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

, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, was born in 1737, and educated at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, where he took the degrees of B. A. 1757; M.A. 1760; and obtained the Seatonian prizes in 1767 and 1769. He afterwards became rector of Cramford St. John, in Northamptonshire, and vicar of Claybrook, in Leicestershire, and died May 11, 1774. He wrote several novels and poems, as “Louisa,” a tale; “Poems,” 4to “The Gift of Tongues,” a poem “The destruction of Nineveh,” and “Town Eclogues;” “Letters from Lothario to Penelope,” 2 vols. to which is added “Lucinda,' 5 a dramatic entertainment” The Man of Family,“a comedy;” The Placid Man;“”Letters from Aitamout in the Capital," &c. none of which procured him much literary reputation, and all are now forgotten.

, an elegant and ingenious writer, was born in Great Ormond-street, London, at twelve o'clock at night, 1703-4. The day of his birth he could not ascertain, and considering himself at liberty to choose his birth-day, he fixed it on new-year’s day. His father, sir Roger Jenyns, knt. was descended from the ancient family of the Jenyns’s of Churchill, in Somersetshire. His country residence was at Ely, where his useful labours as a magistrate, and his loyal principles, procured him the honour of knighthood from king William. He afterwards removed to Bottisham-hall, which he had purchased, a seat not far from Cambridge. Our author’s mother was one of the daughters of sir Peter Soame, of Hayden, in the county of Essex, bart. a lady of great beauty, and highly esteemed for her piety, understanding, and elegance of manners.

Mr. Jenyns’s poems were added to the second and third editions of Dr. Johnson’s Collection. As a prose writer, we have few that can be compared to him for elegance and purity. As a poet he has many equals and many superiors. Yet his poems are sprightly and pleasing and if we do not find much of that creative fancy which marks the true genius of poetry, there is the spirit, sense, and wit, which have rendered so many modern versifiers popular. 1

As a dramatic writer, his claims seem to be founded chiefly on his tragedies of “Braganza,” and “The Count of Narbonne.” “Braganza was very successful on its original appearance, but fell into neglect after the first season, in 1775. Horace Walpole, whose admiration of it is expressed in the most extravagant terms, addressed to the author” Thoughts on Tragedy,“in three letters, which are included in his printed works. In return, Mr. Jephson took the story of his” Count of Narbonne“from Walpole’s” Castle of Otranto,“and few tragedies in our times have been more successful. It was produced in 1781, and continued to be acted until the death of Mr. Henderson, the principal performer. Of Mr. Jephson’s other dramas it may be sufficient to give the names:” The Law of Lombardy,“a tragedy, 1779;” The Hotel,“a farce, 1783;” The Campaign,“an opera, 1785” Julia,“a tragedy, 1787;” Love and War,“1787, and” Two Strings to your Bow,“1791, both farces; and” The Conspiracy“a tragedy. Mr. Jephson afterwards acquired a considerable share of poetical fame from his” Roman Portraits,“a quarto poem, or rather collection of poems, characteristic of the Roman heroes, published in 1794, which exhibited much taste and elegance of versification. About the same time he published anonymously,” The Confession of James Baptisto Couteau," 2 vols. 12mo, a kind of satire on the perpetrators of the revolutionary atrocities in France, and principally the wretched duke of Orleans.

He had early imbibed Protestant principles, and inculcated them among his pupils; but this was carried on privately till the accession of Edward VI. in 1546, when he made a public declaration of his faith, and entered into a close friendship with Peter Martyr, who was professor of divinity at Oxford. Mr. Jewel was one of his most constant hearers, and used to take down his lectures, by means of a kind of short-hand invented by himself, with so much accuracy, that he was frequently afterwards employed in taking down the substance of public debates on religion, which were then common. In 1551 he took the degree of B. D. and frequently preached before the university with great applause. At the same time he preached and catechised every other Sunday at Sunningwell in Berkshire, of which church he was rector. Thus he zealously promoted the Reformation during this reign, and, in a proper sense, became a confessor for it in the succeeding; so early, as to be expelled the college by the fellows, upon their private authority, before any law was made, or order given by queen Mary. On this occasion, they had nothing to object against him, but, 1, His followiug of Peter Martyr. 2. His preaching some doctrines contrary to popery. 3. His taking orders according to the laws then in force. 4. And, according to Fuller, his refusal to be present at mass, and other popish solemnities. At his departure he took leave of the college in a Latin speech, full of pathetic eloquence. Unwilling, however, to leave the university, he took chambers in Broadgate-halJ, now Pembroke college, where many of his pupils followed him, besides other gentlemen, who were induced by the fame of his learning to attend his lectures. But the strongest testimony to his literary merit was given by the university, who made him their orator, and employed him to write their first congratulatory address to her majesty. Wood indeed observes, that this task was evidently imposed upon him by those who meant him no kindness; it being taken for granted, that he must either provoke the Roman catholics, or lose the good opinion of his party. If this be true, which is probable enough, he had the dexterity to escape the snare; for the address, being both respectful and guarded, passed the approbation of Tresham the commissary, and some other doctors, and was well received by the queen; but his latest biographer attributes the appointment solely to the opinion the university had of him as an elegant writer, and therefore the most fit to pen an address on such an occasion.

The much wished-for event at length was made known, and upon the accession of the new queen, or rather the year after, 1559, Jewel returned.to England; and we find his name, soon after, among the sixteen divines appointed hy queen Elizabeth to hold a disputation in Westminsterabbey against the papists. In July 1559, he was in the commission constituted by her majesty to visit the dioceses of Sarum, Exeter, Bristol, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester, in order to exterminate popery in the west of England; and he was consecrated bishop of Salisbury on Jan. 21 following, and had the restitution of the temporalities April 6, 1560. This promotion was presented to him as a reward for his great merit and learning; and another attestation of these was given him by the university of Oxford, who, in 1565, conferred on him, in his absence, the degree of D. D. in which character he attended the queen to Oxford the following year, and presided at the divinity disputations held before her majesty on that occasion. He had, before, greatly distinguished himself, by a sermon preached at St. Paul’s-cross, soon after he had been made a bishop, in which he gave a public challenge to all the Roman catholics in the world, to produce but one clear and evident testimony out of any father or famous writer who flourished within 600 years after Christ, of the existence of any one of the articles which the Romanists maintain against the church of England; and two years afterwards he published his famous “Apology” for that church. In the mean time he gave a particular attention to his diocese, where he began in his first visitation, and completed in his last, a great reformation, not only in his cathedral and parochial churches, but in all the courts of his jurisdiction. He watched so narrowly the proceedings of his chancellor and archdeacons, and of his stewards and receivers, that they had no opportunities of being guilty of oppression, injustice, or extortion, nor of being a burden, to the people, or a scandal to himself. To prevent these, and the like abuses, for which the ecclesiastical courts are often censured, he sat in his consistory court, and there saw that all things were conducted rightly: he also sat often as an assistant on the bench of civil justice, being himself a justice of the peace.

, a dramatic writer, was originally bred to the law, and a member of the Middle temple, but being a great admirer of the muses, and finding in himself a strong propensity to dramatic writing, he quitted his profession, and by contracting an intimacy with Mr. Wilks, the manager of the theatre, found means, through that gentleman’s interest, to get his plays on the stage without much difficulty. Some of them met with very good success, and being a constant frequenter of the meetings of the wits at Will’s and Button’s coffee-houses, he, by a polite and inoffensive behaviour, formed so extensive an acquaintance and intimacy, as constantly insured him great emoluments on his benefit night; by which means, being a man of oeconomy, he was enabled to subsist very genteelly. He at length married a young widow, with a tolerable fortune, on which he set up a tavern in Bow-street, Covent-garden, but quitted business at his wife’s death, and lived privately on an easy competence which he had saved. At what time he was born we know not, but he lived in the reigns of queen Anne, king George I. and part of George II. and died March 11, 1748. As a dramatic writer, he is far from deserving to be placed amongst the lowest class; for though his plots are seldom original, yet he has given them so many additions, and has clothed the designs of others in so pleasing a dress, that a great share of the merit they possess ought to be attributed to him.

The value of his contributions to this Magazine must have been soon acknowledged. It was then in its infancy, and there is a visible improvement from the time he began to write for it. Cave had a contriving head, but with too much of literary quackery. Johnson, by recommending original or selected pieces calculated to improve the taste and judgment of the public, raised the dignity of the Magazine above its contemporaries; and to him we certainly owe, in a great measure, the various information and literary history for which that miscellany has ever been distinguished, and in which it has never been interrupted by a successful rival. By some manuscript memorandums concerning Dr. Johnson, written by the late Dr. Farmer, and obligingly given to the writer of this life by Mr. Nichols, it appears that he was considered as the conductor or editor of the Magazine for some time, and received an hundred pounds per annum from Cave.

During his absence, his humble friend and admirer, Thomas Davies, bookseller, ventured to publish two volumes, entitled “Miscellaneous and Fugitive Pieces,” which he advertised in the newspapers, as the productions of the “Author of the Rambler.” Johnson was inclined to resent this liberty, until he recollected Davies’s narrow circumstances, when he cordially forgave him, and continued his kindness to him as usual. A third volume appeared soon after, but all its contents are not from Dr. Johnson’s pen. On the dissolution of parliament in 1774, he published a short political pamphlet entitled “The Patriot,” the principal object of which appears to have been to repress the spirit of faction which at that time was too prevalent, especially in the metropolis. It was a hasty composition, called for, as he informed Mr. Boswell, on one day, and written the next. The success, since his days, of those mock-patriots whom he has so ably delineated, is too decisive a proof that the reign of politic delusion is not to be shortened by eloquence or argument. During his tour in Scotland, he made frequent inquiries respecting the authenticity of “Ossian’s Poems,” and received answers so unsatisfactory that both in his book of travels and in conversation, he did not hesitate to treat the whole as an imposture. This excited the resentment of Macpherson, the editor, to such a degree that he wrote a threatening letter to Johnson, who answered it in a composition, which in the expression of firm and unalterable contempt, is perhaps superior to that he wrote to lord Chesterfield. In it he mixed somewhat of courtesy; but Macpherson he despised both as a man and a writer, and treated him as a ruffian.

Jn 1779 the first four volumes of his Lives of the Poets were published, and the remainder in 1781, which he wrote by uis own confession, “dilatorily and hastily, unwilling to work, and working with vigour and haste.” He had, however, performed so much more than was expected, that his employers presented him with an hundred pounds in addition to the stipulated sum. As he never was insensible to the pleasure or value of fame, it is not improbable that he was yet more substantially gratified by the eagerness with which his Lives of the Poets were read and praised. He enjoyed likewise another satisfaction, which it appears he thought not unnecessary to the reputation of a great writer. He was attacked on all sides for his contempt for Milton’s politics, and the sparing praise or direct censure he had bestowed on the poetry of Prior, Hammond, Collins, Gray, and a few others. The errors, indeed, which on any other subject might have passed for errors of judgment, were by the irascible tempers of his adversaries, magnified into high treason against the majesty of poetic genius. During his life, these attacks were not few, nor very respectful, to a veteran whom common consent had placed at the head of the literature of his country; but the courage of his adversaries was observed to rise very considerably after his death, and the name which public opinion had consecrated, was now reviled with the utmost malignity. Even some who during his life were glad to conceal their hostility, now took an opportunity to retract the admiration in which they had joined with apparent cordiality; and to discover faults in a body of criticism which, after all reasonable exceptions are admitted, was never equalled, and perhaps never will be equalled for justice, acuteness, and elegance. Where can we hope to find discussions that can be compared with those introduced in the lives of Cowley, Milton, Dryden, and Pope? His abhorrence, indeed, of Milton’s political conduct, Jed him to details and observations which can, never be acceptable to a certain class of politicians; but when he comes to analyze his poetry, and to fix his reputation on its proper basis, it must surely be confessed that no man, since the first appearance of Paradise Lost, has ever bestowed praise with a more munificent hand. He appears to have collected his whole energy to immortalize the genius of Milton; nor has any advocate for Milton’s democracy appeared, who has not been glad to surrender the guardianship of his poetical fame to Johnson.

J3ut to delineate the character of Johnson is a task which the present writer wishes to decline. Five large editions of Mr. BoswelPs Life have familiarized Johnson to the knowledge of the public so intimately, that it would be impossible to advance any thing with which every reader is not already acquainted. The suffrages of the nation have been taken, and the question is finally decided. On mature consideration, there appears no reason to depart

* His monument was reserved for sculpture was designed and finely exeSt. Paul’s church; and the expences cuted by Bacon. The epitaph is the having bee defrayed by a liberal and composition of Dr. Parr, and is coovoluntary contribution, it stands with cise, but strongly appropriated. The that of Howard, one of the first tributes monument was completed early in of national admiration and gratitude 1796, admitted into that cathedral. The from the generally received opinions as to the rank Johnson holds among men of genius and virtue, a rank which those who yet capriciously dwell on his tailings, will find it difficult to disturb. His errors have been brought forward with no sparing hand both by his friends and his enemies, yet when every fair deduction is made from the reputed excellence of his character as a man and a writer, enough in our opinion will remain to gratify the partiality of his admirers, and to perpetuate the public esteem.

, a French writer, was born at Paris in 1607, and obtained a canonry in the cathedral there in 1631. Discovering also a capacity for state affairs, he was appointed to attend a plenipotentiary to Munster; and, during the commotions at Paris, he took a journey to Rome. In 1671, he was made precentor of his church, and several times official. He lived to the great age of ninety-three, without experiencing the usual infirmities of it; when, going one morning to matins, he fell into a trench, which had been dug for the foundation of the high altar. He died of this fall in 1700, after bequeathing a very fine library to his church. He was the author of many works in both Latin and French, and as well upon civil as religious subjects. One of them in French, 1652, in 12mo, is entitled t( A Collection of true and important Maxims for the Education of a Prince, against the false and pernicious politics of cardinal Mazarine;“which, being reprinted in 1663, with two” Apologetical Letters,“was burnt in 1665 by the hands of the common hangman. The same year, how-. ever, 1665, he published a tract called” Codicil d'Or, or the Golden Codicil," which relates to the former; being a further collection of maxims for the education of a prince, taken chiefly from Erasmus, whose works he is said to have read seven times over.

, a dramatic writer, was a native of Drogheda, in Ireland, and was bred a bricklayer; but, having a natural inclination for the muses, pursued his devotions to them even during the labours of his mere mechanical avocations, and composing a line of brick and a line of verse alternately, his walls and poems rose in growth together, but not with equal degrees of durability. His turn, as is most generally the case with mean poets, or bards of humble origin, was panegyric. This procured him some friends; and, in 1745, when the earl of Chesterfield went over to Ireland as lord-lieutenant, Mr. Jones was recommended to the notice of that nobleman, who, delighted with the discovery of this mechanic muse, not only favoured him with his own notice and generous munificence, but also thought proper to transplant this opening flower into a warmer and more thriving climate. He brought him with him to England, recommended him to many of the nobility there, and not only procured him a large subscription for the publishing a collection of his “Poems,” but it is said, even took on himself the alteration and correction, of his tragedy, and also the care of prevailing on the managers of Covent-garden theatre to bring it on the stage. This nobleman also recommended him in the warmest manner to Colley Gibber, whose friendly and humane disposition induced him to shew him a thousand acts of friendship, and even made strong efforts by his interest at court to have secured to him the succession of the laurel after his death. With these favourable prospects it might have been expected that Jones would have passed through life with so much decency as to have ensured his own happiness, and done credit to the partiality of his friends; but this was not the case. “His temper,” says one, who seems to have known him, “was, in consequence of the dominion of his passions, uncertain and capricious; easily engaged, and easily disgusted; and, as ceconomy was a virtue which could never be taken into his catalogue, he appeared to think himself born rather to be supported by others than under a duty to secure to himself the profits which his writings and the munificence of his patrons from time to time afforded.” After experiencing many reverses of fortune, which an overbearing spirit, and an imprudence in regard to pecuniary concerns, consequently drew on him, he died in great want, in April 1770, in a garret belonging to the master of the Bedford coffee-house, by whose charity he had been some time supported, leaving an example to those of superior capacities and attainments, who, despising the common maxims of life, often feel the want of not pursuing them when it is too late. His principal performance, “The Earl of Essex,” appeared in 1753, and he also left a tragedy unfinished, called “The Cave of Idra,” which falling into the hands of Dr. Hiffernan, he enlarged it to five acts, and brought it out under the title of “The Heroine of the Cave.” His last publications were, “Merit” “The Relief;” and “Vectis, or the Isle of Wight,” poems but his poetical worth, though not contemptible, was far from being of the first-rate kind.

, an old medical writer, was either born in Wales, or was of Welsh extraction; studied at both our universities, took a medical degree at Cambridge, and practised with great reputation at Bath, in Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire. He mentions curing a person at Louth in 1562, and the date of his last publication is 1759.

On his return from this tour, he appears to have contemplated his situation as not altogether corresponding with the feelings of an independent mind, and with the views he entertained of aiming at the dignity and usefulness of a public character. The advice given by some of his friends, when he left Harrow school, probably now recurred to his memory, and was strengthened by additional and more urgent. motives, for he finally determined on the law as a profession; and, having resigned his charge in lord Spencer’s family, was admitted into the Temple on the 19th of September, 1770, in the twenty -fourth year of his age. Those who consider the study of the law as incompatible with a mind devoted to the acquisition of polite literature, and with a taste delighting in frequent excursions to the regions of fancy, will be ready to conclude that Mr. Jones would soon discover an invincible repugnance to his new pursuit. But the reverse was in a great measure the fact. He found nothing in the study of the law so 'dry or laborious as not to be overcome by the same industry which had enabled him to overcome, almost in childhood, the difficulties which frequently deter men of mature years; and he was stimulated by what appears to have predominated through life, an honest ambition to rise to eminence in a profession which, although sometimes successfully followed by men of dull capacity, does not exclude the most brilliant acquirements. Still, however, while labouring to qualify himself for the bar, he regarded his progress in literature as too important or too delightful to be altogether interrupted; and from the correspondence published by lord Teignmouth, it appears that he snatched many an hour from his legal inquiries, to meditate plans connected with his oriental studies. What he executed, indeed, did not always correspond with what he projected, but we find that within the first two years of his residence in the Temple, he sketched the plan of an epic poem, and of a Turkish history, and published a French letter to Anquetil du Perron, who, in his Travels in India, had treated the university of Oxford, and some of its learned members and friends of Mr. Jones, with disrespect In this letter he corrected the petulance of the French writer with more asperity than perhaps his maturer judgment would have approved, but yet without injustice, for Perron stood convicted not only of loose invective, but of absolute falsehood. Besides these Mr. Jones published, in 1772, a small volume of poems, consisting chiefly of translations from the Asiatic languages, with two elegant prose dissertations on Eastern poetry, and on the arts commonly called imitative. Most of these poems had been written long before this period, but were kept back until they had received all the improvements of frequent revisal, and the criticisms of his friends.

The indisposition of lady Jones in 1793, rendered it absolutely necessary thatsiie should return to England; and her affectionate husband proposed to follow her in 1795, but still wished to complete a system of Indian laws before he left the situation in which he could promote this great work with most advantage. But he had not proceeded long in this undertaking before symptoms appeared of that disorder which deprived the world of one of its brightest ornaments. The following account of his dissolution is given in the words of his biographer. "On the evening of the twentieth of April, or nearly about that date, after prolonging his walk to a late hour, during which he had imprudently remained in conversation, in an unwholesome situation, he called upon the writer of these sheets, and complained of aguish symptoms, mentioning his intention to take some medicine, and repeating jocularly an old proverb, that * an ague in the spring is medicine for a king. 7 He had no suspicion at the time of the real nature of his indisposition, which proved, in fact, to be a complaint common in Bengal, an inflammation in the liver. The disorder was, however, soon discovered by the penetration of the physician, who, after two or three clays, was called in to his assistance; but it had then advanced too far to yield to the efficacy of the medicines usually prescribed, and they were administered in vain. The progress of the complaint was uncommonly rapid, and terminated fatally on the twenty-seventh of April 1794. On the morning of that day his attendants, alarmed at the evident symptoms of approaching dissolution, came precipitately to call the friend who has now the melancholy task of recording the mournful event. Not a moment was lost in repairing to his house. He was lying on his bed in a posture of meditation; and the only symptom of remaining life was a small degree of motion in the heart, which after a few seconds ceased, and he expired without a pang or groan. His bodily suffering, from the complacency of his features and the ease of his attitude, could not have been severe; and his mind must have derived consolation from those sources where he l?ad been in the habit of seeking it, and where alone, in our last moments, it can ever be found.' 1

“A mere catalogue of the writings of sir William Jones,” says his biogragher, “would shew the extent and variety of his erudition; a perusal of them will prove that it was no less deep than miscellaneous. Whatever topic he discusses, his ideas flow with ease and perspicuity, his style is always clear and polished; animated and forcible, when his subject requires it. His philological, botanical, philosophical, and chronological disquisitions, his historical researches, and even his Persian grammar, whilst they fix the curiosity and attention of the reader, by the novelty, depth, or importance of the knowledge displayed in them, always delight by elegance of diction. His compositions are never dry, tedious, nor disgusting; and literature and science -come from his hands adorned with all their grace and beauty. No writer, perhaps, ever displayed so much learning, with so little affectation of it.” With regard to his law publications, it is said that his “Essay on Bailments” was sanctioned by the approbation of lord Mansfield and all his writings in this department shew that he had thoroughly studied the principles of law as a science. As to his opinion of the British constitution, it appears from repeated declarations that occur in his letters, and particularly in his 10th discourse, delivered to the Asiatic society in 1793, that he considered it as the noblest and most perfect that ever was formed. With regard to his political principles, he was an enlightened and decided friend to civil and religious liberty. Like many others of the same principles, he entertained a favourable opinion of the French revolution at its commencement, and wished success to the exertions of that nation for the establishment of a free constitution; but subsequent events must have given him new views, not so much of the principles on which the revolution was founded, as of the measures which have been adopted by some of its zealous partizans. To liberty, indeed, his attachment was enthusiastic, and he never speaks of tyranny or oppression but in the language of detestation. He dreaded, and wished to restrain, every encroachment on liberty; and though he never enlisted under the banners of any party, he always concurred in judgment and exertion with those who wished to render pure and permanent the constitution of his country.

, a learned philological writer, was born Oct. 20, 1624, at Flensburg in tite duchy of Sleswick. He was first educated at the school of Flensburg, and that of Kiel, and very early discovered such a talent for music, that when he went to Hamburgh, and afterwards to Crempen, he was enabled to support himself by his musical skill. In the autumn of 1645, he went to Rostock, where he studied the languages and philosophy, and probably theology, as he became a preacher in 1647. In the same year he was admitted doctor in philosophy. Leaving Rostock in 1649, he returned to Flensburg to be co-rector of the schools, an office which he filled with great credit for a year, and had for one of his scholars the celebrated Marquard Gudius. The smallness of his salary obliging him to give up his situation, he went in 1650 to Konigsberg, where he taught philosophy, and in 1652 accepted the place of rector of the schools at Flensburg. In 1656 he was presented to the rectorate of the school belonging to the cathedral; but partly owing to the bad air of the place, and partly to some discouragements and domestic troubles, he determined to leave his native country for Leipsic; and while there, the senate of Francfort offered him the place of sub-rector, which he accepted, but did not enjoy long, as he died of a violent haemorrhage in April 1659. He was the author of various philological dissertations, which indicated great learning and critical acumen; but his principal work is his “De Scriptoribus historic philosophic^, libri IV.” Fraucfort, 1659, 4to. This soon became very scarce, which determined Dornius to publish a new edition in 1716, continued to that time, with learned notes. Both editions are highly praised, as valuable works, by Gracvius, Baillet, and Brucker. Jonsius had announced other useful treatises, the completion of which was prevented by his untimely death.

Yet whatever may be thought of his learning, it is greatly over-rated, when opposed or preferred to the genius of his contemporary Shakspeare. Jonson 1 s learning contributed very little to his reputation as a dramatic poet. Where he seems to have employed it most, as in his “Cataline,” it only enables him to encumber the tragedy with servile versifications of Sallust, when he should have been studying nature and the passions. Dry den, whose opinions are often inconsistent, considers Jonson as the greatest man of his age, and observes, that “if we look upon him when he was himself (for his last plays were but his dotages) he was the most learned and judicious writer any theatre ever had.” In another place (preface to the “Mock Astrologer”), he says “that almost all Jonson’s pieces were but crambt his cocta, the same humour a little” varied and written worse."

It is certain that his high character as a dramatic writer has not descended to us undiminished. Of his fifty dramas, there are not above three which preserve his name on the stage, but these indeed are excellent. It was his misfortune to be obliged to dissipate on court masks and pageants those talents which concentrated might have furnished dramas equal to his “Volpone,” “Alchemist,” and the “Silent Woman.” Contrasted with the boundless and commanding genius of Shakspeare, Dr. Johnson has hit his character with success in his celebrated prologue.

, an English physician, and considerable writer on chemistry and mineralogy, was born in 1569, at High Halden in Kent, and probably educated at Hart-hall, Oxford. He visited foreign universities, and took his degree of doctor in that of Padua. After his return, he practised in London, where he became a member of the college of physicians, and was in high reputation for learning and abilities. He injured his fortune by engaging in a project to manufacture alum. We are ignorant where his works were situated; but it is certain, he obtained a grant from James I. of the profits of them, which was revoked at the importunity of a courtier; and though he made application for redress, he never obtained it, notwithstanding the king appeared particularly sensible of the hardship of his case. He spent the latter part of his life at Bath, and died there, of the gout and stone, in January 1632.

For the motto of his “Life of Erasmus,” he chose the following words of Erasmus himself: “illud certe praesagio, de meis lucubrationibus, qualescunque sunt, candidius judicaturam Posteritatem: tametsi nee de meo seculo queri possum.' 1 Yet it is certain that he had very slight notions of posthumous fame or glory, and of any real good which could arise from it; as appears from what he has collected and written about it, in a note upon Milton, at the end of his” Remarks upon Spenser.“He would sometimes complain, and doubtless with good reason, of the low estimation into which learning was fallen; and thought it discountenanced and discouraged, indirectly at least, when ignorant and worthless persons were advanced to high stations and great preferments, while men of merit and abilities were overlooked and neglected. Yet he laid no undue stress upon such stations and preferments, but entertained just notions concerning what must ever constitute the chief good and happiness of man, and is himself believed to have made the most of them. Dr. Parr has drawn his character with his usual elegance and discrimination.” Jortin,“says he,” whether I look back to his verse, to his prose, to his critical, or to his theological works, there are few authors to whom I am so much indebted for rational entertainment, or for solid instruction. Learned he was, without pedantry. He was ingenious without the affectation of singularity. He was a lover of truth, without hovering over the gloomy abyss of scepticism, and a friend to free inquiry, without roving into the dreary and pathless wilds of latitudinarianism. He had a heart which never disgraced the powers of his understanding. With a lively imagination, an elegant taste, and a judgment most masculine, and most correct, he united the artless and amiable negligence of a school-boy. Wit without ill-nature, and sense without effort, be could at will scatter upon every subject; and in every book the writer presents us with a near and distinct view of the real man."

, or Josephus Iscanus, a writer of considerable taste and elegance, in an age generally reputed barbarous, was a native of Devonshire, and flourished in the close of the twelfth, and the commencement of the thirteenth centuries. He was an ecclesiastic, and patronized by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury. Some say that he was a priest of the cathedral of Exeter, from which he took his name. According to Camden, he accompanied Richard I. of England into the Holy Land, and was a great favourite with that prince. By archbishop Baldwin’s interest he was made archbishop of Bourdeaux, where he is supposed to have died in the reign of Henry III. and to have been buried in the cathedral of that city. He was author of two epic poems in Latin heroics. The first, in six books, is on the Trojan war the other is entitled “Antiochesis,” the war of Antioch, or the Crusade; of this last only a fragment remains, in which the heroes of Britain are celebrated. His style is not only for the most part pure, but rich and ornamented, and his versification approaches the best models of antiquity. His diction is compounded chiefly of Ovid, Statius, and Claudian, the favourite poets of the age, and wants only Virgilian chastity. “Italy,” says Warton in his History of English Poetry, “had at that time produced no poet comparable to him.” He was also author of love verses, epigrams, and miscellaneous poems. His “De Bello Trojano, lib. V.” was published at Basil, 1541, 8vo; Lond. 1675, 8vo Francfcnt, 1620, 4to, and ibid. 1623; Amst. 1702, 4to. All that remains of his “Antiochesis” is printed in Warton’s “Ftistory of English Poetry.” His love-verses, &c. are lost.

, or Paullo Giovio, an Italian historian, was a native of Como, and was born in 1483. Being early deprived of his father, he was educated under the care of his elder brother Benedict, who was also a historical writer. After having studied at Padua, Milan, and Pavia, he took the degree of M. D. and practised for some time; but an early propensity led him to the study and composition of history. Having completed a volume, he presented it to Leo X. at Rome, in 1516, who expressed a very high opinion of him, and gave him a pension and the rank of knighthood. Jovius now became intimate with the literati of Rome, and wrote several Latin poems, which appeared in the “Coryciana,” and other collections. After the death of Leo, Adrian VI. presented him to a canonry in the cathedral of Como, and Clement VII. appointed him one of his attendant courtiers, provided him with a handsome establishment in the Vatican, gave him the precentorship of Como, and lastly the bishopric of Nocera. During the sacking of the city of Rome, in 1527, Jovius was robbed of a considerable sum of money and of his manuscripts, but recovered the latter. Under the pontificate of Paul III. he wished to exchange his bishopric of Nocera for that of Como, and even carried his ambition to the place of cardinal, but was disappointed in both. His favourite residence was at a beautiful villa on the banks of the lake of Como, where he pursued his studies, and in his museum made a collection of portraits of eminent characters, to each of which he affixed an inscription, or brief memoir, some highly favourable, others sarcastically severe. These memoirs have been frequently printed under the title “Elogia doctorum Virorum,” and the portraits, engraved in wood, have been published under the title of “Musaei Jovian i Imagines,” Basil, 1577. About two years before his death, he quitted his retirement, and took up his residence in Florence, where he died in 1552, and was buried in the church of St. Laurence, in that city.

, an Italian Jesuit, and a celebrated writer of panegyrics, was born at Nice, and admitted into the society in 1622. He taught rhetoric for the space often years. Being afterwards called to the court of Savoy, to be entrusted with the education of prince Charles Emanuel, he began to publish his first works at Turin. He died at Messina, Nov. 15, 1653. All his works were printed together at Lucca, in 1710. This collection contains, I. A hundred panegyrics upon Jesus Christ; printed the first time at Genoa in 1641. 2. Forty panegyrics written in honour of Lewis XIII. printed at Lyons in 1644. 3. Many inscriptions, epitaphs, and encomiums, upon several subjects; printed likewise at Lyons in the same year. 4. Panegyrics upon the greatest bishops that have been in the church; printed also at Lyons in the same year, and reprinted at Genoa in 1653, with this title, “Pars Secunda Elogiorura humana complectens.”

We have, in the course of his memoir, had occasion to exhibit some qualities to the disadvantage of Julian; yet we must in justice add, that he was sober and vigilant, free from the debaucheries of women; and, to sum up all, remarkably mild, merciful, good-natured, and, in general, most amiable; except in his passions which arose from his aversion to Christianity. He not only encouraged letters by his patronage, but was himself a learned writer. As a philosopher, he strictly adhered to the Alexandrian or Eclectic school. He professes himself a warm admirer of Pythagoras and Plato, and recommends an union of their tenets with those of Aristotle. The later Platonists, of his own period, he loads with encomiums, particularly Jamblichus, whom he calls “The Light of the World,” and “The Physician of the Mind.” Amidst the numerous traces of an enthusiastic and bigoted attachment to Pagan theology and philosophy, and of an inveterate enmity to Christianity, which are to be found in his writings, the candid reader will discern many marks of genius and erudition. Concerning the manners of Julian, Libanius writes, that no philosopher, in the lowest state of poverty, was ever more temperate, or more ready to practise rigorous abstinence from food, as the means of preparing his mind for conversing with the gods. Like Plotinus, Porphyry, Jambiichus, and others of this fanatical sect, he dealt in visions and extasies, and pretended to a supernatural intercourse with divinities. Suidas relates, probably from some writings of the credulous Eunapius now lost, an oracular prediction concerning his death. Besides his answer to St. Cyril, and “Misopogon,” he wrote some other discourses, epistles, &c. in which are many proofs of genius and erudition, conveyed in an elegant style. And his rescripts in the Theodosian code shew, that he made more good laws, in the short time of his reign, than any emperor either before or after him. His works were published in Greek and Latin by Spanheim in 1696, 2 vols. fol.; and a selection from them in England by Mr. Buncombe, 1784, 2 vols. 8vo, translated principally from La Bleterie, who wrote an excellent Life of Julian.

, an ingenious and learned writer, and a judicious and useful preacher, son of the rev. Mr. Thomas Ibbot, vicar of Swaffham, and rector of Beachamwell, co. Norfolk, was born at Beachamwell in 1680. He was admitted of Clare-hall, Cambridge, July 25, 1695, under the tuition of the rev. Mr. Laughton, a gentleman justly celebrated for his eminent attainments in philosophy and mathematics, to whom the very learned Dr. Samuel Clarke generously acknowledged himself to be much indebted for many of the notes and illustrations inserted in his Latin version of “Rohault’s Philosophy.” Mr. Ibbot having taken the degree of B. A. 1699, removed to Corpus-Christi in 1700 and was made a scholar of that house. He commenced M.A. in 1703, and was elected into a Norfolk fellowship in 1706, but resigned it next year, having then happily obtained the patronage of archbishop Tenison. That excellent primate first took him into his family in the capacity of his librarian, and soon after appointed him his chaplain. In 1708 the archbishop collated Ibbot to the treasurership of the cathedral church of Wells. He also presented him to the rectory of the united parishes of St. Vedast, alias Foster’s, and St. Michael le Querne. George I. appointed him one of his chaplains in ordinary in 1716; and when his majesty visited Cambridge, in Oct. 4 1717, Mr. Ibbot was by royal mandate created D. D. In 1713 and 1714, by the appointment of the archbishop, then the sole surviving trustee of the hon. Robert Boyle, our author preached the course of sermons for the lecture founded by him, and desired in his last will, that they should be printed. They bear evident marks of the solidity of his judgment, and are well adapted to his professed design of obviating by just reasoning, the insidious suggestions and abusive censures of Collins, in his “Discourse of Freethinking.” In these sermons the true notion of the exercise of private judgment, or free-thinking in matters of religion, is fairly and fully stated, the principal objections against it are answered, and the modern art of free-thinking, as treated by Collins, is judiciously refuted. Some time after, he was appointed assistant-preacher to Dr. Samuel Clarke, and rector of St. Paul’s, Shadwell. Upon his being installed a prebendary in the collegiate church of St. Peter, Westminster, in 1724, he retired to Camberwell, for the recovery of his health, which had been impaired by the fatigue of constant preaching to very numerous congregations, at a considerable distance from each other. Here he died April 5, 1725, in the forty-fifth year of his age, and was buried in Westminster- abbey. His sermons at Boyle’s lecture, were published in 1727, 8vo, and “Thirty Discourses on Practical Subjects” were selected from his manuscripts by his friend Dr. Clarke, and published for the benefit of his widow, 2 vols. 8vo, for which she was favoured with a large subscription. In 1719, Dr. Ibbot published a translation of Puffendorff’s treatise “De habitu religionis Christianas ad vitain civilem,” or of the relation between church and state, and how far Christian and civil life affect each other; with a preface giving some account of the book, and its use with regard to the controversies in agitation at that time, particularly the Bangorian. In 1775 were published, “Thirty-six discourses on Practical Subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo. This is a re-publication of the thirty discourses selected by Dr. Clarke, with the addition of six occasional discourses, and a life of the author, by Dr. Flexman. There are some verses of Dr. Ibbot’s, in Dodsley’s Collection, vol. V. entitled “A fit of the Spleen,” in imitation of Shakspeare.

, a lady celebrated for her skill in calligraphy, in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s time, appears to have lived single until the age of forty, when she became the wife of one Bartholomew Keilo, a native of Scotland, by whom she had a son, Samuel Kello, who was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. All we know besides of her is, that she was a correspondent of bishop Hall, when he was dean of Worcester in 1617. Various specimens of her delicate and beautiful writing are in our public repositories, and some in Edinburgh-castle. In the library of Christchurch, Oxford, are the Psalrns of David, written in French by Mrs. Inglis, who presented them in person to queen Elizabeth, by whom they were given to the library. Two manuscripts, written by her, were also preserved with care in the Bodleian library: one of them is entitled “Le six vingt et six Quatrains de Guy de Tour, sieur de Pybrac, escrits par Esther Inglis, pour son dernier adieu, ce 21e jour de Juin, 1617.” The following address is, in the second leaf, written in capital letters: “To the right worshipful my very singular friende, Joseph Hall, doctor of divinity, and dean of Winchester, Esther Inglis wisheth all increase of true happiness. Junii xxi. 1617.” In the third leaf is pasted the head of the writer, painted upon a card. The other manuscript is entitled “Les Proverbes de Salomon; escrites en diverses sortes de lettres, par Esther Anglois, en Francoise. A Lislehourge en Escosse,” 1599. Every chapter of this curious performance is written in a different hand, as is also the dedication. The manuscript contains near forty different characters of writing. The beginnings and endings of the chapters are adorned with beautiful head and tail-pieces, and the margins, in imitation of the old manuscripts, curiously decorated with the pen. The book is dedicated to the earl of Essex. On one of the first pages are his arms neatly drawn, with all their quarterings. In the fifth leaf, drawn with a pen, is the picture of Esther Inglis, in the habit of the times: her right hand holds a pen, the left rests upon an open book, on one of the leaves of which is written, “DC l'Eternel Je biert, de moi le mal, ou rien.” A music-book lies open before her. Under the picture is a Latin epigram by Andrew Melvin, and on the following page a second by the same author, in praise of Mrs. Inglis. In the royal library, D. xvi. are “Esther Inglis’s fifty Emblems,” finely drawn and written: “A Lislebourg en Escosse, Panne 1624.”

, an eminent physician and medical writer, a native of Sicily, was born in 1510. He studied medicine at Padua, where he took the degree of doctor in medicine in the year 1537, with singular reputation; insomuch that he soon received several invitations to professorships from different schools in Italy. He accepted the chair of medicine and anatomy at Naples, which he occupied for a number of years, lecturing to the most crowded audiences drawn by his fame from all parts of the country. He possessed peculiar qualifications for the office, having united a consummate knowledge of the writings of the ancient physicians with great practical skill and a sound judgment, which led him to- estimate justly the merits and defects of those fathers of the art. A singular testimony of his talents and unremitting attention to the improvement of his pupils was given by thektter, who caused his portrait to be placed in the schools of Naples with the following inscription: “Philippo Jngrassias Siculo, qui veram medicinae artem et anatomen, publiee etiarrando, Neapoli restituit, Discipuli memorise causa P. P.” At length he quitted his situation at Naples, in order to return to his native island, where he settled at Palermo. Here also he received many marks of public distinction. The rights of citizenship were conferred upon him; and, in 1563, Philip II. king of Spain, appointed him first physician for Sicily and the adjacent isles. By virtue of the powers attached to this office he restored order in, the medical constitution of the country, by preventing all persons, unqualified by their education and abilities, from practising there. His zeal for the credit of his profession rendered him rigid and severe in his examination of candidates; and he exercised his art himself in the most honourable manner. When the plague raged at Palermo in 1575, he adopted such excellent regulations as to put a stop to the calamity, and restore the city to health, and was hailed by all the citizens, the Sicilian Hippocrates. The magistrates were so grateful for his services, that they voted him a reward of two hundred and fifty gold crowns a month; but he disinterestedly declined to accept any more than what served for the maintenance and decoration of the chapel of St. Barbe, which he had built in the cloister of the Dominican convent of Palermo. He died, greatly regretted, in 1580, at the age of 70 years.

, a learned and indefatigable German writer, and Lutheran divine, was born January 20, 1649, at Wolmar, in the landgraviate of HesseCassel. He was professor of poetry, mathematics, and divinity at Rinteln, and member of the society of Gottingen. He died May 17, 1729, leaving two sons and four daughters. A great number of his “Dissertations” are collected in two volumes, printed at Rinteln, 1700, and 1711, under the title of “Dissertationes Juveniles;” the principal are, “De oceano ejusque proprietatibus et vario motu; De libertate Dei; De terra De reflexione luminis ejusque effectu De imputatione peccati alieni, et speciatim Adamici; De Poligamia,” &c.

