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

In 1685, when the duke of Monmouth was making preparations in Holland for his unfortunate enterprize, the English envoy at the Hague had orders to demand Mr. Locke and eighty-three other persons to be delivered up by the States- General. M. Le Clerc observes, that Mr. Locke had no correspondence with the duke of Monmouth, having no great opinion of his undertaking. Besides, iiis natural temper was timorous, not resolute, and he was far from being fond of commotions. It was proper, however, now to conceal himself, which his friends at Amsterdam enabled him to do, at the house of a Mr. Veen. In the mean time Limborch took care that his letters should be delivered to him, and was entrusted with his will, to be sent to certain relations whom he named, in case of his death. So highly was be respected, that one of the magistrates declared that although they could not protect him, if the king of England should demand him, yet he should not be betrayed, and his landlord should have timely notice. In 1686 he began to appear again in public, when it was sufficiently known that he had no share in the duke of Monmouth’s invasion.

His learning, indeed, and his industry appear very evident by his many writings. Besides the ^thiopic New Testament which he translated into Latin, at the request of Usher and Selden, for the Polyglot, and which procured him from Walton the character of “vir doctissimus, tain generis prosapia, quam linguaruoi orientalium scientia, nobilis,” he published, 1. “Logica Armeniaca in Latinam traducta,” Dublin, 1657, 12mo. 2. “Introductio in totam Aristotelis Philosophiam,” ibid. 1657, 12mo. 3. “The Proceedings observed in order to, and in the consecration of, the twelve Bishops in St. Patrick’s Church in Dublin, Jan. 27, 1660,” Lond. 1661, 4to. 4. “Liber Psalmorum Davidis ex Armeniaco idiotnate in Latinum traductus,” Dublin, 1661, 12mo. 5. “Oratio funebris habita post exuvias nuperi Rev. jbatris Joan. (Bramhall) archiepiscopi Armacbani,” ibid. 1663, 4to. 6. “The Speech of James duke of Ormond, made in a parliament at Dublin, Sept. 17, 1662, translated into the Italian,” ibid. 1664. 7. “Reductio litium de libero arbitrio, proedestinatione, et reprobatione ad arbitrium boni viri,” ibid. 1670, 4to. 8. “A, Book demonstrating that it was inconsistent with the English government, that the Irish rebels should be admitted to their former condition with impunity, by topics drawn from principles of law, policy, and conscience,” published under the name of Philo-Britannicus. 9. “Lettera esortatoria di mettere opera a fare sincera penitenza mandata alia signora F. M. L. P. &c.” 1667, 4to. This piece was written on account of a lady of Irish birth, with whom he was criminally connected, and whom he wished to pass for an Italian, as she was educated in Italy. Her name was Francisca Maria Lucretia Plunket. It was to her he wrote this exhortatory letter, which was followed soon after by, 10. “The Vindication of an injured lady, F. M. Lucretia Plunket, one of the ladies of the privy chamber to the queen mother of England,” Lond. 1667, J-to. i I Two pamphlets of the “Case of Ware and Shirley,” a gentleman who married an heiress against her will. 12. “A Speech delivered at the Visitation held in the diocese of Clogher, se.de vacant e, Sept. 27, 1671,” Dublin, 1671, 4to. 13. “The first marriage of Katherine Fitzgerald (now lady Decies), &c. asserted,” Lond. 1677, 4to. Readers of the present times will be surprised to be told, that this pamphlet relates to the marriage of lord Decies, aged eight years, to Katherine Fitz-gerald, aged twelve and a half. The little lady in about twenty months took another husband, Edward Villiers, esq. Mr. Loftus’s opinion was, that the first marriage was legal. His argument was answered by Robert Thomson, LL. D. in a pamphlet under the title of “Sponsa nondum uxor,” Lond. 1678, 4to. 14. “Several Chapters of Dionysius Syrus’s Comment on St. John the Evangelist, concerning the Life and Death of our Saviour,” Dublin, 4 to. 15. “The Commentary on the Four Evangelists, by Dionysius Syrus, out of the Syriac tongue.” 16. “Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, by Moses Bar-Cepha, out of the Syriac.” 17. “Exposition of Dionysius Syrus, on St. Mark,” Dublin, 1676, 4to, according to Harris, but by the Bodleian catalogue it would appear that most, if not all, the four preceding articles were published together in 1672. 18. “History of the Eastern and Western Churches, by Gregory Maphrino, translated into Latin from the Syriac.” 19. “Commentary on the general Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles, by Gregory Maphrino.” 20 “Praxis cultusdivini juxta ritus primoevorum Christianorum,” containing various ancient liturgies, &c. Dublin, 1693, 4to. 21. “A clear and learned Explication of the History of our Blessed Saviour, taken out of above thirty Greek, Syriac, and other oriental authors, by way of Catena, by Dionysius Syrus, translated into English,” Dublin, 1695, 4to. Harris mentions a few other translations from the Armenian, Arabic, and Syriac, but without date or place, and which probably were printed with some of the preceding.

, was born in 1635, the son of that count de Brienne who was ambassador in England in 1624. He had the reversion of the secretary of state’s office which his father held, and was made counsellor of state in 1651, when a boy of sixteen, with permission to exercise this office when he should attain the age of twenty- five. During this interval, be travelled over Italy, Germany, and the north, to acquire a knowledge of the countries he was afterward to treat with, and on his return, although only twenty-three years old, the king permitted him to act as secretary of state; but after his wife’s death, in 1665, Louis XIV. obliged him to resign his post. M. de Lomenie then retired to the fathers of the oratory, and was sub-deacon, but left them, and went to the court of Christian Louis, duke of Mecklenburgh, in 1672. His residence at that court was the origin of all the troubles which he brought upon himself; for, having entertained a criminal passion for the princess of Mecklenburg, he had the audacity to acquaint her with it. She complained of this affront to Louis XIV. who ordered him to return to Paris, and confined him in the abbey of St. Germain-des-Prez, then at St. Benolt-sur- Loire, afterwards at St. Lazare, and lastly, at the abbey of St. Severin, at Chateau Landon, where he died, April 17, 1698. He left an account of his travels, in Latin,entitled “Itinerarinm,” 8vo, written with elegance and perspicuity. 2. “Recueil de Poesies diverses et Chre”­tiennes,“Paris, 1671, 3 vols. 12mo. 3.” Remarques sur les Regies de la Poésie Françoise,“which are at the end of the” Nouvelle Methode Latine“of Port Royal, the seventh edition, 8vo. M. de Châlons has borrowed, without any acknowledgment, almost the whole of these remarks, in his treatise” Des Regies de la Poésie Fransoise.“Lomenie also published a translation of the” Institutions of Thanlerus," 8vo and 12mo, &c. and left in ms. memoirs of his life, and some poems. It appears from his works, that he possessed wit and genius, but that a capricious, fickle, and inconstant disposition, joined to a depraved fancy, rendered them useless to him, ad in some measure to the world.

Besides these various subjects, Lomonozof made no inconsiderable figure in history, having published two small works relative to that of his own country. The first, styled “Annals of the Russian Sovereigns,” is a short chronology f the Russian monarchs and the second is the “Ancient History of Russia, from the Origin of that Nation to the Death of the Great Duke Yaroslaf I. in 1504” a performance of great merit, as it illustrates the most difficult and obscure period in the annals of this country.

was an ancient Greek author, probably of the fifth century, who seems to have written after Heliodorus, and, in some places, to have imitated him. He is called a sophist; but we have no remains of his except four books of “Pastorals upon the Loves of Daphnis and Cloe.” Huet speaks advantageously of this work, and had proposed, when he was young, to have made a translation of it; but he also takes notice of several defects in it, and, doubtless, its obscenities made him lay aside his purpose of translating it. None of the ancient writers mention Longus. There is a good edition of the original by Petrus Moll, a professor of the Greek language at Franeker, 1660, in 4to, but Villoison’s, Gr. and Lat. Paris, 1778, '2 vols. 8va, is the best. It was translated into English by George Thorney, and printed at London in 1657. The last edition of the English version, of which there have been four, is inscribed to James Craggs, esq. secretary of state. The French, with whom this work has always been a favourite, have many translations of it. That by Amyot has passed through many editions; the most elegant of which is that of 1718, 12mo, with 29 plates, drawn by the regent, Philip duke of Orleans, and engraved by Benoft Audran; the 29th is not his engraving, and is seldom found in the edition of 1718, the reason of which, some say, was, that only 250 copies were taken, which the prince disposed of as presents; but Brunei thinks it is too common for so small an impression. Next to this edition, that of 1745, 8vo, is preferred, with the same plates retouched.

, a learned and amiable clergyman, and some time Greek professor of the university of Cambridge, was descended from an ancient family in Pembrokeshire, and was the son of major Lort, of the Welsh fusileers, who was killed at the battle of Fontenoy, in 1745. He was born in 1725, and was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1743, from whence he removed into the family of Dr. Mead, to whom he was librarian until the death of that celebrated physician, in 1754; and while in that situation probably acquired the taste for literary history and curiosities which enabled him to accumulate a very valuable library, as well as to assist many of his contemporaries in their researches into biography and antiquities. In the mean time he kept his terms at college; and proceeded A. B. in 1746; was elected fellow of his college in 1749; and took his degree of M. A. in 1750. In 1755 he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and was many years a vice-president, until his resignation in 1788. During this time he made some communications to the “Archxologia,” vols. IV. and V. In 1759, on the resignation of Dr. Francklin, he was appointed Greek professor at Cambridge, and in 1761 he took the degree of B. D. and was appointed chaplain to Dr. Terrick, then bishop of Peterborough. In January 1771 he was collated by Dr. Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of St. Matthew, Friday-street, on which he resigned his Greek professorship; and in August 1779 he was appointed chaplain to the archbishop, and in the same year commenced D.D. In April 1780, the archbishop gave him a prebend of St. Pau Ps (his grace’s option) and he continued at Lambeth till 1783, when he married Susanna Norfolk, one of the two daughters of alderman Norfolk, of Cambridge. On the death of Dr. Ducarel, in 1785, he was appointed by archbishop Moore, librarian to the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth. He was also for some years librarian to the duke of Devonshire. In April 1789, he was presented by Dr. Porteus, bishop of London, to the sinecure rectory Jqf Fulham, in Middlesex; and in the same year was instituted to the rectory of Mile-end, near Colchester. He died Nov. 5, 1790, at his house in Savile-row; his death was occasioned by a fall from a chaise while riding near Colchester, which injured his kidnies, and was followed by a paralytic stroke. He was buried at his church in Friday-street, of which he had been rector nineteen years. A monumental tablet was put up to his memory, which also records the death of his widow, about fifteen months afterwards. They had no issue.

In 1746, Mr. Lowth published “An Ode to the people of Great Britain, in imitation of the sixth ode of the third book of Horace;” a spirited performance, severely reproving the vices of the times. This was afterwards inserted in Dodsley Collection, vol. III. and was followed by his “Judgment of Hercules,” in his friend Mr. Spence’s “Poly metis .” His first preferment in the church was to the rectory of Ovington, in Hampshire, which he received from bishop Hoadly. In 1748, he accompanied Mr: Legge, afterwards chancellor of the Exchequer, to Berlin, who went to that court in a public character; and with whom, from his earliest years, Mr. Lowth lived on terms of the mosc intimate and uninterrupted friendship. In tha following year he became acquainted with the duke of Devonshire, in consequence of his attending his brothers lord George and lord Frederic Cavendish, on their travels, and especially at Turin, which place was their principal residence during th*. ir absence from this country. The duke was so amply satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Lowth, as the travelling tutor of his brothers, that he afterwards proved his steady friend and patron. In 1750, bishop Hoadly conferred on him the archdeaconry of Winchester, and in 1753, the rectory of East Wooclhay, in Hampshire.

In July 1754-, probably as a reward for the distinguished ability displayed in his “Praelectiones,” he received the degree of D. D. conferred by the university in the most honourable manner in their power, by diploma; and in 1755 he went t > Irela d as first chaplain to Uie marquis of Harrington (afterwards duke of Devonshire, and then) lord lieutenant. In consequence of this appointment he had the offer of the bishopric of Limeric, but this * he exchanged with Dr Lesl.e, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Sedgefiild, near that place, for these preferments, which were accordingly given to him by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who was not a little pleased to rank among his clergy a gentleman of such rare accomplishments.

They experienced, however, from time to time, the strorigest opposition in several countries; in Spain, and particularly in France. No society ever had so many enemies as the Jesuits have had; the very books which have been written against them, would form a considerable library. Nor has this opposition been without the justest foundation. However serviceable they were to the see of Rome, to which they were always most devoutly attached, they were very pernicious in other countries, by propagating doctrines which have exposed sovereign princes to slaughter, and states to revolutions; and by corrupting religion and morality by mental reserves and logical distinctions to such a degree, that, according to them, the vilest and most profligate wretches in the world might do what they pleased, yet not offend against their rules; and for this they have often been thoroughly exposed, especially in the “Provincial Letters” of M. Pascal. They also became merchants, thinking by their riches to make dependents in every court, and, by that means to have absolute sway; while the individuals who, without gaining any particular advantage, laboured to aggrandize the body, were the victims of the infatuation of their superiors. The king of Portugal, persuaded that they instigated the assassins who attempted his life in 1758, drove them from his dominions in 1759. The king of France, considering this institution, which had been only tolerated in that kingdom, as being incompatible with its laws, suppressed it in 1763; and the king of Spain, for reasons which he concealed, for fear of raising troubles in his dominions, drove them out in 1767. The king of Naples, the duke of Parma, and the grand master of Malta followed his example in 1768; and pope Clement XIV. obliged to yield to the united power of the house of Bourbon, issued a bull for their final suppression, dated July 21, 1773.

His next remove was to Fredericksburg, where he obtained leave to settle with his banished brethren, aad a promise not to be disturbed in the private exercises of their religion. He acquainted the brethren with this news, and spared no pains nor cost, even to the impairing of his own estate, that he might settle them there; he also supported them at his own expence. But neither did they enjoy this happiness long. The duke of Holstein-Gottorp, without whose knowledge the above permission had been granted, at the persuasion of John Reinboht, one of his chaplains, and the Lutheran superintendant, banished them both from that city, and from all his dominions. In this exigence he returned to Hamburgh, by the advice of his friends, who had also procured him the title of secretary to the king of Poland, in hopes to oblige the magistrates to let him live quietly in that city; the king of Denmark likewise interceded again for him, all which prevailed for a considerable time, but at last the magistrates sent him positive orders to remove. Before, however, he could obey this order, he had poison given him in his meat, of which he died May 18, 1675, having lamented in verse the fate of his two daughters, who fell a sacrifice to the same poison two days before . His body was buried at Altena, against all the opposition that the Lutheran ministers could make. He had obtained a retreat for his banished brethren at Manheim, in the Palatinate, that elector being a prince of latitudinarian principles in matters of religion.

, a learned orientalist, was born at Erfurt in Thuringia, June 15, 1624, of one of the best families in the city, then in reduced circumstances. He began his studies at home, under very insufficient masters, and having acquired some knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, applied himself to the French, Italian, and Spanish, and afterwards to those of the East. He also made some progress in physic and law, but without any view to a profession. In 1645 he went to Leyden, a studied the languages under Erpenius, Golius, and other: eminent teachers, and likewise maintained some disputations in law. After residing here ahove a year, he was appointed travelling tutor to a young man of family, with whom he went to France, and at Caen contracted a friendship with Bochart, and taught t him the elements of the Ethiopic language. He afterwards went with his pupil to England but the rebellion being at its height at this time, he soon returned to Holland. The baron de Rosenhahn, ambassador from Christina queen of Sweden at the court of France, happened to have in his retinue a brother of Ludolf, who recommended our author to that nobleman so effectually, that he sent for him from Holland to Paris, to be preceptor to his two sons. Soon after, in 1619, he sent. him to Rome, to search for papers and memoirs, which John Magnus, archbishop of Upsal, was said to have conveyed formerly to Rome, and which Christina was desirous to recover. Ludolph performed this journey in company with two Polish gentlemen, of whom he learned their language. At Rome he found no manuscripts relating to Sweden; but this journey was not useless to himself, for by his conversation with four Abyssinians, then at Rome, be perfected himself in the knowledge of the Ethiopic language. Immediately after his return to Paris he was obliged to go to Sweden with the ambassador, where he found a great many learned men at queen Christina’s court, and had an opportunity of learning there the Portuguese, Moscovite, an. I Finland languages. In 1652, Ernest duke of Saxe-Gotha sent for him to his court, and made him his Aulic-counsellor, and governor to the princes his sons, and employed him in various political affairs and negociations. In 1678 he desired leave to retire, resolving upon a private life, and went to Fraucfort, where he had a commission from the dukes of Saxony to act in their names in the conferences held there in 1681 and 1682, in order to settle a pacification between the emperor, the empire, and France. The elector palatine likewise gave him the direction of some of his revenues; and the electors of Saxony honoured him with the titles of their counsellor and resident. But Abyssinia was the chief object of the attention of our author, who concerted measures to form an alliance between that remote nation and the powers of Europe. He had addressed himself for that purpose, in 1679, to the court of Vienna, who referred him to the English and Dutch, as more capable of contributing to that great design. He vyent, there- i fore, to England in 168,'i, but did not find any disposition there to execute his scheme for establishing a commerce with the Abyssinians, and although he found rather more encouragement in Holland, the scheme was defeated by the Abyssinians themselves. In 1684, Ludolph returned to Francfort, having passed through France, and began to apply himself vigorously to the writing of his “History of Ethiopia.” In 1690 he was appointed president of an academy of history, which was’ established in that city. He lived several years after, and died April 8, 1704, agfcd almost eighty years.

He understood twenty-five languages: Hebrew, and that of the Rabbins; the Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, learned, literal, and vulgar; Greek, learned and vulgar; Ethiopic, learned and vulgar, Called Amharic; Coptic, Persian, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Flemish, English, Polish, Sclavonic, and the ancient language of Sclavonia, and of the Finnes. He was equally esteemed for his manners as for his talents; and was very communicative; hardy and indefatigable in business, and so much inured to study, that he had always a book open before him at his ordinary repasts. He left a son, Christian Ludolph, who was the only child he had, and was counsellor and secretary to the duke of Saxe-Eysenach. ' His works are: 1. “Schola Latinitatis, &c.” Gothae, 1672, 8vo. 2. “Historia Kthiopica, &<.” Franc. 1681, folio. 3. “Epistola Ethiopice scripta,” 1685, in folio. This was the letter he wrote to persuade the Abyssinians to an alliance with the princes of Europe. 4. “De bello Turcico feliciter conficiendo, &c.” Franc. 1686. 4to. 5. “Remarque* sur les pensees enjouez & serieux, &c.”' Leipsic, 1689, 8vo. 6. “Epistolse Samaritans Sichetnitarum ad Jobum Ludolphum, &c.” Leipsic, 1688, 4to. 7, “Specimen commentarii in historian! Ethiopicam,” 1687. 8. “Comaientarins in historiam Ethiopicam, &c.” Franc. 1691, folio. 9. “Appendix ad hist. Ethiopicam illiusque commentarium, &c.” ibid. 1693, folio. 10. “Jugerrtent d‘un anonyme sur une lettre a un ami touchant une systeme d’etymologie Hebraique.” II. “Dissertatio de locustis, &c.” Franc. 1694, folio. 12. “Grammatica Amharicae liiifmse qua; est vernacula Habessinorum,” ibid. 1698, fojio. 13.“Lexicon Amharico-Latinnm, &c.” ibid. 1698, folio. J4. Lexicon Ethiopico-Latinum, ibid, editio secunda,“1699, folio. 15.” Gratnmatica linguae Ethiopian, secunda,“ibid. 1702, folio. 16.” Psalterium Davidis, Ethiopice & Latine, &c.“ibid. 1701, 4to. J7.” Theatre historique de ce que s’est passé en Europe, pendant le xvii siécle,“in German,” avec des figures de Remain de Hoog,“ibid. 2 vols. folio. 18.” Confessio fidei Claudii Regis Ethiopicse," &c. in 4to.

, of Udina in the Venetian territory, was an eminent scholar in the sixteenth century. He was born in 1523, and was remarkable for the integrity of his life, part of which was employed in teaching Greek and Latin at Reggio: he was afterwards secretary to the duke of Parma, and died in 1568, at the age of forty-five. He wrote, 1. “Parergon libri tres,” inserted in the third volume of Gruter’s “Fax Critica;” and consisting of illustrations of various obscure passages in ancient authors. 2. A Latin commentary on Horace’s Art of Poetry, published in 4to, at Venice, in 1544. 3. A treatise “de componendis Animi affectibus,” Bale, 1562, in 8vo.

, 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.

In 1519 Luther had a famous dispute at Leipsic with John Eckius. Eckius, as we have observed, wrote notes upon Luther’s theses, which Luther first, and afterwards Carolostadius, answered. The dispute thus depending, a conference was proposed at Leipsic, with the consent of George duke of Saxony, who was cousin-german to Frederic the elector; and accordingly Luther went thither at the end of June, accompanied by Carolostadius and Melancthon. Melchior Adam relates that Luther could not obtain leave to dispute for some time, but was only a spectator of what passed between Carolostadius and Eckius, till Eckius got at last a protection for him from the duke. It is certain, however, that they disputed upon the most delicate points upon purgatory, upon indulgences; and especially upon the authority of the pope. Luther objected to this last, as being an invidjous and unnecessary subject; and that he would not have meddled with it, if Eckius had not put it among the propositions which they were to argue. Eckius answered, and it must be owned with some reason, that Luther had first given occasion to that question, by touching upon it himself, and teaching several things contrary to the authority of the holy see. In this dispute, after many texts of scripture, and many passages from the fathers, had been cited and canvassed by both sides, they came to settle the sense of the famous words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church.” Luther asserted, That by rock is to be understood either power or faith: if power, then our Saviour hath added to no purpose, “and I will give thee the keys, &c.” if faith, as it ought, then it is also common to all other churches, and not peculiar to that of Rome. Eckius replied, That these words settled a supremacy upon St. Peter; that they ought to be understood of his person, according to the explication of the fathers; that the contrary opinion was one of the errors of Wicklitf and John Hass, which were condemned; and that he followed the opinion of the Bohemians. Luther was not to be silenced with this, but said, That although all the fathers had understood that passage of St. Peter in the sense of Eckius, yet he would oppose them with the authority of St. Paul and St. Peter himself; who say, that Jesus Christ is the only foundation and corner-stone of his church; and as to his following the opinion of the Bohemians, in' maintaining a proposition condemned with John Huss, that “the dignity of the pope was established by the emperor,” though he did not, he said, approve of the schism of the Bohemians, yet he should make no scruple to affirm, that, among the articles condemned with John Huss, there were some very sound and orthodox. This dispute ended at length like all others, the parties not the least nearer in opinions, but more at enmity with each other’s persons. It seems, however, granted on all sides, that while Eckius made the best possible defence for his party, Luther did not acquire in this dispute that success and applause which he expected; and it is agreed also, that he made a concession to Eckius, which he afterwards retracted, that the pope was head of the church by human though not by divine right; which made George duke of Saxony say, after the dispute was over, “Sive Jure divino, siye hurnano sit papa, est tamen papa:” " Whether he be pope by divine right or human, he is nevertheless pope/'

The resolution of this diet was published in the form of an edict, March 6, 1523; but it had no effect in checking the Lutherans, who still went on in the same triumphant wanner. This year Luther wrote a great many tracts: among the rest, one upon the dignity and office of the supreme magistrate; with which Frederic elector of Saxony is said to have been highly pleased. He sent, about the same time, a writing in the German language to the Waldenses, or Picards, in Bohemia and Moravia, who had applied to him “about worshipping the body of' Christ in the eucharist.” He wrote also another book, which he dedicated to the senate and people of Prague, “concerning the institution of ministers of the church.” He drew up a form of saying mass. He wrote a piece entitled " Ad Example of Popish Doctrine and Divinity;: ' which Dnpin calls a satire against nuns, and those who profess a monastic life. He wrote also against the vows of virginity, in his preface to his commentary on 1 Cor. vii.: and his exhortations here were, it seems, followed with effects; for, soon after, nine nuns eloped from a nunnery, and were brought to Wittemberg. Whatever offence this proceeding might give to the papists, it was highly extolled by Luther; who, in a book written in the German language, compares the deliverance of these nuns from the slavery of a monastic life, to that of the souls whichJesus Christ has; delivered by his death. This year he had occasion to lament the death of two of his followers, who were burnt ar Brussels, and were the first who suffered martyrdom for his doctrine. He wrote also a consolatory epistle to three noble ladies at Misnia, who were banished from the duke of Saxony’s court at Friburg, for reading his books.

In 1533 Luther wrote a consolatory epistle to the citizens of Oschatz, who had suffered some hardships for adhering to the Augsburg confession of faith; in which, among other things, he says, " The devil is the host, and the world is his inn, so that wherever you come, you shall be sure to find this ugly host.' 1 He had also about this time a warm controversy with George duke of Saxony, who had such an aversion to Luther’s doctrine, that he obliged his subjects to take an oath that they would never embrace it. Sixty or seventy citizens of Leipsic, however, were found to have deviated a little from the catholic doctrine, in some point or other, and they were known previously to have consulted Luther about it on which George complained to the elector John, that, Luther had not only abused his person, but also preached up rebellion among his subjects. The elector ordered Luther to be acquainted with this, and to be told at tle same time, that if be did not clear himself of the charge, he could not possibly escape punishment. Luther, however, easily refuted the accusation, by proving that he had been so fur from stirring up his subjects against him on the score of religion, that, on the contrary, he had exhorted them rather to undergo the greatest hardships, and even to suffer themselves to be banished.

, an Italian artist, was born at Florence, in 1666. He was the disciple of Dominico Gabbiani, and at twenty-four his merit was judged equal to that of his master. He afterwards studied at Rome, under the patronage of the grand duke, and hoped to have profited by the instructions of Giro Ferri; but on his arrival he had to regret the death of that master. He now, however, pursued his studies with such success, that his works became much valued in England, France, and Germany. The emperor knighted him, and the elector of Mentz sent with his patent of knighthood, a cross set with diamonds Lutti was never satisfied with his own performances, and though he often retouched his pictures, yet they never appeared laboured; he always changed for the better, and his last thought was the best. There were three much-admired public works of his at Rome, viz. a Magdalene in the church of St. Catharine of Siena, at Monte Magna Napoli; the prophet Isaiah, in an oval, St. John de Lateran; and St. Anthony of Padua, in the church of the Holy Apostles; and at the palace Albani was a miracle of St. Pio, which some reckon his master-piece. Fuseli speaks of his “Cain, flying from his murdered brother,” he says has something of the sublimity and the pati it strike in the Pietro Martyre of Titian and his “Psyche” in the gallery of the capitol, breathes refinement of taste and elegance. His death is said to have been hastened by a fit of chagrin, owing to his not having been able to finish a picture of St. Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, designed for Turin, for which he had received a large earnest, and promised to get it ready at a set time. But several disputes happening between him and those who bespoke the picture, brought on a fit of sickness, of which he died at Rome, in 1724, aged fifty-eight, and the picture was afterwards finished by Pietro Bianchi, one of his disciples. Lutti is blamed for not having placed his figures advantageously, but in such a manner as to throw a part of the arms and legs out of the cloth. This fault he possesses in common with Paul Veronese and Rubens, who, to give more dignity and grandeur to the subject they treated, have introduced into the fore-ground of their pictures, groups of persons on horseback, tops of heads, and arms and legs, of which no other part of the body appears.

, a very celebrated general and mareschal of France, was a posthumous son of the famous Bouteville, who was beheaded under Louis XIII. for fighting a duel. He was born in 1628, and in 1643 was present at the battle of Rocroi, under the great Conde, whose pupil he was, and whom he followed in all his fortunes. He also resembled that great man in many of his eminent qualities, in acuteness of perception, thirst for knowledge, promptness in action, and ardour of genius. These qualities he displayed in the conquest of Franche-Comte in 1668, where he served as lieutenant-general. He served also in the Dutch campaign of 1672, took many towns, and gained some trophies in the field. He closed this expedition by a retreat more famous than his victories, which he accomplished with an awny of 20,000 men, against the opposition, of 70,000. After distinguishing himself in another expedition in Franche-Comte, he was advanced in 1675, to the dignity of mareschal of France. He fought, during the remainder of that war, with various success. In the second war of Louis XIV. against the allied powers in 1690, he gained the battle of Fleurus, and it was generally allowed that he prevailed in it chiefly by the superiority of his genius to that of his antagonist the prince of Waldeck. In the ensuing year, 1691,“he gained the battles of Leufen and Steinkirk; and, continuing to be opposed to king William of England, he was again successful, in the bloody battle of Nerwinde, where there fell on the two sides near 20,000 men. It was said in France that on this occasion they should not sing Te Deum, but De profundis, the mass for the dead. The duke of Luxembourg is said to have had an ordinary countenance and a deformed figure, in consequence of which William III. whose constant antagonist he was, is reported to have said once with some impatience,” What! shall I never beat this hump-backed fellow?“This speech being repeated to the duke,” How should he know,“said he,” the shape of my back? I am sure he never saw me turn it to him.“The last great action of the duke’s life was a second famous retreat, in the presence of superior forces, through a considerable extent of country, to Tournay. This was in 1694, and he died the following year, Jan. 4, at the age of sixty-seven. Notwithstanding the disadvantages of his person, Luxembourg is said to have been much involved in intrigues of gallantry. He had some powerful enemies, particularly the minister Louvois, who once had him confined very unjustly in the Bastille. Among other frivolous calumnies on which he was then interrogated, he was asked whether he had not made a league with the devil, to marry His son to the daughter of the marquis de Louvois. His answer was replete with the high spirit of French nobility.” When Matthew of Montmorenci,“said he,” married a queen of France, he addressed himself, not to the devil, but to the states-general; and the declaration of the states was, that in order to gain the support of the house of Montmorenci for the young king in his minority, it would be right to conclude that marriage." Idle as the accusations against him were, they cost him a confinement of fourteen months, and he had no subsequent redress.

, an ancient English poet, is recorded as one of the immediate successors of Chaucer. The few dates that have been recovered of his history are, that he was ordained a sub-deacon in 1339; a deacon in 1393, and a priest in 1397; from these it has been surmised that he was born about 1375, that is, twenty-five years before the death of Chaucer. There is a note of Wanley’s in the Harleian Catalogue (2251. 3.) which insinuates as if Lydgate did not die till 1482. This Dr. Percy thinks too long a date; he was, however, living in 1446, since in his “Philomela” he mentions the death of Henry duke of Warwick, who died that year. Some authorities place his death in 1461, and this date Mr. Ellis thinks is not improbable.

In 1757 he had an opportunity again of rendering himself conspicuous in a political capacity, by the part which he took in the famous convention of Closter-seven, entered into between the duke of Richelieu, commander of the French forces, and the duke of Cumberland, who was then at the head of the allied army. In this, however, he met with many difficulties, as the history of that convention shows; and the king of France and his Britannic majesty at last refused their ratification. In March 1763 he was invested with the order of the elephant by Frederic V. the highest honour his sovereign could bestow; but some complaints being made against him on account of his administration, which were not altogether groundless, he resigned in Oct. 1765. The remainder of his life he passed in retirement at Lubennau, where he died of a dropsy of the breast, Nov. 1781, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was a man of considerable learning, elegant address, and various accomplishments. His works are, I. A translation of “Seneca de Beneficiis,” Hamburgh, 1753, 8vo. 2. A translation of Seneca on “The Shortness of Life,” 1754. 3. “Der Sonderling,” or “The Singular Man,” Hanover, 1761, 8vo, and in French, Copenhagen, 1777, 8vo, a work which, according to his biographer Busching, is well worth a perusal. 4. “Historical, Political, and Moral Miscellanies,” in four parts, 1775 1777, 8vo. 5 Paraphrases on “The Epistles,” printed at various times, 1754 1770. 6. “The real state of Europe in the year 1737,” and several other articles in Busching’s Magazine for History and Geography.

, a learned Protestant theologian, was born at Winendeen in the territory of Wittemberg, in the year 1552. He was educated at Tubingen, at the expence of the duke of Saxony, and became a minister of the church of Wittemberg in 1577. He was one of the first to sign the “Concord,” and was deputed, with James Andreas, to procure the signature of the divines and ministers in the electorate of Saxony. He died at Dresden, where he was then minister, February 14, 1601, aged 50, leaving a great number of works, both in German and Latin. The principal are, 1. “Explanations of Genesis,” in six parts, or six volumes, 4to, each of which bears the name of the patriarch whose history it explains. 2. “Comraentaries on the two first chapters of Daniel,” 2 vols. 4to. 3. “A Paraphrase on the History of the Passion,” 4to, or 12mo. 4. “Explanation of Psalm CI,” 8vo. 5. “Commentaries on the Minor Prophets,” 4to, published at Leipsic, 1609, by Poly carp Lyserus, his great-grandson, who has added some remarks on Haggai, according to his ancestor’s method. 6. “Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” 7. “Centuria qutestionum de articulis libri Christiana; Concordia?,” 4to. 8. “Christianismus, Papismus, Calvinismus,” 8vo. 9. “Harmonia Calvinianorum et Photinianorum in Doctrina de Sacra Cena,” 4to. 10. “Vindiciae Lyserianse, an sincretismus in rebus fidei cum Calvinianis coli prodest,” 4to. II. “Disputationes IX. Anti Steiniance quibus examinatur defensio concionis Irenicse Pauli Steinii,” 4to. 12. “Harmonia Evangelistarum continuata ad Christianam Harmoniam et ejusdem Epitome,” 8vo. 13. “Disput. de Deo patre Creatore coeli et terrae,” 4to. 14. “De seternitate Filii Dei,” 4to. 15. “De sacramentis decades duae,” 4to. He published also the “History of the Jesuits,” written by Elias Hasenmuller, who having quitted that society, and turned Lutheran, retired to Wittemberg, and died there before his work was printed. Father Gretser attacked this history, and Lyserus answered him by “Strena ad Gretserum pro honorario ejus,” 8vo.

, 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.

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Rome Octqber 23, 1637. After studying jurisprudence, in which he made a great and very rapid progress at Pisa, he began to devote his main attention to mathematics and natural philosophy, which he cultivated at Florence, during three years, under the celebrated Vincent Viviani, and was made secretary to the academy del Cimento, the duties of which office he discharged with the utmost assiduity and care. Being directed by the prince to draw up an account of the experiments made there, he published it in 1666, when it was received with universal applause by men of science. While engaged on this work, he obtained leave from Leopold to pay a visit to his father at Rome, and with a view to obtain some ecclesiastical promotion. Having failed in this object, he returned to Florence, and obtained a place at the court of the grand duke Ferdinand II.; and shortly after a pension was given him by pope Alexander VII. About 1666 he drew up and published a small volume relative to the history of China, which was received with great applause; and at the same time he published a small, but elegant compendium of the Moral Doctrine of Confucius. Having considerable poetical talents, he was the first person who published a good translation of the Odes of Anacreon in Italian verse. He was very conversant in many of the modern languages, and could write and speak French, Spanish, and English, with the correctness and ease of the natives of those countries. When in England he became the intimate friend of the illustrious Mr. Robert Boyle, whom he vainly attempted to convert from the errors of the protestant faith. After being employed in several missions to foreign princes, he was in 1674 appointed ambassador to the imperial court, where he acquired the particular favour of the emperor, and formed connections with the men most eminent for science and literature; but, finding a very inconvenient delay of the necessary pecuniary remittances from his court, he determined to return to Florence without waiting the permission of the duke. Shortly after, that prince recalled him, and gave him apartments in his palace, with a considerable pension, but Magalotti preferred retirement, and the quiet prosecution of his studies. In 1684 he composed fifteen Italian odes, in which he has drawn the picture of a woman of noble birth and exquisite beauty, distinguished not only by every personal, but by every mental charm, and yet rendering herself chiefly the object of admiration and delight by her manners and conduct, whom, with no great gallantry, he entitled “The Imaginary Lady.” His next work consisted of Letters against Atheists, in which his learning and philosophy appear to great advantage. In 169 he was appointed a counsellor of state to the grand duke, who sent him his ambassador into Spain to negotiate a marriage between one of his daughters and king Charles II.; but soon after he had accomplished the object of this mission, he sunk into a temporary melancholy. After recovering in about a year, he resumed his literary labours, and published works upon various subjects, and left others which were given to the world after his decease, which happened in 1712, when he had attained the age of 75. Magalotti was as eminent for his piety as he was for his literary talents; unimpeachable in his morals, liberal, beneficent, friendly, polite, and a lively and cheerful, as well as very instructive companion. His house was the constant resort of men of letters from all countries, whom he treated with elegant hospitality. He was deeply conversant with the writings of the ancient philosophers, and was a follower of the Platonic doctrine in his poems. In his natural and philosophical investigations he discarded all authority, and submitted to no other guide but experiment. Among the moderns he was particularly attached to Galileo. After his death a medal was struck in honour of his memory, with the figure of Apollo raised on the reverse, and the inscription Omnia Lustrat.

