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

Twyne, who was an indefatigable collector of every document or information respecting the history and antiquities of Oxford, produced the first regular account of it, which was published in 1608, under the title of “Antiquitatis Academioe Oxoniensis Apologia, in tres libros divisa,” Oxon. 4to. The chief object of this work was to refute what Kaye or Caius had asserted in his history of Cambridge on the antiquity of that university, proving it to be 1267 years older than Oxford. So absurd an assertion would scarcely now be thought worthy of a serious answer, but Twyne was an enthusiast on the question, and mere antiquity was thought preferable to every other degree of superiority. He therefore produced his “Apologia,” in which he revives and endeavours to prove that Oxford was originally founded by some Greek philosophers, the companions of Brutus, and restored by King Alfred in 870. Smith, in his history of University college, has very ably answered his principal arguments on this question, which indeed has nothing more than tradition on its side. He was a young man when he wrote this book, and intended a new edition; but his interleaved copy for this purpose, with his additions, &c. was unfortunately lost in a fire at Oxford, which happened some time after his death. He left, however, several volumes of ms collections to the university, of which Wood availed himself in his history.

, the second baronet of the family, of Roydon hall, East Peckham, in Kent, was born in 1597. His father, William Twysden, esq. was one of those who conducted king James to London, when he first came from Scotland, to take possession of the English crown, and was first knighted and afterwards created a baronet by his majesty. Sir William had a learned education, understood Greek and Hebrew well, and accumulated a valuable collection of books and Mss. which he made useful to the public, both in defence of the protestant religion and the ancient constitutions of the kingdom. He died in January 1627-8. Sir Roger, his eldest son, had also a learned education, and was a good antiquary. He assisted Mr. Philpot in his Survey of Kent, who returns him acknowledgments, as a person to whom, “for his learned conduct of these his imperfect labours, through the gloomy and perplexed paths of antiquity, and the many difficulties that assaulted him, he was signally obliged.” He was a man of great accomplishments, well versed in the learned languages, and exemplary in his attachment to the church of England. He made many important additions to his father’s library, which seems seldom to have been unemployed by his family or his descendants. His brother, Thomas, was brought up to the profession of the law, and became one of the justices of the King’s Bench after the restoration, and was created a baronet, by which he became the founder of the family of Twisdens (for he altered the spelling of the name) of Bradbourn in Kent. Another brother, John, was a physician, and a good mathematician, and wrote on both sciences.

The “Acts of the Apostles,” set to music by Dr. Tye, were sung in the chapel of Edward VI. and probably in other places where choral service was performed; but the success of them not answering the expectation of their author, he applied himself to another kind of study, the composing of music to words selected from the Psalms of David, in four, five, and more parts; to which species of harmony, for want of a better, the name of Anthem, a corruption of Antiphon, was given. In Dr. Boyce’s collection of cathedral music, lately published, vol. II. is aa anthem of this great musician, “I will exalt thee,” a most perfect model for composition in the church-style, whether we regard the melody or the harmony, the expression or the contrivance, or, in a word, the general effect of the whole. In the Ashmolean ms. fol. 189, is the following note in the hand-writing of Antony Wood “Dr. Tye was a peevish and humoursome man, especially in his latter days and sometimes playing on the organ in the chapel of Qu. Eliz. which contained much music, but little delight to the ear, she would send to the verger to tell him that he played out of tune; whereupon he sent word, that her ears were out of tune.” The same author adds, that Dr. Tye restored church-music after it had been almost ruined by the dissolution of abbeys. What sir John Hawkins, from whom this article appears to have been taken by our predecessors, has said of Tye, is confirmed by Dr. Burney, who says that he was doubtless at the head of all our ecclesiastical composers of that period. This eminent musical historian adds, that Dr. Tye, “if compared with his contemporaries, was perhaps as good a poet as Sternhold, and as great a musician as Europe then could boast; and it is hardly fair to expect marc perfection from him, or to blame an individual for the general defects of the age in which he lived.”

He began early to write, and when at college, or very soon after, published two pastorals, “Lucy,” inscribed to lord Chesterfield, and “Rosalind,” to earl Grenville. He was also the author of a great deal of vocal poetry, or what he called “sing song,” principally for Vauxhall-gardens; and the satisfactory description ofVauxhall, published in Mr. Nichols’s “History of Lambeth,” was drawriup by him. Having inherited from his father an easy fortune, and from nature an inclination to indulge in learned leisure, he was happily enabled “to see what friends and read what books he pleased.” He was, if any man could be said to be so, most perfectly master of his own time, which he divided at his pleasure between his villa at Ashted, near Epsom, and his apartments in Southampton-street. Indefatigable in reading the newest publications, either of belles lettres or politics, and blest with a retentive memory, he was every where a welcome guest; and, having the agreeable faculty of always repeating the good-natured side of a story, the anecdotes he retailed pretty copiously were rarely found either tedious or disagreeable. In the country he was considered by all the surrounding gentry as a man of profound learning, who had some little peculiarities in his manners, which were amply atoned for by a thousand good qualities both of the head and heart. In London he was in habits of intimacy with many whom the world have agreed to call both great and good. Dr. Johnson loved him, lord Hardwicke esteemed him, and even the mitred Lowth respected him. The literati in general had more regard for him than authors usually have for each other; as Mr. Tyers, though known for many years to have been a writer, was rather considered by them as an amateur than a professor of the art. He was certainly among the number of “gentlemen who wrote with ease;” witness hi* “Rhapsodies” on Pope and Addison; and particularly his Biographical sketches of Johnson, warm from the heart when his friend was scarcely buried, and which have not been exceeded by any one of our great moralist’s biographers. The “Political Conferences” of Mr. Tyers, however, will place him in a higher point of view; in that production, much ingenuity and sound political knowledge are displayed; and the work has received the plaudits it so well deserved, and passed through two editions. One part of Mr. Tyers’s knowledge he would have been happier had he not possessed. He had a turn for the study of medicine, and its operations on the human frame, which gave him somewhat of a propensity to hypochondriasm, and often led from imaginary to real ailments. Hence the least variation of the atmosphere had not unfrequently an effect both on his mind and body. The last year or two of his life were also embittered by the death of several near and dear friends, whose loss made a deep impression on his sensibility, particularly that of a very amiable lady, to whom he was once attached, and that of his only sister, Mrs. Rogers, of Southampton, who died but a few months before him. He died at his house at Ashted, after a lingering illness, Feb. 1, 1787, in his sixty-first year.

, otherwise named Hitchins, one of the first publishers of the Holy Scriptures in English, was born in 1500, about the borders of Wales, in what county is not mentioned. He was brought up from a child in grammar, logic, and philosophy at Oxford, for the most part in St. Mary Magdalen’s hall, where there is still a painting of him, but accounted an indifferent performance. Here he imbibed the doctrine of Luther, and privately taught it to some of the junior fellows of Magdalen college, and to other scholars. His behaviour was such, at the same time, as gained him a high reputation both for morals and learning, so that he was admitted a canon of cardinal Wolsey’s new college, now Christ-church. But as he made his opinions too public to remain here in safety, and, according to Tanner and Wood, was ejected, he retired to Cambridge, where he pursued his studies, and took a degree. After some time he went and lived at Little Sudbury, in Gloucestershire, with sir John Welch, knight, who had a great esteem for him, and appointed him tutor to his children. Here he embraced every opportunity to propagate the new opinions. Besides preaching frequently in and about Bristol, he engaged in disputation with many abbots and dignified clergymen, whom he met at sir John’s table, on the most important points of religion, which he explained in a way to which they had not been accustomed, and by references to the Scriptures, which they scarcely dared to search. Unable to confute him, they complained to the chancellor of the diocese, who dismissed him after a severe reprimand, accompanied with the usual threatenings against heresy.

Finding that this situation was no longer convenient, and that his patron could not with safety continue his protection, Tyndale came to London, and for some time preached in the church of St. Dunstan’s in the West. While here, having conceived a high opinion of Dr. Cuthbert Tunstall, who had been promoted to the bishopric of London, in 1522, on account of the great commendations bestowed on him by Erasmus, he wished to become one of his chaplains. With this view he applied to sir Henry Guildford, master of the horse, and controller to king Henry VIII. who was a great patron of learned men, a particular friend to Erasmus, and an acquaintance of sir John Welch; and presented to him an oration of Isocrates, translated from the Greek; an undoubted proof of his learning at a time when Greek was understood by very few in England. Sir Henry readily complied with Mr. Tyndale’s request, but the bishop’s answer was, “That his house was full; he had no more than he could well provide for; and therefore advised our author to seek out in London, where, he added, he could not well miss employment.” Not being able to obtain any, however, he was supported by Mr. Humphrey Monmoutb, alderman of London, and a favourer of Luther’s opinions, with whom he remained for half a year, living in the most abstemious manner, and applying closely to his studies. His thoughts were at this time bent upon translating the New Testament into English, as the only means to enlighten the minds of the people in the knowledge of true religion; but being sensible he could not do this with safety in England, he went abroad, receiving very liberal pecuniary assistance from Mr. Monmouth and other persons. He first went to Saxony, where he held conferences with Luther, and his learned friends, then came back into the Netherlands, and settled at Antwerp, where there was a very considerable factory of English merchants, many of whom were zealous adherents to Luther’s doctrine. Here he immediately began his translation of the New Testament, in which he had the assistance of John Fryth, and William Roye, the former of whom was burnt in Smithfield for heresy, July 1533, and the latter suffered that dreadful death in Portugal on the same accusation. It was printed in 1526, in octavo, without the translator’s name. As there were only 1500 printed, and all the copies which could possibly be got in England, were committed to the flames, this first edition is exceedingly rare. The industrious Mr. Wanley could never procure a sight of it; but there was one in Ames’s collection, which was sold after his death, for fourteen guineas and a half.

When this translation was imported into England, the supporters of popery became very much alarmed; they asserted that there were a thousand heresies in it; that it was too bad to be corrected, and ought to be suppressed; that it was not possible to translate the Scriptures into English; and that it would make the laity heretics, and rebels to their king. It is more painful, however, to record that such men as William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, and Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, issued their orders and monitions to bring in all the New Testaments translated into the vulgar tongue, that they might be burnt. To destroy them more effectually, Tunstall being at Antwerp in 1526 or 1S27, procured Augustin Packington, an English merchant, to buy up all the copies of the English Testament which remained unsold; these were accordingly brought to England, and publicly burnt at Paul’s cross. But this ill-fudged policy only took off many copies which lay dead upon Tyndale’s hands, and supplied him with, money for another and more correct edition, printed in 1534, while the first edition was in the mean while reprinted twice, but not by the translator. Of Tunstall’s singular purchase, the following fact is related: “Sir Thomas More being lord chancellor, and having several persons accused of heresy, and ready for execution, offered to compound with one of them, named George Constantine, for his life, upon the easy terms of discovering to him who they were in London that maintained Tyndale beyond the sea. After the poor man had got as good a security for his life as the honour and truth of the chancellor could give him, he told him it was the bishop of London who maintained Tyndale, by sending him a sum of money to buy up the impression of his Testaments. The chancellor smiled, saying that he believed he said true. Thus was this poor confessor’s life saved.” Strict search, however, continued to be made among those who were suspected of importing, and concealing them; of whom John Tyndale, our author’s brother, was prosecuted, and condemned to do penance. Humphrey Monmouth, his great patron and benefactor, was imprisoned in the Tower, and almost ruined.

But these rigorous measures not producing the intended effect; and burning the word of God, in any shape, being regarded by the people as a shocking profanation, sir Thomas More was induced to take up the pen. In 1529, he published “A Dyaloge,” in which he endeavoured to prove that the books burnt were not New Testaments, but Tyndale’s or Luther’s testaments; and so corrupted and changed from the good and wholesome doctrine of Christ to their own devilish heresies, as to be quite another thing. In 15 Jo, Tyndale published an answer to this Dialogue, and proceeded in translating the Five Books of Moses, from the Hebrew into English; but happening to go by sea to Hamburgh, to have it printed there, the vessel was wrecked, and he lost all his money, books, writings, and copies, and was obliged to begin anew. At Hamburgh he met with Miles Coverdale, who assisted him in translating the Pentateuch, which was printed in 1530, in a small octavo volume, and apparently at several presses. He afterwards made an English version of the prophecy of Jonas, with a large prologue, which was printed in 1531; but he translated no more books of the Scripture, as Hall, Bale, and Tanner, have asserted.

From Hamburgh he returned to Antwerp, and was there betrayed into the hands of his enemies. Henry VIII. and his council employed one Henry Philips on this disgraceful commission, who first insinuated himself into Tyndale’s acquaintance, and then got the procurator-general of the emperor’s court at Brussels, and other officers, to seize him, although the procurator declared that he was a learned, pious, and good man, and convey him to the castle of Villefort, where he remained a prisoner about a year and a half. The body of the English merchants procured letters from secretary Cromwell to the court at Brussels, for his release; but, by the farther treachery of Philips, this was rendered ineffectual, and Tyndaie was brought to trial, where he pleaded his own cause. None of his arguments, however, being admitted, he was condemned, by virtue of the emperor’s decree made in the assembly at Augsburg; and being brought to execution in 1536, he was first strangled and then burnt. His last words were, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”

, a celebrated grammarian in the time of Pompey, was of Amisa in the kingdom of Pontus, and was a disciple of Dionysius of Thrace, at Rhodes. In the year 70 B. C. he fell into the hands of Lucullus, when that general of the Roman army defeated Mithridates, and seized his dominions; but his captivity was no disadvantage to him, since it procured him.an opportunity of becoming illustrious at Rome, and raising a fortune. This he partly expended in collecting a library of above 30,000 volumes; and it is probably owing to his care in collecting books that the writings of Aristotle have not perished together with innumerable other monuments of antiquity. The fate of that great philosopher’s works, as it is related by Strabo, is very remarkable. He left them, with his school and his other books, to his scholar Theophrastus; and Theophrastus left his library to Neleus, who had been his as well as Aristotle’s scholar. Neleus conveyed his library to Scepsis, a city of Troas, and in his country; and left it to his heirs, who, being illiterate persons, took no other care of it than to keep it shut up close: and when they were informed of the diligence with which the kings of Pergamus, whose subjects they were, sought out for books, they buried those of Neleus under ground. A considerable time after, their descendants took them out of their prison, much damaged, and sold those of Aristotle and Theophrastus to one Apellicon, who caused them to be copied, but with an infinite number of errors. After the death of Apellicon, his library was conveyed from Athens to Rome by Sylla, whose library-keeper permitted Tyrannio, a great admirer of Aristotle, to take the writings of that philosopher; and from him they came into the possession of the public.

Having formed the plan of a History of England, he came to reside chiefly at Shotover, near Oxford, for the sake of easy access to the libraries in the university; and the remainder of his life appears to have been devoted to that and his other literary pursuits. He died in 1718, in his seventy-sixth year, and was buried in Oakeley church. He married Mary daughter and heir of sir Michael Hutchinson, of Fladbury in Worcestershire, knight, by whom he had lieutenant-general James Tyrrell, of Shotover, esq. governor of Gravesend and Tilbury Fort, &c. who died in August 1742, leaving his estate from the Tyrrell family to his kinsman Augustus Schutz.

In 1686 appeared his vindication of his father-in-law, printed at the end of Parr’s “Life of Archbishop Usher,” under the title of “An Appendix, containing a vindication of his opinions and actions in reference to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and his conformity thereunto, from the aspersions of Peter Heylin, D. D. in his pamphlet called Respondet Petrus” This pamphlet of Heylin’s was his answer to Dr. Bernard’s book entitled “The Judgment of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath,” Lond. 1658, 4to. (See Heylin, p. 442 and 443.) Mr. Tyrrell’s notions in politics were adverse to those of some of his contemporaries, who were for carrying the prerogative to its height, and vindicated passive obedience and non-resistance: he was clearly for a monarchy, but a limited monarchy, and therefore answered sir Robert Filmer in a small volume entitled “Patriarcha non Monarcha, or the Patriarch unmonarched, &c.” 1681, 8vo. This was animadverted upon by Edmund Bohun, in the preface to the second edition of sir Robert’s “Patriarcha;” but Mr. Tyrrell’s opinions on this and other subjects connected with it are most fully displayed in his political dialogues, which were first published at different times, in 1692, 1693, 1694, and 1695, in quarto, until they amounted to fourteen. They were afterwards collected into one volume folio, about the time of his death, and published under the name of “Bibliotheca Politica, or an Enquiry into the ancient Constitution of the English Government, with respect to the just extent of the regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, both for and against the late revolution, are impartially represented and considered. In fourteen dialogues, collected out of the best authors, ancient and modern,” Lond. 1718, reprinted 1727. It appears also that subjects of the religious kind sometimes employed his attention, as in 1692 he published an abridgment of bishop Cumberland’s work on the laws of nature, with the consent and approbation of the right reverend author. This, which was entitled “A brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature, &c.” was reprinted in 1701. But the work which had employed most of Mr. Tyrreli’s time was his “General History of England, both ecclesiastical and civil, from the earliest accounts of time,” 5 vols. fol. generally bound in three, Lond. 1700, 1704. He intended to have brought this down to the reign of William III. but what is published extends no farther than that of Richard II. and of course forms but a small part of the whole plan. It is thought that he left another volume or more ready for the press, but this has never appeared. His chief object seems to be to refute the sentiments of Dr. Brady in his “History of England,” particularly where he asserts that “all the liberties and privileges the people can pretend to were the grants and concessions of the kings of this nation, and were derived from the crown” and that “the commons of England were not introduced, nor were one of the three estates in parliament, before the forty-ninth of Henry III. Before which time the body of commons of England, or freemen collectively taken, had not any share or votes in making laws for the government of the kingdom, nor had any communication in affairs of state, unless they were represented by the tenants in capite.” In refuting these opinions Mr. Tyrrell will probably be thought not unsuccessful; but the work is ill digested, and less fit for reading than for consultation. As a compilation it will be found useful, particularly on account of his copious translations from our old English historians, although even there he has admitted some mistakes.

, an ancient Greek poet, who flourished in the seventh century B. C. was born at Miletus, but lived at Athens, and became celebrated by all antiquity for the composition of military songs and airs, as well as the performance of them and the successof his verses has advanced his name to the rank of the greatest heroes as well as the noblest poets. The Lacedaemonians, during the second Messenian war, about 685 B. C. by advice of the Pythian Oracle, applied to the Athenians for a general. The Athenians sent them Tyrtæus, perhaps in ridicule for, besides his occupation, utterly remote from military affairs, he is reported to have been short and very deformed, blind of one eye, and lame But a memorable victory which they obtained over the Messenians is attributed to the animating sound of a new military flute or clarion, invented and played upon by Tyrtæus; and his military airs were constantly sung and played in the Spartan army, to the last hour of the republic. The poems of Tyrtæus were first printed in a collection by Frobenius in 1532, and separately in 1764 by Klotz. His “War Elegies” have been versified in English by Mr. Polwhele, and imitated by the late Mr. Pye, with a reference to the late war.

, one of the most eminent scholars and critics of the last century, was the son of the rev. Dr. Robert Tyrwhitt, of a very ancient baronet’s family in Lincolnshire, a gentleman of considerable eminence in the church, who was rector of St. James’s, Westminster, which he resigned in 1732, on being appointed a canon residentiary of St. Paul’s. He held also the prebend of Kentishtown, in that cathedral, and was archdeacon of London. In 1740 he obtained a canonry of Windsor, and died June 15, 1742, and was buried in St. George’s chapel, Windsor. He married the eldest daughter of bishop Gibson, and so well imitated the liberality and hospitality of that prelate, that, dying at the age of forty-four years, he left a numerous family very moderately provided for.

He was now made clerk of the House of Commons, in the room of the deceased Jeremiah Dyson, esq. and resigned his fellowship. This, however, was not his first step in public life. He had previously resided for some time in the Temple, and had studied law; and in December 1756 was appointed deputy secretary at war, under his noble friend and patron, lord Barrington, with whom and his family he preserved, and highly valued, the most intimate friendship to the last hour of his life. If the too constant fatigues and late hours of his office, as clerk of the House of Commons, had not proved too much for his constitution, it is thought that some of the higher offices of the state were within his reach. But after getting through one long parliament, he resigned in 1768, or, as he says in a short list of the dates of his life now before us, he was liber factus, and retired to his beloved books. The remainder of his life was devoted entirely to literary pursuits. Besides a knowledge of almost every European tongue, he was deeplyconversant in the learning of Greece and Koine, and in the old English writers; and as his knowledge was directed by a manly judgment, his critical efforts to illustiate the text of Chaucer and Shakspeare are justly ranked among the happiest efforts of modern skill. The profundity and acuteness of his remarks also on Euripides, Babrius, the PseudoRowley, &c. bear sufficient witness to the diligence of his researches and the force of his understanding His mode of criticism is allowed to have been at once rigorous and candid. As he never availed himself of petty stratagems in support of doubtful positions, he was vigilant to strip his antagonists of all such specious advantages. Yet controversy produced no unbecoming change in the habitual gentleness and elegance of his manners. His spirit of inquiry was exempt from captiousness, and his censures were as void of rudeness, as his erudition was free from pedantry. In private life he was a man of great liberality, of which some striking instances are given in our authorities. In one year it is said he gave away 2000l.; and for such generous exertions he had the ability as well as the inclination, for he had no luxuries, no follies, and no vices to maintain. Of such a man it is unnecessary to add that he died lamented by all who knew the worth of his friendship, or enjoyrd the honour of his acquaintance. His constitution had never been of the athletic kind, and therefore easily gave way to a joint attack from two violent disorders, which ended his life, Aug. 15, 1786, in his fifty-sixth year. He died at his house in Welbeck-street, Cavendish-square, and was interred in St. George’s chapel, Windsor. He had for many years been a member of the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries. In 1784 he was, without the slightest private interest or solicitation, elected a curator of the British Museum, in the duties of which office, the highest honour that can be enjoyed by a literary man, he was indefatigably diligent.

The publications of this excellent scholar were, I. “An Epistle to Florio (Mr. Ellis, of Christ-church) at Oxford,” Lond. 1749,4to. 2. “Translations in Verse; Pope’s Messiah; Philips’s Splendid Shilling, in Latin,” and “the eighth Isthmian of Pindar, in English,” 1752, 4to. 3. “Observations and Conjectures on some passages in Sbakspeare,” 1766, 8vo. Mr. Tyrwhitt afterwards communicated many judicious remarks on our national bard to Mr. Steevens and Mr. Reed for the editions of 1778 and 1785. 4 “Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621, from the original ms. in the library of Queen’s college, Oxford, with an appendix, printed at the Clarendon press, 1766, 2 vols. 8vo. 5.” The manner of holding parliaments in England; by Henry Elsynge, Cler. Par. corrected and enlarged from the author’s original ms.“Lond. 1768, 8vo. With a view to raise a spirit of research into ancient classical Mss. his first critical publication in literature was, 6.” Fragmenta duo Plutarchi, 1773, from an Harleian ms. 5612.“He observes himself of this, that it had no great merit, and was only published to stimulate similar inquiries. 7.” The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer,“in 4 vols. 8vo, to which he afterwards added a 5th volume in 1778. There has since been a splendid edition printed at Oxford in 2 vols. 4to. This is certainly the best edited English classic that has ever appeared. 8.” Dissertatio de Babrio, Fabularum jsopicarum scriptore. Inseruntur fabnlse quaedam Æsopese nunquam antehac editae ex cod.ms. Bodl. AcceduntBabriifragmenta. 1776.“The object of this publication, which, though small in sjze, evinced the greatest critical acumen, was to shew, that many of the fables which pass under the name of Æsop, were from another antient writer of the name of Babrius, whose fragments are preserved in Suidas in verse. 9.” Notes on Euripides,“which, in Dr. Harwood’s opinion, form the most valuable part of Musgrave’s edition, 1778. 10.” Poems, supposed to have been written at Bristol in the 15th century, by Rowley and others; with a preface, an account of the Poems, and a Glossary.“This was twice re-published in 1778, with an appendix tending to prove that they were written, not by any antient author, but by Chatterton. This became the subject of warm controversy, which, however, was settled, by 11” A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems called Rowley’s, in reply to the dean of Exeter, Jacob Bryant, esq. and others, by Thomas Tyrwhitt.“Mr. Tyrwhitt’s next work was of a different kind, namely, 12.” Περι Λιθων; de Lapidibus, Poema Orpheo a quibusdam adscriptum, Græce et Latine, ex edit. Jo. Matthæi Gesneri. Recensuit, notasque adjecit, Thomas Tyrwhitt. Simul prodit auctarium dissertationis de Babrio.“Mr. Tyrwhitt in this critical work, refers the poem” on Stones“to the age of Constant! us. He next printed for his private friends, 13.” Conjecturas in Strabonem;“and be also superintended, 14.” Two Dissertations on the Grecian Mythology, and an examination of sir Isaac Newton’s objection to the Chronology of the Olympiads,“by Dr. Musgrave. For this work a very liberal subscription was raised for the doctor’s family, entirely by the exertions of Mr. Tyrwhitt, who had before given up to the widow a bond for several hundred pounds which the Doctor had borrowed of him. His last literary labour was, 15.” A newly discovered Oration of Isaeus against Menecles," which Mr. Tyrwhitt revised in 1785, and enriched with valuable notes, at the request of lord Sandys. These few specimens are from the Medicean Library, and are sufficient to shew Mr. Tyrwhitt’s powers, and to make us regret that his modesty declined the proposal made to him of directing the publication of the second volume of Inscriptions collected by Mr. Chishull, and first laid open to the public by the sale of Dr. Askew’s Mss. How he succeeded in the illustration of such subjects will best appear by that most happy explanation of the Greek inscription on the Corbridge altar, which had baffled the skill of all preceding critics, and will be a lasting proof how critical acumen transcends elaborate conjecture. (See Archseologia, vol. III. p. 324, compared with vol. II. pp. 92, 98.) Nor raust his observations on some other Greek inscriptions in Archseologia, vol. III. p. 230, be forgotten.

, a learned divine and ingenious artist, was the only child of the rev. Michael Tyson, dean of Stamford, archdeacon of Huntingdon, &c. who died in 1794, aged eighty-four, by his first wife, the sister of Noah Curtis, of Wolsthorp, in Lincolnshire, esq. He was born in the parish of All Saints, in Stamford, Nov. 19, 1740, and received his grammatical education in that country. He was then admitted of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, and passed regularly through his degrees; that of B. A. in 1764, of M. A. in 1767, and of B. D. in 1775; and after taking his bachelor’s degree was elected a fellow of his college. In the autumn of 1766 he attended a young gentleman of his college, Mr. Gough (afterwards the celebrated antiquary) in a tour through the north of England and Scotland, and made an exact journal of his several stages, with pertinent remarks on such places as seemed most interesting. At Glasgow and Inverary he had the freedom of the corporations bestowed upon him. After his return, in the following year he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and in 1769 a fellow of the royal society. In 1770 he was ordained deacon at Whitehall chapel, by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln. In 1773, his father being promoted to the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, he gave the officiality of it to his son, which was worth about 50l. per ann. and about the same time, being bursar of the college, he succeeded Mr. Cohnan in the cure of St. Benedict’s church, in Cambridge, as he did also in 1776, in the Whitehall preachership, at the request of the late Dr. Hamilton, sori-in-law of bishop Terrick, who had formerly been of Bene’t college.

In the same year, 177G, he was presented by the college to the rectory of Lambourne, near Ongar, in Essex; but, it being the first time that the college presented to it, the family from which it came litigated the legality of the society’s claim, which, however, after a suit in chancery, was determined in favour of the college. But when they threatened another prosecution, Mr. Tyson, who was eager to settle on his living, as he had an intention 1 of marrying, injudiciously entered into a composition with the parties, which, but for the liberality of the college, might have involved his family in debt. He died of a violent fever. May 3, 1780, in the fortieth year of his age, and was interred in Lambourne church. He left an infant son, who died in 1794. In his early days Mr. Tyson amused himself with sofne poetical attempts, of which two were published, one “On the birth of the prince of Wales,” the other “An Ode on Peace.” He was a good classical scholar, and studied with great success the modern languages, particularly Italian, Spanish, and French. He was also a skilful botanist, but his principal researches were in history, biography, and antiquities, which he very ably illustrated both as a draughtsman and engraver. His taste in drawing and painting is said to have been exquisite. There are several etchings by his hand, particularly the portrait of archbishop Parker, taken from an illumination by T. Berg, in a ms. preserved in the library of Bene't college, and prefixed to Nasmith’s catalogue of the archbishop’s Mss. Strutt also mentions the portrait of sir William Paulet; and of Jane Shore, from an original picture at King’s college, Cambridge. To these we may add that of Michael Dalton, author of “The Country Justice,” Jacob Butler, esq. of Barnwell, Mr. Cole, and others his private friends. He occasionally corresponded in the Gentleman’s Magazine, but his publications were few, as his career was short. In the Archseologia are two articles by him, a description of an illuminated picture in a ms. in Beue‘t college, and a letter to Mr. Gough, with a description and draught of the old drinkinghorn in Bene’t college, called Golclcorne’s horn. His skill was always liberally bestowed on his friends; and his contributions to works of antiquity, &c. were frequently and readily acknowledged by his learned contemporaries.

, a celebrated grammarian of Constantinople, died about the end of the twelfth century. Being put under proper masters at fifteen, he learnt not only the belles lettres, and the whole circle of sciences, but even the Hebrew and Syriac tongues. He had a prodigious memory, and, it is said, was able to repeat all the Scriptures by heart. He seems to have been a most accomplished person, who understood almost every thing; but was a severe critic on the performances of others, and not without a considerable share of vanity. He wrote “Commentaries upon Lycophron’s Alexandria,” which he published first under the name of his brother, Isaac Tzetzes: they are inserted by Potter in his edition of this poet at Oxford, 1697, in folio. He wrote also “Chiliades,” or miscellaneous histories, in verse, which Fabricius calls his most celebrated work, as abounding with political and civil knowledge; “Scholia upon Hesiod;” “Epigrams and other Poems;” “Pieces upon Grammar and Criticism.” He mentions also “Allegories upon Homer,” which he dedicated to the empress Irene, wife of Manuel Comnenus. This empress was married in 1143, and died in 1158, which nearly ascertains the age of Tzetzes. The “Allegories” of this author were published by Morel, Paris, 1616, 8vo, and the “Chiliades,” at Basil, 1546, fol.

, an illuminator on vellum, who was in England in the reign of queen Elizabeth, appears to have been a native of Florence, and, while here, a teacher of the Italian language. Vertue speaks of some of his works as extant in his time, or as having very lately been so; as the Psalms of David in folio, with an inscription by Ubaldini to Henry earl of Arundel, whom he calls his Maecenas. The date is, London, 1565. There was another book on vellum, written and illuminated by him, by order of sir Nicholas Bacon, who presented it to the lady Lumley. This is, or was, at Gorhambury. There were other specimens of his skill in the royal library, now in the British Museum, and he appears also to have been an author. Walpole mentions one of his Mss. in the Museum, entitled “Scotiae descriptio a Deidonensi quodain facto, A. D. 1550, et per Petruccium Ubaldinum transcripta A. D. 1576,” which was published afterwards in Italian, with his name, at Antwerp, 1588, fol. The Museum catalogue attributes also the following to Ubaldini: 1. “Discourse concerning of the Spanish fleet invading England in 1588 and overthroweu,” Lond. 1590, 4to. 2. “Le Vite delle Donne illustri del regno d'lughilterra, e del regnb di Scotia, &c.” ibid. 1591. Walpole, who appears to have examined this work, gives, as a specimen of Petrucchio’s talents for history, two of his heroines. The first was Chembrigia, daughter of Gurguntius, son of king Bellinus, who, having married one Cantabro, founded a city, which, from a mixture of both their names, was called Cambridge. The other illustrious lady he styles expressly donna senza. name, and this nameless lady, as Walpole says, was the mother of Ferrex and Porrex in lord Dorset’s “Gorboduc,” who, because one of her sons killed the other that was a favourite, killed a third son in a passion. 3. “Precetti moral i, politici, et economici,” 1592, 4to. 4. “Scelta di alcune Attioni, e di varii Accidenti,” 1595, 4to. 5. “Rime,”

Thus far we have gathered from Walpole’s Anecdotes, who adds, that Ubaldini seems to have been in great favour at court, and is frequently mentioned in the rolls of new years-gifts, which used to be reposited in the jewel-office. There is a notice of this kind as far as 1588, but how much longer he lived is not known. But we find Baretti giving other particulars of Ubaldini. He says he was a nobleman of Florence, who lived many years in England, in the service of Edward VI. The “Lives of Illustrious Ladies” he penned with great gallantry and elegance, and he must certainly have been the favourite of the British (English) belles of his time, having been as handsome in his figure, and as valiant with his sword, as he was able at his pen. Baretti also in forms us that in the preface* to his Life of Charles the Great, he says it was the first Italian book that was printed in London; the date is 1581, printed by Wolf, and consequently the date given above from the Museum catalogue must have been a subsequent edition. Ubaldini adds, that he wrote it, because, “having seen how many fables and dreams the poets have writ of that emperor, he thought it the duty of a man, born to be useful to others, to explode, as much as possible, falsehood from the world, and substitute truth instead.” Baretti informs us that in the Foscarini library at Venice there is a manuscript history of Ubaldini, written with his own hand, of the reign of his master Edward.

, an Italian poet of the fourteenth century, was the descendant of an illustrious family of Florence, the Uberti, who, when the Guelphs became victorious, were banished from Florence, and their property divided among their enemies. Our poet was born in the poverty and obscurity to which his family had been reduced, and although the Florentines allowed him to return and reside in the country of his forefathers, he never became rich, and was obliged to attend the courts of the nobility, and gain a subsistence by chaunting his verses. Of those he composed a great many in the form of songs and other small pieces which were admired for their novelty; he is even thought to have been the inventor of the ballad species. In more advanced age, he undertook his “Dittamondo,” in imitation of Dante, who in his vision takes Virgil for his guide; Uberti takes Solinus, who conducts him over the whole habitable globe. By means of this fiction he includes geographical and historical matter, which has induced some to call his poem a geographical treatise. It is said to be written with energy and elegance, and was first printed, or at least a part of it, at Vicenza in 1474, fol. and reprinted at Venice in 1501. Both are rare, and chiefly valued for their rarity. Villani, who gives us a sort of eloge rather than a life of Uberti, says that he died at an advanced age in 1370.

When his son Ephraim was born, does not appear, but he was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1609, and that of A. M. in 1614. His only preferment in the church appears to have been the rectory of St. Augustine’s, Watling-street, but the time of his admission is not stated by Newcourt or Walker. He was sequestered, however, in 1643, although he had always been accounted, and indeed admired as a preacher of puritan principles. The truth was, that he early perceived the real designs of the republican party, and exerted himself to oppose them. In a sermon at Mercers’ chapel, he addressed himself to some of them in these words, “You desire truth and peace; leave your lying, and you may have truth; lay down your arms, and you may have peace.” He went farther than even this, by declaring openly for episcopacy and the liturgy, and publishing a learned (Treatise against sacrilege, entitled “A Coal from the Altar;” and another, “Communion comeliness,” in which he recommended the placing of rails around the communion-table. He also published a sermon, called “Noli me tangere,” containing many loyal sentiments and much attachment to the church. Crimes like these were not to be forgiven; and accordingly his house was plundered, his library and furniture carried off, and his old and lame wife literally turned into the street. Mr. Udal died about the latter end of May 1647. His funeral sermon was preached by the rev. Thomas Reeve, B. D. who was neither ashamed nor afraid to give him what he seems to have deserved, a high character for piety and zeal.

, a celebrated Spanish mathematician, and a commander of the order of St. Jago, was born at Seville Jan. 12, 1716. He was brought up in the service of the royal marines, in which he at length obtained the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1735 he was appointed, with Don George Juan, to sail to South America, and accompany the French academicians who were going to Peru to measure a degree of the meridian. On his return home in 1745, in a French ship, he was taken by two English vessels, and after being detained some time at Louisbourg in Cape Breton, was brought to England, where his talents recommended him to Martin Folkes, president of the Royal Society, and he was the same year elected a member of that learned body. On his return to Madrid he published his “Voyage to South America,” which was afterwards translated into German and French. There is also an English translation, in two vols. 8vo, 1758, but miserably garbled and inaccurate. In 1755 he made a second voyage to America, where he collected materials for another work, which however did not appear until 1772, under the title of “Entretenimientos Physico-historicos.” He travelled afterwards over a considerable part of Europe to collect information respecting such improvements in arts and manufactures as might be serviceable to Spain, and was the means of introducing many which had not before been known in Spain, or very imperfectly carried on. He died on July 5, 1795. There are a few of his papers in the “Philosophical Transactions.”

, or Gulphilas, a Gothic bishop, and the first translator of a part of the Bible into that language, flourished in the fourth century, and during the reign of Valens, obtained leave of that emperor that the Goths should reside in Thrace, on condition of his, the bishop’s, embracing the Arian faith. Little else is known of this prelate, unless that he translated the Evangelists, and perhaps some other books of the New Testament, into the Gothic language, which he achieved by inventing a new alphabet of twenty-six letters. This translation is now in the library of Upsal, and there have been three editions of it, the best by Mr. Lye, printed at Oxford in 1750. Many disputes have been carried on by the learned both as to the antiquity and authenticity of this version. Of later years, however, another fragment of Ulphilas’s translation was discovered in the library at Wolfenbuttle, containing a portion of the Epistle to the Romans. This has been published by Knitel, archdeacon of Wolfenbuttle, who seems of opinion that Ulphilas translated the whole Bible.

, a classical scholar and editor, was the fourth son of a gentleman of Cheshire, and born at Wimslow, in that county, December 10, 1670. He was educated at Eton, and became a fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1697, and M. A. 1701. He afterwards, at the request of Dr. Newborough, the head master, returned to Eton, where he was tutor to the famous sir William Wyndham, and was an assistant teacher at the school. He married the daughter of Mr. Proctor, who kept a boarding-house at Eton, but afterwards removed to Ilminster, in Somersetshire, upon the invitation of several gentlemen of the county, and particularly of the earl Powlett, to whom he was afterwards chaplain, and aii whose sons were under his tuition at Taunton. He remained a few years at Ihninster, and taught the learned languages there till he was elected to the care of the free grammarschool in Taunton: which he conducted with the highest reputation, and raised to be the largest provincial school at that time ever known in England. The number of his pupils amounted to more than 200; and many of them were from the first families in the West of England. He served for many years the church of Bishop’s-Hull, in which parish the school is situated. So early as 1711 he was in possession of the rectory of Brimpton, near Yeovil, in the presentation of the Sydenham family. In 1712 he was presented by sir Philip Sydenham to the rectory of Alonksilver, 14 miles from Taunton. He died August 13, 1749, aged seventy-nine.

He had two sons, one a captain of the navy, who died in the same year with his father; the other, John Upton, born in 1707, who, after receiving a classical education at his father’s school at Taunton, was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1728, and proceeded M. A. in 1732. In the same year the celebrated critic Toup became his pupil, and during the whole of his residence in the university had no other tutor. In 1736 he vacated his fellowship. Having been tutor to the sons of lord chancellor Talbot, that nobleman gave him a prebend in the cathedral of Rochester; besides which he had the rectory of Sevington cum Dinnington, in Somersetshire, by the gift of the earl Powlett; afterwards the rectory of Great Rissington, in Gloucestershire, conferred upon him by earl Talbot, who, as just mentioned, had been one of his pupils; and lastly, he was also rector of the sinecure of Llandrillo, in Denbighshire, in the diocese of St. Asaph, given to him by the bishop. He never married, and died at Taunton, Dec. 9, 1760, in the fifty-third year of his age.