, a very celebrated naturalist, was a native of Finland, and was born in 1715. Having imbibed a taste for the study of natural history, it appears that he pursued his inclination with much zeal and industry. His first researches were rewarded by the discovery of many new plants in Sweden, of which he gave some account to the botanical world between the years 1742 and 1746. He was particularly anxious to explore the virtues of plants, both with respect to their uses in medicine, and in the useful arts, so that planting and agriculture occupied some portion of his attention. His reputation as a naturalist caused him to be appointed professor at Abo; and in October 1747, he set out upon his travels, sailing from Gottenburg for America; but, on account of a violent hurricane, was obliged to take shelter in a port of Norway, whence he could not depart till the ensuing February, when he proceeded immediately for London. From hence he went to North America; and having spent two or three years in exploring whatever was worthy of observation in that country, he returned to his professorship at Abo in 1751. The expences of this undertaking appear to have exceeded what was allowed him by the Academy of Sciences, so that our author was obliged to live rather penuriously upon his return; yet he found means to cultivate, in a small garden of his own, several hundred plants, for the use of the university, as there was no public botanical garden at Abo His discoveries in botany very materially enriched the “Species Plantarum” of his great master, and the LinntEan Herbarium abounds with specimens brought home by him, distinguished by the letter K. Haller enumerates a long list of tracts published by Kalm; and his inaugural dissertation appeared in the “Amcenitates Academicae” of Linnæus. He was originally intended for the ecclesiastical profession, but was drawn aside from this pursuit by attending the lectures of Linnæus on natural history, given in the university of Upsal. Indeed, it was through the recommendation of Linnæus that professor Kalm was fixed upon to undertake the voyage to North America, and the account of his voyage was published in English by Forster in 1771. He afterwards made, at his own expence, a very extensive tour into Russia, the history of which never appeared in print, but which is supposed to have furnished considerable matter for the work of a Swedish writer, who published a book of travels in that kingdom. Kalm was a member of the royal Swedish academy of sciences, and died in 1779. His collection of dried plants, made in his various journeys, and doubtless valuable for the purposes of botanical information, is said to remain in the hands of his family in a state of neglect.

, a German writer, who has lately attained extraordinary fame in his own country as the inventor of a new system of philosophical opinions, which, however, are not very likely to reach posterity, was born April 22, 1724, in the suburbs of Konigsberg, in Prussia. His father, John George Kant, was a sadler, born at Memel, but originally descended from a Scotch family, who spelt their name with a C; but the philosopher, the subject of this article, in early life converted the C into a K, as being more conformable to German orthography. Immanuel, the second of six children, was indebted to his father for an example of the strictest integrity and the greatest industry; but he had neither time nor talent to be his instructor. From his mother, a woman of sound sense and ardent piety, he imbibed sentiments of warm and animated devotion, which left to the latest 'periods of his life the strongest and most reverential impressions of her memory on his mind. He received his first instructions in reading and writing at the charity-school in his parish; but soon gave such indications of ability and inclination to learn, as induced his uncle, a wealthy shoe- maker, to defray the expence of his farther education and studies. From school he proceeded to the college of Fridericianum. This was in 1740; and his first teacher was Martin Kautzen, to whom Kant was strongly attached, and who devoted himself with no less zeal to the instruction of his pupil, and contributed very greatly to the unfolding of his talents. His favourite study at the university was that of mathematics, and the branches of natural philosophy connected with them. On the completion of his studies, he accepted a situation as tutor in a clergyman’s family. In this, and in two other similar situations, he was not able to satisfy his mind that he did his duty so well as he ought; he was, according to his own account, too much occupied with acquiring knowledge to be able to communicate the rudiments of it to others. Having, however, acted as a tutor for nine years, he returned to Konigsberg, and maintained himself by private instruction. In 1746, when twenty-two years of age, he began his literary career with a small work, entitled “Thoughts on the estimation of the animal powers, with strictures on the proofs advanced by Leibnitz and other mathematicians on this point,” &c. In 1754 he acquired great reputation by a prize essay on the revolution of the earth round its axis; and the following year was admitted.to his degree of master of arts, and entered immediately upon the task of lecturing, which he performed for many years to crowded audiences, and published several works, the titles of which are now of little importance, compared to his new metaphysical system, the first traces of which are to be found in his inaugural dissertation, written in 1770, when he was appointed to a professor’s chair in the university of Konigsberg; the subject was, “De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis.” Seated now in the chair of metaphysics, his subsequent publications were almost entirely of this nature. He pursued this study with unremitting ardour, and entered into all the depths of metaphysical subtlety, in order, as we are told, “to unfold the rational powers of man, and deduce from thence his moral duties.” It was not till 178 J, that the full principles of his system appeared in his “Review of pure reason;” and the system it contains is commonly known under the name of the “Critical Philosophy.” As this work had been variously misrepresented, he published a second part in 1783, entitled “Prolegomena for future Metaphysics, which are to be considered as a science.” In 1786 he was appointed rector of the university, and was a second time called to the same office, in 1788; and in a few months he was advanced to be senior of the philosophical faculty. About 1798, he took leave of the public as an author, and soon after gave up all his official situations. During his latter years, his faculties were visibly decayed, in which state he died Feb. 12, 1804. The character of Kant is said to have been contemplated with universal respect and admiration, and during his life he received from the learned throughout Germany, marks of esteem bordering upon adoration. How far he deserved all this, is very questionable. His language is equally obscure, and his reasonings equally subtle with those of the commentators of Aristotle in the fifteenth century. The truth of this assertion will be denied by none who have endeavoured to make themselves masters of the works of Willich and Nitsch, two of his pupils; and the source of this obscurity seems to be sufficiently obvious. Besides employing a vast number of words of his own invention, derived from the Greek language, Kant uses expressions which have long been familiar to metaphysicians, in a sense different from that in which they are generally received; and we have no doubt that the difficulty of comprehending his philosophy has contributed, far more than any thing really valuaBle in it, to bring it into vogue, and raise the fame of the author. For the following analysis of his system we are indebted to one of our authorities, and we might perhaps deserve blame for the length of the article, if it did not appear necessary that some record should remain of a set of opinions that once threatened to usurp the place of all true philosophy as well as religion. The reader who studies for the practical improvement of his mind, will perceive at once, that it is the object of all such metaphysical projectors to render the world independent of revealed religion.

If this, says a judicious writer, be a correct view of the object and the results of the Critical Philosophy, we confess ourselves unable to discover any motive which should induce our countrymen, in their researches after truth, to prefer the dark lantern of Kant to the luminous torch of Bacon. The metaphysical reader will perceive, that, in this abstract, there is little which is new except the phraseology, that what is new is either unintelligible or untenable, and that his opinions on the existence of the Supreme Being have a manifest tendency to atheism. With these sentiments of Kant’s philosophy, we hear without surprize or regret that it is already much neglected in Germany, and will probably soon fall into utter oblivion.

, a very agreeable English writer, was descended from sir George Hungerford, his great grandfather, by lady Frances Ducie, only daughter of Francis lord Seymour, baron of Trowbridge. He was born, as may be conjectured, about 1729 or 1730, and received his education at Kingston school, under the rev. Mr. Woodeson. From thence he went to Geneva, where he resided some years; and during his stay there, became acquainted with Voltaire, with whom he continued to correspond many years after he returned to England. After finishing the tour of Europe, he settled as a student in the Inner Temple, was called to the bar, and sometimes attended Westminster-hall; though he did not meet with encouragement enough to induce his perseverance in his profession, nor indeed does it seem probable that he had sufficient application for it. His first performance was “Ancient and Modern Rome,” a poem, written at Rome in 1755, and published in 1760, with merited applause. Soon after, he printed “A short Account of the Ancient History, present Government, and Laws of the Republic of Geneva.” This work he dedicated to his friend Voltaire. In 1762 he produced an “Epistle from lady Jane Gray to lord Guildford Dudley;” and in 1763 “The Alps,” a poem, which, for truth of description, elegance of versification, and vigour of imagination, greatly surpasses all his other poetical productions. In 1764 he produced “Netley Abbey;” and in 1765, the “Temple Student, an Epistle to a Friend,” in which he agreeably rallies his own want of application in the study of the law, and intimates his irresistible penchant for the belles lettres. In 1769 he married miss Hudson, of Wanlip, Leicestershire. Some months before which, he had published “Ferney,” an epistle to Mons. de Voltaire, in which he introduced a fine eulogium on Shakspeare, which procured him, soon after, the compliment, from the mayor and burgesses of Stratford, of a standish, mounted with silver, made out of the mulberry-tree planted by that illustrious bard. In 1773 he published “The Monument -in Arcadia,” a dramatic poem, founded on a well-known picture of Poussin; and in 1779, “Sketches from Nature, taken and coloured in a Journey to Margate,” 2 vols. 12 mo, an imitation of Sterne’s “Sentimental Journey” In 1781 he collected his poetical works in two volumes, with a dedication to Dr. Heberden, including a number of new pieces never before printed, and an excellent portrait of himself. Of these pieces, one was “The Helvetiad,” a fragment, written at Geneva, in 1756, He had intended to compose a poem of some length, on the subject of the emancipation of Switzerland from the oppression of the house of Austria, and had even settled the plan of his work, when he acquainted M. Voltaire with his intention, who advised him rather to employ his time on subjects more likely to interest the public attention “For,” said be, “should you devote yourself to the completion of your present design, the Swiss would be much obliged to you, without being able to read you, and the rest of the world would care little about the matter.” Whatever justice there was in this remark, Mr. K. relinquished his plan, and never resumed it afterwards. In 1781, he published an “Epistle to Angelica Kauffman.”

About 1711, several objections were urged against Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, in support of Des Cartes’s notions of a plenum; which occasioned Keill to draw up a paper, which was published in the “Philosophical Transactions,” “On the Rarity of Matter, and the Tenuity of its Compo sition,” in which he points out various phenomena, which cannot be explained upon the supposition of a plenum. But, while he was engaged in this controversy, queen Anne was pleased to appoint him her decipherer; a post for which he was, it seems, very fit. His sagacity was such, that, though a decipherer is always supposed to be moderately skilled in the language in which the paper given him to decipher is written; yet he is said once to have deciphered a paper written in Swedish, without knowing a word of the language. In 1713, the university conferred on him the degree of M. D. at the public act; and, two years after, he published an edition of Commandinus’s “Euclid,” with additions of his own, of two tracts on Trigonometry and the nature of Logarithms. In 1717 he was married to some lady, who recommended herself to him, it is said, purely by her personal accomplishments. The facetious Mr. Alsop wrote some lines on this occasion (Gent. Mag. vol. XXXVIII. 238), which intimate that Keill had been a man of gallantry in his youth; and this appears, indeed, to be confirmed by the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica. In 1718 he published his “Introductio ad veram Astronomiam:” which treatise was afterwards, at the request of the duchess of Chandos, translated by himself into English; and, with several emendations, published in 1721, under the title of “An Introduction to the true Astronomy, or, Astronomical Lectures read in the Astronomical Schools of the University of Oxford.” This was his last gift to the public; for he was seized this summer with a violent fever, which put an end to his life Sept. 1, 1721, when he was not quite fifty years old.

, an English Roman catholic of considerable eminence as a controversial writer, was born in Northamptonshire, about 1560, and brought up in lord Vaux’s family, whence he was sent for education to the English colleges at Doway and Rheims, and afterwards, in 1582, to Rome, where he remained about seven years, and acquired the reputation of a very able divine. In 1589, he was invited to Rheims to lecture on divinity, and, proceeding in his academical degrees, was created D. D. and, in 1606, had the dignity of rector magnificus, or chancellor of the university, conferred upon him. After being public professor at Rheims for twelve years, he returned to Doway in 1613, and a few months after was declared president of the college, by a patent from Rome. In this office he conducted himself with great reputation, and ably promoted the interests of the college. He died Jan. 21, 1641. Among his works are, 1. “Survey of the new religion/' Doway, 1603, 8vi. 2.” A reply to Sutcliffe’s answer to the Survey of the new religion,“Rheims, 1608, 8vi. 3.” Oratio coram Henrico IV. rege Chris4. “The Gagg of the reformed gospel.” This, the catholics tell us, was the cause of the conversion of many protestants. It was answered, however, by Montague, afterwards bishop of Chichester, in a tract called “The new Gagger, or Gagger gagged/ 7 1624. Montague and he happened to coincide in so many points that the former was involved with some of his brethren in a controversy, they thinking him too favourable to the popish cause. 5.” Examen reformations, prajsertim Calvinisticae,“8vo, Doway, 1616. 6.” The right and jurisdiction of the prince and prelate,“1617, 1621, 8vo. This he is said to have written in his own defence, having been represented at Rome as a favourer of the oath of allegiance. In the mean time the work was represented to king James I. as allowing of the deposing power, and of murdering excommunicated princes, and his majesty thought proper to inquire more narrowly into the matter; the result of which was, that Dr. Kellison held no such opinions, and had explained his ideas of the oath of allegiance with as much caution as could have been expected. 7.” A treatise of the hierarchy of the church: against the anarchy of Calvin,“1629, 8vo. In this treatise, he had the misfortune to differ from the opinion of his own church in some respect. His object was, to prove the necessity of episcopal government in national churches; and he particularly pointed at the state of the catholics in England, who were without such a government. Some imagined that the book would be censured at Rome, because it seemed indirectly to reflect upon the pope, who had not provided England with bishops to govern the papists there, although frequently applied to for that favour; and because it seemed to represent the regulars as no part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and consequently not over-zealous in supporting the dignity of the episcopal order. The court of Rome, however, took no cognizance of the matter; but others attacked Dr. Kellison’s work with great fury. The controversy increasing, the bishops and clergy of France espoused his cause, and condemned several of the productions of his antagonists, in, which they had attacked the hierarchy of the church. Dr. Kellison’s other works were, 8.” A brief and necessary Instruction for the Catholics of England, touching their pastor,“1631. 9.” Comment, in tertiam partem Summse Sancti Thomas,“1632, fol. 10.” A Letter to king James I." in ms. Sutcliife and Montague were his principal antagonists among the protestants.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, a native of Ireland, was born on the banks of the lake of Killarney, in 1739. His father was a gentleman of good family in that country, whose fortune being reduced by a series of misfortunes, he was obliged to repair to Dublin, in order to endeavour to support himself by his personal industry. He gave our author, however, some school education; but the narrowness of his finances would not permit him to indulge his son’s natural propensity to study, by placing him in the higher schools of Dublin. He was therefore bound apprentice to 3j stay-maker, an employment but ill suited to his inclination; yet continued with his master till the expiration of his apprenticeship, and then set out for London, in 1760, in order to procure a livelihood by his business. This, however, he found very difficult, and was soon reduced to the utmost distress for the means of subsistence. In this forlorn situation, a stranger, and friendless, he used sometimes to endeavour to forget his misfortunes, and passed some of his heavy hours at a public-house in Russel-street, Covent-garden, much resorted to by the younger players. Having an uncommon share of good-humour, and being lively, cheerful, and engaging in his behaviour, he soon attracted the notice, not only of these minor wits, but of a set of honest tradesmen who frequented that house every evening, and who were much entertained with his conversation. In a little time Mr. Kelly became so well acquainted with the characters of the club, that he was enabled to give a humorous description of them in one of the daily papers; and the likenesses were so well executed as to draw their attention, and excite their curiosity to discover the author. Their suspicions soon fixed on Mr. Kelly, and from that time he became distinguished among them as a man of parts and consideration.

About this time he began to write many political pamphlets, and among the rest “A Vindication of Mr. Pitt’s Administration,” which lord Chesterfield makes honourable mention of in the second volume of his letters, Letter 178. Jn 1767, the “Babbler” appeared in two pocket volumes, which had at first been inserted in “Owen’s Weekly Chronicle” in single papers: as did the “Memoirs of a Magdalene,” under the title of “Louisa Mildmay.” About this time also, perceiving that Churchill’s reputation had been much raised by his criticism of the stage in the “Rosciad,” Mr. Kelly produced his “Thespis,” by much the most spirited of his poetic compositions, in which he dealt about his satire and panegyric with great freedom and acuteness. It is somewhat singular, that while Mr. Kelly was making this severe attack upon the merits of the leading performers at our theatres, which had so great an effect upon the feelings of Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Clive, that they both for some time refused to perform in any of his pieces, he was actually writing for the stage; for, in 1768, his comedy of “False Delicacy” made its appearance, and was received with such universal applause, as at once established his reputation as a dramatic writer, and procured him a distinguished rank among the wits of the age. The sale of this comedy was exceedingly rapid and great, and it was repeatedly performed throughout Britain and Ireland, to crowded audiences. Nor was its reputation confined to the British dominions; it was translated into most of the modern languages, viz. into Portuguese, by command of the marquis de Pombal, and acted with great applause at the public theatre at Lisbon into French by the celebrated madame Ricoboni into the same language by another hand, at the Hague into Italian at Paris, where it was acted at the Theatre de la Comedie Italienne and into German.

, an English writer, and bishop of Peterborough, was the son of the rev. Basil Kennet, rector of Dunchurch, and vicar of Postling, near Hythe, in Kent, and was born at Dover, Aug. 10, 1660. He was called White, from his mother’s father, one Mr. Thomas White, a wealthy magistrate at Dover, who had formerly been a master shipwright there. When he was a little grown up, he was sent to Westminster-school, with a view of getting upon the foundation; but, being seized with the srnall-pox at the time of the election, it was thought advisable to take him away. In June 1678 he was entered of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford, where he was pupil to Mr. Allam, a very celebrated tutor, who took a particular pleasure in imposing exercises on him, which he would often read in the common room with great approbation. It was by Mr. Allam’s advice that he translated Erasmus on Folly, and some other pieces for the Oxford booksellers. Under this tutor he applied hard to study, and commenced an author in politics, even while he was an under-graduate; for, in 1680, he published “A Letter from a student at Oxford to a friend in the country, concerning the approaching parliament, in vindication of his majesty, the church of England, and tfye university:” with which the whig party, as it then began to be called, in the House of Commons, were so much offended, that inquiries were made after the author, in order to have him punished. In March 1681 he published, in the same spirit of party, “a Poem,” that is, “a Ballad,” addressed “to Mr. E. L. on his majesty’s dissolving the late parliament at Oxford,” which was printed on one side of a sheet of paper, and began, “An atheist now must a monster be,” &c. He took his bachelor’s degree in May 1683; and published, in 1684, a translation of Erasmus’s “Morise encomium,” which he entitled “Wit against Wisdom, or a Panegyric upon Folly,” which, as we have already noticed, his tutor had advised him to undertake. He proceeded M. A. Jan. 22, 1684; and, the same year, was presented by sir William Glynne, bart. to the vicarage of Amersden, or Ambroseden, in Oxfordshire; which favour was procured him by his patron’s eldest son, who was his contemporary in the halh To this patron he dedicated “Pliny’s Panegyric,” which he translated in 1686, and published with this title, “An address of thanks to a good prince, presented in the Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan, the best of the Roman emperors.” It was reprinted in 1717; before which time several reflections having been made on him for this performance, he gave the following account of it in a “Postscript” to the translation of his “Convocation Sermon,” in 1710. “The remarker says, the doctor dedicated Pliny’s Panegyric to the late king James: and, what if he did? Only it appears he did not. This is an idle tale among the party, who, perhaps, have told it till they believe it: when the truth is, there was no such dedication, and the translation itself of Pliny was not designed for any court address. The young translator’s tutor, Mr. Allam, directed his pupil, by way of exercise, to turn some Latin tracts into English. The first was a little book of Erasmus, entitled,” Moriae Encomiumu;“which the tutor was pleased to give to a bookseller in Oxford, who put it in the press while the translator was but an under-graduate. Another sort of task required by his tutor was this ‘ Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan,’ which he likewise gave to a bookseller in Oxford, before the translator was M. A. designing to have it published in the reign, of king Charles; and a small cut of that prince at full length was prepared, and afterwards put before several of the books, though the impression happened to be retarded till the death of king Charles; and then the same tutor, not long before his own death, advised a new preface, adapted to the then received opinion of king James’s being a just and good prince. However, there was no dedication to king James, but to a private patron, a worthy baronet, who came in heartily to the beginning of the late happy revolution. This is the whole truth of that story, that hath been so often cast at the doctor not that he thinks himself obliged to defend every thought and expression of his juvenile studies, when he had possibly been trained up to some notions, which he afterwards found reason to put away as childish things.”

In 1689, as he was exercising himself in shooting, he had the misfortune to be dangerously wounded in the forehead by the bursting of the gun. Both the tables of his skull were broken, which occasioned him constantly to wear a black velvet patch on that part. He lay a considerable time under this accident; and it is said, that while he was in great disorder both of body and brain, just after he had undergone the severe operation of trepanning, he made a copy of Latin verses, and dictated them to a friend at his bed-side. The copy was transmitted to his patron, sir William Glynne, in whose study it was found, after the author had forgot every thing but the sad occasion: and the writer of his life tells us, that “it was then in his possession, and thought, by good judges, to be no reproach to the author.” He was too young a divine to engage in the famous popish controversy; but he distinguished himself by preaching against popery. He likewise refused to read the declaration for liberty of conscience in 1688, and went with the body of the clergy in the diocese of Oxford, when they rejected an address to king James, recommended by bishop Parker in the same year. While he continued at Amersden, he contracted an acquaintance with Dr. George Hickes, whom he entertained in his house, and was instructed by him in the Saxon and Northern tongues; though their different principles in church and state afterwards dissolved the friendship between them. In September 1691, he was chosen lecturer of St. Martin’s in Oxford, having some time before been invited back to Edmund-hall, to be tutor and vice-principal there; where he lived in friendship with the learned Dr. Mill, the editor of the New Testament, who was then principal of that house. In February 1692, he addressed a letter from Edmund-hall to Brome, the editor of Somner’s “Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent,” containing an account of the life of that famous antiquary; which gave him an opportunity of displaying his knowledge in the history of the Saxon language in England. In February 1693, he was presented to the rectory of Shottesbrook, in Berkshire, by William Cherry, esq. the father of one of his fellow-students at college, but he still resided at Oxford, where he diligently pursued and encouraged the study of antiquities. We have a strong attestation to this part of his character from Gibson, afterwards bishop of London, who publishing, in 1694, a translation of Somner’s treatise, written in answer to Chifflet, concerning the situation of the Portus Iccius on the coast of France, opposite to Kent, where Caesar embarked for the invasion of this island, introduced it to the world with a dedication to Mr. Kennet.

Bishop Kennet took such an active part in the ecclesiastical and political controversies of his time, that whoever examines into the state of these must expect to find his character very differently represented. Upon a fair examination of his conduct, however, as well as his writings, it will probably be found that he did not fall much short of his contemporaries as an able divine and an honest politician. But it is as a historian and antiquary, that we feel most indebted to his labours, and could wish he had been enabled to devote more of his time to the illustration of literary history, to which he was early attached, and had every requisite to become a useful collector and biographer. As to his character in other respects, if we can rely on the rev. William Newton, the writer of his life, there was much that was exemplary. He was always indefatigable in the duties of his sacred function, had a great sense of the worth of souls, and was very solicitous to serve in the most effectual manner those committed to his care.

This resolution he was unable to persevere in. An antagonist of superior order, whose influence was too mighty to be treated with neglect, made his appearance. This was Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, then possessed of all his powers, and exercising authority in the world of letters almost without controul. This learned writer, finding an explanation of a passage in the Proverbs different from his own sentiments, attacked the Collation of the Hebrew Mss. in the Preface to his Doctrine of Grace, 1764, in a style not unusual with him, and calculated to make an unfavourable impression on the public mind. To repel the attack, Dr. Kennicott published “A Sermon preached before the university of Oxford at St. Mary’s church, on Sunday May 19, 1765,” 8vo, in the notes to which he defended himself with great spirit, and even assailed his opponent, whose reflections, he observed, with regard to his work, were a mere fortuitous concourse of words, of heterogeneous and incompatible meanings, which were incapable of forming any regular system of opposition, and had therefore the benevolent faculty of destroying One another.

His “Epistles, Philosophical and Moral,” or “Epistle to Lorenzo,” appeared in 1758, and may be reckoned among the best specimens of his poetry, which is not without ease and elegance. As it was rather severely handled in the Critical Review, he defended himself, in a pamphlet without his name, entitled “A Scrutiny, or the Critics criticised.” It was not easy for him, however, in any shape, to vindicate what was too plainly a defence of infidelity, nor was it much excuse that it was written while under confinement for debt. About this time he probably obtained an engagement as a writer in the Monthly Review, which ceased in 1766, silently on the part of the proprietors of that work; but Dr. Kenrick thought the rupture of too much consequence to be concealed, and therefore announced, in the newspapers, in 1766, “that he declined to write any more in the Monthly Review; that he had been author of the Appendix to that work, consisting of a review of foreign publications, for the volumes 28 to 33 inclusive; and that he had formed connexions with several gentlemen of the first rank in the world of letters, for establishing a literary review on a new, liberal, and independent plan,”

, a very learned English bishop, was born, as Wood says, at Brighthelmstone in Sussex, but as others say, in Suffolk. In June 1649, he was admitted sizar in Emanuel -college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. 1652, was elected fellow in 1655, and took his degree of A. M. in 1656. He was presented by his college to the vicarage of Stanground, in Huntingdonshire; from which he was ejected for nonconformity, in 1662, by virtue of the Bartholomew act; but conforming soon after, he was presented by Arthur earl of Essex to the rectory 01 Raine, in Essex, 1664. Here he continued till 1674, when he was presented to the rectory of St. Martin’s Outwicb, London, by the Merchant-tailors company. In September 1681, he was installed into a prebend of Norwich; and in 1689 made dean of Peterborough, in the room of Simon Patrick, promoted to the see of Chichester. On this occasion he took the degree of D. D. Upon the deprivation of Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells, for not taking the oaths to king William and queen Mary, and Beveridge’s refusal of that see, Kidder was nominated in June 1691, and consecrated the August following. In 1693 he preached the lecture founded by the honourable Robert Boyle, being the second that preached it. His sermons on that occasion are inserted in his “Demonstration of the Messias,” in three parts; the first of which was published in 1694, the second in 1699, and the third in 1700, 8vo. It is levelled against the Jews, whom the author was the better enabled to combat from his great knowledge of the Hebrew and oriental languages, for which he had long been celebrated. He wrote also, “A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses; with a Disser tation concerning the author or writer of the said books, and a general argument to each of them.” This commentary was published in 1694, in two volumes, 8vo; and the reader in the preface is thus acquainted with the occasion of it: “Many years are now passed since a considerable number of the London clergy met together, and agreed to publish some short notes upon the whole Bible, for the use of families, and of all those well-disposed persons that desired to read the Holy Scriptures to their greatest advantage. At that meeting they agreed upon this worthy design, and took their several shares, and assigued some part to them who were absent. I was not present at that meeting; but I was soon informed that they had assigned to me the Pentateuch. The work was begun with common consent; we did frequently meet; and what was done was communicated from time to time to those that met together and were concerned. The methods of proceeding had been adjusted and agreed to; a specimen was printed, and an agreement was made when it should be put to the press. I finished my part in order thereto; but so it fell out, that soon after all this, the clouds began to gather apace, and there was great ground to fear that the popish party were attempting to ruin the church of England. Hence it came to pass that the thoughts of pursuing this design were laid aside; and those that were concerned in it were now obliged to turn their studies and pens against that dangerous enemy. During this time, also, some of the persons concerned in this work were taken away by death; and thus the work was hindered, that might else have been finished long since. I, having drawn up my notes upon this occasion, do now think myself obliged to make them public,” &c. To the first volume is prefixed a dissertation, in which he sets down, and answers all the objections made against Moses being the author of the Pentateuch; and having considered, among the rest, one objection drawn by Le Clerc, from Gen. xxxvi. 31, and spoken in pretty severe terms of him, some letters passed between them, which were printed by Le Clerc in his “Bibliotheque Choisie.” Dr. Kidder had likewise borne a part in the popish controversy, during which he published the following tracts: 1 “A Second Dialogue between a new Catholic Convert and a Protestant; shewing why he cannot believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, though he do firmly believe the doctrine of the Trinity.” 2. “An Examination of Bellarmine’s Thirtieth note of the Church, of the Confession of Adversaries.” 3. “The Texts which Papists cite out of the Bible for the proof of their Doctrine, `of the Sacrifice of the Mass,' examined.” 4. “Reflections on a French Testament, printed at Bourdeaux, 1686, pretended to be translated out of the Latin by the divines of Louvain.” He published also several sermons and tracts of the devotional kind.

This prelate died Nov. 1703, in his palace at Wells, and was privately bur- ed in the cathedral. Through a most unhappy accident, in the night between the 26th and 27th of that month, he was killed in his bed, with his lady, by the fall of a stack of chimneys, occasioned by the great storm. It is reported that his heirs were sued for dilapidations! He was a very clear, elegant, learned writer; and one of the best divines of his time.

, a heraldic and commercial writer, the son of a father of both his names, was born at Lichfield, Dec. 15, 1648, and was educated at the grammarschool of that city, and at the age of fourteen had been taught Greek, Latin* and somewhat of Hebrew. At that age he was recommended by Dr. Hunter, of Lichfield, to sir William Dugdale, then Norroy, who took him into his service, which was very acceptable to his father, who had five other children to provide for; and Dr. Hacket, bishop of Lichfield, had intended to have sent him to the university, had not this opening taken place. He was at this time so small of his age, that when he became clerk to Dugdale, and for two years after, he was unable to mount a horse from the ground. Yet he accompanied that king of arms in his visitations, and tricked the arms of Staffordshire, which though not equal to what he afterwards did$ still remain in the college. He at that time applied himself to the French language, and painting of pedigrees > and within a year or two, painted several for Mr. Dugdale, particularly a large one of Claverin, of Northumberland, and some time after painting and engrossing the grants of arms filled up the greatest part of his time; but Dugdale gave him leave to take with him into the northern counties blank escocheons on vellum, upon which he depicted the arms of those who desired an attestation of them under Dugdale’s hand; and this he was enabled to do* instead of an arms painter, who had usually attended that officer of the college. He shewed uncommon attention to improvement during the time Dugdale visited his whole province, in 1662, and 1666, for he took prospects of the towns, castles, and other remarkable places in the counties through which he passed. In 1667 he passed into the service of lord Hatton, who was a great lover of antiquities, and the particular patron of Dugdale during the civil war; and now employed Mr. King until 1669, when he was dismissed with great promises of future kindness. He then went to Lichfield, where he found his father re-married; and here he supported himself for some time in the humble occupations of teaching writing and arithmetic, painting coaches, signs, and other kinds of work in oil colours, as hatchments, &c. and in instructing the registrar of the dean and chapter, and some other inquisitive persons, to read ancient records. At this time Mr. Chetwynd of Ingestry, invited him to peruse and transcribe his family muniments, which he did in a fair vellum book, tricking the most considerable seals.

, a learned English writer and antiquary, was born in the county of Norfolk in 1731. He was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of B. A. and M. A. in 1752 and 1763, and at subsequent periods he was admitted to the degree of D. D. and received a member of the royal society, and of the society of antiquaries. lu 1764, he obtained the appointment of chaplain to the English factory at Petersburgh. In this situation he was led to inquire into the ceremonies of the Russian church, which he continually saw practised, and determined to give a faithful description of the same in his own language. He accordingly published, in 1772, in a handsome quarto, illustrated with engravings, a work, entitled “The Kites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia; containing an account of its doctrine, worship, and discipline.” In 1778, he wrote and published a letter to the bishop of Durham, containing some observations on the climate of Russia, and the northern countries, with a view of the flying-mountains at Zarsko Sello, near St. Petersburgh. Soon after his return to his native country, he was presented to the rectory of Wormley, in Hertfordshire, in 1783 and in 1786 he purchased Dr. John Warner’s chapel in Broad-court, Drury-lane, in which he officiated as preacher. While he resided at Petersburgh, the empress of Russia had appointed him her medallist, and he was engaged in a medallic work at the time of his death, which happened Nov. 2, 1787, in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was buried at Wormley. Besides the works already mentioned, Dr. King was author of “Observations on the Barberini Vase,” which are printed in the eighth volume of the Transactions of the Antiquarian Society.

Mr. King had not been many years at the Temple, when he had acquired as high a reputation for his knowledge in law, as he had before for his knowledge in divinity; and, in 1699, obtained a seat in the House of Commons, as representative for the borough of Beer- Alston, in. Devonshire; and the same honour was continued to him, not only in the ensuing and last parliament of king William, but in the five succeeding parliaments of queen Anne. In the mean time he published his inquiries into church history, and the history of early opinions, and having completed some collections he had already made, and digested them into proper order, he published, in 1702, “The History of the Apostles’ Creed, with critical Observations on its several articles,” 8vo; a treatise written with judgment and learning. Peter de Coste, who sent an abstract of it in French to Bernard, to be published in his “Nouvelles de la Republique de Lettres” for November and December, 1702, has related a very remarkable particular concerning it. He tells us that an English prelate, distinguished for his erudition, fancying it could only be a compilation from several discourses already printed, or perhaps an abridgment of Pearson’s “Exposition of the Creed,” who seemed to have exhausted the subject, began to read it with this disadvantageous prepossession; but was quickly convinced of his mistake, and surprized to find so many curious things, not to be met with in Pearson, and to observe so little borrowed from that writer’s “Exposition.”

, an ingenious and humourous English writer, was born in London, 1663, the son of Ezekiel King, a gentleman. He was allied to the noble families of Clarendon and Rochester. From Westminster school, where he was a scholar on the foundation under the care of Dr. Busby, he was at eighteen elected to Christ-church, Oxford, and admitted a student there in Michaelmas term, 1631.

Early in 1701, Dr. King was recalled to the busy scenes of life. His friend James the third earl of Anglesea (who had succeeded to that title April 1, 1690), married Oct. 28, 1699, the lady Catharine Darnley, natural daughter to king James II. by Catharine countess of Dorchester, and had by her one daughter. After living together little more than a year, a dispute arose between them, which ended in a separation. Lord Anglesea solicited the assistance of Dr. King; and the force of friendship prevailed over his natural aversion to the wrangling of the bar. He complied with the request took abundant pains for his old friend, more than he was ever known to do and distinguished himself so in the earl’s defence, as shewed him to have had abilities in his profession equal to any occasion that might call for them, and effectually established his reputation in the character of a civilian, as he had already done in that of a polite writer.

On Aug. 3, 1710, appeared the first number of “The Examiner,” the ablest vindication of the measures of the queen and her new ministry. Swift be^an with No. 13, and ended by writing part of No. 45 when Mrs.Mauley took it up, and finished the first volume it was afterwards resumed by Mr. Oldisworth, who completed four volumes more, and published nineteen numbers of a sixth volume, when the queen’s death put an end to the work. The original institntors of that paper seem to have employed Dr. King as their publisher, or ostensible author, before they prevailed on their great champion to undertake that task. It is not clear which part of the first ten numbers were Dr. King’s; but he appears pretty evidently the writer of No. H, Oct. 12 No. 12, Oct. 19 and No. 13, Oct. 26 and this agrees with the account given by the publisher of his posthumous works, who says he undertook that paper about the 10th of October. On the 26th of October, no Examiner at all appeared; and the next number, which was published Nov. 2, was written by Dr. Swift. Our author’s warm zeal for the church, and his contempt for the whigs (“his eyes,” says Dr. Johnson, “were open to all the operations of whiggism”), carried him naturally on the side of Sacheverell; and he had a hand, in his dry sarcastic way, in many political essays of that period. He published, with this view, “A friendly Letter from honest Tom Boggy, to the Rev. Mr. Goddard, canon of Windsor, occasioned by a sermon preached at St. George’s chapel, dedicated to her grace the duchess of Marlborough,” 1710; and “A second Letter to Mr. Goddard, occasioned by the late Panegyric given him by the Review, Thursday, July 13, 1710.” These were succeeded by “A Vindication of the Rev. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous, and malicious aspersions, cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet entitled ‘The Modern Fanatic;’ intended chiefly to expose the iniquity of the faction in general, without taking any particular notice of their poor mad fool, Bisset, in particular in a dialogue between a tory and a whig.” This masterly composition had scarcely appeared in the world before it was followed by “Mr. Bisset’s Recantation in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Sacheverell” a singular banter on that enthusiast, whom our author once more thought proper to lash, in “An Answer to a second scandalous book that Mr. Bisset is now writing, to be published as soon as possible.” Dr. White Kennel’s celebrated sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, occasioned, amongst many other publications, a jeu d'esprit of Dr. King-, under the title of “An Answer to Clemens Alexandrinus’s Sermon upon * Quis Dives salvetur?‘ ’ What rich man can be saved' proving it easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle.” In 1711, Dr. King very diligently employed his pen in publishing that very useful book for schools, his “Historical account of the Heathen Gods and Heroes, necessary for the understanding of the ancient Poets;” a work still in great esteem, and of which there have been several editions. About the same time he translated “Political considerations upon Refined Politics, and the Master-strokes of State, as practised by the Ancients and Moderns, written by Gabriel Naude, and inscribed to the cardinal Bagni.” At the same period also he employed himself on “Rufinus, or an historical essay on the Favourite Ministry under Theodosius and his son Arcadius with a poem annexed, called ' Rufinus, or the Favourite.” These were written early in 1711, but not printed till the end of that year. They were levelled against the duke of Marlborough and his adherents and were written with much asperity. Towards the close of 1711 his circumstances began to reassume a favourable aspect and he was recommended by his firm friend Swift to an office under government. “I have settled Dr. King,” says that great writer, “in the Gazette; it will be worth two hundred pounds a year to him. To-morrow I am to carry him to dine with the secretary.” And in another letter, he tells the archbishop of Dublin, “I have got poor Dr. King, who was some time in Ireland, to be gazetteer; which will be worth two hundred and fifty pounds per annum to him, if he be diligent and sober, for which I am engaged. I mention this because I think he was under your grace’s protection in Ireland.” From what Swift te,lls the archbishop, and a hint which he has in another place dropped, it should seem, that our author’s finances were in such a state as to render the salary of gazetteer no contemptible object to him. The office, however, was bestowed on Dr. King in a manner the most agreeable to his natural temper; as he had not even the labour of soliciting for it. On the last day of December, 1711, Dr. Swift, Dr. Freind, Mr. Prior, and some other of Mr. secretary St. John’s friends, came to visit him; and brought with them the key of the Gazetteer’s office, and another key for the use of the paper-office, which had just before been made the receptacle of a curious collection of mummery, far different from the other contents of that invaluable repository. On the first of January our author had the honour of dining with the secretary; and of thanking him for his remembrance of him at a time when he had almost forgotten himself. He entered on his office the same day; but the extraordinary trouble he met with in discharging its duties proved greater than he could long endure. Mr. Barber, who printed the gazette, obliged him to attend till three or four o'clock, on the mornings when that paper was published, to correct the errors of the press; a confinement which his versatility would never have brooked, if his health would have allowed it, which at this time began gradually to decline. And this, joined to his natural indisposition to the fatigue of any kind of business, furnished a sufficient pretence for resigning his office about Midsummer 1712. On quitting his employment he retired to the house of a friend, in the garden-grounds between Lambeth and Vauxhall, where he enjoyed himself principally in his library; or, amidst select parties, in a sometimes too liberal indulgence of the bottle. He still continued, however, to visit his friends in the metropolis, particularly his relation the earl of Clarendon, who resided in Somerset-house.

On the dedication of Radcliffe’s library, 1749, he spoke a Latin oration in the theatre at Oxford, which was received with the highest acclamations by a splendid auditory. Mr. Warton, in “The Triumphs of Isis,” pays him a very great compliment on that occasion. But this oration, which was soon after printed, did not meet with such favourable reception from the public; for he was attacked in several pamphlets on account of it, in which he was charged with writing barbarous Latin, with being disaffected to the government, and that he instigated the younger members of the university to sedition and licentiousness; very heavy accusations, if we may not candidly suppose them dictated by the spirit of malevolence and party zeal. And again, in 1755, when the memorable election contest happened in Oxfordshire, his attachment to the old interest drew -on him the resentment of the new. He was libelled in newspapers and in pamphlets, and charged with the following particulars, viz. that he was an Irishman; that he had received subscriptions for books never published to the amount of 1500l. of which sum he had defrauded his subscribers; that he had offered himself to sale both in England and Ireland, and was not found worth the purchase that he was the writer of “The London Evening Post” the author of a book in queen Anne’s reign, entitled “Political Considerations,” 1710, in which there was false English; and of a book then just published, called, “The Dreamer,” 1754, 8vo. At this time he published his “Apology” in 4to, and plausibly vindicated himself from the several matters charged on him, except only the last article, of his being the author of “The Dreamer;” and warmly retaliated on his adversaries.

He was the author of 1. “Miltoni epistola ad Pollionem” (lord Polwarth). 2. << Sermo Pedestris.“3.” Scamnum, ecloga.“4.” Templum libertatis,“in three books. 5.” Tres Oratiunculae.“6.” Epistola objurgatoria.“7.” Antoriietti ducis Corscorum epistola ad Corscos de rege eligendo.“8.” Eulogium Jacci Eionensis.“9.” Aviti epistola ad Perillam, virginem Scotam,“&c. 10.” Oratiuncula habita in domo convocationis Oxon. cum epistola dedicatoria,“1757, and” Epitaphium Richardi Nash." Besides these, he published the first five volumes of Dr. South’s sermons. He was known and esteemed by the first men of his time for wit and learning; and must be allowed to have been a polite scholar, an excellent orator, and an elegant and easy writer, both in Latin and English. He died Dec. 30, 1763, having sketched his own character in an elegant epitaph, in which, while he acknowledges his failings, he claims the praise of benevolence, temperance, and fortitude. This epitaph was to be engraved on a silver case, in which he directed his heart should be pn^erved in some convenient part of St. Mary Hall. He was buried in Ealing church, but the inscription is on a marble tablet in the chapel of St. Mary-hall. There is a striking likeness of Dr. King in Worlidge’s view of the installation of lord Westmorland as chancellor of Oxford in 1761.

