of Leo Isaurus, about the year 730, as some have stated. One circumstance remarkable in Serapion, Dr. Freind observes, is, that he often transcribes the writings of Alexander Trailian, an author with whom few of the other Arabians appear to be much acquainted. This work of Serapion has been published, in translations, by Gerard of Cremona, under the title of “Practica, Dicta Breviarum;” and by Torinus, under that of “Therapeutica Methodus.” There is another Serapion, whom Sprengel calls the younger, and places 180 years later than the former, and who was probably the author of a work on the materia medica, entitled “De Medicamentis tarn simplicibus, quam compositis.” This work hears intrinsic evidence of being produced at a much later period, since authors are quoted who lived much posterior to Rhazes.

, an eminent satirist, was born at Sienna in the seventeenth century, and going to Rome, became so distinguished for his talents that he was made a bishop. His Latin <l Satires“were published under the name of Quintus Sectanus, and are said to rank among the purest imitations of Horace’s style and manner. He would have deserved to have been considered as the first of moral satirists, had he confined himself to the vices and follies of his time, but much of his ridicule is bestowed on the celebrated Gravina, who, with all his failings, ought to have been exempted from an attack of this kind. Sergardi died in 1727. The editions of his satires are: 1.” Sectani Satyrse xix. in Phylodemum, cum notis variorum.“-Colon. 1698, 8vo. 2.” Satyra? numero auctae, mendis purgatae, &c.cum notis anonymi: concinnante P. Antoniano.“Amst. Elzevir (Naples), 1700, 2 vols. 8vo. 3.” Sergardii Lud. antehac Q. Sectani, Satyrs, et alia opera." Luc. 1783, 4 vols. 8vo.

, or John de Serres, a learned Frenchman, was born in the sixteenth century, and was of the reformed religion. His parents sent him to Lausanne, where he was taught Latin and Greek, and attached himself much to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle; but, on his return to France, he studied divinity, in order to qualify himself for the ministry. He began to distinguish himself by his writings in 1570; and, in 1573, was obliged to take refuge in Lausanne, after the dreadful massacre on St. Bartholomew’s day. Returning soon to France, he published a piece in French, called “A Remonstrance to the king upon some pernicious principles in Bodin’s book de Republica:” in which he was thought to treat Bodin so injuriously, that Henry III. ordered him to prison. Obtaining his liberty, he became a minister of Nismes in 1582, but never was looked upon as a very zealous protestant; and some have gone so far as to say, but without sufficient foundation, that he actually abjured it. He is, however, supposed to have been one of those four ministers, who declared to Henry IV. that a man might be saved in the popish as well as the protestant religion; a concession which certainly did not please his brethren. He published, in 1597, with a view to reconcile the two religions, “De Fide Catholica, sive de principiis religionis Christiana?, communi omnium consensu semper et ubique ratis;” a work as little relished by the catholics, as by the protestants. He died suddenly in 1598, when he was not more than fifty, and the popish party circulated a report that his brethren of Geneva had poisoned him.

, a famous Anti-trinitarian, and the great martyr of the Socinian sect, was born in 1509, at Villaneuva in Arragon, or at Tudela in Navarre, in 1511. His father, who was a notary, sent him to the university of Toulouse, to study the civil law: and there, or as some say, when in Italy, he imbibed his peculiar notions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. After he had been two or three years at Toulouse he resolved to remove into Germany, and propagate his opinions. He went to Basil, by way of Lyons and Geneva; and, having had some conferences at Basil with Oecolampadius, set out for Strasburg, to converse with Bucer and Capito, two celebrated reformers of that city., At his departure from Basil he left a manuscript, entitled “De Trinitatis Erroribus,” in the bands of a bookseller, who sent it afterwards to Haguenau, whither Servetus went, and had it printed in 1531. The next year, he printed likewise at Haguenau another book, with this title, “Dialogorum de Trinitate libri duo:” in an advertisement to which he retracts v/hat he had written in his former book against the Trinity, not as it was false, but because it was written imperfectly and confusedly^ He then resolved to return to France, because he was poor, and did not understandthe German language; as he alleged upon his trial to the judges, when they asked him why he left Germany. He went accordingly to Basil, thence to Lyons, where he lived two or three years, and afterwards to Paris, where, having studied physic under Sylvius, Fernelius., and other professors, he took his degree of master of arts, and was admitted doctor of physic in the university. He now settled as a practitioner for two or three years in a town near Lyons, and then at Vienne in Dauphiny, for the space of ten or twelve. In the mean time, his writings against the Trinity had excited the indignation of the German divines, and spread his name throughout all Europe. In 1533, before he had left Lyons, Melancthon wrote a letter to Camerarius, in which he allowed that Servetus was evidently an acute and crafty disputant, but confused and indigested in his thoughts, and certainly wanting in point of gravity. While Servetus was at Paris, his books being dispersed in Italy, were very much approved by many who had thoughts of forsaking the church of Rome: which, in 1539, excited Melancthon to write a letter to the senate of Venice, importing, that “a book of Servetus, who had revived the error of Paulus Samosatenus, was handed about in their country, and beseeching them to take care, that the impious error of that man may be avoided, rejected, and abhorred.” Servetus was at Lyons in 1542, before he settled in Vienne; and corrected the proofs of a Latin Bible that was printing there, to which he added a preface and some marginal notes, under the name of Villanovanus, from the town where he was born.

During this time, Calvin, who was the head of the church at Geneva, kept a constant correspondence with Servetus by letters, and as he tells us, endeavoured, for the space of sixteen years, to reclaim that physician from his errors. Beza informs us, that Calvin knew Servetus at Paris, and opposed his doctrine; and adds, that Servetus, having engaged to dispute with Calvin, dur&t not appear at the time and place appointed. Servetus wrote several letters to Calvin at Geneva from Lyons and Danphine, and consulted him about several points: he also sent him a manuscript for his opinion, which, with some of his private letters, Calvin is said to have produced against him at his trial.

Servetus, however, was inflexible in his opinions, and determined to publish a third work in favour of them. This came out in 1553, at Vienne, with this title, “Christianismi Restuutio,” &c. without his name, but being discovered to be the author, he was imprisoned at Vienne, and would certainly have been burnt alive if he had not made his escape; however, sentence was passed on him, and his effigies was carried to the place of execution, fastened to a gibbet, and afterwards burned, with five bales of his books. Servetus in the mean time was retiring to Naples, where he hoped to practise physic with the same high reputation as he had practised at Vienne; yet was so imprudent as to take his way through Geneva, where he was seized and cast into prison; and a prosecution was presently commenced against him for heresy and blasphemy. The articles of his accusation were numerous, and extracted from his various writings; some of them are decidedly on the point of his anti-trinitarianism, others are more trivial. The magistrates, however, being sensible that the trial of Servetus was a thing of the highest consequence, did not think fit to give sentence, without consulting the magistrates of the Protestant cantons of Switzerland: to whom, therefore, they sent Servetus’s book, printed at Vienne, and also the writings of Calvin, with Servetus’s answers; and at the same time desired to have the opinion of their divines about that affair. They all gave vote against him, as Beza himself relates; in consequence of which he was condemned and burnt alive, Oct. 27, 1553. His death has been made the occasion of numerous attacks on the character and memory of Calvin, who, however, has a very able advocate in the life of Servetus by Chaufepie, translated by the Rev. James Yair, minister of the Scots church in Campvere, 1771, 8vo. Servetus’s death may more properly be referred to the spirit of the times, and may justly form a reflection on the reformers in general, who were adopting the intolerant practices of the church which they had left.