, one of those pontiffs who deserve some notice on account of his learning, and attention to the interests of literature, was born at Florence in 1568. His family name was Maffei Barbarini, and his family was of the most ancient and honourable. His father dying while Maffei was an infant, he was entrusted to the care of his uncle Francis, a prothonotary of the Roman court, who sent for him to Rome, and placed him for education in the Jesuits’ college. Here he made great proficiency in classical studies under Tursellino and Benci, and was particularly distinguished for his taste for poetry. But as his uncle intended him for active life, he took him from his beloved studies, and sent him to Pisa, where he might acquire a knowledge of the law, so neoessary then to those who would rise to preferment; and here he applied with such diligence, that in his twentieth year the degree of doctor was deservedly conferred upon him. He then returned to Rome, where his uncle received him with the greatest kindness, and having always treated him as his son, bequeathed him, on his death, which happened soon after, a handsome fortune, as his sole heir. His first patron was cardinal Farnese, and by his interest and his own talents he soon passed through the various gradations of preferment which led, in 1606, to the rank of cardinal, bestowed on him by Paul V. In 1623, while cardinal legate of Bologna, he was elected pope, and took the name of Urban VIII. It is not our intention to detail the historical events in which he was concerned. The errors in his government, which were fewer than might have been expected in one so zealous for the church, arose from two circumstances, his early attachment to the Jesuits, and his nepotism, or family partiality. The latter was so powerful, that he bestowed on his relations red hats and temporal employments with a very liberal hand, and often entrusted the management of affairs to them; and the chief errors of his pontificate were imputed to them by the candid, although he only was blamed by the people at large. As a mjjn of learning, and a patron of learned merr, he has generally been praised; but he was no antiquary, and was justly censured for having destroyed some Roman antiquities, which the barbarous nations had spared when masters of Rome; and this gave occasion to the famous pasquinade, “Quod non fecerunt Barbari, fecerunt Barherini.” He wrote many Latin poems in an elegant style, of which an edition was published at Paris in 1642, fol. and a very beautiful one at Oxford, in 1726, 8vo, edited by Joseph Brown, M. A. of Queen’s college, and afterwards provost of that college, with a life and learned notes. Urban’s patronage of learned men was very liberal, and he received those of all nations with equal respect. Among others he extended his patronage to Ciampolo, Cesarini, Herman Hugo, and to Dempster and Barclay, two learned Scotchmen. The latter has celebrated him in his “Argenis” under the name of Ibburranis, the transposition of Barberini. Urban published a remarkable edition of the Romish breviary, aud several bulls and decrees which are in “Cherubini bullarium.” Among the most noticeable is that which abolishes the order of female Jesuits, and certain festivals; and others which relate to image worship; those by which, in compliance with the Jesuits, he condemns Jansenius; and that by which the title of eminence was conferred upon the cardinal-legates, the three ecclesiastical electors, and the grand master of Malta. Among his foundations was the college “De propaganda fide.” In the article of cardinals he was profuse, for he created no less than seventy-four. He died July 29, 1644, and was buried in St. Peter’s, in the stately tomb erected by his own orders by the celebrated Bernini.

, an eminent classical scholar and antiquary, was the illegitimate son of a commander of the order of Malta, of the Ursin family, and was born at Rome Dec. 2, 1529. His education would probably have been neglected, as his mother and himself were turned out of doors by the unnatural father, and were in great poverty, had not some early appearance of talents recommended him to the notice of a canon of the Lateran, Gentilio Delfini, who took him under his protection, and instructed him in classical literature; after which, by this benevolent patron’s interest, he obtained considerable preferment in the church of St. John of Lateran. His talents afterwards made him be taken into the service of the cardinals Ranutius and Alexander Farnese, who rewarded him liberally; and by this means an opportunity was afforded him of collecting a great number of books and ancient manuscripts, and employing them for the benefit of literature. He was in habits of correspondence with the most eminent literary characters of Italy, and he contributed much valuable assistance to the authors of that period. He had attained to great skill in discovering the antiquity and value of Mss., which he seems to have considered as an important secret. Cardinal Frederic Borromeo, being once in his company, requested Ursinus to point out from a book that lay before them, the rules by which he distinguished ancient from modern manuscripts; but he immediately shut the book, and turned the discourse. He died at Rome Jan. 18, 1600, at the age of seventy. He was author of several learned works, as “De Familiis Romanis;” and an Appendix to Ciaconio’s treatise “De Triclinio.” He also published notes oti Sallust, Cecsar, Livy, and most of the Roman historians, the writers de Re Rustica, Cicero, &c. He also caused engravings to be made of a large collection of statues, busts, and other monuments of antiquity, and published them under the title of “Imagines et Elogia Virorum illustrium et eruditorum ex antiquis lapidibus et numismatibus expressa, cum annotationibus Fulvii Ursini.” Mr. Pinkerton, however, says that this work is not to be depended on, and prefers that of Canini, which is better, although far from perfect. Ursinus, in order to keep together the books which, with great labour and at vast expence, he had accumulated, bequeathed them to the Vatican. Castalio published a Life of Ursinus, at Rome, 1657, 8vo. In his will, which is appended to this Life, be bequeaths two thousand crowns to Delfini, bishop of Camenuo, probably a near relation of his early patron.

, one of the most celebrated Protestant divines of the 16th century, was born at Breslau, in Silesia, July 28, 1534. He had already made a considerable progress, for one so young, when he was sent to Wittemberg in 1550, where he studied seven years, and, as his father was not rich, he was assisted by gratuities both private and public, and by the profits of taking pupils. At the same time, he applied himself so closely to study, that he acquired great skill both in poetry, lan-r guages, philosophy, and divinity. Melancthon, who was the ornament of that university, had a particular esteem and friendship for him. Ursinus accompanied him in 1557 to the conference of Worms, whence he went to Geneva, and afterwards to Paris, where he made some stay, in order to learn French, and improve himself in Hebrew under the learned John Mercerus. He was no sooner returned to Melancthon at Wittemberg, than he received letters from the magistrates of Breslaw in September 1558, offering him the mastership of their great school; and having accepted it, he discharged the duties of his employment in so laudable a manner, that he might have continued in it as long as he pleased, had he not been prosecuted by the clergy, the instant they perceived he was not a Lutheran. When he explained Melancthon’s book, “De examine ordinandorum ad Ministerium,” he handled the subject of the Lord’s supper in such a manner, as made the demagogues or factious orators (for so the author of his Life calls them) term him Sacramentarian. He wrote, however, a justification of himself, in which he discovered what his opinions were with regard to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and when he found that this did not pacify his adversaries, he obtained an honourable leave from the magistrates; and as he could not retire to his master Melancthon, he being dead a little before, in April 1560, he went to Zurich, where Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Simler, Gesner, and some other eminent personages, had a great friendship for him. From this place he was soon removed by the university of Heidelberg, which was in want of an able professor; and in September 1561 was settled in the Collegium Sapientiae (College of Wisdom) to instruct the students. He also attempted to preach, but finding he had not the talents requisite for the pulpit, he laid that aside. As a professor, he evinced, in the most eminent elegree, the qualifications requisite: a lively genius, a great fund of knowledge, and a happy dexterity in explaining things, and therefore, besides the employment he already enjoyed, he exercised the professorship of the loci communes, or common places in that university. To qualify him for this place, it was necessary for him, agreeably to the statutes, to be received doctor of divinity, and accordingly he was solemnly admitted to that degree the 25th of August, 1562, and he was professor of the common places till 1568. It was he who wrote the Catechism of the Palatinate, which was almost universally adopted by the Calvinists, and drew up an apology for it by ordtr of the elector Frederic III. in opposition to the clamours which Flacius Illyricus, Heshusius, and some other rigid Lutherans, had published in 1563. The elector, finding himself exposed, not only to the complaints of the Lutheran divines, but likewise to those of some princes, as if he had established a doctrine concerning the Eucharist, which was condemned by the Augsburg Confession, was obliged to cause to be printed an exposition of the une doctrine concerning the Sacraments. Ursinus the following year was at the conference of Maulbrun, where he spoke with great warmth against the doctrine of Ubiquity. He afterwards wrote on that subject, and against some other tenets of the Lutherans. The plan and statutes which he drew up for the elector, for the establishment of some schools, and several other services, raised him so high in his esteem, that finding him resolved to accept of a professorship in divinity at Lausanne in 1571, he wrote a letter to him with his own hand, in which he gave several reasons why it would not be proper for him to accept of that employment. This prince’s death, which happened in 1577, produced a great revolution in the palatinate; prince Lewis, his eldest son, who succeeded him, not permitting any clergyman to be there, unless he was a sound Lutheran; so that Ursinus and the pupils educated by him in the Collegium Sapientiae were obliged to quit it. He retired to Neustadt, to be divinity-professor in the illustrious school which prince Casimir, son to Frederic III. founded there at that time. He began his lectures there the 26th of May, 1578. He also taught logic there in his own apartment; published some books, and was preparing to write several more, when his health, which had been frequently and strongly attacked, occasioned by his incredible application to study, yielded at last to a long sickness, of which he died in Neustadt, the 6th of March, 1583, in the forty-ninth year of his age. His works were collected after his death, by the care of his only son, a minister, and by that of David Pareus and Quirinus Reuterus, his disciples; and to the last of these we are indebted for the publication of them in 1612, 3 vols. folio.

Among other authors of the same name, was John Henry Ursinus, a learned Lutheran divine, superintendant of the churches of Ratisbon, where he died May 14, 1667, leaving “Parallela Evangelii” “Comment, in Joel, Amos, Jonam, Ecclesiasten” “Sacra Analecta;” “De Christianis Officiis” “Arboretum Biblic.” “Exercitationes de Zoroastre, Hermete, Sanchoniatone,” Norimbergae, 1661,8vo; “Sjlva TheologiaB Symbolicae,” 1685, 12mo; “Jeremiae virga vigilans;” “De Ecclesiarum Germanicarum origine et progressu,” 1664, 8vo. &LC. His son, George Henry Ursinus, a learned philologist, who died Sept. 10, 1707, aged sixty, left the following works: “Diatribe de Taprobana, Cerne et Ogyride veterum” “Disputatio de locustis” “Observationes Philologies;” “De variis vocum etymologicis et significationibus,” &c. “De Creatione mundi” “Notulce Criticae ad Eclogas Virgilii” “Annotationes in Senecae Troada;” “De primo et proprio Aoristorum usu” “Dioiiysii Terrse orbis descriptio cum notis.” He must be distinguished from George Ursinus, a learned Danish divine, who acquired honour by his “Hebrew Antiquities.”

, a writer distinguished for his skill in astronomy, was born at Henstedt in Dhhmarsen, which is part of the dukedom of Holstein, about 1550. He was a swineherd in his younger years, and did not begin to read till he was eighteen; and then he employed all the hours he could spare from his labours in learning to read and write. He afterwards applied himself to the study of the languages; and, having a good capacity and memory, made a very swift progress in Latin and Greek. He also learned the French tongue, mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy; and most of them without the assistance of a master. Having left his native country, he gained a livelihood by teaching which he did in Denmark in 1584, and on the frontiers of Pomerania and Poland in 1585. It was in this last place that he invented a new system of astronomy, very little different from that of Tycho Brahe. He communicated it in 1586 to the landgrave of Hesse, which gave rise to an angry dispute between him and Tycho Brahe. Tycho charged him with being a plagiary; who, as he related, happening to come with his master into his study, saw there, on a piece of paper, the figure of his system; and afterwards insolently boasted, that himself was the inventor of it. Ursus, upon this accusation, wrote with great severity against Tycho; called the honour of his invention into question, ascribing the system which he pretended was his own to Apollonius PergsBUs; and made use of such language, as almost brought on prosecution. He was afterwards invited, by his imperial majesty, to teach the mathematics in Prague, from which city, to avoid the presence of Tycho Brahe, he withdrew silently in 1589, and died soon after. He made some improvements in trigonometry, and wrote several works, which discover the marks of his hasty studies; his erudition being indigested, and his style incorrect, as is almost always the case with those who begin their studies late in life.

, a most illustrious prelate, and as he has been justly styled by Dr. Johnson, the great luminary of the Irish church, was descended from a very antient family, and born at Dublin, Jan. 4, 1580. His father, Arnold Usher, was one of the six clerks in chancery, a gentleman of good estate and reputation, and descended of a very ancient family, which in England bore the name of Nevil, till the reign of Henry II. when it was fchanged by one of his ancestors, who about 1185, passing with prince (afterwards king) John in quality of usher into Ireland, settled there by the name of his office, a practice very common in those early ages, and probably occasioned by the ambition of founding a family; and his descendants, spreading into several branches, filled the most considerable posts in and about Dublin for many ages, to the time of our author, who gave fresh lustre to the family. His mother was the daughter of James Stanyhurst (father of Richard the poet. See Stanyhurst) thrice speaker of the House of Commons, recorder of the city of Dublin, and one of the masters in chancery. This gentleman, of whom we took some notice in our account of his son, is yet more memorable for having first moved queen Elizabeth to found and endow a college and university at Dublin; in which he was vigorously seconded by Henry Usher , archbishop of Armagh, who was James Usher’s uncle. James discovered great parts and a strong passion for books from his infancy; and this remarkable circumstance attended the beginning of his literary pursuits, that he was taught to read by two aunts, who had been blind from their cradle, but had amazing memories, and could repeat most part of the Bible with readiness and accuracy; C<ecorum mens oculatissima. At eight years of age he was sent to a school, which was opened by Mr. James Fullerton and Mr. James Hamilton, two young Scots gentlemen, who were placed at Dublin by king James I. then only king of Scotland, to keep a correspondence with the protestant nobility and gentry there, in order to secure an interest in that kingdom, in the event of queen Elizabeth’s death: but her majesty being very sore upon this point, and unwilling to think of a successor, this was a service of some danger, and therefore it was thought expedient for them to assume the disguise of school-masters, a class of men which was very much wanted in Ireland at that time. Mr. Fullerton was afterwards knighted, and of the bed-chamber to king James; and Mr. Hamilton was created viscount Clandebois.

Having continued five years under these excellent masters, of whom he ever afterwards spoke with honour, and having made a progress far beyond his age, he was admitted into the college of Dublin, which was finished that very year, 1593. He was one of the first three students who were admitted; and his name stands to this day in the first line of the roll. Dr. Bernard seems to hint that he was the first graduate, fellow, and proctor, which we doubt, at least as to the fellowship, his uncle being first fellow, and his tutor at this time senior fellow, according to Harris. Here he learned logic, and the philosophy of Aristotle, under Mr. Hamilton, his tutor, and though, as we are told, his love of poetry and cards retarded his studies for some time, yet he soon recovered himself from these habits, applied to books again with great vigour, and at the same time acquired that pious turn which was ever afterwards a distinguishing; feature in his character. He is said to hare been wonderfully affected with that passage in Cicero, “Nescire quid antea quam natus sis accident, id est semper esse puerum” that is, “to know nothing of what happened before you were born is to be always a boy.” About this time, from meeting with Sleidan’s little book “De quatuor imperiis,” he contracted an extreme fondness for the study of history, which he afterwards pursued with equal depth and preciseness. At fourteen years of age he began to make extracts from all the historical books he could meet with, in order to fix the facts more firmly in his memory; and, between fifteen or sixteen, he had made such a proficiency in chronology, that he had drawn up in Latin an exact chronicle of the Bible, as far as the book of Kings, not much differing from his “Annals,” which have since been published. The difference chiefly consists in the addition of observations and the parallel chronofcugy of the heathens. Before he was full sixteen, he had entered upon theological studies, and perused the most able writers, on both sides, on the Romish controversy. Among the Romanists, he read Stapleton’s “Fortress of Faith;” and, finding that author confident in asserting antiquity for the tenets of Popery, and in taxing our church with novelty in. what it dissented from theirs, he kept his mind in suspense, till he could examine how the truth stood in that particular. He took it for granted, as his historian says, that the ancient doctrines must needs be the right, as the nearer the fountain the purer the stream; and that errors sprang up as the ages succeeded, according to that known saying of Tertullian, “Verum quodcunque primum, adulterum quodcunque posterius.” Bishop Jewel had adopted the same principle before him; and too much deference to the authority of the fathers prevailed in their days and long after. Yet they were far from being ignorant, as has been absurdly imputed to them, that the question concerning doctrines is not how ancient, but how true those doctrines are. The dispute was purely historical. Stapleton quoted the fathers as holding the doctrines of popery. Usher thought this impossible, and rather believed that Stapleton had misquoted them, at least had wrested and tortured them to his own sense. This made him then take up a firm resolution, that in due time (if God gave him life) he would himself read all the fathers, and trust none but his own eyes in searching out their sense: which great work he afterwards began at twenty years of age, and finished at thirty-eight; strictly confining himself to read a certain portion every day, from which he suffered no occasion to divert him.

Being now settled to his liking, and freed from worldly connexions and cares, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of every species of literature, human and divine; He was admitted fellow of the college, and acknowledged to be a model of piety, modesty, and learning. About this time, the learned Jesuit Fitz-simons (See Fitz-Simons), then a prisoner in Dublin-castle, sent out a challenge , defying the ablest champion that should come against him, to dispute with him about the points in controversy between the Roman and the Protestant churches. Usher, though but in his nineteenth year, accepted the challenge; and when they met, the Jesuit despised him as but a boy; yet, after a conference or two, was so very sensible of the quickness of his wit, the strength of his arguments, and his skill in disputation, as to decline any farther contest with him. This appears from the following letter of Usher, which Dr. Parr has inserted in his life; and which serves also to confute those who have supposed that there was not any actual dispute between them. “I was not purposed, Mr. Fitz-simons, to write unto you, before you had first written to me, concerning some chief points of your religion, as at our last meeting you promised; s but, seeing you have deferred the same, for reasons best known to yourself, I thought it not amiss to inquire farther of your mind, concerning the continuation of the conference begun betwixt us. And to this I am the rather moved, because I am credibly informed of certain reports, which I could hardly be persuaded should proceed from him, who in my presence pretended so great love and affection unto me. If I am a boy, as it hath pleased you very contemptuously to name me, I give thanks to the Lord, that my carriage towards you hath been such as could minister unto you no just occasion to despise my youth. Your spear belike is in your own conceit a weaver’s beam, and your abilities such, that you desire to encounter with the stoutest champion in the host of Israel; and therefore, like the Philistine, you contemn me as being a boy. Yet this I would fain have you know, that I neither came then, nor now do come unto you, in any confidence of any learning that is in me; in which respect, notwithstanding, I thank God I am what I am: but I come in the name of the Lord of Hosts, whose companies you have reproached, being certainly persuaded, that even out of the mouths of babes and sucklings he was able to shew forth his own praises. For the farther manifestation thereof, I do again earnestly request you, that, setting aside all vain comparisons of persons, we may go plainly forward in examining the matters that rest in controversy between us; otherwise I hope you will not be displeased, if, as for your part you have begun, so 1 also for my own part may be bold, for the clearing of myself and the truth which I profess, freely to make known what hath already passed concerning this matter. Thus intreating you in a few lines to make known unto me your purpose in this behalf, I end; praying the Lord, that both this and all other enterprises that we take in hand may be so ordered as may most make for the advancement of his own glory and the kingdom of his son Jesus Christ.” Tuus ad Aras usque,

In 1600 he was received master of arts, appointed proctor, and chosen catechetical lecturer of the university. In 1601, though under canonical age, yet on account of his extraordinary attainments, he was ordained both deacon and priest by his uncle Henry Usher, then archbishop of Armagh. Not long after, he was appointed to preach constantly before the state at Christ-church in Dublin on Sundays in the afternoon; when he made it his business to canvass the chief points in dispute between the papists and the protestants. He vehemently opposed a toleration, which the former were then soliciting, and some were consenting to; of which he gave his opinion from these words of Ezekiel, “And thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days; I have appointed thee each day for a year:” iv. 6. They are part of Ezekiel’s vision concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation, which he applied thus to the state of Ireland “From this year I reckon forty years and then those, whom you now embrace, shall be your ruin, and you shall bear their iniquity.” This being then uttered in a sermon, says Dr. Parr, seemed only the random-thought of a young man, who was no friend to popery; but afterwards, at the end of forty years, namely in 1641, when the Irish rebellion broke out, and many thousand of protestants were murdered, it was considered by many as even prophetical. On other occasions he was thought to betray an extraordinary foresight, and there was a treatise published “De predictionibus Usserii.” In 1603 he was sent over to England with Dr. Luke Challoner, in order to purchase books for the library at Dublin; the English army, who defeated the Spaniards at Kinsale, having contributed the sum of 1800l. for this purpose. On his arrival he found sir Thomas Bodley at London, employed in the same manner for his newlyerected library at Oxford, and they are said to have mutually assisted each other. It was during his absence upon this occasion that his mother was reconciled to the Romish religion, which gave him the most afflicting concern, and the more as she continued obstinate to the last, dying at Drogheda in the communion of that church. It appears also, that her father, the recorder, though outwardly a conformist to the new religion, after its establishment by Q. Elizabeth, yet still retained his old affection for popery, as appears from his supporting first in his own house Edmund Campian, afterwards the famous Jesuit, then a refugee from England, and in the next place recommending him to a friend in the country, where he might be secure from the danger of being seized and brought to justice for treasonable practices, in drawing her majesty’s subjects from their allegiance. The recorder took care however to conduct himself so prudently, as to give no umbrage to the government, and by that means continued unmolested in his post.

of Ireland and the city of Dublin, a great part of the answers to which were inserted in the edition of the “Britannia,” published in 1607, with this elogy of our author: “For many of these things concerning Dublin I acknowledge myself indebted to the diligence and labour of James Usher, chancellor of the church of St. Patrick, who in various learning and judgment far exceeds his years.” The following year, 1607, he proceeded bachelor of divinity, and was chosen professor of that faculty in his college. He was also promoted to the chancellorship of the cathedral of St. Patrick the same year, by Dr. Loftus the archbishop. In his office of divinity-professor he continued thirteen years, reading lectures weekly throughout the year. In 1609 he made a third voyage to England, and became acquainted with other eminent and learned men, Selden, sir Henry Savile, Briggs, Ward, Lydiat, Dr. Davenant, &c. after which he constantly came over into England once in three years, spending one month at Oxford, another at Cambridge, and the rest of his time at London, chiefly in the Cottonian library. In 1609 he wrote a learned treatise concerning the “Herenach, Termon, and Corban lands, anciently belonging to the chorepiscopi of England and Ireland; which was held in great esteem, and presented by archbishop Bancroft to king James. The substance of it was afterward translated into Latin by sir Henry Spelman, in his” Glossary," and by sir James Ware in the 17th chapter of his Antiquities; but it never was published. The ms. is in the Lambeth library. In 1610 he was unanimously elected provost of Dublin college; but refused to accept that post, being apprehensive of its hindering him in those great designs he was then meditating for the promotion of learning and true religion.

In 1612 he took his doctor of divinity’s degree; and the next year, being at London, his first publication appeared, entitled “De Ecclesiarum Christianarum Successione & Statu,” in 4to. This is a continuation of bishop Jewel’s “Apology,” in which that eminent prelate had endeavoured to shew that the principles of protestants are agreeable to those of the fathers of the six first centuries. Usher’s design was to finish what Jewel had begun, by shewing that from, the sixth century to the reformation, namely, for 900 years, Christ has always had a visible church of true Christians, untainted with the errors and corruptions of the Roman church; and that these islands owe not their Christianity to Rome. This work is divided into three parts. The first reaches to the tenth century, when Gregory VII. was raised to the popedom. The second was to have reached from that period to the year 1370. And the third was to bring it to the reformation. How far he had brought it in this edition is stated in the followirig extract of a letter written to his brother-in-law, Thomas Lydiat, dated at Dublin, August 16, 1619: “You have rightly observed,” says be, “that in my discourse ‘ De Christianarum Ecclesiarum Successione et Statu,’ there is wanting, for the accomplishment of the second part, a hundred years [from 1240 to 1370, viz. the last chapter of this part]; which default, in the continuation of the work is by me supplied. I purpose to publish the whole work together, much augmented, but do first expect the publication of my uncle Stanyhurst’s answer to the former, which, I hear, since his death, is sent to Paris, to be there printed. I am advertised, also, that even now there is one at Antwerp who hath printed a treatise of my countryman De sacro Bosco (Holywood), ‘ De ver Ecclesise investigatione,’ wherein he hath some dealing with me. Both these I would willingly see before I set about reprinting my book, meaning, that if they have justly found fault with any thing, I may amend it; if unjustly, I may defend it.” His uncle’s answer, however, was never published, nor did our author publish any other edition of his work, as he here purposed; probably prevented by the distraction of the times. It was reprinted at Hanover in 1658, 8vo, without any amendments. In the last edition of 1687, containing likewise his Antiquity of the British Churches, are these words in the title-page: “Opus integrum ab Auctore auctum et recognitnm;” which, Dr. Smith observes, was a trick of the bookseller. Usher’s work was solemnly presented by archbishop Abbot to king James, as the eminent first fruits of the college of Dublin.

The same year, 1612, upon his return to Ireland, he married Phoebe, only daughter of Dr. Luke Challoner, who died this year April the 12th, and in his last will recommended our author to his daughter for a husband, if she was inclined to marry. In 1615 there was a parliament held at Dublin, and a convocation of the clergy, in which were composed certain articles relating to the doctrine and discipline of the church. These articles were drawn up by Usher, and signed by archbishop Jones, then lord chancellor of Ireland, and speaker of the house of bishops in convocation, by order from James I, in his majesty’s name. Among these articles, which amount to the number of one hundred and four, besides asserting the doctrine of predestination and reprobation in the strongest terms, one of them professes that there is but one catholic church, out of which there is no salvation; and another maintains thut the sabbath-day ought to be kept holy. Upon these accounts Dr. Heylin called the passing of these articles an absolute plot of the Sabbatarians and Calvinists in England to make themselves so strong a party in Ireland as to obtain what they pleased in this convocation. Our author was well known to be a strong asserter of the predestinarian principles; and being besides of opinion that episcopacy was not a distinct order, but only a different degree from that of presbyters, he certainly cannot be exculpated from the charge of puritanism. However, as he always warmly asserted the king’s supremacy, and the episcopal form of church government established, and all the discipline of it, it has been said that all the objections to him, as inclined to puritanism, were the effect of party, the church beginning about this time to be divided between the Calvinistic and Arminiau principles upon the quinquarticular controversy. Dr. Parr tells us, his enemies were of no great repute for learning and worth; and that our author, hearing of their attempts to deprive him of his majesty’s favour, procured a letter from the lord deputy and council of Ireland to the privy council in England, in defence of his principles, which he brought over to England in 1619, and satisfied his majesty so well upon that point, that in 1620 he promoted him to the bishopric of Meath. In November 1622 he made a speech in the castle-chamber at Dublin upon the censuring of certain officers, concerning the lawfulness of taking, and the danger of refusing, the oath of supremacy; which pleased king James so well that he wrote him a letter of thanks for it. In 1623 he was constituted a privy counsellor of Ireland, and made another voyage to England, in order to collect materials for a work concerning the antiquities of the churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which the king himself had employed him to write and soon afterhis return to Ireland was engaged in answering the challenge of Malone, an Irish Jesuit of the college of Louvain.

He was again in England, when king James, just before he died, advanced him to the archbishopric of Armagh; but, as he was preparing to return to Ireland, he was seized with a quartan ague, which detained him nine months. Before he left England he had a disputation with a popish priest at Drayton in Northamptonshire, the seat of lord Mordaunt, afterwards earl of Peterborough. He was scarce recovered from his ague, when this lord Mordaunt, then a zealous Roman catholic, being very desirous to bring his lady into the pale of that church, cpncluded that there could be no better or more certain way than to procure a disputation to be held between two learned and principal persons, one of each side, at which his lady should be present. In that resolution he chose, for the champion of his own cause, the Jesuit Beaumont, whose true name was Rookwood, being brother to that Rookwood who was executed for the gunpowder treason. Against this antagonist lady Peterborough chose our primate, who, notwithstanding his health was not sufficiently confirmed to engage in such a task, yet from the ardent zeal for the reformed doctrine with which he was constantly animated, and to save a soul from falling into the wiles of an artful Jesuit, he did not refuse to comply with her ladyship’s request. The place appointed for holding the disputation was my lord’s seat at Drayton, a place very proper for the business, as being furnished with a most copious library of the writings of all the ancient fathers of the church, which were ready at hand, if it should happen that any of them should be re-> ferred to in the engagement. The heads of the dispute were agreed to be upon transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, of images, and the perpetual visibility of the church. After it had been held for three days, five hours each day, in which our primate sustained the part of respondent, that office for the fourth day lay upon Beaumont, according to the regulation settled by himself. But he sent a letter to the baron, with an excuse, alleging, “that all the arguments which he had formed had slipt out of his memory, nor was he able by any effort to recollect them, imputing the cause of the misfortune to a just judgment of God upon him, for undertaking of his own accord, without the licence of his superiors, to engage in a dispute with a person of so great eminence and learning as the primate.” Such a shameful tergiversation sunk deeply into the mind of lord Mordaunt, so that, after some conferences with the primate, he renounced popery, and Cod­tinued in the profession of the protestant faith to the end of his life.

This account is given in the life of our archbishop by Dr. Nicholas Bernard, who says he had it from an eye and ear witness. And it is in a great measure confirmed by the reproach thrown upon Beaumont by Chaloner, a secular priest, who in a piece wrote against the Jesuit “admonishes him to beware of Drayton-house, lest he should there chance to light upon another Usher, and be again put to flight, to the great disgrace both of himself and his profession.” As to the primate, the eminent service done by this disputation to lady Peterborough could not but be very sensibly felt by her; and that it was so, she gave his grace sufficient proofs in that extraordinary kindness and respect which she shewed to him all his life after.

In 1634, the parliament of Ireland being ready to meet, there arose a dispute between the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin concerning precedence; but Usher asserted his right with such clearness and evidence that the point was determined in his favour. The convocation meeting at the same time with the parliament, he bad the principal hand in composing and establishing the Irish canons, in which the liberties of that church were maintained by him against Dr. Bramhall (See Bramhall), who was for the English canons, and was probably influenced by archbishop Laud. For when they were passed in convocation, Laud thus wrote to Usher: “For your canons, to speak truth, and with liberty and freedom, though I cannot but think the English canons entire (especially with some amendments) would have done better, yet since you and that church have thought otherwise, I do very easily submit to it.” His grace afterwards writes thus: “As for the particular about subscription, I think you have couched that very well, since, as it seems, there was some necessity to carry that article closely; and God forbid you should upon any occasion roll back upon your former controversy about the articles.” To explain his grace’s meaning, it must be observed, that those canons of the thirty-nine articles of the church of England were received, and declared to be the confession of the faith of the church of Ireland, to which every clergyman was obliged to subscribe. Upon which Dr. Heylin asserted, that the Irish articles of 1615 above mentioned were now repealed. But he recalled this error when he found (the truth) that the Irish articles were still retained and confirmed in these very canons. The doctor indeed observed, that the inconsistency of the several articles proved the virtual repeal of the Irish ones: yet it is plain that this was not so understood at that time, nor for several years after, since both the primate and all the rest of the Irish bishops, at all ordinations, took the subscription of the party ordained to both sets of articles, till the Irish rebellion put a stop to all ordinations. However, since the restoratiop of king Charles Ji. a subscription only to. the thirty-nine articles of the church of England is required.

In the beginning of 1640 he came into England with his family, intending (as before) to return in a year or two at farthest. Soon after his arrival he went to Oxford for the more convenience of pursuing his studies: but these were unhappily interrupted by the urgent necessity of the times, which put him upon writing some pieces that were published at Oxford in 1641, on the subject of episcopacy: These were, 1. “The Judgment of Dr. Reynolds concerning the original of Episcopacy defended.” 2. “The Original of Bishops, or a chorographical and-historical disquisition touching the Lydian and proconsular Asia, and the seven metropolitan churches contained therein.” The design of this treatise is to prove, from Acts xix. 17, supported by Rev. ii. 1. and confirmed by ecclesiastical history, that bishops and metropolitans were instituted by the apostles; meaning only with regard to their superiority in degree; for he did not hold episcopacy to be a superior order to presbytery. He also endeavours to prove that the bishop of Ephesus was not only the metropolitan of the proconsular Asia, but the primate, or exarch, of all the provinces that were comprehended within the compass of the whole Asian diocese; and that he acted suitably to the patriarchal jurisdiction, which was in effect conferred upon him, In the prosecution of the argument he shews, 1. That the stars described in the Revelations are the angels of the seven churches. 2. That these angels were the several bishops of those churches, and not the whole college of presbyters. 3. That each of these seven churches was at that time a metropolis. 4. That these bishops were ordained by the apostles as constant permanent officers in the church, and so in a sortjwe (Tivino, not to be dispensed with except in cases of necessity. These tracts were printed, with others on the same subject, under the title “Certain brief Treatises,” &c. Oxf. 1641, 4to. It was about this, time also that he drew up his treatise on “The Power of the Prince and the Obedience of the Subject,” which, as we have mentioned in our account of his grandson, James Tyrrell, was published after the restoration. Archbishop Usher was a man of too much note, and of too high a station, not to. be < deeply involved in and affected with the succeeding troubles. He is charged by some writers with having advised the king to consent to the bill against the earl of Stratford, but is cleared by others; and Dr. Parr tells us, that when the primate lay extremely ill, and expected death at St. Donate’s castle in 164-5, he asked his grace concerning it, who flatly denied it, and said it was wrongfully laid to his charge; for, that he neither advised nor approved it. In the rebellion in Ireland he was plundered of everything except his library and some furniture in his house at Drogheda, whence the library was conveyed to England. On this the king conferred on him the bishopric of Carlisle, to be holden in commendam; the revenues of which, however, were reduced to almost nothing by the Scots and English armies quartering upon it. When all the lands belonging to the English bishoprics were seized by the parliament, they voted him a pension of 400l. per annum; which yet he never received above once or twice. It is said that he was invited into France by cardinal Richelieu, with a promise of the free exercise of his religion, and a considerable pension; and likewise by the States of Holland, who offered him the place of honorary professor at Leyden. Dr. Smith, one of his biographers, seems to doubt these facts, especially the first. But Dr. Parr thinks it not unlikely, from an instance of respect which Richelieu had before shewn to the archbishop, by sending him, in return for a copy of the “Antiquity of the British Churches,” which the author had presented to his eminence, a letter of much kindness and esteem, accompanied with a gold medal, which Dr. Bernard says “is still preserved.” It was in possession of the Tyrrell family in 1738, and was then exhibited to the society of antiquaries. The date is 1631. In 1642 the archbishop removed to Oxford, not lon before the king came thither, and preached every Sunday at some of the churches, principally All Saints. In 1643 he was nominated one of the assembly of divines at Westminster, but refused to sit among them: and this, together with some of his sermons at Oxford, in which he had spoke against their authority, giving offence to the parliament, they ordered his library to be seized, and it would have been sold, had not Dr. Featly, who sat among those divines while his heart was with the church and king, obtained it by means of Mr. Selden for his own use, and so secured it to the right owner, or at least the greater part, but some valuable articles were stolen, and never recovered. In 1644 he published at Oxford his valuable edition of “Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae.”

The king’s affairs declining, and Oxford being threatened with a siege, he left that city, and retired to Cardiff, in Wales, to the house of sir Timothy Tyrrell, who had married his only daughter, and who was then governor and general of the ordnance. He continued six months here in tranquillity, prosecuting his studies, particularly his “Annals,” and then went to the castle of St. Donate, whither he was invited by the lady dowager Stradling; but in his journey thither fell into the hands of the mountaineers, who took away his books and papers; yet these were, by the kindness of the gentlemen and clergy of that country, in a great measure restored. Before this had been achieved, and while his Mss, the labour of so many years, seemed irrecoverable, he was observed to be more concerned than at all his former sufferings. At St. Donate’s he found an excellent library: but a fit of sickness prevented him from making all the use of it he proposed. His sickness was of an extraordinary nature; it was at first a suppression of urine, with extremity of torture, ending in a violent bleeding at the nose for near forty hours, without any intermission; but when he was every moment expected to die, the bleeding stopped, and he gradually recovered. He went to London in 1646, upon an invitation from the countess of Peterborough to make her house his home and, in 1647, was chosen preacher of Lincoln’s Inn, This society ordered him handsome lodgings, ready furnished, and several rooms for his library, which was about this time brought up from Chester, being almost all the remains of his substance that had escaped the rebels. Mr. (afterwards lord chief justice) Hale was then a bencher of the society, and probably had the chief hand in procuring him this place; and it happened that the society was well rewarded for it by that treasure lodged in this library by the lord chief justice in four volumes, which were extracted from the primate’s manuscripts; of which Dr. Parr has subjoined to his Life of the primate a catalogue, consisting of thirty-three very curious books. Here the primate constantly preached all term-time for almost eight years, till at last, his eye-sight and teeth beginning to fail him, he could not well be heard in so large a congregation, and was forced to quit this place about a year and a half 'before his death, to the great regret of the society. In the mean time, amidst all the convulsions of the times, he continued his studies, and the year he was chosen to Lincoln’s Inn, published his treatise “De Romanae Ecclesiae Symbol^,” which he followed by his “Dissertatio de Macedonum et Asianorum anno solari” in the beginning of 1648, 8vo. la this tract, besides fixing the exact time of St. Polycarp’s martyrdom, he compares the Grecian and Macedonian months with the Julian and other nations; and, having laid down the method and disposition of the Macedonian and Asiatic year, he adds rules for finding out the cycles of the sun and moon, and Easter for ever, with several curious accounts of the celestial motions according to the ancient Greek astronomers, Melon, Calippus, Eudoxus, and others. To which is annexed an Ephemeris, or entire Greek and Roman calendar for the whole year, with the rising and setting of the stars in that climate.

His great reputation having excited in Cromwell a curiosity to see him, the primate, upon the usurper’s intimation of it to him, went, and was received with great civility: Cromwell made him also many promises, but never performed them, and it was on this occasion that the primate predicted the restoration, in a conversation with Dr. Parr, his biographer. “This false man hath broken his word with me, and refuses to perform what he promised. Well, he will have little cause to glory in his wickedness; for he will not continue long. The king will return: Though I shall not live to see it, you may. The government, both in church and state, is in confusion. The papists are advancing their projects, and making such advantages as will hardly be prevented.” The same year, 1654, he published his last piece, 6t De Graeca Septuaginta Interpretum verum Syntagma," &c. and preached Mr. Selden’s funeralsermon in the Temple-church. On March 20, 1655-6, he was taken ill, and died the day following, in the countess of Peterborough’s house at Kyegate in Surrey. Though he was seventy-six, his illness proved to be a pleurisy: for, upon opening his body, a great deal of coagulated blood was found settled in his left side. Preparations were making to bury him privately; but Cromwell ordered him to be interred with great magnificence in Erasmus’s chapel in Westminster-abbey, the funeral service being performed according to the liturgy of the church of England. This was a great indulgence, but the usurper meant to make himself popular, knowing what a high reputation the deceased had among all orders of men yet was politic enough to throw the expence of the funeral upon his relations, who were ill able to bear it. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Nicolas Bernard, who had formerly been his chaplain, and was then preacher of Gray’s-inn: it was printed, and contains many particulars of his life, related with the caution then necessary.

Usher left his library, being the chief part of his property, as a portion to his only daughter, who had been the mother of a numerous offspring. It was first bought by the officers and soldiers of Cromwell’s army in Ireland, and lodged in Dublin-castle, where it lay, though not without being much pillaged, till the restoration; which bringing it into the possession of king Charles II. he gave it, according to the primate’s first intention, to Dublincollege, where it now remains. This, in truth, had been the primate’s first intention; but, upon the loss of every thing else except his books, he was compelled to consider the necessities of his family, his daughter having before had nothing from him except some pieces of gold presented to him by Mr. Selden’s executors and other pqrsons of quality. The library consisted of ten thousand volumes printed and manuscript, and cost the primate many thousand pounds. Both the king of Denmark and cardinal Mazarine offered a good price for it by their agents here; but the executors were forbidden, by an order from Oliver and his council, to sell it to any one without his consent; so it was at last bought by the soldiers and officers of the then army in Ireland, who, out of emulation to the former noble action of queen Elizabeth’s army, were incited by some men of public spirit to the like performance, and they had it for much less than the real worth, or what had been offered for it before by the agents above mentioned. They had also with it all the manuscripts which were not of his own hand-writing, and a choice though not numerous collection of ancient coins. But, when this library was carried over into Ireland, the usurper and his son, who then commanded in chief there, would not bestow it upon the college, lest perhaps the gift should not appear so considerable there as it would do by itself; and therefore they gave out that they intended it for a new college or hall which they said they intended to build and endow. But it proved that, as these were not times, so they were not persons capable of any such noble or pious work; and this library lay in the castle of Dublin till Cromwell’s death; and, during the anarchy and confusion that followed, the rooms where it was kept being left open, many of the books, and most of the best manuscripts, were stolen away, or else embezzled by those that were intrusted with them.