As an author, Dr. Kippis commenced his career in early life, as many other young men have done, by-contributing to the magazines of the time, particularly the Gentleman’s Magazine. He afterwards became a more constant writer in the Monthly Review. His articles were chiefly historical and theological, with occasional strictures on works of general erudition. He also furnished a periodical publication, called the “Library,” of which he was the editor, with several valuable papers. He laid the foundation of the “New Annual Register.” “The History of Ancient Literature,” and the “Review of modern Books,” were, at its first commencement, written by him, and continued to the year 1784 inclusive. He was also the author of the “Review of the Transactions of the present Reign,” prefixed to the Register for 170; and of the “History of Knowledge, Learning, and Taste, in Great Britain,” prefixed to the succeeding volumes, to the year 1794 inclusive. During the application of the dissenting ministers to parliament, for the enlargement of the Act of Toleration, in 1772, to which he devoted much of his time and attention, he published a pamphlet, vindicating that measure, as to the matter, manner, and time of it, entitled, “A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers, with regard to their late Application to Parliament,” 8vo.

Perhaps few persons ever read so much, and with such advantage to themselves and others, as Dr. Kippis. He informed the present writer, that he once read, for three years, at the rate of sixteen hours a day; and one of the works which he read entirely through was the “General Dictionary,” in ten volumes folio. This, he added, laid the foundation of his taste and skill in biographical composition.

Klopstock travelled into Switzerland in 1750, to pay a visit to Bodmer of Zurich, in consequence of an invitation, where he was received with every token of respect. The sublime scenery of that country, the simplicity of the inhabitants, and the freedom they enjoyed, were much suited to his taste. Here he intended to have spent the remainder of his life, but baron Bernstorff caused an invitation to be sent to him to reside at Copenhagen, with assurances of such a pension as would make him independent. Klopstock acceded to the proposal, and set out in 1751, by the way of Brunswick and Hamburgh, at which latter place he became acquainted with Miss Muller, a lady perfectly adapted to his own mind, whom he soon after married. They seemed destined to be one of the happiest couples, but he was soon deprived of her, for she died in childbed: her memory, however, was sacred to Kiopstock to the last moment of his existence. He lived chiefly at Copenhagen, till 1771, after which he resided at Hamburgh as Danish legate, and counsellor of the margrave of Baden, who gave him a pension. The latter part of his life was little varied by incidents, and after he had brought the Messiah to a conclusion, he continued to employ himself in composition, and in the correction and revision of his works. He died at Hamburgh, March 14, 1803, being seventy-nine years of age, and was interred with the greatest solemnity, not unmixed with superstitious and fanciful circumstances. By those who were intimate with him he is represented as a truly amiable man, happiest in a small circle of private friends, and particularly fond of the society of young persons. The character of Kiopstock, as a poet, is that of exuberance of imagination and sentiment. His sublimity is great, but he is apt to lose himself in mystical abstraction, and his excess of feeling sometimes betrays him into rant and extravagance. His odes and lyric poems have likewise been much admired by his countrymen, and his dramas display great force and dignity, but they are better adapted to the closet than the stage. The great merit of his works is in the diction; he enchants by his noble and energetic style, but their beauties cannot be preserved in a translation, and it is in Germany alone that they can be sufficiently appreciated. As an excellent specimen of his talents as a prose writer, we may notice his “Grammatical Dialogues,” which abound with judicious remarks.

, a learned Jesuit and controversial writer, whose true name was Matthias Wilson, and who, in some of his works, takes the name of Nicholas Smith, was born at Pegsworth near Morpeth in Northumberland, 1580. He was entered among the Jesuits in 1606, being already in priest’s orders; and is represented in the “Bibliotheca Patrurn societatis Jesu,” as a man of low stature, but of great abilities: “vir magnis animi dotibus bumili in corpore praeditus.” He taught divinity a long time in the English college at Rome, and was a rigid observer of that discipline himself which he has as rigidly exacted from others. He was then appointed sub-provincial of the province of England; and, after he had exercised that employment out of the kingdom, he was sent thither to perform the functions of provincial. He was twice honoured with that employment. He was present, as provincial, at the general assembly of the orders of the Jesuits, held at Rome in 1646, and was elected one of the definitors. He died at London, January 4, 1655-6, and was buried in the church of St. Pancras, near that city.

, son of Humphry Kynaston, citizen of Chester (descended from a younger branch of the Kynastons of Bronguin, in the county of Montgomery), was born at Chester, Dec. 5, 1728; admitted a commoner in Brazen-nose college, Oxford, March 20, 1746; elected scholar, on the foundation of Sarah dutchess dowager of Somerset, in the said college, Aug. I of the same year took the degree of B. A. Oct. 16, 1749 was elected fellow June 14, 1751 and took the decree of M. A. June 4, 1752. He obtained no small reputation by an Oratiuncula, entitled, “De Impietate C. CornelioTacito falso objectata; Oratio ex Instituto Viri cl. Francisci Bridgman , militis, habita in Sacello Collegii JEnei Nasi Oxon. Festo Sancti Thomre, Decembris 2':, A. D. 1761, a J. K. A. M. Coll. ejusdem Socio;” in which he endeavoured to disprove the false allegations (for such he really thought them) of Famianus Strada (the excellent critic, and most elegant writer) against Tacitus, on his impiety and sovereign contempt of the Supreme. On the apprehension of the notorious miss Blandy, Mr. Kynaston took an active part, from the time of her conviction till her body was secured from indecent treatment. In this business he barely steered free from censure. His method was, to be with her as much as postible when the ordinary (the learned, well-known, but credulous Mr. Swinton, whom she gained to countenance her hypocrisy) was absent; and was suspected to have given hopes of pardon, in concert with another person, also of Brazen-nose College, to the morning of her execution, when she appeared in that studied genteel dress and attitude which she could not possibly have put on had she been watchfully attended by a firmer-minded instructor. In 1764, he published “A collection of papers relative to the prosecution now carrying on in the Chancellor’s Court in Oxford, against Mr. Kynaston, by Matthew Maddock, clerk, rector of Cotworth and Holywell, in the county of Huntingdon, and chaplain to his grace of Manchester, for the charge of adultery alleged against the said Matthew Maddock,” 8vo. From the date of this publication (the cause of which operated too severely on his high sense of honour) he resided, in not the best state of health, at Wigan principally, loved and respected by a few select friends. On the 27th of March, 1783, Mr. Kynaston had the misfortune to break his left arm, near the shoulder; but, the bones having been properly replaced, he was thought out of danger. It brought on his death, however, in the June following.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

The character of Lactantius as a Christian writer is, that he refutes paganism with great strength of reasoning, but treats divinity too much as a philosopher. He did not understand thoroughly the nature of the Christian mysteries, and has fallen into several errors. His works have gone through a great number of editions, the first of which was published at Rome, in 1468, folio and the last, which is the most ample, at Paris, 1748, in 2 vols. 4-to.

, a dramatic writer, who flourished in the reign of king Charles II. was born near Doncaster in Yorkshire, and was at first bred a dancing-master, but afterwards went into the army, having a lieutenant’s commission and warrant as quarter-master under colonel Charles lord Gerrard. The charms of a military life, however, he quitted to go upon the stage, in which profession, from the advantages of a fine person, being well shaped, of a good stature, and well proportioned, added to a sound critical judgment, and a large share of comic humour, he arrived at so great a height of excellence, as to be universally admired; and in particular was so high in the esteem of king Charles II. that his majesty had his picture painted in three several characters, viz. Teague in the “Committee,” Scruple in the “Cheats,” and Galliard in the “Variety” which picture is still preserved at Windsorcastle. His cast of acting was chiefly in comedy and his writings are all of that kind, he being the author of the four following comedies: 1. “Dumb Lady, 11 1672, 4to. 2.” Sir Hercules Buffoon,“1684, 4to. 3.” Old Troop,“1698, 4to. 4.” Sawney the Scot," 1698, 4to. The second of these was not brought on the stage till three years after the author’s death, which happened on the 15th of September, 1681.

, an useful and agreeable French writer, was born Jan. 3, 1709, at Vauxcouleurs, in Champagne, where his father was a magistrate. He studied in his native place, but particularly at Pont-a-mousson, where he was called “the prince of philosophers,” an academical title given to those who distinguished themselves by their talents and application. Being intended for the church, he was sent to the seminary of St. Louis in Paris, where he remained five years. He afterwards took the degree of bachelor of divinity, was admitted of the house of the Sorbonne in 1734, and of the society in 1736, being then in his licentiateship; but after finishing that career with equal ardour and reputation, he was placed in the second rank, among more than 140 competitors. He took a doctor’s degree June 1738, and afterwards served the curacy of Greux, and Dom-Remi, to which he had been nominated by his bishop. This prelate proposed to have M. Ladvocat near him, fix him in his chapter, and place his whole confidence in him; but the Sorbonne did not give the bishop time to execute his plan for one of their royal professorships becoming vacant by the resignanation of M. Thierri, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, they hastened to appoint M. Ladvocat to it, January 11, 1740. Our new professor was unable to continue his lectures more than two years and a half, from a disorder of his lungs, thought by the physicians to be incurable, but of which he at length cured himself by consulting the best authors. In the mean time he wrote two tracts, one “on the Proofs of religion,” the other, “on the Councils,” both which are valued by catholics. In October 1742, he resigned his chair to be librarian to the Sorbonne, an office then vacant by the premature death of the abbe Guedier de St. Aubin, and made use of the leisure this situation afforded, to improve himself in the learned languages, which he had never neglected in the midst of his other studies. He was often consulted by Louis, duke of Orleans, first prince of the blood, who, among other things, wished to become acquainted with the original language of the holy scriptures. M. Ladvocat took advantage of his situation with this prince to represent to him what great and important benefits religion would derive from the establishment of a professor who should explain the holy scriptures according to the Hebrew text. M. the duke immediately comprehending all the good which would result from this professorship, realized it in 1751, and chose M. Ladvocat to fulfil its duties; desiring that for that time only, without any precedent being drawn from it in future, the offices of librarian and professor, which till then had been incompatible, might center in one person. M. Ladvocat was no sooner appointed to this professorship, than he considered by what means he might procure scholars to it; in which he was again seconded by the pious liberality of its august founder. The seminary of the Holy Family, endowed by Anne of Austria, offered choice subjects; the duke assembled them, and revived that seminary by paying the debts which had been necessarily contracted in repairing its buildings. The extinct, or suspended fellowships, rose to new existence, and were no longer given but to deserving competitors; an emulation for understanding scripture inspired the most indifferent, and. all the students in divinity hastened to receive lectures from the Orleans professor. The example was followed by some other communities, and this school, which seemed at first likely to be deserted, had the credit of training up many men of great talents. M. Ladvocat died at Paris, December 29, 1765, by which event the house and society of the Sorhonne lost one of its most learned members, the faculty of theology one of its most ingenious doctors, and religion one of its ablest defenders. There is scarce any kind of knowledge which he had not pursued; philosophy, mathematics, the learned languages, history, theology, the holy scripture, all fixed his attention. Assiduous and deliberate study had made the Greek and Latin fathers familiar to him: no monument of ecclesiastical antiquity had escaped his researches; but his peculiar study was to find the true sense of the sacred books; and the theses which he caused to be maintained on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, at which the most distinguished among the learned were present, prove the utility of his labours. A genius lively and penetrating, uncommon and extensive, accurate and indefatigable; a ready and retentive memory, a delicate and enlightened feeling, a decided taste formed from the best models of antiquity, a clear and impartial judgment, a fertile, singular, and natural imagination, and a conversation, which, without seeking for ornaments of style, never failed to prove agreeable and interesting, characterized the scholar in M. Ladvocat, and gained him the regard and esteem of all with whom he had any intercourse or connections. He was frequently consulted on the most intricate and important points, by persons of the greatest distinction in different departments, while his uniform conduct, full of candour and simplicity, tender and compassionate, honest and virtuous, rendered him, though always far from affluence, the resource of indigent men of letters, and made him a kind relation, an excellent friend, beloved by all who had any intercourse with him, and a most valuable member of society in general. His works are, “A Hebrew Grammar,” 1758, 8vo; “The Historical Dictionary,” 4 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times during his lite; “Tractatus de Consiliis” a “Dissertation on Psalm, 67, Exurgat Deus;” “Lettres sur FAutorite des Textes originaux de FEcriture Sainte;” “Jugemens sur qoelques nouvelles Traductions de ‘lEcriture Sainte, d’apres le Texte Hebreu.” The four last were published after his death. M. Ladvocat assisted in the “Dict. Geographique,” which has appeared under the name of M. the abbé de Vosgiens, the best edition of which is that of 1772, 8vo. He had planned several other works which ke had not time to finish, but which were impatiently expected even in foreign countries.

, a French writer, was born at Bourdeaux, and having early entered the schools of the Jesuits, became soon distinguished by a taste for history and polite literature, and although he never arrived at the wealth of his brother, the subject of the next article, he was thought his superior in knowledge and judgment. He made himself known in the literary world by a work entitled “Les Mosurs des Sauvages, compare'es aux mceurs des premiers siecles,” Paris, 1723, 2 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 12mo and by his “Histoire des De*couvertes des Portugais dans le Nouveau Monde,” 1733, 2 vols. 4to, and 1734, 4 vols. 12mo. He wrote also “Remarquessur le Gin-Seng,” Paris, 1728, 12mo. The author had been sent as a missionary to the Iroquois, and the account he gives of them is the most accurate that we have; his comparison between the ancients and the Americans is also very ingenious, and shews great knowledge of antiquity. One other publication of his remains to be mentioned, “Histoire de Jean de Brienne, ernpereur de Constantinople,” Paris, 1727, 12mo. He died in 1755.

Lalande has been charged with profaneness and atheism; llbut, says the writer of his life whom we have follovyed, no authority is produced to support such charges, which, if true, ought to have been sanctioned by some sort of proof, or by well ascertained facts. The facts, however, as given in the “Biographic moderne,” are these, that, “before the Revolution, Lalande made a public profession of Atheism: in 1793 he delivered a speech at the Pantheon, with the red cap on his head, against the existence of God; in 1805 he published a Supplement to the” Dictionary of Atheists,“by Silvain Mareschal, in which he endeavours to prove there is no Deity; and in support of his opinion he cites not only the dead, but even living persons, one of whom, Francis de Neufchateau, president of the senate, strongly protested in the public prints against this charge.” In the same work, we are likewise told, that the emperor (Bonaparte) on being informed of Lalande' s conduct, enjoined him to publish nothing more with his name, in a letter dated from the palace at Schoenbrunn, Jan. 18, 1806, which was read at a general meeting of the Institute, all the classes of which had been especially summoned. The substance of this letter is, that M. Lalande, whose name had hitherto been united with important labours in science, had lately fallen into a state of childhood, which appeared now in little articles unworthy of his name, &c. Lalande, who was present, rose and said, “I will conform to the orders of his majesty.” These are surely facts of the most decisive kind, and easily to be refuted, if they have no foundation. The editors of the Diet. Hist, borrowing from one of his eulogists, make a very poor defence, by saying that, “he always manifested a benevolent disposition, and approved himself a man of honour, probity, courage, full of activity for all useful things, and of love and zeal in behalf of his fellow creatures. To imitate the great benefactor is the most worthy homage we can pay to the infinite goodness; the supreme intelligence which governs the universe.” He rendered, however, inestimable service toi science during his life, and consulted its interests after his, death, by founding an annual prize to the author of the best astronomical memoir, or most curious observation. He died April 4th, 1807, in the 7 5th year of his age.

, a very learned writer, was born at Hamburgh April 13, 1628, the son of Heino Lambecius, who had married a sister of the celebrated Lucas Holstein. In his youth he afforded many proofs of diligence and genius, and after studying for some time at Hamburgh, was advised by his uncle Holstein, who also offered to defray his expences, to pursue his studies in other seminaries. With such encouragement he left Hamburgh in Dec. 1645, and went by sea to Amsterdam, where for eight months he studied the belles lettres, history, and geography, under G. J. Vossius, and Caspar Barlaeus, to whom he had special recommendations from his uncle, and under other eminent teachers. It was here, too, where he first imbibed principles favourable to the Roman catholic religion, and it has been very justly accounted a blot in his character that he concealed his opinions for so many years, g.nd held offices which he knew to he incompatible with them.

, an useful French writer, born at Paris in 1619, had a principal hand in some very excellent works, which the Solitaires of Port Royal projected for the education of youth. He taught the belles lettres and mathematics in their school at Paris. He was afterwards charged with the education of the prince of Conti; but, being removed upon the death of the princess his mother, he took the habit of St. Benedict in the abbey of St. Cyran. Certain intestine troubles arising within these walls, he became a victim among others; and was banished to Ruimperlay, in Lower Britanny, where he died in 1695, aged seventy-nine. His principal works are, 1. “Nouvelle Methode pour apprendre la Langue Latine,” 1644, 8vo. This has been looked upon as a judicious extract, from what Valla, Scaliger, Scioppius, and above all, Sanctius, have written upon the subject. Lancelot is said to have been the first who threw off the ridiculous custom of giving boys rules to learn Latin in the Latin language. 2. “Nouvelle Methode pour apprendre Iq Grec,” 1656, in 8vo. These two grammars have been translated into English, under the title of “Port-Royal Grammars.” He was also author of “The Garden of Greek Roots,” 12mo; “An Italian Grammar,” 12mo; “A Spanish Grammar,” 12mo; the “Dissertations, Remarks, and Sacred Chronology” in the Bibles printed by Vitr6; “The general and rational Grammar,” 12mo. This excellent work was planned by M. Arnauld, but Lancelot composed the greatest part; it was published by M. Duclos with remarks, 1756, 12mo; “Delectus Epigrammatum,” of which the preface onlyU by M. Nicole, 12mo; “Mémoires pour servir a la vie de M. de S. Cyran,” in two parts, the second entitled “L'Esprit de M. de S. Cyran,” 2 vols. 12mo. He is accused of having written these memoirs with great partiality and prejudice. “Relation du vo‘iage d’Alet,” 12mo. This is an eulogy on the famous bishop of Alet.

, a learned English writer, was son of Mr. William Langbaine, and born at Bartcukirke-, in Westmoreland, about 1608. He had the first part of his education in the free-school at Blencow, in Cumberland, whence he was removed to Queers-college, in Oxford, in 1626; where being admitted a poor servitor, he became afterwards a scholar upon the foundation, and thence a fellow of the college. He became B. A. in 1630, M. A. in 1633, and D. D. in 1646. He had acquired a good reputation in the university some years before he appeared in the literary republic; when his edition of Longinus was printed at Oxford, 1636, in 8vo. This was followed by several other publications, which were so many proofs of his loyalty to Charles I. after the breaking out of the civil wars, and of his zeal for the church of England, in opposition to the covenant. These writings, with his literary merit., made him very popular in that university, so that, in 1644, he was unanimously elected keeper of their archives, and in 1645, provost of his college; both which places he held till his death, Feb. 10, 1657-8. He was interred about the middle of the Inner chapel of dueen’s-college, having a little before settled 24l. per annum on a free-school at the place of his nativity.

, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, the son of h clergyman beneficed in Lincolnshire, was born at Kirkby Steven, in Westmoreland, in. the month of March 1735, His father dying when he was only four years of age, the care of his education devolved on his mother, who initiated him in the first principles of knowledge with such tender anxiety as left a pleasing and indelible impression on his memory. He celebrated her virtues on her tomb, and more particularly by a beautiful monody inserted among his poems. When of sufficient age, he was placed at a school at Winton, and afterwards at Appleby, where he recommended himself to the good opinion of Mr. Yates, his master, not only by speedily dispatching the usual school tasks, but by performing voluntary exercises, which he submitted to his revisal. By this employment of his leisure hours, he probably excelled his companions, and we are told that at the age of thirteen he was able to read and construe the Greek Testament.

About this time his son informs us that he engaged with Mr. Griffiths as a writer in the Monthly Review; and that this engagement, with scarcely any intermission, continued to his death. We suspect there is some mistake in this account, although the secresy which very properly prevails in the management of a Review, will not allow us to rectify it. That Mr. Langhorne was a writer in the MonthlyReview has been repeated from so many quarters, that there seems no reason to doubt it; but a dispute relating to a work hereafter mentioned, which took place between Mr. Langhorne and the editor of the Review, affords some ground to think that his connexion with it had ceased about 1769.

In 1804, his son published an edition of his poems, in two elegant volumes 12mo, with memoirs of fhe author, To these we are indebted for the principal part of this sketch. If we may judge from his writings, Dr. Langhorne was a man of an amiable disposition, a friend to religion and morals, and, though a wit, he never descends to grossness or indelicacy. His, memory has not been followed by any worse objection than that he was of a social turn, and during the latter part of his life more addicted to convivial indulgences than is consistent with health. This, however, is a serious objection, and not much lessened by the supposition that he was driven to this unhappy species of relief by having twice lost the chief source of domestic happiness. Ease, elegance, and tenderness, are the most striking features of his poetry: nor is he deficient in invention; an attentive perusal will discover many original sentiments, and spirited flights, which the critics of his day pointed out with high praise. He is very seldom a copyist; his style, as well as his sentiments, whatever their merit, are his own. His prose works are various enough to convince us that he was either a laborious writer, or possessed of great fertility of imagination; and the latter will probably be the safest conjecture. But, although a scholar of high attainments, he has rarely brought learning to his aid. His mind was stored with remarks on men and manners, which he expressed in various and desultory modes, so as to give an air of novelty to every thing he wrote. But we find nothing very profound. He appeared so frequently before the public as to secure a considerable degree of fame: what he announced was expected with eagerness, and what he published was read with pleasure; but as his abilities were confined to the lighter provinces of literature, there are few of his productions which will be honoured by permanent popularity.

His reputation as a translator from the Greek being now acknowledged, some booksellers in Paris who were in possession of a manuscript translation of Herodotus left by the abbe“Bellanger without revision, applied to Larcher to prepare it for the press; and he, thinking he had only to correct a few slips of the pen, or at most to add a few notes, readily undertook the task, but before he had proceeded far, the many imperfections, and the style of Bellanger, appeared to be such, that he conceived it would be easier to make an entire new translation. He did not, however, consider this as a trifling undertaking, but prepared himself by profound consideration of the text of his author, which he collated with the ms copies in the royal library, and read with equal care every contemporary writer from whom he might derive information to illustrate Herodotus. While engaged in these studies, Paw published his” Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois,“and Larcher borrowed a little time to publish an acute review of that author’s paradoxes in the” Journal des Savans“for 1774. The year following, while interrupted by sickness from his inquiries into Herodotus, he published his very learned” Memoire sur Venus,“to which the academy of inscriptions awarded their prize. During another interruption of the Herodotus, incident to itself, he wrote and published his translation of Xenophon, which added much to the reputation he had already acquired, and although his style is not very happily adapted to transfuse the spirit of Xenophon, yet it produced the following high compliment from Wyttenbach (Bibl. Critica)” Larcherus is est quern non dubitemus omnium, qui nostra aetate veteres scrintores in linguas vertunt recentiores, antiquitatis linguaeque Grace* scientissimum vocare.“Larcher’s critical remarks in this translation are very valuable, particularly his observations on the pronunciation of the Greek. The reputation of his” Memoire sur Venus,“and his” Xenophon,“procured him to be elected into the Academy of inscriptions, on May 10, 1778. To the memoirs of this society he contributed many essays on classical antiquities, which are inserted in vols. 43, 45, 46, 47, and 48; and these probably, which he thought a duty to the academy, interrupted his labours on Herodotus, not did it issue from the press until 1786. The style of this translation is liable to some objections, but in other respects, his profound and learned researches into points of geography and chronology, and the general merit and importance of his comments, gratified the expectations of every scholar in Europe. It was translated into Latin by Borheck, into German by Degan, and his notes have appeared in all the principal languages of Europe. We may here conclude this part of our subject by noticing his new and very much improved edition of” Herodotus,“published in 1802, 9 vols. 8vo. The particulars which distinguish this edition are, a correction of those passages in which he was not satisfied with having expressed the exact sense; a greater degree of precision and more compression of style; a reformation of such notes as wanted exactness; with the addition of several that were judged necessary to illustrate various points of antiquity, and render the historian better understood. We have already hinted that Larcher was at one time not unfriendly to the infidel principles of some of the French encyclopedists. It is with the greater pleasure that we can now add what he says on this subject in his apology for further alterations.” At length,“he says,” being intimately convinced of all the truths taught by the Christian religion, I have retrenched or reformed all the notes that could offend it. From some of them conclusions have been drawn which I disapprove, and which were far from my thoughts; others of them contain things, which I must, to discharge my conscience, confess freely, that more mature examination and deeper researches have demonstrated to have been built on slight or absolutely false foundations. The truth cannot but be a gainer by this avowal: to it alone have I consecrated all my studies: I have been anxious to return to it from the moment I was persuaded I could seize it with advantage. May this homage, which I render it in all the sincerity of my heart, be the means of procuring me absolution for all the errors I have hazarded or sought to propagate." In this vast accumulation of ancient learning, the English reader will find many severe strictures on Bruce, which he may not think compatible with the general opinion now entertained both in France and England on the merits of that traveller.

About Oct. 1623, the lord-keeper Williams’s jealousy of Laud, as a rival in the duke of Buckingham’s favour, and other misunderstandings or misrepresentations on both sides, occasioned such animosity between these two prelates as was attended with the worst consequences. Archbishop Abbot also, resolving to depress Laud as long as he could, left him out of the high commission, of which he complained to the duke of Buckingham, Nov. 1624, and then was put into the commission. Yet he was not so attached to Buckingham, as not to oppose the design, formed by that nobleman, of appropriating the endowment of the Charter-house to the maintenance of an army, under pretence of its being for the king’s advantage and the ease of the subject. In December this year, he presented to the duke a tract, drawn up at his request, under ten heads, concerning doctrinal puritanism. He corresponded also with him, during his absence in France, respecting Charles the First’s marriage with the princess Henrietta-Maria; and that prince, soon after his accession to the throne, wanting to regulate the number of his chaplains, and to know the principles and qualifications of the most eminent divines in his kingdom, our bishop was ordered to draw a list of them, which he distinguished by the letter O for orthodox, and P for puritans. At Charles’s coronation, Feb. 2, 1625-6, he officiated as dean of Westminster, in the room of Williams, then in disgrace; and has been charged, although unjustly, with altering the coronationoath. In 1626 he was translated from St. David’s to Bath and Wells and in 1628 to London. The king having appointed him dean of his chapel-royal, in 1626, and taken him into the privy-council in 1627, he was likewise in the commission for exercising archiepiscopal jurisdiction during Abbot’s sequestration. In the third parliament of king Charles, which met March 17, 1627, he was voted a favourer of the Arminians, and one justly suspected to be unsound in his opinions that >vay accordingly, his name was inserted as such in the Commons’ remonstrance and, because he was thought to be the writer of the king’s speeches, and of the duke of Buckingham’s answer to his impeachment, &c. these suspicions so exposed him to popular rage, that his life was threatened . About the same time, he was put into an ungracious office; namely, in a commission for raising money by impositions, which the Commons called excises; but it seems never to have been executed.

His character has been variously represented, and indeed enters more or less into every controversy respecting the unhappy reign in which he flourished. He was a man of strict integrity, sincere, and zealous; but, in many respects, was indiscreet and obstinate, eagerly pursuing matters that were either inconsiderable or mischievous. The rigorous prosecutions in the Star-chamber and High-commission courts were generally imputed to him: and he formed the airy project of uniting the three kingdoms in an uniformity of religion and the passing of some ceremonies in this last affair brought upon him the odious imputation of popery, and of being popishly affected, without a,ny good grounds. He was more given to interfere in matters of state than his predecessors; and this at a time when a jealousy of the power of the clergy was increasing. Having naturally a great warmth of temper, which betrayed itself in harsh language, he was ill fitted to contend with the party now so powerful that it may even be doubted whether a conciliating temper would have had much effect in preventing their purposes against the church and state. Mr. Gilpiu’s comparison between him and his great predecessor Cranmer appears to us worthy of consideration. “Both,” says that elegant writer, “were good men, fypth were equally zealous for religion, and both were engaged in the work of reformation. I mean not to enter into the affair of introducing episcopacy in Scotland; nor to throw any favourable light on the ecclesiastical views of those times. I am at present only considering the measures which the two archbishops took in forwarding their respective plans. While Cranmer pursued his with that caution and temper, which we have just been examining; Laud, in the violence of his integrity (for he was certainl^ a well-meaning man), making allowances neither for men nor opinions, was determined to carry all. before him. The consequence was, that he did nothing which he attempted; while Cranmer did every thing. And it is probable that if Henry had chosen such an instrument as Laud, he would have miscarried in his point: while Charles with such a primate as Cranmer, would either have been successful in his schemes, or at least have avoided the fatal consequences that ensued.” But, whatever Laud’s faults, itcannot.be denied that he was condemned to death by an ordinance of parliament, in defiance of the statute of treasons, of the law of the land, and by a stretch of prerogative greater than any one of the sovereign whom that parliament opposed.

, a learned and judicious protestant writer, was born 157S, at Blois, descended from one of the most respectable families in that city. At the age of forty, he resigned a post in the exchequer, the title of king’s secretary, and all prospects of advancement, that he might devote himself entirely to the sacred writings; and from that time till he was eighty-nine, rose constantly at four in the morning, to read and meditate on Scripture. The French protestants placed an extraordinary confidence in him. He was deputed to all the synods of his province, and to almost every national synod held in his time, and died in 1662, greatly lamented. His works are, “Paraphrases” on all St. Paul’s Epistles, on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, the Proverbs, and Revelations; and “Remarks on the Bible, or an Explanation of the difficult words, phrases, and metaphors, in the Holy Scriptures,” Geneva, 1667, 4to. These two works are much valued. He wrote also a treatise “De la Sainte C6ne,” and another, “Sur le Millénarisme.”

, or Launoius, a very learned man and voluminous writer, was born about 1601, and took a doctor of divinity’s degree in 1636. He made a journey to Rome, for the sake of enlarging his ideas and knowledge; and there procured the esteem and friendship of Leo Allatius and Holsten. Upon his return to Paris, he shut himself up, entering upon an extensive course of reading, and making collections upon all subjects. He held at his house every Monday a meeting where the learned conversed on many topics, but particularly on the discipline of the church, and the rights of the Gallican church; and they cordially agreed in condemning such legends as the apostolate of St. Dionysius the Areopagite into France, the voyage of Lazarus and Mary Magdalen into Provence, and a multitude of other traditions. Launoi was such an enemy to legendary saints, that Voltaire records a curate of St. Eustachius, as saying, “I always make the most profound obeisance to Mr. Launoi, for fear he should take from me my St. Eustachius.” He died at cardinal d‘Estr^es’s hotel, March 10, 1678, aged 75, and was buried at the convent of the Minimes de la Place Ro’iale, to whom he left two hundred crowns in gold, all the rituals which he had collected, and half his books; bequeathing the remainder to the seminary at Laon. Few men were so industrious and so disinterested, as M. de Launoi, who persisted in refusing all the benefices which were offered him, and lived in a plain, frugal manner, contented with his books and his private fortune, though the latter was but moderate. He was an enemy to vice and ambition, charitable, benevolent, a kind friend, ever consistent in his conduct, and submitted to be excluded from the faculty of theology at Paris, rather than sign the censure of M. Arnauld, though he differed in opinion from that celebrated doctor on the subject of Grace.

As a theologian, Law held certain tenets peculiar to himself which, either from being misunderstood, or misrepresented, subjected him at different times, to two very opposite imputations, that of being a Socinian and that of being a Methodist. What, however, was really erroneous in his opinions has been ably pointed out by bishop Home in a small tract, printed with his life, entitled “Cautions to the readers of Mr. Law.” It was in his latter days that Mr. Law became most confused in his ideas, from having bewildered his imagination with the reveries of Jacob Behmen, for whose sake he learned German that he might read his works, and whom he pronounces “the strongest, the plainest, the most open, intelligible, awakening, convincing writer, that ever was.” Although it is as a devotional writer that he is now best known, and there can be no doubt that his “Serious call*,” and “Christian perfection” have been singularly useful, it is as a controversial writer, that he ought to be more highly praised. His letters to bishop Hoadly are among the finest specimens of controversial writing in our language, with respect to style, wit, and argument.

In 1726, he published his “Nummi Britan. Historia, or Historical Account of English Money.” A new edition, with large additions, was printed in 1745, dedicated to the duke of Suffolk. It is much to Mr. Leake’s honour, that he was the first writer upon the English coinage. From affectionate gratitude to admiral sir John Leake, and at the particular desire of his father, he had written a history of the life of that admiral, prepared from a great collection of books and papers relating to the subject which were in his possession. This he published in 1750, in large octavo. Fifty copies only were printed, to be given to his friends: this book is therefore very scarce and difficult to be obtained. Bowyer, in 1766, printed for him fifty copies of the Statutes of the Order of St. George, to enable him to supply each knight at his installation with one, as he was required to do officially. Ever attentive to promote science, he was constantly adding to the knowledge of arms, decents, honors, precedency, the history of the college, and of the several persons who had been officers of arms, and every other subject in any manner connected with his office. He also wrote several original essays on some of those subjects. These multifarious collections are contained in upward of fifty volumes, all in his own handwriting; which ms., with many others, he bequeathed to his son, John-Martin Leake, esq. He married Ann, youngest daughter, and at length sole- heiress of Fletcher Pervall, esq. of Downton, in the parish and county of Radnor, by Ann his wife, daughter of Samuel Hoole of London, by whom he had nine children, six sons and three daughters; all of whom survived him. He died at his seat at Mile-end at Middlesex, March 24, 1773, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Thorpe Soken church in Essex, of which parish he was long impropriator, and owner of the seat of Thorpe-hall, and the estate belonging to it, inheriting them from his father.

, an English physician and writer, was the son of a clergyman who was curate of Ainstable in Cumberland. He was educated partly at Croglin, and partly at the grammar-school at Bishop Auckland. He then went to London, intending to engage in the military profession: but finding some promises, with which he had been flattered, were not likely soon to be realized, he turned his attention to medicine. After attending the hospitals, and being admitted a member of the corporation of surgeons, an opportunity presented itself of improving himself in foreign schools; he embarked for Lisbon, and afterwards visited Italy. On his return, he established himself as a surgeon and accoucheur in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly; and about that time published “A Dissertation on the Properties and Efficacy of the Lisbon Dietdrink,” which he professed to administer with success in many desperate cases of scrophula, scurvy, &c. Where he obtained his doctor’s diploma is not known; but he became ere long a licentiate of the College of Physicians, and removed to Craven-street, where he began to lecture on the obstetric art, and invited the faculty to attend. ID 1765 he purchased a piece of ground on a building lease, and afterwards published the plan for the institution of the Westminster Lying-in- Hospital and as soon as the building was raised, he voluntarily, and without any consideration, assigned over to the governors all his right in the premises, in favour of the hospital. He enjoyed a considerable share of reputation and practice as an accoucheur, anJ as a lecturer; and was esteemed a polite and accomplished man. He added nothing, however, in the way of improvement, to his profession, and his writings are not characterized by any extraordinary acuteness, or depth of research; but are plain, correct, and practical. He was attacked, in the summer of 1792, with a disorder of the chest, with which he had been previously affected, and was found dead in his bed on the 8th of August of that year. He published, in 1773, a volume of “Practical Observations on Child-bed Fever;” and, in 1774, “A Lecture introductory to the Theory and Practice of Midwifery, including the history, nature, and tendency of that science,” &c. This was afterwards considerably altered and enlarged, and published in two volumes, under the title of “Medical Instructions towards the prevention and cure of various Diseases incident to Women,” &c. The work passed through seven or eight editions, and was translated into the French and German languages. In the beginning of 1792, ^a short time before his death, he published “A practical Essay on the Diseases of the Viscera, particularly those of the Stomach and Bowels.”

, historiographer of buildings of the academy della Crusca, and of that of the Arcades at Rome, was born at Dijon, in 1707, of poor parents, but he went early to Paris, where his talents procured him friends and patrons. He then came to London, and met with the same advantage. In 1746 Maupertuis offered him, on the part of the king of Prussia, a place suitable to a man of letters, at the court of Berlin; but he preferred mediocrity at home to flattering hopes held out to him from abroad. He died in 1781. His tragedy of “Abensaïde,” the subject of which is very interesting, was well received at first, notwithstanding the harshness of the versification but it did not support this success when revived on the stage in 1743. What most brought the abbé Le Blanc into repute was the collection of his letters on the English, 1758, 3 vols. 12mo, in which are many judicious reflections; but he is heavy, formal, fruitful in vulgar notions, and trivial in his erudition, and the praises he bestows on the great men, or the literati, to whom he addresses his letters, are deficient in ease and delicacy. The letters of abbé Le Blanc cannot bear a comparison with the “London” of Grosley, who is a far more agreeable writer, if not a more accurate observer.

The translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History observes, that the progress of Arminianism has declined in Germany and several parts of Switzerland, in consequence of the influence of the Leibnitzian and Wolfian philosophy. Leibnitz and Wolf, by attacking that liberty of indifference, which is supposed to imply the power of acting not only without, but against motives, struck, he says, at the very foundation of the Arminian system. He adds, that the greatest possible perfection of the universe, considered as the ultimate end of creating goodness, removes from the doctrine of predestination those arbitrary procedures and narrow views, with which the Calvinists are supposed to have loaded it, and gives it a new, a more pleasing, and a more philosophical aspect. As the Leibnitzians laid down this great end as the supreme object of God’s universal dominion, and the scope to which all his dispensations are directed, so they concluded, that, if this end was proposed, it must be accomplished. Hence the doctrine of necessity, to fulfil the purposes of a predestination founded in wisdom and goodness; a necessity, physical and mechanical, in the motions of material and inanimate things; but a necessity, moral and spiritual, in the voluntary determinations of intelligent beings, in consequence of prepollent motives, which produce their effects with certainty, though these effects be contingent, and by no means the offspring of an absolute and essentially immutable fatality. Tbese principles, says the same writer, are evidently applicable to the main doctrines of Calvinism; by them predestination is confirmed, though modified with respect to its reasons and its end; by them irresistible grace (irresistible in a moral sense) is maintained upon the hypothesis of prepollent motives and a moral necessity; the perseverance of the saints is also explicable upon the same system, by a series of moral causes producing a series of moral effects. But Maclaine adds, that the Leibnitzian system has scarcely been embraced by any of the English Calvmists, because, as he supposes, they adhere firmly to their theology, and blend no pnilosophical principles with their system.

, a learned theological writer of the seventeenth century, the son of Henry Leigh, esq. was born at Shawell in Leicestershire, March 24, 1602-3. He had his grammatical learning under a Mr. Lee of Waishall in Staffordshire; and when removed td Oxford, became a commoner of Magdalen-hall, in 1616, under Mr. William Pemble, a very celebrated tutor of that society. After completing his degrees in arts in 1623, he removed to the Middle Temple for the study of the law. During the violence of the plague in 1625, he took that opportunity to visit France; and on his return to the Temple, added to his law studies those of divinity and history, in both which he attained a great stock of knowledge. He was in fact a sort of lay divine, and superior to many of the profession. About 1636, we find him representing the borough of Stafford in parliament, when some of the members of that, which was called the Long parliament, had withdrawn to the king at Oxford. Mr. Leigh’s sentiments inclining him to remain and to support the measures of the party in opposition to the court, he was afterwards appointed to a seat in the assembly of divines, and certainly sat with no little propriety in one respect, being as ably skilled in matters of divinity and ecclesiastical history as most of them. He was also a colonel of a regiment in the parliamentary service, and custos rotulorum for the county of Stafford. He was not, however, prepared to approve of all the proceedings of the parliament and army; and having, in Dec. 1648, voted that his majesty’s concessions were satisfactory, he and some others, who held the same opinion, were turned out of parliament. From that time he appears to have retired from public life, and to have employed his time in study. He died June 2, 1671, at Rushall Hall in Staffordshire, and was buried in the chancel of that church. His works, which afford abundant proofs of his learning and industry, are, 1. “Select and choice Observations concerning the first twelve Cssars,” Oxon, 1635, 8vo. Additions were made to this work both by himself and his son Henry, who published an enlarged edition in 1657, 8vo, with the title of “Analecta Ccesarum Romanorum.” Two other editions, with farther improvements and plates of coins, &c. appeared in 1664 and 1670, 8vo. 2. “Treatise of Divine promises,” Lond. 1633, often reprinted, and was the model of Clarke’s “Scripture Promises,” and other collections of the same kind. 3. “Critica Sacra, or the Hebrew words of the Old, and of the Greek of the New Testament,” Lond. 1639, and 1646, 4to, afterwards enlarged with a supplement, to 2 vols. folio. This was one of the books on which the late learned Mr. Bowyer bestowed great pains, and had filled it with critical notes. 4. “A Treatise of Divinity,” ibid. 1648, 1651, 8vo. 5. “The Saint’s encouragement in evil times or observations concerning the martyrs in general,” ibid. 1648, 8vo. 6. “Annotations on all the New Testament,” ibid. 1650, folio. 7. “A philological Commentary; or, an illustration of the most obvious and useful words in the Law, &c.” ibid. 1652, &c. 8. “A System or Body of Divinity,” 1654, and 1662, folio. 9. “Treatise of Religion and Learning,” ibid. 1656, folio, which not succeeding, was republished in 1663, with only the new title of “Fcelix consortium, or a fit conjuncture of Religion and Learning.” H). “Choice French Proverbs,” ibid. 1657, 1664, 8vo. 11. “Annotations on the five poetical books of the Old Testament, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,” ibid. 1657, folio. 12. “Second considerations of the high court of Chancery,” 1658, 4to. 13. “England described,” 1659, 8vo, mostly from Caraden*. 14. “Choice observations on all the kings of England, from the Saxons to the death of Charles I.” 1661, 8vo. 15. “Three Diatribes, or Discourses, of travel, money, and measuring, &c.” 1671, 8vo; in another edition it is called the “Gentleman’s Guide.” 16. “Two Sermons,” on the magistrate’s authority, by Christ. Cartwright, B. D. To these sir Edward prefixed a preface in vindication of his own character for appearing in the assembly of divines. This gentleman is by some writers called Sir Edward Leigh, but not so by Wood, nor can we find any information respecting his being knighted. In all his works, that we have seen, he is styled Edward Leigh, Esq.