This extraordinary application, and talents, soon recommended him to Ermini, librarian to the cardinal de Medicis, and to Marmi, the grand duke’s librarian, who introduced him into the company of the literati, and made him known at court. Every where he began to be looked upon as a prodigy, particularly for his vast and unbounded memory, of which many remarkable anecdotes have been given. A gentleman at Florence, who had written a piece that was to be printed, lent the manuscript to Magliabechi; and some time after it had been returned with thanks, came to him again with the story of a pretended accident by which he had lost his manuscript. The author seemed inconsolable, and intreated Magliabechi, whose character for remembering what he read was already very great, to try to recollect as much of it as he possibly could, and write it down for him against his next visit. Magliabechi assured him he would, and wrote down the whole ms. without missing a word, or even varying any where from the spelling. Whatever our readers may think of this trial of his memory, it is certain that by treasuring up at least the subject and the principal parts of all the books he ran over, his head became at last, as one of his acquaintances expressed it to Mr. Spence, “An universal index both of titles and matter.”

By this time Magliabechi was become so famous for the vast extent of his reading, and his amazing retention of what he had read, that he was frequently consulted by the learned, when meditating a work on any subject. For example, and a curious example it is, if a priest was going to compose a panegyric on any saint, and came to consult Magliabechi, he would immediately tell him, who had said any thing of that saint, and in what part of their works, and that sometimes to the number of above an hundred authors. He would tell not only who had treated of the subject designedly, but point out such as had touched upon it only incidentally; both which he did with the greatest exactness, naming the author, the book, the words, and often the very number of the page in which they were inserted. All this he did so often, so readily, and so exactly, that he came at last to be looked upon as an oracle, on account of the ready and full answers that he gave to all questions, that were proposed to him in any faculty or science whatever. The same talent induced the grand duke Cosmo III. to appoint him his librarian, and no man perhaps was ever better qualified for the situation, or more happy to accept it, He was also very conversant with the books in the Laurentian library, and the keeping of those of Leopold and Francis Maria, the two cardinals of Tuscany. Yet all this, it is said, did not appease his voracious appetite; he was thought to have read all the books printed before his time, and all in it. Doubtless this range, although very extensive, must be understood of Italian literature only or principally. Crescembini paid him the highest compliment on this. Speaking of a dispute whether a certain poem had ever been printed or not, he concluded it had not, “because Magliabechi had never seen it.” We learn farther that it was a general custom for authors and printers to present him with a copy of whatever they printed, which must have been a considerable help towards the very large collection of books which he himself made. His mode of reading in his latter days is said to have been this. When a book first came into his hands, he would look over the title-page, then dip here and there in the preface, dedication and advertisements, if there were any; and then cast his eyes on each of the divisions, the different sections, or chapters, and then he would be able to retain the contents of that volume in his memory, and produce them if wanted. Soon after he had adopted this method of what Mr. Spence calls “fore-shortening his reading,” a priest who had composed a panegyric on one of his favourite saints, brought it to Magliabechi as a present. He read it over in his new way, the title-page and heads of the chapters, &c. and then thanked the priest very kindly “for his excellent treatise.” The author, in some pain, asked him, “whether that was all that he intended to read of his book?” Magliabechi coolly answered, “Yes, for I know very well every thing that is in it.” This anecdote, however, may be explained otherwise than upon the principles of memory. Magliabechi knew all that the writers before had said of this saint, and he knew this priest’s turn and character, and thence judged what he would chuse out of them and what he would omit. Magliabechi had even a local memory of the place where every book stood, as in his master’s shop at first, and in the Pitti, and several other libraries afterwards; and seems to have carried this farther than only in relation to the collections of books with which he was personally acquainted. One day the grand duke sent for him after he was his librarian, to ask him whether he could get him a book that was particularly scarce. “No, sir,” answered Magliabechi; “for there is but one in the world; that is in the grand signior’s library at Constantinople, and is the seventh book on the second shelf on the right hand as you go in.” Though this extraordinary man must have lived a sedentary life, with the most intense and almost perpetual application to books, yet he arrived to a good old age. He died in his eighty-first year, July 14, 1714. By his will he left a very fine library of his own collectionfor the use of the public, with a fund to maintain it and whatever should remain over to the poor. By the funds which he left, by the addition of several other collections, and the bounty of some of the grand dukes, his library was so much augmented as to vie with some of the most considerable in Europe. Of this collection, a catalogue and description of the works printed in the fifteenth century was published by Fossi, under the tide “Catalogus codicum sseculo XV impressorum in Bibliotheca Magliabechiana, Florentiae adservantur,” Florence, 3 vols. fol. 1793—1795.

Of the domestic habits of Magliabechi, we have many accounts that represent him as an incorrigible sloven. His attention was so entirely absorbed by his books and studies, that he totally neglected all the decencies of form and ceremony, and often forgot the most urgent wants of human nature. His employment under the grand duke did not at all change his manner of life: the philosopher still continued negligent in his dress, and simple in his manners. An old cloak served him for a gown in the day, and for bed-clothes at night. He had one straw chair for his table, and another for his bed; in which he generally continued fixed among his books till he was overpowered by sleep. The duke provided a commodious apartment for him in his palace; of which Magliabechi was with much difficulty persuaded to take possession; and which he quitted in four months, returning to his house on various pretences, against all the remonstrances of his friends. He was, however, characterized by an extraordinary modesty, and by a sincere and beneficent disposition, which his friends often experienced in their wants. He was a great patron of men of learning, and ha4 the highest pleasure in assisting them with his advice and information, in furnishing them with all necessary books and manuscripts. Cardinal Nods used to call him his Maecenas; and, writing to him one day, he told him he thought himself more obliged to him for direction in his studies, than to the pope for raising him to the purple. He had the utmost aversion to any thing that looked like constraint. The grand duke knew his disposition, and therefore always dispensed with his personal attendance upon him; and, when he had any orders to give him, sent him them in writing. The pope and the emperor would gladly have drawn him into their service, but he constantly refused their most honourable and advantageous offers. The regimen he observed contributed not a little to preserve his health to old age. He always kept his head warmly covered, and took at certain times treacle, which he esteemed an excellent preservative against noxious vapours. He loved strong wine, but drank it in small quantities. He lived upon the plainest and most ordinary food. Three hard eggs and a draught of water was his usual repast. He took tobacco, to which he was a slave, to excess; but was absolute master of himself in every other article.

Some time after, madam de Montespan, wishing to conceal the birth of the children she had by the king, cast her eyes on madam Scarron, as the most likely person to keep the secret, and educate them properly; and madam Scarron undertook this charge by his majesty’s order, and became their governante. She then led a hard, unpleasant, and retired life, with only her pension of 2000 livres, and had the mortification of knowing that she was disagreeable to the king. His majesty had indeed a degree of dislike to her: he looked upon her as a wit; and though he possessed much wit himself, he could not bear those who made a display of it. He never mentioned her to madam de Montespan, but by the name of “your belesprit.” When the children grew older, they were sent for to court, which occasioned the king to converse sometimes with madam Scarron, in whom he found so much sense, sweetness, and elegance of manners, that he not only lost by degrees his dislike to her, but gave her a particular proof of his esteem: looking over the state of the pensions, and seeing “two thousand francs for madam Scarron,” he erased the sum, and wrote “two thousand crowns.” The young duke of Maine also contributed not a little to remove his majesty’s prejudices. The king frequently played with him, and being much pleased with the sense that appeared even in his eyes, and with the manner in which he answered his questions, said to him one day, “You are very wise” “I may well be so,” replied the child, “for I have a governess who is wisdom itself.” “Go,” said his majesty, “go, tell her you bring her a hundred thousand franks for your sugar plumbs.” Madam Scarron attended this young prince sometime after to the waters of Barege, from whence she wrote to the king himself, to inform him of all that passed. He was much pleased with her letters, and said, “I had no idea that a bel -esprit could write so well.” This circumstance probably gave rise to the report that Louis XIV. was first captivated by a letter she wrote in madam de Montespan’s name; but it is a mere story. Madam de Montespan wrote at least as good letters as madam Scarron, and even as madam de Sevigne.

In the mean time, her elevation was to her only a retreat. Shut up in her apartment, which was on the same floor with the king’s, she confined herself to the society of two or three ladies, as retired as herself; and even these she saw but seldom. The king came to her apartment every day after dinner, before and after supper, and continued there till midnight. Here he did business with his ministers, while madam de Maintenon employed herself in reading or needle-work, never shewing any eagerness to talk of state affairs, often seeming wholly ignorant of them, and carefully avoiding whatever had the least appearance of cahal and intrigue. She studied more to please him who governed, than to govern; and preserved her credit, by employing it with the utmost circumspection. She did not make use of her power, to give the greatest dignities and employments among her own relations Her brother count d'Aubigne, a lieutenant-general of long standing, was not even made a marshal of France; a blue ribbon, and some appropriations in the farms of the revenue, were all his fortune: which made him once say to the marshal de Vivone, the brother of madam de Montespan, that “he had received the staff of marshal in ready money.” It was rather high fortune for the daughter of this count, to marry the duke de Noailles, than an advantage to the duke. Two more nieces of madam de Maintenon, the one married to the marquis de Caylus, the other to the marquis de Villette, had scarcely any thing. A moderate pension, which Louis XIV. gave to madam de Caylus, was almost all her fortune; and madam de Villette had nothing but expectations. This lady, who was afterwards married to the celebrated lord Bolingbroke, often reproached her aunt for doing so little for her family; and once told her in some anger, that “she took a pleasure in her moderation, and in seeing her family the victim of it.” This Voltaire relates as a fact, which he had from M. de Villette herself. It is certain, that M. de Maintenon submitted every thing to her fears of doing what might be contrary to the king’s sentiments. She did not even dare to support her relation the cardinal de Noailles, against father le Tellier. She had a great friendship for the poet Kacine, yet did not venture to protect him against a slight resentment of the king’s. One day, moved with the eloquence with which he had described to her the people’s miseries in 1698, she engaged him to draw up a memorial, which might at once shew the evil and the remedy. The king read it; and, upon his expressing some displeasure at it, she had the weakness to tell the author, and not the courage to defend him. Racine, still weaker, says Voltaire, was so hurt, that it was supposed to have occasioned his xleath. The same natural disposition, which made her incapable of conferring benefits, made her also incapable of doing injuries. When the minister Louvois threw himself at the feet of Louis XIV. to hinder his marriage with the widow Scarron, she not only forgave him, but frequently pacified the king, whom the rough temper of this minister as frequently angered.

The court grew now every day less grty and more serious, after the king began to live a retired life with madam de Maintenon. It was the convent of St. Cyr which revived the taste for works of genius. Madam de Maintenon intreated Racine, who had renounced the theatre for Jansenism and the court, to compose a tragedy, and to take the subject from the Bible. Racine composed “Esther:” and this piece having been first represented at the house of St. Cyr, was afterwards acted several times at Versailles before the king, in the winter of 1689. At the death of the king, which happened Sept. 2, 1715, madam de Maintenon retired wholly to St. Cyr, where she spent the remainder of her days in acts of devotion. What appears surprising is, that Louis XIV. made no certain provision for her, but only recommended her to the duke of Orleans. She would accept of no more than an annual pension of 80,000 livres and this was punctually paid her till her death, which happened the 15th of April, 1719. M. de la Beaumelle published in 1755, “M. de Maintenon’s Letters,” 9 vols. 12mo; and “Memoirs” for her history, &c. the whole reprinted in 12 vols. small 12mo. These “Letters” are curious and interesting, but there are several trifling ones among them. The “Memoirs,” which contain some remarkable anecdotes, are not always to be depended on as to facts, and are frequently censurable for indelicacy.

, a French poet of later times, was born at Besan^on, in 1604, and was gentleman in waiting to the duke of Montmorency, under whom he signalized himself in two battles against the Hugonots. His patron settled upon him a pension of 15,000 livres but, not contented with that, he complained heavily that the poets of his time received praises and incense, like the deities of antiquity, but nothing that could support life. He was in truth a lover of good cheer, and would have been more pleased with presents of wine, or delicacies for the table, than crowns of laurel, or any unsubstantial honour. His remonstrances were not ineffectual. He received many presents from the duke de Longueville, and favours in, great number from cardinal Richelieu, the count of Soissons, and cardinal la Valette. He married in 1648, and retired to Besangon, where he principally resided from that time, though he lost his wife in about ten years. He had some talent for negotiation, and conducted the business of a suspension of arms for Franche Comte with such success, that the emperor rewarded him in 1668, by reestablishing an ancient claim to nobility that had been in his family. He died in 1686, at the age of eighty-four. Mairet was never rich, yet led a life of ease and gratification. He very early began to write. His first tragedy of “Chryseide,” was written at sixteen “Sylvia,” at seventeen “Sylvianire,” at twenty-one “The Duke de Ossane,” at twenty-three “Virginia,” at twenty-four and “Sophonisba,” at twenty-five. He wrote in all, 1. Twelve tragedies, which, though they have some fine passages, abound in faults, and are written in a feeble style of versification. Corneille had not yet established the style of the French drama. On the Sophonisba of Mairet, Voltaire has formed another tragedy of the same name. 2. A poem, entitled “Le Courtisan solitaire,” a performance of some merit 3. Miscellaneous poems, in general moderate enough. 4. Some criticisms against Corneille, which were more disgraceful to the author than to the person attacked. His Sophonisba, however, was preferred to that of Corneille, but then that drama is by no means esteemed one of the happiest efforts of the great tragic poet.

, duke of Lauderdale, grandson of the preceding, was a statesman of great power and authority, but of most inconsistent character. On the breaking out of the wars in Scotland in the reign of Charles I. he was a zealous covenanter; and in Jan. 1644-5, one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, during which, upon the death of his father the earl of Lauderdale, he succeeded to his titles and estate. He took an active but not very useful part in the above treaty; “being,” says lord Clarendon, “a young man, not accustomed to an orderly and decent way of speaking, and having no gracious pronunciation., and full of passion, he made every thing much more difficult than it was before.” In April 1647, he came with the earl of Dumfermling to London, with a commission to join with the parliament commissioners in persuading the king to sign the covenant and propositions offered to him; and in the latter end of the same year, he, in conjunction with the earl of Loudon, chancellor of Scotland, and the earl of Lanerick, conducted a private treaty with his majesty at Hampton court, which was renewed and signed by him on Dec. 26 at Carisbrook castle. By this, among other very remarkable concessions, the king engaged himself to employ the Scots equally with the English in all foreign employments and negociations; and that a third part of all the offices and places about the king, queen, and prince, should be conferred upon persons of that nation; and that the king and prince, or one of them, should frequently reside in Scotland. In August the year following, the earl of Lauderdale was sent by the committee of estates of Scotland to the prince of Wales, with a letter, in which, next to his father’s restraint, they bewailed his highness’s long absence from that kingdom; and since their forces were again marched into England, they desired his presence to countenance their endeavours for religion and his father’s re-establishment. In 1649, he opposed with great vehemence the propositions made by the marquis of Montrose to king Charles II.; and in 1651 attended his majesty in his expedition into England, but was taken prisoner after the battle of Worcester in September the same year, and confined in the Tower of London, Portland-castle, and other prisons, till the 3d of March, 1659-60, when he was released from his imprisonment in Windsor-castle.

Upon the Restoration he was made secretary of state for Scotland, and persuaded the king to demolish the forts and citadels built by Cromwell in Scotland; by which means he became very popular. He was likewise very importunate vfith his majesty for his supporting presbyterv in that kingdom; though his zeal, in that respect, did not continue long. In 1669, he was appointed lord commissioner for the king in Scotland, whither he was sent with great pomp and splendour to bring about some extraordinary points, and particularly the union of the two kingdoms. For this purpose he made a speech at the opening of the parliament at Edinburgh on the 19th of October that year, in which he likewise recommended the preservation of the church as established by law, and expressed a vast zeal for episcopal government. And now the extending of the king’s power and grandeur in that kingdom. was greatly owing to the management of his lordship although he had formerly been as much for depressing the prerogative; and from the time of his commission the Scots had reason to date all the mischiefs and internal commotions of that and the succeeding reign. Having undertaken to make his majesty absolute and arbitrary, he stretched the power of the crown to every kind of excess, and assumed to himself a sort of lawless administration, the exercise of which was supposed to be granted to him in consequence of the large promises he had made. In the prosecution of this design, being more apprehensive of other men’s officious interfering, than distrustful of his own abilities, he took care to make himself his majesty’s sole informer, as well as his sole secretary; and by this means, not only the affairs of Scotland were determined in the court of England, without any notice taken of the king’s council in Scotland, but a strict watch was kept on all Scotchmen, who came to the English court; and to attempt any access to his majesty, otherwise than by his lordship’s mediation, was to hazard his perpetual resentment. By these arrogant measures, he gradually made himself almost the only important person of the whole Scotch nation; and in Scotland itself assumed so much sovereign authority, as to name the privy-counsellors, to place and remove the lords of the session and exchequer, to grant gifts and pensions, to levy and disband forces, to appoint general officers, and to transact all matters belonging to the prerogative. Besides which, he was one of the five lords, who had the management of affairs in England, and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the garter. But these honours did not protect him from the indignation of the House of Commons; by whom, in November the year following, he was voted a *' grievance, and not fit to be trusted or employed in any office or place of trust.“And though his majesty thought proper on the 25th of June, 1674, to create him a baron of England by the title of Baron of Petersham in Surrey, and earl of Guildford, yet the House of Commons the next year presented an address to the king to remove him from all his employments, and from his majesty’s presence and counsels for ever; which address was followed by another of the same kind in May 1678, and by a third in May the year following. He died at Tunbridge Wells, August 24, 1682, leaving a character which no historian has been hardy enough to vindicate. In Clarendon, Burnet, Kennet, Hume, Smollet, &c. we find a near conformity of sentiment respecting his inconsistency, his ambition, and his tyranny . Mr. Laing observes, that” during a long imprisonment, his mind had been carefully improved by study, and impressed with a. sense of religion, which was soon effaced on his return to the world. His learning was extensive and accurate; in public affairs his experience was considerable, and his elocution copious, though unpolished and indistinct. But his temper was dark and vindictive, incapable of friendship, mean and abject to his superiors, haughty and tyrannical to his inferiors; and his judgment, seldom correct or just, was obstinate in error, and irreclaimable by advice. His passions were furious and ungovernable, unless when his interest or ambition interposed; his violence was ever prepared to suggest or to execute the most desperate counsels; and his ready compliance preserved his credit with the king, till his faculties were visibly impaired with age." The duke died without male issue, but his brother succeeded to the title of Earl, whose son Richard was the author of a translation of Virgil, which is rather literal than poetical, yet Dryden adopted many of the lines into his own translation.

, an Italian Jesuit, sent by his superiors as a missionary to Portugal, was a man of an ardent zeal, with that facility of elocution which enthusiasm geu*rally confers. He soon became the fashionable confessor, and people of all ranks put themselves under his direction. He was regarded as a saint, and consulted as an oracle. When the duke d‘Aveiro formed his conspiracy against the king of Portugal, he is said by the enemies of the Jesuits to have consulted with three of that order, one of whom was Malagrida. The king, when he thought proper to banish the Jesuits from his kingdom, suffered Malagrida, Alexander, and Mathos, to remain there; and these are the very three who are supposed to have assisted the conspiracy, by telling the conspirators that it was not even a venial sin to kill a monarch who persecuted the saints, i. e. the Jesuits. Malagrida was some time after sent to the inquisition, for teaching heretical doctrines; an accusation which is said to have been not altogether without foundation. He appears, however, to have been an enthusiast of so extravagant a kind, that no singularities in his writings can be thought extraordinary. He conceived himself to possess the power of working miracles; and declafed to the inquisitors, that God himself had appointed him his ambassador, apostle, and prophet. This, and many other very wild declarations, would not, perhaps, have occasioned his condemnation, had he not unfortunately pretended to have had the death of the king revealed to him. The marquis of Tancors, general of the province of Estremadura, ’happening to die, the castle of Lisbon, and all the fortresses of the Tagus, discharged their cannon in honour of him. Malagrida, hearing this unusual sound in the night, concluded that the king was dead, and desired that the inquisitors would grant him an audience. When he came before them, he said, in order to establish the credit of his predictions, that the death of the king had been revealed to him; and that he also had a vision, which informed him what punishment that monarch was to undergo in the other world for having persecuted the Jesuits. This declaration hastened his condemnation. He was burnt alive on Sept. 21, 1761, at the age of 75, not as a conspirator, but as a false prophet. His true character, perhaps, was that of a lunatic. The works in which his heretical extravagancies are to be found, are entitled “Tractatus de vita et imperio Antichrist!” and (written in the Portuguese language) “The Life of St. Anne, composed with the assistance of the blessed Virgin Mary and her most holy Son.”

The next piece which Malebranche published, was his “Conversations Chretiennes, dans lesquelles sont justifié la verite de la religion & de la morale de J. C.” Paris, 1676. He was moved, it is said, to write this piece, at the desire of the duke de Chevreuse, to shew the consistency and agreement between his philosophy and religion. His “Traité de la nature & de la grace,” 1680, was occaioned by a conference he had with M. Arnaud, about those peculiar notions of grace into which Malebranche’s system had led that divine. This was followed by other pieces, which were all the result of the philosophical and theological dispute our author had with M. Arnaud. In 1688, he published his “Entretien sur la inetaphysique & la religion:” in which work he collected what he had written against M. Arnaud, but disengaged it from that air of dispute which is not agreeable to every reader. In 1697, he published his “Traite de P amour de Dieu.” When the doctrine of the new mystics began to be much talked of in France, father Lamy, a Benedictine, in his book “De la connoissance de soi-mme,” cited some passages out of this author’s “Recherche de la verit6,” as favourable to that party; upon this, Malebranche thought proper to defend himself in this book, by shewing in what sense it may be said, without clashing with the authority of the church or reason, that the love of God is disinterested. In 1708, he published his “Entretiens d‘un philosophe Chretien, & d’un philosophe Chinois sur l'existence & la nature de Dieu:” or, “Dialogues between a Christian philosopher and a Chinese philosopher, upon the existence and nature of God.” The bishop of Rozalie having remarked some conformity between the opinions of the Chinese, and the notions laid down in the “Recherche de la Verite”,“mentioned it to the author, who on that account thought himself obliged to write this tract. Malebranche wrote many other pieces besides what we have mentioned, all tending some way or other to confirm his main system established in the” Recherche," and to clear it from the objections which were brought against it, or from the consequences which were deduced from it: and, if he has not attained what he aimed at in these several productions, he has certainly shewn great ingenuity and abilities.

In 1771, when the government had dissolved the whole legal constitution, and banished the parliaments, Malesherbes was banished to his country-seat by a “lettre de cachet,” and the duke de Richelieu, at the head of an armed force, abolished the court of aids. During his retirement, Malesherbes’s time was occupied with his family and his books, and the cultivation of his grounds. His expenditure in public objects was large: he drained marshes, cut canals, constructed roads, built bridges, planted walks, and carried his attention to the comfort of the lower classes so far as to raise sheds on the sides of the river for the shelter of the women at their domestic labours. He was thus benevolently and usefully employed when the accession of Lewis XVI. recalled him to a public station, and in 1774 Malesherbes received an order to resume the presidentship of the court of aids, on which occasion he pronounced a very affecting and patriotic harangue, and afterwards addressed the king in an eloquent speech of thanks. His majesty was so well pleased with him, and with the freedom of his sentiments, that he appointed him minister of state in June 1775, an office which gave Malesherbes an opportunity of extending his sphere of usefulness. One of his first concerns was to visit the prisons, and restore to liberty the innocent victims of former tyranny, and his praises were carried throughout France by persons of all descriptions returning to the bosoms of their families from the gloom of dungeons. Although he failed in his attempt to abolish the arbitrary power of issuing lettres de cachet, he procured the appointment of a commission, composed of upright and enlightened magistrates, to which every application for such letters should be submitted, and whose unanimous decision should be requisite for their validity. Malesherbes was also a great encourager of commerce and agriculture, in which he bad the cordial co-operation of the illustrious Turgot, at that period the comptroller of the revenue; but, owing to the rejection of some important measures which his zeal for the public good led him to propose, Malesberbes resigned in the month of May 1776. To obtain an accurate view of the manners and policy of other countries and foreign states, he set out on his travels, and visited Switzerland and Holland, and in the course of his journey he noted down every occurrence worthy of observation, and that might, hereafter, possibly be useful to himself, and promote the melioration of his country. On his return, at the end of a few years, he found his native country so much advanced in what he thought philosophical principles, that he was encouraged to present to the king two elaborate memoirs, one on the condition of the protestants, the other in favour of the principles of civil liberty, an4 toleration in general. Difficulties, however, were now accumulating in the management of the government, and the king, in 1786, called Malesherbes to his councils, but without appointing him to any particular post in the administration. He soon found it impossible to act with the men already possessed of the powers of government, and expressed his opinion in two energetic memoirs “On the Calamities of France, and the means of repairing them;” but it does not appear that these ever reached his majesty, nor could Malesherbes obtain a private interview; he therefore took his final leave of the court, and retreated to his country residence, determined to consult the best means of serving his country by agricultural pursuits, in 1790 he published “An Essay on the means of accelerating the progress of Rural Economy in France,” in which he proposed an establishment to facilitate the national improvement in this important point. In this tranquil state he was passing the evening of his days when the horrors of the revolution brought him again to Paris. During the whole of its progress, he had his eyes constantly fixed on his unhappy sovereign; and, subduing his natural fondness for retirement, went regularly to court every Sunday, to give him proofs of his respect and attachment. He imposed it as a duty on himself to give the ministers regular information of the designs of the regicide faction; and when it was determined to bring the king to trial, he voluntarily offered to be the defender of his master, in his memorable letter of Dec. 11, 1792, that eternal monument of his loyalty and affection. Three counsel had already been appointed, but one having from prudential motives, declined the office, the king, who wept at this proof of attachment from his old servant, immediately nominated Malesherbes in his stead. Their interview was extremely affecting, and his majesty, during the short interval before his death, shewed every mark of affection for, and confidence in, his generous advocate. Malesherbes was the person who announced to him his cruel doom, and was one of the last who took leave of him previously to his execution. After that catastrophe he again withdrew to his retreat, and with a deeply-wounded heart, refused to hear any thing of what was acting among the blood-thirsty Parisians. As he was one morning working in his garden, he observed four savage-looking wretches directing their course to his house, and hastening home, he found them to be officers from the revolutionary tribunal come to arrest his daughter and her husband, who had formerly been president of the parliament of Paris. The separation of these persons from his family was deeply afflicting to his heart, and it is probable that his own arrest shortly after was a relief to his feelings. He had long been esteemed as father of the village in which he lived, and the rustic inhabitants crowded round to take leave of their ancient benefactor with tears and benedictions. Four of the municipality accompanied him to Paris, that he might not be escorted by soldiers like a criminal. He was shut tip in prison with his unfortunate family and in a lew days the guillotine separated his son-in-law Lepelletier from his wife and the accusation of Malesherbes with his daughter and grand-daughter, “for a conspiracy against the liberties of the people,” was followed, as a matter of course, by a sentence of death. The real crime, as it was basely denominated, of this excellent man and worthy patriot, and which the convention never pardoned, was his defence of the king, an act in which he gloried to the latest hour of his existence. He probably thought it an honour to die by the same ruffian hands that had spilt the blood of his master. The condemnation of the females almost overcame the manly fortitude which he displayed in every personal suffering; his courage, however, returned at the prison, and they prepared for the death which was the last and only important event that they had to encounter. His daughter had exhibited the noble spirit with which she was inspired, for upon taking leave of mademoiselle Sombreuil, who had saved her father’s life on the second of September, she said to her, “You have had the happiness to preserve your father, I shall have the consolation of dying with mine” On the fatal day Malesherbes left the prison with a serene countenance, and happening to stumble against a stone, he said with much pleasantry, “a Roman would have thought this an unlucky omen, and walked back again.” Thus perished the venerable Malesherbes in April 1794, when he had attained to the age of seventy-two years four months and fifteen days. His character may be in part deduced from the preceding narrative, but is more fully displayed in his life translated by Mr. Mangin. The subsequent government has since made some reparation for the injustice done him, by ordering his bust to be placed among those of the great men who have reflected honour upon their country.

, a French author, a man of extensive and almost universal learning, was born at Paris in 1650. By Bossuet, and the duke of Montausier, who knew his merit, he was appointed preceptor to the duke of Maine; and the public in general approved the choice. In 1696 Malezieu was chosen to instruct the duke of Burgundy in mathematics. In 1699 he became a member of the academy of sciences, and in two years after of the French academy. The duke of Maine rewarded his care of him by appointing him the chief of his council, and chancellor of Dombes. Under the regency of the duke of Orleans he was involved in the disgrace which fell upon the duke his pupil, and was imprisoned for two years. He had an excellent constitution, which, aided by regularity, conducted him nearly to the close of life without any indisposition. He died of an apoplexy on March 4, 1727, at the age of seventy-seven. Notwithstanding the vast extent of his learning, and many occupations which required great attention, he had an easy and unembarrassed air; his conversation was lively and agreeable, and his manners polite and attentive. He published, 1. “Elements of Geometry, for the duke of Burgundy,” 1715, 8vo, being the substance of the instructions delivered by him to that prince. 2. Several pieces in verse, songs, &c. published at Trevoux about 1712. 3. There has also been attributed to him a farce in one act, entitled, “Polichtnelle demandant une place a l'Academie.” He had, among other talents, that of translating the Greek authors into French, particularly the tragic writers, in a style of harmony and energy of verse, whieh approached as nearly, perhaps, as any thing in his language could do, to the excellence of the originals.

Malherbe was born at Caen, about 1555, of an ancient and illustrious family, who had formerly borne arms in, England, under Robert duke of Normandy. He lived to be old; and, about 1601, he became known to Henry the Great, from a very advantageous mention of him to that prince by cardinal du Perron. The king asked the cardinal one day, “if he had made any more verses?” To which the cardinal replied, that “he had totally laid aside all such amusements since his majesty had done him the honour to take him into his service; and added, that every body must now throw away their pens for ever, since a gentleman of Normandy, named Malherbe, had carried the French poetry to such a height, as none could hope to reach.” About four years after, he was called to court, and enrolled among the pensioners of that monarch. After the death of Henry, queen Mary of Medicis became his patroness, and settled upon him a very handsome pension. This he enjoyed to the time of his death, which happened at Paris in 1628. It was the misfortune of this poet, that he had no great share in the affection of cardinal Richelieu. It was discovered, that, instead of taking more than ordinary pains, as he should have done, to celebrate the glory of that great minister, he had only patched together old scraps, which he had found among his papers. This was not the way to please a person of so haughty a spirit; and therefore he received this homage from Malherbe very coldly, and not without disgust. “I learned from M. Racan,” says Menage, “that Malherbe wrote those two stanzas above thirty years before Richelieu, to whom he addressed them, was made a cardinal; and that he changed only the four first verses of the first stanza, to accommodate them to his subject. I learned also from the same Racan, that cardinal Richelieu knew that these verses had not been made for him.” His apparent indolence upon such an occasion was probably owing to that extreme difficulty with which he always wrote. All writers speak of the time and labour it cost Malherbe to produce his poems.

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.

After making the usual tour of Europe with the duke’s sows, he returned with them to London, and by the influence of the family, in which he resided, easily gained admission to many persons of the highest rank, to wits, nobles, and statesmen. “By degrees,” says Dr. Johnson, “having cleared his tongue from his native pronunciation, so as to be no longer distinguished as a Scot, he seems inclined to disencumber himself from all adherences of his original, and took upon him to change his name from Scotch Malloch to English Mallet, without any imaginable reason of preference which the eye or ear can discover. What other proofs he gave of disrespect to his native country, I know not; bur it was remarked of him that he was the only Scot whom Scotchmen did not commend.” It seems unreasonable, however, to impute this change of name to disrespect for his country; with his countrymen many of his most intimate connections were formed, and his friendship for Thomson is one of the most agreeable parts of his history; and almost the last character he sustained was that of an intrepid advocate for lord Bute, and what were then called the Scotch junto who ruled the king and kingdom. As to Scotchmen not commending him, he had at least one adherent in Smollet, who engaged him to write in the Critical Review, where all Mallet’s works are highly praised, particularly his “Elvira.” The late commentator, George Steevens, esq. hit upon the truth more exactly, when he wrote in a copy of Gascoigne’s Works, purchased in 1766, at Mallet’s sale, “that he was the only Scotchman who died, in his memory, unlamented by an individual of fyis own nation.” Steevens probably mad this remark to Johnson, who forgot the precise terms. The first time we meet with the name of David Mallet is in 1726, in a list of the subscribers to Savage’s Miscellanies.

From this time (1757) until 1763, we hear nothing of Mr. Mallet, except a dedication of his poems to the late duke of Marlborough, in which he promises himself speedily the honour of dedicating to him the life of his illustrious predecessor. The cause of this promise is another of those charges which have been brought against Mallet, and which it will be difficult to repell. When the celebrated John duke of Marlborough died, it was determined, that the history of his life should be transmitted to posterity, and the papers supposed to contain the necessary information were delivered to lord Molesworth, who had been his favourite in Flanders. When Molesworth died, the same papers were transferred with the same design to sir Richard Steele, who in some of his exigences put them to pawn. They then remained with the old duchess, who in her will assigned the task to Mr. Glwer, the author of “Leonidas,” and Mr. Mallet, with a reward ef lOOOl. and a curious prohibition against inserting any verses. There were other prohibitions and conditions, however, which induced Glover, a man of spirit and virtue, to decline the legacy. Mallet had no such scruples, and besides the legacy, had a pension from the late duke of Marlborough to quicken his industry. He then began, and continued to talk much and often of the progress he had made, but on his death, not a scrap coulil be discovered of the history. In the political disputes which commenced at the beginning of the present reign, Mallet espoused the cause of his countryman lord Bute, and is said to have written his tragedy of “Elvira,” with a view to serve his lordship. This play was performed at Drury-lane in 1763; its ob­]ect was to recommend pacific sentiments, but the public was dissatisfied with the iate peace, and “Elvira,” though well performed, was easily rendered unpopular by the opponents of the ministry. Davies gives us an amusing anecdote of his tricking Garrick into the performance of this piece, by making him believe that he had introduced the mention of him in his life of Marlborough, a bait which Mallet’s principles suggested, and which Garrick’s vanity readily swallowed. Garrick got little by the play, but Mallet was rewarded with the office of keeping the book of entries for ships in the port of London.