Archbishop Usher was tall, well-shaped, and walked upright to the last. His hair was b'rown, his complexion sanguine, his countenance full of good-nature as well as gravity: yet, Dr. Parr says, the air of his face was hard to hit, and that, though many pictures were taken of him, he never saw but one like him, which was done by sir Peter Lely. He was a man who abounded in all graces, moral as well as spiritual; which, joined with the greatest abilities and learning, made him upon the whole a very complete character. Among his Mss. were many notes and observations upon the writings and characters of the fathers and ecclesiastical authors, which he designed as the foundation of a large and elaborate work, to be called “The.ologica Bibliotheca;” and this was indeed, of all his works, that which, he had most set his heart upon: yet the calamities of the times would not suffer him to finish it. He left these papers, however, to Dr. Gerard Langbaine, proTost of Queen’s college, as the only man on whose learning as well as friendship he could rely, to render them fit for the press: but Langbaine, while pursuing his task in the public library, got so severe a cold, that he died in 1657; and nothing farther appears to have been done, though Dr. Fell afterwards made some attempts to get it finished. A copy of it is lodged ip the Bodleian library. The works from his Mss. published after his death, were: 1. “Chronologia sacra seu Annorum & wadoncltcts Patriarcharum, isapoMiois Israelitarum in Ægypto Annorum etiamJudicum,RegumJudae Israelis, ^o3fi|<jChronologica,” Oxford, 166Q, in 4to, published by Dr. Thomas Barlow,. afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Reprinted with the Annals of the Old and New Testament at Geneva, in 1722, folio. This chronology is imperfect, the author dying while he was engaged in it. He proposed to have subjoined to it a tract “De primitive & veterurn Hebraeorum Kalendario.” 2. A collection of piece’s published by Dr. Nicholas Bernard at London, in 1658, 8vo, under the title of “The Judgment of the late Archbishop,” &c. 3. Dr. Bernard published likewise at London in 1659 our author’s “Judgment and sense of the present See of Rome from Apocal. xviii. 4.” 4. “The power of the prince and obedience of the subject stated;” with a preface by Dr. Robert Sanderson, published by James Tyrrell, esq. grandson to our author, at London, 1661. 5. A volume of “Sermons,” preached at Oxford before his majesty, and elsewhere. 6. “Historia Dogmatica Controversise inter Orthodoxos & Pontificios de Scripturis & sacris Vernaculis. Accessere ejusdem Dissertationes duoe de Pseudo-Dionysii scriptis & de Epistola ad Laodicenos. Descripsit, digessit, & Notis atque Auctario locupletavit Henricus Wharton,” London, 16yO, 4to. 7. “A Collection of three hundred Letters written to James Usher lord archbishop of Armagh, and most of the eminentest persons for piety and learning in his time both in England and beyond the seas. Collected and published from original copies under their own hands by Richard Parr, D. D. his lordship’s chaplain at the time of his death, uith whom the care of all his papers were intrusted by his lordship,” London, 1686, folio. To this Dr. Parr has prefixed the life of the archbishop, collected from authentic documents, and with the assistance of the Tyrrell family, his only descendants. This volume forms the best monument yet erected to his memory, and from the very names of his correspondents, gives us a high ictea of the respect in which he was held, and the high place he filled in the literary world.

, an ingenious writer, was the son of a gentleman-farmer in the county of Dublin, where he was born about 1720. He was descended from the venerable prelate of whom we have just given an account, but was of a Roman catholic family. He received a good classical education, though with no view to any of the learned professious. When grown up, he became a farmer, in imitation of his father, but after some years’ experience, had little success, and having sold his farm, stock, &c. settled for some time as a linen-draper in Dublin: for this business, however, he seems to have been as little qualified as for the other, and was a great loser. In truth he had that secret love of literature about him which generally inspired a train of thought not very compatible with the attention which trade requires: and finding himself, after some years, a widower with a family of four children, and but little prospect of providing for them in any business, he took orders in the church of Rome, sent his three sons for education to the college of Lombard in Paris, and his daughter to a monastery, where she soon after died. He then came to London, and while revolving plans for his support, and the education of his children, Mr. Molloy, an Irish gentleman, who had formerly been a political writer against sir Robert Walpole, died, and left him a legacy of three hundred pounds. With this money Mr. Usher thought of setting up a school, as the most likely way of providing for his sons; and with this view he communicated his intentions to the late Mr. John Walker, author of the Pronouncing Dictionary, and many other approved ' works on the construction and elegance of the English language. Mr. Walker not only approved the plan, but joined him as a partner in the business, and they opened a school under this firm at Kensington Gravel-pits. Mr. Usher’s acquaintance with Mr. Walker commenced during the former’s excursions from Dublin to Bristol, which latter place Mr. Walker’s business led him to visit occasionally. Their acquaintance soon grew into a friendship, which continued unbroken and undiminished to the close of Mr. Usher’s life. But the school these gentlemen were embarked in, did not altogether answer Mr. Walker’s purposes. Whether the profits were too little to divide, or whether he thought he could -do better as a private teacher, it is difficult to say; but Mr. Walker, after trying it for some time, quitted the connection, and commenced a private teacher, which he very successfully continued to the last. They parted, however, with the same cordiality they commenced, and the civilities and friendships of life were mutually continued.

Mr. Usher being now sole master of the school, he cultivated it with diligence and ability, and with tolerable success, for about four years; when he died of a consumption, at the age of fifty-two, in 1772. Mr. Usher’s first publication was a small pamphlet called “A New System of Philosophy,” in which he censures Locke, as leaning too much towards naturalism, a doctrine which he considered as the bane of every thing sublime, elegant, and noble. He next wrote some letters in the Public Ledger, signed “A Free Thinker” in which he shews the inconsistency and impolicy of the persecutions at that time going on against the Roman catholics. His next publication was entitled “Clio, or a discourse on Taste, addressed to a young lady;” in which he endeavours to prove, that there is in several respects an universal standard of taste in the soul of man, which, though it may be depraved or corrupted by education and habit, can never be totally eradicated. To this very ingenious essay, which is touched with elegance and observation, though, perhaps, with too much refinement, he afterwards added “An Introduction to the Theory of the Human Mind,” intended as a refutation of those deists who attack revealed religion under an apparent appeal to philosophy, but, by the occasional shifting of principles and systems, and a dexterous use of equivocal language, draw the dispute into a kind of labyrinth, in which the retreats are endless, and the victory always incomplete.

, a learned botanist, was born in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, May 25, 1642; educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby; whence he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge; B. A. 1662; M. A. 1666; LL. D. Com. Reg. 1682; and was master of the grammar school at Enfield about 1670. He resided in the old manor-house in that town called Queen Elizabeth’s Palace; and, being much attached to the study of botany, had a very curious garden there; and planted, among other trees, a cedar of Libanus, which (till within these few years) was one of the finest in the kingdom, measuring (in October 1793) 12 feet in the girth. In an account of the most remarkable gardens, near London in 1691, by J. Gibson, printed in the Archaeologia, vol. XII. p. 188, Dr. Uvedale is said to have “the greatest and choicest collection of exotics that perhaps was any where in this land.” Dr. Pulteney, hi his brief memoirs of Dr. Leonard Plukenet, says, “I regret that I cannot collect any material anecdotes relating to his friend and fellow collegian Dr. Uvedale, of whom Plukenet ever speaks in a style which indicates that he held him in great esteem.” “The garden which he cultivated at Enfield appears to have been rich in exotic productions; and though he is not known among those who advanced the indigenous botany of Britain, yet his merit as a botanist, or his patronage of the society at large, was considerable enough to incline Petiver to apply his name to a new plant, which Miller retained in his Dictionary, but which has since passed into the genus Polymnia, of the Linnsean system; the author of which has nevertheless retained Uvedalia, as the trivial name.” In the British Museum (Bibl. Sloan. 4064, Plut. 28 F.) are fifteen letters from him to sir Hans Sloane; also letters from him to Dr. Sherard, and Mr. James Petiver. Dryden, Dr. Uredale, and other learned men, having agreed to translate Plutarch’s Lives from the original Greek, Dr. Uvedale translated the Life of Dion, and the work was published in 1684. A whole length portrait of him, and another of his wife, were in the possession of the late admiral Uvedale, of Bosmere-house, Suffolk.

, a great medallist, to whom France was indebted for the science of medals, and Lewis XIV. for one half of his cabinet, was born at Beauvais, May the 24th, 1632. He lost his father when he was three years old, and fell under the care of an uncle, a brother of his mother, who educated him, and made him his heir. He was trained with a view of succeeding to a magistracy which his uncle possessed; but, being too young for this when his uncle died, he changed his views, and applied himself to physic, in which faculty he was admitted doctor at twenty-four. He had as yet discovered no particular inclination for the study of medals; but an occasion now presented itself, which induced him to engage in it. A farmer in the neighbourhood of Beauvais found a great quantity of ancient medals, and carried them to Mr. Vaiilant, who examined them at first slightly and in a cursory way, but afterwards sat down to study them with attention; and his taste for medals increased with the discoveries he made of their nature and use, till he devoted himself almost entirely to them.

Being called to Paris about business, he paid a visit to Mr. Seguin, who had a fine cabinet of medals, and was also greatly attached to this study. Seguin, from their conferences, soon perceived the superior genius of Vaillaiu, which seemed to him to promise much in a science yet in its infancy; and pressed him to make himself a little more known. He accordingly visited some antiquaries of reputation in medailic science; till at length, falling under the notice of the minister Colbert, he received a commission to travel through Italy, Sicily, and Greece, in quest of medals proper for the king’s cabinet; and after spending some years in this pursuit, returned with as many medals as made the king’s cabinet superior to any one in Europe, though great additions have been made to it since. Colbert engaged him to travel a second time; and accordingly, in 1674, he went and embarked at Marseilles with several other gentlemen, who proposed, as well as himself, to be at Rome at the approaching jubilee. But unfortunately, on the second day of their sailing, they were captured by an Algerine corsair; and it was not until a slavery of near five months, that Vaillant was permitted to return to France, and strong remonstrances having been made by the French court, he recovered at the same time twenty gold medals which had been taken from him. He then embarked in a vessel bound for Marseilles, and was carried on with a favourable wind for two days, when another corsair appeared, which, in spite of all the sail they could make, bore down upon them within the reach of cannonshot. Vaillant, dreading the miseries of a fresh slavery, resolved, however, to secure the medals which he had received at Algiers, and had recourse to the strange expedient of swallowing them. But a sudden turn of the wind freed them from this adversary, and cast them upon the coasts of Catalonia; where, after expecting to run aground every moment, they at length fell among the sands at the mouth of the Rhone. Vailiant got on shore in a skiff, but felt himself extremely incommoded with the medals he had swallowed, of which, however, nature afterwards relieved him.

Upon his arrival at Paris, he received fresh instructions, and made another and a more successful voyage. He penetrated into the very heart of Egypt and Persia, and there found new treasures, which made ample amends for all his fatigues and perils. He was greatly caressed and rewarded at his return. When Lewis XIV. gave a new form to the academy of inscriptions in 1701, Vaillant was at first made associate; and the year after pensionary, upon the death of M. Charpentier. He died of an apoplexy, October 23, 1706, in his 76th year. He had two wives, and by virtue of a dispensation from the pope had married two sisters, by whom he had several children, and one son. The first of 1m works was published at Paris in 1674, 1. “Numisroata imperatorum RomanoYum praestantiora a Julio Ceesare ad Posthninuni & tyrannos,” 4to. A second edition, with great additions, was printed 1694, in two volumes 4to; and afterwards a tnird. In this last he omitted a great number of medals which he had discovered to be spurious; but neglected to mention what cabinets each medal was to he found in, as he had done in the second edition, which has made the second generally preferred to it. 2. “Seleucidarnm imperium, seu historia regum Syriæ, ad fidem numismatutum accommodata,” Paris, 1681, 4to. This work throws much light upon an obscure part of ancient history, that of the kings of Syria, usually called Seleucides, from Seleucus, one of Alexander’s lieutenants, who founded that kingdom about 300 years before Christ. 3. “Numismata aerea imperatorum. Augustorirm, & Caesarum, in coloniis, rnunicipiis, & urbibus jure Latio donatis, ex omni mo.dula percussa,” Paris, 1688, 2 torn', folio. 4. “Numismata imperatdram & Csesarum, a populis Romanae ditionis GriEce loquentibus ex omni modulo percussa,” Paris, 1698, 4to. A second edition, enlarged with 700 medals, was printed at Amsterdam, 1700, in folio. 5. “Historia JPtolemasorum yEgypti regum ad fidem numismatum accommodata,” Amst. 1701, folio. 6. “Nummi antiqui familiarum Romanarum perpetuis interpretationibus illustrati,” Aaist. 1703, 12 tom, foilo. 7. “Arsacidarum impetium, sive regum Parthorum histoiia ad fidem numismatum accommodata,” Paris, 1725. 4to. 8. “Achaemenidarum imperium, sive” regum Ponti, Bosphori, Thracioe, & Bithynite historia, ad“fidem numismatum accommodata,” Paris, 1725, 4to. Besides these works, he was the author of some pieces wftich are printed in. the “Memoirs of the academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.”

, a distinguished botanist, was born May 26, 1669, at Vigny, near Pontoise. His first pursuits were various, having attained reputation as an organist, then as a surgeon, and afterwards as secretary to M. Fagon, chief physician to Louis XIV. Fagon appears to have given his talents the right direction, by placing him in the office of director of the royal garden, which he enriched with curious plants. Vaillant became afterwards professor and sub-demonstrator of plants in the abovementioned garden, keeper of the king’s cabinet of drugs, and a member of the academy of sciences. He died of an asthma, May 26, 1722, leaving a widow, but no children. His works are some excellent remarks on M. de Tournefort’s “Institutiones Rei herbariae” an essay on the structure of flowers, and the use of their various parts, Leyden, 1728, 4to, but rather too florid for philosophical narration “Botanicon Parisiense,” with plates, published by Boerhaave, Leyden, 1727, fol. When Vaillant found his health de*­clining, he was anxious to preserve his papers from oblivion, and had solicited Boerhaave to purchase and publish them. Our countryman, Dr. Sherard, who was then at Paris, negociated this business, and spent the greater part of the summer with Boerhaave, in reducing the manuscripts into order. To Sherard, therefore, principally, the learned owe the “Botanicon Parisiense,” to which is prefixed a Latin letter by Dr. Sherard, giving an account of this transaction.

, a French historian, was born in 1685, at Gaillac in Agenois. He was for some time king’s attorney in the country of the Albigenses, but in 1711 entered the Benedictine order in the priory of la Daurade at Toulouse. His studious turn, and taste for history, induced his superiors to send for him to Paris in 1713, where they employed him in writing the history of Languedoc with Claude de Vic. The first volume appeared 1730, and de Vic dying in 1734, the whole of this great work devolved on Vaissette, who executed it with success, and published the four other volumes. At the end of each are learned and curious notes, and throughout the whole he is candid and impartial, especially in speaking of the protestants. He had before written a small piece “On the Origin of the French Monarchy,” which was well received; and afterwards published an abridgment of his “History of Languedoc,” 1749, 6 vols. 12mo. Vaissette has also left a “Universal Geography,” 4 vols. 4to, and 12 vols. 12mo, which was formerly thought one of the best the French had, though not wholly free from errors. He died in the abbey of St. Germain-des-Pres’at Paris, April 10, 1756.

, a Spanish reformer of the sixteenth century, was of a noble family in Spain; and a soldier under Charles the Vth, who knighted him. After some years spent in a military life, he desired leave to retire; and when Charles inquired whether his request proceeded from disgust, his answer was, “It is necessary that a soldier, before his death, should give some time to religious meditation.*' He left his native country, and retired to Naples, where he became the head of a sect of the reformed, and many persons of great distinction attended his lectures. He was particularly connected with Bernard Ochin, Peter Martyr, and other learned men of great character amongst the reformers of that time; and he attacked, with success, many of the corruptions of the church of Rome. Thus far is collected from the old French preface to his” Considerations," and confirmed by Mr. Ferrar’s (the translator) account in a letter of Mr. George Herbert.

The French edition of Valdesso referred to above was published at Paris in 1565, and was taken from an Italian translation of the original Spanish: in which, it is said, were preserved, not only some of the idioms, but also many words of the Spanish original. Mr. Ferrar’s English translation was printed at Oxford in 1638, but without his name; and if it should be asked why Mr. Ferrar, who was perfect master of the Spanish, as well as the Italian language, chose to translate from a translation rather than the original, he himself has given the reason in his own preface: “These truly divine meditations of sir John Valdesso, a nobleman of Spain (who died almost a hundred years ago), having been so acceptable to pious Vergerius, to learned Caelius Secundus Curio, and to many other both French and Italian Protestants, that they have been translated out of the original Spanish copy, and printed three or four times in those languages; it seemeth to me a reasonable, and a charitable desire, to print them now in English, without any alteration at all from the Italian copy, the Spanish being either not extant, or not easy to be found.”

Those who make him a native of Erfurt tell us likewise that he was a Benedictine monk, and that after making some experiments on the stibium of the ancients, he threw a quantity of it to the hogs, whom it first purged and afterwards fattened. This suggested to him that it might be useful in order to give a little of the embonpoint to his brother monks, who had become lean by fasting and mortification. He accordingly prescribed it, and they all died, whence the medicine was afterwards known by the name of antimony, quasi anti-monk. It is added that his works were not known for a long time after his death, until on opening one of the pillars of the church of Erfurt, they were miraculously discovered. But unfortunately for these stories, Boerhaave has proved that there never was a monastery of Benedictines at Erfurt, and we have already proved that the books published under the name of Basil Valentine could not have been written in the beginning of the fifteenth century. It appears, however, whatever their date, that they were originally written in Dutch, and that a part only have been translated into Latin, and probably have received additions from other hands. All that have been published are still in considerable request, and are become scarce. Among them are; 1. “De microcosmo, deque magno mundi ministerio et medicina hominis,” Marpurg, 1609, 8vo. 2. “Azoth, sive Aureliae philosophorum,” Francfort, 1613, 4to. 3. “Practice, una cum duodecim clavibus et appendice,” ibid. 1618, 4to. 4. “Apocalypsis chymica,” Erfurt, 1624, 8vo. 5. “Manifestatio artificiorum,” Erfurt, 1624, 4to. 6. “Currus triumphalis antimonii,” Leip. 1624, 8vo, reprinted at Amsterdam, 1671, 12mo, “cum commentariis Theod. Kerkringii.” 7. “Tractatus chimicophilosophus de rebus naturalibus et praeternaftiralibus metallorum et mineralium,” Francfort, 1676, 8vo. 8. “HaKographia, de praeparatione, usu, ac virtutibus omnium salium mineralium, animalium, ac vegetabiliuni, ex manuscriptis Basilii Valentini collecta ab Ant. Salimncio,” Bologna, 1644, 8vo. There are editions of these in Dutch, and translations into French, English, and other languages of most of them. Whoever Basil was, his experiments are always to be depended on, and his style is clear and precise, unless where he talks of his arcana and the philosopher’s stone, on which he is as obscure as any of his brethren. After every preparation, he gives its medicinal uses, and it has been said that Van Helmont, Lemery, the father, and other moderns, are under greater obligations to his works than they have thought proper to acknowledge. He was the first who recommended the internal use of antimony, and he has enriched the pharmacopoeia with various preparations of that metal, particularly the empyreumatic carbonate of antimony, of which Sylvius Deleboe claimed the discovery.

, author of the heretical sect called Valeutinians, was an Egyptian, and, according to Danaeus, was educated at Alexandria. He aspired to the episcopal dignity; but being set aside by another, who was afterwards martyred, he formed the design to oppose the true doctrine of Christ. He came to Rome A.D. 140, during the pontificate of Hyginus, and there created great disturbances. In 143, he was censured by the church, and excluded the congregation; which was so far from humbling him, that he retired into Cyprus, where he propagated his erroneous doctrines with still greater boldness: He was learned, eloquent, and had studied the Grecian language, particularly the Platonic philosophy. Thus, from nice and witty, or sophistical, distinctions, mixing the doctrine of ideas, and the mysteries of numbers with the Theogony of Hesiod, and the Gospel of St. John, which was the only one received by him, he formed a system of religious philosophy, not very different from that of Basilides and the Gnostics, and in some respects more absurd than either. The rise of his heresy was in the reign of Adrian. Fleury places it A. D. 143, as do Danasus, Tillemont, and Echard. Valentine himself died A.D. 160. His errors spread at Rome, in Gaul, and Syria, but particularly in the Isle of Cyprus and Egypt, and continued until the fourth century. Bishop Hooper, in his tract “De Haeresi Valentiniana,” has deduced this heresy from the Egyptian mysteries. Irenseus was the principal writer against Valentinus, to whom may be added Tertullian, Clemens Alexandriuus, &c. and among the moderns, Buddeus “Dissert. de hreresi Valentiniana.” The author of this heresy is said to have at last abjured his errors, and was received into the church again, but we have no farther account of his personal history.

, or Valeriano Bolzam, an ingenious and learned Italian, was born at Belluno, in the state of Venice, about 1477. He lost his father at nine years of age, and was reduced with his mother and brethren to great poverty, which so retarded his studies that he was fifteen years old before he learned to read; but his uncle Urbanus Bolzanius (see vol. VI. p. 36), who was afterwards preceptor in the Greek language to Leo X. took him under his protection, and had him liberally educated. He studied the Latin and Greek tongues under Valla and Lascaris; and made so wonderful a progress, that he was accounted one of the most learned men of his age. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Julius II. he became the favourite of John de Medicis (afterwards Leo X.), who committed to his care the conduct and instruction of two nephews; and the cardinal Julius de Medicis, who entered upon the pontificate in 1523, under the name of Clement VII. shewed him the same regard. He offered him first the bishopric of Justinople, and then that of Avignon; but Valerianus refused them both, being fully satisfied with the place of apostolic notary. He was in imminent danger, when Rome was taken in 1527; and the year after retired to Belluno, for the sake of that tranquillity which he had never found at court. Yet he suffered himself to be drawn from his retirement by Hypolite de Medicis, one of his pupils; who, being made a cardinal in 1529, chose him for his secretary. He continued in this office till the death of the cardinal in 1535; and seems to have passed the next two years with his other pupil Alexander de Medicis, who had been made first duke of Florence in 1531. Upon the death of Alexander, in 1537, he retired to Padua; where he spent the remainder of his life among his books, and died in 1558.

He composed several learned and curious works, some of which were published in his life-time, some not till after his death. Among the former are, “De Fulminum significationibus,” Romae, 1517, printed also in the 5th volume of Grsevius’s Roman Antiquities. “Pro Sacerdotum barbis defensio,” Romae, 1531, occasioned by an intention to renew a decree, pretended to be made by an ancient council, and confirmed by pope Alexander III. by which priests were forbidden to wear long beards. “Castigationes Virgilianae iectionis,” printed in Robert Stepbens’s Virgil at Paris, 1532, and since reprinted with the best editions of this poet. “Hieroglyphica, sive de sacris Egyptiorum aliarumque gentium literis Commentariorum libri LVIII.” Basil, 1566. In this he attempts to illustrate, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman symbols, almost every branch of science and art, but is supposed to display more imagination than judgment. Among the works published after his death are, “Diaiogo della volgar lingua, non prima uscito in luce,” 4to; “Antiquitatum Belluuensium libri quatuor,” 8vo; and “Contarenus, sive de literatorum infelicitate libri duo,” 8vo; all printed at Venice in 1620, by the direction and under the care of Alorsio Lollini, bishop of Belluno. The last piece contains a great number of curious anecdotes; and is entitled “Contarenus,” because the first book of it is a dialogue between Caspar Contareno, a Venetian ambassador, and some learned persons at Rome. It has been often printed at Amsterdam, 1647, in 12mo, “cum Cornelii Tollii Appendice,” at Helmstadt, 1695, in 12mo; and at Leipsic, 1707, in 8vo, with two other pieces upon similar subjects, namely, “Alcionius de Exilio,” and “Barberius de miseria Poetarum Grascorum,” and a preface by Joannes Burchardus Menkenius, the editor. Mr. D'Israeli, who has written so well on this interesting subject, considers Valerianus’s as “a meagre performance, iti which the author shews sometimes a predilection for the marvellous, which happens so rarely in human affairs; and he is so unphilosophical, that he places among the misfortunes of literary men, those fatal casualties to which all men are alike liable.” “Yet,” adds Mr. D'Israeli, “evert this small volume has its value; for, although the historian confines his narrative to his own times, he includes a sufficient number of names to convince us that to devote t>nf life to authorship is not the true means of improving our happiness or our fortune.”

, a learned prelate, was born April 7, 1531, at Venice, descended from one of the best families in that city. After having made a rapid progress in his studies, he was admitted among the Savii deir Ordini, a small society of five 5'oung men of the highest rank at Venice, who had access to the college where affairs relative to the republic were debated, that they might be trained up to the science of government. Valerio took a doctor’s degree in divinity and in canon law, became professor of philosophy at Venice, 1558, and having afterwards chosen the ecclesiastical profession, was appointed bishop of Verona, on the resignation of his uncle, cardinal Bernardo Naugerio, 1565. He discharged the duties of the episcopal station with great prudence, and to the edification of his diocese, and formed a friendship with St. Charles Borromeo. Pope Gregory XIII. created him cardinal, 1583, invited him to Rome, and placed him at the head of several congregations. Valerio acquired universal esteem by his skill in public affairs, his learning and virtue. He died at Rome, May 24, 1606, aged 75, and although so advanced, his death is supposed to have been hastened by chagrin, occasioned by the interdiction under which pope Paul V. had laid the republic of Venice. This learned bishop left several excellent works: the most known are, “The Rhetoric of a Preacher,” “De Rhetoric* Ecclesiastica libri tres,” Venice, 1574, 8vo, composed by the advice and according to the plan of his intimate friend, St. Charles Borromeo. This was so popular as to be printed eight times in the author’s life, besides being translated into French, of which there is an edition so late as 1750, 12mo, nor, say the French writers, can the study of it be too strongly recommended to young ecclesiastics. His other works are on subjects of philosophy and history. In 1719, appeared in 4to, a work entitled “De cautione adhibenda in edendis Libris,” which contains a complete list of Augustine Valerio’s other works both printed and ms.

, or Henry de Valois, a French critic of great abilities and learning, was born at Paris in 1603, of parents, whose circumstances supported them without any profession. He began his studies at Verdun in 1613, under the Jesuits, and the greatest hopes were formed of him from his childhood. He was recalled to Paris five years after, and continued there in the college of Clermont; where he learned rhetoric under Petavius, who, as well as father Sirmond, conceived a great esteem for him. After having maintained his theses in philosophy with much applause, he went to Bourges in 1622, to study the civil law; and at the end of two years returned to Paris, where he was received advocate. He frequented the bar for seven years, but more to oblige his father than out of any fondness for the law, which he at length quitted, and devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. Greek and Latin authors were all his study, and all his pleasure. Sunday he consecrated to devotion, Saturday afternoon he allotted to his friends; but all the rest of the week was spent in reading and labour. His own library not sufficing, he borrowed books of every body; and he used to say, that he learned more from other people’s books than his own, because, not having the same opportunity of reviewing them, he read them over with more care. He acquired a great reputation by his learning and publications, when a misfortune befel him, which interrupted the course of his studies. He had always a weak sight; but continual application had hurt him so, in this respect, that he lost his right eye, and saw very indifferently with the left. This put him under the necessity of having a reader; for, though his father was of too sparing a humour to make him an allowance for this purpose, yet the defect was supplied by the generosity of his friends. His father, however, died in 1650; and then his circumstances were better suited to his necessities. The same year he composed an oration in praise of Christina queen of Sweden, who had just ascended the throne; and her majesty, by way of acknowledging the favour, promised to send him a gold chain, and gave him at the same time an invitation to accompany the learned Bochart to Sweden. But the chain never came, and the invitation ended in nothing, for which Valesius himself is said to have been to blame, having been so imprudent, while he was meditating this journey, as to make use of some satirical expressions on the learned in those parts; which, being related to the queen, occasioned her majesty’s neglect of him.

In 1734, Valesius had published at Paris, in 4to, “Excerpta Polybii, Diodori Siculi, Nicolai Damasceni, Dionysit Halicarnassensis, Appiani Alexandrini, Dionis, & Joannis Antiocheni, ex Collectaneis Constantini Augusti Porphyrogenitae, nunc primum Greece edita, Latine versa cum notis.” The emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetes, who died in the year 959, had made extracts from the Greek historians of such things as he thought most useful; and had ranged these extracts under certain titles and common places, in number fifty-three. Each contained two books; one of “Extracts from the writers of Universal History,” another of “Extracts from the Historians of the Emperors.” Only two of these titles are extant: one “de Legationibus,” the first book of which was published by Fulvius Ursinus, at Antwerp, 1582, in 4to; the second by David Ho3schelius, at Augsburg, 1603, in 4to; and both under the title of “Eclogse Legationum, &c.” The other title is “de Virtutibus & Vitiis,” and is the work under present consideration. A merchant of Marseilles had brought an ancient manuscript of it from the Isle of Cyprus, and sold it to Mons. Peiresc, who sent it to Paris. Here it lay neglected a long time till at length Pithaeus engaged Valesius to translate and publish it: which he did, and very properly dedicated it to Peiresc, to whom the public is obliged for it, and of whose ardour, in the promotion of letters, we have the following anecdote. Some time after, Valesius had read a passage in an ancient author, relating to the harbour of Smyrna, which could not be understood without viewing the situation upon the spot. He acquainted Peiresc with this difficulty; who immediately sent a painter, to take a view of that port, and afterwards communicated it to Valesius. Valesius thanked Peiresc for the trouble he had been at; but added, probably not in very guarded language, that it did not clear up the doubt so well as he could wish. Peiresc, vexed that he had been at so much expence, wrote back, that he had endeavoured to give him satisfaction; and that, if he had not succeeded, it must not be ascribed to either himself or the painter, but to his own temper and humour, which were satisfied with nothing.

In 1636 he gave a good edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus,” in 4to, corrected in a great number of places from the manuscripts, and illustrated with very ingenious and learned notes. A second edition, with more notes of Valesius, and those of Lindenbrog, came out at Paris, 1681, in folio, edited by his brother Adrian Valesius; and James Gronovius also published a third at Leyden, 1693, fol. and 4to. The critical talents and learning which Valesius had displayed in these publications, recommended him as the most proper person to superintend a work of greater importance, an edition of the ancient ecclesiastical historians. M. de Montchal, abp. of Tholouse, a learned man, whom the clergy of France had requested to give an edition of these historians, undertook the affair; and applied to Valesius to assist him privately. But Valesius was too jealous of his reputation, to let another person enjoy the fruits of his labours; and therefore absolutely refused his aid. The archbishop, either too much taken up with the business of his see, or despairing of success in what he had undertaken, soon after excused himself to the clergy; and at the same time advised them to apply to Valesius, as a man who was every way qualified for the task. To this Valesius had no objection, and his employers by way of encouragement settled a pension upon him. This was about 1650, and the Historians were published in Greek and Latin, with good notes, in the following order: “Eusebii Pamphili historia ecclesiastica, ejusdemque libri de vita Constantini, & panegyricus atque oratio Constantini ad sanctos,” Paris, 1659; “Socratis & Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica,” 166S; “Theodoreti et Evagrii historia ecclesiastica, item excerpta & historia ecclesiastica Philostorgii,” 1673. These were reprinted in 3 vols. folio, first at Amsterdam in 1699, and then at Cambridge in 1720; to which last edition some remarks, but very inconsiderable ones, scattered up and down in various authors, were collected and subjoined by the editor William Reading.

, or Adrien de Valois, brother of Henry, and a very learned man also, was born at Paris in 1607, and educated in the college of Clermont there, under the Jesuits. He followed the example of his brother, and had the same counsellors in his studies, the fathers Sirmond and Petavius. History was his principal object; and he spent many years in searching into the most authentic records, manuscript as well as printed. His long perseverance in these pursuits enabled him to give the public an elaborate Latin work, entitled “Gesta Francorum, seu de rebis Francicis,” in 3 vols. folio; the first of which came out in 1646, the two others in 1658. This history begins with the year 254; and ends with 752. It is written with care and elegance, and may serve for an excellent commentary upon the ancient historians of France, who wrote rudely and barbarously: but some have considered it as a critical work filled with rude erudition, rather than a history. Colbert asked him one day concerning his Latin history of France, and pressed him to continue it; but he answered the minister, that he might as well take away his life, as put him upon a work so full of difficulties, and so much beyond what his age could bear; for he was then in years. He is the author of several other Latin works; as “Notitia Galliarum, ordine alphabetico digesta,” 1675, in folio; a work of great utility in explaining the state of ancient Gaul. He was the editor, as we have mentioned, of the second edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus;” to which, besides additional notes of his brother and Lindenbrog, he added notes and emendations of his own. He wrote also a Panegyric upon the king, and a life of his brother. There is also a “Valesiana.”

In 1660, he was, with his brother, honoured with the title of historiographer to the king; and had a pension settled upon him. In 1664, he lost the company of his brother; who, when he married, left his mother and brethren, with whom he had lived till then. Adrian, however, some years after, followed his brother’s example, and married a wife too; by whom he had children. He enjoyed good health, till he was eighty-five, and then died, July the 2d, 1692.

, a man of letters of great emience in the fifteenth century, was born at Rome in 1407. His father was a doctor of civil and common law, and advocate of the apostolic consistory. He was educated at Rome, and learned Greek under Aurispa; but in consequence of the troubles which arose on the death of pope Martin, and the advancement of Eugenius to the papal chair, he retired to Pavia. Here he read lectures on rhetoric, and wrote his three books “De Voluptate ac vero bono.” From thence he removed to Milan, and read the same lectures: and before 1435 read them to Alphonsus, king of Arragon, Sicily, and Naples, that learned patroa of letters, who took minutes of his lectures, and acknowledged his literary obligations to him. While in this place he wrote his book on free-will, against Bbetius, and his detection of the forged gift which Constantine is said to have made, of liome, to pope Sylvester, which was first published in 1492. Here too he translated Homer into Latin, and began his six books of “Elegantiae linguae Latinae.” All this while he had followed Alpbonsus in his wars, and had exposed his person in several sea-fights; and, among his other literary undertakings he had written three books of logical disputations, in which, having reduced the ten predicaments, or elements, to three, he was accused of heretical pravity by the inquisitor-general.

He next turned his thoughts to Livy, and drew up notes on that author on the following occasion. It was the custom of Alphonsus to have some ancient author read by one of the literati about his court, during his public dinners, where the king himself gave some opinion on the subject of the book, and invited the different guests to give theirs; and, as the discussion of any particular point pleased him, he divided the sweetmeats among the competitors, and poured out a glass of wine to the reader. This office had fallen on Beccadelli and Valla, who, from intimate friends, became inveterate enemies, by disputing about passages in Livy on these occasions. Valla became equally hostile to Bartholomew Facio (see Facio), whom Alphonsus had made his historiographer, and had appointed Valla at the same time to write the Life of his royal father Ferdinand. The first copy of this Life, in three books, drawn up in two months, and submitted to the king for his correction, was privately overlooked by Facio, who, boasting of having detected five hundred errors in it, was answered by Valla in four books of invectives, or recriminations, in the last of which he inserted his corrections and notes on the first six books of Livy, on the Punic war. These books he had heard Beccadelli read before Alphonsus, and his enemies charged him with saying that he would undertake to correct these better than Aretine, Guarini, and eve Petrarch himself, whose corrections were in the ms. at Naples sent to the king by Cosmo de Medici from Florence. Valla’s frequent attacks on barbarous Latinists and ignorant theologists of his time exposed him to imminent danger from the inquisition; bat he generally found a protector in the king.

Having accepted an invitation to return to Rome from pope Nicholas V. he was favourably received by that pontiff, who settled a handsome pension on him. He now applied himself to a translation of Thucydides, and on presentino- it to the pope, was rewarded by a gratuity of five hundred gold crowns, and was recommended to translate Herodotus, which death prevented him from finishing. What he had done came into the possession of Alphpnsus, and was published by Pontanus, but neither of these translations have been thought eminently successful. That of Thucydides is charged by H. Stephens (who printed it along with his edition of the original (1564) as well as separately) with ignorance, carelessness, and inelegance of language, and Dr. Hudson repeats the charge. Wesseling speaks equally unfavourably of his Herodotus, but he apologizes that the ms. whence he translated was imperfect, and himself overwhelmed with the hostilities of his enemies. Pope Nicholas, in addition to his other favours, appointed him professor of rhetoric; and he employed his leisure time in putting the finishing hand to his “Elegantise lingua: Latino?,” which, as we already noticed, he began at Naples, and sent to the king’s secretaries, one of whom published them without his knowledge. He seems to have written six more books on this subject, which may possibly be concealed in some of the libraries of Italy. He also completed his “Illustrations” of the New Testament, which the pope, and many of the cardinals, earnestly solicited him to circulate, and which Erasmus published in 1504. Valla attacked the Vulgate Latin version by Jerome, which drew on him the censure of his antagonists, and occasioned his notes to be condemned by Paul IV. after the council of Trent had given its sanction to Jerome’s translation. Among the bitterest of his antagonists was the celebrated Poggio, with whom he quarrelled late in life on account of some criticisms of that eminent scholar. It is difficult perhaps to say who gave the first provocation, but it is certain that nothing can exceed the intemperate language and low abuse which passed between them, for 'an account of which we may refer to Mr. Shepherd’s excellent Life of Poggio. Another of Valla’s enemies was Morandus of Bologna, who accused him to pope Nicholas V. of misrepresenting Livy. This Valla answered by two “Confutations,” written with much asperity.

If Valla had his enemies, he has also had his defenders, and of these Erasmus was one of the most strenuous. He expresses his indignation that Poggio should be in every body’s hands, while Valla, who had a hundred times his learning, “centuplo doctior,” was read by nobody and he declares, in the same epistle, that “the mordacity of Valla alone, if they will call it so, has contributed more to the promoting of literature than the foolish and insipid candour of thousands, who admire all the productions of all men without distinction, and who applaud and (as they say) scratch one another:” “itaque unius Laurentii mordacitas, siquidem ita malunt appellare, non paulo plus conduxit rei literarire, quam plurimorum ineptus candor, omnia omnium sine delectu mirantium, sibique invicem plaudentium, ac mutuum (quod aiunt) scabentium.” In short, this whole epistle, which is by no means a short one, is written entirely in the defence of Valla; though at the same time it would be easy to collect from it, if Valla’s works were not extant, that he cannot be defended from the charge of envious and abusive language. The first edition of his “Elegantiae” was printed at Rome in 1471, folio, and the last by Robert Stephens, at Paris, in 1542, 4to.

, a celebrated traveller, was a Roman gentleman, and member of the academy dell' Umaristi. He commenced his travels in 1614, over the East, and his account of it in Italian, 1662, 4 vols. 4to, has always been considered as giving the best account that had then appeared of Egypt, Turkey, Persia, and India. Gibbon calls him “a gentleman and a scholar, but intolerably vain and prolix.” The French have a good translation by Carreau and le Comte, 1663, 4 vols. 4to, and Rouen, 1745, 8 vols. 12mo. There is also an English translation, London, 1665, folio. He did not return from his travels until 1626. He married at Babylon a virtuous young woman, who accompanied him in his journeys, and died at Mina in Carainania, 1622, aged twenty-three. Her husband was so deeply affected with her loss, that he caused her body to be embalmed and carried it always with him in a wooden coffin, till his arrival at Rome, where he buried it with great magnificence in his family vault in the church of Ara cceli. He spoke her funeral oration himself, which may be found in Italian and French, in the 12mo edition of his Travels, He died at Rome in 1652.