, an eminent writer in defence of Christianity, was born at Wigan, in Lancashire, Oct. 18, 1691. Soon after, his father, who had lived in good repute for many years, being involved in pecuniary difficulties, gave up his effects to his creditors, and removed to Dublin. Finding here an opportunity for settling in business, he sent over for his wife and family of three sons, and was enabled to support them in a decent manner. John, the subject of this memoir, was his second son, and when in his sixth year, which was before they left England, as our account states, he met with a singular misfortune. He was seized with the small pox, which proved of so malignant a kind that his life was despaired of; and when, contrary to all expectation, he recovered, he was found to be deprived of his understanding and memory, which last retained no traces of what he had been taught. In this state he remained a year, when his faculties returned; but having still no remembrance of the past, he began anew to learn his letters, and in this his second education, made so quick a progress, and gave such proofs of superior memory and understanding, that his parents resolved to breed him up to one of the learned professions. In this, from their situation in life, they probably had not much choice, from the great expenses necessary to law or physic; and this, with their religious principles, induced them to decide in favour of divinity. He was therefore educated for the ministry among the dissenters; and having first exhibited his talents to advantage in a congregation of dissenters in New- row, Dublin, was, in a few months, invited to become joint-pastor with the Rev. Mr. Weld, to which office he was ordained in 1716. As he entered upon this station from the best and purest motives, he discharged the duties of it with the utmost fidelity; and, by indefatigable application to his studies, he made at the same time such improvements in every branch of useful knowledge, that he soon acquired a distinguished reputation in the learned world. In 1730 Tindal published his “Christianity as old as the Creation,” and although several excellent answers appeared to that impious work, Mr. Leland was of opinion that much remained to be said, in order to expose its fallacious reasonings and inconsistencies. Accordingly he first appeared as an author in 1733, by publishing “An Answer to a late book entitled ‘ Christianity as old as the Creation, &c.’” in 2 vols. In 1737 he embarked in a controversy with another of the same class of writers, Dr. Morgan, by publishing “The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament asserted against the unjust aspersions and false reasonings of a Book entitled * The Moral Philosopher.'” The learning and abilities displayed by Mr. Leland in these publications, and the service which he rendered by them to the Christian cause, procured him many marks of respect and esteem from persons of the highest rank in the established church, as well as from the most eminent of his dissenting brethren; and from the university of Aberdeen he received, in the most honourable manner, the degree of D. D. In 1742 Dr. Leland published an answer to a pamphlet entitled “Christianity not founded on Argument;” and in 1753 he distinguished himself still further as an advocate in behalf of Christianity, by publishing “Reflections on the late lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the study and use of History; especially so far as they relate to Christianity and the Holy Scriptures.” It is said to have been with some reluctance that he was persuaded to exert himself upon this occasion; for although, as he himself observes, no man needs make an apology for using his best endeavours in defence of Christianity when it is openly attacked, yet he was apprehensive that his engaging again in this cause, after having done so on some former occasions, might have an appearance of too much forwardness. But these apprehensions gave way to the judgment and advice of his friend, the late Dr. Thomas Wilson, rector of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook; and in complying with his recommendation, he performed an acceptable service to the Christian world, and added not a little to the reputation he had already acquired.

In 1763, he was appointed by the board of senior fellows of Trinity college, professor of oratory. His course of study, and the labour he had bestowed on his translations, had furnished turn with a perspicuous and energetic style, which he displayed both in the professor’s chair and in the pulpit, being the most admired preacher of his time in Dublin; nor was he less esteemed for his talents as a controversial writer, of which he now afforded a specimen. Bishop Warburton having noticed in his “Doctrine of Grace,” the argument used by infidel writers against the divine inspiration of the New Testament, from its want of purity, elegance, &c. opposed this opinion by some of his own which appeared equally untenable; namely, 1. That the evangelists and apostles, writing in a language, the knowledge of which had been miraculously infused, could be masters of the words only, and not of the idioms; and therefore must write barbarously. 2. That eloquence was not any real quality; but something merely fantastical and arbitrary, an accidental abuse of human speech. 3. That it had no end but to deceive by the appearance of vehement inward persuasion, and to pervert the judgment by inflaming the passions; and that being a deviation from, the principles of logic and metaphysics, it was frequently vicious. Dr. Leland quickly perceived the danger of these positions, and in 1764 published “A Dissertation on the principles of human Eloquence; with particular regard to the style and composition of the New Testament; in which the observations on this subject by the lord bishop of Gloucester, in his discourse on the Doctrine of Grace, are distinctly considered; being the substance of several lectures read in the oratory school of Trinity college, Dublin,” 4to. In this he refuted Warburton’s positions in a candid and liberal manner, but was attempted to be answered by Dr. Hurd (without his name), in a manner grossly illiberal and unmanly, from which Dr. Hurd could derive no other advantage than that of flattering Warburton; and from the manner in which he notices his controversial tracts (See Hurd, vol. Xvhl p. 342) in the latter part of his life, it would appear that he was himself of this opinion. Dr. Leland published a reply to Dr. Hurd, in which, by still preserving the dignity of the literary character, he gained, in manners as well as argument, a complete victory over his antagonist.

, a learned French writer in the eighteenth century, was born at Bazoches, in Beausse, April 13, 1661. He was son of Paul Lenfant, minister at Chatillon, who died at Marbourg, in June 1686. He studied divinity at Saumur, where he lodged at the house of James Cappel, professor of Hebrew, by whom he was always highly esteemed; and afterwards went to Geneva, to continue his studies there. Leaving Geneva towards the end of 1683, he went to Heidelberg, where he was ordained in August, 1684. He discharged the duties of his function there with great reputation as chaplain of the electress dowager of Palatine, and pastor in ordinary to the French church. The descent of the French into the Palatinate, however, obliged him to depart from Heidelberg in 1688. Two letters which he had written against the Jesuits, and which are jnserted at the end of his “Preservatif,” ren r dered it somewhat hazardous to continue at the mercy of a society whose power was then in its plenitude. He left the Palatinate, therefore, in October 1688, with the consent of his church and superiors, and arrived at Berlin in November following. Though the French church of Berlin had already a sufficient number of ministers, the elector Frederic, afterwards king of Prussia, appointed Mr. Lenfant one of them, who began his functions on Easter-day, March the 21st, 1689, and continued them thirty-nine years and four months, and during this time added greatly to his reputation by his writings. His merit was so fully acknowledged, as to be rewarded with every mark of distinction suitable to his profession. He was preacher to the queen of Prussia, Charlotta-Sophia, who was eminent for her sense and extensive knowledge, and after her death he became chaplain to the king of Prussia. He was counsellor of the superior consistory, and member of the French council, which were formed to direct the general affairs of that nation. In 1710 he was chosen a member of the society for propagating the gospel established in England; and March the 2d, 1724, was elected member of the academy of sciences at Berlin. In 1707 he took a journey to Holland and England, where he had the honour to preach before queen Anne; and if he had thought proper to leave his church at Berlin, for which he had a great respect, he might have had a settlement at London, with the rank of chaplain to her majesty. In 1712, he went to Helmstad; in 1715 to Leipsic; and in 1725, to Breslaw, to search for rare books and manuscripts necessary for the histories which he was writing. In those excursions he was honoured with several valuable materials from the electress of Brunswic-Lunebourg, princess Palatine; the princess of Wales, afterwards Caroline queen of Great Britain; the count de Fleming; mons. Daguesseau, chancellor of France; and a great number of learned men, both protestants and papists, among the latter of whom was the abbé Bignon. It is not certain whether he first formed thedesign of the “Bibliotheque Germanique,” which began in 1720; or whether it was suggested to him by one of the society of learned men, which took the name of Anonymous; but they ordinarily met at his house, and he was a frequent contributor to that journal. When the king of Poland was at Berlin, in the end of May and beginning of June 1728, Mr. Lenfant, we are told, dreamt that he was ordered to preach. He excused himself that he was not prepared; and not knowing what subject he should pitch upon, was directed to preach upon these words, Isaiah XxxtiiL 1. “Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die, and not live.” He related this dream to some of his friends, and although not a credulous man, it is thought to have made some impression on him, for he applied with additional vigour to finish his “History of the War of the Hussites and the Council of Basil.” On Sunday July the 25tn following, he had preached in his turn at his church; but on Thursday, July the 29th, he had a slight attack of the palsy, which was followed by one more violent, of which he died on the 7th of the next month, in his sixtyeighthyear. He was interred at Berlin, at the foot of the pulpit of the French church, where he ordinarily preached since 1715, when his Prussian majesty appointed particular ministers to every church, which before were served by the same ministers in their turns. His stature was a little below the common height. His eye was very lively anil penetrating. He did not talk much, but always well. Whenever any dispute arose in conversation, he spoke without any heat; a proper and delicate irony was the only weapon he made use of on such occasions. He loved company, and passed but few days without seeing some of his friends. He was a sincere friend, and remarkable for a disinterested and generous disposition. In preaching, his voice was good; his pronunciation distinct and varied; his style clear, grave, and elegant without affectation; and he entered into the true sense of a text with great force. His publications were numerous in divinity, ecclesiastical history, criticism, and polite literature. Those which are held in the highest estimation, are his Histories of the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, each in 2 vols. 4to. These are written with great ability and impartiality, and they abound with interesting facts and curious researches. Lenfant, in conjunction with M. Beausobre, published “The New Testament, translated from the original Greek into French,” in 2 vols. 4to, with notes, and a general preface, or introduction to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, useful for students in divinity. He is known also by his “De iuquirenda Veritate,” which is a translation of Malebranche’s “Search after Truth” “The History of Pope Joan” “Poggiana or, the life, character,- opinions, c. of Poggio the Florentine, with the History of the Republic of Florence,” and the abovementioned “History of the Wars of the Hussites,” Utrecht, 1731, 2 vols. in 4to, dedicated by his widow to the prince royal of Prussia. This was the last work in which our author was engaged. He had revised the copy of the first volume, and was reading over that of the second, when he was seized with the apoplexy. But for this it appears to have been his intention to continue his History to about 1460. To this History is added monsieur Beausobre’s “Dissertation upon the Adamites of Bohemia.”

, a voluminous French writer, was born October 5, 1674, at Beauvais. He entered the Sorbonne, as a student, under M. Pirot, a celebrated doctor of that house; but, being convicted of having privately obtained from this gentleman’s bureau, some papers relative to what was then transacting in the Sorbonne, respecting Maria d'Agreda’s “Mystical city of God,” and having published, 1696, a “Letter addressed to Messieurs the Syndics and doctors in divinity of the faculty of Paris,” concerning this censure, M. Pirot expelled him. Lenglet then went to the seminary of St. Magloire, entered into sacred orders, and took his licentiate’s degree, 1703. He was sent to Lisle, 1705, by M. Torcey, minister for foreign affairs, as first secretary for the Latin and French languages, and with a charge to watch that the elector of Cologn’s ministers, who were then at Lisle, might do nothing against the king’s interest; and was also entrusted by the elector with the foreign correspondence of Brussels and Holland. When Lisle was taken in 1708, Lenglet obtained a safeguard for the elector of Cologn’s furniture and property from prince Eugene. Having made himself known to that prince through M. Hoendorf, he desired the latter to tell his highness, that he would give up the memoirs of the Intendants for fifty pistoles, which the prince sent him; but be wrote to M. Hoendorf eight days after, to say that the papers had been seized at his house by the minister’s order, and kept the money. He discovered a conspiracy formed by a captain at the gates of Mons, who had promised not only to deliver up that city, but also the electors of Cologn and Bavaria, who had retired thither, for a hundred thousand piastres. Lenglet was arrested at the Hague fur his “Memoirs sur la Collation des Canonicats de Tournay,” which he had published there, to exclude the disciples of Jansenius from this collation; but he obtained his liberty six weeks after, at prince Eugene’s solicitation. After his return to France, the prince de Cellemare’s conspiracy, which cardinal Albtjroni had planned, being discovered in Dec. 1718, he was chosen to find out the number and designs of the conspirators, which he did, after receiving a promise that none of those so discovered should be sentenced to death; this promise the court kept, and gave Lenglet a pension. In 1721, he went to Vienna, pretending to solicit the removal of M. Ernest, whom the Dutch had made dean of Tournay; but having no orders from France for the journey, was arrested at Strasburgh on his return, and confined six months in prison. This disgrace the abbé Lenglet attributed to the celebrated Rousseau, whom he had seen at Vienna, and from whom he had received every possible service in that city; and thence originated his aversion to him, and the satire which he wrote against him, under the title of “Eloge historique de Rousseau, par Brossette,” which that friend of Rousseau’s disavowed, and the latter found means to have suppressed in Holland, where it had been printed, in 1731. Lenglet refused to attach himself to cardinal Passionei, who wished to have him at Rome, and, indeed, he was so far from deriving any advantage from the favourable circumstances he found himself in, or from the powerful patrons which he had acquired by his talents and services, that his life was one continued series of adventures and misfortunes. His passion was to write, think, act, and live, with a kind of cynical freedom; and though badly lodged, clothed, and fed, he was still satisfied, while at liberty to say and write what he pleased; which liberty, however, he carried to so great an extreme, and so strangely abused, that he was sent to the bastille ten or twelve times. Lenglet bore all this without murmuring, and no sooner found himself out of prison, than he laboured to deserve a fresh confinement. The bastille was become so familiar to him, that when Tapin (one of the life guards) who usually conducted him thither, entered his chamber, he did not wait to hear his commission, but began himself by saying, “Ah M. Tapin, good morning” then turning to the woman who waited upon him, cried, “Bring my little bundle of linen and snuff directly,” and followed M. Tapin with the utmost cheerfulness. This spirit of freedom and independence, and this rage for writing, never left him; he chose rather to work and live alone in a kind of garret, than reside with a rich sister, who was fond of him, and offered him a convenient apartment at her house in Paris, with the use of her table and servants. Lenglet would have enjoyed greater plenty in this situation, but every thing would have fatigued him, and he would have thought regularity in meals quite a slavery. Some have supposed that he studied chymistry, and endeavoured to discover the philosopher’s stone, to which operations he desired no witnesses. He owed his death to a melancholy accident; for going home about six in the evening, Jan. 15, 1755, after having dined with his sister, he fell asleep, while reading a new book which had been sent him, and fell into the tire. The neighbours went to his assistance, but too late, his head being almost entirely burnt. He had attained the age of eighty-two. The abbé Lenglet’s works are numerous their subjects extremely various, and many of them very extravagant. Those which are most likely to live are his, “Méthode pour etudier l'Histoire, avec un Catalogue des principaux Historiens,” 12 vols.; “Methode pour Etudier la Geographic,” with maps; “Histoire de la Philosophic Hermetique,” and “Tablettes Chronologiques de T Histoire Universelle,” 1744-, two vols. An enlarged edition of this work was published in 1777. His “Chronological Tables” were published in English, in 8vo. It is a work of great accuracy, and of some whim, for he lays down a calculation according to which a reader may go through an entire course of universal history, sacred and profane, in the space of ten years and six months at the rate of six hours per day.

, an English writer, was related to Sampson Lennard, who married Margaret baroness Dacre, and of whom honourable mention is made in Camden’s Britannia. In early life he followed the profession of arms, and was attached to sir Philip Sidney, with whom he fought at the battle of Zutphen. He was afterwards distinguished as a man of letters, and published various translations from the Latin and French, particularly Perrin’s “History of the Waldenses;” Du Plessis Mornay’s History of Papacie;“and Charron” On Wisdom.“He was of some note as a topographer, and of considerable eminence as a herald, having been, in the latter part of his life, a member of the college of arms. Some of his heraldical compilations, which are justly esteemed, (see” Catalogue of the Harleian Mss.") are among the manuscripts in the British Museum. He died in August 1633, and was buried at St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf. Mr. Granger received this brief memoir of Lennard, from Thomas the late lord Dacre.

The warlike disposition of Selim. the reigning Turkish emperor, excited great alarms in Europe, and gave occasion to Leo to attempt a revival of the ancient crusades, by means of an alliance between all Christian princes; he probably hoped, by this show of zeal for the Christian cause, that he should recover some of his lost credit as head of the church. He had, likewise, another object in view, viz. that of recruiting his finances, by the contributions which his emissaries levied upon the devotees in different countries. By the death of Maximilian in 1519, a competition for the imperial crown between Charles V. and Francis 1. took place. Leo was decidedly against the claims of both the rival candidates, and attempted to raise a competitor in one of the German princes, but he was unable to resist the fortune of Charles. At this period he incurred a very severe domestic misfortune in the death of his nephew Lorenzo, who left an infant daughter, afterwards the celebrated Catherine de Medicis, the queen and regent of France. The death of Lorenzo led to the immediate annexation of the duchy of Urbino, with its dependencies, to the Roman see, and to the appointment of Julius, Leo’s cousin, to the supreme direction of the state of Florence. The issue of his contest with Luther will occur hereafter in our account of that reformer. It may here, however, be noticed that Leo conferred on Henry VIII. of England, the title of “Defender of the Faith,” for his appearance on the side of the church as a controversial writer. The tranquil state of Italy, at this period, allowed the pope to indulge his taste for magnificence in shows and spectacles. His private hours were chiefly devoted to indolence, or to amusements, frequently of a kind little suited to the dignity of his high station. He was not, however, so much absorbed in them as to neglect the aggrandizement of his family and see. Several cities and districts in the vicinity of the papal territories, and to which the church had claims, had been seized by powerful citizens, or military adventurers; some of these the pope summoned to his court to answer for their conduct; which not being able to do, he caused them to be put to death. Having next set his heart on the possession of the territory of Ferrara, he had recourse to treachery, and is thought to have even meditated the assassination of the duke, but his plot being discovered by the treachery of one whom he had bribed, he was disappointed in his plans. Another of his designs was the expulsion of the French from Italy,* and he had made some progress in this when he was seized with an illness which put an end to his life in a few days. He died Dec. 1, 1521, in the forty-sixth year of his age.

, the second son of the preceding, and a very distinguished writer, was born in Ireland, we know not in what year; and admitted a fellow-commoner in Dublin college in 1664, where he continued till he commenced M. A. In 1671, on the death of his father, he came to England and entered himself in the Temple at London, where he studied the law for some years; but afterwards relinquished it, and applied himself to divinity. In 1680 he was admitted into holy orders; and in 1687 became chancellor of the cathedral-church or diocese of Connor. About this time he rendered himself particularly obnoxious to the Popish party in Ireland, by his zealous opposition to them, which was thus called forth. Roger Boyle, bishop of Clogher, dying in 1687, Patrick Tyrrel was made titular popish bishop, and had the revenues of the see assigned him by king James. He set up a convent of friars in Monaghan; and, fixing his habitation there, held a public visitation of his clergy with great solemnity; when, some subtle logicians attending him, he ventured to challenge the protestant clergy to a public disputation. Leslie accepted the challenge, and disputed to the satisfaction of the protestants; though it happened, as it generally does at such contests, that both sides claimed the victory. He afterwards held another public disputation with two celebrated popish divines in the church of Tynan, in the diocese of Armagh, before a very numerous assembly of persons of both religions; the issue of which was, that Mr. John Stewart, a popish gentleman, solemnly renounced the errors of the church of Rome.

“A charge, however,” says the writer whom we have already quoted in the preceding note, “has been lately brought against him of such a nature, as, if well founded, must detract, not only from his literary fame, but also from his integrity. `The short and easy Method with the Deists’ is unquestionably his most valuable, and, apparently, his most original work; yet this tract is published in French among the works of the abbé St. Real, who died in 1692; and therefore it has been said, that unless it was published in English prior to that period, Charles Leslie must be considered as a shameless plagiary.”

, a distinguished German writer, was born at Kamenz, in Pomerania, in 1729. His father, who was a man of talents and learning, had destined himself to an academical life, but was called to take charge of a congregation at Kamenz, the place of his nativity. Here he was in correspondence with the most famous preachers of his time, published some works of his own, and translated several treatises of AbjJ. Tillotson. He also left behind him a manuscript refutation of some prejudices against the reformation. There can be no doubt but the example and cares of so learned and thoughtful a father had no inconsiderable influence on the early turn which Lessing shewed for literature. When, in his sixth year, his father chose to have his picture drawn, in which he was to be represented sitting under a tree playing with a bird, young Lessing shewed his utter dislike to the plan, and said, “if I am to be painted, let me be drawn with a great heap of books about me, otherwise I had rather not be painted at all;” which was accordingly done. He passed five entire years at the high-school at Meissen, to which, by his own account, he was indebted for whatever learning and solidity of thinking he possessed. Though the Latin poetry belongs to the officiis perfectis of a scholar in this academy, and the German poetry to the imperfectis, yet he pursued the latter much more than the former, and celebrated the battle of Kesseldorf in German verse, at the request of his father. Professor Klemm particularly encouraged him to the-study of mathematics and philosophy while Grabner, the rector of the academy, wrote to his father concerning them “He is a colt that requires a double allowance of provender. The lessons that are found too difficult for others, are but child’s play to him. We shall hardly be sufficient for him much longer.” Being removed to Leipsic, he soon displayed his inclination to write for the stage, and likewise made great proficiency in the bodily exercises of horsemanship, fencing, dancing, and leaping. Mr. Weisse was his first and principal friend at this place; and their friendship was only dissolved by death. Lessing frequented the college-exercises but little, and that irregularly: none of the professors gave him satisfaction, excepting Ernesti, whose lectures he sometimes attended; but he was himself an extensive reader, and was especially partial to the writings of Wolff in German. He kept up a great intimacy with Naumann, the author of “Nimrod,” on account of his possessing many singular qualities, which were always more agreeable to Lessing, than the common dull monotony of character, even though mingled with some weaknesses and defects. Under Kastner he exercised himself in disputation; and here began his close connection with Mylius, whose works he after-, wards published. His intercourse with this free-thinker, and with the company of comedians, however, gave great uneasiness to his parents. His first literary productions appeared in a Hamburgh newspaper. In company with M. Weisse, he translated “Hannibal,” the only tragedy of Marivaux, into rhyming Alexandrines. His comedy of the “Young Scholar,” which he had begun while a schoolboy, was finished at Leipsic, from an actual event that happened to a young scholar disappointed in his hopes of the prize from the academy at Berlin. His father about this time thought proper to recall him home for a time, in order to wean him from the bad company he was thought to frequent. In this interval, he composed a number of Anacreontics on love and wine. One day, his pious sister coming into his room, in his absence, saw these sonnets, read them over, and, not a little angry that her brother could so employ his time, threw them into the fire. A trifling burst of resentment was all he felt on the occasion. He took a handful of snow, and threw it into her bosom, in order to cool her zeal. He now went back to Leipzig; which place he soon after quitted, going by Wittenberg to Berlin. This gave his father fresh uneasiness; and produced those justificatory letters of his son, which at least display the frankness of his character. At Berlin, in conjunction with Mylius, he compiled the celebrated “Sketch of the History and Progress of the Drama.” The father of a writer who had been sharply criticised in this work, made complaint of it to Lessing’s father. To this person he wrote in answer: “The critique is mine, and I only lament that I did not make it more severe. Should Gr. complain of the injustice of my judgment, I give him full liberty to retaliate, as he pleases on my works.” One of his first acquaintances in Berlin was a certain Richier de Louvain, who, in 1750, from a French teacher, was become secretary to Voltaire, with whom he brought our author acquainted. From Berlin he went to Wittenberg, where he plied his studies with great diligence, and took the degree of master, but remained only one year, and then returned to Berlin. At Berlin he undertook the literary article for the periodical publication of Voss, in which employment he both wrote and translated a great variety of pieces, and formed several plans which were never executed. Among others, he agreed with Mendelsohn to write a journal, under the title of “The best from bad Books:” with the motto taken from St. Ambrose, “Legimus aliqua ne legantur.” “We read some books to save others the trouble.” Jn 1755, he went back to Leipzic, and thence set out upon a journey, in company with a young man of the name of Winkler: but this was soon interrupted, and brought op a law-suit, in which Lessing came off conqueror. He now, in order to please his sister, translated “Law’s serious Call,” which was finished and published by Mr. Weisse. At the beginning of 1759, Lessing went again to Berlin, where he very much addicted himself to gaming. This has been attributed to his situation at Breslaw, where he was in the seven years war for some time in quality of secretary to general Tauenzien. Even the care for his health was conducive to it. “Were I able to play calmly,” said he, “I would not play at all; but it is not without reason that I play with eagerness. The vehement agitation sets my clogged machine in motion, by forcing the fluids into circulation; it frees me from a bodily torment, to which I am often subject.” His intimate friends among the learned at Breslaw were Arletius and Klose. Here he was attacked by a violent fever. Though he suffered much from the disease, yet be declared that his greatest torment arose from the conversations of his physician, old Dr. Morganbesser, which he could scarcely endure when he was well. When the fever was at its height, he lay perfectly quiet, with great significance in his looks. This so much struck his friend standing by- the bed, that he familiarly asked him what he was thinking of? “I am curious to know what will pass in my mind when I am in the act of dying.” Being told that was impossible, he abruptly replied: “You want to cheat me.” On the day of his reception into the order of free-masons at Hamburgh, one of his friends, a zealous free-mason, took him aside into an adjoining room, and asked him, “Is it not true, now, that you find nothing among us against the government, religion, or morals” “Yes,” answered Lessmg, with great vivacity, “would to heaven I had I should then at least have found something” The extent of his genius must be gathered from his numerous writings. Mendelsohn said of him in a letter to his brother, shortly after his death, that he was advanced at least a century before the age in which he lived.

lu 1762, he accompanied his general to the siege of Schweidnitz; but after the peace, he was introduced to the king of Prussia, and then resumed his literary occupations at Berlin. Though he produced many works, yet they were not the source of much profit, and, in 1769, his circumstances were so narrow, that he was obliged to sell his library for support. At this critical juncture he met with a generous patron in Leopold, heir-apparent to the duke of Brunswick, through whose means he was appointed librarian at Wolfenbuttle. One of the fruits of this very desirable situation was a periodical publication, entitled “Contributions to Literary History,” containing notices and extracts of the most remarkable Mss. The “Contributions” were made the vehicle of “Fragments of an anonymous Writer discovered in the Library at Wolfenbuttle,” which consisted of direct attacks upon the Christian revelation. They occasioned a great commotion among the German theologians, and would not have been printed but for the interference of prince Leopold with the licensers of the press. In 1778 they were suppressed. Lessing, from his rising fame, and connection with prince Leopold, with whom he went on a tour to Italy, was so distinguished among the German literati, that several potentates of that country made him offers. of an advantageous settlement. Nothing, however, could lead him to break his connection with his liberal patron the prince of Brunswick, who, by his accession in 1730 to the sovereignty, was enabled to augment his favours towards him. His latter publications were “Nathan the Wise;” a second part of the same drama, entitled “The Monk of Lebanon;” and “A Dissertation on the Education of the Human Race.” He died at Hamburgh in the month of February, 1781. Lessing had more genius than learning, and his fame, therefore, even in his own country, rests on his plays, fables, songs, and epigrams. His life was published at Berlin in 1793, and is more replete with anecdote than instruction, as may be gathered from the few circumstances we have detailed. He was a decided deist, and his morals corresponded.

, a voluminous writer of history, was born at Milan, May 29, 1630, of a family once of considerable distinction at Bologna. He was intended for the church, but was induced to make open profession of the protestant religion at Lausanne in 1657. This so pleased Guerin, an eminent physician, with whom he lodged, that he gave him his daughter for a wife; and Leti, settling at Geneva in 1660, passed nearly twenty years in that city employed on many of his publications. In 1674, the freedom of the city was presented to him, which had never before been granted to any stranger. Five years after he went to France, and in 1680, to England, where he was very graciously received by Charles II.; received a large present in money, and was promised the place of historiographer. On this he wrote his “Teatro Britannico,” a history of England; but, this work displeasing the court, he was ordered to quit the kingdom. Leti then went to Amsterdam, had the office of historiographer in that city, and died suddenly June 9, 1701, aged seventy-one. He was an indefatigable writer, and tells us in his “Belgic Theatre,” that three days in the week he spent twelve hours in writing, and six hours the other three days; whence the number of his works is prodigious. The greatest part are written in Italian; among which are, “The Nepotism of Rome,” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Universal Monarchy of Louis XIV.” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Life of Pope Sixtus V.” in Italian, Amsterdam, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo, plates; in French, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo and in English by Farneworth. “The Life of Philip 11. king of Spain,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Of Charles V.”. Amsterdam, 1730, 4 vols. 12mo; “Of Queen Elizabeth,” Amsterdam, 1741, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “History of Cromwell,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “Life of Giron, duke d'Ossone,” 3 vols. 12mo; “The French Theatre,*' 7 vols. 4to, a bad work;” The Belgic Theatre,“2 vols. 4to, equally bad;” The British Theatre, or History of England, 11 Amsterdam, 1684, 5 vols. 12mo; in which there is a capital portrait of queen Elizabeth. It was for this work that he was sent out of England. “L'ltalia regnante,” 4 vols. 12mo; “History of the Roman Empire in Germany,” 4 vols. 4to; “The Cardinalism of the Holy Church,” 3 vols. 12mo, a violent satire; “History of Geneva,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The just balance in which are weighed all the maxims of Rome, and the actions of the living cardinals,” 4 vols. 12mo; “The Historical Ceremonial,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Political Dialogues on the means used by the Italian Republics for their preservation,” 2 vols. 12mo “An Abridgment of Patriotic virtues,” 2 vols. 8vo “Fame jealous of Fortune a panegyric on Louis XIV,” 4to “A Poem on the enterprize of the Prince of Orange in England,” 1695, folio; “An Eulogy on Hunting,” 12mo; “Letters,” 1 vol. 12mo; “The Itinerary of the Court of Rome,” 3 vols. 8vo “History of the House of Saxony,” 4 vols. 4to “History of the House of Brandenburg,” 4 vols. 4to “The slaughter of the Innocent reformed,” 4to “The Ruins of the Apostolical See,” 1672, 12mo, &c. Although M. le Clerc, his son-in-law, has mentioned him with high encomiums, we know few writers of history who are less to be depended on, having debased all his productions with fable. It is impossible to give credit to him unless his facts can be supported by other authority. He, on some occasions, assumes all the dignity of conceited ignorance, and relates his fictions with all the confidence of a vain man, who thinks he cannot be contradicted. His aim indeed was to please rather than instruct, and he has, with his anecdotes, frequently amused and misled his readers. We know few more amusing works than his “Life of pope Sixtus V.” Granger, whose character of him we have partly adopted, relates that Leti being one day at Charles II.'s levee, the king said to him, “Leti, I hear you are writing the history of the court of England.” “Sir,” said he, “I have been for some time preparing materials for such a history.” “Take care,” said the king, “that your work give no offence.” “Sir,” replied Leti, “I will do what 1 can but if a man were as wise as Solomon, he would scarce be able to avoid giving some offence.” “Why then,” rejoined the king, “be as wise as Solomon, write proverbs, not tories.”

, a learned French writer, who spent a long life in the study of history and general literature, was born at Paris, March 28, 1736. Of his private life we have no account; and our authority apologizes for this by assuring us that it contained none of those incidents that are interesting in biography, and that he was known only by his numerous publications. He was, however, in the course of his life, professor of morals and history in the college of France, a member of the old academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, a member of the institute of the class of ancient history, and a knight of the legion of honour. He died at Paris, March 12, 1812, leaving the following proofs of his talents and industry. 1. “Le reves d‘Aristobule, philosophe Grec, suivis d’un abrege de la vie de Formose, philosophe Francais,” Paris, 1761, 12mo. 2. “Choix-de poesies de Petrarque,” translated from the Italian, 1774, 8vo, reprinted in 1787, 2 vols. 12mo. This translation is faithful, but wants the spirit and graces of the original. 3. “L'homme moral,” Amst. 1775, a work which has been often reprinted, and is said to have been written at Petersburgh, for the use of the Russian youth. Its object seems to be to take a survey of man in the savage and social state, and during all the modifications of the latter; and its contents are a series of remarks on all subjects connected with happiness, not always profound, but often striking, lively, and agreeable. From its being printed oftener in Holland than in France, it is probable that this work, as well as the following, was written with more freedom of sentiment than was then agreeable. 4. “L‘homme pensant, ou Essai sur l’histoire de l'esprit humain,” Amst. 1779, 12mo. 5. “Histoire de Russie,” Paris, 1785, 5 vols. 12mo. This is esteemed a very accurate sketch of Russian history and was followed by a sequel, 6. “Histoire des differens peuples soumis a la domination des Russes,” 2 vols. Both were reprinted in 1800, with a continuation to the end of the reign of Catherine, 8 vols. 8vo. In this last, he offers a very able vindication of the conduct of that empress in the early part of her reign. 7. “Eloge historique de l'abbé Mably,” Paris, 1787, 8vo. This obtained the prize of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. 8. “La France sous les cinq premier Valois,” Paris, 1788, 4 vols. 12mo. 9. “Dictionnaire des arts, de peinture, sculpture, et gravure,” Paris, 1792, 5 vols. 8vo. He compiled this dictionary in conjunction with Watelet, to whom our authority attributes the principal merit of it. 10. A translation, highly praised, of “Thucydides,” Paris, 1795, 4 vols. 4to. Levesque also contributed various essays to the memoirs of the institute, and wrote many of the articles in that collection of the ancient moralists which was published by Didot and Debure. Not long before his death he published “L‘etude de l’histoire de la Grece,” 4 vols. 8vo; not, as is said, a learned work, but a popular introduction to the knowledge of Grecian history.

, a celebrated physician and philosopher, was born at Rapallo, in the state of Genoa, Oct. 3, 1577, where his father was also a physician. After completing his education at Bologna, in 15J9, he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Pisa, which he filled with so. much reputation that he was invited to the same chair in the university of Padua in 1609, and occupied it until 1636. He removed at that time to Bologna, in consequence of failing to obtain the professorship of medicine, when vacant by the death of Cremonini. But the Venetian states very soon acknowledged the loss which the university of Padua had sustained by the retirement of Licetus; and the same vacancy occurring in 1645, he was induced, by the pressing invitations which were made to him, to return to Padua, and held that professorship till his death in 1657. He was a very copious writer, having published upwards of fifty treatises upon medical, moral, philosophical, antiquarian, and historical subjects; but they are no longer sufficiently interesting to require a detail of their titles, as, notwithstanding his erudition, he displays little acuteness in research or originality of conception. His treatise “De Monstrorum Causis, Natur&, et Differentiis,” which is best known, is replete with instances of credulity, and with the fables and superstitions of his predecessors, and contains a classification of the monsters which had been previously described, without any correction from his own observations. The best edition is that of Gerard Blasius, in 1668.

, a celebrated dramatic writer, was by profession a jeweller, and was born in the neighbourhood of Moorgate in London, Feb. 4, 1693, where he pursued his occupation for many years with the fairest and most unblemished character. He was strongly attached to the Muses, and seems to have laid it down as a maxim, that the devotion paid to them ought always to tend to the promotion of virtue and mortality. In pursuance of this aim, Lillo was happy in the choice of his subjects, and showed great power of affecting the heart, and of rendering the distresses of common and domestic life equally interesting to the audiences as those of kings and heroes. His “George Barnwell,” “Fatal Curiosity,” and “Arden of Feversham,” are all planned on common and well-known stories; yet they have perhaps more frequently drawn tears from an audience than more pompous tragedies, particularly the first of them. Nor was his management of his subjects less happy than his choice of them. If there is any fault to be objected to his style, it is that sometimes he affects an elevation rather above the simplicity of his subject, and the supposed rank of his characters; but tragedy seldom admits an adherence to the language of common life, and sometimes it is found that even the most humble characters in real life, when under peculiar circumstances of distress, or the influence of any violent passion, will employ an aptness of expression and power of language, not only greatly superior to themselves, but even to the general language and conversation of persons of much higher rank in life, and of minds more cultivated.

In the prologue to “Elmerick,” which was not acted till after the author’s death, it is said, that, when he wrote that play, he “was depressed by want,” and afflicteJ by disease; but in the former particular there appears to be evidently a mistake, as he died possessed of an estate of 60l. a year, besides other effects to a considerable value. The late editor of his works (Mr. T. Davies) in two volumes, 1775, 12mo, relates the following story, which, however, we cannot think adapted to convey any favourable impression of the person of whom it is told: “Towards the latter part of his life, Mr. Lillo, whether from judgment or humour, determined to put the sincerity of his friends, who professed a very high regard for him, to a trial. In order to carry on this design, he put in practice an odd kind of stratagem: ha asked one of his intimate acquaintance to lend him a considerable sum of money, and for this he declared he would give no bond, rior any other security, except a note of hand; the person to whom he applied, not liking the terms, civilly refused him. Soon after, Lillo met his nephew, Mr. Underwood, with whom he had been at variance some time. He put the same question to him, desiring him to lend him money upon the same terms. His nephew, either from a sagacious apprehension of his uncle’s real intention, or from generosity of spirit, immediately offered to comply with his request. Lillo was so well pleased with this ready compliance of Mr. Underwood, that he immediately declared that he was fully satisfied with the love and regard that his nephew bore him; he was convinced that his friendship was entirely disinterested; and assured him, that he should reap the benefit such generous behaviour deserved. In consequence of this promise, he bequeathed him the bulk of his fortune.” The same writer says, that Lillo in his person was lusty, but not tall; of a pleasing aspect, though unhappily deprived of the sight of one eye.

, another dramatic writer, of lesi fame and merit, was born in the Wilds of Kent, about 1553, according to the computation of Wood, who says, “he became a student in Magdalen-college in the beginning of 1569, aged sixteen or thereabouts, and was afterwards one of the demies or clerks of that house.” He took the degree of B.A.April 27, 1573, and of M. A. in 1575. On some disgust, he removed to Cambridge; and thence went to court, where he was taken notice of by queen Elizabeth, and hoped to have been preferred to the post of master of the revels, but after many years of anxious attendance, was disappointed, and was forced to write to the queen fot some little grant to support him in his old age. Of his two letters, or petitions, to her, many copies are preserved in manuscript. In what year he died is unknown; but Wood says, he was alive in 1597. His attachment to the dramatic Muses produced nine dramatic pieces, none of which, however, have preserved their reputation in our times. Even Phillips, in his “Theatrum,” calls them “old-fashioned tragedies and comedies.” Besides these, Lilly has been celebrated for his attempt, which was a very unhappy one, to reform and purify the English language. For this purpose he wrote a book entitled “Euphues,” which met with a degree of success very unusual, and certainly not less unmerited, being almost immediately and universally followed; at least, if we may give credit to the words of Mr. Blount, who published six of Lilly’s plays together, in one volume in twelves. In a preface to that book he says, “our nation are in his debt for a new English, which he taught them * Euphues and his England ' began first that language all our ladies were his scholars and that beauty at court, which could not parley Euphuisme, that is to say, who was unable to converse in that pure and reformed English, which he had formed his work to be the standard of, was as little regarded as she which now there speaks not French.”