Servetus was a man of great acuteness and learning. He was not only deeply versed in what we usually call sacred and prophane literature, but also an adept in the arts and sciences. He observed upon hjs trial, that he had professed mathematics at Paris; although we do not find when, nor under what circumstances. He was so admirably skilled in his own profession, that he appears to have had some knowledge of the circulation of the blood; although very short of the clear and full discovery made by Harvey. Our learned Wotton says, " The first that I could ever find, who had a distinct idea of this matter, was Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician, who was bornt for Arianism at Geneva, near 140 years ago. Well had it been for the church of Christ, if he had wholly confined himself to his own profession His sagacity in this particular, before so much in the dark, gives us great reason to believe, that the world might then have just cause to have blessed his memory. In a book of his, entitled l Christianismi Restitutio, 7 printed in 1553, he clearly asserts, that the blood passes through the lungs, from the left to the right ventricle of the heart, and not through the partition which divides the two ventricles, as was at that time commonly believed. How he introduces it, or in which of the six discourses, into which Servetus divides his book, it is to be found, I know not, having never seen the book myself. Mr. Charles Bernard, a very learned and eminent surgeon of London, who did *ne the favour to communicate this passage to me, set down at length in the margin, which was transcribed out of Servetus, could inform me no farther, only that he had it from a learned friend of his, who had himself copied it from Servetus.' 7 The original editions of Servetus’s works are very scarce, and they have not been often reprinted, but his doctrines may be traced in various Socinian systems.

, a celebrated lawyer in France, who flourished at the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries, was descended of a good family in the Vendomois. In 1589 he was appointed advocate -general to the parliament of Paris, and distinguished himself in that station by his zealous support of the liberties of the Galiican church, and his opposition to the pretensions of the court of Rome. In 1590 he published a work in favour of Henry IV. who had succeeded to the crown, entitled “Vindicire secundum Libertatem Ecclesiue Gallicanse, et Defensio Regii Status Gallj-Francorum sub Henrico IV. Rege.” In 1598, being joined in a commission for the reformation of the university of Paris, he delivered “a remonstrance” on the subject, which was printed. To him also is attributed a work in favour of the republic of Venice in the affairs of the interdict. In the reign of Lewis XIII. at a bed of justice holden in 1620, he made strong and animated remonstrances in favour of the right of parliament to register royal edicts. On another similar occasion, in 1626, for the purpose of compelling the registry of some financial edicts, as he was firmly but respectfully making fresh remonstrances to his majesty, he suddenly fell and expired at the king’s feet.

, a poetaster, much noticed in poetical history, and of whom, therefore, some account may be expected, was the son of Joseph Settle, of Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, and was born in 1648. In 1666 he was entered a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, but quitted the university and came to London probably in the following year, when he commenced author and politician. At his outset he joined the whigs, who were then, though the minor, yet a powerful party, and employed his talents in their support. Afterwards, he went over to the other side, and wrote for the tories with as much spirit, and doubtless as much principle, as he had employed for the whigs. Among other effusions, he published a heroic poem on the coronation of James II.; and wrote paragraphs and essays in the newspapers in support of the administration. In this change of party he had woefully miscalculated; the revolution took place, and from that period having lost the little credit he had, he lived poor and despised, subject to all the miseries of the most abject state of indigence, and destitute of any advantageous and reputable connection. In 1680 he was so violent a whig, that the famous ceremony of pope-burning on the 17th of November was entrusted to his management, and he seems to have been at that time much in the confidence of those who opposed government. After his change he became equally violent against those with whom he had before associated, and actually entered himself a trooper in king James’s army at Hounslow Heath. In the latter part of his life he was so reduced as to attend a booth in Bartholomew-fair, the keepers of which gave him a salary for writing drolls. He also was obliged to appear in his old age as a performer in these wretched theatrical exhibitions, and, in a farce called “St. George for England,” acted a dragon inclosed in a case of green leather of his own invention. To this circumstance, Dr. Young refers in the following lines of his epistle to Mr. Pope:

was the only daughter of Celse Benigne de Rabutin, baron de Chantal, &c head of the elder branch of Rabutin, and Mary de Coulanges. She was born February 5, 1626, and lost her father the year following, who commanded the squadron of gentlemen volunteers in the isle of Rhe, when the English made a descent there. In August 1644, at the age of eighteen, she married Henry, marquis de Sevigne, descended of a very ancient family of Bretagne. He was a major-general and governor of Fougeres. She had by him a son and a daughter. It is said that her husband was not so much attached to her as she deserved, which, however, did not prevent madam de Sevigne" from sincerely lamenting his death, which happened in 1651, in a duel.

, a poetess and literary lady of considerable celebrity, was the daughter of the rev. Thomas Seward, rector of Eyam in Derbyshire, prebendary of Salisbury, and canon residentiary of Lichfield. In his youth he had travelled as tutor with lord Charles Fitzroy, third son of the duke of Grafton, a hopeful young nobleman, who died upon his travels in 1739. Mr. Seward returned to England, and soon after married Miss Elizabeth Hunter, daughter of Mr. Hunter, head-master of the school at Lichfield, the preceptor of Johnson, and other eminent nterary characters. Mr. Seward, upon his marriage, settled at his rectory of Eyam. In 1747, the secoud year of his marriage, Miss Seward was born.

Mr. Seward was in every respect a desirable acquaintance; he had travelled abroad with great improvement, and was known to most o/ those who had distinguished themselves by genius or learning, by natural or acquired endowments, or even by eccentricity of character; and he had stored his memory with anecdotes which made his conversation extremely entertaining. But though he wished to observe the manner of eminent or extraordinary men, he did not indiscriminately form friendships with them. He knew many, but was intimate with few. He was the friend of Dr. Johnson, bad conversed with Mr. Howard, and condescended to know Tom Paine. Party distinctions, appeared to have but little weight with him. He visited and received the visits of many whose opinions were directly opposite to each other, and equally to his own.

He spent his time like an English gentleman, with hospitality and without ostentation. In the winter he resided in London; and of late years, in the summer, he varied his place of abode. At one time he resided at Mr. Coxe’s house, near Salisbury; at another, near Reading; and the summer preceding his death, he made Richmond his residence. At all these places, and, indeed, wherever he came, he found acquaintances who respected and valued him for his amiable qualities. He bore a tedious illness with fortitude and resignation. Without expressing any impatience, he viewed the progress of his disorder, which he early discovered was a dangerous one; and continued his literary pursuits, and received his friends, until a few hours of his dissolution, which took place the 24th April 1799; and, a few days after, his remains were interred in the family vault at Finchley.

, an English poet and physician, was born at Windsor, where his father was treasurer and chapter-clerk of the college; received his education at Eton-school, and Peter-house, Cambridge; where having taken the degree of B. M. he went to Leyden, to study under Boerhaave, and on his return practised physic in the metropolis with reputation. In the latter part of his life he retired to Hampstead, where he pursued his profession with some degree of success, till three other physicians came to settle at the same place, when his practice so far declined as to yield him very little advantage. He kept no house, but was a boarder. He was much esteemed, and so frequently invited to the tables of gentlemen in the neighbourhood., that he had seldom occasion to dine at home. He died Feb. 8, 1726; and was supposed to be very indigent at the time of his death, as he was interred on the 12th of the same month in the meanest manner, his coffin being little better than those allotted by the parish to the poor who are buried from the workhouse; neither did a single friend or relation attend him to the grave. No memorial was placed over his remains; but they lie just under a hollow tree which formed a part of a hedge-row that was once the boundary of the church-yard. He was greatly esteemed for his amiable disposition; and is represented by some writers as a Tory in his political principles, but of this there is no other proof given than his writing some pamphlets against bishop Burnet. It is certain, that a true spirit of liberty breathes in many of his works; and he expresses, on many occasions, a warm attachment to the Hanover succession. Besides seven controversial pamphlets, he wrote, 1. “The Life of John Philips.” 2, “A vindication of the English Stage, exemplified in the Cato of Mr. Addison, 1716;” 3. “Sir Walter Raleigh, a tragedy, acted at Lincoln’s-inn-fields, 1719;” and part of another play, intended to be called “Richard the First,” the fragments of which were published in 1718, with “Two moral Essays on the Government of the Thoughts, and on Death,” and a collection of “Several poems published in his life-time^” Dr. Sewell was an occasional assistant to Harrison in the fifth volume of “The Tatler; was a, principal writer in the ninth volume of” The Spectator; and published a translation of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses, in opposition to the edition of Garth and an edition of Shakspeare’s Poems. Jacob and Gibber have enumerated a considerable number of his single poems; and in Mr. Nichols’s” Collection" are some valuable ones, unnoticed by these writers.