, a celebrated professor of physic at Padua, was born May 3, 1661, at the old castle of Trasilico in Modena, of a noble and ancient family. He distinguished himself among the learned, with whom he held a very extensive correspondence, and was admitted a member of many learned societies; among others of our Royal Society. He practised and taught physic with great reputation, was honorary physician to the emperor, and created a knight by the duke of Modena. He died January 28, 173O, aged sixty-nine. His works on insects, natural history, and physic, are numerous, and were printed at Venice, in 1733, 3 vols, folio, in Italian. They are curious, learned, and much esteemed. He left a son, who was a physician also, and the editor of his father’s works.

, an eminent French naturalist, was bora at Rouen, Sept. 17, 1731, and had his classical education in the Jesuits’ college there, where he was principally distinguished for the proficiency he made in the Greek language. He afterwards became a pupil of the celebrated anatomist Lecat, and after studying pharmacy came to Paris in 1750. His father, who was an advocate of the parliament of Normandy, intended him for the bar, but his predilection for natural history was too strong for any prospects which that profession might yield. Having obtained from the duke d'Argenson, the war minister, a kind of commission to travel in the name of the government, he spent some years in. visiting the principal cabinets and collections of natural history in Europe, and in inspecting the mines, volcanos, and other interesting phenomena of nature. On his return to Paris in 1756, he began a course of lectures on natural history, which he regularly continued until 1788, and acquired so much reputation as to be admitted an honorary member of most of the learned societies of Europe, and had liberal offers from the courts of Russia and Portugal to settle in those countries; but he rejected these at the very time that he was in vain soliciting to be reimbursed the expences he had contracted in serving his own nation. He appears to have escaped the revolutionary storms, and died at Paris Aug. 24, 1807, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He first appeared as an author in 1758, at which time he published his “Catalogue d‘un cabinet d’histoire naturelle,” 12mo. This was followed next year by a sketch of a complete system of mineralogy; and two years after by his “Nouvelle exposition du regne minerale,” 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774; but his greatest work, on which his reputation is chiefly built, was his “Dictionnaire raisonne” universe! d'histoire naturelle," which has passed through many editions both in 4to and 8vo, the last of which was published at Lyons in 1800, 15 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent physician, was born at Imola in 1666, and died in 1723. He was the pupil of the celebrated Morgagni, and taught anatomy at Bologna with the greatest reputation. His “Anatomical Dissertations” were published in Latin, at Venice, 1740, 2 vols. 4to, by Morgagni, who commented on them with great freedom, pointing out what he thought erroneous, and liberally praising his merits and discoveries. Of the latter kind are his observations on the ear, published at Bologna in 1707, 4to, “De Aure humana.” On this interesting subject the author employed sixteen years, and dissected a prodigious number of subjects to illustrate it.

, a gentleman eminent in the very different characters of dramatic poet and architect, was descended from a family originally of Ghent in Flanders. His grandfather, Giles Vanburg, being obliged to quit his native country on account of the persecution of the protestants by the duke of Alva, came to England, and settled as a merchant in London, in the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrooke, where he continued until his death in 1646. He left a son, Giles Vanbmgb, who settled in the city of Chester, and was, it is supposed, a sugar-baker, where he acquired an ample fortune. Blome, in his “Britannia,” calls him gentleman, and afterwards he was styled an esquire. Removing to London, he obtained the place of comptroller of the Treasury-chamber. He died in 1715. He married Elizabeth, the fifth and youngest daughter and coheir of sir Dudley Carleton, of Imber-court in Surrey, knt. She died in 1711. By her he had eight sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present article. The time of his birth has not been ascertained, b,ut it probably was about the middle of the reign of Charles II.

We have no account of his education, but it probably was liberal, and he seems to have made a rapid progress in the accomplishments suited to his rank in life. A gay, lively disposition led him to the army, in which at a very early age he bore an ensign’s commission, but does not appear to have remained long a candidate for higher promotion. His course of desultory reading, or the company he kept, seems to have given him a taste for the drama, which he cultivated with the greatest success, and divided with Congreve the merit of reviving the comic muse. In some of his winter-quarters he became acquainted with sir Thomas Skipwith; who being a sharer in a theatrical patent, though little concerned in the conduct of it, young Vanbrugh shewed him the outlines of two plays; and sir Thomas encouraged him to finish “The Relapse,” which, notwithstanding its gross indecencies, being acted in 1697, succeeded beyond their warmest expectations, placed Vanbrugh in a high degree of reputation, and stimulated him (under the patronage of lord Halifax) to complete his “Provok'd Wife;” which was successfully brought out at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1698. Though both these comedies met with greater applause than the author expected, yet both were liable to the severest censure, and verified the observation of Pope,

< f That Van wants grace, who never wanted wit.“In the same year, 1693, he brought out his comedy of” Æsop,“which was acted at Drury-Lane, and contains much general satire and useful morality, but was not very successful.” The False Friend,“his next comedy, came out in 1702. He had interest enough to raise a subscription of thirty persons of quality, at 100l. each, for building a stately theatre in the Hay-Market; on the first stone that was laid of this theatre were inscribed the words Little Whig, as a compliment to a celebrated beauty, lady Sunderland, second daughter of the duke of Marlborough, the tast and pride of that party. The house being finished in 1706, it was put by Mr. Betterton and his associates under the management of sir John Vanbrugh and Mr. Congreve, in hopes of retrieving their desperate fortunes; but their expectations were too sanguine. The new theatre was opened with a translated opera, set to Italian music, called” The Triumph of Love,“which met with a cold reception.” The Confederacy“was almost immediately after produced by sir John, and acted with more success than so licentious a performance deserved, though less than it was entitled to, if considered merely with respect to its dramatic merit. The prospects of the theatre being unpromising, Mr. Congreve gave up his share and interest wholly to Vanbrugh,” who, being now become sole manager, was under a necessity of exerting himself. Accordingly, in the same season, he gave the public three other imitations from the French; viz. 1. “The Cuckold in Conceit.” 2. “Squire Treeloby;” and, 3. “The Mistake.” The spaciousness of the dome in the new theatre, by preventing the actors from being distinctly heard, was an inconvenience not to be surmounted; and an union of the two companies was projected. Sir John, tired of the business, disposed of his theatrical concerns to Mr. Owen Swinney, who governed the stage till another great revolution occurred. Our author’s last comedy, “The Journey to London,” which was left imperfect, was finished to great advantage by Mr. Cibber, who takes notice in the prologue of sir John’s virtuous intention in composing this piece, to make amends for scenes written in the fire of youth. He seemed sensible indeed of this, when in 1725 he altered an exceptionable scene in “The Provoked Wife,” by putting into the mouth of a woman of quality what before had been spoken by a clergyman; a change which removed from him the imputation of prophaneness, which, however, as well as the most gross licentiousness, still adheres to his other plays, and gave Collier an irresistible advantage over him in the memorable controversy respecting the stage.

Thus far the satirist was well founded party-rage warped his understanding when he censured Vanbrugh’s plays, and left him no more judgment to see their beauties than sir John had when he perceived not that they were the only beauties he was formed to compose.“Walpole, perhaps, was not aware of the handsome apology Dr. Swift and Mr. Pope have made, in the joint preface to their miscellanies” In regard to two persons only we wish our raillery, though ever so tender, or resentment, though ever so just, had not been indulged. We speak of sir John Vanbrugh, who was a man of wit, and of honour; and of Mr. Addison, whose name deserves all the respect from every lover of learning.“And notwithstanding Walpole’s own contribution of wit and flippancy to depreciate the character of Vanbrugh’s Blenheim and Castle-Howard, we are far more inclined to the opinion of our illustrious artist and elegant writer, str Joshua Reynolds, delivered, as it is, with the modesty that distinguishes, however seldom it accompanies, superior genius.” In the buildings of Vanbrugh, who was a poet as well as an architect, there is a greater display of imagination than we shall find, perhaps, in any other; and this is the ground of the effect we feel it) many of his works, notwithstanding the faults with which many of them are charged. For this purpose Vanbrugh appears to have had recourse to some principles of the Gothic architectore, which, thoueh not so ancient as the Grecian, is more so to

our imagination, with which the artist is more concerned than will; absolute truth.“”To speak of Vanbrugh,“adds sir Joshua,” in the language of 'a painter, he had originality of invention; he understood light and shadow, and had great skill in composition. To support his principal object, he produced his second and third groupes or masses. He perfectly understood in his art, what is the most difficult in ours, the conduct of the back-ground, by which the design and invention are set off to the greatest advantage. What the back-ground is in painting, in architecture is the real ground on which the building is erected; and no architect took greater care that his work should not appear crude and hard, that is, that it did not abruptly start out of the ground without expectation or preparation. This is a tribute which a painter owes to an architect who composed like a painter, and was defrauded of the due reward of his merit by the wits of his time, who did not understand the principles of composition in poetry better than he, and who knew little or nothing of what he understood perfectly, the general ruling principles of architecture and painting. Vanbrugh’s fate was that of the great Perrault. Both were the objects of the petulant sarcasms of factious men of letters, and both have left some of the fairest monuments which, to this day, decorate their several countries; the fagade of the Louvre; Blenheim, and Castle Howard."

Castle-Howard Vanbrugh built for Charles, earl of Carlisle, deputy to the earl marshal, who gave him the appointment of Clarenceux, king-at-arms, in 1704. The appointment, however, was remonstrated against by the superseded heralds, and the college at large felt the slight put upon them by having a total stranger made king-at-­arms, and who was likewise ignorant of the profession of heraldry and genealogy. Swift’s pun was, that he might now build houses He was knighted at Greenwich, September 9, 1714, appointed comptroller of the royal works January 6, 1714-5, and surveyor of the works at Greenwich hospital, August 17, 1716. It was designed to have given him the place of garter but finding that the younger Anstis had a reversionary grant, he resigned his tabard to Knox Ward, esq. February 9, 1725-6, and died March 26 following, at Whitehall. His country residence was Vanbrugh-Fields, at Greenwich,- where he built two seats, one called the Bastile, standing on Maize, or Maze-Hill, on the east side of the park. Lady Vanbrugh, his relict, sold it to lord Trelawny, who made it his residence: the name was taken from the French prison of which it was a model. It is said, but no time is mentioned, that on a visit to France, his curiosity and natural taste exciting him to take a survey of the fortifications in that kingdom, he was taken notice of by an engineer, secured by authority, and carried to the Bustile, where his confinement was so much softened by humanity, that he amused himself by drawing rude draughts of some comedies. This circumstance raised such curiosity at Paris, that he was visited by several of the noblesse, and by their means procured his liberty before any solicitation for it came from England. He had another built in the same style at Blackheath, called the Mincepye-house, now or lately inhabited by a descendant. Lady Vanbrugh, his relict, died April 26, 1776, aged ninety, and their only son, an ensign of the second regiment of the foot-guards, died of the wounds he received in a battle fought near Tournay, in 1745.

His son, John Antonides, the subject of this article, was born at Enckhuisen, Jan. 13, 1609. He was sent to Leyden in 1625, tb study philosophy, and afterwards applied himself entirely to physic. From Leyden he went to Franeker in 1629, in order to continue his studies, and received the degree of doctor some months after. He then returned to Amsterdam, where his father died in 1633, and where he continned to practise physic with great reputation until, in 1639, he was invited to be professor of physic in the university of Franeker. He discharged that office with great applause for almost twelve years; reading lectures, both on the theory and practice of anatomy and botany; and it was by his care that the garden of the university was enlarged, and an house built to it. The library was no less indebted to him for a great number of books, which were procured by his address. The university of Utrecht offered him a professor’s place in 1649, which he declined; but, two years after, accepted the same offer from the curators of the university of Leyden, and filled the chair with high reputation till his death, which happened March 4, 1664. Guy Patin, who was a friend of this physician, often mentions him in his letters, and seems to insinuate that he neglected himself during his illness, for he died of a complaint of the lungs, in which bleeding might have been useful. Patin adds, in allusion to Vander-Linden’s learning, “I had rather be a blockhead, and bleed sometimes.”

Vander-Linden wrote many books upon physic, which are enumerated in our authorities, and one “De Scriptis Medicis.” This, which is a catalogue of books upon physic, was printed and enlarged several times by the author in his life-time; and very considerably so after his death, by a German, named Merklinns, who published it in a thick quarto, under the title of “Lindenius Renovattis,” at Nuremberg, in 1686, but it never was either correct or complete, and has since given place to more recent works of the kind, particularly Eloy’s Dictionary. Vander-Linden was also the editor of “Celsus,” Leyden, 1657, 12mo, and left an edition of the works of Hippocrates, published there in 1665, 2 vols. 8vo, Greek and Latin. With this he had taken great pains, but did not live to finish more than a correct text, to attain which he carefully compared all the old editions and several manuscripts, and restored a great number of passages, which were not correct even in Foesius’s edition. His Latin translation is that of Cornarius, because the oldest, and that commonly used. Having been attacked by his last illness a little before this edition was finished, he was prevented from publishing the notes which he intended.

, a learned member of the French Institute, whose Christian name we have not been able to discover, was born at Paris in 1735. In his youth he applied sedulously to study, but we have no account of his progress until he became acquainted with the celebrated geometrician Fontaine, who foresaw the progress which Vandermonde would one day make in the mathematics; and under his patronage, Vandermonde determined to devote himself to geometry. In 1771 he presented himself to the Academy of Sciences, into which he was admitted; and justified the suffrages of his associates, by a paper relative to the resolution of equations.

This work was quickly followed by another, on the problems called by geometricians, '“problems of situation.” Leibnitz was of opinion, that the analysis made use of in his time, by the geometricians, was not applicable to all questions in the physical sciences; and that a new geometry should be invented, to calculate the relations of positions of different bodies, in space; this he called “geometry of situation.” Excepting, however, one application, made by Leibnitz himself, to the i game of solitaire, and which, under the appearance of an object of curiosity, scarcely worthy the sublimity and usefulness of geometry, is an example for solving the most elevated and important questions, Euler was almost the only one who had practised this geometry of situation. He had resorted to it for the solution of a problem called the cavalier, which, also, appeared very familiar at first sight, and was also pregnant with useful and important applications. This problem, with the vulgar, consisted merely in running through all the cases of the chess-board, with the knight of the game of chess; to the profound geometrician, however, it was a precedent for tracing the route which every body must follow, whose course is submitted to a known law, by conforming to certain required conditions, through all the points disposed over a space, in a prescribed order. Vandermonde was chiefly anxious to find in this species or analysis, a simple notation, likely to facilitate the making of calculations; and he gave an example of this, in a short and easy solution "of the same problem of the cavalier, which Euler had rendered famous.

With these labours, intermingled with frequent researches on the mechanic arts, as well as on objects of political ceconomy, the attention of Vandermonde was taken up, until 1789, the period of the revolution, when he became so decided an enemy to every thing established, that he concurred even in the abolition of the Royal Academy, and associated himself with Robespierre, Marat, and the rest of that party who covered France with ruins, with scaffolds, and blood. This part of Vandermonde’s history is suppressed by his eulogist LaCepede, because discussions on political topics ought not, in his opinion, to be admitted into the sanctuary of the sciences. In that sanctuary, however, Vandermonde did not long remain. He died of a rapid decline brought on by a disorder of the lungs, Jan. 1, 1796.

, called The Young, was born at Amsterdam in 1633, and was the son of the preceding, by whom he was carefully instructed in the art$ but afterwards he was placed under the direction of Simon de Vlieger, a very excellent painter of ships, sea-shores, and sea-ports, who however was far surpassed by his disciple. As soon as young Vandervelde felt his strength, and thought he might appear with advantage in his profession, he went to his father in London; and some of his paintings, being exhibited at the English court, immediately procured him employment from the king, and the principal nobility. His subjects were the same as those of his father, and he observed the same method of sketching every object after nature; but his pictures upon the whole are not only superior to the works of his father, but to all other artists in that style; and no age, since the revival of the art, is thought to have produced his equal. Whether we consider the beauty of his design, the correctness of his drawing, the graceful forms and positions of his vessels, the elegance of his disposition, the lightness of his clouds; the clearness and variety of his serene skies, as well as the gloomy horror of those that are stormy; the liveliness and transparence of his colouring; the look of genuine nature that appears in agitated and still waters; and the lovely gradation of his distances, as well as their perspective truth, they are all executed with equal nature, judgment, and genius. Houbraken and other writers observe, that the pictures of the young Vandervelde are so esteemed in England, that those which were scattered through the Low Countries were eagerly sought after, and purchased at vast prices; so that in Holland they rarely have the pleasure of seeing any of them. Undoubtedly the most capital of his works are in England in the royal collections, and in the cabinets of the nobility and gentry, and some few are also in Ireland. He died April 6, 1707, in the seventy -fourth year of his age.

, a most illustrious portraitpainter, whose works, lord Orford remarks, are so frequent in England, that the generality of our people can scarcely avoid thinking him their countryman, was born at Antwerp, March 22, 1598-9. His father was a merchant, and his mother, Cornelia Kersboom, was an admired flower-painter. He was first placed with Van Balen, who had studied at Rome, but afterwards with Rubens, under whom he made such progress as to be able to assist in the works from which he learned. While at this excellent school, the following anecdote is told of him: Rubens having left a picture unfinished one night, and going out contrary to custom, his scholars took the opportunity of sporting about the room; when one, more unfortunate than the rest, striking at his companion with a maul-stick^ chanced to throw down the picture, which not being dry acquired some damage. Vandyck, being at work in the next room, was prevailed on to repair the mischief; and when Rubens came next morning to his work, first going at a distance to view his picture, as is usual with painters, and having contemplated it a little, he cried out suddenly, that he liked the piece far better than he did the night before.

He now went back to Antwerp, and practised both history and portrait. Of the former kind were many applauded altar-pieces; in the latter were particularly the heads of his contemporary artists, drawn in chiaroscuro on small panels, thirty-five of which, Walpole mentions, are in the possession of the Cardigan family. Engravings of these have ibeen published thrice, by Vanden Euden, containing fourscore plates by Giles Hendrix, containing one hundred; and lastly, by Verdassen, who effaced the names and letters of the original engravers. Some of the plates were etched by Vandyck himself in a free and masterly style.

But the advantages he reaped in his own country were not proportioned to his merits, and as he loved to make a figure, he resolved to augment his fortune by a visit to England, where he had heard of the favour king Charles I. shewed to the arts. On his arrival he lodged with Geldorp, a painter, hoping to be introduced to the king; but, owing to whatever means, this was not accomplished, and he went away chagrined. The king, however, soon learning what a treasure had been within his reach, ordered sir Kenelm Digby, who had sat to Vandyck, to invite him over. He immediately complied, and was lodged among the king’s artists at Black-friars. Thither the king went often by water, and viewed his performances with singular delight, frequently sitting to him himself, and bespeaking pictures of the queen, his children, and his courtiers; and he conferred the honour of knighthood on him at St. James’s July 5, 1632. This was the following year attended bv the grant of an annuity of 200^. a year, and with this he had the title of painter to his majesty.

According to Walpole, Vandyck’s prices were 40l. for a half, and 60l. for a whole length; but from some documents communicated by Mr. Malone, it appears that he painted, for the royal family at least, at the rate of 251. each portrait, and sometimes less. From the number of his works he must have been indefatigable; for though he was not above forty-two when he died, they are not exceeded by those of Rubens. He lived sumptuously, kept a great table, and often detained the persons who sat to him, to dinner, for an opportunity of studying their -countenances, and of retouching their pictures again in the afternoon. In summer he lived at Eltham in Kent. He was not only luxurious in his living, but in his pleasures; and this, with a sedentary life, brought on the gout, and hurt his fortune. He sought to repair it by the silly pursuit of the philosopher’s stone, in which probably he was encouraged by the example or advice of his friend sir Kenelm Digby. Towards the end of his life, the king bestowed on him for a wife, Mary, the daughter of the unfortunate lord Gowry, and soon after his marriage he set out for Paris, in hopes of being employed in the Louvre; but disappointed in this, he returned to England, and proposed to the king, by sir Kenelm Digby, to paint the walls of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, of which the ceiling was already adorned by Rubens -, and Vandyck’s subject was to have been the history and procession of the order of the garter. The proposal struck the king’s taste, and, in Walpole’s opinion, was accepted; though, he adds, that “some say it was rejected, on the extravagant price demanded by Vandyck I would not specify the sum, it is so improbable, if I did not find it repeated in Fenton’s notes on Waller; it was fourscore thousand pounds!” But the sum being expressed in figures, this was probably a typographical error of 80,000l. for 8000l. The rebellion, however, prevented further thoughts of the scheme, as the death of Vandyck would have interrupted the execution, at least the completion of it. He died in Blackfriars Dec. 9, 1641, and was buried in St. Paul’s near the tomb of John of Gaunt.

, an English statesman, whose family name had for some generations been Fane, but originally Vane, to which he restored it, was born Feb. 18, 1589. The family is said to have been at first of the diocese of Durham, but were now settled in Kent. (See Collins, art. Darlington). In 16 11 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him by king James I. after which he improved himself by travel, and the acquisition of foreign languages. On his return he was elected member of parliament for Carlisle, in which his abilities were conspicuous. Such also was his attachment to the royal family, that king James made him cofferer to his son Charles, prince of Wales, on the establishment of his household, and he was continued in the same office by the prince when Charles I. He was also sent by the new king to notify to the States of Holland the death of his royal father, and made one of the privy-council. In Sept. 1631 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary, to renew the treaty of friendship and alliance with Christian IV. king of Denmark; and to conclude peace and confederacy with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden. He returned to England in Nov. 1632, and in May of the following year, entertained Charles I. in a sumptuous manner, at Raby-castle, on his way to Scotland to be crowned; as he did again, April 30, 1639, in his majesty’s expedition to Scotland, when sir Henry commanded a regiment of 1099 men. In 1639 he was made treasurer of the household, and next year, principal secretary of state in the room of sir John Coke. Hitherto he had enjoyed the confidence of the king, and had always been employed in the most important public affairs. But when he appeared in the prosecution against the earl of Strafford, his motives to which appear to have been of a personal kind, the king was so offended, that he removed him from his places of treasurer of his household, and also from being secretary of state, though, in the patent granting that office to him, he was to hold it during life. The parliament therefore made this one of their pleas for taking up arms against the king. In their declaration, they avowed, “it was only for the defence of the king’s person, and the religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom, and for those, who for their sakes, and for those ends, had observed their orders. That, by the instigation of evil counsellors, the king had raised an army of papists, by which he intended to awe and destroy the parliament, &c.; and the putting out the earl of Northumberland, sir Henry Vane, and others, &c. from their several places and employments, were sufficient and ample evidences thereof.”

It does not, however, appear that he was concerned in any measures against the king, but continued in London, without acting in the rebellion. And although on December 1, 1645, the parliament, debating on propositions of peace with the king, voted, that it be recommended to his majesty 10 create sir Henry Vane, senior, a baron of the kingdom, he never accepted any commission or employment under them. Before the murder of the king, he retired to his seat at Raby castle, neither he nor his sons being concerned therein. The earl of Clarendon is severe in his character of sir Henry Vane. He certainly was at one time in full confidence with the king, but his taking part against Strafford did incalculable mischief to the royal cause. Clarendon allows that, in his judgment, “he liked the government, both in church and state.” As to what his lordship observes, “of his growing at last into the hatred and contempt of those who had made most use of him, and died in universal reproach;” it may, says Collins, be more justly represented, that he saw the vile use they made of their power, and, contemning them, chose retirement. He lived to the latter end of 1654, when he departed this life, at his seat at Raby-castle, in the sixtyninth year of his age.

, eldest son of the preceding, and one of the most turbulent enthusiasts which the rebellion produced, was born in 1612, and educated at Westminsterschool, whence he went to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, and even at this early age seems to have embraced some of those republican opinions which were destined to plunge his country in all the miseries of anarchy. He is said to have then travelled to France and Geneva, and on his return betrayed such an aversion to the discipline and liturgy of the Church of England, as greatly displeased his father. Finding how obnoxious his principles made him, he determined to go to New England, then the resort of all who were disaffected to the Church of England. His father was against this wild scheme, but, according to Neal (in his History of New England), the king advised him to consent to it, and to limit his stay to three years. Young Vane’s purpose was to have begun a settlement on the banks of the river Connecticut; but the people upon his arrival, in 1635, complimenting him with the government of Massachusetts for the next year, he resolved to stay among them. He was, however, Neal says, ' no sooner advanced to the government, than he appeared to be a person of no conduct, and no ways equal to the post he was preferred to: being a strong enthusiast, he openly espoused the Antinomian doctrines, and gave such encouragement to the preachers and spreaders of them, as raised their vanity, and gave them such an interest among the people, as the very next year had like to have proved fatal both to the church and commonwealth; but the sober party observing his conduct, concerted such measures among themselves, as put an end to his government the next election.“Mather, another New England historian, speaks with still greater contempt of Vane, and says, that” Mr. Vane’s election will remain a blemish to their judgments who did elect him, while New England remains a nation.“Baxter tells us, that he became so obnoxious that” he was fain to steal away by night, and take shipping for England, before his year of government was at an end,“Baxter adds, that” when he came over into England, he proved an instrument of greater calamity to a people more sinful and more prepared for God’s judgments."

According to these accounts he must have returned home about 1636, and not 1639, as some have asserted. It is said that he now appeared to be reformed from the extravagances of his opinions, and married Frances, daughter of sir Christopher Wray, of Ash by, in Lincolnshire. He was also by his father’s interest joined with sir William Russel in the office of treasurer of the navy, a place of great trust and profit. He represented Kingston-upon-Hull in the parliament chosen 1640, and for some time seemed well satisfied with the government; but, upon his father’s taking umbrage at the lord Strafford’s being created in 1639 baron Raby (which title he had promised himself, and which Strafford laid hold of, merely out of contempt to the Vanes), both father and son formed a resolution of revenge. For this purpose the latter, who had received the honour of knighthood in 1640, joined Pymand other declared enemies of the court; and contributed all that intelligence which ended in the ruin of the earl, and which fixed himself in the entire confidence of the enemies of the king and of StrafFord, so that nothing was concealed from him, though it is believed that he communicated his thoughts to very few.

Upon the breaking out of the rebellion he adhered to the interest of the parliament with enthusiastic zeal. He began with carrying to the House of Peers the articles of impeachment against archbishop Laud; and was nominated one of the ]ay members of the assembly of divines. In 1643 he was appointed one of the commissioners sent by parliament to invite the Scots to their assistance. Under this character he distinguished himself as the “great contriver and promoter of the solemn league and covenant;” though, even at that time, he was known to have an equal aversion to it and to presbytery, which he demonstrated afterwards upon all occasions, being a zealous independent. In 1644, he was the grand instrument of carrying the famous self-denying ordinance, a delusive trick, which for a time gave life and spirit to the independent cause; and in his speech, upon introducing the debate on that subject, observed, that, though he had been possessed of the treasurership of the navy before the beginning of the troubles, without owing it to the favour of the parliament, yet he was ready to resign it to them; and desired that the profits of it might be applied towards the support of the war. He was likewise one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, in Jan. 1644-5, and of that of the Isle of Wight in 1648; in which last, as he was now determined to procure, if possible, a change in the government, he used all his efforts to retard any conclusion with his majesty till the army could be brought to London; and for that purpose amused the king’s party by the offer of a toleration for the common prayer and the episcopal clergy. Like many others, however, he did not foresee the consequences of his favourite measures, and therefore did not approve of the force put upon the parliament by the army, nor of the execution of the king; withdrawing for some time from the scene while these things were acted. But, upon the establishment of the commonwealth, 1648-9, he was appointed one of the council of state, in which post he was continued till the memorable dissolution of the parliament by Cromwell in 1643. On this occasion Cromwell, who treated individual members with personal insolence, took hold of sir Henry Vane by the cloak, saying, “Thou art a juggling fellow.” Vane, however, was too much of a republican to submit to his, or any authority, and was therefore, in 1656, summoned by Cromwell to appear before him in council. On his appearance Cromwell charged him with disaffection to his government, which appeared in a late publication of his called “A healing question proposed and resolved.” Vane acknowledged the publication, and avowed his displeasure with the present state of affairs. Cromwell therefore ordered him to give security for his good behaviour; but instead of this, which such a man as sir Henry Vane might probably find very difficult, he delivered to Cromwell a justification of his conduct; and this not being satisfactory, he was imprisoned in Carisbrooke castle, the spot on which he had so recently contributed to injure the cause of his legitimate sovereign. About four months after, he was released, and Cromwell tried to bring down his spirit by threatening to deprive him of some of his estates by legal process, that is, by such perversion of the law as he might find some of his creatures capable of attempting; intimating at the same time, that all this should drop, and he be gratified with, what he pleased, provided he would comply with the present government. But he remained inflexible, as well during Cromwell’s life, as during the short reign of Richard, against whom many meetings of the republicans were held at his house near Charing Cross.

Upon the restoration it was imagined, that, as the declaration from Breda was full of indemnity to all except the regicides, he was comprehended in it; his innocence of the king’s death was represented in such a manner by his friends, that an address was agreed upon by both houses of parliament in his behalf, to which a favourable answer, though in general terms, was returned by his majesty; and this being equivalent to an act of parliament, though it wanted the necessary forms, he was thought to be secure. But the share he had in the attainder of the earl of Strafford, and in all the violent measures which overturned the government, and, above all, the great opinion which was entertained of his parts and capacity to embroil matters again, made the court think it necessary to include him among the most dangerous enemies of the restoration. He was brought therefore to his trial on the 4th of June, 1G62, for imagining and compassing the death of king Charles I, and for taking upon him and usurping the government: in answer to which he urged, that neither the king’s death, nor the members themselves, could dissolve the long parliament, whereof he being one, no inferior could call him in question; but, being found guilty, he was, on the 14th, beheaded on Tower-hill, where he intended to have addressed the spectators, but drummers were placed under the scaffold, who, as soon as he began to speak, upon a sign given, struck up their drums. This, which is said to have been a new and very indecent practice, put him in no disorder; he only desired they might be stopped, for he understood what was meant by it. Then he went through his devotions; and, as he was taking leave of those about him, happening to say somewhat with relation to the times, the drums struck up a second time. Upon this he gave over, and died with such resolution as to excite the sympathy of those who had no respect for his general character and conduct.

His writings, which were of a very peculiar cast, were, 1. “A healing Question, propounded and resolved, upon occasion of the late public and seasonable call to humiliation, in order to love and union amongst the honest party, 1656,” 4to. It was written upon occasion of a general fast; and contained, says Ludlow, the state of the republicans’ controversy with the king, the present deviation from that cause for which they engaged, and the means to unite all parties in the accomplishment of it. 2. “The retired Man’s Meditations; or, the mystery and power of godliness shining forth in the living world,” &c. 1656, 4to, an enthusiastic treatise on our Saviour’s coming down to erect a fifth monarchy upon earth, which would last 1000 years. 3. “Of the Love of God and Union with God,” 1657, 4to. Of this book lord Clarendon says, “When I had read it, and found nothing of his usual clearness and ratiocination in his discourse, in which he used much to excel the best of the company he kept, and that, in a crowd of very easy words, the sense was too hard to find out, I was of opinion that the subject-matter of it was of so delicate a nature that it required another kind of preparation of mind, and, it may be, another kind of diet than men are ordinarily supplied with.” 4. “An Epistle General to the mystical body of Christ on earth, the church universal in Babylon, who are pilgrims and strangers on the earth, desiring and seeking after the heavenly country,” 1662, 4to. 5. “The Face of the Times; whereby is briefly discovered, by several prophetical Scriptures, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation, the rise, progress, and issue, of the enmity and contest between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, to the final breaking of the serpent’s head, to the total and irrecoverable ruin of the monarchies of this world,” &c. 1662, 4to. 6. “The People’s Cause stated. The valley of Jehosaphat considered and opened, by comparing 2 Chron. xx. with Joel iii. Meditations concerning man’s life government friendship enemies death;” penned during his imprisonment, and printed at the end of his trial, in 1662, 4to.

, a man of letters, and one of the first periodical essayists on the continent, was born at Utrecht, April 21, 1684. He was the son of an officer, who had no other fortune than a moderate pension, and as he died before Justus had completed his studies, the latter was left to provide as he could for his mother and a sister. Some friends who took an interest in the family procured him to be appointed tutor to the baron de Welderen’s son, which placed him above want; but as he could not do so much for his family as he wished, he had recourse to his pen for a farther supply. His first publication was “Le Misanthrope,” a periodical paper in imitation of our “Spectator,” which he wrote in French, commencing May 1711, and continuing till December 17 12. In thi he had great, and from what we have seen, deserved success. If he falls short of his model in that delicate humour of Addison, which has never been equalled, he abounds in just remarks on life and manners, evidently derived from extensive observation. Van Effen contrived to conceal himself throughout the whole of this publication, of which a second and improved edition was published at the Hague in 1726, 2 vols. 12mo, to which is added his “Journey to Sweden,” performed in 1719, in the suite of the prince of Hesse PhiJippsthal, who promised to make his fortune, but disappointed him. He consequently returned to the Hague as poor as he left it, and resumed his labours on the “Journal litteraire de la Haye,” in which he had been engaged before his departure. Having got into a literary quarrel with Camusat, who had treated his “Misanthrope” with contempt, he was so much hurt as to be glad to embrace the opportunity of going to Leyden with a young gentleman to whom he was appointed tutor. Here he engaged in some literary schemes by which he got more money than reputation. Count de Welderen, however, having been appointed ambassador to England from the States General, took Van Efien with him as secretary, and on his return procured him the place of inspector of the magazines at Bois-le-Duc, where he died Sept. 18, 1735-. Van Effen’s works were numerous, but being almost all anonymous, it is not easy to ascertain the whole. The following are said to be the principal: 1. “Le Misanthrope,” already noticed. 2. “Journal Litteraire,” 1715 to 1718, many of which volumes are entirely of his editing. 3. “La Bagatelle, ou Discours ironiques, ou Ton prete des sophistries ingenieux au vice et a l'extravagance, pour en mieux faire sentir le ridicule,” Artist. 1718 1719, 3 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Lausanne, 1743, 2 vols. 4. “Le nouveau Spectateur Francais,” of which only twenty-eight numbers appeared; four of them are employed on a critique on the works of Houdard de la Motte, who thanked the author for his impartiality. 5. “The Dutch Spectator,” in Dutch, Amst. 173J 1735, 12 vols. 8vo. 6. “Parallele d'Homere et de Chapelain,” Hague, 1714, 8vo. This has been also printed in the different editions of the “Chef-d‘oeuvre d’un inconnu,” i. e. M. de Themiseuil de St. Hyacinthe. 7. Translations of Robinson Crusoe, Swift’s Tale of a Tub, and some of Mandeville’s writings. 8. “Le Mentor moderne,” a translation of “The Guardian,” except the political papers. 9. “Histoire metallique des dix-sept Provinces de Pays-Bas,” translated from the Dutch of Van Loon, Hague, 1732, 5 vols. Van Effen is said also to have written “Les Petits Maitres,” a comedy; “Essai sur la maniere de trailer la controverse;” and a part of the “Journal historique, politique, et galante.”

, a Jesuit, and a modern Latin poet of considerable talents, was born in 1664 at Gausses in the diocese of Beziers, in Languedoc. He was educated at the Jesuits’ college in Beziers, and became one of the society in 1680. He was afterwards professor and rector of the schools belonging to the Jesuits in Montpellier, Toulouse, and Auch and died at Toulouse in 1739. He published a volume of poetical “Opuscula” and a good “Dictionary of Poetry,” in Latin,“4to, and had made great progress on a Latin and French Dictionary, which he did not live to finish. His principal Latin poem is his” Praedium Rusticum,“on the subject of a country farm, which, some thought, raised him to the first rank of modern Latin poets. The poem, however, is confessedly tedious, perhaps from the nature of the plan, and cannot be read with pleasure unless by those who happen to unite the scholar’s taste with the farmer’s knowledge. Arthur Murphy published in 1799, a translation of the fourteenth book of the” Praedium Rusticum,“which treats of bees. This he says was a juvenile performance, but he has introduced among the bees” French principles,“” corresponding societies," and other articles of very recent date, the prototypes of which are certainly not to be found in Vaniere.

, a writer who has generally been distinguished by the title of Atheist, was born at Tourosano, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1585; and was the son of John Baptist Vanini, steward to Don Francis de Castro, duke of Tourosano, and viceroy of Naples. His Christian name was Lucilio: but it was customary with him to assume different names in different countries. In Gascony, he called himself Pompeio; in Holland, Julius Ceesar, which name he placed in the title-pages of his books; and, at Toulouse, when he was tried, he was called Lucilio. He had an early taste for literature, and his father sent him to Rome to study philosophy and divinity, and on his return to Naples, he continued his studies in philosophy, and applied himself some time to physic. Astronomy likewise employed him much, which insensibly threw him into the reveries of astrology: but he bestowed the principal part of his time upon divinity. The title of “Doctor in utroque Jure,” which he assumes in the title-page of his dialogues, may indicate that he had applied himself to the civil and canon law; and from his writings, it certainly appears that he understood both. He finished his studies at Padua, where he resided some years, and procured himself to be ordained priest, and became a preacher, with what success is not known. His mind appears to have been perverted or confused by the reading of Aristotle, Averroes, Cardan, and Pomponatius, who became his favourite guides. His admiration of Aristotle was such, that he calls him “the god of philosophers, the dictator of human nature, and the sovereign pontiff of the sages.” The system of Averroes, which is but a branch of that of Aristotle, was so highly approved of by him, that he recommended it to his scholars at their first entrance upon the study of philosophy. He styles Pomponatius his “divine master,” and bestows great encomiums upon his works. He studied Cardan very much, and gives him the character of “a man of great sense, and not at all affected with superstition.” It is supposed that he derived from these authors those infidel doctrines which he afterwards endeavoured to propagate. Father Mersene assures us, that Vanini, before he was executed at Toulouse, confessed to the parliament, that at Naples he had agreed with thirteen of his friends to travel throughout Europe, for the sake of propagating atheism, and that France had fallen to his share: but this is very improbable, as the president Gramond, who was upon the spot, says nothing of such a scheme in his account of Vanini’s trial and execution. It is more probable, that his inclination to travelling, or perhaps the hopes of procuring an agreeable settlement, led him to the several places through which he passed; and that he spread his singular sentiments according as he had opportunity.