, a Socinian writer, was born at Middlewich, in Cheshire, June 20th, 1723, old style. His father, Mr. Robert Lindsey, was an opulent proprietor of the salt-works in that neighbourhood; his mother’s name was Spencer, a younger branch of the Spencer family, in the county of Buckingham. Theophilus was the second of three children, and so named after his godfather, Theophilus earl of Huntingdon. He received the rudiments of grammar-learning at Middlewich, and from his early attachment to books, and the habitual seriousness of his mind, he was intended by his mother for the church. He lost some time by a change of schools, until he was put under the care of Mr. Barnard of the free-school of Leeds, under whom he made a rapid progress in classical learning. At the age of eighteen he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, by exemplary diligence and moral conduct, he obtained the entire approbation of his tutors. As soon as he had finished his studies at college, taken his first degree, and had been admitted to deacon’s orders, he was nominated by sir George Wheler to a chapel in Spital-square London. Soon after this, he was, by the recommendation of the earl of Huntingdon, appointed domestic chaplain to Algernon duke of Somerset. The duke, from a great regard for his merit, determined to procure him a high rank in the church, but an early death deprived Mr. Lindsey of his illustrious patron. In 1754, be accompanied the present duke of Northumberland to the continent, and on his return he supplied, for some time, the temporary vacancy of a good living in the north of England, called Kirkby-Wisk: here he became acquainted with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, and in 1760 married his daughter-in-law. From Kirkby Mr. Lindsey went to Piddletown, in Dorsetshire, having been presented to the living of that place by the earl of Huntingdon: this, through the interest of the same patron, he exchanged, in 1764, for the vicarage of Catterick, in Yorkshire. Here he resided nearly ten years, an exemplary pattern of a primitive and conscientous pastor, highly respected and beloved by the people committed to his charge. Besides his various and important duties as a parish clergyman, Mr. Lindsey was ever alive, and heartily active, in every cause in which a deviation from the formularies and obligations of the church was considered as necessary. With this view, in 1771 he zealously co-operated with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, Dr. John Jebb, Mr. Wyvil, and others, in endeavouring to obtain relief in matters of subscription to the thirty-nine articles. Mr. Lindsey had, probably, for some years, entertained doubts with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, and other leading topics of the established faith; and these pressed so heavy upon him that he could no longer endure to remain in a church, partaking of its emoluments, which he could not deserve, and preaching its doctrines, which he could not believe. He therefore, in November 1773, wrote to the prelate of his diocese, informing him of his iateiuion to quit the church, and signifying, that in a few days he should transmit to him his deed of resignation. The bishop endeavoured to persuade him to remain at his post, but he had made up his mind that duty required the sacrifice, and he was resolved to bear the consequences. When the act was done, he said he felt himself delivered from a load which had long lain heavy upon him, and at times nearly overwhelmed him. Previously to his quitting Catterick, Mr. Lindsey delivered a farewell address to his parishioners, in which he stated his motives for quitting them in a simple and very affecting manner, pointing out the reasons why he could no longer conduct, nor join in their worship, without the guilt of continual insincerity before God, and endangering the loss of his favour for ever. He left Catterick about the middle of December, and after visiting some friends in different parts of the country, he arrived in London in January 1774, where he met with friends, who zealously patronized the idea which he entertained of opening a place of worship, devoted entirely to unitarian principles. A large room was at first fitted up for the purpose in Essex-street in the Strand, which was opened April 17, 1774. The service of the place was conducted according to the plan of a liturgy which had been altered from that used in the established church by the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, whose conscience was not quite so delicate as that of Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey published the sermon which he preached on the opening of his chapel, to which was added an account of the liturgy made use of. About the same time he published his “Apology,” of which several editions were called for in the course of a few years. This was followed by a still larger volume, entitled “A Sequel to the Apology,” which was intended as a reply to his various opponents, and likewise to vindicate and establish the leading doctrines which he professed, and on account of which he had given up his preferment in the church. This work was published in 1776; and in 1778 he was enabled, by the assistance of his friends, to build the chapel of Essex-street, and to purchase the ground on which it stands. Till the summer of 1793, Mr. Lindsey, with the aid of his friend the Rev. Dr. Disney, conducted the services of the place, upon strict unitarian principles, to a numerous congregation. He then resigned the whole into the hands of his coadjutor, notwithstanding the, earnest wishes of his hearers that he should still continue a part of the services, Though he had quitted the duties of the pulpit, he continued to labour in the cause, by his publications, till he had attained his 80th, year. In 1802, he published his last work, entitled “Conversations on the Divine Government, shewing that every thing is from God, and for good to all.” The professed object of this piece is to vindicate the Creator from those gloomy notions which are too often attached to his providence, and to shew that the government of the world is the wisest that could have been adopted, and that afflictions and apparent evils are permitted for the general good. From this principle Mr. Lindsey derived consolation through life, and upon it he acted in every difficult and trying scene. On his death-bed he spoke of his sufferings with perfect patience and meekness, and when reminded, by a friend, that he doubtless was enabled to bear them with so much fortitude in the recollection of his favourite maxim, that “Whatever is, is right; w “No,” said he with an animation that lighted up his countenance, “Whatever is, is best.” This was the last sentence which he was able distinctly to articulate: he died Novembers, 1808. Besides the works already referred to, he published two dissertations: 1. On the preface to St. John’s Gospel; 2. On praying to Christ:” An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship from the Reformation to our own Times;“and several other pieces. Among controversial writers Mr. Lindsey takes a place as his” Vindiciae Priestleianae,“and his” Examination of Mr. Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ," will shew. Two volumes of his Sermons have been published since his death.

Mr. Lindsey was a man of mild and amiable manners, and very highly respected by every person who knew him. As a writer on the side of unitarianism, it cannot be said that he brought many accessions of new matter and argument, but his honourable conduct in the resignation of his preferment rendered him peculiarly an ornament to the sect he joined, and the loss of such a man might be justly regretted by the church he left.

, a French advocate and political writer, was born at Rheims, July 14, 1736. His father was one of the professors of the college of Beauvais, at Paris, and had his son educated under him, v who made such proficiency in his studies as to gain the three chief prizes of the college in 1751. This early celebrity was noticed by the duke de Deux-Pont, then at Paris, who took him with him to the country; but Linguet soon left this nobleman for the service of the prince de Beavau, who employed him as his aide-de-camp in the war in Portugal, on account of his skill in mathematics. During his residence in that country, Linguet learned the language so far as to be able to translate some Portuguese dramas into French. Returning to France in 1762, he was admitted to the bar, where his character was very various; but amongst the reports both of enemies and friends, it appears that of an hundred and thirty causes, he lost only nine, and was allowed to shine both in oiatory and compo*­sidon. He had the art, however, of making enemies by the occasional liberties he took with characters; and at one time twenty-four of his brethren at the bar, whether from jealousy or a better reason, determined that they would take no brief in any cause in which he was concerned, and the parliament of Paris approved this so far as to interdict him from pleading. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case to be able to form an opinion on the justice of this harsh measure. It appears, however, to have thrown Linguet out of his profession, and he then began to employ his pen on his numerous political writings but these, while they added to his reputation as a lively writer, added likewise to the number of his enemies. The most pointed satire levelled at him was the “Theory of Paradox,” generally attributed to the abbe Morellet, who collected all the absurd paradoxes to be found in Linguet’s productions, which it must be allowed are sufficiently numerous, and deserve the castigation he received. Linguet endeavoured to reply, but the laugh was against him, and all the wits of Paris enjoyed his mortification. His “Journal,” likewise, in which most of his effusions appeared, was suppressed by the minister of state, Maurepas; and Linguet, thinking his personal liberty was now in danger, came to London; but the English not receiving him as he expected, he went to Brussels, and in consequence of an application to the count de Vergeunes, was allowed to return to France. He had not been here long, before, fresh complaints having been made of his conduct, he was, Sept. 27, 1780, sent to the Bastille, where he remained twenty months. Of his imprisonment and the causes he published a very interesting account, which was translated into English, and printed here in 1783. He was, after being released, exiled to Rethel, but in a short time returned to England. He had been exiled on two other occasions, once to Chartres, and the other to Nogent-le-Kotrou. At this last place, he seduced a madame But, the wife of a manufacturer, who accompanied him to England. From England he went again to Brussels, and resumed his journal, or “Annales politiques,” in which he endeavoured to pay his court to the emperor Joseph, who was so much pleased with a paper he had written on his favourite project of opening the Scheldt, that he invited him to Vienna, and made him a present of 1000 ducats. Linguet, however, soon forfeited the emperor’s favour, by taking part with Varider Noot and the other insurgents of Brabant. Obliged, therefore, to quit the Netherlands, he came to Paris in 1791, and appeared at the bar of the constituent assembly as advocate for the colonial assembly of St. Domingo and the cause of the blacks. In February 1792, he appeared in the legislative assembly to denounce Bertrand de Moleville, the minister of the marine; but his manner was so absurd, that notwithstanding the unpopularity of that statesman, the assembly treated it with contempt, and Linguet indignantly tore in pieces his memorial, which he had been desired to leave on the table. During the reign of terror, he withdrew into the country, but was discovered and brought before the revolutionary tribunal, and condemned to death June 27, 1794, for having in his works paid court to the despots of Vienna and London. At the age of fifty-seven he went with serenity and courage to meet his fate. It is not very easy to form an opinion of Linguet’s real character. His being interrupted in his profession seems to have thrown him upon the public, whose prejudices he alternately opposed and flattered. His works abound in contradictions, but upon the whole it may be inferred that he was a lover of liberty, and no inconsiderable promoter of those opinions which precipitated the revolution. That he was not one of the ferocious sect, appears from his escape, and his death. His works are very numerous. The principal are, 1. “Voyage au labyrinthe du jardin du roi,” Hague, (Paris,) 1755, 12mo. 2. “Histoire du siecle d'Alexandre,” Paris, 1762, 12mo. 3. “Projet d‘un canal et d’un pont sur les cotes de Picardie,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Le Fanatisme de Philosophes,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Necessit6 d‘une reforme dans l’administration de la justice et des lois civiles de France,” Amst. 1764, 8vo. 6. “La Dime royale,” 1764, reprinted in 1787. 7. “Histoire des Revolutions de l'empire Remain,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. This is one of his paradoxical works, in which tyranny and slavery are represented in the most favourable light. 8. “Theorie des Lois,” 1767, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774. 9. “Histoire impartiale des Jesuites,” 1768, 8vo. 10. “Hardion’s Universal History,” vols. 19th and 20th. 11. “Theatre Espagnole,” 1770, 4 vols. 12mo. 12. “Theorie du Libelle,” Amst. (Paris), 1775, 12mo, an a,nswer to the abbe Morellet. 13. “Du plusheureux gouvernment,” &c. 1774, 2 vols. 12mo. 14. “Essai philosophique sur le Monachisme,” 1777, 8vo. Besides these he wrote several pieces on the revolution in Brabant, and a collection of law cases.

Scarcely any man was ever more honoured, both in his life-time and after his death, than this historian. Pliny the younger relates that a gentleman travelled from Cades, the extreme part of Spain, to see Livy; and, though Rome abounded with more stupendous and curious spectacles than any city in the world, immediately returned; because, after having seen Livy, he thought nothing worthy of his notice. To the following story, however, we cannot so easily give credit. A monument was erected to this historian in the temple of Juno, where the monastery of St. Justina was afterwards founded. There, in 1413, was discovered the following epitaph upon Livy: “Ossa Titi Livii Patavini, omnium mortalium judicio digni, cujus prope invicto Calamo invicti Populi Romani Res gestaa conscriberentur.” In 1451, we are told that Alphonsus, king of Arragon, sent his ambassador, Anthony Panormita, to desire of the citizens of Padua the bone of that arm with which this their famous countryman had written his history; and, obtaining it, caused it to be conveyed to Naples with the greatest ceremony, as a most invaluable relic. He is said to have been assisted in his recovery from an ill state of health, by the pleasure he found in reading this history; and therefore, out of gratitude, was induced to pay extraordinary honours to the memory of the writer."

The encomiums bestowed upon Livy, by both ancients and moderns, are great and numerous. Quinctiliau speaks of him in the highest terms, and thinks that Herodotus need not take it ill to have Livy equalled with him. In general, probity, candour, and impartiality, are what have distinguished Livy above all historians. Neither complaisance to the times, nor his particular connexions with the emperor, could restrain him from speaking so well of Pompey, as to make Augustus call him a Pompeian. This we learn from Cremutius Cortlus, in Tacitus, who relates also, much to the emperor’s honour, that this gave no interruption to their friendship. Livy, however, has not escaped censure as a writer. In the age in which he lived, Asinius Pollio charged him with Patavinity, a word variously explained by writers, but generally supposed to relate to his style. The most common opinion is, that Pollio, accustomed to the delicacy of the language spoken in the court of Augustus, could not bear with certain provincial idioms, which Livy, as a Paduan, used in various places of his history. Pignorius is of a different opinion, and considers Patavinity as relating to the orthography of certain words, in which Livy used one letter for another, according to the custom of his country, writing “sibe” and “quase” for “sibi” and “quasi;” which he attempts to prove by several ancient inscriptions. Chevreau maintains, that it does not concern the style, but the principles of the historian: the Paduans, he says, preserved a long and constant inclination for a republic, and were therefore attached to Pompey; while Pollio, being of Caesar’s party, was naturally led to attribute to Livy the sentiments of his countrymen, on account of his speaking well of Pompey. It seems remarkable that there should exist such difference of opinion, when Quinctilian, who must be supposed to know the true import of this Patavinity, has referred it entirely to the language of our author. MorhofPs elaborate treatise, however, is highly creditable to his critical skill. The merit of Livy’s history is so well known, as to render it unnecessary to accumulate the encomiums which modern scholars have bestowed on him. With these the school -boy is soon made acquainted, and they meet the advanced scholar in all his researches. His history was first printed at Rome, about 1469, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, in folio. Of this rare edition, lord Spencer is in possession of a fine copy; but the exquisite copy on vellum, formerly in the imperial library at Vienna, now belongs to James Edwards, esq. of Harrow; and is perhaps the most magnificent volume of an ancient classic in the world. Of modern printing the best editions are, that of Gronovius, “cum Notis variorum & suis, Lugd. Bat. 1679,” 3 vols. 8vo; that of Le Clerc, at “Amsterdam, 1709,” 10 vols. 12mo that of Crevier, at “Paris, 1735,” 6 vols. <Ko of Prakenborch, Auist. 1738, 7 vols. 4to of Ruddiman, Edinburgh, 1751, 4 vols. 12mo; of Homer, Lond. 1794, 8 vols. 8vo and that of Oxford, 1800, 6 vols. 8vo. Livy has been translated into every language. The last English translation was that of George Baker, A. M. 6 vols. 8vo, published in 1797, which was preceded by that of Philemon Holland, in 1600; that of Bohun, in 1686; and a third, usually called Hay’s translation, though, no such name appears, printed in 1744, 6 vols. 8vo.

Mr. Lloyd, even by Wood’s account, left an excellent character behind him: “he was a very industrious and zealous person, charitable to the poor, and ready to do good offices in his neighbourhood; he commonly read the service every day in his church at Northop, when he was at home, and usually gave money to such poor children as would come to him to be catechised.” As an author, however, Wood appears to have been a little jealous of Lloyd; speaks of him as being “a conceited and confident per­*on;” who “took too much upon him to transmit to posterity the memoirs of great personages;” by which “he obtained among knowing men not only the character of a most impudent plagiary, but a false writer, and a mere scribbler, especially upon the publication of his * Memoirs,' wherein are almost as many errors as lines.” “At length,” adds Wood, “having been sufficiently admonished of his said errors, and brought into trouble for some extravagancies in his books, he left off writing, retired to Wales, and there gave himself up to the gaining of riches.” That all this is not true, modern inquirers of reputation, who have repeatedly referred to Lloyd, seem to be convinced: he is in truth a compiler, like others of his contemporaries; but, although he must rank greatly under, he certainly belongs to the same class with Fuller and Wood himself. la his style he partakes more of the former than the latter, and having titled the subject of his pen “Worthies,” he is, s, a little too anxious to support their claim, and regardless- of those circumstances which form ajust, if not a perfect, character. Lloyd has preserved many minutiae of eminent men, not to be found, or not easily, to be found, elsewhere. These remarks apply to his two principal works, so often quoted by modern biographers, “The Statesmen and favourites of England since the Reformation, &c.” 166.5, 8vo, reprinted in 1670; and his “Memoirs of the Lives, &c.” of persons who suffered for their loyalty during the rebellion, Lond. 1668, folio. This last is the more valuable of the two, and is so far from deserving the character Wood has given, of containing as “many errors as lines,” that, while we admit it is not free from errors, we have found it in general corroborated by contemporary writers, and even by Wood himself. Of the first of these works, an edition was published by Charles Whitworth, esq. in 1766, 2 vols. 8vo, with additions from other writers, with a view to restore the light and shade of character. “Mr. Lloyd,” says an anonymous critic, “is professedly the white-washer of every character and personage that falls under his brush, particularly of the loyalists of Charles I. and II.; but his editor has seamed it with some sable strokes, some drawn from lord Herbert, and some from his own stores, which are supplied from Rapin, and other republican writers of little credit and less abilities. The true merit of Lloyd is, that notwithstanding the sameness of most of his characters, he serves them up to his readers so differently dressed, that each seems to be a new dish, and to have a peculiar relish.”

, a learned English writer in the seventeenth century, was son of Mr. George Lloyd, minister of Wonson or Wonsington near Winchester, and grandson of Mr. David Lloyd, vicar of Lockford near Stockbridge in Hampshire. He was born at Hoi ton in Flintshire in 1634, and educated at Wykeham’s school near Winchester, and admitted a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, from Hart-hall, October 20, 1653. He afterwards became a fellow of Wadham, and July 6, 16.58, took the degree of roaster of arts. In 1665, when Dr. Blandford, warden of that college, became bishop of Oxford, our author was appointed chaplain to him, being about that time rector of St. Martin’s church in Oxford, and continued with the bishop till he was translated to the see of Worcester in 1671. The year following, the rectory of St. Mary Newington, in Surrey, falling void, the bishop of Worcester presented Mr. Lloyd to it, who kept it to his death, which happened Nov. 27, 1680. He was interred in the chancel of the church there, leaving behind him the character of an harmless quiet man, and an excellent philologist. His “Dictionarium Historicum,” &c. although now obsolete, was once reckoned a valuable work. The first edition was published at Oxford in 1670, folio. The second edition was printed at London in 1686, folio, under the fMlowing title: “Dictionarium Historicum, geographicum, poeticum, gentium, hominum, deorum gentilium, regionum, insularum, locorum, civitatum, aequorum, fluviorum, sinuum, portuum, promontoriorum, ac montium, antiqua recentioraque, ad sacras & profanas historias, poetarumque fabulas intelligendas nccessaria, Nomina, quo decet erdine, complectens & illustrans. Opus admodum utile & apprime necessarium; a Carolo Stephano inchoatum; ad incudem vero revocatum, innumerisque pene locis auctum & emaculatum per NicolaumV.Lloydium, Collegii Wadhami in celeberrima Academia Oxoniensi Socium. Editio novissima.” He left several unpublished Mss. consisting principally of commentaries and translations. He had a younger brother, John, somewhat of a poet, who appears to have shared the friendship and esteem of Addison.

* /But an intelligent writer, who ap- minority, and the other our celebrated pears to have had access to the best metaphysician. See Gent. Mag. vol. authorities, asserts that Mr. Locke’s LXII. See also a letter on the same father was killed at Bristol in 1645, subject, in vol. LXIX. p. Ul. leaving two sons, one who died in his his genius, and penetrating and exact judgment, or the purity of his morals, has scarce any superior, and few equals now living." Hence he was often saluted by his acquaintance with the title, though he never took the degree, of doctor, which we think would have been the case had he intended medicine as a profession, or had not been diverted from it by other studies and avocations f.

During his residence in Holland, he was accused at court of having written certain tracts against the government of his country, which were afterwards discovered to be the production of another person; and upon that suspicion he was deprived of his studentship of Christ-church. This part of Mr. Locke’s history requires some detail. The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica (Nicoll) says that “being observed to join in company with several English malcontents at the Hague, this conduct was communicated by our resident there to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state; who acquainting the king therewith, his majesty ordered the proper methods to be taken for expelling him from the college, and application to be made for that purpose to bishop Fell, the dean; in obedience to this command, the necessary information was given by his lordship, who at the same time wrote to our author, to appear and answer for himself on the first of January ensuing, but immediately receiving an express command to turn him out, was obliged to comply therewith, and, accordingly, Air. Locke was removed from his student’s place on the 15th of Nov. 1684.” This account, however, is not correct. All that lord Sunderland did, was to impart his majesty’s displeasure to the dean, and to request his opinion as to the proper method of removing Mr. Locke. The dean’s answer, dated Nov. 8, contains the following particulars of Mr. Locke, and of his own advice and proceedings against him. “I have,” says the dean, “for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has his guard been on himself, that after several strict inquiries, I may confidently affirm there is not any man inthe college, however familiar with him, who had heard him speak a word either against or so much as concerning the government; and although very frequently, both in public and private, discourses have been purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the earl of Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he never could be provoked to take any notice, or discover in word or look the least concern. So that I believe there is not a man in the world so much master of taciturnity and passion. He has here a physician’s place (he had taken the degree of B. M. in 1674) which frees him from the exercise of the college, and the obligations which others have to residence in it; and he is now abroad for want of health.”

Dr. Robertson accordingly prepared a volume of his Sermons, which was published in 1790, and a second in the following year. They are in general elegant and perspicuous, but occasionally burst into passages of the declamatory kind, which, however, are perhaps not unsuitable to the warmth of pulpit oratory. They have been uncommonly successful, the fifth edition having made its appearance in 1807. He left several other manuscripts, which were once intended for publication. Among these are his Lectures on History, and three or four tragedies. In 1805 a new edition of his poems was published at Edinburgh and London, to which a life is prefixed by an anonymous writer. From this the facts contained in the present more succinct sketch have been borrowed. Logan deserves a very high rank among our minor poets. The chief character of his poetry is the pathetic, and it will not, perhaps, be easy to produce any pieces from the whole range of English poetry more exquisitely tender and pathetic than “The Braes of Yarrow,” *f The Ode on the Death of a Young Lady,“or” A Visit to the Country in Autumn.“” The Lovers“seems to assume a higher character; the opening lines, spoken by Harrietj rise to sublimity by noble gradations of terror, and an accumulation of images, which are, with peculiar felicity, made to vanish on the appearance of her lover. In the whole of Logan’s poems are passages of true poetic spirit and sensibility. With a fancy so various and regulated, it is to be regretted he did not more frequently cultivate his talents. The episode of” Levina," among the pieces attributed to him, indicates powers that might have appeared to advantage in a regular poem of narration and description. His sacred pieces are allowed to be of the inferior kind, but they are inferior only as they are ixot original he strives to throw an air of modern elegance over the simple language of the East, consecrated by use and devotional spirit; and he fails where Watts and others have failed before him, and where Cowper only has escaped without injury to his general character.

It is said that he lived three hundred years, and died in the age of the prophet Jonas. He was buried not far from Jerusalem; and his sepulchre was to be seen not above a century ago, at Ramlah, a small town not far from Jerusalem, his remains being deposited near those of the seventy prophets who were starved to death by the Jews, and all died in one day. He was of the Jewish religion, and some time served in the troops of king David, with whom he had been conversant in Palestine, and was greatly esteemed by that monarch. The relics of his fables were published by Erpenius in Arabic and Latin, with his Arabic Grammar, at Leyden, 1636, 4to, and 1656, 4to, and Tannaquil Faber gave an edition of them in elegant Latin verse. Galland translated them into French, with those of Pilpay, in 1714, 2 vols. 12mo; and a new volume was translated into the same language by M. Cardonne, in 1778. There is a more recent French edition by Marcel, in 1799, 4to. The work seems rather a collection of ancient fables than the production of any one writer. From the similarity of many of them to those of JEsop, some have inferred that Lokman and Æsop were different names for the same person but Brucker thinks it more likely that the compiler of these fables had seen those of Æsop, and chose to insert some of them in his collection. Whoever was the writer, the fables afford no inelegant specvmen of the moral doctrine of the Arabians.

, a medical writer of reputation, was born at Buren, in Guelderland, about the commencement of the sixteenth century, and after a liberal education, studied medicine principally at Paris, and practised for a considerable time at Tournay, to which city he was pensionary physician in 1557; he removed to Brussels at an advanced period of life, about 1560, and was living in this city in 1562, beyond which period there is no record of him. He left three small works, in very elegant Latin, viz. “Commentarii de Sanitate tuenda in primum librum C. Celsi,” Louvain, 1558, 12mo. This is an ample commentaryt upon Celsus, taken entirely from the ancients. “Observationum Medicinalium Libri tres,” Antwerp, 1560. This work has passed through many editions: it consists of histories of disease, related with the simple perspicuity of Celsus, and containing many useful and valuable observations on the diagnostics, prognostics, and cure. “De curandis Febribus continuis Liber,” Antwerp, 1563. This little treatise, like the foregoing, has been several times printed and translated. These works were published together at Amsterdam, in 1745, in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of“Opera omnia.”

, surnamed Secundus, a distinguished modern Latin poet, was nephew to a celebrated abbot of the monastery of Solitaire, in the county of Hanau, in Germany, who in 1543 established the protestant religion in his society, and died in 1567. He was born Nov. 2, 1528, at Solitaire, received the early part of his education at a convent in his native place, and pursued his tnaturer studies at Francfort, Marpurg, and Wittemburg, at which last place he contracted an intimacy with Melancthon and Camerarius. During the war in Saxony in 1546, when Melancthon and his colleagues were obliged to leave Wittemburg, Lotich being in great perplexity what to do, at length entered, among the troops of John Frederic, elector of Saxony, with some of his fellow-students; but in 1548 we find him again at Erfurth, and afterwards at Wittemburg, pursuing his studies. In 1550 he visited France with some young persons to whom he was governor, and he continued there nearly four years. He afterwards went to Italy, where he had nearly been destroyed by poison prepared for another purpose: he recovered from the effects of it, but was subject to frequent relapses, one of which carried him off in the year 1560. He had taken his degree of doctor of physic at Padua, and in 1557 was chosen professor in that science at Heidelberg. In this situation he was honoured with the friendship of the elector-palatine, and by the excellence of his disposition, and the singular frankness and sincerity of his character, rendered himself universally beloved. A collection of his Latin poems was published in 1561, the year after his decease, with a dedicatory epistle by Joachim Camerarius, who praises him as the best poet of his age. This has been often reprinted, but a complete and correct edition of all his works was published at Amsterdam in 1754, 2 vols. 4to, by Peter Burman, nephew of the celebrated writer of those names. Lotich had a younger brother Christian, likewise a poet, and educated by his uncle, the abbot. A collection of his poems was published in 1620, along with those of his relation John- Peter Lotich, a physician of eminence, and grandson of the above- mentioned Christian, who exercised his profession at Minden and at Hesse, and became professor of medicine at Rintlen in Westphalia. He died very much regretted in 1652. His principal works are, “Conciliorum et Observationum Medicinalium;” “Latin Poems;” “A Commentary on Petronius,” and “A History of the Emperors Ferdinand II. and III.” in four volumes, is attributed to him.

, an actor and dramatic writer, assumed this name (from his wife’s, De L'Amour) when he first attached himself to the stage. He was one of the sons of Mr. Dance the city surveyor, whose memory will be transmitted to posterity on account of the clumsy edifice which he erected for the residence of the city’s chief magistrate. Our author received, it is said, his education at Westminster school, whence he removed to Cambridge, which, it is believed, he lett without taking any degree. About that time a severe poetical satire against sir Robert Waipole, then minister, appeared under the title of “Are these things so?” which, though written by Mr. Miller, was ascribed to Pope. To this Mr Love immediately wrote a reply called “Yes, they are, what then?” which proved so satisfactory to Walpole that he made him a handsome present, and gave him expectations of preferment. Elated with this distinction, with the vanity of a young author, and the credulity of a young man, he considered his fortune as established, and, neglecting every other pursuit, became an attendant at the minister’s levees, where he contracted habits of indolence and expence, without obtaining any advantage. The stage now offered itself as an asylum from the difficulties he had involved himself in, and, therefore, changing his name to Love, he made!is first essays ID strolling companies. He afterwards performed both at Dublin and Edinburgh, and at the latter place resided some years as manager. At length he received, in 1762, an invitation to Drury-lane theatre, where he continued during the remainder of his life. In 1765, with the assistance of his brother, he erected a new theatre at Richmond, and obtained a licence for performing in it; but did not receive any benefit from it, as the success by no means answered his expectations. He died about the beginning of 1774. He neither as an actor or author attained any great degree of excellence. His performance of Falstaff was by much the best, but the little reputation which he acquired by it was entirely eclipsed by the superiority of gen;iis which his successor, Mr. Henderson, di-splayed in the representation of the same character As an author, he has given the world “Pamela, a Comedy,” 1742, and some other dramatic pieces, enumerated in the “Biographia Dramatica.”

ID this last mentioned year he published his Poetrylectures, under the title of “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones academicc,” 4to, of which he gave the public an enlarged edition in 1763, 2 vols. 8vo. The second volume consists of additions made by the celebrated Michaelis. To this work, as we have already noticed, the duties of his professoiship gave occasion; and the choice of his subject, which lay out of the beaten paths ol criticism, and which was highly interesting, not only in a literary, but a religious view, afforded ample scope for the poetical, critical, and theological talents of the author. In these prelections, the true spirit and distinguishing character of the poetry of the Old Testament are more thoroughly entered into, and developed more perfectly, than ever had been done before Select parts of this poetry are expressed in Latin composition with the greatest elegance and force; the general criticism which pervades the whole work is such as might be expected from a writer of acknowledged poetical genius and literary judgment; and the particular criticism applied to those passages of the original Hebrew, which he has occasion to introduce, in order either to express the sense, or correct the words of k, is a pattern for that kind of sacred literature: nor are the theological subjects which occur in the course of the work, and are necessarily connected with it, treated with less ability. To the “Prelections” is subjoined a “Short Confutation of bishop Hare’s system of Hebrew Metre,” in which he shows it to be founded on laUe reasoning, on apetitio princigiiy that would equally prove a different and contrary system true This produced the fir>t and most creditable controversy in which Mr Lowth was engaged. The Harian metre was defended by Dr. Thomas Edwards, of Cambridge, (see his life,) who published a Latin letter to Mr. Lowth, to which the latter replied in a “Larger Confutation,” addressed to Dr. Edwards in 1766. This “Larger Confutation,” which from the subject may be supposed dry and uninteresting to the majority of readers, is yet, as a piece of reasoning, extremely curious; for" there never was a fallacy more accurately investigated, or a system more complete!) refuted, than that of bisnop Hare.

opposition, and the zeal of opposition Lowth; ampng these was Richard CumIn June 17 66 Dr. Lowth was promote* to the see of St. David’s, and about four mouths after was translated to that of Oxford. In this high office he remained till 1777, when he succeeded Dr. Terrick in the see of London. In 1778 he published the last of his literary labours, entitled “Isaiah: a new Translation, with a preliminary dissertation, and notes, critical, philological, and explanatory,” His design in this work was not only to give an exact and faithful representation of the words and sense of the prophet, by adhering closely to the letter of the text, and treading as nearly as may be in his footsteps; but to imitate the air and manner of the author, to express the form and fashion of the composition, and to give the English reader some notion of the peculiar turn and cast of the original. For this he was eminently qualified, by his critical knowledge of the original language, by his understanding more perfectly than any other writer of his time the character and spirit of its poetry, and by his general erudition, both literary and theological. In the preliminary dissertation the form and construction of the poetical compositions of the Old Testament are examined more particularly, and at large, than even in the “Prelections” themselves; and such principles of criticism are established as must be the foundation of all improved translations of the different, and especially of the poetical books of the Old Testament. In this instance the translation of the evangelical prophet, who is almost always sublime or elegant, yet often obscure notwithstanding all the aids of criticism, was executed in a manner adequate to the superior qualifications of the learned prelate who undertook it; and marked out the way for other attempts of a like kind, at a time when the hopes of an improved version was cherished by many, and when sacred criticism was cultivated with ardour. In our account of Michael Dodson we have mentioned an attempt to censure some part of this admired translation, which was ably repelled by the bishop’s relative, Dr. Sturges.

, an English clergyman, was born iir Northamptonshire about 1630, and is supposed to have been the son of Simon Lowth, a native of Thurcaston in Leicestershire, who was rector of Dingley in that county in 1631, and was afterwards ejected by the usurping powers. This, his son, was educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where be took his master’s degree in 1660. He was afterwards rector of St. Michael Harbledown in 1670, and vicar of St. Co.Miius and Damian on the Blean in 1679, both in, Kent. On Nov. 12, 1688, king James nominated him, and he was instituted by bishop Sprat, to the deanery of Rochester, on the death of Dr. Castillon, but never obtained possession, owing to the following circumstances. The mandate of installation bad issued in course, the bishop not having allowed himself time to examine whether the king’s presentee was legally qualified; which happened not to be the case, Mr. Lowth being only a master of arts, and the statute requiring that the dean should be at least a bachelor of divinity. The bishop in a day or two discovering that he had been too precipitate, dispatched letters to the chapter clerk, and one of the prebendaries, earnestly soliciting that Mr. Lowth might not be installed; and afterwards in form revoked the institution till he should have taken the proper degree. On Nov. 27 Mr. Lowth attended the chapter, and produced his instruments, but the prebendaries present refused to obey them. He was admitted to the degree of D.D.Jan. 18 following, and on March 19 again claimed instalment, but did not obtain possession, for which, in August of this year, another reason appeared, viz. his refusing to take the oaths of allegiance; in consequence of which he was first suspended from his function, and afterwards deprived of both his livings in Kent. He lived very long after this, probably in London, as his death is recorded to have happened there on July 3, 1720, when he was buried in the new cemetery belonging to the parish of St. George the Martyr, Queen Square. He published, 1. “Letters between Dr. Gilbert Burnet and Mr. Simon. Lowth,” 1684, 4to, respecting some opinions of the former in his “History of the Reformation.” 2. “The subject of Church Power, in whom it resides,” &c. 1685, 8vo. 3. “A Letter to Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. in answer to the Dedicatory Epistle before, his ordination-sermon, preached at St. Peter’s Cornhill, March 15, 1684, with reflections. on some of Dr. Burnet’s letters on the same subject,” 1687, 4to, and 8vo. This was answered by Dr. Stillingfleet in a short letter to the bishop of London, “an honour,” bishop Nicolson says, “which he (Lowth) had no right to expect;” Lowth had submitted this letter both to Stillingfleet and Tillotson, who was then dean of Canterbury, but, according to Birch, “the latter did not think proper to take the least public notice of so confused and unintelligible a writer.” Dr. Hickes, however, a suffering nonjuror like himself, calls Lowfeh “a very orthodox and learned divine,” and his book an excellent one. His only other publication, was “Historical Collections concerning Deposing of Bishops,” 1696, 4to. From the sameness of name we should suppose him related to the subjects of the two preceding articles, but have not discovered any authority for more, than a conjecture on the subject.

, a celebrated Roman poet and philosopher, born about the year 96 B. C. was sent at an early age to Athens, where, under Zeno and Pheodrus, he imbibed the philosophical tenets of Epicurus and Empedocles, and afterwards explained and elucidated them in his celebrated work, entitled “De Rerum Natura.” In inis poem the writer has not only controverted all the popular notions of heathenism, but even those points which are fundamental in every system of religious faith, the existence of a first cause, by whose power all things were and are created, and by whose providence they are supported and governed. His merits, however, as a poet, have procured him in all ages, the warmest admirers; and undoubtedly where the subject admits of elevated sentiment and descriptive beauty, no Roman poet has taken a loftier flight, or exhibited more spirit and sublimity; the same animated strain is supported almost throughout entire books. His poem was written and finished while he laboured under a violent delirium, occasioned by a philtre, which the jealousy of his mistress or his wife had administered. The morality of Lucretius is generally pure, but many of his descriptions are grossly licentious. The best editions are those of Creech, Oxon. 1695, 8vo; of Havercamp, Lugd. Bat. 1725, 4to, and of the celebrated Gilbert Wakefield, Lond. 3 vols. 4to, which last is exceedingly rare, on account of the v fire which destroyed the greater part of the impression. Mr. Good, the author of the best translation of Lucretius, published in 1805, has reprinted Waketield’s text, and has given, besides elaborate annotations, a critical account of the principal editions and translations of his author, a history of the poet, a vindication of his character and philosophy, and a comparative statement of the rival systems of philosophy that flourished in the time of Lucretius, to whom Mr. Good traces the inductive method of the illustrious Bacon, part of the sublime physics of sir Isaac Newton, and various chemical discoveries of our own days, perhaps a little too fancifully, but with great ingenuity and display of recondite learning.

, a botanical writer, was born in Silesia in 1709,. and educated for the medical profession. Having a strong bias towards natural history, he was appointed to accompany Hebenstreit in his expedition to the north of Africa, and soon after his return in 1733, became professor of medicine at Leipsic. In 1737 be published a “Programma” in support of the doctrine of the sexes of plants, from his own observations upon the date palm, but two years afterwards advanced some objections to the Linnaean system of arrangement by the organs of impregnation, under the title of “Observationes in Metbodum Plantarum Sexualem Cel. Linnaei,” in which he very unjustly attempts to deprive him of the merit of originality, by insinuating that this system had been “indicated by others;” without saying by whom. In other dissertations he betrays an uncommon propensity to find fault with Linnæus; but, as his late biographer observes, such critics are useful to science, as they promote inquiry and examination; and it must be allowed that Lud wig justly blames Linnæus for confounding the bulbous Fumari<e a$ one species, and he may also be correct in some other femarks. The late lord Bute has well observed, that Ludwig, like Haller, was only a Linnasan in disguise, having frequently applied principles in unison with his, if not imbibed from, him, to build systems, and to exercise criticism, against him.

Ludwig published in 1737 his “DefinitionesPlantarum,” in 8vo, for the use of his pupils. In this the genera of plants are arranged in a method supposed to be natural, founded ou the corolla in the first place, the subordinate characters being taken from the fruit. The generic distinctions are derived from the herbage, flower, smell, taste, colour, or any thing that came in the author’s way; certainly with no advantage whatever over the laws and practice of Linnæus, but rather evincing, at every step, the superiority of the latter to the vague scheme of his opponent. In another little volume of Ludwig, the “A^horismi Botanici,” published in 1738, the assertion of his being “a Linnsean in disguise” is strongly justified. In vain does the writer try to forget the “Philosophia Botanica,” and to seek originality, at any rate, by wandering from its light. In vain does he extol the system of Rivinus in preference to all others. He is brought back by his own judgment, in spite of himself, at every step; and as he could never give the least degree of popularity to the system he extolled, the slightest study of his works will show it to have been a mill-stone about his own neck. Boehmer gave a new and improved edition of the “Definitiones Plantarum” in 1760. Whether any use is made of this work at present, among the various botanical schools on the continent, we have never heard, but we believe it has fallen into oblivion.

, a learned Roman catholic writer, was born at Ypres, June 12, 1612, and at the early age of fifteen, joined the society of the hermits f St. Augustine. Having afterwards studied at Cologne, he was sent to Louvain to teach philosophy; in which he acquired such celebrity, as to secure the particular esteem of the learned Fabio Chigi, then the papal nuncio in Germany, afterwards pope Alexander VII. In 1655, Lupus was one of the deputies sent to Rome by the university of Louvain, on some matters of importance with the papal court; and on his return was appointed professor of divinity At Louvain. Pope Clement IX. would willingly have made him a bishop; and from Innocent XL and the grand duke of Tuscany, he received repeated marks of esteem: latter was desirotts of settling upon him a considerable pension, that he might attach him to his court. He died July 10, 16-81, at the age of seventy. Of his numerous works the principal are, “Commentaries on the History and Canons of the Councils,” 1665, and 1673, 5 vols. 4to; a “Treatise on Appeals to the Holy See,” according to the Ultramontane opinions, 4to a “Treatise on Contrition,” 12mo; a collection of “Letters and Memorials respecting the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,” 2 vols. 4to; a great number of “Dissertations” on various subjects; a “Commentary on Tertullian’s Prescriptions;” “The Life and Letters of St. Thomas of Canterbury,” &c. All the above were republished at Venice in 12 volumes, folio, the first of which appeared in 1724.

, a female writer, very much admired in France for the romances which she produced, was the daughter of a coachman belonging to cardinal Fleury, and was born about 1682. Some have said that she was the daughter of prince Thomas of Savoy, the prince de Carignano’s elder brother, because prince Eugene shewed her much kindness. She had, however, an education much above her birth, which enabled her to compose the various works which she has left us. M. Huet, to whom she accidentally became known, advised her to write romances, in which she succeeded tolerably well with the help of M. Ignatius Lewis de la Serre, sieur de Langlade (author of nine or ten operas,) who was her intimate friend, after having been her lover. This gentleman inherited an income of 25,000 livres, which he consumed by gaming, and died in 1756. Mademoiselle de Lussan was more admired for her mental than for her personal qualities, for she squinted, and bad a very brown skin, with a masculine voice and gait; but she was gay, lively, extremely humane, constant in her friendships, liable to anger, but never to hatred. She died in 1758, aged seventy-five, in consequence of bathing during an indigestion. Her works are, “La Comtesse de Gondez,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Anecdotes de Philippe Auguste,” 6 vols. 12m<>, attributed to the abb de Boismorand. “Memoires de Charles VII.” 12mo; “Anecdotes” of Francis I. 3 vols. 12mo; of Henry II. 2 vols. 12mo; of Mary of England, 12mo; “La Vie de Crillon,” 2 vols. 12mo. She published also under her name a “History of Charles VI.” 9 vols. 12mo; of Louis XI. 6 vols. and “L'Hist. de la derniere Revolution de Naples,” 4 vols. but these three were written by M. Baudot de Juilly, as we have mentioned in his life. Mademoiselle de Lussan gave this gentleman half of what she gained from these works, and half of her pension of 2000 livres.

Lydgate’s pieces are very numerous. Ritson has given a list of two hundred and fifty-one, some of which he admits may not be Lydgate’s, but he supposes, on the other hand, that he may be the author of many others that are anonymous. His most esteemed works are his “Story of Thebes,” his “Fall of Princes,” and his “History, Siege, and Destruction of Troy.” The first is printed by Speght in his edition of Ghaucer; the second, the “Fall of Princes,” or “Boke of Johan Bochas,” (first printed by Pinson in 1494, and several times since,) is a translation from Boccaccio, or rather from a French paraphrase of his work “De casibus Virorum et Feminarum illustrium.” The “History, &c. of Troy” was first printed by Pinson in 1513, but more correctly by Marshe in 1555. This was once the most popular of his works, and the inquisitive reader will find much curious information in it, although he may not be able to discover such poetical beauties as can justify its original popularity. That popularity was, indeed, says Mr. Ellis, excessive and unbounded; and it continued without much diminution during, at least, two centuries. To this the praises of succeeding writers bear ample testimony: but it is confirmed by a most direct and singular evidence. An anonymous writer has taken the pains to modernize the entire poem, consisting of about 28,000 verses, to change the ancient context, and almost every rhyme, and to throw the whole into six-line stanzas; and after all he published it with the name of Lydgate, tinder the title of “The Life and Death of Hector,” 1614, folio, printed by Thomas Purfoot. Of the general merits of Lydgate, Warton has spoken very favourably; Percy, Ritson, and Pinkerton, with contempt; and Mr. Ellis with the caution of a man of correct taste and judgment.