, the historian of the Quakers, was the son of Jacob Williamson Sewell, a citizen of Amsterdam, and a surgeon, and appears to have been born therein 1650. His grandfather, William Sewell, was an Englishman, and had resided at Kidderminster; but being one of the sect of the Brownists, left his native country for the more free enjoyment of his principles in Holland, married a Dutch woman of Utrecht, and settled there. The parents of the subject of this article both died when he was young, but had instructed him in the principles of the Quakers, to which he steadily adhered during life. His education in other respects appears to have been the fruit of his own application; and the time he could spare from the business to which he was apprenticed (that of a weaver) he employed with good success in attaining a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, English, French, and High Dutch, languages. His natural abilities being good, his application unwearied, and his habits strictly temperate, he soon became noticed by some of the most respectable booksellers in Holland; and the translation of works of credit, chiefly from the Latin and English tongues, into Low Dutch, seems to have been one of the principal sources from which his moderate income was derived, in addition to the part he took, at different times, in several approved periodical publications. His modest, unassuming manners gained him the esteem of several literary men, whose productions, there is reason to believe, were not unfrequently revised and prepared for the press by him. His knowledge of his native tongue was profound: his “Dictionary,” “Grammar,” and other treatises on it, having left very little room for succeeding improvement: and he assisted materially in the compilation of Halma’s French and Dutch Dictionary. His “History of the people called Quakers,” written first in Low Dutch, and afterwards, by himself, in English (dedicated to George I.) was a very laborious undertaking, as he was scrupulously nice in the selection of his materials, which he had been during many years engaged in collecting. Of the English edition, for it cannot properly be called a translation, it may be truly said, that as the production of a foreigner, who had spent only about ten months in England, and that above forty years before, the style is far superior to what could have been reasonably expected. One principal object with the author was, a desire to correct what he conceived to be gross misrepresentations in Gerard Croese’s “History of Quakerism.” The exact time of SewelPs death does not appear; but in, a note of the editor’s to the third edition of his “Dictionary,” in 1726, he is mentioned as being lately deceased. His “History of the Quakers” appears to have been first published in 1722, folio, and reprinted in 1725.

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

, duke of Somerset, and uncle to Edward VI. was eldest son of sir John Seymour of Wolfhall, in the county of Wilts, knt. by Elizabeth daughter of sir Henry Wentworth, of Nettlested in Suffolk. He was educated at the university of Oxford, whence returning to his father at court, when martial achievements were encouraged by Henry VIII. he joined the army, and accompanying the duke of Suffolk in his expedition to France in 1533, was knighted by him Nov. 1, of that year. Upon his sister’s marriage with the king in 1536, he had the tide of viscount Beauchamp bestowed upon him, in consequence of his descent from an heir female of that house; and in Oct. 1537 was created earl of Hertford. In 1540 he was sent to France to dispute the limits of the English borders, and on his return was elected knight of the garter. In 1542 he attended the duke of Norfolk in his expedition into Scotland, and the same year was made lord great chamberlain of England for life. In 154-4, being made lieutenant-general of the north, he embarked for Scotland with two hundred sail of ships, on account of the Scots refusing to marry their young queen to prince Edward; and landing in the Frith, took Leith and Edinburgh, and after plundering and burning them, marched by land into England. In August of the same year, he went to the assistance of the king at the siege of Boulogne, with several German and Flemish troops; and after taking it, defeated an army of 14,000 French, who lay encamped near it. By the will of Henry VIII. he was appointed one of the sixteen persons, who were to be his majesty’s executors, and governors of his son, till he should be eighteen years of age. Upon Edward’s accession to the crown, it was proposed in council, that one of the sixteen should be chosen, to whom the ambassadors should address themselves, and who should have the chief direction of affairs, though restrained from acting without the consent of the major part of the rest. The lord chancellor Wriothesly, who thought the precedence in secular affairs belonging to him by his office, opposed this strongly, and urged, that it was changing the king’s will, who had made them equal in power and dignity; and if any was raised above the rest in title, it would be impossible to keep him within just bounds, since greater titles made way for exorbitant power. But the earl of Hertford had so prepared his friends, that he was declared governor of the king’s person, and protector of the king*, dom, with this restriction, that he should not act without the advice and consent of the rest. In consequence of this measure, two distinct parties were formed; the one headed by the new protector, and the other by the chancellor; the favourers of the reformation declaring for the former, and the enemies of it for the latter. On Feb. 10, 1547-8, the protector was appointed lord treasurer, and the next day created duke of Somerset, and on the 17th of that month, had a grant of the office of earl marshal of England for life. On March 12th following, he had a patent for the office of protector and governor of the king and his realms. By this patent he had a negative in the council, but they had none on him; and he could either bring his own adherents into it, or select a cabinet-council out of it at pleasure; while the other executors,' having thus delivered up their authority to him, were only privy-counsellors like the rest, without retaining any authority peculiar to themselves, as was particularly provided by Hemy Vlllth’s will. In August 1548 the protector took a commission to be general, and to make war in Scotland, and accordingly entered that kingdom, and, on Sept. 10, gained a complete victory at Musselburgh, and on the 29th returned to England triumphantly, having, with the loss of but sixty men in the whole expedition, taken eighty pieces of cannon, bridled the two chief rivers of the kingdom by garrisons, and gained several strong places.

It may easily be imagined how much these successes raised his reputation in England, especially when it was remembered what great services he had done formerly against France so that the nation in general had vast expectations from his government but the breach between him and his brother, the lord high admiral of England, lost him the present advantages. The death of the admiral also, in March 1548, drew much censure on the protector; though others were of opinion that it was scarce possible for him to do more for the gaining his brother than he had done. In September 1549, a strong faction appeared against him, under the influence and direction of Wriothesly earl of Southampton, who hated him on account of losing the office of lord chancellor, and Dudley earl of Warwick, who expected to have the principal administration of affairs upon his removal; and other circumstances concurred to raise him enemies. His partiality to the commons provoked the gentry; his consenting to the execution of his brother, and his palace in the Strand, erected on the ruins of several churches and other religious buildings, in a time both of war and pestilence, disgusted the people, The clergy hated him, not only for promoting the changes in religion, but likewise for his enjoying so many of the best manors of the bishops; and his entertaining foreign troops, both German and Italian, though done by the consent of the council, gave general disgust. The privy counsellors complained of his being arbitrary in his proceedings, and of many other offences, which exasperated the whole body of them against him, except archbishop Cranmer, sir William Paget, and sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state. The first discovery of their designs induced him to remove the king to Hampton Ctuirt, and then to Windsor; but finding the party against him too formidable to oppose, he submitted to the council, and on the 14th of October was committed to the Tower, and in January following was fined in the sum of two thousand pounds a year, with thg loss of all his offices and goods. However, on the 16th of February, 1549-50, he obtained a full pardon, and so managed his interest with the king, that he was brought both to the court and council in April following: and to confirm the reconciliation between him and the earl of Warwick, the duke’s daughter was married, on the 3d of June, 1550, to the lord viscount Lisle, the earl’s son. But this friendship did not continue long; for in October 1551, the earl, now created duke of Northumberland, caused the duke of Somerset to be sent to the Tower, alledging^ that the latter had formed a design of raising the people; and that when himself, and the marquis of Northampton^ and the earl of Pembroke, had been invited to dine at the lord Paget’s, Somerset determined to have set upon them by the way, or to have killed them at dinner; with other particulars of that kind, which were related to the king in so aggravated a manner, that he was entirely alienated from his uncle. On the first of December the duke was brought to his trial, and though acquitted of treason, was found guilty of felony in intending to imprison the duke of Northumberland. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 22d of January, 1551-2, and died with great serenity. It was generally believed, that the conspiracy, for which he suffered, was a mere forgery; and indeed the not bringing the witnesses into the court, but only the depositions, and the parties themselves sitting as judges, gave great occasion to condemn the proceedings against him. Besides, his four friends, who were executed for the same cause, ended their lives with the most solemn protestations of their innocence.