It has been remarked that we have very few dates in the biography of Vanini. We can only therefore say generally that, after he had commenced his travels, he went through part of Germany and the Low Countries, to Geneva, and thence to Lyons; whence, having presumed to vent his irreligious notions, under the pretext of teaching philosophy, he was obliged to fly. He passed over into England, and in 1614 was at London, where he was imprisoned for nine and forty days, “well prepared,” says he, with that air of devotion which runs through all his writings, “to receive the crown of martyrdom, which he longed for with all the ardour imaginable.” Being set at liberty, he repassed the sea, and took the road to Italy. He first stopped at Genoa, and undertook to teach youth; but, it being discovered that he had infused pernicious notions into their minds, he was forced to abandon that city. He then returned to Lyons, where he endeavoured to gain the favour of the ecclesiastics by a pretended confutation of Cardan and other atheistical writers, in which he artfully contrived, by the weakness of his arguments, to give his opponents the advantage. This work was printed at Lyons, in 1615, 8vo, under the title of “Amphitheatrum eeternae Providentiae Divino-Magicum, Christiano-Physicum, necnon Astrologo-Catholicum, adversus veteres Philosophos Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos, & Stoicos. Autore Julio Ceesare Vanino, Philosopho, Theologo, ac Juris utriusque Doctore;” dedicated to the count de Castro, the protector of his family and his benefactor; and it so far imposed orVtbe licensers of books, as to receive their approbation. But Vanini being apprehensive that his artifice might be detected, went again into Italy; where being accused of reriving and propagating his former impieties, he returned to France, and became a monk in the convent of Guienne, a/nd from this he is said to have been banished for immorality. He then retired to Paris, where he endeavoured to introduce himself to Robert Ubaldini, the pope’s nuncio; and, in order to make his court to him and the clergy in general, undertook to write an apology for the council of Trent. He procured likewise several friends, and had access to the mareschal de Bassompierre, who made him his chaplain, and gave him a pension of two hundred crowns. Upon this account, he dedicated to him his “Dialogues,” which were printed at Paris in 1616, 8vo, with this title, “Julii Caesaris Vanini, Neapolitani, Theologi, Philosophi, & Juris utriusque Doctoris, de admirandis Naturae Reginae Deaeque Mortalium arcanis, libri quatuor.” This work likewise was printed with the king’s privilege, and the approbation of three learned doctors, either from carelessness or ignorance. In his “Amphitheatrum” he had taken some pains to disguise his irreligion; but in these “Dialogues,” his sentiments are too obvious, and notwithstanding their having escaped the censors of the press, the faculty of the Sorbonne soon discovered their tendency, and condemned them to the flames. Finding himself now become generally obnoxious, and in consequence reduced to poverty, he is said to have written to the pope, that, “If he had not a good benefice soon bestowed upon him, he would in three months’ time overturn the whole Christian religion;” but although it is not impossible that Vanini might have written such a letter for the amusement of his friends, it is scarcely credible that he should have sent it to Rome. Whatevermay be in this, it is certain that he quitted Paris in 1617, and returned to Toulouse; where he soon infused his impious notions into the minds of his scholars, in the course of his lectures on physic, philosophy, and divinity. This being discovered, he was prosecuted, and condemned to be burnt to death, which sentence was executed Feb. 19, 1619. Gramond, president of the parliament of Toulouse, gives us the following account of his death. “About the same time, Feb. 1619, by order of the parliament of Toulouse, was condemned to death Lucilio Vanini, who was esteemed an arch-heretic with many persons, but whom I always looked upon as an atheist. This wretch pretended to be a physician, but in reality was no other than a seducer of youth. He laughed at every thing sacred: he abominated the incarnation of our Saviour, and denied the being of a God, ascribing all things to chance. He adored nature, as the cause of all beings: this was his principal error, whence all the rest were derived; and he had the boldness to teach it with great obstinacy at Toulouse. He gained many followers among the younger sort, whose foible it is to be taken with any thing that appears extraordinary and daring. Being cast into prison, he pretended at first to be a catholic; and by that means deferred his punishment. He was even just going to be set at liberty, for want of sufficient proofs against him, when Franconi, a man of birth and probity, deposed, that Vanini had often, in his presence, denied the existence of God, and scoffed at the mysteries of the Christian religion. Vanini, being brought before the senate, and asked what his thoughts were concerning the existence of a Gpd answered, that < he adored with the church a God in three persons,‘ and that * Nature evidently demonstrated the being of a deity:’ and, seeing by chance a straw on the ground, he took it up, and stretching it forth, said to the judges, ‘ This straw obliges me to confess that there is a God;’ and he proved afterwards very amply, that God was the author and creator of all things, nature being incapable of creating any thing. But all this he said through vanity or fear, rather than an inward conviction; and, as the proofs against him were convincing, he was by sentence of parliament condemned to die, after they had spent six months in preparing things for a hearing. I saw him in the dung-cart, continues Gramond, when he was carried to execution, making sport with a friar, who was allowed him in order to reclaim him from his obstinacy. Vanini refused the assistance of the friar, and insulted even our Saviour in these words, ‘ He sweated with weakness and fear in going to suffer death, and I die undaunted.* This profligate wretch had no reason to say that he died undaunted: I saw him entirely dejected, and making a very ill use of that philosophy of which he so much boasted. At the time when he was going to be executed he had a horrible and wild aspect; his mind was uneasy, and he discovered in all his expressions the utmost anxiety; though from time to time he cried out that he ’ died like a philosopher.' Before the fire was applied to the wood-pile, he was ordered to put out his tongue, that it might be cut off; which he refused to do; nor could the executioner take hold of it but with pincers. There never was heard a more dreadful shriek than he then gave; it was like the bellowing of an ox. His body was consumed in the flames, and his ashes thrown into the air. I saw him in prison, and at his execution; and likewise knew him before he was arrested. He had always abandoned himself to the gratification of his passions, and lived in a very irregular manner. When his goods were seized there was found a great toad alive in a large crystal bottle full of water. Whereupon he was accused of witchcraft; but he answered, that that animal being burned, was a sure antidote against all mortal and pestilential diseases. While he was in prison he pretended to be a catholic, and went often to the sacrament, but, when he found there were no hopes of escaping, he threw off the mask, and died as he had lived.”

Vanini has not been without his apologists, who bay* considered him rather as a victim to bigotry and envy, than as a martyr to impiety and atheism. They even go so far as to maintain that neither his life nor his writings were so absurd or blasphemous as to entitle him to the character of a despiser of God and religion. The arguments of these apologists may be found in Buddeus’s “Theses de Atheismo et Superstitione,” in Arp’s “Apologia pro Vanino,” 1712, and in Heister’s “Apologia pro medicis.” The life of Vanini has been written several times; but that by M. Durand, entitled “La Vie et les Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini,” and printed at Rotterdam, 1727, in 12 mo, comprises every thing which has been said of him, bnt by no means justifies the zeal of his apologists. An English translation of Durand was published in 1730.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Nice, Feb. 15, 1705. He went to Turin with his brother John in 1712, and thence to Rome in 1714. He learnt from his brother the first elements of design; and, by his constantly studying the antique, and the works of the greatest masters, he laid the foundation of his future fame. He came to Paris with his brother in 1719, and in 1723 gained the academy’s first medal for design: in the year following he carried the first prize for painting; and departed again for Rome in 1727. He returned to Turin in 1732, where he painted many historical pieces with success for the king of Sardinia. The next year he married Signora Sommis, who was celebrated for singing and knowledge of music, but more celebrated for the private virtues of domestic life. In 1734 he returned to Paris, and the year following was received into the academy. In 1749 he was chosen for the direction of the royal eleves. In 1751 he was honoured with the order of St. Michael, and in 1762 named first painter to the king, and died in 1765. His principal performances are in the churches of Paris, and are much admired.

, an eminent painter, was born at Siena, in 1563, the son of a painter who was in no great reputation, and received his earliest instruction in the school ofArchangelo Salimbeni; but when he was twelve years old he travelled to Bologna, and there studied for two years under the direction of Passerotti. Yet finding in himself an impatient desire to see the celebrated antiques, and the works of Raphael, he went to Rome, and placed himself with Giovanni da Vecchia. By the precepts of that master, his proficiency was extraordinary; so that his performances not only extorted applause from the ablest judges, but also excited the jealousy and envy of Gioseppino, who was instructed in the same school. Having thus established his taste, he returned to his native city, where he studiously contemplated the paintings of Baroccio, and so highly admired them, that he preferred the style and manner of that master to all others, imitated him with success; and was generally esteemed to be no way inferior. Yet he profited afterwards by studying the compositions of Correggio. He was principally engaged in grand works for the churches and convents at Siena and at Rome. To the latter of those cities he was invited by pope Clement VIII. and, by order of that pontiff, he painted in the church of St. Peter an incomparable design, representing Simon the sorcerer reproached by St. Peter; for which performance he received the honour of knighthood. He undoubtedly had an excellent genius; his invention was fruitful and ready, his style of composition truly fine, and his design correct. His manner of colouring was bold, lively, and beautiful his penciling tender and delicate; and the airs of his heads were remarkably graceful. The most capital works of Vanni are at Siena, Rome, Pisa, and Pistoia; among which are mentioned a Crucifixion, a Flight into Egypt, the Wise Men’s offering to Christ, and the Marriage of St. Catherine, all of them esteemed admirable. He died in 1610, aged forty-seven.

, one of the most celebrated physicians of the last century, and who attained the highest honours in his profession, was born at Leyden, May 7, 1700, of a very ancient family, which had furnished many distinguished characters for the state, the bar, and the array. He had the misfortune to lose his parents at a time when their affection would have been of most importance to him, and fell into the hands of tutors who took very little care of his property, and less of his education. This last, however, became early his own concern, and a thirst for knowledge led him to form a successful plan. After studying the classics at Leyden, he went in 1716 to Louvain, where, after a course of philosophy for two years, he was admitted into the first class, and his masters would have been glad to have detained him that he might become a farther ornament to their university; but he had by this time fixed his choice on medicine as a profession, and therefore returned to Leyden, where he placed himself under the illustrious Boerhaave. Van Swieten was not more happy in such a master than Boerhaave was in directing the studies of a pupil who soon promised to extend his favourite science. After seven years’ study here, Van Swieten, in 1725, received his doctor’s degree, and Boerhaave, notwithstanding the disparity of years and of fame, chose him for his friend, and discerned in him his future successor.

After he had taken his doctor’s degree he continued to attend Boerhaave’s lectures for about twenty years, and having within this period been himself appointed a professor, his fame and talents brought a vast addition to the number of medical students at Leyden, who came from Germany, France, and England, to what was then the greatest and perhaps the only school of medicine in Europe. Celebrated as the school of Leyden was, however, from the joint labours of Boerhaave and Van Swieten, it was at last disgraced in the person of the latter. His growing reputation excited the envy of some of his contemporaries, who having nothing else to object, took the mean advantage of his being a Roman catholic, and insisting that the law should be put in force, obliged him to resign an office which he had filled with so much credit to the university. Van Swieten submitted to this treatment with dignified contempt, and being now more at leisure, began his great work, his Commentaries on Boerhaave’sAphorisms, the first volume of which was finished, and the second nearly so, when the empress Maria Theresa invited him to her court; and although he felt some reluctance at quitting the studious life he had hitherto led, he could not with propriety reject the offer, and accordingly arrived at Vienna in June 1745. Here he was appointed first physician to the court, with a handsome establishment, and some time after the dignity of baron was conferred upon him. How well he merited these honours, the favourable change effected by him in the state of medical science sufficiently proved. He was now in the prime of life, and perhaps few men in Europe were better qualified, by extent of knowledge, to lay the foundation for a school of medicine. He was not only thoroughly versed in every branch of medicine, in botany, anatomy, surgery, chemistry, &c. but was well acquainted with most of the European languages. He was a good Greek and Latin scholar, and wrote the latter with ease and elegance, and in his lectures was frequently happy in his quotations from the Greek and Latin classics. He was also well versed in all the branches of mathematics, and natural philosophy; and had paid no little attention to divinity, law, politics, and history. Such attainments procured him the confidence of his sovereign, whom he easily prevailed upon to rebuild the university of Vienna in an elegant style, and with every accommodation for the pursuit of the different sciences. The botanical garden was enlarged, and the keeping of it given to M. Langier; and a clinical lecture was established in one of the principal hospitals by M. De Haen. It was in 1746 that Van Swieten first began to execute his plan for reforming the study of medicine in the university of Vienna, by giving lectures in the vestibule of the imperial library; and when his business as first physician increased, he called in the aid of able professors who understood his views; among whom were the celebrated Storck and Crantz. Having been appointed keeper of the imperial library, his first measure was to abolish a barbarous law that had long been in force, which prohibited any person from making notes or extracts from any of the books. Van Swieten, on the contrary, laid the whole open to the use of readers, and provided them with every accommodation, and ample permission to transcribe what they pleased. He also prevailed on the empress to increase the salaries of the professors of the university, and to provide for the education of young men of talents. He was himself a most liberal patron to such as stood in need of this aid, and employed his whole influence in their favour; and he lived to promote the interests of learning in general throughout the Austrian dominions to an extent hitherto unknown.

, an Italian historian, poet, and critic, was born at- Florence in 1502. His father, a lawyer, placed him with a master, who reported that he was not fit for literature, and advised him to breed the boy up to merchandise. He was accordingly sent to a counting-­house, and there his masters discovered that he never was without a book, and minded nothing but reading. His father then, after examining him, found that he had been deceived by the school-master, and determined to give his son a learned education, and for that purpose sent him to Padua and Pisa. Unfortunately, however, he prescribed the study of the law, which Varchi relished as little as commerce; and although, out of filial respect, he went through the usual courses, he immediately, on his father’s death, relinquished both the study and practice of the law, and determined to devote all his attention to polite literature. In this he acquired great reputation; but when Florence became distracted by civil commotions, he joined the party in opposition to the Medici family, and was banished. During his exile he resided at Venice, Padua, and Bologna, where his talents procured him many friends; and his works having diffused his reputation more widely, Cosmo de Medicis had the generosity to forgive the hostility he had shewn to his family, and, respecting him as a man of letters, recalled him home, and appointed him his historiographer. In this capacity he recommended him to write the history of the late revolutions in Florence. All this kindness, accompanied with a handsome pension, produced a great change in the mind of the republican Varchi, who became now the equally zealous advocate of monarchy. As soon as he had finished a part of it, he submitted it to the inspection of his patron, and some copies were taken of it. These being seen by soma persons who suspected that he would make free with their characters, or the characters of their friends, they conspired to assassinate the apostate author, as they thought him; and having one night attacked him, left him weltering in his blood, but his wounds were not mortal; and although it is said he knew who the assassins were, he declined appearing against them. He was, however, so much affected by the affair, that he embraced the ecclesiastical profession, and obtained some preferment. He died at Florence in 1565. His history, which extends from 1527 to 1538, was not published until 1721, at Cologne, and reprinted at Leydeu 1723; but both these places are wrong, as both editions were published in Italy. There is a recent edition, Milan, 1803, 5 vols. 8vo. The style, like that of all his works, is pure and elegant, though a little too much elaborated. The facts, of course, are strongly tinctured with an attachment to the house of Medici.

, a celebrated French mathematician and priest, was born at Caen in 1654. He was the son of an architect in middling circumstances, but had a college education, being intended for the church. Having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid’s Elements, he was inclined to study it, and this led him to the works of Des Cartes, which confirmed his taste for geometry, and he even abridged himself of the necessaries of life to purchase books which treated on this science. What contributed to heighten this passion in him was, that he studied in private: for his relations observing that the books he studied were not such as were commonly used by others, strongly opposed his application to them; and as there was a necessity for his being an ecclesiastic, he continued his theological studies, yet not entirely sacrificing his favourite subject to them. At this time the Abbé St. Pierre, who studied philosophy in the same college, became acquainted with him. A taste in common for rational subjects, whether physics or metaphysics, and continued disputations, formed the bonds of their friendship, and they became mutually serviceable to each other in their studies. The abbe, to enjoy Varignon’s company with greater ease, lodged in the same house with him; and being in time more sensible of his merit, he resolved to give him a fortune, that he might fully pursue his inclination. Out of only 18 hundred livres a year, which he had himself, he conferred 300 of them upon Varignon; and when determined to go to Paris to study philosophy, he settled there in 1686, with M. Varignon, in the suburbs of St. Jacques. There each studied in his own way; the abbé applying himself to the study of men, manners, and the principles of government whilst Varignon was wholly occupied with the mathematics. Fontenelie, who was their countryman, often went to see them, sometimes spending two or three days with them. They had also room for a couple of visitors, who came from the same province. “We joined together,” says Fontenelle, “with the greatest pleasure. We were young, full of the first ardour for knowledge, strongly united, and, what we were not then perhaps disposed to think so great a happiness, little known. Varignon, who had a strong constitution, at least in his youth, spent whole days in study, without any amusement or recreation, except walking sometimes in fine weather. I' have heard him say, that in studying after supper, as he usually did, he was often surprised to hear the clock strike two in the morning; and was much pleased that four hours rest were sufficient to refresh him. He did not leave his studies with that heaviness which they usually create; nor with that weariness that a long application might occasion. He left off gay and lively, filled with pleasure, and impatient to renew it. In speaking of mathematics, he would laugh so freely, that it seemed as if he had studied for diversion. No condition was so much to be envied as his; his life was a continual enjoyment, delighting in quietness.” In the solitary suburb of St. Jacques, he formed however a connection with many other learned men; as Du Hamel, Du Verney, De la Hire, &c. Du Verney often asked his assistance in those parts of anatomy connected with mechanics: they examined together the positions of the muscles, and their directions; hence Varignon learned a good deal of anatomy from Du Verney, which he repaid by the application of mathematical reasoning to that subject. At length, in 1687, Varignon made himself known to the public by a “Treatise on New Mechanics,” dedicated to the Academy of Sciences. His thoughts on this subject were, in effect, quite new. He discovered truths, and laid open their sources. In this work, he demonstrated the necessity of an equilibrium, in such cases as it happens in, though the cause of it is not exactly known. This discovery Varignon made by the theory of compound motions, and his treatise was greatly admired by the mathematicians, and procured the author two considerable places, the one of geometrician in the Academy of Sciences, the other of professor of mathematics in the college of Mazarine, to which he was the first person raised.

In regard to his character, Fontenelle observes, that it was at this time that a writing of his appeared, in which he censured Dr. Wallis for having advanced that there are certain spaces more than infinite, which that great geometrician ascribes to hyperbolas. He maintained, on the contrary, that they were finite. The criticism was softened with all the politeness and respect imaginable; but a criticism it was, though he had written it only for himself. He let M. Carre see it, when he was in a state that rendered him indifferent about things of that kind; and that gentleman, influenced only by the interest of the sciences, caused it to be printed in the memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, unknown to the author, who thus made an attack against his inclination.

, a French writer, more known than esteemed for several historical works, was descended from a good family, and born at Gueret in 1624. After a liberal education, of which he made the proper advantage, he became a private tutor to some young persons of quality; and then went to Paris, where he was well received as a man of letters, and had access to the Dupuy’s, whose house was the common rendezvous of the learned. He obtained afterwards a place in the kings’ library, by his interest with Nicolas Colbert, who was made librarian after the death of James Dupuy in 1655. Mr. Colbert, afterwards minister of state, commissioned his brother Nicolas to find out a man capable of collating certain manuscripts. Varillzte was recommended, and had the abbe" of St. Real for his coadjutor; and handsome pensions were settled upon both. But whether Varillas was negligent and careless, or had not a turn for this employment, he did not give satisfaction, and was therefore dismissed from his employment in 1662; yet had his pension continued till 1670. He then retired from the royal library, and spent the remainder of his days in study, refusing, it is said, several advantageous offers. He lived frugally and with oeconomy, and yet not through necessity, for his circumstances were easy. St. Come was the seat of his retirement; where he died June 9, 1696, aged seventy-two.

, usually styled the most learned of all the Romans, was born in the year of Rome 638, or 28 B.C. His immense learning made him the admiration of his time; which yet was the most flourishing for arts and glory that Rome ever knew. He was an intimate friend of Cicero; and his friendship was confirmed and immortalized by a mutual dedication of their learned works to each other. Thus Cicero dedicated his “Academic Questions” to Varro; and Varro dedicated his “Treatise on the Latin tongue” to Cicero, who, in a letter in which he recommends him as questor to Brutus, assures the commander, that he would find him perfectly qualified for the post, and particularly insists upon his good sense, his indifference to pleasure, and his patient perseverance in business. To these virtues he added uncommon abilities, and large stores of knowledge, which qualified him for the highest offices of the state. He attached himself to the party of Pompey, and in the time of the triumvirate was proscribed with Cicero: and, though he escaped with his life, he suffered the loss of his library, and of his own writings; a loss which would be severely felt by one who had devoted a great part of his hfe to letters. Returning, at length, to Rome, he spent his last years in literary leisure. He died in the 727th year of the city. His prose writings were exceedingly numerous, and treated of various topics in antiquities, chronology, geography, natural and civil history, philosophy, and criticism. He was, besides, a poet of some distinction, and wrote in almost every kind of verse. He is said to have been eighty when he wrote his three books “De Re Rustica,” which are still extant. Five of his books “De Lingua Latina,” which he addressed to Cicero, are also extant, and some fragments of his works, particularly of his “Menippean Satires,” which are medleys of prose and verse. Scaliger has likewise collected some of his epigrams from among the “Catalecta Virgilii. The first edition of Varro” De Lingua Latina“is a quarto, without date or place, but supposed to be Rome, 1471. There is a second, at Venice, 1474, 4to, and a third at Rome, 1474, fol. His whole works, with the notes of Scaliger, Turnebus, &c. were printed by Henry Stephens, 1573, 8vo, reprinted 1581; but the former edition is in greatest request among the curious, on account of a note of Scaliger' s, p. 212, of the second part, which was omitted in the subsequent editions. Varro” De Re Rustica“is inserted among the” Auctores de Re Rustica." The use which Virgil makes of this work in his Georgics entitles it *o some respect; and it is amusing as giving us a notion of the agriculture of his time, and the method of laying out gardens, and providing the luxuries of the table, in which the Romans were particularly extravagant. It contains many absurdities, however, and many of those remarks and pieces of information which would now be thought a disgrace to the meanest writer on agriculture. The rev. T. Owen, of Queen’s college, Oxford, and rector of Upper Scudamore, in Wiltshire, published a good translation of this work in 1800, 8vo.

an eminent Hebrew scholar, was born at Gamache in Picardy, in the early part of the sixteenth century. In 1531 he was appointed regius professor of Hebrew in the university of Paris, one of the royal professorships at that time founded by Francis I. and in this office gained the highest reputation. Among his hearers were many learned Jews, who much admired his lectures, which were all delivered extempore, nor does he appear to have committed any of them to writing. Some of his scholars, however, having taken notes of his observations on the Old Testament, Robert Stephens made a collection of them, which he added to Leo Juda’s version of the Bible, printed at Paris in 1545. Of their accuracy no doubts have been entertained, although Stephens probably might correct what he thought the errors of the transcribers. Yet as a protestant translation was joined to them, the doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris condemned them, while those of Salamanca, with more liberality, caused Vatablus’s Bible, for such it was called, to be reprinted in Spain with approbation. Stephens wrote a defence of it against the censures of the Parisian divines, who, Dupin allows, were at that time not sufficiently acquainted with the Hebrew language.

Vatablus was an excellent Greek scholar, and translated some parts of Aristotle’s works. He also assisted Clement Marot in his poetical translation of the Psalms, by giving him a literal version from the Hebrew. He had the credit of being the restorer of the study of the Hebrew language in France, and taught many able scholars, particularly Brentius and Mercerus (see Mercier), who both succeeded him in his professorship. He died March 16, 1547.

an eminent publicist, was the son of a clergyman of Neufchatel, where he was born April 25, 1714. After completing his studies, he went to Berlin, where he became acquainted with some of the literati of that city, and thence to Dresden, and was introduced to the king of Poland and the elector of Saxony, who received him with great kindness, and some years after he was appointed privy- councillor to the elector. He was residing at Dresden in 1765 when his health began to decline, which obliged him to try the air of his native country; but this proved ineffectual, and he died at Neufehatel in 1767, in the fifty-third year of his age. He owed his literary reputation first to some publications, which, we believe, are not much known in this country, as a “Defence of Leibnitz’s philosophy against M. de Crousaz,” published in 1741, and dedicated to Frederick the Great, king of Prussia; and “Pieces diverses de morale et d'amusement,” published at Paris in 1746. But he became known to all Europe by his “Droit des gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle,” published at Neufchatel in 1758, and translated into most European languages, and often reprinted. We have at least two editions of it in English, under the title of “The Law of Nations; or, principles of the Law of Nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns,” 1760, 4to, and 1793, 8vo. What particularlyrecommended this work to the favour of the English, was their finding the opinions of their countrymen generally adopted, and England brought as a proof of a wise and happy constitution. The opinions of Milton and Harrington are frequently confirmed, while the maxims of Puffendorf and Grotius, who often adapted their opinions to the states in which they lived, are refuted with strength and perspicuity. In general Vattel takes Wolff, the celebrated Saxon philosopher, for his guide; but in many places be differs totally from him, and this produced a controversy between them. The points on which they differ may be seen in a publication by Vattel, which appeared in 1762, entitled “Questions sur le Droit Naturel: et Observations sur le Traite du Droit de la Nature de M. le Baron de Wolff.” In the mean time Vattel’s “Law of Nations” became more and more the favourite of men who study such subjects, and has for many years been quoted as a work of high authority, and as in many respects preferable to Grotius and Puffendorf, being more methodical, more comprehensive, and more simple than either.

His book “De Ludicra Dictione,” printed in 1658, was written to oppose a bad taste, which then prevailed in France, when the works of Scarron and Dassouci were very popular; by shewing, that the Greeks and Komans knew nothing of the burlesque style, although Mons. le Clerc is of opinion, that something of it may be found in Aristophanes. He wrote this at the request of Balzac, who had a great dislike to this style; but Balzac died before it was published. As all the authors of antiquity, who have mixed any pleasantries or bon-mots in their writings, were necessarily to be examined in the course of this treatise, Vavassor had an opportunity of shewing very extensive reading. Another of his works, not approved much less than the former, is his book “De Epigrammate,” printed in 1669, and reprinted with his “Epigrams” in 1672, 12mo; in which there are many new and just observations. It however laid the foundation of a dispute between him and Rapin who, in his “Reflections on Aristotle’s poesy,” printed in 1674, after having said, that the epigram, of all the works in verse that antiquity has produced, is the least considerable, adds, “I find nothing considerable to say on those who have attempted any thing in this way among the moderns. It is one of the sorts of verse, in which a man has little success; for, it is a kind of a lucky hit if it proves well. An epigram is little worth unless it be admirable; and, it is so rare to make them admirable, that it is sufficient to have made one in a man’s life. Maynard has succeeded the best in this way of all our French poets.” A man jealous of his reputation, and naturally splenetic, which is said to have been Vavassor’s character, must have been extremely hurt with this; and accordingly the year after, 1675, he published “Remarks upon the Reflections of Rapin,” which had no name to them and, for the sake of abusing him, pretended not to know, while every body else knew very well, who the author of those reflections was. Rapin complained loudly of this ill-treatment; and Vavassor’s book, by way of re* dress, was suppressed by order of the society. Vavassor’s other treatises are chiefly theological.;-*ii his works were collected and printed at Amsterdam, 1709, in folio; with a prefatory discourse by Le Clerc.

, marechal of France, commissioner-general of fortifications, and the greatest engineer which France has produced, was the son of Urban le Prestre, seigneur de Vauban, a descendant of an ancient and noble family of Nivernois. He was born May 1, 1633, and was in the army at the early age of seventeen, where his uncommon talents and genius for fortification soon became known, and were eminently displayed at the sieges of St. Menehould, 1652 and 1653, of Stenay 1654, and of several other places in the following years. He consequently rose to the highest military ranks by his merit and services: and was made governor of the citadel of Lisle in 1668, and commissioner-general of fortifications in 1678. He took Luxemburg in 1684, and, being appointed lieutenant-general in 1688, was present, the same year, at the siege and capture of Philipsburg, Manheim, and Frankendal, under the dauphin. This prince, as a reward for his services, gave him four pieces of cannon, which he was permitted to chuse from the arsenals of these three towns, and place in his castle at Bazoche; an honour afterwards granted to the famous marechal Saxe. M. de Vauban commanded on the coast of Flanders in 1689, and was made marechal of France, Jan. 14, 1703. His dignity was expensive to him, but the king would not permit him to serve as an inferior officer, though he offered it in a very handsome manner. He died at Paris, March 30, 1707, aged seventy-four. He was a man of high and independent spirit, of great humanity, and entirely devoted to the good of his country. As an engineer, he carried the art of fortifying, attacking, and defending towns, to a degree of perfection unknown before his time. He fortified above 300 ancient citadels, erected thirty- three new ones, and had the principal management and direction of fifty-three sieges, and was present at one hundred and forty engagements. But his countrymen tell us that it was unnecessary for him to exert his skill in defending a fort; for the enemies of France never attacked those in which he was stationed. His works are, a treatise entitled “La Dixme Roïale,” 1707, 4to and 12mo, which displays some patriotic principles, but the plan is considered as impracticable. A vast collection of Mss. in 12 vols. which he calls his “Oisivetés,” contain his ideas, reflections, and projects, for the advantage of France. The three following works are also attributed to him, but whether he wrote them, or whether they have been compiled from his Memoirs, and adapted to his ideas, is uncertain: “Maniere de fortifier,” 8vo and 12mo, printed also at Paris by Michalet, 8vo, under the title of “L'Ingéieur François.” M. Hebert, professor of mathematics, and the abbe“du Fay, have written notes on this treatise, which is esteemed, and is said to have been revised by the chevalier de Cambrai, and reprinted at Amsterdam, 1702 and 1727, 2 vols. 4to; 2.” Nouveau Traite de l'Attaque et de la Défense des Places, suivant le Systeme de M. de Vauban, par M. Desprez de Saint Savin,“1736, 8vo, much esteemed; 3.” Essais sur la Fortification, par M. de Vauban,“1740, 12mo. As to the” Political Testament" ascribed to him, it was written by Peter le Pesant, sieur de Boïs Guillebert, lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of Rouen, who died 1714. M. de Vauban’s second cousin, Anthony de Prestre, known by the name of Puy Vauban, was also a very eminent engineer. He died lieutenant-general of the king’s forces, and governor of Bethune, April 10, 1731, aged seventy-seven.

He was ont- of those who first corrected and refined the French language to an extraordinary degree of purity. He had cultivated it with peculiar care and attention from his infancy, and formed himself chiefly upon Coeffeteati, whose writings he held in such esteem, and, above all, his “Roman History,” that he could hardly allow any phrases or expressions to be pure and genuine but what were to be found in that work: which made Balzac say pleasantly, that, “in the judgment of Vaugelas, salvation was no more to be had out of the Roman History than out of the Roman church.” His principal talent was in prose: for though he wrote some verses in Italian that were admired, yet he could not succeed in his own language. His most important works are, 1. “Remarques sur la Langue Franchise, Paris, 1647,” in 4to. Mr. de la Monnoye has observed of the preface to this excellent treatise, that it is a masterpiece of elegance and solidity. 2. “Quint.-Curce de la vie & des actions d'Alexandre le Grand, traduit du Latin, Paris, 1653,” in 4to. Vaugelas spent thirty years in translating this author, perpetually altering and correcting it, as it was his principal object to make it a model of the purest style. Voiture, who was the intimate friend of Vaugelas, used to rally him on this fastidious nicety and long delay, and told him that it could never be finished; for that, while he was polishing one part, the language must needs undergo some revolution, and he would have all the rest to do over again: and he applied to him Martial’s epigram upon the barber, who was so long in shaving one part of the face, that the beard in the mean time grew again upon the other. It is allowed, however, that the French language owes much to Vaugelas, and Voltaire says his translation of Quintus Curtius was the first good book written with purity; and that there are few of the expressions and terms that are yet become obsolete.

Henry Vaughan had a twin-brother, Thomas Vaughan, who styles himself in his strange writings, Eugenius Philalethes. He also came to Jesus college at the same time with his brother, but remained longer, and took one degree in arts, and was made fellow. He then entered into holy orders, and was made rector of St. Bridget, near Brecknock, a living conferred upon him by his kinsman, sir George Vaughan. But being interrupted in the quiet possession of this by the commotions of the times, he returned to Oxford, and distinguished himself for extravagant admiration of Cornelius Agrippa, and for many publications of the alchymical kind, replete with the grossest absurdities. Among these are his “Anthroposophia Theomagica,” dedicated to his brethren the Rosicrucians, Lond. 1650, 8vo, and his “Anima magica abscondita.” Dr, Henry More, on whom he had reflected, did him the honour to answer these publications in some “Observations” published the same year under the name of Alazonomastix Philalethes, and as he had made rather free with Vaughan, according to the controversial spirit of the times, and called him a Momus, a mimic, an ape, a fool in a play, a jackpudding, &c. Vaughan answered him in a work with a suitable title, “The Man-Mouse taken in a trap, and tortured to death for gnawing the margins of Eugenius Philalethes.” Mure again replied, but was afterwards ashamed of the controversy, and suppressed it in the edition of his collected works. Wood mentions other works, on magic, by Vaughan, the titles of which we may be excused transcribing. He is said to have died in consequence of some experiment with mercury, Feb. 27, 1665-6, and was buried in Oidbury church, Oxfordshire, at the expence of his friend and fellow Rosicrucian, sir Robert Moray, or Murray, of whom we have given an account in vol. XXII.

, lord chief justice of the commonpleas, was born in Cardiganshire, Sept. 14, 1608, and educated at Worcester school, whence he entered Christ Church, Oxford, in 1623, but left it without taking a degree, in 1626, and went to the Inner Temple for the study of the law. This, according to Wood, he neglected for some time, and was addicted to poetry and philosophy, until becoming acquainted with SeWen, he was advised to apply more diligently to his profession. In this he soon made such a figure as to be returned to the parliament of 1640, as member for the town of Cardigan. It is said that he was in his heart an enemy to monarchy, but never engaged in open hostility to Charles I. On the contrary, when the rebellion broke out he retired to his own country, and lived there principally until the restoration. He was then elected knight of the shire of Cardigan, in the parliament which began in 1661, and was much noticed by Charles II. In 1668 his majesty conferred the honour of knighthood upon him, and on May 22 of that year he was sworn serjeant-at-law, and the day following, lord chief justice of the common-pleas. He died Dec. 10, 1674, and was buried in the Temple church, near the grave of his friend Selden, who had appointed him one of his executors, and whose friendship for him is recorded on sir John’s monument.

Sir John Vaughan was not only versed in all the knowledge requisite to make a figure in his profession, but was also a very considerable master of the politer kinds of learning; but his behaviour among the generality of his acquaintances was haughty, supercilious, and overbearing; hence he was much more admired than beloved. The worst charge laid to him is that of having joined the enemies of lord Clarendon, who was once his friend, and had made him overtures of preferment.

, a French writer of considerable talents, was the son of John Vauvilliers, professor of rhetoric in the university of Paris, and of Greek in the royal college, who is known to the learned world by several Latin dissertations, particularly one “De praestantia Grsecarum literarum,” &c. He was born about 1736, and applied so diligently to his studies that he was able to assist his father in his rhetorical lectures. In 1767 he was appointed assistant to Vatry, the Greek professor in the royal college, and succeeding him, held that office for twenty years. On the commencement of the revolution he joined the revolutionists, and was for some time president of the first commune of Paris, and lieutenant to the mayor. In this office he had the care of furnishing Paris with'provisions, which he performed with great skill and success; but finding the mob gaining the superiority, resigned his office, and not only refused to sit in the constituent assembly, to which he was called, but published an opinion on the constitution of the clergy, which was so much in hostility to the measures then pursuing, that he was obliged for a time to conceal himself. He survived the worst period of the revolution, however, and in 1797 was chosen a member of the council of 500, but having joined the party of Clichy, was sentenced to transportation. On this he disappeared again, and found a refuge in St. Petersburgh, where the emperor Paul appointed him a member of the academy of sciences. The climate, however, and the sufferings he had been subjected to at home, did not permit him a long enjoyment of his present tranquillity. He died at St. Petersburg, July 23, 1800, in the sixtyfourth year of his age. He is characterised as a man of great simplicity of manners, joined to a tolerant and enlightened piety, and a contempt of riches. All his property, when confiscated at Paris, did not produce more than 1800 livres, and in Russia he scarcely left enough to pay for his funeral.

He shortly after studied philosophy at Alcala, and ingratiated himself with the duke of Alva, at whose instance he wrote his “Arcadia,” a mixture of prose and verse, romance and poetry, pastoral and heroic, the design of which was avowedly taken from Sannazarius, and which contains nearly as many deformities as beauties. Soon, after this he left the duke of Alva’s service, and married, but continued to cultivate his favourite studies, until, being involved in a duel, he wounded his antagonist so dangerously as to be obliged to leave Madrid, and his newly established family. He fixed upon Valencia as the place of his retreat, but returned to Madrid in a few years, when all apprehensions of evil consequences from his duel were allayed. He was probably soothing his imagination with prospects of domestic happiness, which his late absence had suspended, when he had the misfortune to lose his wife. The residence of Madrid, which he had so lately regarded as the summit of his wishes, now became insupportable; and scenes which had long been associated in his mind with ideas of present comfort and future reputation, served only to remind him of their loss. To fly from such painful recollections he hastily embarked on board the memorable Armada, which was then fitting out to invade England. The fate of this expedition is well known; and Lope, in addition to his share in the difficulties and dangers of the voyage, saw his brother, to whose society he had run for refuge in his late calamity, expire in his arms. During the voyage, however, his muse was not idle, for he composed the “Hermosura de Angelica,” a poem, which professes to take up the story of that princess where Ariosto had dropped it. When he published this poem in 1602, he added another, the “Dragontea,” an epic on the death of sir Francis Drake, who is abused by every coarse epithet, as indeed was his royal mistress Elizabeth, whose tyranny, cruelty, and above all, her heresy, are th_e perpetual objects of Lope’s poetical invective.

In 1590 he returned a second time to Madrid, and soon after married again. In 1598, on the canonization of St. Isidore, a native of Madrid, he entered the lists with several authors, and overpowered them all with the number if not with the merit of his performances. Prizes had been assigned for every style of poetry, but above one could not be obtained by the same person. Lope succeeded in the hymns; but his fertile muse, not content with producing a poem of ten cantos in short verse, as well as innumerable sonnets and romances, and two comedies on the subject, celebrated by an act of supererogation both the saint and the poetical competition of the day, in a volume of sprightly poems under the feigned name of Tom6 de Burguiilos. This success raised him, no doubt, in the estimation of the public, to whom he was already known by the number and excellence of his- dramatic writings and this was probably the most fortunate period of his life, and that in which he derived most satisfaction from his pursuits. About this time, however, we must fix the short date of his domestic comforts. Of three persons who formed his family, the son died at eight years, and was soon followed by his mother; the daughter alone survived our poet. He now resolved to seek consolation in the exercises of devotion; and, having been secretary to the Inquisition, he shortly after became a priest, and in 1609 an honorary member of the brotherhood of St. Francis.

Whatever the devotion of Lope, it did not break in upon his habits of composition, and as he had about this time acquired sufficient reputation to attract the envy of his fellow poets, he spared no exertions to maintain his post, and repel the criticisms of his enemies. Among these have been mentioned the formidable names of Gongora and Cervantes. Gongora had introduced an affected, bombast, and obscure style, which Lope first attacked irr hints in his plays, aad afterwards exposed its absurdities. in a letter prefixed to an eclogue on the death of Donna Isabel de Urbino, in 1621, and this he performed with great candour. As to Lope’s dispute with Cervantes, it is less distinctly narrated, and seems in some measure problematical. Whatever it was, posterity has long decided between them. “Cervantes,” says lord Holland,. “who was actually starving in the same street where Lope was living in splendour and prosperity, has been for near two centuries the delight and admiration of every nation in Europe; and Lope, notwithstanding the late edition of his works in 22 vols. is to a great degree neglected in his owft.”

He seldom passed a year without giving some poem to the press; and scarcely a month, or even a week, without producing some play upon the stage. His “Pastores de Belen,” a work in prose and verse on the Nativity, bad confirmed his superiority in pastoral poems; and rhymes, hymns, and poems without number on sacred subjects, had evinced his zeal in the profession he embraced. Philip IV. the great patron of the Spanish theatre, to which he afterwards is said to have contributed compositions of his own, at the aera of his accession, found Lope in full possession of the stage, and in the exercise of unlimited authority over the authors, comedians, and audience. New honours and benefices were immediately heaped on our poet, and in all probability he wrote occasionally plays for the royal palace. He published about the same time “Los Triumpbos de la F6” “Los Fortunas de Diana;” three novels in prose (unsuccessful imitations of Cervantes); “Circe,” an heroic poem, dedicated to the count duke of Olivarez and “Philomena,” a singular, but tiresome, allegory, in the second book of which he vindicates himself in the person of the nightingale from the accusation of his critics, who are there represented by the thrush.