, a learned historian and antiquary, first professor of history in his native city, was born at Geneva in 1730, became afterwards professor royal of the belles lettres at Copenhagen, a member of the academies of Upsal, Lyons, Cassel, and of the Celtique academy of Paris. Of his life no account has yet appeared. He joined an extensive acquaintance with history and general literature to great natural talents. The amenity of his disposition caused his company to be much sought, while his solid qualities procured him friends who deeply regretted his loss. The troubles of Geneva during the first revolutionary war deprived him of the greatest part of his fortune; and he was indebted, for the moderate competence he retained, to pensions from the duke of Brunswick and the landgrave of Hesse; but the events of the late war deprived him of both those pensions. The French government is said to have designed him a recompense, but this was prevented by his death, at Geneva, Feb. 8, 1807. His works were: 1. “Histoire de Danernarck,” to the eighteenth century, the best edition of which is that of 1787. 2. A translation of Coxe’s “Travels,” with remarks and additions, and a relation of his own Travels in Sweden, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Translation of the Acts and form of the Swedish government, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de Hesse,” to the seventeenth century, 3 vols. 8vo. 5. “Histoire de la rnaison de Brunswick,” to its accession to the throne of Great Britain, 3 vols. 8vo. 6. “Histoire des Suisses,” from the earliest times to the commencement of the late revolution, Geneva, 1803, 4 vols. 8vo. 7. “Histoire de la Ligne Anseatique,” from its origin to its decline, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo. He had discovered at Rome the chronological series of Icelandic bishops, which had been lost in Denmark. It is published in the third volume of Langebeck’s collection of Danish writers. The late Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, has made us acquainted with professor Mallet’s merit as an antiquary by his excellent translation entitled “Northern Antiquities; or a Description of the manners, customs, religion, and laws, of the ancient Danes, and other northern nations including those of our own Saxon ancestors. With a translation of the Edda, or system of Runic mythology, and other pieces from the ancient Islandic Tongue. Translated from M. Mallet’s Introduction a l'Histoire de Danemarck,” &c. 1770, 2 vols, 8vo. To this Dr. Percy has added many valuable and curious notes, and Goranson’s Latin version of the “Edda.” It was very justly said, at the time, by the Monthly Reviewer, that Dr. Percy had, in this instance, given a translation more valuable than the original.

, an Italian physician and anatomist, was born March 10, 1628, at Crevalcuore, near Bologna, in Italy, where he was taught Latin and studied philosophy. In 1649, losing his parents, and being obliged to choose his own method of life, he determined to apply himself to physic. The university of Bologna was then supplied with very learned professors in that science, particularly Bartholomew Massari, and Andrew Mariano, under whose instructions Malpighi in a short time made great progress in physic and anatomy. After he had finished the usual course, he was admitted doctor of physic, April 6, 1653, In 1655 Massari died, a loss which Malpighi severely felt, as independent of his esteem for him as a master, he had become more nearly related to him by marrying his sister. In 1656, the senate of Bologna gave him a professorship, which he did not long hold; for the same year the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to Pisa, to be professor of physic there. Here he contracted a strict friendship with Borelli, whom he subsequently owned for his master in philosophy, and to whom he ascribed all the discoveries which he afterwards made. They dissected animals together, and it was in this employment that he found the heart to consist of spiral fibres; a discovery, which has been ascribed to Borelli in his posthumous works. The air of Pisa not agreeing with Malpighi, be continued there but three years: and, in 1659, returned to Bologna, to resume his former posts, notwithstanding the advantageous offers which were made him to stay at Pisa. In 1662 he was sent for to Messina, in order to succeed Peter Castello, first professor of physic, who was just dead. It. was with reluctance that he went thither, though the stipend was great; and although he was prevailed on at last by his friend Borelli, to accept it, yet in 1666 he returned to Bologna. In 1669 he was elected a member of the royal society of London, with which he ever after kept a correspondence by letters, and communicated his discoveries in anatomy. Cardinal Pignatelli, who had known him while he was legate at Bologna, being chosen pope in 1691, under the name of Innocent XII. immediately sent for him to Rome, and appointed him his physician. In 1694 he was admitted into the academy of the Arcadians at Rome. July the 25th, of the same year, he had a fit, which struck half his body with a paralysis; and, November the 29th following, he had another, of which he died the same day, in his 67th year. His remains were embalmed, and conveyed to Bologna, where they were interred with great funeral honours in the chureh of St. Gregory, and a statue was erected to his memory. Malpighi is described as a man of a serious and melancholy temperament, which is confirmed by his portrait in the meeting-room of the royal society at Somerset-house. He was indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge, on the sure ground of experience and observation, ever candid in his acknowledgments to those who had given him any information, and devoid of all ostentation or pretension on the score of his own merits. He ranks very high among the philosophers of the physiological age in which he lived, when nature began to be studied instead of books, and the dreams of the schools. Hence arose the discoveries of the circulation of the blood, the absorbent system of the animal body, and the true theory of generation. To such improvements the investigations of Malpighi, relative to the anatomy and transformation of insects, particularly the silk-worm, and the developement of the chick in the egg, lent no small aid. From these inquiries he was led to the anatomy and physiology of plants, in which he is altogether an original, as well as a very profound, observer. His line of study was the same as that of Grew, but these philosophers laboured independent of each other, and their frequent coincidence evinces the accuracy of both.

, 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.

, called, like other Benedictines, Dom Thomas, did considerable honour to his order by the extent of his learning, which obtained him the places of antiquary, librarian, and counsellor to Charles duke of Lorraine. He died in 1763, when he was preparing a work, which was published in the course of the same year, by the abbe Jacquin. The title is, “Introduction a la science des Medailles pour servir a la connoissance des Dieux, et de la Religion, des Sciences, des Arts, et de tout ce qui appartient a l'Histoire ancienne, avec les preuves tires des Medailles,” folio. Mangeart is here said to have comprised, in a single volume, the elementary knowledge of medals which had before been treated but too slightly; and the most valuable information which is scattered through many prolix dissertations on particular parts of the subject, Mr. Pinkerton, however, pronounces it to be a dry compilation concerning antiquities found on medals, in which the author shews no knowledge of the medals themselves. It is a kind of supplement to Montfaucon’s antiquities. Mangeart published also, 2. Eight sermons, with a treatise on Purgatory, at Nancy, 1739, in 2 vols. 12mo.

, 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.

, marquis of Granby, was son of John duke of Rutland, and grandson of John the first duke, and was born in January 1721. He was bred to the army, and in the rebellion of 1745 raised a regiment of foot at his own expence, for the defence of the country against the rebels. In 1755 he was advanced to the rank of majorgeneral, and in 1758 was appointed lieutenant-general and colonel of the blues. With this rank he went into Germany with the British forces, which were sent to serve under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick; and in 1759 was promoted to the general command of the British troops, an appointment which gave much satisfaction, and for which he appears to have been well qualified. If he had not the great abilities requisite to a commander in chief, he had all the qualifications for an admirable second in command. With a competent share of military skill, he possessed that personal valour and ardour in the service, which inspired his soldiers with confidence; and that humane and generous attention to their comfort and welfare, joined with affability and open-hearted cheerfulness, which strongly attached them to his person. In 1760 he justified the high opinion which prince Ferdinand had expressed of him after the battle of Minden, by his good conduct at Warburg, where the British cavalry were particularly signalized. In the beginning of the ensuing campaign, he commanded under the hereditary prince, in his attack on the frontier towns of Hesse; and at the battle of KirkDenkern, bore the first and most violent onset of the enemy, and by the firmness of his troops contributed much to that victory. He maintained the same character at Grsebesteein and Homburgh, in 1762. He died at Scarborough, Oct. 19, 1770 He had been made a member of the privycouncil in 1760, and resigning the office of lieutenantgeneral of the ordnance, was in May 1763 constituted master-general of that department. In Feb. 1764, he was declared lord-lieutenant and custos rotulorum of Derbyshire. In 1766 he was constituted commander in chief of his majesty’s land forces in Great Britain; which he resigned a little before his death. He married Sept. 3, 1750, lady Frances Seymour, eldest daughter of Charles duke of Somerset, by whom, among other issue, he had Charles, the late duke of Rutland, who died lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1787; and lord Robert Manners, a gallant officer of the navy, who died Jan. 23, 1782, of the wounds he received in an engagement, Sept. 1, 1781, in the West Indies, on board his majesty’s ship the Resolution, of which he was captain. A monument in hoiiour of his memory was ordered at the national expence for him, capt. Blair, and capt. Bayne, which is now in St. Paul’s cathedral.

His ministerial functions were exercised in various places, first at Sowton near Exeter, and then at Colyton in Devonshire, where he was much respected. Removing to London, he became more admired for his talents in the pulpit, and about 1643 was presented to the living of Stoke Newington, by colonel Popham, and here preached those lectures on the epistles of St. James and St. Jude, which he afterwards published in 1651 and 1652, 4to. During his residence at Newington, he often preached in London, and is said to have preached the second sermon before the sons of the clergy, an institution then set on foot, chiefly through the influence of Dr. Hall, son to the bishop, who preached the first. He was also one of those who were called occasionally to preach before the parliament, but being a decided enemy to the murder of the king, he gave great offence by a sermon in which he touched on that subject. In 1651 he shewed equal contempt for the tyranny of the usurpers, by preaching a funeral sermon for Mr. Love (see Christopher Love), and in neither case allowed the fears of his friends to prevent what he thought his duty. In 1650 he removed from Stoke-Newington, on being presented to the living of Covent garden by the earl, afterwards duke of Bedford, who had a high respect for him. At this church he had a numerous auditory. Archbishop Usher, who was one of his hearers, used to say that he was one of the best preachers in England, and had the art of reducing the substance of whole volumes into a narrow compass, and representing it to great advantage. Although he had already, by the two sermons above noticed, shewn that he was far from courting the favours, of government, Cromwell, who well knew how to avail himself of religious influence and popular talents, sent for him in 1653, when he assumed the protectorate, and desired him to pray at Whitehall on the morning of his installation; and about the same time made him one of his chaplains. He was nominated also by parliament one of a committee of divines to draw up a scheme of fundamental doctrines. In the same year he was appointed one of the committee for the trial and approbation of ministers, and appears to have acted in this troublesome office with considerable moderation. What influence he had with Cromwell, he employed for the benefit of others, and particularly solicited him to spare the life of Dr. Hewit, a loyalist, whom Cromwell executed for being concerned in a plot to restore Charles II. In 1660, when the days of usurpation were over, Mr. Manton co-operated openly in the restoration of Charles, was one of the ministers appointed to wait upon his majesty at Breda, and was afterwards sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains. In the same year he was, by mandamus, created doctor of divinity at Oxford.

He was then one of the ministers who waited upon the king after his arrival, to beg his majesty’s interposition for reconciling the differences in the church; and afterwards joined several of his brethren, in a conference with the episcopal clergy, at the lord chancellor’s house; preparatory to the declaration of his majesty, who was likewise present. Being satisfied with this declaration, Dr. Manton continued in his living of Covent-garden, and received episcopal institution from Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London, Jan. 16,1661, after having first subscribed the doctrinal articles only of the church of England, and taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and of canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest. He also allowed that the common-prayer should be read in his church. Soon after he was offered the deanery of Rochester, which he might have held until 1662, and enriched himself by letting leases; but, either dissatisfied with the advances he bad already made towards conformity, or foreseeing that greater would soon be expected, he honourably refused to enrich himself by accepting a dignity, the very existence of which he and his brethren were prepared to oppose. In 1661 he was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference, and continued preaching until St. Bartholomew’s day in 1662, when he was obliged to resign his living. After this he preached occasionally, either in private or public, as he found it convenient, particularly during the indulgence granted to the nonconformists from 1668 to 1670, but was imprisoned for continuing the practice when it became illegal. From this time his history is too generally involved with that of his brethren to admit of being separated. He preserved, amidst all vicissitudes, the friendship of the duke of Bedford, the duke of Richmond, lord Wharton, and many other persons of rank. To this they were probably induced by a congeniality of principle; but independent of this, Dr. Manton was a man of great learning and extensive reading, and his conversation as much recommended him to men of the world, as to those who admired his pious services. Waller, the poet, said “that he never discoursed with such a man as Dr. Manton in all his life.” He was also a person of extraordinary charity, and supplicated the assistance of his great friends more for the poor than for himself, being perfectly disinterested. Wood has misrepresented his character in all these respects. His constitution, although a man of great temperance, early gave way; and his complaints terminating in a lethargy, he died Oct. 18, 1677, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. He was buried in the chancel of the church at Stoke Newington, where his intimate friend Dr. Bates preached his funeral sermon, which includes a very copious character of him.

, an Italian poet of great temporary fame, was born at Mantua, whence he took his name, in 1448, and not in 1444, as Cardan and others have said; for Mantuan himself relates, in a short account of his own life, that he was born under the pontificate of Nicholas V. and Nicholas was only made pope in March 1447. He was of the illustrious family of the Spagnoli, being a natural son of Peter Spagnolo, as we learn from Paul Jovius, who was his countryman, and thirty-three years old when Mantuan died, and therefore must have known the fact. Mantuan too speaks frequently and highly, in his works, of his father Peter Spagnolo, to whom he ascribes the care of his education. In his youth, he applied himself ardently to books, and began early with Latin poetry, which he cultivated all his life; for it does not appear that he wrote any thing in Italian. He entered himself, we do not know exactly when, among the Carmelites, and came at length to be general of his order; which dignity, upon some disgust or other, he quitted in 1515, and devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of the belles-lettres. He did not enjoy his retirement long, for he died in March 1516, upwards of eighty years of age. The duke of Mantua, some years after, erected to his memory a marble statue crowned with laurel, and placed it next to that of Virgil; and even Erasmus went so far as to say that a time would come, when Baptist Mantuan would not be placed much below his illustrious countryman. In this opinion few critics will now join. If he had possessed the talents of Virgil, he had not his taste, and knew not how to regulate them. Yet allowance is to be made, when we consider that, in the age in which he lived, good taste had not yet emerged. Liiius Gyraldiis, in his “Dialogues upon the poets of his own times,” says, “that the verses which Mantuan wrote in his youth are very well; but that, his imagination afterwards growing colder, his latter productions have not the force or vigour of his earlier.” We may add, that Mantuan was more solicitous about the number than the goodness of his poems; yet, considering that he lived when letters were but just reviving, it must be owned, that he was a very extraordinary person. His poetical works were first printed, in a folio volume without a date, consisting of his eclogues, written chiefly in his youth seven pieces in honour of the virgins inscribed on the kalendar, beginning with the virgin Mary these he calls “Parthenissal.” “Parthenissa II.” &c. four books of Silvge, or poems on different subjects; elegies, epistles, and, in short, poems of every description. This was followed by an edition at Bologna, 1502, folio, and by another at Paris in 1513, with the commentaries of Murrho, Brant, and Ascensius, 3 vols. fol. but usually bound in ne. A more complete, but now more rare, edition of them was published at Antwerp, 1576, in four vols. 8vo, under this title, “J. Baptistae Mantuani, Carmelitae, theologi, philosophi, ppetae, & oratoris clarissimi, opera omnia, pluribus libris aucta & restituta.” The Commentaries of the Paris edition are omitted in this; but the editors have added, it does not appear on what account, the name of John, to Baptist Mantuan.

, the author of the Turkish Spy, a book cried up far beyond its merits, for a long time, both in France and England, was born about 1642, at or near Genoa. When he was only twenty-seven or twentyeight, he was involved in the conspiracy of Raphael de la Torre, who was desirous to give up Genoa to the duke of Savoy. After being imprisoned four years, he retired to Monaco, where he wrote the history of t&at plot, printed at Lyons, in 1682, in Italian. It contains some curious particulars.

, a French courtier and author, of the fifteenth century, was the son of a Burgundian gentleman. He was first page, and afterwards gentleman to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, who so highly esteemed his fidelity, that he refused to give him up at the demand of Louis XI. La Marche served afterwards with zeal under Charles the Rash, who was slain at the battle of Nancy, in 1477. After this, he had the office of grand maitre d'hotel to Maximilian of Austria, who had married the heiress of Burgundy; and, maintaining the same post under the archduke Philip, was sent on an embassy to France after the death of Louis XI. He died at Brussels Feb. 1, 1501. His works are, 1. “Memoirs, or Chronicles,” printed at Lyons in I 562, and at Brussels in 1616, 4to. They are reckoned inferior to the Memoirs of Comines, as to their style, but perhaps superior as to their sincerity. The author relates several curious anecdotes in a manner which, though flat, is rendered pleasing by its frankness. 2. “ATreatiseon Duels,” &c. 8vo. 3. “Triomphe des Dames d'Honneur,” 1520, 8vo; the Triumph of virtuous Women. This is a work of dull and trivial morality, full of quaint allusions and metaphors. Several other performances are said to be extant, in print, and. in manuscript, but from the account given of them there is little motive for making them the object of any further inquiry.

, a nobleman of great learning and accomplishments, was born in 1708. He was the third in succession to, and the last inheritor of, that title; there being no male descendants of his grandfather, sir Patrick Hume, the first earl, and his lordship having survived his only son, Alexander lord Polwarth, who had been created an English peer, but died without issue of his marriage with the lady Isabella Grey, daughter of the earl of Hardwicke, and heiress of the last duke of Kent; a peeress in her own right, under a limitation by Charles II. of the barony of Lucas of Cruduell.

Sir Patrick having by such means eluded all the exertions of government to have him seized, after the failure of the duke of Argyle’s attempt, escaped to France, and travelled through that country, as a physician, to Bourcleaux, from whence he embarked for Holland, where he attached himself to the prince of Orange, looking up to him, as many others both at home and in Holland did, as the best resource against the threatened destruction of every thing most dear to British subjects.

Lord Marchinont was also distinguished by Sarah duchess of Marlborough, in a very remarkable manner*, with whom he lived in the most friendly habits, and was appointed by her grace one of her executors, with a large legacy, and named in the succession to a part of her great estate, on failure of certain heirs of her body (excluding the duke of Marlborough) on whom she entailed the whole; the discharge of which trust fell principally on the earl.

After his lordship’s accession to the peerage in 1740, he did not mix in public business till 1747, when he was appointed first lord commissioner of police in Scotland; and had no opportunity of rendering himself conspicuous in polir tical life until 1750, when he was elected one of the sixteen peers, in the room of the earl of Crawford. From this time he took a very active share in most of the important debates that occurred, which led to his being appointed keeper of the great seal of Scotland in 1764 (on the death of the duke of Athol), the office substituted for that of lord chancellor. The last political act of his life, was the vote he gave on Mr. Fox’s India bill; on which occasion he was the first peer who went below the bar as a non-content.

, queen of Navarre, and sister to Francis I. of France, celebrated as an author yet more than for her rank, was born at Angouleme, April 11, 1492; being the daughter of Charles of Orleans, duke of Angouleme, and Louisa of Savoy. In 1509 she married Charles the last duke of Alen^on, who died at Lyons, after the battle of Pavia, in 1525. The widow, inconsolable at once for the loss of her husband, and the captivity of her beloved brother, removed to Madrid, to attend the latter during his illness. She was there of the greatest service to her brother, by her firmness obliging Charles and his ministers to treat him as his rank demanded. His love and gratitude were equal to her merits, and he warmly promoted her marriage with Henry d‘Albret, king of Navarre. The offspring of this marriage was Joan d’Albret, mother of Henry IV. Margaret filled the character of a queen with exemplary goodness; encouraging arts, agriculture, and learning, and advancing by every means the prosperity of the kingdom. She died at the castle of Odos, in Bigorre, Dec. 2, 1549. She had conversed with protestant ministers, and had the sagacity to perceive the justness of their reasonings; and their opinions were countenanced by her in a little work entitled “Le Miroir de l'Ame pecheresse,” published in 1533, and condemned by the Sorbonne as heretical; but on her complaining to the king, these pliant doctors withdrew their censure. The Roman catholic writers say, that she was completely re-converted before she died. The positive absolution of the Romish priests is certainly a great temptation to pious minds in the hour of weakness and decline. Margaret is described as an assemblage of virtues and perfections, among which, that of chastity was by no means the least complete, notwithstanding the freedom, and, to our ideas, licence of some of her tales. Such is the difference of manners. She wrote well both in verse and prose, and was celebrated in both. She was called the tenth muse and the Margaret, or pearl, surpassing all the pearls of the east. Of her works, we have now extant, 1. her “Heptameron,” or, Novels of the queen of Navarre, 1559, and 1560, in 4to, and several times re-published. They are tales in the style of Boccace, and are told with a spirit, genius, and simplicity, which have been often serviceable to Fontaine in his tales. Several editions have been printed with cuts, of which the most valued are that of Amsterdam, in 1698j in 2 vols. 8vo, with cuts by Roinain de Hooge; the reprints of this edition in 1700 and 1708, are not quite so much valued, yet are expensive, as are the editions with Chodoviechi’s cuts, Berne, 1780 1, 3 vols. 8vo; Paris, 1784, and 1790. 2. “Les Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses;” a collection of her productions, formed by John de la Haye, her valet de chambre, and published at Lyons, in 1547, 8vo; a very rare edition, as is that of 1554. In this collection there are four mysteries, or sacred comedies, and two farces, according to the taste of the times. A long poem entitled “The Triumph of the Lamb,” and “The Complaints of a Prisoner,” apparently intended for Francis I.

, a French author and journalist, was born in Languedoc, in the diocese of Bezieres. He appeared at Paris about 1715, and espoused the cause of the Jesuits against the Jansenists; in which business he wrote with so much acrimony, that the court thought themselves obliged to banish him. He was sent to the isles of Larins, in the Mediterranean, and when these were taken by the Austrians in 1746, his liberty was granted on condition that he would retire into some religious house. He chose a monastery of Bernardines, where he died in 1760. His caustic and satirical disposition rendered him unpleasing in society as well as in his writings; and it is thought that his banishment and solitude much increased the acrimony of his character. He was concerned in several works, as, 1.“Memoirs of Marshal Villars,” 3 vols. 12mo, the two first of which are written by Villars himself. 2. “The Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick,” 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Memoirs of Tourville,” 3 vols. 12mo, not much esteemed. 4. “Letters of Fitz-Moritz.” 5. Several small tracts, and some pieces of poetry of no great value.

, a Spanish historian, was born at Talavera, in Castille, in 1537; and entered into the order of Jesuits when he was seventeen. He was one of the most learned men of his age, an able divine, a considerable master of polite literature, admirably skilled in sacred and profane history, and a good linguist. In 1561 he was sent by his superiors to Rome, where he taught divinity, and received the order of priesthood; and at the end of four years weut to Sicily, where he continued the same profession two years more. He came to Paris in 1569, and read lectures publicly upon Thomas Aquinas for five years; then returned into Spain, and passed the remainder of his life at Toledo. He wrote many books in Latin. His piece “De rnonetse mutatione,” gave great offence to the court of Spurn; for Philip III. having altered and emr based the coin by the advice of the duke of Lerma, Mariana shewed, with great freedom, the injustice and disadvantage of this project; for which he was put into prison, and kept there about a year by that minister. But what made more noise still, was his tract De rege & regis institutione,“consisting of three books, which he published to justify James Clement, a young monk, for assassinating Henry III. of France. In this he argues against passive obedience and non-resistance; asserts the lawfulness of resisting” the powers that be,“where the administration is tyrannical; and founds his whole argument upon this principle,” that the authority of the people is superior to that of kings." This book of Mariana, though it passed without censure in Spain and Italy, was burnt at Paris, by an arret of parliament.

, a once celebrated Italian poet, was born at Naples in 1569; and made so great a progress in his juvenile studies, that he was thought qualified for that of the civil law at thirteen. His father, who was a lawyer, intended him for that profession, as the properest means of advancing him; but Marini had already contracted a taste for poetry, and was so far from relishing the science to which he was put, that he sold his law-books, in order to purchase books of polite literature. This so much irritated his father, that he turned him out of doors, and obliged him to seek for protectors and supporters abroad. Having acquired a reputation for poetry, he happily found in Inico de Guevara, duke of Bovino, a friend who conceived an affection for him, and supported him for three years in his house. The prince of Conca, grand admiral of the kingdom of Naples, next took him into his service, in quality of secretary; and in this situation he continued five or six years; but having assisted a friend in a very delicate intrigue, he was thrown into prison, and very hardly escaped with his life. Thence he retired to Rome, where, after some time spent in suspense and poverty, he became known to Melchior Crescendo, a prelate of great distinction, who patronized him, and provided him with every thing he wanted.

In 1601, he went to Venice, to print some poems which he dedicated to Crescentio; and after making the tour of that part of Italy, returned to Rome. His reputation increased greatly, so as to engage the attention of the cardinal Peter Aldobrandini, who made him his gentleman, and settled on him a considerable pension. After the election of pope Paul V. which was in 1605, he accompanied this cardinal to Ravenna, his archbishopric, and lived with him several years. He then attended him to Turin, at which court he ingratiated himself by a panegyric upon the duke Charles Emmanuel; for which this prince recompensed him with honours, and retained him, when his patron the cardinal left Piedmont. During his residence here he had a violent dispute, both poetical and personal, with Gasper Murtola, the duke’s secretary. Murtola was, or fancied himself, as good a poet as Marini, and was jealous of Marini’s high favour with the duke, and therefore took every opportunity to speak ill of him. Marini, by way of revenge, published a sharp sonnet upon him at Venice, in 1608, under the title of “II nuovo mondo;” to which Murtola opposed a satire, containing an abridged life of Marini. Marini answered in eighty-one sonnets, named the “Murtolelde:” to which Murtola replied in a “Marineide,” consisting of thirty sonnets. But the latter, perceiving that his poems were inferior in force as well as number to those of his adversary, resolved to put an end to the quarrel, by destroying him; and accordingly fired a pistol, the ball of which luckily missed him. Murtola was cast into prison, but saved from punishment at the intercession of Marini, who, nevertheless, soon found it expedient to quit his present station.

Mr. Markland found the “Sylvae” of Statins in a very corrupt state, obscure in itself, and mangled by its editors; yet, notwithstanding the want of ms copies, of which there were none in England, he appears to have Accomplished his task by uncommon felicity of judgment and conjecture. It is not very easy to comprehend Ernesti’s objection, that he “sometimes rather indulged his ingenuity and exquisite learning against the expressed authority of books,” since his object was to prove how much those books had failed in exhibiting a pure text. Of the ancient editions, Mr. Markland owns his obligations to that of Venice, 1472, which he found in the duke of Devonshire’s library, and which is also in lord Spencer’s; and that of Parma, 1473, belonging to the earl of Sunderland. The “Statius,” as well as the “Epistola Critica,” was dedicated to his friend bishop Hare.

We find him afterwards connected with D'Alembert and Diderot, in the compilation of the Encyclopedie, which is supposed to have had no small share in producing the French revolution. Of this, too, however, he lived to repent, as his attachments were to the royal cause, although he held that changes to a certain degree were necessary. He afterwards became a contributor to the “Mercure Francois,” and it was in this publication that he wrote his “Tales.” In 1758 he became sole editor of the “Mercure/‘ which he very greatly improved but having in a gay party repeated a satire on the duke D’Aumont, which was not his own writing, and having refused to give up the author, he was sent to the Bastille, and lost his situation in the Mercure. His confinement, however, was short, and the reputation his” Tales“acquired in every part of Europe, procured him riches and distinction. After gaming the prize of the French academy, by his” Epitre aux Poetes,“though Thomas and Delille were his competitors, he was admitted into that academy in 1763, as successor to Marivaux, and his fame was afterwards completely established by his” Belisarius,“and his” Les Incas," both which acquired an uncommon degree of popularity.

, seigneur du Mont, sainte Aldegonde, by which last name he is recorded by some biographers, was born in 1538, at Brussels, of noble parents, who were originally of Savoy. He was Calvin’s disciple at Geneva, and appointed ecclesiastical counsellor to Charles Louis, elector palatine; but William, prince of Orange, invited him back again some time after, and employed him usefully in affairs of the utmost importance. Sainte Aldegonde was afterwards consul at Antwerp, which city he defended against the duke of Parma, in 1584, and died at Leyden, December 15, 1598, aged sixty, while he was employed in a Flemish version of the Bible. He left “Controversial Theses,” Antwerp, 1580, 8vo; “Circular Epistles to the Protestants;” “Apologies;” a “Portrait of different Religions,” in which he ridicules the church of Rome, Leyden, 1603, and 1605, 2 vols. 8vo; and other works. Sainte Aldegonde drew up the form of the celebrated confederacy, by which several lords of the Netherlands engaged to oppose the odious tribunal of the inquisition, in 1566.

, son of the preceding, was born at Cahors, in Querci, about 1496. In his youth he was page to seigneur Nicholas de Neusville, secretary of state; and afterwards to princess Margaret, the king’s sister, and the duke of Alen.con’s wife. He followed the duke to the army in 1521, and was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Pavia. While Francis I. was Charles the Fifth’s’ prisoner in Spain, Marot was imprisoned at the instigation of Dr. Bouchard, who accused him of being a protestant; but in an epistle to that doctor, he assured him that he was orthodox, and a very good catholic. After his release he retired to his old mistress, the duchess of Alen^on, who was then become queen of Navarre, by her marriage with John d'Albret. In 1536 he obtained leave of Francis I. to return; but, being suspected for a follower of the new opinions, he was obliged to make his escape to Geneva, where, whatever his religious principles might be, his moral conduct was highly exceptionable. After remaining here some years, he went into Piedmont, where he died at Turin, in 1544, in his forty-ninth year; and as some say, very poor.

, an exemplary Irish prelate, was descended from a Saxon family, formerly seated in Kent, whence his great-grandfather removed; and was born at Hannington, in Wiltshire, Dec. 20, 1638. He received the first rudiments of learning in his native place; and being there well fitted for the university, was admitted of Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, in 1654. He became B. A. in 1657, master in 16 60, bachelor of divinity in 1667, and doctor in 1671. In the mean time he was made fellow of Exetercollege, in 1658; afterwards chaplain to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Exeter, and then to chancellor Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In 1673, he was appointed principal of Alban-hall, Oxford, by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university; and executed the duties of his office with such zeal and judgment, that, according to Wood, “he made it flourish more than it had done many years before, or hath since his departure.” In 1678 he was removed by the interest of Dr. John Fell, together with that of the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the dignity of provost of Dublin-college. He was promoted to the bishopric of Leighlin and Ferns in 1683, translated to the archbishopric of Cashell in 1690, thence to Dublin in 1699, and then to Armagh in 1703. After having lived with honour and reputation to himself, and benefit to mankind in general, he died Nov. 2, 1713, aged seventy-five, and was buried in a vault in St. Patrick’s church-yard.

, an Italian, famous for letters as well as arms, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born at Bologna in 1658. He was educated with great care, and instructed in all the arts and sciences by the best masters in Italy; learning mathematics of Borelli, anatomy of Malpighi, &c. He went to Constantinople in 167S); and, as he had destined himself for the military profession, he contrived to take a view of the Ottoman forces, and made other observations of a like nature. He examined at the same time, as a philosopher, the Thracian Bosphorus, and its currents. He returned to Italy in 1680; and, the Turks soon after threatening an irruption into Hungary, he went to Vienna, to offer his service to the emperor Leopold II. which was readily accepted. Discovering great knowledge in fortifications and in the science of war, he had the command of a company conferred on him in 1683; and the same year, after a very sharp action, fell unfortunately into the hands of the Tartars. He was sold by them to two Turks, with whom he suffered great hardships; but at length, conveying intelligence of his situation to his friends, who had believed him dead, he was redeemed, and returned to Bologna towards the latter end of 1684. He went again into Germany, was employed by the emperor in several military expeditions, and made a colonel in 1639. A reverse of fortune afterwards overtook him. In the general war which broke out in 1701, on account of the Spanish, succession, the important fortress of Brisac surrendered to the duke of Burgundy, Sept. 6, 1703, thirteen days after the trenches were open: and it being judged that the place was capable of holding out much longer, the consequence was, that count d‘Arco, who commanded, lost his head; and Marsigli, who was then advanced to be a marshal, was stripped of all his honours and commissions, and had his sword broken over him. This sentence was executed on Feb. 18 following. He afterwards attempted to justify the surrender before the emperor; but, not being able to get admittance, he published a memorial, the purport of which was to shew, that long before the siege of Brisac, it had been represented and proved, that the place could not be defended for any long time. It was in fact the geneEfd opinion that d’Arco and he had been sacrificed, to exculpate the prince of Baden, who had posted a numerous artillery in a bad situation, and with a very weak garrison. When Marsigli went afterwards into France, and appeared at court without a sword, the king presented him with that which he himself wore, and assured him cf his favour.

, a French historian of some credit, was born at Paris in 16*7. He took the habit of a canon regular of St. Gdnevieve, and was sent to regulate the chapter of Usez, where he was made provost. This office he resigned in favour of the abbe Poncet, who was afterwards bishop of Angers. Some time after, he was made archdeacon of Usez, and died in that city Aug. 30, 1724, at the age of 78. Marsollier published several histories, which are still read by his countrymen with some pleasure: the style, though occasionally debased by low and familiar expressions, being in general rather lively and flowing. There are extant by him, 1. “A History of Cardinal Ximenes,” in 1693, 2 vols. 12mo, and since frequently reprinted. The only fault found with this work is, that the author gives up his attention to the public man so much, as almost to forget his private character. 2. “A History of Henry VII. King of England,” reprinted in 1727, in 2 vols. 12mo. Some consider this as the master-piece of the author. 3. “The History of the Inquisition and its origin,” 1693, 12mo. A curious work, and in some respects a bold one. 4. “Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Life of Madame de Chantal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Life of Dom Ranqe, abbe and reformer of La Trappe,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo. Some objections have been made to the veracity of this history, but the journalists de Trevoux seem disposed to prefer it upon the whole to Maupeou’s life of Ranee. 7. “Dialogues on many Duties of Life,” 1715, 12mo. This is rather verbose than instructive, and is copied in a great degree from Erasmus. 8. “The History of Henry de la Tour d'Auvergne, duke of Bouillon,” 3 vols. 12mo. Not much esteemed. 9. “An Apology for Erasmus,” 12mo; whose catholic orthodoxy the author undertakes to prove from passages in his works. 10. “A History of Tenths, and other temporal Goods of the Church,” Paris, 1689, 12mo. This is the most scarce, and at the same time the most curious, of all the works of Marsollier.

, 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 French author of considerable celebrity about the beginning of the last century, was born in 1684 at Dieppe. He studied at Paris, partly under the instruction of his learned grand-uncle Richard Simon, who then resided in the college of Fortet. In 1709, he went to the court of Mecklenburgh, and began his researches into the history and geography of that state; but, on the death of the duke, and the troubles which followed, and interrupted his labours, he removed elsewhere, probably to Parma, as we find him, in 1722, publishing, by order of the duke Philip Farnese, whom he calls his most serene master, an historical dissertation, “Dissertation historique sur les duchés de Parme et de Plaisance,” 4to. It appears also that the Sicilian monarch appointed him his secretary, with a salary of twelve hundred crowns. The marquis de Beretti Landi, the Spanish minister at the Hague, had a high regard for Martiniere, and advised him to dedicate his geographical dictionary to the king of Spain, and procured for him, from his catholic majesty, the title of royal geographer. Martiniere passed several years at the Hague, where all the foreign ministers paid him much attention, receiving him often at their tables. He died here June 19, 1749. Moreri makes him eighty-three years of age; but this is inconsistent with a date which he gives on the authority of Martiniere himself, viz. that in 1709 he was twenty-five years old. His personal character is represented in a very favourable light by M. Bruys, who lived a long time with him at the Hague, and objects nothing to him but a want of oeconomy in his domestic matters: he was a man of extensive reading and memory, excelled in conversation, which abounded in striking and original remarks, and was generous, liberal, and candid. His favourite studies were history and geography, which at length produced his wellknown dictionary, “Dictionnaire Geographique, Historique, et Critique,” Hague, 1726 1730, 10 vols. folio; reprinted with corrections and additions at Dijon in 6 vols, folio; and at Venice, and again at Paris in 176S, 6 vols. folio. This was the most comprehensive collection of geographical materials which had then appeared, and although not without the faults inseparable from so vast an undertaking, was of great importance to the science, and the foundation of many subsequent works of the kind. He also published several editions of Puftendorff’s “Introduction to History;” a work on which he appears to have bestowed more pains than will perhaps be approved, as his zeal for the Roman catholic religion induced him to omit Puffendorff’s remarks on the temporal power of the popes. His other works were, 1. “Essais sur l'origine et les progres de la Geographic,” with remarks on the principal Greek and Latin geographers. These two essays were addressed to the academy of history at Lisbon, and that of belles lettres at Paris, and are printed in Camusat’s “Memoires Historiques,” Amst. 1722. 2. “Traites geographiques et historiques pour faciliter l‘intelligence de l’Ecriture Sainte, par divers auteurs celebres, M. M. Huet et Le Grand, D. Calmet, &c. &c.” Hague, 1730, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Entretiens des ombres aux Champs Elyseés,” taken from a German work under that title, 2 vols. 4. “Essai d‘une traduction d’Horace,” in verse, with some poetical pieces of his own. 5. “Nouveau recueil des Epigrammatistes Francois anciens et modernes,” Amst. 1720, 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “Introduction generate a l'etude des Sciences et des Belles Lettres, en faveur des pefsonnes qui ne savent que le Frangois,” Hague, 1731, 12mo. 7. “Lettres choisies de M. Simon,” a new edition, with the life of the author, Amst. 1730, 4 vols. 12mo. 8. “Nouvelles politiques et litteraires,” a literary journal which did not last long. 9. “Vie de Moliere,” said to be more correct and ample than that by Grimarest. 9. “Continuation de VHistoire de France sous la regne de Louis XIV. commencée par M. de Larrey.” Some other works have been improperly attributed to Martiniere, as “Lettres serieuses et badines,” which was by M. Bruys, and “Relation d'une assemble tenue au bas du Parnasse,” a production, of the abbé D'Artigny. After his death, his name was put to a species of Ana, entitled, “Nouveau portefeuille historique et litteraire,” an amusing collection; but probabljr not of his forming.