He was a person of great virtues; eminent for his piety courteous, and affable in his greatness sincere and candid in all his transactions a patron of the poor and oppressed; but a better general than a counsellor. He had, however, a tincture of vanity, and a fondness for his own notions; and being a man of no extraordinary parts, was too much at the disposal of those who by flattery and submission insinuated themselves into his esteem and confidence. He made likewise too great haste to raise a vast estate to be altogether innocent. But to balance these defects, he was never charged with personal disofders, nor guilty of falsehood, of perverting justice, of cruelty, or oppression. Lord Orford remarks that his contributing to the ruin of the Howards hurt him much in the eves of the nation: his severity to his own brother, though a vain and worthless man, was still less excusable; but having fallen by the policy of a man more artful, more ambitious, and much less virtuous than himself, he died lamented by the people.

Somerset left three daughters, Anne, Margaret, and Jane, who were distinguished for their poetical talents. They composed a century of Latin distichs on the death of Margaret de Valois, queen of France, which were translated into the French, Greek, and Italian languages, and printed in Paris in 1551. Anne, the eldest of these ladies, married first the earl of Warwick, the son of the duke of Northumberland, already mentioned, and afterwards sir Edward Hunton. The other two died single. Jane was maid of honour to queen Elizabeth.

, an English dramatic poet, was descended of a good family in the county of Stafford, but born at Stanton-hail, in Norfolk, a seat of his father’s, about 1640. He was educated at Cains college in Cambridge, and afterwards placed in the Middle Temple; where he studied the law some time, and then went abroad. Upon his return from his travels he applied himself to the drama, and wrote seventeen plays, with a success which introduced him to the notice of several persons of wit and rank, by whom he was highly esteemed. At the Revolution he was, by his interest with the earl of Dorset, made historiographer and poet-laureat; and when some persons urged that there were authors who had better pretensions to the laurel, his lordship is said to have replied, " that he did not pretend to determine how great a poet Shadwell might be, but was sure that he was an honest man.' 7 He succeeded Dryden as poet-laureat; for Dryden had so warmly espoused the opposite interest, that at the Revolution he was dispossessed of his place. This, however, Dryden considered as an indignity, and resented it very warmly. He had once been on friendly terms with Shadwell, but some critical differences appear to have first separated them, and now Dryden introduced Shadwell in his Mac-Fleckno, in these lines:

Lord Rochester had such an opinion of his conversation that he said “if Shadwell had burnt all he wrote, and printed all he spoke, he would have had more wit and humour than any other poet.” Considering Rochester’s cha-“racter, this, we are afraid, confirms the account of some contemporary writers, that Shadwell, in conversation, was often grossly indecent and profane. Shadwell was a great favourite with Otway, and lived in intimacy with him; which might, perhaps, be the occasion of Dryden’s expressing so much contempt for Otway, which was surely less excusable than his hostility towards our author. Shadwell died Dec. 6, 16U2; and his death was occasioned, as some say, by a too large dose of opium, given him by mistake. A white marble monument with his bust is erected in Westminster abbey by his son sir John Shadwell, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Nicolas Brady, the translator of the Psalms, who tells us that” he was a man of great honesty and integrity, and had a real love of truth and sincerity, an inviolable fidelity and strictness to his word, an unalterable friendship wheresoever he professed it, and (however the world may be deceived in him) a much deeper sense of religion than many others have, who pretend to it more openly."

Our author’s son, Dr. John Shadwell, was physician to queen Anne, George I. and George II. by the former of whom he was knighted. In August 1609, he attended the earl of Manchester, who then went to Paris as ambassador extraordinary to Louis XIV. and continued there with that nobleman till his return to England in Sept. 1701. He died Dec. 4, 1747.

There was a Charles Shadwell, a dramatic writer, who, Jacob tells us, was nephew to the poet-laureat, but Chetwood, in his “British Theatre,” says he was his younger son. He had served in Portugal, and enjoyed a post in the revenue in Dublin, in which city he died August 12, 1726. He wrote seven dramatic pieces, all which, excepting the “Fair Quaker of Deal,” and the “Humours of the Army,” made their appearance on the Irish stage only, and are printed together in one volume, 1720, 12m.

, was a considerable dealer in wool, and had been an officer and bailiff (probably high-bailiff or mayor) of the body corporate of Stratford. He held also the office of justice of the peace, and at one time, it is said, possessed lands and tenements to the amount of 500l. the reward of his grandfather’s faithful and approved services to king Henry VII. This, however, has been asserted upon very doubtful authority. Mr. Malone thinks ft it is highly probable that he distinguished himself in Bosworth field on the side of king Henry, and that he was rewarded for his military services by the bounty of that parsimonious prince, though not with a grant of lands. No such grant appears in the chapel of the Rolls, from the beginning to the end of Henry’s reign.“But whatever may have been his former wealth, it appears to have been” greatly reduced in the latter part of his life, as we find, from the books of the corporation, that in 1579 he was excused the trifling weekly tax of four-pence levied on all the aldermen; and that in 1586 another alderman was appointed in his room, in consequence of his declining to attend on the business of that office. It is even said by Aubrey, a man sufficiently accurate in facts, although credulous in superstitious narratives and traditions, that he followed for some time the occupation of a butcher, which Mr. Malone thinks not inconsistent with probability. It must have been, however, at this time, no inconsiderable addition to his difficulties that he had a family of ten children. His wife was the daughter and heiress of Robert Arden, of Wellingcote, in the county of Warwick, who is styled “a gentleman of worship.” The family of Arden is very ancient, Robert Arden of Bromich, esq. being in the list of the gentry of this county returned by the commissioners in the twelfth year of king Henry VI. A. D. 1433. Edward Arden was sheriff of the county in 1568. The woodland part of this county was anciently called Ardern, afterwards softened to Arden; and hence the name. Our illustrious poet was the eldest son, and received his early education, whether narrow or liberal, at a free school, probably that founded at Stratford; but from this he appears to have been soon removed, and placed, according to Mr. Malone’s opinion, in the office of some country attorney, or the seneschal of some manor court, where it is highly probable he picked up those technical law phrases that so frequently occur in his plays, and could not have been in common use unless among professional men. Mr. Capell conjectures that his early marriage prevented his being sent to some university. It appears, however, as Dr. Farmer observes, that his early life was incompatible with a course of education, and it is certain that “his contemporaries, friends and foes, nay, and himself likewise, agree in his want of what is usually termed literature.” It is, indeed, a strong argument in favour of Shakspeare’s illiterature, that it was maintained by all his contemporaries, many of whom have left upon record every merit they could bestow on him and by his successors, who lived nearest to his time, when “his memory was green” and that it has been denied only by Gildon, Sewell, and others down to Upton, who could have no means of ascertaining the truth.