Such was his reputation that he began to distrust the sincerity of the public, and seems to have suspected that there was more fashion than real opinion in the extravagance of their applause. This engaged him in a dangerous experiment, the publication of a poem without his name. But whether the number of his productions had gradually formed the public taste to his own standard of excellence, or that his fertile and irregular genius was singularly adapted to the times, the result of this trial confirmed the former judgment of the public; and his “Soliloquies to God,” though printed under a feigned name, attracted as much notice, and secured as many admirers, as any of his former productions. Emholdened probably by this success, he dedicated his “Corona Tragica,” a poem on the queen of Scots, to pope Urban VIII, who had himself composed an epigram on the subject. Upon this occasion he received from that pontiff a letter written in his own hand, and the degree of doctor of theology. Such a flattering tribute of admiration sanctioned the reverence in which his name was held in Spain, and spread his fame through every catholic country. The cardinal Barberini followed him with veneration in the streets; the king would stop to gaze at such a prodigy; the people crowded round him whereever he appeared; the learned and the studious thronged to Madrid from every part of Spain to see this phoenix of their country, this “monster of literature;” and even Italians, no extravagant admirers in general of poetry that is not their own, made pilgrimages from their country for the sole purpose of conversing with Lope. So associated was the idea of excellence with his name, that it grew in common conversation to signify any thing perfect in its kind; and a Lope diamond, a Lope day, or a Lope woman, became fashionable and familiar modes of expressing their good qualities.

The sensation produced by his death was, if possible, more astonishing than the reverence in which he was held while living. The splendour of his funeral, which was conducted at the charge of the most munificent of his patrons, the duke of Sesa, the number and language of the sermons on that occasion, the competition of poets of all countries in celebrating his genius and lamenting his loss, are unparalleled in the annals of poetry, and perhaps scarcel) equalled in those of royalty itself. The ceremonies attending his interment continued for nine days. His biographers, however, have been less careful to convey a just idea of this extraordinary man to posterity, and there is little in them that can throw any light upon his character as a man, or his history as an author. His intimate friend Montalvan praises him in general as a person of a mild and amiable disposition, of very temperate habits, of great erudition, singular charity, and extreme good breeding. His temper, he adds, was never ruffled but with those who took snuff before company; with the grey who dyed their locks; with men who, born of women, spoke ill of the sex; with priests who believed in gypsies; and with persons who, without intentions of marriage, asked others their age. These antipathies, which are rather quaint sallies of wit, than traits of character, are the only peculiarities which his intimate friend has t' >ught proper to communicate. We have already noticed his unreasonable complaints of illusage, neglect, and even poverty, which appear to have constituted the greatest blemish in his character. As an author, he is most known, as indeed he is most wonderful, for the prodigious number of his writings. Twenty-one million three hundred thousand of his lines are said to he actually printed; and no less than eighteen hundred plays of his composition to have been acted on the stage. Lord Holland has calculated that according to these accounts, allowing him to begin his compositions at the age of thirteen, we must believe that upon an average he wrote more than nine hundred lines a day; a fertility of imagination, and a celerity of pen, which, when we “consider the occupations of his life as a soldier, a secretary, a master of a family, and a priest; his acquirements in Latin, Italian, and Portuguese; and his reputation for erudition, become not only improhable, but absolutely* and, one may almost say, physically impossible. Yet although there does not now exist the fourth part of the works which he and his admirers mention, enough remains to render him one of the most voluminous authors that ever put pen to paper. Such was his facility, that he informs us himself, that more than an hundred times he composed a play and produced it on the stage in twentyfour hours. To this evidence we may add tins of Montalvan, that he wrote a comedy in two days, which it would not be very easy for the most expeditious amanuensis to copy out in the time. At Toledo he wrote fifteen acts in fifteen days, which, Montalvan adds, make five comedies. He also asserts that Lope wrote 1800 plays and 400 autos sacramentales, a species of dramatic composition” resembling' our old mysteries. That in all this there must be some exaggeration, cannot be doubted.

his dramatic works, in 25 vols. 4to, land’s elegant and interesting narrative, who observes in the conclusion that “it seems but an act of justice to pay some honour to the memory of men whose labours have promoted literature, and enabled others to eclipse their reputation. Such was Lope de Vega; once the pride and glory of Spaniards, who in their literary, as in their political achievements, have, by a singular fatality, discovered regions, and opened mines, to benefit their neighbours and their rivals, and to enrich every nation of Europe, but their own.”

, a French historian, was born near Fismes, in Champagne, in 1711. He entered the Jesuits’ order, but quitted it at the end of eleven years, was tutor to M. Goguet, counsellor to the parliament, and having finished that gentleman’s education, devoted himself wholly to the study of French history. He died suddenly at Paris, September 4, 1759, aged about forty-eight, leaving a “History of France,” written in a simple and correct style, and with great candour. Six only, however, of the eight volumes were published by him; the seventh, which he had entirely finished, and the eighth, which was nearly completed at the time of his death, have been published since by M. Villaret, who continued the history to vol. XII. But the complete edition, with Garnier’s continuation, amounts to 15 vols. 4to, 1770 1789. M. Velli also left a French translation of Dr. Swift’s “History of John Bull.”

, a learned civilian, and celebrated writer of Germany, was descended of an ancient and wealthy family, and born at Augsburg, June 20, 1558. He was educated with great care; and, as he discovered a love for polite literature, was sent very young to Rome, where he was a pupil of Antony Muretus, in 1575. He joined to the study of antiquity that of the Italian tongue, and wrote it with great elegance. Upon his return to his own country he applied himself to the bar in 1589; obtained the dignity of a senator in 1592; was advanced to be a member of the little council in 1594; and was elected praetor in 1600. He discharged all these offices with great reputation, and was the ornament of his country. He loved and patronized learning and learned men; and never any person had more friends in the republic of letters. He furnished assistance to several authors; and particularly contributed to the great collection of inscriptions published by Gruter. He gave the security of a thousand florins, in order to procure to Rittershusius a manuscript of the epistles of Isodorus Pelusiota, which was in the library of the duke of Bavaria, and could not be had without such security; and, what made this act of generosity the greater, he did it without Rittershusius’s knowledge. He was also the author of several works of reputation himself. His first essay, according to Melchior Adam, was a work which he published at Venice in 1594, thus entitled: “Reruin Augustanarum Vindelicarum Libri Octo, quibus a prima Rhaetorum ac Vindelicorum origine ad annum usque 552 a Nato Christo nobilissimae gentis Historia et Antiquitates traduntur; ac antiqua monumenta, tarn quae Augusta?, quam quae in agro Augustano, quia et quae alibi extant ad res Augustanas spectantia sere incisa et notis illustrata exhibentur.” In 1602 he published, at Augsburg, “Rerum Boicarum libri quinque, Historiam a gentis origine ad Carolum Magnum complexi,” containing the history of Bavaria from the year 600, when Sigoves led the Boii from Gaul to Germany, to the year 788, when Charlemagne dethroned the last Bavarian duke Tassilo II. and confined him in a cloister. Velser intended to continue this work, which is reckoned his best, and had already collected materials for it, and nearly composed two additional books, but was prevented by death from finishing his task; and the two books were a long time supposed to be lost. One of these, however, was discovered in 1778, by M. de Lippert, in the university library at Ingolstadt, and published at Augsburgh in that year. Velser published, at different times, the lives of several martyrs at Augsburg. His works were collected and reprinted at Nuremburg 1682, in folio, under the inspection and care of Arnoldus, professor there, who wrote “Prolegomena,” in which he informs us of many particulars concerning him. As Velserus held a great correspondence with the learned of Italy, and several other countries, many of his Latin and Italian letters were collected and inserted in this edition. He passed for the author of a celebrated piece called Squittinio della liberta Veneta," which was published in 1612. Gassendi having observed that several ascribed this book to Peiresc, adds, that they were deceived; and that it was probably written bv the illustrious Yemenis, as he calls him. Velserus’s genius, liberality of mind, his fine taste, and his classical diction, enabled him to communicate his historical acquisitions to the public with success and applause. He died June 13, 1614, and left no issue by his marriage. He was one of those who never would suffer his picture to be drawn; yet it was done without his knowledge, as Gassendi informs us in hi> life of Peiresc.

, or Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus, a Christian poet of the sixth century, was a native of Italy, and studied at Ravenna. He applied himself to grammar, rhetoric, poetry, and jurisprudence, but was most attached to rhetoric and poetry, and was honoured by Hilduinus, the abbot of St. Denis, with the title of Scholasticissimus. It sems uncertain what was the cause of his leaving Italy for France, but the step was peculiarly fortunate for him, as his poetical genius procured him the most honourable reception. Princes, bishops, and persons of the highest ranks, became eager to confer on him marks of their esteem. He arrived in France during the reign of Sigebert, king of Austrasia, who received him with great respect. This being about the time of the king’s marriage with Brunehaut, in the year 566, Venantius composed an epithaiamium, in which he celebrated the graces and perfections of the new queen. It is also said, that he gave the king lectures on politics. The following year he went to Tours to perform a vow to St. Martin, whose image had cured him of a complaint in his eyes. He then went to Poictiers, and was invited by St. Radegonda, the foundress of a monastery there, to reside in the capacity of her secretary; and afterwards, when he became a priest, she appointed him her chaplain and almoner. He resided here for some years, employing his time in study and writing, and edifying the church as much by his example as by his works. He was much esteemed by Gregory of Tours and other prelates, and was at last himself raised to be bishop of Poictiers, which dignity, it is said, he did not long enjoy. He died about the commencement of the seventh century, some say in the year 609. His works consist of eleven books of poetry, mostly of the elegiac kind, and generally short: hymns adapted to the services of the church: epitaphs, letters to several bishops, and some to Gregory of Tours: courtly verses addressed to queen Radegonda, and her sister Agnes, usually sent with presents of flowers, fruit, &c. four books of the “Life of St. Martin,” in heroic verse: several lives of the saints. Editions of his works were published at Cagliari in 1573, 1574, and 1584, and at Cologne in 1600: but all these are said to be incomplete and incorrect, yet they shew the respect paid to him as the best Latin poet of his time. In 1603 Christopher Brower, a German Jesuit, produced a very correct edition, with notes, printed at Fulda, and reprinted at Mentz, in 1617, 4to; but this contains only his poems. His other works are in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” of Lyons, 1677. The most complete edition is that of Rome, published under the title of “Venantii opera omnia quae extant, post Browerianam editionetn mine recens novis addiiamentis aucta, not. et scholiis illustr. opera Mich-Ange Luchi,” 1786—87, 2 vols. 4to.

, who has the credit of promoting Italian literature in the last century, particularly in France, was a native of Verdun. His name was Vigntron, but as he had made the Italian language his study, and wished to acquire reputation at Paris as a teacher, he Italianized his name, and gave out that he was a native of Florence. He published an Italian Grammar and Dictionary; both of which have been repeatedly printed in France and Eng T land, but with modern improvements. He published also Translations of Bentivoglio’s and Loredano’s letters, the Italian on one side. His grammar, it is said, was not written by him, but by the famous Roselli, whose adventures have been printed as a romance. This latter, passing through France, dined with Veneroni, who finding that he reasoned very justly upon the Italian language, engaged him to compose a grammar, for which he gave him a hundred franks. Veneroni only made some additions according to his taste, and published the book under his own name. His “Translation of the Select Fables,” is printed with a German version and plates, Augsburg, 1709, 4to. We find no account of his death; but, from the dates of his publications, he appears to have flourished, if that phrase be allowable in his case, in the early part of the last century.

, or Agostino de Musis, a very eminent engraver, was a native of Venice, and was the scholar of the celebrated Marc Antonio Raimondi. It is not certain at what period he began his studies under that great master, but the first dated print by Agostino appeared in 1509, at which time, it is probable, his tutor still resided at Venice. After the death of Raphael, which happened in 1520, Veneziano and Marc de Ravenna, his fellow- pupil, who had conjointly assisted each other, separated, and worked entirely upon their own account. When the city of Rome was taken and sacked by the Spaniards in 1527, Veneziano retired to Florence, and applied for employment to Andrea del Sarto, who was then in high repute; but del Sarto, dissatisfied with the dead Christ which he had engraved in 1516, after his design, refused to permit him to engrave any more of his pictures. Veneziano afterwards returned to Rome, where he followed his professional pursuits with great success, and where he died some time about 1540.

a Dutch painter of great eminence, was descended of a considerable family in Leyden, and born in 1556. He was carefully educated by his parents in the belles lettres, and at the same time learned to design of Isaac Nicolas. In his fifteenth year, when the civil wars obliged him to leave his country, he retired to Liege, finished his studies, and there gave the first proofs of his talents. He was particularly known to cardinal Groosbeck, who gave him letters of recommendation when he went to Rome, where he was entertained by cardinal Maduccio. His genius was so active, that he at once applied himself to philosophy, poetry, mathematics, and painting, the latter under Frederico Zuchero. He acquired an excellence in all the parts of painting, especially in the knowledge of the chiar-oscuro, and he was the first who explained to the Flemish artists the principles of lights and shadows, which his disciple Rubens afterwards carried to so great a degree of perfection. He lived at Rome seven years, during which time he executed several fine pictures; and then, passing into Germany, was received into the emperor’s service. After this the duke of Bavaria and the elector of Cologn employed him: but all the advantages he got from the courts of foreign princes could not detain him there. He had a desire to return into the Low Countries, of which Alexander Farnese, prince of Parma, was then governor. He drew the prince’s picture in armour, which confirmed his reputation in the Netherlands. After the death of that prince, Venius returned to Antwerp, where he adorned the principal churches with his paintings. The archduke Albert, who succeeded the prince of Parma in the government of the Low Countries, sent for him to Brussels, and made him master of the mint, a place which took up much of his time; yet he found spare hours for the exercise of his profession. He drew the archduke and the infanta Isabella’s portraits at large, which were sent to James L of Great Britain: and, to shew his knowledge of polite learning, as well as of painting, he published several treatises, which he embellished with cuts of his own designing. Among these are, 1. “Horatii Emblemata,” Antwerp, 1607, 4to, often reprinted, but this edition has the best plates. 2. “Amoris divini emblemata,” Antwerp, 1615, 4to. 3. “Amorum emblemata,” ibid. 1608, 4to. 4. “Batavorum cum Romanis bellum, &c.” ibid. 1612, 4to, &c. Venius died at Brussels, 1634, in his seventy-eighth year. He had two brothers; Gilbert, who was an engraver; and Peter, a painter; but his greatest honour was his having Rubens for a pupil.

, a pious divine of the church of England, was the son of the rev. Richard Venn, rector of St. Antholiri’s, London, who distinguished himself as a noted disputant in his day, particularly in conjunction with bishop Gibson, in opposing the promotion of Dr. Rundle to a bishopric, on account of a conversation in which the doctor had expressed sentiments rather favourable to deism. Mr. Venn also assisted Dr. Webster in writing the “Weekly Miscellany,” a periodical publication which, under the venerable name of Richard Hooker, laboured zealously in defence of high church principles. He died in 1740; and a volume of his sermons and tracts was published by his widow, the daughter of Mr. Ashton, who had been executed in the reign of William III. for being concerned in a plot to bring back the Stuart family.

His son, John, whom we have mentioned as the late rector of Clapham, was born in that parish March 9, 1759, and received the early part of his education under Mr. Shute at Leeds. He was then removed to Hippasholme school, where he was well grounded in classics by the care of Mr. Sutcliffe. He had afterwards the benefit of the rev. Joseph Milner’s instruction at the grammar-school at Hull; and of the rev. Thomas Robinson’s and the rev. William Ludlam’s, the last an eminent mathematician at Leicester. He was admitted a member of Sidney Sussex college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. B. in 1781. In September 1782, he was ordained deacon, as curate to his father; he entered into priest’s orders in March 1783, and two days afterwards was instituted to the living of little Dunham, in Norfolk. In Oct. 1789, he married Miss Catherine King, of Hull, who died April 15, 1803, leaving a family of seven children. In June 1792, on the death of sir James Stonehouse (predecessor in the baronetcy to the sir James Stonehouse recorded in our vol. XXVIII.) he was instituted to the rectory of Clapham. In August Is 12, he married Miss Turton, daughter of John Turton, esq. of Clapham, and resided at this place from the beginning of 1793, to the day of his death, July 1, 1813, aged fifty-four. Mr. Venn never appeared in the character of an author, nor prepared any sermons for the press; but two volumes have since been published, selected from his manuscripts, and may be considered “as a fair exhibition of his manner, sentiments, and doctrine.” They are more polished in style than his father’s, but there is a perceptible difference in their opinions on some points, the father being a more decided Calvinist. Prefixed to these sermons, is a brief account of the author, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, a nonconformist divine, was born about 1620, and educated in Emmanuel college, Cambridge. He does not appear to have had any preferment in the church, except the lectureship of St. Olave’s, Southwark, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662. After this he preached at a dissenting meeting at Pewterers’-hall, Lime-street, as colleague to a Mr. Bragge, who outlived him and preached his funeral sermon. As Mr. Venning was a man of no faction himself, men of different factions and sects were generally disposed to do justice to his character, which was that of a man, the object of whose labours and writings was to promote piety. He was, in his charity sermons, a powerful advocate for the poor, among whom he distributed annually some hundreds of pounds. His oratory on this topic is said to have been almost irresistible; as some have gone to church with a resolution not to give, and have been insensibly and involuntarily melted into compassion, and bestowed their alms with uncommon liberality. He died March 10, 1673. He was the author of nine practical treatises, specified by Calamy, among which the principal are, 1. “Orthodox and Miscellaneous Paradoxes,” 1647, 12mo. 2. “Things worth thinking on, or helps to piety,” 12mo, often reprinted. 3. “His Remains,” with a portrait by Hollar," &c. He was also one of the compilers of the English-Greek Lexicon published in 1661, 8vo.

, a very useful biographer and bibliographer, was born at Montbrison en Forez, Nov. 11, 1544. He appears to have served the king both in a military and civil capacity, and was historiographer and gentleman in ordinary to his majesty. He died at Duerne, Sept. 25, 1600. In his youth he had cultivated poetry, but of his poetical efforts he published only some indifferent specimens in his great work. He had, according to Scaliger, a fine library of Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, and Latin authors, and was conversant in books of all kinds. The fruits of his labours were, 1. “La Prosopographie, ou Description des personnes insignes, &c. avec les effigies d‘aucuns d’iceux, et braves observations de leur temps, annees, fails, et dits,” Lyons, 1373, 4to. This he reprinted three times with improvements; and the last, left also by him for the press, was published by his son Claude, who made some, few additions at Paris in 1603, 3 vols. folio. This is a very miscellaneous compilation, in which, although there are a few particulars of the eminent men of his time, it requires some patience to find them. 2. “Les Diverses lemons d'Antoine Duverclier, suivant celJes de P. Messi-e,” Lyons, 1576, 8vo. Of this there have been several editions, the most complete of which is that ofTournon, 1605. These legons were part of Duverdier’s extracts, in the course of his reading, from various Greek, Latin, and Italian authors, 3. “Le Compseutique, ou Traits facetieux,” 12mo; but there are some doubts whether this, which did not appear until 1584-, was not the compilation of another author. 4. “La Bibliotheque d'Ant. Duverdier, contenant le catalogue de tons les auteurs qui ont ecrit ou traduit en Frangais, avec le supplement Latin, du meme Duverdier, a la biblioiheque de Gesner,” Lyons, 1585, folio. Croix Du Maine’s work of the same kind had appeared the year before, and was thought to be the best executed of the two; but they have both been republished with so many improvements, that, like Moreri’s, they retain very little of the original authors. This improved edition was the production of Rigoley and Juvigny, who added the notes of Lamonnoye, the president Bouhier and Falconet, and published the whole in six handsome volumes, 4to, under the title of Les Bibliotheques Franchises de Lacroix du Maine et de Duverdier,“1772. The work is undoubtedly still capable of improvement, but, as it is, it forms a very valuable addition to the bibliographical library. There is a copy in the king’s library at Paris, with a vast mass of ms additions and corrections by Mercier de Saint-Leger. Le Long and some others attribute to Du. Verdier” La Biographic et Prosopographie des rois de France jusqu'a Henri III.“Paris, 1583, and 1586, 8vo. But others have doubted this, because he makes no mention of it in a list of his works which he wrote in 1585, and in which he gave not only what he had published, but what remained in manuscript, such as a translation of Seneca, &c. His son, Claude Verdier, was born about 1566, and had the ambition to become an author, but turned out to be a bad poet and a worse critic; he also spent the property his father left him, and lived an obscure and miserable life till about 1649, which is said to have been its period. The worst feature of his character is the disrespectful manner in which he has treated his father’s talents and labours, in a work which he published in 1586, and 1609, 4to, entitled” In autores pene omnes anttquos potissimum censiones et correctiones." It is a sufficient character of this work, that he blames Virgil for his bad Latin.

, one of the most prolific authors in the French series, deserves some notice as having been often mistaken for Claude Du Verdier, and even for Antony, who was dead long before this Gilbert was born. It is not known to what part of France he belonged. It appears that he was historiographer of France, and that after all his numerous publications, he was obliged in 1676 to apply for an asylum, for himself and his wife, in the hospital of Salpetriere, where he died in 1636. Bayle has a very superficial article on him. Joly allows him to have been the author of the historical works attributed to him, but doubts whether the romances under the name of Duverdier are not by another hand, and his reason is, that it is difficult to conceive a man’s continuing to write and publish for the long space of sixty years. This, however, is not absolutely decisive. Thirteen historical works are ascribed to Duverdier, all published in 12mo, in one, two, or more volumes each, consisting of histories of France, Turkey, Spain, England, Rome, and some lives. His romances amount to fourteen, but seem to be quite forgotten in his own country, and will not easily be revived in this by any list we can give. Some of them seem to be translations.

, a brave English commander, was second son to Geoffrey Vere, who was third son of John Vere, earl of Oxford. He was born in 1554, and applying himself early to the military art, became one of the most famous generals of his time. He served first among the forces sent by queen Elizabeth, under the command of the earl of Leicester, to the assistance of the States of Holland, where he gave proofs of a warlike genius, and undaunted courage. In 1588, he was part of the English garrison which gallantly defended Bergen -op- Zoom against the prince of Parma and “that true courage might not want its due reward or distinction,” says Camden, “the lord Willoughby, who was general of the English after Leicester’s departure, conferred the honour of knighthood on sir Francis Vere, whose great fame commenced from this siege.”

In 1589, the town of Bergh, upon the Rhine, being besieged by the marquis of Warrenbon, and distressed for want of provisions, sir Francis Vere was sent by the Statesgeneral to count Meurs, governor of Guelderland, with nine companies of English, to concert with him measures for the relief of that town. At his coming to Arnheim, the governor being greatly hurt by an explosion of gunpowder, and the states of the province representing to sir Francis the importance of the place, and the great extremity it was reduced to; at their earnest desire he hastened to its relief, with seven companies of Dutch foot, and twelve troops of horse. With these, and carriages laden with provisions, he marched towards Bergh, through a heathy and open country, with such diligence, that having surprised the enemy, who lay dispersed in their forts about the town, in full view of them", he put provisions into it, and returned without loss. After some days refreshment, the States, who had received advice how matters passed at Bergh, ordrred a fresh supply of provisions for it under the command of sir Francis. When he caine within two English miles of the town, the way they were to take being very narrow, and leading by the castle of Loo, th<- enemy from the castle galled his men and horses in their passage with such resolution, that sir Francis perceived they were not the ordinary garrison. Yet, by his military skill and valour, he beat them back to their castle, and was no farther interrupted by them in his passage through the narrow way: but before he could well form his men on an adjoining plain, he was again attacked by a fresh body of the enemy. At the first encounter, his horse was killed under him by a pike, and falling upon him, he could not presently rise, but lay between the two armies, receiving a hurt in his leg, and several thrusts with pikes through his clothes, till the enemy was forced to give way; and though his forces consisted only of the two English troops under his command, and did not exceed four hundred men, yet by his valour and conduct the enemy was defeated, and lost about eight hundred men. He afterwards threw in provisions into Bergh, and exchanged the garrison, though count Mansfeldt was near with thirteen or fourteen thousand foot, and twelve hundred horse.

In 1590, he bravely relieved the castle of Lickenhooven, in the fort of Recklinchusen, with the diocese of Cologn, in which the States had a garrison that was besieged; and he also recovered the town of Burick in Cleves, and a little fort on that side of the Rhine, which had been surprized by the enemy. In 1591, he took by stratagem a fort near Zutphen, in order to facilitate the siege of that town. The manner in which he made himself master of this place is thus related by himself in his “Commentaries:” “I chose,” he says, “a good number of lusty and hardy young soldiers, the most of which I apparelled like the country-women of those parts, the rest like the men: gave to some baskets, to others packs, and such burthens as the people usually carry to the market, with pistols, and short swords, and daggers under their garments, willing them, by two or three in a company, by break of day, to be at the ferry of Zutphen, which is just against the fort, as if they stayed for the passage boat of the town; and bade them there to sit and rest themselves in the mean time, as near the gate of the fort as they could for avoiding suspicion, and to seize upon the same as soon as it was opened, which took so good effect, that they possessed the entry of the fort, and held the same till an officer with two hundred soldiers (who was laid in a covert not far off) came to their succour, and so btcame fully master of the place. By which means the siege of the town afterwards proved the shorter.”

In the beginning of 1600, he had much dispute with the States about some accounts, and particularly their having lessened, in his absence, the companies he commanded for them, from an hundred and fifty to an hundred and thirteen men. He still however continued in his command, and abomt this time the forces of the States laid siege to Nieuport; but Albert, archduke of Austria, who commanded the Spanish forces, having recovered many forts which had been surprized by the troops in the Dutch service, and cut off eight hundred Scots who were posted as a rear-guard to intercept his passage, came to the relief of Nieuport, and a battle became unavoidable The army of the States was commanded by prince Maurice, and the chief officers under him were sir Francis Vere, who was lieutenant-general of the foot, and colonel Lodovick of Nassau, general of the horse. Vere, who commanded in the front, having occasion to repass a ford, before he could come to a convenient place of action, ordered his men not to strip themselves; for which he assigned this reason, “that they would in a few hours either have better clothes, or stand in need of none.” A council of war being then held, prince Maurice was entirely directed by Vere, who was of opinion, that the army of the States ought to wait for the enemy. The dispositions for the battle were then made by Vere with admirable judgment: and the English, who were not above one thousand five hundred, were posted upon the eminences of the downs, and supported by a body of Friesland musqueteers. The archduke was all this time advancing: but his horse, the foot being left behind, were beat back by Vere. The foot, however, coming up, a bloody conflict ensued, in which Vere was wounded, receiving one shot through his leg, and another through his thigh, whilst his horse was killed under him, and himself almost taken prisoner: but prince Maurice advancing with the main body, the battle became general; and the Spaniards, by the courage and good conduct of Vere, received a total defeat.

The last and most signal military exploit performed by sir Francis Vere, was his gallant defence of Ostend, which, was besieged by the archduke Albert and a very numerous army. Vere had been appointed general of all the army of the States in and about Ostend; and accordingly he entered that city on the llth of July, 1601, in or-ier to undertake the defence of it, with eight companies of English, and found in the place thirty companies of Netherlanders, making about sixteen or seventeen hundred men. With this handful, for no less than four thousand were necessary for a proper defence, he resolutely defended the place for a long time against the Spanish army, which was computed at twelre thousand men. During the course of the siege he received a reinforcement of twelve companies of English, and. cut out a new harbour at Ostend, which proved of gi'eat service to him. On Aug. 14, he was wounded in the head by the bursting of a cannon, which obliged him to remov" into Zealand till Sept. 19, when he returned to Ostenti, and found that in his absence some English troops had arrived there to reinforce the garrison. On Dec. 4, in the night, the Spaniards fiercely assaulted the English trendies, so that sir Francis Vere was callt d up without having time to put on his clothes; but by his conduct and valour the enemy were repulsed, and lost about 500 men. In the mean time the place began to be much distressed; and sir Francis, having advice that the besiegers intended a general assault, in order to put them off, and gain time, he artfully contrived to enter into treaty with them for the surrender of the place; but receiving part of the supplies which he had long expected from the States, with an assurance of more at hand, he broke off the treaty. The archduke, equally surprized and enraged at this conduct, which indeed is scarcely to be vindicated, took a resolution to revenge himself of those within the town, saying he would put them all to the sword; and his officers and soldiers likewise took an oath, that, if they entered, they would spare neither man, woman, nor child. They made a general assault on Jan. 7, 1602; but sir Francis, with only twelve hundred men, kept off the enemy’s army of 10,000, which threw that day above 2,200 shot on the town; and had before discharged on it no less than 163,200 cannon shot, leaving scarcely a whole house standing. Our heroic general having acquired immortal honour in the defence of Osrend for eight months together, resigned his government March 7, 1602, to Frederic Dorp, who had been appointed by the States to succeed him; and he and his brother, sir Horatio Vere, returned into Holland.

Soon after his discharge from the government of Ostend, sir Francis, at the request of the States, came into England to desire fresh succours, which went over in May, and were to be under his command. He accordingly returned again to Holland; and upon receiving the news of queen Elizabeth’s death, he proclaimed king James I. at the Brill, in April 1603. A few months after he came to England, and his government of the Brill expiring, or he being superseded at Elizabeth’s death, it was renewed to him by king James. But under this pacific sovereign, a peace was concluded with Spain in 1601. Sir Francis survived this about four years, and died at home, Aug. 28, 1608, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. He was interred in St. John’s chapel, Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his lady. Besides his other preferments, he was governor of Portsmouth. He had three sons and two daughters, who all died before him. He married Elizabeth, second daughter of John Dent, a citizen of London, and she re-married with Patrick Murray, a son of John earl of Tullibardine, in Scotland.

Upon the accession of king Charles I. sir Horace Vere, as a reward for his services, was advanced to the peerage, by the title of lord Vere, baron of Tilbury; being the first peer created by that monarch. He died the 2d of May, 1635, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He married a lady who was then the widow of Mr. John Hoby: she was the youngest daughter of sir John Tracy of Doddington, or Tuddington, in Gloucestershire. She died in 1671, at a great age. The parliament placed the younger children of Charles I. under the care of this lady, who was a person of great piety and worth, and in her punning epitaph, written by Dr. Simon Ford, is thus addressed,

, seventeenth earl of Oxford, was the only son of John the sixteenth earl, who died in 1563, by his second wife, Margaret, daughter of John Golding, esq. He is supposed to have been born about 1540 or 1541, and in his youth travelled in Italy, whence it is said he was the first who imported embroidered gloves and perfumes into England, and presenting queen Elizabeth with a pair of the former, she was so pleased with them, as to be drawn with them in one of her portraits. This gives us but an indifferent opinion of his judgment, yet he had accomplishments suited to the times, and made a figure in the courtly tournaments so much encouraged in queen Elizabeth’s reign. He once had a rencounter with sir Philip Sidney (see Sidney, vol. XXVII. p. 507), which did not redound much to his honour. In 1585, Walpole says he was at the head of the nobility that embarked with the earl of Leicester for the relief of the States of Holland; but Camden, who gives a list of the principal personages concerned in that expedition, makes no mention of him. In 1586 he sat as lord great chamberlain of England on the trial of Mary queen of Scots. In 1588 he hired and fitted out ships at his own charge against the Spanish Armada. In 1589 he sat on the trial of Philip Howard, earl of Arwndel; and in 1601, on the trials of the earls of Essex and Southampton. One of the most remarkable events of his life was his cruel usage of his first wife, Anne, daughter of the celebrated William Cecil, lord Burleigh, in revenge for the part acted by that statesman against Thomas duke of Norfolk, for whom he had a warm friendship. Camden says, that having vainly interceded with his father-in-law for the duke’s life, he grew so incensed that he vowed revenge against the daughter, and “not only forsook her bed, but sold and consumed that great inheritance descended to him from his ancestors;” but in answer to this, Collins says, that the estate descended to his son. It was probably, however, much impaired, as Arthur Wilson agrees with Camden, and something of the same kind may be inferred from a letter in Winwood’s Memorials, III. 422. The earl was buried at Hackney, July 6, 1604.

, abbot of St. Cyran, famous in the seventeenth century as a controversial writer, was born in 1581, at Bayonne, of a good family. He pursued his studies at Lou vain, and formed a strict friendship with the celebrated Jansenius, his fellow student. In 1610 he was made abbot of St. Cyran, on the resignation ( of Henry Lewis Chateignier de la Roche-Posai, bishop of Poitiers. The new abbot read the fathers and the councils with Jansenius, and took great pains to impress him with his sentiments and opinions, as well as a number of divines with whom he corresponded; nor did he leave any means untried to inspire M. le Maitre, M. Arnauld, M. d'Andilly, and several more disciples whom he had gained, with the same opinions. This conduct making much noise, cardinal Richelieu, who was besides piqued that the abbot of St. Cyran refused to declare himself for the nullity of the marriage between Gaston, duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis the thirteenth, and Margaret of Lorraine, confined him at Vincennes, May 11, 1638. After this minister’s death, the abbot regained his liberty, but did not enjoy it long, for he died at Paris, October 18, 1643, aged sixtytwo, and was buried at St. Jacques du Haut-Pas, where his epitaph may be seen on one side of the high altar. His works are, 1. “Lettres Spirituelles,” 2 vols. 4to, or 8vo, reprinted at Lyons, 1679, 3 vols. 12mo, to which a fourth has been added, containing several small tracts written by M. de St. Cyran, and printed separately. 2. “Question Royale,” in which he examines in what extremity a subject might be obliged to save the life of his prince at the expence of his own, 1609, 12mo. This last was much talked of, and his enemies drew inferences and consequences from it, which neither he nor his disciples by any means approved 3. “L‘Aumône Chrétienne, ou Tradition de l’Eglise touchant la charité envers les Pauvres,” 2 vols. 12mo. The second part of this work is entitled “L'Aumône ecclesiastique.” M. Anthony le Maitre had a greater share in the last-mentioned book than the abbot of St. Cyran. He published some other works of a similar cast, but his last appears to deserve most notice. It is entitled “Petrus Aurelius,” -and is a defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Jesuits. He was assisted in this book by his nephew, the abbé de Baicos, and it seems to have done him the most honour of all his works, though it must be acknowledged, says the abbé L'Avocat, that if all the abuse of the Jesuits, and the invectives against their order, were taken from this great volume, very little would remain. L'Avocat is also of opinion that M. Hallier’s small tract on the same subject, occasioned by the censure of the clergy in 1635, is more solid, much deeper, and contains better arguments, than any that are to be found in the great volume of “Petrus Aurelius.” The first edition of this book is the collection of different parts, printed between 1632 and 1635, for which the printer Morel was paid by the clergy, though it was done without their order. The assembly held in 1641 caused an edition to be published in 1642, which the Jesuits seized; but it was nevertheless dispersed on the remonstrances of the clergy. This edition contains two pieces, “Confutatio collections locorum quos Jesuits compilarunt, &c.” that are not in the third edition, which was also published at the clergy’s expence in 1646. But to this third edition is prefixed the eulogy, written by M. Godeau on the author, by order of the clergy, and the verbal process which orders it; whence it appears that their sentiments respecting him, differed widely from those of the Jesuits and their adherents. The abbot de St. Cyran was a man of much simplicity in his manners and practice: he told his beads; he exorcised heretical books before he read them: this simplicity, however, concealed a great fund of learning, and great talents for persuasion, without which he could never have gained so many illustrious and distinguished disciples, as Mess. Arnauld, le Maltre de Sacy, Arnauld d'Andilly, and the other literati of Port Royal, who all had the highest veneration for him, and placed the most unbounded confidence in him. But whatever talents he might have for speaking, persuading, and directing, he certainly had none for writing; nor are his books answerable to his high reputation.

He wrote a history of the princes of Carrara, which is inserted in Muratori’s collection, vol. XVI. published at Milan 173iQ, who did not know that it had appeared eight years before in the “Thesaur. Antiq. Ital.” vol. VI. part III. published at Leyden. He wrote also alife of Petrarch, which may be seen in Tomasijii’s “Petrarcha Redivivus;” an elogium on St. Jerorn; a treatise de “Republica Veneta,” published at Rome in 1526; and testified his zeal for the honour of classical learning, by publishing an invective against Malatesta, who, by a misguided zeal, had removed from the market-place of Mantua a statue of Virgil. One of his most celebrated treatises was that “Deingenuis moribus,” composed for the use of the prince of Carrara’s children. This, which was so popular as to become a school-book, aod as such Paul Jovius mentions its being put into his hands when a youth, was first published, with other treatises of the same kind, at Milan in 1474, 4to, and reprinted in 1477. Brunet, however, mentions an edition prior to either of these, which he supposes printed about 1472, with the title “Ad Ubertinum Carariensem de ingenuis moribus opus e Magno Basileo, et e Xenophonti de tirannide Leonardi Aretini traductio.” Brunet also mentions, that the editions of 1474 and 1477 are to be found separate from the other treatises; but it was certainly afterwards printed with them, at Venice: for example in 1502, with Bonardus and others on the subject of education; and at Basil in 1541, with Vitruvius Roscius “de docendi studendique modo,” &c. Vergerius translated into Latin Arrian’s history of the expedition of Alexander the Great, and it is said purposely avoided any particular elegance of style, lest his royal reader should stand in need of the assistance of an interpreter. If this be true it cannot be a matter of much regret that such a translation was not printed. Vergerius is likewise said to have written poetry, and even a Latin comedy, which is preserved in manuscript in the Ambrosian library. It was the production of his youth, and is entitled “Paulus.” Sassi, in his typographical history of Milan, has printed the prologue.

, usually called the Younger, to distinguish him from the preceding, was born at Justinopolis, and of the same family. Where he was educated we are not told, but he soon became celebrated for his acquirements in canon-law and scholastic divinity; and these recommended him to the attention of the pope, Clement VII. who employed him as his nuncio at the memorable diet of Augsburgh in 1530, and entrusted him with a very ample commission. He was instructed to use every endeavour to prevent the holding of a national council in Germany, and to induce king Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, to oppose any proposition of that kind. Vergerius executed this commission with great 2eal, and gave every opposition to the Lutherans, by shewing his partiality to Eckius, Faber, Cochlaeus, and other enemies to the reformation; he also made Eckius a canon of Ratisbonne, a piece of preferment which, as the pope’s legate, he could confer. Vergerius executed this commission with such ability, that he was thought the most proper person to succeed the superannuated bishop of Rhegio, as the pope’s ambassador to Germany. He accordingly was sent, with instructions, openly to represent his holiness’s ardent desire to convene a general council, but secretly to take every step to prevent that measure. On the death of Clement VII. and the accession of Paul III. the latter recalled Vergerius from Germany, in order to be exactly informed of the state of religion in that country; and, says Sleidan, he also consulted with the cardinals, as to the prevention of a national council, until they should, by private and unsuspected contrivances, be able to embroil the emperor afhd other princes in a war. As a part of this plan, Paul III. resolved at length to send Vergerius back to Germany to profer a general council, and in the mean time to learn what form the Protestants would insist upon as to the qualifications, votings, and disputations, of such a council; and his object in this was, to be able to impose such rules and terms as he was sure they would never accept; by which contrivance the odium of not holding a general council would fall upon them. Vergerius was also instructed to exasperate the princes of the empire against the king of England, Henry V1IL whose dominions the pope had in contemplation to bestow upon those who would conquer them: and he had also a secret article of instruction to tamper with Luther and Melancthon, in order to bring them over to the cause of Rome.