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.

There are some of her writings still extant, Strype has preserved three prayers or meditations of her composition the first, “Against the assaults of vice” the second, “A Meditation touching adversity;” the third, “A prayer to be read at the hour cf death.” In Fox’s “Acts and Monuments” are printed eight of her letters to king Edvvard and the lords of the council, on her nonconformity, and on the imprisonment of her chaplain Dr. Mallet. In the “Sylloge epistolarum,” are several more of her letters, extremely curious: one on the subject of her delicacy in never having written but to three men; one of affection for her sister; one after the death of Anne Boleyn; and one very remarkable of Cromwell to her. In “Haynes’s State papers,” are two in Spanish, to the emperor Charles the Fifth. There is also a French letter, printed by Strype from the “Cotton library,” in answer to a haughty mandate from Philip, when he had a mind to marry the lady Elizabeth to the duke of Savoy, against the queen and princess’s inclination: it is written in a most abject manner, and a wretched style. Bishop Tanner ascribes to her “A History of her own life and death,” and “An Account of Martyrs in her reign,” dated 1682; but this is manifestly an error.

All these accomplishments, added to a fine person, rendered her so amiable to Henry II. of France and his queen, as to make them desirous of marrying her to the dauphin, which was accordingly arranged: and the nuptials were solemnized the 20th of April, 1558. But this happy marriage, for such it seems to have been, lasted only a little while; as Francis II. as he then was, died Dec. 5, 1560. His disconsolate queen, being left without issue, returned soon after to Scotland; where she had not been long, before Charles archduke of Austria was proposed to her as an husband, by the cardinal of Lorrain. But queen Elizabeth interposed, and desired she would not marry with any foreign prince, but make choice of an husband out of her own nobility. She recommended to her either the earl of Leicester, or the lord Dandy; giving her to understand, that her succession to the crown of England would be very pred&rious, if she did not comply. Being thus overawed by Elizabeth, and not a little pleased with lord Darnly, who was extremely handsome, she consented to marry him; and creating him earl of Ross and duke of Rothesay, July 28, 1565, he was the same day proclaimed king at Edinburgh, and married to the queen the day after. By this husband she had one son, born at Edinburgh, June 19, 1566, who was afterwards James the Sixth of Scotland, and the First of England. Queen Elizabeth congratulated her upon this occasion; though, as Camden says, she inwardly grieved at being prevented by her rival in the honour of being a mother. She openly favoured her title to the succession; and the prince was commended to her majesty’s protection.

, queen of England, and wife of William III. with whom she reigned jointly, was born at the royal palace of St. James’s, Westminster, the 30th of April, 1662. She was the daughter of James the Second, by a daughter of lord Clarendon, whom that prince married secretly, during the exile of the royal family. She proved a lady of most uncommon qualities: she had beauty, wit, good-nature, virtue, and piety, all in an eminent degree; and she shone superior to all about her, as well at the ball and the masque, as in the presence and the drawing-room. When she was fifteen, William prince of Orange, and afterwards king of England, made his addresses to her in person, and married her. Many suppose that the prince was so sagacious as to foresee all which afterwards came to pass; as that Charles II. would leave no children; that the duke of York, when he came to the throne, would, through his bigoted attachment to popery, be unable to keep possession of it; and that himself, having married the eldest daughter of England, would naturally be recurred to, as its preserver and deliverer in such a time of danger. If he had really any motives of policy, he had art enough to conceal them; for, having communicated his intentions to sir William Temple, then ambassador at the Hague, he frankly expressed his whole sentiments of marriage in the following terms; namely, that “the greatest things he considered were the person and disposition of the young lady; for, though it would not pass in the world for a prince to seem concerned in those particulars, yet for himself without affectation he declared that he was so, and in such a degree, tljat no circumstances of fortune or interest could engage him, without those of the person, especially those of humour or disposition: that he might, perhaps, be not very easy for a wife to live with; he was sure he should not be so to such wives as were generallj 7 in the courts of this age; that if he should meet with one to give him trouble at home, it was what he should not be able to bear, who was likely to have enough abroad in the course of his life; and that, after the manner he was resolved to live with a wife, which should be the best he could, he would have one that he thought likely to live well with him, which he thought chiefly depended upon their disposition and education.”

, or Dumas, born in 1516, at Linnich, near Brussels, was one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century. He was secretary to John de Weze, bishop of Constance, after whose death he was sent as an agent to Rome. He married at Cleves in 1558, and was appointed counsellor to William duke of Cleves. He died in April 1573. He was a master of the ancient and oriental languages to such a degree, that Sebastian Minister said he seemed to have been brought up in ancient Rome, or ancient Jerusalem. He produced, 1. “A Collection of various pieces, ancient and modern, translated from the Syriac,” Antwerp, 1569. 2. “Syrorum Peculium,” 1571, folio. This is a Syriac lexicon. 8. “Grammatica Linguae Syricae,” 1571, folio. 4. “A Commentary on the Book of Joshua,” Antwerp, 1574, folio, and also in the Critici Sacri. Dr. Henry Owen, who published a “Critical Disquisition” on this work in 1784, observes, that v although Masius’s professed design was to correct and restore the Greek text, yet his latent intention was merely to confirm the authority of the Septuagint. 5. “Disputatio de Ccena Domini,” Antwerp, 1575. 6. Commentaries on some chapters of Deuteronomy. He was in possession of the famous Syriac ms. written in the year 606, which afterwards belonged to D. E. Jablonsky. This manuscript is the only one that preserves the readings of Joshua as given by Origen.

He appears to have been early attached to what he considered as the cause of freedom. Of this he gave proof in a poem entitled “Isis,” which was printed in 1748, directed chiefly against the supposed Jacobitism of Oxford. Whatever truth might be in the accusation, it had the happy effect of producing “The Triumph of Isis” by Mr. Thomas Warton, which Mason candidly allowed was a superior poem. Thus early these two writers attracted notice by the defence of their respective universities; but their generous rivalship did not end in mutual respect, for which, perhaps, the difference of political principle may in some measure account. Mason was now requested to compose an ode for the installation of the duke of Newcastle as chancellor of the university of Cambridge, in 1749, to which he does not appear to have acceded with much love of the subject. Gray thought his production “uncommonly well for such an occasion,” but the author had no pleasure in the recollection, and omitted it in his works.

His dedications, says Mr. Gifford, are principally characterised by gratitude and humility, without a single trait of that gross and servile adulation which distinguishes and disgraces the addresses of some of his contemporaries. That he did not conceal his misery, his editors appear inclined to reckon among his faults; he bore it, however, without impatience, and we only hear of it when it is’ relieved. Poverty made him no flatterer, and, what is still more rare, no maligner of the great: nor is one symptom of envy manifested in any part of his compositions. His principles of patriotism appear irreprehensible: the extravagant and slavish doctrines which are found in the dramas of his great contemporaries make no part of his creed, in which the warmest loyalty is skilfully combined with just and rational ideas of political freedom. But the great distinction of Massinger, is the uniform respect with which he treats religion and its ministers, in an age when it was found necessary to add regulation to regulation, to stop the growth of impiety on the stage. No priests are introduced by him, “to set on some quantity of barren spectators” to laugh at their licentious follies; the sacred name is not lightly invoked, nor daringly sported with; nor is Scripture profaned by buffoon allusions lavishly put into the mouths of fools and women. Compared with the other dramatic writers of his age, he appears more natural in his characters, and more poetical in his diction, than Jonson or Cartwnght, more elevated and nervous than Fletcher, the only writers who can be supposed to contest his pre-eminence. He ranks, therefore, in the opinion of the ablest recent critics, immediately under Shakspeare. It must be confessed, says Dr. Ferriar, in his “Essay on the Writings of Massinger,” that in comedy he falls considerably beneath Shakspeare; his wit is less brilliant, and his ridicule less delicate and various; but he affords a specimen of elegant comedy (“The Great Duke of Florence”), of which there is no archetype in his great predecessor. In tragedy Massinger is rather eloquent than pathetic: yet he is often as majestic, and generally more elegant, than his master; he is as powerful a ruler of the understanding, as Shakspeare is of the passions; with the disadvantage of succeeding that matchless poet, there is still much original beauty in his works; and the most extensive acquaintance with poetry will hardly diminish the pleasure of a reader and admirer of Massinger.

Archbishop Matthew appears to have been a man of great wit (including perhaps the punning rage of the time), of a sweet disposition, very bountiful and learned, and as a divine, most exemplarily conscientious and indefatigable both in preaching, and other duties. Preferment never once induced him to desist from preaching, and there was scarcely a pulpit in the dioceses of Durham or York, in which he had not appeared. No imputation, says Mr. Lodge, remains on his memory, except the alienation of York house in the Strand to the duke of Buckingham, for which he is said to have accepted lauds in Yorkshire of inferior value.

In 1606 he returned to London, and wrote to sir Francis Bacon, a kinsman, friend, and servant of secretary Cecil, desiring him to acquaint the secretary of his conversion, and to assure him at the same time of his loyalty to the king. This intelligence, he tells us, was graciouslyaccepted by the secretary, and no harm threatened him from that quarter. He then waited on archbishop Bancroft, to make his apology for changing his religion, and to request his grace’s interference with his friends. The archbishop received him courteously, but blamed him for so sudden a change without hearing both sides, and appointed certain days when he should come to Lambeth and canvass the matter. Several interviews accordingly took place, in all which Mr. Matthew would have us believe he held the better argument. At length the archbishop, by the king’s order, tendered him the oath of allegiance; and, upon Matthew’s refusal, committed him to the Fleet prison. Here he remained six months, visited by several people of rank: bishop Morton, sir Maurice Berkeley, sir Edwin Sandys, sir Henry Goodyear, &c. &c. Some of these endeavoured to argue with him, but, according to his own account, he was able to answer them. The plague raging in London, his friend sir Francis Bacon procured him a temporary release; and some time after he was finally released, on condition of going abroad, and not returning without the king’s leave. Such is his own account. Mr. Lodge adds another circumstance, that he was a member of parliament, and that the House of Commons silentlyacquiesced in a precedent (his banishment) so dangerous to their privileges. Be this as it may, he went abroad, and remained on the continent about twelve years. When in France he became acquainted with Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham, who, when he came into favour with king James, obtained leave for Mr. Matthew to return to England, which he did in 1617; and in 1622, by the king’s command, followed prince Charles into Spain. On their return, he was received into full favpur with the king, who, he adds, “managed his parents also to forgive him, and to take proper notice of him. They rather chose,” he says, “to attack me with sighs and short wishes, and by putting now and then some books into my hands, rather than by long discourses.” Yet these efforts of paternal affection appear to have had no effect on him.

, son of the former, was born ini 1745. He was educated at Westminster-school, whence, in 1763, he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge. After a time, he obtained a travelling fellowship of that college, which enabled him to pass three years on the continent; and in 1774$ he was appointed chaplain to lord Stormont, then ambassador at the court of France. Soon after this, he married one of the daughters of Joseph Clark, esq. of Weatherfield in Essex; whose brother, captain Charles Clark, afterwards became famous, as being successor in command to the celebrated Cook, in that unfortunate voyage which proved fatal to both those officers. By this lady he had one son, who survived his father, but died while yet at school. Mr. Maty, much respected for his abilities, acquirements, and character, by persons able to contribute to his advancement, would have been very likely to gain preferment in the church, after his return to England, had not some scruples arisen in his mind on the subject of those articles of faith which formerly he had subscribed. From that time he determined, from the most conscientious motives, never to accept of any ecclesiastical appointment; and, after the death of his father in 1776, he withdrew himself entirely from the functions of the ministry in the established church. His reasons for this step, dated Oct. 22, 1777, were printed at his own request in the Gent. Mag for that year. They are chiefly the doctrines of the Trinity, of original sin, and of absolute predestination; which last he finds in the seventeenth article. His own inclination is to the Arian hypothesis, and to a liturgy somewhat like Dr. Clarke’s; and he says, although he has left the church, he has no objection to preach to a congregation holding the same opinions. His life was thenceforward more particularly devoted to literary pursuits, which were highly favoured by the appointment he obtained, at the same time, of an assistant librarian in the British Museum. He was afterwards advanced to be one of the underlibrarians of the same establishment, in the department of Natural History and Antiquities. In November 1778, on the resignation of Dr. Horsiey, he was appointed one of the secretaries to the Royal Society. In January 1782, he began a review of publications, principally foreign, which be continued with considerable success, though with little assistance, till September 1786, when he was compelled by ill health to discontinue it. The motto which he took for this work was modest, and well appropriated “Sequitur patrem non passibus sequis” alluding to his father’s “Journal Britannique” and the truth appears to be, that, though he was far from being deficient either in learning or critical abilities, he was inferior in both to his father; and being the avowed author of this review, is thought to have created at least as many enemies as admirers. In the disputes which arose in the Royal Society, in 1784, respecting the re-instatement of Dr. Hutton, as secretary for foreign correspondence, he took so warm a part, that becoming very angry, he resigned his office of secretary. In this, as in other instances in his life, his vivacity outran his judgment. As a secretary, an officer of the societv, he was not called upon to take any active part; and the advantages he derived from the situation were such as he could ill afford to relinquish. In preferring always his conscience to his interest, he certainly was highly commendable; but in this question his conscience had no occasion to involve itself. To make himself amends for this diminution of his income, Mr. Maty undertook, on moderate terms, to read the Greek, Latin, French, or Italian classics, with such persons as might be desirous of completing their knowledge of those languages: but it does not appear that this employment turned out very profitable. In 1787, an asthmatic complaint, under which he long had laboured, completed the subversion of his constitution, and he died on the 16th of January in that year, at the early age of forty-two. Besides his review, he published a translation of the travels of Riesbeck through Germany; and translated into French, the accounts of the gems, in that magnificent work, the “Gemmae Marlburienses,” which Mr. Bryant had first written in Latin. For this he received lOOl. from the duke of Marlborongh, and a copy of the book. After his death, a volume of his sermons was published by subscription, in which, by an oversight, that has sometimes happened in other cases, two or three which he had transcribed from other author^ were reprinted. Notwithstanding much irritability of temper, he was of a warm and friendly disposition, which often manifests itself in his Review.

The first publication that made him noticed, was his “Testament politiquedu Cardinal Alberoni,” one of those fictions that were very common in France and Holland on the death of any minister of state of great eminence. Of this kind were the Testaments of Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert, Louvois, &c. vehicles for political sentiment, but of no authority as to the parties whose names are assumed. The reputation he acquired by this work, which was well enough written to deceive Voltaire into the opinion that it was the production of one long acquainted with the courts and politics of Europe, encouraged Maubert to publish “Histoire politique de siecle,” 1757, 2 vols. 4to. About this time, or soon after, we find him in England, where he boasts of the patronage of lord Bolingbroke, and his friend Mr. Henry Furnese, one of the lords of the admiralty, who endeavoured to procure him a place in that office at the head of which the duke of Newcastle then was, but that the death of his protector put an end to his hopes. In this account are some of those blunders which French writers seem to delight to commit, in speaking of the affairs of England. Mr. Furnese was a commissioner of the treasury for a year, and the duke of Newcastle first lord; but, whatever truth or falsehood there may be in his account of his connexions here, Maubert was at last obliged to make a precipitate retreat, being taken for a spy, and once more landed in Holland, where he published several political pamphlets, for which, such was his tergiversation, he was paid by that very count Bruhl who had prosecuted him some years before. At length he became obnoxious here too, and was obliged to go to Brussels, where he became editor of the Brussels Gazette, a paper, that under his management was for some time proverbial for want of veracity, marked hostility to the principles of liberty, and ignorance of the real state of the political affairs it professed to discuss or narrate. This character applied also with peculiar justice to Maubert’s “Historical and Political Mercury,” two numbers of which were translated and published in English in 1760, and to his other political pamphlets, “Testament politique de Walpole;” “Ephruimjustifie,” &c. As to the conclusion of his life, there are many reports, but they all agree that he died at Altona in 1767.

, a French historian of the seventeenth century, was a protestant, and passed the chief part of his life in the courts of Germany. He died September 22, 1681. He calls himself in the titles of his works Seigneur de Sallettes, chevalier of the order of St. Michael, counsellor secretary to the elector of Mentz, and counsellor to the duke of Wirtemberg, titles which, Marchand remarks, do not very well agree with that of “teacher of the French language in the college of Tubingen.” His writings are now considered as feebly written, and are little known or consulted, but they had a degree of reputation in their day. The principal of them are, 1. “Etat de l'Empire,” State of the Empire, or an abridgment of the public law of Germany, 12 mo. 2. “Science des Princes,” which is an edition of the political considerations of Gabriel Naudee; with reflections added by du May, 1683, 8vo. 3. “The prudent Voyager,” 1681, 12mo.

, baron of Albone, first physician to their Britannic majesties James I. and Charles I. was the son of Louis de Mayerne, author of a “General History of Spain,” and of the “Monarchic aristo-democratique,” dedicated to the States-general. His mother was Louisa, the daughter of Antoine le Masson, treasurer of the army to Francis I. and Henry II. in Piedmont. Louis de Mayerne retired to Geneva about the end of 1572, after having had two houses at Lyons pulled down on account of his religion. On Sept. 28, 1573, his son Theodore was born, and had for his godfather Theodore Beza. He learnt polite literature in his own country, and he was thence sent to Heidelberg, where he stayed some years; after which, as he had made choice of physic for his profession, he went to Montpellier, and there he took the degree of bachelor in 1596, and of doctor in 1597. Thence he went to Paris, where, by way of introducing himself into practice, he gave lectures in anatomy to the young surgeons, and in pharmacy to the apothecaries. He acquired reputation by his prescriptions, and became known to Riverius, first physician to Henry IV. who recommended him so effectually to the king, that he made him one of his physicians in ordinary; and, in 1600, appointed him to attend Henry duke of Rohan, in his embassies from France to the princes of Germany and Italy. Upon his return, he acquitted himself in the exercise of his office very much to his credit, and was in high favour with the king, who promised to do great things for him, provided he would change his religion; and, it is said, notwithstanding that obstacle, would have appointed him his first physician, if the Jesuits, who were aware of it, had not prevented him by the means of queen Mary de Medicis. Of this circumstance and intended favour, Mayerne knew nothing till he learnt it, in 1642, in England, from Caesar duke of Vendosme, a natural son of France. In 1607, he had under his care an Englishman of quality, who after his recovery carried him into England, where he had a private conference with king James. He then returned to Paris, and remained there till after the assassination of Henry IV. in May 1610. In the following year, the king of England caused him to be invited by his ambassador, to serve in quality of first physician to himself and his queen, and gave him a patent, sealed with the great seal of England; in which office he served the whole royal family with great honour and approbation, till the day of his death. He was admitted to the degree of doctor in both universities, and into the college of physicians, and treated with the greatest respect by these learned bodies. He incurred some obloquy on account of the fatal sickness of Henry prince of Wales, in October 1612; in the treatment of which he differed in opinion from the other physicians, with respect to the use of blood-letting. But his conduct obtained the approbation of the king and council, of which certificates, couched in the most satisfactory terms, were given him. He received the honour of knighthood from James, in 1624; and on the accession of Charles I. he was appointed first physician to him and his queen, and rose to high favour, particularly with the latter. During the civil commotions he still adhered to the royal party, for he was appointed first physician to Charles II. after the death of his father, although the office was not merely nominal. Thus he enjoyed the extraordinary honour of serving four kings successively in his medical capacity; and during all this period he -was most extensively employed by persons of the first rank in this kingdom, by which he accumulated a large fortune. He made an exact collection of his prescriptions. He composed a very curious dispensatory of medicines, galenical and chemical but never published any of his works, except an “Apology” for himself, against the faculty of physic at Paris, who had attacked him for his application to the practice of chemistry, which was greatly cried down by the physicians of that place. Guy Patin has given an account of this dispute; in which he has shewn himself greatly prejudiced against Mayerne, and calls him a quack, on account of his pretensions to chemistry. He died March 15, 1655, at Chelsea, of the effects of bad wine, a slow, which, says Granger, the weakness of old age rendered a quick poison. He foretold the time of his death to his friends, with whom he had been moderately drinking at a tavern in the Strand; and it happened according to his prediction. He was buried at St. Martin’s-in-the-tields. He left behind him one only daughter, who brought her great fortune in marriage to the marquis de Montpouvillan, grandson of the marshal duke de la Force; but she died in childbed at the Hague, in 1661.

Besides the writings above-mentioned, Mayne published “A Poem upon the Naval Victory over the Dutch by the duke of York,” and four sermons one “Concerning unity and agreement, preached at Oxford in 1646;” another “Against schism, or the separations of these times, preached it) the church. of Watlingtoti in Oxfordshire, in 1652,” at a public dispute held there, between himself and an eminent Anabaptist preacher, the same year; a “Concio ad academiam Oxoniensem, in 1662,” and “A Sermon at the consecration of Herbert lord bishop of Hereford, in 1662.” He translated some of “Lucian’s Dialogues,” in 1638; and also “Donne’s Latin epigrams,” in 1652, which he entitled “A sheaf of miscellany epigrams.”

, 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.

, cardinal, and first minister of state in France, was born at Piscina, in the province of Abruzzo, in Italy, on July 14, 1602. His abilities enabled him to make a considerable figure, even in his early years, whilst he was studying the belles lettres, in which he had the happiness of being instructed by the abbe Jerome of Colonna, who afterwards became a cardinal. This illustrious person went to reside in the university of Alcala in Spain, whither he was followed by Mazarin, who applied himself to the law, and at his return to Italy, took his doctor’s degree. He went afterwards to the court of Rome, where he became acquainted with cardinal Sacchetti, whom Urban VIII. sent into Lombardy. It was through his means, that Mazarin was instructed in every particular relating to the interest of the difff rent princes who were then at war respecting Cassel and Montserrat. Soon after this, the cardinal Antonio Barberini, nephew to the pope, came into the Milanese and Piedmont, in the character of legate, to conclude a peace. Mazarin embraced his cause so warmly, that he was ordered to remain upon the spot with the nuncio James Pancirole, and to assist him in his endeavours to conclude this great affair. He here scrutinized closely the designs of the French, the imperialists, the Spaniards, the duke of Mantua, and the duke of Savoy; and took such measures as might best reconcile and strengthen their various interests. When it happened that peace had been concluded at Ratisbon on the 3d of October, but the French and Spaniards refused to accept it in Italy, Mazarin, who perceived that By such an opposition his care would have proved nugatory, sought for new expedients to render the peace general, and to prevent these two armies from coming to an engagement. The Spaniards, who were besieging Cassel, had made entrenchments for six miles round, and were determined vigorously to defend themselves against the French, who approached extremely near, with an intention to force their lines. On Oct. 26, 1630, the Spaniards waited only for the signal to fire, and the forlorn hope of the French army had been drawn out to force their lines; when Mazarin, after offering an accommodation in many forms, quitted the Spanish trenches, and, riding on a full gallop towards the French, waved his hat to them, crying out, “Peace! peace!” He then addressed himself to the commander in chief, the marshal duke de Schomberg, and gave in such proposals as were accepted by the generals, and followed by the peace concluded in the April following. The nuncio Pancirole and Mazarin were joint agents for the pope; but all the credit of the negociation was given to the latter.

, a portrait-painter, was the son of Medina de TAsturias, a Spanish captain, who had settled at Brussels, where this son was born in 1659, and was instructed in painting by Du Chatel. He married young, and came into England in 1686, where he drew portraits for several years. The earl of Leven encouraged him to go to Scotland, and procured him a subscription of five hundred pounds worth of business. He accepted the otFer, and, according to Walpole, carried with him a large number of bodies and postures, to which he painted heads. He returned to England for a short time, but went again to Scotland, where he died in 1711, aged fifty-two, and was buried in the Grey Friars church-yard. He was knighted by the duke of Queensbury, lord high commissioner, being the last instance of that honour conferred in Scotland while a separate kingdom. He painted most of the Scotch nobility; but was not rich, having twenty children. The portraits of the professors in the Surgeons’ ­hall at Edinburgh were painted by him. Walpole notices other portraits by him in England, and adds, that he was capable both of history and landscape. The duke of Gordon presented his portrait to the grand duke of Tuscany, who pLiced it in the gallery at Florence, among the series of eminent artists painted by themselves. The prints in an octavo edition of Milton were designed by him, but Mr. Walpole does not tell us of what date. Sir John’s grandson, John Medina, the last of the family, died at Edinburgh in 1796. He practised painting in some measure, although all we have heard specified is the repair he gave to the series of Scottish kings in Holy rood -house, which are well known to be imaginary portraits.

Melancthon made a very distinguished figure in the many conferences which followed this diet. It was in these that the spirit and character of Melancthon appeared in their true colours; and it was here that the votaries of Rome exhausted their efforts to gain over to their party this pillar of the reformation, whose abilities and virtues added a lustre to the cause in which he had embarked. His gentle spirit was apt to sink into a kind of yielding softness, under the influence of mild and generous treatment. Accordingly, while his adversaries soothed him with fair words and flattering promises, he seemed ready 1 to comply with their wishes; but, when they so far forgot themselves as to make use of threats, Melancthon appeared in a very different point of light, and showed a spirit of intrepidity, ardour, and independence. It was generally thought that he was not so averse to an accommodation with the church of Rome as Luther, which is grounded upon his saying that they “ought not to contend scrupulously about things indifferent, provided those rites and ceremonies had nothing of idolatry in them; and even to bear some hardships, if it could be done without impiety.” But there is no reason to think that there was any important difference between him and Luther, but what arose from the different tempers of the two men, which consisted in a greater degree of mildness on the part of Melancthon. It was, therefore, this moderation and pacific disposition which made him thought a proper person to settle the disputes about religion, which were then very violent in France; and for that purpose he was invited thither by Francis I. Francis had assisted at a famous procession, in Jan. 1535, and had caused some heretics to be burnt. Melancthon was exhorted to attempt a mitigation of the king’s anger; he wrote a letter therefore to John Sturmius, who was then in France, and another to Du Bellai, bishop of Paris. A gentleman, whom Francis had sent into Germany, spoke to Melancthon of the journey to France; and assured him, that the king would write to him about it himself, and would furnish him with all the means of conducting him necessary for his safety. To this Melancthon consented, and the gentleman upon his return was immediately dispatched to him with a letter. It is dated from Guise, June 28, 1535, and declares the pleasure the king had, when he understood that Melancthon was disposed to conie into France, to put an end to their controversies. Melancthon wrote to the king, Sept. 28, and assured him of his good intentions; but was sorry, he could not as yet surmount the obstacles to his journey. The truth was, the duke of Saxony had reasons of state for not suffering this journey to the court of Francis I. and Melancthon could never obtain leave of him to go, although Luther had earnestly exhorted that elector to consent to it, by representing to him, that the hopes of seeing Melancthon had put a stop to the persecution of the protestants in France; and that there was reason to fear, they would renew the same cruelty, when they should know that he would not come. Henry VIII. king of England, had also a desire to see Melancthon, but neither he nor Francis I. ever saw him.

, a statesman and historian, was descended from an honourable family in Scotland, and born at Halhill in Fifeshire, in 1530. At fourteen, he was sent by the queen regent of Scotland, to be page to her daughter Mary, who was then married to the dauphin of France: but by her leave he entered into the service of the duke of Montmorenci, great constable and chief minister of France, who earnestly desired him of her majesty, having a high opinion of his promising talents. He was nine years employed by him, and had a pension settled on him by the king. Then, obtaining leave to travel, he went into Germany; where being detained by the elector palatine, he resided at his court three years, and was employed by him on several embassies. After this, prosecuting his intentions to travel, he visited Venice, Rome, and the most famous cities of Italy, and returned through Switzerland to the elector’s court; where, finding a summons from queen Mary, who had taken possession of the crown of Scotland, after the death of her husband Francis II. he set out to attend her. The queen-mother of France at the same time offered him a large pension to reside at her court; for she found it her interest, at that juncture, to keep up a good understanding with the protestant princes of Germany; and she knew sir James Melvil to be the properest person to negociate her affairs, being most acceptable to them all; but this he declined.

Soon after the accession of Peter II. that prince was affianced publicly to the daughter of Menzikoff, who then thought himself almost at the summit of happiness and elevation; he was made generalissimo by sea and land, duke of Cozel, and had the chief appointment in the household of the czar. Intoxicated at length with this extraordinary elevation, he behaved with a haughtiness towards the young czar, and with an imprudent ostentation in himself, which gave his enemies, particularly the princes Dolgorucki, the means of supplanting him in the affections of his sovereign, and compassing his final overthrow. His disgraces now followed fast upon each other. The emperor removed from the palace of Menzikoff, where he had hitherto resided, and he was ordered to quit Petersburg!), and pass the remainder of his days at Oranienburgh, a petty town on the frontiers of the Ukraine, which he had built, and partly fortified. On his departure, he added to his other imprudences, that of setting out in great pomp; but on his journey he was overtaken by an order to seal up all his effects, and leave him nothing but necessaries. Many complaints being now preferred against him, he was condemned to live altogether, for the rest of his life, at Beresowa, situated on the most distant frontiers of Siberia. His wife, grown blind with weeping, died upon the journey. His three children fell sick of the small pox, and one of them, a daughter, died of it. Menzikoff bore his misfortunes with more firmness than might have been expected. He even recovered his health for a time, which, had been injured by a grossness of hahit; and being allowed ten roubles a day, he not only found them sufficient for his wants, but saved enough to build a small church, at which he worked himself. Yet he did not long survive his disgrace, for he died Nov. 2, 1729, and, it is said, of a plethora, there being ho person at Beresowa skilful enough to open a vein. Some time after his death, the Dolgorucki’s being in their turn disgraced, his surviving son and daughter were recalled by the czarina Anne; the son was made an officer in the guards, with a restoration of the fifth part of his father’s fortune; and the daughter had the appointment of maid of honour to the empress, and soon after married advantageously.

, a physician and naturalist, the son of Peter Mercati, a physician of St. Miniato, in Tuscany, was born April 8, 1541. After having finished his scholastic education at his native place, he was sent to Pisa, and placed under the tuition of Cesalpini, from whom he derived his taste for the study of nature. Having received his degree of doctor in philosophy and medicine ia that university, he went to Rome, where pope Pius V. appointed him superintendant of the botanical garden of the Vatican, at the age of twenty-six, but Niceron says he was not more than twenty. Afterwards Ferdinand I. the grand duke of Tuscany, raised him to the rank of nobility; and soon afterwards the same dignity was conferred upon him by the senate of Rome. Among his other honours, Sixtus V. conferred upon him the office of apostolical prothonotary, and sent him into Poland with cardinal Aldobrandini, that he might enjoy the opportunity of increasing his collections in natural history. The same cardinal, when elected pope in 1592, under the title of Clement VIII. nominated Mercati his first physician, and had in contemplation higher honours to bestow upon him, when this able physician died, in 1593, in the fifty-third year of his age. His character in private life was universally esteemed, and the regret of the most distinguished persons of Rome followed him to his grave.

, a learned and eminent physician, was born at Forli, in Romagna, Sept 30, 1530. He was educated according to Niceron at Padua, and according to Eloy at Bologna. It seems, however, agreed that he received his doctor’s degree in 1555, and began to practice at Forli. In 1562 he was sent as ambassador to pope Pius IV. at Rome, where he was honoured with the citizenship, and upon a pressing invitation determined to reside in a place which presented so many opportunities for the pursuit of his favourite studies. During his abode at Rome, besides his professional concerns, he studied classical literature, and the monuments of antiquity, and produced a learned and elegant work, which acquired him much celebrity in the literary world, and which was first published at Venice in 1569, under the title of “De Arte Gymnastica Libri sex,” 4to. It was many times reprinted, and its merit occasioned his being appointed professor of medicine in the university of Padua. In 1573 he was called to Vienna by the emperor Maximilian II., to consult respecting a severe illness under which that personage laboured; and his treatment was so successful, that he returned loaded with valuable presents, and honoured with the dignities of a knight and count palatine. In 1587 he removed to a professorsip at Bologna, which has been partly attributed to a degree of dissatisfaction or self-accusation, in consequence of an error of judgment, which had been committed by him and Capivaccio, several years before, when they were called to Venice, in order to give their advice respecting a pestilential disorder which prevailed in that city. On this occasion both he and his colleague seem to have fallen into the mistake of several medical theorists, of denying the reality of contagion; and their counsels were said to have been productive of extensive mischief. Nevertheless his reputation appears to have suffered little from this error; for he was invited by Ferdinand, the grand duke of Tuscany, to settle at Pisa in 1599, where he was ordered a stipend of eighteen: hundred golden crowns, which was ultimately raised to two thousand. Here he died Nov. 9, 1606, and was interred, with great honours, in a chapel, which he had himself erected at Forli. He left a large property in money and effects, among which was a valuable collection of pictures; and he made a great number of charitable bequests.

, a very eccentric French author and physician, was born at St. Maloes in 1709. He studied physic under Boerhaave, after which he removed to Paris, and became an army-surgeon in the French guards. The duke of Grammont, who was his protector, being taken very ill at the siege of Fribourg, he began, in his attendance upon him, to speculate upon the nature of the soul, and to perceive, as he fancied, that it is mortal. He wrote “The Natural History of the Soul,” which being highly impious in its doctrines, raised a storm against him from which his patron with difficulty could defend him. He then turned his pen against his brethren, and wrote “Penelope, or the Machiavel in medicine,” in 3 vols. 12mo. The rage of the faculty, in consequence of this satire, drove him out of France; and he retired to Leyden, where he published “L'Homme Machine,” a treatise of materialism, in which the philosophy is as incorrect and ill argued as it is pernicious. But he declaims with an ardour too likely to captivate weak minds, and draw them over to his opinions. This book could not obtain toleration even in Holland; it was publicly burnt, and the author obliged, in 1748, to fly for refuge to Berlin, and at this court he was protected, made a member of the academy, and honoured with places under the king. Here he lived in tranquillity, till his violent system of bleeding, very like that of Dr. Sangrado, put an early period to his life, as it had to those of several patients; and he died in 1.751, being then only 48. His works were published collectively at Berlin the same year, in one vol. 4to, and two 12mo. The same kind of false philosophy pervades them all. The king of Prussia, however, conferred on him a very singular honour, even after his death; for he wrote his funeral oration, which he caused to be pronounced in the academy by one of his secretaries. Voltaire said of him, that he was a madman who wrote in a state of intoxication.

, an excellent miniature painter, was born at Tubingen, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in 1735, and came to England in 1749, with his father, who was portrait-painter to the duke of Wirtemberg, a painter, says Edwards, of small subjects, but of no great talent. His son studied two years (1757 and 1758), under Zink, the eminent painter in enamel, to whom he paid two hundred pounds for instruction, and two hundred pounds more for materials of his art; but Meyer soon surpassed his master, in the elegance and gusto of his portraits, a superiority which he acquired by his attention to the works of sir Joshua Reynolds, who, as well as himself, was at that time rising to fame. In 1761, the Society for the Encouragement of Arts offered a premium of twenty guineas for the best drawing of a profile of the king, for the purpose of having a die engraved from it; and Meyer obtained the prize. He was afterwards appointed miniature painter to the queen. In 1762, he was naturalized by act of parliament, and in the following year married a lady of considerable fortune and great accomplishments. In 1764, he was appointed painter in enamel to his majesty.