In his eighteenth year, or perhaps a little sooner, he married Anne Hathaway, who was eight years older than himself, the daughter of one Hathaway, who is said to have been a substantial yeoman in the neighbourhood of Stratford. Of his domestic ceconomy, or professional occupation at this time, we have no information; but it would appear that both were in a considerable degree neglected by his associating with a gang of deer-stealers. Being detected with them in robbing the park of sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, near Stratford, he was so rigorously prosecuted by that gentleman as to be obliged to leave his family and business, and take shelter in London. Sir Thomas, on this occasion, is said to have been exasperated by a ballad Shakspeare wrote, probably his first essay in poetry, of which the following stanza was communicated to Mr. Oldys.

These lines, it must be confessed, do no great honour to our poet, and probably were unjust, for although some of his admirers have recorded sir Thomas as a “vain, weak, and vindictive magistrate,” he was certainly exerting no very violent act of oppression, in protecting his property against a man who was degrading the commonest rank of life, and had at this time bespoke no indulgence by superior talents. The ballad, however, must have made some noise at sir Thomas’s expence, as the author took care it should be affixed to his park-gates, and liberally circulated among his neighbours.

On his arrival in London, which was probably in 1586, when he was twenty -two years old, he is said to have made his first acquaintance in the play-house, to which idleness or taste may have directed him, and where his necessities, if tradition may be credited, obliged him to accept the office of call-boy, or prompter’s attendant. This is a menial, whose employment it is to give the performers notice to be ready to enter, as often as the business of the play requires their appearance on the stage. Pope, however, relates a story, communicated to him by Rowe, but which Rowe did not think deserving of a place in the life he wrote, that must a little retard the advancement of our poet to the office just mentioned. According to this story, Shakspeare’s first employment was to wait at the door of the play-house, and hold the horses of those who had no servants, that they might be ready after the performance. But “I cannot,” says his acute commentator, Mr. Steevens, “dismiss this anecdote without observing, that it seems to want every mark of probability. Though Shakspeare quitted Stratford on account of a juvenile irregularity, we have no reason to suppose that he had forfeited the protection of his father, who was engaged in a lucrative business 3 or the love of his wife, who had already brought him two children, and was herself the daughter of a substantial yeoman. It is unlikely, therefore, when he was beyond the reach of his prosecutor, that he should conceal his plan of life, or place of residence, from those who, if he found himself distressed, could not fail to afford him such supplies as would have set him above the necessity of holding horses for subsistence. Mr. Malone has remarked in his ‘Attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays of Shakspeare were written,’ that he might have found an easy introduction to the stage; for Thomas Green, a celebrated comedian of that period, was his townsman, and perhaps his relation. The genius of our author prompted him to write poetry; his connexion with a player might have given his productions a dramatic turn; or his own sagacity might have taught him that fame was not incompatible with profit, and that the theatre was an avenue to both. That it was once the general custom to ride on horse-back to the play, I am likewise yet to learn. The most popular of the theatres were on the Bank-side; and we are told by the satirical pamphleteers of that time, that the usual mode of conveyance to these places of amusement was by water, but not a single writer so much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or at the practice of having horses held during the hours of exhibition. Some allusion to this usage (if it had existed) must, I think, have been discovered in the course of our researches after contemporary fashions. Let it be remembered too, that we receive this tale on no higher authority than that of Gibber’s Lives of the Poets, vol. I. p. 130. Sir Win. Davenant told it to Mr. Betterton, who communicated it to Mr. Howe, who, according to Dr. Johnson, related it to Mr. Pope.” Mr. Malone concurs in opinion that this story stands on a very slender foundation, while he differs from Mr. Steevens as to the fact of gentlemen going to the theatre on horseback. With respect likewise to Shakspeare’s father being “engaged in a lucrative business,” we may remark, that this could not have been the case at the time our author came to London, if the preceding dates be correct. He is said to have arrived in London in 1586, the year in which his father resigned the office of alderman, unless, indeed, we are permitted to conjecture that his resignation was not the consequence of his necessities.

Mr. Rowe regrets that he cannot inform us which was the first play he wrote. More skilful research has since found that Romeo and Juliet, and Richard II. and III. were printed in 1597, when he was thirty-three years old; there is also some reason to think that he commenced a dramatic writer in 1592, and Mr. Malone even places his first, play, “First part of Henry VI.” in 1589. His plays, however, must have been not only popular, but approved by persons of the higher order, as we are certain that he enjoyed the gracious favour of Queen Elizabeth, who was very fond of the stage, and the particular and affectionate patronage of the earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicated his poems of “Venus and Adonis,” and his “Rape of Lucrece.” On sir William Davenant’s authority, it has been asserted that this nobleman at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to complete a purchase. At the conclusion of the advertisement prefixed to Lintot*s edition of Shakspeare’s Poems, it is said, “That most learned prince and great patron of learning, king James the first, was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakspeare: which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of sir William D'Avenant, as a credible person now living can testify.” Dr. Farmer with great probability supposes, that this letter was written by king James, in return for the compliment paid to him in Macbeth. The relator of the anecdote was Sheffield, duke of Buckingham. These brief notices, meagre as they are, may show that our author enjoyed high favour in his day. Whatever we may think of king James as a “learned prince,” his patronage, as well as that of his predecessor, was sufficient to give celebrhy to the founder of a new stage. It may be added, that Shakspeare’s uncommon merit, his candour, and good-nature, are supposed to have procured him the admiration and acquaintance of every person distinguished for such qualities. It is not difficult, indeed, to suppose that Shakspeare was a man of humour, and a social companion, and probably excelled in that species of minor wit, not ill adapted to conversation, of which it could have been wished he had been more sparing in his writings.

How long he acted has not been discovered, but he continued to write till the year 1614. During his dramatic career he acquired a property in the theatre , which he must have disposed of when he retired, as no mention of it occurs in his will. His connexion with Ben Jonson has been variously related. It is said, that when Jonson was unknown to the world, he offered a play to the theatre, which was rejected after a very careless perusal; but that Shakspeare having accidentally cast his eye on it, conceived a favourable opinion of it, and afterwards recommended Jonson and his writings to the public. For this candour he was repaid by Jonson, when the latter became a poet of note, with an envious disrespect. Jonson acquired reputation by the variety of his pieces, and endeavoured to arrogate the supremacy in dramatic genius. Like a French critic, he insinuated Shakspeare’s incorrectness, his careless manner of writing, and his want of judgment; and as he was a remarkably slow writer himself, he could not endure the praise frequently bestowed on Shakspeare, of seldom altering or blotting out what he had written. Mr. Malone says, that “not long after the year 1600, a coolness arose between Shakspeare and him, which, however he may talk of his almost idolatrous affection, produced on his part, from that time to the death of our author, and for many years afterwards, much clumsy sarcasm, and many malevolent reflections.” But from these, which are the commonly received opinions on this subject, Dr. Farmer is inclined to depart, and to think Jonson’s hostility to Shakspeare absolutely groundless; so uncertain is every circumstance we attempt to recover of our great poet’s life . Jonson had only one advantage over Shakspeare, that of superior learning, which might in certain situations be of some importance, but could never promote his rivalship with a man who attained the highest excellence without it. Nor will Shakspeare suffer by its being known that all the dramatic poets before he appeared were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlowe, Nashe, Lily, and Kyd, had all, says Mr. Malone, a regular university education, and, as scholars in our universities, frequently composed and acted plays on historical subjects .