From this time to 1541, Vergerius appeajrs to have remained in Italy. In this last mentioned year, he was commissioned to go to the diet at Worms, where he made a speech on the unity and peace of the church, which he printed and circulated, and in which he principally insisted on the arguments against a national council. On his return to Rome, the pope intended to have rewarded his services with a cardinal’s hat, but changed his purpose on hearing it insinuated that a leaning towards Lutheranism was perceptible in him, from his long residence in Germany. The pope, however, was not more offended than Vergerius was surprized at this charge, which he knew to be absolutely groundless; yet this circumstance, probably arising from personal malice or envy, proved ultimately the means of Vergerius’s conversion. With a view to repel the charge of heresy, he now sat down to write a book, the title of which was to be, “Adversus apostatas Germanise,” against the apostates of Germany; but as this led him to a strict investigation of the protestant doctrines, as found in the works of their ablest writers, he found his attachment to popery completely undermined, and rose up from the perusal of the protestant writers with a strong conviction that they were in the right. He then immediately went to confer with his brother, John Baptist Vergerius, bishop of Pola, in Istria, who was exceedingly perplexed at his change of sentiment, but on his repeated entreaties, joined him in examining the disputed points, particularly the article of justification, and the result was, that both prelates soon preached to the people of Istria the doctrines of the reformation, and even dispersed the New Testament among them in the vulgar tongue. The Inquisition, as well as the monks, soon became alarmed at this, and Vergerius was obliged to seek refuge in Mantua, under the protection of cardinal Hercules Gonzaga, who had been his intimate friend; but Gonzaga was after a short time obliged by remonstrances from Rome to withdraw his protection, and he finally went to Padua, and thence to the Grisons, where he preached the gospel for several years, until invited by the duke of Wirtemberg to Tubingen, and there he passed the remainder of his days. In the mean time his brother, the bishop of Pola, died, and, as suspected, by poison, administered by some of those implacable enemies who were also thirsting for Vergerius’s blood. But he was now out of their reach, and died quietly at Tubingen, Oct. 4, 1566. Verged us, after his conversion, wrote a great many treatises, most of them small, against popery and popish writers, the titles of which are to be found in our authorities, but they are all of rare occurrence, owing to their having been suppressed or strictly prohibited by his enemies. Some are in Italian, and some in Latin. A collection of them was begun to be printed at Tubingen in 1563, but one volume only was published, under the title of “Primus tomus operum Vergerii adversus Papatum,” 4to. A valuable defence of Vergerius was published by Schelhorn, in 1760, “Apologia pro P. P. Vergerio adversus loh. Casam. Accedunt Monumenta inedita, et quatuor epistoltE memorabiles,” 4to.

, a writer who did not want either genius or learning, was born at Urbino, in Italy, in the fifteenth century; but the year is not named, nor have we any account of his early history. He was first known in the literary world by “A Collection of Proverbs,” 1498, and this being the first work of the kind, it occasioned some jealousy between him and Erasmus. When Erasmus afterwards published his “Adagia,” and did not take notice of his work, Vergil reproached him in terms not civil, in the preface to his book “De llerum Inventoribus.” Their friendship, however, does not seem to have been interrupted by it; and Vergil, at the instigation of Erasmus, left the passage out in the later editions. These “Adagia” of Polydore Vergil were printed three or four times in a very short space; and this success encouraged him to undertake a more difficult work, his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” printed in 1499. At the end of the 4th edition at Basil, 1536, 12mo, is subjoined a short commentary of his upon the Lord’s prayer. After this, he was sent into England by pope Alexander VI. to collect the papal tribute, called Peter-pence, and was the last collector of that oppressive tax. He recommended himself in this country so effectually to the powers in being, and was so well pleased with' it, that, having obtained the rectory of Church Langton in Leicestershire, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life in England. In 1507 he was presented to the archdeaconry of Wells, and prebend of Nonnington, in the church of Hereford; and was the same year collated to the prebehd of Scamelsby in the church of Lincoln, which he resigned in 1513 for the prebend of Oxgate in that of St. Paul’s. In 1517 he published at London a new edition of his work “De Rerum Inventoribus,” then consisting of six books, with a prefatory address to his brother John Matthew Vergil. About 1521 he undertook a considerable work at the command of Henry VIII.; upon which he spent above twelve years. It was a “History of England,” which he published and dedicated in 1533 to his royal patron. The purity of his language is generally allowed, and he excelled most of the writers of this age for elegance and clearness of style, but his work is chargeable with great partiality, and even falsehood, and this charge has been advanced by sir Henry Savile and Humphrey Lloyd, who reproaches him in very severe terms. Caius, in his book “De Antiquitatibus Cantabrigiae,” mentions it as a thing “not only reported, but even certainly known, that Polydore Vergil, to prevent the discovery of the faults in his history, most wickedly committed as many of our ancient and manuscript histories to the flames as a waggon could hold.” For this, however, we have no direct authority. His greatest fault is, that he gives a very unfair account of the reformation, and of the conduct of the protestants. Yet his work has been printed several times, and very much read; and is necessary to supply a chasm of almost seventy years in our history, including particularly the lives of Edward IV. and Edward V. which period is hardly to be found in Latin in any other author.

, count de Tressan, a lively French writer, was born at Mons, Nov. 4, 1705, of a noble family originally from Languedoc, one branch of which had been protestants, and fought on that side in the civil wars preceding the massacre. He came early in life to Paris, and attached himself to Voltaire and Fontenelle, who initiated him in the belles lettres, and in those principles which afterwards made him be ranked among the philosophers of France. He served afterwards in the French army, and attained the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1750 he was admitted a free associate of the French academy, and contributed a memoir on Electricity, a subject then not much known, and written with so much ability that it was supposed he might have acquired no small fame in pursuing scientific subjects. This, however, was not agreeable to his disposition. After the battle of Fontenoy, in 1741, in which he served as aide-de-camp to Louis XV. he went to the court of Stanislaus, king of Poland, at Luneville, where he recommended himself by the sprightliness of his temper, and by the freedom of his remarks, but at the same time made some enemies by his satirical and epigrammatic productions. On the death of Stanislaus, he retired from active life, and devoted his time to the composition of a variety of works, particularly romances. Some of which were however translations, and others abridgments. These fill 12 octavo volumes published in 1791. His translation of Ariosto seems to have done him most credit. A light, trifling spirit never deserted him, but still sported even in his grey-hairs, until death put a serious end to it, Oct. 31, 1782, in his seventy-seventh year. Almost up to this period he was abridging Amadis de Gaul, and writing tales of chivalry, after having begun his career with the grave and abstruse parts of science. While in this latter employment he was, in 1749, chosen a member of our Royal Society.

, a physician and anatomist, was born in 1643 at Vesbrouck, in the county of Waes. He was descended of a family who had many years subsisted from the profits arising from the cultivation of the earth; and he had himself worked with the spade to the age of twenty-two years; when the curate of his village, taking notice of him, gave him the first rudiments of learning. He afterwards obtained a place in the college of the Trinity at Louvain, where he was made professor of anatomy in 16y, and afterwards doctor in medicine. He died there in Feb. 1710, aged 62. The following epitaph was found after his decease, written with his own hand: “Philippus Vt-rheyen Medicina; Doctor & Professor, partem sui materialem hie in Cremeterio condi voluit, ne Templum dehonestaret, am nocivis halitibus inficeret. Requiescat in pace.”

Having stayed a competent time, eagerly employed in the contemplation of the finest models of antiquity, he returned to France, and his first designs were views of some of the principal sea-ports on the coast. These being shewn to his late majesty of France, procured him the appointment of marine painter to the king, with a competent salary, and every assistance that he requested to go through his plan of giving a view of every sea' port in the kingdom. This he completed, and under royal and national patronage the views have been engraved and the prints, which are in general most exquisitely performed, have been disseminated through all Europe. Many of these engravings were by Balechon; one of them, well known to collectors by the name of “The Storm,” was much admired for the fluidity of the water, and the spirit of the figures. One hundred of the prints were consigned to an engraver in London, and part of them sold; but some persons objecting to the very clumsy style in which a long dedication, inscribed under the print, was written, Balechon said he would soon remedy that, and with his graver drew a number of black lines upon the copper, over the dedication, so as in a degree to obliterate the words, and sent 100 impressions to England. These our connoisseurs soon found to be “the second impression,” and eagerly bought up the first; but a print with the lines no man of taste would look at. This mortified the English printseller, who wrote to the French engraver, and complained that he could not sell the second set for half price. “Morbleu” cries the Frenchman, “How whimsical are these English Virtuosi! They must be satisfied, however.” To work he sets with his punch and hammer, and, repairing the letters, sends out the print, with the inscription apparently in its first state. A few of these were sold; but the imposition was soon discovered by the faintness of the impressions; and then those who did not possess the first impressions, were glad to have the plate in the second, rather than the third state; so that nearly all the third set lay upon the hands of the printseller. This produced a complaint; and the complaisant Frenchman, ever eager to satisfy his English customers, again punched out the lines, and brought the inscription to its second state.

After a long and active life, in a manner that did honour to himself and his country, Vernet began to fear that his well-earned pension would be stopped by the troubles arising in France; and as 81 years of age is rather too late a period for a man to take a very active part in national disputes, he meditated a retreat to England, which was put a stop to by his death in 1789. His works will, however, live as long as those of any artist of his day. In a light and airy management of his landscape, in a deep and tender diminution of his perspective, in the clear transparent hue of the sky, liquid appearance of the water, and the buoyant air of the vessels which he depicted on it, he had few superiors. In small figures employed in dragging off a boat, rigging a ship, or carrying goods from the quay to a warehouse, or any other employ which required action, he displayed most uncommon knowledge, and gave them with such spirit (though sometimes a little in the French fluttered style), as has never been equalled by any man except our most excellent Mortimer; and to be the inferior of Mortimer in that line is no dishonour. It has been the lot of every painter who ever lived, and will probably be the lot of all who ever will live. He carried that branch of the art to its highest degree of perfection. As a proof in what estimation Vernet was held, it may be mentioned that two of his pictures, now in the Luxembourg, were purchased by madame du Barry for 50,000 livres. It was said of him, that his genius neither knew infancy nor old age.

, esq. an admiral of distinguished bravery, was descended from an ancient family in Staffordshire, and born at Westminster on the 12th of November, 1684. His father, who was secretary of state to king William and queen Mary, gave him a good education, but never intended him for the sea-service: but, as the youth became desirous of entering on that employment, his father at last consented, and he pursued those studies which had a relation to navigation and gunnery with surprising alacrity and success. His first expedition at sea was under admiral Hopson, when the French fleet and Spanish galleons were destroyed at Vigo. In 1702, he served in an expedition to the West Indies under commodore Walker; and, in 1704, on board the fleet commanded by sir George Rooke, which convoyed the king of Spain to Lisbon, when Mr. Vernon received a hundred guineas and a ring from that monarch’s own hand. He was also at the famous battle of Malaga, the same year. In January 1705, he was appointed commander of the Dolphin; and, in 1707, commanded the Royal Oak, one of the ships sent to convoy the Lisbon fleet, which falling in with the French, three of our men of war were taken, and a fourth blown up. In 1708, Mr. Vernon commanded the Jersey, and was sent to the W'est Indies as rear-admiral under sir Charles Wager, where he took many valuable prizes, and greatly interrupted the trade of the enemy. In 1715, he commanded the Assistance, a ship of fifty guns, under sir John Norris, in an expedition to the Baltic; and, in 1726, the Grafton of seventy guns, under sir Charles Wager, in the same seas. On the accession of his late majesty George II. in 1727, Mr. Vernon was chosen member for Penryn, in Cornwall, and soon after was sent, to Gibraltar, as commander of the Grafton, to join sir Charles Wager. The next expedition in which he was engaged was that which immortalized his name. This was in 1739: he was sleeping in his bed at Chatham when the courier arrived with the news at about two in the morning; and, being informed that dispatches of the utmost importance were arrived from London, he arose. On opening the packet, he found a commission appointing him vice-admiral of the blue, and commander in chief of a squadron fitting out for destroying the settlements of the Spaniards in the West Indies, with a letter from his majesty, requiring his immediate attendance on him. Having received his instructions, he weighed anchor from Spithead on the 23d of July; and, on the 20th of November, arrived in sight of Porto Bello, with only six ships under his command. The next day he began the attack of that town; when, after a furious engagement on both sides, it was taken on the 22nd, together with a considerable number of cannon, mortars, and ammunition, and also two Spanish men of war. He then blew up the fortifications, and left the place for want of land forces sufficient to keep it; but first distributed 10,000 dollars, which had been sent to Porto-Bello for paying the Spanish troops, among the forces for their encouragement. In 1741, he made an unsuccessful attempt upon Carthagena in conjunction with general Wentworth. After his return home, the rebellion in 1745 breaking out, he was employed in guarding the coasts of Kent and Sussex; when he stationed a squadron of men of war in so happy a manner as to block up the French ports in the channel. But, soon after, complaints being made against him for superseding the orders of the lords of the admiralty, in appointing a gunner in opposition to one recommended by themselves, and for exacting too severe duty from his men, he was struck off the list of admirals; on which he retired from all public business, except attending the House of Commons as member for Ipswich in Suffolk. He died suddenly at his seat at Nacton in Suffolk, on the 29th of October, 1757, in the seventythird year of his age.

It was the misfortune of this brave man, that too much of temper and political ambition made his life turbulent and unhappy. “Of all men,” says the candid Charnock, “who have been fortunate enough to obtain celebrity as naval commanders, few appear to have taken greater pains to sully their public fame by giving full scope to all their private feelings; yet probably, for this very uncommon reason, he rose the greater favourite of fortune, in the minds of the people, to that pinnacle of popularity, the height of which was indeed great enough to dazzle and distract the firmest minds; so that to the infirmity of human nature may, in some measure, be ascribed that extravagance of conduct which might otherwise be more condemned. To say he was a brave, a gallant man, would be a needless repetition of what no person has ever presumed to deny him. His judgment, his abilities as a seaman, are unquestioned; and his character, as a man of strict integrity and honour, perfectly unsullied, &c.” Admiral Vernon wrote some pamphlets in his own defence, or in defence of his peculiar opinions.

, a Dutch painter,- was the son of a captain, and born at Gorcum in 1727. Having discovered an early turn for designing, his father placed him at eight years of age with a portrait-painter at Gorcum, but at the age of thirteen he left this master to learn the greater principles of his art at Utrecht. After he had continued about six years with Both, a painter of good reputation there, he went to Rome, where he frequented the academies, and employed himself in designing after the best models. His genius leading him to paint animals, hunting, and battles, he studied every thing that might be useful to him in those ways. He also designed landscapes, and the famous buildings, not only in the neighbourhood of Rome, but all over Italy; which employment gave him a relish for architecture. After residing ten years in Italy, he resolved to return to his own country. He passed through Switzerland into France; and, while he was at Paris, met with a young gentleman who was going to make the tour of Italy, and was prevailed on to accompany him, after spending three years more in Italy, he came back to Holland, arriving at Gorcum in 1C62. His taste for battlepieces induced him to make a campaign in 1672, in the course of which he designed all the circumstances and accompaniments of war. His genius was fruitful; there was a great deal of fire in his imagination and in his works; and, as he had studied much after nature, he formed a particular taste which never degenerated into what is called manner, but comprehended a great variety of objects, and had more of the Roman than the Flemish in it. Such was the pleasure he took in his profession, that he had always a crayon in his hand; and, wherever he came, designed some object or other after nature. His best perfomances are at the Hague, Amsterdam, and Utrecht.

, principally known as an antiquary, was the grandson of Richard Roland Verstegan, of an ancient family in the duchy of Guelderland, who being driven out of his own country by the confusions of war, came to England in the time of Henry VII. Here he married, and dying soon after, left an infant son, who was afterwards put apprentice to a cooper, and was father to the subject of this article. Richard was born in St. Catherine’s parish, near the Tower of London, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was sent to Oxford, where he was generally called Roland. It does not appear what college he belonged to, cr whether he is to be considered as a regular member of any, but he seems to have distinguished himself in Saxon literature, then very little studied. He was, however, a zealous Roman catholic, and finding no encouragement in his studies without taking oaths adverse to his principles, he quitted the university, and settled at Antwerp, and practised drawing and painting. About 1592 he published a work, now very rare, entitled “Theatrum crudelitatum Hsereticorum nostri temporis,” a thin quarto, with curious cuts representing the deaths of the Jesuits, and other missionaries who were hanged or otherwise put to death for their machinations against the church and state. This effort of zeal does not appear to have been in all respects agreeable to some of his own party; and either his fears on this account, or some other causes, induced him to leave Antwerp for Paris. There being complained of by the English ambassador as a calumniator of his royal mistress, he was thrown into prison by the French king’s orders. How long he was confined is not known, but when released he returned to Antwerp, and resumed his studies, which produced his “Restitution of decayed Antiquities,” 1605, 4to, several times reprinted, a work of very considerable merit and judicious research; but, the principal subjects on English antiquities having been since more accurately investigated and treated, Verstegan’s work is rather a curious than a necessary addition to the historical library. When he published it he seems to have been in better humour with England, and dedicated it very respectfully to James I. He corresponded much with sir Robert Cotton, and other antiquaries of the time. It is uncertain when he died, but some place that event soon after 1634. Verstegan wrote also “The successive regal Governments of England,” Antwerp, 1620, in one sheet, with cuts; “A Dialogue on Dying well,” a translation from the Italian; and a collection of very indifferent poetry, entitled “Odes; in imitation of the seven penitential Psalmes. With sundry other poems and ditties, tending to devotion and pietie,” imprinted 1601, 8vo, probably at Antwerp.

, an eminent engraver and antiquary, was born in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-fields, London, in 1684. His parents, he says himself, were more honest than opulent; but, according to his biographer, “if vanity had entered into his composition, he might have boasted the antiquity of his race: two of his name were employed by Henry VIII. in the board of works.” He might have added, that in Ashmole’s “History of the Order of the Garter,” p. 136, a William Vertue is mentioned, as free-mason, 21 Henry VII. and one of the architects of the royal chapel of St. George, at Windsor. About the age of thirteen Vertue was placed with a master who engraved arms on plate, and had the chief business of London; but who, being extravagant, broke, and returned to his country, France, after Vertue bad served him between three and four years. Vertue then studied drawing for two years, after which he entered into an agreement with Michael Vandergutch for three more, which term he protracted to seven, engraving copper-plates for him. Having in 1709 received instructions and advice from several painters, he quitted his master on handsome terms, and began to work for himself, and employed his first year in drawing and engraving for books. At intervals he practised drawing and music, learned French, a little Italian, and Dutch, and was able to read all that was written in these languages on his art.

Vertue had now commenced those biographical and antiquarian researches, in which he has been so eminently successful. In these pursuits he made many journeys to different parts of our island, and his time was industriously employed in making drawings, catalogues, and various memoranda. His thirst after British antiquities soon led him to a congenial Maecenas. That munificent collector, Robert Harley, second earl of Oxford, distinguished the merit and application of Verttte; and the invariable gratitude of the latter, expressed on all occasions, attests at once the bounty. of his patron and his own humility. Another of his patrons was Heneage Finch, earl of Winchelsea, whose portrait he painted and engraved, and who, being president of the society of antiquaries on its revival in 1717, appointed Venue, who was a member, engraver to that learned body. Henry Hare, the last lord Coleraine, was also one of iiis antiquarian benefactors, and the university of Oxford employed him for many years to engrave the head pieces for their almanacks.

He now renewed his topographical journeys, accompanied sometimes by the earl of Leicester, sometimes by lord Oxford, and sometimes by Roger Gale the antiquary; and between 1734—38, visited St Albans, Northampton, Oxford, Penshurst, Warwick, Coventry, Stratford, and travelled through the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire, where he made various sketches, drawings, and notes, always presenting a duplicate of his observations to his patron lord Oxford. In 1739 he travelled eastward with lord Coleraine, through the counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk, stopping as usual to make drawings and observations at every memorable church, seat, or other spot congenial to his pursuits. In 1741 he lost his noble friend and patron the earl of Oxford, who died on the loth of June. But his merit and modesty still raised him benefactors. The countess dowager of Oxford, even, alleviated his loss, and the duchess of Portland (their daughter), the duke of Richmond, and lord Burlington, did not forget him among the artists whom they patronized.

Valuable as Vertue’s engravings are, he would have had more admirers, if his style had been more spirited; yet the antiquary and the historian who prefer truth to elegance of design, and correctness to bold execution, have properly appreciated his works, and have placed him, in point of professional industry at least, next to his predecessor Hollar. But the public owe another obligation to Vertue. After his death the late lord Orford purchased the manuscript notes and observations which he had put down, as materials for a history of artists, and from them published that very useful and entertaining work, which he entitled “Anecdotes of Fainting in England; with some account of the principal Artists, and incidental notes on other Arts, collected by Mr. George Vertue,” 1762, 5 vols. 4to; since republished in 1782, 5 vols. 8vo. “Vertue,” says Mr. Walpole, “had for several years been collecting materials for a work ‘ upon Painting and Painters:’ he conversed and corresponded with most of the virtuosi in England he was personally acquainted with the oldest performers in the science: he minuted down every thin^ he heard from them. He visited every collection of them, attended sales, copied every paper he could find relative to the art, searched offices, registers of parishes, and registers of wills for births and deaths, turned over all our own authors, and translated those of other countries which related to his subject. He wrote down every thing he heard, saw, or read. His collections amounted to near forty volumes, large and small. In one of his pocket-books I found a note of his first intention of compiling such a work: it was in 1713, and he continued it assiduously to his death in 1757. These Mss. I bought of his widow after his decease.” Venue’s private character, it must not be omitted, was of the most amiable kind; friendly, communicative, upright in all his dealings, a most dutiful son, and an affectionate husband. He laboured almost to the last, solicitous to leave a decent competence to a wife, with whom he lived many years in tender harmony, and who died in 1776, in the seventy-sixth year of her age. He had a brother James, who followed the same profession at Bath, and died about 1765.

, or Amerigo Vespucci, a navigator from whose name the largest quarter of the world has very unjustly been named, was born at Florence, March 9, 1451, of a distinguished family, and educated by an uncle, a man of learning- who had the care of the education of the Florentine nobility. Vespucci made great progress in natural philosophy, astronomy, and cosmography, the principal branches in which the Florentine nobility were instructed, because being for the most part destined for commerce, it was necessary they should become acquainted with the sciences connected with navigation. Commerce had been the foundation of the grandeur and prosperity of the republic, and as each family educated some member who was to serve his country in that pursuit, that of Vespucci chose Amerigo, or Americus, to follow the example of their ancestors in this respect. Accordingly he left Florence in 1490, and went to Spain, to be initiated in mercantile life. He is said to have been at Seville in 1492, when Columbus was preparing for a new voyage, and the rage for new discoveries was at its height. The success of that celebrated navigator raised this passion in Americus, who determined to give up the pursuit of trade, in order to go and reconnoitre the new world, of whose existence Europe had just heard.

With this design he began his first voyage on May 10, 1497, leaving Cadiz with five ships under the command of Ojeda. This fleet sailed towards the Fortunate islands, and keeping a Western course, reached the continent of America, in thirty-seven days. They visited the gulph of Paria, and the island of St. Marguerite, and sailed along the coast for four hundred leagues. After a voyage of thirteen months, they returned to Cadiz, Nov. 15, 1498. Americus, who by his skill in navigation had very much contributed to the success of this expedition, was extremely well received at the court of Seville. In the month of May 1499, he left Cadiz for Cape de Verd, passed the Canaries within sight, and in forty-four days after his departure, reached an unknown land, situated under the torrid zone, which was the continuation of that which he had discovered io his first voyage. After sailing for some time along the coast, he returned to the Spanish island of St. Domingo, where Ojeda had some disputes with the Europeans, who six years before had come there with Columbus. The fleet now directed its course northwards, and discovered several islands, the number of which, Americus says, amounted to a thousand, a calculation which his panegyrist contents, himself with considering as a poetical exaggeration. Ojeda intended to have continued this route, but the complaints of the crew obliged him to return to Europe. On the arrival of his tieet, Ferdinand and Isabella, to whom Americus presented various productions of the new world, received him in the most flattering manner; and when his discoveries reached the ears of the Florentines, they rejoiced in having produced so great a man. Seduced, however, by the promises of Emanuel, king of Portugal, Americus quitted the service of Spain, and set sail from Lisbon, May 10, 1501, with three Portuguese ships. In this fleet he arrived at Cape St. Augustine, and coasted almost the whole of Brazil to Patagonia, but a succession of tempestuous weather forced him to return to Portugal, where he arrived Dec. 7, 1502. The king, very much pleased with this voyage, wished Americus to undertake another; and for the fourth time, this Florentine navigator embarked with a fleet of six ships, May 10, 1505, with the hope of discovering, by the West, a new way to Malacca; but this expedition was Jess successful than the preceding. After losing one of the vessels, and encountering the greatest dangers, they gained the bay of All Saints, Brazil, and lost no time in returning to Europe.

Americus remained in Portugal until 1506, the time of Columbus’s death, when the Spanish court wishing to repair the loss occasioned by that event, recalled Americus into their service, who again sailed, in 1507, in a Spanish fleet, with the title of first pilot, and it was during this voyage that the new world took its name from him. Thus, says the abbe kaynal, the moment America became known from the rest of the world, it was distinguished by an act of injustice. Americus jived a considerable time afterwards to enjoy this usurped honour, and is said to hare often visited the continent which bore his name. He died in 1516, at which time he was again in the service of Portugal. Emanuel, in order to do honour to his memory, caused the remains of his ship to be deposited in the cathedral of Lisbon, and Florence bestowed honours on his family.

, an extraordinary enthusiast in the seventeenth century, was born in London in 1582, descended from the family of Vicars in Cumberland. He was educated in Christ’s hospital, London, and afterwards was a member of Queen’s college, Oxford, but whether he took his degrees, Wood has rppt discovered. After leaving college he went to London, and became usher of Christ’s hospital, which place he held till towards the close of his life. It does not appear that he was a preacher, although most of his writings concern the religious controversies of the times Upon the commencement of the rebellion, “he showed his great forwardness,” says Wood, “for presbyterianism, hated all people that loved obedience, and affrighted many of the weaker sort, and others, from having any agreement with the king’s party, by continually inculcating into their heads strange stories of God’s wrath against the cavaliers. Afterwards, when the independents became predominant, he manifested great enmity against them, especially after the king’s death.” Foulis, in his “History of Plots,” says that “he could out-scold the boldest face in Billingsgate, especially if kings, bishops, organs, or maypoles, were to be the objects of his zealous indignation.” This indeed is a pretty just character of John Vicars’s writings, which form a store-house of the abusive epithets and gross personal reflections which passed between the lower order of sectaries in that period of confusion. The title of his work against John Goodwin, will afford a good specimen of John’s language. This was published in 1648, “Coleman-street Conclave visited; and that grand impostor, the schismatics’ cheater-in-chief (who hath long slily lurked therein) truly and duly discovered; containing a most palpable and plain display of Mr. John Goodwin’s self-conviction (under his own hand- writing), and of the notorious heresies, errors, malice, pride, and hypocrisy, of this most huge Garagantua in falsely pretended piety, to the lamentable misleading of his too credulous soul-murdered proselytes of Coleman-street, and elsewhere; collected principally out of his own big-braggadochio wave-like swelling and swaggering writings, full fraught with six-footed terms, and fleshlie rhetorical phrases, far more than solid and sacred truths, and may fitly serve (if it be the Lord’s will) like Belshazzar’s hand-writing on the wall of his conscience, to strike terror and shame into his own soul and shameless face, and to undeceive his most miserably cheated, and iuchanted or be-witched followers.” This is accompanied by a portrait of Goodwin (the only one mentioned by Granger, and of course in great request) with a windmill over his head, and a weather-cock upon it; the devil is represented blowing the sails; and there are other emblems, significant of Goodwin’s fickleness. Vicars died Aug. 12, 1652, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Wood has given a list of sixteen of his writings, the most curious of which is his “Parliamentary Chronicle.” This is still esteemed useful, and being scarce, is generally sold at a very high price. It was printed at different times under the following titles: 1. “God in the Molint; or England’s Remembrancer, being the first and second part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1644, 4to. 2. “God’s Arke overtopping the World’s waves; or, a third part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. 3. “The Burning-bush not consumed; or the fourth and last part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. These were then published together, under the title of “Magnalia Dei Anglicana, or, England’s Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. Vicars was also a poet, and in the “Censura Literaria,” we have an account and specimen of a work of this kind entitled “Mischief’s Mysterie; or, Treason’s Master-piece; the powder-plot, invented by hellish malice; prevented by heavenly mercy truly related, and from the Latin of the learned and reverend Dr. Herring, translated, and very much dilated by John Vicars,” 1617. At the end of this are some smaller poems.

3. “De Cwsaribus histori-a, ab Augusto Octavio, id est, a fine Titi Livii usque ad cousulatum decimum Constantii Augusti et Jdliaiii Caesaris t^rtium.” 4. “De vita et moribus imperatorum Romauorum exeerpta, e Coesare Augusto usque ad Theodosium imperatorem.” The third of these works, “De Ca-sanbus historia,” is, perhaps, the only one that can be ascribed with certainty to Aurelius. The first edition of Aurelius Victor was printed at Antwerp, 1579, 8vo, with notes by Schottus, who was the first restorer of the text. The other good editions arr the “Variorum,” by Pitiscus, 1696, 8vo; that by Arntzenius, Amst. 1733, 4to; by Gruner, 1757, 8vo and the Bipont. 1789.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Florence, in the month of July, 1499. In very early life he began his studies in philosophy, mathematics, jurisprudence, and particularly Greek and Latin. In 1522, he went to Spain with Paul Vettori, a relation, who was general of the gallies, and appointed to accompany the new pope, Adrian VI. into Italy. Our author stopt at Catalonia, and travelled over that and the neighbouring parts in quest of the remains of Roman antiquities, of which he took copies. He also afterwards continued this research at Rome, when he went there to congratulate Clement VII. on his accession to the popedom. This pope had been a npbleman of Florence, and of his own standing. When the revolt took place at Florence Vettori sided with the republican party, and, during the prevalence of the Medici family, retired to the country, and devoted himself to study, with the firm resolution to meddle no more with public affairs. When the duke Alexander was killed, and the senators and patricians were assembled to consider of a new form of government, they invited Vettori to take part in their deliberations; but instead of complying, he went to Rome, and left his discordant and tumultuous countrymen to determine among themselves whether they would be freemen or slaves. “My country,” he used to say, “is in the same situation as Rome formerly; it will neither tolerate liberty nor slavery. Riches have produced pride, and pride, ambition. The laws have no longer any force; every day they are repealing old laws and making new ones, and no more respect is paid to the new than to the old. In the present state of my country, I clearly see that it must have a sovereign, but I will not aid in giving it a sovereign, for fear of giving it a tyrant.”

With such arguments he always answered those who by letter or in person pressed him to return to Florence, and affected even to consider his refusal as criminal. He bad the wisdom to abandon politics, and dedicate his whole time and attention to the acquisition of knowledge. And in such esteem was he held on account of his learning, that Cosmo I. who could not love him on account of his hostility to the Medici family, yet sent him an invitation to become Greek and Latin professor in the university of Florence. This was a noble sacrifice of prejudice on the part of the duke, and Vettori executed the duties of his office for more than forty years with the highest reputation, and formed many distinguished scholars both Italians and foreigners. Whether we consider the utility of his lectures or his public works, it will appear that literature was as highly indebted to him as to almost any scholar of his time. Had he done nothing but collate and correct the editions of the Greek and Latin authors which had appeared from the invention of printing to his own time, his labours would have been of infinite service in that comparatively dark period; but we are indebted to his industry also for the collation of avast number of manuscripts, and selecting the best for the press, in which he shewed great judgment, and assigned his reasons with critical precision. But his services did not end even here, for he furnished the learned world with notes and commentaries, which gave superiority to many editions of the classics, as various parts of Aristotle’s works, Terence, Varro, Sallust, Euripides, Porphyry, Plato, Xenophon, &c. but of all his editions, that of Cicero, printed in 1534 37, four vols. folio, has justly received the encomiums of the literary world ever since his time. He has been called “Verus Ciceronis sospitator,” and Grasvius is of opinion that Cicero is more indebted to him than to all the other critics and commentators. Besides these and his “Variae lectiones,” of which there have been several editions, and which discover great critical knowledge, he was the author of some Latin poetry and orations, of letters both in Latin and Italian, and an Italian treatise on the culture of olives. Men of learning of all countries were happy in his acquaintance and correspondence, and princes and other great personages not only attended his lectures, but expressed their veneration of his talents and worth, by diplomas, titles, and presents. He died in the eighty-sixth year of his age, in 1585, and was interred with great solemnity at the public expence in the church of the Holy Spirit, where is a marble monument and inscription to his memory. It is said that his private virtues, as well as his talents, made his death the subject of universal regret.

, an elegant modern Latin poet and critic, was a native of Cremona, and was born, as is generally thought, about 1470, but with more probability about 1480. His parents were not wealthy, yet enabled to give him a good education. After having made considerable proficiency in philosophy, theology, an-d political science, he came to Rome in the latter part of the pontificate of Julius II. and appears to hate mixed in the literary societies of the place; and his poem on the game of chess, “Scacchiae Ludus,” introduced hi fcothe favour of Leo X. who received him with particular distinction and kindness, admitted him as an attendant at court, and rewarded him with honours and emoluments. But that upon which the poet appears chiefly to have congratulated himself was, that his works were read and approved by the pontiff himself. It was at the suggestion of Leo that he began his celebrated “Cbristiad,” which he afterwards completed in six books, but Leo did not live to see it finished. It was, however, published under the patronage of Clement VII. in 1535. In the mean time Clement had already raised Vida to the rank of apostolical secretary, and in 1532, conferred on him the bishopric of Alba. Soon after the death of that pontiff, Vida retired to his diocese, and was present at its defence against the attack of the French in 1542, where his exhortations and example animated the inhabitants successfully to oppose the enemy. After having attended in his episcopal character at the council of Trent, and taken an active part in the ecclesiastical and political transactions of the times, he died at his see at Alba, Sept. 27, 1566, more respected for his talents, integrity, and strict attention to his pastoral duties, than for the wealth which he had amassed from his preferments.

The first specimen of the talents of Vida in Latin poetry appeared in a collectoin of pieces on the death of the poet Aquila, which happened in 1500, towards which he contributed two piees, which were published in that collection at Bologna, in 1504. His whole works were first printed at Romae in 1527 and 1535, in 2 vols. 4to, but he published a more complete edition at Cremona, 1550, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains, “Hymni de rebus divinis,” and “Christiados libri sex” the second “De Arte Poetica libri tres;” “De Bombyce libri duo;” Scacchiae Ludus“”Bucolica;“” Eclogæ, et Carmina diversi generis.“Besides the poems comprehended in these two volumes, others are ascribed to him, as” Italorum Pugilum cum totidem Gallis certamen;“” Carmen Pastorale in Obltum Juliill. Pontificis Maximi;“” Epicedion in Funera Oliverii Cardinalis Caraphæ;“but these he disavowed in a postscript to the above edition of his poems. He was also the author of some pieces in prose, as” Dialogi de Republics Dignitate“” Orationes tres Cremonensium adversus Papienses in Controversia Principatus“and” Constitutiones Synodales Civitati Albæ et Diœcesi prescriptæ.“Of such of these works, a-s his reputation as a Latin poet is at this day founded on, his three books” De Arte Poetica“were probably the first produced; and these were soon afterwards followed by the” Bombyx,“and by his” Scacchias Ludus,“which, as we noticed, introduced him to Leo X. The” Bombyx,“or silk-worm, is written with classical purity, and with a just mixture of the styles of Lucretius and Virgil. Dr. Warton says it was a happy choice to write a poem on” Chess;“nor is the execution less happy.” The various stratagems and manifold intricacies of this ingenious game, so difficult to be described in Latin, are here expressed with the greatest perspicuity and elegance; so that, perhaps, the game might be learned from this description.“Of the” Christiad,“the same excellent critic observes, that amidst many prosaic flatnesses, there are many fine strokes in this poem; particularly his angels, with respect to their persons and insignia, are drawn with that dignity which we so much admire in Milton, who seems to have had his eye on those passages. The” Poetics,“however, are perhaps the most perfect of his compositions; he had formed himself upon Virgil, who is therefore his hero, and he has too much depreciated Homer. He is, in truth, so much an imitator of Virgil as to be very defective in originality. Although his precepts principally regard epic poetry, yet many of them are applicable to every species of composition. This poem has the praise of being one of the first, if not the very first piece of criticism, that appeared in Italy since the revival of learning; for it was finished, as is evident from a short advertisement prefixed to it, in 1520. We have an excellent translation of this poem by Pitt, and one more recent, with notes, by Mr. Hampson. There are, if we mistake not, English translations also of the” Game of Chess,“a'.id the” Bombyx." Of his original works, the best recent editions are that of Oxford, by Tristram, 1722, 4 vols. 8vo, with elegant plates; that of the Vulpii (including the prose works) Padua, 1731, 2 vols. 4to.

In 1673 he revised his Commentary on St. Matthew and Mark, omitting what was in favour of the Romish church, and improving it in other respects. In 1679 he published his literal “Explication of Solomon’s Song,” dedicated to sir Joseph Williamson. This was so well received, that many of the most eminent of the clergy of England, and of the foreign reformed churches, encouraged him to proceed to a farther translation of the sacred writings. Accordingly in 1680 he published his “Literal Exposition of the minor Prophets.” But his principles were still unsettled, and meeting, in the bishop of London’s library, to which he had at all times access, with the writings of the English baptists, he became convinced that there was no foundation for infant baptism, and leaving the church, joined a small baptist congregation in Gracechurch-street, where he was publicly baptised. This is said to have lost him all his powerful friends, except Tillotson, who still preserved a respect for his talents. He now published an “Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles” in English, in which he endeavoured to defend his baptist sentiments. He preached also among that sect, but was not very popular, as he could not speak English fluently. His flock, however, raised him a salary, which he enjoyed till his death. He also practised physic for his maintenance. He is supposed to have died about the commencement of the last century.

There was another Lewis de Compiegne de Viel, also a converted Jew, and born at Metz, who published many learned pieces, particularly in 1679, in Hebrew, with a Latin version by himself, “Catechismus Judaeorum in disputatione & dialogo magistri & discipuli, scriptus a R. Abrahamo Jagel, monte Silicis onu^o,” with a dedication to Dr. Compton, bishop of London: this book was reprinted at Franeker, in 1690, in 8vo. He gave the public likewise a Latin translation of, and notes upon, rabbi Moses Maimonides’s book “De $acrificiis,” and his tract “De Consecratione & de Ratione irjtercalandi,” and Abarbanel’s “Exordium sive proo3mium in Leviticum,” printed at London, in 1683, in 4to. H,e had published also at Paris, in 1678, the eighth book of Maimonicles “De cultu divino,” with a Latin version, just before he left France, where he was the king’s interpreter for the Oriental languages. He was born a Jew, but afterwards embraced the Popish religion, which he at last renounced for the Protestant, and entered into the communion of the Church of England, whither he retired about 1679.

, an eminent architect and writer on the subject, was the son of Clement Barozzio, of one of the best families of Milan, but who being ruined by the civil wars, retired to Vignola, a small town in the marquisate of that name, situated in the territory of Bologna. It was there that his son, the subject of this article, was born, Oct. 1, 1507, and became afterwards generally known by the name of his native place. His father dying when he was almost in his infancy, and leaving him little provision, he wished to have recourse to painting; and having some knowledge of the first principles of the art, he went to Bologna to be farther instructed, but soon changed his mind, and determined to confine himself to architecture and perspective. He was no sooner known in this profession, than several persons applied to him for designs for buildings, and he executed some for the governor of Bologna, which were very much admired. On such occasions, in order to see the effect of what he laid down, he had models made in wood by Damien de Bergamo, a Dominican, who excelled in that species of ingenuity, and used to express, by means of coloured woods, every kind of material to be used in the building.