, an elegant English writer, was the eldest son of sir Thomas Lyttelton, of Hagley, in Worcestershire, bart. and was born in 1709. He came into the world two months before the usual time, and was imagined by the nurse to be dead, but upon closer inspiection was found alive, and with some difficulty reared. At Eton school, where he was educated, he was so much distinguished that his exercises were recommended as models to his school-fellows. From Eton he went to Christ Church, where he retained the same reputation of superiority, and displayed his abilities to the public in a poem on Blenheim. He was a very early writer, both in verse and prose; his “Progress of Love,” and his “Persian Letters,” having both been written when he was very young. After a short residence at Oxford, he began his travels in 1728, and visited France and Italy. From Rome he sent those elegant verses which are prefixed to the works of Pope, whom he consulted in 1730 respecting his four pastorals. Pope made some alterations in them, which may be seen in Bowles’s late edition of that poet’s works (vol. IV. p. 139). We find Pope, a few years afterwards, in a letter to Swift, speak thus of him: He is “one of those whom his own merit has forced me to contract an intimacy with, after I had sworn never to love a man more, since the sorrow it cost me to have loved so many now dead, banished, or unfortunate, I mean Mr. Lyttelton, one of the worthiest of the rising generation,” &c. In another letter Mr. Lyttelton is mentioned in a manner with which Dr. Warton says he was displeased .

He was succeeded by his son Thomas, second lord Lyttelton, of whom the following too just character is on record: “With great abilities generally very ill applied; with a strong sense of religion, which he never suffered to influence his conduct, his days were mostly passed in splendid misery; and in the painful change of the most extravagant gaiety, and the deepest despair. The delight, when he pleased, of the first and most select societies, he chose to pass his time, for the nio,st part, with the most profligate and abandoned of both iexes. Solitude was to fiim the most insupportable torment; and to banish refleo tion, he flew to Company whom he despised and ridiculed. His conduct was a subject of bitter regret both to his father and all his friends.” He closed this unhappy life, Nov. 27, 1779. Two volumes of “Letters” published in 1780 and 1782, though attributed to him, are known to have been the production of an ingenious writer yet living; and a quarto volume of “Poems,” published in 1780, was, as well as the “Letters,” publicly disowned by his executors, but as to the “Poems,” they added, “great part whereof are undoubtedly spurious.”

We have more pleasure, however, in returning to the character of George lord Lyttelton, which has been uniformly delineated by those who knew him best, in favourable colours. Of the various sketches which we have seen, we are inclined to give a place to the following, which, although somewhat long, is less known than those to be found in the accounts of his biographers, and appears to have been written by a near observer “Few chapters,” says the writer, “recorded in the annals of this country, ever united so many rare, valuable, and amiable qualities, as that of the late lord Lyttelton. Whether we consider this great man in public or private life, we are justified in affirming, that he abounded in virtues not barely sufficient to create reverence and esteem, but to insure him the love and admiration of all who knew him. Look upon him as a statesman, and a public man; where shall we find another, who always thought right and meant well, and who so seldom acted wrong, or was misled or mistaken in his ministerial, or senatorial conduct? Look upon his lordship in the humbler scene of private and domestic life; and if thou hadst the pleasure of knowing him, gentle reader, point out the breast warm or cold, that so copiously abounded with every gift and acquirement which indulgent nature could bestow, or the tutored mind improve and refine, to win and captivate mankind.

“His discernment of spirits, the term which the late lord Bolingbroke substitutes for the familiar phrase of knowing mankind, was no less conspicuous, when he thought proper to exert it with steadiness and vigour; but unfortunately for his own domestic peace, it was extremely difficult to rouse him. He trusted too much to the representations of others, and was always ready to leave the labour of discriminating characters, to those who too often found an interest in deceiving him. Though his steadiness of principle, penetration, and justness of reflection, might be well ranked in the first class, those talents were in a great measure effectually lost, because his employments and pursuits as a public man, his amusements as a man of taste and science, and, in the latter part of his life, his avocations as a writer, so totally engrossed his attention, that he entirely neglected his private affairs, and in a Variety of instances fell a prey to private rapine and literary imposition. This was the joint effect of native indolence, and a certain incurable absence of mind. To show that his want of discrimination was not native, but that the power of knowing those he communicated with, was rendered to some purpose useless, because it was not employed, a stronger proof need not be given, than his thorough knowledge of the court, as exhibited in parties, and the several individuals who composed them. He could tell the political value of almost every veteran courtier, or candidate for power. He could develope their latent views, he could foretell their change of conduct. He foresaw the effect of such and such combinations, the motives which formed them, the principles which held them together, and the probable date of their dissolutioe. Whenever he was imposed on, it was through the want of attention, not of parts; or from a kind of settled opinion, that men of common plain understandings, and good reputation, would hardly risque solid advantages in pursuit of unlawful gain, which last might eventually be accompanied with loss of character, as well as the object proposed to be attained. Whatever plausibility there may appear in this mode of reasoning, experience frequently informed his lordship, that it was not to be depended on. He was plundered by his servants, deceived by his humble companions, misled by his confidents, and imposed on by several of those whom he patronized. He felt the effects of all this, in his family, in his finances, and even in the rank he should have preserved. Those who were not acquainted with the solidity of his judgment, the acuteness of his wit, the brilliancy and justness of his thoughts, the depth of his penetration, and with the amazing extent of his genius, were apt to confound the consequences of his conduct, with the powers and resources of his mind. If his lordship remained out of place, on principle, the ignorant inclined to ascribe this seeming court proscription to simplicity or want of talents. If he did not support his rank with that ostentatious splendour now become so fashionable, the world was ready to impute it to a want of oeconotny, or a want of spirit; but in all those conjectures and conclusions, the world were much mistaken and misled. He had frequent offers, some of them the most flattering, to take a part in administration; but he uniformly rejected them. His manner of living at his seat at Hagley was founded on the truest principles of hospitality, politeness, and society; and as to money, he knew no other use of it but to answer his own immediate calls, or to enable him to promote the happiness of others.”

His collected works, first printed in 4to, in 1774, and since in 8vo, consist of, 1. “Observations on the Life of Cicero.” 2. “Observations on the Roman History.” 3. “Observations on the present state of our affairs at home and abroad,” &c. 4. “Letters from a Persian in England to his friend at Ispahan.” 5. “Observations on the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul” 6. “Dialogues of the Dead.” 7. “Four Speeches in parliament.” 8. “Poems.” 9. “Letters to Sir Thomas Lyttelton.” 10. “Account of a Journey into Wales.” Some other lesser pieces, which appeared in the periodical journals, have been attributed to him, and some anonymous political pamphlets. Lord Orford mentions him as a writer in the paper called “Common Sense,” but has not discovered his share. In that, however, he certainly wrote the criticism on “Leonidas,” which occurs in p. 72, of the first volume. In vol. II. p. 31, is a paper from the pen of lord Chesterfield, dated March 4, 1738, in defence of lord (then Mr.) Lyttelton against the attacks of the writers in the Daily Gazetteer. From his connection with the party in opposition to sir Robert Walpole, it seems not unreasonable to conjecture that he wrote in the “Craftsman;” but for this we have no positive authority.

, a very learned French writer, was born Nov. 23, 1632, at Pierre-mont, on the frontiers of Champagne. He was educated in the university of Rheims, and afterwards entered into the abbey of the Benedictines of St. Remy; where he took the habit in 1653, and made the profession the year following. He was looked upon at first as a person that would do honour to his order; but a perpetual head-acb, with which he was afflicted, almost destroyed all the expectations which were conceived of him. He was ordained priest at Amiens in 1660; and afterwards, lest too much solitude should injure his health, which was not yet re-established, was sent by his superiors to St. Denis, where he was appointed, during the whole year 1663, to shew the treasure and monuments of the kings of France. But having there unfortunately broken a looking-glass, which was pretended to have belonged to Virgil, he obtained leave to quit an employment, which, as he said, frequently obliged him to relate things he did not believe. As the indisposition of his head gradually abated, he began to shew himself more and more to the world. Father d'Acheri, who was then compiling his “Spicilegium,” desiring to have some young monk, who could assist him in that work, Mabillon was chosen for the purpose, and accordingly went to Paris in 1664, where he was very serviceable to d'Acheri. This began to place his talents in a conspicuous light, and to shew what might be expected from him. A fresh occasion soon offered itself to him. The congregation of St. Maur had formed a design of publishing new editions of the fathers, revised from the manuscripts, with which the libraries of the order of the Benedictines, as one of the most ancient, are furnished. Mabillon was ordered to undertake the edition of St. Bernard, which he had prepared with great judgment and learning, and published at Paris, in 1667, in two volumes folio, and nine octavo. In 1690 he published a second edition, augmented with almost fifty letters, new preliminary dissertations, and new notes; and just before his death was preparing to publish a third. He had no sooner published the first edition of St. Bernard, than the congregation appointed him to undertake an edition of the “Acts of the Saints of the order of Benedictines;” the first volume of which, he published in 1668, and continued it to nine volumes in folio, the last of which was published in 1701. The writers of the “Journal de Trevoux” speak not improperly of this work when they say that “it ought to be considered, not as a simple collection of memoirs relating to monastic history, but as a valuable compilation of ancient monuments; which, being illustrated by learned notes, give a great light to the most obscure part of ecclesiastical history.” The prefaces alone,“say they,” would secure to the author an immortal reputation. The manners and usages of those dark ages are examined with great care; and an hundred important questions are ably discussed.“Le Clerc, in the place referred to above, from which we have chiefly drawn our account of Mahillon, has given us one example of a question occasionally discussed by him in the course of his work, concerning the use of unleavened bread, in the celebration of the sacrament. Mabillon shews, in the preface to the third age of his” Acta Sanctorum,“t'hat the use of it is more ancient than is generally believed; and, in 1674, maintained it in a particular dissertation, addressed to cardinal Bona, who was before of a contrary opinion. But the work which is supposed to have done him the most honour is his” De re diplomatica libri sex, in quibus quicquid ad veterum instrumentorum antiquitatem, materiam, scripturam et stilutn; quicqnid ad sigilla, monogrammata, subscriptiones, ac notas chronologicas; quicquid inde ad antiquariam, historicam, forensemque disciplinam pertinet, explicatur, et illustratur. Accedunt commentarius de antiquis regum Francorum palatiis, veterum scripturarum varia specimina tabulis LX. comprehensa, nova ducentorum et amplius monumentoruoi collectio," Paris, 1631, folio. The examination of almost an infinite number of charters and ancient titles, which had passed through his hands, led him to form the design of reducing to certain rules and principles an art, of which before there had been only very confused ideas. It was a bold attempt; but he executed it with such success, that he was thought tp have carried it at once to perfection.

, a celebrated French political and miscellaneous writer, and brother to the abbé Condillac, was born at Grenoble in March 1709, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college at Lyons. In his youth he attached himself to his relation the cardinal de Tencin, but never took any higher order in the church than that of sub-deacon. On his coming into life, as it is called, he had the honour to be admitted, both as a relation and a man of letters, into the parties of madame de Tencin, so well known for her intrigues and her sprightly talents, who at that time gave dinners not only to wits, but to politicians. Here madame de Tencin was so much pleased with the figure Mably made in conversation with Montesquieu and other philosophical politicians at hertable, that she thought he might prove useful to her brother, then entering on his ministerial career. The first service he rendered to the cardinal was to draw out an abridgment of all the treaties from the peace of Westphalia to that time (about 1740): the second service he rendered his patron, was of a more singular kind. The cardinal soon becoming sensible that he had not the talent xof conveying his ideas in council, Mably suggested to him the lucky expedient of an application to the king, that he might be permitted to express his thoughts in writing, and there can be little doubt that m this also he profited by the assistance of his relative, who soon began himself to meddle in matters of state. In 1743 he was entrusted to negoeiate privately at Paris with the Prussian ambassador, and drew up a treaty, which Voltaire was appointed to carry to Berlin. Frederick, to whom* this was no secret, conceived from this time a very high opinion of the abbe, and, as Mably’s biographer remarks, it was somewhat singular that tvro men of letters, who had no political character, should be employed on a negociation which made such an important change in the state of affairs in Europe. The abbe" also drew up the papers which were to serve as the basis of the negociation carried on in the congress at Breda in the month of April 1746.

, who in his Latin works called himself Cavellus, was titular primate of Armagh, and a learned writer in defence of Duns Scotus, whose opinions were generally embraced by his countrymen. He was born in the county of Down, in Ireland, in 1571, and became a Franciscan friar. He studied at Salamanca, in Spain, and afterwards for many years governed the Irish Franciscan college at Louvain, dedicated to St. Anthony, in the founding of which he had been instrumental. In this college he was also professor of divinity, which office he filled afterwards in the convent of Ara Cceli at Rome, was definitor-general of his order, and at length advanced by the pope to the see of Armagh; but died at Rome, as he was preparing for his journey to Ireland, Sept. 22, 1626, in the fifty -fifth year of his age. He was buried in the church of St. Isidore, under a monumental stone, and inscription, placed there by the earl of Tyrone. He was reckoned a man of great learning, and one of the best schoolmen of his time. His works, which consist chiefly of commentaries on and a defence of Scotus, were in substance incorporated in Wading' s edition of Scotus’s works, printed at Lyons, 1639, in 12 vols. folio.

, an ingenious young writer, was the son of the rev. Mr. Macdiarmid, minister of Weem in the northern part of Perthshire, and was bern in 1779. He studied at the universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews, and was for some years tutor in a gentleman’s family. Such a situation is generally desired in Scotland with the view of provision in the church, but as this was not Mr. Macdiarmid’s object, he became desirous of visiting the metropolis, and trying his fortune in the career of literary competition. He accordingly came to London in 1801, and was soon in the receipt of a competent income from periodical writing. His principal occupations of this kind were, as editor of the St. James’s Chronicle (a paper in which some of the first scholars and wits of the last half century have employed their pens), and as a reviewer in a critical publication. On the commencement or rather the renewal of the late war in 1802-3, his attention was directed to our military establishment, and he relinquished his periodical engagements to become the author of a very elaborate work, entitled “An Inquiry into the System of Military Defence of Great Britain,” 1803, 2 vols. 8vo. This exposed the defects of the volunteer systeui, as well as of all temporary expedients, and asserted the superiority of a regular army; and had he lived, he would have doubtless been highly gratified to contemplate the army formed by the illustrious Wellington. His next work was, an “Inquiry into the Nature of Civil and Military Subordination,” 1804, 8vo, perhaps the fullest disquisition which the subject has received. He now determined to suspend his theoretic labours, and to turn his attention to works of narrative. He accordingly wrote the “Lives of British Statesmen,” 4to, beginning with the life of sir Thomas More. This work has strong claims on public attention. The style is perspicuous and unaffected; authorities are quoted for every statement of consequence, and a variety of curious information is extracted from voluminous records, and brought for the first time before the public view. His political speculations were always temperate and liberal. He was indeed in all respects qualified for a work of this description, by great powers of research and equal impartiality. But unfortunately he was destined to enjoy, for a short time only, the approbation with which his work was received. His health, at all times delicate, received in November 1807, an irreparable blow by a paralytic stroke; and in February 1808 a second attack proved fatal, April 7. Mr. D'Israeli has paid a just and pathetic tribute to his memory and talents in the work referred to below.

, another young writer of considerable talents, was the son of George Donald, a gardener at Leith. The Mac he appended. to his name when he came to London. He was born in 1757 at Leith, where he was educated, chiefly by the assistance of bishop f Forbes. For some time he had the charge of a chapel at Glasgow, in which city he published a novel, -entitled *' The Independent.“He afterwards came to London, and wrote for the newspapers. His works were lively, satirical, and humorous, and were published under the signature of Matthew Bramble. He naturally possessed a fine genius, and had improved his understanding with classical and scientific knowledge; but for want of connections in this southern part of the united kingdom, and A proper opportunity to bring his talents into notice, he was ajways embarrassed, and had occasionally to struggle with great and accumulated distress. He died in the 33d year of his age, at Kentish Town, in Aug. 1790, leaving a wife and infant daughter in a state of extreme indigence. A volume of his” Miscellaneous Works“was published in 1791, in which were comprised,” The fair Apostate,“a tragedy;” Love and Loyalty,“an opera;” Princess of Tarento,“a comedy; and” Vimonda," a tragedy.

, a Portuguese Jesuit, and most indefatigable writer, born at Coimbra, in 1596, quitted that order after a time to take the habit of a cordelier. He was strongly in the interest of the duke of Braganza when he seized the crown of Portugal. Being sent to Rome, he acquired for a time the favour of pope Alexander the Vllth, and was preferred by him to several important offices. The violence of his temper however soon embroiled him with this patron, and he went to Venice, where he disputed de omni scibili; and gaining great reputation, obtained the professorship of moral philosophy at Padua. Afterwards, having ventured to interfere in some state matter at Venice, where he had been held very high, he was imprisoned, and died in confinement, in 1681, at the age of 85. He is said, in the “Bibliotheque Portugaise,” to have published 109 different works: and in one of his own books he boasts that he had pronounced 53 public panegyrics, 60 Latin discourses, and 32 funeral orations; that he had written 48 epic poems, 123 elegies, 115 epitaphs, 212 dedications, 700 familiar letters, 2600 poems in heroic verse, 3000 epigrams, 4 Latin comedies, and had written or pronounced 150,000 verses extemporaucously. Yet the man who could declare all this, is hardly known by name in the greater part of Europe; and of the enormous list of his printed works, not more than five are thought worthy of mention by the writers of his life- To write much, is far easier than to write well. The works specified by his biographers are, 1. “Clavis Augustiniana liberi arbitrii,” a book written against father, afterwards cardinal Noris. The disputants were both silenced by authority; but Macedo, not to seem vanquished, sent his antagonist a regular challenge to a verbal controversy, which by some biographers has been mistaken for a challenge to fight. The challenge may be found in the “Journal Etranger” for June 1757. 2. “Schema Sanctae Congregationis,” 1676, 4to a dissertation on the inquisition, full of learning and absurdity. 3. “Encyclopaedia in agonem literatorum,” 1677, folio. 4. “Praise of the French,” in Latin, 1641, 4to; a book on the Jansenian controversy. 5. “Myrothecium Morale,” 4to. This is the book in which he gives the preceding account of what he had written and spoken, &c. He possessed a prodigious memory, and a ready command of language; but his judgment and taste were by no means equal to his learning and fecundity.

, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Verona, and flourished about the year 24 B. C. Eusebius relates, that he died a few years after Virgil. Ovid speaks of a poem by him, on the nature and quality of birds, serpents, and herbs; which, he says, Macer, being then very old, had often read to him, and he is said also to have written a supplement to Homer; but the work by which his name is chiefly known, first printed at Naples in 1477, 4to, and often since under the title “De virtutibus Herbarum,” is unquestionably spurious, and the production of a much later writer. By some it is ascribed to Odo or Odobonus, a French physician of the ninth century. This barbarous poem is in Leonine verse, and various manuscripts of it are in our public libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, the British Museum, &c. It was, according to Dr. Pulteney, in common use in Enprland before the sera of printing, and was translated into English by John Lelamar, master of Hereford-school, who lived about 1473. Even Linacre did not disdain to employ himself on this work, as in “Macer’s Herbal practysed by Dr. Lin aero, translated out of Latin into English.” Lond. 1542, 12mo. This jejune performance, adds Dr. Pulteney, which is writ-r ten wholly on Galenical principles, treats on the virtues of not more than eighty eight simples.

, a political and miscellaneous writer, was born in Scotland in 1734, and educated in the university of Edinburgh. He came to London at an early period of life, and for many years keptan academy of considerable reputation at Walthamstow. He was also much engaged in the political disputes at the beginning of the reign of his present majesty, and concentrated his sentiments on them, in a “History of the Reign of George III.” an octavo volume, which was published in 1770. A dispute occurring between him and his bookseller, the late Mr. Thomas Evans of Paternoster-row, the latter employed another person to continue the history, of which vol. II appeared in 1782, and vol. III. about 1794. Mr. Macfarlane being then reconciled to his employer, published a fourth volume. The whole is com-r piled from the journals of the day, and cannot, either in point of style or matter, entitle Mr. Macfarlane, or the other writers, to the character of historians. In early life, also, he was editor of the Morning Chronicle and London Packet, in which he gave the debates with great accuracy and at considerable length, and wrote many letters and papers under fictitious names, in favour of the politics of the opposition. Being an enthusiastic admirer of Ossian, and an assistant, as has been said, to Mr. Macpherson in the arranging and publishing of these poems, he conceived the very preposterous design of translating them into Latin verse. Accordingly, in 176.9, he published “Temora,” as a specimen, and issued, at the same time, proposals for publishing the whole by subscription, in one volume, 4to: but few subscribers appearing, he desisted from his plan. During the latter years of his life, he resumed it, and was employed in it at the time of his death. Curiosity led him one evening to witness the triumphs of an electionmob coming from Brentford, when he fell under a carnage, and was so much hurt as to survive only half an hour. This happened on August 8. 1804. He had at this time in the press, an “Essay on the authenticity of Ossian and his Poems.”

, a celebrated political writer and historian, was born of a good family, at Florence, in 1469. He first distinguished himself as a dramatic writer, but his comedies are not formed on the purest morals, nor are the verses by which he gained some reputation about the same time, entitled to much praise. Soon after he had entered public life, either from the love of liberty, or a spirit of faction, he displayed a restless and turbulent disposition, which not only diminished the respect due to his abilities, but frequently endangered his personal safety. He involved himself in the conspiracy of Capponi and Boscoli, in consequence of which he was put to the torture, but endured it without uttering any confession, and was set at liberty by Leo X. against whose house that conspiracy had been formed. Immediately after the death of Leo, he entered into another plot to expel the cardinal de Medici from Florence. Afterwards, however, he was raised to hitjh honours in the state, and became secretary to the republic of Florence, the 'duties of which office he performed with great fidelity. He was likewise employed in embassies to king Lewis XII. of France; to the emperor Maximilian; to the college of cardinals; to the pope, Julius II., and to other Italian princes. Notwithstanding the revenues which must have accrued to him in these important situations, it would appear that the love of money had no influence on his mind, as he died in extreme poverty in June 1527. Besides his plays, his chief works are, 1. “The Golden Ass,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius 2. “Discourses on the first Decade of Livy” 3. “A History of Florence” 4. “The Life of Castruccio Castracani;” 5. “A Treatise on the Military Art;” 6. “A Treatise on the Emigration of the Northern Nations;” 7. Another entitled “Del Principe,” the Prince. This famous treatise, which was first published in 1515, and intended as a sequel to his discourses on the first decade of Livy, has created very discordant opinions between critics of apparently equal skill and judgment, some having considered him as the friend of truth, liberty, and virtue, and others as the advocate of fraud and tyranny. Most generally “the Prince” has been viewed in the latter light, all its maxims and counsels being directed to the maintenance of power, however acquired, and by any means; and one reason for this opinion is perhaps natural enough, namely, its being dedicated to a nephew of pope Leo X. printed at Rome, re*published in other Italian cities, and long read with attention, and even applause, without censure or reply. On the other hand it has been thought impossible that Machiavel, who was born under a republic, who was employed as one of its secretaries, who performed so many important embassies, and who in his conversation always dwelt on the glorious actions of Brutus and Cassius, should have formed such a system against the liberty and happiness of mankind. Hence it has frequently been urged on his behalf, that it was not his intention to suggest wise and faithlul counsels, but to represent in the darkest colours the schemes of a tyrant, and thereby excite odium against him. Even lord Bacon seems to be of this opinion. The historian of Leo considers his conduct in a different point of view; and indeed all idea of his being ironical in this work is dissipated by the fact, mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, that “many of the most exceptionable doctrines in” The Prince,“are also to be found in his” Discourses,“where it cannot be pretended that he had any indirect purpose in view; and in the latter he has in some instances referred to the former for the further elucidation of his opinions. In popular opinion” The Prince“has affixed to his name a lasting stigma; and Machiavelism has long been a received appellation for perfidious and infamous politics. Of the historical writings of Machiavel, the” Life of Castruccio Castracani“is considered as partaking too much of the character of a romance; but his” History of Florence," comprising the events of that republic, between 1205 and 1494, which was written while the author sustained the office of historiographer of the republic, although not always accurate in point of fact, may upon the whole be read with both pleasure and advantage. It has been of late years discovered tnat the diary of the most important events in Italy from 1492 to 1512, published by the Giunti in 1568, under the name of Biagio Buonaccorsi, is in fact a part of the notes of Machiavel, which he had intended for a continuation of his history; but which, after his death, remained in the hands of his friend Buonaccorsi. - This is a circumstance of which we were not aware when we drew up the account of this author under the name Esperiente.

, an ingenious and learned writer, and eminent lawyer of Scotland, was descended from an ancient and noble family, his father Simon Mackenzie being brother to the earl of Seaforth. He was born at Dundee, in the county of Angus, in 1636, and gave early proofs of an extraorJinary genius, having gone through the usual classic authors, at ten years of age. He was then sent to the universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s, where he finished his studies in logic and philosophy before he had attained his sixteenth year. After this, he turned his thoughts to the civil law, and to increase his knowledge of it, travelled into France, and became a close student in the university of Bourges, for about three years. On his return home, he was called to the bar, became an advocate in 1656, and gained the character of an eminent pleader in a few years.

Judging, says a late elegant and judicious writer, from the writings of sir George Mackenzie, his talents appear to have been rather splendid than solid. He certainly possessed uncommon assiduity and activity of mind, as the number and variety of his compositions testify; and perhaps the superficial manner in which he has treated many of those subjects foreign to his profession, is the less to be wondered at, in a man whose time was so occupied in professional duties. The obscurity and confusion that are discernible in some of his juridical discussions, may have arisen in a great measure from the rude, unmethodized, and almost chaotic state of the law of Scotland, both civil and criminal, in his days. On one account alone, although every other merit were forgotten, sir George Mackenzie is entitled to respect as a lawyer. He was the first who exploded from the practice of the criminal courts of Scotland that most absurd and iniquitous doctrine, that no defence was to be admitted in exculpation from a criminal indictment which was contrary to the libel (indictment); as, if John were accused of having murdered James, by giving him a mortal wound with a sword, it was not allowable for John to prove in his defence, that the wound was not given in any vital part, and that James died of a fever caught afterwards by contagion.

Douglas describes him as a man of singular endowments, great learning, well versed in the laws and antiquities of his country, and an able statesman. Macky, or rather Davis, adds, that “he had a great deal of wit, and was the pleasantest companion in the world; had been very handsome in his person; was tall and fair complexioned; much esteemed by the royal society, a great master in philosophy, and well received as a writer by men of letters.” Bishop Nicolson notices a copy of the continuation of Fordun’s “Scotichronicon” in the hand-writing of this nobleman, whom he terms “a judicious preserver of the antiquities of his country.” He wrote, 1. “A Vindication of Robert, the third king of Scotland, from the imputation of bastardy, &c.” Edin. 1695, 4to. 2. “Synopsis Apocalyptica; or a short and plain Explication and Application of Daniel’s Prophecy, and St. John’s Revelation, in consent with it, and consequential to it; by G. E. of C. tracing in the steps of the admirable lord Napier of Merchiston,” Edin. 1708. 3. “An historical Account of the Conspiracies, by the earls of Gourie, and Robert Logan of Restalrig, against king James VI. of glorious memory, &c.” Edin. 1713, 8vo. Mr. Gough has pointed out three papers on natural curiosities, by lord Cromerty, in the “Philosophical Transactions” and “A Vindication,” by him, of the reformation of the church of Scotland, with some account of the Records, was printed in the Scots’ Magazine, for August 1802, from a ms. in the possession of Mr. Constable, bookseller, of Edinburgh.

, the oldest actor, and perhapsthe oldest man of his time, is entitled to some notice in this work, although his fame seems to have been derived principally from his longevity. He is said to have been born in the county of West Meath in Ireland, May I, 1690. His family name was Mac-Laughlin, which, on his coming to London, he changed to Macklin. He was employed in early life, as badgeman in Trinity college, Dublin, until his twenty-first year, when he came to England, and associated with some strolling comedians, after which he went back to his situation in Trinity college. In 1716 he again came to England, and appeared as an actor in the theatre, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, where, in Feb. 1741, he established his fame by his performance of Shylock in the “Merchant of Venice,” in which he followed nature, truth, and propriety, with such effect, as to distance all other performers through the whole course of his long life. It was, however, the only character in which he was pre-eminent, and all his subsequent attempts in characters of importance, particularly in tragedy, were unsuccessful, or, at least, displayed no exclusive merit. The remainder of his life consists of a series of tragi-comic adventures, involving the history of the stage for a considerable period, of which it would be impossible to give a satisfactory abridgment. We therefore refer to our authorities, where his life is detailed with great minuteness, and in a manner highly interesting to those to whom the vicissitudes of the theatres, and the wit of the green-room, are matters of importance. He continued on the stage until 1789, when a decay of memory obliged him to take a last leave of it. In 1791, a sum of money was collected by public subscription for the purchase of an annuity, which rendered his circumstances easy. During the last years of his life, his understanding became more and more impaired, and in this state he died July 11, 1797, at the very great age of 107, if the date usually given of his birth be correct. As a dramatic writer, he appears to much advantage in his “Man of the World” and “Love Alamode,” which still retain their popularity. He was a man of good understanding, which he had improved by a course of reading, perhaps desultory, but sufficient to enable him to bear his part in conversation very satisfactorily. While his memory remained, his fund of anecdote was immense, and rendered his company highly agreeable. His age, however, had in his opinion, conferred a dictatorial ppwer, and it was not easy to argue with him, without exciting his irascible temper, which shewed itself in much coarseness of expression. He is said to have been in his better days, a tender husband, a good father, and a steady friend. By his firmness and resolution in supporting the rights of his theatrical brethren, they were long relieved from a species of oppression to which they had been ignominiouslv subjected for many years, whenever the caprice or malice of their enemies chose to exert itself. We allude, says one of his biographers, “to the prosecution which he commenced and carried on against a certain set of insignificant beings, who, calling themselves The Town, used frequently to disturb the entertainments of the theatre, to the terror of the actors, as well as to the annoyance and disgrace of the publick.” It is almost needless to add that this advantage has been again lost to his brethren, by the toleration recently granted to scenes of brntality in the theatres both of London and Dublin, and which has placed them at the mercy of the lowest and most unprincipled of the populace.

Dr. Maclaine published in 1752 a sermon on the death of the prince of Orange. In 1765 his masterly translation of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History made its first appearance, in 2 vols. 4to, dedicated to William Prince of Orange. It experienced a most favourable reception, and was reprinted, 1758, in six vols. 8vo, in which form it has had several subsequent editions, particularly one published in 1811, withvaluable additions by Dr. Coote, the editor, and the Rev. Dr. Gleig, of Stirling. Few publications, on their first appearance, having been more generally read than Mr. Soame Jenyns’s “View of the internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,” Dr. Maclaine addressed to that gentleman a series of letters, 1777, in 12 mo, written to serve the best purposes of Christianity, on a due consideration of the distinguished eminence of Mr. Jenyns as a writer, of the singular mixture of piety, wit, error, wisdom, and paradox, exhibited in his publication, and of his defence of Christianity on principles which would lead men to enthusiasm or to scepticism, according to their different dispositions. His only publications since were two fast sermons, 1793 and 1797, and a volume of sermons preached at the Hague. He was interred in the abbey church of Bath, where a monument has been since erected to his memory by his friend Henry Hope, esq.

Soon after this period, the tide of fortune flowed very rapidly in Mr. Macpherson’s favour, and his talents and industry were amply sufficient to avail himself of every favourable circumstance whieh arose. The resistance of the Colonies called for the aid of a ready writer to combat the arguments of the Americans, and to give force to the reasons which influenced the conduct of government, and he was selected for the purpose. Among other things he wrote a pamphlet, which was circulated with much industry, entitled “The Rights of Great Britain asserted against the Claims of the Colonies; being an answer to the declaration of the general congress,” 1776, 8vo, and of which many editions were published. He also was the author of “A short History of the Opposition during the last session of parliament,” 1779, 8vo, a pamphlet, which, on account of its merit, was by many ascribed to Mr. Gibbon.

, was a name assumed by a modern poet, whose true name was John Salmon; or, as some say, given to him on account of his excessive thinness, from the Latin adjective macer. It became, however, the current appellation of himself and Charles, his brother, who was also a writer of some celebrity, preceptor to Catherine of Navarre, sister of Henry IV, and who perished in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Some have called Macrinus the French Horace, on account of his talents for poetry, particularly the lyric kind. He was born at Loudon, where he died in 1557, at an advanced age. He wrote hymns, naeniae, and other works, which appeared from 1522 to 1550: and was one of those who principally contributed to restore the taste for Latin poetry. Varillas relates a story of his drowning himself in a well, in despair, on being suspected of Lutheranism. But this, like most anecdotes of the same writer, is a matter of invention rather than fact.

, was an ancient Latin writer, who flourished towards the latter part of the fourth century. What countryman he was, is not clear Erasmus, in his Ciceronianus, seems to think he was a Greek and he himself tells us, in the preface to his “Saturnalia,” that he was not a Roman, but laboured under the inconveniences of writing in a language which was not native to him. Of what religion he was, Christian or pagan, is also uncertain. Barthius ranks him among the Christians; but Spanheira and Fabiicius suppose him to have been a heathen. It seems, however, agreed that he was a man of consular. dignity, and one of the chamberlains, or masters of the wardrobe to Theodosius; as appears from a rescript directed to Florentius, concerning those who were to obtain that office. He wrote “A Commentary upon Cicero’s Somnium Scipiouis,” full of Platonic notions, and seven books of “Saturnalia;” which resemble in plan the “Noctes Atticae” of Aulus Gellius. He termed them “Saturnalia,” because, during the vacation observed on these feasts of Saturn, he collected the principal literati of Rome, in his house, and conversed with them on all kinds of subjects, and afterwards set down what appeared to him, most interesting in their discourses. His Latinity is far from being pure, but as a collector of facts, opinions, and criticism, his works are valuable. The “Somnium Sci r pionis,” and “Saturnalia,” have been often printed; to which has been added, in the later editions, a piece entitled “De difterentiis & societatibus Graeci Latinique verbi.” The best editions are those of the Variorum; of Gronovius in 1670, and Leipsic in 1777. There is a specimen of an English translation of the “Saturnalia” in the Gent. Mag. for 1760, but it does not appear to have been completed.

, a celebrated preacher and writer, was the son of Martin Madan, esq. of Hertingfordbury near Hertford, member of parliament for Wootton Basset, and groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales. His mother was daughter of Spencer Cowper, esq. and niece of the lord chancellor Cowper, an accomplished lady, and author of several poems of considerable merit. He was born in 1726, and was bred originally to the law, and had been called to the bar; but being fond of the study of theology, well versed in Hebrew, and becoming intimate with Mr. Jones and Mr. Romaine, two clergymen of great popularity at that time, by their advice he left the law for the pulpit, and was admitted into orders. His first sermon is said to have been preached in the church of Allhallows, Lombard -street, and to have attracted immediate attention and applause. Being appointed chaplain to the Lock-hospital, his zeal led him to attend diligently, and to preach to the unfortunate patients assembled in the parlour: his fame also brought many others thither, till the rooms and avenues were crowded. This led to a proposal for a chapel, which was finished in 176.1, and opened with a sermon from the chaplain. He subjected himself to much obloquy, about the year 1767, by the advice he gave to his friend Mr. Havveis, to retain the rectory of Aldwincle, and several pamphlets were written on the subject; but lord Apsley (afterwards Bathurst) did not seem to consider the affair in an unfavourable light, as he afterwards appointed him his chaplain. Mr. Madan became an author in 1761, when he published, 1. “A sermon on Justification by Works.” 2. “A small treatise on the Christian Faith,” 1761, 12mo. 3. “Sermon at the opening of the Lock Hospital, 1762.” 4. “Answer to the capital errors of W. Law,” 1763, 8vo. 5. “Answer to the narrative of facts respecting the rectory of Aldwinckle,” 1767, 8vo. 6. “A comment on the Thirty-nine Articles,” 1772, 8vo. 7.“Thelyphthora,” 1780, 2 vols. -&vo. In this book the author justifies polygamy, upon the notion that the first cohabitation with a woman is a virtual marriage; and supports his doctrine by many acute arguments. The intention of the work was to lessen or remove the causes of seduction; but it met with much opposition, many very severe animadversions, and cost the author his reputation among the religious world. He, however, was not discouraged; and in 1781, published a third volume, after which the work sunk into oblivion, a fate to which the masterly criticism on it in the Monthly Review, by the rev. Mr. Badcock, very greatly contributed. It is somewhat remarkable that Mrs. Manley in the “Atalantis” speaks of lord chancellor Cowper, as maintaining the same tenets on polygamy. Mr. Madan next produced, 8. “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” 1787, 12mo. 9. A literal version of “Juvenal and Persius,” with notes, 1789, 2 vols. 8vo: and some controversial tracts on the subject of his Thelyphthora. Mr. Madan died at Epsom in May, 1790, at the age of 64, after a short illness, and was buried at Kensington. The late Dr. Spencer Madan, bishop of Peterborough, was brother to our author.

, the great friend and counsellor of Augustus Caesar, was himself a polite scholar, but is chiefly memorable for having been the patron and protector of men of letters. He was descended from a most ancient and illustrious origin, even from the kings of Hetruria, as Horace often tells us; but his immediate forefathers were only of the equestrian order. He is supposed to have been born at Rome, because his family lived there; but in what year antiquity does not tell us. His education is supposed to have been of the most liberal kind, and agreeable to the dignity and splendour of his birth, as he excelled in every thing that related to arms, politics, and letters. How he spent his younger years is also unknown, there being no mention made of him, by any writer, before the death of Julius Caesar, which happened in the year of Rome 709. Then Octavius Caesar, who was afterwards called Augustus, went to Rome to take possession of his uncle’s inheritance; and, at the same time, Mæcenas became first publicly known; though he appears to have been Augustus’s friend, and, as it should seem, guardian, from his childhood. From that time he accompanied him through all his fortunes, and was his counsellor and adviser upon all occasions; so that Pedo Albinovanus, or rather the unknown author whose elegy has been ascribed to him, justly calls him “Caesaris dextram,” Caesar’s right hand.

The civil wars being now at an end, Augustus returned to Rome; and after he had triumphed according to custom, he began to talk of restoring the commonwealth. Whether he was in earnest, or did it only to try the judgment of his friends, we do not presume to determine however he consulted Mæcenas and Agrippa about it. Agrippa advised him to it but Mæcenas dissuaded him, saying, that it was not only impossible for him to live in safety as a private man, after what had passed, but that the government would be better administered, and flourish more in his hands than if he was to deliver it up to the senate and people. The author of the “Life of Virgil” says that Augustus, “wavering what he should do, consulted that poet upon the occasion.” But this life is not of sufficient authority; for, though it has usually been ascribed to Servius or Donatus, yet the critics agree, that it was not written by either of them. Augustus, in the mean time, followed Mæcenas’s advice, and retained the government and from this time Mæcenas indulged himself, at vacant hours, in literary amusements, and the conversation of the men of letters. In the year 734 Virgil died, and left Augustus and Mæcenas heirs to his possessions. Mæcenas was excessively fond of this poet, who, of all the wits of the Augustan age, stood highest in his esteem; and, if the “Georgics” and the “Æneid” be owing to the good taste and encouragement of this patron, as there is some reason to think, posterity cannot commemorate him with too much gratitude. The author of the “Life of Virgil” tells us that the poet “published the Georgics in honour of Mæcenas, to whom they are addressed” and adds, that “they were recited to Augustus four days together at Atella, where he rested himself for some time, in his return from Actium, Mæcenas taking upon him the office of reciting, as oft as Virgil’s voice failed him.” Horace may be ranked next to Virgil in Mæcenas’s good graces we have already mentioned how and what time their friendship commenced. Propertius also acknowledges Mæcenas for his favourer and protector nor must Varius be forgot, though we have nothing of his remaining; since we find him highly praised by both Virgil and Horace. He was a writer of tragedies: and Quintilian thinks he may be compared with any of the ancieats. In a word, Mæcenas’s house was a place of refuge and welcome to all the learned of his time-, not only to Virgil, Horace, Propertius, and Varius, but to Fundanius, whom Horace extols as an admirable writer of comedies: to Fuscus Aristius, a noble grammarian, and Horace’s intimate friend to Plotius Tucca, who assisted Varius in correcting the “Æneid” after the death of Virgil to Valgius, a poet and very learned man, who, as Pliny tells us, dedicated a book to Augustus “De usu Herbarum;” to Asinius Pollio, an excellent tragic writer, and to several others, whom it would be tedious to mention. All these dedicated their works, or some part of them at least, to Mæcenas, and repeatedly celebrated his praises in them; and we may observe further, what Plutarch tells us, that even Augustus himself inscribed his “Commentaries” to him and to Agrippa.

, a celebrated Italian writer, and a marquis, was born of an illustrious family at Verona, in 1675, and was very early associated to the academy of the Arcadi at Home. At the age of twenty -seven, he distinguished himself at Verona, by supporting publicly a thesis on love, in which the ladies were the judges and assessors; and displayed at once his talents for gallantry, eloquence, and poetry. Anxious for glory of all kinds, he made his next effort in the army, and served as a volunteer at the battle of Donawert, in 1704; but the love of letters prevailed, and he returned into Italy. There his first literary enterprise, occasioned by an affair of honour, in which his elder brother was involved, was an earnest attack upon the practise of duelling. He brought against it all the arguments to which it is so evidently exposed; the opposite practice of the ancients, the suggestions of good sense, the interests of social life, and the injunctions of religion. He proceeded then to the drama, and produced his “Merope,” which was acted with the most brilliant success. Having thus purified tragedy, he proceeded to render the same service to comedy, and wrote one entitled “La Ceremonia,” which was much applauded. Jn 1732, he visited France, where he passed four years, caressed in the greatest degree for his talents and learning; and then went into England, where he was much esteemed, to Holland, and finally to Vienna, and was most honourably received hy the emperor Charles VI. After several years thus employed, he returned into Italy, and in literary activity, extended his attention to almost every subject of human knowledge. He died in 1755, at the age of eighty. He was gifted with a comprehensive genius, a lively wit, and a penetrating mind, eager for discoveries, and well calculated for making them. His disposition was cheerful, sincere, and disinterested, full of zeal for religion, and faithful in performing its duties. The people of Verona almost idolized him. During his last illness they offered public prayers for his recovery, and the council of state decreed solemn obsequies after his death, with the ceremony of a funeral oration in the cathedral of Verona.