, an Italian botanist of great celebrity, particularly in what is now called the cryptogamic department, was born at Florence, December 11, 1679. His parents were indigent, and took but little care of his education. He is said, nevertheless, to have been destined to the occupation of a bookseller, but an insatiable thirst after natural knowledge over-ruled all other objects, and his good character, and distinguished ardour, soon procured him the notice and favour of the marquis Cosmo da Castiglione, in whose family a taste for botany has been almost hereditary, and for whom Micheli in his early youth made a collection of Umbelliferous plants, which even then proved his accuracy and discernment. This gentleman introduced him to the celebrated count Lawrence Magalotti, by whom he was presented to his sovereign, the grand duke Cosmo III. The “Institutiones Itei Herbanae” of Tournefort had just appeared at Paris; and the first pledge of the grand duke’s favour, was a present of that book, which to Micheli, who had hitherto found the want of some systematic guide, was a most important and welcome acquisition. He speedily adopted the tone of his leader, with respect to generic distinctions and definitions, and improved upon him in a more frequent adaptation of original specific ones.

With the approbation bestowed on this work by the critical world, he had every reason to be satisfied, and the profits he derived from the sale were far from being inconsiderable to a man in his circumstances; yet the publication was attended by some unforeseen circumstances of a less pleasing kind, for he had again the misfortune to be teazed by the prospect of high patronage, which again ended in disappointment. It had at first been suggested to him that he might derive advantage from dedicating his Translation of the Lusiad to some person of rank in the East India department, but before he had made a choice, his friend the late commodore Johnstone, persuaded him to inscribe it to the late duke of Buccleugh. This nobleman, however, we are told, had been a pupil of Dr. Adam Smith, some of whose doctrines respecting the Eastern trade, Mickle had controverted; and upon this account the nobleman is said to have treated the dedication and the poem with neglect. Mickle’s biographers have expatiated on this subject at great length, and with much acrimony; but as his grace of Buccleugh was universally esteemed for his public and private worth, and above all for his liberality, we must abstain from any further notice of a story, of which probably, one half only cau ever be known. One thing is certain, that Mickle did not publish on the East India trade until 1779.

In 1779 this gentleman being appointed commander of the Romney man of war, and commodore of a squadron, immediately nominated Mickle to be his secretary, by which, though only a non-commissioned officer, he was entitled to a considerable share of prize-money. But what probably afforded him most delight, in the commencement of this new life, was the destination of the squadron to the native shores of his favourite Camoens, which the fame of his translation had already reached. On his landing at Lisbon in November 1779, he was received with the utmost politeness and respect by prince don John of Braganza, duke of Lafoens, and was introduced to the principal nobility, gentry, and literati of Portugal.

In May 1780 the royal academy of Lisbon admitted him a member, and the duke of Braganza, who presided on that occasion, presented him with his portrait as a token of his particular regard. It is almost needless to add, that the admirers of Mickle owe his beautiful, though neglected poem of “Almeda Hill” to this visit. He is said also to have employed some of his leisure hours in collecting materials for a history of Portugal, which he did not live to prepare for the press.

In 1711, came out his great work, 17. “The History of the Life of M. Tullius Cicero,” in 2 vols. 4to. This is injdeed a valuable work, both as to matter and manner, written generally, although not unexceptionably, in a correct and elegant style, and abounds in instruction and entertainment. Yet his partiality to Cicero forms a considerable objection to his veracity as a biographer. He has laboured every where to cast a shade over his failings, to give the strongest colouring to his virtues, and out of a good character to draw a perfect one; which, though Cicero was undoubtedly a great man, could not be applicable even to him. Perhaps, however, as a history of the times, it is yet more valuable than considered only as a life of Cicero. It was published by subscription, and dedicated to lord Hervey, who was much the author’s friend, and promised him a great number of subscribers. “His subscription,” he tells us, “was like to be of the charitable kind, and Tully to be the portion of two young nieces” (for he had no child living by any of his wives) “who were then in the house with him, left by an unfortunate brother, who had nothing else to leave.” The subscription must have been very great, which not only enabled him to portion these two nieces, but, as his biographers inform us, to purchase a small estate at Hildersham, about six miles from Cambridge, where he had an opportunity of gratifying his taste, by converting a rude farm into an elegant habitation, and where, from that time, he commonly passed the summer season. While engaged on his “Cicero,” he was called to London to receive the mastership of the Charter-house, having the interest of sir Robert Walpole, and some other great persons; but he found that the duke of Newcastle had been more successful, in procuring it for Mr. Mann. Why the duke opposed Dr. Middleton we know not; as in 1737 we find him strenuously recommending his proposals for the Life of Cicero, and soliciting subscriptions.

, a celebrated Flemish painter of history, hunting and conversation pieces, was born in Flanders in 1599, and was first a disciple of Gerard Segers, in whose school his talents were much distinguished; but went to complete his studies in Italy, where he was distinguished by the name of Giovanrti delle Vite. He particularly studied and copied the works of the Caracci and Correggio, and was admitted into the academy of Andrea Sacchi, who would have employed him as an assistant to himself in some great works, had he not unfortunately preferred the familiar stvle of Bamboccio, to the elevated conceptions of Sacchi. His general subjects for his easel pictures, which are the finest of his performances, were of the familiar kind; but he also painted history, in a large size, in fresco, and in oil. His pictures of huntings are particularly admired; the figures and animals of every species being designed with uncommon spirit, nature, and truth. The transparence of his colouring, and the clear tints.of his skies, enliven his compositions; nor are his paintings in any degree inferior to those of Bamboccio, either in their force or lustre. His large works are not so much to be commended for the goodness of the design, as for the expression and colouring; but it is in his small pieces that the pencil of Miel appears in its greatest delicacy and beauty. His singular merit recommended him to Charles Emanuel duke of Savoy, who appointed him his principal painter, and afterwards honoured him with the cross of St. Mauriiius. He died in 1664, aged sixty-five.

, called Old Francis Miens, one of the most remarkable disciples of Gerard Dow, was born at Leyden, in 1635. He imitated his. master with great diligence, and has been thought in some respects to surpass him. Minute accuracy, in copying common objects on a small scale, was the excellence of this artist, with the same sweetness of colouring, and transparence that marks the paintings of Dow. In design he has been thought more comprehensive and delicate than his master, his touch more animated, with greater freshness and force in his pictures. His manner of painting silks, velvets, stuffs, or carpets, was so studiously exact, that the differences of their construction are clearly visible in his representations. His pictures are scarce, and generally bear a very high price. His own valuation of his time was a ducat an hour: and for one picture of a lady fainting, with a physician attending her, and applying remedies, he was paid at that ratio, so large a sum as fifteen hundred florins. The grand duke of Tuscany is said to have offered 3000 for it, but was refused. One of the most beautiful of the works of Francis Mieris, in this country, where they are not very common, is in the possession of Mr. P. H. Hope, and is known by the appellation of the “Shrimp Man.” Mieris died in 1681, at the age of forty-six. He left two sons, John and William, who were both eminent painters. John, however, died young; William is the subject of the ensuing article.

, a late French historian, was born at Besanc,on, in March 1726, and belonged, for some time, to the order of Jesuits. He was one of those who were appointed to preach, and continued so to do after he had quitted that society. But the weakness of his voice, his timidity, and the embarrassed manner of his delivery, obliged him to relinquish that duty. The marquis of Felino, minister of the duke of Parma, founded a professorship of history, and Millot, through the interest ef the duke of Nivernois, was appointed to it. A revolt having arisen among the people of Parma, while he was there, in consequence of some innovations of the minister, Millot very honourably refused to quit him. It was represented that by so doing he risked his place. “My place,” he replied, “is to attend a virtuous man who is my benefactor, and that office I am determined not to lose.” After having held this professorship, with great reputation for some time, he returned into France, and was appointed preceptor to the duke D‘Enghien. He was still employed in this duty in 1785, when he was removed by death, at the age of fifty-nine. Millot was not a man who shone in conversation; his manner was dry and reserved, but his remarks were generally able and judicious. D’Alembert said of him, that he never knew a man of so few prejudices, and so few pretensions. His works are carefully drawn up, in a pure, natural, and elegant style. They are these: 1. “Elements of the History of France, from Clovis to Louis XV.” 3 vols. 12mo; an abridgment made with remarkable judgment in the selection of facts, and great clearness in the divisions and order. 2. “Elements of the History of England, from the time of the Romans to George II.” This work has the same characteristic merits as the former. 3. “Elements of Universal History,” 9 vols. 12mo. It has been unjustly said, that this is pirated from the general history of Voltaire. The accusation is without foundation; the ancient part is perfectly original, and the modern is equally remarkable for the selection of facts, and the judicious and impartial manner in which they are related. 4. “History of the Troubadours,” 3 vols. 12mo. This work was drawn up from a vast collection of materials made by M. de St. Palaye, and, notwithstanding the talents of the selector, has still been considered as uninteresting. 5. “Political and military Memoirs towards the History of Louis XIV. and XV. composed of original documents collected by Adrian Maurice, duke of Noailles, mareschal of France,” 6 vols. 12mo There are extant also, by Millot, “Discourses on Academical Subjects,” and, “Translations of some select ancient Orations, from the Latin Historians.” All these are written in French. Notwithstanding a few objections that have been made to him, as being occasionally declamatory, there is no doubt that Millot is a valuable historian, and his elements of French and English history have been well received in this country in their translations.

In consequence of this appointment he went to Paris. The part he took there was active, and such as tended in general to accelerate all the violences of the revolution. He now published periodically, 17. his “Lettres a ses commettans,” Letters to his constituents, which form, when collected, 5 vols. 8vo. It is supposed that the fatal measure of the junction of the three orders into one national assembly, was greatly promoted by these letters. The public events of these times, and the part taken in them by Mirabeau, are the subject of general history. He lived to see the constitution of 1789 established, but not to see its consequences, the destruction of the monarchy, the death of the king, and the ruin of all property. He was accused, as well as the duke of Orleans, of hiring the mob which attacked Versailles on the 5th and 6th of October, 1789; but with him was also acquitted by the tribunal of the Chatelet. The dominion of his eloquence in the national assembly had long been absolute, and on the 29th of January 1791, he was elected president. At the latter end of March, in the same year, he was seized by a fever, and died on the second of April. The talents of Mirabeau will not be doubted; the use he made of them will be long lamented, and would probably have been regretted by himself, had he lived only a few months longer; unless we may believe that with a secret attachment to monarchical government, he would have been able to exert an influence sufficient to prevent the excesses which followed his death.

Thus accomplished, hfc returned to Ireland in June 1678, and shortly after married Lucy, daughter of sir William Domvile, the king’s attorney-general. Being master of an easy fortune, he continued to indulge himself in prosecuting such branches of moral and experimental philosophy as were most agreeable to his fancy; and astronomy having the greatest share, he began, about 1681, a literary correspondence with Flamsteed, the king’s astronomer, which he kept up for several years. In 1683, he formed a design of erecting a philosophical society at Dublin, in imitation of the royal society at London; and, by the countenance and encouragement of sir William Petty, who accepted the office of president, they began a weekly meeting that year, when our author was appointed their first secretary. The reputation of his parts and learning, which by means of this society became more known, recommended him, in 1684, to the notice and favour of the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant of Ireland; by whose influence he was appointed that year, jointly with sir William Robinson, surveyor-general of his majesty’s buildings and works, and chief engineer. In 1685, he was chosen fellow of the royal society at London; and that year, for the sake of improving himself in the art of engineering, he procured an appointment from the Irish government, to view the most considerable fortresses in Flanders. Accordingly he travelled through that country and Holland, and some part of Germany and France; and carrying with him letters of recommendation from Flamsteed to Cassini, he was introduced to him, and other eminent astronomers, in the several places through which he passed. Soon after his return from abroad, he printed at Dublin, in 1686, his “Sciothericum telescopium,” containing a description of the structure and use of a telescopic dial invented by him: another edition of which was published at London in 1700, 4to. On the publication of sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia” the following year, 1687, our author was struck with the same astonishment as the rest of the world; but declared also, that he was not qualified to examine the particulars. Halley, with whom he constantly corresponded, had sent him the several parts of this inestimable treasure, as they came from the press, before the whole was finished, assuring him, that he looked upon it as the utmost effort of human genius.

, great grandson of the preceding, and a major-general in the army, was born about 1728, and was the son of John Monckton, the first viscount Galway, and baron of Killard, by his wife the lady Elizabeth Manners, daughter to John second duke of Rutland. He was sent with a detachment to Nova Scotia in 1755, and served under general Wolfe against Quebec. He dislodged a body of the enemy from the point of Levi, and formed a plan for landing the troops near the heights of Abraham, and assisted in the execution for conducting the right wing at the oattle of Quebec, where he was dangerously wounded. He received the thanks of the House of Commons, and afterwards went to New York, where he recovered of his wounds. He was also at the taking of Martinico, and was sometime governor of Portsmouth, where Fort Monckton was so called in honour of him. He died in 1782, leaving the character of a brave, judicious, and humane officer. In his account of the taking of Martinico in 1762, he mentions an attack made by the French troops from Morne Gamier on some of our posts, in which they were repulsed, and such was the ardour of our troops, that they passed the ravine with the enemy, seized their batteries, and took post there. It is also said that on this occasion the English party had no colours with them when they took possession of the batteries, and supplied the want of them by a shirt and a red waistcoat. From the many instances which have been given of General Monckton’s liberality, the following may be selected as deserving to be remembered. When the troops were sent to Martinico, general Amherst took away the usual allowance of baugh and forage- money. General Monckton, knowing the difficulties which subaltern officers have to struggle with in the best situation, felt for their distress, and in some degree to make it up to them, ordered the negroes which were taken, to be sold, and the money divided among the subalterns. On finding that it would not produce them five pounds a-piece, he said he could not offer a gentleman a less sum, and made up the deficiency, which was about 500l. out of his own pocket. He kept a constant table of forty covers for the army, and ordered that the subalterns chiefly should be invited, saying, he had been one himself; and if there was a place vacant, he used to reprimand his aid-de-camp.

, a celebrated traveller, was the son of the lieutenant-criminel of Lyons. After having studied philosophy and mathematics in his native city and in Spain, he visited the East in order to seek for the books of Mercurius Trismegistus and Zoroaster; but finding nothing to detain him, returned to France, and was esteemed by the learned, particularly the amateurs of chemistry and astrology. He died April 28, 1665. His travels have been printed under the title of “Journal de ses voyages en Portugal, Provence, Italic, Egypt, &c. &c. redige par le sieur de Liergues, son fils,” Lyons, 1665 6, 3 vols. 4to. They are ill-written, his style being loose and diffuse, but they contain many curious particulars. It appears that he was in England in 1663, as he gives several interesting anecdotes of the court of Charles II. and of the manners of the times. He travelled through various countries as tutor to the sons of noblemen, one of whom, the duke de Chevereuse, was with him in England. Brunet gives the title of what appears to be another work of travels by Monconys, “Voyage en divers endroits de l'Europe, en Afrique et au Levant,” Paris (Holland) 1695, 5 vols. 12mo.

, an ingenious and learned Frenchman, and one of the best writers of his time, was born at Paris in 1674. At sixteen he entered into the congregation of the fathers of the oratory, and was afterwards sent to Mans to learn philosophy. That of Aristotle then obtained in the schools, and was the only one which was permitted to be taught; nevertheless Mongault, with some of that original spirit which usually distinguishes men of uncommon abilities from the vulgar, ventured, in a public thesis, which he read at the end of the course of lectures, to oppose the opinions of Aristotle, and to maintain those of Des Cartes. Having studied theology with the same success, he quitted the oratory in 1699; and soon after went to Thoulouse, and lived with Colbert, archbishop of that place, who had procured him a priory in 1698. In 1710 the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, committed to him the education of his son, the duke of Chartres; which important office he discharged so well that he acquired universal esteem. In 1714, he had the abbey Chartreuve given him, and that of Vilieneuve in 1719. The duke of Chartres, becoming colonel-general of the French infantry, chose the abbe* Mongault to fill the place of secretary-general made him also secretary of the province of Dauphiny and, after the death of the regent, his father, raised him to other considerable employments. All this while he was as assiduous as his engagements would permit in cultivating polite literature; and, in 1714, published at Paris;, in 6 vols. 12mo, an edition of “Tully’s Letters to Atticus,” with an excellent French translation, and judicious comment upon them. This work has been often reprinted, and is justly reckoned admirable; for, as Middleton has observed, in the preface to his “Life of Cicero,” the abbe Mongault “did not content himself with the retailing the remarks of other commentators, or out of the rubbish of their volumes with selecting the best, but entered upon his task with the spirit of a true critic, and, by the force of his own genius, has happily illustrated many passages which all the interpreters before him had given tip as inexplicable.” He published also a very good translation of “Herodian,” from the Greek, the best edition of which is that of 1745, in 12mo. He died at Paris, Aug. 15, 1746, aged almost seventy-two.

, duke of Albemarle, memorable for having been the principal instrument in the restoration of Charles II. to his crown and kingdoms, was descended from a very ancient family, and born at Potheridge, in Devonshire, Dec. 6, 1608. He was a younger son; and, n provision being expected from his father, sir Thomas Monk, whose fortune was reduced, he dedicated himself to arms from his youth. He entered in 1625, when not quite seventeen, as a volunteer under sir Richard Grenville, then, at Plymouth, and just setting out under lord Wimbledon on the expedition against Spain. The year after he obtained a pair of colours, in the expedition to the isle of Rhee; whence returning in 1628, he served the following year as ensign in the Low Countries, where he was promoted to the rank of captain. In this station he was present in several sieges and battles; and having, in ten years service, made himself absolute master of the military art, he returned to his native country on the breaking out of the war between Charles I. and his Scotish subjects. His reputation, supported by proper recommendations, procured him the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in which post he served in both the king’s northern expeditions; and was afterwards a colonel, when the Irish rebellion took place. In the suppression of this he did such considerable service, that the lords justices appointed him governor of Dublin but the parliament intervening, that authority was vested in another. Soon after, on his signing a truce with the rebels, by the king’s order, September 1643, he returned with his regiment to England; but, on his arrival at Bristol, was met by orders both from Ireland and Oxford, directing the governor of that place to secure him. The governor, however, believing the suspicions conceived against him groundless, suffered him to proceed to Oxford on his bare parole; and there he so fully justified himself to lord Digby, then secretary of state, that he was by that nobleman introduced to the king; but his regiment was given to colonel Warren, who had been his major. As some amends for this, the king made him major-general in the Irish brigade, then employed in the siege of Nantwich, in Cheshire; at which place he arrived just soon enough to share in the unfortunate surprisal of that whole brigade by sir Thomas Fairfax. He was sent to Hull, and thence conveyed in a short time to the Tower of London, where he remained in close confinement till Nov. 13, 1646; and then, as the only means to be set at liberty, he took the covenant, engaged with the parliament, and agreed to accept a command under them in the Irish service. Some have charged him with ingratitude for thus deserting the king, who had been very kind to him during his confinement, and in particular had sent him from Oxford 100l. which was a great sum for his majesty, then much distressed. It has, however, been pleaded in his favour, that he never listened to any terms made him by the parliamentarians while the king had an army on foot. Whatever strength may he in this apology, it is certain that when his majesty was in the hands of his enemies, he readily accepted of a colonel’s commission; and, as he had been engaged against the Irish rebels before, he thought it consistent with the duty he owed, and which he had hitherto inviolably maintained to the king, to oppose them again. He set out for Ireland, Jan. 28, 1646-7, but returned in April on account of some impediments. Soon after, he had the command in chief of all the parliament’s forces in the north of Ireland conferred upon him; upon which he went again, and for the following two years performed several exploits worthy of an able and experienced soldier. Then he was called to account for having treated with the Irish rebels; and summoned to appear before the parliament, who, after hearing him at the bar of the house, passed this vote, Aug. 10, 1649, “That they did disapprove of what major-general Monk had done, in concluding a peace with the grand and bloody Irish rebel, Owen Roe O'Neal, and did abhor the having any thing to do with him therein; yet are easily persuaded, that the making the same by the said major-general was, in his judgment, most for the advantage of the English interest in that nation; and, that he shall not be further questioned for the same in time to come.” This vote highly offended the major-general, though not so much as some passages in the House, reflecting on his honour and fidelity. He was, perhaps, the more offended at this treatment, as he was not employed in the reduction of Ireland under Oliver Cromwell; who, all accounts agree, received considerable advantage from this very treaty with O‘Neal. Monk’s friends endeavoured to clear his reputation his reasons for agreeing with O’Neal were also printed yet nothing could wipe off the stain of treating with Irish rebels, till it was forgotten in his future fortune.

However, Monk made no scruple of discovering every step taken by the cavaliers which came to his knowledge, even to the sending the protector this letter; and joined in promoting addresses to him from the army, one of which was received by the protector March 19, 1657, in which year Monk received a summons to Oliver’s house of lords. Upon the death of Oliver, Monk joined in an address to the new protector Richard, whose power, nevertheless, he foresaw would be but short-lived; it having been his opinion, that Oliver, had he lived much longer, would scarce have been able to preserve himself in his station. And indeed Cromwell himself began to be apprehensive of that great alteration which happened after his death, and fearful that the general was deeply engaged in those measures which procured it; if we may judge from a letter written by him to general Monk a little before, to which was added the following remarkable postscript: “There be that tell me, that there is a certain cunning fellow in Scotland, called George Monk, who is said to lie in wait there to introduce Charles Stuart; I pray you, use your diligence to apprehend him, and send him up to me.” It belongs to history to relate all the steps which led to the restoration of Charles II. and which were ably conducted by Monk. Immediately after that event, he was loaded with pensions and honours; was made knight of the garter, one of the privycouncil, master of the horse, a gentleman of the bedehamber, first lord-commissioner of the treasury; and soon after created a peer, being made baron Monk of Potheridge, Beauchamp, and Tees, earl of Torrington, and duke of Albemarle, with a grant of 7000Z. per annum, estate of inheritance, besides other pensions. He received a very peculiar acknowledgment of regard on being thus called to the peerage; almost the whole house of commons attending him to the very door of the house of lords, while he behaved with great moderation, silence, and humility. This behaviour was really to be admired in a man, who, by his personal merit, had raised himself within the reach of a crown, which he had the prudence, or the virtue, to wave: yet he preserved it to the end of his life: insomuch, that the king, who used to call him his political father, said, very highly to his honour, “the duke of Albemarle demeaned himself in such a manner to the prince he had obliged, as never to seem to overvalue the services of general Monk.*‘ During tRe remainder of his life he was consulted and employed upon all great occasions by the king, and a.t the same time appears to have been esteemed and beloved by his fellow-subjects. In 1664, on the breaking out of the first Dutch war, he was, by the duke of York, who commanded the fleet, intrusted with the care of the admiralty: and, the plague breaking out the same year in London, he was intrusted likewise, with the care of the city by the king, who retired to Oxford. He was, at the latter end of the year, appointed joint-admiral of the fleet with prince Rupert, and distinguished himself with great bravery against the Dutch. In September 1666, the fire of London occasioned the Duke of Albemarle to be recalled from the fleet, to assist in quieting the minds of the people; who expressed their affection and esteem for him, by crying out publicly, as he passed through the ruine’d streets, that,” if his grace had been there, the city had not been burned." The many hardships and fatigues he had undergone in a military life began to shake his constitution somewhat early; so that about his 60th year he was attacked with a dropsy; which, being too much neglected, perhaps on account of his having been hitherto remarkably healthy, advanced very rapidly, and put a period to his life, Jan. 3, 1669-7O, when he was entering his 62d year. He died in the esteem of his sovereign, and his brother the duke of York, as appears not only from the high posts he enjoyed, and. the great trust reposed in him by both, but also from the tender concern shewn by them, in a constant inquiry after his state during his last illness, and the public' and princely paid to his memory after his decease; for, his funeral was honoured with all imaginable pomp and solemnity, and his ashes admitted to mingle with those of the royal blood; he being interred, April 4, 1670, in Henry the Vllth’s chapel at Westminster, after his corpse had lain in state many weeks at Somerset-house.

The duke of Albemarle’s character has been variously represented, and some parts of it cannot, perhaps, be defended without an appeal to those principles of policy which are frequently at variance with morality. Hume, however, thinks it a singular proof of the strange power of faction, that any malignity (alluding to such writers as Burnet, Harris, &c.) should pursue the memory of a nobleman, the tenour of whose iife^was so unexceptionable, and who, by restoring the ancient and legal and free government to three kingdoms plunged in the most destructive anarchy, may safely be said to be the subject in these islands, w4io, since the beginning of time, rendered the most durable and most essential services to his native country. The means also, by which he atchieved his great undertakings, were almost entirely unexceptionable. “His temporary dissimulation,” continues Hume, “being absolutely necessary, could scarcely be blameable. He had received no trust from that mongrel, pretended, usurping parliament whom he dethroned therefore could betray none he even refused to carry his dissimulation so far as to take the oath of abjuration against the king.” Yet Hume allows that in his letter to Sir Arthur Hazelrig (in the Clarendon papers) he is to be blamed for his false protestations of zeal for a commonwealth.

This extraordinary man was an author: a light in which he is by no means generally known, and yet in which he did not want merit. After his death, was published, by authority, a treatise which he composed while a prisoner in the Tower: it is called, “Observations upon military and political Affairs, written by the honourable George Duke of Albemarle,” &c. London, 1671, small folio. Besides a dedication to Charles II. signed John Heath, the editor, it contains thirty chapters of martial rules, interspersed with political observations, and is in reality a kind of military grammar. We have, besides, “The Speech of general Monk in the House of Commons, concerning the settling the conduct of the Armies of Three Nations, for the Safety thereof;” another delivered at Whitehall, Feb. 21, 1659, to the members of parliament, at their meeting before the re-admission of their formerly-secluded members and “Letters relating to the Restoration,” London, 1714-15.

But poetry was not la Monnoye’s only province: to a perfect skill in poetry, he joined a very accurate and extensive knowledge of the languages. He was also an acute critic: and no man applied himself with greater assiduity to the study of history, ancient and modern. He was perfectly acquainted with all the scarce books, that had anything curious in them, and was well versed in literary history. He wrote “Remarks on the Menagiana:” in the last edition of which, printed in 1715, in 4 vols. 12mo, are included several pieces of his poetry, and a curious dissertation on the famous book “De tribus Impostoribus.” His “Dissertation on Pomponius Laetus,” at least an extract of it, is inserted in the new edition of Baillet’s “Jugemens des Sgavans,” published in 1722, with a great nnmber of remarks and corrections by la Monnoye. He also embellished the “Anti-Baillet of Menage;” with corrections and notes. He was a great benefactor to literature, by his own productions, and the assistance which he communicatd very freely, upon all occasions, to other authors. Among others, he favoured Bayle with a great number of curious particulars for his “Dictionary,” which was liberally acknowledged. He died at Paris, Oct. 15, 1728, in his 88th year. Mr. de Sallingre published at the Hague “A Collection of Poems by la Monnoye,” with his eulogium, to which we owe many of the particulars given above. He also left behind him “A Collection of Letters,” mostly critical several curious “Dissertations” three hundred “Select Epigrams from Martial, and other Poets-, ancient and modern, in French verse;” and several other works in prose and verse, in French, Latin, and Greek, ready for the press. A collection of his works in 3 vols. 8vo, was published in 1769. He deserved that the French academy should admit into their list a person on whom they had so often bestowed their laurels, and he might, doubtless, have obtained that honour sooner, had he sued for it: but, as he declined sueh solicitation, he was not elected till 1713, on the death of abbe Regner des Marias. He married Claude Henriot, whom he survived, after living many years with her in the strictest amity; as appears from a copy of his verses, and also from the epitaph he wrote for himself and his wife. He had accumulated a very curious and valuable library, but was obliged, by the failure of the Missisippi scheme, to propose selling it, in order to support his family. This the duke de Villeroi hearing, settled an annual pension of 6000 livres upon him; for which he expressed his gratitude, in a poem addressed to that nobleman. It is said, however, that the duke did it only upon condition, that himself should inherit the library after the death of la Monnoye, who accepted the terms.

Notwithstanding his long and faithful services, he had the misfortune to fall into disgrace; and, through the resentment of some powerful courtiers, was imprisoned in the Tower in 1616: but, after having been examined by the chief justice Coke and secretary Winwood, he was discharged. He wrote a vindication of his conduct, entitled “Concerning the insolences of the Dutch, and a Justification of sir William Monson” and directed it to the lord chancellor Ellesmere, and sir Francis Bacon, attorneygeneral and counsellor. His zeal against the Dutch, and his promoting an inquiry into the state of the navy, contrary to the inclination of the earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral, seems to have been the occasion of his troubles. He had also the misfortune to bring upon himself a general and popular odium, in retaking lady Arabella Steuart, after her escape out of England in June 1611, though it was acting agreeably to his orders and duty. This lady was confined to the Tower for her marriage with William Seymour, esq. as was pretended; but the true cause of her confinement was, her being too high allied, and having a title or claim to the crown of England. Sir William, however, soon recovered his credit at court: for, in 1617, he was called before the privy council, to give his opinion, how the pirates of Algiers might be suppressed, and the town attacked. He shewed the impossibility of taking Algiers, and was against the expedition; notwithstanding which, it was rashly undertaken by Villiers duke of Buckingham. He was also against two other undertakings, as ill-managed, in 1625 and 162$, namely, the expeditions to Cadiz and the isle of Rhee. He was not employed in these actions, because he objected to the minister’s measures; but, in 1635, it being found necessary to equip a large fleet, in order to break a confederacy that was forming between the French and the Dutch, he was appointed vice-admiral in that armament, and performed liis duty with great honour and bravery. After that he was employed no more, but spent the remainder of his days in peace and privacy, at ins seat at Kinnersley in Surrey, where he digested and finished his “Naval Tracts,” published in Churchill’s “Collection of Voyages.” He died there, Feb. 1642-3, in his seventy-third year, and left a numerous posterity, the ancestors of the present noble family of Monson, baron Monson of Burton, in the county of Lincoln.

, an eminent French historian, was descended of a noble family, but the names of his parents, and the period of his birth have not been discovered. The place of his birth was probably Picardy, and the time, prior to the close of the fourteenth century. No particulars of his 'early years are known, except that he evinced, when young, a love for application, and a dislike to indolence. The quotations also from Sallust, Livy, Vegetius, and other ancient authors, that occur in his Chronicles, shew that he must have made some progress in Latin literature. He appears to have been resident in Cambray when he composed his history, and passed there the remainder of his life. In 1436 he was nominated to the office of lieutenant du Gavenier of the Cambresis; the gavenier was the collector or receiver of the annual dues payable to the duke of Burgundy, by the subjects of the church in the Cambresis, for the protection of them as earl of Flanders. Monstrelet also held the office of bailiff to the chapter of Cambray from 1436 to 1440, when another was appointed. The respect and consideration which he had now acquired, gained him the dignity of governor of Cambray in 1444, and in the following year he was nominated bailiff of Wallaincourt. He retained both of those places until his death, which happened about the middle of July, in 1453. His character in the register of the Cordeliers, and by the abbot of St. Aubert, was that of “a very honourable and peaceable man;” expressions, says his biographer, that appear simple at first sight, but which contain a real eulogium, if we consider the troublesome times in which Monstrelet lived, the places he held, the interest he must have had sometimes to betray the truth in favour of one of the factions which then divided France, and caused the revolutions the history of which he has published during the life of the principal actors.

Monstrelet’s work, of which there are folio editions, the first without date, the others 1518, 3 vols. 1572, &c. is called “Chronicles,” but deserves rather to be classed as history, all the characteristics of historical writing being found in it notwithstanding its imperfections and omissions. He traces events to their source, developes the causes, illustrates them with the minutest details; and bestows the utmost attention in producing his authorities from edicts, declarations, &c. His narrative begins on Easter Day in 1400, where that of Froissart ends, and extends to the death of the duke of Burgundy in 1467, but the last thirteen years were written by an unknown author, and it has since been continued by other hands to 1516. After the example of Froissart, he does not confine himself to events that passed in France; he embraces, with almost equal detail, the most remarkable circumstances which happened during his time in Flanders, England, Scotland, and Ireland. But it becomes unnecessary here to expatiate on the particular merits of this work, as they are now known to the English public by the excellent translation lately published by Thomas Johnes, esq. at the Hafod press, in 1810, and which, with his preceding English edition of Froissart, is justly entitled to form a part in every useful library. From the biographical preface to Mr. Johnes’s Monstrelet, we have gleaned the above particulars.

At the accession of queen Anne he was dismissed from the council: and in the first parliament of her reign was again attacked by the Commons, and again escaped by the protection of the Lords. In 1704, he wrote an answer to Bromley’s speech against occasional conformity. He headed the inquiry into the danger of the church. In 1706, he proposed and negociated the union with Scotland; and wheu the elector of Hanover had received the garter, after the act had passed for securing the protestant successipr, he was appointed to carry the ensigns of the order to the electoral court. He sat as one of the judges of Sacheverell; but voted for a mild sentence. Being now no longer in favour, he contrived to obtain a writ for summoning the electoral prince to parliament as duke of Cambridge. At the queen’s death he was appointed one of the regency, during her successor’s absence from his kingdoms; and, as soon as George I. had taken possession of the throne, he was created earl of Halifax, installed knight of the garter, and expected to have been appointed lord high treasurer; but as he was only created first commissioner, he was highly chagrined, nor was he pacified by the above honours, or by the transfer of the place of auditor of the exchequer to his nephew. Inflamed, says Mr. Coxe, by disappointed ambition, he entered into cabals with the tory leaders, for the removal of those with whom he had so long cordially acted; but his death put an end to his intrigues. While he appeared to be in a very vigorous state of health, he was suddenly taken ill, May 15, and died on the 19th, 1715.

His retirement was not of long duration; and upon the nearer approach of the restoration, general Monk having procured him to be replaced in his former rank in the navy, he convoyed the king to England, who made him a knight of the garter, and soon afterwards created him baron Montague of St. Neots in Huntingdonshire, viscount Hinchinbroke in the same county, and earl of Sandwich in Kent, He was likewise sworn a member of the privy council, made master of the king’s wardrobe, admiral of the narrow seas, and lieutenant admiral to the duke of York, as lord high admiral of England. When the Dutch war 'began in 1664, the duke of York took upon him the command of the fleet as high admiral, and the earl of Sandwich commanded the blue squadron; and by his well-timed efforts, a great number of the enemy’s ships were taken. In the great battle, JuneS, 1665, when the Dutch lost their admiral Opdam, and had eighteen men of war taken, and fourteen destroyed, a large share of the honour of the victory was justly assigned to the earl of Sandwich, who also on Sept. 4, of the same year, took eight Dutch men of war, two of their best East India ships, and twenty sail of their merchantmen.

Soon after his return to England, he was sent to the court of Madrid, to negociate a peace between Spain and Portugal, which he not only effected in the most satisfactory manner, but also concluded with the court of Spain, one of the most beneficial treaties of commerce that ever was made for this nation. On the renewal of the Dutch war in 1672, his lordship embarked again with the duke of York, and commanded the blue squadron. The fleet came in sight of the Dutch about break of day, May 28, and in the subsequent engagement he performed such exploits as could not fail to have rendered the victory complete, had he been properly seconded by his squadron, but a Dutch fire-ship, covered by the smoke of the enemy, having grappled the Royal James (that on which the earl of Sandwich fought), set her in a flame, and the brave earl perished with several gallant officers. His body being found about a fortnight afterwards, was, by his majesty’s orders brought to London, and interred with great solemnity in Henry VII.'s chapel, Westminster-abbey. It was supposed by many, though unjustly, that the duke of York did not support him as he might have done towards the beginning of the action; but it was agreed by all, that sir Joseph Jordan, the earl’s vice-admiral, might have disengaged him. His loss occasioned great reflections on the duke; and in the parliament which met at Westminster in Oct. 1680, when the exclusion bill was in debate, soma members openly charged him in the House of Commons with the death of the earl of Sandwich.