In order to acquire a greater knowledge of the principles of architecture, Vignola went to Rome, and at first returned to painting fora maintenance; but not reaping much profit, abandoned that art a second time, and procured employment as a draughtsman from Melighini, of Ferrara, then architect to pope Paul III. and who had established a school of architecture at Rome. Yignola was afterwards employed to make drawings, for the use of this academy, of the ancient edifices of the city, from which he derived great advantage in his studies. While here, about 1537, or J 540, he met with Primaticcio, who was employed by Francis I. king of France, to purchase antiques (See Primaticcio); and Vignola was of so much service in making casts for him, that Primaticcio engaged him to go with him to France. There Vignola assisted that celebrated artist in all his works, and particularly in making the bronze casts which are at Fontainebleau. He also made various architectural designs for the king, who was prevented from having them executed, by the wars in which France was then involved. After a residence of about two years, he was invited to Bologna, to undertake the new church of St. Petronius, and his design was allowed the preference, and highly approved by Julio Romano, the celebrated painter, and Christopher Lombard, the architect. At Minerbio, near Bologna, he built a magnificent palace for count Isolani, and in Bologna the house of Achilles Bocchi. The portico of the exchange in that city is also of his designing, but it was not built until 1562, in the pontificate of Pius IV. His most useful work at Bologna was the canal of Navilio, which he constructed with great skill for the space of a league. But happening to be ill rewarded for this undertaking, he went to Placentia, where he gave a design for the duke of Parma’s palace, which was executed by his son Hyacinth, who was now able to assist him in his various works. He afterwards built several churches and chapels in various parts of Italy, which it is unnecessary to specify. These, it is supposed, he had finished before his return to Rome in 1550, where Vasari presented him to pope Julius III. who appointed him his architect. While at Rome, he was employed in various works, both of grandeur and utility, the last of which, and reckoned his finest work, was the magnificent palace or castle of Caprarola, so well described and illustrated by plates in his works.

a learned Spanish Jesuit, was born at Cordova in 1552, and entered the society of the Jesuits in the twenty-sixth year of his age. We have very few particulars, even by Antonio, of his personal history, unless that he was distinguished for his extensive theological and mathematical knowledge, and for some time was associated with Jerome Prado in a commentary on Ezekiel. It would appear that Villalpando had the king’s orders for this undertaking, as far as respected the description of the Temple, and city of Jerusalem; and Prado, dying before the work was finished, Villalpando has the sole reputation of the whole. It was published under the title of “Explanationes in Ezechielem,” Rome, 1596 1604, 3 vols. fol. As a commentary, the catholic writers, Dupin, &c. assure us that it is one of the most learned. His skill in architecture gave him great advantages in endeavouring to trace the figure and dimensions of the temple of Solomon, but unfortunately he employed a sort of theory which was guided more by imagination than judgment. Having laid it down as a first principle, that the model of the temple, having been given by God himself, must be perfect, he therefore exhausted all the powers of conjecture and fancy to describe an edifice that should answer that character. This led him, among other errors, to introduce many embellishments and additions not mentioned in the sacred text; instead of three courts, for example, he has described no less than eleven. But the reader who is curious in the inquiry, may consult Calmet’s Dictionary, where there are engravings as well as a description, from Villalpando. He edited also a work of St. Remi, “Remigii Rhemensis in Epistolas S. Pauli tractatus,” Mentz, which was not, however, published until after his death, as the date is 1614, fol. He died at Rome, May 23, 1608.

, a Florentine historian of the fourteenth century, was the son of a native of that place, and is supposed to have been born about the end of the thirteenth century, as he was somewhat older than an infant in 1300, when he informs us he went to Rome to see the Jubilee, and young as he was, first formed, on that occasion, the design of writing his “Chronicle.” Before, however, he began this work, he visited various parts of Italy, France, and the Netherlands, and having collected much information, began to compile his history as soon as he returned home. His first intention was to write only the history of Florence, a city which he imagined would rise in splendour and prosperity as Rome declined, but he was induced to extend his plan to the events of other countries wherever they could be introduced. In the mean time the public employments to which his merit raised him, delayed the completidn of his history for many years. Tnrice, 1316, 1317, and 1321, he was one of the priors of Florence; he had also some office in the mint, and at various times was employed in the service of the republic. He died of the plague in 1348. He had written his history up to this period, and his brother Matthew Villani made a continuation till the year 1363, when he also died of the plague. The work then fell into the hands of Philip Villani, son to Matthew, who made a still longer addition to the labours of his father and uncle. The first edition was printed at Florence by the Junti in 1537, fol. and was often reprinted. The last, corrected from three ms copies, was printed at Milan in 1729, 2 vols. fol. The original part by John Villani, is, like most chronicles, mere compilation of fabulous history, until he comes to his own times, when he is allowed to be accurate and useful, and the same praise is due to his successors.

, marshal of France, was born at Moulins in Bourbonnais in 1653. His father had served with ability and courage, both in the civil and military capacity, and the son very early shewed a zeal to excel in arms. He served first a& aid -de -camp to his cousin, the marshal de Belleforis, and signalized himself in several sieges and engagements, till 1702, when having defeated the prince of Baden at the battle of Friedlingen, he was appointed marechal of France, October 22, the same year. The following year he took the fortress of Kell, won a battle at Hochstet, 1703, and subdued the insurgents in the Cevennes, by negociating with their leader in a manner that did credit to his humanity; for ttiese services he was raised to the title of dukeofVillarsin 1706. His neM considerable action was forcing the lines at Stolhoffen, 1707, and obtaining more than eigtteed millions in contributions from the enemy. It was thought that he would have gained the battle of iMalplaquet, in 1709, had he not been dangerously wounded before the action finished. Such at least was his own opinion, towhich historians seem, not disposed to accede. But it is less doubtful that he afterwards acquired great glory from the stratagem by which he forced the entrenchments of Denain on the Schelde, July 24, 1712. This success was followed by the capture of Marchiennes, Douay, Bouchain, Landau, Friburg, &c. and by a peace concluded at Radstadt, between the emperor and France, May 6, 1714. Marechal de Villars, who had been plenipotentiary at the treaty of Radstadt, was made president of the council of war in 1715, and afterwards counsellor to the regency and minister of state. In 1733 he went into Italy as commander under the king of Sardinia, and his majesty declared him marshal general of his camps and armies; a title granted to no one, since the death of marechal de Turenne, who appears to have been the first person honoured with it. M. de Villars took Pisighitona, Milan, Novarra, and Tortona; but after having opened the following campaign, he fell sick and died at Turin, on his return to France, June 17, 1734, aged eighty-two, regretted as one of the greatest and most fortunate generals of France. He had been admitted into the French academy, June 23, 1714. M. the abbe Seguy spoke his funeral oration, which was printed in 1735. He was a man of undoubted courage, but he was vain and unaccommodating, and never beloved. “The Memoirs of M. de Villars” were published in Dutch, in 1734 36, 3 vols. 12mo; but the first volume only was written by himself. Another life was published by M. Anquetil in 1784, 4 vols. J2mo, which is said to contain more ample information and historical documents.

, duke of Buckingham, and memorable in English story for having been the favourite of two kings, was born Aug. 20, 1592, at Brookesby in Leicestershire, and was the son of sir George Villiers, by a second wife of the ancient family of Beaumont. At an early age he was sent to a private school in that county, but never discovered any genius for letters; so that more regard was had in the course of his education to the accomplishments of a gentleman than those of a scholar. About eighteen, he travelled into France, where he made himself familiar with the French language, and with all the exercises of the noblesse; such as fencing and dancing, in which last he particularly excelled. Soon after his return to England, which was at the end of three years, his mother, who was a sagacious and enterprising woman, introduced him at court; concluding probably, and not without good reason, that a young gentleman of his fine person and accomplishments could not fail of making his fortune under such a monarch as James I. The king, about March 1614-15, went according to his custom to take his huntingpleasures at Newmarket; and the Cambridge scholars, who knew the king’s humour, invited him to a play, called “Ignoramus.” At this play it was contrived, that Viiliers should appear with every advantage of dress and person; and the king no sooner cast his eyes upon him than he became confounded with admiration; for, says lord Clarendon, “though he was a prince of more learning and knowledge than any other of that age, and really delighted more in books and in the conversation of learned men, yet, of all wise men living, he was the most delighted and taken with handsome persons and fine cloaths.” Thus he conceived such a liking to the person of Villiers, that he “resolved, as sir Henry Wotton says, to make him a masterpiece; and to mould him, as it were, Platonically to his own idea.”

The king began to be weary of his favourite, the earl of Somerset; and many of the courtiers were sufficiently angry and incensed against him, for being what they themselves desired to be. These, therefore, were pleased with the prospect of a new favourite; and, oat of their zeal to displace Somerset, did all they could to promote Villiers. Their endeavours, concurring with the inclinations of the king, made the promotion of Villiers advance so rapidly, that in a few days after his first appearance at court, he was made cup-bearer to the king. Soon after he was made a gentleman of the bed-chamber, and knight of the order of the garter. In a short time, “very short,” says lord Clarendon, “for such a prodigious ascent,” he was made a baron, a viscount, an earl, a marquis; he became lord high admiral of England, lord warden of the Cinque-ports, master of the horse; and entirely disposed of the favours of the king, in conferring all the honours and all the offices of the three kingdoms without a rival. In this he shewed the usual partialities of personal and family ambition, and raised almost all of his own numerous family and dependents, without any other merit than their alliance to him; which equally offended the ancient nobility and people of all conditions, who saw the flowers of the crown every day fading and withered, while the revenues of it were sacrificed to the aggrandizement of a private family.

In 1620, the marquis of Buckingham married the only daughter of the earl of Rutland, who was the richest heiress in the kingdom. Some have said that he debauched feer first, and that the earl of Rutland threatened him into the marriage: but this may reasonably be ranked with many other imputations of perhaps doubtful authority, which now began to be accumulated against him. In 1623, the marquis persuaded Charles prince of Wales to make a journey into Spain, and bring home his mistress the Infanta; by representing to him, how gallant and brave a thing it would be, and how soon it would put an end to those formalities, which, though all substantial matters were already determined, might yet retard her voyage into England many months. The king was greatly enraged at the proposal, and the event shewed that he had sufficient reason; but the solicitation of the prince and the impetuosity of the marquis prevailed. The marquis attended the prince, and was made a duke in his absence: yet it is certain, says lord Clarendon, that the king was never well pleased with the duke after this journey into Spain, which was totally against his will, and contrived wholly by the duke out of e^nvy, lest the earl of Bristol should have the sole management of so great an affair. Many were of opinion, therefore, that king James, before his death, was become weary of this favourite, and that, if he had lived, he would have deprived him at least of his large and unlimited power; but it did not openly appear that the king’s affection towards him was at all lessened.

Charles succeeded to the throne in 1625; and the duke continued in the same degree of favour at the least with the son which he had enjoyed so many years under the father. This greatly disappointed certain courtiers, who, recollecting the great jealousy and indignation which the prince had heretofore conceived against the duke, for having been once very near striking him, expected that he would now take revenge. But, on the contrary, the new king, from the death of the old, even to the death of the duke himself, discovered the most entire confidence in, and even friendship to, him. All preferments in church and state were given by him; all his kindred and friends promoted to the degree in honour, or riches, or offices, that he thought fit; and all his enemies and enviers discountenanced, as he appointed. But, whatever interest he might have in the prince, he had now none with the parliament and people. The parliament, which nad so rashly advanced the war with Spain upon the breaking of the match with the Infanta, and so passionately adhered to his person, was now no more; and the attachment which the major part had for the duke, was changed now into prejudice and animosity. All the actions of his life were scrutinized, and every unfavourable representation given of what he had said and done. Votes and remonstrances passed against him as an enemy to the nation; and his misconduct was made the ground of the refusal to give the “king a supply. This kind of treatment, however, had no effect in taming the duke’s great spirit, who expressed the utmost indignation upon finding, that they who flattered him most before, mentioned him now with the greatest bitterness and acrimony; and that the same men, who called him” our Saviour“for bringing the prince safe out of Spain, called him now” corrupter of the king, and betrayer of the liberties of the people," without being able to impute to him the least crime, committed since the time of that exalted adulation. He ventured therefore to manifest a greater contempt of them than he should have done; for he caused this and the next parliament to be quickly dissolved, and, upon every dissolution, had such as had given any offence, imprisoned or disgraced. He caused new projects to be every day set on foot for raising money; and bad defiance to temperate and conciliatory measures.

In this fatal conjuncture, and while the war with Spain was yet kept up, anew war was precipitately declared against France; for which no reasonable cause could ever be assigned. It has been said, that the king was hurried into this war, purely from a private motive of resentment in the duke of Buckingham, who, having bfeen in France to bring over the queen, had the confidence to make overtures of love to Anne of Austria, the consort of Lewis XIII.; and that his high spirit was so fired at the repulse he met with on this extraordinary occasion, as to be appeased with nothing less than a war between the two nations. Whatever was the cause, the fleet, which had been designed to have surprised Cadiz, was no sooner returned without success and with much damage, than it was repaired, and the army reinforced for the invasion of France. Here the duke was general himself, and made that unfortunate descent upon the Isle of Rhee, in which the flower of the army was lost. Having returned to England, and repaired the fleet and the army, he was about to sail to the relief of Rochelle, which was then closely besieged by the cardinal Richelieu; and to relieve which the duke was the more obliged, because at the Isle of Rhee he had received great supplies of victuals and some men from that town, the want of both which he laboured under at this time. He was at Portsmouth for this purpose, when he was assassinated by one Felton, on the 23d of August, 1628, in the thirty-sixth year of his age. The particulars of this assassination are well known, being related, at large by lord Clarendon, to whom we refer the reader; but we may subjoin another account, as being circumstantial and curious, and less known. This is given by sir Simonds D'Ewes, in a manuscript life of himself: “August the 23d, being Saturday, the duke having eaten his breakfast between eight and nine o‘clock in the morning, in one Mr. Mason-’ s house in Portsmouth, he was then hasting away to the king, who lay at Reswicke, about five miles distant, to have some speedy conference with him. Being come to the farthef part of the entry leading out of the parlour into the hall of the house, he had there some conference with sir Thomas Frier, a colonel; and stooping down in taking his leave of him, John Felton, gentleman, having watched his opportunity, thrust a long knife, with a white helfc, he had secretly ahout him, with great strength and violence, into his breast, under his left pap, cutting the diaphragm* and lungs, and piercing the very heart itself. The duke having received the stroke, and instantly clapping his right-hand on his sword-hilt, cried out ` God’s wounds! the villain hath killed me.‘ Some report his last words otherwise, little differing for substance from these; and it might have been wished, that his end had not been so sudden, nor his last words mixed with so impious an expression. He was attended by many noblemen and leaders, yet none could see to prevent the stroke. His duchess, and the countess of Anglesey (the wife of Christopher Villiers, earl of Anglesey, his younger brother), being in an upper room, and hearing a noise in the hall, into which they had carried the duke, ran presently into a gallery, that looked down into it $ and there beholding the duke’s blood gush out abundantly from his breast, nose, and mouth (with which his speech, after those his first words, had been immediately stopped), they brake into pitiful outcries, and raised great lamentation. He pulled out the knife himself; and being carried by his servants unto the table, tha,t stood in the same hall, having struggled with death near upon a quarter of an hour, at length he gave up the ghost, about ten o’clock, and lay a long time after he was dead upon the table.”

As to the character of this great man, Clarendon says, he was “of a noble and generous disposition, and of such other endowments as made him very capable of being a great favourite with a great king. He understood the arts of a court, and all the learning that is possessed there, exactly well. By long practice in business, under a master that discoursed excellently, and surely knew all things wonderfully, and took much delight in indoctrinating his young unexperienced favourite, who (he knew) would always be looked upon as the workmanship of his own hands, he bad obtained a quick conception and apprehension of business, and had the habit of speaking very gracefully anci pertinently. He was of a most flowing courtesy and affability to all men who made any address to him, and so desirous to oblige them that he did not enough consider the value of the obligation, or the merit of the person he chose to oblige; from which much of his misfortune resulted. He was of a courage not to be daunted, which was manifested in all his actions, and in his contests with particular persons of the greatest reputation; and especially in his whole demeanour at the Isle of Rhee, both at the landing and upon the retreat; in both which no man was more fearless, or more ready to expose himself to the highest dangers. His kindness and affection to his friends was so vehement, that they were as so many marriages for better or worse, and so many leagues offensive and defensive: as if he thought himself obliged to love all his friends, and to make war upon all they were angry with, let the cause be what it would. And it cannot be denied, that he was an enemy in the same excess $ and prosecuted those he looked upon as enemies with the utmost rigour and animosity, and was not easily induced to a reconciliation. His single misfortune was, which was indeed productive of many greater, that he had never made a noble and a worthy friendship with a man so near his equal, that he would frankly advise him for his honour and true interest against the current, or rather the torrent, of his passions; and it may reasonably be believed, that, if he had been blessed with one faithful friend, who had been qualified with wisdom and integrity, he would have committed as few faults, and done as transcendant worthy actions, as any man who shined in such a sphere in that age in Europe; for he was of an excellent disposition, and of a mind very capable of advice and counsel; he was in his nature just and candid, liberal, generous, and bountiful; nor was it ever known, that the temptation of money swayed him to do an unjust or unkind thing. If he had an immoderate ambition, with which he was charged, it doth not appear that it was in his nature, or that he brought it with him to the court, but rather found it there. He needed no ambition, who was so seated in the hearts of two such masters.” This is the character which the earl of Clarendon has thought fit to give the duke; and if other historians have not drawn him in colours quite so favourable, yet they have not varied from him in the principal features.

, duke of Buckingham, and a very distinguished personage in the reign of Charles II. was the son of the preceding, by his wife lady Catherine Manners, and was born at Wallingford-house, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, January 30, 1627, which being but the year before the fatal catastrophe of his father’s death, the young duke was left a perfect infant, a circumstance which is frequently prejudicial to the morals of men born to high rank and affluence. The early parts of his education he received from various domestic tutors; after which he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where having completed a course of studies, he, with his brother lord Francis, went abroad, under the care of one Mr. Aylesbury. Upon his return, which was not till after the breaking-out of the rebellion, the king being at Oxford, his grace repaired thither, was presented to his majesty, and entered of Christ-church college. Upon the decline of the king’s cause, he attended prince Charles into Scotland, and was with him at the battle of Worcester in 1651; after which, making his escape beyond sea, he again joined him, and was soon after, as a reward for his attachment, made knight of the Garter. Desirous, however, of retrieving his affairs, he came privately to England, and in 1657 married Mary, the daughter and sole heiress of Thomas lord Fairfax, through whose interest he recovered the greatest part of the estate he had lost, and the assurance of succeeding to an accumulation of wealth in the right of his wife. We do not find, however, that this step lost him the royal favour; for, after- the restoration, at which time he is said to have possessed an estate of 20,000l. per annum, he was made one of the lords of the bed-chamber, called to the privy -council, and appointed lord-lieutenant of Yorkshire, and master of the horse. All these high offices, however, he lost again in 1666; for, having been refused the post of president of the North, he became disaffected to the king, and it was discovered that he had carried on a secret correspondence by letters and other transactions with one Dr. Heydon (a man of no kind of consequence, but a useful tool), tending to raise mutinies among his majesty’s forces, particularly in the navy, to stir up seditioa among the people, and even to engage persons in a conspiracy for the seizing the Tower of London. Nay, to sucii base lengths had he proceeded, as even to have given money to villains to put on jackets, and, personating seamen, to go about the country begging, and exclaiming for want of pay, while the people oppressed with taxes were cheated of their money by the great officers of the crown. Matters were ripe for execution, and an insurrection, at the head of which the duke was openly to have appeared, on the very eve of breaking-out, when it was discovered by means of some agents whom Heydon had employed to carry letters to the duke. The detection of this affair so exasperated the king, who knew Buckingham to be capable f the blackest designs, that he immediately ordered him to be seized; but the duke finding means, having defended his house for some time by force, to make his escape, his majesty struck him out of all. his commissions, and issued out a proclamation, requiring his surrender by a certain day. This storm, however, did not long hang over his head; for, on his making an humble submission, king Charles, who was far from being of an implacable temper, took him again into favour, and the very next year restored him both to the privy-council and bed-chamber. But the duke’s disposition for intrigue and machination was not lessened; for, having conceived a resentment against the duke of Ormond, because he had acted with some severity against him in the last-mentioned affair, he, in 1670, was supposed to be concerned in an attempt made on that nobleman’s life, by the same Blood who afterwards endeavoured to steal the crown. Their design was to have conveyed the duke to Tyburn, and there have hanged him; and so far did they proceed towards the putting it in execution, that Blood and his son had actuallyforced the duke out of his coach in St. James’s-street, and carried him away beyond Devonshire-house, Piccadilly, before he was rescued from them. That there must hare been the strongest reasons for suspecting the duke of Buckingham of having been a party in this villainous project, is apparent from a story Mr. Carte relates from the best authority, in his “Life of the duke of Ormond,” of the public resentment and open menaces thrown out to the duke on the occasion, by the earl of Ossory, the duke of Onnond’s son, even in the presence of the king himself. But as Charies II. was more sensible of injuries done to himself than others, it does not appear that this transaction hurt the duke’s interest at court; for in 1671 he was installed chancellor of the university of Cambridge, and sent ambassador to France, where he was very nobly entertained by Lewis XIV. and presented by that monarch at his departure with a sword and belt set with jewels, to the value of forty thousand pistoles; and the next year he was employed in a second embassy to that king at Utrecht. However, in June 1674, he resigned the chancellorship of Cambridge, and about the same time became a zealous partizan and favourer of the nonconformists. On February 16, 1676, his grace, with the earls of- Salisbury and Shaftesbury, and lord Wharton, were committed to the Tower, by order of the House of Lords, for a contempt, in refusing to retract the purport of a speech which the duke had made concerning a dissolution of the parliament; but upon a petition to the king, he was discharged thence in May following. In 1680, having sold Wallingfordhouse in the Strand, he purchased a house at Dowgate, and resided there, joining with the earl of Shaftesbury in all the violences of opposition. About the time of king Charles’s death, his health became affected, and he went into the country to his own manor of Helmisley, in Yorkshire, where he generally passed his time in hunting and entertaining his friends. This he continued until a fortnight before his death, an event which happened at a tenant’s house, at Kirkby Moorside, April 16, 1688, after three days illness, of an ague and fever, arising from a cold which he caught by sitting on the ground after foxhunting. The day before his death, he sent to his old servant Mr. Brian Fairfax, to provide him a bed at his own house, at Bishophill, in Yorkshire; but the next morning the same man returned with the news that his life was despaired of. Mr. Fairfax came; the duke knew him, looked earnestly at him, but could not speak. Mr. Fairfax asked a gentleman there present, a justice of peace, and a worthy discreet man in the neighbourhood, what he had said or done before he became speechless: who told him, that some questions had been asked him about his estate, to which he gave no answer. This occasioned another question to be proposed, if he would have a Popish priest; but he replied with great vehemence, No, no! repeating the words, he would have nothing to do with them. The same gentleman then askod him again, if he would have the minister sent for; and he calmly said, “Yes, pray seud for him.” The minister accordingly came, and did the office enjoined by the church, the duke devoutly attending it, and received the sacrament. In about an hour

Besides “The Rehearsal,” the duke was the author of some other dramatic pieces; as “The Chances,” a comedy altered from Fletcher; “The Restauration, or Right will take place,” a tragi-comedy; “The Battle of Sedgmoor,”' a farce; “The Militant Couple, or the Husband may thank himself,” a fragment. He was the author of some prose pieces, among which were “An Essay upon Reason and Religion,” in a letter to Nevile Pain, esq.; “On Human Reason,” addressed to Martin Clifford, esq.; “An account of a Conference between the duke and father Fitzgerald, whom king James’sent to convert his grace in his sickness;” and, “A short Discourse upon the reasonableness of men’s having a religion or worship of God.” This last was printed in 1685, and passed through three editions. The duke wrote also several small poems complimentary and satirical. One is entitled “The lost mistress, a complaint against the countess of” Shrewsbury, as is supposed; whose lord he killed in a duel on her account, and who is said to have held the duke’s horse, disguised like a page, during the combat. The loves of this tender pair are touched by Pope, in some well-known lines. Pope informed Spence, “that the duke’s duel with lord Shrewsbury was concerted between him and lady Shrewsbury. All that morning she was trembling for her gallant, and wishing for the death of her husband; and after his fall, 'tis said the duke lay with her in his bloody shirt.” The following account of this infamous affair, which Mr. Malone copied from a ms letter dated Whitehall, Jan. 10, 1673-4, affords but a sorry idea of the profligate reign in which such a tragedy could be acted vrith impunity.

“Upon Wednesday the 7th, the two Houses met. In the Lords’ House, immediately upon his majesty’s recess, the earl of Westmoreland brought in a petition against the ttuke of Bucks, in the name of the young earl of Shrewsbury, desiring justice against him, for murthering his father, making his mother a whore, and keeping her now as an infamous strumpet. To this the duke replied, 'tis true he had the hard fortune to kill the earl of Shrewsbury, but it was upon the greatest provocations in the world that he bad fought him- twice before, and had as often given him his life that he had threatened to pistol him, wheresoever he (should) meet him, if he could not fight him that for these reasons the king had given him his pardon. To the other part of the petition concerning the lady Shrewsbury, he said, he knew not how far his conversation with that lady was cognizable by that House; but if that had given offence, she was now gone to a retirement.” A day was appointed for considering the merits of the petition; but the parliament being prorogued on Feb. 25, nothing more appears to have been done in the business. Three clays before the duke was pardoned for killing lord Shrewsbury (Feb. 25, 1667-8), that nobleman’s second, sir John Talhot, received a pardon for killing the duke’s second, Mr. William Jenkins; for at that time the seconds in duels regularly engaged, as well as the principals. Andrew Marvell says, in one of his letters, that the duke had a son by lady Shrewsbury, who died young, and whom he erroneously calls earl of Coventry. The duke had no heirs by his duchess. What the duke meant by lady Shrewsbury’s going to a retirement, we know not. She afterwards married George Rodney Bridges, second son of sir Thomas Bridges of Keynsharn in Somersetshire, knt and died April 20, 1702.

, a very learned Frenchman, member oi the Institute, and of all the academies and learned societies of Kurope, was born at Corbeille-sur- Seine, March 5, 1750. His family was originally of Spain, but had settled in France in the early part of the seventeenth century. His father, as well as others of his ancestors, had served in the army. He began his stiuiies at a very early age at the college of Lisieux, from which he removed to that of Du Plessis, and in both was distinguished by a decided taste for the ancient languages, especially the Greek, for the sake of which he again removed to the college of Des Grassis, that he might attend the Greek lectures of M. le Beau. Under his tuition he distanced all his fellow-students, and gained all the prizes destined to those who proved the superiority of their taste in Homer. He afterwards attended the lectures of Capperonier, Greek professor in the royal college of France,' which were adapted to a more advanced state of proficiency, and soon made such progress as to need no other instructor than his own study. And such was the extent of his application, that he had already, although scarcely fifteen years of age, perused almost all the writers of antiquity, poets, orators, historians, philosophers, and grammarians. Having thus exhausted the usual stores of printed works, he sought new treasures in manuscripts; and having foil' 1 i in the library of St. Germain-des-Pres, a collection of inedited Greek lexicons, among which was that of Homer by Apollonius, he formed the design of publishing this last, which accordingly appeared in 1773, preceded by ample prolegomena, and accompanied by notes and observations, the extensive and profound erudition of which appeared very extraordinary in a young man of only twenty-two. The academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, to which Villoison submitted his work before it was printed, had admitted him a member during the preceding year, after having obtained a dispensation on account of his age, without which he could not be elected. The reason assigned was extremely honourable to him: “that having anticipated the age of profound knowledge, it was just that he should enjoy its advantages earlier than other men; and that he should outstrip them in a career of honours, as he had in that of learning.”

The fame he had so justly acquired involved him now in a literary correspondence with the most eminent men of his time, who were desirous of his communications, and he soon became an authority in what regarded the Greek language. This, however, he did not permit to give any serious interruption to his studies; and the value he set on his time and labour appeared in the offence he took at the conduct of the academy. He had communicated several memoirs, of which they published only extracts, and therefore he desisted for several years from making any farther communications. His next publication was an edition of the pastoral of Longus, which appeared in 1778, and would have been an enormous volume if one of his learned friends had not prevailed on him to retrench half of his remarks, and even then its “superfluity of erudition” was objected to; “a charge,” says his biographer, “which did no injury to that species of reputation of which M. de Villoison was ambitious.”

He was not however fully satisfied with its success, and thought with reason that he might be more usefully employed in publishing some valuable work, not before given to the world. He had examined the libraries of France for this purpose ineffectually, and formed a project of going to Venice, to search the library of St. Mark, to which he knew that cardinal Bessarion had left his numerous manuscripts. He accordingly set out in 1781, under the patronage of the king, who appointed that the expenses of his journey and residence (to which no limits were fixed) should be defrayed by the government. His researches were not fruitless. In that depository, he soon discovered several inedited works of the rhetoricians and philosophers, and especially grammarians, which he deemed worthy of publication, either entire or in extracts; and these form the celebrated collection which was printed the same year, in 2 vols. 4to, under the title of “Anecdota Graeca e regia Parisiensi et e Veneta 8. Marci bibliotheca deprompta,” Venice. Of this some copies were taken off“in folio, and two on vellum. It was however unfortunate that publication followed so hastily on discovery, for Villoison soon found, but found too late, that a considerable proportion of the first volume of these” Anecdota“had already been given to the public. He made however a very important discovery in the library of Mark, of a ms. of Homer, which he judged to be of the 10th century, and consequently anterior by two centuries to the commentator Eustathius. This precious volume, which does not appear to have been before examined, contained the whole Iliad, enriched with the scholia of the most eminent grammarians of antiquity. The margins also were filled with various marks by which these grammarians distinguished the verses of Homer, which they judged to be supposititious, corrupted, or transposed, from those whose genuineness was universally recognized. He immediately prepared an edition of this valuable treasure, which was published in 1788, fol. accompanied by learned prolegomena, and was regarded as one of the most valuable presents made to the literary world during the last century, and every scholar hastened with his congratulations. But, says his biographer,” the satisfaction which this brilliant success must have given to M. de Villoison was not long unmixed. He could not see, without sentiments of pain, the spirit of system abusing his discoveries to attack the glory of the father of poetry: and perverting the critical marks affixed to a great number of verses in the Iliad, in support of the darling position, that parts of this poem, even entire books, were the work of ancient rhapsodists, and the first editors, &c. and the idea that he had unintentionally furnished the basis on which these conjectures were constructed, and the weapons by which their authors pretended to defend them, troubled him so much, that he almost repented of having published his work.“He had advanced but a little way in printing the Iliad, when he yielded to the invitation of the duke and duchess of Saxe-Weimar, who honoured him with their particular esteem, and quitting Venice, repaired to their capital. While here, he formed the collection of critical letters, printed at Zurich in 1783, under the title of” Epistolse Vinarienses, in quihus multa Graecorum scriptorum ioca emendantur ope librorum Ducalis bibliothecte,“4to. Having found in the library of St. Mark a very liberal translation of part of the Old Testament, made by a Jew in the ninth century, he laboured, during his stay at Weimar, to put it into a state fit for publication; and on his return to France in 1784, he remained some time at Strasburgh for the purpose of having it printed there under his own inspection. He soon after set out for Greece, in quest of other ancient Mss.; but after a tour of two years, found nothing of that description. He had made, however, many observations, and intended, with the aid of these, to have composed a history of ancient and modern Greece, For the same purpose he determined on a fresh perusal of all the Greek and Latin authors extant, and as Paris had now become the scene of the revolution, and all its enormities, he removed to Orleans, in the public library of which he executed his extensive plan of reading, and its fruits were fifteen large quarto volumes of extracts and observations, which were to contribute to his history of Greece. He also prepared during his retreat at Orleans, materials for a new edition of Montfaucon’s” Palasographia Graeca," all of which are now in the royal library.

After the last storms of the revolution, he returned to Paris with his treasures; and his property of other kinds having been lost in the general confusion, he endeavoured to supply his wants by a course of lectures on the Greek language, but either had few scholars, or was unable to level himself to their capacities. A professorship of modern Greek had just been founded, which was bestowed on him, but soon suppressed by Bonaparte, who, however, created for him a professorship of ancient and modern Greek in the college of France. On this he scarcely entered, when a malady, which at first he regarded as very slight, but the force of which was aggravated by degrees, put an end to his life, April 26, 1805.

, a nonconformist divine of great popularity, courage, and piety, was born in the month of May 1634, in Hertford. He was the eldest son of the rev. John Vincent, who died possessed of the valuable living of Sedgfield in the county of Durham, but who was so often troubled on account of his nonconformity, that although he had a numerous family, it is said that not two of his children were born in the same county. This son, Thomas, was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was, in 1647, elected to Christ Church, Oxford. There he made such proficiency, that, after taking h'is degree of M. A. in 1654, the dean, Dr. Owen, chose him catechist, an office which, Wood says, usually belongs to a senior master. On leaving Oxford he became chaplain to Robert, earl of Leicester, and afterwards succeeded to the living of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-street, London, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662. He then taught school for some time with another famous nonconformist, the rev. Thomas Doolittle, at x lslington, and occasionally preached when it could be done with safety. In 1665 the memorable and last-plague with which this kingdom was visited, broke out in the metropolis with uncommon fury, and Mr. Vincent informed his colleague that be now thought it his duty to relinquish his present employment, and devote himself to the service of the sufferers in this great calamity. Doolittle endeavoured in vain to dissuade him, and Mr. Vincent, that he might not seem obstinate, agreed to refer the case to the city ministers, who, after hearing his reasons, and admiring his courage and humanity, gave all the approbation that such an act of self-devotion could admit, and Mr. Vincent came to lodge in the city, and throughout the whole continuance of the plague preached constantly every Sunday in some parish church. This was not ouly connived at by government, but he was followed by persons of all ranks. He also visited the sick whenever called upon, and yet aontinued in perfect health during the whole time, although seven persons died of the plague in the house where he resided. This remarkable instance of courage and humanity probably reconciled many to him who disapproved of his nonconformity; for although he preached afterwards at a dissenting meeting at Hoxton, and was the founder of another at Hand-alley, Bishopsgate-street, we do not find that he was molested. He died Oct. 15, 1678, in the forty-fourth year of his age. He was the author of several pious tracts, which went through many editions in his life-time, and afterwards; and had some controversy with Penn the quaker, and with Dr. William Sherlock. The most popular of his tracts were his “Explanation of the Assemblies Catechism,” which still continues to be printed; and his “God’s terrible voice to the city by Plague and Fire,” in which are some remarkable accounts of both these fatal events. This work, which was first printed in 1667, 12mo, went through thirteen editions before 1671. He published a work of the same kind, occasioned by an eruption of Mount Etna, entitled “Fire and Brimstone,” &c. 1670, 8vo. He had a brother, Nathanael, also educated at Christ Church, who was ejected from the living of Langley-march, in Buckinghamshire, in 1662, and afterwards was frequently prosecuted for preaching in conventicles. He was also imprisoned, as being concerned in Monmouth’s expedition, but nothing was proved against him. He died in 1697, and left several practical treatises, and funeral sermons. Wood attributes to him more Cl brisk and florid parts“than belong to his fraternity, and adds, that he was” of a facetious and jolly humour," which certainly does not correspond with the other characters given of him.

The place of second master at Westminster schoqi is a situation of much labour and responsibility. Besides the daily business of the school, which, if not arduous, is at least fatiguing, the person who holds that office has the whole care and superintendence of the scholars on the foundation when out of school; that is, of forty boys, rapidly growing up into men, and yearly drafted off, by elections of from eight to ten, to the two universities. Yet in this much occupied situation it was, that Mr. Vincent was prosecuting those studies which gradually established his reputation at home as a scholar, and a man of research; and finally extended his celebrity over the whole continent of Europe. What is much to his honour, he studied under a natural disadvantage, which to a less ardent and persevering spirit would have served as an excuse for idleness. From an early period of life h was subject to a weakness of the eyes, attended with pain and inflammation, which never suffered him to read or write with impunity by artificial light. These attacks were so severe, that, to avoid yet more formidable consequences, he found himself compelled altogether to relinquish evening studies. But zeal can always find resources,. As he could not read at night he formed the habit of rising very early. Before the hours of school, in the intervals between morning and evening attendance, and after both, when the length of the days permitted, he was generally employed in his study. Of exercise, properly so called, he took very little, but his constitution was robust; and of a man who completed seventy-six years, we can hardly say that his days were shortened by his habits of life, of whatever kind they might be.

It was apparently on becoming second master of Westminster, that he thought himself authorised to marry; and obtained the hand of miss Hannah Wyatt of that city. This union proved uniformly happy; and was productive of two sons; the rev. W. St. Andrew Vincent, now rector of Allhallows; and George Giles Vincent, esq. chapter clerk of Westminster; who became his effectual comforters, when their mother was at length taken from him, in 1807. But from his appointment in 1771, he remained without clerical preferment till 1778, when he obtained the vicarage of JLongdon, in Worcestershire, by the gift of the dean and chapter of Westminster. This living he resigned in about six months, on being collated, by the archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of Allhallows the Great and Less, in Thames-street, London.

No man could be better qualified to enjoy and to promote domestic happiness. Easy of access, friendly, social, without any of the reserve of a student, or any of the pride of wisdom, real or assumed, he was always ready to take an active part in the innocent gratifications of society. With the learned, equally ready to inquire and to communicate, but never ostentatious of knowledge; with the ignorant and even the weak, so very indulgent that they hardly suspected their inferiority; certainly were never made to feel it painfully. Never ashamed to ask for information, when he found he wanted it; and most frankly ready to confess ignorance, if consulted upon any subject to which his mind had not been particularly applied. Never, perhaps, was “I know nothing of it,” so often said by one who knew so much. His entire contempt for every species of affectation produced these sometimes too sweeping declarations, in which he was hardly just to himself.

But neither his amusements nor his studies were ever suffered to interfere with his public or professional duties. In the church, in the school^ among his parishioners, or among his boys, he was always active and assiduous: fully prepared for the task of the day, whether to preach or teach; to illustrate the classics, or expound the Scriptures. His mode of instructing the boys on the foundation at Westminster, is admirably described by a well-informed writer in the Gent. Mag. 1815. “The under-master,” he says, “has the care of the college; and in his hands are the preservation of its discipline, the guardianship of its morals, and the charge of its religious instruction. With a steadiness and fidelity rarely equalled Dr. Vincent discharged these difficult functions; but perhaps there never existed a man who rivalled him in the art of attracting from boys attention to his lectures. Four times a year, each week preparatory to receiving the sacrament, Dr. V. explained the nature of that religious rite; its institution, its importance, and its benefits. And we believe, such was his happy mode of imparting instruction, that there never was known an instance of any boy treating the disquisition with levity, or not shewing an eagerness to be present at, and to profit by, the lesson. A clear sonorous voice, a fluent, easy, yet correct delivery, an expression at once familiar and impressive, rendered him a delightful speaker. These advantages he possessed in common conversation, but he displayed them more especially on. public occasions, and never to greater advantage than in the pulpit.”

At length, on the death of Dr. Smith in 1788, Dr. Vincent (who had taken his doctor’s degree in 1776), was nominated to succeed him r.s head-master an appointment which gave great satisfaction to the friends of the school, though the whole extent and force of his talents were far from being completely known. Particular attention seems to have been first paid to a sermon he preached at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, for a charity-school. This was in 1792, a period of great political turbulence and danger; and this sermon, being remarkable for the clear and powerful statement of principles favourable to social order, and for explaining the necessity of the gradations of rich and poor, was welcomed on its publication by all the zealous friends of the Britisu constitution, and to render it more serviceable, the patriotic association against republicans and levellers obtained leave from the author to reprint the principal part of it, for circulation among the people; and twenty thousand copies were thus distributed in London, and throughout the country, probably with excellent effect. We have seen already that the first publication of Dr. Vincent, though anonymous, was a defence of sound principles, against factious measures and artifices: and, as that tract was never afterwards owned, there cannot be any possible suspicion that the author wrote it with a view to praise or emolument; or otherwise than from the honest impulse of his heart, and the clear conviction of his mind. The principles which he there discovered, remained unaltered through life; and were felt with particular force when the movements of faction called for opposition. It cannot be floubted, therefore, that he must have felt the liveliest satisfaction in having his discourse thus circulated, in a, more attractive form than a sermon might have borne, for the general instruction of the people.