He retired, some years before his death, to a house in Stratford, of which it has been thought important to give the history. It was built by sir Hugh Clopton, a younger bro her of an ancient family in that neighbourhood. Sir Hugh was sheriff of London in the reign of Richard III. and lord mayor in the reign of Henry VII. By his will he bequeathed to his elder brother’s son his manor of Clopton, &c, and his house, by the name of the Great House) in Stratford. A good part of the estate was in possession of Edward Clopton, esq. and sir Hugh Clopton, knight, in 1733. The principal estate had been sold out of the Clopton family for above a century, at the time when Shakspeare became the purchaser, who having repaired and modelled it to his own mind, changed the name to New Place y which the mansion-house afterwards erected, in the room of the poet’s house, retained for many years. The house and lands belonging to it continued in the possession of Shakspeare’s descendants to the time of the Restoration, when they were re-purchased by the Clopton family. Here, in May 1742, when Mr. Garrick, Mr. Macklin, and Mr. Delane, visited Stratford, they were hospitably entertained under Shakspeare’s mulberry-tree, by sir Hugh Clopton. He was a barrister at law, was knighted by king George I. and died in the eightieth year of his age, in December 1751. His executor, about 1752, sold New Place to the Rev. Mr. Gastrell, a man of large fortune, who resided in it but a few years, in consequence of a disagreement with the inhabitants of Stratford. As he resided part of the year at Lichfield, he thought he was assessed too highly in the monthly rate towards the maintenance of the poor; but, being very properly compelled by the magistrates of Stratford to pay the whole of what was levied on him, on the principle that his house was occupied by his servants in his absence, he peevishly declared, that that house should never be assessed again: and soon afterwards pulled it down, sold the materials, and left the town. He had some time before cut down Shakspeare’s mulberry-tree , to save himself the trouble of showing it to those whose admiration of our great poet led them to visit the classic ground on which it stood. That Shakspeare planted this tree appears to be sufficiently authenticated. Where New Place stood is now a garden. Before concluding this history, it may be necessary to mention, that the poet’s house was once honoured by the temporary residence of Henrietta Maria, queen to Charles I. Theobald has given an inaccurate account of this, as if she had been obliged to take refuge in Stratford from the rebels, which was not the case. She marched from Newark, June 16, 1643, and entered Stratford triumphantly, about the 22nd of the same month, at the head of 3000 foot and 1500 horse, with 15o waggons, and a train of artillery. Here she was met by prince Rupert, accompanied by a large body of troops. She rested about three weeks at our poet’s house, which was then possessed by his grand-daughter Mrs. Nash, and her husband.

During Shakspeare’s abode in this house, his pleasureable wit and good-nature, says Mr. Rowe, engaged him the acquaintance, and entitled him to the friend hip of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood. Among these Mr. Rowe tells a traditional story of a miser, or usurer, named Combe, who, in conversation with Shakspeare, said he fancied the poet intended to write his epitaph if he should survive him, and desired to know what he meant to say. On this Shakspeare gave him the following, probably extempore

If any man ask, who lies in this tombe

‘ Oh ho’ quoth the devil, ‘tis my John-a-CombeY’ The sharpness of the satire is said to have stung the man so severely that he never forgave it. These lines, however, or some which nearly resemble them, appeared in various collections both before and after the time they were said to have been composed; and the inquiries of Mr. Steevens and Mr. Malone satisfactorily prove that the whole story is a fabrication. Betterton is said to have heard it when he visited Warwickshire, on purpose to collect anecdotes of our poet, and probably thought it of too much importance to be nicely examined. We know not whether it be worth adding of a story which we have rejected, that a usurer in Shakspeare’s time did not mean one who took exorbitant, but any interest or usance for money, and that ten in the hundred, or ten per cent, was then the ordinary interest of money. It is of more consequence, however, to record the opinion of Mr. Malone, that Shakspeare, during his retirement, wrote the play of “Twelfth Night.”

His family consisted of two daughters, and a son named Hamnet, who died in 1596, in the 12th year of his age. Susannah, the eldest daughter, and her father’s favourite, was married to Dr. John Hall, a physician, who died Nov. 1635, aged 60. Mrs. Hall died July 11, 1649, aged 66 They left only one child, Elizabeth, born 1607-8, and married April 22, 1626, to Thomas Nashe, esq. who died in 1647, and afterwards to sir John Barnard of Abmgton, in Northamptonshire, but died without issue by either husband. Jn.iith, Shakspeare' s youngest daughter, was married to a Mr. Thomas Quiney, and died Feb. 1661-62, in her 77th year. By Mr. Quiney she had three sons, Shakspeare, Richard, and Thomas, who all died unmarried. Sir Hugh Ciopton, who was born two years after the death of lady Barnard, which happened in 1669-70, related to Mr. Macklin, in 1742, an old tradition, that she had carried away with her from Stratford many of her grandfather’s papers. On the death of sir John Barnard, Mr. Malone thinks these must have fallen into the hands of Mr. Edward Bagley, lady Barnard’s executor, and if any descendant of that gentleman be now living, in his custody they probably remain. To this account of Shakspeare’s family, we have now to add that among Oldys’s papers, is another traditional story of his having been the father of sir William Davenant. Oldys’s relation is thus given:

In the year 1741, a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of the earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker (who received 300l. for it), after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expences, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performers at Drury-Iane theatre amounted to above 200l. but the receipts at Covent-garden did not exceed 100l. From these imperfect notices, which are all we have been able to collect from the labours of his biographers* and commentators, our readers will perceive that less is known of Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has been considered as an object of laudable curiosity. Nothing could be more highly gratifying than an account of the early studies of this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, his moral and social qualities, his friendships, his failings, and whatever else constitutes personal history. But on all these topics his contemporaries and his immediate successors have been equally silent, and if aught can hereafter be discovered, it must be by exploring sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives, and their most vigorous talents, to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch. we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may not be involved in controversy, and perplexed with contradictory opinions and authorities

It is usually said that the life of an author can be little else than a history of his works; but this opinion is liable to many exceptions. If an author, indeed, has passed his days in retirement, his life can afford little more variety than that of any other man who has lived in retirement; but if, as is generally the case with writers of great celebrity, he has acquired a pre-eminence over his contemporaries, if he has excited rival contentions, and defeated the attacks of criticism or of malignity, or if he has plunged into the controversies of his age, and performed the part cither of a tyrant or a hero in literature, his history may be rendered as interesting as that of any other public character. But whatever weight may be allowed to this remark, the decision will not be of much consequence in the case of Shakspeare. Unfortunately we know as little of the progress of his writings, as of his personal history. The industry of his illustrators for the last thirty years has been such as probably never was surpassed in the annals of literary investigation, yet so far are we from information of the conclusive or satisfactory kind, that even the order in which his plays were written, rests principally on conjecture, and of some plays usually printed among his works, it is not yet determined whether he wrote the whole, or any part. Much of our ignorance of every thing which it would be desirable to know respecting Shakspeare’s works, must be imputed to the author himself. If we look merely at the state in which he left his productions, we should be apt to conclude, either that he was insensible of their value, or that while he was the greatest, he was at the same time the humblest writer the world ever produced; “that he thought his works unworthy of posterity, that he levied no ideal tribute upon future times, nor had any further prospect, than that of present popularity and present profit.” And such an opinion, although it apparently partakes of the ease and looseness of conjecture, may not be far from probability. But before we allow it any higher merit, or attempt to decide upon the affection or neglect with which he reviewed his labours, it may be necessary to consider their precise nature, and certain circumstances in his situation which affected them; and, above all, we must take into our account the character and predominant occupations of the times in which he lived, and of those which followed his decease.