, an English lady of distinguished talent, by marriage related to the Sandwich family, was the eldest daughter of Evelyn Pierrepoint, duke of Kingston, and the laoy Mary Fielding, daughter of William earl of Denbigh. She was born about 1690, and lost her mother in 1694. Her capacity for literary attainments was such as induced her father to provide her with the same preceptors as viscount Newark, her brother; and under their tuition, she made great proficiency in the Greek, Latin, and French languages. Her studies were afterwards superintended by bishop Burnet, and that part of life which by females of her rank is usually devoted to trifling amusements, or more trifling “accomplishments,” xvas spent by her in studious retirement, principally at Thoresby and at Acton, near London. Her society was confined to a few friends, among whom the most confidential appears to have been Mrs. Anne Wortley, wife of the hon. Sidney Montagu, second son of the heroic earl of Sandwich. In this intimacy originated her connection with Edward Wortley Montagu, esq. the eldest son of this lady; and after a correspondence of about two years, they were privately married by special licence, which bears date August 12, 1712. Mr. Wortley was a man possessed of solid rather than of brilliant parts, but in parliament, where at different periods of his life he had represented the cities of Westminster and Peterborough, and the boroughs of Huntingdon and Bossiney, he acquired considerable distinction as a politician and a speaker. In 1714 he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and on this occasion his lady was introduced to-the court of George I. where her beauty, wit, and spirit were universally admired. She lived also in habits of familiar acquaintance with two of the greatest geniuses of the age, Addison and Pope; but it did not require their discernment to discover that, even at this time, she was a woman of very superior talents.

His reputation is founded on his “Essays,” which were at one time extremely popular, and which are still read with pleasure by a numerous class of persons. La Harpe says of him, “As a writer, he has impressed on our language (the French) an energy which it did not before possess, and which has not become antiquated, because it is that of sentiments and ideas. As a philosopher he has painted man as he is; he praises without compliment, and blames without misanthropy.” In 1774 was published at Rome (Paris), “Memoirs of a Journey into Italy,” &c. by Montaigne, the editor of which has given us a few less known particulars of the author. He says that “with a large share of natural vivacity, passion, and spirit, Montaigne’s life was far from being that of a sedentary contemplatist, as those may be inclined to think, who view him only in the sphere of his library and in the composition of his essays. His early years by no means passed in the arms of leisure. The troubles and commotions whereof he had been an eye-witness during five reigns, which he had seen pass successively before that of Henry IV. had not in any degree contributed to relax that natural activity and restlessness of spirit. They had been sufficient to call it forth even from indolence itself. He had travelled a good deal in France, and what frequently answers a better purpose than any kind of travel, he was well acquainted with the metropolis, and knew the court. We see his attachment to Paris in the third book of his Essays. Thuanus likewise observes, that Montaigne was equally successful in making his court to the famous duke of Guise, Henry of Lorraine, and to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. king of France. He adds, that he was at his estate at Blois when the duke of Guise was assassinated, 1558. Montaigne foresaw, says he, that the troubles of the nation would only end with the life of that prince, or of the king of Navarre; and this instance we have of his political sagacity. He was so well acquainted with the character and disposition of those princes, so well read in their hearts and sentiments, that he told his friend Thuanus, the king of Navarre would certainly have returned to the religion of his ancestors (that of the Romish communion) if he had not been apprehensive of being abandoned by his party. Montaigne, in short, had talents for public business and negociation, but his philosophy kept him at a distance from political disturbances; and he had the address to conduct himself without offence to the contending parties, in the worst of times.”

, was an Italian physician of so much reputation, that he was regarded by his countrymen as a second Galen. He was born at Verona in 1488, of the noble family of Monte in Tuscany, and sent to Padua by his father, to study the civil law. But his bent lay towards physic; which, however, though he made a vast progress in it, so displeased his father, that he entirely withdrew from him all support. He therefore travelled abroad, and practised physic in several cities with success, and increased his reputation among the learned, as an orator and poet. He lived some time at Home, with cardinal Hyppolitus; then removed to Venice; whence, having in a short time procured a competency, he retired to Padua. Here, within two years after his arrival, he was preferred by the senate to the professor’s chair; and he was so attached to the republic, which was always kind to him, that, though tempted with liberal offers from the emperor, Charles V. Francis I. of France, and Cosmo duke of Tuscany, he retained his situation. He was greatly afflicted with the stone in his latter days, and died in 15'5l. He was the author of many works; part of which were published by himself, and part by his pupil John Crato after his death. They were, however, principally comments upon the ancients, and illustrations of their theories; and have therefore ceased to be of importance, since the originals have lost their value. He translated into Latin the works of Aetius, which he published at the desire of cardinal Hyppolitus. He also translated into Latin verse the poem of Museus; and made translations of the Argonautics attributed to Orpheus, and of Lucian’s Tragopodagra.

, a very celebrated French writer, was descended of an ancient and noble family of Guienne, and born at the castle of Brede near Bourdeaux, Jan. 18, 1639. The greatest care was taken of his education; and, at the age of twenty, he had actually prepared materials for his “Spirit of Laws,” by a well-digested extract from those immense volumes which compose the body of the civil law; and which he had studied both as a civilian and a philosopher. Maupertuis informs us that he studied this science almost from his infancy, and that the first product of his early genius was a work, in which he undertook to prove, that the idolatry of most part of the pagans did not deserve eternal punishment, but this he thought fit to suppress. In Feb. 1714, he became a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, and was received president amortier, July 13, 1716, in the room of an uncle, who left him his fortune and his office. He was admitted, April 3, 1716, into the academy of Bourdeaux, which was then only in its infancy. A taste for music, and for works of entertainment, had, at first, assembled the members who composed it; but the societies for belles lettres being grown, in his opinion, too numerous, he proposed to have physics for their chief object; and the duke de la Force, having, by a prize just founded at Bourdeaux, seconded this just and rational proposal, Bourdeaux acquired an academy of sciences.

A place in the French academy becoming vacant by the death of monsieur de Sacy, in 1728, Montesquieu, by the advice of his friends, and supported also by the voice of the public, offered himself for it. Upon this, the minister, cardinal Fleury, wrote a letter to the academy, informing them, that his majesty would never agree to the election of the author of the “Persian Letters” that he had not himself read the book but that persons in whom he placed confidence, had informed him of its dangerous tendency. Montesquieu, thinking it prudent immediately to encounter this opposition, waited on the minister, and declared to him, that, for particular reasons, he had not owned the “Persian Letters,” but that he would be still farther from, disowning a work, for which he believed he had no reason to blush; and that he ought to be judged after a reading, and not upon information. At last, the minister did what he ought to have begun with; he read the book, loved the author, and learned to place his confidence better. The French academy, says D'Alembert, was not deprived of one of its greatest ornaments, nor France of a subject, of which superstition or calumny was ready to deprive her; for Montesquieu, it seems, had frankly declared to the government, that he could not think of continuing in France after the affront they were about to offer, but should seek among foreigners for that safety, repose, and honour, which he might have hoped in his own country. He was received into the academy, Jan. 24, 1728; and his discourse upon that occasion, which was reckoned a very fine one, is printed among his works. As before his admission into the academy, he had giveatip his civil employments, and devoted himself entirely to his genius and taste, he resolved to travel, and went first, in company with lord Waldegrave our ambassador, to Vienna, where he often saw prince Eugene; in whom he thought he could discover some remains of affection for his native country. He left Vienna to visit Hungary; and, passing thence through Venice, went to Rome. There he applied himself chiefly to examine the works of Raphael, of Titian, and of Michael Angelo, although he had not made the fine arts a particular study. After having travelled over Italy, he came to Switzerland, and carefully examined 1 those vast countries which are watered by the Rhine. He stopped afterwards some time in the United Provinces; and, at last, went to England, where he stayed three years, and contracted intimate friendships with many of the most distinguished characters of the day. He in particular received many marks of attention from queen Caroline. In the portrait of Montesquieu, written by himself, and published lately among some posthumous pieces, he gives the following proof of his gallantry in reply “Dining in England with the duke of Richmond, the French envoy there La Boine, who was at table, and was ill qualified for his situation, contended that England was not larger than the province of Guienne. I opposed the envoy. In the evening, the queen said to me, `I am informed, sir, that you undertook our defence against M. de la Boine.‘ `Madam,’ I replied, `I cannot persuade myself that a country over which you reign, is not a great kingdom.'”

, an excellent portrait-painter, was born atLeyden, in 1656, and at first was a disciple of Gerard Douw, and afterwards of Abraham Vanden Tempel, whose death compelled him to return to Leyden from Amsterdam, where he studied awhile with Francis Mieris, and at last went to Dort, to practise with Godfrey Schalcken, to whom he was superior as a designer; but he coveted to learn Schalcken’s manner of handling. As soon as Moor began to follow his profession, the public acknowledged his extraordinary merit; and he took the most effectual method to establish his reputation, by working with a much itronger desire to acquire fame, than to increase his fortune. He painted portraits in a beautiful style, in some of them imitating the taste, the dignity, the force, and the delicacy of Vandyck; and in others, he shewed the striking effect and spirit of Rembrandt. In his female figures, the carnations were tender and soft; and in his historical compositions, the air of his heads had variety and grace. His draperies are well chosen, elegantly disposed in very natural folds, and appear light, flowing, and unconstrained. His pictures are always neatly and highly finished; he designed them excellently, and grouped the figures of his subjects with great skill. His works were universally admired, and some of the most illustrious princes of Europe seemed solicitous to employ his pencil. The grand duke :of Tuscany desired to have the portrait of DeMoor, painted by himself, to be placed in the Florentine gallery; and, on the receipt of it, that prince sent him, in return, a chain of gold, and a large medal of the same metal. The Imperial ambassador count Sinzendorf, by order of his master, engaged him to paint the portraits of prince Eugene, and the duke of Marlborough, on horseback; and in that performance, the dignity and expression of the figures, and also the attitudes of the horses, appeared so masterly, that it was beheld with admiration, and occasioned many commendatory poems, in elegant Latin verse, to be published to the honour of the artist; and the emperor, on seeing that picture, created De Moor a knight of the empire. He died in 1738, in his eighty-second year.

During the publication of the World, and probably before, Moore wrote some lighter pieces and songs for the public gardens. What his other literary labours were, or whether he contributed regularly to any publications, is not known. A very few weeks before his death he projected a Magazine, in which Gataker and some other of his colleagues in the “World” were to be engaged. His acknowledged works are not numerous, consisting only of the poems here noticed, and of his three plays. These were published by him, fii a handsome quarto volume, in 1756, by subscription, dedicated to the duke of Newcastle, brother to his deceased patron Mr. Pelham. The subscribers were very numerous, and included many persons of the highest rank and talents, but he did not long enjoy the advantages of their liberality. He died Feb. 28, 1757, at his house at Lambeth, of an inflammation on his lungs, the consequence of a fever improperly treated.

, a medical and miscellaneous writer, was the son of the rev. Charles Moore, a minister of the English church at Stirling, in Scotland, where this, his only surviving son, was born in 1730. His lather dying in 1735, his mother, who was a native of Glasgow, and had some property there, removed to that city, and carefully superintended the early years of her son while at school and college. Being destined for the profession of medicine, he was placed under Mr. Gordon, a practitioner of pharmacy and surgery, and at the same time attended such medical lectures as the college of Glasgow at that time afforded, which were principally the anatomical lectures of Dr. Hamilton, and those on the practice of physic by Dr. Cullen, afterwards the great ornament of the medical school of Edinburgh. Mr. Moore’s application to his studies must have been more than ordinarily successful, as we find that in 1747, when only in his seventeenth year, he went to the continent, under the protection of the duke of Argyle, and was employed as a mate in one of the military hospitals at Maestricht, in Brabant, and afterwards at Flushing. Hence he was promoted to be assistant to the surgeon of the Coldstream regiment of foot guards, comman-ded by general Braddock, and after remaining during the winter of 1748 with this regiment at Breda, came to England at the conclusion of the peace. At London he resumed his medical studies under Dr. Hunter, and soon after set out for Paris, where he obtained the patronage of the earl of Albemarle, whom he had known in Flanders, and who was now English ambassador at the court of France, and immediately appointed Mr. Moore surgeon to his household. In this situation, although he had an opportunity of being with the ambassador, he preferred to lodge nearer the hospitals, and other sources of instruction, xvith which a more distant part of the capital abounded, and visited lord Albemarle’s family only when his assistance was required. After residing two years in Paris, it was proposed by Mr. Gordon, who was not insensible to the assiduity and improvements of his former pupil, that he should return to Glasgow, and enter into partnership with him. Mr. Moore, by the advice of his friends, accepted the invitation, but deemed it proper to take London in his way, and while there, went through a course under Dr. Smellie, then a celebrated accoucheur. On his return to Glasgow, he practised there during the space of two years, but when a diploma was granted by the university of that city to his partner, now Dr. Gordon, who chose to prescribe as a physician alone, Mr. Moore still continued to act as a surgeon; and, as a partner appeared to be necessary, he chose Mr. Hamilton, professor of anatomy, as his associate. Mr. Moore remained for a considerable period at Glasgow; but when he had attained his fortieth year, an incident occurred that gave a new turn to his ideas, and opeqed new pursuits and situations to a mind naturally active and inquisitive. James George, duke of Hamilton, a young nobleman of great promise, being affected with a consumptive disorder, in 1769, he was attended by Mr. Moore, who has always spoken of this youth in terms of the highest admiration; but, as his malady baffled all the efforts of medicine, he yielded to its pressure, after a lingering illness, in the fifteenth year of his age. This event, which Mr. Moore recorded, together with the extraordinary endowments of his patient, on his tomb in the buryingplace at Hamilton, led to a more intimate connection with this noble family. The late duke of Hamilton, being, like his brother, of a sickly constitution, his mother, the duchess f Argyle, determined that he should travel in company with some gentleman, who to a knowledge of medicine added an acquaintance with the continent. Both these qualities were united in the person of Dr. Moore, who by this time had obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow. They accordingly set out together, and spent a period of no less than five years abroad, during which they visited France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. On their return, in 1778, Dr. Moore brought his family from Glasgow to London; and in the course of the next year appeared the fruits of his travels, in “A View of Society and Manners in France', Switzerland, and Germany,” in 2 vols. 8vo. Two years after, in 1781, he published a continuation of the same work, in two additional volumes, entitled “A View of Society and Manners in Italy.” Having spent s6 large a portion of his time either in Scotland or on the continent, he could not expect suddenly to attain an extensive practice in the capital; nor indeed was he much consulted, unless by his particular friends. With a view, however, to practice, he published in 1785, his “Medical Sketches,” a work which was favourably received, but made no great alteration in his engagements; and the next work he published was “Zeluco,” a novel, which abounds with many interesting events, arising from uncontrouled passion on the part of a darling son, and unconditional compliance on that of a fond mother. While enjoying the success of this novel, which was very considerable, the French revolution began to occupy the minds and writings of the literary world. Dr. Moore happened to reside in France in 1792, and witnessed many of the important scenes of that eventful year, but the massacres of September tending to render a residence in Paris highly disagreeable, he returned to England; and soon after his arrival, began to arrange his materials, and in 1795, published “A View of the Causes and Progress of the French Revolution,” in 2 vols. 8vo, dedicated to the Duke of Devonshire. He begins with the reign of Henry IV. and ends with the execution of the royal family. In 1796 appeared another novel, “Edward: various Views of Human Nature, taken from Life and Manners chiefly in England.” In 1800, Dr. Moore published his “Mordaunt,” being “Sketches of Life, Characters, and Manners in various Countries including the Memoirs of a French Lady of Quality,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This chiefly consists of a series of letters, written by “the honourable John Mordaunt,” while confined to his couch at Vevay, in Switzerland, giving an account of what he had seen in Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, &c. The work itself comes under no precise head, being neither a romance, nor a novel, nor travels: the most proper title would perhaps be that of “Recollections.” Dr. Moore was one of the first to notice the talents of his countryman the unfortunate Robert Burns, who, at his request, drew up an account of his life, and submitted it to his inspection.

, a gallant English officer, was one of the sons of the preceding, and born at Glasgow, Nov. 13, 1761, and was educated principally on the continent, while his father travelled with the duke of Hamilton, who in 1776 obtained for him an ensigncy in the 51st regiment of foot, then quartered at Minorca. He afterwards obtained a lieutenancy in the 82d, in which he served in America during the war, and in 1783, at the peace, was reduced with his regiment. He was soon after brought into parliament for the boroughs of Lanerk, &c. by the interest of the duke of Hamilton. In 1787 or 1788 he obtained the majority of the 4th battalion of the 60th regiment, then quartered at Chatham, and very soon after negociated an exchange into his old regiment, the 51st. In 1790 he succeeded, by purchase, to the lieutenant-colonelcy, and went the following year with his regiment to Gibraltar. After some other movements he was sent to Corsica, where general Charles Stuart having succeeded to the command of the army in 1794, appointed colonel Moore to command the reserve. Here he particularly distinguished himself at the siege of Calvi, and received his first wound in storming the Mozzello fort. These operations made Moore’s character known to general Stuart, and a friendship commenced, which continued during the general’s life; and the situation of adjutant-general in the army in Corsica becoming vacant at this time, he bestowed it on his friend Moore, and ever after showed him every mark of confidence and esteem.

After the return of Charles II. he found great favour and promotion, becoming at length surveyor-general of the king’s ordnance, and receiving the honour of knighthood. He was a great favourite both with the king and the duke of York, who often consulted him, and were advised by him upon many occasions; and he often employed his interest with the court to the advancement of learning and the encouragement of merit. Thus he got Flamsteed house built in 1675, as a public observatory, recommended Mr. Flamsteed to be the king’s astronomer, to make the observations there: and being surveyor-general of the ordnance himself, this was the reason why the salary of the astronomer royal was made payable out of the office of ordnance. Being a governor of Christ’s hospital, it was by his interest that the king founded the mathematical school there, allowing a handsome salary for a master to instruct a certain number of the boys in mathematics and navigation, to qualify them for the sea-service. Foreseeing the great benefit the nation might receive from a mathematical school, if rightly conducted, he made it his utmost care to promote the improvement of it. The school was settled; but there still wanted a methodical institution from which the youths might receive such necessary helps as their studies required: a laborious work, from which his other great and assiduous employments might very well have exempted him, had not a predominant regard to a more general usefulness engaged him to devote al the leisure hours of his declining years to the improvement of so useful and important a seminary of learning.

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris in April 1726, and after receiving the degree of doctor in medicine in 1750, was appointed professor of anatomy. He likewise obtained a high reputation in his profession, was elected into many learned bodies; and was appointed physician in ordinary to Stanislaus, king of Poland, and duke of Lorraine. He died in the year 1784. He wrote “Histoire de la Maladie singuliere, et de Pexamen d'une femme devenue en peu de terns contrefaite par un ramollissement general des os,” Paris, 1752. “Nouvelle description des grottes d'Arcy,” Lyons, 1752. “Lettre a M. le Hoi au sujet de I'Histoire de la femme Suppiot,” Paris, 1753. “Eclaircissement abrege sur la Maladie d'une fille de St. Geosme,” and “Recueil pour servir d'eclaircissement, &c.” relating to the same subject, Paris, 1754. “Lettre sur ^Instrument de Roonhuysen,” 1755. “Lettre sur la qustlite des Eaux de Luxeuil en Tranche Comte,” published m the Journal de Verdun, March 1756. “Memoire sur les Eaux Thermales de Bains en Lorraine,” &c. in the Journal de Medecine, torn. VI. 1757. “Du Charbon de terre et de ses Mines,” fol. 1769. He also wrote an “Eloge” of his father, and a “Memoire sur la qualite dangereuse de l'emetique des Apothecaires de Lyons.”

In 1688 he accompanied his highness in his expedition into England; and, upon his advancement to the throne, was sworn of the privy council, made one of the lords of the bedchamber, and, in order to attend at the coronation as an earl, advanced to the dignity of earl of Monmouth, April 9, 1689, having the clay before been constituted first commissioner of the treasury. He had likewise the command of the royal regiment of horse, which the city of London had raised for the public service, and of which his majesty was colonel: but, in the beginning of Nov. 1690, he was removed from his post in the treasury. On Juno 19, 1697, upon the death of his uncle Henry earl of Peterborough, he succeeded to that title; and, upon the accession of queen Anne, was designed for the West-Indies, being invested with the commission of captain-general and governor of Jamaica, and commander of the army and fleet for that expedition. In March 1705, he was sworn of the privy-council; and the same year declared general and commander in chief of the forces sent to Spain, and joint admiral of the fleet with sir Cloudsley Shovell, of which, the year following, he had the sole command, sir Cloudsley remaining in the British seas. His taking Barcelona with an handful of men, and relieving it afterwards, when greatly distressed by the enemy; his driving out of Spain the duke of Anjou and the French army, which consisted of twenty-five thousand men, though his own troops never amounted to ten thousand; the possession he gained of Catalonia, of the kingdoms of Valencia, Arragon, and Majorca, with part of Murcia and Castile, and thereby giving opportunity to the earl of Galway of advancing to Madrid without a blow; were all astonishing instances of valour, prudence, and conduct in military affairs, and, together with his wit, ready address, and singularities of character, made him be considered as one of the ablest servants of the public, and one of the most extraordinary characters of his time.

Lord Peterborough was a man of great courage and skill as a commander, and was successful in almost all his undertakings. As a politician, he appears also to much, advantage, being open, honest, and patriotic in the genuine sense. Lord Or ford has characterized him well in other respects, as “one of those men of careless wit and negligent grace, who scatter a thousand bon-mots and idle verses, which (such) painful compilers (as lord Orford) gather and hoard, till the owners stare to find themselves authors. Such was this lord of an advantageous figure, and enterprizing spirit as gallant as Amadis, and as brave, but a little more expeditious in his journeys; for he is said to have seen more kings and more postillions than any man in Europe.” He was indeed so active a traveller, according to Dean Swift, that queen Anne’s ministers used to say, they wrote at him, and not to him . What lord Peterborough wrote, however, seems scarcely worth notice, unless in such a publication as the “Royal and Noble Authors,” where the freedom of that illustrious company is bestowed on the smallest contributors to literary amusement. He is said to have produced “La Muse de Cavalier; or, an apology for such gentlemen as make poetry their diversion, and not their business,” in a letter inserted in the “Public Register,” a periodical work by Dodsley, 1741, 4to “A copy of verses on the duchess of Marl-' borough” <c Song, by a person of quality,“beginning” I said to my heart, between sleeping and waking, &c.“inserted in Swift’s Works.” Remarks on a pamphlet,“respecting the creation of peers, 1719, 8vo; but even for some of these trifles, the authority is doubtful. His correspondence with Pope is no little credit to that collection. He was the steady friend and correspondent of Pope, Swift, and other learned men of their time, as he had been of Pryden, who acknowledges his kindness and partiality. The” Account of the Earl of Peterborough’s conduct in Spain,“taken from his original letters and papers, was drawn up by Dr. Freind, and published in 1707, 8vo. Dr. Jf reind says, that” he never ordered off a detachment of a hundred men, without going with them himself.“Of his own courage his lordship used to say, that it proceeded from his not knowing his danger; agreeing in opinion with. Turenne, that a coward had only one of the three faculties of the mind apprehension. Of his liberality, we have this instance, that the remittances expected from England, not coming to his troops when he commanded in Spain, he is said to have supplied them for some time with money from his own pocket. In this he differed considerably from his great contemporary the duke of Marlborough, and the difference is stated in one of his best bon-mots. Being once taken by the mob for the duke, who was then in disgrace with them, he would probably have been roughly treated by these friends to summary justice, had he not addressed them in these words:” Gentlemen, I can convince you by two reasons that I am not the duke. In the first place, I have only five guineas in my pocket; and in the second, they are heartily at your service." So throwing his purse among them, he pursued his way amid loud acclamations. Many other witticisms may be seen in our authorities, which are less characteristic.

His lordship married Carey, daughter to sir Alexander Fraser, of Dotes, in the shire of Mearns, in Scotland, and by her (who died May 13, 1709) he had two sons, John and Henry, who both died before him, and a daughter, Henrietta, married to Alexander second duke of Gordon. He was succeeded in titles and estate by a grandson, Charles. He married as his second wife Mrs. Anastasia Robinson, a celebrated singer, of whom Dr. Burney has given a very particular account in vol. IV. of his “History of Music.” To this lady he was ardently attached, and behaved to her with great delicacy and propriety, but his pride revolted at the match, and he kept it secret until a very short period before his death. Of the lady herself he had, according to every account, no reason to be ashamed; but a connection of this kind had not then become so common as we have of late witnessed. How long he was married to her does not appear. She survived him fifteen years, residing in an exalted station, and visited by persons of the first rank, partly at Bevis Mount, his lordship’s seat near Southampton, and partly at Fulham, or perhaps at Peterborough-house at Parson’s green. Lord Peterborough had written his “Own Memoirs,” which this lady destroyed, from a regard to his reputation. Tradition says, that in these memoirs he confessed his having committed three capital crimes before he was twenty years of age. This we hope has been exaggerated; but it seems allowed that his morals were loose, and that he was a freethinker.

, a preacher of some celebrity among the French protestants, was the son of a Scotchman, who was principal of the college at Castres in Languedoc, and born there in 1616. When he was about twenty, he was sent to Geneva to study divinity; and finding, upon his arrival, that the chair of the Greek professor was vacant, he became a candidate for it. and gained it against competitors greatly beyond himself in years. Having exercised this office for about three years, he succeeded Spanheim, who was called away to Leyden, in the functions of divinity-professor and minister of Geneva. As he was a favourite preacher, and a man of great learning, he appears to have excited the jealousy of a party which was formed against him at Geneva. He had, however, secured the good opinion of Salmasius, who procured him the divinity-professor’s place at Middlebourg, together with the parish-church, which occasioned him to depart from Geneva in 1649. The gentlemen of Amsterdam, at his arrival in Holland, offered him the professorship of history, which was become vacant by the death of Vossius; but, not being able to detach him from his engagements to the city of Middlebourg, they gave it to David Blondel, yet, upon a second offer, he accepted it about three years after. In 1654, he left his professorship of history for some time to take a journey into Italy; where it is said he was greatly noticed by the duke of Tuscany. During his stay in Italy, he wrote a beautiful poem upon the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the Venetians, and was honoured with a chain of gold by the republic of Venice. He returned to his charge; and, after some contests with the Walloon synods, went into France, to be ordained minister of the church of Paris. But here he met with many opponents, his character, as is said, being somewhat ambiguous both in regard to faith and morals. He succeeded, however, in being received minister of the church of Paris, although his reputation continued to be attacked by people of merit and consequence, who presented him again to the from whose censures he escaped with great difficulty, and had again to encounter in 1661. About this time he went to England, and on his return six months afterwards, the complaints against him were immediately renewed. He died at Paris, in the duchess of Rohan’s house, in September 1670.

, an eminent artist of the sixteenth century, was born at Utrecht in 1519, and was the scholar of John Schorel, but seems to have studied the manner of Holbein, to which he approached nearer than to the freedom of design in the works of the great masters that he saw at Rome. Like Holbein he was a close imitator of nature, but did not arrive at his extreme delicacy of finishing; on the contrary, Antonio sometimes struck into a bold and masculine style, with a good knowledge of chiaro-scuro. Among other portraits he drew Philip II. and was recommended by cardinal Granvelle to Charles V. who sent him to Portugal, where he painted John III. the king, Catharine of Austria, his queen, and the infanta Mary, first wife of Philip. For these three pictures he received six hundred ducats, besides a gold chain of a thousand florins, and other presents. He had one hundred ducats for his common portraits. But still ampler rewards were bestowed on him when sent into England to draw the picture of queen Mary, the intended bride of Philip. They gave him one hundred pounds a quarter as painter to their majesties. He made various portraits of the queen one was sent by cardinal Granvelle to the emperor, who ordered two hundred florins to Antonio. He remained in England during the reign of Mary, and was much employed; but having neglected, as is frequent, to write the names on the portraits he drew, most of them have lost part of their value, by our ignorance of the persons represented. Though portraits was the branch in which More chiefly excelled, he was not without talent for history. In this he had something of the Italian style in his design, and his colouring resembled that of Titian. A very fine work of his, representing the Ascension of our Saviour, is in the gallery of the Louvre at Paris. The style of the composition, which consists of Jesus Christ ascending, crowned by two angels, and accompanied by the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, is of the severe and grand cast employed by Fra. Bartolomeo; the colouring is exceedingly fine, and correspondent to the style of design; he has been least successful in the expression of the principal figure; if that had been more just and grand, this picture would alone place More among the very first class of artists. On the death of the queen, he followed Philip into Spain, where he was indulged in so much familiarity, that one day the king slapping him pretty roughly on the shoulder, More returned the sport with his handstick. A strange liberty t& be taken with a Spanish monarch, and with such a monarch His biographer gives but an awkward account of the sequel, and, says Mr. Walpole, “1 repeat it as I find it. A grandee interposed for his pardon, and he was permitted to retire to the Netherlands, but on the promise of returning again to Spain. I should rather suppose that he was promised to have leave to return hither after a temporary banishment; and this supposition is the more likely, as Philip for once forgetting majesty in his love of the arts, dispatched a messenger to recal him before he had finished his journey. But the painter, sensible of the danger he had escaped, modestly excused himself. And yet, says the story, the king bestowed noble presents and places on his children.” At Utrecht, Antonio found the duke of Alva, and was employed by him to paint some of his mistresses, and was made receiver of the revenues of West Flanders, a preferment with which they say he was so elated, that he burned his easel, and gave away his painting-tools. He was a man of a stately and handsome figure; and often went to Brussels, where he lived magnificently. He died at Antwerp, in 1575, in the fifty-sixth year of his age.

, son of Edward More, gent, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heir of one Hall, of Tilehurst in Berkshire, was born at East Hildesly, in that county, in 1558. He svas admitted of St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he removed to the Middle Temple, where he made a very considerable proficiency, and became a person of eminence in his profession, both for his knowledge and integrity. He died Nov. 20, 1621, and was buried at Great Fawley, near Wantage in Berkshire. His works are, 4< Cases collected and reported,“London, 1663, in folio. They were afterwards abridged by Mr. Hughes, and printed in 1665, 8vo. His reading upon 4 Jac. I. in the Middle Temple, concerning charitable uses, as abridged by himself, was published in 1676, folio, by Mr. Duke, of the Inner Temple. Sir Francis More was a member of that parliament which passed the statutes for charitable uses; and, it is said, the bill, as it passed, was penned by him. In sir Francis’s reports, the reader may see the famous case of the Post Nati, argued before the Lords and Commons in the painted chamber, and the resolution of all the reverend judges upon the same. A ms. of his, consisting of reports of cases principally agreeing with those in print, but with a greater number of references to authorities, is in the hands of Mr. Brooke, compiler of the” Bibliotheca Legum Anglian."

, was the son of Arthur More, esq. one of the lords-commissioners of trade in the reign of queen Anne; and his mother was the daughter of Mr. Smyth, who left this, his grandson, an handsome estate, upon which account he obtained an act of parliament to change his name from More to Smyth; and, besides this estate, at the death of his grandfather, he had his place of pay-master to the band of gentlemen-pensioners, with his younger brother Arthur More, esq. He was bred at Worcester college, Oxford; and, while he was there, wrote a comedy, called “The Rival Modes.” This play was condemned in the acting, but he printed it in 1727, with the following motto, which the commentator on the Dunciad, by way of irony, calls modest: “Hie csestus artemque repono.” Being of a gay disposition, he insinuated himself into the favour of the duke of Wharton; and being also, like him, destitute of prudence, he joined with that nobleman in writing a paper, called “The Inquisitor;” which breathed so much the spirit of Jacobitism, that the publisher thought proper to sacrifice his profit to his safety, and discontinue it. By using too much freedom with Pope, he occasioned that poet to stigmatize him in his Dunciad:

He now resigned himself to that plan of retirement, study, and devotion, which had always been most agreeable to him; but he could no longer expect to enjoy this without interruption. He knew the capricious and arbitrary temper of his royal master, who had already divorced queen Catherine, married Anne Boleyn, and expected that what he had done should be approved with more than silent acquiescence. The coronation of the new queen being fixed for May 31, 1533, sir Thomas received an invitation to attend the ceremony; but this he declined, as he still retained his former opinions on the unlawfulness of the divorce. This, which Henry would naturally construe into an insult, provoked him extremely, conscious as he was that the opinions of sir Thomas would have great weight with the people. Various means were therefore tried to gain him over, and when these proved ineffectual, a more ^harsh, but in those days, not a very extraordinary proceeding took place. In the ensuing parliament a bill was : brought into the House of Lords, attainting sir Thomas, bishop Fisher, and some others, of misprision of treason, for countenancing and encouraging Elizabeth Barton, tlje maid of Kent (See Eliz. Barton, vol. IV.) in her treasonable practices. When this bill came to be read a third time, the House of Lords addressed the king to know his pleasure, whether sir Thomas might not be suffered to speak in his own defence; but Henry would not consent to this, nor when he desired to be admitted into the House of Commons, to defend himself there, would the king permit him: but he assigned a committee of the privycouncil to hear his justification. The affair of Barton, however, was a mere pretence, the object of this committee being to draw from him, either by fair words or threatenings, an assent to the divorce and the second marriage. When the commissioners, who were Cranmer, now archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Audley, the duke of Norfolk, and secretary Cromwell, found that their persuasions were of no avail, they told him, that their instructions were to charge him with ingratitude, and “to inform him, that his majesty thought there never was a servant so villainous, or a subject so traitorous to his prince, as he was;” and, ft in support of this heavy charge against him, they were to allege his subtle and sinister devices, in procuring his majesty to set forth a book to his great dishonour throughout all Christendom: by which he had put a sword into the pope’s hand to fight against himself."

The commissioners were probably conscious that these assertions were true; at least they could make no reply, and therefore dismissed sir Thomas, who feeling a considerable elation of mind on his return home, his son-in-law Roper asked him if his hi^h spirits were owing to his having succeeded in procuring his name to be struck out of the bill of attainder Sir Thomas’s answer showed that he had been more tenacious of his consistency than of his life: “In troth, son, I had forgotten that but if thou wouldst know why I am so joyful, in good faith it is this I rejoice that I have given the devil so foul a fall for I have gone so far with these lords, that without great shame I can never go back.” He had indeed gone so far as to exasperate the king beyond all hopes of forgiveness; and that monarch, who could forget friendship and attachment as hastily as he conferred them, irritated at having his former sentiments respecting the pope so unseasonably recalled, declared that the bill of attainder should proceed against him. And when the duke of Norfolk and secretary Cromwell hinted that the upper house would not pass the bill without hearing sir Thomas in his own defence, the king declared that he should be present himself, and he presumed that the house would not in that case dare to reject it. He was at length, however, diverted from this purpose on its being suggested that some better opportunity might be found to proceed against sir Thomas, and on being persuaded by his counsellors that, as to the present accusations, the public would think him more worthy of praise than blame. Sir Thomas’s name was accordingly struck out of the bill and although, taking advantage of the king’s displeasure, his enemies endeavoured to bring against him accusations of improper conduct in his office of judge, these served, only to demonstrate the strict integrity which guided all his decisions, and that when gifts were sometimes tendered to him by the clients of the court, he always refused, or returned them, and often with his characteristic^humouiv One lady, in whose favour he had given a decree, presented him, as a new year’s gift, with a pair of gloves, and in them forty pounds. He immediately returned the money, saying, “Since it would be contrary to good manners to refuse a new year’s gift from a lady, I am content to take your gloves; but as for the lining, I utterly refuse it.”

Conscience was not a light word in the mouth of sir Thomas More. However we may lament its misdirection in matters of religion, it appears to have been the guide of all his actions. After he had been dismissed on the former accusations by the privy council, when the duke of Norfolk advised him to incline a little more to the king’s pleasure, and repeated the saying that the “wrath of a prince is death,” he replied, “Is that all my lord, in good faith then there is no more difference between your grace and me, but that I shall die to-day, and you to-morrow. It is surely better to offend an earthly king than the king of heaven; and temporal death ought to be less the object of our dread, than the indignation of the Almighty.”