, a French poet of the seventeenth century, was bred up as an advocate, and for some time followed that profession at Lyons. He then became a dramatic writer, and produced several pieces, of which the least bad is a tragedy called Artaxerxes; this has some plot, good sentiments, and characters tolerably supported. He then conceived the extraordinary project of writing an encyclopaedia in verse, which was to consist of ten volumes, each containing twenty thousand verses. Being asked, after some time, when this work would be finished “Very soon,” said he, “I have now only a hundred thousand verses to write.” His project, however, was cut off, notwithstanding this near approach to its conclusion, as he was murdered by thieves at Paris, in 1662. His verses were bad enough to account for his facility in producing them, yet he was a friend of Moliere. A part of his great work appeared in folio in 1663, with the magnificent title of “Science Universelle.” The preface was still more pompous: “Libraries,” says he, “will hereafter be for ornament only, not use.” Yet how few contain this wonderful work!

He wrote several works. The first and principal, as in-deed it gave rise to almost all that followed, was his “Be la Recherche de la Verite,” or his “Search after Truth,” printed at Paris in 1674, and afterwards augmented in several successive editions. His design in this book is to point out the errors into which we are daily led by our senses, imaginvvtion, and passions;. and to prescribe a method for discovering the truth, which he does, by starting the notion of seeing all things in God. Hence he is led to think and speak meanly of human knowledge, either as it lies in written books, or in the book of nature, compared with that light which displays itself from the ideal world; and by attending to which, with pure and defecated minds, he supposes knowledge to be most easily had. These sentiments, recommended by various beauties of style, made many admire his genius who could not understand, or agree to his principles. Locke, in his “Examination of Malebranche’s opinion of seeing all things in God,” styles him an “acute and ingenious author;” and tells us, that there are “a great many very fine thoughts, judicious reasonings, and uncommon reflections in his Recherche:” but in that piece, endeavours to refute the chief principles of his system. Brucker is of opinion that the doctrine of his “Search after Truth,” though in many respects original, is raised upon Cartesian principles, and is, in some particulars, Platonic. The author represents, in string colours, the causes of error, arising from the disorders of the imagination and passions, the abuse of liberty, and an implicit confidence in the senses. He explains the action of the animal spirits, the nature of memory; the connection of the brain with other parts of the body, and their influence upon the understanding and will. On the subject of intellect, he maintains, that thought alone is essential to mind, and deduces the imperfect state of science from the imperfection of the human understanding, as well as from the inconstancy of the will in inquiring after truth. Rejecting the ancient doctrine of species sent forth from material objects, and denying the power of the mind to produce ideas, he ascribes their production immediately to God; and asserts, that the human mind immediately perceives God, and sees all things in him. As he derives the imperfection of the human mind from its dependence upon the body, so he places its perfection in union with God, by means of the knowledge of truth and the love of virtue. Singular and paradoxical, Brucker adds, as the notion of “seeing all things in God,” and some other dogmas of this writer, must have appeared, the work was written with such elegance and splendour of diction, and its tenets were supported by such ingenious reasonings, that it obtained general applause, and procured the author a distinguished name among philosophers, and a numerous train of followers. Its popularity might, perhaps, he in part owing to the appeal which the author makes to the authority of St. Augustine, from whom he professes to have borrowed his hypothesis concerning the origin of ideas. The immediate intercourse which this doctrine supposes, between the human and the divine mind, has led some to remark a strong resemblance between the notions of Malebranche, and those of the sect called Quakers.

, of Antioch, a sophist, who was a teacher of rhetoric, and a member of the church of Antioch, is supposed to have lived about the year 900, though some authors have been inclined to place him earlier. He is a writer of little value, and abounds in words of a barbarous Greek. He must not be confounded with John of Antioch, another historian of the same place, who was a monk. We have a chronicle written by Malelas, which extends from the creation to the reign of Justinian, but is imperfect. His history was published by Edward Chilmead at Oxford, in 1691, in 8vo, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library; and republished among the Byzantine historians, as a kind of appendix, at Venice, in 1733. The Oxford edition contains an interpretation and notes by Chilmead, with three indexes, one of events, a second of authors, a third of barbarous words. Prefixed is a discourse concerning the author, by Humphrey Hody; and an epistle is subjoined from Bentley to Mill, with an index of authors who are there amended.

This poet was a man of a very singular humour; and many anecdotes are related of his peculiarities, by Racan, his friend and the writer of his life. A gentleman of the law, and of some distinction, brought him one day some indifferent commendatory verses on a lady; telling him at the same time, that some very particular considerations had induced him to compose them. Malherbe having run them over with a supercilious air, asked the gentleman bluntly, as his manner was, “whether, he had been sentenced to be hanged, or to make those verses?” His manner of punishing his servant was likewise characteristic, and partook not a little of the caprice of Swift. Besides twenty crowns a year, he allowed this servant ten-pence a day board wages, which in those times was very considerable; when therefore he had done any thing amiss, Malherbe would very gravely say: “My friend, an offence against your master is an offence against God, and must be expiated by prayer, fasting, and giving of alms; wherefore I shall now retrench five-pence out of your allowance, and give them to the poor on your account.” From other accounts it may be inferred that his impiety was at least equal to his wit. When the poor used to promise him that they would pray to God for him, he answered them, that “he did not believe they could have any great interest in heaven, since they were left in so bad a condition upon earth; and that he should be better pleased if the duke de Luyne, or same other favourite, had made him the same promise.” He would often say, that “the religion of gentlemen was that of their prince.” During his last sickness he was with great difficulty persuaded to confess to a priest; for which he gave this reason, that “he never used to confess but at Easter.” And some few moments before his death, when he had been in a lethargy two hours, he awaked on a suddea to reprove his landlady, who waited on him, for using a word that was not good French; saying to his confessor, who reprimanded him for it, that “”he could not help it, and that he would defend the purity of the French language to the last moment of his life."

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, is said to have descended from the Macgregors, a clan which became in the early part of the last century, under the conduct of one Robin Roy, so formidable for violence and robbery, that the name was annulled by a legal prohibition; and when they we,re all to denominate themselves anew, the father, as is supposed, of our author called himself Malloch. This father, James Malloch, kept a publichouse at Crieff, co. Perth, in Scotland, where David was born, probably about 170O. Of his early years we have but scanty and discordant memorials, some accounts placing him at first in a menial situation in the university of Edinburgh; others informing us that he was educated at the university of Aberdeen. The latter seems most probable, as he wrote and even printed some lines on the repairs of that university, in which he could not have been interested, had he not studied there for some time. That he afterwards went to Edinburgh is not improbable, and it is aU most certain that he had in some way distinguished himself at that university, for when the duke of Montrose applied to the professors for a tutor to educate his sons, they recommended Malloch; a mark of their high opinion of him; and the office was of importance enongh to have excited the wishes of many candidates, there being no surer step to future advancement.

Mr. Mallet’s stature, says Dr. Johnson, “was diminutive, but he was regularly formed. His appearance, till he grew corpulent, was agreeable, and he suffered it to want no recommendation that dress could give it. His conversation was elegant and easy.” Of his character in other respects, it would be unnecessary to add any thing to the preceding facts. As a writer he cannot be placed in any high class, nor is there any species of composition in, which. he is eminent yet his poetry surely entitles him to a place in every collection of English bards. In his poems as well as his prose compositions, elegance of style predominates, and he appears to have written with ease. His “Life of Lord Bacon,” prefixed to an edition of that illustrious philosopher’s works in 1740, has been censured as touching too little on the philosophical part of the character. The writing it, however, was probably a matter of necessity rather than choice, and while he could not afford to refuse the employment, he was too conscious of his inability to attempt any other than what he has accomplished, an elegant narrative of the events of lord Bacon’s life. Of Mallet’s works, prose and verse, an edition was published in 1769, 3 vols. small 8vo.

Having concluded his laborious work, Mr. Malone paid a visit to his friends in Ireland; but soon after returned to his usual occupations in London. Amidst his own numerous and pressing avocations he was not inattentive to the calls of friendship. In 1791 appeared Mr. Boswell’s Life of Dr. Johnson, a work in which Mr. Malone felt at all times a very lively interest, and gave every assistance to its author during its progress which it was in his power to bestow. His acquaintance with this gentleman commenced in 1785, when, happening accidentally at Mr. Baldwin’s printing-house to be shewn a sheet of the Tour to the Hebrides, which contained Johnson’s character, he was so much struck with the spirit and fidelity of the portrait, that he requested to be introduced to its writer. From this period a friendship took place between them, which ripened into the strictest and most cordial intimacy, and lasted without interruption as long as Mr. Boswell lived. After his death, in 1795, Mr. Malone continued to show every mark of affectionate attention towards his family; and in every successive edition of Johnson’s Life took the most unwearied pains to render it as much as possible correct and perfect. He illustrated it with many notes of his own, and procured many valuable communications from his friends, among whom its readers will readily distinguish Mr. Bindley. Any account of Mr. Malone would be imperfect which omitted to mention his long intimacy with that gentleman, who is not so remarkable as the possessor of one of the most valuable libraries in this country, as he is for the accurate and extensive information which enables him to use it, and the benevolent politeness with which he is always willing to impart his knowledge to others. There was no one whom Mr. Malone more cordially loved.

, an eminent French chemist and physician, was born at Caen in 1701, and was the son of a counsellor, who sent him, when of a proper age, to study law at Paris. Young Malouin, however, as soon as he arrived there, without ever informing his father, began the study of medicine, and pursued it with such success as well as secrecy, that on his return home in 1730, his father, whom he had always satisfied in every respect as to moral conduct, expenses, &c. and who expected to see him return as a licentiate in law, was astonished to find him a doctor of medicine, but was obliged at the same time to yield to a choice which indicated so much zeal and decision. Nor was this a new profession in the family, his uncle and grandfather having both been physicians. After remaining at home about three years, he went again, to Paris, and assisted Geoffroi in his chemical lectures, and would probably have succeeded him had he been on the spot when he died; but it was not until 1767 that he was appointed in the room of Astruc, who was the immediate successor of Geoffroi. At Paris, where he got iiitd practice, it lay much among literary men, whom he found generally very incredulous in the virtues of medicine. Malouin, who was a perfect enthusiast in his art, had many contests with them on this account. When a certain great philosopher had been cured by taking Malouin’s prescriptions for a considerable time, and came to acknowledge the obligation, Malouin embraced him and exclaimed, “you deserve to be sick.” (Vous etes digne d'etre maladej. He could not, however, bear those who, after being cured, indulged their pleasantries at the expehce of the faculty, and he broke off his acquaintance with an eminent writer* who had been his patient, on this account. On another occasion, when one of these wits with whom he had had a warm dispute about his favourite art, and had quarrelled, fell ill, Malouin sought him out, and his first address was, “I know you are ill, and that your case has been improperly treated; I am now come to visit you, although I hate you; but I will cure you, and after that never see your face more,” and he kept his word in all these points. This was, however, in him pure enthusiasm, without any mixture of quackery. His liberal conduct and talents were universally acknowledged, and he filled with great reputation the honourable offices of professor of medicine in the college of Paris, and physician in ordinary to the queen. He was also a member of the academy of sciences, and of our royal society. His love of medicine did not hinder him from paying equal attention to preventatives, and he was distinguished for a habit of strict temperance, which preserved his health and spirits to the advanced age of seventy-seven, without any of its infirmities. His death was at last occasioned by a stroke of apoplexy, which happened Dec. 31, 1777. He left a legacy to the faculty on condition of their assembling once a year, and giving an account of their labours and discoveries. His principal works were, 1. “Traite” de Chimie,“1734, 12mo. 2.” Chimie medicinale,“1755, 2 vols. 12mo, a work iti a very elegant style, and including maiiy valuable observations. He wrote also several articles in the dictionary” Des arts et metiers,“published by the academy of sciences* and the chemical part of the” Encyclopedic."

, commonly called the marquis Malvezzi, an Italian writer of eminence, was born of a noble family at Bologna, in 1599. After having finished his classical and philosophical studies, he applied to the law, and became a doctor in that faculty in 1616, although not quite seventeen years of age. After this he cultivated other sciences, and spent some time and pains upon physic, mathematics, and divinity. He even did not neglect astrology; in favour of which he always entertained high prejudices, although he affected outwardly to despise it. Music and painting were also among the arts in which he exercised himself for his amusement. He afterwards became a soldier, and served under the duke Feria, governor of the Milanese. Philip the Fourth of Spain employed him in several affairs, and admitted him into his council of war. Letters, however, occupied a good part of his time, and he was member of the academy of the Gelati at Bologna. He was the author of several works in Spanish and Italian: among the latter were, “Discourses upon the first book of Tacitus’s Annals,” which he composed at the age of twenty-three, and dedicated to Ferdinand II. great duke of Tuscany. There is a great shew of learning in it; too much, indeed, for there are many quotations from the fathers and scripture, which have but little to do with Tacitus and modern politics. There are also in it certain logical distinctions, and subtile reasonings, which savour of pedantry, and had better become a professor of philosophy, than a writer upon government and stateaffairs. He died at Bologna, Aug. 11, 1654. His discourses upon Tacitus were translated and published in English, by sir R. Baker, Lond. 1642, folio. His “Davide perseguitato” was translated by Robert Ashley, 1647, in 12mo; his “Romulus and Tarquin,” by lord H. Gary, 1638, 12mo; and his “Successi della monarchia di Spagna” by Robert Gentilis, 1647, 12mo.

, a statesman and elegant writer, was born at Borgo Taro, a small town of the dukedom of Parma, on the 14th April, 1714. He was the eldest son of Marcel marquis of Ozzano, of an ancient family amongst the Parmesan nobility, and of a lady named Pellegrini, of birth equally illustrious. As soon as he arrived at an age competent for a learned education, he was placed in the college of Parma, where he went through all his studies with assiduity and success; and in the earliest period of his youth displayed that peculiar fondness for the belles lettres and fine arts, which afterwards constituted his predominant and almost exclusive passion. On quitting college, he repaired to his native place, where his father, with a view of giving him some knowledge of domestic economy, associated him in the management of his large estate, and thus gave him for some time rather more occupation than was compatible with his literary pursuits. After his father’s death he married a lady of noble birth, of the name of Antini; and soon added to his other occupations that of superintending the education of his children. In this way he spent many years, on his manor of Borgo Taro, and occasionally gave specimens of his talents in painting and poetry. His performances in the former art were not numerous or highly distinguished, and were only intended as presents to his friends; but in poetry he reached the highest degree of merit, and seemed to have well availed himself of those favourable circumstances which the spirit of the age had introduced. The abbe" Frugoni was then one of the most conspicuous leaders of the new poetical band; and having fixed his residence at Parma, he naturally became, in that small metropolis, the head of a school, in which, by exploding the frequent antitheses, the inflation of style, the wantonness of conceits, and the gigantic strains of imagination, he introduced an easy, regular, descriptive, sentimental, and elegant poesy, and what was more remarkable, gave to blank verse a strength and harmony till then unknown. Mr. Manara, although a professed admirer of Frugoni and his disciples, did not choose to be of their number as far as regarded their enthusiasm, imagery, rapidity of thoughts, and luxury of versification. He was conscious that his own poetical fire was like his temper, endowed with gentleness and sensibility; and with this spirit wrote those elegant eclogues, which soon proved rivals to the pastoral songs of the celebrated Pompei; and in the opinion of the best judges, united the flowing style of Virgil with the graces of Anacreon. His sonnets, too, though not numerous, might be put in competition with those of Petrarch.

Soon after his retreat from the ministry, though he had already reached the sixty-ninth year of his age, he thought of bestowing his now uninterrupted leisure on the translation of the other two books of the Georgics, a performance for which, owing to his past occupations, no hopes perhaps were entertained by the public. This task he actually performed with so much care, attention, and zeal, that these last two books were decidedly better translated than the two former; a truth of which the respectable writer himself was so convinced, that he carefully revised, and almost totally altered the preceding part of his work. This uncommon zeal, however, was attended by a fatal consequence; for being determined to copy, as he did, the whole manuscript with his own hand, he fell into a giddiness which prevented him from any literary labour during the last days of his life, and scarcely left him the power of perusing historical books and periodical works for the sake of amusement.

, a Roman catholic writer, was the son of lieutenant-colonel Manby, and after being educated at the university of Dublin, became chaplain to Dr. Michael Boyle, archbishop of -Dublin, and at length dean of Derry. During the reign of James II. in 1686, being disappointed of a bishopric, which he had hopes of obtaining by means of the lord primate, he attempted to rise by popish interest, and publicly embraced that religion, in vindication of which he wrote several books. But the revolution preventing the accomplishment of his wishes, he removed to France, and thence to England, and died at London in 1697. He wrote “A Letter to a Nonconformist minister,” Lond. 1677, 4to. 2. “A brief and practical Discourse on Abstinence in Lent,” Dublin, 1682, 4to. 3. “Of Confession to a lawful Priest,” &c. Lond. 1686, 4to. 4. “The Considerations which obliged Peter Manby, Dean of Derry, to embrace the Catholic religion. Dedicated to the Lord Primate of Ireland,” Dublin, 1687. This was ably answered by Mr. William King, afterwards archbishop of Dublin, and by Dr. Clagett in England. Manby replied to Mr. King, in “A reformed Catechism in two Dialogues,” the first only of which appeared in 1687, and was answered by King.

, was a Latin poet, who lay buried in the German libraries, and never was heard of in the modern world, till Poggius published him from some old manuscripts found there about two centuries ago. He is mentioned by no ancient writer, and the moderns are so little able to fix the time when he lived, that while some place him as high as the age of Augustus, others bring him down to the reign of Theodosius the Great. Indeed, the only account to be had of him must be drawn from hi poem; and from this, his translator Creech thinks that he was born a Roman, and lived in Rome, when Rome was in her glory, as he says appears from several passages in the poem. In the beginning of it he invokes the emperor; who from the description must be Augustus Csesar. Creech likewise infers that he was of illustrious extraction, and a branch of that noble family the Manilii, who so often filled the consul’s chair, and supplied the greatest offices in the commonwealth. Some, indeed, have thought that he was a Tyrian slave, and that being made free, he took, ao cording to custom, the name of his patron. But this seems very improbable; and he almost, says Creech, expressly declares the contrary in the fortieth verse of his fourth book, where he shews a concern for the interest of the Roman commonwealth, as far back as the age of Hannibal:

, an English lady, authoress of a noted piece of scandal called “The Atalantis,” was born in Guernsey, or one of those small islands, of which her father, sir Roger Mauley, was governor. He wa* the second son of an ancient family, and had been a great sufferer for his loyalty in the reign of Charles I. without receiving either preferment or recompense in that of Charles II. He was a man of considerable literary talents, wnich appeared in several publications, particularly his Latin commentaries on the rebellion, under the title of “Commentaria de Rebelhone Anglicana, ab anno 1640 ad annum 1685,” Lond. 1686, 8vo, and of which an English translation was published in 1691; and his “History of the late wars of Denmark,” 1670. He is also said to have been the author of the first volume of the “Turkish Spy,” which was found among his papers, and continued to its present number of volumes by Dr. Midgley, a physician, who had the care of his papers; but this has been justly doubted (See Marana). His daughter, the subject of this article, received an education suitable to her birth, and gave indications of genius above her years, and, as her biographer says, “much superior to what is usually to be found amongst her sex.” The loss of her parents before she was settled in life, seems to have been peculiarly unfortunate, for her father confided the care of her to his nephew, a married man, who first pretended that his wife was dead, then by a series of seductive manoeuvres cheated her into a marriage. When he could no longer conceal his infamy, he deserted her, and the world tamed its back upon her. While in this situation, she accidentally acquired the patronage of the duchess of Cleveland, one of Charles II.'s mistresses, having been introduced to her by an acquaintance to whom she was paying a visit; but the duchess, a woman of a very fickle temper, grew tired of Mrs. Manley in six months, and discharged her upon a pretence that she intrigued with her son. When this lady was thus dismissed, she was solicited by general Tidcomb to pass some time with him at his country-seat; but she excused herself by saying, “that her love of solitude was improved by her disgust of the world; and since it was impossible for her to be in public with reputation, she was resolved to remain concealed.” In this solitude she wrote her first tragedy, called “The Royal Mischief,” which was acted at the theatre in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, in 1696. This play succeeded, and she received such unbounded incense from admirers, that her apartment was crowded with men of wit and gaiety, which proved in the end very fatal to her virtue, and she afterwards engaged in various intrigues. In her retired hours she wrote her four volumes of the “Memoirs of the New Atalantis,” in which she was very free with her own sex, in her wanton description of loveadventures, and with the characters of many high and distinguished personages. Her father had always been attached to the cause of Charles I. and she herself having a confirmed aversion to the Whig ministry, took this method of satirising those who had brought about the revolution. Upon this a warrant was granted from the secretary of state’s office, to seize the printer and publisher of those volumes. Mrs. Mauley had too much generosity to let innocent persons suffer on her account; and therefore voluntarily presented herself before the court of King’s -bench, as the author of the “Atalantis.' 1 When she was examined before lord Sunderland, then the secretary, he was curious to know from whom she got information of some particulars which they imagined to be above her own intelligence. She pleaded that her only design in writing was her own amusement and diversion in the country, without intending particular reflections and characters; and assured them that nobody was concerned with her. When this was not believed, and the contrary urged against her by several circumstances, she said,” then it must be by inspiration, because, knowing her own innocence, she could account for it no other way.“The secretary replied, that” inspiration used to be upon a good account; but that her writings were stark naught.“She acknowledged, that” his lordship’s observation might be true; but, as there were evil angels as well as good, that what she had wrote might still be by inspiration.“The consequence of this examination was, that Mrs. Manley was close shut up in a messenger’s house, without being allowed pen, ink, and paper. Her counsel, however, sued out her habeas corpus at the King’s-bench bar, and she was admitted to bail. Whether those in power were ashamed to bring a woman to a trial for this book, or whether the laws could not reach her, because she had disguised her satire under romantic names, and a feigned scene of action, she was discharged, after several times exposing herself in person, to oppose the court before the bench of judges, with her three attendants, the printer, and two publishers. Not long after, a total change of the ministry ensued, when she lived in high reputation and gaiety, and aroused herself in writing poems and letters, and conversing with wits. To her dramatic pieces she now added” Lucius,“the first Christian king of Britain, a tragedy, acted in Drury-lane, in 1717. She dedicated it to sir Richard Steele, whom she had abused in her” New Atalantis,“but was now upon such friendly terms with him, that he wrote the prologue to this play, as Mr. Prior did the epilogue. This was followed by her comedy called the” Lost Lover, or the Jealous Husband,“acted in 1696. She was also employed in writing for queen Anne’s ministry, certainly with the consent and privity, if not under the direction, of Dr Swift, and was the author of” The Vindication of the Duke of Maryborough,“and other pamphlets, some of which would not disgrace the best pen then engaged in the” defence of government. After dean Swift relinquished “The Examiner,” she continued it with great spirit for a considerable time, and frequently finished pieces begun by that excellent writer, who also often used to furnish her with hints for those of her own composition. At this season she formed a connection with Mr. John Barber, alderman of London, with whom she lived in a state of concubinage, as is supposed, and at whose house she died July 11, 1724.

, an eminent Italian writer, was born at Florence, April 8, 16yO He was early distinguished by great powers of retention, and a strong passion for research into facts, two attributes for which he was celebrated during the whole of his life. He was regularly instituted in every class of literature, but his particular bias was to history, in which he began his career by inquiries into the modern history of his native city. This produced in 1722 his “Series of Florentine Senators,” 2 vols. fol. a work which, under the modest garb of a collection of notices on private individuals, exhibited the most original, authentic, and curious information respecting the public law and government of Tuscany, from the extinction of the line of the marquises, to the creation of the grand dukes in 1332. In 1731 he published a work of yet greater interest, “De Florentine inventis Commentarium,” in which he gave the most satisfactory account of the manufactures which either originated or were improved in Florence; he showed how the art of banking was there first invented; how, in the subsequent times, the art ef engraving also originated there, &c. Among the discoveries made at Florence in the middle ages, there was one so highly beneficial as to demand * methodical disquisition for itself alone; this was the invention of spectacles, which in 1738 Manni illustrated by his “Historical Treatise on Spectacles.” In this, after a careful examination of evidence, he is inclined to attribute the invention to Salvino Armati.

, a celebrated Russian officer and writer, was born at Petersburgh in 1711. He was first a lieutenant in the Prussian service, and afterwards a captain of genadiers in the Russian regiment of Petersburgh. At the death of the czarina Anne, he was employed to arrest the Birons, who were then the regents and the tyrants of the young prince Iwan III. who rewarded his services by the rank of colonel, and some estates in Ingria. But when the throne of that prince was seized by the czarina Elizabeth, Manstein lost at once his regiment and his lands. Some time after, he entered again into the Prussian service, where he acted as a volunteer in 1745; and having sufficiently signalized his abilities and courage, was appointed major-general of infantry in 1754. In the war of 1756, he fell the very second year by a shot; leaving two sons and four daughters. His “Memoirs of Russia,” printed at Lyons in 1772, in 2 vols. 8vo, are at once historical, political, and military. They contain the principal revolutions of that empire, and the wars of the Russians against the Turks and Tartars; besides a short sketch of the military and marine establishments, and also of the commerce of his country. These memoirs comTnence in 1727, with the reign of Peter II. and close with the first year of the empress Elizabeth. They are considered as deserving of much reliance from the truth of the facts, and the sincerity of the author.

, was a counsellor in the parliament of Dijon, deeply versed in literature and history, and esteemed almost as elegant a writer in Latin as the president de Thou, whom he had made his model. He died May 16, 1687, after having published several works, of which the most known is, his “Commentarius de Bello Burgundico.” This makes a part of his “Historicorum Burgundise conspectus,” published in 4to, in 1689. He wrote also “Huberti Langueti vita,” published by J. P. Ludwig, at Halle, 170O, 12D1O.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, Aug. 15, 1750, and was bred up to the bar, which he quitted for the more general pursuits of literature. He became librarian to the Mazarine college, and from time to time published a great many works, on various subjects of polite literature, criticism, manners, poetry, &c. most of which shew considerable genius and learning, and all were well received by the public. His very amiable private character appears to have procured him many friends and much respect, although his principles were not always sound, his person had little to recommend it, and an impediment in his speech rendered his conversation somewhat painful. He retired to the country about the close of his life, as he said, “that he might enjoy the sun more at his ease.” He died at Montrouge, Jan. 18, 1805. His principal works are: 1. “De Bergeries,” 1770, 12mo. 2. “Le Temple de Hymen,” 1771, 12mo. 3. “Bibliotheque des Amans,” 1777, J6mo. 4. “Tombeau de J. J. Rousseau,” 1779, 8vo. 5. “Le Livre de tous les ages,” 1779, 12mo. 6. “Fcagmens d'un poeme moral sur Dieu, ou, Nouvelle Lucrece,” 1781, a poem which the Diet. Hist, says is neither moral nor religious. 7. “L‘age d’or,” 1782, 12mo, an agreeable collection of anecdotes. 8. “Prophetic d'Arlamek,” 12mo. 9. “Livre echappe” au deluge,“1784, 12mo, a collection of psalms in the orie'ntal style, of which the moral is pure; but we are told it afforded his enemies a pretence to get him dismissed from his office of librarian to the Mazarine college. 10.” Recueil des poetes moralistes Franais r “1784, 2 vols. 18mo. 11.” Costumes civils actuels de tous les peuples,“1784, 4to. 12.” Tableau de la fable,“1787. 13.” Paris et la Province, ou Choix des plus beaux moriumens d'architecture en France,“1787. 14.” Catechisme de cure 1 Meslier,“1789, 8vo. 15.” Dictionnaire d'amour,“1789, 16mo. 16.” Le Pantheon, ou les figures de la fable, avec leurs histoires,“1791, 8vo. 17.” Almanee des honnetes gens,“1788, a publication containing some impieties, for which he suffered imprisonment. 18. ”Decades tlu cultivateur,“2 vols. 18mo. 19.” Voyage de Pythagore,“1798, 16 vols. 8vo, in imitation of the Anacharsis of Barthelemi, but greatly inferior. 20.” Dictionnaire des athees," 1800. He was also the author of prefaces and introductions to various collections of engravings, as the hjstory of Greece, 1795, 5 vols. 4to, the Florence Museum, 6 vols. 4to, &C.

, a laborious Dominican, was born about 1580, at Venice, of the noble family of Pinardi, He taught philosophy and theology for some time, but afterwards refused all offices in his order, that he might be more at liberty to study. He died 1660, at Venice, aged eighty, leaving several large theological works, the most curious among which is entitled “Bibliotheca Interpretum ad universam summam D. Thomae,” 1669, 4 vols. folio; and several “Declamations,” in Italian, against the liberties of the Galilean church, which involved the writer in great troubles, and occasioned him to be twice driven from Venice.

, a writer of several romances or novels much esteemed in France, was born at Marseilles in 1697, his family having been originally of Genoa. He was early in orders, and settled at Avignon, where, as a minim, he was much employed in all the offices of his order, and preached against the Jews with no little success. He published some works on pious discipline, which were much esteemed, and gained him the favour of pope Clement XIII. From this pontiff he received several marks of honour, and was employed by him to collect the “Acts of the Martyrs.” He had composed only two volumes in 12mo of this work, when he was seized with a dropsy in the heart, and died April 3, 1767, in his seventieth year. He was much esteemed by all worthy men; and his novels, as well as his other writings, were calculated to serve the cause of virtue and religion. The principal of his works are 1. “Conduct of Sister Violet, who died in odour of sanctity, at Avignon,” 12mo. 2. “Adelaide de Vitzburg, or the pious pensioner,” 12mo. 3. “The perfect Nun,” 12mo. 4. “Virginia, or the Christian Virgin,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Lives of the Solitaries of the East,” 9 vols. 12mo. 6. “Baron Van-Hesden, or the Republic of Unbelievers,” 5 vols. 12mo. 7. “Theodule, or the Child of Blessing,” 16mo. 8. “Farfalla, or the converted Actress,” 12mo. 9. “Retreat for a Day in each Month,” 2 vols. 12mo. 10. “Spiritual Letters,” 1769, 2 vols. 12mo; and a few more of less consequence.

, a celebrated French writer of the drama and of romance, was born at Paris in 1688. His father was of a good family in Normandy; his fortune was considerable, and he spared nothing in the education of his son, who discovered uncommon talents, and a most amiable disposition. His first object was the theatre, where he met with the highest success in comic productions; and these, with the merit of his other works, procured him a place in the French academy. The great object of both his comedies and romances was, to convey an useful moral under the veil of wit and sentiment: “my only object,” says he, “is to make men more just and more humane;” and he was as amiable in his life and conversation as in his writings. He was compassionate and humane, and a strenuous advocate for morality and religion. To relieve the indigent, to console the unfortunate, and to succour the oppressed, were duties which he not only recommended by his writings, but by his own practice and example. He would frequently ridicule the excessive credulity of infidels in matters of trivial importance; and once said to lord Bolingbroke, who was of that character, “If you cannot believe, it is not for want of faith.”

This likewise seems to confirm the opinion of some that he was an author by profession, and one of the earliest on record. Numerous, however, as were this writer’s works, his memory has not had the fate of being transmitted with any clearness to posterity. The time of his birth, death, and all other particulars regarding him, are utterly unknown.

In 1760, Mr. Markland printed in quarto, at the expence of his friend William Hall, esq. of the Temple, an excellent little treatise, under the title of “De Grsecorum quinta declinatione imparisyllabica, et inde formata Latinorum tertia, quaestio Grammatica,” 4to. No more than forty copies having been printed, which were all given away, it was annexed, in 1763, to an edition of Euripides’s “Supplices Mulieres,” 4to. This book was published without the editor’s name perhaps owing to the discouragement shewn to critical learning, as appears from a memorandum of his own hand-writing in a copy of it, in which he says, “There were only 250 copies printed, this kind ol study being at that time greatly neglected in England. The writer of the notes was then old and infirm; and, having by him several things of the same sort, written many years before, he did not think it w&rth while to revise them; and was unwilling to leave them behind him. as they were, in many places not legible to any body but himself; for which reason he destroyed them. Probably it will be a long time, if ever, before this sort of learning will revive in England; in which it is easy to foresee, that there must be a disturbance in a few years, and all public disorders are enemies to this sort of literature.” In the same dejected tone he speaks, in 1772, of the edition of Euripides lately published: “The Oxonians, I hear, are about to publish Euripides in quarto; two volumes, I suppose. Dr. Musgrave helps them with his collections, and perhaps conjectures. In my opinion, this is no time for such works; I mean for the undertakers.”

, a dramatic writer, was born of an ancient family at Aynhoe in Northamptonshire, about the beginning of January, 1602. He went to school at Thame in Oxfordshire, and was thence removed to Wadham-college, Oxford, as a gentleman-commoner, and took his master of arts’ degree in 1624. Wood says, that “he was a goodly proper gentleman, and had once in his possession seven hundred pounds per annum at least.” The whole of this he dissipated, and afterwards went to serve in the Low Countries. Not being promoted there, after three campaigns, he returned to England, and was admitted in 1639, by sir John Suckling, into a troop raised for Charles I. in his expedition against Scotland, but at York he fell sick, and was obliged to return to London, where he died the same year. Marmion, although not a voluminous writer, for he produced only four dramas, is considered by the author of the Biographia Dramatica as one of the best among the dramatic writers of his time. “His plots are ingenious,” says that author, “his characters well drawn, and his language not only easy and dramatic, but full of lively wit and solid understanding.” His plays are, 1 “Holland’s Leaguer, an excellent comedy, as it hath bin lately and often acted with great applause, by the high and mighty prince Charles his servants, at the private house in Salisbury court,” 1632, 4to. According to Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, there was a tract in prose, published under the same title of “Holland’s Leaguer,” in the same year, from which this drama might possibly be taken 2. “A fine Companion, acted before the King and Queen at Whitehall, and sundrie times with great applause at the private house in Salisbury-court, by the Prince his servants,” 1633, 4to. 3. “The Antiquary, a comedy, acted by her Majesty’s servants at the Cockpit,” 1641, 4to. This is also printed in Dodsley’s Collection of Old Plays, vol. X. second edition. The Biographia Dramatica, and other books, add to these, 4. “The Crafty Merchant, or the Souldier'd Citizen;” which, as welt as the rest, was a comedy; but they all state that it was never printed, and neglect to tell where it is extant in manuscript. He also published, 5. “Cupid and Psiche; or an epic poem of Cupid and his Mistress, as it was lately presented to the Prince Elector.” Prefixed to this are complimentary verses, by Richard Brome, Francis Tuckyr, Thomas N abbes, and Thomas Hey wood. He wrote, be sides these, several poems, which are scattered in different publications; and Wood says that he left some things in ms. ready for the press, but what became of them is not known.

He was fifty-four before he married but this step, there is every reason to think, added much to his felicity, and secured the regular habits of his life. His reputation as a writer, although it was gradually augmented by his various publications, his plays, operas, poems, eloges, and other compositions on miscellaneous subjects, rests now principally on his “Tales,” in this country, and on his Belisarius and Incas on the continent. His “Tales” have never been surpassed for lively and characteristic dialogue and sentiment, and have been such universal favourites, that there is no European language into which they have not been translated. They speak, indeed, to the passions of general nature, but the author’s imagination is not always under the strictest guidance of his judgment, and they are not among the books which we should recommend to young readers. Of this the French themselves appear sensible, and they are of opinion that the “New Tales,” which he wrote at a more advanced period of life, better deserve the epithet “Moral.” So valuable, however, have they appeared to dramatic writers, that they have formed not only the plot, but much of the dialogue of some very favourite pieces, both on the English and French stage. Since his decease, his “Life” written by himself has been published and translated into English. Of his former works, the best French edition is that of 1787, 32 vols. 8vo.

, a very learned English writer, was the second son of Thomas Marsham, esq. alderman of London, and born in the parish of St. Bartholomew’s, Aug. 23, 1602. He was brought up at Westminster school, and sent thence, in 1619, to St. John’s college in Oxford, where betook, in due time, his degrees in arts. In 1625, he went to France, and spent the winter at Paris; in 1626 and 1627, he visited most parts of that kingdom, and of Italy, and some parts of Germany, and then returned to London. In 1629, he went through Holland and Guelderland, to the siege of Boisleduc; and thence by Flushing to Boulogne and Paris, in the retinue of sir Thomas Edmondes, ambassador extraordinary, who was sent to take the oath of Louis XIII. to the peace newly concluded between England and France. During his residence in London, he studied the law in the Middle Temple; and, in 1638, was sworn one of the six clerks in chancery. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he followed the king and the great seal to Oxford for which he was deprived of his place by the parliamentarians, and suffered a vast loss by the plundering of his estate. After the surrender of the garrison at Oxford, and the ruin of the king’s affairs, he returned to London; and, having compounded for his estate, he betook himself wholly to retirement and study. In the beginning of 1660, he served as a burgess for the city of Rochester, in the parliament which recalled Charles the Second; about which time, being restored to his place in chancery, he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, and three years after was created a baronet. He died at Bushy-hall in Hertfordshire, in May 1685; and his body was interred at Cuckstone near Rochester, where he had an estate. By Elizabeth his wife, daughter of sir William Hammond of St. Alban’s, in East Kent, he left two sons; sir John Marsham, of Cuckstone, bart. and sir Robert Marsham, of Bushy-hall, knt. both of them studious and learned men, and the ancestors of the Romney family. Sir John Marsham was a very accomplished gentleman, and had acquired a critical knowledge of history, chronology, and languages. He published in 1649, 4to, “Diatriba chronologica;” in which he examines succinctly the principal difficulties which occur in the chronology of the Old Testament.“The greatest part of this was afterwards inserted in another work, entitled” Canon chronicus, Ægyptiacus, Ebraicus, Groecus, & disquisitiones,“Lond. 1672, folio. The principal object of this is to reconcile the Egyptian dynasties. The Egyptians, as is well known, pretended to excessive antiquity, and had framed a list of thirty successive dynasties, which amounted to a number of years (36,525) greatly exceeding the age of the world. These were rejected as fabulous by some of the ablest chronologers; but sir John Marsham first conjectured that these dynasties were not successive, but collateral; and therefore without rejecting any, he endeavoured to reconcile the entire series in this manner, to the scripture chronology. The attempt, which was highly ingenious, gained him great reputation, and many contemporary as well as succeeding authors, have been liberal in their praises. Mr. Wotton represents him as the first” who has made the Egyptian antiquities intelligible: that most learned gentleman,“says he,” has reduced the wild heap of Egyptian dynasties into as narrow a compass as the history of Moses according to the Hebrew account, by the help of a table of the Theban kings, which he found under Eratosthenes’s name in the Chronography of Syncellus. For, by that table, he, 1. Distinguished the fabulous and mystical part of the Egyptian history, from that which seems to look like matter of fact. 2. He reduced the dynasties into collateral families, reigning at the same time in several parts of the country; which, as some learned men saw before, was the only way to make those antiquities consistent with themselves, which, till then, were confused and incoherent.“Dr. Shuckford, after having represented the foundation of sir John Marsham’s Canon with regard to Egypt, says that,” upon these hints and observations, he has opened to us a prospect of coming at an history of the succession of the kings of Egypt, and that in a method so natural and easy, that it must approve itself to any person who enters truly into the design and conduct of it.“Afterwards, having given a view of sir John’s scheme, from the beginning of the reigns of the Egyptian kings down to his Sesostris, or Sesac, he observes, that,” if the reader will take the pains thoroughly to examine it, if he will take it in pieces into all its parts, review the materials of which it is formed, consider how they He in the authors from whom they are taken, and what manner of collecting and disposing them is made use of, he will find that however in some lesser points a variation from our very learned author may be defensible, yet no tolerable scheme can be formed of the ancient Egyptian history, that is not in the main agreeing with him. Sir John Marsham has led us to a clear and natural place for the name of every Egyptian king, and time of his reign," &c. But although sir John Marsham’s system has been followed by some, it has been strenuously opposed by other writers, who have represented it as not only false, but even prejudicial to revelation.

Marston contributed eight plays to the stage, which were all acted at the Black-Friars with applause and one of them, called “The Dutch Courtezan,” was once revived since, the restoration, under the title of “The Revenge, or a Match in Newgate.” In 1633, six of this author’s plays were collected, and published in one volume, dedicated to the lady viscountess Falkland. Besides his dramatic poetry, he wrote three books of satires, entitled, “The Scourge of Villainy,'” which were printed at London in 1599, and reprinted in 1764, by the rev. John Bowie. We have no account when Marston died; but he was certainly living in 1633. As a specimen of his poetry, Mr. Dodsley has republished the “Malecontent^” in his Collection of Old English Plays, vol. IV. Marston was a chaste and pure writer, avoiding all that obscenity, ribaldry, and scurrility which too many of the playwrights of that time, and much more so in periods since, have made the basis of their wit, to the great disgrace of the age. He abhorred such writers, and their works, and pursued so opposite a practice in his performances, that “whatsoever even in the spring of his years, he presented upon the public and private theatre, in his autumn and declining age he needed not be ashamed of.”