With respect to himself, it does not appear that he printed any one of his plays, and only eleven of them were printed in his life-time. The reason assigned for this is, that he wrote them for a particular theatre, sold them to the managers when only an actor, reserved them in manuscript when himself a manager, and when he disposed of his property in the theatre, they were still preserved in manuscript to prevent their being acted by the rival houses. Copies of some of them appear to have been surreptitiously obtained, and published in a very incorrect state, but we may suppose that it was wiser in the author or managers to overlook this fraud, than to publish a correct edition, and so destroy the exclusive property they enjoyed. It is clear, therefore, that any publication of his plays by himself would have interfered, at first with his own interest, and afterwards with the interest of those to whom he had made over his share in them. But even had this obstacle been removed, we are not sure that he would have gained much by publication. If he had no other copies but those belonging to the theatre, the business of correction for the press must have been a toil which we are afraid the taste of the public at that time would have poorly rewarded. We know not the exact portion of fame he enjoyed; it was probably the highest which dramatic genius could confer, but dramatic genius was a new excellence, and not well understood. Its claims were probably not heard out of the jurisdiction of the master of the revels, certainly not beyond the metropolis. Yet such was Shakspeare’s reputation, that we are tolcl his name was put to pieces which he never wrote, and that he felt himself too confident in popular favour to undeceive the public. This was singular resolution in a man who wrote so unequally, that. at this day the test of internal evidence must be applied to his doubtful productions with the greatest caution. But still, how far his character would have been elevated by an examination of his plays in the closet, in an age when the refinements of criticism were not understood, and the sympathies of taste were seldom felt, may admit of a question. “His language,” says Dr. Johnson, “not being designed for the readers desk, was all that he desired it to be, if it conveyed his meaning to the audience.”

Shakspeare died in 1616, and seven years afterwards appeared the first edition of his plays, published at the charges of four booksellers, a circumstance from which Mr. Malone infers, “that no single publisher was at that time willing to risk his money on a complete collection of our author’s plays.” This edition was printed from the copies in the hands of his fellow-managers, Heminge and Condell, which had been in a series of years frequently altered through convenience, caprice, or ignorance. Heminge and Condell had now retired from the stage, and, we may suppose, were guilty of no injury to their successors, in printing what their own interest only had formerly withheld. Of this, although we have no documents amounting t^ demonstration, we may be convinced, by adverting to a circumstance which will, in our days, appear very extraordinary, namely, the declension of Shakspeare’s popularity. We have seen that the publication of his works was accounted a doubtful speculation, and it is yet more certain that so much had the public taste turned from him in quest of variety, that for several years after his death the plays of Fletcher were more frequently acted than his, and during the whole of the seventeenth century, they were made to give place to performances, the greater part of which cannot now be endured. During the same period only four editions of his works were published, all in folio; and perhaps this unwieldy size of volume may be an additional proof that they were not popular; nor is it thought that the impressions were numerous. These circumstances which attach to our author and to his works, must be allowed a plausible weight in accounting for onr deficiencies in his biography and literary career; but there were circumstances enough in the history of the times to suspend the progress of that more regular drama, of which he had set the example, and may be considered as the founder. If we wonder why we know so much less of Shakspeare than of his contemporaries, let us recollect that his genius, however highly and justly we now rate it, took a direction which was not calculated for permanent admiration, either in the age in which he lived, or in that which followed. Shakspeare was a writer of plays, a promoter of an amusement just emerging from barbarism; and an amusement which, although it has been classed among the schools of morality, has ever had such a strong tendency to deviate from moral purposes, that the force of law has in all ages been called in to preserve it within the bounds of common decency. The church has ever been unfriendly to the stage. A part of the injunctions of queen Elizabeth is particularly directed against the printing of plays; and, according to an entry in the books of the Stationers’ Company, in the 4 1 st year of her reign, it is ordered that no plays be printed, except allowed by persons in authority. Dr. Farmer also remarks, that in that age, poetry and novels were destroyed publicly by the bishops, and privately by the puritans. The main transactions, indeed, of that period could not admit of much attention to matters of amusement. The reformation required all the circumspection and policy of a long reign to render it so firmly established in popular favour as to brave the caprice of any succeeding sovereign. This was effected in a great measure by the diffusion of religious controversy, which was encouraged by the church, and especially by the puritans, who were the immediate teachers of the lower classes, were listened to with veneration, and usually inveighed against all public amusements, as inconsistent with the Christian profession. These controversies continued during the reign of James I. and were in a considerable degree promoted by him, although he, like Elizabeth, was a favourer of the stage as an appemiage to the grandeur and pleasures of the court. But the commotions which followed in the unhappy reign of Charles I. when the stage was totally abolished, are sufficient to account for the oblivion thrown on the history and works of our great bard. From this time no inquiry was made, until it was too late to obtain any information more satisfactory than the few hearsay scraps and contested traditions above detailed. “How little,” says Mr. Steevens, “Shakspeare was once read, may be understood from Tate, who, in his dedication to the altered play of king Lear, speaks of the original as an obscure piece, recommended to his notice by a friend; and the author of the Tatler having occasion to quote a few lines out of Macbeth, was con^ tent to receive them from D'Avenant’s alteration of that celebrated drama, in which almost every original beauty is either aukwardly disguised, or arbitrarily omitted.”

His admirers, however, if he had admirers in that age, possessed no portion of such enthusiasm. That curiosity which in our days has raised biography to the rank of an independent study, was scarcely known, and where known, confined principally to the public transactions of eminent characters. And if, in addition to the circumstances already stated, we consider how little is known of the personal history of Shakspeare’s contemporaries, we may easily resolve the question why, of all men who have ever claimed admiration by genius, wisdom, or valour, who have eminently contributed to enlarge the taste, or increase the reputation of their country, we know the least of Shakspeare; and why, of the few particulars which seem entitled to credit, when simply related, and in which there is no manifest violation of probability, or promise of importance, there is scarcely one which has not swelled into a controversy. After a careful examination of all that modern research has discovered, we know not how to trust our curiosity beyond the limits of those barren dates which afford no personal history. The nature of Shakspeare’s writings prevents that appeal to internal evidence which in other cases has been found to throw light on character. The purity of his morals, for example, if sought in his plays, must be measured against the licentiousness of his language, and the question will then be, how much did he write from conviction, and how much to gratify the taste of his hearers How much did he add to the age, and how much did he borrow from it Pope says, “he was obliged to please the lowest of the people, and to keep the worst of company;” and Pope might have said more, for although we hope' it was not true, we have no means of proving that it was false.

The only life which has been prefixed to all the editions of Shakspeare of the eighteenth century is that drawn tip by Mr. Rowe, and which he modestly calls “Some Account, &c.” In this we have what Rowe could collect when every legitimate^source of information was closed, a few traditions that- were*' floating nearly a century after the author’s death. Some inaccuracies in his account have been detected in the valuable notes of Mr. Steevens and Mr. Malone, who, in other parts of their respective editions, have scattered a few brief notices which are incorporated in the present sketch. The whole, however, is unsatisfactory. Shakspeare in his private character, in his friendships, in his amusements, in his closet, in his family, is no where before us; and such was the nature of the writings on which his fame depends, and of that employment in which he was engaged, that being in no important respect connected with the history of his age, it is in vain to look into the latter for any information concerning him.

Mr. Capell is of opinion that he wrote some prose works, because “it can hardly be supposed that he, who had so considerable a share in the confidence of the earls of Essex and Southampton, could be a mute spectator only of controversies in which they were so much interested.” This editor, however, appears to have taken for granted a degree of confidence with these two statesmen, which he ought first to have proved. Shakspeare might have enjoyed the confidence of their social hours, but it is mere conjecture that they admitted him into the confidence of their state affairs. Mr. Malone, whose opinions are entitled to a higher degree of credit, thinks that his prose compositions, if they should be discovered, would exhibit the same perspicuity, the same cadence, the same elegance and vigour, which we find in his plays. It is unfortunate, however, for all wishes and all conjectures, that not a line of Shakspeare' s manuscript is known to exist, and his prose writings are nowhere hinted at. We have only printed copies of his plays and poems, and those so depraved by carelessness or ignorance, that all the labour of all his commentators has not yet been able to restore them to a probable purity. Many of the greatest difficulties attending the perusal of them yet remain, and will require, what it is scarcely possible to expect, greater sagacity and more happy conjecture than have hitherto been employed.