, a very learned German, was born of a good family at Wismar, a town in the duchy of Mecklenburg, Feb. 6, 1639. After some school education at Wismar, he was sent in his sixteenth year to Stetin, where he studied philosophy under John Micraelius, Hebrew under Joachim Fabricius, and civil law under John Sithrnan; without neglecting, in the mean time, the belles lettres, which he had principally at heart. In 1657, he removed to Rostock, in order to continue the study of the law; but in consequence of his “Lessus in Ciconiam Adrianum, carmen juvenile et ludicrum,” published in quarto, he was chosen professor of poetry in 1660. The same year he made a journey into Holland and England, resided some time in the university of Oxford, and then returned to his employment at Rostock. He published, in 1661, “Dissertatio de enthusiasmo et furore poetico,” 4to; and, at Franeker, where he took his doctor’s degree, he published his thesis “De jure silentii,” 1661, 4to. At Rostock he remained until 1665, when the duke of Holstein, having founded an university at Kiel, engaged him to accept the professorship of poetry and eloquence. In 1670, he made a second journey into Holland and England, contracting the acquaintance and friendship of learned men in every place as he passed along. He saw Gnevius at Utrecht, J. Frederic Gronovius at Leyden, Nicolas Heinsius at the Hague, &c. In England he conversed much with Isaac Vossius, and with the hon. Robert Boyle. He admired Boyle so much, that he translated one of his philosophical works into Latin, and published it at Hamburgh in 1671. Returning to his own country, he was twice in danger of losing his life. He was near being shipwrecked in his passage over the water; and he had like to have been crushed to death by the fall of a great quantity of books, and paper, while he was amusing himself in Elzevir’s shop at Amsterdam. The first of these dangers was rumoured in his own country, before his arrival; and his being drowned was so firmly believed, that several elegies were made upon his death. He married at Kiel in Ib71; two years after was made professor of history; and, in 16SO, librarian of the university. His extreme ardour for study for some time supported him in composing his numerous works, and discharging his official duties but his constitution at length sunk under so many labours and his illness, being increased by drinking Pyrmont- waters, carried him off July 30, 16.91. His death is also supposed to have been hastened by his excessive grief for the loss of his wife in 1687.

, physician and regius professor of mathematics at Paris, was born at Villefranche in Beaujolois, Feb. 23, 1583. After studying philosophy at Aix in Provence, and physic at Avignon, of which he commenced doctor in 1613, he went to Paris, and lived with Claude Dormi, bishop of Boulogne, who sent him to examine the nature of metals in the mines of Hungary. This gave occasion to his “Mundi sublunaris Anatomia,” which was his first production, published in 1619. Upon his return to his patron the bishop, he took a fancy to judicial astrology, and began to inquire, by the rules of that art, into the events of 1617. Among these he found, that the bishop of Boulogne was threatened with the loss of either liberty or life, of which he forewarned him. The bishop laughed at Morin’s prediction; but, engaging in state-intrigues, and taking the unfortunate side, he was treated as a rebel, and actually imprisoned that very year. After the fall of his prelate, he lived with the abbe de la Bretonniere, in quality of his physician, for four years; and, in 1621, was taken into the family of the duke of Luxemburg, where he lived eight years more, Jn 1630, he was chosen professor royal of mathematics.

, a learned critic, was born in 1531, at Paris. His taste for the belles lettres induced him to visit Italy, where Paul Manutius employed him in his printingoffice at Venice. He afterwards taught Greek and cosmography at Vicenza, but was called from 'thence by the duke of Ferrara, in 1555. Morin at length acquired the esteem of St. Charles Boromeo, and pope Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. engaged him in the edition of the Greek Bible of the LXX. 1587, the Latin translation is 1588, fol. and in the edition of the Vulgate, 1590, fol. He died in 1608. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres and languages, and has left among his works published by Quetif in 1675, an excellent treatise on the proper use of the sciences, of which Dupin has given a long analysis, as well as of his other works, and bestows great praise on his extensive knowledge of languages and ecclesiastical history.

, a distinguished botanist of the seventeenth century, was born at Aberdeen in 1620. Being designed for the church, he devoted himself to the study of mathematics in that university; but was diverted from such pursuits by a taste for physic, and especially botany, which, however, was interrupted, for a time at least, by his loyalty, which induced him to become a soldier in the service of king Charles. After receiving a dangerous wound in the head, in the battle near the bridge of Dee, about two miles from Aberdeen, which for a while disabled him, he retired, like many of his countrymen after the ruin of the royal cause, to Paris. Here he became tutor to a young man of some fortune, while he sedulously cultivated the studies necessary for his profession, and took the degree of doctor of physic at Angers, in 1648. Botany, however, was still his favourite pursuit; and by means of M. Robin, who had then the care of the royul garden at Paris, he acquired the patronage of Gaston, duke of Orleans, and was entrusted with the care of that prince’s garden at Blois, accompanied by a handsome salary. He held this charge from 1650 to 1660, when the duke dieil. During that period he devoted himself to the study of theoretical as well as practical botany. He began to plan a system, on the subject of which his royal patron is reported to have delighted to confer with him. He was also dispatched on several botanical expeditions, to various parts of France, for the purpose of enriching the garden. A catalogue of this garden was printed in 1653, by Abel Brunyer, physician to the duke; of which Morison afterwards published at London, in. 1669, a new and enlarged edition, accompanied by a regular and professed criticism of the works of “Caspar and John Bauhin, which Haller has blamed more than it deserves. Morison gives to these great men all the rank and honour which their eminent learning and industry deserve; and while he points out their mistakes or imperfections, he expresses a wish to have his own likewise pointed out. The” Hortus Blesensis" is disposed in alphabetical order, and accompanied by a double dedication, to king Charles II. and James duke of York, to whom its author had become known in France. On the restoration he refused the most liberal offers to settle in France, and on his arrival in London received the titles of king’s physician, and royal professor of botany, with a salary of 200l. a year, and a house, as superintendant of the royal gardens, He was also elected a fellow of the college of physicans.

a man of very considerable celebrity in his day, but whose history has been almost totally neglected where we might have expected an account of him as a machinist, was the son of the rev. Thomas Morland, rector of Sulhamstead in Berkshire, and was born about 1625, as we learn from one of his works, dated 1695, in which he says he had then passed the seventieth year of his age. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was removed to Cambridge, and, according to Cole, to Magdalen college. He says himself, that, after passing nine or ten years at the university, he was solicited by some friends to take orders; but, not thinking himself “fitly qualified,” he devoted his time to the study of mathematics, which appears, in one shape or other, to have been his first and last pursuit, a few years only of the interval being employed on political affairs. That he was thought qualified for such, appears by his being sent, in 1653, with Whitelock and a retinue of other gentlemen, on the famous embassy to the queen of Sweden, the purpose of which was to conclude an offensive and defensive alliance with that princess. Of their success an ample account may be seen in Whitelocke’s “Journal,” published in 1772 by Dr. Morton, 2 vols. 4to. In this work we are told that few of the ambassador’s train were rewarded as they expected. Morland, however, according to his own account, was recommended, on his return in 1654, as an assistant to secretary Thurloe; and in a few months after was sent by Cromwell to the duke of Savoy on that business which first brought him into public notice, and has principally conveyed his name to posterity.

In the month of May, 1655, an account arrived in England of the barbarous cruelties inflicted on the protestants, or Waldenses, by the duke of Savoy; and, as Morland informs us, it no sooner came to the ears of Cromwell, than he “arose like a lion out of his place,” and by the most pathetic appeals to the protestant princes on the Continent endeavoured to excite their pity and interference. Milton was at this time Cromwell’s Latin secretary, and drew up these remonstrances and letters with uncommon spirit and elegance. Never indeed did Cromwell or his secretary appear in a more becoming light, as politicians. After appointing a day of fasting and prayer to mark the impression these massacres had made upon the public mind, Cromwell issued an account of the state and sufferings of the Waldenses, and solicited the contributions of the benevolent towards their immediate support. This he began with a subscription from himself of 2000l.; and in a very short time, the city of London taking the lead, the sum of 3l,241l. was collected, equivalent, if we consider the difference in the value of money, to the highest sum ever subscribed for any charitable purpose in our own days. But that more effectual measures might accompany this testimony of good will, Mr. Morland received immediate orders to set off with a message from the English government to the duke of Savoy, beseeching him to recall his murderous edicts, and restore his subjects to their homes and liberties; for it appears that all who had escaped being massacred had fled to the mountains, whence they sent agents to Cromwell for relief. This business Mr. Morland conducted with great address; and although he did not finally prevail in securing their freedom and the exercise of their religion to these poor people, a stop at least was put to the more outrageous acts of persecution. Mr. Morland remained for some time at Geneva, as the English resident, to manage the affairs of the Waldenses with other foreign ministers, to distribute the money contributed by the English nation, and also to prepare minutes, and to procure records, vouchers, and attestations, from which he might compile a correct history of the Waldenses. This was a suggestion of Thurloe’s.

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

10. “Letter to Anne Duchess oF York, some few months before her death,” written, 1670. This lady, the daughter of sir Edward Hyde, was instructed in the Protestant religion by our author, while he lived at Antwerp in her father’s family; but afterwards went over to the church of Rome, which occasioned this letter. 11. “Ad Viruni Janum Ulitium Epistolae dute de Invocatione Sanctorum;” written 1659. All the abo've pieces, except the first and second, were printed together in 1683, 4to. 12. “A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey, concerning the Means to keep out Popery, &c.” printed at the end of “A true Account of the whole Proceedings betwixt James Duke of Ormond and Arthur Earl of Anglesey,” 1683. 13. “Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter’s injurious Reflexions,” &c. 1683. He made also, 14. “An Epitaph for James I. 1625” which was printed at the end of “Spotswood’s History of the Church of Scotland” and is said to have been the author of, 15. “A Character of King Charles II. 1660” in one sheet, 4to.

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

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

, an illustrious German divine, was born at Lubeck, in 1695, of a noble family, which might seem to open to his ambition a fair path to civil promotion; but his zeal for the interests of religion, his thirst after knowledge, and particularly his taste for sacred literature, induced him to consecrate his talents to the service of the church. Where he was educated we have Dot learned; fcut he is said to have given early indications of a promising capacity, and of a strong desire of mental and literary improvement; and, when his parents proposed to him the choice of a profession, the church suggested itself to him as a proper department for the exercise of that zeal which disposed him to be useful to society. Being ordained a minister in the Lutheran church, he soon distinguished himself as an eloquent and useful preacher. His reputation in this character, however, was local and confined, but the fame of his literary ability diffused itself among all the nations of Christendom. The German universities loaded him with literary honours the king of Denmark invited him to settle at Copenhagen the duke of Brunswick called him thence to Helmstadt, where he filled the academical chair was honoured with the character of ecclesiastical counsellor to the court an,d presided over the seminaries of learning in the duchy of Wolfembuttle and the principality of Blakenburg. When a design was formed of giving an uncommon degree of lustre to the university of Gottingen, by filling it with men of the first rank in letters, king George II. considered Dr. Mosheim as worthy to appear at the head of it, in quality of chancellor; and he discharged the duties of that station with zeal and propriety, and his conduct gave general satisfaction. Here he died, universally lamented, in 1755. In depth of judgment, in extent of learning, in purity of taste, in the powers of eloquence, and in a laborious application to all the various branches of erudition and philosophy, he is said to have had very few superiors. His Latin translation of Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” enriched with large annotations, discovered a profound acquaintance with ancient learning and philosophy. His illustrations of the Scriptures, his labours in defence of Christianity, and the light he cast upon religion and philosophy, appear in many volumes of sacred and prophane literature. He wrote, in Latin, 1. “Observationes sacra?, et historico- critic^,” Amst. 1721, 8vo. 2. “Vindicise antiquae Cnristianorum discipline, adv. J, Tolandi Nazarenum,” Hamb. 1722, 8vo. 3, “De aetate apologetici Tertulliani et initio persecutionis Christianorum sub Severo, commentatio,” Helm. 1724, 4to. 4. “Gallus glorias J. Christi, Spiritusque Sancti obtrectator, publicae contemtioni expositus,” Helm. 1736, 4to. 5. “Historia Tartarorum ecclesiastica,” Helm. 1741, 4to. 6. “De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum commentarii,” ibid. 1753, 4to. 7. “Historia Mich. Served,” &c. But that by which he is best known in this country is his church-history. This was at first a small work, which appeared under the title of “Institutiones Historic Christiana?,” and passed through several editions. He was repeatedly urged by his learned friends to extend a work which they represented as too meagre for the importance of the subject. He acknowledged the objection, but alleged various avocations as an excuse for non-compliance. At length, however, he acceded to the wish of the public, and having employed two years in the augmentation and improvement of his history, he published it in 1755, before the end of which year he died. This was soon after translated into English by Dr. Maclaine, of whom we have recently given some account, and is now a standard book in our libraries. The best edition, as we have noticed in Maclaine’s article, is that of which Dr. Charles Coote was the editor and contimlator, in 1811, 6 vols. 8vo. This edition is also enriched by a masterly dissertation from the pen of Dr. Gteig, of Stirling, on the primitive form of the church, calculated to obviate certain prejudices which Mosheim had discovered in various parts of his otherwise Valuable history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first time-keeper, after it had been tried by Mr. Maskelyne, astronomer-royal, was in possession of M. de Zach (astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha) from May 1786 to July 1788, during which time he carried it from London to Gotha, thence to Hieres, thence by sea to Genoa, thence by land to Pisa, Milan, and back to Hieres. At the end of about a year’s absence from Gotha (to which he returned by Geneva) after having travelled over several thousand miles, he found that it had preserved the same regularity of going which it had when it first came into his possession; and by its very great accuracy, he was enabled to ascertain the longitude of several places with a greater degree of precision than had ever been done before.

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

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

In 1715 and 1716 he visited various libraries in Italy, in order to collect materials for a history of the house of Este, and that of Brunswick which arose from it. In Leibnitz’s works we find a Latin epistle which Muratori addressed to him about 1711, on the connection between the houses of Brunswick and Este; and. he was encouraged in his present inquiries by the duke of Modena, and by George I. king of Great Britain. The result of his labours appeared in 2 vols. fol. under the title of “Del I'Antichita Estense et Italiane,” Modena, 1717 1740. His publications on other subjects, in almost every branch of literature, were exceeding numerous; but referring to Fabroni’s copious catalogue, it may be sufficient in this place to notice only those on which his fame is chiefly founded, and which are still in demand by scholars and antiquaries. These are, 1. “Liturgia Romana vetus, tria Sacrarnentaria compiectens,” Venice, 1748, 2 vois. fol. 2. “De Paradise, regnique celestis gloria liber, ad versus Burnetii librum de statu mortuorum,” Verona, 1738, 4to. 3. “Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, post declinationem Romani imperii ad ann. 1500,” Milan, 1738—42, 6 vols. fol. Of this there is an edition printed at Arezzo, 1780, in 17 vols. 4to. It contains many curious dissertations on the manners, government, religion, &c. of the Italians of the darker ages, with a large supplement of charters, chronicles, &c. 4. “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores prsecipui ab anno aerae Christ. D. ad MD.” ibid. 1723 51, 25 vols. usually bound in 28 or 29, fol. Complete copies of this vast work are not easily met with. Tartini’s supplement, in 2 vols. fol. 1748 70, and Mittarelli’s “Accessiones ad script, rerum Italic.” 1771, are necessary to the collection. Gibbon remarks that a volume of chronological and alphabetical tables is still wanting, the work being in a disorderly and confused state. 5. “Novus Thesaurus veterum Inscriptionum,” Milan, 1739 42, 4 vols. fol. This requires Donati’s “Supplement” published at Lucca, 1765, 2 vols. fol. or, with the title of “Veterum Inscriptionum Gr. et Lat. novissimus thesaurus,” 1775, 2 vols. fol. 6. “Dissertazioni sopra le antichita Italiana, da Lod. Ant. Muratori, opera postuma data in luce da Gian. Fran. Soli Muratori,” (his nephew) Milan, 1751, 3 vols. 4to. This has been thrice reprinted, in 4to and 8vo. It is a free translation of the “Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi,” by the author. 7. “Annali d‘ Italia dal principio dell’ era volgare, sino all' anno 1749,” Milan, 1744 49, 12vols.-4to. Of this also there have been several editions and a continuation. The Venetian and Florentine catalogues mention an edition of Muratori’s whole works (we presume those only that are original) which was begun in 1790 at Venice, and extends to 43 vols. 8vo; and another printed at Arezzo, 1767 80, in 36 vols. 4to.

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

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

Immediately after completing the bridge, he was appointed surveyor of St. Paul’s cathedral, by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and the lord-mayor; and not only directed the repairs that have been found necessary in that noble fabrick, but those temporary erections required by the anniversaries of the sons of the clergy, and that most interesting spectacle, the annual assemblage of the charity-children of the metropolis, as well as those more elegant preparations made for the visits of the royal family and the two houses of parliament in 1789, 1797, &c. &c. It was by his suggestion that the noble inscription in honour of sir Christopher Wren, ending, “Si monumentum requiras,” &c. was placed over the entrance of the choir. Among the other edifices which Mr. Mylne erected, or was concerned in the repairs, we may enumerate Rochester cathedral, Greenwich hospital, of which he was clerk of the works for fifteen years Kings- Weston, the seat of lord De Clifford Blaze castle, near Bristol Addington, the seat of the archbishop of Canterbury; Wormlybury, sir Abraham Hume’s; Lying-in hospital, City road the duke of Northumberland’s pavillion, on the banks of the Thames at Sion general Skene’s house, in Fifeshire lord Frederic Campbell’s at Ardincaple; Inverary castle, the duke of Argyle’s; the embankment at the Temple gardens, &c. &c. He was also consulted on almost all the harbours in England. Mr. Milne died, May 5, 1811, at the New River Head, where he had long resided, as engineer to that company; an office to which he was appointed in 1762. He was interred, by his own desire, in St. Paul’s cathedral, near the tomb of his illustrious predecessor, Wren.

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

Mr. Needham’s papers inserted in the Philosophical Transactions were, 1. Account of chalky tubulous concretions, called Malm; vol.XLII. 2. Miscroscopical observations on Worms in Smutty Corn; vol. XLII. 3. Electrical Experiments lately made at Paris; vol. XLIV. 4. Account of M. Buffon’s Mirror, which burns at 66 feet; ibid. 5. Observations upon the generation, composition, and decomposition of Animal and Vegetable substances; vol. XLV. 6. On the Discovery of Asbestos in France; vol. LI. His works printed at Paris, in French, are, 1. “New Microscopical Discoveries,” 1745. 2. “The same enlarged,” 1750. 3. “On Microscopical, and the Generation of Organized Bodies,” 1769, 2 vols. Besides these he had a considerable share in the controversy that was carried on about sixty years ago at Paris and Rome respecting the origin of the Chinese. He had seen a famous bust at Turin, on the breast and forehead of which several characters were visible, which some antiquaries supposed to be Egyptian. Mr. Needham having compared them with the characters of a Chinese dictionary in the Vatican, printed at Pekin, in 26 vols, (entitled Ching Zu Tung) perceived a striking resemblance between the two. He drew from this resemblance an argument in favour of the opinion of the late De Guignes (see de Guignes), concerning the origin of the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chinese, or rather concerning the descent of the latter from the former, and pronounced, without hesitation, that the bust was Egyptian. The process of this discovery, or rather opinion, he published in 1761, in a pamphlet entitled “De Inscriptione quadam Ægyptiaca Taurini inventa, et characteribus Ægyptiis olim et Sinis cornmunibus exarata; idolo cuidam antiquo in regia, universitate servato, ad utrasque academias, Londinensem et Fajrisiensem, rerum antiquarum investigation! praspositas, data Eptstola,” 8vo. Several others subscribed to this, opinion, but it is more generally thought that the conclusion respecting the descent of the Chinese from the Egyptians does not follow from the premises. The very candid and fair manner, however, in which Mr. Needham proceeded in his comparison of the characters on the bust tyith thos.e in the dictionary, was acknowledged in an attestation very honourable to his probity, signed by several of the, literati at Rome, and by two of our countrymen then resident there, sir Richard Lyttelton and the late duke of Grafton.

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

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

He was now obliged to go to England for medical advice, where honours awaited him sufficient to recover his accustomed spirit, and he received assurance from his surgeons, more gratifying than all, that he would soon be fit for active service. Letters were addressed to him by the first lord of the Admiralty, the earl Spencer, and by his steady friend the duke of Clarence, to congratulate him on his return. The freedom of the cities of London and Bristol was conferred upon him; he was invested with the order of the Bath, and on his first appearance at court, his majesty received him in the most gracious and tender manner, expressing his sorrow at the loss which the noble admiral had sustained, and at his impaired state of health, which might deprive the country of his future services. “May it please your majesty,” replied the admiral, “I can never think that a loss, which the performance of my duty has occasioned; and so long as 1 have a foot to stand on, I will combat for my king and country.” Among other marks of national gratitude, it was intended to bestow a pension of 1000l. a year on him, and etiquette requiring that he should give in a memorial of his services, previous to such a grant, he accordingly presented the following, which, like the general course of his wonderful life, has no parallel in naval history:

On the ninth of August lord Nelson brought his Sicilian majesty safe to his court, having kept him some weeks in his ship, out of the reach of peril; and on the thirteenth the king presented him with a sword most magnificently enriched with diamonds, and conferred upon him the title of duke of Bront6, and annexed to the title an estate supposed to be worth 300O/. per annum. Besides the presents just mentioned, he received from the East India company 10,000l.; from the Turkey company a piece of plate of great value; from the city of London a sword of exquisite workmanship and great worth; from the grand seignior a diamond aigrette, or plume of triumph, valued at 2000/; also a rich pelisse valued at 1000^., and from the Seignior’s mother a rose set with diamonds of equal value; from the emperor of Russia and the king of Sardinia boxes set with diamonds worth 3700l.: besides many other presents of less value, but costly, and expressive of a high sense of gratitude in the donors.

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

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

, one of the contributors to the restoration of classical learning, was a native of Novara, a lawyer, and of the Minorite order. He flourished in the fifteenth century, but no particulars of his life are upon record. He dedicated his lexicon, or vocabulary of the Latin tongue, in a copy of verses addressed to the duke Ludovicus Sforza, which are printed by Mr. Roscoe in the Appendix, No. XX. to his Life of Leo X. This work was first printed under the title of “Onomasticon,” at Milan, in 1483, fol. an edition of great rarity and price; but such was its importance to the study of the Latin language in that age, that it was reprinted four times, in 1488, 1496, 1502, and 1507. This last, printed at Strasburgh, contains some pieces by the author, “de octo partibus orationis,” “de compositione eleganti,” and “de syllabarum quantitate.” He quotes as authorities a great many of his learned contemporaries and predecessors.

, M. A. son of a worthy clergy, man in Herefordshire, and great grandson, by his mother’s side, to the famous Spenser, was born in 1675, and was, for some time, educated at Corpus Christi college, Oxford; but we do not find his name among the Graduates. He was afterwards chaplain to the second duke of Richmond, and rector of Stopham in Sussex, in 1734, when he published a translation of “Velleius Paterculus.” For some time before this he lived at Hackney, in rather distressed circumstances. So early as 1718, he was author of an excellent poem, under the title of “Bibliotheca,” which is preserved in the third volume of Nichols’s “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems,” and on which Dr. Warton thinks Pope must have formed his goddess Dulness, in the “Dunciad.” Besides the many productions of Dr. Newcomb reprinted in that collection, he was author of several poems of merit; particularly of “The last Judgment of Men and AngeU, in twelve books, after the manner of Milton,” 1723, folio, adorned with a fine metzotinto portrait; of another, “To her late majesty queen Anne, upon the Peace of Utrecht;” “An Ode to the memory of Mr. Rowe;” and another, “To the memory of the countess of Berkeley.” He also translated several of Addison’s Latin poems, and Philips’s “Ode to Mr. St. John.”

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

Sir Isaac Newton was buried with great magnificence, at the public expence. On March 28, he lay in state in the Jerusalem -chamber, and was buried from thence in WesN minster-abbey, near the entry into the choir. The spot is one of the most conspicuous in the abbey, and had been previously refused to different noblemen who had applied for it. The pall was supported by the lord high chancellor, the dukes of Montrose and Roxborough, and the earls of Pembroke, Sussex, and Macclesfield, being fellows of the Royal Society. The hon. sir Michael Newton, knight of the Bath, was chief mourner, and was followed by some other relations, and some eminent persons intimately acquainted with sir Isaac. The office was performed by the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Bradford, attended by the prebendaries and choir. A magnificent monument was afterwards erected to his memory, in the abbey, and, by the munificence of the late Dr. Robert Smith, master of Trinity college, the antichapel of that college contains an admirable full-length statue of sir Isaac, by Roubilliac. Medals also were struck to his memory, one by Croker of our mint; one by Dassier of Geneva; and another by Roettiers in France. The only portrait for which he ever sat was by Kneller, and is, if we mistake not, in the collection of the duke of Rutland.

, D. D. founder of Hertford college, Oxford, was descended from a family that had long been of considerable repute, and of good fortune, but much injured during the civil wars. His father enjoyed a moderate estate at Lavendon Grange, in Bucks, (which is now in the family,) and lived in a house of lord Northampton’s in Yardlv-chase, where Dr. Newton is said to have been born about 1676. He was educated at Westminsterschool, and elected from that foundation in 1694 to a studentship of Christ-church, Oxford, where he executed the office of tutor very much to his own and the college’s honour and benefit. Here he became M. A. April 12, 1701; and B. D. March 18, 1707. He was inducted principal of Hart-hall, by Dr. Aldrich, in 1710, and took the degree of D. D. Dec. 7, that year. He was received into lord Pelham’s family, to superintend the education of the late duke of Newcastle, the minister, and his brother Mr. Pelham, who ever retained a most affectionate regard for him. Of this, however, he was long without any substantial proofs. Being a man of too independent and liberal principles ever to solicit a favour for himself, he was overlooked by these statesmen, till, in 1752, a short time before his death, when he was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, which he held with his principalship of Hertford-college. He was honoured with the esteem of the late lord Granville, than whom none at that timfe a better judge of merit and men of learning. He was aU lowed to be as polite a scholar and as ingenious a writer as any of the age. In closeness of argument, and perspicuity and elegance of language, he had not his equal. Never was any private person employed in more trusts, or discharged them with greater integrity. He was a true friend to religion, the university, and the clergy; a man of exemplary piety, and extensive charity. No one man was called forth so often to preach, in the latter end of queen Anne’s time, and in the beginning of king George I. as Dr. Newton.

That he deserved more attention, will appear from the following list of his useful publications. 1. “An Answer to an Heretical Book called `The naked Gospel,' which was condemned and ordered to be publicly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxon, Aug. 19, 1690, with some Reflections on Dr. Bury’s new edition of that book,” 1691, 4to. 2. “A short History of Socinianism,” printed with the answer before-mentioned; and dedicated to his patron the earl of Montague. 3, “A Practical Essay on the Contempt of the World,” 1694, 8vo, inscribed to “sir John Trevor, master of the rolls,” to whom the author acknowledges his obligations for “a considerable preferment, bestowed in a most obliging and generous manner.” 4. “The Advantages of a learned Education,” a sermon preached at a school-feast, 1698, 4to. 5. “The Duty of Inferiors towards their Superiors, in five practical discourses; shewing, I. The Duty of Subjects to their Princes. II. The Duty of Children to their Parents. III. The Duty of Servants to their Masters. IV. The Duty of Wives to their Husbands. V. The Duty of Parishioners and the Laity to their Pastors and Clergy. To which is prefixed a dissertation concerning the divine right of Princes,” 1701, 8vo. 6. “An Introduction to a Devout Life, by Francis Sales, bishop and prince of Geneva; translated and reformed from the Errors of the Romish edition. To which is prefixed, a Discourse of the Rise and Progress of the Spiritual Books in the Romish. Church,” 1701, 8vo. 7. “A Treatise of Consolation to Parents for the Death of theirChildren written upon the occasion of the Death of the Duke of Gloucester and addressed to the most illustrious Princess Anue of Denmark,” 1701, 8vo. 8. “God’s Blessing on Mineral Waters;” a Sermon preached at the chapel at Tunbridge Wells,“1702, 4to. 9.” A Conference with a Theist, in five parts; dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,“1703, 8vo; of which a third edition, with the addition of two Conferences, the one with a Machiavelian, the other with an Atheist, all carefully revised and prepared for the pres$ by the author, was published in 1723, 2 vols. 8vo. This was particularly designed, says Leland, by the learned and ingenious author, in opposition to the” Oracles of Reason,“published by Blount; and he has not left any material part of that work unanswered. 10.” A Practical Essayon the Contempt of the World; to which is prefixed, a Preface to the Deists and vicious Libertines of the Age,“1704, 2d edit. 8vo. 11.” The Religion of a Princes shewing that the Precepts of the Holy Scriptures are the best maxims of Government,“1704, 8vo, in opposition to Machiavel, Hobbes, c. and written when the queen gave up the tenths and first fruits to the inferior clergy. 12.” Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae,“1707, 12mo. 13.” A Paraphrase on the Common Prayer, with Notes on the Sundays and Holidays,“1708, 8vo. 14.” Afflictions the lot of God’s children, a Sermon on the Death of Prince George,“1709, 8vo. 15.” A Comment on the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments,“&c. 1710, folio. This volume has the royal licence prefixed, and a list of more than 900 subscribers. In his dedication to the queen, he notices, as what never happened before, that all the copies were bespoke or paid for before the day of publication. It still continues to be printed in 8vo. The late sir James Stonhouse, in a letter to the rev. Thomas Stedman, dated 1793, says of this work,” I would have you recommend it to every family in your parish as it will shew them the use of the common prayer and psalms, as read in our churches, and be a standard book from father to son.“16.” A Supplement to the Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer,“1711, folio. In the preface to this supplement, Dr. Nichols mentions” a long fit of illness with which God had pleased to visit him, and a very unestablished state of health both before and after it.“This illness appears soon to have ended in his death. 17.” Historic Sacroe Libri VII. Ex Antonii Cocceii Sabellici Eneadibus concinnatum, in usum Scholarurn et Juventutis Christianae,“1711, 12mo. 18” A Commentary on the first fifteen, and part of the sixteenth Articles of the Church of England,“1712, fol. 39.” A Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; first written in Latin, for the use of foreigners, by William Nichols, D. D. and translated into English by himself,“1715, 12mo. Dr. Nichols was reckoned a very excellent scholar, and was known abroad as well as at home by the learned correspondence he kept with foreigners of eminence. A volume of such correspondence with JaUlonski, Osterwald, Wetstein, &c. was presented by his widow Catharine Nichols to the archbishop of Canterbury, Oct. 28,* 1712, to be deposited either in Lambeth or St. Martin’s library, and is now among the valuable Mss. at Lambeth, No. 676. He died in the end of April 1712, and was buried in St. Swithin’s church May 5. It may not be improper to distinguish this pious divine from his name-sake William Nichols, M. A. and rector of Stockport, in Cheshire, who was a student of Christ church, Oxford, and. published, 1.” De Literis jnventis Libri sex ad illustrissinuum Principem Thomam, Herbertum, Pembrokiae Comitem,“&c. 1711, 8vo. 2.” Oratio corarn venerabili Spcietate promovenda Religione Christiana habita Londini, Dec. 29, 171.&,“12mo; and, 3.” Περι Αρχων Libri Septem. Accedunt Liturgica," 1717, 12mo.

, was born at Paris, Dec. 16, 1716. After he had served in the army some time, he was appointed ambassador to Rome, then to Berlin, and lastly, in 1763, was entrusted with the important negociation of the definitive treaty of peace at London, where he was highly respected, as a prudent and enlightened minister, who united amenity of manners with the dignity of his station. After his return to Paris, he devoted himself entirely to letters, and by some publications he obtained an admission into the French academy, and that of inscriptions. This worthy and excellent man lived to be a sufferer from the revolution, and was committed to prison during the tyranny of Robespierre, in which he was forced to remain till 1796. He died Feb. 25, 1798, at the age of eighty-two. Of his works, his “Fables” have not been thought to preserve the reputation they had originally, when handed about in private. Many of them, however, equal any of the French productions of that class. An English translation, very ably executed, was published in 1799. The duke’s reflections on the genius of Horace, Boileau, and Rousseau, are highly esteemed; and his “Dialogues of the Dead,” “Moral Letters,” “Lives of the Troubadours,” &c. are distinguished proofs of an acute and well-cultivated mind. He was very conversant in English literature, and translated Pope’s “Essay on Man,” and Horace Walpole’s “Modern Gardening,” of which, in imitation of Walpole, he printed only a few copies for friends. Didot, while the author was alive, printed a fine edition of his works, in 1796, 8 vols. 8vo, the demand for which, according to Brunet, is not great.

, cardinal and archbishop of Paris, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, proviseur of the house and society of the Sorbonne, and superior of that of Navarre, was the second son of Anne dukede Noailles, peer of France, and born May 27, 1651. In consequence of his birth, he became lord of Aubrach, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, duke of St. Cloud, and peer of France. He was bred with great care, and his inclination leading him to the church, he took holy orders; and proceeding in the study of divinity, he performed his exercise for licentiate in that science with reputation, and was created D. D. of the Sorbonne, March 14, 1676. Three years afterwards the king gave him the bishopric of Cahors, whence he was translated to Chalons on the Marne, in 1680. He discharged the duties of both these dioceses with a distinguished vigilance, and a truly pastoral charity; so that, the archbishopric of Paris becoming vacant in 1695, by the death of Francis de Harlay, his majesty chose the bishop of Chalons to fill that important see. Invested with this dignity; he applied himself wholly to the affairs of it, and made excellent rules for the reformation of the clergy.

, a learned Italian, was born at Verona, of a family that had produced several men of letters about the beginning of the sixteenth century. In early life he became introduced to John-Matthew Giberti, bishop of Verona, at whose house he had an opportunity of profiting by the conversation of various learned men. The Greek appears to have been his favourite study, and his fame was established by his able translations from that language. In September 1545, he was employed, with two other persons of consequence at Verona, to furnish provisions for that city, at a time when a scarcity was apprehended; but not long after we find him at the council of Trent, where he delivered an harangue that was published at the end of his “Apostolicae Institutiones.” In 1554, he was one of the ambassadors deputed by the city of Verona to compliment the doge of Venice on his accession; and on this occasion he was created a knight of that republic, On his return home, he was appointed president of the jurisdiction of silk-manufacturers, a corporation which was then established. He enjoyed the favour and esteem of many Italian princes, but of none more than of Guy Ubaldi, duke of Urbano, whom he accompanied to Rome, and was made commander of the ecclesiastical troops by pope Julius III. Here he had begun a translation of Ocellus Lucanus, when he was seized with a disorder which interrupted his studies and his attendance at court; but he was enabled to complete his translation in 1558, and it was printed the year following, in which year he died.