, a Latin poet, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Paris, and entered early into the society of Jesuits, where he displayed and cultivated very excellent literary talents. When he was hardly twenty, he published some Latin poems which gained him credit. His religious opinionsbeing soon found too bold for the society to which he belonged, he was obliged to quit it; and having published in 1754, an “Analysis of Bayle,” in 4 vols. 12mo, he fell into still greater and perhaps more merited disgrace. His books were proscribed by the parliament of Paris, and himself shut up in the Bastile. This book contains a compilation of the most offensive matter contained in the volumes of Bayle, and has since been republished in Holland, with four additional volumes. Having, for a time, regained his liberty, he was proceeding in his modern history (a work of which he had already published some volumes), when he died suddenly in December 1763. Besides the analysis of Bayle, already mentioned, he published, I. The History of Mary Stuart,“1742, 3 vols. 12mo, a correct and elegant work, in which he was assisted by Fréron. 2.” Memoires de Melvill,“translated from the English, 1745, S^vols. 12mo. 3.” Abridged Dictionary of Painting and Architecture,“2 vols. 12mo. 4.” Le Rabelais moderne,“or the works of Rabelais made intelligible to readers in geaeral, 1752, 8 vols. 12mo. This is by no means executed in a manner either satisfactory to the reader, or creditable to the author. Some of the obscurities are removed or explained, but all that is offensive to decency is left. 5.” The Prince,“translated from father Paul, 1751. 6.” The Modern History, intended to serve as a continuation of Rollin’s Ancient History,“in 26 vols. 12mo. This is written with regularity, but little elegance. The abbe Marsy has since had a continuator in Richer, who has written with less order, but more profundity of research, especially respecting America and Russia. 7.” Pictura," in 12mo, 1756. This poem on painting, is considered as less learned in the art, and in that respect less instructive, than that of du Fresnoy; but he has shown himself a more pure and original Latin poet. There is also a poem in Latin by this author, on tragedy. The opinion of his countrymen is, that his fame rests principally on these Latin poems, and that there was nothing brilliant in his literary career afterwards.

, a Florentine poet, born about 1500, wrote verses serious and grotesque. The former were published in 8vo, at Florence, in 1548; the latter appear in the second volume of “Poesie Bernesche.” 'He was also a celebrated dramatic writer. He died in 1527, when he was no more than twenty-eight years old. His brother Vincent was also a poet, and left some “Rime,” or lyrics, which were much esteemed. He died in 1556, and his poems and letters appeared in 1607.

, seems to be one of the first French writers who practised the plan, so little approved in England, of translating the ancient classical poets into prose. He gave in this way, versions of, 1. Terence. 2. Horace. 3. Juvenal and Persius. 4-. Virgil. 5. Ovid, entire, in 9 vols. 12 mo. These translations are in general clear and exact, but want elegance, and purity of style. This laborious writer published also lives of the archbishops, &c. of Paris, of the seventeenth century, in 4to. He died in 1698, at the age of seventy.

He had a valuable collection of fossils and curiosities of every species, which after his death were almost given away by public auction. He was indefatigable as an artist, and as a writer he had a very happy method of explaining his subject, and wrote with clearness, and even considerable elegance. He was chiefly eminent in the science of optics; but he was well skilled in the whole circle of the mathematical and philosophical sciences, and wrote useful books on every one of them; though he was not distinguished by any remarkable inventions or discoveries of his own. His publications were very numerous, and generally useful some of the principal of them were as follow 1 “The Philosophical Grammar,” already mentioned. 2. “A new, complete, and universal system or body of Decimal Arithmetic,” 1735, 8vo. 3. “The young student’s Memorial Book, or Patent Library,” 1735, 8vo. 4. “Description and use of both the Globes, the Armillary Sphere and Orrery,” 1736, 2 vols, 8vo. 5. “Elements of Geometry,” 1739, 8vo. 6. “Memoirs of the Academy of Paris,” 1740, 5 vols. 8vo. 7. “Panegyric of the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1754. 8. “On the new construction of the Globes,” 1755. 9. “System of the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1759, 3 vols. 8vo. 10. “New Elements of Optics,” 1759. 11. “Mathematical Institutions, viz. arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and fluxions,” 1759. 12. “Natural History of England, with a map of each county,” 1759, 2 vols. 8vo. 13. “Philology and Philosophical Geography,” 1759. 14. “Mathematical Institutions,” 1764, 2 vols. 15. “Biographia Philosophica, or Lives of Philosophers,” 1764, 8vo. 16. “Introduction to the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1765. 17. “Institutions of Astronomical Calculations,” two parts, 1765. 18. “Description and use of the Air Pump,” 1766. 19. “Description of the Torricellian Barometer,” 1766. 20. “Appendix to the Description and Use of the Globes,” 1766. 21. “Philosophia Britannica,” 1778, 3 vols. 22. “Philosophical Magazine.” This when complete consists of 14 volumes, but there are parts sold separately, as “The Miscellaneous Correspondence,” 4 vols. It was discontinued for want of encouragement, which, however, it appears to have deserved, as it afforded a very correct state of scientific knowledge at that time.

, a learned popish writer, whose name is so much connected with some protestant writers of eminence as to deserve a brief notice here, was born at Maxfield, near Winchelsea, in Sussex, and was admitted one of the original scholars of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1557, by sir Thomas White, the founder. In 1564 he proceeded M. A. and was afterwards taken into the family of Thomas, duke of Norfolk, as tutor to his children, and particularly to Philip, earl of Surrey. Such had been Martin’s reputation at college, that when the duke paid a visit to St. John’s, one of the society, in a Latin address to his grace, introduced his name with this panegyric: “Habes, illustrissime dux, Hebraeum nostrum, Grsecum nostrum, poetam nostrum, decus et gloriam nostrum,” implying that Martin was their best Hebrew and Greek scholar and poet, and an ornament to their college. Having embraced the Roman catholic religion, which he chose no longer to conceal, he went to the English college at Douay in 1570, where he was ordained priest in 1573, and licentiate in divinity in 1575. After a visit in the following year to Rome, he returned to Doway and taught Hebrew, and gave lectures on the Scriptures. When the college was removed to Rheims, he undertook to translate the Bible into English from the Vulgate, and Dodd is of opinion that what is called “The Rheims translation,” may be entirely ascribed to him. It was. not, however, published at one time. The New Testament appeared first atRheims and Antwerp, with Bristow’s notes, and the Old Testament several years afterwards, with the editor, Dr. Worthington’s notes. The New Testament, as we have noticed, under their respective articles, was answered by Fulk and Cartwright. Martin died Oct. 28, 1582, atRheims. He published some other works, a list of which may be seen, in Wood and Dodd, but is scarcely worth transcribing. Camden says that in 1584 a book of his appeared in which queen Elizabeth’s gentlewomen were exhorted to serve her as Judith had served Holofernes. The catholic "writers, however, deny this, and apparently with justice.

, a learned Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at Tanjaux in Upper Languedoc, in 1694, and became a Benedictine in 1709. After having taught the learned languages in his native province, he removed to the capital in 1727. He was there regarded as a man of a singular and violent temper; rather whimsical as a scholar, and not always sufficiently prudent or modest as a writer; yet he was one of the ablest authors produced by the congregation of St. Maur, and would have been excellent had he met with any judicious friend to correct the sallies of his too active imagination. His latter years were much embittered by the gravel and the gout, under the torments of which complaints he suffered, with great piety, a kind of lingering death, which did not dismiss him from his sufferings till 1751, when he was in his seventieth year. He wrote, 1. “A treatise on the Religion of the ancient Gauls,” Paris, 1727, 2 vols. 4to. This book is much esteemed for the curious and learned researches of the author; but contains some uncommon opinions, which have not been generally adopted by his readers. One point which he particularly labours, is to derive the religion of the ancient Gauls from that of the patriarchs. Tbis subject has been more successfully handled lately by Mr. Maurice, with the aid of oriental knowledge. 2. “History of the Gauls, &c. from their origin to the foundation of the French monarchy,” 1754, 2 vols. 4to, continued and published by his nephew de Brezillac, and much esteemed. 3. “An Explication of several difficult Texts of Scripture,” Paris, 1730, 2 vols. 4to. The fire, the ingenuity, and the presumption of the author, are sufficiently manifest in this book; which would be much more valuable if deprived of several discussions and citations about trifles, and some points by no means suited to a book of divinity. 4. “An Explanation of ancient Monuments, &c. wiih an examination of an edition of St. Jerom, and a treatise on Judicial Astrology,” Paris, 173u, 4to. Besides a vast scope of erudition, this book is adorned by many lively traits, and a very animated style. 5. “A Project for an Alphabetical Library,” containing much learning, and many misplaced witticisms. 6. “A Translation of -the Confessions of St. Augustin,” which is exact, and is accompanied with judicious notes.

, a very ingenious and witty English writer, was the son of Mr. Andrew Marvel!, minister and schoolmaster of Kingston upon -Hull, in Yorkshire, and was born in that town in 1620, His abilities being very great, his progress in letters was proportionable; so that, at thirteen, he was admitted of Trinity-college in Cambridge. But he had not been long there, when he fell into the hands of the Jesuits; for those busy agents of the Romish church, under the connivance of this, as well as the preceding reign, spared no pains to make proselytes; for which purpose several of them were planted in or near the universities, in order to make conquests among the young scholars. Marvell fell into their snares, as ChilJingworth had fallen before him, and was inveigled up to London; but his father being apprised of it soon after, pursued him, and finding him in a bookseller’s shop, prevailed with him to return to college. He afterwards applied to his studies with great assiduity, and took a bachelor of arts degree in 1639. About this time he lost his father, who was unfortunately drowned in crossing the Humber, as he was attending the daughter of aa intimate female friend; who by this event becoming childless, sent for young Marvell, and, by way of making all the return in her power, added considerably to his fortune. Upon this the plan of his education was enlarged, and he travelled through most of the polite parts of Europe. It appears that he had been at Rome, from his poem entitled “Flecknoe,” an English priest at Rome in which he has described with great humour that wretched poetaster, Mr. Richard Flecknoe, from whom Dryden gave the name of Mac- Flecknoe to his satire against Shadwell. During his travels, another occasion happened for the exercise of his wit. In France, he found much talk of Lancelot Joseph de Maniban, an abbot; who pretended to understand the characters of those he had never seen, and to prognosticate their good or bad fortune, from an inspection of their band-writing. This artist was handsomely lashed by our author, in a poem written upon the spot, and addressed to him. We know no more of Marvell for several years, only that he spent some time at Constantinople, where he resided as secretary to the English embassy at that court.

The first attack he made with his pen was in 1672, upon Dr. Parker, a man of parts and learning, but a furious partizan, and virulent writer on the side of arbitrary government, who at this time published “Bishop Bramhall’s Vindication of himself, and the rest of the episcopal clergy, from the presbyterian charge of popery, &c.” to which he added a preface of his own. This preface Marvell attacked, in a piece called “The Rehearsal transprosed; or, animadversions on a late book, intituled, A preface, shewing what grounds there are of fears and jealousies of Popery, the second impression, with additions and amendments. London, printed by J. D. for the assigns of John Calvin and Theodore Beza, at the sign of the king’s indulgence, on the south side of the Lake Leman; and sold by N. Ponder in Chancery-lane,” 1672,“in 8vo. The title of this piece is taken in part from the duke of Buckingham’s comedy, called” The Rehearsal;“and, as Dryden is ridiculed in that play under the name of Bayes, Marvell borrowed the same name for Parker, whom he exposed with much strength of argument, and force of humour. Parker answered Marvell in a letter entitled” A Reproof to the Rehearsal transprosed;“to which Marvell replied in,” The Rehearsal transprosed, the second part. Occasioned by two letters: the first printed by a nameless author, entitled A Reproof, &c. the second left for me at a friend’s house, dated Nov. 3, 1673, subscribed J. G. and concluding with these words: If thou darest to print any lie or libel against Dr. Parker, by the eternal God I will cut thy throat. Answered by Andrew Marvell,“Lond. 1673, 8vo. Marveil did not confine himself in these pieces to Parker’s principles, as they appear in the” Preface and the Reproof;“but he exposed and confuted likewise various opinions which the doctor had advanced in his” Ecclesiastical Polity,“published in 1670, and in his” Defence“of it in 167 1. Parker made no reply to Marvell’s last piece:” He judged it more prudent,“says Wood,” to lay down the cudgels, than to enter the lists again with an untowardly combatant, so hugely well versed and experienced in the then but newly refined art, though much in mode and fashion almost ever since, of sporting and buffoonery. It was generally thought, however, by many of those who were otherwise favourers of Parker’s cause, that the victory lay on Marvell’s side; and it wrought this good effect on Parker, that for ever after it took down his high spirit.“Burnet, speaking of Parker, says that,” after he had for some years entertained the nation with several virulent books, he was attacked by the liveliest droll of the age, who wrote in a burlesque strain; but with so peculiar and entertaining a conduct, that from the king down to the tradesman, his books were read with great pleasure. That not only humbled Parker, but the whole party; for the author of the Rehearsal transprosed had all the men of wit on his side.“Swift likewise, speaking of the usual fate of common answerers to books, and how short-lived their labours are, adds, that” there is indeed an exception, when any great genius thinks it worth his while to expose a foolish piece: so we still read MarvelPs answer to Parker with pleasure, though the book it answers be sunk long ago." Several other writers fell with great fury and violence upon Marvell; but Parker being considered as the principal, Marvell took but slight notice of the others.

Marvell died in 1678, in his fifty-eighth year, not without the strongest suspicions of being poisoned; for he was always very temperate, and of an healthful and strong constitution to the last. He was interred in the church of St. Giles’s in the Fields; and ten years after (in 1688), the town of Kingston upon Hull, to testify her grateful remembrance of his honest services to her, collected a sum of money to erect a monument over him, and procured an epitaph to be written by an able hand: but the minister of the parish forbid both the inscription and monument to be placed in that church. Wood tells us, that Marvell in his conversation was very modest, and of few words; and Cooke, the writer of his life, observes, that he was very reserved among those he did not well know, but a most delightful and improving companion among his friends. After his death were published, “Miscellaneous Poems,” in 1681, folio, with this advertisement to the reader prefixed:

The queen-mother being inclined to the interest of France, the young queen, by her care, was conveyed thither when but about six years old. After staying a few days with the king and queen at court, she was sent to a monastery, where the daughters of the chief nobility of the kingdom were educated. Here she spent her time in all the offices and duties of a monastic life; being constant in her devotions, and very observant of the discipline. She employed much of her study in learning languages; and she acquired so consummate a skill in Latin, that she spoke an oration of her own composing in that language, in the great guard- room at the Louvre, before the royal family and nobility of France*. She was naturally inclined to poetry, and made so great a progress in the art, as to be a writer herself. Her compositions were much esteemed by Ronsard, who was himself at that time accounted an excellent poet. She had a good taste for music, and played well upon several instruments; was a fine dancer, and sab a horse gracefully. But these last accomplishments she pursued rather out of necessity than choice; and, when she most followed her own inclinations, was employed among her women in needle-work.

They were married at St. James’s, Nov. 4, 1677; and, after receiving the proper congratulations from those who were concerned to pay them, embarked for Holland about a fortnight after, and made their entrance into the Hague with the utmost pomp and magnificence. Here she lived with her consort, practising every virtue and every duty; till, upon a solemn invitation from the states of England, she followed him thither, and arrived at Whitehall, Feb. 12, 1689. The prince of Orange had arrived Nov. 5 preceding; and the occasion of their coming was to deliver the kingdom from that popery and slavery which were just ready to oppress it. King James abdicated the crown; and it was put on their heads, as next heirs, April 11, 1689. They reigned jointly till Dec. 28, 1694, when the queen died of the small-pox at her palace of Kensington. It would lead to an excursion of too much extent, to describe the many virtues and excellences of this amiable princess; a picture of her, however, may be seen in Burnet’s Essay on her memory, printed in 1695, which contains a delineation of every female virtue, and of every female grace. He represents her saying, that she looked upon idleness as the great corrupter of human nature, and as believing, that if the mind had no employment given it, it would create some of the worst to itself: and she thought that any thing which might amuse and divert, without leaving a dreg and impression behind it, ought to fill up those vacant hours that were not claimed by devotion or business. When her eyes, adds the bishop, were endangered by reading too much, she found out the amusement of work; and in all those hours that were not given to better employments, she wrought with her own hands, and that sometimes with so constant a diligence, as if she had been to earn her bread by it. It is said by another writer, that when reflections were once made before queen Mary of the sharpness of some historians who had left heavy imputations on the memory of certain princes, she answered, “that if these princes were truly such as the historians represented them, they had well deserved that treatment and others who tread their steps might look for the same for truth would be told at last.” This excellent princess was so composed upon her deathbed, that when archbishop Tillotson, who assisted her in her last moments, stopped, with tears in his eyes, on coming to the commendatory prayer in the office for the sick, she said to him, “My lord, why do you not go on? I am not afraid to die.”

, a Jesuit, and a writer of Latin poetry, was born at Dalen in the dutchy of Juliers, in 1606. He professed eloquence and poetry with great credit at Cologne; and wrote, among other things, a long Latin poem entitled “Sarcotis,” or “Sarcothea,” which Lauder brought into new celebrity, by pretending that Milton had borrowed from it. It was an allegory describing the fall of man. Masenius wrote good Latin, and good verses, but full of amplification and declamation. The tracts occasioned by Lander’s accusation of Milton, were translated into French, and published collectively by Barbou, in 2 vols. 12mo, in 1759. Masenius produced also, 1. A kind of art of poetry, under the title of “Palaestra eloquentiae ligatae,” in 4 vols. 12mo. 2. Another treatise entitled “Palaestra styli Romani.” 3. “Anima Historic, seu vita Caroli V. et Ferdinandi,” in 4to. 4. Notes and additions to the Antiquitates et Annales Trevirensium, by Brower, 1670, in folio. 5. “Epitome Annalium Trevirensium,” 1676, 8vo. He died in 1681.

As a poet, his name has been so frequently coupled with that of Gray, and their merits have been supposed to approach so nearly, that what has been said of the one will in some degree apply to the other. It is evident that they studied in the same school, and mutually cultivated those opinions which aim at restoring a purer species of poetry than was taught in the school of their predecessor Pope. Whether we consider Mason as a lyric, dramatic, or didactic writer, we find the same grandeur of outline, the same daring and inventive ambition which carries out of the common track of versification and sentiment into the higher regions of imagination. His attachment to the sister art, and his frequent contemplation of the more striking and sublime objects of nature, inclined him to the descriptive; and his landscapes have a warmth and colouring, often rich and harmonious, but perhaps too frequently marked with a glare of manner peculiar to the artist. His compositions, however, even on the same subject, have all the variety of a fertile invention. Although we have Evening, Morning, &c. often depicted, they are to be distinguished, and the preference we are inclined to give is regulated by the feeling which the varieties of natural appearances excite in different minds, and in the same mind at different times.

What our author has here remarked concerning internal evidence, has probably occurred to all who fixed their suspicions on him. From the works published under his name, no person could for a moment suppose him to be a man of humour, or inclined to personal and political satire. He might even have asked whether it was probable that a man whose pen had been uniformly devoted to solemn and serious poetry, and who had never brought forward the shadow of a claim for the honours of wit, should at an advanced period of life suddenly eclipse his contemporaries and some of his predecessors by exhibiting a humour which he had never been suspected to possess, and a spirit which would have better become a Paul Whitehead, or a Charles Churchill: and that he should carry this humour and this spirit through six poems of no inconsiderable length, on dissimilar subjects. Yet as even this, however remarkable, is not beyond the reach of genius, it was surely in his power to bring the question to a more prompt issue. But this he evades, and uses every argument against Mr.Warton’s opinion but that which must have at once refuted it, the plain and flat denial of a man of honour and principle. On this account, therefore, the “Heroic Epistle,” and the other pieces published under the name of Macgregor, are now added to Mr. Mason’s works, but not without a wish that they could have been attributed to some writer of less private and public worth. If they be his, they will add to his literary reputation, by placing him among the first satirical poets of his day, if not above the first; but whoever contemplates the disaffected spirit in which they are written, will probably be of opinion that by adopting the floating invectives and prejudices of a party and of a turbulent period, he did not consult the consistency of his character, or the dignity of his Muse.

, an ingenious and learned French writer, was born in 1665, of a good family at Caen, where he continued till he had gone through the classics. At sixteen he went to Paris, and performed a course of philosophy in the college of the Jesuits; and, after he had finished his noviciate, was appointed, according to the usage of the society, to teach polite literature. They sent him to Rennes to teach rhetoric; and, after a due time, he returned to Paris to study theology: for succeeding in which he seemed so particularly formed, that his superiors desired him to devote himself wholly to it. This destination affected him much, his love of the belles lettres far exceeding his taste for theology; and therefore he quitted his society, and re-entered the world. His uncommon talents soon made him known, and recommended him to the favour of those who could serve him. M de Sacy (Le Maistre) took him into his house, as a preceptor to his children; and M. de Tourreil borrowed his assistance in translating Demosthenes. He became a pensionary of the academy of inscriptions in 1705, and was elected professor royal of the Greek language in 1710. Homer, Pindar, Theocritus, and Demosthenes, were his favourite authors; and his lectures on them were highly admired, and much attended. Though he had yet given nothing to the public, yet his merit was so well known, and his connections with the learned so numerous, that, in 1714, he was chosen a member of the French academy. Massieu may be ranked among the unfortunate literati. The circumstances of his family were extremely narrow, so that he had to struggle with poverty during his youth. In the family of M. de Sacy, he saved some money, but afterwards lost it by placing it in bad hands. Towards the latter end of his life, he suffered bodily grievances: he had frequent and severe attacks of the gout; and two cataracts deprived him of his sight A paralytic disorder seized him in August 1722, which being followed by an apoplexy, proved fatal Sept. 26.

, a very eminent dramatic writer, was born in 1584. His father was Arthur Massinger, a gentleman attached to the family of Henry second earl of Pembroke. He was born at Salisbury, and educated, probably, at Wilton, the seat of the earl of Pembroke. When he had reached his sixteenth year, he sustained an irreparable loss in the death of that worthy nobleman, who, from attachment to the father, would, not improbably, have extended his powerful patronage to the son. In May 1602 Massinger became a commoner of Aiban-Hall, Oxford, but left it soon without taking a degree. Various reasons have been assigned for this, as the earl of Pembroke’s withdrawing his support; or the same effect resulting from the death of the poet’s father; but his late excellent editor, Mr. Gifford, is probably right in attributing his removal to a change in his principles, to his becoming a Roman catholic. Whatever might be the cause, the period of his misfortunes commenced with his arrival in London, where he was driven by his necessities to dedicate himself to the service of the stage. We hear little, however, of him, from 1606, when he first visited the metropolis, until 1622, when his “Virgin Martyr,” the first of his printed works, was given to the stage. For this hiatus, his biographer accounts by his having assisted others, particularly Fletcher, and his having written some plays which have perished. He afterwards produced various plays in succession, of which eighteen only have descended to us. Massinger died March 17, 1640. He went to bed in good health, says Langbaine, and was found dead in his bed in the morning in his own house on the Bankside. He was buried in the church-yard of St. Saviour’s. It does not appear from the strictest search, that a stone, or inscription of any kind, marked the place where his dust was deposited: even the memorial of his mortality is given with a pathetic brevity, which accords but too well with the obscure and humble passages of his life: “March 20, 1639-40, buried Philip Massinger, a stranger!” So few particulars are known of his private history, that his life is little more than a detailed account of his various productions, for which we may refer the reader to Mr. Gifford’s edition. But, says this editor, though we are ignorant of every circumstance respecting- Massinger, unless that he lived, wrote, and died, we may yet form to ourselves some idea of his personal character from the incidental hints scattered through his works. In what light he was regarded may be collected from the recommendatory poems prefixed to his several plays, in which the language of his panegyrists, though warm, expresses an attachment apparently derived not so much from his talents as his virtues. All the writers of his life unite in representing him as a man of singular modesty, gentleness, candour, and affability; nor does it appear that he ever made, or found an enemy. He speaks indeed of opponents on the stage; but the contention of rival candidates for popular favour mast not be confounded with personal hostility. With all this, however, he appears to have maintained a constant struggle with adversity; since not only the stage, from which, perhaps, his natural reserve prevented him from deriving the usual advantages, but even the bounty of his particular friends, on which he chiefly relied, left him in a state of absolute dependence. Other writers for the stage, not superior to him in abilities, had their periods of good fortune, their bright as well as their stormy hours; but Massinger seems to have enjoyed no gleam of sunshine: his life was all one wintry day, and “shadows, clouds, and darkness” rested upon it.

, a French historical and miscellaneous writer, was the son of a rich merchant, and born at St. Germain-Laval, in the territory of Forez, May 16, 1544. He lost his father when a child; and, though his mother married again, she appears to have taken great care of his education. At a proper age he was put under the Jesuits at Billon, in Auvergne, with whom he continued four years; and was then called to Lyons by an uncle, who intended to send him to Toulouse, to study the law: but the civil wars rendering this unsafe, he returned to Billon, where he applied himself to the belles lettres and philosophy. Here contracting an intimacy with a fellow-student, Anthony Challon, he joined with him in a resolution of entering into the society of Jesuits: and accordingly they went soon after to Rome, where they took the habit. Masson made a funeral oration at Rome for some cardinal, in the presence of several others, and acquired by it great credit and reputation. Afterwards these two friends went to Naples, where Masson taught two years in the college of Jesuits. They returned together to France, when Challon quitted the society, as did Masson some time after, and defended this step with so much moderation and candour that the society were not displeased at it.

, a French historian, was born at Porentrui, in the diocese of Basle, Dec. 10, 1583, and was first principal of the college of Verceil, and afterwards an advocate at Lyons. He was a zealous partizan of the league, and much attached to the Guises. When he went to Paris, he quitted poetry, which he had followed hitherto, for history, to which he attached himself from that time. He acquired the esteem of Henry IV. who manifested it by giving him the title of historiographer of France, and furnishing him with all the memoirs necessary to make him so effectually. He attended Louis Xiji. to the siege of Montauhan; but, falling sick, was removed to Toulouse, where he died October 12, 1621, at the age of fifty-eight. Matthieu was only a moderate author: he wrote easily, but in an undignified style. He produced, l.“A History of the memorable Events which happened in the reign of Henry the Great,” 1624, 8vo. This contains some curious anecdotes communicated to the author by Henry himself; but the flatness of the style destroys, in a great measure, the interest of the work. 2. “The History of the deplorable Death of Henry the Great,” 1611 folio; 1612, 8vo. 3, “The History of St. Louis,” 1618, 8vo. 4. “The History of Louis XI.” in folio. This work is esteemed. 5, “The History of France,” from Francis I. to Louis XIII. inclusive, Paris, 1631, 2 vols, folio, published by his son, who added the reign of Louis XIII. 6. “Quatrains on Life and Death;” very languid and fatiguing, but often printed after those of Pibrac. 7. “La Guisiade,” the Guisiad, a tragedy, was published at Lyons, 1589, in 8vo. He was also the writer of some other tragedies, published in the same year in 2 vols. 12mo and of some other historical pieees of less note than what we have mentioned.

, M. D. an eminent physician and polite writer, was born in Holland in 1718. He was the son of Paul Maty, a protestant clergyman, and was originally intended for the church; but, in consequence of some mortifications his father received from the synod, on account of particular sentiments which he entertained about the doctrine of the Trinity, he turned his thoughts to physic. He took his degree at Leyden, and in 1740, came to settle in England, his father having determined to quit Holland for ever.

, a person of some celebrity in his time, as a writer of political pamphlets, was the son of Isaac Mauduit, a dissenting minister at Bermondsey, and was horn there in 1708, and was himself educated for the ministry among the diss.enters. After some time, however, he quitted his clerical employment, and became a partner with his brother Jasper Mauduit, as a merchant; and, when that brother died, carried on the business with equal credit and advantage. His first appearance as aw author was in 1760, when he published anonymously a pamphlet entitled “Considerations on the present German war.” It was intended to shew the impropriety of involving this nation in continental wars, and obtained some attention from the public; which the author supported by publishing soon after, “Occasional thoughts oo the present German War.” When Mr. Wilkes published in 1762, “Observations on the Spanish Paper,” the credit of Mr. Mauduit was so far established by the former pamphlets, that many persons ascribed this also to him. In 1763 he was appointed customer of Southampton, and some time after agent for the province of Massachuset’s, which led him to take an active part in the disputes between the American colonies and the mother country. In consequence of this he published, in 1769, his “Short view of the History of the New- England Colonies.” In 1774, he voluntarily took up the cause of the dissenting clergy, in a pamphlet entitled “The Case of the Dissenting Ministers; addressed to the lords spiritual and temporal.” In the same year he published “Letters of governor Hutchinson,” &c. In 1778 and 1779, he produced several severe tracts against sir William and lord Howe; as, “Remarks upon general Howe’s Account of his Proceedings on Long Island,” &c. Also “Strictures on the Philadelphia Mischianza,” &c. And, “Observations upon the conduct of sir William Howe at the White Plains,” &c. In 1781 he again attacked the same brothers, in “Three Letters addressed to lieut-gen. sir William Howe,” &c. and “Three Letters to lord viscount Howe.” In May 1787, he appointed governor of the society among the dissenters for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, but died on the 14th of the ensuing month, at the age of seventy-nine, in Clement’s-lane, Lombard-street, a bachelor, and possessed of an ample fortune. He is said by some to have been the author of a letter to lord Blakeney, on the defence of Minorca in 1757; and some other tracts on political and temporary subjects, which, whatever effect they might have produced at the time, are now sinking fast into oblivion. The historian of Surrey says ofhim, that “his love of liberty, civil <fnd religious, was tempered with that moderation which Christianity inculcates in every branch of conduct. His acquaintance with mankind taught him that impartiality was the best rule of conduct. In the contests for civil liberty he distinguished the intemperate zeal of the Americans, and soon saw the propriety of withdrawing from such as had separated themselves from their allegiance to Great Britain a fund for propagating the gospel among the subjects of this crown, in which he was supported by the opinions of no less lawyers than Scott and Hill. In like manner he tempered the application of his brethren in England for toleration.”

A few months after the publication of “The Breviary,” the 13th of Nov. 1650, May died, at the age of fifty-five years. He went well to rest over night, after a chearful bottle as usual, and died in his sleep before morning: upon which his death was imputed to his tying his night-cap too close under his cheeks and chin, which caused his suffocation; but the facetious Andrew Marvell has written a long poem of an hundred lines, to make him a martyr of Bacchus, and die by the force of good wine. He was interred near Camden, in Westminster-abbey, which caused Fuller to say that “if he were a biassed and partial writer, yet he lieth buried near a good and true historian indeed.” Soon after the restoration, his body, with those of several others, was dug up, and buried in a pit in St. Margaret’s church-yard; and his monument, which was erected by the appointment of parliament, was taken down and thrown aside.

, esq. a political and miscellaneous writer, descended from an ancient family in Shropshire, was born at Ightfield in that county in 166S. He was instructed in grammar learning at Shrewsbury, and thence removed, at seventeen, to Christ-church, Oxford; where he was placed under the care of Smalridge, afterwards bishop of Bristol. He staid several years at Oxford, and then went into the country, where he prosecuted his studies in polite literature with great vigour; and afterwards, coming to London, applied himself to the law. During his residence in the country, he had contracted from an uncle, with whom he lived, an extreme aversion to the government of king William, which he displayed in a satire against king William and queen Mary, entitled “Tarquin and Tullia,” printed in the “State Poems,” vol. III. p. 319. He also wrote several pieces in favour of James the Second’s party but, upon being introduced to the acquaintance of the duke of Somerset, and the earls of Dorset and Burlington, he began to entertain very different notions in politics. He studied the law till he was five-and-twenty; and, upon the conclusion of the peace of Ryswick, went to Paris, where be became acquainted with Boileau. That poet invited him to his country-house, gave him a very handsome entertainment, and spoke much to him of the English poetry; but all by way of inquiry: for he affected to be as ignorant of the English Muse, as if the English were as barbarous as Laplanders. Thus a gentleman, a friend of Maynwaring’s, visiting him some time after, upon the death of Dryden, Boileau said that he was wonderfully pleased to see, by the public papers, that the English nation had paid such extraordinary honours to a poet in England, burying him at the public charge; and then asked the gentleman who that poet was, with as much indifference as if he had never heard of Dryden’s name.

, a very learned and ingenious physician of the seventeenth century, appears to have been born in Cornwall, in 1645, was a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, and a probationary fellow of All Souls’ college. He took his degrees in civil law, but studied and practised physic; and principally at Bath, in the summer. He died at the house of an apothecary in York-street, Covent-garden, in September 1679, and was buried in the church of that parish. He published, “Tractatus quinque medicophysici, 1. de sale nitro, et spiritu nitro-aerio; 2. de re spiratione; 3. de respiratione foetus in utero, et ovo; 4. de motu musculari et spiritibus animalibus; 5. de Rachitide.” These were published together at Oxford, in 1674, 8vo; but there is an edition of two of them, “de respiratione,” and “de Rachitide,” published together at Leyden, in 1671. The fame of this author has been lately renewed and extended by Dr. Beddoes, who published in 179O, “Chemical Experiments and Opinions, extracted from a work published in the last century,” 8vo, in which he gives to Mayow the highest credit as a chemist, and ascribes to him some of the greatest modern discoveries respecting air; giving many extracts from the three first of his treatises. His chief discovery was, that dephlogisticated air (or as he called it, with Scheele) fire-air, exists in the nitrous acid, and in the atmosphere; which he proved by such decisive experiments, as to render it impossible to explain how Boyle and Hales could avoid availing themselves, in their researches into air, of so capital a discovery. Mayow also relates his manner of passing aeriform fluids under water, from vessel to vessel, which is generally believed to be a new art. He did not collect dephlogisticated air in vessels, and transfer it from one jar to another, but he proved its existence by finding substances that would burn in vacuo, and in water when mixed with nitre; and after animals had breathed and died in vessels filled with atmospheric air, or after fire had been extinguished in them, there was a residuum, which was the part of the air unfit for respiration, and for supporting fire; and he further shewed, that nitrous acid cannot be formed, but by exposing the substances that generate it to the atmosphere. Mayow was undoubtedly no common man, especially since, if the above dates are right, he was only thirty-four at the time of his death. But he was not so unknown as Dr. Beddoes supposed, for, since the repetition of the same discovery by Priestley and Scheele, reference has frequently been made by chemists to Mayow, as the original inventor; though no other person appears so closely to have examined his work as that writer. At the same time it appears, that with the partiality of a commentator, he has exalted his author unwarrantably at the expence of other chemists, and to a height, which, without the aid of strained interpretations, cannot be justified by the text.

, a nobleman of Brescia, in the territory of Venice, and celebrated as a philologer and historian, was born in 1707, and educated principally at Bononia; but after his marriage, he appears to have devoted himself to his private studies, which turned chiefly on subjects of antiquity and biography. He accumulated a very curious collection of medals of learned men, an account of which was published in Latin and Italian by a writer who styles himself Petrus Antonius de Comitibus Gaetanis, Brixianus Presbyter, & Patricius Romanus. This work is in 2 vols. folio, printed in 1761 and 1763. Mazzuchelli died in November 1765. His principal writings are, 1. “Notizie Historiche e Critiche, intorno alia vita, alle inventione, ed agli Scritti di Archimede Siracusano,” Brescia, 1737, 4to; that is, Historical and critical notices of the life, inventions, and writings of Archimedes. 2. “La vita di Pietro Aretino,” Padua, 1741, 8vo. He published also separately the lives of Aba.no, Arisio, Alamanni, Bonfadius, &c. and began a vast biographical work on all the writers of Italy, which he carried no further than to four parts of the second volume; being then in the letter B. The title was “Gli Scrittori d'ltalia, cioe Notitie Storiche e Critiche intorno alle vite, e agli Scritti dei Letterati Italiahi,” 1753 1763, 6 vols. folio. The continuation of this work was promised by a writer named Giambattista Rodella, but no part of it has appeared.

In 1618 he took the degree of bachelor in divinity, but his modesty restrained him from proceeding to that of doctor. In 1627, a similar motive induced him to refuse the provostship of Trinity-college, Dublin, into which he had been elected at the recommendation of archbishop Usher, who was his particular friend; as he did also when it was offered him a second time, in 1630. The height of his ambition was, only to have had some small donative sinecure added to his fellowship, or to have been preferred to some place of quiet, where, retired from the noise and tumults of the world, and possessed of a competency, he might be entirely at leisure for study and acts of piety. When, therefore, a report was spread that he was made chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, he thus expressed himself in a letter to a friend: that “he had lived, till the best of his time was spent, in tranquillitate et secessu; and now, that there is but a little left, should 1,” said he, “be so unwise, suppose there was nothing else, as to enter into a tumultuous life, where I should not have time to think my own thoughts, and must of necessity displease others or myself? Those who think so, know not my disposition in this kind to be as averse, as some perhaps would be ambitious.” In the mean time, though his circumstances were scanty, for he had nothing but his fellowship and the Greek lecture, his charity was diffusive and uncommon; and, extraordinary as it may now seem, he devoted the tenth of his income to pious and charitable uses. But his frugality and temperance always afforded him plenty. His prudence or moderation, either in declaring or defending his private opinions, was very remarkable; as was also his freedom from partiality, prejudice, or prepossession, pride, anger, selfishness, flattery, and ambition. He died Oct. 1, 1638, in his 52d year, having spent above two-thirds of his time in college, to which he bequeathed the residue of his property, after some small legacies. He was buried next day in the college chapel. As to his person, he was of a comely proportion, and rather tall than otherwise. His eye was full, quick, and sparkling-; his whole countenance sedate and grave; awful, but at the same time tempered with an inviting sweetness: and his behaviour was friendly, affable, cheerful, and upon occasion intermixed with pleasantry. Some of his sayings and bon mots are recorded by the author of his life; one of which was, his calling such fellow-commoners as came to the university only to see it, or to be seen in it, “the university tulips,” that made a gaudy shew for a while; but, upon the whole, his biographers have made a better estimate of his learning than of his wit. In his life-time he produced three treatises only: the first entitled “Clavis Apocalyptica ex innatis & insitis visionum characteribus eruta et demonstrata,” Cant. 1627, 4to; of which he printed only a few copies, at his own expence, and for the use of friends. To this he added, in 1632, “In sancti Joannis Apocalypsin. commentarius, ad amussim Clavis Apocalypticse.” This is the largest and the most elaborate of any of his writings. The other two were but short tracts: namely, “About the name vtriao-lyfiov, anciently given to the holy table, and about churches in the apostles’ times.” The rest of his works were printed after his decease; and in the best edition published by Dr. Worthington, in 1672, folio, the whole are divided into five books, and disposed in the following order. The first book contains fifty-three “Discourses on several texts of Scripture' the second, such” Tracts and discourses as are of the like argument and design“the third, his” Treatises upon some of the prophetical Scriptures, namely, The Apocalypse, St. Peter’s prophecy concerning the day of Christ’s second coming, St. Paul’s prophecy touching the apostacy of the latter times, and three Treatises upon some obscure passages in Daniel:“the fourth, his” Letters to several learned men, with their letters also to him :“the fifth,” Fragmenta Sacra, or such miscellanies of divinity, as could not well come under any of the aforementioned heads.“ These are the works of this pious and profoundly learned man, as not only his editor calls him in the title-page, but the best livin: s have allowed him to be. His comments on the book of Revelation, are still considered as containing the mo-t satisfactory explanation of those obscure prophecies, so far as they have been yet fulfilled: and, in every other [>a< t of iiis works, the talents of a sound and learned divine are eminently conspicuous. It is by no means the least considerable testimony toiis merit, that he has been highly and frequently commended by Jortin but the writer of our times who has bestoweJ most pains on the character and writings of Mr Mede, and who has done the most honour to both, is the late learned bishop Hurd. This prelate has devoted the greater part of his tenth sermon” On the Study of the Prophecies“to the consideration of the” Clavis Apocalyptica.“It would be superfluous to extract at much length from a work so well known; but we may be permitted to conclude with Dr. Kurd’s manner of introducing Mr. Mede to his hearers. Sjie iking of the many attempts to explain the Apocalypse, in the infancy of the reformed church, he says,” The issue of much elaborate enquiry was, that the book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators, and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when a Sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and surprized the learned world with that great desideratum, a * Key to the Revelations’." 1

Meibomius pretended that the Hebrew copy of the Bible was full of errors, and undertook to correct them by means of a metre, which he fancied he had discovered in those ancient writings; but this drew upon him no small raillery from the learned. Nevertheless, besides the work above mentioned, he produced several others, which shewed him to be a good scholar; particularly his “Diogenes Laertius,” Amst. 1692, 2 vols. 4to, by far the most critical and perfect edition of that writer; his “Liber de Fabrica Triremium,” 1671, in which he thinks he discovered the method in which the ancients disposed their banes of oars his edition of the ancient Greek Mythologists and his dialogues on Proportions, a curious work, in which the interlocutors, or persons represented as speaking, are Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Pappus, Eutocius, Theo, and Hermotimus. This last work was opposed by Langius, and by Dr. Wallis in a considerable tract, printed in the first volume of his works.