, an eminent mathematician, mechanist, and astronomer, was descended from an ancient family at Little-Horton, near Bradford, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he was born about 1651. He was at first apprenticed to a merchant at Manchester, but his inclination and genius being decidedly for mathematics, he obtained a release from his master, and removed to Liverpool, where be gave himself up wholly to the study of mathematics, astronomy, &c. and for a subsistence, opened a school, and taught writing and accounts, &c. Before he had been long at Liverpool, he accidentally met with a merchant or tradesman visiting that town from London, in whose house the astronomer Mr. Flamsteed then lodged; and such was Sharp’s enthusiasm for his favourite studies, that with the view of becoming acquainted with this emiment man, he engaged himself to the merchant as a bookkeeper. Having been thus introduced, he acquired the friendship of Mr. Flamsteed, who obtained for him a profitable employment in the dock-yard at Chatham. In this he continued till his friend and patron, knowing his great merit in astronomy and mechanics, called him to his assistance, in completing the astronomical apparatus in the royal observatory at Greenwich, which had been built about the year 1676.

“I have been the more particular relating to Mr. Sharp, in the business of constructing this mural arc not only because we may suppose it the first good and valid instrument of the kind, but because I look upon Mr. Sharp to have been the first person that cut accurate and delicate divisions upon astronomical instruments; of which, independent of Mr. Flamsteed’s testimony, there still remain considerable proofs: for, after leaving Mr. Flamsteed, and quitting the department above mentioned, he retired into Yorkshire, to the village of Little Horton, near Bradford, where he ended his days about the year 1743 (should be, in 1742); and where I have seen not only a large and very fine collection of mechanical tools, the principal ones being made with his own hands, but also a great variety of scales and instruments made with them, both in wood and brass, the divisions of which were so exquisite, as would pot discredit the first artists of the present times: and I believe there is now remaining a quadrant, of 4 or 5 feet radius, framed of wood, but the limb covered with a brass plate; the subdivisions being done by diagonals, the lines of which are as finely cut as those upon the quadrants at Greenwich. The delicacy of Mr. Sharp’s hand will indeed permanently appear from the copper-plates in a quarto book, published in the year 1718, entitled Geometry Improved' by A. Sharp, Philomath, (or rather 1717, by A. S. Philomath.) whereof not only the geometrical lines upon the plates, but the whole of the engraving of letters and figures, were done by himself, as 1 was told by a person in the mathematical line, who very frequently attended Mr, Sharp in the latter part of his life. I therefore look upon Mr. Sharp as the first person that brought the affair of hand division to any degree of perfection.” Mr. Sharp kept up a correspondence by letters with most of the eminent mathematicians and astronomers of his time, as Mr. Flainsteed, sir Isaac Newton, Dr. H alley, Dr. VVallis, Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Sherwin, &c. the answers to which letters are all written upon the backs, or empty spaces, of the letters he received, in a short- hand of his own contrivance. From a great variety of letters (of which a large chest-full remain with his friends) from these and many other celebrated mathematicians, it is evident that Mr. Sharp spared neither pains nor time to promote real science. Indeed, being one of the most accurate and indefatigable computers that ever existed, he was for many years the common resource for Mr. Flainsteed, sir Jonas Moore, Dr. Halley, and others, in all sorts of troublesome and delicate calculations.

In his retirement at Little Horton, he employed four or five rooms or apartments in his house for different purposes, into which none of his family, could possibly enter at any time without his permission. He was seldom visited by any persons, except two gentlemen of Bradford, the one a mathematician, and the other an ingenious apothecary: these were admitted, when he chose to be seen by them, by the signal of rubbing a stone against a certain part of the outside wall of the house. He duly attended the dissenting chapel at Bradford, of which he was a member, every Sunday; at which time he took care to be provided with plenty of halfpence, which he very charitably suffered to be taken singly out of his hand, held behind him during his walk to the chapel, by a number of poor people who followed him, without his ever looking back, or asking a single question.

Mr. Sharp was very irregular as to his meals, and remarkably sparing in his diet, which he frequently took in the following manner: A little square hole, something like a window, made a communication between the room where he was usually employed in calculations, and another chamber or room in the house where a servant could enter; and before this hole he had contrived a sliding board: the servant always placed his victuals in this hole, without speaking or making any the least noise; and when he had a little leisure he visited his cupboard to see what it afforded to satisfy his hunger or thirst. But it often happened, that the breakfast, dinner, and supper, have remained untouched by him, when the servant has gone to remove what was left so deeply engaged had he been in calculations. Cavities might easily be perceived in an old English oak table where he sat to write, by the frequent rubbing and wearing of his elbows. By his epitaph it appears that he was related to archbishop Sharp, but in what degree is not mentioned. It is certain he was born in the same place. One of his nephews was the father of Mr. Ramsden the celebrated instrument-maker, who said that this his granduncle was for some time in his younger days an exciseman, but quitted that occupation on coming to a patrimonial estate of about 200l. a year. Mr. Thoresby, who often mentions him, had a declining dial for his library window, made by Sharp.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and the third prelate of that see who suffered from popular or private revenge, was born of a good family in Banffshire in 1618. In his youth he displayed such a capacity as determined his father to dedicate him to the church, and to send him to the university of Aberdeen, whence, on account of the Scottish covenant, made in 1638, he retired into England, and was in a fair way of obtaining promotion from his acquaintance with doctors Sanderson, Hammond, Taylor, and other of our most eminent divines, when he was obliged to return to his native country on account of the rebellion, and a bad state of health. Happening by the way to fall into company with lord Oxenford, that nobleman was pleased with his conversation, and carried him to his own house in the country. Here he became known to several of the nobility, particularly to John Lesley, earl of Rothes, who patronized him on account of his merit, and procured him a professorship in St. Andrew’s. After some stay here with growing reputation, through the friendship of the earl of Cranford, he was appointed minister of Crail. In this town he acquitted himself of his ministry in an exemplary and acceptable manner; only some of the more rigid sort would sometimes intimate their fears that he was not sound; and it is very certain that he was not sincere.

The earl of Lauderdale and he had a meeting with ten of the chief presbyterian ministers in London, who all agreed upon the necessity of bringing in the king upon covenant terms. At the earnest desire of Monk and the leading presbyterians of Scotland, Sharp was sent over to king Charles to Breda, to solicit him to own the cause of presbytery. He returned to London, and acquainted his friends, “that he found the king very affectionate to Scotland, and resolved not to wrong the settled government of their church:” at last he came to Scotland, and delivered to some of the ministers of Edinburgh a letter from the king, in which his majesty promised to protect and preserve the government of the church of Scotland, “as it is settled by law.” The clergy, understanding this declaration in its obvious meaning, felt all the satisfaction which such a communication could not fail to impart; but Sharp, who had composed the letter, took this very step to hasten the subversion of the presbyterian church government, and nothing could appear more flagitious than the manner in which he had contrived it should operate. When the earl of Middleton, who was appointed to open the parliament in Scotland as his majesty’s commissioner, first read this extraordinary letter, he was amazed, and reproached Sharp for having abandoned the cause of episcopacy, to which he had previously agreed. But Sharp pleaded that, while this letter would serve to keep the presbyterians quiet, it laid his majesty under no obligation, because, as he bound himself to support the ecclesiastical government “settled by law,” parliament had only thus to settle episcopacy, to transfer to it the pledge of the monarch. Even Middleton, a man of loose morals, was shocked with such disingenuity, and honestly answered, that the thing might be done, but that for his share, he did not love the way, which made his majesty’s first appearance in Scotland to be in a cheat. The presbyterian government being overturned by the parliament, and the bishops restored, Sharp was appointed archbishop of St. Andrew’s; and still, in consistence with his treacherous character, endeavoured to persuade his old friends, that he had accepted this high office, to prevent its being filled with one who might act with violence against the presbyterians.