, a French abbe, and member of most of the literary societies of Europe, was born at Pimpre“, in the district of Noyon, Nov. 19, 1700. Notwithstanding the obscurity in which his finances obliged him to live, he soon acquired fame as an experimental philosopher. M. Dufay associated him in his electrical researches; and M. de Reaumur assigned to him his laboratory and these gentlemen may be considered as his preceptors. M. Dufay took him along with him in a journey he made into England; and Nollet profited so well of this opportunity, as to institute a friendly and literary correspondence with some of the most celebrated men in this country. The king of Sardinia gave him an invitation to Turin, to perform a course of experimental philosophy to the duke of Savoy. From thence he travelled into Italy, where he collected some good observations concerning the natural history of the country. In France he was master of philosophy and natural history to the royal family; and professor royal of experimental philosophy to the college of Navarre, and to the schools of artillery and engineers. The academy of sciences appointed him adjunct-mechanician in 1739, associate i 1742, and pensioner in 1757. Nollet died the 24th of April, 1770, regretted by all his friends, but especially by his relations, whom he always succoured with an affectionate attention; but his fame, as an electrician, in which character he was best known, did not survive him long. His’ works are, 1.” Recueils de Lettres sur TElectricite;“1753, 3 vols. 12mo. '2.” Essai sur l'Electricite des corps;“1 vol. 12mo. 3. Recherches sur les causes particulieres des Phenomenes Electriques,” 1 vol. 12mo. 4. “L'Art des Experiences,” 1770, 3 vols. 12mo. In these are contained his theory on electricity, which he maintained with the most persevering obstinacy against all the arguments of his antagonists, who were perhaps all the eminent electrical philosophers of Europe. It is no easy matter to form a very adequate notion of this theory, which has been long since abandoned by every person. When an electric is excited, electricity flows to it from all quarters, and when thus effluent (as he termed it), it drives light bodies before it. Hence the reason why excited bodies attract. When the electricity is effluent, the light bodies are of course driven from the electric, which in that state appears to repel. He conceived every electric to be possessed of two different kinds of pores, one for the emission of the electric matter, and the other for its reception. Besides his papers in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences” from 1740 to 1767, we have in our “Philosophical Transactions,” the result of a great number of experiments, made by the abbe Nollet, on the eflect produced by electricity on the flowing of water through capillary tubes; on the evaporation of liquids; the transpiration of vegetables; and the respiration of animals. These last experiments have been often repeated since, but the results drawn by the abbe are not considered as established.

, an industrious topographer, classed by Wai pole and Strutt among engravers, seems to have been horn in Wiltshire about 1548, and admitted of Hartball, Oxford, in 1564. He proceeded A. M. in 1573. He bad patronage, but little else, from the great Burleigh; and in his old age obtained jointly with his son the place of surveyor to the prince of Wales. He lived in narrow circumstances at Fulham and Hendon, and died about 1626. Wood ascribes to him fifteen devotional pieces, though he doubts if they were really written by him, and Granger, who describes a print of him, thinks they must have been his father’s. As a topographer, however, we are more certain of his productions. He surveyed the county of Essex in 1584, and Hertfordsire and Middlesex in 1593; and besides these, he executed the maps of Cornwall, Hampshire, Surrey, and Sussex, all which, except those of Herts and Hants, were copied, with additions, into “Speed’s Theatre.” He was the first that inserted the roads. His map of Surrey was much larger and more exact than any of his others. Among his published works are, “England; an intended guyde for English travailers, &c.” Lond. 1625, 4to; “Speculum Britanniae, a topographical and historical description of Cornwall,” 1728, 4to. It was published from a very old ms. in the British Museum, Mss. Karl. 6252. Mr. Gough says that the better part of this most finished of Norden’s works is a mere transcript of Carew; from the other parts very little of moment is to be learned; and no stress is to be laid on his drawings. Norden wrote also an account of the estate of the dutchy of Cornwall, the right by which the duke holds his estates, and many of the customs of the manors; which was once deposited in the duchy office. Another of his publications, is “Speculum Britanniae, or an historical and chorographical description of Middlesex and Hertfordshire,” 1573, 4to, reprinted 1637. and 1723. The Middlesex part was the first of his labours there is a copy of it among the Harleian Mss. No. 570, supposed to be in Norden’s own writing, which differs from the printed books both in the arrangement and the additions made to it. The last of this kind was his “Speculum Brit, pars altera, or a delineation of Northamptonshire,” Lond. 1720, 8vo. This is the most superficial of all his surveys, except in a few towns; nor were the map and plans of Peterborough and Northampton referred to in it ever engraved. Norden was not only a practical surveyor, but wrote a good treatise on the subject, entitled “The Surveyor’s Dialogue, &c.” 1607, 4to. Of this an account, with extracts, is given in the Cens. Lit. vol. I. There are some Mss. by Norden in the British Museum and other public libraries.

, one of the most celebrated scholars of the seventeenth century, was born at Verona, Aug. 29, 1631. His baptismal name was Jerom, which he changed tO'Henry, when he entered the order of the Augustines. His family is said to have been originally of England, whence a branch passed into Ireland, and even to Cyprus. When this island was taken by the Turks, a James Noris, who had defended it as general of artillery, settled afterwards at Verona, and it is from this person that the subject of the present article descended. His father’s name was Alexander, and, according to Niceron, published several works, and among them a History of Germany. Maffei, however, attributes this work only to him, which is not a history of Germany, but of the German war from 1618 to the peace of Lubec, translated from the Italian by Alexander Noris. His son discovered, from his infancy, an excellent understanding, great vivacity, and a quick apprehension. His father, having instructed him in the rudiments of grammar, procured an able professor of Verona to be his preceptor. At fifteen, he was admitted a pensioner in the Jesuits’ college at Rimini, where he studied philosophy; after which, he applied himself to the writings of the fathers of the church, particularly those of St. Augustine; and, taking the habit in the convent of Augustine monks of Rimini, he so distinguished himself among that fraternity, that, as soon as he was out of his noviciate, the general of the order sent for him to Rome, in order to give him an opportunity of improving himself in the more solid branches of learning. Here he indulged his favourite propensity for study to the utmost, and spent whole days, and even nights, in the library of his order at Rome. His daily course of reading was fourteen hours, and this practice he continued till he became a cardinal. It, is easy to conceive that a student of such diligence, and whose memory and comprehension were equally great, must have accumulated a vast stock of knowledge. But for some time his reading was interrupted by the duties of a regent master being imposed on him, according to the usual practice; and we find that for some time he taught at Pesaro, and afterwards at Perugia, where he took his degree of doctor of divinity. Proceeding then to Padua, he applied himself to finish his “History of Pelagianism,” which he had begun at Rome, when he was no more than twentysix: and, having now completed his design, it was printed at Florence in 1673. The great duke of Tuscany invited him, the following year, to that city, made him his chaplain, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Pisa, which the duke had founded with that view.

On commencing business at the bar, the friendship and instructions of sir Jeffery Palmer, attorney-general, and the Hydes, greatly contributed to his proficiency, and advanced his practice. By means of the first named gentleman he had a favourable opportunity of shewing his abilities. The story of the five members in king Charles the First’s time, is well known, who, being prosecuted for the riot committed in the house of commons, in holding the speaker down in his chair, were convicted. After the restoration, the commons thought that the records of this conviction might be prejudicial to the privilege of that house, and ordered a writ of error to be brought; and Mr. Attorney was to find counsel to argue for the king, against the lord Hollis, who was one of the five, and first named in the record. Mr. Attorney being an assistant in the house of lords, could not argue, nor could he prevail upon any of the Serjeants, or other practisers to do it; for they said it was against the commons of England, and they durst not undertake it. At last he appointed Mr. North, "who prepared his argument, which was delivered at the bar of the house of lords; and though the commons carried the cause, yet his argument was approved, and particular notice was taken of his comely youth, and of his modest but forcible reasoning. The duke of York was pleased to inquire who that young gentleman was, who had argued so well; and prevailed with the king to encourage him by making him one of his counsel.

In November 1672 he was elected Greek professor at Cambridge. Tr.e first church preferment he had was the sine-cure of Llandiuon -in Wales, given him by archbishop Sheldon; on this he quitted his fellowship, and procured himself to be admitted of Trinity college, for the sake of being more nearly connected with the master, Dr. Isaac Barrow, for whom he had the greatest esteem. About this time he was appointed clerk of the closet to Charles II. who also bestowed on him a prebend in Westminster in Jan. 1673 and on his majesty’s visit to Cambridge he was created D. D. out of respect to the duke of Lauderdale, whose chaplain he then was, and whose character his brother has very weakly endeavoured to defend Among his official duties, it is recorded that in 1676, Dr. North baptised Isabella, second daughter of James duke of York and Mary D'Este.

On lord North’s return home, he commenced his parliamentary career in 1754, as representative for the family borough of Banbury, in Oxfordshire. On June 2, 175y, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, and continued in that office until 1763, in which last year Mr. George Grenville succeeded the earl of Bute, as first lord. In the same year lord North began to contribute his more active services, as a statesman, by taking the management of the measures adopted in consequence of the publication of Mr. Wilkes’s “North Briton,” and other parts of that gentleman’s political conduct, to his final expulsion from the House of Commons. It must be confessed that these measures afford but an inauspicious commencement of his lordship’s political career, for without answering their purpose, or suppressing the spirit of faction, they served only to give that importance to Wilkes which he then could not otherwise have attained. In the same year lord North was a supporter of the right of taxing American commodities, and of the memorable stamp act. In 1765, on the dissolution of Mr. Grenville’s administration, which was succeeded by that of the marquis of Rockingham, lord North retired from office with his colleagues, but persisted in his sentiments respecting the taxation of the colonies, and divided with the minority against the repeal of the stamp act. The Rockingham administration scarcely survived this well-intentioned measure, and when succeeded by that of the duke of Grafton, lord North was, in August 1766, appointed joint receiver (with George Cooke, esq.) and paymaster of the forces; and in Dec. 1767, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer, and a lord of the treasury. The talents he had already displayed were thought to qualify him in an eminent degree for those situations, especially that of chancellor of the exchequer; and his abilities for debate were often displayed to advantage. During a period of considerable political turbulence, he was advanced Jan 28, 1770, to the place of first lord of the treasury, which he held with that of chancellor of the exchequer during the whole of his eventful administration, which finally terminated in March 1782.

So remarkable a prediction not a little increased the credulity of the public, and he was honoured shortly after with a visit from Emanuel duke of Savoy, and the princess Margaret of France, his consort. Charles IX. coming to Salon, being eager to see him, Nostradamus complained of the little esteem his countrymen had for him, on which the monarch publicly declared, that he should hold the enemies of Nostradamus to be his enemies. In passing, not Jong after, through the city of Aries, he sent for Nostradamus, presented him with a purse of 200 crowns, together with a brevet, constituting him his physician in ordinary, with the same appointment as the rest. But our prophet enjoyed these honours only for the space of sixteen, months, for he died July 2, 1566, at Salon. Besides his “Centuries,” we have some other pieces of his composition, and his prophetical works have been translated into English. He left three sons and three daughters John, his second son, exercised with reputation the business of a proctor in the parliament of Provence: he wrote the “Lives of the ancient Provencal Poets, called Troubadours,” which was printed at Lyons in 1575, 8vo. Cæsar, the eldest son, was born at Salon in 1555, and died in 1629: he left a “Manuscript giving an Account ofthe most remarkable events in the History of Provence, from 1080 to 1494,” in which he inserted the lives of the poets of that country. These memoirs falling into the hands of his nephew Caesar Nostradamus, gentleman to the duke of Guise, he undertook to complete the work; and being encouraged by a present, of 3000 livres from the estates of the country, he carried the account up to the Celtic Gauls the impression was finished at Lyons, in 1614, and published under the title of “Chronique de l'Histoire de Provence,” The next son of Michel is said to have imitated his father, and ventured to predict, that Pouzin, which was then besieged; would be destroyed by fire. In order to prove the truth of his prophecy, he was seen, during the tumult, setting fire to all parts of the town; which so much enraged M. De Saint Luke, that he rode over him with his horse, and killed him. But this story has been justly called in question,

Nyssenus, Gregory. See Gregory. Oates (Titus), a very singular character, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was born about 1619. He was the son of Samuel Gates, a popular preacher among the baptists, and a fierce bigot. His son was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, from whence he removed to Cambridge. When he left the university, he obtained orders in the church of England, though in his youth he had been a member of a baptist church in Virginia-street, Ratcliffe Highway, and even officiated some time as assistant to his father; he afterwards officiated as a curate in Kent and Sussex. In 1677, after residing some time in the duke of Norfolk’s family, he became a convert to the church of Rome, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesuits, with a view, as he professed, to betray them. Accordingly, he appeared as the chief informer in what was called the popish plot, or a plot, as he pretended to prove, that was promoted for the destruction of the protestant religion in England, by pope Innocent XL; cardinal Howard; John Paul de Oliva, general of the Jesuits at Rome; De Corduba, provincial of the Jesuits in New Castille; by the Jesuits and seminary priests in England; the lords Petre, Powis, Bellasis, Arundel of Wardour, Stafford, and other persons of quality, several of whom were tried and executed, chiefly on this man’s evidence; while public opinion was for a time very strongly in his favour. For this service he received a pension of 1200l. per annum, was lodged in Whitehall, and protected by the guards; but scarcely had king James ascended the throne, when he took ample revenge of the sufferings which his information had occasioned to the monarch’s friends: he was thrown into prison, and tried for perjury with respect to what he had asserted as to that plot. Being convicted, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory five times a year during his life, to be whipt from Aldgate to Newgate, and from thence to Tyburn; which sentence, says Neal, was exercised with a severity unknown to the English nation. “The impudence of the man,” says the historian Hume, “supported itself under the conviction; and his courage under the punishment. He made solemn appeals to heaven, and protestations of the veracity of his testimony. Though the whipping was so cruel that it was evidently the intention of the court to put him to death by that punishment, yet he was enabled by the care of his friends to recover, and he lived to king William’s reign, when a pension of 400l. a year was settled upon him. A considerable number of persons adhered to him in his distresses, and regarded him as a martyr to the protestant cause.” He was unquestionably a very infamous character, and those who regard the pretended popish plot as a mere fiction, say that he contrived it out of revenge to the Jesuits, who had expelled him from their body. After having left the whole body of dissenters for thirty years, he applied to be admitted again into the communion of the baptists, having first returned to the church of England, and continued a member of it sixteen years. In 1698, or 1699, he was restored to his place among the baptists, from whence he was excluded in a few months as a disorderly person and a hypocrite: he died in 1705. He is described by Granger as a man “of cunning, mere effrontery, and the most consummate falsehood.” And Hume describes him as “the most infamous of mankind that in early life he had been chaplain to colonel Pride was afterwards chaplain on board the fleet, whence he had been ignominiously dismissed on complaint of some unnatural practices; that he then became a convert to the Catholics; but that he afterwards boasted that his conversion was a mere pretence, in order to get into their secrets and to betray them.” It is certain that his character appears to have been always such as ought to have made his evidence be received with great caution; yet the success of his discoveries, and the credit given to him by the nation, by the parliament, by the courts of law, &c. and the favour to which he was restored after the revolution, are circumstances which require to be carefully weighed before we can pronounce the whole of his evidence a fiction, and all whom he accused innocent.

Although, by the rights of his praetorship, every thing done in the senate must necessarily pass through his hands, yet he was so expeditious, and so good a manager of time, that there was some left for his studies, which served to him. as a relaxation from public business. During these intervals. he published an edition of “Dictys Cretensis,” with notes, in 1691. He afterwards intended to give a more correct edition of “Quintilian,” by the help of an excellent manuscript which he had recovered. He finished it, and had prepared the notes for the press, which were afterwards added to BurmanrTs valuable edition of 1720, 2 vols. 4to. In 1698, Obrecht was deputed to the court of France, to manage the interests of the city of Strasburg, and the king appointed him in 1700 his commissary and envoy to Francfort, upon affairs relating to the succession of the duchess of Orleans. Here also he undertook a most arduous task, respecting the eventual succession of the duke of Anjou to the crown of Spain; and made it his business to collect all the pieces that had been written, either by civilians or historians, upon the subject of establishing or regulating the rights of succession to that vast monarchy: all with a design to prove that the pretensions of the house of Austria were not well founded. The title of his work was “Excerptorum historicorum et juridicorum dre natura successionis in Monarchiam Hispaniae, mense Dec. 1700,” in 4to. Our author likewise drew up the plan of a particular treatise upon the succession to the duchy of Milan: the impression of which waited only for the publication of the emperor’s manifesto. His last publication was “A Translation of the life of Pythagoras,” from the Greek of Jamblichus. The multiplicity of these labours at length impaired his health, and after he had passed sentence upon the rights of the duchess of Orleans, he ordered himself to be conveyed to Strasburgh, where he died Aug. 6, 1701.

, an English divine, was born at Manchester, in 1716, and was educated at the free-school there. In 1733 he was admitted a poor scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed for a Manchester exhibition to St. John’s in 1736. In the following year he took the degree of B. A. and in 1739 was elected fellow. He was ordained deacon at Chester in 1740; and in the following year he took his degree of M. A. and was ordained priest by the bishop of Lincoln. In 1744 he was elected master of the free-school at Halifax in Yorkshire. In 1753 he resigned his school, and went to reside at Cambridge; and at the ensuing commencement he took the degree of D. D. The late duke of Newcastle, who was chancellor of the university, having been present at the exercise he performed for the degree, was so much satisfied with it, that he soon after presented him with the vicarage of Damerham in Wiltshire, which was tenable with his fellowship. In 1764, Dr. Ogden was appointed Woodwardian professor. In June 1766 he was presented to the rectory of Lawford in Essex, and in the following month to that of Stansfield in Suffolk. He died March 23, 1778, in the sixty-second year of his age, and was buried in St. Sepulchre’s church, Cambridge, of which he had the cure, and where he preached most of his published sermons. In common life there was a real or apparent rusticity attending Dr. Ogden’s address, which disgusted those who were strangers to his character; but this prejudice soon wore off, as the intimacy with him increased; and, notwithstanding the sternness, and even ferocity, he would sometimes throw into his countenance, he was in truth one oC the most humane and tender-hearted men ever known. To his relations who wanted his assistance, he was remarkably kind in his life, and in the legacies he left them at his death. His father and mother, who both lived to an exceeding old age, owed almost their whole support to his piety. During the latter part of Dr. Ogden’s life he laboured under much ill health. About a year before he died he was seized with a paralytic fit as he was stepping into his chariot, and was judged to be in immediate and extreme danger, but he sustained this shock with cheerfulness, and calmly gave the necessary orders on the event of his dissolution. Such is the character given of Dr. Ogden by his learned friend Dr. (afterwards bishop) Halifax, Originally prefixed to an edition of his “Sermons, with a Vindication of his Writings against some late Objections,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo. It seems to be fully confirmed by the testimony of two Cambridge gentlemen of very opposite sentiments, Mr. Cole, to whom we are so often indebted for memoranda of the eminent men of that university, and Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. The latter, who heard Dr. Ogden preach most of the discourses since published, says that “his person, manner, and character of composition, were exactly suited to each other. He exhibited a large Black, scowling, grisly figure, a ponderous body with a lowering visage, embrowned by the horrors of a sable perriwig. His voice was growling and morose; and his sentences desultory, tart, and snappish.” Mr. Wakefield adds that his “uncivilized appearance, and bluntness of demeanour, were the grand obstacles to his elevation in the church.” The duke of Newcastle would have brought him to court to prefer him; but found, as he expressed it, that the doctor was not a producible man. In all these particulars Mr. Cole agrees, as in some other singularities. Mr. Cole informs us that Dr. Ogden’s father had been in the army, and when he retired lived at Mansfield, where he married. Some time before his death he went to Mansfield, and put up, a monument to his father, in gratitude for having given him a good education, as he expressed it, and left the bulk of his fortune to the family into which his father married. His Arabic books he left to Mr, Craven, of St. John’s, the Arabic professor, who very disinterestedly refused the residuary legateeship, which Dr. Ogden had long designed for him. Dr. Ogden’s reputation as a divine rests on two small volumes of sermons, collected by Dr. Halifax, whose “Vindication” of them, above mentioned, respects the remarks of Mr. Mainwaring, in a “Dissertation” on the composition of sermons, prefixed to his own sermons, 1780, 8vo. Dr. Halifax’s vindication is warm, zealous, and friendly, like his character of Dr. Ogden, but not altogether satisfactory as to the principal objections to the style of his author; and even if allowed to be elegant, Dr. Ogden’s sermons are of very slight texture, and rather hortatory than instructive or doctrinal.

, a very industrious adventurer in literary speculations, was born in or near Edinburgh in November 1600. He was of an ancient family in that country; but his father, having spent the estate, became a prisoner in the King’s Bench, and could give his son but little education. The youth, however, being very industrious, acquired some little knowledge of Latin grammar; and afterwards got so much money, as not only to release his father from the gaol, but also to bind himself apprentice to one Draper, a dancing-master in London. He had not been long under this master before he made himself perfect in the art, and by his obliging behaviour to the scholars, acquired money enough from them to buy out the remainder of his time. He now began teaching on his own account, and being soon accounted one of the best masters in the profession, he was selected to dance in the duke of Buckingham’s great masque; in which, by an unlucky step in high capering, the mode of that time, he hurt the inside of his leg, which occasioned some degree of lameness, but did not prevent his teaching. Among others, he taught the sisters of sir Ralph, afterwards lord Hopton, at Wytham in Somersetshire and at leisure hours he learned of that accomplished knight how to handle the pike and musket. In 1633, when Wentworth earl of Stafford became lord deputy of Ireland, he took him into his family to teach his children; and Ogilby, writing an excellent hand, was frequently employed by the earl to transcribe papers for him.

, a distinguished English officer, was the fourth and youngest son of sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, of Godalmin, in the county of Surrey, by Eleonora his wife, daughter of Richard Wall, of Rogane, in Ireland. He was born in the parish of St. James, iri 1698, and admitted of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in 1714, but it would appear that his destination in life was soon changed, as in the same year we find he was captainlieutenant in the first troop of the queen’s guards. He afterwards employed himself in acquiring the art of war under the famous prince Eugene of Savoy, and other eminent commanders, among whom the great duke of Argyle, his patron, may be named. In his several campaigns in Germany and Hungary, having been recommended by John duke of Marlborough, he acted as secretary and aid-de-camp to the prince, and stored up much useful knowledge and if we are not mistaken, he received some preferment in the German service, in which he might have continued with as great advantages as his companion, the Veldth Marshal, afterwards obtained. But with a man of his sentiments, the obligations due to his native country, and the services it required, could not be dispensed with: he quitted his foreign engagements, and long exercised the virtues of the unbiassed senator at home. In the parliament which met May 10, 1722, he was returned member for Haslemere; as he was again in 1727, 1734, 1741, and 1747; and during that period many regulations in our laws, for the benefit of our trade, &c. were proposed and promoted by him in the senate. In the committee of parliament for inquiring into the state of the jails, formed in Feb. 1728, and of which he was chairman, he was enabled to detect many horrible abuses in some of the jails of the metropolis. But he was most instrumental in founding the colony of Georgia, situate between South Carolina and Florida, which was established by a royal charter; the fund for settling it was to arise from charitable contributions: collections were made throughout the kingdom, the bank contributed a handsome sum, and the parliament gave 10,000l. which enabled the trustees, of whom general Oglethorpe was one, to entertain many poor families, and provide for their accommodation and removal to America.

, called the good lord Cobham, the first author, as well as the first martyr, among our nobility, was born in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III. He obtained his peerage by marrying the heiress of that lord Cobham, who, with so much virtue and patriotism opposed the tyranny of Richard IL and, with the estate and title of his father-in-law, seems also to have taken possession of his virtue and independent spirit. The famous statute against provisors was by his means revived, and guarded by severer penalties. He was one of the leaders in the reforming party, who drew up a number of articles against the corruptions which then prevailed among churchmen, and presented them, in the form of a remonstrance, to the Commons. He was at great expence in collecting and transcribing the works of Wickliff, which he dispersed among the people; and he maintained a great number of his disciples as itinerant preachers in many parts of the country. These things naturally awakened the resentment of the clergy against him. In the reign of Henry IV. he had the command of an English army in France, which was at that time a scene of great confusion, through the competition of the Orleanand Burgundian factions; and obliged the duke of Orleans to raise the siege of Paris. In the reign of Henry V. he was accused of heresy, and the growth of it was particularly attributed to his influence. The king, with whom lord Cobham was a domestic in his court, delayed the prosecution against him; and undertook to reason with him himself, and to reduce him from his errors. Lord Cobham’s answer is upon record. “I ever was,” said he, “a dutiful subject to your majesty, and ever will be. Next to God, I profess obedience to my king; but as to the spiritual dominion of the pope, I never could see on what foundation it is claimed, nor can I pay him any obedience. It is sure as God’s word is true, he is the great antichrist foretold in holy writ.” This answer so exceedingly shocked the king, that, turning away in visible displeasure, he withdrew his favour from him, and left him to the censures of the church. He was summoned to appear before the archbishop; and, not appearing, was pronounced contumacious, and excommunicated. In hopes to avoid the impending storm, he waited upon the king with a confession of nis faith in writing, in his hand; and, while he was in his presence, a person entered the chamber, cited him to appear before the archbishop, and he was immediately hurried to the Tower. He was soon after brought before the archbishop, and read his opinion of these articles, on which he supposed he was called in question, viz. the Lord’s supper, penance, images, and pilgrimages. Hewas told, that in some parts he had not been sufficiently explicit that on all these points holy church had determined by which determinations all Christians ought to abide and that these determinations should be given him as a direction of his faith; and in a few days he must appear again and give his opinion. At the time, he said among other things, “that he knew none holier than Christ and the apostles and that these determinations were surely none of theirs, as they were against scripture.” In conclusion, he was condemned as an heretic, and remanded to the Tower, from which place he escaped, and lay concealed in Wales. The clergy, with great zeal for the royal person, informed the king, then at Eltham, that 20,000 Lollards were assembled at St. Giles’s for his destruction, with lord Cobham at their head. This pretended conspiracy, though there were not above 100 persons found, and those poor Lollards assembled for devotion, was entirely credited by the king, and fully answered the designs of the clergy; but there is not the smallest authority for it, in any author of reputation. A bill of attainder passed against lord Cobham; a price of a thousand marks was set upon his head; and a perpetual exemption from taxes promised to any town that should secure him. After he had been four years in Wales, he was taken at last by the vigilance of his enemies, brought to London in triumph, and dragged to execution in St. Giles’s-fields. As a traitor, and a heretic, he was hung up in chains alive upon a gallows; and, fire being put under him, was burnt to death, in December, 1417.

His circumstances through life seem to have been at the best times moderate, and often approaching to necessitous. At one period, which, sir John Hawkins says, was while he was employed on Osborne’s catalogue, he was confined in the Fleet-prison, and acquired such a liking for the company he found there, that to the end of his life, he used to spend his evenings in a house within the rules, with persons who, though confined within a certain district, were exempted from actual imprisonment. The only post he ever held was that of Norroy king of arms, given him by the duke of Norfolk, in return for the pleasure he had received from his Life of sir Walter Raleigh, which is undoubtedly his best biographical work. The chief part of his subsistence was derived from the booksellers, by whom he appears to have been constantly employed. He seems to have had but little classical learning, and his style is very uncouth, but his knowledge of English books has hardly been exceeded.

, a learned traveller, whose German name was Oelschlager, was born in 1599, or 1600, at Aschersieben, a small town in the principality of Anhalt. 43is parents were very poor, and scarcely able to maintain him, yet by some means he was enabled to enter as a student at Leipsic, where he took his degrees in arts and philosophy, but never was a professor, as some biographers have asserted. He quitted Leipsic for Holsteiu, where the duke Frederic, hearing of his merit and capacity, wished to employ him. This prince having a wish to extend the commerce of his country to the East, determined to send an embassy to the Czar Michael Federowitz, and the king of Persia, and having chosen for this purpose two of his counsellors, Philip Crusius and Otto Bruggeman, he appointed Olearius to accompany them as secretary. Their travels lasted six years, during which Olearius collected a great fund of information respecting the various countries they visited. The Czar of Moscovy on his return wished to have retained him in his service, with the appointment of astronomer and mathematician; not, however, his biographers tell us, so much on account of his skill in these sciences, as because the Czar knew that Olearius had very exactly traced the course of the Volga, which the Russians then wished to keep a secret from foreigners. Olearius had an inclination, however, to have accepted this offer, but after his return to the court of Holstein, he was dissuaded from it, and the duke having apologized to the Czar, attached him to himself as mathematician and antiquary. In 1643, the duke sent him on a commission to Moscow, where, as before, his ingenuity made him be taken for a magician, especially as on this occasion he exhibited a camera obscura. In 1650 the duke appointed him his librarian, and keeper of his curiosities. The library he enriched with many Oriental Mss. which he had procured in his travels, and made also considerable additions to the duke’s museum, particularly of the collection of Paludanns, a Dutch physician, which the duke sent him to Holland ta purchase; and he drew up a description of the whole, which was published at Sleswick in 1666, 4to. He also constructed the famous globe of Gottorp, and an armillary sphere of copper, which was not less admired, and proved how much mathematics had been his study. He died Feb. 22, 1671. He published, in German, his travels, 1647, 1656, 1669, fol. Besides these three editions, they were translated into English by Davies, and into Dutch and Italian. The most complete translation is that, in French, by Wicquefort, Amst. 1727, 2 vols. fol. who also translated Olearius’s edition of Mandelso’s “Voyages to Persia,” c. fol. Among his other and less known works, are some lives of eminent Germans “The Valley of Persian Roses,” from the Persian; “An abridged Chronicle of Holstein,” &c

, a learned and pious prince of the s blood royal of France, was the son of Philip duke of Orleans, afterwards regent, and of Mary Frances of Bourfron. He was born at Versailles, Aug. 4, 1703, and appeared first at court at the time the prince his father became regent of France. After the death of the regent he married Augusta Maria, of Baden, in 1724; a princess whose amiable qualifications made her death justly lamented by her consort, and people of all denominations. She died in 1726, having been married only two years. The prince, deeply affected with his loss, and sensible of the infelicity of titles^ pre-eminence, and all earthly enjoyments, sought for that comfort in the exercises of religion which courts cannot bestow. In 1730 he toot, in the abbey of St. Genevieve, an apartment mean and inconvenient, and in a manner sequestered from the world. He first retired to it only at the solemn festival, but resided in it more frequently after 1735; and, when he left the court in 1742, took up his constant residence there, nor returned more to his palace, except to attend the council, from which he seldom absented himself. In his retirement he practised the most rigid austerities; slept on a rough straw bed, rose early, passed several hours in prayer, fasted, drank nothing but water, and constantly deprived himself of the convenience of fire, even in the most inclement seasons; and was, in all his actions, an example of severe self-denial. His charitable disposition led him to relieve the indigent of every nation, found several public charities, and send missionaries to the remotest parts of the world.

When Orleannois was laid waste by the overflowing of the Loire in 1733, the duke, by his speedy help, saved a multitude of men who were perishing in the water, and furnished even the necessary grain for sowing the lands. It is universally known that, in 1739 and 1740, his liberality had no bounds but the people’s wants. He extended his alms not only to the poor catholics in Berlin, and throughout Silesia, but to those of the Indies and America. This great man also founded charity-schools in several places, and communities of men and women for the instruction of youth; a college at Versailles; a divinity chair in the Sorbonne, for explaining the Hebrew text of the holy scriptures. At Orleans he established foundations of midwives, and of surgeons for cutting for the stone. He purchased several very useful secrets, which he made public; and his gardens were filled with scarce and valuable simples from the most remote climates, for the relief of the sick. Anxious about. the public good to his last moments, he bequeathed to the seminary of the Trentetrois, a sum sufficient for the re-establishment of the scholarships; and from that time the young divines of this seminary have been taught Hebrew in the Sorbonne. These charitable occupations did not prevent his acquiring great learning. He applied with incredible success to the study of St. Thomas, Estius, the most valuable treatises in defence of religion, the fathers, the best ecclesiastical authors, the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek languages, that he might have the satisfaction of reading the hoi? scriptures in the original text. He also devoted some time to studying history, geography, botany, chemistry, natural philosophy, and painting. So rapid was his progress, that, in the last seven or eight years of his life, he cited texts of scripture almost always from memory, with the variations of the Hebrew, Greek, anoWulgate. The Greek fathers were as familiar to him as the Latin; and he explained with facility Plato’s Dialogues, and other profane authors. The duke of Orleans honoured the literati with his patronage, and encouraged them by his bounty, preferring those whose researches contributed to the glory of religion, or the public welfare. In the codicil of his* will., he leaves an annuity to the abb Frangois, and explains his motive in the following terms: “Being desirous to take upon myself to return the obligation which the public are under to S. abbe” Francois, author of a late work on the proofs of our religion, and to enable him to continue such useful labours, I give and bequeath to the foresaid S. Abbe Francois, five hundred livres annual-rent and annuity.“Ivlothwiths’tanding the immense sums which this prince spent, both in France and in foreign counrries, he discharged the accumulated debts of his own house,” restored its exhausted finances, and considerably increased its domains. Though humble and plain in his private life, he was grand and noble on public occasions. It is well known with how much magnificence he went into Alsace to espouse the queen in his majesty’s name; how liberal he was to the soldiers while colonel-general of the French infantry, and in what manner he celebrated the dauphin’s birth, the marriage of the duke of Chartres, &c. Gay and lively in conversation, he became serious the moment that any one began to talk to him on business. His austerities and application to study having brought on a long and painful illness, he waited for the approach of death with an incredible firmness and courage, speaking of it with the greatest tranquillity. He died February 4, 1752, aged forty-eight years and six months, universally regretted. He left many works in manuscript, principally literal translations, paraphrases, and commentaries on part of the Old Testament; a literal translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew, with a paraphrase, and notes; several dissertations against the Jews; a literal translation of St. Paul’s Epistles from the Greek, with a paraphrase, notes, and pious reflections, and several other curious treatises and dissertations on different subjects. His modesty would not permit him to print any of his writings he bequeathed them, with his library, to the Dominicans.

This doctrine was opposed by many eminent divines; but Osiander persisted, and drew up a confession of faith, which was printed by order of the duke of Brandenburg, but highly disapproved by the Lutheran divines assembled at Augsburg. He was a studious and acute divine; but disposed to adopt novel and mystical opinions, and much disliked on account of his pride and arrogance. He shamefully treated the excellent Melancthon in his old age, who bore his insolence with a truly Christian spirit. Osiander died suddenly at Konigsberg, where he was minister and professor, in 1552. He wrote “Harmonia Evangelica” “Epistola ad Zninglium de Eucharistia;” “Dissertationes dure, de Lege et Evangelic et Justificatione;” “Liber de Imagine Dei, quid sit.” His son Luke was a Lutheran minister, and wrote an institution of the Christian religion, and other works. He died at Tubingen in 1604. And there was another Luke Osiander, who was chancellor of Tubingen, who died in 1638, and who left behind him a treatise “On the Omnipresence of Christ as Man.”

Upon Henry the Fourth’s abjuring the Protestant religion in 1593, the papal absolution for him was obtained by D‘Ossat; which was deemed a master-stroke of his abilities. The favour was strongly opposed both by the Spaniards and the princes of the house of Lorrain, and also by the Hugonots, who were naturally averse to their beloved prince’s being reconciled to the see of Rome; but every difficulty was removed by the artful management of D’Ossat, who dissipated all the scruples of Clement VIII. a pope by nature extremely diffident; so that the affair was resolved on before the arrival of James Davy, afterwards cardinal Du Perron, who, indeed, by the figure that he made, quickened the execution . The king, in consideration of this service, nominated D‘Ossat, in 1596, to the bishopric of Rennes, to which the bull was signed gratuitously by the pope. Sept. 1597, he was appointed counsellor of state, on which occasion he took the oath before the duke of Luxemburg, then the French ambassador at Rome; who, having leave to return home in 1598, the superintendency of the French affairs was committed to D’Ossat, till another ambassador should be appointed; and, May the following year, he was created a cardinal. The king had solicited this favour for some time, his low birth being made an objection. Nor indeed was his fortune even now equal to this high station; but he resolved not to lay aside the modesty and temperance he had hitherto observed, and in that spirit refused an equipage and some fine furniture which were sent him three weeks after his promotion, by cardinal de Joyeuse, in whose house he had received the compliments of the cardinals upon his election. The legacy, however, already mentioned, of cardinal d'Este, happened unexpectedly to be paid to him the following year, 1600; and so seasonably, that, as he himself declared, he should otherwise have been almost ruined. Some time after, the pope gave him the abbey of Nant, in Rouerge. Upon cardinal de Joyeuse returning to France this year, he was appointed vice-protector of the French nation; and in that quality was affable, easily accessible, and kind to those who had occasion to apply to him. All these preferments were highly agreeable to Henry IV. who the same year added to them the bishopric of Bayeux, the revenues of which were richer than those of Rennes. This, however, he resigned in 1603, finding the affairs of the court would not permit him to reside in his diocese; and he had scarcely made this sacrifice when he died, March 13, 1604, in his 68th year. His corpse was interred in the church of St. Lewis, at Rome, where there is a monument erected to his memory.